Do Not Look At The Black Racism Behind The Curtain

In the midst of all this Treyvon Martin and Paula Deen epidemic racism scare, I read some article somewhere in which a person repeated the familiar claim that, and as I recall he/she actually stated it in these words, that blacks were unable to be racist.  Black people are incapable of racism, or so the claim goes, because racism, by definition, I assume they mean the definition used by critical race theorists like Obama hero Derrick Bell.

Of course, I know some Caucasian people, who are not racist, but who grew up as the minority in their communities.  To them, all this talk about white power structures appears contrived and absurd.  Racism is racism to these deluded (or so Derrick Bell would call them) people who think that 10 black kids surrounding an Asian kid to bully him/her is racism, not an expression of righteous anger for being so much worse off in America (!?).

Reginald Denny atones for the sins of Los Angeles

Of course, to Derrick Bell and others, these white people are racists too, and they too are unable to work out their salvation until they first confess their sins of being part of the great white power monopoly, let alone start making amends by imprisoning George Zimmerman for following and reporting more young black males than young white males.

Didn't this former Obama supporter (i.e. Zimmerman) ever hear of quotas? Just because most of the crimes in his area are committed by young hoodie-wearing black males who seem to have no curfew, he obviously should have been following and reporting just as many young white males. Of course, when that poor sap looks to gun down a black kid in cold blood, he first calls the police to let him know what he's doing, and then he lets himself get jumped and beaten up before he actually follows through on his evil plan-- or was it his evil plan to go scott-free by almost getting beaten unconscious before finally pulling the trigger?  He's obviously not that good at this whole evil racism thing.  And nobody's talking about how obviously sexist he is mainly following males, now that we've established how the actual crime demographics are unimportant.

Anyway, after being confronted with this courageous definition of racism that lets all black people off the hook of personal responsibility in a way that would have made Martin Luther King throw up, I couldn't help wonder about how the thoughtful men like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams and Larry Elder -- who don't judge how racist someone is by the color of their skin, but who happen also to be black -- figure into this theory of racism.  According to that one commentator's definition, they can't be racist or do racist things because they are black.  Yet, they are supporting the "power structure" of racism with ideas that allegedly arise from white racism.  A paradox.  Al Sharpton and his groupies would probably say they have ceased to be black.  Judging by the way the black leftist politico-industrial complex labels men like this and like Clarence Thomas "Uncle Toms," one imagines that the Samuel Jackson character in Django Unchained was meant to represent these "traitors" to the Black Left's great crusade against color-blindness.

What would they say about a black leader that said:

"Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We've got to face that. And we've got to do something about our moral standards.  We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can't keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves."

This was said by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr in 1961.

Eric Holder and Nancy (Dis)Grace Crusading Against Zimmerman

Eric Holder, head of the Department of Social Justice, is apparently.  It is news to ultra-progressives everywhere that Trayvon is not Medgar Evers.  Ever since they missed the boat on civil rights, progressives and celebrities have been trying to make up for being johnnies-come-lately by pursuing policies that promote racial poverty traps and enabling bad behavior in order to create racial tensions that can be exploited to expand fascism.

Holder is nonetheless looking to add to a career that has been extraordinary in terms of both criminality and ideological perversity.  Using the long arm of the law in order to enable voter intimidation, enable voter fraud, enable the taking of this country's resources by illegal aliens, gun-running to make phony cases against our 2nd Amendment, undermining acts of the People via Congress, promotion of transsexuality, intimidation of the free press, et cetera, et cetera... all this has not been enough.  He is frightened, frightened that he will not go down in the history books as a radical crusader for liberal causes, so he is using all the privacy-compromising resources (for stopping terrorism?) to make an end-run around double-jeopardy for former Obama-supporter George Zimmerman.

I don't know if Zimmerman is still a fan of our Divider-in-Chief, but knowing that the Holder's Department of Social Justice has been involved in the anti-Zimmerman protests (your tax dollars hard at work) probably dims the glow on the pretend-idealist from Illinois.

And what's the deal with Nancy Grace's Taco Bell and "churra" [sic] comment?   Don't you worry though.  Nancy's a liberal, so her life isn't over after this.  She'll still be driving in to Creepy-ass Cracker Barrel as much as she likes.

Patrick the Jamaican and O.J. Simpson's Gloves of Joy

I was thinking back a few weeks about a caller on Mike Gallagher's radio show.  He called himself Patrick (near as I can remember), said he was from Jamaica, and his call was basically about how he thought conservatives were racist since they were defending Paula Dean and George Zimmerman.

Where the call got interesting was the point where Mike Gallagher asked Patrick what he thought of the O.J. trial and the overwhelming support for O.J. among the African American community.  Get this:  Patrick thought that most blacks in America knew that O.J. was guilty as sin, but rejoiced in his acquittal because it sent a message.

Social justice.  Critical race theory.  Stickin' it to The Man.

A popular celebrity gets away with murder because he can afford the best lawyers money can buy and this gives black people joy?  Despite Patrick's inside information, I can tell you that many African Americans were all too willing to accept the racial oppression narrative offered for the extremely popular sports hero.  Many were truly and genuinely impressed with the trouble O.J. apparently had putting on the gloves, indicating an obvious frame.  Perhaps the point was that the gloves fit the narrative, whether or not the gloves fit Simpson.

So I don't think Patrick can speak for the entire African American community, but it is still curious:  He was so convinced of O.J.'s guilt in spite of the gloves, and he was certain that most black people were equally convinced.  Did Patrick not have any black acquaintances that gave him any indication that they had a sincere belief in O.J.'s innocence, anything other than cynical joy in his not being accountable for cutting the throat of his children's mother?   Or to them, was Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman just "strange fruit" laying on the ground?

Michael Moore Maligns Civil Rights Hero as Racist

 

In the movie Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore features an interview with Charlton Heston, and interview that seems climactic for Moore's argument that violence in America and America's enthusiasm for its 2nd Amendment rights are based in racism.  (Moore seems adept at "Critical Race Theory.") 

My #1 Question:  If you have seen this movie, what did you think Heston meant when he said, "We had enough problems with civil rights in the beginning."  Did you think that Heston was talking about the civil rights movement as a problem?  I know I did when I first saw the film.  I thought the interview made it seem that Heston keeps guns to make himself feel protected and safe from minorities.

Of course, this was before I learned that Charlton Heston was one of a small group of Hollywood players that really stepped to the forefront to advocate for civil rights in its true heyday in the 60s (watch video below). 

Also, his role in the 1963 March on Washington.  Now, this is easily confirmed historical fact.  Was Michael Moore simply unaware of all this when he put his movie together?  Maybe this experienced documentarian just doesn't do his homework.  In the 23 minute interview with  Heston (which was pared down to 7 minutes for the movie) did Heston shed more light on what he meant about America's "mixed heritage" but was edited out?  Did Moore deliberately mislead  us about what Heston thought about race? 

Read here for some other interesting facts about Heston's NRA speech featured in the film and some historical oddities about Moore's alleged racist history of the historically anti-Klan NRA, another pivotal part of Moore's gun-rights-are-racist argument.  Also, an interesting link between the NRA and anti-KKK defense.

Incidently, I'd like to thank Michael Moore for helping me realize more quickly just how little Progressivism has to offer and to help me reconnect with conservative thinking.  His blatent disregard for the truth and his utter reliance on non-fact to prove his point made a big impact on me at a critical time in my life.  Thank you, Michael Moore for being such an obvious propagandist. 

Post-Racial Musings

In the Hollywood scene, I wonder if you can see the uncanny resemblance between J.T. Walsh's son (left) and the first of Schwarzeneggar's love children (right):

   

Swedes descend into enlightened madness

What if I told you that the Minister of Culture in Sweden participated in the following stunt to call attention to the plight of third world females living with the effects of female circumcision:  Make a cake that looks like a vintage caricature of a female African savage and serve the cake to delighted, cheering activists.  Mmmm.

It's the Swedish minister of culture cutting up a taxpayer-funded cake baked to look like a racist caricature of a black woman at the opening of an exhibit about the horrors of female circumcision, and a crowd of people laughing while she feeds a piece of it (red velvet, natch) to the actor in blackface someone hired to poke their head out from a hole in the table so that it looks like the cake is alive and crying. Ok, folks — we're declaring moratorium on smug talk about how much better everything is in Sweden.

 

So bizarre.  In America, I think this would be considered tasteless.  It's one of those things, I think, that you have to see to believe.  I find myself questioning the sanity of these people.  A total conflation of high-brow academic irony with indulgent kitsch spectacle.  In other words, sheer madness that DE-sensitizes.  Never has worldwide tragedy been so much macabre fun (but in an "enlightened" sort of way), an occasion for such fiendish glee.

Maybe these people are onto something though.  Maybe we should call attention to the drowning of newborns by "prom moms" by making use of a dunk tank with an actor in a diaper wailing as it falls into the water.  Yeah, that's the ticket!  Maybe we could foment social change over school shootings with a kind  of carnival duck shooting game with screaming children replacing the ducks, and we can all laugh at what outrageously smart and ironic activists we are!  We are changing the world through the outrage and having such a goo time in the process.  Woohoo!

If these images are not sufficiently haunting, watch the "performance art" as participants cut into the cake and the sober response of the onlookers:

I'm not against art simply because it is disturbing or evokes revulsion, but I think this has gone past all sensibility or justifiable social commentary.  This is simply revolting and functions as little more than a particularly horrific sort of violent pornography, a perverse entertainment ironically masquerading as social conscience.

A spokesperson for the National Afro-Swedish Association, Kitimbwa Sabuni, remarked, "[The Swedish minister's] participation, as she laughs, drinks, and eats cake, merely adds to the insult against people who suffer from racist taunts and against women affected by circumcision."