MLK and The Fierce Urgency of Now

The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be… The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

It was 50 years ago through the blood, sweat, time, toil and tears that a 34-year-old Baptist preacher stepped to the microphone on the Mall in Washington and for the next 17 minutes he gave what is perhaps the greatest speech in America’s history.

Five years later, Martin Luther King would lie dead from an assassin’s bullet and much of his Dream of a better world for children of all races, creeds and colors died with him that day as his blood drained from his body on the balcony of a second-rate motel in Memphis.

From the moment life left King’s body in the process of celebrating the Dreamer forgot all about our responsibility to make his Dream come to fruition.   King challenged all of America to step its game up and be better and kinder to each other, but instead he has been appropriated into a dumb game of “What Would MLK Say About…?”

I refuse to play this silly game.

If Dr. King were alive today, he’d be 84 years old. I can’t begin to speculate how an 84-year-old man feels about anything. At that age you’re probably happy if you can make it to the bathroom with peeing on yourself.   He would be deserving of a little quiet in his sunset years instead of being badgered for a comment on the issue of the day.

An equally dumb game is the “Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican” crap advanced by colored conservatives like Alveda King, the loudmouth niece of the slain civil rights leader who will tell anybody who asks, “Dr. King was a Republican!  I know it.”   How she knows this when King never said he was a Republican, his wife never said he was a Republican and his children never said he was a Republican is anybody’s guess.

Saying it doesn’t make it so. Providing proof makes it so.  PoltiFact deems the claims of MLK as a Republican to be FALSE:

…in a 2008 Associated Press story, King’s son and namesake Martin Luther King III said: “It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican. It is even more outrageous to suggest he would support the Republican Party of today, which has spent so much time and effort trying to suppress African American votes in Florida and many other states.”

Was MLK a Republican? No. But if Alveda King wants to believe he was I’m okay with that.  If she wants to believe MLK would make a better Batman than Ben Affleck  that’s fine too. It’s nuts, but so is the suggestion one of the greatest and most committed activists of his age, would be watching Fox News religiously.

If the Right-Wing Noise Machine had existed then as it exists now they would denounce King as a Black racist, a malcontent, an agitator, a race hustler who was stirring up resentment against Whites.  The Dr. King the right-wingers have attempted to appropriate for their own is one they have turned into a harmlessly naive toy figure whom when you pull his string he says, “I Have A Dream.”

What they don’t realize is King wasn’t simply a dreamer and his Dream was rooted in harsh reality.

King dreamed of a better America than the one he lived in, but he wasn’t asleep to how pernicious and persistent an adversary institutional and individual racism truly is.  Those who would manipulate King invoke his most famous speech to chastise Blacks but deceptively overlook  King put Whites on the spot when he said,  “The Negro needs the white man to free him from his fears. The white man needs the Negro to free him from his guilt.”

“I have a dream” isn’t my favorite part of the speech, but the less optimistic and slightly ominous caution of growing Black restlessness and discontent as King challenged America to confront its shabby treatment of its Black citizens.


Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we’ve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.”

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

That part of MLK’s speech is a callback to Frederick Douglass’ admonishing White Americans that there could be no progress without a struggle, but even more pointedly, Douglass warned, “The white man’s happiness cannot be purchased by the black man’s misery.”

That is as true now for America now as it was 50 years ago on a beautiful day in Washington.  The misery of Black people should not make White people happy.  People in misery are volatile people and people with grievances are subject to be manipulated and misled by opportunistic extremists who stoke the fires of racial resentment for their own cynical purposes.

That’s not the kind of extremism King was advocating.  His was a creative extremism where love drove out hate, the artificial divisions of racism, sexism, and classism would fall away before the soldiers of peace, progress and prosperity.     They call Martin a “dreamer” but he was wide awake.   It was the rest of us who had drifted into a slumbering stupor that required him to stir, awake and arise to make a better world.

We are closer today than we were 50 years ago, but close isn’t the same as being finished.

 

Shut Up, Fool! The Post-Zimmerman Bipartisan Edition.

Show you my championship rings? Man, I don’t have to show you any championship rings! I don’t have any to show!

1. Charles Barkley, the Still Round Mound of Rebound:  “Well, I agree with the verdict. I feel sorry that young kid got killed, but they didn’t have enough evidence to charge him. Something clearly went wrong that night — clearly something went wrong — and I feel bad for anybody who loses a kid, but if you looked at the case and you don’t make it — there was some racial profiling, no question about it — but something happened that changed the dynamic of that night.”

“Mr. Zimmerman was wrong to pursue, he was racial profiling, but I think Trayvon Martin — God rest his soul — I think he did flip the switch and started beating the hell out of Mr. Zimmerman. But it was just a bad situation.”

“I just feel bad because I don’t like when race gets out in the media because I don’t think the media has a ‘pure heart,’ as I call it. There are very few people who have a pure heart when it comes to race. Racism is wrong in any shape [or] form — there are a lot of black people who are racist, too. I think sometimes when people talk about race, they act like only white people are racist. There are a lot of black people who are racist. And I don’t like when it gets out there in the media because I don’t think the media has clean hands.”

Neither do you, Chuck. 

2.  Bill Cosby, Cranky Comedian:  “See this racial stuff goes into a whole bunch of discussion which has stuff that you can’t prove. You can’t prove if somebody is a racist unless they really come out and do the act and is found to be that.”

3.  Ted Nugent, Aging Rocker, NRA Member, Draft Dodging Dickhead:   The race-baiting industry saw an opportunity to further the racist careers of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Black Panthers, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, et al, who then swept down on the Florida community refusing to admit that the 17-year-old dope smoking, racist gangsta wannabe Trayvon Martin was at all responsible for his bad decisions and standard modus operendi of always taking the violent route.”

“Trayvon had no reason not to attack, because it was the standard thug thing to do. See Chicago any day of the week.”

Ted is well-known for not using drugs or alcohol.   The Nuge’s vice was groupies,, Lots of then and if they were pre-pubescent girls at the time, that didn’t slow Teddy’s roll.   Maybe he has syphilis from too much sex with no latex.   One can only hope. 

The Rock n’ Roll Racist Redneck

4.  Lupe Fiasco:   “Rub your face in it! Swallow down that hard pill! Black blood spills in the streets of America nightly at the hands other blacks,” reads one tweet. “Half y’all been partying to Black Death for the past 2 decades…the other half watched the party…don’t be angry now!”

“Nobody knows what really happened except Trayvon and Zimmerman. The justice system relies on reasonable doubt not our emotions.”

“The case should have never been televised as the potential to antagonize US race relations was, in my dumb opinion too risky & unnecessary.”

When a man calls his own opinions “dumb” I have no choice but to concur.  Lupe is a Fiasco. 

5.  Jimmy Carter, Failed Ex-President:  “I think the jury made the right decision based on the evidence presented, because the prosecution inadvertently set the standard so high that the jury had to be convinced that it was a deliberate act by Zimmerman that he was not at all defending himself, and so forth. It’s not a moral question, it’s a legal question and the American law requires that the jury listens to the evidence presented.”

Thank you Mr President for reminding me why I voted for John Anderson.   It took Clinton and Obama both winning second terms to finally rid the Democratic Party of the stink of your loser ass. 

Yep. I sucked as president.

6.  Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s right-wing niece, but mostly a nobody:   “It is not helpful to race-bait.  “[The] NAACP and all of the organizations … We need to wonder why they’re doing that, what kind of checks and money they’re getting behind the scenes to stir us up into racial anarchy.

“We should be speaking nonviolence, justice, peace and love as Trayvon’s parents are doing, by the way. So we need to ask why they’re race baiting, because they are.  There’s no black race, white race, yellow race and red race. The other thing is, Mr. Zimmerman is not a Caucasian. He’s a Hispanic. The media is somehow forgetting that, so [there are] all of these nuances, all of the race-baiting, all of the pain.”

“Stop thinking that this is a race thing between separate races. This is all human beings here. If we’re still feeling that one part of our community is better than the other because of skin color, that’s got to change right now.”

Aw, go pimp your dead uncle’s last name some more.  That’s what you do best.

7.  Ann Coulter:  Black liberals keep bemoaning the danger to their own teenage sons after the “not guilty” verdict in George Zimmerman‘s murder trial. To avoid what happened to Trayvon Martin, their boys need only follow this advice: Don’t walk up to a stranger and punch him, ground-and-pound him, MMA-style, and repeatedly smash his head against the pavement.

Perhaps, someday, blacks will win the right to be treated like volitional human beings. But not yet.

Perhaps, someday,  Ann Coulter won’t say something that is vile,  repugnant, racist and stupid, but she’ll probably be lying in her casket when that day comes. 

Annie and a friend

8.  Bill O’ Reilly,  Well-Paid, Big Mouth Angry White Guy:  The sad truth is that from the President on down, our leadership has no clue, no clue at all about how to solve problems within the black community. And many are frightened to even broach the issue. That’s because race hustlers and the grievance industry have intimidated the so- called “conversation,” turning any valid criticism of African-American culture into charges of racial bias.

Trayvon Martin was killed because circumstances got out of control. He was scrutinized by a neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman, because of the way he looked. Not necessarily his skin color, there is no evidence of that but because he was a stranger to Zimmerman and was dressed in clothing sometimes used by street criminals.

It was wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin based on his appearance. But the culture that we have in this country does lead to criminal profiling because young black American men are so often involved in crime, the statistics overwhelming.

But here is the headline: young black men commit homicides at a rate 10 times greater than whites and Hispanics combined. When presented with damning evidence like that, and like the mini-holocaust in Chicago where hundreds of African-Americans are murdered each year the civil rights industry looks the other way or makes excuses. They blame guns, poor education, lack of jobs, rarely do they define the problem accurately. So here it is. The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the African-American family.
You want a conversation, you got it. You want a better situation for blacks, give them a chance to revive their neighborhoods and culture. Work with the good people to stop the bad people. Pumping money into the chaos does little. You can’t legislate good parenting or responsible entertainment. But you can fight against the madness, with discipline, a firm message and little tolerance for excuse-making.

It is now time for the African-American leadership, including President Obama to stop the nonsense. Walk away from the world of victimization and grievance and lead the way out of this mess.

Big Bill has vast experience dealing with Blacks as he shared in 2007 when as Al Sharpton’s dinner guest at Sylvia’s in Harlem,  O’Reilly was flabbergasted to report, “[There] wasn’t any kind of craziness at all.   There wasn’t one person in Sylvia’s who was screaming, ‘M.F.-er, I want more iced tea.’ It was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense that people were sitting there and they were ordering and just having fun.”

Bill O’Reilly:  BFF with the Black Community. 

“Damn. I’m gorgeous!”

9. Richard Cohen Washington Post columnist and reactionary:  I don’t like what George Zimmerman did, and I hate that Trayvon Martin is dead. But I also can understand why Zimmerman was suspicious and why he thought Martin was wearing a uniform we all recognize. I don’t know whether Zimmerman is a racist. But I’m tired of politicians and others who have donned hoodies in solidarity with Martin and who essentially suggest that, for recognizing the reality of urban crime in the United States, I am a racist. The hoodie blinds them as much as it did Zimmerman.

I hate to tell you Richard, but when you make a sweeping generalization about every Black kid who wears a hoodie with “the reality of urban crime” that is not just unrealistic, it’s a little bit racist. 

10.  Allen West: One-Term Congressman and Full-Time Dipshit:  “I am a black male who grew up in the inner city of Atlanta and no one ever followed me in a mall. I don’t recall any doors clicking when I crossed the street. And I never had anyone clutching their handbag when I got on an elevator. I guess having two awesome parents who taught me to be a respectful young man paid dividends.”

Ooh.  Nice burn of Trayvon Martin’s parents, Al  It’s too bad your “awesome parents” didn’t teach you to be respectful of a family grieving for their murdered son.  They should have taught you not to be such a flaming asshole. 

“How many people don’t think I’m an asshole? THIS many!”

Paula Deen’s Southern-Fried Racist Fantasies

Maybe by now you’ve heard that Paula Deen, the Food Network chef whose confections include stomach-churning monstrosities such as Deep-Fried Lasagna, Chocolate Cheese Fudge (don’t forget the Velveeta!)  and  Krispy Kreme Bread Pudding  made some colorful comments during a deposition she gave for a discrimination lawsuit filed against her, her brother and others.

Deen admitted to using “nigger” and other derogatory racial slurs (“yes, of course”) and described wanting to have a “very southern style wedding” for her brother modeled after a restaurant where the “whole entire wait staff was middle-aged black men” in white jackets and black bow ties

I am absolutely shocked–SHOCKED–I tell you that a 66-year-old, White trash, trailer park, backwards-ass, country-fried peckerwood who fries everything in butter is a racist old SKANK. Who woulda thunk it?

Am I going too far?  Am I wallowing in the same sort of vulgar and nasty stereotypes  Paula Deen dreams of?   Yes, I am and what of it?

Just to be clear if my language is extreme (and admittingly it is)  you can’t be bad with that and e good with Mrs. Deen’s “bunch of little niggers” dancing around like they’re in a Shirley Temple movie phraseology.   Because if we can’t express loathing, revulsion and disgust for Deen’s Southern-fried fantasies of Black men in White shirts waiting on her hand and foot, then I’m kind of stumped on how to do so properly without turning Deen’s vile stereotypes against her.

Paula is down for the chocolate.

What gives stereotypes their sting is when they have some grain of truth to them. African-Americans do like fried chicken. White people put mayonnaise on their sandwiches. There are gay men whom adore Judy Garland and Irish husbands who get sauced and beat their wives’ asses.

Americans like to tell themselves racism is a thing of the past.   The Supreme Court stands poised to gut the 1965 Voting Rights Act because Antonin Scalia says it is a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”   Surveys indicate Whites are more hostile to affirmative action than ever before and believe they are the ones suffering most from racial discrimination.    In comparison to the mounting tensions between Whites and Blacks, Deen’s wet dreams of subservient Blacks seem staggeringly trivial, but in another way are a troubling reminder of how much progress remains to be made between the races.

There remains Southern born bigots like Paula Deen who long for the days when you could call a Black man shining your shoes a “boy” and much worse if they forgot their place  and they had better not give a White person any sass  if they knew what was good for them.

Is calling Deen a peckerwood, White trash, a trailer resident going over-the-top deep into Stereotype Lake?  Sure it is, and I know she’s probably none of those things, but then I’m not a nigger either.

What Paula Deen thinks about Blacks is sad, pathetic and backwards as hell,  but I still feel more pity than contempt for her.   To the extent she can think at all, who  cares what this phony thinks about Blacks?  The women’s brain is full of butter, gravy and b.s. and ingesting all that fried gunk probably gave her Type 2 diabetes.

Seems like poetic justice to me.

ADDENDUM:  Oh, look!  Roland Martin, The National Association of Black Journalists choice for the 2013 Journalist of the Year took to his Twitter account to defend Deen’s divine right to say “nigger” as much as she wants.   How gallant of The Ascot.

“I like plenty of butter and gravy on my Negroes.”

Post-Election Psychos: Haters Just Keep On Hatin’

There’s a good reason the President has all those men in black following him around.

I’ve never been to Coldstone Creamery, but I hope their ice cream is better than some of the people who work there serving it up.   One of their employees in Sacramento, Denise Helms, 22, posted her shiny happy reaction on Facebook to the news of the president winning a second term.

“And another 4 years of the nigger. Maybe he will get assassinated this term..!!”

Social media never sleeps and Helms’ remarks soon drew the attention of a local TV station.  Helms didn’t seem to think what she said was any big deal.

“I didn’t think it would be that big of a deal. … The assassination part is kind of harsh. I’m not saying like I would go do that or anything like that, by any means, but if it was to happen, I don’t think I’d care one bit.”

Helms cared enough to delete her original post and add a new one.  “So apparently my post last night about Obama got onto Twitter and Fox 40 came and interviewed me cause apparently a lot of people in Sacramento think I’m crazy and racist. WOW is all I got to say!! I’m not racist and I’m not crazy. just simply stating my opinion.!!!”

“…but I meant “nigger” in a NICE way!”

Ever notice how idiots who spout racist crap are so quick to proclaim they aren’t racist?     Is there a nice, non-racist way to call the president a nigger?

The Secret Service says they will look into the matter.  They tend to take threats against the President of the United States as serious business even when they are made by a dumb ass.

I have to say I’m a little concerned at how badly some people are taking Obama’s reelection.  Didn’t they even consider the possibility, however small, that Romney might lose?

Apparently not.  Some idiot in Texas is taking the prospect of four more years as such a grim prospect that he wants to secede from the United States.   A petition with over 51,000 signatures has been posted on the White House website.

The U.S. continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the U.S. suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect its citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.

The hell with Texas.  Let ‘em walk.   Besides oil and Texans what else do we get from that batshit state?

Wait.  I liked Lyndon B. Johnson and Molly Ivins and they both were from Texas.  Hell with Texas.  Make ‘em stay and suffer.   Bunch of whiny crybabies.

It’s too bad that Miss Helms and apparently the entire Lone Star state can’t accept the judgment of their fellow American citizens, but if I got through eight years of George W. Bush (former governor of the great state of Texas) they can get through for more years of Obama.

And if they can’t they can just take a big ol’ suck on the lighted end of my victory cigar.

Will White Racism Put a White Man In the White House?

Does Mitt Romney approve of THIS message?

I’ve been asked by my Republican friends to refrain from criticizing all of them and instead single out individuals or simply say “some Republicans, not all Republicans.”

I can do that.  Some Republicans are racist assholes.   One specific Republican who is a fucking racist asshole is John Sununu, the chairman of Mitt Romney’s campaign.   Following Colin Powell’s endorsement of President Obama for a second term, Sununu was interviewed by CNN’s clownish Piers Morgan.

You would expect Team Romney to shrug off the former Bush Administration Secretary of State supporting their rival, but Sununu, a man with a breathlessly nasty temperament couldn’t refrain from showing just how nasty he is.

MORGAN: “Colin Powell has decided to opt for President Obama again, despite apparently still being a Republican. Is it time he left the party?”

SUNUNU: “Well, I’m not sure how important that is. I do like the fact that Colin Powell’s boss, George Herbert Walker Bush, has endorsed Mitt Romney all along. And frankly, when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder if that’s an endorsement based on issues, or whether he’s got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama.”

MORGAN: “What reason would that be?”

SUNUNU: “Well, I think when you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being President of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him.”

That’s today’s Republican Party.  There’s nothing too reactionary or inflammatory or just flat-out stupid someone with an “R” after their  name can say that goes too far.    Is Sununu backing Romney because he’s of his own race?   For far too long it’s been thrown in the face of Black supporters of Obama that, “You’re voting for him because he’s Black.”   Which is crap.   I’m voting for Obama because he’s not Mitt Romney.

Hey Mitt. Put a muzzle on your dog.

Whites vote for candidates for no reason than they’re White and that’s accepted as standard operating procedure.   Blacks are supposed to apologize and explain why they support someone who looks like them.  Could it be the content of his character, not the color of his skin, makes Obama the best man for the job?

Not to shitheads like Sununu.    Col. Lawrence Wilkerson told liberal talk show host Ed Schultz “My party, unfortunately, is the bastion of those people, not all of them, but most of them, who are still basing their decision on race,” Wilkerson said. “Let me just be candid: My party is full of racists.”

“And the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House  has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as commander-in-chief and president, and everything to do with the color of his skin. And that’s despicable.”

President Obama refused to bite Sununu’s race-bait.   In a radio interview Obama said, “I don’t think that there are many people in America who would question Gen. Powell’s credibility, his patriotism, his willingness to tell it straight.  So any suggestion that Gen. Powell would make such a  profound statement in such an important election based on anything other than what he thought would be best for America doesn’t make much sense.”

The Republican Party is not racist.  Republicans are not by nature any more racist than Democrats.   But racists are voting Republicans and when Romney allows his people to race-bait in such an overt way it speaks volumes on how little he cares when his campaign wallows in craven appeals to bigotry.

Not only do anti-Black attitudes still exist, they have been growing and thriving since America elected its first Black president.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the United States elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll finds, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not.

Those views could cost President Barack Obama votes as he tries for re-election, the survey found, though the effects are mitigated by some Americans’ more favorable views of blacks.

Powell and his peeps hangin’ out.

Racial prejudice has increased slightly since 2008 whether those feelings were measured using questions that explicitly asked respondents about racist attitudes, or through an experimental test that measured implicit views toward race without asking questions about that topic directly.

In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.

“As much as we’d hope the impact of race would decline over time … it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago,” said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor who worked with AP to develop the survey.

Romney will never say he wants anyone to vote for him because he’s White, but he certainly knows he will get a lot of votes because he is.

Race matters and racism matters as well.  What some suspected, many already knew: if Obama will get Black votes because he’s Black, it’s equally true that he won’t get votes from Whites because he’s Black.

This has nothing to do with party affiliation.  There are Democrats who won’t support a Black candidate too.   The sentiment that there needs to be a White man in the White House doesn’t have to be said out loud.   It hangs in the air unsaid, but clear.

If Obama loses, White racism won’t be the reason.   But it will be one of the reasons.

Did John Derbyshire Write the Most Racist Rant EVER?

Meet John Derbyshire. If you're Black, he probably hates your guts.

Before Twitter and Facebook the two things that flourished most on the Internet were porn and racism. Both are still going strong with the most repellent and toxic forms of racism banished to hate sites and forums where bigots can gather in their little communities and rail against the Kenyan in the White House and applaud the dead teenager in Florida.

Beyond the knuckle-dragging, white-hooded, deep-fried racism of White supremacist websites, there is the genial, polished and sophisticated racism by educated, articulate intellectuals who are just as full of hate for Blacks as the two losers in Tulsa who went on a shooting spree killing three people and wounding two more for no other reason than they were Black.

The Tulsa police have downplayed any racial angle to the shootings.  Nothing about this so far screams “Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman” but it is safel to wonder if that controversy spurred this crime?

This brings us to one John Derbyshire.  Unless you are a conservative whose reading habits takes you beyond the internet and talk radio and Fox News, you probably aren’t familiar with the name of  Derbyshire, a columnist for The National Review.

But If you are Black he is quite familiar with you. Derbyshire knows all about Blacks. He knows how violent we are. He knows how stupid we are. He knows how much we hate Whites and can’t resist any chance to intimidate, assault or kill them.

Derbyshire wrote the most overly racist screed I have ever read outside of of a White supremacist website in response to “the talk” Black parents often feel compelled to give their kids on how to interact with the police.

Derbyshire describes his take on “the talk” as the “Non-black” version Whites (and Asian) parents should give their children as how to conduct themselves when they interact with Blacks. It is long, rambling and disgustingly extreme in its contempt for Blacks. Here are some notable excerpts:

(6) As you go through life, however, you will experience an ever larger number of encounters with black Americans. Assuming your encounters are random—for example, not restricted only to black convicted murderers or to black investment bankers—the Law of Large Numbers will inevitably kick in. You will observe that the means—the averages—of many traits are very different for black and white Americans, as has been confirmed by methodical inquiries in the human sciences.

(7) Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions.

(8) These differences are magnified by the hostility many blacks feel toward whites. Thus, while black-on-black behavior is more antisocial in the average than is white-on-white behavior, average black-on-white behavior is a degree more antisocial yet.

9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”

Racism is readily recognized when it looks like this...

Derbyshire’s rant did not run in the National Review, the publication that gave him whatever notoriety he enjoyed, but after criticisms from other conservatives, editor Rich Lowry fired him with a message on the website.

Anyone who has read Derb in our pages knows he’s a deeply literate, funny, and incisive writer. I direct anyone who doubts his talents to his delightful first novel, “Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream,” or any one of his “Straggler” columns in the books section of NR. Derb is also maddening, outrageous, cranky, and provocative. His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible. We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways. Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation. It’s a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer.

Kicking Derbyshire to the curb was the right thing for the National Review to do, but his racial views were always prickly and problematic. There is a necessary skill required to be a successful racial arsonist and to take the worst stereotypes and deviant behaviors of a given group, then magnify them into critically considered commentaries while provoking nevertheless pushes all the usual hot buttons.

Everybody knows what racism is supposed to look like. It looks like the Ku Klux Klan, the original boyz in the hoodies, It’s the sophisticated racists that are much more difficult to spot. In a moment of weakness Mr. Derbyshire permitted his hood to slip off and expose himself as the raving bigoted beast he truly is and always has been.

It’s easy to spot the redneck trailer trash types.  They go out of their way to expose their own ignorance.  It’s the quieter and more subtle bigots that are harder to spot.   By going too far Derbyshire in expressing his hatred and loathing, Derbyshire effectively outed himself and got fired for it.  Don’t think for a minute though that his sentiments were expelled from contemporary conservative thought with him.

...less so when it sports a suit and tie.

This Is What Liberal Racism Looks Like

There have been more than enough examples of racist depictions of President Obama coming from the conservative Right.

What about a racist depiction that comes from the liberal Left?

New York magazine writer Dan Amira wrote a brief piece criticizing the president for not yet supporting gay marriage in a piece titled, “Obama’s Gay Marriage Evolution Watch: Day 468″

The illustration accompanying the article is of President Obama “evolving” from a monkey into a rainbow flag-holding human.

This image is insulting, reprehensible and New York magazine owes an immediate apology to President Obama. I do not know if New York magazine has any African-Americans on their editorial staff or if they do, they aren’t conscious ones, but racism is racism and it comes off no better when liberals engage in it than conservatives.

New York magazine tries to be edgy, hip and in the know about everything that is edgy and hip in the greatest city on earth.  But depicting the president as a monkey isn’t hip or edgy.  It’s racism and it’s bullshit.

I have a personal interest in this incident. I subscribe to New York magazine. I will soon be an ex-subscriber if an apology is not swiftly forthcoming.

Ron Paul Can’t Run From His Racist Roots

Just say no to Dr. No

As a writer and journalist since 1992, I have written hundreds of articles, editorials and essays and thousands of words on hundreds of topics, but the one thing that connects each and every one is I own all those words.  It does not matter if the words are wise, silly, entertaining or dull as a dish rag.

They are all my words and no matter how much distance time puts between me and my words, they’re never too far and never too distant for me to be held accountable for them.

The reality for every writer is we may forget what we’ve written, but as long as it is written down somewhere those words are never truly lost and once found, they are potentially capable of returning to bedevil us anew.

This is a reality Ron Paul would rather not face.

Paul’s appeal to voters isn’t lost on me.  He seems like the perfect anti-politician.  He’s not a pretty boy with polished teeth and a fussed over hairstyle and a meticulously managed media image.  Paul is rumpled, short, not particularly photogenic or worried about tailoring his message to fit a particular focus group or demographic.   What Paul is strong on his message of individual freedom, non-intervention in foreign affairs, not spending money on non-essential frills and pet projects

Paul is also strong on his ties to the racist newsletters published under his name and weak on answering  questions about them.

You can’t blame the Paulinistas for trying to frame the debate on their own terms on the issues they think are winning ones for them. Unfortunately for them (and Paul), he can’t run from his coziness with the racism he permitted to be published under his name.

Pile up enough of Paul’s hostility toward civil rights, his indifference to racist rants on a publication with his name on the title, and his refusal to distance himself from his ties to extremists like the John Birch Society and you can conclude once you get past the kindly, but slightly crazy old uncle act, if Ron Paul isn’t a bigot himself you couldn’t slide a piece of paper between him and those that are.

Claiming he never read the newsletters is an extraordinary admission to Paul’s lack of accountability and responsibility. If Ron Paul can’t be bothered to care about running a raggedy newsletter, why should anyone trust him to run the whole damn country?

Separating Ron Paul’s various explanations over the years about the newsletters is a laborious process, but it comes down to this: if you’re a publisher, you may not read everything that goes into your publication, but it stretches credulity to say you had no idea what was going in it, never read it, didn’t disavow the statements when they originally occurred. don’t know who wrote them and only disagreed with them after you decided to run for president.

Paul’s dilemma is once upon a time he seemed quite aware of what the content of his newsletters were as he explained in 1995 to CSPAN.

Along with that I also put out a political — type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject. That — this newsletter dealt with that.

That is a completely weak and inadequate explanation of the bigoted content of his newsletters. It’s also a reason to ask—no, DEMAND that Paul explain himself totally, fully and completely.

So far he hasn’t.

WASHINGTON – Rep. Ron Paul has tried since 2001 to disavow racist and incendiary language published in Texas newsletters that bore his name, denying he wrote them and even walking out of an interview on CNN Wednesday. But he vouched for the accuracy of the writings and admitted writing at least some of the passages when first asked about them in an interview in 1996.

Some issues of the newsletters included racist, anti-Israel or anti-gay comments, including a 1992 newsletter in which he said 95% of black men in Washington “are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

Paul told The Dallas Morning News in 1996 that the contents of his newsletters were accurate but needed to be taken in context. Wednesday, he told CNN he didn’t write the newsletters and didn’t know what was in them.

Paul, who leads polls in Iowa leading up to the caucuses there on Jan. 3, published a series of newsletters while he was out of Congress in the 1980s and 1990s called The Ron Paul Political Report, Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report and The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia.

Paul cited the study and wrote: “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system,“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.” I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

Nor did Paul dispute in 1996 his 1992 newsletter statement that said,”If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”

Paul believes the Civil War was unnecessary. A better alternative would have been to buy the slaves instead.

Paul voted for the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, but says he would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as he explains at the 4:20 mark during an interview with Chris Matthews.

On July 3, 2004, He cast the only vote against a bill commemorating  the 40th anniversary  of the Act as he explained in remarks from the floor of the House of Representatives.  Taken from his own website, Paul is obviously proud of his opposition.

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees.

(snip)

Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

Maybe there is a good explanation for Paul’s out of touch views on race, but I haven’t read or heard a good one yet.  The 1964 Civil Rights Act made life easier for minorities and harder on racists, but Paul considers this to be a bad thing.  I consider this makes him unelectable and unworthy to be seriously considered presidential material.

The Atlantic’s Ta-Neshi Coates isn’t buying the “Ron Paul is the Victim” rap either.

Racism, like all forms of bigotry, is what it claims to oppose–victimology. The bigot is never to blame. Always is he besieged–by gays and their radical agenda, by women and their miniskirts, by fleet-footed blacks. It is an ideology of “not my fault.” It is not Ron Paul’s fault that people with an NAACP view of the world would twist his words. It is not Ron Paul’s fault that his newsletter trafficked in racism. It is not Ron Paul’s fault that he allowed people to author that racism in his name. It is anonymous political aids and writers, who now cowardly refuse to own their words. There’s always someone else to blame–as long as it isn’t Ron Paul, if only because it never was Ron Paul.

Next:  What’s actually in the Ron Paul newsletters and some strange comments from Paul about race.