I'm like a sucker at the momement.
Why?
Well i'll tell but the reason why may shock you and may hopeful demolish some of the largest myths you have.
The reason why is that i've been reading Steve Sailer's brillant writing on Sotomayor and Ricci and "disparate impact" and rapidly i see one after another, the most basic freedoms that are non existent today as a result of that holyiest of holy entitys The Civil Rights Movement. It's nearly as much of a third rail to speak uncoventionally about as the Holacaust is. But i following Orwells adage, will have the integrity to follow reason anywhere no matter how unpopular a place. So out with: The greatest myth in american society today is that of the "holy"Civil Rights Movement that keeps on-a-chugging today not fighting any real discrimination or racism but doing all it can to make America's claim to be a land of colorblind freedome and justice look like a terrible joke.
(don't worry i will get to exsplaining why)
Where i went to school, the civil rights movement was taught a 100 times more than the founding, Kig might as well have been Washington, Malcolm X John Adams.
But oddly they basically just hammered into us again and again the same images and basics-"i have a dream", ruby bridges walking into school, roots the movie, harriet tubman and the underground railroad.
IN the end as me and my piers leave high school i realize how we really were never even taught about the civil rights movement just the fantasty. LBJ was never mentioned, the civil rights bills were not exsplained, busing neither, and certainly not any talk of the curtailed basic liberitys and never any discussion of why people like William f. Buckley and Barry Goldwater opposed unconstuitional civil rights laws, my piers don't even know who either men are nor of any "constuitional issue in regard to civil rights laws". And i know now for ceratian there terrible education on this so called civil rights movement (that for some reason only took rights away) was not a accident. To produce hordes of children with a entireely facile view of the civil rights movement is good for the left and its agenda. They prodice adolcents who know nothing about the civil rights movements laws, nor why many whites were angered by forced and unconstuitional integration and don'tt even know what "busing" is. Rather the see the civil rights movement literally in black and whites, good vs. evil, northern liberal angels and minoritys vs. evil southern republicans (they don't about the dixiecrats).This false version of the civil rights movement is taught like the liberal creation myth, which solifidys the totally rigtousness of the left and the instinstic dark racist motives of the right forver in young impressionable adolcents minds.
For kids to be taught about the actual civil rights movement is something the left must avoid occuring by all means. The 60's fantasy they teach like sunday school t eachers tecahing scripture, covers up the wholly opposite reality of what the civil rights movement was really like.
King is symbolic as the indivdual diety of this deified movement, for those "extremist" facts about his life show his deification to be just as false. I should not here that in saying that King and the movement he was figurehead of are not the dietys we known them both as, i am not then claiming either to be absolutely bad or amoral but human and mixed like most people and things, gray rather than all white or all black. There is the life MLK lead that we all know and were taught endlessly and not very well but his actual life is rather different and his full collection of views drawl a quite different picture than the diety laid before everyday children.
In reality he was not a saint but a plagarist, a adulterer, a supporter of large scale legalized racism, a likely private communist, a non-believer in numerous basic rights and freedoms enshrined by the constuition and a hypocritical preacher who lived as a rabid adulterer after church (the FBI tapped his rooms and recorded his fallandering on the day of his death he beded multiple women and was recording shoutied "i'm f*** for jesus!"). Copious friends of MLK say (most with glee) that he was probably a closet communist and many of his closet friends and partners claim that he confessed to being one in private. The fact that some of his closest associates were Soviet connected communist party USA leaders and that he had apaulling tolitrian (soviet like) views on wealth distrubition, taxes, and other matters suggest that MLK if not a secret pro-communists was pretty close to being so. As for his support of large scale legalized racism: it wouldn't suffice to merely exsplain that he longed for extreme tolytrian racial quoatas without specficying how extreme the quoata's he favored were: he once said that if a city had a 40 percent "negro" population that then "negros" should then rightly hold 40 percent of jobs in companys in that city.
The glaring contrast between the real MLK and the mythical MLK, when the full facts are reviwed, reflects the same contradiction betweem the civil rights movement myth propogated in public schools and the civil rights movement of reality.
Where are the magical fruits of this so called movement for basic rights? where are these new rights?
(Before i answer those 2 questions let me say that the improvement in race relations and the living consditions of african americans has been a unqaulfied good.)
But where are these new civil rights?
The sad answer is that the Civil Rights Movement produced no new rights (unless i missed them) only took away rights.
For 45 years now the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been illegally enforced. Those 45 years of good hearted unconstuitionality has resulted in a massive system of race and gender discrimination against white males in order to achieve proportional representation of racial minorities and women among other causes of white guilt.
Thanks to the Civil Rights Movement:
1. you no longer have the right-as a business owner-to not let romanians (or any minority group or gender) into your store if you don't like romanians (for whatever reason). a rather basic right, me thinks?
2. if your a bank, you no longer can give loans to whom ever you want, you can and will recieve massive discrimination lawsuites if you do not give enough loans to blacks compared to whites
3. you no longer, can treat female and male employees that differently.
4. if you do not hire enough black people you may be also recieve a discrimination lawsuite.
5. the goverment can force your kid to be bused 40 miles away to a inner city school instead of the neigborhood school down the block and parents can do nothing about it.
How strangely Orwellian it is to find that the legacy of the civil rights movement is not more liberity and freedom but the stripping of the most basic rights and freedomes and an a imposition of a new rigourous kind of legalized racism that digs deeper and deeper into places Legalized racism do not belong (not that it belongs anywhere).
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Getting to know Barack and Sonya vol 1.
Liberals when even they can't defend there leaders judicial rulings in the Ricci case and beyond commonly resort to simply saying "well it's really a tuff and complicated and.." and most people will unthinkingly kindly nod in agreement. But these cases are incredibly simple and clear cut that 3rd graders get them-some of these case that is, the most outragous ones.
For instance, here's a message i sent to my face newsletter chain:
you may have noticed that California-the state with the massive poor latino population that the whole USA will also have soon-is in giant debt and falling apart.
You may have wondered like many other sencible Americans: "why don't they just stop paying billions out that they don't have paying to provide there huge illegal alien population 1. free health care 2. free K-12 education 3. free financial aid and 4. free welfare and unemployment services and so fourth?"
Well, actually California in the late 90's voted to ban their billions of hard earned tax dollars from going to illegal aliens, but something happened .In the eyes of Barack Obama and Sonya Sotomayor and the liberal supreme court justices, the "evil" that was this refusal to give illegals billions had to be stopped by any means.
So Obama (who has worked as "constuitional" law professor) and his supreme court pick Sotomayor, supported the Supreme Court in ignoring the most basic rights of both states and citizens, and DECLARING A STATE'S PEOPLE VOTING NOT TO GIVE THEIR MONEY AWAY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS "UNCONSTUITIONAL".
You hopefully are asking yourselves "is he joking?" now. Well indeed i'm not this actually happened. There are actually americans 2 of which are the current president and his supreme court nominee WHO THINK THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS RECIEVING BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS THROUGH FREE STATE RUN SERVICES MEANT ONLY FOR CITIZENS IS A RIGHT ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTUITION.
That statement alone can't stand up on its own two feet but in case you want me to back it up a little here's just a few points:
Illegal aliens didn't recieve the state run services made and paid for by citizens up until atleast at earliest the 1960's. If it was a clear "right enshrined in the constuition why did 1.not one illegal recieve free tax payer paid for service for the first 190 years of the USA's existence? 2. has anyone including the founders up until the 90's argued that illegals have a "constuitional right" to receieve tax dollars? does illegal status mean essentially nothing? and finally where in our constuition is this right enshrined?
For instance, here's a message i sent to my face newsletter chain:
you may have noticed that California-the state with the massive poor latino population that the whole USA will also have soon-is in giant debt and falling apart.
You may have wondered like many other sencible Americans: "why don't they just stop paying billions out that they don't have paying to provide there huge illegal alien population 1. free health care 2. free K-12 education 3. free financial aid and 4. free welfare and unemployment services and so fourth?"
Well, actually California in the late 90's voted to ban their billions of hard earned tax dollars from going to illegal aliens, but something happened .In the eyes of Barack Obama and Sonya Sotomayor and the liberal supreme court justices, the "evil" that was this refusal to give illegals billions had to be stopped by any means.
So Obama (who has worked as "constuitional" law professor) and his supreme court pick Sotomayor, supported the Supreme Court in ignoring the most basic rights of both states and citizens, and DECLARING A STATE'S PEOPLE VOTING NOT TO GIVE THEIR MONEY AWAY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS "UNCONSTUITIONAL".
You hopefully are asking yourselves "is he joking?" now. Well indeed i'm not this actually happened. There are actually americans 2 of which are the current president and his supreme court nominee WHO THINK THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS RECIEVING BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS THROUGH FREE STATE RUN SERVICES MEANT ONLY FOR CITIZENS IS A RIGHT ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTUITION.
That statement alone can't stand up on its own two feet but in case you want me to back it up a little here's just a few points:
Illegal aliens didn't recieve the state run services made and paid for by citizens up until atleast at earliest the 1960's. If it was a clear "right enshrined in the constuition why did 1.not one illegal recieve free tax payer paid for service for the first 190 years of the USA's existence? 2. has anyone including the founders up until the 90's argued that illegals have a "constuitional right" to receieve tax dollars? does illegal status mean essentially nothing? and finally where in our constuition is this right enshrined?
A 3-PART MEDIATION ON SOTOMAYOR, SOFT TYRANNY, LEGAL RACISM & HAVING A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE CONSTUITION AND HIS MEDIA MINIONS
PART 1: EXCLUSIVE EMPATHY
well that emphathy post/prediction of mine was dead on wasn't it? Obama picked Sotomayor.
So "empathy" really is obvious code for not giving a damn about the constuition, and making outragous descions that most all americans deplore, denying citizens of the states the right to vote to ban illegals receieving their money, putting race before merit in regard to promoting firefighters and other such contests that should have nothing to do with race, just to name a few things this newest liberal euphism is code for.
As far as real empathy goes-the kind defined in the dictionary-Sotomayor and Obama do have alot for some people (or should i say some colors?) and none for others.
For example if your a white firefighter in New Haven who works hard studying for a test needed for a promotion to captain in a firehouse and you receive out of 70 plus test takers the 7th best score on that test (which would automaticly make you a captain) Sotomayor and Obama have no empathy for you at all.
No they don't give a damn about you at all. Well actually they do they care about you NOT PASSING AND NOT BEING PROMOTED INSTEAD OF PEOPLE WITH BLACK SKIN.
But Obama and Sotomayor do have their special brand empathy ready for you if your a black firefighter in New Haven.
If you didn't study enough for the test for promotion to firefighter captain and you get the worst score out of 70 plus test takers, Obama and Sotomayor, want to make sure you-rather than a white firfighter like the one above who passed the test-get that promotion cause of slavery, and jim CRowe and blah, blah, blah.
And in the rest of the similiar endevours in your life that seemingly require purely merit base copmeition, Sotomayor and Obama will always be there for you and your black brothers like some kind of gaurdian angels, appearing as testtime begins and with a wink and a smile lowering the bar just for you and hightening that bar right back up again when you've cleared it and it's the crackers turn and you've already gotten your job, your promotion, your acceptance letter, your award, your special treatment and your honorable mention.
PART 2: WHY THE COVERAGE OF SOTOMAYOR SHOULD SCARE YOU & HOW FAR WILL THEY GO FOR HIM? HOW FAR WILL HE GO FOR "JUSTICE"? & A RENUION WITH BRITIAN
Oh and don't forget those of us, Sotomayor and Obama, not only have no empathy for but no tolerance for, those americans who dare to write and/or speak negativly of their special "empathy" and their racist laws. If Sotomayor and Obama where to get their way-there's a good chance seeing what the media the media that informs the public has deformed to- that your website, your blog, your article, could be shut down. This has already happened in Britian, where Scotland Yard urges citizens through advertisments online to notify them not if you come across a mugging or prostuition but if you coe across or hear about "right wing extremist" websites.
We already see the soft tryanny and banning of free special that is law in newly multicultral Britian and Canada seeping into America and Sotomayors confirmation will undoubtly be a big step towards bringing the notorious "human rights tribunals" of Canada to America.
Programs like NetNanny that hotels and schools and parents use to block inapprarite sites (e.g. porn sites) from adolcents now block sites like Mark Steyn's personal website and NRO.com, respectivly the biggest conservtive website of the most mainstream conservtive magazine and the and one it's most famous writers (National Reviews colmunists no doubt). If National Review is labeled a "hate site" and blacked by NEtnanny, the whole conservtive sphere of opinion is blocked as i'm sure it is if you just try t o enter takimag.com, chronicles.com, weeklystandard.com, humanevents.com and so on.
And then ofcourse there is the memo Obama's CIA sent out (with his incentive) that asked citizens and authoritys to watch out for "right wing extremist groups" who may center around the issues of "abortion and/or immgration".
And really-one must ask, and reporters will never ask-Obama and/or Sotomayor, if your willing to deny Ricci the promotion he earned because no blacks passed, what principle of restraint is there to stop you from shutting down websites that you or the Southern POverty Law Center or LA RAZA OR the ACLU says "promotes hate against a group"?
It is hard for us conservtives-who see the persuction of a Ricci or a Mark Steyn in Canada or Geert Wilders in the Netherlands as shameful-to even believe or suspect fellow americans on the left to see such soft tryanny and loss of the freedome of free speech differently.
What really has scared me and made me look at the words that say "Soon to be banned in Canda" on the cover of Mark Steyn's America Alone differently about Obama's selection of Sotomayor is the how the media has covered it all as Obama's minions: repeating over and over Obama's official Sotomayor talking point about "her story", and the other infuraitingly dishonest assigned talking point about how "Sotomayor is hardly liberal" so much so the GOP really has nothing to say against her and awhile in these NPR and ABC and CNN segments "on Sotomayor" never even mention anything but biography and her superb affirmtive action credentials, not one mention of any of her descions nor any utterance of the name Ricci.
Everyone has know for awhile now (except apparently MediaMatters.com) that the media has a liberal bias and even bigger pro- Obama bias, bias' which are startling to those few of us who know of the news that NPR, ABC and the rest of the MSM knowingly ignore, distort or gloss over. But the unknown thing has always been for me atleast:how far will they go for this guy?
I thought there bare coverage of Rev. Wright (the ny times mention rev. wright for the 1st time 5 months after the fact) showed that if forced to by the fear that they can't get away with ignore and supressing news bad for obama they would cover it with extra liberal bias. But after Rev. Wright-as CHristopher Hitchens said-the media felt guilty for even covering Rev. Wright and resolved not to do so again. And everything since Rev. Wright suggests the well connected Hitchen's word is right.
The Uniformity o the MSM's Coverage of Sotomayor pretty much soldifies that if there is a news-story (a unusually intresting poltical story to average people as the Ricci case is) the MSM will simply shamefully not mention it. And worst of all there is no real consquence, the disserviced public knows not what they're not beiing told about Sotomayor and Obama views, and the MSM scoundrels doing there part for TEAM OBAMA don't hear the rigetous denuciations coming from the Limbaugh and Taki T. and the rest of the few of us left that know what the hells going on called consertives.
We'll see when other Ricci like scandals such as Card Check and The fairness doctrine come along again about how far the MSM will go. BUt as of now, the MSM has shown that it will do whatever it takes and supress whatever it takes for Obama and as long as that true OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS REALLY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. Even with 60 or 61 democratic senate seats, with a left slanted media of the BUsh years the MSM would atleast cover big bills that the Dem's would have passed. And knowing that there will be MSM coverage and thus somekind of citizen reaction, enough democrats would have voted against disgraceful bills like amnesty and the fairness doctrine in fear of losing their seat and in doing so stopped such scandals from crossing over from liberal scheme into American law.
BUt now that the MSM has shown how deep its love is for there man by actually ignoring stories and bills like Ricci and the fairness doctrine, those few worried Democratic Senators that would have blocked a Fairness Doctrine in fear won't now that there is nothing for them to fear.
And so the next question, now that it seems Obama can do whatever he wants without major recourse, is HOW FAR WILL OBAMA GO?
PART 3:STATUS AND POLTICS VOL 1.: WHITES WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT RICCI & LEGALIZED ANTI-WHITE DISCRIMINATION AND THE REASON WHY
And the whites i know for the most part -who are the midwestern versions of the people in the west who decide what movies get made and right there anti-american scripts and of those in east who run the mainstream media with the journalstic intregrity and objectivty of Obama P.R. people- they don't give a damn about Ricci and affirmtive action and quoatas and so on, even when you personalize this legalized racism with the heart renching story of a Ricci, which is odd right?
Well in almost any other group on earth it would be very odd if it were ever to happen, indifference towards systematic discrimination agaginst your good group in employment and oppurtinty would be quite odd.
For a group-catholics, luddites, conservtives, blacks, hawians, watever group it may be- to be not indifferent but to support EXSPLICIT LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST YOUR GROUP is bizarre.
But among white americans-unlike any other such group i know of- i know of, it is not hard to find many of this group, white americans, that are indifferent and even indeed open supporters even vigorous promoters for systematic legalized discrimination against white americans.
Can anyone point towards a latino advocate to have to do better than blacks to get into in the same school?
Ofcourse you can't, cause what kind of sane group of people or just sane person wants to be discriminated against in law when they try to get into a college, get a job, or get a promotion?
So i guess many whites males are insane, they're also liberals.
When i talk about Ricci and the like to liberals they usually ask "why do you even care?", "how does affirmtive action effect you?". The questions would suggest they don't what affirmtive action is, but the reason they ask that question to me-a white male-is because they pity minoritys so much, and are so non-threatned by blacks professionals and indeed are so unfimiliar with blacks in their careers, that when these liberal elites say "what has affirmtive action done to you?" they are really saying "c'mon, you know that affirmtive action and such is just charity to minority, it's just another hand out, so we'll let 2 blacks kids go to Princetown who wouldn't have been able to on their own merit, whats the big deal with that?"
To not be threatned or offended by racist anti-white legal discrimination with most all liberal elite positions has it's status element aswell. To be in different to affirmtive actiona nd quotas and so fourth shows-such liberal elites think- how secure they are in their own careers, that they don't have to worry about compeition on uneven ground.
It's those "embarsing" whites on the perphirery-the coal miners, firefighters, truck drivers, sales clerks like Ricci-who are outraged by Leglaized Anti-white racism, liberal elites believe (somewhat correctly) and whatever those whites do or think or like, elite whites instinvily do the opposite, especially poltically.
well that emphathy post/prediction of mine was dead on wasn't it? Obama picked Sotomayor.
So "empathy" really is obvious code for not giving a damn about the constuition, and making outragous descions that most all americans deplore, denying citizens of the states the right to vote to ban illegals receieving their money, putting race before merit in regard to promoting firefighters and other such contests that should have nothing to do with race, just to name a few things this newest liberal euphism is code for.
As far as real empathy goes-the kind defined in the dictionary-Sotomayor and Obama do have alot for some people (or should i say some colors?) and none for others.
For example if your a white firefighter in New Haven who works hard studying for a test needed for a promotion to captain in a firehouse and you receive out of 70 plus test takers the 7th best score on that test (which would automaticly make you a captain) Sotomayor and Obama have no empathy for you at all.
No they don't give a damn about you at all. Well actually they do they care about you NOT PASSING AND NOT BEING PROMOTED INSTEAD OF PEOPLE WITH BLACK SKIN.
But Obama and Sotomayor do have their special brand empathy ready for you if your a black firefighter in New Haven.
If you didn't study enough for the test for promotion to firefighter captain and you get the worst score out of 70 plus test takers, Obama and Sotomayor, want to make sure you-rather than a white firfighter like the one above who passed the test-get that promotion cause of slavery, and jim CRowe and blah, blah, blah.
And in the rest of the similiar endevours in your life that seemingly require purely merit base copmeition, Sotomayor and Obama will always be there for you and your black brothers like some kind of gaurdian angels, appearing as testtime begins and with a wink and a smile lowering the bar just for you and hightening that bar right back up again when you've cleared it and it's the crackers turn and you've already gotten your job, your promotion, your acceptance letter, your award, your special treatment and your honorable mention.
PART 2: WHY THE COVERAGE OF SOTOMAYOR SHOULD SCARE YOU & HOW FAR WILL THEY GO FOR HIM? HOW FAR WILL HE GO FOR "JUSTICE"? & A RENUION WITH BRITIAN
Oh and don't forget those of us, Sotomayor and Obama, not only have no empathy for but no tolerance for, those americans who dare to write and/or speak negativly of their special "empathy" and their racist laws. If Sotomayor and Obama where to get their way-there's a good chance seeing what the media the media that informs the public has deformed to- that your website, your blog, your article, could be shut down. This has already happened in Britian, where Scotland Yard urges citizens through advertisments online to notify them not if you come across a mugging or prostuition but if you coe across or hear about "right wing extremist" websites.
We already see the soft tryanny and banning of free special that is law in newly multicultral Britian and Canada seeping into America and Sotomayors confirmation will undoubtly be a big step towards bringing the notorious "human rights tribunals" of Canada to America.
Programs like NetNanny that hotels and schools and parents use to block inapprarite sites (e.g. porn sites) from adolcents now block sites like Mark Steyn's personal website and NRO.com, respectivly the biggest conservtive website of the most mainstream conservtive magazine and the and one it's most famous writers (National Reviews colmunists no doubt). If National Review is labeled a "hate site" and blacked by NEtnanny, the whole conservtive sphere of opinion is blocked as i'm sure it is if you just try t o enter takimag.com, chronicles.com, weeklystandard.com, humanevents.com and so on.
And then ofcourse there is the memo Obama's CIA sent out (with his incentive) that asked citizens and authoritys to watch out for "right wing extremist groups" who may center around the issues of "abortion and/or immgration".
And really-one must ask, and reporters will never ask-Obama and/or Sotomayor, if your willing to deny Ricci the promotion he earned because no blacks passed, what principle of restraint is there to stop you from shutting down websites that you or the Southern POverty Law Center or LA RAZA OR the ACLU says "promotes hate against a group"?
It is hard for us conservtives-who see the persuction of a Ricci or a Mark Steyn in Canada or Geert Wilders in the Netherlands as shameful-to even believe or suspect fellow americans on the left to see such soft tryanny and loss of the freedome of free speech differently.
What really has scared me and made me look at the words that say "Soon to be banned in Canda" on the cover of Mark Steyn's America Alone differently about Obama's selection of Sotomayor is the how the media has covered it all as Obama's minions: repeating over and over Obama's official Sotomayor talking point about "her story", and the other infuraitingly dishonest assigned talking point about how "Sotomayor is hardly liberal" so much so the GOP really has nothing to say against her and awhile in these NPR and ABC and CNN segments "on Sotomayor" never even mention anything but biography and her superb affirmtive action credentials, not one mention of any of her descions nor any utterance of the name Ricci.
Everyone has know for awhile now (except apparently MediaMatters.com) that the media has a liberal bias and even bigger pro- Obama bias, bias' which are startling to those few of us who know of the news that NPR, ABC and the rest of the MSM knowingly ignore, distort or gloss over. But the unknown thing has always been for me atleast:how far will they go for this guy?
I thought there bare coverage of Rev. Wright (the ny times mention rev. wright for the 1st time 5 months after the fact) showed that if forced to by the fear that they can't get away with ignore and supressing news bad for obama they would cover it with extra liberal bias. But after Rev. Wright-as CHristopher Hitchens said-the media felt guilty for even covering Rev. Wright and resolved not to do so again. And everything since Rev. Wright suggests the well connected Hitchen's word is right.
The Uniformity o the MSM's Coverage of Sotomayor pretty much soldifies that if there is a news-story (a unusually intresting poltical story to average people as the Ricci case is) the MSM will simply shamefully not mention it. And worst of all there is no real consquence, the disserviced public knows not what they're not beiing told about Sotomayor and Obama views, and the MSM scoundrels doing there part for TEAM OBAMA don't hear the rigetous denuciations coming from the Limbaugh and Taki T. and the rest of the few of us left that know what the hells going on called consertives.
We'll see when other Ricci like scandals such as Card Check and The fairness doctrine come along again about how far the MSM will go. BUt as of now, the MSM has shown that it will do whatever it takes and supress whatever it takes for Obama and as long as that true OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS REALLY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. Even with 60 or 61 democratic senate seats, with a left slanted media of the BUsh years the MSM would atleast cover big bills that the Dem's would have passed. And knowing that there will be MSM coverage and thus somekind of citizen reaction, enough democrats would have voted against disgraceful bills like amnesty and the fairness doctrine in fear of losing their seat and in doing so stopped such scandals from crossing over from liberal scheme into American law.
BUt now that the MSM has shown how deep its love is for there man by actually ignoring stories and bills like Ricci and the fairness doctrine, those few worried Democratic Senators that would have blocked a Fairness Doctrine in fear won't now that there is nothing for them to fear.
And so the next question, now that it seems Obama can do whatever he wants without major recourse, is HOW FAR WILL OBAMA GO?
PART 3:STATUS AND POLTICS VOL 1.: WHITES WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT RICCI & LEGALIZED ANTI-WHITE DISCRIMINATION AND THE REASON WHY
And the whites i know for the most part -who are the midwestern versions of the people in the west who decide what movies get made and right there anti-american scripts and of those in east who run the mainstream media with the journalstic intregrity and objectivty of Obama P.R. people- they don't give a damn about Ricci and affirmtive action and quoatas and so on, even when you personalize this legalized racism with the heart renching story of a Ricci, which is odd right?
Well in almost any other group on earth it would be very odd if it were ever to happen, indifference towards systematic discrimination agaginst your good group in employment and oppurtinty would be quite odd.
For a group-catholics, luddites, conservtives, blacks, hawians, watever group it may be- to be not indifferent but to support EXSPLICIT LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST YOUR GROUP is bizarre.
But among white americans-unlike any other such group i know of- i know of, it is not hard to find many of this group, white americans, that are indifferent and even indeed open supporters even vigorous promoters for systematic legalized discrimination against white americans.
Can anyone point towards a latino advocate to have to do better than blacks to get into in the same school?
Ofcourse you can't, cause what kind of sane group of people or just sane person wants to be discriminated against in law when they try to get into a college, get a job, or get a promotion?
So i guess many whites males are insane, they're also liberals.
When i talk about Ricci and the like to liberals they usually ask "why do you even care?", "how does affirmtive action effect you?". The questions would suggest they don't what affirmtive action is, but the reason they ask that question to me-a white male-is because they pity minoritys so much, and are so non-threatned by blacks professionals and indeed are so unfimiliar with blacks in their careers, that when these liberal elites say "what has affirmtive action done to you?" they are really saying "c'mon, you know that affirmtive action and such is just charity to minority, it's just another hand out, so we'll let 2 blacks kids go to Princetown who wouldn't have been able to on their own merit, whats the big deal with that?"
To not be threatned or offended by racist anti-white legal discrimination with most all liberal elite positions has it's status element aswell. To be in different to affirmtive actiona nd quotas and so fourth shows-such liberal elites think- how secure they are in their own careers, that they don't have to worry about compeition on uneven ground.
It's those "embarsing" whites on the perphirery-the coal miners, firefighters, truck drivers, sales clerks like Ricci-who are outraged by Leglaized Anti-white racism, liberal elites believe (somewhat correctly) and whatever those whites do or think or like, elite whites instinvily do the opposite, especially poltically.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Schwartz's rule-the newest poltical rule
Schwartz's Rule
It seems that long ago a memo was sent out through the corridors of all of the kingdome of the Mainstream Media (aka the liberal media) that informed the satelliates of news organization that make of the MSM-NPR, ABC, CNN, etc-that the only Republicans allowed a place in the mainstream media had to be leftwing pro-life Republicans who has broken ranks with conservtives in some very public way and whom a large portion of the GOP despises.
David Frum (who i like but feel is sometimes misguided and too PC), seems to be the token conservtive 3 places at once everyday. Isn't it odd that he became so suddenly ubiqtous after he rightly called Sara Palin out as a joke who needs to go back to Alaska. He's the new conservtive David that the liberals love.
The other conservtives allowed to particpate in the Mainstream Media (though of only to perform the role of pussyfooting PC republican bunchbags) are Ross Douthat (the new ny times columnist, Katherine Parker (WaPo colmunist and a truthteller on Palin, who wrote a great book called "Save the Males" last year), and ofcourse David Brooks (who it isn't clear,is not currently a democrat i should add).
It seems that long ago a memo was sent out through the corridors of all of the kingdome of the Mainstream Media (aka the liberal media) that informed the satelliates of news organization that make of the MSM-NPR, ABC, CNN, etc-that the only Republicans allowed a place in the mainstream media had to be leftwing pro-life Republicans who has broken ranks with conservtives in some very public way and whom a large portion of the GOP despises.
David Frum (who i like but feel is sometimes misguided and too PC), seems to be the token conservtive 3 places at once everyday. Isn't it odd that he became so suddenly ubiqtous after he rightly called Sara Palin out as a joke who needs to go back to Alaska. He's the new conservtive David that the liberals love.
The other conservtives allowed to particpate in the Mainstream Media (though of only to perform the role of pussyfooting PC republican bunchbags) are Ross Douthat (the new ny times columnist, Katherine Parker (WaPo colmunist and a truthteller on Palin, who wrote a great book called "Save the Males" last year), and ofcourse David Brooks (who it isn't clear,is not currently a democrat i should add).
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
What is "emphathy"?
When Obama says he wants a supreme court justice with "empathy", no informed person wonders for a second what "empathy" is code for. Euphimism is the liberals trademark and we all have become keen deciphery of there gasy pussyfooted rhetoric intermingled with there laughable new age academic jargon.
By saying he wants a justice with empathy-he is saying that he wants a justice that supports racial quotas, discrimination lawsuites, busing, and who doesn't give a damn for a constuition when they feel they need to do "good".
But does Mr. Ricci deserve any empathy, or is that reserved just for gays and minoritys?
Currently, Mr.Ricci- a dsxyelic who cannot read-is fighting afront the supreme court not to be given a job because of race, or to bankrupt a corporation for someone saying something "racist" to him in the hall, he's not fighting for any advanatage at all because of his race or disability, he's fighting to be treated like everyone else.
In America-the law does not treat everyone equally and is no way able to be called "color blind". We have legalized racism-the "good kind of racism", you may opine- but racism nonetheless. And this new legalized racism has human face:The Dsylexic Mr. Ricc.i
By saying he wants a justice with empathy-he is saying that he wants a justice that supports racial quotas, discrimination lawsuites, busing, and who doesn't give a damn for a constuition when they feel they need to do "good".
But does Mr. Ricci deserve any empathy, or is that reserved just for gays and minoritys?
Currently, Mr.Ricci- a dsxyelic who cannot read-is fighting afront the supreme court not to be given a job because of race, or to bankrupt a corporation for someone saying something "racist" to him in the hall, he's not fighting for any advanatage at all because of his race or disability, he's fighting to be treated like everyone else.
In America-the law does not treat everyone equally and is no way able to be called "color blind". We have legalized racism-the "good kind of racism", you may opine- but racism nonetheless. And this new legalized racism has human face:The Dsylexic Mr. Ricc.i
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Has conventional wisdom been stoned for 50 years? and Bringing Bob Dylan down to size
Once our parents die away,future generations won't get why people thought Bob Dylan or Jackson Pollock or Warhol were "extraordinary", infact they'll think conventional wisdom during the last 50 yrs quite bad, which makes sence cause hardly anyone in that time has been educated or not had there brain mashed by weed. no dis to potheaders but why are u paying so much to essentially go to bed and eat a box of pop tarts?
this was a status i came up with tonight.
i did because i read that Bob Dylan had a new album (one which i'm sure is automaticly being called "great").
Bringing Dylan Down to Size
If there is anyone those damn babyboomers will bow to it's Bob Dylan (and now also probably Obama). He is treated as diety, and has been compared to Zeus many time in fact.
This slavish auto-adoration that americans of a certain age practice, may be one of the few religouns thriving todays. We get to see how this mindlessness everytime Dylan puts out a record.
Look he's written some great stuff. Blood on the tracks, "all over the watch tower","as went out one morning" , "lovesick", "things have changed", "the death of hattie carell", "gates of eden" "you belong to me" are beatiful creations. And in reality Dylan is one of the best solo artists living in american music (which in fact there are very few) .
The bizarre things that one beholds about Dylanmania, once you listen to Blood on the Tracks which is from the 70's and/or "things have changed" (from late 90's), is that his most criticaly renowned and famous songs like "times are a changing", "ballad of a thin man", "hard rain", "like a rolling stone" are not only some of worse material but not very enjoyable to listen at all.
Everyone under 40 i know-when asked- have agreed to this sentiment and profession being as baffled as me at how overated Dylan is.
His famed period-the period that supposed to be his "prime"-from 64 to 1969 is not that good.
I often wonder if people think of that period as his golden era just because 64-69 was his best era of being photographed. AT it's heart the dylan phenmnon is really kind of just about image and coolness and having a cool icon to reflect how right the hippys cause was. He did look cool then and his inwardness and rebellious nature led people to call him a "genius" and a "poet" of the magnitude of Keats.
Warhol irrelvant
The fact that noone can do a "warhol" since Warhol makes some think he must have been great. BUt he isn't. Andy Warhol could easily have just become a intresting and innovative t-shirt designer, putting his silk screen "art" on t-shirts rather than canvas'. He would have been a noteworthy one. But he put his blown up phographs on canvas-large ones too and unfunatly rather than saying correctly that Warhol has "style", people say he's "a master".
There is this odd thing in the artworld (in part cause everyone in it seems to be a corrutaor of some sort) where artworld denizens can call artists "great" or not talk about them.
Anyways, Warhol's stuff are not moving at all, they do not make anyone(not on drugs) want to stare at them for 30 minuetes, they are not beatiful.
These people who go on and on about the symbolism of the cambells soup can are daft as hell. You don't have to have some great symbolism in mind about "the democracy of american consumerism" to have the idea of pianting a soup can.
BUt anyways, what he did took no effort and it shows. His art is heratless, no emotion exspressed. Just gloss, mindless gloss. You look at it and say "huh thats funny he just drew a dollar over and over again" and then you turn away after 3 seconds.
Warhol presonifys the mindless phenoma of getting good press for getting good press, his gallery owner calls him the greatest artist of the 200th century, so someone who lives in greenich village says, and on and on, the mindless conventional wisdom travels like the plague.
As photoshops grows more hispopularity will decline, people will see what a hoax it all was his "genius" that is.
Though he was cool and smart and funny as hell and stylish.
this was a status i came up with tonight.
i did because i read that Bob Dylan had a new album (one which i'm sure is automaticly being called "great").
Bringing Dylan Down to Size
If there is anyone those damn babyboomers will bow to it's Bob Dylan (and now also probably Obama). He is treated as diety, and has been compared to Zeus many time in fact.
This slavish auto-adoration that americans of a certain age practice, may be one of the few religouns thriving todays. We get to see how this mindlessness everytime Dylan puts out a record.
Look he's written some great stuff. Blood on the tracks, "all over the watch tower","as went out one morning" , "lovesick", "things have changed", "the death of hattie carell", "gates of eden" "you belong to me" are beatiful creations. And in reality Dylan is one of the best solo artists living in american music (which in fact there are very few) .
The bizarre things that one beholds about Dylanmania, once you listen to Blood on the Tracks which is from the 70's and/or "things have changed" (from late 90's), is that his most criticaly renowned and famous songs like "times are a changing", "ballad of a thin man", "hard rain", "like a rolling stone" are not only some of worse material but not very enjoyable to listen at all.
Everyone under 40 i know-when asked- have agreed to this sentiment and profession being as baffled as me at how overated Dylan is.
His famed period-the period that supposed to be his "prime"-from 64 to 1969 is not that good.
I often wonder if people think of that period as his golden era just because 64-69 was his best era of being photographed. AT it's heart the dylan phenmnon is really kind of just about image and coolness and having a cool icon to reflect how right the hippys cause was. He did look cool then and his inwardness and rebellious nature led people to call him a "genius" and a "poet" of the magnitude of Keats.
Warhol irrelvant
The fact that noone can do a "warhol" since Warhol makes some think he must have been great. BUt he isn't. Andy Warhol could easily have just become a intresting and innovative t-shirt designer, putting his silk screen "art" on t-shirts rather than canvas'. He would have been a noteworthy one. But he put his blown up phographs on canvas-large ones too and unfunatly rather than saying correctly that Warhol has "style", people say he's "a master".
There is this odd thing in the artworld (in part cause everyone in it seems to be a corrutaor of some sort) where artworld denizens can call artists "great" or not talk about them.
Anyways, Warhol's stuff are not moving at all, they do not make anyone(not on drugs) want to stare at them for 30 minuetes, they are not beatiful.
These people who go on and on about the symbolism of the cambells soup can are daft as hell. You don't have to have some great symbolism in mind about "the democracy of american consumerism" to have the idea of pianting a soup can.
BUt anyways, what he did took no effort and it shows. His art is heratless, no emotion exspressed. Just gloss, mindless gloss. You look at it and say "huh thats funny he just drew a dollar over and over again" and then you turn away after 3 seconds.
Warhol presonifys the mindless phenoma of getting good press for getting good press, his gallery owner calls him the greatest artist of the 200th century, so someone who lives in greenich village says, and on and on, the mindless conventional wisdom travels like the plague.
As photoshops grows more hispopularity will decline, people will see what a hoax it all was his "genius" that is.
Though he was cool and smart and funny as hell and stylish.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Guess what living person Alec Baldwin most admires?
My oh my, what things you do find on the last page of Vanity Fair:
ALEC BALDWIN took the Proust Questionnaire,
"VANITY FAIR: Which living person do you most admire?
ALEC BALDWIN: MICHELLE OBAMA"
This is rather unbelivable. is it not? The whole thing reeks of desperate white guilt. We know what this white man's white burden is.
If only VF's next question where "really, Alec?"
i would guess that Alec's riposte would go something like this:
"do you know what it's like to be a black women in this country? do you know the hardship Michelle like all black women endure every single day?! she worked her way up by her bootstraps against the racist tide to PRinceton UNviersity! everyone always told her 'no', 'no you can't do it michelle' your not good', and yet she overcame it all!"
How deep is your white guilt?
If it were up to the media and the celebrity class and perhaps democrats, Michelle would have been crowned along time ago.We'd have the queen's jubilee down the Potomac,
I can see the scene: michelle waving her queen wave with her black silk gloves on, as her boat thraashes its way down the potomac, we would all bow, as the boat past, the boat of course would not be playing any "star splangled banner" racist nonsence, but rather some Public Enemy, maybe "the revoultion will not be televised". And inside queen Obama's boat, is a salon of Rev WRight and Farhkan and Chuck D, some "Ebony" Staff writers, Barak, Beyonce, Usher, sipping on vodka tonics.
But is this any suprise? OFcourse the media and white liberals love Michelle Obama. She's got it all.
1. She's Black.
Which alone alone makes her good, pure, victimized, and a hero. Also it means that when she reads Martin Amis (which i doubt she does, unlike the book worm Laura Bush who had lunch with Amis in London) it's about 30 times more impressive than when a white person reads Amis, like say the book worm Laura Bush who had lunch with Amis in London.
2. She despises America (atleast up until 2007 for some reason).
As Chris Hitchens has shown at the liberal Slate.com, she's the one who-more than Barak-was into the black liberation, anti-american, anti-white, Rev WRight stuff. Her Princeton "thesis" which Hitchens said is "unreadable" is Rev WRight style ditribe against white america/america. She ofcourse has never been proud of America outside of it electing Barak. She thinks America "a mean" country. And thats just what she's said at campiagn rallys, you can guess what she says in private about America.
3. She's got everything in her life from affirmtive action (outside her husband).
Affirmtive Action gave Michelle not only a place in the Ivy League but a career afterwards. (This is not a uncommon thing, think of how many affirmtive action Ivy leaguers went on to become hack black studies professors.)
She got a unearned place at Princeton, where she produced a "unreadable" according CHristopher HItchens, black liberationist thesis. She then got a career shutting down hospitals and companys with bogus discrimination lawsuites aka she made her money suing places for not hiring enough people with the right skin pigment. What a noble proffesion, obvilously Alec Baldwins thinks it so.
Is this the life of the most admirable person on earth?
But apparently, aids workers, and charity founders, have nothing on people who make money enforcing racial quotas on private insuitions, suing banks for not giving enough loans to blacks, and companys for not hiring enough blacks.
Is this a joke?
I wonder what Alec thinks about Mr. Ricci in the Ricci case? is he the most deplorable person living?
This is just more proof of how mad babyboomers have become.
ALEC BALDWIN took the Proust Questionnaire,
"VANITY FAIR: Which living person do you most admire?
ALEC BALDWIN: MICHELLE OBAMA"
This is rather unbelivable. is it not? The whole thing reeks of desperate white guilt. We know what this white man's white burden is.
If only VF's next question where "really, Alec?"
i would guess that Alec's riposte would go something like this:
"do you know what it's like to be a black women in this country? do you know the hardship Michelle like all black women endure every single day?! she worked her way up by her bootstraps against the racist tide to PRinceton UNviersity! everyone always told her 'no', 'no you can't do it michelle' your not good', and yet she overcame it all!"
How deep is your white guilt?
If it were up to the media and the celebrity class and perhaps democrats, Michelle would have been crowned along time ago.We'd have the queen's jubilee down the Potomac,
I can see the scene: michelle waving her queen wave with her black silk gloves on, as her boat thraashes its way down the potomac, we would all bow, as the boat past, the boat of course would not be playing any "star splangled banner" racist nonsence, but rather some Public Enemy, maybe "the revoultion will not be televised". And inside queen Obama's boat, is a salon of Rev WRight and Farhkan and Chuck D, some "Ebony" Staff writers, Barak, Beyonce, Usher, sipping on vodka tonics.
But is this any suprise? OFcourse the media and white liberals love Michelle Obama. She's got it all.
1. She's Black.
Which alone alone makes her good, pure, victimized, and a hero. Also it means that when she reads Martin Amis (which i doubt she does, unlike the book worm Laura Bush who had lunch with Amis in London) it's about 30 times more impressive than when a white person reads Amis, like say the book worm Laura Bush who had lunch with Amis in London.
2. She despises America (atleast up until 2007 for some reason).
As Chris Hitchens has shown at the liberal Slate.com, she's the one who-more than Barak-was into the black liberation, anti-american, anti-white, Rev WRight stuff. Her Princeton "thesis" which Hitchens said is "unreadable" is Rev WRight style ditribe against white america/america. She ofcourse has never been proud of America outside of it electing Barak. She thinks America "a mean" country. And thats just what she's said at campiagn rallys, you can guess what she says in private about America.
3. She's got everything in her life from affirmtive action (outside her husband).
Affirmtive Action gave Michelle not only a place in the Ivy League but a career afterwards. (This is not a uncommon thing, think of how many affirmtive action Ivy leaguers went on to become hack black studies professors.)
She got a unearned place at Princeton, where she produced a "unreadable" according CHristopher HItchens, black liberationist thesis. She then got a career shutting down hospitals and companys with bogus discrimination lawsuites aka she made her money suing places for not hiring enough people with the right skin pigment. What a noble proffesion, obvilously Alec Baldwins thinks it so.
Is this the life of the most admirable person on earth?
But apparently, aids workers, and charity founders, have nothing on people who make money enforcing racial quotas on private insuitions, suing banks for not giving enough loans to blacks, and companys for not hiring enough blacks.
Is this a joke?
I wonder what Alec thinks about Mr. Ricci in the Ricci case? is he the most deplorable person living?
This is just more proof of how mad babyboomers have become.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Obama is a liar and a enemy of black educational advancment
Why, Barak? why?
watch
http://www.reason.tv/video/show/777.html
http://www.reason.tv/picks/show/771.html
It's settled: obama is a fucking liar. and the kids of DC should spit in his goddamn face.
this is shameful. and our terrible media has yet to ask him about it! yet they will ask about his new dog!
watch
http://www.reason.tv/video
http://www.reason.tv/picks/show/771.html
It's settled: obama is a fucking liar. and the kids of DC should spit in his goddamn face.
this is shameful. and our terrible media has yet to ask him about it! yet they will ask about his new dog!
A NEW LOW: my first blog comment battle (though i do triumph)
The action went down like this at matt ygelisas' blog (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/sonia-sotomayors-iq.php/comment-page-3#comment-1590319):
Deciphring liberal bullshit
don't you love that gasy liberal talk?
Obama on how he wants "empathy" in a supreme court justice:
"I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."
TRANSLATION:
Obama wants a justice that:
1. supports suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.
the responces:
Obama on how he wants "empathy" in a supreme court justice:
"I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time."
TRANSLATION:
Obama wants a justice that:
1. supports suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.
2. supports throwing out the results of tests firefighters take because they don’t like the lack of passing minoritys scores and find such action constuitional.
3. That they believe it’s unconstuitional for californians to vote to pass a proposition that would deny tax dollars to go to illegal immgrants.
P.S.
on Matt Ygelisas. think progress blog i wrote in regard to a post on Sotomayor
- daniel schwartz Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pmcan the people who support Sotomayor, please also say
that they:
1. support suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.
2. support throwing out the results of tests firefighters take because they don’t like the lack of passing minoritys scores and find such action constuitional.
3. That they believe it’s unconstuitional for californians to vote to pass a proposition that would deny tax dollars to go to illegal imgrants.
stand up tall and pride!
the responces:
- Barbar Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pmHow do borderline illiterates wind up with opinions about who belongs on the Supreme Court?
- SLC Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pmRe Daniel Schwarz
Should one pay any attention to a fucking asshole like Mr. Schwarz who can’t even spell constitution? A visit to Mr. Schwarzs’ website (which I don’t recommend as it recalls visits to Don Blacks’ stormfront website) shows a bigoted shithead who hates Latinos.
- daniel schwartz Says:
May 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pmgreat arguments guys!
you really made serious arguments, didn’t you?
why don’t you address somethin besides my lack of spellchecking?
how bout’ some actually arguments? how about you tell me how i’m wrong? tell me about why the mayor of new haven is right? etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
May 5th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
can the people who support Sotomayor, please also say
that they:
1. support suing banks for not giving “enough” loans to minoritys and find such action constuitional.
2. support throwing out the results of tests firefighters take because they don’t like the lack of passing minoritys scores and find such action constuitional.
3. That they believe it’s unconstuitional for californians to vote to pass a proposition that would deny tax dollars to go to illegal imgrants.
stand up tall and pride!
May 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
How do borderline illiterates wind up with opinions about who belongs on the Supreme Court?
May 5th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Re Daniel Schwarz
Should one pay any attention to a fucking asshole like Mr. Schwarz who can’t even spell constitution? A visit to Mr. Schwarzs’ website (which I don’t recommend as it recalls visits to Don Blacks’ stormfront website) shows a bigoted shithead who hates Latinos.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
great arguments guys!
you really made serious arguments, didn’t you?
why don’t you address somethin besides my lack of spellchecking?
how bout’ some actually arguments? how about you tell me how i’m wrong? tell me about why the mayor of new haven is right? etc.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Would not a measure of her “brilliance” be the proportion of times her decisions are upheld or reversed at the next level compared to her peers(Sorry, I am not American and not sure if the next level is the USSC)
Now that would seem to be a qualitative metric
May 5th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Re Daniel Schwarz
How about Mr. Schwarz go fuck himself.
May 5th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
you are so brillant SLC
you really are such a great debater, so intellectual, not the slightest ad hominem out of you
i guess your to embarssed to pubicly affirm your absurd racist views, your fervent support for racial quotas, suing banks for not giving enough loans to black people.
but if you can’t defend yourself just call someone a racist, right?