#17 Slavery In America – Past and Present
A Reference Library
Capsule: #17 Slavery In America – Past and Present explores the plight of those seen by a certain segment of society as not quite human – subhuman. To this segment of society subhumans are not entitled to the same human rights as those seen as fully human. In the past it was Democrats in America that saw blacks as subhuman. Today it is still Democrats that see subhumans in society. They were slavers of old, and are still the slavers of today.
What Are Slaves Considered by Defintion? Subhuman. Hmmm…
Focus: Which is the political party of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, the KKK, ghetto segregation, no school choice, labor trafficking, underage prostitution, and the execution of subhumans for past 200 years?
Details: #17 Slavery In America – Past and Present is an eye-popping examination of slavery, segregation and racism in America and their relationship with individual liberty. There is only one thing a person needs to know to understand the Democratic Party. They attract ideologues who categorize all people in either of two categories – human or subhuman. This has been the case for over 200 years. The justification Democratic Party slavers gave in early America is the same justification that Democratic Party liberals use to delegitimize those they see as subhuman today. The incredible irony is that they also believe that they are on the side of human and civil rights, and individual liberty. But the truth of it is that the Democratic Party slavers of old at least saw some value in their subhumans. Today’s Democratic Party liberals see no value whatsoever in those they judge to be subhuman.
Excerpts: ~This topic of discussion is probably the most difficult and contentious in this essay series, American neighbor, because it is also the most difficult and contentious issue in American society as well. As a Canadian outsider I have no horse in this race and no axe to grind, so I can give you my unvarnished observations about racism in America. But let me warn you, American neighbor, as a liberal you will not like my observations at all. Your Attorney General suggested that America is a “nation of cowards” for not addressing the issue of racism according to his standards. Well, here in this essay we will address the issue of racism in America head-on. I am neither an American nor a coward. And you are going to have to prove you are no coward either, American neighbor. I am going to challenge the imaginary world constructed by liberals in regard to racism in America as it never has been challenged before. Just as with every other issue in this essay series, I will use contextual investigation and critical analysis – activities that are especially abhorrent to liberals when discussing racism, who prefer to stick to their safer ground of stereotyping, political correctness and demagoguery (and of course prejudice). So let’s see who the real cowards are…~
Preface: The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is written for both contemporary American liberals and contemporary American conservatives – for the liberal (or progressive) as an exit counseling process with the purpose of removing the inherent paranoia that prevents them from seeing that in their core belief they are, in fact not a liberal, and for the conservative as a strategy for dealing with liberal acquaintances. (FYI, I am a Canadian – the implications of this are explained in the Introduction and #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments.)
[All citations are active number/letter codes. Code links beginning with an * indicate that the linked page has additional information for the topic at hand. Links without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. Citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information.]
Written in first-person narrative to liberals,
but also for conservatives.
I dread these next two essays, American neighbor. I have dreaded these essays from the moment I decided to write the N.C. Essay Series. Of all of the controversial topics we have discussed none reach a level of anguish and turmoil than does the issue of racism in America. I love America. I love the American ideals set out by the founders of your great country. And I mourn that it has been so stained over the centuries with the blight of slavery, segregation and racism.
This is the one topic in the essay series that I find most unsettling. I feel dirty even just having to write about it. But look, I understand racism exists, and I am not just talking about white on black racism. Every race has its racists. It is a human failing that excludes no group of people. To deny this is to live in a world of fantasy. But, in America, liberals do just that. [39lx9o9]ab
• Mini critical thinking exercise
In liberal fantasies only whites are racist (liberal paranoia). In fact, to liberals, only whites can be racists. But what is racism? It used to be commonly defined as being prejudiced – meaning to derogatorily prejudge someone based on their race. What have American liberals done to white Tea Party members? They have derogatorily prejudged them as racists based on their race. But who does that make out to be the real bigots in this controversy? Who is it that is being prejudged? Who is it that is doing the prejudging? Who is it therefore that is prejudiced? Who is it therefore that is racist?ac
• White Republicans voted in more minority candidates than did white Democrats
I have a few questions for you, American neighbor. Which party wins seats where the majority of the constituents are minorities, like for example, in a black inner city? Well, obviously, Democrats win those elections. What does that say about racism? Nothing. It simply says that most minorities are Democrats. So, which party wins more seats with a minority candidate where the majority of voters are white? Surprise! In the November, 2010 election the Democrats won eight seats like this while the Republicans won ten seats. What does that say about racism? It says that white Republicans will vote for a minority candidate just as much or more so than white Democrats will. Today racism plays no more of a roll in voting for white Republicans than it does for white Democrats. Think about that, American neighbor. [364rnpb]ad
• Murder rates illustrate no racism in America
Here is something else to think about. The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman has brought out the liberal lynchers again, (see #14 Liberal Demagoguery, Hate and Violence – A Compendium) with race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson claiming that this case is an example of a climate white racism in America, implying that there is an epidemic of white on black murders (more on the Zimmerman trial in the next essay). According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2009 about 65% of Americans were white and about 12% of Americans were black. What do you think the percentage of white on black murders would be if there was an epidemic of racism in America, American neighbor? 50%? 60%? 70%? In fact, only 7% of those crimes were white on black. Despite that whites comprise 65% of the population, close to 93% were black on black murders. Did you get that, American neighbor? The white on black murder rate is only a paltry few percent, not this epidemic that the liberal race baiters would have you believe. So where is this society-wide racism that Sharpton and Jackson keep going on about? If we are going to judge the extent of racism in America by the murder rate, the numbers indicate that there is virtually no white on black racism. [onpuvu5, 6rhlch6, *6sb5rfe, *78zzsu9]ae
300-word pages of text = 59
Reference citation links = 70
Recommended-reading links = 27
Profound insights = 37
Cover photo: Cover photo: U.S. Department of Energy photograph XX-01 The Stokes
Cover background: SQUIDFINGERS [4rol8]
Copyright 2012 Jim Autio License Note: Although free, this essay remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For fair use only.
• The sports & entertainment industries illustrate no racism in America
The NFL is by far the most popular professional sport in America. 65% of the players are African American. If most of the white 65% of the American population are racist, who are these fans? The average NFL salary is $1.9M per year. The NBA is even more disproportionate. 79% of the players are black. The average salary is $5.15M per year. [89oq42y, 894tk8s] What kind of a racist country would do this? Did these sorts of conditions exist when there was a real racism problem in America, 60, 70, or 80 years ago? Blacks weren’t even allowed in major league sports back then. Look at the entertainment industry. How could Opra become the queen of daytime television if whites were overwhelmingly racist? How did Michael Jackson become the king of pop? How could Will Smith star in many of the top grossing movies of all time? Who is it that is making all of these black rappers rich? Sharpton and Jackson keep telling us how poor African Americans are in America, so it can’t be them. How could an African American become the head the American military? How could a black man sit on the Supreme Court? And how, exactly, could a black man be elected President in a racist America? Just where is all of this supposed racism in America, American neighbor? From where I sit, it seems that blacks in America are disproportionately successful to their percentage of the population in many big money industries. The only place I really see true racism is in the inner cities where the Democratic Party expects blacks to stay on the plantation (more later), and blacks blame conservative whites for it.
I have another question for you, American neighbor. Which provides a person with more liberty to direct their own life – defending a status quo attitude which provides no opportunity for improvement, or leaving behind the status quo and moving on? Oh and one more question – do you think slavery in America is only a part of history?af
• Two essays for ‘nation of cowards’
This topic of discussion is probably the most difficult and contentious in this essay series, American neighbor, because it is also the most difficult and contentious issue in American society as well. As a Canadian outsider I have no horse in this race and no axe to grind, so I can give you my unvarnished observations about racism in America. But let me warn you, American neighbor, as a liberal you will not like my observations at all. Your Attorney General suggested that America is a “nation of cowards” for not addressing the issue of racism according to his standards. Well, here in this essay we will address the issue of racism in America head-on. I am neither an American nor a coward. And you are going to have to prove you are no coward either, American neighbor. I am going to challenge the imaginary world constructed by liberals in regard to racism in America as it never has been challenged before. Just as with every other issue in this essay series, I will use contextual investigation and critical analysis – activities that are especially abhorrent to liberals when discussing racism, who prefer to stick to their safer ground of stereotyping, political correctness and demagoguery (and of course prejudice). So let’s see who the real cowards are…
Liberals find race issues more beneficial if kept strictly on a sophistic/emotional level. Your scoff reflex is going to be put to the ultimate test, American neighbor. If there is one issue where liberals are just not capable of thinking straight, it is the issue of racism. You see, even now before I have said anything about race, many a liberal’s natural response would be on the tip of their tongue: “He’s white. He’s conservative. Racist!” That is because one of the most despicable traits about many liberals is that they self-righteously see themselves as the only ones who can authoritatively and genuinely speak on racism – they are prejudiced. What is even more despicable about liberals is that they presume that they are beyond being prejudice simply because they are liberal. Any attempt by a conservative to engage anything related to, or that can be linked to race is scoffingly rejected as “Racism!” by liberals. That sort of response is just demagogic bigotry, and equivalent to racism itself. Again, when Blackshirt liberals use racism as a stereotype to bludgeon conservatives, it is only evidence of who the real bigots are.
(Because these next two essays mostly deal with a specific group of liberals I will address African American liberals directly from here on. If you are not black try viewing the following issues through their eyes.)ag
• Who is the real party of slavery?
A favorite demagogic strategy of Blackshirt liberals is to insist that conservatives and Republicans are racists – a popular and outrageous liberal noble lie. But who is it that harbor the real racists, black American neighbor? Where should we look first? Well let’s try history. You could try looking up the history of the Democratic Party in Wikipedia. [ykuflu3, 39revzf] It is a very instructive view into the liberal mindset where selective censorship of one’s own history is displayed in all of its magnificence. The wiki page is virtually scoured clean of any reference to the party’s rich past of racism and defense of slavery. In fact, the words racist and racism never sully the page. The only reference to segregation is a small mention that the “fledgling Ku Klux Klan were comprised almost entirely of white Democrats angry over the poor treatment by northerners”. I didn’t know this, did you, black American neighbor? The KKK were really only misunderstood white Democrats concerned about their “poor treatment by northerners”. What poor treatment, I wonder? The wiki conveniently leaves that part out. So let’s talk straight, black American neighbor. The plain truth is that in today’s vernacular, for a period of a full century the KKK were the official Taliban wing of an all-white Democratic Party.
In fact, black American neighbor, the Republican Party was specifically created in 1850 to oppose slavery. [2uae3ce] It was the Republican Party that had black members. In 1870, only five years after the Republicans ended slavery 23 African American Republicans were elected to Congress, including 13 former slaves. The ideological slogan of the Republican Party was all about liberty: “Free labor, free land, free men.” The first successful minority on a presidential ticket was Republican Herbert Hoover’s Vice President, Charles Curtis, a Native American. Yes, it is true, black American neighbor, the Democratic Party is the party of slavery and the status quo, and the Republican Party is the party of liberty and always has been.ah
• Getting the history of slavery right
In the Democratic Party convention of 1835 a consensus was reached that supported the rights of states to retain slavery under their jurisdiction. This was adopted as the official party platform in the following 1840 convention. [3yad9f2]
In the 1852 convention the Democratic Party defended the status quo of legal slavery and resolved, “That the democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt be made.” [3yad9f2]
The 1864 convention was a defining moment for the Democratic Party. [2t86ey] They concluded that the Civil War could not be won and adopted a platform of appeasement towards the south which included states rights to retain legalized slavery. Republican President Abraham Lincoln was up for re-election and considered ripe for defeat as the populous had become discouraged with the war, but the Democrats underestimated both Lincoln and the public’s support for winning the war, and Lincoln won a second term. The war was won the following year and with this the beginning of the end of slavery.
In 1865 the 13th amendment to the Constitution abolished slavery. 100% of Republicans voted for it while 77% of the all-white Democrats refused support the amendment.
In 1868 the 14th amendment to the Constitution provided equal, civil rights to the emancipated slaves. 100% of Republicans voted for it while 0% of the all-white Democrats voted for it.
In 1870 the 15th amendment to the Constitution gave the right to vote for every African American. 100% of Republicans voted for it while 0% of the all-white Democrats voted for it.
From 1866 to 1875 nineteen civil rights laws were passed by Republican majority congresses. In 1892 the all-white Democratic party became the majority party and removed all nineteen of those civil rights laws.
In 1875 Republicans had abolished segregation. In 1882 a racist Supreme Court struck down that law, ignoring the 14th amendment. (It wasn’t until 1954 that the Supreme Court reversed itself.)
It is not only that Democrats resisted civil rights gains for African Americans. Once they regained majority power the Democrats aggressively reversed those civil rights gains. [36e2xp3]ai
• Getting the history of segregation right
The all-white Democratic Party couldn’t bring back slavery, but they sure as hell weren’t going to allow blacks to enjoy equal rights with them. This led to the all-white Democratic Party defending its racist platform by creating the Jim Crow laws stipulating segregation in schooling, transportation and other public areas. It was the Democratic Party that supported slavery and defended it. It was the Democratic Party that reversed civil rights laws for African Americans first enacted by Republicans. It was the Democratic Party that instituted segregation. It was the Democratic Party that set back the cause of African American freedom for one hundred years!
The all-white Democrats used much more than just the law to promote and defend their racism. True to their Taliban parallels the all-white Democrats were vicious and violent. The popularized lynching was only one of various tools the Democrats used. With threats they often intimidated voters into voting for Democrats, and juries into finding them innocent of their crimes. Often operating at night they would shoot into houses of blacks, light their houses on fire, create violent riots and even commit mass murder using crude mass graves. In the twentieth century the Klan turned to bombings and there were so many in Birmingham, Alabama it was called “Bombingham”. Their Taliban terrorism persisted right up to the 1970s.aj
• The Democrat Party should apologize to black Americans
There is a good reason why it is the Republican Party that is nicknamed the Grand Old Party (GOP), black American neighbor. It has been Republicans that have throughout their history defended liberty for minorities. [*7udv3us] There is little that is grand about the history of the Democratic Party. Its history is truly that of slavery, terrorism, segregation and shame. Humorously and sadly, the House and Senate with Democratic majorities passed resolutions expressing regret over the history of slavery and segregation on behalf of the federal government. [565a3t, mcadgo] But it isn’t the government that should be apologizing. It is the Democratic Party where all of the fault lies. 90% of the ugliness in America’s history has the Democratic Party label associated with it. Remove the Democratic Party from the history of America and you would remove the worst of America’s history. Read this link and then wonder why the Democratic Party still even exists. [*awa7qlh] The name Democratic Party in history has little difference from the name Ku Klux Klan. Some blacks want reparations for slavery. I say let the Democratic Party pay them. If the Democratic Party really had any shame they would have abandoned their name and all that it stands for decades ago. But they are liberals. They don’t accept fault for anything and feel no guilt or shame. Not even for two hundred years of vicious, vile bigotry and racism. Pathetic…ak
• David Duke proves a lot about Republicans
Obviously, throughout the years there have inevitably been exceptions to the rule, a minority of Democrats that weren’t racist, and an even smaller amount of Republicans that may have been. For instance, when well known racist David Duke ran for Louisiana Governor as a Republican in 1991 he received no federal party support, Republican President Bush endorsed the Democrat, and many local Republicans also endorsed rival incumbent Democrat Edwin Edwards despite his corruption problems (he was later convicted of racketeering, extortion, money laundering, mail fraud and wire fraud). Two popular Republican inspired bumper stickers were, “Vote for the crook: It’s important!” and “Better a Lizard Than a Wizard.” [3af65b3] (Can you find for me a similar situation with the parties reversed where Democrats campaigned for the Republican candidate to stop a white supremacist Democratic candidate from being elected and where the federal Democratic Party and Democrat President refused to support the Democratic candidate, black American neighbor? Neither can I.)al
• One rule in American history – Democrats are the party of racism
The rule has always been in effect right up to this day; Democrats are the party of racism and Republicans are not. It was Republicans that led the fight for civil rights legislation throughout the twentieth century, voting for civil rights legislation every time it was raised as an issue, while the Democrats opposed. It was the Democrats who resisted changes. In 1954 the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education outlawed segregation in public schools as unconstitutional. Republicans backed the ruling, Democrats did not. [jw2tyc9] In 1956, 97 Democrats and only 2 Republicans signed the Southern Manifesto objecting to public integration policies. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but Democrats watered it down so much in Congress that it became ineffective. [b9aa3np, 33ybadc] The Democratic Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson who was the architect of minimizing the effectiveness of the bill was quoted as saying:
~ “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”~ [297m643]
The “political pull” Johnson was referring to was a Republican President and Republicans in Congress along with a minority of Democrats. “Reconstruction” was the period following the Civil War when Republicans first gave civil rights to African Americans that were later removed by Democrats (described above).am
• Lyndon Johnson purchased the loyalty of blacks with welfare money
Lyndon Johnson was no friend of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and early 60s. He only later relinquished his opposition when it became politically expedient for him. Johnson went on to succeed President John Kennedy after his assassination. Once President, Johnson began his plan to make the poor of America beholden to the government for their existence, later known as the Great Society. He was quoted as saying:
~ “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One~ [bt3qps7]
Having spent a total of 16.7 trillion dollars up to 2008, since the supposed War On Poverty began with Johnson (compared to just 6.4 trillion dollars spent on all real wars in American history), the poverty rate remains unchanged. [cgradvk] (Update: The Obama Malaise has made things worse. In 1969 the poverty rate was 12.1%. In 2013 it is up a staggering 33% to a 16.1% rate after a total of almost 20 trillion dollars spent to supposedly reduce it. [*km35923]) The black community was almost immediately sucked in by the supposed War On Poverty and is still beholden to the government and voting almost unanimously for Democrats (Johnson’s “those niggers” strategy is still working). In 1967 then President Johnson in anger at Republican Martin Luther King’s [nbtc8lw] protesting of the Vietnam War, referred to him as “that Nigger preacher”, proving that his signing of the 60’s civil rights legislation was nothing more than political expediency. [dkyp7a] President Kennedy’s brother and Attorney General threatened King for some communist ties, and had King and other leaders of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference wiretapped. [3z4c8j3] (I guess the Kennedy brothers were also members of Richard Hofstadter’s paranoids at the time.) So here is what blacks got out of $16T in the War On Poverty:
~Between 1963 and 2012, annual black unemployment averaged 11.6%, while the average annual national unemployment rate during recessions over the same period was only 6.7%.~ [mr36dnk]an
• Republicans carried the water for the rights acts of 1964 & 1965
The Civil Rights Act of 1960, another Republican bill, was passed only after Democrats produced the longest filibuster in history. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it was again a Republican, Everett Dirksen, that led the effort to get it passed in another resistant Democratic majority Congress with a grudging Democratic President Lyndon Johnson who saw “Negros” as “uppity” and feared another period of Reconstruction. [49c9m] It was a long drawn out battle because the majority Democrats threw up many hurdles including yet again another even longer filibuster. Yes, black American neighbor, it was Democrats who were determined to prevent the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, just as in 1960 and 1957, but in the end Republican Dirksen prevailed with 80% of Republican House members supporting it along with 82% of Republican Senators. By contrast Democrat support was only 63% and 69% respectively. [yfto7kl] The same pattern can be seen with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 where the Republican numbers were 82% and 94% support, whereas the Democrat numbers were 82% and 73%. [32ozlwn] Republican Everett Dirksen was the point man in Congress. Democrat President Johnson, while signing the bill and praising Dirksen for the sake of his own political expediency, did not actively campaign for its passage. A popular black newspaper, the Chicago Defender, also recognized the leadership of Dirksen. [6suyqmt] Even Time Magazine had a picture of Dirksen on its cover with a banner stating, “THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL Product of Principle and Compromise”. [2w6o8qm] Martin Luther King praised Dirksen’s “able and courageous leadership.” Chief civil rights lobbyist for the NAACP, Clarence Mitchell sent a telegram to Dirksen after the cloture vote offering his appreciation and proclaiming, “This is a great day for the country and for the future of human rights.” At the time President Johnson said to Dirksen: “You are the hero of the nation. They have forgotten that anyone else is around. Every time I pick up a paper it is ‘Dirksen’ in the magazines. The NAACP is flying Dirksen banners and picketing the White House tomorrow.” Later in his memoir Johnson wrote: “In this critical hour Senator Dirksen came through, as I had hoped he would. He knew his country’s future was at stake. He knew what he could do to help. He knew what he had to do as a leader.” [n699esf] Watch this short video: [*mznrm7h]ao
• Republicans finally win rights for blacks & then become racists – what?!?
There is a desperate and humorous theory put out by some Blackshirt liberals that southern Democrats who opposed civil rights changes, and northern Republicans who supported those same changes, actually switched parties after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in protest of their respective parties. Think about this, black American neighbor. Supposedly southern white racist Democrats were so upset with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that in protest they switched to the Republican Party, which was actually the driving force behind getting it passed! (Convoluted much?!?) This so-called theory is supposed to prove that all of the racists moved to the Republican Party and now the Democratic Party is as pure as the wind-driven snow. This is just silly (and sophistry).
The sixties was a sea change for race relations in America, not just politically, but sociologically as well. The vast majority of the American public had now accepted the need for civil rights for black Americans. The Republicans being the minority party with a majority Democratic House and Senate and Democratic President could not have passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 without the pressure of popular support. Thanks to the Republican Party, America as a country had finally embraced the idea of equality for all, but after the Republican Party had fought racism for over 100 years against an entrenched Democratic Party, these liberal theorists now claim that the Republicans, having finally triumphed, switched sides on race?!?
These liberal theorists like to suggest that Lyndon Johnson’s prediction of an exodus from the Democratic Party because of his signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 meant that the Democratic racists would move to the Republican Party. What Johnson actually feared was that they would reform the Dixiecrats’ States Rights Democratic Party that had briefly surfaced in 1948, and that this time it would stick, forever dividing the Democratic Party.ap
• Where are the lists of Republican politicians that became racists?
So where are these lists of Republican Congressmen and Senators that supposedly reversed themselves on race and embraced racism? And conversely, where are these lists of Democratic Congressmen and Senators that supposedly continued to embrace racism and switched to the Republican party? And even more nutty, who are these Republicans that rejected the newly racist Republican Party and switched to the supposedly newly non-racist Democratic Party? Curiously, these theorists have never produced any such lists. Did Al Gore’s father, and Bill Clinton’s admitted mentor William Fullbright who were both leading southern Democrat Senators opposed to civil rights for African Americans in the fifties and early sixties, switch parties and become Republicans? Did Lyndon Johnson, a Texas Democrat who saw “Negros” as “uppity” and deliberately watered down the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and in 1967 called MLK “that Nigger preacher” become a Republican? Did West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd who had been a member of the KKK and vociferously opposed civil rights legislation become a Republican? No, none of them became Republicans, but they all eventually switched sides on race, accepting civil rights for African Americans. Despite that these once leading racists of the Democratic Party could change their public stance on racism, apparently according to these Blackshirt liberal theorists southern white voters who did switch to the Republican Party that had stood against racism for over a century and were the most significant reason the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was actually enacted into law, could not possibly have themselves had a change of mind, and not even up to this very day, apparently, because Blackshirt liberals still prejudge southern whites as inherently racist (there’s that prejudice attitude again). So, is it then any wonder that southern whites don’t support the Democratic Party? Blackshirt liberals constantly belittle them as having been unable or unwilling to reject racism even as their very own previously racist southern white Democratic Congressmen and Senators did in the sixties. Perhaps it is the inherent paranoia that allows liberals to play stupid enough to actually believe such nonsensical theories.aq
• Putting Barry Goldwater in perspective
African Americans looked to the government for hope, and Lyndon Johnson saw a political opportunity and offered them the Great Society, promising an elimination of poverty and racial injustice. Consequently, African Americans allowed themselves to be purchased by the Democratic Party with welfare and other government programs. Many northern Republican and independent whites were also lured by the siren call at the birth of contemporary liberalism. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater had stood on principle against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for what he saw as an intrusion of the federal government into state jurisdictions that he feared would be expanded beyond what was then covered – he objected based on the unintended consequences of liberties that might be lost (and he was right in that regard [2cqwho2]). He had supported all previous civil rights legislation, supported a ban of the poll tax, was involved in the desegregating the Arizona National Guard, and voted based on his constitutional principles of division of powers between the federal and state governments, not based on race. Although Goldwater campaigned to uphold and implement the civil rights act (even Everett Dirksen supported Goldwater in the primaries, with this assurance), he, not the Republican Party, had alienated the rest of the country from himself with the help of a Blackshirts demagogic Democratic Party and press.
Remember in #2 Contemporary American Liberalism = Paranoid Delusion, we discussed the essay, The Paranoid Style in American Politics and its impact on the public’s view of the Republican Party in the 1964 election. In essence Republicans and independents rejected Goldwater’s narrow view on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and were suspicious of what they had been convinced was a “Paranoid Style” of politics. The Republicans lost seats in the Senate and the House in 1964, but then picked up seats in both 1966 and 1968 illustrating that it was Goldwater and not the Republican Party itself that voters rejected in 1964. However, in actual fact, it was not so much as the electorate rejecting Goldwater as it was giving Johnson an opportunity to finish JFK’s suddenly ended presidency. No Republican could have won that race.ar
• The birth of contemporary liberalism drove out southern whites
Traditional Republicans sat out the 1964 election because of the feeling of inevitability that only a Democrat should replace JFK, but returned in subsequent elections, and with the addition of the Southern Democrats who had switched parties and their views on race, the Republicans elected more Senators and House members than since the early fifties, along with a Republican President in 1968. But the main reason southern whites switched parties is that they held many conservative values and objected to Johnson’s Great Society. 1968 Republican presidential candidate, Richard Nixon directly appealed to this southern conservatism. It was the Democratic Party’s embracing of the new contemporary liberalism that drove most white Southerners to the Republican Party. And mirroring what happened in 1968, Democrats have again fled the Democratic Party with the 2010 midterm election – because they are racists? No. If that were the case they would have left the Democrats in the presidential election of 2008. They switched because of the extreme leftward turn of the Obama administration and Democratic Congress – the same reason they left in the 1960s. [7ksbbyw, 2etyye6] Where do you think most of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats came from, black American neighbor? This supposed liberal theory is just more of the usual sophistry and demagoguery from Blackshirt liberals. If this theory was accurate, how could this poll in the Republican Party presidential primaries be possible where a black Herman Cain led all other candidates (all white) with southern white Republicans and Tea Partiers? In fact, the South was Cain’s “strongest geographical region”. Oops… [678rhnn]
There were many black slave owners in the old south. Many traded in slaves, enriching and empowering themselves while cozying up to white slavers. Blacks cower behind their Democratic Party masters today just as they did 160 years ago. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Charlie Rangel, Eric Holder and Barack Obama are today’s equivalent of yesterday’s black slave owners. The old black slave owners became rich and powerful by living off of the profits from exploiting other blacks of their time, just as Sharpton, Jackson, Rangel, Holder and Obama do today.as
• 97% of avowed segregationists stayed in the Democratic Party
To put this theory to bed for good, Wikipedia has a page listing public figures who vocally objected to civil rights during the period 1955 to 1968. Curiously, Al Gore’s father and Lyndon B. Johnson are not listed, but should be. Also missing are Democratic Senators Walter F. George and Samuel James Ervin, Jr. Adding them to those in the Wikipedia list with a party affiliation illustrates that 90% were Democrats. [b6b5zjl] (Also notice that Barry Goldwater is not on the list – because he was never a segregationist.) Only Senators Jesse Helmes and Strom Thurmond ever became Republicans. The other 97% of Democratic Party affiliated segregationists stayed in the Democratic Party.
This idea that Democrats are the champions of civil rights is completely at odds with history, black American neighbor. The Republican Party from the day of its inception has been the party of civil rights for minorities. Republicans have always respected minorities. At best, Democrats are very Johnny-come-latelies (if at all, as you will see). It is Republicans that have always championed equality – equality of opportunity for all. It is Republicans that have always viewed African Americans as being able to make their own way for themselves, just as every other race and ethnic group has done in American society. It is Republicans that have always viewed African Americans as individuals and adults. Immigrants from around the world come to America for what? Coddling from a nanny Democratic government? No! They come for opportunity. The same opportunity as for everyone else. The Republicans want to offer African Americans that exact same opportunity. For that Blackshirt Democrats call them racists… [eyeroll]at
• The fox now raises the chickens – with predictable results
It is laughable that after 200 years of their party persecuting minorities, white Democratic leaders now think they are some sort of experts on civil rights. It is like the fox who has for years been raiding the chicken coop proclaiming that he has had an epiphany and is now an expert on raising chickens! Because their liberalism always produces horrible unintended consequences, their ‘help’ in the matter of civil rights has been less than beneficial for minorities or society as a whole. For 200 years the white leaders of the Democrats held African Americans in disdain. Now white Democratic leaders, since their so-called 1960s epiphany see themselves as the nanny to underprivileged, modern-day African Americans. Yes, you know it, black American neighbor. White Democrats don’t treat you as adults – they see you as children in need of a mommy. The party is filled with over 200 years of white supremacist attitude and now doles out its guilt by mommying you. Many white Democrat leaders still think of themselves as owning African Americans. The only difference is that instead of seeing you as their property as they once did, they now treat you as their helpless little children, and when you step out of line they think of you as “uppity” or “that Nigger preacher” – “we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference”.
The worst of it is that African Americans have bought into white Democrat leaders’ mommyism type of slavery. African Americans seem to want to be coddled and kept. Institutional racism in America has been replaced with ideological racism. In many ways African Americans were better off before the Democrat Party decided to become their mommy and blacks decided to be adopted by their Democratic Party mommy. In 1964 over 80% of black families were two parent households, and 40% owned their own business. [*47fqm9y] You know what’s happened to those numbers since then, black American neighbor – the unintended consequences of liberalism. Blacks want to have their hands held by big mommy government. They want to be the Democrat’s little, helpless, adopted sucklings. When Republicans plead with blacks to cease clinging to the Democratic Party’s big mommy government agenda and to take responsibility for themselves so they can return to those 1964 family and business numbers, blacks reply like the petulant neighbor kid hiding behind his mommy’s skirt taunting “Racist!” Blacks are quite content to be liberals – having big mommy Democrat direct and ruin their lives. They think that having big mommy Democrat holding their hand is akin to freedom, but they are so, so wrong. With multitudes living in ghettos barely at subsistence level, those African Americans are little more free now than when their ancestors were slaves to Democratic masters. Now they are slaves to a culture of drugs and gang violence that disparages education and celebrates the subjugation of its women and beats an honor student to death because he refused to join their gang. [24qfltq] They see the police as their enemy, along with any black person who helps them. [758rrco, *avvy2pn] Do you call that liberty, black American neighbor? These are the unintended consequences of mommying liberalism.au
• How to destroy a race of people with supposed ‘kindness’
You don’t believe my analysis, black American neighbor? Here is a classic horror story worthy of the Brothers Grimm. While reading this think of black ghettos and liberal black civil rights leaders:
Come to Canada and see what pretentious government control has done to the native culture here. Canada has a deep history of government intervention in our native Indian culture. Government coddling and meddling have produced basically two classes of natives in Canada. Many of the chiefs, their families and their favored ones on the reserves live like mob bosses on government money, and the rest live little better than hand to mouth. If one wished to destroy an ethnic group through legal means one could not do it more thoroughly than by following the Canadian model used on natives for the past century plus. Right from the beginning they should have been treated as any other ethnic group, which is to mean they should have been offered the same opportunities as everyone else and allowed to sink or swim as individuals like any other group, but because of white guilt the government threw them a life preserver of nannyism and indoctrination, and they never learned how to swim on their own.
It is government meddling that literally keeps natives in poverty on reserves. The government takes away their initiative to live as free individuals and instead pays them at subsistence level to segregate themselves as collectives of institutionalized poverty. Even though natives are provided free education to virtually any level, they are the least represented group in higher education. Canadian society is full of guilt for the many wrongs it has committed against natives over the centuries, and is damn well determined that it is going to make up for those wrongs by continuing them perpetually! The answer has been to concede to almost every demand by native leaders. But has this helped the average native? No! It has enslaved them to the very mob boss leaders they send to negotiate with the government (remember the parallel I mentioned about civil rights leaders and black ghettos). To many of these leaders, their subordinated tribe members are simply numbers to go to Ottawa with, to demand more money and to strong-arm related industries, but the subordinates seldom see that money, and the leaders also demand laws to solidify their hold on their reservations and ensure that their subordinates stay in line. Think about this, black American neighbor. If there were no reservations there would be no mob boss Indian chiefs, so these chiefs have a vested interest to preserve and strengthen the status quo reservation system. The successful non-reservation native is their worst nightmare. The successful non-reservation native proves the folly of the reservation system.
No other ethnic or racial group is coddled by big mommy liberal government like natives, and no other ethnic or racial group has taken less advantage of modern society than natives. Who is it that you think compose the vast majority of homeless people in Canada? Yup – natives. Their self reliance has been so destroyed by government meddling that when they leave the reserve they are virtually doomed to failure. They are incarcerated at a rate of nine times that of other Canadians, making up 22% of all prisoners despite being only 3% of the population! [2f2dxo3]av
• An example of unintended consequences
Here is an example I heard on the news this very morning about how far some native communities have sunk. The Swine flu has broken out in a few northern reserves, but Health Canada is having a hard time delivering an appropriate hand sanitizer to these reserves. This is because the natives don’t use it to clean their hands – they drink it for the alcohol it contains. No other ethnic or racial group in Canada would ever have this kind of problem, but no other group is coddled and segregated by the government the way natives are in Canada. Natives made a huge mistake, and continue to make it, putting their faith in a nanny government to maintain their needs and provide their prosperity. The result is the vast majority achieve neither. They are a desperate and despaired people continually looking for solutions in the wrong place. Like any other ethnic or racial group in Canada they must look to themselves individually, but that would mean cutting themselves off from the government teat that barely sustains them. Do you think they have the wherewithal to take that leap? Do you think those native leaders who game the system would allow it? Neither do I, black American neighbor. (Yes there are some successful natives, but it is in spite of the system and because they went out on their own, and of course there are rare successful reserves situated to take advantage of the surrounding economy. Congratulations to the few! They are true heroes overcoming odds and social pressures no other ethnic groups must contend with. And sympathy goes out to the majority who have unwittingly been caught up in a government system that they never chose, that has stripped them of their dignity. May their eyes be opened some day so they can walk away as free and successful individuals!)aw
• Self-slavery – embraced-apartheid
Canadian natives have all but enslaved themselves to their many mob style leaders and the state’s addictive and misplaced ‘benevolence’. It is a type of western apartheid. The intentions were good, but as with all liberalism, the unintended consequences are horrendous. Their subliminal belief system has been so compromised that they are slaves to a system that no independent person would ever choose based on a rational examination of the situation. Even the poorest of the poor like Haitians who immigrate to Canada do not end up in the deplorable conditions of our own natives who are born into one the richest countries in the world.
African Americans for the past fifty years have been deceived into striving to do the same thing as Canada’s natives. Think about this, black American neighbor: Who is more free? The man who walks around with a chip on his shoulder demanding government restitution and government coddling, or the man who can shrug off past wrongs and is determined to live a successful life on his own terms. This is the difference between what liberalism and conservatism offers each African American. Liberalism incites a person to waste their life energy wallowing in collective victimhood, encouraging them to live in collective squalor on the reserve (in the ghetto of the Democratic Party), but conservatism encourages one to get over it and get on with one’s individual life and become an individual success. For that, conservatives are labeled racist. Collective victimization is a way for liberals to keep you in your place – on the reserve, black American neighbor. Conservatism is about being the best you can achieve – NOT the minimal amount the mob bosses can get for you from the government.
Update: Now in 2014 we have in Canada what is called the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which is designed to address so-called discrimination against Canadian natives who were placed in what was known as the Residential School System, whose goal was to help integrate primitive natives into an advanced white society. (I thought integration was a good thing.) The system originated prior to Canada becoming a sovereign nation and was administered by the Catholic and Anglican churches. The last school closed in 1996. Natives claim that there was abuse at some schools, that they were forcibly taken from their parents, and deprived of their culture and languages. No doubt, these claims are true for many. There seems to be nothing but criticism for the Residential School System. There are demands for reparations, of which they have been granted. The Prime Minister made an official apology for bringing native children out of the bush to be educated and integrated into a much bigger world.
I have a question, however, that seems to have never been asked and answered: What would these natives have preferred would have been done? Would they rather have been left in the bush, living off the land, cut off from a quickly industrializing and advancing nation and world? Would they have preferred no access to learning English, no education, no healthcare, no food security, no indoor plumbing, no electricity, no technology? The government and the churches were attempting to integrate a people from a very primitive culture where the Israelites of Christ’s time would be considered extremely advanced by comparison (most natives before the reserve system still lived in teepees made of animal hides).
It is often raised in public discussions that 6,000 natives died at Residential Schools, and then the number is left hanging for the listener or reader to assume that those deaths were mostly the result of abuse. However the vast majority died as a result of disease. Their immune systems could not handle the new diseases that they encountered. This was inevitable and no fault of the Residential School System.
It seems to me that there was no alternative to the Residential Schools. While priests and nuns were generally willing to move to small, established towns to run these schools, very few would have volunteered to go live in the bush with natives to teach them about the outside world (some did and some of those were martyred for their effort – where is the apology and reparations from natives?). Until only relatively recently these priests and nuns had little training in how to integrate primitive peoples into a modern culture. Many were ordered by the church and the government to do what they were often ill-equipped to do, but there were no alternatives. These priests and nuns were brought up and trained within the disciplined network of the church where everyone understood the need for that discipline, but then with no experience in disciplining primitive children with a totally foreign culture and a huge communication gap, in an area of the world that they were completely unfamiliar with, they were thrust into the responsibility of bringing these children from a primitive life of living off the land into the modern age. Without the Residential Schools many natives today would still be cut off from the outside world, living as little more than stone age people. Is that what natives would have preferred?
Or perhaps natives would have preferred that all incoming whites should have abandoned modernity to live off the land with natives? Or should white Europeans have just turned around and gone home? They could have left North America as a large nature preserve where they could now come visit on safari to see through binoculars the wilds of Canada and the primitive people who still lived off the land, wearing animal hides as clothes. [/sarcasm – sort-of]
It is amazing that natives today seem to think that there was some obvious, ideal solution to their problem, but cannot say what it was. Again, I ask these native supremacists who supposedly have all of the answers, what was this obvious, ideal solution that everybody missed (including your ancestors, apparently)?
It seems to me that even though the Residential School System was far from perfect a little gratitude might also be in order. (What school system is perfect – look at the public schools today, for heaven’s sake. And many private schools in history were renown for their harsh discipline and what is now considered extreme abuse. Should surviving white private school students now demand a Reconciliation Commission and reparations? [/silliness to make a point]) The only reward most of those nuns and priests received for their sacrifice was in their conscience that they were doing God’s work. If it was so bad why didn’t some upset natives go to university and devise a better system (all natives get free university tuition)? Why didn’t they go learn to teach and go volunteer at these Residential Schools? Why didn’t they take over the Residential School System or offer an alternative system a century ago if it was so bad? This went on for well over one hundred years – what did natives do to help themselves? How many selfless Canadian natives today volunteer to go to the corners of the earth to teach primitive peoples about the outside world? Can these selfless Canadian natives tell me about their perfect system of integration that they use to integrate primitive Asian, South American or African tribes into the 21st century? Do any of these selfless Canadian natives actually exist? Or isn’t it more true that many natives are ungrateful takers with their hands out, forever demanding more? Natives claim that their culture is imperative to their being able to live successfully in Canada. Aren’t they then actually saying that they are still so primitive in their attitude that they are simply incapable of integrating into greater Canadian society without their specially funded culture and special privileges to prop them up? Isn’t that sort of attitude of preferential treatment based solely on race what used to be known as supremacism and racism when whites did it?
Update 2015: Over 100 indigenous groups in the Amazon jungle are now in the position natives in Canada were in over one hundred years ago, needing some way of integrating into modern society. Brazil and Peru are desperately seeking those who can help with this problem. Right now these indigenous groups are mostly without help of any kind. Is this how Canadian natives would rather have been dealt with? Abandoned? Or will Canadian natives who have nothing but ridicule for the Residential School System provide their perfect alternative system to these Amazon natives? Here is the chance to show the world how it supposedly should have been done with their ancestors. Will Canadian natives go into the jungle to teach these primitive tribes the way of the world? [q9ue9sa]
In fact, Americans virtually never hear real publicly-preached racism anymore. How do I know? Because we here in Canada hear it on a regular basis. The native movement in Canada is almost entirely racist in their attitude. Most if not all native leaders are native-supremacists. Imagine if at least once a month (and sometimes daily when native issues are in the news) you turned on NPR and heard some white-supremacist lecturing on how whites deserve special rights, special considerations, special exemptions, special veto powers, and perpetual government money simply because of their superior race, and that all societal problems faced by them are caused by other races. Well, here in Canada we have to put up with this on our NPR equivalent of CBC radio (and virtually all other media). This morning I listened to a “respected” native woman on CBC ranting about how Canada was not even a legitimate country (this is the equivalent of a modern day Confederate’s attitude that the U.S.A. is illegitimate as a country). Did she want everyone who isn’t native to leave? Does she think that only natives should rule Canada? Should the rest of the non-native country be considered second class citizens? (In fact, the overall attitude of the native community is that non-natives are second class citizens. They reason that natives were here first, so they are superior – period. Under the Gladue principle natives are even mandated by law to receive lesser sentences for crimes than non-natives simply based on their race.) She wasn’t asked and didn’t volunteer her alternative solution, but what other alternatives are there? Native-supremacists are so convinced of their self-righteous superiority that they will probably accuse me of being racist just for pointing out their racism. And in fact, again, if anyone owes anything for past occurrences, it is they who owe Canada. It was the nation of Canada along with the churches who paid to bring these primitive people out of the stone age while all along natives refused to help themselves (and for the most part, they still refuse to pay their own way). When are natives going to begin paying their own way and paying it all back, and join the 21st century where racism is considered abhorrent behavior?
Update: Now native supremacists and their white sympathizers are demanding a public inquiry in the murders of native women. The goal, of course, is to extract more taxpayer money and special privileges for natives. While it is true that native women are murdered at a rate three times that of other women, it isn’t because of white racism as natives claim. 92% of murdered native women knew their killer – the same rate as for other women. Only 8% were by strangers, meaning that the rate murdered based on racism is infinitesimally small. Of course, that is not what the public inquiry would be designed to find. Naturally, it would find a societal racism problem that demands additional billions of tax dollars dollars be spent on natives in Canada, along with a long list of additional special privileges. Look for this strategy to be applied to the murders of young black men in America as black civil rights leaders agitate for more taxpayer money and special privileges based on propagandized deaths like Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown. [nwmfyqj, nlh6bdf]ax
• The Democratic Party loves voluntary slaves
It is no different in Canada. No doubt some do-good white liberals and native leaders will misrepresent what I have written above and label me as racist towards natives. That is not, however, where my animosity is pointed. It is directed toward big nanny liberal government and those native leaders who encourage collective enslavement to the system for their personal benefit – they are liberals too, remember. (Perhaps they could make even a tiny attempt to refute my arguments first, before predictably calling me a racist. But then that would legitimize my points as sides of an argument. In a liberal’s mind, better instead to go straight to the demagoguery and dispense with any legitimate debate that they would inevitably lose.)
The situation is no different as I address the African American issue. It is the Democratic Party and their supposed black civil rights leaders (the equivalent mob bosses) where my criticism is aimed at. It is they who treat average African Americans simply as numbers of votes, but offer no hope of reversing the stagnation of city ghettos. They offer a pittance of government help to keep African Americans ‘on the reserve’. They demagogue anyone who suggests that African Americans should stand on their own feet and break away from the collective nannyism and dependence on the Democratic Party. Look at what they have done to Bill Cosby, a successful black man who made it on his own without the Democratic Party controlling his life. He is a black man who is truly passionate about the plight of African Americans. A black man who sees the disaster that collective government meddling and coddling has wrought in the African American community in America, and a man who has been called the most vile names by black liberals who see his message as a threat to their collective keep-them-on-the-reservation agenda. They did the same thing to Condoleezza Rice. Same story with Supreme Court judge, Clarence Thomas. Ditto for Republican primary candidate, Herman Cain. Blackshirt liberal paranoia fears that these independently successful blacks may give those still on the reservation the same idea of being independant, so naturally these Blackshirts resort to vicious demagoguery.ay
• Slavers see slaves as subhuman
Imagine if Democratic slavers and Republican reformers from the 1800s could be transported forward through time to debate the value of African Americans today. Republicans would argue, “We are all, regardless of race, genetically 99.9% the same.” The Democratic slavers would reply, “We are not going to try to use science or evidence – the fact of the matter is, this is opinion. We all have our own opinions as far as who is fully human and who is not.” How would you respond to this, black American neighbor? I would assume you would find this a hollow, incredibly self-righteous and self-serving argument by the Democratic slavers. They think their “opinion” that blacks are subhuman is enough to justify slavery. First they just dismiss out of hand any “science or evidence” that might contradict their “opinion”. Then they also dismiss any countering Republican “opinion” as well.
Don’t think that this attitude is gone from the Democratic Party, black American neighbor. You are sorely mistaken if you do. You see, Democrats don’t believe in the Golden Rule – do unto others as you would have them do unto you. As an example, remember that liberals view conservatives as motivated by evil and therefore worthy of demagoguery, hate and violence. Some humans simply do not qualify for the Golden Rule according to Democrats. [cx9sp4w] They believe in the lottery. If you are impregnated into a mother who wants you, you win the lottery with a granting of life. If your mother doesn’t want you, you lose the lottery and are put to an end with some hideous form of execution. This may sound like something out of a far-future science fiction B movie describing a dystopia where all of humanity has been lost to a purely material, collectivist existence, but unfortunately this fictional dystopia has jumped backwards through time to ours – and forward from the Democratic slavers of early America.az
• The Democratic Party still divides humans & subhumans
The Democratic Party still believes in the principle of slavery just as do those Democratic slavers who justify slavery wholly based on their “opinion”. In other words, modern Democrats still believe one person can own the life of another. Sorry – I worded that wrong. Modern Democrats still believe one person can own the life of a ‘subhuman’. Here, I’ll give you an example: Think of a pregnant mother. That child she carries belongs to her. She owns it every bit as much as the old Democratic masters owned their black slaves. In fact, according to the Democratic Party that child is her slave – less than fully human – just what Democrats thought of blacks for over two hundred years – subhuman. Just as with the black slaves and Democratic masters of old, this modern, motherish slave master has the rule of life and death over her little subhuman slave. See for yourself:
~Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.~ [b6r5q6q]
This is the attitude of a slave master (Ms. Williams would have been a salient apologist for southern Democrats defending slavery in the 1850s). If the master of old found one of his black slaves no longer of value he could have him put down like a lame horse or leave them to die of neglect if they were sick. Slaves are not judged by rights (they have none), they are judged by value. When they are considered to be of no value, or worse, deemed to be a burden, they are terminated. Today’s modern slave master can also terminate her child/slave if she decides that her little slave is too much of an inconvenience to keep around. Being “pro-choice” is about a slave owner’s choice over their subhuman slave – aborticide. (I call abortion aborticide, because pulling up from landing a plane is an abortion of a landing. Killing a fetus is a fatality. The suffix cide is defined as an act of killing, which more precisely describes the true nature of the procedure.)ba
• The modern subhuman is a result of opinion, not science
The human fetus is prejudged to be a subhuman, deserving no rights and being fully expendable, or in other words – a slave. And on what basis do modern Democrats judge that the fetus is subhuman? The same basis as the old Democrats judged blacks to be subhuman – their “opinion”. From a debate on aborticide, a pro-choice debater responds to the scientific evidence provided by pro-life debaters (I fooled you above when I attributed these words to imagined slavers brought forward through time):
~ “We are not going to try to use science or evidence — the fact of the matter is, this is, this is opinion. We all have our own opinions as far as when human life begins.”~ (The first link is an article on the debate. The second link is to a video of the quote: [24mzl73, 665bknp])
Isn’t it liberals who are always harping on how they are the ones who make decisions based on science and evidence and reasoning? OK, I’ve got some to consider. Let’s establish the liberal principle defining when “human life begins” (when rights begin): An organism still within the mother’s body has no rights of its own, but once outside the mother’s body, it then acquires full rights. This apparently is the evolutionary pinnacle of liberal thinking. Life and rights depend on location. So can we see this evidenced in nature? Tell me, black American neighbor, is a fish more evolutionarily advanced that a human being? How about a reptile – is an alligator more evolved than a homo sapien? What about a bird? They all expel their eggs to develop outside of the mother’s body. According to liberalism these eggs would have life and rights because they are outside of the mother, but because human embryos develop inside the mother, at the same period of development, they are penalized by liberals who deny them rights that would be accorded to fish, reptiles and birds under the their own location principle. Try disturbing some turtle eggs on a beach in Florida and see what kind of rights those turtle eggs have, black American neighbor. Or see what happens if you disturb an eagle’s nest of eggs. You’ll have more organizations after your butt than if you had murdered someone, but if you are a human mother you can kill your little subhuman slave even if it has developed beyond the egg stage months ago. Seems kinda evolutionarily bass-ackwards, don’t you think, black American neighbor?
Slavers of yesteryear defined their principle on the rights of blacks based on their opinion of skin color. Liberals today define their principle on the rights of the preborn based on their opinion of location. There is no science or evidence or reasoning to support either principle. They are both arbitrary definitions. Neither can be justified by looking at the natural world. Since slavery was ended, the preborn who have been selected for termination have become the ultimate minority victims in America. Slaves dared not speak up for themselves. The preborn can’t. Slaver/liberal opinions are simply based on prejudice. Both slavers and liberals seem to have some evolving to do to catch up to reasonable human thought. Maybe in a million years or so…bb
• Subhumans are not deserving of equality
Slavery has been a fundamental doctrine of the Democratic Party for two hundred years, and today’s Democratic Party is just as self-righteous and self-serving as any Democratic slaver of old. You didn’t think they would just give it up did you, black American neighbor? What is the central premise of human rights? Equality of being. From a human rights point of view feminism is a complete contradiction of this. Feminists deny equality of being to their little slaves by assigning them the role of subhuman beings instead of full human beings, solely based on their own opinion. Likewise, they deny the father equality as a parent, assigning him a role of irrelevancy unless called upon to raise the child or fund the raising of the child. No, feminism is not about equality, but supremacy, just how the Democrats of old thought society should be divided – those of privilege and those of subhuman, lesser-quality. To a feminist gender equality is first based on human inequality and feminist superiority. Claiming gender equality based on human equality, but then denying equality for their little slaves, is a logical fallacy. In fact, it is a complete contradiction of rational reasoning. The Democrat Party slavers of old would have fully embraced the arguments of modern-day feminism as justification for their slavery of blacks, and who could argue with them for doing so? Both have the opinion that those they wish to make life and death decisions over are subhuman, in their opinion. But remove the subhuman aspect of either from their arguments and their arguments fall apart.bc
• Only with the first breath is the subhuman worthy of humanity, or…
Only if a child is allowed to be born is it then determined to be set free from the Democratic Party’s master-slave relationship with the mother. Only when a child takes its first breath does the Emancipation Proclamation take effect for it. This is the view of President Obama. In a lone discovered article authored by Obama from his Harvard Law School days he defends against the legal argument of the right of a fetus to file a lawsuit against its mother, claiming that to allow such a suit would violate the mother’s rights, thus supporting the view of the fetus as unequal to the mother. [6cadod] In effect Barack Obama sees the fetus as subhuman. What “mother’s rights” was he referring to? Well, of course, her slave master rights. During his Illinois state Senate tenure Obama voted against the Illinois’ Born Alive Infants Protection Act thus preventing the enforcement of “legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion”. [6ex7ers, 6xdv3rg, 62hztk4] In effect Obama argued that being born alive did not necessarily end the master-slave relationship of the mother and child. If a child was accidentally born alive during a ‘botched’ aborticide attempt Barack Obama had absolutely no problem supporting abortuaries leaving fully born and living human babies in a soiled linen closet to slowly die of exposure and dehydration. To Barack Obama these babies were of no more value than the worn out and sick black slaves of the past. After all, we wouldn’t want these poor women to be “punished with a subhuman” (gee – did I get that quote right…?). Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer seems to wholeheartedly agree with Obama. [*2ddjhag] And don’t think that the liberal media elite don’t also agree. It turns out that the Blackshirts liberal media didn’t want you to know about likely the most prolific mass murderer in American history – because he murdered born alive children from botched aborticides. [*cg5uev3] How many more aborticide doctors like this do you think are out there that we just don’t know about? Given the enormous amount of easy money involved, the almost religious fervor that liberals feel about aborticide, and the look-the-other-way attitude of liberals, I am willing to postulate that Kermit Gosnel is only the tip of the iceberg. And I bet that most of those murders are of black children.bd
• Everyone alive in America today is a lottery winner
So basically, according to the Democratic Party everyone alive today is a lottery winning, emancipated slave. However, it is telling that blacks have aborticides at a much higher rate than any other group. Slave termination, or slavebortion, is the leading cause of death. Today more black slave fetuses are terminated than emancipated blacks die from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. [d9mp96q] In all, over 1700 black babies are slaveborted each day. Since 1973 4.7 million emancipated blacks have died from AIDS, violent crimes, accidents, cancer and heart disease, while 13 million black slave-babies have been slaveborted in that same time period. [2atgzbl] A billboard that was displayed in NYC conveyed that simple message, but Blackshirt feminists claimed its simple truth was nothing more than a “condescending effort to stigmatize and shame African-American women.” Sounds like a little guilt and/or shame sneaking out. [63pyy9n] (Actually it was just a matter of protecting slave owner rights.)
But really, black American neighbor, if as liberals insist, it is better that a child not be born into an impoverished neighborhood, why isn’t it better to terminate children that were born into impoverished neighborhoods? Think about the reasoning here: What they are saying is that a prebirth death is a better result than living a life in an impoverished ghetto. The logic of this is that impoverished children in these ghettos would be better off if they were killed. And what about this mantra of “no unwanted child”? Sounds like children born into impoverished neighborhoods are unwanted. Again, the simple liberal logic follows that they should also be terminated. Just say’n, black American neighbor.be
• No gratitude for today’s emancipation
It is also amazing how some previously emancipated fetus-slaves who have become pro aborticide advocates project no gratitude for their own emancipation, and are still willing to deny others that very same emancipation. This would be like a black slave being freed 200 years ago, and he then becomes a slave owner himself. (Despicable much?) Like I said, modern Democratic slavers don’t believe in the Golden Rule when applied to those they see as subhumans, and as in the case of Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer, they were willing to deny emancipation to fully born alive babies, effectively claiming they were still subhuman slaves if the mother deems them so. In fact, liberals even object to celebrating the subsequent emancipation of a subhuman that was condemned by doctors to be terminated. During the 2010 Super Bowl game college football star and Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mother made just such a celebratory commercial, aired by Focus On the Family. [7u9sklr] Mrs. Tebow refused the advice of her doctors to terminate her subhuman slave-son and instead emancipated him by giving birth. Blackshirt feminists especially were outraged at this celebration. Yes, black American neighbor, slavery of subhumans is alive and well in America within the Democratic Party, always its primary champion. Feminator feminists are equivalent to the old Democratic slave owners defending black slavery. [2fuh2mz] They define humanity as between humans with rights and subhumans with no rights. Today’s feminator slavers see their defined subhumans as only an inconvenience and a burden. The approved feminator of the Obama administration, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius established this as the official position of the administration before a House panel by stating that a proactive reduction in newly born Americans is a cost benefit to the country. [89zbt6h] The old Democratic slave owners at least saw some value in working their subhumans. Today’s slavers see none in their perceived subhuman slaves. Aborticide is not about liberty for women. It is simply about the libertinism of slavery.bf
• The woman’s right to decide what to do with her body
Feminism claims aborticide is about a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body. This began with the infamous Margaret Sanger who wrote in 1914 that every woman should be “the absolute mistress of her own body”. It has to be about a woman’s body, because if it isn’t, the father would have equal say. Try a search for >pro-choice body definition<. You will find a myriad of definitions all with the same theme of a woman having a right to control over her own body. But in order for a principle to be legitimate in one scenario it must also apply in other related, parallel scenarios. • So if the principle of feminism is about a woman’s choice about her own body, feminists would also support a woman’s right to choose to be a prostitute. • They would support a woman’s right to choose to be a stripper. • They would support a woman’s right to choose to expose themselves in pornographic movies. • They would support a woman’s right to choose to be skinny models selling skinny fashions to other skinny or wannabe skinny women. • They would support a fat woman’s right to have two airline seats for the price of one. • They would support a woman’s right to mutilate her own body. • They would support a woman’s right to choose suicide. • They would support gorging and they would support anorexia. • And they would support a woman’s right to choose to sell her organs either from her living body, such as a kidney, or after her death for the financial benefit of her surviving family members. • They would support women being able to take any drugs they like. • They would support women smoking if they wish. • They would support women eating transfats. • They would support women using sex to climb the career ladder or receive favors in return. • They would support women going nude in public any time they wish. In effect they would support complete libertinism for women in relation to their bodies if aborticide was about a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body. So in fact, as alluded to above, feminism would have nothing to do with civility, but only libertinism. Does feminism support all of these things within the right for women to choose what to do with their own bodies? No, of course not, because aborticide is not about a woman’s choice of what to do with her own body. Want more evidence? See for yourself.bg
• Aborticide is not about a woman’s right to decide what to do with her body
With a late term pregnancy a woman’s control over her body is no longer a factor – she has already given up control to the pregnancy. Her body is already conformed to the pregnancy, so the choice about her body has already been long since taken. Her breasts have begun producing milk. Her body has grown to accommodate her little subhuman slave. It is now a choice between a live birth and an aborted death. The woman’s body is now irrelevant to the choice at hand. Neither an aborticide nor a birth can turn back the clock on the decision she made to progress with the pregnancy to late term. Her body is the same whether she aborts or gives birth. Whatever her decision, she is still looking at the very same months of recovery for her body from the pregnancy back to her normal physique. The sole feminist argument of choice in regard to her body no longer applies, but the fact that feminists insist it still does is actually very revealing. It tells us that, in fact, the supposed right to an aborticide in principle is not about a woman’s body. If it was they would cease their claim in the case of a late term pregnancy where the choice about the woman’s body has long since been made to continue with the pregnancy to late term. The reason they cling to their fallacious claim of a supposed decision about their body even in a late term pregnancy is that their real desire is the right to decide life and death over their little subhuman slave. It is no longer their body they are concerned with – that decision was made months ago. It is the inconvenience of their little subhuman slave becoming a fully developed and independent human baby with its own rights. When you have only two scenarios – early to mid term, and late term – where one is an exception that breaks your principle, you no longer have a principle. So without the argument in principle being about the woman’s right to decide about her body, it now becomes evident that the only right that they are demanding that applies in both early to mid term, and late term pregnancies is that of the choice of life or death for their little subhuman slave. The right the feminists claim is the right of slavery – the right to decide life and death is their consistent principle of choice, not a decision about the woman’s body.
But if the purpose of the aborticide is simply to terminate the pregnancy why does a viable late term fetus have to die? A normal gestation period is 37 weeks, but fetuses can be successfully delivered in as few as 21 weeks. Instead of an aborticide the delivery can be induced and the baby adopted out. The mother need never see the baby. NOTHING changes in regard to her body than if she had an aborticide where the fetus was terminated. And if not an induced delivery why not a Caesarean section? Surgical scars are less visible than ever and C-section scars are below the bikini line. 25% of American pregnancies end in a C-section. [4an2cvu] Why can’t 25% of American aborticides end with a C-section? Why must late term aborticides end with a dead fetus when they could just as easily be delivered alive and then adopted out. Here’s why, black American neighbor. Because aborticide is NOT about a woman’s right to decide about her own body. It is about her right to decide whether her little slave lives or dies – the authoritarianism and libertinism of slavery. Don’t believe me? Read this: [*c2bss6x] Aborticide is little more than pre-delivery execution for the slave master’s convenience (and now they want to include post-delivery).bh
• Yankee father versus Confederate mother
It is no different with so-called “gender equality” rights. Feminists claim to be champions of gender equality – except for the decision of aborticide. In this case they turn their precious principle on its head and claim the supreme right to decide the fate of their little subhuman slave with no gender equality for the father. Again this simply illustrates that the so-called principles of feminism are a sham to cover up their desire for sole slave owner rights over their little subhuman slaves. And again, once one introduces exceptions that break a principle, one no longer has a principle. Funny how when feminists discuss issues that only affect each of them individually on a personal level, like workplace opportunities or pay rates, they are all for gender equality. In fact they demand it. But when the issue affects more than one person, like also a father and a child, all of a sudden equality is out of the question. Now what is wrong with this picture, black American neighbor? Liberals are going to tell me that as long as a woman is affected only individually, gender equality is paramount, but if the issue of that same woman affects others, well that changes the story and the others should be completely ignored as if they do not even exist, and that woman should be able to be as selfish as she wishes, even above the objection of the others affected by her decision. What sort of upside down world do liberals live in?!?
The moment the woman singularly decides to have an aborticide is the moment she decides that human rights do not apply to her relationship to her little slave or the father. If the father objects, it is irrelevant. Feminism is just like a rebirth of the Confederacy. That damn Yankee father is trying to order the Confederate mother to let her little slave be free, but the Confederate mother insists that the Yankee father has no say in the disposition of her little slave. The Confederacy claims state’s slave rights – “choice” over her little slave, and in today’s civil war over slavery, the Confederacy has won the most important battle so far – Roe v. Wade.bi
• The war on women is actually about a war on children by feminators
Liberals like to claim that pro-life conservatives are conducting a war on women. That is sort of ironic. How many women casualties have you heard about in this war, black American neighbor? I haven’t heard of any, but if we just switch this around a bit, I would suggest it is pro-aborticide liberals who are conducting a war on children:
~Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. … From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred. … Non-Hispanic white women account for 36% of abortions, non-Hispanic black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25% and women of other races for 9%.~ [5wley]
And black children seem to have the highest fatality rate. As of 2010 blacks made up 12.6% of the American population, but accounted for 30% of the child fatalities in this war. And if you don’t think Margaret Sanger’s old racist prejudices are still around, check out the video in the second link: [ejt26, *8u7lzja] The old Confederacy may have lost the Civil War, but the New Confederacy seems to be winning this ‘War On Children’.
I earlier stated that the old Democratic slavers at least saw some value in their slaves, whereas today’s feminator slavers do not. It turns out I was wrong. Some feminators do indeed see a lot of value in their little slaves – or at least the termination of them. It’s called the abortion industry (there’s that feeling of a far-future sci-fi dystopia come back through time again). [*9j3puyz, *24oondq] And if you don’t think racism enters into the aborticide issue have a look at this: [*7g9gbjx]
One last thing in regard to aborticide. Try a search for: >every child a wanted child planned parenthood< You’ll find over one million results. Of course the premise of Planned Parenthood is that mothers who have aborticides don’t want their child so it is best that they be terminated. This is just so much nonsense. Every single child in America is a wanted child. [*64wbdy5] There is not one child who is now aborted who could not have been born into an adopted, loving family. This idea that aborted children must be defined as not wanted is just more of the same old idea that mothers are slaveholders, and their fetuses are nothing more than subhuman slaves to be discarded if desired.bj
• ACORN Slavers
Slavers abound in America mostly as prostitution rings, black American neighbor. In 2009 the liberal group, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) was caught in eight cities with video stings, willing to give advise to what they believed to be prostitution ringleaders of underage girls with tax compliance and evasion, human smuggling, child prostitution and how to deal with the police. [ylat9oa] Of course, Blackshirt liberals across America attempted to defend ACORN, suggesting the videos were “selectively edited” or “heavily edited” (as in this Wikipedia page) as if that somehow exonerated what is plainly in evidence in the videos. Ever watch the news on television, black American neighbor? This may come as a shock to you, but it is “selectively edited” and often “heavily edited”. Otherwise each 15 minute news broadcast would have to be at least four hours long. Sheesh! In fact, I defy you to find a news broadcast that showed all eight sting videos in their entirety. So of course if ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and any other television news broadcasts did not include the full eight videos in each news broadcast about this issue, using liberal standards, we could conclude that they “heavily edited” their news production to mislead their viewers about the videos. (See how nutty liberal thinking is, black American neighbor?)
No criminal action was taken against ACORN over these videos, but none was needed for our purpose (go reread the Liberal Motives are Noble section in #2 Contemporary American Liberalism = Paranoid Delusion, and tell me if you are surprised). The videos amply illustrated that ACORN unethically offered advise to protect and maintain what they could obviously see for themselves to be slavery rings and did not report them to the police as they should have. The fact that most of the ACORN employees recorded were later fired tells you that even ACORN management saw these videos as legitimate. Despite that ACORN was caught red-handed abetting a modern type of slavery, liberals to this day deny it and defend ACORN, but their futile defense could not prevent ACORN from being defunded by the government and its reputation completely delegitimized. The real issue for us is that this liberal organization on multiple occasions through multiple representatives was willing to provide assistance to what was obviously presented to them as slave style prostitution rings. ACORN had been closely allied with the Democratic Party since its inception in 1970 and had been surrounded by corruption stories over the decades. Like I said earlier, if you think the Democratic Party just abandoned the slavery of its past, you are wrong, black American neighbor. They just changed their relationship to it now being through their associated non-governmental organizations (NGOs).bk
• Planned Parenthood Slavers
Need more evidence, black American neighbor? Here’s another NGO closely affiliated with the Democratic Party that also has no quandary about giving helping advise to what was plainly put to them as prostitution slave rings of underage girls. [4py7esp, 4enz7hl] In a series of sting videos Planned Parenthood has been revealed to have been doing virtually the same things that ACORN did, except Planned Parenthood’s advise was about providing aborticide and medical aid to what they were presented as underaged slaves. Of course liberals played the “heavily edited” card again, but then the raw video footage was released for most of the videos – so much for that spin. (And, of course, none of the major television networks played all of the videos in each of their news broadcasts, thus by liberal standards, “heavily editing” their news reports about them.) Liberals then added another twist when claiming that they found evidence of tampering with one segment of one video. Unfortunately for them this backfired. [4bfncmh]
The fact that Planned Parenthood reported the incidents in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder did not mitigate their guilt, but affirmed it. [4rjmo44] They fully admitted that they only reported the incidents because they suspected a “hoax” after noticing a pattern, so they reported the incidents to protect themselves from what they suspected to be a sting operation that they had cataloged over a few days period, not because their own employees abetted what were presented at the time as underage prostitution rings. There are an estimated 300,000 children enslaved in the sex industry in America. [4g72fzq] If planned Parenthood couldn’t be bothered to defend the children they believed to be real in these stings why do you think they would defend real child sex slaves, black American neighbor? What this means is that when a real pimp goes to Planned Parenthood for advice on how to manage his underage slave ring, he too would get the advice, but not likely be reported, because why would a lone incident be suspect of a “hoax” or sting. Apparently only when the top management at Planned Parenthood suspect a multiple incident sting operation over a short period of time do they report these visits to authorities to cover their own butts – not because they care about the children.
How did the Blackshirt liberal media filter respond to this crisis for liberalism? Well of course they circled the wagons. Twenty-nine Blackshirt liberal media members engaged in a conference call to develop a plan on how to spin this story and protect their liberal government funded NGO. [4tpmvoy] Typical liberalism. Apparently they could care less that this organization might actually be aiding and abetting actual child slave rings. Their priority was to preserve the organization from damage that was doing the aiding and abetting, apparently so they could continue aiding and abetting slavers.
In response, Planned Parenthood has apparently fully admitted its guilt with its reaction by ordering a retraining of all staff. [69fpfzg] Think about this, black American neighbor. If they had done nothing wrong in these videos as liberals contend, why would the whole organization need retraining? And tell me this, black American neighbor. Why exactly would the staff need to be trained to respond appropriately to slavery? I would think that any normal person would not need such training. A normal person hearing what these Planned Parenthood staff heard in these sting video meetings would quite naturally be abhorred with the thought of providing any sort of advise or assistance to what to them must have appeared as child slavers. So why are these Planned Parenthood staff so consistently abnormal? The only answer I can think of is that they do not see child slavery as abhorrent because they have been conditioned and trained to think this way. Now, apparently they must be retrained to think like a normal human being. It seems to me that any organization that needs to retrain its whole national staff to react appropriately to examples of child slavery sitting in a chair across from them should be completely dismantled and abolished. Obviously, whoever runs this organization is completely out of touch with a normal reality. Or maybe the training is really only about not getting caught in a sting again. Uh-huh…
Yeah, this was not the first time Planned Parenthood has been caught with these sorts of sting operations. Here is another video sting done in 2010: [*26426by] And here is another sting done in 2010 illustrating that Planned Parenthood targets blacks: [*7g9gbjx] And read this complete dismantling of Planned Parenthood’s pathetic responses to these incidents. [*c6ph7u8] You should not be surprised that Planned Parenthood targets African American neighborhoods with their operations since one of its American founders was Margaret Sanger who was a well known eugenicist who targeted African Americans (for instance, it is unlikely she would have approved of Barack Obama’s birth) and strategized using aborticide to limit their population growth. [*5cz3ts, *6n549fu] The claim that 78% of aborticide clinics in America are in or adjacent to predominantly black neighborhoods is lent credence by the fact that in 2004 African American fetuses were almost five times as likely to be aborted as white fetuses. [643uw8l]bl
• Teacher Union Slavers
It is not that Democrats just believe that one human being (subhuman in their minds) can be owned by another human being. They also believe that one group in society can own another group of subhumans in society. As explained in #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia, in the 1960s the Democratic Party realized the power of turning the NEA into an ally indoctrinating American students into liberalism, supporting the Democratic Party with funding, and providing thousands of eager proselytes as political foot soldiers, so it aligned itself with the union and sold off America’s children to the unions in return. (Guess who the largest contributor to the Democratic Party is, black American neighbor? Yup – the NEA. [yhdw39h]) This enforced slavery to liberalism has been especially hard on inner city neighborhoods where Democrats have fought against any sort of school choice, instead condemning ghetto children to rundown and violence-filled public schools.
We have this incredible illustration of liberal double standards where elitist liberal politicians in the Democratic Party choose to send their own children to elite, private schools, but then deny that choice for black ghetto neighborhoods. [*ygbk549, *yf9hlkn, *9ba4luk, *d8qa466] Because the Democratic Party is beholden to the NEA and other teacher unions for their financial and political ground support, the Democrats actively oppose and block choices of charter, private, religious and specialty schools, or home schooling for ghetto neighborhoods. In effect, the NEA has purchased these neighborhoods from the Democratic Party. For the Democratic Party and the teacher unions these inner city ghettos are nothing more than bartered masses of subhuman puppets to be indoctrinated with liberalism. Especially for inner city neighborhoods, Democrats are perfectly willing to sell out the freedom of school choice for ghetto blacks, to maintain the support of the teacher unions and ensure generation after generation of black liberal voters.bm
• Societal programming by race
Do you think it is any coincidence that inner cities overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party, black American neighbor? Do you think it is because they have received an objective education? Have they freely chosen to vote for all of the failing liberal policies that Democrats enforce on them to keep them on the reservation as with Canada’s natives, poverty stricken, apathetic and implanted with a victimization and entitlement mentality? Do you actually believe that they vote Democrat based on a balanced and informed choice, black American neighbor?
As I write this, it was only a few weeks ago that the national unemployment rate officially hit 10.2%. This is less than a year after President Obama proclaimed that if his $862B stimulus package was implemented that unemployment would not go above 8%. Also, today’s Washington Post has a story reporting on last week’s Bureau of Labor Statistics report:
~ “Joblessness for 16-to-24-year-old black men has reached Great Depression proportions — 34.5 percent in October, more than three times the rate for the general U.S. population.”~[yz8dnwt]
At the same time this week’s Gallup tracking poll (Nov. 16-22 /09) has found that Barack Obama’s approval rate among African Americans is at a jaw dropping 91%! [yhonxoa]
Does this seem rational to you, black American neighbor? Another subsequent Gallup poll has placed Obama’s overall approval rating at 47%, the lowest of any President at this point in the first term of any of the last 12 presidents. [ydezupt] If you think I am incorrect in my assessment that the NEA has purchased the black community from the Democratic Party to indoctrinate them with liberalism, perhaps you could provide a better explanation for a 91% approval rate among blacks with a depression era 34.5% black youth unemployment rate and a record low overall presidential approval rate! Because I sure can’t think of one. Of course, we could argue over the nuance of whether this is simply racial defensiveness or plain old Uncle Tom Syndrome, but either still end up with a thorough and complete programming of liberalism as the root cause.
Update: Read this link for some crucial history of black employment in America. [*cuujchn]bn
• More on teacher union slavers
Need some more evidence, black American neighbor? Let’s go back to the same speech quoted in #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia, by NEA General Counsel Bob Chanin who retired in 2009 after over forty years at the NEA. [6essrb2] He was generous enough in his farewell speech to let us in on the dirty little secret at the NEA. Here is a portion of the conclusion to his speech:
~ “And that brings me to my final and most important point, which is why, at least in my opinion, NEA and its affiliates are such effective advocates.”~
Advocates of what, black American neighbor? From our earlier quote in #4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia, we learned that the NEA’s advocacy is a “liberal social and economic agenda”. And notice, black American neighbor, that his next point is the “most important” of his speech:
~ “Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas, it is not because of the merit of our positions, it is not because we care about children, and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.”~
WOW! Just WOW! Did you get that, black American neighbor? “It is not because of the merit of our positions” – they are not “effective advocates” of liberalism because of its merits. They are not “effective advocates” of liberalism because they “care about children”, and they are not “effective advocates” of liberalism because they have a “vision of a great public school for every child”. So here it is, the most important point in his speech: “NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.” This got a rousing standing ovation. The NEA is about amassing power to advocate liberalism – period! And obviously if given enough control over a segment of society, like the African American community, the 34.5% unemployment and 91% approval numbers prove that they are extremely effective at it. In fact, now in October of 2010 black teen unemployment has risen to a staggering 49%! [8oq9fvo] That means that one out of every two black teenagers who desires a job can’t find one. Read this article and weep, black American neighbor. This is what the liberalism of the Democratic Party has done to your race. You know where most of these unemployed kids end up – drugs, gangs, penitentiaries and morgues, and it is little different for African American men. Today, May 12, 2011 a new record has been set for the lowest employment participation rate of black men in the population since this statistic was first measured in 1972. [3eo9uhm]bo
• Teaching is not about 123s & ABCs – its about advocating liberalism
You probably thought that public education was predominantly about teaching children ABCs and 123s, black American neighbor liberal. It is not that at all. It is about advocating liberalism, plain and simple. They are “effective advocates” of their “liberal social and economic agenda” because of their “power”. That power is at least partly derived through its purchasing of inner city neighborhoods from the Democratic Party like an 1800s slaver buying slaves at a town square auction. By advocating liberalism in the classroom, and financially supporting liberal Democrats, and providing ground troops for their campaigns, they exchange these for a protection racket preventing inner city communities from abandoning the NEA’s deliberately failing inner city public school systems. It is therefore no longer so much a public education system as it is a public indoctrination system, or more plainly, a public slave system. [5rtr4ss]
Just get this straight, black American neighbor. The Democratic Party is no friend of minorities. They talk a good game, but their results say otherwise, and their purpose is otherwise. They don’t want informed and independently successful citizens making rational choices. This is antithetical to liberalism and Democrat power. This is why they sold you off to the NEA. They want complacent subhumans who know their place – on the reserve (in the ghetto). They expect 91% support even with atrocious results that have FAILURE written all over them. [*28qw9v3]
So how’s that “hope and change” thingy working for you, black American neighbor? What are you getting back for your 91% approval rating of Barack Obama? A 49% black teen unemployment rate of failure. Do you think the white liberal establishment really cares? Read this and see how much they care: [*6y77m2r, *7tll58y] Then read the second link and tell me how much liberalism has improved education for black kids.bp
• Labor trafficking slavers
One last thing in regard to current slavery in America. What do you think illegal immigrants are, black American neighbor? They are enslaved outside the protection of the law. When some illegal immigrant is employed under the table at sub par wages with no legalized benefits, what exactly would you call that? I’d call it a type of slavery. Liberals defend illegal immigration. In effect, they defend that type of slavery, because it is endemic to illegal immigration. [d75lsze]bq
• The Democratic Party wants loyal little puppies
Just get this straight, black American neighbor. The Democratic Party is no friend of minorities. They talk a good game, but their results say otherwise, and their purpose is otherwise. Read this: [*brc78ol] They don’t want informed and independently successful citizens making rational choices. That is antithetical to liberalism and Democrat power. They want loyal little puppies that eagerly come running at every election call. They want complacent children who know their place – on the reserve. Ask yourself this, black American neighbor: Do you want American black communities to end up like Canada’s native communities with issues like self-enforced segregation, chronic unemployment, few business opportunities, gangs, rampant incarceration rates, an epidemic rate of homelessness, and hand sanitizer being considered a dangerous substance abuse problem? Oh – my bad. You already have those things like chronic unemployment, few business opportunities, gangs, rampant incarceration rates and an epidemic rate of homelessness, except that you substitute ghettos for reserves and home-made meth made from common drugstore items for hand cleaner. [sigh…]
Here is something new – brought to you by Barack Obama:
~The average African-American family is poorer than the average family in India. … Black Americans’ median net worth is less than 5 percent that of white Americans. By way of comparison, black South Africans under apartheid had a median net worth about 6.8 percent that of white South Africans.~
Compared to whites in America Blacks have:
~Twice the unemployment, twice the high-school dropouts, four times the abortions, four times the HIV, seven times the prison sentences, twelve times the babies born with congenital syphilis, fourteen times the murder victims, and nineteen times the gonorrhea.~ [*k9o3d7o] [72a]
How’s that loyalty to the Democrat Party working out for you, black American neighbor? And if you think the liberal grassroots movement is any better than the Democratic Party, think again. The 2011 Netroots Nation in Minneapolis, Minnesota, comprised of a young, liberal, tech savy demographic was 97% Caucasian. Yup – 97% white. [6hd2fgs] Are you awakened to this, black American neighbor? Both Democrats and liberal grassroots take you for granted and aren’t really interested in your concerns. Want more? These young white liberals are much more likely to be racist than the population at large. It has been found that people who participate on Twitter, text message and communicate political opinions via social networks are much more likely to be shallow thinkers and racists. Guess who dominates Twitter, text messaging and social networks? Yup, young, white liberals – the same young, white liberals that attend Netroots Nation, for instance. [c2zkyqx, cy2uj96, bfy5ygm, cjtjyjc, 9pdlqg7]
Malcolm X saw it all coming. He called the black community a “political chump” for climbing into bed with the Democratic Party.[*o6mu2jl]
~According to census data, from 1890 to 1940, said economist Walter Williams, a black child was slightly more likely to grow up with married parents than a white child. What happened? … When President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty in 1965, 24 percent of black babies were born to unmarried mothers. Today that number is 72 percent. Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said in 2008: “Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves.”~
Update November 12, 2014: In Ferguson, Missouri of August, 2014 policeman Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown in self defense. Brown was black and a couple of witnesses initially claimed that Brown was in the process of giving up when Wilson, who is white, shot him. Numerous other witnesses and forensic evidence contradict that claim. Brown initially attacked Wilson and then attempted to escape. When Wilson ordered him to stop Brown again attacked Wilson, and Wilson shot him dead. How would the KKK of a hundred years ago have handled such a situation, in reverse? They would have done essentially what black activists are doing today. These black activists along with liberal cheerleaders across the country wanted to string Wilson up. They couldn’t do that so they trashed the neighborhood where the incident happened. The KKK would have approved. And now that the grand jury is more than likely about to exonerate Darren Wilson, these new KKK activists are going to again trash the same neighborhood, just as the old KKK would have done a hundred years ago.br
• Deprogramming lessons
Where does all of this lead? In fact, the irony is that natives in Canada portray themselves as a separate nation within a nation. This truly is the definition of racism. They claim that because of their race they need not contribute productively to the country, but instead demand that the country take care of them. In their superiorist outlook they see themselves as the “keepers of the land”, a fairy tale view where they are the only ones (because of their superior race) who legitimately have the last say in how land should be used in Canada. They think that as a race natives have a greater connection to the land than any persons of other races simply because many of them cling to primitive lifestyles of fishing, hunting and trapping for sustenance. I can think of no other group of people in Canada or the U.S.A. that so flagrantly flaunt their racism (and are defended and applauded by liberals for it).
I hope you can truly see where you stand in this debate – not with liberals. Time to make a choice, black American neighbor. Is it not obvious that at the center of your being you are not a liberal? Want more evidence? Watch this: [*29as4u2, aymldgo] Want to see more ZoNation? Try the second link.
Keeping blacks on the reserve is all about the first three liberal principles: Blacks have been conditioned to think things are better with liberalism while most of them go nowhere and are kept in a bondage to poverty: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning. Blacks are so afraid of separating from the herd they will actually defend going nowhere with liberalism: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. Of course, this takes an immense amount of playing stupid – liberals are blind about their slavery to American liberalism of this very day: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. That way no one will realize the failure of liberalism in regard to minorities: Contemporary liberalism is rife with unintended consequences. Of course these failures are defended vociferously: A contemporary liberal’s honorable motives and noble fight against contemporary conservatism excuses all liberal failures and indiscretions. But for anyone who cares to look, the failures of liberalism can be plainly seen: Self-interest and critical thinking are enemies of contemporary liberal groupthink. If black liberals only cared to look: Contemporary liberalism relies on a programmed, instinct-like scoff reflex to preserve itself from the consequences of critical thinking. The Democrat Party sees the African American community as no more than helpless children: Contemporary liberalism views society as generally incompetent and in need of the guiding hand of a controlling government. Liberalism teaches minorities to stay on the reserve with a chip on their shoulder and an excuse for their failings: The essence of contemporary liberalism is that the individual is blameless and society is always guilty. No doubt utopia is right around the corner. [/sarcasm] How else could a liberal sleep at night? For contemporary liberals superficial rationalization is always the first and final element in their ideological line of thought.
Our first MCTE question was: “Which provides a person with more liberty to direct their own life – defending a status quo attitude which provides no opportunity for improvement, or leaving behind the status quo and moving on?” Ready to move on, black American neighbor? The second MCTE question was: “Oh and one more question – do you think slavery in America is only a part of history?” Obviously the answer is no. Today’s liberalism is all about slavery to the collective.
• Deprogramming exercise
The deprogramming exercise for this essay is to read these two links, a comparison between the histories of the Republican and Democratic Parties: [*bp6koj5, *3hoz25] And watch these twelve excellent videos on the history of blacks in America (mouseover the titles to find the video numbers): [*8ku7q4a]
Update: Now in October of 2013, Barack Obama has been president for almost five years. Tavis Smiley is a very liberal black activist. Here is his “forthright” assessment of how African Americans have fared under Obama:
~ “The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category. On that regard, the president ought to be held responsible.”~ [ledccoo]
Update: If you read only one link in this essay make it this one black American neighbor: [*pe8aqk5]bt
• Humor, sort-of
Our end of essay humor is both funny and sad. How can a representative of the people make such crazy statements in the house of the people to, I guess, justify the victimhood of African Americans? Truly an example of the liberal principle: Contemporary liberalism is absurd.
In a 1995 speech on the House floor Major Owens (D-NY) apparently without any intended humor flatly stated that 200 million slaves (“a very conservative number”) were thrown overboard from the slave ships transporting slaves to America from Africa over a period of 200 years, supposedly altering the ecology of the ocean to where sharks even to this day follow ships along the same route hoping for a free meal. Even the few present in the House snickered their response: [482olst, 4z78fjd] But what is really funny (and revealing) is that ABC reported Owen’s claims as unquestionable fact. Do you need any more evidence than this that when it comes to the issue of race the orthodox media are nothing more than sycophantic bootlickers for the Democratic Party?