A Philosopher's Blog

“One More Thing I Know About the Negro”

Posted in Ethics, Philosophy, Politics, Race by Michael LaBossiere on May 2, 2014
Seanhannitykingofprussia

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

After the election and re-election of President Obama, some Americans seriously considered the notion that America had become a post-racial country. Seemingly acting in accord with this notion, the Supreme Court of the United States has made rulings based on an assumption that racism is no longer a significant factor in America. Things seemed good, at least in that perception of reality. And then Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling started talking.

Cliven Bundy originally gained national fame when the federal government decided to seize his cattle in response to his illegally grazing his cattle on federal land for decades. Some conservative politicians, Fox News personalities and armed militia rushed to his defense—to stand between law enforcement and someone accused of stealing from the government.

Not surprisingly, some critics pointed out that Bundy seemed to be engaged in all that conservatives profess to hate, namely sponging off the government, breaking the law and defying legal authority. Sean Hannity emerged as his staunchest media defender, despite the fact that Hannity had, on previous shows, denounced and railed against people who had done the same sorts of things—namely sponging off the state and breaking the law.

In an interesting, but perhaps not surprising, turn of events, Bundy made some claims that most people would regard as rather racist: “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro. They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Not surprisingly, many of those who had rushed to embrace him suddenly released their grip and ran to put as much daylight as they could between themselves and their former hero. This distancing could be dismissed as mere political theater and not an expression of actual distaste. That is, it might be claimed that his former supporters abandoned him not because of their own moral commitments but because they are well aware that overt racism no longer sells as well as it did.

After the Bundy story started cooling down in the media, Donald Sterling gained the spotlight when a recording of him making racist comments was leaked to the public. While Sterling’s views on race and gender have not been a secret, these remarks resulted in NBA commissioner Adam Silver banning him for life from NBA events and imposing a $2.5 million fine. There is also talk of compelling him to sell his team (based on the clause regarding damage done by an owner’s actions).

Not surprisingly, Sterling has been widely condemned and his punishment applauded. Sponsors and advertisers have also pulled away from the Clippers. While this might seem like a victory for morality, it seems unlikely that the NBA and the sponsors were primarily motivated by ethics. After all, Sterling is well known for his views and racism has been evil since, well, the advent of racism. The more plausible explanation is that Sterling’s words did financial damage to the NBA and failure to publicly punish him would probably have cost the NBA a considerably amount of money. As such, this was a triumph of money and not morality. In the case of Bundy, it was a triumph of politics and not principle. Or perhaps not.

While it is certainly reasonable to explain the response of the politicians and pundits in terms of political expediency and the response of the NBA in terms of financial expediency, there are reasons why racism now comes with a high cost politically and financially. One explanation popular with some is that there is a liberal conspiracy to punish people for being racists—that the liberals are somehow in the wrong for considering racists to be wrong and imposing penalties on them for their racism. Perhaps this is based on the belief that the liberals are not sincere and that race is just a political game-piece to them. This speculation is, of course, based on an “unknown fact” about the secret motive of liberals.

Another explanation is that while racism remains, the arc of the moral universe has bent further towards justice and now most Americans correctly regard racism as evil—or at least it is recognized as something that is to be publicly condemned. If this is the case, then while America is not post-racial, at least it is further along the moral arc. This is, as Dr. King had claimed, a step towards making good on the promise of America—we profess to hold all people to be created equal and to be endowed with inalienable rights. We also claim to believe in liberty and justice for all.  Because we seem to be taking these moral principles seriously, racism is now quite costly—so much so that it factors strongly in the pragmatic decisions of politicians and businesspeople.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Enhanced by Zemanta

79 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. ajmacdonaldjr said, on May 2, 2014 at 9:37 am

    It’s not just race that affects people’s pragmatic decisions (such as keeping their jobs), it’s also behavior (= homosex). Political correctness is a hard taskmaster. It doesn’t foster acceptance of differences and the liberal virtue of tolerance, but rather incites people to exclude and punish those who don’t parrot the party line.

  2. WTP said, on May 2, 2014 at 10:39 am

    More gay porn from Mike. You will note that you can damn the Jews to hell as commanded by God almighty, advocate burning them in ovens or any propose other forms of extermination, denounce them as sub human scum and the cause of all the world’s evil right here on Mike’s blog and he won’t raise the slightest objection. In fact, he will even engage you is discussions on the subject of Virtue.

    Someone somewhere else on the other side of the country disparages the Holy Negro and Mike is out there, cape flowing in the wind, standing up for what is right as one of his main duties is to preserve humanity. So Mike is hot on the trail of Sean Hannity’s HYPOCRISY, tying word’s Hannity didn’t say to his picture. Nothing misleading about that and after all, such is all for the good in fighting evil Faux Newsinators.

    • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 11:23 am

      Ho ho ho ho–listen to the Hebrew weep, boo hoo hoo, ho ho ho ho.

      But tell us, chosen one, it doesn’t matter what Mike or anyone does, does it?–u Jews will still tell us we’re anti-semites, and that we owe u, eh?–just like u always have all throughout history, eh? Ho ho ho ho ho

      Isn’t it a fact that Jews mass-murder gentiles by means of ur criminal banking and Bolshevik instruments?–millions and millions and millions–do I have to name the countries?–what are u murdering monsters doing even now in Palestine?–Syria?–and, in fact, everywhere and anywhere?

      And haven’t u Jews been kicked out of EVERY NATION ON EARTH, several times?–so all mankind is wrong about u criminals and psychopaths who pretend u’re a race of humans, and only u monsters, called Jews, are in the right?

      And doesn’t ur holiest of documents, the Talmud, say it’s okay to lie to, cheat, and murder gentiles?–that’s it’s even good to doing so?

      Anti-semitism is mere obedience to God, Jew–get it straight. Truth hurts u, called Jews, who hate the truth, this hatred of truth being ur very religion. Ho ho ho ho ho

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 2, 2014 at 1:04 pm

      I’m against antisemitism. But, as you know, I have a broad no-ban policy. Provided that a person is not spamming or violating the law with the content of comments, free speech applies here. But, I have been considering changing that policy on the principle that certain commentators repel people who would have relevant things to say.

      • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 1:06 pm

        Mike: u’re an uppity gentile, u know.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 2, 2014 at 1:10 pm

          Hate won’t fill in the holes in your soul. It just enlarges them until there is nothing left at all.

          • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 1:53 pm

            Mike, assuming u’re talking to me: get a clue–hatred of truth is worst anti-Christ sin of all, comrade, never doubt–take heed. And as I’ve noted–worst enemy of TRUTH (Christ) is “good”–which doesn’t exist–u’re a sinner no less than anyone, and u’re doomed no less than anyone–only God’s mercy and grace can save u and us.

            Second, observe if u don’t or can’t “hate,” then u don’t or can’t love. For what is “hate” but mere reciprocal emotion of love?–as attraction is reciprocal of repulsion. Only thing we humans can do is be REASONABLE in our emotions both in attraction and repulsion–same w. racism and loyalty.

            “Holes in the soul”?–well, u ought to just worry about urself, eh?–if u can just do that, then u’d start to be getting ahead.

            U started a good dialectic, I’d say, w. this blog, but u’re defending indefensible tenets, premises, and conclusions.

      • WTP said, on May 2, 2014 at 2:02 pm

        I have been considering changing that policy on the principle that certain commentators repel people who would have relevant things to say…So that would be Apollo-boy, the biomass(es), anyone else I might know? Up until now and so far as I know, I’ve been the only regular commentator for whom you have outwardly expressed contempt.

        • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 2:04 pm

          The Jew is desperate, as so often–just cannot stand the TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH–like Dracula faced w. the Holy Cross, ho ho ho ho ho ho

      • magus71 said, on May 2, 2014 at 2:07 pm

        “But, I have been considering changing that policy on the principle that certain commentators repel people who would have relevant things to say.”

        There’s a broad spectrum for what is considered valid discussion. But I had to use my own judgement and not be so open-minded that I allowed everything to become valid. I’m not a nihilist.

        • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 2:15 pm

          Ho ho ho ho–“magus” bans the real people who respond honestly and substantially, but absolutely hates the truth sooooooo much, he manufactures his own responses to his blogs, literally talking to himself to pretend–something, I’m not sure–as I note and demonstrate below, ho ho hoh o ho hoh ho

          • magus71 said, on May 2, 2014 at 2:51 pm

            Talking to myself? Have you read your entries?

            I really could have tolerated you, but to bring ZOG in to every argument was just too much.

            “Damn, my toilet is plugged again. ZOG must be punished.”

            Umm…no.

            • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 3:04 pm

              There u go again, “magus”: (a) first, u’re just a plain, blatant liar–I talked about ZOG when and as it was appropriate–(b) if I didn’t then u need to give at least an example, but u lie, as usual, based just upon idiot general assertions. (c) U are the one who made the statement about the plugged toilet, moron, NOT me–u’re getting more and more pathological, buddy. Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho

  3. magus71 said, on May 2, 2014 at 10:57 am

    Mike, would everything you’ve ever said in private be consumable for the public at large? Is it supposed to be? I mean, is Sterling supposed to go through some reeducation training to make him think differently? I’m fine with the market sorting out bigots, but I’m not fine with people taping conversations in which they modify their own behavior because they know the recording is happening, while setting up the other person to be destroyed.

    Why is racism so evil? I’m don’t follow. It may be stupid, and it leads people to poor logical conclusions, and to say really off the wall repetitive things, like apollonian does, but what about it is the epitome of evil?

    Every once in a while I agree with Bill Mahr. He said Sterling’s incident was not really about race: It was about the “they’re stealing all our women” mentality. Sterling’s and old fat dude with a hot chick which is notorious for creating jealousy.

    Also, do you agree that it’s difficult to level valid criticisms against certain minorities because of the threat of being called a racist? I myself can’t help but notice certain unseemly characteristics from a certain demograph. Maybe I’m a racist.

    By the way, I was called a “honkey” while living on an Indian reservation. Minorities in America are the most racist people in the country.

    • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 12:02 pm

      Magus: this wasn’t a bad essay by u, for once, but remember u need to be able to SPECIFY what “off the wall and repetitive things” u assert–which u never do.

      I say u’re psychotically, Pharisaistically fixated upon ignoring the concrete facts of reality, insisting upon a non-existent and hereticalist “good-evil,” and treasonably holding to loyalty to a foreign, alien, and enemy nation, Israel–which u might deny, but which I’ve demonstrated over and again–it’s why u so desperately banned me fm ur blog, eh? Ho ho ho ho

      • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 1:04 pm

        One other thing I was wondering about, “magus”: for the comment fm “JC” April 24, 2014 at 2:07 am, at ur blog, http://soldiercitizen.wordpress.com/2014/04/19/edward-snowden-liar/#comments, didn’t u write that comment urself?–ho ho hoho ho.

        I ask because the comment is PRECISELY in ur very same style of empty abstractions, totally dis-connected fm any concrete facts or details, brainless assertion without any substantiation. What kind of a person writes comments on his blog, pretending to be someone else?–“who specializes in appellate law,” yet, ho hoo ho ho ho.

        The comment was sooooooo utterly stupid and pretentious at the same time–it could ONLY be by someone like u, so incredibly desperate to playing for effects, puffing urself up, as u always are, ho ho hoh o ho ho ho

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 2, 2014 at 1:00 pm

      Most of what I say in private would probably confuse the public at large, except for the gamers. Plus, I’d probably get in serious trouble if my racism towards gnomes was made public.

      You raise a good point about privacy. Morally, I hold that a person should enjoy privacy in regards to what he says and does in private, unless those words or actions constitute a harm or threat of harm to others (such as planning an act of terrorism). People do not have a moral right to conceal immoral deeds. I also hold that a person’s private life is distinct from his professional life. In terms of the professional life, what matters is how the person does her work. If a person is a racist, sexist and so on in private, yet behaves correctly professionally, then there are grounds for condemning his racism and sexism, but no grounds for punishing him in his profession. However, if that racism, etc. is harmful to the professional life, then that changes things. To use an analogy, if a colleague is having an affair but is doing her job just fine, then it is no business of mine as a professional. But, if a colleague is trading sex for grades, then that becomes a professional concern. Sterling was damaging the brand-so they acted against him. But, the release of the tape was a violate of his privacy. However, his racism and sexist were already well known from public sources.

      As to why racism is evil, the obvious reply is the consequences of racism. Look at the history of slavery and the history of race-based hatred (in the past, the Nazis, today the ethnic warfare in Africa and other places).

      I agree-criticism of minorities runs the risk of the label of racism being slapped on a person.

      I’ve been called “white devil.” I don’t know how they knew-I keep my tail well hidden.

      • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 1:36 pm

        To say “Sterling was damaging the brand” is OBVIOUS question-begging, which Mike cannot demonstrate or substantiate–it’s just excuse for persecution for opinions privately held which is right of any citizen–or anyone.

        Mike further question-begs w. use of word, “evil,” and then statement “racism is evil.” “Consequences” of virtue of racism is same as those for LOYALTY, period. Slavery had nothing necessarily to do w. race; race is and was mere accident to slavery. And Nazis were heroes who fought against anti-Christ Bolsheviks defending Europe, the West, and the German people.

        So Mike simply continues his errors and numerous fallacies by compounding them w. further errors–gross errors which any high-school student can see and demonstrate.

      • magus71 said, on May 2, 2014 at 2:42 pm

        “Look at the history of slavery and the history of race-based hatred (in the past, the Nazis, today the ethnic warfare in Africa and other places).”

        But as you say, people should be punished for contributing to material harm, not hurt feelings. How do we plan to change Sterling’s mind? We can keep him from owning slaves, but do we propose reeducation camps for those that don’t think like us? AKA “sensitivity training.”

        I don’t ask that people respect Sterling’s opinions on the matter. I do believe we should reevaluate our concepts of who our heroes are. He gave that woman multiple-millions of dollars in gifts. She lives in a 1.5 million dollar home he just handed her because she hot.

        I think she’s more evil than he is. Now she’s lying about the tapes, saying Stirling agreed to be taped during the conversation, and that she gave the tapes to someone else for “safe keeping” and that she did not release them. What a joke. Why was she taping? Why would she give the tapes to someone else?

        Machiavelli was right.

  4. magus71 said, on May 2, 2014 at 11:05 am

    And he’re’s Snoop Dogg, hero to millions of black people, setting Sterling straight. I vote for some punishment. Oh wait, I don’t because I don’t care, and people are free to speak. Which makes me not a liberal.

    Snoop Dog erasing all of our misnomers about black people:

  5. apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 11:10 am

    Mike’s Essay: Putrid Logic, But Revealing Indeed About Sad Cultural State Of ZOG

    Mike this was provocative, revealing, and interesting essay on ur part, but as so often, a muddled jumble of fallacies and mis-information, w. poor and little logic. Allow me to demonstrate.

    First, it seems this essay is on subject of racism and how the present society reflects itself, culturally and morally, in accord therewith. Fact is we racists are steadily drawing ur liberal and political-correct (PC) venom, and this essay of urs demonstrates it inasmuch as u, along w. ZOG establishment, seek to dis-credit the hero, Bundy, by means of making use of ur racial prejudice along w. gross mis-informed reporting of Bundy’s problems w. ZOG.

    But ZOG is a problem for all people, of all races, and Cliven Bundy is mere case-in-pt. (as is Sterling, too), and this is one of ur failures of basic observation. What happened to ur stinking and vaunted “liberal” compassion? Ho ho ho

    So as always, lets begin at the beginning, DEFINITIONS. “Racism” is a VIRTUE, the virtue of LOYALTY to ancestors, culture, and people–ck any dictionary. Further, note racism (loyalty) is AXIOMATIC–u cannot not be racist–as u MUST necessarily be loyal to some race, ur own or some other, the mixed or the non-mixed race. So we demonstrate a compounded absurdity on ur part, a Prof. w. a Ph.d, no less–which is poor reflection upon modern edjumacation, I’d note once again.

    Second, consider the REAL issue regarding Sterling is whether he has the right to free speech and to holding whatever opinions–and note the recording of him seems to have been obtained illegally or under questionable circumstances. So what?–u can’t own an NBA team unless ur opinions stand-up to some politically-correct morons and queers?

    Sterling deserves credit for honesty–unusual for Jews–at least so far as he admits and says interesting things about Jews and Israel, for example, ho ho ho. Further, observe Sterling didn’t attempt to broadcast his opinions by way of imposing them upon others, except for reasonable conditions upon his paramour. Don’t get caught posing for pictures w. that ugly gorilla, Magic Johnson, for goodness sakes–what’s unreasonable about that?–after all, Sterling has his reputation to think about, eh? Ho ho ho

    We have every right to be racist and holding racist opinions, PERIOD, and Sterling ought to sue the NBA if they attempt any further extortions upon him–this is quite aside fm OBVIOUS fact, again, that racism is a virtue.

    Third, now that we’ve dealt w. ur absurdities and falsehoods regarding basic issues of racism, note the perfect consistency of the free market as it reflects the opinions of the people–un-popular opinions can cost u–and the market reflects that. Observe Sterling and NBA are being coerced to some extent precisely by natural market influences.

    Fourth, ur pretended facts about Bundy are all totally false–it doesn’t seem to occur to u that ur “liberal” buddies actually lied, and DELIBERATELY mis-quoted Bundy on issue of Blacks and race. Further, Bundy has excellent legal case against ZOG which is not allowed to own land in the states except under strict Constitutional conditions.

    It doesn’t occur to ur extremely poor information for a Ph.d getting tax-payers’ money, pretending to be a “teacher,” that it’s now found the Sen. fm Nevada, Harry Reid, along w. ZOG, is involved in literal conspiracy and dis-possessing American citizens of their rightful property in favor of a foreign, alien, and enemy gov., like the Chicoms.

    So Mike: I would totally, completely, and vehemently disagree w. practically EVERYTHING u attempted to lay-down and assert in this essay of urs extolling and defending Obongo, political-correctness, and non-racism which is all patent nonsense–it also reflects poorly, but accurately upon ur own education, logical grasp of things, and general knowledge, not to mention the putrid general state of ZOG culture and present-day thought-control. U should be ashamed, but of course, u’re actually all puffed up w. righteousness and sanctimony, no doubt, as we see.

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 2, 2014 at 12:47 pm

      You have an odd view of racism.

      If racism = loyalty to ones’ ancestors and most people have ancestors of different ethnicity, then a racist would have loyalty to, for example, his black and white ancestors. That is an unusual sort of racism.

      Also, the only race on the planet, as far as we know, is homo sapiens.

      Do you actually believe what you write or are you an amazingly devoted troll?

      • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 1:23 pm

        Racism is (a) loyalty, (b) to race, OBVIOUSLY–and all u have to do is ck the dictionary, as I note. Urs is demonstrably fallacious view, inaccurate, wrong-headed, mis-conceived.

        And if one comes fm mixed ancestry, then one may well be racist (loyal) to that mixed-race, which actually exists, as in form of mulattos and mestizos–and it is expressed, for one thing, as we see, in form of hostility to those loyal to a non-mixed race.

        Yes, there’s human race as u note, but there are also widely recognized sub-races–which are called “races,” as u surely understand. There were also other races too, like the Neanderthals.

        Do u believe what u write?–as above, that u keep ur “tail” well-hidden? And what diff. does it make if I’m “troll”?–why not just stick to the written text? After all, I gave my source for definition of race–the dictionary, any dictionary. Further, I provided extensive exposition in rebuttal to ur text with which I disagreed. So now is someone who disagrees w. u a troll?

        Here’s ref. for literal conspiracy against such as Cliven Bundy, which u, by extension, seem to support–against the Constitution and against the citizens of USA: http://www.infowars.com/federal-judge-blm-engaged-in-a-criminal-conspiracy-against-ranchers/

  6. magus71 said, on May 2, 2014 at 11:14 am

    Some really deep analysis by Ali Shakur here. He took a philosophy class once. Failed it, but he was there for a few classes.

  7. T. J. Babson said, on May 2, 2014 at 2:39 pm

    Mike, both Cliven and Bundy are over 80 years old. Is it so surprising they have retrograde views on race?

    Have you had a chance to hear how octogenarians talk about the Japanese? It is not pretty, but neither is it representative of America as a whole.

    • magus71 said, on May 2, 2014 at 2:43 pm

      TJ,

      Have you watched Gran Turino with Clint Eastwood?

      • T. J. Babson said, on May 2, 2014 at 3:07 pm

        Yes. Great movie. Clint is one of my heroes.

    • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 2:51 pm

      U’re sure right, TJB: ho ho ho ho–those two old guys are FAR more honest AND accurate than Mike, supposed Ph.d, pretending to being Prof., ho ho ho ho ho

    • WTP said, on May 2, 2014 at 3:16 pm

      When you consider the Empire of Japan was actively engaged in trying to kill those octogenarians in their youth, etc. can you blame them? Or Jews in regard to Germans. Yet OTOH, many of those same octogenarians hated having to kill those Japanese while at the same time the feelings from most of the Japanese for all gaijin regardless of race was far more animated. And our octogenarians had Pearl Harbor to remember. Many of whom also had historical knowledge of Japan’s similar behavior at Port Arthur. Not to mention Bataan, etc. Yet they knew that most of the Japanese population had no way of knowing any better. “Cliven and Bundy” (?…wasn’t that one of Superman’s villains?) had no such disadvantages. As I stated when the Cliven thing, something didn’t smell right about him (https://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/democrats-at-work-part-iv/#comment-36941). Also, I notice Mike makes no mention (I only searched on the word) that Sterling is a Dem and had made small publicly recognized donations to specific party members in the past.

      Back to my original point here…Japan was a truly evil force in the world at that time. Genocidal, aggressive, etc. over nearly a quarter of the globe. While no society should have to suffer the guilt of previous generations, and those of us who came after should have no quarrel, neither should the impact of that country’s past on those who suffered under them at the time be forgotten.

      • magus71 said, on May 2, 2014 at 3:22 pm

        Oh don’t get me wrong. I’m with the way those guys thought in that particular time. I mean, when the Spanish Empire found the Aztec Empire, they knew it was time for a good bit of racism. Thank goodness they destroyed the evil Aztec Empire.

        I don’t think modern liberals would be so glib if a modern nation with the attitude of the Aztecs were on the Canadian border. You know, like Iran for instance.

        • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 3:25 pm

          –about which (Iran) the poor fool knows absolutely nothing–but for what ZOG tells him–gad, what a pathetic creature.

          • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 3:26 pm

            –all in the pathetic, desperate attempt to pretending he’s “good” and “patriotic” as he jumps like a doggie to get a pat on the head fm ZOG. Ho ho ho ho hoh ho

      • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 3:23 pm

        By golly, WTP, but u sure are a “mighty white” Jew, aren’t u?–eh? Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho

      • magus71 said, on May 2, 2014 at 3:29 pm

        As far as Stirling goes, he broke no laws. It seems the woman did, which is why she is lying about Sterling consenting to be taped. That seems absurd to me. California, if that’s where the taping occurred, or if either party were in the state, is a two party consent state. Everybody being taped must know that fact unless a warrant issued.

        She should go to jail. Rule of Law.

        • T. J. Babson said, on May 2, 2014 at 3:35 pm

          Mike says Steling’s racism was well known,but does not explain why Sterling was scheduled to receive yet another award from the NAACP. How does this compute, Mike?

          • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 3:38 pm

            Money talks, eh? Ho ho ho ho ho ho–doubt Jews rule? Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho–yet more PROOF the market works in all cases, by golly, ho ho ho ho ho

            Mike started a great dialectic for this one–but see how he gets crushed every which way but loose–on premises, logic, conclusions, AND the simple, basic facts, ho ho ho ho ho ho

          • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 2, 2014 at 6:14 pm

            The NAACP has taken flack for its alleged willingness to overlook violations of its avowed values in return for large donations. This is a reasonable criticism: if you want to stand for something, cash should not sway your principles so easily.

        • WTP said, on May 2, 2014 at 3:55 pm

          Oh, I agree. She’s scum and needs to be prosecuted. Of course it’s quite the reflection on him the kind of women he “employs”, even in the context of hodom. I liked what Kareem Abdul Jabbar had to say on this matter. Well most of it. Actually, I liked all of it but only agreed with most of it. But Sterling is not being imprisoned, he’s just being fired. If I were running a corporation and most of my employees were of a given ethnicity, and one of my division heads made the same sort of remarks in private or not that Sterling made, and those remarks got out, that guy would not be running my division any more. Your employees need to have faith that those they work for respect them as human beings. And it’s even more important when you have a very PR-oriented business and the vast majority of your customer base has reason to be offended. Yes, some of the reaction is over the top and many of the players are guilty of far worse. But that’s pretty much beside the point.

          • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 4:02 pm

            No u lying, babbling moron: Sterling had perfect right to say and think what he pleases, PERIOD–this as plain matter of fact and law–get it straight. Besides, who do these uppity gentiles think they are, anyway?–they need to be put firmly within their place, by golly.

            And not to worry, Israel will go out and bull-doze some more Palestinian houses tomorrow while everyone is focused on the black-guys jumping around w. the b-ball, etc. And if we’re not careful there might just be a neat little false-flag to get us at war in Syria or Ukraine, or somewhere–Jews-media is yelping about Assad having done more poison-gas attacks, eh?–this, even after Sy Hersh himself essentially proved it was ZOG.

            Yech–this is truly “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler, isn’t it?

          • T. J. Babson said, on May 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm

            I suspect Sterling’s lawyers are very busy right now. I don’t think he is going to go down quietly.

            • WTP said, on May 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm

              Yes, well it’s his lawyers who are the true winners in all of this. I wonder who Stiviano is really working for?

            • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 4:17 pm

              Well TJB: why should he?–don’t forget, at least a third to half of the NBA owners are Jews, I understand–do u imagine they’re against Sterling and his rights?–do u think those Jews are essentially any diff. fm Sterling?–despite what kind of (typical) spin such lower-level pipsqueak as WTP babbles about so righteously? Ho ho ho ho ho

              Like I say–relax–in a day or two Miley Cyrus will have a heart-attack and the queers, lefties, and libs will be all over that, this present little tempest-in-a-teapot gone and forgotten eh? Ho ho ho ho ho

              And did u hear?–Obongo admin was conspiring on “talking-pt.s” for “Benghazi,” regarding the Moooozlim vid lies, which was hit on Amb. Stevens who was doubtful about giving al-Qaeda stinger AA missiles with which they’ll soon be shooting-down airliners in USA and Europe, for which ZOG will demand more militarization and encroachment of citizens’ rights–and “magus” will say right on–we need law and order, by golly, ho ho ho ho ho

            • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 4:25 pm

              I forgot to add about “Benghazi”–it’s simply this “racism” and Sterling issue is good cover, u see? Ho ho ho ho–too busy laughing, I guess, ho ho ho ho ho

            • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 4:43 pm

              Here’s story on Benghazi: http://www.infowars.com/why-the-white-house-is-desperate-to-bury-benghazi/

            • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 4:46 pm

              Oh, and here’s ANOTHER thing which needs covering-up–MERS has broken out in USA now–it kills at least 25% of those who get it. Now ZOG will demand everyone get toxic vaccines which doesn’t help immunize and gives u cancer: http://www.infowars.com/u-s-reports-first-case-of-mers/

            • apollonian said, on May 2, 2014 at 4:53 pm

              Oh, and here’s another little thing: Ruskies smashing Petro-dollar–ZOG doesn’t even want it’s own partisans to see this: http://investmentwatchblog.com/economic-collapse-news-russian-hammer-coming-down-hard-on-petrodollar/

              See what brilliant distraction/diversion this “racism” stupidity does for ZOG?–purest stupidity for the very dumbest people who need “bread & circuses,” after all.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 2, 2014 at 6:18 pm

              Sterling is apparently the sort who does not give up easily. He would certainly have the right to press charges against his mistress for taping his conversations-assuming she did not have permission to do so.

              Perhaps a lesson is to not say racist things in front of one’s mixed-ethnicity mistress in an age of smartphones.

  8. magus71 said, on May 2, 2014 at 4:06 pm

  9. Mikey said, on May 2, 2014 at 8:31 pm

    Reblogged this on If I Only Had A Brain….

  10. magus71 said, on May 2, 2014 at 9:29 pm

    Mike, can you write an article on how Argumentum ad baculum may be affecting the arguments about racism and sexism?

  11. ajmacdonaldjr said, on May 2, 2014 at 10:45 pm

    Red Ice Radio – Professor Darrell Hamamoto – Hour 1 – The Dark Side of Asian America & Weaponized Political Correctness http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2014/05/RIR-140502.php#.U2RX01EWpbE.twitter

  12. T. J. Babson said, on May 3, 2014 at 8:47 am

    Rachel Lu is a philosophy professor even WTP could like:

    Beutler is gracious enough to agree with Chait that, “the left’s racial analysis of conservative politics might lend itself to careless or opportunistic, overreaching accusations of racism.” But he doesn’t feel too bad about it, because as he goes on to argue, liberals are fundamentally right about conservative racism. White racial resentment is one of the primary sources of energy behind American conservatism. It has to be, because that’s the only plausible explanation for why anyone but the rich and privileged would support the GOP.

    To his credit, Beutler doesn’t probe the sub-conscious of high-profile conservatives for unconfessed bigotry. He is cheerfully prepared to admit (and he thinks most liberals would agree) that racial hatred plays a small role in the motivations of the major players. For them, it’s all about greed. Their policies are pitched to protect their own wealth and privilege at the expense of the poor.

    But the ultra-wealthy (as we have been reminded ad nauseum) are a small minority in America, and poorer voters have little reason to support a plutocratic agenda that doesn’t serve them. In order to stay viable, therefore, Republicans need a populist hook. That hook, Beutler believes, is racial resentment.

    Conservative readers might be asking: why in the world would he believe that? To liberals it seems obvious. Conservatives are ferocious in their assault on programs that disproportionately enlist ethnic minorities, including Medicaid, food stamps and welfare. How else to explain that except as a manifestation of white Republicans’ racist schadenfreude?

    It’s hard to know where to begin with such convoluted reasoning. The conservative distaste for entitlements is deeply connected to our political philosophy; all of our most cherished values come into play here. And we have plenty of sociological evidence to present, now that the scars of entitlement dependency blight every major city in America, bequeathing to our poorest children a legacy of dysfunction and vice. But sure, let’s write all of that off as a manifestation of conservative greed and hatred. That would make so much more sense.

    In order to make sense of such an apparently-crazy view, we need to remind ourselves of some further features of liberal ideology. To conservatives it seems crazy and wildly uncharitable to dismiss their (well-grounded) views as manifestations of an irrational animus against ethnic minorities. But to liberals this seems reasonable, because embedded deep within the liberal worldview is the idea that the end of the day all political activity can be seen as part of a story about warring classes. It’s another trope that we can lay at the feet of our still-fashionable friend, Karl Marx.

    Marx declares early in The Communist Manifesto that, “The history of all hitherto existing societies is a history of class struggles.” This is one of those sweeping interpretive claims that sounds silly to the uninitiated, but that starts to seem all-important to those who have adopted it as their central political paradigm. Marx was a wonderful storyteller, and his fairy tale still holds much power over the minds of modern people, as we’ve recently seen in the furor over Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.”

    As Marx understands it, societies are made up of multiple classes that perpetually jockey for relative advantage. Open warfare is avoided through a complex balance of agreements that enable each class to “hold its own” in the larger social structure. Some are better off than others, but all have something to lose if the arrangement collapses and turns into open warfare. Before the Industrial Revolution humans had crafted a fairly well-functioning “class ecosystem”, but rapidly expanding markets interrupted that balance by massively empowering one particular class (specifically the medieval burghers) to bring all others to heel. Now called “the bourgeoisie”, these new overlords wielded the immense power of the modern market as a weapon, harnessing all the other classes in an exploitative system that overwhelmingly benefited themselves.

    It’s a story we all know, whether or not we’ve read. For liberals especially, The Communist Manifesto is far more important than Cinderella. It wafts its way through their dreams and colors their entire social outlook. Of course we know that capitalists are castigated as exploiters and tyrants. That’s only the beginning, however. Everything is a zero-sum game in this outlook. That means that every move Republicans make must represent an attempt to win some marbles away from Democratic voters, which of course will be tossed into the overflowing treasure chests of Republican elite.

    How do we know that Republicans are racist? Well, we don’t get much support from ethnic minorities, and we dislike entitlement programs. If you see the world through a Marxist class-warfare paradigm, that really does look like adequate evidence to make the case.

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/05/02/why-liberals-think-conservatives-are-racist/

    • WTP said, on May 3, 2014 at 9:24 am

      I’d say this Beutler fellow is a philosophical doppelgänger for Mike. Yet Mike claims to not believe in Marxism. Thoughts?

      • magus71 said, on May 3, 2014 at 11:42 am

        Mike insists Communism is dead. I disagree wholeheartedly. He’s of course mocked me for desiring a “rational enemy”

        I think recent and future events will vindicate me.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 3, 2014 at 12:03 pm

          Real Communism never was. At best, there are dictators who use it as an ideology and academics who like a theory to organize their rage.

          I do agree that there are people who claim to be Communists. But, they are typically communists in the same sense that KKK members are Christians. That is, not really. For example, did Stalin really want his state to wither away and there to be no system of coercion? That seems unlikely. If they actually understood the belief system, they would realize that they are not communists (or Christians, in the case of the KKK). But ideology is a great tool-throw in a future state and talk of inevitability that justifies behaving like a bastard now…well, some folks lap that up like honey.

          • Anonymous said, on May 6, 2014 at 2:35 pm

            By this standard, even Marx was not a Marxist. He advocates bloody revolution throughout his writings. Besides, it seems logical that any theory, after being put in to practice, will require modifications for it to work. Thus, Lenin discovered that the proletariat had to ability to lead a revolution, and that in fact, people really didn’t like having their stuff taken away. And here’s Marx’ pal, Engels:

            “A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?”

            Magus

            • Anonymous said, on May 6, 2014 at 6:09 pm

              proletariat had *no ability to lead a revolution

              Magus

        • WTP said, on May 6, 2014 at 12:59 pm

          Just seeing this. How can take setiously his claim it is dead when he himself overtly considers portions of it viable such as LVT, and endorses many aspects of such under different and slippery labels? We’ve even got TJ moving his observation of Mikes position from soft to hard socialist.

          • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 6, 2014 at 4:50 pm

            The labor theory of value goes back to Locke. At least.

            • WTP said, on May 6, 2014 at 5:39 pm

              And geocentricity goes back even further, what’s your point? It’s a thoroughly discredited theory, much of Marx is founded upon it, and it is the source of much human misery from the 20th century through today. AFAIK, only Marxist still believe in it. Well, them and yourself. Cause you’re not a Marxist.

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 3, 2014 at 11:50 am

        Oh, I believe that Marxism exists. I just believe that the Marxist analysis of metaphysics is in error. I also think that they are wrong about the inevitability of class warfare and the end of the state. That sort of necessity is not well supported by the evidence. Plus, what passes as Marxism has been monsterized into something rather horrific by folks like Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao.

        • WTP said, on May 3, 2014 at 12:06 pm

          what passes as Marxism has been monsterized into something rather horrific by folks like Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao.

          The No True Scotsman fallacy. As for the Marxisism denial, he repeatedly endorses labor value theory, society’s “rights” to some individuals’ private property, etc. etc. etc. he only denies the aspects that have been put in to place and failed repeatedly, thus are indefensible. Thus new words must be created, new sophistries, so that the same tired ideas can be retread and retried.

          • WTP said, on May 6, 2014 at 1:01 pm

            Heh, memory is slipping.

    • magus71 said, on May 3, 2014 at 11:13 am

      Off Mike’s article’s topic, but since this speaks of economics, I’ll post it here. Can someone who knows more about economics than I do give me their opinion on what the linked graph will mean in the future? The graph shows the US’ monetary base (total money on bank vaults and circulating in the public). As you can see, there was a massive spike in 2008, completely out of line with anything recorded prior in American history. I’ve heard the doomsday stories, and I know what happened to the Weimer Republic.

      Let me know.

      • Michael LaBossiere said, on May 3, 2014 at 11:51 am

        Historically, overprinting currency tends to have bad result-as you noted with the Weimer Republic.

      • wtp said, on May 3, 2014 at 2:17 pm

        Here’s a good description of the monetary base vs. the money supply. Read the whole thing but specifically to your concern, note:

        Let’s use some nice round numbers just so we can see what we are dealing with. The monetary base in 2008 was just over $800 billion. We will say it was $800 billion. The banks loaned out about $720 billion, which turned into $7.2 trillion. You can add in the $80 billion in reserve. This would equate to about $7.3 trillion.
        Now the Fed has increased the monetary base by $2.2 trillion. But the excess reserves have also gone up, by at least $1.7 trillion. That means that the banks have only loaned out a small percentage of the new money created in the last five years. It has kept down the fractional reserve process of multiplying the money supply available.
        For the sake of argument, let’s say that all $2.2 trillion had been kept in reserve. From our original estimate, it would have increased the available money supply to $9.5 trillion (7.3 + 2.2). This is still a 30% increase over 5 years, but it is far less devastating than what the almost 300% increase in the monetary base shows.
        So while the massive increase in the monetary base does add to the available money supply and eventually to price inflation, its bad effects have been somewhat minimized, at least up until now, because banks have chosen to build up massive excess reserves, and consumers and businesses have chosen not to borrow as much.

        http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2013/04/the-monetary-base-vs-the-money-supply-2508000.html

        As Mike states, printing money is a bad thing. And right now it is. But not always 100% of the time. When you print money, you are borrowing from the future. The question is can the people in charge of printing the money control themselves to only do so when absolutely necessary, such as during a panic. To do so as economic “stimulus” as the Keynesians believe however is folly. It’s like opium for a patient in pain vs. using opium to numb the mind entirely.

        Right now, as described in the link, tons of money is (are?) sitting in reserves of banks, or corporations, etc. due to economic uncertainty. Once the numerous big depositors see opportunities, depending on over how long the time period it is that they recognize economic opportunity, this money will come spilling out chasing what over the short term will be limited resources. This will cause inflation. There is an out however, in that possibly due to currently ongoing efforts or due to the flood of money pouring out, new sources of resources and/or efficient uses of static resources can effectively sop up this excess such that the general perception is that the value of the dollar has remained the same and avoids a mass panic or some such. I’m not sure I’m doing a good job of describing this but ran out patience trying to find a better description. It’s more complicated than I describe here but that is the gist of it. Think of the inflation of the late 70’s/early 80’s that persisted until the tremendous efficiancies of the personal computer and all that spun off of that caught on.

        • magus71 said, on May 3, 2014 at 2:56 pm

          Ok. I get it. hyperinflation has not occurred because the banks are keeping much of the printed money out of circulation. But here’s a question: Doesn’t that fact negate the keynsian argument that this administration’s quantitative easing was necessary and kept the US from completely going under? I mean, if the money is not available for investment now, and the damage did not get worse as they say it would, it seems we should have left things alone.

          • wtp said, on May 3, 2014 at 3:28 pm

            Yes, but you won’t get keynsians to admit that. The money was necessary in 2008 at the time of the panic to keep money flowing. Later attempts at stimulus were not justified and ultimately have failed. I may have overstated a bit that all stimulus is folly. Were the country not already deep in debt there is the argument that you can potentially stimulate economic activity by spending real money held in reserve as opposed to printing tomorrow’s (hopeful) wealth today. But that argument comes up against by what right should the government sit on wealth it doesn’t need to operate and thus isn’t that a drag on the economy at that time. My personal perception, and I’ll admit I’m not really qualified to endorse this…but then again who is…is that the Fed should be viewed as a dam. When the economy is good, interest rates go up to tamp down inflation (note, i’m not convinced of this perceived “problem” either way) and thus wealth accumulates in reserve while allowing a steady stream to flow out. When recession hits, the Fed brings those rates down, opening the gates for already existing wealth to help get things moving. But the problem is, who decides who ultimately gets the money at those low rates? You’re mucking with the risk factor contained in the decision of the institution making the loan which is an important factor to disincentivize the making of bad loans. It’s all extremely complicated, as economics is, but the bottom line is you don’t make a country richer by printing money…Though there is the argument that in lieu of any taxation, a nation simply prints the money it needs to spend to do its job. Whole other can of worms.

  13. WTP said, on May 3, 2014 at 9:18 am

    Meanwhile in New Jersey…
    A candidate for Mayor of a small New Jersey town was caught on tape allegedly spewing a racist rant in which she said she didn’t want her village to become a “f—— n—– town.”
    Marie Strumolo Burke, who is running for mayor in Belleville, N.J. as a Democrat, was reportedly heard making the vitriolic comments on a voicemail from 2013, according to NJ.com.
    In the voicemail, left by the former chairman of Belleville’s planning board, Sam Papa, on the phone of Councilman Kevin Kennedy, a voice thought to be Burke’s can be heard in the background screaming the angry racist comment.

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mayoral-candidate-new-jersey-town-allegedly-caught-tape-racist-rant-article-1.1773273#ixzz30es2WTWW

  14. WTP said, on May 4, 2014 at 8:30 am

    Question…is it ethical to put the title of this piece, in quotes “One more thing I know about the Negro” next to a picture of Sean Hannity rather than a picture of the man who actually said those words? I’m not asking about accuracy here, I’m asking is this ethical behavior?

    • T. J. Babson said, on May 4, 2014 at 9:17 am

      An excellent point.

    • apollonian said, on May 5, 2014 at 11:25 am

      ‘Is it ethical?”–ethics is logic btwn ends and means. So what’s the means?–the placing of the quote along w. the picture?–okay–and question then is whether this is consistent/logical (“ethical”) w. some end. But we don’t exactly know what the end is/was, do we?–only the author could possibly know, eh?

      So WTP, I guess u need to contact ur MOSSAD buddies and have Mike water-boarded, perhaps, eh?–THEN u could find-out the end, and THEN u could determine whether it all was “ethical,” eh?

      • WTP said, on May 5, 2014 at 12:13 pm

        I gotta admit, that’s a better justification than Mike has offered. Good job.

  15. WTP said, on May 4, 2014 at 2:32 pm

    Not surprisingly,

    • apollonian said, on May 8, 2014 at 9:09 pm

      Sterling Is Worth A Billion Bucks, Truly, Ho Ho Ho

      Ho ho ho–Sterling saying–I COULDN’T be “racist”; after all, I’m a Jew, ho ho ho ho ho–typical of Jews–and now u see how they can be so blunt and graphically forthright as they are when they talk in private, ho ho ho ho ho. Jews are absolved of all/any “racism,” u see, because, gee whiz, they’ve suffered soooooooooooooooooooo, throughout history, u seeeeeeeeeee?–one lie backs up the other in their subjectivist world in which they ALL take a collectivistic part and interest, u understand.

      And don’t forget the basic, original meaning of the word, “racism”–a togetherness, a familiality, a loyalty they have towards one another–distinct fm any other group or race–actually a VIRTUE; it isn’t necessarily, at root, “hatred,” as the prop.-masters want to push. Jews are FOR their people, but no one else can be–that would be “racism” which is tantamount to “hatred,” ho ho ho ho ho ho ho

      We anti-semites don’t grudge the Jews for this basic racism–as we say it’s a virtue–what we condemn is Jews lying about it as they do, pretending as Sterling does here, they COULDN’T be racist–it’s just not possible, ho ho ho ho ho ho

      Hypocrisy: thy name is Jew.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: