DOJ: Racialist Educational Policy OK

[SAT]

I'm reading a great biography of Hitler. He too, felt that the solution was racial separation.

 

[William Joyce]

I'm reading a great biography of Hitler. He too, felt that the solution was racial separation.

Pssst... you're going to have to do better than Argumentum Ad Hitlerum if you're going to debate me.

 

[William Joyce]

what is this "racialist" thing? is that a new way for racists to complain about being called what they are?

just wondering.

Yeah. Kind of like Jews calling themselves communists, liberals or neocons.

 

[SAT]

I'm reading a great biography of Hitler. He too, felt that the solution was racial separation.

Pssst... you're going to have to do better than Argumentum Ad Hitlerum if you're going to debate me.

You can evoke Godwin's Law all you like. It won't help you. There's nothing to debate. Your ideology has been thrown on the ash heap of history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.” Lee Atwater, Republican strategist, 1981, describing the Southern Strategy


If we lived in a society in which there was no racism would we need to talk about it?
If we lived in a society in which there was no religion would we still talk about it?
If we lived in a society in which there was no class structure would we need to think about it?
If we lived in a society in which opportunity was level and fair would we think about it?
If we lived in a society in which your race, color, religion, class, didn't matter - we'd be in heaven if such a place exists.

I would propose unless we live in heaven we'll always think of these things because they are simply the way people are tuned. Consider that 300 years of racism is equivalent to one spoiled white boy not getting into the college of their choice one year and you realize humanity is a childish thinker.

On one side of our moral equivalency scale are slavery, broken families, lack of opportunity, discrimination, prison time for petty crime, on the other side is the white majority who have always been first, and still are, and somehow the scale is uneven, but it is not uneven in the way a moral universe would run, it is uneven because white power sees it as uneven. Opportunity is only white, connections are only white.

Is it any wonder many Black men want to be on the white side of this scale and so they join in the chorus that weighs the scale in that immoral way, because after all 300 and one are balanced on this particular scale of justice. Think Justice Thomas, Congressman West.


White affirmative action. Amazon.com: When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America (9780393328516): Ira Katznelson: Books


"We are all racist – black, white, yellow and those of indeterminate colour – accept it. Accept it as a fact. An innate biological response to people who are different. And having accepted it. Then get on with assessing your reactions, reassessing them and adopting modified behaviour – it is not natural to “love thy neighbour” but it can become second nature – you just gotta work at it. However if we blithely maintain our perfections and pay lip service to equality then the games a bogey and there’ll be fighting in the play-ground forever more." From McPherson's Rant

Google this if you want to learn: tim wise on white privilege

GRITtv: Tim Wise: Race and the Social Safety Net - YouTube

Now, Middy...I know you like to write almost as much as I do, but there is a single, simple question at hand:

ChrisCoates testified to the Civil Rights Commission that many of the lawyers in the Voting Section were opposed to bringing any civil rights cased against blacks in Mississippi until such time as blacks in the state achieved socioeconomic parity with whites. This is an essential question that must be answered: is this a fair outlook in the United States today, or is it a corruption of the voting rights law? Pajamas Media » Bombshell: Defying DOJ Instructions, Christopher Coates Will Testify Friday on New Black Panther Case


"This is an essential question that must be answered: is this a fair outlook in the United States today, or is it a corruption of the voting rights law? "

Only against whites? Ignore infractions committed by blacks? Yes or no?

If you say "no," we're on the same page.

Well...no answer to this oh-so-simple question from Middy...

I'm going to take that as your answer: you believe in race-based enforcement of the laws.
And you are afraid to admit that position.

Excellent. Clarity is so very important!

Thus our positions are laid out, and you admit that yours is so despicable that you won't stand behind it in public.
Such views have no place in the United States...and are no different than any other racial or religious bias.

Now, you can quote your reading...but unfortuately you have learned nothing from them.

 

[William Joyce]

I'm reading a great biography of Hitler. He too, felt that the solution was racial separation.

Pssst... you're going to have to do better than Argumentum Ad Hitlerum if you're going to debate me.

You can evoke Godwin's Law all you like. It won't help you. There's nothing to debate. Your ideology has been thrown on the ash heap of history.

It's "invoke", not evoke.

In any event, racial separatism isn't an "ideology", it's a state of nature. RACE-MIXING is an ideology. A deadly one, at that.

As for ash heap of history? Let's just say there's a phoenix arising from Israel... heh.

 

[SAT]

It's "invoke", not evoke.

In any event, racial separatism isn't an "ideology", it's a state of nature. RACE-MIXING is an ideology. A deadly one, at that.

As for ash heap of history? Let's just say there's a phoenix arising from Israel... heh.

Bullshit. Your ideology is not a state of nature, and your ideology has been tried and found wanting. We are stamping out the embers. Racial separatism = Fail.

 

[William Joyce]

Show me where multiracialism is working.

Fails in Russia -- after fall of USSR, ethnicities go back to their roots.
Fails in Yugoslavia -- after break-up, ethnicities re-center.
Fails in Britain -- Islamic takeover not welcomed.
Fails in Europe -- rightist parties on the rise.
Fails in Africa -- Hutus kill Bantus, Libyan Arabs kill blacks, etc.
Fails in China -- Han rule the roost, the rest not integrated.
Fails in the Mediterranean -- separate Greeks and Turks, get peace.
Fails in Brazil -- whites lived in gated communities, slums are no-go zones for police.

America? We elected a black president, and race relations are at their worst. It has been more than 100 years since black slavery ended, and blacks are less happy than they've ever been. Hispanics let in on grounds that "diversity" is good, only, they don't want "diversity", they want Aztlan!

Your turn.

 

[PoliticalChic]

what is this "racialist" thing? is that a new way for racists to complain about being called what they are?

just wondering.

Let me help 'unwonder' you....
A liberal intellectual proves that the complaint is about being called what their not.

a." If the “racial resentment” term itself is misleading, the interpretations put forward by liberals of its role in Tea Partyism or opposition to health care reform are doubly so…. The inference made by liberals is that while Tea Partiers may rant about stimulus or health care reform, what they’re really expressing deep down is their resentment of blacks. But this doesn’t follow, nor does the evidence seem to substantiate it.

b. … to ask why liberals, when faced with the political idiom of the American Right, gravitate so insistently toward racialized accounts of their motives…. Unable or unwilling to articulate any coherent rebuttal of their opponents’ ideological rhetoric, liberals instinctively resort to accusations that the opposing ideology is covertly racist because racism – unlike Reaganite celebrations of the magic of the market – requires no refutation."
Liberals and Racism

You don't have any objection to intellectual liberals...do you?
Ever met one?