This page is the original source of this review, though you may also find it on Amazon or other sites.
|Book Reviews Home||Free Audio Books|
Book Review of: Please Stop Helping Us
How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed
Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours
Please Stop Helping Us, by Jason L. Riley (Hardcover, 2014)|
(You can print this review in landscape mode, if you want a hardcopy)
This book is an excellent commentary on the stupidity campaign that targets people who call themselves black. Liberal leaders (who aren't really liberal), in their usual way of mucking things up by pretending that reality does not exist, consequences do not follow their actions, and resources are infinite, have for some reason picked this particular minority to "help."
It's worth noting that "blacks" make up 13% of the USA population while Italians make up about 6%. I am so grateful that liberals haven't decided to "help" us descendants of Italian immigrants.
Also, it's worth noting that the n-word once included the Italians who came to America in the early 20th Century. So despised were my ancestors that Congress drafted laws aimed at preventing more of us from entering the country.
Since this book tackles racial issues, let's talk about race briefly. Race is an arbitrary concept. It has no basis in medical fact, though there are physical attributes by which people are commonly lumped into a particular "race." And what about the boundaries? At what point does a person become white or black? Did you know that Sicilians (my ethnic group) get sickle cell anemia? It's true, because even though we are required to check "Caucasian" on the race box our ancestors include the African Moors.
Do your research on the origins of racial classification, and you quickly find there's no there there. So it's all bull---. As Dr. King said, let us judge a person by his character not by his skin color.
Obama isn't black
But if we are going to group people as "black" let's at least make it meaningful. Obama is not "black" and the lie that he is has served as a shield for his many egregious crimes. The first chapter of this book actually treats that lie as truth, and I think Mr. Riley erred in doing so. Some facts to consider:
You can look at "black" people who are remarkably successful, such as Kenneth Chenault at American Express. He has not used "being black" as a crutch; the man is simply awesome and is good at what he does. Through his good work, he has made more good-paying jobs available for people regardless of their race. Many, many such examples exist.
Obama has been the most devastating and destructive president in our history, with--as Riley correctly pointed out--the fallout hitting "blacks" especially hard.
Any capitalistic economy depends upon capital for its economic health. The more capital the government diverts from productive economic use, the sicker the economy becomes. This is simply how it is.
Both World Wars combined cost us $2 trillion to execute. But in 2012 alone, Obama ran a SIX trillion spending deficit. His administration claimed it was "only" $1.2 trillion, but the GAO said that when you "apply honest accounting methods" it was actually $6 trillion. Contrast that to the deficits of other POTUS in the past 50 years and you see he is way, way way out there on the spending thing. Clinton had two years of budget surplus, by comparison.
Drain capital from the economy this way, and it's the same effect as massively draining water from a swimming pool. It goes down.
I would have saved the above commentary for last, but since the Obama issue came up in the first chapter I present that first. This is the only place where Riley errs. And the error is simply that of using the language used by the liars and con artists who would have us believe that what's historic about Obama's Presidency is that a descendent of plantation slaves is now the POTUS. It's a lie. There are many things historic about Obama's Presidency, such as increasing the federal debt by 80% in only five years or doubling the number of people on food stamps, but his being "black" isn't one of those things.
In later chapters, Riley seems to acknowledge this. Now, let's move on to the other chapters.
In the second chapter, Riley lays the foundation for his central thesis. The title of that chapter is "Culture Matters."
People of color who don't feel bound by some arbitrary definition of themselves decline to accept the self-defeating victim culture in favor of improving themselves so they can thrive in the larger culture. Back in the early 1990s, Cleveland mayor Michael White (who happened to be "black") said on the Breakfast Club radio morning show that blacks need to get college degrees that would be valuable to employers. He pointed out that a manufacturer wouldn't have much use for a Black History major, but would have great use for an Engineering major. A friend of mine who is also "black" and is an outstandingly excellent engineer, said it was about time a black leader spoke this common sense.
The reaction from the "black community" was to excoriate Mayor White. The typical cries of "Uncle Tom" went up and white liberals jumped in to criticize him. Now, think about this. Saying something that would actually help blacks got the mayor in trouble with the white liberals in town. This kind of pathology is what Riley talks about in his book. Understanding Chapter Two is essential to understanding why every point Riley makes is a dead accurate ray of sunshine into the darkness of liberal "help" for people who call themselves black.
Some issues raised
One issue Riley tackles is the racially discriminating college admissions process that counts being "black" as a plus. But there are only so many admission seats open, so it's a zero sum game. It's not just blacks and whites competing for the limited number of slots. Among other questions, Riley asks why it is somehow "logical" to punish Asian Americans for something some whites did to some blacks.
Another issue he brings up is this infantilizing of blacks. I find this reprehensible. The assumption is that because a person is classified as "black" that person is too inept to handle his/her own affairs. This person needs "help" through discriminatory practices that tar him/her with a label of "I made it not on competence and merit but on racial quotas so I'm not as good the whites I work with." What kind of person thinks it's OK to label another person this way? It angers me that my enormously talented black engineer friend might, to those unfamiliar with him or his work, be thought of this way.
I grew up in an unincorporated township. Some of my playmates were "black" though I didn't know until many years later that these people were supposed to be labeled as a different brand of human being. We had dogs who had puppies that came out in various colors. So the fact my playmates and I came in various hues just struck me as being no different from the fact they also came in various heights. Maybe this lack of training in racial stupidity during my formative years has blinded me to the "need" to identify and judge individuals based on their skin color.
I've stopped giving the benefit of the doubt to failed liberal programs and policies that are presumably well-intended. The track record of profoundly negative consequences followed by a stream of yet more destined to fail programs and policies tells me that liberal leaders either have a zero IQ or they are malicious and getting exactly the negative consequences they intended. I'm giving them credit for at least a moron level of intelligence, and going with the malicious intention choice.
Their efforts are not well-intended. They are malicious. You don't keep doing what causes great harm, unless you intend great harm. Or are just too stupid to know the difference. Our legal system does allow lenience for people whose IQ falls below a very low level, for example a person who is legally retarded is exempt from the death penalty in most (or maybe all) states that have that penalty.
But many liberals hold jobs in academia and in elected office. Are they going to claim the retard defense? Or will they correct their reprehensible behavior?
I think the problem here is not with liberals per se, but with malicious, hateful people who call themselves liberals and dress what they are doing in euphemisms and propaganda. The liberals who are "in the laity" often buy the lie (hook, line, and sinker) based on approval-seeking behavior rather than thoughtful analysis of the issues and the real facts pertinent to them.
So let's not do any liberal bashing. Instead, we need the rank and file of the liberal crowd to stop accepting such lunacy as the "help blacks" programs that are having such devastating consequences. Don't let someone get by with inflicting this pathology simply because he dresses in sheep's clothing to falsely wear a label saying "I am one of you" while betraying every liberal ideal there is.
If you're a liberal, this book is a "must read." I think for all other people, it's an important work that will leave you informed and able to correctly see how discrimination is hurting blacks (and others) today under the guise of "helping" people.
Loud and clear
In the case of "help" for black people (even those who don't call themselves black), the pathology has gone way too far. It's time to stop the abuse. Voices like those of Thomas Sowell, whom scholar Paul Rosenberg says is "the greatest commentator of our time" need to be heard "loud and clear."
Having read this book, I would add the voice of Jason L. Riley to that list of voices that need to be heard "loud and clear." This book is well-worth its cover price. It may help America become a civilized society, or at least one that does not single people out for abuse based on something as meaningless as what "race" they are labeled as.