Despite being Asian, Malkin is indoctrinated into American colonialist hegemonic demagoguery. This is reflected in her manic racist discourse on crime.
Michelle Malkin disgusts Fuzzy. She's the worst kind of racist because she increases racial tension by trying to call out racism regarding black-on-white violent crime -- even if there is no proof of racism. It really is that specific: she focuses only on violent crimes
because they are the most sensational, and only those that involve white victims with black perpetrators
because she wants to re-tell these acts as racially-motivated crimes against the white establishment.
When presenting her conclusion that all black-on-white crimes are racially-motivated, Malkin first parses her sources with the following objectives:
1) Focus only on violent crimes because they are higher profile.
2) Focus only on those violent crimes that are black-on-white.
Malkin has seeminly formalized the following conclusion: Malkin's Law
: If any black person commits a violent crime against a white person, it's because of racial hatred; if any white person commits a violent crime against a black person, it's justifiable defense.
Her inference seems to be the news media and her own values, and her premises are her daily rhetoric regarding crime (both common among rationalists). So far, nothing in Malkins discourse has broken her law, so she gets props for consistency.
Sadly, a certain member of this site is also attempting to portray ALL black-on-white crimes as being racially-motivated attacks. Here is the quote:
When two white newspaper reporters for the Virginian-Pilot were driving through Norfolk, and were set upon and beaten by a mob of young blacks — beaten so badly that they had to take a week off from work — that might sound like news that should have been reported, at least by their own newspaper. But it wasn’t.
As any intelligent person can see, there is no evidence that this crime is racially-motivated -- although the person who posted it wants you to believe that it is. The same poster offers a different narrative by Malkin below. Notice that these black offenders are now "black thugs," the white couple is now an "attractive white couple."
The same article quoted commentator Michelle Malkin as pointing out, "This case – an attractive white couple murdered by five black thugs – doesn’t fit any political agenda. It’s not a useful crime. Reverse the races and just imagine how the national media would cover the story of a young black couple murdered by five white assailants."
Malkin's spin is interesting but, despite her efforts, she fails to demonstrate any racial motive; it is simply a black-on-white crime. As for the "usefulness of crime," Malkin (an English major) seems to know nothing about sociological functionalism (normalcy, necessity [and perhaps latency] of crime). As a political pundit, she should see that productive discourse on deviant behavior can lead to crime reduction
, including black-on-white crime, which is what she's so obsessed about.
When it comes to violent crime, Malkin only focuses on black-on-white victimization. When it comes to racial oppression, her racist attitudes are more broad. Her justification of the Japanese-American internment camps in WWII is a good example. These law-abiding, tax-paying, real
citizens were taken from their homes and forced into camps simply due to their race. Malkin argued that the security of the nation superseded the rights of this small minority. Fuzzy argues that there isn't much of a nation to defend if ANY citizen can have their legally-entitled rights stripped for such arbitrary reasons. Restitution was paid and a public apology was given to the interned by the US government, but it was too little, too late. Despite the government's recognition of this atrocity, Malkin still continues to incite and divide... and profit form her bigotry.
Michelle, on the .00001% chance that you're reading this, please educate yourself about the usefulness of crime. Please quite making a bad situation worse by further dividing a nation and salting the wound. Stop profiting off of the pain of others. Please question why you're so vocal about protecting the rights of the white establishment.