Saturday, January 14, 2017

No evidence that teacher assaulted a Muslim kindergartener

I couldn't help but roll my eyes in disbelief when this story first came out. Really now: a kindergarterner was abused in class because he was Muslim? It was so over-the-top and so obviously contrived that only public school officials and civil rights activists could believe it. I mean really, we're supposed to believe a PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER, the most politically correct of all creatures, assaulted a 5 year old because he was Muslim? Please. Fortunately, police were able to clear the accused teacher:

Police found no evidence to confirm a November report that a teacher bullied and assaulted a Muslim kindergartener at David Cox Road Elementary, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools reported Friday.

Principal Celeste Spears-Ellis notified parents that the accused teacher has returned to the classroom after the District Attorney’s Office found “no evidence of an assault other than the complainant’s report” and no grounds for criminal charges.

The incident made national news in November when the Council on American-Islamic Rights wrote to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction alleging that the teacher “continuously harassed and recently assaulted” a 5-year-old boy in her class. The letter, dated Nov. 21, said the teacher had grabbed the boy by the neck and choked him on Nov. 16. It said she had also failed to prevent classmates from bullying the boy and forced him to carry a large backpack filled with textbooks and headphones
But the story wasn't too over-the-top for the Council on American-Islamic Rights, which has mutated into a jittery, bellicose group just as capable as the NAACP of shrill tantrums and over-rehearsed paranoia. Guess this little incident should burst their credibility. But do you think the corporate media will probe the next such report? Do they EVER learn?

Welcome to our glorious multicultural future, with every ethnic group clamoring to be recognized as an oppressed minority.


Anonymous said...

with every ethnic group clamoring to be recognized as an oppressed minority.

And wanting to own a white slave to pay for it. As long as conservatism is around they'll get it, too.

Weaver said...

They should just fire all whites from positions of authority, get it over with already.

Evil whites can't be trusted to do anything more than clean toilets and change bed sheets. I suppose I'll go out to the Home Depot today to buy some brushes for my new career.

Weaver said...


that depends on the meaning of "conservatism".

The Alt Right is wrong in areas, and there are elements of "conservatism" that provide strength and wisdom, are thus worth preserving.

If you go too far condemning "conservatives", you might find you've become a materialist little different from the "Marxists" everyone here focuses on.

It's easy to go too far in most any direction.

roho said...

Weaver....................You do understand that a middle of the roader stands for nothing?

Anonymous said...

OMG, if you think "conservatives", particularly at the top, are anything but materialists you are delusional. What exactly have they conserved? If you are so debased and corrupt that you are willing to accept becoming a minority in your own homeland on the grounds that the invaders are allegedly good for the economy and are "just trying to achieve the America (materialist) Dream!" you are the ultimate materialist, willing to commit suicide/genocide against your own nation and people for the almighty buck.

Weaver said...


Your word "conservative" is different from my word "conservative".

Much of what self-described American "conservatives" believe in today is not only wrong but dangerous. They secure their children from the Marxists in the universities only to have them brainwashed by a different cult of ideology.

Nevertheless, there are a great many "conservatives" who provide strength and wisdom to those who read them.

Aristotle, CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, TS Eliot, Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Cicero, Hilaire Belloc, James Burnham, Sam Francis, Machiavelli, Edmund Burke, Robert Nisbet, Thomas Fleming, James Kalb, and a number of others are indispensable.

And they follow a very different "conservatism" from the classical liberals one tends to find among American "conservatives".

It's popular today to condemn "conservatism", but what does that mean? Rarely does anyone ask what he means by what he says. The words need to be clearly defined.

If you take GK Chesterton's "The Napoleon of Notting Hill", it is revolutionary. Chesterton calls for a life of meaning, where people fight for nation and faith, for real things. And yet, in a sense he's labeled as, and indeed is, "conservative".

My fear is that in rejecting "conservatism", the good aspects are also rejected. And as a result, we get just another form of materialism albeit wrapped in slogans and symbols and hierarchy as a means of mimicking real things.

I've seen too many within the Far Right worship transhumanism (and "progress"), Reason, empire, and other things to know that it is full of frauds as well as genuine right-wing activists.

To be truly right-wing, one must believe in either nation or faith - preferably both. And a Rightist doubts man's ability to reason, sides with tradition. It's a different world. And yet all I usually hear from the Alt Right is elitism vs. populism which is simply not an important divide. It's like two ideologues (like the popular Marxist and a Libertarian) spinning words, warping the world such that men forget what it is they truly care about.

My primary qualm with the Southrons is not simply the classical liberalism, which is silly; but how genuinely morally good and innocent they are. Such men don't fare well in politics. Politics is for demons. The ideal is to be both fox and lion, not a lion only. I respect them, but I just don't think such innocence is made for politics, especially modern politics. The world is growing more evil with time. It's frustrating to see them teach how good deeds and honest words will save a society and also how all the world has but to embrace the wisdom of classical liberalism to enjoy peace. There is much wisdom in what they teach, but there's also wisdom in Marx and most any school of thought.

So, if you're rebelling against them or against the Neocons, I can understand. If you're rebelling against FOX, I can understand. But if you're rebelling against some of the men I listed above, then you are in error.

Weaver said...


The issue here is this:

If the nationalist is but a tool whose existence is to serve that which he serves, what is it that he serves?

I'm not arguing middle-of-the road vs. radical.

The question of what a person serves is essential. Too often you have two completely different masters masquerading as "far right", and almost no one notices.

Whatever the label given, I've been around for years and there's frequently this mix within "right-wing" groups. You have those like myself who are a sort of Braveheart-type tribalist (I lean Luddite), who believe in God and nation. And then you have the materialists, those who serve Reason and Progress (for example the eugenic IQ worshipers). Both sorts are within the "right wing", and almost no one ever notices.

What's nice perhaps about blogs like this one is it doesn't go off the deep end I suppose. Old Rebel is open minded but retains his grounding in the South's traditions.

Anyway, if I put up a blog, no one would think it moderate anything. I'd like to, for example, monitor the decline, keep records and maps as modernism consumes faiths, nations, and other traditions. And I'd like to present the basics of political science, (for example, man is a social being; the smallest unit is the family; there are three/six forms of government and mixes of those three; a balance of power prevents fallen man from abusing his power; trade protections can serve a society well but can also be harmful depending on the size and situation of the economic unit; and so forth). But it costs too much to undertake something like that. One day I might do that though.

I'm a blood and soil nationalist. There's nothing middle of the road about that. The concern is people using the power of nationalism for other means. A person can wave his arms about, break laws, or even use curse words. But such doesn't make him more or less a nationalist. The core components, the First Things, that's worth debating over - and the wisdom that's passed down should also be remembered.