Zone1 The Right Wing Race Hustle

[IM2]

How the Right’s Rules of Rhetoric Create Racial Provocateurs

One of our nation’s most important religious, cultural, and political projects is creating and sustaining a robust and just public policy aimed at repairing the harm inflicted by 345 years of legal racial oppression in the United States. That’s the span of time between 1619, when the first African slaves arrived on American shores, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which (mostly) banned invidious discrimination in employment, education, and public accommodations.

I use the term right-wing rather than conservative for a reason. This should be the subject of a separate essay, but the American right is in a state of profound ideological flux, with huge segments of the right explicitly rejecting the Reaganite model that shaped conservatism for decades. They reject commitments to more limited government and to free trade, they're more skeptical of supporting civil liberties, and they are deeply suspicious of America’s global military alliances.

The disparate elements of the new right are fundamentally united by a single, overriding purpose. They are anti-left. They’re rooted in deep and abiding animosity. These are the Americans who fly Trump flags not in spite of his manner but in large part because of his disposition. He fights.

As a result, much of the new right operates under a set of rhetorical rules of engagement that become particularly toxic when applied to race. First, making your opponents angry (“triggering the libs”) isn’t an unfortunate side effect or consequence of good-faith engagement over tough issues, but rather one of the central goals of your communication. You want to cause an angry reaction.

In fact, the very existence of progressive anger is a sign that you’ve hit your mark. You’ve said things that “everyone is afraid to say.” You’ve defied cancel culture, and the very fact that you’re “receiving flak” means you’re “over the target.”

As a result, much of the new right operates under a set of rhetorical rules of engagement that become particularly toxic when applied to race. First, making your opponents angry (“triggering the libs”) isn’t an unfortunate side effect or consequence of good-faith engagement over tough issues, but rather one of the central goals of your communication. You want to cause an angry reaction.

In fact, the very existence of progressive anger is a sign that you’ve hit your mark. You’ve said things that “everyone is afraid to say.” You’ve defied cancel culture, and the very fact that you’re “receiving flak” means you’re “over the target.”

How the Right’s Rules of Rhetoric Create Racial Provocateurs

Anti-anti-racism can look a lot like … racism

www.theatlantic.com

This is the modern right wing race hustle. It is why we cannot move forward or get beyond race. This tactic stops honest conversations and turns them into fights. We see that here and in many other forums. Unless this stops we won't get beyond race to the colorblind nation some here claim they want to see. In order for that to happen, rght wing whites are going to have to admit to continued wrongdoing and admit to the damage created by policies in the past that they have indeed benefitted from.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What utterly specious twaddle.

 

[Stryder50]

What utterly specious twaddle.

Injury to insult, one has to "sign in" or "open a free TRIAL account" to read the rest of the Leftist racist rant.
BTW, "The Atlantic" is just another Left-wing regressive pravda.

It's the Left-wing that keeps stirring the racism pot, like they have been for over 70 years now. Forget about focus on merit, qualifications, or skills, only skin color should matter in any and all social and economic situations.

 

[MisterBeale]

What utterly specious twaddle.

I doubt many will actually click the link, to see how he butchered and chopped up the article, to selectively make the left look like the good guy, and completely w/o sin.

While the right does react in a very emotional way, there is, w/o a doubt, a very subversive agenda, that is w/o precedent, that is very unAmerican. David French pointed out, that this has caused a reaction from the right. . . this is, after all, why they call them "reactionaries." He is a neo-con that wants to use this issue to attack Trump. . he is an establishment toadie, at heart.

W/O radicals, there would be no reactionaries.

David French (political commentator) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

French is a famous neo-con from the National Review, so using him to push radical politics? Is pretty much a stretch.

This is part of the beginning of the article that the OP clipped out, without a <SNIP> or any indication that he selectively edited it. . . Seriously, he just edited it out, and you would have to click the link for find the deception.

From the article. . . figure out how he deceived you to manipulate the forum for his own agenda. . .

". . . Yet our racial debates are growing more toxic, not less—and that toxicity is the product of escalating extremism and animosity on both sides of the political divide.

On the one side you have what John McWhorter has described here in The Atlantic as “third wave anti-racism,” the movement that follows the struggle to end slavery and segregation with a post-civil-rights era, an era concerned not just with concrete legal change but with psychological and cultural change as well, and at its edges it’s both quasi-religious and deeply intolerant. Here’s McWhorter:

Third-wave anti-racism is a profoundly religious movement in everything but terminology. The idea that whites are permanently stained by their white privilege, gaining moral absolution only by eternally attesting to it, is the third wave’s version of original sin. The idea of a someday when America will “come to terms with race” is as vaguely specified a guidepost as Judgment Day. Explorations as to whether an opinion is “problematic” are equivalent to explorations of that which may be blasphemous. The social mauling of the person with “problematic” thoughts parallels the excommunication of the heretic. What is called “virtue signaling,” then, channels the impulse that might lead a Christian to an aggressive display of her faith in Jesus.

Interestingly, the data indicate that white liberals have now moved to the left of Black Americans on a number of key issues, and their “views on race are generally to the left of nonwhites.”

This would suggest that there exists a giant political and cultural lane for more of a middle way, one that is incidentally more in line with the views of people of color. But we can’t talk about the so-called Great Awokening without talking about the right-wing reaction to cultural and political movement on the left.

I use the term right-wing rather than conservative for a reason.. . . "

The End of Ibram X. Kendi? | Glenn Loury, John McWhorter & Dan Subotnik | The Glenn Show​

Oct 6, 2023

 

[MisterBeale]

Injury to insult, one has to "sign in" or "open a free TRIAL account" to read the rest of the Leftist racist rant.

This particular piece of propaganda is free, limited offer.

 

[IM2]

Injury to insult, one has to "sign in" or "open a free TRIAL account" to read the rest of the Leftist racist rant.
BTW, "The Atlantic" is just another Left-wing regressive pravda.

It's the Left-wing that keeps stirring the racism pot, like they have been for over 70 years now. Forget about focus on merit, qualifications, or skills, only skin color should matter in any and all social and economic situations.

What? You can't afford the subscription? And here we see another person repeating the right wing race hustlers lines. Skin color has always been the only thing that mattered for whites. Not merit, not qualifications, and not skills.

 

[IM2]

This particular piece of propaganda is free, limited offer.

View attachment 919844

This is not propaganda, but the white race hustler will say it is. Anything that calls out the white race hustle gets demeaned or discredited.

 

[IM2]

I doubt many will actually click the link, to see how he butchered and chopped up the article, to selectively make the left look like the good guy, and completely w/o sin.

While the right does react in a very emotional way, there is, w/o a doubt, a very subversive agenda, that is w/o precedent, that is very unAmerican. David French pointed out, that this has caused a reaction from the right. . . this is, after all, why they call them "reactionaries." He is a neo-con that wants to use this issue to attack Trump. . he is an establishment toadie, at heart.

W/O radicals, there would be no reactionaries.

View attachment 919841

David French (political commentator) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

French is a famous neo-con from the National Review, so using him to push radical politics? Is pretty much a stretch.

This is part of the beginning of the article that the OP clipped out, without a <SNIP> or any indication that he selectively edited it. . . Seriously, he just edited it out, and you would have to click the link for find the deception.

From the article. . . figure out how he deceived you to manipulate the forum for his own agenda. . .

". . . Yet our racial debates are growing more toxic, not less—and that toxicity is the product of escalating extremism and animosity on both sides of the political divide.

On the one side you have what John McWhorter has described here in The Atlantic as “third wave anti-racism,” the movement that follows the struggle to end slavery and segregation with a post-civil-rights era, an era concerned not just with concrete legal change but with psychological and cultural change as well, and at its edges it’s both quasi-religious and deeply intolerant. Here’s McWhorter:


Interestingly, the data indicate that white liberals have now moved to the left of Black Americans on a number of key issues, and their “views on race are generally to the left of nonwhites.”

This would suggest that there exists a giant political and cultural lane for more of a middle way, one that is incidentally more in line with the views of people of color. But we can’t talk about the so-called Great Awokening without talking about the right-wing reaction to cultural and political movement on the left.

I use the term right-wing rather than conservative for a reason.. . . "

The End of Ibram X. Kendi? | Glenn Loury, John McWhorter & Dan Subotnik | The Glenn Show​

Oct 6, 2023
View attachment 919843

And so you run to the part by John McWhorter another sellout who says what whites want to hear in order to stay a tenured professor. And then we have Glenn Loury, another ivory tower sellout. And here were see a prime example of the tactics used by the white race hustler. Find some blacks that say what they have chosen tobelieve thinking that it means something extra. But it doesn't. Try reading what professors like M.E. Dyson. or M.L. Hill say.

 

[MisterBeale]

And so you run to the part by John McWhorter another sellout who says what whites want to hear in order to stay a tenured professor. And then we have Glenn Loury, another ivory tower sellout. And here were see a prime example of the tactics used by the white race hustler. Find some blacks that say what they have chosen tobelieve thinking that it means something extra. But it doesn't. Try reading what professors like M.E. Dyson. or M.L. Hill say.

That you selectively edited? Meh, that does not bother me. . . I do that when I post.

The difference between you and I? When I do it. . . I notify the folks reading my posts when I do it, and where I have edited out portions. I am not dishonest. Nor do I launch into personal attacks onto folks who disagree, unless attacked first.

Your method of debate and discussion is dishonest, illogical and quite frankly, weak as hell.

You had no good arguments in post #6 & #7. . . SO? You just launched into a personal attack, which, I might add, is explicitly against Zone 1 rules. There was no, "racist," comments made by either me, nor Stryder50, yet, that is the only argument you made in response. Reported as against Zone 1 rules.

Next in post 8, your only argument was, you did not like the academics who addressed your argument, nor their arguments, (which I doubt you bothered to listen to,) you just called them, "sell-outs." Why not just call them, "uncle Toms?" You don't pick out any particular argument, you just make childish school yard taunts, which is, essentially what your OP is about. You do the same thing that your OP article accuses the other side of doing.

/thread.

 

[Stryder50]

What? You can't afford the subscription? And here we see another person repeating the right wing race hustlers lines. Skin color has always been the only thing that mattered for whites. Not merit, not qualifications, and not skills.

I can afford, but it's a matter of principle. I refuse to pay for left-wing racist propaganda=pravda.
Bad enough my tax-dollars paid for the first two of Barry Obama's books I checked out from the library and read. If that scammer con-artist hadn't been POTUS, you would have had to pay me to read his drek.

BTW, I enjoy reading Clarence Thomas but I'd bet he's what a racist like you would call an Oreo since he is conservative and Right-wing.

And in you we see another Left-wing komrade repeat the socialist/communist race hustler's lines. Skin color is the only thing it seems that matters to YOU in your anti-White racism. FWIW, "whites" aren't the only ones to whom skin color is the major matters. Try traveling around the globe to other country's and culture's. Try moving to Japan and claiming you are just as Japanese as the local natives.

 

[Stryder50]

From another thread;
What Science Says About Race and Genetics
...
The companion page would be the recent rise of genetics in tracing one's ancestry, such as 'Ancestry.com'. Use of their service has both my sons showing about 25% genetic link to the population of Nigeria. i.e they are 25% Black(African). Expressed another way, half of the genetic half they got from their mother is that Nigerian inheritance. Based on appearance - skin color, facial and body characteristics, etc. my youngest son appears full Caucasian; my oldest son has slight 'non-white' hints that have often been mistaken for Hispanic. BTW, their mother appeared to be either slightly Hispanic or Eurasian.

Now if the boys only had about 1/8th Native American they might be entitled to some sort of tribal benefits. As it is, they'd have to show printout of the Ancestry.com research to claim any sort of racial minority status or quota favor since neither looks the slightest bit of Black/African-American.
...

 

[MisterBeale]

Bad enough my tax-dollars paid for the first two of Barry Obama's books I checked out from the library and read.

That was CIA disinfo. An elaborate fiction.

The Story of Obama: All in the Company Parts 1 Through 5​

by Wayne Madsen

The Story of Obama: All in the Company by Wayne Madsen


As was that whole "birther," scam. . . it was all a counter-intel program to distract from why the establishment press was doing so little real background digging on his history.

When one hand is doing something, we must watch the other. . . .

He, like Bush I, Bush II, and Clinton . .. and maybe Trump? All spooks. Trump had connections to Resorts International which was/had been owned by first, Meyer Lansky (the mob,) and then a CIA front, (the Mary Carter Paint Company and James Crosby.)

The Seizing of the American Broadcasting Company

1987 article from the LA Weekly about CIA links to the ABC television network.

www.kennedysandking.com

Goodfellas: The Hidden History of Resorts International

Resorts International was a most curious creature that remains strikingly relevant today despite having been largely consumed by larger...

visupview.blogspot.com

 

[Mac-7]

It is why we cannot move forward or get beyond race. This tactic stops honest conversations and turns them into fights.

We cant get beyond race because race is a wedge issue for the far left

Since 1964 a small percentage of blacks have done well, but the majority have not

Rather than blame the failure on black people on themselves, the left chooses to demonize whites instead

 

[odanny]

BTW, "The Atlantic" is just another Left-wing regressive pravda.

It's like a cross, or perhaps even cloves, to a vampire.

Recoil in horror wherever the truth reveals itself.

 

[luiza]

How the Right’s Rules of Rhetoric Create Racial Provocateurs

Have wrestled with the OP long through the night and conclude that the most reasonable assessment is
UTTER BOLLOCKS ( English for subversive garbage).

 

[LibertyKid]

How the Right’s Rules of Rhetoric Create Racial Provocateurs

One of our nation’s most important religious, cultural, and political projects is creating and sustaining a robust and just public policy aimed at repairing the harm inflicted by 345 years of legal racial oppression in the United States. That’s the span of time between 1619, when the first African slaves arrived on American shores, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which (mostly) banned invidious discrimination in employment, education, and public accommodations.

I use the term right-wing rather than conservative for a reason. This should be the subject of a separate essay, but the American right is in a state of profound ideological flux, with huge segments of the right explicitly rejecting the Reaganite model that shaped conservatism for decades. They reject commitments to more limited government and to free trade, they're more skeptical of supporting civil liberties, and they are deeply suspicious of America’s global military alliances.

The disparate elements of the new right are fundamentally united by a single, overriding purpose. They are anti-left. They’re rooted in deep and abiding animosity. These are the Americans who fly Trump flags not in spite of his manner but in large part because of his disposition. He fights.

As a result, much of the new right operates under a set of rhetorical rules of engagement that become particularly toxic when applied to race. First, making your opponents angry (“triggering the libs”) isn’t an unfortunate side effect or consequence of good-faith engagement over tough issues, but rather one of the central goals of your communication. You want to cause an angry reaction.

In fact, the very existence of progressive anger is a sign that you’ve hit your mark. You’ve said things that “everyone is afraid to say.” You’ve defied cancel culture, and the very fact that you’re “receiving flak” means you’re “over the target.”

As a result, much of the new right operates under a set of rhetorical rules of engagement that become particularly toxic when applied to race. First, making your opponents angry (“triggering the libs”) isn’t an unfortunate side effect or consequence of good-faith engagement over tough issues, but rather one of the central goals of your communication. You want to cause an angry reaction.

In fact, the very existence of progressive anger is a sign that you’ve hit your mark. You’ve said things that “everyone is afraid to say.” You’ve defied cancel culture, and the very fact that you’re “receiving flak” means you’re “over the target.”

How the Right’s Rules of Rhetoric Create Racial Provocateurs

Anti-anti-racism can look a lot like … racism

www.theatlantic.com

This is the modern right wing race hustle. It is why we cannot move forward or get beyond race. This tactic stops honest conversations and turns them into fights. We see that here and in many other forums. Unless this stops we won't get beyond race to the colorblind nation some here claim they want to see. In order for that to happen, rght wing whites are going to have to admit to continued wrongdoing and admit to the damage created by policies in the past that they have indeed benefitted from.

So I have no clue what the site "The Atlantic" is about, but one can can quickly determine, via a quick browse of the front page, that the Atlantic is a biased, progressive far left propaganda bull shitting site. And the article that is given in the OP, is a diatribe of opinion and bias and isn't worthy of intellectual discourse. If I were to cite the Atlantic as a peer reviewed journal I would have failed for citing such drivel.

Just the following statement is trash:

"In fact, the very existence of progressive anger is a sign that you’ve hit your mark. You’ve said things that “everyone is afraid to say.” You’ve defied cancel culture, and the very fact that you’re “receiving flak” means you’re “over the target.”

As a result, much of the new right operates under a set of rhetorical rules of engagement that become particularly toxic when applied to race. First, making your opponents angry (“triggering the libs”) isn’t an unfortunate side effect or consequence of good-faith engagement over tough issues, but rather one of the central goals of your communication. You want to cause an angry reaction."

Any rational and logical person with one ounce of emotional intelligence will tell you that allowing emotions to get to a point of anger, usually devolves the conversation and leads to bad decisions. This article is complete and utter nonsens trying to defend and argue for poor behavior.

 

[sparky]

I use the term right-wing rather than conservative for a reason.. . . "

Those that associate the two as one platform are quite frankly manipulative agenda driven radicals

~S~

 

[el midgetron]

Skin color has always been the only thing that mattered for whites. Not merit, not qualifications, and not skills.

looks at the ignorant black hypocrite speaking for white people when he cries like a bitch if a white people “speaks” for black people. What a clown.

As a white person I can unequivocally speak for white people and authoritatively state the vast majority don’t give a crap about skin color. Just stop trafficking in liberal-racism and leave us alone.

 

[Lisa558]

From another thread;
What Science Says About Race and Genetics
...
The companion page would be the recent rise of genetics in tracing one's ancestry, such as 'Ancestry.com'. Use of their service has both my sons showing about 25% genetic link to the population of Nigeria. i.e they are 25% Black(African). Expressed another way, half of the genetic half they got from their mother is that Nigerian inheritance. Based on appearance - skin color, facial and body characteristics, etc. my youngest son appears full Caucasian; my oldest son has slight 'non-white' hints that have often been mistaken for Hispanic. BTW, their mother appeared to be either slightly Hispanic or Eurasian.

Now if the boys only had about 1/8th Native American they might be entitled to some sort of tribal benefits. As it is, they'd have to show printout of the Ancestry.com research to claim any sort of racial minority status or quota favor since neither looks the slightest bit of Black/African-American.
...

Not sure if it’s changed, but 40 years ago when a current white aquaintance of mine (I didn’t know her back then) applied to 1st tier colleges, she was rejected. Then, knowing she was 1/8th black, she applied to the Ivies, checking the black box, and was accepted.

She told me it was difficult, but they had tutors, and she graduated. Then, she has the best of both worlds: she looked white, AND she was an Ivy grad. So employers figured she got in via merit, and not AA, and had a great career.

She admitted to me that had she not had a black great- grandfather, she would have ended up at an OKish school with much less career success.

Just FYI.

 

[LibertyKid]

Have wrestled with the OP long through the night and conclude that the most reasonable assessment is
UTTER BOLLOCKS ( English for subversive garbage).

My theory, IM2 is a single white male who loves trolling people in his mother's basement while snaking on Cheetos. You can't be this ignorant and illogical and be serious. So he's either a huge troll and just loves arguing and or mentally ill. I suppose both could be an option too.