Fomenting Anger and Division
by Mark Luedtke
Many Americans were angered when Attorney General Eric Holder called America a nation of cowards for not confronting the race issue. It's easy for Holder to throw stones since any white American who tries to confront racial issues is instantly attacked as a racist by liberal attack dogs. He knows his liberal allies prevent an honest discussion about race in America for reasons I explain below. I haven't seen Holder out with Bill Cosby confronting racial issues either.
In the wake of the election of the country's first black president, many thought Holder's comments came out of left field. That's naive. If you understand the Democrat party and President Obama, you understand that Democrats and Obama need racial agitation to hold onto power and promote their agenda. Democrats try to foist white guilt on all white Americans, dividing the country to gain power for themselves, but guilt over racism falls squarely on the shoulders of Democrats, not all Americans.
When debating the Declaration of Independence, it was the soon-to-be Democrats of the south who forced the Continental Congress to remove the text decrying slavery. Democrats seceded from the Union, sparking the Civil War because they wouldn't give up slavery. Democrats founded the KKK, and the senior member of today's Senate, Democrat Robert Byrd is a former KKK member. Republicans more strongly supported the Civil Rights Act than Democrats.
Democrat policies continue to oppress blacks to this day. Aristocrats have used minimum wage and gun control laws to oppress the poor and minorities for centuries. Modern minimum wage laws keep black teens from taking entry level jobs, starting careers and moving up the economic ladder. Big city government schools fail to educate nearly half of black children. Illegal immigrants take up to 7 million entry level jobs that therefore aren't available to young blacks. Welfare and the entitlement mentality propagated by Democrats keeps blacks trapped in poverty at a significantly higher rate than whites.
As a result, black teens are 15 times more likely to join a gang than white teens. And gun control laws keep blacks from being able to effectively defend themselves from the crime created by oppressive policies. If blacks ever stopped to think about the devastation wreaked upon their lives, their neighborhoods and their culture by Democrat policies, Democrats would disappear as a political force. In order to keep that from happening, Democrats need blacks to feel angry and victimized.
And so does Barack Obama. Obama is a student of Marxist radical agitator Saul Alinsky. When Obama worked as a political agitator for ACORN affiliates in Chicago, he learned and taught the racially divisive methods of Alinsky.
During this time, Obama worked with a number of radical black churches in Chicago, but in order to launch the political career he coveted, he had to find exactly the right church for a launching pad. His search led him to radical Rev. Wright at Trinity United Church of Christ. And as we now know, Obama latched on to Wright's clerical robe tails and rode them to power in Chicago, Illinois, and ultimately the presidency.
Rev. Wright taught a particularly virulent form of Black Liberation Theology (BLT) (remember his sermon claiming whites invented AIDS to kill black people?), a political movement that compares blacks to the Israelites and Jesus, mixes it with Marxism, and preaches the salvation of black Americans from their white American oppressors. BLT weaves the beliefs of Malcolm X with Marxist inspired South American liberation theology. Because of his political ambitions, Barack Obama necessarily became a leader in the BLT movement too.
Stanley Kurtz quoted BLT founder James Cone and in so doing predicted Obama's radical leftist policies and Holder's agitation, “A scarcely concealed, Marxist inspired indictment of American capitalism pervades contemporary 'black liberation theology'...The black intellectual's goal, says Cone, is to 'aid in the destruction of America as he knows it.' Such destruction requires both black anger and white guilt.”
Holders comment was design to inflame black anger and white guilt, and Obama's war on capitalism and prosperity will destroy America as we know it and transform it into a declining, second rate country like those of Europe, impoverishing Americans and retarding economic growth around the world – exactly as Obama and Democrats intend. All in the name of misguided social justice.
But Democrats have a problem. As frighteningly successful as Obama has been since taking office, the great, slumbering mainstream of America is waking to resist. Democrats need their coalition strong, and they need to distract the country from the consequences of their policies, but having a black man in the presidency undermines two decades of Democrat exaggerations about racism in America. A black person can become anything in America, the same as anybody else, and that's long been the case. The only reason Colin Powell wasn't elected the first black president in 1996 is because he chose not to run. He had a personal limitation. Like anybody else, blacks have to overcome personal limitations and the obstacles before them, but those things can be overcome.
Democrats no longer have a case for systematic white victimization of blacks, and once blacks move past victimization en mass, the Democrat coalition will fall apart. Obama's success undermines the coalition that put him in power and his BLT creed. To stay in power, Democrats must continue fomenting black anger and white guilt, and AG Holder's comments are just the opening salvo. Expect Democrats' racial agitation to intensify.
It’s so nice site. We love to see more on this site. Keep on updating… MonkAreYou Bali
ReplyDelete*ghj,j
What about black on white crime?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the 70% out-of-wedlock births among blacks?
The problem with race relation is moral, not economic.
Nicole
To see the actual truth of the matter, let us take a look at the Department of Justice document on Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005, which is discussed by Christopher Chantrill at The American Thinker. (Go to the linked document, then under Victims and Offenders, download the pdf for 2005.)
ReplyDeleteIn Table 42, “Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender,” we learn that there were 111,590 white victims of rape/sexual assault in 2005. (The number of rapes is not distinguished from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, which can mean inappropriate touching, is conflated with the crime of rape.) In those 111,590 cases in which a white woman was the victim of rape/sexual assault, the offender was white in 44.5 percent of the cases and black in 33.6 percent of the cases. Of 36,620 cases in which the victim was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.
The table does not give statistics for Hispanic victims and offenders. But the bottom line on interracial white/black and black/white rape is clear:
In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black women were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.
What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.
Let’s put it this way, there are more ww raped in America every year today then bw raped by wm in any given year during slavery. And no, alot of those bw where not raped. There are an estimated 1.5 million Black men in prison and another 3.5 million on probation. Black males make up more than 70 percent of the total prison population, even though they make up only 6 percent of the U.S. population.
Although blacks are 12% of the population in reality it is just 2% of the blacks that commit 50% of the murders and a greater percentage of other crimes. Consider: black females - 6%. Blacks from zero yrs. to 12 yrs. and black males from 50-100 years commit an infinitesimal percentage of the crimes. Therefore we are left with two percent. If we eliminate crimes committed by this two percent from the U.S. statistics our country compares very favorably with all Western countries. Fact — blacks kill 7 times more than whites kill. Fact — blacks kill whites 20 times more than whites kill blacks. Fact — blacks mug or commit group crime against whites 50 times more than whites commit against blacks. Fact — blacks rape white women 2000 (yes 2000) times more than whites rape black women. In New York City, about 300 white women are raped by blacks every year BUT there has not been a black woman raped by a white male in anybody¢s memory (going back over 20 yrs.) Consider: Al Sharpton had to go upstate New York to find a hoax and that was almost 20 years ago. (Source NYT 4/22/05)
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics 2004 report (released May 2006), blacks commit 54 percent of the homicides in America even though they constitute only 12 percent of the population.
An individual black male is seven times more likely to commit murder than an individual white male. It so happens that black felons commit 43 percent of aggravated assaults, 66 percent of armed robberies, 27 percent of rapes and 85 percent of interracial crimes of violence, mainly against whites (this last figure from a Justice Department report 2003). However, it’s not just in the United States. The greatest dicators in recent years have emerged in Africa. People like Idi Amin of Uganda, Hastings Kamuzu Banda in Malawi, Mobutu Sese Seko, in Zaire, self-anointed Emperor Bokassa of the Central African Republic, Mohammed Saidi Barre in Somalia, Sani Abacha of Nigeria, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe — the list is endless.
Nicole
If anyone wonders why racial tensions are so high in this country, they need look no further than articles such as those you’ve posted from “Disgusted White Girl” and “Black Royalty”.
ReplyDeleteI’m a firm believer that people make you who you are and this is a prime example of why people become prejudice. This served no purpose other than to rile both blacks and whites. That being said, youÂ’ve successfully provoked me to rebut “Black Royalty’s” rational, not to mention his sense of history. I don’t expect this to be posted since it does not flatter black women (much like “Black Royalty’s” article does little to compliment white women), but at least I feel like I’ve made an attempt to defend our women in the same public forum given to “Black Royalty”.
Dear Black Royalty,
Let me start by saying that, I do not intend to defend “Disgusted White Girl” for her poor choice in men. If she likes men who are insecure, afraid, weak, and intimidated (your words), that’s her problem. My guess is that no white man would probably have her anyway. The fact is interracial couples always have been and always will be sneered at. To her I say if you want to play in the kitchen, shut up and be prepared to deal with the heat. As for you, although you try to portray yourself as the upper crust of black society, there is a huge difference between being “educated” and being intellectual. I think you confused the two. First, you should try using spell check and grammar check. It’s a wonderfully useful tool. And whether you intended to or not, you did “waste your precious time slandering white people”, and if a white person had written half of what you did, they’d be labeled a racist; no questions asked. So let’s test that theory.
First of all, don’t assume that every white person you meet has ancestors who owned slaves. Many whites are descendants of immigrants who had very little, if anything to do with any part of it. So before you go thinking that it was the enslaved black women who saved white America’s taste buds and infants, think again. We don’t owe them anything. Slavery was a horrible part of American history, and it happened over 300 years ago. I think it's time you all get over it and stop thinking every white person owes you something. You mention black Egyptian Queens such as Hatsepshut and Nitocris (not Nitorcris) as though they are YOUR ancestors. So are you African American or Egyptian? They are two different cultures, so pick one and stick with it. The way I see it, if you are of Egyptian descent, then YOUR ancestors enslaved the Hebrews for hundreds of years (yes, during Hatsepshut’s reign), so I’m thinking you probably owe them some type of restitution. Besides, Hatsepshut often dressed as a male and had numerous female lovers. ThatÂ’s some role model youÂ’re invoking for black women. Maybe YOU should read your history. And if you are African American, do you think that European whites were the only ones living in caves during the Egyptian dynasties? Yes, I’m sure the tribal lords in the African jungles were very busy devising the geometrics to the pyramids in 1500 B.C.
Also, I don’t know what “day" you were talking about, nor do I know what elite neighborhood you were raised, but I’m 41 years old, I don’t ever remember any “days” when young black girls were raised in the church and were careful about losing their virginity. Maybe you’re talking about pre-segregation times when the moral fabric of this country was something to be proud of for both blacks and whites. I live near a large city where young black girls between the ages of 15 and 19 have had the highest pregnancy rate among all races for the past 15 years. And you call white women easy and docile? That doesn’t sound like strict moral upbringing to me. In fact, it sounds like young black women are giving it up fairly regularly. You say black men are looking for women to control? I assume much in the same way men like Bobby Brown, Ike Turner, James Brown, O.J. Simpson, and Kobe Bryant “control” their women. I would expect nothing more from a culture which glamorizes rape, murder, gang violence and drugs; a culture where it’s considered cool to be an underwear-showing law-breaking thug; where you’re judged more by the amount of jewelry worn and whether or not your car rolls or bounces down the street rather than feeding and educating your kids. Yes, if you’re looking for a virtuous woman to be a mother to your children, I’m sure you can find your pick of them dancing in hip-hop videos. Perhaps if more young black women took the time to actually parent their illegitimate children, the cities would be a better place to live and public schools would be a safe place to send your kids.
You also mention the strength of black women. Are you sure youÂ’re not confusing strength with being loud-mouthed and belligerent? Or by strength, do you imply exploiting government assistance programs rather than striving to achieve prosperity on your own? Come to think of it, you’re right. Black women do get pretty strong if you threaten to end the government gravy train. Or is that loud-mouthed and belligerent? I can never tell. But to that end, if you want the government to support you, maybe you should move to France. And by the way, why is it that black women get their hair straightened, softened and highlighted? It couldn’t possibly be that they want their hair to look more like that of a white woman’s could it?
The bottom line is that if you believe all black women to be African Queens, you’re entitled to your opinion. At least now I know why I can’t get good service at a McDonald’s restaurant...too many queens working there I suppose. But I have a virtuous woman who is strong, intelligent, beautiful, and would be a fantastic wife, mother and soul mate if given the chance. To top it all off, she’s white! But if I ever decide to find a woman who is lazy, loud, quarrelsome, and confrontational, I’ll be sure to try your side of the fence. And if I sound like a racist, I sincerely don’t mean to; after all, no offense taken, none given, right?
Kyle
By Tim Wise and Molly Secours
ReplyDeletePublished in the Nashville Tennessean, 2/9/05
Combing through headlines in the paper can be like trolling past a nine-vehicle pile-up. You know if you look it's going to be gruesome, but you peek anyway. Such is the case with most any op-ed by Tim Chavez.
Typical of the Tennessean's conservative gadfly, Chavez managed in a recent column to use the personal foibles of individual black public figures as a way to lecture the larger African American community about its supposed pathologies. Thus, he slammed the Rev. Jesse Jackson, state senator John Ford and Memphis mayor Willie Herenton for "personally contributing to the staggering percentage of two-thirds of all U.S. black births being out of wedlock."
Chavez's central message is that blacks as a group should "take responsibility" for the community's disproportionate rates of out-of-wedlock childbirth, as well as other forms of social dysfunction.
Of course, Chavez only applies this kind of logic to those with dark-skin. He has never called upon whites to engage in such communal soul-searching, even when it might be called for. So, for instance, whites are not expected to "take responsibility" for the racism that has skewed the opportunity structure in our favor, historically and still today. Indeed, whenever the subject of racism is mentioned, those raising it are accused, in Chavez's words, of pushing a "gospel of victimology."
Even in the area of behavioral dysfunction, whites often lead the pack in a wide array of destructive activities, but no one dares lecture us about the need for collective responsibility as a remedy.
For example, corporate fraud, which is disproportionately the work of whites, costs the country far more than street crime each year. But never has Chavez called upon white folks to take responsibility for our predatory ways. Martha Stewart, Ken Lay, and the Savings and Loan bandits are not used as symbols of what's wrong with white people, the way Chavez often uses Jesse Jackson to bash the black community.
And when it comes to political figures, the U.S. has had forty-three white Presidents in a row, all of whom have misled the public about something (be it sexual dalliances or weapons of mass destruction). Yet Chavez hardly calls upon this unbroken string of white dishonesty and duplicity to inspire whites as a group to be more truthful.
Or consider drug and alcohol use. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the Centers for Disease Control, white youth have higher rates of drug use than blacks, for all drug categories. Whites in grades 8-12 are four times more likely to have used cocaine in the past month, and white seniors are 73 percent more likely than black seniors to smoke pot daily.
As for booze, whites between 12-17 are nearly twice as likely as similar blacks to drink, and six times more likely to binge drink regularly. Among persons 18-25, whites are nearly twice as likely as blacks to binge drink, and more than three times as likely to do so regularly. Whites are also far more likely than blacks to drive drunk, according to available data: a behavior implicated in thousands of annual deaths.
So when will Tim Chavez call for the majority to "take responsibility" for our dysfunctional behaviors?
Even Chavez's position on out-of-wedlock births rests on inaccurate assumptions. Contrary to popular belief, increases in the rate of out-of-wedlock births among blacks have had nothing to do with increases in irresponsible sexual behavior by black women or their male partners. Fact is, fertility rates among unmarried black women have fallen to their lowest point in over forty years, but because birthrates among married black couples have fallen much faster, the share of out-of-wedlock babies in the black community, as a share of all babies born, has risen.
Interestingly, according to the Brookings Institution, between the 1960s and the late 1980s, the average size of families headed by unmarried white women dramatically increased, while the average size of families headed by unmarried black women actually fell.
Chavez's only flirtation with accuracy was his admission that he was "the wrong person and race to write about black leaders." This is true, but not because one must be black to write about African Americans. Rather, the problem is that Chavez's understanding of the black community is purely anecdotal and speculative. Rooted in hyperbole (and a facts-be-damned attitude so common of conservatives like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly), Chavez's racist rhetoric masquerades as benign concern, and is therefore especially dangerous.
Writing without the burden of fact-checkers, and applying a much harsher standard to persons of color than he would ever seek to impose on whites, makes Chavez's writing every bit as messy as the aforementioned car accident--and every bit as worthy of our passing it by without looking.