San Bernardino Shooting: Political Correctness Kills

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke12/4/15
There was a tragic incident of climate change Wednesday, or so Barack Obama might say. As I was driving home that evening listening to the still sparse details on the San Bernardino shooting, the news report informed that there were two dead suspects, a man and woman. So I already knew more than the authorities were telling: I figured the two assailants were non-white, almost certainly Muslim. After all, if the police knew their sexes, they knew what they looked like. And if they’d been white, it would have been announced right away.

You see, I know the drill. When the suspects are non-white, politically correct authorities will never mention it for fear of condemnation. “Why are you calling attention to their race or ethnicity?!” they’ll be asked. Of course, they didn’t mind calling attention to their sex. In the leftist upside-down world, all characteristics are equal, but some are more equal than others. Really, the more consistently PC way of describing the terrorists would have been as “two sentient bipeds.” Because, you know, four legs good, two legs bad.

Then there’s the following, from CBS Los Angeles:

A man who has been working in the [Redlands] area [of terrorist Syed Farook’s home] said he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people.

“We sat around lunch thinking, ‘What were they doing around the neighborhood?’” he said.  “We’d see them leave where they’re raiding the apartment.”

Does it occur to this man that, in a way, he has blood on his hands? We don’t have to ask if it occurs to the media, academia and entertainment culture-killers who conditioned him to be politically correct that they also have blood on theirs. They probably blame the San Bernardino (SB) climate-change incident on white microaggressions.

It’s not that liberals don’t engage in profiling; it’s just that they do it all wrong. MSNBC wasted no time profiling the terrorists as possible pro-lifers, pointing out that a Planned Butcherhood facility was “just a few blocks away.” And recently, liberal senator Sherrod Brown averred that white males were a bigger threat to America than Muslim jihadists (this may be true about white males such as Sherrod Brown).

Downtown Brown was, of course, talking about mass shootings such as Columbine and Sandy Hook. He completely ignored that such incidents aren’t classified as terrorism for the simple reason that they’re not terrorism; they’re not generally perpetrated in the name of a cause but are the work of deranged minds. But no matter. The whole point is based on a lie to begin with.

As I reported last year using statistical analysis, it is a myth that an inordinate percentage of mass shooters are white.

In reality, mass shooters’ racial and ethnic backgrounds (insofar as major groups go) reflect the demographics of the overall U.S. population almost perfectly; the only exception is Asians, who, interestingly, are somewhat overrepresented. But, hey, the media have their narrative. And they’re stickin’ to it.

“Narrative,” you may note, was once used mainly in reference to fiction. I suppose it still is. And perhaps that’s a better name for our Teleprompter-reading “reporters”: narrators.

This brings us to the other Teleprompter reader, our Narrator in Chief. Obama called for gun control soon after news of the SB shooting broke, when what’s really needed is immigration control. But then Mr. Hussein couldn’t import any more refujihadis (hat tip: an American Thinker reader), who we know for a fact are coming in with the Mideastern Muslim migrants because the latter cannot be vetted. But, you know, eggs and omelets.

Obama never feels constrained by facts, but he probably assumed that, whoever the SB assailants were and whatever their motives, the guns just had a mind of their own. Perhaps he ought to recruit Little Lord Fauntleroy’s recessive-gene twin, Piers Morgan, to tell us how much lower gun-control poster boy Britain’s murder rate is than ours. Except that New Hampshire — with a higher gun-ownership rate than the U.K. — has a lower homicide rate. This is despite it, frighteningly, being just chock full of those dreaded white males (N.H. is 91.3 percent non-Hispanic white, versus 62.1 percent for the U.S. overall). And Dr. Thomas Sowell tells us there just might be a connection there.

Returning to profiling, there are other connections we could make. I am a member of one of the most profiled group in the nation: males. Police view males far more suspiciously than females because males commit an inordinate amount of crime. But if this is just, is it not also just to apply the exact same standard to all other groups that commit an inordinate amount of crime? And if so-called “racial profiling” is “racist” and is verboten, isn’t sex profiling sexist? Shouldn’t it be eliminated with the same vigor?

Oh, yeah, four legs good, two legs bad.

Profiling is simply a method by which we can make determinations based on scant information in situations in which obtaining more information is not feasible. In the realm of policing and personal safety, it enables us to determine the probability that a given individual has committed a crime or has criminal intent. And we all engage in profiling, mind you, such as when avoiding a group of rough-hewn young men walking down the street or being distrustful of a sleazy-looking used-car salesman. Doctors do it when assessing what conditions and diseases a patient is likely to have (Pima Indians have the nation’s highest diabetes rate; blacks have high rates of prostate cancer). Children do it when being wary of petting strange dogs.

And then childishly destructive people tell us we should do it in every way — but one.

We can profile people based on sex, age, the car they drive, dress and even race. For instance, police may stop a white man driving through a bad inner-city neighborhood in an expensive car, figuring the probability is relatively high that he’s there to buy drugs. But this willingness to “racially profile” goes out the window when the matter is politically favored groups. That, my friends, is unjust discrimination. That is prejudice.

And it’s dangerous.

This aversion to politically incorrect “racial profiling” is even more ridiculous when the matter is Muslims. Note, low-info narrators, “Muslim” is not a race. It refers to a group defined by a set of beliefs, or doctrines. And since actions originate with thoughts, what you believe matters and is the best predictor of behavior. If you want to find a good prospective soldier or UFC cage fighter, for instance, you don’t look among the Amish.

Referring to the SB terrorism and pushing gun control, the NY Daily News’ Thursday cover reads, “GOD ISN’T FIXING THIS.” No, He’s not. For He gives us free will, and you liberals are using yours wrongly and destructively. And you won’t fix it, either, because you’re spiritually diseased.

It will only be fixed by a sea-change in American culture, an about-face where political correctness becomes so stigmatized that exhibiting it means character and career destruction in the same way that being politically incorrect does today.

Political correctness kills. And for America to survive, it must die.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to • (1500 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to San Bernardino Shooting: Political Correctness Kills

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Someone sent me this cartoon this morning:

    Willful Blindness

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Does anyone want to bet that the vowel Feckless Leader would buy in that cartoon (which I think I’ve seen before) would be an “A”?

    Note that the call for more gun control came before anyone knew anything about the crime; it was immediate and reflexive. One wonders how many of the people making the demand actually know that California already has the sort of strict gun controls they wish. They certainly had no way of knowing if there was any reason Farook couldn’t buy guns even with the controls they talk about (as a government employee with no criminal record, he could). One suspects their real goal (occasionally they’ll admit it) is gun prohibition and confiscation.

    The attack on prayer partly represents their atheism and their reflexive hatred of anyone who gets in their way. One wonders if any of them were aware that some people in the attacked building asked for their family’s prayers. One also wonders if any of them mocked Obama later for offering his prayers (but I think we can guess the answer to that one).

    As for profiling, there was a good item at a few days ago that nicely illustrates the idea. It suggested that you have 10,000 M&Ms, of which 10 are laced with a very deadly poison — even one could kill you. How many would you eat? The item concerned bringing in Syrian “refugees”, but it can be applied to many other profiling situations.

    Note, too, that the concern of the neighbor is similar to the failure of the police to do anything about the Rotherham gang rapes lest they be accused of racial insensitivity (as in fact happened to those few who brought it up). Creating this fear is exactly why incidents such as “clock boy” happen.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s a related article on the subject of the San Bernardino murders: The Rorschach Test in San Bernardino by Dan Flynn.

    One commenter has a gold-star summation:

    The Religion of Peace flew Two Passenger Jets full of INNOCENT American Men, Women and Children into the World Trade Center, One Passenger Jet full of INNOCENT American Men, Women and Children into the side of the Pentagon, and another Passenger Jet full of INNOCENT American Men, Women and Children into the ground in Shanksville, Pa.

    While the Buildings lay in rubble, and the bodies in that field were still warm, that President – George W. Bush – was telling the rest of us how peaceful the Religion of Mass Murder was and that we couldn’t judge it by the actions of its most devout followers, as he practically gave the Saudi Ambassador a “Reach Around” as the two left a news conference.

    With the coming of a new President, thisshit was supposed to end because everybody was gonna love us. He began his Presidency by announcing to the Muslim Countries that “AMERICA SUCKS” and “I wouldn’t blame you if you kept killing Americans after all they’ve done to you”.

    Well, it didn’t end. It only got worse, all over the world, after President Green Light did everything in his power to Promote Radical Islamic Jihad in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Black Africa, White Europe and America.

    He DEFENDED the Islamist Muderers who killed the people at Charlie Hebdo – “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet.” – Not “Their Prophet” or “The Muslim Prophet”. “THE PROPHET”.

    He brushed aside the Killing Spree of an Allahu Akbar screaming Muslim Psychiatrist at Fort Hood as Workplace Violence.
His Muslim Convert CIA Director told us that The Muslim Brotherhood was a “Secular” Organization.
Everytime there’s a slaughter of the innocent by these Religious Cultist Psychopaths, our Sociopath In Chief takes to the airwaves to fall all over himself in an effort to deflect attention away from the people whom see him for who he really is; “ABU HUSSAIN, The Deliverer”. That’s the name Hezbollah has given him. Think about it: The Islamic Armies have spread their Jihad from Iran to Sub Saharan Africa, from Syria to Scandinavia, and from Iraq to California.

    And, they’ve done ALL OF IT under the protective umbrella of THE ONE THEY’VE BEEN WAITING FOR, who will soon FINISH WHAT HE STARTED.

    And yet, there are still people who will never believe it until San Bernardino happens to THEM, or to THEIR KIDS. Which, of course, will be too late.

  4. Timothy Lane says:

    Matt Walsh has a nice article in the Blaze today that deals with both the power of prayer and the nature of political correctness. He notes that, whatever it may have been, PC is now a form of enforced falsehood. Thus, Trump mocking a disabled reporter and not apologizing is simply rule, not politically incorrect. PC may claim to act in the name of removing rudeness, but it’s real concern is to impose a vision of reality under which no one is expected to notice, admit, and act on an awareness of group differences. The link is:

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Yes, I think you’re right. It’s not about being polite. It’s about forcing people to assent to a particular Leftist narrative. I like what he writes here:

      If you’re ”politically correct” nowadays, it doesn’t mean you’re polite or considerate or kind, it means you’re delusional, cowed and intellectually dishonest.

      And regarding Trump, it’s certainly disingenuous of him to term coarse behavior as being un-politically correct. It’s possible to be bold and polished. He ought to try to bring these two together.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *