The concept of “antiracism” is very blatantly and obviously racism masquerading as its opposite. Often times, it is openly against white people, as proponents of “antiracism” often declare that all white people are bad. That there are people out there who do not see this as asinine and blatant racism is baffling to me, even more so that some would try to justify it by citing the past woes of racism from white people.
But there is no doubt in any sane person’s mind that this is nothing but the perpetuation of that same racism that these people claim to denounce, only directed at the race which, in their mind, is responsible for racism in the first place (ignoring entirely that all races would consider themselves superior to the others because that is how tribalism and homogeneity tend to work).
Because this is a “woke” stance, colleges saw fit to try to implement this insanity, namely Purdue University, who tried to mandate students in a choir group to take and complete “antiracist” training courses before they could participate in choir activities.
Back in January, Purdue Musical Organizations announced that its students would be required to take six courses on “antiracism”, including classes called “White Privilege, White Supremacy, and White Fragility,” as well as “White Saviorism and How To Be A Better Ally.”
Before I move on about how the school backtracked on this, I would just like to point out the irony that these Leftists undoubtedly missed. It’s rather ironic that they claim that white supremacy is still a thing, or that it is engrained in every aspect of American life and society, and then go on to claim there is also white fragility around it.
So white people both are superior or have the power and authority to rig things to favor them AND they are fragile in their core. Which is it? Do they have the power to manipulate these things so fervently, or are they just trying to maintain a fragile, “Lost Cause” mentality? Because if it’s the former, and they do have as much power and influence as these “antiracist” lunatics claim they do, then how is it a fragile mentality of trying to futilely hold on to that?
And regarding the second course, it is extremely ironic that white people working within Purdue’s administration would be willing to go along with all of this. They, themselves, want to be considered “saviors” to minorities.
“I am one of the good ones!” is what they are basically trying to say with this. And it is particularly ironic and outright hilarious when they attempt to attack a minority person who disagrees with them surrounding this topic. If a black man tells them “this is stupid”, they will call him a “coon” or a “n****r” or an “Uncle Tom” (despite the fact that Uncle Tom is the hero of the story, not a race traitor).
“You don’t care enough about your own people” is the charge these (often white) SJWs throw at black people who would rather be judged by the content of their character than the color of their skin.
With this embrace of “antiracism”, white liberals are trying to be white saviors to minorities. Saving them from what, you might ask? From themselves, as minorities clearly do not know better and need to be led by hand to a better future (sarcasm, for those who missed that).
While I earlier noted that “antiracism” is openly anti-white, what it does practically speaking is anti-black and anti-minority in general. It’s moving society backwards in an attempt to bring back segregation, only this time, by trying to convince black people that it’s best for them to segregate themselves from white people.
But in any case, like I said earlier, Purdue backtracked on this following student outcry. But they didn’t outright stop the classes. They simply went from mandating students to take it to “strongly encouraging” students to take the now-optional courses.
“The series will be offered beginning in March. Recognizing the stresses presented by COVID, as well as the existing commitments that many students have outside of [Purdue Musical Organizations], the series is not required, but participation is strongly encouraged,” wrote PMO spokesman Tim Doty to the Washington Free Beacon in an email.
Now, I don’t know exactly what the students complained about with this. I don’t know if they were against the courses in general or just against the fact that they were mandatory, or as Doty suggests, that they might have some concern with COVID (though they shouldn’t, seeing as there is virtually no chance of them dying to the virus), but considering these are college-indoctrinated students, I’m more willing to believe it’s at least one of the latter two, as opposed to the former – the idea that they were against the courses in general.
But I do not know for sure, and there well could be at least some students who were against the idea of taking such ridiculous classes to begin with (not to mention that there is no real connection between “white privilege” or whatever else and music, so why would choir kids have to take these courses?).
At any rate, I hope that we can successfully fight back against the idea of “antiracism” as that would only serve to undo decades of progress regarding race relations in the country.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
The last time I wrote an article of this caliber, where I discuss something being considered “racist” by the hateful Left, I talked about how one Leftist college professor put this charge (as well as the charge of sexism and violence) on beloved Nickelodeon cartoon SpongeBob SquarePants. But if you can believe it (I certainly can), the hateful, woke Left has added another thing to the list of “akshually” racist things: being nice.
I’m debating whether or not this is the dumbest one of them all, and I honestly think it is. Seriously, “being nice” is racist?
Well, it is according to a racial feminist group called “Race2Dinner”.
The group’s Twitter account tweeted the following: “White women’s obsession with ‘being nice’ is one of the most dangerous tools of white supremacy.”
Yeah, how dare white women be nice to people of color? Don’t they know they are supposed to treat them like crap because that isn’t racist, or something? I honestly don’t even know how you are so messed up in the mind to think this way.
According to The Daily Wire, Race2Dinner was created by two radical feminists Regina Jackson and Saira Rao. The two created the organization to “offer white women an opportunity to ‘smash’ their ‘white fragility’ by hiring women of color to attend dinner with as they’re guilt-tripped for all the alleged suffering they have caused them by virtue of being white,” reports The Daily Wire.
The Race2Dinner’s website has a message to white women too: “[W]hite women: We are talking about your complicity in upholding white supremacy and keeping us Brown and Black women down. Our goal is to reveal white privilege, power, control and your complicity in all of the above. You are an integral part of this system. Please use this power to dismantle the hate rather than to uphold it.”
It’s funny that their mission is to “dismantle the hate rather than uphold it”, calling on white women to do so, when Saira Rao once tweeted: “White people have done everything to make my life miserable. Yet I’m supposed to not hate white people?”
She essentially admits and justifies her hatred for white people, and yet expects white people to “work to dismantle the hate”. These women are a complete joke.
What’s more, they have another message to white women on their website:
“Dear white women: You cause immeasurable pain and damage to Black, Indigenous and brown women. We are here to sit down with you to candidly explain how *exactly* you cause this pain and damage. The dinners are a starting point. A place to start thinking through how you actively uphold white supremacy every minute of every day. What you do after you leave the dinner is up to you. Sincerely, Regina Jackson & Saira Rao.”
What they do after they leave the dinner is probably bawl their eyes out because they just spent an hour-plus long dinner (that probably wasn’t cheap) getting yelled at by some entitled young woman of color who thinks is the victim of some grand conspiracy to keep minorities down and being told that they themselves contribute to this pain and suffering simply due to the very color of the skin they were born with.
And you know exactly the kind of women who would attend these dinners: either liberal white women who agree 100% and hate their skin color or white women who mean well and honestly want to do what is right but get taken advantage of by said women of color in the way I just described and are left hopeless and distraught, being led down a path that won’t end well and will likely never want to have another dinner with said people or even have much contact with said people ever again, thus defeating the purpose of the dinner (or an ever worse scenario: maintaining contact with said people out of guilt and maintaining a relationship that is emotionally abusive).
And, of course, such a radical hateful organization couldn’t be without its fair share of hating on the United States, with tweets such as:
“Violent white people founded this country. Violent white people continue to run this country (see eg Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, Mitch McConnell). When Black, Indigenous and brown people mention this FACT, we get accused of violence. Gaslighting is white people’s favorite.”
Extremely ironic for these people to accuse white people of gaslighting when there is nothing else that these people do. They accuse this country of having a violent founding and of people like Trump, Stephen Miller and Mitch McConnell of being violent too (interesting how they only mention right-wingers. Aren’t white people in general supposed to be blamed? Where are Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer?) despite the fact that they have ZERO evidence of this (and “violence” is far too broad of a term here).
I am not surprised in the least that such a hateful organization as “Race2Dinner”, whose entire point is to guilt-trip white women into hiring and having relationships with minorities, particularly women of color, also has such vitriol for this country. I wonder what they have to say about countries in the Middle East, many of whom treat their women as second-class citizens AT BEST and usually as complete garbage. How many videos are there on the internet of a Muslim man beating his wife or a female relative of his? How many of those videos have feminists decried as being “violent against women” (because they actually are violent towards them) and demand some sort of retribution?
These nutjobs hate the country that gives them the best opportunity to be themselves, to succeed and to be free. It’s insane. But regardless, that is not the main point of this article.
Again, they claimed that “being nice” is a tool of white supremacy. Now, in that tweet, they put “being nice” in quotation marks. But what exactly does it mean to “be nice” in the context in which they think? Is it just pretending to be nice? Or is it acting nice in general, but by virtue of their skin color, they cannot actually be nice because they are white and being white means being complicit in white supremacy?
Considering how out of touch and hateful these people are, I would wager that that last explanation is the correct one. Being white means that if you are being nice to someone, it’s just an act. And even if you actually and sincerely are being nice to someone, it means nothing because your skin color is, itself, a hurdle for any minority you come into contact with.
It’s ridiculous victim-mentality that we are seeing here. Is the world void of racists? Of course not (look at the very people I’m talking about to find this to be true, let alone looking at the whole of the Democrat Party). But to suggest that someone’s very SKIN COLOR means that them being nice to minorities is a “tool of white supremacy” is INSANE, let alone extremely racist. These people sincerely believe that white people are the reason for them to live “miserable” lives (Saira Rao claims this despite being worth $2 million and being a public figure in a like-minded group that probably praises her to high heaven, but then again, considering how full of hate she is, I wouldn't be surprised if she is miserable, but white people certainly are not the reason for it).
These are all people with nothing but hatred and evil in their hearts. They think the way to “end white supremacy” is to lambast white women during dinner and tell them all their sins in that span. If I were a woman, I would HATE to have dinner with the devil. Heck, I’m a guy and I wouldn’t want to spend my time with someone who yells at me because of things that are out of my control. What reason do I have to spend time with such an emotionally abusive person?
But, again, I’m the type of person that wouldn’t do that, but there are plenty who would because they feel this thing that they call “white guilt”. They have been conditioned to believe that their skin color is evil in and of itself and that there is something inherently wrong with being white and that it causes non-white people pain and suffering just due to the EXISTENCE of white people.
These people are the very hate that they claim to fight against, even to the admission of Rao. They practice, unsurprisingly, the antithesis of Jesus Christ. Whereas Christ taught us to love and pray for our enemies, these people teach others and themselves to hate their enemies and to make their enemies submit.
These people honestly revolt me and I pray that the Lord reaches their hearts, softens them, and they are rebuked of their wrongdoings and repent of their sins, leaving behind such hatred in favor of the love of Christ.
“’But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.’”
Boy, oh, boy. Now, these are some news that I am absolutely delighted to hear. The only thing that could honestly top this sort of thing would be Jesus coming back tomorrow.
Recently, Yascha Mounk, a lecturer on government at Harvard University, wrote an incredible article for The Atlantic. In this piece, he focused on a rather large study from Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres and Tim Dixon, titled “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape”.
Like I said, it is a long study with around 160 pages. But Mounk focuses on one thing in particular that is noted within the study: most Americans hate political correctness.
According to Mounk: “Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that ‘political correctness is a problem in our country.’ Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages. Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness – and it turns out race isn’t, either. Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent), and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness.”
Mounk also mentions that 75% of black people consider political correctness to be a problem in this country, which is 4 points less than white people.
Mounk then asks “if age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does?”
The answer is income and education.
Mounk continues: “While 83 percent of respondents (there were 8,000 total respondents, so quite a large study) who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87% who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.”
Mounk also details political leanings being a better predictor of views on political correctness, which no one should find surprising.
“Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem.”
But perhaps my favorite part of Mounk’s article is this: “Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated – and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogenous group in the country.”
Hahahaha! Do you know what that means?! The very people that speak out against white privilege are those who actually ENJOY THE SAME WHITE PRIVILEGE THEY CLAIM TO HATE!
Now, there is obviously a lot to cover here. We’ll go little by little.
If 80% of Americans (of the ones polled, of course) think political correctness is a problem, that is absolutely devastating for the Left. I mean, it’s like a nuclear bomb times 100.
I cannot overstate how terrible this has to be for the Left. As they are, they show themselves to be the hateful, bigoted, close-minded people that they pretended they weren’t until Trump showed up. Political correctness is something the Left has been trying to establish for a while now. And if 80% of the country thinks it’s a problem, that is like a dagger to the Left’s monstrous heart.
It shows that what they want is not what the country wants. It really did not come as a surprise to me that those who were less adamant about political correctness being a problem identified themselves as Left-leaning.
Even still, the fact that 61 percent of liberals think the PC culture is a problem speaks volumes. That is a lot more than I expected. But perhaps this is demonstrative of a Democrat voter base that is beginning to wake up and realize the Democrat Party is not what they thought it used to be. I would say that the Democrat Party is not what they used to be, but I knew they were always like this. They’ve only now begun to show their true colors. They didn’t use to be good, they were just less insane and ready to throw their hatred at the slightest of disagreements.
This is really the main thing to take away from all of this. The Left has been utterly FAILING at programming people to think the way they do. Still, the fact that 30% of “progressive activists” see political correctness as a problem is quite interesting. I would’ve thought that number would be in the extremely low percentile.
I know that Mounk says “only 30 percent” do, and comparatively speaking, that would be the correct terminology, but on its own, that number is surprisingly high.
Apart from the fact that most Americans seemingly reject PC culture, another takeaway from this, which really should not come so much as a surprise, is that those who are less likely to find a problem with political correctness are upper class, well-indoctrinated (I’ve decided to change “well-educated” to “well-indoctrinated” because you no longer receive an education in college) and most ironic of all: they are white.
Again, this tells me that the people who most support political correctness are white people who themselves experience the sort of white privilege they supposedly abhor.
As we all know, the Left’s definition of a person with white privilege is someone who is:
The very people that claim to be against white privilege largely fit the description of someone who enjoys white privilege. It’s delightfully ironic and even more-so hypocritical because these people demand that whites compensate black people and minorities in general, but will never actually do the things they want other white people to do.
Bernie Sanders demands Americans act welcoming towards refugees, yet he would never allow for refugees to take shelter in one of his THREE homes.
George Clooney will bash and attack Americans for not being welcoming towards refugees, but will literally move away from his home if his neighborhood starts getting refugees.
It becomes clear to me that political correctness stems largely from people who feel guilty that they were born white. It’s a strange kind of self-inflicted racism that they brandish, but these people are nutty anyway, so perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.
It’s this fundamental belief in white guilt that creates this culture of political correctness where you’re more worried about the Muslim community getting hate for a radical Islamic terrorist attack than the actual frequency of terrorist attacks.
Not to say that Muslims ought to be blamed for an individual faithfully following Sharia Law, but the bigger issue here is terrorism, not a group of people’s feelings.
I honestly feel sorry for people who support political correctness because they feel white guilt. They are made to believe that just because they were born white, that that somehow means they have an unfair advantage over someone not born white. That being white somehow means they should be guilty for what happened in the past (that was entirely perpetrated by Democrats) and that they somehow have to recompense people of color who themselves never were subject to the things Democrats subjected their predecessors to.
White guilt is something that attacks the soul. Something that makes these people feel guilty for being born of a particular skin color. It’s no different from the Left’s history of blatant racism, where someone being born black automatically makes them inferior in the Left’s eyes.
But it seems that the good news is that most people do not actually suffer from white guilt, or at least most people don’t buy into the idea of political correctness.
Again, that’s the big takeaway from all of this. I just wanted to relish in the fact that it’s wealthy white people who try to shame others for being white and wealthy. Like DiCaprio accusing us of destroying the planet when he’s one of the biggest producers of carbon footprint in the world. Ditto for Al Gore.
“The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be silent.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes free of charge, without any hidden fees. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. It’s easy and convenient! So check it out today!
This is a topic I’ve been covering quite a bit recently, but this is a specific argument I would love to share with you: the people who believe in white privilege are hypocrites. And in more than one sense.
First, the white people who believe in white privilege are hypocrites because, despite their seemingly “self-aware privilege”, they do nothing about it. For example, schools administrators in Canada are posting a series of white-shaming posters on school walls. One particular poster (the one above) depicts the superintendent of schools in British Columbia with the caption: “I have unfairly benefitted from the colour of my skin. White privilege is not acceptable.”
Aside from the fact that it’s an eye-rolling statement, it’s also a hypocritical one. Here, she seemingly accepts that “white privilege” is real and that she’s “benefitted” from it. But do you honestly think she’ll do anything to “make things fair”? Or to get rid of the “benefits”? No. In however way she believes she has benefitted from being white, I can tell you that she’s not willing to give that up.
If she believes she got her job because of her “white privilege”, there’s not a snowball’s chance in Hell she’ll feel guilty enough to resign. If her “white privilege” allowed for the salary she makes, she’s not going to feel guilty enough to take a big pay cut. If her “white privilege” has allowed her to live in a nice house (I don’t know if she does, but I imagine it’s decent), she’s not going to feel guilty enough to move to a desolate place.
All she’s doing is appearing to be “politically correct” in shaming herself for being white but she will never actually do anything to “rectify” herself. That’s why I call her a hypocrite. She believes in the idiotic concept of “white privilege” but would never actually do anything that would take away the “benefits” of her “privilege”.
Now, I also said that there was another way that they are hypocrites. The first way is more specific to white people, but this other way is more for anyone who believes “white privilege” is real, whether they are white or a minority (although I honestly don’t know too many minorities who believe in this. It might be a strictly white issue to be white).
The way they are hypocrites is that they disregard Martin Luther King’s speech entirely. Dr. King had a dream that his children (and, by extension, all people of color) would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Any person that believes white privilege is real entirely ignores that very concept.
For someone, anyone, to say that someone got where they got simply because of their race is to be racist themselves. It’s to be judgmental of someone else’s skin color. Anyone who says Trump is President just because he’s a rich, white man is both ridiculous and racist.
Why? Because if someone’s race or skin color is at the forefront of your mind, then you’re racist. And that’s an inarguable statement. If someone’s biggest issue with Obama was that he is black, then that person is racist. But if his biggest issue with Obama was that he is a communist, that’s not racist at all, although try telling that to any Leftist or anyone in the media.
To attack someone just because they are white is to be racist, even if the attacker is white themselves. I’ve already shared, in a previous article, the story of how Chuck Schumer won’t vote for one of Trump’s judicial nominees simply because he’s white. I’ll make the same argument here as I did in that previous article. Could you imagine the backlash against Schumer if the judge’s skin color was brown or black? Schumer said that the courts under Trump are “too white”.
Let’s replace the word “white” with the word “black”. I’ll even repeat a couple of sentences in my previous paragraph.
“… Chuck Schumer won’t vote for one of Trump’s judicial nominees simply because he’s black… Schumer said that the courts under Trump are ‘too black’.”
If you read that statement back to anyone on the street and omitted the name, they would agree 100% that it’s racist. So why isn’t it racist when it’s the other way around? Why is there no backlash against the Senator? Why is it ok for him to vote against someone just because he’s white?
And that’s not the only example of hypocrisy. Relatively recently, President Trump called Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) someone with a “low I.Q.”
What was Waters’ response? To call him racist. Speaking with MSNBC’s “AM Joy”, the low I.Q. Representative said: “This President… has been name calling. He’s been saying all kinds of things. And I certainly expected him to come out with some racist remark about me. So he did exactly what I expected him do.”
Trump called her an idiot and she showed everyone exactly how right he is. Why would she think he’s being racist? Well, aside from the fact that she believes anything that comes out of Trump’s mouth is racist, it’s the fact that she’s black. In her mind, Trump saying she has a “low I.Q.” is racist just because she’s black and goes by the assumption that all black people are dumb.
In her mind, the only reason Trump is saying she has a low I.Q. is because she’s black, not because she actually likely has a low I.Q. That line of reasoning comes from the belief that all black people are dumb. That’s the only way to tie race with intelligence in this case.
Alternatively, if she doesn’t have that fundamental belief that black people are dumb (and I, for one, believe she does), it could be that she believes her skin color should somehow keep people from attacking her politically whatsoever. And that’s equally as racist. If anything, that’s black privilege.
If she believes that just because she’s black, that she’s exempt from being attacked in this manner and anyone who does is racist for doing it, that’s black privilege.
And there’s no doubt in my mind that such an act would be equally as racist for any Hispanic. Let’s take, for example, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL). If he had been the one to be called someone with “low I.Q.” and he said that it’s racist, then you can logically conclude that he believes in some sort of Hispanic privilege. That Trump would be racist for saying he has a low I.Q. That he should be somehow exempt from being attacked just because he’s Hispanic.
Interestingly enough, that sort of thing doesn’t apply to conservatives or Republicans. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are both Hispanic and are viciously attacked by the Left (not always, since neither is their main focus: Trump).
Being protected by your skin color only applies if you’re a Democrat. How many people called Hillary privileged? She’s white too. How many people have called Pelosi and Schumer privileged? They’re white too. In their minds, these white people are excused from their privilege because they are adamantly against it, at least in speech, not necessarily in deed.
It all ties to the larger, never-ending hypocrisy of the Left. A white Canadian superintendent won’t face any sort of negative coverage from the media (not that many people care, really) because she’s attacking her own skin color. Which, again, begs the question: what would happen if you replaced the word “white” with the word “black”?
Could you imagine the outrage over a black superintendent posting a poster shaming him or herself for being black? Or could you imagine the backlash if the poster wasn’t about the fact that the superintendent is white but that she’s a woman and that’s what has benefited her?
Could you imagine the outrage over black people attacking other black people for being black?
How come there’s no outrage (at least from the media) over white people attacking other white people for being white? White folks are people too.
Now, there’s something to be seriously learned here. In the past, the Left would be hateful towards black people; enslaving them, selling them as property and treating them as such, and going so far as to fight to keep their “right” to own a person. I’ll quote you once again what former Democrat superstar Robert Byrd said about black people: “I am loyal to my country… but I shall never submit to fight beneath that banner with a negro by my side. Rather I should die… than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimens from the wilds.”
Here, Byrd is equating black people to wild animals. So his hatred for black people is very clear. But today, that hatred is directed at white people (at least in speech, not in political deeds and agenda). White people are the new targets of the Left.
This leads me to further cement my belief that the Left hates absolutely everybody. They have, historically, HATED black people. They currently HATE white people. They hate men. They hate women (how else do you explain their support of a “religion” that treats them as less than garbage?) They hate EVERYONE! They see people not as people but as mere things to categorize. Things to own and rule over.
They see everyone else as being beneath them. So when someone who, in their minds, should be beneath them rises to the role of President as Donald Trump did, they are left infuriated and their hatred running amok. That’s my best explanation as to why the Left is acting the way they are towards Trump and his supporters. They see him as someone who should never have even come CLOSE to the highest office in the land that, in their eyes, belongs solely to them.
It’s not difficult to find the incessant hatred of the Left. To say that the Left is full of sympathetic, kind and loving people is to say a sick joke. They are anything but all those things. History shows us exactly who and what they are: the Party of Hatred. The Party of Evil. And the Party of Hypocrisy.
1 John 2:9
“Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.”
I suppose it’s only natural to circle back to some old excuses when you’ve just about run out of them as to why you lost something like a Presidential election. I’ve honestly lost count of how many things Hillary Clinton has blamed her election loss on, but we were bound to return to one of them. In this case, Hillary blames white married women for her defeat… again.
On a panel with the India Today Conclave, having been told that 52% of white women voted for Trump despite the Billy Bush tape, Hillary attempts to explain that “Democrats… have been losing the white vote, including white women. We do not do well with white men and we do not do well with married white women. And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party and an ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should. And what happened in my election is I was on the way to winning white women until… [James] Comey dropped that ill-advised letter on October the 28th and my numbers just went down… All of a sudden, white women who were going to vote for me, and frankly, standing up to the men in their lives and the men in their workplaces, were being told ‘she’s going to jail, you don’t wanna vote for her’… so it stopped my momentum and it decreased my vote enough because I was ahead, I was winning…”
Ok, that’s an awful lot to sort through, so we’ll go little by little.
First, I’m not surprised Democrats have been losing the white vote. Why? DEMOCRATS HATE WHITE PEOPLE! Granted, they hate everyone, but they particularly hate white people. Think about the very concept of white male privilege and white guilt. These are two LEFTIST tools against white people. They say that white men are privileged and their lives are too good and that they should feel guilty over the sins of white people (Democrats, actually) who owned slaves.
You have to be a massive moron to believe attacking that demographic in such a manner will earn you their vote. As it turns out, saying bad things about white people isn’t going to get them to vote for you.
Next, she mentions “an identification with the Republican Party.” What reason do women have to vote Democrat? After all, Democrats are the ones who want illegal immigrant rapists, child molesters and murderers to be here. Democrats want Muslim “refugees” to come here as well. A chart from Statista.com shows recorded rape offences in England and Wales from 2002/03 to 2016/17 according to police.
For a decade, from 2002/03 through 2012/13, the number of recorded cases went up by about 4,000; from 12,295 in 2002/03 to 16,374 in 2012/13. From 2012/13 to THE NEXT YEAR, there was a JUMP in those numbers of about 4,000; from 16,374 to 20,751. IN A SINGLE YEAR, THOSE NUMBERS ROSE TO MATCH A DECADE-LONG RISE!
But that’s not the worst part. From 2013/14 to 2014/15, that jump DOUBLED in size; from 20,751 to 29,300. Then, ANOTHER jump the following year to 35,798 and then YET ANOTHER to 41,150 in 2016/17.
In less than three years, the number of recorded rape in the UK has DOUBLED. Of course, the Muslim “refugees” aren’t the only things to blame here… the U.K. also has a severely strict ban on guns. Interestingly enough, fatal stabbings in England are at their highest level since 2010-11 and rape at knifepoint has risen by 23% in the past year, according to a Breitbart article released February 9th, 2018.
Is it a coincidence that Democrats also support strict gun control laws? I’ve already written another article about this, but I’ll repeat the point made in said article: Democrats are women’s WORST enemy! Why would they vote Democrat?
But returning to Crooked Hillary’s mini-rant about why she lost, she then proceeds to blame married white women for essentially voting against their will. How narcissistic is it of her to believe the female vote should automatically go to her just because she’s a woman? How sexist must you be to believe that? Women didn’t vote for Hillary because their husbands “charmed” or “insisted” they vote for Trump. They voted for Trump because, all things considered, he’s a far better friend to women than Hillary could ever hope to be. He doesn’t want to keep women unsafe and keep them from owning a gun. Hillary does.
He doesn’t want women to be unsafe from illegal immigrants and Muslim “refugees”. Hillary does.
Hillary isn’t a champion of women. Simply knowing what she’s done to Juanita Broaddrick and Monica Lewinsky should be enough to tell you that. What champion of women SILENCES the women that were ASSAULTED by her husband? What champion of women STAYS MARRIED TO A WIDELY-KNOWN RAPIST?!
Once again returning to the crazy lady’s rant, I find it amusing that she blames James Comey once again. While I do believe that Comey re-opening the case against Hillary hurt her numbers, it’s ludicrous to believe one single event like that caused her downfall. It’s not just the case, it’s her very own policy, ideals, her husband’s actions in the past, the Clinton Crime Family, Benghazi and her insulting words towards Trump supporters that snowballed and caused her demise. And that’s just from her part.
You also have to consider the insecurity of the DNC’s servers causing trouble for the Dems, the fact that Hillary rigged the primaries so she’d win (though at the time, there wasn’t as much evidence, it was just murmured and widely believed to be the case by even the Democrat base), and the disastrous 8 years America had to endure thanks to Obama.
Really, there are a multitude of reasons as to why Hillary lost and Trump won. Too many to write for the remainder of this particular article, so I’ll return to the criminally insane woman.
At one point, she went back to insulting Trump voters once again, saying that Trump voters and residents of heartland states are “backwards”, who “didn’t like black people getting rights” and “didn’t like women.”
Right, need I remind her that it’s her Party that fought for the “right” to own a fellow human being? Need I remind her that Lincoln was the FOUNDER of the Republican Party? Need I remind her that no black person was allowed to attend a Democratic National Convention until 1924? Need I remind her that Democrats largely voted AGAINST the 13th Amendment, the amendment that abolished slavery in the U.S.? Need I remind her that her very own MENTOR was a noted member of the Ku Klux Klan who once said “I am loyal to my country and know but reverence to her flag but I shall never submit to fight beneath that banner with a negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see this old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimens from the wilds”?
And, finally, need I remind her that it was her Party that mounted to the relocation and even EXTERMINATION of Native Americans with the Indian Removal Act of 1829 under DEMOCRAT President Andrew Jackson?
Historically, the Democrats have been African-Americans’ (and all minorities', really) worst enemy. Even Obama was terrible for them with the insanely high unemployment rates and racial division between the black communities and law enforcement.
Hillary didn’t just lose because she was the worst candidate of all time. She also lost because she belonged to the worst political party of all time.
Even the Nazis, when shaping their Nuremberg laws, thought that Democrat laws against slaves were too harsh.
“For they cannot rest until they do evil; they are robbed of sleep till they make someone stumble.”
Race has always been a big issue when it comes to Democrats. Historically, they have made numerous attempts at putting down black people. From denouncing their very humanity to passing the Dred Scott decision in the Supreme Court to keeping them from owning guns. But the Left has decided to shift from being racist against black people (outwardly, at least. They’re still very much racist against them) to being racist against white people.
Part of being racist against white people is pushing the ridiculous notion that such a thing as “white privilege” exists. More so, that “white MALE privilege” exists. That way, they cover both race and gender.
This issue was discussed by Steven Crowder, a conservative online figure, in his show “Change My Mind”, where he presents people on college campuses with a certain issue and challenges them to change his mind.
In his latest episode, titled “Male Privilege is a Myth (Second Edition)”, four different students are featured. Two females, one white named Marylin and the other Hispanic named Hannah, and two males, one black named Shawn and the other Asian named David.
Now, the episode is 50 minutes long, so I won’t talk about everything in it, but I’ll cover the important bits.
At one point, Hannah says to Steven: “Even if you don’t wanna look up the statistics, it’s not hard to see how many black men are in jail at larger rates than white men.”
This is not really something to dispute. It’s true, but Steven asks the most important question: “Do black men commit crimes at a higher rate than [white] men?”
It logically follows that if someone’s in jail, it’s likely because they committed a crime. That’s not always the case, but it’s the case most of the time.
Marylin, however, has other ideas, evident with her response: “Definitely not. That’s just not true.” Despite not offering any statistical evidence, she makes that definitive claim.
She goes further, saying: “I mean, I’m sure I could look [the statistics] up, but it’s definitely not true. It’s because racism is built into the system – the system is built against blacks – and that’s what racism is. That’s why there are more blacks in prison.”
I would like to point out that she was wearing a “Feel the Bern” cap during this episode, signifying her support for lunatic socialist Bernie Sanders.
The girls also had an argument with Steven over the Constitution and how it’s supposedly “designed” to benefit white men only, using the women’s suffrage as an example of a right that a minority group had to fight for in order to get more rights and that white men didn’t want to give them those rights, but were forced to. Steven then informed them that a majority of women at the time didn’t actually want the right to vote, given that the right to vote ties in to being possibly drafted into war. Eventually, they got the right to vote but without the draft mandate for women.
Of course, they completely forget the fact that it was white men who were in power at the time and it was them who were lawmakers. And once reminded, they simply claimed that the women, despite a majority being opposed to women voting, “forced” the white men to give them the right to vote.
Eventually, the two ladies left and Shawn, the black male, was invited to talk with Steven. Steven then asked Shawn: “Do you agree with what was just stated there as a black male?”
Shawn had an answer ready: “No.”
He then went on to say: “Well, first off, the statistics about, like, black crime and police brutality overly affecting black males – I mean, we have to look at crime statistics. So yes, black males are overrepresented in prisons, but black males are also overrepresented in crime statistics. So, black males are like six… or seven percent of the population… if you take all that into account, then you have to consider, ok, so why are they overrepresented in crime? And the reason why, I mean, in my opinion, a lot of it is economic, a lot of it is cultural, a lot of it is, you know, the opportunities available in their areas.”
He continues: “And people can make the argument that, oh, it’s because of white oppression. I don’t necessarily think it’s because of white oppression. I think it has a lot to do with the welfare state; I think it has a lot to do with Democratic policies and liberal policies pushing agendas upon black people instead of giving them agency and allowing them to make their own decisions.”
Quite the keen observation there by Shawn. He’s able to recognize that Democrat and liberal policies have been pretty destructive towards the black community and very imposing upon them.
I told you they had a history of being racist, and that racism is still, unfortunately, alive and well in the hearts and minds of the Left and their agenda.
Eventually, David was invited to join the conversation and he mentioned that he and a black friend both applied to USC. David had better academic records than his friend, but he was rejected from the school while his black friend was accepted.
Steven then talked with David about Asians essentially being locked out of universities due to supposed overrepresentation. He asked him what this sort of thing does for the relationship between Asian-Americans and black Americans. David replied, mentioning that academics are a massive priority in Asian culture (it may be a stereotype, but there’s truth to it). He compared and contrasted academic success between the Asian culture and “inner city” culture, where it’s essentially frowned upon to do well in school. He mentioned that differences in academic performance isn’t really about race, but rather, culture.
Shawn agreed, saying: “When you tell people that, you know, oh well you can’t do anything in life because you have this overlord above you, oppressing you, then, like, you’re not gonna have any optimism, you’re not gonna have any aspirations to achieve anything in life.”
And that really goes back to Democrat policy and agenda. The very welfare state is built for the sole purpose of discouraging people from being successful, saying that you’re gonna be just fine. That you don’t need to do well on your own because the government will take care of you.
The Democrats have been too successful in that, given their Nazi-inspired ghettoization of black communities in cities ruled by Democrats like Chicago, Detroit, Oakland and Compton.
And that’s the inner racism of the Democrat Party. But they wouldn’t be Democrats if they weren’t outwardly racist towards someone, and now their new victims are white people. White privilege and white guilt are utter malarkey. Whites are not preferred over minorities. The very reason they’re not considered a minority is because THERE’S A MAJORITY OF THEM! Can you really blame companies and businesses if the majority of their workforce is made up of the majority of the demographic population?
If businesses have a mostly white workforce, it’s because there are mostly white people in the country and they were selected with the belief they were the best people for the job. Choosing someone just because they are black is just as racist as not choosing them because they are black.
If white people statistically live better off than black people, who exactly do you think is to blame? It’s DEMOCRATS who are imposing their agendas on black people and making them POORER! Under Obama, we saw a MASSIVE rise in food stamp recipients. Under Trump, those numbers have significantly gone down, from roughly 44 million recipients in 2016 to roughly 42 million in 2017, a two million people drop.
And with the booming economy, I would expect those numbers to continue tumbling down. But you see my point. If black people are in a bad spot today, it’s entirely because of the same Democrat Party that has been keeping them down THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY’S HISTORY!
If there are more black people in jail, it’s because almost all of them are guilty of a CRIME! Otherwise, they are not in jail, are they? And there’s no disputing this. The very evidence exists IN OUR VERY OWN GOVERNMENT!
If black people are essentially automatically bound for jail, how then can a black man BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?! Obama, aside from smoking weed, is not documented to have committed any crimes until AFTER he became President. That lack of a criminal history is what kept him out of jail. If they want to see less black people in jail, I want to see less black people committing crimes.
The criminal justice system is not built to imprison people who are INNOCENT! Granted, sometimes there’s an unfortunate soul who is innocent and sent to jail or prison. Those people have my condolences and are proof that our justice system is not perfect. But it doesn’t show that it’s racist.
Now, returning to white privilege and white guilt, I can think of few things that are dumber. Usually, any elected Democrat official comes to mind. But both concepts are utterly bogus.
The very concept of white guilt is racist. White guilt is getting a white person to feel guilty just for being white, given the history of “white” people (in reality, Democrats). It’s simply dumb. Not a single white person alive has ever owned a slave. Not a single black person alive has BEEN a slave. Not a single white person alive has whipped a black person with the intention to punish them and harm them. Not a single black person has been forced to pick cotton for his “massa”.
To force someone who’s white into feeling guilty for the sins of someone else just because they share a skin color is the very definition of racism. To do anything, good or bad, for anyone due to the color of that person’s skin is racist.
No white person should feel guilty for being white. Considering things, if you were to replace everything the Left has been saying about white people with the word “black”, they would probably recognize how racist they have been (I say probably because they may not have the mental capacity to recognize their own racism).
For example, Chuck Schumer has said that he intends not to vote for a judicial nominee because he’s white. While he didn’t specifically use those words, that’s in essence his message. He cited that Trump’s confirmed nominees were 92% white males. As though race should be taken into account for anything.
If you’re hiring someone to do a job, you should be trying to get the best person for it, not try to meet a stupid quota.
But if you replaced the word “white” in that conversation with the word “black”, Schumer might reconsider his vote (or at least the reason to not vote for the judge). I’m sure if the nominees were 92% black females, Schumer would have no problem with that, saying that it’s wonderfully diverse.
Either that or he simply would not make any mention about anything to do with Trump’s choices for federal judges.
What I’m trying to say is that we now live in a world where being white is somehow not ok and that if you’re white, you should feel guilty for things that have nothing to do with you. If there’s as much racism in the country as the Left claims there is, it’s racism against white people, not minorities.
And not that it matters, but this is all coming from a HISPANIC male. There, I’ve played the stupid and, frankly, racist game of identity politics for a bit. Somehow, me being Hispanic puts more weight into everything I’ve said. Somehow, my race is more important than the logic behind my words. If a white person said this, they’d be illogically labeled as racists. Luckily for me, I might get off lightly and just be called a fascist.
“As a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in Heaven and things on Earth.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...