The Alabama special election proves that gender accusations “Trumps” racism in America

The King of Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, is at it again, demeaning the FBI because a couple of agents working on the Russia investigation had the audacity to criticize him, probably because of some new evidence implicating him. Robert Mueller apparently felt compelled to fire them because he knew that they hypocritical Trump—who daily tweets deliberately insulting attacks against even those who are not his enemies—would use this as a weapon against him. Of course, the question is whether by this same “logic” these agents should have been dismissed if they had expressed pro-Trump sentiments. Trump also said something or other about how something he was doing would benefit all Americans; actually the only thing I sense that has “changed” since he has become president is that we now have one who never misses a chance to insult blacks before all-white right-wing audiences, and displays no human decency as he caricatures Hispanics in the most offensive way at every opportunity.

But we can talk about Trump any time of day, and nothing changes except that we have new “victims”—and not necessarily the ones that the media chooses to elevate above all others. We are all "victims"--save for the very rich--and we can blame the media for refusing to read the "tea leaves" of how the progressive "populism" of Bernie Sanders offered the best chance of defeating the racist "populism" of Trump, instead giving the impression that the country “owed” Hillary Clinton something and ignoring her long history of scandal and unethical behavior, dating back to when she was fired as a Congressional assistant back in 1974 (oh, you didn’t know that?). We can also blame "victimized" white women for being hypocrites (53 percent preferred Trump’s race card over the 43 percent’s “making history”), and black voters in unwinnable red states who ignored Bernie Sanders’ civil rights record, preferring Clinton’s “love me or leave me” line.

Meanwhile there have been a great many takeaways from the recent Alabama special election to fill the vacated seat of Jeff Sessions. The current self-congratulatory rage is that black women “won” the election for Democrat Doug Jones, who finished by a nose over the badly-damaged Republican Roy Moore. Oh good, now the media has to encourage that already loud, rude and not entirely honest yet “unheard” demographic to be even more so. The fact is that after Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by a 62 to 34 percent margin in the last presidential election, there was actually a fair amount of “self-congratulation” to go around now—even by the 26 percent of white male voters who opted for Jones; given that exit polls showed they were the single largest voting demographic in the election, their “contribution” shouldn’t be poo-pooed, especially in a blood-red state like Alabama. 

I don’t live in a world of illusion. Neither does Dimeji Babalola, college student and serial tweeter, who posted “White liberals posting #BlackWomen then they’ll be nowhere to be found protesting police brutality, housing and the wage gap. Opportunists.” We have to remember that those who have the power (that is in votes and media control) make all the rules, set all the rates. Thus it should come as no surprise that it was not Moore’s bigotry and racism that ultimately defeated him (replacing a man, Sessions, who is arguably even more racist than he is), but just enough white voters too embarrassed to vote for him because of the accusations of improprieties in regard to teenagers, which of course he denies. This didn’t stop one voter quoted in the Washington Post who “reluctantly” voted for Jones in the belief that he was confident that Jones would support anti-immigrant policy and the building of the “wall,” which was apparently the principle motivating factor for him voting at all. Jones actually has stated he supports DACA and opposes wasting billions on a wall, but apparently many Alabamans are so blinded by ideology that they can’t “hear” opposing viewpoints. 

Jones’ “improbable” victory was due to swamping the airwaves with political ads attacking Moore for his alleged sexual transgressions in order to shame just enough white voters, and spending his quality time in urban areas with large black populations. But Jones’s scant 20,000-vote margin suggests that the Democrats have won only a Pyric victory, given the 22,000 right-in count which likely was more anti-Moore specific in nature, the fact that even white women still overwhelming supported Moore, and that black turnout that was heavier than the white turnout. In 2020, a more “acceptable” Republican candidate exhibiting similar racial animus as Moore and Sessions but less gender-related “baggage” should take back the seat fairly handily. 

The current sex craze is nothing new (remember the 1990s?), but it has taken more prisoners because the law fails for the accused when it is rendered impotent when due process or the presentation of evidence is vacated. A good man like Al Franken was taken down, to be replaced opportunistically by a woman. No one is “perfect,” no one is a “saint,” nor is anyone without some fault they wish not to disclose to the public. but if you are a “public” person, say a white politician or a black sports broadcaster, there is always someone who wants to get “even” with you, or feels sorrow for themselves, and just making an accusation and you will suddenly be as “important” as you think you are in your own tiny little universe in which you are the center of. It isn’t really about the “cause,” it is about you, even if you have your own only little “secrets”—like being a racist, as it was discovered that the Charlotte sports reporter was after she accused Carolina Panthers’ quarterback Cam Newton of being “patronizing” to her because she was a woman.

I believe people should be called out for their crimes against humanity, even if they prefer to see themselves as the “victim” of it. The problem with the American mainstream media is that we are not really allowed to see how “bad” people can be, especially if it overturns notions of gender victimization. The American media goes through the fake motions, but you are not allowed to actually be confronted with the stark truth. Take for instance the way Hispanics are treated by the media. The recent shooting in Colorado—where a white male with a “history” of hating Hispanics—walked into a Walmart and simply shot to death the first three Hispanics he saw, was barely noted by CNN and the like, even though it was clearly a hate crime. Even Denver police called it just a “random” shooting with no hate motivation. 

Yet last week an incident occurred in Canada that was caught on video by the son of a Hispanic man who was assaulted by a white male with a baseball bat in the parking lot of a shopping mall, which can be viewed here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH8p0F2OehU. We are told that “Police in Ontario are investigating a confrontation as a possible hate crime caught on camera. A man at a mall picked a fight with a family that moved here from Colombia, then he picked up a baseball bat and claimed he was going after terrorists…an attack that was both bizarre and brutal.” The family was visiting the mall and was heard speaking in Spanish. The white male dressed in black got out of a BMW and confronted them, claiming that they were “under arrest” because they were “terrorists.” The assailant yelled “You better get out of here, Frenchy.” And then he started yelling “terrorists, terrorists, we got terrorists here” and pointing at them. And then “It’s ISIS, it’s ISIS” before swinging the bat, striking the Hispanic man three times. Only one person came to the family’s aid, a former vice principle of the school their son attended, who offered to give a statement to police.

First of all, as a Canadian this assailant should know the difference between the French and Spanish language. I think he knew these people were Hispanic, but as I have mentioned before it seems as if Hispanics are the “all-purpose” group to hate when you need someone or some group to hate. Secondly, save for a brief mention in the Huffington Post, this incident was not reported nationally or locally in the U.S. It is not like something like this doesn’t happen in this country fairly frequently; before last year’s election, two self-reported Trump supporters were convicted of beating a homeless Hispanic man in Boston. Maybe because there was no video it was easier to dismiss. Well, there is some video evidence of this kind of thing out there; here at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX222P3O2yg  a white man has a serious issue about a Hispanic who speaks perfect English because he happens to be speaking to his mother in Spanish. The white man calls him a “spic,” a “piece of shit” and screaming at him to “shut up” whenever the other man opens his mouth. He even strikes him with his crutch before a cop shows up, who apparently believes his tale that he is being “harassed” because he is white and sitting in a wheelchair; should we feel sorry for him because he is in a wheelchair? Not if he's a racist jerk.

Later on, some old woman who barely speaks barely understandable English equates speaking Spanish with Nazism and Russia, and fighting for “freedom” apparently means not allowing anyone to speak a foreign language in this country. It is ironic that Nazism is mentioned, because Hispanics in this country fill the scapegoat role of Jews in this country, and ironic too that she mentions Russia, because I notice a lot older Russian speakers who don’t speak a lick of English—or if they do, it is just enough for them to demean nonwhite groups, as if we need to import more bigots into this country. By the way, are they in this country legally? And then there is an Australian woman, demeaning a man because he couldn’t find a “regular” girlfriend—meaning white—so he had to find himself a “gook.” Racism by white women is usually "explained" as evidence of "subordination" to men, but don't believe this for a second; the racism of white females is usually uglier than that of males because comes not from the "head" but from the "heart."

And here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGp3FflT3mM  a white female is “heckling” a liberal Canadian politician who happens to be Sikh, The woman seems to be accusing the politician of seeking to impose Sharia law on Canada, while he goes out of his way to preach “love,” “courage,” “inclusiveness” and “economic justice,” although he only succeeds in making more obvious that the woman is uninterested in such blessings of civilization. This woman seems perhaps to be the “uneducated” type, but not to worry: she has company in the “educated” world. Take for instance former ESPN sports reporter Britt McHenry. Now, former NBA star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar recently suggested in an interview with the UK The Guardian that we should feel “sorry” for attractive women because we don’t “what it is like” to be one. Frankly, from what I can tell from the workaday world there are far worse things to be than an attractive woman; it can certainly get you a high-paying job in broadcast news—even if you are a conceited asshole. 

Here at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG4Ru9sAULs  we see the blonde McHenry without powder and make-up telling a parking lot attendant to “lose some weight,” perhaps to make-up for her other “shortcomings”: “Yep, that’s all you care about, is just taking people’s money. With no education, no skillset, just wanted to clarify that. … Do you feel good about your job? So I could be a college dropout and do the same thing? Why, cause I have a brain and you don’t?” McHenry feels confident that she will get her way eventually, because “I’m in the news, sweetheart.” Yep your typical “victimized” white female, some of whom make other kinds of accusations. McHenry is so confident in her self-obsession that she sees no need to control it. Here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIjL58Mnis she demeans zoo animals (she has the time because she is on suspension), demeans people and their “ugly” families because she has actually done modeling (she’s so “hot”) and her self-conceit is such that she can’t understand why “dumb” people don’t recognize who she is. 

Not that our sanctified black woman should be left out of the discussion. I’ve always said that it’s tough to be Hispanic in this country when you are stuck in the millstone between white and black prejudice. Here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcOHM9EYRwI  a black woman who was the manager of a McDonald’s in Charlotte, North Carolina is reacting to a Hispanic woman who had to ask for ketchup and then after being given just two packs had the rudeness to ask for more.  "Can you say, Donald Trump? Donald Trump. Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Yes, Donald Trump, Donald Trump. Can you say Donald Trump? You holding up my line, lady…You can stay there all you want. Can you say deportation? Can you say that? Can you spell deportation?" 

Thus being loud, rude, crude and bigoted isn’t a proper rationalization  for The Nation  to contend  it was a black woman, Anita Hill, who was the “forerunner” of the sexual harassment “movement.” But her claims against Clarence Thomas struck many as not just opportunistic but lame. Let’s not forget that it was white feminists who presented her to the world when—after civil rights activists concerned about Thomas’ record as head of Reagan’s civil rights’ division were unable to sway senators against him—Molly Yard tearfully pleaded with senators to oppose Thomas on the abortion issue. Thomas called it all a “high-tech” lynching, and we ought keep in mind that nearly half of actual lynchings of black males (including boys) was related to accusations made on behalf of white females; the use of Hill by white feminists was likely an attempt to obfuscate the issue. 

Gender activists can be quite arrogant in their “favored” status in the media. I recall a response I received a response from a black female who worked for the Seattle Times some years ago in which she recounted an incident at a women in the media conference in which she and the only other black woman in attendance were asked what was worse for them—racism or gender discrimination. Looking around a room full of white women, they both told the “shocked” audience that they thought racism was a worse problem for them. Vox just put a blog post by a white woman who bemoaned that white feminists are not embracing black women more. 

But white feminists are not necessarily not racist; I recall Eleanor Smeal raging about “racism against white women” in USA Today some years ago, and as previously mentioned white women have been the face of anti-affirmative action campaigns in recent years. Their efforts to sway black women to the “cause” also has the effect of “confirming” ugly racial stereotypes about black males (and Hispanic males too), which conforms to the desire not to have any “competitors” in the “victim” game. There is a book out there entitled Co-Whites: How and Why White Women ‘Betrayed’ the Struggle for Racial Equality in the United States by an African-born scholar, Emeka Aniagolu, who pointed out the long history of white women playing both ends of the game, either for or against minorities when they perceived benefit, particularly in evidence in the 2008 Democratic primaries. We saw this in the “progressive” states of California and Washington, both of which passed anti-affirmative laws from which white women benefited for so long. We see this most clearly in higher education, where having achieved majority status, white women see minorities as much a threat to their “privilege” as white males do; this is why not only have they become the face of anti-affirmative action cases in the courts, but have used political and media blackmail to protect the affirmative action program that benefits them exclusively, Title IX.

Meanwhile, Moore refused to concede until “every vote is counted.” In his non-concession speech he gave on Thursday in which he likened the stakes to a “religious crusade,” most of what he said was reprehensible (at least to liberals), but one thing he did say that was correct was that the current sexual harassment craze—based largely on accusations and not evidence of—is undermining legitimate policy concerns. Now we may have a right to be “concerned” about what Moore believes those concerns are, but these accusations have been taking down far better men than him; in the case of Franken, a few moments of high school-level pranks out of 350,000 minutes of his adult life was enough to end his senatorial career. What we are seeing is that while sexual transgressions can be whatever the “victim” wants to call it, and as far as whites are concerned racism is whatever the perpetrator wants to call it—even when the evidence is more damning.

This is the world we live in now: in the Charlottesville incident, the evidence was there for all to see, but if white people are only “embarrassed” by it, or actually see the Nazis as the “frontline” storm troopers protecting their “rights,” they can “live” with that. But in gender accusations, who needs “evidence”? That Rolling Stone writer already told us the “truth” didn’t matter, as long as the accusation “illuminated” the problem, although perhaps for a different “problem” than she had in mind. Everywhere we see accusations flying taken as “gospel,” no evidence required. Halfway through my post http://todarethegods.blogspot.com/2014/05/evil-behind-shroud-of-victimization.html I included the official findings of the city attorney’s office into the accusations made by a white female University of Oregon student against three black basketball players. The players were expelled from the school after pressure from gender activists despite the fact that 1. Testimony from the accuser and witnesses (including her friends) strongly indicated consensual activity. 2. The accuser was aware that her accusation was false because she insisted that she only wanted the players’ “wrists’ slapped.” 3. Friends testified that she frequently engaged in sexual encounters, but then would feel “shame” the following morning. 4. The accuser apparently was led to believe that she had been “raped” after expressing her shame with another party. 5. One school “rape crisis” counselor believed that the accuser was lying. But none of that mattered: the accusation was “proof” enough for the school to destroy the lives of three men, who probably should have known better when dealing with white female students with a plantation mentality.

Of course, if they were white with well-off parents, they might have even been able to afford an attorney to sue the university for breach of due process and civil rights violations.

 

Packers barely escape with another win over the NFL's worst. Is it Rodgers' time now?

There is some “boasting” going on because Brett Hundley is now 2-0 in overtime games, compared to Aaron Rodgers’ 1-7. Maybe it has something to do with the fates, because the Packers are now 3-0 this season in overtime games (Rodgers was 0-7 heading into the season). But enough of that. For the second straight time the Packers played poorly for most of the game against a couple of really bad teams (Tampa Bay and Cleveland, who now have combined records of 4-22), and won mainly for the same reason the Packers blew a 19-7 lead with five minutes to play after Russell Wilson threw his fifth interception in the 2014 NFC championship game and still lost in overtime: because their opponents defense fell flat on their faces, and their offenses suddenly became paralytic at the most inopportune times. 

But then again, Tampa Bay and 0-13 Cleveland are pretty bad, and it took a while for that to be exposed. Give Hundley, or the play calling anyways, some credit for playing within his limitations, utilizing the pass game as a substitute for a running game that was not working particularly well. Without a couple of catch-and-runs, such as on the winning score in OT when the Browns’ defenders looked like stake poles as Davante Adams ran around them, Hundley would have been 31 of 42 for 182 yards. I just point this out because this is why the Packers actually trailed the worst team in the NFL 21-7 in the fourth quarter, before the Browns reverted to form with arguably the worst starting quarterback in the league, DeShone Kizer. One can only assume the Packers overall are not really a “bad” team without Rodgers; after all, they do still have an outstanding pass receiving corps, as badly used as it has been (particularly Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb).

All that said, the Packers have now done the absolute minimum they needed to do with Hundley at quarterback: they “beat” three of the worst teams in league that have a combined record of 8-31. If Rodgers had been quarterbacking, the Packers likely would have at least 2 more victories than those teams combined instead of one fewer. The question now is will it be worth bringing Rodgers back next week. It would certainly have been a moot point if the Packers had lost either of the previous two games. With three other second place teams above them in the win column, it still seems like a game of chance to do so.

Rep. Steve King and other hypocrites should be the ones “deported”

The early Seventies saw many songs that promoted peace, harmony and understanding. For some of you that might as well have been one thousand years go, but for me the memories cling like it was just yesterday: “Everything is Beautiful,” “He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother,” “Imagine,” “United We Stand,” “Black and White,” “Love Train” and Joe South’s “Walk a Mile in My Shoes”:

If I could be you
And you could be me
For just one hour
If we could find a way
To get inside
Each other's mind,
If you could see you
Through my eyes
Instead of your ego
I believe you'd be
Surprised to see
That you'd been blind

We don’t see much of that anymore in the music scene, because that requires another thing we don’t see much of anymore: Artists looking beyond their own petty concerns and seeing the world without illusions, and hoping for something better, rather than to merely “get even” with an “ex.” Of course, some musicians were more pessimistic than others—The Clash, for example. In “Clampdown”—the title refers to the “clampdown” of anyone or anything viewed as a “threat” to the “traditional” order as defined by an oppressive “establishment”—fascism is seen as the chief political and social construct:

What are we gonna do now?
Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew?
'Cause they're working for the clampdown
They put up a poster saying we earn more than you!
When we're working for the clampdown
We will teach our twisted speech
To the young believers
We will train our blue-eyed men
To be young believers

The pessimism of Kenny Rogers and the First Edition’s “Tell it All” could also be seen as more prophetic for what was to come (beginning with the Reagan administration) than a plea for “change.”

How much you're holding back on me
When you say you're giving all?
And in the dungeons of your mind

Who you got chained to the wall?

Did you plant your feet on higher ground
To avoid life's mud and stone?
Did you ever kick a good man
When he was down, just to make yourself feel strong?

Did you ever walk for a crippled man
Pretending you were lame?
And what made you think one feeble hand to God
Was gonna make him call your name?

Speaking of prophetic pessimism, as mentioned a couple posts ago Rep. Steve King of Iowa reacted to the acquittal of a Hispanic immigrant in a homicide case that was one of the “pillars” that held up Donald Trump’s race-based candidacy by expectorating "The illegal alien who, no one disagrees, killed Kate Steinle is found NOT guilty in sanctuary city, San Francisco. Sickening! I will spare no effort to do my own killing-of all amnesty in every form!” This kind of talk is bred from race hate and serves only hate. King neither “hates” nor even acknowledges the existence of a quarter of all illegal immigrants who are from Asia, India and Europe—a percentage that is only growing—but when one spews their filth on just one group (Hispanics), that is still all that is required to be a bonfide racist.

King’s constituents, naturally, claim that he is not a “racist,” that he just “speaks his mind.” The problem here is that it is white people (because they are the “majority”) making that judgment to appease themselves, not minorities who have to suffer the base ignorance of prejudice and stereotype. I mentioned a few times an incident at a work place where I challenged a white man who was telling ugly “jokes” about “Mexicans,” who asserted that the “jokes” were not “racist,” and that none of the other people present, either white or black,” thought they were either. I had to tell him that all that mattered was that I thought his “jokes” were racist, and he stopped telling them, at least for as long I was present.

King has a history of making ugly, dehumanizing comments about minorities, but mainly Hispanics, and they are not “jokes” to him or his constituency. Yet it is only a white supremacist or neo-Nazi would proclaim, as King did on MSNBC, that the Republican Party’s image as the “white people’s party” was getting “old” because “I’d ask you to go back through history and figure out where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you are talking about? Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?” King, of course, failed to mention civilizations that either pre-dated “Western” civilization, or those that existed in isolation from the West that were doing just fine without the intrusion of the West (sub-Sahara Africa is an example of how uninvited European colonial “contributions” destroyed carefully-created balances in the political, economic and environmental realm). 

King has absolutely no self-consciousness in expanding on his white supremacist ideology:  “Culture and demographics are our destiny. We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies”—the obvious “dog whistle” being non-white immigrants, and Hispanics in particular. When asked to “clarify” this statement on CNN, King merely doubled-down, insisting that he “meant exactly” what he said, and then made the bizarre remark that “If you go down the road a few generations or maybe centuries with the intermarriage, I’d like to see an America that's just so homogenous that we look a lot the same.” What could he possibly have meant by that, especially given the fact that the racism he espouses would make such a result unlikely? I again point to the incident in college where a white female insisted she wasn’t a “racist” even though she would “never” marry a “black man.”

It seems that King is “tolerated” by Republicans because he is a “reliable” vote on conservative issues (albeit an extreme one), and by the media, because he is “newsworthy.” While TIME magazine’s “Person of the Year” is a gaggle of self-important women called the “silence breakers,” the real “silence” is aided and abetted by the media and women just like this, for whom the vast majority of incidents they claim to have suffered are nothing compared to the lifetime of abuse many minorities—especially Hispanics—suffer at the hands of white society. I recall on The McLaughlin Group some years ago that even the “liberal” Eleanor Clift remained in “awed” silence as Pat Buchanan spewed out “Hispanics are out to destroy America!” It is also highly “ironic”—or rather, hypocritical—that Taylor Swift is one of the “silence breakers” on the TIME cover. More on this fraud later.

Meanwhile, a rundown of King’s verbal escapades that have gone unpunished include his opposition to DACA: “For every one who’s a valedictorian, there’s another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds — and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’ve been hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.” On why white America shouldn’t feel “guilty” about centuries of what Mark Twain sarcastically called the “blessings of civilization”: “We’re the vigor of the planet and there’s nothing for us to apologize for until they come and thank us for the things we’ve done.” On why it is “dangerous” to allow non-white immigrants into the country: “And changing the demographics changes the politics, they’re going to have Democrat voters at least two-to-one, some numbers go all the way to five-to-one, and I’m not speaking only of Muslims, I’m speaking of the Central American immigrants that come into America too. So if it turns into a few hundred thousand every year, how long is it before the culture of America is changed?”

No one in the Republican Party is denouncing him, because many privately agree with him. For all the criticism he came under as Speaker of the House, John Boehner was at least not a bigot, more than once speaking out against King and reportedly referred to him as an “asshole.” But that is not what you are hearing from the current Republican leadership. While Senators and House members are under assault and forced to resign for moments of sexual impropriety, blatant racists like King go unmolested and the lives of millions are being hurt simply because they don’t have the political and media support that (mainly white) women do.

What do his own constituents think, who keep reelecting him? While a few state Republicans consider him “coarse” and “weird,” the more common belief was enunciated thus by one voter “There isn’t a racist bone in King’s body. We are a nation based on Western values. I think Steve King is courageous to do it. Some cultures are better than others.” No, this is plainly the very definition of racism. When racists claim that their beliefs have nothing to do with racism, then you know this country has a “problem.” As I wrote about previously, “culture” in this country is only a racial construct in the minds of racists.

Who is going to save us from ourselves? A “silence breaker” like Taylor Swift and her anthem to white animus and fascist imagery in her petty self-obsession, “Look What You Made Me Do”?

I don't like your little games
Don't like your tilted stage
The role you made me play
Of the fool, no, I don't like you
I don't like your perfect crime
How you laugh when you lie
You said the gun was mine
Isn't cool, no, I don't like you

There is a reason why some nut from the now “underground” neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer claims that "The entire alt-right patiently awaits the day when we can lay down our swords and kneel before her (Swift’s) throne as she commands us to go forth and slaughter the subhuman enemies of the Aryan race." Of course it is “ridiculous,” but it is also true that the blonde, blue-eyed Swift has been too busy maintaining a feud with a black musician (Kanye West) than to take the time to repudiate her vast white supremacist following. Even Trump has made (largely disingenuous) efforts to do so. Why TIME didn’t take this into consideration before selecting her for its cover or question her about her racist following and her apparent embrace of it (the law says that “silence” construes consent), is of course, part of the reason why TIME magazine continues to lose credibility as an objective publication.

Tell it all, brothers and sisters, before we fall.