Skip to content

The Biggest Form of Racism Today

September 15, 2016

Just ran across this; yet another “objective black”

While I’ve always thought “white privilege” was a potentially inflammatory term that’s easily misconstrued, here, my fears are right, as this guy turns it completely around, to the black side of the issue.

•We get the simplistic “Just do what the police tell you”, ignoring all the cases where there was no resistance. Tamir rice “twirling a gun” was used as one of these “almost every one of these instances” of “someone resisting arrest”.
•”All the talk of racism” is absurd because of all the black officials in Baltimore
•Claims “University of Washington study” that cops are reluctant to shoot blacks (for fear of being accused of racial profiling) and that they are more likely to shoot whites (“under certain circumstances”), and that shooting of blacks is going down compared to whites.
•Blacks “not getting into school” is “BS”; with “Affirmative Action” and loans and grants to the poor, they get into school faster and easier than whites, and thus have an “easier route to the middle class”

The whole problem to him is the lack of fathers, which by itself causes every other problem (crime, etc.)

I’ve always said that these “facts” are always put out there, as speaking for themselves as to the proper course of action (which is then not really given). Well, now he is directly asked what should be done about it, and actually gives the straight answer for a change, which all boils down to “reverse the welfare state” (which of course figures to us anyway).
Added is how everything was better for blacks in the 19th century, including slavery, because at least they had “intact nuclear families”. The “War on Poverty” in the 60’s is what brought it all down; the moral and economic costs being a “neutron bomb dropped on this country”, and even spreading to white kids, whose single parent statistics have gone up somewhat. Of course, the Moynihan Report becomes the pinnacle of the observation, careful to note that he was “liberal”.
(What’s conveniently ignored is how government assistance programs were generally seen as good earlier on when they benefited only whites. The 60’s is when they were expanded to blacks and then THAT’s when they were turned against as destructive to the nation. And handkerchief heads like this guy and Allen West perpetuate the lie that blacks on these programs are what’s ruining the nation! He rebuffs such terms [below] but they are fitting to anyone who will tell these lies on black people to validate the “angry white” narrative).

Then goes into how “the left has made language a problem” (fear of being labeled racist). This is what the host “agrees” on, but then Elder actually disagrees and says the reason is because then the left “would have to look at themselves and say “Jesus H. Christ; look at what I’ve done”. (And then mentions inviting on his radio show Jackson, Sharpton and Maxine Waters, “another loud mouthed black woman”. This sort of racial invective is not surprising, considering he has a book entitled Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card–and Lose , since re-titled to What’s Race Got to Do with It? [wonder why?] with most chapters starting with “Stupid Blacks…”).

Of course, it’s all about comparing “facts”, which he challenges them to bring (just like he challenges the host to do, and he could only fumble around and come up with police violence and after deflecting a bit, finally starting to try to lead to something else —”well I don’t know that it’s systemic in that…”, which the guy then runs right over with his statistical “facts”. It’s the perennial caricature of liberals and their lack of logic they thrive on. Though he calls himself a “classical liberal”, which Elder points out is really conservative; or more accurately, more of a libertarian).
Because he can appeal to both liberal and conservative foundation studies showing it’s ALL about not having dads, it proves it’s not a “liberal or conservative issue”, but a “real world” kind of thing, that they “don’t want to have a conversation on”; why? “For fear it will cause you to have to rethink your assumptions”, which is “cognitive dissonance”, and we don’t want to do it simply because it’s “uncomfortable”.

But for one thing, the usual conservative charge is that the “Democrats” are just doing all of this to try to “gain votes”. To some, it’s to “destroy the country” (i.e. they are really closet Communists, basically trying to continue what the Soviet empire aimed to do when they were vying against us. Just control for the sake of control, in opposition to the abstract ideal of “freedom”). If that were the case, then it’s not cognitive dissonance, of something they are trying to suppress into their own unconsciousness; (which is what’s called a “shadow”). In that case, they know what they are doing, and are simply trying to hide it from everyone else. So they would still “not want to have the open conversation”, but the motives would be different from what he’s here assigning. (This also parallels Trump or someone’s question of whether Obama “knows what he’s doing or not” in “ruining the country” or not).
This right here shows a hole in the thinking, as you’re starting with a predetermined bias that the other side is doing evil, but have not really decided what the base motive is. They’re “just wrong”, because, well, they just are! So it changes according to the talking point being promoted at the moment. When trying to convince blacks that they should follow conservatives, it’s an evil plot to “keep them on the plantation”. When speaking generally, on the “facts” of the matter, it’s because they “don’t want to look at themselves” and be cognitively “uncomfortable”. (Which, BTW, reminds me of the gist of much of the Unabomber’s ramble; in the form of a psychoanalysis of liberals).

But this can easily be turned around. For if it’s true that liberal democrats simply care about “votes”(power), they they won’t have such a personal stake in the issue, regarding “what they’ve done” to the country. They’re just milking it for power, and don’t care (which describes the corporate powers who are really the ones milking us dry. The reason they don’t want to be pointed at, and thus get everyone to point at blacks, is not so they won’t look at themselves, for obviously, they apparently don’t even have that level of conscience. It’s so others won’t see and turn against them and stop them from milking all of us. They’ll be too busy trying to control the blacks! This is the “strategic” racism!)
Though at the very end, he does shift to a more “deliberate”, even “diabolical” motive assignment, in the border issue. The Democrats want weak borders so that illegals can come in and change the electorate (having lost the white vote since 1964, as he points out), so they can win. Again, if that’s the case, it’s not really about not wanting to “look at themselves”.

However, it’s conservatives who identify with the institutions being accused of racism; from the nation itself on down to the police and businesses! Which they have been insisting are “exceptional“. So we can see that they would be the more likely ones to have such a personal stake in the matter, that they “cannot look at”; not themselves directly (as they remind us they were not around to own slaves), but rather the collective entities they identify with (see as an extension of themselves, that they defend as if it were their own personal lives). THIS is what they (conservatives) “do not want to look at and say ‘My goodness, what have WE done?'”
All of those pictures of lynchings, with the children looking on as entertainment, and even some of those people still being around today (and whether they were there or actually guilty of it or not) would surely be something people would not want to “look at” and truly absorb how evil it was. Not when we have the high “exceptionality” ideal to live up to (which itself is likely yet another cover for that deep shadow of the civilization).

This answers the question that’s often raised in my mind, when seeing figures like Giuliani and Limbaugh, of what blacks have ever done to them, to garner the utter resentment you can see in their faces when discussing race and blacks’ “problems”. Blacks are a testament to the evils of the early nation (and that period of the larger “Western Civilization”, which they also hold as “exceptional”), which they identify with. This they cannot accept, so they have to make the blacks entirely at fault for the problems, but done in a way they can disguise as “colorblind”, and thus not “racist”.

Also why they so thoroughly disowned Obama as “their” president. Him being accepted as President would obviously run counter to “the original values of the nation” (that is, being both black and liberal, at least. If a black were conservative enough, the exception would be made; but as we saw with Cain, and also what Powell likely feared, the party will not allow him to actually get to the nomination).
Obama being a good president, or anything above “the worst in history”, really, proves early American beliefs and “values” wrong. (And their attempt to have it such that the “worst” one “just so happened” to be the black one [and also happened to not be American and thus disqualified from the presidency to begin with], but it’s “just the facts”, doesn’t fool anyone, yet they just can’t see that, and so insist it’s the other side “playing the race card”. I think it’s subconsciously an attempt to have “fate” prove their supremacy).

Again, there is never any sense that the “truth” always being in their favor, or that they even had the superior wisdom to always favor “truth”, and never be swayed by “emotion” or “ego” (like “everyone else”), is just “too good to be true”. It’s the full fruition of a mindset of “superiority”.

But instead of shutting the discussion down with “political correctness” like the liberals do, they simply deflect, and hide behind statistics to promote the “facts” that are falsely accused of being “racist” (as he facetizes here) that somehow manage to just happen to always agree with old racial stereotypes, while yet being truly “colorblind”.

Again, the “discussion on race”, they want is really the “Negro problem in America” as the alt-right loudly admits.
Speaking of that movement, two of the comments state:

“Who is this cuckold white host? Love the way Larry just stayed on point with facts. Would pay to see him debate Colon Paperneck.”

“This pathetic white cuck has no facts, no specifics, no statistics, no brains, and no back bone whatsoever, which is why “he” is a spineless white liberal. Larry Elders had to school her ass.”

When you see that term “cuck”, you know you’re likely dealing with the alt-right. But actually, part of the whole concept of cuckery is the indirect approach of most conservatives, of using “facts” yet not spelling out the conclusion; namely “the Negro problem in America”. And this is what is being done here. They are maintaining the “colorblind” approach, which is really anathema to the alt-right, which insists the COLOR (genetics) is the central issue, and everything done in the name of white supremacy was right and justified because of it. The statistical “facts” are only used to support this; not to support some other abstract premise, such as economics or morality or even “US ideals of ‘freedom'” or “the Constitution”, as mainstream conservatives have done. But even the alt-righters  know that some cucking (i.e. subdued “dog whistling”) is necessary to sneak the ideology in unawares, though they pretend to be solidly against it.
(I’ve even seen suggestions that a lot of alt-right rhetoric and social media memes is actually “trolling“; where young kids who really don’t care about the actual issues are just trying to get a rise out of everyone; both sides, just for the fun of it. ⦅The guy who harassed the Ghostbusters star is said to be one such troll. Of course, while simply “having harmless fun”, they have the power to create a total race war, if we just follow whatever meme or talking point appeals to whatever frustration we have, and then lash out at others. Any war will then simply be blamed on the other side, “proving” the need to have had a war against them in the first place⦆).

So to repeat, the “discussion on race” that is ultimately desired, is to isolate blacks, and excoriate them for their “lack of morals” (and the rest of the character “lacking” the alt-right adds), such as their just wanting handouts. Then, of course, to take the necessary steps to fix the government, hijacked to give these rogue people all the nation’s resources. It has wrongly been made “easier” for them to climb the ladder, but the real reason they haven’t, is because they are just too lazy, which in turn is because their “pathological” culture” is too immoral to teach the boys to raise families and obey the police. (Elder acknowledges blacks as being “conservative” on some issues, but of course, only swayed to the Democrats by the “social justice warrior” (SJW) rhetoric. Even though he doesn’t say it here, others will fill in this as part of the blacks’ lower intellect, favoring anyone who gives them something or tells them what they want to hear).
So if they then “sink”, then it is all their own fault, and if they react with violence, then we have to justification to kill all of them if necessary.

As the alt-righters clearly point out, it’s not just the better morals of the past, but the racial institutions (slavery or Jim Crow) that promoted the morals. They were unable to maintain the morals on their own, just as they cannot have a prosperous nation on their own. Again, the same appeal to “just fact”, as what Elder is doing. (Though an alternate tactic I’ve seen somewhere recently is to pit Africans against “African Americans”, making us even lower than those from our own motherland, who reportedly don’t even want to be associated with us).  Why do these “objective” conservatives (white or black) pretend that part of the ideology just never existed?

So I just have to wonder, whether Elder (along with the others like him, such as West, Sowell, etc) really thinks that if they got their way, and they abolished all social programs, and then mowed down all the angry blacks in the unrest that would ensue, if the nation would then live happily ever after, and he would be hailed (like he is here) as a hero who fought the good fight of the oppressed white nation, and thus be respected (as a “good one”).
When you look at the pure ideology behind “exceptionalism”, the problem is blackness in itself, and if all of these rabid Trump supporters got their way, I don’t think many of those people would make him an exception, just because he argued their cause for them. The colorblind and the alt-right alike would initially do the same things, but then the alt-right is going to go further and appeal to genetics, and I don’t see the “colorblindness” advocates then turning against them on that (as you never see them criticize them now. They are basically on “the same side” of the political spectrum, against the liberals). It will be likely “oh, well! It’s for the betterment of the nation”. THEN what will speakers like this do when trapped in a society among such people? This is why they get called the names he rebuffs such as “Uncle Tom”. (Which to him is just as “racist” as the N word. But “another loud mouthed black woman”, and “Stupid blacks” isn’t?)

He then goes on, sitting back in the chair with this smug look the whole time, to extol himself ,”I am a bigger threat to their whole ideology than almost anybody else”, and being “a black guy who is not a victim, believes in hard work and personal responsibility, doesn’t believe in handouts…I am the antithesis of everything they stand for”, which is the only reason anyone would oppose him. It’s not even “we” (him and other black conservatives), considering he started the statement as defending a black FOX host being called a “token”. It’s all “I”. Sounds like pure self-promotion, and perhaps why he’s so blind to the whole ideology he’s pitching. (That would likely explain “what’s in it for him”, as well as others like West, and the self-absorbed marketing entrepreneur I mentioned recently, who despised Chicago blacks. In order to build up themselves, they must put others down, and have found the rest of “the black community” the perfect object, which they of course dissociate themselves from. But what they don’t realize, is that this is in turn being exploited by white supremacists, who pretend to cheer them on as comrades, but are only using it for their own agenda, which would not be favorable for you).
Again, I’d love to see how all that would stand up in the ideal society the Right would create if they could have all they wanted, with blacks put back in their place if not eradicated! Your sense of personal “self”-worth and achievements may mean nothing, then, because you still share the same inferior genetics, and there would be no more liberals for you to join with them in fighting.

He has just reiterated all of the classic racist stereotypes, pasted onto “blacks” as a whole (i.e. the “community”, and based solely on a bunch of statistical figures that are easily skewed or spun. Notice, how in the beginning, he built up a whole premise of blacks being the ones everything favors; “black “privilege” basically, based solely on (loosely cited, at that) figures (that to me don’t seem to necessarily or definitely say as much as he’s claiming. But in a talk show discussion, who can go and look all that up and then determine what they really mean.
It’s a shame that the liberals have traditionally only had advocates like this host, the just further prove their whole premise. But thank goodness for new figures like Wise and Lopez now!

Here’s, BTW, is yet another person openly flaunting de-facto white superiority, black inferiority, but in terms of colorblind “fact, not racism” and “I have black friends who aren’t like that”:

(And see some of his other titles. It brings to mind Rush’s “they’re angry…” aimed at blacks. So tell me this guy and countless others like him aren’t dangerously “angry”; what, just because they claim it’s based on “truth”, right? I guess “angry”, along with “whining”, “entitled”, etc. only means “without just cause”, and only people like this have any cause or violated rights).

But to answer the question as this host obviously couldn’t, the biggest form of “racism” today is the whole “exceptionality” premise (which is just another term for “superiority”, with “Western” or “American” representing “white” in a “traditional” or “original” sense), that leads people to justify past or present evils, and then demonize the other people to further justify it. It’s really the same, original belief system behind racism to begin with!

THIS is what needs to be driven home by liberals, instead of stumbling over various issues that are ultimately symptoms rather than causes. (The reason liberals have ended up providing so much fodder for conservatives is because they often treat the “systemic” symptoms instead of the ideological causes).

From → Politics

  1. Nails the issue!

    Open racism, bigotry and misogyny:
    Research shows Trump supporters want America to be ‘great’ again — like the 1950s

  2. An Insider’s View: The Dark Rigidity of Fundamentalist Rural America

    Perhaps a bit too broad painting, and also trashes the Bible (but then this is the perfect expression of Rom.2:24), but makes a lot of good points.

    I would say that it is still partly about liberals not understanding them. They basically ignored them for decades, as they built the very narratives the article is calling out, which then became firmly entrenched and apparently unanswered (validated); hence why they are believed so strongly. (I’ve debated with them, and what they always say is “liberals have no answers; that’s why they try to shut the discussion down with censorship. They just can’t handle truth”). I think this last election showed that they became too smug and cocky in looking down on these “deplorables”, and the backlash finally blew up in their face.

    (We also see the flipside of the “Southern Strategy”:

    “The catastrophe of the Great Depression along with the progressive remedies by FDR helped create a generation of Democrats from previously die-hard Republicans. People who had, up until that point, deeply believed the government couldn’t help the economy only the free market could change their minds when the brutal reality of the Great Depression affected them directly, personally.”)*

    Concludes by tersely laying out:

    The honest truths that rural, Christian, white Americans don’t want to accept and until they do nothing is going to change, are:

    -Their economic situation is largely the result of voting for supply-side economic policies that have been the largest redistribution of wealth from the bottom/middle to the top in U.S. history.

    -Immigrants haven’t taken their jobs. If all immigrants, legal or otherwise, were removed from the U.S., our economy would come to a screeching halt and prices on food would soar.

    -Immigrants are not responsible for companies moving their plants overseas. Almost exclusively white business owners are the ones responsible because they care more about their share holders who are also mostly white than they do American workers.

    -No one is coming for their guns. All that has been proposed during the entire Obama administration is having better background checks.

    -Gay people getting married is not a threat to their freedom to believe in whatever white God you want to. No one is going to make their church marry gays, make gays your pastor, accept gays for membership.

    -Women having access to birth control doesn’t affect their life either, especially women who they complain about being teenage, single mothers.

    -Blacks are not “lazy moochers living off their hard earned tax dollars” anymore than many of your fellow rural neighbors. People in need are people in need. People who can’t find jobs because of their circumstances, a changing economy, outsourcing overseas, etc. belong to all races.

    -They get a tremendous amount of help from the government they complain does nothing for them. From the roads and utility grids they use to the farm subsidies, crop insurance, commodities protections…they benefit greatly from government assistance. The Farm Bill is one of the largest financial expenditures by the U.S. government. Without government assistance, their lives would be considerably worse.

    -They get the largest share of Food Stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

    -They complain about globalization but line up like everyone else to get the latest Apple product. They have no problem buying foreign-made guns, scopes, and hunting equipment. They don’t think twice about driving trucks whose engine was made in Canada, tires made in Japan, radio made in Korea, computer parts made in Malaysia.

    -They use illicit drugs as much as any other group. But, when other people do it is a “moral failing” and they should be severely punished, legally. When they do it, it is a “health crisis” that needs sympathy and attention.

    -When jobs dry up for whatever reasons, they refuse to relocate but lecture the poor in places like Flint for staying in towns that are failing.

    -They are quick to judge minorities for being “welfare moochers” but don’t think twice about cashing their welfare check every month.

    -They complain about coastal liberals, but the taxes from California and New York are what covers their farm subsidies, helps maintain their highways, and keeps their hospitals in their sparsely populated areas open for business.

    -They complain about “the little man being run out of business” then turn around and shop at big box stores.

    -They make sure outsiders are not welcome, deny businesses permits to build, then complain about businesses, plants opening up in less rural areas.

    -Government has not done enough to help them in many cases but their local and state governments are almost completely Republican and so too are their representatives and senators. Instead of holding them accountable, they vote them in over and over and over again.

    -All the economic policies and ideas that could help rural America belong to the Democratic Party: raising the minimum wage, strengthening unions, infrastructure spending, reusable energy growth, slowing down the damage done by climate change, healthcare reform…all of these and more would really help a lot of rural Americans.

    *Also, in the vein of the party switch debate, Wise points out

    Oh holy hell…although Limbaugh [see doubt knows he is distorting history, sadly, most of his followers (and probably most conservatives) will believe his claim that John Wilkes Booth was a leftist. Because, well, um, uh, Lincoln was a Republican, and Republican means conservative! And therefore since Booth killed Lincoln and was a Democrat then he must have been a liberal or leftist because Democrat means liberal! And nothing about those terms EVER changes, ever! Jesus our educational system sucks when it comes to teaching history and critical thinking…
    So, history lesson for those who might need it: the terms right and left, politically, originated in Revolutionary France. The defenders of the old monarchic order were on the right of the Assembly; the defenders of Revolution and the eradication of the old hierarchies and autocratic rule sat on the left. The right broadly speaking then, came to refer to those who were defenders of traditional power, and the left came to represent those who sought to overturn those traditional hierarchies. Thus, BY DEFINITION, Lincoln was the “leftist” in this scenario, as he sought to upend the traditional order of slavocracy in the south (and prevent its spread to the West), while Booth and the Democrats, BY DEFINITION were the conservatives or the right in this scenario as they sought to maintain the old hierarchies. Abolition was a leftist project. The confederacy was a rightist project (which is why today’s conservatives are the ones who defend the flying of the confederate flag and say all the shit about “state’s rights” which segregationists (formerly Democrats, but always conservative) have always said.
    Although Lincoln was hardly all that progressive by today’s standards, he also said that labor was prior to capital “and due much the superior consideration” relative to it…another thing no rightist would say, as they would defend the hierarchies of capital and economic power, while the left would seek to change them.
    See some things aren’t that hard to understand if you read a book and don’t rely on radio talk show hosts to give you history lessons.

  3. Someone on a Facebook Biblical debate group posts (apparently “borrowed”)

    Question: “What does the Bible say about racism, prejudice, and discrimination?”
    Answer: The first thing to understand in this discussion is that there is only one race the human race. Caucasians, Africans, Asians, Indians, Arabs, and Jews are not different races. Rather, they are different ethnicities of the human race. All human beings have the same physical characteristics (with minor variations, of course). More importantly, all human beings are equally created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27). God loved the world so much that He sent Jesus to lay down His life for us (John 3:16). The world obviously includes all ethnic groups.
    God does not show partiality or favoritism (Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9), and neither should we. James 2:4 describes those who discriminate as judges with evil thoughts. Instead, we are to love our neighbors as ourselves (James 2:8). In the Old Testament, God divided humanity into two groups: Jews and Gentiles. God’s intent was for the Jews to be a kingdom of priests, ministering to the Gentile nations. Instead, for the most part, the Jews became proud of their status and despised the Gentiles. Jesus Christ put an end to this, destroying the dividing wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:14). All forms of racism, prejudice, and discrimination are affronts to the work of Christ on the cross.
    Jesus commands us to love one another as He loves us (John 13:34). If God is impartial and loves us with impartiality, then we need to love others with that same high standard. Jesus teaches in Matthew 25 that whatever we do to the least of His brothers, we do to Him. If we treat a person with contempt, we are mistreating a person created in God’s image; we are hurting somebody whom God loves and for whom Jesus died.
    Racism, in varying forms and to various degrees, has been a plague on humanity for thousands of years. Brothers and sisters of all ethnicities, this should not be. Victims of racism, prejudice, and discrimination need to forgive. Ephesians 4:32 declares, Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. Racists may not deserve your forgiveness, but we deserved God’s forgiveness far less. Those who practice racism, prejudice, and discrimination need to repent.Present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God (Romans 6:13). May Galatians 3:28 be completely realized,There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ

    My first response
    The problem started because the western Church imagined itself to be the replacement of Israel. So they now became the ones commissioned to create a new “nation”, and subjugate others, just as God had commanded Israel. To further support this, they then tried to plug the three main “races” into the sons of Noah, with one presumably “cursed”, the other selling its birthright by rejecting its Messiah, and thus leaving the remaining one as the new “chosen”.

    In the process, they ended up reenacting every error of the old Israel, save openly rejecting Christ. But since Christ was the incarnate God of Israel anyway, they ended up still “honoring Me with their lips, but their hearts were far from Me” all over again, only now to the Son in addition to the Father.
    They just do not see racism as a matter of REPENTANCE, just like every other sin they focus on. They’ve just made excuses, twisted scripture to fit, and try to turn it back on the other people by pointing out all their sins (e.g. “crimes”, etc.) just showing they’re in denial of their own on top of everything else. (So they have to add perfectionistic elements to their doctrine, with a very selective notion of sin so that they always come out right and good).

    Then, someone posts a typical “alt-right” complaint about how whites are slighted, and racial divisions are from God according to the Bible, and supported by observable “differences”, concluding at one point:
    “The White European American is the most hated people in the world today”.

    That is totally and utterly ridiculous. Look at something like this (and some of the comments). The world basically agrees with what people have said about blacks (that they have done nothing good, can’t run a nation, etc.) They don’t say this stuff about whites. Even those who compete with them (such as the Asians) still look up to them, and put down blacks (and copying the black culture is not necessarily any kind of respect. It’s likely some kind of strange “curiosity” to them).

    But now, alt-righters, or whatever, are turning this on its ear, and after loudly scolding blacks for “victim mentality”, are themselves claiming to be the “REAL” victims.
    But notice, when people do criticize white powers, it’s for what they’ve DONE (oppression of other races with the power they had amassed), while blacks are denigrated for what they ARE (or “haven’t” done). And the inferiority of others was originally supposed to be what justified oppression in the first place. Notice, those who want to talk about “IQs, cultures, temperaments, propensities” etc. (deemed to be GENETIC differences) always believe THEIR genes, cultures, etc. are the superior ones. (Doesn’t anything inside say to any of you that this might be “TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE?” WE’re “the chosen ones”). And it’s not just some trivial fact, but it always demands courses of action, namely subjugation.
    THIS is why people seem to be opposing “white pride”. It can’t live WITH others, it must dominate OVER others.

    God did choose one physical nation, and then built a SPIRITUAL kingdom AROUND it. So it was not a hard racial division anymore, as any natural born citizens who sinned in certain ways, would be “cut off”, while “strangers” COULD be integrated into the nation, if they adopted the worship of God. This is basically what became the issue of the New Testament, as the apostate Israelites (some initially, nominally “accepting” Christ; John 8:31; but many increasingly rejecting Him because they saw He was not fitting into their nationalistic agenda) trusted in their PHYSICAL INHERITANCE (race, genetic lineage), and that NEVER was what made God’s Kingdom. This is the entire thrust of all of Paul’s teachings; everything he stressed so much; the bulk of the New Testament!
    So after Christ, this was made official, as part of the Gospel, which was opened up more to Gentiles. But some of these Gentiles (warned in Romans 11, but not heeding it) then figured if the Jews were now “rejected”, THEY were the new “chosen ones” if they “accepted” Christ. Centuries later, as the Church gains power and comes to rule the nations, they then set out conquering the world, and invented the concept of “race” (and supposed “curses” on them) to help justify it. And so here we are today.

    As I’ve said, all they’ve done is magnify the sins of apostate Israel, but ten times over, now. So this basically is an archheresy, on the order of anything any “cult” group, or “false religion”, “godless philosophy”, corrupt or political regime, etc. teaches, and it’s a travesty that it has never really been called out as such, by the so-called “historic orthodox” Church. That’s why people can now come with this so boldly and really think nothing of it. It is the antithesis of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and hardly anyone [or at least, “conservative”] recognizes it.

  4. Some good articles on race today

    It’s Pointless To Try To Reason With The Alt-Right
    Alt-righters often do not accept basic historical facts.

    The Alt-Right Does Not Defend Free Speech. It Threatens It.

    KING: Stop using the attack on a mentally challenged white man in Chicago to promote a racist agenda against Black Lives Matter

    HYPOCRISY: When you say we shouldn't blame all white people for the actions of a few racists, but blame all black people for the actions of a few racists in Chicago

    Rev. Barber: We are witnessing the birth pangs of a Third Reconstruction
    We need a moral movement to create change.

    5 lies about slavery that we’ve been taught
    And why we need to make sure we get the history right

  5. 2017/01/10 at 5:18 pm

    Someone in a Facebook type-related group posts this article:

    This article really suggests everyone was united under Bush. 9-11 temporarily distracted the focus to a new enemy (Islamists), but all the police incidences like those during Obama’s terms, plus the dog whistling blaming black crime and welfare for every ill in the country, had been going on ever since slavery and segregation ended. So just a president addressing those things is seen as dividing the country. People speak as if the entire race deserves to die (for its “problems”), and to say otherwise makes one the real “racist” or “divider”.

    Other person: “Are you claiming the current status is better than, equal to, or worse than when Obama took office?”

    The BLM movement is just another reaction to the problem.
    Yes, it’s worse, but it’s something that’s been festering for generations.

    > Do you think Obama made things better, or worse, or do you think his influence was about neutral? Consider the quotes attributed to him in the article.

    HE didn’t make it worse. People holding on to a notion of “exceptionalism” that leads them to justify racist sentiment (again, “those people and their problems; they’re taking our once great nation from us and we want it back” etc.) which again simmered for generations erupted when one of “them” managed to get elected as president. Then, he addressed the racial incidents of his time, which stirred them up all the more. (The same with the NYC mayor, just for warning his biracial son about how he acts around the police. Does he deserve to get shot too, since all of this dirt is always dug out on the ones who did get killed?)

    Look at something like the alt-right. Do you really believe all these people coming out with this stuff had really given up on racism (or were never racist to begin with), and only turned that way because of something Obama said? They’re saying all the same stuff the Right had always said.

    > Always? Do you mean before or after Martin Luther King Jr. registered as a Republican?
    And again, I refer you to the quotes attributed to the President in the article. Or did he not really say those?

    “he acted stupidly.” for arresting a black man for trying to break into his own home. White men can point guns at police and still live, often begging and pleading with them. They took Dylann Roof to Burger King.
    Whenever it’s a black man, they always dig up dirt on him (including making Trayvon and some others into some big MAN rather than a young kid), and when it’s a white man, he’s just a “fallen angel”, or whatever. THIS is the problem being addressed to begin with. But people keep rehashing the black man’s evil to distract from this, only repeating the racist sentiment.

    “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” — “Busy acting as the pillars for Obama’s skewed racial narrative, the media failed to ask why exactly the President’s son would be high, lurking around neighborhoods and beating heads onto pavements.”

    The same thing. Diversion from the issue. First of all, “look like Trayvon” means being a young black male. But they’re reinterpreting it to mean being a criminal. Of course, they believe it’s one in the same.
    And so, if a black man steps out of line, he deserves to be killed. And where is there even any incitement of division in Obama’s statement? He gave a fact, and it made people have to think about someone else’s perspective, but they can’t allow that. The barbarous people so deserve to die, that to even say otherwise is to be the real “racist”.

    “And right now, unfortunately, we are seeing too many instances where people just do not have confidence that folks are being treated fairly. And in some cases, those may be misperceptions; but in some cases, that’s a reality.”

    “This has been going on for a long time, this is not new, and we shouldn’t pretend that it’s new.”

    “When incidents like this occur, there’s a big chunk of our citizenry that feels as if, because of the color of their skin, they are not being treated the same, and that hurts, and that should trouble all of us.”

    Where is there any incitement in that? He’s explaining how people (many people , not just himself) FEEL. People are ALREADY divided, and he’s merely POINTING IT OUT, but people one one side are so hung up in this “exceptionality” premise and demonizing the other side, they can’t ever acknowledge that. If they do, it has to be the other side’s fault.

    (As for mentioning MLK and the parties, that’s the same old ignorance of the Southern Strategy that we’ve answered many times now).

  6. Hypocrisy regarding taxation and government

    With tax season upon us, I’m reminded of how people have long grumbled about taxes, but have never tried to do anything about it. The only exception is with “welfare”, where the complaining was so loud in the 80’s and 90’s that even the “liberal Democrat” administration wound up being the one to reform it. But this didn’t fix all our economic problems, and didn’t stop the complaining about it.

    Government (and taxation to a certain extent) weren’t seen as evil when they were serving whites, and blacks were discriminated against. The Republican party was always the fiscally “conservative” one (which is the only continuity the modern party has with it), and so the Southern Democrats would spend more, but only on whites (who then were the biggest group on public assistance). When the government was forced to begin sharing assistance with blacks, and then the larger Democratic party decided to jump on the bandwagon and take it one step further with Civil Rights legislation, then the racists felt betrayed and left for the Republicans, whose fiscal conservatism now came in handy as the justification for blaming and then denying the assistance to minorities. At the same time, with the Cold War arising, and the authoritarian, leftist Communism becoming our main enemy, the liberal Democrats and their “programs” could conveniently be lumped in with the Communists and their supposed “plot” for our nation’s destruction. This also at the same time allowed the racial language to be excised from the rhetoric, so that the concerns could be made economic and governmental instead, and they can fiercely deny charges of racism, and in fact throw it back to the other side, via the party connection, as well as blaming the programs for all the ills in the cities, as well as the escalating economic problems (which at the same time exonerate the rich who the whole time were the ones benefiting from everyone else’s difficulties).

    “Nature” vs “exceptionalism”

    Conservatives appeal to “nature” in the form of “survival of the fittest” when justifying the great economic divide, while pointing out the “nature” manifestation of African and black American violence and impoverishment. They attribute this same jungle drive to some depth of character; of basically “integrity” (as if if opposed to pure, blind nature), when in practice they are running this society like the caves of the ice age. (All the while, we have to hear how “exceptional” it is, and how the difficulty is all someone else’s, or even the sufferer’s own fault, because it’s just “nature“) They blame this on the blacks and liberalism, but the benefit of the rich in it is again justified with appeals to nature.

    Alt-right and exceptionalists make much of the supposed “civilized” and “advanced” nations they (and they will almost always throw the Asians in there, as if to still try to look like they are not claiming superiority) have created, but given all the problems, and how most of Western society is just as plagued by the “law of the jungle” as the worst war torn third world nations, the only real difference is that it’s a more sophisticated version of the “jungle“.
    They’ve even come up with a double-slam of the black race, “Dindu Nuffin”; spoofing African names to play off of yet another stereotype of blacks and crime. Alt-righters can look down their long, haughty, snotty noses and really think people of their race never commit crimes or evils and deny any guilt.

    Among the mainstream conservatives, racism creates ghettos of the inner city (which is another big proof against “exceptionality”), but they conveniently turn it around and say “liberal policies” created the conditions. They get to, in “colorblind” fashion, pretend to be voicing concern for the blacks, but then it always becomes contempt toward the blacks for being lured into this plot by “the promise of ‘free stuff’”. (while the alt-right simply blames “blacks” in general directly, not even focusing as much on the parties and government).
    Conservatives now point at Soros (as basically a response to the liberal focus on the Kochs awhile ago), and simply make him the big bad bogeyman behind all the corporate “cronyism” many have begun to acknowledge now, in addition to movements they despise such as BLM. (So now, they acknowledge “the rich” as involved in our financial problems, but still have to throw the blacks into it, as the continued scapegoats. But it’s never the fault of specific US corporations, such as the auto giants, agriculture, etc).

    Exceptionalism is the problem, whether you couch it in colorblind or “factual” terms or not. It is still superiority, and thus still creates denial of the error of the earlier nation’s views of blacks (and thus, why a black president must be discredited one way or another. i.e. even if it wasn’t “his policies”, as with the black Republican candidates they claimed to like; they still get them out of the race somehow, early on).

    Exceptionalism is the excuse of clearing up the dark spots of one’s heritage, and maintaining that they are due something, like more power and ease.
    “Exceptionalism” needs to be given up in favor of just being human (Dyson just said something similar on The View). Not re-attributing good and evil and redefining humanity to some ideal with your group as being “par”, or in terms of a feral nature only your group has mastered with integrity, and others manifesting most negatively.
    You can’t pass off as “colorblind” when holding onto an “exceptionalism” that ends up drawn along racial lines.

  7. Saw this “answer” to a meme I’m sure I’ve shared recently:

    Let me get this straight you're afraid of refugees coming to America killing you and taking your property You're trying to make fun  of the anti-immigration argument by proving it right?

    I point out that what the meme on the left is pointing out is if it was OK for our forefathers, then why is it wrong for these people now.

    One person comes back with
    “there really isn’t much difference except the situations are reversed;
    White men came, killed off a bunch of godless savages, and built the greatest country in the world.
    Now, a bunch of godless savages are trying to kill off the white man and destroy the greatest country in the world.”
    (this person must really be “alt-right”)

    So, supposed “superiority” in itself justifies all? The question then becomes, what makes one’s acts of invasion/conquest “savage” and not the other? Because they do it in God’s name, and then produce a society with “modern” amenities and some amount of ‘order’ (what we generally judge “greatest” by), where the end justifies the means? (And inasmuch as the meme might be referring to Muslim invaders, Islamists claim their acts in God’s name as well; they look at Western “immorality” and “decadence” to prove WE’re the “godless” savages. Another person said “Maybe I’ve heard too much of beheadings, the tossing of GLGBT people off the parapets of buildings and the prospect of agitation for Shariah law.”, but western Christians have done all that as well at various times).

    This is all the stuff conservative Christians always condemned other political philosophies or “sinful modern mankind” in general for:

    End justifies the means
    might makes right
    Making too much of our worldly achievements, technology, “progress”, etc. (1 Cor.3:19)
    Thinking ourselves “better” than others (Phil.2:3)
    “conditional morality”
    making mankind (ourselves) the “measure” (e.g. that others are judged by)

    And from a Biblical/theological viewpoint:
    Self-righteousness and “works”-justification
    our “good” outweighs our “bad”
    denial of their own sinfulness (which drives all of these other errors)

    Another person had come up with this apparent philosophical approach:

    “This has been conclusively addressed throughout history, but I’ll provide the clearest, most concise answer I can:

    An invasion is either justifiable or not based solely on where the observer’s feet happen to be at the beginning of the invasion.

    There is no deeper or different analysis that will add anything meaningful to that statement.”

    If I understand that right, that’s saying that because we weren’t there (and thus it didn’t affect us negatively), then it was OK, but now that WE (who can directly “observe” it as it happens to us) are affected negatively (feel threatened), this is what makes it “wrong”. So basically, right and wrong is determined by how it affects us. So all I’m seeing is the natural human aversion to discomfort, which is tied to the way we often seek to gain comfort.
    So whatever we may call “savage” and “godless” in others is basically the same nature we all have. It’s not different just because WE do it.

    If the Africans and Arabs once had their day, but lost it and the western/white/Christians gained power, then they too can lose it as well. If one says it’s God who controls it, then God says “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away”. (Job 1:21) If He took from those other groups and gave to America, then He can take from America and give it to someone else as well.
    No human group is above this principle, no matter how “advanced” they may seem at the moment.

    So we can be concerned about being “invaded” and even oppose it, but we must remember that this is the nature of this world, and we cannot hide behind saying we’re “better” than others and think that will change anything. If we justify this when we are ahead, then we can perish by that same sword!
    The first person then says his arguments are not philosophical or religious, and he’s just fighting for what’s his, like the colonist ancestors before, who “needed a country”, (and their “only mistake was letting some of them survive” (!!!))

    If it’s just a matter of “the strongest survive” and self-defense, that’s one thing, but the problem to me is when the currently strongest see their power start to wane, and then begin doing the same “whining” they long criticized the weaker people for. They don’t seem to think “oh well, someone else might be stronger now, and that’s the way it goes; we had our day, now it’s someone else’s turn”. They instead begin denigrating others, on a moralistic level (“godless”, “savages”, etc). They begin screaming that some great evil is occurring. They expect nature to always be on their side. (I forgot to ask the important question, of is there anything in them that says this is “too good to be true”).

    But I did get a sense of how these people think, and why their “whining” is OK, but others’ isn’t, which is basically that to whoever has already lost power or been conquered, life “affords them no platform” to whine, but the people currently in power have every right to “fight” to “protect” it. We see clearly the attribution shift, of “whining” vs “fighting”, even though both are doing the same thing, which is complaining of things they don’t like.
    This, again, is simply “might makes right”, and also, again, does not explain the moral judgments that always accompanies their “fight”; that rather than them seeing it as God, or nature, taking back what it gave them as has occurred to others, it’s a great evil and injustice being done.

    “The conquerors expect nature to always
    be on their side”

    I by the way am currently reading The Iceman Inheritance and plan to do a review of it, as I’m always citing its premise, and yet I saw some issues of concern when looking it up. (I had previously only skimmed through it, as I wasn’t ready to digest all the evolutionary discussion). However, it is something arguments like this really need to be confronted with.

    • And here, directly tying into this:
      Laura Ingraham: White People Won. Get Over It

      Also, these posts about Candace Owens should have been in this thread, since she’s basically doing what Elder and the others are doing and as pointed out, it’s all about money; these people are being paid off to trash their own race, and now, claim the segregationists were essentially right; and she and a Brandon Tatum still denying the Central Park kids’ innocence:

      As far as that case is concerned (Just watched the series last week), and Trump’s continued denials; if there’s no racism, then why does it seem to be IMPOSSIBLE to Trump and others, to even consider the idea of any chance that the kids were innocent, and were coerced into confession? And what about the kid who wasn’t even there, but got rounded up when he went to the others’ aid? Was that made up by the film directors as well? Why would Reyes be simply a “sixth attacker”, when ONLY his DNA was there? (And this idea made up on the fly as soon as his DNA was matched).

      It sounds like just because they’re black kids, they MUST have been guilty, and that “our” [white] system is always ‘right’ against them; ‘we’ would NEVER coerce or railroad the innocent.

      This is what must be driven home to Trump, Fairstein and anyone else objecting!

      Here’s a good article on Trump’s role in this:
      View at

      Now, someone finally goes after Elder:
      Roland: Larry Elder ‘Sounds Like A Stupid Person’ Proclaiming ‘Republicans Did Not Own Slaves’

      Also, get a load of this:

      Mitch McConnell says America made up for slavery by electing Barack Obama

      Other thoughts:

      Malcolm X and others had acknowledged that liberals also could do detrimental things to blacks, or just be using them for their own agendas.
      Conservatives would later begin to seize upon this and turn it into yet another dog whistle; one so insidious that it pretends to be the true concern for our plight, while lobbing more of the old negative stereotypes at the whole “community”. This is the biggest and starting premise of all their black minions; that the Democrats are keeping us on the plantation” (and that these enlightened black conservatives have “left the plantation”, and are “free” and have “power”, and we see right here where it ties into self-promotion and being “better” than the rest of the group).
      But the conclusion, as always, is the blacks wanting “free stuff” the liberals are offering them. The “colorblind” whites and blacks don’t realize that the root of the ultimate ideology they are supporting is that blacks as a whole are inherently inferior, and that the goal is to eliminate as many of them as possible, in one way or another. (Note, how many of there arguments, including by the black writers/speakers in places like “Prager U”, go on to extend to blacks being better off under Jim Crow! This is almost a direct appeal to reversing Civil Rights, and is part of the “great” America they want to restore).

      Conservative denial of the effects of the racial sins of the past (and economic sins of the present) they refuse to acknowledge:

      The “godless” (removing God from public consciousness)
      The “big government”
      •or “pushing too hard” for change, and now, giving the people “free stuff”
      •This “made” corporations mix with government and buy out the politicians
      The minorities only want “free stuff”; playing “victimhood” just to get it
      Everyone’s a “snowflake” now

      Shame we can’t laugh at each other as races, but race was too much of a serious issue (as past society made it to be), and conservatives are in denial and want to pretend there never was a real problem.

  8. A few months old, just ran across this today from a Quora email:

    View at

    I like the way he goes after all the double standards in the responses to his film:

    “Dear black people, even though you make up 13% of the population can you please stop committing over 50% of the murders nationwide?”

    That was one of the less aggressive ones.
    Among the now perfunctory “what if there was a dear black people” comments, were accusations that I, and by association Netflix, were promoting a call for “white genocide.” Complaints that racism isn’t real, sat beside comments calling me a nigger. Assertions that all black people do is whine and destroy property were wedged between threats that the alt right would burn this country to the ground if we kept promoting “white hate.”
    The hypocrisy of being called both a nigger as well the sole cause of the racism I was complaining about, was a sort of recurring theme. I wasn’t sure if the bi-polar nature of the hate speech was intentional or not, (a kind of mind trick perhaps?) but I knew enough to know that it was nothing new.

    I knew that the human mind is not as biologically inclined to be rational as it is to survive. That even when faced with clear evidence to the contrary, if a person’s belief system (say that black people are evil race baiting crybaby animals) is rooted in their identity, any challenge to their opinion feels like a threat to their very lives. An ancient and impenetrable aggression takes over that can not be reasoned with, only shut out or ignored.

    They have been made to feel that they are oppressed, perhaps by politicians and corporate entities hoping to enrich themselves, but to them that oppression feels real. It doesn’t matter that hurt feeling aren’t actually the same thing as oppression. It doesn’t matter that jokes about white people don’t reinforce systemic disadvantage for them.
    A group of white people have been influenced to root their very existence in the idea that it is they who are the oppressed minority and thus are able to willfully ignore context, self hypocrisy and basic facts in order to wage the very kind of hateful, divisive attacks they accuse their “enemies” of. This is not new.

    Clicking through to inspect the account of someone insisting I should be ashamed of myself for “causing racism” I found a pinned tweet defending “freedom of speech” atop her timeline. I laughed out loud. The irony was so lost on this person I feared it would never be found.

    I myself wouldn’t throw a title out there like that, because I believe in trying to circumvent these defenses as much as possible, and thus not given them “ammunition”. Still, this is answered well in this exchange of comments:

    so to combat racism, lets be racist? is that your point. Or if its okay to mock people in other shows/books, why isnt it okay for me to?
    so again, this begs the question you are probably tired of hearing. would you have a problem with a film being titled Dear Black People? a film that makes fun of black peoples fears of the “white man” , black stereotypes or anything of that ilk?
    how about just stop shoving your racist fears down our throats…

    What’s hilarious about your comment is that the same questions you asked were mentioned in the show by well meaning white characters like yourself.
    White people want to erase “race” when the spotlight is on them.
    Nah. This isn’t Burger King. You can’t have it your way.
    When black people terrorize white people in every which way for hundreds of years, then you can have your “dear black people” show. Until then, continue to write paragraphs of white tears. Because that’s all this is…paragraphs of “boo hoo boo”.
    And as a black woman I will continue to support black voices telling their stories, despite how many “not racist” white people complain.

    Also today, saw this:
    POOF Just like that, the Civil War never happened. Therefore neither did slavery
    This, like a petulant child trying to hit back, does not even get the point It’s not trying to erase the Civil War or slavery, it’s ceasing to honor rebels who were fighting for slavery.
    One comment said “Put my statue back. The statue belongs to the American people. Not the ‘Politically Correct’ Losers.” Again, these were not the same “America” that anybody today is apart of; it was a dissident regime; the CSA, that fought against USA and lost. But clearly, these people identify with them, and while always praising the name “America”, in practice hate the current “United States”, beyond their own romanticized view of it, which is embodied in the Confederate States.

    This is connected to the big story this past weekend:
    This rally of white supremacists with torches trying to intimidate the black community in Charlottesville was not 1957, it was 2017

    It should also be pointed out that this should figure in their claims (see above comment) that losers from the past don’t have the right to complain. This is when they are defending their position as “conquerors”, over blacks and Indians and others. But as they have been losing bits of their conquest, beginning with the loss of the Confederacy and its economy based on slavery, they should realize that they are in the “loser” position too, in this respect. So as other memes point out, “If you say ‘get over slavery’, then why don’t you get over the Civil War?” [Showing the Confederate flag and these statues).

  9. White Supremacy Is Anti-Gospel. I’m Glad the Southern Baptist Convention Agrees

    This is a great moment that is centuries overdue!
    I’m a bit disappointed that the addressing of the “curse of Ham” was left out. That was supposed to be the “biblical” basis of racism, and to omit that leaves it open for people to hold onto that point, and claim that this resolution is “Biblical truth” being suppressed in favor of “emotive sentiment” or “egalitarianism”, and not any real scriptural critique, which has long been the defense of those holding onto racist beliefs. This short circuits the refutation of racism and proves to its adherents their long standing narrative that they are the ones on the side of scripture.

    Nobody ever seemed to realize that the so-called “curse” was not even uttered by God, but rather by Noah, and in his hung over state at that. This point alone would have downed the entire tree of racism from its root, if progressives had paid attention to scriptural contexts and not ignore points like this.

    Even if no one’s using it today (as some counter), a major reason people hold on to sentiments like racism, or are at least sympathetic or looking the other way, is because they don’t want to accept that their forbears (ancestors, “heroes of the faith” like old preachers, etc.) were wrong, and twisted scripture. So by sweeping stuff like the Ham doctrine under the rug, they can go as far as to nod to racial progress, while still upholding “the values of our forefathers” as the supposedly Christian ideal modern society is to be condemned for turning from. But that included racism, which was interwoven into this “fabric of society” they keep defending.
    What then happens is that they subconsciously have to find justifications for the old beliefs. Like “yeah, we’re all equal, but look at their crime. Look how they can’t get over the past. They just want ‘special privilege’”. This then is what made the fields fertile for the alt-right, riding in on what else but “Make America Great Again”. Their rhetoric is but an exaggerated version of the mainstream conservative “dog whistling” that has kept the sentiments alive. The more religious among them can quickly fill in the blanks. They again see it as “the ‘old ways’=scriptural; those who oppose them=antiscriptural”. So we need to show why they were not scriptural.

    As for police violence (especially relevant again with the acquittal of the Philando Castile shooter.

  10. Also interesting is this:

    Redneck Revolt Builds New Anti-racist, Anti-capitalist Working Class White Movement
    Redneck Revolt inserts themselves into overwhelmingly white spaces—NASCAR races, gun shows, flea markets in rural communities, and country music concerts—to offer a meaningful alternative to the white supremacist groups who often also recruit in those spaces.

  11. In Defense of Western Civ

    “What makes the West unique is not that we had slavery, but that we put an end to it because it was not compatible with our values. The same goes for nearly every charge in the indictment against the West, from racism and misogyny to imperialism and war.”

    What they always ignore, is that the biggest representatives of those “values” saw slavery, racism, imperialism and misogyny as a crucial part of those ‘values’, and pushed against their eradication, accusing the progressives as being hostile to those ‘values’! Now, the heirs of these people want to take credit for what [who their forbears regarded as] the evil progressives had done inasmuch as it’s seen as good now. (The same with claiming Martin Luther King as a good Republican conservative [and thus, supposedly against the liberalism embraced by most blacks today] when the conservatives of his day saw him as a godless Communist).
    This is just more of the typical “cuckservativism”.

    This is why it seems like “Today, all other cultures must be celebrated while every ill is blamed on us.” and “we love to beat ourselves up”. Self-righteousness makes us a big target, to be taken down a notch or two.


    Having talks with ones children “promotes violence against police”? (Just like the NYPD disrespecting the mayor for having the talk with his biracial son).

    The ideology here is that blacks have forfeited their right to live due to their “crime” stats, and “lack of responsibility” and “lack of family” [statement from yet another black handkerchiefhead they cite], etc. So we should all hang our heads and accept being killed and anything else done until we wave our hands and change everyone else with the same skin color, in the “community”. All this does is reinforce all the negative stereotypes of blacks used from the beginning as justification.
    Makes blacks “innocent”? They’re the ones claiming their society is innocent and “exceptional” (superior, basically), where everything always works fairly, and if it doesn’t, then it’s your own moral inferiority. All they ever do is justify their “heritage”, but then see everyone else as “denying responsibility“. They call others “snowflakes” while complaining of what’s being taken from them. You got your man in office, the people you see as the “makers“ continue to get everything, as you say they “deserve”; so stop fixating on blacks already!

    Great response post:

    New ‘Procter & Gamble’ Ad Infuriates Racist America, Bigots Forced To Take A Look In The Mirror

    • This one really goes after this mindset:

      If You Act Right, You Won’t Have a Problem
      The Dirty Lie of Respectability Politics
      View at

      Further covering this point regarding police violence:

      This one goes after the use of the “liberal bias” claim to promote racism (even says conservatives are the ones who have their “safe spaces” on campus!)

      Academia’s role in legitimizing conservative hate speech

      Are white shooters called ‘lone wolves’ by default?

      The Roots Give a ‘Schoolhouse Rock’-Style History of Slavery on the ‘Black-ish’ Season Premiere

      This one shows the racism of redlining and how it kept blacks behind in society.
      They need to really, more clearly drive the point home by connecting this to the conservative claim that “the black problem” is “liberal policies”, and that they’re just “whining” about the past, or deliberately languishing, from trying to get “free stuff” (where every other once-discriminated group eventually “pulled themselves up” out of it), or “not having strong enough families” (which itself was largely effected by the same process the video is discussing).

      “If statues come down, racism can still be up.”
      Reverend William J. Barber, II sets the record straight on systemic racism and white supremacy in America.

  13. The Policies of White Resentment

  14. In light of compiling the links on the whole Charlottesville affair, I ran across this Stormfront forum discussion “Are we really white supremacists?”

    Supremacist means having arrogance and ungodly pride.

    I am a White Nationalist, not supremacist.

    Just because one understands some facts pointing to white people being more technologically advanced and more intelligent than some other races, doesn’t make you a supremacist. It just means you know facts. You don’t need to be arrogant about it.

    It’s the same as like for intelligent people. Sure, I am the smartest person in the room almost 100% of the time. That is just a raw fact. But if I know act all prideful and think I’m better than everyone else because I’m smarter – well now that’s another story.

    It is one thing to BE better than another. It is another to THINK and ACT better than others and to believe you are “better” than other people. This arrogance is supremacy. Every race has supremacists.

    Anyone who vents their unhealthy and ungodly pride into a racial construct is a supremacist of whatever race they are. Blacks have them, whites have them, asians have them, hispanics have them.

    But it is one thing to know you are more capabale than others, and another thing to still act and think with humility.

    I have to admit, it has been a real struggle and challenge for me to overcome my pride for being so smart. And I mean smarter than most other white people, not just other races. But it is this same strength that is needed if you become swelled with pride thinking white people are better than others.

    By the way, it’s worth noting, a large reason we as white people have to deal with so much crap today, is because of a few Jewish supremacists! Everyone has a risk of becoming “prideful” and arrogant.

    It is one thing to be proud of your heritage, race, and culture. This is healthy and good, and THIS is the thing that we are being bashed on but that is wrong because white people are good and it is good to love our own people.

    However, it is something different when you begin comparing yourself to others, now it becomes unhealthy. And it is worse when you start thinking other people are inferior because you are so puffed up with pride. This is what a few Jewish people did and then they became supremacists and are now trying to destroy us white people. This is bad, and wrong, as any white nationalist can agree to and attest to.

    However, it is just as bad for the Jews to have this unhealthy and ungodly pride as it is for us white people to look down on other races in scorn and hatred.

    So no, not all white nationalists are corrupted by ungodly pride to become white supremacists. I would like to hope that most white nationalists are not white supremacists.

    A bunch of silly reasoning! What they don’t realize is that being “more intelligent” is a kind of “supremacy”, and thus it is impossible to believe something like that and not automatically do the things he’s denying; such as being proud, “thinking” and “acting” better, and it is only possible and making any sense through “comparing yourself” to others. And they certainly have no “humility”! These people do not even know what they’re talking about! (and this particular individual has a ridiculously high view of himself, alone!)

    We are surpemacist not because we want to be but simply we are by our race.

    It is not a concept or conspiracy it is simply a fact.

    We are better than other races, spiritually, maturity wise, technologically, culturally and so on. It is our essence.

    Other races hate us for what we are because they realize when they compare themselves to white people, that they are inferior.

    To be supremacist is not a reason to be exploitative, it is a burden as it is a higher responsibility. We are not allowed to abuse other races, nor should we allow to be destroyed by other races.

    Our ultimate responsibility is to improve other races. The mistake our ancestors made, that they believed, that giving them white culture will turn them into developed beings, like us.

    It doesn’t work that way. The steps for other races are small and take a lot of time. Other races need our support. Though it should be given in small doses.

    To be superior always comes with a higher responsibility. The liberal falacity is to believe that other races ‘are equal’ to us and thus they lower themselves to their level.

    Real superiority never lowers itself but keeps the distance.

    This one admits “supremacy”, but sees it as some sort of passive on their part coincidence, where they “just happen” to fall into the category. Once again, never any sense that this is just “too good to be true“, and that their own human pride might be skewing their perception. Who said technological advancement makes anyone superior? (They also have the means to destroy all life off of the planet, almost instantly! They never think of that part of it). Let’snot forget about this explanation: Remember, “Aggression [which is what they have succeeded with] is not superiority”!

    No one hates them for who they are, but rather for what they have done (hating others for who they are); based on their own belief in what they are.
    (So again, how this view will automatically lead to them abusing other races, despite the noble ideal expressed there).
    It’s all excuses and rationalization to justify what they know is a greatly inflated view of themselves!

    The term ‘white supremacist’ hurts our overall cause. A white nationalist is a European who wants to remain separate from the other races with freedom of association. A white supremacist thinks that they are better than everyone else, does not have any humility, and creates a knee jerk reaction of hostility. Our enemies call Europeans who look after their own group interests ‘white supremacists’ as a way to shut down dialogue and silence the issue of white genocide. They use the term ‘racist’ as another method of vilification in order to gaslight us and draw attention away from the bad behavior that causes racism in the first place.

    And something to think about, if whites are truly superior, then why have we not learned from history yet? Why have we been deceived by the same tribe who have been expelled 109 times throughout history for doing the same exact thing they’re doing now? [I imagine referring to the Jews]. Why are we not having children? Why are we still so individualistic? Why are we still materialistic? Why do we have such big egos (generally speaking, please don’t take offense) instead of uniting all under one umbrella of a common goal. There is in-fighting, disrespect, and slander in most white nationalist groups that I have witnessed myself. If we are supposedly a superior race, then where is the noble character that we should have? Death before dishonor is easy to say, but who among us actually follows this creed for their folk?

    There are four ways to understand “White Supremacy,” and you are touching on the most important one:

    1. How our enemies use it.

    “White Supremacist,” in this context, conveys the idea that we are blood-thirsty, hate-filled, genocidal monsters from hell. Having successfully associated the term, “White Supremacy” with the mass extermination and torture of innocent people, this term is the most potent and effective one our enemies have in their attempts to discredit us.

    2. Ruling over other races

    Slavery was a form of White Supremacy: Whites as first class citizens, blacks as second class citizens. Any system where one race uses the force of law to rule over other races is properly understood as a supremacist system

    3. Accomplishments

    That’s how we in the movement understand it:
    “Europeans are the greatest people on the planet, the ones who achieved the most, accomplished by white hetero males. As Charles Murray and Ricardo Duchesne have documented, 97% of the greatest accomplishments in the Sciences were by Europeans, 96% of the greatest philosophers were European, 95% (and this is a modest figure) of the greatest explorers, 100 percent of the classical composers — with similar percentages in all the fields of human knowledge and endeavor.”
    (Africans and Asians are Indigenous Brits – Daily Stormer)

    4. Character

    This is where your excellent quote comes into play. Our race has long since achieved global supremacy on a technological and cultural scale, and since technology and culture are the two most import marks of how advanced and developed a particular people is, that’s why it is fair to say that White Nationalists are indeed White Supremacists. BUT, our race most definitely has a long way to go in terms of moral development. Since character is inherited genetically to a large extent, a eugenics program in the future White Ethnostate should incentivize couples who display the desirable character traits. Because right now, yeah, we are SO gullible as a race, and we have lost the sense of honor that used to be our hallmark (Edmund Burke lamented this as far back as 1789. I for one am convinced that the entire Enlightenment project has done severe damage to the character of our race).

    One last thing: It seems like a lot of WN’s focus to much on the “nationalist” part and not enough on the “White” part. Nationalism isn’t the end goal. It’s just a tool. The end goal is to secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. Everything we do in this movement must be geared towards finding out how to achieve that goal, that mission.

    Here now are admissions that they’re not living up to their ideals, and don’t have the “character” they think they should have. That’s a question they should really think more on. If they’re so superior, or “better”, or “more intelligent” or whatever, then why do they have these common human limitations? Of course, racism is blamed solely on others’ “behavior”. But what is consistently rejected is the notion of human sinfulness, that both the other groups (blacks, Jews, etc.) have flaws you can point out, and so does your group. But instead, these are always just attributed differently.
    The conservative Church has really failed in this, long preaching “the sinfulness of all men”, but focusing on certain sins (often tied to political agendas and talking-points, and not true theological concerns), to the point that people like this, all coming out of a Christian background, don’t have a clue as to their own sinfulness. Never have they been told to “CHOOSE” between Christ, OR their racial superiority, “lost cause”, “nation”, the historical idols they want to worship, etc. (like the Church historically made people choose between Christ and their “sins”, other pleasures, lifestyles, other religions; blacks are the ones told they must give up their “culture”, etc). No, they were allowed to think that they could have both, because they were for all purposes one and the same. And so here we are today with people thinking they are so RIGHT in these self-exalting views, and again, thinking nothing of it!

  15. Another bunch of blind self-haters:

    Many wonder why black conservatives refuse to talk to black liberals about conservatism. It’s simply this: they won’t STFU long enough to let you complete an idea. In addition, having to, once again, listen to able-bodied, able-minded, working, responsible, black adults go on about what the “white man” owes “us,” made me want to scream, though I restrained myself.

    Being out-numbered 3-1, being talked over multiple times, being insulted more than once, not being allowed to answer proffered questions, and having my actual answers ignored, at some point–out of frustration–I let the “conversation” go.

    Then goes into how blacks hate whites (like anti-theists hate God), and we’re thus still treating whites as the “Master”, both claiming to still be oppressed, and still expecting to be fed, clothed, etc. by them, and of course, the total ignorance of the Southern Strategy, thinking the racist Democrats (under LBJ with his “well-crafted strategy”) all of a sudden decided to “transform his party’s image into that of the good and generous patron”. Instead, they felt unduly taxed, in order to give to lazy “takers”, exactly like modern Republicans. Regardless of what LBJ’s motives may have been, that’s why both sides would switch parties.
    (Everybody elects those they think will give them what they want (and settle for the “lesser of two evils”). That’s the purpose of the free election system of democracy. Conservatives certainly do, and get duped by the GOP just as much as they’re saying blacks get duped by Democrats. But it seems like blacks are not granted that right, they should only vote for whom conservatives say is good for them, else they’re trying to get what they shouldn’t have).

    This is operating off of broad stereotypes: that “liberal” blacks only want someone to “give them stuff”. (Which is exactly what racists have always said about them, and the article even has the gall to go after the entire race; “not just those who are American”, with these ridiculous generalities).
    That’s why they do not listen to conservatives or Republicans (and call black ones “sellouts” and the other names).
    They just slam us and then expect us to take them seriously.

    Thus they’re the ones maintaining the “slave-master” relationship by promoting the key points of black inferiority. As I realized with Larry Elder, above, they do this to try to self-promote their own egos. “Look at MEeee; those other blacks are all ‘victims’ and thinking they’re owed, but I’m so strong, and I’ve risen above them and can see the ‘hard truth’ they can’t deal with!” This really makes one look good. —in their own eyes, that is!

    With the alt-right and neo-confederates on the warpath now, we do not need to be spewing their junk about us on their behalf. Just let them get any semblance of real power; you’ll have your “conservative values”, but just see what happens. They believe the black “problem” is genetic, not simple “family values” or whatever! All conservatives may not claim to believe that, but it’s what’s behind this “dog whistle” rhetoric!

    Utter proof self-promotion, and being bought out are the reason why black people would speak in favor of a movement that is against their race; we see where these two “bopsy twins” are really coming from:



    But if you don’t like how Black Lives Matter pursues its agenda, you should welcome the NFL players’ approach. It’s silent; it’s not disruptive; and it’s entirely nonviolent. It doesn’t block traffic, occupy police or frighten bystanders.

    Critics say it’s disrespectful to the flag, but no flags are harmed — and it could be taken as a form of respect for the flag to mutely signal your belief that the ideals it represents are not being realized.

    That the display evokes so much fury and disgust among whites, from the president on down, confirms what was evident 50 years ago. The problem is not how blacks raise their complaints about American society; it’s that they raise them.

    Every time unrest erupts in black communities in response to some perceived injustice, finger-wagging whites wonder why blacks can’t express their dissent in an orderly, law-abiding way. But every time African-Americans protest peacefully, the same whites object to the message, the tactics, the purpose or the slogans.

    Unsympathetic whites often ask why blacks are so unwilling to acknowledge progress, to express gratitude for living in a free country and to focus on the problems in their own communities. But unsympathetic whites asked the same questions back in the 1960s. Many whites have always been in a hurry for African-Americans to stop griping about discrimination and get over it.


    Not just ignoring us, but speaking down to us as well. Like using in their arguments against the Democrats that their policies are the cause of all our problems, and that we only vote for them because they “offer us ‘free stuff’”, which is a racist distortion aimed to stoke the fears of those voting blocs they are appealing to. Why would anyone want to vote for anyone who disrespects them like that? They don’t even try to appeal to us, beyond “we know what’s best for you because you’ve been too stupid and lazy to do good for yourselves”. Again, they really believe their own bs that we’re supposed to be so stupid as to be impressed by that.

  18. Someone finally says what all the dog whistlers have meant all along:

    Roy Moore: The last time America was great was when we had slavery

    Roy Moore Believes America Was Great During Slavery. Twitter Users Detonate.

    Also, regarding Moore, on the religion angle:

  19. Really covers the issue of “character” well!
    View at

  20. Racist sentiment (and all its defenses and deflections today) is at its root just a failure of “repentance” of the flawed premises it was based on. The starting premise is the righteousness of ones’ ancestors (which they identify with, and they can even claim to be ‘selfless’ and excoriate the “me-ism” of modern generations and other belief systems, and don’t realize they have simply placed their ego with a collective they identify with).
    To inherit this righteousness, all one has to do is grow up in the culture, and uphold it. If from another culture, you must give it up, and “assimilate”. To admit that the problems today are the fault of anyone but the scapegoats they always assign: the blacks themselves, and white liberals and modern generations, they would have to admit the sinfulness of their progenitors. They will admit it only on the “protocol” level (“all have sinned”), but their sin is deemed minimal, and having absolutely no negative lasting effects. Humanity is divided into the “sinners” and “saints”, and these people and their defenders today are on the “saint” side, and so all problems today stem from the “sinners” only.

    Base conservative view: The opposing view: Conservative ‘colorblind’ “Dog whistle” compromise: Alt-right view:
    Our forefathers were righteous and created an “exceptional” nation Our forefathers created a corrupt society for us today by founding the nation on inhumane treatment of others (including why minorities are trapped in cycles of poverty and violence) Slavery was so long ago and shouldn’t matter now (forefathers weren’t wrong) Forefathers came from a superior civilization
    They believed blacks were inferior and “cursed” by God to an existence of slavery or at least societal suppression The values they claimed to uphold were that “all men were created equal”. They mishandled scripture, and were overall hypocritical Belief about black inferiority is ignored or dismissed as a product of the times. This allows a “colorblind” premise to be taken. Criticize dog whistlers for indirect “colorblind” approach, push “fact” without clearly stating goal at this point (still want it all to “speak for itself”), but basically want separation.
    We should follow their lead in “godliness” and the “work ethic” (capitalism as God’s system) All the vestiges of this should be overturned. It was “liberals” who eroded our morality, and their “big government” that interfered in both race relations, as well as economics. This caused both prolonged racial tension, as well as economic hardship (to blacks themselves, prone to laziness, which drained the rest of the economy), and even “cronyism” (where it is finally admitted that big business is the one getting all the money. It’s still basically justified on their end, however. Their behavior is the government’s fault). But they were wrong on slavery; not for its inhumanity or sinfulness, but because of the blacks’ “insolubility”. This is what’s ruined society.

    White conservatives are angry and resentful toward blacks because their heroes have lied to them to cover up their own exploitation of the economy (from slavery to modern finance), so even their actions (from the violent pushbacks to emancipation and integration, to the modern draining or abandonment of the economy by business) must be the fault of the government and ultimately, the blacks themselves. People like Limbaugh and Colin Flaherty talk about how blacks are “angry”, but you can clearly see the anger and resentment right in their own faces or voices right as they discuss this. It must be “different” in their case; they have just “reason” to be angry, for something is being “taken” from them for the blacks’ sake, while the blacks are just angry (violent) by nature (and wrongfully gaining benefits from this).

    What that “something” is, is not money and freedoms, as they claim, but rather their collective sense of rightness. They are a constant reminder of what was done in the past, and still done in different ways today. But if only they would get over the past. If only they would “behave” today. None of this would be a problem. It’s all their own fault. So we’re still “right”.
    People like Confederate sympathizers can’t see past feeling something has been “taken” from them, but refuse to put themselves in the slaves’ shoes and realize their system didn’t do unto those people as they would want others to do to them. (The real heart of the divine Law they claim they and their forefathers lived by).
    No; they did precisely what they are complaining is being done to them (and quite exaggerated at that, as it is), but have to posit either that it wasn’t so bad, if not that it was somehow completely justified (namely, by the subject people’s own “problems”).

    This is also what’s behind the utterly callous reaction of gun-loving conservatives toward the young Parkland shooting survivors, accusing them of being stupid pawns in the [adult] “liberal” plot against the nation, or even going as far as to trash the whole generation, as a bunch of “Tide pod eating entitled snowflakes” who have no right to try to tell anybody else anything. Our nation and older generations have always lived off of “God, Guns, Guts and Glory”, and in following that, we can’t possibly be wrong. It’s all “them”: the younger generations, the liberals, the outsiders, etc. who are wrong.

    Lack of repentance is what leads to the “colorblind” tactic of trying to base the same old classic stereotypes on different criteria (“fact”) rather than skin color. The fathers still end up right in their actions, even while disclaiming what they actually said about race.
    That’s what this is really, all about. But man’s presumed rightness is always where he gets into trouble with God.

    They believe the lies because they identify, and so want to believe what they identify with (the forces of capitalism, from the nation’s founding to the present) are never wrong. So they go back and appeal to the open religiosity of the early nation, as if just the mere profession of God makes one always right. (Even though there are plenty of other groups who profess God that they don’t see as genuine, but then the determinant becomes their politics or other doctrines, so that the ultimate standard is compatibility to one’s own beliefs. This creates a pre-supposing cycle, because profession of God is supposed to be the proof that one’s beliefs and actions are correct, but in order to differentiate from some other group that meets that criterion, then the beliefs and actions are what proves the validity of their profession of faith).

    So the root sin is one of narcissism, or more specifically, what one person ( calls “delusional infallibility”. (It’s been hard to name a sin because of the lack of awareness of a single term for it; “narcissism”, “arrogance” and “self-righteous” are very general and can get tossed around back and forth too much). Delusional infallibility is accomplished by trying to play off of the natural infallibility of God through their fidelity to Him, but must assume that you’ve been able to be truly faithful, and not run afoul of it like [you can easily identify in] other people.
    (So perhaps, it could also be called “associational infallibility”, or even “imputational infallibility”?
    What was imputed to us is Christ’s righteousness, via a covering for sin. It doesn’t make all behavior we engage in suddenly “righteous”, which is a charge often leveled at consistent Grace doctrines; betraying that that’s really how they think about righteousness and rightness; i.e. it’s all about “works”. So likewise, there is nothing that makes any belief or interpretation we have infallible).

    So at some level, there must always be some amount of presupposition of one’s own inherent rightness. This is a tendency of all fallen egos, as everyone will proclaim, but there must be some way to get one’s self out of it, to claim to be enlightened (John 9:41). In modern Christianity, it ultimately began with Augustinian “electionism”. God ‘chooses’ some to enlighten. So it’s all “His work”, and thus still does not compromise “Grace”. Some thought this was too “hard”, and then reverted to a premise of “free will“, where anyone can hypothetically “choose” the truth. What then happened is that it became a matter of being born in a “culture” that already believed the truth, and if you just followed it (didn’t rebel or turn away), then you could be presumed to be in the truth. (And of course, the ‘cultural’ force still ended up holding for the electionists, in practice, and anyone who turned away was simply a “tare”).

    This delusional infallibility is what needs to be repented of (in addition to all the evil it’s been used to cover up). And any delusional infallibility carried over to race (even if made ‘coincidental’ via ‘culture’) is ipso facto a doctrine of racial supremacy.
    The question for all who deny this is Paul’s “What causes you to differ?” Even if you say “God”, then “If you did receive it [acknowledge it as from God], then why do you boast [talk, act, etc.] as if you didn’t receive it?” [Made it all on your own ‘will’, like in the whole “Makers” sentiment, and getting fiercely angry when someone says “You didn’t build that!”, or you fear someone is “getting by” in something without all the effort you had to apply].

    Also, to repeat what I recently first posted in the gun issue thread, regarding the real issue with “big government:

    °“Big government” trampled on the “states rights” of the south and forcibly ended slavery [which was actually a “capitalistic” enterprise]
    °Big government created social programs, which aimed to give the blacks’ “free stuff”, at the expense of taxpayers, and yet this trapped them in cycles of poverty and “dependence” (and also led to “white flight”, including industry)
    °This created the urban decay of past decades
    °Big government again interfered in the “free market”, but this time, giving big business the ability to sieze the opportunity to buy out the government
    °So now, the [obvious] role of “corporatism” in our economic problems can be acknowledged, but this is still the fault of “big government”; and government’s main fault is social programs.

    The grand narrative that results is that nothing is ever capitalism’s fault, but everything is ultimately poor minorities’ fault. (And the government and its “programs” weren’t as vilified back when the programs served whites only. It was only when they were opened up to minorities, in the 60’s; just happening to be the same time as the rest of society’s “moral” decay according to conservatives, that this anti-government narrative began on a universal scale). That corporatism can be excused because of “government”; like they just couldn’t help themselves to milking the system, since it was there for the taking (even if it shouldn’t have been), shows this is all about justifying big business and blaming minorities who really were never fit to have been made equal to begin with. Thus they’e completely “isolated” and “split” off all evil.
    They’re actually not really against the US federal government (and thus, its size and power never actually reduced, even when their candidates are in office); this is really resentment toward minorities gaining some amount of equality, supposedly at their expense, and not “deserving” it, while big business “deserves” whatever they can take, by any means. (And the “colorblind” can disguise it as criticism of government in the name of “freedom”).

  21. (Why) We Need to Treat Online Hate Much More Seriously
    What We Should Have Learned from the Christchurch Massacre

    Makes the point that dehumanization speech is not what’s intended to be covered under “free speech”, because it’s a form of “violence”.

  22. And here’s yet another one:

    So slavery is diminished, welfare is elevated to be the sole problem (backs aren’t even the highest on welfare use!), and so maybe he’d rather have the former. Do people really know all the stuff that was done in slavery? How families WERE broken up, the people psychologically broken, and a whole bunch of other horrors?

    But it’s some “social program” where people think “their” money is being “taken” from them and all of it give to “these people” that’s really worse than all of that. And just because of an IMAGE of families “staying together”, that ALONE proves that everything back then was better.

    No, a lot of things changed in those two centuries, and there was a mass rebellion across all of society against the whole pretense of morality and family (which was never “Father Knows Best”, even though it was made to look like it on the front), so that’s why unwed pregnancies went up, as a whole bunch of factors all boiled over in those generations. .
    It’s not a call to go back to the past; and we need to question where some of this rhetoric is coming from. Mainstream conservatives might be taking a “colorblind” approach (“race is not the problem; it’s ‘culture’ and ‘the family’ and white liberals’ fault”), but there are alt-right and others out there in the mix who still think the ultimate problem is genetic (like they would ask why only the blacks were so susceptible to this “liberal” “dependency” scheme), and their whole goal is to prove by “fact” that the slaveowners and segregationists were right all along, and they are skilled in using the language (and statistics) that appeals to the more moderate.

    But as we see, with Owens and others, people like this are likely doing it for the money. paid off by right wing organizations to blame their own people for everything wrong, and remove all responsibility from what the movement is trying to “conserve”.
    To get a sense of where this guy is coming from, look at this one:

    Years ago, it was hard to be a racist. You had to be fitted for and spend money on a white gown and don a pointy hat. You celebrated racism by getting some burlap, wrapping it around a cross, setting it ablaze and dancing around it carrying torches. Sometimes, as did Lester Maddox, you had to buy axe handles for yourself and your supporters to wield to forcibly turn away black customers from your restaurant. Or, as in the case of Theophilus “Bull” Connor, you had to learn to direct fire hoses and vicious police attack dogs against civil rights demonstrators.

    THAT’s all that “racism” is. memorize poems like “Two, four, six, eight, we don’t want to integrate!” and to hurl racial epithets. Of course, today, all you have to do is support neutral-sounding conservative policies like tax cuts, or Trumps antics (“go back” statements, the wall, etc), which is of course, ridiculous attributed to “when leftists have no other winning argument, they falsely accuse others of racism.” The same old conservative talking point, recited verbatim, with no thought. Real racism is only Bull Connor, and is completely gone.

  23. Owens is really on the hot seat now! Where white liberals who debate people like her are usually the ones who cower down making the conservative look “factual”, she’s jumped in with the wrong people now! Wish West, Elder and maybe even Sowell would be grilled like that, but they probably know better.

    Mentioned is the period right after reconstruction, when blacks had made some strides, even going as far as to have a black Louisiana governor. But it’s obviously not that very brief flash in the pan time conservatives are referring to as “great:

    Here’s the whole “Revolt Summit”:

  24. Quit concern trolling about black “fatherlessness”
    The right isn’t interested in the real reasons why black kids grow up without dads, so they can stop pretending to care

    View at

  25. The reac issue spills into the cornoavirus pandemic.

    Michigan politicians wear bulletproof vests as armed protesters storm Capitol to protest stay-at-home orders

    The whiteness of anti-lockdown protests
    How ignorance, privilege, and anti-black racism is driving white protesters to risk their lives.

    Kaepernick is UN-American for peaceably protesting but it’s okay to storm state capitol buildings pushing and shoving with fire-arms? “The Hypocrisy Of It All”

    The White Privilege to Terrorize

    I Think You May Be Wasting Freedom

    How Freedom Became Free-dumb in America
    Why the World is Horrified by the American Idiot

    About half a century ago, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin divided freedom into two categories — maybe you already know them. Negative freedom, or freedom from. And positive freedom, or freedom to. The theory then went — and this became the basis of generations of American thought — that only the freedom from was worth developing and cultivating.

    The freedom “to”, on the other hand, was vilified as something that only communists and socialists would want. Why? Because my “freedom to” — say to be educated, or to be healthy — requires your input, help, cooperation. But American thinking — which became obsessed with individualism — couldn’t admit or permit that, because then maybe you weren’t “taking responsibility for yourself” and all the rest of the jargon.

    All this dates back, of course, to Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, the Uberman. It’s not too hard to see why a society that was born in slavery, and continued into segregation, in which horrors like crippling and maiming people for the color of their skin were perfectly alright — why a society like that ends up prizing freedom from. America’s obsession with freedom from dates right back to the slave-owner’s desire for freedom from government intervention, law, common decency, any tiny shred of humanity — to have the power to exploit and abuse human beings on an unthinkable scale. There’s a straight line from Nietzsche’s “master morality” naturally dominating the “slave morality” to Berlin’s “freedom from” any restraint on power — and that straight line is the one American thinking, still backwards, mired in the logic of domination and exploitation, traced.

    Give Me Liberty and Give Me Death
    Why Trump’s Plan to Reopen the Economy is Going to Fail

  26. Are All White Americans Police Officers?
    The murder of Ahmad Arbery shows white America’s superiority complex is lethal

    My comment:

    The apt title is exactly what I thought during the Diallo case [wish this had been mentioned in the article!], when they actually blamed him for “not simply obeying the officers”. No thought that they were plain clothes, and suddenly confronted him in his doorway. So a black person is supposed to freeze and obey anytime any white person confronts him like that, because they might be police. Not even natural reflex counts.

    It reminds me of the little game kids play sometimes, of making a lurching gesture and saying “BOO”, and when the victim jumps up in reflex; “you flinched” [punch, punch] on the shoulder or wherever. The cops are playing a much more lethal version of this game. “Police; freeze!”, and then “you flinched” — POW POW!

    The Coronavirus Was an Emergency Until Trump Found Out Who Was Dying
    The pandemic has exposed the bitter terms of our racial contract, which deems certain lives of greater value than others.

    The implied terms of the racial contract are visible everywhere for those willing to see them. A 12-year-old with a toy gun is a dangerous threat who must be met with lethal force; armed militias drawing beads on federal agents are heroes of liberty. Struggling white farmers in Iowa taking billions in federal assistance are hardworking Americans down on their luck; struggling single parents in cities using food stamps are welfare queens. Black Americans struggling in the cocaine epidemic are a “bio-underclass” created by a pathological culture; white Americans struggling with opioid addiction are a national tragedy. Poor European immigrants who flocked to an America with virtually no immigration restrictions came “the right way”; poor Central American immigrants evading a baroque and unforgiving system are gang members and terrorists.

  27. “Spiritual problem; not a worldly problem”. That’s the deflection they have always used in the race issue. What does that even mean? Don’t they teach that ALL problems in the world stem from sin, and are thus ultimately “spiritual”? What it basically always meant was don’t fight it; it’s just ‘spiritual’; just wait for Heaven for justice and the right not to be shot or discriminated against. (And it’s all the ‘godless’ fault anyway; traditional Christian society NEVER shares any of the blame!) Meanwhile the issues THEY feel are of concern, such as the encroachment of the Left, criticism of capitalism, taxes and other programs seen as benefitting the disenfranchised, the lessening of domination over society by the Church, or a race or class; THESE are worth fighting for! We DO fight against flesh and blood, and must bring them down, so save OUR existence in this world!

    The original “spiritual” basis of racism was that Ham was “cursed” and Shem and Japheth “blessed” and to try to overturn this was to oppose God. Today’s conservatives have shied away from this, to where it never even existed, but that’s where it originally came from. (And the scripture it was torn from was completely misread; God was not even the one speaking there, nor shown as honoring those pronouncements!)

  28. Don’t Read Me George Floyd’s Rap Sheet
    A rebuttal to Candace Owens

  29. Racism is Not a Game for Black People
    Unraveling the race-card myth

    View at

    Skinfolk Ain’t Always Kinfolk
    How White supremacy is perpetuated by non-White groups

    View at
    Discisses the “hierarchy” of race!/

    Here’s someone who nails the fact that anti-“government” rhetoric is really about race

    Heather Cox Richardson

    January 16, 2021 (Saturday)

    Since right-wing insurrectionists stormed the Capitol on January 6 with the vague but violent idea of taking over the government, observers are paying renewed attention to the threat of right-wing violence in our midst.

    For all our focus on fighting socialism and communism, right-wing authoritarianism is actually quite an old threat in our country. The nation’s focus on fighting “socialism” began in 1871, but what its opponents stood against was not government control of the means of production—an idea that never took hold in America—but the popular public policies which cost tax dollars and thus made wealthier people pay for programs that would benefit everyone. Public benefits like highways and hospitals, opponents argued, amounted to a redistribution of wealth, and thus were a leftist assault on American freedom.

    In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that fight against “socialism” took the form of opposition to unionization and Black rights. In the 1920s, after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia had given shape to the American fear of socialism, making sure that system never came to America meant destroying the government regulation put in place during the Progressive Era and putting businessmen in charge of the government.

    When Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt established business regulation, a basic social safety net, and government-funded infrastructure in the 1930s to combat the Great Depression that had laid ordinary Americans low, one right-wing senator wrote to a colleague: “This is despotism, this is tyranny, this is the annihilation of liberty…. The ordinary American is thus reduced to the status of a robot. The president has not merely signed the death warrant of capitalism, but has ordained the mutilation of the Constitution, unless the friends of liberty, regardless of party, band themselves together to regain their lost freedom.”

    The roots of modern right-wing extremism lie in the post-World War II reaction to FDR’s New Deal and the Republican embrace of it under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Opponents of an active government insisted that it undermined American liberty by redistributing tax dollars from hardworking white men to those eager for a handout—usually Black men, in their telling. Modern government, they insisted, was bringing socialism to America. They set out to combat it, trying to slash the government back to the form it took in the 1920s.

    Their job got easier after 1987, when the Fairness Doctrine ended. That Federal Communications Commission policy had required public media channels to base their stories on fact and to present both sides of a question. When it was gone, talk radio took off, hosted by radio jocks like Rush Limbaugh who contrasted their ideal country with what they saw as the socialism around them: a world in which hardworking white men who took care of their wives and children were hemmed in by government that was taxing them to give benefits to lazy people of color and “Feminazis.” These “Liberals” were undermining the country and the family, aided and abetted by lawmakers building a big government that sucked tax dollars.

    In August 1992, the idea that hardworking white men trying to take care of their families were endangered by an intrusive government took shape at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Randy Weaver, a former factory worker who had moved his family to northern Idaho to escape what he saw as the corruption of American society, failed to show up for trial on a firearms charge. When federal marshals tried to arrest him, a firefight left Weaver’s fourteen-year-old son and a deputy marshal dead. In the aftermath of the shooting, federal and local officers laid an 11-day siege to the Weavers’ cabin, and a sniper wounded Weaver and killed his wife, Vicki.

    Right-wing activists and neo-Nazis from a nearby Aryan Nations compound swarmed to Ruby Ridge to protest the government’s attack on what they saw as a man protecting his family. Negotiators eventually brought Weaver out, but the standoff at Ruby Ridge convinced western men they had to arm themselves to fight off the government.

    In February of the next year, during the Democratic Bill Clinton administration, the same theme played out in Waco, Texas, when officers stormed the compound of a religious cult whose former members reported that their leader, David Koresh, was stockpiling weapons. A gun battle and a fire ended the 51-day siege on April 19, 1993. Seventy-six people died.

    While a Republican investigation cited “overwhelming evidence” that exonerated the government of wrongdoing, talk radio hosts nonetheless railed against the Democratic administration, especially Attorney General Janet Reno, for the events at Waco. What happened there fit neatly into what was by then the Republican narrative of an overreaching government that crushed individuals, and political figures harped on that idea.

    Rush Limbaugh stoked his listeners’ anger with reports of the “Waco invasion” and talked of the government’s “murder” of citizens, making much of the idea that a group of Christians had been killed by a female government official who was single and— as opponents made much of— unfeminine (reactionary rocker Ted Nugent featured an obscene caricature of her for years in his stage version of “Kiss My Glock”).

    Horrified by the government’s attempt to break into the cult’s compound, Alex Jones, who would go on to become an important conspiracy theorist and founder of InfoWars, dropped out of community college to start a talk show on which he warned that Reno had “murdered” the people at Waco and that the government was about to impose martial law. The modern militia movement took off.

    The combination of political rhetoric and violence radicalized a former Army gunner, Timothy McVeigh, who decided to bring the war home to the government. “Taxes are a joke,” he wrote to a newspaper in 1992. “More taxes are always the answer to government mismanagement…. Is a Civil War Imminent? Do we have to shed blood to reform the current system? I hope it doesn’t come to that. But it might.”

    On April 19, 1995, a date chosen to honor the Waco standoff, McVeigh set off a bomb at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The blast killed 168 people, including 19 children younger than six, and wounded more than 800. When the police captured McVeigh, he was wearing a T-shirt with a picture of Abraham Lincoln and the words “Sic Semper Tyrannis.” The same words John Wilkes Booth shouted after he assassinated Lincoln, they mean “thus always to tyrants,” and are the words attributed to Brutus after he and his supporters murdered Caesar.

    By 1995, right-wing terrorists envisioned themselves as protectors of American individualism in the face of a socialist government, but the reality was that their complaints were not about government activism. They were about who benefited from that activism.

    In 2014, Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy brought the contradictions in this individualist image to light when he fought the government over the impoundment of the cattle that he had been grazing on public land for more than 20 years. Bundy owed the government more than $1 million in grazing fees for running his cattle on public land, but he disparaged the “Negro” who lived in government housing and “didn’t have nothing to do.” Black people’s laziness led them to abort their children and send their young men to jail, he told a reporter, and he wondered: “are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life… or are they better off under government subsidy?”

    Convinced that he was a hardworking individualist, Bundy announced he did not recognize federal power over the land on which he grazed his cattle. The government impounded his animals in 2014, but officials backed down when Bundy and his supporters showed up armed. Republican Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) called Bundy and his supporters “patriots”; Democrat Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Majority Leader at the time, called them “domestic terrorists” and warned, “it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.”

    It wasn’t. Two years later, Bundy’s son Ammon was at the forefront of the right-wing takeover of Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, arguing that the federal government must turn over all public lands to the states to open them to private development. The terrorists called themselves “Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.”

    For the past four years, Trump and his enablers have tried to insist that unrest in the country is caused by “Antifa,” an unorganized group of anti-fascists who show up at rallies to confront right-wing protesters. But the Department of Homeland Security this summer identified “anarchist and anti-government extremists” as “the most significant threat… against law enforcement.” According to DHS, they are motivated by “their belief that their liberties are being taken away by the perceived unconstitutional or otherwise illegitimate actions of government officials or law enforcement.” Those anti-government protesters are now joined quite naturally by white supremacists, as well as other affiliated groups.

    Right-wing terrorism in American has very deep roots, and those roots have grown since the 1990s as Republican rhetorical attacks on the federal government have fed them. The January 6 assault on the Capitol is not an aberration. It has been coming for a very long time.

    The Absurdity of Racists Co-opting MLK’s Legacy
    Stop using King’s words to support oppressive systems
    MAGA Nation is Fighting a Race War
    Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-QAnon/CrossFit) is lying about white folks being denied COVID treatment. The reason is terrifying.


    A lot going on these days.
    First, responses to an article by an Asian claiming blacks are denying their struggles rather than beeing allies and claiming to be the only marginalized group. (Subtitle: “If you think you deserve equality more than others, then you are merely enforcing inequality.”)
    So one person (who doesn’t even have an Asian name, so I’m not sure if they are in that group or not) injects:

    «Asians have been a shining example of how groups without the resources of the majority can lift themselves up. It seems the focus on education and hard work are the two main qualities that have driven the impressive success of the Asian community in the US.»

    I point out:
    That type of thinking is what’s called the “model minority”, and it’s a talking point often used, including by white supremacists, to keep the races divided. “Well look, you over here are better than those over there”. And should be pointed out that some “alt-right” types will even go as far as to “admit” Asians are “superior” to even whites! But of course, this is just a rhetorical ploy, to put themselves out there as totally “objective” and going by “fact”, even if not coming out as #1. (Not right away, that is!) The common thread will be the supposed “hard work” of the two groups, and the isolation of the [certain] other groups as “lazy”. But eventually, it will turn around with the dominant group as really superior after all.

    So people complain blacks haven’t accepted Asians as allies, this is part of the reason why. A “hierarchy” of race has been established (in public opinion, that is), with blacks as the across the board lowest (and you-know-who ultimately highest), and Asians as perhaps the top “colored” group, and stuff like “work ethic” used to support this. The fact that a group has to be presented as “model” supports this hierarchy, as they are “proving themselves” compared to another group that is the standard bearer that is “already there”, and other groups apparently floundering in comparison!

    Instead, we should be aware of these tricks (and stereotypes), and realize that each group has a different experience in this country, and not compare or belittle each other and deny their “hard work” with whatever resources they were able to have.

    «Well, I’d like to think I’m not a white supremist. However, I don’t quite follow the logic behind not recognizing the achievements of a minority in America that has thrived. The same with Indians who have climbed the highest ladders of companies especially in the tech industry (think Google, Microsoft, etc.).
    Versus seeing this as belittling others, why don’t we celebrate and recognize successes?»

    Because it’s an article insinuating that blacks “think [they] deserve equality more than others”. I’m not denying that some may dismiss the suffering of other groups; people tend to think mostly of their own group. But that broad statement becomes a straw man, and the kneejerk reaction to it has been the “model minority“ premise; that OTHER minority groups were nevertheless able to pull themselves up (and you’ve just added yet another one to the mix), with the key factor always being “hard work”; this in CONTRAST to this first group that has the gall to say how rough they’ve had it, and at the same time, has been conveniently stereotyped as “lazy” and using “victim rhetoric“ to gain “free handouts” from others. (The goal of this rhetoric, to justify this system originally founded on superiority to all “minority” groups and keep them divided. The ultimate agenda: It was never really that bad here, it’s just this one group demanding too much, and we should go back to the ‘values’ of our ‘great’ past!)

    So I’m not calling you a white supremacist; but I’m cautioning as to where this line of thinking is often heading, and it often looks so much like “objective fact“ and even “colorblind” antiracism/egalitarianism that anyone can be swayed into it; I used to go along with parts of it, until I saw what the underlying premise was!
    So the best thing to do is not be leveling groups’ “achievements” against each other (i.e. in this particular context), for that’s not ‘celebrating’, it’s creating more judgment, in the end.

    «So, we shouldn’t recognize success of me group out of fear of offending another group?»

    I didn’t say anything about “offending”; I said in this context (which actually, is about one group criticizing another), it often becomes something negative. (You didn’t even say something like “contributions” of your group, but rather “success” of the group, which sounds like it’s subtly setting up some sort of ranking order. All groups have people in them who have succeeded, and also people who have not succeeded. To extend this to “the group” is the very “identity” politics that “wokeness” critics condemn!).

    «Guess what…the world is rank ordered in many ways. This fear of hurting others because we recognize someone else outperformed them is silly and naive. This falls in the participation trophy category.
    Life is hard. We should recognize when someone or some group has succeeded or accomplished well without having to worry about every other person that’s not being recognized in a comment. Otherwise, every conversation would be an Oscar speech where they try to remember everyone that may have had one tidbit of contribution to the effort.»

    Again, it’s not merely a “fear of hurting others” (an easy straw man argument), nor about “recognizing every other person”; as this line of reasoning is the same used by conquerors. “We’ve “outperformed/accomplished more than you, so now, we’re your rightful rulers”. These days, it’s often a side tactic to establish “rank order” for the purpose of singling out a group as supposedly “under”-performing, in order to dismiss their complaints. Otherwise; what is the point of it? Some sort of trivia? (“oh, this group is better than that group, who’s better than this other group; how interesting”) No, there’s a much bigger practical purpose for it!
    Now “life may be hard” and “rank” may develop, and all that, but we don’t want to use that to excuse any sort of power-abuse people might be able to engage in. For that’s basically “might makes right”, which we condemned when the Soviets and others did it! Conservatives have plenty of complaints of others gaining power and “taking” things from them (in fact, they have been the loudest with this for decades, so who’s acting the most “hurt” or offended”? [They don’t then simply chuck it up to life being “hard!]), so people should remember that when pushing for “rank”.

    «Wow…you went from A to F on that logic leap. Unfortunately, no one said “we are now your rightful rulers”.
    Those that put in the work, succeed in education, grind, and cast off excuses for their path being challenged, are worthy of our recognition.
    Now, I’m sure you are going to say that somehow that statement is denigrating other races. Which obviously, it does not. It focuses on what has made certain minorities successful. If you’ve ever spent much time in the Asian community, you know that regardless of income, they push their kids extremely hard to succeed in school. They study with them before work and school, they bring them home and continue to study with them or if work gets in the way, they expect them to go to the library and study. That’s how the term tiger mom or parents was coined.
    This has nothing to do with other minorities but a study on why this particular minority has thrived.»

    No one here said “we’re your rightful rulers”. But my original point was that this “model minority” premise implies it (and is a deflection by racial supremacists to keep the “minorities” divided, and recall, lack of “minority allyship” is one of the complaints of the original article). You keep going back to/fixating on “denigrating/offending/hurting, etc. other races”, but racism starts out as more about exalting one’s own than directly putting down others. That’s the whole trick.

    So you have a race that historically been the standard-bearer (many claiming “superior”, and also, in the West, called “the majority”). So now, you have these other groups, in contrast called “minorities”, and long denigrated as inferior.
    Oh, but look, there’s this “good one” [i.e. group; the “model”] over here, and perhaps another one over there, who has achieved more! But [note!] only “certain” ones! That proves [maintains] not only that the first group is higher than the second one (so whichever discrimination against them that still occurs is still justified!), but also, whichever others remain in a depressed state are just lazy and shouldn’t complain about anything. All that stuff about “hard work” and “no excuses” is often leveled at blacks (it’s called a “dog whistle”, as it conveys the whole stereotype without naming the race), even though it’s a lot of overgeneralized hogwash, as most do work hard (harder than many others, in fact), etc. and people are looking at stereotypes hyped up in US pop culture.

    That’s what should be pointed out regarding “achievements” of minorities (that all have worked hard to survive in this system as best as they can); not “well this group or that group over there is doing better”.

    You say a study on why Asians thrived, and nothing to do with other minorities? The article is on another minority, blacks, supposedly dismissing the plights and need of equality of Asians. You’re the one who brought “achievements” into it, and I just cautioned that used in THIS CONTEXT, it becomes divisive. (Forget the personal “offense” that might be felt by one group; I’m looking at those supposedly on the top of the so-called “ranking order” who stand to benefit from it).

    So the “model minority” myth is NOT really recognizing the worth of the group. It’s a clever tactic to put them in their place in a [still] lower position, despite their “successes”! It’s not just “denigrating” one other group, as you keep putting it, but rather a way of ultimately denigrating them all! So you’re not doing any group a favor with this. If you happen to be Asian, is that what you want? Just to be a “better minority” than others (in the grand pecking order, and yet still under another group)?
    You yourself may not have intended to convey what I’m pointing out, but there are others involved in the overall debate you cannot answer for who are using these very talking points, as I’ve seen it so many times in US political debate, so it needs to be called out wherever it is seen.

    «If we don’t examine the differences to determine a possible solution, how do we make progress?

    In life, modeling behavior has been proven extremely effective. Rather than say “modeling” is racist, we should appreciate and apply it’s power.

    Each of us has to be willing to look in the mirror and accept what we haven’t done so we’ll and how to create a plan to address those weaknesses.»

    Last point true, but I think too often, it ends up the other way around; touting one’s own group’s goodness, in contrast to (sometimes directly) others’ deficiencies (which is so easy to do, and we all naturally fall into). That’s the danger I was pointing out. What I’m seeing is not really looking in the mirror; it’s looking more at someone else, like “We’ve done all this good, now you over there need to be like us, or just be quiet and accept whatever happens”.
    And “modeling behavior” when extended to groups becomes generalization and stereotype, because all groups consist of individuals, who all make different choices from one another. These get glossed over and just create more problems than solutions. You can’t talk other groups into improving themselves; they have to come to that point themselves.

    «Those are good points. Hopefully, we have not gotten so sensitized that we can’t discuss the obvious path individuals can take to be successful. That’s my concern. We’ve moved so far in the direction of over sensitivity, that we can’t have an honest discussion about solutions to these issues.

    While recognizing there are systemic issues working against certain groups, we should also recognize there’s proven ways to fight through those obstacles.

    We should give our citizens the impression they’ll never succeed because so much is stacked against them. At that point, we’ve created a huge population of victims. We should work to address those systemic issues while also recognizing many have overcome to thrive. We shouldn’t even have to go outside of the race to do that. There are plenty of highly successful individuals in all minorities that have mostly succeeded due to education and grit.»

    Here I bowed out, as we both acknowledged some of each other’s points as true, and I answered the most important things (the hierarchy, in which everyone knows blacks are to be placed at the bottom of it, even though they don’t say it directly), and it no longer made sense to keep going around and around on the obvious (but increasingly more subtle) dog whistling around “victims” and “sensitivity”. Of course, it is believed that blacks are the ones making themselves victims (presumedly, bogusly), while other groups (whether Asians, or even whites themselves) are the real victims, of what they call “reverse” racism, where their practical superiority is being denied, if not “punished”!

    Whoopi Goldberg controversy:

    View at

    “Whoopi Goldberg was suspended from The View for saying the Holocaust was ‘not about race … it’s about man’s inhumanity to other man.’ The second part of her statement should have clarified the first, but she is being thoroughly criticized by the punditocracy for the sin of— Well, no one has said exactly what her sin is. It seems to be that she does not agree with Hitler that Jews are a race.”

    “I share her belief that a crime against one of us is a crime against all of us, and I agree with her that ethnicity is not the same as race”

    “Once, to say Jews were a race was anti-Semitic, now to say they’re not a race is anti-Semitic. It’s crazy how history plays with us.” — Shlomo Sand

    Because race is a social construct, I’m not sure it makes much sense to dogmatically force Black people to think of race in a similar way to other groups of people’s concept of race. Our experiences are different, and it is not disrespectful for a Black woman like Whoopi to share her views, primarily when the actual Nuremberg race laws identify familial religious affiliation rather than physical appearance as the formal method for characterization.

    I would not, as Whoopi did, consider anti-semitism a matter of simple human cruelty. Hitler and the Nazis participated in ethnic cleansing. The political hatred was targeted because of their identity as Jewish people. Likewise, white Supremacists often target synagogues because Jewish people are most easily recognized by their faith. Black people have a different experience in America and are discriminated against on sight.

    While it’s easy to jump on the bandwagon and call Whoopi ignorant, the truth is that the concept of race is not cut and dry. It depends on society.

    The backlash on Whoopi’s comments shows a lack of nuance and an obscene insensitivity towards the way Black people experience race in America. Whoopi may have been wrong about Jewish people not being a race, but she wasn’t wrong that Black people and Jewish people experience race differently. Ignoring that difference attempts to separate race from color and tries to force us all to view race in the same way, despite our differences.

    “Nazi definitions should not be dictating Jewish self-image.
    Whoopi Goldberg’s flippant statement that the Holocaust was white people fighting white people was certainly problematic. But her insistence that Jews are not a race, while lacking nuance, is a view that many Jews hold, including this author.
    In my view, calling Jews a single, discrete race is problematic on several levels. First, it erases the enormous diversity of world Jewry. In the United States, a strong majority of Jews are white, and as a result, many non-Jews think of Jews as white in general. Yet, even in the United States, Jews come from a wide range of ancestry. ”

    Makes the same points. My comment:
    The two categories (race, inhumanity to man) are being treated as mutually exclusive, but both are true, not one or the other. Denying the racial half was inaccurate, but the most important thing was the inhumanity. That’s what made it wrong and evil to begin with.

    Also great that Tim addressed the ambiguity of whether Jews are considered white. Growing up, they were, and the Census officially considers them “Caucasian” (Along with all Mediterranean/mideastern). It seems to be only the white supremacists who reject them as white (obviously what’s called “splitting”, along with “isolating”). So I think Whoopi should have been given some more grace there.

    The slavery issue

    “But My Family Had Nothing To Do With Slavery”
    America needs to own up to its racial sins

    The problem here is one of identity. We are all at first, individuals, who make separate choices from one another. But we are also in groups (including “races” and nations”), that we identify with, yet cannot directly answer for the choices/actions of everyone else in the group. Yet we still get defensive about the evils of the group, yet want to share in the credit of the good of the group. That’s where the problem is arising.

    Many people in America want to share in the glories of our history, the “values” and all the good we have done, starting with the “freedom and liberty” of breaking away from the tyranny of the English monarchy and setting up a nation that in theory was a refuge for anyone seeking freedom. But the same people don’t want to be tagged with the evils of slavery and the more than century of racism after that. So then, they “split” themselves from that part of history, and insist on “individual” responsibility.

    Yet once that is glossed over, they go right back to extolling all the good of the past nation as if the evil never existed or is totally irrelevant, and then turn it around and begin telling the disenfranchised today, to be thankful for the good, and that any problems they still have are purely their own doing.

    This is having things both ways; having one’s cake and having eaten it too. They own the good only, and split off the bad. And they are personally invested in this, and this is what makes it so personal, and they really can’t escape what they are trying to dissociate themselves from.

  32. Heres one that nails an issue that SO needs to be addressed. Especially when, as we see here, there are other blacks around the world who have bought into this, along with nearly everyone else!

    “Are Black Americans Degenerates?” Is The Type of Question We Shouldn’t Ignore
    This type of rhetoric is spreading like wildfire.

  33. The American Version of Slavery Was the Worst in Human History
    Every US citizen has to accept that there is no “divine decree” that any race was designated for uncompensated labor

    «The reason that American slavery is the worst form of slavery is because it sought to justify the concept of slavery by combining it with race.

    America came to believe that slavery was the just condition for a certain race of people. Abolishing the institution of slavery did not abolish this belief. In fact, this belief has continued to persist and evolve during the last 150 years. When people say, “poor people are lazy,” they’re repeating a phrase that is the modern descendant from the false belief that some races are divinely designated for a life of servitude.»

  34. It’s Only Called “Socialism” if the Program Helps Non-White People
    Racist attitudes have been so normalized in the US that good people don’t even notice them

    View at

    Perhaps this has been clear to some of you for a long time…but here it is: politicians only refer to a program as “socialism” if that program benefits non-white people.

    To put it differently: the way the word “socialism” is deployed is blatantly racist.

    Just once, I’d like to see a politician during a national debate say, “You say you’re against ‘socialism,’ but you have no problem with taxpayer-funded bailouts for massive corporations. You have no problem with trillion-dollar tax breaks for the rich. You have no problem with PPP loan forgiveness. You have no problem funneling government money to private schools. We live in a welfare state for the ultra-rich and you seem to be totally fine with that, but if a poor kid is offered a government-sponsored cereal bar, you flip out.”

    Rich people take care of each other. The rest of us are left scurrying for the crumbs they leave behind.

    Politicians pretend they have an objection to government-funded programs. But that’s not the case at all. Politicians provide limitless funding if they approve of a program. The issue isn’t government expenditure, the issue is who benefits.

    The United States of America is designed, so that white Americans thrive and non-white Americans struggle. Part of this system is maintained by labeling any program that might help non-white people as “socialism.”

    For some reason, nobody talks about how Biden reduced the deficit by more than any other president in American history. This happened even with giving huge amounts of money to the general public.

    Republicans point to the checks as an easily identifiable example as if to say that checks to working-class people drive the deficit into the stratosphere.

    What actually happens is that when Republicans get into office, the deficit does go into the stratosphere, and all our social benefit programs are cut. So, where does the money go?

    The answer is that rich people get it!

    Why can’t the citizens of our country understand that when you give money to rich people, it drives inflation?

    Rich people don’t spend their money. Get it? They just sit on it, but we still need currency in order to have a functioning economy.

    We can see this in the denial of the “Southern Strategy”, where they claim the Democrats were always the evil “socialists” as well as racists, and the Republicans the good guys looking out for everyone’s (the “nation’s”) best interests. They will claim “the Democrats were behind slavery and Jim Crow, and then they decided to ‘keep you on the plantation in a new way’ by making you ‘dependent’ on them through ‘handouts’, to buy your votes”. (Which is just rehashing more racist stereotype!)
    If I understand correctly, the Democrats were always the bigger spenders, and the Republicans more austere. But the social “conservatives” (holding onto the “values of the past” like today’s Republicans), were the white Southern Democrats, and they were the big recipients of that party’s “spending”.

    It was when the party started advocating equality, and offering to use its “spending” to benefit minorities more (as well as rising to the lead of Civil Rights), that the old conservatives felt betrayed and left the party, in the “strategy” egged on by Nixon and others, and then found the newly acquired “austerity” language of the Republican party (now completely merged with the ongoing Cold War battle against “socialism”) to be a great cloak to hide their racist sentiments behind “economic” concerns. This is what was highlighted in the now infamous speeech by Lee Atwater!

    Candace Owens Lies About Colonialism and The British Empire
    Candace is still a lying liar who lies

    View at

    Goes after the whole “non-whites enslaved people too” and “Africa benefitted from the Europeans” reactions.

  35. Let’s Discuss the Link Between White Supremacy and White Christianity
    Racism is a parasite that needs a host to survive

    Excellently goes after the main defense mechanisms used in the issue:

    “I’m defending law enforcement, that has nothing to do with race. Why are you attacking me? Why can’t you show respect for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect you? Why do you hate them!”

    «They might say, “If more black people are arrested than white people, that tells me black people are committing more crimes.”

    It’s intellectually lazy to arrive at that conclusion. It disregards the existence of wrongful convictions, wrongful arrests, and socioeconomic disparities among other things.»

    By invoking religion in this way, Stephens frames white supremacy as “the will of God.” This allows him to tap into the inherent reluctance of the opponents of evil to directly confront personal religious beliefs.

    But this is a twofold deception. It also creates a blueprint that allows white supremacists to interpret any effort of intellectual inquiry meant to oppose racism as an “attack” on their fundamental right to personal religion.

    The shielding American white supremacists have gained by their manipulation of religion has enabled them to blatantly preach their doctrine of racism and denounce, sometimes with violence, anyone who offers the suggestion that their political positions might inflict social harm.

    To put it differently, instead of recognizing that people are objecting to racism, religious groups insist their faith is “under attack.” This is a deceitful argument designed to put decent people on the defensive.

    They say, “Why do you have to always make it about race?” When the truth is they are the ones making it about race. These inversions are ubiquitous, dishonest, and malicious.

  36. How Anti-Woke Became a Cowardly Slogan For a Racist Crusade
    We know what anti-woke really means

    « Black Americans have been using the term “woke” since the 1940s to describe a state of awareness toward racist policies and worldviews that negatively impact the Black community. However, many White people now use the term as a derogative slur, a cowardly way of spilling the beans while denying any beans were spilled.»

    «America was founded by White, landowning men, some of whom enslaved African people and others who were complicit in the chattel slavery system, whereas “woke” represents a push against the deadening status quo and the inclusion of Black voices. So, yes, “woke” does stand for the antithesis of America’s founding, but that’s a misleading premise.

    Amending the constitution to include voting rights for women and Black people, for instance, represented a shift away from the founding fathers’ intentions, many of whom only foresaw White men as full citizens. However, it seems pretty absurd to limit America’s potential to the worldview of White men in the 1700s, but that’s what the anti-woke movement’s all about, a misguided, lofty attachment to traditionalism. “To remain faithful to the statutory text, courts must consider why White people serve as a statutory benchmark in the first place — a task that forces a reckoning with America’s long history of white supremacy.“»

    «Positioning oneself as anti-woke is a cowardly way of opposing policies that promote inclusivity. Instead of saying, “we don’t want books written by Black authors,” they can say, “we don’t want woke books,” for instance.»

    «Yes, racism stings, but someone adhering to a woke ideology is not about “facts over feelings,” the facts actually support the feeling many Black Americans have that they’ve never received equal treatment under the law or within the private sector.»

    The article this draws from:
    We asked conservatives at CPAC what ‘woke’ means. Their replies were revealing
    Many conservative struggle to define the word that has become a right-wing boogeyman

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Humanity’s biggest Pitfall: “Merit” | "ERIPEDIA"

Leave a Reply

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

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

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: