No, EVERYONE Hates Blacks

[Hugh Lincoln]

The Conservative Conceit

by Troublemaker

The most laughable self-delusion of mainstream conservatives these days goes roughly as follows: "I'm conservative, but I'm not racist. In fact, liberals are the real racists. Why else would they believe in affirmative action and welfare? Stereotyping minorities as helpless -- now that's racist." Whereupon, an eager young Republican becomes misty-eyed and imagines himself braving the hose blasts in Alabama whilst warbling "We Shall Overcome."

Oh, and don't forget, these Eddie Haskells of freeperdom love to add: Republican Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, while Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a Democrat, was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Right. Rattle off these townhall.com geek-facts to a clutch of corn-rowed bubble-jacket boolies in East New York and see how far it gets you. So whatchoo sayin', son? I gots to be GOP? Da free market is mad tight? Fo-shizzle!

There is trace validity to this racism-denial by conservatives, particularly the exposure of white liberals as having a paternalistic attitude toward blacks. Which they do, but because the paternalism benefits blacks materially, it's the lonely black who's genuinely upset by it. Hookers may not be proud of what they do, but they don't turn down the cash. Conservative "outrage" about how the poor blacks are turned lazy by liberals and their welfare, by contrast, is heavily feigned. But feign they do, working themselves into a righteous lather about how Arthur Laffer is the true heir to Martin Luther King, Jr. Go tell it on the mountain!

But the truth is that conservatism and racism are closely linked. Both summon experience and instinct as guides, both are jealous of territory, and neither flout natural orders for very long. It's the subconscious realization of this truth that prompts mainstream conservatives go to ridiculous lengths to convince the world -- and themselves -- that they're not racist. The attempt at self-delusion manifests itself in such tomes as Liberal Racism by Jim Sleeper or The End of Racism by Dinesh D'Souza, elevation of such ridiculous characters as Alan Keyes to presidential candidacy primacy, or pretending that J.C. Watts was congressional leadership material instead of admitting what he really is, a nigger of the most common variety. Witness Republican conventions featuring "Turbo, the Republican Rapper." I know of what I speak. Shit like that used to get me excited.

The phenomenon reveals the mental gymnastics that even thoughtful, politically engaged people are willing to perform in order to avoid thinking honestly about race. Culture, class, values, economics -- conservatives will cling desperately to these abstractions to avoid facing the truth on the ground: blacks and Hispanics have not, cannot and will not be the raw material for a civilization that approaches anything like what they have in mind. Period. If you seek to conserve anything, conservatives, you must first seek to conserve the race that made it.

The antics are amusing. Debate along the liberal-conservative spectrum today is mostly a contest over whose ideology is most anti-racist. Conservatives will speak of "school choice" in the same reverent tones as liberals speak of "civil rights." Oppose "school choice," and why, who are you, Hitler? Oh, how good it feels to call the other side racist for once! I get a newsletter from a libertarian legal outfit called the Institute for Justice, which never fails to present itself as the champion of black women who would be launching their race to riches with hair-braiding establishments were it not for those burdensome regulations no doubt promulgated by big-government racists at the health department.

Liberals and conservatives are tripping over each other in a mad scramble to grab the golden ring of multiracialism. I even read an essay recently in which the writer compared the Janet Jackson tit flash to Weimar Germany. Yeah! Our declining values can only be a preview of Nazi takeover! Never mind living, breathing Jews pumping this stuff in 2004. Let's talk about those darn racists! It's almost as if conservatives, aware that they're "behind" when it comes to multiracial hipness, are pouring most of their energy into this pursuit, rather than, say, I don't know, preserving our culture and some semblance of American freedom.

The same realization also explains why "conservatism," even in its most defanged incarnations, still retains a hint of the forbidden. In a typical college campus showdown, the lefties, liberals and other crunchy activists will chant that the College Republicans are a bunch of racists. On cue, the Republicans will deny it, holding up their pictures of the brown-skinned Dinesh D'Souza like silver crosses. Affirmative action bake sale my ass. For those who've missed it, campus Bushies have been attempting to garner attention with bake sales that offer different prices for similarly-sized cookies depending on who's buying: $1 for whites, 25 cents for blacks, etc. Tee-hee. The point being, all the races are the same, and isn't affirmative action silly? Only in Amerikwa could students get in trouble for a stunt that only seeks to affirm racial equality. But what's really going on is that the darkies sense, correctly, that however superficially sincere the point of the exercise, the College Republicans are Polo-wearing white kids contemptuous of blacks and reluctant to associate with them unless they're Tiger Woods. The random Asian in the club only serves to strengthen the point.

White liberals and white conservatives differ very little in their core regard for blacks. Deep down, white liberals correctly see blacks as a perpetually inferior breed. If one happens to spring from the pack and start working calculus functions in grade school, they're happy, but they really don't have high expectations for the group. Most are interested more in feeling good about themselves, which for them comes from doing whatever they think will create the impression of black success. White liberals have little interest in getting too close to blacks, unless it's in zoo-like settings where they can ooh and aah over their naturalness but there's thick plexiglass in case anything gets out of hand. So, you'll find them putting up paintings of blacks or watching PBS specials about jazz, but never wandering around the Bronx after dark. White conservatives aren't much different. They don't feel quite the compulsion to watch PBS, but still like to think of themselves as non-racist "good guys." In the end, I think the only difference between white liberals and white conservatives is where they prefer to send the check: the welfare office or the prison. Why don't we stop writing the checks altogether?

The conservative conceit is funny, yes, but maddening. It's indicative of a political thought process that seeks self-pleasure, not truth, and is thus understandable but not honorable. The conservative failure to see the truth of racial difference is killing the white race. Conservatives, it's time to come down off the trapeze and get to work.

[The ClayTaurus]

Whatever makes you feel better buddy, whatever makes you feel better. :420:

[musicman]

I believe that America was founded on man's enlightened understanding of Christian principle - the bedrock of which is man's free will. This is quite a different statement from, "America is a Christian nation" Calling it such would violate Christian principle, you see: "Christian theocracy" is a contradiction in terms. A good Christian would be a poor theocrat; a devout theocrat, a miserable Christian.

I preface my response in this way to illustrate my point: subtracting Christian principle from the equation of America's success dooms the ultimate conclusion, from the start. Subtract "+2" from "2+2=4" and you have "2=4". It's just no good.

Pure capitalists of the George Bush stripe see America's success, and attribute it solely to capitalism. Therefore, more capitalism=more success, and the American Ideal be damned.

Liberal socialists see that the reality of the American Ideal stubbornly thwarts and exposes the folly of their utopian pipe dream. It is, therefore, evil. American defeat=a new age of enlightenment. Of course, humanity will have to endure the minor inconvenience of absolute tyranny, but such are the sacrifices we (not the power brokers, mind you) must make in order to realize our innate perfectibility. The American Ideal be damned.

White racialists see that our founding fathers were white, and therefore attribute the success of this unique experiment in human governance to whiteness of skin. Fewer nonwhites=more success, and the American Ideal be damned.

I am of good cheer tonight. I'm holding every card in the deck.

[Hugh Lincoln]

White racialists see that our founding fathers were white, and therefore attribute the success of this unique experiment in human governance to whiteness of skin. Fewer nonwhites=more success, and the American Ideal be damned.

MM, this is a misunderstanding of white racialism. It's not "skin" that makes whites white, blacks black, and so on. It's thousands of years of evolutionary pressure brought to bear on a geographically isolated breeding group. It's burned in the genetics. This applies on the individual level as well as the group dynamic level. The stable polities built by peoples of European descent didn't come from nowhere --- they come from eons of biological, communal co-existence. It's therefore quite logical to assume that the "evil white founding fathers" were capable of a construction unique to whites.

If I'm wrong, then you'll be able to cite me an example of another racial group's having built a stable, successful civil society that whites are invited to join and participate with fully.

Had to call your bluff on this one!

Here's at least one book explaining why ethnic and racial groups clash, rather than cooperate:

http://www.amazon.com/Conflicts-Explained-Nepotism-Research-Biopolitics/dp/0762305835/ref=sr_1_7/002-7729403-5129661?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173052172&sr=1-7

[Yurt]

I believe that America was founded on man's enlightened understanding of Christian principle - the bedrock of which is man's free will. This is quite a different statement from, "America is a Christian nation" Calling it such would violate Christian principle, you see: "Christian theocracy" is a contradiction in terms. A good Christian would be a poor theocrat; a devout theocrat, a miserable Christian.

I preface my response in this way to illustrate my point: subtracting Christian principle from the equation of America's success dooms the ultimate conclusion, from the start. Subtract "+2" from "2+2=4" and you have "2=4". It's just no good.

Pure capitalists of the George Bush stripe see America's success, and attribute it solely to capitalism. Therefore, more capitalism=more success, and the American Ideal be damned.

Liberal socialists see that the reality of the American Ideal stubbornly thwarts and exposes the folly of their utopian pipe dream. It is, therefore, evil. American defeat=a new age of enlightenment. Of course, humanity will have to endure the minor inconvenience of absolute tyranny, but such are the sacrifices we (not the power brokers, mind you) must make in order to realize our innate perfectibility. The American Ideal be damned.

White racialists see that our founding fathers were white, and therefore attribute the success of this unique experiment in human governance to whiteness of skin. Fewer nonwhites=more success, and the American Ideal be damned.

I am of good cheer tonight. I'm holding every card in the deck.

What about breeding? Do you think this makes a difference in humans?

I ask because there is evidence that black skin people in the US are superior in athletics (not all, long distance running for one) as compared to their "brethren" from Africa. The height, size is evidence of the racial breeding that took place in slavery times. No one likes to talk about it, but if you really think about it, it does make you scratch your head.

What do you think?

[5stringJeff]

Whether blacks (or any other racial group) are equal in fact is irrelevant, for two reasons.

1. All Americans are to be treated equally under the law. And yes, that means ending racial quotas, affirmative action, etc.
2. All people are created by God, in the image of God, and to treat someone differently based on race is wrong, because all are equal in God's eyes.

[Hobbit]

Whether blacks (or any other racial group) are equal in fact is irrelevant, for two reasons.

1. All Americans are to be treated equally under the law. And yes, that means ending racial quotas, affirmative action, etc.
2. All people are created by God, in the image of God, and to treat someone differently based on race is wrong, because all are equal in God's eyes.

It is also worth noting that equal does not mean same. I may be the equal of a carpenter, but I'm no good at building cabinets, and I'm sure the carpenter would have more than a little trouble puzzling through my differential equations homework.

[musicman]

MM, this is a misunderstanding of white racialism. It's not "skin" that makes whites white, blacks black, and so on. It's thousands of years of evolutionary pressure brought to bear on a geographically isolated breeding group. It's burned in the genetics. This applies on the individual level as well as the group dynamic level. The stable polities built by peoples of European descent didn't come from nowhere --- they come from eons of biological, communal co-existence. It's therefore quite logical to assume that the "evil white founding fathers" were capable of a construction unique to whites.

I have no argument with your statements, as far as they go. But, the mistake is in subtracting or omitting the gospel of Jesus Christ from the equation. The Gentiles accepted the Gospel; the blessings which God bestows on a people of faith and obedience are inevitable and unstoppable.

Not that these blessings came without a fight. The Gospel had been corrupted beyond recognizabillity by the Catholic Church; Martin Luther escaped being roasted for a heretic only by virtue of the fact that he had friends high up in Church ruling circles - and then, not by much. Europe in the Middle Ages was as rank a tyranny as could be found on Earth - crushed beneath the two bootheels of monarchy and Catholicism.

The primary revolution in European thought was in religion, as it pertained to human governance. This, of course, could never have taken place without the Protestant Reformation; coercive Catholicism flew in the face of all that is liberating and just in the Gospel. "Accept salvation or I'll pull out your fingernails" is just not in the spirit of the thing.

The natural conclusion - the inevitable destination - of enlightened understanding of Gospel principle as it relates to human affairs - is the U.S. Constitution. Any contemplation of the miraculous, noble, and wildly successful society built by our founding fathers - which does not center itself around man's enlightened understanding of the Gospel - is flawed at its root.

As further evidence, I give you Europe(take it - PLEASE). Subtract the Gospel from the equation of any race, and you get...let's see - a people in steep, steady decline; having to be bailed out by their God-fearing neighbors across the waves every time they turn around; their ungrateful fangs buried deeply in the hands of said God-fearing neighbors; more stupid and gullible with every passing generation; cradle to two of the most monstrous tyrannies ever visited upon the Earth - and now, about to be swallowed up by Islam for fear of giving offense.

[musicman]

What about breeding? Do you think this makes a difference in humans?

I ask because there is evidence that black skin people in the US are superior in athletics (not all, long distance running for one) as compared to their "brethren" from Africa. The height, size is evidence of the racial breeding that took place in slavery times. No one likes to talk about it, but if you really think about it, it does make you scratch your head.

What do you think?

Jimmy the Greek made basically the same observation during the 1980's, and was relieved of his career for his trouble. I was discussing the matter with a bandmate, and said that Jimmy was...well...right. My friend's response (this was a grown man, mind you) was, "Yeah - but we're trying to FORGET that now."

That, my friend, is political correctness in a nutshell.

[KarlMarx]

Whether blacks (or any other racial group) are equal in fact is irrelevant, for two reasons.

1. All Americans are to be treated equally under the law. And yes, that means ending racial quotas, affirmative action, etc.
2. All people are created by God, in the image of God, and to treat someone differently based on race is wrong, because all are equal in God's eyes.
The idea that we can selectively breed humans is anathema to the Judeo-Christian idea that Man is created in God's image. That why treating people as breed stock is so repugnant to many.

[5stringJeff]

It is also worth noting that equal does not mean same. I may be the equal of a carpenter, but I'm no good at building cabinets, and I'm sure the carpenter would have more than a little trouble puzzling through my differential equations homework.

Indeed.

[Joan]

Whether blacks (or any other racial group) are equal in fact is irrelevant, for two reasons.

1. All Americans are to be treated equally under the law. And yes, that means ending racial quotas, affirmative action, etc.
2. All people are created by God, in the image of God, and to treat someone differently based on race is wrong, because all are equal in God's eyes.


AMEN!!

[Dilloduck]

Whether blacks (or any other racial group) are equal in fact is irrelevant, for two reasons.

1. All Americans are to be treated equally under the law. And yes, that means ending racial quotas, affirmative action, etc.
2. All people are created by God, in the image of God, and to treat someone differently based on race is wrong, because all are equal in God's eyes.


AMEN!!

When people are selected or judged purely on the basis of thier personal skills, you will find that there will be many areas that end up predominantly one race or another. Why, if not for the fact that races are inhererently different ?

[5stringJeff]

When people are selected or judged purely on the basis of thier personal skills, you will find that there will be many areas that end up predominantly one race or another. Why, if not for the fact that races are inhererently different ?

I'm not arguing that different races are never inherently different in a particular skill set or ability. I'm arguing that they are (or ought to be) equal in the eyes of the law, primarily because they are equal in the eyes of God.

[trobinett]

$77 Billion, that's over $1 Million for every man, woman, and child in New Orleans. I vote we just wall the place off, and give it back to the French. Generations of welfare has totally skewed their thinking down there.

The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson Is founder and president of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, and author of "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America." He also happens to be black. He says, "All Americans must tell blacks this truth. It was blacks' moral poverty not their material poverty that cost them dearly in New Orleans. Farrakhan, Jackson, and other race hustlers are to be repudiated for they will only perpetuate this problem by stirring up hatred and applauding moral corruption. Blacks are obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them. We are all obligated to tell them so."

"President Bush is NOT to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks. Had New Orleans black community taken action, most would have been out of harms way. But most were too lazy, immoral and trifling to do anything productive for themselves."

"In a mere three days blacks turned the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder."

Of course, NONE of this would of come to past without the leadership of the liberal left, and their funding of the welfare system that made all this possible.

The liberals in this country have MUCH to be ashamed of, New Orleans is only the most recent example.

Check this article out:

Free Internet Press


New Orleans Sues U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Over Katrina 2007-03-03 04:07:51
Posted By: Intellpuke
New Orleans has filed a claim for $77 billion (£40 billion) in damages against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for building levees incapable of withstanding Hurricane Katrina, leading to the devastation of large parts of the city.
The city council met Thursday night's deadline to file the suit, which allows it to sue the engineering corps at a later date. It is thought that up to 30,000 individual claims could also be made against the corps. According to the daily New Orleans Times-Picayune, potential claimants descended on the corps's New Orleans office in their tens of thousands. The city's bankrupt energy board and water and sewerage agency are between them suing for more than $1 billion.
The filing frenzy was unleashed by a district court ruling last month that the corps could be sued over problems caused by its navigation projects. Until then it had been assumed that the agency was protected from lawsuits by federal legal immunisation for its flood-control work.
The claimants argue that it was the failure of the corps to develop a river outlet into the outlying wetlands that destroyed ecosystems and turned the shipping channel into a funnel for surging waters when Katrina struck on August 29, 2005.

[GW in Ohio]

Hugh Lincoln: Got a question for you........

Do you think it's a bad thing if white people marry black people and produce mixed-race children?

[Hobbit]

Hugh Lincoln: Got a question for you........

Do you think it's a bad thing if white people marry black people and produce mixed-race children?

I'm not Hugh Lincoln, but I'll take this one. There is nothing inherintly wrong with an interracial couple marrying and making some mixed race kids. However, I think that in some areas of the country, this is very cruel to the kids. The kid's got a white parent, so he'll never be accepted by the black kids. The kid also has a black parent, and so will be thought of as black by any racists. Add into that the fact that both groups tend to hate 'half-breeds' even more than they hate the people they're racist against, and you end up with a troubled kid. It's not as bad as it used to be, and I've seen places where mixed race kids got along just fine. However, it's something to consider before bringing kids into the world.

[Hugh Lincoln]

Hugh Lincoln: Got a question for you........

Do you think it's a bad thing if white people marry black people and produce mixed-race children?

Yes.

I'm not going to try stopping this personally, however. I would simply advise against it. My focus is on the forced society-wide marriage between blacks and whites. It first happened under slavery, which I'm sure you'll agree was an immoral status. Now it happens under civil rights laws, which I argue are virtually the same thing: forced co-existence.

Most whites don't want to procreate with most blacks, and vice-versa. Races generally want to go their own way. The law -- and our cultural commanders -- won't allow this. That's wrong and needs to change.

[GW in Ohio]

Yes.

I'm not going to try stopping this personally, however. I would simply advise against it. My focus is on the forced society-wide marriage between blacks and whites. It first happened under slavery, which I'm sure you'll agree was an immoral status. Now it happens under civil rights laws, which I argue are virtually the same thing: forced co-existence.

Most whites don't want to procreate with most blacks, and vice-versa. Races generally want to go their own way. The law -- and our cultural commanders -- won't allow this. That's wrong and needs to change.

Forced...marriage...between...blacks...and...white s? Forced co-existence?

Dude, I've got 3 black families living on my block, plus a couple of Asian families. Nobody forced us to live together. We all live in the same neighborhood because we're in the same economic bracket and we have common interests and a common outlook. We're all working people and we live here because we want a safe place to live and good schools for our kids.

I don't think of my neighbors as "black people" or "Japanese people." I just think of them as.........people.....people like me. If one of my kids should start dating one of their kids, I don't even think of any racial stuff. It's just kids and kids.

Do you live out in Idaho, or some remote area of the West where the Aryan Brotherhood or your right-wing militia unit is the social focus of the community?

Could I ask you to answer honestly.....Are you a member of the Klan?

[GW in Ohio]

Hugh Lincoln: Did I scare you off?

[Hugh Lincoln]

Forced...marriage...between...blacks...and...white s? Forced co-existence?

Dude, I've got 3 black families living on my block, plus a couple of Asian families. Nobody forced us to live together. We all live in the same neighborhood because we're in the same economic bracket and we have common interests and a common outlook. We're all working people and we live here because we want a safe place to live and good schools for our kids.

I don't think of my neighbors as "black people" or "Japanese people." I just think of them as.........people.....people like me. If one of my kids should start dating one of their kids, I don't even think of any racial stuff. It's just kids and kids.

Do you live out in Idaho, or some remote area of the West where the Aryan Brotherhood or your right-wing militia unit is the social focus of the community?

Could I ask you to answer honestly.....Are you a member of the Klan?

For the past seven years I lived in Brooklyn, NY and now live in the D.C. area. Born in San Francisco, CA. Idaho I've never been to, but I understand it's beautiful. I'm sure that in your hate-filled little world of undergraduate liberalism, it's OK to bash Idaho, because dude, isn't that where, like, uh, those white people live?

Your perception of the "naturalness" of your environment is badly misinformed. The blacks who live on your black are most likely descended from slaves. Do you know the history of slavery? Well, let me clue you in: it was a forced arrangement. The blacks brought to America were not here on a sightseeing trip. The Asians are here because of deliberate changes in American immigration policy, which I sincerely doubt you're even aware of or would want to understand, but hey, give a shout if you feel the need. Happy to fill you in. You just have to promise to act like a big boy when I break it down.

So, though I'm loathe to kill your buzz, the demographics of your block didn't just, like, happen, dude. They are the result of deliberate human action and/or inaction. Racial groups existed in fairly sharp geographic isolation for eons - how they became races, in fact - before encountering other, and since then, the encounters have not usually gone smoothly.

But that's just the beginning. We could delve deeply into how racial and ethnic groups don't actually co-exist peacefully in a, like, random way, they actually compete for power and resources in ways that explain whole contours of human history, often with deadly consequences.

You're up, sailor.

[Gunny]

Forced...marriage...between...blacks...and...white s? Forced co-existence?

Dude, I've got 3 black families living on my block, plus a couple of Asian families. Nobody forced us to live together. We all live in the same neighborhood because we're in the same economic bracket and we have common interests and a common outlook. We're all working people and we live here because we want a safe place to live and good schools for our kids.

I don't think of my neighbors as "black people" or "Japanese people." I just think of them as.........people.....people like me. If one of my kids should start dating one of their kids, I don't even think of any racial stuff. It's just kids and kids.

Do you live out in Idaho, or some remote area of the West where the Aryan Brotherhood or your right-wing militia unit is the social focus of the community?

Could I ask you to answer honestly.....Are you a member of the Klan?

So, in your opinion, separatists don't have the right to live in separate communities?

It isn't exactly right to deprive them of the same right you are ensuring via legislation others have ... the right to live where they choose.

[GW in Ohio]

Gunny: This is America. People should have a right to form separatist communities, as long as they don't trample on other people's rights.

Give you an example......

A right-wing Christian group (like the Branch Davidians) wants to form their own community and practice their own brand of Christianity. So they buy land and set up a rural compound and populate it with their own separatist group.

There should be no problem. (In the case of the Branch Davidians, they drew the attention, and ultimately the persecution, of the BATF because of their fondness for guns. But that's another story.....)

But let's say the Branch Davidians want to set up a separatist community in a neighborhood block in a suburban town. If someone who's not one one their group wants to buy a home in the midst of the community, the Davidians can not try to exclude them. That's what I mean about trampling on the rights of others.

But I support separatist communities. I think the essence of America is that you should be free to form a community of like-minded people....polygamists, wife swappers, an Amish community, whatever.....and be free from interference from the government.

One of the downsides of a big central government like ours is that it doesn't have much tolerance for people outside of what it considers the "norm."

Hugh Lincoln: I'm glad you're back in the discussion, but don't be a condescending asshole.

[glockmail]

Gunny: This is America. People should have a right to form separatist communities, as long as they don't trample on other people's rights......
I agree with you on this.

[gabosaurus]

Not me. It's just the conservative Republicans who hate blacks. This is why Wal Mart supports the GOP. If the party falls out of favor, Wal Mart stands to lose a lot in white sheet sales.

[Mr. P]

Not me. It's just the conservative Republicans who hate blacks. This is why Wal Mart supports the GOP. If the party falls out of favor, Wal Mart stands to lose a lot in white sheet sales.

Again, full of shit.

[glockmail]

Again, full of shit. No kidding. :pee: