Liberals Don’t Get To Have It Both Ways With White Americans

"The base of the Democratic party used to be working people, regardless of race, ethnic, or ethnic identity, sexual orientation, et cetera. That was a Roosevelt agenda. That was the Truman agenda. Over time, and I think particularly over the last eight years, the Democratic Party has moved into interest group politics and in many cases white working people have become the whipping post, or were. I think what you saw in this election here is white working people in these rural areas seeing that someone actually was articulating the fact that they had become disenfranchised and they gravitated toward Trump in my view..." -- Former Democratic Senator Jim Webb

“The angry white guy is dying out, and the Census Bureau has already told us that by 2050, white people are going to be the minority, and I’m not sad to say I can’t wait for that day to happen. I hope I live long enough to see it because it will be a better country.”

Of course, there are places in America where white people are already a minority; so why doesn’t Michael Moore live in one of them? If he really believes he’s better off with less white people around, why didn’t he build a mansion in Compton or inner-city Detroit instead of having one in 96% white Torch Lake?

Like Michael Moore, liberals generally love to mock white people. They especially love to put down those white, cis males …well, until the chips are down anyway. Then it's, "Can you help us out?"

White cops are all racists looking for an excuse to pick on black Americans until someone threatens or robs a liberal and then he immediately runs to the cops.

The rich, white guys are greedy and evil until someone needs a job or they’re asked to fund most of the government with their taxes.

Nobody says “no” to the white guy giving out charity, the white redneck pulling you out of a snowdrift with his truck or the “Cajun Navy” guy with a bass boat taking people out of their homes in a flood.

Of course, why should they say “no?” We’re all Americans, right? Race doesn’t matter, does it? If you’re stuck on your roof because of a flood, the race of the person that rescues you shouldn’t matter all that much.

Do you think I’m overselling how anti-white liberals (even white liberals) have become? If so, here are just a few recent headlines.

"Honestly, I don’t have energy to talk about racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people. Because most of ya’ll don’t even realize or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of color. Your entire existence is drenched in racism. From micro-aggressions to terrorism, you guys built the blueprint for this sh*t. Come see me when you realize that racism isn’t learned, it’s inherited and consciously or unconsciously passed down through privilege. “Once white people begin to admit that their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth … then we can talk."

All of that happened in the last week and it’s very typical. Imagine being pummeled with that garbage daily on top of social media posts from legions of black liberals who hate white people or feminists who hate white men every bit as much as the KKK hates black Americans. It's a never stopping symphony of attacks on whites. How warped has the Left gotten on this issue? Well, CNN’s Sally Kohn says that all the following things, in one form or fashion, are “covert white supremacy.”

We could go on and on about this, but just think about the Orwellian ramifications of saying that “colorblindness” is a form of white supremacy. That’s as dumb as saying that opposing slavery is a form of black supremacy.

Although they hesitate to come right out and say it, the liberal line is either that you should hate yourself for being white or alternately attack other white people for their race, in hopes that you’ll get a pass from the white ‘guiltpocolypse’. That’s where the Left is today and it has real consequences for the country. Since liberals don’t care about the wellbeing of our nation, it’s worth noting that it has huge political consequences for them as well. Just look what the New York Times had to say about the subject this week, The more white voters care about being white, the more they like President Trump.

In the wake of the presidential election, we’ve all been asking simplistic questions about how Donald Trump won. Was it economics? Was it racism? Was it misogyny? Did it come down to identity? We know that it can’t have been just one thing, and that President Trump’s triumph was a concoction of many things. Nonetheless, several factors came together in a peculiar way, with serious electoral consequences. Millions of white voters began to see themselves more openly not as white supremacists but as white identified.

Here's another way to put it: when you ENCOURAGE identity politics among black Americans and Latinos while regularly aiming vicious criticism at white Americans based on their race, many white Americans will vote accordingly after becoming sick of the abuse and the hypocrisy. Liberals have worked themselves into this weird place where they quite correctly condemn the KKK, white supremacists and Nazis, but encourage similar mentalities among minority groups because they believe it will benefit them politically. The more entrenched this disgusting mentality becomes, the more you can expect white Americans to act and vote like just another minority group. Does that sort of balkanization sound healthy? For example, do you think it would be good if white Americans had their own version of the NAACP designed to pursue their racial interests? Do you think white voters should explicitly vote for candidates because they share their race like black Americans often do? Should white Americans be given an explicit advantage in college entrances and government jobs for a few years to make up for all the years minorities were given preference over them because of their race via Affirmative Action? You can give every lame excuse in the book why it’s okay to spew hate at white Americans, but there are always consequences. Ultimately, nobody loves or respects someone who treats him like garbage because of something he can’t change.

Liberals should never forget that it is dangerous to mock people who believe in a color-blind America because eventually you may convince them that you’re right.

All well and good - but the problem is always, “Who will bell the cat?”
“The cat” is not really the Democrat Party. “The cat” is monopoly wire-service journalism. Essentially, the AP and its member ~~news~~ ^propaganda outlets. All very well to speak of sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander - but what happens to anyone who explicitly stands up for white people as white people???
It all boils down to the fact that the AP is like a great middle linebacker, who will always get to the point of your attack no matter where it is. You can’t run away from it, because it will always catch up with the play. If you can run at all, you can only do so by running at it - because nobody else on their team will be nearly as able to help it, as it will be able to help anyone else on the team.
Thanks be to God, SCOTUS is not lost - as it would already have been, had Hillary were POTUS. We can’t rely on Congress, even with Republican majority leaders in both houses. And we can’t rely on the POTUS, except to the extent that he is naming good judges. If we can bring the right case to SCOTUS, we should IMHO be able to trim the sails of the AP.
The AP is a monopoly which in 1945 was found by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) - Free Republic. But back then, the issue before the Court was a mere fight between two wire services, on the one hand, and the possibility of serious sanctions against wire services as such would have been considered utterly impractical on the other. Now both the issue and the potential remedy which could be considered are on an entirely different scale.
Now the tort inflicted is not merely on a business competitor, the tort is inflicted on American society.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
The AP and its member news outlets are “people of the same trade” - journalism - and the AP newswire is a virtual meeting among them all. This “meeting” started in the middle of the Nineteenth Century, with no end is in sight. And this “meeting,” far from concerning only "merriment and diversion,” is precisely about the prosecution of “trade” of journalism. According to Adam Smith, then, the existence of a “conspiracy against the public” among the AP and its members is inevitable. But how and why does the resulting conspiracy act against the public?
The motive of any conspiracy is to promote the interests of the conspirators. The inherent motives of journalists are to promote the importance and profitability of journalism. Journalists want to be paid, everyone does. And journalists “want to make a difference." Adam Smith again:
The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
The question is, “How and to what extent does the desire of journalists (as opposed to, say, plumbers or carpenters) for influence run counter to the public interest?” What is “the public interest,” anyway? The interest of society lies in “life” (security), “liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” of persons whatever their status in society. The interest of society lies in the absence of bad news to report. In contrast, the interest of journalism lies in gaining the interest and credence of the public. Since reporting bad news to society, about society, is the sovereign path to gaining the interest of the public, interesting the public is pretty close to being the very opposite of “the public interest.” Thus, journalism has practically no motive to report good news about society, but plenty of motive to report bad news about society.
The implication of that is very clear:
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
That is, skepticism about society is the only justification for government. Reporting only bad news about society ineluctably justifies ever more government. Faith in society is the inverse of faith in government, cynicism about society tends to justify expanded government, even tyranny. Society’s interest is in freedom; ideologically monopolistic journalism, simply by following its S.O.P. for selecting what stories to report, and how extensively to report them, promotes tyranny.
And that is only by part of what they admit to doing. The AP also publishes standards of the way things are expressed, including things like never referring to illegally present aliens as anything but “undocumented.” This is a blatant expression of ideological monopoly “reporting.” What they do not admit to is lying - libeling people and organizations which are significant to society.
One blatant example of this is George Zimmerman - a man whose prosecution was promoted by journalism. Including by the blatant procedure of broadcasting the famous recorded discussion between Zimmerman and the police, with an answer and then a question excised. The investigators into the death of Trayvon Martin found ample evidence to vindicate Zimmerman’s account, and journalism conspired in plain public view to have Zimmerman indicted and tried. The evidence presented at trial vindicated the initial decision not to recommend prosecution. And yet the fact that Mr. Zimmerman’s actions were legal can be expressed, as Thomas Sowell might say, only "anonymously or posthumously.”
Another example would be the Duke Lacrosse “rape” case, which was promoted long enough for a baby to be conceived and gestate to full term. Notwithstanding the fact that less than two weeks in it was pretty obvious that the defendants were being railroaded. As the defendants were ultimately vindicated.
Similarly, it is presently obvious that “anti-fascist” is currently a code for actual fascist behavior.
This sort of thing has been happening in America at least since the communists were being opposed by Whittaker Chambers and Senator Joe McCarthy, and probably before.
Is it actually possible that all that is not a tort which is actionable in court?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.