NAACP launches coalition watchdog site to ‘monitor’ Tea Party ‘racists’

[Agnapostate]

So tell us again Agnus how as you say "anarchism is an explicitly socialist ideolog"

I've determined that no one can possibly be this stupid, even you.

You must just be a troll intending to aggravate, because it's simply not possible for anyone to be this mind-numbingly moronic otherwise.

[jimnyc]

My comment was a reciprocal one; it was in the context of an exchange in which others chose to initiate vulgar and profane insults, and I merely gave them a taste of their own medicine, finishing what they had started. It stands in stark contrast, for example, to your proclivities to make racially/ethnically bigoted remarks about Indians despite no provocative remarks about your ethnicity on my part.

I guess when you have Admin CP access, you make up your own rules and standards for yourself and different ones for others as you go along.

You broke a rule of the board, you knew you purposely went around the board filter to do so, which was a clear indicator that the word was a "no no". I'm sorry we have rules, but if they aren't enforced they are useless. Furthermore, it wasn't me who even decided to censor that one and only word, I did so out of respect to many who requested so.

Now, you try and state I did the same. Show me where I broke the rules and I honestly, and promise, I will personally ban myself for the same 7 days you were gone.

[revelarts]

Then by the same token, since all these regimes have espoused a rhetorical commitment to republican democracy (the Union of Soviet Sovialist Republics, the People's Republic of China, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, etc.), you must also be a supporter of dictatorship, since you presumably profess to support republican democracy.

Um right that's the point I was making. It doesn't make sense does it? But your doing it again. Do you realize what your saying? You say you understand the point but your making the error... but...
anyway

However I used Lenin "even" and he did espouse ( that is SAY) similar things about Marxism and communism , early on, as those you quote espoused. But he did, very clearly, in word and action turn away from those ideals or mutate them.

And so in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority.
Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)

But I will accept your assertion that what you say you believe in is a benign anarchist form of communism. That you admit has only manifested itself for extremely brief moments of time and in areas of typically less than 1 million. 1 million being the exception. Where apparently Human nature did overwhelm it's natural and obvious beneficence.

It seems we do need a college education to find the footnotes in history where the form of communism you espouse has actually been practiced.

But here's an interesting bit in what you've said. Most of the more current people you quoted seemed to have lived mainly in countries that where democratic and capitalistic, am I right, I think so. Chomsky no doubt. And, with all it's warts, they've found more freedom here than in so called communist countries. Now I will be the 2nd or 3rd one to admit that what we have now is seems more like an oligarchy than a constitutional republic with a free capitalistic economy.
But the founders of the U.S. pointed us toward a constitutional republic with a free capitalistic economy and I believe that it's probably the best system we can hope and strive for. (given human nature and all) The anarchistic communism you promote is really to Pollyanna. Capitalism is not perfect and not a self regulating. it needs limits legal, moral and spiritual. But allows for creative and individual freedoms that communism inherently discourages. Unless "commun-"
and "collective-" are somehow meaningless parts of the terminology used.

If you want to depict me as supportive of Leninism, at least be aware of the remarkably disingenuous nature of this association.
[

BUT

... I will continue to maintain that rightists have greater potentials to evolve into an explicitly racist position based on their tendency to subconsciously generalize about ethnic minorities because that is a convenient mechanism for categorizing moral offenders together....

So you want me to realize that a fellow communist is not the same kind of communist as you. Fine.
But you will maintain that I and OTHERS that have conservative views are fetal racist because WE are the ones that "GENERALIZE" groups.


"Maintain" away Agnapostate.

As bad as talking to Hog trash.

[BoogyMan]

So what exactly should the inclination to possess negative stereotypes and images about racial/ethnic minorities to a greater degree than the general population be called, then?

Every group holds negative stereotypes of other groups, only recently has a simple view degenerated into "racism."

Let me, once again, remind you of what racism means.

rac·ism   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Notice the conspicuous lack of stereotypes in the definition?

[Agnapostate]

You broke a rule of the board, you knew you purposely went around the board filter to do so, which was a clear indicator that the word was a "no no". I'm sorry we have rules, but if they aren't enforced they are useless. Furthermore, it wasn't me who even decided to censor that one and only word, I did so out of respect to many who requested so.

Now, you try and state I did the same. Show me where I broke the rules and I honestly, and promise, I will personally ban myself for the same 7 days you were gone.

And if you had a rule that mandated that all posts be written in pig Latin, I would immediately break that too. As with this rule, there would be no consistent logical basis for it. So, I'll just point out that if you're turning into Miss Manners and getting your panties in a knot about "offensive" language, you might want to consider the anti-minority ethnic slurs and epithets and mockery of Indians next time too.

Um right that's the point I was making. It doesn't make sense does it? But your doing it again. Do you realize what your saying? You say you understand the point but your making the error... but... anyway

I don't know what this incoherence is, but unfortunately, you've not understood the central issue. I've identified similarities between white nationalists and mainline social conservatives on the basis of shared moral ideals. You've identified similarities between me and um, Lenin, on the basis of shared language, but that association is so obviously shallow that it ensnares you along with it. Conversely, the average person wouldn't espouse moral views in line with social conservatives and white nationalists.

However I used Lenin "even" and he did espouse ( that is SAY) similar things about Marxism and communism , early on, as those you quote espoused. But he did, very clearly, in word and action turn away from those ideals or mutate them.

Actually, no, he didn't, since I am not an advocate of Marxism, and he was, and as I said, you've not understood the depth of the connections that I've illustrated.

But I will accept your assertion that what you say you believe in is a benign anarchist form of communism. That you admit has only manifested itself for extremely brief moments of time and in areas of typically less than 1 million. 1 million being the exception.

No, that's completely wrong. For the most significant example, the lower estimates are typically two to three million directly involved workers, and the higher estimates up to eight to ten million indirectly affected persons.

Where apparently Human nature did overwhelm it's natural and obvious beneficence.

This comment is vapid and ambiguous, and lacks any concrete substance. Detail a specific argument, please.

It seems we do need a college education to find the footnotes in history where the form of communism you espouse has actually been practiced.

Or access to Google.

But here's an interesting bit in what you've said. Most of the more current people you quoted seemed to have lived mainly in countries that where democratic and capitalistic, am I right, I think so.

No. I mentioned Kropotkin, Goldman, Rocker, and Chomsky. Kropotkin was imprisoned in czarist Russia as a result of his political activities, and escaped to Western Europe, returning after the abdication of Nicholas II. Goldman was born in Lithuania, and immigrated to the United States, eventually being deported to the USSR because of her dissident activities. Rocker was born in the German Empire, and eventually also immigrated to the U.S. Chomsky is the exception, as you mention.

Chomsky no doubt. And, with all it's warts, they've found more freedom here than in so called communist countries.

That seems a very poor argument, even aside from the fact that you asserted that these people lived in the U.S. without actually fact-checking that claim. Prisoners would find more freedom in Buchenwald than they would in Auschwitz, wouldn't they?

Now I will be the 2nd or 3rd one to admit that what we have now is seems more like an oligarchy than a constitutional republic with a free capitalistic economy.

Good job.

But the founders of the U.S. pointed us toward a constitutional republic with a free capitalistic economy and I believe that it's probably the best system we can hope and strive for. (given human nature and all)

Actually, colonial New England was characterized by a pre-capitalist market economy, since agrarian equity rather than industrialized disparity was the norm at the time. The founders of the U.S., moreover, ranged from republicans to monarchists, and essentially all favored the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population, even when some nations (such as the Iroquois Confederation) had practiced republican democracy long before they had. Even the more "libertarian" founders, such as the slaveholding Jefferson, were appalled by the occurrence of the Haitian Revolution and isolated and ignored the communications of the black administration of the rebel state.

The anarchistic communism you promote is really to Pollyanna. Capitalism is not perfect and not a self regulating. it needs limits legal, moral and spiritual. But allows for creative and individual freedoms that communism inherently discourages. Unless "commun-" and "collective-" are somehow meaningless parts of the terminology used.

There is nothing sillier or more utopian than the dreamy fantasy of "free market capitalism" so often promoted on this board, so it's quite ironic that the concrete examples of what "I promote" are jeered.

So you want me to realize that a fellow communist is not the same kind of communist as you. Fine.

Oh, you can maintain that if you want. And I will maintain that Lenin is your fellow republican while you do.

But you will maintain that I and OTHERS that have conservative views are fetal racist because WE are the ones that "GENERALIZE" groups.

"Maintain" away Agnapostate.

As bad as talking to Hog trash.

It's quite easy to see that the underlying moral conceptual framework is the same. I've quoted the cognitive scientist George Lakoff before on this matter:

Many of the clauses in the Moral Order correspond to forms of bigotry:

The racist clause: Since the dominant culture has been white, whites rank above nonwhites.

The anti-Semitic clause: Since the dominant culture is Christian, Christians rank above Jews.

The jingoist clause: Since this is an American culture where people born here have more power and status than immigrants, those born Americans rank above immigrants.

The homophobe clause: Since heterosexuality is dominant in our culture and homosexuals are stereotyped as weak, heterosexuals rank above homosexuals.

The superpatriot clause: Since America is the dominant country (the only superpower), America ranks above other countries.

[...]

It is important to bear in minds that these define a "moral order." Those higher in the moral order are "better" and have a moral authority over those lower in the hierarchy. So, for instance, if all these clauses are in your hierarchy and if you happen to be a heterosexual white Christian American man, you are "better" than most people in the world.

According to the Moral Order metaphor, a just situation obtains when the Moral Order hierarchy is met in the world, that is, when men do have moral authority and power over women, when parents do have moral authority and power over their children, when human beings do have moral authority and power over nature, and so on. The bigoted clauses include whites having moral authority and power over nonwhites, and so on. In short, the Moral Order is the conceptual mechanism by which assumptions of superiority - and the moral standing of that superiority - are expressed.

The traditional rightist conceptualizes social welfare programs as subsidization of the unproductive, stealing from Peter to give to Paul, which is morally objectionable because Paul's laziness and lack of personal responsibility landed him in poverty in the first place. Violations of the law are also ethical failings, and ascription of the causes of crime to environmental conditions such as poverty are considered attempts to protect criminals and blame victims, and again, the lack of personal responsibility entailed is morally objectionable. So, for example, since blacks are perceived by rightists as especially prone to usage of various social welfare programs and higher crime rates, the natural consequence of this mindset is that they lack personal responsibility and moral guidelines to a greater extent than whites, with this either being caused explicitly by their genetic predisposition (the Stormfront position), or their perverse and criminal culture of rap and glorification of the illicit (the social rightist position).

These generalizing tendencies occur because rightists are more inclined to rely on their emotional reactions and intuitions than liberals and leftists are, as documented in Inbar et al.'s Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals, which notes that, "The uniquely human emotion of disgust is intimately connected to morality in many, perhaps all, cultures (Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999b). We report two studies suggesting that a predisposition to feel disgust (“disgust sensitivity”) is associated with more conservative political attitudes, especially for issues related to the moral dimension of purity. In the first study, we document a positive correlation between disgust sensitivity and self-reported conservatism in a broad sample of US adults. In Study 2 we show that while disgust sensitivity is associated with more conservative attitudes on a range of political issues, this relationship is strongest for purity-related issues—specifically, abortion and gay marriage." An example of that phenomenon can be seen in an average rightist's belligerent and emotional response to my mention of Lakoff and presentation of his ideas:

Why do you think anyone would give a crap what that shithead wrote?

And you know what? Heterosexuals DO rank above the queers. We were not the ones who chose to live a life of perversion, or born with an abnormality, depending on which liberal yoke you ask.

And you're right, thinking that the queers are in any way equal to us normal people IS distasteful.

Since the study on the tea party directly has been ignored, we can focus on the connection between white racist sentiments and advocacy of rightist policies. Consider Roemer's Racism and redistribution in the United States: A solution to the problem of American exceptionalism:

The two main political parties in the United States in the period 1976–1992 put forth policies on redistribution and on issues pertaining directly to race. We argue that redistributive politics in the US can be fully understood only by taking account of the interconnection between these issues in political competition. We identify two mechanisms through which racism among American voters decreases the degree of redistribution that would otherwise obtain. In common with others, we suggest that voter racism decreases the degree of redistribution due to an anti-solidarity effect: that (some) voters oppose government transfer payments to minorities whom they view as undeserving. We suggest a second effect as well: that some voters who desire redistribution nevertheless vote for the anti-redistributive (Republican) party because its position on the race issue is more consonant with their own, and this, too, decreases the degree of redistribution in political equilibrium. This we name the policy bundle effect. We propose a formal model of multi-dimensional political competition that enables us to estimate the magnitude of these two effects, and estimate the model for the period in question. We compute that voter racism reduced the income tax rate by 11–18% points; the total effect decomposes about equally into the two sub-effects. We also find that the Democratic vote share is 5–38% points lower than it would have been, absent racism. The magnitude of this effect would seem to explain the difference between the sizes of the public sector in the US and northern European countries.

Another example is Ayers et al.'s Is Immigration a Racial Issue? Anglo Attitudes on Immigration Policies in a Border County:

Objective: This study assesses the association between Anglo aversion to Latinos, physical proximity to Latinos, and contact with ethnic minorities, with expressed preferences for immigration policies.

Methods: Data were drawn from a telephone survey of San Diego County, California, residents ( N=549 Anglos) using random-digit-dial procedures during 2005–2006 that was conducted by closely supervised professional interviewers. Descriptive reports, tau-b correlations, and multivariate logistic regressions were used for analysis.

Results: Aversion to Latinos, as indicated by an adaptation of the Bogardus social distance scale, was related to more restrictionist attitudes about legal and Mexican immigration. Associations increased when respondents were primed to consider Mexican immigration, although aversion to Latinos was not related to attitudes about amnesty for undocumented persons. Contrary to some previous findings, proximity to Latino populations increased opposition to legal immigration and amnesty. Reported minority contact had minimal impact but increased support for amnesty.

Conclusions: Attitudes about immigration may be motivated more by racial resentments than other considerations. Future research should identify racial factors that influence Anglo policy positions beyond the classic Anglo/African division that has dominated this research arena.

Immigration is interesting because it's an example of a demographic trend that white populists consider threatening to them, and a sign that they will become a minority group, which many of them fear. They therefore equate their white supremacist ideas with civil rights ideas.

No I have not posted at stormfront, but I did go there and look around, I only looked threw quick but I didn't see lynchings or any other kind of serious hate, my question is why are we attacking a group of whites that are proud of there race and not attacking say the black panthers? I read on one site about hate groups where the blacks are the most dangerous cause the media will actually give them time

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8504776

Only Whites can be racist. That's no joke, it is the accepted academic definition of "racism".

So it is no use protesting that other races are obviously "racist" - that would be true only according to a long-discredited definition of the term. It is in fact racist for Whites to accuse anyone except Whites of racism.

Racism is a moral crime assigned to only one race, the White race, and arises from the belief that races exist in the first place - a belief which can be excused, even encouraged among the downtrodden and oppressed non-White non-existent races, but must be condemned and vilified among Whites.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8504782

It's funny that the government has all these ethnic commitees and entitlement groups to watch over the perpetrating so called racism of whites yet no such commitee exists to watch over the racism commited against whites.

We have all these different ethnic political parties in the government for every race but no such such ethnic political party that exists to promote white interests.

At the core is a fallacious equivalence between white nationalist and black or other non-white nationalist movements, when the former sort are intended to maintain a hierarchical dominance (the role of an artificially constructed "white" ethnic group has typically been the oppression of others), while the latter sort are oppressed people joining together because they've shared common experiences of injustice and seek to collectively resist them. Since "whites" have not undergone collective oppression in the U.S. (while individual "white" ethnic groups have), there is no basis for parallel organization on their part. Regardless, the fallacy of equivalence is still present:

Does the hypocrisy and outright dishonesty of this not entertain?

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8504600

Sort of the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8505237

The NAACP claiming that only they can spot racism and are the overseer, judge and prosecutors of racism only implies that they are racist as well. They will never admit it, but they are racist and have their own supremacy which, in fact, is more widely noticed than any other forms of racism... Funny, this is not noticed or pointed out in any way.

No no, not "funny", Pathetic might be a better word for that.

What follows is a claim that the application of the "racist" label is merely an attempt to silence political opposition:

Anyone who is against democrats is a racist to them, so they won't have any trouble finding racists in the population. If they do a good job they may be offered a position with the government and can do it on an official basis. Let's get those jack boots shined up pretty.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8507796

This is an attempt to buffalo the Tea Party into toeing the multicults globalist line; and it is good that this has happened, as it will make pointing out ethnic favoritism so much easier. It will also grease the skids for a ethnic revival among Whites in the lower and middle income brackets.

Basically any portion of the Tea Party that is not willing to keep things exactly as they are, or that do not want 'progressive' --which in PC means minority favored change--changes in the 'dialog' -- which means lecture to Whites -- will be extremist and racist.

An insistence that the definition of the term "racist" has been deliberately modified to serve a "liberal" agenda of inhibiting "racial" dialogue is usually present:

That would be because liberals (you included) have so misused the term "racist" that it actually has no meaning any longer.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t696224/#post7969136

Of course, from the liberal side, the only thing they can throw out is the "race card," so therefore they will keep using the label of "racist" against the tea partiers. "Racist" is really the only rhetorical weapon the liberals have in their arsenal, and since they disingenuously overuse that label as much as they do, even that is starting to lose its power.

Instead of mindlessly throwing around labels like "racist," liberals might actually have to make real, genuine arguments in the future - something they've proven incapable of doing. They've come to rely so much on calling people "racist" to get their way, they use it mostly as a crutch these days.

Specific "racist" non-white organizations are usually named as guilty parties, in this case the NAACP:

If someone started a website to monitor NAACP racists, it would grow bigger than fucking Facebook.

By it's very nature, the NAACP is racist.

Tell me every liberal on the planet wouldn't shit their pants if, say Hog started an organization called the National Association for the Advancement of White People.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8516956

If a National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) were to put out a statement saying that they intended to monitor the Black Panther party for racism, a couple of things would happen.

First, they would not be taken seriously. Secondly, to neutralize their possible effect on ordinary Americans who might, on their own, take them seriously, there would be a massive campaign by groups such as the ADL, the SPLC, and the NAACP to denounce them as a lunatic fringe of racist, bigoted, nutjobs.

The fact is, only White people and White groups are ever seriously pursued and persecuted for being racist. Anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-White. If you are anti-racist, you are anti-White. And if you are anti-White, you are pro-White-genocide; there is no middle ground.

Continuing with the fallacy of equivalence, there are usually suggestions that the accused racists should themselves monitor the "real" racists in the non-white movements:

I think the tea party should do the same back. "Watch" these jackasses for incidents of racism....that would be hilarious to give em a taste of their own medicine.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8507796

I think we should just encourage the Tea Party Movement to "monitor" the NAACP for racism...umm, I mean "racial prejudice and hostility". These Minutemen, Tea Party,etc, types need to hit the marxists back with some of their own medicine.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8505130

So who's going to monitor the NAACP for racism and other forms of extremism in the its movement?

(Notice the lack of quotation marks around racism.)

In more specific terms than mere reference to organizations, non-white individuals are named as "racists" that are not identified except by brave white crusaders:

WELL that wouldn't be too hard.every time Grease Ball Al or Jesse Jackass open their mouths it's RACIST

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t64788/#post429747

Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. Farrakhan has made it a point on several occasions to call Whites the 'devil'. No! That's not racist.....geez

Farrakhan seems to be a particularly popular target:

Oh I don't argue that he's got some white in him. That doesn't make him any less of a racist, his quotes prove that.

simply trying to stay on topic.

I find it interresting that you regard this
as an accurate discription of white people, but not racist. Says a lot about the kind of person you are.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741541/#post8504600

What is disgusting is that this is the same organization that had the notorious Louis Farrakhan as the headliner at the NAACP Unity Summit in 1997 as well as the equally well known Jeremiah Wright address a NAACP Freedom Fund in 2008 where he received a standing ovation.

It's an example of parallel patterns of speech and opinion based on commonly held moral views. I'm not really sure how much evidence shoved in your face you are willing to reject. If you're determined to adhere to your preconceived dogma regardless of facts to the contrary, not much can be done.

Every group holds negative stereotypes of other groups, only recently has a simple view degenerated into "racism."

Let me, once again, remind you of what racism means.

Notice the conspicuous lack of stereotypes in the definition?

It's a sad sign when you refer to the dictionary to try to convince me that the hick complaining about the cheap stingy Jews and the lazy blacks is not really any kind of "racist" at all. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this might be because you might tell a gutbusting "ethnic" joke or two at the dinner table and want reassurances that there's nothing "racist" about it.

[revelarts]

Anapostate
Like Hogtrash, you make a 1/2 a point or now and then, but your not quite rational buddy.

[BoogyMan]

It's a sad sign when you refer to the dictionary to try to convince me that the hick complaining about the cheap stingy Jews and the lazy blacks is not really any kind of "racist" at all. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this might be because you might tell a gutbusting "ethnic" joke or two at the dinner table and want reassurances that there's nothing "racist" about it.

I am pointing out the people of your stripe have destroyed the meaning of racism by claiming nearly any and all opposition to be racism. The funny part is that you try to tie the nutjobs at StormFront to the TEA party in doing so while whinging about stereotypes. Words mean things and if you don't get that, maybe you should spend some time with the dictionary yourself.

[Agnapostate]

Anapostate
Like Hogtrash, you make a 1/2 a point or now and then, but your not quite rational buddy.

I disagree, considering that I ended the exchange with extensive citation of arguments and evidence, and you just clung to your preconceived notions regardless.

I am pointing out the people of your stripe have destroyed the meaning of racism by claiming nearly any and all opposition to be racism.

I'd say that the majority of my online dialogue is conducted with avowed "racialists," because there's obviously little opportunity for a non-white person like me to converse with them IRL. If my general approach was to call opponents "racists," the general response would be, "Yeah...so?"

The funny part is that you try to tie the nutjobs at StormFront to the TEA party in doing so while whinging about stereotypes. Words mean things and if you don't get that, maybe you should spend some time with the dictionary yourself.

These are not arguments. They're just vague contradictions of my comments.