From: tripletask on
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:05:30 -0400, tripletask(a)gmail..com wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:20:41 -0400, tripletask(a)gmail..com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:16:56 -0400, tripletask(a)gmail..com wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:08:00 -0700 (PDT), "f. barnes"
>>><fredlb(a)centurytel.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/hello_im_a_racist_pleased_to_m.html
>>>>
>>>>[Everyone who has ever been called a racist by the left should read
>>>>this. That is, all white conservatives should read this. Free
>>>>yourself!]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>By Selwyn Duke
>>>>
>>>>There is such a thing as a conditioned response. Here's an example:
>>>>Leftists call conservatives "racists." Conservatives cower and stutter
>>>>some defense. Leftists call conservatives "racists" some more.
>>>>Conservatives cower some more. Question: How do you think you break
>>>>this pattern?
>>>>
>>>>We've seen this again with the recent vitriol spewed by NAACP head Ben
>>>>Jealous (a fitting last name). Speaking at the NAACP convention in
>>>>Kansas City, Jealous accused the Tea Party of, take a guess...cue the
>>>>"Jeopardy!" music..."racism." Just as predictably, many conservatives
>>>>are running around trying to convince everyone that, by gum, they
>>>>really are swell guys. No, really. I'm not a racist. I don't beat my
>>>>wife. I don't kick my dog. I eat my organic vegetables and drive a
>>>>Prius.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Look, why don't we just save everyone the trouble? Every time a
>>>>conservative renders an opinion, we can just play a recording with a
>>>>little weaselly voice screeching, "You're a wacist! You're a
>>>>wacist!" (Barney Frank-style) followed by a music video featuring The
>>>>Cowering Conservative -- I mean 1950s-style, duck-and-cover footage,
>>>>with the tune and all.
>>>>
>>>>And such conservatives abound. Oh, don't get me wrong, conservative
>>>>brethren, I love ya, man. But frankly, too many of you are saps. You
>>>>really don't get it. People who advocated welfare reform in the 1990s
>>>>were accused of being "racist." If you're for border control, you're
>>>>"racist." If you criticize Obama, you're "racist." If you oppose
>>>>quotas, you're "racist." If you say that, be it nature or nurture,
>>>>there are differences among groups, you're "racist." If you want
>>>>English to be the national language, you're "racist." The word has
>>>>become meaningless, used only to stifle and stigmatize opposition. And
>>>>if calling you a heretic worked in that regard, the left would do
>>>>that. And if calling you a Fig Newton worked, they would do that.
>>>>
>>>>Nevertheless, the ploy prevents sap conservatives from speaking -- and
>>>>even conceiving of -- certain truths. They won't say that so-called
>>>>racial profiling is just part of proper profiling, they pay lip
>>>>service to the relativistic idea that all cultures are morally equal,
>>>>they refuse to call bigoted blacks such as Obama and Eric Holder out
>>>>on their bigotry, they tolerate double standards with respect to hate
>>>>crime-law application and racial jokes, and they let whites persecuted
>>>>for making innocent comments twist in the wind. They won't speak
>>>>unfashionable truths for fear of becoming unfashionable people. Well,
>>>>all I can say is that if the Truth can be "racist," then hello, I'm a
>>>>"racist." Pleased to meet you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And this gets at a deeper point. On the "O'Reilly Factor" recently,
>>>>Bill O'Reilly was discussing the Jealous situation with Professor Marc
>>>>Lamont Hill. The good professor, in so many words, put forth the
>>>>leftist definition stating that only whites can be "racist" because
>>>>being so requires one to have "institutional power." OK, whatever. I
>>>>accept the definition. Really, I do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I just reject the word.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What I mean is, I've long warned against using the Lexicon of the
>>>>Left. "Racism" is a term as stupid as "ageism," only we're inured to
>>>>it. We forget that "ism" refers to a doctrine, system, or theory. So
>>>>is the leftist definition really so ridiculous? What's more ridiculous
>>>>is that we actually use their chosen term. This is why I prefer using
>>>>what simply refers to attitude -- "bigotry" -- as in Barack Obama is a
>>>>bigot, Eric Holder is a bigot, and Ben Jealous is a bigot. As for
>>>>"racism," it was originated by the left. So leave it to them. They can
>>>>define it. They can whine it. And if they ask me, I'll tell them where
>>>>they can stick it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The point is that you can't prove you're not a "racist" to the left,
>>>>because they'll just define "racist" as being whatever you are. In
>>>>fact, sap conservatives, understand something: You're not going to
>>>>"prove" anything to the NAACP. You're not going to prove anything to
>>>>the mainstream media. You're not going to prove anything to any dyed-
>>>>in-the-fool liberal. They are enemies. And enemies aren't interested
>>>>in proof; they're interested in propaganda.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So cultivate the right warrior attitude. Look at it like this: If you
>>>>were engaging in a cold war against the Nazis in 1938, would you bend
>>>>over backwards to "prove" to them that their propaganda about you was
>>>>invalid? Of course not! They know it's invalid -- that's the nature of
>>>>propaganda. And it's designed to invalidate you. And you don't respond
>>>>to enemies with defensiveness and measured responses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You propagandize against them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Now, this doesn't mean you have to lie. Note that while "propaganda"
>>>>generally has a negative connotation today, it doesn't denote
>>>>dishonesty. It is simply, informs The Free Dictionary, "the organized
>>>>dissemination of information, allegations, etc., to assist or damage
>>>>the cause of a government, movement, etc." And to damage leftists'
>>>>cause, all we need do is tell the truth about them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So what this does mean is that you have to stop being "conservative"
>>>>and start being bold. The only consistent political definition of
>>>>"conservative" is one who desires to maintain the status quo. Well,
>>>>maintenance men are seldom warriors. Conservatives too often take a
>>>>conservative approach, being cautious while their enemies are callous.
>>>>They too often bring a rhetorical knife to a rhetorical gunfight. They
>>>>too often act like losers -- and lose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am not saying that we should stop making reasoned arguments, but
>>>>those are for the reasonable (those who can be swayed). They are
>>>>wholly inappropriate for unreasonable charges from dishonorable
>>>>children. Enemies bent on your destruction don't want compromise; they
>>>>won't yield to reason. They are to be fought and, God willing,
>>>>defeated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This means that when a Congressman Joe Wilson shouts "You lie!" at
>>>>Barack Obama, you respond, "Representative Wilson was wrong. Obama
>>>>lies a lot." It means that when the left bristles at a satirical
>>>>letter to Lincoln, you understand that bold, fresh pieces of insanity
>>>>will always hate satire. And, personally, do I really care that some
>>>>Tea Party folks juxtaposed Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler on a
>>>>billboard? Not really. I'm just not that concerned about Mr. Hitler's
>>>>reputation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And what of civility? Be wary. When the left is civil -- or calls for
>>>>civility -- it's usually a ruse. It's simply the tactic that best
>>>>helps them achieve their aims at the moment. Here's how it works:
>>>>Leftists lie through their teeth, and then, when you respond with
>>>>righteous indignation, they pout like little girls, saying, "You're
>>>>mean! You're intolerant! What happened to civility? [Translation: You
>>>>called our lies lies! How dare you?]" Understand that the effect here
>>>>is to stop sap conservatives from calling lies lies, thus allowing the
>>>>left to use its greatest weapon with impunity. Also understand that
>>>>the worst form of impoliteness is insincerity in discourse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And understand something else: Leftists are cowards. They are
>>>>creatures of the pack, finding their strength only in numbers. After
>>>>all, what do you think being politically correct is all about? It
>>>>means doing what's fashionable in our time, what makes you popular. A
>>>>man who believes in Truth, such as Thomas More, will die for his
>>>>principles, alone, twisting in the wind. A liberal goes the way the
>>>>wind blows and will die for nothing. Stand up to leftists en masse,
>>>>and they'll fold like a tent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So free yourself. Laugh at the "racism" shtick. Make it a badge of
>>>>honor. Call leftists what they are: cowards, bigots, liars,
>>>>demagogues, and worst of all by far, enemies of Truth. Fight fire with
>>>>fire. Remember, millions of good Americans are sick and tired of
>>>>political correctness and will stand with you. So just say to our
>>>>leftist legal aliens: If you like name-calling and you want to fight,
>>>>OK. I'm a racist, sexist homophobe, and I'm in your face. What's it to
>>>>ya?
>>>
>>>
>>>Fine post! Stick with your tribe as "racism" is inherent. Even babies
>>>in
>>>cribs flinch when shown pictures of black babies. (Interesting study
>>>from a couple of years ago)
>>
>>FYI
>
>"Racism", totally overworked hence becoming meaningless.
>
>p.s. It's o.k. to be White.

Long but contains many useful tidbits and countermoves. This charging
of "racism" should just be ignored. It you prefer the company of your
own kind that is your business.

http://www.vdare.com/ V-dAre
From: Road Glidin' Don on
On Jul 24, 2:50 pm, BryanUT <nestl...(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> Remember USENET is dieing, albeit slowly.

Yes, there's no doubt about that. And to top it off, as it does, it
gets less attractive. One of the symptoms seems to be, as newsgroups
thin out, fewer ones have sufficient traffic to satiate the attention-
seeking needs of racist spammers, so they get more concentrated in the
groups that are left (until people gradually leave them in disgust as
well).

From: The Older Gentleman on
Road Glidin' Don <d.langkd(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 24, 2:50 pm, BryanUT <nestl...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Remember USENET is dieing, albeit slowly.
>
> Yes, there's no doubt about that. And to top it off, as it does, it
> gets less attractive. One of the symptoms seems to be, as newsgroups
> thin out, fewer ones have sufficient traffic to satiate the attention-
> seeking needs of racist spammers, so they get more concentrated in the
> groups that are left (until people gradually leave them in disgust as
> well).

I don't see what the problem is. If you have a newsreader, you have a
killfile. You use it.

K/f the usual racist twonks, the conspiracy theorists, anything that's
x-posted to more than a couple of groups, and life goes on.

Or just ignore them. Drain Man only goes banging on about his lunatic
theory because people *keep* replying to him, for example.

--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Triumph Street Triple Honda CB400F
Suzuki TS250 Suzuki GN250 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom
Nothing damages a machine more than an ignoramus with a manual, a
can-do attitude and a set of cheap tools
From: Road Glidin' Don on
On Jul 24, 3:07 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:
> Road Glidin' Don <d.lan...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 24, 2:50 pm, BryanUT <nestl...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Remember USENET is dieing, albeit slowly.
>
> > Yes, there's no doubt about that.  And to top it off, as it does, it
> > gets less attractive.  One of the symptoms seems to be, as newsgroups
> > thin out, fewer ones have sufficient traffic to satiate the attention-
> > seeking needs of racist spammers, so they get more concentrated in the
> > groups that are left (until people gradually leave them in disgust as
> > well).
>
> I don't see what the problem is. If you have a newsreader, you have a
> killfile. You use it.
>
> K/f the usual racist twonks, the conspiracy theorists, anything that's
> x-posted to more than a couple of groups, and life goes on.
>
> Or just ignore them. Drain Man only goes banging on about his lunatic
> theory because people *keep* replying to him, for example.

Since ISPs began dropping free access to news servers (another symptom
of usenet's demise), I switched to Google Groups, which doesn't
support filtering.

I'll just use usenet less, is all. There's plenty other things to do
anyway.


From: The Older Gentleman on
Road Glidin' Don <d.langkd(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Since ISPs began dropping free access to news servers (another symptom
> of usenet's demise),

That's odd, because ours don't. Isn't this something to do with your
lords & masters worrying about paedos in Usenet? I'm sure I read
something like that.

> I switched to Google Groups, which doesn't
> support filtering.
>
> I'll just use usenet less, is all. There's plenty other things to do
> anyway.

Hoh yes.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Triumph Street Triple Honda CB400F
Suzuki TS250 Suzuki GN250 chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom
Nothing damages a machine more than an ignoramus with a manual, a
can-do attitude and a set of cheap tools