Is this rant "racist"? Do you agree with it?

[swed]

Everywhere one looks these days, there are nothing but black
faces staring back from TV, websites, advertisements junkmail. You name it, there's a black face on it. Even children's cartoons in predominantly white areas are now featuring hastily constructed black characters. Seemingly overnight, the socialist liberal traitors have succeeded where blacks did not - they have marginalized and trivialized whitey.

How did this happen? The largest population group in the United States of America has lost it's spine. Yes, white people in America no longer have a single spine between the entire lot of them. They have allowed the media and public schools to hammer them into submission with politically correct indoctrination of themselves and their children. Did they protest, fight or object? No, they caved in without even a whimper. Sticks and stones, Whitey. Had Whitey taken to the blogs with any shred of courage, CNN, CBS, MSNBC and ABC might well be going under instead of the venerable newspapers who are vanishing at the rate of one per week.
The millions who sacrificed their lives to build America are
spinning in their graves. What a disgrace. Being an American used to mean something, something special. It symbolized the strong, the brave, the indomitable force that nothing could withstand. They were revered the world over for their freedoms, their minimally corrupt government, and their
penchant for taking on the impossible with inevitable success. Everyone on the planet wanted to be an American.
Today, Americans are scorned, laughed at, thought of as fools. How did it come to this? The reasons are many, most unspoken for fear of peer criticism. Free speech, one of the most important rights of the American citizen, has been effectively neutered by the American media. It didn't have to be that way, not in a capitalist society. If Americans cared, they could bend the media like a reed in the wind by expressing their discontent with media sponsors. A little sacrifice here and there, a little time, and not spending their money with those sponsors could put them both on their heels in less than a year. Americans simply don't have the discipline to see something like that through. Most modern day Americans are weak and cowardly.They have more interest in *** or freak shows on television than their own person.
Free America is over. Corporate America, liberals, and a now
highly corrupt federal government have sold the entire country into slavery for 100 years. Americans stood by and watched it happen.

Shame on all of you

[Liberty Star]

I'm not color conscious and not comforrtable talking about it as a subject. But if there is to be an objective discussion about race relations in America, it must be noted that a "black" talking head has been appearing since Obama election win even on Hannity show almost every night lately and that intself does reflect a change. This was not the case before Iraq war start. "Obama" election was direct result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and things like Abu Ghraib, credit for his election goes to Bush/Cheney, neocons and all those who supported Iraqi freedom war.
I suspect libs and independents voters had tried to apologize to the world and punish Bush/Cheney/Neocons supporters with electin of "Obama" but in the end there could be a whole lot of collateral damage for whole US economy given recent spending policies on top of damage done by Bush/Cheney.

[Steeleye]

http://www.creepygif.com/images/thumb/10.jpg (http://www.creepygif.com/image.php?i=10)

[bkreigh]

http://images.google.com/url?q=http://homepage.mac.com/kparlato/.Pictures/Fark/Cliches/waisis.gif&usg=AFQjCNEoZqKrUuGxxf5KAC-Qc0poYoQ8zw

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I think people have the misconception white and black are two different races :rolleyes: There's many different races of Africans and many different races of Europeans. Year 2009 and people are still ignorant, sigh.

[Indy Vidual]

Is this rant "racist"?

Yes, the first half certainly is.
BTW:



In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."


Is Ron Paul ever going to come clean about his ugly newsletters? :(

[Kludge]

White people are marginalized because they aren't the center of attention in advertisements?

What are you afraid of?

[james1906]

Everywhere one looks these days, there are nothing but black
faces staring back from TV, websites, advertisements junkmail. You name it, there's a black face on it. Even children's cartoons in predominantly white areas are now featuring hastily constructed black characters. Seemingly overnight, the socialist liberal traitors have succeeded where blacks did not - they have marginalized and trivialized whitey.

How did this happen? The largest population group in the United States of America has lost it's spine. Yes, white people in America no longer have a single spine between the entire lot of them. They have allowed the media and public schools to hammer them into submission with politically correct indoctrination of themselves and their children. Did they protest, fight or object? No, they caved in without even a whimper. Sticks and stones, Whitey. Had Whitey taken to the blogs with any shred of courage, CNN, CBS, MSNBC and ABC might well be going under instead of the venerable newspapers who are vanishing at the rate of one per week.
The millions who sacrificed their lives to build America are
spinning in their graves. What a disgrace. Being an American used to mean something, something special. It symbolized the strong, the brave, the indomitable force that nothing could withstand. They were revered the world over for their freedoms, their minimally corrupt government, and their
penchant for taking on the impossible with inevitable success. Everyone on the planet wanted to be an American.
Today, Americans are scorned, laughed at, thought of as fools. How did it come to this? The reasons are many, most unspoken for fear of peer criticism. Free speech, one of the most important rights of the American citizen, has been effectively neutered by the American media. It didn't have to be that way, not in a capitalist society. If Americans cared, they could bend the media like a reed in the wind by expressing their discontent with media sponsors. A little sacrifice here and there, a little time, and not spending their money with those sponsors could put them both on their heels in less than a year. Americans simply don't have the discipline to see something like that through. Most modern day Americans are weak and cowardly.They have more interest in *** or freak shows on television than their own person.
Free America is over. Corporate America, liberals, and a now
highly corrupt federal government have sold the entire country into slavery for 100 years. Americans stood by and watched it happen.

Shame on all of you

WTF!!! You mean only black people can get life insurance for $1 a month with no physical exam? Next thing you're going to tell me is that only black people can get 5 rooms steam cleaned for $39.95!

[FrankRep]

Is this rant "racist"?

Yes, the first half certainly is.


In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."


Is Ron Paul ever going to come clean about his ugly newsletters? :(

The news release already came out about it. The writer for the newsletter was fired for his comments.

[micahnelson]

Yes, it is racist.

No, I do not agree with it.

[Brian4Liberty]

http://schwillz.com/stuff/total/pics/troll.gif

[Indy Vidual]

The news release already came out about it. The writer for the newsletter was fired for his comments.

1) Why did Ron let it continue for years?
2) Any claim that he didn't know is ridiculous; How come none of his friends or large family questioned the content?

1+2=3

3) Our hero, Ron Paul, is either racist, or still has not told the whole truth.

[Indy Vidual]

http://schwillz.com/stuff/total/pics/troll.gif

Can I assume you are talking about the OP, who started this racist thread?
I voted for Ron Paul at the Seattle LP convention in 1987; If my being "still sick and still angry" about the vile newsletters makes you call someone a troll, then... :eek:

If you were talking about me, you need to take that doll and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine. :D


ps.


1) Why did Ron let it continue for years?
2) Any claim that he didn't know is ridiculous; How come none of his friends or large family questioned the content?

1+2=3

3) Our hero, Ron Paul, is either racist, or still has not told the whole truth.

[axiomata]

In regards to the OP: yes; no; bye

In regards to Indy Vidual. The newsletters are disconcerting but there a few things to consider. How long were the racist newsletters being distributed? What kind of distribution did they get? I consider RP to be an honest man, so I am comfortable accepting his explanation that he was negligent in overseeing the content of these newsletters, but depending on the length of time that they were going out, and the number of people that were receiving them that might complain to him personally, I will reserve judgement whether he was racist himself, or way too tolerant of racism in his name at that time. Since those newsletters, I have not not seen anything from him that would indicate any past or present racism.

[swed]

I fail to see how it's racist.

[Optatron]

can you name one movie the past 10 years that didn't intentionally insert a token black?

I can name one - Mona Lisa Smile

all others are shot in a period where there were no blacks, or else you can always count on seeing a token.

[Epic]

It's definitely not racist, and there is an element of truth in it, even though I don't agree with all of it.

In fact, people who are claiming that it's racist are just proving part of the guys' point - you can't even talk about this stuff anymore!

[klamath]

1) Why did Ron let it continue for years?
2) Any claim that he didn't know is ridiculous; How come none of his friends or large family questioned the content?

1+2=3

3) Our hero, Ron Paul, is either racist, or still has not told the whole truth.

The trouble with RP is he is very tolerent of a lot of ideas he does not agree with.
For one he is strongly against abortion yet tolerates libertarians supporting it. To me supporting abortion is many magnitudes more disgusting than racism.
He associates with stoners and other drug users, though you will never find him using.
Prostitutes came out and supported him but he doesn't believe prostitution is a good thing for women to do.

If RP is a racist I would be very disappointed but every thing RP has ever done or said has not been racist so when he states he did not write those news letters I am believing it on face value.

What RP is guilty of is not coming down on people that try and define his beliefs as something else, from trutherism to abortion to anarchy to racism. Because he doesn't condeme these actions people try and sell RP as being for them. This happened with the newsletters and the grassroots campaign and it cost him a lot of votes.

[Steeleye]

What RP is guilty of is not coming down on people that try and define his beliefs as something else, from trutherism to abortion to anarchy to racism. Because he doesn't condeme these actions people try and sell RP as being for them. This happened with the newsletters and the grassroots campaign and it cost him a lot of votes.

What he said.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I think its racist to think anything is racist.

[axiomata]

I think its racist to think anything is racist.

Congrats on calling yourself a racist.

[misterx]

I fail to see how it's racist.

These days it's racist just to point out the fact that there are different races. It's something we've been programmed to sweep under the rug, except when it benefits minorities. The cultural brainwashing is so thorough that even libertarians, who should know better, do not realize the extent to which their core values are not innate, but have been programmed by the media and government schools. Anyone who wants more perspective on values should read Alan Bloom's book The Closing of the American Mind.

[Brian4Liberty]

Can I assume you are talking about the OP, who started this racist thread?

You are correct sir.


If my being "still sick and still angry" about the vile newsletters makes you call someone a troll, then... :eek:

Now that you point out your post, what are you up to exactly?


If you were talking about me, you need to take that doll and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine. :D


Just because my troll had rainbow hair, don't you jump to conclusions! Are you prejudging him (or her)? :p

[Indy Vidual]

Thanks, to the people who attempted to give an honest answer about the nasty newsletters.

> Did Ron grow up in the south? ... Hold on, I'll check myself...

No, he went to high school in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Ron is old enough to have lived in a time when it was socially acceptable for white men to be racist (even in a Northern suburb), but that certainly does *not* prove is, or was, ever racist.

> How many years did the newsletters get published?
Over 5 years probably close to 10. If my memory is correct the "really nasty period" lasted at least three years, even longer.

Ron seems like a really nice guy, but that does *not* prove much either. IMO, 3 to 5+ years of publishing garbage with his name on the top, still begs the question, "how did he not know about the content?"

[Indy Vidual]

You are correct sir.

OK :cool:


Just because my troll had rainbow hair, don't you jump to conclusions! Are you prejudging him (or her)? :p

No not at all.
Let's find him a nice domestic partner with a government job, and they can both qualify for valuable state benefits in California. ;)

[TGGRV]

Well, maybe whites should start playing the blacks game and call everything racist. It would be fun. It's the same mentality that the KKK is an evil group while the New Black Panthers Party is ok.

[idiom]

Its not only racist its fear mongering.

Its as bad as Fox or CNN.

[Objectivist]

I was raised by a black man and blacks can't swim very well.

Then sub-Saharan Africans didn't have the wheel when the Eurasians showed up.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Can this thread be about Jews now?

[MelissaWV]

If we replaced instances of "racist" with the more general and appropriate "ignorant," we'd be getting somewhere. "Racism" assumes there's a static definition for each race. An ignorant person will tell it to you straight: Blacks are dark, whites are light, Asians are yellow, and there are also all sorts of brown people. Duh! The trouble is that some of those pale people turn pink or brown in the sun, and some Africans are paler than Vikings, and Siberia being in Asia means that there is a bit of ambiguity there as well. Genetically, skin color has little to do with the differences between groups of people. There are differences mostly by regional origins, and by now they are largely blurred.

What is ignorant about the original post (or maybe it's trollish, depending on your viewpoint) is that it ignores the obvious. This is very much like the arguments people have against Spanish language television stations.

Perhaps your local insurance company has decided that, in its marketing, it should reach out to a given segment of the population. Health insurance commercials, for instance, often show elderly people, or people with a bunch of children. Life insurance ads often try to appeal to people with families, because they will pay and pay and pay their premiums, and often by the time they die they've forgotten about the plan or defaulted (which means the company gets the money but doesn't have to pay out). These are private companies deciding who's going to be "the face of" that product.

Is there a "White Folks Only" special this month? How about "Hispanic Half-Price Days"? You have access to the same services. Are you somehow turned off by the "black" faces on the advertising? If so, then don't buy from that person. Don't watch the shows with the "token" black person. No one is forcing you to entertain yourself or spend your money on companies whose methods you don't like.

The Gov has the monopoly on that distinction. That's part of the focus of this board: to get the Gov out so we can make our own choices, ignorant or otherwise, and face the consequences :) Personally, I never had something I bought turn out to be of lesser quality because there were people of a certain shade or age or gender in the advertising.

[teacherone]

The millions who sacrificed their lives to build America are
spinning in their graves.

You mean the aprox. 8 million Black African slaves who died while building America under the threat of violence, rape, torture and coercion?

[paulitics]

Thanks, to the people who attempted to give an honest answer about the nasty newsletters.

> Did Ron grow up in the south? ... Hold on, I'll check myself...

No, he went to high school in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Ron is old enough to have lived in a time when it was socially acceptable for white men to be racist (even in a Northern suburb), but that certainly does *not* prove is, or was, ever racist.

> How many years did the newsletters get published?
Over 5 years probably close to 10. If my memory is correct the "really nasty period" lasted at least three years, even longer.

Ron seems like a really nice guy, but that does *not* prove much either. IMO, 3 to 5+ years of publishing garbage with his name on the top, still begs the question, "how did he not know about the content?"

First and foremost, Ron has never said anything remotely racist. Ron was not the writer, he was a physician who was busy with his practice. He fired the editor who was overseeing the newsletters. Have you not ever managed, ran a business, or leave responsibility to someone else for a while, and everything turn to hell?

And didn't the racism only appear in a couple of newletters? You are saying that for 3 to 5 years, racism consistantly appeared in his newsletter. I don't buy it. From what I can tell most were from a period following the race riots in LA, and Ron said that he didn't even know who the ghost writers during the transition period were. They were all fired.

So I guess you think he must be lying to cover his racism. He attempted to sneak some racism in, at the risk of his reputation, and when he got caught, he repudiated it. Sorry, that story doesn't add up. Ron would have to be a complete moron to risk his career to slip in a couple of slurs, not just a racist.

For me to think he is a racist, I would need more evidence of HIS actions, not some guilt by association that can be pinned on any politician who is in the game long enough.

[nbruno322]

Racism is nasty form of collectivism.

Yes your rant is racist (and collectivist since you fail to see people as individuals and instead see them collectively as a group) and no I do not agree with it, take this business elsewhere.


Please see the wonderful article from Campaign for Liberty below on how racism is just a nasty form of collectivism.



http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=108

James W. Von Brunn and the Poison of Racist Collectivism
By Anthony Gregory
Published 06/11/09

On Wednesday, according to news reports, James W. Von Brunn, a longtime belligerent racist and anti-Semite, walked into the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and opened fire, murdering a security guard before he himself was shot and neutralized. Good people everywhere recognize the vicious criminality of his attack, and the particular insidiousness of his motivation to lash out where he did.

In reflecting on this tragedy, it is an appropriate time to contemplate the sanctity of innocent life, the horror that is unleashed by bigotry and intolerance, and the fragility of peaceful human relations. We should all be thankful that such hate-motivated violence is rarer in modern America than it has been in other places and times.

Unfortunately, many commentators have found a political, even partisan, lesson to be learned. They have said this vindicates the Department of Homeland Security document circulated earlier this year that warned against "right-wing extremists." Specifically, they have said that those who criticized the report were wrong all along.

But what were the criticisms? I recall no one arguing that anti-Semitic murderers were not criminals whose acts were horrific and uncivilized. There was no critic of the report, so far as I know, who complained that such antisocial elements as Ku Klux Klan members, Timothy McVeigh wannabes, and bigoted criminals, did not deserve the condemnation that all of civil society heaps upon them.

The problem with the report was that it painted all so-called "right-wing extremists" with an absurdly and obscenely broad brush. It lumped together the above violent agitators with peaceful political activists and recently returning veterans. It warned about people who are anti-government, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-gun control, anti-illegal immigration and anti-abortion.

The facts that von Brunn himself was a veteran -- from World War II, not exactly fitting the profile -- and that he had a very incorrect conspiratorial, anti-Semitic understanding of the Federal Reserve, even trying to kidnap Fed officials back in the 1980s, have been noted, but it still does not justify this broad brush. (Liberty lovers oppose the Fed not out of racism or hatred of Jews, as von Brunn apparently does. In fact, many of us have come to oppose it having been thankfully influenced by the most brilliant analyses ever written on central banking by Jewish economists Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard.)

Consider what "right-wing extremism" actually means.

Some would call Barry Goldwater a rightwing extremist, although he was incredibly socially liberal on issues ranging from homosexuality to drugs and even abortion. Was Ronald Reagan a rightwing extremist? He busted the budget, legalized abortion in California, favored gun control and enacted immigration amnesty. Whatever you think of these actions, they demonstrate the limits of such labels.

Some would say George W. Bush was a rightwing extremist, although it would be disingenuous to say he represented "anti-government" sentiment in any respect whatsoever. Indeed, it was the agency he created, the DHS, that began work on this report, while he was still in power.

The Nazis, whose current admirers have reportedly associated proudly with Von Brunn, are often considered the paragon of rightwing extremism, but Hitler and his followers were definitely not anti-central bank or anti-gun control and certainly not anti-government. Indeed, it does not take much to realize that the Holocaust had nothing to do with being anti-government.

And so apparently "rightwingers" can include peaceniks and warmongers, libertarians and fascists, radical individualists and racist totalitarians and everything in between.

A similar broad brush was used under Bush, but against different groups of people -- Muslim terrorists, normal followers of Islam, leftist activists and antiwar patriots were often thrown together as enemies of America. Peaceful Americans who opposed the war were lumped in with fanatics who slit the throats of innocents. "You're either with us, or against us in the fight against terror," the president said.

This failure to differentiate among different people is actually very similar to the root problem with racism. Racists see the world in terms of groups, defined most often by skin color, rather than acknowledging the unique character inherent in every individual. Instead of appreciating the dignity and human singularity of every man, woman and child, racists see the world in terms of black and white, where all people fall into one of several groups of dubious significance. The very worst of them not only fail to understand these differences; they disregard the human rights of individuals and countenance or even perpetrate criminal acts against the lives, liberty and property of people merely on the basis of their perceived racial group.

This bellicose racism is incompatible with an open, tolerant society, and to say so is uncontroversial. Those of us who believe in liberty and oppose big government tend to believe that a free society of open exchange, free trade and individual liberty will foster interracial tolerance and social peace, whereas government tends to divide and amplify social and racial tensions.

To take it further, now that the topic has been opened up for political discussion, let us consider the political atmosphere most conducive to the worst racial atrocities. As horrific and inexcusable as the occasional neo-Nazi or hate-motivated violence is in our own society, what was it that allowed the actual Nazis, the ones who controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945, to translate bigotry into mass murder on an unspeakable and technologically systematic scale? There are people in every society with views as immoral and disgusting as Adolf Hitler's. But what made Nazi Germany, a regime that terrorized Europe and murdered millions of Jews, Poles, Slavs, homosexuals, handicapped persons and Gypsies, among others, possible?

The answer is centralized political power. The answer is unlimited government.

The Nazi regime was a hate crime multiplied millions of times over. It was only possible because Hitler was not just a thug with a gang of criminals -- he was a thug in political control of a whole country.

And here we see the profound irony behind associating Nazi nutcases with good old American anti-government sentiment, as some have been doing. Nazism, or National Socialism, was an ideology concerned not just with racist nationalism but also with building the total state.

The Nazi regime was the antithesis of the old liberal ideal of a free society. Aside from aggressive war, the demonization of "the Other," the elevation of The Leader above all, the suspension of civil liberties and a free press, and aggressive war, it embodied an economic program of fascism -- rightwing socialism. As Lew Rockwell has pointed out in ""The Violence of Central Planning," once in power, Hitler

"suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country. . . .

"So it is with protectionism. It was the major ambition of Hitler's economic program to expand the borders of Germany to make autarky viable, which meant building huge protectionist barriers to imports. The goal was to make Germany a self-sufficient producer so that it did not have to risk foreign influence and would not have the fate of its economy bound up with the goings-on in other countries. It was a classic case of economically counterproductive xenophobia."

Interestingly, much of Hitler's economic program would have bipartisan support today. This is of course not to say that Americans who agree with some of these policies are comparable to Hitler. But it is worth noting that the entire Nazi program was contrary to liberty and restrained government, even on relatively mundane questions like unemployment insurance, and so anyone who is actually "anti-government," or opposed to central banking, gun control, central economic planning, or the growing federal bureaucracy is to that extent emphatically opposite of the Nazis in ideology.

We at the Campaign for Liberty, and all who join us in a consistent opposition to unlimited government, not only oppose the poisonous racism that feeds occasional and more or less isolated atrocities like the one on Wednesday, but uphold an ideology and political agenda that would prevent racial hatred from manifesting itself in racially motivated atrocities on the grand scale that only an unleashed government is capable of producing.

In our own country, things are not as dire as they were in Nazi Germany, thanks in part, we would hope, to having a more tolerant culture. But it is mostly because of our classical liberal tradition that we have had a better racial history than some nations. To the extent we have strayed from the ideals of liberty, we have seen shameful acts committed in our name, and acts throughout history that have blemished the legacy of our nation.

Slavery would have been impossible to maintain without government support. The mass slaughter of American Indians was facilitated by the federal government. Innocent foreigners have been killed in great numbers by the U.S. in wars of choice. Those seen to be different from the norm -- from the Japanese-Americans interned during World War II to the African-Americans disproportionately locked up in the war on drugs to the Branch Davidians killed by the FBI at Waco, Texas in 1993 -- have always been the most vulnerable.

This reflects the need for both a culture that respects innocent life, individual rights and tolerance as well as strict limits on government power. The cultural element and the political are related, and reflect on each other. A free society at peace with itself is less likely to be bullied into huge governmental power grabs, whether in the name of economic crisis or national security. Just as these were the excuses Hitler exploited to do the unspeakable, they are the excuses that have allowed American politicians to compromise our liberties, expand their own power and send young Americans to kill and die in aggressive war.

Again, this is not to say that Obama or the liberals who favor expansive government are in the same league as Hitler. But given that the DHS report tarred so many people with the same brush and that it is being brought up again, we should note that the ideology of totalitarianism and mass murder is anything but an anti-government, anti-establishment ideology, despite what many are today saying and implying. Quite the reverse.

As we look at the national security state built up by Bush in the name of the war on terror -- preemptive war, the suspension of civil liberties, indefinite detention, torture and warrantless surveillance -- and as we consider the corporatism, the nationalization and federal control of industry, the bailouts and stimulus started under Bush and continuing and accelerating under Obama, we have to ask ourselves: What is the way to guarantee that America never repeats the horrors which the Holocaust Museum was intended to make us never forget? Bush was not Hitler and neither is Obama. But just as seemingly benevolent Weimar policies and precedents were seized upon and expanded by Hitler so as to conduct the most ghastly of evils, today's indefinite detention centers, centralized economic powers and unlimited presidential military powers could one day be seized by a powermad "leader" with not just the bad judgment and hubris of Bush and Obama, but with the worst of intentions.

If any political lesson is to be taken from the shooting on Wednesday, it is not that those concerned with protecting individual liberty and limiting government are the problem in our society. It is not that the DHS report is in fact beyond harsh criticism. There will always be sick minds in the world. Occasionally, a crazed killer will act out of hatred and commit a violent crime, and the seriousness should not be minimized. But the way to actually prevent such attitudes from gaining ground is to hold up the opposing ethic of individual rights, dignity and respect. The only way to make sure such madness never translates into nationwide or global horror is to keep political power constrained.

[Mortikhi]

Well, maybe whites should start playing the blacks game and call everything racist. It would be fun. It's the same mentality that the KKK is an evil group while the New Black Panthers Party is ok.

We just won a supreme court case! :D

[AutoDas]

You mean the aprox. 8 million Black African slaves who died while building America under the threat of violence, rape, torture and coercion?

Where'd you get 8 million from? Maybe 1 million came to America while there were millions more sent to the other Americas and Europe.

[Rangeley]

It looks like the rant was copied verbatim from this site (http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.british/2009-03/msg00053.html), where it was titled "N****** N****** Everywhere! Black ass sucking white liberals sell out their own race." Not to mention, any rant which complains about seeing black people on junk mail, instead of the junk mail itself, is obviously racist and from someone who has some messed up priorities.

Whats the recommendation, at the end? Boycott companies who don't just use white people? Tell all white people they lack a spine if they don't do this? How would this not be racist?

[Elwar]

It is collectivist.

You may want to ask at The Obama Forum (http://www.theobamaforum.com) if it's racist, they tend to be pretty even minded about such questions.

[Crash Martinez]

These days it's racist just to point out the fact that there are different races.

And, in fact, there aren't.

[catdd]

Redistribution of wealth a collectivist form of reverse discrimination?

[misterx]

And, in fact, there aren't.

Those who claim there aren't are confused about the difference between race and species. There are three distinct races of the human species: Negroid, Mongloid, and Caucasion. Everyone is one of these three or some mixture of two or more. This is a scientific fact that can not be disputed. You can argue all you want that they are all equal or that the differences between them are insignificant, but they DO exist.

[Crash Martinez]

This is a scientific fact that can not be disputed.

So much for that then. :rolleyes:

[MelissaWV]

Those who claim there aren't are confused about the difference between race and species. There are three distinct races of the human species: Negroid, Mongloid, and Caucasion. Everyone is one of these three or some mixture of two or more. This is a scientific fact that can not be disputed. You can argue all you want that they are all equal or that the differences between them are insignificant, but they DO exist.

Those "races" you are discussing are classifications of skeletal structure that are often discarded. These are not the commonly used "races" that are out there right now. The scientific facts fall more in favor of other sorts of classification, and really they're only for classification's sake, as they don't tell you a hill of beans other than x=x.

[Kraig]

Those "races" you are discussing are classifications of skeletal structure that are often discarded. These are not the commonly used "races" that are out there right now. The scientific facts fall more in favor of other sorts of classification, and really they're only for classification's sake, as they don't tell you a hill of beans other than x=x.

Tthey are the root of the commonly used "races" that are out there right now. They don't tell you a hill of beans other than x=x? What is your point? Classification for classification's sake? That is absurd, they are classified differently because of real physical differences that go beyond skin color.

[misterx]

Those "races" you are discussing are classifications of skeletal structure that are often discarded. These are not the commonly used "races" that are out there right now. The scientific facts fall more in favor of other sorts of classification, and really they're only for classification's sake, as they don't tell you a hill of beans other than x=x.

I don't care how people commonly describe races, I care about the scientific classifications. Forensics experts and doctors would disagree with you when you say it doesn't tell you a hill of beans. It helps them to know who they're looking for, and how to treat a patient more effectively. It helps pharmaceuticals create medications that better target the biology of their customers. There are a whole host of reasons not to dismiss these classifications, and none of them have to do with hate.

[Crash Martinez]

I wasn't saying that general scientific classifications of ethnicity have anything to do with hate.

Perhaps I was working under a definition of "race" that is closer to a definition of species. As far as I'm concerned, the word "race" could be eliminated altogether, as it is confusingly able to refer to either species or ethnicity, both of which are perfectly understandable, more specific words.

So yes... There is ONE species of humans: **** sapiens sapiens - aka the human race - which is what I meant by saying there are not different races of humans.

And yes, there are undeniably various ethnicities within that species, all of which are fully capable of intermixing.

[swed]

Yes there is a big difference between races. There was a scientific study that showed on average, negroids are not as smart as caucasians.

[Crash Martinez]

Yes there is a big difference between races. There was a scientific study that showed on average, negroids are not as smart as caucasians.

Of course, they were working with the following definition of Smart:

Caucasian.

[swed]

All the smartest people in the world are white. This is not a coincidence. This is not racism. This is FACTism. These days pointing out the obvious is "racist". I could say all black people have black skin, and id be called a racist. Well im sick of it.

[Crash Martinez]

Nobody has black skin.

[Crash Martinez]

All the smartest people in the world are white. This is not a coincidence. This is not racism. This is FACTism.

What the hell definition of "smart" are you using? And who cares what color a person's skin is? Stop pissing me off.

[someperson]

Is it just me, or has there been a marked increase in collectivist threads lately... I wouldn't be surprised if many of these threads are simply quote-mining for something offensive in order to negatively depict "what those ron paul people are really like."

If this thread was created in earnest, I can only suggest the following series:

YouTube - -DVD Version: INTRO - Individualism vs Collectivism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYicq_SN1E)

[paulitics]

All the smartest people in the world are white. This is not a coincidence. This is not racism. This is FACTism. These days pointing out the obvious is "racist". I could say all black people have black skin, and id be called a racist. Well im sick of it.

Not true. According to the studies, the highest IQs belong to Asians, Jews, and then whites. The majority of all people are average, with certain ethnic groups smarter in certain areas. The IQ test may not measure comprehensively, all areas of intelligence, therefore blacks may excel in other areas that are not included in the biased IQ tests, that are tilted towards those who excel in math or science. Go to Africa and take an IQ test, perhaps you would be in the mentally challenged range by their own flawed tests.
Sorry, your factism turned out to be a fibism.

[Flash]

Not true. According to the studies, the highest IQs belong to Asians, Jews, and then whites. The majority of all people are average, with certain ethnic groups smarter in certain areas. The IQ test may not measure comprehensively, all areas of intelligence, therefore blacks may excel in other areas that are not included in the biased IQ tests, that are tilted towards those who excel in math or science. Go to Africa and take an IQ test, perhaps you would be in the mentally challenged range by their flawed tests.
Sorry, your factism turned out to be a fibism.

I don't agree with any of those studies. Most people can't even agree what 'white' means, so they will include Arabs & North Africans into the white group. But honestly I don't think IQ tests can show a race to be superior to another race. Perhaps Asians have the best culture but certainly not race. I would love if America had a culture similiar to the Japanese, which values education & being sucessful.

[someperson]

I happen to be an asian individual, but I don't believe in such statistics, either. I believe parents who emphasize studying and instill the motivation to learn early on are more important than these "race" labels. It may be that certain cultures focus on these things more than others, but it is entirely up to the individuals involved. This video illustrates the point with a bit of humor:

YouTube - Special Boy With Freakishly Large Brain Wins Spelling Bee (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCC7LuTQ_x0)

This is all satire, of course, but the point is that the kid just studies a few hours a day, and they seem to think that makes him "special" and abnormally smart lol

[Crash Martinez]

Not true. According to the studies, the highest IQs belong to Asians, Jews, and then whites. The majority of all people are average, with certain ethnic groups smarter in certain areas. The IQ test may not measure comprehensively, all areas of intelligence, therefore blacks may excel in other areas that are not included in the biased IQ tests, that are tilted towards those who excel in math or science. Go to Africa and take an IQ test, perhaps you would be in the mentally challenged range by their own flawed tests.
Sorry, your factism turned out to be a fibism.

:)

you're a little more patient than i was. i just made a sarcastic comment and moved on!

[BenIsForRon]

The OP links race with all kinds of things, including the decline of our society and the growth of government. Totally ridiculous. If the CIA wanted to undermine our movement, spreading these fucked up ideas on the internet would be a great way to do it.

[Objectivist]

You mean the aprox. 8 million Black African slaves who died while building America under the threat of violence, rape, torture and coercion?

Did they use negro slave labor at Microsoft?

Who sold the poor bastards?

[Objectivist]

There is nothing collectivist about recognizing inherent differences in people. I can swim better than 98% of human beings and most negroes are poor swimmers, the same could be said about the natives of the Americas. Then I wasn't a good sprinter.

It all comes down to stacking rocks or building structures.

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

"Today's current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change. It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student rights, minority rights, women's rights, gay rights, children's rights, Asian-American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims' rights, poverty rights, homeless rights, etc.

Until all these terms are dropped and we recognize that only an individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found. The longer we lack a definition of rights, the worse economic and social problems will become." Freedom Under Siege – Ron Paul, 1988

(Warning: PDF) http://mises.org/books/freedomsiege.pdf

(HTML Version) http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:SLEL146nXX4J:mises.org/books/freedomsiege.pdf+freedom+under+siege&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Not surprisingly, Ron Paul's writings from 1988 show a complete repudiation of such ideas. Furthermore, the writing style from this 1988 book is very similar to his writing style today, neither of which are anything like the style which is found in the newsletters.

"Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.
Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.
Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years."
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134.html
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1136.html

Lastly, I'd like to see how it was 3-year's worth, as all I've seen is a relatively small amount of such writing.

[nbruno322]

There is nothing collectivist about recognizing inherent differences in people. I can swim better than 98% of human beings and most negroes are poor swimmers, the same could be said about the natives of the Americas. Then I wasn't a good sprinter.

It all comes down to stacking rocks or building structures.


Yes there is something collectivist about recognizing "inherent" differences in entire groups of people. You are judging people as collective groups rather than individuals when you say things like "most negroes are poor swimmers".

For example, you may be a better swimmer than a random black person, but to infer that all blacks are poor swimmers rather than looking at the individual, is judging an individual based on race and is collectivist thinking.

[Cowlesy]

All the smartest people in the world are white. This is not a coincidence. This is not racism. This is FACTism. These days pointing out the obvious is "racist". I could say all black people have black skin, and id be called a racist. Well im sick of it.

You're ridiculous. I'm glad someone banned you, and sad it wasn't me who did so.

[tmosley]

Wow, this is the worst thread I have ever read.

Shame on you, Objectivist, for grouping people together based on a trait as flimsy as skin color.

Anyone who knows anything about genetics knows that pretty much everyone is the same from a genetic standpoint. 99% of the difference between "races" comes from their social customs. There are a very few exceptions to that rule that come from populations that had severe selective pressures placed on them (Jews) or non-mobile homogeneous cultures (thousands upon thousands of local cultures in the Orient are like this). Everyone else has interbred like crazy for the last 6000+ years (1/5th of all Irishmen have African blood in them, and something like 20% of all males on Earth got their Y chromosome from Ghengis Kahn).

The differences between people of different cultures are so minor that they can't even really be seen. Those differences that do exist are mostly cultural, and that's all there is to it.

So a "negro" not being able to swim well is about as remarkable as your second cousin Harold not being able to swim well. That doesn't mean that all of your second cousins are bad swimmers, or that they are somehow genetically predisposed to be bad swimmers. That's just stupid.

[TGGRV]

Wow, this is the worst thread I have ever read.

Shame on you, Objectivist, for grouping people together based on a trait as flimsy as skin color.

Anyone who knows anything about genetics knows that pretty much everyone is the same from a genetic standpoint. 99% of the difference between "races" comes from their social customs. There are a very few exceptions to that rule that come from populations that had severe selective pressures placed on them (Jews) or non-mobile homogeneous cultures (thousands upon thousands of local cultures in the Orient are like this). Everyone else has interbred like crazy for the last 6000+ years (1/5th of all Irishmen have African blood in them, and something like 20% of all males on Earth got their Y chromosome from Ghengis Kahn).

The differences between people of different cultures are so minor that they can't even really be seen. Those differences that do exist are mostly cultural, and that's all there is to it.

So a "negro" not being able to swim well is about as remarkable as your second cousin Harold not being able to swim well. That doesn't mean that all of your second cousins are bad swimmers, or that they are somehow genetically predisposed to be bad swimmers. That's just stupid.
So it proves that white culture and society are better than the black one? Since genetics don't matter. This is what you're saying. lol

[paulitics]

Objectivist: there was a time when it was said that blacks couldn't play golf.

[federalistnp]

I consent with Epic and I do not find it relevant to automatically proclaim this post as racist unless you use the liberal definition of "racist" as being "prejudiced" but the liberal definition is ever flexible. yeah, the reactions prove the point. Is there any law anywhere that someone from one culture has to like everyone from every culture? Maybe that is something Jesus would have said, but he was intimating that we should not hate. The absence of hate does not include total acceptance.

I don't judge individuals by their skin color, but I do judge their potential character by how they carry themselves, their attire, and anything else that could be observed from their demeanor.

The OP is right. People can disagree and acceptance is not a right, but in the current statist indoctrinated climate, disagreeing with political correctness can get you labeled as a racist extremist and possibly cost someone their job (Imus).

My party would like to see Affirmative Action be replaced by a general class/wealth based advocacy system that is minimal and not intrusive. Race is irrelevant if the person's means are well enough or if the minority is adopted by a white family. Why then could one sibling receive preferential treatment for admissions and financial aid when the white sibling couldn't and they both had the same family and socioeconomic background?

If this is a post-race nation, then we need to end Affirmative Action and end all forms of race preference hiring and quotas.

[federalistnp]

You mean the aprox. 8 million Black African slaves who died while building America under the threat of violence, rape, torture and coercion?

And don't forget the Chinese, Irish, Latin Americans, Eastern Europeans and other immigrants who were subjected to the same conditions in this Country still slaving just over a hundred years ago. Slavery was everywhere in every society. It was not unique to the Americas.

If any reparations are owed it should be in the form of granting the various Native American nations sovereignty over their own nations and some nice pieces of land with which to govern.

Google Lakota independence for starts

[federalistnp]

Wow, this is the worst thread I have ever read.

Shame on you, Objectivist, for grouping people together based on a trait as flimsy as skin color.

Anyone who knows anything about genetics knows that pretty much everyone is the same from a genetic standpoint. 99% of the difference between "races" comes from their social customs. There are a very few exceptions to that rule that come from populations that had severe selective pressures placed on them (Jews) or non-mobile homogeneous cultures (thousands upon thousands of local cultures in the Orient are like this). Everyone else has interbred like crazy for the last 6000+ years (1/5th of all Irishmen have African blood in them, and something like 20% of all males on Earth got their Y chromosome from Ghengis Kahn).

The differences between people of different cultures are so minor that they can't even really be seen. Those differences that do exist are mostly cultural, and that's all there is to it.

So a "negro" not being able to swim well is about as remarkable as your second cousin Harold not being able to swim well. That doesn't mean that all of your second cousins are bad swimmers, or that they are somehow genetically predisposed to be bad swimmers. That's just stupid.

We are also share 50% similarity with bananas. Does that prove that humans are related to bananas? Nope.

I believe in racial egalitarianism but that also demands that every culture be allowed to stand on their own with apologetics stating their case, which is why I believe affirmative action based on race is long obsolete.

However, I do not believe that "race" is only skin deep. It's not. Skin color is one minor factor and skin color can be shared by different races. Many Dravidians are close to the same color as Subsaharan Africans, yet everything else distinguishes them as different. Dravidians are most likely a mixture of earl south asian humans and Caucasian humans.


Our differences are also pulmonary, vascular, skeletal, dermal, endocrinal, and more.
There would be little need for Forensic Anthropologists if there was zero differences among "races" or geographically isolated populations.

That said, there are differences but that should not be the starting point for character assumptions. There are a lot of white people I despise because of their culture or lack thereof, but I don't come off the cuff whenever I see what I perceive as a dirty low life. I just had to correct the PC notion that "we're all the same".