August 3, 2010

"Racism, Schmacism: How Liberals Use the “R” Word to Push the Obama Agenda"

From my column in VDARE.com:
In  George Orwell’s novel 1984, the Ministry of Truth was hard at work on the creation of  Newspeak, a new language to intended replace English by 2050. Orwell explained:
“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc [English Socialism], but to make all other modes of thought impossible.”

Fortunately, Orwell’s novel was not itself written in Newspeak, because it would be hideously boring: “Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centers at all”.

Newspeak was carefully designed to make its speakers stupider:
“A heretical thought … should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.”

And, of course, thought—at least thought of any complexity—is indeed highly dependent upon words, especially published words.

Words are central to political battles, not only because they are necessary for rational thought, but also because they can obliterate rational thought. They can take on emotional associations from past victories and defeats, developing magical, incantatory powers.

For example, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the term “un-American” was highly useful to politicians who wielded it.

Yet, today, it is seldom used by conservatives. Now, “un-American” is mostly a term used by liberals, who brandish it less as a logical contention than as a symbol of their triumph in the culture war over what is remembered about Communists in the U.S.

Here are some recent examples from Google News:
“Not only would removing birthright citizenship be cruel, it would also be fundamentally un-American” -- Ezra Klein of the Washington Post

“Most Democrats hailed the decision, saying Arizona's SB 1070 was ‘un-American and unconstitutional…’” -- Politico

“New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says it would be un-American to investigate a mosque that is planned for construction near where the World Trade Center once stood” -- AP

“Rangel: Resigning now would be un-American” -- The Hill

But in the Newspeak reigning in America today, no word has more totemic power to suppress rigorous thinking than “racism.”

The intellectual sophistication of today’s conventional thinking about race is at the Newspeak level. To label your opponent a racist is to declare him, in Newspeak's useful term, a “doubleplusungoodthinker.” And what more needs to be said? As Orwell put it:
“But the special function of certain Newspeak words, of which oldthink was one, was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them. … In Newspeak it was seldom possible to follow a heretical thought further than the perception that it was heretical: beyond that point the necessary words were nonexistent.”

To accuse someone of “racism” is no longer to express any particular conception, but instead merely to declare your victim a loser and yourself a winner.

Contemporary uses of the word “racism” are explored in the crisply-written new book Racism, Schmacism: How Liberals Use the “R” Word to Push the Obama Agenda by James Edwards, the young host of the weekly radio talk show The Political Cesspool. 

Read the whole thing there and comment upon it here.

55 comments:

Anonymous said...

Damian Green, the immigration minister, deftly dismissed calls for a burqa ban as "rather un-British". I imagine he was hoping that this would cause a sort of feedback loop in the minds of xenophobes: "Hate not British! Burqa not British! Hate burqa! Ban burqa! Banning not British! Hate banning! Ban banning! Ban burqa! Ban burqa banning! Does not compute!"

headache said...

I read this on VDare. One of your best articles to date. They key for conservatives is to find a working antidote to the bogus charges of racism and anti-semitism. This ruse has been the plague for conservatism in western society for the last 50 years.

Anonymous said...

I am sure many of you have seen this, but I will post again for those who have not. William Lind made a 20 minute video in the 1990s tracking the rise of what we call political correctness to the Frankfurt School in Germany in the 1920s. The things he points out really seem to be in play today and dovetail with articles like this on the use of the Racist label on political opponents.

If you have not seen this video, I recommend it.

William Lind on the History of Political Correctness.

Anonymous said...

"Hate not British! Burqa not British! Hate burqa! Ban burqa! Banning not British! Hate banning! Ban banning! Ban burqa! Ban burqa banning! Does not compute!"

Here's a good example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_83MEuLoz9Y

fish said...

Ralph Wiggum: "Me fail English? That's unpossible"!


.

Anonymous said...

I've used "you are using ____ people as a crutch to elevate your own status".

I think it works because liberals are shocked to learn that someone believes their status could need elevating.

Anonymous said...

Start calling them the denialcrats and asking them tough questions about, e.g., affirmative action. Set-up question: Do you expect that affirmative action will equalize performance between the races at, for example, the most prestigious law schools over time? How long a time do you expect this will take? You, Mr. Denialcrat, expect it to take a few generations, but recent studies indicate that groups that excel at law school developed the necessary traits over a thousand years at least. Should groups disfavored by aa agree to a period of remediation that is longer than slavery persisted in the new world? Are disfavored groups, in fact, being asked to sacrifice in order to remediate differences that result from behaviors of the favored groups themselves and are in no way the result of so-called "racism"? If groups favored by aa do not practice mate selection strategies that foster improved performance over time (e.g., selecting high-performing students over thugs) should the aa regime even be continued? If there isn't group-wide agreement to participate in what is effectively a eugenics program so that behaviors don't change and race performance doesn't improve, does it make sense to continue affirmative action? If you say "yes" mr. denialcrat to that question, isn't what you are proposing a class structure with high performing groups ironically placed below low performing groups? Isn't such a screwed up incentive system anti-american?

SGOTI said...

One of my latest actions is to throw out the term "racist" or "racism" about anybody on the left or directly to any minority or SWPL, especially in a superficially jovial manner (but with a slight hint of malice behind it). It so throws them for a loop, that the responses are edifying.

But even more importantly, it turns the term against those who have wielded it as a weapon for so long, and by hearing it repeatedly, it dulls one's sense to the word. That way, I am doing my little part to steal its thunder and make it a useless tool of my cultural enemies.

Anonymous said...

You know a scoundrel when he invokes 1984 to accuse his opponents of various kinds of "speaks."

ricpic said...

The more it is used the less punch the charge racist packs. Considering it is being overused to the point of parody the "R" word is already being filtered out of otherwise consequential conversations as inconsequential. And it is being filtered out by the people who really count in America: the productive moderate middle who know they are not racists and are slowly but decisively turning away from those who advance their agenda behind the "R" word. This is a sea change and it will devastate the Left.

R. J. Stove said...

All my life, local public figures have sought to demonize their opponents' policies by calling them "un-Australian". The charge doesn't have quite the annihilating impact of calling someone "anti-semitic" or "racist", but it's heading in that general direction.

I, for one, hadn't seen or even known about the William Lind survey before.

Doug1 said...

The closing recommendation in Steve’s extended Vdare piece where Edwards is quoted as counseling conservatives and realists to laugh or respond sarcastically when someone calls them a racist rather than denying it and getting defensive, and worse apologetic, is a good beginning but hardly anywhere near enough.

The left will rarely leave it at that when they’re after someone. They don’t play by Marquise of Queensberry rules but rather by Marxist / Leninist in origin demonizing ones. They go after bring out or “explosing” what they know is the paleo or realist conservative’s true belief (since if they’re intelligent it’s usually theirs too) that the lagging performance of blacks and Hispanics is largely or importantly due to issues or disadvantages in those ethnicities themselves, such as cultural ones, including family structure and long term goal orientation, and to one degree or another genetic ones. After all the large preponderance of the fairly evaluated psychological evidence tends to show a strong but not complete genetic component to racial differences in IQ. Genetic evidence is showing that it’s not remotely implausible that it could be the case, and increasingly that it’s likely. But they’ve made those truths utterly taboo. That taboo needs breaking. Steve’s been laboring mightily in those fields for more than a decade. The right will be severely hobbled until it is.

Here’s the easier thing to focus on first when realists or paleos are accused of being racist. The hair trigger “racist” label get’s its social power to stop realistic thought on many social issues, by sucking the left’s opponents into the racist label by on an absurdly broad standard, and spitting them out as utterly damned and evil under a very different one.

The left taunt realists and paleos to admit believing from abundant evidence, in non trivial cultural or genetic differences which disadvantage NAMs, rather than just or mostly continuing racial discrimination oppressing them, and then spits them out with the utterly damning unfit for elite society conviction of RACIST, meaning bigot, racial hater, simple minded prejudiced stereotyper, and white supremacist most likely. They don’t demonstrate any of these later things. They just demonstrate their opponent believes there are non trivial racial and ethnic differences which make a difference in outcomes. That’s enough to mean bigot and race hater, if the person is white.

The left has managed to do this by controlling almost all the influential Hollywood, tv, and leading newspaper media since 1960 and before, and schools esp. colleges but also school textbooks. It’s progressively changed the definition of what’s required to be a racist from in the sixties a race hating bigot, who hates all members of a race or almost all, and judges them all by the actions or abilities of some, feeling inherently in some key way superior to all members of that racial or ethnic group, to someone who acknowledges any non trivial racial or ethnic differences that might significantly effect in and of the themselves, rather than only through white prejudice, that groups’ average or overall success rate.

So now you get pulled into being a racist by the new definition and demonized by the older, far narrower, hateful and ugly one.

This is what realists and conservatives must defeat to take the sting out of ridiculously overbroad definitions of “racist” on the induction side.

Steve Sailer said...

"So now you get pulled into being a racist by the new definition and demonized by the older, far narrower, hateful and ugly one."

Good point.

Anonymous said...

Hey, where'd my comment go? I'll repeat: making the repub. party the white party and the dems the black party might be counterproductive as blacks are our most natural allies to fix the two most pressing issues facing the country: immigration and trade.

TGGP said...

You worked for Tom Bradley?

Anonymous said...

Calling someone a racist who clearly is not is a form of bigotry. People who do it should be told as much, and their behavior should not be tolerated. Threaten legal action if necessary. Make them back down.

jody said...

james edwards is probably the best writer on this topic, well, ever.

i've been checking out political cesspool for a few years now. i'm not a regular, i only read their articles 2 or 3 times a year, but edwards always cuts to the heart of the matter in such a succinct way.

i agree completely with steve's article, except for the prediction that the democrat party will become the african party. the democrat party will not become the african party. the future of the democrat party is already here. it's a collection of people with nothing in common but their political alliance against white conservatives.

it's true that mestizos are natural conservatives. and so are africans. they don't agree with crazy white liberals about any of the liberal agenda. they vote democrat in self interest. they vote democrat for identity politics. they don't vote democrat to show support for whatever wacko idea white liberals are pushing this decade, or the next decade. like euro american conservatives, they don't like all these retarded ideas which white liberals come up with. they don't like gays, they're not excited by feminism, they don't want to turn their own segregated neighborhoods into a welcoming mat for america' open borders. they want their own towns and hoods.

the future of the democrat party is already here. and they can't get along. they fight each other routinely. because they have nothing in common, except that they know they are all united against conservative european men.

Anonymous said...

Hey, where'd my comment go?

Yeah, I'm getting a lot of that lately.

I don't know whether Komment Kontrol has an itchy trigger finger, or whether the Blogger/Blogspot software package is just eating these posts alive and expelling them out into the void.

Anonymous said...

The only fly in the ointment is that black birth rates are sky high and whites are very low.

Plus most white women prefer black men.

Also immigration.

There will be more black people than white people in America by 2050.

Starker said...

"The left taunt[s] realists and paleos to admit believing from abundant evidence, in non trivial cultural or genetic differences which disadvantage NAMs, rather than just or mostly continuing racial discrimination oppressing them, and then spits them out with the utterly damning unfit for elite society conviction of RACIST..."

Yes, the smarter ones do, the others will resort to name-calling without the preliminaries. I found leftists are marginally more receptive to the cultural explanations -- the "acting white" smear, the 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate, the "don't snitch" imperative etc. -- in explaining many blacks' epic dysfunctionality than resorting to more genetically based explanations.

This enables leftists to carry on with the fantasy that if only blacks would study like Jews or E. Asians everything would be cool. It doesn't occur to them that there might be a reason studying comes more easily to Jews or Asians.

I hate to poach on Whiskey's niche, but clearly virtually all of the "race realist" package is poison to the ears of most women. National politicians know this and will duly refrain from deploying it in explaining these puzzling group differences in achievement.

"Blacks are our most natural allies to fix the two most pressing issues facing the country: immigration and trade.
Maybe, but their leaders are too dumb or corrupt to act on this. Meanwhile, blacks, in New York at least, are an order of magnitude more hostile and dangerous than any immigrant group I've seen. The behavior of the sons of the immigrants, of course, will likely come to resemble the black model.

Anonymous said...

How sadly delicious---declaring a law meant to prevent "un"(not)-Americans from coming into this country w/out going through proper and legal channels is "un-American." Newspeak, for sure.

Where I live, a working class, middle class CA town that went Obama and is highly registered Democrat, the non-Black pop. is seething. That includes Hispanic-Americans. They get tired of being told that they monolithically approve of illegal immigration. The GOP never seems to realize this.

ben g said...

"So now you get pulled into being a racist by the new definition and demonized by the older, far narrower, hateful and ugly one."

This is why it's in the interest of people who write extensively about race/HBD (like Steve) to rehabilitate the old definition, and argue against the new (and ethically incorrect) one.

Steve and others have put a lot of work into defining and discussing race, why not put a bit of time into properly defining racism?

Anonymous said...

Yep, Blacks are our natural allies - they're social conservatives and true Americans. If only we'd reach out...

Been hearing that song all my life (45 Years old)- result 95 percent of African Americans voted for the Democrat in 2008.

And Jews, the wealthiest group in USA, should be "natural Republicans" but voted 80% Obama. Oh well, if only the Repubs were more pro Israel...

Or maybe there is something else going on.

Kylie said...

Anonymous said..."...blacks are our most natural allies to fix the two most pressing issues facing the country: immigration and trade."

How so?

ben tillman said...

The hair trigger “racist” label get’s its social power to stop realistic thought on many social issues, by sucking the left’s opponents into the racist label by on an absurdly broad standard, and spitting them out as utterly damned and evil under a very different one.

Have you been reading my mind?

Svigor said...

I had this whole long post up but what's the point? It has fuck all to do with what is said, and everything to do with who's got the microphone. Period. Fortunately, the microphones are melting in their hands as we speak. Maybe the generation raised to take the 'net for granted will sort this out.

Svigor said...

SGOTI has a point. The best way for people on the right to weaken the R-Card is to play it all the time, especially in taboo ways, like against blacks, in defense of whites, etc.

Anonymous said...

Women are so self-concerned, health conscious, phobic and narcissistic and expect perfection from everyone except themselves - how about you just get the IQ message out and educate them to realize that having a baby with a minority will likely result in a baby with a lower IQ than if they had the baby with a member of their own group? Use their narcissism against them - the odds of the kid growing up to be pro athlete are slim to none, the choice of father likely handicaps the kid from an intellectual standpoint so by your choice of father you are dooming your kids to lower expectations.

Whiskey said...

When you are called racist, say, "No I am not Black." Then mention Farrakhan, Wright.

The response must be emotional.

leslie said...

"most white women prefer black men"

um--for what? They are not known for being good husbands or dedicated fathers. And most couples' IQs are within 5 points of each other, which statistic precludes much long-term coupling between the two races on to any large degree. That is a persistent stat and one that comes naturally. We don't ask the person we are attracted to what their IQ is. We just sort of know the manifestations.
"Most"? So far, it's roughly about 1-2% in areas with large black/white ratios. Considering the IQ rule, it'll remain low. Blacks and whites do not socialize much and remain separate from their own desires.
How many white women could want that life?

DYork said...

leslie said...

"most white women prefer black men"

um--for what?


I think that "anonymous" poster was a Moby.

adfasdasdf said...

To be fair to McCain,he was in a lose-lose situation as far as Wright was concerned. If he didn't go after Wright, he was letting go a golden opportunity. But had he gone after Wright(and Ayers), 90% of media would have jumped on him as a 'racist',
'redbaiter', 'demagogue', etc, etc. and most people would have been led to see McCain as a mean-spirited grumpy white male desperately grasping for straws since he's outmatched by a 'beautiful and noble and unifying black guy'.

Consider Buchanan's convention speech in 1992. It was a big hit and Bush's numbers went up. But the media soon went into a frenzy and spun it as paranoid, hateful, fascist neo-McCarthyism, and this spin took hold among the people, especially the middle class that didn't want to be tagged with those awful things as well.

So, without reasonable media backing or support, McCain couldn't even win by going after Ayers and Wright.

We know how it works. If a rightwinger is accused of 'racism', the burden is on him to prove otherwise.

If a leftwinger is accused of 'communism' or anti-Americanism', it is up to the righist accuser to prove that he's not a 'red-baiting racist'.

It's how the liberal media have rigged the game.

And to the extent that McCain wanted to run as a moderate unifier, it would have seemed odd for him to play hardball.
After all, one of the reasons why republicans rejected Romney was because he went from moderate conservative suddenly to hardline conservative. People saw it as an act.

adsfasdfasf said...

Okay, James Edwards isn't such a Bad Guy. His being bald doesn't mean he's a skinhead. But I still say some of his associates are scary.

adfasdfasdf said...

I love my race, I believe in race, and race is reality, and I'm a racist in that sense. End of argument.

Anonymous said...

"Okay, James Edwards isn't such a Bad Guy."

He is a bit of a goofus, though, and the way he talks about Jews is completely devoid of nuance (he's probably never met a Jew).

Conatus said...

Using the government's monopoly on the threat of violence(in Birmingham,Ala. in 1963 or SBA loans now)to enforce racial categories is racism.

Noticing racial differences is not racism.

This is racism.
From the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 13:

124.103 - Who is socially disadvantaged?

(a) General. Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society because of their identities as members of groups and without regard to their individual qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control.

(b) Members of designated groups. (1) There is a rebuttable presumption that the following individuals are socially disadvantaged: Black Americans; Hispanic Americans; Native Americans (American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, or Native Hawaiians); Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Japan, China (including Hong Kong), Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Vietnam, Korea, The Philippines, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Republic of Palau), Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Samoa, Macao, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru); Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands or Nepal); and members of other groups designated from time to time by SBA according to procedures set forth at paragraph

Anonymous said...

My (highly unscientific) observation of college students in my classes tells me that "racist" is rapidly losing its shock-value. Recently I've noticed students saying to one another, "that's racist!" in a casual way -- not with the implication that the person being addressed is evil, but rather in recognition that he has just violated some largely arbitrary taboo. The tone is more like "naughty, naughty" than "go kill yourself, you unspeakably vile creature."

So I have some hope that we're getting close to the point where people's sense of humor is going to kick in, as it always does, sooner or later, when taboos become insufferable. What's needed is a national politician who can figure out how to capitalize on the trend. Unfortunately they all seem to be slow on the uptake.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"To be fair to McCain,he was in a lose-lose situation as far as Wright was concerned."
"We know how it works. If a rightwinger is accused of 'racism', the burden is on him to prove otherwise."

I think it's high time we decide to be fair to US and require McCain, et al., to prove they're actually rightwingers.

Anyway, McCain CAN'T prove he's not a "racist." Did you read the book? "Racist" is just a synonym for "White person."

Anonymous said...

I bought the book a few weeks ago and LOVED it! Really glad to see this article. But as good as the book is, the radio show is better, IMO.

Anonymous said...

I have long thought of race-baiting through the lens of potent addictive drug. Say opium. At first the drug becomes the only thing important to the addict. Next it takes larger and larger doses as the addict continually chases the first high, which never achieved and now rapidly diminishing. The last stages the addict is simply using to not feel bad. Perhaps I am stretching this a bit but maybe not.

For many Democrats, blacks, liberals, etc. some have gotten quite rhetorically lazy. Many have already quite trying to see race as anything other than black good, white bad. Next you have entire industries that have sprung up out of the need to continously feed the affirmative action welfare state. Schools, government agencies, non-profits. Each one of these is competing against the others to take as big a slice of the pie as they can. The end stage is every group is now competing against each other in sort of an unholy alliance. Latino's, Jews, Indians (dots and feathers), blacks, etc. At some point the addict either quits or dies.

leslie said...

DYork noticed:
"leslie said...

"most white women prefer black men"

um--for what?

I think that "anonymous" poster was a Moby."

Oh--I thought it might be something like that since it made no sense. Didn't know the term "moby." Thanks DYork--you've enriched my vocabulary.

The Bear said...

... making the repub. party the white party and the dems the black party might be counterproductive as blacks are our most natural allies to fix the two most pressing issues facing the country: immigration and trade.

Don't waste your time on scenarios that involve mixing oil and water. Blacks make up 30 to 40 percent of the population in some southern states, and they always vote as a block. Southern Whites inevitably flock to the opposition party. The passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act only caused the races to switch parties. There's no natonal issue that will ever alter that polarity.

Harold said...

To respond to a charge of racism you could try affecting an amused smile and raising your left eyebrow. There’s no arguing with a raised eyebrow.

“And Jews, the wealthiest group in USA, should be "natural Republicans" but voted 80% Obama.”

The percentage of Jews who voted for Obama just goes up and up.

Anonymous said...

I was in a liquor store a week or so ago when a black man ahead of me in line started calling the clerk - who was Chinese - a racist. He was holding up the line for some reason or other. I suggested that he let the rest of us pay and leave and then carry on with whatever was bothering him after we were gone.

That's when I started yelling that I was a racist too.

It seems he was some kind of minister who was just back from a protest in Arizona. Since I was a complete stranger to him, I asked him how he knew that I was a racist.

He said, Jesus told him so.

Albertosuarus

Tanstaafl said...

He is a bit of a goofus, though, and the way he talks about Jews is completely devoid of nuance (he's probably never met a Jew).

Your whine was devoid of both nuance and examples, goofus.

Anonymous said...

I actually came to follow this blog as a result of Mr. Salier's appearance as a guest on The Political Cesspool. It was an exceptional interview, although now many moons ago. I am glad to see paleoconservatives sticking together (for once!), with Steve now reviewing Edwards's book.

Svigor said...

He is a bit of a goofus, though, and the way he talks about Jews is completely devoid of nuance (he's probably never met a Jew).

I'm not an Edwards partisan (far from it, never heard his show and read only a few things of his), but I do want to make this point:

Nuanced, intelligent awareness> shorthand, simplistic awareness> ignorance/willful malice.

Svigor said...

To respond to a charge of racism you could try affecting an amused smile and raising your left eyebrow. There’s no arguing with a raised eyebrow.

My left eyebrow doesn't go up on its own. Only my right eyebrow does that. Wonder if I can apply for disability...

Personally, I think Edwards' idea is a pretty good one; start with "of course I'm a racist, I'm a white guy." You can deliver it in quite a few flavors (dismissive, patronizing, sarcastic, amused, etc.).

Svigor said...

Moby

Trolls can be hard to figure out far enough to know their politics.

Let's give them a state! - A sarcastic show of support for Palestinian national aspirations, frequently shouted whenever Palestinian leaders or militants do something that reveals themselves to be incapable of or unworthy of independent self-governance.

Interesting, the stuff these guys say. Try and imagine them applying a similar argument to blacks. They imagine themselves tough guys because they get a pass on this one narrow form of animus because of whose water they're carrying. What pussies.

Nobody's incapable or unworthy of self-governance.

Anonymous said...

Your whine was devoid of both nuance and examples, goofus.

Go read Edwards' website and you'll see what I mean. But first get your panties out of a bunch.

Silver said...

Recently I've noticed students saying to one another, "that's racist!" in a casual way -- not with the implication that the person being addressed is evil, but rather in recognition that he has just violated some largely arbitrary taboo. The tone is more like "naughty, naughty" than "go kill yourself, you unspeakably vile creature."

Is that really new? I would have thought that was the way "racist" was used in 99% of settings, ie "you're making a reasonable point but now you're straying onto racist territory." The only people who react absolutely rabidly are, well, you know who they are.

Have a look at this thread in which a self-professed communist discusses racial issues with the nonchalance of a strident rightwinger for a better example of how far things have progressed.

Off-topic (though not completely), I've been reading The Public Interest back issues. I came across this doozy from Mike Barone: THE United States, it has often been observed, is a nation defined not by territory or by blood but by ideas.

Not even territory defines the US for Barone. Wow. I mean, historically that's been somewhat true. No one ever said in, say, 1783, these borders shall define America and no more. But Barone means today (1994 when he wrote it). The "United States" is just a state of mind for him. By this logic, who knows, you might get a breakout of unitedstatesitis anywhere on the planet -- Iraq, say. (Hmmm....)

Anonymous said...

Is that really new? I would have thought that was the way "racist" was used in 99% of settings, ie "you're making a reasonable point but now you're straying onto racist territory." The only people who react absolutely rabidly are, well, you know who they are.

I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics. I'm afraid I can't claim to have any myself. What I can say is that when I was a student 10-15 years ago, "that's racist" was, in academic environments, always a white-hot accusation of malice and hatred. Whereas now I'm hearing it, sometimes, as "you know we're not allowed to say such things in polite society" or "you might get in trouble for saying that, if the thought police get wind of it."

Anonymous said...

Great article by Steve. The George Orwell comparison is excellent.

The Anti-Christ, Talmudic, Communist Leftist Jews are notorious for hijacking good words and using them for their own devious scheme against the White European Caucasian Race.

The word Racist is one of their silver bullets they love to blast around but as James Edwards has pointed out so perfectly in his new book, Racist just simply means a White Person and as we all know GOD is the author of Race.

If they wan't to argue with GOD(Kind after Kind) then we know their on Satan's team and they lose in the end.

Anonymous said...

Good job Mr. Sailer on reporting on Mr. Edwards. If you are conservative, and you love America you must buy Mr. Edwards' book and you must listen to The Political Cesspool. Rush, Sean, O'Reilly and the rest are all pro gun, pro America, pro tea party except when it comes to two things; race and Israel. All the phony conservatives fall into the trap when it comes to being called a racist. Can anyone tell me a time where blacks and Hispanics bent over backwards to help whites? We as American's gave minorities Affirmative Action for jobs, college placement, contracts, scholarships, and a welfare package second to none. We rushed to New Orleans and Haiti when disaster stuck. We rebuilt LA when it burned down, again! We did forced busing, print everything in two languages, give free health care, and teach English as a second language. As for Israel, can anyone tell me what Israel has done for the American people besides take billions in foreign aid, lobby Congress and spy on us?! Anyone?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your insightful points in your review of Racism Schmacism. The Political Cesspool radio program and book are both major league.

I heard a couple of dj's arguing about crime in their respective neighborhoods. One said his neighborhood was not too bad. The other tried to win the argument by saying yeah, but you live in an area whiter than Germany during WWII, thus implying he was a racist for daring to do that. The dj that made the accusation ended up losing the argument. The chickens have come home to roost.