Column: Larry Elder is the Black face of white supremacy.

Post Reply New Topic

I can see it, I just think he's reacting more to having crazily enhanced perception than to having a communications disorder, but then again I've never really hewed to the emotionless automaton archetype of autistic people. Like I said, I do think his miscalculations regarding his emotions are relatable, certainly when it comes to women...

I'm aware of all that, to Goldwater's credit. Just the same, there was no way in Hell any of those states would vote for equality of the races, and I think he knew that. What he never grasped is, the federal government has a responsibility to defend the civil rights of all Americans promised in the constitution. Even when that involves going against the sovereignty of the states. And for all his personal respect for civil rights, I have to think he understood that the political wind was shifting, with the increasingly liberal Democrats endorsing racial equality, while his own Republican party was drifting away from the very reason why the party came into existence.

Response to MOM's Post

Rules for Radicals is a book by Saul Alinski who was Hillary Clinton's mentor at one point. It is essentially a guide book for the left wing radicals of the 60's. Today it is the play book of the DNC. You ought to read it as it is very enlightening to how the DC/Media complex works.

I agree. Racism is a bad thing and something that I wish did not exist.

Is Trump a racist?
I see no evidence of this. What you hear in the media about Trump is rhetoric not facts. They call him a racist for wanting to close the border. Every country must have control over its borders or it won't survive as a country for long. Its not about hating everyone else, but about protecting one's own country. The US has an immigration system that while not perfect does the job of vetting those who want to come here. Anyway it isn't that those trying to get into the country are less than human. It is that our government has an obligation to protect and to serve US citizens first. The US can't fix everything for everybody from all over the world. It is a harsh reality but it is true.
As for myself I completely reject the concept of "Dog Whistles". I have been a conservative for over 30 years and there is no secret lexicon of code words meant to rial us up into a racist frenzy. This is just a media created idea. If any conservative didn't say something that they can spin into a racist/sexist/homophobic statement they claim that something innocuous was a "Dog Whistle" . This is just a rhetorical trick. Don't fall for it.
In fact take everything the Media says with a grain of salt. (CNN, MSN, FOX ABCBSNBC ect) They all have an agenda. Their boss's have an agenda.
I don't think there are many real racists left today. Although many Progressives tend to overcompensate so as to want to appear "not racist" and end up pandering or virtue signaling. These people also tend to go on witch hunts for racists which they assume are around every corner. This too is a form of virtue signaling. I personally think that looking for this racist enemy to fight may be what gives them a sense of meaning in life.

As for your question; "Do you want to be part of the solution of ending racism or not?" There is a lot to unpack there. I personally believe that all human beings are created in the image of God and deserve love and to be treated with respect and dignity.
One can only control themselves though. I do not see myself as a racist and I think we may have differing views on what is and is not "racist".
"Racist Words" I'm assuming that you are referring to racial/ethnic slurs. I don't use them as I think they are disrespectful and hurtful.
"Policy difference that could be racist"? I'm assuming you are talking about immigration and I had addressed that above. My personal policy I have also addressed above.
I don't believe that the majority of the American people are racist, nor is the government. However the government (and both political parties ) does exploit minorities for votes while claiming to be compassionate. Government is not an agent of compassion. It is only concerned about wealth and power. The fact that the government can get away with this is a moral failure of the American people.
Do POC's feel racism daily? That is an interesting question.
I remember being bodily thrown from the unofficial "Black Only" restroom on my 1st ship in the Navy. Was this racism? Was it just a bunch of jerks? I didn't hold every black person in the world accountable for it. Even in a non-racist country the experience of being a white, black, brown, yellow or red person is going to be different. Perceptions will be different. The problem is when any and all inequity is pointed to as an indication of racism. Individuals and groups tend to value different things and tend to arrive at different places in life, But to point to this as the result of racism is very inaccurate and foolish.

This has given rise to an entire industry of stoking racial animosity among people and convincing POCs that they are victims of "The System". This is usually done under the guise of education but is really about making money and stoking animosity among people.

Are black conservatives such as Mr. Elder, Dr Thomas Sowell or Candace Owens just too stupid to know how oppressed they are? Or do they just refuse to buy into the current popular cultural narrative? What makes them different?

In conclusion, No, I don't see myself as a racist or a bigot. I also refuse to look down on my fellow man regardless of his race. I will not condessend to him as "less than" like is so popular nowadays.
I also realize that I can only control my self I cannot demand every one else be or believe like me. This is the problem I have with progressives they think that they can somehow legislate equity, morality and outcomes. We are human beings not robots.

^^^ @Mr Reynholm, thank you for the taking the time to give such a thorough reply. I don’t know if I’ll find the time to provide a thoughtful or potentially useful reply, but I do appreciate having the opportunity to understand better where you come from.

Whether he is one is irrelevant. What is evident is his use of "race baiting" which nobody disputes.

You are beginning to remind me of an ex-WP member who used strange obscure examples to support his theories

There's a lot of "unofficial" stuff that happens in the police force, army and in prison. I wouldn't use this as your pivot to make racism some type of illusion on the part of black people.

Based on how I read and understood Mr Reynholm's post, I think he does dispute the whole concept of race baiting.

I'm going to have to see if I can remember better examples than have already been used. But I have to admit that what you and I see as race baiting isn't always obvious enough for us to assume everyone else is going to see it the same way. Trump was a master at planting thoughts and ideas without actually saying them out loud (think the Ukrainian phone call, which everyone on the line is said to have understood perfectly, despite very little in the transcript). Given just how many outrageous things he did actually say out loud, not everyone will believe he also played such a strongly nuanced game. He's a master of the swamp sales game, and that means everything is covered in enough slippery moss to cast doubt when needed. Pinning Trump down on his baiting remarks isn't all that easy, and I'm not sure its worth the time and effort. We won't change anyone's mind.

We have conservative politicians in Australia who also use the same formula. Use race baiting to galvanise votes and when they are accused by the media as racists they say "no we aren't, prove it". The latter is tricky (just look at the volumes of pages of WP members defending such individuals) and of course these characters persist despite their unsavoury tactics.

So Reynholm is correct, maybe we can't call them racists (even Trump's chief far right strategist Steve Bannon says the same thing) but there is no doubt they spend an inordinate amount of time dog whistling racists who lurk in the populace, Don't forget that this was the principle difference in policy between Trump and his republican rivals in the 2016 republican primaries was his unsavoury appeal to bigots. This is why I have a hard time being convinced the 75 million who voted for him sincerely don't think they aren't in an ideological bed with hardcore racists.

It was pretty obvious to me, I based this off of listening to him talk. Heck if my own son could pick up on him being a racist SOB without anyone telling him, it was that obvious and I didn't even teach him that.

The fact that I am hearing he had many people fooled is scary.

"Dog whistles" are the conspiracy theories of the left, secret communications spoken openly by politicians that only they can hear. Just like less reputable conspiracy theories, they're impossible to disprove, making arguing about them pointless.

There is a difference between "it might offend someone" and "it will offend a lot of people." There is also a difference between not allowing people to say things, and holding them accountable for what they have chosen to say or do.

If a modern age group of college kids holds an "old south antebellum" party, dressing up in costumes from the period and acting it out, it WILL offend black Americans. I've heard this particular topic discussed on a podcast, and became aware of just how strongly painful it was to the black podcast hosts and others in their community to know that anyone would want to celebrate a time period and a culture which advocated for slavery being the natural and proper state of all citizens with a certain skin color, or with ancestors who had a certain skin color; where their place at such a party it would be as slaves. The visceral connection the podcast hosts felt wasn't dependent on their own ancestry; it was dependent upon the realities of the belief system used to justify slavery. That connection may fade with a few hundred years of distance, but we aren't there yet. There is not and never will be anything illegal about holding or attending such a party, but no one should be surprised if people conclude you are either naive, uneducated, or racist for doing so.

The reason you feel it is "not allowed" is because the consequences in today's viral world get pretty strong. But is that the fault of the standard, or the fault of people who take it upon themselves to enforce the standard on a national platform despite not personally knowing anything at all about the people involved? I think the real problem is the later, that citizens of all political stripes somehow have become on-line vigilantes that choose for themselves what the consequence should be and will cause real harm. It is, in reality, a crazy small percentage of the population that takes such vigilantism on, but it has a force that far outstrips its size. Vigilantism is bad, regardless of the cause that triggers it.



The current advocacy and dialogue is based in the reality that some populations are NOT currently treated equally, we've just been allowing ourselves to believe they are. There are many, many studies that prove the point of just strong the difference is, how much a person of color faces that you and I have never had to face and never will.

To repeat an often used example, have you been stopped for being a "suspicious person" in your own neighborhood or on your own property? Nearly EVERY black American I know has. That is pretty dang far off "equal."



As long as we have an honest discussion about how to fix the realities of disparate treatment and opportunity, I would allow race to be left out of it, I just don't know what you want to use instead to identify where the attention is needed. But we have to start by accurately understanding where we are at. I see a lot of denial about the reality of where we are at.

I think it is no mistake that racists felt free to move out into the open during the Trump presidency. When confronted on their racist signs and activities, they would say things like "get a clue, Trump is president now!" I know someone who had exactly that interaction.

Someone got the message, whether in the form of a dog whistle or not, and whether you want to believe it exists or not.

Do I think the concept gets overplayed? YES. Some accusations seemed pretty far off the mark to me. But others ... well, the proof to me is in how self-identified racists took it.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 24 Sep 2021, 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

We will probably have to agree to disagree, although I should clarify that I would never suggest that all conservatives are tuned in; any dog whistles would be to a small and specific subset. The kind of subtlety involved to play on racism, as I answered to others, is sticky to prove by looking at the statements alone. Here I should also clarify that I’m more likely to catch race baiting than dog whistles; I’ve made the mistake of using the terms interchangeably when they are not the same. But there is no denying that racists crawled out of the woodwork in massive numbers during the Trump presidency. Something made them feel safe to do so.



It's a mistake to assume that I only see something as race baiting because someone in the media told me to. I read Trump's tweets from his own twitter account, and I watched his live and unedited debates beginning to end as they aired. I watched his convention speeches live. I picked up on quite a few strange innuendos all on my own. I don't know a lot of cultural references and quotes, but I do know the game of saying one thing while meaning another. He is definitely a master of the later, regardless of the name one puts on it. I also have a political history professor I like to follow, because the parallels can be really interesting. However, I am well aware that these remain subjective interpretations, so agree to disagree.



If there aren't many left, then a few are doing one heck of a lot of damage, because every friend I have of color encounters clear and obvious racism on a regular basis. What they try not to do is make a big case out of it, so they don't usually talk about it with you and I. But ask a friend of yours directly: have they been personally subjected to obvious and intentional racist behavior? They will probably admit that the answer is yes, same as if you ask a woman if she's ever been personally subject to obvious and intentional sexual harassment. Some issues still tend to be kept quiet in our society, mostly discussed among those directly affected. It doesn't mean the issues don't exist.

You did bring up quite a few other complicated and interesting points in your post that will be more difficult to dig into. The ideas of being victimized by POC for not being part of the group, where black conservative opinions fit into the discussion, and whether or not attempts to fix racism can actually make things worse for the people we're claiming to want to help, feeding victim mentality or lowering expectations, etc. I think the short of it for me is these are not all invalid concerns, but that they also far too often are brought up as excuses to fail to address real issues and problems. Because of how they've been inappropriately weaponized, it is difficult to have an honest conversation about them in this moment. So ... I don't know how to talk about it beyond saying that I've heard you.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 24 Sep 2021, 5:58 am, edited 3 times in total.

The fact that the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Boogaloos, and other low life racists were emboldened to fly their hate publicly during the Trump years ought to tell anyone that this is not just a dog whistle to be misinterpreted by the left to make political hay. Trump went after "illegal immigrants" the moment he came down from that stupid escalator, when it soon became apparent that was code for Latinos in general. He even made the completely false assertion that most white murder victims are killed by blacks! Not to see this is turning a blind eye to the facts.

It's strange that those with the most animus towards a person\group are the ones who claim to "hear" the dog whistle, isn't it. Strangely, they also tend to have the least understanding of those to whom they claim that the "dog whistle" is aimed, and often resort to the worst stereotype to describe those people, as well.

It's more likely to be those with the animus towards the person\group looking for something to use in order to "justify" this animus\hatred and assigning interpretations which were never present (nor intended) as being a "dog whistle", rather than any "dog whistle" truely being present.

It's almost as if they came to desired conclusion first, and are trying to make post hoc rationalizations afterwards, isn't it? I'll bet most of these people actually think the OK symbol is racist too.