In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette


Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes


Miscellaneous
Redwood Dragon
IMAO
The Invisible Hand
ScrappleFace
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Canadian Spaces | Main | Doofus Guys in the Media »

October 05, 2008

They Say "Racist!!" Your Reply Is ...

Donald Pittenger writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Many colleges and universities have had speech codes for years. Perhaps they were well-intended remedies to a perceived problem (though I'm not sure that there ever was much of a problem). But the result clearly is a restriction on free speech.

If current polling holds, we are likely to be living in the paradise of an Obama Administration starting next January. From what I read, friends of the Obama campaign seem thin-skinned to criticism. Often enough, their reaction to such criticism is to suggest that it was racially motivated no matter its content. One of many takes on this is from Rich Lowry.

Let's set aside the clearly chilling prospect of government-supported speech tribunals and deal with everyday political speech under an Administration likely to be populated by some people willing to shut others up by accusing them of racism. Such influence might well rub off on sympathizers.

Consider this imaginary conversation (many others are possible, so don't fixate on the political issue I use):

JOE: "I think President Obama was wrong to send massive military aid to the Palestinians."

MIKE: "Y'know Joe, I think what you just said is racist. Both the President and the Palestinians are 'of color' and should be off-limits to that kind of smear."

At this point, Joe might simply change the subject or do something equally submissive. Or he could choose to fight back. For example, he might push back hard, saying:

"That wasn't racism: I was talking policy! Just what do you expect me to do in return? Fall on the floor quivering and then crawl over and kiss the toe of your shoe?"

So what do you think Joe's reply should be?

Later,

Donald

posted by Donald at October 5, 2008




Comments

"Damn. I wish the old guy'd gotten elected instead."

Posted by: susan on October 5, 2008 6:09 PM



When I first read this paranoid fantasy I assumed your account had been hacked and this posting done by someone else. I am stunned. What foolishness.

Posted by: Don McArthur on October 5, 2008 6:11 PM



Perhaps all direct references to the Obamas could be avoided. "Jimmy and Rosalynn on Ice" might be a suitable code-name for the next administration.

Posted by: Robert Townshend on October 5, 2008 6:58 PM



Consider this imaginary conversation (many others are possible, so don't fixate on the political issue I use):

JOE: "I think that black bastard Obamaniac wants to send massive military aid to the Palestinians because they are 'of color' just like him."

MIKE: "Y'know Joe, I think what you just said is racist. The President should be off-limits to that kind of smear."

Joe then answers back,

"You f#@king liberals are all alike, defending n###ers instead of your own kind and calling me a racist. You're the real racist, so f##k you."

Posted by: Chris White on October 5, 2008 8:43 PM



Snobby, pseudo-intellectual "conservatism" is just as capable of mean-spirited paranoid fantasy as the openly racist kind, Don. Didn't you know that?

Posted by: Terry Butler on October 5, 2008 8:50 PM



Joe should strap a dynamite belt to his eldest son, and tell him to run into a crowd of government workers and blow himself and them up.

Or he should shoot and stab an avant-garde left-wing filmmaker and Obama supporter to death, pinning a note to his chest calling the filmmaker "jejune, inauthentic, arriviste".

A few incidents of that happening, and suddenly the speech and human rights tribunals will be protecting JOE from all criticism.

Posted by: PatrickH on October 5, 2008 8:50 PM



You folks calling DP a racist do realize that you just confirmed his point, don't you? And after seven years of tinfoil hat 9/11 "Truth" gibberish, I'd think that liberals would be the last people to make sneering comments about "mean-spirited fantasy".

Posted by: Tschafer on October 5, 2008 10:31 PM



Chris,

I just returned from vacation in Mexico to read your post.

You are easily the most brain dead, sanctimonious, revolting individual on the face of the earth.

Your "enlightenment" is dog shit. You've once again mistaken that oval above your head for a halo. In fact, it is your asshole.

How did you get so damned awful? Your continued condemnation of your own kind in an attempt to draw attention to your sainthood is one of the most appalling things I've ever witnessed, and I've seen a lot of your horseshit in Woodstock.

You raise hippie, leftist sanctimony and self-congratulation to new levels of stinking shit. Congratulations!

It's surprising that you find it necessary to be married, since you seem to give yourself a blowjob just about hourly.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on October 5, 2008 10:32 PM



More than likely, Joe won't even deign to talk with Mike. He will simply titillate himself with hysterical nonsense about impending hordes of dark-skinned invaders from the comfort of his recliner, play the victim card, fulminate for wars that are outsourced to a fraction of the population (with no sacrifice on his part), and spread hatred and bigotry under the noble banner of free speech, while seething with murderous, impotent rage and demanding all sorts of curbs & exceptions for said speech whenever some "librul," "agitator," or anyone who can read above a 6th grade level says something that he personally finds disagreeable.

Oh, wait...

Posted by: Tyr on October 5, 2008 11:25 PM



Solzhenitsyn had it exactly:

So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood--of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one's family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies--or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one's children and contemporaries.

And from that day onward he:

* Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the truth.
* Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation not in the presence of many people, neither on his own behalf not at the prompting of someone else, either in the role of agitator, teacher, educator, not in a theatrical role.
* Will not depict, foster or broadcast a single idea which he can only see is false or a distortion of the truth whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography, technical science, or music.
* Will not cite out of context, either orally or written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.
* Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand not raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not completely accept.
* Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.
* Will not allow himself to be dragged to a meeting where there can be expected a forced or distorted discussion of a question. Will immediately talk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.
* Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed. Of course we have not listed all of the possible and necessary deviations from falsehood. But a person who purifies himself will easily distinguish other instances with his purified outlook.

No, it will not be the same for everybody at first. Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.

But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest. On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence or toward spiritual servitude.

Posted by: Mencius on October 6, 2008 12:09 AM



Which is not to say I don't also admire Ms. Latte's response. (Other gems are here, here, and, perhaps most notably, here.

How do you feel about Ms. Latte, Chris? If you could tell her something, anything, to heal her sick, shriveled little racist heart, what would it be? Any cute nuggets of therapeutic PBS-Unitarian wisdom? Something from a Starbucks cup? A Hallmark card? A preschool textbook? Maybe even a World Cup logo?

Posted by: Mencius on October 6, 2008 12:19 AM



My response is: "Idiot."
I've never had to deal with it, though. They only play that race card with other whites. Maybe I should become a paleo-pundit.

"Stop the hordes of brown people from coming to our fair shores!"
"You mean the ones that look like you?"
"Yes, but they're dull-minded and tasteless. However, even as I don't want them here, I can excuse them those failings, since they come from a hellhole. What's your excuse, sir?"

Too bad my personal habits and tastes *do not* sync with any sort of conservatism.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on October 6, 2008 12:22 AM



I'm not a racist, I hate everyone equally.

Posted by: slumlord on October 6, 2008 12:35 AM



Don't fixate on the political issue? With unlimited issues from which to choose to make your point, you chose Obama sucking up to the Palestinians. Ridiculous.

Posted by: Fred Wickham on October 6, 2008 12:48 AM



Sorry, but I can't believe that using racism to attempt to silence criticism from the right will be any more common and any more effective than using patriotism to attempt to silence criticism from the left.

In other words, yes, there will be a few attempts to do so by the more wing-nut element, there will be spurious charges of such from the other side's wing-nut element, and all in all, such attempts will fall completely flat.

Posted by: Tom West on October 6, 2008 12:50 AM



Tyr, your ironism is so deep that you and your comment have disappeared up your own fundamental aperture. You might want to work a little harder at bringing your point home next time.

Posted by: PatrickH on October 6, 2008 9:22 AM



I have dealt with this sorta thing before and I always do the same thing:

JOE: "I think President Obama was wrong to send massive military aid to the Palestinians."

MIKE: "Y'know Joe, I think what you just said is racist. Both the President and the Palestinians are 'of color' and should be off-limits to that kind of smear."

JOE: "Well, I might be racist, probably evil, and I was thinking that..."

(And just keep talking about whatever it was that you were talking about) Say this with an absolute straight face. Do not be sarcastic, or facetious, or sardonic or anything else.

Simply accept the "racist" label from this particular person. There is a very good chance that he KNOWS that you are NOT racist. And, if this is being said in front of people who know you, then you have nothing to fear. They know you already. And if it is being said in front of people you don't know, then, if you feel you must, you can say it with a slight smirk, like, well, "Of course I am racist and you are the wonderfully beknighted liberal one."

But, in general, others are happy to see someone else accept this label with no back-tracking.

Posted by: Usually Lurking on October 6, 2008 9:55 AM



Woops, I think that I quoted Chris White instead of Donald. Haha.

Posted by: Usually Lurking on October 6, 2008 10:01 AM



Here's a serious answer. I've used this technique many times, and it works. Take the words of you interlocutor out of context and hit back WITH FALSE OUTRAGE with the same accusation. For example:

JOE: I can't believe you just said: "Both the President and the Palestinians are 'of color'". That's a totally racist observation done for no other reason than to belittle both the President and the Palesinians!!!

MODERATOR: (Looks confused and starts waving his hands) Joe, I think what Mike was trying to say was...

JOE: He's a racist!...

MODERATOR: OK, let's just continue the discussion in good faith here.

MIKE: OK, I will.

It really throws them off when you act like some dumbshit black studeis major.

Posted by: Maxwell on October 6, 2008 10:12 AM



Tom West, that is an astute observation, comparing Jingoistic Patriotism with Kneejerk Hitlerizing, but, the people on the left who call out the "racists" are not seen as wingnuts.

For instance, a site like Free Republic is seen as mostly idiotic by any serious person on the right, whereas DailyKos (where you see them drop the holier-than-though "racist" stuff all the time) is seen as a good place for ideas and organizing.

Posted by: Usually Lurking on October 6, 2008 10:12 AM



Mencius, you (via Solzhenitsyn) made some interesting points, but, what do you think about Subversiveness?

For a long time, it was obvious that the Left employed Subversive techniques to advance their cause, and I think that it was successful. And, now, it seems that the Right (though, mostly the Neo-Cons) have been doing the same thing, though on a smaller scale.

And, I think that it works. And we can all say that we should not be doing these things, but we have to deal with the real world, like, what if the Supreme Court became dominated by Left Wing Justices. There are real consequences to these things.

Your thoughts?

(For the record, I am not a conservative, just Anti-Leftist)

Posted by: Usually Lurking on October 6, 2008 10:17 AM



Pardon me, Tschafer, but I didn't call Mr. Pettinger a racist. I referred to the school of political thought to which this blog, one I sincerely admire and peruse often, subscribes. It is a school largely composed of folk who think that if their opinions are couched in well written phrases they will somehow rise above their intent; mean-spirited libertarianism.
Perhaps you might take a page from their writing example and write better sentences. What the hell does "tin foil hat 9/11 "Truth" gibberish" mean?
Terry

Posted by: Terry Butler on October 6, 2008 10:34 AM



If both of them were white and outside of the earshot of anyone else, he should say, "N*gga, please."

If one of them wasn't white, he should say, "Nice try, dude. Try another pier."

Posted by: yahmdallah on October 6, 2008 11:06 AM



Hey gang -- Let's try to keep this civil.

I suppose I should have added a sentence or two stressing that there really is a "race card" out there (such as the Associate Press story suggesting Palin was using racism by bringing up the Bill Ayres matter). It's a matter of free speech in everyday life. If someone tries to pull the race card on you, then how should you deal with it if you in fact hadn't directly use race to insult someone? What we are seeing this election year are attempts to stifle legitimate criticism, and legitimate criticism is a key part of politics in a democracy.

Posted by: Donald Pittenger on October 6, 2008 11:11 AM



"Hey gang -- Let's try to keep this civil."

That's rich coming from you after posting this. If these kind of race card tactics are being played in regards to some of Obama's positions, I'd like to see evidence of that (perhaps it was in the link you provided, but the link led to an invalid page, for me anyway). If not, then this post is pretty damned paranoid.

Posted by: JV on October 6, 2008 12:05 PM



I'll answer by reciprocating with example to your [hypothetical] example, Donald.
A friend of mine, person of mixed ethnicity (Russian/Jewish), is a professor of physics in an university city in PA. She's been dealing with race card being hsoved in her face on a daily basis.
Typical conversation (as she described it on her blog), goes something like that:
Taisha: I need you to give me an extension for this course paper. I live in the projects, have no place to study, my mom is a drug addict and my people have been abused and enslaved by your people for 200 years!
Professor H: No, you got it all wrong. Me being Jewish, my people have been abused by your, African, peoples by 5000 years! So go to the library, study, write the paper before the deadline - or face an "F". Next!

Posted by: Tatyana on October 6, 2008 12:42 PM



Terry, I can't speak for Donald, but i doubt that he is a Libertarian, mean-spirited or otherwise. My guess is that he is a Moynihanish Conservative or maybe a "Main Street" Republican. Granted, they are a dieing breed.

Donald, the point is ALWAYS to stifle legitimate critisms, regardless of the candidate. The trick that many of them have figured out is to nominate people who, by there very existence, inhibit real and legitimate criticisms.

For instance, NPR ran a piece during the Democratic race where different cartoonists were afraid to mock either Clinton or Obama because they would be either sexist or racist.

Posted by: Usually Lurking on October 6, 2008 12:46 PM



UL,

No, I don't think leftist tactics work in general for the right. There is no symmetry there at all.

Tocqueville explained it well: the right wins when it strikes hard, fast, and decisively. Otherwise, it is playing Calvinball with Calvin. The left wins slowly; the right wins in one blow.

Because the right is basically, well, right, it will never be as good at lying, cheating and general hypocrisy as the left. So it shouldn't try, which means it shouldn't use leftist tactics. Terrorism, for example, works wonderfully for the left and almost never for the right.

So any solution involves some kind of political discontinuity. Eg: in an America in which the right had actually defeated the left, the number of streets named for Martin Luther King would be approximately equal to the number of Himmler Avenues you'll find at present. I'm not sure my computer has enough memory to express the number of years this would take the "neocons."

The whole neocon thing proves the pathetic limpness of American conservatism, by setting a bar that is laughably low by historical standards and then failing to meet it. Conservatism is a disaster. What we need is full-on Bourbon reaction - offense, not defense. Whatever is done, it needs to eradicate leftism, not just ameliorate it or try to slow it down. You don't argue with cancer. You cut it out.

The obvious problem is the American right wing's insistence on clinging to democracy, which is the creed of its enemy. So it starts with a traditionalist voter base and tries to devise a program that is maximally effective given that it needs these voters to support it. Meanwhile, the left controls the press and the educational system, and is slowly "educating" the backwoods Americans out of their last lingering drops of sanity. (This incident is a good example of how far the line has been pushed in our lifetimes alone.

Real success against the left can only be achieved by starting with a program which, if enacted, would actually work. Any such program will be impossibly radical and unpopular - in short, unworkable from a democratic standpoint. To win, either you have to change this, or you have to think outside the democratic box.

And if you don't think the danger is real, perhaps today's New York Times will enlighten you. Suffice it to say that the behavior of the old National Party is pretty much a case study in what not to do. The left cannot be appeased. It can only be smashed.

Posted by: Mencius on October 6, 2008 1:54 PM



Joe shouldn't even be in a serious conversation with someone capable of playing the race card (or the patriotism card, et al). Such people are extreme ideologues and attempting to engage them in any sort of intelligent discussion is a waste of time. They are closed-minded doctrinaires, incapable of considering any position different from their own.

Posted by: Bill on October 6, 2008 2:01 PM



Um, how about some actual real-world examples of someone playing the race card Donald, instead of your "imaginary conversation"? What does this AP story actually say? Are you saying that there's *no* racist element in the attempts to smear Obama as a terrorist sympathizer and a Muslim? No racist element in a Republican Party official in Virginia writing in a newspaper op-ed that Obama's platform includes "mandatory Black Liberation Theology classes taught in all churches" and changing the national anthem to the "Black National Anthem by James Weldon Johnson"? Perhaps you view this as legitimate criticism?

In general, I agree that accusations of racism are inflammatory and useless. But sometimes you have to call a spade a spade (so to speak).

Posted by: Steve on October 6, 2008 2:16 PM



Are you really afraid of such nonsense? Even if that happened, it couldn't possibly be as effective as the Republican technique:

Bob: "I think nuking Iran, Pakistan, and Syria in a massive simultaneous attack is stupid."
Bill Kristol: "Traitor!"
Sean Hannity: "There Bob goes again, siding with America's enemies!"
Chorus: "WHY DOES BOB HATE AMERICA?!?!"

Posted by: JewishAtheist on October 6, 2008 3:21 PM



I forgot the last two:

FOX News: "Does Bob hate America?"
MSM: "Some say that Bob is naive on foreign policy..."

Posted by: JewishAtheist on October 6, 2008 3:24 PM



Donald Pittenger wrote (inserts are mine):

Consider this [hypotheical] conversation . . . :

JOE [who might be someone like Ed Koch, who is both a staunch defender of Israel (and thereby likely to be wary of massive aid to Palestians) AND someone who has come out for Obama]: "I think President Obama was wrong to send massive military aid to the Palestinians."

MIKE: "Y'know Joe, I think what you just said is racist. Both the President and the Palestinians are 'of color' and should be off-limits to that kind of smear."

JOE: . . . So what do you think Joe's reply should be? . . . [Again, assuming that Joe is against aid to Palestinians irrespective of who the president is]

Benjamin writes:

I'm not sure what the most effective response by Joe would be to counter the false (in this hypothetical case) charge of covert racism, BUT (as is the case with many such situations which these authors might describe as "tricky") I would be very interested in hearing what Roger Fisher or William Ury, the co-authors of that classic book on negotiation and communication, "Getting to Yes: How to Negotiate Without Giving In," would suggest.

Posted by: Benjamin Hemric on October 6, 2008 3:35 PM



Yeah Patrick, whatever. If only I could be as smart and clever as you. (rolling my eyes)

The idea of Obama sending military aid to the Palestinians is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard of in a long while. So far we've had two debates where all four participants have attempted to outdo one another in professing not just their admiration, but their undying love, adoration and fealty towards Israel.

Honestly, prior to Dubya the Clinton Administration was probably the most overtly philo-Semitic and militantly pro-Zionist that we've ever had.

How long do you think Obama will remain in the White House if he decides on such a radical departure from what has been a bi-partisan consensus now since 1947?

I realize that some of you are broken-hearted about the departure of the NY Sun from the mortal plane, but maybe it's time to step back, take a deep breath and join the rest of us in the real world.

Posted by: Tyr on October 6, 2008 4:05 PM




Upon reflection, I suspect that Fisher and Ury would suggest the following (to be said -- and this is very important -- in an entirely sincere, friendly tone of voice, WITHOUT EVEN THE SLIGHTEST HINT of sarcasm, etc.):

Joe says:

Maybe, Mike, I'm being unconsciously racist here -- or maybe, Mike, you're being unconsciously racist here -- but rather than discuss the subject of "unconscious racism" right now -- it deserves a thoughtful, serious conversation all its own -- let's, for the moment at least, discuss aid to the Palestians in terms of any president, regardless of his or her race.

Posted by: Benjamin Hemric on October 6, 2008 4:08 PM



Here is a link to the AP article playing the race card against the McCain campaign. This is real. Campus speech codes are real. We citizens might have do deal with such matters on a personal basis in the future (if we haven't already).

Let's compare notes in a year or two to see what the Obama Administration actually does in the matter of free speech. Reintroduce the "fairness" doctrine for broadcast media (something that might have made sense 40 years ago when there were only 3 major commercial TV networks)? Seek to constrain blogs and the Internet? Try to shore up newspaper/newsmagazine sales?

I hope the next Administration, regardless of party, does none of this.

Michael gets agitated by the immigration issue. Friedrich gets upset by fiscal end economic matters. For me, it's free speech and national defense. I guess we're just a bunch of Blowhards.

Posted by: Donald Pittenger on October 6, 2008 6:21 PM



ST – You, sir, really need to consider therapy ... or use more ketchup with its natural mellowing agents. You might try signing up for a course in anger management.

Mencius – You offer an exceptional Solzhenitsyn quote from a 1974 essay aimed at intellectuals and dissidents in the Soviet Union. I wonder how you think it should be applied to the topic of this post and comments thread, false accusations of racism used for political purposes versus actual racism and racist comments. How do you suggest Solzhenitsyn's exhortation that one not "remain a servant of falsehood" applies to this topic? Are beliefs that different races are inferior in significant ways, morally or intellectually, a truth to be proclaimed or a falsehood to be avoided? Should one who believes himself superior by dint of his race be congratulated for espousing that view, ignored, or refuted?

And you ask what I would say to Ms.Latte. I am not sure what I could say to a rape victim whose coping mechanism for the trauma has been to find solace in racist Web sites. But what is your point in offering the links? Does her personal suffering make all non-white men guilty of being rapists? Is her new-found willingness to use nigger as an epithet a truth to admired by those who admire Solzhenitsyn, or is it " ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda' that Solzhenitsyn would reject?

Usually Lurking – Nope. You used Donald's original quote, not my less ambiguous version. And perhaps the reason "people on the left who call out the "racists" are not seen as wingnuts" is that those they are calling out often ARE racists.

And Donald, seriously, when Menicius offers links to Ms. Latte with gems like, "Up Yours, Nigger - That's what I thought to myself when I saw today's huge headline and photo of Obama on the SF Chronicle's front page. The n word is still something of a taboo for me, but I'll violate it now. This exotic foreigner who isn't American and wants to destroy my culture is about to get nominated for President by a major party, and I can't call him a nigger? If not now, when?" is it only the Obama campaign "playing the race card" we should be concerned with?

I should have hit the refresh button sooner. Seemingly Mencius is all in favor of a right wing revolution that will place white men (well, the right white men) in charge and purge the leftist filth, scum, mudbloods, niggers and nigger lovers from the land. Wow! Your patriotism is awe-inspiring. I particularly like this quote, "The obvious problem is the American right wing's insistence on clinging to democracy, which is the creed of its enemy." Yep. Democracy, that's the real problem. We need a good pogrom by right thinking conservatives. Solzhenitsyn would be so proud to think that this is his legacy.

I have known Jews hypersensitive to remarks they deem anti-Semitic, however innocent of that charge the speaker may be. Generally this is because they have experienced very real antisemitism at various times throughout their lives. The same is true for blacks, Muslims, Asians and, no doubt, some white men. I certainly do not believe that anyone should be censored or punished for their words, however hateful, venomous and racist those words may be. Just as I believe one should be able to freely refute racist comments when they are made.

So, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Donald in any protest of government attempts to limit free speech, even the free speech of abhorrent racist thugs. That does not mean I agree with those thugs and I will continue to use my free speech rights to call them racists when I see fit.

Posted by: Chris White on October 6, 2008 7:42 PM



Tyr: Yeah Patrick, whatever. If only I could be as smart and clever as you. (rolling my eyes)

Man, you're just this stone-cold intellectual killer. Brrrrrr.

I can't decide whether it's the "whatever" or the eye-roll that has crushed my spirit and sent me weeping for condolences to the spirits of my ancestors.

Like I said, buddy. Your ironism is self-defeating. Try formulating arguments and summoning facts. Shrugs and eye-rolls are for "youths".

Posted by: PatrickH on October 6, 2008 9:07 PM



No accusation of racism, however unjustified, is censorship. Speech codes on campus aren't censorship. Censorship involves force or the threat of force. It is usually practiced by governments, but not only by them.

Ugly debating tactics are, as Chris and others have demonstrated, not just used by the Left. Everybody's acting ugly these days. The only solution is to stop screaming about censorship and rights and chilling effects as if they have any application to the low level of political discourse today.

As for that problem, I don't have a solution. We've reduced language to emotion-hooks. Racism, censorship, free speech, rights, none of it means anything any more. There's an inverse relationship between how often and how loudly a word is used in political discourse and its actual importance.

It's the words no one will use that really matter. Which is why no one will use them.

Posted by: PatrickH on October 6, 2008 9:20 PM



Are beliefs that different races are inferior in significant ways, morally or intellectually, a truth to be proclaimed or a falsehood to be avoided?

Gee, I don't know, Chris. Who knows more about human biology? You, or James Watson?

Facts matter. Oh, while I'm at it, here's another howler from the "reality-based community." Post your address, and I'll send you a free print of it.

Does her personal suffering make all non-white men guilty of being rapists?

Does Emmett Till's suffering make all white men guilty of abusing Negroes? Because it sure feels like it a lot of the time.

Oh, wait. I can't say "Negro." It was only part of the English language for about five hundred years. But this is a family weblog, so I guess I'll comply. Thanks for nothing, Eric Blair.

What is the ratio between the following numbers: the number of white people murdered by black people every year, and the number of black people lynched by white people in history? Are you prepared to make the argument that murders, rapes, etc, in the former class are somehow less significant than those in the latter? Possibly by two orders of magnitude, even?

Why, in the year 2008, can't I walk at any time of day or night down any street in any zip code in America? Do you think this has anything to do with my skin color? Have you, perchance, had the opportunity to peruse Professor Venkatesh's little book, Gang Leader for a Day?

Democracy, that's the real problem.

You appear to believe this statement is inherently comical. In - say - 1960s-era Czechoslovakia, how would your corresponding shill have reacted to the statement, "Communism, that's the real problem?" Or perhaps you believe the two are equally funny.

I certainly do not believe that anyone should be censored or punished for their words, however hateful, venomous and racist those words may be. Just as I believe one should be able to freely refute racist comments when they are made.

You sound like Bull Connor saying that no one should ever be firebombed by Klansmen. Shocked, shocked! Well, people are being firebombed by Klansmen. And it's pretty clear which side you're on.

Speaking of firebombs, BTW, you might enjoy this piece. Again, it's pretty clear which side you're on.

Conservatives shouldn't believe in fair play, democracy, and winning by convincing their opponents, because progressives have never believed in any of these things. Progressives hate democracy like the devil. That's why they're always accusing their blood enemies, the "populist" Republicans, of "politicizing public policy." Meaning: allowing democracy to interfere with the progressive party line.

Progressives throughout the century have always pitched the hardest ball they can get away with. They have always believed in winning by any means necessary. And in the cases where their victories have been absolute, in their wake has come nothing but destruction, disaster and death.

Do you trust the New York Times, Chris? Care to tell us what happened to America's fourth largest city?

Ms. Latte has more principles and character in one of her fingernails than you have in your entire body. I'd vote for her as supreme military dictator before I'd hire you to pick up my recycling.

Posted by: Mencius on October 7, 2008 12:21 AM



Excuse me! John McCain has been widely quoted as saying "I hate gooks, and I always will!"

Doesn't anyone care about that, or is that okay because Gramps was a POW?

I agree with Chris White, whose patience with the commenters here is astounding.

IMHO, the world hates Jews, Niggers and Fags in precisely that order. It is not likely to change. I wish I could be all three, just to be a witness to such mindless hatred.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on October 7, 2008 12:57 AM



Sorry Donald, that AP article is calling it like it is. Saying that Obama "is palling around with terrorists," is not legitimate criticism, and it's hardly a stretch to call it racially tinged. But hey, let Palin say what she wants. No one's stifling her free speech, and personally I'm thinking these clowns are digging their own grave spouting such garbage. But surely free speech extends to the AP's right to call it racially tinged garbage.

Posted by: Steve on October 7, 2008 1:21 AM



Sister, I'm afraid I'm unavoidably reminded of ManBearPig. "Half Jew, half nigger, half fag."

A little while ago I saw a photoessay of what is now one of the worst black neighborhoods in SF - Third Street - in the '50s and early '60s, the era of Proposition 14.

Basically, Third Street in the '50s was to Third Street now as Third Street now is to Haiti. The street was clean, the businesses on it were open, everyone was black, and everyone was exceedingly well-dressed and seemed like someone I'd be happy to have in my home. And the "civil rights movement" was just a wet dream in Stanley Levison's Stalinist loins.

And then, of course, there's this. A lot of good you philanthropists, you Great Friends of the Negro, have done for him. "A man, and a brother."

In reality, progressives don't like actual Negroes any more than they like democracy. They have no love at all for the poor. What they love is to pick them up, turn them into feral barbarians, encourage them to devastate civilized society, and provide millions of jobs for themselves caring for the animalistic, burned-out shell of what was formerly one of North America's great cultures. Compare the actual cultural contributions of Negroes before and after the "civil-rights movement," and you'll see the difference.

It's not Jews, Niggers, or Fags I hate, Sister Wolf. It's philanthropists like you - who, in the old Russian saying, "pretend to be the doctors of society, but are really the disease." Have fun curing juvenile delinquency in the slums with that planned housing of yours, Sister.

There are many striking observations in Professor Venkatesh's little book, but perhaps the most striking is that none of the other denizens of the University of Chicago "sociology" department had ever come in contact with the inhabitants of the Robert Taylor Homes, or had any idea what their lives were like. This is because the civil-rights movement, whose real goal was simply to put people like you and Chris White into power, has no more use for its squeezed-out lemons - except inasmuch as it can pay them to vote every few years. Possibly with three or four registrations per head, c/o your friends at ACORN.

Progressivism is a ruthless, power-hungry death cult, just like Nazism. Someday the two will be remembered in the same breath.

Posted by: Mencius on October 7, 2008 1:39 AM




Hey, Sister Wolf, put up an argument -- or if you can't stand the heat, get back in the kitchen.

Some minorities in this country have established a claim upon my rights -- and your side has backed them. Your entire equality game is based on a stick in my eye. Excuse some of us for removing that stick and thrusting it back in the direction from where it came.

sN

Posted by: sN on October 7, 2008 1:55 AM



Link

"In the Old South, black men and women who were competent, confident
speakers on matters of importance were termed "disrespectful," the
implication being that all good Negroes bowed, scraped, grinned and
deferred to their white betters.

In what is probably a harbinger of things to come, the McCain campaign
has already run a commercial that carries a similar intimation,
accusing Mr. Obama of being "disrespectful" to Sarah Palin. The
argument is muted, but its racial antecedents are very clear."

Bob Herbert on the "phallic" towers

Link


Orlando Patterson 3am article

Link

Posted by: racecard on October 7, 2008 2:38 AM



Should one who believes himself superior by dint of his race be congratulated for espousing that view, ignored, or refuted?

Should one who believes himself superior by dint of *believing in human neurological uniformity* be congratulated for espousing that view, ignored, or refuted?

Are beliefs that different races are inferior in significant ways, morally or intellectually, a truth to be proclaimed or a falsehood to be avoided?

Avoid this truth and you end up with 800 billion dollar bailouts and failed states. Accept it and you get Singapore -- which is going to look mighty good once diversity eats the last of the West's civilizational seed corn.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew

* "The Bell curve is a fact of life. The blacks on average score 85 per cent on IQ and it is accurate, nothing to do with culture. The whites score on average 100. Asians score more ... the Bell curve authors put it at least 10 points higher. These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow." - Lee Kuan Yew, The Man & His Ideas, 1997

* "I started off believing all men were equal. I now know that's the most unlikely thing ever to have been, because millions of years have passed over evolution, people have scattered across the face of this earth, been isolated from each other, developed independently, had different intermixtures between races, peoples, climates, soils... I didn't start off with that knowledge. But by observation, reading, watching, arguing, asking, that is the conclusion I've come to." - Lee Kuan Yew, The Man & His Ideas, 1997

Posted by: racecard on October 7, 2008 2:43 AM



I propose an amendment to Godwin's Law. Just as an honest debate is over when one side calls the other a Nazi,an honest debate is over when one side calls the other racist.

Still, one wouldn't need to change it because Godwin's law has been evoked by both sides multiple times already. How droll.

I mean you don't really have to use the term at all to rhetorically smash lunkheads like the Stormfronters, Aztlan Loons and Nation of Islam types. To make it utterly fair to both sides I would also include intimations of the other side being akin to Maoist cultural revolutionaries merely because they don't get antsy when a Chinese computer programmer moves next door.

Really, these threads are my least favorite of those posted here at 2BH. Odious, uncivil, filled with screaming and fingerpointing. It makes my repeated beefs with Agnostic about the place of qualitative and quantitative research respectively seem like an argument about dish soap choices.

Really, since the poor dead body of George Orwell has already been tossed into this cesspool (it's always the respected long-deceased who can't disagree with an interpretation of a current situation in their name that make the best allies, yes?), wouldn't a two minutes hate for your enemies be better someplace where it matches the general tenor of the forum instead of repeatedly bringing this place down every couple of weeks or so? I implore the forum owners. After all, this is *always* what it turns into. One thread matches the others and never really applies to the original post in the end.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on October 7, 2008 3:29 AM



Mencius - You regret the civil rights movement??

sN - What 'argument' could possibly change the mindset of people like you or Mencius? Do you need scientific proof that Jews aren't vermin? Even then, you'd feel the same.

I have the impression that many of you are actually foaming at the mouth. Scary.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on October 7, 2008 3:40 AM



sN – Apparently to you the rights of citizens are a zero sum equation; if rights are granted equally to those who are of a different race, creed or color this somehow diminishes your rights. This is beyond foolish and heading toward idiotic reasoning. Unless the "right" you are talking about is the right to abuse or discriminate against someone whose race, creed or color is different than your own.

Mencius – Given your disdain for democracy and the Constitution, coupled with ill-considered reliance on genetic differences between races to argue the superiority of one race over others should be wary of bringing up the Nazis. Although, the way this comments thread is running I suspect you'll have more support for your racist (yes I used that word) agenda than my hopelessly naive defense of what I continue to see as core American values.

Posted by: Chris White on October 7, 2008 6:50 AM



Chris White, you are the whitest guy in the world.

You don't give a shit about blacks and minorities.

After repeatedly reading your attacks on white men as bitter racists, I can only conclude one thing. You are projecting your own attitudes and hatred onto other white men. I don't encounter the horrible white men you detest.

So the only possible conclusion is that you hold these horribly racist convictions, that you are the detestable racist that you abhor.

Fix yourself, Chris. It must be horrible to harbor the vicious racism that you so abhor.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on October 7, 2008 7:22 AM



This entire discussion is what race talk in America always is: an internal argument amongst white people. This is a blanco civil war, not a serious discussion of race or civil rights or anything else.

It's too bad that white people have so little interest in anyone different. Black people, for example, are actually very interesting. They deserve serious study. They even deserve to be studied by white people. It's too bad they never are, except by "racists".

P.S. It is a tribute to Chris W's utter white insularity that he continues to assert that any statement of the fact that black Americans score significantly lower on average than white Americans on IQ tests is a statement about black "inferiority".

Only an utterly self-absorbed, culturally and ethnically insular intellectual white snob like Chris could possibly think that IQ test results have anything to do with personal worth. I'm not being ironic here. People who know about IQ tests know they have NOTHING to do with personal worth. It's unreflective culturally isolated self-referential white folk like Chris who blurt out their own assumptions by ALWAYS EVERY TIME being the first person in any discussion of race and IQ to assert that IQ and worth even need to be talked about in the same sentence.

Always.

Posted by: PatrickH on October 7, 2008 11:47 AM



From today's Washington Post:

"Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

And you guys are worried about speech codes on campus. How quaint.

Posted by: Steve on October 7, 2008 11:49 AM



ST – What "attacks on white men as bitter racists"? You are projecting again. I have, in this and other threads, noted that certain comments by particular individuals are racist or indicated, based on specific statements, that the person making the comment may be a racist, this is a far different thing than making any such blanket attack on white men. Some of my best friends are white men ... just like me. I will, however, give you points for attempting Maxwell's tactic of flipping the accusation in an attempt to deflect it.

Mencius – So many distortions and red herrings, so little time.

Here are a few statistics:

49 percent Of murder victims are black men.

85 percent of white victims were slain by other white people.

"In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks."
- United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990

Are there dangerous neighborhoods in America? Unfortunately, yes. Are there neighborhoods where it is less safe to be white than black, Asian or Hispanic? Unfortunately, yes. Are there neighborhoods where it is less safe to be black, Asian or Hispanic? Unfortunately, yes. What's your point?

For the record, I have walked the streets, night and day, in a wide variety of zip codes without undue fear or being accosted. I'd be happy to provide you with some of those zip codes if you're interested. Locally the most recent murder was of an unarmed hospital security guard who was a Sudanese refugee immigrant. While there have been no arrests to date, the presumption is that the shooting was racially motivated. If you are afraid of being assaulted by a stranger based on your looks the last thing you want to be around here is gay or non-white.

Do I find your notion that the "American right wing's insistence on clinging to democracy, which is the creed of its enemy ... " comical? Hardly, I find it abhorrent, reprehensible and un-American. I think it indicates you are paranoid and would willingly overturn the Constitution and be in the vanguard of some home grown American version of a totalitarian dictatorship. We can argue about the terms Nazi, Fascist, etc. in some other thread, but not, it would seem, if you ever get your way. In your dream of America I'd be dead or in prison.

Racecard – That different races have different genetic characteristics is self-evident and few would deny it, certainly not me. I have nowhere claimed belief in "human neurological uniformity." Are there racial differences in average IQ scores? The facts and figures show this to be true. Is there an unambiguous equivalence between IQ scores and intelligence? Hardly. And even if I were, for the sake of argument, to agree that whites are, on average, more intelligent than blacks (and less intelligent than Asians) it in no way suggests that Asian should have greater rights than whites. Is that what you are suggesting? And as for moral equality, do you really want to go there?

Spike – While I wholeheartedly agree with your plea that these race baiting/race hating threads are "odious, uncivil, filled with screaming and fingerpointing" I am a victim of my upbringing. My father was WW II vet originally from the segregated South who came north and became an American history and civics teacher on the GI Bill. He was adamant that his children learn the lesson that silence when confronted with expressions of hatred and racism is cowardly and can lead to horrific ends.

And a few quotes to go out on.

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." -Albert Einstein

"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph." -Haile Selassie

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." –Plato

Posted by: Chris White on October 7, 2008 11:54 AM



Joe should invoke his 5th Amendment rights (providing that they still exist for non-Obamites), because the Dear Leader's men are bursting into the room and preparing to drag him off to the same concentration camp that His supporters in Missouri law enforcement built to hold individuals arrested for daring to blaspheme Him.

Posted by: thaprof on October 7, 2008 12:34 PM



Yes, Chris, we get it again... you've got a halo. You're father had a halo.

You and your father were the "good white men." Every other white man was a raging racist.

Jesus Christ, you are an awful man. Go live in hole.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on October 7, 2008 1:13 PM



Whites are more likely to be sentenced to death period than blacks. Chris's stat is a canard, since the obvious solution is to sentence blacks to death more often for murdering other blacks. It is true that black lives are less valued than whites by juries. Well, fix it then! Start sentencing more black murderers of black people to death.

As for the two stats about 49% of murder victims being black men and t'other one about whites murdering other whites, well, the mind boggles.

Try to figure out what Chris is avoiding mentioning behind the fog of stats he's extruding in that post.

Blacks commit murder at a rate seven to eight times greater than whites.
Posted by: PatrickH on October 7, 2008 1:14 PM



Its hard to believe that there are people who think that blacks, jews, and gays are "victims of discrimination" in this country.

Jews are vastly overrepresented in many professions, especially academia, the media, and finanace. I've never seen one jew ever discriminated against, or talked badly of. Blacks are given millions and millions of affirmative action jobs they neither deserve nor do well in, and they've ruined huge swaths of just about every large city in the US. And gays are likewise immune from any kind of accountability in the workforce, and given preferential treatment in academia and the media.

The only legal kind of racial discrimination in America is against white men. And once America becomes majority minority, white women will soon be added to the list. The display of anti-white racism you see here now is tepid compared to what will come when the scale is finally tipped.

The Chris White's of the world perpetually live in the 1950's and 60's, with no change in their worldview to the facts of the moment. They insist on deferrence to minorities as Shouting Thomas asserts, to put a halo over their head and label people who disagree with them as evil. And they both do it because they dislike white men. For a woman, it understandable, but you can't understand Chris White until you understand that he is intimidated and afraid of masculine white men, so he seeks ways to control them and feel himself superior to them. It took me a long time to understand that. Shouting Thomas would call these guys the "fag hags", largely cowed men who want to feel like alpha males. And denouncing them constantly as stupid bigots and sticking it to them with AA is the ticket. Of course, they never feel the claws of AA themselves , so its okay.

What these bigots fail to address is the real, legitimate discrimination against whites, and let it pass because they are moral cowards. They've found that its quite easy to get away with supporting discrimination against their own kind because they are too afraid to demand equitable treatment for everybody, especially to some (soon to be majority) minority's face. Cowardice, that's all it is.

And they'll go on and on about the evils of colonialism, and its evils agaisnt the natives, while ignoring that the same evil is and will be perpetrated against whites both here and in Europe when the foreign invasion is complete.

I've never heard a word from the likes of Sister Wolf or Chris White, two hate-filled bigots, against the slaughter of whites in South Africa or Zimbabwe. Not one word. Chris White is more worried about lynchings than ethnic cleansing and wholesale murder. Like most jews I've met, Sister Wolf thinks only of her own group to the point of obsessive illness. Both are moral cowards.

BTW, the response should be "Oh fuck that noise! This is America, I'll say what I want. You should hear the way blacks talk about whites when we're not around. Grow up already!"

Posted by: BIOH on October 7, 2008 2:18 PM



Yes, Steve, how quaint.

When the media transforms itself into a propaganda machine for one political party and then someone calls them on their - pretty "in your face" - agitprop game, they should be prepared for negative outcome. You wouldn't tell me they believe in their own lies about "objective journalism" now, would you?

Apart from pretty coarse and transparent Couric and Gibson, we have NYTimes- polished in their experience as red-smoke-machine. How they do it? Here's an explanation: the real Obama-Ayers connection, not NYT version. Relevant for the foul race card' thread.

Posted by: Tatyana on October 7, 2008 3:04 PM



Patrick - Among my many other flaws is I do not believe in the death penalty.

ST - For a guy who goes on and on about honoring tradition and one's father and patriotism you sure have little tolerance for those of us who do ... unless we agree with your own warped, self-centered, victim-mentality view of the world.

Donald - Any remotely unbiased review of the comments here would, I assert, show that "the race card" is being played far more aggressively and viciously by those whose position is that whites are innately superior to blacks, a black man should not - because of his race - be allowed to become President, whites are at risk from blacks who are destroying our (read white) culture, etc.

Periodically you put these race based postings on the blog and sit back while various characters spew overtly racist venom ... and who then proceed to get apoplectic if anyone calls them racist for it. Here you offer a post that sets up a hypothetical essentially averring that the fault lies not with the individual making a racist comment, but with someone who calls them on it, further stacking the deck.

And, now for a recap of the highlights directed my way so far.

"Jesus Christ, you are an awful man. Go live in hole ... easily the most brain dead, sanctimonious, revolting individual on the face of the earth ... dog shit ... asshole ... you seem to give yourself a blowjob just about hourly ... Ms. Latte has more principles and character in one of her fingernails than you have in your entire body ... an utterly self-absorbed, culturally and ethnically insular intellectual white snob ... "

Admittedly ST is most heavily represented, but isn't this a wonderful litany of reasoned discourse and high intellectual honesty? Or not.

"Hey gang -- Let's try to keep this civil." - DP

Yeah, right.

Posted by: Chris White on October 7, 2008 3:46 PM



I think it's safe so say that leaving this as an open thread was a mistake...

Posted by: Mike on October 7, 2008 3:58 PM



Man, what a lynch mob we have here!

Posted by: Sister Wolf on October 7, 2008 4:30 PM



Chris,

That different races have different genetic characteristics is self-evident and few would deny it, certainly not me. I have nowhere claimed belief in "human neurological uniformity."

"Few would deny it." What planet do you live on? Does "few" include, say, PBS?

You excuse yourself from the movement you are part of, at any time it is convenient to your defense. It's like hearing an SS-man defend himself. Frankly, it's embarrassing.

Locally the most recent murder was of an unarmed hospital security guard who was a Sudanese refugee immigrant. While there have been no arrests to date, the presumption is that the shooting was racially motivated.

Chris, if you weren't so evil, you'd be funny. Of course the presumption is that the shooting was racially motivated. It was probably done by an old white banker. And the presumption is also that this wasn't a hate crime. Do you see a pattern here, perhaps?

When the government wants to attack some group or ethnically cleanse it, what it does is to withdraw the effective protection of the law. This is Kristallnacht in a nutshell. It is also exactly how, say, Detroit, was ethnically cleansed. And it's how South Africa is being ethnically cleansed right now.

The excuse is always that it's too difficult to enforce the law. Perhaps even impossible. It's just so hard to crack down on these black gangs! Strangely, in 1950, it wasn't hard at all. Would you support, or oppose, a return to the laws and police practices of 1950? I'm reminded of Auden's little crack about the "necessary murder."

By the standards applied to white men, essentially every black-on-white murder or rape is a hate crime. Quite simply, the people who commit these crimes have all been bathed up to the pores, typically since kindergarten, in a black nationalist ideology in which these crimes are justified acts of resistance to oppression. We're about to elect a president who is deeply complicit in this ideology.

Imagine reversing the races on this. I can tell that you can imagine this, because you seem to believe that it's what I'm proposing.

As for my actual policy proposals: they all consist of a restoration of civil rights. I would restore the civil right generally known as "freedom of association." This means I can hire anyone I like, sell or not sell my house to anyone I like, and so on. How awful! And no, you wouldn't be in prison, unless of course you committed a crime. You'd just be perceived as a whiny, old, out-of-touch fart.

If it makes you feel any better, I agree completely with one of your statements: that your positions represent "core American values." At least, they certainly represent core New England values, and New England is very much the 800-pound gorilla in American history. If we want to end the era of chaos, democracy and revolution, we need to deal squarely with the poisonous legacy of the Puritans.

Personally, I favor the old Hartford Convention idea of New England secession. This would even allow you to keep your favorite system of government. Perhaps we could send you all the Crips and the rest of the Thug Report types, since you created them and seem to love them so much. Don't you live in Maine, Chris? Or was it upstate New York? What's the percentage of blacks and Mexicans in your zip code? Do have fun practicing what you preach.

Posted by: Mencius on October 7, 2008 5:26 PM



BIOH - three corrections, please (there might be more from others, these I have to point out, though)

1)you pile together quota black hires, preferential treatment for gays and "overrepresentation of Jews in academia". 1st group you're right about, 2nd - not sure if it's true outside of arts&design jobs, 3rd - not true. Are you implying a Jew was ever offered a job in America because (s)he is a Jew (by a non-Jew)? I do really want to see it, that must be quite a spectacle. Granted, I've never worked in academia, though...could they be that crazy?
2.It's a pity the Jews you happened to meet were of Commie Wolf variety. Cursory googling any combination of "jews right wing", "jews neocon", "jews republican", "jews libertarian", etc should be enough proof that you're mistaken in your assertion. A hint: it's the ideology, not the ethnic/religious affiliation that matters.
3. Your hypothetical response (last paragraph" should read
"You should hear the way SOME blacks talk about whites." IN our presence.

Posted by: Tatyana on October 7, 2008 5:30 PM



FWIW I did not raise the issue of lynchings, Mencius did.

Also FWIW I think the racial attacks on whites in South Africa, Zimbabwe and other African countries is horrific and deplorable. The overt violent racism of blacks in those and other situations is more abhorrent to me than mere expressions of racist opinions. One can find examples of ethnic cleansing and genocide and racial attacks all over the planet with different races swapping roles of victim and perpetrator and all of these are abhorrent. These, however, would be part of a far wider discussion than the current thread (ostensibly) on U.S. political discourse and the race card.

As previously noted I defend the right of anyone to express views, however much I disagree with them, on the grounds of free speech, just as I will use my free speech rights to call racist spewing racist spewing when I encounter it. That is my right as a patriotic American citizen.

Posted by: Chris White on October 7, 2008 5:33 PM



Steve,

People are being rude to reporters! Sacrilege! Stop the pr - oh, wait.

In my kind of country, perhaps insulting a military officer would be the same sort of cause celebre.

America's proles are tired of 60 years of postwar misgovernment. It's no surprise that they can be a little insulting to their real rulers. After all, they're proles. Why would you expect them to be polite, educated and well-spoken? I suspect we'll see a lot worse before all of this is over.

Sister, it looks a little different from the other end, don't it? Imagine an America in which all college freshmen got my ideology pumped into them in little Maoist struggle sessions. Hey, man, it could happen.

Posted by: Mencius on October 7, 2008 5:35 PM



Interesting that when bigoted accusations are directed toward those unlike her, Tatyana finds it perfectly reasonable and credible, but when direct toward those she identifies with she sees it for the thoughtless bigotry it is. Perhaps there's hope she will review the comments and see that those who are so vehement in condemning me for my views here, those with whom she agrees on many points, are actually no more her friends and supporters than they are mine. I daresay if Mencius or BIOH could push the magic button and transform America into their vision of perfection she would find herself with me on the wrong side of the barbed wire.

Posted by: Chris White on October 7, 2008 6:27 PM



Chris, read what I said, again, please.

I have seen (personally seen, not just from internet posts) plenty of quota black hires. Mostly at work, but also in my class at FIT: we had a black classmate Beverley, sweet woman, nice to everybody - who most obvoiusly was not suited for the challenge nor she had a talent or discipline required. She was given one extension after another, one opportunity after another - based solely on the color of her skin. She was dragging on for 3 semesters, then nobody could stand it anymore and she was - not pronounced "Failed", but...given an opportunity to transfer to - wait for this - Administration and Management major.
And then, later, at various firms, I have seen other Beverlies who actually graduated in that major and been given a job as managers. Disaster. Nobody could be so bold as to fire them for the right reason: complete incompetence; instead HR would always find some pretext - not much work load, etc, so as not being suied.

Have you ever seen anything remotely like this happening when the failing student is Jewish? Or that the HR would specifically look for a Jew to demonstrate "diversity"? It's simply not true, Chris.

So please, do stop lecturing me about bigotry; I see what I see and I form my own conclusions.

Posted by: Tatyana on October 7, 2008 6:49 PM



BIOH, may I ask why I am "a moral coward?"

Tatyana, will you ever realize that my crack about being a Commie Wiccan was a joke? Does it help you to find a way to ignore the fact that you've been attacking a fellow Jew? My grandparents were from Russia and Poland. My father in law worked with Ben-Gurion. Your infantile grudge against me is based on jealousy and is not a credit to you as a woman, a thinker, or a Jew.

BTW, I have never characterized my self as a victim due to Jewishness or anything else! I am not a bigot, although I admit I hate ignorance and small-mindedness.

Carry on, white supremacists !

Posted by: Sister Wolf on October 7, 2008 7:34 PM



she [Tatyana] would find herself with me on the wrong side of the barbed wire.

How strange to see Tatyana make a cameo in Chris's homoerotic fantasy.

Posted by: PA on October 7, 2008 8:28 PM



PA, thanks for the crack - much needed after my workday (which I can only characterize as "oy gevolt").

Posted by: Tatyana on October 7, 2008 9:00 PM



"I daresay if Mencius or BIOH could push the magic button and transform America into their vision of perfection she would find herself with me on the wrong side of the barbed wire."

Chris White... martyr! Martyred savior of black people!

Jesus Christ! You are a cartoon character... What a Bozo! What a phony creep you are, Chris. Creep. Creep. Creep.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on October 7, 2008 9:28 PM



Chris W with self-satisfied sanctimony: "Among my many other flaws is I do not believe in the death penalty."

Yeah well so what? Who asked you, boyo? Jesus, you are such a liar. You invoke bogus stats, you're called on it, and you refuse to respond, preferring instead to favour yourself with a little pat on your own smug back and an unsolicited sharing of your own utterly irrelevant opinion of the death penalty. You invoked stats in order to mislead, and now you weasel out of taking responsibility for your little stunt. Yay, Chris, you liar.

What a low dishonest little mind you have. And you're such a prig too. A deceitful smug little priss. If only you could apply a little panache to your prevarications, but even that's too much to ask.

I said elsewhere once that the great sin when talking with women is not lying to them, it's boring them. Well, thank God I'm not a woman, 'cause you've not only lied to me, you've bored me.

But I'm a man, so I can just say to your face: I disrespect you, you smug fatuous liar.

Posted by: PatrickH on October 7, 2008 10:36 PM



The amount of whining self-pity and wallowing in victimhood that one sees on this board by members of the master race is enough to make Goebbels roll over in his grave.

PatrickH -- your concern trolling skills need some work. Maybe you should just give it a rest with the whole "you're the *real* racist, thing."

And btw Patrick, there's at least one non-white here. And I gotta tell you, since I started getting on the internet 10, 11 years ago and seen for myself how the torch-bearers of civilization conduct themselves when they don't think any of the help is around, my attitude has, to say the least, hardened.

More than ever, I'm now convinced that Nat Turner was the greatest American who ever lived. And what's happening to those goddamn peckerwoods in Zimbabwe and South Africa is FANTASTIC.

I'm assuming it's okay to say peckerwood since you ofays feel perfectly comfortable tossing "nigger" around amongst yourselves. If only you had the courage to say it in public.

I can't WAIT to see the day when you all are no longer the majority. Or even better, when you all are no longer even a plurality.

Oh, DAMN that's gonna be fun.

Posted by: Tyr on October 7, 2008 11:01 PM



FWIW I did not raise the issue of lynchings, Mencius did.

Indeed. And would you care to guess the percentage of lynchees who were actually guilty of a serious crime? Could we agree that it is perhaps around 50?

Now guess the percentage of whites murdered by blacks who are actually fellow criminals. Now compare the two.

Presumably, as protectors and preservers of civilization, governments are most concerned by attacks by criminals on innocent people - the attacker being a criminal by definition. Don't you agree?

The American police force, as a general whole, Certainly did. Until about 1970 or so. Gee, what changed? Does it have anything to do with Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and friends? Ya think?

Because criminals, of course, are people we don't really care about. Because we certainly do not belong to a political party that is fundamentally allied to criminal forces.

Associations: Al Capone - Saul Alinsky - Barack Obama. These are not two casual, random degrees of separation. They are serious professional connections. We know that Barry was a disciple of Saul, we know that Saul was a friend of Al. Frankly, if my connections with Mussolini or Franco or, yes, Hitler (Hitler! Hitler! I feel like I need to say "Hitler" a couple more times, just for emphasis, were anywhere near close to the Obama-Capone gap, I'd be in the deep, deep far end of right-wing extremist insanity. (Ie: Stormfront.)

When I talk with you, Chris, I am constantly reminded that your existence as an intellectual is a contingent consequence of the military force which shot Drieu la Rochelle and Robert Brasillach, exiled Celine and hanged Joyce. Your hands are the hands of the Allies. They are as bloody as anyone else's.

So please don't start talking to me about "Nazis" or "fascists" or "racists" or anything along that line. In fact, I'll go one further: you are officially free to attach me to any of these progressive hate labels.

For example, I've often proposed that the 800-channel world needs a new station called "Confederate Racist Television," which would produce a sort of video representation of thugreport.com, eventually with global correspondents. Are you going to deny that you, Chris White, would insist that any such channel be banned, its producers harassed into bankruptcy by the IRS, or something of the like?

Also FWIW I think the racial attacks on whites in South Africa, Zimbabwe and other African countries is horrific and deplorable. The overt violent racism of blacks in those and other situations is more abhorrent to me than mere expressions of racist opinions.

Chris, I am really glad for this note of conscience. In a cause this popular, simply to recant and admit guilt is a remarkable act of contrition. It cleanses the utterer of all responsibility, although it is valid only up to the present and never in future.

So in case you are tempted to backslide on the matter, please let me note a couple of things.

The first is your government's role in this crime. You are probably used to worrying about the crimes of your government overseas, but not in this way. You have an eagle eye for the crimes of the Defense Department. Wen it comes to the crimes of the State Department you have the approximate visual acuity of the average snail.

That is: you can see things, sort of, if they are shoved in your face. Let me shove something in your face, if you don't mind: this.

Please bear in mind that the author, Hermann Giliomee, whose name makes him sound like a hairy-backed, kaffir-hating Boer, is a legitimate historian of the approved CFR school, described hereas "one of the earliest and staunchest opponents of Afrikaner apartheid." And he is certainly not writing from my point of view.

I am particularly fond of this exchange:

Dave Steward, who would become Pres. FW de Klerk's main communications adviser, sums it up well: "PW Botha showed an absolute lack of understanding of modern political communication. Instead of addressing his real audience of hundreds of millions of TV viewers in the West, he addressed the NP faithful. Instead of language that his real audience could understand, he used the rough and tumble idiom of South African political meetings."

Ie: he was talking to his actual electoral constituency. You know, the people who voted for him. Under the sovereign constitution of his free and independent country At the very least, he was not talking to the Chris Whites of the world.

Do you know what the racist blog that Ms. Latte linked to is? It is called "South Africa Sucks," although its actual domain name tends to move around a little - Google has deleted it three times, always without warning the administrator. Or at least so he claims. I am skeptical - I don't endorse these people, and I certainly don't trust them.

SAS's standing advice to white people in South Africa is simple: leave. Pack for Perth. Do it now, before things get rough. You think they're rough now. You haven't seen anything.

Across the last century this advice has saved the lives of millions of white people who had to flee Africa, leaving their homes and possessions behind, moving involuntarily and without money to a land in which their former existence were despised as essentially criminal. SAS is giving it now. Are you?

In your defense, it's true that the SAS editor, the notorious "Uhuru Guru," is a deft man with Photoshop as well as a not half-bad writer, and his collection of primate stock photography is nothing if not impressive. (Actually, UG is the lamer half of the old SAS - the original editor, "The Real Realist," who was supposedly a veteran Johannesburg journalist, was far superior.) And the site really is loaded with general crap. Three-quarters of the posts are puerile, moronic, or both.

Nonetheless, a lot of people read it. More should.

Did you support the divestment movement, Chris? I'll bet dollars to donuts you did. In that case, I suggest that as a penance you first read the Real Realist's photo essay, The Death of Johannesburg, including all the comments (some of which, I'm sorry, are simply heartbreaking) and then at least skim SAS for the next three months. It won't feel good, but at the end you'll feel better.

Posted by: Mencius on October 7, 2008 11:06 PM



Tyr, stick around, even though it's a waste of time!

Tatyana, you had a hard day at work? It must've been those damn incompetent black "Beverlies." Your little diatribe is transparently saying "I'm no racist, it's just that Black people are stupid."

Posted by: Sister Wolf on October 7, 2008 11:30 PM



Tyr, thanks for being honest with us about your feelings. I sense, at least, sincerity.

Sister, do you really believe it's simply impossible, like a law of physics, for dermal albedo to correlate with stupidity? Please do explain.

Posted by: Mencius on October 7, 2008 11:52 PM



Actually, Tyr, please wait: I was only skimming your invective, and didn't notice that you yourself are black. Or whatever you guys tell us to call it these days.

Black people in America sometimes talk about something called "The Plan." Perhaps you've heard of it. The CIA is selling crack. Or whatever conspiracy. But it is a conspiracy to keep black people on the bottom, where they always seem to end up.

Now, think about for this for a minute. Whatever this Plan is, it has (a) been orchestrated by white people, (b) has served the interests of white people, and (c) has caused black peoples' interests to suffer (versus the conditions of 1958, in which the black community was obviously much healthier). (c) is observed by inspection. We are left to consider (a) and (b).

Our first task is to figure out which side of the American political divide this mysterious organization is found on. The obvious guess would be the side that controls the intellectual institutions of white society. Ie, the educational and managerial side. Ie, the blue side. Ie, the Democrats.

Note that this is also the winning side, generally. See the above link to Proposition 14. Over the last 50 years, public opinion - at least on the subjects you seem principally concerned with - has moved decidedly to the left. And American black culture and society have declined.

How can we explain these observations? It's quite simple, actually.

Over the last two generations, the American black community has become dependent on the American left, who have addicted American blacks to government payments, and thus made them at the very least clientes in the old Roman sense of the word. There are other analogies, some of which are far less flattering to the relationship.

This generosity has not been extended out of personal sympathy. Rather, blacks perform two vital services for Washington's permanent government. They supply a pool of friendly votes, and they are, or at least can be taught to be, violent and destructive.

The relationship is indirect, however, which permits the Chris Whites of the world to claim all kinds of plausible deniability, when in

So yes, African-American readers - you are the help. But, fortunately, your mind is restrained by lies rather than your body by chains, and you can free yourself without even moving. And then it'll be Nat Turner squared.

Basically, the real masters of America are the people behind this link. "Whiterpeople" are using the American black community half as a political tool, half as an outright weapon. Principally, they are being used to subdue and destroy the enemies of the SWPL people, the red-staters, whom I call "Vaisya" or "Proles" or "Amerikaners."

If black Americans ever wake up and realize that the red-state Americans they are supposed to hate are actually their best practical allies, and their present masters are their real enemies, the demise of the regime which at present oppresses them will be swift indeed.

If not, as I expect, the Plan will continue until we renegade whitepeople can pull it off ourselves. My advice for American blacks is to live peacefully and forget about politics. Many, of all skin colors, in all eras and on all continents, have benefited from this advice. So please do not take it as condescending.

In particular, please note that your skin color tells me nothing about your character, identity, or even intelligence - since statistical generalizations about sets of human beings cannot possibly tell us anything useful about individuals.

(Perhaps this is what Chris White is trying to say. I'm sure it's a statement we can all agree on. I endorse it completely and without reservation - not to curry anyone's favor, just because it is an obvious consequence of mathematics. Y'all may still feel free to call me a racist, although I am half-Jewish so the anti-Semite stuff falls a bit short.)

Posted by: Mencius on October 8, 2008 12:18 AM



Also, if anyone is a total masochist and wants a more personal connection to the events discussed above, this page (which is, of course, neither complete nor currently updated) ought to do. It is very similar in effect to the scene with the board of Kenyan real-estate listings in Africa Addio.

Posted by: Mencius on October 8, 2008 12:29 AM



Mencius, you mean "the real masters of America" are yuppies?!

Posted by: Sister Wolf on October 8, 2008 4:17 AM




Hey, Sister Wolf, I did not mention Jews at all in my post, so I don't know why you're asking if there is any proof that would make me not consider them vermin. I'm assuming there is because I don't consider them vermin...at all.

I do hate the fact that most of our politicians are suppose to kiss the ring of AIPAC if they wish to run for major office.

My point is as a white man, I can be discriminated against for my race. I sit at work and listen as my minority colleagues demand that their group be given promotions because they're (fill in the approved minority). I mean stop and really picture that. I'm suppose to sit there and what...smile? Who is the tyrant in that situation?

They're willing to take some of my rights now...and, therefore, I conclude that there's a good chance they will be more than happy to take more of my rights in the future. I base this on what I see going on around me and in the country. And what I see, chris white, is not "equality."

So, I dont feel like being part of the bullshit any longer. I believe that is part of the anger you are hearing here.

sN

Posted by: sN on October 8, 2008 4:40 AM



Mencius: "Plan will continue until we renegade whitepeople can pull it off ourselves."

What motivates renegade Whiterpeople? Serious question in response to your mind-blowing writing.

Posted by: PA on October 8, 2008 8:32 AM



Tatyana – Perhaps I misconstrued your comment. Apparently you intended it to be limited to your personal experience with Affirmative Action programs in education and business and not, as I thought from the far wider scope of the thread, directed at intolerance in a wider context. The vehemence and nature of so many comments led me to read it more broadly. The common form of racial animosity directed toward blacks is based on their presumed inferiority. This often takes the form of a shorthand conceptual equation that assumes the darker an individual's complexion, the less intelligent, lazier and the more aggressive they are likely to be. The view of Jews is the polar opposite; Jews are assumed to be exceptionally intelligent and clannish, traits they use to maintain over representation among the elite, especially in finance, media and academia. When Mencius talks about the right rising up to crush democracy and speaks about how "the left controls the press and the educational system" I make the not too far fetched leap that Jews would not fair well in his version of Utopia. Given that he notes his own Jewish ancestry one wonders how well HE would fare if the anti-democratic revolution of his dreams were to come to pass. I suspect not as well as he anticipates.

Patrick – It is true that tossing out a couple of cherry-picked (although not bogus) statistics proves nothing. My quick Google search for crime stats was precipitated by Mencius intimating that the total number of lynchings of blacks was small compared to the annual number of whites murdered by blacks. This is undoubtedly true. It is also a fallacious and facetious attempt at determining how many wrongs make a right. So the question is, where is your vehement denunciation of Mencius for using such fraudulent debating tactics? You show your own elevated approach by joining Shouting in firing a thesaurus worth of insults at me. Although I did appreciate their amusingly alliterative beat ... "prig ... priss ... panache ... prevarications" quite poetic. Would it be my attempt at avoiding direct personal attack that earns me the epithets of prig and priss? Should I trade school yard jibes with you and Shouting? "I'll see your Creep and raise you a Cretin!" Would that be more 'manly'? You boys really do need to grow up.

Mencius – Granted South Africa is a mess. Most of the fault lies with the leadership of the country and the inability of its citizens to pull themselves out of a situation created, or at least exacerbated by, generations under apartheid. It is tragic. If, however, you are suggesting that this somehow proves the innate superiority of whites or the benefits of apartheid I will continue to disagree with the premise. As it happens an acquaintance of mine is a white artist originally from SA. His father was killed in the period before the apartheid era ended, apparently for supporting and organizing gatherings of artists that included all races.

For what it's worth, we do agree on a variety of points such as "skin color tells me nothing about your character, identity, or even intelligence - since statistical generalizations about sets of human beings cannot possibly tell us anything useful about individuals."

Posted by: Chris White on October 8, 2008 8:44 AM



Tyr: your concern trolling skills need some work.

Um, what? My what? What are you talking about?

More than ever, I'm now convinced that Nat Turner was the greatest American who ever lived. And what's happening to those goddamn peckerwoods in Zimbabwe and South Africa is FANTASTIC.

What difference does it make? We're trying to have a discussion here. You like this, you don't like that. Who asked you? What bloody difference does it make what you FEEL about anything?

So you hate white people. So what?

Posted by: PatrickH on October 8, 2008 9:11 AM



Chris, I'm well aware how Jews are percieved by the rest of humanity (hmmm...humanity seems a strange word in this context). There is a saying, in Russian, from the times of Civil War (1917-1920): "Reds are coming - be prepared for pogroms; whiteguards are coming - be prepared for pogroms, and when the Greens are coming - say goodbye to dear life" ("greens" refers to Independent Anarchist Movement's bandits).
Having that thought at the back of my mind has taught me to value equality in civil rights. As soon as one group or the other gets preferential treatment, unconnected to merit, the equality no longer exists. More unearned benefits = more animosity from all other groups in society, which in turn, supplies the privileged group with nominal excuse for more discrimination claims. More tension coupled with difficult economic situation = prerequisites for fascism.

What about your own survival instinct, Chris? The Left created current inequality; you promoted it, you actively worked to advance the unfair advantage of undeserving - and now, when S starts HTF, you advocate for more of the same "cure" for society's ills you yourself messed up?

You're the one doomed, Chris.

Posted by: Tatyana on October 8, 2008 9:55 AM



My response: no that isn't racist. As someone who believes in racial separation, I know what racism is and that wasn't it.

Posted by: Michael T on October 8, 2008 10:15 AM



Chris, glad you liked the alliterations. :-)

As for denouncing Mencius for his use of stats: well, Mencius Moldbug may mislead in matters mathematical, misconstrue meanings with malice aforethought, mangle models, and be (mostly, more or less, maybe) a mean, misanthropic man whose meretricious maunderings move mountains of…mainly manure methinks, to massively malodorous effect and make the most mild-mannered men into murderous maniacs. Or even mouthbreathers.

Meanwhile…

His point stands.

Posted by: PatrickH on October 8, 2008 11:36 AM



Tyr, the only people that used the word, "nigger", were Sister Wolf and Chris White. And once by Mencius when quoting Sister Wolf.

Unless you have this seething hatred for those that are agreeing with you, I am not sure who you are supposed to be baiting.

Posted by: Usually Lurking on October 8, 2008 11:53 AM



Like the sound the "m" makes, PatrickH? Such a lemony-morning, mmm-delicious, kissy-mouth letter, ah

Posted by: Tatyana on October 8, 2008 12:03 PM



Tyr: The main effect of civil breakdown in Zimbabwe is mass unemployment and starvation among the black population. The regime goon squads target the black political opposition and minority tribes far more than the handful of whites. And the victims of the crime epidemic in South Africa are nearly all black.

Patriotism vs racism: at many, if not most U.S. colleges and universities, there are dozens of faculty and students who openly proclaim their hostility to the United States, up to and including praising the armed enemies of the U.S. and terrorists who kill Americans. Nothing happens to them. (OK, Ward Churchill was fired - after 30 years as a tenured professor, during which time he published a stream of venomously anti-U.S. papers, much of was discovered to be plagiarized or fraudulent.)

But these same colleges and universities have draconian speech codes under which any student could be fined, suspended, or expelled for any conduct which something thinks is racist. (Some have pulled back under legal challenge.) Vide the student-employee at IUPUI who was reprimanded because he was seen reading a book about the KKK. It was about how Notre Dame faculty and students defeated the KKK in the 1920s, but some "minority" saw "KKK", took offense and turned him in, and the kangaroo court found him guilty. FIRE and the ACLU took up his case, and IUPUI eventually backed down, but only after weeks of lying and evading, and a storm of national publicity.

Many colleges also have elaborate "sensitivity training" programs, in which white students are subjected to hours of indoctrination to purge them of supposed unconscious racial bias. (Minority students attend consciousness-raising seminars, where they are taught that the college is rife with hidden bigotry, and to be on the alert for any trace of it.)

See the difference?

The future will be ugly. Congress will enact a "hate-speech" law like that in Canada and Britain. (The really bad provisions will be hidden in the details.) If Obama gets to replace one of the five conservative Supreme Court Justices, the law will be upheld. The Justice Department will be packed with radicals eager to enforce it; the FCC will apply it to broadcast media. In 2004, NY AG Eliot Spitzer sued Sinclair Broadcasting for airing the anti-Kerry documentary Stolen Honor, on the grounds of damage to shareholder interest. Expect lots of legal action against dissenters. We've already seen "global warming" dissenters equated with Holocaust deniers. How long before such speech is criminalized? There will of course be hate-speech regulation of the Internet. Even sites as innocuous as this will be in danger...

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on October 8, 2008 12:39 PM



Wow. that was a really stupid analogy. considering intelligent and eloquent Obama has been, why o why do you think he would react that way? SERIOUSLY?? He's not going to go that route based on that questioning BUT of course you guys will. I guess thats why this site is called "2blohards". would this happen to be Bill O'reillys website?
Plain Ignorant

Get a clue people seriously. just because you cant get over color doesnt mean everyone in the GOP hasnt (hopefully) bring the party back and stop the foolishness.

BY: A republican who will NOT vote for Mccain based around ISSUES AND the FARCE that is Sarah Palin!

Posted by: michael on October 8, 2008 12:49 PM



Mr. H - Mmmmmm, mmmmmmm, magnificent! At least you maintain a mmmmmavelous sense of humor ... when you're not channeling The Shouting One.

One difficulty with these threads that delve into massive, complex and highly emotional areas is it is far too easy for everyone (me included) to lapse into presuming, projecting and assuming dichotomies that are bad caricatures of reality.

I argue (perhaps as ineffectively) with leftists about hate speech laws and campus speech codes, neither of which I support. That said, I am tolerant or agnostic about what private colleges may choose to enforce on campus or how they determine what students they'll enroll. If a Christian college were to decide not to admit gays, or prevent a women student's club from offering pro-choice lectures, it seems to me that they should have that right. I might not approve, but see no reason why they should be forced to comply with more open standards. So, too, if a liberal arts college wants to have a diverse student population and does so via admitting students from various ethnic or economic demographics which mean some qualified students who apply are not accepted (despite better GPAs or other metrics), well, again, that is their business.

Boil this thread down and what remains seems to be how one answers the question of who is "Us" and who is "Them." It appears many who comment here have a narrow view of those they consider part of their own cohort and race is an important element in their calculus. My own view is different.

Posted by: Chris White on October 8, 2008 1:58 PM



Chris, I'm glad you want to talk more about South Africa. I feel the issue is quite illuminating.

Most of the fault lies with the leadership of the country and the inability of its citizens to pull themselves out of a situation created, or at least exacerbated by, generations under apartheid.

Oddly enough, South Africa appears to be trending toward conditions quite similar to those found in Haiti, Jamaica, and Nigeria. All of which are also struggling to emerge from generations under apartheid. Not.

What you're telling yourself, Chris, is that it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, but it's actually an armadillo. And if I claim it's a duck, the burden of proof is on me, for proving it is not an armadillo.

It is tragic.

Awww.

If, however, you are suggesting that this somehow proves the innate superiority of whites or the benefits of apartheid I will continue to disagree with the premise.

The proposition I was illustrating, which I think is more than adequately verified by history, is that majority-rule democracy is probably not the best political design for a population of predominantly African descent.

Oddly enough, I also feel that majority-rule democracy is probably not the best political design for a population of predominantly European descent. Does this make me more of a racist, or less of a racist? In fact, I'll go even farther and say etc, etc, for a population of predominantly Semitic descent. Clearly, I should just apply to the Waffen-SS now.

The neat thing about being a reactionary, you see - as opposed to a mere "conservative," the species your NPR-implanted talking points is designed to be effective against - is that you get to be consistent.

What I'd say is that the statistical distribution of neurologically active alleles in the sub-Saharan African population renders that population unusually sensitive to the dysfunctional qualities of democracy, as a design for safe and effective government.

As for those qualities, you do not need to believe me. You can believe Tocqueville, John Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lord Acton, Mill, and I'm sure about ten other titans whom you, with your "core American values," already revere.

Do you find the above proposition inherently immoral? If so, maybe you should build a spaceship, and find some other habitable planet on which it is not true. Or, better, hire a bunch of genetic engineers to figure out how to make it not true. I would unequivocally endorse this proposal. Would you?

But unless "Chris White" is a pseud for "Bill Gates" (and you don't by any chance have an Aryan Reggae Band, do you?), neither of these options are open to you. Therefore, I recommend coming to terms with reality. I think you'll find it requires much less of an adjustment to your present moral compass than you might suspect.

Let's return to this bit:

or the benefits of apartheid

As regards the "benefits of apartheid," I suggest you consider who knows more on the subject: you, or "Joseph" in this transcript. (You can also watch Joseph, here. I highly recommend it. Score one for the BBC.)

What we are talking about here is the difference between two regimes: the Nationalists and the ANC. Your country used every instrument short of invasion to depose the Nationalists and install the ANC. That makes it responsible for the vast increase in suffering that the difference between the two represents. Moreover, because you personally supported this change, you are personally responsible as well.

You are in the exact position of a German who supported the National Socialist seizure of power in 1933, but was not an anti-Semite and thought the party would moderate this impulse in time. There were millions of decent, respectable, honorable people who took this perspective. It would have been impossible for the Allies to have imprisoned them all, and nor would it have been moral. In fact, if I had lived in Germany at the time, I might well have been among this set. We do not hear much about the abuses of Weimar, but they were considerable.

Nonetheless, these "moderate Nazis" were wrong. After the war, to remain in polite society they had to fully recant their association with National Socialism. I would like to see a very similar process applied to Progressivism in our society: not vindictive, but thorough. Truth and reconciliation.

In 1994, the Republic of South African held an election. This was the last internal election of the three-centuries-old white tribe of the Cape, whose political separation from the Xhosa and Zulu people they once considered as natural and obvious as the political separation between Italy and France.

(Let me elaborate on this point for a moment. Historically, the Afrikaners felt it was just as arbitrary to assign political identity by descent as by some mix of borders and descent. The fundamental theory of apartheid was always that South Africa was several nations in one territory, a perfectly reasonable design for government. You can see it elsewhere, for example, in the Ottoman millet system, which made the Middle East pretty much a paradise of multicultural diversity - as opposed to its present state of rabid, murderous, irredentist nationalism, which your party has done so much to nourish.)

Anyway, in 1994, about two-thirds of white South Africans voted to dissolve the white polity, surrender their old republic and its constitution, change the flag and the anthem and the state bird, etc, etc, and in general knuckle under to the State Department. And their votes were binding - for the final time. And old South Africa, like Rhodesia, is no more. And those who voted, yes or no, are now voting with their feet.

At the time, there were two schools of thought on the result of this election. The first school held that the change would turn the strife-ridden tip of Africa into a Rainbow Nation, a paradise of diversity in which the genuine unity of humanity would be displayed finally and for good. The second school held that no good could come of turning the last First World country in Africa over to a mafia of Communist mass murderers, and the result would be the conversion of South Africa into a land more closely resembling Haiti, Jamaica, Nigeria, or - more to the point - Zimbabwe. Obviously, there was not much middle ground.

In general, the South African whites of British descent or affinity (if you read writings about South Africa from the first part of this century and they mention the conflict of races, the races they mean are English and Boer) voted yes in 1994, because they subscribed to the first school. This, of course, is the party line of the international cognitive elite, to which you belonged and belong.

The Afrikaners, on the other hand, were split. One faction, called verligte or "enlightened," followed the internationalist party line. The other, called verkrampte - I'm not sure there is a precise translation of this word, but you can pretty much get it from the sound - subscribed to the second school, and voted no.

And they turned out, of course, to be right. Now imagine how hard it would have been, how divorced from your mentality at the time, to correctly predict the result of your glorious victory of liberation in South Africa, and endorse the verkramptes and their bitter, bigoted, cynical racism. Not to mention all their other unpleasant personal aspects of these hairy-backed rockspider planks - to deploy a few of the local slurs. The verkramptes basically made the Sarah Palin fan base look like Michael Lerner.

This is the distance from actual reality to your point of view, which of course is not your own but is imbibed from the official press, to which you delegate your complete credulity. If a general rapprochement with reality is a personal goal of yours, you need to completely rethink all issues in this class, not just South Africa. South Africa, however, is a good start.

As it happens an acquaintance of mine is a white artist originally from SA. His father was killed in the period before the apartheid era ended, apparently for supporting and organizing gatherings of artists that included all races.

I am sorry for the death of your friend's father. And I am in no way deluded with the impression that the Nationalist era in South Africa was a period of ideal, or even good, government.

For one thing, if the Nationalists had been a good government, South Africa would still be a First World country today. SA had nuclear bombs and nuclear power, as well as flourishing domestic arms and energy (coal-to-liquids, the Nazi synfuel technology) industries. No country on earth, not even America, had the physical power to coerce the RSA. (Not to be confused with tha RZA.)

But, like most bad governments, they were weak. And like most weak governments, they were brutal. If you compare Singapore to the old Broederbond Boerocracy, you'll see the difference between effective and ineffective authoritarian states. The strong government executes firmly and decisively. The weak one is fickle and inconsistent, and as a result has to be much more vicious to achieve any given level of security.

For example, the fate of the RSA was perhaps sealed when it quailed at the outcome of the Rivonia trial, and refused to hang Mandela for crimes which everyone now agrees he committed. This one death would have prevented many others, both among apartheid's friends and foes.

And who is counting? Again, I don't think your argument is strengthened by accepting either statistics or anecdotes as a legitimate tactic in this debate. At least not when we measure which ruling party is more murderous, the Nats or the ANC - mine, if you must, and yours.

Posted by: Mencius on October 8, 2008 2:23 PM



Mencius, you mean "the real masters of America" are yuppies?!

Sister Wolf, my father was in the Senior Foreign Service; my stepfather was a longtime Senate aide who worked for many leading Democrats, including Joe Biden; and my mother was a GS-15 at DOE, alternative energy and renewables department.

So I hope you will believe me when I say that yes - America's ruling class does, indeed, shop at Whole Foods. If this totally rocks your world, maybe your world needed a little rocking.

One synonym for "masters" is "policymakers." Ie: the people who rule are the people who formulate the policies which the government carries out.

These are not the people you see on TV. The people you see on TV are actors. Their job is to read lines.

There is a small Republican policymaking establishment which offers a mild dissident line on a variety of issues. Sometimes in exceptional circumstances this line is even adopted - as with the "neocons." The rest of the machine then exerts its influence in order to make these policies fail, as of course the neocons did.

In general, however, public policy is formulated in our country's fine universities, by people who are exclusively of the liberal, Democratic or progressive persuasion. Thus it is broadly accurate to speak of this class - I call them "Brahmins," Chris Lander calls them "white people," H.G. Wells called them "Eloi" - as our ruling class. And they certainly do shop at Whole Foods, drive Priuses, etc, etc.

Posted by: Mencius on October 8, 2008 2:32 PM



PA, just wait till I start telling you what color shirt to wear!

Posted by: Mencius on October 8, 2008 2:33 PM



Chris, I apologize for my intemperate language. I had a series of posts misread (seemingly deliberately) by a variety of commenters over at Roissy's, and my frustration level was through the roof. You're not a liar, and I do respect you. Please accept my apology for my abusive language.

You are however, an unrepentant leftist, so I'm afraid my positive feelings for you can only go so far. :-)

Posted by: PatrickH on October 8, 2008 2:38 PM



Tatyana: Like the sound the "m" makes, PatrickH? Such a lemony-morning, mmm-delicious, kissy-mouth letter, ah...

Ah, indeed. Yes I do, Tatyana. Your mmmmessage has, I must admit, gotten my blood a little stirred. Shall we say. I find myself suddenly wanting to discuss alliterative usage of the letter "T" with you. In private.

Ahem. You are mmmmarried, mmmmadame. My madness must be managed, or mayhem and mishaps shall ensue...

Ta ta Tatyana.

Posted by: PatrickH on October 8, 2008 2:43 PM



Boil this thread down and what remains seems to be how one answers the question of who is "Us" and who is "Them."

No, boil this thread down and what you get is the question, "How do you react when someone plays the Race Card?".

Posted by: Usually Lurking on October 8, 2008 3:01 PM



Sorry for getting off topic, but PatrickH, I really enjoyed chatting with you all night, and I can't wait for more. How nice that we were brought together by the Blowhards. I think our love proves that sexual attraction trumps politics and everything else.

lemony kisses, xx me

Posted by: Sister Wolf on October 8, 2008 4:00 PM



Sister Wolf,

You are a moral coward because you do not apply the same set of standards for everybody, according to your own egalitarian philosophy. And the reason that you don't is because you are afraid to stand up to minorities or other white-haters and demand equitable treatment for whites. Either that or you are a bigot, racist and sexist, which makes all of your screeching irrelevant.

Tyr,

You're a stupid racist black asshole. No matter how many whites are killed or chased out of South Africa and Zimababwe, ten to twenty times more blacks are starving to death or murdering each other. Gee, just like here in America when white massa' not around? You're so stupid that you can't even see that. What an idiot.

Living in white countries has been the best thing that ever happened to blacks in all of their sorry history. I remember talking to a Nigerian that I used to work with and asked him about Africa. He just shook his head and said "oh BIOH, that godforsaken continent!" and left it at that.

A non-white dominated America is an America where the blacks get tossed into the garbage. The only use the elites have for you is to achieve that non-white majority. Beyond that, you have no use, because blacks are the bottom of the working wooodpile, and everybody knows it. There's no money in keeping you around. They just used you to bankrupt the country and justify shipping the jobs overseas. Sorry kiddo, that's just the way it is. Grown-up life is tough.

Good luck when you finally hit the crap-pile. I'll be cheering too, when the US becomes majority minority, because all the white lefties will finally feel the heat, including the insufferable stupid white women who now get AA, and who stood by cheering while white men had to give up their positions to third worlders. God will I love seeing them get the shaft! Everybody here will finally realize that I'm right. Even you.

PS, I'm not whining about anything. Even with AA, most whites here are doing better than non-whites, and if doing better while having one hand tied around your back isn't a sign of superiority, I don't know what is. I'm just enjoying pointing out the hypocrisy of the left, and finally getting the cowed, brainwashed white population to see the real picture. And I'm doing pretty well, I think. And surprising as it might be, I'm not anti-minority. I just know why you are being shipped here and elevated to regal status. You're being used, and the end result will be bad for everybody, especially you. You just can't see it, that's all. Control in your favor can and will be reversed. You're either free, and take what comes, or you are a slave. Bottom line.

Posted by: BIOH on October 8, 2008 4:13 PM



Patrick, this is not the first time you try to marry me out. Who can afford it in the coming 7 Years Of The Slim Cows?

Posted by: Tatyana on October 8, 2008 4:23 PM



Ah Sister. You wound me, as always. My love for you will never die. As for "chatting all night", I don't remember much in the way of chatting...

Posted by: PatrickH on October 8, 2008 6:08 PM



Ah, then I have hope, Tatyana?

Posted by: PatrickH on October 8, 2008 6:10 PM



BIOH, I am the moral coward here, and I resent the implication that anyone else deserves that title.

Sister Wolf is the farthest thing from a moral coward. She is, perhaps, morally impetuous, ethically passionate, not measured in her commitments but measured by them. Sister loves not wisely but too well, it is true. But she is not a coward in any way.

You, on the other hand, are a dinkus.

P.S. Plus she's incredibly hot. Trust me, I know.

Posted by: PatrickH on October 8, 2008 6:16 PM



Mencius - At the risk of starting yet another divisive tangent, as I read the transcript to which you linked these quote immediately stood out (emphasis added):

Crime is being fueled by another legacy of apartheid, poverty. There is democracy, free speech and economic growth. But real wealth is in the hands of the few. Even though millions more now access electricity and water, two million new homes have been built and there are grants for the poorest of the poor, the growing economy hasn't delivered jobs. Official figures say 25% are out of work, though many economists estimate it could be as high as 40%. Millions of South Africans still live in squatter camps.

Apartheid made this one of the world's most unequal societies, and the ANC faced a real dilemma, radical redistribution of wealth would have led to economic crisis. But a widely heard criticism is that a chosen few business men close to the party have thrived while too little has changed for the poor.

(Archbishop DESMOND TUTU) We still live in shacks, and yet there are many of those who used to be of our community who are now living in clover. I mean they have wonderful homes, they have beautiful cars ...

And the true core of South Africa's crisis, the huge inequality between rich and poor is as Mbeki himself once put it: "The stuff of nightmares."

These lead me to a number of questions. Are the problems of SA due primarily to the innate inability of blacks to self govern, or are they related to the seemingly universal human propensity for greed? Might the same problem afflict Haiti, Jamaica, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, et al? Can this same problem be seen in, for example, Russia? As we in the U.S. see income disparity steadily increasing will we find ourselves slipping toward the same kind of barbarism?

Seemingly, your answer is the elite should rule with an iron hand without allowing the underclass access via democracy to the political process. The elite should, you seem to say, execute and/or imprison any who threaten to successfully question a status quo organized to maintain the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few while the many are either allowed to fend for themselves or serve the various needs of the elite.

Although I can appreciate why this cynically "realistic" take on human nature and political history might lead some toward finding authoritarian regimes to be preferable (at least the trains will run on time and the lights will stay on) I make no apology for preferring a more utopian stance. Part of the difference is whether one presumes that they are or might become one of the elite or one of the downtrodden masses. I've always known that I'm part of the latter not the former and so will continue to resist movement toward authoritarianism.

And as for our elite, I am NOT convinced that our elite are "exclusively of the liberal, Democratic or progressive persuasion." As one who has never belonged to a political party I have for many years thought of the Dems & GOP as, respectively, the Good Cop and Bad Cop parties, each serving the elite ... who are more likely to be found in a corporate board room than a university classroom.

I do, however, shop at Whole Foods ... they employ my wife and the Daughter Unit.

[Aside to Patrick – Ayuh, an unrepentant hippie leftist, that's me.]

Posted by: Chris White on October 8, 2008 7:54 PM



Damn right I'm hot.

BIOH - Pipe down, I'm married to a Mexican and I'm not afraid to stand up to him.

Mencius - Ha, you wish it's the one's shopping at Whole Foods. I am aware of America's ruling class, and they don't give a shit about healthy food. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby don't drive Priuses, either.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on October 8, 2008 9:22 PM



Are the problems of SA due primarily to the innate inability of blacks to self govern, or are they related to the seemingly universal human propensity for greed? Might the same problem afflict Haiti, Jamaica, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, et al? Can this same problem be seen in, for example, Russia?

Might it affect Finland, China, Croatia, Malaysia and New Zealand? Or is the propensity for greed not quite that universal? Really, Chris, you're still trying to convince yourself that the duck is an armadillo.

What's sad about Russia is that it's had a double whammy: 75 years of Communism, and 10 years of democracy. Now it's recovering from both. Give Putin a few years - you may just be asking him for a loan.

I love this "inequality" theme, however, because it is so easy to deconstruct. What is the precise mechanism by which the presence of wealth in one's geographic proximity causes suffering, poverty, etc? If South Africa's whites all depart, rest assured that there will be many fewer rich people around - except, of course, for the Tokyo Sexwale types. But then again, they have passports, too.

What you are really expressing when you talk about "inequality" is your support for a political movement that survives by extorting the rich and using the money to buy votes from the poor.

In particular, talk about "inequality" is always intended as a threat of violence, and it always acts that way. The message is: the poor are envious, and if they get more envious we may just not be able to control them. Pay us off, we'll pay them off, and everything will be fine.

Your big hero, "Dr." King, loved to play this game. He never condoned the Negro pogroms and ethnic cleansing that our history books now describe so charmingly as "riots." He just said, over and over again: the alternative is me, or "violence." In other words: pay up, or our rent-a-thugs will smash you. Ernst Roehm couldn't have put it any better.

Basically, the political movement that fulfills the role of the Catholic Church in your life is a corrupt criminal organization. It is not holy. It is merely sordid. And you're probably too old to ever stop believing in it. The whole thing reminds me of the Sopranos episode when Christopher Moltesanti tells his AA sponsor that his higher power is his Mafia oath.

You might think you're too smart for this, O member of the oppressed classes, and indeed you are. If you lived in a world in which a sober, Machiavellian picture of your political system was regularly available on your TV dial, I suspect you'd long since have snapped out of it. Sadly, you have to go digging around in blogs for even these little nibbles of reality.

Let me go back to the martyrdom complex for a moment. It illustrates the inversion perfectly. To the Nazis, as you may recall, the International Jewish Conspiracy, the Elders of Zion, are always in charge. You can't see them, of course, but that's because they are shadowy, hook-nosed operators behind the scenes. Brave Aryans are fighting nobly against this menace.

The International Peckerwood Conspiracy serves the same function for you. You live in an America in which the advantages of black skin are glaring and obvious. Negritude is a kind of title of nobility. It puts you on the express train for every promotion, every appointment, every honor. Look no farther than the vertiginous career of this empty suit, this Gatsby, Barack.

And yet, because your world is run by invisible Texas oilmen, these compensations are if anything inadequate. They represent only partial reparation for the gargantuan, but of course invisible, crimes of the international white conspiracy, which rules the world and keeps you oppressed.

I mean, for one thing, you'd think that the IWC would realize that in a democracy, policy is controlled by those who control public opinion. And those who control public opinion are the educators and journalists. As Bill Ayers says, "la educacion es la revolucion."

So why haven't the Elders of Texas taken over Harvard, Yale, the Times, CNN, and the public schools? Or perhaps they have, and we just don't know it? Wheels within wheels within wheels...

But even this logic will not reach you. Aha, you say, Fox News! Oral Roberts University! If for a moment of perspective we replace blue-state with Sunni and red-state with Shia, it is your basic belief, as a good Sunni, that Sunnism is right and therefore all children should be educated as Sunnis. So any exception, any deviation from this rule, seems like a deadly act of moral aggression.

If the Shia try to pull the Sunni stick even a millimeter out of the Shia eye, the Sunni react as if the Shia were shoving a stick into the Sunni eye. In reality, the Sunni have no idea whatsoever it feels like to have a stick shoved into their eye.

But give it time - it may happen. Then you'll remember the Bush administration as the good old days - like a KPD member in 1935, remembering how he used to moan about "social fascists."

Posted by: Mencius on October 9, 2008 12:06 AM



This is like watching a great martial-arts movie. Bruce Menicus Lee has walked into Democracy's Dojo and left its elite doubled-over on the floor holding their balls and broken bones, groaning in agony. Too bad in the corrupt state we currently inhabit, the attack cannot be held in honor for its truth and grace -- its opponents called upon to match it or accept their defeat.

sN

Posted by: sN on October 9, 2008 4:18 AM



Chris writes: "I have for many years thought of the Dems & GOP as, respectively, the Good Cop and Bad Cop parties, each serving the elite ... who are more likely to be found in a corporate board room than a university classroom."

As a fellow Whole Foods shopper ($149 for two bags of groceries and vitamins just yesterday), I'm with you on 3/4 of that. But, not for the first time, I'm mystified about something: Why do you exempt the university classroom? The educational (and media) establishments serve the elite, and at the higher levels function as part of the elite, no?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on October 9, 2008 9:19 AM



In general:

So if we are to hate both democracy AND rule by the elite, what shall we replace it with then?
*cues a track from "Never Mind the Bollocks"*

Also, I'm not impressed by Mencius's arguments. He gets served everytime he posts on gnxp for good reason. He's a damn smart bugger, but sophistry is sophistry. I see no need to engage with the thought of what for all intents and purposes is a Phalangist version of Derrida and Foucault.

Even the entertainment value of such an odd combination is ham-strung by the dense logorrhea of his posts. Yes, for all your hating on the postmodern elite, you are an arch-structualist in your style, Moldbug, complete with off the wall social taxonomies woven from... well God knows what. Levi-Strauss would be proud. But hey, as long as the ditto-heads are dazzled.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on October 9, 2008 9:30 AM



Chris White, you would be murdered in South Africa for being white. Stop rationalizing away the murder of your own kind, or else, take a trip to black South Africa and do your Jesus Christ thing in a place where they actually will crucify you.

You are an authoritarian. Utopianism was revealed for what it really is in the 20th century. It is Stalinism, Maoism and Pol Pot. Your ideals, in reality, lead to massive poverty, genocide and a prison society.

You are everything you profess to hate. You are not a sentient creature.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on October 9, 2008 10:48 AM



You are not a sentient creature.

What? What? Where am I? What the f*ck is going on? What?

Posted by: Kris Weidt on October 9, 2008 12:03 PM



MB – Your point is well taken, I should have been clearer in what I was attempting to say. What I wanted to convey was that the vast majority of universities and their faculties serve the elite far more than they are the elite. While there may well be specific exceptions (Harvard, Yale, et al) most colleges and universities do little beyond maintaining the status quo.

This is equally true of the media. To me, the real elite in media are not the well known news anchors, film stars and the like, but rather the (mostly) little known owners, CEOs, board members, and large share holders of the scant number of oligarchic corporate entities that control the media. Here's a link to the Wiki entry on ">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership"> concentration of media ownership.

Here is a salient quote from the above link.

If it is in the best interests of the media conglomerates not to run a story or allow a particular opinion, but in the best interests of the public interest to run it, it arguably makes better business sense to opt for the former over the latter. On the local end, reporters have often seen their stories refused or edited beyond recognition, in instances where they have unearthed potentially damaging information concerning either the media outlet's advertisers or its parent company. For example, in 1997, the Fox Broadcasting Company O&O in Tampa, Florida fired two reporters and suppressed a story they had produced about one of the Fox network's major advertisers, Monsanto, concerning the health effects of Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH). Monsanto took action after Fox and threatened to sue over the story.

In the context of this discussion and the back and forth of comments the meme is that the elite in media and universities are unabashedly "liberal", yet this willfully ignores any and all examples that contradict this.

ST - While it can, at times, be somewhat amusing to engage in these back-and-forths with you, I tire of attempting to respond to your endless variations on the same old BS.

"How long have you been beating your wife."

"I'm not married."

"So, you must have killed her you evil bastard."

"What are you talking about?"

"The way you beat and then murdered your wife. And now you're raping your 12 year old daughter. You are the lowest lying piece of trash on the planet."

"You seem to be over wrought about something imaginary. I've never been married and never had kids."

"So you murdered your kid, too. You are such scum."

Enough.

Posted by: Chris White on October 9, 2008 12:35 PM



Spike, you characterized what bugs me about Moldbug better than I could have. So much diarrhea of the brain; although I think he'd be an interesting dude to hang out with.

Posted by: JV on October 9, 2008 12:37 PM



That said, I wonder what a real-life gathering of the Blowhards and their faithful commenters would be like. I'm thinking it would be a damn good time. If one was every to occur, I'd be there in a heartbeat. I'd even buy ST a beer.

Posted by: JV on October 9, 2008 12:39 PM



Oh poor Spike, his lips get all chapped from having to sound out all the complicated words in Mencius' posts...

Posted by: JJ on October 9, 2008 2:06 PM



I'm tired of your kind, period, Chris.

You've just written another asshole rationalization about why it ain't so bad, in fact maybe understandable, for blacks to murder whites. I notice that you aren't volunteering to be the corpse.

You are always in favor of some far off white man being murdered, losing his job, getting passed over for an education. I have no interest in any kind of reasonable exchange with a man who engages in this kind of villainy.

You are completely no good, Chris. Maybe you treat your family decently. Who the hells knows?

You are making an ass of yourself whenever you speak. If you think that it's entirely understandable for blacks to kill whites, then take a hike to Bed-Stuy and stand on the street corner to take your medicine.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on October 9, 2008 2:32 PM



ST - Since virtually all of your accusatory presumptions about my positions are so distorted that they bear virtually no connection at all to what I've actually expressed, perhaps you should consider taking a remedial "Reading for Comprehension" course along with that one for anger management.

Posted by: Chris White on October 9, 2008 3:26 PM



JV, sorry to break it to you. The Blowhards' Commenters Bash has already happened, and you weren't invited. It was great!

There were a few downsides. Chris White murdered his wife and only child, Mencius talked himself to death, Shouting Thomas refused to buy me (or anyone) a beer, and Spike got bored, walked out, ran into agnostic...and ran into him again. Then one more time, just to make sure he was dead.

He wasn't.

Oh and Sister Wolf and Tatyana got into the best chick fight I've ever seen! Mud, oil...bananas! It was hot!

No-one paid any attention to me. Oh well, what else is new! At least I got to watch Roissy at work picking up Michael's Wife, Friedrich's labrador retreiver, and Donald's entire collection of art books. He is a master, that Roissy. I could have really learned something from him, except that I didn't.

But it was fun. Even without you there, JV. Maybe next time, you JV, PA, MQ, BIOH, JJ (who just posted), RZA, THX 1138, and the HAL 9000 will show up too, just so we can have more initials next time.

Ciao!

Posted by: PatrickH on October 9, 2008 3:29 PM



Sister Wolf,

Nice try at running away from the issue. I didn't expect much more. You're proabably pressed for time, what with all the anti-semites hiding in the attic, the closet, under the bed, etc. You know those people laughing at the store? Guess what, they were laughing at you! Know why? Yep, anti-semites! The jews really are the chosen ones, aren't they?

PatrickH,

I guess it takes a dinkus to know one. I'm glad your expertise is good for something around here.

Posted by: BIOH on October 9, 2008 4:43 PM



Er...PatrickH...now my turn to regret ever talking to you.
Your gross distortion habit makes all your [very few] attractive qualities obsolete.

Really, man. You form the most bizarre mental picture of me, completely unconnected from reality. Would I be "getting into a fight" with a size 0 ugly barking chihuahua? I'm apalled at this offensive suggestion. Would a lion[ess] notice a fly?

Maybe you should go read archives of this blog, a year or two or 4 back...or may be you should start on a new meds...dunno.

Posted by: Tatyana on October 9, 2008 5:58 PM



BIOH, pioneering new levels of invective: PatrickH, I guess it takes a dinkus to know one. I'm glad your expertise is good for something around here.

Medic!

Tatyana, hurting me yet again with that old-time hurt: may be you should start on a new meds...dunno.

Now, Tatyana, I don't really think you'd get in a chick fight with Sister, but I reserve my Constitutional right as a non-American to dream about the possibility. After all, doesn't the ACLU think only non-Americans have rights under your Constitution?

I think I should sue somebody over this.

Posted by: PatrickH on October 9, 2008 7:10 PM



Spike Gomes, you sound like a failed academic or a successful one -- guess there is not much difference these days. You attack Menicus and you seemingly fail to understand even the most basic part of his argument. In our democracy, we are being ruled by an elite - a crappy destructive one.

But then we get to the meat of the Gomes' argument -- which we've seen here before, ad nauseam. He sees "no need to engage with the thought." Yes, we know you don't, so why are you here? Spit your spitball and run, junior.

Menicus has made some solid real-world arguments -- points with examples. If you want to knock Menicus, then attack some of these arguments. If you or someone else did that effectively it might change some minds.

sN

Posted by: sN on October 9, 2008 7:39 PM



Everybody,

The beer is on me!!

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on October 9, 2008 7:40 PM



My apologies for bad spelling and grammar - I was checking the blogs before leaving the office and was getting late for the bus, didn't have time to preview.

PH, funny you mentioned suing [somebody]. I was just thinking the way you misinterpret my comments here is defamation of character. It really is. And I'm only half joking.

As to meds - that's what you yourself told us here. It looks like what you take now is not very reliable - you have your moments of lucidity, and then...those moments pass.

Please, keep your fantasies to yourself or dispose of them - as you're in a habit of - on your protege's blog (mmm..."blog" is a wrong word. cloaca? mud pit? dreck pile?) You said it before - nothing is less attractive than a boring man, and the fantasies of this trivial sort is beyond boring.

Posted by: Tatyana on October 9, 2008 7:43 PM



Please shut this comment thread down. I can't look away even though I know it's bad for me. Nothing constructive going on here anymore.

Posted by: JV on October 9, 2008 8:15 PM



Yay, Tatyana is back!! And she's mad because I'm slimmer that she is!

Well, fatty, it's not my fault. As for my blog, why are you still lurking there to read Patrick's comments?? Why not just stick to the blogs that are up to your standards??

BIOH, I don't know what laughing people you're referring to. But yes, I am one of the Chosen. Again, like my slimness, it's just luck.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on October 9, 2008 10:48 PM



Dear Tatyana, grow up. Learn to take a joke. As for your "half-joke" about suing me, I half-invite you to half-try. Defamation of character? Describing a chick-fight with you in it? After describing Chris White as having murdered his wife and child? Defamation? A chick fight?

Dearie me. (Oh sorry, dearieme, didn't mean to defame you there!)

My oh my. What's next, BIOH launching a suit against me because I called him a "dinkus"? BIOH is a vigorous polemicist to be sure, but I just can't see him going legal over something like this.

Even half-going. I have half a mind to suggest your banishment from here for your "half-joking" threats. How about it, guys? I know I've probably courted banishment more than a few times (I suspect Donald dreads my "contributions" to his posts), but I mean it, this is just sick fricking psycho malice.

I think Tat should get the heave-ho. I don't expect much, but this is a freewheeling place of discussion, despite what Tatyana wants. I like to think people can cut loose a bit and have some fun without freakazoids like her raining on the parade.

P.S. So you read Sister's blog do you? A fan of Patrick Hellrod, maybe? I'll bet your breath was taken away by my description of Sarah Palin's wedding reception. Hot!

Sister, you've got a lurker!

Posted by: PatrickH on October 9, 2008 10:57 PM



I too am half-thinking of half suing this venomous shrew. Why must I be called a "size 0 ugly barking chihuahua" when I am in fact a shapely babe and international media star??

I am just here to discuss politics and culture and to speak for the Liberal Jewish Elite, dammit!


http://creakypavillion.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Sister Wolf on October 9, 2008 11:36 PM



Again, Mr.Hell-what?, you flatter yourself, baselessly I must add.

Don't be so scared, puppy, I'll not sue you. You just shit yourself for nothing, cheri.

Your screeching companion has been the one lurking at my blog: trolling, living juvenile insults under various names (all in the same easy recognizable style), trying to rouse her readers to do the same (out of her supposed thousands of followers only one complied, I had some fun playing with her) - naturally, I became curious, where all the venom coming from. I discovered a) my home IP was banned b)the Commie was bragging about stealing my photo from Flickr c) she followed me to my commenters' blogs and tried to throw mud at me there, as she does here.

And -oh year, I discovered you, licking her stinky puny ass. Honestly, I don't remember, what it was about, Palin or something else, but it was characteristically disgusting.

Two beacons of free speech, indeed.

Posted by: Tatyana on October 10, 2008 8:00 AM



Oh, do stay JV, it's like a grand old Dostoevsky novel.

Look, I'm playing the failed academic! I drink and smoke and wax nihilistic about the foolishness of mankind! Will I find God? Stay tuned and find out!

Really, has anyone ever read "The Devils"? All we need is a saintly virgin/whore to complete this party, unfortunately, Agnostic got to her first.

Also PatrickH, and you call me playful with others ideas! Hah, sometimes I feel I'm watching an old master at work.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on October 10, 2008 9:26 AM



Thank you Spike (I think?). I am most certainly "old". And did aggie get to the virgin or the whore? Knowing our aggie's subtexts, I'm thinking it's the tart most likely caught his eye.

Tat Tat Tat. Sigh.

EPITAPH FOR TATYANA
I do not love thee Tat from hell
Why this is I cannot tell
But this I know and know full well
I do not love thee Tat from hell

Posted by: PatrickH on October 10, 2008 10:44 AM



I couldn't read much of this thread because the hatred and paranoia coming from the right-wingers here is just too ugly. Over the past three months America has seen two right-wing terrorist incidents where deranged right-wing ideologues killed liberals solely for their politics. Reading this is like a look into the sources of that kind of madness.

I did get to this --

Eg: in an America in which the right had actually defeated the left, the number of streets named for Martin Luther King would be approximately equal to the number of Himmler Avenues you'll find at present.

Wow, Mencius believes MLK = Hitler. Amazing. What is there to say to this kind of irrational paranoia and hatred?

The Republicans have capitalized on this spoiled sense of resentment and victimization on the part of white males until it is starting to look awfully like a native fascist movement. Their mastery of propaganda and falsehood is amazing.

An irony in the original post is that in any ordinary conversation the idea of sending aid to the Palestinians would be far more likely to trip the typical American's "violation of political correctness" trigger than just about anything about Obama's race.

Posted by: MQ on October 10, 2008 6:13 PM



America in which the right had actually defeated the left, the number of streets named for Martin Luther King would be approximately equal to the number of Himmler Avenues you'll find at present

A very clumsy illustration. Instead of Himmler, maybe Mencius should have said Joe McCarthy of Sam Francis.

hatred and paranoia coming from the right-wingers

MQ is a fundie left winger and where I see facts and arguments, he sees "Hatred." We need to have two countries.

Posted by: PA on October 10, 2008 8:11 PM



The difference between someone like Chris White and MQ is that the former is a bit dense but basically a good guy, while the latter is like a shrewd, clear-eyed Soviet Political Officer.

Posted by: PA on October 10, 2008 8:53 PM



"Wow, Mencius believes MLK = Hitler. Amazing. What is there to say to this kind of irrational paranoia and hatred?"

EXACTLY, MQ. Amen.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on October 10, 2008 9:02 PM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?