Are You a Racist?

Back when I was growing up in the 50’s and early 60’s, the term “racist” actually meant something. Today we throw the word around so casually that it’s virtually lost its meaning for most people. So just exactly what is a “racist”?

Webster defines racism as follows:

1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2
: racial prejudice or discrimination

I’ve NEVER thought of myself as a racist, and yet I’ve been accused of being one on this blog when I’ve written that I believed blacks in America have been duped and suckered into voting in virtual lockstep for Democrats in exchange for affirmative action programs and free “stuff”.  I don’t know how any casual observer could perceive it any other way.  If that makes me a racist, well then I wear that as a badge of honor.  It hasn’t changed the way I look at blacks as individuals.  I’ve been hoping for nearly half a century that MLK’s dream would come true, and we would get to a point where everyone would judge others by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.  I’m still waiting for that to happen, and, in fact, it appears we’re drifting farther away from that ideal rather than toward it.  Much of our current problems, IMO, can be laid at the feet of the current administration.  Never in my lifetime has there been a president who has been more divisive, particularly along racial lines, than this president.  What a poor record for one who was touted as being the first “post racial president.

As I said in a comment in a previous thread, my overall experience with other races, particular blacks, has been pretty good.  I graduated from high school in 1963, a year before the Civil Rights Act was passed.  Democrats held substantial majorities in Congress back then, and it wouldn’t have passed had not a substantial majority of Republicans voted for it.  All that was eclipsed a year or two later with LBJ’s Great Society and War on Poverty, two of the most massive government wealth transfer mechanisms every seen at that time.  Those two programs were the lynch pins in the Left’s effort to destroy the black family.  OK, let me rephrase that and give Progressives the benefit of the doubt that their initial goal was not to destroy the black family.  The destruction of the black family was simply an unintended consequence of the Left’s effort to create a solid block of reliable votes.  Regardless of the initial motivation, the destruction of the black family is the root of many of our current societal problems.

Prior to high school graduation, I’ll have to admit, my exposure to interaction with blacks was pretty limited.  I didn’t dislike them or not get along with them; I just didn’t interact with them much.  Most of the blacks in Fort Wayne, Indiana where I grew up went to one inner-city high school – Central High (since converted into a vocational center for the Fort Wayne Community Schools) We played them in basketball — they beat us — we shook their hands, end of story.  As I got out into world, I began to interact more with other races, but still I don’t recall ever encountering any of the types of problems we see today.  It just never dawned on me to treat someone differently because of the color of his or her skin.

So just exactly what is racism in modern terms?  Is it something that can eventually be overcome.  Will our kids do a better job than we’ve done, or is it going to take a race war before we finally move on?  It’s pretty obvious, from discussions about the recent Trayvon Martin incident, that our resident Progressives see it through a completely different lens than do our Conservatives and Libertarians.  Let’s see if we can have a civilized discussion about it.

 

115 thoughts on “Are You a Racist?

  1. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 9:17 am

    Wonderful topic Retired Spook. First, let me say that what we are discussing here are two things not just one. Racism I think has become a catch all phrase and yes it does get slung at people who don’t have a racist bone in their bodies by speak their minds from their own experience. To me, a Jew, racism connotes some sort of power over those other than you. Like a black boss who will only hire blacks despite qualified whites applying. That guy is a racist. A black worker who uses slurs against his Italian coworkers is a bigot.

    Bigotry is the mocking code word hate that average Americans use to get back at a group of people they think are either costing them money or making their country yes than it was in “the good old days.” Here is where I see the most bigotry in America on both sides. Blacks that feel a certain untrusting way to whites based solely on the vitriol spewed by a few with megaphones. Whites who feel their lot as a middle class American is less than it should be because minorities have cost them in taxes, or crimes, or jobs that should have gone to whites.

    My political leanings preclude me from hating anyone, as much as many of the conservatives here would disagree I do have a moral center; I just have a different perspective from where I sit. I do think that going forward with civil rights in America in the 1960s was the greatest triumph of Liberalism in global history. Black Americans when you were at high school in Fort Wayne, Indiana didn’t have full citizenship. But I don’t think having a nuclear family would have solved all the problems the black men of America have had since the second emancipation. I’ve often heard Julian Bond say, “If you’re poor and you’re white whose fault is it? It’s your fault until you act to change your lot. The same applies to my people.” The question I ask is what’s the motivation for a black man in his late teens to leave his comfort zone of culture and strike out into the wider and whiter world? That motivation should be to be a better American who can marry, or not, raise a family, or not and help his community in his own little way.

    To do this I think your pants need to be up around your waist and secured with a belt. They should be khakis not jeans and your shirt and tie should be clean and pressed. Yes, I am old school, because my mother told me, “Be yourself at home and be professional at work.” The motivation is lost when poor black kids feel that they have only a narrow means by which to get out of their poverty. It is back to the same questions asked in the 1870s and the 1970s about what is to be done about the poverty of blacks. Today, this has taken a back seat to the poverty of whites in this last recession. it was terrifying and that too has caused a rise in bigotry among whites. To some Americans, white Americans when things are bad with blacks they figure “Who cares?” When whites are down especially middle class whites as we saw in 2008 to the present they have to direct their anger for their failure at someone just as the black poor does.

    I think that’s enough to digest to get started and Retired Spook I hope this does remain a civil discussion. Before I replied, I asked a few of the contributors at our blog if they would weigh in and they all agreed they would be civil as well. Let’s see if Neocon, who is really a harmless sort of Archie Bunker bigot can keep his rhetoric down below 11.

    • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 10:09 am

      Fredrick, I disagree with some of your assumptions. I also agree with some of them.

      First, just to get it out of the way because it is a source of ongoing annoyance to me, is your claim that My political leanings preclude me from hating anyone It’s a definitional thing, and I think one that has created a lot of problems—that of not understanding that politics is not connected in any way with hating or not hating someone. Oh, some political identities use hate as a weapon or tool, to manipulate people, but politics is about how to govern, not how to feel.

      And by the way, “Liberalism”—-capital L Leftist political belief—-was not responsible for the evolution of civil rights in this country. The movement was “liberal”—–small-L, traditional definition—in that it moved beyond the established norm, but it was not a triumph of Liberalism. It is a very convenient and valuable tool of the Left to lay claim to every good thing that is done, often by conflating “liberal” and “Liberal”, but it leads good people into supporting a malignant political model because they have never bothered to study and understand the true ideology and are attracted to the carefully constructed illusion.

      Please do study Liberalism, from its inception to its current identities and disguises, and its history of successes and failure, and what has happened when it has achieved great power, and make an intellectual and objective decision about whether or not this is the best way to govern people.

      I can’t completely agree with this: ….a black boss who will only hire blacks despite qualified whites………. is a racist. A black worker who uses slurs against his Italian coworkers is a bigot. I suggest that in the second case, there is no way to really know if the black man is a racist (that is, dislikes all Italians BECAUSE they are Italians) or is just ticked off and using an identifier. He might have no particular negative feelings against Italians at all, but because this guy cut him off in traffic and he is angry he uses an identifier—“That wop bastard!”

      A heavyset blond woman of European ancestry might, in a similar situation, come home and complain about some “fat blond bitch” who stole her parking place. She is not a racist, nor a bigot. She has no negative feelings in general about white (blond) people, or heavy people, or women. She is angry and is using identifiers.

      We only get into trouble when we are so determined, for whatever reason, to find the worst possible construction to every single word or action.

    • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 10:37 am

      LOL

      Let’s see if Neocon, who is really a harmless sort of Archie Bunker bigot can keep his rhetoric down below 11.

      here is how I roll,
      I was brought up in Buffalo NY working class Irish family, I however am some what darker skin and dark hair w brown eyes. (milk man?)
      Most of my friends up until 12yo were Jewish,so from an early age people called me a “dago” or a “Jew.” no BFD I would laugh because I was neither.

      Then I went to high school a trade/technical school where @ 25-30 % were inner city blacks this was between 1960 and 1964. THAT is where I first became acquainted with racism…the lowest meanest form of racism one can imagine……but it was the blacks who it was coming from directed at whites. They would rob, steal, mooch from every one, they were predators who stole lunch money daily from skinny white boys fron the burbs on a daily basis and if some one objected they got their ass kicked ….not by ono, but 3-4 of the biggist foot ball players on one kid.
      After graduation I worked at the steel mill in Lackawanna NY where 30-40% were black men……mean, surley black men with a huge chip on their sholders who were 10X more racist that the punks in high school. Then on to the USMC this was 1966 at the height of MLK and the “civil rights” movement.
      Here I got to actually LIVE among 12-15% black Marines in barrcaks housing 250 men on bunk beds.
      They all hung in large (self) segragated groups, blasted ONLY soul music all hours of the day and night, There were constant fist fights between the black Marines and white southern boys usually the whites were outnumbered 2-3 to 1 .
      I have seen black Marines stab white Marines, I have seen black Marines shooy 4 and kill white Marines in the Quantico EM club as a result of a fist fight. I have had property stolen from me personally by fellow black Marines, I have had knives put to my throat by a fellow black Marine (supposed friend) because I wanted to intervene in a fight where 10 blacks were beating 4 white Marines.

      I was injured in Viet Nam and assigned to brig duty for a month where 85% were black Marines the most vicious violent animals you have ever seen most in for murder.

      When I returned to the states I was in camp LeJune when MLK was shot and let me tell you there was roving bands of black Marines who rampaged on the base, there were hundreds of beatings, murders, burning of barracks and many murders……..all covered up by the media this happened on bases all across the country I later learned.

      From there I went home and became an apprentice where I had to compete with close to 2000 other men for 20 positions, five additional positions were GIVEN to blacks. Four of the five blacks dropped out the first year and those slots denied to a very qualified white were not back filled.

      The rest is history…I could go on and on……..I have Black, Hispanic, Asian, friends, neighbors and family………am I the racist I get accused of being here by our libtards?……NO am I a REALIST who is not afraid to call things as they are? YOU BET.

      I despise the KKK and white supremacy as much as I despise the NBPP, NOI, je$$e and al and im not afraid to tell that to any one.

      I hate communism because I have seen it up close and personal, I hate murder and those who commit it, I love my country and our constitution, but I loathe the leftist pigs who would destroy the greatest nation there ever has been on the face of th earth….

      I LIVE in REALVILLE and tell it like it is WITH NO APOLOGIES!!

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 10:52 am

        PS
        I worked at Attica prison for six months and finished up the fob 4 days before the riot.
        I had friends who were NG and present to back up the state police as they re took the prison, and my sister in laws brother was a guard there at that time.
        The next year we worked on the Batavia state police barracks and I met almost every trooper that re took the prison and I got the REAL story of what led up to the riot and what went down as they re took it.

        I have also worked in every major prison in central and south Florida….quite an eye opener…………you want to see ugly racism from hell?
        go work in a prison…………

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 10:55 am

        Now i understand where it comes from. You were bullied all your life and the bullies were usually black. I’m sorry you had to go through that Neocon.

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 11:02 am

        And, whether he meant to or not, neo makes my point for me—that the actions of the black people he talks about were clearly not inevitably tied to the color of their skin, but to their culture. If it was exclusively race-based, he could not have had good relationships with black people, because by definition they would all be violent, dishonest, etc. because of the color of their skin.

        He also points out the biggest coverup in our nation—that of the active promotion of hatred of black against white. There is so much attention paid to the few isolated organized white against black efforts, but not to the opposite.

        My story could not be more different from neo’s. I grew up in a small farming community on the High Plains, and never even saw a black person till I was in my teens. Our minorities were Mexicans, and at an early age I experienced racism directed at them—but even then it was not based exclusively on skin color or heritage but on class and culture. Someone who would use a racial epithtet toward a migrant worker would do so on his way to have lunch with his best friend, a Mexican, at a Mexican restaurant. And the middle-class Mexicans were biased against what THEY called “wetbacks”.

        In my late teens, after high school, I wanted the San Francisco hippie experience but couldn’t afford the newly pricey neighborhoods taken over by trust fund hippies, so my friends and I lived in the heart of the Fillmore District, which was nearly all black and nearly all poor. It did not take long to see that skin color was not the deciding factor, but character was. We lived over a little grocery store and routinely watched the owner rip off his poor black neighbors. We would take the bus across town to the Safeway store, but the poor black people had been imprisoned by their own “leaders” into being afraid to venture out into Whiteyland, so they stayed in the Fillmore, being fed hatred and fear and being victimized by their own.

        This is when I experienced the black plantation firsthand. But oddly enough I remained naive and hopeful, thinking that fighting for a colorblind society of equal opportunity was the goal of all.

        Until the Rev. Wright hit the news. Oh, it was not just him and his racist rhetoric. I was not so naive that I didn’t know there were pockets of virulent racism on both sides of the color line. What hit me in the face was an interview with a middle-aged black professional woman who casually laughed at the surprise of the white population at the hateful rhetoric of Wright and said black churches have been preaching this for decades, it is nothing new, it is all over the country, and we just didn’t know it till now.

        I think there is a growing understanding among non-racist white people that we have been fighting a battle that only we found important—that while we were fighting for equality, millions of black people were fighting for revenge.

        It is an ugly realization.

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 11:06 am

        freddy

        no I was a tough Irishman, who boxed with golden glove members,(my parents would not let me join GG) so i was a sparring partner for them.
        I also am proficient in two forms of martial arts, I have broken my hand twice have had my nose broken, been knocked out and have knocked (many) others out and been lunped up and swollen eyes so many times my mother used to BEG me around the holidays not to come home beat to hell and embarass her.

        I knew and rode with motorcycle gangs though never joined one…
        me bullied??? ROTFLMAO……..I kicked the bullys ass’es

    • Snow White April 14, 2012 / 12:07 pm

      Your reference to black poverty prior to the civil rights movement indicates you are probably one of the post war baby boomers who did not live through Roosevelt’s Great Depression (1932 -1942) Back then, just about everyone except the Al Capones, and other gangsters, robber barons, and government bureaucrats were poor. Being poor was not just a black condition. The drastic economic condition of just about everyone in this country did not begin to improve until after WWII when the GI Bill provided a chance for people other than the super rich to get a college education. As a result, the newly educated entraprenuers created an economic boom that provided jobs for the less fortunate and undereducated. Prior to Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society welfare state, black income, especially black middle class income, was steadily rising. The Great Society not only created a welfare dependant class, it also destroyed the integral black family with two parents, since most benefits were specified for “Women with dependant children.” In some cases, house searches were conducted to make sure no man was living in the home,

      Total integration of the public schools was another disaster.Instead of bringing black children up to the white children’s standards, education was dumbed down to accomodate those who either wouldn’t or couldn’t achieve. As a result, now most of our children graduate high school with the same type of education that black children got in the old preintegrated all black schools. In addition, instead of the black children adapting to the white culture, white children adopted the black culture, resulting in the skyrocketing illegitimacy rate for all races and the dismal statistic of the number of children living in one parent families.

      The unintended consequences of all this effort to lift people out of poverty without requiring them to make any effort on their own has created the present disaster in which our country is on the edge of bankruptcy, and with the same percentage of poor people as before it all began. The moral is…Central Planning and one size fits all programs only enrich the bureaucrats administering the programs and do more harm than good.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 12:15 pm

        Why not limit it to that Snow White. Why not have blacks live only in their own communities and have no right to leave them. Then you wouldn’t have to see them on your streets. Sheesh.

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 1:28 pm

        Fred, you have already proved that you lack the basic intelligence need to process the written word. Rest on your laurels and don’t waste energy shoring up that understanding of you.

        Not one word in Snow White’s post implied any such ridiculous and hateful suggestion as “…have blacks live only in their own communities and have no right to leave them.” No, that was all Fredrick Schartz, alphabet soup of bogus credentials intact, projecting his own twisted hatefulness.

        We could have concentrated on improving schools which were predominantly black, providing better teachers and facilities, and addressing the actual problems. But instead we did the Politically Correct thing, identified the problem as one of segregation instead of different standards, and slapped a Band-Aid on the superficial and false assumption by just hauling black children out of their neighborhoods, away from their friends and families and comfort zones, and slapping them into white schools.

        Then, when they were off balance and intimidated by the abrupt and arbitrary removal from their own community, and thrown into schools with different cultural backgrounds, they tended to become defensive and isolate themselves into groups of similar race and background.

        When the various emotional pressures of this “solution” led to poor academic performance, and when the breakdown by race and background led to the belief that academic achievement was a “sellout” and “acting white” the academic standards were lowered, as if the letter grade and certificate were what mattered, not the education they were supposed to represent.

        I believe that improving black schools so black children had equal opporunity, in being able to attend the same schools throughout their primary education, in their neighborhoods, with their friends and families, just as most white children were allowed to do, would have resulted in better educated and less resentful and polarized black children going into integrated colleges with a much higher chance of success.

        Nieghborhoods and schools would have gradually, naturally and organically become more mixed. We did not need Big Brother to tell us what was best for us and then force us into some arbitrary academic concept of the way things “ought” to be.

        I also challenge the innate Leftist belief that integration is essential to “Progress”. Women who have attended all-girl schools agree that without the distractions and competitions inherent in schools with both boys and girls, they were able to concentrate on their studies, and develop as human beings through the turbulence of adolescence, much better than if they had had to deal with boy-girl dynamics at the same time.

        Ditto for all-boy schools.

        Adloscence is tough enough, especially in these times, of easily accessible porn on TV and the internet, of violence presented as a normal part of life, etc. Allowing children to go through this time in a relative comfort zone of establshed neighborhoods, companions, and family can only contribute to more confidence and more success.

        The imposition of an otherwise nonexistent racist component is, I believe, a factor of either well-meant social expermentation, where children are the lab rats, or of callous political maneuvering to create bases of political support.

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 1:56 pm

        snow

        you are 100% correct, but now to the forkers like freddy you will be labeled a racist…

        TRUTH HURTS, that is why the PC crowd does not like it.

  2. Amazona April 14, 2012 / 9:50 am

    My definition of “racism” is somewhat expanded from that of Webster. To me, it is the assignment of any characteristic based on skin color or ethnicity.

    So to me it is racist to say something nice about someone, if that “something nice” is based on race. It is racist to assume that Asians are smarter, for example.

    Sometimes things get a little muddled. Take body type. Clearly a person whose heritage is Masai is going to be able to run faster than one whose ancestors were Inuit. So I don’t see racism in noting that the people who inherited long legs and arms and musculature developed for running are more athletic than those whose backgrounds were adapted to retaining body heat in cold climates.

    Hyper-sensitivity and determination to maintain victimhood can lead some people to pounce upon legitimate objective observations and claim they are based in racial prejudice.

    Some cultures, national or regional or community, tend to teach certain elements of character, such as dishonesty or violence, but someone of the same skin color reared in a different culture will have different values, so they are not the product or result of skin color or ethnic heritage.

    I completely reject the association of power and racism. I think it is a cop-out, a search for an excuse for racism.

    Hating someone because of the color of his skin is racist.
    Loving someone because of the color of his skin is racist.
    Hiring or not hiring someone because of the color of his skin is racist.
    Voting for someone because of the color of his skin is racist
    Any assumption of character, of intelligence or stupidity, of ambition or laziness, of trustworthiness or dishonesty, of worth or worthlessness, based on the color of one’s skin is racist

    Noticing the color of someone’s skin is not racist.
    Identifying someone by the color of his skin, if there is no judgment involved, is not racist.
    Identifying someone by character and skin color is not racist if the character mentioned is not attributed to skin color. (“The robber was green” is not racist if the robber was green. “The robber was a big, smelly green man and I think he was pretty stupid” is not racist. “The robber was a big green man so he was stinky and dumb” IS racist.)

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 10:08 am

      Nothing to disagree with there except I think what you define as racism is really racial bigotry.

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 10:42 am

        freddy schwartsputz

        call it like it is, but assign it where it belongs…….stastics speak for them selves.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 10:53 am

        And the stats are accurate from the FBI. I’d just like you to admit that a white person is more likely to be killed by someone they know in their own home than in public by a black person.

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 10:44 am

        And here is where semantics kick in. I don’t know if there is a difference between racism and racial bigotry.

        I tend to think of racism as being associated with race, sometimes extending into nationality (Germans hating Poles) and bigotry with non-racial hatreds, such as those directed at religion, or gender, or regional bigotries such as hating people from the South.

        What I see as the biggest problem is not that of true racism, which I think is fading away, but of using racism (real or not) as a weapon or tool, and thereby promoting it and feeding it.

        My maiden name is German, and my best friend in high school was Polish. At this time “Polack jokes” were popular, and she would change them into German jokes, and we never stopped ragging each other, but we also never believed that there was a real superiority or inferiority. The same jokes have been told in Canada “Newfie” jokes with Newfoundlanders as the targets) and Russia, about Ukranians, etc.

        But bring a darker skin tone into the mix and all of a sudden it’s ‘hands off’ and you are in very dangerous territory.

        I think if we were to stop promoting the image of virulent racism and inserting it into every single comment that refers to any black person, racism itself would fade away. I think it is artificially propped up, by those who gain by the division.

        For example, the dreaded “N-word”. Do you know why it is such a powerful word? Because black people MAKE it a powerful word! Language is powerful, but you have to give people power over you by the ways you respond to what they say. All of this melodrama about how it is the absolute WORST word anyone can say, blah blah blah. No, it is not. It is an ugly word, used in a demeaning or dismissive way long before it was applied to black people in the United States, it does connote lack of respect for people of darker skin, but my God, people, it is not the most powerful word in the world! I always wonder why some people are so willing to hand over power over themselves to other people. It’s like some people choose to walk around wearing a big sign that says “Push this button and watch me freak out”.

        The power is not in the word. It is in the reaction to the word.

        When I have been called a c*** here on the blog, I didn’t get the vapors and feel I had been attacked in a terribly vicious way. I just thought “What a loser, having to resort to such crudity, and gee, isn’t it interesting that to this person this is supposed to be a crushing insult?” and that was it.

        A few years ago, I was with some friends at a party to welcome some friends of theirs from Peru. One of the Peruvians was talking to a little black dog, calling him “Negro”. (Of course, he pronounced it “nay-gro” and of course the word pronounced this way simply means “black” in Spanish.) He called the dog, calling “Here, Negro” and it was like a stun grenade had been dropped in the room. Everyone froze. I explained that he could not use this word, went through the racial implications and the hyper-sensitivity, and when I was finished this man looked at me in real bewilderment and said “Don’t these people already know they are black?”

        From the mouths of babes……..

        You can call me a grigglefarver, and if I flip out when you do, I have handed you a button to push any time you want to upset me.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 10:51 am

        I think the N word is a powerful word because it was the de facto term of derision for black people througout the early 20th century when racism was codified into law.

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 10:56 am

        really freddy???

        then TELL BLACKS to STOP USING IT!!!!

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 10:59 am

        freddy
        you are correct and I agree with that but when 12% of the population commit 70% of all violent crimes, robberies, rapes and murders….Houston we have a problem…..THEY have a problem and I do not intend to be around areas or people that would make it MY problem.

      • tiredoflibbs April 14, 2012 / 11:00 am

        So freddie the forker, why is it so “offensive” when black people are called n——- but blacks use it every day on each other with little or no consequence?

        Of course, I am asking a proggy that question when most proggies believe that criticizing the pResident’s policies is racist, noting that he is tall and skinny is “code for black”, etc. etc.

        ….at least that is what the dumbed down lefitist talking points say.

        Again, “racist” has been used so much since 2008 that it has lost its meaning.

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 11:07 am

        I think the N word is a powerful word because it was the de facto term of derision for black people througout the early 20th century when racism was codified into law.

        And before that it was used as a demeaning term for people in India, by the British colonialists.

        But the power is not in the word, it is in the reaction to the word. If it was in the word itself, it would not be used so freely among black people. They merely choose when to react to it and when not to, and their decision is based on the skin color of the person using the word.

        Therefore, on racism.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 11:45 am

        No Amazona no. The power is in the meaning and the context of the word when it is used. Two army buddies who haven’t seen each other in years embracing and saying What up N word is far different than a white woman shouting at kids playing loudly in the street “You n word kids need to shut up out there!”

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 11:17 am

        Fred, I don’t think anyone has ever argued the fact that a white person is more likely to be killed by another white person than by a black person.

        However, the argument is that most black people are killed by other black people. Do you dispute this?

        So I think the question is, when a white person IS killed by a black person, why don’t white people mob up, threaten to kill black people, threaten “blood in the streets” etc.

        And when a black person is killed by a black person, why don’t black people swarm to create mobs, and howl for the death of the killer, and threaten his family, and threaten society in general with riots and violence?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 11:43 am

        Simply put no matter the crime or the race of the perp inequality in economics and education over generations breeds future criminals.

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 11:17 am

        the term “racist” today has been stolen by the left…it is straight out of the marx and alinsky playbook and is used as a tool to shut down discussion and to veil the truth.
        just like zenophobe, and homophobe…all designed to shut down any discussion or opposition of another point of view…it is how commies, leftists, radiacls roll.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 11:42 am

        You mean Saul Alinsky who got a major peace award from the Roman catholic Church in 1969? The same one given to Mother Theresa? That Saul Alinsky?

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 11:47 am

        freddyschwartzputz

        yup that communist bastard saul alinsky who I hope is burning in hell (not your basement version)

        do you agree with this?

        “Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

        Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

        Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

        Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

        We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

        Barack talks about new “ladders of opportunity” for blacks.

        Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids.

        Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

        Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

        As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

        Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

        We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

        Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago. “

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 11:48 am

        I think his lot in America is better than it would be had his people stayed in Africa but few blacks I know would dispute that. His lot in America would have been better if his people had come here as free and full citizens however.

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 11:53 am

        freddy

        and the same for the irish, the italian, and the Jews……all had discrimination and rose above it.
        black slavery is as old as the earth and still exists in islamic countries in America african slavery last years old and boring news.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 11:58 am

        But you have to admit that there wasn’t the same level of class division in Europe against blacks as there has been in the US

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 1:37 pm

        Two army buddies who haven’t seen each other in years embracing and saying What up N word is far different than a white woman shouting at kids playing loudly in the street “You n word kids need to shut up out there!”

        It is if the kids are brought up to react to the word.

        Are you saying that only the black children would be noisy and therefore yelled at? Weird.

        A word contains the emotional content you put into it.

        Take the infamous F-bomb for example. We are becoming desensitized to it because it is not only used so much, it is used in contexts that have nothing to do with fornication. It’s crude and rude, but hardly even shocking.

        Any word can become desensitized, but it requires a choice between letting its meaning fade and become indistinct and nothing more than a crudity or clinging to it and elevating it to a Cause, making it a rallying cry for some political agenda.

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 1:47 pm

        But you have to admit that there wasn’t the same level of class division in Europe against blacks as there has been in the US

        Nope, there wasn’t. Key element: Past tense.

        In the past, prejudice against black people was based on the simple primitive racism of the color of the skin.

        Now, a new prejudice is forming, and it has much less to do with the color of skin and is almost if not exclusively based on the actions of the people who are the subjects of the prejudice.

        It is not exclusively racial, as it is expanding to include those of white skin who have chosen to become part of the professional victim, rage-and-violence, mob mentality. Sadly, too many in this group happen to be black, because of choices they have made about how to live their lives. True, trusted so-called “leaders” have led them into this self-destructive hell of rage and resentment, which is isolating them from opportunity and unfairly damning others with the same skin color but with more intelligence and integrity, but still it always comes back to character.

        BTW, any study of skin-color bias will show you that even in African tribes with no white influence, lighter skin was preferred and darker skin discriminated against. Ditto for every dark-skinned race. Lighter skin tones have been considered more beautiful. As one of the whitest women in the world, 3/4 Eastern European and 1/4 Irish, I nearly glow in the dark, and I have always found darker skin to be far more beautiful than my pasty, freckled, delicate skin. I am not talking about me, or even about white people, but about some odd quirk that seems to be buried deep within many cultures.

    • dbschmidt April 14, 2012 / 12:12 pm

      But these days using words that I grew up with that have no relation to how they appear (i.e. niggardly meaning “reluctant to give or spend; stingy; miserly” from the 1520’s) will get you fired in Washington, D.C. among other places. One has nothing to do with the other but it
      “sounds” bad so it must be bad. Same goes for the slang for Brazil nuts but that one is somewhat incorrect so I have deleted it from my vocabulary.

      I was part of the busing experiment in the early 70’s and spent some time in the Marines (80-89) and have no issues except with slackers of all races, creeds, and colors. As a matter of fact (that I did not think about till this post) the last person I hired is black and out of the 15 or so applicants I reviewed–he got the job because he knew Perl (coding language) the best. Not only the best of all the applicants but actually better than me. Could be why I ended up paying him more than I made. I pay for results.

      Racism and Bigotry is a two-way street and with Affirmative Action and the general entitlement attitude these days it is time to remove both entirely. On job applications–remove the entire name, age, sex, race, etc. that may give a hint as to the person replaced by a number and
      then have the hiring manager select the top 5 for interviews. Or maybe I should get extra cr3edit for being German-English (England)-Austrian (the one that speaks German)-American and I have visited all of those countries. Wonder how many African-Americans have visited Africa
      (which I have also been to.)

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 2:14 pm

        db, a few years ago East High School in Denver, a school with a large black population, had an assembly with a speaker from one of the big black associations.

        He explained a lot to the kids, such as the fact that the very word “negro” is white code for wishing that all black people were dead, coming as it does from the word “necropolis” or “city of the dead”.

        No wonder we are seeing black mobs howling at the moon, devoured by racist loathing for white devils.

  3. Amazona April 14, 2012 / 11:11 am

    Let me put it this way: If an alien race were to come to Earth with a tool that would let them identify every single person who hates others based on the color of their skin, and remove them from society, the racial makeup of the removed would be predominately black.

    And the claim that black people cannot BE racist because to be racist you have to have power over those you hate would be dismissed as rubbish and a feeble effort to gloss over the inherent viciousness of the fact.

    • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 11:25 am

      tell me this freddy and be truthful

      WHY does every large American city have a gh***o (word not allowed by moderator) area which consists mostly of blacks?

      Why is every black led and populated nation on the face of the earth a hell hole of murder, mayhem and disease?

      Why is there NOT one black led, and populated country on the face of the earth that is not a third world cesspool?

      I mean this and for a true discussion not a slam of blacks,,,,,WHY is that?

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 11:27 am

        freddy

        name us all the white led populated countrys that rival – somolia, sudan, haiti, rhodesia etc etc etc ……

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] April 14, 2012 / 12:11 pm

      WHY does every large American city have a gh***o (word not allowed by moderator) area which consists mostly of blacks?

      Because the better off both white and black moved to the suburbs. Explain Southie in Boston.

      Why is every black led and populated nation on the face of the earth a hell hole of murder, mayhem and disease?

      Colonialism which redrew tribal border that were natural with artificial borders for their own economic purposes.

      Why is there NOT one black led, and populated country on the face of the earth that is not a third world cesspool?

      The US is led by a black man and there are 45 million blacks in the country. Did you mean majority black nation? Ghana is doing okay right now and so is Nigeria with all that oil wealth.

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 1:58 pm

        Colonialism which redrew tribal border that were natural with artificial borders for their own economic purposes

        Ah, that old bugbear, “colonialism”.

        Yet even when colonized the African nations were primitive with a very low standard of living, and yes, often dependent on slavery.

        Perhaps you could educate us on the artificial borders which contradicted those “natural” borders that would have led to more prosperity, government based on individual liberty, economic progress, elimination of slavery, etc.

        And please do elaborate on why things have only gotten worse since the lands were returned to native rule. What influence, for example, does a history of long-ago “colonialism” have regarding the development of the roving gangs in Sudan?

        Or can we just admit that you can’t do any of this, and that “colonialism” is just a code word for “racism”—that is, blaming everything on wicked white people?

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 2:02 pm

        The US is led by a black man…

        Might not want to go there, Freddy.

        After all, under his “leadership” our economy is in the toilet, and our race relations have not been so bitter or divided for decades.

        I’m not claiming this is because he is half black, but you are the one who brought his race into the conversation, so you seem to find it important and possibly relevant to the condition of the nation.

        Bad idea, Freddy, because he has been a disaster, and it would be a much better idea to try to separate his impact on the nation from his paternal heritage as an African.

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 2:03 pm

        freddy schwartsputz

        The US is led by a white/black man and there are 45 million blacks in the country mostly living in innercity poverty and monsretous crime rates.

        FIXED.

        (white/black is like white/hispanic)

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 2:14 pm

        My wife came from a TINY western NY town, maybe six hundred residences and not one stop light in the whole town…she went to catholic schools where there were no blacks and worked in a small business where there were no blacks. She didnt think about racism or the color of a persons skin because she was never exposed to any negative strerotypes.

        Then when my boys were in school she took a job at our local middle school here in Fla. By the end of the firest year she was very wary of black kids but overlooked it because they were poor.

        After she put in five years she couldnt stand to be around them, they were rude, crude, liars, thieves, racists, and dangerous thugs at a young age…….she finally quit 100% because of the blacks.
        Is she a racist? NO have her eyes been opened ? you damn well bet.

        sorry buy their problems in America is on THEM not us.

  4. Amazona April 14, 2012 / 2:09 pm

    I think his lot in America is better than it would be had his people stayed in Africa but few blacks I know would dispute that. His lot in America would have been better if his people had come here as free and full citizens however.

    But Freddy, he WOULDN’T have come here. He COULDN’T have come here. No one from a primitive village in Africa, with no education and no money could have made his way here.

    Duh.

    I see your Excuse Machine is overheating. Why not take a break? You are boxed in, you are trying to defend emotion-based beliefs and you have nothing but emotion and vague, half-baked, poorly understood snippets of what your beloved talking heads have fed you for years to support your passionate but uninformed perceptions

    • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 2:26 pm

      louie louie louie……….

      ‘Brother Ain’t Shooting No Blanks’: Farrakhan Tells Blacks — Breeding With Whites Is the ‘End of Your Race’

      “You are at the mercy now of the former slave masters and their children.”

      ——————————————————————————————

      Pssssttttttt news for louie…..IF what he says is true- he, a rope, and an old oak tree would have been introduced to each other years ago…….

      • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 2:33 pm

        Did you hear the clip of Louie bragging about killing Malcom X?

        It’s amazing what this guy gets away with, and I am starting to think it is out of fear that holding him to the rule of law would start a race war in this country.

        That is the saddest thing I can think of, having a once-proud nation held hostage to a mob.

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 2:44 pm

        OMG you cant make this stuff up……

        Technology, Wait Until You See the Kevlar ‘Carkoon’ — A Car Seat that Turns Into a Safety Pod!

        je$$e and al outraged by this racial slur….riots to follow.
        pResident and the Mooch weigh in while on vacation…..

        (sarcasm) fake but real.

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 3:02 pm

        interesting truth…..


        In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery “a moral and political evil.” Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.

        The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

        The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

        In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).

        According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country’s leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

        To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

        The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been

        http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htmdefined as slave magnates.

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 3:14 pm

        Ubomas ameriKa

        Secret Service agents busted because they refused to pay hooker:

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 3:20 pm

        HUH…..biden didnt pay???

      • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 3:20 pm

        here……

        Biden Earned $21,000 Last Year From the Secret Service

  5. mitchethekid April 14, 2012 / 3:32 pm

    A few things you haven’t mentioned. Perhaps because you are unaware.
    There is a biological imperative for fear of the other. It is an adaptive trait to objectify those that are not like us. The primary reason white Europeans were able to colonize the world was because the indiginous populations lacked the technology to fight back. Their societies and cultures evolved in response to their enviroment which had no impitous for advanced weaponry and as a result were helpless to fight back when they were enslaved and subjected to a foreign entity. Albeit with their habits, religions and aculturation.
    Whites in this country felt superior to Blacks because they were more powerful. This attitude exist today. (Well, duh!)
    There are millions of Americans who are dumb as a box of rocks, toothless and ignorant who still think they are “better” than their dark skinned neighbors primarily because they have less melanin in their skin.Melanin protects the body from the sun. It has zero to do with intellect. All humanity arose in Africa and if any of you trace your ancestry back 10’s of 1000’s of yrs you will arrive in the “dark continent”.
    Unfortunately very few of you think that human evolution is factual so this is a specious argument for me to propose but it does prevent you from considering some ascpects of this discussion.
    As far as some of the comments, I respect Spook and applaud him for bringing this subject up. It is important not only on this blog but on a national scale.
    The comments by Ama and Neo I won’t address. They can pontificate all they want but like the late great Sarah Palin said, when the lipstick is removed from a pig, what you have left is a pig.

    • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 4:12 pm

      bmitch

      you smell PIG take a bath.

    • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 4:36 pm

      bmitch

      HUH???

      First…..There are millions of Americans who are dumb as a box of rocks, toothless and ignorant

      who still think they are “better” than their dark skinned neighbors primarily because they have less melanin in their skin.Melanin protects the body from the sun.

      Then….It has zero to do with intellect

      I think you the pig, and a box of rocks are one and the same.

    • Amazona April 14, 2012 / 10:41 pm

      neo, as we know, mitch will never pass up a chance to hurl an insult you , me, or the great Sarah Palin. It’s just a mitch thing, and like the rest of his swill has no relationship to reality.

      I do think we need to be able to talk about race. As those of us who actually do have friends of other races know, we joke about it all the time. I gave a South American friend a ride to the doctor’s office a few months ago. It was a Saturday and the doctor said he would stay late to see him, but he should come in through the back door because the clinic was closed. I made the appointment for him—being a guy, he refused to see a doctor on his own—-and he was a little surprised to see me driving around the clinic to the back door. He said we must be going in the back because he is Latino, and I said yes, when I told him I was bringing in a brown boy the doctor said we’d better come around back. He cracked up at the phrase “brown boy” and he and the doctor will still laughing about it when I picked him up later.

      Robert Parker, who wrote the Spenser detective series, had a great relationship between his hero, Spenser, and a black man. They did a lot of bantering about race.

      You could tell that the loving relationship between George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice was totally colorblind, just two people who respected and cared for each other.

      When I dated a jazz guitarist, we spent a lot of time with black jazz musicians, and we were all just people bonded by the music—though I stood out in a room of black people like a spotlight, and got teased about it. And we talked about bias, and how so many of them had been brought up to fear and distrust white people.

      On one hand we have people who make color the central point of their lives. amd on the other we have some who pretend that any acknowledgment of color is vicious and racist. It’s the middle ground. where people like you and I live, where people will come together as people.

  6. Mark Edward Noonan April 14, 2012 / 3:46 pm

    You beat me to the subject, Spook – I was pondering writing on this yesterday but got a bit lazy. Along with the recent Trayvon Martin case, I was also moved on the subject by the article which got John Derbyshire fired from NRO.

    To me, real racism can only exist where a person advocates for social and legal disabilities to be placed on a person based upon their membership in an ethnic or religious group. If the person is not advocating for that, then there is no racism. There might be error; there might be bigotry – there might be a host of negative things, but there isn’t racism unless someone is advocating a policy based upon race. And, so, a Klansman is racist – he wants blacks (and a host of other groups) socially and politically disabled based upon their group membership. But, also, someone like Attorney General Holder is at least possibly racist because it appears that he wishes to apply the laws of the United States differently based upon the accused’s membership in a particular group. Derbyshire, on the other hand, did not do anything racist – though his article has been roundly condemned, left and right, as being racist. But no where in there is he advocating social or political disabilities to black people based on their group membership.

    Derbyshire, though, is wrong in a lot of what he writes – such as his advice for non-black people to avoid black people in certain circumstances. But my view is that his wrong view does not stem from racism but from a lack of Christian charity…which is no surprise given his atheist outlook. He said some things in his article about black people which are highly negative, but just as indisputably true – he just draws the worng conclusion from them, while the entirely screwed up ethic of race in America ensured that what he said which was true would be ignored by means of just shouting “racist” at him. Meanwhile, Derbyshire remains uncorrected in his views, and the discussion of race in America suffers another blow.

    Ultimately, the problem of race in America – as with all other problems we have – is doubled by the fact that we are awash in a sea of lies. We did not, at the end of the day, destroy the old, racist lies but, instead, just replaced them with new lies: some of which are racist, as well. The first step in curing this problem is to start speaking the truth – and the best bit of truth to start with is charity. It does no good for anyone to highlight the negative as that only sets people on edge and gets them defending the indefensible. The race-baiters live by highlighting the negative…and they eagerly await the negative counter-attack as that fuels the fire.

    For me, this is easy – I am blessed by the fact that I work and socialize with a wide variety of people (they say that Sunday religioius services are the most segregated hour in America…that may be true, but it isn’t in my case; when I go to Mass I am saying “peace be with you” to just about every ethnic background you can imagine). My Knights of Columbus council has no ethnic majority. I work for and with people of every background. Heck, even my family ceased to be all white some time ago. I don’t feel out of place when I’m the only white face in the room…and while we all must be cautious, I also just don’t have any longer that defensive mechanism which puts up a wall to others who are not like me (a great deal of this, though, comes from the grace of God…had I not, in time, learned just how miserable a sinner I am I might have remained convinced of my own rectitude, and thus have remained willing to feel superior to others…like the street person who accosted me a while back and whom I ended up in a friendly chat about life).

    • neocon1 April 14, 2012 / 4:30 pm

      There is NO place in my area or part of town including bars where blacks, Hispanics, Asians or whites can not go.

      There ARE parts of the city and bars where NO white man can and could walk into……let alone fratenize with the black women and live to see tomorrow.

      Two of my good beer buddies are Hispanic and Asian, we go any where with no problem in OUR part of town.
      One Buffalo bar can be some what redneck at times but we never encounter a problem, neither do the local blacks who feel right at home there.

      There are times though when several “Mo Fo’s” (bar tender’s name not mine) with dreds, gold bumpers. hoodies etc roll in and I will tell you that you can feel the tention in the air….why is that?
      because that is the thug – gangsta imiage they want to portray about themselves….
      Im sure they become aware that after their arrival several men quietly slip out the door only to return from their vehicles with in 1-2 minutes.
      They usually stay for one or two drinks and split.

    • Retired Spook April 14, 2012 / 7:53 pm

      Mark,

      I had exactly the same reaction to Derb’s article, and, in fact, it DID serve as the impetus for this post. This remains a subject that needs to be discussed from time to time. I still hope I live to see the day when MLK’s dream comes true, and I’m praying that the race war we seem to be heading toward fails to materialize.

      • Mark Edward Noonan April 15, 2012 / 12:30 am

        The fools do seem to be entirely unware of the civil war they are brewing – something I’ve talked about from time to time in the past, but which I worry about more and more these days. Especially if Obama gets re-elected – that utter dimwit will just keep shoving us towards the abyss. The racial aspect of it is just one of a score of things being doing break the ties that bind us all together as a people…the attack upon religious liberty is another (and that part of it makes me greatly interested in the Cristero War in 1920’s Mexico – the subject of an upcoming movie this summer called For Greater Glory). What is building up is not something which will repeat the Civil War of the 1860’s – two clearly delineated sides which took the form of two nations warring on each other – but something more akin to the Spanish Civil war where there were wars within wars as the vials of wrath spilled over in to a ferocious blood letting. I believe that such an outcome is still only a 1 in a 100 chance…but that is far more than the 1 in 1,000,000 chance there was ten years ago. Unless we win big this November or the left comes to sudden, new wisdom, things could get really bad.

    • GMB April 14, 2012 / 8:21 pm

      Mark, would you say that advocates of racial seperatism are racists, bigots or niether?

      • Mark Edward Noonan April 15, 2012 / 12:19 am

        GMB,

        Anyone who doesn’t want to live hard by someone of a different group is inherently going to be motivated by a feeling that the targeted group is inferior. So, yes, those who advocate racial separatism are almost certainly acting from racist motives (with the caveat that oft times – such as in the Jim Crow South and in South Africa – a Ruling Class takes advantage of racial animosity in order to secure for itself a source of cheap, exploitable labor). To be racist you have to want to do something to an entire group of people because you believe that the entire group is inherently inferior…that no amount of education or civilization will make even the best of that group as good as the worst of your own group. Such a belief is, of course, stupid – a completely penetrable idiocy the prevalence of which only proves that people will swallow a lot of nonsense, especially if they don’t act with the least bit of charity.

      • Amazona April 15, 2012 / 11:10 am

        And here I take a different point of view. Two different points of view, actually.

        First, to get it out of the way, I reject Mark’s claim that racism has to involve a desire to impose power over a group based on its race.

        People who want to enslave Venusians, for example, because they are green and therefore inferior and don’t deserve any better, are certainly racist. But so are the bigots who drive by Venusians walking down the street and yell “Go back to your own kind where you belong, you disgusting greenies!” So are people who invent ugly myths about Venusians, such as them piling human babies in barrels and then shoving swords through them, to collect the infants’ blood to use in disgusting Venusian rituals.

        Narrowing it down to only those who want to and can exert power over a race means that Venusians who despise humans and think them filthy and ignorant because they are of the human race could not be considered racist, if they don’t have the power to do anything about it. It excuses the hooligans yelling insults, it excuses the myth-mongers inventing foul lies. It sets up a whole system of permitting race-based hatred by allowing people to claim that their hatreds are not racist if they don’t have the power to oppress the hated race.

        As for racial separatism: I do not think it should be imposed, or sanctioned by law, as in allowing a white club to exclude blacks. But I do believe that integration has to be organic, that it has to happen on its own, as it happens all the time, and legally forcing it just creates hostility and, as we have seen with young black people forced onto buses to travel long distances to attend mostly-white schools to meet the needs of social experimentation, a sense of displacement and resentment.

        I would much rather allow neighborhood schools to continue, and focus on making them the best schools possible, using the force of the community to support them. I would also allow for school vouchers, so parents can choose private schools for their children if they want, and get rid of school district boundaries so kids can go to schools that are not in their communities, if they want to—-but letting this be a CHOICE and not something imposed upon them whether they like it or not.

        We have tunnel vision based on race, and the impression that if we can just mix up the races by legal mandate we can somehow “fix” racial tensions and inequality. I just don’t agree.

        Let a kid go to an all-black school if it is in his neighborhood, if he is around his lifelong friends, if there is community support and oversight of the school, and if it offers a good education. If he gets that education, he can go to any college he wants, Clemson or Iowa State or wherever, and he will be an equal, just of a different color. Or, as high school freshman, he might decide he wants what he can only get at a certain private school, and he can take the money that would have paid for his public school education and apply it to the private school tuition.

        We give a lot of lip service to freedom while at the same time we support plans and systems that limit it.

  7. Cluster April 14, 2012 / 6:59 pm

    Much needed thread and some really outstanding comments, including Frederick. I sense that Frederick is probably a good egg, but like all liberals, he over emotes and loses his common sense. As for me on the subject, honestly I am so tired of this race conversation and people’s sensitivities toward it, that I no longer want to participate. We all really do have to grow thicker skin (no pun intended) and don’t become so offended at every little thing. We all need to grow up in other words.

    I have never once in my life thought that the color of my skin made me either superior or inferior to anyone. I have never even once felt any pride or any emotion over the fact that I am Caucasian, and find it kind of weird that some people do. Two of the finest people I have ever known in my life are Hispanic and black and I am blessed to call them friends.

    We are all children of God and we all are given free will. The will to choose what type of person you want to be. I choose to live my life by what MLK said fifty years ago – I choose to judge people by the content of their character.

  8. dennis April 15, 2012 / 1:37 am

    Mark says, “the problem of race in America… is doubled by the fact that we are awash in a sea of lies.”

    Could that in any manner be exacerbated by claims such as “liberalism once upon a time set out (under Sanger’s Planned Parenthood) to eliminate black people”?

    Is there a more blatant lie than that? And the quote Mark used to buttress that claim, when read in context, doesn’t even remotely relate to it. (Yes, this was in a prior thread, but no less relevant for it.)

    If we’re going to be honest about race or anything else, we have to start by using language and known historical facts in an honest manner. Being “awash in a sea of lies” begins with trying to make words or quotations serve some political agenda instead of simply meaning what they mean.

    Mark further says, “To be racist you have to want to do something to an entire group of people because you believe that the entire group is inherently inferior.”

    Now we’re getting to the nub of the matter. For Mark it doesn’t have to do with skin color, it has to do with political orientation. if you’re a liberal, you’re inherently flawed and deserve to be demonized. That’s racism without the melanin factor.

    One might play with the fine point that skin color is not chosen, while political convictions are – however I would posit that moral convictions are not chosen at all, but inherent. There isn’t a lot of wiggle room between political and moral convicitons for at least some of us.

    All of which may be beside the point that we’re awash in a sea of lies – but whose lies? Mark is demonstrably willing to lie about liberals under Sanger setting out to eliminate blacks. So for him to address the race issue is already moot. I really don’t like calling Mark out like this, since I missed him when he was gone, but this kind of hypocrisy just doesn’t fly.

    • dennis April 15, 2012 / 3:17 am

      Oops – ‘scuse me – in the third paragraph above I should have said, “remotely support it.” To be precise the quote Mark cited actually does relate to his claim topically, but no way does it support it. To the contrary, taken in context it falsifies it.

      Just sayin’…

    • GMB April 15, 2012 / 4:17 am

      Sanger never said this?

      “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

      • dennis April 15, 2012 / 1:44 pm

        Yes she said that – precisely because she realized some people would misrepresent her efforts to promote birth control as trying to exterminate Negroes and she wanted to pre-empt the idea. Read her entire statement in its context and this becomes clear. As I noted many days ago if she had been trying to exterminate blacks she wouldn’t have gained the cooperation or praise of W. E. B. Dubois, Martin Luther King and other notable black leaders (DuBois was on the board of her Harlem clinic).

    • Amazona April 15, 2012 / 10:20 am

      dennis, when I read nonsense like this I wonder just how anyone could get from what is said to here: Now we’re getting to the nub of the matter. For Mark it doesn’t have to do with skin color, it has to do with political orientation. if you’re a liberal, you’re inherently flawed and deserve to be demonized. That’s racism without the melanin factor.

      This is such an intricately intertwined mess it is hard to sort through it.

      First of all, until you understand what political orientation IS you really ought to stop whining about it.

      Second, while I don’t agree with Mark’s statement, I also understand the obvious—that it doesn’t have a thing to do with “political orientation” but just about the desire to use power against a group you identify as inferior because of race. I dislike this theory very much, as it plays into the victimhood mentality we see wallowing in racism they excuse because they say they have no power and therefore can’t BE racist, but it does at least acknowledge the basis of skin color.

      You are the one who made the leap from this general comment to “… if you’re a liberal, you’re inherently flawed and deserve to be demonized..”

      OK, one more time. To be a liberal has nothing to do with any form of political belief. Period. It has to do with being open to unconventional ideas, etc.

      To be a Liberal IS a political position. And if you are a Liberal, then you have made the decision to become part of a movement which has a very clear, distinct and verifiable history. This history includes many examples of Leftist-sanctioned racial bigotry and oppression, which are not merely events parallel to the underlying ideology but part and parcel of the ideology.

      What is interesting to me is the claim by Liberals that objective analysis of their own stated ideology is “demonization” of them. That recounting their verified accurate history is “demonizing” them.

      When we ask you to explain your ideology and defend it, you refuse. I don’t know if you refuse because you know it is indefensible or if you truly are ignorant of anything but the most superficial trappings of this political model, laid out to lure in the gullible and well-intentioned. But if the latter is true, there must be an intuitive realization that digging into the reality of the movement would be very very ugly and challenge your superficial emotion-based preferences, so you just shut your eyes and stopper your ears and whine that the movement is being “demonized”.

      Sanger’s role in Liberalism is, in and of itself, during her lifetime, not a very big one. She appears to have been all over the board, making wildly contradictory statements. It’s hard to analyze people like that.

      But you have leaped from a discussion of Sanger and her involvement with the Liberal/Progressive Movement to a blanket whine that all Liberals (to correct your usage since you appear to be talking about the political use of the term) are being “demonized” when the facts are laid out and they don’t look pretty.

      Perhaps if you could stir yourself to a reasoned debate on the merits of Liberalism some of this could be avoided.

      • Retired Spook April 15, 2012 / 11:26 am

        Sanger’s role in Liberalism is, in and of itself, during her lifetime, not a very big one. She appears to have been all over the board, making wildly contradictory statements. It’s hard to analyze people like that.

        This dovetails with my comment in the newest thread about “How Much Nonsense Do You Believe”. The more research you do on Sanger, the more you realize how true your statement about her is. Even if you search out her own words, she was often self-contradictory. What’s pretty much undeniable is that (1) blacks make up 12% of the population but account for 35% of abortions, and (2) over three fourths of Planned Parenthood clinics are in minority neighborhoods.

      • neocon1 April 15, 2012 / 11:41 am

        spook

        your stats on abortion speaks volumes on the genocide that is taking place against blacks and the poor……what is so unbelievable abortion is one of the pillars of liberalism and the donk party,
        while it is a target to be shot to hell by conservatives….yet WE are the RAAAACISTS and the donks are the great emancepators…..the public schools have done their job of producing useful idiots very well in the past 40 years.

      • dennis April 15, 2012 / 1:46 pm

        Amazona, Mark was the one who claimed in his “Well I’m Back” thread that liberalism (lower-case) set out to do away with black people. Sanger wasn’t the topic, but he dragged her into it as well. Is that demonizing liberals? Maybe that’s a judgment call, but it seems to me accusing liberalism of attempted genocide comes pretty close to demonizing.

        You can parse the differences and epistomology of upper-case vs lower-case liberalism till the cows come home, but my point here is much more basic: the inconsistency and double standard constantly displayed on this blog. How much nonsense do you believe? I’m not here that often, but every time I look it seems you rely on popular misconceptions, quotes removed from context and deliberate misrepresentations of fact to support your prejudices.

        How else could you claim that Obama heavily depends on “hardcore Marxists, Maoists and Communists” in his administration, and then cite names like Carol Browner, Cass Sunstein and Gary Samore to back up your claim? That’s as much pure nonsense as the idea that Margaret Sanger was trying to exterminate blacks. It requires wanton disregard of known, easily verifiable facts to believe such ideas.

        You’re all hung up on schools of political thought, and seem to desperately need to pigeonhole others into categories you’ve arranged in your own mind. It doesn’t work like that in real life. I reject your classification system. I’m not a moral paragon, but I do reference the teachings of Christ to try and understand how I should live and relate to others. I’m very careful about taking sides. I’m constantly learning and analyzing information, and don’t need groups or political parties to tell me how to think.

    • neocon1 April 15, 2012 / 11:04 am

      dennistooge

      the wolf in sheeps clothing strikes again.

      as a man? who professes to be a “religious” person you sure do support many evil systems.
      Liberalism is a root of communism which MURDERED THREE HUNDRED MILLION HUMANS in the 20th century alone.
      Abortion has MURDERED 55 MILLION AMERICANS since RvW you blather on about the devil magaret sainger like she was Mother Teresa.

      Ill call you out as a LIAR because I posted at least three sources where MS called for the destruction of the black race through abortion and birth control.

      what “church” do you belong to? the one where killer tiller passed the collection plate on sundays while butchering children M-S

      • Amazona April 15, 2012 / 11:29 am

        But neo, dennis is one of those who has been attracted to the promises of Leftism, to the illusion of moral superiority based on the illusions of freedom and respect and so on. He does not support the true ideology of the Left because he has steadfastly refused to even examine it. Because he has built up a defense system where any criticism of the actual IDEOLOGY of the Left puts him at DefCon 5 and the defenses are activated, not letting anything in.

        dennis is one of the Pseudo Left who pollute this blog, one of the starry-eyed idealists who is probably a nice guy with the best of intentions, who really does want peace and love and tolerance and the end of all injustice and poverty and meanness. Most who flock to the sugary illusions of the American Left do so not because they are malignant but because they are really decent people who want good things to happen—but stop far short of the intellectual integrity needed to do an in-depth examination of what lies beneath those promises.

        It is very upsetting to have your basic belief system challenged, and Leftism, whether you call it Progressivism or Liberalism or Socialism or even Communism, IS a belief system, based on faith.

        Point out that it has never failed, and the faith kicks in—-“THIS time it will work!”

        Try to show its ugly history, and the defenses kick in—“You are just demonizing us”.

        It is a belief system that is very powerful because it plays on the human need to feel morally and intellectually superior, and it offers this without demanding that the person actually DO anything which supports those feelings. You can be on the Moral High Ground not by doing anything, but by believing anything.

        You don’t have to give of your own resources to feed the poor, all you have to do is support a system which takes other peoples’ resources and tells you it is using them to feed the poor. And there you are! Instant MHG!

        It is shored up by the corollary conviction that if you do not share the same belief of how to feed the poor, this means you don’t care if the poor starve = you are cold and selfish = you are morally inferior. It is a system which cleverly creates and expands hostility toward the Other by creating and fostering a false either/or paradigm.

        dennis is a smart guy, you can tell by his writing, and he is probably a very good guy who truly wants good things. But for some reason once he got sucked into the vortex of Leftist dogma, he became such an ardent convert that he is totally blocked off to anything which might challenge or threaten the emotional high he gets from his secure place on the MHG.

      • dennis April 15, 2012 / 2:27 pm

        Neocon, Mark was the one who first brought Sanger up days ago. She never called for the destruction of the black race; my response to GMB above addresses that misconception. She also repeatedly spoke out against abortion. Only after her death did the reproductive rights movement expand its scope to include abortion rights

      • Amazona April 15, 2012 / 2:42 pm

        Only one committed to the Leftist agenda or at least a supporter of it can continue to apply the word “right” to the killing of children.

        It is legal, and the support for this is a very different “right” which mysteriously appears only as an emanation of a penumbra of another right. But there is no inherent RIGHT to butcher babies. There is merely a legal ABILITY to do so, peripherally supported by an imaginary right to something else.

        Using the term “abortion RIGHTS” is contributing to the demogoguery of the Left and its semantic infiltration of our society.

        Ditto for claiming that killing the result of sexual intercourse is really part of a “Reproductive RIGHT”. It is the opposite of reproduction, it is antithetical to reproduction, it denies reproduction in the most basic and brutal way.

        But the puppetmasters of the Left know that there is an instinctive defense of anything that is called a “right” in this country, so they apply the word to whatever agenda they are promoting and try to strip it from anything they object to—such as the REAL right to bear arms.

  9. Amazona April 15, 2012 / 10:42 am

    neo, I went back and re-read your excellent post of April 14, 2012 at 3:02 pm and want to comment on it.

    I think it is obvious that many slave owners felt that their slaves were inferior because of the color of their skin. But the number of black people who owned slaves made me start thinking that perhaps the real underlying bias that allowed some people to think others were inferior was not one of race—that is, skin color—-but one of class or culture.

    A black man who owns slaves obviously does not think they should be owned, bred, sold and worked like animals because the color of their skin makes them less human. So how would he separate himself from his black slaves? Without the racial component, there’s not much left. There could be simple opportunism—-I am here, he is there, I’ll take advantage of it—or it could be a very real belief that for some reason the slave does not deserve to be anything but a slave. And there aren’t many things left that can explain a sense of superiority and entitlement. I can only think of class and culture.

    OK—-back away from the black/white paradigm of much of American slavery. The Romans had slaves, many if not most of whom were white. Ancient Britons raided the coasts of Ireland for children and women to enslave. In Africa, black slaveowners have black slaves. Obviously, skin color is really NOT the major component of slavery. In the Colonies which later became the United States, there were many indentured servants, who for all intents and purposes were slaves, with the difference of having a finite term of slavery. They could not be bred like cattle, with the offspring belonging to the boss, but they had no real rights and the same status as slaves. Most if not all of these people were white. Many, for example, were Scottish rebels who had fought in the effort to bring Charles to the throne of Scotland and who were, when they were not executed after the British victory, sent off to the colonies as indentured servants.

    Like so many things, when you start to peel the onion and you get past the accepted ideas—-for example, that black people were slaves only because white people considered them less than human because of their black skin—-you find the reality to be very different.

    • neocon1 April 15, 2012 / 11:12 am

      Being from western NY we had many native Americans (indians) that lived there and the heritage was ever present. I have native Americans in my family but getting to my point even the native Americans had slaves, the warrior tribes would raid their neighboring tribes kill the men and take the women and children to be their servents and slaves.
      This is not a white vs black conversation except the black race hustlers and loons like farracan make it one for political and financial gain.

      Sadly our schools are turning out dumbed down useful idiots and the govt has placed many blacks on the plantation of dependency so they see little value to excel….just sit back and let big bro do it all for you…and partaaaay.
      sad but true.

      • Amazona April 15, 2012 / 11:33 am

        But once again I point out that the real division is one of culture, not skin color.

      • neocon1 April 15, 2012 / 11:42 am

        Ama

        you are absolutely 100% correct

      • Amazona April 15, 2012 / 11:50 am

        There was a mentality that said the conquerer had the right to own the conquered and this is probably what drove American Indian slavery and perhaps Roman enslavement of conquered people.

        It may very well be that instead of thinking “you are inferior to me and therefore I can make you a slave” it is less complicated and is really just more of “I won, you lost, I get to make the rules”.

        Given a choice of killing the conquered so they couldn’t come back and fight again, or controlling them and getting some workers who didn’t need to get paid, it probably seemed like a logical and who knows? perhaps more humane solution to what to do with people who just lost a war.

        I think humanity evolves, so we can’t condemn people from the past based on our own values. Certain things were simply a part of life, and inborn assumptions supported by external cultural and community standards are slow to change.

        For centuries upon centuries, the accepted form of government was that of an all-powerful king or emperor or tribal chief, a belief which is now very rare around the world. When a bunch of colonists challenged the concept of top-down, all-controlling central government in the late 1700’s it was a radical idea that went against what people had accepted as the only natural way of life for centuries. In just a little over 200 years the idea of people giving power to the government instead of the government giving power to the people has taken root around the world—-sometimes more deeply than others, but still present and still an influence trying to balance efforts to go backward to the collectivist central power concept.

        The idea of using people as property was equally ingrained as a simple fact of life for centuries, shored up by social and community and legal standards. It, too, has been challenged and for the most part dismissed. It’s a process.

    • tiredoflibbs April 15, 2012 / 2:13 pm

      AMA, your black slave owner owning slaves does indeed go back to culture. Remember during that time Africans would war amongst themselves with the losers taken as slaves and owned by the victors. Culture did and still does take part in the African slave trade.

  10. Amazona April 15, 2012 / 2:16 pm

    dennis: You’re all hung up on schools of political thought, and seem to desperately need to pigeonhole others into categories you’ve arranged in your own mind. It doesn’t work like that in real life. I reject your classification system.

    Nice try, dennis, but no cigar. You just keep dodging the responsibility to understand political reality by rejecting it, but you will accomplish nothing but building another layer of denial between you and the world.

    If you define “political thought” as most do, particularly on the Left, as nothing more than an ever-changing, infinitely flexible, mass of identity and emotion and events, then of course “political thought” is unimportant.

    But if you identify it accurately, as an objective and analytical concept of the best way for men to establish government and run nations, it is not just only superficially related to the TMZ level of political awareness, it is a crucial element of the life of every human being.

    Name a person whose life is not impacted by the political system under which he lives.

    You sneer at what you call “pigeonholing” into arbitrary categories you go on to claim some of us have just arranged “in our own minds”, setting up your claim that if you just “reject” this none of it will exist. But all you are doing is trying to defend your determination to remain ignorant by claiming that ignorant is the smartest way to be.

    I challenge you to come up with more than two basic forms of government: That is, top-down government with the bulk of power concentrated in a large and controlling central authority, vs a bottom-up type of government with most of the power and authority kept at a relatively local level and the central government restricted as to size and scope.

    “Neither of the above” is anarchy, the lack of government rather than a form of government.

    I don’t know why this concept is so threatening to you, why you fight and deny it so vehemently.

    Unless, of course, your obviously good intellect has informed you that the system you have adopted on emotional grounds will, if examined, show itself to be a system which you cannot in good conscience support once you strip away the glossy and tantalizing illusions of ‘fairness’ and ‘social justice’ and ‘equality’ that drew you in like flies to honey.

    And what if you do examine this system and find it repellent at its core? Then what? Then you are adrift, because the only political alternative is the dreaded, hated, and throughly evil Other. It is human nature to remain in a comfort zone, and to be afraid of having no anchor.

    This is the conundrum facing the well-intentioned Lefty whose allegiance to a poorly understood system is based on what are really quite noble ideals. It requires the moral courage to examine dearly held beliefs and discard them if they prove to be false, it requires the intellectual capacity to actually analyze and understand the systems studied, it requires the emotional strength to sever emotional bonds if they prove to be ties to a defective system and replace them with more objective and analytical attachments, it requires the willingness commit to objective truth even it it is is alien to a lifetime of belief. It is not easy. And it is a process.

    And it is complicated, because it involves not just analyzing your own cherished political belief system but that of the Other you despise.

    It is much easier to close your eyes, clap your hands over your ears, and shout LALALALALALA while simply “rejecting” that which challenges your comfort zone.

    But many have made the transition. The word “neocon” which your kind has tried to turn into a pejorative, began as the description of former Liberals who had realized the folly and the fatal flaws of the system and newly come to conservatism. “neo” = “new” “con” = “conservative”.

  11. Amazona April 15, 2012 / 2:35 pm

    dennis, you complain: How else could you claim that Obama heavily depends on “hardcore Marxists, Maoists and Communists” in his administration, and then cite names like Carol Browner, Cass Sunstein and Gary Samore to back up your claim?

    It’s easy—I base my comments on the proven political philosophy of these people, on their statements and their approach to government. You base your denial of their philosophy on their claimed identity. To you, if they don’t apply certain labels to themselves, this is proof they don’t believe in or an act on the principles that lie behind those labels.

    People like you make it so easy for the demogogues. You can look at a man who writes that he studied Marx, hung out with Marxists, references Marxist ideals to explain his policies, and promotes Marxist concepts in every aspect of his governing style, and still deny he is a Marixt because he has not openly declared “I AM A MARXIST”.

    This is because you are still hung up on Identity Politics.

    And this is why you cling so frantically to any excuse you can find or invent to avoid the challenge of actually looking beneath the glossy surface of the American Left to examine its core, its internal philsophy, its reality.

    You just reject anything that does not fit your very narrow template. You reject anything that might pose a threat to it. You reject anything that might cause your tight little comfort zone to teeter a little, throw you off balance a little, nudge you into even a slightly new way of thinking.

    BTW, a lot of people still use a lower case L when the talk about Liberalism, and it only adds to the confusion and the misconception that Liberalism is really a liberal concept. That does not contradict my explanation about the two.

    You yourself illustrate the absolute lack of liberal thought in your posts, admitting that you simply “reject” ideas that do not fit your narrow and rigid definitions. Not very liberal, but completely Liberal.

    • dennis April 15, 2012 / 3:13 pm

      Ama, I “sneer at” nothing, I simply have no use for your classification system. It’s irrelevant to my way of thinking.
      You’re the one who’s vehement – just compare the word count by you on this blog to practically everyone else.
      You insist others are threatened, frantic, hateful or whatever, which is generally just more nonsense. You divide the world up differently in your mind than others do.
      I’ve understood the etymology and pedigree of neoconservativism for many years. I’ve read some Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Michael Lind and even a smattering of Jeanne Kirkpatrick (who was a “hardcore socialist” by the way). Regardless my assessment of their ideas, they all are more coherent than anything I’ve read by you.

      • Amazona April 15, 2012 / 4:10 pm

        No one can actually study the political philsophies of people such as those you mention and remain unaware that the very basic division of general political models is between big government and small government.

        But then anyone who can relate word count to emotion is clearly on a unique operating system.

        Funny how you manage to increase your own word count without ever actually addressing any of the points I make. Nice excuse-making, though. And I note that while you advocate for the policies of the Left, even construing the Bible to be full of injunctions to believe in collective salvation through the distribution of OPM rather than individual redemption due to personal acts of sacrifice, charity and generosity, you remain unable or unwilling to tell us what it is about the actual IDEOLOGY of the Left that you find so acceptable. Or why.

      • dennis April 15, 2012 / 5:20 pm

        “No one can actually study the political philsophies of people such as those you mention and remain unaware that the very basic division of general political models is between big government and small government.”

        I never read anything in the statement of principles of the PNAC (that highly influential neoconservative think tank whose members included everyone who was anyone in the Bush admin) that advocated small government. They wanted the U.S. to be the biggest, baddest player on the world geopolitical map, which pretty well kills the idea of small government right there. That’s what brought us the huge expenditures of the Bush era, two wars, the world’s most grotesquely bloated military budget, the DHS and constitutional atrocities like the “Patriot” Act.

        Any tangent will do to avoid the main premise of my original post, to wit: You, Mark and others here readily embrace nonsense – demonstrable falsehoods, to advance your prejudices. In addition you freely attribute an array of nonsense and concepts of your own invention to other people you disagree with. You, Ama, generate endless column inches of hyperbolic prose to divert the conversation to irrelevancies such as terminology and whatever else you feel like typing about. I’m quite done for now – I’ve long suspected the blogosphere is really a conspiracy to engage thinking people in pointless, wasteful rhetorical exercises that distract from the profitable use of our most precious resource, time.

      • Amazona April 15, 2012 / 5:26 pm

        Fine. You just keep on looking at politics through the lens of identity rather than ideology. It seems to be your comfort zone.

      • Amazona April 15, 2012 / 7:53 pm

        I went to the PNAC web site and found what probably got dennis so wound up: The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

        Yet, oddly enough, the site lacks what it would need to support dennis’s outbursts.

        For one thing, it lacks the identification of its supporters and contributors as neoconservatives. I didn’t take the time to search out biographies but I am under the impression that they are long-time if not actually life-long conservatives, not new converts to the conservative movement.

        But the biggest thing it lacks is anything about wanting a large, controlling central government. I found nothing that indicated a desire to expand the size, scope and power of the federal government beyond that laid out in the Constitution.

        The Constitution does delegate the duty of national defense to the federal government. It does not prohibit providing leadership around the world. Therefore a strong military which is involved in providing American leadership is quite consistent with the Constitution.

        An anti-interventionist isolationist could certainly be upset at a desire to provide American leadership throughout the world, but this does not mean that such a desire is a desire to expand the role of the federal government in the governing of the United States. One might, if one is so inclined, snap to an assumption that a strong military with global influence is the same thing as expanding the scope, power and authority of the federal government regarding the United States, but this would be a wildly erratic leap to a wildly inaccurate conclusion.

        As we see.

      • dennis April 16, 2012 / 1:04 am

        A little tutorial on Neoconservatism – while some of its proponents had indeed once been liberal intellectuals (Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Richard Perle etc – Jeanne Kirkpatrick was even a genuine hardcore Socialist) some of its band-wagoners were plain old Republican hawks like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton etc. The true believers in regime change in Iraq adopted Neoconservatives’ philosophy as their own, regardless where on the spectrum they started.

        And in case it escaped you back then, the PNAC was the very embodiment of Neoconservatism during its decade of dominance. It had nothing whatever to do with small government, and much to do with global hegemony and empire – with humongous government ambition and enterprises. There were reasons adults in the Republican establishment of the 80s and 90s marginalized Cheney and Rumsfeld, but Bush the younger (to whom this blog was first dedicated) took them to his bosom and made them his most trusted advisors. And much bigger government was what resulted – due largely to the influence of Neoconservative ambitions, through the agency of PNAC functionaries.

        Bottom line, your statement that “No one can actually study the political philsophies of people such as those you mention [neoconservatives] and remain unaware that the very basic division of general political models is between big government and small government” is laughable – more high-falutin’ nonsense from the chief scold of B4V.

      • Retired Spook April 16, 2012 / 8:29 am

        Bottom line, your statement that “No one can actually study the political philsophies of people such as those you mention [neoconservatives] and remain unaware that the very basic division of general political models is between big government and small government” is laughable

        Why is that laughable? Most of the Conservatives on this blog were critical of the growth of government and government spending during the Bush years, and it was Democrats who vocally supported the incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan, by wider margins, in fact, than they supported the first Gulf War in 1991. The video clips of virtually all the Dem leadership voicing condemnation of Saddam’s WMDs and their support for regime change have been played here too many times to count. And the policy of regime change actually originated during the Clinton Administration. And it certainly wasn’t as though, during the Bush years, we could say, “OK, he’s had his chance and blown it; let’s get him to step down and let Kerry try. Surely he’ll spend less.” We did finally do that after 8 years of Bush, voting for hope and change, for a promise to reduce the deficit by half during his first term, and look what we’ve gotten.

        So how about you get off your high horse, Dennis, and admit that just because someone identifies as a Conservative that doesn’t mean he or she buys into everything that every Conservative in a position of power does. I can’t recall EVER seeing you not buy into ANYTHING that Liberals in positions of power do, including spend a lot more money than Bush ever dreamed of.

      • Amazona April 16, 2012 / 9:36 am

        dennis’s little rant reeks of Identity Politics—this guy had this title, that guy was identified as such-and-such, and so on. But Identity Politics is all dennis is interested in, and all he knows or cares to know about what he thinks is “politics”.

        His tunnel vision is stunning. For example, on Planet Dennis, if a conservative group is formed for specific purposes, the fact that it does not actively promote other ideas means that they just didn’t CARE about those ideas. Or, according to him, DISAGREED with those ideas.

        PNAC’s mission statement is: The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle. So, according to dennis, if it doesn’t include restating the obvious—that is, a commitment to a return to our Constituional form of government, based upon severely restricted federal scope and power and concentration of power and authority at more local levels, among other things—- they didn’t agree with that philosophy. Or disagreed with it.

        Gee, dennis, why don’t you claim that PNAC was in favor of slavery? After all, none of the writing condemned it. PNAC had nothing to do with a lot of things: The proper role of the Supreme Court, statehood for Puerto Rico, etc. The fact that they did not address issues is not proof that they did or did not find those issues important aspects of their overall political philosophy They just narrowed the focus of this one group to a specific agenda.

        But that agenda was about increasing the influence of America abroad, and you hate this idea so you rant and rave and carry on and invent all sorts of bizarre motives and intentions and in general lie.

        Actually, much of the blogosphere does encourage thinking people. It just doesn’t exclude people like you.

      • Retired Spook April 16, 2012 / 6:22 pm

        and even a smattering of Jeanne Kirkpatrick (who was a “hardcore socialist” by the way).

        You must have read her early works, because she was a hardcore Conservative the last quarter century of her life. She was one who actually saw how destructive Liberalism was and did a 180 when she was in her mid 50’s.

      • Amazona April 16, 2012 / 9:31 pm

        Perhaps dennis is the one who should define “hardcore”. Kirkpatrick doesn’t seem to qualify by any of the dictionary definitions I came up with.

        Of course, if you don’t believe there IS a Leftist philosophy, I suppose you can’t be expected to be able to know when someone is or is not a “hardcore” Leftist. And don’t some of denny’s writings hint that he doesn’t accept socialism as a Leftist construct?

        Someone who explains “As I read the utopian socialists, the scientific socialists, the German Social Democrats and revolutionary socialists — whatever I could in either English or French — I came to the conclusion that almost all of them, including my grandfather, were engaged in an effort to change human nature. The more I thought about it, the more I thought this was not likely to be a successful effort. So I turned my attention more and more to political philosophy and less and less to socialist activism of any kind.” sounds like a pretty soft-core socialist to me.

        And, again referring to wikipedia, “Kirkpatrick briefly considered running for President in 1988 against George H.W. Bush, because she believed he was not tough enough on Communism.”

        Oh, yeah, the attitude of a real “hardcore” Lefty, all right.

        It would be funny if not for the pathetic quality of such determined obtuseness and the nastiness of the constant lying.

  12. Amazona April 15, 2012 / 8:46 pm

    I note that while you advocate for the policies of the Left, even construing the Bible to be full of injunctions to believe in collective salvation through the distribution of OPM rather than individual redemption due to personal acts of sacrifice, charity and generosity, you remain unable or unwilling to tell us what it is about the actual IDEOLOGY of the Left that you find so acceptable. Or why.

    • dennis April 16, 2012 / 1:10 am

      Your bold-faced type is overkill. I’ve never construed anything of the sort. My Bible has always taught me salvation is a gift of grace through faith. It can’t come from works of any kind. This doctrine is a staple of New Testament Christianity; the apostle Paul expounds on it in detail. See Ephesians 2:8-10.
      In the Torah God commanded the nation of Israel to provide for the widow, the poor and the strangers within their borders by specific tithes and policies. Those were laws that Jews were bound by in the time of Christ, but are not part of the New Covenant. Under the New Covenant people do the right thing when they have the love of God in their hearts.
      I believe in separation of church and state, but find it curious how much noise some people make about the U.S. being a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values. When it comes to the poor and their own money though, they can hardly put enough distance between those values and their economic policies.
      The “actual ideology of the left” is a nebulous concept that doesn’t interest me but apparently it gnaws away at you. It would have no usefulness except as a theoretical scapegoat for the right to berate and demonize. I’m not sure there is such a thing, I’d bet a dozen people would define it a dozen different ways.

      • Retired Spook April 16, 2012 / 8:38 am

        When it comes to the poor and their own money though, they can hardly put enough distance between those values and their economic policies.

        That is just a blad-faced lie, something you have become quite adept at, Dennis. America is the most generous country on earth, and Conservatives give more to charity than Liberals by a substantial margin.

        — Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

        — Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

        — Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

        — Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

        — In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

        People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

        The “actual ideology of the left” is a nebulous concept that doesn’t interest me

        Now THAT’S laughable.

      • Amazona April 16, 2012 / 9:10 am

        See, Spook, they refuse to answer outright but if you nudge them enough it will eventually come out.

        The “actual ideology of the left” is a nebulous concept.. and …. (it) doesn’t interest me… and …. I’m not sure there is such a thing…

        We knew he didn’t know, but now he admits he also doesn’t care, and evidently feels that pretending it doesn’t exist excuses him for his willful ignorance.

        And I’m sure Karl is devastated to be so casually dismissed, after all those long hours spent in the British Museum, toiling over his Manifesto of Leftist ideology.

        It would have no usefulness except as a theoretical scapegoat for the right to berate and demonize.

        It just get funnier and funnier. Yep, a century of Leftist political philosophy and government, and the outcome of same, just blown away by the Only True Christian’s simple declaration that it does not exist and would be useless if it did—but it sure does allow that nasty Right to “berate and demonize”.

        Question: If there is no Left, how can there be a Right?

      • Amazona April 16, 2012 / 9:14 am

        And we all remember the endless pontificating from dennis about his insistence that the injunctions of the Bible to care for the poor, etc. meant that the government has this moral responsibility.

        I personally challenged this every time I found it, and referenced the difference between personal salvation and collective redemption, arguing for the former and against the latter.

        And now none of it ever happened.

        Evidently when dennis was going through the Bible, Old Testament and New, deciding what he did and did not “reject” he tossed out the commandment about not bearing false witness.

        But hey, in a dennis-centric world, if he doesn’t acknowledge it it simply doesn’t exist.

      • Retired Spook April 16, 2012 / 10:04 am

        But hey, in a dennis-centric world, if he doesn’t acknowledge it it simply doesn’t exist.

        More importantly, he doesn’t have to defend it.

      • Amazona April 16, 2012 / 11:38 am

        Which, of course, is the whole idea.

        As I said, it is obvious that dennis is not stupid, so he has to realize that the model he supports through his attacks on its opposition cannot be defended.

        Rather than have the integrity to admit this, and thereby the emotional basis for his attraction to it, he just dismisses it as nonexistent.

      • tiredoflibbs April 16, 2012 / 12:28 pm

        Spook that is so true of the shameless Democrats giving little to charity (at least with their own money).

        Thanks to recently released tax returns, Biden only gave 1.5% of his income to charity.

        1.5%! But of course, when it comes to taxing and redistributing others’ wealth, Democrats “give more”.

        I wonder if denny sends Bible quotes to the proggies on charitable contributions? But of course, he would have to stress that it is THEIR income they are supposed to donate and not others’.

      • tiredoflibbs April 16, 2012 / 12:29 pm

        denny stick to photography and stained glass art.

        Politics of any sort is way above your head.

      • Amazona April 16, 2012 / 12:54 pm

        I’m pretty sure dennis will never answer the question “if there is no Left how can there be a Right”?

      • Amazona April 16, 2012 / 1:04 pm

        tired, dennis doesn’t HAVE to quote the Bible to the proggies—they are already doing what he claims the Bible tells them to, and using government (ie: OPM) to redistribute, in the guise of helping the poor, feeding the hungry, etc. that which was taken from others.

        So what if huge amounts of that OPM stick to the fingers within every bureauracy it passes through? So what if there is no such thing as collective salvation? So what if Jesus never taught that the way to Heaven was through the redistribution of the property of OTHERS?

        This is how dennis chooses to see it, and this is what his proggies are already doing, so no lecturing to them is necessary.

      • dennis April 16, 2012 / 3:08 pm

        The Bible’s injunctions about caring for the poor are a fact. They were a national imperative for biblical Israel, the source of our vaunted “Judeo-Christian” values and traditions. (Not to mention the fact that Jesus Christ repeatedly and pointedly warned of the moral danger of acquiring great wealth.)

        What I’ve pointed out is the disconnect between what the right professes their value system to be, and what it actually is when it comes to policies. It was policy for Israel as a nation to care for their poor and when they didn’t, they were punished for it. Ezekiel 16:49 makes it clear the primary sin of Sodom was that they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy”. Caring for the poor is a recurring admonition throughout the Old Testament.

        That being the case it’s hard to understand why conservatives, who take such pride in America’s Judeo-Christian underpinnings, derive their economic policy models more from Ayn Rand than biblical principles. Paul Ryan, the author of the Republicans’ budget, has publicly said his inspiration for getting into politics was Ayn Rand; his devotion to her economic ideas isn’t casual but formative. She was an atheist who believed selfishness was a virtue, and portrayed altruists as parasites. She also was a rigid ideologue whose personal life descended into dysfunctionality and chaos. It would be hard to find a poorer inspiration on which to base either a political philosophy or economic policies.

        Personal charity is admirable and I’m aware of the research on conservative giving. But more to the point is that the under the proposed Ryan budget the poorest Americans would suffer immediate cuts that would be broadly and deeply felt (Medicaid, Pell grants, food stamps, low-income housing) while the richest will remain unaffected. That would be a mistake. I believe there are better models for our economic values and policies than Ayn Rand’s novels. If (a very big if) we really are a Judeo-Chistian nation, what is so toxic about referencing the values taught by the Bible as a guide for how we treat the poor, the sick and disadvantaged within our economic policy framework? I expect to be dumped on here, but nobody has addressed that issue – it’s easier to pick my language apart and find some pretext for ridicule and personal attack.

        As for hypocrisy, how about last week’s flap over Hillary Rosen’s observation that Anne Romney doesn’t really understand the real plight of working women? It turns out that in January, Mitt said poor women should either get a job outside the home or lose welfare – even if they have small children. If people think that’s heartless, he said no, not so – they just need to have “the dignity of work.” Kind of explodes that whole brouhaha, doesn’t it? Here’s the video http://thinkprogress.org/special/2012/04/15/464640/romney-welface-moms/

        Finally, who defines what “the left” is? To Amazona Carol Browner, Cass Sunstein and Gary Samore are hardcore leftists. Is it any wonder the term has lost most of its usefulness except in a limited, generic sense? Who reads Marx now? Is the Occupy movement the left, or does it not represent anything at all, the charge I’ve heard most? In the minds of his opponents Obama is a socialist, while in the minds of those farther left on the spectrum he’s a sellout to business and Wall Street. I personally like Bernie Sanders but don’t really know where he fits on the scale. I hear people calling CNN and MSNBC leftist news organizations, which to me sounds absurd. Perhaps RT might be. In any case the “ideology of the left” seems to be getting more nebulous all the time, while the ideology of the right seems to be solidifying and has sharply defined, influential spokepeople in Congress. That’s just the way it looks to me. I may not be a political expert but I’m a pretty good observer of human behavior.

      • J. R. Babcock April 16, 2012 / 3:47 pm

        It would be hard to find a poorer inspiration on which to base either a political philosophy or economic policies.

        You’re kidding, right? We have a President who is a MUCH poorer inspiration.

        I personally like Bernie Sanders but don’t really know where he fits on the scale.

        Ol’ Bern is a self-described Socialist, and I guess that explains more than anything you’ve written in the 8 months I’ve been coming here.

        I may not be a political expert

        Now there’s the understatement of the year.

      • dennis April 16, 2012 / 4:28 pm

        JR, I think most people know Bernie is a socialist (God love him), but that doesn’t answer where he fits on the spectrum. Is he to the left of Obama, but to the right of Jesus Christ? Would Bernie’s ideology be more similar to Karl Marx’s or to Carol Browner’s, who Amazona also has identified as a hardcore socialist? How does she shoehorn Browner and Marx into the same box to begin with? And what does “hardcore” mean anyway, in her usage?

        This is the problem with the way you guys use language – it’s so reckless you strip it of meaning. Or to be more precise, you reduce its utility for defining specific concepts. Leftism is so vague now as to be like a cloud – you can’t tell where it begins or ends.

      • tiredoflibbs April 16, 2012 / 5:00 pm

        denny: “What I’ve pointed out is the disconnect between what the right professes their value system to be, and what it actually is when it comes to policies.”

        Oh that’s right…….

        ….if we don’t care for the poor through the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT then we don’t care for them at all. Since the proggies set up program after program after program to “care for the poor” and give next to nothing in the form of charitable contributions or personal time (only in front of a camera) then they “care more about the poor than anyone else.”

        It is easy “to care for the poor” with someone else’s money. Proggies love wealth redistribution to purchase votes but when it comes to personal contributions of time and money, they are really scarce.

        Let’s not even mention the inefficiencies of the government programs – $1 in private donations goes further than the same $1 filtered through the government.

        Again, denny stick to photography and stained glass, any form of politics it above your head.

      • J. R. Babcock April 16, 2012 / 5:14 pm

        Leftism is so vague now as to be like a cloud – you can’t tell where it begins or ends.

        Kinda scary, isn’t it? Sorta like a shape-shifter in a sci-fi movie, being whatever it needs to be to adapt to the political landscape. If that doesn’t describe Obama, I don’t know what does. Conservatism, meanwhile is being more finely defined, particularly by the Tea Party, 9/12 and patriot groups, as small, less intrusive, more responsible government. Are there “Conservatives” in positions of power who don’t subscribe to that definition? You bet. Are there Liberals who DO subscribe to that definition? Can’t think of any right off hand.

      • Amazona April 16, 2012 / 7:18 pm

        Well, let’s take a look at dennis’s latest effort.

        The Israel of the Old Testament was a theocracy, in which government and religion were one and the same. At that time, in that place, that particular religious doctrine instructed the nation of Israel, the Jewish nation of Israel, to do certain things.

        More than 2000 years later, Christians follow the teachings of Jesus, whose birth marked the beginning of the New Testament. And Americans live in a nation which is not only not a theocracy but was carefully designed to avoid ever having religion dictate government decisions or actions. To force non-Christians to follow Christian doctrine would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. To force Christians whose scriptural edicts begin with the New Testament to follow instructions within the Old Testament would do the same.

        dennis may feel righteous indignation every minute of every day about the thousands or millions of things done which do not comply with the standards of the Only True Christian—-and it appears that he nearly does, alternating this with righteous indignation about people who actually think there is such a thing as political ideology and furthermore think they know what it is.

        He’s a pretty indignant guy.

        It’s just that he is indignant about the goofiest things.

        For example, he appears to completely dismiss the entire history of the development of our nation, the principles upon which it was founded, and the rule of law established to govern it according to those principles, by bleating ….. it’s hard to understand why conservatives, who take such pride in America’s Judeo-Christian underpinnings, derive their economic policy models more from Ayn Rand than biblical principles.

        Yes, I know this is kind of a double whammy, using both ignorance of the meaning of conservative ideology AND constitutional law, but hey, you have to consider the source.

        Only one whose personal intellect is so chaotic could possibly muddle up Ayn Rand’s objective analysis of economics with her personal life. Well, dennis IS hung up on Identity Politics, so this is probably an offshoot of that inability to separate ideas from emotions. But really, dennis, even you can’t believe that Paul Ryan wants to emulate, or even admires, Ayn Rand’s personal and emotional life. So why trot out such an inherently stupid and dishonest reference?

        I believe there are better models for our economic values and policies than Ayn Rand’s novels.

        Uh, DUH

        Anyone who is so profoundly stupid that he really believes any economic value is based on ANYONE’s fiction is a complete and utter fool.

        dennis, stand up and take a bow.

        No, Ayn Rand had concepts of economics and society which she illustrated by having invented characters act them out in novels. It’s kind of a common thing for people to do. Jonathan Swift (the real one, that is) didn’t believe in eating babies, either, and I have it on the highest authority that George Orwell never hallucinated talking animals.

        Rule of Holes, denny, Rule of Holes.

        Question: Finally, who defines what “the left” is?

        Answer: THE LEFT And it’s not hard to find how the Left defines and explains itself.

        Rule of Holes, denny, Rule of Holes

        Though it may be too late for you. It’s got to be, like, millions of degrees there, as deep as you are

      • Amazona April 16, 2012 / 7:28 pm

        Some dictionary definitions of “hardcore”


        unswervingly committed; uncompromising; dedicated: a hard-core segregationist.

        the permanent, dedicated, and completely faithful nucleus of a group or movement, as of a political party.

        an unyielding or intransigent element in a social or organizational structure, as that part of a group consisting of longtime adherents or those resistant to change.

        those whose condition seems to be without hope of remedy or change.

        The most dedicated, unfailingly loyal faction of a group or organization: the hard core of the separatist movement.

        An intractable core or nucleus of a society, especially one that is stubbornly resistant to improvement or change

        As for where Bernie Sanders is on the left-right spectrum, you would have to talk to him about his political philosophy (and I can guarantee you that HE has one!) to know more precisely, but self-identifying himself as a Socialist definitely puts him way to the left of, say, the Democratic Party of JFK.

      • Amazona April 16, 2012 / 7:34 pm

        How could any socialist be “to the right of Jesus Christ”?

        You do love to slip those little lies in there, don’t you, dennis.

        Find a quote of Jesus instructing some people to take the property of other people and redistribute it.

        As for warning people about becoming “too rich” if anything it was a warning to not let money become the most important thing in your life—–but to worry about what you do with YOUR money, not someone else’s.

        He never turned to one person and said, pointing to another, “don’t let him get ‘too rich’ “.

        As a matter of fact, he warned people about judging others. You know, that “speck in his eye/beam in yours” lesson you seem to have, what’s that word, REJECTED.

      • Jeremiah April 17, 2012 / 12:38 am

        Dennis’ desire is for a government-controlled/operated “humanitarian” system. But this is a false humanitarianism, which is a system based on wealth redistribution, the goal of which is to steal wealth from several classes of people to create another class of people who become dependent on these bureaucratic handouts. This is why God’s Word places the responsibility of caring for the poor at the [local] level in order that an uncontrolled bureaucracy could be prevented or alleviated. This is why if we fail to tithe regularly, then the money winds up in the hands of another agency, usually the state. And they (the state) will use the money that they tax to fund the ideologies, programs of man rather than God.

        All too often, those like Dennis leave out that most important part where Jesus confronted the Scribes and Pharisees and said, “Render to Caesar that which is Ceasar’s and render to God that which is God’s”

        In other words, God comes first. As a matter of fact, no money we have belongs to us, it belongs to God, because He created us, and He gives us the health, strength, and knowledge to work for the money. Put God first and He will provide. Just like Abraham called the place where he was to sacrifice his son Isaac, instead, after seeing Abraham’s great faith, God sent a ram and it caught its horns in the bush, and God said, “Abraham! Do not lay a hand on the boy!” And he looked and there, in the bush, caught by its horns was a ram. Abraham looked toward heaven, and said “Jehovah Jireh!” which translates ‘The Lord will provide’ …. Only, if we put our faith in God like Abraham, He’ll do the same for us!

  13. Jeremiah April 15, 2012 / 9:39 pm

    Amazona writes: I have always found darker skin to be far more beautiful

    I do too. I think Harris Faulkner that does the Sunday evening news on Fox is on of the prettiest women I’ve ever seen. As well as Jennifer Hudson, she is a gorgeous young lady. I also think the red-skinned indian girls are pretty, as well. The tanned Caucasian and Italian women are also very beautiful.

    But something is missing, what could it be? Oh yeah, the saying, “beauty is only skin deep” … so true, so true. Like you said earlier, Amazona, it’s not the color of the black person’s skin that has led them to participate or commit criminal activity. It is the racial and cultural mindsets that many have planted in the minds of current and past generations of blacks. And much of this mindset that is planted is based more so than not as a political maneuver to pit one race/class against another to create political revolution, kinda like the 60s radicals.

    As to answering the question in the Header “Are you a Racist?” I would have to say no, I try not to be, and this will not be influenced in the event that someone should decide to call me otherwise.

  14. Jeremiah April 17, 2012 / 1:03 am

    The church is not a democracy in which we have chosen God, but a theocracy in which He has chosen us. The church is the only society in the world that never loses any of its members, even by death. The church upon its knees would bring heaven upon the earth. E M Bounds

  15. Contumacious June 27, 2012 / 6:43 pm

    I would like to start by acknowledging that in my opinion, both sides of this argument have points of merit. Having said that, please allow me to state for the record, that I am neither on the “left” or “right” of the political spectrum. And I think it’s the polarity of partisan politics / proselytizing that has led to neither side ever considering the other. If this does not apply to you, I thank you for your careful consideration of all aspects of an issue. Even if we do not agree. All of the talk of “the others” being so lost in their own ideologies that they can’t see beyond them, is then followed up by a statement criticizing any point of view that is not in line with their own. I’m not saying that everyone should or will all think alike, I would suggest you perhaps examine your self accepted justification of your position before calling the kettle black. (pun intended btw).

Comments are closed.