Skip to content

Racial Rhetoric Becoming Worse, it Seems

April 1, 2013

Since the second election of Obama, the volume has really been turned up on race rhetoric, and those doing this emphatically claim it’s the other side doing it while in the process of starting another topic on it!

A couple of black kids shot a little white baby, and the conservatives are claiming this received no attention, but if it was a white shooting a black (As in the Travyon case), then it would be all over the news. This happens every time something like this occurs, such as the fairground gang beatings a few years ago (in at least one case, white supremacist groups infused a “Beat Whitey Night” claim).

Yet, recall, who keeps claiming the other side is always “bringing up the race issue”.

My response:
It’s well known that the media has always highlighted black crimes (against whoever the victims). Which is probably why this particular case doesn’t stand out. Now, if liberals are the ones always “bringing up race”, then what’s the purpose of this?

Another person points out the child is really Hispanic (as is even evident from the Spanish name). Just like the guy who shot Trayvon was also really Hispanic.

The person posting this, responding to someone (regarding Travon, which kept being thrown into it), gives the typical moralistic rhetoric:

So now we see our innocent little victim of racial prejudice is a thug, drug dealer, wannabe gang banger who wears his pants like a thug, and enjoys flipping off cameras…just like De’Marquise Elkins.

The liberal state run media isn’t going to point fingers at the family and/or local community. They are going to rant about the need for more social programs and money for “outreach.” None of this is going to change a thing.

It is time to point fingers. It is time to name names and demand that people change their behavior. You can’t eliminate gangbangers with social programs if they have no father and their own mother and aunt are willing accomplices to their thuggery.

The major problems confronting a large segment of the black community have little or absolutely nothing to do with racism — problems such as unprecedented illegitimacy, family breakdown, fraudulent education, crime and rampant social pathology. If all white people became angels tomorrow, it would do nothing to solve problems that can only be solved by the black community…and they don’t seem the least bit concerned.

Yet, go to his wall, and see all the other posts and comments (especially regarding this baby shooting), and rather than such a moral focus on self-improvement, you see that it is quite impossible, in an incredible collection of racist rhetoric:

“Just another prime example of the ‘North American Pavement Ape’ these savages have not evolved past the chimps that they are” [another adds “never will”]

Along with talk of “hangings”, truck draggings, and liberal use of the N word, S___ stain”, POS, monkeys, etc. Even “this is what segregations was designed to prevent”!

This all the while accusing blacks and their defenders of being the true racists!

So they just want fingers pointed. As if they aren’t doing a good enough job of that themselves. They simply want everyone else to join them.
But what can you do when you tell apes who can’t evolve the rest of the way into humans to change their behavior? What next, when they naturally don’t?

They’re just looking for someone to blame for the moral and economic failure of their country. It can’t possibly include themselves, and those in history they look up to.

People like this think that it was in a distant trip to an altar, or just being raised by “good Christian culture” (many of them, by their vulgar language, obviously aren’t doctrinally conservative Christians), that their sin problem was long ago “taken care of”, so now, it’s just everyone else who is in error.
But this is not repentance. It’s just sweeping the sin (including that which persisted after “conversion”, but never acknowledged as such) under the rug, pretending it isn’t there, and then continuing with a righteous posture against everyone else.

They think they have such a lockdown of the truth, Obama is nothing but a “pathological liar”, etc. but Christ says “If you were blind, you should have no sin; but now you say ‘We can see’, therefore your sin remains” (John 9:41)

If this weren’t enough, the next day, Easter:

Obama visited a church where the pastor preached that members of the religious right want blacks “in the back of the bus,” women “back in the kitchen” and immigrants “back on their side of the border.”

With the stuff I saw in that last post, they have the gall to wonder why people say stuff like this or call them racist, and the further gall to try to toss the “racist” label back at others? Look; they even said it themselves; the baby killing “is what segregation was designed to prevent”! Could you make a clearer pitch for “the back of the bus”? Many of those commenters seem to want WORSE!

Then, one poster says

The black Christian has a dilema. When one believes on Jesus as Savior, Paul says he / she becomes a citizen of heaven. This becomes every believer’s primary identity; Citizen of the Kingdom of God. Black liberation theology or any liberal theology for that matter conflicts with the Principles of God’s Kingdom. Black Christians need to decide; do I cling to the principles of my natural Father’s heritage, or do I identify with the heritage and principles of my Spiritual Father? It is certain they can’t hold to both.

Of course, white conservatives have long fused their “natural fathers” (including the nations’s founders) with their “spiritual Father” as for all purposes, one in the same. To follow one, you have to follow the other. It’s the same things I’ve always noted (as in the old conservative vs traditional music debate), Christianity means “giving up their old life” for EVERYONE ELSE but them. Rather than give up their old life, everyone else must adopt it, when giving up theirs, in order to truly “come to Christ”.
At every turn, they are criticizing in others the very things they do themselves. (Including arguing on this stuff on such a holy day).

It’s like someone cuts a hole in the wall, then once inside, puts their own door there, and then stands guard preaching to everyone else outside (and even some already inside who didn’t go in that way) that THEY must “come in through the Door”.

One poster on this blog did say:

Actually, I was in the church and that is not what was said. The part left out of the quote was that some captains of the religious right want to return us to the ‘good old days’ but that those days were not good for everyone. He gave as examples blacks in the back of the bus etc. His point was that with Easter we look forward, with a positive and hopeful future based on the gift of the resurrection and the ever continuing growth and understanding of God’s purpose in our lives and our understanding of the same growing as we do in God’s love. It was uplifting, positive and hopeful and nothing to walk out on.

So once again, something was snatched up, taken largely out of context, and used to incite race tension. But it’s only the OTHER side that’s doing that, right?

There’s even a YouTube video suggesting that “Surge in number of hate groups directly related to Obama’s presidency” but this video is private [edit: since removed], and I wasn’t able to see it. What I posted in the Facebook wall thread on it to add to some others’ [favorable] comments was:

The people are hung up on the superiority of the nation in history. This included colonialism and slavery, yet these were condemned and ended, while the nation’s opening up to other views and lifestyles besides traditional white Protestantism also marked what they saw as a moral downfall. We “turned from the values of our fathers”.
This was aided by technology as well, but the timing made it look like in the 1960’s, suddenly the nation “threw off God”, and then went downhill. This included accepting blacks into society, who supposedly destroyed culture with their crime and sensuality (music, etc; which is why they needed to be enslaved or segregated in the first place), but they could no longer say all this openly, so they stuffed this sentiment, and tried to couch it in code language. (While at the same time bashing the “political correctness” that censored their speech in the first place). You could hear this in the rhetoric of such popular figures from Reagan to Limbaugh, and other candidates and pundits. The biggest focus remains government and taxes. If you call them out on it, they call YOU the “race baiter”, even as they continue to spew out these insinuations on race.

So yes, when the country does the unthinkable in electing a black president, they HAVE to prove he’s “the worst in history” (by now, his downing of our worst enemy in history is all but forgotten, like it never happened; replaced by accusations of lying about an overseas terror attack that came up last year), and even many saying He’s not MY president.
Conservatives post social network “memes” saying stuff like “Disagreement is not racism“; but what they fail to realize, is this goes way beyond mere “disagreement”! I don’t think they’ve ever DISOWNED any other president like this. Conservatives used to be the ones to advocate RESPECT for the nation’s “commander in chief”, even if you don’t agree with him. But these people have so stuffed and disowned their racism, they cannot even see it, and only see everyone else as falsely playing a “card” on them.
However, what they do own is their nationalistic superiority, but because it does not directly specify race, think it can be passed off as neutral. But if they think they’re so superior nationally, morally, culturally, religiously, politically, then it seems they believe they’re superior in EVERY way, so why wouldn’t that include race? All they need is some “FACTS” (statistics, etc) on race, to absolve themselves; it’s “the facts” that speak for themselves.

In passing, the FB “friend” posting all this also posted a link to the Chick tract “Who Murdered Clarice”?

In one scene, an incredibly angry God damns the abortion doctor to Hell, specifically for selling the baby’s ears for $75. (I thought all sin damned one to Hell).

Next frame, God says “I heard every excuse. Don’t tell ME about your great nation and its laws!”
This is ironic, because it’s usually the conservative Christians who talk about their “great nation and its laws” (when they feel they are being impugned or dismissed by others), not abortionists and other liberals. Of course, the tract makes the point later, that the nation once did “in its early years” honor the Bible and fear God (showing a preacher waving a Bible), but now “the fear of God is gone”.

We see here clearly a selectivity of sin. Conservative Christians have decided what is sin, and fear of God and Biblical principle. Abortion and everything else modern society does is sin, and all the colonialism, slavery through “manstealing” and racism, and the brutality that accompanied all that, that went on in the nation’s early years was compatible with the Bible and “the fear of God”. How dare you filthy sinners of today play any “card” on us about those past things.

Again, the readiness in totally dividing the country: a “Liberal quarantine zone” conservatives have drawn up:

Some other findings since the last political update:

Walmet CEO makes 1000 times as much as workers

Such a ratio shows workers are in comparison not appreciated. Only the CEO’s. Of course, conservatives justify this by saying they earned appreciation by climbing all the way up.
They appeal to an impersonal force called “the market”, so that there is no human responsibility, except for that the poor and struggling have supposedly shirked.

Income Inequality May Be The New Normal, Study Finds

For those who try to blame the poor as lazily passing up “opportunities”, and exhonerate the rich as 100% deserving:

America’s paths to the top

If you still don’t believe so:

How America Managed To Turn Going To College Into A Bad Investment

Paul Krugman: Matt Yglesias Condo Criticism Shows Conservatives ‘Don’t Actually Believe In Any Rules At All’

If Bankers Had To Take A Truth Serum, They’d Be In Trouble! (shows how London has become a tax haven):

Poll Finds Banks Are Too Big, Most Americans Say

Looking At This Map For 5 Seconds Will Change How You Think About Race

Hitler Joins Gun Control Debate, But History Is In Dispute

From → Politics


    The central theme of the argument, Africa was a backward “stone age” [one commenter calls it a “former s___ hole”] that was basically incapable of ruling itself (they could only produce dictators), so Western conquest was the best thing to happen to it. (And based on this, Obama is “putting down” America).

    As pointed out above, this is the gist of their premise! Their forefathers and culture were good; those they conquered were bad; how dare these stupid liberals try to make things equal.

    They’ve also been focusing a LOT on how much he and his family spend travelling and taking vacations. But this doesn’t seem to be any more than any other president (I first noticed all of this with Reagan).

  2. (Here’s another one similar to some of the above:

    With all of this, the ideology can be summed up in this outline:

    •Whoever prospers must have done things right
    (from colonizers to capitalists)
    •Whoever suffers must have done wrong
    (from tribal people to the modern poor)
    •Anyone making “mistakes” should be allowed to fail

    •Nothing happens by accident or chance, so God, who is sovereign, must have ordained this system.
    It’s evidence of who is “chosen” (Puritan belief)
    •To oppose and change this system is to oppose God

    •The US founders feared God and were “chosen” by Him.
    •Their intentions for the Constitution are nearly infallible and should not be questioned
    •Anyone who changes them is guilty of “treason”

    •The nation as founded, was proven godly, because of its good works, which were proven good because the nation was godly…
    •The reward of godliness is physical rulership over others
    •(Promises and curses in scripture are to be transferred over to nations today to justify this, even though we insist we are not under the Law).

    •Africa is backward (this is historical “fact”; facts aren’t bigotry).
    •Therefore, the colonists and slavetraders did the people a lot of good. They should be thankful
    •Those who imposed “egalitarianism” on them are the ones who caused all the problems. (“give good people time to work these things out instead of the govt. forcing us; taking away our ‘rights/freedoms’”)
    •Blacks in America have more problems than anyone else. (statistical fact. Again, facts aren’t bigotry)
    •Liberals caused all of today’s financial and cultural problems by trying to give these people too much
    •Now they just want everything for free and will vote for anyone who gives it to them (proving they’re problematic)
    •The people should instead be castigated for their problems.
    • [If they still cannot change (and some argue they can’t), all the above will point to what course of action? (again, facts speak for themselves)]
    • Political correctness paints “the truth” as “racist”

    (Religious underpinnings of ideology not necessarily shared by all political conservatives, who might fiercely deny these points).

    (A bit of a side note; God only had one “chosen” nation in scripture; and while Matt. 21:49 says “The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits thereof”, and 1 Pet. 2:9 “But ye are a holy nation…”, which was obviously addressed to the Church; where did anyone get the notion that this would be a new physical, ethnic “nation” just like the old one —which dispensationalists also still insist is still “chosen”?)

  3. Huffpost takes notice of overt racism in the Tea Party

    This is only the tip of the iceberg! I’m seeing stuff everyday in post from such “innocently” “patiotic” sites like Reagancoalition, Mr Conservative, Conservative Rants & Raves, etc.


    Finally see Sharpton nail the right wing rhetoric!

    the right-wing went crazy with this story. Meme’s about the killing could be found on every social media web-site, public page and in every group where the Trayvon Martin story was discussed.

    For months, right wingers have levelled accusations of reverse racism against the President, the DOJ and even the media. There have been outcries of disparity against white people because no prominent politicians spoke out about the case, no protests were held, it was not declared a hate crime, the teens weren’t sent to Gitmo to face terrorism charges and especially because the two were not immediately sentenced to execution. To Republicans and racists, the case appeared to be anecdotal proof of everything they believe about black people; that they are scary, they are dangerous -they are baby murdering monsters. The case was repeatedly cited to “prove” that people like George Zimmerman have every right to gun them down black kids, like Trayvon Martin, at will.

    And in all that, it looks like the two kids didn’t even do it!

  5. An answer to reverse charges of “self-destruction” (though in a few places, it goes too far in doing the same generalization of whites that conservatives have been doing to us):

  6. Why Are Certain Black People Allowed to be Racist?

    Here, Joe the Plumber chimes in on the race issue, with the standard rhetoric about how blacks and liberals are allowed to “play the race card” all the time, the “victim mentality”, and also a big emphasis on the Democrats being the historic racists. (Again, totally ignores the Southern Strategy). An illustration even has the Democrats and the NAACP as the new “Klan” lynching a Tea Party member as “racist”.

    But to this site’s credit (somewhat!) when the commenters begin their usual liberty of slamming blacks (including with the N word), someone always corrects them not to use such language, as to not “give them any more fuel to throw on their cross-burning fires”.
    Well, at least someone here thinks of this.

  7. So now Joe’s true motives are becoming clearer:

    Joe The Plumber: ‘Wanting A White Republican President Doesn’t Make You Racist,’ It ‘Makes You American’

  8. Arkansas Restaurant Sign Claims Obamacare Is ‘America’s Punishment For Slavery Years’

  9. More people disclaiming racism while hurling the most racist statements, or at least ignoring those out there who do, whom people like Grayson are responding to:

    Regarding the image that the campaign circulated, the Tea Party has engaged in relentless racist attacks against our African-American President. For example, when the President visited my home of Orlando, Tea Party protesters shouted “Kenyan Go Home.” Other examples include Tea Party chants of “Bye Bye, Blackbird,” and Tea Party posters saying “Obama’s Plan: White Slavery,” “Imam Obama Wants to Ban Pork” and “The Zoo Has An African Lion, and the White House Has a Lyin’ African,” as well as this repulsive one, depicting the President of the United States as an African witch doctor with bananas in his hair:

    Tea Party members also have persisted in falsely characterizing the President as Kenyan and Moslem, despite all evidence, in order to disparage him. Members of the Tea Party have circulated countless altered pictures depicting President Obama and the First Lady as monkeys. Tea Party members also called my fellow Member of Congress, civil rights hero John Lewis, a “n***ger,” and Rep. Barney Frank a “faggot.” More generally, the leader of the Texas Tea Party displayed a poster saying “Congress=Slave Owner, Taxpayer=Niggar [sic].” Tea Party Members of Congress have referred to Hispanics as “wetbacks,” and having “cantaloupe-sized calves” from picking fruit.

  10. Someone finally gets nailed for this “lazy black people that wants the government to give them everything” rhetoric:

    “Let me make it very clear, Mr. Yelton’s comments do not reflect the belief or feelings of Buncombe republicans, nor do they mirror any core principle that our party is founded upon,”

    Yet the sentiment has been allowed to fester among their ranks for some time. All this person did is reverse the “race-neutral” approach, but it’s the same message.

  11. Now, in response to Jackson’s response to the whole Duck Dynasty controversy:

    He’s a fake, a fraud. He’s not ordained. He’s only able to
    make a living keeping the black man on the plantation by using them to hate the white man. Why don’t he educate the inferior black race by telling them the white man give them education, a language, medical attention and spilled their blood and sacrificed their lives in a civil war in order for them to have a chance to share the American Dream. What did we get in return???? You fill in
    the blanks. Tell them that the failure of the black race is their own fault. Just like every other country, state or city. Stop blaming white people. Who’s fault is it in Africa Messy Jackson? Who’s behind the violence and poverty there? As far as I’m concerned, I’ll never reach out to help a race of people that hate me and view me as the devil or as prey. Yes, they’re not all that way (I’ve heard the cliché before) and either are pit bulls. You decide which one you want to reach out to pet.

    Notice, the premise is that Jackson is teaching “hate”, yet the “inferiority” of the black race is apparently not “hate”, because it’s just grounded in “fact” determined by material prosperity!

    Meanwhile, on this page: one commenter lists:

    1. Was there slavery in America? YES
    2. Were all American slaves mistreated? NO
    3. Were some American slaves happy? YES
    4. Did Blacks/African Americans/Negros endure inequality in America during the Post Civil War era? YES
    5. Were some treated well? YES
    6. Were all unhappy? NO
    7. Did desegregation change how they fared in society? YES
    8. Did discrimination endure in the Post Segregation era? YES

    Enter Phil Robertson, interviewed by Drew Magary of GQ, and the following quote: “I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field….They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

    What question was Phil answering? I doubt it was #1, #2, #3, #4, or #7. It certainly wasn’t, “Are you racist?” to which I suspect he would have replied, “No.”

    But it’s more than just a claim that SOME were happy. Robertson is trying to claim that blacks as a whole were better off. The key is “Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; NO ONE was singing the blues.”
    This is a common staple of conservative rhetoric, to prove everything was better before the Civil Rights legislation (and of course, the programs) of the 60’s.
    These are the sorts of subtleties that always get glossed over in the ensuing debates, as the focus shifts to other things so that it looks like the blacks are making an issue out of absolutely nothing..

    Typical of why I’m not big on Jackson, he did not really get to the point, which simply provided more fodder for his Right-wing detractors. You can see his full statement here:

    At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law. Robertson’s statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.’

    The Rosa Parks part of it was good to a point, considering, that it was a response to someone actually likening Robertson to Parks; though, comparing this to the previous racism being supported by the law of the time while is correct; it’s still an exaggerated comparison. Robertson’s statement may have been overgeneralized and lacking in awareness and sensitivity, but it was not the same thing as an authority enforcing a racist law! (So he is neither Parks, nor the driver!) These are the types of things that build the argument that he is just “race-baiting”.

    Where he really goes off the mark is the final statement of “white privilege”. This is the statement I discuss in Makers-Takers that can be heard being tossed around, but is not really expounded enough, though it really needs it because it is based on subtlety, and so easily misunderstood.
    Jackson needed to either clarify this, or use another term. I guess he meant that Robertson was used to the roles both blacks and whites had, so as long as everyone was content, it seemed everything was all right to him.

    If Jackson had rather gone after the point that the issue was being deemed as about “entitlement and welfare” (which basically dismisses the entire Civil Rights movement by ignoring all the other issues involved besides reparation; defenders of the system claimed Civil Rights was all a Communist plot anyway), and that “no one was singing the blues”, this would have forced these more legitimate problems (that conservatives don’t want to deal with) into the spotlight instead. But Jackson has always seemed to skip these points.

  12. Missed this one, from right around the time Makers-Takers was published. Seems to be a Glenn Beck related site, and the subject was bashing Oprah for comparing Trayvon to Emmett Till:

    We go on and on and on and on about mistreatment of Negroes back in the day, but they have MORE than made up for any injustices in their beating, assaulting, raping, and killing white folks. How are you supposed to feel sorry for blacks when they would love to kill you rather than even look at you. They don’t get any sympathy from me. Black are their own worst enemy and they themselves are holding themselves down. Any achievement through merit is considered “acting white” and they will do anything no to act like a white person. Blacks have more hate and racism towards whites than any white person did towards blacks 120 years ago. Stop using the victim card to justify your hatred towards whites.

    Oprah wouldn’t be a billionaire if she lived in such a racist country like she likes to pretend she does. She is a vile and disgusting individual.

    Just this morning, the guy (who calls himself “IheartIsrael”) posts (Re: American flag flying in New Mexico bank):
    “Or it could be that illegal beaners were offended that they flying an American flag instead of a Mexican flag. Patience amigo. You guys will be seceding from the US in due time. They just need to let a few more million flood in yet before your ‘dream act’ takes full effect.”

    Again, they can believe and say these things, and those they’re speaking of are wrong to complain of “racism”. And all the while, they’re the ones claiming to be the “real” victims of hatred! Why’s it OK for them?
    What must it be like to think ones self is so “right”.
    These are obviously people annoyed that their old “South” hasn’t risen again yet (which obviously wasn’t that bad; compared to today, where they’re the ones being lynched and burned out far worse than anything 120 years ago).

    Evidence of this: also from this morning: “Also, Jackie Robinson wasn’t the first black pro baseball player in the white leagues. After the Civil War, Northern whites (lib-tards of their day) pushed multiculturalism in the South.

    People claim to be for equality, and only opposing the blacks and their “lib-tard” supporters wanting more than is justified; but when you take this rhetoric to its logical extreme, anything but the old Southern system is evil multiculturalism, and it comes out of them eventually!
    (Funny how the Zionist theme often gets thrown in this radical rightism as well. It seems Israel remains the living proof God has “chosen” nations, with Western Christian nations grafted in, and rightful rulers when Israel plays its role in Armageddon—which ironically calls for a second Holocaust for this “Israel” they love so much, while these good ole American Christians get “raptured” out of it!)

    Anyway, just like them accepting Martin Luther King as a good Republican with a noble cause compared tot he way the conservatives of his day saw him, they’re putting Till on a pedestal compared to the non-“innocent” Trayvon; but look what Till had done: messing with a white woman. That back then was probably worse than Trayvon fighting a man.
    So yet again, at every turn, the racism of the past is glossed over. The US of 50 and more years ago was so perfect, and that’s what all of this hostile defensiveness is about.

  13. Rep. Barbara Lee rips Bill O’Reilly ‘code words’

    Hope they keep on it! This rhetoric has festered so long, these people really believe it and think it’s not racist. (This is what they then use to call those who point it out “race hustlers”).


    (Maybe I haven’t been paying attention, but how many black kids are walking around with tattoos on their necks?)

  14. To try to put this race blaming in a nutshell (inspired today by looking around Detroit on Google):

    If you insist on partisan rhetoric, it’s one thing to blame all the problems of the cities like Detroit on “Socialism”, and “the Democrats are socialists; it’s all the Democrats’ fault; they’ve let down the black community”, etc. (There are many blacks who would agree at least with that last point).
    But when you start going beyond that to “and the blacks fell for it because they want free handouts” and all the other CHARACTER judgments on the racial group, then you HAVE crossed over into racist stereotype (generalized way beyond reality), and appealing to statistics to use blacks “problems” as proof only digs yourself deeper. You’re the one “playing the race card”, then. (And there are people among your ranks, who voice your same “values”, but have sworn to get their old “South” back —and this has been “nationalized” into economic and “moral” concerns, so you get sucked into their agenda unknowingly but then don’t understand why you get tagged with [their] “bigotry”).

    Should also add, what I found here: as to what’s called “malignant narcissists”.

    A narcissist is someone who has become hypnotized and entranced by their own inflated self-image. A “malignant” narcissist, however, is a narcissist who reacts sadistically to others who don’t support and enable their narcissism. Ultimately, a malignant narcissist wants to annihilate anyone who in any way threatens their illusory self-image and self-serving agenda.

    (I posted a recent comment with a meme wishing Obama would “take one step for mankind” by jumping off a building!)

    Malignant narcissists are pathological liars who are very adept at lying, and due to their extreme inner dissociation, then believing their own lies. They fall into an infinite regression of being in denial about being in denial, which is to say, they are continually hiding from themselves. The one-sided conviction they carry in their act of self-deception can easily “entrance” people. A malignant narcissist plays on people’s fears so as to gain their trust and then control them, which is based on the abuse of power over others─the signature of a true dictator, be it in a family or a nation.

    Malignant narcissists can seem confident and self-assured, but are, in reality, covering deep insecurities and fears through an inflated self-image.

    This explains the “gung-ho” John Wayne “gunslinger”, despising others for “whining”, and yet complaining that they are the ones being “tread” upon, tryrannized, losing their nation, losing their majority status, etc.
    And my even being stirred up by the caliber of their zeal, and wondering why the other side doesn’t respond more strongly.

    “Malignant narcissists are not conscious of the interconnectedness between themselves and others.”
    Hence, actually thinking there is some fundamental difference between “those” people; the “problem” people with the crime and laziness, or “pathological liar” liberals, or “evil empire” socialists, or “terrorist” Muslims, and themselves. (Recall, there’s at least one person out there still pushing genetic inferiority!)

    Most importantly:

    Like a true bully, malignant narcissists abuse their position of power and privilege simply because they can, which is morally indefensible. They can endlessly “talk” about taking responsibility, but they never genuinely face up to and become accountable for their actions. Malignant narcissists play the role of the “victimizer disguised as the victim” so as to absolve themselves of blame. They perpetrate abuse and violence on others, while hiding behind the façade of being victims themselves. Malignant narcissists are truly crazy-making to others within their sphere of influence.

    Malignant narcissists are unwilling and unable to experience their sense of shame, guilt or sin, as their narcissism doesn’t allow these feelings. This inability to consciously feel their “negative” feelings is at the root of the dynamic in which they dissociate from their own darkness, blaming and “projecting the shadow” onto some “other.” This splitting off and projecting out their own evil results in always having a potential enemy around every corner, which is why malignant narcissists tend towards paranoia. Malignant narcissists continually “need” an enemy and will even create new ones to ensure that they don’t have to look at the evil within their own hearts. They react with aversion to the reflection of their own evil.

    Hence, it was OK for their forefathers to take away from others, and OK for modern business to milk the entire country dry economically, yet now that the descendants of the victims of the first evil are are still dysfunctional and thus the biggest victims of the economic injustice, they must be turned into the true “takers” victimizing those in power who represent the system of their forefathers.
    Then, the language of “responsibility” comes up, and judgment of evil motives such as “trying to get freebies”, or the crime; the “loose behavior”; whatever they can throw at them. And there is no sense that they could ever be wrong, just like they can so easily insist these other people are wrong. It’s like they are two different not even “species”, but a difference more on the order of angels vs demons, or unfallen or “glorified” man vs fallen man, at least. Ask them “what causeth thee to differ” (1 Cor.4:7), you get dead silence, even from the Christians.

  15. 7 Lies We Need to Stop Telling About Young African-American Men

    Jimmy Carter: Southern White Men Turn To The GOP Because Of ‘Race’

  16. Emanuel Cleaver Hammers Paul Ryan On Racial ‘Ignorance’

    Meanwhile, I haven’t addressed the voter fraud issue at all, as I thought I remembered having to have some sort of ID to vote, so I wasn’t sure what the fuss was about. (I know there’s the voter card, but I thought we showed ID as well).
    But liberals think voter ID requirements will prevent a lot of minorities and poor from being able to vote, and thus would be racist. Conservatives apparently think (without really saying it directly) that a lot of minorities, or at least Democrats in general, are voting more than once; “voter fraud”.

    So now, we get this:
    Rand Paul: GOP ‘May Have Over-Emphasized’ Voter Fraud Fears

    In light of this, it to me looks like the next desperate attempt, after the birth certificate debacle. Obama is totally invalid, and the only reason he got in was because his supporters all voted more than once.

  17. These last few days, we’ve been hearing a lot about this rancher who openly makes racist remarks

    Nevada rancher defends remarks, loses supporters

    Cliven Bundy Stands By Pro-Slavery Comments In Rambling Press Conference

    Cliven Bundy: If People Think I’m Racist, Blame MLK Jr.

    Since Reid is involved in this, it will step up the conservatives going after him (as they are already doing because of his attacks on the Kochs).

  18. On the heels of the rancher; the LA Clippers owner.
    A couple of good articles pointing out that this did not occur in a vacuum. So why all the uproar only now:

    ESPN Host Completely Nails The Part Of The Sterling Controversy Everyone Has Ignored

    NBA Legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Rips BOTH SIDES in Donald Sterling ‘Scandal’

  19. White Police Official Won’t Apologize For Calling Obama N-Word

    “We seem to have an epidemic of elderly white racists trying to explain their racism, to give what they believe are considered explanations for their abhorrent beliefs. They have criteria. They’ve thought this whole thing through. They’re not expressing loathsome and ignorant and hateful prejudice; they’ve got fact and reason on their side.

    And it had been allowed to totally fester like this (people opposing racism generally appealed more to emotion than fact), to the point they really believe this stuff.

  20. Black rednecks and white liberals

    An interesting take on the issue, though it’s ultimately another criticism of liberals and “multiculturalism”. (Like saying “ax” for “ask” is “today considered to be part of black English. But this way of talking was common centuries ago in those regions of Britain from which white Southerners came”).
    So I think it does have a point though, as far as championing the existing image of what it means to be “black”. This is ultimately what I go into here:

    The things about the affect of Southern culture on the current day dynamic came to mind recently in my study of the Five Points (the primary NYC slum of the 19th century). Blacks were there pretty much in the background, (mostly the basement levels of the Old Brewery, and the surrounding area on Little Water St. including Cow Bay) but were not the ones most known for all the violence and vice. Once uptown areas such as Harlem began being built, they moved out, and were described as doing quite well, while other groups remained and continued the negative character of the neighborhood.

    Conservatives try to blame the erosion of Southern values in North-based liberalism that took over after the Civil War for blacks’ problems (though Sowell is not taking this position, it seems), and why they can’t break out of the cycles of poverty “like all the other groups did”; but clearly, in NYC, they did, it seemed.
    It was the influx of people from the South, right after this period when slavery ended, who were damaged by all the brutality (like my own family was from Alabama where things were pretty bad, and as a result, very dysfunctional from dynamics attributable to slavery, only four generations removed from my parents), in addition to racist backlash in both the North and South (like the Klan in the South, and various groups in New York feeling threatned for jobs by the influx from the south, as I also read about in Five Points history) that contributed the the problems afterward.

    Meanwhile, now, the conservatives are even refusing to shake Obama’s hand:

    Of course, the issue was not directly race (though it was about immigration), but for every other leader, a handshake is professional protocol, regardless of whether you agree with or even like the person. More shadow stuff they are not even aware of! “This is how we treat every president”; right?

  21. “Treated just like everyone else”, they say!

    Conservative Scholar Disciplined For Suggesting Obama Be ‘Hung, Drawn And Quartered’

    These as well:

    GOP Rep.: Obama the ‘world’s sugar daddy’–obama-the-worlds-sugar-daddy-311948355745

    And now, in light of the whole Washington redskins controversy, Native Americans as well:

    Ted Nugent: Native American [detractors] Are ‘Unclean Vermin’ Who Don’t ‘Qualify As People’

    As usual, the old standaby that opposers just “hate happy, successful people.”

    (Edit: Though this site claims he wasn’t referring to the tribe:

  22. Good explanation:

    I especially like this comment:
    “The premise of this article with the HIV analogy and all is kind of dumb, but the responses below are telling. Mr. Robinson has apparently hit a nerve, and all the faux (or real) outrage in the world will not change the truth that racism is alive and well and thriving in conservative circles.
    Read the comments to any TDB article dealing with race in any way- the one about the little girl who was killed in Philly is a good place to start. Blatant racism, barely disguised race baiting, and angry denials (much like the ones here) when called on it. They seem to want to flaunt their racism while denying it at the same time, which I guess makes as much sense as anything else conservatives do. They are not racists, but are ashamed of their racism.
    All the hate below is just confirmation. Hate against blacks, liberals, democrats, Mr. Robinson, Obama, and anyone else who does not accept the conservative view of the world. But they are not racists. Conservatives seem to have no ability to understand themselves. How can we believe in their ability to understand the world?”

    Also interesting is this one:

  23. Someone posted this from the Allen West site:

    The hip-hop guide to liberalism: It’s free to swipe yo EBT [VIDEO]

    This man and the girl producing the video must really take pride that they are impressing conservatives with their “objectivity”. They will show the good Republicans that they are such “good ones”; so “different” from these horrible people she is “satirizing” (as her defenders insist on calling it), putting together a world-class slam on the Black American community far better than what any a white conservative could dream of, let alone EVER get away with!
    Sure hope they’re satisfied with themselves!

    Again, all of this is explained perfecly, two comments above. The most pertinent part can never be repeated too much:

    They seem to want to flaunt their racism while denying it at the same time… They are not racists, but are ashamed of their racism.
    All the hate…is just confirmation. Hate against blacks, liberals, democrats…Obama, and anyone else who does not accept the conservative view of the world. But they are not racists.

    As usual, on the web page, people take it as an occasion to add their own insults of the people. At least one affirms West himself is not like that. Happy, West, to provide a platform for people to put down the race you’re apart of (while excepting you)?

    On FB, I see several comments telling others that this is not real, the person making the video is not herself on welfare; she’s exposing it.
    So this shows how people think this is real, and she’s just promoting the image.

    Thankfully, come commenters on the video’s You Tube page responded. One asked who funded it. I replied:

    Wouldn’t be surprised if it was the Kochs. Their father was a big advocate of the whole “blacks and communists together will destroy the nation”. So keep all the focus on them.
    So take some abuse of assistance that may occur, ghetto language, etc, generalize it to the hilt (“This is where ALL the tax money goes…”, the most blatant stereotypes of sexual looseness, etc), and put together a modern minstrel show that makes the 1930’s, or the portrayal on Bamboozled look like a respectable play. “It’s the TRUTH” [they say], so ANYTHING GOES. Put out stuff like this, but it’s those blacks themselves who are the “race baiters”, right!

    Whoever may be using the system wrong; are they really supposed to see this, and then suddenly change? Or is it just more scapegoating and deflection from other issues people never want to look at. (and also, people who may be apart of the community, and yet trying to prove themselves “different”). The whole charge that “people don’t want to look at themselves” that people think justifies this goes both ways. Nobody is that “up there”, that you can try to stick other people’s flaws in their face, while you have nothing in your own closet someone could jump on. (i.e. the “Truth” is ALWAYS on your side).

    Stuff like that is why we have this:

    Right around the 6:00 area, “Now you sit back down, African American Community, and know you’re wrong”, he should have added “you need to be getting angy at yourselves for your own crimes, and rising up and doing something about THAT”, which is the general response by conservatives these days, as if the entire community has forfeited all rights for better treatment by the Law.

    If the stuff in that “satire” is so much “the truth”, no wonder the police treat us that way!

    • I had forgotten the name of the third “good one” conservatives like for echoing their sentiments (after Cain, and West), but it’s Ben Carson, who’s now blaming the Michael Brown death on teen pregnancy and “all of those kids who are born into poverty and will live in poverty and in many cases will end up without a father figure in their life and don’t know how to respond to authority”

      Carson, who has built a political career by regularly arguing that he is losing his right to free speech because people criticize his political views and that he is facing Nazi-style persecution, said “hypersensitive” people who manufacture claims about how their rights are under attack are ruining America.

      Carson later said the “agitators” and “criminals” in Ferguson need to be punished and the real lesson is that people should “teach your children to respect authority.”

      Ironically, a few months ago Carson praised the “outstanding people” who flocked to the Bundy ranch in Nevada to assist in the lawless standoff with law enforcement, saying that it is high time for Americans to “stand up against the government” and stave off looming martial law.

      Do I hear “Yes, suh!“?

      Also, now, Dinesh, D’Souza, the great world authority on Black America and its problems, chimes in, comparing the Ferguson unrest with ISIS (the terrorist group in Iraq) as a “reversal” of the historic “injustice” in the country; and of course, it’s all wrapped up as a criticism of “the left and the media”

    • Another handkerchief head slamming his own race in favor of the good conservative (or “independent”) agenda:

      If these people are so unhappy with the govt. then it would be interesting if they could one day secede, and then this Bakari guy, plus others like Carson and West who seem to think that way, could go and live in their nation, and then see how friendly the people (such as BUNDY of all people, who thought slavery was better for us; see above!) are to you then. (Hint, with all these other blacks who “whine”, “beg” and think they are “owed” gone, the only ones left for them to stereotype and blame and force into lower class status will be you!)

      An interesting article:
      Whites think discrimination against whites is a bigger problem than bias against blacks

      Now, this movie I’ve kept hearing about sounds interesting:

      The 2008 election of Barack Obama ushered in a rash of declarations about the dawn of a post-racial America. But by the time he took the oath of office, it was already becoming clear to many African-Americans that Obama’s presidency was giving some white people a new conduit to express deep-seated prejudices they had previously only dared utter in private.

      Black Americans often found themselves blindsided by the reality that one of their own had ascended to the most powerful perch in the world, and yet he would be forced to endure the same indignities that people of color had been subjected to for generations.

    • Finally got around to putting together this:

      Only way to portray the self-hating stereotypes of these two clowns (the one producing the video and the political hack promoting it on his blog).
      Prompted just now when someone on FB posted the meme of him (talking about how it’s liberals who are “dividing” the country) that appears in the graphic.

  24. Strong language, but he nails the whole “They’re only telling it like it is” and “the media doesn’t want to talk about it” points:

  25. Yet another one (in the midst of what seems like a rash of incidents):

    Assumes “ALL the incidents I seen, all the brothers was resisting arrest, and causing trouble”.
    And the whole “waht about all the black on black killings; what about Chicago…” argument, like that takes away any rights with other groups.

    With all the mocking (and even stereotypical bad English), plus being on “Tea Party News Network” and “RightWing News” as it is, he sounds like another right wing puppet (Like West and Carson, see above).

    Again, it’s conservatives, in total denial of their own flaws (and the flaws of the nation, including gunworship and other violence, and justifying the dehumanizing of blacks, this time using blacks own “problems” to justify it), trying to defelect to blacks, and tell us how to improve ourselves, to bring ourselves up to “par”.
    They complain we won’t do it ourselves; so then they will raise up others do do it instead. Some of them will do it, but then if white, they will come under fire for “racism”. So then they raise up people like D’Souza. Still no good. The final tactic is to raise up blacks themselves. Headline: “THIS is who you should listen to, instead of Sharpton”. I say both look like they are tied to partisan or other agendas.

    However, a lot of what he’s saying is true. Before even seeing this, I had drafted a statement of my own, after hearing of day after day of rioting. Mulling whether to create a new article post, or wait until an occasion, it seems this is just as good as one:

    There’s a difference between what is done or not, and what is justified or not. All of this mistreatment going on, particularly from law enforcement (and sometimes, still, discrimination from business and government) is because people see blacks through the lens of their “culture”, which has promoted the image of us as trash. So cops’ motto is to just shoot away, especially after two decades of rap messages such as “F the Police” or “Cop Killer”, and then, just the whole image of the “thug” or “hoochie mama”, which is not just what others have called us, but what we have gone along with promoting in both our “street” culture as well as the hip hop idiom providing its background soundtrack.
    People in the streets do carry themselves in an intimidating way, deliberately. It evokes fear, and this is precisely how others, including cops, are reacting to us.

    We may give our reasons why we do these things, which usually basically boils down to “all the anger from all the years of oppression”. But they do not see it as justified. However, it is what we do, regardless.
    So likewise, they may not be justified in reacting the way they do, and essentially denying our right to live (playing “judge, jury and executioner” on the spot, and often using either the way the “suspects” dress, the way they move, or even that they have committed crimes as their justification, such as this guy having just robbed a store, which the officer didn’t even know at the time). But this is the way they will react.

    So I see this back and forth nightly cycle of anger, demonstration, and then violence from the mob, and then toward the mob. But this just doesn’t seem to be the best way to go about things.

    And there needs to be some way for both sides to improve their awareness, rather than all the denial, and demonizing, dismissing and even mocking of the other side.

  26. Here’s a very interesting good article:

    Could This Be One Of The Reasons Cops Think Shooting Black Kids Is The Only Answer?

    Basically, in the early to mid 90’s, a prediction was made of violent youth criminals increasing dramatcally, culminating in what they dubbed superpredators. (The term “predator” itself is not new; as it was used in both the slavery and segregations cycles, to make whites afraid of blacks to justify division. The social scientist putting this new concept together tried to deny any racial categorization, but later said that more than half of them would be black. He also mentions “godless”, throwing a religious angle into it as well).
    So this is what the police have preprared for, in stepping up their tactics against black kids.

    This began occuring as juvenile crime was in decline.

    This right as rap solidified its decade-long move from “party” and “message” to “gangsta”, which clearly promoted this very image of a “super-predator” who could even take out the police. The timing makes it all the more look like that move in rap (naturally promoted by the musc industry) may have been deliberate.

    The guy (John DIulio) did eventually turn around, though

    An interesting article on Sharpton:
    Al Sharpton does not have my ear: Why we need new black leadership now

    Sharpton had preached that “we have to clean up our community so we can clean up the United States of America”, because, “nobody is going to help us if we don’t help ourselves.” Thus, we must quickly dispense with our penchant for ‘ghetto pity parties’.”

    The article comments “Sharpton’s words should certainly put to rest those critics who suggest that black people are never outraged about ‘black-on-black crime’ and the ills that plague black communities.
    Quite ironic, and he did sound almost like a conservative, but the conservatives keep criticizing him for not saying exactly what he said.

    I had heard someone talking somewhere, saying Sharpton demanded a lot of money to preach or something, and that’s the sort of thing that would make me agree with people who say he’s just “hustling”.

    This is good:

  27. Another [occasional] “strong language” one from YouTube “Secular Talk”, but again, nails the issue:

    Limbaugh’s Sidekick: Segregation Was The ‘Good Ole’ Days’

  28. Moved:

    In an analysis of news stations in New York City, Media Matters found “coverage of cases involving black suspects outpaced historical arrest rates from NYPD statistics.”

    In other words, news outlets aired a higher percentage of stories involving suspects of color than of those who were actually suspects in a crime. According to Ghandnoosh’s research, that makes white people think African Americans and Latinos commit more offenses than they do. It also leads white people to believe they are more likely to be victimized by a person of color, despite that the majority of crimes are intra-racial—whites victimizing other whites, blacks victimizing other blacks, Latinos victimizing other Latinos.

    Ironically, many conservatives have been complaining (rather loudly) that the media always stuffs all black crime, and focuses only on [the well publicized] white-on-black incidents.

  29. One “white nationalist” guy puts out an hour long documentary called “A Conversation About Race”, which starts out sounding OK, (even claiming to “agree” with President Obama on the need to “talk about race”), but then quickly becomes about how whites are censured and disfavored.
    (One commenter in typical fashion, accused someone else of “victim” rhetoric”, but as always, why isn’t this whole premise seen as “victimhood”? Anyone who said anything contrary was called “anti-white”).

    One thing that stood out, is how he equivocates basketball with other things such as “human relations” and “being able to get and keep a job”. If we can say blacks are ‘”better” at one, when why can’t we say whites are “better” at the other things?

    The tactic is to just use blacks’ basketball savvy to get the notion of “better” in there, and then switch to other issues, where whites are “better”, and these will turn out to be the socially, politically decisive issues.
    This at best would just lead to the old “blacks are ‘bred’ for sports”, but not leadership belief; you know, “do something with your hands” that blacks were told. So then they took that advice, and then afterward remained at the bottom of the ladder, that was taken as more proof they were just lazy and inferior. Basically, it’s saying blacks are good to entertain us; they’re only “better” at nonessentials, but the things that really count, such as what qualify one to rule, whites are better.

    The guy doesn’t get it, as to why this is wrong.
    He also uses Asians scoring higher on tests to debunk the notion that the tests are made by and geared for whites. OK, but then if you’re really going to go by that, and these things determine who is superior and should rule, then will you be willing to cede your land over to Asians should they ever demand it?
    (Then, from there, also, the assumption that colonization of the Indians was OK, because Indians fought each other and took each other’s land. But how does this set what’s OK, for you, the “superior”, and even “Christian” nation, to do? And then why would it be wrong for someone else, such as let’s say the “illegal aliens” from Latin America he complains about, to take it from you?)

    I then go to look up this guy, Craig Bodeker, and find the SPLC’s entry on him. For one, it says that he often posts in comments, calling the president and blacks “monkeys”.
    But that’s pretty much all it does. It doesn’t debunk anything he says.

    What I found shocking, is that the comments are filled more with people defending this guy, and no one answering them! It was like still being on Bodeker’s page!

    We really need to stop ignoring this sort of stuff. You may think it’s just some “crack-pot” or something, but the way they can hide their rhetoric behind a calm “conversation” armed with “facts” has the ability to sway a lot of people. The fact that in today’s news, people still think blacks have no rights against cops because of our own violence (and even the mayor and others are made “enemies” of cops and/or whites just for acknowledging a problem on that end) shows many have already bought something like this. If we wake up in some sort of race war some day, with almost no one on our side, then we can thank ignoring rhetoric like this, and allowing it to breed.

    To reprint a section of my old site on politics:

    Is “White Solidarity” the same as Black Solidarity?

    Many racist groups even have the gall to demand the rights for their own groups, complaining that if minorities can have such groups, why shouldn’t they have theirs. People think one “solidarity group” is just as good as another, but the question is, what is the purpose of these groups? If one group represents those who were oppressed and still fight for denied rights of the minority group, then what could a group for the power holding “majority” possibly be for? To “gain power”, which would mean taking back gains made by the other groups?

    Despite all the “reversely discriminated against victims” rhetoric we hear these days, that’s the only “advancement” they could possibly make. Already, such groups that do exist (and there are many) are simply trying to restore the past system of inequality, and this is why the whole idea is condemned.
    Likewise, even having a Martin Luther King holiday followed by Black History Month is dismissed as “unbridled racial histrionics allowed to run rampant “. As one person says to me, “Would public school officials be so quick to celebrate ‘White History Month’ if such a month were declared? I think not. I am not a racist, but I do get tired of multiculturalism and its overemphasis on the importance of being in the racial minority. I can’t celebrate being ‘white’ without being accused of being some kind of redneck. But blacks get an entire month in the public schools devoted to celebrating themselves and their culture.”

    That’s because of the fact that white culture is still dominant, and blacks and others had been so put down (and our culture attempted to be eradicated) that we then had to try to celebrate it in order for our culture to survive.
    Besides, Black institutions, celebrations, etc. areinclusive meaning that whites are in no way barred, but that the “blackness” of it is only emphasized to give downtrodden blacks out there something to look up to.

    So-designated “White” institutions, however, have historically been defined as exclusive, and the memories of the past still stick in the public consciousness, plus as was just mentioned, the fact that there are still some that wish to exclude others, or uphold whiteness under a premise of racial superiority which supposedly justifies inequality.
    As was just pointed out, what would really be the purpose of a “White History Month”? The conservatives have not cleaned up their past of racial hatred, so they cannot expect people to not be suspicious of any efforts of so-called ‘solidarity’ for their group. When people stop despising others, (including blaming for perceived social or economic problems, or trying to get some old conception of “the nation” back) maybe then this apparent disparity will even out.

    Also ( White groups DO have “pride” celebrations that are NOT accused of racism, and those are the ethnic sub-groups they all are apart of.

    The problem is comparing “white” to “black” as “groups”. Mixing up of categories (one based on skin color and the other based on original nationality).
    Blacks have all been compressed into a SINGLE GROUP, where most whites still have their ethnic identities. So “black” becomes one group next to the Irish, Italians, etc.

    Most of the people complaining are mostly Alglo’s, whose culture is still the dominant influence

  30. Here’s yet another “backlash” sentiment:

    Looks Like Black Privilege to Me, from the Hanna Channel

    But how is that “privilege“? Like blacks are getting away with violence more, and really should be getting killed by cops even more? There is no direct correlation between how many blacks are committing violence against whites, and how many are getting killed by cops. And the more recent uproar against killings by cops this meme is reacting against, is not about blacks who were accused of harming whites.

    Thankfully, one commenter on the “friend” post points out:
    “This clearly shows the number of blacks killed by police is disproportionately high compared to the number of whites killed by police. There appears to be an attempt to appeal to people who flunked arithmetic by impressing them with the fact that 2151 is bigger than 1130, without mentioning that 2151 is smaller compared to the number of white people than is 1130 compared to the number of black people.”
    Another stated the obvious question: “What about the argument that blacks are only 12% of the population? Shouldn’t the number of blacks killed by the police be smaller to reflect the 12% demographic?

    Even on the original post (which are usually 100% invective agreeing with the meme), people pointed out: “This whole thing is dumb… We constantly feed into the media…,letting them separate us… It’s not black and white we are all people !” and a response: “Thank you and well said… as long as we continue posting crap like this we are separating ourselves…”.
    In other words, as much as the right wingers posting this stuff claim a “race card” is being played on them; they are the ones actually continuing to put it on the table!

    Also, an old post, from a couple of months ago involving a story at Oberlin College; where it’s claimed students involved in Ferguson protests wanted to receive passing grades just because they were black.
    But from what I saw looking that up, the students were not asking to be passed because they were black; they were asking to be passed because they missed school work, or exams or whatever, because of the protests.

    Now, you can say, if they participate in the protests and fall behind in work, they must accept failing as the consequence, but that is not the same as them asking for special favor [directly] because of their race, which was insinuated. Their participation in the protest might be connected with their race, but it is not accurate to compound that into the race being the CRITERIA for the favor, and then lumping this into this general criticism of the race as “whining” for special privilege, as was done.

    These are some of the many ways people claiming to deal out “truth” that [always] “hurts” others completely bend the truth!

  31. The 13 Racist Police E-mails You Didn’t Read

    And they think their crusade against “saggy pants” is just common decency and not racism (Re: “It’s a money thing; you wouldn’t understand” meme).

    One person in the comments asks “There are Polish jokes, lawyer jokes, redneck jokes, Jewish jokes, farmer jokes, blond jokes, etc. What’s wrong with Black jokes? ” I think it’s a matter something called (in Spanish) “confianza”. The race issue with blacks had been so bad (race was like a “hierarchy”, with dark skin on the absolute bottom, and those other lighter skinned groups, while perhaps facing discrimination and hatred, were still “higher” on the list, and not persecuted as much), that jokes by others are not trusted. That’s why blacks can say the N word to each other, but others can’t.
    (And for instance, aren’t most Jewish jokes told by Jews? They do become very suspicious when OTHERS make certain cracks about them, because to them as well, there are a lot of sore spots regarding past persecution).

    And many still hold the sentiments, grudgingly feeling something has been “taken” from them, to give to “undeserving” blacks (whether the rights in the past, or the exaggeration of social programs and alleged abuses of them, etc). so anything they say will be questionable.

    So then, you get stuff like this (is that baggy pants meme even a “joke”? People complaining about the dress style and even trying to ban it sure seem serious!) and it proves that it’s all MORE than a mere “joke”.
    They tried to hide and stuff the sentiments when they became socially unacceptable (but still nevertheless berating “political correctness” and “multiculturalism” for censoring them in the first place), but it still comes out, especially when they think no one is looking.

  32. 12 teens beat white pregnant woman in Sanford

    There may be a point in the seeming double standard, but when the meme says “thugvon” (toward the one killed, not the one doing the killing, who recently showed yet again what a problem-prone individual he is! No matter how much he’s in the news, Trayvon is the one they attack as a “thug”), they show they are not being objective; and this is precisely why things are as they complain! (i.e. they get readily accused of racism, and not blacks committing crimes against whites).

    Considering this report: I believe it is the white supremacists putting out these memes, and they’ve infiltrated the general white conservative public, and claim to speak for them in the name of “hard truth”, but they are clearly putting forth an agenda of their own; one to prove the old notions of black inferiority, by (once again) hiding it behind “facts” and other code language that the others can relate to.

    So an event like this (which they steady mine the news for) becomes the justification for them spewing all this venom against individual blacks (whether Trayvon, Obama, Sharpton, Jackson, the “community”; if not the whole danged race itself) that obviously goes way beyond the evil of the situation at hand.
    They think nobody can possibly see through this, and so loudly disclaim “the race card”, even though they know good and well they believe they are “superior (cough”exceptional”cough). They even claim “it’s just fact”, with stories such as this as the whole “proof”.
    There are white supremacist sites and organizations out there, but they are not the only venues they are operating through.

  33. Everybody Chill: There’s No Ferguson-Inspired ‘New Nationwide Crime Wave’

    Basically, the much feared “the blacks are gonna go wild now” (both from the police “pulling back”, and the blacks taking the opportunity to “act up” more); and with the supposed “facts” of statistical data, yet it is here shown how that is selectively spun by only looking at or focusing on certain data.

    Further examination tells a story of cherry-picking.

    For instance, as you go through that three-paragraph flurry of frightening statistics slowly, you become aware that there’s a lot of mixing and matching happening. Homicides are compared to shootings. Robberies are broken out in one instance, while in another instance, the whole of one city’s violent crimes are bundled together under the banner of “other violent felonies.”

    Again, this was the same tactics used by Jim Crow defenders when that system was overturned. As I said in the previous post, it is likely white supremacists behind the scenes, instigating these claims. Yet once again, they are the ones to complain of a “race card”.

    Commenters passed around the answer to this supposed “Ferguson Effect”, as what they called the “FOX Effect”:

    Another example of the Fox/GOP propaganda machine at work:
    Insert an incomplete and misleading article with a false theme into The Wall Street Journal, owned by Rupert Murdoch as is Fox News.
    Now that it’s ‘news’, make it a constantly repeated theme across Fox’s programming to drive home an anti-black, anti Obama message based on this false ‘news’.

    Another said “It’s an attempt to bring Willie Horton back into politics.”

  34. “Cuckservative” is the new term that has erupted in the past week, of far right white supremacists against the “mainstream” conservatives who deny the racist underpinnngs of much of their ideology.

    A cuckold, of course, is a legitimate word for the husband of an adulterous wife — but that doesn’t really do justice to what they’re suggesting here, either. The people who throw this term around are most likely referencing a type of pornography whereby a (usually, white) man is “humiliated” (or ironically thrilled) by being forced to watch his wife having sex with another (usually, black) man. I’m not going to link to this, but feel free to Google it.

    So what does this have to do with conservatism or politics? By supporting immigration reform, criminal justice reform, etc., a white conservative is therefore surrendering his honor and masculinity (and it won’t be long before his women folk are compromised, as well!). A cuckservative is, therefore, a race traitor.

    The suggestion is that whites should only support policies that help whites. The goal is to stir up fear among whites — and to encourage more tribalism and polarization.

    I bring this up because I suppose it’s possible that some conservatives might embrace this term without fully understanding the racial and sexual implications. To some, it might be seen as an innocent jab — like calling someone a “squish” or a “RINO.” But as Erickson correctly observes, “Remember, if you hear the term ‘cuckservative,’ it is a slur against Christian voters coined by white-supremacists.”

    As the guy who wrote “Stuff Black People Don’t Like” tweeted, a cuckservative will include someone who “believes blacks thrived before the Great Society, without admitting it was Jim Crow that kept them – somewhat – in check“. or “blames the failures of 65% black Baltimore and 83% black Detroit on big government, instead of blacks who run both cities” and “Looking at 83% black Detroit and blaming unions for the city’s collapse…. instead of just the paucity of whites”, “A person who believes abortion is wrong b/c it harms primarily blacks, without seeing how blacks harm civilization” and most interestingly “worship the Constitution, without understanding it’s just a piece of paper that completely failed to safeguard OUR liberties”
    (This was the guy I cited in Makers-Takers as considering suspending the Constitution if necessary, in some move against McDonald’s, which IIRC he was saying was too associated with blacks. So we see he is basically against the Constitution altogether. I cited it as an example of a double standard of conservativism that usually upholds the Constitution as part and parcel of its anti-black sentiments, and yet what it might come to if pushed to its logical extreme. I could hardly tell the difference between this guy, and the mainstream, but here, he is clearly lashing out at the mainstream, as having been “cuckolded”. Here’s an answer to him from some sort of black conservative blog:

    • ‘Cuckservative:’ Trump’s Code Word Is A Study In Racism, Misogyny

      The GOP crack-up continues: The raging civil war over the disgusting “cuckservative” slur

      “Cuckservative,” you see, is short for a cuckolded conservative. It’s not about a Republican whose wife is cheating on him, but one whose country is being taken away from him, and who’s too cowardly to do anything about it.

      OK, that’s gross and sexist enough already, but there’s more. It apparently comes from a kind of pornography known as “cuck,” in which a white husband, either in shame or lust, watches his wife be taken by a black man. Lewis explains it this way: “A cuckservative is, therefore, a race traitor.”

      This is not merely a new way to shout “RINO.” It’s a call to make the GOP an explicitly racist party, devoted to the defense of whites.

      In the New Republic Jeer Heet shared this porny snippet from Gregory Hood’s anti-cuckservative manifesto in the white nationalist site American Renaissance:

      «They are like a man who tries to appeal to a woman through acts of submission; they inspire not desire but disgust. Each new conservative surrender inspires only further contempt in the hearts of leftists, which of course encourages conservatives to capitulate even more eagerly the next time.

      There’s also the variety of cuckold who gets a thrill from watching another man mount his wife. Such a creature possesses the illusion of control. He can tell himself that he is directing this obscenity and thus remain, in some way, the dominant figure.

      American conservatism is perhaps best summarized as maintaining a posture of command even as the reality of control is lost. Thus conservatives cheering on the demographic transformation of the country tell themselves they remain leaders in the new America. The cuck in the corner begging to be degraded is still technically the ‘man of the house,’ for all the good it does him.»

      Disgraced former Breitbot Chuck C. Johnson embraced the term last week in Takimag:

      «[Cuckservative is] about the fake, phony conservatives who enjoy watching the real fighters on the right get sodomized while they gleefully gawk. They crave respectability over power and the limelight over influence. Seldom paid for their performances on Fox News or MSNBC, they repeat conventional wisdom after getting gussied up—but you can’t polish a soul.»

      Mentions this article (and all the commenters are justifying the term!)

      Go Cuck Yourself

      One good thing about this is that those radical racists, who have done so well to blend in with the mainstream all these years, are now separating themselves, and will be easily identifiable with this term as their clarion call. It’s about time someone on that side finally stood up and admitted it and owned the “race card”! And hopefully, the mainstream conservatives will eventually have to make a stand, as to whether they will continue to cuck the code while denying its full meanings, or to completely turn from racial politics in all its disguised forms.

      Perhaps, it will lead to a “Part II” to the Southern Strategy, where the racists had left the Democrats when they became too progressive, and the Republicans became the lesser of two evils, but now that party also is becoming too moderate, and so now these “true conservatives” will once again defect.
      But as for now, they have nowhere to go. The Constitution Party would be the natural refuge, but unlike the Republicans, they are not established, and seem unable to get off the ground. So these people would finally isolate themselves as a dying fringe.

  35. Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa
    by Ilana Mercer

    Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from post-Apartheid South Africa is a polemical work anchored in history, reality, fact, and the political philosophy of classical liberalism. It is a manifesto against mass society, arguing against raw, ripe, democracy, here (in the US), there (in South Africa), and everywhere. Into the Cannibal’s Pot follows Russell Kirk’s contention that true freedom can be found only within the framework of a social order. It is a reminder that, however imperfect, civilized societies are fragile. They can, and will, crumble in culturally inhospitable climes. The tyranny of political correctness, so unique to the West plays a role in their near-collapse. Advanced societies don’t just die; they either wither from within, or, like South Africa, are finished off by other western societies.

    The ultimate “truth” being put forth is that apartheid was good (as well as the corresponding pre-Civil Rights society of America), and it was only because of ever so false “political correctness”, “egalitarianism” and “white guilt” that it was ended.

    Into the Cannibal’s Pot reveals what happens when an advanced nation built by European people upon Christian principles is deceived by the Cultural Marxist dream of racial egalitarianism and in the name of justice and liberty surrenders political power to an African majority that had never shown the capacity to create or sustain a free, just, and civilized society. What we have witnessed since the end of Apartheid is African political leaders in South Africa dragging that nation down to the same violent, primitive and tribal existence found in every other failed African government, and for the same reasons.

    Ms. Mercer’s book tells the real story of South Africa in the face of almost universal silence by the Liberal Media in the West. Her candor and lack of political correctness is refreshing and her application of the lessons of South Africa to America is instructive. Her book is a timely warning of what can happen when a nation leaves its core principles for the sake of poltical expedience and phony compassion and equality.

    Once upon a time there was the post-colonial Black African spring that turned into bloodbaths in short order. Now, decades later, the bloodbaths continue. The optimists insisted, based on a belief in egalitarianism, people were fungible; that x, given the opportunity, could be inserted for y and an ordered society would continue apace. South Africa and Zimbabwe (among many others) have proved otherwise and the optimists have been reduced to closing an already blind eye to the consequences.

    Ilana Mercer’s “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from post-Apartheid South Africa”, will have none of that. South Africa, once her home, is put front, center, and under a microscope. The lessons for America are clear and found in Zimbabwe and South Africa she insists i.e., the changing of an ordered society of high-intelligence people sharing the norms of civilization into a disordered society of rudimentary Communism, black/minority empowerment (entitlement), and black/minority dispensation (freedom from culpability).

    “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” features an invaluable contrast of past and present throughout the book, the past/present of Ian Smith/Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe, deKlerk/Mandela-Zuma South Africa, and is best represented in the U.S. by pre 64′ Civil Rights Act America and present day America. Many believe and Ms. Mercer concurs and makes a case that The Civil Rights Act has put us on the road to Zimbabwe with no hope of laughs or a happy ending.

    The optimists who look up as we descend, Ms. Mercer points out, are the usual suspects pushing for leveling, pulling for the underachiever, excusing the maladjusted, and all the while ignoring the resultant demolition of society and ultimately the bloodletting that in her South Africa has reached genocidal proportions.

    Those easily distracted, bought off cheap, impenetrably obtuse, willfully impercipient and dog faithful to a cause but mole blind to effect will likely object to the book for no other reason than it insists on connecting the dots – Zimbabwe, South Africa, America, pernicious devolution (three of the four definitions for `devolution’, common, formal, and legal, apply and are demonstrated in the book).

    “Into the Cannibal’s Pot” is an eye opener; thorough, skillfully and courageously presented, and utterly conclusive in making its case against social engineering, leveling, pandering; and utterly damning of not just the destruction of societies and people but especially the willful disregard of the world – not in not noticing but in having noticed and failed to point fingers, name names, and call a culprit a culprit.

    Ilana Mercer presents a riveting discussion on the disaster of ANC majority rule in South Africa and warns us that similar fate awaits us here in America if we follow the politically correct path that South Africa has taken.

    What was interesting in this book is that democracy does not work where societies are uncivilized and/or swayed by promises of instant wealth and free stuff.

    Another facet of the book is the idea of white guilt where they are made to feel guilty about the wrongs of the past, real or imagined. They then are shamed into giving up power which in most cases lead to untold misery, mainly in the Third World.

    This book is a valuable resource for those who are skeptical of omnipotent government.

    The once-prosperous nation has regressed to the traditional African nightmare of warring tribes, who are totally clueless about governing a modern country. Yet, do-gooder European and American leftists continue to revel in the notion that they helped “free” black citizens and gave them political power, blithely ignoring bloodshed and carnage that rival the despicable acts of ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq.

    Ms. Mercer’s book also draws parallels among elements that caused the collapse of South Africa and what is occurring in the United States. In stark, shocking terms, she exposes how the United States is on the same path to Hell, thanks to mindless political correctness and blind devotion to the failed socialist tenet of income redistribution—stealing from producers and giving the spoils to nonproducers in the name of “fairness.” The facts are indisputable, and her predictions inescapable. For confirmation, look no farther than outcomes of the disastrous social engineering experiment that exist in today’s “free” South Africa. We Americans have been warned…and time is running out.

    Anyone who thought it would be different in South Africa was smoking something. This book makes it quite clear where we are heading and, once having read it, it is quite embarrassing to have thought that the cannibals might be able to do the job.

    Gives you a first person picture of what happens when “social justice” over rides laws and common sense. What happens when you don’t have the courage or intelligence to stand up for what you truly believe in. Why multiculturalism is rubbish and non-workable. While South Africa is thousands of miles away, Ferguson, St. Louis and Baltimore are all excellent local examples of the outcome. If you want to know what lay ahead in the coming progressive world, read this.

    Sadly, what passes for conservatism in America today can’t seem to grasp that individual discrimination q.v. is the essence of freedom. Sanctimonious conservative talking heads who seem to think that Gov. Pence’s Indiana is all (and only) about freedom of religion, and are incapable of registering a connection to “civil rights” legislation of 50 years ago, would do well to read Ms. Mercer – this book, as well as her WND column. Ilana’s is a beautifully intelligent, classical liberal (Jeffersonian) voice in the wilderness of 21st century American political discourse.

    wherever they go blacks ruin life for everyone seems to be the thesis of this well written book. It is a very disturbing read and meant as a warning against what is to come. Political correctness blinds people to the hard facts and assertions in this book. I recommend it because the message is unique and her thoughts seem valid and are not often stated so bluntly. The writer grew up in South Africa and she knows of what she speaks. She reluctantly has drawn some harsh conclusions about diversity and multiculturalism. It doesn’t work well at all unless you like crime and violence and ignorance.

    Again, I have to wonder who all of these people are, among all the people I pass by in the world.

    Notice, in at least one of the quotes, how it is tied up with “Christian principles”, and the universal enemy is “communism” [Marxism] giving the unworthy people “free stuff”. This we of course hear all the time in US politics. As always, “entitlement” is thrown in there, but the premise is not that entitlement is wrong in itself for anyone (as one might assume); it’s the side being defended by the writer that is truly entitled, but wrongly having things taken from them.

    Since they bring the term “Christian” into it, then we can ask, from the Christian’s scriptures, “For who makes you to differ from another? and what have you that you did not receive? now if you did receive it, why do you glory, as if you had not received it?” (1 Corinthians 4:7). This scripture is often used by Calvinists to disprove free-will salvation in favor of unconditional “election”. (And Calvinism was derived from Catholic theologian Augustine, who shaped much of the rest of the Church of the West). They can also use it to answer the question on race.

    For of course, South Africa was founded by Dutch Calvinists who (much like the equally Calvinist “Puritans” of America) believed that mankind was divided into the “chosen” and the “reprobates” (based on Romans 9), and that by adopting Christianity, “the West” (European civilization) showed itself to be the new “chosen” nation, and Africans, remaining in tribal worship and violence, showed themselves to be perpetually “accursed” (which of course, many had tied to the “curse of Canaan”, even though the Bible never ties Canaan to any category called “the black race”, and the only definite black nations in Genesis 9: Ethiopia, Libya and Egypt, are tied to other sons of Ham, but the curse was only on that one son, Canaan. All of this rendered moot by the fact that God did not even utter the curse; Noah did, out of anger, and nowhere does God ever even acknowledge this curse. Though various Canaanite tribes may have been ordered to be fought and killed in their dealings with Israel in scripture, it was clear that all Gentiles without God gravitated toward the same idolatry, and even the “chosen” nation itself kept being influenced).

    In these people’s view, election and reprobation extends beyond salvation/damnation after death to prosperity and right to rule or be enslaved (through a lack of “capacity” to be free) now, in this life, as well. (Many try to blame racism on “Darwinism”, where the different “races” evolved to different levels, but Darwin, like everyone else, only assumed the prevailing racial views, and incorporated them into his theory. ⦅Just like many religious racists are not Calvinist, but the initial view of superiority is grounded in Calvinism⦆. This trying to pin racism on evolution is just very dishonest “splitting” of the sin of self-exaltation onto “others” whom they already try to blame for their loss of religious control over society ⦅just like many do with the Democratic party⦆, while they themselves are the ones continuing to hold onto sentiments of superiority. If the supposed “children of light” were full of darkness, then how dark would the society they led become; —even if it initially had a veneer of “morality”).

    Hence, the “Christian principles” being fought for were that God’s “chosen” are the rightful rulers of the earth, and therefore “egalitarianism” (that all men are created equal) is in total opposition to God. That’s also how slavery and segregation here in the US were defended, on the same “Christian principles” they likewise claim were being eroded here over the course of the 20th century, and especially in its last half.
    The “proof” is that when a nation turns aside from these “principles”, and tries to make the cursed race “equal” (through their own idealistic sentiments, or through their own guilt at being the “chosen”) all chaos breaks loose.

    The notion of the dysfunction of the people (including violence and inability to run a decent nation or community on their own) being from the previous oppression, is rejected as an “excuse”. For that would be an admission of sharing part of the blame for the problems they complain about today. It instead has to be everyone else’s fault (the “problem people” themselves, and a rogue “white” party trying to use these people to destroy society).

    Overall, it is a vicious cycle, because the oppression is what proves that they were really not “exceptional” (ultimately, just as “barbarian” as others they look down on, only carrying it out in different ways), and not following true BIBLICAL principles (the Gospel; which right there would prove they were not “chosen”, nor even following Christ at all under the common teaching that one must believe the true Gospel in order to receive grace and be saved); but then if they justify it with “presuppositions” of superiority (and the relevant proof texts, if the discussion gets that deep), then it itself becomes the very proof of exceptionality, and the person questioning it is “obviously” rejecting revelation in favor of “political correctness”.
    The segment of the Church that has fostered beliefs like this has truly become “the cage of every unclean and hateful bird” (Rev.18:2). Only they think this “hatefulness” is what God has actually called them to.

    Yet another reviewer says: “Perhaps you, like me, were indoctrinated at a young age about the evils of Western man, his rape of more earth-friendly cultures, his inherent racism given the power he yields in the socities he’s conquered. You may have sat dumbfounded through it all, wondering how one group of people could be so bad while everyone else could be so good.

    But they manage to turn it around where you wonder how one group of people could be so good, and the other group be so bad. (They don’t see how they’re committing the same extremes they accuse others of; and meanwhile, no one ever said everyone else was “so good”; that’s how they think, not the liberals. Much of this rhetoric is pure “projection” of everything evil in onesself onto others).

    The divine “blessing” and “curse” of scripture they apply to today’s nations, is of course, the answer. (Including for why America would be defined as a “white nation”, making immigration of other races wrong, yet what about the Europeans themselves starting out as “illegal immigrants”. God took the land from the natives because of their “paganism”, and gave it to His “chosen” ones).
    But since they obviously acknowledge that it is apparently possible for “one group of people to be so bad”, then the idea that it could possibly be their group should not be readily seen as so ludicrous. Both have done the same things (sharing the same fallen nature), but one rose to power (creating modern “civilization”), and then simply used this to shift the attribution of their acts, to something divinely sanctioned.

    In other words, both white and black races have committed many acts of barbarism. The difference is that one race rose up to power over all others, making its barbarism very obvious in the world (leading eventually to a great outcry), but then found ways to justify it (including using scripture, and then appealing to their “contributions” to the world), and try to sweep it under the rug when others among them rose up and opposed it.
    So the “barbarism” of the other peoples (made worse by the effects of the barbarism they suffered) now comes into view, and what does the first side do but say “see, they have the problem, and we had it all under control, until you liberals came and gave them undue freedom”.

    Actually the others did have power earlier on, such as the Egyptians and Moors, but after a certain point, the Europeans surpassed them. Both the [relatively] advanced civilization of Africa, and the barbarism of Europeans and early America, are dismissed as “past” and not counting for today. The argument is “look who’s advanced, and who’s ‘backward’ today“, and this tells you who is superior and inferior for all time. Of course, (whether a particular arguer will mention it or not), this is ultimately attributed to an act of God. (And then, those among them who aren’t Christian may appeal to something like a higher genetic evolution).
    The previous, nearly global scope of the earlier atrocities is in one fell swoop justified by “making life better” for all (through technology, laws, etc.), including even those they conquered and enslaved. Basically, “the good outweighs the bad”. Would they [i.e. the “Christians” among them] actually say something like this to God, if asked why He should let them into Heaven? (Of course, they have already proven their election through this).

    This is what Christ was warning against in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-14). Obviously, these writers and many others of a similar mindset would wholeheartedly feel “Thank you Lord, I am not as these black cannibals, savages, thugs, freeloaders, etc. I’m among the “productive”, the “achievers”, a good member of an intelligent society of law and order and Christian values; I take personal responsibility for myself…”.

    You wonder how they could fall into this, with such a clear scriptural rebuke of it from the mouth of the Lord Himself. But of course, many will claim that “regeneration” is the difference; that the Pharisees rejected Christ and were “unregenerate”, while they are originally “Christian” nations who did accept Him, (and “lives were changed”), and also credit Him for their superiority, rather than themselves.
    (To that, it should be clearly noted, that the Pharisee did say “Thank YOU, Lord…”. He was aware that God did “choose” Israel, after all; they didn’t do it themselves. They were “better” than others because of this! So trying to credit God for one’s superiority means nothing when God tells us we have ALL fallen, and NONE is superior at all. Again, as Paul asks “if you did receive it, why do you glory, as if you had not received it?”
    And what no one has even addressed, is that there is no scriptural justifcation of making any later Gentile nation that did not even exist in biblical times, the new “chosen”. They will generally take certain scriptures that seem to speak of “nations” in general, regarding “blessings” for “obedience”, and apply it to the nations that happened to become “Christian” in the post-biblical world as continuing these “covenants”).

    So, in this radical “Christian” political rhetoric, we see absolutely NO sense of “Lord, be merciful to ME, a sinner. It just doesn’t even figure at all. It’s all about what all the evil ‘others’ have ‘taken’ from them, and they want/deserve/demand back!

    Another commenter notes

    “Some clues as to why WASP societies tend to wither from within are offered up by” an ironically named W.A. de Klerk: “the struggle to reconcile Pietism with power … Those within the Calvinist-Puritan ethic, who secretly yearn for power, find it impossible to do so openly and unashamedly.”

    Meanwhile, a French political theorist has been cited as justifying the dehumanization of blacks, “because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians.”
    ( and cited in
    Reasoning among themselves much like those Pharisees, who realized “if we rationalize it this way, then he [Jesus] will say that about us”, they have to prove that they and their forefathers are “Christians” (or at least “good, upstanding people” comprising “exceptional” nations) after all, who would never do wrong to fellow man, so those uh, beings, or whatever they are, that they oppressed physically back then, and economically now (and often still physically, in today’s police incidents) must not really be men, or at least have forfeited all human “rights” through their “barbarism”.
    That’s what all of this is all about.

    All white “achevements” or “contribution to civilization” (through them rising to power) shows is that they gained a mastery in “nature” (basically, the “flesh”). They assume, through the “exceptionality” of their nations, that this also includes a mastery of “integrity” (corresponding to the “spirit”). But this is trying to have their cake and eat it too. To do this, they must call much evil, “good” (Isaiah 5:20). And it ignores that according to the principles of nature, this will eventually be taken from them as the power (naturally) corrupts them, and others find ways to ascend to power.

    The answer to all of this was repentance, which starts from the admission of one’s sin. (And including any sin of others you essentially take upon yourself, by identifying with them; meaning seeing their [corrupted] “values” as your own —and thus defending them, where “their enemy is your enemy”, whether through “heritage” or just as serving your interests now).
    But racism was never made into an issue of repentance by the Church as a whole, like all the other great “sins” of old the Church focused on, like adultery, fornication, addictions, cursing, unorthodox doctrine and other religions or atheism, humanism, wrong politics, etc. (And even extensions of those, such as movies, dancing, secular or contemporary music styles, skirt lengths, etc. among many in the past). Before burying the issue, refusing to talk about it, many had instead taken the opposite view, that integration and equality were the “sins” that betrayed God’s will.
    Afterward, they still believed this, but pretended to take no position on it, but instead lamented “America’s move away from God” (and their demand to “take the nation back”), and focus on “welfare” and “sensuality” when criticizing political or spiritual things that remotely touched upon blacks.

    If a “cult” group said one had to work for their salvation, or a “modernist” nominal Christian or nonChristian said he would go to Heaven because his “good” outweighs his “bad”, they were judged by “orthodox Christianity” as surely being hellbound heathens who did not understand the Gospel. But if one of their own rank believed race (or at least, national “righteousness” supposedly maintained in the past) made one the “chosen” and entitled to rulership, that was OK, or at best just an “honest mistake” that was not worth reproving as they did all other “error”.
    (Now, you’ll get some who acknowledge it in a ‘taken for granted’ fashion that it was wrong, but these are the more moderate “contemporary” Christians who were and are not the ones thundering at the world on all the great “moral” issues).

    So in this rhetoric, I see people who do not have a clue as to how these beliefs are scripturally wrong. It’s unthinkable. They, even the not really “practicing [Christian]” ones, might acknowledge their adultery or drinking is wrong, if corrected on it (even if they never really try to give it up. They’ll at least likely say “yeah; I know…I’m trying…”).
    But clearly, they are fully convinced their racial views are infallible divine truth, never answered by either liberals, or any scriptural reproof. As we see in these articles and comments, they have so convinced themselves that the “truth” is always on their side (we even see some of the typical gloating that “this will make many people mad”), they are now willing to separate from the mainstream conservatives they had been blending with (with the sentiments hidden behind carefully crafted “code” language), and more openly spout this stuff.

    So when you had whole societies, believing in national “choseness” (the very thing Paul’s entire book of Romans and most of his other writings argues so much against, as “the flesh“), and only infusing it with Calvinistic “election” to both “salvation” and earthly prosperity, and adding in “regeneration” as how a group could rise out of the sinfulness (and deserved death) that plagues all other nations; then there is nothing to repent of. They’ve already repented from the nominal “sin” they were charged with “in Adam”, but has now been erased through the “changed life” of their piety and “faith” (and particularly after their “elect” status was ratified at an official “conversion” testimony, usually at an altar or other “public confession” at some time in their life).

    So anything they do afterward in this state must have been ordered by God, no matter how evil it looks to others. They [those “others”] are the ones still “in darkness”; so how can they, being altogether “born in sins” dare to correct the elect! (It’s the same kind of rationale used by radical cult leaders who often preach heavily on “morality”, but then end up taking possession of members’ wives and daughters; something most Christians would agree, being a sexual sin, is one of the most wicked things a man can do; however it can be “proof-texted” and rationalized through a presupposition of “regeneration” just as much as racial supremacy.
    Many may not even know the theological basis of their views anymore (having possibly drifted away from religious conservativism), but their “bible” or “infallible word of god” now is racial statistics and news stories).

    They are simply reacting to guilt just as much as the white liberals they condemn. Just in an opposite fashion, of denial rather than “do-gooder”-ism.
    There was also mention of some form of “revenge” being enacted against whites, of which the South African violence is seen as part of. This too is a guilt feeling. It’s the person knowing he has sinned (despite all the pseudo-scriptural rationalizations he may hide it behind), and that “the wages of sin is death. This produces a feeling that “you got something [i.e. “punishment”] coming to you”; perhaps the same thing you did to others (Matt. 26:52, Rev. 13:10, KJV).

    But instead of receiving the “gift of God through Christ Jesus”, you presume you already have it* (whether through “unconditional election”, free will choice, inheritance, or some mixed up combination of these such as “covenant theology”), tied to your good works [even if you claim the works are evidence of the gift, and not the other way around]; and so you focus on the other people and how they are in the wrong.
    But (not fooling your conscience), you end up still left with this guilt reaction, but only attribute it to “them” persecuting you for no reason at all. Even though you insist “God is in control” (especially when it comes to your prosperity, and your ancestors’ colonization and enslavement of others, or anyone else’s pain in general), you spend an inordinate amound of time and energy complaining about what someone else is trying to take from you, and what you [your group] must do to stop it. There is no sort of sense that “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away” (Job 1:21; as they cite to others). God would never take from them, the chosen; it is Satan and his followers who have “attacked” them, and so God calls them to fight these others, and take back what He has given them.
    *(This is referring to people who believe the gift must be personally “received” in order to be applied. They believe they’ve alread fulfilled the “requirement” for salvation, but this becomes actually another “dead work”, as they’re really trusting in their works or the works of their ancestors as proving their “election” by outweiging their sins, and thus have not really gone personally to Christ themselves; at least from the way many of their arguments go. And consider many of these writers and commenters are probably only culturally Christian as it is; retaining the racial doctrine as part of their tradition rather than any real biblical argument, and the more serious churches are said to have since rejected apartheid. In a “fulfilled” view, grace is unconditional, but you still may not be aware of it, if you are still trying to justify yourself by your works or self-justifications).

    Hard pressed to find any critical info on this writer (the [locked from editing] Wikipedia entry on her mentions this book, but glosses right over its main point), I find this article:

    Deep In The Heart of Whiteness With Ilana Mercer

    “Lest anyone doubt Mercer’s racial ambitions, the preface of her new book was published at VDare, a website whose own editor describes as ‘white nationalist.'”

    One notable point, one of the white “farmers” killed by these black “troglodytes” (as another reviewer put it) she mentions, was really a white supremacist, part of a miltant group (the AWB) that itself kills people, in addition to invading a nearby black nation. She is a writer for World Net Daily, and even that site doesn’t sell the book in its own store.

    And while she herself is of Jewish descent, she’s published on the same sites with people who believe (

    “Jews are genetically driven to destroy Western societies.” MacDonald also argues that anti-Semitism, far from being an irrational hatred for Jews, is a logical reaction to Jewish success in societies controlled by other ethnic or racial groups.
    MacDonald’s basic premise is that Jews engage in a ‘group evolutionary strategy’ that serves to enhance their ability to out-compete non-Jews for resources. Although normally a tiny minority in their host countries, Jews, like viruses, destabilize their host societies to their own benefit, MacDonald argues. Because this Jewish ‘group behavior’ is said to have produced much financial and intellectual success over the years, McDonald claims it also has produced understandable hatred for Jews by gentiles.

    So blacks are vilified as no good troglodytes for their lack of “success”, and the Jews are equally villified (and made the ultimate cause of the black ‘threat’ and other problems in society) for their abundance of “success”. (And from the same people who uphold and condemn the begrudging of the “success” of others!) Make up your freakin’ minds already!

    As this book and its reviews are four years old already, you won’t find the term “cuckservative” there, but clearly, that term would be fitting for them (I’m sure they’ve all adopted it by now), as they describe even the “conservatives” in the US, seemingly allowing us to go the way of South Africa.

    Here, the SPLC weighs in on the hot new term:

    Here BTW, is a good meme I just saw:
    Black people stereotypes as lazy ever since we stopped working for free

  36. Seems a new tack now is to go back and deny that there is one human race, from Africa. Someone on FB (who I know to occasionally post libertarian-type memes, though not as mch as a couple of the others) posts this meme or link to this book:

    Species with Amnesia: Our Forgotten History

    Highly advanced civilizations have been here before us, just to be destroyed by some great global catastrophe. But for each race that has died out, another has taken its place, with a selected few holding on to the memories and sacred knowledge of the past race. In our vanity we think we have discovered some of the great truths of science and technology, but we are in fact only just beginning to rediscover the profound wisdom of past civilizations. In many ways, we are like an awakening Species with Amnesia, yearning to reclaim our forgotten past.

    As one commenter says: “Finally somebody credible in the field of Anthropology successfully attacks out of Africa theory and contributes something towards the truth. We are not all apes from Africa…”

    The claim seems to be that the Cro-Magnons were this superior race. I also saw a map somewhere showing African [at least northeastern Africa] DNA coming from Aryans. And a big claim involves “Rhesus (rh) negative blood” (Which as you can see here: is supposedly connected to the “nephilim” or ante-deluvian “giants” or “parallel race to us humans” of Genesis).
    Central is a belief in “Niburu”, the 10th planet, and Atlantis (and some other lost continents in the other oceans).
    This also connects to a separating of “Africans” from everyone else, through the Neanderthals that all of the other races desceneded from, citing this scientific article:

    One of his other books is “Occult Secrets of Vril: Goddess Energy and the Human Potential”:

    In pre-WWII Germany, the Vril Society used the swastika emblem to link Eastern and Western occultism. They advanced the idea of a subterranean matriarchal utopia ruled by a race of Aryan beings who had mastered a mysterious force called Vril. This breakaway civilization had survived the antediluvian cataclysms which ended the ice age, and passed on their guarded occult knowledge through initiation into sacred mystery schools. Vril was known to these mystics as a natural and abundant energy, having disseminated it’s divine wisdom world wide under many names. The Chinese referred to it as “chi”, the Hindu as “prana”, and the Japanese as “reiki”.

    A similar author, of a book entitled “Magicians of the Gods” gives us the full premise of these claims:

    an advanced civilization that flourished during the Ice Age was destroyed in the global cataclysms between 12,800 and 11,600 years ago. But there were survivors – known to later cultures by names such as ‘the Sages’, ‘the Magicians’, ‘the Shining Ones’, and ‘the Mystery Teachers of Heaven’. They travelled the world in their great ships doing all in their power to keep the spark of civilization burning. They settled at key locations – Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, Baalbek in the Lebanon, Giza in Egypt, ancient Sumer, Mexico, Peru and across the Pacific where a huge pyramid has recently been discovered in Indonesia. Everywhere they went these ‘Magicians of the Gods’ brought with them the memory of a time when mankind had fallen out of harmony with the universe and paid a heavy price. A memory and a warning to the future…

    In other words, all of the “advanced civilzations” in lands associated with the “colored” people of the world, were really from this early race, apparently represented today by the “Aryans”. I always thought the Nation of Islam’s claims of the origins of the black and white races were wacky, but one is just a flipping over of the other! There were other theories of the white race being from space, that were passed around some black thinkers, but this was to explain their negative traits, rather than them being superior.

    Of course, there’s the endless blaming of the media and educational institutions and how everyone is “blinded” by them, for this “amnesia”.
    This discussion thread on him, has some calling him racist, but others [mostly anynymous posters] triumphally marking the defeat of “Out of Africa” theory:
    “And thank god someone has the education and guts to write about it Death to put of Africa theory!!!”
    “I also bough Species with Amnesia and loved every chapter… especially since it starts by destroying out of Africa theory lol. When someone is successful and goes against the grain one should expect the trolls to come out. Robert is called racist for saying that there are blonde mummies and pyramids around the world? Lol. Funny afrocentric Marxist trolls”. [Note the association of “Marxism” wth “Afrcentrism”. The two “enemies” forever paired together in radical right “Nationalist” sentiment].
    “Sepehr is the only formally educated anthropologist to write about this…. if anyone knows anybody else I am all ears. Out of Africa hypothesis is dead lol. And Sepehr stuck the dagger in and gave it a nice twist at the end”
    (Another one of these coments, trying to sound more educated, and pointing out he’s “an actual anthropologist with degrees from CSUN” is responded to “Spamming your own book, Robert?”).

    One of his other books is “1666: Redemption Through Sin: Global Conspiracy in History, Religion, Politics and Finance”, portraying the start of the Illuminati from a Jew who [declared himself the Messiah that year, and] started a sect that practiced all sort of “immorality”.
    Do we see a common trend here in which groups are degraded, and which ones are exalted, in these teachings? But it seems people are really taking this stuff seriously, of course on the premise that everyone else is deceived!


    I like how it cites the SPLC leader:

    “This is reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan – modern-day night-riders terrorizing African Americans in the name of Southern heritage.”

    Not specifically about race (more “general” politics) but it does figure in there:


    On the flipside:

    Not Fascism: Trump is a Right-Wing Nativist Populist

  38. Found this:

    “Blacks under perform nearly across the board when compared with other races. Why? Political correctness, liberal politics, ignorance and hate.”

    You left out the most important factor. Maybe you left it out because this fact results in a harsh reality which only nature can correct and may not be correctable. Maybe you dispute it is a fact. Maybe you haven’t looked to Africa and realized there are no modernized successful African cultures.

    Blacks on average do not have the intelligence to form successful Western style civilizations. We must remain separate.

    Black men are usually very loud, rude, crude, foul mouthed, lazy, good for nothing, violent thieves and rapists. But not all of them, just most.

    The one thing I have found, is that wherever I go, wherever there are a majority of blacks, that area is a literal shithole. Blacks can’t successfully govern themselves. Wherever they settle, they bring crime, drugs, miscegenation, and bad attitude with them. Where whites tend to be roughly 80% good, decent people, blacks are the exact opposite, with 80% criminally inclined, and 20% decent, good folks.

    Then, this exchange:

    this is one of the most genius threads that AWD ever started. It’s a magnet for idiot militant type blacks who want to “educate” us evil whiteys on the error of our ways. They show up, spout off on how educated they are, demand documented proof of claims, then try to find fault (Oh, it’s out of date, numbers change a lot in 10 years(Yeah, right)) yet still miss the glaring fact that out of 13% of the population, comes over 50% of the violent crimes. They always trot out the same old flags of slavery, you owe us, blacks invented everything and it was stolen by whitey, you know, the same curricula that is taught in African American Studies. AA studies, BTW was created for blacks to have something to do between robberies or on campus rapes so that they would have some self esteem, because they don’t have the I.Q. to keep up with the rest of the student body.

    Anyway, back to the point, sometimes I get bored and feel like a good argument, and this thread is the best place to come for one, it’s fun to pick apart their points and show them to be the clueless fools that they are.

    [the person he was debating with] did make one point that I agree with, and I doubt that she even understands how significant it is: We need to leave each other alone…..True, blacks will never improve or evolve into true humans until we segregate ourselves from them.

    All the help and support we give them just holds them back. They are dependent on us for so much, and they are loathe to admit it. Give them their own nation, land, kingdom, whatever. They need to sink or swim on their own, and we need to let them. Not to mention how much better off we would be without the burden of having to provide for a nations worth of useless leeches. [Who would you blame for all your problems, then? Or do you really think you would have no problems; it would be Heaven?]

    Oh, and as for your statement that blacks are striving for excellence, no, the only excellence they strive for is excellence in criminal activities. Yes, I am generalizing a whole group, but when that group has a majority of criminals, it’s what you do. Example: Blacks are generally anti-social lawbreakers. Deal with it.

    So he admits generalizing. But just from a bunch of statistics, the usual tack they rely on, and which the person, a black female, pointed out were old ones at that, it’s determined that these “higher numbers” are MOST, or even “80%” of the race. That’s quite a leap.
    Though the article did say “If blacks have faced discrimination it is because responsible blacks are grouped with the great many blacks in America that cause such tremendous crime and problems. I also added that if I was held responsible for actions I did not commit by members of my race long ago, shouldn’t it be fair for my two black friends to be held responsible for the violent black thugs and criminals today? It’s simple logic but not so easy under the laws of political correctness.”

    What’s being ignored, is the flipside of his point, that people are being grouped with those who uphold and extol the members of the race long ago. In other words, you may not have whipped slaves, but you think that the society that did was “exceptional”, or even if you don’t do it directly, you favor a political philosophy that does. Now that is not right either, but a notable difference is that where all blacks are being “grouped” with other blacks today who are doing bad things, they’re not all justifying them or ignoring their wrong, and upholding them as “exceptional” people regardless. Some relatives of criminals may “coddle” them like that, but they too aren’t the majority of black people. On the white side (and that being specifically conservatives, not the whole race), you have the total veneration of those slave-holding and later discriminatory generations of the past, as the very model of “society” that modern nation is criticized for “turning away from”, and when it comes to acknowledging their crimes, it’s like “well, that doesn’t matter”. No one has said black crime doesn’t matter. The blacks who aren’t like that are the ones who more likely live closer to it and are affected by it.
    The double-standard is also coveed in this meme:
    Muslim shooter, entire religion guilty, black shooter; entire race guilty; white shooter, mentally troublem lone wolf
    So the difference is a matter of identity. White conservatives today identify with the colonial Americans, on basically every level. No one really identifies with the black criminal, except on a very superficial racial level; or the criminals themselves, and enterprises like gangsta rap. The body of average people don’t identify based on what the criminals DO.

    The person responds:

    Sir, I do not acknowledge “black on black crime”, “white on white crime”,”*insert race* on *insert same race crime*”. That’s actually “person on person crime” . I only acknowledge “white on black crime” or “black on white crime” when it is done with racial bias. Yet if it’s done out of stupidity, i.e. anger, jealousy, drunkenness..then it shall always be person on person crime.

    I would love to know why Black men are incarcerated at a faster rate than other races of men for the same minor crimes ?(???)? It’s crazy how when a white guy gets caught taking drugs he gets 6 months of probation, but a black guy gets caught with weed and he gets 5 years ?(???)? Again I’m befuddled!

    Lol a 17 year old boy deserved to die because he was walking home? Okay then (?_?) So whatever a black man does , even if it’s minor, when a white guy kills him he deserved it. Your words not mine.

    Yes thank you for reminding me that we are 13% of the population..Nah man statistics state that White people commit the most crimes (violent and nonviolent). The only reason why it seems the other way around is because our pool for crime is so small because of our population. So when one person commits a crime they account for a small number in our population but a bigger number contributing to the crime statistic. If you don’t get that then oh well. There are more whites in jail, on public assistance, and so forth. It just seems like there isn’t because you guys make up 60% of the population. Your big number helps things APPEAR balanced , but at the end of the day when it comes to crime you guys are no better.

    And if the shoe fits…I accuse you guys of ignorance and racial bigotry wholeheartedly. Because that is what you are doing ?(???)? What is racist about this is the spreading of this negative image that is continually perpetuated by bigots like you; yes since you guys do make up a majority of the American media (unfortunately), any stereotypes you put out there is taken in as the serious truth for those who have never even met an African-American. So be careful.

    That 800,000 or so black men sitting in jail right now , shouldn’t represent the other 18,000,000 or so black men living in this country. Most of those guys are there for MINOR offenses.

    My people are hardworking, ambitious , and there are some who don’t even KNOW their potential because they can’t imagine a life outside of what they are told they were meant for. POVERTY.

    But don’t worry, we’re getting the memo and we will rise.

    So next time you generalize black people think about this: the world could go off and say “all white people are racist and the spawn of Satan; because they’re good at stealing, killing,and destroying.” Trust me, due to history and TODAY, you guys could EASILY fall into those stereotypes. Don’t judge others , and focus on your own problems because you guys do have them.

    Black men are incarcerated in greater numbers because they commit most of the crimes. Nice try on explaining away statistical facts, but it still won’t wash. Your post has exposed you as the racist you are. [Explaining away a spun statistic in itself is racist?]

    However, congratulations on your racial pride, more blacks need to have such pride. If they did, there would be a reversal in the criminal to citizen ratio among your people. (former would decrease, while the latter will increase) For more information, try using ratios, it may help you visualize it better.

    Concerning your final paragraph; News flash, the world has already gone off and accused all whites as racist and the spawn of satan. And while we may be good at stealing, killing and destroying, we are also good at creating, building, inventing, and innovation. If you need proof that white intelligence and innovation built the civilization that you currently enjoy, just look around and then thank us for the clothes you wear, the food you eat, the computer and internet and the wires that carry the information, basically everything that you use in your daily life is courtesy of the white man—You’re welcome, by the way. If you disagree, feel free to give up all the stuff that the evil white man has provided to you, hop on a white invented jet aircraft, and go live in a mud hut in the motherland.

    [What follows is a further back and forth about Trayvon and statistics. She could have pointed out how much trouble Zimmerman has been in continuously since the whole incident; as one meme says “Zimmerman has been arrested xxxx times since…and Trayvon is the thug?” That would put to rest the notion that he was just being an upstanding citizen!]

    If anyone has been narcissistic. It has been YOU. For actually believing because you come from the white race that you are naturally smarter than all people from the black population. For basically coming at me with the accomplishments of white men in the past, and saying “You’re welcome”…lol like you actually did all of that stuff personally!

    [The latter, a point driven home by Wise, Under the Affluence.]

    Then someone else chimes in:

    Your afrocentricity is your kryptonite, and until you understand that there are definite differences in the races, with blacks at the bottom of the list, and also accept it, you will never be truly free or happy.

    [(So how is “accepting’ something like that, and with all it obviously is supposed to entail (discrimination, and perhaps restoration of slavery being justified) supposed to make someone happy or free?

    “I would love to know why Black men are incarcerated at a faster rate than other races of men for the same minor crimes.”
    No you wouldn’t. The answer has been obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense for the better part of a millennium: blacks are genetically predisposed to both stupid and violent behavior. In a society where the rules were created by more capable people (read: whites and/or yellows), blacks will thus be far more often convicted of crimes. The fact that you’d prefer to ignore the truth than acknowledge it does not make it go away; it just makes you both a coward and an idiot.

    What are these “minor offenses” you speak of? Killing a white cop? A white child? Or merely drug offenses? The facts have been provided to you, you choose to ignore them, and the facts are that blacks are more violence prone, have less impulse control, lower I.Q.s, narcissistic tendencies, and are not suited to looking to the future before acting. Actions have consequences, break a law, and go to jail, it’s a very simple thing to understand, or are you one of those that think blacks can do no wrong no matter what they do?

    So “obvious” is determined by looking at a bunch of end results and then painting a broad judgment. But still, it’s the moralistic (and even physiological sounding) “character” language again, like I have cited before (another one is “inability to delay gratification” and of course, “lack of personal responsibility”). Where do they even get off making such universalistic pronouncements, like some angry parent, boss, sports or life coach dressing down their ‘subordinates’? (Only individuals can have “personal responsibility”, and the other character traits).
    They decide what “par” for humanity is, and skew the parameters so that only their supposed “good” points count for anything. (I see now that Wise answers the “personal responsibility” issue excellently in Dear White America, p.24ff, where he points out that everyone has to take “personal responsibility”, but this is not the job of one group to dictate the terms of the effort to another, nor can one suggest that until the other does their part in making thisgs better, the first group can remain inactive in doing their part).

    In the very breath of boldly thundering their own superiority, the people they are putting down are the narcissists! (Just like the “self-help” tough-talkers such as Law of Attraction teachers, which has a similar superior “the truth is always on our side” attitude. Maybe we need to step back and re-establish the definition of some of these terms being thrown around). Because you can produce a bunch of statistics on crime, and even appeal to a comparative “ratio”? Because you happen to have the most power in this blip of the universe’s history?

    And the other person admitted they were just as prone to violence, but the deciding factor was basically “the good cancels out the bad”. That still doesn’t change the fact that the NATURE you are seeing so clearly in other people is also STILL in you. But of course, they simply attribute this two other, more “noble” causes.
    Tell me what “impulse control” the colonizers had, when they just saw lands, people and resources, and just went and took it. (Building “great nations” from this and “innovating”, etc. does not change that). The same for modern financial greed (which people have actually held up as “delayed gratification”) and expensive and deadly war politics. Or the people trying to fight the government, such as those ranchers (who certainly didn’t see all the same “consequences” as black kids, regardless of what they were doing when confronted by law enforcement). Or even sports game rioters and people like Trump and his followers who say whatever comes into their heads. Did they “look to the future” to consider negative consequences of all this? Or did they instead just imagine themselves invincible or sanctioned by God, and so could do whatever “felt good” (and now of course, just blame everyone else when it all goes wrong, which begs the further question of their sense of “personal responsibility”)?

    Again, this wentire premise ragardng their “impulse control” and “genetic inferiority” is based on these “statistics”. et not how he spits back, but totally glosses over the point of those “minoir offenses”. The majority of blacks in prison are not there for killing a white cop or child, but yes, often “merely” the drug offenses (deliberately aimed at them, while whites using the same or worse drugs are passed over) or other small crimes. Those “percentage of crime” or “ratio” numbers they toss around aren’t telling you that! Yet again, they proceed to diagnose millions of people’s genetic state from this!

    The person answers that:

    Oh and if you actually would research instead of looking for things that agree with biased’d actually see that there have been MANY CASES WHERE IT IS A FIRST OFFENSE AND THEY STILL GIVE A BLACK MAN FIVE TO LIFE. But of course you have step back and be neutral to see that.

    And then what about stuff like this: So tell me again, about broad “character” judgments, in addition to those statistics! (Or does it not count, because of their race being credited with building good civilization!)

    Another exchange between two others:

    I usually don’t bother reading tripe like this blog and the related comments but I have an Uncle who has been milking Social Security for a disability pension for nearly 35 years (who hates all Government programs because that is what Fox News tells him to do) who sent me this link and I couldn’t help but laugh out loud at the claim that the Ali Brown story wouldn’t be seen in “national news” and then having this confirmed with a link to CBS News. This is probably why black folks hate ya’ll….because ya’ll are dumber than a sack of hammers.

    If you’re white pal, they don’t care if you feel their pain. You’ll being lying in a pool of your blood with a bunch of these thugs standing over you, laughing at how you’re twitching, just as easily as me after I’m out of ammo.

    Of course there’ gonna be a much higher body count with me.

    Note how he does not even address the point of whites doing the same things as blacks; they’re just going to mercilessly kill you. And then I’m going to do the same (not in mere defense, but in the same exact sadistic glee), actually proving the very point again, that what they are accusing blacks of is in them. All they are doing is making false justifcations of it!

    The mistake people like these (the few who brave these forums) is trying to deal back on the parameters they have set, like the statistics, or “achievements”. It’s basically playing their game, with the observations they have specifically chosen for the reason that it’s what allows them to promote these illusions that support their argument.

    Saying “blacks have their achievements too” means nothing to them, because as we can see, their whole underlying framework is one of relative merit. As he said it, blacks are now the ones without the power and complaining of being “held down” (So even that point is having run its course on its own, until the history of the whole DYNAMIC of what was done is really driven home further), and “superiority” (or at least equality in the upper playing field) is determined by power (which of course is what yields “achievements”. And not past power, as arguments about African kings, etc. implies, but rather who has ascended to power now).

    What I’m seeing is the answer, is to go the other way. Their whole argument against blacks focused more on the negative: black inferiority, than the positive: white superiority (which is also the way the toned down “dog whistling” goes). This will actually become their achilles’ heel, if you go for the right point, as it’s what they are most in denial of. Again, notice, how much they rely on “the good outweighs the bad” (the self-righteous sinner’s number one argument), and in ignorance of the fact that this “ratio” ultimately doesn’t matter, because for one, you can put a shot of cynanide into a glass of water, and argue there is far more “good” water than cyanide. But it’s still lethal. The Shadow is the Shadow (or to use scriptural terminology, sin is still sin), no matter how much it is suppressed, and all the “ratio” (seemingly better “statistics”) is, is what’s allowed to the surface, compared to what’s been suppressed, which is nevertheless still there.

    She touched on it, but basically implied Black Muslim ideology (whites as “Satan”), which is useless, and just leads to back and forth “race” name-calling, and them saying we’re “just as racist”, which as we see, is a big defense they have been using. Notice, when blacks try to play the game of “superiority by achievement” back on them, all they have to do is point out all of our “problems” now. That’s why the “tit for tat” of trying to beat them at their own game won’t work.
    What needs to be addressed more, is that with all this “achievement” and “civilization”, “invention”, “innovation”, “building” etc. which basically all boils down to technology, they have also created the possibility of wiping all civilization (life) from the face of the earth! He admitted to his race having the same violence as blacks, thinking their achievements or “creativity” nullified that, but quite the opposite, it actually amplifies it to the potential of total destructivity! (And it’s not blacks sitting at the buttons that can do that).

    That is the “shadow” of their “exceptionalism”. Every man or human culture has a shadow (a “bad” side of what you think makes you good, and it’s often suppressed into unconsciousness). “Superiority” can even be defined as believing your culture doesn’t have one. It’s all “good”, or the good renders the bad irrelevant.
    So it’s really the same “barbarism” they point out in African culture, only more sophisticated. And with that, potentially much more destructive. (Who really ever said technology made a people “superior” anyway? Makes me think of Rom. 10:3 “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God“)

    That’s one thing. The other is that that same point they use against black superiority works the other way as well! If they are so superior, then why do we have “angry white dudes” and others complaining endlessly about blacks and the destruction of their civilization, but never able to DO anything about it? They threaten to stockpile guns and all, and maybe even to threaten to “one day” use them, but that’s all been talk. All they’re doing is just to continue complaining and griping about blacks (and liberals), and how they’re being “tread” upon (i.e. “victim” rhetoric). And don’t say “because the liberals/government/globalists/PC, etc. are stopping us”. That’s basically “the Man is keeping us down”, which they mock the blacks for saying. Again, the much despised “victim” role. But you’re supposed to be ABOVE that! Why do you seem just as helpless against them? If they were really so “superior”, then couldn’t they simply wave their hand and end all the problems? Or just crush the blacks, and liberals who have screwed everything up trying to “help” them? Why was such a “superior” nation able to be so corrupted by inferior “savages” and lib[eral “re]tards” in the first place? Why the appeal to how great things once were? I would think something “superior” would prove itself though durability.
    (And as it is, we have in here those loathing the slave trade: “What a mistake it was to bring them here as slaves. Just think if that morons 300 yrs ago didn’t do that and how well off our country would be.” So now, the good US founders are “morons”! ⦅I was so surprised in the quote I used in Makers-Takers, that people would question the founders at all, but now we’ve gone beyond that and moved up to them being “morons”! So then what is all the “patriotism” and “love for country” about, then?⦆ You also have someone in there who actually blames the “1%” or “Masters in the plutocracy” [the Rich] who “Despise, Hate, and Fear All Other White People”, for “turn[ing] the feral races loose on us, suckers”. ⦅This is basically a bizarre, extreme example of “populism”, where mainstream dog whistling has usually taken an opposite “corporatist” view, extolling the rich as “deserving” heroes who only black and liberal “enviers” would ever criticize. It’s basically the fellow downtrodden who’ve been led by those rich to blame the blacks, just like in slavery, and they don’t care if you include them in the blame, when you’re focusing on and fighting against the other “little people” beside you, as they continue to pull all the strings, unchallenged⦆.

    The only thing all these groups have in common is their hatred of blacks. I wonder why the rich hate other whites, in this view).

    These “master logicians” need to start putting two and two together, and see the glaring holes in their “superiority”. Why would or how could the good founders of the superior nation or slave traders be “morons”? Why did they do something so stupid? Why didn’t it work? Why would “libtards” be able to arise from among the superior race, and cause all this havoc? Why isn’t anyone able to fix it?
    And why all the anger toward people who are just stupid subhumans, that obviously can’t help their behavior? Anger stems from a view of “You owe me”. What does a stupid subhuman “owe” you? What can they “give” you? Anger, like nearly all other forms of negative emotion, stems from an unfulfilled expectation. What did you expect of them? We just had an alligator kill a young toddler. No one gets angry at “alligators” as a group like that. They are creatures of instinct, that will try to eat anything that moves. We have no other expectation of them. All of that stuff about “no impulse control”, “no ability to delay gratification” and “no sense of responsibility, or the future” obviously fits them perfectly. Even if some foolish humans turned a bunch of them loose on us, we would defend ourselves and corral them, react toward the ones that let them loose, but not blame them themselves. (And it’s not just the “white liberals” promoting the blacks you’re angry at and so contemptuous toward, but rather the blacks themselves).

    These are the questions that need to be posed to these supremacists (from the audible shouting fringe all the way down to the mainstream dog whistlers), and they need to take into consideration, since they think these people are so “different”. Their unconscious is obviously saying something different from what they are consciously claiming. They are basically lying to themselves, in order to justify their own survival instinct in need of some more regulation.

    Perhaps the answer lies in the fact, as I have said, that the same God or natural forces (since as we see, at least one person seems to lean toward an evolutionary view) that took from others to give to you, can take from you, and give to someone else. And what can you do about that? So you really should get mad at “God”, or “life”; but instead always vainly imagine these entities/forces always favor you. So you appeal to them, and get mad at those you feel you are being diminished in favor of.

    (Notice how often they say “deal with it”. In addition to being the true narcissists for thinking they are always that much in step with ‘universal truth’, we could make a broad “character flaw” of their utter lack of empathy!)

    All this anger is what proves the “Shadow” of guilt and sin (shared with everyone else, and including narcissism, or “ego-inflation”; “puffing up” onesself way beyond their portion in life and claiming for onesself transcendant qualities, like perfect knowledge of “truth”), and you can’t blame blacks, Jews, liberals or anyone else for that.

  39. Another comment on the above page, is when one of the few blacks begin “responding in kind” with violent threats:

    Listen very closely my little Negro, when the race war commences, the American Negro will be eradicated in hours, Yes hours, not days, weeks. Too bad Negro man after executing mirco-weapon technology, cutting off food, water, electricity to the Negro, & killing millions, the Negro survivors will be forced to pillage white areas for food, water etc. This will be a killing field, but your non-intellectual Negro mind can not comprehend this military concept. The Negros left will be physically deported back to African. Have a great day Boy

    This is somehing I long thought about regarding some of the more militant blacks who I feel have gone in the wrong direction, especially in hip hop, by planning to fight “the white man”. The whole “cop killer” phase of rap is an example. It was a foolish distraction, probably planned to further promote the stereotypes these racists are so thriving off of now, and set up a race war that blacks can’t win. I had cited Wise on what would happen if the system went down, as rigged by the rich, and added what would happen with the ensuing race wars based on all of this nearly unanswered blaming: “they have the military, they have the apparatus of law enforcement and they have the material resources to crush such an uprising long before it delivered anything of value to the people.”

    However, on the other hand, this goes both ways, with these “angry whites” also, just as much planning to war against the same “The Man” they claim is just as much oppressing them. (This is why so much projection of what’s also inside of you can be dangerous).
    Like another commenter (spewing the completely ridiculous claim “The racism in this country comes from blacks and the black controlled government. You know that blacks hate you and are purposely destroying this country”) says:

    “We have the money, the guns, and the numbers to make this government come around and see it our way again or else.”
    But the question remains, again, why aren’t you doing anything already? What are you waiting for? Obviously, the government, (including “the PC liberals suffer[ing] their stupid PC anxieties” he blames, for not “boycot[ting] the whole country, if necessary”) has power over them, that they have not been able to surmount. (But then if blacks are really the ones controlling it, it should have been all the more a breeze; again, why haven’t they already obliterated these inferior beings? Really, if they truly are the ones controlling it, then the first person’s warning of them cutting off sustenance to blacks wouldnt’t come true! This group can’t even get their racial insults straight!)

    So as this meme I saw today shows, the same thing would happen to them:

    I think it's adorable you think you need guns to protect you from the government. If the government wanted to come for you they'd just poison your supply of chewing tobacco Mountain Dew. You'd all be dead overnight they could pin it on the broad platitude of Terrorism. The truth is you cling to your gun because deep down you know no one is coming for you. Not your government, not your God, not Publisher's Clearing House. You are, in the grand scheme, nameless and voiceless and not necessary. And guns make you feel like that's not all true for one brief, trembling moment. Grow up. bradloekle
    The person writing the first quote must have temporarily forgotten that that same government that can launch micro-weapons, cut off food, water, and electricity to the blacks can do the same thing to them. He’s of course pitting all “whites” against “blacks”, but the “whites” are not a solidarized group, and his angry faction is just as much against the government as the angry blacks are.

  40. So now, the “alt-right” is finally differentiating itself from the mainstream conservativism it blended in with (and whose rhetoric they were fueling from behind the scenes).

    What’s the Alt-Right?

    “The Alt-Right rejects American democracy as did the American communists of the 1930s and the New Left of the 1960s.”
    “Alt-Right thought is based on white nationalism and anti-Americanism. The Alt-Right holds, in essence, that… as racial equality has displaced white dominance, America has declined and no longer merits the allegiance of its white citizens.

    This is no exaggeration, as I’ve been occasionally making quotes of people in comments who begin actually putting down America’s founders (basically, for bringing blacks over, which they argue was a “mistake”. Not sure why they don’t simply say they should have remained slaves, and then it would have all worked out. But I guess it’s because us becoming free and polluting the nation is “inevitable”, and therefore, as some have said, it’s better for the races not to interact at all).

    Further rational for this:

    In the letter, Taylor denies the notion that “the things you love about America…are rooted in certain principles.” Rather, “they are rooted in certain people.” That is, white people: “Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love,” Taylor says. “Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?” White nationalism is more important than inalienable rights because “Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.”

    Richard B. Spencer of the National Policy Institute, who went to the Universities of Chicago and Virginia, is openly anti-American. In an interview last July with the New York Times he said: “America as it is currently constituted — and I don’t just mean the government; I mean America as constituted spiritually and ideologically — is the fundamental problem…I don’t support and agree with much of anything America is doing in the world.” He despises “cuckservatives” because “we’ve recognized the bankruptcy of this ideology, based on ‘free markets,’ ‘values,’ and ‘American exceptionalism.’”

    (First time I’ve heard them slam those three things, though the clue was something I quoted in Makers-Takers, where the guy spoke of idea of abolishing the Constitution in some fight he wanted to wage against signature “American capitalism” company McDonald’s).
    I was shocked to start seeing such blatant racial language in comments on Breitbart and other apparently mainstream sites, on articles shared by FB “friends”, but again, these people had nicely blended in with the conservative mainstream (including its language of free markets, the Constitution, values and exceptionalism), but I guess the election and programs of Obama, the immigration issue, probably the big victory for gay rights, and all the publicity and outcry against all the race incidents (including the further ostracization of the Confederate flag), and finally having somewhat of a mainstream political voice in Trump, is forcing to rise up from among their more passive “cuckservative” neighbors and separate themselves. It will be good to have them essentially “split” and “isolate” themselves, because now it will be easier to recognize and respond to them. Hopefully, those moderate conservatives will now be forced to make a choice to follow this these ideologies; and if not, to realize they are not on their side, nor, especially, are they really for America and even its “values”!

    Here’s more articles on them:

    The Alt Right: Barbarians At The Gates Or Political Hyperbole?

    Presidential Campaign Brings the Alt-Right Out of the Shadows

    5 Things to Know About the ‘Alt-Right’


    Almost disgusting to listen to this incredibly smug, self-confident “egghead” imitation justify this ideology.

    Very avoidant of the question of how he actually adopted these views. There’s obviously something there he’s deliberately trying to hide.

    Uses the “But Asians are superior to whites” and “blacks are superior in athletics” ploys, and argues he’s only pushing for “freedom to self-segregate”, and not “taking over Africa” or any other conquest, which is how he defines “white superiority”. But this of course ignores the full implication of their whole proof of black inferiority, being crime, morality, IQ, impoverished African nations, etc. So that if they could do what they want, they would not only segregate, but also have to put controls on the inferior people to further maintain society and prevent them from degrading it. Which of course was the whole premise of much of the anti-abolitionists, as well as Jim Crow. He’s claiming the Left tries to go against nature by enforcing integration, instead of just “letting human nature be”, without regulation, but then the old slavery and Jim Crow institutions enforced themselves with laws, and thus were not letting human nature flow naturally. All of the “unnatural” regulation of progressives they are criticizing was countering their unnatural maintenance of control. Which created the conditions they handily use to prove the whole premise int he first place.
    Case in point, the reason why in lunchrooms even today, whites and blacks “Self-segregate” is because of all the resentment between the races because of the past, and the blaming mechanisms put in place in reaction to attempts to create equality.

    (She should have pointed out, when he kept talking about “the rights of whites to have A nation where they can live…”, that there are several in Europe. Why do they have to also have America, which they originally took from others? He also says slavery was a “colossal mistake”, bringing this “indigestible group of blacks that should have never been brought to this country”)

    Then, several runarounds, like saying he’s different from Dylann Roof because “what I speak is the truth”, where Roof was “misled” by “liberal media” reports that covered up Trayvon’s attack on Zimmerman. So when he learned “the truth” about that from the internet, and then learned the rest of “the truth”, on black-on-white crime figures from the Council of Conservative Citizens; then that must have been what drove him over the edge It’s all [“you people”] the media’s fault! But duh; that’ just as much acting on “the truth” as what you’re saying for yourself, isn’t it? (This then leads into what she calls the “numbers game” she nicely calls out, where the statistics are selective). He keeps disclaiming responsibility for “deranged people acting violently based on the truth”, but again, whether he accepts that responsibility or not, that will be seen by more people as the ideology grows, as the natural solution to “the black problem”. Also, to him, people wanting equality automatically equates to them wanting “more”, and thus opposing a threat to destroy white race. Hence, oppressing them is just self-survival. And he doesn’t think this will turn back into the violent oppression he disclaims responsibility for?

    Again, people like this need to sit down, take a good along reflection, and ask themselves if it’s not “too good to be true” that THEY are the ones life/nature “happened to” favor, when all of mankind has a problem of thinking too highly of themselves. The Gospel is the answer to this, but the Church, with all of its polemics on “humanism”, “self-exalting human pride”, etc. has done a major disservice is not only ignoring the obvious heresy of this (and thus allowing it to fester totally unchecked [by all but the “liberals”] in the “Christian” world), but in many ways going along with the whole notion of white “exceptionalism”.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. A Start to Understanding Complexes | "ERIPEDIA"
  2. The Real Cause of all the Hatred Toward Obama | "ERIPEDIA"
  3. Humanity’s biggest Pitfall: “Merit” | "ERIPEDIA"

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: