Is it racist?

Is it racist to not embrace full on the demographic transformation of your society, a transformation, furthermore, that will make your group go from a majority to an minority in a few decades and be divested of substanial political say (e.g. to be divested)? According to a huge amount of liberals the answer is yes but only if your white and you don't love going from a majority to a minority in your beloved England, France or America. However, liberals conclude, if your a black South African who doesn't want to become a minority thats just fine. Isn't racism treating people different on racial grounds?

You Can't Say That!: A Lesson In Crime-Speak

I picked up a liberal little book called, "They Said What?" by Jim Hunt, which the editor of The Progressive, Matthew Rothschild, describes as "a compendium of reactionary statements by American officials. Outragous in content, pitchy in style, the quotations reveal the long history of jingoism, racism, exism, and elitism that so mars our country. You want the evidence? Here it is." on the back cover.
Well, anyhow it's a collection, mostly, of quotes from Woodrow Wilson and TR era type politicians identifying difficult, impolite, un-PC truths about race, gender, intelligence, culture, and the like. Hunt makes use of the changing mores surrounding the word "negro". Many quotes within the small book would be prefectly unremarkable if you merely replace the word black with "negro". They are saying all the crucial difficult things that we are not allowed to say today thanks to the likes of Mr. Hunt and are dying as a nation because of it. For instance, coincedentally, the first quote i flipped the book open to see was the following quote from Woodrow Wilson's Secterary of State, Robert Lansing discussing a subject that has boomranged its way back into the forefront of American news media: Hiati and why the Dominican Republic is so much richer than it.

"It is well to distinguish at once between the Dominicans and the Haitians. the former, while in many ways not advanced far enough for the highest type of self goverment, yet have a preponderance of white blood and culture. The Haitians on the other hand are Negro for the most part, and, barring a very few highly educated politicians, are almost in a state of savagery and complete ignorance."

- Sectetary of State Robert Lansing, 1917.

The funny thing is that just 2 weeks ago when Haiti went nuts, i read Jared Diamond, PC as one can be, gently pointing out the exact same point Lansing points out here almost a 100 years ago about why Haiti is so poor and the Dominican Republic is so much richer and well off (cause Haiti has hardly any white blood).

Why was Lansing discussing this recently resurgent subject of the root of Haitian poverty? Because as alarmingly few people have pointed out since the Haiti earthquake America has occupied Haiti before for as long as 15 years. Woodrow Wilson got the Marines into Haiti in 1915 and they quickly came to the conclusion about Haiti (that its virtually helpless under black rule and would do better back under a French protectorate).

This is 1984 the nation we live in today, in which pointing out such things is simply against the social law.

How and why Obama supporters call those who don't worship at the altar of Obama racists

How Obama supporters talk about those who don't think Obama is god.

You see liberals (atleast a good deal of them) simply cannot accept that anyone can disagree with them and there saviour on legitimate grounds. Ofcourse they will deny this but if you are to judge them by what they say about the right it's quite clear the left can't think of any reason outside racism for not supporting Obama.

It tells you alot about the intelligence of the left wing. Let's see: 1.Obama has given us a 9 trillion dollar deficit 2. Passed a Stimulus bill full of junk that is only 25% a stimulus 3. given 30 billion away to 3rd dictators to do 'something' about climate change 3. hasn't spent a dime on the border while he spends trillions to increase AIDS awarness 4. let swine flu come into the country without any resitance 5. is pushing for amnesty at a time when 16 million people are unemployed 7. so much other shit. and they can't think of any reason for not loving the man?

This is why everytime you and I hear liberals talk about the opposition to Obama they always manage to, in the end, ascribing opposition to Obama whether outright or slyily to, you guessed it, that favriote liberal obbession: racism. They either say the following in some form or another:

1. These people just can't handle having a black man as president.

2. They're just bitter hicks who need to cling to there guns, there religon and there racism because they feel economically insecure.

3. They're just to dumb to realize there "class intrests" like african americans. They don't want to realize that Obama knows what best for them and that he is helping them.

4. These people are living in the past and they don't realize that things are changing (for the better ofcourse). They can't except progress cause there irrationally scared of change. They don't want to live in a society where black people have equality, where gay people receive basic human rights.

5. These Tea Partyers are just old racist white folks who still think blacks shouldn't be allowed to walk on the sidewalk and think blacks are only fit to wipe there shoes. They can't handle having a black man as president cause it threatens them.

6. The people who listen to Rush Limbaugh are just angry old white guys who are angry at the world and frustrated with there lives and jobs so they vent there anger and rage at Obama.

7. Not everyone is enlightned, the whole country has not entirely evolved yet. Some people like young people in the last election embrace change and progress full on but some people are scared of change and progress and evoultion. These Tea Parters are the same people who were protesting integration in the south in the 1960's. These are the people who look back upon segregation and slavery in this country with nostalgia. Not everyone liked Abraham Lincoln , not everyone liked Martin Luther King at the time. We can't except everyone too be for justice and progress.

It reveals everything i know to be true about how Democrats view Republicans to still be true when they claim opposition to Obama to be simple racism. That's how they see Republicans, as racists, because thats how Democrats must see Republicans. Because most Democrats are Democrats not because they've looked at the issues but because of what they don't want to be which is one of those unelightned racists on the right. They become Democrats because they want to be good people not like those mean, bad, racist people on the right. So if Republicans aren't the boogeymen and women then their liberalism is completly debased because the image of Republicans as evil, greedy, racist, yokel, crazies is why they came to the left in the first place. See to say Republicans don't oppose on racist grounds, would change there conception of American poltics entirely. They (i know as a former Democrats) see US poltics as a, essentially, a battle, more or less, between, good and evil, yokel v. scholar, KKK v. MLK, Chevy v. Volvo, Country v. Classic Rock, racist v. community organizer, ignorance v. knowledge, McDonalds v. Whole Foods, TV v. Books, etc. In other words, everything they hate v. everything they like. Cheney is evil and Obama is pure. But if you stop thinking that the Tea Partyers are protesting just cause they hate black people, then poltics becomes about issues and looses it's cosmic simplicity, and Democrats loose there certainty and might actually have to hear but sides out on indivivual issues and then you become a Republican.