Wednesday, August 21, 2013

A White Liberal Explains Why Blacks Murdering Whites is Not Racism

Do feel free to pass this meme-graphic around.
Silly me.  I thought that when three Black thugs decided to kill a White guy for fun, and because they were bored, you just might be justified in suspecting a racial component in their motivation.  After all, whenever a non-Black person does anything at all to a Black person, from outright murder to locking one's car door to harm his self-esteem, it's clearly and inarguably a case of blatant racism.

But that just shows how wrong logic and common sense can be. Deep-thinking liberals have been dealing with this issue for years, and they've come up with a solution.  Only Whites are capable of racism.  It reminds me of Russell's Paradox, which states that there's a contradiction in set theory when you have the set of all sets that do not contain themselves.  If you think really hard about that, you'll see that such a set does in fact contain itself, but if it does, then it doesn't contain itself.  Hence, a paradox. So, if memory serves, this can be solved by simply declaring that a set can't be part of itself. (The reality of the solution is a lot more complicated, of course.  I'm just being funny here.)

Similarly, if racism is bad, then racism on the part of Blacks against Whites must also be bad, and since Blacks are good, that's clearly impossible, so Blacks are incapable of racism, therefore what looks like Black racism obviously isn't.  And when Blacks attack Whites, it's never for racial reasons, but when Whites attack Blacks, it's always for racial reasons.

So I naively posted that the Oklahoma attack was racist in nature, when it was just random violence, if not just good clean fun, when you get right down to it.  But one of my earnest young White liberal correspondents set me straight.  He wrote:

There is a difference. You call them "Black atrocities against Whites", but that is not the case, race does not play a role here. There is a distinction, which you have failed to see. You cannot call crimes done by African Americans against whites an atrocity after more than a 100 years of klan shootings, intimidation, bombings and burnings. Those were atrocities because they were organized hatred based upon race, whereas the actions of these three, while wrong, do not illustrate the same level of hatred. If you are looking for racial truth, the truth is that racists have passed down their hatred from generation to generation, claiming it was done in the interest of white people, claiming that whites are superior. These people weilded power where they lived which allowed them to murder without fear of conviction. Eventually the federal govt had to step in because states refused to. That is a libertarian world, where groups with guns and immunity are able to intimidate the weak. That is a racial truth and it is still relevant because they have continued their legacy of hatred to the present day. Do not use random acts of violence to justify your racist attitude, which you have already claimed to have, because true racial truths are that such thoughts have been used to commit vile acts of hate against the innocent.  

([Sic] all the way through. And maybe [sick], also.)

It's hard to argue with his logic, eh?  Or maybe I don't mean logic. What would you call it?  Anyhow, I'm sure that Chris Lane's family will be glad to hear that race didn't play a role, that it wasn't an atrocity, and that it somehow illustrated a lesser level of hatred. And that it wasn't caused by these three lovable young Black children at all, but by libertarianism.  What would we do if we didn't have idealistic, sensitive White liberals to explain our errors to us?

Late-breaking news!  I'm just now hearing a Black mental-health expert, "Doctor Chuck," (He's a Black guy who is a mental-health expert, BTW, not an expert on Black mental health) explaining why all this happened.  He thinks it may have something to do with bullying.  That's a relief. I was afraid he might think it was related to Black hatred for Whites, and we know that's impossible.

6 comments:

  1. As Dwight Eisenhower said, "There is no definitive answer to the question "How stupid can you get?'"

    Honestly, this liberal guy cannot be for real - I hope... Killing someone dosen't indicate a high level of hatred? Atrocities are not atrocious unless they are organized? The Jim Crow South was "libertarian"?!? This guy is either trolling or insane - or both.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sounds like that earnest young White liberal correspondent needs some counseling from Pastor Manning.

    Ah shoot, their head would probably explode before they see the light.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Jim Crow laws in the states, not just in the South, were created by the vast majority of DEMOCRATS in state legislatures.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is no benefit to debating persons like this liberal idiot. There can be no common ground with someone who explains away the murder of innocent people in such a manner. You don't have to wonder how many white people need to be sacrificed to make amends for "100 years of klan shootings etc", because the real answer is all of us. Their vision of equality is a world without my race, the white race. Anti-racism is a code word for anti-white. Anti-racist tactics and ideals now apparently condone the murder of white people. The only helpful response to this brainwashed anti-white fool is mockery. Their logic is no longer convincing in the face of open violent hostility to our mere existence, ie. jogging through town.

    This type of "random" violence is completely predictable given the previous 18 months of 24/7 justice for Trayvon pimping in the media we've just experienced. Race relations are now in a deep downward spiral from which there is no recovery. You may not see blacks as the enemy, but they certainly see you as the enemy. Those who believe otherwise will have to find out the hard way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, I am guessing that the Trayvon Martin killing was not a atrocity either then.

    ReplyDelete
  6. earnest young White liberal correspondentAugust 23, 2013 at 9:50 AM

    Toddy: As I have stated each time, I do think what these three did is wrong. In no way am I defending their actions, what I am saying is that the author used the story to indicate something about African Americans in general. What happened to Chris Lane is a tragedy but it is not an atrocity in the same sense of the word as the atrocities committed by the white race over the past several centuries, especially in this country. By saying they are the same is to lessen the suffering of millions who lived in fear. You may be afraid because you see every African American as an enemy but they actually had something to fear. They could actually be killed for simply being black, and their deaths often went unpunished.
    As for the Libertarian comment, Libertarianism is defined by extremely small government. With such a small government, it would have to be laissez faire which means that small communities would be essentially self-governing. If they were self-governing, they would judge based upon their values, which in certain parts of the country meant white supremacy. So the lynchings, burnings and bombings that occurred would go unprosecuted, as they did for many years.
    Quartermain: I prefer James H. Cone. As a seminary student I believe in Liberation Theology, the idea that the coming of Christ brought not only equality before God in Heaven, but real equality and change upon earth.
    Anon: I never said I was a 100% Democrat supporter, I know where they stood. But at the same time those Democrats switched parties to reflect their position and became Republican. I am liberal, and that doesn’t always mean I am a Democrat.
    White and Normal: Again I did not explain it away, I said that the author was claiming that such cases prove that white are being oppressed, which is not the case. And in case you missed it, I am white. So no I am not saying that all white people need to be sacrificed. You are making the same claim as the author that somehow this random act of violence means that the white race is under attack, which just isn’t the case. And such thinking has lead people to justify horrible acts of violence. I do not see a race as my enemy and I do not believe they see me as an enemy. Just because you hold up cases of random, yes random because there is no evidence it was caused by some sense of justice, as “proof” that they are trying to get rid of the white race that does not make it so. Your way of thinking is nothing new. While they were slaves, they were portrayed as the kind mammy or the funny old Joe, but when they were freed they were suddenly portrayed as the seductress and the violent black man. Once people lost control over them, they suddenly feared them, and they never stopped. They have been seen as the enemy of the white race ever since, but have never acted as such.
    Anon: It became an atrocity when people used it as a platform to support gun violence. In order to do that they had to stop seeing Martin as a victim so they could justify his killing. I am not justifying the killing of Lane, and I am not defending the boys or calling them the victims.

    ReplyDelete