Search Box

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Gethin, on Remnant, on Jenner

Gethin is another commenter who is operating at a higher level than I am. I like to talk about whether I would have wanted to do Christine Jorgensen, or my gut reaction to Jenner's picture. Gethin has a more sophisticated way of looking at things; here are his comments from yesterday, in reaction to Remnant's post. (I'm also transcribing Remnant's reply to Gethin, and putting that in the comment section below, along with Gethin's response to that.) 

As someone who is in the Nature camp of the 'Nature vs Nurture' debate, I felt compelled to respond to Remnant's piece on Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner. I felt his piece was based on pre-conceived ideas rather than research. (The one bit I did agree with is that it is senseless to say that Jenner has "never" been a man: if Jenner wasn't male, what makes Jenner transsexual now?)

1. I'll start with Remnant's frog analogy: In the process of embryonic and foetal development, do humans and frogs undergo a process of differentiation between human and frog, remaining human (or frog) unless specifically triggered to develop as a frog (or human)? Does the human/frog brain also differentiate between human and frog, sometimes incompletely? Have there been identified (and surprisingly common) cases of “inter-species” conditions similar to intersex conditions, where people or frog have been observed to have partial features of both humans and frogs, or have human DNA with a frog-appearing body, or frog DNA with a human-appearing body? If any of this actually happened, Remnant's analogy would be sound.

2. Dr Harry Benjamin hypothesised in the 1950s that transsexualism is probably caused by an influx of oestrogen during gestation, permanently feminising their brains, with modern science confirming this:

The brains of transsexuals react to certain smells in a 'female' way:

In contrast to Dr Benjamin, early SJWs like Dr John Money theorised that all gender-related behaviour was learned and there weren't any neural differences between males and females. We now know that, not only are there innate behavioural differences established before individuals are born, but these differences can be manipulated via hormone injections. It would be unethical to do this to a human foetus, but it has been tried with animals:

"In animal models such as the development of birdsong in finches, exposing chicks to androgens or aromatisable estrogens during critical windows of development permanently masculinises the female brain so that later exposure of the female to androgens will result in the development of birdsong. In females not so exposed to androgens, the administration of androgen as an adult cannot induce birdsong...A similar situation occurs in rodents where the application of androgens to XX animals can masculinise elements of reproductive behaviour in later life...These hormonal manipulations can only alter behaviour during certain temporal windows in development. Outside these critical periods hormonal exposure has no effect on future behavioural patterns"

(Barrett: 2007: 158)

3. You don't know whether Jenner is XY or not. No one knows what their karyotypes are until they're tested. A recent study showed that mosaicism is far more common than previously imagined.

Furthermore, scientists have found numerous chromosomal differences in transsexuals:

Androgen receptor genes in transsexuals are much longer than those of normal men:

58% of female-born transsexuals have Polycystic Ovary Syndrome:

Another study shows female-born transsexuals to have a significant difference in their sex steroid gene compared to female controls:

4. It used to be understood that "a man" was someone with a flat chest and a penis and "a woman" someone with breasts and a vagina. Now that transsexuals have arrived on the scene, the goalposts have been shifted and "a man" is someone with XY chromosomes and "a woman" XX. So where do XX individuals born with functioning testicles and penises fit into this - are they women? And what about XY individuals born with vaginas who naturally develop breasts as teenagers - should we class them men?

Scientists have now found a way of changing the genetic sex of mice. A single gene has been identified - FOXL2 - which keeps females female. Switch this gene off, and ovaries morph into testes and begin pumping out testosterone. Is a mouse with testes female if it was born with ovaries? If so, how does that fit in with the "genetic sex" standards you're setting? Would we have to move the goalposts again if such technology became available for humans?

5. I am NOT arguing that Jenner is a full woman here. I accept that transsexuals are not women in the same way as, say, Queen Elizabeth II is a woman. But what I am arguing is that transsexualism is not fantasy-based as Remnant claims. Remnant's view that transsexualism "denies biological reality" reminds me of the 1960s view that autism, homosexuality and schizophrenia were all down to "poor parenting" or similar environmental factors and that people with such behaviour could be 'cured' with enough psychotherapy. We now know that autistics don't react to the hormone oxytocin properly, that schizophrenics have faulty dopamine receptors and that homosexuals have a difference in their hypothalamuses in comparison to heterosexuals. This is why no amount of psychotherapy has managed to cure any of the three groups.

Homosexuals, if left alone, can lead completely normal lives - leading to the RCPsych view that homosexuality is in no way a disease. Autistics have shown promising results in experiments with oxytocin therapy, and schizophrenics have a better prognosis with antipsychotic medication. Psychotherapy for any of them is snake oil, seeing as human behaviour is BIOLOGICAL, NOT ENVIRONMENTAL. Transsexuals are the same: psychotherapy has never worked on them and 98% of them carry on living as women until death after they have surgery.

6. You don't have to teach your children that this is normal, any more that you have to teach your kids that autism is normal, because it isn't. SJWs and the left-wing media wants us to accepts all sorts of things, including the idea that Islam is a tolerant, peaceful religion. Hardly anyone accepts that about Islam, but most people still treat Muslims politely. From Jan Morris to Lynn Conway to Joan Roughgarden, transsexuals have demonstrated that they can be productive members of society. Let's just have an "each to his own" attitude to them, seeing as they can no more help the way the pre-natal hormones altered their brains than autistics can help their genetic differences.


Remnant said...


Thanks very much for your thoughtful and data-driven comment. I must admit that when writing what became that post, I was aware, and it was nagging at me, that my post was very qualitative and not backed by data. One might say it was nothing other than "bare assertion"!! But I'm just a commentator on a Blogger blog, and wasn't presenting a peer-reviewed piece of writing...

That said, I am not unaware of the research that has been done into the real phenomenon of intersexuality, although you are certainly more knowledgeable about that area than I am. I don't doubt that physiological intersexuality exists and that -- at the margins -- the possibilities are more complex and nuanced than a clear binary distinction of "man" or "woman", "XY" or "XX". Even if that is the case, from a bigger picture perspective I don't think it really changes what I was trying to express, for a few reasons.

1. At the margins. This is important for several reasons. The phenomenon is at the margins in that there will be very very few true cases of the type of physiological intersexuality you raised. It is the exception, not the rule, and its prevalence and significance should not be overstated. It is also "at the margins" in the sense that, if this exists, it is a pitiable and unenviable condition that should be treated with sympathy and humanity, but not normalized. It is a defect or handicap of sorts. If people are born with cleft lips, or albinism or twelve toes or autism or a mental illness, we sympathize and try to manage it, we don't scream from the rooftops how it is really a wonderful thing to be. The science of all of this should definitely be worked out and should obviously color our views of this. But even then: is this science and analysis relevant to the entire world? A phenomenon that affects some infinitesimal percentage of the human population is mainly of concern to the affected people, their families and -- at some level -- organizations that may need to deal with them. Do we overturn laws and customs of society for an extremely marginal phenomenon? To go back to my polling point, why do average American’s now vastly overestimate a marginal and rare phenomenon? Which leads to my next point.

(end part 1)

Remnant said...

(cont' from part 1)

2. The Jenner promotion going on right now is agenda driven, not science driven. Although it took me a long time to get to the main point in my post, the gravamen of my argument was not whether Jenner is or is not truly intersexual (although I obviously did take a strong position on that question); I was criticizing the media and other agenda-driven molders of social opinion for their unquestioning and overzealous imposition of a certain interpretation of this event on us. They mean to do it not out of their love or understanding of science, but because this is one more propaganda campaign supporting ongoing social transformation of the US into a “social justice” and “cultural Marxist” defined society. While normally what is going on would be a private matter, the fact that Jenner is making it public means the journalists should be researching and questioning it: “Have you had your reaction to smells tested? Have you had your chromosomal composition tested? Have you had your androgen receptors tested? Were you born with any physical indicia of transsexualism or intersexualism?” If there are objective measures that show promise of shedding light on things, shouldn’t those be used to the extent possible. Currently, journalism style guides, including for places such as Wikipedia, appear to require nothing more than the person’s self-identification. Maybe they should consider revising those standards to say that unless tests X, Y and Z have been taken by an individual and make available to us, we will continue to refer to him by his original gender, for example. But it should be clear from the triumphalism and enthusiasm being displayed in all of this (as well as by the viciousness of the SJW enforcers) that this not by any means their concern: They have an agenda and they want to drive. For me, while I will accept that the science may be more complex than most of us realize, it is and will remain an issue of marginal concern, and I don’t want my children indoctrinated in something of this sort.

So while I am generally extremely libertarian about people’s choices and situations that they may be placed in by birth or against their will, in this instance the battle that is being placed before us is not about libertarian choice, it is about totalitarian enforcement. So I don’t think we should be taking a “to each his own” attitude about this. I fully agree with you that we should treat people kindly and politely. But this is not just about how we treat Jenner (I won’t have to deal with him at all); it is about how the media and SJWs are trying to be thought police and Big Brothers with regard to any issue they want control over. To that extent, I think that disinterested, data-driven and objective science advocates such as yourself will end up being used as “useful idiots” by the other side. (And to be clear, I am not at all calling you an idiot. Your comment actually humbled me with the amount of research and analysis you did, as well as the grace and poise with which you delivered it. My post was just an opinion piece, and we know what people say about those.)

Gethin said...

1. Remnant: I'm glad we're able to have a rational debate, even if we don't necessarily agree. I had an argument with an SJW (leading to a tantrum on his part) earlier today, so this is refreshing.

2. One in 200 people are born with an intersex condition and, according to transsexual biology Professor Joan Roughgarden, one in every 2,000 people is a post-operative transsexual. So whilst both intersexuality and transsexualism are rare, they're not *that* rare. Of course I don't think it should be normalised or treated as in any way glamourous - any more than I think Asperger Syndrome should be glamorised (as it has been in films like 'Rain Man'). Transsexuals should be treated discreetly (in a way that actually works - not with snake oil psychotherapy) without a big deal made in the media about them, just as people with bipolar disorder should be. As for laws and customs: laws and customs have never remained static. There are, for example, laws in the UK about how bailiffs must treat pregnant women. This was surely raised in relation to a grievance from the feminists: I doubt the law has always made this provision. Pregnant women are a tiny minority of the population, but that's still not enough of a reason not to make laws that affect just them. The same goes for autistics and many other tiny minorities:

I'm sure I could spend a whole hour digging up examples of how the UK government* has made alterations to the law to meet the needs of immigrants from various countries, or people with extremely rare medical conditions and so on. This brings us on to the concept of "indirect discrimination": is it OK for an employer to ask a devout Catholic to work on a Sunday, or a Muslim to serve alcohol, even though he is asking the same of everyone else? There have been many alterations to the law due to this minority-based concept:

*(I've only visited the U.S. thrice, so apologies if all my examples are UK-based)

Gethin said...

3. I agree with you on this matter. The sudden promotion of transsexualism in the media strikes me as a odd and somewhat dehumanising to the transsexuals. John's assessment of Jenner on the cover of Vanity Fair as being similar to a freak show was spot on. I disagree with you, though, that journalists should be questioning Jenner on her reaction to smells, her androgen receptors, etc - not only because this would be a private medical matter, but also because it would be demeaning. We don't set this standard for anyone else - we don't ask gays to prove that their hypothalamuses are smaller than their straight counterparts, or ask autistics to prove that they have unbalanced excitatory–inhibitory networks before we politely accept their difference. No one asked Stephen Fry to get an MRI scan and publish the results after he came out as having bipolar disorder. For scientists to study the general causes of transsexualism is enough, without (figuratively) putting individual transsexuals under the microscope.

4. The SJWs have always been authoritarian and incapable of rational debate. I was blocked on Facebook earlier today for being "racist" because I criticise Islam. My point about about being critical of all religions went ignored, as did my point of opposing Islam BECAUSE OF its intolerance towards women and sexual minorities. Linking to the Wikipedia page on the Paradox of Tolerance was the final straw: I was immediately blocked. But you shouldn't care about what the barmy SJWs want: like you said, treating everyone kindly is enough. I oppose Islam with every moral fibre in me, but I still respect Muslims IRL and don't say anything against their God/Prophet in front of them. You may not have to deal with Jenner, but what about the transsexuals IRL? The transsexuals you've asked for directions, sat next to on trains, and ordered pizza from have simply never told you that they're transsexual (one in 2,000, remember). It's impossible to be polite to people without having an "each to his own" attitude to them. JS Mill said eccentricity is necessary for a free society so, actually, accepting transsexuals is a libertarian issue. The fact that SJW idiots want us to accept them don't mean we automatically shouldn't. Transsexuals as a group are not harming anyone: they're not the ones dropping bombs or collapsing stock markets or starting forest fires. As long as they lead their own lives in peace, as I know the well-respected Jan Morris does a few miles away from my house, we should ignore them and let them get on with it (this includes not giving them media attention, unless it's for another reason).

Steven said...

If its caused by pre natal hormones, how come most effeminate gay men don't want to be women?

Its too simplistic to say 'human behaviour is biological, not environmental'. Most of the particular activities we engage in, apart from basic functions, depend on the culture we live in and the time we were born. Most of the things we actually do, we were taught to do so when its biological, its also part environmental.

All behavioural and psychological traits are heritable but the heritability scores are not that high for most of them, apart from IQ and schizophrenia. Your genes may make you more likely to become a conservative (.45-.65), for example, but it can still go the other way. In other words, there are identical twins with opposing political views.
Your genes may make you more likely to be conscientious (.49) or agreeableness/aggression (.42) but don't gaurentee you will be that way.

Children who witness domestic abuse will often act out what they have seen when prompted by a reminder or just spontaneously, which wouldn't take place if they hadn't been exposed to it (monkey see, monkey do). We are biologically primed to be behaviorally flexible and capable of learning behaviours, unlike insects which act according to instinct to a much greater extent.

Shared environment (same home) doesn't appear to be that important to these types of traits, but some other things are. For example, I think peers exert quite a lot of influence.

These are the three laws of behavioural genetics:

First Law. All human behavioral traits are heritable.

Second Law. The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes.

Third Law. *A substantial portion* of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is *not accounted for by the effects of genes* or families.

btw I agree that transsexualism is not as fantasy based as Remnant claims. But then I believe in reincarnation (and enlightenment.) I'm outing myself here. I think homeopathy and the astrology in newspapers are nonsense, and I dislike the new age movement, so give me a break.

High Arka said...

What if the corporate media companies are so crafty that your (predictably) critical commentary on this "issue" is among their goals?

What if it's their primary goal?

Steven said...

As skepticism (ie asking yourself why might this not be true and seeking alternative explanations) is an important part of the search for the truth, I asked myself why might the homosexual-pedophile stats not reflect reality. This is all I can come up with:

Is it possible that straight pedophiles get away with it more as they abuse children in their own home?

Is it possible that boys speak out about being abused more than girls?

On the other hand, I also wonder what percentage of gay men were abused as children. We know that people who are abused are more likely to become abusers (even though most don't).

John Craig said...

High Arka --
Sorry for tho slate response, if you see it at all, but that's a really good point. I sometimes wonder if the media hasn't gone so far overboard in an attempt to push people the other way, because they've done a really good job of that.

John Craig said...

Steven --
You're so right about skepticism.

But it's my (unscientific) impression that most pedophiles who molest boys don't do so to their own boys, whereas fathers molesting their own daughters seems to be a more common occurrence.

Don't know about the percentage of gay men abused as children, but I do know that a lot of child molesters were abused themselves, and that if one is abused, the odds of becoming a molester oneself go up (I'm not sure how much).

Steven said...

My idea was that straight pedophiles would have their own children to abuse whereas gay ones, being gay, would have to molest a kid they don't live with...and therefore be more likely to get caught.

As you might ave guessed, I thought I was commenting on the other, relevant, post.

btw I also think of a pedophile as somebody who is attracted to children, defined biologically as pre-pubescent. I could accept it being applied to early puberty as they are more like a child than an adult. Since the law needs to be general and have a cut off point, I'd say up to and including 13. If somebody rapes a 14 year old or above, as terrible as that is, I wouldn't really call it true pedophilia and maybe there should be another name for it. Odds are anybody who does that is attracted to their sexual maturity as much as their youth.

Steven said...

...or maybe even up to and including 12, for elegance, as teenhood is a new phase of life.

John Craig said...

Steven --
True, I guess gays are more likely to get caught.

Yes, the age of consent seems a little arbitrary, agreed. It's 16 in Connecticut, 18 in some of the nearby states.

As far as the definition of "child molesting," I'd go with prepubescent.

Steven said...

I agree totally that's what child molesting means but I guess the law needs an age. The alternative is to get a doctor to determine if puberty has started which is invasive and maybe it hadn't at the time of the abuse. I just looked it up in some legal dictionary and it said:

"Child molestation is a crime involving a range of indecent or sexual activities between an adult and a child, usually under the age of 14." I guess the law agrees with me already. Its just the media tend to use 'pedophile' a bit too inclusively.

Anywayz, the age of consent is 16 in the UK and I've always thought that was about right. 18 definitely seem too old to me.

High Arka said...

Hey John,

The corporate media here is certainly focusing more attention on this than needs be given, even considering that the token being employed is a "celebrity" and is not overweight. Just like the way they selected the Mike Brown/Darren Wilson shooting to promote--rather than one of the occasions of a cop murdering some baby or elderly person during a no-knock raid on the wrong address--they're clearly choosing to sensationalize examples that will polarize different segments of the population against itself.

This smacks of the usual strategy of TWMNBN, doesn't it? Which tells us that, even though the individuals involved may actually be assholes (e.g., Mike Brown or Caitlyn Jenner), the media is choosing such individuals just so as to make people like us draw more punitive conclusions about the chosen outgroups ("blacks" or "transsexuals") than we would otherwise.

We shouldn't let the media control us that way.

John Craig said...

High Arka --
That's an interesting way of looking at it, and certainly plausible. But I think it's more likely that the media gets caught flat-tooted a lot of the time, as with the Michael Brown case. At first there were several witnesses who said that Wilson had shot Brown while Brown was walking away, or had his hands raised. So the media jumped on it; then, of course, the facts gradually started to emerge, and took the media by surprise. Same thing happened with the U of VA rape case, with the Duke lacrosse players, and with a whole lot of other cases, going all the way back to Tawana Brawley. I don't think these were cases of the media PLANNING to make the Lefties look bad, they simply didn't have all of the facts at first.

As far as Jenner goes, I think he's getting more than the usual amount of publicity simply because he was a celebrity, and I also think there are some people in the media who viewed him as an attractive figure before this whole transgender stuff started to come out. After call, he was an Olympic champion, some people thought he was (or at least used to be) good-looking, and he was on TV a lot. Plus I suspect the media types are using him to prove a point, which is that you don't have to be a fey little Bradley Manning or George Jorgensen to want to be the opposite sex; in a roundabout way, having a big "stud" like jenner want to change teams is a blow for the transgenders.

Anyway, all that said, your theory is definitely plausible, and I sometimes wonder about that myself.

High Arka said...

The witnesses who said that Brown had his hands up were obvious bullshitters, and--in theory--the media should be experienced enough to at least discern that such testimony was potentially self-serving. Sure, the dumbass on-the-ground reporters can get fooled, but those people are well-controlled by their editors, who are controlled by producers, which is why we hear so much more about Caitlyn Jenner than [insert actual meaningful news item here].

Besides, they have great testimony from people (even black people) who can talk about SWAT teams flash-banging infants, and they don't jump all over that, either.

They surely do plan opportunistically, though. It's not that they hired Darren Wilson, but rather, that they had protocol in place to handle "white cop shoots black criminal" or "famous non-obese person wants sex change" and the machinery sprang into motion at the right time. The question is, why did they design the machinery to work in that particular way?

John Craig said...

High Arka --
(You'll have to tell me what that name signifies.)

Well, I can be paranoid, but you've got me beat. It would indeed be a diabolical conspiracy if the media operated in such a way as to turn people against them. I generally just don't thin that most people win the media are as capable and had as much foresight as you suggest. And given all those polls which show that 90% of reporters vote Democrat, and given the free pass they give Obama and HOlder on their obvious hypocrisies, and given the way they sweep black on white crime under the rug, I don't think the way they report on certain things -- like Jenner or Ferguson -- is a calculated effort to push people in the opposite direction.

I'm not saying you couldn't be right, just that it seems like a remote possibility.

I think part of the reason that South Carolina, for instance, did not become a national issue is because that cop was immediately clapped in jail. It's the cases where the libs might not get their satisfaction that they clamor about.

High Arka said...

You're certainly correct that the Democrat-voting reporters don't have that level of capability or foresight! I wouldn't be so silly as to accuse them of operating such a conspiracy. They probably genuinely believe that what they're doing is reporting news, and are simply guided in doing so by their own personal outlooks.

The conspiracy I'd suggest is that the very small number of individuals who actually exercise direct financial control (paychecks, health coverage, professional future of any kind) over all those hundreds of thousands of talking heads and cameramen, are the ones who are able to encourage certain agendas. As you'll know if you've ever worked in an office or retail establishment, it's very easy for a single important person to completely alter the entire tone of a workplace, from what kind and in what way products and services are offered, right down to the level of how happy or gloomy people are in the breakroom.

SJWs will never "get their satisfaction," because they always need some windmill to be tilting against. The tiny number of media controllers in the world could, any day of the week, select from among millions of examples of "discrimination" or "empowerment" to focus on, and as a result, dozens of millions of people worldwide would begin independently tweeting and blogging about whichever example(s) was picked, believing that they were exercising free and independent thought in so doing. That's a phenomenal amount of power held by TWMNBN, and look at the ways it's directed: keeping average western citizens celebrating celebrities or fighting over this or that semi-legitimate issue, while we continue spending money to bomb some new Crapistan and build some new prison.

John Craig said...

High Arka --
I meant to ask last time, what is TWMNBN?

I think I see what you're getting at. The people at the very top in the media employ their "useful idiots" to keep the populace distracted with what amounts to bread and circuses while they pursue their agenda of keeping the world safe for Israel and consolidating their power. Is that what you're saying?

And meanwhile, I'm one more useful idiot responding the way they actually want, by making noise about these distractions?

Hmm. It's certainly possible.

High Arka said...

"TWMNBN" is short for "They Who Must Not Be Named."

You're not necessarily a useful idiot--that's up to you. After all, I'm responding to your response to the media's response, so in that regard, I'm even worse than you.

The goal for us, when we respond to these things, should be to do more than be critical in the way they expect. Their taking notice of particular incidents is clearly designed to elicit certain reactions: e.g., to foster animosity between various Outer Party/Prole groups.

To use just one random example, the Mossad does this in the occupied territories, using assassinations and bribes to turn various Palestinian factions against one another. That doesn't mean that various Palestinian factions/individuals aren't actually assholes or deserve contempt. A broader set of questions, though, is, "What brings this assholery to light" and "what causes this assholery to directly and negatively affect my life"?

It's easy, right now, to respond to all of the corporate media's news--and what facts the independent media and blogs are able to gather via their own research (into news and government databases created by the very same people as those who run, e.g., the Fed and the B.I.S.)--by becoming really angry at black people, gay people, transsexual people, Jewish people, etc.

And in many cases, that anger might be justified. There are certainly a lot of jerks out there (and groups of jerks) taking self-interested actions that steal from others, hurt others, etc.

What we ultimately find from studying the ways the media creates certain narratives and conflicts, though, is that these collective-punishment issues can fall on any sub-group, and that encouragements toward group-based anger/judgment is a way of concealing the fact that evil people can and do take on any guise that suits them.

For example, Michelle Obama is black, but she's able to be responsible, crafty, future-time-oriented, well-spoken, and manage her money well. Some actual Jewish people were killed by the Third Reich, and some Christian Dominionists in the military are 100%-pure WASP-blooded, and yet completely devoted to Israel and Mammon. Some black people utterly loathe the way that Barack Obama and Al Sharpton use lies about racial identity to exploit social conflict for profit. Some homosexuals and transsexuals are utterly disgusted by the way that their private sexual choices have become equated with narcissistic assholes who want to interfere in everyone else's business.

High Arka said...

(cut for length)

There is certainly a variable out there that ties all these things together. There is certainly coordination, and genetic similarities, between members of various groups. Far more important than all of that, though--as far as the massive flows of international political power work in our world--is some other factor. A factor that allows people of every possible genetic or sexual combination to work together creating this vile and constant global system of tax farming, thought control, and war.

Endemic black-on-white violence, a criminal welfare state, and the crippling of generations' worth of children's minds by exorbitantly selfish and mutilated adult sexual fantasies are all horrific acts. But they were all planned to be that way. They would not be that way absent some manner of intelligent design--a design that surpasses several generations, at least. The people who produced, staged, and directed these things did so precisely to channel your anger against other groups, who are in turn being taught (and who have been taught, over the past several decades) to channel their own anger against you. Those people, and the variable that unites them, are far greater enemies than the temporary baddies they have set you up against.

Please don't stop critiquing the many embarrassments of this age of humanity. In so doing, though, don't allow yourself to forget that these problems would not exist absent careful scripting.

John Craig said...

High Arka --
Aha, TWMNBN, got it.

I think that at organizations AIPAC, B'nai Brith, the ADL, and so on, they think purely in terms of, "is it good for the Jews?" And I think that a lot of government advisers have more loyalty to Israel than to the US -- I'm talking about all the people who pushed Bush to get us into the Iraq War. And I think that at the highest levels of the media -- the people who run the major networks, newspapers, etc -- they feel the world is a safer place for them if they keep white Christians on the defensive. But I don't think that they actually pick poor instances of white-on-black racism and publicize those on purpose to keep the white populace riled up. I honestly think that's an accidental side effect. They want whites docile and guilty and voiceless. I think in their eagerness to find instances of white-on-black violence they've jumped the gun too many times, and that's why we end up with Michael Brown situations getting too much publicity.