Is The Political Spectrum Linear or Circular?

Repost from the old site.

If you want to take the time, can someone please tell me where this guy is coming from? A lot of it looks like good Left progressive stuff, but then there seems to be this kind of Far Right Ron Paul populism too. I don’t get it. What is it? Some kind of marriage between Far Right and Far Left? I’m seeing more and more of this crap nowadays on progressive and Left sites and I must say, I don’t really like it.

While we are at it, where the Hell is Jeff Rense coming from anyway? Same place as this guy? He can write about Bigfoot and UFO’s all he wants, and there are usually lots of good articles on the site, but his politics seriously creeps me out. For one thing, he’s leaking anti-Semitism out of his pores.

My Mom has been telling my whole life, “Well, you know. It’s like a circle. When you go so far to the Left and so far to the Right, you don’t have two polar opposite ends of a huge ruler. The ruler starts bending and becomes circular. It’s a circle. Far Right and Far Left meet, and you just have a nut, a fanatic.” I always figured that was just Left-trashing, but now I’m starting to wonder.

There were some people marching against the war in Oakhurst the other day and my brother went to talk to them. Some of them handed some really weird brochures full of all this conspiratorial shit. I went to the site and it was the same thing. Anti-CIA, anti-militarism, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War, ok, that’s good.

Then it starts taking off into all this weird conspiracy theory about the Federal Reserve, the Rothschilds, the New World Order, Ron Paul, black helicopters, chemtrails, bla bla bla. Kind of like this guy.

Hard economic times really brings this stuff out bigtime.

Is this what the new radical US populism is going to look like? Some Far Right – Far Left mix? I don’t mind the Far Left part, but whenever anyone starts talking about “marrying Left and Right”, I get the creeps. I hate to say it, but that tends to end up in some weird kind of fascism of one species or other. One of the favorite fascist lines was about “getting rid of Left and Right”.

Yuck.

Color me perturbed.

Global Warming Doesn’t Exist

As you can see, there is no such thing as global warming. It's all a great big like dreamed up by Al Gore.

It’s simply incredible the number of dickhead Americans, almost all White by the way, who say that either there’s no such thing as global warming or it hasn’t been proven yet. In 2008, the figure of Americans who did not believe in global warming was

These days, since Obama’s election, a relentless rightwing campaign run by the Republitard Party, Fox News and the Teabaggers (Yes, Teabaggers to a man don’t believe in global warming) has raised the number who don’t believe from

For some assfucked reason, White nationalists have decided that global warming is a White issue. In other words, the pro-White view is that there’s no such thing as global warming. I don’t get it. Pro-White means acting like a retard then? Is that it? American Renaissance, Occidental Dissent, Stormfront, every dipshit WN site out there lines up with the 70 IQ crowd and says there’s no such thing as global warming. But isn’t their argument that White people are the smartest humans on Earth?

This just shows how shitty and evil capitalism is. What do people who don’t believe in global warming all have in common? They are reactionary capitalists and pro-capitalists, strong supporters of the capitalist mode of production. This is what capitalism does to your brain. It fries it to a crisp worse than any drug known to mankind.

Capitalists oppose the idea of global warming because they fear that efforts to deal with global warming by curbing global carbon emissions will result in serious losses to their the profits. Bourgeois White Americans refuse to believe in global warming because they believe that efforts to deal with it will cause a lowering of their standard of living. These idiots would rather blowup the whole fuckin’ planet than take a hit to their profits or their living standard. Capitalism more and more looks like mass suicide a la Jonestown or lemmings plunging off a cliff.

Wow! People would rather die and see others be killed than take a profit loss or a living standard hit? Damn. That sounds like drug addiction or alcoholism. The addict keeps on hitting the bottle, pipe or needle until he drops. He’d rather be dead than sober. He’d rather be high than alive. Same with a capitalist. He’d rather be dead than socialist. He’d rather be a capitalist than be alive.

I hang out on a site called 2Care. It’s a liberal site, full of middle class+ SWPL Whites. But it’s also full of insane rightwing Whites. The rightwing Whites are there because they often have some weird “Left” pet cause, like animal rights, religion, or even environmentalism.

The rightwingers have been getting more and more scarce lately for some weird reason (That’s because the US is swinging Right, eh Fox News?), but they are still out in droves on the global warming stuff. 2Care is a good view into the mind of middle class and upper middle class Whites. A Hell of lot of them, even White “liberals,” still don’t believe in global warming.

Unbelievable.

Rats running off the cliff.

On the Naderists

Nader says there is a not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties, that they are both wholly owned corporate parties.

Well he’s right in a sense, but we liberals never I mean never vote Republican. I’d almost rather die than vote Republican, and I’ve been that way for most of my life. I’m a liberal! Hell, why would I vote Republican? Give it up.

There’s a reason for that. Dems are way more pro worker and pro working family than the Republicans. It’s not true at all that they both the same. That’s a bunch of crap, and it makes me mad to hear it.

Truth is, if the Dems were more pro worker = Left/liberal than they already are, they would simply lose, because the electorate is that reactionary. The Dems are just as conservative as they need to be to win. Still, I think they suck up to corporations too much, but apparently this is due to campaign contributions.

The Reps’ whole line is that the Dems are not pro-corporate enough, that they are anti-corporate. They have been beating Obama with that since he came in. The Teabaggers are simply a Brownshirt type army for the corporations, the rich and the upper middle class.

For being as anti-corporate as they have been under Obama, the Dems are going to lose 6-7 Senate seats and maybe 20 House seats. So it doesn’t pay to be pro-worker. The Electorate is wildly pro-corporate, pro-rich and pro-upper middle class, and they punish you if you try to help working families even just a bit.

Why Anti-Semitism Is Almost Always Rightwing

That’s true that US conservatives associated with the Republican Party are profoundly philosemitic. However, this is a fairly new thing. There is also the anti-Semitic Pat Buchanan wing of the party too, you know?

And if you took 100 anti-Semites in the US, 95 of them would be conservatives, either Republicans or Libertarians.

Leftwing anti-Semites are not that common. Nowadays a lot of Zionist shits are trying to say that there is all this liberal or Left anti-Semitism (the “new anti-Semitism”), but it’s mostly garbage. These folks are simply anti-Israel to out and out anti-Zionists. Most Left and liberal Israel-critics or even anti-Zionists are not anti-Semites.

A few liberal to Left anti-Zionist types do get into anti-Semitism, but when they do, they seem to gradually drift towards the rightwing! In particular, they start being sympathetic to either fascism or Islamism or both. Especially they tend to be pro-Nazi.

It’s really strange the way that works.

This makes me think that there is something intrinsically rightwing about anti-Semitism and something organically anti-anti-Semitic about liberalism or Leftism.*

With some exceptions.

Why Do Wealthy Jews Pursue Liberal/Radical Politics?

A commenter asks why anti-Semitism is never pro-worker.

How about take stuff from rich Jews and keep it for ourselves, rather than giving it to corrupt Gentiles?

Interesting theory, but it never works that way. Not once in history, I believe. The elites always grabbed the Jews’ stuff and money after theykilled them or expelled them. That’s anti-Semitism in a nutshell.

Kill/throw out the Jews and steal their stuff.

He also can’t believe that Jewish politics doesn’t exactly follow their class interests:

And what is Jewish politics based on then if not class interests

People’s politics don’t necessarily follow their class interests. Engels was a rich man. Carlos the Terrorist’s father was a millionaire Communist. People are funny that way.

When Jews who came here they were poor. And they were poor in the Pale too. So they supported the class politics of the poor. The Jews in the US never let go of their earlier liberalism/radicalism.

Then in the last century, a lot of them got behind Communism for some reason, contrary to their class interests.

One theory is the reality of Jewish life in the Diaspora.

Jews living in the Diaspora grow up being told that they are better than the Gentiles around them. And in some ways, they are better, especially those who live Jewish. Living according to Judaism is associated with lower outcomes on a lot of social pathologies.

They also grow up being told that the Gentiles around them hate them. This leads to a confrontational and often rebellious attitude of many Diaspora Jews towards a society they view as hostile and fucked up. Hence you get your Jewish radicals and revolutionaries of various types, out to make society a better place. You also get all the Jewish cultural radicals, from crazy artists to porn merchants. These secular Jews are basically rebels, and they’re giving the finger to hostile Gentile society in a sense.

For the last 150 years, conservatives in the West have tended to be anti-Semites. Even prior, Napoleon himself was a liberal, and he’s the father of all modern emancipated Jews. Jews see liberals as protecting minority rights.

And all the people who seriously attacked the Jews in the West for the past 150 years, including assholes who tried to exterminate them, were hard rightwingers.

The Czar was a rightwinger. So were the fascists. So are the radical right Islamists persecuting the Jews in the Muslim World.

Also in the West, conservatives tend to push Christian politics. That’s bad for the Jews. Liberals are more secular in the West and the Muslim World, so Jews trust them better.

In the past 150 years, Orthodox Judaism broke up into Conservative and Reform Judaism. Reform Judaism in particular has junked a lot of the horrible rightwing crap in the Talmud and Torah in favor of a liberal view of mankind. In particular, the proscription for the Jews to be “the light unto nations” has led many Reform and secular Jews to be revolutionaries and liberals of various types.

They’re called upon by their religion to make the world a better place.

Jewish Politics and Jewish Class Interests

Do you know of any blue-collar Jews? I don’t think they even exist. Since that’s the case, can you at least grant me that most of them will tend to fall behind neoliberalism, if indeed everything is all about class?

But they don’t. Jews are the most liberal group in the US. They are probably the most anti-neoliberal ethnic group in the US. In Israel, they voted for socialism for many years. Jews are funny people. They’re rich, but they’ve been supporting Left movements for about a century now.

It was not always thus. Prior to 100 hundred years ago, Jews were always conservative and always supported rightwingers due to their economic interests. Jewish politics doesn’t exactly line up with their class interests.

The commenter is getting trapped in the Socialism of Fools. Economic anti-Semitism is so retarded. Take stuff from rich Jews and give it to our own rich. Then our own rich will be nicer to us and share more money with us than those dirty Jews. Yeah right! Think again, man.

How the Rightwing Revolution (1975-Ongoing) Was Won

A commenter asked how it came to be that US workers are so rightwing, and why they support rightwing anti-worker economics at home and imperialist foreign policy abroad:

How do you think it became this way?

Over a century of hard rightwing propaganda from the ruling classes, intensifying in the past decades. They have the control over the media, and I would say that that’s all you need. What more do you need than to control the media? Control the media, control the cultural discourse. That’s one reason why Judeopedia, I mean Wikipedia, is so scary, and why the Jews have flocked it it in swarms.

Actually, this country was going in a good direction until the mid 1970’s. We were heading towards a progressive society.

Then a group of the heads of the top corporations of the US got together and held some meetings. They said if we don’t stop this trend, the US “will end up as just another European social democracy” (exact words). They and many of their ultra-rich backers (but mostly corporations) vowed to pour money into think-tanks to change the discourse of America. Hence the birth of the Hoover Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Foundation and the rest of the Stink Tanks.

At the same time, the Left think tanks were starved for money, and they still are. The think tanks control political intellectual discourse in society. When a politician or journalist wants to write about something, AEI or other stink tanks have a paper served right up to you. They will probably even courier deliver it to your office with flowers.

Also, right around this time, a Jewish scumbag named Milton Friedman was really getting going at the Univershitty of Chicago. He gathered  acolytes around him, published books, monograms, journal articles, etc. went on TV, interviewed, and publicized the Chicago School of Economics.

Economics is a dismal enough science as it is, but this stuff was horrible. A lot of it was out and out lies. For instance, they invented a new theory about how Antitrust regulation doesn’t work and how monopoloy corporations are great for business, society, consumers and workers. They coined new theories on all sorts of economic matters that was long ago settled debate. On and on with a lot of areas of economics. Lies, lies, lies and more lies, and more lies piled on top of those lies. This is the base of modern neoliberalism.

At heart it has some truths. Sure, a dollar invested in the private capitalist sector is more productively invested than a dollar invested in a public socialist sector. But so what? So what should we do then? Shut down public roads, housing, medical care, research, schools, dams, parks, canals, trash collection, sewage treatment, water, power and phone delivery, airwaves, airports, highways, refuges, forests, grasslands, oceans, lakes, rivers, beaches, police, fire, courts, regulatory agencies, social programs?

According to these POS’s, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, etc. They don’t believe that much of anything should be public, and they want to shut down most everything public and privatize it. They essentially want to privatize all society and end the public sphere altogether. Friedman was evil, and so are his scum buddies, but right now, Chicago School is all you will learn if you take Economics classes at a university. If you get an Econ degree, you will be a Chicago School economist. All the texts, journals, grads and big names in the field, everyone and everything, are Chicago School.

So the Chicago School staged a Bolshevik like coup against the field of Economics in the US, a coup which is ongoing. At the same time, the entire media, including the “liberal media” the rightwingers whine about, became Chicago School acolytes and defensive linemen. Chicago School become the Bible you swear on when you take the oath to be a journalist in the US.

Chicago School Economics also captured both parties. First it grabbed the Republicans, who had been drifting Left with Nixon and Ford.  They went Chicago School in 1980 with Reagan.

Next it took he Democrats with the Democratic National Committee in the late 1980’s, which held that Democrats were losing elections because they were too liberal in every sense, including economics, and that the only way to beat Republicans was to become a pro-corporate political party, one that lived off the fat donations of corporate backers. They would never beat the Republicans at the corporate money game, but at least they could survive and get enough money to win some elections.

Clinton and Obama are both Chicago School types. Obama even has ties to the institution. The Chicago School Revolution is ongoing as we speak. Tea Parties are Chicago School rallies. All this deficit slashing bullshit is straight up Chicago School.

Hence was the modern reactionary coup of the past 35 years won.

It all boils down to Information Theory. He who controls Information, controls the world.

Capitalism Hits the Fan, A Marxian View

Repost from the old site.

Great video by Richard Wolff, professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Wolff is a Marxist, and the lecture is from a Marxist POV. However, it is interesting in many ways.

One thing that is clear to most sensible folks with an understanding of economics is that Marx’s analysis of capitalism is one of the greatest ever done by anyone. For a long time, it was taught in all economics departments. With the advent of crazy Friedmanite neoliberalism in the past 30 years or so, Marx may not be being taught so much, but that’s a mistake.

It’s sometimes said that Marx is great for analyzing either what capitalism does well or poorly, but not the opposite. Not true. Marx is great for analyzing capitalism both when it is doing well and when it is doing poorly.

In my opinion, where Marx has problems is in proposing alternatives to capitalism, and history has born this out to some extent. Capitalism, with all of its chaos and problems and horrors and deaths, may just be the only way forward for the time being. Like death, disease and taxes, it may be a necessary evil.

Wolff describes how US workers saw 150 straight years of growth and improvement in their living standards, from 1820 to 1970. This is correct. He doesn’t lay out how this happened, but there are many explanations for this. He also says that this scenario was rare to unheard of in the rest of the capitalist world.

After 1970, things changed. Productivity kept going up, but wages went flat or even went down. A US worker in the late 1970’s made more per hour than a worker working today. As productivity rose and wages went flat, capitalists began raking in incredible profits.

This is what has happened to the US economy over the past 35 years, as neoliberalism took hold and 8

As workers got more and more screwed and the capitalists, the owners, those who lived off the labor of others, saw their incomes skyrocket, confused workers began advancing all sorts of explanations about why this was happening. Anti-Semites, as usual, blamed the Jews. White nationalists and White Supremacists blamed Blacks and Browns. Lots of middle class and working class Whites blamed Big Government.

The truth was that the culprits were the business owners who were reeling in superprofits while workers got the shaft.

As this process continued, capitalists found more ways to keep the cost of labor down. They began importing massive amounts of legal and especially illegal immigrants as labor to drive labor costs down even further. They began moving many enterprises offshore and later, began offshoring work via the Internet.

Confused workers scrambled to keep up their standard of living. Others in the family, often the wife, began taking a job, bringing in a second income. Then one or more persons in the household began to work second and third jobs. Americans worked more and more hours, setting new records for workers in the West.

The despicable US media extolled this fact, and praised US workers for working themselves nearly to death, taking pains to point out how tough and hard and slaving-away Americans are compared to pampered, wussy, “soft” Europeans kicking back under socialism.

It’s true – part of the US war against European social democracy has been to declare that Europeans are soft, wimpy, sissified and wussy. How did they get this way? Socialism turned hard self-reliant European men into soft, pampered girlymen. Americans were hard, tough and macho. They didn’t need no nanny state to help them out. They could do it on their own. The American worker as Marlboro Man.

Wolff points out that that extra workers did not necessarily fix matters, as when the wife started working, it turned out that she needed many things, for instance a vehicle to get to work in.

Working more than one job didn’t seem to work very well, nor did having others in the household go out and work, but it did the trick for a while.

After some time, Americans would have to turn to some new tricks to try to keep up their standard of living. They turned to loans. At first they ran up their credit cards. Americans were setting records for going into debt on credit cards and were among the Western world’s poorest when it came to saving money.

This isn’t really very good personal economics, but the vile media cheered it on nonetheless. Silly, wimpy Europeans and Japanese saved their money for a rainy day, presumably because they were too neurotic to enjoy life. Americans went for the gusto! They spent ever nickel they earned and then went in debt up to their waders! Cheers, cheers, cheers!

After the credit cards were maxed out, there was an explosion in US housing prices. Call it a housing bubble. This came at a propitious moment, for it enabled Americans to use as collateral the biggest asset they owned, their homes. Americans borrowed on their homes, refinancing them, taking out second mortgages and using the money like a credit card to continue to pursue the standard of living to which they had become used.

The capitalists continued to reel in the dough from the leveling of wages, now via outsourcing and use of immigrant labor, and now the capitalists found a new tool – debt.

They loaned money to their own workers! It was like the old days when you lived in a company town, bought at the company store and ate at the company diner, all deducted from your check. Not only will we pay you a crap wage, we will snag every dollar you spend on food, rent and shopping too.

These same capitalists were now swimming in ultraprofits with the money they were making off loaning money to workers and home mortgages (just another type of loan). They had so much money they did not know what to do with it. They threw it into the stock market, and the market for high-end goods of all sorts went through the roof.

Conspicuous consumption came back with a vengeance, and the scummy media once again sang and danced the praises of the most idiotic and obscene ways the rich chose to blow their unneeded and often unearned cash.

A whole new financial industry, a parasitic industry on the economic body of the nation, sprung up, an industry that created no products and no real wealth. It was nothing but a gigantic casino on Wall Street.

All sorts of funky instruments that no one understood were dreamed up – derivatives, CDO’s, mortgage securities and all sorts of other stuff that probably shouldn’t even be legal. Almost no one understood these things and no one seemed to understand what they were worth.

The inevitable bubble came and the party crashed, as it always does when capitalist bubbles go bust.

The root causes were the destruction of the regulations put in in the 1930’s, during the Depression, in order to prevent another Depression. As soon as these regulations were put in, the capitalists began plotting and working to get rid of them.

Over the next 80 years, the capitalists created a Gramscian cultural hegemony that attacked socialism, government and regulation and exalted free market capitalism. Socialism, government and regulation were described as possibly good ideas, but doomed to failure. The only way to avoid the inevitable failures of socialism, government and regulation was to completely deregulate the economy. Anything less was the road to ruin.

With their money, the capitalist interests bought up all the media and most of the politicians. They used this to get rid of the Depression-era regulations and create the manipulate US culture to where your average worker thought that was a great idea, if he understood it at all.

There are various proposals for how to deal with this economic mess. As discussed in a previous post, conservatives, reeling and increasingly discredited, have tried to blame the catastrophe on too much regulation, not too little. Even the slimy media that normally goes along with this crap is finding this too much to buy.

White racists are promoting the racist notion that liberals (via affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws), niggers* and beaners* are the ones that destroyed the US economy. The Republican Party has to some extent bought into this, as has the business press, their amen corner in the mass media, and their academic hacks, but the argument is too slimy and racist for most decent people, plus there isn’t an ounce of truth to it.

Steve Sailer, an excellent writer who is widely read, is the latest to promote this racist travesty, much to his shame. Sailer is looking more and more like a Republican Party hack than a really deep-thinking, independent and empirical author.

Furthermore, Sailer has been skating on the edges of racism for some time now without really going over. More often, he seemed to be giving the racists lots of nice talking points. Now he’s finally pushing an explicitly racist discourse, and it’s not even true. Too bad.

Rate of subprime mortgage defaults by race:

Whites       1
Blacks       1
Hispanics    1

End of discussion!

Liberals, Leftists and social democrats have proposed re-regulation, but the problem here is that we are probably going to re-do the 1930’s experience all over again. We will put in a bunch of great regulations and as soon as we put them in, the capitalists and their mass media machines will start plotting to get rid of them.

Then the capitalists and their media machines will launch a jihad, for as many decades as it takes, to reverse all these regulations and get back to total deregulation again. In time, workers will forget why they put the regulations in in the first place, and they will go along with it.

The capitalists will buy most of the politicians all over again, and the politicians will vote to deregulate again. The capitalists will work to recreate their Gramscian cultural hegemony, and the average worker will once again think deregulation is the smart thing to do. The economy will blow up again and we will be right back to 1929 and 2008.

Wolff suggests that there is a third alternative. He describes a paper done by a colleague that describes Silicon Valley workers who hated their jobs. They had to dress up, sit in a cubicle and take orders and crap all day from a bunch of assholes. Can they pay anyone enough to put up with that? With the destruction of the Silicon Valley workforce, these workers were laid off.

A number of them got together and formed IT worker-run cooperatives, a non-capitalist form of ownership along the lines of anarcho-syndicalism. The study found that these workers said that they had never been happier. They were manufacturing software, selling it to buyers and dividing up the profits among themselves. The workers themselves were the new owners.

Wolff said that as a condition of the bailouts to the financial industry, we should mandate that they staff their board of directors with workers, not management, as a first step towards workers democracy.

Wolff also said that he had been giving speeches like this for 25 years now and he has had more interest in the past five weeks than in the previous 25 years.

That’s ending on a hopeful note for now. Enjoy the video.

*Used sardonically

Liberal Race Realism Trashed on Craigslist

Some character on Craigslist is bashing this site as racist:

…What makes this video interesting is that the blogger who put up the video is a self-confessed liberal communist, but he and his blogger friends go on ahead and tear the living shit out of those black boys.

As I read more theme entries and commentaries, I noticed increased racist sentiment against other ethnic whites, against Mexicans, against Jews, against blacks…in short, nobody gets spared. But this is a racism carried out by liberals. And what makes it unique is that it is all done without any swearing or emotional outrage.

Simply cool and reasoned (to them) racism, perpetrated by frat boys, in a deadly accurate yet nonetheless seemingly dispassionate manner. One overriding theme is also new and surprising. The commie blogger states that he is worried about the reduction in numbers of Nordicist white people, and that in order to survive in the future, that it would be wise to widen the circle of “whites” to include the “near whites” in order to have a bigger ethnic family in which to feel safe.

Now you know what intellectuals who are honest about their racism do in their spare time.

Not so. I don’t care about a White future, and I don’t care how many Nordics there are.

The rest is true. POC’s have to get over all this.

Sure, liberal Whites are a little bit racist, but conservatives are really, really racist. Take your pick!

And the conservatives’ racism, legislative and judicial, does actual damage to POC’s. And liberals don’t really hate POC’s the way that real racists do, because we simply don’t do hate. Race hate is not a liberal thing. A lot of the funny cognitive gymnastics you see liberals doing about race is not mental illness or evil hypocrisy or any such thing. These liberals are simply trying to reconcile the facts about race and somehow figure out a way to not descend into race hate.

Also, we liberals support POC’s politically. We support most of their agenda legislatively and judicially. We support integration and interracial marriage. We oppose obvious and egregious anti-POC racism of the kind that is really injurious to POC’s. We support being friendly to decent POC’s and advocate treating them as individuals the same way you would treat a White person who acts similarly.

What Liberal Race Realists are guilty of really is this aversive racism crap. LRR isn’t anything new. I’ve spent my whole life around White liberals, and I know precisely how they think. Notice that White liberals typically live in all-White communities? Notice that they send their kids to all-White schools? Why do you think they do that, because they are Critical Race Theory nutcases? Heck no. Because they are not stupid, that’s why.

I know how White liberals talk when they are alone. They don’t talk like hardcore racists, but they are not stupid. The best way to describe it is to say that White liberals are cynical about POC’s.

Even my father, who was about as anti-racist and liberal as any White man of his generation, had moments like this. This was a man who taught for years in the middle of the ghetto, in Watts. Once we were reading the paper about young males in New York pools assaulting young girls, trying to rip their bathing suits off and practically raping them in the pools. The lifeguards had had to dive in and sort it all out, kids were getting banned, and it was a great big mess.

My father had a cynical expression on his face. “This stuff always starts with the Blacks,” he said. “It starts with the Blacks and then it filters down to everyone else.”

No one at the table batted an eye, and everyone nodded cynically. My Dad was a good liberal to the end, but that comment could have just as easily been said by Jared Taylor.

The Abagondsphere would freak out about this incident and write 10 blog posts about the “aversive racism” it exemplifies.

The White nationalists also have a nutty view of liberals. We’re all a bunch of nigger-loving traitors. They see us as PC CRT Cultural Marxist types. But we’re not. I’ve been around White liberals my whole life, and you hardly ever meet one like that. When you do, it’s usually a Jew. A Jew who lives as far away from POC’s as possible!

Tea Party Blog

I believe a progressive commenter linked to this blog in the comments as some sort of a progressive blog.

It’s nothing of the sort. It only seems progressive in that it is populist. But this stuff is straight up rightwing populism by way of the Republican Party and the Tea Partiers.

The title, Revolt of the Plebes, has a working class feel about it, but this is all White middle class angst coming out of the Tea Parties. They complain and complain about the economy, but they don’t seem to have a clue about what caused it.

They think that the “elites” are trying to lower the standard of living of the middle class, but their main example of elites is Barack and Michelle Obama, who, while flawed, are on the liberal end of this project. One way that the elites are plotting to lower the middle class standard of living is by raising taxes! That’s not how it works though. Raising taxes typically results in government services in return for the taxation. It’s not exactly an elite project. It’s a progressive project, a form of wealth redistribution hopefully from the upper middle class and rich to the classes under them.

Like other rightwing populists, he excoriates Obama’s stimulus bill as useless. He also attacks Obama’s recent $26 billion for teaching jobs and Medicaid as a payoff to “fiscally irresponsible” state governments to powerful unions. The states were not spendthrifts. They are broke due to the Depression. Teachers are being laid off. They need to be rehired.

The contempt for schoolteachers and especially their unions is typical of American rightwing populism, which has always hated schoolteachers for some odd reason (anti-intellectualism?) and has always hated unions, because many middle class Americans are not members of unions. Since they are not in unions, they resent fellow middle class Americans who are in unions as getting undeservedly high wages and benefits. This is nothing but sour grapes.

Hatred of schoolteachers is not progressive. Contempt for unions, the organizations of the working class, in particular teacher unions, in many parts of the world (Latin America) some of the most radical unions around, is not progressive. Opposition to government spending on stimulus funds to get a dead economy going again is not progressive.

So we have these endless complaints about the dead economy, with no explanation on who killed the golden goose. The blame, if any, is opportioned out to mysterious “elites,” most of whom are liberals! It’s implied that taxation caused the slump. That’s certainly not the case.

Another hallmark of this stuff is opposition to the TARP bailouts. Though many Americans were angry about these bailouts, and I opposed them in the form they were ladled out, it was necessary to do that. A number of those firms are even paying us back. AIG may well pay us back in full. My objection was only that the TARP bailouts had to come with many strings attached to them re-regulating these bankster criminals back to the way they were in the 1930’s to rein in their fraud and make sure this doesn’t happen again.

But to simply refuse to bail out those huge banks would have been madness. It would have resulted in a slump much worse than the one we are experiencing right now. These are pure free marketeers who want no state intervention in their glorious free market economy. That’s nuttiness. You’re going back to the 1870’s and wild booms and busts. It’s irresponsible and senseless.

Do these clowns have any suggestions for how to get us out of this slump? None whatsoever. Other than gutting government spending. Gutting state spending in the midst of a Depression is sheer insanity. It means the Depression will go much deeper and continue much longer than before.

I’ve noticed that this stuff is becoming extremely popular. Too bad. It’s not progressive, offers no solutions and peddles only bad medicine. Further, in its attacks on working people, their unions, state spending, taxation and state intervention in the economy, it serves the project of the very elites and corporations that it claims to be attacking.

Very confused and ridiculous politics.

Why Jews Opposed Reagan

An anti-Semitic commenter is confused about why US Jews did not support Ronald Reagan.

Are you sure Jews voted against Reagan, Rob?

What would they have to lose by voting for this pro-Jewish, ass-kissing plutocratic prick?

I’ve said this over and over. Jews are liberals*.

They don’t like conservatives, especially rightwing Whites, and when it’s combined with hardcore fundamentalist Christianity, the Jews are out the door sprinting.

8

That’s why I love Jews. They’re the most progressive ethnic group in the US, the most consistently liberal, more liberal even than Blacks.

Jews have been an integral part of liberalism and the Left from the French Revolution on. From the man with his hand in his coat himself:

My primary desire was to liberate the Jews and make them full citizens. I wanted to confer upon them all the legal rights of equality, liberty and fraternity as was enjoyed by the Catholics and Protestants. It is my wish that the Jews be treated like brothers as if we were all part of Judaism. As an added benefit, I thought that this would bring to France many riches because the Jews are numerous and they would come in large numbers to our country where they would enjoy more privileges than in any other nation.

Without the events of 1814, most of the Jews of Europe would have come to France where equality, fraternity and liberty awaited them and where they can serve the country like everyone else.

Bonaparte is the spiritual father of every Jew alive today.

The European Right roared and raged at the French Revolution that shook the continent. Some of them are probably still pissed, who knows. The roots of fascism were in De Maistre’s opposition to the storming of the Bastille. The Savoyard philosopher is a fascist icon among learned Browns even today.

That’s why anti-Semitism is typically rightwing and has been for 200 years. This Left anti-Semitism we are seeing now is historically a bit odd.

Conservatives have long memories, stretching back to 1789-1808, and the smart ones have never forgiven Jews for their progressive leanings. Jews are considered to be the leading edge of progress, liberalism, socialism and even Communism in many societies. For this they are hated by the Right the world over. That’s why Hitler called it Judeo-Bolshevism. He wasn’t so far off.

The Left is Jewish!

*Well, outside Israel, Jews are liberals. In Israel, Jews are fascists, since Zionism is Jewish fascism, but that’s another matter.

Niggers* and Beaners* Wrecked the Economy

Repost from the old site.

White nationalists have advanced the extremely racist argument that Blacks and Hispanics are responsible for blowing up the economy with the latest subprime mortgage meltdown, which has taken out titans in the insurance and brokerage industry. Lehman Brothers, the 3rd largest brokerage firm on Earth, was allowed to implode.

AIG, one of the world’s largest insurance companies, was about to go bankrupt until socialism stepped in, as the Bush Administration bought an 8

AIG went down because they insured the subprime securities that investors bought against going bad. Yes, you can buy insurance on your stocks, bonds, derivatives and other financial crap. Amazing, huh?

It remains to be seen whether an $85 billion bailout of AIG is a good bargain for taxpayers. It seems that we are investing public money in this mountain of AIG’s losses, no? How is the public supposed to benefit from this?

AIG investors are now scrambling around trying to figure out a way to pay back that debt in order to ward off a government socialist buyout of 8

Meanwhile, even after the bailout, AIG’s stock is still being pounded into the dirt. I guess that bailout didn’t make anyone happier about AIG stock. Everyone exposed to AIG stock in the form of pensions and other funds is scrambling to get out from under the avalanche. Pension funds are suing AIG for wiping out their holdings.

Do you own an AIG insurance policy? That’s not worth much, if you ask me. States are now “reassuring” policyholders. I’d be canceling that toxic policy in a New York minute.

I do not agree with the White Nationalist racist argument that niggers* and beaners* blew up the economy.

They apparently got this argument for articles like this Village Voice piece. However, if you read the piece carefully, it does not support the WN argument at all.

Under the cover of anti-racism, Andrew Cuomo and the rest of the Clinton criminals gave the industry what it wanted – loosened regulations on whom they could loan to. “It is also worth remembering that the motive for this bipartisan ownership expansion probably had more to do with the legion of lobbyists working for lenders, brokers, and Wall Street than an effort to walk in MLK’s footsteps”, as the article notes.

Note that the Bush Republicans did not overturn a single one of Cuomo’s “anti-racist” loosening of standards. Furthermore, as I read the article, there was no federal “mandate to loan to more Black and Brown poor people.”

This argument makes it seem like Evil Big Government liberals forced prudent bankers to make loans to non-White deadbeats that they knew would go bad, loans that they themselves did not want to make. This is not the case.

The debt was already being sold and resold all over the place, and, as the article notes, even if the borrower defaulted, that was no big deal either, as they would just resell the home. Lots of money to be made all around on every step of the chain, even if the borrower defaults.

The latest insanity, where Joe Public gets to bail out a bunch of gambler criminals, is truly horrible. Basically, you and me will be forced to buy up all this bad debt from a bunch of white collar crooks, debt that is nearly worthless. For this worthless debt, we will fork over $1 trillion for a pile of stinking garbage.

Further, the crooks are absolved of all of their losses at the Mortgage Casino and free to go gamble away again. This means we are setting ourselves for this situation to recur over and over, and as long as the public bails out all losses and guarantees all gains, there is zero motivation to be prudent. Wow, isn’t neoliberal capitalism a great system!

Incredibly, both parties, from the most liberal of Democrats to the most conservative of Republicans, got in on this bullshit. A particularly horrible feature of the plan that the “liberals” went along with is that there are to be no new regulations whatsoever on the financial industry. Gotta love those liberal Dems!

In this way, corporate criminals get to make all of the money they can with this sort of gambling, but then when they start losing money, you and me have to bail them out. What a bunch of fucking shit!

That’s like giving me a credit card to go to the casino and I get to keep all of my winnings and any time I lose money, you all get to pay me back so I can go to the casino tomorrow. I like that deal! Let’s set it up now!

*Used sardonically

The Role of Jews in the Left and Communism in the 20th Century

A commenter asks why there are so many Jews in the Communist Party USA. When I was getting their newspaper in 1998, it was stacked with Jews from top to bottom.

Don’t they know the the USSR effectively turned anti-Jewish starting from 1948? And being the most privileged elite group in America, what do they have to gain by being in the CPUSA?

Jews are very leftwing people. A lot of them are liberals, socialists, Leftists or out and out Communists. As far as why this is, much ink has been expended. You are urged to look into it yourself, and see what you can come up with. This is one of the Fascist Right’s main arguments against Jews – that they are a bunch of Commies. That’s why Hitler and the other fascists killed 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, to wipe out Judeo-Bolshevism.

The White nationalist Right and the Kevin MacDonald types continue to recycle this meme about Commie Jews who hate Whites and kill Whites. They go on and on about Bolshevik Jews who murdered 20-110 million Russian Christians, or some shit like that. This is the Czarist and fascist Solzhenitzen’s beef against Jews – they’re a bunch of Commies. Or they bring up Bela Kun. Or the German Communists in 1919-1920. Or the Polish Communists. Or on and on.

That’s one of the reasons I am a Judeophile. Jews are my comrades. They are one of the most Leftist ethnic groups that ever lived, and they played a great role in the development of the Left from 1850-on, a role that continues to this day.

There’s nothing great about Stalin turning anti-Jewish at the end, just more Stalinist paranoia and murder. The Jews built the Bolshevik state up from nothing. They created the state that Stalin ruled.

Most modern-day Stalinists and Communists are actually pro-Jewish, especially the ones in the Russia nowadays. Remember that Stalin made anti-Semitism illegal in 1926, and made the punishment the death penalty. I’m glad he did that! Plus he married some Jewish women and had some Jewish mistresses. He didn’t hate Jews at all; it’s a bunch of anti-Semitic wishful thinking shit.

Ilya Ehrenberg, a Jew, was Stalin’s chief propagandist in WW2. He wrote, “You’re either an anti-Semite or anti-Nazi, there is no middle ground.” He drew the line in the sand, and I still agree with that line.

The fascists still hate Ehrenberg with a passion so hot it could smelt iron. Go over to Stormfront and praise Ilya Ehrenberg, and they will probably try to lynch you on the spot.

Blacks Are Ingrates

Alpha Unit commented:

Whenever a White person says, “Just you Blacks wait until Whites are no longer in charge,” this is an expression of White anger and resentment, then. Nothing more.Got it.

Not resentment towards Blacks per se as some basic racist expression. If we resented Blacks so much, we Western Whites would not be treating our Black minority better than any Black minority is treated anywhere on Earth. We don’t resent Blacks. We resent them for cheering on White decline? Yep.

Idiots.

We also resent that in spite of how good we’ve been treating them in the past 20-30 years, getting better and better every year, we get no praise for it from Blacks.

Maybe we just should have kept treating them like shit like we used to!

They’re ingrates, and we don’t get any praise from them for being nicer to them. It’s like we’re going to be evil forever, they’re never grateful for anything we do for them, and we get no credit. There are no rewards for Whites in treating Blacks better other than ego awards for ourselves. No matter how much we do for them, they still keep hating us and never let up. It’s like there’s no satisfying them, and it’s extremely exasperating.

Ingrates generate a lot of resentment. Yeah.

Why Do People Support Illegal Immigration?

In the comments section, Bay Area Guy lays out some typical arguments for why people support illegals. I feel he is wrong in some of his arguments:

Leftists want illegal immigrants for future votes, and also in order to weaken whites and lend further legitimacy to their anti-racist arguments (ie. I frequently hear Tim Wise type anti-racists say, “as the U.S becomes more ‘of color’ we’ll need to make serious changes”).After all, the more non-white the U.S becomes, the more you have to enact policies that help them, right?

Neocons and conservatives want illegals for cheap labor.

The key is to go after employers and leftist elites who tolerate this crap.

I have a hard time with this argument, BAG. It’s typical to say that the Left wants all these illegals in order to weaken US Whites. Is there any evidence for this? I don’t see any.

Keep in mind that I was on the Left for many years. I have met and talked to Leftist Presidential candidates on the phone and in person. I am a member of the Communist Party USA and I have spoken to top ranking members. I have met with local Communists in a local Commie group. Suffice to say I have been around the Left for 20 years. I’ve also known a lot of Jews, including a Jewish media multimillionaire. Never once have I heard a Leftist or Jew say that we need to import all of these illegals in order to weaken US Whites.

Why do people support the illegals? Mostly they are ideologues who believe in Open Borders, though they often do not say so. They believe in “the right to migrate.”

For the Hispanics, it’s obvious. Their relatives and friends are a bunch of wetbacks, and if not, they are loyal to La Raza.

I doubt if many average working class Hispanics support illegals so they can flood into the US take over whole parts of it for the Hispanics. Your average Hispanic simply does not conceive things in those terms. The only people who talk like that are upper middle class bourgeois Hispanics with a university education. Some Latino politicians talk like this too, but they just want to get re-elected. Your average Chicano cares zero about Aztlan, and if you polled them, they probably don’t even know what Aztlan is.

Your average Chicano is not an idiot, and Mexico and the rest of Latin America is full of White people. So “Whites” can easily be “Latinos.” All we have to do is speak Spanish and adopt Latino culture. Since your average Hispanic comes from a a region with over 100 million Whites, they don’t see Whites per se as the enemy. Gringos, maybe. Whites? No way. They don’t think in racial terms since they themselves are not a race.

Around here, you will see Chicanos ranging all the way from full White through myriad shades of mestizo all the way to pure Indian. They all hang out with each other, and no one thinks anything of it. If I spoke Spanish fluently, I could join them and be one of the “White Chicanos.”

Furthermore, around here a lot of Chicanos have figured out that when towns go 95

They suck so bad in many ways that many Hispanics are starting to leave since there “are not enough Whites left to keep the place civilized,” more or less in their own words. So the Hispanics need Whites around, at least a few of us. When the Whites all leave, Mexico creeps in. And that’s what the Hispanics came here to escape from.

Now! Once the illegals are here, it is another story. Does the Democratic Party want to legalize them to get future voters? Maybe. But the last bill that hit Congress would not have legalized them for 18 years. That’s a long time to wait for voters.

More probably, the Dems support amnesty out of liberal ideology and in an effort to get Hispanic votes. If you come out against illegals, you screw yourself out of the Hispanic vote. If you want their votes, you go pro-illegal, ideology be damned. As the Hispanic vote increases, terrifyingly, mass amnesties look like more and more of a sure thing.

Another reason liberals support illegals is due to sympathy. Many liberals think it is cruel especially to break up the families of the illegals. This take on the issue especially effects females. Many others think there is no way to deal with the issue but via amnesty. Others (usually Jews) think anti-illegal = White racism. They don’t like White racism, so they go pro-illegal.

If you are on the Liberal-Left, you must support the illegals. If you don’t, you are slammed, shamed, and shunned in some pretty cruel ways. You get called racist, fascist, Nazi, KKK, reactionary, pig, hater, bigot, all sorts of stuff.

Liberal-Left types are sensitive people, and their whole worldview is made up in part by not being any of those things above. To get called names like the above is really jarring and painful for leftwingers, and I suspect many Lib-Lefties are simply bullied into supporting illegals. There are a number of Leftists who refuse to speak with me anymore in part due to my heresies on these matters. It is still painful for me to think of how they called me racist, fascist, Nazi, etc. and how they refuse to speak to me anymore.

Obviously, not just neocons and conservatives but the entire US business sector, supports the illegals for cheap labor.

In addition, here in California, many Whites with money support illegals. We joke that as soon as you buy a house, you start supporting illegals. All of a sudden you have all this yardwork to be done, and many White homeowners around here want to hire cheap illegal alien labor to work around their homes. On the other hand, many lower class, poor and working class Whites totally despise illegals since they have destroyed the low end job market in the state.

An Intelligent Comment on Daily Kos

What’s the unemployment rate in California, 1

I’ve seen the Mexican Government issued “Go be a paisano in the US” pamphlets with my own eyes. Maybe they didn’t think an American who could read Spanish would ever see them, but the pamphlet was telling the poor to go “retake the American southwest”. That’s a fact.

So the California Latino voter knows there is far more poverty in Mexico than there are jobs in California. It doesn’t do them any good to bring in more cheap labor and get tossed into the unemployment line, and then be just as poor as they were originally when their unemployment benefits run out.

We really need to stop this race based political thinking. Does the fact that I have Greek ancestry mean that I want the whole of Greece immigrating over here without the jobs to support them? No, so why would a Latino trying to hang on to his job want that either?

Illegal Immigration supports two groups of people. The CEO’s trying to exploit them for cheap labor, and the politicians trying to exploit them for votes. Everyone else knows they’re being scammed.

This is a great comment. Predictably, it was pummeled by the next four commenters. The last one told him to shut up, as Daily Kos is a pro-immigration reform (amnesty) site. Daily Kos represents the Left wing of the Democratic Party. Those four comments that followed were quite predictable, and it shows why the liberal-Left in the US is absolute shit.

Let’s go over this comment bit by bit. It’s quite possible that unemployment is over 1

I can tell you from personal experience here in California that the illegal alien tidal wave has had a disastrous effect on working class Americans. My friends were all Whites, so I can only speak to its effect on working class Whites. But I don’t see why it hasn’t hurt working class Hispanics and Blacks too. At the very least, it has glutted the low wage labor market and nuked wages down to a very low level.

It’s an absolute effect that the sickening rightwing Mexican elite uses illegal immigration as a cynical way to dump their poor on us. Poor that in any decent society they ought to be taking care of. But Mexico is an extreme class society that at its base is very rightwing.

The rich in Mexico, via the state, spend about as much on health, education and whatnot as the Haitian state does. They are just another evil 3rd World elite that has turned its country into a shithole by refusing to share with the rest. Like India, like the rest of Latin America, like the Philippines, like Indonesia.

That the US Liberal-Left fully supports the rightwing scum elite in Mexico in this rightwing and deeply anti-progressive project (shoving millions of their poor up here so they don’t have to create a decent society in Mexico) is infuriating. Why is the Liberal-Left in the US supporting a bunch of rightwing shits in Mexico? But you will never hear one single peep about this on the US Liberal-Left. One can only conclude that they are in bed with the Mexican elite in this game.

Similarly, the poster notes that the pamphlets that the Mexican government hands out that explicitly urge its citizens to go to the US also openly tell them to “retake the Southwest.” This shows that the Mexican elite is the enemy of America, and that Mexico is in a sense an enemy state.

It’s an enemy state because it continues to lay claims on the US Southwest. When you go to school in Mexico, you get a steady diet of revanchist propaganda about how the US Southwest is really a part of Mexico. 5

The poster also points out the insanity of race-based politics for California Latinos. Your average working class Latino citizen is not helped by the illegal flood. You can make a good case that he is harmed by them, and that illegals throw a lot of California Latinos out of work too. So why do California Latinos support illegals? Loyalty to La Raza. Your race trumps your pocketbook if you’re a Chicano? Wow.

Liberal Race Realism: The Facts and the Project

Of the three major races, Blacks, Caucasians (mostly Europeans were studied) and Asians (mostly NE Asians were studied), Blacks, the world over, on average:

– are the fastest to mature physically; – have the highest rates of bone and tooth development; – begin to sit, crawl and walk the earliest; – have the earliest puberty and sexual development; – have the highest levels of testosterone; – are the most sexually active whether measured by the age of first intercourse, intercourse frequency or number of sex partners; – have the highest rates of twinning; – have the highest levels of AIDS and HIV; – have the smallest brains, the lowest IQ’s and educational attainment; – have the highest rates of crime, including fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, assault, robbery and murder; – are the most aggressive and mentally unstable; – have the highest rates of drug and alcohol abuse; – have the highest rates of divorce, out-of-wedlock children, child abuse and delinquency; – have the highest rates of unemployment, the highest rates of welfare dependency and the lowest incomes; – have the most diseases, the highest rates of death at every age and the shortest life expectancy.

To me, the first six of those look pretty good or neutral, but the last eight don’t seem so good, from my White middle-class upbringing anyway.

On every single one of those variables, NE Asians are the polar opposites of Blacks. European Whites are somewhere in between.

Racial liberalism says that all of these facts are due to environment, and none are due to genetics. I find that quite dubious to say the least.

Of course these facts, if a genetic basis is accepted, are a boon to the Right, particularly the hardest Right reactionaries, fascists, Nazis and Libertarians. Of course they are bad news for the Left and liberalism.

One central task of Liberal Race Realism, is, given these facts and their possible genetic inputs, how do we still manage to rescue the Liberal-Left and still construct a Liberal-Left project?

Note! That does not mean abandoning the Liberal-Left to fascism, Nazism, racism, conservatism, reaction of other bullshit. Many assume that if you believe the above, that you must be a racist, fascist, Nazi, conservative or reactionary. Not so at all. It’s possible to believe the above and still be a liberal-Leftist.

We will not abandon liberalism!

How to do that is part of the most difficult project of Liberal Race Realism.

Idiot Latino Politician Wants to Boycott Arizona, But Can’t Find it on a Map

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQp8M0bkarM]

I actually feel sorry for this woman, because, her stupid Latino tribal politics aside, she’s a good liberal Democratic Supervisor from Milwaukee. There are also a lot of comments calling her fat, but for an Hispanic woman of her age or so, she’s not really fat. She’s just normal. Past a certain age, fat is simply normal for US Hispanic women. The Hispanic guys could care less, and past a certain age, most of them are fat too.

Latino bullshit politics aside, I like Latino politicians, and here in California, I usually just go down the list on my ballot and vote for all the Latinos and against all the Whites, because the Latinos are always liberal, and the Whites are usually conservatards. If she was running in my area, I would probably vote for her, in spite of the fact that she’s stupid. Have some sympathy for stupid! Come on! If you start hating all the stupid people, you’ll hardly have anyone to talk to, and you’ll be home alone, smarty pants! And what’s so smart about being a shut-in?

On the other hand, I want to whop my liberal sister over the head with something, maybe a frozen burrito.

Here she is at a Milwaukee county meeting arguing that the county should boycott Arizona because Arizona is being all mean to her good folks. And hey, it’s true.

But halfway through the spiel, she has a stupid attack. She declares that Arizona’s law would make sense if Arizona was on the border with Mexico, but since Arizona is quite a ways from the Mexico border, the law is simply outrageous. Yeah, Arizona is quite a ways from the Mexican border, sure. For hundreds of miles, it’s like zero inches from Mexico! She even suggests that people use Google to check out about the law. She should have used Google herself to figure out how to read a damn map of her own damned country.

Later, a Republican White dude chimes in to give her a geography lesson and say that he supports Arizona Whites cracking down on Mexican burrito-biters, I mean illegal aliens.

I wanted to do a face palm when I saw that. I actually cringed. This is so embarrassing. It’s like someone went down to the local Taco Bell and picked up some random Latina, threw her in front of the podium and asked her to give a retarded speech. OK, so she’s fat, stupid and liberal. It could be worse. She could be fat, stupid and conservative. Then she could change her name to Rushette Limbaugh and get her own radio show.

My dear liberal politicians, please do your homework if you’re going to give a speech. The conservatards have practically cornered the market on stupid, so how are we going to beat them? Do stupid at a loss and drive them out of the stupid business? Give it up.

I wonder why she couldn’t find the state of Arizona on a map. Maybe it wasn’t on the map. Just look at her. Maybe she ate the state of Arizona. She looks like she could have.

There, I made a fat joke!

Sorry hun. Lay off the chimichangas hermana, and keep the liberal faith. Si se puede!

I’m Racist and Proud

According to the anti-racist whacks, I’m a racist.

I readily agree to being three types of racist:

A “liberal racist”: This is some BS term that the Abagond types ferret about. I’m not even really sure what it means! I think it means the typical attitudes of US White and even White liberal society that in White society don’t even count as racist because they are so wimpy.

One thing is feeling sorry for say Blacks. “These poor Blacks! We need to help them! Come on, let’s do it!” According to a lot of crazy Blacks, that’s liberal racism because we are pitying Blacks and implying they can’t make it without our help.

White man’s burden racism: Sort of similar. Implies that White civilization is superior to much of Third World civilization. Also implies we need to help them get more civilized since they are unlikely to do so on their own. Note parallels with liberal racism above.

Scientific racism: Well, any time you discuss any kind of science having to do with racial differences, guess what? That’s scientific racism! I do that all the time on here, so I’m a scientific racist!

Yeah, I plead guilty to all 3 of those, but to me, that stuff isn’t even racism unless you’re a POC or an insane PC White.

And yeah, I’m proud to be racist in all those fake ways above, but I’m not proud if I feel truly racist in terms of animosity, etc.

I’m familiar with that feeling, as I’ve experienced it before, and it disturbs me.

One of the worst things about that type of thinking is that I noticed that I was starting to think of some of the other groups as less than human. I’d flash on a case of where someone in the other group had an all-too-human perception, feeling or attitude, exactly such as I might have. Then it flashed on me. Whoa! They’re human, just like me! I had started to dehumanize them, but the dehumanization of racism is so sneaky that it creeps up on you and you don’t even realize it until you are inside of it.

That’s happened with Jews and Blacks, that I can think of, and it really freaked me out, because I realized I was starting to dehumanize those people. It was so upsetting to me that I tried hard to get outside of that feeling and realize their humanity.

That’s probably one of the worst things about real racism. It’s almost inevitable that you’re going to start to dehumanize the other group at some point, and it seems like there is something horribly immoral about dehumanizing other human beings on account of who their parents were. It’s just so wrong.

“The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” by Peter Beinart

Here.

This is an essay that first appeared in the New York Review of Books. It’s generating a lot of passionate debate around the journals, mostly among Jews. It looks like it’s going to become a pretty important work. Anyone passionately interested in the Jewish Question as it relates to the US and Israel and the symbiotic relationship between the two might want to read it and think about it.

I agree with Beinart’s essay.

I’ve been thinking a lot along these lines myself for some time now. This setup has never really made sense. Zionism is nothing but Jewish fascism, hence we on the Left oppose it. Nevertheless, the super-liberal US Jews, committed and impassioned liberals all, support this fascist state that in so many ways opposes everything they stand for.

Well, it’s tribal thinking. They’re supporting their people. But US Jews won’t let Whites do the same thing: support our people.

This was always a foundation made of clay, and it’s starting to crumble. Young Jews are increasingly estranged from and apathetic about Israel. They act like the less they hear about it, the better. And it makes sense, since Israel represents the polar opposite of the liberal values that young American Jews uphold.

Jewish liberalism in Israel is also dying, as it never made sense anyway. Liberalism in a fascist state? Come on. What’s happening now is that Zionism’s logic is finally starting to manifest itself. Zionism has always been fascist, but at the same time Israel has always prided itself on being some kind of liberal democratic state. The two views of course are incompatible.

Hence, in recent years, Israel has been moving further and further to the Right and towards a fascist politics more in line with the founding logic of the state. Sure this makes sense. A society founded on fascist ideology would seem to logically support a fascist politics. So lately the Orthodox, the settlers, and out and out fascists like Avignor Lieberman and Benjamin Netanyahu have become increasingly powerful in the Jewish state.

Orthodox Jewry is profoundly illiberal, and Jewish fascism would seem to go over well with the Orthodox. So the Orthodox play an increasing role in Israeli society. In the US, the strong supporters of Israel are increasingly the Orthodox as the secular liberals sit on their hands, close their eyes or put fingers in their ears. A recent pro-Israel rally in Washington DC attended by Paul Wolfowitz drew 10,000’s, 7

The Jewish Establishment, including punks like Abe Foxman of the ADL, still cheers for Israel nonstop, even as it moves increasingly towards a fascism repellent to most liberal Jews. The Establishment deals with this conundrum by denying Israel’s move towards fascism, cheering on the fascists, or redrawing the fascists as democrats.

It isn’t working, and young liberal Jews can see through it.

White American Decline: A Confession

I have a confession to make.

Part of me wants to retain White culture as the dominant American culture.

Problem is that US Whites are unspeakably rightwing. So with White decline in the US should come to the decline of this horrible White US conservatism. White decline should lead to a more liberal America, which I support in most ways.

The US non-Whites are very liberal. The young CA Hispanics are almost Communists or socialists. A non-White America could finally give us a shot at a socialist America, like the socialist states in much of the world. So my preferences for White culture clash with my politics. This crap could all be avoided if US Whites would just be sensible and vote liberal. But they won’t. As it is, it’s pretty much a wash, and a strong part of me wants White decline due to the political benefits.

I like White culture, but I hate this ridiculous conservatism, so out of step with civilized humanity. Non-Whites oppose this nonsense much more than Whites do. Looking for someone to blame because your Senator or Representative is a conservative dinosaur? Look no further than the White

I like liberalism and socialism, but I’m not wild about Black and Hispanic culture. But increasingly, non-White areas are just developing the “multiculture” instead of some explicitly Black, Hispanic or otherwise culture. The multicult is hard to describe, but it’s not White culture, at least politically, and it doesn’t dive into the depths of Black or Hispanic culture. It’s common among civilized Blacks and 2nd generation people of all ethnicities, not just Hispanics.

As you can see, I’m torn. At this point, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other. I live in a non-White town in a non-White state, and it’s not exactly the end of the world. I figure we are going to transition towards a Latin American model with a White elite anyway. I’m White. What’s not to like?

“Racist!”

Note: This post is extremely long, at 108 pages, so be forewarned. However, it’s very good, and I think it’s well worth your time.

There is not a whole lot I can add to this seminal work by a University of Montana Professor of English named Paul Trout. The piece speaks for itself. Here it is, 15 years later, and not a single thing has changed,  has it? This means that serious forms of PC insanity have devastated our universities, and from there, spread, virus-like, into society at large for over two decades now. In the meantime, in the past 20-25 years, things have only gotten worse for non-Whites in general, Blacks and Hispanics in particular.

So, while a blatantly White racist politics has held sway over the nation, causing serious harm to various non-Whites as Whites attacked them, at the same time, an idiot PC Idiocracy has held a Dictatorship of the Idiotariot over society as a whole. One wonders what good this PC silliness does, other than just spreading even more stupidity and insanity through a society that has too much of both already.

The PC Idiot Class has not been able to prevent a White racist politics from gripping the nation, yet it has gone on a jihad against a bunch of a nonsense, and its most frequent victims were non-racist and even anti-racist Whites. One wonders how any of the incidents below affected any US Black or Hispanics polities as a whole in any real and meaningful way. They didn’t. So all PC madness is attack innocent Whites, usually, most perversely of all, the liberal ones who are friendliest to non-Whites.

The main conclusion that we liberal Whites draw from all this looniness is that minorities are nothing but trouble. Blacks in particular. Read the article below and I defy you to conclude that modern PC Blacks are anything but a heap of ridiculous problems waiting to blow up on you at any unknown time. The only sensible conclusion Whites, even non-racist ones, draw from PC madness is that minorities, particularly Blacks but to a lesser extent Hispanics, Amerindians and other Professional Victims, are just not worth the trouble and are best avoided.

If you read below, you will notice that the only sane people protesting the PC lunacy are conservatives, particularly White racist conservatives. Great. So White people can either be PC professional flagellants or they can defy it and be White racist jerks. Well! That’s certainly one Hell of a choice!

Conservatives are so crazy and wrong on most everything that anytime the conservatives are right, you know the Left must be catastrophically screwed up. It embarrasses me to no end that the only folks making sense below are the rightwing nasties at US News and World Report and the Wall Street Journal. Where are all the sane liberals? On vacation, I guess. Or, worse, afraid of being called racist.

Cruising around the Black blogosphere, you note that the PC nonsense below is the standard view on race at most intelligent Black blogs. This is a classical, and typical, example. And on many Hispanic blogs too. And, I am sad to say, it’s the standard view on most of the leftwing sites I read.

This piece was originally found on this site here. That’s a White racist site, and so is Nicholas Stix, probably, though I guess Nick has an excuse for being racist (he experienced a lot of terrible treatment by Blacks). One again, we see that the only folks promoting this eminently sane piece are racist Whites. How sad!

(This landmark monograph was originally published in 1995 in direct link nor the “Racist!” as an Epithet of Repression

Paul Trout

Dept of English

Montana State U – Bozeman

Montana Professor Journal

Fall 1995

Introduction

About the worst thing you can be called nowadays is “racist.” The word not only brands a person as intellectually and morally inferior but links him or her to hooded sickos who beat and lynch innocent minorities. And the accusation – whether merited or not – often brings stinging penalties, from shunning to firing. Ask Senator Conrad Burns, Andy Rooney, Jimmy the Greek, Marge Schott, or Christina Jeffrey. No wonder people who subscribe to liberal social and intellectual ideals, who abhor race prejudice, fear being branded with the scarlet “R.”

Since the term carries so much social opprobrium and can hurt a person’s private life and public career, it should be defined clearly and used cautiously. This is not the case, however, on today’s college campuses. The examples in this essay suggest that on college campuses across the country, the epithet “racist,” hard enough for dictionaries to define (see “Defining Racism,” Chronicles, August 1994, 46), has become alarmingly unmoored.

We have now reached a point where the term can be used, usually without explanation or justification, to stigmatize any policy, statement, symbol, statistic, outcome, word or expression that any minority member does not like, including all kinds of legitimate, scholarly, and protected material.

As Robert Hughes observes in The Culture of Complaint, the irresponsible and promiscuous use of “racist” has robbed the term of “whatever stable meaning it once had” (19). Even worse, since its use is sanctioned by the subjectivity of the user, there can be no false accusations of “racism.” In short, anyone accused of “racism” is ipso facto guilty.

As a result, the epithet “racist” has become a powerful weapon of intimidation, the contemporary equivalent of the 1950s charge of “communism.” Since nobody on campus wants to be labeled a “racist,” and since nobody knows what the term means, most people stay clear of saying or doing anything that some minority member may label as “racist.” Out of fear, most people – and especially Whites – studiously avoid touchy issues, provocative statements, or ambiguous symbols or behaviors.

Unfortunately, as the examples in this essay show, not everybody succeeds in avoiding trouble. An untoward statement, word, metaphor or observation, even an unpalatable research finding, can catapult a student, faculty member, or administrator, into the category of “racist” with regrettable results.

Of “Racist” Epithets There Is No End

Campus speech codes forbid and provide punishment for certain types of expressive behavior which causes an individual or group to feel demeaned or abused because of their racial or ethnic background (so long as they are non-White). Such codes are often said to be aimed at only the most outrageous ”ethnic slurs” and “racial epithets” (Cass Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, 198).

But anybody staying abreast of this issue knows that speech codes have been invoked to punish all kinds of acts and statements, from quoting upsetting statistics to evincing “disrespect” (see Rauch, Kindly Inquisitors, 26).

Part of the problem with these codes is that they do not emphasize the objective content of the behavior or language, but the subjective response of the self-proclaimed victim. So an “ethnic slur” or “racial epithet” is whatever that person deems it to be. Another problem is that these codes – remarkably – never list the epithets that they forbid.

What words or epithets are “racist”? The only right answer is, more and more of them. Now even the noun “Jew” is “racist,” according to WordPerfect 6.0’s Grammatik, which warns us to “avoid using this offensive term.” So is the verb “to welch,” according to the Welsh-American Legal Defense, Education, and Development Fund. So is “digger pines” (Pinus sabiniana), according to a curator at the California State Indian Museum, who claims it is a slur on Native Americans.

So is “spook,” as in “Spook Hill” (in Mesa, Arizona), according to the NAACP, even though it refers to ghosts who haunt the area (in Phoenix, there was a brouhaha over Squaw Peak).

Given people’s notorious and awe-inspiring linguistic inventiveness (see A. A. Roback’s Dictionary of International Slurs) and their exquisite sensitivity to grievance, the list of offensive epithets will keep going and going…It is already quite long.”

An author who gave a talk at Harvard on why liberals like Jack Kerouac were drawn to Black culture provoked protests by entitling his talk, quoting Kerouac, “Spade Kicks” ( CHE 10 June 1992). The phrase “playing goalie Kamikazestyle” was deleted from a story in a textbook because it was construed to be an ethnic slur (Campus Reports, December 1992).

Even the word “slave” is now dangerous to use. An Education Commission in New York recommended in 1991 that the word “slave” be replaced with “enslaved person” in all school textbooks. Students at historically Black Prairie View Texas A&M University complained that they were offended by the Latin term servitium, in the school’s motto Recercare, Doctrina, Servitium, because in the Middle Ages it allegedly meant slavery. Regents approved the following translation: “Research, Teaching, Service” (CHE, 3 August 1994, A4).

Murray Dolfman was fired for using this word. When no one in his University of Pennsylvania law class knew what the Thirteenth Amendment forbade, he said according to his version), “We have ex-slaves here who should know about the Thirteenth Amendment,” (in Kindly Inquisitors, 148-149). He also referred to himself as an ex-slave (as a Jewish ’slave unto Pharaoh’).

When several Black students complained after class, Dolfman apologized but that did no good. Black students invaded his class and read a list of accusations to Dolfman’s students. News of Dolfman’s amazingly clumsy remark convulsed the campus for weeks, and Houston Baker, the well-known scholar of Black literature, engaged in a little signifying by publicly denouncing Dolfman as an “asshole…unqualified to teach dogs” (Richard Bernstein, Dictatorship of Virtue, 112).

Dolfman’s contract was not renewed. Richard Bernstein draws this moral from the Dolfman affair: “In the era of political correctness and craven university administrations, the charge of racism, unsubstantiated but accompanied by a few demonstrations and angry rhetorical perorations, suffices to paralyze a campus, to destroy a reputation, and to compel an administration into submission,” (Dictatorship of Virtue, 114-115).

Other words one should stay away from include – according to the School of Journalism at the University of Missouri – ”shiftless,” “fried chicken” (“a loaded phrase when used carelessly”), and “watermelon.” In 1987 at Harvard, Stephen Thernstrom, a respected historian of race relations, was accused of “racism” by students because he used the words “American Indian” and “Oriental” (Maclean’s, 27 May 1991; Lingua Franca, April 1991, 37).

At the University of Virginia Law School, a hapless White guy got into trouble simply trying to be hip when he shot back at one Black student, “Can you dig it, man?” The next day an anonymous note called the teacher a “racist” and a “White supremacist,” without regard to his pro bono work for the civil rights movement, his membership in Klanwatch, and his work in recruiting minorities to campus (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 6).

At Antioch, Ralph Luker, an associate professor of History and a civil rights activist, was denounced as a “racist” when he said that in the eyes of the law, slaves in the antebellum South had the same legal status as domestic animals. Students thought that he was comparing Black people to animals and took over his class in protest (CHE, 17 June 1994, 4D; 22 June, A14). Afterward, he was denied tenure.

A political science professor at the University of British Columbia (my alma mater) said, during a discussion of apartheid, that “Blacks were at the bottom of the totem pole in South Africa,” (Globe and Mail, 6 August 1994, D7). One student felt the metaphor to be a “racist” appropriation of the sacred symbols of the Kwakiutl and the Haida.

And everyone in the country now has been alerted not to use “water buffalo” within the hearing of Blacks. One night in January, 1993, a group of Black sorority women were dancing and chanting outside a dormitory window at 3 a.m. Several dorm residents shouted for the women to be quiet, and apparently some racial epithets were exchanged.

One student, Eden Jacobowitz, shouted “Shut up, you water buffalo. If you’re looking for a party there is a zoo a mile from here.” (CHE, July 7, 1993, A32). (The women claimed he said, “Shut up, you Black water buffaloes,” and “Go back to the zoo where you belong!”; see “The Raging Water Buffalo” by John K. Wilson, in The Newsletter of Teachers for a Democratic Culture, 2 [2], Fall 1993, 11-12).

The five female students charged Jacobowitz with “racial harassment” under the university’s vague hate-speech code (Scott Shepard, “Penn: The Most Poisoned Ivy?” Campus 5 [1], Fall 1993, 6).

Jacobowitz, an Israel-born Yeshiva student, used the word “water buffalo” because it was the English translation for the Hebrew word “behemah” (there are various spellings for this word), which means “water oxen” and is used as slang to describe an inconsiderate or foolish person. “It was the furthest thing from my mind to call them anything racial,” he said (CHE, 5 May 1993, A39).

During preliminary hearings, Penn Judicial Inquiry Officer Robin Reed asked Jacobowitz if he had been “thinking racial thoughts” on the night his supposed offense took place. She also explained that “water buffalo” could be taken as a racial slur because it “is a dark, primitive animal that lives in Africa” (AP, 14 May 1993). Reed is wrong. The animal is native to southeast Asia.

Although several Black faculty members were asked to testify that “water buffalo” is not a racial slur (until now, at any rate), John Wilson has argued that the fact that the phrase “is not a common racial epithet hardly makes it immune from use in a racist way.” In other words, any word can be used as a “racist” epithet. Charges against Jacobowitz were eventually dropped.

Students and faculty must be especially wary of potentially “racist” color words nowadays. Recently, at Columbia University, “chocolate” and “vanilla” were held to be “racist” after two White students who worked for the escort service were overheard by a Black security guard referring to certain escortees as “chocolate” or “vanilla.” The students explained that chocolate merely meant “attractive” and vanilla “unattractive” or “plain.”

The director of the service, however, summarily fired them for uttering “blatantly racist” remarks (see Dogmatic Wisdom, 84).

In a similar vein, the U. of Missouri stylebook warns writers to stay clear of using the word “articulate” when describing Blacks, saying that it implies that most Blacks are not articulate. In other words, it could be “racist” to say to a minority student, “because you are extremely articulate, you will probably excel in my class.”

Hunting Indians, Minutemen, and other “Racist” Mascots

The Sherlocks of Sensitivity have found “racist” messages not only in the most neutral and honorific expressions but in all kinds of university logos, mascots, and icons.

American Indians have been particularly assiduous in finding “racism” in any and every use of Indian names and images. Over the last ten years or so, their campaign to get colleges to drop team names, logos, and mascots associated with Indian culture has been very successful.

This campaign took a new twist early this year when five students at the University of Illinois filed a complaint with the Illinois’ Human Rights Commission, claiming that the school’s mascot, Chief Illiniwek, causes a “hostile and abusive” environment for American Indians (Campus 6 [3], Spring 1995, 11).

The Commission noted that if the complaint were successful, it would set a precedent that would enable African-American groups to prevent showings of Birth of a Nation, Jewish groups to repress The Merchant of Venice, and Native Americans to prevent the screening of cowboy movies.

When Native Americans find these logos “offensive” or “insulting,” not much can be said, since these subjective terms are self-validating. But are these logos “racist”? That term should be applied to depictions that imply and promote contempt, even hatred. But the images of logos are honorific, usually connoting power, integrity, honor, and nobility.

The Ute tribe has, I think, understood this distinction. It recognized that the University of Utah, in calling its teams the “Running Utes,” was actually implementing (in a small way) the tribe and the state’s Native-American culture. So instead of campaigning against the name and logo, the tribe attempted to control them. All accouterments had to be authentic, all depictions respectful.

Some measure of just how touchy Indian activists have become is seen in the campaign to change the mascot of Fort Lewis College. The icon/mascot was not a Native American, but a White male, a mounted U. S. cavalryman carrying a sword.

Native Americans found the image offensive (CHE, 13 April 1994, 4A). In an effort to make the graphic palatable, the college first replaced the sword with a military banner (no good), then with an “FLC” pennant (not good enough), and then it removed the horseman’s rife and pistol, describing the figure now as “the Raider” (still no good). Finally it dropped the Raider entirely, replacing him with a golden eagle. The A.S.P.C.A. has not complained – yet.

While animals still seem to be a safe bet as logos and mascots, other images and symbols are sitting ducks for charges of “racism.” Any image of a White man is now automatically “racist,” the very term used to describe “Blaze,” the cartoonish Nordic warrior emblem of the University of Alabama. The logo of the University of Alabama – a White, gentlemanly, Colonel-Sanders type – was attacked as “racist” because it allegedly reminded some minority students of “plantation owners.”

Even the Minuteman mascot of the University of Massachusetts was decried as “racist” (it was also “sexist” for being male and violent for holding a gun). Said Martin Jones, the student who led the attack, “to have a White male represent a student body that is not exclusively White or male is culturally biased, and promotes racism.”

The university chancellor agreed, making the university, according to the president of the Republican Club on campus, look like a “politically correct wasteland” and the “laughingstock of the country” (CHE, 10 November 1993).

But after Jones did “some research” into the historic contributions of the Minutemen, and after the campus library was named for the founder of the NAACP (W. E. B. DuBois), he defended the image and announced his “mistake” in criticizing it. “These men, as the original liberators of America, have earned the right to be honored fully by Americans everywhere…Long live the Minutemen of Massachusetts,” (USA Today, 28 October 1994, 10A).

So far the “leprechauns” of the University of Notre Dame have escaped attack.

In these examples, images and logos are being called “racist” not so much for what they depict as for what they exclude – they don’t depict other races or ethnic groups. The Representation Police want school logos to look like Benetton ads, all cuddly rainbow inclusivity. That’s an awful lot to ask of a college logo. In “Mascot Studies,” a writer for The American Spectator (December 1993, 14) puts this foolishness into perspective:

At our universities, neither professors nor administrators apparently possess the discernment to distinguish between a harmless mascot and, say, a flaming cross on a hill…There is today on campus…an innocent assumption that any protester must have a point.

We have quite forgotten that familiar figure of the past, the malcontent. Past generations recognized these odious cranks when they commenced to bawl and took them cum grano salis. If by accident the malcontent had come upon a legitimate grievance, fine – the Republic initiated a reform and passed on.

Today the country is at the mercy of these disturbed people, and actually raises many to lifelong prominence…Worse, these grumblers have inspired thousands of common malcontents to take up a noble cause. Vexed debate over the campus mascot is but one of the unhappy consequences.

In other words, get a life.

Remove That Tattoo, That T-Shirt, and That Elihu Yale!

Official logos and mascots are not the only images on campus ‘under erasure’ for being “racist.” This section will overview a number of incidents in which harmless and relatively benign images and activities were proclaimed to be “racist” and then almost always punished. These incidents demonstrate once again just how unmoored and repressive the R-word has become on today’s college campuses. Let’s begin in the kitchen.

A dishwasher in a residence hall at Iowa State University got into hot water when students noticed he had a swastika and the letters KKK tattooed on his arms. He had neither said nor done anything “racist,” he just sported some old tatoos left over from when he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan (he explained that he repudiated the organization in a letter to the student newspaper).

Still, students demanded his removal. As one of them put it, “I’m for free speech. But…the KKK is wrong and has no place in a university environment.” What’s notable is that he had worked at the university for eighteen years before anybody noticed, or bothered to complain (U. Magazine, February 1994, 10). The university was warned by the state not to fire him.

Now to the infamous “racist” T-shirt at the University of California (Riverside). In 1993, Phi Kappa Sigma advertised its South of the Border Fiesta with a T-shirt featuring a figure in a serape and sombrero sitting on a beach looking at the setting sun and holding a bottle of tequila.

Next to the figure was a set of steel drums and a wooden Tiki head, in which was carved the word “Jamaica.” The lower half of the shirt shows a Rastafarian standing in the doorway of a Mexican cantina with a big smile and a six-pack of brew. This graphic was wrapped in a lyric from Bob Marley: “It doesn’t matter where you come from long as you know where you are going.” The shirt, according to the fraternity, was meant to show the ‘inclusivity’ of booze and partying down.

But campus Hispanic organizations charged the fraternity with “offensive racial stereotypes” and filed a formal complaint. Although the fraternity president, Rich Carrez, apologized to the campus Hispanic organization, the apology did no good. The fraternity was accused of being “racist,” even though it was the most racially diverse fraternity on campus (22 of its 47 members were non-White).

Carrez himself is part Native American, while the fraternity’s Vice President is Latino, and the student who designed the T-shirt is Hispanic. When this was pointed out, the Hispanic organization merely replied, “You should have known better.”

After a series of hearings, in which the fraternity was accused of launching a “racist” attack on the Latino community, the fraternity was forced to destroy all of the offending T-shirts, to write a letter of apology, to do 16 hours of community service, and to attend two sensitivity seminars on multiculturalism. But Hispanic students were still not satisfied, so the fraternity was also barred from intramural sports and rush activities, stripped of its charter and kicked off campus.

When the fraternity’s cause was taken up by the Individual Rights Foundation, the university settled out of court, agreeing to reinstate the fraternity, to drop all charges against it, and, in an unprecedented concession, to require two administrators to undergo sensitivity training in the First Amendment (see “Counter Coup: When Sensitivity Training is a Good Thing,” Heterodoxy 2 [3], November 1993, 12; “Campus Speech Codes Are Being Shot Down as Opponents Pipe Up,” WSJ, 22 December 1993, A1).

A similar graphic landed a student cartoonist at Portland State University in the gazpacho. In trying to point out that the American Free Trade Agreement was good for corporate America but not for the average Mexican citizen, the student drew a Mexican staring longingly at a display of beans, wondering if he could afford them. One would think that this would be received sympathetically by Hispanic students, but it wasn’t. All they saw in the cartoon was an implicit epithet: ‘beaner.’

The Chronicle of Higher Education sided with the thin-skinned students outraged by this scene, chiding the editors – “none of whom are Hispanic” – for not realizing that the depiction of beans could be construed as a “slur” (CHE, 17 November 1993, A39).

This spring, students at Yale demanded that the university remove a portrait of its founder, Elihu Yale, from its boardroom because it is “racist.” The painting portrays the school’s eighteenth-century founder seated in a chair with a young Black male (some think an Indian servant), perhaps kneeling, handing him a letter (CHE, 28 April 1995, A6).

Not nearly as exciting as the “Hovey murals” at Dartmouth, which feature drunken, scantily clad Native Americans, and which have been covered with panels since the 1970s because of protests that they were ”racist” (USA Today, 18 October 1993, D1).

At the University of Oregon, a banner depicting the faces of Michelangelo, Plato, Jane Austen, and eight other renowned, but White, figures was torn down by a group of students, who scrawled “racism” on it and painted some of the faces brown (CHE, 27 May 1992, A2).

What they did not realize, apparently, was that painting White faces brown was itself gravely “racist.” That was established in 1988, when a White Stanford student, to make a point, colored the face of Beethoven brown. The incident took place at Ujamaa House, Stanford’s “African-theme” dormitory.

One evening, a Black student claimed that Beethoven was Black. Several White students thought not. One of them found a big picture of Beethoven and, using a crayon, gave the composer an Afro and Black features and hung the poster outside the Black student’s room. When the Black student saw it, he was “flabbergasted,” and another was “outraged and sickened,” condemning the poster as “hateful, shocking.”

The White student explained that he did it only because disliked what he called “ethnic aggressivity,” and the campus obsession with race. He was also upset by a Black student who insisted that she would never marry anyone but another Black (a “racist” comment?). So he defaced the Beethoven poster “to show the Black students how ridiculous it was to focus on race.” He said the poster was “satirical humor.”

Threatened by members of an exceedingly hostile crowd of outraged Blacks, the White student apologized, but to no avail. Two days later, all the White students in Ujamaa – about 60 – found anonymous notes under their doors telling them to move out. In the photo display of the freshmen in Ujamaa, all the White faces had holes punched in them. Soon signs appeared that read: “Avenge Ujamaa. Smash the honkie oppressors!” (Chronicles, January 1990, 51-53).

And don’t even think about painting your own face Black! If you think Ted Danson got into trouble for his Friars Club routine, try it on campus. A number of frat boys have, and have been swatted with suspensions and hefty fines. No matter what the intent or context, painting your face Black is always a “racist” act, even when no Black person is present to be offended. The only problem is, that punishing people who do this is unconstitutional, even on campus, as a federal judge ruled in a case involving George Mason University (CHE, 4 September 1991).

At Brown, an art professor had to cancel a long-planned screening of the classic film Birth of a Nation when the local branch of the NAACP denounced it as “racist” (Commentary, September 1989, 22).

At Harvard, a government professor was forced to cancel a showing of It’s a Wonderful Life when Black students protested that its depiction of the household maid, which was both dignified and accurate, was a “racist” stereotype (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 217).

At the University of Pittsburgh, a professor of public relations scrapped the showing of a Nazi propaganda film, The Eternal Jew, when some Jews called it “racist” and “anti-Semitic,” which it is. But it was to be shown to instruct students about how the mass media could be misused (CHE, 13 November 1991). The logic that prevailed in these cases would forever cut us off from the past to avoid discomfiting the most thin-skinned.

Classroom movies aren’t the only thing that can provoke a charge of “racism.” In 1994, a French professor of psychology was roundly attacked as a “racist” for asking students taking a final exam to give the “clinical reasons” why the majority of Jews saw deportation between 1939 and 1942 as their “inexorable fate” (Chicago Tribune, 28 June 1994, 10).

This year a physics professor at MIT also got into trouble for an exam question: “You are in the forefront of a civil-rights demonstration when the police decide to disperse the crowd using a water cannon. If the cannon they turn on you delivers 1,000 liters of water per minute, what force does the water exert on you?”

After apologizing in print, the teacher explained that the question was intended to make physics come alive and to honor the courage of activists. A Black student responded that the question revealed how badly all faculty members needed sensitivity training (CHE, 3 March 1995, A33).

Another professor was called a “racist” for reading aloud in class from Moral Panic, 230). Apparently, David Mamet’s Oleanna is not an exaggeration.

In the censorious climate that prevails today on many campuses, even statements that are supported by observation, common sense, or statistics can be tagged as “racist.” A candidate for a university presidency did not get the job when it was learned that he had once said, perhaps after watching the Tom Brokaw special on “Black Athletes–Fact and Fiction” (1989), that “a Black athlete can actually out-jump a White athlete.” This occurred just before a movie enshrined this truism in its title (White Men Can’t Jump).

As Jared Taylor remarks, “Whites are not supposed to speculate about a possible Black superiority in athletics because to do so could be construed as a suggestion that Blacks may also have a natural inferiority in other areas. The tennis champion Arthur Ashe, however, is allowed to think Blacks may be specially talented at running because he, himself, is Black,” (222).

At Harvard, a memo distributed to students by the instructor was claimed to have created a hostile environment because it reported scholarly findings on negotiating styles that grouped Blacks and women as “low risk-takers.” A Black student said, “Just on the face of it, the memo is offensive,” (The Wall Street Journal, 30 October 1992, B1).

The prevailing assumption is that any generalization – favorable or unfavorable – about any minority that someone does not like is by definition “racist” and deserves to be suppressed – as long as it is said by a White person. Minority diversity consultants, in contrast, can parade, without a shred of empirical evidence, the grossest racial and ethnic stereotypes with virtual impunity.

Even statements about matters that are not directly racial are likely to be denounced as “racist” when they conflict with reigning groupthink. When Yale College dean Donald Kagan urged a group of freshmen to study Western Civilization, arguing that the freedom and civil liberties enjoyed by the West have led to a tolerance and a respect for diversity unknown in most cultures, the student newspaper denounced him as “racist, sexist, and out of touch,” (Campus Report, July/August 1993, 5).

In 1993, students at Cornell managed to free the epithet “racist” from all objective constraints. Someone spray-painted graffiti over an exhibition of art by Hispanic students. Although the graffiti contained not one “racist” slur, the students charged that the act was “racist” anyhow (CHE, 1 December 1993, A4). In short, even what is not “racist” is “racist.”

This perverse logic also governed the handling of a celebrated incident at Bowdoin College involving four fun-loving Asian students. What these students did was to dress themselves in White togas, wear bandannas around their heads, and march around the quad playing mandolins and harmonicas, holding candles and chanting, and throwing Toastee-Os breakfast cereal.

Incredibly, some students alleged that this was a “racist” demonstration. Because the togas were predominantly, but not exclusively, White, these students claimed that this was like having the Ku Klux Klan parading around campus – that they were, you guessed it, “intimidated” and “offended.”

While the Dean of Students conceded that these four festive Asians did not purposely set out to intimidate or offend anyone, nevertheless, the groups was charged with the Orwellian offence of being “grossly insensitive to the implications of their actions.”

The frolicsome foursome had letters of reprimand placed in their files, were forced to write an apology, to hear multicultural lectures on “issues involving racial sensitivities,” and to create an educational program on the conflict of freedom of expression with multicultural sensitivities (Campus, Winter 1992). Who better to speak from experience about the results of such conflicts?

Since anything can now be attacked as “racist,” it should not be surprising that this epithet has been hurled even at posters and exhibitions meant to combat racism. At Pennsylvania State University, a well-intentioned poster that listed almost fifty offensive slurs (“There’s a nasty name for everyone. Including you. Think about it.”) was itself attacked as “racist” (Campus, Fall 1991).

The same fate befell an art exhibit at Passaic County Community College attacking racism by depicting the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis and the epithets they hurl. The administration removed the paintings from a campus gallery when some students complained that they were “racist” (CHE, 8 December 1993, A6).

An exhibition at Johns Hopkins meant to honor the abolitionist movement unintentionally committed a ‘hate crime’ when it included material on James and William Birney, White abolitionists who released their slaves to demonstrate their anti-slavery commitment.

Blacks would have none of this sly “racist” endorsement of slavery. “This stuff will not be tolerated,” said Paul Brown, one of the Black students who staged a sit-in. “There are plenty of resources in the library if you just made a half-ass attempt to find something.” The library director who failed to make the half-assed attempt did manage the obligatory abject apology: “Personally, I deeply regret any offense given by the exhibit of abolitionist material,” (Heterodoxy, March 1993, 3).

This incident brings to mind the notorious attack on Jeanne Cannizzo, the University of Toronto anthropologist who curated the Royal Ontario Museum exhibit “Into the Heart of Africa” (1990), a well-meaning indictment of the humiliating way in which colonialists treated Africans.

Although no Whites protested this “insensitive” presentation of their forebears, some Blacks denounced the portrayals of vanquished African warriors as “racist.” According to this logic, any depiction of the victims of oppression must be “racist.” The protesters advised the museum that it should have exhibited only works of great African art.

Protesters mounted demonstrations not only outside the museum, but they invaded Cannizzo’s classroom, hurling insults and epithets at her. On one occasion, according to an eye-witness, “a large Black male chased Cannizzo down the hall.” Administrators and faculty did nothing to stop the defamation and assaults, abjectly afraid to oppose the will or criticize the behavior of campus minorities (“The Silencers,” Maclean’s, 27 May 1991, 63).

Cannizzo, shattered by this experience, left the university and eventually emigrated to England. All this, for organizing an exhibition that attacked racism!

This section ends where it began, in the kitchen. A group of dining-hall workers at Harvard wanted to have a “Back to the Fifties” party. But the Minority Affairs Dean denounced them for being “racist,” arguing that it was wrong to feel nostalgia for a decade that included segregationist sentiments (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 217; Newsweek , 6 May 1991).

A far more notorious incident occurred at the University of California-Santa Cruz, where the swampy multicultural atmosphere that now chokes ‘cutting-edge’ campuses led to a menu being found “racist.”

Two semi-autonomous colleges on the campus share a kitchen. Merrill College caters to ‘multicultural’ students; Crown appeals to science and economics students, many of whom are Asians. The incident began innocuously enough with the Crown kitchen staff deciding what to serve at a monthly College Night dinner.

Weeks earlier Merrill had chosen an Asian theme, but a Crown staffer, a Japanese-American, noticed that the dinner happened to fall on December 7, Pearl Harbor Day. Thinking this might appear to be by design and be misinterpreted, she chose a non-ethnic menu instead. While Crown students munched on chicken and spare ribs, a rumor spread at Merrill College that Crown had refused to serve Asian food because it blamed Asians for the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Soon fliers littered the campus denouncing the Crown administration as “racist.” Crown staff members were besieged by groups of angry students, angry phone calls, and even death threats. Meanwhile at Merrill, students and faculty, gloating at the troubles of their colleagues, issued a public statement about Crown’s “overt and covert racism” and calling the decision – keep in mind that it was made by a Japanese-American – ”the racist unconscious at work.”

After months of turmoil, the staff at Crown was forced to attend sensitivity workshops, which Crown’s provost, Peggy Musgrave, described as “brainwashing perations…humiliating experiences where people have to bare their souls and expose their innermost thoughts.” Musgrave was forced to resign. Crown’s bursar was so distraught and exhausted by the controversy that he was forced to take extended medical leave. Other Crown staff resigned.

All this bloodletting began, remember, over an allegedly “racist” menu (see Barbara Rhoades Ellis, “A Day of Infamy at UC Santa Cruz,” Heterodoxy 1 [3] June 1992, 6).

Muzzling the “Racist” Student Press

Unmoored charges of “racism” have sanctioned far more serious and repressive attacks on free expression and debate than the ones mentioned so far. The epithet “racist” has been used with particular effectiveness to intimidate and silence the student press. According to an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, during the academic year 1992-93 there were 38 “major trashings of publications” on campus.

At the University of Maryland, students stole 10,000 copies of the Diamondback, alleging that it is “racist” for misspelling the title of W. E. B. DuBois’s book The Souls of Black Folk (which came out The Sales of Black Folk; CHE 17 November 1993, A39). Most often, the accusation of “racism” is invoked to discredit opinions that minority members find uncongenial or embarrassing.

At Duke, the Duke Review was denounced as “racist” and summarily trashed by a Black student because it dared to criticize the Black Student Alliance as wasteful and monolithic (Campus 5 [2], Winter 1994, 13; 5 [3], Spring 1994, 12).

At the University of Iowa, Black students “filled the offices”– as the Chronicle of Higher Education euphemistically put it – of The Daily Iowan to protest the publication of a political cartoon comparing the Blacks who almost killed Reginald Denny to members of the Ku Klux Klan. Apparently the White editors had not heard that Blacks cannot be “racists” – by definition.

At the University of South Carolina, the student newspaper was threatened with a funding review by administrators when it published a student’s poem satirizing then presidential candidate Jesse Jackson (Illiberal Education, 145).

At Virginia Commonwealth University, Black students stole the entire press run of the student newspaper to punish it for running “racist” editorials charging that Black student groups receive disproportionate funding from the school: “We find you guily [sic] of several counts of vandalist, slanderist, racist, scandalist journalism. Therefore we are shutting you down.” The Black student newspaper complimented the thieves for “staging a courageous and peaceful protest,” (Campus Report, 10 [3], April 1995).

At Vassar, the student newspaper was called “racist” after it proclaimed Black activist Anthony Grate “hypocrite of the month” for espousing anti-Semitic views while denouncing bigotry against Blacks. The newspaper quoted Grate as saying “dirty Jews” and “I hate Jews.”

When the Spectator publicized the hypocrisy and racism of this Black leader, the Vassar Student Association attempted to suppress the offending issue, and then, when that failed, withdrew its funding. The newspaper had to be punished, according to VSA, for “unnecessarily jeopardiz[ing] an educational community based on mutual understanding,” (D’Souza, Ibid. 10).

On most campuses, it is presumptively “racist” to point out minority “racism.” The editor of the student newspaper at the State University of New York at Stony Brook provoked a tirade of abuse when he wrote that his experiences on this multicultural campus had “taught me to be wary, distrustful, and, at times, downright revolted by African Americans.”

In a column, Stony Brook Teaches Reactive Racism , the student wrote: “In one particular Africana Studies class I was called a ‘kike’ by one Black student, while another yelled out, ‘You! You Jew. You raped my people!’” The student, who is Jewish, said that other White students had told him that they also had been victims of racism by members of minority groups.

After the column was published, Black students didn’t apologize, as so many White students have been coerced into doing, but engineered a boycott against businesses that advertised in the paper. Although the student editor was physically threatened, the president of this “inclusive community” did not denounce Black racism or even investigate the charges – he denounced the column (CHE, 9 March 1994, A33).

At the University of California-Riverside, it is unhealthy even to criticize gangsta rap! The trouble for Mark Hardie, a Black 22-year-old senior, began when he wrote two columns in the student paper, one denouncing ‘gangsta rap’ and the other calling Afrocentrism a “racist” concept. Hardie was forced to resign his position as a staff writer and columnist because retaliation was promised if he stayed on.

Police had to provide Hardie with security escorts on campus because Black students threatened to kill him. One caller to a campus radio program said: “Ya know, he’s a victim here, he’s gonna be a victim. I’m waiting outside. I’m gonna kill him. I swear to God I’m gonna kill his family,” (Campus Reports 9 [4], April 1994, 3).

At the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Black students occupied the offices of, and temporarily closed down, The Massachusetts Daily Collegian when the White staff replaced three minority editors (others still served). Another grievance was that the paper refused to run an editorial condemning the first verdict in the Rodney King case. During the attack on the office, demonstrators broke a plate glass window and a stereo, and ripped up files, photographs, and documents.

When the student editor criticized the demonstrators in the Boston Globe, one Black student protester invaded the student-newspaper office armed with a baseball bat and attacked the newspaper’s photo editor, dragging him out of The Collegian office to the main floor of the Campus Center (CHE, 14 October 1992).

To also show their displeasure, the protesters confiscated or trashed most of the 19,000 copies of the press run. Although the theft of the papers was arguably a crime and certainly a violation of First Amendment rights, the administration refused to condemn, or even comment on, this act.

Throughout the controversy, the administration, as Gary Brasor points out, tacitly approved unlawful acts it deemed compatible with its multicultural agenda (for a blow-by-blow account, see Gary Crosby Brasor, “Weimar in Amherst,” Academic Questions, 8 [2], Spring 1995, 69-89).

At DePaul University, the DePaulia was recently denounced as “racist” and shut down by Black students who didn’t like the DePaulia correctly reporting that several DePaul students arrested for fighting at a campus “Bootie-Call” party were Black. In the story, the DePaulia quoted the police report, which described those arrested as “M/Bs,” police shorthand for male/Blacks and one of several routine abbreviations used by police to describe people either arrested or victimized.

According to the protesters, however, the abbreviation is “offensive” (Chicago Sun-Times, 12 April 1995, 11). Their leader said that the mention of race was “disrespectful” and contributed to negative stereotyping of Blacks on campus (Chicago Sun-Times, 11 April 1995, 13). In other words, quoting directly, quoting accurately, and having the facts straight are now “racist” if the truth discomfits minorities.

Predictably, DePaulia staffers will receive counseling about “cultural sensitivity” but the Black protesters will not receive tutoring in the First Amendment. And, of course, no reprimands for those who trashed the office and shut down the paper.

Perhaps the most outrageous attacks on a student paper occurred in 1993 at the University of Pennsylvania during the tenure of Sheldon Hackney, the Poster Boy of Invertebrate Administrators.

Gregory Pavlik, a politically incorrect columnist for The Daily Pennsylvanian, had criticized Martin Luther King for being a plagiarist and adulterer, Malcolm X for being a pimp, and racial preferences for being “racist.”

Pavlik wrote a column in March of 1993 that criticized university officials for expelling two White freshmen who dumped water on Black members of the Onyx Senior Honor Society who were holding an initiation/hazing ceremony under their dormitory windows at 2:30 a.m. (Maybe Penn’s code should tell students when to go to bed.)

Pavlik provocatively claimed that the two students were suspended because they were White, and that the Onyx Society was the real culprit and should be punished, even though Black.

The column ignited a firestorm. The university’s Judicial Action Office filed 32 charges of “racial harassment” against Pavlik, despite the fact that the newspaper is financially and legally independent of the university. In the most wonderful doublespeak, the Judicial Action Officer said she filed the complaint because she was “afraid for [Pavlik’s] safety” (Campus Report, 8 [5], May 1993, 4).

To protest the “blatant and voluntary perpetuation of institutional racism” at the newspaper and on campus, a number of Black students removed nearly all 14,000 copies of one edition from campus distribution sites (CHE, 28 April 1993, A33). 202 Penn Blacks signed a letter justifying the act.

A university report on this incident found that the theft of the newspapers was a “form of student protest and not an indicator of criminal behavior,” and that the campus police who arrested demonstrators caught in the act were wrong (see excerpts in WSJ, 26 July 1993, A10, and editorial). They should have contacted “Open Expression Monitors” to study the students actions (I am not making this up).

The police were sent to sensitivity training seminars to have their sense of fair play adjusted. The chief of security for a campus museum, who nabbed two protesters sneaking out with plastic garbage bags, was officially reprimanded for “racial harassment” and suspended. He too had to undergo sensitivity training. The Black students who threw away the entire press run of the newspaper were not punished (see “Penn Report Faults Campus Police for Response to Students’ Taking Papers,” CHE, 4 August 1993, A27, and 22 September 1993, A35).

In July 1988 – before many of these incidents had occurred – Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, issued a prescient statement:

We are extremely concerned about incidents…which we believe reflect a growing wave of campus censorship inflicted under the guise of fighting racism. Faced with a real concern about an important issue, universities appear to be accepting the misguided notion that viewpoint suppression is an appropriate means to their end.

We note with some irony that this same means was used a generation ago against students who were advocating equality and desegregation (in Illiberal Education, 145).

Suppressing Debate about Public Issues

As the previous section makes clear, the term “racism” has been used on campus to squelch debate about a number of crucial social issues. The term has proven particularly effective in silencing debate about racial preferences. “On virtually every campus,” writes Dinesh D’Souza, “there is a de facto taboo against free discussion of affirmative action or minority self-segregation, and efforts to open such discussion are considered presumptively racist,” (Illiberal Education , 238).

Jennifer Imle, a junior at Southwestern University in Texas, displayed in her room a poster attacking admissions policies based on race. She was soon attacked as a “racist” and ridiculed by her professors during class. The Dean of Students took one look at the poster and said “This must go!” circulating a memo that said the poster smacked of White supremacy.

Imle resisted the effort to suspend her First Amendment rights, and arranged to have Dinesh D’Souza and a campus advocate of racial preferences debate the issue before 350 students eager to hear the issue publicly and honestly discussed.

Other stories don’t have such happy outcomes. At one major university, an associate dean was asked to resign because of his candid opposition to affirmative action and multiculturalism (Lingua Franca, April 1991, 37). At another, an assistant vice chancellor of academic personnel was fired, and escorted by police from her office, when she pointed out that a new affirmative-action plan violated the university’s stringent guidelines for faculty search procedures Heterodoxy 2 [10], October 1993).

At Harvard, a professor got into trouble merely for defining affirmative action as “government enforcement of preferential treatment in hiring, promotion, and college admissions.” Black students denounced the phrase “preferential treatment” as “racist” (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 199-200).

In 1987, at UCLA, a student editor was suspended for printing a cartoon ridiculing affirmative action. In the “intolerably racist” cartoon, a student stops a rooster on campus and asks how it got into UCLA. The rooster responds, “Affirmative action.” When another editor at a different school wrote a column criticizing UCLA officials for suspending the editor – and reproduced the cartoon to support his argument – he too was suspended.

The newspaper’s adviser, an assistant professor of journalism no less, said that his crime was publishing controversial material “without permission.” Incredibly, other editors agreed with her, clucking that the student journalist had learned “a valuable lesson in common sense,” (Dictatorship of Virtue, 209).

As John Leo put it, “Whenever the curtain parts and the public gets a peek at what is really going on in college admissions…voices are raised to expel the student who released the data, as well as the college editor who printed them. This kind of defense of furtiveness is routine,” (“Endgame for affirmative action,” U. S. News and World Report, 13 March 1995, 18).

The most outrageous example of denouncing a critic of affirmative action as a ”racist” involved Timothy Maguire, a law senior at Georgetown University Law School. After working as a clerk in the admissions office, Maguire wrote an article reporting that Georgetown admits Blacks with lower LSAT scores than Whites (a routine practice throughout the country).

The article provoked outrage, with one White student characterizing it as “assaultive.” “People were injured. I think that kind of speech is outrageous,” (in Hentoff, Free Speech for Me, 219). Black students accused Maguire of being a “racist” and demanded his expulsion (CHE, 29 May 1991).

When the law school prosecuted Maguire for revealing “confidential” admissions data (he named no names), lawyers refused to defend him out of fear of being called “racists” (Jared Taylor, Paved With Good Intentions, 1992, 181). The two who did were not only accused of being “racists” but placed on probation at the D. C. School of Law (Hentoff, 223-27).

Clearly, the safest way to express opinions about affirmative action on campus is anonymously, on the internet. At Yale recently, a posting contended that affirmative action should play no part in the selection of editors for The Yale Law Review, and defended using anonymity because “self-identification could lead to personal harm.” The law school dean determined that this posting had to go (CHE, 7 April 1995, A36).

Strategic interventions of the word “racist” have discouraged debate on other crucial issues as well. The University of Charleston refused to renew the contract of a conservative scholar after he criticized “diversity” standards for accreditation (National Review, 1 February 1993, 14).

At the University of Oregon, faculty members who had raised questions about a proposal to increase the number of required multicultural credits were called “racists” in a full-page ad published in an alternative campus newspaper. The ad listed the professors’ names, class schedules, and office telephone numbers (CHE 30 June 1993, A27).

Diane Ravitch was called a “racist” for criticizing “racial fundamentalism,” the notion that children can learn only from people of the same race. She has also been physically threatened: “‘We’re going to get you, bitch. We’re going to beat your White ass,’” (New York Magazine , 21 January 1991).

At the University of New Mexico, the contract of a part-time instructor was not renewed after she was charged with “racism” by a Hispanic graduate student for saying in class that “there are six generations of South Valley residents who cannot speak English. There’s no excuse for that since they have many opportunities to learn. There’s just no excuse for that if they want to stay in this country, and if that’s the case, as far as I’m concerned, they can go further south.”

Although the professor denied saying these words, no formal hearing was ever held, and she was not interviewed before she was released (NAS Update, 4 [1]).

At Chico State University, a professor got into hot water when he published a letter in the local newspaper arguing that demands for Indian teachers were unrealistic because there were not enough qualified candidates. He went on to say that Indian students ought to be on campus “to get the best education…not have their sensibilities stroked and grades of ‘A’ doled out on the basis of their race or correct politics.”

Native Americans across the country attacked these comments, and the Chico administration informed the professor that he had violated the school’s racial harassment policy, which calls for expulsion of faculty or students who create “an atmosphere of intimidation and hostility.” When the professor threatened to sue, the university dropped its charges (Heterodoxy 2 [4], December 1993, 3).

A similar incident occurred at the University of Alaska, when a Harvard-trained expert on Native American education was charged with “racism” and “discrimination” for saying that a teacher-education program at the university was under “equity pressures” to pass Alaskan Natives through the system.

Angry faculty and students organized demonstrations against her, and the Fairbanks Native Association filed a complaint with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. The OCR eventually determined that the professor’s remarks did not violate the rights of students (CHE, 23 September 1992; see also Steven Wulf, “Federal Guidelines for Censorship,” Academic Questions, 8 [2], Spring 1995, 58-68).

To avoid being stigmatized as a “racist,” it is best not to say anything that might disturb a minority member.

At Iowa State University, a White African-American history professor disagreed with a Black student about the role of Afrocentric theories in the course; the student, a member of the Nation of Islam, called her a “racist liar” and threatened her with a “jihad” (CHE, 20 October 1993, A5; 1 December).

At the University of Illinois a feminist scholar was removed from her course in women’s studies when she said of one Black student who “snickered” and trivialized rape that he fit the profile of a Black male rapist – a remark he found “racist.” She, of course, condemned the university for being “sexist,” (CHE, 7 October 1992).

At the University of Michigan, a White professor of sociology and the nation’s leading expert on the demography of Black Americans was denounced as a “racist” after he read a passage from the Autobiography of Malcolm X in which the author describes himself as a pimp and a thief. Black students called for a person of color to teach the course (and perhaps to re-write the Autobiography).

The professor stopped teaching the class and observed that several of his colleagues intended to drop any discussion of various important race-related issues from their courses, for fear of being accused of “racism” (Chester Finn, “The Campus: An Island of Repression is a Sea of Freedom,” Commentary, September 1989, 19).

One of the most notorious instances of intimidation was directed at two eminent, and exceedingly liberal, Harvard professors who co-taught a course on American history and demography. In 1987, both were attacked in the Harvard Crimson for being “racially insensitive.”

Bernard Bailyn’s crime was reading an exculpatory passage about slavery from the diary of a southern planter without giving equal time to the recollections of a slave.

Richard Thernstrom’s crime was assigning a book that defined affirmative action as “the government enforcement of preferential treatment in hiring, promotion and college admissions,” and endorsing Patrick Moynihan’s thesis that the breakup of the Black family is an important cause of persistent Black poverty (John Taylor, New York Magazine, 21 January 1991, 33-34).

As a Black student put it, “I am also left to question his sensitivity when I hear that Black men get feelings of inadequacy, beat their wives, and take off” (in Illiberal Education , 195-96). Thernstrom’s defense, that he “presented factual information in an objective and dispassionate way,” is beside the point; the facts hurt the feelings of Black students, and that, by definition, proves “racial insensitivity.” Thernstrom wrote:

Teaching in a university in which a handful of disaffected students can all too easily launch a smear campaign…one must think about how many times one wants to be a martyr. I love to debate historical interpretations, but what I experienced…was not public discussion of the validity of my ideas but an indictment of my character and motives. I am not alone in deciding to avoid yet another irrational and vicious personal attack like this…

I know of other scholars who have censored their courses by dropping any treatment of touchy topics such as the disintegration of the Black family. When I was an undergraduate in the 1950s, the menace to academic freedom in America came from the right.

Academic freedom is again under attack today, this time from leftist students…who believe in “no free speech for fascists” and think mistakenly that all the fascists are on the right ( Harper’s, February 1992, “Letters”).

Given this repressive climate on campus, it is now dangerous even to report widely accepted facts, if those facts are unwelcomed by, or embarrassing to, minorities and their protectors. At the University of Michigan, a professor of statistics (for 37 years) was accused of “promoting racism” and temporarily suspended after he noted in class that minorities average 55 points lower on the SAT than Whites (Campus 5 [2], Winter 1994, 12).

As Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer points out, “We have to deal with some very bad news when we talk about Blacks…We have to talk about unpleasant matters, matters that Blacks will find upsetting and depressing, and that can only make them unhappy.” If universities choose to have a curriculum that includes African-American Studies and courses on race, then universities, as Dinesh D’Souza argues, have a responsibility to make sure that professors and students are free to talk about these issues without intimidation (Illiberal Education, 201).

Suppressing “Racist” Research

The effort to discourage and suppress ’social risk’ research has a long and ignoble history (recall Bruno and Galileo). During the 1960s and early 70s, this urge took on a ‘humanitarian’ guise. The goal was to protect minorities from “racist” research that might harm the interests or psyches of minorities.

Why is it “ignoble” to suppress allegedly “racist” research? Jonathan Rauch provides an elegant answer in Kindly Inquisitors (1993). Rauch argues that the only way that liberal science can effectively work to find truth and establish consensus is to presume that any and all subjects are open to competent investigation.

To do otherwise would require authoritarian control of vast proportions, and countries that have tried to exert such control have suffered grievous social, political and economic deprivations as a result. The knowledge-making enterprise itself, with its checks and balances, is the only agent that can fittingly determine who and what is competent and when a case has been “proved.”

Liberal science, according to Rauch, “declares that the issue of race and intelligence should be explored by any researcher who cares to explore it and who will follow the rules,” (144). Whatever one thinks about this research, amateurs must leave it to experts and the processes of free intellectual debate to determine if and when it can be added to our body of knowledge.

Research that cannot withstand the vigorous fact-checking and error-finding that drives our knowledge-making enterprise will eventually be discredited and marginalized. Research that can withstand such scrutiny will be incorporated into the mass of data, findings, theories, etc. that we call knowledge. Once there, other agencies and forums can debate and deal with its political and social implications.

This crucial processes of testing can only occur, obviously, on research that has already been done and made public. To prevent research from being done, no matter how risky it may seem at the time or to some members of society, could rob society of potentially useful insights, and would likely, in the long run, lead to the undermining of the most successful and beneficial collaborative and international enterprise in the history of humanity.

Let me illustrate the truth of this observation. Back in 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan broke the silence on the problems facing Black culture with his book, The Black Family: The Case for National Action. Noting a sharp rise in the number of single-parent Black families, he forewarned that this trend posed a threat to Blacks’ social progress and to society at large.

For his efforts, he was vilified for “blaming the victim” and accused of “crypto-racism” (Joseph G. Conti and Brad Stetson, “The New Black Vanguard,” Intercollegiate Review , Spring 1993, 34). But as Adam Walinsky has recently pointed out, Moynihan’s dire predictions have come true; vilifying his “racist” research only served to blind people to the “long descending night” of violence which he foresaw and which is now upon us (“The Crisis of Public Order,” The Atlantic Monthly, July 1995, 48-49).

As Rauch has shown, humanitarians continue to attack scientific and social research that threatens to lead to findings that some minorities, and indeed some Whites, might find disturbing, especially if true. At the University of Michigan, for example, an administrator called for the suppression of “theories” that might conflict with a multicultural agenda, since “harassment in classrooms is based on theories held by teachers,” (Kindly Inquisitors, 136).

The notion that some credible scientific theories and findings are, in and of themselves, “racist” has spread to undergraduates, with dangerous implications for academic freedom. “An amazing 38 percent” of students evaluating a teacher’s lecture on the genetic contribution to intelligence felt that this was not an appropriate topic for a psychology course.

When these students were asked about the professor’s motives for presenting this material, “24 percent specifically mentioned ‘racist,’ ‘racism,’ or notions of ‘racial superiority’” (Stanley Coren, “When Teaching Is Evaluated on Political Grounds,” Academic Questions , Summer 1993, 77; reprinted in The Montana Professor, 5 [1], Winter 1995, 12-14). Clearly, scholars working on touchy subjects – and the list of these keeps growing and growing too – run their own risk of being label “racists,” no matter how valid their findings.

At the University of California-Berkeley, a professor of physical anthropology who argues that crime, intelligence, and other human behaviors are influenced by genetic factors and that there is a relationship between race and innate abilities, was prevented from teaching his class when 75 students marched into his anthropology class and drowned out his lecture (CHE, 4 March 1992; Russell Jacoby, Dogmatic Wisdom, 137).

Trouble befell a similar course taught at the University of Denver. Charles Murray, of Bell Curve fame, who studies the relation between race and IQ and how intelligence traits can be inherited and measured, was to lecture for half the course on intelligence and public policy with the other half reserved for his critics.

Not good enough. His critics at DU think his “racist” ideas were not worthy of any discussion and demanded that the course be canceled (Campus Report, June 1991; CHE, 16 January 1991). Fortunately for academic freedom, the university disagreed.

At the University of Maryland, a “thoughtfully organized” conference on genetic components in criminal behavior, which reviewers said did “a superb job of assessing the underlying scientific, legal, ethical, and public policy issues,” was canceled by the National Institutes of Health when Blacks said it would promote “racism.” The Committee to Stop the Violence Initiative, formed at Howard University, said of the conference, “It is clear racism. It is an effort to use public money for a genocidal effort against African Americans,” (CHE, 2 September 1992).

At the University of Delaware, two researchers were prevented from accepting funds from a private foundation some administrators deemed “racist.” The campus African-American Coalition claimed that the research threatened “the very survival of African-Americans,” (Campus Report, May 1992). An arbitrator, saying that the university based its decision on perceptions rather than on facts, overturned the ban (CHE, 4 September 1991).

Both researchers had already endured years of institutional harassment and character assassination for publishing the results of their research on race-norming (As a result of this work, race-norming was banned in 1991). After the Department of Educational Studies denied major credits for their courses and defined their publications and investigations as “non-research,” they filed a federal lawsuit to gain relief from the persecution and won an out-of-court settlement in 1992 (Campus Report 9 [2] February 1994, 6).

This humanitarian effort to restrict “racist” research can wind up inhibiting research by Blacks that could help the Black community! At the University of Chicago, a Black sociologist encountered all kinds of opposition to his research on racial integration, especially when he found that Black schoolteachers were less prepared than their White counterparts (Lingua Franca, April 1991, 37; CHE , 21 November 1990).

Other Blacks at the same school have also complained about the pressures they face to avoid research that might reflect badly on Blacks or bring unwelcome news. Professor William Julius Wilson observed, “There has been a tendency in our field not to discuss issues that are unflattering,” (CHE, 30 October 1991).

Personally, I very uncomfortable with the theories of Philippe Rushton and Michael Levin, who argue, as I understand them, that on average Blacks score lower than Whites and Asians on intelligence and most other tests, and that these results may have something to do with genetic endowment (see Jared Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions, 123-182 for an overview of comparative test results in many fields).

I am also offended by the notion that Whites may be, on average, less intelligent than Asians, or that, as Leonard Jeffries incredibly argues (he is not a researcher), Whites, as “ice people,” are not as nice as Blacks, who are “sun people.”

I, like many others, worry about how any of this information may affect immediate human behavior and long-term social policy. But I first want to know if it is true, as truth is consensually defined by the experts in the appropriate fields. If it is not true, then I can dismiss it as I dismiss horoscopes no matter how flattering. If it is true, then we have to determine how this information bears upon the way we live together.

We must allow social-risk research to be done because we cannot know beforehand if the risks will materialize or not, or if the research will benefit some of us in unexpected ways. After all, most knowledge entails social “risks” for some group or other. The only way to avoid such risks would be to profoundly curtail through authoritarian fiat the knowledge-making enterprise of Western civilization. This program of repression, however, would entail the gravest risks of all.

Conclusion

I have tried to show that the epithet “racist” is often used irresponsibly to punish and suppress a wide range of words, images, statements and findings – from innocuous metaphors to unwelcome facts and theories. I am not arguing, of course, that the term “racist” is only or always used this way, but I do contend that it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish legitimate uses of the term from exaggerated, promiscuous, and repressive ones.

It is time for responsible students, academics, and administrators to discountenance all heedless, negligent, and intolerant invocations of this word. The use of repressive and stigmatizing epithets has no place in a community of fact-gatherers, truth-sorters, knowledge-makers, and opinion-shapers.

How did campuses get into this fix? Why do so many students, teachers and administrators make, or treat seriously, patently preposterous accusations of “racism”? To understand this phenomenon, let me invoke a concept recently used by John Fekete in another context: the concept of “moral panic.” A moral panic emerges from the impulse to root out all moral evil and to prevent its germination.

Driven by a “zero-toleration” mentality, a campaign of moral panic feeds on itself, always expanding its boundaries (and thus enemies) and intimidating its adherents into ever more fervent demonstrations of compliance and support.

Many on campus – both minorities and non-minorities – apparently believe that such a panic is good for the “racist” souls of White folks. In Paved With Good Intentions, Jared Taylor explains why:

It is widely assumed that if the struggle against racism is not maintained at fever pitch, White people will promptly relapse into bigotry. Thus a great deal of the criticism of Whites is justified on the grounds that it will forestall potential racism…The process becomes circular.

Since Whites are thought likely to turn racist if not constantly policed, it is legitimate to denounce acts of racism they might commit as if they had already done so. In this climate, all charges of racism must be taken seriously because they are potentially true (107).

A couple of years ago, a Black student at Emory reported being racially harassed, eventually falling into silence and curling up into a fetal position. Emory’s president solemnly denounced “renascent bigotry” and imposed new speech-code rules. An investigation proved, however, that it was all a hoax concocted by the student to divert attention from her cheating on a chemistry test.

But today, even hoaxes are defended as being morally true, given the assumption of rampant White “racism.” What does it matter if Twana Brawley was really raped or not by five White New York politicos? The truth is that every once and a while a White man does rape a Black woman. Of the Emory hoax, the head of the Atlanta NAACP said, “‘It does not matter whether she did it or not, because of all the pressure these Black students are under at these predominantly White schools,” (Campus Report, July/August 1993, 5).

In the perfectionist and puritanical climate of a moral panic, even trivial, trumped-up, or absurd charges of “racism” can have valuable political and therapeutic effects. Since racism is a bad thing, the more opportunities to condemn it the better. As a result of this deranged view, “charges of racism can be made with the same reckless impunity as were charges of communism at the height of the McCarthy era,” (Taylor, 23). To ask for the facts supporting the charge is to expose one’s own “racism” and to invite more accusations.

Campus culture provides a fertile field for the flowering of moral panic. The campus equity bureaucracy plays a crucial role in fomenting baseless and capricious charges of “racism.” The income and careers of these people depend on the discovery and extirpation of White“racism.”

Each accusation, no matter how idiotic, is interpreted as evidence of the increased racial tensions on campus; increased “racism” justifies the existence of – and the increased power of – the race-relations experts who must spring into action to avert campus race war.

This readiness to believe any accusation colludes insidiously with the desire of activist minority groups to “mau-mau,” as the insightful Tom Wolfe phrased it, campus flak catchers. “Blacks learned long ago that Whites can be silenced and intimidated by accusing them of racism. White acquiescence has made the charge of racism into such a powerful weapon that it should be no surprise to find that a great many Blacks cannot resist the temptation to wield it,” (Taylor 61).

In short, minorities enjoy assaulting the dignity of ‘Whitey.’ To push an absurd accusation to a successful conclusion is the perfect way to do it and to demonstrate, and thus increase, one’s clout. The equity bureaucracy doesn’t oppose such shenanigans because almost every successfully prosecuted accusation of “racism” results in the hiring of more minorities and equity-specialists, thus driving up their price and increasing their clout.

Even White adminstrators are seduced into this game. By responding to all minority complaints, White administrators, most of whom seem riddled with guilt, can demonstrate their oneness with oppressed peoples, salve their conscience, and placate menacing groups of minority students (with their sun glasses, hooded parkas and military fatigues). Lending credence to every accusation also serves to strengthen the hand of administration.

Administrators like stringent speech codes not only because they testify to the purity of their motives but because these codes generate accusations that help intimidate the majority of students and faculty on campus, making them more dependent upon the intercessory goodwill and power of administrators.

Meanwhile, administrators, being insulated from classroom teaching and most direct interaction with students, are usually able to escape the pernicious effects of the repressive codes they champion. When they can’t, as in the case of Francis Lawrence, they call in their chits and hang on until the tempest blows over.

Countenancing trivial, baseless, and absurd charges of “racism” carries a terrible price.

First of all, it trivializes real racist incidents, which get lost in the moral panic over innocent logos, innocuous words, and legitimate research data.

Second, it sours even good-willed Whites on tolerance and diversity. If they are “racist” by virtue of their skin color, and if almost anything they do can get them into trouble anyhow, why try?

Third, it creates for Whites an intimidating and hostile educational environment. Those in favor of prohibiting the use of words that demean and victimize members of the campus community might want to consider adding “racist!” to their hit list.

Fourth, trivial and baseless charges of “racism” inevitably embitter many Whites, more and more of whom are sick and tired of their ritual role as “racists.” Even the Washington Generals got tired of being programmed losers, and they got paid for it.

And fifth, the moral panic over “racism” has led to outrageous double standards harmful to both Whites and Blacks. As Jared Taylor points out, “Whites are held to a system of ’sensitivity’ requirements that do not apply to Blacks,” (Taylor 217).

Whites are monitored, pestered, and punished for preposterous reasons – for a look, for an innocent word, for wearing a T-shirt, for expressing a plausible argument – but Blacks can say almost anything with perfect impunity. The wording of many speech- and conduct-codes explicitly sanctions such double standards, protecting only certain, privileged minority groups, not all students.

Taking the hint, many minorities advance the absurd but self-exonerating claim that they cannot be “racists,” and then feel free to expound the most absurd and vilificatory racist nonsense ever heard on campuses.

No doubt some Whites, angered by this punitive duplicity, are provoked into “racist” thoughts and acts that would not have occurred to them in a more tolerant and even-handed environment. Moral panic over “racism” may create racists, not eliminate them.

Nor is the moral panic surrounding “racism” good for Blacks and other minorities. The climate of moral panic generated by exaggerated and unfounded accusations of “racism” only serves to dangerously reinforce “an already exaggerated sense of grievance in Blacks,” (Taylor, 87). This is not good for race relations. It encourages Blacks to mistrust all Whites and to see themselves as saintly victims of a system in which they cannot prosper.

Phony or trivial charges of “racism” may seem harmless enough in their particular contexts, but cumulatively they gnaw away at freedom. The argument Catharine R. Stimpson made to defend art is relevant here: “Higher education cannot delude itself into thinking that the arts can lose a little freedom here, the humanities a little freedom there, and everything will still be manageable…For academic and cultural freedom is like air: Pollution in one zone spreads to another,” (CHE, 26 September 1990).

In Fahrenheit 451, that remarkably prescient book, censorship does not come from the top down, but from the bottom up, and it comes through a thousand ostensibly minor restrictions on freedom in the name of humanitarian good will.

There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick… You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can’t have our minorities upset and stirred… Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin . Burn it (Valentine, 53-4).

There are many ways to deal with false and trivial accusations of “racism,” but the one that seems most effective is to sue.

When something Eric Shane, the art historian, had written was said by another scholar to be open to a “racist construction,” Shane threatened to sue for defamation of character and libel.

The chastened critic, and her publisher, took out an ad in several major literary periodicals saying that the “slur” was “wholly unwarranted and [that they] deeply regret[ed] that the suggestion was made.” The ad went on to say that they were “pleased to have this opportunity to withdraw unreservedly this unfounded suggestion and to apologise most sincerely to Mr. Shane for the considerable distress and embarrassment which he has been caused,” (The Times Literary Supplement, 18 November 1994).

Given the moral panic that prevails on many campuses today, threatening to sue may be a more effective way of discouraging the irresponsible use of intimidating epithets than, say, appeals to this country’s principles of due process and free expression that still remain the envy and goal of so many people throughout the world.

More articles by Trout: Disengaged Students and the Decline in Academic Standards & Flunking the Test: The Dismal Record of Student Evaluations.

New Liberal Race Realist Blog

Here.

I know who this guy is, but I won’t name any names. I have not read much of what he’s written here other than the opening statement, but I’m in agreement with this project. He also has some liberal race realists in the comments section. I had no idea that there were so many of us. Rather than pushing some sort of “liberal racism” – the typical PC rejoinder to liberal race realism – he is simply trying to find a way to fashion a liberal or progressive project out of the rather discouraging (to us) facts about race, as they come to light.

Clearly, the whole race realist/human biodiversity (HBD) project is now in the hands of the Right, and it does have some major ideological challenges to the Left and liberalism. Nevertheless, I think we are up to the task. There’s no reason to give this whole issue to the Right while continuing to protest with arguments that increasingly seem like disgusting but well-meaning lies.

Furthermore, there are a lot of Whites and males, and especially White males, who are sick and tired of the whole “White People/Men are Evil” line pushed by the PC crowd.

If you go to a California university now, you have to take a Diversity Curriculum that consists of classes that might as well be called White People and Men are Evil. I’ve talked to some White guys who just came out of that program, and they are hopping mad. The general tendency is for folks like that to move to the Right politically, since the Left and the Democratic Party is seen as hostile to Whites and men.

Well, the Left is hostile to Whites and men!

But I’m all about economics, so I’m not about to support rightwing economics (the enemy) just because the Left is bonkers on race, gender, sexual orientation and other crap.

Liberal Race Realism, along with a Liberal analogue to Masculinist Movement, now completely in the hands of the Right, stands a chance of rescuing some of these White and male souls before they take off into rightwing populist la-la land.

It’s time for some real navel-gazing on the Left. It should be clear by now that 40 years of Identity Politics on the Left, now embodied as Queer Theory, Gender Feminism, Critical Race Theory and other forms of jazzed up bullshit soft science, hasn’t done the slightest damn thing for poor people, and especially for poor minorities, in particular for poor Blacks.

Worse, it empowered a horrible rightwing backlash and siphoned a lot of Whites and males off to the neverworlds of rightwing populism. And if we on the Left are working for anyone, it’s for the working classes, the poor, the lower income people, and in particular the minorities among them, who are hurting most of all.

Liberal Biorealism site goes beyond this one by accepting many race realist presuppositions as facts on the ground. It’s notable that they assume that genetics explains most of the B-W IQ difference.

I’m not willing to do that here, at least not yet. As long as that line can still be credibly disputed, and there is no hard consensus on it, I will hold to this optimistic position. My point instead is to say that the tests are valid, and there are intelligence differences among races and ethnic groups, whatever the Hell is causing them. At this sad point, even that is pouring gasoline on the fire of public discourse.

I realize that there is not much in race realism for Blacks, but Blacks should maybe come up with a pro-Black project that takes race realism into account, since this view is only going to grow in the future. For Blacks to throw the whole thing over to hard racists in the Libertarian and Conservative movements, who have nothing but ill will for Blacks, is a mistake.

For instance, it’s typical for rightwing race realists to argue that HBD means that we need to cut off all or most social spending to minorities, since they are genetically inferior, and you’re just throwing good money after bad. Almost all conservative race realists also want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. There’s nothing in that but harm for Blacks period, and not just poor Blacks. By not formulating some sort of a pro-Black response to race realism, Blacks risk throwing the ball over to their worst enemies.

Business As Usual

In the shitty little country, the Jews’ little hate state.

This is in East Jerusalem, mind you. Not the West Bank. East Jerusalem is not even considered to be part of the West Bank. It’s part of Israel, you know, the only democracy in the Middle East and all that shit. This is the way Israeli Jews treat humans inside their very own beacon of democracy, the City on a Hill. You know, the place where the “civilized Western Judeo-Christian (White) values” of the Jews is most starkly contrasted with the sheer animal viciousness of the Arab primitives. Or so the Jews would have it. Yeah right.

What I don’t get is how Israel gets the support of all these US liberals. I mean, the place is the living embodiment of a contradiction to so many values that we libs hold dear to our hearts.

The whole Israeli project reminds one of the Jim Crow South.

Can you imagine this in the US?

White cop calling an ambulance: “There is someone injured…” White ambulance dispatcher: “White person or a nigger?” White cop: “It’s a nig.” White dispatcher, sneering: “Call the SPCA. We don’t pick up injured animals.” White cop: Laughs. Black boy continues lying bleeding in the street while cackling Whites with evil smirking grins prance around and throw stones at Black people. “Nigger go home!” They yell gleefully as the Blacks, faces clouded in shame, scuttle away.

Now, just replace White with Jew and nigger and Black with Arab and you’ve got the Israeli project in a nutshell.

And the same liberal Whites who recoil in horror at the Jim Crow South squirm their reluctant praise for Israel, all because it’s Jews being the shits, and not White Gentiles. And you know, the Jews got killed in the Ho-lo-caust and all that. So they get to be shits for decades, or centuries, or until we forget the Shoah.

I was talking to a nice White liberal the other day. I told her that the Palestinians believe in Replacement Theology, because it implies that there’s no religious justification for Israel in Christianity. She sighed and said, “They’re all nuts.” I said, “Well, they got their land stolen. They don’t agree with that. What are they supposed to do, pack up and go to some other Arab country?” She gave a disgusted sigh and said, “They might as well.”

This wouldn’t be ok if anyone else but Jews was doing it. This particular White liberal is Judeophilic like so many millions of US White Gentiles, and this leads her to excuse in Jews what she would condemn in anyone else.

I can’t see any liberal supporting Israel.

I can see rightwingers supporting them. They eat oppression, imperialism, colonialism, land theft and discrimination for breakfast every morning. Those are practically conservative values.

If you object to that, then they are surely fascist and racist values. The behavior of those Israelis in that piece above is typical of many fascist states. It’s also typical of racist societies around the world. If we are anti-fascist and anti-racist liberals, what in God’s name are we doing supporting Israel?

Anyone?

Oil Speculators Account For 50% of Oil Trades

New study here. I don’t understand economics very well, but this seems ridiculous. What is the point of this? Why are 5 This seems absurd to me. People who are rewarded in society are people who are producing or distributing a product. Even artists selling schlock are producing something that someone wants to buy. Overpriced pituitary cases on basketball courts seem silly with their multi-million $ salaries, but they are producing a product, professional sports, which millions want to pay for in various ways. All of these strike me as socially useful types of production. Hell, even dope and porn are products that folks are willing to fork over bucks for. Production need not be socially beneficial, but I would suggest that production or distribution itself ought to be a requirement for any socially useful type of economic activity. I have no beef with folks who are either buying or selling oil, or any other commodity for that matter. That’s a product. Buying and selling is part of the function of the market in a market society. But sheer gambling seems to be completely extraneous to any social benefit. No product is produced, no product is purchased, no product is sold. This seems to me very much a useless, leech, “parasitic” type of economic function. Just gamblers in a casino called a Commodities Market. Well, it turns out that these gamblers blew up the cost of gas to $4.50/gallon last year. Similar gamblers serving no useful social function whatsoever blew up the housing market and screwed the economy of the whole damn world. Various arguments are offered. The typical one is, “They will make money and invest it.” First of all, that’s not really true, and second of all, that’s trickle down economics, which can be used to justify the most outrageous kind of economic inequality on the basis that the rich will somehow share the wealth in some funny and hard to see way. Various other neoliberal arguments were offered that I did not understand, with these capitalists suggesting that speculation plays an essential role in markets and in the economy. The assumption being that if you get rid of the speculators, the whole economy collapses, but no one cries “Chicken Little” like a capitalist. Anyway the speculators themselves are already collapsing the damned economy. How could things get worse if you reign the leeches in? These arguments were found on a liberal site I go to. It’s amazing how many “liberals” are hardcore, radical, neoliberal free market capitalists. One wonders, since economics is out of the question, what exactly their liberalism is all about? Clicking on their profiles reveals guys, some Jewish, always with lots of money, who are members of groups called “Progressives,”Left This”, “Left That”, “Fight the Right”, “Stop Rush”, “Obama Supporters”, etc. They’re main concern is “world peace,” which will never occur in my lifetime. I guess some of them want to save the whales or the fucking baby seals. As commenter Lafayette Sennacherib suggests, when you take Economics out of the Left, there’s nothing left. You have a bunch of greedy capitalist bastards living in mansions yelling about gay rights or feminism or baby seals or snail darters or “White racists.” What about the workers? What about economics? What about a fair and just system? Silence from these guys, as they try to count their uncountable piles of cash and write a check to the Democratic Central Committee. If this is “Obama liberalism”, Hell, just take it out and shoot it in the field in the back and put it out of its misery. I want no part. One final note on the oil commodities market: a reasonable regulation would be to require these speculators to at least take possession of the oil they are buying. Hardly any will do that, so that will kill the parasites right there. Reasonable, right?

Only WE Can Talk About Ourselves!

You are as white as rice. What exactly is your preoccupation with ‘race’ in the first place? What do know about living Black? Anti-natist (sic)? You are also an anoying (sic) little turd. So do us all a favor — hurl yourself off an extremely tall precipice. Take your Xxit for brains blog with you. Thanks Whitey

This is a rather typical comment from a Black commenter to this site, this one from Liberal Race Realism Starting to Grow. The comment was deleted, and the commenter has been banned. However, this shows the perils of Liberal Race Realism. Even my version. I’ve sampled all of the varieties of race realism on sale around the Net, and I must say that mine is the most pro-Black and pro-non-Whites in general of them all. There is a reason for this. I like Black folks, or, at least, I don’t dislike them. So most things that I write, I imagine that a close Black friend were reading it and edit accordingly. If even the most pro-Black version of race realism provokes such extreme responses in most Blacks, how will they react to the rest of it? Further, most liberals are sensitive folks. White liberals either like Blacks, or don’t dislike them, or at any rate, don’t like to hurt their feelings. Further, White liberals hate being called racists, because they really try hard not to be racists. Crafty Blacks and their PC White buddies know this and deviously exploit this vulnerability by shrieking RACIST at White liberals whenever they take the most tentative steps off the PC Plantation. This makes White liberals very hesitant about embracing anything other than the most insane PC nonsense on race. As long you spout the orthodox line, you can escape being called racist. This really is simple thuggery on the part of Blacks and PC Whites, but no one ever calls them on it. They are shutting down debate like the finest Stalinists. Furthermore, they are setting the terms of the conversation about race. But liberal “conversations about race” are just monologues. Anyway, they don’t do the slightest thing to ameliorate the problem. All they do is make Blacks feel better by trying not to hurt their feelings too much. The line, “Only we can talk about ourselves” (really, “Only we can talk shit about ourselves”) is not peculiar to Blacks. It is standard ethnic nationalism. All ethnic nationalists get on this kick. Only the Jew can talk about Jews. Only the Arab can talk about the Arabs. On and on. The problem with this is similar to the line a narcissist takes with his critics. What do you think of a guy who screams, “Only I can talk about my problems! You have no right to talk about my problems!” He’s a narcissistic shit with his face stuck in a mirror, right? Further, he’s never going to solve anything, because the only decent criticism comes from outside, and all internatl criticism is heavily censored and neutered by the ego. Bottom line is ethnic nationalists, like narcissists, never ameliorate any problems. Problems just fester because in general they won’t discuss them. Jews are probably the worst humans on Earth about this. Super-Jews are always screaming, “Why are you so interested in us anyway!?” While at the same time, if you listen to them talk, the Jews are the most fascinating people on Earth. Well, if that’s so, why wouldn’t we be interested in the most fascinating folks on Earth? Truth is? If you don’t cause any problems, nice, Western, White folks nowadays tend to leave you alone. Look at African immigrants to the US. Who cares about them? No one. Blacks say we hate them for the color of their skin and due to their facial features. Then we should hate Africans most of all, since they are Black as night, and with no White admixture, they have the most exaggerated Black features of all. But as the most accomplished immigrant group in the US, no one bothers with Africans. Do a good job, don’t start shit, and nice people will tend to leave you alone, right? Problem with US Blacks is that as a group they are causing problems. Let’s use the analogy of inviting a guy and his buddies into your house. Pretty soon they start causing a bunch of shit. Mean people, and even most normal people, would just throw them all out on their asses. Nice people (here the analogy is with White Liberal Race Realists) sit them down and say, “Hey, you guys are causing problems in my house. I like you and I don’t want to throw you out, so how can we sit down and work this out so you can stay here?” Pretty nice gesture, huh? Not according to the commenter. The commenter is like a guy who when you invite him and his buddies into your house, they start causing all kinds of trouble, and when you sit them down and see if you can work it out with them since you don’t want to toss them out, he and his buddies start screaming that only he and his friends can talk about their problems. You can’t, ‘cuz you’re not them. The arrogance and egocentrism is appalling, no? I am wondering, given the behavior of so many US Blacks, why would anyone let any significant number of them into their country? If you let them in to your country, they’re going to start causing trouble (almost guaranteed). If the guests are mean (I’m thinking Japan, China or most Arab countries) they will just toss them out on their asses. If the guests are nice, they will say, “Hey, you guys are causing trouble, man. Let’s sit down and try to work this out.” The US Blacks will then all stand up and scream that only they can discuss their shit, furthermore, they will blame the nice guests who let them into the country for the Blacks causing problems. “You made us cause problems with your evil racism! It’s all your fault, you assholes!” Fine. Ingrates. Now given a mindset like that, why would any country in their right mind let US Blacks immigrate in any significant number?

Liberals Ruined American Blacks, and Other Republican Lies

This comment was posted on the Liberal Race Realism Starting To Grow post by a conservative who blames liberals for the problems of Black folks in the US:

As what passes for a conservative in Massachusetts, I have to find this article amusing. You think that now that you’ve applied rational thought to one issue, you know it all? There’s a lot more coming.The fact is, the whole mess was made by liberals, starting with Kennedy and LBJ. Liberals were the ones that concluded that blacks weren’t smart enough to be helped to stand on their own two feet, and so created affirmative action to get them results without effort. When Blacks took the philosophy behind affirmative action to heart, and themselves concluded they couldn’t make it on their own, liberals were the ones who set up a welfare system that perpetuated the Black cycle of poverty. And it’s liberals who set up a taxation system that provides major disincentives to work harder for Blacks who manage to break that cycle, just as it does for Whites and everyone else. Don’t blame the Blacks, blame yourself. If you ever understand what’s really going on, you’ll finally understand why the conservative agenda – the tough love of workfare and further limitations on welfare, lower taxation and uncapped child care deductions to let actual working people keep what they earn and have kids as easily as welfare families, and elimination of affirmative action and the racist prejudice that underlies it – is necessary if the problems of race in the U.S. are ever to be solved. But you’ll never be able to do anything about it by voting for Democrats. We’ll see if you are smart enough to allow your brain to vote, instead of your liberal reactions.

This bit of Republican nastiness is particularly vicious because it masquerades as anti-racism when in reality, it’s going to have some real bad effects for Blacks once it’s put into practice. In this reworking of the world, reality is turned on its head, anti-racist liberals like Johnson and Kennedy (and me) are now the Liberal KKK, and racist Republicans like Reagan are the Republican MLK. This allows Republicans to peddle an objectively anti-Black under the guise of anti-racists while painting the opponents of the project, who work for Black interests, to actually be nasty racists like Bull Connor. This is sort of the Starr Parker – Clarence Thomas line about Blacks. Many Whites have cynically latched onto this, and a few Black idiots have too. Parker and Thomas are two of those morons. Thomas and Parker are cynically used by frankly racist White conservatives to further the rightwing project which has nothing to do with helping Blacks and is all about conservative ideology and helping out the wealthier classes, which all conservatism is ever about really. Conservatives, even Republicans, are racists because every time a Republican President gets in office, he defunds the Civil Rights Department. Prosecutions for discrimination in housing and employment plummeted under Reagan and Bush Sr. There’s no reason for any self-respecting, non-masochistic  Black person who cares anything about their people to be a Republican. This won’t solve anything. It will just make things worse. Blacks do best under a socialist system. The more socialism, the better they do. The more free market pure capitalist with wide variables in wealth, the worse Blacks do. Lower taxes always hurts workers. It doesn’t help them. Because you have to cut services when you cut taxes, and workers are the ones who use all the services. The only people helped by lowering taxes are people who make lots of money and have no need for government services, so taxation is a ripoff for them. If you make that much money, taxes are no disincentive to having kids. In my entire life, I have never heard one family say, “We want kids, but we can’t afford it due to taxes.” As far as workfare, it’s Republicans who always killed that. Liberals wanted it. Republican “workfare” is some kind of a sick joke. Go find yourself a job, if you’re lucky with 9. OTOH, we liberals supported a workfare whereby you would get some government make-work type job (could be anything really) and then along with it, medical care for you and your kid and daycare for your kid. You can stay on it as long as you like, as long as you have dependent kids. As is, the jobs that welfare recipients are likely to find will not pay enough for daycare for the kids, and will not have medical care for the kids or for the Mom. It’s just a disaster. Welfare “reform” has completely failed. We need to get rid of it and put back in some real workfare proposition. Getting rid of “racist” affirmative action won’t help Blacks. What’s hilarious about Republicans characterizing AA as racism is that this is the only time they ever use the word “racism.” When it hurts White people. To Republicans, the only kind of racism that exists is anti-White racism. All the other kinds are illusions. This is the rightwing lie: affirmative action told Blacks that they were helpless and incompetent, so they acted the part. Yeah right! So, we get rid of affirmative action, and Blacks will no longer believe that they are lame and incompetent, and will rise to the top like baking yeast! I would laugh except so many rightwing idiots actually believe this idiocy. It’s sort of understandable that idiots would fall for this crap, since it does have a nice ring to it, that is, until you actually sit down and think. It’s true that affirmative action is at times unfair, but no way will getting rid of it help Blacks. Bottom line is getting rid of it is going to be bad for Blacks. How bad is a matter of debate. In this nasty Republican lie, we liberals who set up AA are racists because we think, in a racist manner, that Blacks can’t cut it, so they need quotas to compete. Well, the truth is that if you look at test scores in schools and on tests to get into various occupations, Blacks can’t cut it. They don’t do as well. So, getting rid of AA will mean not as many Blacks will get hired. Some will, sure, but many others won’t. I suspect that the Republican liars who made up this lie actually know this and know that Blacks can’t compete on a level playing field, but they just say this because it feels so good. All right-thinking people want to believe that Blacks really can compete. Problem is, they can’t. Level the playing field, and many fewer Blacks will get in. So…Blacks (in actuality, hardworking Blacks who have been enervated by liberalism) are just dying to get off welfare and get a real job and stand on their own two feet for once, but once they consult the local tax attorney and learn about the US tax code, they say, “Screw this! I’m staying on $400 a month welfare!”? Yeah! It’s so much more profitable than working for a living, what with the 1 This line is “Liberals made Black people poor!” LOL, come on man, please. Good God, conservatives are stupid. Either they are stupid, or they are just vicious cynical evil, and don’t believe a word of this obvious nonsense that they just feed to their Glen Beck cattle. Seriously, I don’t even think that Jared Taylor believes this crap, but I haven’t asked him yet. He may be conservative, but Jared’s not stupid.

Not Answering the Question

A comment on the post, Black Males and Testosterone: Evolution and Perspectives, exemplifies a typical way that liberals dodge the issue of race realism. That post really makes Black people mad! I’m not sure why, really. The post merely notes that Blacks, in particular males, and especially young Black males, seem to have levels of aggression and violence far beyond what typically manifests in other races. It’s not that Blacks are violent and other races are not; all humans are naturally violent. But Blacks seem to be quite a bit more violent on average than other races. Looking over the data, this seems to hold true across cultures, in the West, in Europe, in the Caribbean, in Brazil and in Africa. Furthermore, it seems to hold true for different types of Blacks. One could argue that only African-Americans are violent and say Africans are not. Yet when ordinary Africans are imported to the West via refugee programs, their aggressive and antisocial behavior looks quite a bit like their African-American brethren. Australia is now going to stop taking Sudanese refugees due to the tremendous amounts of crime they are committing. Their crime rate seems to be about 12X above the average for Australians as a whole. Jamaicans in the UK commit a tremendous amount of crime, particularly violent crime. At In the UK, police in London began requiring a Form 696 before music events. It turns out that the purpose of the form is to find out if bashment, R&B or garage music is going to be played at an event and what ethnic groups would be there. You need to turn in a form to get approval for the gig. Although it looks like gigs with these forms of music were all approved anyway, police wanted to know beforehand if this type of music was going to be played. The article beats around the bush claiming that that music is popular with “Asian and Black” fans. As it turns out, it’s only popular with Blacks (read: Jamaicans). I guess when this sort of music is played, lots of cops show up keep a lid on things. Violence at gigs declined by 1 We’ve heard depressing stories like this too many times, but I repeat it to show that Black violence is not confined to the US somehow. Black states in the Caribbean often have very high violent crime and especially homicide rates. South Africa leads the world in violent crime. The fact that it seems like wherever we find large numbers of Blacks, we find lots of crime, violence and especially violent crime seems to shoot down the liberal explanations. This is where Liberal Race Realism comes in. Liberal Race Realism is going to reject the standard liberal explanations. These explanations are that poverty, racism, and the lingering effects of colonialism and slavery are responsible for astronomical Black crime and violent crime levels. The more you think about this explanation, the more silly it seems, but it lingers nevertheless, and in fact it is the dominant explanation for Black crime in the West. This is unfortunate. You can’t even begin to solve problems until you figure out what’s causing them. As long as we have the cause wrong, we’re never going to get a lid on matters. The article argued that Black crime, especially Black violent crime, is nearly a public health crisis. The victims of this public health crisis are by and large Black folks themselves. So it would seem that Blacks would want to get a handle on this matter one way or another. The article offered several explanations for high Black crime and violent crime and offered some tentative though unsavory possible ameliorations of the problem. One thing that Liberal Race Realism might offer in this bleak situation is a suggestion that Blacks may differ in the genetic, cultural, behavioral, cognitive and emotional cards that they bring to the table. Therefore, if we are going to try to deal with Black crime, what anti-crime measures work for say, Japanese or Mexicans or American Whites might not work for Blacks. Things that motivate Whites might not motivate Blacks. If we recognize that Blacks are different, one suggestion is that Blacks may need specifically tailored programs that work best for them. If we just throw Program X at a multiracial group, maybe only some of the groups will respond. So Liberal Race Realism would focus on which social ameliorative measures work best for Blacks. Who cares if they work for Hispanics, Hmong or Tennessee hillbillies? What works for them may fail with Blacks. A teacher at the nearby college has figured out a way to teach math to female college students. Using this method, females don’t do as well as males, but they do do better than before. Getting back to commenter, he asked me if making nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is “civilized” behavior. He was suggesting that White folks making Minuteman missiles is the same Blacks rampaging through Detroit every Hell Night and burning down half the city. This is a typical anti-racist rejoinder when we talk about Black crime or social pathologies in general. It’s a Tim Wise answer that doesn’t solve anything, all it does it divert the discussion. Supposedly the out of control murder rate in New Orleans is the same thing as the Pentagon’s weapons program. I suppose this is interesting as a philosophical question for philosophers or philosophy students, but it has no meaning in the real world. Would you rather live in the Hell of New Orleans or Detroit, with a South African type crime rate, or in some tony lily-White neighborhood with the sort of White folks who work on advanced weapons systems for the Pentagon? Most folks would rather live in Brentwood than Detroit. Granted, making nuclear bombs is nasty business, but nuclear engineers are not going to carjack me, rape my sister, murder my neighbor, mug my brother or hold up the liquor store and pistol-whip the owner. In other words, the fact that you live in a neighborhood full of guys who work at Livermore Labs is kind of creepy, but it’s completely safe. While living among the feral young Black thugs of Washington DC’s ghettos is downright dangerous to your health.

National Review Finally Comes Out Against Illegal Immigration

Stop Illegals, Save CA, from National Review Online. National Review is, of course, the rag of the late William Buckley. Although it was never a neocon rag, when the neocons grabbed power under Bush, NR was not far in tagging along. It never became a staunch neocon outpost like The Weekly Standard, but it got taken over by the Pod People all right. One of the standard lines of the neocons right and left was that immigration, even illegal immigration, was a fine and dandy thing. This is in keeping with the essentially Jewish nature of neoconservatism. Jews have traditionally supported mass immigration into White Gentile nations in which they are minorities for various reasons that are too complex to go into here, but it isn’t about driving Whites extinct as the anti-Semites insist. Mostly it’s about making things safe for the Jews. Jews think that monoethnic, monoreligious White countries are bad for the Jews. These places are prone to White Christian ethnic nationalism, and history shows that that’s usually bad news for the Jews. So Jews try to create more multicultural societies in which they figure that the various ethnicities with be so split up that they won’t be able to get together and gang up on the Jews. Anti-Semites say Jews do this so they can outcompete and rule over the White Gentiles in this lands, but I doubt if that is true. It’s more about what’s good for the Jews and paranoia about White Christian anti-Semitism. This article is written by Alex Alexiev, and if I am not mistaken, he is a rightwing Russian Jewish ultra-neoconservative. I would have accepted this piece from a conservative WASP type, but from a Russian Jewish neocon? I’m not sure what’s going on here. Maybe as, similar to my previous post about the apostasy of The New Republic on Centrist Democrats, a lot of useful idiots both right and left are getting fed up with drinking their Kool-Aid dogma. Illegal immigration, especially in California, has gotten so insane that even the most immigration-smitten, corporate-loving Jews have had it up to here with it. Conservatives, after all, are not insane, and it’s hard for any non-Hispanic who is in control of their mental faculties to support the illegal immigration status quo here in California. What’s even more amazing is it’s hosted on the website of liberal National Public Radio (NPR). I don’t know NPR‘s stance on illegals, but I assume they never met an illegal alien they could not love, like most media liberals. What’s even more odd is that NPR is also full of Jews, this time the liberal variety. Are even liberal Jews starting to enough is enough to lunatic, out of control illegal immigration? Maybe there’s hope after all.

Even The New Republic Now Calls for a Party Purge of Corporate-owned "Centrists"

Even The New Republic Now Calls for a Party Purge of Corporate-owned “Centrists”, by Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald is one of top liberal bloggers. His site is Unclaimed Territory and gets tens of thousands of hits a day. He was formerly a constitutional law and civil rights attorney, but his blog has been so successful that apparently he has mortgaged it into a writing career and left his lawyer job. He’s authored three books in the past three years and now gets regular writing gigs. It’s hard to believe that he’s making more money writing than practicing law! Here is his former blog, now moved to Salon. The guy made the bigtime with a Blogspot blog! Incredible. I have not talked any about the health care debate, but I am sure that you know where I stand. Fully 7 The pubic option is much misunderstood. It just means that you will have a choice to buy into a government run health program, which I guess will be something like socialized medicine, i.e. Medicare, Medicaid and that horrible health program that every Congressman has. I really favor single payer, and it’s the best program out there, but I guess it doesn’t have the votes. The insurance-company run for-profit medicine system is shit. Michael Moore’s movie Sicko makes that quite clear. I don’t understand all these Whites yelling about how great health insurance is. I guess they have not yet gotten too sick or too hurt. After all, the shit insurance model is all based on making money off denying you care. The more care they deny, the more they make. The more care they approve, the less money they make. Now why would it be a good idea to be covered by private medical insurance, given that obvious capitalist reality? If and when you get too sick or hurt that your insurance plan dumps you (matter of time for most of us), you will have to burn through every nickel you have and every tangible asset you own until you are so damn poor that you can go on Medicaid. I guess conservatives think that’s cool? What’s so cool about that? I don’t have money or many tangible assets, but if I did, why should have to burn through all of them and go poor just because I get sick or hurt? Why would anyone with money or assets support such nonsense? Why not have the state pay for the care due to my injury or illness, and that way I get to keep all my money and stuff? Which is all conservatives care about anyway, money and stuff. One big lie is that the public option will drive out all the private insurance companies. Lord, I wish it were true that anything would put this gang of thieves and vipers out of business, but surely a government plan would not. Left unstated is why the public plan would theoretically put all the private folks out of business anyway. I mean, competition, right? If private insurance is so sucky that anyone with a brain would take off and go buy the public insurance instead, then according to market logic, the private entities deserve to die, right? That’s like Neoliberal Economics 101. Anyway, there’s nothing to worry about. All you fools who so love your evil private insurance needn’t worry your little heads one bit. My understanding is that in most every nation that has socialized medicine (other than Communist countries), you can still go buy private insurance if you are stupid or masochistic enough. But indeed, my understanding is that hardly anyone does. Once again, if it’s so wonderful, why does hardly anyone buy it in states that have socialized medicine? So with 7 You see, as Greenwald points out, this is really all about money. Both parties are controlled by corporate interests, just the Dems somewhat less so. You get a Liberal Corporate Party and a Conservative Corporate Party. Turning the Dems into a corporate party was the brainchild of the Democratic Leadership Committee. Rahm Emanuel is the DLC point man for Barack Obama. The idea was either Dems or Repubs take corporate money, and if we let the Republicans get the corporate money, they will win every time. If Dems take it too, then we at least get to win sometimes and can come in and kind of sort of maybe almost a little bit once in a while do piecemeal, half-assed reforms here and there. A health care plan with no public option is shit. There’s nothing in it for me or anyone that I care about. All it does it force everyone to buy the evil called health insurance. If you’re poor or low income, the government subsidizes you so you can buy the shit called health insurance. How is that good for anyone’s health? It’s not. Supposedly it’s good for taxpayers, because we fork over lots of dough to serve the uninsured in emergency rooms. This way they have to buy insurance so we save. Whoop-te-doo. What good is that? Everyone else is forced to buy this overpriced insurance poison, and many are going to go broke paying for it. If you don’t want to go broke, now the state will force you! Wow, such a wonderful plan. What it really is is the biggest piece of corporate welfare in the history of the US. So billions of working people’s ill-affordable dollars get shoveled to some of the most vile corporate slime in the country. Somebody show me the upside? Greenwald’s post is interesting. The New Republic is basically the liberal wing of the neoconservatives. The jerks who known as the Neocons, so prominent in the Bush Administration, are really just the rightwing of that movement. The liberal wing has similar roots as the conservative wing, coming out of the 1970’s, the aftermath of the Vietnam War and in particular the aftermath of the 7 Day War and 1973 Wars in Israel. The liberal neocons are as Jewish as the conservative ones. These guys are basically the same “Cold War Liberals” as the neocons, but they did not go as far to the Right as the rest of them. TNR spent most of the 1980’s fulminating against the USSR, welfare, liberalism and Arabs while supporting genocidal Latin American regimes like the Salvadorans and of course, Israel. I used to subscribe to this magazine, but finally I gave it up around 1983. I wasn’t hip to Jews yet, so the magazine mystified me. After it got taken over by uber Israel-firster Marty Peretz, he stacked it from top to bottom with liberal Jewish neocons. About half of every issue was about Jews, Jewry, Israel, Judaism, Judaica or whatever. Even the book reviews was usually some Jewish reviewer reviewing a book by a Jewish guy about Jews. The whole exercise was one of endless Jewish solipsism. I read all this stuff at the time, but the solipsism never made sense. Only when I figured out Jews did I understand the solipsism. Jews are probably the most solipsistic humans on Earth, part and parcel of their hyperethnocentrism. To Jews, it’s all about the Jews. What’s all about the Jews? Well, everything, pretty much. They just can’t get enough of themselves. Up until this year, TNR has continued to beat the drum for the Blue Dogs, the liberal neocons, the Democratic Centrists and other losers. Jew Lieberman or Joe Lieberman or whatever his name is is like God incarnate to TNR. SuperJew and Liberal Neocon Jonathan Chait is one of their top writers, and reading him gives you a good insight into the mindset of TNR. Well, finally, even TNR has had enough with the Rahm Emanuel  – Barack Obama Centrist corporate controlled Democratic Party. They’ve become even too Republican-like for the original Democratic Centrists. The about-face by TNR, among other things, shows there’s a liberal rebellion growing in the Democratic Party, and it’s one of the most beautiful things I’ve seen in a while. Let’s water it well and let it grow.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)