View Full Version : The Political Equivalents of “Nigger”
Warrior-Mentor
10-13-2009, 08:02
FrontPage
by David Horowitz
This evening, O’Reilly discussed the White House attack on FoxNews as a Republican mouthpiece. My friend Ron Radosh has a good blog defending Fox here, although he takes some ridiculous and baseless swipes at Glenn Beck in doing so.
O’Reilly correctly pointed out that this was a stupid strategy from a normal political point of view since it would alienate Fox viewers who were independent and could see the charge was absurd and make up their own minds. Juan Williams, Mary Ham and Bernie Goldberg all agreed. Fair enough. But this is not a normal political strategy. It’s the kind of leftist strategy that is the m.o. of the Obama Administration.
By repeating the lie that Fox News is biased enough, the White House is softening up the public to accept its future attack on Fox as “lacking diversity” and therefore in need of government intervention. The redoutable Glenn Beck has flushed out this strategy whose general is the FCC “diversity commissioner” Mark Lloyd.
I call this tactic — which is the main strategy of the left — the “political equivalent of “nigger.” The term “nigger” as everyone knows was used to dehumanize blacks and exclude them from decent society and therefore from the respect and rights normally accorded to members of decent society. The terms “racist” “sexist” and “homophobe” and now “Islamophobe” are all used that way by the left. If Fox is biased, it is socially diseased and has to be cured — which Mark Lloyd will be happy to do.
O’Reilly followed this with a segment on Rush Limbaugh’s bid to buy the St. Louis Rams and the objection to his ownership because he’s “controversial.” Drew Sharp, a black reporter for the Detroit Free Press, took up the cudgels against Limbaugh, accusing him of making “racially tinged” statements. In other words, racist (which is the equivalent for whites of “nigger”). O’Reilly asked for the evidence, and Sharp came up with two examples, both of them based on nothing, as O’Reilly demonstrated. So Sharp fell back on another term “controversial.” If you’re controversial the NFL is justified in excluding. In the hands of the left, “controversial” is another equivalent of “nigger” — not fit for decent society.
As I’ve pointed out many times, the Left is at war... and in a war you have to eliminate the enemy or neutralize him by making him as good as dead.
Therefore the Left follows (religiously) Lenin’s precept that:
the purpose of a political argument
“is not to refute the opponent but to
wipe him from the face of the earth.”
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/10/12/the-political-equivalents-of-nigger/
The reader's responses to this piece posted on the web-site provide for an interesting discussion.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Obama vs. Fox News: Now, The Gloves Are Off
Mark Sappenfield, CSM, 12 Oct 2009
President Obama, the man known for his professorial calm in the face of jeering antiabortion protesters, healthcare critics, and a slightly overzealous congressman, finally appears to have a burr in his saddle.
Fox News.
For an administration whose hallmark has been forbearance, the words of White House communications director Anita Dunn suggest how deeply Fox News has gotten under the Obama team’s skin.
“As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave,” she told The New York Times.
This follows an appearance on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” Sunday (see here) in which she said that Fox News acts “almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.”
Bad blood goes back
Far from seeking a truce, the White House appears to be ratcheting up tensions with Fox News.
The tensions are not new. As far back as the presidential campaign, Robert Gibbs (now Mr. Obama’s press secretary) had this heated exchange with Fox News commentator Sean Hannity. Then last month, Obama gave interviews to each of the Sunday morning talk shows except Fox News Sunday.
Fox, for its part, has decided not to interrupt regular programming on its main network to broadcast the president’s most recent primetime addresses, instead running them only on Fox News, which is a cable channel.
Fox News commentators have been among the leading and harshest critics of Obama, with Glenn Beck suggesting he is a racist trying to take America down the path to Communism and Mike Huckabee saying that awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama was little more than a joke.
The Obama administration has taken exception, in particular, to some of these commentators evident delight in some of the administration’s setbacks – such as its failure to secure the 2016 Summer Olympics bid for Chicago.
The White House went so far as to post a “reality check” on its website, refuting various claims made by Mr. Beck about the effort. It concludes with a link to another website that claims to debunk “even more Fox lies.”
Fox’s defense
Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente said the president is not distinguishing between the network’s opinion programs and its actual news content.
“The average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A-section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents,” he said in a statement.
The New York Times report says David Axelrod, senior adviser to Obama, and Roger Ailes, chairman of Fox News, met last month to discuss the hostilities.
Sunday’s latest volley suggests that the cease-fire – if ever there was one – is over.
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/10/12/obama-vs-fox-news-now-the-gloves-are-off/
Reminds me of Bush and CNN 8 years ago. Ain't nothiing new.
Time will tell if it works.
Peregrino
10-14-2009, 08:27
Thank God for the 1st Ammendment - while it lasts (probably only a couple of days longer than the 2nd).
So Sharp fell back on another term “controversial.” If you’re controversial the NFL is justified in excluding.
Then the NFL would have to do a complete roster scrub on every team due to all the criminals and crooks they call "players".
Thank God for the 1st Ammendment - while it lasts (probably only a couple of days longer than the 2nd).
Are you trying tell us that the 2nd Ammendment is a force binding all other civil liberties together?
Utah Bob
10-14-2009, 12:18
He gets too weird sometimes.
Well, there ya go. :D
Utah Bob
10-15-2009, 10:14
For the record, I do not now, nor have I ever, lived in Utah.:D
"On the local news this morning...LIVE...they were talking about a High School football game between Harmon and Wyandotte...two predominatly black schools...they were interviewing one of the players and he was asked..."what do you think about tonights game"...the kid replies..." we gonna' run them niggas all night"...What the Fuck..."
The only thing that burns my ass about the race thing (no, not a flame this high)....is there seems to be two sets of rules.
I was raised to treat all I meet equally until proven otherwise, but when all this type of stuff happens, it just drives me away from my original beliefs.
Warrior-Mentor
10-16-2009, 08:59
On a related "forbidden" word, I am reading "Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting our First Amendment Liberties."
http://www.amazon.com/Fuck-Taboo-Protecting-Amendment-Liberties/dp/1572487119/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255704930&sr=1-7
What other words will be "forbidden," legally, politically or culturally in the near future?
We've already seen this administration working to eliminate the word "jihad" from any national security assessments, reports or doctrinal manuals...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/04/new-state-department-lexicon-forbids-use-of-the-words-jihad-or-jihadist.html
Harvard Professor of Law Randall Kennedy wrote a book on this topic which I highly recommend to anyone wishing to understand the complexities of the issues involved. Kennedy, Randall. Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word. New York: Pantheon Books, 2002.
Here is an interesting essay by Kennedy: http://blackhistory.harpweek.com/1Introduction/RandallKennedyEssay.htm
Here's a posting on the 'official' reasoning for the PC changes of terminology made during the last administration:
'JIHAD' NEWSPEAK
NY Post, 1 May 2008
Anyone heard Condoleezza Rice use the word "jihad" lately?
According to the Associated Press, the secretary of State hasn't publicly uttered that word, except when referring to the name of a specific group, for the past eight months.
And she isn't likely to start again anytime soon.
That's because the Bush administration has gone all PC in the War on Terror.
Under guidelines issued for all federal agencies by the Department of Homeland Security and based on "recommendations from American Muslims," terms like "jihad" and "mujahedeen" are now off-limits in referring to Islamist extremists - because they're said to boost support for terrorists among Muslims.
"Even if it is accurate to reference the term," according to the guidelines, "it may not be strategic, because it glamorizes terrorism [and] imbues [terrorists] with religious authority they do not have."
Other terms, like "Islamo-fascism," are also taboo, on grounds that they're "offensive to many Muslims."
Are they kidding?
As if Condi Rice letting slip the word "jihad" is going to rouse thousands of young Muslims who otherwise showed not the slightest interest to suddenly strap on explosives and start singing the praises of Osama bin Laden.
Besides, to pretend that jihadists - oops, the new preferred term, says Washington, is "violent extremists" - don't view themselves as religiously motivated simply is silly.
As the prominent author and theologian Richard John Neuhaus has written, "Jihadism is the religious-inspired ideology [that teaches] that it is the moral obligation of all Muslims to employ whatever means are necessary to compel the world's submission to Islam."
That's not mainstream Islam, of course. And it certainly doesn't represent all Muslims. But to deny its connection to Islam is to deny reality.
What's really going on here, according to Andrew McCarthy of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is an attempt to soft-pedal the reality of jihad by downplaying its connection to holy war and instead stressing its "broader" meaning of a struggle to do good.
"Government is heavily influenced by the media and the commentariat," McCarthy rightly notes, and those interests "are trying to redefine the troubling concept of jihad as a positive."
It would have made George Orwell laugh - or cry.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/jihad_newspeak_aG8iF5YueOs2YHRqXvvQgI
Warrior-Mentor
10-16-2009, 09:54
Richard, i agree with the heft of the article you posted.
I should have better clarified my statement with "this administration and the last."
Happens to all of us when we get going on something and we're working quickly - it has certainly happened to me on a number of occasions. I found the article particularly interesting because it gives important clues as to the reasoning of how some of this came about and I think it was also lost in the general foofarah associated with last year's general election which was really beginning to heat up at that time. I found it interesting that it was the DHS - the master of miscommunication regarding the dangers of veterans - which put these guidelines out to all the government agencies.
The Kennedy book is not very big and is a good one for anyone interested in the topic of racism and language.
Richard
My oldest, 11 yrs., last Saturday said, "GOD, ..... bless America!", when he hit his hand closing the gate.
greenberetTFS
10-19-2009, 12:21
Mine is when I get angry about something and rant "Jesus"............and then catch myself,I'll follow up with "Mary and Joseph"...................;)
Big Teddy :munchin