0 comment Friday, November 21, 2014 | admin
The word ''racist'' is used a lot. A great deal. Considering that the word does not even appear in my 1936 Webster's Dictionary, that word seems to be indispensable to modern life.
What does it mean? Why did it apparently need to be invented or coined? Some credit (or blame) Leon Trotsky for the word's invention, some blame others on the left. I am not sure who first used the word, but the main thing is, what does it mean now?
If I asked several random people what it meant, I would probably get varying answers; most people would probably mention something about 'hate' since that is another seemingly indispensable word in the 21st century English vocabulary. However I think that not only would there be varying definitions among individuals, there would be different definitions according to race and ancestry. I would wager that most blacks would define the word much more broadly and inclusively than Whites, and the same would probably be true of minorities generally.
However if these following examples indicate anything, it appears the word 'racism' is becoming more and more broadly and subjectively defined. For instance, 'future time orientation' is racist, according to Seattle School Dist.
Watermelon is a symbol of racism
Mr. Potato Head is racist
"Lord of the Rings" is racist
The word ''niggardly'' is racist.
Golliwogs are racist.
Criticizing Islam is racist. Of course.
Criticizing illegal immigration is racist, as we all know, and criticizing legal immigration is even worse.
And it is true that anything which is associated exclusively, or predominantly, with White people is 'racist.'
I remember the time when the word was not in the vocabulary of most people. During the early days of the Civil Rights era, the word that was bandied about to describe those who opposed forcible integration was ''prejudiced'' or ''bigoted.''
We can split hairs on the word ''prejudice''; it means ''an opinion about someone or something that is not based on reason or experience.'' That is the standard, traditional definition, and as such, it does not include the 'realist' opinions held by older generations of Americans. Their realism was based on history, observation, real life experience, and statistics. It was not, as some would have it, based on fanciful pre-conceived notions or irrational ''hate''.
Maybe the fact that the word 'prejudice' is not truly fitting in this context led to the popularizing of the neologism, 'racism.'
It came to be established, via the constant use of this word, that a negative assessment of someone of another race was a particular and unique kind of sin or, more properly, thoughtcrime. Somehow it was deemed more immoral or 'hateful' to criticize those of another race, and even more so if one chose to associate with those of one's own group.
At first, when the word 'racism' was used, it was used to describe the most egregious behavior towards those of other races, such as harassing, threatening, or attacking them without provocation, ''just because of their skin color''. Over time, the word became more and more loosely and liberally used, so that today it is absurdly applied to all kinds of ideas or products or words or attitudes. And worst of all, it is arbitrarily and subjectively defined and applied. Since none of us can anticipate every instance of behavior or speech that will be labeled ''racist'', we cannot be sure when or if we will be ambushed with that word, and of course the accusation is always assumed to be true, once having been made. Why? Because it is a given that 'Whites are racist' and that minorities don't lie about such things -- to even hint that they are capable of it is to be ''racist.'' So if you protest or deny it, you are making your accuser a liar -- and that's racist. You cannot win. Heads he wins, tails you lose.
The news media, the entertainment media, textbooks, web pages, all of them represent the acceptable, politically correct, anti-White perspective. There are a few isolated exceptions, but the fact that most of the information and discussion in our society excludes all but the PC point of view makes it certain that people begin to buy into it. This is most true of young people, because they have not known any world other than the racially-charged, obsessively anti-White world of today. Their perceptions of the past have been manipulated by Hollywood movies, TV programming, popular books, music, schools -- everything, in other words.
Most Americans would probably agree with the statement that America had a ''racist past.'' But what exactly do they understand by that phrase? Do they mean the Hollywood version of American history, things like Harper Lee's 'To Kill A Mockingbird', or Mississippi Burning, or any number of other movies with a PC message? Or do they simply think it means that yes, the races were separated in the past, especiallly in the South? Quite likely they think of slavery, and are convinced that slavery was 'an abomination', as someone on AmRen (a 'race realist') said recently. Those kinds of opinions are not uncommon even there. I think it's the old White guilt thing, or perhaps the desire to 'be fair' and concede something to the other side in the name of conciliation.
In any case, whether slavery was 'an abomination' or not, it is in the past. No White American of today is guilty of keeping slaves, and no black or other American of today has been a slave.
I see no reason to yield any ground to the other side, whether to minority partisans who want to accuse and condemn, or to White 'progressives' (read: renegades) who side with everyone but their own people. It makes us look weak; it is not appreciated by the other side. They are not impressed by our attempt at magnanimity or conciliation or self-examination. They simply see it as weakness or as an admission of guilt on our part. And having found that inclination in us, they exploit it to the hilt.
So I would exhort everybody to stop the self-condemnation or accepting guilt. Some will say: ''I don't feel personal guilt, but I know our ancestors did some pretty bad things." Really? Why not give the benefit of the doubt to your forebears? None of us would probably exist today if our forebears had been as PC as many of us are. How can we judge or condemn them? They had a hard row to hoe; they faced many hard choices. Our colonist and pioneer forebears grew up in a very different time in which today's obsessions and taboos were unknown. Universalistic, sentimentalist notions about human nature did not work in their hard-scrabble world. Their world was blessedly free of the ideas of Marx, Rousseau, Freud, and other such 'founding fathers' of today's insanity.
Let's give them some credit. I believe in honoring my fathers and mothers. I refuse to cast blame on them as a way of appeasing anybody.
The next time somebody uses the word ''racist'', I think it might be a good exercise, or a useful tactic perhaps, to challenge that word, asking for a precise definition. The word ''racist'' in the beginning was applied to people who acted out against minorities, who committed illegal acts: harassment, assault, threats of harm, murder. Those things are crimes already and should be prosecuted as such. Whoever does those things is already reprehensible; we don't need a special label to describe their criminal acts. In fact, many on the right deplore the idea of ''hate crimes'', under which laws people are punished more severely for their intentions or thoughts or attitudes toward certain groups. Punish wrongdoers for their acts, as the law prescribes, but not for their thoughts, feelings, or attitudes, or opinions. The idea of 'racism' is the prototype of the so-called 'hate crime' idea.
The 'race card' is mean to single out and punish certain people who hold politically incorrect ideas about certain groups of people. It is also meant to intimidate the White public at large, to demonstrate to them the dangers implicit in speaking too honestly. It's a weapon that is being used to corral us and keep us in our place. We learn to censor or to guard what we say, or to keep our mouths shut lest we incur the consequences of being a heretic on the subject of race.
I think the word 'racist' should be used to describe only people whose behavior or acts physically harm, or threaten harm to another. However, we already have laws against such behavior.
As far as using certain taboo words or displaying certain symbols, those things should not be punishable by law. In this country we have movements to ban the Confederate Battle Flag as a ''symbol of hate''. In the UK, Moslems have complained about the Union Jack and the St. George's flag, as well as the cross in general. This kind of totalitarianism had its inception in the 'race card' mentality; if one is of a protected group, one can single-handedly censor someone else, or silence them, or prohibit them from displaying certain symbols.
As for the word ''hate'' which is another favorite word in the leftist lexicon, it too is overused and abused. Every time someone criticizes or expresses disapproval of certain protected groups, the word ''hate'' is immediately called into action. I think it should fall under ''Godwin's Law"; the first person to call ''hater'' is automatically the loser in the debate. It is, like ''racism'', just used to silence and intimidate and label someone whose ideas threaten the left or their minority clients.
The word 'prejudice' is one that applies to our enemies more than to our side; likewise the term 'bigot' which simply describes a closed-minded, rigid, narrow person. Minorities, feminists, gays, are all groups who often hold bigoted opinions about straight, White Americans, most especially Christians and Southrons. Yet the professional victims cannot see these qualities in themselves, so full of their own self-righteousness are they.
I keep hearing that the 'race card is maxed out', and indeed it is; it has been for a long time, but many people are just now noticing it. The left is morally bankrupt but somehow just by inertia they seem to keep going. At some point we have to stop running, we have to stop conceding to them. We have to defend our forefathers, our heritage, and ourselves against their constant nagging, badgering, and accusing. When will we finally do that?
What does it mean? Why did it apparently need to be invented or coined? Some credit (or blame) Leon Trotsky for the word's invention, some blame others on the left. I am not sure who first used the word, but the main thing is, what does it mean now?
If I asked several random people what it meant, I would probably get varying answers; most people would probably mention something about 'hate' since that is another seemingly indispensable word in the 21st century English vocabulary. However I think that not only would there be varying definitions among individuals, there would be different definitions according to race and ancestry. I would wager that most blacks would define the word much more broadly and inclusively than Whites, and the same would probably be true of minorities generally.
However if these following examples indicate anything, it appears the word 'racism' is becoming more and more broadly and subjectively defined. For instance, 'future time orientation' is racist, according to Seattle School Dist.
Watermelon is a symbol of racism
Mr. Potato Head is racist
"Lord of the Rings" is racist
The word ''niggardly'' is racist.
Golliwogs are racist.
Criticizing Islam is racist. Of course.
Criticizing illegal immigration is racist, as we all know, and criticizing legal immigration is even worse.
And it is true that anything which is associated exclusively, or predominantly, with White people is 'racist.'
I remember the time when the word was not in the vocabulary of most people. During the early days of the Civil Rights era, the word that was bandied about to describe those who opposed forcible integration was ''prejudiced'' or ''bigoted.''
We can split hairs on the word ''prejudice''; it means ''an opinion about someone or something that is not based on reason or experience.'' That is the standard, traditional definition, and as such, it does not include the 'realist' opinions held by older generations of Americans. Their realism was based on history, observation, real life experience, and statistics. It was not, as some would have it, based on fanciful pre-conceived notions or irrational ''hate''.
Maybe the fact that the word 'prejudice' is not truly fitting in this context led to the popularizing of the neologism, 'racism.'
It came to be established, via the constant use of this word, that a negative assessment of someone of another race was a particular and unique kind of sin or, more properly, thoughtcrime. Somehow it was deemed more immoral or 'hateful' to criticize those of another race, and even more so if one chose to associate with those of one's own group.
At first, when the word 'racism' was used, it was used to describe the most egregious behavior towards those of other races, such as harassing, threatening, or attacking them without provocation, ''just because of their skin color''. Over time, the word became more and more loosely and liberally used, so that today it is absurdly applied to all kinds of ideas or products or words or attitudes. And worst of all, it is arbitrarily and subjectively defined and applied. Since none of us can anticipate every instance of behavior or speech that will be labeled ''racist'', we cannot be sure when or if we will be ambushed with that word, and of course the accusation is always assumed to be true, once having been made. Why? Because it is a given that 'Whites are racist' and that minorities don't lie about such things -- to even hint that they are capable of it is to be ''racist.'' So if you protest or deny it, you are making your accuser a liar -- and that's racist. You cannot win. Heads he wins, tails you lose.
The news media, the entertainment media, textbooks, web pages, all of them represent the acceptable, politically correct, anti-White perspective. There are a few isolated exceptions, but the fact that most of the information and discussion in our society excludes all but the PC point of view makes it certain that people begin to buy into it. This is most true of young people, because they have not known any world other than the racially-charged, obsessively anti-White world of today. Their perceptions of the past have been manipulated by Hollywood movies, TV programming, popular books, music, schools -- everything, in other words.
Most Americans would probably agree with the statement that America had a ''racist past.'' But what exactly do they understand by that phrase? Do they mean the Hollywood version of American history, things like Harper Lee's 'To Kill A Mockingbird', or Mississippi Burning, or any number of other movies with a PC message? Or do they simply think it means that yes, the races were separated in the past, especiallly in the South? Quite likely they think of slavery, and are convinced that slavery was 'an abomination', as someone on AmRen (a 'race realist') said recently. Those kinds of opinions are not uncommon even there. I think it's the old White guilt thing, or perhaps the desire to 'be fair' and concede something to the other side in the name of conciliation.
In any case, whether slavery was 'an abomination' or not, it is in the past. No White American of today is guilty of keeping slaves, and no black or other American of today has been a slave.
I see no reason to yield any ground to the other side, whether to minority partisans who want to accuse and condemn, or to White 'progressives' (read: renegades) who side with everyone but their own people. It makes us look weak; it is not appreciated by the other side. They are not impressed by our attempt at magnanimity or conciliation or self-examination. They simply see it as weakness or as an admission of guilt on our part. And having found that inclination in us, they exploit it to the hilt.
So I would exhort everybody to stop the self-condemnation or accepting guilt. Some will say: ''I don't feel personal guilt, but I know our ancestors did some pretty bad things." Really? Why not give the benefit of the doubt to your forebears? None of us would probably exist today if our forebears had been as PC as many of us are. How can we judge or condemn them? They had a hard row to hoe; they faced many hard choices. Our colonist and pioneer forebears grew up in a very different time in which today's obsessions and taboos were unknown. Universalistic, sentimentalist notions about human nature did not work in their hard-scrabble world. Their world was blessedly free of the ideas of Marx, Rousseau, Freud, and other such 'founding fathers' of today's insanity.
Let's give them some credit. I believe in honoring my fathers and mothers. I refuse to cast blame on them as a way of appeasing anybody.
The next time somebody uses the word ''racist'', I think it might be a good exercise, or a useful tactic perhaps, to challenge that word, asking for a precise definition. The word ''racist'' in the beginning was applied to people who acted out against minorities, who committed illegal acts: harassment, assault, threats of harm, murder. Those things are crimes already and should be prosecuted as such. Whoever does those things is already reprehensible; we don't need a special label to describe their criminal acts. In fact, many on the right deplore the idea of ''hate crimes'', under which laws people are punished more severely for their intentions or thoughts or attitudes toward certain groups. Punish wrongdoers for their acts, as the law prescribes, but not for their thoughts, feelings, or attitudes, or opinions. The idea of 'racism' is the prototype of the so-called 'hate crime' idea.
The 'race card' is mean to single out and punish certain people who hold politically incorrect ideas about certain groups of people. It is also meant to intimidate the White public at large, to demonstrate to them the dangers implicit in speaking too honestly. It's a weapon that is being used to corral us and keep us in our place. We learn to censor or to guard what we say, or to keep our mouths shut lest we incur the consequences of being a heretic on the subject of race.
I think the word 'racist' should be used to describe only people whose behavior or acts physically harm, or threaten harm to another. However, we already have laws against such behavior.
As far as using certain taboo words or displaying certain symbols, those things should not be punishable by law. In this country we have movements to ban the Confederate Battle Flag as a ''symbol of hate''. In the UK, Moslems have complained about the Union Jack and the St. George's flag, as well as the cross in general. This kind of totalitarianism had its inception in the 'race card' mentality; if one is of a protected group, one can single-handedly censor someone else, or silence them, or prohibit them from displaying certain symbols.
As for the word ''hate'' which is another favorite word in the leftist lexicon, it too is overused and abused. Every time someone criticizes or expresses disapproval of certain protected groups, the word ''hate'' is immediately called into action. I think it should fall under ''Godwin's Law"; the first person to call ''hater'' is automatically the loser in the debate. It is, like ''racism'', just used to silence and intimidate and label someone whose ideas threaten the left or their minority clients.
The word 'prejudice' is one that applies to our enemies more than to our side; likewise the term 'bigot' which simply describes a closed-minded, rigid, narrow person. Minorities, feminists, gays, are all groups who often hold bigoted opinions about straight, White Americans, most especially Christians and Southrons. Yet the professional victims cannot see these qualities in themselves, so full of their own self-righteousness are they.
I keep hearing that the 'race card is maxed out', and indeed it is; it has been for a long time, but many people are just now noticing it. The left is morally bankrupt but somehow just by inertia they seem to keep going. At some point we have to stop running, we have to stop conceding to them. We have to defend our forefathers, our heritage, and ourselves against their constant nagging, badgering, and accusing. When will we finally do that?
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Language, Political Correctness, Race Card, Victimolatry
0 comment Friday, November 7, 2014 | admin
I don't even know where to begin with this piece.
It makes you feel as though you've gone through the looking-glass. Sure, the PC Republicans have been doing this kind of thing for a while, this playing of the race card, this ''who's the Real Racist'' game. But this is beyond that. Heaven knows the Democrats are low enough, but this bizarre competing as to who is the ''real racist'' or who is the real friend of African-Americans is just childish, and all it does is leave America with two pandering, race-card playing, politically correct parties, instead of one. And one is too many.
The GOP is becoming one huge embarrassing joke.
But there's one bright ray of hope: when this piece was posted at Free Republic, the first couple of comments were negative. Maybe some out there are not hopelessly mired in trying to outdo the Democrats at their own game.
From one of those comments:
''Yet this piece mirrors the Marxists' tactics in attempting to put Southerners, Democrats, especially white people, people of color, and everyone else at odds.
To call this screed historically accurate is beyond a stretch. There are shreds of truth woven in with ridiculous distortions.
Textbooks? Feh!
To blame the 'scientific' view of the relative intelligence and other characteristics of the races on Democrats demonstrates a real lack of knowledge of the development of scientific thought. The writer should obtain a copy of Ackerman's Natural History (1848), written before Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, and get a handle on what everyone learned in Anthropology thought.
Compare and contrast with The Bell Curve and see how that works out.
The bottom line is that the New Left has used historical distortion and identity politics to twist the fabric of American culture over a few decades into the current 'devil take the hindmost' political attitude held by the current party in power in DC.
If Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular cannot get beyond that methodology in order to gain and maintain control of the Federal Leviathan to rein it in and put it on a massive weight loss program, then nothing will really change and this nation will continue down the road to ruin, just driving on the other side of the center line.
5 posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 2:15:05 AM by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
Maybe there are others who are weary of this schoolyard taunting, this using of the race card by both parties. It's beyond ridiculous, and it's damaging to the country.
It makes you feel as though you've gone through the looking-glass. Sure, the PC Republicans have been doing this kind of thing for a while, this playing of the race card, this ''who's the Real Racist'' game. But this is beyond that. Heaven knows the Democrats are low enough, but this bizarre competing as to who is the ''real racist'' or who is the real friend of African-Americans is just childish, and all it does is leave America with two pandering, race-card playing, politically correct parties, instead of one. And one is too many.
The GOP is becoming one huge embarrassing joke.
But there's one bright ray of hope: when this piece was posted at Free Republic, the first couple of comments were negative. Maybe some out there are not hopelessly mired in trying to outdo the Democrats at their own game.
From one of those comments:
''Yet this piece mirrors the Marxists' tactics in attempting to put Southerners, Democrats, especially white people, people of color, and everyone else at odds.
To call this screed historically accurate is beyond a stretch. There are shreds of truth woven in with ridiculous distortions.
Textbooks? Feh!
To blame the 'scientific' view of the relative intelligence and other characteristics of the races on Democrats demonstrates a real lack of knowledge of the development of scientific thought. The writer should obtain a copy of Ackerman's Natural History (1848), written before Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, and get a handle on what everyone learned in Anthropology thought.
Compare and contrast with The Bell Curve and see how that works out.
The bottom line is that the New Left has used historical distortion and identity politics to twist the fabric of American culture over a few decades into the current 'devil take the hindmost' political attitude held by the current party in power in DC.
If Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular cannot get beyond that methodology in order to gain and maintain control of the Federal Leviathan to rein it in and put it on a massive weight loss program, then nothing will really change and this nation will continue down the road to ruin, just driving on the other side of the center line.
5 posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 2:15:05 AM by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
Maybe there are others who are weary of this schoolyard taunting, this using of the race card by both parties. It's beyond ridiculous, and it's damaging to the country.
Labels: American History, Gop, Pandering, Party Politics, Political Correctness, Race Card, Race-Baiting, Republicans, Stupid Party
0 comment Monday, August 25, 2014 | admin
It's been asserted, usually by those on the left end of the spectrum, that 'everything is political.' Well, since the beginning of this present administration, everything is certainly racial, at least in the eyes of the administration's minions and defenders.
Example: the appalling exchange between Chris Matthews of MSNBC (he of the 'leg tingle') and professionally black Cynthia Tucker. The topic under discussion is the townhall protests, and the mostly conservative protesters:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Put 100 of these people in a room. Strap them into gurneys. Inject them with sodium pentathol. How many of them would say "I don't like the idea of having a black president"? What percentage?
CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, I'm just guessing. This is just off the cuff. I think 45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president.''
Leaving aside Matthews' outrageous proposal -- it's hypothetical, supposedly, but what kind of mind imagines such scenarios? -- Tucker's implicit claim to be able to read the thoughts of the White townhall protesters is itself pretty outrageous.
But this is typical, run-of-the-mill stuff for the media arm of the regime. This is what they do, day in and day out. This is how they earn their livelihood. This is what they think about, and this is how they see the world. They see a world in which just about everybody who is not ''of color'' is racist to some extent or other, and those who deny it merely affirm the truth of the accusation by their very denials. So in these people's warped minds, White=racist. And no exceptions exist.
Regardless of whether the allegations of 'racism' are true in any given case, the real issue is: why have we allowed this society we created become so fanatically obsessed with 'race' and with purging out any incorrect thoughts on the subject? The whole idea of this bogeyman called 'racism' is an idea without which we managed to live successfully and peaceably for centuries, and yet now it seems to completely consume our thoughts and our public discourse. It has become so all-consuming that we managed to elect someone to the highest office in our land, someone whose experience was extremely limited, somebody whose CV is not even known to the public, except as unsubstantiated claims as to biographical details. And this person was elected, for all intents and purposes, because of his race. A White man (or woman) would be laughed off the public stage if he or she thought to run for President with such meagre experience, and while claiming the right not to divulge crucial evidence of past accomplishments, citizenship, and birth. That we elected someone of unknown background and scanty experience belies all common sense, except when we bring the race factor into it.
Over the last half-century we've become fully indoctrinated, most of us, to the idea that black people, and to a lesser extent other 'people of color' are essentially our moral betters, always sinned against yet never sinning. We are always in the wrong where they are concerned, and they themselves can do no wrong. When caught in some misdeed, the benefit of the doubt always accrues to them, and never to us. When a dispute occurs between a White or group of Whites and a black, the black is always the victim, the White the villain. It's as simple as that.
Even when the nonwhite is caught red-handed in a crime, excuses are made, the handiest excuse being: he was a victim of 'racism', or of 'the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.' Whenever a White criticizes a black or other nonwhite, the most effective defense for the nonwhite is to accuse the White of 'racism' and 'hate.' Playing that race card immediately is generally very effective, because the focus shifts to the White 'racist' who is then on the defensive trying to establish that he is innocent of this most serious of moral failings. At that point, the White man is assumed to be the bad guy, regardless of whether the black involved was justly criticized or accused.
So life becomes one long exercise, for Whites, of trying to disprove one's putative racism, to pre-emptively show the world, lest we be accused, that we are really not racist. Liberals are people who work full-time at trying to pre-empt any accusations of racism. ''Conservatives'', especially of the mainstream Republican variety, are not quite as zealous, although they will react when accused with the same protestations of innocence, and the same flailing attempts to establish one's innocence of that 'moral evil'.
Conservatives react, when cornered by race-baiters, by pointing the finger back if the accuser is a White Democrat: ''Democrats are the real racists! Democrats keep blacks on the liberal plantation! Robert 'Sheets' Byrd....'' and so on. In other words, they accept the validity of the concept of racism as the greatest evil, the scourge of our time, and they accept the idea that Whites are often guilty of it (although they point the finger at liberals) and they accept the idea that being found guilty of it should bring condemnation and punishment. In fact they cannot or will not simply step outside of the game and say 'I'm not playing this game anymore.' Why they are stuck in that paradigm, which is the one established by the enemy, is a puzzle to me.
So now conservatives and other common-sense Americans who oppose the health plan are being accused, as usual, of being racists, because they 'obviously don't like the idea of a black president.' Again, the left is asserting mind-reading capabilities.
But should somebody not ultimately ask: is it wrong or 'racist' to have a problem with electing a black president? Is race truly an irrelevant, superficial category that must not be even noticed in choosing between candidates, or making any other choice?
Even the Republicans seem to have bought the idea that race, even if not a 'social construct', is still an irrelevant category, like eye color or height. They accept the belief that race is merely skin color, and that it has no significance in making judgments about people. They are implicitly accepting the idea that race tells us nothing about an individual or group.
During the campaign, when all sorts of nonsensical ideas were floating around ('worse is better,' for example) I had an extended discussion with a fellow blogger, with whom I had an amicable, ongoing exchange, about whether race was significant in the election. The argument also revolved around whether, given a choice between two liberal candidates with similar leftist views, race even mattered. What would it matter if Clinton or Obama were nominated, if they pursued roughly the same agenda?
My thought was: even if the two had very similar policy goals and agendas, race did matter. I believed, and said, that the election of a black president would mean the racializing of virtually everything. I said that even if the media, for some strange reason, decided to be unbiased, the hypothetical administration would racialize things, especially criticism. Any criticism of the president's policies could be -- and therefore would be -- called 'racist.' How could a Democrat administration resist playing that old race card? It's the ultimate weapon in their arsenal; why would they suddenly develop compunctions about using it?
I said that Clinton, however disastrous a President she would be, would not be above criticism. I said that the Republican opposition (even given their craven cowardice) would not be above criticizing her in very blunt terms. She was and is a polarizing figure, and one who already evoked a great deal of hostility from conservatives. She would not be treated with kid gloves. She could be opposed vigorously and openly. Now, contrary to what feminists say, this is not because of 'sexism' or 'misogyny', but just because she was a woman who raised people's hackles, and who had no scruples about attacking her own perceived political enemies.
However, a black president, any black president would be treated with kid gloves, because Republicans are scared stiff of the race card. They would tiptoe around a black president and pull their punches. Nobody would want to be called the 'r-word' so they would roll over. And so far, that's what they've mostly done, throughout the campaign and after the inauguration.
So yes, it matters very much whether the president is White or black, as long as we still have this bizarre system in place in which people quail before a word, and will do or say almost anything to prove they are innocent of the charge of racism.
The system of political correctness, and the victimolatry which makes people fear transgressing against the 'victims' of the world, by word or deed, in essence makes us powerless. It disarms us. We have a right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment; self-defense in that sense is legal and allowed. But we are disarmed verbally and in our thoughts. We are not allowed self-defense in our speech. All criticism of the protected 'victims', even in self-defense, is denied us.
We are subject to sanction if we speak uncomfortable truths which ''offend'' the professional offense-takers. So we are to all intents and purposes disarmed. We are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis minorities, and they know this, and use it mightily against us.
Even were we to wake up, stand up, and reject this arcane system, it would still matter whether a president is black or White or some other color. It matters because there is a power differential in this society, and the power is not with us, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. Look who has to bow the knee and apologize constantly; look who has to watch what he or she says. Look who cannot be ill-spoken of or criticized or looked at wrongly. It's not us.
Chris Matthews, and all the other media lackeys, are wrong in insinuating that it is illegitimate or immoral or evil or unjust to consider race when choosing a president.
It's a legitimate criterion for choosing a president. It's legitimate and reasonable because race is not merely a question of skin color or complexion. It is a fact, not a 'social construct', and blacks know this, as do Hispanics, American Indians, Asians, and essentially everybody except mesmerized Whites. Nonwhites recognize that they have an enormous advantage in their race, and this is why they racialize everything. When everything, including the health care debate, is racialized, and when that racialization is meant to marginalize us and make us out to be the villains, nonwhites have every incentive to make it about race.
Think about it: if race were really insignificant, or if White race conferred some special privilege as some insist, then nonwhites would not constantly call attention to race. But they do so constantly, proving that they see some benefit in being nonwhite. They perceive that their interests are served by disassociating from Whitey.
And the stark fact is that many minorities, if not all, see Whites as their rivals if not as The Enemy, or as competitors who stand in the way of their goals, if not as an obstacle to their ambitions. As long as members of other races take an adversarial or even hostile approach towards Whites, it's not only legitimate and sensible to take race into account; it's downright essential to one's survival.
We are not supposed to notice nonwhites animosity and hatred towards us, though it's in our faces in many ways. Some easily-fooled or pollyannaish Whites comfort themselves with believing that minorities like us, they really, really like us, and it's only White 'racism' that makes them hostile to us sometimes. But the fact is: their interests and ours are in conflict. We have every right, indeed, we have a duty to take reality, including racial reality, into consideration when choosing our elected officials.
There are real, significant differences among the races, and these differences should and must be allowed to be taken into account, given that these differences include differences in temperament, personality, innate abilities, and culture.
And for now, at least, everything is racial, because those in charge have made it so, because it serves their purpose nicely.
Example: the appalling exchange between Chris Matthews of MSNBC (he of the 'leg tingle') and professionally black Cynthia Tucker. The topic under discussion is the townhall protests, and the mostly conservative protesters:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Put 100 of these people in a room. Strap them into gurneys. Inject them with sodium pentathol. How many of them would say "I don't like the idea of having a black president"? What percentage?
CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, I'm just guessing. This is just off the cuff. I think 45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president.''
Leaving aside Matthews' outrageous proposal -- it's hypothetical, supposedly, but what kind of mind imagines such scenarios? -- Tucker's implicit claim to be able to read the thoughts of the White townhall protesters is itself pretty outrageous.
But this is typical, run-of-the-mill stuff for the media arm of the regime. This is what they do, day in and day out. This is how they earn their livelihood. This is what they think about, and this is how they see the world. They see a world in which just about everybody who is not ''of color'' is racist to some extent or other, and those who deny it merely affirm the truth of the accusation by their very denials. So in these people's warped minds, White=racist. And no exceptions exist.
Regardless of whether the allegations of 'racism' are true in any given case, the real issue is: why have we allowed this society we created become so fanatically obsessed with 'race' and with purging out any incorrect thoughts on the subject? The whole idea of this bogeyman called 'racism' is an idea without which we managed to live successfully and peaceably for centuries, and yet now it seems to completely consume our thoughts and our public discourse. It has become so all-consuming that we managed to elect someone to the highest office in our land, someone whose experience was extremely limited, somebody whose CV is not even known to the public, except as unsubstantiated claims as to biographical details. And this person was elected, for all intents and purposes, because of his race. A White man (or woman) would be laughed off the public stage if he or she thought to run for President with such meagre experience, and while claiming the right not to divulge crucial evidence of past accomplishments, citizenship, and birth. That we elected someone of unknown background and scanty experience belies all common sense, except when we bring the race factor into it.
Over the last half-century we've become fully indoctrinated, most of us, to the idea that black people, and to a lesser extent other 'people of color' are essentially our moral betters, always sinned against yet never sinning. We are always in the wrong where they are concerned, and they themselves can do no wrong. When caught in some misdeed, the benefit of the doubt always accrues to them, and never to us. When a dispute occurs between a White or group of Whites and a black, the black is always the victim, the White the villain. It's as simple as that.
Even when the nonwhite is caught red-handed in a crime, excuses are made, the handiest excuse being: he was a victim of 'racism', or of 'the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.' Whenever a White criticizes a black or other nonwhite, the most effective defense for the nonwhite is to accuse the White of 'racism' and 'hate.' Playing that race card immediately is generally very effective, because the focus shifts to the White 'racist' who is then on the defensive trying to establish that he is innocent of this most serious of moral failings. At that point, the White man is assumed to be the bad guy, regardless of whether the black involved was justly criticized or accused.
So life becomes one long exercise, for Whites, of trying to disprove one's putative racism, to pre-emptively show the world, lest we be accused, that we are really not racist. Liberals are people who work full-time at trying to pre-empt any accusations of racism. ''Conservatives'', especially of the mainstream Republican variety, are not quite as zealous, although they will react when accused with the same protestations of innocence, and the same flailing attempts to establish one's innocence of that 'moral evil'.
Conservatives react, when cornered by race-baiters, by pointing the finger back if the accuser is a White Democrat: ''Democrats are the real racists! Democrats keep blacks on the liberal plantation! Robert 'Sheets' Byrd....'' and so on. In other words, they accept the validity of the concept of racism as the greatest evil, the scourge of our time, and they accept the idea that Whites are often guilty of it (although they point the finger at liberals) and they accept the idea that being found guilty of it should bring condemnation and punishment. In fact they cannot or will not simply step outside of the game and say 'I'm not playing this game anymore.' Why they are stuck in that paradigm, which is the one established by the enemy, is a puzzle to me.
So now conservatives and other common-sense Americans who oppose the health plan are being accused, as usual, of being racists, because they 'obviously don't like the idea of a black president.' Again, the left is asserting mind-reading capabilities.
But should somebody not ultimately ask: is it wrong or 'racist' to have a problem with electing a black president? Is race truly an irrelevant, superficial category that must not be even noticed in choosing between candidates, or making any other choice?
Even the Republicans seem to have bought the idea that race, even if not a 'social construct', is still an irrelevant category, like eye color or height. They accept the belief that race is merely skin color, and that it has no significance in making judgments about people. They are implicitly accepting the idea that race tells us nothing about an individual or group.
During the campaign, when all sorts of nonsensical ideas were floating around ('worse is better,' for example) I had an extended discussion with a fellow blogger, with whom I had an amicable, ongoing exchange, about whether race was significant in the election. The argument also revolved around whether, given a choice between two liberal candidates with similar leftist views, race even mattered. What would it matter if Clinton or Obama were nominated, if they pursued roughly the same agenda?
My thought was: even if the two had very similar policy goals and agendas, race did matter. I believed, and said, that the election of a black president would mean the racializing of virtually everything. I said that even if the media, for some strange reason, decided to be unbiased, the hypothetical administration would racialize things, especially criticism. Any criticism of the president's policies could be -- and therefore would be -- called 'racist.' How could a Democrat administration resist playing that old race card? It's the ultimate weapon in their arsenal; why would they suddenly develop compunctions about using it?
I said that Clinton, however disastrous a President she would be, would not be above criticism. I said that the Republican opposition (even given their craven cowardice) would not be above criticizing her in very blunt terms. She was and is a polarizing figure, and one who already evoked a great deal of hostility from conservatives. She would not be treated with kid gloves. She could be opposed vigorously and openly. Now, contrary to what feminists say, this is not because of 'sexism' or 'misogyny', but just because she was a woman who raised people's hackles, and who had no scruples about attacking her own perceived political enemies.
However, a black president, any black president would be treated with kid gloves, because Republicans are scared stiff of the race card. They would tiptoe around a black president and pull their punches. Nobody would want to be called the 'r-word' so they would roll over. And so far, that's what they've mostly done, throughout the campaign and after the inauguration.
So yes, it matters very much whether the president is White or black, as long as we still have this bizarre system in place in which people quail before a word, and will do or say almost anything to prove they are innocent of the charge of racism.
The system of political correctness, and the victimolatry which makes people fear transgressing against the 'victims' of the world, by word or deed, in essence makes us powerless. It disarms us. We have a right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment; self-defense in that sense is legal and allowed. But we are disarmed verbally and in our thoughts. We are not allowed self-defense in our speech. All criticism of the protected 'victims', even in self-defense, is denied us.
We are subject to sanction if we speak uncomfortable truths which ''offend'' the professional offense-takers. So we are to all intents and purposes disarmed. We are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis minorities, and they know this, and use it mightily against us.
Even were we to wake up, stand up, and reject this arcane system, it would still matter whether a president is black or White or some other color. It matters because there is a power differential in this society, and the power is not with us, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. Look who has to bow the knee and apologize constantly; look who has to watch what he or she says. Look who cannot be ill-spoken of or criticized or looked at wrongly. It's not us.
Chris Matthews, and all the other media lackeys, are wrong in insinuating that it is illegitimate or immoral or evil or unjust to consider race when choosing a president.
It's a legitimate criterion for choosing a president. It's legitimate and reasonable because race is not merely a question of skin color or complexion. It is a fact, not a 'social construct', and blacks know this, as do Hispanics, American Indians, Asians, and essentially everybody except mesmerized Whites. Nonwhites recognize that they have an enormous advantage in their race, and this is why they racialize everything. When everything, including the health care debate, is racialized, and when that racialization is meant to marginalize us and make us out to be the villains, nonwhites have every incentive to make it about race.
Think about it: if race were really insignificant, or if White race conferred some special privilege as some insist, then nonwhites would not constantly call attention to race. But they do so constantly, proving that they see some benefit in being nonwhite. They perceive that their interests are served by disassociating from Whitey.
And the stark fact is that many minorities, if not all, see Whites as their rivals if not as The Enemy, or as competitors who stand in the way of their goals, if not as an obstacle to their ambitions. As long as members of other races take an adversarial or even hostile approach towards Whites, it's not only legitimate and sensible to take race into account; it's downright essential to one's survival.
We are not supposed to notice nonwhites animosity and hatred towards us, though it's in our faces in many ways. Some easily-fooled or pollyannaish Whites comfort themselves with believing that minorities like us, they really, really like us, and it's only White 'racism' that makes them hostile to us sometimes. But the fact is: their interests and ours are in conflict. We have every right, indeed, we have a duty to take reality, including racial reality, into consideration when choosing our elected officials.
There are real, significant differences among the races, and these differences should and must be allowed to be taken into account, given that these differences include differences in temperament, personality, innate abilities, and culture.
And for now, at least, everything is racial, because those in charge have made it so, because it serves their purpose nicely.
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Freedom Of Speech, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Race Card, Race Denial, Racial Division, Socialized Medicine, Thought Crime
0 comment Sunday, August 3, 2014 | admin
Yesterday's brief entry, about the different categories of people who call themselves 'conservative', did not address a large group of conservatives (or ''conservatives'') frequently mentioned on this blog: the 'colorblind conservatives.'
As I read the usual blogs and forums I check every day, I notice that among the mainstream Republican ones, the 'colorblind conservatives' are out in full force. It seems that they are quite irate about the Gates brouhaha, and about the president's biased reaction to it. Hell hath no fury like a colorblind conservative scorned. The overwhelming impression I get from these people is that they are angry. They are angry that despite their publicly professed ''colorblindness'' and their willingness to ''put race behind" them, and their willingness to show remorse for the evils done by their ancestors, their feelings are not reciprocated nor even acknowledged by the objects of their affection.
Some of these pieces I have read are fawning, expressing their admiration for various black athletes or performers, or perhaps some virtuous black co-worker or colleague. The message seems to be: we like you, we love you, why don't you love us back?
Some Republicans are almost angry about the escalating racial quarrels in this country, but their anger is directed only at the 'race-hustlers' or the 'liberals' who are keeping the racial conflict alive. As if it would go away, as if all the differences would disappear, if not fanned into flames by the race-hucksters or Democrats.
This is rather reminiscent of a relationship gone bad, in which one person still holds onto a misguided and unrequited affection for the other party, who in turn wants only to exact some kind of payback, or to keep the dysfunctional and abusive relationship alive for self-centered reasons.
I almost feel sorry for these 'colorblind' conservative types; they continue to cling to what is essentially a liberal mindset, based on leftist distortions of history.
Ever since I used to post frequently on a mainstream Republican forum, I've noticed that the most angry and vituperative people, in regards to political incorrectness, are the Republicans. I learned some years ago that if you violate the PC norms among the ''colorblind', they will excoriate you in a way that makes liberals look mild.
I mean specifically those Republicans who have bought the liberal, politically correct viewpoint on race. If they are not out-and-out race deniers, who believe 'we're all the same under the skin', they are people who think that race differences, insofar as they exist, are mostly superficial. They rationalize the undeniable conflicts that exist between races as being ginned up by liberals or minority opportunists. Remove the liberals and the race-hustlers, and we would all live in harmony, and all blacks would think and behave like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, or Tiger Woods.
In other words, they are in a practical sense race-deniers, since they don't seem to believe that racial differences of any importance exist; they accept the liberal idea that we are all pretty much blank slates, and that 'culture' makes all the difference. Given the right education and societal influences, there would be complete harmony and racial amity, they think.
This group of people, I'm afraid, are keeping us stuck with the unacceptable status quo between the races. They are largely responsible in that they represent a fairly big group of people, a voting bloc, who find their political home in the officially 'colorblind' new GOP, embodied in Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal. And despite their power, they seem content to keep things as they are, rather than rock the boat, and think forbidden thoughts.
Without the delusions of these people, perhaps we could break this stalemate that exists. As it is, it seems we are destined to go round and round, with the perpetual misguided hope of 'moving beyond race'. And the idea that we can move beyond race by catering to and flattering and favoring minorities is essentially self-contradictory, but yet it seems as if that is what they are resigned to doing.
In that respect, they are very much cut from the same cloth as outright liberals, because they are people who will doggedly keep repeating the same failed action in hopes that ''this time, it will work!" It fazes them not at all that it has not worked in the past; we just have to try harder, longer, more fervently, and it will work.
It never seems to occur to them that for minorities, it would be unprofitable to 'move beyond race.' Why would they want to 'move beyond race' when harping on race and racial guilt has worked like a charm for them? It has made them the center of attention in this country (and now in other Western countries too, by example) and it has made billions (or is it trillions?) of dollars flow to their ''communities.'' It has put them in the privileged position of being above criticism; the captive majority can only speak fawningly and deferentially about them in public; doing anything less has dire consequences, such as job loss, career destruction, loss of money and social status, and public humiliation. Being able to inflict consequences like that on someone just by saying the word is real power.
These colorblind ''conservatives'' are a hindrance, to put it charitably. There are a few glimmerings of hope that some of them are beginning to open their eyes; the FReepers, for example, are getting a little more politically incorrect these days, but there is still some of the fawning over ''favorite minorities'' that is so common.
I shake my head at this servile behavior among a lot of our people; some will defend it as being just generous and magnanimous behavior that comes from our heritage. I can only see it as either guilt-driven, or as an example of peer pressure; nobody wants to be the one to violate the consensus and say the forbidden truths.
I think there has to be a great deal more re-educating of our people, and a deprogramming in order for them to come to their senses. Maybe it will take a few more ''teachable moments'' like this present one in order for the scales to fall from some eyes. Maybe not; maybe ''worse is better'' is simply wishful thinking. However, I would certainly like it to be true.
As I read the usual blogs and forums I check every day, I notice that among the mainstream Republican ones, the 'colorblind conservatives' are out in full force. It seems that they are quite irate about the Gates brouhaha, and about the president's biased reaction to it. Hell hath no fury like a colorblind conservative scorned. The overwhelming impression I get from these people is that they are angry. They are angry that despite their publicly professed ''colorblindness'' and their willingness to ''put race behind" them, and their willingness to show remorse for the evils done by their ancestors, their feelings are not reciprocated nor even acknowledged by the objects of their affection.
Some of these pieces I have read are fawning, expressing their admiration for various black athletes or performers, or perhaps some virtuous black co-worker or colleague. The message seems to be: we like you, we love you, why don't you love us back?
Some Republicans are almost angry about the escalating racial quarrels in this country, but their anger is directed only at the 'race-hustlers' or the 'liberals' who are keeping the racial conflict alive. As if it would go away, as if all the differences would disappear, if not fanned into flames by the race-hucksters or Democrats.
This is rather reminiscent of a relationship gone bad, in which one person still holds onto a misguided and unrequited affection for the other party, who in turn wants only to exact some kind of payback, or to keep the dysfunctional and abusive relationship alive for self-centered reasons.
I almost feel sorry for these 'colorblind' conservative types; they continue to cling to what is essentially a liberal mindset, based on leftist distortions of history.
Ever since I used to post frequently on a mainstream Republican forum, I've noticed that the most angry and vituperative people, in regards to political incorrectness, are the Republicans. I learned some years ago that if you violate the PC norms among the ''colorblind', they will excoriate you in a way that makes liberals look mild.
I mean specifically those Republicans who have bought the liberal, politically correct viewpoint on race. If they are not out-and-out race deniers, who believe 'we're all the same under the skin', they are people who think that race differences, insofar as they exist, are mostly superficial. They rationalize the undeniable conflicts that exist between races as being ginned up by liberals or minority opportunists. Remove the liberals and the race-hustlers, and we would all live in harmony, and all blacks would think and behave like Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, or Tiger Woods.
In other words, they are in a practical sense race-deniers, since they don't seem to believe that racial differences of any importance exist; they accept the liberal idea that we are all pretty much blank slates, and that 'culture' makes all the difference. Given the right education and societal influences, there would be complete harmony and racial amity, they think.
This group of people, I'm afraid, are keeping us stuck with the unacceptable status quo between the races. They are largely responsible in that they represent a fairly big group of people, a voting bloc, who find their political home in the officially 'colorblind' new GOP, embodied in Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal. And despite their power, they seem content to keep things as they are, rather than rock the boat, and think forbidden thoughts.
Without the delusions of these people, perhaps we could break this stalemate that exists. As it is, it seems we are destined to go round and round, with the perpetual misguided hope of 'moving beyond race'. And the idea that we can move beyond race by catering to and flattering and favoring minorities is essentially self-contradictory, but yet it seems as if that is what they are resigned to doing.
In that respect, they are very much cut from the same cloth as outright liberals, because they are people who will doggedly keep repeating the same failed action in hopes that ''this time, it will work!" It fazes them not at all that it has not worked in the past; we just have to try harder, longer, more fervently, and it will work.
It never seems to occur to them that for minorities, it would be unprofitable to 'move beyond race.' Why would they want to 'move beyond race' when harping on race and racial guilt has worked like a charm for them? It has made them the center of attention in this country (and now in other Western countries too, by example) and it has made billions (or is it trillions?) of dollars flow to their ''communities.'' It has put them in the privileged position of being above criticism; the captive majority can only speak fawningly and deferentially about them in public; doing anything less has dire consequences, such as job loss, career destruction, loss of money and social status, and public humiliation. Being able to inflict consequences like that on someone just by saying the word is real power.
These colorblind ''conservatives'' are a hindrance, to put it charitably. There are a few glimmerings of hope that some of them are beginning to open their eyes; the FReepers, for example, are getting a little more politically incorrect these days, but there is still some of the fawning over ''favorite minorities'' that is so common.
I shake my head at this servile behavior among a lot of our people; some will defend it as being just generous and magnanimous behavior that comes from our heritage. I can only see it as either guilt-driven, or as an example of peer pressure; nobody wants to be the one to violate the consensus and say the forbidden truths.
I think there has to be a great deal more re-educating of our people, and a deprogramming in order for them to come to their senses. Maybe it will take a few more ''teachable moments'' like this present one in order for the scales to fall from some eyes. Maybe not; maybe ''worse is better'' is simply wishful thinking. However, I would certainly like it to be true.
Labels: Conservatives, Divisiveness, Political Correctness, Race Card, Race Denial, Race Renegades
0 comment Friday, July 25, 2014 | admin
I suspect we're all tired of reading and hearing about this story, but we turn away from it at our peril. It's indicative of how bad things have become here in the former United States between blacks and Whites.
The woman who called the police to report a possible crime in progress is now distraught because she has been accused ''unfairly'' of being a racist.
I suppose I sympathize with her because she is the target of the loathsome PC vigilantes, most probably White, who take it upon themselves to sniff out any political incorrectness and to bring the 'offender' into line, by threats and harassment if need be. On the other hand, her reaction to the (no doubt unpleasant) treatment she's gotten illustrates that she, too, is a believer in political correctness and all its works and pomps.
Her reaction reminds me somewhat of the response by an arch-liberal friend who reported troublesome neighbors in her apartment building, and was accused by said neighbors of 'racism.' She was mortified and aggrieved because she has spent her entire adult life doing and saying everything 'right', playing by the rules of PC, being so careful not to utter a wrong word or offend anyone of a victim group. This friend never dreamt she would be called 'racist' one day; I can only think she imagined that somehow, minorities could divine that she was ''on their side'' and that she was one of the 'good' Whites, not to be confused with those evil racist Whites who lurk around every corner in America. I think she was quite indignant that she was not immediately recognizable as 'friend' and not 'foe.'
I don't know Mrs. Whelan, but her statement seems to show that she is very much a liberal.
When I was called racist and I was a target of scorn and ridicule because of the things I never said, the criticisms hurt me as a person, but it also hurt the community of Cambridge," Whalen said. "Now that the tapes are out, I hope people can see that I tried to be careful and honest with my words," she said.''
Bless her heart, I am sure she is an honest and decent woman, and she was doing a citizen's duty in calling police, but she does not seem to understand the rules of PC. Under those rules, the minority is always the victim, the White always the guilty party. Always. No exceptions.
Whites, in these interracial situations, are to be presumed guilty until proven otherwise, contrary to our general 'innocent until proven guilty' principle. Of course most of us who think at all about these things know that there is literally no way to disprove one's ''racism'', when one has been accused by an offended 'victim.' Guilty. Off with his head, is the instant verdict.
Will James Crowley stand his ground, or will he become another 'typical White person' who is used as an object lesson?
It is through incidents like this, ''teachable moments'' so-called, that the politically correct dogma is reinforced and further driven home to Whites. The fact that a woman can be driven to tears by name-calling and 'unfair' accusations of something called 'racism' is proof that the PC vigilantes are far too powerful.
And yet, how much power do they have, if we no longer react to their threats and their name-calling? They have only the power we accord them. Unfortunately, they have succeeded in getting more 'hate' legislation passed, which will potentially give authorities power to prosecute people for their thought crimes or 'hate speech', but for now, we still have the ability to stand up to these bullies and petty tyrants, and to stop their coercion.
As to the ''unfair'' accusation of racism, I have a big problem with Whites who go on the defensive in cases like this, protesting that they are not 'racists'. I would instead love to see Whites stand up and reject the whole category of thoughtcrimes called 'racism' or 'prejudice.' I would like to see more people simply shrug off the label, or better yet, to challenge it, to dismiss it as an invented 'crime'.
There was no word 'racism' or 'racist' in the English language before the World War II era, at least. We did just fine without an invented word to describe the various and sundry behaviors that are now lumped together as 'racism.' When the word did enter our vocabulary, it meant more strictly acts of violence or physical harm, based on the race of the victim. The word 'racism' is one of the most elastic words in the English language, expanding to include any number of behaviors, thoughts, acts, and words, or even looks. The word has been rendered absurd by its overuse and its increasingly arbitrary and subjective use.
Maybe this is why some well-intentioned liberal Whites get caught in their own trap: it has become increasingly likely, given the expanding definition of 'racism', that every White will be accused/convicted of it at some point. It's almost reached those absurd, almost comic, proportions now. But I think very few liberals realize that they will unwittingly transgress the constantly-changing PC codes, and be hauled before the PC police for it. Even then, they don't seem to get it.
So is there such a thing as a 'fair' accusation of racism? Mrs. Whelan apparently did not violate the unwritten rule 'thou shalt not mention the race of a suspect unless he be White.' She did not refer to Gates and his unnamed companion (what happened to the second man, anyway?) in her 911 call. But if she had, would she then be a 'racist'? No, she would just be doing what a citizen should do: giving a description of the people in question.
I think what bothers me the most about situations like this is that too many Whites have no instinct to stick together and defend their own; even worse, there are too many who will actually point at another White while proclaiming their own ideologically pure views on race.
Even on the right this happens. Just read any thread on a rightwing forum on the issue of slavery or reparations. Most will protest their innocence: ''my ancestors didn't own slaves! I'm not from the South! My ancestors were still over in Europe then! My ancestors fought for the Union to free the slaves! Not guilty!' The implicit message is ''not me! That other guy over there is the one who's guilty.''
Why do so many Whites feel the compulsion to essentially throw some of our own to the wolves as a kind of sacrifice, and expiation for our (subjective) guilt? Why not show some solidarity? Yes, that too would be called racism, but then it's unavoidable. You will be called that at some time or another, and in fact, you've already been tried and found guilty simply by heredity.
Once we realize that we're considered guilty anyway by virtue of who we are, and who our ancestors were, that should free us considerably from the ''need'' to prove our moral rectitude and PC bonafides.
The woman who called the police to report a possible crime in progress is now distraught because she has been accused ''unfairly'' of being a racist.
I suppose I sympathize with her because she is the target of the loathsome PC vigilantes, most probably White, who take it upon themselves to sniff out any political incorrectness and to bring the 'offender' into line, by threats and harassment if need be. On the other hand, her reaction to the (no doubt unpleasant) treatment she's gotten illustrates that she, too, is a believer in political correctness and all its works and pomps.
Her reaction reminds me somewhat of the response by an arch-liberal friend who reported troublesome neighbors in her apartment building, and was accused by said neighbors of 'racism.' She was mortified and aggrieved because she has spent her entire adult life doing and saying everything 'right', playing by the rules of PC, being so careful not to utter a wrong word or offend anyone of a victim group. This friend never dreamt she would be called 'racist' one day; I can only think she imagined that somehow, minorities could divine that she was ''on their side'' and that she was one of the 'good' Whites, not to be confused with those evil racist Whites who lurk around every corner in America. I think she was quite indignant that she was not immediately recognizable as 'friend' and not 'foe.'
I don't know Mrs. Whelan, but her statement seems to show that she is very much a liberal.
When I was called racist and I was a target of scorn and ridicule because of the things I never said, the criticisms hurt me as a person, but it also hurt the community of Cambridge," Whalen said. "Now that the tapes are out, I hope people can see that I tried to be careful and honest with my words," she said.''
Bless her heart, I am sure she is an honest and decent woman, and she was doing a citizen's duty in calling police, but she does not seem to understand the rules of PC. Under those rules, the minority is always the victim, the White always the guilty party. Always. No exceptions.
Whites, in these interracial situations, are to be presumed guilty until proven otherwise, contrary to our general 'innocent until proven guilty' principle. Of course most of us who think at all about these things know that there is literally no way to disprove one's ''racism'', when one has been accused by an offended 'victim.' Guilty. Off with his head, is the instant verdict.
Will James Crowley stand his ground, or will he become another 'typical White person' who is used as an object lesson?
It is through incidents like this, ''teachable moments'' so-called, that the politically correct dogma is reinforced and further driven home to Whites. The fact that a woman can be driven to tears by name-calling and 'unfair' accusations of something called 'racism' is proof that the PC vigilantes are far too powerful.
And yet, how much power do they have, if we no longer react to their threats and their name-calling? They have only the power we accord them. Unfortunately, they have succeeded in getting more 'hate' legislation passed, which will potentially give authorities power to prosecute people for their thought crimes or 'hate speech', but for now, we still have the ability to stand up to these bullies and petty tyrants, and to stop their coercion.
As to the ''unfair'' accusation of racism, I have a big problem with Whites who go on the defensive in cases like this, protesting that they are not 'racists'. I would instead love to see Whites stand up and reject the whole category of thoughtcrimes called 'racism' or 'prejudice.' I would like to see more people simply shrug off the label, or better yet, to challenge it, to dismiss it as an invented 'crime'.
There was no word 'racism' or 'racist' in the English language before the World War II era, at least. We did just fine without an invented word to describe the various and sundry behaviors that are now lumped together as 'racism.' When the word did enter our vocabulary, it meant more strictly acts of violence or physical harm, based on the race of the victim. The word 'racism' is one of the most elastic words in the English language, expanding to include any number of behaviors, thoughts, acts, and words, or even looks. The word has been rendered absurd by its overuse and its increasingly arbitrary and subjective use.
Maybe this is why some well-intentioned liberal Whites get caught in their own trap: it has become increasingly likely, given the expanding definition of 'racism', that every White will be accused/convicted of it at some point. It's almost reached those absurd, almost comic, proportions now. But I think very few liberals realize that they will unwittingly transgress the constantly-changing PC codes, and be hauled before the PC police for it. Even then, they don't seem to get it.
So is there such a thing as a 'fair' accusation of racism? Mrs. Whelan apparently did not violate the unwritten rule 'thou shalt not mention the race of a suspect unless he be White.' She did not refer to Gates and his unnamed companion (what happened to the second man, anyway?) in her 911 call. But if she had, would she then be a 'racist'? No, she would just be doing what a citizen should do: giving a description of the people in question.
I think what bothers me the most about situations like this is that too many Whites have no instinct to stick together and defend their own; even worse, there are too many who will actually point at another White while proclaiming their own ideologically pure views on race.
Even on the right this happens. Just read any thread on a rightwing forum on the issue of slavery or reparations. Most will protest their innocence: ''my ancestors didn't own slaves! I'm not from the South! My ancestors were still over in Europe then! My ancestors fought for the Union to free the slaves! Not guilty!' The implicit message is ''not me! That other guy over there is the one who's guilty.''
Why do so many Whites feel the compulsion to essentially throw some of our own to the wolves as a kind of sacrifice, and expiation for our (subjective) guilt? Why not show some solidarity? Yes, that too would be called racism, but then it's unavoidable. You will be called that at some time or another, and in fact, you've already been tried and found guilty simply by heredity.
Once we realize that we're considered guilty anyway by virtue of who we are, and who our ancestors were, that should free us considerably from the ''need'' to prove our moral rectitude and PC bonafides.
Labels: Ethnic Division, Free Speech, Liberal Intolerance, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Race Card, Race-Baiting
0 comment Wednesday, July 16, 2014 | admin
Little did I know that the health care plan is being pushed through in response to public demand. That's one thing I learned from tonight's press conference.
First, though, for some balance, one doctor's take on this health-care plan, which is being pushed on us in the media nonstop:
Why I resigned from the AMA
Did any of you see the press conference (yet another one) earlier this evening? The idea is to hard-sell this health ''reform'' plan yet again. I could not bring myself to watch it, but I waited for the transcript to appear online.
It appears as though a lot of time was devoted to blaming the previous administration for the financial troubles, and to establish the ''fact'' that the present regime accepts no blame for any economic disaster, present, past, or future. A lot of self-justification was contained in a rather short speech.
A reporter asks:
Q You've been pushing Congress to pass health-care reform by August. Why the rush? Are you worried that if you don't -- if there's a delay until the fall, the whole effort will collapse?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Couple of points. Number one, I'm rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health-care costs.
So folks are skeptical, and that is entirely legitimate, because they haven't seen a lot of laws coming out of Washington lately that help them.
But my hope is, and I'm confident that, when people look at the cost of doing nothing, they're going to say, you know, we can make this happen. We've -- we've made big changes before that end up resulting in a better life for the American people.''
First of all, I find it absurd to imagine the president, any president, sitting there by the hour opening letters from every citizen out there with a complaint or a plea for help. Do people really write the president saying 'save us, Mr. President; we can't afford our health care.' And assuming that yes, indeed, there are such pathetic souls who imagine that the president or Uncle Sugar is there to answer their every need and request, does this president expect us to believe that he thinks his role is to give his fans what they want, and say ''your wish is my command''?
I don't imagine that any president even lays eyes on most of the mail that is sent to the White House. But apparently this president thinks we all just fell off the turnip truck, and that he has no choice but to reform health care drastically because John and Jane Doe in Anytown, USA demand it. As if the ''little people'' call the shots in America.
If public demand and the wishes of citizens meant anything at all, we'd have closed borders, lower taxes, and a lot of things that we stand no chance of getting until Hades freezes over.
Another question:
Q But experts say that in addition to the benefits that you're pushing, there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures, such as Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life care.
When you describe health-care reform, you don't -- understandably, you don't talk about the sacrifices that Americans might have to make. Do you think -- do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases, on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?''
Watch for the double-talk and the obfuscation here.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. And I -- speaking as an American, I think that's the kind of change you want.
Look, if right now hospitals and -- and doctors aren't coordinating enough to have you just take one test when you come in because of an illness but instead have you take one test; then you go to another specialist, you take a second test, then you go to another specialist, you take a third test; and nobody's bothering to send the first test that you took -- same test -- to the next doctors, you're wasting money. You may not see it, because if you have health insurance right now, it's just being sent to the insurance company, but that's raising your premiums, it's raising everybody's premiums. And that money, one way or another, is coming out of your pocket, although we are also subsidizing some of that, because there are tax breaks for health care. So not only is it costing you money in terms of higher premiums, it's also costing you as a taxpayer.
Now, I want to change that. Every American should want to change that. Why would we want to pay for things that don't work, that aren't making us healthier?
And here's what I'm confident about. If doctors and patients have the best information about what works and what doesn't, then they're going to want to pay for what works.
If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?''
All this talk of blue pills and red pills seems to bring The Matrix to mind. I never saw it, but I know enough about it to know about the blue pills and red pills.
And as to not paying for things that 'don't work, that aren't making us healthier', would that not include any number of treatments or medications that don't truly 'make people healthier' but merely keep their symptoms under control, or perhaps keep chronic conditions somewhat manageable? It looks very much as if the intention is that many treatments for, say, cancer or diabetes or kidney disease patients would be looked on as 'things that don't work' because they don't reverse or cure underlying disease.
To the recent comments the president made in answer to a question at one of the town halls, he said that a woman with cardiac arrhythmias might just 'take a pain pill' instead of having surgery. Surely it does not take a medical professional to know that cardiac arrhythmias are not helped by 'painkillers', and that resorting to such non-treatments with such a potentially serious condition is downright dangerous.
But again, I am getting hints that those with chronic diseases, and especially older people, will be written off as too costly. Passive euthanasia.
I didn't watch the press conference but from reading the transcript I found it all very unimpressive and unpersuasive. I don't think the case was very well made at all; I found only vague and rambling statements, and little substance. And not having seen or heard this speech, seeing it only in text, I was not likely to be taken in by any alleged 'charisma' or the 'sonorous voice' that so many seem to be captivated by.
But on another topic altogether, a very telling exchange in response to 'hometown' reporter Lynn Sweet's question
(which seems rather like a set-up, a scripted question, so the prez could address the Gates furor):
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.
I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.
So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen.
(Chuckling.) But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?
My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.
Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.''
And not having seen all the facts, why answer at all? It would behoove him to learn the facts before offering his two cents, and calling the Cambridge police or their actions ''stupid.'' But fools rush in:
And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.
That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.''
Yes, the race card was played by the man elected to lead us. That's you and I who are being accused and convicted.
Not only White Americans and policemen have been accused in this press conference, but doctors and the medical profession also. Is the idea to alienate as many people as possible? I thought the idea was to 'unite'.
I would like some of those people who were so sure that electing this man would 'end the complaints of racism' to step forward and admit, publicly, that they were wrong. Big time.
Race relations are worse because minorities never let up on the grievance-mongering and the power displays. This present regime has exacerbated racial conflicts.
And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.''
If blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, it's for the reason that they commit a disproportionate share of crimes, from traffic violations on up. I won't link to the Color of Crime yet again; anybody who is not familiar may google it.
And ending profiling will make nobody safer except lawbreakers -- if they are of the correct race and ethnicity. For the rest of us, it will mean a less safe America.
Which brings us full circle; the health care ''reform'' plan will also make us less safe and less secure, knowing that arbitrary and capricious decisions made for political reasons will actually be harmful to us and our loved ones over the long term.
During the long election cycle of last year, I spent some time arguing against those who said that 'worse is better'. Now we are about to see which school of thought was right. I can only hope the 'worse is better' proponents were correct, because we've begun to experience the 'worse', and we're about to see if ''better'' ensues.
First, though, for some balance, one doctor's take on this health-care plan, which is being pushed on us in the media nonstop:
Why I resigned from the AMA
Did any of you see the press conference (yet another one) earlier this evening? The idea is to hard-sell this health ''reform'' plan yet again. I could not bring myself to watch it, but I waited for the transcript to appear online.
It appears as though a lot of time was devoted to blaming the previous administration for the financial troubles, and to establish the ''fact'' that the present regime accepts no blame for any economic disaster, present, past, or future. A lot of self-justification was contained in a rather short speech.
A reporter asks:
Q You've been pushing Congress to pass health-care reform by August. Why the rush? Are you worried that if you don't -- if there's a delay until the fall, the whole effort will collapse?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Couple of points. Number one, I'm rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health-care costs.
So folks are skeptical, and that is entirely legitimate, because they haven't seen a lot of laws coming out of Washington lately that help them.
But my hope is, and I'm confident that, when people look at the cost of doing nothing, they're going to say, you know, we can make this happen. We've -- we've made big changes before that end up resulting in a better life for the American people.''
First of all, I find it absurd to imagine the president, any president, sitting there by the hour opening letters from every citizen out there with a complaint or a plea for help. Do people really write the president saying 'save us, Mr. President; we can't afford our health care.' And assuming that yes, indeed, there are such pathetic souls who imagine that the president or Uncle Sugar is there to answer their every need and request, does this president expect us to believe that he thinks his role is to give his fans what they want, and say ''your wish is my command''?
I don't imagine that any president even lays eyes on most of the mail that is sent to the White House. But apparently this president thinks we all just fell off the turnip truck, and that he has no choice but to reform health care drastically because John and Jane Doe in Anytown, USA demand it. As if the ''little people'' call the shots in America.
If public demand and the wishes of citizens meant anything at all, we'd have closed borders, lower taxes, and a lot of things that we stand no chance of getting until Hades freezes over.
Another question:
Q But experts say that in addition to the benefits that you're pushing, there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures, such as Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life care.
When you describe health-care reform, you don't -- understandably, you don't talk about the sacrifices that Americans might have to make. Do you think -- do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases, on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?''
Watch for the double-talk and the obfuscation here.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. And I -- speaking as an American, I think that's the kind of change you want.
Look, if right now hospitals and -- and doctors aren't coordinating enough to have you just take one test when you come in because of an illness but instead have you take one test; then you go to another specialist, you take a second test, then you go to another specialist, you take a third test; and nobody's bothering to send the first test that you took -- same test -- to the next doctors, you're wasting money. You may not see it, because if you have health insurance right now, it's just being sent to the insurance company, but that's raising your premiums, it's raising everybody's premiums. And that money, one way or another, is coming out of your pocket, although we are also subsidizing some of that, because there are tax breaks for health care. So not only is it costing you money in terms of higher premiums, it's also costing you as a taxpayer.
Now, I want to change that. Every American should want to change that. Why would we want to pay for things that don't work, that aren't making us healthier?
And here's what I'm confident about. If doctors and patients have the best information about what works and what doesn't, then they're going to want to pay for what works.
If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?''
All this talk of blue pills and red pills seems to bring The Matrix to mind. I never saw it, but I know enough about it to know about the blue pills and red pills.
And as to not paying for things that 'don't work, that aren't making us healthier', would that not include any number of treatments or medications that don't truly 'make people healthier' but merely keep their symptoms under control, or perhaps keep chronic conditions somewhat manageable? It looks very much as if the intention is that many treatments for, say, cancer or diabetes or kidney disease patients would be looked on as 'things that don't work' because they don't reverse or cure underlying disease.
To the recent comments the president made in answer to a question at one of the town halls, he said that a woman with cardiac arrhythmias might just 'take a pain pill' instead of having surgery. Surely it does not take a medical professional to know that cardiac arrhythmias are not helped by 'painkillers', and that resorting to such non-treatments with such a potentially serious condition is downright dangerous.
But again, I am getting hints that those with chronic diseases, and especially older people, will be written off as too costly. Passive euthanasia.
I didn't watch the press conference but from reading the transcript I found it all very unimpressive and unpersuasive. I don't think the case was very well made at all; I found only vague and rambling statements, and little substance. And not having seen or heard this speech, seeing it only in text, I was not likely to be taken in by any alleged 'charisma' or the 'sonorous voice' that so many seem to be captivated by.
But on another topic altogether, a very telling exchange in response to 'hometown' reporter Lynn Sweet's question
(which seems rather like a set-up, a scripted question, so the prez could address the Gates furor):
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.
I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.
So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen.
(Chuckling.) But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?
My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.
Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.''
And not having seen all the facts, why answer at all? It would behoove him to learn the facts before offering his two cents, and calling the Cambridge police or their actions ''stupid.'' But fools rush in:
And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.
That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.''
Yes, the race card was played by the man elected to lead us. That's you and I who are being accused and convicted.
Not only White Americans and policemen have been accused in this press conference, but doctors and the medical profession also. Is the idea to alienate as many people as possible? I thought the idea was to 'unite'.
I would like some of those people who were so sure that electing this man would 'end the complaints of racism' to step forward and admit, publicly, that they were wrong. Big time.
Race relations are worse because minorities never let up on the grievance-mongering and the power displays. This present regime has exacerbated racial conflicts.
And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.''
If blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, it's for the reason that they commit a disproportionate share of crimes, from traffic violations on up. I won't link to the Color of Crime yet again; anybody who is not familiar may google it.
And ending profiling will make nobody safer except lawbreakers -- if they are of the correct race and ethnicity. For the rest of us, it will mean a less safe America.
Which brings us full circle; the health care ''reform'' plan will also make us less safe and less secure, knowing that arbitrary and capricious decisions made for political reasons will actually be harmful to us and our loved ones over the long term.
During the long election cycle of last year, I spent some time arguing against those who said that 'worse is better'. Now we are about to see which school of thought was right. I can only hope the 'worse is better' proponents were correct, because we've begun to experience the 'worse', and we're about to see if ''better'' ensues.
Labels: Big Government, Health Care, Media Bias, Medical Care, Medical Ethics, Race Card, Racial Division, Socialized Medicine, Victimhood
0 comment Tuesday, June 10, 2014 | admin
But who's being taught, and who's doing the teaching? Is anybody learning anything?
Does anyone else get the impression that this Gates incident is being used opportunistically to hammer us some more with guilt and to further instill political correctness in the population?
I was disgusted to see that it was all over the news channels today. Early in the day there was coverage of the Cambridge police press conference in which the White House was requested to apologize. Later on in the day we heard that the president had summoned Sgt. Crowley, the latest victim of this race-baiting scam, to a private conversation in which things were smoothed over.
Lou Dobbs, who is one of the more reliable news personalities (though not free of political correctness) said that the president was turning this into a ''teachable moment'', and I thought: uh-oh. That means more lectures, more guilt, about 'racism', 'Jim Crow', 'the legacy of slavery' and Dixie Peach pomade. Please, spare us from such ''teaching.''
So in this typically witty piece from Mark Steyn, we learn that yes, some of that all-too-familiar 'teaching' is part of the script that's now being written for our edification:
Professor Gates is now saying that, if Sgt. Crowley publicly apologizes for his racism, the prof will graciously agree to "educate him about the history of racism in America." Which is a helluva deal. I mean, Ivy League parents remortgage their homes to pay Gates for the privilege of lecturing their kids, and here he is offering to hector it away to some no-name lunkhead for free.''
Maybe Steyn is kidding, but I would not bet on that; it sounds too plausible, and nothing is too silly to be believed these last seven months. More from Steyn's piece:
For everyone other than the president, what happened at professor Gates' house is not entirely clear. The Harvard prof returned home without his keys and, as Obama put it, "jimmied his way into the house." A neighbor, witnessing the "break-in," called the cops, and things, ah, escalated from there.
[...]
As to the differences between the professor's and the cops' version of events, I confess I've been wary of taking Henry Louis Gates at his word ever since, almost two decades back, the literary scholar compared the lyrics of the rap group 2 Live Crew to those of the Bard of Avon. "It's like Shakespeare's 'My love is like a red, red rose,'" he declared, authoritatively, to a court in Fort Lauderdale.
As it happens, "My luv's like a red, red rose" was written by Robbie Burns, a couple of centuries after Shakespeare. Oh, well. 16th century English playwright, 18th century Scottish poet: What's the diff? Evidently being within the same quarter-millennium and right general patch of the North-East Atlantic is close enough for a professor of English and Afro-American Studies appearing as an expert witness in a court case. Certainly no journalist reporting Gates' testimony was boorish enough to point out the misattribution.
[...]
In the Sixties, the great English satirist Peter Simple invented the Prejudometer, which simply by being pointed at any individual could calculate degrees of racism to the nearest prejudon, "the internationally recognized scientific unit of racial prejudice." Professor Gates seems to go around with his Prejudometer permanently cranked up to 11: When Sgt. Crowley announced through the glass-paneled front door that he was here to investigate a break-in, Gates opened it up and roared back: "Why? Because I'm a black man in America?"
Note: If there is no ''prejudometer'' in real life, I am sure there are even now some deranged liberals somewhere trying to develop one. Actually, I suppose it would be superfluous for White liberals and race-baiting minorities -- they already have a foolproof way of detecting 'prejudice': look for White folks, and there you have prejudice.
A side note: I wish 'Peter Simple's' columns might be published in book form; most of us have not had the opportunity to read them in the UK Telegraph over the years. Those of us who enjoy that kind of British whimsy combined with satire would enjoy his writings in book form.
Gates then told him, "I'll speak with your mama outside." Outside, Sgt. Crowley's mama failed to show. But among his colleagues were a black officer and a Hispanic officer. Which is an odd kind of posse for what the Rev. Al Sharpton calls, inevitably, "the highest example of racial profiling I have seen." But what of our post-racial president? After noting that "'Skip' Gates is a friend" of his, President Obama said that "there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately." But, if they're being "disproportionately" stopped by African American and Latino cops, does that really fall under the category of systemic racism? Short of dispatching one of those Uighur Muslims from China recently liberated from Gitmo by Obama to frolic and gambol on the beaches of Bermuda, the assembled officers were a veritable rainbow coalition. The photograph of the arrest shows a bullet-headed black cop � Sgt. Leon Lashley, I believe � standing in front of the porch while behind him a handcuffed Gates yells accusations of racism. This is the pitiful state the Bull
Connors of the 21st century are reduced to, forced to take along a squad recruited from the nearest Benetton ad when they go out to whup some uppity Negro boy.''
Does a grown, senior-citizen, college-educated, Harvard professor make comments like the 'yo mama' remark? I thought that was middle-school stuff. And yes, the policemen who responded to this call did look like one of those multicult TV commercials, with 'one of each' distributed among the group. It's absurd that we run our society on such a basis.
This incident might have, if handled rightly, represented a possible turning point, an opportunity for someone in a nationally-publicized case to refuse to cave in and apologize, to admit wrong where no wrong was done. What the ultimate resolution (if any) will be, isn't clear yet, but it appears that the White House and the race-grievance industry are manipulating this incident to their advantage. If we have to see more 'news' coverage, including the pompous, pretentious 'academic' holding forth on 'racism in America', while Whites once again sit meekly listening and offering mea culpas, I hope that it will perhaps be the cause of a few more people becoming fed up and finally proclaiming the PC emperor has no clothes.
Instead of feeble and futile protests of ''I'm not a racist!" I wish someone of note, someone with the world's attention, might break the ice and reject the whole rigged concept of 'racism' and all the cant and lies it has fostered over the last half century or so.
Does anyone else get the impression that this Gates incident is being used opportunistically to hammer us some more with guilt and to further instill political correctness in the population?
I was disgusted to see that it was all over the news channels today. Early in the day there was coverage of the Cambridge police press conference in which the White House was requested to apologize. Later on in the day we heard that the president had summoned Sgt. Crowley, the latest victim of this race-baiting scam, to a private conversation in which things were smoothed over.
Lou Dobbs, who is one of the more reliable news personalities (though not free of political correctness) said that the president was turning this into a ''teachable moment'', and I thought: uh-oh. That means more lectures, more guilt, about 'racism', 'Jim Crow', 'the legacy of slavery' and Dixie Peach pomade. Please, spare us from such ''teaching.''
So in this typically witty piece from Mark Steyn, we learn that yes, some of that all-too-familiar 'teaching' is part of the script that's now being written for our edification:
Professor Gates is now saying that, if Sgt. Crowley publicly apologizes for his racism, the prof will graciously agree to "educate him about the history of racism in America." Which is a helluva deal. I mean, Ivy League parents remortgage their homes to pay Gates for the privilege of lecturing their kids, and here he is offering to hector it away to some no-name lunkhead for free.''
Maybe Steyn is kidding, but I would not bet on that; it sounds too plausible, and nothing is too silly to be believed these last seven months. More from Steyn's piece:
For everyone other than the president, what happened at professor Gates' house is not entirely clear. The Harvard prof returned home without his keys and, as Obama put it, "jimmied his way into the house." A neighbor, witnessing the "break-in," called the cops, and things, ah, escalated from there.
[...]
As to the differences between the professor's and the cops' version of events, I confess I've been wary of taking Henry Louis Gates at his word ever since, almost two decades back, the literary scholar compared the lyrics of the rap group 2 Live Crew to those of the Bard of Avon. "It's like Shakespeare's 'My love is like a red, red rose,'" he declared, authoritatively, to a court in Fort Lauderdale.
As it happens, "My luv's like a red, red rose" was written by Robbie Burns, a couple of centuries after Shakespeare. Oh, well. 16th century English playwright, 18th century Scottish poet: What's the diff? Evidently being within the same quarter-millennium and right general patch of the North-East Atlantic is close enough for a professor of English and Afro-American Studies appearing as an expert witness in a court case. Certainly no journalist reporting Gates' testimony was boorish enough to point out the misattribution.
[...]
In the Sixties, the great English satirist Peter Simple invented the Prejudometer, which simply by being pointed at any individual could calculate degrees of racism to the nearest prejudon, "the internationally recognized scientific unit of racial prejudice." Professor Gates seems to go around with his Prejudometer permanently cranked up to 11: When Sgt. Crowley announced through the glass-paneled front door that he was here to investigate a break-in, Gates opened it up and roared back: "Why? Because I'm a black man in America?"
Note: If there is no ''prejudometer'' in real life, I am sure there are even now some deranged liberals somewhere trying to develop one. Actually, I suppose it would be superfluous for White liberals and race-baiting minorities -- they already have a foolproof way of detecting 'prejudice': look for White folks, and there you have prejudice.
A side note: I wish 'Peter Simple's' columns might be published in book form; most of us have not had the opportunity to read them in the UK Telegraph over the years. Those of us who enjoy that kind of British whimsy combined with satire would enjoy his writings in book form.
Gates then told him, "I'll speak with your mama outside." Outside, Sgt. Crowley's mama failed to show. But among his colleagues were a black officer and a Hispanic officer. Which is an odd kind of posse for what the Rev. Al Sharpton calls, inevitably, "the highest example of racial profiling I have seen." But what of our post-racial president? After noting that "'Skip' Gates is a friend" of his, President Obama said that "there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately." But, if they're being "disproportionately" stopped by African American and Latino cops, does that really fall under the category of systemic racism? Short of dispatching one of those Uighur Muslims from China recently liberated from Gitmo by Obama to frolic and gambol on the beaches of Bermuda, the assembled officers were a veritable rainbow coalition. The photograph of the arrest shows a bullet-headed black cop � Sgt. Leon Lashley, I believe � standing in front of the porch while behind him a handcuffed Gates yells accusations of racism. This is the pitiful state the Bull
Connors of the 21st century are reduced to, forced to take along a squad recruited from the nearest Benetton ad when they go out to whup some uppity Negro boy.''
Does a grown, senior-citizen, college-educated, Harvard professor make comments like the 'yo mama' remark? I thought that was middle-school stuff. And yes, the policemen who responded to this call did look like one of those multicult TV commercials, with 'one of each' distributed among the group. It's absurd that we run our society on such a basis.
This incident might have, if handled rightly, represented a possible turning point, an opportunity for someone in a nationally-publicized case to refuse to cave in and apologize, to admit wrong where no wrong was done. What the ultimate resolution (if any) will be, isn't clear yet, but it appears that the White House and the race-grievance industry are manipulating this incident to their advantage. If we have to see more 'news' coverage, including the pompous, pretentious 'academic' holding forth on 'racism in America', while Whites once again sit meekly listening and offering mea culpas, I hope that it will perhaps be the cause of a few more people becoming fed up and finally proclaiming the PC emperor has no clothes.
Instead of feeble and futile protests of ''I'm not a racist!" I wish someone of note, someone with the world's attention, might break the ice and reject the whole rigged concept of 'racism' and all the cant and lies it has fostered over the last half century or so.
Labels: Ethnic Division, Grievance-Mongering, Liberalism, Media Bias, Media Manipulation, Political Correctness, Race Card, Race-Baiting, White Guilt
0 comment Monday, June 2, 2014 | admin
Everything is a racial issue. That's what I've learned from the media over the last couple of decades. The media help ensure that this is so when they give a megaphone to every race huckster or grievance-monger, as long of course as they are not White or Christian.
The brouhaha now is over the Michael Vick story, which I blogged about back at the time that the story broke. Then we had the presidential seal of approval given to Vick's ''second chance'' and now it seems Tucker Carlson in an outburst on MSNBC said that Vick should be executed for his abuse of animals.
Then someone of a Turkish-sounding name, Cenk Uygur, on MSNBC, suggests that Sarah Palin ought also to be executed for hunting and killing wild animals. Next, apparently, on that same 'news' channel (I have not seen this stuff, only read about it) some Ivy-league black spokeswoman says the Vick case is all about slavery and civil rights.
Does any of this make sense to you all? Me neither.
The Free Republic discussions, linked here and here, discuss whether Carlson's comments were over-the-top. Most think so, but I am a little troubled by the number of people who seem to be diminishing the seriousness of Vick's torture of the dogs. Maybe most ''conservatives'' are really libertarians these days, and are no longer Christian in any real sense, but surely it should not be reduced to the argument that ''animals are property. Plain and simple. We have a right to do as we please with them because we own them.'' Well, in a legalistic, libertarian sense I suppose that would be the argument, but I've argued before that one of the things that characterizes European-descended people is our unique relationship with animals. All we have to do is to look at how other cultures regard animals, and notice that White people tend to bond more with animals, even if those animals are working animals. Perhaps White people, especially in our decadent postmodern culture, go overboard and treat animals as children or dote excessively on them. We see this a lot in a society where many people are childless. But the fact is, Whites seem to be the race which has the greatest empathy with and affinity for animals. I would say that while some Whites are wantonly cruel to animals, that behavior is not as frequent with Whites as it is in certain other ''communities". So for 'conservatives' to make the argument that animals are nothing more than property is a step backwards for us.
From a Christian perspective, we are not the 'owners' of animals as we are of inanimate objects; they were given into our care by God, and we were told to be the stewards of God's creation. The Old Testament certainly enjoins us to treat animals humanely. One passage says "The righteous person regards the life of his beast." Proverbs 12:10. Still the Bible allows for animals to be used for meat, fur, and other purposes, while discouraging needless cruelty to animals. The Bible does not treat animals as inert property to be disposed of however we wish.
So is the MSNBC 'pundit' correct to liken hunting wild animals to Vick's torturing and killing his dogs? I can't imagine that anyone would believe that a quick kill by a hunter is the same as torturing and mutilating animals for sheer malice. Maybe you could make the case that killing an animal with the intention of eating it is killing out of necessity, and not just for sport, and is therefore less objectionable. But there are times when it is necessary to kill animals for other reasons (because they are predators killing livestock, or because their populations have overgrown and become destructive, for example) . Of course some urban person could hardly be expected to understand that kind of thing, and I believe the media consists mostly of liberal urban types who can afford to sit on high and judge rural people for being heartless killers of animals. Then they turn around and make excuses for Vick's behavior.
The most predictable part of this whole media furor is the playing of the race card by this professional race apologist. She seems to imply that blacks having had troubled histories with dogs (dogs were sicced on them by evil White men, of course), and blacks having been 'likened to animals' apparently leads them to a vendetta against dogs. Or something. I guess anything can be made to make sense if your sole purpose is to defend and excuse blacks for any bad behavior or crime.
This is just observation on my part, anecdotal, if you will, but I've perceived that fewer blacks have dogs that are not obviously intended for fighting or protection against gang rivals, or a kind of surrogate masculinity -- hence the popularity of pit bulls, and earlier, Doberman Pinschers, dogs that were known for their fierceness or menacing behavior. There are some blacks who have dogs for companionship but it seems less common than with Whites. When I blogged about this in the past, one of my semi-regular readers (YIH, are you still around?) differed with me, and said that lower-class Whites were just as likely to be into dogfighting and acquiring the aggressive breeds of dogs.
I still believe that Whites, at their best, have a kind of bond with animals that I don't observe with other races. Some people who idealize American Indians as being at one with Mother Earth and All Creation, etc., think that they have a similar fondness for animals. I've observed that they are much less sentimental towards animals then Whites, and I have a friend who works among Indians who was dismayed to see some of her Indian clients abusing a 'runt' puppy. She rescued the pup and took it to a shelter; the clients saw it only as a nuisance.
It's also well-known that before the conquest by Whites, many Indian tribes ate dogs, just as in Asia where dogs are a common menu item.
And yes, I know, who are we to judge other cultures? It's all relative, isn't it? Oprah told me so.
In any case, as to the remarks by Tucker Carlson, he was being a little over-the-top recommending execution for animal cruelty, but there is data out there that shows that most people who commit violence against human beings started out by abusing animals.
I don't blindly accept everything that the 'psychiatric community' tells us, but it makes sense. I steer well clear of anybody who is wantonly cruel to animals. Do I recommend the death penalty for animal abuse? No, but neither do we shrug it off by saying ''animals are property and it's none of our business what people do with theirs.'' There is a happy medium between a callous response to animal cruelty in the name of some kind of purist libertarian principles and being a PETA fanatic.
As for making the Vick story a racial issue, that to me is just more evidence of my own perception that blacks do not feel the same empathy for animals that many White people do. To them all that seems to matter is sticking by their racial kin and defending them no matter what they do.
In a sense we might learn something from them on that score, since we seem to turn on each other all too quickly these days, but on the other hand, if we suspend all our ethics in the name of defending the bad apples amongst us, we will not be true to who we are. Our strengths include our empathy and our adherence to principles - but among our principles ought to be some kind of kin-loyalty. It ought to be higher on our list.
The brouhaha now is over the Michael Vick story, which I blogged about back at the time that the story broke. Then we had the presidential seal of approval given to Vick's ''second chance'' and now it seems Tucker Carlson in an outburst on MSNBC said that Vick should be executed for his abuse of animals.
Then someone of a Turkish-sounding name, Cenk Uygur, on MSNBC, suggests that Sarah Palin ought also to be executed for hunting and killing wild animals. Next, apparently, on that same 'news' channel (I have not seen this stuff, only read about it) some Ivy-league black spokeswoman says the Vick case is all about slavery and civil rights.
Does any of this make sense to you all? Me neither.
The Free Republic discussions, linked here and here, discuss whether Carlson's comments were over-the-top. Most think so, but I am a little troubled by the number of people who seem to be diminishing the seriousness of Vick's torture of the dogs. Maybe most ''conservatives'' are really libertarians these days, and are no longer Christian in any real sense, but surely it should not be reduced to the argument that ''animals are property. Plain and simple. We have a right to do as we please with them because we own them.'' Well, in a legalistic, libertarian sense I suppose that would be the argument, but I've argued before that one of the things that characterizes European-descended people is our unique relationship with animals. All we have to do is to look at how other cultures regard animals, and notice that White people tend to bond more with animals, even if those animals are working animals. Perhaps White people, especially in our decadent postmodern culture, go overboard and treat animals as children or dote excessively on them. We see this a lot in a society where many people are childless. But the fact is, Whites seem to be the race which has the greatest empathy with and affinity for animals. I would say that while some Whites are wantonly cruel to animals, that behavior is not as frequent with Whites as it is in certain other ''communities". So for 'conservatives' to make the argument that animals are nothing more than property is a step backwards for us.
From a Christian perspective, we are not the 'owners' of animals as we are of inanimate objects; they were given into our care by God, and we were told to be the stewards of God's creation. The Old Testament certainly enjoins us to treat animals humanely. One passage says "The righteous person regards the life of his beast." Proverbs 12:10. Still the Bible allows for animals to be used for meat, fur, and other purposes, while discouraging needless cruelty to animals. The Bible does not treat animals as inert property to be disposed of however we wish.
So is the MSNBC 'pundit' correct to liken hunting wild animals to Vick's torturing and killing his dogs? I can't imagine that anyone would believe that a quick kill by a hunter is the same as torturing and mutilating animals for sheer malice. Maybe you could make the case that killing an animal with the intention of eating it is killing out of necessity, and not just for sport, and is therefore less objectionable. But there are times when it is necessary to kill animals for other reasons (because they are predators killing livestock, or because their populations have overgrown and become destructive, for example) . Of course some urban person could hardly be expected to understand that kind of thing, and I believe the media consists mostly of liberal urban types who can afford to sit on high and judge rural people for being heartless killers of animals. Then they turn around and make excuses for Vick's behavior.
The most predictable part of this whole media furor is the playing of the race card by this professional race apologist. She seems to imply that blacks having had troubled histories with dogs (dogs were sicced on them by evil White men, of course), and blacks having been 'likened to animals' apparently leads them to a vendetta against dogs. Or something. I guess anything can be made to make sense if your sole purpose is to defend and excuse blacks for any bad behavior or crime.
This is just observation on my part, anecdotal, if you will, but I've perceived that fewer blacks have dogs that are not obviously intended for fighting or protection against gang rivals, or a kind of surrogate masculinity -- hence the popularity of pit bulls, and earlier, Doberman Pinschers, dogs that were known for their fierceness or menacing behavior. There are some blacks who have dogs for companionship but it seems less common than with Whites. When I blogged about this in the past, one of my semi-regular readers (YIH, are you still around?) differed with me, and said that lower-class Whites were just as likely to be into dogfighting and acquiring the aggressive breeds of dogs.
I still believe that Whites, at their best, have a kind of bond with animals that I don't observe with other races. Some people who idealize American Indians as being at one with Mother Earth and All Creation, etc., think that they have a similar fondness for animals. I've observed that they are much less sentimental towards animals then Whites, and I have a friend who works among Indians who was dismayed to see some of her Indian clients abusing a 'runt' puppy. She rescued the pup and took it to a shelter; the clients saw it only as a nuisance.
It's also well-known that before the conquest by Whites, many Indian tribes ate dogs, just as in Asia where dogs are a common menu item.
And yes, I know, who are we to judge other cultures? It's all relative, isn't it? Oprah told me so.
In any case, as to the remarks by Tucker Carlson, he was being a little over-the-top recommending execution for animal cruelty, but there is data out there that shows that most people who commit violence against human beings started out by abusing animals.
I don't blindly accept everything that the 'psychiatric community' tells us, but it makes sense. I steer well clear of anybody who is wantonly cruel to animals. Do I recommend the death penalty for animal abuse? No, but neither do we shrug it off by saying ''animals are property and it's none of our business what people do with theirs.'' There is a happy medium between a callous response to animal cruelty in the name of some kind of purist libertarian principles and being a PETA fanatic.
As for making the Vick story a racial issue, that to me is just more evidence of my own perception that blacks do not feel the same empathy for animals that many White people do. To them all that seems to matter is sticking by their racial kin and defending them no matter what they do.
In a sense we might learn something from them on that score, since we seem to turn on each other all too quickly these days, but on the other hand, if we suspend all our ethics in the name of defending the bad apples amongst us, we will not be true to who we are. Our strengths include our empathy and our adherence to principles - but among our principles ought to be some kind of kin-loyalty. It ought to be higher on our list.
Labels: Animal Rights, Crime And Punishment, Multiculturalism, Race Card
0 comment | admin
That part is right, but the rest of the remarks are just more of the same old, same old, which got us where we are now.
Cambridge Mayor: 'We will never have a perfect society'
I am very pleased that the charges of disorderly conduct levied against Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. have been dropped. The City of Cambridge, the Cambridge Police Department, and Professor Gates have released a joint statement that acknowledges "�.the incident of July 16, 2009 was regrettable and unfortunate." As the parties involved have placed this matter behind them, it seems appropriate for our community to do the same.
[...]
I genuinely believe that by bringing people together, by airing our differences, and by challenging our attitudes, we can foster a more tolerant, more inclusive society. I shall continue my efforts to help bring that about, and while we will never have a perfect society, we should never stop striving.
And as for dropping the charges -- well, I suppose it was predictable.
Cambridge Mayor: 'We will never have a perfect society'
I am very pleased that the charges of disorderly conduct levied against Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. have been dropped. The City of Cambridge, the Cambridge Police Department, and Professor Gates have released a joint statement that acknowledges "�.the incident of July 16, 2009 was regrettable and unfortunate." As the parties involved have placed this matter behind them, it seems appropriate for our community to do the same.
[...]
I genuinely believe that by bringing people together, by airing our differences, and by challenging our attitudes, we can foster a more tolerant, more inclusive society. I shall continue my efforts to help bring that about, and while we will never have a perfect society, we should never stop striving.
And as for dropping the charges -- well, I suppose it was predictable.
Labels: Cutlural Marxism, Political Correctness, Race Card, Race-Baiting