Skip to comments.

Hello, I'm a Racist, Pleased to Meet You

American Thinker ^ | 7/23/10 | Selwyn Duke

Posted on by American Dream 246

There is such a thing as a conditioned response. Here's an example: Leftists call conservatives "racists." Conservatives cower and stutter some defense. Leftists call conservatives "racists" some more. Conservatives cower some more. Question: How do you think you break this pattern?

We've seen this again with the recent vitriol spewed by NAACP head Ben Jealous (a fitting last name). Speaking at the NAACP convention in Kansas City, Jealous accused the Tea Party of, take a guess...cue the "Jeopardy!" music..."racism." Just as predictably, many conservatives are running around trying to convince everyone that, by gum, they really are swell guys. No, really. I'm not a racist. I don't beat my wife. I don't kick my dog. I eat my organic vegetables and drive a Prius.

Look, why don't we just save everyone the trouble? Every time a conservative renders an opinion, we can just play a recording with a little weaselly voice screeching, "You're a wacist! You're a wacist!" (Barney Frank-style) followed by a music video featuring The Cowering Conservative -- I mean 1950s-style, duck-and-cover footage, with the tune and all.

And such conservatives abound. Oh, don't get me wrong, conservative brethren, I love ya, man. But frankly, too many of you are saps. You really don't get it. People who advocated welfare reform in the 1990s were accused of being "racist." If you're for border control, you're "racist." If you criticize Obama, you're "racist." If you oppose quotas, you're "racist." If you say that, be it nature or nurture, there are differences among groups, you're "racist." If you want English to be the national language, you're "racist." The word has become meaningless, used only to stifle and stigmatize opposition. And if calling you a heretic worked in that regard, the left would do that. And if calling you a Fig Newton worked, they would do that.

Nevertheless, the ploy prevents sap conservatives from speaking -- and even conceiving of -- certain truths. They won't say that so-called racial profiling is just part of proper profiling, they pay lip service to the relativistic idea that all cultures are morally equal, they refuse to call bigoted blacks such as Obama and Eric Holder out on their bigotry, they tolerate double standards with respect to hate crime-law application and racial jokes, and they let whites persecuted for making innocent comments twist in the wind. They won't speak unfashionable truths for fear of becoming unfashionable people. Well, all I can say is that if the Truth can be "racist," then hello, I'm a "racist." Pleased to meet you.

And this gets at a deeper point. On the "O'Reilly Factor" recently, Bill O'Reilly was discussing the Jealous situation with Professor Marc Lamont Hill. The good professor, in so many words, put forth the leftist definition stating that only whites can be "racist" because being so requires one to have "institutional power." OK, whatever. I accept the definition. Really, I do.

I just reject the word.

What I mean is, I've long warned against using the Lexicon of the Left. "Racism" is a term as stupid as "ageism," only we're inured to it. We forget that "ism" refers to a doctrine, system, or theory. So is the leftist definition really so ridiculous? What's more ridiculous is that we actually use their chosen term. This is why I prefer using what simply refers to attitude -- "bigotry" -- as in Barack Obama is a bigot, Eric Holder is a bigot, and Ben Jealous is a bigot. As for "racism," it was originated by the left. So leave it to them. They can define it. They can whine it. And if they ask me, I'll tell them where they can stick it.

The point is that you can't prove you're not a "racist" to the left, because they'll just define "racist" as being whatever you are. In fact, sap conservatives, understand something: You're not going to "prove" anything to the NAACP. You're not going to prove anything to the mainstream media. You're not going to prove anything to any dyed-in-the-fool liberal. They are enemies. And enemies aren't interested in proof; they're interested in propaganda.

So cultivate the right warrior attitude. Look at it like this: If you were engaging in a cold war against the Nazis in 1938, would you bend over backwards to "prove" to them that their propaganda about you was invalid? Of course not! They know it's invalid -- that's the nature of propaganda. And it's designed to invalidate you. And you don't respond to enemies with defensiveness and measured responses.

You propagandize against them.

Now, this doesn't mean you have to lie. Note that while "propaganda" generally has a negative connotation today, it doesn't denote dishonesty. It is simply, informs The Free Dictionary, "the organized dissemination of information, allegations, etc., to assist or damage the cause of a government, movement, etc." And to damage leftists' cause, all we need do is tell the truth about them.

So what this does mean is that you have to stop being "conservative" and start being bold. The only consistent political definition of "conservative" is one who desires to maintain the status quo. Well, maintenance men are seldom warriors. Conservatives too often take a conservative approach, being cautious while their enemies are callous. They too often bring a rhetorical knife to a rhetorical gunfight. They too often act like losers -- and lose.

I am not saying that we should stop making reasoned arguments, but those are for the reasonable (those who can be swayed). They are wholly inappropriate for unreasonable charges from dishonorable children. Enemies bent on your destruction don't want compromise; they won't yield to reason. They are to be fought and, God willing, defeated.

This means that when a Congressman Joe Wilson shouts "You lie!" at Barack Obama, you respond, "Representative Wilson was wrong. Obama lies a lot." It means that when the left bristles at a satirical letter to Lincoln, you understand that bold, fresh pieces of insanity will always hate satire. And, personally, do I really care that some Tea Party folks juxtaposed Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler on a billboard? Not really. I'm just not that concerned about Mr. Hitler's reputation.

And what of civility? Be wary. When the left is civil -- or calls for civility -- it's usually a ruse. It's simply the tactic that best helps them achieve their aims at the moment. Here's how it works: Leftists lie through their teeth, and then, when you respond with righteous indignation, they pout like little girls, saying, "You're mean! You're intolerant! What happened to civility? [Translation: You called our lies lies! How dare you?]" Understand that the effect here is to stop sap conservatives from calling lies lies, thus allowing the left to use its greatest weapon with impunity. Also understand that the worst form of impoliteness is insincerity in discourse.

And understand something else: Leftists are cowards. They are creatures of the pack, finding their strength only in numbers. After all, what do you think being politically correct is all about? It means doing what's fashionable in our time, what makes you popular. A man who believes in Truth, such as Thomas More, will die for his principles, alone, twisting in the wind. A liberal goes the way the wind blows and will die for nothing. Stand up to leftists en masse, and they'll fold like a tent.

So free yourself. Laugh at the "racism" shtick. Make it a badge of honor. Call leftists what they are: cowards, bigots, liars, demagogues, and worst of all by far, enemies of Truth. Fight fire with fire. Remember, millions of good Americans are sick and tired of political correctness and will stand with you. So just say to our leftist legal aliens: If you like name-calling and you want to fight, OK. I'm a racist, sexist homophobe, and I'm in your face. What's it to ya?



TOPICS:

Education

Government

Military/Veterans

Politics

KEYWORDS:

elections

obama

palin

racism





To: American Dream 246

If it advanced their agenda, leftest would call God a racist.



by 2 posted onby WhatNot (God Bless our troops, especially the snipers.)

To: American Dream 246

I have noticed they all have a common trait. Kinda stupid.



by 3 posted onby eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)?)

To: American Dream 246

Good article...



by 4 posted onby FrankR (It doesn't matter what they call us, only what we answer to....)

To: American Dream 246

It’s getting to the point that the word is losing all meaning. I work with only black men and our boss is a woman, and at a meeting one night, over a point of contention, I said, “Fine, then, I guess I’m a racist!” Odd how the black men all laughed and got my point, while out white liberal female boss looked uncomfortable.



by 5 posted onby Darkwolf377 (Barack Obama, the Coleman Francis of presidents.)

To: American Dream 246

I always think of the Dr. Pepper song: I’m a racist

You’re a racist

He’s a racist

She’s a racist

Wouldn’cha like to be a racist too PLONK!



To: dr_lew

Some bastard stole my I'm a Pepper coffee cup. I think he was from OKC and his name was Chris King. Speak up Chris, LAFB 1985.



by 7 posted onby eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)?)

To: dr_lew

Me too!



To: American Dream 246

I’ve been saying this for a while. Our greatest weapon against leftist calumnies is laughter. Refuse to take them seriously. Refute their lies calmly once, maybe twice, then just make fun of them when they continue to chant their nonsense.



To: American Dream 246

I hate Obama. I am black. Am I a racist too?



by 10 posted onby South40 ("Islam has a long tradition of tolerance." ~Hussein Obama, June 4, 2009, Cairo, Egypt)

To: American Dream 246

I tell them, “After my fear of being called a racist indirectly got someone killed, I no longer let silly people control me with silly names.”



To: South40

I hate Obama. I am black. Am I a racist too? If you are conservative, then you are considered a racist until you prove that you are not a racist. You are also probably a race traitor, and perhaps even some sort of apostate. Congratulations!



To: South40

“I hate Obama. I am black. Am I a racist too?” Yes you are! Welcome to the club!



by 13 posted onby passionfruit (When illegals become legal, even they won't do the work Americans won't do)

To: South40

I hate Obama. I am black. Am I a racist too? Probably just one of them ornery individualists. (God help you.)



To: South40

I hate Obama. I am black. Am I a racist too?



Damn straight. If you weren't such an Uncle Tom, you'd be out killing cracker babies.



To: American Dream 246















To: American Dream 246

I'm racist too..

I don't like many black people..

I don't like many white people either..

And I'm white..



by 17 posted onby hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)

To: American Dream 246

I'm racist too..

I don't like many black people..

I don't like many white people either..

And I'm white..



by 18 posted onby hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)

To: American Dream 246

No need to be formal. Just call me Crackuh!



by 19 posted onby TigersEye (Greenhouse Theory is false. Totally debunked. "GH gases" is a non-sequitur.)

To: American Dream 246

Professor Marc Lamont Hill. The good professor, in so many words, put forth the leftist definition stating that only whites can be "racist" because being so requires one to have "institutional power." . . . I accept this definition . . .



This is the wrong approach in 2 ways. Occam's Razor, the simplest approach is the best, must be the litmus test of the correct solution. This is an argument not just amongst ourselves or for the minds of the intellectual elite. This is an argument for the opinion of everyday Americans.



First, the one to define terms, always wins the debate. Americans won't want to over think some definition that must be explained. They want one that is simple and makes common sense and it must be applicable to all equally. Let the liberals try to persuade others with some wordy convoluted set of criteria. Our definition should be "racism is the favoring or disfavoring of one race over another", period. It's simple and most people intuitively know that it's accurate. We've gotta fight for it and ridicule liberals for trying talk away plain and common truth.



Second, when faced with an emotional attack, which the charge of racism is, we must counter with an equally devestating emotional counter attack. Like, "No YOU are the racist!" You have so little regard for, confidence in the intellectual ability, work ethic, or whatever character trait is being demeaned, of African Americans that you want to replace the slave owners of the past with the caretaker government of today. You think they should be "Uncle Tom" to the Federal Government. You want to keep them permenantly dependent. We want to free them and empower them.



I understand that this reduces the debate to name calling. But you cannot have an intelligent debate designed to win the hearts of listeners, with an opponent that has thrown an emotional hand grenade without throwing one of your own. You've got to level the playing field first.



The threat of counter attack with gas weapons has kept their actual use in warfare low. The principle of mutually assured destruction has kept us from nuclear war for 65 years. It will take a while, but if conservatives will use battle tactics that work, fight emotional fire with emotional fire and be prepared to back it up with logic later, at the least the sting will be taken out of the accusation and the discussion can proceed on equal emotional footing for all debaters.



by 20 posted onby DWar (The perfect is the enemy of the excellent!!)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson