Monday, November 05, 2007

The Ubiquity of White Racism

There’s been a lot of discussion here lately about the PC shibboleth of race. Certain topics are acceptable within the PC framework; others are not.

What I’m about to write will be taken as prima facie evidence of my racism. So be it, then: I’m a racist.

The topic simply cannot be discussed without my becoming a racist. We all know where the dangerous areas lie, and how to avoid them. We know that if we don’t stay away from them, we can lose our jobs, be publicly vilified, and in some cases be subject to arrest and prosecution.

Just ask De Paul University professor Thomas Klocek.

The only certain way to avoid being a racist is to remain silent on these specific forbidden issues.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

If a white person does harm to a non-white person, the news story that carries it includes an acceptable frame. The usual spokespersons for the non-white group are called in for TV interviews or quoted for a newspaper article, giving their views on victimhood or the nature of oppression. Religious leaders call for dialogue and greater understanding. The process is fully-scripted and accepted by everyone involved.

If a non-white person does harm to someone of the same ethnic group, that story can safely be ignored, or presented as a simple news story without reference to ethnicity.

A problem arises when a non-white person harms a white person. If possible, this story must be completely ignored by the news media. If not, a frame must be constructed which somehow exonerates the perpetrator, places his actions in a larger context of oppression and discrimination, or otherwise demonstrates that he is still a victim of white oppression, despite being a perpetrator of violence.

As more and more Third World immigrants arrive in Europe and remain unassimilated, the number of incidents in which violence is perpetrated by non-whites against whites has increased enormously. This is especially true of gang violence directed against young people.

Generally speaking, these stories are ignored by the mainstream media because they are very difficult to shoehorn into the PC narrative. The best way to deal with them is to bury them.

But, because the incidents have become so numerous, more and more people know that the official media in their countries are lying to them and hiding what’s happening. People know the truth because they are increasingly aware of such incidents through their own personal networks.

As an example, consider the video from Britain which I have embedded below the jump. It concerns a “scuffle” in which a young white boy is brutally beaten by a gang of non-whites. It’s very brief, but also very disturbing, and not recommended for sensitive viewers:
- - - - - - - - -

Has anyone seen this story reported in the MSM?

According to Human Rights Service:

…this young boy later died from wounds he contracted as he was being stabbed with a knife by a member of the attacking crowd.

This information comes from Politically Incorrect, and is in German. If any of our German-speaking readers can glean more from the link, please feel free to translate it and put it in the comments.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Remember: I am a racist because I have decided to discuss these things.

This is true even though I ventured no opinions about the causes of such incidents, nor drew any conclusions about a racially-based propensity for violence, nor speculated on a genetic component for intelligence or anti-social behavior. These would also be forbidden topics, but I did not broach them or venture an opinion.

Nonetheless, I am a racist. By these paragraphs I have proved it.


Human Rights Service is an excellent Norwegian website which reports on politically incorrect subjects. Most of it is in Norwegian, but some posts are in English.

48 comments:

Pastorius said...

Well gee, I don't think you're a racist for bringing up such a topic.

:)

But then, I'm me. I've been beaten up and threatened because of the color of my skin, also because of the length of my hair. I know what it feels like to be a target beyond the level at which any normal person is a target. It is a frightening thing to walk down the street and know that one will not be protected the same way as others are.

And, this kind of thing needs to be acknowledged by our society, or it will never get better.

Baron Bodissey said...

Ah, but Pastorius, that only proves you're a racist, too, just like me!

We're brothers in racism. Let's put on our swastika armbands and jackboots and go to the Stormfront meeting! Let's go beat up Jews and burn crosses!

We'll have some good old-fashioned white supremacist Nazi racist xenophobic fun...

Henrik said...

OK, I'm not a racist :)

No outlandish claims to the countrary can make me admit otherwise. They may burn me on the stake, but I'll maintain that I'm not a racist.

George Bruce said...

I strongly object that you call yourself a racist, even though you mean it sarcastically. We should never give in to the Orwellian twisting of language. We should never agree to use their definitions or their terms.

A mob of criminals attacked an individual, presumably because he was of a different race or ethnic group. And, if the account is accurate, murdered him. They and only they should be called racist. And the media that selectively reports such incidents should also be called by their proper name; bigoted.

Calling for the truth and equality of justice is never racist.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

Remember: I am a racist because I have decided to discuss these things.

Nonetheless, I am a racist. By these paragraphs I have proved it.


Balderdash! You were rascist long before such statements were made,

The University of Delaware states (proves!?) that A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.

You see, the beneficiary of institutionalized rascism is inherantly him/herself a rascist until proven otherwise. There is no benefit of the doubt here.

As for Henrik : you cannot be a non-rascist. There is no such thing. Claiming not to be a rascist is merely a pathetic attempt to avoid acknowledging one's responsibility for rascism, and is in effect blaming the victim.

One can only be a rascist by (a) not being white, in which case one is by definition incapable of being a rascist or (b) becoming an active anti-rascist.

You have been busted GoV!

Making fun of ones own criminal status obviously betrays a real lack of sympathy for the millions of murdered of Native Americans by the so-called "pioneers", and spits on the memory of slavery.

In any case since society cannot risk you burning crosses on the lawns of your betters, you should turn yourself in for re-education immediately, and save some antirascists the trouble of coming around and reeducating you the hard way.

I have no idea why I bother to read this blog, since the commenters are all inbred KKK hicks and eurotrash cryptonazis.



[/sarcasm] Seriously, I urge folks read the stuff going around on the left/progressive side of the web. The above is clearly not a real leftist rant, since those inevitable have lots of the f-word and gross references to bodily functions. Rascism is the new original sin, and the so-called "anti-rascism" is not only worse than you can imagine, but worse than most people can imagine.

crawdad said...

Here is my translation of the Politically Incorrect item (corrections welcomed)
Clips that will not be allowed to be shown
Did you know this?
From the smallest broadcaster to the largest Media corporation are we always encouraged to report instantly if we have seen something spectacular - the masses want to see it.
Sometimes one is even paid for such tips, especially when one also has related Video material on hand.
How interesting, then, that certain Videos cannot be allowed to be shown, because the contents are "incorrect."
One such Video was shown to us by a female reader. Why have you never seen this film-clip?
Perhaps because the Media doesn't wish to show it... a clash with "Asians," as they are called in Great Britain.
In Scotland there appears to be strong conflict that we do not know about.
What is meant here by "Asian" is certainly not people from China, Japan, Korea, etc. but people frm India, Pakistan, and the Arabic Nations.
What is shown in this short film is unfortunately not a mere scuffle.
The young boy so brutally attacked here later died, according to our source.
Why is this not permitted to be shown? Because it is too brutal? Hardly.
Because it does not conform with the picture the Media wishes to show?
Or rather that it does not conform to the picture they wish to manufacture.
Our purpose [in displaying this clip] here is neither glorification of violence, nor enjoyment of another's misfortune, nor any sort of harassment.
Our purpose here is independent reporting.

NJArtist said...

One recalls a story from one of the Crusades where one of the popes forgave the crusaders all their sins they would commit during the crusade: the 'crusaders' proceeded to engage in mass murder on the way to and at Jerusalem.
So, if the 'blessed' will commit atrocities in a 'forgiven' state; what may the 'damned' commit in an unforgivable state: racist white(now a redundancy)? It no longer matters in PC terms whether a white support the KKK or the NAALCP.

Georgia Kafir said...

The video was pulled from YouTube!

I guess this proves Baron's point.

Zeke said...

People are tired of all this PC nonsense. Not talking about the immigration invasion and the crime wave that follows is part of it. Here in the USA the absurd Jenna6 story, where the victim of a beating very much like the one pictured in your video, somehow became the guilty party, was the last straw for many.

Here in the USA we already had a visceral understanding that the Black underclass are dangerous thugs. Too many have experienced this first hand for too long for any amount of MSM misreporting to cover it up. But they sure keep trying.

CNN's response to a the push back on the absurd inversion of the Jenna6 story was an hour long PC rant-fest on the horor of the noose as a symbol. (Even though lots of their examples were Halloween decorations that had no racial element what so ever.)

Again, I sense even my liberal friends are becoming annoyed and tired with the increasingly strident demands that we ignore the obvious.

As the old punchline says: "who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes".

NJArtist said...

Just in case someone thinks what I wrote was serious: it was satire. Satire is what a realist writes going through pessimism on his was to self imposed retirement.

Georgia Kafir said...

Belay my last. The video is still there. It appears I am having connection issues.

Sorry

crawdad said...

@georgia kafir et al.:
if the clip DOES disappear (which seems possible/likely), I have a local copy I snarfed from my /tmp dir, and can send in .flv or .mpg on request.

Clorinda said...

Well, count me in as a racist, too (dodging george bruce's slap).

Seriously. Here in the States, the New York Times (a.k.a. New York Slime) is notorious for constantly avoiding articles that might offend the political correctness Schutzstaffen (yes, that's what I call them; sue me).

Any article that may put the left's protected species (homosexuals, illegal immigrants, assorted racial minorities, criminals, leftist politicians ... ok, I repeated myself) under an unfavorable light is simply not published.

It is frightening to see how the left will strictly avoid commenting on crimes committed by the above-mentioned protected species, but have no qualms at all when it comes to relating crimes committed by the Evil White Male. Even if the "crime" is the "victim's" complete fabrication.

There's the recent case of the members of the lacrosse team at Duke university, where white students were accused of gang-raping a black exotic dancer. Turns out it was all a huge lie, a fabrication by the dancer. But that did not stop the usual suspects from creating a monstrous hullaballoo that ruined the lives of the slandered boys. If the Baron allows, I can post a link to that unfortunate case.

But that is not racism. Oh, no. Slandering white students is not a racist thing, at all. Uh-uh. Never. However, if the girl had been white and the boys black ... well, I leave it to you to guess what the outcome would have been.

PapaBear said...

Baron,

The net result will be, that if people find that only places like Stormfront are reporting on things like this, then those outlets, for better or worse, will become the new Media of Record for many people

spackle said...

It is almost akin to what Stalin would do to photographs of himself with people whom he disliked. They would simply disappear. Or as he would say, they would be "washed". Another famous Stalin qoute, "No person,no problem". The soft totalatarianism is getting harder by the day. It seems that truth tellers are the person and as far as the left is concerned WE are getting the "no problem treatment.
A little OT. If you want a good laugh I stumbled on an Anarchists travelogue to europe. He see's "Nazis" behind every tree. Here is the link.
http://theaword.revolt.org/dispatches.htm

Sorry for the link Baron, but html might as well be Chinese to me:)

spackle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Savage said...

Baron Bodissey wrote:

"The only certain way to avoid being a racist is to remain silent on these specific forbidden issues."

And later:

"Remember: I am a racist because I have decided to discuss these things."

Actually I think those statements are a strategic mistake. Remember, the folks at U. of Delaware said that all whites are racist, regardless of what they do. If you speak out, you are a racist, but if you remain silent, you're still a racist.

When leftists overstep in that fashion, then we need to seize on the opportunity, I think. For example, Charles Johnson now undoubtedly believes GoV is racist. Now, if he's not racist because he bows to the gods of PC, then he appears to have some sort of moral high ground that's denied to you. The line is drawn between LGF (OK) and GoV (bad). What I'd do is erase that line by making the logical conclusions from the far-left position. It's OK to say, "I'm a racist," but not on the grounds that you spoke out. You should say, "I'm a racist, and so is Charles Johnson (who, after all, is still white). So are white people who are even farther to the left of Johnson." By arguing this way, you erase the distinction between yourself and him. By agreeing that all whites are "racist", not just those who make politically incorrect statements, you establish "racism" as a norm. You put the passive majority in the same category with yourself, rather than isolating yourself from the passive majority.

Your purpose should be to reduce the category of "racism" to absurdity, not validate it by admitting that it is a marker separating you from the people who follow the PC rules. The worst weapon they have against you is the perception that they are normal, and you are fringe. Your goal is to show that you are normal, even if you can't show that they're fringe. Human beings have a herd mentality; they respect majorities.

(This is, of course, not an argument for real racism, just a proposal for destroying the idea of "institutional racism" or whatever the leftists suggest.)

Paul Green said...

The video clip from happy multicultural Britain brought back memories of the home invasion robbery I experienced thirty-five years ago at the hands of a pair of underprivileged youths who addressed me as “white boy” and left me bleeding from numerous scalp lacerations and a couple of knife cuts on the floor of my home. (I was luckier than the brother of a close friend of mine, who was mugged by four such in San Francisco around the same time and left crippled for life by a gunshot wound.)

The motives of such creatures, then and now, are summed up by a line in LeRoi Jones’ late-60s poem, “Black People!” (“The LeRoi Jones/Amiri Baraka Reader, ed. William J. Harris. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1991, p. 224):

You can’t steal nothin from a white man, he’s already stole it he owes you anything you want, even his life.

Oh – that was a long time ago? Only of historical interest now, is it? How about this, then, from the early 90s (“Amerikkka’s Most Wanted, Ice Cube, Interscope Records):

Word, but who the fuck has heard?
It's time to take a trip to the suburbs
Let em see a nigga invasion
Point blank on a caucasian
Cock the hammer then crack a smile
‘Take me to your house, pal’
Got to the house, my pockets got fat, see
Crack the safe, got the money and the jewellry


Being no believer in biological determinism, I recognize that such sentiments are by no means universal among American blacks – but so prevalent and enduring are they that any American white who doesn’t watch for them like a hawk is an absolute fool. (Nor are they limited to blacks, as the Plan Espiritual de Atzlan drawn up by Chicano activist Rudolfo Gonzalez for the Chicano Youth Liberation Conference in Denver in March 1969 and promulgated by the separatist group MEChA ever since, or dozens of Qur’anic verses, e.g. 9:29 and 48:29, clearly show.)

Pastorius states that “It is a frightening thing to walk down the street and know that one will not be protected the same way as others are.” But for the man who has acquired proper weaponry and skill-at-arms, this condition need not be frightening. In fact, it is liberating – for indeed, you will not be protected the same way as others are. You’ll be protected better, because you will be doing the protecting. As the late great Jeff Cooper declared in his classic Principles of Personal Defense,

“If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim. ...

“George Patton told his officers, ‘Don’t worry about your flanks. Let the enemy worry about his flanks. It is high time for society to stop worrying about the criminal, and to let the criminal start worrying about society. And by society I mean you." (Emphases original.)

Words to live by – and let anti-white racist (or white “anti-racist”) goons be in no doubt that I do live by them.

Solomon2 said...

After a nasty spat I had over at lgf on Friday I was thinking of writing an updated "I am a racist" post, but you beat me to it - and did a better job, I don't doubt. Allow me to add a link to my logical derivation of the possible existence of moral superiority between races for your examination and amusement.

Baron Bodissey said...

John Savage --

I validate nothing.

I categorically refuse the terms of the debate. I'm a racist; so now what?

I refuse to be stung by an epithet. It would be as well to call me a Roundhead or an Albigensian. It would have as much meaning or impact on me.

If we refuse the stigma of the PC insults, then they mean nothing, and we are free.

To quote Lao Tzu (Tao Te Ching #50):

He who knows how to live can walk abroad
Without fear of rhinoceros or tiger.
He will not be wounded in battle.
For in him rhinoceroses can find no place to thrust their horn,
Tigers no place to use their claws,
And weapons no place to pierce.
Why is this so?
Because he has no place for death to enter.

John Savage said...

Baron, you wrote:

"I refuse to be stung by an epithet. It would be as well to call me a Roundhead or an Albigensian. It would have as much meaning or impact on me."

My claim has nothing to do with what impact it has on your mind. Of course you're not stung; you're a courageous man. But you're not a hermit. You're in the business, largely, of persuading people. As it stands, you may feel good about yourself having taken the stand you've taken here, but socially it doesn't get you very far. If you believe you need allies who don't accept the "racist" label for themselves, then you must think about what stigma the PC labels carry in the minds of others, not just in your mind. And by saying, "I am a racist," you've allowed people to judge you based on their image of a racist. If you want to be something other than shunned by the vast majority, you can't allow that. You may feel noble about refusing to conform, but in the minds of others, you've validated the smear being used against you.

That's why I've suggested something along the lines of "A Modest Proposal" here. Stretch the claim to its limits, then break it once and for all. Show that "racism" is just being used as code for normalcy. That should be your goal.

Rebel Radius said...

I prefer white chocolate over dark chocolate.

If my use of judgement makes me a racist? So be it.

I decorate my home white because I love white interior.

Am I to be judged by my preference?

I don't care much for people with big fat lips. They are ugly to me, be it from collagen, cultural or a fluke of nature. I hate big lips.

I make judgements all the time. When I drive my car, use my phone & decide where to eat.

I judge things and people on where they live, what they wear, how they look and what they say.

I am a racist because I AM FREE to be so. If I am not free to be a racist then I am a slave.

Having said all of the above.

I don't respect anyone for the colour of their skin or what they wear, or what they look like.

I can respect ANYONE regardless of what they look like.

It is what they SAY and that matters to me.

As for those who say things that I don't agree with. "I might not like what they've got to say, but I will fight to the death to defend their right to say it (regardless of their race, creed of colour).

Give me racism in its full glory!!

I love it.

Henrik said...

While I understand the idea of removing the stigmata of 'racist', I'm still not sure it's a good idea. First, being quoted out of context is a quite significant risk. I've seen that tons of times, and with the speed of media today, it's difficult to catch up with.

Second, sarcasm simply doesn't work very well in the media.

Then, I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would call themselves a racist? I was in the Brussels metro a few times recently. While a friend of mine said "This is how it feels to be a minority", all I could see was 'human', 'human', 'human', 'human' etc. Nothing racist even crossed my mind.

It's a stupid concept not worth wasting our time on.

Archonix said...

Here's one to add to the pile of things that make you even more racist than the default:

I have black friends. The pastor of one of the churches I occasionaly visit is black (and ex-muslim to top it all!). My sister in law is Paraguayan. I have traveled to south america, and will be visiting north africa soon. I come from a very mixed family. I have black ancestors.

Say any of these things in defence against the slur of racism and it just gets turned against you, because someone who isn't racist obviously wouldn't feel the need to point out what colour their friends' skin is.

You can't win when people call you racist. It's a deuce. Play it and win by default.

All of the above is true, by the way, except the bit about the ancestors. In truth I'm not sure, because my ancestry comes from a lot of places, but it's likely that I do because a lot of west africans settled in the north of england in the 1700s and then bred in to the general population. Most Yorkshire and Lancashire natives have at least one black ancestor.

IgnorantInfidel said...

"... A problem arises when a non-white person harms a white person. If possible, this story must be completely ignored by the news media. If not, a frame must be constructed which somehow exonerates the perpetrator, places his actions in a larger context of oppression and discrimination, or otherwise demonstrates that he is still a victim of white oppression, despite being a perpetrator of violence. ..."

This was recently illustrated in its' 'fully glory' with the Jena-6. It seems the real events and chronology changed drastically after some infamous exploiters manipulated the story for the MSM.

Homophobic said...

Don't forget Pavlov: Racism and Islamophobia have only taken on the meaning they have because they can be used as a precursor to violence against your career etc.

Darrin said...

If we refuse the stigma of the PC insults, then they mean nothing, and we are free.

Baron, this is an important point you've made here. Once you have disgarded their labels you are indeed free to say and do what needs to be said and done. Those labels are only used to cower people into silence or to sidetrack people into defending their characters ("but im not a racist/nazi/whatever") instead of the topic at hand, be it Islam, multiculturalism or whatever.

I've come under attack in past years from so called 'anti-racist', they passed my details to media whom in turn harrased my family, they harrased my employer in an attempt to have me put out of my job - all because they didn't like my politics. Since I have refused to accept their labels, I'm now free to say and do what I must.

Henrik said...

If we refuse the stigma of the PC insults, then they mean nothing, and we are free.

Problem is, we may be free. But if Joe Average isn't free, we can still be smeared and lots of people will buy the smear without checking the details.

Anyway, I can't imagine declaring myself 'racist'. I know that I ain't and I insist on being truthful. Thus, impossible :)

John Savage said...

I don't buy the whole idea of, "just reject labels". Labels are basic to how the human mind works, are they not? They help people distinguish the "us" from the "them", the good from the bad. By saying, "I am a racist," while excluding people who hide their non-PC views from being "racists", Baron puts himself on the side of the "them". He has yet to show that his ideas actually necessitate defining himself as an extremist. In fact, I believe he is not an extremist at all, and that his ideas are fairly widely (though not universally) shared. Dividing himself from those who share his views, but don't speak out, is not the way to go.

We need to secede from the PC orthodoxy while insisting on taking as many people as possible with us.

Clorinda said...

I agree with Baron where he says that we should refuse the stigma of PC insults. Lord knows I've been called every name in the book, and then some, because of my conservative views. I've been yelled at, insulted, sneered at, laughed at, etc. Even threatened. If I'd had let all that affect me, I'd be in a loony bin by now. Instead, I wear it as a medal of honor.

After all, who's going to call me a racist? Al Sharpton? Jesse Jackson? Some unwashed leftist with a huge White Guilt complex? Or a rabid, hairy-legged feminazi who hates men in general, white men in particular?

Give me a break. The fact that any of the above-mentioned calls you a racist doesn't necessarily make you one.

Unfortunately, some people are scared to death of the various labels invented by the left just to cower people into silence, as darrin very accurately said. And so, they are indeed cowered into silence. Some don't even realize it.

And I don't set much store by Joe Average's opinion, either. If our Joe is too lazy, or too stupid, or both, to check the details, then whatever he thinks (term used loosely) of me cannot be taken too seriously.

Clorinda said...

john savage said:
"I don't buy the whole idea of, "just reject labels". Labels are basic to how the human mind works, are they not? They help people distinguish the "us" from the "them", the good from the bad."

And who are these "people" you say are helped by labels to distiguish "us" from "them"? Does the opinion of people who put you in a category based solely on what others call you really matter to you? Let me give you an example. You don't know me from Eve. If I called you a racist, based on someone else calling you that (labelling you, as it were), would it matter to you? Of course not. Why should it?

Labels do not help anyone distinguish anything from anything else. Only the lazy and the prejudiced are "helped" in such way. The only reason such labelling should bother a person is if that person is a celebrity. Are you?

A person is known in his/her circle of friends and acquaintences by his views, his behavior, etc. And that's all that matters, in my humble opinion.

I've been "labelled" extensively and variously. And you know why? Because I spoke my mind and in the process, offended the Terminally Sensitive. And the only way they thought they'd shut me up was by calling me names. And if I had let their name-calling affect me, I would have played right into their hands. I didn't. I suppose people who do not like the way I express myself will still call me things, label me. And I will continue to ignore them. There is too much at stake these days to worry about what a bunch of hypocrites will call you.

My 2 cents anyway.

Darrin Hodges said...

"I don't buy the whole idea of, "just reject labels". Labels are basic to how the human mind works, are they not? They help people distinguish the "us" from the "them", the good from the bad."

John, I was meaning on a personal level. If you reject those labels as applied to your person, then you are free to act. If you do not, then you are allowing others to set your agenda and 'control' your thoughts The ability to think for oneself is the only freedom we truly have.

John Savage said...

Clorinda writes:

"Does the opinion of people who put you in a category based solely on what others call you really matter to you?"

It may. If it is false, then it will do unnecessary harm to my reputation. It may not cost me old friends, but it may cost me new ones, for example.

"Only the lazy and the prejudiced are "helped" in such way."

If that's so, then I'd contend that the overwhelming majority of people are lazy and/or prejudiced.

"The only reason such labelling should bother a person is if that person is a celebrity."

What is your basis for making such a distinction? Somehow it's obvious to you that a celebrity's public reputation matters, but not obvious when it comes to the rest of us. Politicians fight all the time to "own" valuable labels like "conservative" (at least in America), "patriotic", and so on, and to dissociate themselves from devalued labels like "Massachusetts liberal", "flip-flopper", "elitist", or what have you. When they succeed in attaching the valuable labels to themselves and the devalued labels to their opponents, they tend to win. Doesn't that fact reveal something basic about human nature?

ZZMike said...

Darrin gets it: "Those labels are only used to cower people into silence ...", but that's a point that bears repeating. I've heard too may newscasts where people call other people "racists" because they believe in legal - and controlled - immigration.

It's a word that's being co-opted by the Left for their own devious ends - like they did with "Nazi" some years back.

John Savage makes a good point about not rejecting labels, but the problem with labels is, everybody has his "laundry list" of what the label entails - typically, "conservative" and "liberal". So if someone else says, "I'm a liberal", the other guy pulls out his laundry list and says, "OK, then you must agree with all this other stuff" - which may not be true.

Sometimes these laundry lists are helpful, sometimes not. I think it depends on the philosophy behind how you make your list. If someone tells me "I'm a Communist", then I have a pretty good idea of what he's about.

Probably one approach to the "racist"-labelers is to use Socrates' old tactic: "define your terms". Throw the ball back in their court. Otherwise, we'll end up with people calling each other racists because they root for the other football team.

John Savage said...

ZZMike wrote:

"Probably one approach to the "racist"-labelers is to use Socrates' old tactic: "define your terms". Throw the ball back in their court."

Correct. However, so far the Baron is defining "racist" as "someone who speaks out against PC". This definition unnecessarily divides him from people who share his views, but remain silent. That's why I argue it's a mistake.

Homophobic said...

"Probably one approach to the "racist"-labelers is to use Socrates' old tactic: "define your terms". Throw the ball back in their court. Otherwise, we'll end up with people calling each other racists because they root for the other football team."

Aye. I once tried this on someone and discovered that they equated religion with race. And then projected it onto me (Opposition to Islam is racist)

Conservative Swede said...

I'm Spartacus!

Clorinda said...

john savage said:
"It may. If it is false, then it will do unnecessary harm to my reputation. It may not cost me old friends, but it may cost me new ones, for example."

What kind of "friends" would those be then? Do you really want to be friends with someone who judges you based solely on a label that someone pinned on you? Are you that desperate?

John, I don't want to pick a fight with you, honestly. But I must say you sound like someone who's terrified of peer pressure/judgement. I hope I'm wrong, for your sake.

"If that's so, then I'd contend that the overwhelming majority of people are lazy and/or prejudiced."

By George he's got it! By George he's got it! Welcome to the world, old chum.

"What is your basis for making such a distinction? Somehow it's obvious to you that a celebrity's public reputation matters, but not obvious when it comes to the rest of us."

Oh, John, honestly. You completely misunderstood me. Or pretended to.

The point I was trying to make was that only celebrities are so concerned about being unfavorably labeled. And that is strictly vanity, make no mistake. They have a lot to lose by getting labelled as a conservative, for example. At least, here in America. Therefore, I meant to say that unless you are a celebrity, as opposed to John Doe, as in most of our cases, you have no reason to be so terrified of someone slapping a lable on you. Especially if it's a false one.

Seems I was right. You ARE terrified of ... how shall I put it? ... not striking the right note with a certain group of people. Of not being considered "cool," as they say in America.

"Politicians fight all the time to "own" valuable labels like "conservative" (at least in America), patriotic ..."

Ah, now here is an example of prejudiced labelling. I can assure you that, in America, the labels of conservative and patriotic are valuable only and exclusively to conservatives. You try calling a liberal "patriotic." You'll be up to your neck in a libel suit before you know it.

"and to dissociate themselves from devalued labels like "Massachusetts liberal", "flip-flopper", "elitist", or what have you."

Again, that is only among conservatives (like yours truly). There's nothing more flattering for liberals than to be associated with "Massachussets liberal," "flip-flopper," etc. BTW, what's so great about being a "flip-flopper"? You see nothing wrong with that?

"When they succeed in attaching the valuable labels to themselves and the devalued labels to their opponents, they tend to win. Doesn't that fact reveal something basic about human nature?"

No. It merely reveals to me that you don't know the first thing about Americans, but that it does not stop you from offering very prejudiced opinions on them. Expected.

In America, it's not labels that will win you an electoral victory ... here, never mind. It's not as if I'm going to convince you, so why bother.

John Savage said...

Clorinda, I'm not going to respond to your irrelevant judgments of me as a person, only to your points.

"I can assure you that, in America, the labels of conservative and patriotic are valuable only and exclusively to conservatives."

Yes, probably true. Nonetheless, the last thing Rudy Giuliani wants, for example, is to be thought of as a liberal.

"There's nothing more flattering for liberals than to be associated with "Massachussets liberal," "flip-flopper," etc."

You really think John Kerry found it flattering to be labeled a "flip-flopper"? Au contraire, most of the anti-war crowd wished the Dems had nominated Howard Dean, who had been against the war all along.

"BTW, what's so great about being a "flip-flopper"?"

I didn't say it was a good thing. My list of devalued labels are all bad things. I just suggested that these were labels that people wanted to avoid, and yet sometimes people convince the public that they apply to a particular politician.

But every candidate has flip-flopped on some issues. Some get the "flip-flopper" label and can't shake it; others don't.

"It merely reveals to me that you don't know the first thing about Americans, but that it does not stop you from offering very prejudiced opinions on them."

Where did you think I was from, really? Or did you just think I was a leftist?

Bush's strategy in 2004 had a great deal to do with pinning certain labels on John Kerry, which he did with a great deal of success. As a conservative, I don't see a problem with an effective strategy, even though it's a bit dirty. But you agree with me that most people are "lazy" and "prejudiced", and then you suggest that labeling people with negative names is not a highly effective campaign strategy?

I contend that campaigns are mostly about image and perceptions, not about real issues. You take me for a Kerry apologist when all I'm saying is that Bush won on image (as is normally the case), not on the issues. Kerry deserved to lose on the issues, and he deserved the "flip-flopper" label too. But his image problem was primarily what doomed him.

We're getting far off the topic, so I'll stop here.

Anonymous said...

The label racist doesn't bother me anymore. If it means being more comfortable with white people than non-white people, then I probably am a racist. That doesn't mean I want to kill non-white people or think I'm superior to them. It's just that I admit to myself what I feel. What some people call racism is just a normal human right, freedom of association. Black folks enjoy being together, Jews enjoy being together . . . I know this about Jews because I'm Jewish. Look at all the people on LGF and elsewhere, making these absurd denials about their normal feelings. If we just admit we're human, which includes being racist, we can stop letting political opponents shame us into pretending to believe nonsense.

Lex said...

Houston, you have a problem. Yet another comment that "posted" and didn't stick. And this one was funny, too!

John Savage said...

I should add that Clorinda's earlier comment of 1:59 PM yesterday gives the impression that only overtly liberal outlets like the New York Times are out against us. As we can see from LGF, that's not the case. We are being anathematized by our fellows in the Counterjihad movement, who are pro-American, pro-defense, and at least nominally on the Right. If it were only the New York Times calling us racists, we wouldn't be in such a tough position at all. But PC has spread far beyond the people who originated it, and we must act accordingly.

Clorinda said...

john savage said:
"Yes, probably true. Nonetheless, the last thing Rudy Giuliani wants, for example, is to be thought of as a liberal."

Oh? When did he tell you that?

It's not that Rudy WANTS to be thought of as a liberal, it's just that he had the honesty to admit he IS liberal on most social issues. There's a difference.

"Bush's strategy in 2004 had a great deal to do with pinning certain labels on John Kerry, which he did with a great deal of success."

You speak as if Bush was the only one who did that. Remember the lables Kerry pasted on Bush? And don't even start me on what's going on now. They all do it.

"But you agree with me that most people are "lazy" and "prejudiced", and then you suggest that labeling people with negative names is not a highly effective campaign strategy?"

My dear John, I was not talking about the effect on labels in a political campaign. I was referring to the effect of labels on any obscure, average John Doe. You have a disconcerting way of taking my words and twisting them into pretzels so that they mean anything but what I intended them to mean.

"But his image problem was primarily what doomed him (Kerry)."

And he has only himself to blame for that. He was found out, and as usual he did not like that one bit. As Oscar Wilde once said "Nobody is rich enough to buy his past." I guess you can paraphrase that to say "Nobody is rich, or important enough (or self-important, in Kerry's case), or famous enough to buy his past." Kerry's VN war record turned out to be pretty pathetic (much like Al Gore's), so he was very much miffed when it came out in the light.

But you're right. We're getting off the topic.

Oh, before I go, may once again politely remind you that I am NOT trying to pick a fight with you? Thanks.

Clorinda said...

john savage said:
"I should add that Clorinda's earlier comment of 1:59 PM yesterday gives the impression that only overtly liberal outlets like the New York Times are out against us. As we can see from LGF, that's not the case."

(shrug) For all we know, LGF could've been infiltrated by leftists in order to disseminate discord among conservative bloggers. Not that it would be the first time.

Anyway, I haven't visited LGF in a very long time, so I cannot comment on their latest shennanigans.

Cincinnatus said...

On those rare occasions when I've been called a racist, my stock reply is, "Sure, I'm a racist, and you're a moron". That shuts them up real quick.

Henrik said...

"LGF could've been infiltrated by leftists in order to disseminate discord among conservative bloggers."

With Charles in so solid control of everything at LGF, I doubt this could be the case.

Lex said...

Admittedly, I finally had to hold up what I considered racism against MYSELF and ask myself if I was indeed guilty of being racist against others in the same way. I think we all realistically know where the line is, and we all are sick of the PC Establishment. Yes, if Muslim Fundies do something heinous, it is not racist to call them on it just because they aren't white folks. That's just common sense.

However, when I really looked at the measure I had used as compared to that being used against me personally, I had to admit that the stance I had taken was bigoted. Just my 2 cents.

And that is the story of why What Would Charles Martel Do? is for the most part now deleted and otherwise much changed in focus.

jaydub said...

latte conservative: I can't even begin to describe how much I disagree with you. People enjoy being together with others who share their interests. If you'd look beyond the skin color of the "others" you're uncomfortable with, maybe you'd find those common interests and enjoy their company more. I've certainly encountered whites that I'm not comfortable around, since other than a closer genetic heritage I shared no common views. Many of them repellently racist...