Whiny Whitey just won’t give up

The American (non)Thinker just won’t stop pimping this idea that white people are the real victims of a case in which an unarmed black teenager was stalked and shot to death. Here’s one of the more recent anal spewings they’ve produced:

July 20, 2013

Birth of a Racist

By Sally Zelikovsky

I assume that the title is a deliberate reference to Birth of a Nation, which is still used by the KKK as a promotional tool to this day, 98 years after it came out. At least D. W. Griffith’s horrendously racist piece of hateful propaganda was well-made. In fact, it is, sadly, a legitimate contender for the title of Most Influential Movie Ever. Zelikovsky’s piece, however, is just more of the the poorly written fucking dogshit we’ve come to expect from American (non)Thinker.

When I awoke this morning and looked at myself in the mirror, I realized that I had undergone a fundamental transformation — a  Kafkaesque metamorphosis.  I was no longer myself.  I had become…a racist.

In my junior year as an undergrad I participated in a preceptorial on the works of Kafka. During our discussions of The Trial, one of the other students suggested the idea that some aspects of Kafka’s work represented the gas chambers in the Holocaust. I pointed out that Kafka died in 1924, long before Hitler took power and began the Holocaust. But she insisted on her interpretation, even going so far as to claim that Kafka somehow psychically predicted Zyklon B showers. This was the point when I realized that “Kafkaesque” means whatever the fuck the person using the word wants it to mean.

But there is, ironically, a sort of Kafkaesque quality to Zelikovsky’s little Whiny Whitey tirade. The joke of “The Metamorphosis” is that Gregor Samsa didn’t really change. He always was the spineless vermin that he supposedly transformed into–there actually wasn’t any real metamorphosis in terms of personality. The same is true of Zelikovsky. Being a racist is a Kafkaesque metamorphosis for her. Which is to say, nothing about her really changed. She was already a racist to begin with.

I didn’t do it to myself.  I’ve always been sensitive to race.  I don’t support racism or racists.  I’ve never considered myself racist and don’t think others would consider me a racist.  How could I be one now?

I’m pretty sure others would consider you racist, given what you say later in this article. This appears to be primarily an issue of your self-delusion and narcissism.

I never enslaved anyone, prevented them from working or voting or living in my neighborhood or joining my clubs.

That’s all it takes to be non-racist, right? As long as I don’t own slaves or kick blacks out of my neighborhood, I’m not racist. That’s all it takes. Right? RIGHT??? TELL ME I’M RIGHT SO I CAN FEEL GOOD ABOUT MYSELF!

I don’t think there was any proof that George Zimmerman did either.

There’s also no proof that he had any reason to suspect Trayvon Martin of anything at all. But you’ll be conveniently ignoring that fact, won’t you?

But now I know if I ever cross or injure a black person — no matter how justified my actions might be — there is a presumption that I am a racist.

Only if “justified” means “The unarmed child I shot was black.”

I don’t like it at all.  It isn’t true.  But here I am, non-racist me trapped inside this new racist body I’ve been assigned.  My actions and beliefs are irrelevant.  Society has decreed this is who I am.

Oh, poor you. Society declared you racist, and it makes you feel poopy. Meanwhile, society also declared it okay to kill Trayvon Martin because he…what? What did he do? Walk around at night while black? You’re declaring your feelings to be more important than his life. Fuck you.

Like alien pods taking control over our slumbering bodies, unstoppable forces have gradually been redirecting our programming as a society so that any time a minority is harmed or disliked by a white person, the precipitating cause of the harm or dislike is ipso facto racism.

Euphemism is always the friend of the prude and the whiner. Please note that in the case under consideration, “harmed or disliked” means “stalked without any justification and then shot dead.”

After the Zimmerman verdict, many white people woke up just like me, realizing that we will be deemed haters whenever we interact with non-whites and something goes wrong — no matter what our motivation or innermost thoughts are.

To understand the meaning of “something goes wrong”, see above. And, again, Zelikovsky is claiming that her precious, delicate little “innermost thoughts” are more important than a 17-year-old boy’s life. Fucking horrible, hateful, selfish, racist bitch.

Most of us didn’t grow up this way.

No shit.

Quite the opposite.  I was taught never to hate and only to judge people by their actions and not by their color, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc

If so, your teachers failed.

Didn’t Martin Luther King say we should judge a man by “the content of his character, not by his color of his skin”?

Didn’t Martin Luther King devote his entire life to opposing people like you?

Use of racism to implement an agenda or get one’s way, has been building over years.

This guy called Martin Luther King may have done it, too.

Anytime you fire someone who is a minority, you must have documentation backing up your non-racist justifications.

I’ve had several jobs and seen people of all races fired. Being able to justify a firing is something a business has to do no matter what.

Even though we are supposed to be a color-blind, post-racial society, groups and individuals force us to think about race all the time.

Classic Whiny Whitey. “By talking about racism, they’re FORCING me to experience the horrible, unutterable suffering of having to THINK!”

We have become a hyper-racial society.  Furthermore, since very few of us want to be labeled with anything as odious as “racist,” we will do anything — including keeping incompetents in our employ — to avoid the moniker.

Or maybe we’ll just construct such excuses in order to make ourselves look like victims.

If you don’t like your black neighbor because you have a personality clash, you are a racist.

Nope. Lot’s of people don’t like Chris Brown. No one has ever been called racist for it. He’s an asshole.

If you complain about a black clerk in a store because she wasn’t helpful, you are a racist.

Nope. I’ve complained about bad service from people who happened to be black. No one ever called me a racist for it.

If you oppose affirmative action, you are a racist.

True.

If you disagree with a black President’s ideology and disapprove of his policies, you most definitely are a racist.

Nope. But it helps your credibility with the right if you are a racist.

If you are a juror in the Trayvon Martin case and find George Zimmerman not guilty, you must be a racist. Heck, the entire system that acquitted Zimmerman is racist. Those shots were fired not out of self-defense but because of racism. And we know that, because Trayvon was black and Zimmerman white.

There is no sane universe in which stalking an unarmed boy–even after a 911 operator told you not to–and then starting a confrontation with him and shooting him should be considered “self defense”. Florida, obviously, is not sane. Zimmerman was not defending himself. He started the confrontation. Trayvon Martin was the one defending himself. If you think differently, I don’t even care if you’re racist or not. You’re just an asshole, plain and simple.

Whether or not he did or did not provoke the confrontation with Trayvon, it’s hard to believe the wimpy George Zimmerman’s last thoughts were “I’m going to kill a black man because I don’t like blacks” as opposed to “This guy is bashing my head in and I better do something before I lose consciousness.”

No. Bullshit. The fact that Zimmerman started the whole thing is very much an issue.

In trials like this — where you have one-on-one action with little else to go on — and you want to prove racism, you are either forced to (1) look at surrounding evidence, statements and circumstances and try to re-construct what you think the state of mind or intent of the accused was, or (2) intuit what the accused was thinking, in other words, jump into his mind and make the leap from assumption to assumption.

While there was a credible eye witness who saw Trayvon beating up Zimmerman,  if hate is to be the crime on trial, then we are compelled to examine the thoughts of the perpetrator and the victim, even though we have no way of ever knowing what they really were.  Until we can read someone’s thoughts as if they were files on a computer, we are treading into dangerous territory.

Fuck you. You’re the one pretending to “intuit” what Zimmerman was thinking. Here are some facts, which neither side of the debate disputes: 1.) Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though no one ever asked him to do this; 2) Trayvon Martin wasn’t hurting anybody; 3) Zimmerman chose to follow him; 4) The 911 operator specifically told him not to do that; 5) Zimmerman ignored this and continued following Martin; 6) Zimmerman was the one who initiated a confrontation between the two; 7) a fight broke out; 8) Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, 9) Martin was UNARMED.

I don’t need to read anyone’s thoughts. Zimmerman was wrong. Period. No one should be allowed to do what he did, even without the race issue.

These are the kind of cases that try men’s souls.

Fuck off.

…the public is unsettled because any one of us, at any time, of any color, could be either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman.

Complete and utter bullshit. I can’t be Trayvon Martin, because I am a 32 year old white man. You are a white woman, and therefore also cannot be Trayvon Martin. Society frequently treats young black men as if they’re automatically dangerous–something that doesn’t happen to white men or to women of any race.

On top of all this, some in the public — MSNBC, loonies on the left, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the minions they have summoned to protest — want us to further restrict the self-defense laws that protect all of us in these situations.

Bullshit. Zimmerman was not defending himself. He started the fight. He was the aggressor.

This means it would be even harder for you to shoot an intruder or rapist or pedophile when protecting yourself or your family.  This means people will hesitate before coming to the aid of a neighbor or being a Good Samaritan.  This means when someone robs your store at gunpoint, you have to succumb to injury or death.  This means when your daughter or son is raped, they must yield and never fight back because self-defense will no longer be available to them.

Whiny Whitey sure does love some good old fashioned scaremongering. And, no, recognizing the injustice of the Martin case does not mean you have to let your daughters get raped. It just means you can’t stalk and kill unarmed teenage boys. If you consider not being able to stalk and shoot 17 year old black boys to be an infringement on your rights, please fucking fuck yourself with the first sharp object you find.

This would be a return to the lawlessness of the Wild West where anything goes and your only justice is revenge.  Call it feudal, barbaric, mob rule or lawlessness: either way, it is the unraveling of the criminal justice system in America and a giant step back for mankind.

That’s precisely the opposite of what you said the the previous paragraph, you stupid hateful bitch. First you say this will make everyone cowed and submissive–next it’s the Wild Wild West. You don’t have any activity in your anterior cingulate cortex at all, do you?

Do we really want to throw the self-defense baby out with the racism bathwater?

No, but only an idiot would think that those are our only two options.

Most of these cases are admittedly hard to prove — that’s why our system errs on the side of innocence.  It’s better to let a guilty man go free than incarcerate an innocent one.  If you were the accused, believe me, this would be your mantra.

I agree that it’s better to let guilty men go than imprison innocent men. So, let’s talk about all the black men who get railroaded into our prisons by a justice system that–HEY! Where are you going???

I wonder if the race industry has any idea what they are clamoring for by restricting the claim of self-defense.  Black-on-black crime is the overwhelming source of crime against blacks in America.  If the Zimmerman protesters have their way and a black intruder breaks into the home of a black family and is shot dead by the homeowner, the homeowner will more likely be the criminal on trial than the perp, as we have seen in the Ron Dixon case in Brooklyn, where a Jamaican family man killed an intruder (whose race isn’t clear in the reports) and was shockingly sentenced to jail for illegally possessing a gun.

Do I even need to explain how this situation has nothing to do with Zimmerman? (Nota Bene: If you need me to explain, then you’re an imbecile, much like Sally Zelikovsky.)

My heart breaks that slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, the KKK, lynching, and discrimination ever existed.  Every reasonable human being feels this way.

Sure it does. But you know whose hearts don’t break for those things? The commenters on the website where you published this.

This is not exclusive to race.  Gay activists have hijacked the black plight for their own purposes.  Gay students are given special consideration in the college application process to right the wrongs visited upon previous generations of homosexuals.  If you dislike a person who happens to be gay, you are homophobic.  If you disapprove of redefining marriage, you are homophobic.  If the thought of same-sex sexual conduct makes you feel uncomfortable, you are homophobic.  If you think AIDS is a gay disease brought on by lifestyle, you are homophobic.  If you fire anyone who is gay, you are homophobic.

“I can’t understand why every time I restrict the rights of gays I get called homophobic!”

And, as we have seen in the media’s reaction to the Zimmerman case, for many, there is no room for self-defense if the puncher-turned-victim is black and the accused is white.

The media is evil for turning the “puncher” into a victim. Rather, we should treat the SHOOTER as a victim.

You right wing assholes are so very clever–in the Spinal Tap interpretation of clever which actually means stupid. But make no mistake. If you ever punch someone, and then they shoot you in response, all this indignity will vanish in an instant, and you’ll suddenly realize what “proportionate response” means. Especially if the guy you who picked a fight with you is black.

Advertisements

Just don’t call him the first BLACK president…

Exactly what constitutes a “story” differs from person to person. What counts as a significant development depends on what you consider to be significant in the first place. I thought the events of Amazing Spider-Man #700 were significant (and supremely stupid),* but people who aren’t like me and haven’t been reading comic books since 1990 probably don’t give a shit about it. This past week I borrowed my dad’s car while mine was in the shop, and couldn’t figure out how to change the satellite radio station off the Golf Channel. So I had to listen to big stories about whether Tiger or Rory would win a major in 2013, or which major course is getting a re-design. Couldn’t care less. Call me when the NBA playoffs start.

This means that what a news outlet considers to be a “story” reflects quite a bit on what they think their readership finds important, which brings us to this headline from WingNutDaily:

WHISTLEBLOWER MAGAZINE

THE FIRST MUSLIM PRESIDENT

The 1 honorary title Barack Obama doesn’t want – but definitely deserves

It’s not so much an article as it is an advertisement disguised as an article, hoping to entice their readership to buy shit from them. WND does this a lot, and apparently they know their readership quite well. Kinda like how a good hog farmer knows just the right kind of shit that his pigs like to roll around in.

It’s a bit presumptuous to call it “the 1 honorary title” Obama wouldn’t want. It would be pretty easy to come up with other even less palatable soubriquets. I seriously doubt anyone would want to be The First Child Molester President, or the President of the Anal Fissures, or CEO of CNN. Hell, Speaker of the House doesn’t sound too appetizing right about now either. But what matters is not whether it makes any sense to single out this one particular imaginary title as the WORST EVER. What matters is whether the reptilian brain stems of the target audience think it’s the WORST EVER and will shell out money proportionately to the stimulation it creates in them. The point is to provoke a Pavlovian response and get them drooling cash into your coffers as soon as possible.

It started when Bill Clinton was famously called “the first black president” – not because of his skin color, of course, but because he supposedly exemplified so many “black” qualities and attitudes.

This article is off to a great start!

Since Barack Obama has been president, he’s been showered with many such accolades – most recently when Newsweek crowned him “The First Gay President” for his election-year abandonment of his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Newsweek also called M. Night Shyamalan “The Next Spielberg”, so let’s not start stroking our balls over this title just yet. In fact, given their history, if Newsweek is calling him The First Gay President, then it follows with almost certainty that Obama has a literal dick allergy and breaks out into hives whenever dick shares the same air space with him, but needs pussy every two hours in order to keep his heart from collapsing.

But the elite media, to commemorate other Obama affinities and policy positions, have also dubbed him “The First Hispanic President,” “The First Asian-American President,” “The First Jewish President” – and even “The First Female President.”

Dear Loyal Readers,

Just wanted to remind you that Obama is the First [Something] President. Not quite sure what that “something” is, but how do you feel about Jews and Mexicans and women? Or Bill Clinton for that matter?

Sincerely,

The Totally Serious Journalists at WND.

But there’s one “first” label conspicuously absent from all the media homage paid to the 44th president – perhaps, ironically, because there’s more truth to it than the press is comfortable admitting – and that’s the title Whistleblower confers on Barack Obama in its blockbuster January 2013 issue: “THE FIRST MUSLIM PRESIDENT.

This sentence is a perfect maelstrom of amusing futility and pathetic braggadocio. “Yes, we, the intrepid news team at WingNutDaily, we alone had the courage–courage so lacking in all those fact-based news outlets–to call Obama something really stupid and wholly unoriginal and completely ineffective IN ALL CAPS!!! Buy our shit! We are so fucking groundbreaking rah rah rah!!!” At least some part of their brains must recognize that yet again resurrecting the tired “Obama’s a Muzzie” trope won’t be any more effective than their birther babblings or conspiracy theories about ACORN or any of the other shit they peddle. The conservatives lost the last election and they can’t change it. But they’ll keep retreading the same ground, because it still sells no matter how futile the endeavor might be.

Barack Obama’s relationship with Islam has long been one of the most radioactive questions surrounding his presidency.

Only if we’re talking about a certain type of radioactive.

Before the 2008 election, it was considered impolite in the extreme even to mention publicly Obama’s middle name, “Hussein,” a name given only to Muslim babies.

Can you imagine the embarrassment when Obama’s Catholic mother and atheist father realized they’d accidentally given birth to a Muslim baby? “Well, fuck, honey. Guess my old atheist self better give him my own middle name, seeing as that’s what the law says you do with Muslim babies. By the way, how exactly does a girl baby come to be named ‘Stanley’?”

And despite repeated polls showing a significant percentage of voters – one in three conservative Republicans and almost one in five of all voters – believe the president is currently a Muslim…

Just refer back to what I said earlier about what counts as “significant”.

…those who dare bring up the issue are mercilessly scorned as ignoramuses and bigots.

Can’t imagine why that might be. Obviously a Catholic girl named Stanley would follow non-existent Muslim rules (in Hawaii) about naming your baby Hussein if and only if he’s Muslim. People must be calling me a bigoted ignoramus because there’s something wrong with them. I’m doing just fine.

Yet, there’s a side to Obama’s life, from his Muslim childhood, schooling, Quran studies, mosque attendance and prayer in Indonesia, to his bewilderingly pro-Muslim policies today as president, that has been carefully concealed from the public by the “mainstream media.”

And by “carefully concealed” we mean “vociferously harped on by every right wing political figure on Fox News until it became ineffective because everyone knew it was bullshit, at which point it began its zombie life among the real wingnuts alongside creationism and fluoride conspiracies.”

If you’ve wondered why the current U.S. president seems so supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood – both in the Arab-Muslim Middle East and, in the form of its various front organizations, within America itself – “THE FIRST MUSLIM PRESIDENT” will open your eyes.

Hint: it’s ’cause he’s Muslim.

Highlights of “THE FIRST MUSLIM PRESIDENT” include:

What follows is just a long list of what kinds of articles one will find in the next issue of WhistleBlower. It certainly does involve quite a bit of blowing, but the only whistle involved is dog whistle, since none of it is new in any way, shape or form. It’s just the same warmed over boilerplate they’ve been spewing out for dumbshits to lap up for almost 5 years now, but repackaged to make it look like something you should spend your hard earned money on (if you’re the kind of person who has no idea what to spend your hard earned money on). If you’ve been following the right wing narrative on Obama the Other even casually, you’ve heard it all before. And if you’ve been following it enthusiastically and believing it, it’s exactly what you want–nothing new, nothing challenging, nothing that’s actually different from what you heard before. Just comforting, mind-numbing repetition and reassurance that it’s reality that’s stupid, not you.

Any time one reads a WND article, it’s always nice to take a look at the comments section to see just how stupid their target audience is. So let’s take a moment to browse through a few comments.

Lamar Carnes • 

The man is NOT an American at all by American standards for a citizen. He certainly doesn’t measure up to any criteria which would suggest he knows anything about Ameircan USA issues of purpose and being. He is more of a foreign person similar to people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, any and all Islamic Muslim dictators and certainly looks like a worn out Socialist!! Still trying to make Socialism the failed policy of the past history of world nations – work for American people! It won’t, it never will and he will eventually leave the office of President with egg all over his face and an emptier suit than he already wears! The man is a total flat failure! A disgrace to our nation and the entyire system of politics and government! A man who has divided us more than any other man ever in our history! Yet, people seem to love it all especially the Press and welfare type people! But, they will eventually cry spilt milk and say they just didn’t really understand it all. yeah, dumb heads keep your heads in the sand!! You stink!!

Well, I was gonna go through a few comments. But then Lamar Carnes had to come along and say everything that any WND commenter will ever say in that thread, all in one comment, and with representative grammar and spelling to boot. Stop hogging all the regurgitated cliches and babble-points, Lamar! Your fellow wingnuts also want to feel reassured by repeating ineffectual nonsense on the internet!

__________________________

* For those who are interested in my opinion, I skipped ASM #700 (and plan to do the same with Superior Spider-Man), and re-read Kraven’s Last Hunt instead. I already know DeMatteis did it better. Call it a hunch.