Great catch, and of course you are right. But if you asked a liberal these questions, he would say something like, “White liberals are not racists, because we support Obamacare and other social programs that take from white haves and give to nonwhite have-nots; we support the legalization of Hispanic illegal aliens; we oppose efforts to enforce immigration laws against Hispanic illegal aliens; we support the Ground Zero mosque; we oppose Islamophobia, etc.”
However, these answers are not responsive, because tea partiers, Sarah Palin supporters, and plain old Republicans have often been called racists, not for their substantive positions, but for the mere fact that at their gatherings there were no, or virtually no, nonwhites among them.
Thus a Sarah Palin book signing last year was called “racist” because all the people waiting on line to get their book signed were white, the implication being that nonwhites were somehow being kept away from the book signing. Thus the Republican Party has been repeatedly called racist because virtually all the delegates at GOP national conventions have been white, the implication being that the GOP was deliberately keeping nonwhites away. Of course the true reason that nonwhites are absent from conservative gatherings is not that the GOP or the tea partiers or the Palin supporters are excluding nonwhites or have any pro-white racial agenda, but simply that they have a conservative agenda, and that nonwhites are overwhelmingly on the left. Yet the conservatives are terrified at pointing out this obvious fact of political life, because that would be taken as anti-nonwhite! In reality, the conservatives are so far from being race-conscious, that they will not even point out obvious facts that would clear them of the charge of racism, if those facts involve making critical, true statements about nonwhites, such as that nonwhites overwhelmingly favor big government and the transfer of wealth from whites to nonwhites.
The above is a further example of my idea that liberalism and its lies can only be effectively opposed by people who have stepped outside liberalism.
Now, getting back to the Stewart rally, why are there no nonwhites there? Well, in large part because Jon Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s ironical humor has little appeal to nonwhites, just as the conservatism of the tea partiers has little appeal to nonwhites. Yet the tea partiers are called racists because there are no nonwhites among them, while the Stewart fans are not. This gross double standard must not be accepted. It must be shoved in the liberals’ faces at every opportunity. Conservatives should keep demanding of liberals: Why aren’t you calling this all-white Stewart rally racist? And the conservatives must not let the liberals get away with an evasive answer. They must keep pressing the liberals for an answer until they are forced to admit the double standard that they use against conservatives.
- end of initial entry -
E. in Florida writes:
Good observation. I had assumed, when I read that they were bussing in supporters from NYC, that they were bussing in black government workers from SEIU or some such.
Barbara V. writes:
I love your last sentence about pressing for replies to the question at hand. Have you ever given thought to becoming an on-air something-or-other?
LA replies:
I would love to have that opportunity. But how would I make it happen?
Edward L. writes:
I have pressed ultra-left liberals, and they fall back on a die-hard absolutist stance on zero group differences and the moral wickedness of conservatives. Where the lack of belief in objective standards kicks in is in the way they couldn’t care less about the factual or logical integrity of counter-arguments they fling around. The following is the latest specimen of absurdity that I squeezed out of my “friend” (correspondence with whom has become increasingly vitriolic):
“Of course a Moslem would feel the same way [about potential terrorism] if he got on a plane with a nun or with a westerner covered with tattoos and wearing a cross. The main point I think should be considered here is why people feel that some ancient book should compel them to dress in a certain way or to wear certain symbols which they have irrationally fantasized to be capable of magical powers.”
LA replies:
Your interlocutor is a secularist who can’t take any religion seriously, who sees all religion-based beliefs as equally nonsensical and absurd, and therefore can’t take the Islam threat seriously.
Generally, Westerners simply REFUSE to look at Islam in its own terms. Indeed, they are so ensconsed in their own, Western (i.e. liberal) point of view that they cannot even conceive of the idea of looking at Islam in its own terms. But we cannot understand Islam unless we look at it in its own terms. The result of insisting on looking at Islam on OUR terms instead of Islamic terms is the “Non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism.”
Mike W. writes:
Your blog is the best conservative site that I have come across. As you have noted in the past, many on the right do not present valid, rational arguments for their point of view. They are mostly along the line of Angry White Guy or Dude or whatever and they play to the “Bubbas” on the web.
My question is regarding Power Line. I find it to be a neocon hack site. Their rabid support of the Iraq War was completely irrational and was essentially part of that group think mentality of 5 to 7 years ago. I wasn’t a reader of your site at the time but I notice on your archives that you were skeptical at best about our venture into Iraq, so your advocacy of Power Line surprises me.
Regardless, thank you for your excellent commentary
LA replies:
When/how have I advocated Powerline? No one has criticized that site more than I. I occasionally agree with them on secondary matters, usually having to do with leftist lies and propaganda.
In this instance, Paul of Powerline made a good point about the Stewart ralliers, and he had accumulated that list of all those signs at the rally. Posting that is not “advocating Powerline,” with its entire political view, its worship of Bush and establishment Republicans, and so on. Each issue stands on its own merits.
For the record, I supported the invasion of Iraq, for purpose of self-defense, stopping WMDS. I never supported the democratization idea or nation-building or transforming the Muslim world through democracy (which sounds like a paraphrase of “Better Living Through Chemistry”). My record on that has been consistent since six months before the invasion of Iraq.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 31, 2010 02:06 PM | Send
