#18 Neoracism – Liberalism’s New Bigotry


Essay #18


Nuclear Counterarguments

22-Essay Series


A Reference Library

On Liberalism

Capsule: #18 Neoracism – Liberalism’s New Bigotry exposes liberalism as the ideology of the bully. Liberals use the accusation of racism to demagogically bully their opposition in the same way the slavers of old put down African Americans as subhuman. This is the new bigotry of an old attitude.

Liberalism’s New Bigotry Is the Accusation of Bigotry


Focus: A racist is defined as prejudiced – pre-judging someone as inferior based on the color of their skin. What should we call pre-judging someone as a racist based on their political party or ideology?

Details: #18 Neoracism – Liberalism’s New Bigotry is about a new societal prejudice that has infected America. Plain old racism as a predominant fixture in American society is over. It has been over for about three decades. Its predominance has been replaced with a new type of racism – neoracism. Neoracism is overt, blatant and unashamed. It can be witnessed almost everyday on TV. Liberal politicians and operatives spray it around like Al Capone gangsters with machine guns. They hope to bloody everyone within their range of fire.

Excerpts: ~In the late sixties black civil rights leaders were wooed into the Democratic Party with promises of political influence and financial support. Many of these leaders abandoned the moral code of Martin Luther King and allowed themselves to be bought off. In doing so they sold out the black community whom they purported to represent, to a new kind of slavery – slavery to the state and a new attitude of bigotry. Liberal white Democrats and the new mob boss, black civil rights leaders (post Martin Luther King) became the ‘new’ racists. The old white Democrat racism of negative discrimination based on race became a new kind of racism where race would be used as a political weapon. The prefix for new is ‘neo’, so here we are birthing a new term to encapsulate this new strategy of the old, white Democratic Party – ‘neoracism’. Neoracism is ideological – a vile, hateful bigotry every bit as much as racism is. … Neoracism is more of an umbrella term than plain old racism. First of all, it is reverse discrimination. It is a justification for using race to discriminate against whites as a type of revenge for past wrongs, or a promotion of a minority without accompanying merit – affirmative action. … Second, just as original racism was maliciousness directed against innocent blacks, neoracism is also a maliciousness directed against innocent whites where they are accused of racism minus any evidence, simply to tarnish their reputation. Third, it is about keeping the African American community on the reservation, the reservation being a protection racket erected by the Democratic Party. Who are they protecting African Americans from? Why of course, evil, racist Republicans. How convenient.~

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.]

Contents – Essay #18

Mini critical thinking exercise  Defining Racism  Birth of the ‘race industry’  A synopsis of the history of racism in America  Liberalism also birthed a new kind of racism  Race as a demagogic political tool  Neoracism  Extensive list of Republican racial incidents [/sarcasm]  Textbook neoracism – Blackshirts attack the Tea Party!  Four kinds of slaves – then & now  Dumbing down American blacks  Duke University lacrosse players – victims of neoracism  Hillary Clinton – victim of neoracism  Rush Limbaugh – victim of neoracism  Andrew Breitbart – victim of neoracism  By liberal reasoning every Democrat who has praised FDR should resign  Liberal double standards on racism – yawn…  Poll exonerates Tea Party of racism  Caveat on polls  Blackshirt – the devolution of an alpha’s alpha  First step of devolution – imagines ‘some’ racism  Second step of devolution – imagines ‘more’ racism  Third step of devolution – imagines ‘groups’ of racists  Fourth step of devolution – imagines a ‘movement’ of racists  Dog pack neoracism  George Zimmerman – victim of neoracism  Update on neoracism against George Zimmerman  Deprogramming lessons  Neoracism has replaced racism as the number one bigotry in America  Deprogramming exercise  Humor, sort-of


Nuclear Counterarguments 22-Essay Series

Nuclear Counterarguments

Essays Preview Page (Intros to all 22 essays)

Go Directly to Essays:

#1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments

#2 Contemporary American Liberalism = Paranoid Delusion

#3 Groupthink Truths Versus Self-evident Truths

#4 Benevolent Utopia or Tyrannical Dystopia

#5 Bouncing Around Inside a Liberal’s Head

#6 Tyranny Versus Liberty

#7 Finally! A Scale of Ideologies that Makes Sense

#8 The Not So Surprising History of Tax Cuts

#9 Liberals Are the Compassionate Ones – Really?

#10 Regulamageddon – The 2008 Financial Crisis

#11 Austerity Versus Stimulus – What Is the History?

#12 Can Governance Indicators Tell You Who Governs Best? Absolutely!

#13 Government Healthcare – One Giant Death Panel

#14 Liberal Demagoguery, Hate and Violence – A Compendium

#15 A Liberal Love Letter to Conservatives

#16 Palinoia and the Dumbest Politician of Oll

#17 Slavery In America – Past and Present

You are here:

#18 Neoracism – Liberalism’s New Bigotry

#19 Disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory

#20 Global Warming – Just Another Liberal Apocalypse Scenario (yawn)

#21 Unethical Liberalism Versus Ethical Oil

#22 The Quiet Funeral of “Bush Lied – Thousands Died!”

Essay #18aa

Written in first-person narrative to liberals,

but also for conservatives.


• Mini critical thinking exercise


Lynching – Wikipedia:

~Lynching is extra judicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake and shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people, however large or small.~

In #14 Liberal Demagoguery, Hate and Violence – A Compendium, we examined a Blackshirts liberal lynch mob (called lynchers) attempting to carry out an ideological execution of Sarah Palin with the 2011 Arizona murders. Here we will examine the same Blackshirts lynch mob on a much wider scale.

Our MCTE question is: “What is the name of the largest gang in America?”ab

• Defining Racism


So what exactly is racism, black American neighbor? Adding an ‘ism’ suffix to a noun gives it an action. The noun ‘race’ as a description of a human quality becomes an action based on that human quality – racism. In generic terms it would simply mean doing something based on race, but of course, it is never used simply this way. In real terms racism refers to an overtly negative discrimination based on race. This is how white Democrats have seen and treated African Americans for centuries – racism as a negative discrimination based on race.

Let’s examine what it is to be a racist, but let’s do it in a chronological order from the founding of the country. Racism of that time consisted of slavery. Whites saw blacks as subhuman and used them as work animals, buying and selling them like cattle, and killing them if they became unproductive through illness or rebellion. Racism meant complete and utter subjugation. After the Republicans freed the slaves, and then Democrats reversed their civil rights gains, racism in America became watered down to a certain extent and evolved from subjugation into segregation. Blacks were no longer treated like cattle, but instead were treated like dogs. They could participate in some parts of society, but were banned from other parts. Overt disdain by whites of blacks was not uncommon, and overt prejudice in education and employment were the norm. By the late, mid twentieth century, segregation had been officially abolished in society and was mostly a reality. Martin Luther King became the focal point for racial equality. Racism evolved again from segregation to an opposition to equality, known as discrimination.ac

• Birth of the ‘race industry’


Post Martin Luther King the ‘race industry’ was born. The purpose of the race industry became to replace negative discrimination with positive racial preference. Racism had been flipped on its head. Martin Luther King’s message of equality was abandoned for a new demagogic tool. Racism would be labeled as opposing preferential treatment (affirmative action) for African Americans. Parallel to this development came the demonizing of opposition to liberalism as racism. Quite simply, conservatism became considered as equal to racism by a large proportion of liberalism, but only recently racism has evolved again. By today’s new standards racism is when a white man disagrees with a black President on a political issue and says so. Preference has now evolved into superiority. A black President is considered so superior by liberals that to criticize him for any reason is now considered racism. What’s next – white segregation? Oops – that already exists. Just look at Congress for an example. The Congressional Black Caucus allows no white members. These sort of segregation policies have sprouted up throughout society. Whites segregating blacks is considered racism, but blacks segregating whites is considered progressive. Martin Luther King had a dream. The civil rights movement has delivered a nightmare.ad

• A synopsis of the history of racism in America



Series Introduction


Alternatives for Broken Links


This essay:

300-word pages of text = 59

Reference citation links = 44

Recommended-reading links = 54

Profound insights = 29


Cover photo: Cover photo: U.S. Department of Energy photograph XX-36 APACHE

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.

Let me give you a synopsis of racism over the centuries: 1. First it was subjugation – slavery. 2. Then racism ‘progressed’ into segregation – the Jim Crow laws. 3. The next step was ‘mere’ discrimination – prior to Martin Luther King. 4. Then there was the noble impartiality espoused by Martin Luther King – equality (too bad it couldn’t stay there). 5. His death was the tipping point where equality was turned into racial preferences – the beginning of race as a demagogic weapon. Opposition to affirmative action became the new racism. 6. Next, whites were segregated out from newly created black organizations where an equivalent white organization that segregated out blacks would be labeled as racist. 7. Then any ideological opposition to liberalism became a basis for an accusation of racism – an even more sophistic demagoguery. 8. And racism’s pinnacle is now supremacism. A liberal black President is considered untouchable by liberals, but again, this is for demagogic purposes only. If Obama’s usefulness to the Democratic Party diminishes so will his position as untouchable. Then even Democrats will, by their own definition become racists, criticizing their own black President. Some already have – in fact the Democratic Black Caucus has already whined about Obama ignoring the soaring unemployment in the black community. This whole idea that criticizing Obama’s policies is an act of racism can easily be illustrated as playing stupid. It is sort of like psychogump-talk for race-baiters. If criticizing Obama’s policies is racism, then why isn’t criticizing Sarah Palin misogyny, or in the current vernacular, a war on women?

Racism is about inferiority where one class of people considers another class as inferior. The Democratic Party, as the original class of racists have simply evolved their racism over the centuries to fit the current social climate. The Democratic Party has always used racism to its advantage and still does. Quite simply, the Democratic Party has and always will be the party of racism. If you have not yet watched the twelve videos about American black history in the previous essay’s Deprogramming Exercise I recommend you do so now before going any further. You need to understand history to understand present-day America (mouseover the titles to find the video numbers): [*8ku7q4a]ae

• Liberalism also birthed a new kind of racism


Along with the contemporary liberalism of the sixties was born this new kind of racism, black American neighbor. It is not like the simple, old racism where white Democrats just casually viewed African Americans and other minorities as inferior. The sixties brought many changes to society and one major change was the maturation of the African American civil rights movement. This led to a significant shift in societal thinking where white Americans en mass accepted that African Americans should be granted the same rights as whites (this was the definitive end to the one hundred years of official segregation and discrimination the Democrats had imposed with the Jim Crow laws in response to Republicans freeing the slaves). As illustrated in the #17 Slavery In America – Past and Present, it was the Republicans that fought the resistant Democrats to implement the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but the Republicans did not directly ally themselves with the African American community, just as they had never directly allied themselves to the Italian American community, or Irish Americans or Hispanic Americans or German Americans, etc. The Republican Party’s goal was simply to open the door to equal opportunity for African Americans – the same opportunity as all other ethnic and racial groups enjoyed.

The old, white, racist Democratic Party was in jeopardy of being left behind by these societal changes. They could see that the ‘good ole days’ of overt racial prejudice were waning and that this development demanded a new strategy. So they made a sea change with the political calculation that they could ally themselves with the civil rights movement and use it to their advantage, and still keep blacks on the reservation (or in vernacular of the Democratic slaveholder days, on the plantation).af

• Race as a demagogic political tool


This was a two-pronged approach. First was to saddle up to the black community with promises of racial preference programs (affirmative action) and welfare programs (covert state slavery). Second was to position Republicans as racists when they opposed these actions. It was a sly maneuver dripping with deceit and hypocrisy. Republicans had always been for equality and against negative discrimination, but they had never advocated racial preferences, which would inevitably end up as reverse discrimination and a prolonging of societal racial animosity (which it has). The Democrats, being new contemporary liberals who possessed no guilt or shame, had no compunction about using racial division as a demagogic political tool. Racial preferences would be the new wedge issue Democrats would use to demonize Republicans into being perceived as the new villains attempting to keep the black community down, and of course the Democrats would be the new heroes, fighting this supposed evil racism of the Republicans, meanwhile, providing single mother welfare designed to break up the black family in order to enslave them to the government and the Democratic Party.

The Democrats had not changed their attitude toward African Americans – they still saw them as inferior. In the sixties white Democrats saw the political disadvantage of continuing to overtly treat African Americans as subhuman, and the tremendous advantage of playing up to African Americans for their votes instead, and demonizing Republicans with race baiting. Race baiting or playing the race card is where racism is implied in an opponent’s motives. It is where an accusation of being a racist is used as a demagogic weapon to discredit an opponent and shut down dialog. Basically it is a classic sign of a losing argument, where a liberal knows his side of the debate is lost and is forced into a last resort scenario. Then out comes the accusation, “Racist!” Of course the fact that this last resort scenario is so often utilized tells you how often liberals are on the losing side of arguments.ag

• Neoracism


In the late sixties black civil rights leaders were wooed into the Democratic Party with promises of political influence and financial support. Many of these leaders abandoned the moral code of Martin Luther King and allowed themselves to be bought off. In doing so they sold out the black community whom they purported to represent, to a new kind of slavery – slavery to the state and a new attitude of bigotry. Liberal white Democrats and the new mob boss, black civil rights leaders (post Martin Luther King) became the ‘new’ racists. The old white Democrat racism of negative discrimination based on race became a new kind of racism where race would be used as a political weapon. The prefix for new is ‘neo’, so here we are birthing a new term to encapsulate this new strategy of the old, white Democratic Party – ‘neoracism’. Neoracism is ideological – a vile, hateful bigotry every bit as much as racism is.

Neoracism is more of an umbrella term than plain old racism. First of all, it is reverse discrimination. [*4ey7yoy] It is a justification for using race to discriminate against whites as a type of revenge for past wrongs, or a promotion of a minority without accompanying merit – affirmative action. Also attached to this aspect of neoracism is what is commonly known as “the soft bigotry of low expectations” where minorities are excused for failure or indiscretion simply for being a minority. (An example of this was Barack Obama elected as President. He was secretive, corrupt, unaccomplished, unintelligent, and associated with dozens of nefarious scoundrels, but was excused of these deficiencies because of the color of his skin. America is paying the price for this neoracism to this day.) Second, just as original racism was maliciousness directed against innocent blacks, neoracism is also a maliciousness directed against innocent whites where they are accused of racism minus any evidence, simply to tarnish their reputation. Third, it is about keeping the African American community on the reservation, the reservation being a protection racket erected by the Democratic Party. [*ygzwcmd] Who are they protecting African Americans from? Why of course, evil, racist Republicans. How convenient. So we find that the major tactic of neoracism is to demonize straw men opponents as racist regardless of any lack of evidence. This is nothing more than the liberal noble lie strategy based on race. This aspect of neoracism is meant to place a price too high to pay for not being liberal. So if a white person wants to be a conservative the price they must pay is being labeled a racist by liberals, and if black person wishes to be a conservative the price they must pay is being labeled Uncle Toms, Aunt Jemimas, Oreo Cookies and other derogatory names – all for not being a good little groupthink liberal. And thirdly, neoracism is about plain old partisan politics as Mary Frances Berry so candidly explains in an email to Politico: [*9fumxtw]ah

• Extensive list of Republican racial incidents [/sarcasm]


Tell me this, black American neighbor. Name for me the racial incidents of the last twenty years generated by Republicans that equate with what Democrat racism has done. Where are the lynchings? Where are the bombings? Where are the race riots? Where have they sent dogs after blacks and turned fire hoses on them? Who are these racist Republicans the Democrats keep referring to? Were they the ones who supported placing a black Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court? Were they the ones who supported the appointment of a black Condoleezza Rice to the Secretary of State position? Were they the ones that supported the previous appointment of a black Colin Powell to the same position and earlier to that of the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Were they the ones who voted for a black Michael Steele as chairman of the Republican National Committee? Were they the Republicans that supported Herman Cain? (Most of Cain’s support was in the South.) Are they the majority of white Republicans who voted in those minority candidates mentioned at the beginning of the last essay? Just who are these racist Republicans? Are they the Republicans that oppose a black Barack Obama? Is that the new definition of racism? Well if it is, then there are an awful lot of racist Democrats who opposed Thomas, Rice, Powell, Steele and Cain, and supported Hillary Clinton against Obama in the primaries. No, black American neighbor, opposing Barack Obama is not racism, but making such a neoracist accusation is the equivalence of racism. When Blackshirt liberals throw accusations of racism around like rotten tomatoes they are displaying their own neoracism. It is the apex of liberal demagoguery – a dirty, vile political tactic, the spawn of a bankrupt liberal ideology that cannot be defended with substantive argument – progressive-fascism.ai

• Textbook neoracism – Blackshirts attack the Tea Party!


Here is a classic example that will go down in infamy as the textbook case of neoracism. For months Blackshirt liberals had been attempting to prove that the conservative Tea Party movement was supposedly based on racism. Yeah, they found some kook in Texas with an obnoxious sign who claimed to be a Tea Party leader, but it turned out he had no followers and the local Tea Partiers were having nothing to do with him. [yefy2db] Frustrated with a complete lack of evidence to illustrate the supposed racism of the Tea Party movement, three black Democratic congressmen decided to take matters into their own hands and manufacture some evidence. At the height of the healthcare debate Tea Party protesters went to Washington DC to object to passage of the bill. As the three congressmen, noted sixties civil rights leader John Lewis, Andre Carson and (supposedly – more later) Emanuel Cleaver exited the House office buildings they claimed that they were called the n-word 15 times. Here is an interview Rep. Carson gave shortly afterward, (the audio link can be found at the beginning of the text of the interview): [*y7h8nxv] He claimed that he heard the n-word “at least 15 times” when exiting the Cannon House Office Building “walking down the steps”. Lewis and Cleaver both confirm they too heard the n-word used multiple times. Carson claimed that he expected rocks to be thrown and that the Capital Police had to surround them. Of course the liberal orthodox media were salivating for just such an occurrence and ran with the story for days afterward, but investigative journalist and blogger Andrew Breitbart offered to donate $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if anyone could produce a video of the n-word being used at the Cannon building. The Tea Party Federation sent a letter to the Congressional Black Caucus requesting their evidence for the accused incident. [7cybpj7]

No confirming evidence has been forthcoming (Breitbart did not need to pay out on his $100,000 offer). Indeed Breitbart has produced a montage of videos from the moment that the supposed three congressmen exited the Cannon building. [Hat tip BigGovernment.com *2e5v9pa] Here’s another one: [*6yfd2hm] They conclusively prove that the n-word was not used by the crowd at the time claimed by these congressmen. The Capitol Police are not shown to have been “surrounding” and “protecting” the congressmen. There was no evidence of anyone holding or threatening to throw “rocks”. Where would they have gotten the rocks from? All I can see is concrete, pavement and grass. Did the Tea Partiers bring sledge hammers to break up the sidewalks for rocks to throw at the congressmen? Congressman Carson says he wasn’t scared because he was a “former cop” – or wasn’t it really because there was nothing of which to be afraid? He should apologize to all policemen for hiding his lies behind the badge to support this vicious fabrication. He should specifically apologize to the Capitol Police for using them as imaginary shields in his fabricated story.

Why haven’t the Congressional Black Caucus produced any videos supporting their allegations? Why haven’t they found the Capitol Police who supposedly witnessed all of this to testify about this imaginary racism? I saw only one officer apparently keeping people off the streets and another escorting the congressmen across the street, evidently to stop traffic. Neither were guarding against rock throwing. Who is the black man in a suit with a video camera at the bottom of the steps? Where is his video? He obviously was not a Tea Party protester – no one wears a black suit with an ID card, dragging around a roller briefcase to a protest on a warm afternoon. Was he a staffer planted by the congressmen to get video of what they anticipated would be a racist incident? Guess it didn’t work – his video has never surfaced. What about the man in a light suit following the congressmen out of the Cannon building who Rep. Carson identified as Rep. Lewis’ chief of staff? Why haven’t we heard from him? Will he lie for them? Who is the white-haired Caucasian man in a black suit following the congressmen out of the Cannon building? Where is his testimony? Nowhere that I have seen. Would he too lie for them?

Rep. Cleaver claimed that he was walking a few yards behind Lewis and said “It was a chorus,” referring to the supposed use of the n-word. But here their stories get even more convoluted. In fact, Cleaver wasn’t even at the Cannon House Office Building when Lewis and Carson exited. See for yourself, black American neighbor: [*2ajufbp] Then a year later this lying neoracist Cleaver has the audacity to plea for civility: [*45bsyqd]

Ending his column in which he first presents his video montage Breitbart rhetorically asks himself about John Lewis, “Are you calling a civil rights legend a liar?” He answers with, “Unfortunately, I am.” [7k69ydq] Here is how I would have answered that same question: “No, I am calling a neoracist a liar.” Lewis may have at some time in the past been an authentic civil rights “legend”, but it is obvious he has long since gone over to the dark side of neoracism, and you can see in this video that he has been using outrageous demagoguery for a long time: [*64wqug6] All three congressmen are lying, smearing, bottom feeding neoracists – and dumb ones to boot. Did they actually think their fantasy story could hold water with video cell phones everywhere these days?!? These three men should have been kicked out of caucus and hounded out of office, but they are liberals, and their party is liberal, so their indiscretion can be ignored – after all, their motives were honorable and they were fighting evil Tea Partiers. [/sort of sarcasm]

John Lewis is an example of just how individually destructive liberalism can be even for those with a noble past and reputation. A once notably great champion of the civil rights movement has been reduced to fabricating charges of racism to score political points – progressive-fascism. Textbook neoracism like this is nothing less than a slippery con game. Neoracists are the new Jim Crow supporters, attempting to categorize white conservatives as subhuman racists that can be safely despised, ignored and segregated out of the discussion of national issues. Neoracists prejudge white conservatives just as white Democrat racists have prejudged black Americans for hundreds of years. I am sure these black congressmen will accuse any critics of what they have done as being racist, but this would be just more evidence of their own neoracist attitude. They have been caught red-handed – what else have they got but to use more neoracism to defend themselves? [*8xv86vu] (Of course they could always own up and apologize, but that would require some guilt and/or shame, and being liberals, either would be pretty hard to come by.)aj

• Four kinds of slaves – then & now


Democrats naturally respond that it is Republican blacks like Thomas, Rice, Powell, Steele and Cain that are Aunt Jemimas and Uncle Toms. Oh really? Each one is well qualified for the jobs they have received, and each one has received authority over and above that of the African American community. This does not fit the Uncle Tom definition of subservience. As we learned previously, the Uncle Tom Syndrome is submissiveness to a threat. Show me the evidence that illustrates that they have received power for acquiescing to a threat. Better yet, show me how the Republican Party has any power over them to begin with. In fact, these black conservatives have shown considerable bravery, knowing that they would have to survive the schoolyard taunts of Blackshirt liberals.

Let’s put this all in perspective, black American neighbor. There were four kinds of slaves. First there were the regular Field Slaves. They lived their lives as subordinates and did the master’s bidding. Next were the so-called Aunt Jemimas and the Uncle Toms. They subordinated themselves even more than the regular slaves, acting more as pets. Often they were House Slaves who did the cooking and maintenance in the master’s home. Then there were the Plantation Overseers, and finally there were the Runaway Slaves. All these slave types of old have equivalents related to the modern day Democratic Party. The regular Field Slave equivalents are typical politically ignorant African American liberals who support the Democratic Party because that is all they have ever heard throughout their lives. They are Democratic Party sheeple. They know nothing else and have no real choice, having had their subliminal belief system programmed from early in their life.

~ “There’s an old saying. In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master… exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him.”~ – Singer Harry Belafonte

House Slaves were slaves who ingratiated themselves to their master by beating the Field Slaves, turning in Runaway Slaves, and affirming the justice of the master. [6g9fk3f, 2f5wb] They were often the black overseers that helped the Plantation Overseers (hired white slave managers) keep the rest of the slaves in line. Today the equivalent black overseers are liberals like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Harry Belafonte, Tavis Smiley and Cornel West who sold their souls to the Democratic race machine for political power, influence and money. They are the ones who smear blood from black martyrs of the past on themselves and claim it as their own. Do they have authority over those outside of the African American community? No, neither House Slaves nor black overseers were allowed such power. Their power was and is only over their own. It is African Americans like Thomas, Rice, Powell, Steele and Cain that are the equivalent of the Runaway Slaves. They refuse to agree that the two unequal lines selected by the alpha liberals are equal. As with the Runaway Slaves, they have left the Democratic plantation. For that, the equivalent black overseers of the likes of Jackson, Sharpton and Smiley are sent out to hunt them down and demagogue them as Oreo Cookies (supposedly black on the outside and white on the inside) – progressive-fascism. This is how the black overseers like Jackson, Sharpton and Smiley affirm the justice of their master, the Democratic Party. Here is a prime example of a black overseer going after a Runaway Slave. Liberals especially hate Herman Cain because he exposes their neoracist charges as lies. [*bpohg75, *3vjy8ls]

This sort of demagoguery is not about returning the Runaway Slave to the plantation. It is about making an example of the Runaway through a rhetorical lynching to keep the Field Slaves fearful of leaving the Democratic Party plantation. This is the second job of the Democrat equivalent black overseers – to keep you in line, black American neighbor. Remember, the Uncle Tom Syndrome is when a subject capitulates to a group or a representative of a group that poses a threat. Each liberal group has its aggressive groupthinkers (Blackshirts) and passive groupthinkers. As black aggressive grouthinkers it is the equivalent black overseer’s job to make sure that the regular African American community as a whole (black passive groupthinkers or equivalent Field Slaves) keeps its place as the equivalent Aunt Jemimas and Uncle Toms of the Democratic Party – subservient, submissive and fearful. The beta liberals of the black community must not be allowed to assert their own self-interest by pointing to the two true lines that are equal in length, and are a self-evident truth that liberalism is a fraud. They must be compelled to play stupid and agree with the two unequal lines of liberalism selected by alpha liberals – progressive-fascism.

The third job of the Democratic Party’s equivalent black overseers is to go after corporations and industries. So there are Blackshirt groups like ACORN who shake down banks with protests and boycotts. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are well known for these sort of shakedown tactics. Today’s Democratic equivalent black overseers are the most conspicuous examples of neoracists. Their purpose is to ensure that the appearance of racism is maintained through the use of neoracism as a cattle prod to herd the sheeple of the black community, and as a demagogic weapon to use against any opposition or corporations that are singled out as targets – progressive-fascism.

The fourth job of the Democratic Party’s equivalent black overseers is to be the pointy end of the wedge in framing conservatives and Republicans as racists. This is to keep black beta liberals from ever contemplating that conservatives or Republicans could have any credibility. Setting up Republicans as straw men racists that are supposedly holding back the black community is only part of the strategy of keeping African Americans on the Democratic Party plantation. The second aspect is erecting policies and practices that support that strategy. Neoracism mirrors the goals of liberal utopianism.ak

• Dumbing down American blacks


Liberalism sees a utopian society as a dumbed down society. Too much education poses a threat of good little liberals rejecting liberal groupthink and wandering off the Democratic Party plantation. Here, listen to Michelle Obama:

~ “We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do. Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that.”~

It is one thing to encourage young people to become teachers, social workers and nurses. It is quite another thing to overtly discourage young people from striving to be the best they can be. This is liberalism. Settle for less, don’t strive for more. Liberals need a dumbed down society that is not informed enough to question their groupthink mantras. So get a job where unions can maintain your liberal programming and there is little chance of you wandering off the Democratic Party plantation. Stay away from “corporate America” where you are unsupervised and might end up thinking for yourself. This is the message of Michelle Obama and the equivalent black overseers. And it is certainly working in the African American community. Apparently it is now common for young ghetto blacks to derogatorily refer to getting an education as being ‘white’. [ycejpk6] But it is not race that is the basic problem, it is liberalism. (Read this first link and have your eyes opened. Then read the second link to see Michelle Obama describe what liberalism has done to black youth in America. [*7n3hgdf, *and6u49]) So this is where liberal utopianism and the civil rights leadership of the Democratic Party has led to on race relations – young African Americans now see achieving an education as equivalent to being a racial sellout. Sheesh! Even John Dewey wasn’t aiming so low that ghetto blacks would embrace ignorance as being a requirement for remaining racially pure. These are the true equivalent Aunt Jemimas and Uncle Toms of our age – another unintended consequence that probably has John Dewey rolling over in his grave.

You have been had, black American neighbor. You have been had by liberalism – progressive-fascism. You have been had by the Democratic Party. You have been had by your own supposed civil rights leaders. You have been had by vile political opportunists who cloak themselves in compassion for their own personal and party empowerment. The last thing they want is for African Americans to make it on their own without dependence on them. It is absolutely essential for their empowerment that African Americans not be allowed to think they can run away from the Democratic Party plantation and make a life of their own. It is no different than when I explained about the supposedly stolen tax cuts from the poor. If they really cared they would give the money back. They don’t give the money back because their supposed care is a facade. Their supposed compassion for the poor and their resulting demagoguery of conservatives are just manipulative political tools for their own empowerment. To the Democratic Party, blacks have gone from being subhuman animals whose only value was for their own profit through overt physical slavery, to a subhuman minority group to be manipulated into a self-enforced slavery for the Democratic Party’s political empowerment – progressive-fascism. The difference is that your ancestors didn’t have a choice, black American neighbor. You do.al

• Duke University lacrosse players – victims of neoracism


There is pack neoracism and there is herd neoracism. When a neoracist spearheads an alpha liberal charge claiming he has found racism under this here rock, other neoracist leaders circle the rock and join in on the howling like a pack of wild dogs. Soon the message is picked up by the sheep and the whole herd of beta liberals are nodding their heads in unison on message boards, web page comment sections, Facebook and Twitter.

A classic example of pack neoracism in our age is the case of the white Duke University lacrosse players who were falsely accused of raping a black stripper hired to entertain them at a team party in 2006. It is classic in that it illustrates that neoracism is not restricted to the equivalent black overseers of the Democratic Party. Elite and regular everyday white liberals are every bit as likely to spew neoracism as any black liberal with a chip on his shoulder. Many of the real demagogues in this story turned out to be the “Group of 88” Duke professors (many of whom were white) who signed onto a newspaper advertisement designed to take advantage of the situation to promote their own neoracism. [*46hbta7] It is filled with the same sort of prejudice and guilt by association that used to be debased by liberals as ‘judgmentalism’. Of course, that was before Dewyism’s non-judgmental utopian dream was transformed into judgmentalism is OK as long as it is against a perceived enemy of liberalism – progressive-fascism. The “quotes” in this deliberately stigmatizing and provocative ad are likely not real quotations of real people, but neoracist inventions specifically designed to rile up herd neoracists to the cause. [*5u3hthf] Naturally, the Blackshirts orthodox liberal media played right along as pack neoracists with their own prejudged and manufactured outrage.

Again, black American neighbor, the accuser was proved to be a liar. The players were innocent of all charges, so of course being good liberals, these 88 neoracist professors immediately apologized for their deceitful advertisement. Uh – no. Apparently, not one of the 88 neoracist professors has recanted and apologized for their conduct. [ycu89q4, 6jye552] This is the arrogance of liberal neoracism, black American neighbor. These neoracist professors obviously see their motives as having been honorable. Therefore they have excused themselves of any wrongdoing, and of course so have all other liberals – progressive fascism. While it may be true that a few may have had some cognitive dissonance over their behavior, the lack of any public contriteness indicates that even if there were any who possessed guilt or shame, they have been silenced by alpha liberals. The parallel of hanging black men from the nearest tree by the lynch mobs of yesteryear based on mere accusations is striking. But this is neoracism. The roles are reversed. The real racists in this story are those 88 professors and their enabling media jackals howling in the background. If you want a more detailed account of this classic case of systemic liberal neoracism read the account in Wikipedia: [4ow9wzt] Literally dozens of liberal neoracists are quoted along with noted Democratic Party equivalent black overseers, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Indeed, Jackson’s Rainbow/Push Coalition rewarded the false accuser for her neoracist actions. As stated on Wikipedia, the “organization would pay for the college tuition of the accuser, Mangum, whether she fabricated the story or not.” Now that is neoracism – neoracists rewarding a neoracist for trying to destroy the lives of three innocent young white men. How long until we see the next Mangum come along looking for a free college tuition by accusing innocent whites of rape?

Well, I am glad to see that the prosecutor got his just desserts, and Jesse Jackson’s prized student became such a model citizen (more than once): [*yet9mpy, *3vn79l4] [/sarcasm]am

• Hillary Clinton – victim of neoracism


Don’t think that liberals won’t use neoracism against their own if necessary. [*4w4nghk] The Obama presidential campaign treated Bill and Hillary Clinton just like they treat Republicans. They accused Hillary’s campaign of “channeling George Wallace”. [4gnsf8m] They had no qualms about calling Bill Clinton a racist even though during his Presidency they had adulated him with the moniker of the “first black President”. They dug up some sociologist to compare Hillary’s 3:00 AM phone call advertisement which spoke to Obama’s obvious naiveté and inexperience, with some long-lost film made to rejuvenate the Ku Klux Klan. [4cakv8v] They gave Geraldine Ferraro the Trent Lott treatment. They called Hillary a racist for referring to Reverend Wright, as if there weren’t legitimate questions about Obama’s relationship with Wright. [*d3mkkxr] It doesn’t matter whether he actually heard Wright make his controversial comments. Didn’t Obama state that he proudly went to Wright’s church for twenty years sitting amongst thousands of fellow congregants that enthusiastically cheered America bashing, cheered racist putdowns of whites, cheered anti-Semitism, all from the mouth of Obama’s admitted mentor. Obama brought his children to a church with these same thousands of racist, America-haters every week. How could it not be obvious that the people he surrounded his children with were racist, America-haters? If I were to go to a church full of KKK members, I’m sure I would notice in pretty short order, even if I never heard anything from the pulpit. I realize that we established in #16 Palinoia and the Dumbest Politician of Oll, that Barack Obama probably makes Al Gore and John Kerry look like Mensa geniuses by comparison, but how could he not clue-in that he had surrounded his family with virulent haters? Especially since he was a politician. Is he suggesting nobody ever indicated their true hatred for whites and America to him in twenty years?!? In a church that teaches Black Liberation Theology? That is simply unbelievable. Even a liberal would be hard pressed to play stupid enough to believe that. Right, black American neighbor? Right?!?

Apparently Hillary was a racist for simply pointing out the obvious and asking some questions, but liberals are hypocrites (that double standards thing) as much as they are neoracists, so it seems Hillary wasn’t enough of a racist that Obama couldn’t appoint her to one of the highest positions in his administration. Hillary and Bill, being good little liberals, licked their wounds and stayed on the reservation, supporting and playing the neoracist game for their new neoracist master in the White House, both having since accused Tea Partiers of being racists for opposing Obama policies – progressive-fascism.

Ever wonder why Hillary didn’t fight Obama for the nomination at the Democratic convention in 2008? It was because Obama owned the African American vote. It is important to know that the following quote is from HillBuzz, a blog authored by Chicago ex-Democrats (“ex” since the 2008 convention) who actively attempted to get Hillary into the White House:

~Put simply, the Obamas threatened Clinton in the general election should she have succeeded in winning the nomination in a Denver floor fight. […] Clues to this were dropped in remarks Michelle Obama made during the primary campaign, where she said she’d “have to think about” whether or not the Obamas would support Clinton and campaign for her if she was the Democrats’ nominee. It was one of the nastiest, most unprofessional, and most unbecoming things we’ve ever heard a Democrat candidate’s surrogate ever say — though it was quite characteristic of who Michelle is as a person. AND it was revealing in terms of what the Obamas intended to do to Clinton if she won the nomination and not Dr. Utopia. […] They would have directly or indirectly sent signals to the black community to sit their butts home on election day — in much the same way the Media keeps tricking conservatives to sit home and not vote “to teach the GOP a lesson”. In this case, the Obamas would have played the nuclear race card against Clinton, most likely through proxies as that’s Dr. Utopia’s style. […] Just picture it: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Lewis, Henry Gates, James Clyburne, and other notorious race-baiters would have been wailing on the TV nonstop, like fat buzzing flies, fueled by a Media 100% in the tank for this plan, going on relentlessly about how Clinton “done stole this from the black man”. Clinton’s general election prospects would have turned ugly, and we can easily imagine her campaign rallies being interrupted by Black Panthers, ACORN, and other groups who would seize the opportunity to take a stab at the Democratic Leadership Council and other moderates in the Clintonverse by sinking Clinton’s challenge to McCain in order to take over the party completely and return to the fight again in 2012 with Obama as the nominee.~ [brrdlzk]

This story is a perfect storm mix of racism and neoracism. Black Democrats attacking other Democrats with blackmail, threatening revenge with the dirtiest down-in-the-mud politics that have been played in the last 60 years. Of course this all comes to you from the party of ‘tolerance’ and civil rights. [/sarcasm] Apparently 200 years of party racism now sees no problem with reversing the direction of it from whites towards blacks to blacks towards whites – progressive-fascism. Here is a synopsis of the corruption: [*68un43a] Is there any more evidence needed than this that the Democratic Party should be disbanded and left on the relic heap of history?an

• Rush Limbaugh – victim of neoracism


In October of 2003 then ESPN NFL commentator and noted conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, on a television broadcast said this of the media in regard to Philadelphia Eagles’ quarterback Donovan McNabb:

“I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go. I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They’re interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there’s a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he really didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.” [23jzn7]

Rush later explained that his commentary job was to provide a counter view to the panel discussion that preceded his time slot. Their contention had been that there was something wrong with McNabb’s game because the Eagles were struggling in the early season. Rush countered this by asserting that McNabb was not the problem because he was overrated as the reason for the previous success of the team.

Rush’s commentary was ignored for the first few days. Nobody found it racist. Even the other commentators on the show found nothing offensive about it. Then some Blackshirt liberals picked up on the quote to use as a neoracist club for which to bash Limbaugh. But really, black American neighbor, could you write down for me exactly what is supposedly racist in this statement? Limbaugh said this close to the beginning of the 2003 season. The previous season to Limbaugh’s commentary which he was obviously referring to, McNabb’s Philadelphia Eagles posted an impressive twelve-win and four-loss record, tied with the Green Bay Packers and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for the best record in the league of thirty-two teams, but was it McNabb or the club defense as Rush insisted that should have gotten credit for this success? Well, the Eagles defense was rated number two in the league, but their pass offense was rated nineteenth! And there were four teams with losing records with higher rated passing offences, including the Cincinnati Bengals with a two win and fourteen loss record. [6ze5nyh, 6zvkvuc] In the 2001 season the Eagles defense also carried the team, again rated as the second best defense in the league. The pass offense by contrast was rated twentieth. Obviously the Eagles strength was not at the quarterback position, but at defense. The rushing offense was rated fourteenth in 2001 and seventh in 2002. [65lu4yh, 6hzur2g] The same stats story was repeated in 2000 as well. [6eyuz87, 6dpsfo5] Indeed, McNabb appears to have been the weak point on the team for those years and likely the main reason the contending Eagles never won a Super Bowl. They probably would have had a better chance of winning a Super Bowl with one of those quarterbacks from the teams with loosing records and higher passing ratings, and if pass ratings were used to qualify for the playoffs the Eagles would have been early on the golf course the previous three years. Here are some more stats that make the same point: [*68f4b35]

So is it now racist to point out when a black quarterback gets an overabundance of credit for his team’s performance when the stats obviously do not support that praise? I guess it’s sort of like opposing a black President who makes decision after indefensible decision that hurts the country. His decisions cannot be defended based on the subsequent results, so the natural Blackshirt liberal response is to use demagoguery and neoracism against his critics, calling them “mobs” and “racists”.

McNabb himself stoked the flames saying, “It’s somewhat shocking to hear that on national TV from him. It’s not something that I can sit here and say won’t bother me.” So what exactly did Donovan McNabb say? What was “bothering” him? He would have been well advised to keep quiet, because it simply looks like he was whining about Rush justifiably pointing out that he was over rated by the media. (I guess he was enjoying all of those undeserved accolades.) Rush was simply exposing the media for acting politically correct by ignoring the telling seasonal ratings statistics. How dare Rush state that the emperor has no clothes! And where does that leave the Eagle’s defense? Shouldn’t they have been getting well deserved credit for those seasons? Rush seems to have been the only one willing to give it to them. I wonder if there were any African Americans on those defenses? Naw, couldn’t have been – everyone knows Rush is a racist and would never praise black men… [rolls eyes]

Late update: A December, 2010 Sports Illustrated column by white reporter, Michael Rosenberg had this to say: ~ “While the rest of the country saw Donovan McNabb as a franchise quarterback, Philly fans sensed, earlier than most of us, that McNabb was overrated.”~ [3xv3h3e] So is he a racist too? Are Philly fans racist? Here’s a defense of Rush by his good friend whom he calls “the Hutch”: [*y9acz2g]ao

• Andrew Breitbart – victim of neoracism


Liberals hated Andrew Breitbart, creator of the Big websites and others, almost as much as they hate Rush Limbaugh. And no wonder, like Limbaugh, Breitbart was an expert at exposing the noble lies of liberalism. Upon his recent death the orthodox media meme was that while doing some things well, he was supposedly tainted for “heavily editing” videos in those expositions. We have already examined the ACORN sting videos in #17 Slavery In America – Past and Present, illustrating that the editing of the videos was not ACORN’s problem. That ACORN was willing to engage in abetting child slavery was the problem. So let’s now examine the Shirley Sherrod video exposé.

Breitbart released the edited Sherrod video for the purpose of shaming the NAACP into backtracking or at least stopping its baseless accusations of racism in the Tea Party movement. [32qxb3l] He claims he never had the full video at first, but was only given the edited portion. This is supported by a Breitbart story the next morning stating:

~It is also hard to understand why the NAACP would instantly condemn Ms Sherrod, if the speech was indeed as she said, why wouldn’t they respond by releasing the entire speech?  One explanation may be that she is lying,  but if you listen closely to the end of the clip she does seem to be pivoting toward saying it was about income not race (and then seems to change her mind again).~ [7uwl4nt]

This amply illustrates that Sherrod was not Breitbart’s target and that he did not have the full video at the time he released the edited clip. There is no reason to question this conclusion, because the edited version was all that was necessary to make his point. This is important, black American neighbor: He was not specifically targeting Shirley Sherrod, but the NAACP. It was not specifically what Sherrod said, but the reaction of the NAACP audience that was Breitbart’s issue. Sherrod set the stage by intimating that the farmer she was dealing with was a racist. She gave no evidence, but she made it clear to her NAACP audience:

~The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had to come to me for help. What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.~ [2efmzhq]

This elicited what Breitbart described as “nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement” from the NAACP audience. Now get this, black American neighbor: This woman was admitting that a racist tug-of-war was going on in her mind on how much help she would give this farmer. It does not matter that she cleared herself later in her speech. (In fact she did exonerate herself in the edited clip provided by Breitbart by stating: “It is about black and white, but it’s not you know – it opened my eyes.”) At the time of the audience “agreement” the audience only knew that she was weighing events based on her struggling prejudices. This was the point that Andrew Breitbart was making in releasing the video. He had concluded:

~Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance [the Tea Party].~ [7govkxg]

The rest of the video is irrelevant to this point. Even the leadership of the NAACP saw the audience reaction as troubling – exactly Breitbart’s conclusion:

~The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.~ [7rl97hq]

That in the full video, the fact that Sherrod later backtracked on her racist sentiments does not change the fact that the audience illustrated their own predisposition to racism by their reaction, and the NAACP leadership saw this too. Here is my question: Was “appropriate action” taken? Were members of this audience expelled from the NAACP? I could find nothing. The story morphed into Sherrod being fired and then the rest of the video coming out supposedly clearing her of any wrongdoing, but what happened to those obviously racist audience members? Probably nothing, because for liberals it was then more important to smear Andrew Breitbart than to deal with the real racism in their own movement.

The fact that Sherrod was fired based on the edited video is not a statement on Andrew Breitbart, but on the White House who jumped the gun. Sherrod claimed that it was the White House who essentially fired her (again, she cleared herself in the edited clip – how come the White House and NAACP missed that?). [7djmw6f] Here is where the real editing of this story comes into play, black American neighbor. The White House then claimed they had nothing to do with Sherrod’s dismissal. Now it has been revealed that Sherrod was telling the truth and the White House had lied. [8yxj9wdThere is your “heavily edited”, black American neighbor.

One last thing, black American neighbor. While Shirley Sherrod may have been exonerated of her racist tug-of-war in that NAACP speech, both her and her husband have since opened questions as to whether they are indeed racists and neoracists, possibly illustrating why she had the conflicted thinking in the first place. [7gg3jmv]ap

• By liberal reasoning every Democrat who has praised FDR should resign


Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott was forced to step down as leader for using a gratuitous hypothetical to praise Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday. Even then Illinois Senator Barack Obama insisted that Lott be removed. [ye7tqcd] Apparently Lott suggested it would have been good for the country if Thurmond had won the Presidency in 1948, but Thurmond was a segregationist Democrat at the time. So for some reason this meant that Trent Lott was a racist and he had to resign his Senate leadership position. Now, black American neighbor, this was a hypothetical situation that Lott referred to in humoring a very old man on his birthday. Thurmond was a Democrat at the time, so if Lott had been serious he would not have backed Thurmond against a Republican at the time, and Thurmond eventually changed his ways, even changing parties to become a Republican. No doubt Thurmond on his 100th birthday would have looked back on his stand on segregation then and repudiated it.

What of Democrats who praise Democratic presidents who actually committed acts of racism. I would expect that every Democrat in the House and Senate today would praise the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But FDRHoover actually interned 120,000 Japanese Americans in camps solely based on their race in 1942. Most lost some or all of their properties and possessions. In 1988 Congress passed an apology for government actions based on “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership”. This is no hypothetical. Certainly Barack Obama has praised Roosevelt’s Presidency. Based on the Lott/Thurmond neoracism principle established by liberals, when will liberals call for Obama to resign, and shouldn’t all Democrats who have ever praised Roosevelt’s Presidency be forced to resign their positions?aq

• Liberal double standards on racism – yawn…


In an about-face from Trent Lott’s situation those same neoracist liberals defended Harry Reid from stepping down as Senate Majority Leader for being condescending to the American electorate in referring to then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, intimating that Obama was just barely white enough and spoke well enough for a black man that the American people just might elect him. Here is what Reid is reported to have said:

~Barack Obama should seek – and could win – the White House because Obama was a “light skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”~ [39y2x7d]

President Obama said he accepted Reid’s apology, but that is irrelevant. It wasn’t Obama that Reid talked down to, it was the American electorate. Reid objected that he thought his comment was off the record. I guess he felt at the time that he could safely express his disdain for Americans if it was off the record. This then begs the question of what other distasteful attitudes Harry Reid carries around that he only reveals in off the record moments? So let’s imagine if Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell had said this:

~Al Sharpton should not seek – and could not win – the White House because Sharpton was a, “dark-skinned African American with a Negro dialect.”~

Basically he would have been saying exactly what Reid said, but from the opposite direction. In essence both statements make the case that the American people are racist to a point. In the case of Reid if a black man is white enough and speaks well enough he might just be acceptable, or in our hypothetical about McConnell if a black man is not white enough and doesn’t speak well enough he would unlikely be acceptable. Now tell me with a straight face, black American neighbor, that liberals would not have gone apoplectic if Mitch McConnell had made this statement instead of Harry Reid making his.

And how are you dark skinned African Americans feeling about being singled out by Harry Reid as less than qualified to be considered presidential material? Just wondering. Liberals made excuse after excuse for Reid, but never did quite explain how a hypothetical pat on the back to amuse an old man on his 100th birthday was more egregious than a direct smear of racism against the majority of the American people. [*67sdrap]ar

• Poll exonerates Tea Party of racism


The University of Washington designed a poll to prove that the Tea Party movement is based on racism. [ybzg6l6] However, being obvious liberals they completely bungled it and actually proved the exact opposite – that those who oppose the Tea Party are more likely to be prejudiced against African Americans. The questioners thought they were asking race based questions when in fact, in the minds of those conservatives being polled they were really asking ideology based questions. The survey authors’ own single-minded focus on race blinded them to their own findings for a question they will certainly regret ever having asked:

~If Blacks would just try harder they would be as well off as whites. Agree or disagree?~

When a poll question is open to interpretation, as this one is, one must attempt to get into the heads of those being questioned. This question is just such an example (as indeed are all of the questions in this survey). So how would a Tea Party conservative likely think this question through? A conservative views America as all about the idea that hard work provides opportunity for all. If you were to ask them if their own kids, who spend half their free time playing computer games and the other half texting, would do as well as their average white parents, they would answer the same way – of course, if they would just “try harder” they will succeed. The authors of the survey thought they were asking a question that would be answered based on how a polled conservative views the black race (this poll really is a prime example illustrating that it is liberals who view things based on race). However, the conservative would answer based on conservative principle. They hear the question as: Is there equal opportunity to succeed in America for everyone, including African Americans? Of course the conservative will answer yes, if anyone tries harder they will succeed, and of course, the independent success of many African Americans justifies this answer.

How would someone who answered that they disagree, think of the question? In all likelihood they would see a society stacked against any black from succeeding, but many blacks succeed, so their premise is wrong. This line of thinking is illogical and not supported by the evidence. Obviously many blacks “try harder” and do achieve success.

How would a racist respond? They would view blacks as subhumans with below normal capabilities, so they would not expect blacks to be able to compete with whites on a level playing field. Naturally they would answer no, blacks are incapable of raising themselves up. This is a white liberal view. The liberal sees blacks as inferior and in perpetual need of a benevolent hand up from big mommy government. Even many blacks see themselves as incapable of lifting themselves up with hard work, because that is the message that has been drilled into them by liberalism and the Democratic Party throughout their whole lives. They’ve never heard an optimistic message. It is always negative – “No, you can’t make it on your own!” They have been taught (programmed) to see themselves as victims in search of restitution, which often robs them of their initiative to “try harder” and independently succeed. Again, that many young blacks see education as conceding defeat to white society is a testament to liberal programming.

What were the poll results for this question? Predictably, to the proposition, “If Blacks would just try harder they would be as well off as whites” conservative Tea Party supporters overwhelmingly answered yes (by about 2/3s of those polled). What did liberals who oppose the Tea Party movement answer? Of course, they answered that they disagree by about the same overwhelming amount. Now ask yourself this, black American neighbor: If conservatives think blacks are inferior and incapable of working their way to being “as well off as whites”, why would they answer yes? They wouldn’t. If liberals think blacks are handicapped by society, how do they explain that many blacks are independently successful? They can’t. For their thinking to be correct there would have to be no independently successful African Americans. The only explanation is that liberals hold a prejudiced attitude towards blacks that believes that they are inferior and therefore incapable of becoming independently successful through hard work. Again we see that it is liberals who are the racists and neoracists.

The other third of conservatives can also be easily explained. Conservatives are always aware of being labeled racists by Blackshirt liberals. It has been conditioned into them after decades of neoracist demagoguery by liberals against conservatives. Most will answer boldly based on their ideological principles, but some may hedge their bets and answer based on their fears. Many conservatives are fearful of being labeled as racists, so they will answer a proposition such as the above poll question that they disagree, attempting to play it safe from accusations of demagogues like those, it turns out, who created the survey. There is little difference to asking Americans if they like or approve of Obama personally. Some conservatives who do not like or approve of Obama personally will answer yes because they are afraid of being seen as racist, when their dislike is a result of ideological differences, but if you look at his issue approval numbers there is a huge dichotomy where on an issue by issue basis his approval is often 10% to 20% below his personal approval numbers. When liberals tout that Obama still has high personal approval numbers, be aware that that number is nowhere near a correlation with his issue approval numbers. The same conservatives who might show some support in a poll because they fear being seen as a racist, will in the privacy of the voting booth vote for a Republican because they agree with Republican values. And what about liberals who may have guessed the purpose of this poll or are just pranksters and lied to the pollster to skew it? How can we know how many? We can’t. Furthermore, the specific categories are particularly small samples – the most important category to the survey’s supposed conclusions has only 117 professed True Believers of the Tea Party out of a total Caucasian poll of only 511, spread across seven states and called a Multi-State Survey of Race and Politics. This is such a small sample as to be trivial – not even enough to get an accurate picture of one state, let alone seven! Just for this alone no one should take these supposed poll conclusions seriously. For the authors and liberals who jump on this survey as evidence of conservative racism, they must play stupid that this poll is actually numerically significant when it clearly is not, and then play stupid that somehow ideology is irrelevant (apparently these pollsters think everybody always answers based on race – like they do, apparently), and then they also play stupid about the natural fear conservatives have built up after decades of Blackshirt liberal race baiting and demagoguery (neoracism). This is at least naive, and at most deceitful by liberals and those conducting this so-called survey, but then again, so is their neoracism, so it is not surprising.

The rest of the questions can also be understood on the same basis as the question above – that conservatives see the questions as ideological and suspicious, and therefore answered based on their conservative principles and caution, not based on some supposed racism. The vast majority of African Americans are liberals and Democrats. That is how conservatives view them and judge them politically. Taking this into consideration completely changes the conclusions to the other questions, so if you ask a conservative if they think liberal Democrats are hard-working or intelligent or trustworthy, the natural conservative response will be that liberal Democrats gravitate towards an entitlement attitude from government, and that being liberal Democrats they are not very smart (otherwise they would be conservatives), and being liberal Democrats they of course are also not trustworthy (again, because they are liberal Democrats). Then ask the same question of conservatives more specifically about black conservatives. You will get the exact opposite for an answer. They will think black conservatives are hard working, intelligent and trustworthy, because they are conservatives. Just turn it around and you will see the logic of this, black American neighbor: Ask a liberal if they think southern white conservatives are hard working, intelligent and trustworthy. You’ll get the negative answers. Does that make liberals racists against whites? No. It just means they don’t think ideological conservatives are very hard working, intelligent or trustworthy, otherwise they would be liberals.

Asked about African Americans as a group, the Tea Party conservative answers the same way for the exact same reasons. Race has nothing to do with their answer other than the fact that the vast majority of African Americans are liberal Democrats, so the Tea Party conservative sees them as (surprise!) liberal Democrats (and of course there is always that fear of being called a racist). This same reasoning that Tea Party supporters answered the whole survey through their ideology and fear explains the answers for all of the questions and completely undermines the erroneous conclusion of racism. That the authors of the survey so deliberately ignored what is so obvious and proven in the first question dealt with above speaks to their own prejudices and neoracism, not of those surveyed.as

• Caveat on polls


Incidentally, black American neighbor, because of the above reasons I tend to take polls with a grain of skepticism (trends in multiple polls are certainly a little more reliable if not oversampled). Think about this, black American neighbor. When a poll is released do they ever tell you how many people lied in their answers? No, of course not – because they don’t know. The exit polls for the Scott Walker recall vote in Wisconsin all suggested a tossup. When the votes were counted Walker won in a rout. Do they ever tell how many people refused to participate in the poll? No. So, if they had to contact ten people to get two answers how indicative is their poll? Do they know the breakdown of the reasons of the people who refused to take their poll? No. What if they refused a poll about the President because they disliked the President. Can this be taken into account in the poll? If it could it would skew the poll negatively, but it can’t be taken into account, because they don’t know. Without the number the accuracy of the poll is greatly diminished. Do they ever tell you what the knowledge level is of those polled? No. Again, they don’t know. Some people follow politics everyday, but except for very close to major elections the vast majority of those polled know little or nothing about current political issues. They could be responding based on one 30 second clip from Katey Couric (in that case, I’d prefer they knew nothing). So, just exactly how useful are individual political polls? Not very, unless one has an agenda to promote – say, like proving that Tea Partiers are all racists. As linked to earlier in this essay, Mary Frances Berry explains this strategy for us:

~ “Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”~ [9fumxtw]

Thanks for the candid insight, Ms. Berry. Well, they tried, but I don’t think it helped much in November, 2010. As in Obama’s own words, it was a “shellacking”! The strategy of neoracism doesn’t seem to be working as well as it once did, black American neighbor.at

• Blackshirt – the devolution of an alpha’s alpha


Even the average alpha liberal needs someone to follow. For that, there are the Blackshirt orthodox media alpha liberals – the alpha’s alpha. Neoracism would never have had any traction without Blackshirt orthodox media compliance. In fact, if the media had chosen to vilify neoracists a quarter as much as they vilify conservatives, neoracism would be virtually nonexistent, but instead, some of the highest profile media columnists are Blackshirt neoracists, fanning the flames of racist demagoguery to keep African Americans on the Democratic Party plantation. They are the media’s black overseers and white alpha liberal attack dogs of the Democratic Party. Accusations of racism tend to slip from their mouths and fingertips as easily as saying hello. They need no evidence and could care less that they have none to support their accusations – I am sure that they sleep very well without a moment of cognitive dissonance. Their whole strategy is to create chaos by using race as a demagogic bludgeon. They hope to scare off conservatives from speaking up, and moderates and liberals from joining conservatives – after all, who wants to be associated with a bunch of racists? These Blackshirt media neoracists are the equivalent of the propaganda ministry operators in rising authoritarian regimes that single out opponents and demonize them simply for opposing the regime – progressive-fascism.

The Tea Party became a national creation when a video segment from the business news network CNBC’s Squawk Box featuring Chicago futures floor reporter Rick Santelli went viral on the internet on February 19, 2009. The issue being discussed was the government stimulus package and subsidization of mortgages. [*4zdl48k]  Many Americans seeing the video agreed with Santelli and the floor traders cheering him on, and the Tea Party movement was born. Here is an example of the development of a Blackshirt orthodox media neoracist, black American neighbor. Its like watching evolution happen right before your very eyes. Except it is more like devolution.au

• First step of devolution – imagines ‘some’ racism


Eugene Robinson is a career Washington Post writer who started on the city beat and has worked his way up to the Op-Ed page, currently writing two columns per week. [37zlw2t] He is also a Democratic Party black overseer and neoracist. His first mention of the Tea Party movement was in an April 17, 2009 column about the Tax Day protests two days earlier. [2bv8g84] There is no reference to racism at all in this column. Robinson states that the protests were about taxes, government overspending, gun control, illegal immigration, abortion, gay marriage, and bank bailouts. He even tut tuts the idea of the Republican Party being “clever” enough to “exploit” the movement. Robinson admits that government spending is enormous and while agreeing with the spending, he allows that others could legitimately disagree.

Robinson does not mention the Tea Party in his columns again until September 18, 2009. [kmbl5g] He starts out well by advising the President in regard to race: “He has to give even his most vocal critics the benefit of the doubt.” But then he continues with, “But I don’t.” So much for the good start. But this is a good teaching point. This is the key to understanding neoracists – they don’t give “critics the benefit of the doubt”. In other words, convict them of racism and then… nothing. Hope it sticks and have a good sleep, I guess.

Former President Jimmy Carter, well known anti-Semite [*kmwewn] and neoracist, [*p337qf] in an NBC interview claimed that public opposition to President Obama was based on racism. Robinson responded:

~So I can say in plain language that Jimmy Carter was right in essence, but wrong in degree. It seems clear to me that some — but not “an overwhelming portion,” as Carter claimed — of the “intensely demonstrated animosity” toward Obama is indeed “based on the fact that he is a black man.”~

Does Robinson produce any evidence to support his “right in essence, but wrong in degree” theory. Hardly. First he uses “birthers” as an example, but does not explain how people who question why Obama had spent two million dollars to keep a document secret (his original birth document) that he claimed supported his side of the issue, is racism. He refers to a witch doctor poster that is obviously a satire of Obamacare with the word “Obamacare” right on the poster (as if presidents don’t get satirized – sheesh!). Next are “idiots” who accuse Obama of “socialism”. I guess you have to be a dyed in the wool neoracist to see the connection with racism here. [rolls eyes] Robinson also says in his column:

~I’m not talking about the majority of the citizens who went to town hall meetings to criticize Obama’s plans for health-care reform or the majority of the “tea bag” demonstrators who complain that Obama is ushering in an era of big government. Those are, of course, legitimate points of view. Protest is part of our system. It’s as American as apple pie.~

But he just described all Tea Partiers that I have witnessed in the news. Who the heck are these supposed exceptions?!? He conveniently doesn’t say. It’s obviously much easier to get away with accusing anonymous, invisible people of being racists. And notice that he has now reached down to the level of derogatorily calling Tea Partiers, “tea bag demonstrators” with no accompanying justification (as if there is, or need be any for a Blackshirt liberal to demagogue conservatives).av

• Second step of devolution – imagines ‘more’ racism


In Eugene Robinson’s next column that mentions the Tea Party on November 6, 2009 he accuses them of being “Palinites” and “fanatics”. [355hk5p] Notice the progression. First the Tea Partiers were legitimate protesters – “American as apple pie”. Then some were racists, even though he could produce no evidence for the accusation, and next is “tea bag demonstrators” with no justification. Now Tea Partiers are all “Palinites” and “fanatics”, again with no justification. How long do you think it will be before they are mostly racists, and then all racists, black American neighbor? Can you see the pattern? The more prominent a role that the Tea Party has gained in national politics directly parallels the percentage of racists Eugene Robinson can imagine. Robinson mentions the Tea Party movement in passing in one column, and then in another says this:

~Another lesson, especially from Brown’s Senate win, is that the legions who were so enthralled by Obama’s candidacy that they elected Democrats across the country are now unmotivated and perhaps disenchanted.~ [2dfpczr]

I have a question. If Robinson can admit that “legions who were so enthralled by Obama’s candidacy” can now be legitimately “disenchanted”, why is it such a stretch to think that those who opposed Obama in the election, could not be legitimately pissed off at Obama, with race having nothing to do with it? That is obviously too much common sense reasoning for Robinson. Finally in a January 20, 2010 column Robinson let’s his neoracism all hang out. [36shdhs] This is a perfect example of his not giving “critics the benefit of the doubt” by swallowing hook, line and sinker the neoracist lies of other neoracists. Robinson unquestionly bought into the n-word hoax propagated by Democrat congressmen John Lewis, Andre Carson and Emanuel Cleaver that we completely debunked earlier in this essay.aw

• Third step of devolution – imagines ‘groups’ of racists


In his March 26, 2010 column [2f2t7qv] Robinson also bought into supposed Tea Party violence after the healthcare bill passage, but not one Tea Partier was ever proven to have committed any of the documented mischief. Of course, it is not beyond liberals to throw bricks through Democrat Party offices so the media can run with the story of “tea party violence”. [*y3y7mkp] Then there is the issue of the Sarah Palin Facebook “targets” on a map that was supposed to be so sinister. Except that only a few years earlier Democrats had done the same thing and nobody was calling out the National Guard then (see #14 Liberal Demagoguery, Hate and Violence – A Compendium). [yeepbpd] Robinson’s use of the Bart Stupak threats are especially humorous, because the threats he complained about were from before Stupak acquiesced to Obama on Obamacare and were therefore from Democrats – LOL! [*yh5l7ss] Now the Tea Party movement has progressed to being “fueled by rhetoric that echoes the paranoid ravings of the most extreme right-wing nutcases”. See the devolution?

In his next column of March 30, 2010 Robinson spins the “Hutaree militia” as proof of the violence of the “right-wing”, except that the only member with a political affiliation was a Democrat, and they were by definition nihilists, which puts them on the far left (see #7 Finally! A Scale of Ideologies that Makes Sense). Here’s how Wikipedia describes them:

~On their website, all police and military members who would support the current U.S. system of local, state or federal government were described as members of the “brotherhood”, and were considered by the Hutaree to be “enemies”.~ [yh6r54b]

Uh – this is not the Tea Party movement nor anything like it. This was a cult with views all over the map. Only a liberal demagogue would attempt to smear conservatives using this group as his evidence:

~The episode highlights the obvious: For decades now, the most serious threat of domestic terrorism has come from the growing ranks of paranoid, anti-government hate groups that draw their inspiration, vocabulary and anger from the far right.~

Update: Oops – all of the Hutaree members were acquitted of conspiracy charges. So much for the “serious threat of domestic terrorism” argument. [co9fl7z]ax

• Fourth step of devolution – imagines a ‘movement’ of racists


In the April 20, 2010 column Robinson makes another gratuitous swipe that there is “a contingent of outright racists” in the “overhyped Tea Party phenomenon”. (Does he mean “overhyped” like in his last column that I just quoted? Jus’ askin’.) [2bxbr5o] Again he provides not one shred of evidence for his neoracist accusation. The column of April 27, 2010 is mostly about the Arizona anti-illegal immigration bill that had been recently signed into law. [2ecgkww] Again, the neoracist accusation of racism is recklessly thrown about by Robinson with not even one tiny piece of evidence to support it. Indeed he flat-out lies that the law allows “individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim” to justify his neoracism and criticize the Tea Party movement for not denouncing the bill. Of course, in regard to the Tea Party’s lack of opposition to the bill he concludes with:

~Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?~

Remember earlier I asked: How long do you think it will be before Tea Partiers are mostly racists, and then all racists? Looks like we have finally come to the end of that devolutionary road. If you are a Tea Partier and don’t speak out against this Arizona law, well then, obviously you are a racist, according to Eugene Robinson. Mission accomplished. Eugene Robinson – full-blown 100% neoracist and an alpha liberal’s alpha. Predictably, Robinson could not produce one legitimate incidence of a Tea Party leader saying anything to even match the level of bigotry of his own party’s Senate Majority leader:

~Barack Obama should seek – and could win – the White House because Obama was a “light skinned” African-American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”~ [39y2x7d]

In just twelve months Eugene Robinson went from seeing Tea Party disagreement with government policy as legitimate and as “American as apple pie”, to seeing the whole movement as filled with racists. He devolved into this position without ever once citing an actual legitimate example of Tea Party racism. Every example he used has been debunked. Beyond the obvious neoracism, this is also a clear example of Richard Hofstadter’s The Paranoid Style in American Politics that we discussed in #2 Contemporary American Liberalism = Paranoid Delusion and #5 Bouncing Around Inside a Liberal’s Head. This is a textbook example of paranoid delusion on a mass scale.ay

• Dog pack neoracism


Remember that I began the essay with this: “There is pack neoracism and there is herd neoracism. When a neoracist spearheads an alpha liberal charge claiming he has found racism under this here rock, other neoracist leaders circle the rock and join in on the howling like a pack of wild dogs. Soon the message is picked up by the sheep and the whole herd of beta liberals are nodding their heads in unison on message boards, web page comment sections, Facebook and Twitter.” Sometime soon after the creation of the Tea Party movement some Democrat neoracist found what they called racism under a rock and soon the dog pack began circling. One of those dogs was Eugene Robinson, a prime example of an alpha liberal’s alpha. He implicitly gives permission and perceived legitimacy for lesser alphas and betas to jump on the neoracism bandwagon, but he is far from alone. The dog pack includes a huge pool of Blackshirt liberal media members and Democratic Party members. No doubt the devolution we have witnessed in Eugene Robinson’s writings could be found in dozens of others’ writings and reporting. When one dog starts howling the others dogs inevitably join in. That is how the pack’s paranoid delusion works – progressive-fascism.

Perhaps the leader of the dog pack is MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, who finds racism beneath every rock. Try a Google search: >site:newsbusters.org Chris Mathews racist<. He simply can’t seem to help himself. The irony of his accusations is the projection of his own hate. No one could so consistently throw around that much neoracism while still being able to sleep soundly each night without an extraordinary foundation of visceral, self-righteous hatred to ward off any cognitive dissonance.az

• George Zimmerman – victim of neoracism


The reaction of liberals to George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin was another classic example of neoracism. Liberals had convinced themselves that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin because Zimmerman was a racist. None of the evidence supported that conclusion. Please explain to me exactly what liberals think happened. Did Zimmerman chase and catch Martin? From his cell phone conversation with his girlfriend, Martin knew he was being followed. His girlfriend advised him to run away. Martin was a trim and fit youth. He could have easily outdistanced the stocky, slightly overweight Zimmerman. So if Martin didn’t run, doesn’t that mean that he initiated the confrontation?

After losing sight of Martin, Zimmerman had stopped following him when told to do so by the 911 operator he was speaking with over his cell phone, and was returning to his truck when Martin doubled back and attacked him, despite that Trayvon’s girlfriend pleaded with him on his cell phone to run away. [*q45ons2] Now think about this, American neighbor. If Zimmerman was stalking Martin in order to harm him or even murder him because of his hatred for blacks, why would he call 911 first? And if Travon Martin was just a scared little kid, why didn’t he call 911 and report someone stalking him, or even just run, as his girlfriend on the phone encouraged him to do? Watch this video to see the likely explanation: [*nl6jesy, lc4h7tm, l7qo9h8] Trayvon Martin didn’t act like a scared little kid. He acted in violence like an irrational drug addict.

Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in a clear act of self-defense while he was being pummeled, with his head being repeatedly smashed against the sidewalk. All of the evidence clears Zimmerman of any racism. Read these two links and get your head straight, American Neighbor – dozens of acquaintances were interviewed by the FBI and they could not find even one instance of George Zimmerman displaying any sort racial prejudice. [*q7x8m4d, *nv37qca] And here’s some background that explains why Zimmerman was really following Martin: [*kj5o93w] If Zimmerman was a racist to the extent that he would commit murder there would be tons of evidence of his hate – a real racist can’t help but flaunt his racism. In fact, it was Trayvon Martin who described George Zimmerman in a racist term to his girlfriend over the phone; “creepy-ass cracka”. (The Urban dictionary defines cracka as: “A term used to insult white people. Has become more popular recently as the opposite of nigger. … was a term slaves used to identify the slave driver with the whip, because of the sound the whip made.” InternetSlang.com defines cracka as: “Offensive term for a white person.”) Here’s something else to think about. If the “whoopass” beating (the description by Martin’s girlfriend) that Trayvon Martin was laying on George Zimmerman had ended one second before Zimmerman pulled the trigger, it would have been legitimate to charge Martin with assault, and probably a hate crime if the “creepy-ass cracka” comment had been revealed.

But what about Blackshirt liberals who condemn George Zimmerman as a racist with no evidence? Obviously, they are neoracists, but it is much more than just demagoguery here. Liberals wanted Zimmerman sent to jail for the rest of his life. Some even wanted him dead. In effect, liberals wanted to railroad George Zimmerman. Liberals looked at the history of white Democrats railroading innocent blacks over the centuries and wanted a very public payback. Why now? Because Barack Obama was supposed to have turned everything around for the black community and the country. Instead Obama has railroaded the whole country with the Obama Malaise where unemployment is an ongoing national crisis which is doubly magnified in the black community. Look at Obama’s very liberal city of Chicago where black youths are being shot by other blacks almost every damn day! And no one cares. The national media hardly reports it, except the Drudge Report. The only thing George Zimmerman was guilty of was shooting a black youth while not being black. If Zimmerman had been black, no one would have given a crap about Trayvon Martin. And if at the same time Trayvon Martin had been white, a black Zimmerman would be a hero today for shooting that racist white boy who dissed him over the phone and then attacked him. Liberals wanted a patsy on which to pin their self-loathing of their own failure, resentment and neoracist hate, and George Zimmerman was to be that scapegoat. In the end it was liberals who flaunted their neoracism.ba

• Update on neoracism against George Zimmerman


It is now a week since the innocent verdict. Al Sharpton has organized a national protest (although, no more than a few hundred showed up in any one city). It is reported in this link: [lnczpmn] Even though the Stand Your Ground law had nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial, Sharpton and even Barack Obama are making a big deal out of it as if it had. They can’t provide any evidence that George Zimmerman was a racist, so they are now attempting to intimate that the law made Zimmerman a racist (quite a stretch). Ironically, the Daily Caller did some digging and discovered that, in fact, blacks in Florida benefit substantially from the Stand Your Ground law. [q455tlm] Laughably, the Atlantic Wire attempted to refute the Daily Caller’s finding and ended up confirming it with their last two concluding sentences:

~Nearly four-in-five killings of black people where it has been invoked have resulted in the killer being freed. It’s hard to see the benefit in that.~ [k4an7pn]

Taking into account the very high rate of black on black crime, the “benefit” is that in 80% of cases the shooter was found to be acting in self-defense against the agressor under the Stand Your Ground law. Shooting the bad guy in self-defense sounds like a win to me! The Atlantic Wire seems to think that blacks can’t be bad guys or something. Sheesh! (Also notice that the Atlantic Wire deceptively identifies the person justifiably shot as the “victim”. No, the “victim” is the person who was found to have justifiably shot the aggressor in self-defense, just as George Zimmerman was a victim of Trayvon Martin’s agression and justifiably shot him in self-defense.)

This all leads to what I think is a very pertinent question posed by a commenter in the above-linked National Review column:

~Anybody care to tell me the difference between Al Sharpton and David Duke?~

My answer: David Duke is an extreme racist. Al Sharpton is an extreme neoracist.bb

• Deprogramming lessons


I have one last thing to note about racism and neoracism in America. There is something that is especially defining in the master/slave relationship, whether it is of the Democrats and their enforced slaves of two centuries ago, or the Democrats and their voluntary slaves of today. It is that to the slave, whatever the master says is the truth. Truisms are irrelevant to slaves. Establishing whether a truth is self-evident is not a luxury that a slave is permitted. So for a slave there is no outing of the abusive treatment from the master. No one snitches on the gang in the gang’s neighborhood, because to do so is to place a death warrant on one’s head. And for the blacks who speak out about how the Democratic Party has taken advantage of them, they are viciously attacked with demagogic rhetoric only a master or sycophantic slave would use of a runaway slave. So here is our answer to the MCTE question of who is the largest gang in America: The Democratic Party is nothing more than a sophisticated Blackshirts gang disguised as a political party – progressive-fascism. They used to outsource to the KKK wing of the party to do their dirty work. Now the mainstream of the Democratic Party does their own dirty neoracist demagoguery. In fact, the Democrats are still the party of outright racism, as they have always been, treating conservative whites as subhumans and black conservatives as worse than subhuman. In the segregated America of the past the Democratic Party legitimized white racism against blacks. In today’s America the roles are reversed, and the Democratic Party instead legitimizes black racism against whites (especially conservative ones) – progressive-fascism.

Paranoia leads liberals to believe that racist opponents are hiding beneath every rock: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. In every example cited in this essay overwhelming doses of playing stupid were necessary for their maturations into full blown stories of neoracism: Contemporary liberalism requires a strict adherence to playing stupid. Of course, racism and neoracism amount to the most significant double standard issues liberals employ: Without irrational double standards contemporary liberalism cannot exist. But they are terrible for the nation: Contemporary liberalism is rife with unintended consequences. And liberals have supplanted racism with neoracism as a demagogic weapon: A contemporary liberal’s honorable motives and noble fight against contemporary conservatism excuses all liberal failures and indiscretions. A contemporary conservative’s evil motives justify their destruction by any means necessary. But of course liberals are also blind to the vile bigotry of their neoracism: Contemporary liberalism relies on a programmed, instinct-like scoff reflex to preserve itself from the consequences of critical thinking. The noble lie of conservatives being racists without need of any evidence, or with obviously invented evidence is as easy to believe for a liberal as that of the sun rising tomorrow morning: Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie. So they must protect themselves against critical thinking: For the contemporary liberal groupthinker, sophistry and demagoguery are the weapons of choice against critical thinking. And what better way to implement utopia than by demonizing those who oppose them? Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable. As is true with virtually all accusations from liberals, neoracism is really no more than a glimpse into their own souls: Contemporary liberals project what they subconsciously loathe about themselves as demagoguery toward their opponents and society as a whole. There must always be a bogeyman: For contemporary liberals superficial rationalization is always the first and final element in their ideological line of thought.bc

• Neoracism has replaced racism as the number one bigotry in America


I began in the previous essay to this one saying: ” I dread these next two essays, American neighbor. I have dreaded these essays from the moment I decided to write the N.C. Book 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.”

Institutional racism is no longer the prevalent problem in America, black American neighbor. Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele, Opra and Barack Obama could never have achieved the successes that they have if racism was still a major problem in American society. Republicans have won the centuries old war with the Democrats over the issue of racism against blacks. No, neoracism is now the predominant American battle ground – using the issue of racism as a herding tool on a compliant African American community, and as a demagogic political weapon to demonize opponents. The Blackshirt Democrats have shifted the terms of engagement from racism to neoracism. The r-word accusation slips as savagely from the lips of Democrats today as the n-word savagely slipped from lips of Democrats of the past – with the same purpose, to subhumanize their targets. Neoracism is the dark underbelly of contemporary American liberalism. It is where many innocent contemporary liberals cross the line into blatant, malicious hate. Hopefully you have not crossed that line, black American neighbor.

Neoracism is not just programming, and it is much more than just liberal paranoia. It is liberal programming that has grown out of centuries of Democratic Party prejudice and hate into a societal malevolence. Since the death of Martin Luther King professional haters (race hustling Democrats who earn their living purveying neoracist hate) have taken over the black civil rights movement and turned it into an uncivil rights movement. Neoracism is so insidious, so destructive, it is a cancer on America’s soul no less harmful than racism itself. Even prominent white liberals are terrified of criticizing Obama and being called a racist. [*oy68d22]

This is not what you bargained for when you first saw yourself as a liberal, black American neighbor. When the perpetrators ask what neoracism is, take the opportunity to explain it to them. American society cannot progress until neoracism has been eviscerated from the American conversation. Did you get that? If you learn only one lesson from this essay, learn this: Neoracism has become a millstone of incivility around America’s neck which holds back liberty for all. Kill it and watch America blossom like never before. Encourage, or even just act indifferent to neoracism, and America will go on, but neoracism is like poison running through her veins. Until it is eliminated America will never truly reach her potential, and liberty will continue to decline.

Thanks again for persevering through such disturbing topics with me, black American neighbor. If I have touched your heart with this we can all rejoice with whatever energy we have left.bd

• Deprogramming exercise


By clinging to the Democratic Party like a child to mommy’s skirt, blacks have voluntarily given up any reason for either Democrats or Republicans to pursue them. The Democrats see no reason to waste resources on a voter block they have locked up (even Obama has done nothing for blacks), and it is hardly worth it for Republicans to expend much energy attempting to attract those who just irrationally buy into the Democratic Party line that Republicans are racists – why make what will inevitably be a wasted effort? By naively voting for Democrats like automatons African Americans have volunteered their slavery and made their voter value worthless to both parties. Here is a link that spells out this problem in five succinct points: [*5un8s85]

In response to the NAACP accusations of racism against the Tea Party, black conservative leaders voiced their objections. Who do you think would know better, black American neighbor? Blackshirt liberals who meet in Washington devising lies with which to demagogue conservatives? Or black conservatives who attend Tea Party events, embrace Tea Party principles, are leaders in the Tea Party, and deal with Tea Party people everyday? Read every one of these links, black American neighbor. They are all from fellow African Americans who have successfully left the Democratic Party plantation: [*c64nxuu, *8p44m55, *9juqvuo, *9sb7keg, *8dwe6ze, *972ldvm, *9gtn7c9, *9etk53p, *9hxq5mq, *8lvky6z, *9dknrmn, *9l2vvml, *8vcpum9, *9acmf23, *8l7tmwz, *8usljt2, *8nzg8ez, *8slunxr, *9bq9msw, *8zwch99]

I also want you to read this following article by psychotherapist and ex-liberal, Robin of Berkley, black American neighbor. It will give you another perspective on what I am trying to convey to you. Of course, I don’t entirely agree with her conclusion. She believes that in general, liberal paranoid delusion is “notoriously resistant to treatment without the full arsenal of psychiatric drugs.” I’m hoping that I can prove her wrong with this essay series. After all, she herself is an example, as am I, and perhaps you as well, black American neighbor. [*yeaz5mj]

Here is a video documentary of black conservatives speaking on leaving the liberal plantation, black American neighbor. Hear them for yourself: [*buclvjd]

Why would a “racist” bother – especially if he won’t even get any credit for his efforts? [*6e7gdpo]

Thanks to neoracism, here is where the real race war is today: [*7k76jvs]

OK – we’re done with the toughest topics of the essay series. Congratulations on making it through in one piece. The next topic will definitely be lighter in scope – a catastrophic end of the world! [shiver] But don’t fret – it’s all about a liberal fairy tale.be

• Humor, sort-of


A classic example of the liberal principle: Contemporary liberalism is absurd.

~ “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”~ Harry A. Blackmun – Supreme Court Justice who wrote Roe v. Wade

I am having a little trouble understanding this. It seems he is saying that in order to get rid of A, we must first embrace A, but he offers no subsequent B. He simply ends with embracing A – that which is supposed to be eliminated. This is a logical contradiction and perfectly illustrates how convoluted liberal thinking on race can be – even on the Supreme Court.

I could go on and on, black American neighbor, but I think you get my point. I am emotionally and intellectually exhausted from these last two essays. Humor seems inappropriate here. So, to cool off, I suggest we all go watch one my favorite movies: “The Green Pastures”. It’s an adaptation from a 1930 Pulitzer Prize winning play which was taken from a collection of stories written by Roark Bradford. The plotline is about a little 1920s black girl’s vision of the story of the Bible as told to her in Sunday school class by the pastor. Get it and enjoy it with friends and family. (It has a real angelic choir. [wink] Anyway, their singing is truly otherworldly!)


[This is the end of #18 Slavery In America – Past and Present. Proceed to Essay #19 or Preview #19 or Previews & Links to 22 N.C. Essays.]