Skip to content

Book Review: “Dog Whistle Politics:”

November 1, 2015

Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class Ian Haney López New York, Oxford University Press, 2014.

Here’s another needed and far too rare political “prophet” sort of work to add to the “how did I miss this?” stack. First, Michael Horton’s scathing critique of the Christian political slant, Beyond Culture Wars (1994; seen mentioned in Christianity Today, but did not see in a bookstore until ’96), and then, columnist Carl Rowan’s The Coming Race War. (1996; found ’98, at Borders, 5 WTC). Both, two years after publication. Now,I’ve gotten a little better, as it’s one year (or maybe 1½) after publication. Still, too long, especially after writing stuff that could have cited it, including the “Ten Common Arguments in the Race Issue” and half a dozen other articles on politics here, including the last one “Slavery As the Ideal System”.

So this, like those two other two mentioned, nails all the issues in a way I just haven’t seen much. (And he even goes into why this is so).

The whole theme is that middle class Americans are being led to “vote against their own apparent interests”, in favor of affluent plutocrats, seen as on their side against “unproductive” minorities; which is the whole plot to begin with.
“Big money came to see dog whistling as a way to promote policies that favored society’s sultans. These policies are roughly the same advocated by malefactors of great wealth during the era of the robber baron: low taxes, a minimal or non-existent social safety net, and corporate control over the regulation of industry.
Their aim was not to wreck the middle class, but to convince average Americans to support policies that transferred wealth and power to the already extremely wealthy and powerful. Like the nonwhites injured by dog whistle racism, the middle class was not a target—just collateral damage” (p.74)

Here’s some of the best notes:

•Shows that the whole concept of “race” was just a convenient mechanism to justify slavery of Africans and expropriation of Native Americans. In the beginning of the 1600’s, before European settlement began in earnest, “white”, “red” and “black” did not exist as a concept of “races”.

For almost anyone, it is wrenching to encounter, let along participate in, the level of intense suffering associated with driving persons from their homes or forcing people into bondage. If, however, we can convince ourselves that our victims are not like us—do not feel pain the way we do, are not intelligent and sensitive, indeed are indolent, degenerate, violent and dangerous—then perhaps we’re not doing so much harm after all; indeed, more than protecting ourselves, maybe we are helping the benighted others. And how much better, in terms of excusing our own self-interest, if it turns out that forces beyond anyone’s control (and hence, beyond our moral responsibility) doomed these unfortunate others to subservience; if, say, God or nature fixed their insuperable character and determined their lot in life.

(From this point; I’m surprised he didn’t go into the current dog whistle I’ve mentioned elsewhere, of the “superhumanization bias” against blacks, which included the adultification of young black kids).

•”Three racisms”: “hate”, “structural”, and “implicit bias”. A lot of dog whistling deflection comes from assuming “racism” is “hate” only, and the main rival to that view today is “unconscious [i.e. implicit] bias”, which he also terms “commonsense racism” (which includes the whole “stereotype as ‘fact‘” concept).

•Discusses “Strategic” racism, where politicians who may otherwise not really have any hatred in their heart, nevertheless use it for their own goals.
Politicians like Wallace (the first “dog whistle” politician), Goldwater and Nixon started off moderate, but then adopted racial politics to win elections.
(That ironically sounds familiar, as what do the dog whistlers always say, but that blacks’ problem is that they want “free stuff”, and that it’s the liberals promising it to them to get votes. As I pointed out, it goes both ways!)
Includes whole history of this tactic, such as the “convict leasing” that immediately replaced slavery in the South.

“…because strategic racism is strategic; it is not fundamentally about race. The driving force behind strategic racism is not racial animus for its own sake or brutalizing nonwhites out of hate; it is the pursuit of power, money and/or status. Yes, provocateurs stimulate racial hatred intentionally, and yes, they do tremendous damage to nonwhite communities. But strategic racists act out of avarice rather than animus. Their aim is to pursue their own self-interest; racism is merely a route to mammon, not an end in itself” (p.47; bold added)

•In conjunction with this; mentions that racists are just regular and even “decent” folk (“who see racial injustice asa normal feature of sociey”), and not always hate-filled terrorists, or whatever. (p. xii, 5, 37, 41ff, 112). This touches upon what I was recently getting at here:

They’re basically average people who identify (psychologically, meaning to see it as an extension of their egos that they feel virtually nonexistent without) with a historic system whose errors they refuse to completely admit were wrong, so they have to defend, and try to validate it by upholding the legacy in one way or another (and then refuse to repent of their part in it).
Hence, the problem can’t be rich capitalists; they’re our heroes; an extension of us (even if I myself haven’t lived up to the ideal, and have to admit they’re “better” than me). So it must be the blacks, whom our forefathers then must have been right in trying to suppress (even if you can get some of them to lip the protocol, “it was bad thing”. The whole point of dog whistle ideology is implication, and often subconscious).

•Faithfully recounts the whole “Southern Strategy”, which is a process often ignored by modern dogwhistlers, trying to tag all “racism” on “The Democratic Party — then and now”. (I’m surprised he didn’t mention this part of the dog whistle rhetoric).

•Shows how think tanks arose in the 70’s to continue the dog whistling after conservativism suffered from a lack of credibility at the end of the 60’s. They then found an ally in Ronald Reagan.

•Goes into “backlash” as an assumed “natural” process, shaping people’s responses to the issue

•Suggests “liberal elites” had a sympathy for racist sentiment (such as that racial equality was disruptive, and this is what we saw in the recent minor controversy over a Bernie Sanders rally), which is why they were slow to “favor retreat” from conservative rhetoric. Among them as well, “the dog whistle harping on welfare, forced busing and law and order struck powerful chords, making it that much harder for Democratic leaders to see coded race-baiting for what it was—a strategy, not a natural reaction. (p.33-34)
(Also, later, because they didn’t want to be seen as stirring the racial pot, especially, knowing conservatives were throwing back the charge of “the race card”. This then connects to the whole “post-racial” sentiment.
This was always a big frustrated question for me, but now it seems it should have figured all along. This would be like I and others being embarrassed about black crime (and the general image that goes with it, as I discussed in Makers-Takers), and thus not wanting to speak out but so much on it, because it’s a part of our own identity. (I did address it in the rap essay, and otherwise figure public discourse and even the black community is already filled with images and outcries of “black crime”, so contrary to dog-whistlers’ assertions, the issue is already being addressed more than enough). So I’ll get annoyed when people try to rub the problem in our faces. If I were white, even holding the same views, my identity would identify with that race instead of black, and so it would be a bit harder to criticize racist rhetoric, and easier to allow dog whistling premises to pass.

Likewise, in the Christian world, it’s probably also why more moderate, and perhaps even liberal Christians don’t want to go after the archconservatives. Like “new-evangelical” apologetics taking a stronger stand against “separatist” old-line fundamentalists who are constantly attacking the more contemporary Church. Many of them still respect the greater pietism of the old-liners, even if they don’t follow it themselves, and thus they are seen as still ultimately on their side against “secularism”, the “real enemy”, though the old-liners don’t see it that way, but have lumped them in as having sold out to secularism, themselves. When I associated with a more old-line church, and would ask more moderate Christians what they think about old-line positions such as on music —[which is actually a dog-whistle issue among them; more on this below]; they would always dismiss it by saying “just submit to their leadership if you are under them”).

•Talking about racial inequalities only confirms people’s beliefs: “Of course there are inequalities, and now you’ve shown me the natural differences are greater than I thought”.

•The whole conversion of “colorblindess” into a “culture” assessment. (p. 92ff). The origins of “the problem is black families”, which is pinned on a book by future Senator Moynihan and Nathan Glazer, in Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City” and by The Moynihan Report shortly afterward.

When the term “culture of poverty” was first used by the anthropologist Oscar Lewis in 1959, it was seized upon as “evidence” that poverty is not caused primarily by an absence of material resources. This was never Lewis’s intention.

This was willfully misinterpreted…; it was absorbed into an ancient moral critique of the poor; identified in modern industrial society with chaotic, disorganised lives, absence of parental ambition for children, aversion to hard labour and a tendency to addiction.

Lewis’s work influenced a report by Daniel Moynihan during the Lyndon B Johnson presidency’s “war on poverty” in 1965, which spoke of a “tangle of pathology” in relation to black families, and highlighted a “deviant maternalism” as a consequence of the fugitive male.

But the idea of culture as a cause of poverty has been tenacious; because it not only is readily assimilated to earlier ideas of “the undeserving”, but also lends a shimmer of scientific authority to ancient prejudice. This culture poses an anthropological problem, similar to that faced by imperialism when it confronted the “savage” societies of its overseas possessions. It requires colonisation of unorthodox or aberrant beliefs, and conformity with “correct”, universal values, which always coincide with those of the rich and powerful.

This seemed to be a “liberal” attempt to address the problem; having “acknowledged the destructive legacy of past racism in distorting the cultures of nonwhite groups.” (Lopez, ibid.) But, “This was an important concession, but one that only half followed the liberal insight from mid-century that tied the situation of nonwhites to past and present social practices. In their focus on the present, Glazer and Moynihan largely dropped structural impediments from their analysis. Rather, in ‘major part’, they directed attention to ‘the home and family and community’ for the immediate causes of the inferior educational, social and material position of racial minorities”.
So the “report” then, was used to determine the civil right movement’s increasing demands for equality could not be met because of “failings in the black community itself”; namely “the Negro family”. (We can see right here, why some blacks who are knowledgeable still mistrust liberal Democrats as little better in the race issue).

“Race” was replaced with “ethnicities” (and from here, is briefly mentioned the charge that “other groups pulled themselves up”), and then the real problem was made “culture”, even though this perfectly matched the old “race” category. (And what would they eventually begin fighting under the banner of, but a “Culture War”, in which race has always ended up connected in one way or another to the moral and financial issues that “war” was framed on?)
So under the banner of “colorblindness”, they could actually continue the same old racial stereotypes, but then claim it is “culture” and not “race”, and that they are just going by “fact” (and from there, deflect charges of “racism” onto the other side, including claiming whites are the true “victims” of it. Even the Anglo-Saxons became the most vulnerable, victimized minority, from being the only group ineligible to claim affirmative action).

Ethnicity told a story of groups either defeated or elevated by their own cultures. Dog whistle politicians embraced the ethnic fiction, amplifying themes of deviant nonwhite behavior and white innocence. The narratives promoted alike by the ethnic turn and racial demagogues—a lack of work ethic, a preference for welfare, a propensity toward crime, or their opposites—reinvigorated racial stereotypes, giving them renewed life in explaining why minorities lagged behind whites. These stereotypes might have faded as society addressed racism. Instead, they became the staples of political discourse, repeaded ad nauseam by politicians, think tanks and media.

“Colorblindness” cast the ongoing of the problems to the people themselves, instead of ongoing structural components of racism. This then led to a return to the old “laissez faire” concept of “rugged individualism” (from the old “robber baron” age of the past, the nation voted away through the New Deal), which was one of the things the “deficient” black culture refused to adopt.
Scholars in the 1990’s remarked that “a new form of prejudice has come to prominence, one that is preoccupied with matters of moral character, informed by the virtues associated with the traditions of individualism. At its center are the contentions that blacks do not try hard enough to overcome the difficulties they face and that they take what they have not earned”. (p. 100, citing Kinder, Sanders Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals).
So many have come to believe that they prosper because they possess “the values, orientations, and work ethic needed by the self-making individual in a capitalist society”, and thus, “It is now virtually commonsense, at least among the GOP faithful, that minorities fail, and they succeed, as rugged individuals”.

An extension of ethnicity across the color line might have been a felicitous development, for instance if society had come to see nonwhites in terms of cultural variety and a shared humanity. Instead, though, when ethnicity eventually was applied to nonwhites, it changed form and became another way of explaining unbridgeable difference. Where supremacist conceptions of race attributed minority failings to nature, ethnic conceptions would link virtually the same faults to their culture. Ethnicity ultimately replaced nature with culture, but otherwise left the stereotypes explaining minority inferiority largely untouched.

(This tactic also allows them to acknowledge “the good ones“; who do not fit the stereotype of the race, without this damaging the stereotype itself).

This method to “reconceptualize racial dynamics” is framed as a tactic to ultimately prevent amelioration of inequality by attacking the “traditional liberal solutions”; including that “they themselves create cultural pathologies in nonwhite communities”. (And here, on p.97 we get mention of conservative thinkers such as Charles Murray, Dinesh D’Souza, and another one I don’t remember, Myron Magnet).

“Clearly, something must explain white dominance, but what?”
“If racism does remain a problem, how can conservatives object to remedying it?”
“What makes these efforts [welfare, job training, housing, education] futile, or unfair to whites [who once benefitted from them]”?
Most importantly, “how can conservatives talk about why minorities pose a looming threat, if race is just a matter of skin color [as their position of “colorblindness” argued]”?

They deny racial groups can be defined by “culture” only when challenged; otherwise, they routinely employ ethnic terms as a coded way to talk about racial groups and their supposedly incompatible behaviors and beliefs.

“Whites believed in structural remedies when they saw the poor as people like themselves [i.e. other whites], folks sometimes trapped by larger forces or bad breaks. They shifted to a belief in personal failings when they began to see the poor as nonwhites fundamentally unlike themselves. Today, conservatives like Gingrich seek to both stoke and exploit the conviction that the poor chose their fate”.
Meanwhile, he cites Dr. King as acknowledging that the black family as part of the cause of its present crisis culturally and socially induced. Yet his solution was access to jobs, education and housing, coupled with freedom from further exploitation.

Ethnicity provides a basis for blaming minorities for their inferior positions, since it faults their supposedly defective cultures; simultaneously, it exhonerates whites, since racism is no longer to blame for inequality. This in turn answers the question of government help: such assistance is futile because only nonwhites can reform their inferior cultures and self-defeating behaviors. Finally, the ethnic turn promotes a new culture talk that surreptitiously resurrects old stereotypes, allowing conservatives to reinvigorate a pernicious aspect of racism; contentions about fundamental differences in behavior and culture between innocent whites and threatening nonwhites.
Racial demagogues could drop direct references to biology and racial groups, and still stir racial passions. Ethnicity helped establish a commonsense framework in which discussions of dysfunctional culture and menacing behavior were readily understood as describing the essential identity of nonwhites.

Yet racial demagogues did more than resurrect old stereotypes; they altered them in ways that combined assaults on nonwhites with attacks on liberalism. Shaped by the coded language of conservative dog whistle politics, racial stereotypes increasingly connected ideas of minority inferiority with rightwing political narratives. Today, the most powerful racial stereotypes—the ones most generally credited and in widest circulation—dovetail precisely with dog whistle naratives jointly attacking minorities and liberalism.

It should be emphasized at this point, that this is not to deny that there is any validity to the notion of “culture”.  For instance, I’ve long acknowledged that this whole “thug/gangsta” image, greatly promoted in recent generations by industries like entertainment, is about a “culture” or “sub-culture”, and thus not every member of a “race”. However, one problem is that this is not recognized enough, when in practice making that “culture” nearly coterminous with the race, save a few “good ones”.
So the main problem this leads into, is that if you want discuss “cultural” difference (in terms of “problems”), fine. But the purpose of this is always to compare to one’s own culture, seen as up to “par”, if not par itself, which is also assumed to be “exceptional” (which is really just a softer word for “superior”).
THAT‘s where the “racism” lies (the making of one’s own group “better” than others, which is the original definition), but this is always attempted to be hidden behind the “fact” of “culture”!

Dog Whistling in the Religious Right

Among conservative Christians who engage in dog whistle rhetoric or general belief in “exceptionalism”, the entire set of well-known scriptural teachings on the sinfulness of all men (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:9-20 Galatians 3:22, Luke 18:9-14, John 9:41) goes right out the window in favor of a pure cultural merit, and they don’t even realize it. (And they are actually the ones who have spoken the most of a “Culture War“, and though this is more about “secular humanism” and moral liberalism and not [directly] race, still, these “forces” are part of what they complain has forced “egalitarianism” on to them. Here’s an example of the line of reasoning used to dismiss scriptures like this:

If an individual says “I am justified by my good works”, or a “cult group” or other religion says “we shall be saved by our works” then their “heresy” is obviously recognized, and these people regarded as hell-bound sinners rejecting Christ’s Gospel. But when “mainstream” [“orthodox” evangelical] Christians themselves extend this same rationale to “culture”, it’s a different story. Individual “salvation” no longer matters; it’s the salvation of the nation from others’ [external forces] sins by our own goodness.
Hence the current rash of “harbinger”s or other “prophecies” of “judgment” on America for its cultural “sins” [everything but historic racism, of course] —that like all others are all passing by unfulfilled, about now.

Also, “culture” was long used as a racial dog whistle in the old Christian music debates within the church. Christian music using “secular” (contemporary) styles such as rock are condemned as “worldly”, supposedly for being produced by an “ungodly” post-Christian culture; but ultimately for the style coming from blacks. But then secular (such as classical, or strictly patriotic) music done in a traditional style is considered acceptable, because the “culture” they were produced in was “Christian”, and therefore “sacred”.

One expression of “colorblindness” was the saying “not skin, but sin” (which a common tract was even written on). While I thought that was a nice idea, overall the “sin” part was still not owned by the evangelical “culture” producing the meme; but was rather, generally, seen as external; like race was something “secular” society was having an issue with, but their problem is “sin”, and as one contemporary music critic (brushing off the notion of the addressing of racism as a topic of Christian music) put it, “The Bible has the answers”. But the Bible is in this case simply thrown at others, while one assumes they’re already in line with it.

So “not skin, but sin” basically becomes “not color, but culture”. To put it together,
not skin color, but sin culture.
That “sin culture” is always seen as belonging to someone else, including those of the other “skin color”.

That’s why, even though there’s a lot of truth to the notion of “culture”, it still leads back to bona fide racist sentiment.

So this “cultural” focus just leads to distortions of the Gospel into an imagined “Christian culture” that is an extension of biblical Israel, in being “chosen” by God; but unlike Israel, infused with the Spirit, making them overall behaviorally “superior” or “exceptional”, even if every single individual in the nation or culture was not regenerated.

Another, particularly nasty manifestation of “colorblindness” is the actual reappropriation of the “N” word to people [hypothetically of any race] who do bad things (which even blacks, trying to neutralize it in the past, said was a better use for it). What I had been seeing in “conservative news” article comments is it then being used for the black criminal[s] of the story. So now, they get to openly use the N word on blacks (as boldly as an antebellum slavemaster or Jim Crow sheriff, though usually spelled differently like removing the e) while still vigorously denying “racism”! (Talk about “having your cake and eating it too”! Who could ask for a better setup? But like the “emperor with no clothes”, these people so buy their own reasonings and think it passes with everyone else, and have no concept of “the appearance of evil”; i.e. what it looks like to others).

On P.102 he puts the strategy all together:

  • Race is just a matter of blood, and has no connection to past or present social practices.
  • Racism means being treated differently on the basis of race. Since affirmative action treats whites differently because of race, it constitutes racism. On the other hand, there is little racism against minorities today: witness the absense of proven malice.
  • Ethnicity shows that whites do not exist as a dominant group, but only as ethnic minorities with just as much right as other minorities to protect their own group interests
  • Group cultures differ, and it’s not racist to acknowledge that white ethnics have succeded, and nonwhite groups have failed, on the basis of differences in group capacity and behavior. Moreover, since groups are the masters of their own fate, it is futile (in addition to being racist) for government to give some groups special handouts

“When laid out this way, it’s no surprise that Reagan and other political leaders since have embraced colorblindness. It sounds liberal, yet works like a racial cudgel, denying that there’s discrimination against minorities, elevating whites as racial victims, justifying white superiority, and facilitating dog whistle racial appeals that emphasize culture and comportment”.

•Highlights the Clintons’ use of racial politics (such as “getting tough on crime”, which was an instance of a liberal use of the “dog whistle”; which I clearly remembered him “needing” to do during his first campaign to compete with the Republicans, especially with the whole “Horton” campaign still fresh in mind); and that Bill used his Arsenio appearance make himself look like “the first black president” and a “friend” of blacks or “honorary brother”. (“[race-baiting] may have violated Clinton’s values; indeed, he was likely deeply troubled by the perceived need to racially pander. Whatever the case, though, Clinton bit down on that whistle and blew. At root, the ‘racism’ in dog whistle racism is the ‘strategy’…[lying] in provoking racial animosities in order to gain votes and power.” p.113)
In this point, it also mentions the black vote being “not so much disdained as taken for granted. The black community could be pushed away and even slapped down a bit, without seriously jeopardizing African American electoral support. After all, the reasoning went, where could they go?” (This is basically the “lesser of two evils” premise, which is also working on the right side, where Republicans have taken their electorate for granted, who essentially have no where else to go).

•As racial politics dies down after Clinton reforms, Heritage Foundation blames failures of tax cuts for rich on “social programs”. This is what set the focus back on “lazy minorities”, to the present (I definitely had noted how the rhetoric had died down, and then kicked back up around 2004).
And of course, 9-11 also drew more ire towards “Arab Muslims” and “illegal immigrants” from across the southern border.

•Mentions John Birch Society as being founded by candy manufacturer Robert Welch (“In a conxtext in which actual domestic support for communism was virtually nil”; so the term functioned as a hyperbolic catchall for the New Deal), and later mentions the Koch brothers (as billionaire backers for the Right, of course), so I’m surprised he never mentioned their father’s co-founding the JBS. (And that he dog whistled a connection between communists and civil rights as a serious threat to the country).

Here, it’s made clear that the whole platform of the Right against “government” really started with opposition to the government (who had initially benefitted whites through the New Deal) extending the benefits to blacks.

Until recently, I would hear the dog whistling, and try to give them the benefit of the doubt that their concerns were primarily, genuinely economic and governmental, but wondered why blacks always had to get “caught in the crossfire” of their battles with liberal Democrats. Why couldn’t they just leave us out of it already, and realize that we’re not the ones getting all the money (but rather we’re all getting screwed, alike; whether this flow to the 1% is justified or not). But this makes it clear that it’s more the other way around. The modern “Democrats” or “government” in general have gotten caught in the cross-fire of the old war against the blacks, disguised to look like a war against “big government”!

“Punch, parry, kick” (p.129) Here he really nails the rhetorical deflect-and-turnabout dynamic conservatives use:

The punch is the dog whistle’s initial coded race-talk (including caricatures, such as an image of Obama on a “food stamp” bill with stereotypcal black food, or the “Obama phone lady”).
The parry is where they then play dumb, refusing to see any connection between their comments and race. This, where they often say “it’s fact, not racism”, and may accuse the other side of “whining”.
The kick is the counterattack, where they accuse the accuser of being the one injecting race into the conversation. This is where they level the charges of, “playing the race card”, and “being the true racists”.

•191ff Obama not “liberal” enough. Was not really constrained by GOP in the beginning, when they were in disarray, and their ideas largely discredited. With Obama silent, then their standard story about race and betrayal became the sole coherent narrative.

Suggests he may have been compensating for the “double strike” (in the eyes of the Right) of being both black and Democratic

•He at this point makes the distinction between the “colorblindness” of the Right, and the “post-racialism” as the left’s counterpart. Unlike colorblindness, post-racialism could acknowledge the damaging effect of past racism, but now doesn’t want to discuss it beyond that.

Some other things I’m surprised weren’t mentioned (in addition to the denial of Southern Strategy as a rhetorical tactic, the Koch-JBS connection, and “superhumanization bias”):

•Asians often being cited by dog whistlers as doing “better than whites” in intelligence scores. He uses the terms “nonwhite” a lot, and points out that the definition of who counts as white may change, but Asians are not yet being included as “white”, though nevertheless used to prove that the dog whistlers are not exalting their own race, because “look; we’re admitting others [the Asians] are better than US!“.

•While giving that one reference to Murray, surprisingly didn’t mention the attempts through his “Bell Curve” theory to still maintain some sort of natural difference.

•That there are plenty of rightwing people who do want to “discuss race” (and even condemn leftwing “political correctness” for censoring it), though of course, this is to openly blame minorities. These are the ones regarding the “dog whistlers” as “cuckservatives“, and rather than dog whistlers themselves, they would amount to regular audible whistle blowers! But I guess he’s focusing on the dog whistlers themselves, not on these more radical fringes. But these fringes were allowed to make their voices heard more by the dog whistlers softening the audience up for them!

•Another thing that could have been covered, since it was pointed out the nation favored the New Deal in the past, even citing the IRS headquarters inscription “taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society”, is how they were able to do it back then with no income tax. This would build his argument (below) that a “return” to “liberal government” is the solution.

•How the illusion of “black culture” being bad, was fed to many of them for a profit, and then further broadcast by they themselves to the entire world, through entertainment venues such as “gangsta rap” (which of course also benifitted the huge media empires publishing it). I’ve always seen this as a ploy to justify racism, (in the very vein of those rappers claiming to be anti-white and pro-black). Now, everybody sees that stuff, and the kids emulating it from coast to coast, and it “proves” more than anything else, that all the stetreotypes of blacks are true. They themselves openly flaunt it, even!

The book ends on “What to Do”

Politicians: Obama is not in a position to take on race directly, but must 1) articulate and govern according to a positive liberal vision, and 2) “give a consistent and coherent account of who the culprits are”; “who’s holding us down, and even pushing us downward”, since “with so much hardship in their lives, people want to know who to blame” (“resentment abhors a vacuum”); pointing out that dog whistle politicians have made assigning blame their principle task.
However, we should not engage in scapegoating and clarify that it is not wealth itself or corporations that are the problem, but that we cannot ignore self-interested billionaires and corporations that attempt to distort the democratic process to serve their own interests. (And he cites Teddy Roosevelt, a “great capitalist”, who nevertheless lambasted “malefactors of great wealth”. 3) Liberal politicians must encourage their allies and appointees to discuss race.

Civil Rights Organizations: 1) promote liberalism 2) spark a new civil rights movement. He has us imagine three positions regarding racial justice: a left commitment to directly addressing inequalities, a rightwing agenda of reversing civil rights and preserving the status quo, and in the middle, universal liberal programs that only indirectly help minorities. “By staying silent on race, the left effectively disappeared: no one was arguing for direct responses to racial injustice.” What happened, is that that middle position came to be seen as “left” and even “radical”, and even Democrats fearing being identified with “left” programs. (“this is where we find ourselves today”).

Foundations and unions: Most have also retreated from directly engaging with racial justice. If the issues they do address touch on poverty, they will also inevitably intersect with race, and if they seek government help, will be contested in racial terms. Public unions find themselves the targets of aggressive attacks, particularly economic ones, such as the cost to taxpayers of fulfilling pension obligations, and also “a racial refrain that paints many unions, especially public ones, as havens of unproductive minorities” (I saw this first hand on the Christian board I debated on! As I’ve said in Makers-Takers, “even if you’re working, you’re still a ‘taker’, if you essentially ‘want too much’ ⦅including any sort of job security or benefits⦆'” All of this should make it clear, that “slavery” is basically the hypothetical ideal of this system).

So these organizations’ principal work should be “a long term project to restore luster to liberalism itself”, including a “consensus on how to help the middle class”. They had backed down from defending this, due to pressure from the Clinton and Obama administrations to tone down on demands for New Deal style solutions for economic challenge, shifting rightward with the rest of the country. Or, they hold a complacent sense that liberalism needs no defense, and will naturally win out in the end.
But looking at the way the conservative think tanks and media conglomerates (and the influence of people like the Kochs), “in today’s political climate, bad ideas thrive with sufficient resources behind them, and good ideas wither from neglect. Liberals must acknowledge the skewed nature of the marketplace of ideas and foundations and unions must step up their commitments to supporting advocacy organizations, think tanks, and grassroots groups motivated to re-engage the increasingly one-sided debates…”. This extends to supporting universities (including schools like law, business and medicine), starting with liberal arts programs to help foster the values and critical thinking that undergirds liberalism, as conservatives have been effective in pouring money into endeavors like this.

The rest of us:
Consciously consider race (“The racial subterfuge of coded appeals that has done so much to wreck the middle class is easy to pierce, but only if one consciously mulls over how race might be involved”).
Raise one’s voice (“Rightwing racial attacks on liberalism depend on cowing into silence those opposed to continuing racial demonization, thus allowing dog whistle calumnies to spread unchallenged”. In discussing how colorblindness makes those who point out racism seem to be the racists, he interjects a second time “as if pulling a fire alarm means one set the fire, or dialing 911 means one committed the crime“.) So to defeat dog whistle racism, we need to sound that alarm! (And for persons of color, this is especially risky, since there’s additional pressure to stay silent and “show that race no longer matters”).
And it doesn’t necessarily mean electing more Democrats, for they can use the whistle as well.

He praises the Occupy Wall St. movement as good, showing that “tremendous passion exists around issues of economic inequality” and how social media comes to good use; but erring in refusing to engage in party politics (like the Tea Party did) and accept major financial backing; and also ignoring race. (“It was a curious spectacle, to see many white youth in Oakland up in arms about economic injustice but resistant to talking about racism, in a city where wealth and poverty correlate so closely with color”).

It's not about color, it's about the Law
Typical “dog whistle” meme that attempts to accuse the other side of falsely making the issue about race. It totally ignores all the instances where the black victim WAS obeying or not resisting, and still got shot. It in one brush stroke makes all black victims automatically guilty of resisting arrest, just because they got shot. It implies the police are always right, and black kids are always wrong. This really needs to be challenged, nonstop

So he basically advocates for “liberal” use of “government”, and a focus on race. I admit that I have been greatly influenced by the “post-racial” mindset, in basically cowing to the Right’s tough talk against “government”, and “the race card”. I would say that Obama was using “tact” in deflecting from race, which is what I had been saying all along. How can we keep pushing both for “government”, and decrying “racial discrimination”, when the other side has been loudly trashing both issues as us just wanting to tyrannize them (à la “Communism”) in order to take “free stuff” from them, and we have not even been answering that charge.
I still think there is wisdom in recognizing a limit of government, as it, just like big business, or dog whistle organizations, is composed of humans who often act on their own self-interest, which corrupts the goals, and leaves those they are supposed to help still not helped that much.

But he does say, continuing with the comment electing Democrats not being the goal; “Rather, the goal is to restore a political consensus that sees government not as a handmaiden to mooching nonwhites, but as a powerful tool for promoting liberty and opportunity for all“.

The result of dog whistle politics is that while so much money has been going to the super-rich, people still continue to insist it’s all gone to the minorities (like claiming “22 Trillion” went to “welfare” programs since Johnson, as I’ve seen).
The goal is to restore the paradigm of the “robber baron”, who through “rugged individualism” can milk dry as much of the people as they can; and then not only that, but to have it all blamed on minorities, who then are the ones deemed needing restraints put on them. (Just as in the old ideal setup of the Old South, which many are still hoping will “rise again”!)

This, (aside from the arguments of the dangers of “big government”, and whether it “works”, or whether programs will really help the minorities for whom the ghetto lifestyle is so engrained) I would say is a good start.

Here’s an article with some of his points:
8 Sneaky Racial Code Words and Why Politicians Love Them

From → Politics

  1. The next step for dog whistlers is to go after “thin-skinned”, which is a category where they’ve lumped together every “victim group” they feel is taking away their liberties: minorities, feminism, sexual orientation/identity, and all wrapped in a bag of “Marxism”.
    I now see more and more memes talking about “We’re just offended about everything”. “What are we offended about today?” “We just woke up one day and decided everything offends us”.

    Generation Butthurt
    This spiking after two incidents at colleges, where people reacted to what they prerceived as racial insensitivity. In one college, it was Halloween costumes, and at another, it was people shouting the N word at a student group, and then a swastika drawn with feces. Even in the latter case, people just lump it in with the same old plot to trample on their rights by eroding “freedom of speech”, and the blacks’ cause is illegitimate and in the wrong again!

    So today, I run across this from an arch conservative connection on FB:

    (So instead of skin color, it’s “skin” thickness)
    What they fail to realize, is in doing this, and making “straight white males” the REAL persecuted group, are doing what else, but being thin skinned (especially since they have lost no real power, other than dominance over others —which writers like this think is their “natural” right). Theyre “ruining” our nation; is no less the claim.

    So only they are allowed to react to being “offended” by anything others do. All they have to do is just claim their basic rights are being violated, and then that’s different from what others are complaining about. Others who feel offended should just suck it up, or whatever.

    Since this writer mentions someone’s offense at his mention of “God and a Creator” let’s not forget the ongoing news story of the flipside of this, someone’s offense at a private enterprise company changing the holiday design of a coffee cup, which is supposed to be apart of the “attacks” of the very forces this writer is criticizing (political correctness, multiculturalism, etc), and based on the same premise he is discussing: other people’s “offense” at the religious basis of holidays. But this extends to the absurdly ridiculous interpretation of them simply removing already religiously neutral symbols of winter. (If anything, you would expect this from them if they had replaced specifically Christian images with the irreligious snowflakes or snowmen; now they’re offended at the removal of the snow figures! Like they have to oppose something; anything, no matter what!)
    It’s OK to complain about that, but not against racism or sexism! (To be fair, we’re dealing with two different people here, but still, as “conservatives”, they are likely on the same side of this ongoing “culture war”, against their ideas of “liberty”).
    Even at least one commenter points out that both sides are doing the same things.

    Just posting this flag to offend the ignorant people

    how many liberals can I offend with this picture Bible USflag guns

    I'm a heterosexual, Christian, Conservative, pro life, pro police, gun owning NRA member who believes the Redskins should keep their else may I piss you off?

    If the name of Jesus offends you; Jesus Jesus Jesus...
    Is this really what the name of Jesus is for? Might it even be “vain use”?
    Also, they should note Acts 16:16-8 in this regard!

    People like this boldly shoot insults and even anticipate your being “offended”, which they rub in your face. Sensitivity is totally mocked and scorned, while this cold machismo is infallible “truth”.
    But ironically, the “godly old society” conservatives like this uphold was supposedly proven as being such a standard of “virtue”, by it’s “properness” (think “southern politeness”, “children were respectful [at least around adults] and only got in trouble for chewing gum in class”, “you didn’t have all this sex all over popular culture”, etc), and the “godless”, blacks, liberals and other cultural revolutionaries were condemned as eliminating this in favor of low-“class” behavior. Recall, even the word “pregnant” was “offensive” and completely barred from media! The only difference here is what things different generations of “society” are offended by.

    But now, all of a sudden, IMpolitness has been elevated to some supreme virtue, in the name of “freedom”. (And even getting that “godly” society back. Of course, what they’ll probably appeal to is Christ calling people “vipers”, but these were actually the conservative “guardians” of “godliness” who ended up seeing sin in everyone else but themselves, He was aiming that at.
    I remember Morton Downey Jr. being the early pioneer of this “we’re mad as hell” media conservativism, and how one book pointed to him as part of the lowering of “class” in American society).

    It’s all tied into this whole “rugged individual” concept (even mentioned in Dog Whistle Politics), which is all about male supremacy. This writer even says “If we have any chance of undoing the damage of cultural Marxism, modern men must take on their original roles as producers, inventors, entrepreneurs, protectors, builders and warriors once again.” A commenter then adds: “IMO men are much less inherently selfish than women. The world grew and progressed and built for thousands of years under the male-dominated system. What have we achieved since feminism? PostModern feminism is a force primarily for socialism (frankly, all feminism is; no other conclusion is possible). Everyone knows this. The third-wave feminists are takers, not makers, and following them will be nothing but a descent. It’s time to stand up and resist.”
    While denying there is even such a thing as “patriarchy”, they proceed to then defend it!

    Edit: this meme is certainly fitting: Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength

    Then, we have “Maintain your rights; they do not hurt other people: PC cultists will invariably argue that every person, whether he knows it or not, is indirectly harming others with his attitude, his beliefs, his refusal to associate, even his very breathing. ‘We live in a society’, they say, ‘and everything we do affects everyone else…’. Don’t take such accusations seriously; these people do not understand how freedom works.”

    It then uses as the example the gay wedding cake controversy. While I agree that’s been pushed too far, as no one should be forced to bake a cake, when there are other bakers they could use and even if they refused to bake for blacks, let’s say, word would get out about that, and unless in a deeply segregationist enclave, he would be blackballed by public opinion, and thus, the “market”. Though critics like this would still then complain that the public is too corrupted by political correctness!)
    But he’s generalizing this into an absurd claim that nothing we do affects anyone else. Again, the “rugged individual” mindet of the “frontier”, where everyone lives miles apart. (Even then, they can affect each other. Suppose one wants to clear a forest by burning it away?) He just got through saying “As long as a person is not directly impeding the life, liberty, prosperity and privacy of another person, he should be left alone.” The problem is, what you think doesn’t or “shouldn’t” affect the other, may affect them (including things like guns), and you can’t just readily dismiss their concern as invalid.

    But that’s what this is all about. We go right from “No one is entitled to have their feelings addressed by others.” (“Why should any individual relinquish his liberties in the name of placating frightened nobodies?”) to “Demand that society respect your inherent individual rights”. So “how freedom works” is that only their freedom is valid (after all, the other side is “nobody”; that’s how we determine who has rights to begin with). And if others don’t like it, they should all be “men” and get guns and shoot it out, the old “wild wild west” way. That’s what all of this is about. How everything was good in antebellum America. Including the denigration and even oppression or extermination of various groups. Nothing can ever be admitted as having been wrong back then, so all they can do is defend it all, and berate those today saying remnants of those things are offensive.
    Also, regarding “equality”, a notable statement is: “But there will always be some people who are more apt towards success than others.” That’s also what determines “rights”, and is what people feel was overturned by the “Marxists”.

    Typologically speaking (and ironic that he even mentions Jung), this mindset betrays an imbalanced collective dominant extraverted Thinking, where both attitudes of Feeling are suppressed in favor of a totally impersonal, and externally reasoned task orientation. Extraverted Feeling, which is a more environmental perspective of values is the “demonic” function, and basically evil incarnate. Introverted Feeling, which judges values individually, through identifying with others (putting yourself in their shoes), and which as the “inferior” should be getting developed as an “aspirational” perspective one needs to learn to live up to, is also suppressed, and then ends up instead projected onto others as them being so inferior, stupid and illogical, going by irrational “feelings”, (where only the holder of this mindset has the “fact”).
    All we’re left with is this cold goal orientation that justifies everything. Until someone bigger (including the big, bad “gubmint”) steps on them, and then the repressed inferior function erupts through all of the emotional reactions and irrationality they condemned in others. But it’s then attributed to a legitimate purpose labeled “freedom”, and thus seen as “not the same thing”.

    This is when the “punch, parry, kick” tactic comes in, where they turn the tables and play “victim” in the very breath of condemning others for being “victims” (e.g. “In reality, there is only institutionalized ‘privilege’ for victim-status groups. There is no privilege for whites, males, white males or straight white males.”) and then accuse them of being the true oppressors (the “Marxists” are the “establishment”).

    It ends on an image of what looks like Trump, with a sword of “Truth” and a shield of “Awsomeness”, fighting off the six headed dragon of everything that they are offended by, (and coming from the pyramid of “Gaytriarchy”).

    People like this just need to erect an altar of themselves, and demand everyone worship it. To them, the real persecution and “victimhood” is that most people won’t, anymore.

    Edit: see also:

    When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross

  2. I was just surprised to see a clear “dog whistle” coming from a Christian writer who I’ve always liked a lot. He quotes this pastor, who in talking about how “religion is a powerful antidote to crime”, mentions “black juvenile superpredators” (as opposed to “civil society and stronger black churches”.
    This is actualy an old racial tactic, called “superhumanization bias” ( that began as slavery ended, used to rally people up against the freed slaves. It was used again when segregation was being ended. And it continues to figure today in all these police violence cases, where they try to make the people being shot (including KIDS like Trayvon) as so big and threatening, to justify killing them.

    The footnote then points to Jewish medical editor talking about how we fear to go out after dark, not because of evangelists forcing us to read the New Testament, but rather “feral young people who have been taught that nothing is superior to their own needs or feelngs”.
    For one thing, that is a gross oversimplification of black anger. Cast as some engrained moral fault compared to the virtues of “evangelical” activity.

    All of this is apart of what’s being called “dog whistle” rhetoric.
    And one of the key components of this, is, (in the name of a pretense of “colorblindness”) to simply transfer all the old racial stereotypes from skin color (genetics) to what they call “CULTURE”.

    So here, we have this morally deficient black “culture” that was taught wrong, compared to the evangelicals or “judeo-Christian culture”, which may not be perfect, but AT LEAST they follow God and are not so “selfish” and thus violent. (Never mind the racial and colonial atrocities that many will admit. If they weren’t thinking “nothing was superior to their needs and feelings”, because they “followed God”; I would say they had all the LESS EXCUSE, then! A strong “church” influence didn’t stop them from doing all that equally and greater barbaric acts to people! They just rationalized it by baptizing it in various scriptures, taken out of context. [Like the curse of Canaan, etc.]
    But nobody sees it that way. No, it was just an “honest mistake”. But overall, they were “exceptionally” good, while these OTHER people over here, are exceptionally BAD).
    It totally denies the scriptural truth that all cultures have sinned, and that there is no merit whatsover in any comparative good “works”. (Since they have effectively raised “cultures” or “nations” to the level of individuals standing before God and being judged, then what do they think would happen if one goes before God with “at least I’m not so bad like that person over there is”?)

    I know the writer didn’t mean anything racial by it, and this was just a passing reference to build a point, and then he went on to say (as he always does) “we should concede our shortcomings”. Still, this dog whistle rhetoric has gone on unchecked far too long, having gripped almost all of “middle-America” and the church, and needs to be called out wherever it is seen, and not used positively. (It’s what is keeping the race ball rolling, even as defensive conservatives using this rhetoric constantly complain “the race card” is being played on them. And the pstor is black, but I don’t know much about him, and yet, black leaders can certainly dog whistle against their own “community” or “culture” as well, as the likes of Carson and West and others show us).

    Also, debating on FB today over this meme:
    Constitution is an imperfect document

    I say, careful here! The only document a Christian is supposed to hold as inerrant is the Bible. To criticize anyone for attributing flaws to the Constitution is putting it on the same level as scripture! The Contitution is a manmade document (even if we insist they were all trying to follow the true God, which is even questionable) and nothing man does is ever inerrant!

    The poster objects that this is just part of “Barry Soetero’s” “disrespect of the Constitution”.
    But it’s not disrespect just to say it is imperfect. (and reflecting “flaws” in the culture. And to try to lump this in with other ways he supposedly “disrespects it” doesn’t help. This is not an example of that, unless maintaining its inerrancy is a necessary way to “respect” it).
    Only the Bible is “disrespected” when claiming it has errors, because it’s the ony one that (to us) has a legitimate claim of being the revelation of a perfect God.

    The other person continued to maintain his position of “his conduct” proving his disrespect.
    Then, another commenter says: “we still need this constitution so we can have freedom..if they are removed, it doesn’t make me less Christian..but it will allow the President to become a Dictator..and it’s coming faster than you think..and the way it’s going, Christianity is being removed a little bit at a time and Islam is filling the gap”.

    (So now, the other main dog whistle target of today is brought in, out of nowhere).

    Here’s the context of the statement, and it involved its intepretation in light of what else, but race (African Americans not being considered people, under it) at the time:

    It has nothing to do with any plot to remove it and establish a dictatorship. People are so worried about loss of “freedom” [their own, and ONLY their own, that is, so WHO was that again, who thinks “nothing’s superior to their own needs and feelings”?!?], but think of the people under slavery back then. That was a gross double standard, and precisely what he was addressing!
    (And Limbaugh, cited in the article, continues the error that to “defend” the Constitution, is to think it’s flawless

    Also found this article on “dog whistling” from three years ago:

  3. Is This the Most Racist Political Race in Years?
    ‘Dog Whistle Politics’ author Ian Haney-López says Donald Trump and others in the GOP field are preying on white fear and ignorance

    “Racism in the United States is not just about mistreating minorities. Racism is fundamentally about scaring whites,” he says. “And the people who are scaring whites with racism, they are not doing it because they don’t like people of color. They are doing it because this is a way to win votes for politicians who are basically serving the interests of billionaires.”

    Also, today’s the 100th anniversary of the 20th century “comeback” of the KKK:

  4. Of the four types of racism, it started as “strategic” (use easily enslaved tribal people to boost economy of new nation. Not sure why Lopez said only “three” types and counted strategic separately). To justify it, “commonsense” was brought in (the fact that they are so easily enslaved, and “backwards” shows they are less than human, and thus good as beasts of burden. This on top of and building off off the natural archetypal aversion to “blackness”). This thus naturally created “structural” racism, where these subhumans were excluded from the rights everyone enjoyed.
    As the people themselves often resisted (and thus had to be whipped and otherwise chastized), and then, other whites began opposing slavery, and pushing for their freedom, this is what created actual racial “hatred” (which, again, is what most define as the only racism).

    This began an ongoing cycle, where “strategic” racism was used to keep the people divided, employing “commonsense”, and maintaining “structural” tactics, and inspiring “hatred” when they were opposed. (Or its milder form that undergirds today’s dog whistling; “resentment” when the people are accused of being troublesome leeches and wrongly favored at their expense by the forces of “progress”. But through the progressively heating rhetoric, especially regarding the president; and genuine haters seeing the opportunity to make their voices more known again and blend in with everyone else, it looks to be quickly turning back into hatred).

  5. Another dog whistle meme similar to the one in the OP:
    The real problem isn’t police brutality. The real problem is we now have an entire generation of spoiled, entitled brats, who believe rules and laws don't apply to them and parents who refuse to be parents and hold their little kiddos accountable for their behavior!

    Of course, this is their blanket assessment of the “black commuity” (the one complaining of police brutality), and it again assumes every police incident was the black kid’s fault. Ignoring how black parents are often the toughest (remember the “Baltimore Mom”?), while modern white parents often plead with their children to behave/obey, and many grow up expecting public servants and sales people, etc. to cater to them specially, (becoming quick to talk nasty to them), and the police will often tolerate anything from white gunmen and other criminals (e.g. see But again, blacks are the “entitled” brats.

    I just concluding a debate with yet another Christian who thinks to disagree with him, you must be the freeloading “whiner” blaming “the Man” for “keeping him down”. To which I replied that is exactly what conservatives are doing! The debate was on the student loan problem, with this person taking the typical “rugged individual” position that it shouldn’t be changed, because if you have enough “initiative”, you’ll succeed, and that is in fact what college is the measurement of. Once again, this shows me that they really are striving for a system of robber-baron domination, based on the “fact”-based notion of “superiority” (leading to “might makes right”), which is what the system founded on colonialism and slavery was about to begin with.
    (With so many Christians caught up in this “rugged individual” ideology, you wonder how they square this away with the common teachings they officially believe in, emphasizing man’s “pride” being bad [emphasized especially when other regimes or philosophies try to act out their ideals “without God”], and him really being helpless in sin, before God. They simply credit God for their superiority, which blinds them from its anti-God essence. It must be right, since it is the way of the frontiersmen of the golden age of early America. That’s really what all of these issues boil down to).

    This further makes it hypocritical to keep tossing around that term “entitled”. They are the ones who believe they are “entitled” more than anyone else. But they think that it’s “different” because they “earned” it. But the definition of the word does not indicate “not earned”, but rather more the opposite: “to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim: His executive position entitled him to certain courtesies rarely accorded others.” It’s an assumption that it is legitimately “earned”; nobody is demanding to be given something for no reason at all. (Though that basically is what conservatives believe about blacks!)
    So then what we have is BOTH sides, where people think something has been wrongly taken from them, and they are thus “entitled” to some form of compensation (like getting something “back”, as in “the nation”). Yet this one side keeps totally discrediting the other side’s claim, and cannot own their identical (if not louder and more heard) behavior. It’s just some self-evident “truth”.

    People just have no clue that men are the same, with the same proclivity to crime, sloth (“inertia”, in one way or another) and feelings of entitlement, as it’s all “nature”; and circumstances will change how it plays out, so these kids may act up, but then many cops use this (toward one “community”) as an excuse for their base side to come up, under the premise of their authority to use deadly force. Same thing, but one side keeps saying the other side is just plain bad and deserves it. I’m thinking more an more that many of these people just want us all dead, but they’re too concerned about their good image to just come out and say it.

    Then, I see this link

    Then, this: which all the commenters agree with of course, some arguing “free speech”.

    Meanwhile what about this:

    Remember when criticizing the president was considered treasonous

    Meanwhile, with all this heat continuously being turned up on “the black problem”:

    Also ran across this article about another common dog whistle target (among more radical conservatives who have not adopted “Zionism”) that fills in for more powerful spheres where blacks can’t be blamed:

    Here are some good memes:

    It didn’t start with Gas Chambers It started with politicians playing on the Prejudices of a Christian Nation It started with a message of
Us Versus Them It started with Intolerance & Hate Speech It started with Denying Basic Rights It started with Burning Houses of Worship It started with Ordinary Citizens Turning a Blind EyeBy means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms - elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest - will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit. Aldous HuxleyIt is an absolute fact that Republicans are aiming in their every action to create a situation where America is underfed, underpaid, under-insured, un-educated, un-informed, unsafe, unable to vote, overpopulated, over-
armed, and overly paranoid. The question is why?The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur When government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incomorations. Thomas Jefferson, 1816

    And here’s one I just made:

  6. I want my country back and if that sounded racist to you,then consider yourself part of the problem...

    Translation: yeah, the blacks (and immigrants and other groups like Muslims now) and the liberals who support them are the problem, and are precisely who we’re trying to get the nation back from (so if you oppose, you must be one of “them”; i.e. “part of the problem”).
    Further evidence: the first comment I see—
    “In order to get our country back we have to go back before the Civil War. The eggheads in Washington (Abe and the Northern Congressmen) changed our form of government from a Republic to a Democracy after the Civil war without a PUBLIC vote. Abe himself wanted a Federation, but gave into the Congress.”

    Obviously, it’s clear what all of this is all about, though these “cuckservative” types are too busy staving off the charges of racism to ever directly admit it.

    Of course, the answer to that is this:
    We want our land back REALLY?

    Edit: And then, on a FB page on this:
    “Here is why the people of Oregon are fed up with the government and are doing what it takes to get our Republic back.”
    Of course, listed is the whole 50 year history of this family and the plot of the land, and how the government encroached upon them. I’m not one to deny that the government does wrong or is too controlling, and for its own profit (having just read my agency stepping up yet another rule; this one against nonissued radios, to threating to fire people caught with them, and part of the reason given is “they pay the FCC to use the frequencies”).

    Still, rather than “the government has encroached upon this family’s freedom and we’re standing for or INDIVIDUAL rights”; it is lumped in as part of this grand scheme of “taking back the republic”. Considering the initial “loss” of the republic to begin with was in the Civil War, as we can see right above, and that white supremacists are involved in these militia movements, that’s why this whole movement is problematic and suspicious to everybody.

    Also saw this:
    (There’s also a link on the bottom to a political “anger” quiz, and I came out as “angry” too).

  7. Here’s a good one I somehow missed from over a year ago (and just came up in the “people also shared” box on FB)

    5 Reasons People Are So Wrong About ‘Black-on-Black Crime’
    We don’t hear much about white-on-white crime or Asian-on-Asian crime.

    It’s starts on the typucal “dog-whistling” tactics of “colorblindness”, where a pizza shop owner flashes a gun at Ferguson protesters, and is called racist, but then his wife later points to two black customers, sobbing “When I see you, I see you, I don’t see color!” (i.e. “colorblind”, via apparent “good ones”).

    The article then tactfully points out that if she really didn’t see color, “how on earth would she know to point at the black people, and why would she say that to them?”

    Not only do they not see color; they are also blind to history, economics, politics, privilege, disadvantage, systemic bias and institutional exclusion. All they really see is inferiority and the inherent threat of those who embody it: They “just so happen” to be black in the same way that the people Dawne Marshall [the pizza shop wife] pointed out happened to be black.

    The right’s response to police shootings has followed this particular contradiction. First they insist these shootings have nothing to do with race, only to ask in the next breath why those who are race-obsessed refuse to address a different racial phenomenon—“black-on-black crime.” “Ninety-three percent of blacks in America are killed by other blacks,” said former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, deploying a conservative talking point. “We are talking about the exception here [in Ferguson]…. I would like to see the attention paid to that, that you’re paying to this.”

    Highlights from the “five reasons”:

    The phrase “black-on-black crime” makes sense only if you understand black people’s propensity to commit crimes against people of their own race as inherently different from the way other racial groups commit crimes.

    In this regard, black criminals are not particularly different. America is very segregated, and its criminality conforms to that fact. So the victims of most crimes are the same race as those who commit them. Eighty-four percent of white people who are killed every year are killed by white people. White people who buy illegal drugs are most likely to buy them from white people. Far from being extraordinary, the fact that black criminals are most likely to commit crimes against black people makes them just like everybody else. A more honest term than “black-on-black crime” would be, simply, “crime.”

    Anyone who seriously thinks that black people are not talking about black people killing other black people just doesn’t know any black people. Black people talk about it a lot. They have a lot to talk about.

    It’s not as though the black community hasn’t noticed that. Most cities have several black-led organizations confronting this very thing. Go to any inner-city church, youth club, park, concert, barbershop, beauty salon or high school basketball game and listen. Every now and then, they even get a national platform to talk about it. And when they do, they seize it.
    When black people kill other black people, families and communities seek justice. When there are eyewitnesses, videos and forensic evidence, they want investigations, arrests, indictments, trials and convictions.

    The police are a special category. That’s the point. Black people are not, by dint of their melanin content, instructed to protect and serve the public; the police, by dint of their employment, are. When the people who are supposed to protect everybody show an undeniable propensity to kill one group of people more than others, that inevitably raises the question of discrimination.

    (An example of this community activism is occurring today, in East New York after a gang rape).

    This inspired me to finally put together this meme I had been planning for some time:

    Right as I’m typing, Eyewitness News Closeup is doing a story on gun crime (interviewing Gov. Dan Malloy of CT), and that the point is not about “black on black crime”, but the fact that many of the guns used in these much touted urban crimes, are traced from other states’ gun shows (I-95 is called the “iron pipeline”!) and the Internet. As I always speculate; I believe part of the battle against gun control is that these people want the guns to be easily available to the ghettos, so the people can 1) basically kill each other off, and 2) it further builds their case that the people are “dangerous” and “problematic” and should be blamed for all the nation’s problems. Two birds with one stone. (And then, 3, it justifies them having assault weapons of their own, so they can fight either the “problem people”, OR the government supporting them at the nation’s expense).


    Also, ran across the tecnical term for “dog whistling”: Apophasis

    “Apophasis is a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up. Accordingly, it can be seen as a rhetorical relative of irony. Also called paralipsis (παράλειψις) – also spelled paraleipsis or paralepsis –, or occupatio, and known also as praeteritio, preterition, cataphasis (κατάφασις), antiphrasis (ἀντίφρασις), or parasiopesis (παρασιώπησις), apophasis is usually employed to make a subversive ad hominem attack, which makes it a frequently used tactic in political speeches to make an attack on one’s opponent. Using apophasis in this way is often considered to be bad form.
    The device is typically used to distance the speaker from unfair claims, while still bringing them up.”


    I had commented on FB:
    “How is the nation going to apologize for slavery, when it’s full of people who think everything was better back then, and constantly condemn progressive forces for “turning from the values we were founded on”, and that the people freed from slavery proved to be a dangerous financial drain on society? (In other words, while never admitting it, slavery was good and should be restored one war or another, and not apologized for).”


    Here we see all the typical “dog whistling” tactics.
    “Character” or or the other term “culture” has been used as a replacement for the old genetic based “superior/inferior” judgment; only because it’s supposedly changeable, it gives all the more reason to blame the people and say they “deserved” it: they were simply too “weak” or “lazy” and wanted “free stuff” (and thus a drain on th economy and some go as far as to say they were better off and happier under slavery) while the superior group has more “character” (despite the atrocities that may have occurred under their reign). And these are the same beliefs that operated under genetic based prejudice!

    So yes, slavery was widespread, but the reason why US slavery has come under so much fire is because it contradicted their whole premise of “freedom” (which they were supposedly fighting for in rebelling against their former superiors), and then they had to distort things (including nature and religion) to justify it (like saying they are not totaly human), and then on top of it, built a whole economy off of it (which is why they didn’t want to let it go, and why management today [MTA and elsewhere] still wants to rule with an iron fist, and squeeze everyone else financially while lavishing themselves [and this of course goes beyond race, but it’s the same principle, and race was only the starting vehicle used for it).

    As far as the powerful, man is also plagues by neuroses, that may drive some to an overboard survival instinct (that usually goes to unhealthy extremes). So they will be good at rising to power, but then there will be a bunch of other problems that go with it, including all the strife we see in the nation today. Another point I have recently thought of (after seeing a “white achievements” meme) People say “their” culture “produced all the technology we have today to make life easier”, but that same technology could also destroy life off of the face of the earth in a moment!

    The person continues, bringing out more of the typical dog whistling:
    “All people are unique in their own right…Every culture has its masters freemen and SLAVES…many create their own enslavement and pass it down thru generations.. Hence WELFARE babies…and the strong and educated will always divide and conquer..all these things have existed since the beginning..and will always continue… Go against..and risk being killed.. FACT…”

    And also, the people who depend on republicanism and corporatism, but then try to blame all or their hardships on these much touted “welfare babies” (ignoring all the welfare that goes to those power bases, though they think they “deserve” it because of their high “character”, and then continue obsessing on the poor welfare people).

    The point is, how power is unbalanced. We can point to nature, and have a good point, but then don’t claim to be have so much more “character” than others, because you (by your awn admission) are following the animal drive (the law of the “jungle”) just as much as they. So you’re just better at it, that’s all.
    But the part of us that appeals to humanity aims to rise above that, so the excuse of “nature” will only carry so far, in a “civilized” society.

    People are all the same, and their strengths and shortcomings all come out differently. There are no “superior” and “inferior” groups (whether “genetic” or “culture”).

    Here’s a revealing article on another architect of dog whistling:

    Koch Daddy and the Nazis, a Revealing History from Jane Mayer

  10. Someone posts a meme on how Irish were treated worse than anyone else in the US, and they aren’t still bitching about how the world owes them a living. One comment throws in South Africa, where Apartheid is still being blamed or everything after 22 years. And then another one ” Integrity is the difference. ..”

    So there you have it. Whites have integrity, and blacks don’t! It doesn’t matter whether this is “genetic” or not; whether it’s “hatred” or not, etc.; here you have all the old inferior judgments the American colonists and South Africans operated off of, in a nutshell. That’s all they need to further their ideological agenda. For, when you ask, like scripture, “what causeth thee to differ?” (1 Co. 4:7), you can’t just say “culture”, for the question is essentially what causes the cultures to differ. If you say it’s because “those people” just want “freebies”, then why them and not these others? Trying to be “colorblind” and avoid genetics as much as possible, it always points right back to just that (or a “spiritual” cause like a “curse”).
    This is an example of the appeal to “ethnicity” discussed above, and also ignores the archetypal significance of color (link in trackbacks, below), and even the practical implications, where a person can more easily hide their particular ethnicity behind the common “white” skin, and pass, and even if known regardless, they’re still seen as not as inferior as blacks. (Where did the “treated worse” determination really come from anyway?)

    The real difference is simply “rugged individualism”, which is NATURE, and this is the perfect illustration of what I was saying, regarding interpreting that as “integrity”. The above scripture continues (contrary to the “rugged individual” concept) that there is nothing we have, that we did not RECEIVE. Lest anyone answer that with “GOD caused us to differ/gave to us”, the passage continues “if you [you acknowledge] you did receive it, then why do you BOAST as if you did not?”

    Every group is playing out nature in their own way. To say one group has more integrity is no better than the old genetic concept.


    By Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow. Highlights what Lopez was talking about, regarding the Clintons’ own brand of “dog whistling”.

  12. Donald Trump’s rise is a scary moment in American politics

    One commenter:

    “This is not a funny time. This is not an entertaining time. This is a truly frightening time. The day a person like this – with no morals, no integrity, no courage, no shame, no respect, no honesty, no decency, no limits – can actually be ahead in a PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN is a day I never thought I’d see. He’s cruel and he is narcissistic, he’s a bully and a mocker. He wears whatever colors will get him the most publicity – Christianity is a selling point? He’s suddenly a Christian (one that knows next to nothing about the bible, one that acts and speaks in ways our God would NEVER approve of, one that was making fun of Christians thru all the years before it became beneficial to him to pretend to be one). He’s not the cause of this rampant racism and hypocrisy and bigotry. I’d never give him that much credit. What he’s done is find the very lowest level of the human heart, where hatred and cruelty and cowardice lives, and he’s brought that rot up into the light. He’s made racism acceptable. He’s made bigotry acceptable. He’s made indecency acceptable. He’s made utter cruelty to others acceptable. He’s made mocking people for their religion or their gender or their physical challenges acceptable. He’s made verbal vomit acceptable. He just brought out what til now was kept hidden. And guess what?? It should’ve stayed hidden.
    People fed up with their own party unleash Trump on us all and we all will have to pay for their anger at their own party. This is not a good man. This is not a decent man. This is not an honest man. This is not a peace-loving man. This is not a Christian man. This is not a brave man. Mocking Christianity, unfaithful in marriage, dodged the draft FIVE TIMES, bankruptcy, talks about having sex with his daughter [?!!! Never heard about that one!], laughing at the pain and misfortune of others…..I will never, ever, ever be able to understand how this country stooped to a level so low as to give this man a podium and microphone and a big rabid, blood-thirsty fan club.”

    When you look at conservative “dog whistling” rhetoric over the generations, and how liberals remained silent on it, it makes perfect sense! As one replier said “He appeals to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR..
    This would be funny if it weren’t so scary… This started with the GOP that first Joe Wilson’s ‘you lie’ at the State of the Union.. The disrespect for our President went un-checked by the right and it devolved from there.. They created this MONSTER, and now they can’t control him…”

    Par for the course, several repliers say how all of what she said describes Obama better! One adding “You love him because he wants to give everything to you for free. Trump will make you work for it.” That’s all anyone cares about. Another one adds: “Trump is trying to do his best impression to reveal the evil nobody sees by being the evil that’s obvious.” So yes, he’s acting evil, but it’s Obama’s fault.
    Another one “you do realize Obongo just congratulated the Black Lies Matter movement for a job well done, right? There could be no more racist, and devoid of facts, of a terrorist organization as that. And Obongo congratulated them.”

    “Trump is the only hope this country has left, if he doesn’t win this election I really think the Muslims will take over our nation and kill your children good luck people l will pray for you even the democrats for they just don’t know any better.”

    “It’s a hilarious to hear all this negativity. Quit crying like little babies. Exactly what America is sick of. We don’t need your few votes to win. The majority is speaking, and America wants Donald Trump. No more puppets on a string, held by lobbyists. It’s time we have a president that has no one holding the strings. He will win this and win it by a landslide. America has finally reached the breaking point, we want our country back. The sound of our veterans and the American people chanting USA..USA hasn’t been said for along time. WAKE UP! This is our country and DONALD TRUMP will make America strong again. All aboard the Trump Train!!”

    “Well look, President Trump just sounds so American all you haters and dumacrats out there step aside that great white man gonna ride that train straight to the Whitehouse baby, get ready for some real leadership, oh and bey the way odumfuck, YOUR FIRED!!!!!!! Go Trump”

    Good counter replies:

    “The Trump supporters that have commented have only shown themselves to be the very type of people Andrea described in her statement. It’s frightening that they can’t recognize what a disaster this man would be for the nation should he become President. No one wants free stuff. What we want is good governance and a Congress that actually works rather than playing to the lowest denomination of society, meaning people who vote against their own interests out of pure hatred.”

    “And after reading some of the replies, we have some idea of the sort of people who support Trump. People who were most likely bullies in high school. Their solution to every problem is violence, and who think things like compassion, compromise, and diplomacy are weaknesses. Don’t agree with them? Well they’ll make you agree.

    So the GOP has spent eight years and millions of dollars catering to all the worst in human nature. And this is what they’ve gotten. Hate-filled, ignorant people who are still spouting lies about the President they were told in 2010, despite all evidence to the contrary. These people don’t want a President. They want a strong-armed dictator who’ll put brown-skinned, gay, and poor people, along with women, back in their place.”

    “Forget everything else and just ask yourself if you’d allow your own child to make fun of a person due to their disease. And that’s the person you want running the whole country? Shame on anyone who can’t see something so basic to our collective humanity.”

    “People are not necessarily empowered just because of states rights policies. It just means that a different government body is given more control over your rights. Considering how very few people show up to the polls for non-presidential elections, not to mention the even lower percentage of people that show up well informed to the polls, what you are left with is a state governing body that is most likely even less representative of the people it is governing. Don’t pretend that just because the power is in the hands of the states in your scenario that it automatically equals empowered people. Trump is a crazed megalomaniac, who cares about Trump and only Trump, so unless you’re Trump, don’t expect him to be doing anything good for you because he’s going to be too busy looking out for Trump…and only Trump.”

    Another good article:

  13. King: Conservatives ought to direct their rage toward angry white men actually killing our police officers — not Beyoncé

    “Across the country, conservative politicians and police unions are voicing their outrage at Beyoncé, Black Panthers and the Black Lives Matter movement.”

    Been noticing this, and it’s quite troubling. I haven’t jumped up to defend the Panthers so quickly, because I don’t know much about them, other than they are not really the same as the original Panthers (which were destroyed by the government, while the Klan and the Mob were allowed to thrive), but rather restarted in recent years, and more associated with the Nation of Islam.
    But of course, BLM is being trashed as violent “thugs” as well. (I don’t even know how true some of the claim are). Plus, all the continuing attacks in memes against Sharpton and Jackson. And, not onlh the president, but also the First Lady, and even now the children!

    It seems anyone who stands up for or in any way represents the black community is automatically trased as doing harm. That they arose against such violent groups as the Klan, the Jim Crow establismnent with the hsoses, dogs, etc. doesn’t matter. The people just basically have absolutely NO RIGHT TO STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES! They should have just allowed the “good people” back then, to give their freedoms, in how ever much time they needed (when they were resisting any change at all).
    The Klan is never directly condemned like that, only mentioned in a “taken for” granted fashion, for the sole purpose of blaming the Democratic Party, in yet another slam against the black community, for “only wanting free stuff from them”, and thus becoming “enslaved” by them just like the Democrats of old wanted. (The typical ignoring of the Southern Strategy, where those old Democrats defected and came to shape the current Republican Party platform).

    Trump can speak his mind, but I can't?

    4 Problematic Statements White People Make About Race — and What to Say Instead

    1. “I Don’t See Color.”

    2. “All Lives Matter.”

    Technically, yes – all lives do matter, and if you were to say this as a stand-alone statement, you’d be correct. However, the problem is that most of the time, this statement is uttered as a rebuttal to the unfortunately controversial Black Lives Matter movement.

    Here’s why it’s problematic: by responding to a pro-black statement with an all-inclusive statement, you are effectively derailing the conversation and turning it into something it’s not. By pretending that pro-black equates to anti-white, you are taking a discussion about empowering a marginalized group and making it about you.

    Look, everyone already knows that white lives matter; that wasn’t ever called into question, because our society is set up to recognize white people as the cultural norm. People of color, on the other hand, are most definitely not the norm, and they need these shoutouts.
    Would you respond to someone trying to raise awareness about paraplegia-inducing spinal cord injuries by asking, ‘But what about the people who can walk?’ Enough. Just stop.

    3. “If racism is still a problem, how come we have a black president?”

    It’s equivalent to time traveling back to the 1950’s and telling the people fighting to end segregation to quit bitching already, because slavery has already been outlawed – isn’t that good enough?

    Oppression is a spectrum – not an either-or. Just because we have a black president and some high-profile black celebrities and cultural icons does not mean racism is over – and it does not give you license to discount the stories of black folks who have spent their entire lives experiencing racism in its many forms.

    4. “Reverse racism is real.”

    No, it’s not – and here’s why. Look at it as an equation: racism = prejudice + power. While it’s true that anyone can hold a set of prejudices against anyone else, racism specifically implies oppression – and white people as a whole are not oppressed.

  14. Great answer to dog whistling rhetoric on “black on black crime”!

    “So this idea that there’s something uniquely ‘pathological’ about black people and the way that they commit crimes, that is different than the way white people commit crimes, is flat out inaccurate, and racist”.

    Also interesting is this dialogue:

  15. Someone asks me if this is what I mean by “dog whistling”:

    White Privilege. The dignitity to suffer life's universal woes without looting, whining, rioting, or blaming others

    Well, it IS, definitely. And people don’t see the implications of it.

    Look at what it’s saying: One RACE has “dignity” and doesn’t “whine, loot, riot or blame others”, compared to another group. No distinctions made of individual-by-individual basis. Not even any “good ones” or “bad ones” exceptions! Not even any attempt at “colorblindness” this time! i.e. that the disparity is not race, which has been a big tactic in dog whistling). It maintains the race category [i.e. skin, by color] WHOLESALE!.

    People claim a “race card” is being played by the other side, but they take the whole “race” distinction and lob it back at the other side, with virtue added to one side and character flaws attributed to the other side. This also gets into what’s called “punch, parry, kick”. This is the “kick”-back that follows denial (parry) of any racial problems to begin with (punch).

    And the utter irony is, that it’s not even true! Many of these supposed “virtuous” folk ARE whining, looting, rioting (check out today’s big race story) and ESPECIALLY blaming others, even louder than anyone else, but it somehow doesn’t count when they do it. (Like part of “life’s universal woes” is supposed to be “TAXES, death and trouble”, and who’s been complaining the most about one of those things?)

    Being discontent about life is something common to all man, but to make a blanket statement like this suggesting one [whole!] RACE has this “dignitiy” and isn’t guilty of this (and implying the other one lacks this dignity); this is good, old fashioned SUPERIORITY; and people think only the OTHER side is “race baiting”?

    • Starting my own tentative series “Being CON-torted”, mocking “Being Liberal” mock page “Being Libtarded”, which copies memes and adds their own response, with beginning with a response to this:

  16. Excellent responses to those who claim Black Lives Matter is a “hate group”:

  17. Bernie Sanders Missed A Big Opportunity To Talk About Racism
    You can’t talk about Detroit’s decline without addressing discrimination and white flight.

    “Some Detroit residents are tired of seeing their city being held up as a symbol of failure by politicians attempting to score points with voters.

    More notably, Sanders’ remarks stoked ongoing criticism of how he addresses race.

    ‘White flight contributed to Detroit’s decline long before NAFTA was signed, but Bernie believes everything is just income inequality.’

    ‘He tends to focus on broad economic forces that have disparate impact on minority communities, but tends not to grapple with racism itself, or the way it shapes and distorts public policy,’ ”

    ‘Ghetto’ gaffe highlights Bernie Sanders campaign’s struggle with race

    However, there is another side to this argument, claiming all of this is based on a FOX News selective edit of what he said:
    Here's what Bernie Sanders said on March 6 debate; Here's what FOX News is showing to viewers

    How Trump Is Inspiring A New Generation Of White Nationalists

  18. The e-mail was entitled “What happened last night?”

    Last night in Chicago, peaceful demonstrators responded to increasingly hateful and violent rhetoric from Donald Trump. But that violence isn’t coming out of nowhere, and it isn’t just inside the Trump campaign. It’s the predictable outcome of years of dog-whistle politics which use hate and fear as a political tool.

    For the past 40 years, the right wing has peddled a winning strategy to keep Americans divided: sell the economic agenda of the 1% to working- and middle-class white voters through a hidden formula:

    Fear People of Color –> Hate Government –> Trust the Market and the 1%

    And they’ve been selling us this agenda even as it has hurt Americans of all races whose wages have plummeted and whose economic insecurity has soared.

    Hence, it argues, the discussion should start with race, without fearing it will divide us, because, “the hard truth is… we’re already divided…because, there’s constant race talk in our society —by conservatives”. It then calls out all the major dog whistling codes (freeloaders, makers/takers, silent majority, “Real Americans”, etc). You even get the audio of the key Atwater speech laying down the premise of dog whistling. “And easy as 1, 2, 3, you have the policies that have created massive wealth inequality, all sold to the American public, through the narrative of racial resentment“. “Racism is the belief in the hierarchy of human value; that some people are just worth more than others. [i.e. whether you believe this is genetic or just “cultural”, that this lacking “value” was attainable, but squandered through lack of character, thus forfeiting equality with others at the hands of their own folly] …in a country where our fates are linked, as long as we believe in a hierarchy of human value, some of us will always end up on the bottom”. “It is exactly race, that leads us to fight against each other, that leads us to distrust each other…and in turn to give control over the government to very rich”.

    So the “discussion” we need to have, in my view, is to stop blaming minorities for all the problems in the country.

    There are two possible views:
    One group is all exceptional, rendering their flaws irrelevant (and so those who mention them are the real “haters”, or are “whiners”).
    Another group is all problematic, (rendering whatever goodness, usually acknowledged on an individual by individual basis) an exception that can be used to prove “colorblindness”)


    All groups have their “pathologies”. The same “civilization” that has spread much technology and improved living to the earth (the supposed “exceptionality”) also has the capability to eradicate life from the planet, and has already caused much misery through its domination over others. (So, both “exceptionally” good AND bad!) The same sub-“cultures” being so associated with crime and sloth have shown tremendous endurance through all of this, and also livelihood (artistic genius), and thus a good and bad “exceptionality” of their own.

    This is what fits the Gospel’s teaching that all men were created of one blood, and in God’s image (Acts 17:26, James 3:9), but are fallen in sin (Romans 3:9-18, and the sin varying in the different cultures). Many of these conservatives are also conservative Christians who claim to uphold that doctrine, but it somewhere gets lost, particularly in looking at the Old Testament, which appears to divide mankind into the “good, chosen people”, and the “bad, cursed heathens”, but the whole point of that history was that most of the chosen nation ended up coming under condemnation themselves, and this was to show us that what we read there is not for us to try to apply to ourselves; it was superseded by the Gospel.

  19. Firt, saw this link yesterday:

    From right around the time I was finishing makers-Takers, someone was already answering the Atwater quote, which I had never seen an answer to, and I though couldn’t be answered.
    And I still think that. Look at the comments. Not even the readers of that blog are buying it! Most of them actually answer it quite well! (His argument is that Atwater’s statement marks southerners actually having moved past race, to truly, purely economic and governmental concerns, rather than those simply being new codes for race).

    The most glaring thing is how he has to redefine to word “abstract”, to make it what he wants to say: “universal”. But it’s clear what that means. It’s the opposite of “concrete” or tangible. To call out “n_____, n____” is to directly address “concrete” objects (the people of a particular race). To replace that with stuff like “forced busing”, “states rights”, “welfare”, etc. is to name concepts that are known to apply to largely, those same people, now in a more indirect way.

    Also, seeing these memes saying the Trump protesters are all jobless. One goes “the good thing, only three people missed work”; another, “if Trump called it a job fair, none of them would have showed up”. So the conservatives pile on more and more stereotypical dog whistles, but still can’t see why they get called racist (Meanwhile, Trump is now saying “there will be riots if I’m not nominated”
    probably will include the same people posting these memes about black movements, and how “others don’t do these things”

    Also today, someone on a Transit group posts this:

    Why Blacks are Behind Economically newspaper clip, 'from the internet'

    There’s a lot of truth there, but I think there are too many people trying to “tell blacks about themselves” now, and it gets into political “dog whistling” after awhile. (Reminds of of right wing hack Dinesh D’Souza, with that book he started out with).

    People don’t realize there’s a “hierarchy” of “whiteness”, where blacks are seen as the lowest of the low. This has a largely “archetypal” basis (think of the negative connotation “black” carries even apart from race. This was at one point then generalized onto skin tone, especially when “Christian” conquerers/enslavers had to justify their actions from the Bible through a supposed hereditary “curse”, which is what I explained here: Whatever “problems” they have are ultimately attributed to that, and their failure to “just pull themselves out of it” is seen as the proof of that, though most don’t want to come out and say that, so they choose to “let ‘facts’ speak for themselves” instead; hence all this dog whistling about “blacks and their problems” in nearly every conservative political discussion)

    The main answer is limited opportunities, though I’m not saying we couldn’t have done better in places. (Like I can’t really answer why we do some of that stuff like blowing money on name brand trinkets, and not trying to build up the community as much as we could). But Jews and other groups, while not considered “white” by the more radical supremacists, could pass (and largely did come to be considered “Caucasian”, as even the Census categories showed), and were not AS negatively viewed by others to begin with. Many simply changed their names, and then were able to enter entertainment, the media, finance, etc. where they prospered. Blacks couldn’t do all that 100 years ago! They couldn’t even get loans, which were needed to start enterprises! And it apparently still goes on in places!

    So this guy is comparing Jews to blacks, and they have been rather opposite of each other as far as financial success, but then this is ever so ironically what the Nazis used against them. In other words, where blacks are accused of being “takers” who are destroying this nation because of our poverty and “sloth”, the Nazis saw the Jews as “takers” who were destroying that nation through their wealth and diligence (the very qualities blacks are being excoriated for lacking)! Damned if you do, damned if you don’t! (Let’s not forget, this mindset persists today in all the “international Jewish bankers” conspiracy theories. Many conservatives are Zionists, and won’t go along with that, but the more radical supremacists have never stopped with it).

    So either way, supremacists and dog whistlers are going to blame someone else for THEIR own national financial problems, but it’s blacks now being tagged as “always blaming everyone else”. That’s called a “scapegoat” (and “projection”; you can only see the other person doing exactly what you’re doing).
    Also, setting blacks (notice the monolithic whole, as if we’re not individuals who make our own separate decisions) as worse (in CHARACTER) than another group. Note terms like “inability”, “compulsive”, “material consumption”. These are all tags of inferiority (like we’re animals, and as if they don’t have these problems as well). So it’s also the language of the more blatant white supremacists.

    So this whole focus on “blacks and their problems” is just a great big smokescreen to divert from problems other people don’t want to look at, particularly regarding where the money is really going. (To a class, not to a race or ethnic group).
    Otherwise, everyone really needs to stop blaming others, (and blaming others for blaming others) and trying to correct others. All are imperfect and plagued with different problems!

    • And it continues:
      Trump supporter on CNN: ‘Riots aren’t necessarily a bad thing’

      What Happens to America If Trump Loses?
      Trump’s newly riled-up, racist supporters may not go gently into that good night

      Look at the comments of these Trump supporters (premised on this supposed “rule” that says he should win the nomination regardless, so if the rule is violated, it’s another example of “government corruption” and should not be tolerated anymore):

      “If the GOP goes against the will of the people and disrespects our choice of Trump and forces someone on us we didn’t want the backlash from us voters will be severe and possibly violent. You have pulled this dirty crap in the past and got away with it, but be warned, DON’T DO IT THIS TIME! The massive support that Trump has now nationwide is because people are really pissed off at what Washington has done to our country and we intend to take back control of our government from the dishonest, lying crooks who hijacked our country. Again do not interfere with our choice or you will pay dearly. That’s a promise! Not only will your political careers be over, we will run you out of town! Win or lose we are going to have a fair election this time.”

      “You change the rules to protect your shadow government and we jump down your throats and also we know where you live as well”

      “Class action, and millions of us would sign on and they would have the fight of their lives…We would know who they all are and where they live and so on and they would no longer be welcomed amongst us so they would have no comfortable way of living.”

      Brandon Stanton (Humans of New York) on Donald Trump

  20. Today, I see this good article explaining all this partisan hatred we see today:

    American Anger: It’s Not the Economy. It’s the Other Party

    So then tonight, par for the course, I see yet another meme denying the Southern strategy, and from some black conservative siteFirst black congressmen, all Republicans, while the Democrats were still forming the [KKK?]

    The friend posting it (who seems generally liberal) asks “Yeah, what happened?” On the post the was sharing, others spewed the same old rhetoric:

    “There is a big fallacy that the parties have switched and that Republicans and democrats somehow switched rolls. Up until the mid 1960s the democrats were the ones championing discrimination. They were the ones turning the fire hosed on black protesters and standing in the school house doors. Then there was the civil right act of 1964. The democrats blocked that too. It was the Republicans that got it passed. President Lyndon Johnson said that he would have black people (he used a more derogatory term) voting democrat for the next 200 years and with his “Great Society” and “War on Poverty” he set out to do just that. Even up into the 1970s it was democrats that were bombing busses in the north east to try and stop bussing. Democrats continue to keep minorities in poverty and buy their votes with promises of welfare, EBT cards, voter rights, quotas and the like. They are just keeping them down on their plantation so to speak. The parties have never switched the left has just had a better propaganda campaign.”

    “Republicans stood for true equality. MLK stood for that as well. Corporations have bought out both parties, but the Democrats use rhetoric to control/keep black Americans on the government plantation.”

    To answer the question, what happened is the Southern Strategy, which those people deny, as a “misconception” or whatever, and then proceed to regurgitate the same stereotype of blacks as wanting “free stuff” that the Democrats are promising them for votes, as those old Democrats themselves when they were forced to give up discrimination.
    So SOMETHING somewhere changed. Do they really think all those old Democrats opposing Civil Rights and who didn’t even want to give blacks ANYTHING, including basic freedoms, suddenly decided “Hey, let’s instead give them everything for free. That will keep them enslaved”. No, when the more liberal wing of the party adopted Civil Rights, many of them felt betrayed and then saw the Republicans as the “lesser of two evils” (but as we can see even now, they still feel betrayed even by the Republican party!)
    It’s even disputed whether LBJ made that statement, and he was only one person, so even if he had an ulterior motive, that still doesn’t say as much as they think it does.

  21. Keep seeing this from Upworthy, so it really looks like one prominent conservative figure, Paul Rand, is really retracting the familiar “makers/takers” dog whistle!

  22. Another one with a lot of truth (carftily being delivered by blacks themselves), but veers into stereotypical dog whistlng:

  23. Someone finally challenges this common retort:


    Here’s another one:

    Africans did NOT sell their own people into slavery

  24. Breitbart is supposed to be one of those mainstream conservative sites, you know, the ones that are “colorblind” and turn the charges of racism back on the liberals. But look at all all of this:

    Breitbart Readers React [to Harriet Tubman on $20]

    So Harriet Tubman did nothing but “claim victimhood”… That means slavery wasn’t anything wrong anyone should escape from (just like all the modern issues where they mock “victimhood”). Now I’ve heard everything from these two-faced cuckservatives.

    And of course, they’ve never seen a black who “believes in the country”. (I thought they accepted Carson, West, Sowell, etc. as “good ones” they liked and who represented their values). “Believing in their country” means believing in slavery, one way or another (either the old chains, or what they’re trying to do in the current economic system).

    They should just stop hiding and dog whistling with the moralistic “rugged individualism” jargon and just state their obvious beliefs already.
    What are they afraid of? Public censure? Well, since anyone who disagrees with them is “libtarded” and “mentally diseased”, etc. and already “persecuting” them and taking away all their freedoms, what do they care about a little criticism? (Or, is it that in the depths of their Shadow, they sense it’s wrong, but can’t give it up because it feels so good to the ego?)

    This article suggests Breitbart is becoming a white nationalist site, which it clearly looks like here. (This meme made me look it up, to see if it was in the same class as Stormfront and othes, but it wasn’t. But as I’ve said, white supremacists can easilyblend in on these sites, as the play upon the sentiments of average Americans, and as everyone is hypnotized by the dog whistle, they don’t even realize whom they’re courting; the top Republican candidate with his ambiguity, a case in point).

    There’s also this:

  25. FB response to this article

    The OP gives the usual story:

    What are ancestors did over 150 years ago has no bearing on today.
    For anyone to say it does is racist.
    My Mom lost her job in the 70’s because they told her that her position needed to be filled with. “minority”, which is not right.
    People should be hired by their qualifications, not their ethnicity!
    If we’re talking about reparations, how about the Jewish people from the holocaust! The Nazis stole everything the owned, plus murdered over 6 million Jews by many methods including starvation, gas chambers, executions, medical experiments, etc. where are their reparations??

    I didn’t even see in there where he mentioned anything about “reparations”. And there are claims that other groups did receive reparations in one form or another.
    Yet we see, once again, blacks set apart as wanting something no one else has gotten, as [between the lines, but others do spell it out more directly] they’ve all pulled themselves out of oppression by hard work, and blacks just want it all for “free”, and they’ve already been given too much, at the expense of everyone else.

    So the angle I attacked it from:
    It’s understandable to not want to be “charged” with the sins of your fathers, but I see a lot of people who do want to share in the credit of their supposed righteousness (which the current nation is often excoriated for “turning away from”, particularly by Christian conservatives).
    But the problem here, is taking their supposed good and ignoring the bad (which does have EFFECTS; many of them deliberately planned, which continue for generations to come). And then getting so angry at others today pointing out the bad, and then claiming they’re all out to “take” something from you, or whatever. That’s basically what this whole rhetorical race war and much of “right vs left” has been all about. The whole goal is to claim “exceptionality” (which is basically a softer term for superior; just think about it), while then any of these problems can’t be admitted as having come from them; all sin and evil must come from corruptions by other people and/or regimes (including those who have been powerless), but both scripture and actual history testify that no groups are good, exceptional, better than others, or however else it is termed, and if people accepted that, beginning with those who claim to believe scripture, then most of these problems, from the past to today, would have been resolved.

    Then, on the INTP FB group, which of course is about type and not politics, someone asks:

    African Americans and other minorities – what do we white folks do that drive you nuts, in the context of race? For example, I always make sure to be on my best Best behavior when I interact with older black Americans. Extra courteous and pleasant (not the fake crap, but true respect for our elders/elderly community who’ve gone through a lot.

    Most addressed that “trying to be too courteous” part. I of course went after dog whistling.

    The thing that drives me the most up the wall, in US politics (among conservatives, mainly), is what’s known as “dog whistling”, or coded racial stereotypes, the biggest one now being that blacks all just want “free stuff” (that’s what all their causes are about) and this is where all the money is going. Don’t blame the rich, they deserve it, and the poor could be rich too, but they are simply too “lazy”.

    Also, trying to hold up crime statistics, as if that forfeits the right to oppose police violence, and that any leader or movement that steps up to address this problem (such as BLM) are the real “race baiters”.

    Like this meme, shared by the first poster, above:

    Comments: “They are the problem in their community. They are so use to handouts and not working They wouldn’t know where to begin”; “The people in this picture ARE the problem; they are protesting their right to rape, rob, murder. pillage, burn, and shoot cops with no consequences in Obamaland.”
    On another comments thread:
    “Oh stop being logical. You’ll only confuse them more which in turn just pisses them off for no real reason other than to get on their Empire soapboxes and whine and cry that all of the people who were actually treating them like normal human beings are not treating them like royalty.” “Protesting is fun for these idiots . Getting the same amount of people to help clean up a neighborhood is too much work , will never happen” “‘work’ being the definitive word.

    From all of this, I hear “just hang your heads and accept being exterminated, until you go and clean up all your thug brothers in the cities”.

    Conservatives are the ones always talking about “constitutional rights” “freedoms”, but this is modified by the old saying that “freedom isn’t free; it must be earned”. These people have obviously forfeited rather than earned theirs, according to conservatives! So we see the germs of an authoritarian ideal, even as they talk in libertarian terms.

    Of course, what all of this ignores:

    (The OP from Eagle Rising, by Christian reconstructionist Gary DeMar, whose American Vision think-tank [from Wikipedia] “has a vision of ‘an America that recognizes the sovereignty of God over all of life and where Christians are engaged in every facet of society.'”

    In the Editor’s Introduction [to DeMar’s book Ruler of the Nations], Gary North points out DeMar’s description of “an intellectual war going on, a war between two rival views of God, man, law and society.” North says that the “book has made the meaning of theocracy clear”.

    In the chapter titled Reconstructing Civil Government, DeMar states,

    All government requires a reference point. If God is to be pleased by men, the Bible must become the foundation of all their governments, including civil government. This means that Biblical law must be made the foundation of all righteous judgment in every government: personal (self government), ecclesiastical, familial, and civil.

    Yet, this “God-pleasing” world-view is founded upon a notion of supremacy and inferiority of certain groups, all based on the Old Testament, and Christ’s Gospel that says ALL have sinned is tossed out the window in favor of a physical inheritance and national good works focus (the total antithesis of the entire New Testament) that makes their business blaming all problems on everyone else’s sin, and and trying to eradicate it, while holding themselves up as “par” for civility, if not “exceptional”. So of course, all these inferior people want to do is rape, rob, loot, get free stuff without working, and just at every turn ruin us and our goodness.
    When they (as Calvinists) speak of God’s “sovereignty”, what this group means is the unconditional election of one group, not only to eternal salvation, but also temporal rule, over the “inferior” groups (who also become those charged with all the “sin,”, whether cultural, economic, crime, etc).

    All of this, totally ignored by Christian apologetics (why was this movement never in Kingdom of the Cults and all the other similar books?) the rest of moderate evangelicalism, and political liberalism (the fruits of the ideology only starting to gain some recognition by current writers).

  26. Here’s another one for conservatives who claim blacks never demonstrate against urban violence:

    Silent march to bury violence

    This story was local news (New Orleans), but is never covered by the national media.

    Amazingly, in the FB comments:

    •”The criminals of this generation don’t care about human lives at all. You can have all of the marches, parades and second lines you want, nothing is going to help.”

    •Another pitches the “question” the reporters should ask, if the people would have a problem with cops stopping people and checking ID’s, “documenting it late at night when most productive people are partying or in bed asleep”, but then figures the “aclu” and the liberals would oppose it, “and the rally to preserve violence in the city will be bigger than any rally to stop it”. (This sort of “police state” setup is the epitome of what conservatives fear the most, but of course, certain people have forfeited the basic “freedoms” others deserve).

    •”TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars, have been spent on the WAR ON POVERTY, since Lyndon Johnson signed it. In New Orleans, there is the SIXTH generation on welfare and food stamps, Section etc. YOU would think, somebody, anybody, in this many decades would have gone to school, get a Degree, or find a dam job.”

    • “What exactly does a rally do to change a reality? What is this supposed to do with runaway crime in what’s left of a great city?”

    •That’s all well and good, but will it reach the people committing these crimes? I know the community feels it needs to do something, but…….

    •Nice gesture…. But as if it’ll make a difference.

    •Until NOPD fully embraces the “Broken Windows Theory”, crime will be business as usual.

    It’s like whether they do it or not, people just aren’t satisifed. What do you want from the people? (Of course, the whole “just get a job” thing is not as simple as they seem to think.
    Others did point out stuff like the “deeper problems” of the causes of crime, and the corruption in the police and prison system).

    Edit: I would also get into this silly dispute with some Facebook stranger (who originally hooked up with me years ago and I accepted it because he was connected to one or two acquantances, but otherwise had no idea who he was), over this issue of “Chicago”, in particular, which he seems to rail on about, after every news story of murders in the city. I didn’t have much problem with it, until I joined in with another who pointed out that there were demonstrations against the violence, and asking what he expected to do to change this situation involving a whole “Community”, and then he shuts down the conversation, but then a week later makes some snide remark about “intellectualizing” to “make excuses” for the people.
    He never offers any solutions, except an occasional mention of “putting money into it” or something, which isn’t even clear. (Put money into what, exectly?) The demonstrations against crime that are already being done, are just dismissed as useless, just as we saw above. What the hell do you want, then?

    I really never knew where exactly he was coming from, because he looks like the typical “hip”-talking, street smart black dude, complete with the lingo and the whole “swag” you would see in many, like in hip hop. He used to sign off these “tellin’ the truth” posts with “Just sayin'”.
    Since it’s true that urban crime is a problem, I initially thought it was someone genuinely trying to speak wisdom to the community, and for a long time, never argued; and even “liked” some posts. But now, it had started getting ridiculous after awhile, and the lack of solutions, and then his attitude toward people had begun raising questions to me.

    Carried on this way, it is using a common tactic of white nationalists and other racist movements. They just want to “shine the light on the problem” (as he put it), with no apparent solution. Just accuse everyone of “ignoring” it, and “blaming others” wrongly. Operate off of a “rugged individualism” premise that always puts down “victimhood”, because you yourself were able to pull yourself up. So no one else’s experience means anything; anything said to the contrary is an “excuse”, and they deserve to be scolded for it. Then, just flame anyone who disputes all of this, because you have no other answer to their “intellectualism”.
    Their unspoken solution, of course, is to get everyone on board with their agenda of blaming poor minorities for all of our social ills (instead of the rich power bases pulling all the strings), in order to withdraw all government assistance, and lock all these “thugs” up, or even jusify killing them. This guy doesn’t seem to be implying this either, but it does go along with an insinuation that the whole community has no right to complain about police violence or racism in politics, because of all the crime. He could simply be a black conservative, like West, Carson, Sowell, etc. Perhaps just a younger, more “hip” version of them.

    In any case, all the evidence now that I put it together points to this being some sort of right wing shill, who deeply despises the Black American community [he’s currently not an American citizen; perhaps he grew up here, perhaps suffering from crime, but at some point dissociated himself from it, and now just looks down on it from afar]. Adopting a “Law of Attraction” style motivational system (see as a life philosophy, where no “intellectualizing” on causes of problems, and actual solutions is allowed; it’s just “all of you people just snap out of it; anything else is an ‘excuse’!”, or he’s just going to continue to throw dirt at the community with no apparent goal. He’s apparentely some global marketing company founder, who’s makes these self-aggrandizing selfie poses from around the world, and is looked up to by his adoring fans, and it’s all gone to his head, so of course, he bears this utter contempt for all these blacks back in the hood he sees “wallowing” in their problems, or even anyone who tries to show a different perspective, seen as making “excuses”.

    Also similar to right wing rhetoric is the specific use of numbers, such as just how many murders there were in Chicago on a particular night or period. They don’t actually care about all the actual unfortunate people dying. (Hence, no real solution offered). It’s just a talking point, to drive home some political agenda. The whole purpose when white nationalists do it is to cast the community as “pathological”, and thus “point the finger” at “the negro problem in America“, as they will admit, eventually. So maybe he agrees with them.
    So perhaps a fellow Trump promoter, which makes sense now that I think of it, the way he’s been criticizing the Trump protesters [he actually calls them ‘ninjas’; and being it’s so similar to another word, that’s another clue. In addition to his fans often scoffing at the Black Lives Matter slogan, just as they do on “conservative news” posts. I agreed that the protesters are wasting their time and energy, though]. He certainly seems to have the same general “alpha male” attitude and narcissistic traits as Trump, though again, in this “street”-talking “black” form! Call him “Brump” or “Brumpf“)

  27. Obama excellently goes after those criticizing him over the “Islamic terrorism” label:

    What exactly would using this label accomplish, What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.

    There has not been a moment in my seven and a half years as President where we have not been able to pursue a strategy because we didn’t use the label “radical Islam.” Not once has an advisor of mine said, man, if we really use that phrase, we’re going to turn this whole thing around. Not once. So if someone seriously thinks that we don’t know who we’re fighting, if there’s anyone out there who thinks we’re confused about who our enemies are, that would come as a surprise to the thousands of terrorists who we’ve taken off the battlefield.

    So there’s no magic to the phrase “radical Islam.” It’s a political talking point; it’s not a strategy. And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism. Groups like ISIL and al Qaeda want to make this war a war between Islam and America, or between Islam and the West. They want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion Muslims around the world who reject their crazy notions. They want us to validate them by implying that they speak for those billion-plus people; that they speak for Islam. That’s their propaganda. That’s how they recruit. And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush and imply that we are at war with an entire religion — then we’re doing the terrorists’ work for them.

    Now, up until this point, this argument about labels has mostly just been partisan rhetoric. And, sadly, we’ve all become accustomed to that kind of partisanship, even when it involves the fight against these extremist groups. And that kind of yapping has not prevented folks across government from doing their jobs, from sacrificing and working really hard to protect the American people.

    But we are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mindset and this kind of thinking can be. We’re starting to see where this kind of rhetoric and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we’re fighting, where this can lead us. We now have proposals from the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States to bar all Muslims from emigrating to America. We hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests that entire religious communities are complicit in violence. Where does this stop?

    There was also the controversy of the store clerk wearing a hat saying “America was never great” (In response to Trump’s “Let’s make America great again”). She received death threats, plus the usual vitriol from conservative social media (“which, if you think about it, lends itself to her feeling like she was right to wear the hat in the first place”

    The article cites the author’s earlier article on this, which drives the point home:
    “The single most racist word Donald Trump has used this entire campaign” i.e. “Again”

    Simply put, longing for a time where America is so much better than it is today is a well worn dog whistle for racism and bigotry. Trump is clearly longing for it. In the very rally, at the very moment the young black woman was being assaulted by racists at his rally, Trump, watching her being taken out said, “You know, in the old days, which isn’t so long ago, when we were less politically correct, that kind of stuff wouldn’t have happened. Today we have to be so nice, so nice, we always have to be so nice.”

    What old days is he talking about?

    At what point in time is Trump speaking of?

    When Trump says he wants to “make America great again,” bigots all over the country hear it, know full well what it means, and come together to support their new supreme leader.

    At what exact reference point in human history is Donald Trump saying he wants us to back to?

    He’s spoken so ill of President George W. Bush that it doesn’t seem likely that when he says “let’s make America great again,” he’s speaking of any point of the Bush administration.

    Is he speaking of slavery?

    Maybe during Jim Crow when his father was allegedly arrested at a KKK rally?

    Does he mean during the height of lynching in America?

    Does he mean before women could vote?


    The more recent article then concludes:
    “Has the country had historic achievements? Sure it has. But while this country might have been great for George Washington, it wasn’t great for the Africans who were forced to live and work on his plantation.”

  28. [Some strong language, but excellently answers this smug jerk who should just drop out of the public sphere already]:

    Some good news is this:

    U.S. Southern Baptists Formally Repudiate Confederate Flag
    The resolution calls for Southern Baptist churches to discontinue displaying the Confederate flag as a “sign of solidarity of the whole Body of Christ.”

  29. Of course, the big race news these days (interrupted by the residual police shooting or demonstration “riot” story) is Trump shouting out the essence of dog whistling rhetoric, but framed as concern for “us”, to get our vote. And to make it more ridiculous, he did this before a white audience, not before a black one!

    Donald Trump’s Pitch To Black Voters: ‘What The Hell Do You Have To Lose?’

    “Look how much African-American communities are suffering under Democratic control. To those I say the following: What do you have to lose by trying something new, like Trump? You’re living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs. Fifty-eight percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”

    This, mind you, is supposed to gain him 90% of the black vote (up from 0 or 1 %), he boldly claims. (obviously, the sheepish, childlike people who do not know what’s best for themselves, but only blindly follow whoever promises them the most “free stuff”. OF course, Trump hasn’t been saying that part of it, but it is what the whole sentiment is based on).

    Here is Lopez, take on that:

    Trump’s New Ad Is The Worst General Election ‘Dog Whistle’ In Nearly 30 Years

    On a FB post, he breaks it down:

    More on how Trump convinces his supporters they are not racists. He recasts his racial fear-mongering as concern for the black community. The quotes are from his recent remarks about events in Milwaukee, made in a community that is 95% white.

    1. Repeat the racist narratives about a culture of crime in nonwhite communities.

    “The problem in our poorest communities is not that there are too many police, the problem is that there are not enough police.”

    2. Blame the Democrats for dividing the country by race. The evidence: they pay some attention to the concerns of the black community. (Or, point to the Southern Democrats before 1964, who truly were racists — while failing to note that it’s precisely these voters the GOP has courted and won over in the last half-century.)

    “Those peddling the narrative of cops as a racist force in our society – a narrative supported with a nod by my opponent – share directly in the responsibility for the unrest in Milwaukee, and many other places within our country.”

    3. Reassure your supporters that their enthusiasm for a white rabble rouser is really motivated by concern for the well-being of African Americans.

    “Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, the violent disruptor. Our job is to make life more comfortable for the African-American parent who wants their kids to be able to safely walk the streets.”

    Edit: here’s another good answer to this:

    “First off, we have to stop calling this an outreach to black people,” Blow said. “It’s an outreach to white people.” “the most insidious kind of bigotry.”
    “It’s the kind of bigotry that says, ‘I will knock you down while I pretend to pick you up,’” said Blow. “It’s the kind of bigotry that says, ‘I am urinating on you and telling you to dance in the rain.”

    Before all of this, you had this:

    Donald Trump Calls The Slavery Era A Good Time Before Reaching Out To Black Voters

    A similar one he had done a few weeks ago:

    This Is How Trump Convinces His Supporters They’re Not Racist
    Trump garners support from both those who would be seduced by flagrantly racist appeals and those who would be offended.

    Also of interest:

    Historian Chronicles How White Rage Erupts Whenever Blacks Seek Equality
    Book Review: “White Rage, The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide,” by Carol Anderson, Ph.D.

    From Wise:

    “There was a market for white resentment”: Tim Wise on Trump, David Duke and the bigotry that’s risen from the shadows

    Is Donald Trump’s Popularity Fueled By Racism Or Economic Anxiety? Yes.
    Decades of research backs it up.

    (Another way to ask that question; Does Trump own a boat or a plane? BOTE!)

    Another study on this problem:

    Black Boys Viewed as Older, Less Innocent Than Whites, Research Finds

    White Lies: A Brief History of White People Lying About Crimes

    Answering the latest typical conservative “turn the table on them” charge:

    Trump Silent As Louisiana Governor Reveals Why Obama Hasn’t Visited

    The Breitbart running mate:

    Former Breitbart Staffer to Powerhouse Politics: Bannon Ran Meetings That Sounded Like White Supremacists Talking

    Also good:

    6 “Black on Black Crime” Racist Implications and Damages to Black Society

    Dog whistle politics is GOP’s longtime political weapon of choice

    “The theme is not just fear minorities but demonize government for coddling and refusing to control minorities. And the prescribed solution, you’ll recognize these: tax cuts, disinvestment in social services and getting government out of the way of business. These are the GOP talking points that have led to levels of wealth and inequality our country hasn’t seen since the Great Depression.”

  31. What Racism has to do with the High Cost of College
    The evolution of racism as a political weapon and what that means for today’s college education

  32. Here’s another site claiming to disprove the Southern Strategy:

    It produces this list:

    “The opponents of civil rights have always been Democratics[sic]. But let’s take a look at how many Dixiecrat segregationists remained Democrats, and how many switched parties:

    Notable Dixiecrats who remained Democratics after 1964:

    Rep. John Rarick D-LA
    Commissioner of Public Safety Bull Connor D-AL [d1973]

    Racist & Segregationist Democratic Party Governors:

    Gov. Orval Faubus D-AR
    Gov. Frank M. Dixon D-AL
    Gov. Benjamin Travis Laney D-AR
    Gov. William H. Murray D-OK
    Gov. George Wallace D-AL
    Gov. Lester Maddox D-GA
    Gov. Fielding Wright D-MS

    Racist & Segregationist Democratic Party Senators:

    Sen. B. Everett Jordan D-NC
    Sen. A. Willis Robertson D-V
    Sen. Olin D. Johnston D-SC
    Sen. Sam Ervin D-NC
    Sen. J. Lister Hill D-AL
    Sen. John C. Stennis D-MS
    Sen. James Eastland D-MS
    Sen. Allen J. Ellender D-LA
    Sen. Russell B. Long D-LA
    Sen. John Sparkman D-AL
    Sen. John “Little” McClellan D-AR
    Sen. Richard Russell, Jr. D-GA
    Sen. Herman Talmadge D-GA
    Sen. Robert Carlyle Byrd D-WV
    Sen. Harry F. Byrd D-V
    Sen. Al Gore, Sr. D-TN
    Sen. Spessard Holland D-FL
    Sen. Herbert S. Walters D-TN
    Sen. George Smathers D-FL

    This is so disingenuous, as it expects this “switch” to be sudden (as soon as the Voting Rights act occurred), but most of these leaders’ careers faltered by the mid’70’s, and some of them died around that time. So they may have technically stayed in the Democratic Party, but they were no longer key players or shapers in it. Then, this is not even totally true that they all stayed, as you have a couple, including Wallace, who went into another radical RIGHT party shortly afterwards). A few died right after the Civil Rights Act, like in 1965 or within 10 years after, and two in this list died in 1956; 8 years BEFORE the act. Yet they insinuate that they “remained” as “Democratics”[sic]! How desperate can you get?

    So let’s look at some of these key leaders (From Wikipedia):

    Gov. Orval Faubus D-AR
    In 1962, Faubus broke with the White Citizens’ Councils and other groups, who preferred, but did not officially endorse, U.S. Representative Dale Alford in that year’s gubernatorial primary. Faubus cast himself as a moderate, he completely ignored the race issue during the 1962 election campaign, and barely secured a majority over Alford, McMath, and three other candidates. He then handily defeated the Republican Willis Ricketts, a then 37-year-old pharmacist from Fayetteville in the general election.

    While Faubus was still an outcast from black leaders, he nevertheless won a large percent of the black vote. In 1964, when he defeated the Republican Winthrop Rockefeller by a 57-43 percent margin, Faubus secured 81 percent of the black vote. He even collected a share of the base Republican vote from the conservative party members who had sided with former Republican state chairman William L. Spicer of Fort Smith, an intraparty rival of Rockefeller.
    Career then faltered afterward

    Gov. Frank M. Dixon D-AL d1965

    Gov. William H. Murray D-OK d 1956

    Gov. George Wallace D-AL
    1968 joined American Independent Party, “a far-right political party of the United States that was best known for its nomination of former Governor George Wallace of Alabama”
    In supporting Carter after dropping out of the ’76 race, “Wallace later claimed that he had facilitated a fellow southerner’s nomination; in point of fact, no position advocated by Wallace was included in the 1976 Democratic platform.”
    In the late 1970s, Wallace announced that he was a born-again Christian and apologized to black civil rights leaders for his past actions as a segregationist. He said that while he had once sought power and glory, he realized he needed to seek love and forgiveness. In 1979, Wallace said of his stand in the schoolhouse door: “I was wrong. Those days are over, and they ought to be over.”

    Gov. Lester Maddox D-GA
    When Carter ran for President in 1976, Maddox ran against him as the nominee of Wallace’s former American Independent Party

    Gov. Fielding Wright D-MS d.1956

    Sen. Olin D. Johnston D-SC d.1965

    Sen. John C. Stennis D-MS One holdout in the party who voted for one civil rights act in the 80’s, but opposed the MLKing holiday

    Sen. Russell B. Long D-LA another one who lasted until the 80’s. President Ronald Reagan called him a “legend … one of the most skillful legislators, compromisers and legislative strategists in history.” (so he was apparently still conservative, not liberal, for Reagan to praise him).

    Sen. Richard Russell, Jr. D-GA
    Sen. Herman Talmadge D-GA These two boycotted 1964 Democratic convention over Civil Rights, even if they remained in the party afterward. Talmadge’s career ended with years of financial scandal, and then losing to a Republican in 1980, “marking the end of his family’s political dynasty and the start of the rise of the Republican Party in Georgia.”, which began with a 1968 opponent who “was a sign of the shifting white electorate in the South, where white conservatives moved into the Republican Party.

    Sen. Robert Carlyle Byrd D-WV Also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1968. In 2005, Byrd told The Washington Post that his membership in the Baptist church led to a change in his views. In the opinion of one reviewer, Byrd, like other Southern and border-state Democrats, came to realize that he would have to temper “his blatantly segregationist views” and move to the Democratic Party mainstream if he wanted to play a role nationally.

    Sen. Harry F. Byrd D-V d1966

    Sen. Herbert S. Walters D-TN senate career ended 1964

    Sen. George Smathers D-FL Voted against Civil Rights until the 1965 Voting Rights Act
    What we don’t see in any of them is adopting any thinking like “You know, we can oppress these blacks better if we stop denying their civil rights directly, and instead give them stuff and make them ‘dependent’ on government”, as people who deny the Strategy insinuate. That didn’t exist. It’s imaginary, spur of the moment thinking, to explain their way out of the sentiments their current party expresses! They rely on a single quote of President Johnson that is highly doubted as it is, and even if it was true, it would only show a single leader in the party counting on the Civil Rights legislation (nothing about “free stuff”) as helping the party. If the old Democrats were so dead set against giving blacks basic rights, how in the ‘Sam Hill’ do you think they would suddenly do such a turnaround as to want to give the blacks their tax money? They didn’t think in terms of “enslaving them to the government”; they wanted them suppressed, as much as possible!

    So while some did moderate as the times and the party changed; none of them became the “liberals” that today’s conservatives so much decry. Especially with the senators, it was possible to remain in the party and not recant their earlier views. They just became more silent about them, but could still vote for or against different bills in ways that would maintain their positions. Going against the direction of the party overall, these votes would increasingly lose, but they were still there! (It seems the “patriots” making these claims don’t even know how the US government works). By the late 80’s, when the party was basically as solidly liberal as we know of it today, all of these people were gone (with the exception of Byrd, who changed his views). Their supporters had also gone, to the other party (as we see acknowledged in the Talmadge entry), which now more closely followed their old values, or at least spoke like it did.

    Even aside from these politicians, these were just leaders, and the whole point of the strategy was to lure away the voters (again, as stated above). The article admits a small minority of Republicans in the South, so where did the this current “majority” come from?

    Considering that this article has links at the bottom to other articles like “Does the Group ‘Black Lives Matter’?” and “BLACK LIVES DON’T MATTER UNTIL BLACK FOLKS SHOW THAT THEY DO”, it’s clear that this is just another cuckservative site disguising their despisal of blacks and their issues behind a phony concern for them (i.e. Republicans are the party that did the most for them), and thus splitting off and denying racism, yet still holding racist sentiment, such as blacks not earning the right to not be killed today. This shows they are still on the same side of the issue as those old racist sheriffs, regardless of which party they today or back then, were on!

    • They’re still grasping at straws trying to deny the Southern Strategy.

      Prager U The three myths of the party switch

      The “Myths”:

      #1 Republicans winning earlier doesn’t prove there wasn’t a concerted effort to win the racists in the 60’s

      #2: 20 senators who stayed in the party: answered in above comment!

      #3 “values”: the Republicans (a PARTY) are ALWAYS the good guys, and the South turned from the bad guys to the good guys (making them the majority in the South by the 90’s), because of their great “values”!
      Sorry, but the old southern Democrats expressed the same “values” as today’s Republicans: starting with the three she mentioned: “pro-life”, pro-guns”, “small government”, along with the rest of the focus on morality, the Constitution, states rights, the focus on Communism, and the love of the Confederacy that is making such news today. It’s all about HOLDING ON to the past, going BACK; “taking the country BACK”. “Make America great AGAIN”. (I love how this video admits linking the Confederacy with the old Democrats, but it’s not the liberals out there defending those statues and the flag today! And being more likely to vote for a black conservative than a white liberal doesn’t prove anything either. Sure there are “good ones” they like. Anyone who holds their ideology. They don’t necessarily hate individual blacks; it’s the whole “community” they always look down on).

      Other commenters pointed out:

      “I am a Republican and I generally like the videos from Prager U; however, this video is based on as many myths as it is attempting to challenge. First, our partisan leanings are formed in our early childhood (and even have a genetic component), thus our partisan leanings are very sticky. Second, the psychology of cognitive dissonance easily explains why it would take 30 years for partisan behavior to subsequently change in a generation of voters who were socialized to vote for Democrats. Third, this entire argument rests on the assumption (that has been proven wrong by a wealth of political science) that voters are rational and vote their ideological interests – however, voters do not vote based on ideological proximity to candidates, they vote on their socialized partisan identity. This version of the story presented by this video is as incomplete as the story it attempts to debunk.”

      “[The fact this story could only be told by a black woman just shows you how toxic this subject has become…]”
      “Because what she said is complete and utter conservative claptrap wrapped around plausible facts. She didn’t tell all of the truth, just the part that makes them sound good. That is what conservatives do best. Just tell me what I want to hear.”

      “Any non-partisan politics professor would know that analysis is simplistic and she deliberately makes it appear that all Democrats claim that it started in the 1960’s and was a complete flip in that decade. If she were being honest, she would point out that there were conservative and liberal segments of the Democratic Party in the North and business, as well as business and socially conservative factions in the Democratic Party in the South. It was these factions that changed places, not the parties, and it started shortly after the Civil War ended with the pace picking up with FDR’s New Deal.

      The entire process didn’t finish until the mid-1990’s. If people are saying anything different, they are wrong. A politics professor without an agenda would have said at least that much and have acknowledged that Democrats have been saying that for decades.

      She is a partisan being paid by Dennis Prager, who started Prager University, 501(c)3 non-profit conservative media company to promote his conservative views on different topics; it is not an academic institution.”

      And that explains all of the denial of the Southern Strategy. Just partisan hackery, selling a party to whomever they can delude into voting for them (which is the very thing they are charging the Democrats with the blacks).

      Excellent memes in one fell swoop each destroying these denials:


      • This comment was brought to mind by this article someone just posted:

        Aside from playing the “Africans sold each other into slavery” card (and even mentioning an apology by African nations), they cast the Democratic South “where manual labor performed by any human was looked down upon”, as “collectivist”: “The Slave oligarchy influenced the creation of a racist society in the Antebellum South to protect their economic interest. A society in which a person’s race was his primary attribute. In other words, a society based on collectivism“; while the Northern attitude was “labor being close to Godliness”, “the Northern States remained a free market society in which a person’s individual skills, values, and social behaviors were a person’s primary attribute. In other words, a society based on individualism.”
        So here is a totally new turn, admitting the evil of the old southern values, but casting it as “collectivism”, and praising the North, as “capitalist”. Usually, the south, with “states rights” is praised as libertarian, “free market” and thus truly “American”, while the North is associated with “big government”, and thus collectivist. Of course, this will do well to gain that straight continuity along party lines Southern strategy deniers always seek for, as the Democrats are always the lazy collectivists, and Republicans are always the hard working individualists.

        It’s true that the old Southern Democrats were more for social programs, though for whites only. The claim is that “collectivism” is being used to enslave blacks, not favor whites, so there is still the disconnect between the modern day and the past ways they refuse to see. The problem isn’t “collectivism”, it’s superiority, and whatever socioeconomic system it uses, whether collectivism or individualism.

      • Another good one nailing the Southern Strategy:

        The flipside:


    “Haney López noted that he is completely revising “Dog Whistle Politics” to include an analysis of the 2016 election. He also offered the audience a four-page handout that details the nuances of racially coded messaging and how to respond to it.”


  34. Here, a whole long page proving the “party switch” is fact:

    Democrats and Republicans Switched Platforms FACT

  35. Now some conservative page goes after the terms “code” and “dog whistle”:
    (the “real problem” being that the idealized values of the 50’s being turned away from, yet “have something to teach us” despite the well known problems).

    «that the tendency of global migrants to flock to white European countries indicates the superiority of some cultures. This struck him as “code,” he said, for Nazism.

    Well, let me state for the record that I don’t endorse Nazism!

    Furthermore, the charge that a statement is “code” for something else, or a “dog whistle” of some kind—we frequently hear this charge leveled, even against people who are stating demonstrable facts—is unanswerable.»

    The problem is, the confusion of INTERPRETATION of things as “demonstrable fact”, especially when it comes to something like “SUPERIORITY”. It was this same “superiority” that led to stuff like Naziism, slavery and the discrimination of the 50’s, which he claims to acknowledge as wrong.

    Immigration to western Civilization may have been a “fact”, but it becomes a dog whistle when it’s put out there as pointing to “superiority” without actually saying it. We’re supposed to infer that ourselves, and then “superiority” itself is presumed to automatically become a “fact” from that; again, without having to say it.

    But superiority is a “value” judgment, not a logical judgment, which are what are getting confused. Immigration is objective, superiority is subjective; immigration is a concrete event you can actually look at (that’s what a FACT is); superiority is an INTERPRETATION of what immigration MEANS, that is relative, and subject to other factors. People may have seen Nazi, Germany as “superior” to other places, and migrated there, but does that mean it really was superior (as, again, they themselves claimed)? What happens if you think that way, is that everything else they do becomes justified, dismissed or denied (like this site does with 50’s America, which is what they want us to go back to).

    They’ll then point to the “bad” of other societies’ government and cultural systems as proving this is “objective”. But while those other societies were bad, 1950’s and before America was bad too —to certain people. The problem is, in this view, another society’s bad makes them “objectively bad”, but the West’s bad is cancelled out by the “good”, making them “superior”. And then, the next step “our bad wasn’t as bad as theirs”. Which is debatable for something like slavery. But “good” and “bad” then become a sliding (relative) scale.
    This is why it’s totally subjective, because it’s always SKEWED by the subject, so that “what I like is good, and what I don’t like is bad”. Screw anybody else’s experiences, unless they agree with me. (i.e. the blacks even under slavery still had it better here than in their old tribal life, so they should be “thankful” and recognize our superiority). This is why “superiority” talk is no good.

    It’s a very slick game of innuendo, and that’s why it’s called a code or dog whistle.
    Yet I would say that if we’re going to bring out the term “superiority” (which was normally avoided in conservative language because of that obvious association) like this site, then it’s not really “code” or a “dog whistle” anymore; it’s becoming an audible whistle!

    And if liberals want to name something they see and define what it applies to, then why shouldn’t they be able to? This argument is Rightists complaining that their “freedom of speech” is being denied; but who’s stopping you from saying this stuff? You’re the ones saying they’re wrong using these terms. No one is trying to stifle your speech. People are OBJECTing to it. But to many conservatives, mere objection is “stifling”, because you anticipate what would be done if your views were carried out to their logical conclusions (i.e. some are “superior” and others are “inferior”, and the superior should dominate). But for now, where it’s all talk, no one is doing anything to stop you from voicing your views. The internet is flooded with this stuff, and millions believed it enough to elect someone like Trump.
    This is what happens when one side thinks it has the total monopoly on “facts”; everything becomes justified, and you end up doing the very things you criticize the other side for, thinking it’s “different”. They call facts “inconvenient”, but think it’s only inconvenient for the other side, and always benefits them. How can any fallible man think he possesses something like that?

  36. Exactly 30 years later, and we basically have a new “Willie Horton” ad; this time, aimed at Hispanics, from south of the border, as debates rage on about a “caravan” of refugees heading in from Guatemala.

    How Trump’s Racist Campaigning Serves ‘Rule by the Rich’

    “It’s really important that we understand that dog whistling has an ideological project: not just stir racial panic but convince people that the real threat in their lives is government. Get white voters to turn against government in a way that allows the right to hijack government for their corporate donors

    Here’s the message For example and Ronald Reagan perfected this
    Talk about welfare queens. The minute you talk about welfare queens you conjure the image of undeserved black women cheating; ripping off the system. But then pivot and say you know the real enemy is: it’s government, because it’s government that’s taking hard-earned tax dollars from decent innocent whites and giving it to these undeserving black people. So the message is hate and resent people of color, but really hate government. Government’s the enemy it coddles minorities with welfare; it refuses to control them through lax criminal laws; that’s why we have to crack down on crime; it refuses to control them through unsecure border; does it matter to trump that we had the highest sustained levels of deportation in the history of the nation? No; the narrative is you can’t trust government; you’ve got to hate government because government is opening the doors; government refuses to control these people.

    Now what should you do if you hate government?
    One starve it! Cut off its funds; cut taxes for the billionaires.
    Two if you can’t trust government you should reward the people who are the real engines for progress in America; the corporations. Let them write the rules; so we say deregulation, or the right says deregulation; what they really mean is let corporations write the rules of the game; and they are!
    Three if government is a problem then all of those social programs; you know things like public education or health care or environmental regulation; get rid of those because government really cares more about undeserving people of color than it does about hard-working decent real Americans.

    That is the narrative of dog whistling is a narrative that says resent people of color, but hate and turn against government and when you turn against government you get ruled by the rich in other words you get Donald Trump.
    Donald Trump more than any politician that we’ve had in last 50 years absolutely crystallizes the sort of fundamental politics of dog whistling, racial fear-mongering to help elect a billionaire who’s completely corrupt, and all he cares about his billionaire friends and his billionaire backers, and has just rewarded them with a trillion and a half dollar tax cut that’s coming out of the pockets of all the rest of us.

    Meanwhile, they’re busy trying to cut off our health care; trying to make sure the people with pre-existing illnesses can’t get health coverage because that way they can shovel a few more dollars to the billionaire. That’s the story that we need; that’s the politics we need to understand to truly understand how dog-whistle politics is working today“.

  37. Here’s an article aiming to debunk the book Robber Barons by Matthew Josephson.

    The main objection is:
    “Perhaps more important than all of the errors, Josephson missed the distinction between market entrepreneurs like Vanderbilt, Hill, and Rockefeller and political entrepreneurs like Collins, Villard, and Gould. He lumped them all together.”

    The definition of these categories is: “political entrepreneurs, who tried to succeed through federal aid, and market entrepreneurs, who avoided subsidies and sought to create better products at lower prices.”

    The other main objection is simply tagging it with “Marxism” (he was “influenced” by them, and they in turn “embraced” the book.

    While Lopez holds the robber baron age being “voted away” by the New Deal, this article blames “the ruinous government interventions under Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt that helped spark the Great Depression and cause it to persist. ” (i.e. the New Deal itself. How could it spark the Depression, when it had already begun and the New Deal was done to try to fix it?) He then continues on with policies of Hoover that supposedly “stifled market entrepreneurs and emboldened political entrepreneurs. But historians have neglected that part of the story.” (But no one is calling the period after the New Deal the age of “robber barons”, when these “political entrepreneurs” ran wild.

    While it’s true there could be some amount of exaggeration, still, this does not negate that there was any such thing as “robber barons” and the abuses of being totally unrestricted, as the premise makes it seem. (Lopez, doesn’t mention which kind of “entrepreneur” he’s referring to in his references to “barons”. He’d describing the entire “age“, which was still characterized by this). Just the fact that there were “political entrepreneurs” shows that there was a problem. No one ever said there were no legitimate [“market”] entrepreneurs.

  38. Finally, someone going after the latest of these conservative “black” female “representatives of [black people] white male Republicans as he excellently points out! Also, that it’s about MONEY, as a black person speaking or running for office as a Republican are paid a lot of money!

  39. “…instead of trying to make everything political know these five men spent years of their lives in prison for a crime that they did not commit. Matias Reyes who you did not mention in your video one time; he admitted to the crime, he confessed and his DNA was on the woman, so again you said stick to the facts, stick to the evidence; I’m sticking to the facts, I’m sticking to the evidence;
    Brotha, what you [Brandon Tatum] are doing is disingenuous because you’re smart, you’re intelligent, you’re an ex-cop, you understand the importance of facts, you understand the importance of laying information out; you purposely left that out and for Candice Owens; for you to say ‘oh these weren’t innocent little men’; I don’t care if they committed 50 crimes before [the rape of] that woman, they got convicted of rape, and guess what they weren’t the person who raped her, so based upon that particular charge, that particular case, they were innocent, and what you two should do instead of all the time defend Trump and defend conservatism, stand on truth, stand on righteousness, have some morals, have some integrity, because at the end of the day you don’t understand when they’re done using you up making you or you playing the role of the black conservative when they’re done using you you’re gonna see because I used to I used to fall into that hole; “red pill” ideology and then you start looking at cases like this you said yourself how can you be so tone deaf; five men went to prison for a crime that they did not commit; the person who committed the crime admitted to it; his DNA lined up with it; this should be an open-and-shut case; everyone should be quiet, but instead you want to make this political; stop the madness; it should not be ideology over truth; it should not be agenda over truth; you should stand on truth stand on principle!”

  40. Candace Owens: Blacks Did Better In The First 100 Yrs After Slavery, Then Welfare Ended Our Progress

    Conservatives were resentful toward “the government” ever since they were forced to end both slavery and the segregation of the next 100 years after. So what they did was a sort of “confirmation bias”, by blaming every problem afterward on “the liberal Democrats”. They crafted it to look like concern for the plight of blacks, but it’s still grounded on the inferiority of the race, and how they are so “lazy“ and “loose” (having children without fathers they can’t support, etc.) Only now, they get to direct the criticism toward “white liberals”, and claim it’s not racist, because hey look; we’re criticizing our own race, and trying to do what’s best for yours.
    But the end result is that the slaveowners and segregationists were right all along (their system was BETTER in the end), and should never have been forced to make blacks equal. That’s all this is about, and of course is also embodied in the whole idea of “Make America Great AGAIN“!
    People like Owens, and also, Allen West, Larry Elder, and probably also Sowell too, are all doing this for the money, and it also makes them look all tough, because they’re not being “victims” of racism, and look so strong swallowing all the “hard truths” (according to conservatives) about blacks and what was best for us.

    See also:

  41. Ian Haney López: ‘Dividing Races is the Main Weapon of the Rich’

    (He’s also announced a “new version of Dog Whistle Politics, updated for the Trump era, is set for publication in July 2020″!)

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. “Blackness” as a negative archetype | "ERIPEDIA"
  2. Book Review: Wise “Under the Affluence” | "ERIPEDIA"
  3. Humanity’s biggest Pitfall: “Merit” | "ERIPEDIA"
  4. Hatred: A much misunderstood term | "ERIPEDIA"
  5. Denial of Southern Strategy enters forefront of political debate – erictb "lite"

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 )

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: