Why so few terrorist attacks?

Stars and Stripes has a very concise article by David H. Schanzer answering that question.  The fact is that despite the recent Boston attack, the US has very few terrorist attacks, especially given that we are wide open, free wheeling society compared to most of the world.  Go read.

While the horrific bombing at the Boston Marathon has brought concerns about terrorism back to the forefront of national attention, it is worth remembering that terrorism inside the United States is exceedingly rare. Over the past 40 years, about 11 people per year have been killed by acts of terrorism (excluding the 9/11 attacks). To put this in some context, over 122,000 Americans died from accidental injury in 2011, while 53,000 died from the flu and pneumonia. Terrorism is also rarer now than in past decades — there were 1,357 terrorist attacks in the United States in the 1970s, but only 168 in the 10 years after 9/11.

More bull by the tail

Race is a taboo subject – unless you are Black speaking to  non-Blacks, Hispanic speaking to non-Hispanics, Asian speaking to non-Asians or a Democrat speaking to anyone at all.  If you are not in any of the categories just mentioned, or worse, White, shut your pie hole and cast down your eyes because you, yes YOU, are a racist oppressor – by tautology.

The accusation of racism is a political cudgel used to discredit anyone not a member of these favored groups, an accusation which once made need never be proven  and can never be disproved.  The accusation itself comes complete with its own facts, its own judgement and its own sentence; it nullifies any defense, including any counter accusation for only the chosen non-categories above are entitled to make it.  A white can never make the accusation of a non-white for if he does the stigma applies to him in the same way as if any non-white had made the accusation first.  Because none of these favored non-white categories are, were or could ever be racist, which leads to the absurd but widely believed idea that race determines who can be racist.

Once the term ‘racism’ meant “a belief that human races have distinctive characteristics that determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.”  The march of progress subsequently deleted the idea of culture from that definition and focused on only the most superficial physical characteristics; multiculturalism means that all cultures are equal, another patent   absurdity.  Finally in our own enlightened age the accusation of racism has come to mean, “You are committing thought crime by not repeating the approved politically correct nostrums and I don’t like it.  Since I am unable to rationally and logically refute your points I will call you names until you either change you position and toe the PC party line (either because no such refutation is logically possible or because I don’t have the intellectual or rhetorical skills to do so), or I make you cry and you shut up and go home.”  Strangely, this is not bullying, but that is one of the new rules of racism.

Nor should it go unremarked that there is no little irony that the accusation of racism is almost exclusively a weapon used by the Democratic Party, which supported enslaving the blacks and opposed the abolitionists, to blacken the Republican Party which was founded by abolitionists and successfully prosecuted a policy of racial equality.  The Left has brought about a world of Orwellian moral inversion, which deserves examination at another time.

Racism, real racism, not the political weapon masquerading as racism, is alive and well in the United States.  It is growing, in no small part precisely because it has been used as a political weapon.  The Left and the Democratic Party have sought and successfully obtained political advantage by inflaming racial passions.  By so doing it has set before the victims their own policies have created, abetted and enlarged the idea that their troubles were rather the result of racist enmity by the Democrats’ political enemies.  It has pounded that drum unceasingly, has created a whole race baiting industry proclaim racial blame from the rooftops, has relentlessly fanned the flames of racial discord, it has protected and bankrolled the race mongers, it has hysterically marketed such white-on-anybody-that’s-not-white violence as it can find to both further diminish the self confidence of the racially neutral and inflame the rage of the victim’s racial group and finally it has hidden the racial violence that it has fomented.

That racial violence has increased to the point where it can no longer be successfully contained or covered up, though it is not yet widely known.  Divide and conquer has become divide and destroy.  The problem has become so great, in my opinion, that a simple political fix is no longer possible.  It is not yet politically possible to even talk about this openly, much less devise and implement a solution.  It may be that it will never be possible to openly discuss this before an explosion creates such fear and animosity that discussion is not possible.

One of the great unpalatable and therefore seldom mentioned truths is that responsibility is with the one who sees.  Knowledge is power, but only if acted upon.  Here responsibility is distinguished from mere blaming, which is the antithesis of responsibility.  There is a tendency in the perceived absence of viable solutions to avoid opening cans of worms, especially when it is well known that blame will be leveled both for opening the can and for the existence of the worms.  Still, the discussion must be opened, and done in such a way that there is accountability, correct understanding of the problem and many minds working together to devise and implement workable solutions on many fronts.

Will the Republican Party, with its noble tradition of racial equality, be equal to the task before it?  How should we begin?  Your ideas solicited in the comments.