He sent me an email last night. He called me a “rotten character” for criticizing his blog post about the Virginia Tech killings… “especially in light of our past friendly correspondence.”
(Mr. Auster also took time to slam my “unethical and vicious conduct” in revealing the identity, last December, of a white-nationalist blogger called “The Realist.” I did that in my very first post for this blog. If you check it out, you’ll see that Dr. Ian Jobling outed himself as “The Realist.”)
Anyway, given the information now available concerning the victims of mass murderer Cho Seung-Hui, it’s obvious that Lawrence Auster is unqualified to judge my character and ethical conduct. Or anyone else’s.
Reluctant as I am to engage in name-calling, the man is a jerk.
Twenty-four hours after the nightmarish news arose from the Blacksburg campus, Auster wrote: “Has anyone ever added up the number of white Americans killed by non-white immigrants over the years…?” He added that “barely a week passes in which a white American is not killed by a non-white immigrant or illegal alien.”
Well, since Larry Auster wants to add up numbers, let’s consider some of the persons gunned down Monday at Virginia Tech:
Prof. G.V. Loganathan (pictured) was born in India. So was graduate student Minal Panchal.Grad student Partahi Lumbantoruan was Indonesian. Doctoral candidate Waleed Shaalan was Egyptian.
Junior Daniel Perez Cueva was an immigrant from Peru. Grad student Juan Ramon Ortiz was Puerto Rican.
Freshman Reema Samaha’s family is from Lebanon. Ross Abdallah Alameddine was also a Lebanese-American.
Freshman Mary Read was born in Korea to a white father and a Korean mother. Freshman Henry Lee (born Henh Ly) was a Chinese immigrant and a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Undergraduates Ryan Clark and Erin Peterson were black.
Will Mr. Auster shed a tear for any of these people and their families? Or just for the white victims?
I don’t know the racial composition of Virginia Tech’s student body, but it seems that non-whites might’ve been disproportionately victimized by Cho Seung-Hui.
That’s not what’s important, of course. The important truth here is that whites and non-whites, immigrants and natural-born citizens, all of us share alike the risk of exposure to crime and mayhem in modern American society.
Race has nothing to do with what happened at Virginia Tech… except to a racist.
Lawrence Auster presents himself as a pious Anglican, an upholder of traditional Judeo-Christian values. He will have to answer to his God for what he’s written this week.
(To read Washington Post profiles of the Virginia Tech murder victims, click here.)
UBM, there are times when I really marvel at your willingness to engage these people on any level. Guys like Auster sicken me. Everything about this tragedy sickens me.
ReplyDeleteAnd, on a superficial note, I can't even lose myself in the superficial, not when an "American Idol" episode gets Zaprudered because of an eye roll that may or may not have been related to Virginia Tech.
Sigh... What a world.
Yep, George Lopez applies here. FTP!!
ReplyDeleteWhat the fuck??? Did he really say that?? God some people are just so fucking ignorant. I'm a student here in the US (Pakistani citizen), and this offends me a lot. Then there was that conservative idiot Debbie Schlussel quickly jumping on "Muslims/Pakistanis" as soon as the shootings were announced. Then she said it was a Chinese student ("great, another reason to bring in less foreign students").
ReplyDeleteI mean seriously, I can pretty much guarantee you that crime rates are the lowest among international students. I don't have any statistics to back me up, but I can give you a perspective being one myself.
Cho was a paranoid schizophrenic. Reading Auster's posts, it's obvious he's just plain paranoid. He goes on and on about "liberalism" as if it were not just a point of view he disagrees with, but a sinister plot against him and society. He's got serious problems and they aren't caused by non-white immigrants. They reside deep within his head.
ReplyDeleteOh God I just read the post and now he's saying that the guy was connected to Islam because he had "Ismael Ax" tattooed on his arm? Since when is that a "muslim connection"? I come from a Muslim family and I have lived in Muslim countries my whole life....and I've never heard of such a thing.
ReplyDeleteAnd the guy wasn't even really "Korean"! He was an Americanized Korean....he lived here since 92/93...so he spent most of his life in this country.
Seriously, a lot of right-wing commentators are just too disgusting.
SJ: Debbie Schlussel makes Michelle Malkin sound like the voice of reason.
ReplyDeleteHappy for you that her Muslims/"Pakis" theory didn't stand up. ;^D
(Maybe she didn't wish hard enough.)
Doug: I do feel kinda sorry for Auster, for the reason you cite. It can't be pleasant to live inside his world of sinister enemies.
Oops. I take back what I said about Michelle Malkin. Because yesterday she parroted one of the right wing's favorite post-Virginia-Tech talking points:
ReplyDelete"What if just one student in one of those classrooms had been in lawful possession of a concealed weapon for the purpose of self-defense?"
Goodness gracious. Malkin actual thinks this would be a better country if more college students went to class bearing semiautomatic weapons.
But hey, maybe I shouldn't dismiss this argument. After all, if some of those students at the University of Texas at Austin had had bazookas in 1966, maybe Charles Whitman wouldn't have killed or wounded so many people with his rifle from that tower. Somebody would've blown his ass up and saved lives!
Man that would be scary. Going to class knowing that almost everyone has a gun.
ReplyDelete^ Yep... that would've made Cho Seung-Hui think twice, wouldn't it have?
ReplyDeleteWhy do I have the feeling that if the Virginia Tech student was actually one of them Muslim A-rabs, all the bullshit arguments about expanding our rights (at least with guns) will transform into bullshit arguments about taking away our rights?
ReplyDelete^ Bingo!
ReplyDeleteI'd never heard of Debbie Schlussel until today. She makes Ann Coulter look sane. I guess it's better that these hatemongers are tied to their computers spewing on the internet and not out acting on their hatred, though, so that's something.
ReplyDelete@dez,
ReplyDeleteDebbie Schlussel appeared on Paula Zahn's (CNN) show about this attack piece on atheists, where she (and 2 others) did nothing but bash atheists. The video is up on youtube so a simple search will probably bring it up. It really was appalling...they were discussing atheists and there wasn't even one atheist on the panel! So many people complained that CNN brought Richard Dawkins (famous atheist...writer of "The God Delusion") on Zahn's show next week where he was on the show for just 3/4 mins.
David, I was waiting for the other shoe to drop and it looks like Auster is badly outgunned, in more ways then one. Poor guy. It must suck to be in the hell living inside that head of his. I'm curious if he's responded to the fact that most of the victims are not white.
ReplyDeleteIs Debbie Schussel related to that right wing nutjob reporter with the same last name, the guy who claims that Global Warming is bullshit?
s.o.l.:
ReplyDeleteYou are probably thinking of John Stossel
S.O.L.: Let me clarify. About a third of the innocent dead at Virginia Tech are non-white... most are white.
ReplyDeleteAs for Auster, he hasn't revisited the theme of his earlier post. He's moved on to blaming liberalism for the inability of anyone to recognize Cho's homicidal potential and to do something about it beforehand.
Whatever. I've already replaced him on my blogroll with another token white devil: Steve Sailer.
UBM!!!
ReplyDeleteWay to go UBM. Way to give this assclown a verbal smack down.
Jesus, he's actually whining about immigrants killing whites? How many immigrants have been killed by whites over the many years?
just insane.
Now, how about a Wire update when you get the chance. I know you probably can't say much, but is there anything you can slip out to tide us over?
xoxo
Many people, of many ethnicities, religions, and countries of origin were killed on Monday. The ethnic background or country of origin of the shooter should have no bearing at all on this horrific crime. The shooter was a deeply disturbed mentally ill person, and if anything, we should be talking about Americas mental health system and how we can best improve it.
ReplyDeletelola gets, how can we find time to discuss something rational like that when there's still sensationalism and blaming to be done by the media? The latest theory: blaming it on Oldboy because Cho apparently aped some of the movie. ACK!
ReplyDelete^ That blew my mind, Dez. Like you say... nothing better to talk about than violent South Korean movies? Cho'd been living in the U.S. since the age of 9.
ReplyDeleteHi Undercover Black Man,
ReplyDeleteLawrence Auster and other Jewish so called 'race realists' are currently having an interesting little spat with the Jared Taylor over Holocaust denial:
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/news/news/another_eagle_eyed_white_nationalist_finds_me_out/
Sorry - last part of the URL above is: another_eagle_eyed_white_nationalist_finds_me_out/
ReplyDeleteUBM, a few of my friends are horror writers and they were wondering when their genre would get blamed (video games already being pegged as the culprit the day after). Took a bit longer than they expected!
ReplyDeleteBREAKING: Cho Seung-Hui Watched Films, Listened to Music. May Have Consumed Other Entertainment Products.
ReplyDeleteDeveloping...
UBM,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I understand the thrust of your complaint?
Are you complaining because you think the question is illegitimate?
Or, do you think the question wasn't relevant to the given situation?
On another note, can you explain why Cho seemed so alienated and isolated in a place known for its openess and inclusion? And do you really believe his race had nothing to do with his action...? Nothing?
Undercover Black Man, I think you, James Wolcott and most of those above just heard a ship pass in the night.
ReplyDeleteThordaddy, welcome. I appreciate your quesions.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Are you complaining because you think the question is illegitimate? Or, do you think the question wasn't relevant to the given situation?"
The second one. The question of whether white people suffer disproportionately and race-specifically from violent predation by non-whites is legitimate. I find nothing morally or intellectually objectionable, per se, about considering the Knoxville murders, for example, in the context of that question (as Lawrence Auster has done recently).
The prevalence of black violent crime is a serious matter, and should be discussed frankly... by whites and blacks, by liberals and conservatives, by multiculturalists and racialists. The question itself shouldn't be stifled.
But the Virginia Tech rampage was so obviously the result of profound psychosis -- the sort of psychosis which has led plenty of white men to rampage likewise -- that to seize on Cho Seung-Hui's race, or the whiteness of his victims, is beyond illogical. Wolcott has the word for it -- it's "malignant."
In a moment of national shock and sorrow, a moment that reminds normal people of our shared humanity -- the vulnerability of the human mind to illness and breakage, the exposure of all of us to psychotic violence -- Lawrence Auster chose to drive people further apart on the irrelevant (in this case) grounds of race.
You then asked: "And do you really believe his race had nothing to do with his action...?"
If race had something to do with Cho's action, then Charles Whitman's whiteness had something to do with his slaughter of innocents at the University of Texas at Austin in 1966. And George Hennard's whiteness had something to do with his murder spree at Luby's Cafeteria in 1991. And James Oliver Huberty's whiteness had something to do with his 1984 McDonald's massacre (which left more than 20 Hispanics dead).
Are you implying that Whitman and Hennard and Huberty were motivated somehow by their race? No? Then why do you judge Cho differently?
UBM, I came here via Wolcott and am so impressed I have been back-reading your entire blog. Spree killers are so depressingly similar, with their overblown sense of grievance and their desire to go out in a blaze of glory, taking others with them. In the case of the San Ysidro shooting, some in the Mexican community have long believed that Huberty explicitly targeted them. You can see articles alleging just that at Aztlan Networks, just to name one. It isn't out of the question that a spree killer might choose victims based on race, or on gender as in the Montreal shootings. They have all sorts of twisted justifications for whomever they decide to murder along with themselves. None of their decisions will make sense to a rational mind, so the question to me is whether it is even constructive to look at the choice of victim. It seems obvious from the evidence that Cho was targeting whichever student was unlucky enough to be in his path--but honestly, even if he did target primarily whites, we gain nothing by trying to divine why. His bloodlust was there and was going to find an outlet somewhere. It's the essential psychosis, the pathological inability to feel sympathy or deal with disabling rage that's the heart of the matter.
ReplyDeleteUBM,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response and so as to clarify, you AREN'T claiming the illegitimacy of the question, but rather, the timing of the question? It is a legitimate question asked at an inappropriate time according to you and many others?
Next, I'm not sure you answered the question about Cho's race being a factor in the definitive? You seem to be claiming that if Cho's race was a factor in his murdering spree then the race of all murderers must be a factor in their murdering sprees? I don't see how you can suggest this conclusion. Certainly, race may or may not factor in a person's murdering spree, no?
The race and immigration angle must be considered, as Auster says, and you UBM agree, but I don't think it has much fruit in this case. Some do speculate about the influence of Korean films, like Steve Sailer and the NYT.
ReplyDeleteThough I haven't read much about the VT shooting elsewhere, I do think Auster has the best take on the atrocity (NOT the post cited here) - that the man was deranged and should have been institutionalized, at least until proven to not be a danger to society. Auster contends that fifty years ago, such a man would be put away so as to protect society, and further, that liberalism is to blame. Is it?
Leftists warn against judging people, against making distinctions. It is quite plausible that this has weakend our resolve to take action when we find someone so evil or insane among us.
Theodore Dalrymple, a 'respectable' conservative, often writes of the British government's extreme leniency towards criminals ( http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_oh_to_be.html ). It is quite probable that liberalism is partly to blame if his writings are any guide.
In a moment of national shock and sorrow, a moment that reminds normal people of our shared humanity -- the vulnerability of the human mind to illness and breakage, the exposure of all of us to psychotic violence -- Lawrence Auster chose to drive people further apart on the irrelevant (in this case) grounds of race.
ReplyDeleteWell, for political obsessives events like this are basically a kind of Rorshach test, no?
People who hate guns saw it as a perfect launching point for promoting gun control.
People who love guns saw it as a moment to yammer on about how if everyone was armed this wouldn't happen.
Etc. and so on.
Lawrence Auster, political obsessive that he is, also predictably saw the events through the prism of his motivating ideology; I'm not sure why you seem so surprised?
Thordaddy: You're going to have to demonstrate that you're reading my arguments more closely if you want to keep me interested in a conversation with you.
ReplyDeleteRead again what I wrote above. I say nothing about the timing of Auster's injection of race into the Virginia Tech killings. If race has something to do with the Virginia Tech killings, then there wouldn't be a bad time to discuss it. It would be relevant to our understanding of the matter.
If Auster wants to focus on white victims of non-white criminality, he should keep banging the gong on the Knoxville murders and leave Virginia Tech out of it.
But by focusing on Cho Seung-Hui's race, when there is zero evidence that Cho's race had anything to do with his insane rampage, Lawrence Auster is guilty of more than bad timing. He's guilty of malignant racialism and willful obfuscation.
As for the other point, I put the onus on you to explain why race should be considered a factor in Cho's actions, as opposed to the actions of any other spree killer.
It's the folly of bigoted thinking to ascribe racial determinism to the evil deeds of non-whites, while considering race irrelevant to the evil deeds of whites.
@thordaddy,
ReplyDelete"Certainly, race may or may not factor in a person's murdering spree, no?"
Race may factor in a murdering spree, but where's the proof that the guy was a racist??? He killed more whites because you know, they statistically make up a large amount of the VTech population...he also killed Asians, Arabs, etc.
Just because the guy was not white does not mean race has to be involved.
Well, a few of your posters seem to be getting in the swing of things--accusations that liberals must be willing to entertain any idea, no matter how kooky, because its liberal to be tolerant? check. Repetition of the noonanesque question "would it be irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to speculate..."
ReplyDeleteUBM's made the point but apparently too politely so let me jump in here. Its not wrong to ask whether racial issues influenced Cho's actions and whether a particular racist stance on Cho's part determined how he choose his victims. That's the job of the police and its a factual question which can be answered by research so as a liberal I'm all for it.
But it *is* specifically white racist to argue *against the known facts* that Cho's killing spree represented a particularly anti-white racist action and to attempt to construct out of whole cloth a novel genre of crime "killings of white people by non white immigrants."
Why is it illegitimate? Its illegitimate in the same way a push poll is illegitimate--becaues it structures the answer by leaving out of consideration most facts. In fact, I'd argue that even posing the question the way auster poses it is a gesture of bad faith because the questioner would have to be entirely ignorant of the real history of violence in this country to ever argue that the number of "white people killed by non-white immigrants" for race based reasons exceeds the number of non-white immigrants, and non white natives, killed by white people for specifically and even widely trumpeted race based reasons. Ever heard of lynching? Those lynching parties were *huge,* well publicized and well attended and well documented. There is no evidence of any retaliatory black on white violence, nor history of some vague immigrant on white violence that could begin to compare with the known, documented history of lynching.
And, of course, as we all know, the history of violence and immigration isn't really limited to non-white immigrants. Up here in boston the police and the state were pretty sure the sub-human Irish were genetically pre-disposed towards violence. And the Italians didn't fair much better. As for white southerners? their level of violence overall is and always has been much higher than the level of non southern whites. In fact serious research on violence in the african american community in the north revealed that it closely tracked white levels of violence in the southern states from which those internal migrants had come.
Violence and murder are not a non-white immigrant thing. They are, as I believe Malcolm X observed, as american as apple pie.
So right there the vague question (wonder when someone will collect the statistics on) is shown to be a stalking horse for refusing to recognize commonly held historical facts. I urge Auster to do the research on his chosen topic. It won't demonstrate what he wants it to demonstrate but if he has an ounce of honesty in his body he will learn something.
aimai
tsm,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with Auster's general premise that a nondiscriminatory and nonjudgmental societal orientation may compel and enable the worst amongst us to act out their desire and will, I don't think that is the case in this particular situation.
I believe Cho acted out his revenge because he "saw" the lie of liberalism, i.e., nondiscrimination and nonjudgmentalism. He wasn't treated liberally in his eyes. He was treated with harsh discrimination and judgmentalism by those that preach the liberal dogma of openness, tolerance and inclusion.
Just look at the "stalking" charges where we have yet to hear from either girl directly with the first one claiming his contact was "annoying" and the police claiming the second was non-threatening. How then did this become a police matter and labeled "stalking?"
Secondly, the Cho's entire profile has been the making of two black women in the English department and yet the detail of his behavior is nonexistence outside the already well known fact that he was extremely introverted. Where are the girls that claim he took pictures? Again, it is asserted by these two black women. There is evidence that black women have a severe prejudice towards Asian men. And where are the rest of Cho's teachers and their descriptions of his "disturbing" behavior?
He acted out his revenge against those he believed showed great prejudice and intolerance while claiming to be so open and inclusive. He couldn't take the lie of liberalism anymore.
Campaspe, thanks so much for checking out my blog and for commenting. Looks like you got something good cooking on your own blog, and I look forward to setting aside some time to check you out.
ReplyDeleteAs for the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, if someone waving the "Aztlan" flag considers it a race crime, that in itself wouldn't persuade me. Because I'd presume that people who wave the "Aztlan" flag are Chicano racialists, just as Lawrence Auster is a white racialist. They are psychologically and politically invested in a sense of racial grievance.
From what I can gather, James Oliver Huberty was a loner, a gun nut, and eventually a rageful psychotic. He happened to live in a town on the U.S.-Mexican border, and he happened to live in walking distance of a McDonald's, so when he snapped, it's no surprise that Mexican-Americans were randomly in his line of fire.
But I take your point that "even if [Cho] did target primarily whites, we gain nothing by trying to divine why." That's a complicated area, though. You're saying that a psychotic killer who race-targets his victims is no less insane than one who sprays bullets at random humans. Yeah, I guess so, but...
In cases where there is demonstrable race-targeting -- as with serial killer Joseph Paul Franklin, who focused on interracial couples -- it's harder to separate out his social influences. (Franklin, for instance, had been a card-carrying Klansman and neo-Nazi.) Insanity is still at issue, but race is also on the table.
For argument's sake, let's say Cho had willfully targeted whites for murder as a function of his psychosis. Auster would've had more valid grounds, then, to focus on race in this case. I certainly wouldn't have been the one to call him out.
thordaddy, taking everything you said as fact would still not result in a shooting - a normal person does not react that way. You haven't given much outside evidence for your point.
ReplyDelete"Violence and murder are not a non-white immigrant thing. They are, as I believe Malcolm X observed, as american as apple pie."
Well, that would make blacks more American than whites, because of the former's higher crime rates. And South Africans and Russians are very American then too!Somewhat off-topic, but interestingly enough, Deep South blacks are the least criminal among African-Americans, according to Steve Sailer (UBM's new token crank), http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/050213_mapping.htm
UBM,
ReplyDeleteYou are assuming that when I talk of Cho's race it means that he was the "racist." That is the not the claim I am making, although, he might have been extremely racist and that is why he killed many different races.
But, Cho's race seems relevant because it causes one to wonder why this particular killer became so alienated and isolated in an environment lauded for its openness, tolerance and inclusion? The "racism" was not on the part of Cho as far as we know, but on the liberal university staff and students according to his own words. He did not mention racists or rednecks in his diatribe. Why?
tsm,
I am not excusing Cho's murder spree. I am trying to explain why I think he did what he did and it had nothing to do with the openness, tolerance and inclusion that so many believe is represented by the modern American university.
Random Interghost, thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Lawrence Auster, political obsessive that he is, also predictably saw the events through the prism of his motivating ideology; I'm not sure why you seem so surprised?"
Auster's a special case. I've been reading him for a while. As I mentioned earlier, I've even corresponded with him. He's not a neo-Nazi type. I see in his writing evidence of a serious intellect -- and a serious moral intellect. But I've also seen evidence of a profoundly irrational hang-up on race.
I've tried to engage him because of my belief that the better side of him might overcome the worse. I thought I could persuade him, through reasoned argument, that his racialism is folly.
Since Auster has cut off any further contact with me -- and since I'm less inclined, after Virginia Tech, to continue such contact myself -- I guess I wasted my time.
UBM - I am sorry (or perhaps I should be glad) to say that I wasn't aware of the full nature of Aztlan Networks ... after you posted I read some more on the site and said, whoa nelly. This is what comes of trying to find a random citation for something you remember from the time. I did remember discussion of whether Huberty had expressly targeted Mexican-Americans, looked it up, and found, voila and yippee, an ...
ReplyDelete... unpleasant site. Lesson learned.
Back to the choice of victims point. "Insanity is still at issue, but race is still on the table." Okay, you are probably right about that. My visceral reaction to these ghastly spree killings is always "dear god, not another one." Not another person with a pathetic, festering persecution complex and unearned sense of having being denied the finer things in life by ... whoever. But if our cauldron of racial and/or sexual politics helps create some of those personalities, then I will agree it's time to look at that.
But, like you said, Cho seems to have had no such motivation, and dragging it in from who-knows-where is malignant.
Question Marks
ReplyDelete-------------------
"This didn't have to happen", Cho Seung-Hui said, after murdering thirty-two people at Virginia Tech University.
And this terrible tragedy of sons, daughters, mothers and fathers didn't have to happen, if we'd only listened.
But we never listen.
We never listen to those that are different from us- the outcasts, the lonely, the homeless, the ones that are unspoken for. We don't try to understand. We shun them and put them out of our minds because of our fear that we will become like them.
And these people become more and more lonely and alienated in their isolation.
Words like "creep", "deranged misfit" and "psycho" devalue this killer's humanity so we don't have to face how similar he is to us. Cries of "how could he have been stopped" are uttered by media quick to sensationalize and gain market share, when the words "how could he have been listened to" are never considered.
Because we don't want to listen.
We don't want to hear about loneliness and alienation when we're all so busy with our lives, making money and making friends. And the unpopular, the ones that don't fit in, the lonely ones are ignored or made fun of because we don't care to understand anything about them.
This man who clearly needed help, Cho Seung-Hui, devalued himself so much that he called himself "Question Mark".
There are more "Question Marks" out there. There are millions of them. And if we don't listen to them, they will follow the same path again and again, because people are not connecting. We are becoming more and more disconnected from each other, creating more and more "Question Marks" every day.
Most "Question Marks" don't become murderers. Some just kill themselves. Most harm no one and live just as we do, needing antidepressants to appear what we call "normal". They may be someone you know, someone you love.
This "Question Mark" was once a little boy, who cried, and smiled and loved, He wanted to fit in just like you and I. But that desire to fit in transformed itself into anger towards a society that shunned and ignored him.
How many more times will we shun and ignore the one that doesn't fit in, the one in the corner, the one that's different? When all we have to do is listen, before it's too late.
But we won't.
Thirty-two human beings who did not know Cho Seung-Hui were murdered.
They were sons, daughters, fathers and mothers, with dreams of futures that will never come and children that will never be born. The thirty-two leave behind people that love them. People that are now scarred for life by this horrible day of death.
To most of us that have not been directly involved, this tragedy will become a memory and fade like all the others that came before.
And the "Question Marks" will appear with more frequency, again and again, because we don't listen.
We never do.
---------------
http://www.x-thc.com
Trying to divine a paranoid schizophrenic's motivation is largely, I think, a waste of time. Read the lengthy profile of Cho in the NY Times today. Something was seriously wrong with this guy almost from the day he was born. Perhaps some of these other factors figured in somewhere, but I think his psychosis was far more determinative.
ReplyDeleteMay I have the link to the Aztlan website, please?
ReplyDeleteAs this talk of racialists...siiigh...well, as long as none of you are racialists against sharks....
That would be "As for this talk..." d'oh!
ReplyDeleteDez: I don't know if this is the site Campaspe referenced, but it's the one I'm familiar with:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aztlan.net/.
"I don’t know the racial composition of Virginia Tech’s student body, but it seems that non-whites might’ve been disproportionately victimized by Cho Seung-Hui."
ReplyDeleteI suspect you're forgetting that non-white folks only count as 3/5 of a white person. I believe that when you recalculate, you'll see the bigots' cause for worry.
^ Zing!
ReplyDeleteThanks for dropping by, Sheriff.
Yup. I pointed out to a friend that the four or five faces that appeared every two or three minutes on CNN and MSNBC weren't white. I wondered why they were making sure not to mention white folks for at least a couple. Don't tell me VTech is segregated agaisnt white folk.
ReplyDeleteNow, I figure it was because white people are all crazy psychopaths to the MSM. No such thing as hate crimes against white folk. Nossir. If they is a hate crime against white folk, they go batsh!t crazy and start killin' everyone the way they always do.
I guess to the MSM it is better to make Vtech an educational moment and only show dead black folk, brown folks and immigrants. That way white folk won't flip out like they allus do and shoot up everyone else.
And sho' nuff, UCBM, you played that card for them, big time! Yup, UCBM it's like you say. Its like CNN and MSNBC say. Its all colored folks gettin' shot.
Hell, that Cho boy, he is really an American at heart. Why, as a Korean said in another weblog, ol' Cho only went crazy because he was treated so bad by racist white folk!
So you see, white people, VTech is all YOUR racist fault. And not only that, but it was all those extra-special colored folk that got killed, not YOU like UCBM sez.
So don't even THINK about limiting immigration, you scum!
Big Bill, thanks for adding your reasoned analysis. When's the next Klan meeting?
ReplyDeleteOMG. This man is an idiot. I find his rantings totally offensive. We knew Henry Lee, who you mentioned earlier. Henh as we knew him was a bright, intelligent, outstanding young man. He was greatly loved by all of his classmates, teachers and the parents of the school. The school he attended was very diverse and Henh was a popular student among all ethnic groups. His brilliant smile and magnetic personality permeated everyone's heart. He also rose to the to of his class and captured the hearts of many as he received so many awards at a ceremony last year the principal told him just to stand on the stage as she was going to continue to call his name. Those who loved this Chinese immigrant, whether, black, white, asian, hispanic, arabic, are grieving immensley. I cannot adequately express what a lovely young person Henry Lee was.
ReplyDeleteThat man has no idea who these people were. His remarks sicken me.
^ Thanks so much for visiting and commenting. The friends and families of those killed remain in my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI've been noticing something for a long time now. These "white America" types love the theme that "immigrants don't share our values". Now, ignoring for the moment that this theme was first applied to the Irish, what truly, deeply offends me - a dozen-generation Yankee with many distinguished, even hallowed patriots in my family tree - is that these types themselves haven't got the slightest idea what American values truly are.
ReplyDeletePorcupine-hunting hillbillies drinking moonshine out of a tin pail, they have demonstrated, from the Civil Rights era up until they present day, that they not only lack believe in, but openly and constantly advocate against: equality for all, justice for all, the rule of law, democracy, the absence of aristocracy, the Constitution, just to name a couple American values these fools despise.