Kerry A Privileged White Man

[William Joyce]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040309/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_blacks_1

I'm no Kerry supporter, but this comment was obviously not meant to be offensive. He was trying to "reach out," as they say. But for his effort, he's slapped down, a la Ross Perot when he said "you people" to a black audience.

Point: nothing satisfies them.

 

[jon_forward]

wonder what Al had to say about this????yeap, he reached out and touched someone...Howard Deans speech writer...this guy has no clue what the aveage joe goes through in a day..

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by William Joyce
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040309/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_blacks_1

I'm no Kerry supporter, but this comment was obviously not meant to be offensive. He was trying to "reach out," as they say. But for his effort, he's slapped down, a la Ross Perot when he said "you people" to a black audience.

Point: nothing satisfies them.

Maybe they don't like being referred to as people. Maybe they prefer being called "muds".

 

[William Joyce]

Nah. If you said, "Your Royal Dark Highness On Most High, Eminence Of Africa, King of all you survey, Lord of the universe, master of all, here's all the cash in my wallet, here's my wife and kids, here's my house, please live in it, and please let me kneel on the carpet and be your honky footrest, if I am worthy,"

They'd say, "Who you callin' dark? You a racisss!"

 

[Palestinian Jew]

at least he's running against another privaleged white man

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
at least he's running against another privaleged white man

ha haa/nelson

context is good

Even better is what else he said at the service:

Kerry Warns Supporters to Brace for Fight
Sun Mar 7, 3:18 PM ET

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer

JACKSON, Miss. - Taking his campaign to the heart of the deep South, John Kerry (news - web sites) said Sunday he faces the same "politics of last resort" that confronted marchers seeking equality in the civil rights movement.


"We're going to be tested, because they've got a lot of money and a lot of power," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said at a predominantly black church with veterans of the movement.


Kerry told supporters to brace for a wave of criticism from President Bush (news - web sites)'s well-funded re-election campaign, much as civil rights marchers fought against entrenched opposition.


He spoke on the 39th anniversary of the "Bloody Sunday" clash in Selma, Ala., when state troopers used tear gas and billy clubs against activists marching over the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Scenes from that episode galvanized the civil rights movement and within five months the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed.


"If they could do that, if they could stand on that bridge, surely we can cross the rest of the bridges in this country that we need to," said Kerry, as he tried to compare the struggles and rally black voters, an important Democratic constituency. Standing beside him was Georgia Rep. John Lewis, who was beaten in the 'Bloody Sunday' march.


"It won't be easy," Kerry said. "You've lived with the attacks, the distortions and the hollowness of a politics of last resort that divides black from white, rich from poor, Massachusetts from Mississippi."

"Some people want us pointing fingers at each other, so no one points the finger at them," Kerry said. "We can do better than that in this campaign."


Kerry sprinkled his remarks with scriptural references calling for matching faith with deeds.


"We need to remember those words as we march forward against a sorry politics where too often words suffice, where deeds aren't demanded," said Kerry, ridiculing promises Bush made during the last election.


"Remember a uniter, not a divider? Compassionate conservative?" said Kerry.

...

ap article

The basic message I get is that he is saying the democrats should be pointing fingers at a specific THEM, which would be a rather divisive political technique, would it not? Besides attaching his ugly visage to the civil rights movement?

 

[shergald]

On another thread, I asserted that the Repbulican party did not come into its own until it took up the legacy of Jim Crow. Reading the chitchat on this thread explains why I got so few responses, and those merely wanted to assert that not all Republicans are racist. Probably not. But a majority apparently are and many of those, I see, regularly post messages on this board. Shame, shame. Only in America.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by shergald
Only in America.

That's right. Only in America are most rascists content to merely make offensive remarks. In most other countries rascists are much more ambitious.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by shergald
On another thread, I asserted that the Repbulican party did not come into its own until it took up the legacy of Jim Crow. Reading the chitchat on this thread explains why I got so few responses, and those merely wanted to assert that not all Republicans are racist. Probably not. But a majority apparently are and many of those, I see, regularly post messages on this board. Shame, shame. Only in America.

Are you totally ignorant of history? The GOP, not yet a decade old, elected its first President in 1860, and all through the rest of the nineteenth century, it was the only party in which blacks were welcome. Jim Crow laws were the legacy of 19th century Southern Democrats.

 

[William Joyce]

This is accurate as a historical matter.

But it is blatantly misleading as a current matter. And you don't need to take this white nationalist's word on it. Just ask any pollster. The GOP has never gotten more than TEN PERCENT of the black vote in recent decades, and George I actually did better than George II.

The Republican party is the party of white people, period. Now, if only it would actually represent them.

On that much, I would agree: Democrats take blacks for granted, and Republicans take whites for granted.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by William Joyce
The Republican party is the party of white people, period. Now, if only it would actually represent them.

On that much, I would agree: Democrats take blacks for granted, and Republicans take whites for granted.

The GOP is the colorblind party. The Dems are the color-conscious party. Unfortunately, too many people mistake the GOP's policy of treating all races equally as racist, or not caring about minorites, etc. To say that the GOP is a whites-only party is ridiculous. But I have come to expect nothing less from you.

 

[William Joyce]

Pure conservative fantasy. White Republicans think they're so wonderful and non-racist, but they're just not getting it. White people are hated by blacks, Hispanics, etc., especially when they're Republicans. If you don't believe me, try being a white guy in Harlem and get people to vote Republican. If you get out alive, you'd be lucky.

For an essay that nails this perfectly, Google "the conservative conceit" and read the VNN piece that appears.

 

[wonderwench]

I thought Kerry was going to be the Second Black President?

I am so confused.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by William Joyce
Pure conservative fantasy. White Republicans think they're so wonderful and non-racist, but they're just not getting it. White people are hated by blacks, Hispanics, etc., especially when they're Republicans. If you don't believe me, try being a white guy in Harlem and get people to vote Republican. If you get out alive, you'd be lucky.

For an essay that nails this perfectly, Google "the conservative conceit" and read the VNN piece that appears.

Could it be that Blacks and Hispanics have been conditioned to believe that Republicans don't care by decades of Democratic lies and propoganda? Because as we know decades of voting Democrat has gotten them nowhere.

 

[William Joyce]

I think they correctly perceive that by voting Democratic, they are more likely to get the welfare, social services, government jobs and lighter criminal punishment they desire. That's not irrational. Democrats don't lie about that stuff; they're quite up front about it. The reason blacks have gotten nowhere (beyond media images to the contrary) is that they are a genetically distinct group held to a white standard by both ignorant Democrats and Republicans.

 

[OCA]

I believe it is because these things exist that they haven't gotten anywhere. Republicans want to give them independence from these institutions, the freedom to stand on their own two feet. Of course some won't, just like some whites won't either and thats ok, thats life but if forced to work and make it on their own dime most will do it, basic instinct for survival that we all possess.

Have Democrats been honest and up front? Have they ever come out and said that the reason we keep funding these things is 1.because we think you are stupid and can't fend for yourselves 2.we keep you dependent on us so we will continue to garner your votes

This goes for all people who recieve welfare regardless of race, the Demos think they are fools.

 

[William Joyce]

The Conservative Conceit

by D.W.

6 February 2004

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

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

There is trace validity to this racism-denial by conservatives, particularly the exposure of white liberals as having a paternalistic attitude toward blacks. Which they do, but because the paternalism benefits blacks materially, it's the lonely black who's genuinely upset by it. Hookers may not be proud of what they do, but they don't turn down the cash.

Conservative "outrage" about how the poor blacks are turned lazy by liberals and their welfare, by contrast, is heavily feigned. But feign they do, working themselves into a righteous lather about how Arthur Laffer is the true heir to Martin Luther King, Jr. Go tell it on the mountain!

But the truth is that conservatism and racism are closely linked. Both summon experience and instinct as guides, both are jealous of territory, and neither flout natural orders for very long. It's the subconscious realization of this truth that prompts mainstream conservatives go to ridiculous lengths to convince the world -- and themselves -- that they're not racist. The attempt at self-delusion manifests itself in such tomes as Liberal Racism by Jim Sleeper or The End of Racism by Dinesh D'Souza, elevation of such ridiculous characters as Alan Keyes to presidential candidacy primacy, or pretending that J.C. Watts was congressional leadership material instead of admitting what he really is, a n***er of the most common variety. Witness Republican conventions featuring "Turbo, the Republican Rapper." I know of what I speak. Shit like that used to get me excited. The phenomenon reveals the mental gymnastics that even thoughtful, politically engaged people are willing to perform in order to avoid thinking honestly about race. Culture, class, values, economics -- conservatives will cling desperately to these abstractions to avoid facing the truth on the ground: blacks and Hispanics have not, cannot and will not be the raw material for a civilization that approaches anything like what they have in mind. Period. If you seek to conserve anything, conservatives, you must first seek to conserve the race that made it.

The antics are amusing. Debate along the liberal-conservative spectrum today is mostly a contest over whose ideology is most anti-racist. Conservatives will speak of "school choice" in the same reverent tones as liberals speak of "civil rights." Oppose "school choice," and why, who are you, Hitler? Oh, how good it feels to call the other side racist for once! I get a newsletter from a libertarian legal outfit called the Institute for Justice, which never fails to present itself as the champion of black women who would be launching their race to riches with hair-braiding establishments were it not for those burdensome regulations no doubt promulgated by big-government racists at the health department. Liberals and conservatives are tripping over each other in a mad scramble to grab the golden ring of multiracialism. I even read an essay recently in which the writer compared the Janet Jackson tit flash to Weimar Germany. Yeah! Our declining values can only be a preview of Nazi takeover! Never mind living, breathing Jews pumping this stuff in 2004. Let's talk about those darn racists! It's almost as if conservatives, aware that they're "behind" when it comes to multiracial hipness, are pouring most of their energy into this pursuit, rather than, say, I don't know, preserving our culture and some semblance of American freedom.

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

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

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

D.W.

 

[OCA]

That post and article was discredited about the time I signed up here. I always wanted to ask though are the townhall.com geek facts such as Robert Byrd and the KKK lies as he insunuates? The reason I ask is because this is very easily proved. Next.

 

[5stringJeff]

Another hate-filled "Everyone's a racist" essay. Big surprise.
Welcome to the 21st century, WJ, where most of us have gotten past the color of people's skins.

 

[William Joyce]

OCA, a "geekfact" is something that is true, but irrelevant. Hence, geek interest. Nobody is saying Byrd wasn't in the Klan. Just that who cares? If you think that means blacks won't always vote D, you're crazy.

gopjeff, why does your avatar feature a black person?