Race-Heresy Enrages UCLA

A Race-Heretic, who had been operating at one of the USA’s major universities, was exposed, humiliated, and punished, in mid-March 2011.

The racial milieu in which the Race-Heretic was caught:


[Full Version, with Explanatory Notes]

— — –

Race-Heresy
The perpetrator: an Alexandra Wallace. Race-Heretic Wallace had the gall to critizice East-Asians’ vibrant behaviors. Quote: “In America, we do not talk on our cell phones in the library!”. Her video remarks contained unacceptable levels of gentle-mockery of this East-Asian cultural trait. Racist, hate-crazed white-Americans claim this habit irks them.

Standing Up to Hate
Fortunately, heroic and Diverse members of the local population, and other heroes of Diversity in the U.S. national media, swiftly crucified the Race-Heretic. She was harassed, demonized, insulted, and threatened with expulsion by supporters of Diversity in positions of power at UCLA. Finally, Race-Heretic Wallace was forced to drop out of school.

The perpetrator recanted, but the damage was done. She had flagrantly violated a central tenet of Diversity, a direct attack on our Multicultacracy itself! To wit: No White person shall criticize persons of other races. [Though, if one is Nonwhite, one is allowed and actively encouraged to criticize and hold the cancer of human history in righteous-contempt. (Whites, too, can partially-atone for their crime of being white by working to push this cancer into remission.)]

Stunned
I must say, I thought I’d seen everything. I was stunned by the (capital-o) Outrage this mild video got. The only way to rationalize the reaction such an innocuous video received, is to posit it must be a “straw that broke the camel’s back” event, implying that White harassment, belittlement, and “xenophobia” against East-Asians is common at UCLA.

This is verifiably false:

Juxtapose, if you will, the above with another chart, also to be found within the pages of the surreal “Diversity Strategic Plan“:

Who Is Least Respected at UCLA?

– Who are the real “victims of a hostile environment” at UCLA?

.

Where were you when they crucified Alexandra Wallace?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Race-Heresy Enrages UCLA

  1. Justin says:

    The sad part is, you are perfectly accurate from an anthropological point of view. It is the paradox of the double-bind we find ourselves in, that exposing the orthodox worldview and structure of our society with accurate terminology, is in itself a violation of our cultural taboos. What a sad time we live in.

    • Hail says:

      Justin wrote:
      exposing the orthodox worldview and structure of our society with accurate terminology, is in itself a violation of our cultural taboos

      Are you saying “Calling it heresy is itself heresy?” Good thing Tim Wise has not been appointed Grand Inquisitor, yet :D

      It is the paradox of the double-bind we find ourselves in
      What does this mean?

      • Justin says:

        Basically, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I wanted to make sure my basic concept was correct, and I found this in the medical dictionary, which says it elegantly:

        “a psychological predicament in which a person receives from a single source conflicting messages that allow no appropriate response to be made”

  2. Greg says:

    Everyone is spinning this piece as the idea that whites cannot criticize other races, blah blah blah blah, but that’s an entirely tendentious way of reading this incident.

    In human communication tone and emotion convey almost as much information as words. I don’t think it was so much that she made criticisms of Asian behavior, but that she mocked Asian ways of speaking, which gave the piece entirely different emotional coloring. Criticism OK, mockery – not so much. Had she merely criticized obnoxious Asians, all would have been fine. But she just had to introduce the tasteless element of race-mockery. Taylor is being pilloried for the element of mockery in her piece, not the criticism, for the expression of disdain and dislike of Asians, not her dislike of their behaviors, for her obvious intent to offend.

    Imagine if I made a thoughtful, intelligent criticism of, say, Israelis – and then ended the piece with calling them kikes. I would be right to be pilloried even if the substance of my criticisms was innocuous. My emotional attitude counts just as much as what I say.

    It would be horrible if she was condemned because of the content of her thoughts in this case, but it is perfectly correct for our society to condemn race-mockery, and to pillory people who go out of their way to mention race in terms calculated to give offense to people of that race.

    Deaths threats are obviously overreactions to this, but that the school condemned – that is excellent.

    And no, I am not Asian, and I am extremely un-liberal in my politics.

    • Hail says:

      Greg wrote:
      she mocked Asian ways of speaking

      If I had the mind to, I could find dozens of instances of Nonwhites, including East-Asians, making fun of White speech-mannerisms. Many Black-comedians base their whole act on “Anti-White humor”!

      Also, does imitation count as “mockery”? I think she did a fair-on impression of their vocal pattern, not really gratuitous. When East-Asians themselves speak, does it count as “self-mockery”? They use the same exact vocal pattern.

      Greg wrote:
      emotional attitude counts just as much as what I say.

      From the already-problematic category of “Hate-Crime” to “Conspiracy to Commit Hate-Crime”! From the frying pan into the fire!

  3. icr says:

    Mockery is worse than open hostility?

    http://radio.nationalreview.com/radioderb/post/?q=ZGUyZjhlMTcxZmU0NTA5YjkxZWZlZGQwZTczM2IyM2E=

    http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2011-03-25.html

    (…)

    That’s a clip Radio Derb first posted last December 17. The speaker — the guy looking forward gleefully to the racial replacement of old white men — is Kent Wong, director of the Center for Labor Research and Education at — can I get a drum roll please? [drum roll] Thank you — at UCLA. Has Kent Wong been chased off the campus by angry old white men? Did he get a reprimand from the senior cadres of UCLA? Did the New York Times editorialize about him?

    You know the answers, of course. And knowing them, you also know this: That all the bogus cant words of the PC mobs — the “diversity,” the “tolerance,” the “inclusiveness” — have no application to white people. You can be as un-diverse, as intolerant, as non-inclusive as you please, so long as you’re not white. If you’re white, and old, and male, you’re a threefer, and anyone can say anything they like about you without stirring a ripple in the media.

    When someone says a thing like the thing I just said, the usual come-back is: “Yes, but white people are a majority, so they owe a special sensitivity to non-white people.” How does that apply in this case? Non-Hispanic white students are a minority at UCLA — 32 percent. Non-Hispanic white people are a minority in California — 42 percent. So run that argument by me again?

    Kent Wong, a faculty member of UCLA on a nice salary, encourages students to break the nation’s laws and looks forward to the racial dispossession of white Americans. Nothing happens to him. The guy still has his job — I checked. Then Alexandra Wallace, a fee-paying student, grumbles about bad Asian manners and mimicks a Chinese accent, and she’s an object of loathing and outrage, and has to quit her studies. Could it possibly be made any clearer that the entire apparatus of Political Correctness is just a low-grade war against white Americans?

    (…)

    • Hail says:

      icr wrote:
      the bogus cant words of the PC mobs — the “diversity,” the “tolerance,” the “inclusiveness” — have no application to white people. You can be as un-diverse, as intolerant, as non-inclusive as you please, so long as you’re not white.

      Well said!

      John Derbyshire:
      Could it possibly be made any clearer that the entire apparatus of Political Correctness is just a low-grade war against white Americans?

      Certainly it can’t be any clearer.

      I think we have exposed another Race-Heretic in a major US institution. From what I understand, Heretic Derbyshire’s own children are passably-Diverse. Maybe that is why he is allowed to say such things and keep serious journalism work?

  4. Greg says:

    Comedy is different – Family Guy mercilessly skewers Asians, Jews, and Blacks, in ways that are astonishingly forthright and race insensitive. But it’s comedy. No one cares. It’s in prime time television. Family Guy has done skits on Asians that are a million times worse than what this UCLA chic did, and nobody minds. So our culture clearly DOES permit whites being critical of others, as long as it is clear the intent is not to harm.

    Context matters, intent matters, emotional tone matters. The remarks of Ken Wong are completely different, despite how much you or I might dislike what he is saying – he did not mock anyone, and what he was suggesting was that white DOMINANCE will now be replaced by a more “fair” balance of races. You may not like that, but the intent is not hostility or race-mockery – it is motivated by a vision of “fairness”.

    Intent, emotion, and context have always been factors, maybe the prime factors, in moral evaluation. That’s why the Nazis are considered so much closer to evil than the Communists – one killed out of intent, and the other killed while trying to do good. Of course, we now know there was considerable evil intent amongst the Communists as well, but as horrible as their actions were, they were done in the context of trying to do good, so it less an example of paradigmatic evil.

    Why can’t people just be honest about these moral distinctions that everyone makes? I am very right wing, but I always understood why the Nazis are considered more paradigmatically evil than their totalitarian brethren, it is just common sense,morally, and I admit that despite the fact that I am a die-hard anti socialist and despise communism.

    I support a white majority America, I despise communism – but I don’t interpret what is going on around me in ways that are emotionally gratifying but aren’t quite correct.

    • Hail says:

      Greg wrote:
      “[Wong] was suggesting that white DOMINANCE will now be replaced by a more “fair” balance of races

      A fair balance of races is one in which whites are the same share as their global population, I guess, i.e. under 10%?

      Greg wrote:
      Intent, emotion, and context have always been factors, maybe the prime factors, in moral evaluation. That’s why the Nazis are considered so much closer to evil than the Communists

      The Nazis are considered Paragons of Evil primarily because Hollywood “reminds” us they were Evil every other film. (The real question, maybe, is why does Hollywood consider them evil? Why have we never seen a Gulag movie out of Hollywood? [This is a rhetorical question, do not answer].)

    • Statsaholic says:

      Comedy is different – Family Guy mercilessly skewers Asians, Jews, and Blacks, in ways that are astonishingly forthright and race insensitive. But it’s comedy. No one cares. It’s in prime time television. Family Guy has done skits on Asians that are a million times worse than what this UCLA chic did, and nobody minds. So our culture clearly DOES permit whites being critical of others, as long as it is clear the intent is not to harm.

      It would be far more accurate to say: “So our culture clearly DOES permit whites being critical of others, as long as it is clear that it can be dismissed as a joke.”

      In sharp contrast, non-whites can be critical of others even if they present their criticism as serious and sincere.

      This is a more significant difference than you seem to understand.

    • This is the craziest, most nonsensical response…I had to respond.

      Comedy is different – Family Guy mercilessly skewers Asians, Jews, and Blacks, in ways that are astonishingly forthright and race insensitive. But it’s comedy. No one cares. It’s in prime time television. Family Guy has done skits on Asians that are a million times worse than what this UCLA chic did, and nobody minds. So our culture clearly DOES permit whites being critical of others, as long as it is clear the intent is not to harm.

      So how is it “clear” that the intent is to harm in the UCLA Heresy situation? It seems to me her intent is to criticize. Do you mean criticism and comedy cannot go together? That’s interesting, because when Family Guy makes fun of Peter’s wife’s family, the Pewterschmitts (sp?) seems to be exactly that.

      Or were you trying to say that the key facts for why Family Guy is legit are: a)no one complains, so it must be ok b)it is prime time television.

      You seem to say it is cultural acceptable to do what Family Guy does, because Family Guy gets away with it…although else seems to be getting away with it. One cute little fact about Family Guy: the program is written by Jews, directed by Jews and run on a Jew-owned network. Hey Greg, where were you the day an Israeli comic compared praying Muslims to penises and nobody cared?

      http://armedwithknowledge.blogspot.com/2009/06/israeli-calls-muslims-penis-and.html

      Oh, maybe you were watching Family Guy make fun of WASPs with the intent to harm. My bad.

      That’s why the Nazis are considered so much closer to evil than the Communists – one killed out of intent, and the other killed while trying to do good. Of course, we now know there was considerable evil intent amongst the Communists as well, but as horrible as their actions were, they were done in the context of trying to do good, so it less an example of paradigmatic evil.

      The Soviets killed to do good, you say? So killing ethno-nationalists, anti-totalitarians, anti-socials, dissidents or suspected dissidents to build an envisioned perfect society…is good? Interesting. Because the last time I checked, the Nazis weren’t killing because they thought it would be fun, and they just liked picking on other people like a school yard bully. They were also trying to build their own vision of a perfect society, and getting rid of the anti-nationalist, communist and self-segregating jews who they saw in the way of their ideal. So how is what the Soviets did good compared to this? Because the Soviet idea was all-inclusive….meaning it chained together all peoples under the power of a clique that had an ideal and controlled everything…and got very rich in the process? Sure thing, Greg.

  5. Statsaholic says:

    I finally got around to watching the Alexandra Wallace video.

    Quote: “In America, we do not talk on our cell phones in the library!”. Her video remarks contained unacceptable levels of gentle-mockery of this East-Asian cultural trait.

    I don’t think gentle mockery is really the right way to describe it.

    It’s more that she was expressing justified irritation, as opposed to treating the situation as humorous.

    I think she was right to not treat the situation as humorous.

    I’ve spent a lot of time in libraries and I’ve never seen anyone using a cell phone. It’s one thing to have a quiet conversation in a library, but to talk to someone on a cell phone is profoundly rude.

    If UCLA is the kind of place where you can’t go to the library without hearing people talk loudly on cell phones, then it’s safe to say that anything I’d recognize as civilization is dead in that area.

    Another weird thing here is that Alexandra Wallace says that East Asian parents should do a better job of teaching their children manners.

    How do East Asians respond to this?

    Do they explain to Alexandra Wallace that they do not find themselves more lacking in manners than other groups, courteously bow, and then walk away?

    Well no they don’t.

    It seems that instead they decided to respond with death threats.

    Responding to a minor provocation in a vastly disproportionate fashion is not the mark of good manners, and this makes me think that Alexandra Wallace’s generalizations about East Asian students at UCLA lacking manners had merit.

    • Hail says:

      SA wrote:
      she was expressing justified irritation

      Yes, true. It was all “off the cuff”. It’s clear she didn’t say to herself, “I’m going to make a video humorously mocking Orientals now”.

      SA wrote:
      Responding to a minor provocation in a vastly disproportionate fashion is not the mark of good manners

      Irrational stands on small issues are more common for East-Asians. The amount of press the Koreas give to the Dokdo “issue” (a pair of tiny rocks, uninhabitable, in the Sea of Japan, claimed by Japan and South-Korea) is another example. Their press whips the people into an anti-Japanese hate-frenzy regularly over two useless rocks, not even fair to call them islets they’re so small!

  6. Hail says:

    Greg, who commented above, wrote the following at Mangan:

    If whites are a minority at UCLA, it is because they WISH to be.

    I’m afraid our friend Robert is being irrational in this discussion. Why?

    .
    Several commenters replied. An anon commenter wrote:

    Greg’s “We suck” whine is rich. That’s like Napoleon telling the Germans he conquered, “See, it’s YOUR fault you let me trample over you; now blame YOURSELVES instead of fighting ME — even though I’M the one who’s tyrannizing you!”

    Commenter Thripshaw points out:

    If at any point between 1965 and now, the American people were offered a referendum on whether they would like whites to become a minority, they damn well would have answered NO! Instead, we are forbidden to even discuss the topic of our dispossession.

    JSM, in reply to Tripshaw:

    [Whites] were offered a referendum — well, California was, at least — and they did say hell, no, we don’t want to be a minority. [Prop.187, no welfare for illegals, passed in 1994, then was overturned by Supporters of Diversity on the Supreme Court.]

    Finally, a great comment by Cornelius Troost, a former professor at UCLA:

    UCLA in the Sixties did have the feel of a top-flight multiversity. Charles Young was a solid if liberal leader and the faculty had enormous power. We all labored to appease the unruly students who adored Angela Davis and her Marxist colleagues. When the LAPD sent hundreds of police on campus to prevent the outright destruction of our gym, I wrote to the campus newspaper about the professionalism of the LAPD in wrapping up only the worst offenders who happened to be mostly Jews. These guys were literally destroying property and I saw them do it. Afterwards, some of my students came to me and cried profusely about my lack of compassion for the destroyers.
    [...]
    Ms. Wallace at least made a brave and correct public statement to bring out the unsavory side of Shen’s brethren.When I was there the Asians had no cell phones and were very cooperative and passive. Now, with even greater numbers, they can become more forceful.

  7. Rollory says:

    “Where were you when they crucified Alexandra Wallace?”

    Making sure my Obama-voting liberal boss doesn’t fire me from my job at an ultra-liberal-diverse modern employer where I get paid 30% more than I deserve and spend about 20% of my time doing actual work.

    I figure diverting the money out of diversitarian hands without giving much of anything in return – stealing it, basically – is the best thing I could be doing right now.

    Last time I was in a university library – a few years after my studies ended – there was this old black guy dressed sort of like you might expect a homeless guy to who came in and started talking loudly on his cell phone. I let him alone for a few minutes, then asked him if he could please not talk so loud in the library. He asked me to repeat myself, then started berating me, loudly, and continued for a good ten minutes. I learned my lesson. I learned my place.

    It’s been nearly a decade but I don’t forget things like that. There will be vengeance.

  8. Pingback: Truth, Heresy, & Heroes « ELLIOT LAKE News & Views

  9. John M. says:

    Why are Jewish people considered “non-white” in the data above? Is that normal?

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s