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, but 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. 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 telling 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. 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 hid 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’ aren’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 fight to protect it. 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.

    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.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: