Now further imagine that the Blacks lived in well-to-do areas and triggered by the Asian’s violence against them, they now hated Asians. And even though they didn’t harm the Asians, so great was their hate, that they abandoned their nice homes, in close proximity to the Asians who then became the recipients of their immense material wealth.

So in this hypothetical, Asian ‘racial hatred’ manifested itself in killing/raping/robbing Blacks; and the effect of Black’s ‘racial hatred’ on Asians was only to bestow immense material wealth upon them. The key is that, in your lexicon, both victim and predator are guilty of ‘racial hatred’.

So the term itself, cannot evoke much outrage (as it does when liberals yell ‘racist’) because while the Blacks in this hypothetical were guilty of racial hatred they didn’t do anything so outrageously evil to deserve what is felt by liberals when they call someone a racist.

No doubt, here, you’d condemn the Asians more than the Blacks. But with respect to the evil nature of the role that race played in the hypothetical, your lexicon, as it pertains specifically to race, is devoid of a simple, immediate way to differentiate between the immorality on the part of victim and predator.

So for areas where inferior/superior do not apply, it appears that the words that place no value judgements are the exclusive province of the modern liberal.

As Buckley pointed out the liberal mind focuses on the act of pushing a stranger – not on whether the stranger was being pushed in the way or out of the way of the oncoming bus hurtling towards the stranger.

Finally, my favorite on this subject. The liberal mind is very averse to talk about sending people to hell because they don’t believe in a particular religion. The fact that one religion asks its adherents to send unbelievers to Hell and the other one asks its adherents to do whatever possible to prevent nonbelievers from going to hell (by trying to get them to believe in God) is not a great distinction to a liberal. He only knows he doesn’t believe and he doesn’t want to go to a Hell so both Islam and Christianity are about the same and both about equal in their relationship to

Regarding the study with 6 month old babies: That is truly interesting. It also seems likely due to the fact that infants have very poor visual acuity. There was actually a study at UC Berkeley that showed color vision in infants is highly impaired. (I wish my color blindness was temporary.) At about 6 months old, a baby has 20/60 vision. For this reason, it would make sense that a 6 month old would prefer someone who looked more similar to their parents/caretakers. An interesting variable would be, what color were the guardians and caretakers of these babies? Can they distinguish clearly between a strange face and that of their parent? Or do they use auditory clues and other senses? There should always be an examination of external, intervening and moderating variables in any study.

And, once again, correlation does not imply causation. But it is interesting, and may give clues on why we tend to divide people into categories with such arbitrary classifications… maybe it is a primitive instinct/survival instinct left over from natural selection.

This is the day that celebrates the labor that made people like Leland Stanford and John D. Rockefeller extremely wealthy.

Okay, it’s taking me a little while but I’m starting to get it. If an Asian or group of Asians were to say about Blacks, “Blacks are amazing creatures in every way. I think they’re superior specimens and I love them for that.” Well then that would be a racist thing to say.

But if the Asian(s) were to instead say, “I think that Blacks are neither inferior nor superior to all other humans but just the same, we hate them for having a different skin color and for whatever the tens of thousands of years of having been physically separated from us has yielded (I hope I said that in a politically correct enough way)”. And then the Asians decide to act on that hatred and either enslave, dehumanize, kill or perform other immoral acts to Blacks. Well, then that wouldn’t be racism. Yeah, sure that makes sense… considering the Orwellian nightmare of an education you’ve been subjected to your entire life.

Btw, not that you’re thinking of doing this now, but it would be a shame if you resorted to words like ‘why would the Asians want to do that?’ or ‘why would you assume that they would do that’ or other some such evasive words that you have now employed multiple times to not address a hypothetical I have posed.

And in the same vein of the hypothetical, did you hear that recently, disconsolate liberals were subjected to the survey they took that showed humans at the ripe age of 6 months showed preferences for others of their own race, oops, I mean skin color. They just can’t figure out yet how the oppression occurred. But then again, perhaps someone will point out that they just didn’t factor out for enough variables in their statistics (like maybe the white babies were fed white food and the black babies were fed black food?).

And I almost forgot. Isn’t this the day that vaguely celebrates the separation of us into different classes. Seems kind of discriminatory actually. Why don’t the employers get a holiday or the ones who’ve never worked – wait that’s stupid… they get a holiday every day. Don’t fret. If I have nothing better to do, one day I’ll read about the Pullman Strike.

Ciao for now

“Your contention that only conservative surveys show that the nation is naturally conservative is 100% false.”

Well, I have stated previously that, in the political spectrum, the United States has no “Left.” I can point out where I said that, but what is the point? How about we wager money on if I stated that or not?

And, yes, I studied politics, and I know that a poll really doesn’t prove much. I actually can’t recall ever using an opinion poll to validate anything as the only single evidence. Polls are highly flawed, especially opinion polls. For instance, if they use landline telephones, you have excluded a huge demographic. I do not have a landline, and probably do not know more then 10 people that do have one. And the way questions are proposed also leads a slant. (Rasmussen is notorious for this.)

As for the single-payer option. I recall President Obama wanted a public option, not single-payer. Sorry, I gave him too much credit. (Of course, we wouldn’t want to be Communists like the U.K. or Canada.)

A Google search is not research. You can find various sources of information on the internet. Many of them are not highly reliable. Prison Planet has wonderful information on how Lady GaGa is a weapon of the Illuminati. I also found an interesting article in the Des Moines Register about how the Police Officer that claimed there was a “Beat Whitey Night” at the fair had no evidence that this was true and has been demoted for making the public statement.

As for the Communist statement on Obama. If you have evidence and refuse to divulge it, what is the point? I’m basing my assertion on the evidence that I have available. I don’t see any evidence. What the President did while he was in college? That’s like bringing up George W. Bush’s prior cocaine use, drunk driving and failed businesses. Roy Ayers committed acts that were questionable in the 1960s and 1970s. It has been 40 years. How many acts of violence has he committed since 1978?

And, I did more than just talk to Conservatives. I have had close friendships with Conservatives. I have had prominent Conservatives give me advice and I have given advice. We have a few ideological differences, but underneath it all, we accept that we all want the same things. I can’t really pretend to know the intricacies of President Obama’s past friendships/relationships with other people any more than I can contend I understand the relationship he has with his wife. What I see is a politician that has had many opportunities to pass Radical Left reforms, and did not do so.

As far as President Obama not being stupid as rationale for not disclosing Radical Left ideology… well, Bernie Sanders is a United States Senator for Vermont, and a Socialist. As well as the others I mentioned? Do you say the Pledge of Allegiance? Should children say it? The author was a socialist.
Mark Twain was a socialist. Noam Chomsky is an Anarchist. None of these people are “anti-American,” or suffering because of their ideology.

“Obama has of course never renounced, or said anything whatsoever to make public that he has modified his beliefs.”
I have never renounced faeries, or made public any modified beliefs about them. (But someone did find this site searching for them.)

“(It appears that Fox did report it but the info is so cognitively dissonant there was no follow up.)”
Or maybe they realized it wasn’t all that relevant.

“No doubt, you are wondering how all this could be true yet you’ve not ever heard it elsewhere.”
I have heard it elsewhere, but no one has provided credible sources or reason to believe there is any problem involved. Where is the grand plan to start the Communist revolution? Having studied Marxism, I do not even see the seedlings. What I do see is a President with brown skin that is not very different from any other center-Left politician. Talking about comments he made in college almost 30 years ago really doesn’t seem to be very poignant.

Maybe it was Communist for Senator Obama to vote on the Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act of 2005 or Designating July 12, 2007, as `National Summer Learning Day’ or Attacking Viral Influenza Across Nations Act of 2005.

“First let me say as with any facts that I set forth, if you are skeptical, all you need do is put up some money and I will provide the unassailable proof.”

Unassailable? You do know that no such thing exists, right? Even academic journals are not unassailable. You could public publish a text on the events that happened in your back yard last week, and it would not be unassailable. The process of getting information peer reviewed is a tormenting process. And even if you eventually get it published, it is still open to critique…pretty much forever.

None of this has much to do with the Conservative trolls that police every Left leaning website to launch comments to inflate the perception that Americans are turning on them.

also, this statement: “but with the same ultimate goal of total equality of material goods for everyone.” shows a lack of understanding in Marxism/Communism. It’s ok, though, it’s a common misunderstanding of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In reality, this statement means that everyone contributes as best they can, and only takes what they need. It’s hard to disassociate yourself from the current system and imagine a new one like this… sort of like tasting purple. There is no “distribution of material goods” in Marxism.

With that said… I don’t think I would condemn anyone for being a Communist, any more than I would condemn them for simply being a Capitalist, or a Republican or a Socialist, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Jew, or a non-Theist, or Black, or White, or Gay, or Straight. Why does it matter what label we want to slap on them? As I said, there are many shades of gray… so many options between Castro and Mussolini.

What “form of Communism” does Obama support?

Firstly, unlike you, Obama didn’t just write some paper. Not only is his autobiography rife with references to his radicalism but he was a BMOC known to express his beliefs. And he doesn’t just have friends who think this way. By his own words, for many years and the formative ones, he refused to associate with anyone who wasn’t a radical. And not only was his mother a committed Communist but the ONE male figure who he was mentored by was Frank Marshall. (and please don’t repeat that a conservative once gave you some talks-there is no equivalency).

In college, Obama spoke his mind freely on this subject with 2 openly avowed and strongly Communist professors. One of them, started out as the simplistic revolutionary type – you’ve alluded to it – the people will rise up and destroy their oppressors variety. But after that professor did a stint at Cornell, he came to realize that in the U.S., a more subtle approach is needed but with the same ultimate goal of total equality of material goods for everyone. One night in an intense discussion with Obama, having seen the light from what he learned at Cornell, he tried to enlighten Obama on the subject. He was taken aback that Obama would have none of it. Obama was sticking to his guns; the U.S. could be changed to have the classic Communist revolution.

The other Communist professor is whom Obama most revered at college and he has continued his relationship with him, having him over to the White House. According to the first professor, Obama, in becoming a community organizer was following the most proper path for someone with that set of beliefs. Obama has of course never renounced, or said anything whatsoever to make public that he has modified his beliefs. And of course as I’m sure you would approve of, he has never allowed the public to be made aware of all the courses on Communism and Alinsky that he took at college.

No doubt, you are wondering how all this could be true yet you’ve not ever heard it elsewhere. First let me say as with any facts that I set forth, if you are skeptical, all you need do is put up some money and I will provide the unassailable proof. Now in this case there’s not much need for that because you could easily learn of it by googling a few of the keywords in this account I gave. But in the same way that you couldn’t give a tinkers damn if Obama was ineligible to hold office, you like the rest of the MSM would have no reason to want to know if this were true. It could only make the MSM to be of no journalistic integrity if they only now investigated and published this. (It appears that Fox did report it but the info is so cognitively dissonant there was no follow up.)

Again, nothing Obama has ever done controverts the political philosophy he openly advocated in his early adulthood. Thus it is no accident that his political career was launched in the home of a famous Communist/terrorist. His overwhelming number of votes of ‘present’ both in the Illinois and U.S. Senate are in keeping with that philosophy. He either didn’t want to expose his extreme leftism or the measures were just not far enough left for him to support.

You ask why he hasn’t proposed Communist legislation. He may be an idiot but he is not stupid. He goes as far left as a conservative nation allows him to go. As I recounted previously (so I shouldn’t have to repeat it and more importantly why don’t you follow politics closely enough to not this?): On the campaign trail he once promoted single payer but then hid that(probably after the bad reaction he got) but all that matters is that without Lieberman’s vote there would be no Obamacare because Lieberman made it absolutely clear he would not vote for it with the single payer option included.

Your contention that only conservative surveys show that the nation is naturally conservative is 100% false. Again, it is annoying that you follow politics so superficially to not be aware of the non-conservative poll that came out about this about 6 weeks ago. But you know how I get rich so please, just test me on this one.

This is a classic redirect. The society of Rwanda is not the society of the United States. In the United States, the Hutu and the Tutsi are both Black and the same race. What happened in Haiti was a REBELLION. Those Black people that killed all those French White people… where chattel. They were beaten and raped and forced to labor for free. That doesn’t elicit some type of sympathy. What about the Maroons? The Black Africans in Jamaica that ran away and formed their own society and killed every European that tried to put them back into bondage?

As far as the statement Cone made – there was no allusion to killing people. As the other commenter pointed out, why is there this zero-sum game? Why must a God that supports Black people call for the destruction of White people? Cannot a God have the general welfare of everyone at heart? Is this not possible?

“Could you please direct me to what Auster has said that in the least rivals the racism of that.”
Mr. Auster has stated that any Muslim that follows Islam is not compatible with Christians in society. He also mentions that any talk of being oppressed by Black people is racism. Most of his anti-Black racism is much more subtle than his anti-Muslim hatred, though. It comes across in the constant harping on race in topics of crime and social conditions. Auster posts article after article of non-whites committing crimes. He makes race an issue and ascribes race as a motivating factor to propensity to commit crime. The words of Cone and of Auster are really hard to compare. Cone is a theologian, Auster is some type of social commentary.

“To me, a black man that says he has overwhelming statistics to prove that generally, Blacks fight better, jump higher, dance better, run faster, create better music, dress cooler, and have a bigger reproductive organ with which to provide women pleasure is simply telling the truth. And if he proves I’m inferior in the things that matter most to him then there ain’t nothin’ wrong or racist about that.”

First of all, why do you assume that these things matter most to a Black man? Second, these are not true. There is no scientific evidence that any ‘Race’dresses better, or fights better. Reproductive organ size has also been disproven. (And it has been proven that too large a penis is actually painful to women – and men.)

Second, there is no backpeddling. I stand by what I said previously, none of those features are genetically linked to social characteristics of “race.” I have seen no genetic links between the tendons of a Kenyan and the color of their skin. If you ever run across a gene cluster that contains skin color, hair texture, nose shape, and penis size or musculature, you should public the work… because finding something that does not exist is pretty rare. For example, there is a leprechaun under my couch, but I cannot catch him to get his Lucky Charms.

“Apparently, ignorance of true religion allows one to imagine that supreme goodness might ally itself with the goals of skin color based communities.”

Well, it is hard to imagine that a ‘true religion’ would allow the exploitation and degradation of a people based on skin color, but they have. Michael Parenti has described this in great detail. About how American Christianity has been used to justify the slave trade and has had racism ingrained in its doctrine. Indeed, many Christian Churches decreed that Black Africans had no souls, therefore, could be treated as chattel without retribution from God. Rejecting these religions is racist? I do not even see implied racism in Black people refusing to follow a religion that delegates them to less than equals to others… and i fail to see how this equates to murder. There are plenty of sects of Christianity that degrade non-whites, especially in America.

I know very little about Kevin B. McDonald. I really don’t care much about him. I’ve read some of his comments, and I do see some taken out of context, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t an antisemite or racist. But if he believes Jews are superior, then he is a racist, by my definition. Just like if a Black person believes Whites are superior, they are a racist. Any belief that a “race” is superior, or inferior, is racism.

It might be prudent to ask yourself why you feel that any ideology that treats Black people as equals translates into genocide for Whites.

And please don’t forget that Whites are not disenfranchised for being White. There are disenfranchised Whites, but for other reasons. And because Whites are not disenfranchised by race, to claim they have to overcome the obstacles is erroneous. How can being a dominant be an obstacle? Where do Whites need to fight against their “Black oppressors”? The only way I see this even remotely possible is when you look at historical concept, and realize Jesus was Black, as most people in Christian ideology are Arabic, Persian, or African. If Whites were to go on a rampage against non-Whites, you would have to ask “to what end?” Why would they have contempt? Where do Blacks or Latinos hold power over Whites? How often are White people detained, arrested, tried and jailed exclusively by Blacks? How often are Whites denied meaningful employment by Latinos? How often are Whites paid less? How often are men paid less than women? How often are White males objectified for being a White male?

Quite simply… you can only inverse an equation if both sides are equal. Without both sides being equal, the equation is false and each side is not interchangeable.

I do not see how any of my logical arguments have been ‘banished or evicted’ or even responded. I never claimed to support any acts of violence, nor did Cone. I also never claimed that any “race” was superior. In fact, I’m pretty sure I disputed that there is even any scientific way to quantify these things.

Or maybe you wanted to apply that to yourself… as you take the liberation of black people to mean the murder of whites… which appears to be the realm of true evil. Especially considering most people who follow Black Liberation Theology followed King’s message of people being “judged by the content of their character, and not the color of their skin.”

What insanity to imagine that the goals of a community, be they white or black ones, are of supreme goodness – whether it be whites lynching blacks or blacks killing every single white as was done in Haiti. And you wish to contend, that Auster has said words that are more racist than these of James Cone?

And suppose Auster went on to say, “Furthermore if there is not total identification with the goals of whites then God must be against Blacks… otherwise God should be murdered.” Could you please direct me to what Auster has said that in the least rivals the racism of that.

Apparently, ignorance of true religion allows one to imagine that supreme goodness might ally itself with the goals of skin color based communities. Hard for me to imagine that anyone but a racist could not find that problematic. But then I don’t see racism like you do.

To me, a black man that says he has overwhelming statistics to prove that generally, Blacks fight better, jump higher, dance better, run faster, create better music, dress cooler, and have a bigger reproductive organ with which to provide women pleasure is simply telling the truth. And if he proves I’m inferior in the things that matter most to him then there ain’t nothin’ wrong or racist about that.

Something just hit me about the absurdity of your take on racism: the leading Neo-Nazi philosopher Kevin Macdonald believes that Jews are superior beings – that’s right SUPERIOR. If not for that factor he wouldn’t want them destroyed. What a mockery that racist makes of your definition.

So what shall it be? Backpeddling, obfuscations on the meaning of race or going back to drawing board? Here the words of Plato and St. Augustine come to mind – if at this point in the argument, once logic and reason had been utterly banished or evicted, if the flawed and defeated argument were still advanced by the advocate, then the realm of true evil had been entered.