: Progressives use gays and minorities as ‘human shields to protect their own vulnerabilities’

Outspoken conservative author and frequent Blaze guest David Horowitz believes he has an answer for why Republicans lose elections: the race consciousness and prejudice in America sowed by progressives has created a “racial Teflon” that protects Democrats.

Horowitz asserts that while leftist policies damage the very minority constituencies — “human shields” as he puts it – on which their political coalition relies, the racial Teflon the left has developed by disparaging their opponents as racists and bigots insulates them from paying a political price for the disastrous consequences of their policies.

 his new book, “Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left,” Horowitz writes:

No one [neither John McCain or Mitt Romney] would confront [President] Obama the way he deserved to be confronted [for his various policy failures], because he is black. Actually, Obama is half-black, raised by whites and one Indonesian–but no matter, since racist liberals have made the color of a person’s skin decisive. Because Obama is a man “of color,” no political figure will hold him to the standard to which others are held or confront him with his failures. Every Republican consultant will advise that this can’t be done. That is how race conscious and prejudiced America has become under the influence of Progressive ideas…

When all is said and done…racial Teflon is the reason Republicans lose elections.

Share:

When all is said and done…racial Teflon is the reason Republicans lose elections. For what is true of Obama is true of the Democratic Party and progressives generally. They succeed in presenting themselves as the defenders of minorities, whom they use as human shields to protect their own vulnerabilities while they go on the offensive and portray their critics as racists. If conservatives are unable to repel and neutralize these squalid Democratic attacks, they can’t hold Democrats accountable. They can’t hold Obama accountable, and by extension they can’t hold any progressive accountable. Because this is how they fight.

The Left’s campaign narrative is always the same: We are the defenders of the underdog, the advocates of equality and fairness. If you attack us, you are really attacking minorities, women, children, and the poor. If you oppose us, you are racists–the people who supported segregation and lynching…Kathleen Sebelius…said exactly this about opponents of Obamacare, glossing over the fact that segregation, like slavery, was once a plank in the Democratic Party platform. [Link and emphasis Horowitz's]

But as the title of his book indicates, Horowitz has an action plan to counter this narrative:

Featured Book

Title: Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left

Author: David Horowitz

Purchase this book

Any effective counterstrategy to these Democratic offensives must take the form of an attack. The attack must expose the Democrats’ hypocrisy, tarring their character in the same way and to the same degree that current Democratic attacks taint conservatives’. It must pack the emotional wallop that will neutralize the assaults…

How can believers in individual rights and free markets expose this charade and repel the attacks? How can they neutralize the slanders and show that it is actually conservatives who defend opportunity and independence for minorities and the poor, for working Americans and the middle class? How can conservatives turn the tables on the Left? It’s not rocket science: Turn their guns around. Fight fire with fire.

Remind people that in the real world, progressives make the lives of poor and minority Americans worse–much worse. Shove this fact in their faces every time you open your mouth to speak. Here is the mantra: In every inner city, the selfish exploiters of the poor are Democrats, progressives, and so-called liberals, and they have been for fifty to a hundred years. Democrats fatten themselves on the votes of the poor while blocking their opportunities for a better life.

Echoing in many ways the arguments of Jason Riley’s “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make it Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (top quotes here and author interview here), Horowitz bolsters his argument by citing a number of examples of the negative effects of progressive policies, from the dramatic decline of Detroit, to pervasive black and Hispanic unemployment under Presient Obama, to the sacking of former Washington D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty, who fought to reform the city’s public schools with great effect — only to lose his seat in large part due to attacks from unions and others on the left.

Summarizing the argument that Horowitz believes needs to be put forth in order to turn the tide against the left, the author writes:

The winning strategy is this: Attack the Democrats and progressives for their war against minorities and the poor. Use the same morally infused language that they do. Expose their empty promises and their hypocrisy. Subvert their message by focusing relentlessly on their betrayal of the very people they pretend to support. In attacking Democrats as enemies of minorities and the poor, conservatives will show that they care what happens to minorities and the poor. This will put the Democrats on the defensive and neutralize their malicious attacks…

The winning strategy is this: Attack the Democrats…for their war against minorities and the poor

Share:

Going negative is important…But people also need hope, and they are looking for change…the positives should highlight the negatives. Positive proposals should spotlight the way progressive policies specifically hurt minorities, working Americans, and the poor…

Even if [initial reform campaigns don't] win on the first or second offering, it will still change the perceptions of everyone in politics. Conservatives will no longer be seen as defenders of the rich but as defenders of principles and policies that benefit minorities and the poor, along with everyone else. And progressives will be seen as oppressors. If campaigns like this are conducted correctly, they will change not only the way conservatives frame their message but the political landscape and the prospects for the nation’s future.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/07/30/conservative-author-horowitz-progressives-use-minorities-as-human-shields-to-protect-their-own-vulnerabilities/

Atheist Richard Dawkins’ Controversial Tweets About ‘Date Rape’, ‘Stranger Rape’ and ‘Violent Pedophilia’ Spark Angry Reactions

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is once again under fire, this time for his recent tweets about “date rape,” “stranger rape,” “mild pedophilia” and “violent pedophilia.”

Dawkins, 73, a prominent atheist who is no stranger to controversy, was attempting to make a point about logical thinking when he relied on some contentious examples to illustrate his point,according to the Daily Mail.

After a series of tweets about the Israel-Hamas conflict — during which he wrote, “It is reasonable to deplore both the original founding of the Jewish State of Israel & aspirations now to destroy it” — Dawkins began diving into his take on logic and reason.

X is bad. Y is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of X, go away and don’t come back until you’ve learned how to think logically,” he wrote.

But it’s what came next that sparked intense controversy.

Dawkins added: “Mild pedophilia is bad. Violent pedophilia is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of mild pedophilia, go away and learn how to think.”

And if that weren’t controversial enough, he added: “Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.”

The atheist leader followed these messages up by defending himself, adding that just because one admits that one crime is worse than another doesn’t mean that he or she is endorses either offense.

In an effort to further explain his illustrations Tuesday, Dawkins wrote, “Mild date rape is bad. Violent date rape is worse.” Is it really so hard to understand that that doesn’t constitute endorsement of either?” and penned a blog post about the angry responses he received.

Despite his best efforts to explain what he meant, Dawkins drew the ire of advocates who felt he was being incredibly insensitive. Take, for instance, Peter Saunders, chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, who skewered the famed atheist in an interview with the Daily Mail.

“What staggers me is that for such a self-proclaimed intelligent man to even talk in these terms is to completely miss the point,” Saunders said. “There is no such thing as mild or serious pedophilia. There is child abuse, and the consequence for the victim is that they can be scarred for life.”

And Saunders wasn’t alone. Here are just some of the social media responses Dawkins received to his tweets:

t should be noted that some people came to Dawkins’ defense, noting that they understood what he was saying.

“These people are missing the point. Bail out now and let them let off steam,” wrote Twitter user MrMRP.

This is hardly the first time the famed scientist has come under fire for uttering contentious messages, as we’ve reported in the past.

In fact, past statements about “mild pedophilia” landed him in hot water back in 2013.

What do you think? Let us know below.

(H/T: Daily Mail)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/30/ignorant-obvious-bullst-strong-reactions-to-atheist-richard-dawkins-tweets-about-date-rape-stranger-rape-and-violent-pedophilia/

5 Obvious Principles of Human Nature That Baffle Liberals

for granted. You’d think they would have picked something up from the death throes of the Soviet Union, Greece, or Detroit, but as Talleyrand might say, “They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.” Whether that’s some sort of genetic defect liberals are born with, ignorance, or just willful blindness is hard to say, but the results are the same in any case. Since it’s easier for light to escape a black hole than it is for a liberal to entertain a new thought, it’s probably hopeless to try to make them aware of what they’re missing. However, if you’re aware of the mistakes they habitually make, you may at least be able to keep more open-minded people from following them over a cliff.

1) People respond to incentives: This isn’t just Humanity 101; it’s Life On Earth 101. Want to teach a dog a trick? Get him to do the trick and then pet him on the head and give him a treat. Repeat it enough times and you can get the dog to sit, roll over, and give a high-five on command.

You don’t give human beings Milkbones and belly-rubs, but the same basic principle applies. People who are getting unemployment benefits are less motivated to look for jobs. If you welcome illegal immigrants today, more are likely to come tomorrow. If you raise taxes and people get to keep less of the money they earned, some of them will respond by earning less because it’s no longer worth their time.

Trying to explain this concept to liberals makes them flail their arms in the air and scream, “That does not compute,” like Robby the Robot from Lost in Space. Really, liberals, pointing out that your actions have consequences isn’t some kind of trick. We promise!

2) Personal responsibility is good for people: The easiest way to foul anything up is to put someone in charge of it who won’t pay any price if it goes wrong. That’s one of the many reasons children are so hopelessly incompetent compared to adults. They’re not earning money, they’re don’t have any big responsibilities on their shoulders, and if things go wrong, Mommy and Daddy are at fault because they were in charge!

Speaking of people who think like little children, liberals don’t grasp this. They don’t realize it’s bad for people to have someone else making the decisions about their kids’ education, their retirement, and their health care and it’s even worse that the government officials that take those decisions away from people are usually given a free pass when they screw-up.

The only way most “trust fund babies” make it is because they have enough money to make up for their lack of responsibility. So, what happens after liberals create a nation full of “trust fund babies” and then fritter away all the money in the trust fund?

3) Human beings are not angels: As James Madison said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Yes, people will come to this country specifically to get welfare and food stamps. Yes, people will commit voter fraud. Yes, there are an awful lot of poor people who DESERVE to be poor because they’re lazy, waste their money, or keep popping out kids by different daddies. Yes, there are just bad people out there who will murder you for no other crime than being American, Jewish, or even just “not Muslim.”

It would be bad enough if liberals merely failed to take account of these people because other human beings will learn from their example. If one person is allowed to get ahead by cheating the system, other people will follow his lead and eventually even “good” people may decide they’d be fools not to do the same thing. But worse yet, because liberals are so stunningly naïve, they make every excuse in the book for people whose behavior should not be excused. Wherever there is a devil doing evil, somewhere you will also find a liberal championing his behavior and telling the world he’s an angel.

4) Nobody cares as much about other people as they do for themselves: The modern Left’s intellectual forefathers in the Soviet Union never could wrap their heads around this one. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” may sound nice in theory, but in principle it can never work because of the ugly truth about human nature.

As a human being, you may wish the fine folks in Equatorial Guinea well. If there’s a persuasive commercial on TV, you may even be willing to send them a few bucks to help with whatever problems they have. But, are you willing to dedicate your life to helping them the way you’d help your own child? Are you going to feel the pain in your wallet for 18 years to save up and send someone you’ve never met to college? Can somebody you’ve never heard of from Equatorial Guinea call you up tomorrow and ask you to take money out of your savings to fix his truck? No, because you don’t know him and so, you don’t care about him.

Liberals incessantly design policies that assume you do care about taking care of random people as much as you care about taking care of your friends and family. Their little secret is that liberals don’t care either. It’s just that there is no bottom to how much financial pain liberals are willing to inflict on others so they can pretend to be compassionate with the money they confiscate from them. 

5) Men and women are different: Rather famously, Time Magazine did a cover story in 1992 called, “Why are men and women different? It isn’t just upbringing. New studies show they are born that way.” Congrats to the liberal who finally figured something out in 1992 that cavemen who didn’t know how to make fire already grasped instinctively.

Of course, they STILL don’t get it. If anything, liberals seem to be going backward from the perfectly ridiculous idea that gender is a “social construct” to, “You can be whatever gender you feel like, whenever you feel like it.”

The angry man-hating feminists who do realize what gender they are aren’t much better. On the one hand, they say women can do anything a man can do – except buy birth control, apparently. Sadly, that’s pretty typical of the schizophrenic approach of modern liberal feminism. Women are tough and strong, but they feel sexually harassed if some guy has a swimsuit calendar on his wall. Women are just as capable of being cops and soldiers as men, but reduce the standards so they can qualify. Women should make just as much as men, but they should also have a lot more time off so they can spend time with the kids.

It’s fine that women tend to be more interested in shoes, cabinets, and making babies smile while men tend to be more inclined towards sports, cars, and Ninjamovies. Masculine men and feminine woman fit together like puzzle pieces and trying to jam us all into one androgynous jumble for the sake of liberal ideology isn’t doing anyone any favors.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/07/29/5-obvious-principles-of-human-nature-that-baffle-liberals-n1871247/page/full

Charles Darwin, Woodrow Wilson, and the Evolving Constitution.

I was speaking to Dr. Gary North Friday morning about the talk he gave at the Mises University, the annual week-long training program for undergraduates, which is sponsored by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Judge Andrew Napolitano was there as well. He “was presenting a week-long series of lectures on the Constitution and the free market.”

Dr. North had a chance to speak with Judge Napolitano about some unknown history about President Woodrow Wilson.

This unknown history, a field of study that Dr. North is famous for uncovering, has a great deal of importance for where we are constitutionally and ethically today. I won’t rehearse all of what Dr. North told me. You can read the full story at GaryNorth.com.

There was a part of the story that I found fascinating. It explains a lot of what’s taking place today. We think the battle over the scientific theory of evolution is all about science. It’s not. Woodrow Wilson, a dyed-in-the wool Progressive, saw the full-orbed expression of evolution and how it should impact the Constitution.

__________________________________

“In Wilson's book, Constitutional Government (1908), he came out in favor of implementing a Darwinian view of evolution to civil government.

*****

“Constitutional Government praised the presidency as the central political office: head of the party. This was a self-conscious break from the Constitution's view of the office. The Constitution does not mention political parties, and the Framers had hated political factions in 1787. Wilson, having switched to Progressivism, had to undermine this older political faith. He turned to Darwin as the solution.

“The framers had been Whigs because they had been Newtonians, he correctly argued. This Newtonian Whig worldview is incorrect, he insisted, and so is the Constitutional order that assumes it. ‘The government of the United States was constructed upon the Whig theory of political dynamics, which was a sort of unconscious copy of the Newtonian theory of the universe. In our own day, whenever we discuss the structure or development of anything, whether in nature or in society, we consciously or unconsciously follow Mr. Darwin; but before Mr. Darwin, they followed Newton.

Some single law, like the law of gravitation, swung each system of thought and gave it its principle of unity’ (pp. 54-55). The checks and balances built into the Federal government by the Constitution are now a hindrance to effective political action, he said. This language of balances reflects mechanism. We need to overcome this mechanical way of thinking, Wilson wrote.

“The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks, and live. On the contrary, its life is dependent upon their quick cooperation, their ready response to the commands of instinct or intelligence, their amicable community of purpose. Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with highly differentiated functions, no doubt, in our modern day of specialization, but with a common task and purpose. Their cooperation is indispensable, their warfare fatal. There can be no successful government without leadership or without the intimate, almost instinctive, coordination of the organs of life and action” (pp. 56-57).

__________________________________

Does any of this sound familiar? The Constitution is a “living, evolving document” to be directed in its evolutionary development by leaders who believe that government is the divine force for change.

So the next time you hear someone talk about how the Constitution is a living document, think of Woodrow Wilson, but more specifically, think of Charles Darwin.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/16428/charles-darwin-woodrow-wilson-evolving-constitution/#fSRZl4QDiTTc554j.99

Progessives' Proudly Exploit Black Pain, Crave Moral Superiority By Using Term "Apartheid State"

Apartheid in South Africa - the systematic, institutionalized racism that berated, belittled and exploited the black population - was horrific. It told black people that they are less than human. It insulted their very existence. It is an evil concept that has no place in any society. So why are so many progressives willing to dismiss the hate perpetrated on blacks, and use the term improperly to gain themselves a cheap political advantage?

Progressives use the term "apartheid state" to make themselves look good when castigating others; they willfully and gleefully misrepresent history, and mock those who suffered through a lifetime of being placed as second-class citizens. "No worries," says the Progressive. "As long as I attacked some Republicans. Besides, my friends think I'm super cool and super caring."

As Israel continues to defend itself against thousands of missle strikes thus far (if it weren't for the Iron Dome, there would be many more dead Israelis. And, it has been pointed out, one day the Iron Dome will run out of missiles itself,) protests are taking place around the world to call out the treatment of those in Gaza.

At an anti-Israel rally in San Francisco, self-described Palestinian-American (really?) Reem Salem stated, ""We will stop the racism and apartheid state of Israel, we will not stop. And we will continue to come out and have our voices heard,"

Nevermind the confusion of the stopping and the not stopping and if either will happen. Calling Israel an apartheid state is the norm.

From the Times of Israel, reporting on anti-Israel protests in London:

 Meanwhile, in London, tens of thousands took part in a march from British Prime Minister David Cameron’s office to the Israeli embassy, carrying placards reading “Stop the bombing, free Palestine”, “Stop Israeli state terror, join the socialists” and “End Israeli apartheid,” while also chanting slogans, such as “Israel is a terrorist state,” and calling for a Palestinian state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

Secretary of State John Kerry referred to Israel as an apartheid state, saying, "A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state,"

Secretary Kerry later apologized for those remarks, and challenged anyone who challenged him on his commitment to Israel to a rousing game of Toss The Medals. (The trick is, you never actually throw them, but everyone thinks you're super cool. Then, you milk that for all its worth and marry a billionaire!)

Calling Israel an apartheid state is to admit a total ignorance of history and an open desire to further insult black people world wide. Israel has no second class citizens. 12 members of the Israeli government are Arab. Arab women can vote (let's try that in Syria, shall we?)

Israeli law provides for religious freedom; 20% of the population is non-Jewish. As Alan Dershowitz once commented, "For the first time in Mideast history, there is an independent judiciary willing to listen to grievances of Arabs-that judiciary is called the Israeli Supreme Court."

In 1997, The New York Times ran a story about the torture of black men during South Africa apartheid. A low level officer, Jeffery Benzien, as his job, tortured people daily. In his own words, speaking about a man who was once a victim of the torture, ''If I say to Mr. Jacobs I put the electrodes on his nose I may be wrong,'' he testified. ''If I say I attached them to his genitals, I may be wrong. If I say I put a probe in his rectum, I may be wrong. I could have used any one of those methods.''

The right to vote vs. one torture victim asking Benzien, ''Do you remember saying that you are going to break my nose and then putting both your thumbs into my nostrils and pulling it until the blood came out of my nose?'' Israel is not an apartheid state.

Yet, the shameful use of the word apartheid state continues. However, it is not just when anti-Semites and anti-black bigots use it indiscriminately for their twisted means to attack Israel.

The Netroots Nation conference - a yearly convention for progressives and other left of center types - announced that the next event would take place in Arizona in 2015. Markos Moulitsas, who founded the Netroots convention when it was called The Yearly Kos, announced that his organization will not be attending and will not financially support the event.

Why? Because, according to Moulitsas, Arizona is an apartheid state for passing SB 1070; the Arizona law that allowed law enforcement, when engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest, to ask whether or not the person being stopped was in the country legally.

On his site, Moulitsas stated: (emphasis mine)

Netroots Nation announced two days ago that Phoenix, Arizona would host its 2015 conference. I wish the conference the best, but it will unfortunately take place without Daily Kos' attendance or assistance.

I made very clear in the wake of Arizona's passage of SB 1070 that I would not be setting foot in the state, nor spending a dime in it until the law was revoked. The law, however gutted...remains on the books, as does systemic harassment of Latinos...

I've heard...arguments for picking Arizona:

We're taking the fight to the enemy I doubt the conference would decide to host the event in, say, Apartheid South Africa, in order to "take the fight to the enemy". If you think that analogy is absurd, it is, but only in terms of degree, not intent in the county that has consistently elected Sheriff Joe Arpaio since 1992.

Latinos deserve that same kind of respect.

In the eyes of Moulitsas, those engaged in a lawful stop by the police and classifying people based on their skin color, preventing them from getting jobs, forcing them to carry documents (when they were already citizens!) and limiting their involvement in the government that was systematically subjugating and enslaving them is the same thing.

When making the sick comparison of Arizona to an apartheid state, Moulitsas is creating moral equivocation between being forcibly removed from your house and having your land sold to white landowners without remuneration, and being asked a question in Tucson.

Apartheid is evil. It should never see the light of day in any society. Yet, amazingly, using apartheid to score political points is worse. It's an insult to every black person the world over. Progressives, by their own words, find it acceptable to minimize the painful history of black people for their own gain. They found a way to make evil worse.

http://townhall.com/columnists/tonykatz/2014/07/25/progessives-proudly-exploit-black-pain-crave-moral-superiority-by-using-term-apartheid-state-n1865576/page/full

Mark Armitage Scientist California State University Fired for Discovering Something and Publishing What He Discovered,, his analysis was questioning the science behind evolution,

The Pacific Justice Institute reports the following: “A scientist was terminated from his job at a California State University after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil, and then publishing his findings. . . . While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”

The Pacific Justice Institute is suing CSUN for religious discrimination. If Armitage, a published scientist for more 30 years whose micrographs have appeared on the covers of eleven scientific journals, was only making religious claims, that’s one thing, but if his analysis was questioning the science behind evolution, well, that’s what’s science is all about.

Armitage’s problem is that he is critical of the entire Darwinian paradigm. It’s one thing to question bits and pieces of evolutionary science; it’s another thing to call the entire scheme into question. There are evolutionary scientists who admit that some of evolutionary science is very week, but they remain evolutionists. That’s acceptable to the guild.

Scientists claim that they are all about the facts. No matter what the facts, as scientists, they must go where the facts take them. This is not always the case.

“Facts do not come with interpretation tags, telling us how to view them. . . . Both sides haggle over the facts. Both sides search for new facts to add to their arsenals. Both sides raise accusations, yet it’s a rare day indeed when both sides acknowledge that their differences stem from something much more basic than facts. Their differences are rooted in opposing worldviews, which in turn are permeated with philosophical assumptions and commitments.”[1]

Armitage’s peer review article is not the first soft tissue discovery that casts doubt on the time table of evolutionary history.

In 2004, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, from North Carolina State University, caused a stir when she found “soft tissue” in a “fossilized dinosaur skeleton.” It’s a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T.rex walked what’s now Hell Creek Mountain in Montana.”[2]

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/16394/scientist-fired-discovering-something-publishing-discovered/#1ErPDgyH5w62otEY.99

The Liberal Alphabet Of Racism: THE LETTER ‘D

And here are 7 things beginning with the letter ‘D’ that somebody, somewhere A Liberal has deemed racist.

The death penalty and white people who support it are racist, according to Slate. A long time ago, white people used the death penalty as a tool of racial control, the piece explains, and more white than black people support capital punishment today. Therefore if you support the death penalty and you’re white, you’re racist. Because absolutely nothing has changed since the Civil War or even the Civil Rights movement.

When Manuel Sykes, a black preacher running for Congress in Florida, was told in a blunt voicemail his 2014 run would not be supported by the Democratic Party, he saw racism. “Well, what they’re saying is, ‘Stay in your place,” he explained in a May interview. ”It’s OK to run for local elections, state elections, but you’re not going to represent us in Washington. … We want your vote but the rest you stay out of.’”

A&E’s hit reality TV series “Duck Dynasty,” which is a show about a loving family who makes duck calls for a living, isn’t just racist, it’s apparently an agent of white supremacy. In a discussion last December about a growing “us versus them culture” in the U.S., MSNBC’s Michael Eric Dyson said Phil Robertson and the Duck Dynasty “is part of a majority white supremacist culture that either consciously or unconsciously incubates hatred toward those who are different.”

Some dogs are apparently racist, although they are not born that way, unlike white people. Animal Behaviorist Crista L. Coppola explains: ”Dogs are not born racist. Some will however be reactive towards a certain ‘look’ of people if they were not socialized properly to that ‘look’ when they were pups and/or they have a bad experience with people that ‘look’ a certain way…”

Tags: Racism

Next Page

'Dumbo,' Descartes and the democratic process >>

Lots of Disney movies are racist, and “Dumbo” is one of them, according to this important listicle. In probably one of many offending scenes, faceless black men pitch a circus tent and sing a happy song with these lyrics: “We slave until we’re almost dead / We’re happy-hearted roustabouts” and “Keep on working / Stop that shirking / Pull that rope, you hairy ape.”

The democratic process is a tool of racism, according to former Colorado Senator Angela Giron. When thousands of citizens angry about her votes to restrict their Second Amendment rights gathered enough votes to hold a recall election, she played the race card. “I know it’s partially about me being a Latina and being in this position of authority,” she said, before being ousted from office in the 2013 recall election.

Racism began in part with renowned philosopher Descartes making the statement “I think, therefore I am,” according to Berkeley Law professor John A. Powell. At a White Privilege conference in May, he explained it this way:

“So whiteness, actually, is very tied to our modern sense of self. And this was part of what’s called the ‘Enlightenment project.’ So that project, which goes back to people like Descartes — remember Descartes, where he says, ‘I think, therefore I am’? So he had the separation of mind and body. He had the separation of the mind, rational mind, from nature. So this radical individual that perceives himself — and it largely was a him — as being isolated from each other, isolated from nature, hostile to nature in a scary world, was also a white self. So the expression of the self, the modern self, is actually racialized.”

As you can see the details are murky, but the important point is that Descartes was part of the Enlightenment, which is responsible for our radicalized identities, which is responsible for racism.

(h/t Everything is racism)

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/20/the-daily-caller-presents-the-alphabet-of-racism-the-letter-d/2/#ixzz38E9rFM8o