September 26, 2009

The fundamental paradox of modern liberalism

From the Washington Post, another article about how Eric Holder is doing exactly what Obama promised at his Howard University address, which I covered in VDARE in 2008: more Jobs for the Boys in the Civil Rights department
Justice Dept. to Address Backlog of Civil Rights Complaints
By Krissah Thompson

There is the ongoing review of the death of a man beaten by four white teenagers in a park in Shenandoah, Pa. The kids, all high school football players, shouted, "Go back to Mexico," before one punched him repeatedly with a metal shank balled up in his fist, according to witnesses. Then, another kicked him on the left side of his head so hard that the Mexican man's brain began to swell. He died two days later, his fiancee weeping at his side.

Not mentioned: This particular tragic fiasco broke out when the football players stumbled upon Luis Ramirez statuatorily raping his fiancee's 15-year-old sister in a public park. Ramirez may have started the fight and certainly appeared eager to fight.

In other words, this sounds much like a photographic negative of the Jena 6 case, where six black star football players beat an unconscious white kid. What were the differences? The white kid didn't happen to die and Jena was turned into a vast national brouhaha about white racism. (See Obama's speech about Jena means we should unleash the Justice Department to fight white racism.)

The end of the article reports that this Shenandoah case has already gone through the courts:
He pointed to the case of Luis Ramirez, the Mexican man who was beaten by the football players 14 months ago in the Shenandoah street fight.

In May, following a week-long trial, a local jury acquitted two of the defendants of all charges except for simple assault, a second-degree misdemeanor. Neither received more than seven months in jail. Another was tried as a juvenile and received probation. The last cooperated with the Justice Department, pleaded guilty in federal court and awaits sentencing. [That appears misleading: The Huffington Post article says: "Walsh pleaded guilty in federal court to violating Ramirez's civil rights and could be out of prison in four years."]

The Justice Department began monitoring the case more than a year ago [i.e., during the Bush Administration] and, according to Holder, is continuing to review the incident. Growing impatient, representatives of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund hand-delivered two boxes of petitions with 50,000 signatures to Justice Department officials in June asking that the teens be charged under the federal hate crimes law.

Holder mentioned the department's review to the Hispanic lawyers group this month, indicating to them that the case is a priority for the civil rights division.

In other words, this is about ethnic demands that racial politics triumph over the Constitution's ban on double jeopardy, combined with the frustrating shortage of real life Great White Defendants. There just aren't enough whites who violently assault non-whites to meet demand, so we we need to try and convict the few we have twice. In fact, we should execute them, then dig them up and then publicly execute then all over again.
Their issues are wrapped up in what is a top concern for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has pledged to make the division his department's "crown jewel" by returning its focus to protecting minorities from discrimination. What becomes of these cases, and others like them, will help determine the meaning of justice in the Obama administration. ...

Holder has said he recognizes the size of the task. In his 2010 budget, he requested an additional $22 million for civil rights work, creating 54 new legal positions and bringing the staff up to 399 lawyers. He told members of the Hispanic Bar Association earlier this month that he holds to a promise he made during his confirmation hearings that "the civil rights division would fight discrimination as fiercely as the criminal division fights crime -- and that we would once again honor the spirit of the movement that inspired its creation. . . . Although much work lies ahead, we are well on our way." ...

Joe Rich was one of them. He worked in the civil rights division from 1968 to 2005, and finally walked away after all of his responsibilities as chief of the voting rights section were steadily steered away.

"We were considered to be wild-eyed liberals, and they were trying to drive us out," said Rich, who is now director of the fair housing project at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "You've got a group of people there now that are not experienced in civil rights enforcement and who often had some hostility to civil rights enforcement. It will be a management challenge in how to deal with people like that."

The challenge will likely fall to Tom Perez, a former Maryland politician and civil rights lawyer who is Obama's nominee to head the civil rights division. Seven months after Perez was nominated, his confirmation remains held up in a power play in the Senate that both sides say has little to do with Perez.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) asked Senate Republicans to delay Perez's confirmation after the Department of Justice reduced charges in a case of alleged voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia that was filed in the waning days of the Bush administration. Smith called the decision "possible political interference." ...

Alejandro Miyar, a spokesman for the department, said the attorney general's goal is to return the department to a traditional civil rights agenda. Founded in 1957 to enforce anti-discrimination laws, lawyers from the Justice Department's civil rights division were a key part of the civil rights movement. Over the years, the division has since seen its responsibilities grow beyond voting rights to housing, employment and disability discrimination.

There is a fundamental contradiction that grows year by year. By way of analogy, let me briefly recount the British Labour Party's history, which was formed to represent the interests of trade union members against the overwhelming power of the upper and middle classes. Eventually, however, the Labour Party went from outsiders to the dominant power and imposed its platform, such as nationalization of the commanding heights of industry. From 1964-1979, however, an era of mostly Labour governments, an expected paradox emerged that led to the downfall of Labour in 1979 and 18 years in the wilderness until it was fundamentally reconstituted in 1997 by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as an American-style left of center party rather than as Parliamentary expression of the unions.

The paradox that became clear in the 1970s was that the Old Labour party suffered from a fundamental conflict of interest when it came to negotiations between trade unions at nationalized industries and management, which reported to Labour Party cabinet members, who were sworn to promote the welfare of the trade unions. The result was Labour in the role of management constantly caving in to demands from Labour in the role of trade unions, with the resultant inflation and growing economic disparities between Brits inside the unions and outside the unions.

Similarly, the dominant liberal ideology that emerged triumphant in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s was that an elite among the majority (e.g., the President and the Attorney General) would protect the rights and interests of oppressed minorities through things like disparate impact discrimination lawsuits. In other words, the essences of modern American liberalism is the thwarting of majority rule by majority elites in the interest of weak minorities. After all, minorities were, by definition, minorities and therefore weak. And since the majority was large and powerful, it could afford to grant benefactions to a few minority beneficiaries.

But, the triumph of liberalism and the ensuing demographic change means we are slowly heading into era reminiscent of the decadent phase of the Old Labour government in Britain. We now have a black President and black Attorney General vowing to use the power of the Department of Justice to advance black interests.

But, of course, that's just the beginning.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

54 comments:

l said...

I guess Obama's not afraid of a backlash at the polls.

PeterW said...

It would be interesting to try to split the hard-core "who? whom?" types from the leftists who simply like to rail against authority.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe in hate crimes laws. But those 4 white teenagers sentences were ridiculously lenient. They should've been hung.

-Vanilla Thunder

Anonymous said...

What were the differences? The white kid didn't happen to die and Jena was turned int a vast national brouhaha about white racism.

Another minor difference: the victim was released from the hospital the same day as his supposed 'beating'

eh said...

Of course the far larger problem in and for America is the disproportionate criminality of 'America's fastest growing minority group', aka Hispanics. But I don't expect that to be reported, let alone addressed.

Anonymous said...

The last time I checked, beating someone to death was termed "Murder."

Neshobanakni

Anonymous said...

The adult mexican who died in Shenandoah, PA received the beating because he was romancing a 14-16 year old female in an alley. The girl's football playing classmates took offense of the man's public statuatory raping and then administered an Anthracite Region ass-kicking.

BTW, the dead Mexican man's fiancee, the one who cried at his deathbed, is the half-sister of the girl in the alley.

Anonymous said...

Big news when it happens

Beaten, robbed, a victim of hate

Derrick Thomas
Charges say white assailants hurled racial epithets as they attacked two black men in Brooklyn Park.

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/61452677.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

Vernunft said...

"I don't believe in hate crimes laws. But those 4 white teenagers sentences were ridiculously lenient. They should've been hung."

Even killing a cop in PA won't get you executed.

Anonymous said...

The liberal racial spoils system depends on having a large white population to transfer wealth to the others, but the white population keeps shrinking. How will the "minorities" get along in the future when there are no longer any whites left to steal from?

Anonymous said...

"Another minor difference: the victim was released from the hospital the same day as his supposed 'beating'"

Why President Obama, REALLY!

Steve Sailer said...

The fight began late July 12 when a half-dozen teens, all Shenandoah residents who played football at Shenandoah Valley High School, were walking home from a block party and came across Ramirez and his 15-year-old girlfriend in a park.

Brian Scully, 18, asked the girl, "Isn't it a little late for you to be out?" That enraged Ramirez, who began yelling in Spanish and dialing friends on his cell phone. Scully admitted shouting ethnic slurs. The verbal sparring soon turned into a physical altercation as Ramirez and Piekarsky traded blows, though prosecutors and defense attorneys disputed who threw the first punch.

Donchak then entered the fray and wound up on top of Ramirez. Prosecutors said he pummeled Ramirez, holding a small piece of metal in his fist to give his punches more power. Defense attorneys said Donchak tried to break up the fight between Piekarsky and Ramirez and denied he had a weapon.

The two sides eventually went their separate ways. But Scully kept yelling at Ramirez, leading the immigrant to charge after the group.

Colin Walsh, 17, then hit Ramirez, knocking him out.

"Does Mr. Ramirez fit the description of an innocent soul who just happened to get picked on by a group of kids?" Piekarsky defense attorney Fred Fanelli asked jurors in closing arguments. "He's the only adult, and he makes some bad choices."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/luis-ramirez-killers-foun_n_195535.html

Enjoy Your Taco said...

"How will the "minorities" get along in the future when there are no longer any whites left to steal from?"

See Zimbabwe now and South Africa in 10 years. The corrosive effects are showing in our new, improved, US of A already.

Anonymous said...

Even killing a cop in PA won't get you executed.



Too bad.

-Vanilla Thunder

Anonymous said...

Some white kids beat a Mexican to death because he's a Mexican. Sailer responds by railing against Liberals.
"Who? Whom?" indeed.

Simon said...

"But, the triumph of liberalism and the ensuing demographic change means we are slowly heading into era reminiscent of the decadent phase of the Old Labour government in Britain. We now have a black President and black Attorney General vowing to use the power of the Department of Justice to advance black interests."

To end up like Old Labour in the UK, they would have to do so much damage that the vast bulk of non-favoured groups turned against them. My gut instinct is that Obama is probably too smart for that. Witch-hunts and show trials of individual white males, yes. Institutional discrimination against 'marginal' whites, yes. Direct open attacks on the Democrat supporting white elites, not so much. In particular, no direct attacks on the Jewish elites. Eg the Jewish elites are fine with affirmative action because it doesn't apply to non-Jewish whites, and capping Jewish numbers is 'bad', thus leaving Jews to compete with non-Jewish whites for the 'white' places, which they do very well.

Anonymous said...

"$106 million per year might get you third place in the American League East behind the Yankees and Red Sox."

LOL! That really puts things in perspective and shows you where humanity's priorities are.

Anonymous said...

When some gets punched in a fight and dies of brain swelling days later, after walking away, it's never prosecuted as murder. It might be manslaughter, it might be assault and and it might not bring any charges at all if the deceased attacked first. There isn't anything remarkable about this incident other than the racial angle.

David said...

> They should've been hung. <

They were hung, apparently. I think you mean hanged.

loustung said...

Steve, you really incited this "Anonymous" who keeps bitching about the issue. Must be a Hispanic:

-Vanilla Thunder
Anonymous
Neshobanakni

Chief Seattle said...

Telling a Mexican citizen to go back to Mexico seems more like a suggestion than hate speech. Suppose he'd been Australian. Is "Go back to Australia" offensive?

And "fianceƩ"? That term of endearment is usually reserved for a woman who's planning to marry you - not one who just saw her 25 year old boyfriend romancing her 15 year old half sister in the park.

Anonymous said...

It is going to be very interesting when e-memory devices become more commonly used:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/09/25/total.recall.microsoft.bell/

In the not too distant future you will have a searchable, automatically tagged record of everything you have ever seen or heard.

A huge amount of leftism is based on rewriting reality. I wonder what will happen when there is eyewitness audio/video from multiple angles at the scene of every "hate crime".

On the one hand you could argue that our overlords will be so corrupt as to disallow the use of such evidence, and/or the privacy intrusions that come as a result will not be worth the benefits.

This may be the case.

On the other hand what I have seen over and over again is that video is the only thing that can shut up a leftist. They will always "gaslight" you, that is, attempt to verbally fog your memory and tell you that these weren't the droids you were looking for -- and that this Ramirez was a completely innocent victim.

For example, think about the Gates imbroglio. The picture of Gates screaming on the porch as a black cop looked on bemusedly is the only reason the cop still has his job.

Dutch Boy said...

The late philosopher James Burnham described liberalism as the ideology of Western suicide (in his magnum opus Suicide of the West). Seen from that perspective, liberalism is not paradoxical but logical and consistent.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

""What were the differences? The white kid didn't happen to die and Jena was turned int a vast national brouhaha about white racism.""

Another minor difference: the victim was released from the hospital the same day as his supposed 'beating'."

Another minor difference: the Jena victim didn't do anything to provoke a 'beating', whereas the mexican victim in question was raping his sister-in-law to be.

By the way, maybe you should try getting a 'beating' like the Jena victim. After all, I'm sure it's no big deal.

Victoria said...

If you missed this on Takimag, see this also:

Far from a "post-racial" society: Dredging up the past forever

And, you're right again, Steve, it is "just the beginning."

Mr. Anon said...

I'd bet that there are far more mexicans who are beaten or killed by blacks than by whites. Will Mr. Holder be so quick to jump in on those cases?

Anonymous said...

What's your source for Ramirez having sex with the girl, and for her being his fiancee's sister?

Svigor said...

It would be interesting to try to split the hard-core "who? whom?" types from the leftists who simply like to rail against authority.

The second type is quite strange, and very rare anymore; one has to be interested in railing against authority for its own sake, because authority is so far left now.

They were hung, apparently. I think you mean hanged.

I was trying to find a pithy way to make the same point, thanks.

Even killing a cop in PA won't get you executed.

Quakers?

Florida resident said...

This morning I saw on TV
“High schooler with Down Syndrome scoring TD [Touchdown]. Opposing team gives up shutout, lets 15-year-old Ziesel make score late.”
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/32925774/ns/sports-other_sports/
It was arranged to improve his self-esteem.

How soon our society will arrange “High schooler with Down Syndrome found new proof of the Great Fermat Theorem” ? How much this self-esteem is worth, if it is not deserved by real achievement ?

Your truly, F.r.

Anonymous said...

"Steve, you really incited this "Anonymous" who keeps bitching about the issue. Must be a Hispanic:

-Vanilla Thunder
Anonymous
Neshobanakni"

LMAO Jeez...

I'm not Hispanic. I just think beating people to death in back alleys isn't very seemly. The whole Anglo-Saxon, good government, ordered liberty thing.

-Vanilla Thunder

Truth said...

"For example, think about the Gates imbroglio. The picture of Gates screaming on the porch as a black cop looked on bemusedly is the only reason the cop still has his job."

No, the comendations from his partner, chief of police and mayor (all black), as well as a long record of good work are the reason the cop "still has his job"; but then, you are a moron and I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

The policeman was not suspended or even reprimanded and his losing his job was never in question. In addition "screaming" (if that is in fact what he was doing in that picture and not yawning) is only illegal in 7 states, Mass. not being one of them.

"Another minor difference: the Jena victim didn't do anything to provoke a 'beating', whereas the mexican victim in question was raping his sister-in-law to be"

Well the assailants did not know that that was his "sister in law to be" now did they? So I guess this is completely inconsequential. In addition, he was not "raping" anyone he was "kissing." the girl, I guess this is the same thing though.

"I'd bet that there are far more mexicans who are beaten or killed by blacks than by whites. Will Mr. Holder be so quick to jump in on those cases?"

Ok, a copy and post for the literarily challenged:

The Justice Department began monitoring the case more than a year ago [i.e., during the Bush Administration]

I was not aware the Holder was employed by the Bush admin.

In comparison of this case vis-a-vis the Jena Six, the main difference is that Mychal Bell got sentenced to 18 months in a beating that caused "minor injuries" which allowed the victim to attend a party later that night. The victim of these "young men" is dead.

Anonymous said...

'Double jeopardy' was of course a centuries old english common law principle that was trasplanted in the USA.
This ancient and cherished check on the state and the judiciary was officially abolishd by New Labour in the late '90s solely due to the 'celebrated' Stephen Lawrencease (of which Britain's left made not only a meal but a 30 course banquet), in which some chavvy* white English youths were acquitted of murdering the black youth Stephen Lawrence.

*Chav - word ultimately derived from the Romany Gypst meaning 'child' used to describe 'white trash' in England - a moden usage no later than 20 years' old.

Anonymous said...

Zimbabwe and Haiti are "states of nature", more or less exemplifying what happens to these people when left to themselves.

Unsuccessful and hyper-aggressive parasitism is as much a loser strategy as guilt-soaked liberalism.

They deserve each other.

But not for very long. Because it can't go on for very long.

The modern nation-state was hailed as a protector of the weak against the depredations of the strong. But it has morphed now into something entirely different: the weapon of a small group of devious conspirators, using the weak as pawns to emasculate, disenfranchise and enslave the strong. It is just a matter of time before the productive majority of US taxpayers find themselves ensnared in this Lilliputian trap. And with no legal recourse.

Enjoy.

Anon.

togo said...

Independent investigations by the Office of the Inspector General also found that the civil rights division during the years that George W. Bush was president had been plagued with political hiring scandals and racial insults, further straining the department's already icy relationship with civil rights veterans.

I'm no fan of W, but I assume this means it's a scandal when GOP administrations hire GOP loyalists
but not a scandal when Dem administrations hire Dem loyalists. Does anyone know what he or she means when he or she refers to "racial insults"?

Anonymous said...

Steve,
the Tory Party and the Labour Party had about a fifty fifty split of UK Governments between 1945 and 1979.

Richard...London

Anonymous said...

steve,

accept my humbles. You wrote 1964-1979.

Richard

Anonymous said...

Some white kids beat a Mexican to death because he's a Mexican.



I thought he beat up the Mexican for raping little girls.

rast said...

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/003111.html

"The second witness was Roxanne Rector, who claims to be the girlfriend of Luis Ramirez and said they had a sexual relationship. The judge told the jury that the fact that 25 year old Luis Ramirez was sleeping with a 15-year-old girl should have no bearing on the testimony other than the facts."

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=135789

"Six teens from Shenandoah - most of whom had been drinking alcohol - encountered Ramirez in Vine Street Park. Ramirez was there waiting for his girlfriend, Roxanne Rector, who was 14 at the time and since has turned 15."

Anonymous said...

The late philosopher James Burnham described liberalism as the ideology of Western suicide (in his magnum opus Suicide of the West). Seen from that perspective, liberalism is not paradoxical but logical and consistent.

Exactly.

Liberalism - as the word is used in the modern era - is nihilism.

Svigor said...

Seen from that perspective, liberalism is not paradoxical but logical and consistent.

I was going to say much the same thing; the "paradox" of liberalism is like the remaining members of a suicide cult realizing death sucks and leaving the cult.

Anonymous said...

From the HuffPo:

"Robert Franz, the prosecutor, denied any misconduct on the part of the district attorney's office.

Displaying a candid photo of Ramirez, Franz told the jurors, 'He was assaulted and he was beaten, and he was killed for walking the streets of Shenandoah. He didn't deserve that.'"


What a peecee suck-up!

Truth said...

"I thought he beat up the Mexican for raping little girls."

That's totally inconsequential unless he was in commission of the "rape" act.

J said...

"The whole Anglo-Saxon, good government, ordered liberty thing."

That's the whole reason why the West is being overwhelmed by invaders who don;t play fair.

Anonymous said...

ooof.

deleting my bookmark.

So scurrilous a post as to be frothingly, tin foil hat wearingly toxic.

headache said...

Vanilla Thunder sez:
LMAO Jeez...

I'm not Hispanic. I just think beating people to death in back alleys isn't very seemly. The whole Anglo-Saxon, good government, ordered liberty thing.


Didn't sound as if you were laughing [LMAO], more like angry. And not about the beatings, about Steve’s illuminating description of what was really going on. It's ludicrous to insinuate that Steve was advocating beating people in a back alley. You must be new here since Steve is forever thinking of ways to reduce violence, be it societal or foreign wars, by geting real about HBD. And if you meant that Anglo governance is superior to say Hispanic, well yeah, it’s obviously true if you travel in South America vs. the US. Otherwise why would so many people try and get into the US illegally? It's not like people are scrambling to get into Mexico, Paraguay, Zimbabwe or Sudan. Funny how Third Worlders always rail against western style governance but are prepared to rip out their toenails to go live in a western country. It’s like the blacks in Africa who during Apartheid were very eager to go live there. Wonder why?

Parsi said...

@Richard: "the Tory Party and the Labour Party had about a fifty fifty split of UK Governments between 1945 and 1979." ["accept my humbles. You wrote 1964-1979"]

There wasn't that much ideological difference between the Tory and Labour governments in the 1945-79 period -- they were all 'Butskellite' (google it). The consensus collapsed when the economy imploded at the end of the 1970s.

Anonymous said...

"Some white kids beat a Mexican to death because he's a Mexican."

I thought he beat up the Mexican for raping little girls.

He beat up the Mexican for "not conforming to White Anglo-Saxon standards of sexual conduct".

Anonymous said...

There is the ongoing review of the death of a man beaten by four white teenagers in a park in Shenandoah, Pa. The kids, all high school football player

In other words, this sounds much like a photographic negative of the Jena 6 case, where six black star football players beat an unconscious white kid

Football players are nothing more than violent, vigilante-style fascistic gangsters, and need to be prosecuted as such.

Simon said...

It sounds more like drunken manslaughter than either righteus vengeance or racist murder.

"In May, following a week-long trial, a local jury acquitted two of the defendants of all charges except for simple assault, a second-degree misdemeanor. Neither received more than seven months in jail. Another was tried as a juvenile and received probation. The last cooperated with the Justice Department, pleaded guilty in federal court and awaits sentencing. [That appears misleading: The Huffington Post article says: "Walsh pleaded guilty in federal court to violating Ramirez's civil rights and could be out of prison in four years."

This does seem light to me, I'd have thought 8-10 years would be more typical for killing a man in a drunken brawl, especially when it was several-vs-one. I think we're supposed to abide by jury verdicts, though.

I suppose the youth of the offenders is the complicating factor, I'm not even sure how this would go down here in Britain - normally under-18s don't really get punished, OTOH whites killing non-whites are certainly supposed to be punished extra. Would youth trump skin colour? Who knows, it's not like we have the Rule of Law anymore so there's no way to tell.

Anonymous said...

I don't think they beat him because he was Mexican, but because he was an asshole. But he's still dead. Assholery is not punishable by death, except on an evolutionary scale.

Loustung - Like Vanilla Thunder, I'm not a "hispanic."

Neshobanakni

Anonymous said...

"It's ludicrous to insinuate that Steve was advocating beating people in a back alley"

I'll clarify a bit more. I don't believe Steve was insinuating that at all. I was merely replying to Loustung or whoever who said I must be Hispanic because I find vigilantes pounding people to death in back alleys to be a distasteful activity in a civilized country.

I think one can simultaneously oppose immigration, statutory rape and back alley beatings.

-Vanilla Thunder

Anonymous said...

Nothing in the link to the HuffPo article supports the "raping his sister-in-law to be"

Templar said...

Liberalism - as the word is used in the modern era - is nihilism.

Oh huzzah. 'Nonymous Nihilist has returned.

David said...

> The whole Anglo-Saxon, good government, ordered liberty thing. <

How many of those terms apply to the pedophile who got taught a lesson?