Just as our government portrays terrorists as middle class whites, it labels dangerous nonwhite Hispanic criminals as “whites.”
I posted the DHS anti-terror video
which entirely ignores Muslim terrorism and portrays terrorists mainly as cleancut young white men (who get reported to the DHS by serious and responsible blacks and Asians). And now comes this e-mail the blogger One Radical which shows another dimension of the same problem.
One Radical writes:
Related to what Laura G. recently said about how the most wanted criminals in North Carolina are overwhelmingly black and Hispanic, my home state of Texas just released mug shots of the ten most wanted fugitives. I’ve posted my thoughts here, and thought you might be interested as well.
Seven of the ten most wanted criminals are designated as “white.” Looking at the mug shots, then the names of the “white” fugitives, makes one wonder, how badly are the crime rates for whites skewed?
This is how it works here in Texas and probably elsewhere: a Hispanic is labeled as “white” when the perpetrator, but as “Hispanic” when the victim [as Jared Taylor first pointed out about federal crime statistics almost 20 years ago in Paved With Good Intentions—LA].
The names of the “white” fugitives are:
There goes those “white” people again, being seven of the top ten most wanted in Texas.
Ernesto Alonso Garcia
Alfonso Gomez Quiroz
Rene Morales Munoz
I’ve attached the mug shot pictures from the Texas DPS website:
It’s funny, because when I first looked at the mug shots, I thought that three of the men could plausibly be called white. But of those three, one, Gwen [sic] Komahcheet, is labeled as “American Indian Male,” and another, Javier Cortez, as “Hispanic male.” But if the Texas authorities could call Cortez Hispanic, why don’t they call all the others (except for Komahcheet) Hispanic?
- end of initial entry -
But now let us consider, what is the larger meaning of this official description of nonwhite criminals as white, and of the DHS movie showing terrorists as middle class whites?
First, the ruling ideology of this country is not race neutral and non-discriminatory, as naïve mainstream conservatives believe; it is anti-white. And it is anti-white in the crudest sense.
Second, the effect and purpose of this official negative and false portrayal of whites, combined with the unofficial demonization of white men as cold hearted inhuman Nazi-types in countless movies and TV shows, is not only to generate hatred and suspicion of whites; it is to make it impossible to defend the nation from its actual enemies. If whites—specifically white conservatives and white Christians—are the real problem, then nonwhites—particularly black criminals, Hispanic illegal alien invaders, and Muslims—are not the problem. The spreading black violence against whites is covered up; the Hispanicization of America via mass illegal and legal Hispanic immigration is seen as a blessing that only racists would oppose; and Islam is not a threat, because “the Bible has plenty of violence too.”
And where do the mainstream conservatives come down on all this? Remember their core belief regarding race: race does not matter, and therefore it is immoral to think of oneself as white. But if it is immoral to think of oneself and of other whites as white, how can one defend whites when they are being attacked as whites? One cannot. The words and concepts needed to defend whites from the race-conscious campaign against them are not there, because it is immoral for whites to think of themselves as white. Therefore to say anything in defense of whites is immoral. Yes, an increasing number of white conservatives today openly complain about the false charges of racism against whites, but when it comes to the systemic anti-whiteness that permeates our culture and politics, they remain clueless and silent.
This shows, as I have pointed out from a variety of angles in the past, how race-neutral right-liberalism (a.k.a. neoconservatism and mainstream conservatism), which imagines itself as opposed to race-conscious left-liberalism, in reality leads to and empowers race-conscious left-liberalism. Right-liberalism—with its loudly professed belief in a universal truth of individual rights, a universal humanity consisting of individuals possessing such rights, and a single standard of justice for all—accedes silently to the most false and unjust treatment of whites. The reason for this paradoxical seeming result is that justice is not just universal, because reality is not just universal. Reality includes particulars. And a belief system that refuses to recognize the existence of a certain very important particular, namely the white race, is incapable of defending that particular from lies and injustice.
The white race and the nations it created cannot be defended by mainstream conservatives who think that the very concept of whiteness is immoral. They can only be defended by people who see that race is a part of the reality in which we live, and who care about the white race of which they themselves are a part.
One Radical writes:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 22, 2011 01:08 PM | Send
But of those three, one, Gwen [sic] Komahcheet, is labeled as “American Indian Male,” and another, Javier Cortez, as “Hispanic male.” But if the Texas authorities could call Cortez Hispanic, why don’t they call all the others (except for Komahcheet) Hispanic?
Javier Cortez, the only criminal identified as “Hispanic male,” is probably the person one would most likely think is white of the whole bunch. I find that interesting.
Thanks for posting this.