Soledad O'Brien: The Diversity Triple Threat of Cable News

Since diversity is now legally mandated in every sector of America life and enforced via hefty discrimination and dispirate impact lawsuites from racial grievance rackets like the SPLC and/or the Justice Department (which have become indistuishable in the last year) every company, its plain to see, has their own token minority employees in legion. You'll notice how rare it is to see black criminals on crime sitcoms and films. For instance from Steve Sailer:

Blacks were 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2002.

One of my readers recently pointed out that with non-Hispanic whites accounting for only about ten percent of the violent crime in New York City, the three Law & Order television shows were likely to feature more fictional white New York murderers in 2005 than there will be actual white murderers in real life!

Another reader pointed out:

"In the first 24 episodes of Law & Order: Criminal Intent there's only one black murderer, and she is a corrupt police officer. Make of that what you will…"

You'll notice how disportionatly blacks are anchormen and salesmen in the Obama era aswell. The reason that Chase bank and Chilli's all want a black guy selling their product in ad's is to quell potential Jack Jackson's from exhorting them for not having "enough" black employees. When the head of Google recently testified infront of the Senate, Sheila Jackson, the embarssingly ghetto black and proud senator from California used her time to reprsent her constiuents by asking,

"How many black employees does Google have?"

Well, CNN, FOX, MSNBC are all under the same threat of exhortation and to varying degrees work to avoid the R word by clearly having on regular black guests and, in the liberal cable news channels case more ofcourse, having a huge amount of black and hispanic and non-white, non-male anchors and reports. I can only recall 1 or 2 white male anchors at CNN. But more importantly take two constant commentators on FOX and MSNBC: Washington Post black colmunist Eugene Robinson on MSNBC and NPR's Juan Williams on FOX. Both Williams and Robinson hardly have never uttered anything orginal or intresting and are clearly products of affirmtive action for to go by merit cable news on the left and right would be all-white as far as commentators are concerned.

Among the most obvious affirmtive action babys as anchors and reporters are Gwen Iffel and Soledad O'Brien. Soladad is the queen of diversity in media bullshit affirmtive action or should I say diva? She is really hot, and not very bright thats not unique among cable news anchor women but what makes this airhead special is her de facto current position at CNN. Basically, CNN decided that rather than hire 1 black male affirmtive action reporter hire, 1 black female affirmtive action hire, 1 latino male hire, 1 latino female hire they would get multi-racial Soledad to play black and latino at once and make terrible PC documentrarys for CNN called "Black in America" and "Latino in America" (the latter of which didn't even try to hide its pro-amnesty agenda) both which no one in America including blacks and latinos wanted to watch. Soladad apparently had her own show once on CNN but it did so bad they had to delegate her to "making" 2 documentarys a year. Vdare.com's Joe Guzzardi writes brillantly about Soledad below:

O’Brien, who is half Cuban black, half Australian Irish, has gathered many boring conventional awards, including one named after herself: the “Soledad O'Brien Freedom's Voice Award” from the Morehouse School of Medicine for being a “catalyst for social change”.

But, because the competition is stiffer, ours is harder to win—and therefore more prestigious.

I note that the “O’Brien Award” given to O’Brien is significant because, as you will soon learn, she’s in love with herself.

O’Brien has also been included twice in Irish America Magazine’s list of top 100 Irish Americans—as well as on Black Enterprise’s hottest list!

Newsweek featured O’Brien on a cover story and named her as one of the “15 People Who Make America Great”.

Therein lies the secret of O’Brien’s success. No matter what the assignment O’Brien, ethnically speaking, is the right reporter for the job.

When CNN wants a black to interview Michelle Obama, the Hurricane Katrina displaced, or Haiti’s victims, there’s O’Brien posing as a black. (See O’Brien with Obama, her “passion for justice” for New Orleans’ residents displaced by Katrina and the Haitian orphan victims here, here and here. More evidence: in this interview discussing another of her documentaries, “Black in America”, O’Brien identifies herself as black.)

However, if CNN decides that it would be a good idea to run a documentary about being “Latino in America”, they can call on O’Brien, a self described Latina. (Here, among a Hispanic audience, O’Brien reconfirms that description.)

When a highfalutin’ organization needs an ethnically all-purpose speaker, O’Brien is their girl. Her appointment calendar is booked solid because she’s everything all rolled up into one: female, African-American, Hispanic and Irish.

For example, last year on November 10th O’ Brien travelled to Yale University as the guest of the Poynter Fellowship in Journalism to present her speech agonizingly titled “Diversity in the Media: Behind the Scenes & in Our Lives”.

Chances are good that O’Brien used the same notes from her October 28th speech at St. Joseph’s University: “Diversity on TV, Behind the Scenes and in our Lives”.

Or perhaps O’Brien rehashed her January speech given at Duke University, “Black in America: African Americans in the Last Forty Years”. (Watch here.)

Before I launch into why O’Brien won this year, a little biographical information will help you understand why my choice is an easy one.

O’Brien never misses a chance to literally cash in by referring to herself by her complete name, María de la Soledad Teresa O'Brien.

Although she doesn’t speak Spanish, this gives O’Brien an excellent opportunity to define herself as a multicultural maven who’s perfect for CNN or any other mainstream media outlet. Maybe if she looks back far enough in her genealogical tree, she’ll find Asian ancestors!

Against all evidence, O’Brien stretches to make a point of her black/Latina roots. In an interview for her official CNN biography, O’Brien states that she has: “a mass of kinky hair, light brown skin and lots of freckles”.

Photographs of O’Brien do not support her claim. In this ethnically ambiguous photo I see a traditional hairstyle, no freckles and either light brown skin or too much make up.

Now to my topic: During her seven year CNN career and before that at NBC, O’Brien has been consistently terrible on immigration and race.

What iced our award for O’Brien is her two-part documentary, “Latino in America”, which bombed in the ratings and had the curious effect of angering everyone including some Latinos. Her 2007 documentary, “Black in America”, also raised the ire of many blacks.

Defending “Latino in America”, O’Brien tries to make the case that she represents a “voice for the voiceless”.

This position is patently absurd. Anyone who follows immigration knows that immigration reform patriots are the voiceless ones, to the point that the media regularly censors us.

The immigrant story is told repeatedly in the most sympathetic terms on CNN or in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and other major dailies.

What the CNN documentary does, apparently without O’Brien catching the irony, is emphasize why illegal immigration does not—as she would have you believe—make the case for diversity but instead exacerbates the problems of multiculturalism.

One of O’Brien’s subjects is Francisca Abreau, a Dominican high school student apparently in the U.S. illegally, who when pregnant at 14, contemplated suicide. Then, after Abreau gave birth to her anchor baby daughter Destiny (!!!), she received therapy for her continued identity struggles.

Here’s what I take from Abreau’s story: at taxpayer’s expense she took up a seat in a New York classroom, delivered a baby and underwent costly psychological treatments. In the light of my twenty-five years in the California public school system, I would place Francisca’s odds for success as an adult at near zero.

In another segment, O’Brien featured Tucson illegal alien activist Isabel Garcia, who during an open borders rally beheaded a pinata that resembled Sheriff Joe Arpaio. (See it here.) Garcia (email her) defended it as free speech.

One of the interesting things about O’Brien is that for as much time as she spends defining herself as black or Latino, she never refers to herself as American—even though she is American-born, raised in Long Island in comfortable, middle class surroundings.

When O’Brien discussed the conceptual evolution of Latino in America, she said that she was approached by many ethnic groups urging a special on Asian in America, Gay in America, and Muslim in America. But O’Brien never mentioned what would be the most interesting of all: White in America. At least one black viewer agrees.

O’Brien is sharp enough to realize that the multicultural angle works for her. She’s parlayed it into a fat salary and inflated speaking fees. Moreover, she’s married to an investment banker and lives the high life in Manhattan.

Her ethnic roots, whatever they may be, have paid O’Brien rich rewards.

Along with her five siblings, O’Brien is a Harvard graduate. However, she didn’t learn much.

During her recent appearance on Celebrity Jeopardy, she came in last and finished behind basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (UCLA).

The final jeopardy question that O’Brien couldn’t answer: “Trees with biblical names include the Joshua tree and the world’s oldest tree, a 4,700-year old pine named for him. What is it?” O’Brien’s reply: “Who is Moses?” (Correct answer: “Who was Methuselah?”)

O’Brien’s excuse: the buzzer is hard to operate.

Along with her complete failure to report honestly about immigration, I deducted points for O’Brien’s smug attitude and grating voice, a big minus for a television anchor. (Watch her talk about Spike Lee here.)

Finally, O’Brien is not only a phony but flat out just not a nice person!

In a non-journalism related incident, last year O’Brien signed an eviction notice for her co-op neighbor because she did not like his dog!

According to O’Brien, a Neapolitan Mastiff in her building offended her because of its "size, slobbering, shedding, drooling, gassiness and odors".

Luckily for Ugo and his owners, the judge threw O’Brien’s case out.

Gerald Ford: Not Who You Thought He Was

In reading Jeffrey Toobin's over-rated book on the Supreme Court, "The Nine" (which essentially argues that liberal judges are in the real tradition of the Founders), I was suprised to discover that Gerald Ford had come out as a vocal defender of Michigan Unviersity's system of massive racial preferences during the bro-ha-ha over Grutter v. Bollinger, the Michigan Unviersity Affirmtive Action case. But even more eyebrow raising was this quote from a New York Times Op-Ed former President Ford penned entitled, "Inclusive America: Under Attack",

"A pair of lawsuites would prohibit Michigan and other unviersitys from even considering race as one of many other factors weighed by admision counslers such a move would condemn future college students to suffer the cultural and social impoverishment that inflicted my generation"

Perhaps I was wrong to affix this kind of liberalism to only those under 65 years of age. Ford is dead ofcourse. I thought his generation, that of the WW2, was proud of themselves and there nation and there culture. I didn't know they scorned the wholesome, united social and cultural atomsphere of the 1940's as "cultural and social impoverishment" inflicting them? If only Gerald Ford had turned on a TV in the last 20 years of his life and seen what a rap video is he probably wouldn't have written such nonsence. So according to Ford, we should scorn and throw away the culture of the American army on D-Day in favor of the American culture of 2009 when the chart topping refrain on the radios of the nation is "Move Bitch, Get Out the Way!"? Hmm.
This is a phenmonon in Modern America. Those who have spent little to no time in a black ghetto, never seen a hip hop video, never gone to school with African Americans in signfigant numbers, and who have, overall, the least knowledge of black or latino ghetto culture are consitantly the very ones speaking about how they know that increased spread of latino & black ghetto culture is not just good but "essential" at any Unviersity and know that Michigan Univiersity student will sufferer tremendously in the absence of black and latino culture on their campus. These people who have spent the least time in the black or latino communitys and who have the least knowledge of either, have the highest opinion of both and claim for a fact that the academic underachievment, chronically high rates of violence, crime, illegitimacy and poverty among both latinos and blacks in America is the result of white racism & white oppression.
However, those white people who actually know black hip hop culture, who actually know blacks and latinos, go to school with them, work with them, live in the same neigborhoods, have a radically different more modest view of blacks and how much they "deserve" the racial preferences that Ford supports. Those whites that have the most exsperience with and knoweldge of black Americans have a much less grandiously positive view of the African American community compared to those whites like Gerald Ford who have virtually zero familiarity with the black community that Ford claims he was deprived of as a young man at Michigan Unviersity. Those whites who actually know and live with or around black culture do not complaim like Gerald Ford about the lack of it (especially at the places they send there children). They don't rejoice it the fact that there kids who go to the diverse schools Ford loves, schools that are 60 or 80 or 90 percent African American and latino. No, they want, more than anything, to send there kids to the least "diverse" schools possible, the whitest, most asian schools. They don't think there kids are suffering from any lack of black aka hip hop culture (which is the exact kind of "diversity" Ford is writing about whether he knows it or not). To the contrary, the parents of white children who have real knowledge of black (and latino hip hop) culture, who live in mostly minority neigborhoods, think there children are suffering from the presence of viscerally anti-academic black/hip hop culture, which Ford thinks Unviersitys must have as much as possible of.

"American Orginal: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia" & Liberal Jurisprudence

I've been reading the more intresting sections of Joan Biskupic's biography of Antonin Scalia and the chapter focused on race related cases prompted ever-more realizations of the multi-faceted stupidity and fallacies of liberal jurisprudence when it comes to dispirate impact and racial preferences. Biskupic writes,

1. "some critics argued, he was abandoning the core responcibility of courts in America because the neutral rules he advocated could not bring about racial equality."

The "responcbility of courts in America" i thought was to go by the Constuinency not by what they would like the Law to be? So to liberal judges there job as judges in cases relating to race is to help "bring about racial equality", thats the Courts rule in this nation apparently according to them. Forget that racial exact equality will never be achieved if not by force, is achieving "racial equality" what the Founders said the Courts had to do? Is it our founding document? No.

2. In the book's "Dilemmas of Race" chapter a lawyer arguing for racial perference infront of the Supreme Court is questioned by Scalia who asks for the lawyer to provide a legal basis for the practise of nati-white discrimination he was arguing for. The liberal lawyer responds, "Segregation is harmful. Intergration...has benefits."

Isn't it funny how liberal jurists talk about "segragation" as if black Americans are constantly trying to integrate socially, culturally, georgraphically, etc. with white Americans and white Americans refuse. It's completely unreal. Blacks and whites are, segragated by there own will. Why is it the Supreme Court's business or duty or domaine to act in order to bridge gaps between racial groups or to create diverse enviorments. They can try to do that as private citizens if they love diversity but not as Jurists. Let's be frank, whites and blacks watch different TV, different movies, they dance differently, they eat different food at different places, they watch different amounts of TV, they play and watch different sports, they live in different neigborhoods, sit at different lunch tables, etc. All with little variation usually. But lets remember that this by whites and blacks choise. Whites don't force African Americans to be the biggest demographic for TV shows like "Molesha" and "Sista, Sista".

3. In the famous Michigan affirmtive action case in the early Bush years, you will remember the nation learned that the Michigan Unviersity point system accorded a applicant more points for being black than the points tsudents received for being a honor student a all state athelete and the editor of the school paper.
And why did they side with Michigan because they said creating a "diverse student body" was not just a plus in Michigans view but a essential need of Michigan to be adequete school. This is the claim that racial diversity is "essential" to a Unvieristy being excellent. Because if only 2 black girls are in a Algebra class how can the students in that class adequetly learn Algebra, right? Sure......

My conclusion is once again, that we don't have a Constuition so long as the left controls or neutralizes the Conservatives from actually following the Constuition. I don't know why so few conservatives have the gusto or balls to just say that liberals don't give a damn for our founding document. I mean, Brown v. Board of Education is simply unconstuitionial, so is Sotomayor's descion in the Ricci case. Like Scalia once remarked, "The Jurist that looks away from the Constuition invetiably looks into himself for their ruling." And with Sonya Sotomayor and Charles Ogletree, looking into one's self for a ruling means judging cases by your racial prejudice against white people as we see in boths records. Sotomayor had no true judicial philosphy, she didn't always ignore the Constuition as a Apellate judge i'm sure. But when it came to those important issues, when cases dealt with issues of race, Sotomayor let her race do her jurisprudence. Her jurisprudence on issues like dispirate impact and anti-white legal discrimination, Sotomayor could care less about judicial precedent or the Constuition, she just wanted to stick her finger in the eye of the Gringo every chance she got.

Californian Warning: The Perils of Diversity in Democracies

The fact that California is falling apart at the seems and so deep in debt that its now pleading for a federal bailout, should be taken as a warning of the perils of allowing our southern border to be over run by millions of Mexicans who, our own goverment goes out of it's way to give free welfare money to (not to mention free education, scholarships, health care & public services). Its not just perilous to our debt and to bankrupted hospitals but to our very democracy. Democracy cannot work if a large chunk of it's participants hold allegiances to another country entirely. The electrate at the mininum has to share some general intrest in the prosperity of America as opposed to, say, Peru or Somalia. For instance, in California everyone knows the obvious solution to the debt crisis, namely stop giving illegal immigrants trillions of tax payer money. Why don't they do it? Why does Arnold Schwarzenegger (the Micheal Bloomberg of California), pretend and the whole state assembly pretend they cant save any money or make any more cuts? Because California is now over half latino & to tell the truth is poltical sucide because half the population are Mexicans who could give a damn about America's debt as long as they and there illegal immigrant brothers and sisters get there spoils.

It's obvious latinos, as a whole, are competly indifferent to the plight of non-latino Americans. They look out for there own. Are you to tell me the reason LA RAZA is the only group advocating for exsplicit non-emergency free goverment funding health care for 20 million illegals is because they think that it would be bad for America if 20 million illegals couldn't get free surgerys and aderall presciptions on the tab of the American tax payer? No, the reason latino groups are always the ones standing up to protest efforts to enforce our immigration laws, to use e-verify to make sure illegals aren't taking Americans jobs, is that latino groups and latino polticians are looking out for latinos not Americans. How will amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants at a time when almost 20 million Americans are unemployed be good for America? I have yet to get one liberal to answer that question. But i can tell you how amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants will be good for 20 million illegal immigrants. That's easy.


This is all fucking obvious, any honest, rational person can see the truth about LA RAZA and latino-Americans, in general. There not bad people, there not inferiour. No, there simply disloyal to America. If you need even more evidence of what is right before our eyes, then i direct you to the slew of polls and studies that all show the same disloyality of Mexican-Americans time and time again. Ofcourse, i should make something of a exception for Cubans.

And the fact that we can't call it like it is, the fact that we cannot say what has been shown to be true about Mexican immigrants will be the downfall of this nation. In effect, the poltically correct police will not allow any person of promience to even identify the threat of immigration. We are not allowed to even warn the public of the consquences of open borders and mass immigration and inturn ofcourse the public will not pay attention.

Sex and Terrorism: a love affair

Sometimes the truth is right under are noses. Today it is more than ever. The truth about what motivates islamic terrorism (and terrorism in general) is as everyday and familiar and, indeed, unviersal as catching a cold and yet most are oblivious to it entirely.

If you want to know this sad truth that is the ultimate driving force behind acts of Islamic terror take a look at the following courtesy of John Dernyshire,

"Pittsburgh computer techie George Sodini shooting up an aerobics class at his local gym. Three women died and at least ten others were wounded. Then Sodini shot himself. He left behind web diaries in which he wailed about his utter lack of success with women. He hadn't had a proper relationship since 1984, and hadn't had any sex at all since 1990. This is pretty baffling stuff. I think most of us assume that no matter how unsightly you are or how quirky your personality, there is someone out there to suit you. Sodini was not in fact unsightly. He was good-looking and kept himself in shape. His personality was a bit peculiar, but well within the range of everyday oddity for all anyone could see, and to judge from the video tour of his house you can see on the internet. He really tried to connect with women, even attending a dating course."

Yes, indeed, as with so many other issues, sex and the lack of it, is at the heart of islamic terrorism. I've suspected this for a while and known it to be true far longer. Perhaps women won't get this point as quickly as men will for lack of testrone. But ladies, you must understand, as many of you do understand i'm sure, how easily a man, these days, can come to hate women to such a degree that they feel compelled to shot up a arobics class full of innocent members of your gentle sex to death.
You see out of need springs hate. Men hate women, to varying degrees, cause they need women and they hate that they need creatures they find while attractive, to be at the same time so often, so dumb, so shallow, and so annoying (to them not me ofcourse). Ofcourse this level of irratation with the more, let us say, garish charcterstics of the modern liberated American women is usually a product of a man who finds his desire for women woefully unrescpricated. Mr. Sodini certainly found his own desire for the fairer sex unrecipocrated to a excruciating extent.


But this is just one type of male/muslim male susciptible to the siren song of Bin Ladenism and terrorism. It is always, the lonely sexually frustrated muslim alone in America that goes loco and shoots up a arobics class of middle aged women. That kind of jihadist is home grown in western societys like Major Hasan and the English 7/7 bombers, but the type of muslim that comes from the mid-east to do there deed like the 9/11 hijackers are a different breed of enraged muslim. This other breed is inspired by sex in another less immediately direct way. This lot of foreign born islamic terrorists quite have a content family life. They often have a wife and might have not just one but 7 wives as in the case of Osama Bin Laden and usually have quite a few children too. While like most muslims who've grown up in middle eastern nations, they may not have had that much interaction let alone sexual intimacy with women before marriage and maybe not much after they usally aren't in most cases, very sexually frustrated persons. There rage at the west derives from a fear of female liberation (which however moral is a somewhat rational fear). If the Sodini home-grown terrorists are motivated by pessmism and depression. Anti-Americanism in the middle-east is not so much hatred as it is simple fear or atleast animosity fueled by fear.

Muslim fathers in the middle east, quite understandably, can develope a keen hatred for the west in fear of there daughters becoming slutty, amoral, Paris Hilton's through the corrupt influence of MTV and the rest of feminized, decadent western media. They hate and fear the image of the Paris Hilton females of the west, strutting around in there slutty lust-inducing clothes, shopping on there fathers tab and dominanting weak-chinned, feminized males who they've have tied around there feminine fingers.

If there is one person muslims scorn and fear, it is not evangelical Christian, George W. Bush, or othodox jewish neo-con's like Norman Podhoretz, but the liberal Paris Hilton and the even more liberal, Betty Friedan-the twin symbols of "female liberation" and modern female sluttery. I've long been pointing out (as a critic of both the Afgan and Iraqi war) that muslims do turn to anti-western jihadism because of American tanks rolling into Bagdad but because of television Sattelite beeming MTV into there daughters bedroom. Even if America, as i hope, would withdrawl all it's tentacles from the world jihadism would keep on apace for the American 5th infantry division of the US army but is supported by MTV.
The United States has never intervened in Yemen, so why are so many major radical Imams coming out of Yemen? Because they do not fear American bombs falling on there heads but they do American hedonism and feminism entering there culture, there daily lives, there customs, there family lives and destroying it all for them. They don't fear there daughters being bombed by an American jet aircraft, the fear there daughter becoming a rebellious, atheist, "western slut" after she gets a taste of American culture.

This is why i laugh when i hear liberals going on talking about how the existence of Gauntnamo Bay is causing Muslims to turn to anti-American jihadism. Look, our wars in Afganistan and Iraq i won't deny have added to anomsity towards America (though i think that won't be true once we leave) but Gitmo, Iraq, Afganistan, even the Abu Grahib scandal all in the long run add neglibly to the likelihood of another Fort Hood shooting.

Our occupation of Iraq, the waterboarding of KSM, all these things are all low hanging fruit for a jihadist terrorist looking for excuses/justfications for why they shot up a arobics class or blew up a building. Take Mr. Sodini, the shooter of innocent women in a arobics class, is he going to say or write in the note he leaves for the police when they raid his apartment that he did what he did because he couldn't get laid? or because he hates uppity wetsern "liberated" womenhood in there corrupty clothes? No, that would be too embarsing. He would be laughed at by the whole country the one time he gets his face on the front page of the New York Times. So these terrorists leave sucide notes mentioning Israel and Gauntanmo Bay and all the rest instead.

This is pretty basic human nature and yet, seemingly, no one mentions sexual frustration as a driving cause of jihadist terrorism (or terrorism altogether) out of embarsment or cowardice or lack of creative anylatical skills to be sure.

As i said earlier, sex is at the bottom of issues outside terrorism. In fact, with many issues, true understanding of the issue at hand is, incomplete, without understanding the sex factor. What if you were wondering why Japan (like China), for instance, is so homegenous and takes in hardly any immigrants? Most people would come up with some boiler plate exsplanation about "Japanese tradition". Surely, a large part of the exsplanation is rather unsayable, which i would adduce to be Japanese fears of sexual inadquecy. Japanese men and asian males, in agreggate, have surely noticed to there discomfort, the trend in America, for example, for asian women to defect from the race, and marry and date non-asian typically white males. This fact about female Asian preferences has created a great many bitter asian guys hence the name of the popular blog BitterAsianGuy.com. Thus the Japanese, not wanting there women to stray, have logically decided not to, say, import tens of millions of non-asian men into there country who may potentially "steal" a gross number of "there women". Why take the risk of new sexual compietors? Makes sence right? But as is obvious to say this in public would be completly out of the question and would probably offend or atleast make any asian males present extremly uncomfartable. Yet another akward though nonetheless truth point about matters related to race.

But even this point about asian and sex is not at all seperate from the discussion of terrorism. One of the most famous home grown American terrorist was 23-years old, Cho Seung-Hui the Virginia Tech student who murdered 33 and injured 50 on his rampage on the Virgina Tech campus back in 2007.

What was the motivating cause of the korean immigrant, Seung-Hui's massacre? Sex-once again.

As came out after the Virgina Tech massacre ,Cho Seung-Hui, was isolated, alien to his surroundings and his non-Korean piers and most of all, chronically sexually or atleast "romantically" frustrated. He had gotten in trouble earlier at Virgina Tech for stalking a girl he was infutiated with, following her around, calling her until she went to the campus faclulty for help getting the creepy Seung-Hui of her back. And then months later Cho Seung-Hui loses it, but loses it with gun aimed at his fellow students.

Lest you not see the obvious implications, this says something about the problematic nature of diversity. Young men and men will always be insecure and at times, sexually discontent anyplace, anytime-no matter what. It's merely human nature. But to be a stranger in a strange and/or foreign land can compound the fatalism of young man down on his with the ladies to a terrible even, as we see, dangerous degree. It must be tough on asians, for instance, in America to watch TV when almost all the faces on the screen don't look like theres. To be, at times, looked in a different way. To be, wheather perceived or truelly, treated in a different way. To be a ethnic "outsider". In case one ascribes these things that can make one feel like an outsider to "racism", note that these things are all naturely part of the exsperiences of any person who finds themselves living in a nation where they belong to a very small minority of the population.

If Cho Seung-Hui had grown up in his native Korea rather than come to America the chance are that he would not have become a school shooter. Chances are that Cho Seung-Hui might well have felt the same social alienation and sexual dissapointment that meet him in America but chances are that those ubiqtous adlocents annoyances wouldn't have blommosed into murdeous rage. But his loneliness was obvilously compunded by being a Korean in America as was true Mr. Sodini and is was true with Major Hasan the most recent domestic terrorist to kill innocent people in America.

The reason you don't have white Americans committing as much acts of terror is among other reasons, mainly the result of them being in "there own" society vacinatted against the variety of rage and alienation that so easily plagues non-white foreigners and immigrants in America like Hasan and Cho Seung-Hui.

I'll guess i'll just put this down as no. 76 in my endlessly ong-going list of reasons why diversity is nothing to be desired(and don't need more mass immigration). But then again, nothing outside "increasing threats posed to our national security by our open borders" seems to be allowed to be mention as to what the downsides of mass immgration are.

I can happily and honestly say for the first time, that this post here at my up n' coming blog America Departed is something you really really won't get anywhere else.

Allow to end this incredibly insightful lesson in the causes of jihadist terrorism by proscribing a policy solution. It's quite simply:

The way to decrease the risk of producing the next home grown Major. Hasan or Cho Seung-Hui is not to invade the world or "engage" with the middle east there gasy Obama-esque rhetoric about Islam as a religoun of "peace", but to legalize prostitution. If hookers where more readily available to the next would-be domestic terrorist he might put down the 44. magnum and pick a magnum condom.