Let’s agree Trump is a racist (properly defined). Good for him!

The New York Times recently published an “op-ed” piece titled, “Trump is a Racist. Period.” by Charles Blow.

Charles Blow is an angry middle-aged Black man who writes a twice-weekly column for the Times. He’s divorced with three kids and openly bisexual. Mr Blow graduated Magna Cum Laude from Grambling.

Professionally, Mr Blow is definitely obsessed with “racism.” Which is pretty much the prerequisite for Black “op-ed” writers in major newspapers (scream “racism” and scream it loudly). Come to think of it, I can’t recall the last time I read an op-ed piece by a Black columnist that wasn’t in some way correlated with racism. The last one I remember was in the Dallas Morning News, in which the author theorized that high Black mortality rates were due to a combination of cruel treatment by White doctors and a lack of Black doctors. She even went so far as to blame the City of Dallas for not producing more Black doctors — all the direct result of systemic racism, of course, not the fact that a minimum of 120 IQ is needed to meet the intellectual requirements of an MD (85 is avg Black IQ).

If you review Mr Blow’s articles, the subject matter may change to some degree, but the premise is usually the same: “Racism” this. “White supremacy” that. Trump called Haiti a “shithole” and played golf on MLK day, so that proves once and for all that he’s a racist. Blah, blah, blah. Nothing of substance, only stale garrulity.

Even when Mr Blow’s commentary isn’t focused explicitly on “racism,” such as his recent piece regarding the Mueller investigation into Russia, there is still an implicit racial undertone. It’s seems as if he fantasizes about radical racism:

If this were Barack Obama, Tiki-torch-toting Nazis would have descended on the White House and burned it to the ground. Not only that, America’s racist folks masquerading as religious folks would have used Obama’s moral failing as proof of a black pathology.

However, my purpose isn’t to critique Mr Blow’s efforts at perfecting the art of literary victimhood, but rather his opinions. After all, freedom of speech is one of the pillars of “White supremacy.” Which, ironically enough, enables people like Mr Blow to publicly call the most powerful man in the world racial epithets on a daily basis. The fact is that if Mr Blow couldn’t write about “racism,” he wouldn’t have anything to write about.

In reality, the rhetoric surrounding race has been hijacked and weaponized for political gain by those with an anti-White agenda. A word that has transcended its literal definition and evolved into a slur used relentlessly against non-conforming Whites as a modus operandi for character assassination.

Similarly, the word “faggot” was used on the playgrounds in the 80s and 90s. The term was used to insult a boy’s masculinity by implying that he was homosexual. Although the implications weren’t based on sexuality (nobody thought the accused was actually gay), it was elementary psychological warfare. Once a boy was labeled a “faggot,” he might as well have been one in the eyes of his peers. The term “racist” works in the same way.

The reason that racism is such a powerful concept is because it provides legitimacy to the inadequacies within the Black community. In other words, accusations of White racism are excuses for Black failure. So if Black people couldn’t blame White people for their failures, it would force them to be held accountable for their own actions. And their actions have determined them a significant liability to the prosperity of American society.

Mr Blow knows this, which is why he hyper-focuses on racism. Because if the racists he redundantly chastises were actually the racists of his lore, he would likely be experiencing the idea of “White supremacy” in the “shithole” known as Liberia. And contrary to what the cuck Lindsey Graham said, America is more than just “an idea.” If America were just “an idea,” Liberia would be a thriving Black utopia, as their constitution creates a system of government modeled on the United States. “White supremacy” just isn’t the same without White people at the reins.

But Mr Blow doesn’t want to debate the existence of White racism. That’s useless to a man who’s well-paid to find it everywhere. He prefers to use his paid platform as a bully pulpit to cast judgment in the name of tolerance.    

I find nothing more useless than debating the existence of racism, particularly when you are surrounded by evidence of its existence. It feels to me like a way to keep you fighting against the water until you drown.

The debates themselves, I believe, render a simple concept impossibly complex, making the very meaning of “racism” frustratingly murky.

So, let’s strip that away here. Let’s be honest and forthright.

Racism is simply the belief that race is an inherent and determining factor in a person’s or a people’s character and capabilities, rendering some inferior and others superior. These beliefs are racial prejudices.

Racism can only exist if race exists. That’s what race is; variation within the species between groups that evolved in different places for thousands of years. And it needn’t imply that race is a “determining factor, but it’s quite compatible with research indicating Blacks are different than Whites on certain important traits like IQ and that this average difference has major influences on outcomes like academic performance.

I may not be a Magna Cum Laude from Grambling, but even I understand that race just means differences. And, as with anything, differences shape perception. We don’t need scientific theory to justify observable reality. It is what it is.

Mr Blow’s definition of racism is somewhat acceptable. A person’s race does render “some inferior and others superior,” but only on specific traits (which is why the Olympic 100-meter dash is pretty much an all-Black event). That’s kinda the whole idea. It’s a two-sided coin. Either we’re all the same (one race, the human race), or we’re all different (race is real).

One of the typical questions racial realists get asked when dealing with anti-racists is: “Do you think Whites are racially superior?” To which the reply should always be: “Superior in what?”

Specificity and statistics can generate data, such as with IQ or genetic predispositions for disease. But there is no algorithm that formulates racial inferiority/superiority on a universal scale. And there will always be outliers that contradict the stereotype.

Furthermore, racial differences have a tendency to be moralized. But they shouldn’t be. It’s not always a case of right or wrong; good or bad. Even if White people were scientifically determined to be an inferior race, that shouldn’t eliminate Whites from collectively pursuing self-determination as a people (nor any other race for that matter). Whites are roughly 7% of the world’s population, and according to current fertility rates, that number is dropping by the day.

The history of America is one in which white people used racism and white supremacy to develop a racial caste system that advantaged them and disadvantaged other.

The history of America is one in which European settlers braved the unknown and carved out the greatest nation on the planet with their bare hands and innovative minds. It was a nation created by White men for White people. To this very day, non-Whites from all over the world are literally dying to leave their shithole countries and come reap the benefits of “White supremacy.”

And make no mistake about it, “White supremacy” is why non-Whites come to White countries.

It is not a stretch to say that Trump is racist. It’s not a stretch to say that he is a white supremacist. It’s not a stretch to say that Trump is a bigot.  

Those are just facts, supported by the proof of the words that keep coming directly from him. And, when he is called out for his racism, his response is never to ameliorate his rhetoric, but to double down on it.

I know of no point during his entire life where he has apologized for, repented of, or sought absolution for any of his racist actions or comments.

Instead, he either denies, deflects or amps up the attack.

Trump is a racist. We can put that baby to bed.

“Racism” and “racist” are simply words that have definitions, and Trump comfortably and unambiguously meets those definitions.

We have unfortunately moved away from the simple definition of racism, to the point where the only people to whom the appellation can be safely applied are the vocal, violent racial archetypes.

The problem with this rhetoric is that it’s just an empty hole. It doesn’t mean anything; it’s just name-calling. Mr Blow has to know this. He’s a really smart man (did I mention he was Magna Cum Laude of Grambling?), which is why he attempted to define his rhetoric before he fired it off repeatedly. He wanted to make it seem like what he was saying actually meant something. He even tried to explain his progression from logical “racism” to rhetorical “racism” (“We have unfortunately moved away from the simple definition of racism…”).

The simple acknowledgment that Trump is a racist is the easy part. The harder, more substantive part is this: What are we going to do about it?

First and foremost, although Trump is not the first president to be a racist, we must make him the last. If by some miracle he should serve out his first term, he mustn’t be allowed a second. Voters of good conscience must swarm the polls in 2020.

Of course it’s easy to call someone names. It’s also ignorant.

We know exactly what “they’re” going to do about it: Call Trump names. Pretend like the economy isn’t booming. Call Trump names. Ignore the fact that the Black unemployment rate isn’t at its lowest in decades. Call Trump names.

What do you think Mr Blow will say when that “miracle” happens? You know, the miracle of democracy. Where an elected official (in this case the POTUS) gets to perform the duties the American people elected him to do. Do you think when that happens that Mr Blow will use his privileged platform to unite the country, as Blacks so often claim they want to do? Or do you think he’ll peck away at his six favorite keys (r-a-c-i-s-t)?

See, people like Mr Blow only respect democracy when democracy produces the results they want. So when they can’t get the votes, they import them. Anybody with an ounce of logic knows that immigration, legal and illegal, is about two things: capitalism for many business first GOP politicians, and demographic change for the Democrats. Simply put, money and votes.

As a person of “good conscience,” I’ll be at the polls in 2020 (God willing). I’ll be voting for the candidate who doesn’t apologize to liberal race-hustlers for hurting their feelings. But most importantly, I’ll be voting for the candidate who doesn’t have desires to turn America into a shithole.

And finally, we have to stop giving a pass to the people — whether elected official or average voter — who support and defend his racism. If you defend racism you are part of the racism. It doesn’t matter how much you say that you’re an egalitarian, how much you say that you are race blind, how much you say that you are only interested in people’s policies and not their racist polemics.

As the brilliant James Baldwin once put it: “I can’t believe what you say, because I see what you do.” When I see that in poll after poll a portion of Trump’s base continues to support his behavior, including on race, I can only conclude that there is no real daylight between Trump and his base. They are part of his racism.

When I see the extraordinary hypocrisy of elected officials who either remain silent in the wake of Trump’s continued racist outbursts or who obliquely condemn him, only to in short order return to defending and praising him and supporting his agenda, I see that there is no real daylight between Trump and them either. They too are part of his racism.

When you see it this way, you understand the enormity and the profundity of what we are facing. There were enough Americans who were willing to accept Trump’s racism to elect him. There are enough people in Washington willing to accept Trump’s racism to defend him. Not only is Trump racist, the entire architecture of his support is suffused with that racism. Racism is a fundamental component of the Trump presidency.

It’s impossible to eliminate “racism” from democracy in a multiracial society. What really scares people like Mr Blow is the possibility that Whites will awaken from their egalitarian stupor and enter the game of identity politics. Because if that happens, Whites would have realized that it would be suicide to become a demographic minority in their own countries. Particularly when all other racial groups (Jews, Asians, Hispanics, Blacks) correlate politics with racial identity to the rate of at least 80%.

I suspect that Mr Blow and his cohorts know that it’s not if, but when the sleeping White giant awakens. My guess is that he’ll be hungry. And history has shown us that the White giant has a voracious appetite for power. As Eduardo Galeano once put it: “History never really says goodbye. History says, ‘see you later.’”

See original here:

Let’s agree Trump is a racist (properly defined). Good for him!

Related Post

February 16, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Occidental Observer |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."