My conservative friend needs to reconsider Black Lives Matter.
It was a chilly, drizzly Sunday morning.
I was not attending worship services. Not this Sunday.
Not after the cancellation of our contemporary service.
For a few years, we had maintained two services.
The traditional service seemed to satisfy older members.
The contemporary service was not truly contemporary, but it was a step.
I had drifted away from the traditional service.
I found the traditions a little silly, one more barrier between ordinary folks and our creator.
The Elizabethan English, with it’s mandatory Thee and Thou substitutions for modern words, the songs from past ages:
Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art
It was not entirely indecipherable.
C.S. Lewis had written his memorable fictional senior demon’s advice to an underling. If the senior demon could get a junior demon to redirect worship toward a mental image or even a location, it would be a minor subversion that could lead to bigger things. The senior demon wrote fondly of an earlier subversion, as a devout soul imagined God as residing in the upper, forward rafters of the sanctuary. Soon he had her worshiping the rafters themselves.
Senior wanted junior malignant to avoid the spiritual antidote. If the devout subject were to direct prayer not as I imagine you, but as you really are the underworld battle for that soul would be lost, at least until the next engagement.
So, instead of Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art, why not simply say: I want to worship you as you truly are, not according to my flawed imagination? Would not that fictional subversion of worship be more directly defeated by clarity? Could we not put away our decoder rings and simply worship?
There seemed to me to be dozens of moments, directed chants, overly announced rites, stop and go music, that were disruptions, interruptions of a sort of spiritual flow. I wanted a simpler connection. And I felt that others did as well.
But the leadership of the church asked for a leap of faith. Attendance had declined, and a certain dynamic might be re-established if we combined services into a greater filling of pews.
I had committed to transporting a couple of young people and I wanted to keep my promise as long as I was needed. Another congregant could take them back that morning. I dropped off my passengers. They waved as I headed away. The next week would be devoted to finding a new spiritual home.
Ahead of me, in the light rain, I saw the green light change to red. The driver of the pickup truck did not seem to notice. He drifted into the intersection. The collision was dramatic.
The next several minutes were spent running back and forth between vehicles. I pulled the young woman from behind the wheel. She seemed shaken up but uninjured. The middle-aged black man in the pickup did not seem to be injured. His words were slurred and he had trouble understanding me as I asked if he could lie down.
Someone yelled from a car. I told her to call for help. Police and an ambulance. Other drivers stopped. I directed help to both drivers and got someone to guide traffic around the accident.
Then the police came, a single young white cop. The woman did not want medical attention. The officer got an ambulance to the pickup, helping emergency people talk with the driver.
Then he interviewed the only witness. Me.
It was a quick interview. It was easy to see who was at fault. I told him the black driver was clearly under the influence. He shouldn’t have been driving that morning.
The officer got the car started and told the woman he would follow her home, a block or so away. As the pickup was towed and the debris was cleared, the young officer escorted participants to their cars. I was last.
He thanked me for temporarily taking charge. I asked about the pickup driver. Was he okay? It was hard to tell through the alcoholic haziness.
No, the officer said, he had seen that sort of thing before. The man had not been drinking, and it was not a drug induced stupor. The man been overtaken by a medical condition. He had gone into a sudden diabetic coma. It may have been his first.
After walking me to my car, he was gone, getting the young woman back to her family.
It was one of my better moments with police over my adult life. In almost all cases police have behaved pretty much as you might expect from watching cops-in-action shows. In a few cases, they have gone a little beyond in compassion and understanding. In a couple of cases, not so much. Not a bad series of encounters overall, considering my advanced years.
It is typical of the experience of most Americans.
Tom Zebra is an exception. He has become an internet personality, recording pretty much every encounter he has with police in and around Los Angeles.
In one contentious interview an unnamed police lieutenant in Hawthorne, CA, makes an obvious admission.
I admit that there’s cops who do things wrong.
But he follows up with a view most Americans find compelling. When you take a large population of most anybody, you will find some small number of outliers, exceptions to a general rule.
How many cops here in the United States? There’s what … I don’t know … five hundred thousand of us? Of course you’re gonna get a bad apple here and there.
But the rule itself should not be disregarded.
But I’ll tell you this:
My firm opinion is 99.999% of the cops are hard-working men and women who do a good solid job and follow the law.
Street Interview: Hawthorne, CA, May 30, 2016
The interview was antagonistic, with both participants quite willing to interrupt. But I was impressed. Both seemed interested in listening to arguments with which they profoundly disagreed. The police lieutenant seemed to hold up his end pretty well, and the encounter looked like it was fairly presented by the interviewer.
The 99.999% statement by the police officer was hyperbole, but let’s not lose his point: that the overwhelming majority of law enforcement is fair.
And it seems representative of the view of my conservative friend Darrell.
We, as Americans, already have long agreed that the rare instances of illegal and unwarranted police brutality should be swiftly punished through legal means. What then are these “protesters” trying to accomplish?
Darrell Michaels, August 5, 2020
The logical flow can be found floating around a number of issues. If racism is a vanishingly small part of American life, those who campaign against racism must have some other motivation. So racism must be nothing but a rhetorical cudgel, a case of name calling with pretty much nothing behind it.
And if the number of malevolent, unfair, police actions are so microscopically tiny as to be almost non-existent…
99.999% of the cops … do a good solid job and follow the law.
…then any movement against police misconduct must be a subterfuge.
This is how my friend puts it.
Surely this is about much more than fighting racism. 95% of America already agrees with that stance. Look beyond the surface of BLM’s website and you will find what this is really all about.
And you can certainly find excesses in rhetoric and action with which to characterize the movement, the fraudulent movement against what, for the most part, does not exist.
As in any argument, the temptation is to accept, uncritically, testimony from those who will make up such incidents. Occasionally, even religious leaders are quite willing to bear false witness against those with whom they disagree, especially if those who embrace God believe they are lying in service to the Lord.
But suppose the incidence of racial bias among police was not one one hundredth of one percent? A recent poll conducted by Morning Consult was startling. An overwhelming majority, 64%, of police officers had an unfavorable opinion of white supremacists. Speaks well of them. And it corresponds to what most folks experience.
But 23% of police officers had positive feelings about white supremacists. That would be nearly one out of four police officers, officers a reasonable member of a racial minority would be wise to avoid at all costs.
Was the poll accurate? I have my doubts. The police composed a small sub-sample of the entire poll. And the raw numbers were small, a total of 250 police officers which were then broken down into sub-groups.
But if, for the sake of argument, we accept that only one out of six officers have toxic views toward minorities, that would make each encounter for a black person pretty much a hopefully non-lethal game of Russian roulette.
One out of ten, perhaps? I have had more than ten encounters with police over my long life. I do not feel comfortable with the thought that each of my children, each grandchild, would, over a lifetime, likely run into at least one officer who will regard my loved one as less than an equal, deserving member of humanity.
And if, as in Ferguson, MO, some small municipality depends on police fines for its budget, the temptation among city managers will be great to pressure the best to behave as do the worst.
Black families do not, cannot, rely on statistical analysis. Parents of black children know to administer “the talk.” Our little ones must be taught early on that tragic consequences can come from an encounter with a malevolent officer, or with even a normally friendly officer having an abnormally bad day. Truly good officers provide safety, but there is no way to tell. No-one wears a badge that says “I’m one of the many good ones.” A portion of each of our periodic extended-family gatherings usually includes the latest advice on what routes a black traveler may safely choose to avoid harassment and danger. After all, officers do occasionally move from one police community to another.
I’m a support-your-local-police kind of guy, and also a BLM kind of guy. I don’t see a contradiction.
Support your police because the overwhelming majority deserve our thanks and support. And support Black Lives Matter because, to a dangerous few, those lives do not matter enough.
For most Americans, the choice became clear, not with a dispassionate examination of the evidence. They became convinced as they watched a police officer casually stare into a video shot, hands in pockets, demonstrating his complete control, ignoring the pleas of bystanders, with no apparent emotion, demonstrating the effortless ease with which he could turn a living human being into a lifeless corpse.
Power on camera for all to see.
I have known my conservative friend for many years. Our connection began in debate and continued by internet. Although we have never met, the bond has grown. He was there with words of sympathy during a critical family illness. He offered understanding and reassurance in a frightening time as we lost contact with our young Marine during and after an attack on his base in Afghanistan.
And I believe him when he says this:
We, as Americans, already have long agreed with the sentiment that black lives truly do matter.
This qualifies him, it really does, for full membership in Black Lives Matter. Membership does not exempt him from the obligation he will feel to criticize excess within the movement. When violence or destruction or excessive rhetoric occurs, he can and should condemn it. As did the young man in this video, shouting angrily.
There is a huge separation from the antagonizers and the protestors.
The angry young man defines just what that difference is:
They are giving a speech about Black Lives and you want to destroy about black lives.
Channel 4 News, August 4, 2020
You may want to follow another example, as a pro-Black Lives Matter blogger simply tells the truth:
A really good way to protest is peacefully, persistently, and in huge numbers. Over and over. And that’s what’s been happening in Portland. That is the story here, or would be, if the sanctimonious late shift could be persuaded to confine their fireworks to Mommy’s trash can.
She puts that pretty well, actually.
The political world is not divided between those who oppose injustice and those who support it.
Very few people are comfortable with injustice, my friend. We simply deal with it differently. When confronted with wrong, some will fight for what is right. Some of those will likely veer into wrong directions. Others will deny that there is anything to fight. They may deny that injustice happens. They may declare injustice actually to be just.
You may want to devote your considerable talents to the right side of history.
The lives of some folks, sometimes, too often, do not matter enough to those who happen to hold those vulnerable lives in their hands, or in their arms, or under their knees.
Some future C.S. Lewis, writing about inner demons, will need to know which choice you made.
I’ve tried making the “right side of history” case with Darrell. It was ignored.
The conservative mind needs to reject a lot more information than it is willing to absorb.
This is what he couldn’t, or wouldn’t, acknowledge :
I noticed you hold Martin Luther King Jr. in high regard. Are you aware that conservatives of the day accused him of being a communist? Have you noticed many progressive figures in history were condemned by conservatives, only later to be recognized for their contributions?
It was conservative people who opposed the Revolution. It was conservative people who opposed emancipation. It was conservative people who opposed women’s right to vote. It was conservative people who opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
Today’s conservative people oppose Constitutional taxes, regulation of commerce, and providing for the general welfare. Today’s conservative people oppose public education and public healthcare. I wonder if you might care to extrapolate from this sometime.
Criticism of conservatism meets the same reaction as criticism of their religion. I have noticed they are essentially one and the same to them, and to challenge one is to attack the other.
This is why their reactions and defense are based on emotion, rather than reason.
Besides appeals to the right side of history, there is another approach that doesn’t seem to register with them. Droves of former Republicans and former Bush people are declaring their support for Biden. Conservatives of conscience are summarily dismissed as disloyal “anti-Trumpers”.
During the sham impeachment trial, Mitt Romney was the lone person of conscience among Senate Republicans.
Stuart Stevens, the chief strategist for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential bid has a new book titled, “It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump”.
He understands what we mean by the right side of history.
From: .
The Republican Party Is Racist and Soulless
“Stuart Stevens says he now realizes the hatred and bigotry of Trumpism were always at the heart of the GOP.”
“A lot of us in the party liked to believe the dark side was a recessive gene, but it’s a dominant theme,” Stevens, a seventh-¬generation Mississippian who was named for Confederate Gen. Jeb Stuart, told me. “And it’s all about race. The Republican Party is a white party and there still are more white people than non-white people.”
“When there was rising anti-Semitism, isolationism, and pro-Nazi sentiment, why did the US not become fascist?” Stevens asked. “Because of FDR. Leaders matter, and the GOP has now completely abdicated its role.”
“This is the complete moral collapse of a governing party of a major superpower,”
Now the Republican Party is obedient, loyal, and servile to an authoritarian bigot who declares Democrats hate America, protesters are terrorists, journalists are the enemies of the people, and he alone can make America great.
“Holy Hitler, Batman!”
And they have Darrell’s vote.
And speaking of history, here is how authoritarians dupe the people:
On October 10, 1936 Heinrich Himmler created the Reich Central Office for Combating Homosexuality and Abortion, or Special Office (II S), a sub-department of Executive Department II of the Gestapo.
“The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.” – Adolf Hitler “My New World Order” – Proclamation to the German Nation, Berlin, February 1, 1933
“What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.” – Adolf Hitler
Trump’s former wife reported the only book she knew he read was the one he kept in the bedroom. It was a book of Hitler’s speeches. Very interesting choice for a guy who doesn’t like to read books.
I can tell a number of other parallels between Trump and Hitler too. It’s all about who to hate and blame. They thrive on anger and division. They will tell you anyone who disagrees with them is a commie.
I seriously hope Darrell accepts the poll showing “23% of police officers had positive feelings about white supremacists”. I suspect he will deny this, and claim it is wildly off the mark.
I fear his attitude would be similar when shown more evidence of police misconduct, even when examined by the police.
POLICE CODE OF SILENCE : FACTS REVEALED
2000 Conference materials
Legal Officers Section
International Assn. of Chiefs of Police
I can also suspect Darrell will reject these other investigations of white supremacy in law enforcement as “anti-Trump deep state conspiracies” as well:
THE FBI HAS QUIETLY INVESTIGATED WHITE SUPREMACIST INFILTRATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
FBI warned of white supremacists in law enforcement 10 years ago. Has anything changed?
But who knows? Maybe he will surprise us, and actually read something not written by Tony Perkins, Dennis Prager, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson or other Trump apologists.
Darrell is now firmly in the Trump Camp, and is extremely likely to reject out-of-hand any information that counters the narrative of the Trump cult.
This is revealed in his pattern of putting quotation marks around Trump and his cronies’ “racism” when responding to my citations of his racism.
He is incapable of seeing the obvious racism and white nationalism from Trump, Stone, Miller, etc.
To do so would be admitting to supporting and voting for racists. And as we all know, Darrell would never do that.
Trump is not “racist”. And neither is Darrell.
Therefore, Obama and BLM are clearly to blame.
But Dave, Lincoln was a Republican and socialism is right in the Nazi name! That’s all I need to know. Case closed.
Ryan,
Yes, and no president has ever been treated so badly, because the Democrat Party is the party of the Klan. And they’re socialist traitors who hate America. The same goes for the MSM, ’cause they are enemies of the people.
It’s a disgrace!
Wake up America!
It is what it is.
“If racism is a vanishingly small part of American life, those who campaign against racism must have some other motivation. So racism must be nothing but a rhetorical cudgel, a case of name calling with pretty much nothing behind it.” ~ Burr
It seemed to me that racism was indeed vanishing in American life to a large extent – until the last decade came and racial antagonism seemed to be intentionally stirred back to life once again, particularly by bad actors from each side of the debate.
I had honestly hoped that the election of Barrack Obama to the presidency would be one of the final nails in the racism coffin. While I did not vote for him and often found myself opposing many of his left of center policies, I was proud that America would look beyond skin color in their voting decision.
That said, perhaps I may have been unclear in my past statements. While I think that the BLM organization did indeed have a legitimate and righteous complaint against police brutality, as exhibited in the heinous murder of George Floyd, I think a hugely overwhelming majority of Americans that saw that video were right there with them in wanting accountability and justice. If the protesting had remained peaceful, I think a lot of sympathetic Americans would have been standing shoulder to shoulder with BLM.
Unfortunately, the protests were hijacked by Antifa, anarchists, and even some white supremacist ass-hats. Further, there were folks that associated themselves specifically with BLM that veered off a righteous path and began to partake in violence and looting. This, sadly, diluted a just and good message from BLM.
Now, do I think that is the sole reason that the BLM organization marched? Nope. Not even close. I think many in the leadership decided to not let a good crisis go to waste. Two of the three founders are self-professed Marxists. The leadership wants to promote “alternatives to capitalism”, “disrupt the nuclear family”, “abolish police and prisons”, and destroy the heteronormative patriarchal society that is America in their view. Such is their right to promote these things, if they stay on a peaceful path.
As an American, I also have the right to express and promote the things for which I believe, which largely fall in a diametrically opposed direction from the BLM organization.
Racism is a pernicious and egregious evil, and a sin in my faith, that all Americans should guard and fight against whenever we encounter it. I can find common cause with BLM on that one point. I do not need to support them with their other views, which I find destructive to America.
Championing the inarguable fact that black lives absolutely matter and racism is an evil to be combated is NOT incompatible with decrying the broader political agenda of the BLM organization. One is not a racist for NOT supporting the organization. That is simply a demonstrably false assertion promulgated by ignorant people caught up in the leftist cancel culture of today.
I give you much of what Mr. Dubya writes as a visible point in my case accordingly. Cheers!
Perhaps Darrell is just a bit too sensitive, or has an over-stimulated amygdala. His patented Right Wing Victim Card is being played again. As far as I know, nobody has accused him of being racist for NOT supporting BLM.
What I did say was, “He is incapable of seeing the obvious racism and white nationalism from Trump, Stone, Miller, etc. To do so would be admitting to supporting and voting for racists. And as we all know, Darrell would never do that. Trump is not “racist”. And neither is Darrell.”
As a person accused of being one of the “ignorant people caught up in the leftist cancel culture of today”, I’m obliged to note the unfortunate fact that my comments are highly filtered at his blog. Yes, he “canceled” my replies. That can’t be what he means by “cancel culture”, is it?
No, Darrell isn’t getting any flack for “not supporting” BLM. He has been consistently deflecting from the fact it is an organization dedicated to protesting racism, inequality, and brutality under the law.
Darrell has been getting flack for accusing BLM of being racist, violent, and Marxist. This tune is sung by every white nationalist in the country.
In tandem with such vitriol, he has been actively ignoring the abundance of evidence showing the racism of Trump and his cronies. Also totally ignored are the large number of cases of thugs in blue assaulting, gassing, and shooting rubber bullets at peaceful protesters. Their over-reaction triggers other reactions in a spiral of chaos.
We can blame the idiots throwing stuff at cops as much as the cops clubbing protesters. Both are out of control. And we all condemn the destruction from white nationalists, street punks, and other vandals.
In light of these facts, it seems all Darrell can do is deflect and project, by accusing me of making false assertions.
It’s that fight-or-flight response in the amygdala I’ve been telling you all about.
He “opposes racism”, yet supports racists and disregards their racism. He says Black lives matter to him, but NOT to Black Lives Matter.
He believes if leaders of BLM are Marxist, then their organization is Marxist. Shall we believe if the leader of the Republican Party is a racist, then the Republican Party and their conservative supporters are racists?
Absolutely, according to Darrell’s way of thinking.
No wonder his circuits are over-loaded.
I tried to caution Darrell about white nationalism. I tried to tell him the stench of supporting a racist like Trump will be on him long after Trump is gone.
But he canceled me.
Really, Dave Dubya, I do think you should have more respect for those who happen to be more advanced in years than are you.
I don’t much mind those who call me names. I just figure people who don’t like me are guilty of good character assessment.
But I was born during the Truman administration and there are limits.
You should know better than to force someone my age and temperament to look up words like “amygdala.”
Why look up words? Ask a “conservative”. If they don’t know, they’ll make something up.
Burr,
I’m just a Spring chicken from the Eisenhower era, but for some reason a lot of what I learned in college, aka “Socialist Training Camp”, seems to have stuck in my head.
For the rest of you old codgers and young whippersnappers, you’ll have to check this study:
“We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala”.
Conservatism/authoritarianism, like homosexuality, has long been a feature in significant proportions of any population. Even including “Log Cabin Republicans”.
I have to conclude they are “normal”.
But that’s easy for me to say. I’ve NEVER been accused of being normal.
Interesting notion, Trey. I would submit to you that it is the Leftists that are redefining words.
Racism, for instance. Merriam-Webster defines it as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” That has long been the common understanding of the word.
Prominent leftists today, like “How to Be an Anti-racist” author Ibram X. Kendi says racism is redefined as a collective condition leading to inequities in society. He goes so far as to propose an anti-racist amendment to the Constitution, which he wrote about in a short piece in Politico. It’s worth quoting in full:
“To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals [sic]: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals.
The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials (with ‘racist ideas’ and ‘public official’ clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees.
The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state, and federal public policies to ensure they won’t yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.”
Such as idea is anti-American, anti-Constitutional, and would lead to tyranny. He thinks that it would lead to “equity.” More redefinition by the left, it would seem.
Or, as some other leftists probably reading this comment have suggested in the past, “racism is opposing anything said or done by Barrack Obama.”
Or how about this one: racism is exhibited when someone opposes the organization of BLM, even if they fully support the notion that black lives matter.
How about the left’s redefining “rioters” to mean “mostly peaceful protesters”?
Your assertion is amusing, sir. Almost as much as Mr. Dubya’s constantly repeated “study” of the conservative amygdala. And here I thought amygdala was the queen in the newer Star Wars installments. Mr. Dubya, I would appreciate it if you would provide me the link to your study so that I can give it a thorough review again. It has been a few years since I last checked out your oft-mentioned “study”.
It does strike me as extremely counter-intuitive though, as anecdotal evidence would suggest that it is leftists that operate on emotion, and particularly fear, far more than conservatives do. They are fearful of wildly exaggerated notions of racism, homophobia, trans-phobia, Christianity, Judaism, capitalism, the police, prisons, Covid-19, conservativism, and the “negative liberties” as listed in the constitution.
And shall we examine some of the left’s fears associated with our president? They fear his “racist” policies, “disenfranchising” voters, only helping the rich, “caging brown children”, establishing a dictatorship, not stepping down after his term expires, violating “peaceful protesters” rights, and so on and so on.
Yep, it would seem to me that it is the left that has their amygdalas all bunched up and in overdrive these days.
But what do I know? I have not drank deeply of the Marxist Kool-Aid and still remain unwoke.
Darrell tries his best to educate us. I appreciate that. Although it typically amounts to victim cards, more false accusations, and misrepresentations, deflection, distractions and other whataboutisms.
In the end the lesson is always clear. Only white conservatives are permitted the authority to tell us what “real racism” is. Pay no attention to those Black people. Their concept of racism is inherently inferior to that of white conservatives. We get it.
I wonder, does he actually read what we write, or does he already have it in his head what we say?
He surely doesn’t show any indication of understanding what we say. Why should he? He doesn’t care for our facts and reasoning.
Cons do have all the answers, as I noted. (Never mind they are usually fabricated and false.)
Like this stream of nonsense:
“….as some other leftists probably reading this comment have suggested in the past, “racism is opposing anything said or done by Barrack Obama.”
Or how about this one: racism is exhibited when someone opposes the organization of BLM, even if they fully support the notion that black lives matter.
How about the left’s redefining “rioters” to mean “mostly peaceful protesters”?
Again, no evidence was presented. Why are facts so difficult for cons? Silly me. I already answered that question above.
His third point is regurgitation of a highly edited Republican propaganda video, aka the Gospel Truth to the Right. It is a bald-faced lie. The point is demonization of both protesters and supporters…like BLM.
Nothing says you oppose racism like saying Black lives don’t matter to Black Lives Matter.
The victim cards are reactions to slights unknown. Nobody accused him of these things and he cannot show it. There’s some reason he’s been averse to quoting us to refute our points. We can only surmise this is beyond his capacities, or interest.
Cons have no reason to listen to us when they falsely frame and distort our points.
Another example of willful ignorance, or willfully ignoring, is this:
“Your assertion is amusing, sir. Almost as much as Mr. Dubya’s constantly repeated “study” of the conservative amygdala. And here I thought amygdala was the queen in the newer Star Wars installments. Mr. Dubya, I would appreciate it if you would provide me the link to your study so that I can give it a thorough review again. It has been a few years since I last checked out your oft-mentioned “study”.”
Did he really NOT see the link above? I suspect it’s his innate distrust of science. Besides knowing more about racism than Blacks, white conservatives know more than scientists and doctors, as demonstrated by Trump every day.
How many times have I cited Trump’s racist words and actions? How many times have I cited Trump’s criminal friend Roger Stone flashing the white power hand sign with Proud Boys? All I know is the number is equal to the times Darrell found it necessary to ignore the real racism in the team he supports.
I fully expect his willfully ignoring, or willful ignorance, will be SOP.
Those of us with open minds have long concluded rational discourse is impossible with those who communicate only through their feelings and Right Wing propaganda. But that’s all they need for false accusations and endless victimhood. It is the key to self-righteousness. It feels right, so to hell with the facts.
I wonder if Darrell has any clue that his choice for president is more than a racist. He is a corrupt criminal (Porn star payment, obstruction of justice, soliciting foreign help in elections) and pathological liar (Around 20,000 lies in office so far).
But since he’s conservative, that’s all good, I suppose. America can only be great with less honesty, more hate, more racism, more pollution, lower taxes for the rich, less food stamps for the poor, and other such Christian values. And of course, voter roll purges, restrictions on voter registration, and limiting poll access for minorities is what a democratic republic needs most. And obviously, corporate-owned, theocratic judges deemed unqualified by the American Bar Association are vital to our justice system. And just to be sure, having a Trump campaign donor sabotaging our Postal Service to undermine mail-in ballots is also what freedom demands.
It tells us nobody’s morality and perceptions of reality are as flexible as conservative perceptions and morality.
I’m sure in Darrell’s eyes these remarks are “Marxist” and “Anti-American”, because that is all he needs to see.
Bless his heart.
I don’t really know how to respond to this. It reads like you are purposefully being obtuse. You even went to merriam-webster for a definition, but purposefully cut out the rest of the entire definition.
Then you start arguing that an anti racism amendment would be anti-american and unconstitutional… which 1) I think the point of the amendment you cited was to address racism in America, so I suppose it is anti-current America and 2) if it becomes an amendment to the constitution it is the very definition of constitutional. It not presently in the constitution doesn’t make it anti-constitutional… otherwise we should never have had any amendments.
But, whatever, everyone who opposes or speaks ill of the incredibly hate-filled President is a marxist. I still await your definition of marxism and how it relates to your points beyond conjuring up Cold War boogeypeople. ‘Cause I don’t think you actually know what marxism is other than something someone with a microphone told you is bad.
Trey,
Of course Darrell needs to be obtuse. His Right-wing bubble is his fortress, guarding his precious beliefs from facts.
Darrell didn’t want to discuss the broader definitions of racism that include prejudice and discrimination. It’s more convenient to argue white conservative bigots can’t be racists if they don’t come out and declare, “I believe that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”
It’s like the Trump/gangster defense. “I been framed! I didn’t order that hit man (lawyer) (Giuliani) to kill (pay off a porn star) (solicit foreign help for my election) . I just suggested he take care of a problem. You’re accusing me because I’m a successful legitimate businessman (making America great).”
Limiting the definition of racism is a white nationalist and neo-Nazi tactic that goes so far as to declare Hitler wasn’t racist because Jews are not technically a separate race. Yes, they do.
Nobody in their right mind believes BLM would be marching for Marxism, or would even exist at all if not for the police brutality, inequality under the justice system, and killings of unarmed Black people. BLM exists because of the systemic racism that propagates that pattern. BLM will have a valid cause as long as we have legions of white Americans who side with George Zimmerman over Treyvon Martin.
White conservatives paint BLM as a monster worthy of their fear. Never mind BLM has no political power to impose any of their dreaded “Marxism”, whatever they imagine that to be.
They fear “Marxism”. They fear “socialism”. They fear “communism”. They fear progressivism. They fear fair elections. They fear public health. They fear minority voters. They fear the popular vote. They fear public education and universities. They fear objective journalism. They fear Mexicans. They fear brown immigrants. They fear Muslims. They fear Black people. Their fear conflates all of these into a sinister wave of encroaching Stalinism. This is why they love to hear Trump and others say “The press is the enemy of the people! Democrats/liberals hate America. They are the Radical Left! They are all MARXISTS!”
Nothing stirs up hate like resentment, anger, and fear. This is the bond white conservatives share with Trump.
Does anyone think real estate values are their concern when they assure “suburban housewives” there will be no “low income housing” invading their neighborhoods?
That’s not a mere dog whistle. That’s racism by megaphone.
Turns out “Dixiecrats” and “Southern Strategy” are “myths” according to Darrell.
http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com/2020/08/mark-little-praises-president-trump-for.html
He cites campaign finance criminal and far Right propagandist Dinesh D’Souza as his authority on that part of our history.
I cited actual historians Stephen Ambrose and Kevin M. Kruse as well as Republicans using the terms.
Don’t you understand? He’s supported by facts from Dinesh “It is actually pronounced Thigh-Land” D’Souza.
Trey,
So far Darrell hasn’t acknowledged the real historians showing facts to debunk the dishonest criminal D’Souza. It will likely be ignored like the photo of Roger Stone flashing the white power hand sign. Evidently that isn’t “real racism” in Darrell’s expert scope of understanding, for as we know Darrell doesn’t support racists. Therefore Trump cannot be racist like his good friend and advisor.
It really is fascinating how they all fall in line behind anyone, no matter how sleazy, racist, corrupt, criminal or otherwise Trump-like. Authoritarian followers cannot question their cult leaders.
It’s a willful ignorance and reflexive denial of any information that doesn’t conform to what their authoritarian leaders tell them.
This is the essence of American Con-servatism. When we factor in their propensity for white nationalism and harsh, targeted law enforcement for minorities, we have neo-Nazi proto-fascism. And that is dangerous. If they pull off their sabotage of this election, our democratic republic is DOA.
“But the Post Office doesn’t NEED those sorting machines in an election year!”
Yeah, they’ll swallow that one too. Is there any doubt Hitler would have loved today’s America and would surely be a Republican. And Trump would have loved Hitler, just like he loves all tyrants, like Putin, Kim, MBS, Erdogan, Xi, etc.
To borrow from the legendary Jake Blues, I hate American Nazis!
I didn’t think that Darrell was quite that far gone.
I wonder what he thinks is the relevance of bringing up the political party history of the 60s and 70s. The parties of 50-60 years ago are indisputably different from the parties of today and we do not get credit or blame for what they did simply because we share a label. What matters is the ideology behind it all.
Assuming that he is smart enough to understand this, which may be a stretch given how many conservatives praise themselves because Lincoln was a Republican, I must conclude that he believes that there is some connection between liberalism and racism. But I am not sure what he imagines that to be, especially when racist acts and policies have largely been promoted and defended by conservative arguments (tradition, religion, economics, etc.) across the world and throughout history.
Of course, this is not to say that conservatives must be racist or that conservative arguments cannot be used to condemn racism. But I just don’t see how a reasonable person can look at our history and progress and conclude that the problem has been liberals all along.
As for his video, Mark Little *dares* us “to find another president who has been so committed to the cause of African-Americans in this country.” I return to the questions that come to mind every time someone praises Trump for helping some specific group:
Can you name the specific Trump policies that helped them?
Can you show that they were enacted for the purpose of helping that group?
Can you prove that improvements in that group’s lives cannot be attributed to someone or something else that coincided with (or predated and continued despite) the Trump presidency?
In the case of black Americans: do you honestly think that a downtick in their unemployment rate makes Trump second only to Lincoln? WTF is wrong with you?
Republicans even today describe Obama as a “liberal messiah,” completely blind to their own hypocrisy.
I really wish that Darrell would contribute more to the discussion. I do. I would like him to provide us tangible evidence to support his accusations and conclusions. I’ve practically begged him for proof of his points or accusations.
That seems to be a bridge too far for those on the far Right.
Copy and pasting BS from Right Wing Authoritarian propagandists doesn’t constitute evidence. It constitutes Right Wing bias. They believe their propagandists are credible and objective. Therein lies their schism from reality where beliefs overrule and reject facts.
Authoritarian followers are indoctrinated and conditioned into their beliefs and willful blindness. That indoctrination and conditioning allows them to not see the obvious mendacity, racism and white nationalism from Trump, Stone, Miller, etc.
Admitting to this reality would mean they support and vote for racists.
Then there’s, “I’m not a racist, just for voting for a racist”.
So then, “I’m not a Nazi, just for voting for a Nazi”.
Of course not. Just a Nazi sympathizer. Just a racist sympathizer.
Therefore, racism isn’t racism to racists.