Monday, August 31, 2009

Racism - It Never Goes Away!

Playing the Race Card, Again, and Again, and…
At the extreme end of the left-wing are the collectivist ideologies, including fascism
By Jim O'Neill Tuesday, September 1, 2009
“Instead of a multicultural tableau of beaming young idealists on screen, we see ugly scenes of mostly older and white malcontents, disrupting forums where others have come to actually learn something. Instead of hope, we get swastikas, death threats and T-shirts proclaiming “Proud Member of the Mob.” —New York Times writer Maureen Dowd describing a town hall meeting
“On an altar of prejudice we crucify our own, yet the blood of all children is the color of God.”—Don E. Williams Jr.
Conservatives seem to catch on pretty quickly to the fact that they are not fascists, but our liberal friends seem to have a hard time wrapping their heads around the concept. So, for their sake—one last time.
At the extreme end of the left-wing are the collectivist ideologies, including fascism. Collectivists believe in building a massive government, and having everything under the government’s control. The whole Nazi grab-bag—concentration camps, swastikas, jackboots, et al., belongs to the left-wing.
At the extreme right of the political spectrum are anarchists, and they don’t build anything. As soon as they see a government—democratic, fascist, whatever—they want to destroy it. It’s what they do. There’s no way in the world that the Far Right could be fascists
So it’s been swell having the Far Left pretend that we are one of them, but they need to take back their swastikas, jackboots, and armbands now—we insist.
As for the Far Left calling the right-wing “racists,” well, that needs to stop too.
Pretty soon the Far Left is going to run out of things to call us. I suppose they’ll have to resort to calling us “commies.” “Lousy right-wing pinkos!”
Let’s look at the racist history of the left-wing, and we’ll see who the racists really are
Let’s look into a bit of the racist history of the left-wing, and we’ll see who the racists really are.
As I’ve discussed in prior articles, the left-wing during the first half of the 20th century called themselves Progressives, and the Progressives were passionate promoters of the teachings of eugenics. They were especially fond of the eugenic notions of racial “cleansing.”
The Klux Klux Klan of the day was a creature of the Progressive Left—future Democratic President, Harry S. Truman, belonged to the Klux Klux Klan, as did future liberal Supreme Court justice Hugo Black.
The “Jim Crow” South was politically speaking, solidly left-wing. For decades the racially segregated south was a bastion of the left-wing Democratic Party.
The Progressives pushed the concept of a national minimum wage, in order to keep the “inferior” races from competing for jobs better filled by Caucasians, and the modern welfare state was initially started as a government vehicle for racial purification.
Racism: Left-wing’s drive for the minimum wage, planned parenthood, and the welfare state
Royal Meeker, a left-wing Princeton professor, and advisor to liberal poster-boy President Woodrow Wilson, explains the rationale behind the left-wing’s drive for the minimum wage, planned parenthood, and the welfare state:
“Better that the state should support the Inefficient wholly, and prevent the multiplication of the breed, than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind.”
“The inefficient.” Jeeze, Royal Meeker sounds almost as bad as Ezekiel Emmanuel.
In an article in the April 3, 1913 edition of The New York Times, Meeker suggested that America’s children should be subject to “compulsory civil service.” “No private or parochial schools should be permitted to trespass upon the child’s time of preparation for service to the state.”
Some things never change. The left-wing drooling over big government is nothing new, trust me. Nor is their racial bigotry.
The Negro Project: Margret Sanger’s Eugenic Plan for Black Americans
Planned Parenthood annually gives out awards called “Maggies,” named after liberal icon Margaret Sanger—considered the “saint” of birth control, and the founder of Planned Parenthood. (I love the Left and their euphemisms—calling planned infanticide, “Planned Parenthood.” Cute).
In her own words, Sanger was not a “fit person for love, or home, or children, or anything which needs attention or consideration.” Wonderful role model for parenting—I can see why Planned Parenthood adores her.
Planned Parenthood should engrave Sanger’s words on the next batch of Maggies they hand out. “Not a fit person for love, or home, or anything which needs attention or consideration.”
Describing what she considered to be the main aim of birth control, Sanger wrote, “More children from the fit, and less from the unfit—that is the chief issue of birth control.” In other words, birth control was used by the Left as a device to limit the population of what they considered “undesirable” elements of society—especially blacks.
Sanger was behind what was called the “Negro Project”—the forerunner of today’s Planned Parenthood. The idea behind the left-wing’s “Negro Project” was to limit, if not eliminate, America’s black population.
Tanya Green writes, “By 1949, Sanger had hoodwinked black America’s best and brightest into believing birth control’s “life-saving benefits.” In a monumental feat, she bewitched virtually an entire network of black social, professional and academic organizations into endorsing Planned Parenthood’s eugenic program.”
You may find Ms. Green’s article of interest—“The Negro Project: Margret Sanger’s Eugenic Plan for Black Americans.”
Sanger didn’t do it alone, of course, the left-wing helped her. The left-wing helped her a lot. Eugenics, after all, was one of the main planks in the Progressive/Democratic platform. Left-wing social engineering at its finest. No wonder Hitler took notes from the American Left.
Although the motivations behind Planned Parenthood may have changed over the years, the results are the same—racial genocide. Look up the figures, and do the math.
It is perhaps because of an unconscious acknowledgement of their own vile racist past, that white liberals are such spineless milquetoasts when it come to black racism.
The Far Left ridicules and mocks spirituality, because their own spirits are stagnant and shriveled
Which brings us to the current state of racism in America’s left-wing. But before I go there, I want to discuss spirituality a bit—I want to bring God into this.
Each of us is born with a divine spark that, through the exercise of our free will, we either nurture and cultivate, or allow to fade and extinguish.
The Far Left does not believe in a divine light within humanity. All of the texts that they study, memorize, and quote from, are written by atheists.
At best, they practice “religion” in quote marks—religions that are twisted travesties of true spirituality. Religions that don’t teach love, compassion and surrender to God, but teach anger, hatred, and arrogance.
The Far Left ridicules and mocks spirituality, because their own spirits are stagnant and shriveled.
When Divine Justice asks them what they did with the opportunity of life, and the gift of free will, they will have nothing to say, but “I spent my life ignoring You, and grew in avarice, anger, and arrogance.” Their skin color will not be an issue.
Conservatives are God’s people. It is not a case of God being on our side, but of us being on God’s side. We are the ones who give America its heart and soul.
At the top of the Washington Monument—up on the capstone where no one can see it—are engraved the Latin words Laus Deo—“Praise be to God.” The words face the east, so it catches the rays of the morning sun each dawn. These words were not placed there for tourists to view.
I believe that we would do well to engrave in our hearts, in our minds, and in our spirits, the concept of Laus Deo, as we prepare for battle.
So, back to racism in America today. What is the current liberal “take” on racism? Well, things have changed radically, and on the other hand, they haven’t changed at all. The liberals are still racists, but they are now anti-white racists.
This sea-change in liberal thinking has been gradually gaining momentum since the 1950s, until today it is the accepted liberal norm. Liberals view Hispanics, and especially Blacks, as being somehow more entitled, more deserving, and just all around “superior” to Caucasians (and Asians).
There are some blacks who are flat-out Black Supremacists, like Louis Farakhan, Leonard Jeffries, Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, and other proponents of Black Theology.
(As you’ll recall, Wright was the Obama family’s preacher for twenty years. “The One” claims that he didn’t have a clue that Wright was a black racist. Obama would have us believe that he is some sort of hapless jejune naif, who accidentally keeps stumbling into nefarious characters).
With their signature Byzantine but vapid reasoning, liberals believe that race matters, and since race matters more than individual integrity, ethics, or talent, then race must be the defining trait of an individual’s worth, and since Hispanics and Blacks can’t be bad, then they must be good, and since Caucasians and Asians aren’t Black or Hispanic, they must be bad.
I think it’s a load of rubbish, but it makes sense to liberals—somehow.
Once again, I suggest reading Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism,” if you haven’t done so yet. (Goldberg deserves a Pulitzer for his impeccably researched book. Maybe he and Glenn Beck could share the Medal of Freedom that Obama gave to Harvey Milk).
Goldberg writes that, “Positive discrimination forms the backbone of our racial spoils system.”
By “positive discrimination” (don’t you love these terms?) Goldberg means the process whereby certain races (Caucasian, Asian) are kept out of schools and jobs because of preference being given to other races (Blacks, Hispanics)—the “racial spoils system.”
I’ll spare you the wretched reasoning behind identity politics and multiculturalism, and get straight to the point. Goldberg writes, “This welter of nonsense enshrines and empowers a host of collectivist notions that place the state at the center of managing the progress of groups: those who oppose this agenda get clubbed over the head with the charge of racism.”
If you disagree with the liberal agenda you’re a racist—pure and simple.
But surely, if you have no bias against any race, then the liberals will consider you to be non-racist. Right? Well, actually no.
Goldberg notes that, “According to liberals, race neutrality [i.e. not being racist] is itself racist.” It harkens back to the “social Darwinism” of the past, we are told, because it relegates minorities to a savage struggle for the survival of the fittest.”
“Not being racist, is racist”—now that’s emblematic liberal “logic” at its best. For the left-wing it’s “1984” forever.
In other words, Blacks and Hispanics, the poor dears, are incapable of competing with Caucasians and Asians on a level playing field, and consequently need assistance in the form of money and quotas. Nonetheless, Blacks and Hispanics are superior to Caucasians and Asians simply because, well, they’re Black and Hispanic. If you disagree with any of this, then you my friend, are a racist. Got it?
I can’t begin to tell you how absurd I find this whole liberal pile of garbage. It is demeaning and condescending to the Blacks and Hispanics; it is insulting and racist towards Caucasians and Asians, and it is harmful to everybody. It is a pile of vile, poisonous, puerile crapola. This insane nonsense needs to stop now.
Before closing, I want to make something crystal clear. I despise black racists, because they are racists, not because they are black. I abhor black anti-American traitorous scum—not because they are black—but because they are anti-American traitorous scum. My disdain is unbiased, I despise all racists and traitors equally, regardless of race, color, or creed.
I want to make this clear as well. There are a host of patriotic Hispanic and Black Americans who find this insidious liberal drivel, anathema. They detest the liberal lunacy as much as anyone. I salute their patriotism and courage.
In closing, it is the conservative right-wing, with its emphasis on individual responsibility and personal merit, that most closely adheres to Dr. King’s admonition to not judge someone “ the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” It is the right-wing that is largely “color-blind,” and looks at someone’s performance, rather than their race.
The left-wing considers such laudable attitudes to be hopelessly retardataire, and, unbelievably, racist.
It is the Liberal Left, with their emphasis on “multiculturalism,” entitlement, and identity politics, that nurtures and encourages racism. It is the left-wing that views the world through “colored” glasses. It is the left-wing that has historically been racist, and they continue to cultivate and spread their poison.
In one of her articles Pamella Geller writes, “Patriots, be on notice. This is the favorite tactic of the Left. Any criticism of Obama, no matter what about or how legit, will be labeled racism. Tea party? Racist! Opposition to socialism? Racist! Opposition to nationalized healthcare? Racist! Opposition to cap and tax? Racist! When the Left makes everything about race, and sees everything through a prism of “racism,” it shows us who the real racists are.”
The next time some left-wing whiner tries to hide behind the skirts of the “race card,” you tell them where to shove it. Tell them to stick it alongside their swastika, hammer and sickle, and other leftist gear, because we aren’t buying their nonsense any more.

The Race Idiots
By Selwyn Duke
August 24, 2009
With relativistic people, there is no such thing as a true axiom, yet you’d never know it listening to our modern mantras. We hear things such as “Our strength lies in our diversity,” “Religion has caused all the wars in history,” and “Everything is a matter of perspective” proclaimed with theological assurance. Of course, the last supposition is contradictory, and embracing it renders moral supposition itself meaningless. Regardless, it’s natural for man to make sense of the world by “profiling” elements of reality.
Many of our assumptions pertain to race, and one is always uttered in the wake of stories such as the recent Henry Louis Gates affair. What happens is that, referring to race, people will reflexively say something akin to the following, “Well, we still have a long way to go.” Even conservatives pay homage to this self-evident provisional “truth,” only, they add a qualifier so it goes something like, “We still have a long way to go, but . . .,” with the caboose being “we’ve made great strides,” “we’ve come a long way” or some variation thereof. It’s obligatory, after all. It’s how you polish up you credentials as a person who “understands the problem.”
It’s also reflective of a hang-up. Oh, this isn’t to say I believe we’ve achieved perfection in racial attitudes, perish the thought. It is to say, however, that seeing a failure to achieve perfection in an area as a characteristic problem is far more of a problem than what ostensibly needs invasive and aggressive remedy. It usually yields a cure worse than the disease.
Understand that bigotry is simply a manifestation of one of the Seven Deadly Sins: wrath. It is not the end-all and be-all, the source of all our woes. It is not, relatively speaking, even a major problem (although, it waxes when we let the Sharptons, Jacksons and Obamas of the world stir the pot).
If this statement raises eyebrows, perspective is needed. If we were otherwise perfect and called the ether home, any extant bigotry would rightly stick out like white sheets at a Black Panther meeting. Yet we are far from perfect. We exhibit not just one element of wrath but also its other manifestations and the rest of the deadly sins — greed, lust, sloth, pride, envy and gluttony — to varying degrees. So the question is not whether bigotry exists and is a problem, as this is true of every sin. It concerns whether it is a characteristic problem.
In other words, if we were to constantly lament our lacking math ability, it would imply one of two things. It either stands out in reality, making us pay it some mind, or it stands out only in our minds, in which case we are detached from reality. If the former, it would have to pale in comparison to the mathematical achievement of other nations or to our ability in other areas, such as English and history. So the question is, does our obsession with bigotry meet one of the last criterion’s two elements?

No rational person can make the case that we rank high on the world’s bigotry scale, not on a planet in which racial and ethnic patriotism reign supreme. Many don’t realize that this is in fact man’s default state, but the irony is that it’s because they’ve fallen victim to something they might be wont to preach against: “ethnocentrism.” The fact is that man is tribal by fallen nature, and there is little in the way of political correctness outside the Western world. In fact, far from being taught that it’s wrong to discriminate, many groups are taught that it’s wrong to not place your “people” first. Such a thing can make you a pariah.
The reality is that we kill ourselves talking about bigotry, but much of the world kills others because of it. We’ve all heard about this, from the Balkan ethnic cleansing in the 1990s to the Ruandan genocide in which hundreds of thousands of Tutsis were murdered by Hutu tribesman, who happened to refer to them as “cockroaches.” Oh, I should mention that no hate-speech charges are in the offing.
But, okay, we’re better than the monster in another country, but maybe bigotry is the worst monster roaming our countryside. Except that, well, believing this requires the most incomplete of moral compasses. Let’s now contrast this manifestation of wrath with the rest of our national sins.
It’s obvious where we should start. Given that we have sexual imagery and innuendo everywhere, classes in pornography and “sexology” in colleges, and stories of children re-enacting Caligula’s court in schools, can we really make the case that bigotry is a greater problem than lust? What about greed? Well, given the Bernie Madoffs of the world, the recent Wall Street woes, rapacious government officials and the long-accepted maxim about the lust for money being the root of all evil, it just may rank a bit higher as well. Sloth? Our welfare state and handout-and-entitlement mentality. Envy? Class warfare. Gluttony? We have more obese people than the rest of the world combined. Pride? Given how people are loath to admit error — think Obama and his refusal to apologize to the Cambridge police — and the super-size egos that abound, this trumps bigotry also.
This lack of perspective is no small matter, as it leads to much destructive social engineering. Just think about race-based quotas, affirmative action and set asides. Consider the assumption that relative racial homogeneity within a business or organization equates to racial animosity in its leaders’ hearts, or how largely white neighborhoods are targeted with “low income” housing because, well, we all know there just must be unjust discrimination. And think about how Obama, Gates and so many others will just assume that white police are bigoted because “We still have a long way to go.” All the while we have schools teaching perversion, profligate government spending, illegal aliens “undocumented” into legitimacy, criminals who go unpunished, slackers who are rewarded, heroes who are derided and traitors who are exalted. We have caricatured virtue and vice, exaggerating some parts to grotesque proportions while ignoring others. The result is that we misdirect our scalpel during “corrective” surgery, slicing off healthy tissue while allowing cancerous tumors in our midst to grow unfettered.
Not only does this selective moral blindness numb us to our real national sins, it also allows the reprobate the illusion of righteousness. In fact, while the stereotype of the self-righteous oaf is of a rightist religious zealot, a far more fitting candidate is the loopy leftist lunkhead. He is the one who will parade about defining favored vices as virtue, worshipping sex and mammon, secure in his own saintliness because he utters nary a racial joke and bears nobly that newly-minted white man’s burden. The modern leftist is like a Nazi who thinks he is good because he is hygienic and punctual.
Yet this leftist conception of virtue is as shallow as it is narrow; its definition of goodness doesn’t seem to involve love for what one defends as much as equal-opportunity hatred. As to this, I have long observed something: liberals treat blacks like people; the problem is that they don’t treat people like people. That is to say, they treat blacks like everyone else, but they treat everyone pretty shabbily. With Torquemada-like zeal they advance the dogma that we must treat all people equally, but much is missing from that prescription. Equally at what moral level? You can treat people equally by killing them all with the same expedition and ferocity.
So here is the left’s implied standard: you may curse people out generically for five minutes with seething hatred, just don’t utter one racial epithet. You may let everyone starve, just don’t give one race a morsel of food another cannot digest. You may corrupt all races with vile hip-hop anti-culture, just don’t imply that it is more corruptive than anything else. This is our national hang-up, our racial Puritanism.
Leftists don’t realize it, but with their obsession, they are reminiscent of a group from the past which they view with utter contempt and mockery. And while it’s generally not true that authentic Christians were hung-up on sex, the people in question could be thus described. These were individuals who would, and I’ll be delicate, affix mechanical devices to boys to prevent a certain normal physiological reaction. (No, this was not medieval times but those of the “Enlightenment,” and the instigators were at least as likely to be physicians and scientists as churchmen.) I guess they figured that they “still had a long way to go.”
Now, people weren’t wrong to preach chastity just as we aren’t wrong to preach charity. But among the legitimate moralists of the day were those who caricatured the virtue, thereby perverting it, just as we do today with racial brotherhood. The question is, will you and I be voices of reason or, in obeisance to the age, insist that all racial talk is “dirty”? If the latter, then we will be deserving of the mockery when people two centuries hence laugh at how “repressed” we were.