Free yourself. Laugh at the "racism" shtick. Make it a badge of honor.
There is such a thing as a conditioned response. Here's an example: Leftists call conservatives "racists." Conservatives cower and stutter some defense. Leftists call conservatives "racists" some more. Conservatives cower some more. Question: How do you think you break this pattern?
We've seen this again with the recent vitriol spewed by NAACP head Ben Jealous (a fitting last name). Speaking at the NAACP convention in Kansas City, Jealous accused the Tea Party of, take a guess . . . cue the "Jeopardy!" music . . . "racism." Just as predictably, many conservatives are running around trying to convince everyone that, by gum, they really are swell guys. No, really. I'm not a racist. I don't beat my wife. I don't kick my dog. I eat my organic vegetables and drive a Prius.
Look, why don't we just save everyone the trouble? Every time a conservative renders an opinion, we can just play a recording with a little weaselly voice screeching, "You're a wacist! You're a wacist!" (Barney Frank style) followed by a music video featuring The Cowering Conservative – I mean, 1950s-style, duck-and-cover footage with the tune and all.
And such conservatives abound. Oh, don't get me wrong, conservative brethren, I love ya', man. But, frankly, too many of you are saps. You really don't get it. People who advocated welfare reform in the 1990s were accused of being "racist." If you're for border control, you're "racist." If you criticize Obama, you're "racist." If you oppose quotas, you're "racist." If you say that, be it nature or nurture, there are differences among groups, you're "racist." If you want English to be the national language, you're "racist." The word has become meaningless, only used to stifle and stigmatize opposition. And if calling you a heretic worked in that regard, the Left would do that. And if calling you a Fig Newton worked, they would do that.
Nevertheless, the ploy prevents sap conservatives from speaking – and even conceiving of – certain truths. They won't say that so-called racial profiling is just part of proper profiling, they pay lip service to the relativistic idea that all cultures are morally equal, they refuse to call bigoted blacks such as Obama and Eric Holder out on their bigotry, they tolerate double standards with respect to hate-crime-law application and racial jokes, and they let whites persecuted for making innocent comments twist in the wind. They won't speak unfashionable truths for fear of becoming unfashionable people. Well, all I can say is that if the Truth can be "racist," then hello, I'm a "racist." Pleased to meet you.
And this gets at a deeper point. On the O'Reilly Factor recently, Bill O'Reilly was discussing the Jealous situation with Professor Marc Lamont Hill. You know, Hill is the fellow with a Cracker-Jack-box Ph.D. who looks like a high-school kid heading to the prom. Anyway, the good professor, in so many words, put forth the leftist definition stating that only whites can be "racist" because being so requires one to have "institutional power." OK, whatever. I accept the definition. Really, I do.
I just reject the word.
What I mean is, I've long warned against using the Lexicon of the Left. "Racism" is a term as stupid as "ageism," only, we're inured to it. We forget that "ism" refers to a doctrine, system or theory. Thus, of course "racism" will denote doctrine, and is it any surprise that the doctrine is dumb? Leftist doctrine is usually dumb. But what's even dumber is that we actually embrace the Left's doctrinal terms. This is why I prefer using what simply refers to attitude – "bigotry" – as in Barack Obama is a bigot, Eric Holder is a bigot and Ben Jealous is a bigot. As for "racism," it was originated by the Left. So leave it to them. They can define it. They can whine it. And if they ask me, I'll tell them where they can stick it.
The point is that you can't prove you're not a "racist" to the Left, because they'll just define "racist" as being whatever you are. In fact, sap conservatives, understand something: You're not going to "prove" anything to the NAACP. You're not going to prove anything to the mainstream media. You're not going to prove anything to any dyed-in-the-fool liberal. They are enemies. And enemies aren't interested in proof; they're interested in propaganda.
So cultivate the right warrior attitude. Look at it like this: If you were engaging in a cold war against the Nazis in 1938, would you bend over backwards to "prove" to them that their propaganda about you was invalid? Of course not! They know it's invalid – that's the nature of evil's propaganda. And it's designed to invalidate you. And you don't respond to enemies with defensiveness and measured responses.
You propagandize against them.
Now, this doesn't mean you have to lie. Note that while "propaganda" generally has a negative connotation today, it doesn't denote dishonesty. It is simply, informs The Free Dictionary, "the organized dissemination of information, allegations, etc., to assist or damage the cause of a government, movement, etc." And to damage leftists' cause, all we need do is tell the truth about them.
So what this does mean is that you have to stop being "conservative" and start being bold. The only consistent political definition of a "conservative" – the only one that holds across time and place – is "one who desires to maintain the status quo." Well, maintenance men are seldom warriors. Conservatives too often take a conservative approach, being cautious while their enemies are callous. They too often bring a rhetorical knife to a rhetorical gunfight. They too often act like losers – and lose.
I am not saying that we should stop making reasoned arguments, but those are for the reasonable (those who can be swayed). They are wholly inappropriate for unreasonable charges from dishonorable children. They deserve your boot. You spit in their eye. For enemies bent on your destruction don't want compromise; they won't yield to reason. They are to be fought and, God willing, defeated.
This means that when Congressman Joe Wilson shouts "You lie!" at Barack Obama, you respond, "Representative Wilson was wrong. Obama lies a lot." It means that when the Left bristles at a satirical letter to Lincoln, you understand that bold, fresh pieces of insanity will always hate satire. And, personally, do I really care that some Tea Party folks juxtaposed Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler on a billboard? Not really. I'm just not that concerned about Mr. Hitler's reputation.
And what of civility? Be wary. When the Left is civil – or calls for civility – it's usually a ruse. It's simply the tactic that best helps them achieve their aims at the moment. Here's how it works: Leftists lie through their teeth, and then, when you respond with righteous indignation, they pout like little girls, saying, "You're mean! You're intolerant! What happened to civility! [Translation: You called our lies lies! How dare you!]" Understand that the effect here is to stop sap conservatives from calling lies lies, thus allowing the Left to use its greatest weapon with impunity. Also understand that the worst form of impoliteness is insincerity in discourse.
And understand something else: Leftists are cowards. They are creatures of the pack, finding their strength only in numbers. After all, what do you think being politically correct is all about? It means doing what's fashionable in our time, what makes you popular. A man who believes in Truth, such as Thomas More, will die for his principles, alone, twisting in the wind. A liberal goes the way the wind blows and will die for nothing. Stand up to leftists en masse, and they'll fold like a tent.
So free yourself. Laugh at the "racism" shtick. Make it a badge of honor. Call leftists what they are: cowards, bigots, liars, demagogues, and, worst of all by far, enemies of Truth. Fight fire with fire. Remember, millions of good Americans are sick and tired of political correctness and will stand with you. So just say to our leftist legal aliens: If you like name-calling and you want to fight, OK. I'm a racist, sexist homophobe, and I'm in your face. What's it to ya'?
Progressives need racists in order to function.
First of all, racism is a defining characteristic for the left. Pigeonholing someone as a racist allows everyone within earshot to immediately place the person accused into that limbo where his/her opinion no longer matters. It is used specifically for two reasons; it’s a negative that cannot be disproven, it colors all subsequent statements by that person by focusing it through a despicable lens.
Second, racism is the last refuge of any individual or group whose argument has descended into irrelevancy. There is no more irrelevant organization than the NAACP. I mean how long has it been since a black person has been called ‘colored’ for Lord’s sake! The NAACP craves the relevance of the T.E.A. Party. They used to be just that; back in the 70’s. They’ve become justy another tired organized victim’s wing of the progressive left.
“What’s it to ya’?”
Yes, that’s good, but in response to the leftist crap I prefer “That’s bullshit!”
I used it last weekend and got some shocked looks, and an argument, but the fact that not everyone believes the propaganda of the left was registered.
reply to Selwyn Duke,
Just what I’ve been looking for all along since I started visiting this site–a real conservative who gets it. You understand that serious politics is about friends and enemies. It’s about winning or losing. No quarter should be asked or given by either side, and compromise and civility are the positions of those who choose to leave the field of battle.
Most conservatives regard liberals as traitors to this country, pure and simple. Most liberals regard conservatives as moral primitives and bigots. Yes, neither description is very nice, and one can imagine a world in which this sort of politics is distasteful and unnecessary. However, that is not the world we live in.
Have you ever heard someone talking to themselves – it’s both embarrassing for you the eavesdropper but also funny at the same time – here’s this person communicating out loud what should, by social convention, be an internal conversation. And what fascinating subject is the person debating with him or herself? You can’t help but listen in although most sub-vocalizing carries no intelligible message to you, the external listener. And that’s what Selwyn Duke is doing here – we’re having another white person talks to himself episode and the subject is “racism”. White folks do a lot of this – “Am I a racist?”, “Are you a racist?”, “I know I’m not racist, this is all very unfair”, and “I have a black friend, which proves I’m not a racist, or at least I think that should prove it”.
Some anal Harvard professor is probably researching, as we speak, the history of the term “racism” in American society, but it’s safe to say the term became widely popular with the rise of the Civil Rights movement. And the part embarrassing to the external listener is that white folks embraced the term, en masse, to describe themselves, it was voluntary and not imposed externally, “racist” is a self-portrait descriptive constantly employed to trigger a brace of familiar emotions – guilt, anger, humiliation, defiance, plus a host of lesser feelings. The question is what satisfaction do whites receive from this constant, and collective, sub-vocalizing?
To understand the motivations, it’s necessary to dispassionately view the actors in this ongoing American comedy. On the one side are American blacks, a long suffering group of “official” under achievers who fear white society, or, rather, are apprehensive from birth whites may unexpectedly turn on them in their overwhelming white hordes, that this ubiquitous “we’re all equal” stuff is a carefully camouflaged lie, a sentiment which can’t be trusted and a profession of love which could be revoked for inexplicable reasons at any time.
Every minority group has reason to be emotionally uncomfortable within any society and American blacks are no exception – they occupy the bottom rung of the social hierarchy without hope of moving up – at least in the foreseeable future. Among other minorities, blacks have much to resent; Asian-Americans are even weirder than the white folks, an aloof, dispassionate, self-involved but internally confident culture seemingly unafraid and unconcerned with potential rejection by the white majority. And Hispanics or Latinos, whether it’s true or not, are seen, in many respects, as the golden child by whites; their strong family structure is constantly admired while whites sadly shake their collective heads at the lack of family values and parental responsibility among blacks. Even the Jews, an ersatz sort of “racial” minority, are both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, they’ve long allied themselves with the interests of blacks but their kids, with their endless educational achievements and effortless economic successes, are seen in obvious contrast to the failure of ghetto blacks to advance their children into society’s mainstream.
For the white actors in this never ending series of nightly re-runs, the social tension inherent within a culturally diverse society manifests itself as an urge to constantly admonish themselves for an undefined and inexplicable failure – but a failure to do what exactly? A failure to achieve a self-imposed vision of the ideal society – deliberately forgetting it takes two to tango. Or, a failure to completely right an historical wrong? Or – a failure to do what?
Whatever real or imagined sins are being continuously expiated, whites have vigorously constructed a complex edifice, brick by brick, to provide a familiar and stable social structure to serve specific purposes. For example, to reassure themselves of their collective worth and inherent generosity, Caucasians have created a dizzying array of privileges intended to benefit black Americans. Self-imposed censorship in the use of language; racial pejoratives are socially unacceptable when used by whites and legally prohibited to an absurd degree. Discriminatory economic advantages are and were extended to demonstrate a commitment to wealth equality and equal opportunity. An historically unprecedented willingness to share political power culminating in the election of an inexperienced black politician to the presidency is the most recent olive branch.
Maintaining an uneasy but functioning social peace is another motivation – blacks were deliberately advanced to positions of legal and political power in the hopes the lessons of peaceful coexistence would be publicly driven home to both blacks and whites together. But, are these absurdly obvious attempts to win hearts and minds to be trusted? If you’ve been following the recent revelations concerning the “Journolist Group” on Breitbart or the Daily Caller, black Americans now have additional reason to doubt the sincerity of white folks – assuming, that is, they didn’t have sufficient prior reasons. Witness a group of predominantly white journalists, male and female, urging each other to capriciously label their white political enemies as crude “racists” to further their own political goals. The deep seated hatred among members of “Journolist” is glaringly obvious and can, thankfully from their viewpoint, be spoken out loud by these white journalists – what a pleasant relief from their self-imposed reticence toward expressing a similar hatred toward minorities.
At first glance, blacks might feel reassurance based on this outright hatred and internal antagonism shared by whites toward each other – sort of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” concept. But, I suspect blacks are collectively wise enough to reject such a shallow first impression. Rather, the Journalist Group reinforces black Americans’ deep seated suspicion of whites – a race so filled with self loathing and distrust they need to invent games to exercise their virulent hatred toward each other – whites are obviously not the emotionally stable and benevolent racial majority blacks can trust to do right by them. And if whites can so gleefully turn on each other, what reason is there to accept the promise of lasting racial justice toward themselves and their children?
The word ‘racism’ has been bandied about since the NAACP was formed in 1909. That’s right; this organization has been around for over a century. Its mission is to; “ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination”.
The only reasons for this organization to continue to exist in 2010 is either ineptitude on the part of at least the last generation of the membership, or because the feelings of subordination of the race associated with this organization are impossible to assuage; or both.
My personal opinion is that it is both. Like the Black Congressional Caucus, the NAACP is akin to some vestigial organ or appendage that reasonable people admit isn’t required anymore and no one knows quite why it still exists.
First of all, in order to prove the NAACP still has a mission, we need incontrovertible evidence that racism does indeed still exist. I draw your attention to an article published in Politico on January 22nd of 2007. “As a white liberal running in a majority African American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Now that he’s a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans. He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply.” Apparently; racism does exist within the hallowed halls of Congress itself, where elected officials of the wrong skin color are denied the ability to represent their constituents merely because of race.
On July 1, 1991 President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall, who had recently announced his retirement. Organizations including the NAACP opposed the appointment based on Thomas’s criticism of affirmative action and suspicions that Thomas might not be a supporter of Roe v. Wade.
Justice Thomas’ beliefs regarding affirmative action may be best summed up as follows; “Affirmative action has become this mantra and there almost has become this secular religiosity about it. I think it almost trumps thinking. My suggestion would be to stop the buzz words and to focus more on the practical effect of what we’re doing. I can tell you when you have fudge words, it leaves a lot of room for mischief,” he said. “People have a tendency to read their personal opinions into fudge words. You want, when it comes to the issue of race, absolute words.” In the eyes of the NAACP, these words make Justice Thomas an ‘uncle Tom’.
One could go on and on highlighting the instances of racism exposed over the last twenty years. Unfortunately the majority of these documented instances are of black ‘civil rights’ organizations pillorying their own for not buying into the progressive lexicon.
LTC (ret.) Allen West, a congressional candidate from Florida’s 22nd District had this to say regarding the NAACP. “Instead of maintaining its mission and vision, the NAACP has now become the “useful idiots” (a term coined by Vladimir Lenin) for liberal racism. They have made themselves into a political hack job organization which now seeks to maintain the liberal progressive socialist control of the 21 century plantation. It is on this new economic plantation where the liberals seek to enslave the black community in order to maintain a devoted, monolithic, voting electorate. I find it interesting that the NAACP was silent when Senator Harry Reid made his insidious comments about President Obama was favorable, likeable, because he is “light-skinned” and did not speak in “negro dialect”. I recall that the NAACP said nothing when Vice President Joe Biden referred to Barack Hussein Obama as “clean and articulate”. The NAACP said nothing when liberals attacked Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice (birthing tubes cartoon), Michael Steele, and General Colin Powell.”
http://ebonymompolitics.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/congressional-candidate-allen-west-calls-the-naacp-useful-idiots/
A once proud organization with a laudable goal has become nothing more than a shill for progressive party hacks. They, more than anyone else are responsible for turning the word ‘racism’ from a pejorative into an over-used cliché.
“make Justice Thomas an ‘uncle Tom’”
It’s interesting that you mention Uncle Tom. A few years ago I decided to read as many of the classic books as I could in the time I had remaining. Among these was “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. It was very readable and interesting, but the main thing I took from the book was that Tom was a HERO! I can’t explain it the way Ms. Stowe does, but Tom’s actions throughout the story were those that emulate Christ. How the name was picked to degrade a black person is an interesting question. If we have an Uncle Tom on the court, I would say that is good.
Reply to Ivan,
I agree. If the progressives say there is an “Uncle Tom” on SCOTUS that cannot be anything other than good for the vast majority of American citizens
Reply to Gestell,
“Most liberals regard conservatives as moral primitives and bigots.” It’s not just that progressives believe conservatives to be moral primitives and bigots; they believe conservatives to be outright evil as well. This goes a long way toward explaining the progressives hatred of those of us on the right.
Conservatives believe that those on the left are wrong, while those on the left believe that those on the right are not only wrong, but bad as well. Let’s examine some quotes: Howard Dean, the former head of the Democratic Party said, “In contradistinction to the Republicans … (Democrats) don’t believe kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.” Do conservatives really deliberately starve children? Of course not.
Or examine Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., remarks who once said; “I want to say a few words about what it means to be a Democrat. It’s very simple: We have a conscience.” Thereby implying that all opposing political points of view spring from persons devoid of conscious.
Has any spokesman of the Republican Party ever said anything analogous about Democrats not caring about the suffering of children or not having a conscience? \
A little poll would be interesting:
Have you ever called anyone and Uncle Tom?
Have you read H.B. Stowe?
Opps, I mean an, not and
It’s not just that progressives believe conservatives to be moral primitives and bigots; they believe conservatives to be outright evil as well.
I don’t know about evil, but the term “depraved indifference” is often applicable in my opinion. I don’t really get into the name calling thing.
My primary objection to most conservative viewpoints is really the short-sightedness. Without any central planning whatsoever, it is impossible to be anything except short-sighted.
“I don’t really get into the name calling thing.”
A typical libtard statement following a name calling. Let’s see what your words mean.
depraved
Adjective
Describing a person or action that is perverted or extremely wrong in a moral sense.
Also corrupt in a moral sense, or disposition.
indifferent
Adjective
Not caring; apathetic.
Mediocre, usually used negatively in modern usage.
When conservatives or libertarians call for adherence to the founders words it is hard to imagine using either of these words. Those 56 men were neither depraved or indifferent. They invented a system that has lead the world for 234 years. They warned us of progressives like you. We intend to honor their commitment.
That’s just it. I don’t want to follow the founders words. Too much has changed since their time. So by today’s standards, I do consider many of the founders philosophies to be in the category of “depraved indifference.”
And their system has not lead the world for 234 years. The UK was the big dog until the end of the 19th century.
If you are going to throw around “libtard” show a little less ignorance of history.
And don’t ever forget that populism always wins in the long run.
Being called ignorant is a particularly trenchant criticism coming from somebody who makes a practice of throwing around non-sequiturs like “market socialism”. At least ignorance – a mere lack of knowledge – is correctable. Stupidity is continuing to practice ignorance despite having been taught better. Martel so exemplifies this definition that he should conduct seminars on the subject.
In point of fact, to suggest that the American system of government has not been a leading force in the world since its inception defies any objective narrative of history since the Declaration of Independence. On the contrary, the American DOI and constitution have served as templates for new governments and independence movements even up to contemporary times. That the British empire was larger demographically and economically than America proper until the late 1800′s wasn’t really the question. The same could be said of the French, Spanish and Russian empires during early America as well. Ivan said that the American system has lead the world for 234 years. That may not be completely accurate since most of the world has embraced Marxian government since at least the end of WWII, but it would be an overstatement to call that statement ignorant. And even if it were, that criticism would be better made by someone with at least a modicum of credibility.
In regards to the original piece, Lenny Bruce once did a bit called “Are There Any Niggers Here Tonight?” that serves as a minute and a half long demonstration of how and why an epithet can be reduced to total meaninglessness when repetition and pervasiveness strip it of its ability to shock. The bit culminates with the following:
“If president Kennedy got on TV everyday and said, “I would like to introduce all of the niggers in my cabinet”, and all the niggers called each other niggers… and everyday all you heard was “nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger, nigger”, in the second month “nigger” would mean as much as “good night” or “God bless you” when you sneeze; or perhaps as much as “I promise to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God.”
If any word has been overused to such a comedic extent, it is “racist”. For whatever accuracy the term ever had, that it retains any power today to offend at all is purely by the sanction of its victims.
Newsflash: no one uses the American system except Americans. Everyone else uses a Parliamentary system based off of the British system. The same system we get our law structure from, except we weren’t smart enough to copy the representation scheme and now we are stuck with this abomination.
If you’re talking economics, we didn’t invent capitalism either. So this wouldn’t be the American system either.
And, yes, market socialism is actually the dominant economic system in the world right now. Only in conservative fantasy land is it a non-sequitur. Unless the economic systems of Brazil, Japan, China, India, Russia and the EU changed suddenly.
And no, those governments aren’t Marxian either. So I’m not sure who is Marxian except for say Cuba or North Korea. I don’t think you should be speaking of credibility.
Newsflash: the United Kingdom is a monarchy that was still embracing mercantilism at the time of America’s war for independence. Secular constitutional republics were somewhat of a novel concept when America was founded. You know, since there weren’t any other ones at the time? Since constitutional republics and constitutional democracies are the dominant system of government in most of the developed world today, it’s hardly inaccurate to speculate that America just may possibly have had a little something to do with it.
Speaking of economics, Adam Smith’s “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” was the first formal inquiry into what we today call “economics”. It described a free market capitalist structure of national commerce. It was published in 1776 – the same year America declared independence. The young American republic was the first nation to formalize the concepts of Smith’s work into an actual national economic structure. You could say America didn’t invent capitalism, but it certainly was the crucible in which capitalism was first tested as an institutional economic system. Besides America, next to nobody uses, or has historically used, an even remotely capitalist system – most of Europe came late out of mercantilism and early into communism and socialism, bypassing any semblance of capitalism almost entirely. So I’m not really sure what your point was.
Market socialism doesn’t exist because a market is fundamentally incompatible with socialism. Democratic totalitarianism, secular theocracy, and constitutional anarchy don’t exist for the same reason. Using mutually exclusive terms to describe the same thing is actually the precise definition of a non-sequitur. Explaining this to you for the umpteenth time is pointless as your complete and total lack of any familiarity with basic economic terms and concepts makes it impossible for you to even comprehend the language being used. Suffice it to say that outside of the DailyKos, you should refrain from using such poorly and ignorantly constructed terms, because even the Marxian economists who actually formally defend the economic structures you speak of would be embarrassed to hear you use them in a serious discussion. Your defense of Marxian economics is superficial and amateurish enough without fabricating self contradicting terminology.
And finally, beginning with WWII, most of the world was controlled by Marxian governments. Nazi Germany and Italy were xenophobic socialist, Russia and the eventual USSR were global communist, China was global communist, expanding its reach to Korea and Indochina. Cuba and a significant portion of Latin America were global communist. That’s a pretty significant slice of the global pie. Today, the collapse of most of the hard-line communist governments (ponder that for a moment) have given way to less autocratic socialist states, but their economic and political structures are still most assuredly Marxian since government owns or significantly controls means of production and a central state redistributes wealth according to need, and individual rights are subordinated to group rights. You would do well to read at least a brief synopsis of Marx’s work so you don’t freak out whenever his name is accurately used to describe social and economic systems that conform to his political philosophy. But please, continue explaining conservatives’ collective ignorance of history.
“That’s just it. I don’t want to follow the founders words.”
I always objected to the use of words like “libtard.” Until now.
Martel’s statement is breath-taking in its glib idiocy. Nothing he writes from here on out is even worth the time to read.
My favorite response to a liberal charge is, if morality is relative, as you liberals would have us believe, how can racism be immoral?
OMG, this is an excellent post.
So much truth to it. Holder is right in one regard. There are many racial cowards. The ones on the left are cowards for having to weakly resort to inflammatory name-calling to shut down debate when they can’t win on ideas. The ones on the right are cowards for putting up with the BS.
I totally agree with this post. In a way, when you free yourself of fear of being accused of being racist/sexist…, you are free indeed. You just have to trust your instinct. The goal of the left and the race hustlers make you doubt yourself, to make you think you have to prove that you aren’t the caricature they peg you as. As a grown man of 41, I know who I am. I know that the world is full of bias. That’s human nature. It’s how you choose to engage or not engage them that matters.
Do you want the best for everyone? Do you think as long as your fellow man treats you decently as is respectful he or she deserves respect, independent of who they are? Do you not lower your expectations for people based on their race? Those are good indicators of who you are. As the article indicates, if you don’t agree with the orthodoxy no matter how ridiculous it is, you inevitable will referred to as a racist. That’s okay. It is better to know who you are and stand on common sense, reasonable principles than to knuckle under just to be loved. Ultimately, you will be more respected that way. Be fair, don’t worry about being ridiculed or slandered and you can hold your head up high.
It’s best to fight their ridiculous accusations with witty sarcasm in my opinion. I’m guessing that the brain-dead, buzzword spitting leftist–you know the “blood for oil”, “Haliburton”, “he lied, people died”–will not recognize an intelligent argument put forth. So, really, you are arguing for your conservative brethren and the open-minded middle ground or “moderates”.
I have an article called “Plantation of the Mind”, which I think characterizes the sellout mentality of the shills who take 30 coins from the Democratic party to “scare, bully,…” their racial brethren to vote for a party that sees them at best as sheep to be occasionally humored.
http://allthingspolitical-rich.blogspot.com/2010/07/plantation-of-mind.html
RichieRichInStLouis,
I read your post @ allthingspolitical. In order to further your theory, may I suggest a column I posted her at IC back in February http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/02/12/the-evolution/
Bill. Thank you for taking the time. I did read some of your post, but I will explore it more when I get a chance. What is the policy of other blogs like this one re: using their posts and/or posting your own posts on their blog.
The one common theme I saw on a quick scan of your post is pushing their agenda forth by any means necessary. It’s hard to win in a battle of ideas, when the other side fights disingenuously and/or dirty.
I will explore the following theme in another post of mine, but it’s pretty clear that the “progressives” in the Democrat party at least at the time of FDR starting viewing black America as a voting block to cynically be captured. I’m not saying that there were no progressives who viewed equality under the law (as opposed to equality in results) as a noble ends, but it’s clear that many progressives cynically viewed black America as a voting bloc.
Since the Vietnam war especially, it has been throw them scraps, keep the CBC and black establishment happy and
they will do all they can to turn out the base to vote Democrat.
RichieRichInStLouis,
Several times in the past, I’ve seen comments in the ‘comments’ section of essays that are not much more than links to other sites where that particular post was linked to that site. As for posting your own stuff at IC; if you look on the inner-right column of the page you’ll see several links that run vertically down the page. They start with Articles, Book Reviews, IC Classics etc. About twelve entries down will be a link called ‘submissions’. Clicking on this link will allow you to see the IC policy toward submissions.
Personally, I posted here in the comments sections of other author’s essays for @ two years before trying my hand early this year.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Pixie Pundit, IC Politics. IC Politics said: Hello, I'm a Racist, Pleased to Meet You: Free yourself. Laugh at the "racism" shtick. Make it a badge of honor. T… http://bit.ly/bt2R1S [...]