Another American murdered by an illegal alien
Must reading from Michelle Malkin on the murder of actress Adrienne Shelly in New York City last week by an illegal alien who was here, as George W. Bush would have it, doing a job Americans didn’t want to do. Further down in the same blog entry, Malkin exposes the open-borders camp’s woeful misrepresentation of the meaning of the defeat of pro-borders control Republican candidates as a rejection of border control. In fact, each of the defeated pro-border control Republicans was beaten by a Democrat who was even more outspoken for border control than the Republican.
There’s a significant detail on the Shelly murder that Malkin doesn’t bring out, but that was mentioned in Wednesday’s or Thursday’s New York Post. Prior to Shelly’s slapping the illegal alien in the face and then calling him a “son of a bitch” (an insult that Latin American men take literally as an unendurable insult to their mother and themselves), which set off his murderous rage, he had furiously pounded a hammer in response to her polite request that he make less noise. So, confronting a Hispanic man who had just shown himself to be dangerously violent, she called him a “son of a bitch,” and that got her killed. There was another recent murder of a woman in New York who said tauntingly to a mugger, “What are you going to do, kill me?” And then he killed her.
I think this is feminism at work. Contemporary American women are so full of themselves that they lack the instinct that tells them to shut up, even when confronting a violent black or Hispanic. Because they get away with dissing their own feminized husbands and boyfriends, they think they can do the same with minority criminals.
[Note: A couple of readers have pointed out that we apparently only know from the suspect that Shelly slapped his face and called him a son of a bitch. Also, since he does not speak English, would he know what the expression meant? More information is needed.]
Stephen T. writes:
The fatal mistake committed by Adrienne Shelly was one that no Hispanic woman would make. Neither would a female Anglo teacher in the LAUSD. I used to rent a house from a former LAUSD teacher. She once told me that, at the school where she had taught, all incoming female Anglo teachers were warned about reprimanding or in any way speaking in a commanding tone to misbehaving male Mestizo students, especially in the presence of their peer group of other Mestizo males.Leonard K. writes:
’Pillco, who is from Ecuador and speaks only Spanish…’ ‘…she dared to call him a “son of a bitch”…’ ‘…he took that insult literally…’ Am I the only one who sees this apparent contradiction?Gintas writes:
This Latin “machismo” is part of their culture’s honor-shame dynamic. It’s like that in the Middle East and the Mediterranean. It’s called “face” in Asia. It seems to be a normal part of most cultures with wildly varying degrees of problem resolution—remember dueling in the old South? Gunfights in the old West? Maintaining the honor of a woman? If a society has no shame, there is no honor, and Westerners are a pretty shameless people.LA replies:
Yes, that will be the case, so long as liberalism remains the ruling belief system in people’s minds.Dimitri K. writes:
I’ve been long thinking about the mystery of liberals who embrace violent foreigners, who clearly state that they want to kill them. Those homosexuals and lesbians making common statements with CAIR. In Soviet history, one well known and puzzling episode is when Stalin sentenced his comrades communists to death with clearly absurd accusations. Those men, who had proven to be tough in other situations, could not resist and only praised their murderer. The more I think about it the more I come to a conclusion, that it can be rationalized only in a very general term of ‘evil’. Those who are possessed by evil, cannot resist to a larger and more brutal evil, and always finish praising that bigger evil. That’s it.LA replies:
This is an amazing statement, because what you are doing is connecting Arthur Koestler’s analysis of the suicidal Communist psyche in Darkness at Noon with our present Western suicide psychology. I never thought of this before. Why does the protagonist of Darkness at Noon, a loyal Bolshevik who has been arrested for treason to the Communist state, finally accept and embrace his own execution? His loyalty to the cause and to the Leader trumps all other considerations,, including the fact of his personal innocence. In your words, “Those who are possessed by evil, cannot resist to a larger and more brutal evil, and always finish praising that bigger evil.”Tom S. writes:
“Those who are possessed by evil, cannot resist a larger and more brutal evil, and always finish praising that bigger evil.” This is a thought worthy of Solzhenitsyn in his heyday. As you pointed out, this requires thinking about, but there is certainly something to it.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 10, 2006 01:39 PM | Send