Frontpage’s 2014 Person of the Year: The American Police Officer

Racism Right and Left: One Man’s Opinion... a SPECIAL for ur'a bootlicker and Shit Eater


http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/...inglepage=true

December 21st, 2014 - 9:41 pm

Which side of the aisle is more racist than the other? It’s not even close.

Because I am in New York for a short visit and, as the world well knows, the city of my birth is in a period of racial turmoil, I am going to say something I have been thinking about for a long time. And because I am one of the relative few to have spent long periods of his life on both the left and the right and because I was a civil rights worker in the sixties. I think — though it is purely personal and based only on observation — I have earned the right to an opinion. So here goes.


The left is vastly more racist than the right. It’s not even close. Since I was publicly identified with the right, roughly from when I started blogging in 2003 (although it was actually several years earlier in private), I have personally witnessed not a single incident of racism from anyone who could be considered a right winger and heard only one racial slur — and that was from a Frenchman. In the seven years I was CEO of PJ Media, I came to know or meet literally dozens of people who identified with the Tea Party. I did not hear one word of anything close to racism from any of them even once. Not one, ever. This despite their being accused of racism constantly.

The left, on the other hand, is filled with racism of all sorts, much, but not all, of it projected. I used to hear racist comments all the time during the seventies and eighties when almost all my friends were leftist or liberals. During that time black racism was pretty much continuously on the rise, aided and abetted by whites.

It had been going on for a while. I first encountered black racism from the person of none other than Julian Bond (later the president of the NAACP), who treated me, a civil rights worker involved in voter registration, in a racist, anti-white manner in the SNCC offices in Atlanta in 1966. Stokely Carmichael treated me that way also. That was at the beginning of the Black Power movement and I excused it then as “a phase” that had to be gone through. I was mistaken and naive. It was racism pure and simple. I, and others, never confronted or named it then.

Now we live in culture where there is considerably more black racism than white racism. Someone like Al Sharpton, clearly the equivalent of David Duke, is far more powerful than Duke ever was. No one pays attention to the execrable Duke, as they shouldn’t. But they shouldn’t pay attention to Sharpton either.

But he’s only a part of the problem. There’s also the mayor of the city of New York, Bill de Blasio, the prototype of the leftwing fellow-traveler racist who assumes someone is more moral or better because he or she is “of color.” Of course this is condescending — and therefore racist — to the people he thinks are so pure. No one is. The whole theory of “white skin privilege” is racist and totalitarian to the core: actually it was invented by totalitarians. And while I’m ranting here, all racial identity organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus are inherently racist and dangerous, just as the White Citizens’ Council was and would be.

You only end racism by ending it, not by talking about it. That only results in the reverse. If you keep talking about it, what you get are two dead cops in Brooklyn, the kind of guys who had been spending their lives largely defending the weak and the poor, “of color” or otherwise. The cops didn’t care. They just did their jobs. Black, white and brown, we owe them our gratitude. They protect us and, as far as I can tell, almost all of them without racial bias.

But we live in a time when two black men, Barack Obama and Eric Holder, came into office clinging to racism more desperately than Obama said right-wingers cling to their guns and religion. Both of these men arrived at a moment when racism was truly beginning to disappear and did everything in their power, consciously or unconsciously, to reverse the trend. Now we are in a miserable situation when, as recently as 2008, things were looking pretty good. We have come to a point where Bill O’Reilly is doing more substantively for black people than the president of the United States, who is himself a black man. How crazy, and deeply sad, is that?

Again you have earned the title of dull knife the king of stupid. Go fuck yourself. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Please inform me, as to why there is such a huge disconnect between what progressives say and how so many act.

We are told that Progressives are all about hope and change, they're so concerned with tolerance and inclusion they are the people of social justice and diversity. They believe in community and human sanctity and civil rights. They live by the values of compassion, equality, peace and love. They are politically correct and universally sustainable. How do I know this? Why they keep telling me that, of course. Then why is it that whenever a contrasting opinion is set forth, the nastiness of the progressive overcome any thought provoking reason, as why they oppose the other person. There should be no irascibility, but with a little forethought, you might be able to just tweek the person with the opposing thought a tadbit toward "the left", but, my God, why would anyone with a little sensibility wish to act in such an atrocious manner, as the so called Progressives do
Very said, but maybe with a little thought on this, you can redeem your/the character of the Progressive.

Please inform me, as to why there is such a huge disconnect between what progressives say and how so many act.

We are told that Progressives are all about hope and change, they're so concerned with tolerance and inclusion they are the people of social justice and diversity. They believe in community and human sanctity and civil rights. They live by the values of compassion, equality, peace and love. They are politically correct and universally sustainable. How do I know this? Why they keep telling me that, of course. Then why is it that whenever a contrasting opinion is set forth, the nastiness of the progressive overcome any thought provoking reason, as why they oppose the other person. There should be no irascibility, but with a little forethought, you might be able to just tweek the person with the opposing thought a tadbit toward "the left", but, my God, why would anyone with a little sensibility wish to act in such an atrocious manner, as the so called Progressives do
Very said, but maybe with a little thought on this, you can redeem your/the character of the Progressive. Originally Posted by Cherie

Hate to bad news you, however you are asking the wrong person. Or were you asking whiffy.

Racism Right and Left: One Man’s Opinion... a SPECIAL for ur'a bootlicker and Shit Eater


http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/...inglepage=true

December 21st, 2014 - 9:41 pm

Which side of the aisle is more racist than the other? It’s not even close.

Because I am in New York for a short visit and, as the world well knows, the city of my birth is in a period of racial turmoil, I am going to say something I have been thinking about for a long time. And because I am one of the relative few to have spent long periods of his life on both the left and the right and because I was a civil rights worker in the sixties. I think — though it is purely personal and based only on observation — I have earned the right to an opinion. So here goes.


The left is vastly more racist than the right. It’s not even close. Since I was publicly identified with the right, roughly from when I started blogging in 2003 (although it was actually several years earlier in private), I have personally witnessed not a single incident of racism from anyone who could be considered a right winger and heard only one racial slur — and that was from a Frenchman. In the seven years I was CEO of PJ Media, I came to know or meet literally dozens of people who identified with the Tea Party. I did not hear one word of anything close to racism from any of them even once. Not one, ever. This despite their being accused of racism constantly.

The left, on the other hand, is filled with racism of all sorts, much, but not all, of it projected. I used to hear racist comments all the time during the seventies and eighties when almost all my friends were leftist or liberals. During that time black racism was pretty much continuously on the rise, aided and abetted by whites.

It had been going on for a while. I first encountered black racism from the person of none other than Julian Bond (later the president of the NAACP), who treated me, a civil rights worker involved in voter registration, in a racist, anti-white manner in the SNCC offices in Atlanta in 1966. Stokely Carmichael treated me that way also. That was at the beginning of the Black Power movement and I excused it then as “a phase” that had to be gone through. I was mistaken and naive. It was racism pure and simple. I, and others, never confronted or named it then.

Now we live in culture where there is considerably more black racism than white racism. Someone like Al Sharpton, clearly the equivalent of David Duke, is far more powerful than Duke ever was. No one pays attention to the execrable Duke, as they shouldn’t. But they shouldn’t pay attention to Sharpton either.

But he’s only a part of the problem. There’s also the mayor of the city of New York, Bill de Blasio, the prototype of the leftwing fellow-traveler racist who assumes someone is more moral or better because he or she is “of color.” Of course this is condescending — and therefore racist — to the people he thinks are so pure. No one is. The whole theory of “white skin privilege” is racist and totalitarian to the core: actually it was invented by totalitarians. And while I’m ranting here, all racial identity organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus are inherently racist and dangerous, just as the White Citizens’ Council was and would be.

You only end racism by ending it, not by talking about it. That only results in the reverse. If you keep talking about it, what you get are two dead cops in Brooklyn, the kind of guys who had been spending their lives largely defending the weak and the poor, “of color” or otherwise. The cops didn’t care. They just did their jobs. Black, white and brown, we owe them our gratitude. They protect us and, as far as I can tell, almost all of them without racial bias.

But we live in a time when two black men, Barack Obama and Eric Holder, came into office clinging to racism more desperately than Obama said right-wingers cling to their guns and religion. Both of these men arrived at a moment when racism was truly beginning to disappear and did everything in their power, consciously or unconsciously, to reverse the trend. Now we are in a miserable situation when, as recently as 2008, things were looking pretty good. We have come to a point where Bill O’Reilly is doing more substantively for black people than the president of the United States, who is himself a black man. How crazy, and deeply sad, is that? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Since you are too fucking dumb to remember I am neither left or right you can go fuck yourself whiffy, you have swung and missed one more time. Little bootlicker.

As you can tell, Cherie, our LittleEva is incapable of thought. It's sad, but funny at the same time.

As you can tell, Cherie, our LittleEva is incapable of thought. It's sad, but funny at the same time. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

As anyone can see you are unable to comprehend sentences so you double down on stupid. If you had a thought at one time dull knife it is long gone.

Surprise! SLOBBRIN hijacks his own thread for shit stirring purposes.

You're blasting them Ozombies again, SLOBBRIN!

Hate to bad news you, however you are asking the wrong person. Or were you asking whiffy. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Lets just make it a rhetorical question, aimed at anyone who can explain to me/us the rhyme and reason behind the vitriol of the progressives, when a conservative has put forth their position on any given subject. As I said, this might be a great way to redeem yourself, and give me/us some understanding at the same time.
Thank you in advance

Lets just make it a rhetorical question, aimed at anyone who can explain to me/us the rhyme and reason behind the vitriol of the progressives, when a conservative has put forth their position on any given subject. As I said, this might be a great way to redeem yourself, and give me/us some understanding at the same time.
Thank you in advance Originally Posted by Cherie

I feel no need to redeem myself. Query dull knife with your question, he is a big fan of yours. Or any woman who will give him the time of day.

See? I told you, Cherie. The lights are on, but nobody's home.

See? I told you, Cherie. The lights are on, but nobody's home. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

you shouldn't put yourself down like that dull knife. She was starting to like you.

Please inform me, as to why there is such a huge disconnect between what progressives say and how so many act.

We are told that Progressives are all about hope and change, they're so concerned with tolerance and inclusion they are the people of social justice and diversity. They believe in community and human sanctity and civil rights. They live by the values of compassion, equality, peace and love. They are politically correct and universally sustainable. How do I know this? Why they keep telling me that, of course. Then why is it that whenever a contrasting opinion is set forth, the nastiness of the progressive overcome any thought provoking reason, as why they oppose the other person. There should be no irascibility, but with a little forethought, you might be able to just tweek the person with the opposing thought a tadbit toward "the left", but, my God, why would anyone with a little sensibility wish to act in such an atrocious manner, as the so called Progressives do
Very said, but maybe with a little thought on this, you can redeem your/the character of the Progressive. Originally Posted by Cherie

Its kind of like Bill Clinton. He is known as one of the most favorable presidents when it comes to women's rights but his personal life was something completely different. He and his wife went out of their way to destroy any woman who tried to come forward and accuse him of what we all know that he did.

Its kind of like Bill Clinton. He is known as one of the most favorable presidents when it comes to women's rights but his personal life was something completely different. He and his wife went out of their way to destroy any woman who tried to come forward and accuse him of what we all know that he did. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I have struggled to reconcile the overt conflict between one who professes to be in favor of "women's rights," while at the same time using his superior position to obtain sexual favors from subordinates.

But that is probably not "on topic" of this thread.

I am still waiting for Cherie to define what she means by "Progressives."

I have struggled to reconcile the overt conflict between one who professes to be in favor of "women's rights," while at the same time using his superior position to obtain sexual favors from subordinates.

But that is probably not "on topic" of this thread.

I am still waiting for Cherie to define what she means by "Progressives." Originally Posted by LexusLover

For the sake of argument, we can preface the following thought with, a large number of people are somewhere in between being Liberal and Progressive, but since the 1930's, the Progressive line of thinking has come more and into play, as we get more people who think they smarter than the rest of us(e.g. Gruber), academia, so called "stars", lawyers etc, then there are the people who like to "follow", e.g. regular joes, and of course, if we look further into that particular mode of thought from the former, IMHO, it is about control.

Well I suppose IMHO the difference between Liberal and Progressive would be by starting at the fundamental meaning Liberal, and the dictionary says, "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values". e.g. gay, transexual tolerance, blacks being professionals etc. etc.. The fundamental meaning of a Progressive, dictionary says, "happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step", e.g. gays getting married, affirmative action.

I suppose in short, Liberalism is a set of ideas put forth as freedoms and equalities, and people have control over their own lives.

Progressivism would be more of social and economic engineering, we must help the people as they can't think for themselves, therefore we are in control, e.g.. welfare, healthcare.

I'm sure all the above can be to debated as to degrees, but for me that would the fundamental difference at this time.

addendum: In neither Liberal or Progressive ideology, does Capitalism and the Free Market have a place in society.

I suppose in short, Liberalism is a set of ideas put forth as freedoms and equalities, and people have control over their own lives. Originally Posted by Cherie

Since probably 90+% of the "control" over persons' lives comes from government, it occurs to me that at the present time in U.S. history those who desire less government would be the group desiring "less control" over "their own lives" from government, and desiring to exercise control over their own lives.

It seems that currently the traditional meaning of "Liberalism" as is customarily expressed are those who seek more government and therefore more external control over people's lives (except over their own lives, of course).

I was asking about the "progressive" label, because it has a "tone" to it that generates the impression that they are more positive and productive in their focus of behavior and "forward looking" than others .. who they view as being "backward," negative, and nonproductive.

Both "progressives" (as you describe and the literature) and "liberals" seem to base their philosophy on the spurious premise that they know better about how people should live their daily lives than "the people," and therefore they have some "God Given" right or privilege to direct "those people" in their daily lives, which by the way carries with it the "right" of the "know-it-alls" to investigate and query "those people" to assure they are doing as directed.

Whether actually designed to do so or not is immaterial, but "entitlement programs" develop dependency and the inability to make decisions for oneself, and therefore facilitate the "progressive-liberal" premise by "demonstrating' the necessity for their continued "guidance" of "those people," who repeatedly return the "progressive-liberals" to positions of control, to assure their continued "fix" from the "entitlement programs."

On the surface they present themselves to be "doing good," when in reality all they are doing is guarantying their continued position of authority and power, and the long run simply passing the baton to the next "heir apparent in line."

To be "on point" .... years ago this country separated law enforcement from the politics ... and it has only been recently that politicians have started meddling in the law enforcement affairs trying to influence the decision making to fit their agenda ... and no one has been more obvious about it than the current narcissitic excuse in the White House ...