Do a search on the phrase ‘liberals real racists’, and you will get many, many hits. Too many to read through, as I found when I searched on that phrase.
It is pretty obvious to me that the phrase was cooked up by some Republican ‘wit’ who had just been called the r-word (“racist”, not Republican) by some liberal/multicultist. It amounts to the schoolyard retort, ”I know you are, but what am I?” It is just about as intelligent.
The end result of this accusation being flung at lefties and diversity-cultists… is that now we have twice as many White folks calling each other ”racist!” back and forth, endlessly. Way to go.
It surely must amuse the diversities (NON-whites) that Whites are now calling each other their favorite term of abuse. Now they can take some time off, and let us call each other the ‘r-word’ while they sit back and watch and laugh.
We are doing their job for them. They don’t need to race-bait anymore; we are doing it to each other.
I decided some years ago that I won’t use the word ‘racist’ or ‘racism’ except in an ironic sense. I won’t write it here without scare quotes. So you won’t find me joining in the counter-accusations against our lefty/multicultist foes. I can think of many other names, mostly unflattering, that fit them, but I can think of no good reason to join in the race-baiting.
First, I think it serves no useful purpose. Do the people who employ that tactic think it will shock some leftist or politically-correct brainwash-ee into an epiphany? Do we think it will shame them into admitting that they harbor “racist” thoughts?
If a leftist were brutally honest with himself, he would admit that by claiming that Whites are congenitally bigoted against NON-whites — then he himself must be just as guilty as the Republicans (Conservatives) whom he loathes. White “privilege” makes us all guilty, according to the leftists and non-whites. So by that line of thought, liberals and ‘conservatives’ are equally guilty of the ‘White original sin.’
But are liberals or progressives ‘racists’… as most people understand that word? If their definition is true, if ‘racist’ means anybody who 1) notices race and/or 2) believes the races differ in some intrinsic way, then what do we call the liberals who see the races as different in ways that flatter non-whites, and who believe that all the problems of non-whites — being “caused” by Whites — must be rectified by Whites?
Paternalism can be interpreted as meaning that non-whites are incapable of taking care of themselves, or even of defending themselves verbally.
For example, liberals will jump to the defense of nonwhites when they sniff out any hint of ‘bigotry’ from a fellow White. They will argue in the name of the non-white as if that non-white cannot defend himself. I suppose this is their rather deluded idea of chivalry – which in its true form calls for defending the weak and the lame and the halt. But I think it bizarre that they haven’t noticed that non-whites can, and do defend themselves loudly, vociferously, and stridently. Why White liberals imagine that they need to act as lawyers for their favorite victim groups, (mascots, as Thomas Sowell put it) is beyond me.
The liberals’ client groups are certainly able to speak up for themselves; they are not weak at all in that sense. And they have the media 110% on their side; the media, being made up of leftists of one stripe or another, does little but defend the perceived downtrodden “victim” groups. It is a leftist fallacy that ‘minorities’ are ‘under-served populations’ or that their ‘voices are excluded from the public discourse.’ That notion is laugh-out-loud funny.
But does paternalism imply a sense of superiority, or a dominant/subservient relationship between the person helping and those being helped? I don’t think so. I think that most leftists have convinced themselves that they are the possessors of something called ‘White privilege‘ which makes them the beneficiaries of many un-earned benefits. They think these benefits are taken directly from non-whites and given — unjustly — to us. So they think they are righting a wrong.
If they want to be self-abasing altruists who are willing to serve others at their own expense, that’s their choice — but where it goes badly wrong is when they enshrine that altruism in public policy and making it the law of the land. And where it goes really, really wrong is when they force the rest of us, essentially, to participate in this racial self-abasement and penance.
You cannot coerce people into loving their neighbor, or even liking their neighbor. >Read full article HERE.
[For added emphasis the italics, underlined, bolded words and videos are included by ELN Editor]
- Hey, Ireland! Let’s talk about racism. Here. NOW. (considertheteacosy.wordpress.com)