Saturday, June 27, 2020

Radical Anti-Racism

Perhaps you haven't heard, but slavery is wrong. So too is racism. But why they wrong? By virtue of what principle(s)?

I know why they're wrong: ultimately because all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with... you know, the thing.

So what. The founders believed the same nonsense but some of them owned slaves.

Yes, but that was wrong, and they knew it was wrong. Democrats didn't invent the positive good defense of slavery until a generation or two after the founding.

The positive good defense is rooted in very different principles from the founding, and these principles have guided the Democrat party ever since, from Jim Crow to racial quotas to the war on cops.

The latter, for example, insists that different standards should be applied to policing blacks just because blacks commit a vastly disproportionate amount of crime. This is analogous to applying different college entry standards to Asian Americans just because they commit a vastly disproportionate amount of scholarship. Which Democrats also do: different races, different standards.

Blacks lives matter. No doubt, but why? By virtue of what principle?

I know -- because ALL lives matter!

Wrong. That makes you a racist.

Hmm. I don't have a second guess. I give up. What's the right answer?

No, I really do give up. What is the Politically Correct answer? Be right back. I'm gonna go to the source.

Perfect: What We Believe. The mission: "to build local power and to intervene when violence [is] inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes." Vigilantes? I have good news for BLM: 86% of unorganized, non-state interracial violence is committed by Blacks, despite Blacks comprising only 13% of the population.

And the state? The top 20 urban areas that feature the most Black-on-Black violence are all run by Democrats, often for decades (or maybe it's 19 out of 20).

I'll cut to the chase: I don't see any principles here. There is (in their words) rage, commitment, desire, fighting, catalyzing, healing, struggling. There's a lot of talk about "Black people," but no attention to actual persons.

There'a a lot of sub-literate nonsense such as

We intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.

Does that make any sense to you?

We are unapologetically Black in our positioning.

That's neither here nor there. I am unapologetically white. I'm also unapologetically male, Homo sapiens, mortal, married, a father, a baseball fan, a beer lover, a record collector... I'm not proud of any of these, just not apologetic. Why would I be? It won't help. I do, however, apologize for being a psychologist. That was never my intention. It just turned out that way.

We see ourselves as part of the global Black family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as Black people who exist in different parts of the world.

Ah ha. I think I've identified the essential flaw in their anthropological reasoning, and which makes for a smooth segue into our next subject, which is very nature of the human subject, AKA The Selfhood of the Human Person.

Our approach will demonstrate not only why Black lives matter, but why they are of literally infinite value. Note that this statement cannot be true if the belief animating BLM is true, that "to love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a prerequisite for wanting the same for others."

This has it precisely backward and upside down. For in reality, human rights are prior to their instantiation in a racial (or any) group.

In short, these rights inhere in individuals, never in groups, races, tribes, classes, genders, political parties, etc. You possess them because you are a person, never because you are a black or white person. To believe otherwise is a truly grotesque and dangerous regression to an earlier understanding of personhood (because it is, as we shall see, a denial and defacement of personhood).

Let's begin with a question. Let's say you know nothing about me except I am Black. Knowing I am Black, do you know anything of substance about me?

That is correct: you know nothing (except that I am a person, with all this entails, which is a great deal). If you believe otherwise, there's a name for that: racist. Even if one believes different racial groups may on average do better or worse in this or that endeavor, this tells you nothing about the individual.

Perhaps you assume that because I'm, say, Asian American, I must excel at math. Maybe, but you won't know until you actually meet and get to know me. Or, maybe you think someone is "privileged" because he's white. If so, you're just another racist.

This is all so elementary, it's distressing it even has to be said. But this is the progressive Age of Stupidity we've been born into. As a psychologist, I deal with every race under the sun, but I never make any assumptions -- good or bad -- going into an interview. Why would I? I'm not evaluating a group but a person.

But what is a person? And what makes them so special? I learned in biology that human beings are just randomly evolved animals, no better than any other. I learned in ecology that humans are like any other animal only worse, and I learned in neurology that there's not even any such thing as a human self, just neural activity.

Back to our question: what is a person, anyway?

Almost every answer to this question begins in a certain independence in being and acting.... a person is never a mere part in any whole but a whole of its own... (Crosby).

Since a person is never a mere part in a whole, a person can never be reduced to his race. Indeed, no person is even a "member" of a race, certainly not in any meaningful sense, since it again tells us nothing about the actual person.

Does this mean community is of no importance? No, of course not. But it does mean a community must be of and for persons, not reduce person to group or engulf the individual in the collective:

personal selfhood provides the only possible basis for all deeper forms of community.... the defenders of community and the common good should beware of certain proposals of restoration, such as those that reject the idea of the person as subject of rights. There is a core of personalist truth in the individualism of rights, and this has to be preserved in all attempts at renewing the bonds of social solidarity (ibid.).

Any person matters because all persons matter, period. But today, radical anti-racism such as that discussed here is considered a form of racism by the racists of the left, the great majority of whom are, as usual, white Democrats, not black.


julie said...

Or, maybe you think someone is "privileged" because he's white. If so, you're just another racist.

I know a young woman. Lovely girl, training to be a nurse, works in a children's cancer ward. Not your standard thot, but of course she has a very big heart and is easily led to believe that, for instance, she has benefitted from white privilege. Even though she lost out on a good scholarship opportunity to a less-qualified person of color; even though she grew up in a home every bit as dysfunctional as any I know of; even though she, too, didn't have her own father in the home, and as far as I know is pretty much on her own for financial support. Of course, she doesn't look at her life that way, and so she feels guilty simply because she's a person of pallor, and of course all the people closest to her tend to agree that she should. They feel guilty, too.

Anonymous said...

Julie, I'm with you: persons of pallor need not feel guilty.

Now, white ancestors f*cked over black ancestors. Badly. Really. Awkward....

Nobody knows how to handle this historical pile of mierde. Feel guilty if yer white? Feel ashamed if yer black? Who knows how to feel?

This is what our ancestors left for us. Whites stole trillions in unpaid labor. Blacks got massa in the pussy down in the chicken shack, or his whip on their backs.

Now, who's going to pay for that sh*t? Someone's got to pay. Right? Trillions stolen. Let's not pretend someone doesn't have to pay for that.

Right? Or is the ledger wiped clean, because it wasn't today's whites who cracked the whip, and it wasn't today's blacks that picked the cotton?

Is the slate clean. That's the question. Or is there a festering resentment for an unpaid debt.

We aks, "Can't we all just get along?" Sure we can. As soon as them books is balanced. Right now there is a ghost in the room, the spirit of money owed. Everyone is uneasy.

Anonymous said...

Most people learn that life is a competitive game by the end of the first grade.

What many do not know, is that it's not like playing The Game of Life, or Monopoly, or any other game of skill. It's more like Poker, except where knowing the dealer, or keeping extra cards in ones back pocket, or cheating in any way possible without getting caught, or even regardless of getting caught, is how one wins the game.

Most angry people, left, right, or center, just want more structure to the game, and less sociopathy.

Anonymous said...

Does anybody know personally, black people who've been given special advantage over whites?

I don't know any personally, but I've known a few who've told me that if they get harrassed by
white management that they'll use the tool of 'anti-racism' to defend themselves. And a few of those people have been self-delusional about their actual worth to that company.

But I know far more whites, usually of the conservative flavor, who've accused me of "white mans guilt" after I told them I voted for Obama in '07 and came to regret it. Even after I explained to them that I'd bought into the "Hope and Change" theme, foolishly assuming that he'd revise the corrupt K-Street corporate socialism system as well as the outsourcing of jobs and technology and border defense. All they saw was a black man and a white voter.

So who was the racist?

Anonymous said...

Great post as usual GDB.

As you suggest, all lives matter; but they do not all matter the same amount.

The management around here uses a 29 point assessment tool to calculate the worth of each life on a scale of 1.0-2.0 (lowest to highest value).

Now we don't stand in judgment. It is what it is. The numbers don't lie.

So when we decide on where to put a new highway, for instance, we would route that through a borough inhabited by persons of lower worth.

In criminal cases, if a high worth person was to be charged with a crime, typically we would dismiss the charges; where on the other hand we would charge and convict a low value person and apply a lengthy sentence, usually all in one day.

That's just how things work. Nothing personal.

Anonymous said...

One thing that galls me about the American people is how ungrateful they are.

People complain about the government, while at the same time sucking in huge lung-fuls of air and blowing them out without a care in the world.


Because our Government gives unlimited air to everyone free of charge. This is not just oxygen, mind you. There are generous rations of nitrogen, helium, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as well. Not to mention trace amounts of noble gases such as argon and neon.

All of it government property. But, out of an abundance of generosity we just allow everyone to consume as much free air as they want.

So when citizens turn around and complain about every little thing, it exposes them for the ingrates they are.

I have suggested to my bosses that the Government start charging for air, and I think the time is coming when the free ride will be over.

And don't even get me started on sunlight. All of these BTU's, untaxed. It bothers me, it does.

Anonymous said...

Anon @6/27/2020 04:22:00 PM,

My mother, uncle and grandmother came to America with nothing but the clothes on their backs. They'd lost everything in the war, after their ancestors had built up some wealth and status over many generations. In America they became a preachers wife, a civil engineer, and an impoverished elderly on welfare (after having been a high school principal who lost her husband).

I also know many Vietnamese, Iranians, of course many Mexicans, Ukranians... and even a guy who'd escaped the killing fields with his brother to never see his family again. All of them came to eventually enjoy the fruits of American education and labor without complaint.

An aside, but I learned a real lesson in humility when the killing fields survivor yelled at me once. He'd been our best techie, smart and conscientious, and one day suddenly gave his notice that he was quitting. I went to him to ask why. He looked at me like I was nuts and shouted out: "THERE'S NO FUTURE HERE!", his voice echoing off the back wall in that large office bay resulting in people looking. I was humbled. That's when you know your job sucks, when a survivor from the killing fields tells you're company isn't a very good one.

Sorry about all the long-windedness. My point is what about the blacks? Why do so many of them seem stuck in such bad ruts of drugs, ghettos, and gangster rap?

I already spoke of the poison of surrounding oneself with dysfunction in some ghetto. In the Gaza it seems the Palestinians make one mess after another. Yet Palestinians living in other places, like Jordan, America, even Israel itself, are doing far better in seemingly every way. Environment seems very important. This would discredit the emotional need to balance the historic books.

Anonymous said...

1. In all of human history, urban areas have always had crime and human dysfunction and all manner of sinful nastiness concentrating in far more abundance than in rural areas. It’s just how humans roll.

2. All environments full of dysfunctional human sinful nastiness are still going to contain a few decent souls who’ve tried everything and are desperate for whatever help they can get. Or, they do just move away but this only increases the concentration of dysfunction.

3. If one party, say the Republicans, tells the remaining decent voters in #2 that they’re all just gonna have to suck it up and go to church and be personally responsible and just behave themselves and pull themselves up by their bootstraps and that their party will be reducing taxes and services, then they will not get the votes. Not for a people desperate for immediate solutions needed right now. This means that the only other remaining viable party, the Democrats, such as they are, whatever they happen to be at that time good, bad or ugly, will then get whatever votes there are to be had, in desperation.

4. This creates the illusion that Republican solutions are always going to be the superior solutions in all urban areas, just because of the spurious lower concentrations of sinning inherent in rural areas. (The child pregnancies or meth and opiate crisis or vacant main streets or poverty related crimes which the media may not always report is a subject for another time.)

4. The only prevailing Republican solution which has proven successful in the immediate, has been to target the drug addicted, well known to cause the most petty neighborhood crime, to incarcerate them, with the hopes that their removal from society will help improve the neighborhood enough so that it can get back on its functional feet. If successful, then gentrification can happen.

5. But this has become past history. Today, most elites in either party gives a damn about improving any neighborhood unless there’s some donor money in it. This cannot be more clearly proven by the lack of discipline the police forces demonstrate in regards to competent policing. Cops who clearly and obviously intentionally murder are getting lumped in with cops who make mistakes. So the people inevitably riot, as desperate people usually do, blaming whatever it is that their tribal sources of information tells them to blame.

River Cocytus said...

So stereotypes are racist? Or are they only wrong when they are applied along the axis of race? I think there's a major excluded middle here. Everyone uses stereotypes, including those concerning the race of the person they are observing. Being unable to process a person beyond stereotypes IS sort of dumb... perhaps merely another case of stupidity.

People are for equality in theory, until they need to get something done. Then everyone is a 'racist'. C'est la vie.

Do you think Aristotle was wrong when he talked about 'natural slaves'? Or was this distinct from the concept of 'chattel' slavery? What are we to make of the notion that it's an honor for Christians to regard themselves as 'slaves of God'? (This is sometimes translated 'bondservant' because English-speakers can't handle 'doulos' [slave].)

It's hard for me to believe that anyone's race or indeed how their genetic heritage shapes their personhood somehow effaces their person. In the end, everything ends up being racist. Anyone can do it! But what does it MEAN?

In practice it just means you lose your job.

Anyway, this essay is great reading for today's fake revolution:

Tom Wolfe! Always on point.

Anonymous said...

That cognitive bias may be a strategy for conserving cognitive resources, combined with a need to defend ones own tribe, may explain the human drive to oversimplify 'differentness'.

It may be some of the fuel, but I don't think it fully explains the spark which causes the fires of racism to burn.

Andrew Carnegie's partner, Henry Frick, can be said to have used that spark to help him replace the companies higher paid German Bessemer experts with lower paid imported Slavs, after that process had become part of their house knowledge. He was basically pitting one tribe against another to deflect attentions away from his own greed. Or business moxie, depending on how one views it.

When Mexicans replaced journeymen butchers in the meatpacking industry, same thing. Then if you dared say anything about all the illegal Mexicans yearning to breathe free and just do a job, you were a racist. More subtle than saying that niggers were only good for banging drums and picking cotton, but pretty much the same thing, using 'racism' for economic gain.

Frick got shot anyways, before being dumped by Carnegie for being too violent, the job some say the diminutive Carnegie had hired the bully sized Frick for initially. Many see Carnegie as a nice guy, that philanthropic scottish library builder and all, but I think he had to a helluva lotta rationalizing to do business the way he often did.

Anonymous said...

In the great spin of history, everybody was at some point a slaver or was enslaved. You pick anybody, anywhere, trace their ancestral tree, and you’re going to find some grand atrocity their kin committed. Collective guilt is a steaming cow pie.

In days of yore, before the correctives of Western Civ, slavery actually made sense. After warfare, the victor took slaves as a means of grinding defeat and domination into the souls of the enemy. It made a larger economic sense, too. If a people had a resource, but didn’t have the manpower to benefit from it, they took slaves - this is what the South did, as had many peoples before. If you had a slave surplus, you sold them. This was simply the way of the world, and in fact still is in certain areas.

The USA doesn’t owe anybody anything except, per the Constitution, an equal opportunity. Those so eager to tear Western Civ down seem to have no clue that it was Western Civ and Western Civ only that brought an end to slavery.


Anonymous said...

Actually there is a government of a nation that owes every other nation, and the debt is current, so the “sins of the fathers” passed-on thing doesn’t apply here.

China, government of.


ted said...

I wish some of the trolls would distill their arguments to an aphorism. It would, one, save me time. And two, show if there is converging coherence in what they are saying. So far, neither apply.

Gagdad Bob said...

That would require the articulation of a coherent principle, which a leftist cannot do without contradicting himself:

The theses of the left are rationalizations that are carefully suspended before reaching the argument that dissolves them.

Petey said...

The essence of leftism is coercion, if only because it can never persuade. Their arguments always come down to force, which is why freedom -- especially free speech -- is so dangerous to them.

Anonymous said...

closest thing a Prog-lefty has to a set of aphorisms:

Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung


Anonymous said...

The conservative is he who demands equal freedom for both sociopath and
empath, saint and sinner, because TINA. (But she needs to get her ass back into the kitchen and just shut the hell up)

Simple enough for you Ted?

Napoleon said...

Tina you fat lard come get some dinner!

julie said...

The left can occasionally boil their argument down to one or two words. For instance, I accidentally caught a snippet of the news today, where it was intoned that among pregnant women, African and Latin American women (shockingly, no mention of trans) are most likely to suffer sickness from Covid. The reason for this, given without any evidence or room for questioning, is institutional racism.

We are to believe that all the nurses and doctors treating these patients - most of whom in SoCal are probably minorities themselves - are actively giving substandard care to non-whites, and there couldn't possibly be any other factors that might make these particular groups of people more susceptible to this particular illness. It's just racism.

Rex Kwon Do said...

I'll need a volunteer. You'll do . Now bow to your sensei. BOW TO YOUR SENSEI!

A good conservative doesn’t immanentize the eschaton, but embraces the end of days. If this philosophy doesn’t replenish the pews, then fuckem. (slap on head)

An irreligious liberal cannot endure the truth of the human condition. It prefers to lie about encouraging the rise of China, no matter how idiotic this may be. (slap on head)

Neither Karl Marx nor Don Colacho divided sinners into temperaments or psychologies, because it was above their paygrade. (slap on head)

ted said...

All nice tries, but I think I could better:
"All is One, No Above, So Below."

Rex Kwon Do said...

You forgot slap on head, Peter Pan!

ted said...

Ok, here's a head slapper:
"To love all people is better than to just love persons, it divides less and loves more, so much more there is no distinction (except for race, sex, and so forth)."

Doug Saxum said...

Does anyone else look on Mt. Rushmore and see the Four Horsemen.
I'd say that the First Nations people might see it that way

(Woe to the people of the earth)


Anonymous said...

Julie, DeBlasio made sure to publicize his criticism of the Jewish community in nyc for breach of lockdown rules, but less so of the busts of lockdown breach in the black and Hispanic communities. There was a lot of breach in all cases. And now I’d bet the police don’t even bother with enforcing in the black and Hispanic areas.

In a way, more minority COVID positive cases IS systematic racism, but it’s racism on the part of DeBlasio and the Dems.


julie said...

Will, it's like that county in Oregon where the mask order is only for whites, not "people of color," because somehow masks make them more susceptible to racism or something. In reality, this means one of two things: either COVID is way overblown, the risks are minimal, and this is a tacit acknowledgement of that fact such that nobody really needs to wear a mask, but they still want white people to cover up and fell guilty; or, they really think brown people are too stupid to wear a mask properly, and they really don't care if brown people are getting sick more easily (or maybe they even hope for that result).

Either way, there is some serious, genuine racism going on, but it's precisely the opposite of what they want people to think.

Anonymous said...

Now let us rise and sing our new national anthem. And as always, remember if you’re not singing, your face, home and email address and phone number could be flashed on our Jumbotron. We don’t want that to happen. You don’t want that to happen. All together now ...

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace .....


Anonymous said...

Julie, that’s a really tough multi-choice you present there, I’’ll go for a combo- im sure the white elites think that minorities are nitwit trash, and they’re probably scared of them, so they placate and grovel.


Anonymous said...

Nothing is more pathetic than white people whining about how blacks get all the breaks.

Anonymous said...

Right. Noticing = whining. OrangeMan Bad.

Anonymous said...

Correction. There is something more pathetic: white people shrieking that blacks should be grateful to them for their insane virtue signaling.

julie said...

If I ever go to DC, I would hope that guy is still offering his tours. I bet it would be a hoot.

pedros primos said...

Un montón de racista, simon.

pedros primos said...

Pedro said...

I came home from school my head started to get really hot. So I drank some cold water, but it didn't do nothing. So I laid in the bathtub for a while, but then I realized that it was my hair that was making my head hot. So I went into my kitchen and I shaved it all off. I don't want anyone to see.

Summer Wheatley said...

Your cake sucked, I don't eat chimichangas, and your wig sucks.

Plus you cant wear a MAGA cap.

Don Moser said...


Anonymous said...

-So we have brown people who can be African, European, Asian, Australian, Central American, South American, Oceania.

-Brown is common. Polynesians are brown. Sicilians are brown. Arabs are a smidge brown.

-We have black people who hail from Australia, Africa, New Guinea, South Asian. These people are really melanotic. They are bona-fide black. Dark they are.

-We have white people coming out of Scandinavia, Europe, Asia, Japan, Korea, South Africa, Australia. White people can be slightly brown or pink. Some white people are really snowy white.

There used to the "red" and "yellow" people, but they turned out to be pretty much brown when viewed up close.

Now then, given all these colors, is it any wonder there was slavery? Is there any wonder there is racism?

There is a color problem. The solution is standardize skin color. Some nations will pay a subsidy if you marry off color. This is a move in the right direction.

There is the "Cafe Au Lait" international eugenics club. We should all support this.

Uncle Rico said...

This sorta brownie eugenics is already being tried down in Brazil. But they all live in them favelas, and play that sissy kind of football. I could probably kick one of those girly balls a half mile, over them mountains.

pedros primos said...

Pedro ofrece nuestra protección contra los demonios del gringo racista.

Juan Manuel Transmissione said...

We are the Juans we've been waiting for.

ted said...

At least there's more attention and projection out here. For a while, I thought Bob lost his trolls cause he gone all soft. But now I realize my error and that they came back for the love of all mankind. Praise secular Jesus!

pedros primos said...

Sé que tienes un gringo El Santo Niño de Atocha vigilando tus pasillos, Ted.

Cousin Dupree said...

Nobody expects the Spanish irritation.

River Cocytus said...


you've got it all wrong. Racism is always a word of power, so it means whatever they want it to mean. So long as conservatives play the game of 'racism is bad' (or even, racism exists) they will always win.

It's easy to figure out if you work out the logic, right?

Hating a person for their skin color is racism, but if you hate all humans for being crap and that happens to fall upon a person of color, you're racist. Noticing differences in people based on skin color is racism, but simply noticing differences in people that happen to fall upon persons of color is also racism. Noticing race can be racism, but ignoring race, also racism. It's racist to love someone for their skin color too, but if you happen to love people and it happens to fall not often enough on persons of color, you're racist. In effect the only way to not be racist is to do exactly what your progressive thought leaders say and accept that it will still be racist.

It's not a game anyone here should play. Genuine racism doesn't exist and never did. An intelligent person can describe any crime committed that is regarded as a 'hate crime' as a crime without things like racism, and almost everything considered a crime or sin only because of racism, isn't.

This is the hard cold truth.

As for the 'poc don't have to wear masks' it's just consistent with the fact that public health is just another arm of politics, and because viruses don't pose any real political benefits for the party of government, they will be ignored when convenient, including when many people are dying. Far from being 'facism' or 'authoritarianism' what we have is a lack of real government. The reason why you feel like you can't trust your government is because you can't; not because human government or coercion is somehow inherently suspect (you're not old-line evangelicals after all) but because our government is, in fact, shit.

I believe citing racism on their part is just trying to avoid this obvious fact, our government is perhaps one of the worst in the world right now-- and that says a lot.

Anonymous said...

Sadly Dupree, increasing numbers of our youth are expecting churches to be something in that range from a networking club to a nihilistic death cult. They're not replacing the departed like we once did.

But will the Latinos save them? My in-law's childhood parish is up to half latinos now, with their own services. I hear that a thousand miles away, The former Chrystal Cathedral of Hour of Power fame, same thing (but I can't confirm that). Maybe somebody else could confirm if their parking lot becomes full with bumpin beat low riders.

I think the solution is to become big tent, once again, leaving politics at the door. Quit bestowing sainthood to players like Trump, McConnell and Biden, just because they know who to pander to for votes. Not as much fun, but far more productive.

Anonymous said...

Genuine racism doesn't exist and never did.

How stupid do you have to be to write a sentence like that?

Anonymous said...

Maybe he meant that people are colorblind, except for all the economic, cultural, tribal and sexual concerns?

Me, I'll go back to watching videos of Japanese women telling the interviewer that foreign men are scary because they're just too big, especially the black ones.

Cousin Dupree said...

Leftism is just the racism of the tenured.

neal said...

The crime of noticing differs.
To deny perception of anything would be to deny the Maker.
I find it interesting that the fortunate classes are taught to blame tanlines.
I heard somewhere that the shiny part and the shadows are a work in progress.

When the red foxes are displaced to the north they kill the arctic varient.
Over time they become pale and forget until the next wave.

Anonymous said...

No racism here!

ted said...

Ohh I like that. It's sort of Alex Jonsey which is what all the incels on reddit love. Sort of fits in with the 5G narrative for Covid too. Let's go there, and see how far we unhinge.

Cousin Dupree said...

Let's be honest and admit that every big city police force is tainted by structural racism, AKA affirmative action.

Anonymous said...

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Anonymous said...

What we are seeing is the long shadow of our original sin in Jamestown 401 years ago.

Gagdad Bob said...

"Shadow" is a racist term.

Anonymous said...

What we are seeing is the long shadow of our original sin in Jamestown 401 years ago.
-Army Gen. Mark Milley

As you don't know but should, probably because your sources of information are derelict, Milley is Americas top military official.

He accompanied Trump on his walk after peaceful protesters were gassed so that Trump could do a photo op with a bible in front of a church. Afterwards, both the church's bishop and Trumps own Secretary of Defense also claimed to have had no advance notification of the crowd clearing move and criticized the action as well. They also reiterated that ours is a civilian army, not owned by one man.

Trump later retweeted a "white power" video.

Doug Saxum said...

From your article. "There’s more infiltration by those types of groups than from actual white supremacists,” he added. “But those groups are also hate groups to me because they hate Muslims...."

This from a former Homeland Security senior analyst.
An Obama administration in 2009.
His opinion matters not a whit.
More BS from the daily beast.

Anonymous said...

So Doug, what source of information is not BS?

Doug Saxum said...

Good question.
The Epoch Times

Anonymous said...

Thanks Doug. I looked em up. They seem controversial. Anti-commumist, which practically everybody is, and far-right, which Trump isn't really, except for all the Democrat boogieman rhetoric.

Doug Saxum said...

The truth is the L_RD sits on the right hand of power.