Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Mo Brooks, Vicious KKK Nazi

In THIS POST a couple of days ago I wrote about a left-libertarian who said that Mo Brooks was wrong, wrong, wrong, in a tweet. But since then, I've found out what Brooks actually said which was so self-righteously denounced. This is from Steve Sailer's blog at the Unz Review:
There is much point-’n’-sputter outrage this week over Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) contending on the Laura Ingraham show:
Brooks: This is a part of the war on whites that’s being launched by the Democratic Party. And the way in which they’re launching this war is by claiming that whites hate everybody else. It’s a part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things. Well that’s not true. Okay?
And if you look at the polling data, every demographic group in America agrees with the rule of law, enforcing and securing our borders. And every one of them understands that illegal immigration hurts every single demographic group. It doesn’t make a difference if you’re a white American, a black American, Hispanic American, an Asian American or if you’re a woman or a man. Every single demographic group is hurt by falling wages and lost jobs.
And so the Democrats, they have to demagogue on this and try and turn it into a racial issue, which is an emotional issue, rather than a thoughtful issue. If it becomes a thoughtful issue, then we win and we win big. And they lose and they lose big. And they understand that and as they get more desperate, they are going to argue race and things like that to a much heightened emotional state. . . .

Read Steve's whole essay HERE.

Now, Brook's statement seems pretty realistic and even rather moderate to me. Can anyone doubt that he's describing the Democratic Party strategy accurately? Can anybody find anything "racist" in what he says here? Well, I can't, and I'm sure you can't, but here's what one clever liberal fellow said on the net:

"Where's this guy's KKK hood, his forehead swastika, his Neo-Nazi membership card? 'Cuz he's sure enough singing the song of the modern racist bigot."

The lesson from all this? They're going to call you a racist if you oppose them in any way at all, to any degree at all. So there's no point in trying to avoid being accused of racism. It's futile. That's the situation we're in. So say what you think, and when they call you names, laugh in their stupid faces. I do.

3 comments:

  1. Welcome to the reverse racism grievance industry! Yet, the “victims” here partook in the same activities in 2008–ACORN, Reverand Wright, Louis Farrakhan.

    Classic Rovian tactic – accuse your opponent of exactly the machinations you allegedly disdain, yet religiously employ. Perhaps we can raise Lee Atwater from the dead and craft Southern Strategy.2!

    But with the changing (and seemingly irreversible demographics), do not fret, white people. When the United States falls in 2033, the new government will employ a “buyback” plan in which it compensates immigrants and non-white people for “voluntarily relocating” back to their place of origin. After all, they have no true loyalty to America.

    And the United States will be governed rightly by Christian, libertarian, white people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I say Mo Brooks for Prez 2016.

    To steal a quote from Mr. Perez, "As for those who do hate their nation and their own race, who give a flip if they are offended?"

    Even if Rep. Mo Brooks ran for Prez, the GOP and FOX news would do their best to marginalize him like they did with Ron Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The funniest thing about this, to me, is that Rep. Brooks has plainly made an ANTI-RACIST argument here - he is objecting to the blatant racial divisiveness of the modern Democratic party. But by calling for an end to racial hostility and encouraging a color-blind society, he is smeared as... wait for it... a RACIST! The new meaning of the term, apparently, is "insufficiently anti-White." To defend oneself and one's people from racial aggression is racist. To submit and/or encourage the continued rape and murder of the hated race is anti-racist. To cheer and root for the dispossession of the hated race from its homeland is anti-racist.

    I guess it's true what they say: Anti-racist really is just a code word for anti-White.

    ReplyDelete