Colorful Exchange with Lefties and Race Addicts


I had a lively exchange with a bunch of race addicts on one of their blogs. The addict in question is Abagond and, if you’ve been following us, you know that I’ve been following his output for a while.

It’s a funny, instructive, occasionally insightful, challenging and looooooong exchange, that I’ve reproduced in full below. If you read it, you’ll see that it consists of a bunch of people who agree with Abagond’s deeply racist thinking, and me batting back various attacks, insults, libels and the occasional counter-argument.

You’ll see also that the only person who challenges herself even the slightest, and grudgingly gives me some small credit for maybe, occasionally, having a point is a certain “sharina.” She turns out to be more insightful than all the rest of the Abagond group who, for the most part, are content to insult, jeer, scoff at and mock lil’ ol’ me.

I’d point you to the several posts on jazz that are a lot of fun, and there is finally, near the end, one post by “sharina” that neatly sums up what Abagond and others ought really to take to heart: you can’t tell what your neighbor is thinking, much less an entire people.

If you read the entire long thing, you’ll see also that I tried to say the same thing, but I used a lot more words. When sharina said it, I immediately did a face palm, and congratulated her on a great post.

This long thread goes back and forth and back and forth, but you will soon spot a common theme: the race addicts do not want anyone to come along and propose challenging or dissenting points of view. They really like their echo chamber, and they really don’t want anyone coming in and disrupting it. I understand…I suspect that a gigantic portion of the race addicts’ identity and self-esteem are locked up in their perception of themselves as the Noble or Heroic Victim.

Near the end, Abagond commands his followers not to respond to me anymore and, sheep-like, they comply. Sadly, sharina did too. Oh, well. Maybe I gave her too much credit.

Now admittedly, I jumped in snarkily, but I made sure never, ever to attack anyone personally. However, attack posts? Sure thing! I went after posts gleefully and with both barrels, but never people.

It turned out to be the perfect chum to toss into this barrel of these would-be sharks, in minnows’ clothing. The personal attacks began immediately.

For my part, I enjoyed it immensely. I hope you will too. It’s long, so feel perfectly free to skim. There’re a lot of fun mini-exchanges in it.

– * – BEGINNING of THREAD – * –

Was Hitler evil?

Tue 13 Aug 2013 by abagond

hitler-smiling-1

Was Hitler evil?

Most White Americans will say yes: he killed 6 million Jews in the Holocaust!

But to avoid any double standard we should apply the same moral reasoning White Americans apply to their own history:

  1. Everyone does it. Tribalism goes back to at least the invention of the spear. History is full of mass killing of civilians: Rwanda, Congo, Darfur, Srebrenica, Hiroshima, Hanoi, Gaza, Dresden, Nanking, Tiananmen Square, Stalin, Tamerlane, Alexander the Great,  the Khmer Rouge, Mongols, Assyrians, Iroquois, the killing of Armenians, Kurds, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, Tasmanians, Namibians and on and on. If Hitler killed more people than some others, it was because he had better technology.
  2. Technology made him do it. Anyone with Hitler’s technology would have done the same thing.
  3. Europeans kill each other all the time. What’s the big deal?
  4. Jews are racist too. They have forced Palestinians off their land, apply separate laws to them and regularly massacre Palestinian civilians.
  5. Americans are no better. They have forced American Indians off their land, applied separate laws to them and regularly massacred American Indian civilians.
  6. Hitler is not uniquely evil. See above.
  7. Hitler’s intentions were good. He saw the Holocaust as doing the world a favour.
  8. It was the times! The West back then was nakedly racist. Racism had the backing of science. The book Hitler called his Bible was bought by over a million Americans: “The Passing of the Great Race” (1916) by Madison Grant, a rich New Yorker. The word genocide was not invented till 1943 and not properly defined till after the war – by the winners to condemn Hitler! We should not judge the past by current morals.
  9. We should be grateful. Germans invented the printing press, car, jet plane, rocket, etc. They gave us much of the modern medicine that allows most people to live past 40. Albert Schweitzer and other Germans have helped people in Africa. Condemning Hitler without pointing out all the good Germans have done is unbalanced and hypocritical.
  10. Get over it! It took place a long time ago. My family did not take part in it. No one you know was affected by it. Why make such a big deal about it? The past is dead and gone. There are more important issues.
  11. It is racist to talk about racism. Talking about anti-Semitism keeps it alive. Condemning Hitler is divisive.
  12. You can dismiss what Americans say about Hitler: they were his enemies; many of their journalists and historians are Jewish; their schools teach patriotic lies.

Every single one of these arguments, with the names changed, have been used on this blog to downplay American racism, slavery and genocide.

W.E.B. Du Bois:

there was no Nazi atrocity – concentration camps, wholesale maiming and murder, defilement of women or ghastly blasphemy of childhood – which the Christian civilization of Europe had not long been practicing against colored folk in all parts of the world in the name of and for the defense of a Superior Race born to rule the world.

See also:

Like this:

Posted in stuff | 261 Comments

261 Responses

  1. Wow. High-risk post.

    I get your point, and it’s a valid one, but I’d guess this one could get a lot of deliberate misinterpretation from some quarters.

  2. A thought provoking post Abagond

  3. Very nice job at taking a different pov to help people think! :) I really like it.

    One small thing, while the 6 million number is common, the agreeded upon minimum number is more like 10-11 million when counting all of the groups (gays, educated, etc etc) murdered.

  4. Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    Very good piece. Sound moral logic. But….morality itself is flawed. Julius Abagond agrees that abortion is killing innocent children. But without abortion, people will have large families and invade each other countries.

  5. Was he evil–unequivocally, yes.

    Was he also human (as shown in the pic above with a small child)? Yes. The little girl was an admirer of Hitler and that day is her birthday where he invited her to his summer home–The Berghof–for strawberries and cream. He presented her with a necklace and tour of his home.

    Hitler is a very, very interesting figure because historical figures are always complex and there were multiple sides to him.

    Hitler also had LOTS of young women admirers. He also admired young women and had many worked for him in his personal office. In fact, many young German women would vie for a spot just to be his personal assistant and interviews were conducted much like America’s Next Top Model contests…his beloved secretary, Traudle Junge, who was about 30 something years his junior has an interesting account of Hitler. She says he really saw himself as a father and acted as such. He was never disrespectful to young women and called her “my child”. He was also overly concerned about his health and for that reason was a vegeterian and forbade smoking inside his personal offices and bunker–Traudle and other women of the Reich were smokers.

  6. in complete agreement with everything you’ve said. also point out other little things:

    1- he was a vegetarian,

    2- he took inspiration from Darwin’s work,

    3- he called japanese people “honorary whites”.

    and that’s all i know.

  7. i hear a lot about how we live on indian land, and I agree. As soon as i finish college i’m leaving america–back to England. You should join me, and leave for africa. None of us belong here.

  8. Noneya: I wish you luck. Ready for a prediction? If you were to leave for Africa, you’ll be back very shortly thereafter.

    Best,

    – xPraetorius

  9. Great post. It hits the spot in so many ways. And this is just the short-list. It is interesting to see the double talk in the comments. There is still a lot of work to be done. Peace.

  10. Noneya,
    Bye. Good luck.

  11. Aimé Césaire (1913-2008) said it best:

    “People are astounded, they are angry. They say: “How strange that is. But then it is only Nazism, it wont last.” And they wait, and they hope; and they hide the truth from themselves: It is savagery, the supreme savagery, it crowns, it epitomizes the day-to-day savageries; yes, it is Nazism, but before they became its victims, they were its accomplices; that Nazism they tolerated before they succumbed to it, they exonerated it, they closed their eyes to it, they legitimated it because until then it had been employed only against non-European peoples; that Nazism they encouraged, they were responsible for it, and it drips, it seeps, it wells fro every crack in western Christian civilization until it engulfs that civilization in a bloody sea.”

  12. Kudos on approaching a challenging topic about double-standards.

    The reality appears to be that most people are happy to nurture and maintain double-standards so long as they’re congruent with a favored mythology.

    As you point out, if one does wish to dispense with double-standards, then one generally must either contextualize Hitler and his ilk as being non-evil or else contextualize the modern West as being evil (along with most other cultures worldwide from antiquity onwards).

    Perhaps even more difficult for people of faith would be having to re-assess the history of the Abrahamic religions, given the genocides contained in the early books of the Bible. For example, Saul is noted as having killed every man, woman, and child of Amalek.

    By our modern standards, is there any moral justification for the deliberate killing of children?

    To be fair, there is a pragmatic “it was the times” argument to be made (presuming that humanity’s moral enlightenment continues to develop in a forward manner), but that’s also not without controversy, because then the debate comes down to what time period is selected for the frame.

    Different groups will understandably choose different periods for their “it was the times” argument.

    As contentious as that perspective may be, perhaps in the end it’s still preferable over “radical congruency”.

  13. It should be interesting to read the weak attempts at defending this double standard by the usual suspects. I can’t say that I would trust anyone who fears people coming together enough to label it radical.

  14. @ Phoebe

    He was never disrespectful to young women and called her “my child”.

    But how sure are we about this?
    From various theories I have heard in Germany, AH’s relationships with young women were somewhat more complicated than that. Certainly from what his close companions reported, like Putzi Hanfstaengl, would recall from confidences and observations.
    For one, AH had a romantic affair with a young niece of his, Geli Raubal.
    He was highly controlling of her, and this distressed Geli.
    Also, he would ask her to squat over his head and urinate on his face, among other things, something that that troubled and humiliated her even more.

    She was a vulnerable and impressionable young person.
    She later committed suicide after their parting.
    Some say AH ordered her killing.

    The psycho-sexual theories I heard about AH’s vegetarianism was that he became one as an outgrowth of Geli’s death: he could no longer eat meat because it put him in mind of eating Eli’s flesh, and the defecation on his face from their sexual life, was symbolic of meat-eating to him.

    The other young women he was involved also committed suicide or attempted it.

  15. Hitler was an evil man a psychopath, perhaps a sociopath. I always get the psychological terms confused…but the sad thing is he modeled the separation of the European Jews off of the segregation of Blacks in the United States…and he was A-Okay with lynching too, which happened regularly in the United States.

    So he learned some things from the American system of racism. Sad…but at the same time people will make all kinds of excuses for the EVIL that was committed by Americans against Blacks and other POC

  16. on Tue 13 Aug 2013 at 16:17:16munu aka Bantu

    xPraetorius
    “Noneya: I wish you luck. Ready for a prediction? If you were to leave for Africa, you’ll be back very shortly thereafter.”

    Why do you think so?

    Randy
    “To be fair, there is a pragmatic “it was the times” argument to be made (presuming that humanity’s moral enlightenment continues to develop in a forward manner), but that’s also not without controversy, because then the debate comes down to what time period is selected for the frame.”

    Humanity’s moral progress has its foundation on its material progress. In the past we didn’t have machines and we relied on other humans and later on (domesticated) animals to have the heavy lifting done in order to create civilized landscapes. From that sprung the need of serfdom or slaves. Today we have lots of different machines (powered mainly by fossil fuel energy) and we use them to replace humans in such tasks. If or when this material basis of modern civilization collapses, humans will revert to the old ways of using other humans as slaves.

    Just a few thoughts…

  17. So they’re just proving how violent they are, by trying to make seem normal…all these things were done by whites, while others were creating great civilizations. They were killing each other!
    You need history to understand the present cuz WP don’t change, they just got sneakier because of Political Correctness. I mean I’d rather have them call me the n-word to my face instead of smiling (that creepy smile) and saying all kinds of BS behind my back. So I avoid all of them, because they were fed “white superiority” from a young age! Be around them drains my energy cuz I can just feel this weird energy around them, I don’t know if it’s envy and hate at the same time.
    Also their obsession with us needs to stop! Asking me all theses personal questions and we just Met! And then there’s the older adults, who you’ve known for a while say some sneaky racist question or remarks, that you just have to be quiet about so you don’t get in trouble.

  18. So ww are just as evil as him.
    1- he was a vegetarian,

    2- he took inspiration from Darwin’s work,

    3- he called japanese people “honorary whites”.
    So do a lot of whites today, they don’t change…

  19. Great Post! It was very well-thought out. Nice comparison.

    This is unfortunately sad, but true much of the time. North American whites (and even some European whites and PoC) can tend to be so moved by the malice experienced by Jews and other oppressed groups during the Holocaust and thereafter, but at the same time ignore the extent of humanity that Blacks worldwide have historically been denied. Oh, the hypocrisy!

    Hopefully posts like this will help enlighten a few people, but to be honest, I’m not convinced it will. It’s already been proven a few too many times through Blacks’ experiences, including my own, that Black life is so undervalued by most in society, that it seems this way of thinking will never change.

    After all, there’s far too many people (non-Blacks) who are benefiting from the white supremacist system at the expense of Blacks, that why would they change something that’s working so good for them.

    Unless it starts to affect more non-Black people on a personal level either first-hand or through loved-ones’ experiences might their mind turn. But even this isn’t a guarantee when many buy into the “anything but racism” rational.

    Great blog!

  20. @ Mrs. Ocean-Graham:

    “So ww are just as evil as him.
    1- he was a vegetarian,

    2- he took inspiration from Darwin’s work,

    3- he called japanese people ‘honorary whites’.
    So do a lot of whites today, they don’t change…”

    ————————————————————————

    I know! These qualities hardly excuse his atrocities. Puh-lease!

    I appreciate animal rights efforts, but I do find it kind of “interesting” how a man who could likely have been vegetarian due to this cause has no trouble killing people though! How messed up is that.

    The whole Japanese as “honorary whites” is something I find surprising. Why accept or at least “tolerate” them, but hate the Jews? But then again, do most power-hungry, violence-lusting, lunatics ever behave sensibly in such situations?

  21. WP have always treated animals better than other races of humans for some strange reason. My mom was watching an episode of Anderson Cooper and they dedicated a good portion of the episode to animals, talking about them like humans. Giving their dog clothes and expensive food when their kids in the world who have neither. I love my dogs, but it’s just weird.
    Maybe it’s cuz they’re part Neanderthal, they even share similarities to dogs…they both can have blonde hair and blue/green eyes, their hair is similarly frizzy and they both have thin lips, pale skin–and can turn into a madmen for no apparent reason

  22. Hmmm…interesting, very interesting indeed.

    I’ve watched a documentary on Adolf Hitler in the past and watched him make hate speeches with the most menacing facial expressions, yet I’ve seen him be very gentle and polite to the woman around him in the documentary.

    This post has revealed how America can easily make anyone one person,group or race of people evil, while at the same time, resolving themselves of anything, evil.

    I admit, i was programmed and white washed into believing Hitler was evil and i still do but at the same time, you have to ask yourself of white people in America, LOOK WHO’S TALKING?

    America called, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez a dictator and tyrant, because he didn’t agree with the United States on oil talks.

    Chavez wanted to better his country and have most of the oil money, go to building his 3rd word country’s infrastructure, so it could improve the extreme poverty in that country.

    Chavez gave the unites states the finger and as a result, got labeled a dictator.

  23. Why accept Japanese as Aryans? Germany could not project power into the Pacific, that’s why.

    To chear you up news: Diever Does Blackfaceless Othello.

    https://www.facebook.com/ShakespearetheaterDiever

    The title character is played by Malcolm Davis.

  24. @ Mrs. Ocean-Graham

    Me too! I love my pet, but I would never deny another human’s humanity like that. It is weird.

    LOL, who knows perhaps some of their preferential treatment towards animals over non-Whites is due to this closeness. SMH.

  25. There is no comparison between the Holocaust and American racism. The holocaust was ethnic cleansing for its own sake.

  26. I don’t see how we can compare segregated neighborhoods with concentration camps, and lynchings of hundreds, which though horrible affected poor whites as much as blacks, with the systematic gassing of millions

  27. @ teddy1975:

    “Why accept Japanese as Aryans? Germany could not project power into the Pacific, that’s why.”

    ———————————————————————-

    Even if he and other Europeans could not dominate the Pacific, it still makes no sense why he’d have this ideology. It’s complete contradictory nonsense, and a tell tale sign of how ludicrous he really was.

  28. “their preferential treatment towards animals over non-Whites is due to this closeness”
    Lol, “their closeness” rotfl!

  29. […] to write a quick response to one of the race addicts — a certain Abagond — because his latest blog post is so ludicrous that it cries out for debunking. More importantly, however, his post can serve […]

  30. @SankofaSista, of course it was nonsense, but it was nonsense which made sense if you take into account that ots purpose was to serve the interests of the “New German Elite”. Hitler was sort of enamored with Islam too. (Muslims could fight the British, where Germmany could not. Egoism explains more than insanity.

  31. Well teddy1975, I certainly don’t disagree with the Delusions of Grandeur Connoisseur’s ego being a driving force behind his desire for domination. This was of no surprise to me.

  32. Adolf HItler could not be described as a “consistent” character.
    So much about him was not what it seemed to be, if you impose some common dichotomies about good and evil:
    He was an animal lover, but a hater of people.
    He was an artist, but possessed tremendous vulgarity.
    He was a war-monger, but he was not a military man. He dodged the draft.
    He believed in the reason and logic of the Aryan peoples, but relied on his “instinct” to get him through.

  33. who is that little girl in the picture with Hitler any way? His niece?

    @ Bulanik,

    I know of quite a few people who love animals, but hate people. Some of the most racist people I’ve known have been animal rights advocates, but hated Black people or other POC. so it doesn’t surprise me that Hitler was an animal lover.

  34. I think it’s normal to love animals, but it’s abnormal when you degrade human life and uplift animal life.

  35. Which is what ppl do all the time!
    They pet our hair without asking then wonder why we mad…if it was a dog they wouldn’t wonder why is was mad! They talk about dogs like humans, they buy them sweaters and expensive food, they treat hem better than minorities are treated….
    You must take in consideration the striking resemblance between whites and dogs (blonde frizzy hair, blue/green eyes, pale skin, thin lips, violent behavior)

  36. @ Asplund

    I don’t see how we can compare segregated neighborhoods with concentration camps, and lynchings of hundreds, which though horrible affected poor whites as much as blacks, with the systematic gassing of millions

    You’re missing the point. Abagond is not trying to say that Nazi Germany and slavery Jim Crow were the same thing. Both are significant and separate horrors. Abagond is simply taking an acknowledged evil [Hitler] and using the same moral logic to excuse his atrocities as White people often argue on this blog to excuse historic White atrocities. It’s a way os holding up a mirror so they can see the absurdity of their own logical inconsistency.

  37. Great post abagond, very eye opening. Maybe people will start to get the message.

    @Peanut/@Mrs.Ocean-Graham
    Agreed.
    It’s strange, I’m starting to notice a lot of that. I remember before I was watching a documentary about children with reactive attachment disorder and there was a clip demonstrating what these children were capable of. One clip shown the child choking a baby(It was fictional) and another hurting a puppy(Fictional). And strangely enough, most of the comments cared more about the puppy then the child. Heck, the highest rated comment was sympathetic to the animal than to the baby. I mean I have felt some type of way about the dog, but the baby as well was still on my mind. I think this type of behavior has a lot to do with PETA and effects it’s done over the years. I’m not gonna lie, when I watch a horror movie that involves a animal, even I sometimes am more sympathetic to the pet more than the humans(But then again, it’s horror)
    Still in all, I’m STILL disturbed whether human or not, when there is disturbing content. Especially when children, animals and rape are involved.(I can’t do it)

    Like someone said before too(Can’t remember who said it) the people that are animal activist are extremely crazy/racist.

  38. I have 2 pets, a rabbit and a dog, but I don’t love them more than my family members, I would save them from a fire over my pets. I’ve seen the police vids of officers shooting dogs and the ppl were like oh poor dog the policeman needs to be fired. Black person being killed by the police, oh well.

  39. I’ve met Holocaust Jews who came to speak at my high school about their experiences. After telling their story, some naive white person would raise his hand and ask “Do you hate the Germans?” After the Jew would tell him that the Germans have worked hard to right the wrongs and are still continuing to do so today, and that it is enough reason not to hate, the white guy would say, “Well, you should”.

    It is so hypocritical that a white person would say that because you almost never see white people with the same views towards genocide of Natives or enslavement of blacks. If a person of color so much as shows an inkling of resentment towards white society’s crimes, whites start jumping up and down and get angry and bitter and demand gratitude. Yet for some strange reason, if a Jew complains about anti-Semitism, white people will take him seriously and even side with him. Hell, even Germans will side with the Jew if the Jew is talking about German anti-Semitism! Germans don’t get angry and start saying “But Jews are racist, too!” or “Not all Germans are racist!” blah blah. No. Germans recognize that they were a part of the Holocaust, even if their families were anti-Nazi. They own up to their history, no matter how long ago. White Americans, on the other hand, not so much.

    Rule of Racism: The right to complain about racism is reserved for whites only. (that includes white Jews) This is the reason why pompous two-faces like Winston Churchill were quick to criticize Hitler and slow to acknowledge British imperialism’s racism.

  40. White people would likely separate themselves from the likes of Hitler the same way they always separate themselves from their cutthroat ancestors or the truth behind their imperialistic conquest and tyranny against POC throughout the world.

  41. The Nazis LOVED animals. For them, animals were better than Jews or other humans. Not very different in America. Just look at slavery. Whites treated their slaves worse than their own dogs and cats.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany

  42. Great post, another fine example of the hypocrisy of our nation’s history. These comments about animals getting less cruelty than humans are eye-opening, I didn’t know Nazis placed animals over humans…just like their American counterparts. Sigh.

  43. As an animal lover, I see animals as mostly living according to natural instincts; They, along with infants, are nowhere near as calculating, disingenuous or manipulative as human beings past the toddler stage can be and often are.

  44. “I’ve seen the police vids of officers shooting dogs and the ppl were like oh poor dog the policeman needs to be fired. Black person being killed by the police, oh well.”
    Exactly! And this is coming from someone with two dogs, one that thinks its puppy but it’s about my height standing up–honestly that dog could hurt someone! The other is smaller its in between puppy and adult, and when I’d sit down it’d walk over me like it didn’t care. Be damned if I care more about a dog than a human! Dogs don’t even have brains like ours!

  45. Wow. I know I shouldn’t be surprised but damn…a dog over a baby? I mean I’d care about both, but just…no, that’s wrong!! :( (
    Isn’t it funny how expensive dog food costs, while ppl are starving?
    They buy sweaters for their dogs when they’re humans who only have one shirt and pants…it’s either that WP’s lives are so good that they can afford to treat dogs better than other humans or it’s their Neanderthal genes kicking in! I think it’s both!
    1. Other minorities see how white supremacy causes ppl to die (Travyon Martin) and opresses countries along with young children (Asian kids in sweatshops, starving children in africa, Indian slums, black brazilians living under the rule of the minority (Whites) etc)) so for us it’s unbelievable how they could think of dogs better than humans…
    2. As I said before whites have unique traits that only them an animals have (green,blue eyes, frizzy hair, pale skin etc)

  46. Hi Bulanik,

    But how sure are we about this?
    From various theories I have heard in Germany, AH’s relationships with young women were somewhat more complicated than that. Certainly from what his close companions reported, like Putzi Hanfstaengl, would recall from confidences and observations.
    For one, AH had a romantic affair with a young niece of his, Geli Raubal.
    He was highly controlling of her, and this distressed Geli.
    Also, he would ask her to squat over his head and urinate on his face, among other things, something that that troubled and humiliated her even more.

    She was a vulnerable and impressionable young person.
    She later committed suicide after their parting.
    Some say AH ordered her killing.

    The psycho-sexual theories I heard about AH’s vegetarianism was that he became one as an outgrowth of Geli’s death: he could no longer eat meat because it put him in mind of eating Eli’s flesh, and the defecation on his face from their sexual life, was symbolic of meat-eating to him.

    The other young women he was involved also committed suicide or attempted it.

    Yes..everything you wrote IS consistent with other accounts written about Hitler’s personal life. That every woman “romantically” involved with Hitler either attempted suicide or was successful with it. Add to the list Unity Mitford, Maria (Mitzi) Reiter (she is believed to be the only woman AH had actual “sex” with), and Inga Ley and of course Eva Braun…

    The thing about Traudle though was that she allowed herself to be filmed in a documentary like interview to talk about her interactions with Hitler. Strangely, her accounts of him were that of a father figure who respected women. I suspect that he only allowed her to see the “softer” side of him because she was not in a romantic relationship with him. But, she must’ve known he had “issues”? Most of the women who were involved with him saw him as an intensely dangerous and powerful man whom they thought would make a good lover, but they all ended up in fight for their sanity so to speak.

  47. “Dogs don’t even have brains like ours!”

    – – –

    That’s true; they certainly don’t have brains like ours!

  48. Sorry, Abagond’s post is a pile of incoherent, paranoid blather. And the bilious replies that followed confirm it.

    Somehow, the writer is reaching desperately to try to equate ALL European whites with Hitler. That the vast majority of subsequent replies agreed with that ludicrous premise should make all of you deeply ashamed.

    I have to admit, it’s an impressive feat to do the wacky intellectual contortions necessary to conclude that white condemnation of Hitler’s white racism only confirms white racism. In the reasoning of the post, whites would be true to themselves ONLY if they embraced Hitler after having decisively defeated him and leveled his country.

    What utter nonsense!

    Of course, since whites were THE dominant ethnicity after World War II, they didn’t HAVE to condemn Hitler, to expose his depredations to the world, to reject him and all that he stood for. If whites WERE the racist monsters Abagond, and so many of you, seem to think they are, they could have just swept it all under the rug. They WERE the victors, after all, and the victors write the history. They wrote a history that condemns Hitler’s crimes in no uncertain terms.

    Sorry, there’s simply no hidden racism that can be read into white condemnation of white racism.

    I’ll state an undeniable truth: White people are still the only identifiable group in history ever to undergo a thorough examination of their own treatment of ALL other peoples; to have found themselves and their behavior wanting; and to have made SERIOUS attempts (including trillions and trillions of dollars as well as favorable treatment of job, college and credit applications, free food and countless other considerations) at some kind of restitution. For decades. Believe me, there are PLENTY of OTHER races throughout the world who could stand to undergo the very same self-examination!

    Whites didn’t do that because one day they just saw the light. Whites have been embarked on a 200-year quest to rid themselves of any kind of prejudicial thinking whatsoever, to the point where they have trouble condemning even REALLY moronic things: like the various ethnic and gender “studies” departments in academia, for example.

    By the way, I’ve NEVER heard ANY white person WHATSOEVER ask for ANY kind of gratitude for having undergone this self-inspection. I’ve been paying close attention for more than 50 years…if it were out there in any strength whatsoever, I’d have seen it. Besides, the assertion that ANYONE would demand gratitude for finding that he had acted poorly in the past is ludicrous on the face of it. One is forced to wonder: does Abagond even READ what he writes?

    The problem with whites is NOT that they’re racists, that they automatically disrespect various ethnicities or women or various sexual preferences, but that now they accept at face value TOO MUCH that’s just plain idiotic from just about ANY identifiable group: like unwarranted accusations of racism, for example. And, really, whites are demonstrably the least racist ethnic group on the planet.

    This in no way justifies PAST crimes, but the topic at hand is the PRESENT situation, and Abagond’s post is just flat-out way off-base, out in left field, and full of the tortured ratiocination caused by the race addiction so characteristic of today’s grievance industry.

    No, black people don’t owe any gratitude to white people, nor do white people ask for any, but blacks DO owe a debt of gratitude — as do we all — to Jesus Christ.

    All of you who responded to Abagond’s silly post, inspect YOUR hearts. Are you guilty of hating people — any people — merely because of their ethnicity? You don’t have to answer to me, but you SHOULD answer it to yourself and your families and friends.

    So, finally, why on earth DID whites do it, when they simply didn’t have to? Why give up so much, confess to so much, engage in SUCH thoroughgoing self-examination, and, ultimately, self-criticism? Simple: Christianity. The power of white people’s belief in Christian doctrine drove a relentless, and continuing inspection of their lives, of their thinking and of their history. No honest, believing Christian can live his life WITHOUT constantly trying to be a better person toward ALL God’s children. Simple as that.

    Best,

    – x

  49. The women he had relations with killed themselves. I guess after copulating with that human excrement, the very epitome of evil, what else is left to do?

  50. munu aka Bantu: in answer to your question:

    Q: “Noneya: I wish you luck. Ready for a prediction? If you were to leave for Africa, you’ll be back very shortly thereafter.” Why do you think so?

    A: It’s been tried. Take a look here, for example: http://www.amazon.com/Out-Of-America-Confronts-Africa/dp/0465001882.

    Keith Richburg’s disillusionment with Africa upon his return was rather telling.

    Best,

    – x

  51. @ mstoogood/drosera,

    exactly. I remember reading that the wife of one of the most renowned white supremacists in the country volunteered at an animal shelter and remember Juror B37 and her lizards…and her pets, she talkd more about the pets than her kids and i’ll bet that trayvon’s Iife mattered less than those of her own pets.

  52. people were outraged by Michael vick, as horrible as what he did was, but magically for Trayvon it was “oh he was thug,” he brought it on himself.

  53. Madison Grant, race scientist, animal lover and evil race scientist wrote, The Passing of The Great Race. Hitler used this book to created his evil plan of genocide. May they both have their places in hell.

  54. ^ peanut

    yes Michael vick came to mind, when thinking about all this how dogs lives matter more than black life. and how could I forget about juror b 37 and all her animals.

    @ ms.mary

    lol.

  55. The first problem with the post is we consider the quality of a single person and then make the wild leap to white americans in a case of bait and switch. The second problem, is that we are lacking a definition for what is good and evil.

    I posit a good and moral society is that one that is free of violence and coercion.

    BTW: this strikes me as decidedly dichotomous thinking or good and evil thinking which I thought was white people thinking

  56. on Wed 14 Aug 2013 at 02:19:10King of Trouble

    Ok I guess I will throw in my two cent. WWII the greatest generation but before that how many Americans actually sided with Hitler?

    I will not talk so long on the rice fields of South Carolina

    http://www.sciway.net/hist/chicora/slavery18-2.html

    I will not talk about the Native Americans long walk “The Trail of Tears”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

    I will not talk about the Rock Spring Massacre

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Springs_massacre

    I will not talk about the Bisbee Deportation

    I will not look back in history because those damn evil eyes come looking back through the ages at me.

    However, I will say that one of the big reasons we don’t talk about pre-Pearl Harbor attitudes is because a lot of wealthy Americans agreed with Hitler.

  57. Caring about people and caring about animals are not mutually exclusive concepts: one can do both. And, there are, of course, loads of misanthropes who have no love for animals either. Many serial killers start out by torturing and killing small animals before moving onto killing people.

    It’s Twilight Zone time when caring about the well-being of animals is somehow made to look twisted or downright evil. I myself wonder about people who hate animals. I hope that anyone who feels that way isn’t a pet owner.

  58. However, I will say that one of the big reasons we don’t talk about pre-Pearl Harbor attitudes is because a lot of wealthy Americans agreed with Hitler.”

    Secretly, a good percent of them still do… not to mention the Europeans. Stalin hated him so much that after the war he basically took his place and carried on his work. Hitler was carefully guided into what he did, just as Stalin was. It all becomes much clearer when you focus, not on what Hitler was trying to destroy, but what he was trying to create with his destruction. Albert Speer knew – A white city with a large domed building at it’s center.

    http://www.andyross.net/germania.jpg

    It just looks so similar to… oh well, just a coincidence.

  59. Thanks KOT for mentioning Charleston, SC.

    When I went there, I went to the Slave Mart Museum to hear the the program about its function as the main transfer point for the “cargo” from the Middle Passage and its slave trade marts where this cargo was bought and sold. It is a recommended place for Americans to visit. Its function as one of the main entry points for Africans can be likened to Ellis Island (for Europeans) and Angel Island (for Asians). This would be a great idea for a post.

    I do believe that wealthy white Anglo Americans supported Hitler in the beginning, at least before he took over France and tried to take England. However, German-Americans in the USA have become “white” and Jewish Americans have become more or less white (or at least see things with a similar white frame), so as white people, they both can condemn it.

    In the USA, I think we might have to wait until we actually do have a multi-racial frame before we, collectively as Americans, can condemn the past atrocities.

    But someone enlighten me please. Have Turks become the despised other in Germany?

  60. Sorry, should have compared Sullivan’s Island to Ellis and Angel.

  61. I think it would be better to compare one single person to another. You wouldn’t generalize all germans so why do it to all Americans (white americans). I have an idea for you, compare him to our current president and try and find parallels.

  62. “jefe,
    But someone enlighten me please. Have Turks become the despised other in Germany?”

    Linda says,

    For quite a long time now Jefe…. the Turks have been the low men on the totem pole in Germany for the last 40 years.

    When I first moved to Germany, I was warned by my German neighbors to be careful of the areas I walked into because the heavily Turkish sections were “dangerous” — the Turks were “lazy” and “dirty” (sounds familiar doesn’t it)

  63. @xPraetorius

    Your comment seems to assume the negative stereotype of Africa.

    Actually, WHITE Portuguese are trying to escape their terrible economy by moving to Mozambique and Angola:

    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhNyRNLyH9I)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/16/portuguese-exodus-angola-el-dorado
    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/15/business/mozambique-portugal-economy

    Meanwhile, many educated African professionals who used to work for big corporations, banks, etc., in the West are repatriating to Africa. Here’s a good clip:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/25/business/africa-repats-business

    Of the 10 fastest growing GDPs in the world, 7 of them are in Africa. While Asia was called the new “Tiger”, Africa is now called the “new Lion”:

    http://www.ventures-africa.com/2012/08/the-7-fastest-growing-economies-in-africa
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/techonomy/2012/11/09/africa-is-rising-fast/
    http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/whats_driving_africas_growth

    Also, the writer spent time in Nairobi from 1991-1994, which skewed his perspective. 2013 Nairobi is not the same: it is as modern and cosmopolitan as any other global city.

  64. @Linda,

    Good point on how the Turks are characterized in Germany.

    The Roma people in Hungary and Bulgaria also experience the “African-American” treatment and are negatively stereotyped and discriminated against in much the same way.

  65. […] Hitler evil? Was Hitler evil? | Abagond […]

  66. @Peanut,

    When I was a kid growing up my mother always used to say, “A White person would step on a dying n* gga’s head to get to a puppy in the middle of the street”. She always thought it odd that White’s seemed to value animals over their fellow man, colored man that is. As far as she could tell Whites cared more about a dog than a human being that happened to have black skin. Amazing…

  67. Looking at this post I’m sad. Even here among what one would expect to be free thinkers and independent minded individuals people repeat Swindlers list type false narratives. Fyi,the Germans were long time victims of Polish aggression and border provocations,they had over 150000 Jews in their ranks including blacks.

    “In actual fact 150,000 Jews served with the German armed forces among over a million foreigners including blacks. Yes,even black fought for Hitler.”
    http://karanjazplace.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-world-war-2-began.html

    YES,BLACKS FOUGHT FOR HITLER! They weren’t cannon fodder of human mine disposal systems as Hollywood would portray if they ever do.

  68. Kay, interesting information you brought in but let’s put it into perspective:

    “In the early-to-mid 1930s, Heinrich Himmler began to build the Waffen-SS, this force was comprised of topnotch and crack Germanic soldiers of racially pure Aryan blood. After 1940, Adolf Hitler decreed that the German armed forces would accept foreign born soldiers.

    The reasons for this breakage in racial ideology are simple: as the war went on – the German army and Waffen SS was decreasing, and the Allied armies were increasing – so the Germans needed more men. (so they opened their doors to foreigners, just like the USA — so, need for bodies overrides ideology)

    Another reason was that, as the German armies began to occupy more and more countries, the Nazi High Command began to worry about foreign men forming resistance groups, and offered these men an outlet by joining the Nazi war machine. (so, just like America, hidden agenda to further cause despite idealogy)

    Made up from various backgrounds, foreign born soldiers hailed from countries such as India, France, Britian, the U.S., Turkey, Russia, Korea, and China, as well as soldiers from the Islamic faith. By the wars end, the supposed “racially-pure” Waffen-SS was comprised of nearly 60% non-Germans, with 25 of the 38 SS divisions comprised of foreigners.

    Another non-Germanic unit of the German armed forces was the Legion Freies Arabien (Free Arab Legion). As the German Army entered Africa, it began conscripting Muslim volunteers. The Free Arab Legion was comprised of Libyan and Ethiopian Muslims. Towards the end of the war, this division was folded into the 13th SS Handschar Division, composed of Muslim Bosniaks.

    Ultimately, 20,000 Muslim volunteers belonged to the German armed forces, fighting mainly in Africa and Yugoslavia.”

    http://mabrgordon.hubpages.com/hub/World-War-II-Oddities-Part-1-Foreign-Born-Nazi-Soldiers

    so the Germans used foreign fighters to fight in territories they invaded because they needed bodies and were willing to put aside their ideology in order to further their Agenda.

    The Germans still believed in Aryan supremacy and managed to commit genocide both in Europe and Africa,

    so why are you bringing up this particular topic in a post that is mocking the fact that white Americans condemn Hitler and Nazi Germany as Evil for the Genocide they committed against the Jews but white Americans seem to have a problem empathizing with the systematic genocide of the African slaves and continued marginalization of African Americans in the US of America —

    the Confederate military had black soldiers, even though they were fighting a civil war to keep Slavery alive … Strom Thurmond did everything in power to keep Segregation legal, even though he had a daughter by a black woman…. So, once again, what is your point?

    all you’ve proven is that Nazi Germany was just as Hypocritical as the white American government.

  69. @ xPraetorius

    White Americans believe Hitler was evil not simply because he was evil. There are plenty of comparable evils that they do not get so upset about. You know, like the 10 million blacks worked to death in the Caribbean. Or the genocide the Germans carried out in black Africa. Or their own genocide of American Indians.

    White Americans think Hitler is evil because, in addition to doing evil:

    1. He was an enemy of White American power.
    2. He lost the war.
    3. His victims were white (enough) in the eyes of White Americans.

    Change any one of these conditions and suddenly Hitler would no longer seem so supremely evil:

    #2: Had he won the war, the Holocaust would be seen as a good thing, part of the progress of mankind. Eugenics and racism would be conventional wisdom. Nazi Germany would be a shining model for the world.

    #3: If the Jews were not seen as white, then the Holocaust would fall into that discount bin of half-forgotten history, like the genocide in Namibia. Because their deaths would not be important enough to matter to the White Americans who write and teach what counts as “history” in the U.S.

    #1: If Hitler was not an enemy, then he would be no more evil incarnate than Churchill and Roosevelt – who killed plenty of white civilians and not “just by accident” either. They were no better than the 9/11 hijackers.

    Churchill: “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.”

  70. If you question the holocaust you can get thrown into prison, but if you question slavery and all the other crimes white people have committed, you’re protected by “free speech”.

  71. @ xPraetorius

    In the post I was not trying to prove that White Americans are racist. Instead I was mocking the moral arguments they use to play down their own racist past and present – by applying the very same arguments to something they clearly see as racist. If I played it a little straighter it would have been a parody.

  72. @ xPraetorius

    “So, finally, why on earth DID whites do it, when they simply didn’t have to? Why give up so much, confess to so much, engage in SUCH thoroughgoing self-examination, and, ultimately, self-criticism? Simple: Christianity. The power of white people’s belief in Christian doctrine drove a relentless, and continuing inspection of their lives, of their thinking and of their history. No honest, believing Christian can live his life WITHOUT constantly trying to be a better person toward ALL God’s children. Simple as that.”

    I wish it were that simple. Christianity did play an important part in the abolitionist and civil rights movements, but the Christianity of most White Americans is too weak or too fake to be that kind of driving force in history.

    Many of them use MORALLY BROKEN reasoning about their history. That is the whole point of this post. So THIS POST could help them in their “continuing inspection of their lives, of their thinking and of their history”. Certainly more so than the self-congratulatory, morally blind propaganda they are taught at school.

  73. on Wed 14 Aug 2013 at 10:03:27munu aka Bantu

    In response to “xPraetorius” I say:

    The question of a possible “return” to Africa by people who reside in USA is addressed in another thread.
    http://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/back-to-africa/
    My take on that is stated there too, and I would suggest you take some time to read it (and follow the links too, please):http://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/back-to-africa/#comment-184104

    I have a problem with your “prophecy” that people who would try to go to Africa would then surely return, probably “as soon as possible”.

    I know, personally, people from various backgrounds (Europe, Latin America, Asia, etc) who went there and remained. I would agree that the majority would probably return, but this is true also for other destinations, not only Africa.

    Regarding the opinion of Keith Richburg about Africa, I quite understand it (I haven’t read his book “Out Of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa” but only the comments on Amazon.com) but I would remark the following anyway:

    1. Ideas about Africa in the heads of most people outside the continent are heavily shaped by the media (rarely people have interest on the continent – pondering or choosing it for their vacation, for example – and, therefore, they don’t try to sample more information on the continent)

    2. What make “news” about Africa are generally the “bad news” (wars, epidemics, corruption cases, etc) and, therefore, you will never got an idea of what Africa is outside such “events”; but there is, surely, a life in Africa, outside such “events” and you will never know what such life is, based only on the media; the whole picture is distorted; the question is not if the “bad news” are true or false, but if they are a representative sample of the whole life in the continent; as I said, the picture you can extract from media news is seriously distorted

    3. “Bad news” about Africa sell not only in the daily media (newspapers, television, etc) but also in books, etc.

    4. It depends on the individual if he/she would be happy or not in being in Africa or in any other place; human beings are not exactly the same, their needs (material, emotional, spiritual, etc) vary from one person to the other; in general an American citizen who would try to go to Africa nowadays, would join the growing urban middle class in the continent and, probably, live a similar life as theirs

    I’ve tried elsewhere to give, what I think is, a more balanced overview of Africa. See:
    http://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/the-broken-africa-stereotype/#comment-156161
    If you want to discuss those issues with me, I would suggest you comment at those aforementioned threads and not here, because I think this is a side note (here).

  74. Kay, interesting information you brought in but let’s put it into perspective:

    “In the early-to-mid 1930s, Heinrich Himmler began to build the Waffen-SS, this force was comprised of topnotch and crack Germanic soldiers of racially pure Aryan blood. After 1940, Adolf Hitler decreed that the German armed forces would accept foreign born soldiers.

    The reasons for this breakage in racial ideology are simple: as the war went on – the German army and Waffen SS was decreasing, and the Allied armies were increasing – so the Germans needed more men. (so they opened their doors to foreigners, just like the USA — so, need for bodies overrides ideology)

    Another reason was that, as the German armies began to occupy more and more countries, the Nazi High Command began to worry about foreign men forming resistance groups, and offered these men an outlet by joining the Nazi war machine. (so, just like America, hidden agenda to further cause despite idealogy)

    Made up from various backgrounds, foreign born soldiers hailed from countries such as India, France, Britian, the U.S., Turkey, Russia, Korea, and China, as well as soldiers from the Islamic faith. By the wars end, the supposed “racially-pure” Waffen-SS was comprised of nearly 60% non-Germans, with 25 of the 38 SS divisions comprised of foreigners.

    Another non-Germanic unit of the German armed forces was the Legion Freies Arabien (Free Arab Legion). As the German Army entered Africa, it began conscripting Muslim volunteers. The Free Arab Legion was comprised of Libyan and Ethiopian Muslims. Towards the end of the war, this division was folded into the 13th SS Handschar Division, composed of Muslim Bosniaks.

    Ultimately, 20,000 Muslim volunteers belonged to the German armed forces, fighting mainly in Africa and Yugoslavia.”

    http://mabrgordon.hubpages.com/hub/World-War-II-Oddities-Part-1-Foreign-Born-Nazi-Soldiers

    so the Germans used foreign fighters to fight in territories they invaded because they needed bodies and were willing to put aside their ideology in order to further their Agenda.

    The Germans still believed in Aryan supremacy and managed to commit genocide both in Europe and Africa,

    so why are you bringing up this particular topic in a post that is mocking the fact that white Americans condemn Hitler and Nazi Germany as Evil for the Genocide they committed against the Jews but white Americans seem to have a problem empathizing with the systematic genocide of the African slaves and continued marginalization of African Americans in the US of America —

    the Confederate military had black soldiers, even though they were fighting a civil war to keep Slavery alive … Strom Thurmond did everything in power to keep Segregation legal, even though he had a daughter by a black woman…. So, once again, what is your point?

    all you’ve proven is that Nazi Germany was just as Hypocritical as the white American government.

    Actually,Linda if you read my post you’ll see there was never any HOLOCAUST because the while there was a Teutonic pride thing going on,the genocidal hatred of Jews and others was nonexistant-nothing but a Hollywood invention. I’ve seen a black biracial German wrestler wearing the swastika,but IDK if it was the Olympics where Hitler NEVER ignored Jesse,contrary to the MSM. I’ve searched everywhere but can’t find that photo.
    As for those black Confederates,they were black slave owners! In fact,the first registered slave owner in Virginia was Angolan,which in itself raises questions which when followed to their logical conclusion totally invalidate what we think we know of the Transatlantic slave trade.
    Though I wanted to do a special on slavery here’s something new:

    “It is increasingly likely he was one of the losing Black Catholic survivors of the 30 years war that embroiled the whole of Europe in the mid 1600s. (Yes,there were European blacks from as far back as the Neolithic era”

    http://karanjazplace.blogspot.com/2013/01/slavery-wasnt-black-thing-2.html

  75. BW: “White people would likely separate themselves from the likes of Hitler the same way they always separate themselves from their cutthroat ancestors or the truth behind their imperialistic conquest and tyranny against POC throughout the world.”

    Reply: What a crashingly stupid post! It’s sad that there are apparently people willing to take such racist nitwittery seriously! Anyway, it’s easily debunked: There is simply no will to empire whatsoever in America. Never has been. This is so blindingly obvious that there is no need even to support the assertion. In fact to the contrary, as the U.S. experience with the Phillipines illustrates nicely. So, while white people are engaged in this supposed effort to bring about “imperialist conquest and tyranny against POC,” these selfsame POC are more than happy to take the billions in foreign aid pouring out of the U.S. for just about any benighted, third world, tinpot hellhole that asks for it.

    Best,

    – x

  76. MAB: Let’s look a bit at what you said:

    In response to “xPraetorius” I say:

    The question of a possible “return” to Africa by people who reside in USA is addressed in another thread.
    http://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/back-to-africa/
    My take on that is stated there too, and I would suggest you take some time to read it (and follow the links too, please):http://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/back-to-africa/#comment-184104

    MAB: I have a problem with your “prophecy” that people who would try to go to Africa would then surely return, probably “as soon as possible”.

    X: Ok…but there is simply no country in Africa today characterized by any long-term record of a stable government with regular, orderly turnover of leadership, solid respect for human rights and the rule of law, and a solid economy with opportunity for economic advancement. There ARE stable countries, but none with what I just described for, say, 50 years.

    MAB: I know, personally, people from various backgrounds (Europe, Latin America, Asia, etc) who went there and remained. I would agree that the majority would probably return, but this is true also for other destinations, not only Africa.

    X: Good! But your rare exceptions prove my rule. Despite Obama’s best efforts, there are not — YET — queues of people trying to get out of the U.S.

    MAB: Regarding the opinion of Keith Richburg about Africa, I quite understand it (I haven’t read his book “Out Of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa” but only the comments on Amazon.com) but I would remark the following anyway:

    1. Ideas about Africa in the heads of most people outside the continent are heavily shaped by the media (rarely people have interest on the continent – pondering or choosing it for their vacation, for example – and, therefore, they don’t try to sample more information on the continent)

    X: I point to my statement about “long-term, stable governments.” Few people are adventurous enough to want to vacation in a place where they need to worry for their safety. If that condition were to improve significantly, Africa would, I predict, become an extremely popular vacation destination. As well, possibly, as a destination for immigrants hoping to escape the coming Obama economic meltdown.

    MAB: 2. What make “news” about Africa are generally the “bad news” (wars, epidemics, corruption cases, etc) and, therefore, you will never got an idea of what Africa is outside such “events”; but there is, surely, a life in Africa, outside such “events” and you will never know what such life is, based only on the media; the whole picture is distorted; the question is not if the “bad news” are true or false, but if they are a representative sample of the whole life in the continent; as I said, the picture you can extract from media news is seriously distorted.

    X: Agreed, but that’s because there’s plenty of bad news to make the press. I take a back seat to no man in my disdain for the distortions of the American media. However, the proportion of bad news to good seems deeply skewed in Africa. And the bad news is not just bad, but horrific. I point to things and people like Amin, Bokassa, Mugabe, Biafra, Sudan, Eritrea, Libya, Egypt, Nasser, Liberia, Doe, Rwanda, Burundi. And that’s all in RECENT memory. Stories of heads-of-state eating children (Bokassa, Amin), arms and legs hacked off (Rwanda), ghastly civil wars (Liberia) in once seemingly calm countries, incomprehensible corruption (everywhere), spontaneous massacres (Nigeria)…This is not just “bad news,” but ghastly news, and, again, all in recent memory.

    3. “Bad news” about Africa sell not only in the daily media (newspapers, television, etc) but also in books, etc.

    X: Yes and no. However, again, none can deny that Africa simply has way more than its fair share of bad news. To bring out the good news, one DOES have to dig. This is not true in many other countries of the world.

    MAB: 4. It depends on the individual if he/she would be happy or not in being in Africa or in any other place; human beings are not exactly the same, their needs (material, emotional, spiritual, etc) vary from one person to the other; in general an American citizen who would try to go to Africa nowadays, would join the growing urban middle class in the continent and, probably, live a similar life as theirs

    X: Some of this is certainly correct. However, at this point, it cannot be denied that the person who is most likely to “move to Africa” is the adventurer or the thrill seeker, more than the person from the middle class.

    I’ve tried elsewhere to give, what I think is, a more balanced overview of Africa. See:
    http://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/the-broken-africa-stereotype/#comment-156161
    If you want to discuss those issues with me, I would suggest you comment at those aforementioned threads and not here, because I think this is a side note (here).

    X: Agreed…this is probably a side note, but others seem to have brought it to the forefront. I’ll pick up on something that Abagond said, and let this drop. If you wish to respond, let me know where, and I’ll go there.

    Best,

    – x

  77. There is simply no will to empire whatsoever in America. Never has been.

    OMG, I didn’t know people like this still existed in the world. :-o :-o :-o

    The Republic of Hawaii was an independent sovereign state (and before that, the Kingdom of Hawaii). President McKinley annexed it for political and military strategic purposes. Later it became a state. If that is not a pure example of empire building, I don’t know what is.

    There are many reasons why the Philippines was not retained for statehood, but one of the reasons was due to threat of the uncontrolled increase of “brown” people into the USA. (Of course there were other reasons). But Cuba and Philippines are still not completely of the list of being recolonized and even re-evaluated for statehood.

  78. Abagond: “@ xPraetorius

    In the post I was not trying to prove that White Americans are racist. Instead I was mocking the moral arguments they use to play down their own racist past and present – by applying the very same arguments to something they clearly see as racist. If I played it a little straighter it would have been a parody.”

    xPraetorius: Abagond, this is where you make your fundamental mistake. No whites(*) are trying to “play down their own racist past.” For more than fifty years there has been a steady stream of LOUD and unmistakable “mea culpa!” coming from whites from all walks of life. Long past the point where everyone should have “got it.”

    If yelling constantly and without cease “I’m sorry!” for more than fifty years constitutes “downplaying it,” then you have a weird definition of “downplaying.”

    Yet the more whites have been prostrating themselves in contrition, the more the grievance industry has been saying just how evil and racist white people are. And the more that selfsame grievance industry has come up with tortured and twisted rationalizations — like white condemnation of white racism in the person of Hitler — to support their conclusions.

    At SOME point, you have to expect that at least SOME of the ones who have long been aware of and apologizing on behalf of long-dead ancestors are going to say, with REAL justification, “Hey! That dude you’re accusing of downplaying the past, THAT’s not me!”

    And, they’re right. It’s not.

    You say you’re not trying to “prove that White Americans are racist,” but, really, there’s only one reason to “downplay a racist past,” now isn’t there? The accusation of racism goes hand-in-hand with “trying to downplay the past,” and neatly precedes the “privilege” accusation. It goes like this, and it has been made many times in this blog: “You’re a racist because of your white skin, and because of your white privilege that comes from the labor stolen from blacks 150 years ago!”

    The only answer to the absurd and irrelevant accusation of profiteering from the labor of 150 years ago is to say, why stop at 150 years? Why not go back to the founding of the country, when those persecuted for religious purposes were themselves dispossessed? Oops! Why stop there? There is a clear record of the British being dispossessed by the French in 1066. Yeah, so? Why stop there? Why not undo ALL the injustices done to everybody ever? That’s the ONLY fair way to approach it. Of course, at that point everyone would have a grievance against everyone else, and there’d be no point.

    So, why would YOU get to decide where to stop? Because it’s in YOUR self-interest? That’s kind of self-obsessed isn’t it? How about all the others that have been dispossessed throughout history? How about THEIR descendants? How about reparations from the ones who dispossessed THEM?

    Still and all, whites DID try to make it up to blacks — and to every possible group that could ever find a way to define itself as an aggrieved minority. See, eg: blacks, Hispanics, Japanese internees, gays — sorry: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Allies and Pansexual — asians, American indians, endangered species, illegal immigrants, and you name it.

    You have to face a simple fact: there is STILL plenty of money, fame, power and prestige to be gained by complaining histrionically to white people about how awful white people are. THAT is what REALLY fuels the still histrionic race grievance industry. See, eg: Obama, Barack, Holder, Eric, et al.

    If you look at ALL the communications from ALL the above-mentioned grievance groups, you’ll see they ALL complain about the “WHITE fill-in-the-rest:” male, patriarchy, straight, colonial, imperial, privileged, rich… but the complaints all begin with “white.” Why? It’s the Willie Sutton theory of robbery: that’s where the money is. Want free money? Complain to white people about what lousy, rotten creeps white people are.

    People are starting to realize this finally and just starting to tell the complainers a simple truth: (1) if you get an education, (2) speak well, (3) work hard, (4) interact well with others, you can succeed in America. I added a #5: if you don’t cover your body with piercings and tattoos, have a normal haircut (you know what I mean by “normal”) and don’t wear outlandish jewelry — ie: if you present yourself as a serious, focused businessperson ready to get to work, you will succeed in America. And, really, America owes you nothing more than a fair opportunity to succeed.

    All your OTHER angst, however, is, and ought to be, YOUR responsibility.

    Since I’ve been alive — a tad more than half a century — the above-mentioned groups have been a steady parade of people shouting to white people in particular, “You screwed us!” After some reflection, whites have invariably pretty much shrugged their shoulders and said, “Ummm…ok. Here’s money, or fame, or power or extra rights. Need anything else?” All without firing a shot. Let’s face it, if white people are oppressors, then for the past 50 years and more, they’ve been the sorriest excuse for oppressors the world has ever seen.

    All this to the tune of more than 17 trillion (that’s “trillion” with a “tr” and 12 zeroes) dollars in tax money alone, as well as immeasurable power — culminating in the presidency of the United States — prestige, fame and acceptance.

    Needless to say, this only encouraged more of the same, to the point where, as today, people like Abagond are finding white racism under every rock, and around every corner.

    Why? It still pays.

    Oh, it might not pay the ABAGOND’s of the world, but it pays the fabulously wealthy leadership of the grievance industry calling the shots, ie: Sharpton, Jackson, Obama, Holder, Touré, Harris-Perry, etc…

    I digressed a bit from your point, Abagond, and I apologize, but your goal was apparently to try to say that you had discerned and hoped to describe the “white state of mind.” That state of mind, so you said, is one that would downplay white racism and the abuses committed by whites because of that racism. That assessment is so far off-base, that it merited a vigorous and wide-ranging rebuttal.

    Best,

    – x

    (*) I will admit to the occasional use of hyperbole to make a point. In this case, as in others where I have made statements that seem absolute, I mean: “No whites whom anyone takes seriously.”

  79. jefe:
    “There is simply no will to empire whatsoever in America. Never has been.

    OMG, I didn’t know people like this still existed in the world. :-o :-o :-o

    The Republic of Hawaii was an independent sovereign state (and before that, the Kingdom of Hawaii). President McKinley annexed it for political and military strategic purposes. Later it became a state. If that is not a pure example of empire building, I don’t know what is.

    There are many reasons why the Philippines was not retained for statehood, but one of the reasons was due to threat of the uncontrolled increase of “brown” people into the USA. (Of course there were other reasons). But Cuba and Philippines are still not completely of the list of being recolonized and even re-evaluated for statehood.”

    XPraetorius:
    I said two things: (1) there is simply no will to empire in the United States. (2) There never has been.

    #1 is simply, self-evidently true. #2, is true as well. Your explanation for why America gave up the Philippines proves my point. The U.S. was NEVER more than a reluctant conqueror, occupier, overseas administrator, imperialist. The annexation of Hawaii was done, as you say, to have a strategic presence in the Pacific. Without the perceived need for that presence, it’s likely that Hawaii would STILL be an independent nation. However, events subsequent to McKinley’s annexation kind of confirmed his reasoning, now didn’t they?

    Both my assertions were plainly true. The reason “people like this still exist in the world” is because some of us are still able to view things around us without bending them and twisting them to conform to our ideological predilections.

    Best,

    – x

  80. @ xPraetorius

    Everything you’ve written is a joke. Whites are the only people to undergo some self examination (more like going through the motions) because they are the only ones to initiate slave trades and genocides on such a scale that would require such initiatives.

    And they only did it because of competition; if not for fratricidal conflicts and competition from other whites like, oh I don’t know, the Soviet Union, the Civil Rights Act does not get passed. The whole movement goes nowhere and whites would continue to get away with murdering PoC. The whole thing happened because the US did not like the Soviets pointing out the hypocrisy that whites had no (and still have no) problems engaging in. Like bashing communism but hosing down protesters.

    Current events prove this right.

    And the fratricide that whites engage in is telling; they’ll do it and the “victors” will make war criminals out of the losers, but as soon as it comes time to carve up the majority of the world (us Brown folks), they’re “brothers” and allies and business partners.

    Anyone else notice this shit?

    As soon as the wheels of Karma spin, and the Brown (this includes us ‘Blacks’. I’m not colorblind and I know the difference between Black and Brown) and the population starts to change to what it was before whites raped (nearly all of) Earth (and what it would have been had such atrocities not occurred), they’re all “one nation, one race” or whatever their creed is. Suddenly when the people from the lands they rape start appearing in Europe in mass numbers, it’s “white culture is being destroyed”.

    Oh, my bad. It isn’t “white people”, but rather “the Jews” who are responsible. I hear they’ve been a really popular scapegoat as of late. Nevermind the money they made for you all.

    So no, your bullshit about whites being “christian” and all this “god” nonsense you’ve been pushing is garbage. Wouldn’t have treated humans as chattel if you all were christian, but very few of you are. And you wouldn’t have put their rights in writing (and it really only is in writing) a whole century after their “emancipation” if you were christian. And there would be no “christians” of any other color had whites not destroyed whole cultures and forced it down people’s throats and gunpoint. I dunno. Maybe it’s the effect of praying to whiteJesus. Is that what it is?

  81. Abagond:
    @ xPraetorius — “So, finally, why on earth DID whites do it, when they simply didn’t have to? Why give up so much, confess to so much, engage in SUCH thoroughgoing self-examination, and, ultimately, self-criticism? Simple: Christianity. The power of white people’s belief in Christian doctrine drove a relentless, and continuing inspection of their lives, of their thinking and of their history. No honest, believing Christian can live his life WITHOUT constantly trying to be a better person toward ALL God’s children. Simple as that.”

    I wish it were that simple. Christianity did play an important part in the abolitionist and civil rights movements, but the Christianity of most White Americans is too weak or too fake to be that kind of driving force in history.

    Many of them use MORALLY BROKEN reasoning about their history. That is the whole point of this post. So THIS POST could help them in their “continuing inspection of their lives, of their thinking and of their history”. Certainly more so than the self-congratulatory, morally blind propaganda they are taught at school.

    xPraetorius:
    I wonder where you got this strange idea that school children are taught some bizarre curriculum that says how great white people are. Sorry: that’s just not the case. In fact vastly to the contrary. Want to find something positive about white people in school curricula? Be prepared to dig deep…and OUTSIDE of the school curricula. And that’s just PUBLIC schools! The PRIVATE schools — though their total education is vastly superior to that in the public schools — are worse! They’s an enthusiastic source of teaching concerning the moral failings of white people.

    Kids DO receive morally blind propaganda in school today: propaganda telling them in perfectly unbalanced fashion just how evil white people were and still are.

    Sadly, I have to agree with you about Christianity — today. However, all that was required was that Christians REPLACE outmoded ideas about white superiority or black inferiority. Christians began that effort centuries ago, and it finally succeeded in toppling the outmoded ideas this past century. The point: Christianity WAS a powerful force for good. It still is — Christ’s message hasn’t changed — but the power of the message has been weakened by constant assault from the secularists on the political left, to the detriment of the entire world.

    @Abagond: I’m going to try a slightly different tack with you. You say: “Many of them (white people) use MORALLY BROKEN reasoning about their history.” First of all “Many” doesn’t mean anything. One thousand is “many” in certain contexts (say: wars), while in other contexts one million is “few.” (say: votes in a Presidential election). But, let’s stipulate to your vague statement anyway. Even if it’s true, this morally broken reasoning is not being taught in schools; preached in churches; broadcast over any radio stations with any reach; published in any newspapers with any circulation; used as a platform by any serious candidates for public office; sung in any popular songs; spread about in any medium of any reach whatsoever anywhere. So, again, even if your statement were true of any significant number of white people anywhere — it’s not, but even if it were — it represents less of a problem than slow drivers on the interstate.

    Best,

    – x

  82. Mosh:
    If you question the holocaust you can get thrown into prison, but if you question slavery and all the other crimes white people have committed, you’re protected by “free speech”.

    xPraetorius:
    Oh? Please name someone who was thrown into prison for questioning the holocaust. You can go to jail in Germany…Holocaust denial is specifically against the law there, for obvious reasons. But, please cite an example in the United States of someone who went to jail specifically for questioning the holocaust.

    Best,

    – x

  83. @ xPraetorius

    You say whites do not downplay racism – yet you just did. At length.

  84. @Asplund

    “There is no comparison between the Holocaust and American racism. The holocaust was ethnic cleansing for its own sake.”

    You think that because you are ignorant about the history of America. Millions of Africans died in the Middle Passage alone–far more than the purported number killed in Hitler’s concentration camps.

    Also, the “concentration” camps were just like plantations. They were both places of forced labour and places where many people died.

    The only difference is that Jews in Nazi Germany had to deal with harsh conditions for a matter of a few years whereas Africans in America had to deal with it for a few centuries.

    So when I think about it, you are absolutely right, there is no comparison, Africans in the Americas have had it far worse!

  85. @Praetorius
    “Kids DO receive morally blind propaganda in school today: propaganda telling them in perfectly unbalanced fashion just how evil white people were and still are.”

    No one tells anyone in any American school “how evil white people were and still are.” Some kids simply look at the facts and come to their own conclusions…

  86. who is the little girl in the photo with Hitler?

  87. abagond
    @ xPraetorius

    Abagond said:
    White Americans believe Hitler was evil not simply because he was evil. There are plenty of comparable evils that they do not get so upset about. You know, like the 10 million blacks worked to death in the Caribbean. Or the genocide the Germans carried out in black Africa. Or their own genocide of American Indians.

    xPraetorius replied:
    Again, stipulate to ALL that you say in the above paragraph, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s to whites’ credit that they condemn Hitler. Should they say, “Hitler’s just fine, because Abagond thinks we haven’t adequately condemned all other examples of crimes against humanity?” obviously not! It is not wrong to condemn evil on its face…regardless of all other considerations. Btw, your “facts” are HUGELY off…there were not, for example 10 million blacks worked to death in the Caribbean. Of course one black person worked to death is too many, but the number 10 million is one of those fictitious numbers invented to make a bad problem seem horrifically worse in order to get attention and/or sympathy. However, it is NOT meant to be scrutinized, because it’s not even close to true. Nor was there any white genocide of American indians. Mistreatment and conquest yes, but no genocide. This is not a justification for ANY ill treatment of ANYONE, but if every there has never been a desire on the part of any American in power to exterminate an entire people (the definition of genocide that I use).

    Abagond said:
    White Americans think Hitler is evil because, in addition to doing evil:

    1. He was an enemy of White American power.
    2. He lost the war.
    3. His victims were white (enough) in the eyes of White Americans.

    xPraetorius replied:
    Actually, white people think that Hitler was evil because Hitler was evil. Your little list, above, except for #2, is highly subjective, and, really, pretty far out there. Regarding your #3, The assertion that “His victims were white (enough) in the eyes of White Americans” is SO dumb as to be laughable, if it weren’t so sad. First of all: anti-semitism was never based on skin color. Second: Again, you make the same fatal mistake that the political left just can’t seem to avoid: presuming to tell others what they’re thinking. I’ve said it before, if you were unable to include what you can’t possibly know in your posts, you wouldn’t have anything to write about. Again, you take what just about no one’s EVER said, or written or broadcast or published or disseminated in any way, for GENERATIONS, and declare that it’s a widespread state of mind among white people. Sorry…that’s just wacky.

    Abagond said:
    Change any one of these conditions and suddenly Hitler would no longer seem so supremely evil:

    #2: Had he won the war, the Holocaust would be seen as a good thing, part of the progress of mankind. Eugenics and racism would be conventional wisdom. Nazi Germany would be a shining model for the world.

    xPraetorius replied:
    Nope. Like just about anything of that magnitude, the Holocaust never would have survived the scrutiny of historians even a few years afterward. Even if Hitler HAD won, he’d never have taken the United States, nor would Japan have. Hence, in the uneasy cold war/peace or whatever following a “Hitler victory,” SOMEONE would have said, “Where are all the Jews?”

    Abagond said:
    3: If the Jews were not seen as white, then the Holocaust would fall into that discount bin of half-forgotten history, like the genocide in Namibia. Because their deaths would not be important enough to matter to the White Americans who write and teach what counts as “history” in the U.S.

    xPraetorius replied:
    Wrong again. A simple truth is that any nation’s history is taught in the context of great events that move that particular nation. That’s why the Namibian genocide is not well understood here. Nor is the Armenian genocide, or the Ukrainian genocide or the Hindu genocide, or all the other crimes against humanity that ever happened, but that didn’t directly affect THIS particular nation. Sorry, there’s just too much history out there to teach it all. Nothing whatsoever to do with the color of their skin. Furthermore, Hitler’s machine murdered millions of Catholics as well…surely by your reckoning these were “whiter” than Jews! Yet, this is not taught here either. The point: there’s so much history to teach, that the vast majority has no choice but to be left out in the hopes that SOME will be inspired to research it and record it.

    Abagond said:
    #1: If Hitler was not an enemy, then he would be no more evil incarnate than Churchill and Roosevelt – who killed plenty of white civilians and not “just by accident” either. They were no better than the 9/11 hijackers.

    xPraetorius replied:
    Again, you are ignorant of what America is. What you’re saying in your hypothetical about Hitler IS true of how Stalin — one of history’s vilest mass murderers — was treated after the war…and precisely because he was on our side. However, as time goes by, and Stalin’s crimes against humanity have come slowly to light, he is steadily going to his proper place in history’s pantheon of monsters. Your attempt to tie Churchill and Roosevelt — wartime leaders — with the 9/11 hijackers is repugnant. Just because someone SAYS he’s a “freedom fighter” — as scumbags such as Lenin, Hitler, Che, Castro, Mugabe and other tyrants did — doesn’t mean they are.

    Play a thought game with me, Abagond. Let’s say that someone said to the 9/11 hijackers and to bin Laden, “Here’s a button you can push that will instantly kill all the people in the United States.” Do you think they would have pushed that button? Of course they would have. In a heartbeat. They were not fighters for a cause, they were homicidal maniacs.

    Roosevelt and Churchill had Dresden. Truman had Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But you know what was the difference? Easy. If Germany had surrendered before the firebombing of Dresden, then it never would have happened. And if Japan had surrendered before Hiroshima, THAT never would have happened. Rather big difference.

    Abagond: said:
    Churchill: “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.”

    xPraetorius replied:
    So said, I’m sure, all of history’s important figures. Some of them were right, some weren’t.

    Best,

    – x

  88. Abagond said:
    @ xPraetorius

    You say whites do not downplay racism – yet you just did. At length.

    xPraetorius replied:
    At some length I just said that whites don’t downplay their PAST. To the contrary, they’ve spent many decades apologizing and trying to atone for it. Since white racism is PRESENTLY nearly non-existent, it is correct to downplay that.

    I WOULD be interested to see whether you will address my assertions that:
    • Whites have been on a centuries-long quest to remove any prejudice of any kind from their thinking.
    • In that effort, they have surrendered vast fortunes, power, fame, prestige and extra rights to pretty much any group that could make the case that they are an aggrieved minority.
    • That my five “points” for what to do to succeed in America are true for any American, regardless of skin color.
    • That if my five points are correct, then there is simply no way to characterize America as a racist country.

    Best,

    – x

  89. @Average Bee: I addressed all your “points,” if such they can be called, in previous posts. Therefore, there’s no reason to waste my time with your long, profoundly ignorant screed.

    Best,

    – x

  90. resw77 said:
    @Praetorius
    “Kids DO receive morally blind propaganda in school today: propaganda telling them in perfectly unbalanced fashion just how evil white people were and still are.”

    No one tells anyone in any American school “how evil white people were and still are.” Some kids simply look at the facts and come to their own conclusions…

    xPraetorius replied:
    I guess you never attended an American school…nor, apparently, do you have children in American schools.

    Best,

    – x

  91. @Abagond and @resw77: trafficking in statistics is dangerous business. However, both of you have used some wild numbers to try to make a point. While Wikipedia isn’t always a definitive source, here’s a passage from their entry on the Middle Passage:

    “An estimated 15% of the Africans died at sea, with mortality rates considerably higher in Africa itself in the process of capturing and transporting indigenous peoples to the ships. The total number of African deaths directly attributable to the Middle Passage voyage is estimated at up to two million; a broader look at African deaths directly attributable to the institution of slavery from 1500 to 1900 suggests up to four million African deaths.”

    @Abagond and @resw77: you both could have done that 30 seconds of basic research before using the 10,000,000 figure (Abagond) and the “more than died in the concentration camps” assertion (resw77).

    Look, I love a good exaggeration as much as the next guy, but YOUR exaggerations were out-and-out falsehoods, and you based important points on those falsehoods.

    It’s that kind of sloppiness or, dare I say it, laziness, that throws everything else you say into question.

    Here’s the link, if you want to take a look:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Passage

    I know, I know, I know…I can hear you all already: “He’s trying to downplay the past to make himself seem morally superior.” No. Let’s be clear: the slave trade was unimaginably horrible. The Holocaust was unimaginably horrible. To try to say one was worse than the other? A fool’s game. Don’t do it.

    Furthermore, if you — Abagond and resw77 — are basing entire worldviews on incorrect statistics and other falsehoods, then you need to begin a long period of self-examination as to what else you might have got wrong.

    Best,

    – x

  92. Jadapoo1
    @Peanut,

    When I was a kid growing up my mother always used to say, “A White person would step on a dying n* gga’s head to get to a puppy in the middle of the street”. She always thought it odd that White’s seemed to value animals over their fellow man, colored man that is. As far as she could tell Whites cared more about a dog than a human being that happened to have black skin. Amazing…

    xPraetorius replies:
    @Judapoo1: your mother was wrong.

    Best,

    – x

  93. Nor was there any white genocide of American indians.

    there has never been a desire on the part of any American in power to exterminate an entire people

    M-m-m-h, sounds like we got a member of the Texas School board here. They ban books by the Holocaust history experts that suggest or even “prove” that the American Holocaust of the Aboriginal population by European-descended peoples to be worse than the Nazi Holocaust, including many prominent Jewish historians. David Stannard and other scholars even go as far to claim that the American one is not only worse than the Nazi holocaust, but is the worst in recorded human history. All the more reason to pretend like it didn’t happen. (Holocaust denial syndrome).

    We also got classic Roissy Syndrome, but I’m not going to copy all the examples. No need to. Everybody else found them already.

    Just because someone SAYS he’s a “freedom fighter” … — doesn’t mean they are

    I know, Bush sent troops to “fight for Iraqi freedom”.

    We got a clown here, but they’re starting to get boring. I’m getting sleepy.

  94. @Abagond: Here’s one more example of your playing fast and loose with statistics, and labels. You said, in your original post:

    “It was the times! The West back then was nakedly racist. Racism had the backing of science. The book Hitler called his Bible was bought by millions of Americans: “The Passing of the Great Race” (1916) by Madison Grant, a rich New Yorker. The word genocide was not invented till 1943 and not properly defined till after the war – by the winners to condemn Hitler! We should not judge the past by current morals.”

    Specifially: “he book Hitler called his Bible was bought by millions of Americans: “The Passing of the Great Race” (1916) by Madison Grant, a rich New Yorker.”

    Again, here’s Wikipedia’s entry on “The Passing of the Great Race.”:
    “The Passing of The Great Race; or, The racial basis of European history was an influential book of scientific racism written by the American eugenicist, lawyer, and amateur anthropologist Madison Grant in 1916. The book was largely ignored when it first appeared but went through several revisions and editions; it was never a best seller. The book put forward Grant’s theory of “Nordic superiority” and argued for a strong eugenics program in order to “save the waning ‘Nordics’ from inundation of other race types”. Grant’s propositions to create a strong eugenics program for the “Nordic” population to survive was repudiated by Americans in the 1930s and Europeans after 1945.”

    Further, says Wikipedia: “By 1937 the book had sold only 17,000 copies in the U.S. and had not received good reviews. It was rarely cited. Spiro (2009) explains its failure came because its celebration of Nordic triumphs rang hollow against the German atrocities in Belgium, and Americans did not accept its anti-democratic and anti-Christian message.”

    Key phrases:
    • The book was largely ignored when it first appeared
    • it was never a best seller
    • By 1937 the book had sold only 17,000 copies in the U.S.
    • It was rarely cited.
    • Grant’s proposition … was repudiated by Americans in the 1930s and Europeans after 1945.

    Here’s the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race

    Let’s examine a bit more. Wikipedia characterizes the book as one with limited reach, and even then only among a very few pointy-headed numbskulls. Though it DOES say that the book was “influential,” it also says that it was “repudiated by Americans and Europeans” thereafter.

    It was HARDLY, as you indicated in YOUR language, some deeply resonating, country-shaping tome that “millions of Americans bought.” It was an obscure little tome that few (only 17,000) bought, and probably fewer read, and certainly far fewer took seriously.

    Yet you, Abagond, used this silly little book to be, what you surely hoped, was a convincing point in favor of your argument.

    Again, this is the damage that can be done by the fast and loose use of statistics (17,000 does NOT equal “millions of Americans”) and facts that are simply not facts.

    Seriously, Abagond, this type of carelessness throws everything you say, write, and finally believe, into question. What ELSE of what you believe is, simply, wrong? Again, it took me — maybe — 30 seconds to find that entry in Wikipedia.

    Best,

    – x

  95. jefe said:
    Nor was there any white genocide of American indians.

    there has never been a desire on the part of any American in power to exterminate an entire people

    M-m-m-h, sounds like we got a member of the Texas School board here. They ban books by the Holocaust history experts that suggest or even “prove” that the American Holocaust of the Aboriginal population by European-descended peoples to be worse than the Nazi Holocaust, including many prominent Jewish historians. David Stannard and other scholars even go as far to claim that the American one is not only worse than the Nazi holocaust, but is the worst in recorded human history. All the more reason to pretend like it didn’t happen. (Holocaust denial syndrome).

    We also got classic Roissy Syndrome, but I’m not going to copy all the examples. No need to. Everybody else found them already.

    Just because someone SAYS he’s a “freedom fighter” … — doesn’t mean they are

    I know, Bush sent troops to “fight for Iraqi freedom”.

    We got a clown here, but they’re starting to get boring. I’m getting sleepy.

    – xPraetorius replied:
    @jefe: are you ever going to say anything of substance, or just spout? I quoted actual statistics, with accompanying links, above. I welcome, of course, countervailing statistics or something that indicates that I’m wrong. I’m not “in this to win it.” I’d rather be corrected than continue on in erroneous beliefs. So, instead of the name calling, jefe, why don’t you advance some actual arguments? If you keep calling names, it simply underscores the weakness of everything else you say.

    Again, to try to say that one holocaust was “better” or “worse” than another is a fool’s game. Don’t do it.

    Best,

    – x

  96. I was not comparing holocausts. Prominent internationally acclaimed historians are. You should let them know that *they* are playing a fool’s game.

    Let me finish watching this video

    (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS43hvarKhI)

  97. @ xPraetorius

    I stand corrected. I went back to my source on the sales of “The Passing of the Great Race”. It did not sell “millions” but “over a million and a half copies”. I updated the post to read “over a million”.

    Thanks.

    My source is “The History of White People” by Nell Irvin Painter, a historian and a retired Princeton professor. Not the Wikipedia.

  98. Ok…can Prof. Painter explain the rather wide discrepancy between 17,000 in Wikipedia and 1.5 million? I mean, it’s an 88-1 ratio! And the Wikipedia entry gives more information beyond the mere sales: printings, etc. Sounds pretty authoritative. Doesn’t mean it is, but it sure sounds it.

    Best,

    – x

  99. @ xPraetorius

    “At some length I just said that whites don’t downplay their PAST.”

    Yet you just denied that there was a genocide against American Indians.

  100. @ xPraetorius

    The Wikipedia has tons of errors. You would know that if you tried to seriously research anything.

  101. @x,

    I think the whole point of this post is to mock the fact that some people actually try to do exactly that when arguing about slavery. They claim some type of false comparison that would make slavery seem like a lesser evil. So you are correct in your point, trying to say one was worse than the other is a fool’s game. And by the converse, saying one was less horrible than the other is also a fool’s game. The use of a group that many people consider off- limits was his way of exposing the absurdity of that technique. Just my opinion for what it’s worth.

  102. Just Wondering.
    Does Abagond’s source historian also concur that Hitler modelled the Nazi holocaust after the American one?

    I am watching this one now.
    “American Holocaust: The Destruction of America’s Native Peoples”
    (http://youtu.be/Qra6pcn4AOE)
    It’s 1:42 so it will take some time for me to finish.

  103. @jefe: “Internationally renowned historians” are frequently the WORST offenders for distorting history, and the biggest fools.

    I visited your video link to see where one of the approving viewers cited Howard Zinn — certainly a renowned “historian!” — and one of the worst of those who have distorted history. His “A People’s History…” is widely considered such a distortion that it’s basically a fraud.

    Bottom line: anyone can make a video for YouTube, and certainly many do. You’ve recalled to my mind the State Farm (or whatever insurance company) commercial in which the girl says something like, “They can’t put it on the internet unless it’s true.” She then walks off with the “French model” whom she met on the internet.

    Furthermore, anyone can write a history book. Doesn’t make any of it true.

    I’d ask you again to address my points from above. There were four of them; here they are:

    • Whites have been on a centuries-long quest to remove any prejudice of any kind from their thinking.
    • In that effort, they have surrendered vast fortunes, power, fame, prestige and extra rights to pretty much any group that could make the case that they are an aggrieved minority.
    • That my five “points” for what to do to succeed in America are true for any American, regardless of skin color.
    • That if my five points are correct, then there is simply no way to characterize America as a racist country.

    No need to engage in dueling sources or erudition one-upsmanship — none of which can ever be resolved — simply: what do YOU think?

    Best,

    – x

  104. @ xPraetorius

    “Bottom line: anyone can make a video for YouTube, and certainly many do. You’ve recalled to my mind the State Farm (or whatever insurance company) commercial in which the girl says something like, “They can’t put it on the internet unless it’s true.” She then walks off with the “French model” whom she met on the internet.”

    LMAO. This from the guy who uses the Wikipedia to prove stuff!!

  105. abagond said:
    @ xPraetorius

    “At some length I just said that whites don’t downplay their PAST.”

    Yet you just denied that there was a genocide against American Indians.

    xPraetorius replied:
    Yep. Because there wasn’t. Again, I imagine you and I will have to be sure we are talking about the same thing. I suspect that if there had been a REAL effort to WIPE a people off the earth — my definition of genocide — it would have happened, and that people would not be present today. Are you aware of a people that has been wiped out due to an actual government policy targeted at wiping them out? As opposed to simple ethnic assimilation in the normal course of time.

    Did whites MISTREAT Indians and dispossess them? Absolutely. Did whites downplay that in the education system? Never in MY lifetime. Do they do it now? No.

    Again, I never said that whites downplayed their role in the past…to the contrary, they’ve been loudly trumpeting their guilt to the high heavens for decades! However, you ARE wrong to say that whites are racists today.

    As to the “this genocide was worse than that genocide was worse than the other genocide”…again, that’s a fool’s game, not resolvable, and you all can have at it.

    Again, I have no desire to “win” here, just to learn. However, you all seem more intent on calling me names and questioning my knowledge, integrity or intelligence. That’s just dumb.

    Why don’t you make an actual argument?

    Best,

    – x

  106. abagond said:
    @ xPraetorius

    “Bottom line: anyone can make a video for YouTube, and certainly many do. You’ve recalled to my mind the State Farm (or whatever insurance company) commercial in which the girl says something like, “They can’t put it on the internet unless it’s true.” She then walks off with the “French model” whom she met on the internet.”

    LMAO. This from the guy who uses the Wikipedia to prove stuff!!

    xPraetorius said:
    Again: can your prof Painter explain the discrepancy? YOU did the wildly false statistical mess-ups, not me. I just called you on it.

    It’s patently clear that Wikipedia is AT LEAST as good a source as YouTube, and it’s one whole HECKUVSA lot better than Zinn…I’ll research Painter later to find out HER credibility. However, you’re batting pretty poorly so far. :)

    Best,

    – x

  107. if there had been a REAL effort to WIPE a people off the earth — my definition of genocide — it would have happened, and that people would not be present today.

    We still have Jews here today, so I guess that means that the incident that some refer to as the “Nazi holocaust” was not a real genocide and probably didn’t really happen either.
    And the hundreds of Native American tribes which no longer exist and are extinct disappeared entirely due to “ethnic assimilation”.
    Andrew Jackson’s policy on Indian Removal had nothing to do with Government policy. That was just him thinking out loud and someone overheard him. Certainly the govt had nothing to do with it.

    This is enough history for today. Need to catch some shuteye.

  108. • Whites have been on a centuries-long quest to remove any prejudice of any kind from their thinking.

    I just lol’ed.

  109. If you examine history carefully for information about Hitler’s rise to power you’ll find American links in the chain. Also, the ‘secret society’ that Hitler was a part of “The Thule Society” has equivalences on this side of the Atlantic. What was unique about Hitler was the naked single-mindedness with which he pursued his aims. American warfare and imperialism is a lot more subtle. The Nazis used propaganda masterfully through its architect Goebells but their propaganda was aimed primarily at Germans in order to win their support and loyalty. However, America came to understand the value of propaganda directed at their enemies and so developed the concept of psychological warfare or the PsyOp.

    At its core, the aim is to get people to subscribe to a certain model of reality. This is the source of all power for the author of the model. It is analogous to hypnosis. If I convince you that you’re a dog, you become a dog in your own mind and I become the owner of a dog in that ‘reality’. It should be clear that if you realize that you’re not a dog all my power over you instantly vanishes. Likewise, all the horrible aspects of this imbalanced world cannot exist without everyone’s cooperation. Those who believe they benefit willingly commit to it and actively sustain it while those on the outside fight for inclusion. The thing that rarely occurs to anyone is: “This does not have to be”.

    Part of the reason this thought does not occur is propaganda. Abagond touched on this in previous articles I’ve seen. Through the history we’re taught we’re told that the present ‘civilization’ is what all of humanity has been working towards. Now that it has been achieved, it will continue into the foreseeable future. It is the best there has ever been and is characterized by such high ideals as freedom, equal opportunity and prosperity. Such an ostentatious display of ‘goodness’ makes it impossible for most people – especially those that ‘benefit’ – to see the contradictions right under their noses.

    Thus, for example, the war of aggression in Iraq that started with “Shock and Awe” and has resulted in countless dead civilians and the establishment of torture camps such as Abu Ghraib is called “Operation Iraqi FREEDOM”. Freedom good, war to bring freedom good. “War on Terror”: terror bad, war on terror good. However, since war itself creates terror this propaganda cleverly guarantees a never-ending war – currently over a decade and going – that everyone accepts as necessary. White supremacy is another example of propaganda which, when accepted by people who’re not so classified, it creates in them a desire to become white physically, mentally, and culturally.

    But regardless of propaganda, truth is written in the material of the universe. The truth of the genesis of humanity is written in genetic laws. The truth of European colonialism in Africa is written in the official languages of most of its nations today. The truth of slavery is written in the effect it had on the race of people who endured it. The truth of what happened to pre-columbian populations is written in their greatly reduced numbers. From truth you can run but you can’t hide.

    And with truth there are consequences. Slavery, in truth a greedy and degenerate institution, bore the bitter fruit of a civil war. Nazism, in truth an evil and genocidal ideology, bore the destruction and division of the nation of its birth. The truth is that if all those things were as good as they were claimed to be in their heydey, they would have been an enduring blessing. Instead, when they reached the point of unsustainability, they became curses. I do believe that earth in the current era is an anomaly because a universe run the way it is run would self-destruct. I suppose that’s why so many tales predict a period of rest and regeneration for this planet whether at the symbolic hands of the messiah or horus.

  110. @xPraetorius

    “…you both could have done that 30 seconds of basic research before using the 10,000,000 figure (Abagond) and the “more than died in the concentration camps” assertion (resw77).”

    ANY figure about how many were supposedly killed in the “concentration” camps is also an estimate and a wildly imaginative one at that. There are ZERO records to substantiate such figures..

    As to my assertion that more Africans died during the transatlantic slave trade, I say it with certainty b/c it was a MUCH longer period of time (400 years) and estimates of total Africans shipped ranges from 10 M to 100 M, which both are arbitrary figures.

    We can at least document 35,000 voyages w/ an average of 500 people, so I’ll say that there were at least 18 Million, double the amount of all the Jews in Europe during the Holocaust (but keep in mind that estimates are as high as 50,000 transatlantic voyages).

    Second, there was MUCH more than 15% who died in the voyages based on FIRST-HAND accounts, which generally said that at least 10-15% would
    have died of dysentery during the first 2 weeks alone according to eyewitnesses.

    The problem is that most voyages were 2-6 months, so obviously more would have died from dysentery and other diseases. Then we would need to factor in those who willingly jumped overboard, who were killed for insurrection, etc. It was documented that the famous Zong ship, for example, had at least 60 people who died of sickness, 132 people were MURDERED for being sick,
    and at least 10 committed suicide. That’s over 50% of that ship’s passengers. And that’s just one account out of the 35,000+ voyages.

  111. • Whites have been on a centuries-long quest to remove any prejudice of any kind from their thinking.

    Does that include the people in the Klan, National Front, British National Party and any other Aryan supremacist groups? If so, what do you think they have done to remove prejudice from their way of thinking?

    • In that effort, they have surrendered vast fortunes, power, fame, prestige and extra rights to pretty much any group that could make the case that they are an aggrieved minority.

    What about those countries with natural resources – would they agree? I have to also ask, if people are doing their best to remove any prejudice forcenturies!!!, why is it taking so long? Whats the hold up?

    • That my five “points” for what to do to succeed in America are true for any American, regardless of skin color.

    I have to question whether those PoC who are seen as ‘successful’ in the U.S made their way to the top without encountering any racism or predjudicial treatment and whether this impeded their progress.

    • That if my five points are correct, then there is simply no way to characterize America as a racist country.

    Why is it that it seems so important to you to say that the U.S isnt racist. Do you acknowledge that racially motivated incidents can/still do occur in some areas – not just here of course but all over the world.

  112. @kay

    “As for those black Confederates,they were black slave owners! “—The black Confederates consisted of not only slaves but free men. Not all of them were free as you are implying.

    http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm

  113. @ Kay

    “when followed to their logical conclusion totally invalidate what we think we know of the Transatlantic slave trade.”—No, it doesn’t. Most people (sadly) believe in the idea that every single black that came to the America’s was a slave. They were not. There was some that came here free.

    Now you can quote your blog if you like, but I prefer actual sources and not opinion pieces.

  114. @ abagond

    “The Wikipedia has tons of errors. You would know that if you tried to seriously research anything.”—when I was in college I was told not to ever reference it because people had the freedom to make changes to the information (anyone could).

  115. @ xPraetorius

    “However, you all seem more intent on calling me names and questioning my knowledge, integrity or intelligence. That’s just dumb. “—I find this widely funny seeing as I have read quite a few post of you calling people names etc. By all means go up and read your post if you require some form of evidence, but don’t try to play on hypocrisy. You just get back what you put out is what I was taught, so to whine about it is utterly ridiculous.

  116. @ xPraetorius

    This also goes back to what I have said to you earlier. You are no better than the people you keep claiming to call out. You do the same things as if your sh*t don’t stick. Well honey fyi….I am about to pass out from it.

  117. stink*

  118. Omnipresent’s and my exchange:
    My original point #1:
    • Whites have been on a centuries-long quest to remove any prejudice of any kind from their thinking.

    Omnipresent replied:
    Does that include the people in the Klan, National Front, British National Party and any other Aryan supremacist groups? If so, what do you think they have done to remove prejudice from their way of thinking?

    xPraetorius replies:
    No, that doesn’t include any of those groups. Your mention of these fringe groups proves my point. Add up all these groups and multiply that number by 100, and you have less than one tenth of one percent of white people. I noticed that you did NOT mention other stereotypically white groups like, say, Republicans, or Conservatives. By the way, never did I even once say that ALL white racism had disappeared; merely that it was no longer a big problem in America.

    My original point #2:
    • In that effort, they have surrendered vast fortunes, power, fame, prestige and extra rights to pretty much any group that could make the case that they are an aggrieved minority.

    Omnipresent replied:
    What about those countries with natural resources – would they agree? I have to also ask, if people are doing their best to remove any prejudice for centuries!!!, why is it taking so long? Whats the hold up?

    xPraetorius replies:
    I don’t know or care in the context of this discussion. This is a discussion of racism in America. If you are trying to tell me that there is some problem with how America has dealt with foreign countries, then, unless the U.S invaded the country in question, your quarrel is with the leadership of those other countries. However, I’m guessing you’re going to find out that that same leadership was trying to get its hands on some of those good green dollars.

    My original point:
    • That my five “points” for what to do to succeed in America are true for any American, regardless of skin color.

    Omnipresent replied:
    I have to question whether those PoC who are seen as ‘successful’ in the U.S made their way to the top without encountering any racism or predjudicial treatment and whether this impeded their progress.

    xPraetorius replies:
    Ok…please feel free to question. By the way, I’m not talking about black people (trying REALLY hard not to use the stupid term: PoC :) ) making it to the top, but simply being able to find a job, and have sufficient financial and social mobility. I KNOW first hand of things called Affirmative Action programs, because I have worked first hand with them across the country for may years. I have plenty of anecdotal evidence — for what that’s worth — of minorities pushed to the front of the jobs line simply because of their minority status. Who isn’t familiar, for example, with the simple phrase: “An equal opportunity, Affirmative Action employer”?

    My original point:
    • That if my five points are correct, then there is simply no way to characterize America as a racist country.

    Omnipresent replied:
    Why is it that it seems so important to you to say that the U.S isn’t racist. Do you acknowledge that racially motivated incidents can/still do occur in some areas – not just here of course but all over the world.

    xPraetorius replies:
    Because a racist America, stuffed to overflowing with systemic, and institutional, and hidden, and endemic, and just-beneath-the-surface, and clandestine, and under-every-rock, and around=every-corner, and disguised, and unconscious, and built-in racism is one of Abagond’s BIG premises. He’s wrong and I don’t mind telling him so.

    And when Abagond calls America and whites racist, then he calls ME racist, and, frankly, ‘tween you and me that’s a bit irritating. Of course, the OTHER effect is that closed-minded race-baiters like Abagond lose the chance to be friends with really nice dudes like me…and others. Furthermore, the closed-mindedness of the Abagond’s of the world contributes to bad race relations in the future, which harms this country, the greatest that has ever existed.

    Best,

    – x

  119. The irony of this post is that many of the attitudes and arguments nazis used against Jews are currently used by abagond and his readers against whites. Such as Jews were sneaky, cheat, stole their wealth and conspire against others. That’s the same thing Indonesians and Malays said about Chinese, Ugandans said about Indians and Sierra Leones said about Lebanese. Every successful group is hated by those less successful. And those less successful try to scrounge up reasons to justify it.

  120. “Kay,
    Actually,Linda if you read my post you’ll see there was never any HOLOCAUST because the while there was a Teutonic pride thing going on,the genocidal hatred of Jews and others was nonexistant-nothing but a Hollywood invention.”

    Linda says,

    Kay…… after this comment by you, I almost decided to relegate you to the bin as another “ignorant American” but I will respond to this because if I don’t, this dribble you just wrote will remain lingering on this post without an answer.

    Do you read Russian, Kay?…. because if you did, you would read, in the original language that it was first reported in, about how the Jews and others, were being exterminated — you do know that it was the Russians who were the ones to Find the 1st Concentration camps run by the Nazi’s.

    On 24 Jul 1944, the Soviet army marched near Lublin in Poland as their campaign westward continued. They came across the abandoned Majdanek concentration camp, whose prisoners already had been herded off on a death march away from the advancing Soviet troops. Majdanek was burned in attempt to mask its presence as the Germans retreated from the region but the remains of gas chambers were evident.

    This was the first major concentration camp discovered by those fighting against Germany, and the evidence found was a brutal confirmation of the rumors of the existence of such camps. In the following weeks, Soviet troops liberated the abandoned camps of Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka.

    http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=136

    So, unless the Russians were getting paid under the table by Hollywood to fabricate stories, I’m not sure how you came to your delusional conclusion.

    and how do you account for the many Polish, Czech, Slovak, and Eastern Europeans who have given their accounts of the War, the slavery many endured working in factories, forced inscription into the Military, and Camps–were they paid by Hollywood also (by way of the Communists that ruled them after the war)

    but my original question stands, what is your point by bringing this up?

    you haven’t changed any position of this posts intended arguments

  121. @ Da Jokah

    “The irony of this post is that many of the attitudes and arguments nazis used against Jews are currently used by abagond and his readers against whites.”—Then you would not mind quoting where I have used any of these arguments or attitudes towards whites. If you can’t find it then it would invalidate your point right? This would also mean that you have made these same arguments because you are in fact one of his readers.

  122. sharina

    Did I say every single one of his readers? Obviously, I was only talking about his racist black readers. Are you one of his racist black readers?

  123. @Da Jokah

    Nope. What you said was “abagond and his readers.” which does not specify at all, so trying to play on words at this point is a bit tacky.

    “Obviously, I was only talking about his racist black readers.”—No, from your statement it was not obvious but if you want to try and play it off then do continue.

    “Are you one of his racist black readers?”—I will let you know when I become that, but you can do what others do and label me such in hopes of deluding my credibility.

  124. I saw this post yesterday and read down through the comments, and at that point xPraetorius’ screed — in which he demonstrates his almost total ignorance of Abagond’s writings — was nearly the last comment, and no one had yet responded to it. Now I’ve just revisited the blog and see the comments have exploded. Sadly there’s a stormfront link, so the neo-nazis are visiting as well.

    Abagond’s actual argument makes perfect sense, but this is the sort of thing many, many people will simply not be able (or willing) to understand. Therefore the discussion is descending into nitpicking over every single detail Abagond used, and many others he did not. I can’t read all the arguments here, but from what I’ve skimmed so far, it looks like Abagond’s point has been well and truly buried in dreck. I guess that will make some people happy.

    I’m grateful to Jefe for linking to the “Roissy syndrome” though. I tracked down the original Roissy post (it’s on archive.org), and … wow. It’s the most cringe-worthy piece of writing I’ve seen in a long time.

  125. xPraetorius replies:No, that doesn’t include any of those groups. Your mention of these fringe groups proves my point. Add up all these groups and multiply that number by 100, and you have less than one tenth of one percent of white people. I noticed that you did NOT mention other stereotypically white groups like, say, Republicans, or Conservatives. By the way, never did I even once say that ALL white racism had disappeared; merely that it was no longer a big problem in America.

    Omnipresent said: Just because an individual is not an active member of these groups does not mean that they do not aspire to their ideologies. Many people are ‘put off’ being directly associated with them due to their extreme approach. In the U.K for example, a party called UKIP have members which have been revealed as belonging to or being associated with ‘far right’ groups however, when confronted with evidence of this, denial denial denial.

    Other than your assertions, what proof do you have that racism is not a big problem in America any longer?

    xPraetorius’ original statement In that effort, they have surrendered vast fortunes, power, fame, prestige and extra rights to pretty much any group that could make the case that they are an aggrieved minority.

    Omnipresent replied:What about those countries with natural resources – would they agree? I have to also ask, if people are doing their best to remove any prejudice for centuries!!!, why is it taking so long? Whats the hold up?

    You gave A response but what about this part of the question I have to also ask, if people are doing their best to remove any prejudice for centuries!!!, why is it taking so long? Whats the hold up?

    I KNOW first hand of things called Affirmative Action programs, because I have worked first hand with them across the country for may years. I have plenty of anecdotal evidence — for what that’s worth — of minorities pushed to the front of the jobs line simply because of their minority status. Who isn’t familiar, for example, with the simple phrase: “An equal opportunity, Affirmative Action employer”?

    Affirmative Action is supposed to be about addressing imbalance. This does not put incapable people in jobs that they are unable to do just because they are disabled/black/female whatever. Anyway, if racism is not an issue in America, why does it matter if the best people are being chosen for the job but they ‘happen’ to come under a group of people who have governments have classified as having protected characteristics? Or are you saying that people who come under these categories couldnt possibly compete with a white person and be better?

    Furthermore, the closed-mindedness of the Abagond’s of the world contributes to bad race relations in the future, which harms this country, the greatest that has ever existed.

    Abagond’s is one opinion – just because people agree with some of his posts, does not mean that they are close minded. Some people have had experiences that are negative, this MUST be acknowledged otherwise YOU TOO are in danger of being as ‘close minded’ as you accuse others of being.

  126. @xPraetorius

    “I guess you never attended an American school…nor, apparently, do you have children in American schools.”

    Which school is teaching kids that whites are evil? Just one example will suffice.

    Teaching that white Americans concertedly did evil things to other groups is just teaching facts. I’m sorry you are uncomfortable with history.

  127. I see xPraetorius has engaged the commenters on this post with his usual immoral arrogance and hypocritical hyper-sensitivity defending, as usual, white Americans tooth and nail using name calling and only one angle of perspective, the white American’s. And as usual, he can’t take what he dishes out. My only prediction is that Prae will end up running with his tail between his legs just like he did in my blog making the thread more about people insulting him and his “intelligence” than the actual subject.

    And using Wikipedia as a reliable, objective source is like using the local evening news as a reliable objective source.

    Sorry, Abagond’s post is a pile of incoherent, paranoid blather. And the bilious replies that followed confirm it.

    Somehow, the writer is reaching desperately to try to equate ALL European whites with Hitler. That the vast majority of subsequent replies agreed with that ludicrous premise should make all of you deeply ashamed.

    You really pride yourself on sounding like the all-knowing intellectual who’s always right while the world is always wrong.

    I’ve read and re-read the post to see where you would make such a conclusion, and honestly, I didn’t find anything. As usual, I think you’re just trying to pull out any shield to defend any and all forms of whiteness ignoring and even disclaiming that any chaotic events where white Americans and/or Europeans were the cause or that racism was involved.

    It’s funny, because for someone who objects to the existence of racism against POC, as you’ve done on my blog, you are quick to conclude that there is racism against whites at virtually every turn.

    I have to step out for now. I’ll be back for more.

  128. closed-minded race-baiters like Abagond lose the chance to be friends with really nice dudes like me

    LOL You are such a humble Christian. So much humility. I’m sure your friends enjoy the unwarranted self-importance you exude.

  129. Sorry, BW, but you didn’t say anything except that you don’t like me. Oh, well. You don’t know me, so you simply prove that you’re willing to draw conclusions with insufficient information. Of course, we could tell that by reading your blog.

    The other stuff in your post is incoherent. What, for example, does this mean: “because for someone who objects to the existence of racism against POC, as you’ve done on my blog, you are quick to conclude that there is racism against whites at virtually every turn”?

    Trying to weed through the incoherence of the writing, I’ll take a stab at replying. First: I never said that I found racism against whites at virtually every turn. Never even hinted at it. And, of course, every decent person objects to the existence of racism against ANYONE.

    If you’d paid any attention at all, you’d have some inkling that I’ve been telling you and Abagond that there’s NOT racism — of any kind — around every corner in the U.S.

    I never said anything like what you’re hinting at, on your blog either…you had an argument with a colleague of mine in which she walked you through conceding my “five points” above. After you admitted to the truth of our points, with an illiterate, obscenities-clogged tirade that was an object lesson in how to be publicly stupid, you began censoring her and me, so I haven’t been on your blog for some time. Your censoring me HARDLY constitutes MY leaving with my tail between my legs. If you’re still bitter about that, then you need to get a life. As for me, I gave up holding a grudge decades ago. That’s called growing up. You should try it.

    As I mentionedabove, in your debate with my colleague, and before you began censoring her, you admitted to my four (now five) points. On THIS particular blog, only Omnipresent has tackled the points. He (or she) said, essentially, “Well, there are lots of exceptions,” which neatly makes my point for me. To repeat: The times where white racism rears its ugly head are exceptions. Needless to say — because I’ve said it OVER and OVER and OVER again already — I wholeheartedly agree with Omnipresent that white racism is NOT completely dead. But, a big problem? Sorry, not anymore.

    BW: do you know why it’s so easy to “beat” you in these mini-debates? It’s because, first: I’m not competing, and second: you can’t ever be wrong. If you can’t ever be wrong, then you can’t ever be corrected. If you can’t ever be corrected, then you can’t ever learn.

    On the other hand, I don’t mind being corrected. I have no desire whatsoever to hold onto an incorrect belief, just to make points on a two-bit blog. You have a number of really dumb beliefs, long ago overtaken by by events. That’s what makes YOU spot racism under every rock, and around every corner. After all, it’s pretty hard to wail, “Racism!” when the President of the United States is a black man. But, since you can’t be wrong, you — and Abagond — have to undergo those fantastical contortions — like discerning white racism in white condemnations of white racism — to “prove” that white racism is alive and well.

    And, still and all, BW, only Omnipresent took a shot at my five points. You’ve already admitted to them.

    Best,

    – x

  130. Kiwi said:

    “LOL You are such a humble Christian. So much humility. I’m sure your friends enjoy the unwarranted self-importance you exude.”

    xPraetorius replied: It’s called irony, Kiwi…I thought it was pretty evident because — for the first time on this blog — I used the colloquial: “dude.”

    Sorry you didn’t get it.

    Best,

    – x

  131. We got a clown here, but they’re starting to get boring. I’m getting sleepy.

    It took you that long to get sleepy? I got sleepy after the first two sentences! Been there read that in other posts by buffoons like praetorious. Good ol praetorius! Here to teach the dumb blacks and coloureds history.

    Furthermore, if you — Abagond and resw77 — are basing entire worldviews on incorrect statistics and other falsehoods, then you need to begin a long period of self-examination as to what else you might have got wrong.

    You should pay to send them on a round the world cruise, all inclusive. If that doesn’t get the introspection going, what will? Better yet why not throw in for Jefe as well?

    there has never been a desire on the part of any American in power to exterminate an entire people

    Why not? If you are good at something why be modest about it?

    Ok…can Prof. Painter explain the rather wide discrepancy between 17,000 in Wikipedia and 1.5 million?

    Maybe not but I can. It is Wikipedia, anyone can put anything in there and cite it, I have done it many a time as a hoax and for laughs!

    @jefe: “Internationally renowned historians” are frequently the WORST offenders for distorting history, and the biggest fools.

    Yes Jefe these historians are all wrong. If they could time travel as I can, they would have first hand information on events. For example, what did Robespierre have for breakfast the morning of his execution? I personally cooked bacon and eggs(done over easy), toast, coffee and juice for him. I proceeded to interview him. Unfortunately, I lost my notes when I was traveling back to the present!

    No need to engage in dueling sources or erudition one-upsmanship — none of which can ever be resolved — simply: what do YOU think?

    Not fair! First you demand ‘sources’. When they provide some, you demand to know what they think. Are you nuts?

    Why don’t you make an actual argument?

    Why don’t you stop typing reams of bullsh**? Arguing or debating with you is like f3rting in a paper bag.

    On the other hand, I don’t mind being corrected. I have no desire whatsoever to hold onto an incorrect belief, just to make points on a two-bit blog.

    I am correcting you! What am I correcting you about? Forgot after reading the first paragraph of your first post. It was down hill from there! But you know what? Who cares?

    But, since you can’t be wrong, you — and Abagond — have to undergo those fantastical contortions

    No we cannot be wrong! As for contortions, I haven’t had on in years! I’m glad they can!

    Lastly, you are not the only one who can type long winded nonsensical posts full of rubbish and unintentional comical highlights. Folks this is the face of tomfoolery and its’ name is Praetorius. If it weren’t for the fact that I am a two fingered typist, I’d type loads more bullsh**, all the while pulling articles and stats out of my bunghole! Good night sir, or is it madam? Thanks to you I now have typers cramp!

  132. resw77 said:
    @xPraetorius

    “I guess you never attended an American school…nor, apparently, do you have children in American schools.”

    Which school is teaching kids that whites are evil? Just one example will suffice.

    Teaching that white Americans concertedly did evil things to other groups is just teaching facts. I’m sorry you are uncomfortable with history.

    xPraetorius replied:
    Ok. Several examples: My grade school, high school and college — all public schools; all my brothers’ grade school, high school and one brother’s college; my daughter’s private school for five years, her high school and her college; My sons three different public schools. The schools in question were in Connecticut and Ohio. In fact, there wasn’t a school that did NOT make sure to underscore the faults of white people throughout history. As well, there wasn’t a school that taught any direct criticism of any other ethnic group. Close enough?

    resw77 said:
    Teaching that white Americans concertedly did evil things to other groups is just teaching facts. I’m sorry you are uncomfortable with history.

    xPraetorius said:
    Sorry. That is most decidedly NOT history. Teaching that the interactions of white people with other groups were complex and contain much that is good good and bad is history. You seem to think that the only possible replacement for what you mistakenly think is purely positive portrayals of white people in history class MUST be to teach that white people are evil incarnate. Sorry…making history bend to your ideological preferences is NOT history. THAT’s propaganda.

  133. @Herneith: it is a shame about your various handicaps. Best of luck with that. In the meantime, I noticed that you didn’t address any of my points either. Nor, did you indicate any people that were wiped out by actual American government policy.

    I understand that it’s easy to spill bile, but at some point why don’t you try to contribute something that’s not quite so moronic.

    Best,

    – x

  134. on Thu 15 Aug 2013 at 01:40:24King of Trouble

    Ah Jefe you beat me to it. I was writing earlier today about American Empire building but was interrupted. American Empire building came on the bones of the Spain’s waning empirical days.

    “Inhabited United States territories have democratic self-government, in local three-branch governments, found respectively in Pago Pago, American Samoa; Hagåtña, Territory of Guam; Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; San Juan, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Charlotte Amalie, United States Virgin Islands.[6] Nine uninhabited territories administered by the Interior Department are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island” This information can be found on Wikipedia but also through out the net.

    Yes we do have some former unincorporated lands Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Philippines, Ryukyu Islands (A part of this is the big territorial dispute between Japan and China in which could lead America into having to take some action.), etc…

    Please ask the Okinawans if they want the base on their land. Another issue all together but if you look at where American military bases are through out the world you start to get the picture on why the military needs so much money.

    Many of these territories educational systems are so horrible that I wonder if we are trying to under educate them on purpose. (Just me wondering out loud.)

  135. on Thu 15 Aug 2013 at 01:42:40King of Trouble

    Also at Jefe, Angel Island having people wait for years is horrible. More like permanent detention center.

  136. on Thu 15 Aug 2013 at 01:47:16King of Trouble

    @ King, it is basically the same blueprint through time. Followed to the letter with small changes here and there for taste. As if they can pull back to ancient Greek, and pull back and ask Brunelleschi if he could build their domes.

  137. @xPraetorius

    This is what was said by resw77 “Teaching that white Americans concertedly did evil things to other groups is just teaching facts.” In your mind you saw it as “you seem to think that the only possible replacement for what you mistakenly think is purely positive portrayals of white people in history class MUST be to teach that white people are evil incarnate.”

    I don’t think he is saying to you that they are “evil incarnate” but rather they did evil things or bad things.

    And before you come at me with some points…You would have to tell me what they are first.

  138. I understand that it’s easy to spill bile, but at some point why don’t you try to contribute something that’s not quite so moronic.

    I type as I find.

  139. It is a shame that this question was not answered.

    “Other than your assertions, what proof do you have that racism is not a big problem in America any longer?”

  140. @xPraetorius

    “Ok. Several examples: My grade school, high school and college”

    I’ll be more clear next time. What specific school teaches that all white people were/are evil? Name one. I’d like to call the superintendent to find out why and then alert the media.

    “You mistakenly think is purely positive portrayals of white people in history class MUST be to teach that white people are evil incarnate.”

    That’s not what I think. Remember, you claimed your schools taught such nonsense, to which I disagree (that’s why I asked you to give a specific example, which you have not done).

    My point is that teaching how whites collectively have treated others is simply teaching facts. You’re the one who clearly feels that these were evil deeds.

  141. Omnipresent
    xPraetorius replies:No, that doesn’t include any of those groups. Your mention of these fringe groups proves my point. Add up all these groups and multiply that number by 100, and you have less than one tenth of one percent of white people. I noticed that you did NOT mention other stereotypically white groups like, say, Republicans, or Conservatives. By the way, never did I even once say that ALL white racism had disappeared; merely that it was no longer a big problem in America.

    Omnipresent said: Just because an individual is not an active member of these groups does not mean that they do not aspire to their ideologies. Many people are ‘put off’ being directly associated with them due to their extreme approach. In the U.K for example, a party called UKIP have members which have been revealed as belonging to or being associated with ‘far right’ groups however, when confronted with evidence of this, denial denial denial.

    xPraetorius said:
    Oh, come on, O…no reading other people’s minds. Stop it, please. Next, I’m talking about racism here in America. UKIP is British.

    O said:
    Other than your assertions, what proof do you have that racism is not a big problem in America any longer?

    xPraetorius said:
    I offered my five points, and the 17 trillion dollars of transfer payments, and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in other benefits, and a black President and Attorney General, and hundreds of black Congressmen, mayors, governors, senators, state representatives, state senators and on and on and on and on and on and on…

    xPraetorius’ original statement In that effort, they have surrendered vast fortunes, power, fame, prestige and extra rights to pretty much any group that could make the case that they are an aggrieved minority.

    Omnipresent replied:What about those countries with natural resources – would they agree? I have to also ask, if people are doing their best to remove any prejudice for centuries!!!, why is it taking so long? Whats the hold up?

    You gave A response but what about this part of the question I have to also ask, if people are doing their best to remove any prejudice for centuries!!!, why is it taking so long? Whats the hold up?

    xPraetorius said:
    Thanks for reminding me! I forgot to address the “What’s taking so long?” question! The answer’s easy, though. No population changes states of mind overnight.There wasn’t even telephone communications at the turn of the last century, let alone genuine MASS communication. Furthermore things like television, radio, internet are only recent inventions, with the internet being by far the youngest within most of our memory. Now, ideas cross the country in minutes, but before it took decades to change minds and hearts. The point is, though, that it got done, and for at least 50 years white racism has simply not been a big problem. You may question this, but I’d point you to acceptance of all things gay. The idea, while oldish, exploded onto the scene a VERY short time ago, and it appears that most states will adopt gay marriage laws. All this in a few very short years!

    I KNOW first hand of things called Affirmative Action programs, because I have worked first hand with them across the country for may years. I have plenty of anecdotal evidence — for what that’s worth — of minorities pushed to the front of the jobs line simply because of their minority status. Who isn’t familiar, for example, with the simple phrase: “An equal opportunity, Affirmative Action employer”?

    Affirmative Action is supposed to be about addressing imbalance. This does not put incapable people in jobs that they are unable to do just because they are disabled/black/female whatever.

    xPraetorius said:
    Actually it most definitely does put people let prepared to do the job in many, many positions. This is a matter of fact, not debate.

    Anyway, if racism is not an issue in America, why does it matter if the best people are being chosen for the job but they ‘happen’ to come under a group of people who have governments have classified as having protected characteristics?

    xPraetorius said:
    The best people are NOT being chosen…they ARE being chosen because of their race. It does no favors to anyone; eithe rthe employer or the employee.

    Or are you saying that people who come under these categories couldnt possibly compete with a white person and be better?

    xPraetorius said:
    Nope. Never said that.

    Furthermore, the closed-mindedness of the Abagond’s of the world contributes to bad race relations in the future, which harms this country, the greatest that has ever existed.

    Abagond’s is one opinion – just because people agree with some of his posts, does not mean that they are close minded. Some people have had experiences that are negative, this MUST be acknowledged otherwise YOU TOO are in danger of being as ‘close minded’ as you accuse others of being.

    xPraetorius said:
    Thanks, Omnipresent. I agree. You and I might differ on this, but I think that your assertions prove my points. You speak of people having “bad experiences.” Ok, but ALL people have bad experiences. Now, however, the bad RACIST experience is the rare exception. And, the big difference is that there is just a whole lot of recourse if it DOES happen.

    Best,

    – x

  142. @xPraetorius

    I don’t think I want to get fully into this debate, but if I may, I’d like to expand on resw77′s question a little: you say that the list of schools you provide all teach that “whites are evil.” Could you explain in more detail what you mean by this? To focus on a specific example: if you had a textbook on US history from one of these schools, and you turned to the section on the constitutional convention of 1787, in what terms would it describe the evil white men who created the US Constitution? Would it state openly that Jefferson and the others were evil whites engaged in a nefarious activity for evil white purposes? If not, then how would the text square its categorical view that these whites were all evil with the apparent goodness of the US Constitution?

    If you have one of those textbooks at hand and can quote from it, that would be most welcome.

  143. “Now, however, the bad RACIST experience is the rare exception.”—And what makes you believe these are rare experiences? People tend to believe that such experiences must make national news to be acknowledged as a regular occurrence, but that is a false assumption.

    Racist acts in small towns are almost always covered up and swept under the rug.

    Now has it gotten better. Yes, but to what extent has racism become better? And to what extent has it been neatly hidden from the public eye?

    I found out a month ago that areas still have segregated proms. I know people will scream “that is not racism” and it may not be that way to some, but still.

  144. Agabond,
    Not to sound insulting but that one poster x-whatever must not have a full time job. Otherwise they wouldn’t have the time to type so many long winded messages. I like a good debate but if a person isn’t getting the message they might want to take the high road a let it go. Or, people could stop responding to them. I mean if you feed a stray dog, they tend to hang around.

  145. @ Anne

    1. xPraetorius is a think tank made up of five people. Thus the “x”:

    https://praetori.wordpress.com/

    2. The more they talk the more they prove the point of the post. It is like Show and Tell.

  146. xPraetorius

    I could indulge in a point-for-point argument with you, but that would only lead to a derailment of the post which you are doing in trying to make it all about you. I won’t go there. Besides, everyone else has done a good job in doing that already.

    I will make a note of one thing though. You said:

    Trying to weed through the incoherence of the writing, I’ll take a stab at replying. First: I never said that I found racism against whites at virtually every turn. Never even hinted at it. And, of course, every decent person objects to the existence of racism against ANYONE.

    If you’d paid any attention at all, you’d have some inkling that I’ve been telling you and Abagond that there’s NOT racism — of any kind — around every corner in the U.S.

    And then you said:

    The best people are NOT being chosen…they ARE being chosen because of their race. It does no favors to anyone; eithe rthe employer or the employee.

    I just caught you in a contradiction of your own words. In one breath you said there isn’t racism, and in another breath you said that there are people chosen because of race which defines racism.

    Now, going back to your very first response:

    I’ll state an undeniable truth: White people are still the only identifiable group in history ever to undergo a thorough examination of their own treatment of ALL other peoples; to have found themselves and their behavior wanting; and to have made SERIOUS attempts (including trillions and trillions of dollars as well as favorable treatment of job, college and credit applications, free food and countless other considerations) at some kind of restitution. For decades. Believe me, there are PLENTY of OTHER races throughout the world who could stand to undergo the very same self-examination!

    Whites didn’t do that because one day they just saw the light. Whites have been embarked on a 200-year quest to rid themselves of any kind of prejudicial thinking whatsoever, to the point where they have trouble condemning even REALLY moronic things: like the various ethnic and gender “studies” departments in academia, for example.

    I will say that SOME whites have taken up the task of re-examining their attitudes toward nonwhites. However, I will not and can not agree that most or all whites have taken a self-evaluation of themselves. If that were the case:

    1. The mainstream media (a.k.a. the liberal media as you would call it) would have more POC behind and in front of the camera. Those in front of the camera will not be seen in the usual cookie-cutter stereotypes. Their stories and views would be valued as they would any white person’s.

    2. There would be more POC hired based on qualifications. Companies would not hire and fire based on – again – racial stereotypes. They would not hire whites with criminal records faster and before they would ever hire blacks without criminal records.

    3. Banks and real estate would not screw POC in shady deals to the point where they would, and have, jeopardized the whole economy and almost destroyed the middle class.

    4. There would have been a lot more whites participating in civil rights movements not for self-gratification, but because it is truly the right thing to do, because they recognize injustice against a certain group of people. And they wouldn’t praise God or cheer for a mentally fractured, trigger-happy vigilante who shot down an unarmed black boy in the night.

    I could go on, but I will not write an entire book for you to disagree with. I will not give you any info when you are perfectly capable, yet too lazy, to do it yourself because your too obsessed with defending whiteness.

    Prae, plain and simple, you are part of the problem. Your opposite sense of truth and morality to not only defend whiteness but to discount any form of POC is obvious to anyone. You are just a warped as Hitler himself, it seems.

  147. @ xPraetorius

    “There is simply no will to empire whatsoever in America. Never has been. This is so blindingly obvious that there is no need even to support the assertion. In fact to the contrary, as the U.S. experience with the Phillipines illustrates nicely. “

    So when is it going give back northern Mexico – you know, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, etc?

    “White people are still the only identifiable group in history ever to undergo a thorough examination of their own treatment of ALL other peoples; to have found themselves and their behavior wanting; and to have made SERIOUS attempts (including trillions and trillions of dollars as well as favorable treatment of job, college and credit applications, free food and countless other considerations) at some kind of restitution. For decades. Believe me, there are PLENTY of OTHER races throughout the world who could stand to undergo the very same self-examination!”

    You rob me and then, in a fit of conscience, give me bus fare. What fine Christian morals!

    In the case of Native Americans “restitution” is an obscene way to put it. When is the government going to stand by all those treaties it signed? When is it going to give back (or make restitution for) all the land it took without treaty?

  148. BW — I thought you weren’t going to try to derail the post. However, of course, you just did. You’ve brought up media hiring, affirmative action, banks and real estate, your inappropriate reading of the minds of whites involved in civil rights…I could go point-by-point with you too, but I’ve had to hold off six or so others as well. I have to pick and choose. One quick thing…my colleague dealt with the mortgage issue with you on your blog — before you chickened out and censored her.

    Without a comprehensive analysis of the OTHER topics, there’s just no point in bringing all that up NOW…each could be its own thread. Again, I point to my five points, to 17 trillion dollars, to hundreds of billions of dollars in federal programs, and ALL the other things that I’ve ALREADY said. You keep coming from different directions, irrelevant to this conversation, so we’ll have to hack at them some other time…if, that is, you have the courage EVER to allow a dissenting voice on your blog.

    One more quick thing. You quote me here: “The best people are NOT being chosen…they ARE being chosen because of their race. It does no favors to anyone; either the employer or the employee”

    Then you said: I just caught you in a contradiction of your own words. In one breath you said there isn’t racism, and in another breath you said that there are people chosen because of race which defines racism.”

    My reply: No: what I said defines “Affirmative Action.” If you want to label that as racism, as I think is its proper label, then that’s fine with me.

    Best,

    – x

  149. @ xPraetorius

    “Nor, did you indicate any people that were wiped out by actual American government policy.”

    This is just like what the Holocaust deniers say – that Hitler did not order the Holocaust. There is no record of it! Half the Jews of Europe and 95% of the Natives of the U.S. just disappear – but, hey, the nakedly racist government in charge did not order it, so, hey, it was not genocide.

  150. Abagond said:

    @ xPraetorius

    “There is simply no will to empire whatsoever in America. Never has been. This is so blindingly obvious that there is no need even to support the assertion. In fact to the contrary, as the U.S. experience with the Phillipines illustrates nicely. “

    So when it is going give back northern Mexico – you know, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, etc?

    “White people are still the only identifiable group in history ever to undergo a thorough examination of their own treatment of ALL other peoples; to have found themselves and their behavior wanting; and to have made SERIOUS attempts (including trillions and trillions of dollars as well as favorable treatment of job, college and credit applications, free food and countless other considerations) at some kind of restitution. For decades. Believe me, there are PLENTY of OTHER races throughout the world who could stand to undergo the very same self-examination!”

    You rob me and then, in a fit of conscience, give me bus fare. What fine Christian morals!

    In the case of Native Americans “restitution” is an obscene way to put it. When is the government going to stand by all those treaties it signed? When is it going to give back (or make restitution for) all the land it took without treaty?

    xPraetorius replies:
    @Abagond, I have to concede that to you. “Manifest Destiny” WAS a will to expansion. Expansion, empire…probably roughly the same thing. However, once the country reached from the Atlantic to the Pacific, I think it’s fair to say that there was no further will to expand. If there had been, surely Mexico and/or Canada could have been annexed with very little trouble. I DO stand by my OTHER assertion: there IS no will to empire in the U.S. However, my phrase, “Never has been,” was plainly inaccurate, and I accept your correction.

    Best,

    – x

  151. abagond said:
    @ xPraetorius

    “Nor, did you indicate any people that were wiped out by actual American government policy.”

    This is just like what the Holocaust deniers say – that Hitler did not order the Holocaust. There is not record of it! Half the Jews of Europe and 95% of the Natives of the U.S. just disappear – but, hey, the nakedly racist government in charge did not order it, so, hey, it was not genocide.

    xPraetorius replied:
    Look: war is war — it’s never pretty, and people get hurt and die. However, Hitler had TWO things, apparently, going on: (1) his effort at European and eventual world conquest, AND (2) the intentional elimination of the Jews, as a SEPARATE effort.

    I consider genocide to be, as I mentioned before, the intentional effort to eliminate an entire people. I make no excuses whatsoever for accidental or collateral damage to any peoples, but if it’s not intentional it’s not genocide. Something else terrible, but not genocide.

    However, no one has ventured to say that anyone in power in American government ever INTENDED to wipe out any entire people. If we’re going to argue here, we AT LEAST need to agree on what we’re arguing about.

    And, again, none of us were spared any of the uncharitable things you’re saying about white people in school.

    Best,

    – x

  152. sharina said:
    “Now, however, the bad RACIST experience is the rare exception.”—And what makes you believe these are rare experiences? People tend to believe that such experiences must make national news to be acknowledged as a regular occurrence, but that is a false assumption.

    Racist acts in small towns are almost always covered up and swept under the rug.

    xPraetorius:
    Oh? How is it that YOU have the secret knowledge of what is covered up in small towns? Some cover-up!

    Sharina:
    Now has it gotten better. Yes, but to what extent has racism become better? And to what extent has it been neatly hidden from the public eye?

    xPraetorius:
    Again: how do YOU know it has got better? Or worse? You just told me that it’s “always covered up in small towns,” yet that you have the secret knowledge of it despite all the cover up. Again, how do YOU or I know what’s hidden from the public eye? All you have here is a bunch of speculation. Anyone can speculate.

    Sharina:
    I found out a month ago that areas still have segregated proms. I know people will scream “that is not racism” and it may not be that way to some, but still.

    xPraetorius:
    Not likely. All it takes is for one local newspaper to hear about it, and that would be the end of that. Again, I might have mentioned “recourse” several times?

    Best,

    – x

  153. Anne said:
    Agabond,
    Not to sound insulting but that one poster x-whatever must not have a full time job. Otherwise they wouldn’t have the time to type so many long winded messages. I like a good debate but if a person isn’t getting the message they might want to take the high road a let it go. Or, people could stop responding to them. I mean if you feed a stray dog, they tend to hang around.

    XPraetorius:
    @Anne: that’s a rather graceless white flag. Why don’t you try to address any of my points? First: I don’t bite. Second: if you don’t call me stupid or a racist or any other obnoxious thing, then I will be completely polite and respectful toward you.

    Best,

    – x

  154. @xPraetorius

    “Oh? How is it that YOU have the secret knowledge of what is covered up in small towns? Some cover-up!”—I happen to live in a small town where my uncle was beaten near death and of the two grown men (white men) that did it…they were let go as if nothing happened.

    “Again: how do YOU know it has got better? Or worse?”—It is a nice deflection to answer a question with a question but it is not answering my question.

    “Anyone can speculate.”—Yep. you have done an amazing job at that.

  155. @ xPraetorius

    all-white proms:

    2009: http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/whites-only-proms/

    The whites who took part did NOT think they were racist. After all, some of their best friends are black!

    And it is still going on:

    2013: http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/22086349/wilcox-county-white-prom

    As to “recourse”, such proms are not against the law – the right of association – just, you know, racist. The racism you say is pretty much dead.

  156. Frank M.said:
    @xPraetorius

    I don’t think I want to get fully into this debate, but if I may, I’d like to expand on resw77′s question a little: you say that the list of schools you provide all teach that “whites are evil.” Could you explain in more detail what you mean by this? To focus on a specific example: if you had a textbook on US history from one of these schools, and you turned to the section on the constitutional convention of 1787, in what terms would it describe the evil white men who created the US Constitution? Would it state openly that Jefferson and the others were evil whites engaged in a nefarious activity for evil white purposes? If not, then how would the text square its categorical view that these whites were all evil with the apparent goodness of the US Constitution?

    If you have one of those textbooks at hand and can quote from it, that would be most welcome.

    My reply:
    Hold on a second, Frank M. I’ll run down an get my high school books from more than 30 years ago. Oops. I had to turn them in at the end of the year. Hold on, I’ll run and fetch my college books and notes from more than 20 years ago. Oh…Darn! Not sure I can put my hands on them either! Wait a minute I’ll go get my kids’ high school…uhhh. Maybe not.

    Guess you’ll have to settle for my recollection.

    Frank: take a look a few posts back. I said that our history classes didn’t spare us any details of historical white perfidy — be it slavery, American conquest, Jim Crow, segregation … nothing. Did they also mention things like the Constitution? Of course. If you peruse the other posts, you will see that I also said that whites were the ONLY ethnicity to receive that scrutiny covering BOTH the good and the bad in history. All other ethnicities and races were given a matter-of-fact or positive treatment in history class. Granted there’s a lot to read in all these posts, but it’s there.

    Best,

    – x

  157. resw77 wrote:
    @xPraetorius

    “Ok. Several examples: My grade school, high school and college”

    I’ll be more clear next time. What specific school teaches that all white people were/are evil? Name one. I’d like to call the superintendent to find out why and then alert the media.

    “You mistakenly think is purely positive portrayals of white people in history class MUST be to teach that white people are evil incarnate.”

    That’s not what I think. Remember, you claimed your schools taught such nonsense, to which I disagree (that’s why I asked you to give a specific example, which you have not done).

    My point is that teaching how whites collectively have treated others is simply teaching facts. You’re the one who clearly feels that these were evil deeds.

    xPraetorius replies:
    Good luck! It’ll be a loooooooong distance call! The principal and superintendant died many years ago! I’m not sure there are any teachers left from my grade school or high school days…did I mention that I’ve been following things for more than 50 years. Why, yes…yes I did.

    Again, check through the posts: you’ll see that I told you that we were exposed to the evils that whites did as well as the good. And, again, whites were the only race to receive that values-balanced treatment. All other races, nationalities or ethnicities received either a matter-of-fact or positive treatment.

    Best,

    – x

  158. To add to this you have brought about my very point. How does anyone know? What I find odd is you assert that you do. You assert your position as correct because of your 5 points and that everyone else is making bad experiences as the norm when you see it as not just bad experiences.

    Who is to say those bad experiences are not normal and are just covered up? You can’t just. Just as Abagond is not all knowing in the minds of white people…you are not all knowing in what is going on in the world over. Unless you want to now assert that you are everywhere at every moment?

  159. I don’t know about anyone else but my history books never mentioned other people of color. Except black history month

  160. Sharina said:
    It is a shame that this question was not answered.

    “Other than your assertions, what proof do you have that racism is not a big problem in America any longer?”

    My reply:
    ** sigh ** My five points — that no one contradicts, by the way — the 17 trillion dollars, the blah, blah, blah that I’ve mentioned many times already…

    It DOES get wearying to answer the same question over and over and over again… :)

    Best,

    – x

  161. @xPraetorius

    If I had actually seen or read your five points then I could actually see where you have or have not answered this question. You are assuming I have an I am guessing they are just not that relevant.

  162. sharina said:
    To add to this you have brought about my very point. How does anyone know? What I find odd is you assert that you do. You assert your position as correct because of your 5 points and that everyone else is making bad experiences as the norm when you see it as not just bad experiences.

    Who is to say those bad experiences are not normal and are just covered up? You can’t just. Just as Abagond is not all knowing in the minds of white people…you are not all knowing in what is going on in the world over. Unless you want to now assert that you are everywhere at every moment?

    xPraetorius:
    We can all speculate all we want about this or that. None of the speculation means anything. Actually, I’m glad you brought this up…Abagond DOES speculate CONSTANTLY about what others, particularly white people, are thinking, feeling, wanting, needing. He makes blanket statements like “Whites think blah..” or “Whites use race as an important part of their identity…” These are, of course, purest speculation; things he couldn’t POSSIBLY know, but he states them as fact, then proceeds to build an argument on this wild speculation. I’ve called him on it numerous times, and he can’t seem to prevent himself. If you read ALL my posts, you will see that if I speculate on what anyone else is thinking or wants or needs or feels, I tell you that I’m speculating right up front. I say things like, “I suspect that so and so thinks this,” or, “It seems that what’s-her-name thinks that…” Immediately I’m saying that IT’S MY IMPRESSION that blah, blah, blah.

    Abagond, however STATES AS FACT what others — whose thoughts he can’t possibly read — are thinking.

    Back to the point: I DO know the 17 trillion dollars thing — it’s a matter of historical record. I DO know all the other things — the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of federal programs…the welfare, SNAP, WIC, and on and on and on and on…providing “free” stuff disproportionately for minorities. Again, a matter of public record.

    All these trillions and trillions of dollars worth of giveaways were NOT provided by RACIST white people. Sorry. They just weren’t. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove the racism. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t do it. Speculation doesn’t do it. Abagond’s point in THIS post is that whites’ condemnation of Hitler’s white racism is further evidence of white racism and perfidy. That doesn’t do it. That particular argument simply doesn’t pass the smell test.

    Best,

    – x

  163. sharina said:
    @xPraetorius

    If I had actually seen or read your five points then I could actually see where you have or have not answered this question. You are assuming I have an I am guessing they are just not that relevant.

    xPraetorius:
    Here they are, sharina:
    If a black person (1) gets an education, (2) speaks well, (3) works hard, (4) gets along well with others, (5) has a normal appearance (not covered with tattoos, clean-cut, no outlandish jewelry), he can succeed in America.

    Simple.

    A colleague of mine went back and forth with BW, and, I thought, you on BW’s blog a few weeks back. At some point, BW said that, yes, my five points were true. I said, “Then, you can’t possibly conclude that America is a racist country. After all, white people have to do, or learn to do, AT LEAST those five things, THEN find a way to set themselves apart from others.”

    Best,

    – x

  164. sharina said:
    I don’t know about anyone else but my history books never mentioned other people of color. Except black history month

    xPraetorius:
    REALLY, sharina?!? No mention of the slaves’ color, no mention of any details about the Jim Crow laws? No mention of any details about segregation?

    You ought to sue your teachers for educational malpractice. :)

    Best,

    – x

  165. @ xPraetorius

    ” I DO know the 17 trillion dollars thing — it’s a matter of historical record. I DO know all the other things — the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of federal programs…the welfare, SNAP, WIC, and on and on and on and on…providing “free” stuff disproportionately for minorities. Again, a matter of public record. “—If you don’t mind providing sources. Not saying this to be funny but because I don’t know about it. As for the welfare thing I hate to break it to you but people regardless of color us it and frankly some (regardless of color) take advantage of it. People keep claiming how minorities get all this free stuff…well tell me what line I need to get in to get it. I have never been able to get this free stuff people keep going on and on about.

    “All these trillions and trillions of dollars worth of giveaways were NOT provided by RACIST white people”—Yeah they were provided by the government out of everyone’s tax money.

    “They just weren’t. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove the racism”–Why would it be on me when I never asserted they were racist?

    “Abagond’s point in THIS post is that whites’ condemnation of Hitler’s white racism is further evidence of white racism and perfidy”—I thought the point of the post was to point out common contradictions used by white posters to excuse white wrongs.

  166. xPraetorius

    I thought you weren’t going to try to derail the post. However, of course, you just did. You’ve brought up media hiring, affirmative action, banks and real estate, your inappropriate reading of the minds of whites involved in civil rights…I could go point-by-point with you too, but I’ve had to hold off six or so others as well. I have to pick and choose. One quick thing…my colleague dealt with the mortgage issue with you on your blog — before you chickened out and censored her.

    I’ve never tried or mistakenly derailed any of Abagond’s post. You, on the other hand, are doing so in a subtle way. You bringing up affirmative action is one example, a subject that has nothing to do with it in the first place. You also have a habit of criticisms with hardly any back-up information. And, you’ve turned this into a “me-vs.-you” argument instead of actually stating why this post is wrong. You only make the case this post is discussing stronger.

    Without a comprehensive analysis of the OTHER topics, there’s just no point in bringing all that up NOW…each could be its own thread. Again, I point to my five points, to 17 trillion dollars, to hundreds of billions of dollars in federal programs, and ALL the other things that I’ve ALREADY said. You keep coming from different directions, irrelevant to this conversation, so we’ll have to hack at them some other time…if, that is, you have the courage EVER to allow a dissenting voice on your blog.

    They are only irrelevant to you because you only believe in one perspective of the world and since ours is different, you condemn it with juvenile name-calling.

    I still stick to my claim that most – not all – whites are not making serious changes to the system their people created and support to this day. Why? Because of the simple reason that they don’t want to lose their hold on the world. Despite, it’s devastating to the world, including other whites, maintaining the system of white supremacy is the main priority.

    And there is indeed such a system in play. I gave a few examples of systematic racism at work, but you – as expected – reject them because you say – YOU SAY – they are not valid. Well, who are you – ALL OF YOU – to say that it doesn’t exist? What makes your perspective more valid than anyone else’s who disagrees with you. You sound like a teenage dictator with your responses. In some cases you remind me of Hitler himself.

    One more quick thing. You quote me here: “The best people are NOT being chosen…they ARE being chosen because of their race. It does no favors to anyone; either the employer or the employee”

    Then you said: I just caught you in a contradiction of your own words. In one breath you said there isn’t racism, and in another breath you said that there are people chosen because of race which defines racism.”

    My reply: No: what I said defines “Affirmative Action.” If you want to label that as racism, as I think is its proper label, then that’s fine with me.

    Oh come on! My point was that you reject that racism exists and then you imply it in your response.

    Tell me something, what is racism to you? What is it since we are so wrong?

    And what are those “five points” you keep bringing up and why should we care?

    And one thing I’ve noticed is why do you assert that we are branding whites as evil, when there was no mention of it?

    All I can gather is that your responses are ways to cover and bury some kind of guilt you’re feeling. The name-calling, the outright defense of white people, the general rants. It doesn’t take an expert to see that you are trying to hide something. My guess is that you’re trying not to feel any sort of guilt because deep down you know there is at least some truth to it.

  167. sharina

    And Prae says I’m derailing. When Prae accuses me of derailing, that’s projection talking.

  168. Abagond should be flattered that another blogging team devotes so much of their time trying to tear apart your posts. But it is so funny not only how they do not know how to read your post, but to read such a non-sensical statement, eg, “However, you’ll never see or hear him address the following undeniable point: white people have demonstrably been embarked on a quest to banish any prejudice whatsoever from their thinking for more than 150 years. “.

    So, I suppose that explains why the KKK only established themselves in an attempt to counteract Reconstruction. Why “separate but equal” and Jim Crow became law. Why the concept of “aliens ineligible for citizenship” was a code for racist classification and exclusion until the 1940s, and used as an excuse to intern over 110,000 Americans during WWII.

    And with things like “Blockbusting” and “redlining” they will use prejudice from whites to actually make money from both whites and blacks.

    If they have been on a quest for 150 years, they haven’t gotten very far. Half the time they go backwards. Well, maybe Paula Deen is more enlightened than persons were in the ante-bellum period, but we have a ways to go.

  169. sharina,

    His five points are just a variation of the “bootstrap” response. As such, “if black people would just do those things and stop whining about being victims of something I don’t believe in and I don’t think is significant to me, everything will be fine with them.”

  170. sharina said
    @ xPraetorius

    ” I DO know the 17 trillion dollars thing — it’s a matter of historical record. I DO know all the other things — the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of federal programs…the welfare, SNAP, WIC, and on and on and on and on…providing “free” stuff disproportionately for minorities. Again, a matter of public record. “—If you don’t mind providing sources. Not saying this to be funny but because I don’t know about it. As for the welfare thing I hate to break it to you but people regardless of color us it and frankly some (regardless of color) take advantage of it. People keep claiming how minorities get all this free stuff…well tell me what line I need to get in to get it. I have never been able to get this free stuff people keep going on and on about.

    xPraetorius:
    I never said that whites don’t get welfare, just that it goes disproportionately to minorities. Blacks make up about 13% of the population and receive about 37% of welfare benefits. Whites make up around 63% of the population and use 40% of welfare. I’m pulling this from recent memory — it’s bedtime and I’m not going on a hunt right now — but those are roughly correct statistics.

    “All these trillions and trillions of dollars worth of giveaways were NOT provided by RACIST white people”—Yeah they were provided by the government out of everyone’s tax money.

    xPraetorius:
    Agreed, but Abagond and others have long been telling me that the power structure — the one giving all these trillions away — is a white racist-dominated power structure.

    “They just weren’t. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove the racism”–Why would it be on me when I never asserted they were racist?

    xPraetorius:
    Ok…to be perfectly fair…the burden is on Abagond. However, you are definitely a sympathetic poster for Abagond, and have said some harsh things to and about me, so you DO have some burden. :)

    “Abagond’s point in THIS post is that whites’ condemnation of Hitler’s white racism is further evidence of white racism and perfidy”—I thought the point of the post was to point out common contradictions used by white posters to excuse white wrongs.

    xPraetorius:
    He said he wanted to point out contradictions that whites ostensibly use, “to downplay whites’ racist past and present.” If whites have a racist present, then they are racists now. I have, as you’ve noticed, disputed that assertion.

    Best,

    – x

  171. @xPraetorius

    I was on his blog but did not read the 5 points.
    Your points seem to center around success in the job field and not other aspects of racism. It also depends solely on what one views as racists (definition and such). Those are great keys to getting a job but that does not mean or bring about the conclusion that America is not racist. I tell you what. The country itself is not racist, but the people are another story.

    In school we were taught all the great things that whites accomplished in finding America. As for blacks they were slaves and we learned little here and there about blacks during black history month. Tad bit about Native Americans during thanksgiving. Other than that it was the accomplishments of whites.

    There was no Jim crow laws or segregation. Learned that in my free time.

  172. Brothawolf said:
    sharina,

    His five points are just a variation of the “bootstrap” response. As such, “if black people would just do those things and stop whining about being victims of something I don’t believe in and I don’t think is significant to me, everything will be fine with them.”

    xPraetorius:
    No…if black people will simply look, act, speak normally — and, no, it doesn’t mean they have to be WHITE normal, just normal — they will encounter few or no problems with racism in finding a job, finding housing, in succeeding in this country. To the contrary, they will experience mostly favorable treatment.

    I’m pretty sure BW knows this.

    Best,

    – x

  173. sharina said:
    @xPraetorius

    I was on his blog but did not read the 5 points.
    Your points seem to center around success in the job field and not other aspects of racism. It also depends solely on what one views as racists (definition and such). Those are great keys to getting a job but that does not mean or bring about the conclusion that America is not racist. I tell you what. The country itself is not racist, but the people are another story.

    In school we were taught all the great things that whites accomplished in finding America. As for blacks they were slaves and we learned little here and there about blacks during black history month. Tad bit about Native Americans during thanksgiving. Other than that it was the accomplishments of whites.

    There was no Jim crow laws or segregation. Learned that in my free time.

    xPraetorius:
    I’m kind of shocked at this, sharina. I learned all about all the evils that whites had done — including colonialism and imperialism all through school, starting in the early ’60′s… As I might have mentioned I’m more than 50 years old, so this is not a new thing.

    Best,

    – x

  174. Wow, I did not expect the comments post to be THIS huge. At first when I saw XPraestorius, I was like “Typical” and carried on my way, but I come back…Jesus! A lot of comments. lol :)

    It’s really sad, I don’t think xPraetorius really gets it(Not in a condescending way), this is satire/mockumentary that Abagond wrote and he takes it as gold. It’s a sad world we live in, it really is. Some people will get it and sadly the majority will still be here looking around clueless. People believe they “know-it-all” because they read a “Book” , speak “intelligently” and know the “terms”. When you question their program, they are confused/scared and resort to anger due to this “illogical world”…… this place that doesn’t “make sense”. I’ve seen it countless times, I think we’ve all have.

    xPreastorius, I really hope atleast you will try someday to read Abagonds blog and understand the message. Maybe then you will understand….or maybe not.

  175. @xPraetorius

    “Ok…to be perfectly fair…the burden is on Abagond. However, you are definitely a sympathetic poster for Abagond, and have said some harsh things to and about me, so you DO have some burden. :) “—In a debate or conversation I am only to provide evidence of things I have made a claim on and nothing more. While I have been harsh it is no more harsh than you have been to other posters. You can be very rude and expect respect in cases where you don’t give it.

    “If whites have a racist present, then they are racists now”—There are racist whites. I will not say all of them are but they do exist. To what extent no one will know, so he is not entirely wrong.

    Interesting enough I saw a documentary on the new skin head. It is interesting that they went from the thugs that most people know to politicians. I will look for where I saw this as it is quite interesting to see them camouflage into society

  176. @ xPraetorius

    ” If you read ALL my posts, you will see that if I speculate on what anyone else is thinking or wants or needs or feels, I tell you that I’m speculating right up front. I say things like, “I suspect that so and so thinks this,” or, “It seems that what’s-her-name thinks that…” Immediately I’m saying that IT’S MY IMPRESSION that blah, blah, blah.”

    What a joke. You came on here and told ME what my post was about, over my disagreement. I said it was about the broken moral reasoning white people use about their history. You CORRECTED me and told me what it was about. In your latest formulation:

    “Abagond’s point in THIS post is that whites’ condemnation of Hitler’s white racism is further evidence of white racism and perfidy”

    And then had the nerve to fault me for not achieving what YOU decided my post was about. Wow.

    Then you derail the post into your precious five points – and have the nerve to tell Brothawolf he is derailing.

    You need to get a grip.

  177. @Brothawolf

    Oh so that explains why I scrolled past those 5 points then. LOL

    @xPraetorius

    “I’m kind of shocked at this, sharina. I learned all about all the evils that whites had done — including colonialism and imperialism all through school, starting in the early ’60′s… As I might have mentioned I’m more than 50 years old, so this is not a new thing.”—Don’t be. I’m not. My daughter had history this year and she learned about the same things I learned in history except my daughter didn’t even learn anything about black history at all.

  178. @Sharina,

    I bet the KKK was just a little tiny footnote insert on one page with a tiny photo of people wearing white hoods, and suggesting that it was just a small number of people at that time who were upset about losing the war and for reconstruction and now they are now all gone.

    But, you had several chapters about Manifest Destiny and how the West was “Won” by whites, but it had almost nothing to do with Native Americans, Asians or Blacks.

    You will see more space devoted to how friendly white people were to Native Americans, and then they caught the “White Man’s diseases” and then died off, But, they will not tell you that this happened mainly in the USA, not in most of the rest of the Americas where Europeans settled.
    The Seminoles were still in Florida when Spain lost Florida to the USA, and then somehow the Seminole wars were wars against the USA. The process of Indian removal was always about wars with the USA.

    There is ZIP SQUAT, ZILCH about the ethnic cleansing of Asian-Americans in the 19th and 20th centuries. (Unless of course they mention “model minority”, then they have to mention briefly how they overcame all that).

    You will find several chapters in your history book about how glorious the Americans were in fighting Hitler and the Japanese following the Japanese attack. But you would be hard pressed to find anything about the over 110,000 Americans they rounded up and put behind barbed wire.

    I didn’t learn the word Jim Crow either in school, only from reading stuff outside school. Only post-90s history textbook start to have anything about segregation, but again, it is only a very small footnote with a photo of White / Colored drinking fountain, and a statement that this was many decades ago and the USA got over it.

    Most people I met born after 1970 did not even know that the USA had anti-miscegenation laws, or if they had heard about it, how far back it was.

    It’s all been whitewashed.

  179. @ xPraetorius

    “You have to face a simple fact: there is STILL plenty of money, fame, power and prestige to be gained by complaining histrionically to white people about how awful white people are. THAT is what REALLY fuels the still histrionic race grievance industry. See, eg: Obama, Barack, Holder, Eric, et al.”

    Since you call me a race-baiter, let it be noted that YOU came here. I did not go to your blog or that of any white person, much less complain “histrionically” to them.

    In fact, I am on record as saying that you cannot prove racism to most white people:

    http://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/you-cannot-prove-racism-to-most-white-americans/

    But never mind that, you will correct me and tell ME what my post is about.

    You pretty much see and believe what you want.

  180. @ xPraetorius

    You say that public schools teach how evil whites are and that whites do not deny or downplay any of it – yet you are here denying the genocide of American Indians.

  181. @ xPraetorius

    “People are starting to realize this finally and just starting to tell the complainers a simple truth: (1) if you get an education, (2) speak well, (3) work hard, (4) interact well with others, you can succeed in America. I added a #5: if you don’t cover your body with piercings and tattoos, have a normal haircut (you know what I mean by “normal”) and don’t wear outlandish jewelry — ie: if you present yourself as a serious, focused businessperson ready to get to work, you will succeed in America. And, really, America owes you nothing more than a fair opportunity to succeed.

    All your OTHER angst, however, is, and ought to be, YOUR responsibility.”

    Right, Hitler did not send any well-heeled Jews to the gas chambers. And Roosevelt did not send any well-heeled Japanese Americans to prison camps, losing everything they could not carry.

    Get stopped and searched by the New York police for no good reason – just angst.

    Mass incarceration of black men – just angst.

    Police brutality – just angst.

    Underfunded schools in black neighbourhoods – just angst.

    Shorter life expectancy for blacks – just angst.

    Higher infant mortality for blacks – just angst.

    Blacks and Asians getting paid less for the same education as whites – just angst.

    The black unemployment rate being twice that of whites – just angst.

    Bad policing in black neighbourhoods – just angst.

    Quotas against Asian Americans at top universities – just angst.

    The bamboo ceiling – just angst.

    Blacks losing half their wealth in the Great Recession due to shady practices by banks – just angst.

    Last hired, first fired – just angst.

    The gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – just angst.

    Resegregated schools – just angst.

    Racial steering – just angst.

    Hate crimes – just angst.

  182. @ xPraetorius

    “I DO know the 17 trillion dollars thing — it’s a matter of historical record. I DO know all the other things — the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of federal programs…the welfare, SNAP, WIC, and on and on and on and on…providing “free” stuff disproportionately for minorities. Again, a matter of public record.”

    Please break down that 17 trillion and provide your sources. You have used this figure at least five times. Back it up.

  183. Very thought provoking read. You are obviously thinking about relevant issues. I have to agree that, ultimately, Hitler was not uniquely evil if you look at historical precedent.

    If WWII was won by the Germans you can bet they would have written history (and the narrative) much differently, and we would generally come to view things in a different way (though this seems hard to accept). Instead, the twin axes of the Holocaust and American slavery, which I am not denying the existence or horror of (just the way you would never try to minimize the horrors of the Arab slave trade or Rwandan genocide), have become critical foundations for the narrative. It’s impossible to talk about racial intelligence differences or the status occupied by Jews without being called racist or anti-semetic, so these are simply not mentioned at all any public sphere. On the right, there is inability to control immigration reform (or somehow stop the reconquista) and on the left it is impossible to curtail the 1%/banksters (who happen to be dispropotionately Jewish–not to deny the existence of the Romneys of the world)–higher income taxes, when they come, won’t effectively target the super rich. So the country continues its evolution into what is likely to be an even more unequal, stratified society.

  184. By my count xPraetorius so far has used seven of the 12 White Excuses. The examples are from memory, so they might not be completely correct, but it will give you the idea. Later when I have time and the thread has calmed down, I will make an updated list complete with the proper quotations. Maybe it will become a post.

    #1. Everyone does it – his example of where to draw the line on reparations: people have been screwing each other over since the dawn of time.

    #7. Their intentions were good – no will to empire, to exterminate, no government order for genocide.

    #8. It was the times! – it was conquest, etc.

    #9. We should be grateful – those 17 trillion dollars, how could whites POSSIBLY racist?

    #10. Get over it! – in that he rules out past racism in discussion of current reacism, as if the past has no important effect on the present worth talking about.

    #11. It is racist to talk about racism – Abagond is an amateur race baiter who keeps racism alive!

    #12. You can dismiss what blacks say about racism – something he does to almost every black commenter.

  185. XPraetorius

    I also want to know what you think racism is since you keep saying that it doesn’t exist, especially against minorities and especially the systematic kind.

    It’s one thing to make it point that white racism against blacks is not everywhere. It’s another point to bash others if they say different and talk down to them not only denying their experiences as essential in learning but believing in lies that helps keep the system going.

    And the way you do it is so bad, that you end up as an example to the subject being discussed. You ARE one of those white people who downplay racism, and you prove it with every response. You have NOT presented anything of substance to prove that racism is not systematic or widespread.

    I admit. I’m not good at arguments, but you are terrible. Either you don’t know how much of a horrible example you’re being, or you and your drones are having fun at our expense. I can’t wrap my head at the possibility that you are that obtuse not to know that your “views” are indeed problematic.

    An open minded person willing to learn something new would not dive into a blog willingly and shoot his/her mouth off telling us why we’re wrong and in doing so call us names to make him/herself appear intelligent. An intelligent, much less good, person would not make condescending remarks simply because it hints that they are not to the person’s liking.

    And much of what we say, you don’t like. It’s not because there is evidence that counters ours. It’s because you have nothing to present that would hold weight. It’s just white racism excusing and justifying itself through you. You sound like a neurotic follower who believes what he wants to believe.

    There are tons of references to prove our arguments. But you reject them. Plus, you expect us to present it for you when you’re more than capable of doing so yourself. But – as I’ve seen a hundred times with other trolls who say similar things – you reject them. You call it race baiting, leftist/liberal BS, racist, etc. as if that makes a bit of difference.

    You continue to repeat yourself and denounce the institutional realism of white racism based purely on information in which you seem to want to invent info from between the lines. You base it on half-truths and lies. You spend your precious time defending white people whenever any POC blogger discusses white racism. Then, here you come on your white stallion in hopes to save the faux reputation of the entire white race and tell us poor black folks what’s wrong with us all the while trying to feel good while doing it.

    It’s not working. You are sadly being the kind of white people, and I assume you’re white, discussed in many articles by many bloggers. You uphold whiteness like a flag and you shamelessly parade around with it.

    I’m not right all the time, but you’ve yet to tell me or anyone else what makes you right and we’re wrong. And it’s obvious that no matter what, we can not prove our case to you. Not only are you doing a damn good job of that on your own, but you will reject anything that backs it up.

    So, I’ll ask again, what is racism to you?

  186. @ xPraetorius

    I agree with Brothawolf: on this thread you have made yourself into THAT kind of white person, the very kind the post talks about, And, in classic Roissy fashion, you do not even seem to see the irony:

    http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-roissy-syndrome/

  187. Brothawolf said:
    XPraetorius

    I also want to know what you think racism is since you keep saying that it doesn’t exist, especially against minorities and especially the systematic kind.

    xPraetorius:
    BW: don’t be a doofus. I never said racism doesn’t exist, just that white racism is not a big problem anymore. READ what is written before you waste my time and that of others.

    It’s one thing to make it point that white racism against blacks is not everywhere. It’s another point to bash others if they say different and talk down to them not only denying their experiences as essential in learning but believing in lies that helps keep the system going.

    xPraetorius:
    Again, BW, READ. I bashed no one. I bash ideas or assertions. I will say that what someone said is dumb, but never that someone is dumb. I wouldn’t presume to, if I don’t know the person.

    And the way you do it is so bad, that you end up as an example to the subject being discussed. You ARE one of those white people who downplay racism, and you prove it with every response. You have NOT presented anything of substance to prove that racism is not systematic or widespread.

    xPraetorius:
    Uhhhh…yep. I’m downplaying the nearly non-existent white racism of today. Isn’t that kind of the point? I’m saying it…you’re disagreeing?

    I admit. I’m not good at arguments, but you are terrible. Either you don’t know how much of a horrible example you’re being, or you and your drones are having fun at our expense. I can’t wrap my head at the possibility that you are that obtuse not to know that your “views” are indeed problematic.

    xPraetorius:
    If I’m terrible at arguments, it ought to be easy just to squash me. Yet, you all spend your time telling me what a jerk I am. And, again, no one addresses the arguments I offer. Oh, and name a drone of mine, please.

    An open minded person willing to learn something new would not dive into a blog willingly and shoot his/her mouth off telling us why we’re wrong and in doing so call us names to make him/herself appear intelligent. An intelligent, much less good, person would not make condescending remarks simply because it hints that they are not to the person’s liking.

    xPraetorius:
    Uhhhh…BW. Knock-knock! Anybody home? It’s not anything like a common theme in America that white racism has been defeated! Hello! Here you are acting in PERFECT conformity with what the “Civil Rights” establishment has been saying for years, and you accuse ME of not having an open mind!

    And much of what we say, you don’t like. It’s not because there is evidence that counters ours. It’s because you have nothing to present that would hold weight. It’s just white racism excusing and justifying itself through you. You sound like a neurotic follower who believes what he wants to believe.

    xPraetorius:
    I don’t dislike ANYTHING you say. I disagree with it. I dislike your insults, your false accusations of racism — they hurt and sometimes RUIN innocent people — but that’s it. As for evidence: My five points, that everyone seems to agree with, 17 trillion dollars, SNAP, WIC, Black President…Oh, that’s right…I’ve said all that SEVERAL times before.

    There are tons of references to prove our arguments. But you reject them. Plus, you expect us to present it for you when you’re more than capable of doing so yourself. But – as I’ve seen a hundred times with other trolls who say similar things – you reject them. You call it race baiting, leftist/liberal BS, racist, etc. as if that makes a bit of difference.

    xPraetorius:
    I admit you “proved” racism in the past. I had agreed to THAT before we started. However, the closest thing you have to proving CURRENT white racism is (1) exceptions [Omnipresent], (2) vague speculation about covered-up activities in small towns [sharina] and (3) blanket assertions that you’ve proved racism [you, Abagond and the others]. That hardly constitues “references to prove your arguments.”

    You continue to repeat yourself and denounce the institutional realism of white racism based purely on information in which you seem to want to invent info from between the lines.

    xPretorius:
    Whatever that means.

    You base it on half-truths and lies.

    xPraetorius:
    Oh? Where?

    You spend your precious time defending white people whenever any POC blogger discusses white racism.

    xPraetorius:
    If you’ve leveled the toxic accusation of racism at innocent people, then it’s a darned good thing I defend them!

    Then, here you come on your white stallion in hopes to save the faux reputation of the entire white race and tell us poor black folks what’s wrong with us all the while trying to feel good while doing it.

    xPraetorius:
    Now, you’re just whining. If you re-read, you’ll see that I’ve presented a VERY balanced picture of white people, while avoiding any negative characterizations whatsoever about other people or peoples.

    It’s not working. You are sadly being the kind of white people, and I assume you’re white, discussed in many articles by many bloggers. You uphold whiteness like a flag and you shamelessly parade around with it.

    xPraetorius:
    If “it’s not working,” then why is it so much under YOUR skin? And, you’re silliness is showing again. Yeah, BW, I’m upholding whiteness like a flag and shamelessly parading around with it. Okay…you just keep telling yourself that.

    I’m not right all the time, but you’ve yet to tell me or anyone else what makes you right and we’re wrong. And it’s obvious that no matter what, we can not prove our case to you. Not only are you doing a damn good job of that on your own, but you will reject anything that backs it up.

    xPraetorius:
    I believe I’ve said numerous times: the 5 points, 17 trillion dollars, etc., etc., etc…those are evidence that you’re wrong. BW: point to an instance where you were wrong. Just one. I did so in this very thread, when I admitted that I misspoke about the U.S. never having had a “will to empire.” I admitted my error right here in public in front of all you who were insulting me, calling me names and being otherwise abusive.

    So, I’ll ask again, what is racism to you?

    xPraetorius:
    First: that’s the first time you’ve asked it. Second: Racism is something there’s not a lot of among whites. In fact, sometimes very much to our detriment, prejudice of ANY kind is in short supply among white people.

    Best,

    – x

  188. abagond said:
    @ xPraetorius

    I agree with Brothawolf: on this thread you have made yourself into THAT kind of white person, the very kind the post talks about, And, in classic Roissy fashion, you do not even seem to see the irony:

    http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-roissy-syndrome/

    xPraetorius:
    Whatever.

    I read the post. I guess I’m supposed to have a flash of insight at how ridiculous I am or something. However, the post was poorly written, incoherent and murky. Sorry. I wouldn’t show it around in public, if I were you.

    Best,

    – x

  189. I’m downplaying the nearly non-existent white racism of today.

    Classic Roissy style. :P

    Abagond, you couldn’t have captured the attention of a better troll to actually validate all of the points in your post. Bravo!

  190. Agabond,
    I get your point. But still, doesn’t it seem that this person/ think tank is working overtime to get your attention. Like I said, stray dogs….. Or maybe a baby with colic?

  191. “@ Kay

    “when followed to their logical conclusion totally invalidate what we think we know of the Transatlantic slave trade.”—No, it doesn’t. Most people (sadly) believe in the idea that every single black that came to the America’s was a slave. They were not. There was some that came here free.

    Now you can quote your blog if you like, but I prefer actual sources and not opinion pieces.”

    Umm…a more careful rereading will show I agree with your contention-MOST blacks who arrived were free and its the whites,especially the Irish who suffered slavery.

  192. @linda

    ““Kay,
    Actually,Linda if you read my post you’ll see there was never any HOLOCAUST because the while there was a Teutonic pride thing going on,the genocidal hatred of Jews and others was nonexistant-nothing but a Hollywood invention.”

    Linda says,

    Kay…… after this comment by you, I almost decided to relegate you to the bin as another “ignorant American” but I will respond to this because if I don’t, this dribble you just wrote will remain lingering on this post without an answer.

    Do you read Russian, Kay?…. because if you did, you would read, in the original language that it was first reported in, about how the Jews and others, were being exterminated — you do know that it was the Russians who were the ones to Find the 1st Concentration camps run by the Nazi’s.

    On 24 Jul 1944, the Soviet army marched near Lublin in Poland as their campaign westward continued. They came across the abandoned Majdanek concentration camp, whose prisoners already had been herded off on a death march away from the advancing Soviet troops. Majdanek was burned in attempt to mask its presence as the Germans retreated from the region but the remains of gas chambers were evident.

    This was the first major concentration camp discovered by those fighting against Germany, and the evidence found was a brutal confirmation of the rumors of the existence of such camps. In the following weeks, Soviet troops liberated the abandoned camps of Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka.

    http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=136

    So, unless the Russians were getting paid under the table by Hollywood to fabricate stories, I’m not sure how you came to your delusional conclusion.

    and how do you account for the many Polish, Czech, Slovak, and Eastern Europeans who have given their accounts of the War, the slavery many endured working in factories, forced inscription into the Military, and Camps–were they paid by Hollywood also (by way of the Communists that ruled them after the war)

    but my original question stands, what is your point by bringing this up?

    you haven’t changed any position of this posts intended arguments”

    I don’t read Russian,and don’t need to to see the transparent lies of Stalins’s Jews. In this case, very likely it was Ilya Ehrenburg,his chief anti German propagandist of the War.
    This is the guy who exhorted the Russians to slaughter Germans “The Germans are not human beings. From now on, the word ‘German’ is the most horrible curse. From now on, the word ‘German’ strikes us to the quick. We have nothing to discuss. We will not get excited. We will kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day .:”
    http://rense.com/general75/ehr.htm

    The same dude who invented the 6 million myth. My point in bringing this up was to illustrate that its a MYTH! Just like the black Transatlantic slave story. Black history is believed by blacks themselves to be mainly the trauma of slavery when this isn’t the case.

  193. @ xPraetorius

    “An open minded person willing to learn something new would not dive into a blog willingly and shoot his/her mouth off telling us why we’re wrong and in doing so call us names to make him/herself appear intelligent. An intelligent, much less good, person would not make condescending remarks simply because it hints that they are not to the person’s liking.

    xPraetorius:
    Uhhhh…BW. Knock-knock! Anybody home? It’s not anything like a common theme in America that white racism has been defeated! Hello! Here you are acting in PERFECT conformity with what the “Civil Rights” establishment has been saying for years, and you accuse ME of not having an open mind!”

    WTF?

    Brothawolf says you are condescending – and your rebuttal is to tell a Knock Knock joke? Wow. At this point you are just a straight-up troll.

    Plenty of commenters have addressed your points, taken issue with your positions. You airily dismiss them, ignore them or PRETEND THAT PEOPLE AGREE WITH YOU. You are talking to yourself at this point – like those men on the subway who have gone mad.

    I am not going to waste any more time on your B.S. Anything that falls into moderation will be instantly deleted.

  194. @xPraetorius

    Regarding the schools that teach that “whites are evil”:

    Initially you said that all the schools you and your children attended taught routinely that “whites are evil.” Since then you’ve changed that claim to “these schools taught both the good and bad about whites,” or they used a “values-balanced” approach.

    You’re claiming two contradictory things. If you really think you were taught both good and bad about white people in history, that must mean you weren’t taught that whites are evil. Yet initially you listed those schools precisely in response to the question: “Can you name a school that teaches that whites are evil?”

    Why alter your initial claim in this way? Or to put it differently — what could possibly have motivated you initially to claim that so many schools actually teach hatred of white people, which is an absurd claim when viewed with an ounce of objectivity?

    This is speculation, but I think the answer might be that you’ve developed such a thin skin on matters of race that you instinctively perceive any criticism directed against the history of the race you identify with to be overt hostility. It’s a common phenomenon among whites who spend too much time watching Bill O’Reilly, for example. But of course Fox News is only tapping into the resentment already existing in its audience. As a white person myself, I’ve seen this resentment quite a lot — whites get so angry when reminded of the history and effects of racism that they find it easy to convince themselves the victims of racism are themselves the “true” racists.

    But as I say, I’m only speculating. Perhaps your motives in contradicting yourself are completely different.

  195. “Kay,
    Umm…a more careful rereading will show I agree with your contention-MOST blacks who arrived were free and its the whites,especially the Irish who suffered slavery.

    The same dude who invented the 6 million myth. My point in bringing this up was to illustrate that its a MYTH! Just like the black Transatlantic slave story. Black history is believed by blacks themselves to be mainly the trauma of slavery when this isn’t the case.”

    Linda says,

    Kay, kay, kay….

    I think I will stick with my original decision to relegate you to the “crazy” bin and ignore you. I was taught to be kind to animals and fools but I don’t do “ignorant with a dash of delusion” people very well and I am sure you aren’t fluffy with 4 paws.

    enjoy the rest of this post, you can probably join in with the other space cadet who is making a mockery of word “intellect”

  196. Next time I’ll just play this board game:
    http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/38328/the-looney-bin

  197. Mr X

    You mean you guys and one woman have a think tank and you come to the conclusion that the legacy of slavery is not relevant today? And there is not a lot of racism among whites?

    After being raised in the States and making a living there , and then moving to Brazil, I can tell you the relevation that the legacy of slavery is very much affecting the dynamics of our societies in the Americas and Caribean, and racism and cultural supresion and destruction are very much alive today

    And there has been and continues to be the dissmisal, burying and destruction of black Afro diasporic cultures

    Our American culture has a huge black American cultural foundation contributing to its existance, Im curious if your think tank ackowledges that? And do you all ackowledge that this is not really recognised in our American narrative? Because I definitly see that and know it to be true

  198. @xPraetorius

    “Good luck…The principal and superintend[e]nt died many years ago…”

    LOL. Classic. You clearly suggested schools still teach that whites are evil. But still have yet to provide a name and location of any such school. I call BS.

    “Again, check through the posts: you’ll see that I told you that we were exposed to the evils that whites did as well as the good.”

    I checked the post, and you said schools teach “just how evil white people were and still are.”

    Again, no school in America does that. But I can’t help that you feel bad about learning how whites collectively mistreated others. It’s a part of history and an important part, regardless of how it makes you feel.

  199. B. R.
    Mr X

    You mean you guys and one woman have a think tank and you come to the conclusion that the legacy of slavery is not relevant today? And there is not a lot of racism among whites?

    After being raised in the States and making a living there , and then moving to Brazil, I can tell you the relevation that the legacy of slavery is very much affecting the dynamics of our societies in the Americas and Caribean, and racism and cultural supresion and destruction are very much alive today

    And there has been and continues to be the dissmisal, burying and destruction of black Afro diasporic cultures

    Our American culture has a huge black American cultural foundation contributing to its existance, Im curious if your think tank ackowledges that? And do you all ackowledge that this is not really recognised in our American narrative? Because I definitly see that and know it to be true

    xPraetorius:
    Good question, B.R…First: let’s not read things that I DID NOT say into what I’ve written. I never said that the “legacy of slavery is not relevant today.” ALL history is relevant today. I think, however, that it is self-evident that there is not a lot of racism among whites today. I think that — in PARTICULAR — is one very important aspect of the legacy of slavery today.

    Why? Simple. Conscience, fueled by Christianity.

    I’ll have to take your word on what you said about the problems of blacks in the Caribbean and the rest of the Americas, as you will read below.

    As regards topics economic and social, our small but growing think tank has expertise mostly in domestic areas. However, some of our group have extensive expertise in other focused areas, such as: Soviet Union/Russia, Europe (parts). We are conversant in many topics from a philosophical standpoint — eg.: big government tends to lead to disaster anywhere it prevails. We have other topic-focused expertise as well: history (specifically, modern American, Russian/Soviet/Russian, French, British), economics a a discipline, politics/political science, current events, ideology, music (specifically: guitar, jazz, orchestral, other), golf, and some other things. I have to confess, we do not have significant expertise as it pertains to South America. Needless to say, we are always interested in adding to our group.

    Of course we acknowledge the huge black American cultural foundation in America. You are wrong, however, to suggest that “it is not recognized in our American narrative.” It wasn’t in the past — and before my time — but it is now, and has been all my life; more than 50 years. The readers and contributors to this blog all ought to acknowledge that.

    You said: “And there has been and continues to be the dissmisal, burying and destruction of black Afro diasporic cultures”

    Sorry…simply untrue in America. Obviously I cannot speak for South America.

    Best,

    – x

  200. preatorius,

    I have never in my life known of a school that teaches that whites are evil. If anything public schools present whites as being the great civilizers, the humane and the heroes. We barely talked about the horrors of lynching in my school, I had classmates who at the age of 17 didn’t know who Emmett Till was and had never heard of him. They didn’t even talk AT ALL about the rapes of Black women during Jim Crow, the reconstruction…no mention at all about the forced sterilization of Black women like Elaine Riddick, no mention of lynchings of pregnant Black women like the Clark-Howe tragedy (thanks mstgood), no mention of actual genocide of Native Americans. They talked about force assimilation lightly, but the word genocide was NEVER used in any of my classes where were briefly discussed Native Americans. they didn’t talk about how the US government rejected a federal anti-lynching bill, but sponsored a statue of Mammy that (had it not been the for the NAACP) would have been sitting in Washington DC today near the MLK memorial.

    and when we did discuss African-American history in my course briefly, the teacher didn’t even know what she was talking about really. I remember very well that she said that blacks who could pass for whites had no friends and were miserable their whole lives, which was nothing more than a tragic mulatto stereotype and I wanted to tell her that my pop pop was very light skinned and passed for white on occasion when it was convenient , but he was accepted as Black by Blacks and had many friends and a Black wife. So she didn’t know how to properly teach African-American history w/out stereotyping either.

    They bring in teachers who have general degrees in history, but don’t know anything about Black history or history of racism…and that is how stereotypes continue and don’t get addressed.

    THE MAJORITY of what I learned about institutionalized racism and history in the US I learned either from reading on my own or from college courses

    Please, if any thing schools do the opposite of portray whites as evil, they portray them as good the best method is to portray history as it should be…neither portrayal is accurate, they should tell the truth and portray whites the way they are…both good and evil.

    so i disagree with your statement

  201. Frank M. said:
    @xPraetorius

    Regarding the schools that teach that “whites are evil”:

    Initially you said that all the schools you and your children attended taught routinely that “whites are evil.” Since then you’ve changed that claim to “these schools taught both the good and bad about whites,” or they used a “values-balanced” approach.

    You’re claiming two contradictory things. If you really think you were taught both good and bad about white people in history, that must mean you weren’t taught that whites are evil. Yet initially you listed those schools precisely in response to the question: “Can you name a school that teaches that whites are evil?”

    Why alter your initial claim in this way? Or to put it differently — what could possibly have motivated you initially to claim that so many schools actually teach hatred of white people, which is an absurd claim when viewed with an ounce of objectivity?

    This is speculation, but I think the answer might be that you’ve developed such a thin skin on matters of race that you instinctively perceive any criticism directed against the history of the race you identify with to be overt hostility. It’s a common phenomenon among whites who spend too much time watching Bill O’Reilly, for example. But of course Fox News is only tapping into the resentment already existing in its audience. As a white person myself, I’ve seen this resentment quite a lot — whites get so angry when reminded of the history and effects of racism that they find it easy to convince themselves the victims of racism are themselves the “true” racists.

    But as I say, I’m only speculating. Perhaps your motives in contradicting yourself are completely different.

    xPraetorius reply:
    Frank…calm down. I’ve got like NINE of you coming at me from all different directions. I DID misspeak, and you caught me on it. My definitive statement is that American schools teach an unvarnished perspective on white people. They do NOT gloss over white misdeeds in the realms of slavery, segregation, discrimination. In my experience, and in my research, I’ve found that whites are the ONLY such group to receive that treatment. All other ethnicities have received either a matter-of-fact or positive treatment…some small exceptions, but this is generally the case. I don’t have time to elaborate now…but I’ll be back in the afternoon.

    And, trust me, I have a VERY thick skin regarding race. That doesn’t mean that I have to sit still for false or scurrilous accusations of racism, and I won’t.

    P.S. the only exchanges that are any fun or interesting at all, are those in which there is spirited disagreement…if, of course, you can get the race-baiters to lay off the nonsensical accusations.

    Best,

    – x

  202. @xPraetorius

    ” In my experience, and in my research, I’ve found that whites are the ONLY such group to receive that treatment.”

    You do realise that whites (assuming you mean Europeans) are the only collective group to go to every inhabitable country, steal (or “conquer” if you wish) land and gold from said inhabitants, burn their cities, books, etc., enslave and/or institute systems of apartheid, etc.

    Again, if you feel bad about history, then that’s you’re problem. But no one is unfairly singling out whites as a group as opposed to just teaching basic historical facts.

  203. @ Kay

    It was not most blacks that were free, so maybe you need to up your educational level by starting with reading the link on black confederates.

  204. @ Kay

    Put your reading glasses on hun because I will make this quick. I said and let me quote “There was some that came here free.” I will repeat and by all means play close attention to the some.

    “There was some that came here free.” So explain to me where or even how you came up with this ridiculous conclusion. “Umm…a more careful rereading will show I agree with your contention-MOST blacks who arrived were free..”

  205. Mr X, in my profesion, more than a couple of decades ago, I tried to bring a black person into the job, and, the manegement told us to not bring black people there any more…I heard that , there are some exceptions now,but , the underlying tone is pretty much the same….if this isnt blatent racism, i dont know what is..and i think that kind of attitude is wider spread than we might think

    If you do recognise the racism in society, and, good that you did, and, that you all recognise the contribution of black culture, how do you explain the fact that white artists get the bigger shot to make the success, its been constant from the first jazz band to Eminem, please dont say its what the market demands, I find the big budgets and push go to the whiter acts…for sure, in the modeling industry, the standards are embarrasingly white

    Great you ackowldege jazz, what is your take on jazz history and racism? And how they teach jazz in school?

    Do you think they actualy teach the real roots and more powerful Afro diasporic aproaches? or is it overwelmingly a European aproach, that essentialy loses the original concept of what the art form is?More emphasis on reading and arranging and less on swing (Wynton Marsalis and his crowd being the exception in the educational system)?

  206. You know B.R. I do believe William is going through hell and back in court for hiring minorities and the job he was working for did not want him to hire them.

  207. resw77 said:

    You do realise that whites (assuming you mean Europeans) are the only collective group to go to every inhabitable country, steal (or “conquer” if you wish) land and gold from said inhabitants, burn their cities, books, etc., enslave and/or institute systems of apartheid, etc.

    ….no one is unfairly singling out whites as a group as opposed to just teaching basic historical facts.

    Precisely, excellent point.

  208. B. R.
    Mr X, in my profesion, more than a couple of decades ago, I tried to bring a black person into the job, and, the manegement told us to not bring black people there any more…I heard that , there are some exceptions now,but , the underlying tone is pretty much the same….if this isnt blatent racism, i dont know what is..and i think that kind of attitude is wider spread than we might think

    If you do recognise the racism in society, and, good that you did, and, that you all recognise the contribution of black culture, how do you explain the fact that white artists get the bigger shot to make the success, its been constant from the first jazz band to Eminem, please dont say its what the market demands, I find the big budgets and push go to the whiter acts…for sure, in the modeling industry, the standards are embarrasingly white

    Great you ackowldege jazz, what is your take on jazz history and racism? And how they teach jazz in school?

    Do you think they actualy teach the real roots and more powerful Afro diasporic aproaches? or is it overwelmingly a European aproach, that essentialy loses the original concept of what the art form is?More emphasis on reading and arranging and less on swing (Wynton Marsalis and his crowd being the exception in the educational system)?

    xPraetorius:
    @B.R. You’ve gone WAY far afield with this post! I DO love to talk about jazz, specifically in the context of jazz guitar. I’m actually a very good (yes, being immodest here) jazz guitarist. My style is, however, MUCH more niche than just “jazz” itself. I’m more like a gypsy jazz guitarist. If you want a hint of my style, you can find Stochelo Rosenberg, Angelo DeBarre or Joscho Stephan on YouTube for reference. “Jazz” is a big umbrella, and there is certainly debate as to what constitutes “real” jazz between the purists and the inclusivists and the exclusivists and the free jazz people, and the fusion people and the gypsies and the swingsters and the Ellington-ites, and all the rest. I don’t care about any of that. I play music, and I play well, so I get GIGANTIC satisfaction from it. The “jazz” label is the one I find most closely works for my style, and when I go to listen to music, I very frequently find myself listening to recordings labeled “jazz.” There.

    I have very little actual knowledge of the music industry itself — it’s just a hobby for me, and I play only locally. If you’re in Connecticut, you might have seen friends of mine and me out and about. Bottom line: I don’t explain the “fact that white artists get the bigger shot to make the success.” I don’t even know whether that’s a fact, fiction, a trend, a blip, long-term, short-term, your opinion or what.

    I have no idea how they teach jazz in school…I’d guess that would come from the individual teacher, whose expertise would drive that. I suspect that if you were to insist that if you were to insist that there is only one BEST way to teach jazz in school, as you seem to imply, then you’d get an argument from people more informed than I.

    One fatal mistake I can tell you that you’re making right from the get-go: the only color the business side of the industry recognizes is green. No matter the performer’s appearance — one of the few industries where this is ACTUALLY the case — if you represent the opportunity for a lot of green, you’ll get jobs, publicity, tours, recording deals, rich. If not, it won’t happen for you unless YOU make it happen, no matter WHO you are.

    As regards your anecdote at top — about bringing a black person on at your place of employment — for each anecdote like that, there are probably many more about people being told to hire more minorities in order to immunize their organization from the threat of bad publicity at the hands of the race-baiters. I know innumerable such stories myself. Playing dueling anecdotes doesn’t typically resolve much outside of the larger context.

    See, B.R.? I DO like to talk about jazz, but I know where my limits are in any such discussion. When I write about it, I tend to focus on my experiences with the guitar — sometimes certain guitars — while playing music.

    Best,

    – x

  209. @ xPraetorius
    I think you are really good at playing on words but I think when it comes down to it…you are doing nothing more than that. You have asserted that you know with certainty the minds of every white person, yet have jumped on Abagond for making the claim of the mindset of most. Just because you are white does not make you every white person.
    You stated this “No whites(*) are trying to “play down their own racist past.”—Passed it off as a certainty and then lied to me by saying “If you read ALL my posts, you will see that if I speculate on what anyone else is thinking or wants or needs or feels, I tell you that I’m speculating right up front. I say things like, “I suspect that so and so thinks this,” or, “It seems that what’s-her-name thinks that…” Immediately I’m saying that IT’S MY IMPRESSION that blah, blah, blah.”

    So in this statement I would like to ask where is the “I suspect that so and so thinks this, etc.”?

    While this is one example I have ran across quite a few, yet it continuously amazes me that you can be a hypocrite and claim not to be. Now I know you will come with some excuse and clean up what you mean, but do you not see something in the fact that you have been caught in contradictions quite a few times now?

    I respect that you have an opinion, but the repeated hypocrisy is ridiculous.

    @ everyone
    I have found that when you call someone’s post stupid you are in essence calling them stupid on the sly. It’s a play on words.

  210. I think this is more of a blogger rivalry than an exchange of ideas or telling someone they are wrong.

  211. resw77 said:
    @xPraetorius

    ” In my experience, and in my research, I’ve found that whites are the ONLY such group to receive that treatment.”

    You do realise that whites (assuming you mean Europeans) are the only collective group to go to every inhabitable country, steal (or “conquer” if you wish) land and gold from said inhabitants, burn their cities, books, etc., enslave and/or institute systems of apartheid, etc.

    Again, if you feel bad about history, then that’s you’re problem. But no one is unfairly singling out whites as a group as opposed to just teaching basic historical facts.

    xPraetorius replied:
    resw77, resw77, resw77…stop, please, reading things that I MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT say into what I wrote. I NEVER said whites received any UNFAIR treatment at the hands of the education system, rather that they received a “balanced” treatment. Search for the word “balanced,” and you’ll see. I never implied that this was unfair. What IS unfair, or just plain wrong if you wish, is the ABSOLUTELY FALSE assertion that our educational system LEFT OUT any exposure of white misdeeds throughout history. The educational system most certainly did NOT do that. Nor, however, did the educational system give the same balanced treatment to other races, nationalities or ethnicities — in any widespread manner, that is. Of course there are exceptions that prove nearly every rule.

    @resw77: Of course, whites are NOT the only group to go to every inhabitable country and commit all those acts. Are you REALLY trying to tell me that Africa was only a land of milk and honey before the arrival of colonial Europeans? Are Mongols white? How about the Chinese? Egyptians? Assyrians? The moslems who throughout history essentially persecute, enslave or kill anyone with the temerity not to convert? Were the Aztecs white? The Mayans? Did they get their empires’ lands by being sure to expand ONLY to uninhabited areas of their realsm? How about American indians? Were they always perfectly scrupulous to avoid other tribes’ lands when building their various empires? Were they all white Europeans?

    Uhhhh…no.

    The story of empire building and expansion is ALWAYS and has ALWAYS been a story of conquest.

    Btw, don’t go all Philadelphia lawyer on me. “Inhabitable” means — to me — all the lands inhabitable AT THE TIME by the peoples doing the inhabiting. :)

    Bottom line: there is no race whose members can look back on their past with unreseved contentment and satisfaction. Now, I hear it already, so just stop: it does NOT justify, in any way, shape or form, any crimes committed against anyone by anyone. Ok? Sheesh!

    But, even with ALL THAT, resw77, I’m feeling generous here. Your phrase beginning with: “You do realise that whites …” very neatly makes my point for me. How much MORE miraculous is it that — after all that white brutishness — we’ve arrived at THIS point where there is so little white racism in America TODAY (<– the ACTUAL topic of the discussion.)?!? So, I invite you ALL to tell me just how depraved the white race has been throughout history — I already have a pretty good idea anyway, ’cause I learned it in the American educational system — so that you can make my point even stronger that there’s OBVIOUSLY WAY LESS such racism today. In fact, there’s really very little. :)

    Best,

    – x

  212. sharina said:
    I think this is more of a blogger rivalry than an exchange of ideas or telling someone they are wrong.

    – xPraetorius replied:
    Could be…but again, I have no need to “win,” as a rivalry might imply.

    However, I will not just stand idly by and allow some ignorant nitwit (not you) to call ME a racist without telling him he’s wrong. The fact that I can prove it seems to have the readership here all defensive and reverting to the very thing I’ve been saying all along: blind, sheep-like accusers of racism.

    More and more, that accusation — still the most toxic in the lexicon today — is losing its totemic power through overuse and through really stupid use: like finding white racism in white condemnations of white racism, as is the premise of the original blog post.

    You ARE mistaken in one thing: I AM telling Abagond that he’s wrong, and I have supported that conclusion extensively.

    Best,

    – x

  213. @ xPraetorius

    “More and more, that accusation — still the most toxic in the lexicon today — is losing its totemic power through overuse and through really stupid use: like finding white racism in white condemnations of white racism, as is the premise of the original blog post.

    You ARE mistaken in one thing: I AM telling Abagond that he’s wrong, and I have supported that conclusion extensively”

    1. As to supporting your conclusion extensively, you ducked at least two requests to back up your $17 trillion figure. You even ducked Brothawolf’s request for a definition of racism. Apparently you are a B.S. artist.

    2. This post is about the moral reasoning White Americans apply to their history, It is NOT about what YOU say it is. If you cannot remain on topic, then go rant on your own blog.

  214. @ xPraetorius
    “Could be…but again, I have no need to “win,” as a rivalry might imply.”—I am a firm believer in actions speak louder than words and your actions alone prove that you are out to “win” something. If not then you would have accepted a long time ago that Abagond feels his way and just moved on.

    “You ARE mistaken in one thing: I AM telling Abagond that he’s wrong, and I have supported that conclusion extensively”—I am mistaken how? My original comment stated and I shall quote “an exchange of ideas or telling someone they are wrong.” Secondly you have not proven anything though. I think you believe that your 5 points prove more than what they actually do.

    YOU don’t believe racism is a problem today and as such then it must not be a problem. Everything hinges on whether or not racism today can be proven to YOU and if it cannot then it does not exist. If anything today racism is not as wide open and straight-forward as it was in the past.

    It does not make Abagond wrong in his assertion of those whites that are racist anymore than it makes you wrong in your assertion of whites that are not racist.

    I appreciate that you decided to engage us rather than debate us on your blog alone, but I have grown weary of the back and forth. Good day.

  215. on Tue 13 Aug 2013 at 22:40:47 xPraetorius

    Sorry, Abagond’s post is a pile of incoherent, paranoid blather. And the bilious replies that followed confirm it.

    […]By the way, I’ve NEVER heard ANY white person WHATSOEVER ask for ANY kind of gratitude for having undergone this self-inspection.

    I don’t think this person is even capable of comprehending what Abagond wrote.

    It’s very seldom that even the most well-meaning whites don’t pat themselves on the back for “daring” to even deal with black people, let alone acknowledge racism. This type of acknowledgement is always done from a one-up position of the white person granting a great favor. This is insulting as hell.

    I think Praetorius is very sheltered and not half as educated as he thinks he is.

  216. Omnipresent said: Just because an individual is not an active member of these groups does not mean that they do not aspire to their ideologies. Many people are ‘put off’ being directly associated with them due to their extreme approach. In the U.K for example, a party called UKIP have members which have been revealed as belonging to or being associated with ‘far right’ groups however, when confronted with evidence of this, denial denial denial.

    xPraetorius said: Oh, come on, O…no reading other people’s minds. Stop it, please. Next, I’m talking about racism here in America. UKIP is British. 
    I am not talking about reading other peoples minds, I am talking of their behaviours towards, their actions, their reactions and what they say. I take on board what you are saying about discussing the U.S but, I can’t help mention this example because ‘people are people’ wherever in the world they live. In the case of the UKIP party members, the truth is irrefutable.

    Omnipresent said:You gave A response but what about this part of the question I have to also ask, if people are doing their best to remove any prejudice for centuries!!!, why is it taking so long? Whats the hold up?

    xPraetorius said:Thanks for reminding me! I forgot to address the “What’s taking so long?” question! The answer’s easy, though. No population changes states of mind overnight.There wasn’t even telephone communications at the turn of the last century, let alone genuine MASS communication. Furthermore things like television, radio, internet are only recent inventions, with the internet being by far the youngest within most of our memory. Now, ideas cross the country in minutes, but before it took decades to change minds and hearts. The point is, though, that it got done, and for at least 50 years white racism has simply not been a big problem. You may question this, but I’d point you to acceptance of all things gay. The idea, while oldish, exploded onto the scene a VERY short time ago, and it appears that most states will adopt gay marriage laws. All this in a few very short years!

    Omnipresent says: You seem to take a stance where you speak for ALL white America. I’m sure you are smart enough to know, this is just not possible. You picked me up earlier on what you called ‘reading peoples minds’ – how is it that you can categorically say that just because legislations and SOME attitudes have changed that the effects are far reaching enough to ensure that racism is not a big problem? The acceptance of all things GAY? Again, being GAY is something that a person of any race can be – this does not demonstrate to me that race is not a problem however, it does show that tolerance/acceptance is more widespread than before.

    xPraetorius said: I KNOW first hand of things called Affirmative Action programs, because I have worked first hand with them across the country for may years. I have plenty of anecdotal evidence — for what that’s worth — of minorities pushed to the front of the jobs line simply because of their minority status. Who isn’t familiar, for example, with the simple phrase: “An equal opportunity, Affirmative Action employer”?

    Omnipresent said: Affirmative Action is supposed to be about addressing imbalance. This does not put incapable people in jobs that they are unable to do just because they are disabled/black/female whatever.

    xPraetorius said: Actually it most definitely does put people let prepared to do the job in many, many positions. This is a matter of fact, not debate.
    I disagree and it is certainly not as widespread as you are trying to maintain though I don’t doubt that you have seen examples of this.

    Omnipresent said: Anyway, if racism is not an issue in America, why does it matter if the best people are being chosen for the job but they ‘happen’ to come under a group of people who have governments have classified as having protected characteristics?

    xPraetorius said: The best people are NOT being chosen…they ARE being chosen because of their race. It does no favors to anyone; eithe rthe employer or the employee.

    Omnipresent: This is NOT the purpose of affirmative action. Managers who are using this to purely to fulfill their ethnicity quota are misunderstanding the brief. You should probably question why they are in a position of authority if they cannot understand how this should be implemented.

    Omnipresent said: Or are you saying that people who come under these categories couldnt possibly compete with a white person and be better?

    xPraetorius said: Nope. Never said that.

    Omnipresent: Ok then but your comment above about people being chosen BECAUSE of their race does not really show that there are exceptions.

    Omnipresent said: Abagond’s is one opinion – just because people agree with some of his posts, does not mean that they are close minded. Some people have had experiences that are negative, this MUST be acknowledged otherwise YOU TOO are in danger of being as ‘close minded’ as you accuse others of being.

    xPraetorius said: Thanks, Omnipresent. I agree. You and I might differ on this, but I think that your assertions prove my points. You speak of people having “bad experiences.” Ok, but ALL people have bad experiences. Now, however, the bad RACIST experience is the rare exception. And, the big difference is that there is just a whole lot of recourse if it DOES happen.

    To put one of your points back in your court, we cannot ‘read peoples minds’. We do not know what people have been through, to what extent or how they deal with it. It is dismissive to say that racist experiences are the rare exception. This is not always out of downright disregard – sometimes people will claim that they just ‘don’t understand’ how what they did can be seen as ‘racist’ because they have done it for a long time perhaps and never been called up for it. Whilst it may be frustrating and irritating to acknowledge you have to take on board that many white people are not as enlightened or as far forward as you ‘think’ they are/should be.

  217. @xPraetorius

    “stop, please, reading things that I MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT say into what I wrote. I NEVER said whites received any UNFAIR treatment at the hands of the education system, rather that they received a “balanced” treatment.”

    So you’re going to pretend you never said “White people are still the only identifiable group in history ever to undergo a thorough examination of their own treatment of ALL other peoples”

    “Are you REALLY trying to tell me that Africa was only a land of milk and honey before the arrival of colonial Europeans? Are Mongols white? How about the Chinese? Egyptians? Assyrians? The moslems…Aztecs white? The Mayans?”

    LOL. When did Africans (incl. Egyptians), Mongols, Chinese, Assyrians, Aztecs and Mayans go to EVERY inhabitable continent and commit the evil deeds I aforementioned?

    Please enlighten us.

  218. Agabond,

    Still feeding that sick puppy? You need to let this one go. No one is learning anything and the point of your post is being disrupted.

  219. @ xPraetorius
    “Abagond is most definitely NOT qualified in anyway to tell me the mindset of most. Nor did I ever tell you anyone’s mindset.”—Abagond is but neither are you and the problem is that you don’t even realize that you do it or you realize it and find a quick excuse for it. Excusing it will not change the fact that you are doing it. I quoted on and your excuse it whites that count, but hello all whites count and should be taken seriously. This is what I mean by your excuses and playing on words. Deciding at a whim what counts and what does not to prove a point, but it is not up to you to decide who is or is not considered “white enough to be taken seriously.” They are still white and thus are in the category.

    This is why you are still in these arguments with people because Abagond is stating something on “racist” whites and you are telling him he is wrong because you have decided to categorize the white race and picked out the very people he is referring to. Then going on and on about how he is wrong when in fact you are not talking about the same thing.

    As for being a hypocrite I see you as such when you are making statements in regards to what all white people are doing or believe. You really don’t know what all white people are doing or believing even if you take out the ones you don’t take seriously you still don’t know. Calling Abagond out on his Post does not qualify you to use most or all either. You are using this absolutes and all and most phrases and then turning it around to say…not those people or except those people. Well if that is the case then it is not all or most, but either way do you know all or most to make the assertions you are?

    Fine you have not lied to me as I am not aware of your intent and I will admit to you admitting you are wrong, but only if you are caught will you admit these things.

  220. @TorrontoGirl:

    You must take in consideration the striking resemblance between whites and dogs (blonde frizzy hair, blue/green eyes, pale skin, thin lips, violent behavior)

    I object to this. Dogs aren’t generally violent unless they are threatened, abused or have incompetent owners.

  221. @ All

    I just deleted some posts that were answering xPraetorius. He has completely derailed this thread. It was useful for a while, when he was proving the post, when he was my Show and Tell lizard. Now it is getting ridiculous, getting lost in his crazy mirror world.

    Do not respond to his earlier comments unless they relate to the post – the moral reasoning White Americans use when talking about their past and present, the 12 White Excuses. It is NOT about whether whites or xPraetorius is racist. That is HIS topic.

  222. Mr X, well, you play jazz, that is great, Im a jazz player myself, Ive been on the bandstand with some really monster players like, Henry Johnson, Sonny Sharrok (toured France with him), Jimmy Ponder, my first gig in New York was with Alex Foster and Mike Wolff , and John Scofeild was the guitar player, subbing for Barry Finarty, Ryo Kawasaki, Stern , Richie Hart with the incredible Dr Lonnie Smith…but hey, names dont mean anything here, so, I just have to say, with no false modesty, Im a bad mf, and I belive my band , if i can get the colleagues I want, could wipe your band out…hey, Im a current profesional and Im very comepetive, because I know the dues Ive paid

    And I personaly dont think , and I dont know your playing, so, Im not directing at you, if you cant cut some up tempo BeBop, a person isnt really facing the the highest leval of jazz that was innovated by black Americans, in other words, if a person wants to play jazz, but cant cut an up tempo, they arent really facing the deeper principles that the innovative black American geniuses put out there…in real jazz, the harmony and melodies have to be a slave to the groove and swing…these other off shoots have watered down the real aproach of jazz. And jazz is black American history, not black American history is jazz, but, jazz is all about the black American struggle, their innovation and how the innovators were lost in the comercial shuffle…oh yeah, some broke through, same in pop music, but, it isnt about really who can make the green, its about who they chose to back with multi million dollar campains and that they make some pretty weak choices to put on the poor buffet that is open to the public to buy..if a black artist hits it big, they will get the support, but, I can tell you, there is a huge string of boring white acts that got the big push and a huge amount of talented players never got any kind of help from the industry…

    If they are not letting black players play at the event I worked at, how can there really be a chance to get the shot?You dont think that there are a huge string of desicians made at high levals by a few people that have reflected some of the most bland white bread music in history? You can go back to Rudy Valee, I mean who remembers him now? Look at old Saturday night live shows and the bands that got the shot are some of the most forgettable boring music ever made, and mostly white….sure there are some great white players, but, jazz, funk, hip hop are black cultures, and I have seen in a big way, black cultures struggling every step of the way, in Brazil , the USA,and getting sufocated, dissmissed, banned, (Samba, Jazz, Rock, Capoeira, Candomble, Baile Funk etc have all gone through being banned by capatalist countries, commie countries, Islamic countries, Christian organistions, Henry Ford, etc etc

    it is the story of black Afro diasporic cultures in the Americas

    You see, I thought you could run these fantastic ideas by your think tank and you all could tweak your thing a little bit better

    because, these cultural principles, go back to the ancient Africans, who were genius to be able to discover how to put two rhythms together , syncopate it and repeat it over and over…self similarity…hey, you smart tank people know what that is , right? self similarity, its in fractals, Mandlebrot, the thumbprint of god, yes, Im saying ancient Africans organicly took the first steps of mankind to come up with genius principles that quantum physics is describing today, and those ancient African principles were describing ecactly that…no other cultures aproach groove in the same way, except Afro diasporic descendants , they came up with it, looped duple triple rhythms back on each other and syncopated them and made them call responce and grooved it forever, and had dance movemtents that used the whole body as a fulcrum to express these cross rhythm principles

    And, that is also why racism came into being, Western and Arab slave traders, pulled so many millions of people out of Africa that it is painfully plain, it was becuase they thought their culture was inferiour,or infidels,so they invented racism to justify this slavery…Arabs in their own way..

    This is the crux of why racism is so prevelent today, refusal to respect the culture, that is why Martin was gone after, because he was apropriating dress that was culturaly relevant to him from black hip hop styles…but, Zimmerman associated it with thugism or potential burglar..other black people lived in that place, it was a non understanding of culture that caused this….and this supresion of culture is playing out big time today, surly you dont think real black culture is being demonstrated on the media, do you? Are we seeing the best of black American culture?Not that some talents dont get through, they do and always have, but,its a white world in the media industry, white judgements for the most part and white culture, but white culture that apropriated black culture and did it mostly poorly

    By the way, I can relate to what Brothawolf sais and I dont think he hates white people, he is attacking “whiteness” the state of mind that perpetuates the not so blatent and blatent obsticles that keep getting thrown in black Americans front…I see how clearly they exist….in two countries

    and, a big part of it is cultural dismissing , burying and destroying black Afro diasporic culture

    I think your think tank can run that through the tread mill

  223. @ xPraetorius

    “I NEVER said whites received any UNFAIR treatment at the hands of the education system, rather that they received a “balanced” treatment.”

    Let’s not play games here. You clearly said, and I quote, “Kids DO receive morally blind propaganda in school today: propaganda telling them in perfectly unbalanced fashion just how evil white people were and still are.”

    See that word “unbalanced” that you used?

    “…Africa was only a land of milk and honey before the arrival of colonial Europeans? Are Mongols white? How about the Chinese? Egyptians? Assyrians? The moslems…Aztecs…Mayans? ”

    When did Africans (incl. Egyptians), Chinese, Assyrians, Mongols, Aztecs or Mayans go to EVERY continent to commit the evil deeds I aforementioned. Enlighten us.

    “don’t go all Philadelphia lawyer on me. ‘Inhabitable’ means…”

    I used “inhabitable” so as to exclude Antarctica, if that’s OK with you.

  224. @ B.R.

    “By the way, I can relate to what Brothawold sais about “whiteness” and I dont get he hates white people,he is talking about that state of mind”—I am glad you brought this up because like a fool I always thought “whiteness” was reference to white people and not a state of mind.

    Thank you and I am sorry Brothawolf if I had not asked you about this previously

  225. Sharina, took me a a few posts by Brothawolf, Matari, and others to really get it, once I did, it made a lot of sence

  226. thanks Abagond and thanks for correcting it…I dont want to deral the thread, Ill just check it out now

  227. Abagond:

    I just deleted some posts that were answering xPraetorius. He has completely derailed this thread.

    Irritating. I am not as fluid a writer as others on here, it takes me time to compose my responses. Could you not have done a cut off and directed people to an alternative thread?

  228. @ Omnipresent

    “I am not as fluid a writer as others on here, it takes me time to compose my responses”—They are great for the time you put into them. :)

  229. @Abagond

    My deleted comment did relate to this topic; All I did was address xPraetorius’ downplaying racism using your point #1 “Everyone does it.”

    There are certainly more comments on this page that are more off-topic than that, including the last several.

  230. abagond said:
    @ xPraetorius

    “More and more, that accusation — still the most toxic in the lexicon today — is losing its totemic power through overuse and through really stupid use: like finding white racism in white condemnations of white racism, as is the premise of the original blog post.

    You ARE mistaken in one thing: I AM telling Abagond that he’s wrong, and I have supported that conclusion extensively”

    1. As to supporting your conclusion extensively, you ducked at least two requests to back up your $17 trillion figure. You even ducked Brothawolf’s request for a definition of racism. Apparently you are a B.S. artist.

    2. This post is about the moral reasoning White Americans apply to their history, It is NOT about what YOU say it is. If you cannot remain on topic, then go rant on your own blog.

    xPraetorius replies:
    @abagond, @abagond, @abagond…fer cryin’ out loud! Give me a break! I’ve barely caught up with sharina, and she’s not nearly as long-winded as you! My morning appointments DID take a chunk of my day.

    First: As regards the topic of off-topic: go yell at B.R. He was all OVER the north 40, and nowhere near the topic. Then, go yell at everyone who felt it necessary to tell me all about white misdeeds in the past. So, those posters who went REALLY far afield, are unchastized by you because they support your point of view? You just forfeited forever any right EVER to accuse me of anything even RESEMBLING hypocrisy. Sorry, if you can’t even be an honest moderator of your own blog, then everything else you say or write is suspect too.

    As to the 17$ trillion dollar figure, just quickly — looking at a couple of charts from the government, American GDP averaged roughly 9 trillion per year since 1980. Welfare has averaged more than 6% per year since 1980, but let’s use 6%.

    6% of 9 trillion is 540 billion. 540 billion times 32 years (1980 through 2012) = 17.28 trillion for welfare alone. That’s in year 2000 dollars, and counts only the time period from 1980 through 2012. Of course, there was still more spending between 1965 — the beginning of the so-called “Great Society” programs — and 1980. I’ve left that out because I think my point is already well on the way to being illustrated.

    I used: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending for the level of welfare spending. They gave that as a percentage of GDP. I googled GDP and found something that comported with what I recalled from generally paying attention all my adult life, other research and the like, so it seemed credible.

    I had some economics courses in college (in the early ’80′s) in which we all learned that welfare spending alone had already reached 6 trillion dollars. Now, some 30 years later, of course it would have had a chance to triple, if not more so.

    As regards your point #2, you have no way of knowing what moral reasoning whites apply to their history, remember? Want me — a white dude — to start telling YOU all about the moral reasoning BLACK people use to justify ignoring the carnage of black-on-black violence in the inner-cities? Of course not. You’d tell me to go fly a kite. Come to think of it, you tell me to do that even when I speak about WHITE states of mind! An area, obviously, where I have some extensive direct experience. :) I love how you imply that YOU are BETTER able to tell ME about white thinking and white feelings and needs and wants than I AM! Hello, Abagond! Anybody home?

    Oh, as to your parting shot…I have no doubt that I’m heading for exile here, and that you will censor my posts soon enough…that’s just typical of race-baiters and lefties who feel the need to shut out challenging or dissenting voices — which is all of ‘em I’ve ever met. Are YOU going to be any different, Abagond? I doubt it.

    Best,

    – x

  231. @ Omnipresent, etc

    I undeleted comments that came in before I announced the cut-off or right after it. My bad.

  232. sharina:

    Omnipresent: “I am not as fluid a writer as others on here, it takes me time to compose my responses”—

    They are great for the time you put into them.

    Thank you – as a commenter I have admired on this blog that means a lot (Abagond, last ‘off topic’ comment).

  233. Abagond:

    @ Omnipresent, etc

    I undeleted comments that came in before the cut-off or right after it. My bad.

    Thank you – where should the responses to unrelated comments go?

  234. Omnipresent
    Abagond:

    I just deleted some posts that were answering xPraetorius. He has completely derailed this thread.

    Irritating. I am not as fluid a writer as others on here, it takes me time to compose my responses. Could you not have done a cut off and directed people to an alternative thread?

    xPraetorius:
    @Omnipresent: Re-read…you will see that all I EVER did was respond to questions, challenges, insults or arguments. I never, ever, not even once, did ANYTHING, but go where others asked me to go. (Surely someone can come up with an irrelevant funny for THAT last line. Go ahead; I teed it up for you! :) )

    I most certainly did NOT derail anything whatsoever. It is NOT my job to moderate the comments, insults, jeers, and other nitwittery directed toward me.

    Please feel free to ask Abagond to be an honest moderator of the blog.

    Btw…I feel a sorrowful Abagond coming up with a post, saying something like: “Everyone’s just BEGGING me to get RID of this lousy, rotten xPraetorius pest! I guess I’ll have to send everything he writes to spam from now on.”

    Then, you all can go back to patting each other on the back and telling each other how brilliant you are, as you make sure to protect your echo chamber ever more tightly from outside points-of-view.
    :)

    Best,

    – x

  235. xPraetorius:

    @Omnipresent: Re-read…you will see that all I EVER did was respond to questions, challenges, insults or arguments. I never, ever, not even once, did ANYTHING, but go where others asked me to go. (Surely someone can come up with an irrelevant funny for THAT last line. Go ahead; I teed it up for you! )

    You are talking to the wrong person xP, it IS Abagonds blog after all and if he says it is off topic then there is little that can be done.

    go where others asked me to go :-) I will leave the ‘funnies’ to the others but probably best to go to the Open Thread.

  236. @ xPraetorius

    1. I chastized you because you are main one derailing the thread.

    2. You will PROBABLY be banned in two or three months, though maybe you will surprise me. I say that NOT because I plan to do that, but based on past experience with white commenters who show a basic contempt for black people, as you seem to. It will not come down to censorship like you think. It will come down to you having contempt for me and my rules.

  237. @ xPraetorius

    “Then, you all can go back to patting each other on the back and telling each other how brilliant you are, as you make sure to protect your echo chamber ever more tightly from outside points-of-view.”—You are not the victim of anything.

    Randy is one of a few posters who holds a different sets of views and often times is telling Abagond he is wrong, but the difference is he does it in a respectful manner.

    It is not about a different point of view but rather YOUR point of view. You believe what you say is the 100% correct and you leave no room to see the error in your own view points., but oddly enough are quick to point out errors in others. That is human nature I suppose, but as I said….no more wrong than you.

  238. Ok I an done. I have to stop engaging in the derailment.

  239. @ xPraetorius

    “As regards your point #2, you have no way of knowing what moral reasoning whites apply to their history, remember? Want me — a white dude — to start telling YOU all about the moral reasoning BLACK people use to justify ignoring the carnage of black-on-black violence in the inner-cities? Of course not. You’d tell me to go fly a kite. Come to think of it, you tell me to do that even when I speak about WHITE states of mind! An area, obviously, where I have some extensive direct experience. :) I love how you imply that YOU are BETTER able to tell ME about white thinking and white feelings and needs and wants than I AM! Hello, Abagond! Anybody home?”

    Of course I know what their moral reasoning is. I can read, I can hear and I have a brain. It is not some huge secret.

  240. B. R. said:
    Mr X, well, you play jazz, that is great, Im a jazz player myself, Ive been on the bandstand with some really monster players like, Henry Johnson, Sonny Sharrok (toured France with him), Jimmy Ponder, my first gig in New York was with Alex Foster and Mike Wolff , and John Scofeild was the guitar player, subbing for Barry Finarty, Ryo Kawasaki, Stern , Richie Hart with the incredible Dr Lonnie Smith…but hey, names dont mean anything here, so, I just have to say, with no false modesty, Im a bad mf, and I belive my band , if i can get the colleagues I want, could wipe your band out…

    xPraetorius replies:
    Ok. We don’t do “Battle of the Band” competitions, but if we do, we’ll be sure to avoid your band.

    B.R: hey, Im a current profesional and Im very comepetive, because I know the dues Ive paid.

    xPraetorius replies:
    Nice! Do you know the dues I’VE paid? I’m not at all competitive. I’m into the music for its ability to uplift and speak to a much deeper part of me than things like this exchange.

    B.R: And I personaly dont think , and I dont know your playing, so, Im not directing at you, if you cant cut some up tempo BeBop, a person isnt really facing the the highest leval of jazz that was innovated by black Americans,

    xPraetorius replies:
    Ok…that, I gather, is your opinion. You might want to run it past someone with more expertise than I have…I can’t really comment.

    B.R: in other words, if a person wants to play jazz, but cant cut an up tempo, they arent really facing the deeper principles that the innovative black American geniuses put out there…in real jazz, the harmony and melodies have to be a slave to the groove and swing…these other off shoots have watered down the real aproach of jazz. And jazz is black American history, not black American history is jazz, but, jazz is all about the black American struggle, their innovation and how the innovators were lost in the comercial shuffle…

    xPraetorius replies:
    Ok…Did I mention I’m not real big on jazz history? If you’d like to join our think tank, we’d welcome your contributions. Also, the conflict between art and commerciality is an eternal one.

    B.R: oh yeah, some broke through, same in pop music, but, it isnt about really who can make the green,

    xPraetorius replies:
    No? REALLY?!? You’re telling me that if a recording exec sees a performer who can make him a fortune, he’ll let someone else get him AND the money? I don’t think so!

    B.R: its about who they chose to back with multi million dollar campains and that they make some pretty weak choices to put on the poor buffet that is open to the public to buy..if a black artist hits it big, they will get the support, but, I can tell you, there is a huge string of boring white acts that got the big push and a huge amount of talented players never got any kind of help from the industry…

    xPraetorius replies:
    Ok, you know more about jazz than I do. I’m very glad for you. It’s truly a rich medium for communication. I hope you have many years of happiness and fulfillment playing jazz.

    B.R: If they are not letting black players play at the event I worked at, how can there really be a chance to get the shot?

    xPraetorius replies:
    I don’t know…I think I mentioned that in the post. However, I DO know a universal: if YOU represent the possibility of lots of revenue to a recording company of any kind, they will — obviously — throw their resources behind you in a big way. This in no way means that I have any admiration for any recording companies. All I’VE ever heard is that they are merciless to the artists of all colors who work for them. With that said, I don’t know nearly enough to call that a hard-and-fast conclusion on my part.

    B.R: You dont think that there are a huge string of desicians made at high levals by a few people that have reflected some of the most bland white bread music in history?

    xPraetorius replies:
    I don’t know. I think I mentioned that in the post. I can say with confidence that if they thought that was the route to the greatest earnings, then that’s probably what happened.

    B.R: You can go back to Rudy Valee, I mean who remembers him now?

    xPraetorius replies:
    I do…I guess that dates me a bit, eh?

    B.R: Look at old Saturday night live shows and the bands that got the shot are some of the most forgettable boring music ever made, and mostly white….sure there are some great white players, but, jazz, funk, hip hop are black cultures, and I have seen in a big way, black cultures struggling every step of the way, in Brazil , the USA,and getting sufocated, dissmissed, banned, (Samba, Jazz, Rock, Capoeira, Candomble, Baile Funk etc have all gone through being banned by capatalist countries, commie countries, Islamic countries, Christian organistions, Henry Ford, etc etc

    xPraetorius replies:
    Ok. Sounds yucky.

    B.R: it is the story of black Afro diasporic cultures in the Americas

    xPraetorius replies:
    Except for now in America, where that is NOT the story.

    B.R: You see, I thought you could run these fantastic ideas by your think tank and you all could tweak your thing a little bit better

    xPraetorius replies:
    Why? We never pretended to know everything about all industries. I’ll be happy to run these ideas past my colleagues, but most of them don’t know much about the music industry or its relations with various ethnicities. Our expertise runs in other directions.

    B.R: because, these cultural principles, go back to the ancient Africans, who were genius to be able to discover how to put two rhythms together , syncopate it and repeat it over and over…self similarity…hey, you smart tank people know what that is , right? self similarity, its in fractals, Mandlebrot, the thumbprint of god, yes,

    xPraetorius replies:
    Ok. Cool!

    B.R: Im saying ancient Africans organicly took the first steps of mankind to come up with genius principles that quantum physics is describing today,

    xPraetorius replies:
    Ok…kind of a leap, though, don’t you think.

    B.R: and those ancient African principles were describing ecactly that…no other cultures aproach groove in the same way, except Afro diasporic descendants , they came up with it, looped duple triple rhythms back on each other and syncopated them and made them call responce and grooved it forever, and had dance movemtents that used the whole body as a fulcrum to express these cross rhythm principles

    xPraetorius replies:
    Nice!

    B.R: And, that is also why racism came into being, Western and Arab slave traders, pulled so many millions of people out of Africa that it is painfully plain, it was becuase they thought their culture was inferiour,or infidels,so they invented racism to justify this slavery…Arabs in their own way..

    xPraetorius replies:
    That’s your opinion. Others — even on this very blog — might differ regarding your colorful, if simplistic, explanation for the origins of racism.

    B.R: This is the crux of why racism is so prevelent today, refusal to respect the culture, that is why Martin was gone after, because he was apropriating dress that was culturaly relevant to him from black hip hop styles…but, Zimmerman associated it with thugism or potential burglar..

    xPraetorius replies:
    Obviously not.

    B.R: other black people lived in that place, it was a non understanding of culture that caused this….and this supresion of culture is playing out big time today, surly you dont think real black culture is being demonstrated on the media, do you?

    xPraetorius replies:
    I don’t know…I wouldn’t presume to tell you precisely what “black culture” is. You plainly know more than I about it.

    B.R: Are we seeing the best of black American culture?

    xPraetorius replies:
    I don’t know. I hope not. That would be a shame. Are we seeing the best of white culture? I CAN answer that. No. And that IS a shame.

    B.R: Not that some talents dont get through, they do and always have, but,its a white world in the media industry, white judgements for the most part and white culture, but white culture that apropriated black culture and did it mostly poorly

    xPraetorius replies:
    I’ll have to take your word on that. I really don’t know enough about that.

    B.R: By the way, I can relate to what Brothawolf sais and I dont think he hates white people, he is attacking “whiteness” the state of mind that perpetuates the not so blatent and blatent obsticles that keep getting thrown in black Americans front…I see how clearly they exist….in two countries

    xPraetorius replies:
    I DO get the irony of Brotha Wolf telling everyone all about “whiteness.” I guess that opens the door for me to tell everyone about blackness, eh?

    B.R: and, a big part of it is cultural dismissing , burying and destroying black Afro diasporic culture

    xPraetorius replies:
    Uhhhh…ok. Again, I’M unable to read minds, I gather you DO have that magical ability.

    B.R: I think your think tank can run that through the tread mill

    xPraetorius replies:
    Ok.

    @Abagond: you can never chastize me for going off-topic again. At the same time, I REALLY like and respect B.R. a lot! I hope you’ll allow his REALLY off-topic post to remain. Hey, he’s a jazz player, with what sound like serious credentials…you should give him plenty of respect! Besides, his post that I’m responding to here, is one of the — if not THE — best, nicest, most lyrical of this thread.

    Just don’t yell at me for going off-topic. Ever again.

    Best,

    – x

  241. abagond said:
    @ xPraetorius

    1. I chastized you because you are main one derailing the thread.

    2. You will PROBABLY be banned in two or three months, though maybe you will surprise me. I say that NOT because I plan to do that, but based on past experience with white commenters who show a basic contempt for black people, as you seem to. It will not come down to censorship like you think. It will come down to you having contempt for me and my rules.

    xPraetorius replied:
    And again, it’s not MY job to moderate YOUR blog. And, again, I went where those who challenged me asked me to go. If you don’t chastise THEM — Omnipresent for example, or Frank — both of whom challenged me to go back to my childhood schoolbooks, or to admit to all white misdeeds throughout history. How about B. R. who produced a beautiful, but way off-topic, post about jazz? Was THAT my fault too? You had people coming at me with hiring practices in corporations, the content of educational curriculum and a lot more that was WAY off-topic! C’mon, Abagond. That’s not ME failing to stay on-topic, that’s YOU failing to moderate. The point is that I did NO derailing whatsoever. I’m NOT the main one, I’m simply the ONLY one challenging ANYONE on this thread. When they go off-topic, that’s not my fault.

    You ARE correct in one thing: if I ignored all the posts that went off-topic, but called me names, or questioned my intelligence, integrity, honesty or character, I’d certainly have a lot fewer posts here. Again, why don’t you moderate your blog honestly?

    Does that mean that if I call you vile names, but go off-topic, you won’t defend yourself? You’ll simply let the vile accusation stand? I doubt it.

    The only REAL rule I see around here is: agree with Abagond’s premise — whether correct or not — or expect a torrent of verbal abuse, with the threat of exile. I HOPE I’m incorrect.

    Best,

    – x

  242. @xPraetorius

    BTW, I disagree with Abagond quite often (see, e.g., the Back to Africa thread), yet Abagond has never threatened to ban me (knock on wood).

    But this post is on a certain topic, from whence you have strayed. YOU began talking about your childhood before anyone else. YOU began talking about jazz before B.R., etc.

    Apparently you’ve not learned to accept responsibility

  243. resw77 said:
    @ xPraetorius

    “I NEVER said whites received any UNFAIR treatment at the hands of the education system, rather that they received a “balanced” treatment.”

    Let’s not play games here. You clearly said, and I quote, “Kids DO receive morally blind propaganda in school today: propaganda telling them in perfectly unbalanced fashion just how evil white people were and still are.”

    See that word “unbalanced” that you used?

    “…Africa was only a land of milk and honey before the arrival of colonial Europeans? Are Mongols white? How about the Chinese? Egyptians? Assyrians? The moslems…Aztecs…Mayans? ”

    When did Africans (incl. Egyptians), Chinese, Assyrians, Mongols, Aztecs or Mayans go to EVERY continent to commit the evil deeds I aforementioned. Enlighten us.

    “don’t go all Philadelphia lawyer on me. ‘Inhabitable’ means…”

    I used “inhabitable” so as to exclude Antarctica, if that’s OK with you.

    xPraetorius replied:

    I said in a previous post: “Kids DO receive morally blind propaganda in school today: propaganda telling them in perfectly unbalanced fashion just how evil white people were and still are.”

    This was wrong, and resw77 has corrected me. @resw77: I accept your correction.

    I have, since that post, corrected myself in this thread, but in the interest of thoroughness, here’s the correction.

    Really: the education system today — and in my youth decades ago — teaches (and taught) a perspective on white history that included good things about white accomplishments, but minced no words when revealing white misdeeds. We students learned extensively of white misdeeds as well as accomplishments. So, for example: white people did NOT receive a pass in any way for slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, lynchings, or any other mistreatment of black people. Furthermore white people did not receive a pass for mistreatment of American indians, or, for example: Japanese internees during World War II. However, we did learn also of good things that white people did…for example the winning of World War II was presented as largely a white accomplishment. With that said, the heroic black brigades in World War II WERE singled out for special and laudatory treatment. Furthermore, the white race was the ONLY race to receive that kind of in-depth treatment. Blacks received only glowingly positive treatment. We learned that they were either victims of white cruelty, or great artists, scientists, statesmen and thinkers — whose persons, families and work was subjected to unfair discrimination and abuse by white people. Luminaries were Tubman, Truth, Washington, Carver, Douglass, Parks, King, Jr., Robinson (Jackie), et al. Even enemy ethnicities’ misdeeds received very little attention. For example: the Japanese, the Chinese and the Vietnamese. German and American whites came in for especially withering criticism when the question arose as to how they had treated others throughout history.

    Plainly my statement that students were “subjected to morally blind propaganda” was wrong. Again, I accept the correction.

    Best,

    – x

  244. xPraetoriusIf you don’t chastise THEM — Omnipresent for example, or Frank — both of whom challenged me to go back to my childhood schoolbooks, or to admit to all white misdeeds throughout history

    Nope, never challenged you about going back to your childhood school books nor did I take you on a journey of so called ‘white’ misdeeds.

    By the way, I was ‘penalised’ if you like by having my last entry deleted though Abagond restored it when I asked.

  245. Everyone,

    I’m done with xPrae. Although in his twisted mind, he will think he wont the argument. But in the end, it doesn’t take the fact that he is intellectually, factually and morally handicapped.

  246. And this is where perception plays a big role here not only with xPraetorius, but I have to say many of the “racist” whites or whitewashed individuals that I have seen on this blog. They see things that are not there (granted I have seen some blacks do this to).

    This idea that Abagond is not in a position to say all whites yet he has gone out of his way to change it to “many” or the “majority” but even in that those posters still see him as referring to all. Then the argument that he is not in the position to say “many” or the “majority.” My question becomes what gives them( even if they are white) the right to say what other whites do, say, believe, etc.? I can’t even put myself in the position to say what the majority or many of black people are doing. I don’t know. I just know what people in my area do from what I see and even they are not the majority.

    I don’t get it and I fear that if I tried to then I will dive into the looney bin.

  247. And no I am not calling you racist in my post (simply because I don’t know you from adam and eve). I am referring to actual “racist” whites.

  248. Isn’t that cute, there just has to be at least one that comes in and stinks up the joint. I’m amazed that people were willing to keep reading these tired little novels xPraetorius kept posting. Please gaslight some more!

  249. sharina said:
    And this is where perception plays a big role here not only with xPraetorius, but I have to say many of the “racist” whites or whitewashed individuals that I have seen on this blog. They see things that are not there (granted I have seen some blacks do this to).

    This idea that Abagond is not in a position to say all whites yet he has gone out of his way to change it to “many” or the “majority” but even in that those posters still see him as referring to all. Then the argument that he is not in the position to say “many” or the “majority.” My question becomes what gives them( even if they are white) the right to say what other whites do, say, believe, etc.? I can’t even put myself in the position to say what the majority or many of black people are doing. I don’t know. I just know what people in my area do from what I see and even they are not the majority.

    I don’t get it and I fear that if I tried to then I will dive into the looney bin.

    xPraetorius replied:
    @sharina: I mean this perfectly seriously: you last post is probably one of the most perceptive, intelligent posts in this entire thread. In fact, your post is filled with more on-the-mark wisdom and perception than all the others on this thread combined! Including my own…Brava!

    EVERY time in life I thought I could read an individual because of his or her appearance, I was wrong. The more I got to know a person, the more he or she surprised me, until I got to know him or her VERY well. At that point, the surprise lessened. I’d be hard-pressed to tell you what my neighbor — who looks a lot like me, by the way — is thinking, and I’d never presume to do so without asking him. To generalize across an entire PEOPLE — or even across one’s own neighborhood — is positively ridiculous! And completely impossible.

    Now, sharina, I apologize to you for REALLY liking your EXCELLENT post so much! I’ve probably lost you a BUNCH of friends here! (Just kidding. I’m not REALLY violating xPraetorius’ Second Law: “You’re never as big on others’ radar screens as you think you are.”)

    Nota Bene: xPraetorius First Law: Going to the bathroom causes the phone to ring.

    Best,

    – x

  250. sharina said:
    And no I am not calling you racist in my post (simply because I don’t know you from adam and eve). I am referring to actual “racist” whites.

    xPraetorius replied:
    @sharina: just as on-the-mark as your previous post. Well written, well said, well done.

    Best,

    – x

  251. @ xPraetorius

    “C’mon, Abagond. That’s not ME failing to stay on-topic, that’s YOU failing to moderate. “

    Look, I cannot babysit my blog 24/7. If you are unwilling to follow the rules, then you can leave:

    http://abagond.wordpress.com/comment-policy/

  252. Omnipresent said:
    xPraetoriusIf you don’t chastise THEM — Omnipresent for example, or Frank — both of whom challenged me to go back to my childhood schoolbooks, or to admit to all white misdeeds throughout history

    Nope, never challenged you about going back to your childhood school books nor did I take you on a journey of so called ‘white’ misdeeds.

    By the way, I was ‘penalised’ if you like by having my last entry deleted though Abagond restored it when I asked.

    xPraetorius replied:
    Ok. MY apologies. SOMEONE did; I thought it was you. My mistake.

    Best,

    – x

  253. abagond said:
    @ xPraetorius

    “C’mon, Abagond. That’s not ME failing to stay on-topic, that’s YOU failing to moderate. “

    Look, I cannot babysit my blog 24/7. If you are unwilling to follow the rules, then you can leave:

    http://abagond.wordpress.com/comment-policy/

    xPraetorius replied:
    I read your rules…I’ve adhered to all of them scrupulously.

    First batch of rules:
    —————————————————-
    • Repeatedly violating the comment policy
    • Ignoring my warnings
    • Using a sock puppet
    • Threatening other commenters
    • Calling for violence

    Well, I haven’t done anything resembling the 4th or 5th, but #’s 1, 2 and 3 are simply YOU saying you want to be able to banish someone for any reason whatsoever. I have no problem with that, but at least be honest enough to admit it, and not resort to nonsense like “sock puppets,” and warnings only to people who disagree with you.

    Second batch of rules:
    —————————————————-
    • in Mock Ebonics – NOPE
    • spam – NOPE
    • way off topic – NOPE – only in response to a poster who TOOK me offline
    • thrown to moderation – N/A.
    • ad hominem attacks or name calling – NOPE – but there was PLENTY of that directed at me.
    • plagiarized – NOPE
    • advertising – NOPE
    • not in English – NOPE
    • obscene or linked to obscene material – NOPE
    • has a telephone number or an email address – NOPE

    Those who agree with you in this thread, REPEATEDLY violated the ad hominem, name-calling and off-topic prohibitions. Not a word did you say to them, but, of course, you called me out publicly. Again, at least be man enough to be an HONEST moderator. I have no problem adhering to your rules, IF these are ACTUALLY your rules. You seem to apply them very selectively.

    Further, I have no problem with you taking your time in moderating your blog, but you STILL have called out ONLY me, when I was NOT off-topic, and I have NEVER violated your name-calling or ad hominem — or any OTHER — rule. Others have violated ALL those rules repeatedly, and you have remained silent.

    Best,

    – x

  254. abagond said:
    @ All

    I just deleted some posts that were answering xPraetorius. He has completely derailed this thread. It was useful for a while, when he was proving the post, when he was my Show and Tell lizard. Now it is getting ridiculous, getting lost in his crazy mirror world.

    Do not respond to his earlier comments unless they relate to the post – the moral reasoning White Americans use when talking about their past and present, the 12 White Excuses. It is NOT about whether whites or xPraetorius is racist. That is HIS topic.

    xPraetorius said:
    What a coward! Abagond wants to resurrect his echo chamber, where no one disagrees with him.

    Bottom line: no one could knock off my five points or my facts regarding white actions in the past 50 years.

    There is no other conclusion that can be drawn: you CAN’T answer them. Now, the only POSSIBLE responsible thing you can do is reassess your thinking, that is, obviously, deficient.

    Enjoy! I certainly did!

    Best,

    — x

  255. Was Hitler evil? Of course but so are the millions who supported him. So are the millions who support such tyrants throughout history. He wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without mass support otherwise. White folks seem to be particularly adept at being evil when compared to other historic maniacs who indulge in mental, physical and cultural genocide. It is cheaper to brainwash people in the long term than to constantly physically monitor them thereby saving untold wealth;this is an especially form of evil as it takes long term planning and implementation to the points where loons like pretorius can blabber on incessantly with a view to white supremacist thinking. He doesn’t even realize it. He is comical in a perverse sort of way.

    Pratorius appears to be a dumber version of no_slappz! Where’s Randy when you need him?

    @Abagond:

    Maybe you should title your pending post about pratorius; Is Pratorius Evil? If so why? And Who Really Cares?

  256. Oddly enough one of my favorite doctor who episodes is called “let’s kill Hitler.”

  257. I have to wonder what Hitler had going for him to get all those people to support him in his psychosis. What mental state are the people who were a ok with him murdering or ordering the murder of so many people?

  258. Herneith said:
    Was Hitler evil? Of course but so are the millions who supported him. So are the millions who support such tyrants throughout history. He wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without mass support otherwise. White folks seem to be particularly adept at being evil when compared to other historic maniacs who indulge in mental, physical and cultural genocide.

    xPraetorius:
    What’s “mental genocide?”

    Herneith:
    It is cheaper to brainwash people in the long term than to constantly physically monitor them thereby saving untold wealth;this is an especially form of evil as it takes long term planning and implementation to the points where loons like pretorius can blabber on incessantly with a view to white supremacist thinking. He doesn’t even realize it. He is comical in a perverse sort of way.

    xPraetorius:
    Ooooo…wow! I bow before your OBVIOUS greater wisdom! You sure got me there. You’re one of those amazing magical people who can read minds! Now, let ME read YOUR mind…ooommmmmm…Eeewwww! Herneith who KNEW you had such ideas about small farm animals?!? If you EVER were to act on THAT, you’d go to jail for sure! At least I’m only a white supremacist; I’m not a deranged pervert. (Actually, I made that stuff up, there was really nothing there. :) )

    Oh, be sure never to address the points I made.

    Herneith:
    Pratorius appears to be a dumber version of no_slappz! Where’s Randy when you need him?

    xPraetorius:
    Ooooo…whew! Wow! I bow before your OBVIOUS greater wisdom! You sure got me there. Keep not addressing the points I made.

    Herneith:
    @Abagond:
    Maybe you should title your pending post about pratorius; Is Pratorius Evil? If so why? And Who Really Cares?

    xPraetorius:
    Ooooo…wow! I bow AGAIN before your OBVIOUS greater wisdom! You sure got me there. If you can keep up this cascade of witty bons mots, maybe everyone will ignore the fact that you never address any of the points I made.

    Best,

    – x

– * – END of THREAD – * –

— xPraetorius

71 thoughts on “Colorful Exchange with Lefties and Race Addicts

  1. “Sadly, sharina did too.”—You are false in that because his post where he said “to stop responding to you” as you put it is followed by several posts to you (oddly enough he did not say to stop responding you to at all). This is deceit to your readers and in that you should be ashamed. I stopped responding to you for a few reasons.

    1. Is because it was repeating. I personally don’t like to repeat myself more than necessary.

    2. You are set in the idea that the thought process that Abagond displays is not one you display. You do, but again something else you refuse to see.

    3. What really else needed to be said that had not already been said?

    You come to these blogs with bad negative energy and expect sunshine and rainbows in response. Your excuse is “well I was talking about the post.” That is great and I get that, but that does not change that you entered in the room negatively and like I said to you….you are not a victim.

    If I came to a blog and stated. That is so stupid…that is so gay…that is so dumb. Then I personally would see myself as being rude and childish (so I would never be disrespectful as to do that).

  2. sharina said:
    “Sadly, sharina did too.”

    sharina:
    You are false in that because his post where he said “to stop responding to you” as you put it is followed by several posts to you (oddly enough he did not say to stop responding you to at all).

    xPraetorius:
    Yep. I was wrong…there were more posts afterward, but they were all of the “You-restupid-and-your-mother-dresses-you-funny” variety.

    sharina:
    This is deceit to your readers and in that you should be ashamed. I stopped responding to you for a few reasons.

    xPraetorius:
    Again, sharina, it simply ain’t deceit if it’s unintentional. You people on the left have got to learn what IS a lie and what simply is not.

    sharina:
    1. Is because it was repeating. I personally don’t like to repeat myself more than necessary.

    xPraetorius:
    Good point.

    sharina:
    2. You are set in the idea that the thought process that Abagond displays is not one you display. You do, but again something else you refuse to see

    xPraetorius:
    Not REALLY sure what that means I can tell you absolutely certainly that I will entertain ANY reasonable argument whatsoever. Calling me a racist, or stupid, or whatever, does NOT constitute a reasonable argument..

    sharina:
    3. What really else needed to be said that had not already been said?

    xPraetorius:
    Well…how about a serious attempt to address my points, without calling me names. A novel approach I’m sure…I’m just surprised that no one ACTUALLY tried it. 🙂

    sharina:
    You come to these blogs with bad negative energy and expect sunshine and rainbows in response. Your excuse is “well I was talking about the post.” That is great and I get that, but that does not change that you entered in the room negatively and like I said to you….you are not a victim.

    xPraetorius:
    And I never claimed to be a victim. Oh, I was the “victim,” if you will, of scurrilous libels and name-calling and accusations. Am I a “victim” overall? Of course not. @sharina: if in Abagond’s post he calls me a racist, by calling all white people racists, then the reaction to such a stupid post should be at least honest. Frankly, the word “stupid” was mild. Anything less would have been dishonest. Frankly, the post, in its unsubtle attempt to equate white people today with Hitler was disgusting, revolting, perverted and evil. I probably SHOULD have used those more accurate words.

    sharina:
    If I came to a blog and stated. That is so stupid…that is so gay…that is so dumb. Then I personally would see myself as being rude and childish (so I would never be disrespectful as to do that).

    xPraetorius:
    First I never called anything “gay.” However, you are welcome to come to any blog I have and write what you want about anything I write. I’ll censor only foul language, and use pretty much the same filter rules as Abagond uses. I will, however, use those rules honestly and fairly…unlike Abagond.

    Best,

    — x

    1. “Again, sharina, it simply ain’t deceit if it’s unintentional. You people on the left have got to learn what IS a lie and what simply is not.”—Here you are attempting to sink my credibility by claiming I am something I am not. How did you draw the conclusion it was unintentional when you clearly stated they stopped responding to you and you knew they had actually continued. It may not be responses you like but it was responses none the less. So I would appreciate it if you stop with the games.

      And the rest of your response is a clear indication of your problem. I don’t care what Abagond and the rest said to you. I care what you are accusing me of. You are accusing me of doing something I did not do and making the excuse of “well abagond and such and such did xyz”

      “by calling all white people racists”—But see he did not call all white people a racist and this goes back to you seeing things that are not there. The worst case scenario is that he said many whites. You are not all or many white people. You are (I guess) one white man. Can he speak for many white people? No. But nor can you. You don’t know how many white people have used those excuses he listed. Nor do I, but does that mean they are excuses that have not been used by white people? No.

      “First I never called anything “gay.””—I simply stated an example.

      1. sharina: I drew the conclusion that it was unintentional, because it was unintentional. Again, only I can tell you what I intended or not. Since, I’m THE ultimate authority IN THE WORLD on the topic of what I intend, you have no choice but to conclude that I engaged in no deceit whatsoever. I did NOT know they had continued. Go back to when I posted my post…all of a sudden, there was an hour gap between my PREVIOUS post at 9:33:04 to the post you’re referring to at 10:38: 38…with NO posts whatsoever.

        My conclusion was perfectly reasonable.

        The posting started back up only after my post kind of signing off.

        As to you point about caring about what I accused you of, now you might have an idea of what it feels to be accused of something unfairly. sharina, I REALLY like you. You are willing to engage without getting TOO out of control, and you say occasionally really insightful things. Your one post near the end of Abagond’s thread was the single best post of all of them. However, you HAVE to admit that Abagond and BW FREQUENTLY make broad, sweeping statements and accusations about white people — therefore about me — that he has absolutely no business making. I’m not going to allow it to go unchallenged. I show him in many, many different ways that he would NEVER allow anyone to say anything about black people that REMOTELY resembles what he just tosses off like nothing about whites.

        Then he hides in his echo chamber, behind his flock, who all gang up on any dissenting voice with insults, and libel and accusations and abuse. I’ve seen several threads in his blog in which he does that.

        Someone ought to call him on all that.

        Your last point is meaningless. I never said that excuses never happen. Here is a simple truth: they very rarely happen in public. Yes, you can go to the “Stormfront” blog and say, “See? See?” But Stormfront is, by all appearance, a bunch of morons whom, let’s face it, nobody REMOTELY takes seriously. What’s going on in OTHER people’s minds? I don’t know. Nor do you. Nor, more importantly, does Abagond. Yet, he constantly TELLS us — as FACT — what’s HE says is going on in the deep recesses of the minds of others.

        He shouldn’t get upset when I call him on it. In fact, he SHOULD change his ways, and purge his thinking and writing of rampant unknowable speculation. Then, he ACTUALLY might get something right and have some intelligent arguments and not irresponsibly libel others.

        Best,

        — x

        1. “My conclusion was perfectly reasonable. “—I will accept that but it is never reasonable for you to try and tell me who or what I am just as it would not be reasonable for me to do that to you.
          “However, you HAVE to admit that Abagond and BW FREQUENTLY make broad, sweeping statements and accusations about white people “—I believe I pointed it out.
          “As to you point about caring about what I accused you of, now you might have an idea of what it feels to be accused of something unfairly”—Fair enough 🙂

          “I’m not going to allow it to go unchallenged.”—I am not going to say you shouldn’t but I really wish you would consider a better approach. The approach you take is automatically seen as negative and people will in fact put an automatic guard up and shut you out. Others challenge him and they have gotten a lot better reception and it is not because they follow in toe with him but it is because of how they approach.

          I don’t really know much about stormfront (sorry).

          I honestly see both sides and believe it or not there are some good and insightful people there. I would just at this point stay out of any further arguments. I’ll give you a plus…you did not assume every poster was black. 😉

          1. Since you asked so nicely, I’ll be very happy to consider another approach.

            As I mentioned before, I’m not sure I know how to approach a pretty ugly post like Abagond’s Hitler post with sweetness and light, but I’ll tell you what…let’s make a deal. When I see another such post, I’ll ask you how I ought to proceed in order to disagree with it. I mean it. I’ll post something like: @sharina: how do you think I might express my strong displeasure with the content of this post?

            Deal?

            I think you can ignore StormFront…they’re really bad. Neo-Nazis…they have a link in the long “Hitler” thread, because I think they re-blogged it. You can search for Stormfront in the thread, if you’d like to see them. First I ever heard of them was at Abagond’s blog. They say some bizarre and ugly stuff.

            They ARE the weird exceptions that illustrate what I’m saying. If you go read their stuff, you’ll quickly believe that you’ve gone to cuckoo land…but that belief means that they ARE unusual, rare, exceptions.

            Anyway, as I said before, I like you — and B.R. — because you DO try to be reasonable, and you DO keep name-calling to a minimum. When it’s me against EVERYONE on the Abagond blog, the constant name-calling DOES become tiresome,

            Best,

            — x

          2. I think the exchange that you are having with me is the best way to approach it and if the attacks come then by all means I would not blame you for attacking back. If you think it is wrong then by all means say so, but without being the rude one first. 🙂

            My approach has always been to be polite first and foremost and once I am insulted release the lions. LOL.

            “sharina: quick update. Someone — Matari, I think — called me some pretty vile names, I responded, and Abagond accused ME of being off-topic. In light of that I see no reason to modify my PREVIOUS post indicating that he had done that the first time. I think the meaning is the same.”—If that is the case then by all means do not modify.

          3. sharina: quick update. Someone — Matari, I think — called me some pretty vile names, I responded, and Abagond accused ME of being off-topic. In light of that I see no reason to modify my PREVIOUS post indicating that he had done that the first time. I think the meaning is the same.

            Best,

            — x

  3. Abagond reminds me of a communist dictator like Kim Jong-Il … the “echo chamber” is a perfect description of his blog and his group-think minions whom he lets violate his blog “rules” when they are flinging ad hominems at some white person who doesn’t tow the party line … he’s such a hypocrit, and incredibly blind to his own hypocrisy and race-hatred. Those people are not only addicted to “race,” but to “victimhood” and “self-righteousness.” They remind me of spoiled children who will never be happy with anything.

  4. Leila and xPraetorius (and other xPraetorius cheerleaders of colorblind racism):

    xPraetorius never refuted Abagond. When other commenters began to point out the errors in xPraetorius’ reasoning, he (or she) merely re-stipulated his or her “points” as if they were self-evident truths, while persistently derailing the main topic of the thread.

    The primary aim of Abagond’s Hitler post is a reductio ad absurdum argument. It demonstrates the sheer absurdity of the arguments people of color (especially blacks) often hear from white people who attempt to silence the so-called “race-baiters”.

    This was one of Abagond’s better posts since I have been following him. I find it comical that xPraetorius retreats to his blog to declare victory and arrogantly characterize his views as more objective and fair. If anything, xPraetorious’ responses have served as a sterling example of the color-blind racism and hypocrisy Abagond elegantly writes about!

    1. TS said:
      Leila and xPraetorius (and other xPraetorius cheerleaders of colorblind racism):

      xPraetorius:
      @ts: So, you start RIGHT out with the name-calling! Always an indication that you’re out of gas, you LEAD with it. Color me less than optimistic about the REST of your reply.

      ts:
      xPraetorius never refuted Abagond.

      xPraetorius:
      Sure did…numerous times, and in numerous ways. You obviously didn’t read the whole thing. I don’t blame you; it was long, an dyou appear not to be a serious analyst, so why WOULD you read it all?

      ts:
      When other commenters began to point out the errors in xPraetorius’ reasoning, he (or she) merely re-stipulated his or her “points” as if they were self-evident truths, while persistently derailing the main topic of the thread.

      xPraetorius:
      Nope. Others used off-topic malarkey to accuse me of all sorts of things: racism, stupidity, craziness, whatever. The things they called me, and others, were pretty vile. I wasn’t just going to let them sit. However, my RESPONSE to an irrelevant, off-topic insult does not constitute MY going off-topic. Abagond WAS consistent in one thing: his utter disregard of his own rules toward those who agree with him. As to the points, I made it clear they were a thought exercise. In that capacity, they are as true as the person who tries the exercise thinks they are. “Brotha Wolf” agreed that they are true. He’s probably the MOST blatant — should I coin a term here? “blackwashed” — of the bunch! The $17 trillion, etc. IS self-evident truth — or historical record, if you prefer — and I cited sources. When I did that, after Abagond challenged me to, no one disputed the figure afterward. I guess they all agree with it.

      ts:
      The primary aim of Abagond’s Hitler post is a reductio ad absurdum argument. It demonstrates the sheer absurdity of the arguments people of color (especially blacks) often hear from white people who attempt to silence the so-called “race-baiters”.

      xPraetorius:
      Then, he expresses himself REALLY poorly. One would think that with as much practice as he’s had at writing, if he were trying to do as you say, he might actually have done it. What you say MIGHT have been his aim — I don’t know, I can’t read minds, as, apparently he can — but his post WAS a n unsubtle attempt to lump all white people in with Hitler. The various REAL derailments from Abagond’s flock after that — the frequent references to other white “genocides,” the quotes from people assuring everyone that the American slave trade was the “worst genocide” — all confirmed this. By the way: while the American slave trade WAS horrible, and no white person denies this, it did NOT constitute “genocide.” Genocide is the attempt to KILL an entire people. The goal of slavers was, obviously, to deliver their cargo very much alive, and in as good physical condition as feasible — while maximizing the number transported — to their destination. Coldly put, a dead slave was LOST money to a slaver whose intent was to MAKE money.

      ts:
      This was one of Abagond’s better posts since I have been following him.

      xPraetorius:
      It was a stupid, moronic, twisted post from a long line of posts born from fatally flawed reasoning. Abagond engages constantly in what I call “mind reading” — his writing is peppered with it — wherein he draws conclusions from things he couldn’t possibly know about what vast swaths of the population are thinking. Worse, as I pointed out to him numerous times in his Hitler thread, he’d be the FIRST to leap up in outrage if someone were to do that regarding black people. He and his followers ALL did it constantly in the subsequent argument with me! Calling me a racist is telling about me; about what I think, or feel. Something NONE of those people could POSSIBLY know. But, of course, almost NONE of those arguing against me could prevent themselves from doing it. Needless to say, if the entire premise of your post or of your reply is based on something you couldn’t possibly know, then what you say has no credibility, and is a waste of electrons.

      ts:
      I find it comical that xPraetorius retreats to his blog to declare victory and arrogantly characterize his views as more objective and fair. If anything, xPraetorious’ responses have served as a sterling example of the color-blind racism and hypocrisy Abagond elegantly writes about!

      xPraetorius:
      I re-posted here, because — TWICE — Abagond declared the thread to be over. It IS his blog after all. That he is a dishonest, inconsistent, cowardly moderator of his own blog is, after all, his right. But, there was no way for me to reply to others except here. If you go back and re-read, Abagond even admits that he deletes posts. He deleted several of mine. Several others who posted there indicated in the thread itself that Abagond was censoring unbeknownst to me. That means only that he’s manipulating the content of the thread both AFTER it’s already there AND at the time of the post. I’m surprised he didn’t start editing MY posts! Since it’s plain that Abagond can’t be trusted to moderate his blog honestly or consistently, I brought the record of the discussion — as it was — over here, where it WILL receive fair moderation.

      Best,

      — x

      1. @ xPraetorius

        “Sure did…numerous times, and in numerous ways”—We are going to have to agree to disagree but you did not. This was one of many things in my post that got deleted. You put too much faith in your 5 points to actually see the holes or error in your own logic.

        1. You failed to see that you were consumed by you being right and you knowing all to realize that you had fallen into the same thought process as abagond. The I can speak for all whites.

        2. You failed to see that those where arguments that whites that came to the blog use. Let me quote him “Every single one of these arguments, with the names changed, have been used on this blog to downplay American racism, slavery and genocide.” Those arguments were poor because I had not see them other than “everyone does it”

        3. . You spent more time telling him what his blog was about (because that is what you believed) then actually disputing what it was about. You were consumed by this is what it means rather than what it really meant.

        4. Your 5 points are great steps to job success, but they do not disprove racism as a problem in America Today. I am not sure how Racism today even came up as the blog was not about that and you picked a poor post to bring it up. It was off-topic (5 points)

        You then declare a victory (which you are free to) that you did not gain. I think 2 others in another post pointed out just that. You just did not do what you set out to do and it could be in part that you thought he meant something he may not have meant. I am all for objective views but yours was not because your agenda really crowded your ability to do what you may have set out to do. And before you get mad at Abagond you might want to talk to those white posters who have used some of those arguments to excuse certain wrongs.

      2. @ xPraetorius

        “Sure did…numerous times, and in numerous ways”

        sharina:
        We are going to have to agree to disagree but you did not. This was one of many things in my post that got deleted. You put too much faith in your 5 points to actually see the holes or error in your own logic.

        xPraetorius:
        Again, the five points are just a thought exercise that even “Brotha Wolf” said he agreed with. Feel free to pick nits with me, but what is NOT debatable is that “the points” DO throw Abagond’s premise — which he presents as “fact” — into serious doubt. Abagond’s a flat-earther. His thinking is 50 years behind the times, but he does everything he can to stick to it.

        sharina:
        1. You failed to see that you were consumed by you being right and you knowing all to realize that you had fallen into the same thought process as abagond. The I can speak for all whites.

        xPraetorius:
        Nope. If I’m wrong, I don’t want to stay wrong. I never said I can speak for all whites, but look at what I said for my conclusion: white racism is not a big problem anymore. That is indisputably true. Btw, if Abagond can engage in rampant mind-reading, then so can I. I said that too, when I read Herneith’s mind to illustrate my point.

        sharina:
        2. You failed to see that those where arguments that whites that came to the blog use. Let me quote him “Every single one of these arguments, with the names changed, have been used on this blog to downplay American racism, slavery and genocide.” Those arguments were poor because I had not see them other than “everyone does it”

        xPraetorius:
        Could very well be. However, Abagond makes NO BONES about the fact that he sees these few posters as representative of all white people. Again, it’s as though he’s pointing to the few, isolated crackpots at StormFront and saying, “See? See? THAT’s what white people are like.” Same thing as if I said that the all black people are child eaters like Idi Amin and Bokassa.

        sharina:
        3. . You spent more time telling him what his blog was about (because that is what you believed) then actually disputing what it was about. You were consumed by this is what it means rather than what it really meant.

        xPraetorius:
        Wellllll…I WAS disputing two things: (1) the point of Abagond’s blog post, and (2) the way Abagond responds to comments on his blog. Both were dumb and dishonest.

        sharina:
        4. Your 5 points are great steps to job success, but they do not disprove racism as a problem in America Today. I am not sure how Racism today even came up as the blog was not about that and you picked a poor post to bring it up. It was off-topic (5 points)

        xPraetorius:
        I never said that I want to “disprove racism as a problem in America Today.” It IS a problem…just not a BIG problem. Not nearly as big, for example as really open, really blatant black racism, on the part of say, Abagond and “Brotha Wolf.” Not nearly as big as slow drivers on the interstates. And if there is a simply understood path to success for all people — black, white or whatever — then, again, just HOW racist can this country be?

        sharina:
        You then declare a victory (which you are free to) that you did not gain.

        xPraetorius:
        When the other guy packs up and leaves — no matter how he does it, then the one remaining gets to declare victory. If I didn’t gain that victory then, pray tell, who was in there helping me at Abagond’s blog?

        sharina:
        I think 2 others in another post pointed out just that.

        xPraetorius:
        They were wrong too. 🙂

        sharina:
        You just did not do what you set out to do and it could be in part that you thought he meant something he may not have meant.

        xPraetorius:
        @sharina: I challenge you to re-read Abagond’s post and NOT see an attempt to equate Hitler with all white people and all white people with Hitler.

        sharina:
        I am all for objective views but yours was not because your agenda really crowded your ability to do what you may have set out to do. And before you get mad at Abagond you might want to talk to those white posters who have used some of those arguments to excuse certain wrongs.

        xPraetorius:
        First: everyone’s agenda does one heckuva lot more than “crowd one’s ability to do what” one sets out to do; it drives it completely. Second: I’m not responsible for the behavior of others. However, if anyone of any color or belief system misbehaves on THIS blog, he or she will hear about it publicly in the manner I indicated above.

        Best,

        — x

  5. Cheerleaders of colorblind racism … the “truthseeker” doesn’t even know me and she flings out the typical party-line knee-jerk accusation.

    I find it comical that xPraetorius retreats to his blog to declare victory and arrogantly characterize his views as more objective and fair.>/i>

    At least he won’t be censored or banned here. Or get the double-standard which is prevalent on Abagond’s blog, “one law for my peeps, one law for them.” Non-white white supremacy. He has exactly the same spirit as the racist white people he rails against. I have found with Abagond if people really begin to expose his world-view, he bans them. I’ve seen it happen … he does not want to hear all legitimate voices,he just wants to hear those who agree with his, and he doesn’t care if they are logical or not. He bans some of the most elucid and even the ignorant who speak slices of truth that Abagond can’t intuit because all he sees is color and culture and his own ego. He can’t quite do logic with the best of them, and when it comes to insight and intuition, he only has them for his own.

    1. Very neatly summed up, Leila!

      It’s funny, I was perusing some of Abagond’s other blog posts the other day, and stumbled across a post all the way back in 2010 that was similar to Abagond’s Hitler post. The subsequent discussion was nearly identical to the one after the Hitler post. A lone dissenter, with some hefty and relevant credentials it turned out, disagreed with the premise of the post. Out of the woodwork came the chorus. Racist! Stupid! Crazy! White Racist! It was a whole pile-on fest of name-calling and venom-pouring, while the strongest COUNTER-argument to what he was saying was “That’s not true because only a RACIST would say or believe that!” The dissenter cited source after source after source. Now, I didn’t know the reliability of the sources, but he BACKED up what he said with corroboration.

      I’m as aware as anybody of the danger in citing sources…people FREQUENTLY cite “historians,” when they mean Howard Zinn, whose resemblance to an ACTUAL historian is anatomical at best.

      However that IS a step above: “Nothing you say can be true because you’re a racist!” which is the stock-in-trade of Abagond and his herd.

      A couple of exceptions to Abagond’s amen chorus: sharina and B.R. proved very much able to interact in a civil and intelligent manner. B.R. even apologized to Abagond for going off-topic with his jazz posts. However, his big jazz post was so beautiful and lyrical in so many places, that it was worth reading it for its own value. If he could strip out the speculation and conjecture it’d be a great read just by itself. And sharina posted the best post of all: a short post saying, in effect, I can’t tell you what my NEIGHBOR is thinking, much less an entire people. Nobody, I might add, apologized to me for calling me the vile things they did.

      Best,

      — x

    2. @ Leila

      “I have found with Abagond if people really begin to expose his world-view, he bans them”—Then you would kindly have to explain why several of these individuals are still on the blog. I can name them. They don’t come very often but they are there. If I had to guess you have seen 3 of them banned for their continued use of racial slurs.

      If anything I see the same bs happening here as I see with Abagond which is why I find it so ironic that there is even an argument. People that are willing to coat tail to the posters view of things when this post does not even depict the whole situation. Even if it did I do believe like on Abagond’s blog a blind eye would be turned to it.

      1. @sharina: based on MY experience, it kind of works this way: The dissenting voice comes in — mine for example — and immediately there are just a BUNCH of posters, all of whom come out with (1) the name-calling and the personal attacks, and (2) a whole bunch of off-topic arguments that have the EFFECT of pushing the dissenter off-topic. Look at the guy who wanted me to go far afield into the topics of OTHER white genocides, other white misdeeds, white misdeeds in other countries, and on and on and on…all in an effort to buttress the continuing steady drumbeat of racist…racist…racist. (3) Then Abagond steps in, chastises the dissenter — but, apparently, not those who pushed him — for being off-topic. I say “apparently,” because there seemed to be a whole bunch of behind-the-scenes side conversations going on as well between Abagond and others. If that’s so, then Abagond’s not interested in ACTUAL debate, but rather in “debate” that he can control and manipulate, or simply in an echo chamber. I have no problem with either of these, but he AT LEAST should be open and honest about it. I mean, why PRETEND to have an honest debate? In his own mind, he KNOWS that throws everything he says into question.

        Again, I have no problem if Abagond wants only an echo chamber, but by inviting comments, whether he likes it or not, he’s going to encounter people who ACTUALLY disagree with him. I found another thread on Abagond’s blog, that was IDENTICAL in nature to the Hitler thread. Same scenario…Abagond and his followers relentlessly pushed a dissenting voice — a very respectful one, I might add — off-topic, then Abagond publicly chastised the dissenter for being off-topic. When the dissenter called him on it, Abagond and the herd said ALL the same things they said to me when I dissented.

        Another bottom line: in the realm of debate, Abagond is nothing more than a playground bully, who uses his “moderation” to exclude dissenting voices. Why do I say this? Again, re-read my posts, and you will see that I NEVER once used foul language, called anyone names, attacked anyone…I attacked ideas, posts, content. Others CONSTANTLY used ALL those cheap tactics, yet, Abagond said I was the problem. He’s NOT serious about wanting comments for his posts…he wants ONLY comments that agree with him. He’s gathered an amen chorus willing just to say, “Amen!” to everything Abagond says, no matter HOW silly, counter-intuitive or outlandish.

        Abagond doesn’t necessarily outright banish dissenters, he and the chorus just push the dissenter off to the side, where Abagond scornfully scolds him for being off-topic. In that way, he doesn’t allow the dissenter ACTUALLY to engage him and the chorus in debate. Again, if you re-read the Hitler thread, you’ll see that Abagond himself engages in off-topic accusations of racism and the like against the sole dissenter, me, after which he chastises me for being off-topic when I respond. Sorry…Abagond’s a petty tyrant who doesn’t want any dissent on his blog.

        I DID find you and B.R to be refreshing exceptions to that rule.

        Best,

        — x

        1. @xPraetorius

          Let me first say I am not discrediting what you have experienced. It happens and when I see a poster is trying to politely engage I usually don’t get involved, but one of the reasons I did is because you came off rude in the beginning and I always try to warn anyone on the blog that if you come off like that (no matter the reasoning) then you will get treated like that. You would not approach someone you first met with an attitude and tell them their clothes are rubbish would you?

          There is no consistency that I have noticed so I can’t tell you who is in and who is out. There have been some raging racist that were allowed to comment for long time frames without warning or ban. When they did get banned it was because they snapped and started to use racial slurs. There was a situation a while back that happened that resulted in Abagond actually being more strict and it was because he was shamed into it (my opinion). A female poster got into an argument with another female poster or rather several posters. He let this female poster slide for a long time just being rude and saying as she pleased to the others (thought she was better than them because she lived in Africa). Anyway to make a very long story very short…she ended up leaving because abagond would not delete the post of the others that had attacked her. She ended up leaving. She would come back to shame him for not stepping in and those that knew her on the blog shamed him too. After that he has been doing on this strict ban and delete craze.

          Don’t stop giving your opinion because that should never be taken away from anyone, but you have to understand something about individuals in that room. Everyone of them has had a racist experience to tell. I am more open because I have not (myself). B.R. is more open because he does not live in the country and he is an open white man. A lot of people fail to realize that when they come in the room with blah blah if you do this etc. People assume that long exposure to Abagond’s blog makes them that way when in fact it was experiences in everyday life that made them that way. So when people come in and deny racism it is a problem for those who may have experienced it two days prior.

      2. @sharina: what is the same “bs” you see happening here. I’ve deleted no posts, changed no language, banished no one, censored no one…

        If SOUNDS as though you don’t want anyone to disagree with you. Leila has called no one any names, and has described only actions that Abagond does. I agree with her assessment, by the way. She used no bad language.

        By rights, I SHOULD have edited “truthseeker’s” post that called Leila and me “color-blind racists” whatever the heck THAT is. If he or she does it again, I will leave the post, delete the content and replace it with something like “Deleted due to [inappropriate content type].”

        Please let me know where you think I have treated anyone incorrectly on these pages.

        Best,

        — x

        1. @xPraetorius

          I did not say Leila called names or used bad language… and I presumed to be very clear on what “bs” I was referring to. Which is the and I quote: “If anything I see the same bs happening here as I see with Abagond which is why I find it so ironic that there is even an argument. People that are willing to coat tail to the posters view of things when this post does not even depict the whole situation. Even if it did I do believe like on Abagond’s blog a blind eye would be turned to it.”

          You may agree with her, but I say you are wrong in the fact that I know and have recently seen the individuals that have been on the blog for a while and disagreed with him and have not been banned. So that is false and I am sorry but I think it is wrong to push such falsehood as facts.

          I have actually been on his blog for quite some time(usually on and off). Of the people I have seen banned it was a result of them using racial slurs.

      3. @sharina: I’ll have to accept your premise, since I’m not as familiar with Abagond’s blog as you are.

        However to call ME a racist is a serious racial slur. One of the most toxic in America today. If people were REALLY banned from Abagond’s blog due to using racial slurs, then none of his followers, or Abagond himself, would be able to post there.

        At least I’M consistent here. I will not permit racial slurs of any kind. I will respond as I mentioned above to ALL those who post inappropriately.

        Abagond challenged those of his flock to come here to continue the debate. I’ve noticed that you — who do NOT engage in unacceptable language or tactics — are the ONLY one to come over. I don’t anticipate any others coming here.

        Best,

        — x

      4. sharina:
        @xPraetorius

        Let me first say I am not discrediting what you have experienced.

        xPraetorius:
        Ok. Thanks.

        sharina:
        It happens and when I see a poster is trying to politely engage I usually don’t get involved, but one of the reasons I did is because you came off rude in the beginning and I always try to warn anyone on the blog that if you come off like that (no matter the reasoning) then you will get treated like that. You would not approach someone you first met with an attitude and tell them their clothes are rubbish would you?

        xPraetorius:
        Ok. Nice image. With that said, I’m STILL not convinced that the REALLY rude post that Abagond put out there didn’t merit an even MORE rude response. Your image about the rubbish clothing is a good one, but I think this image is better: When a big bully is pounding a little guy, you don’t approach the bully with a gentle tap on the shoulder. Since you’re more of an expert on Abagond’s blog than I, that is why I proposed the deal that I did a few posts back.

        sharina:
        There is no consistency that I have noticed so I can’t tell you who is in and who is out. There have been some raging racist that were allowed to comment for long time frames without warning or ban. When they did get banned it was because they snapped and started to use racial slurs. There was a situation a while back that happened that resulted in Abagond actually being more strict and it was because he was shamed into it (my opinion). A female poster got into an argument with another female poster or rather several posters. He let this female poster slide for a long time just being rude and saying as she pleased to the others (thought she was better than them because she lived in Africa). Anyway to make a very long story very short…she ended up leaving because abagond would not delete the post of the others that had attacked her. She ended up leaving. She would come back to shame him for not stepping in and those that knew her on the blog shamed him too. After that he has been doing on this strict ban and delete craze.

        xPraetorius:
        That’s why honest, consistent moderating is essential. And in the way I described. Leave the offending post, but replace its content with something like, “Content deleted due to name-calling,” or “Content deleted due to racial slurs,” or “Content deleted due to ad hominem attack,” or “Content deleted due to [fill in reason here].” The ones posting the inappropriate stuff will quickly learn to restate appropriately what they want to say, or they’ll simply go away. In the long run, it’s easier, consistent, fair, honest and less work, as the posters learn to conform with the rules.

        sharina:
        Don’t stop giving your opinion because that should never be taken away from anyone, but you have to understand something about individuals in that room. Everyone of them has had a racist experience to tell.

        xPraetorius:
        Ok. I DID however notice that they were quick to deny the fact that I have had plenty of racist experiences as well. Just yesterday, in fact, a bunch of blog posters called me a racist — in public! Also, I’ve been denied housing, employement and even a place in church because I’m white. Yes, a black woman told me in no uncertain terms that I was not welcome in her black “Christian” church.

        sharina:
        I am more open because I have not (myself). B.R. is more open because he does not live in the country and he is an open white man. A lot of people fail to realize that when they come in the room with blah blah if you do this etc.

        xPraetorius:
        Ok. Thanks for the info.

        People assume that long exposure to Abagond’s blog makes them that way when in fact it was experiences in everyday life that made them that way.

        xPraetorius:
        We’ll have to disagree here. I strongly believe that WE make OURSELVES the way we are. We take our experiences, and pick and choose which ones will shape our perceptions, and to what extent.

        sharina:
        So when people come in and deny racism it is a problem for those who may have experienced it two days prior.

        xPraetorius:
        The big question is the context. If someone has experienced a racial problem two days prior, but not anytime in the previous ten years, for example, then the RECENT event should ONLY underscore the very rarity of the experience, and confirm what I’VE been saying. If the recent incident is part of a long-term pattern in that person’s life, then he or she REALLY needs to avail him or herself of the HUGE amount of recourse that is out there, not the least of which is the media (see eg.: Zimmerman, George) who are hungering to publicize such things. Again, though, without context I can’t know. Furthermore, one person’s experience cannot speak for an entire people across a country of more than 300 million people.

        It STILL comes down to one thing: Abagond and his followers said a bunch of things based on nothing more than wild speculation, fanciful mind reading and personal anecdotes. As a result, their conclusions are wildly implausible and, in fact, have very little chance of being correct. Oh, Abagond might EVEN be right, but to what extent? If what he says is true even in the experience of a HUGE number of people — say 100,000, the size of a good-sized city — then what I said was perfectly correct: ie that white racism is no longer a BIG problem, since it affects one in 3,000 people. (the ratio of 100,000 to 300 million) THAT’s context. Abagond gives none, but routinely says “Whites think this or think that or feel this or that or want this or that.” That’s simply moronic — and obviously wrong — on the very face of it.

        Best,

        — x

        1. @ xPraetorius

          You assume my example of 2 days prior is the indication of their only experiences. Some receive repeated experiences and I will say some because I only know of some of their experiences. And it is not just Abagond but we are talking about others on the blog as well.

          Some allow the bad to shape them and some don’t, but I would say that if you see enough of it then it is hard to find the good in it.

          “It STILL comes down to one thing: Abagond and his followers said a bunch of things based on nothing more than wild speculation, fanciful mind reading and personal anecdotes. As a result, their conclusions are wildly implausible and, in fact, have very little chance of being correct”— I have to disagree. It is not really for you or I to decided how little change it has of being correct considering that most if not all is based on their experiences. In life and on the blog.

          I personally do see racism as a problem in America (not here alone mind you). The real reason it is a problem is because people refuse to actually address it. They keep trying to pacify situations to hold it over, but not truly fixing anything. Most racist situation people just shrug at and it takes the extreme situations before people want to bat an eye. If the small is not addressed then why address the big?

          Deflecting from this real problem is not a fixer. Many will say “well you can get a job like me” but do not realize that equal opportunity employment is not the only racial issue that is faced. As I pointed out in a post that was probably deleted. Racism is more suttle and easy for people to dismiss as nothing. That why I have noticed an increasing number of individuals not being able to tell if it is or is not. We all have been drinking the Kool-aid. Heck I have ran across some surprising number of blacks that are against Affirmative Action and see it as racist. I just listen because I don’t have a pure grasp on it beyond the idea that it does not just deal with minorities but women and handicapped as well.

          ” that white racism is no longer a BIG problem”—It still would not make you correct because both of you still have a large amount of “I don’t know.”

          Perfect example is my recent experience with two high school friends. We were close in high school mind you. I check facebook and found they had written some of the most racist and ignorant things I had seen in my life. I kindly deleted them and made a post stating that I had to delete some ignorance (did not call names). What was shocking to me was these girls were friends and for them to say that made me feel dumb. I really thought I knew them. This confirmed to me that I didn’t and it made me realize that we don’t know what we think we know about people.

          1. sharina permalink
            @ xPraetorius

            sharina:
            You assume my example of 2 days prior is the indication of their only experiences.

            xPraetorius:
            sharina: I didn’t say that…I said only that unless you know the WHOLE story, there are no conclusions one can draw about the experience. I then gave an example of how the experience could ACTUALLY indicate how GOOD things are.

            sharina:
            Some receive repeated experiences and I will say some because I only know of some of their experiences. And it is not just Abagond but we are talking about others on the blog as well.

            xPraetorius:
            But without that OTHER information — and a lot more — no GLOBAL conclusions are possible. Abagond constantly draws GLOBAL conclusions. I do too. Even if a person experiences 100 bad racial experiences, that’s not enough information to draw conclusions about the entire country.

            sharina:
            Some allow the bad to shape them and some don’t, but I would say that if you see enough of it then it is hard to find the good in it.

            xPraetorius:
            I’m of the belief that we ALL allow EVERYTHING to shape us…it’s just a question of HOW we allow it all to shape us. I can take a bad experience and choose to allow it to destroy me or to make me better, or some point in-between.

            sharina:
            “It STILL comes down to one thing: Abagond and his followers said a bunch of things based on nothing more than wild speculation, fanciful mind reading and personal anecdotes. As a result, their conclusions are wildly implausible and, in fact, have very little chance of being correct” — I have to disagree. It is not really for you or I to decided how little chance it has of being correct considering that most if not all is based on their experiences. In life and on the blog.

            xPraetorius:
            Nor is it up to Abagond to decide how millions of Americans think. I really don’t care what his experiences are in the context of this discussion…it’s completely irrelevant. Abagond simply has no right to extrapolate individual experiences into global statements as he does. Nor, of course, do you or I. My global statements are NOT based on irrelevant individual experiences, but on my “five points” and “$17 trillion…” themes.

            sharina:
            I personally do see racism as a problem in America (not here alone mind you).

            xPraetorius:
            So do I, as I’ve said many, many times before…just not a big problem.

            sharina:
            The real reason it is a problem is because people refuse to actually address it.

            xPraetorius:
            sharina: what would you call $17 trillion, countless educational programs, Hollywood, academia, the media…white America has done just about nothing BUT address white racism and white misdeeds for more than 50 years. Anyone who’s been paying any attention at all knows that. Did slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, discrimination just freakin’ go away one day? You give white people one WHOLE HECKUVA lot of credit if you’re trying to say that one day they just decided to cut all that out. C’mon, sharina…

            sharina:
            They keep trying to pacify situations to hold it over, but not truly fixing anything. Most racist situation people just shrug at and it takes the extreme situations before people want to bat an eye. If the small is not addressed then why address the big?

            xPraetorius:
            You just nicely made my point for me. If all we have to address is the small, thenm as I said, it’s a small problem.

            sharina:
            Deflecting from this real problem is not a fixer.

            xPraetorius:
            No one’s deflecting from anything…I’m flat-out denying it’s there in any big way.

            sharina:
            Many will say “well you can get a job like me” but do not realize that equal opportunity employment is not the only racial issue that is faced.

            xPraetorius:
            I disagree. Again, no one REALLY disagreed with my “five points.”

            sharina:
            As I pointed out in a post that was probably deleted. Racism is more suttle and easy for people to dismiss as nothing.

            xPraetorius:
            Then, if it’s subtle, as I might have mentioned before, it’s not a BIG problem.

            sharina:
            That why I have noticed an increasing number of individuals not being able to tell if it is or is not.

            xPraetorius:
            Come on, sharina…if people are having trouble identifying what is REALLY a pretty easy thing to identify, then it just might not be there in any real big way.

            sharina:
            We all have been drinking the Kool-aid. Heck I have ran across some surprising number of blacks that are against Affirmative Action and see it as racist.

            xPraetorius:
            sharina: Affirmative Action IS racist. If you are talking about the racism of the Democrat Party whose leadership truly IS racist, then You and I will agree. Looks as though it’s time for another clarification. White racism in REAL, normal America is almost non-existent. However, Democrat Party policies — in place in every location where life is truly miserable for black people, truly HAVE harmed black people. It’s hard to label as anything BUT racist the entire panoply of policies that Democrats have proposed over the last 50 years. However, these policies — APPARENTLY — were enacted ALSO at the request of black people. As you can see, this is a VERY sticky wicket. I covered it extensively in our blog…You can see it here: https://praetori.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/cbs-news-headline-kilpatrick-verdict-guilty-of-racketeering/

            Here’s an excerpt from that piece:
            Needless to say, Kilpatrick is just one of a long series of Democrat Party mayors. The last non-Democrat in the mayor’s office in Detroit was Republican Louis Miriani who departed in 1962.

            Again: Given the choice of getting hit by a monster hurricane or elect Democrats, any American city should immediately take the hurricane and run. Don’t give ‘em a chance to withdraw the offer!

            sharina: I just listen because I don’t have a pure grasp on it beyond the idea that it does not just deal with minorities but women and handicapped as well.

            xPraetorius:
            This country has done almost nothing BUT deal with minorities and women. Mountains and mountains and mountains of legislation prove that pretty conclusively. Did the country deal WELL with minorities? That’s for another debate another day…but they HAVE dealt with them…and hispanics, and gays, and older folks, and kids, the poor, and hunger and AIDS, and Japanese internees…and a million OTHER grievance groups.

            ” that white racism is no longer a BIG problem”—It still would not make you correct because both of you still have a large amount of “I don’t know.”

            xPraetorius:
            But, what I DO know — the “$17 trillion” thing is STRONG evidence of my point. No racist majority would have given all that away for more than 50 years!

            sharina:
            Perfect example is my recent experience with two high school friends. We were close in high school mind you. I check facebook and found they had written some of the most racist and ignorant things I had seen in my life. I kindly deleted them and made a post stating that I had to delete some ignorance (did not call names). What was shocking to me was these girls were friends and for them to say that made me feel dumb. I really thought I knew them. This confirmed to me that I didn’t and it made me realize that we don’t know what we think we know about people.

            xPraetorius:
            Excellen illustration of my point, that Abagond needs to STOP pretending he can read minds and START dealing with facts, and context, and things that are meaningful.

            Sharina: we always come back around to you saying what I’ve been saying all along. I’d have no problem at all with Abgond’s beliefs if he’d use meaningful things to support them. However, if he wants to call ME a racist? Heck no! Frankly, if Abagond were any kind of man at all, he’d apologize to me both for HIS accusation that I’m a racist, and for the accusations of nearly all those who commented.

            Best,

            — x

          2. @ xPraetorius
            “I didn’t say that…I said only that unless you know the WHOLE story, there are no conclusions one can draw about the experience.”—And I want you to point to where I said you said that. What you said was and I will kindly quote “If someone has experienced a racial problem two days prior, but not anytime in the previous ten years, for example, then the RECENT event should ONLY underscore the very rarity of the experience, and confirm what I’VE been saying”—In this you assume the idea that the individual has only experienced this one racial experience two days prior instead of the idea that they actually have experienced it quite often and the two days prior was the last recollection.
            “Even if a person experiences 100 bad racial experiences, that’s not enough information to draw conclusions about the entire country.”—I have been repeating this for god knows how long but you find a way to keep wanting to argue it as if it will change that I think you view things this way as well.
            “Nor is it up to Abagond to decide how millions of Americans think. I really don’t care what his experiences are in the context of this discussion…it’s completely irrelevant. Abagond simply has no right to extrapolate individual experiences into global statements as he does. Nor, of course, do you or I. My global statements are NOT based on irrelevant individual experiences, but on my “five points” and “$17 trillion…” themes.”—This is what you don’t want to accept. You put so much faith in your 5 points that you fail to realize that even you do not have enough information to guarantee that they hold any more weight than Abagond and his experiences. You want them to and I get that but you don’t. You blindly follow the logic that because it works for me and it works for that person then it must be true and absolute and it is not.
            “just not a big problem.”—Not a big problem to you.

            “what would you call $17 trillion, countless educational programs, Hollywood, academia, the media…white America has done just about nothing BUT address white racism and white misdeeds for more than 50 years. Anyone who’s been paying any attention at all knows that. Did slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, discrimination just freakin’ go away one day? You give white people one WHOLE HECKUVA lot of credit if you’re trying to say that one day they just decided to cut all that out. C’mon, sharina…”—That is not addressing a problem. That is putting a band-aid on it. This is part of the problem when people blindly believe those fixed something when it did not. Hand outs are not the answer to fixing the issues that the black community faces. It makes them dependant on things that will not help them become independent.
            “You just nicely made my point for me. If all we have to address is the small, thenm as I said, it’s a small problem.”—No I did not. What you attempted to do was direct me towards what you want me to mean rather than what I actually mean. What I mean in that statement as it clearly points out is if people are not going to address the small problems (which could be anything) then why put forth so much effort to address the big? We need to address it all so this mess can be squashed.
            “No one’s deflecting from anything”—Comment was not directed towards you but was referring to people in general.
            “Again, no one REALLY disagreed with my “five points.”—They did disagree but you did not like what you saw. Truth of the matter (and yes I am repeating) there is no sure way to prove or disprove your 5 points. Even you have not and can not provide the proof needed to prove your 5 points are sure fire guarantees that racism is not a big problem.

            No one’s deflecting from anything…I’m flat-out denying it’s there in any big way.”—This was not directed at you but people in general.

            “Then, if it’s subtle, as I might have mentioned before, it’s not a BIG problem.”—It being subtle does not mean it is not a big problem. It just means it is a better disguised problem. One that gives people the benefit of say “I don’t see it so it is not a problem.”

            “Come on, sharina…if people are having trouble identifying what is REALLY a pretty easy thing to identify, then it just might not be there in any real big way.”—It is not longer easy to identify because it has become deluded.

            “This country has done almost nothing BUT deal with minorities and women. Mountains and mountains and mountains of legislation prove that pretty conclusively. Did the country deal WELL with minorities? That’s for another debate another day…but they HAVE dealt with them…and hispanics, and gays, and older folks, and kids, the poor, and hunger and AIDS, and Japanese internees…and a million OTHER grievance groups.”—But are they something to be dealt with? They are citizens. Why should they be dealt with?

            “But, what I DO know — the “$17 trillion” thing is STRONG evidence of my point. No racist majority would have given all that away for more than 50 years!”—Sadly you don’t. What good is any of that doing for the black community other than making it dependant on political crooks and handouts? I see it as hush money. Keep the blacks in line by giving them handouts that do them no good in the long run.
            “Heck no! Frankly, if Abagond were any kind of man at all, he’d apologize to me both for HIS accusation that I’m a racist, and for the accusations of nearly all those who commented.”—Then you may want to consider apologizing on your behalf as well. You approached the situation with a hot headed attitude. It is better to squash it because I don’t see either of you apologizing.
            On another note you should not make everything about Abagond because I feel it does not allow you to reflect on your own faults in the matter, but rather point the finger at abagond and his readers.

          3. sharina:
            @ xPraetorius
            “I didn’t say that…I said only that unless you know the WHOLE story, there are no conclusions one can draw about the experience.”—And I want you to point to where I said you said that.

            xPraetorius:
            If you didn’t say it, then there was no point in bringing it up. I understand you are trying to tell me others’ states of mind as they’re being abusive on a blog. I’m telling you they shouldn’t. I just spent two days being racially abused, but I’ve not allowed that to flavor my replies to those who did NOT abuse me.

            sharina:
            What you said was and I will kindly quote “If someone has experienced a racial problem two days prior, but not anytime in the previous ten years, for example, then the RECENT event should ONLY underscore the very rarity of the experience, and confirm what I’VE been saying”—In this you assume the idea that the individual has only experienced this one racial experience two days prior instead of the idea that they actually have experienced it quite often and the two days prior was the last recollection.

            xPraetorius:
            My hypothetical referred to someone who had had a bad racial experience twice in ten years. That would be indicative of “not a bad problem.”

            “Even if a person experiences 100 bad racial experiences, that’s not enough information to draw conclusions about the entire country.”—I have been repeating this for god knows how long but you find a way to keep wanting to argue it as if it will change that I think you view things this way as well.

            xPraetorius:
            Ok, then…we agree. Abagond, apparently, feels differently. 🙂 My critique is NOT of you.

            “Nor is it up to Abagond to decide how millions of Americans think. I really don’t care what his experiences are in the context of this discussion…it’s completely irrelevant. Abagond simply has no right to extrapolate individual experiences into global statements as he does. Nor, of course, do you or I. My global statements are NOT based on irrelevant individual experiences, but on my “five points” and “$17 trillion…” themes.”—This is what you don’t want to accept. You put so much faith in your 5 points that you fail to realize that even you do not have enough information to guarantee that they hold any more weight than Abagond and his experiences.

            xPraetorius:
            Yes, my five points DO have more weight than Abagong’s personal experience, because of the scope they address. They are a thought exercise whose scope speaks of the situation in the entire country.

            sharina: You want them to and I get that but you don’t. You blindly follow the logic that because it works for me and it works for that person then it must be true and absolute and it is not.

            xPraetorius:
            No…I stuck with them, because no one ever REALLY addressed them. BW ONCE sneeringly referred to them as “the bootstrap” argument. Honestly! BW and Abagond REALLY like to label things! 🙂 … however, that one works for me. The point was that no one denied the “bootstrap argument.” Had they addressed it, I’d have moved off it, onto the next thing. I’m not LIMITED to the five points and the $17 trilloin factoid.

            sharina:
            “just not a big problem.”—Not a big problem to you.

            xPraetorius:
            Yep. Not to me…nor, I’m pretty sure, to MOST people in the USA.

            sharina:
            “what would you call $17 trillion, countless educational programs, Hollywood, academia, the media…white America has done just about nothing BUT address white racism and white misdeeds for more than 50 years. Anyone who’s been paying any attention at all knows that. Did slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, discrimination just freakin’ go away one day? You give white people one WHOLE HECKUVA lot of credit if you’re trying to say that one day they just decided to cut all that out. C’mon, sharina…”

            xPraetorius:
            Immediately thereafter, I suggested that they did NOT necessarily deal WELL with it. I think, though, sharina, you’d be hard-pressed to say that whites didn’t do what blacks ASKED them to do. If you’re talking about states of mind, I think I demonstrated pretty convincingly that whites states of mind have been changing in the direction of removing ALL prejudice from their thinking. These acts that I described, as well as mountains of feminist legislation, gay legislation, and legislation addressing every possible grievance group is COMPELLING evidence BY ITSELF of a near complete lack of white prejudice OF ANY KIND.

            sharina:
            That is not addressing a problem. That is putting a band-aid on it. This is part of the problem when people blindly believe those fixed something when it did not. Hand outs are not the answer to fixing the issues that the black community faces.

            xPraetorius:
            You said it! We’re in complete agreement in that regard. However, again, you have to admit that all the handouts came at the REQUEST of blacks. I’m pretty sure that if whites had NOT supported the handouts, Abagond would have used that as convincing evidence of racism. It’s a pretty convoluted swamp, this tendency of the Abagond’s of the world to find racism everywhere. It needs to stop, and that’s why I’ve spent this time in helping to educate him.

            sharina:
            It makes them dependant on things that will not help them become independent.

            xPraetorius:
            Agreed.

            “You just nicely made my point for me. If all we have to address is the small, then as I said, it’s a small problem.”—No I did not. What you attempted to do was direct me towards what you want me to mean rather than what I actually mean. What I mean in that statement as it clearly points out is if people are not going to address the small problems (which could be anything) then why put forth so much effort to address the big? We need to address it all so this mess can be squashed.

            xPraetorius:
            Ok…how would you suggest we proceed with that? I mean this seriously. What should white people do that they haven’t yet done.

            sharina:
            “No one’s deflecting from anything”—Comment was not directed towards you but was referring to people in general.

            xPraetorius:
            Ok. I’m sorry.

            sharina: “Again, no one REALLY disagreed with my “five points.”—They did disagree but you did not like what you saw. Truth of the matter (and yes I am repeating) there is no sure way to prove or disprove your 5 points. Even you have not and can not provide the proof needed to prove your 5 points are sure fire guarantees that racism is not a big problem.

            xPraetorius:
            Some disagreed by saying “You’re wrong, and you’re a racist.” That’s no serious disagreement, that’s the usual Abagondian silliness.

            No one’s deflecting from anything…I’m flat-out denying it’s there in any big way.”—This was not directed at you but people in general.

            sharina: “Then, if it’s subtle, as I might have mentioned before, it’s not a BIG problem.”—It being subtle does not mean it is not a big problem. It just means it is a better disguised problem. One that gives people the benefit of say “I don’t see it so it is not a problem.”

            xPraetorius:
            @sharina: you and I are dancing all around the fact that you want to change minds. Ok. Who doesn’t want to change minds? But, there’s only one way to change minds, and that is through persuasion. Any other means is coercive and ugly. I have offered persuasive evidence that white states of mind HAVE been steadily changing — away from prejudice of any kind — for more than two centuries. Don’t forget what white people did — key phrase — THAT THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO. I’ve already gone through the litany, so I don’t need to again. But, the evidence is overwhelming. A secretly racist white majority never would have allowed all that to happen.

            sharina: “Come on, sharina…if people are having trouble identifying what is REALLY a pretty easy thing to identify, then it just might not be there in any real big way.”—It is not longer easy to identify because it has become deluded.

            xPraetorius:
            I think you mean hidden? Well…ok, then we’re now in the realm of other people’s minds, and no one can say what’s there. That makes ALL that Abagond writes worthless, because he spends so much of his time telling everyone what vast swaths of people say. Again, white people have spent at LEAST two centuries in an exhaustive process of examining their relations with every conceivable other group ever to cross their path. And, they have never spared themselves. They’ve NEVER hidden from ANYONE in that time their condemnation of their own behavior where they found it wanting. Abagond has painted himself into the really weird corner where the only way whites could be NON-racist is NOT to have engaged in that self-examination, NOT to have condemned their own misdeeds, NOT to have apologized, NOT to have done as blacks asked in providing $17 trillion in reparations and handouts.

            sharina:
            “This country has done almost nothing BUT deal with minorities and women. Mountains and mountains and mountains of legislation prove that pretty conclusively. Did the country deal WELL with minorities? That’s for another debate another day…but they HAVE dealt with them…and hispanics, and gays, and older folks, and kids, the poor, and hunger and AIDS, and Japanese internees…and a million OTHER grievance groups.”—But are they something to be dealt with? They are citizens. Why should they be dealt with?

            xPraetorius:
            Ok…poor choice of words. “Dealt with issues and problems pertaining to [fill in group here]…”

            sharina:
            “But, what I DO know — the “$17 trillion” thing is STRONG evidence of my point. No racist majority would have given all that away for more than 50 years!”—Sadly you don’t. What good is any of that doing for the black community other than making it dependant on political crooks and handouts?

            xPraetorius:
            I strongly agree…but, again, blacks ASKED for these hand-outs, as a way to begin repaying, so they said, for money and labor stolen in slavery days.

            sharina:
            I see it as hush money. Keep the blacks in line by giving them handouts that do them no good in the long run.

            xPraetorius:
            Yes, that’s one aspect of it…not very effective, though, eh?

            sharina:
            “Heck no! Frankly, if Abagond were any kind of man at all, he’d apologize to me both for HIS accusation that I’m a racist, and for the accusations of nearly all those who commented.”—Then you may want to consider apologizing on your behalf as well. You approached the situation with a hot headed attitude. It is better to squash it because I don’t see either of you apologizing.

            xPraetorius:
            Interesting idea. But, remember my premise. Abagond’s post was the bully pummeling the innocent kid on the playground. I’m not sure that my less than polite reply was inappropriate. I still need to think about it a bit.

            sharina:
            On another note you should not make everything about Abagond because I feel it does not allow you to reflect on your own faults in the matter, but rather point the finger at abagond and his readers.

            xPraetorius:
            Thanks, I constantly do as you are suggesting. I didn’t just wake up one day with all this knowledge, and these states of mind. It was a long journey of study, and reflection and turmoil and introspection and self-examination. Some have called me “an effective writer or debater.” That’s nice of them, but it it’s true, I didn’t just wake up one day like that.

            You, yourself are, I’ve found, intelligent, sensible, thoughtful, polite and reasonable. You didn’t just wake up one day like that either. You did a LOT of work with and on yourself to become that kind of a fine person.

            Best,

            — x

          4. @ xPraetorius

            “I understand you are trying to tell me others’ states of mind as they’re being abusive on a blog.”—no I don’t engage in mind reading. These are experiences they shared. There is a post called my first black experience. Why they choose to respond as they should you should ask them? I just gave my thoughts.

            “My hypothetical referred to someone who had had a bad racial experience twice in ten years. That would be indicative of “not a bad problem.””—Fair enough but we are not talking about those type of people.

            ““bootstrap argument.”—It is a post Abagond did a while back.

            “I’m pretty sure, to MOST people in the USA.”—Back to the question of do you know most People in the USA to conclude it is not? You don’t so moving on.

            “I think I demonstrated pretty convincingly that whites states of mind have been changing in the direction of removing ALL prejudice from their thinking. These acts that I described, as well as mountains of feminist legislation, gay legislation, and legislation addressing every possible grievance group is COMPELLING evidence BY ITSELF of a near complete lack of white prejudice OF ANY KIND.”—You think you have but you actually haven’t. This is why I would like to see you dig deeper here instead of settling yourself with the “I have proved it.” This also goes back to you thinking some type of kind action is proof of the mindset of said person. My example of my white friends who were so kind to me (including kind acts) turned out to be closet racist. You don’t know but you would like to convince people you do. It proves nothing.

            “However, again, you have to admit that all the handouts came at the REQUEST of blacks.”—Here is the problem of that excuse….would you give your child whatever they wanted just because they requested it?

            “What should white people do that they haven’t yet done. “–For one get rid of this I need to do this and that to fix it. Giving blacks stuff is just making it worse because you always have those whites that will screaming “you should be grateful.” Everything else is a matter of the black community. I really think they must make and support their own. This may sound harsh but frankly I see the black community as flourishing when they did just that.

            “you and I are dancing all around the fact that you want to change minds”—I don’t want to change your mind so I will see this as you referring to yourself. You haven’t proved anything because you are not a mind reader and your evidence is not proof of the intention behind that. Frankly all those happy go luck programs you speak of does nothing more than keep black people down. Oh yes! I should be grateful to white people for contributing in the downfall of the black community through handouts and no good programs that do nothing for us.

            “I think you mean hidden?”—Please stop trying to tell me what I mean (second time already). You have the this is racism and that is racism crowd that makes everything racist and because of this people are easy to shrug off racist acts even if it is in their face. desensitized so to speak.

            “I strongly agree…but, again, blacks ASKED for these hand-outs, as a way to begin repaying, so they said, for money and labor stolen in slavery days. “—then at some point they should have been cut off right. Should have done a lump sum.

            We believe different and like i stated before…I am fine with that. If we all thought alike the world would be very boring. (FYI much of what I said is what quite a few of Abagond’s readers believe).

            Also can we stop the Abagond talk because it is creepy and I am not a fan of talking behinds someone back (have been guilty of it before though)

          5. sharina:
            @ xPraetorius

            “I understand you are trying to tell me others’ states of mind as they’re being abusive on a blog.”—no I don’t engage in mind reading. These are experiences they shared. There is a post called my first black experience. Why they choose to respond as they should you should ask them? I just gave my thoughts.

            xPraetorius:
            Ok.

            sharina:
            “My hypothetical referred to someone who had had a bad racial experience twice in ten years. That would be indicative of “not a bad problem.””—Fair enough but we are not talking about those type of people.

            xPraetorius:
            Ok.

            sharina:
            ““bootstrap argument.”—It is a post Abagond did a while back.

            xPraetorius:
            Ok.

            sharina:
            “I’m pretty sure, to MOST people in the USA.”—Back to the question of do you know most People in the USA to conclude it is not? You don’t so moving on.

            xPraetorius:
            Ok.

            sharina:
            “I think I demonstrated pretty convincingly that whites states of mind have been changing in the direction of removing ALL prejudice from their thinking. These acts that I described, as well as mountains of feminist legislation, gay legislation, and legislation addressing every possible grievance group is COMPELLING evidence BY ITSELF of a near complete lack of white prejudice OF ANY KIND.”—You think you have but you actually haven’t. This is why I would like to see you dig deeper here instead of settling yourself with the “I have proved it.” This also goes back to you thinking some type of kind action is proof of the mindset of said person. My example of my white friends who were so kind to me (including kind acts) turned out to be closet racist. You don’t know but you would like to convince people you do. It proves nothing.

            xPraetorius:
            Ok. I think I proved it. As to the “some kind of action” thing, it’s REALLY all we have. You can’t read Eisenhower’s mind or anyone else’s…neither can I.

            sharina: “However, again, you have to admit that all the handouts came at the REQUEST of blacks.”—Here is the problem of that excuse….would you give your child whatever they wanted just because they requested it?

            xPraetorius:
            In answer to your rhetorical question: Never. However, you and I BOTH know that the Abagond’s of the world would SURELY use the NON-giving of all the handouts as an argument for white racism. Hush money? I’m ok with that assessment. @sharina: You and I are essentially in agreement on this I never suggested that ALL blacks asked for the handouts. However, the LOUDEST ones did. And the squeaky wheel gets the grease — this is not a race thing, but a human thing.

            sharina:
            “What should white people do that they haven’t yet done. “–For one get rid of this I need to do this and that to fix it. Giving blacks stuff is just making it worse because you always have those whites that will screaming “you should be grateful.” Everything else is a matter of the black community. I really think they must make and support their own. This may sound harsh but frankly I see the black community as flourishing when they did just that.

            xPraetorius:
            Yep. Well said. You are in accord also with the historical record. Before the “Great Society” came along, the FASTEST growing economic segment of society was black Americans

            sharina:
            “you and I are dancing all around the fact that you want to change minds”—I don’t want to change your mind so I will see this as you referring to yourself.

            xPraetorius:
            Nope. Minds in general.

            sharina:
            You haven’t proved anything because you are not a mind reader and your evidence is not proof of the intention behind that. Frankly all those happy go luck programs you speak of does nothing more than keep black people down.

            xPraetorius:
            I agree! Completely!

            sharina:
            Oh yes! I should be grateful to white people for contributing in the downfall of the black community through handouts and no good programs that do nothing for us.

            xPraetorius:
            I agree! Completely! This is the OTHER racism that I’ve spoken a LOT about. You can search “Democrat Party racism” on my blog and find a lot about it.

            sharina:
            “I think you mean hidden?”—Please stop trying to tell me what I mean (second time already). You have the this is racism and that is racism crowd that makes everything racist and because of this people are easy to shrug off racist acts even if it is in their face. desensitized so to speak.

            xPraetorius:
            Forgive me…I didn’t understand something you had said. You said something about that some racism is deluded or something, and I didn’t understand it in context. With that said, I can’t find the “deluded” reference anywhere, so I must have misread or misunderstood something. My apologies.

            sharina:
            “I strongly agree…but, again, blacks ASKED for these hand-outs, as a way to begin repaying, so they said, for money and labor stolen in slavery days. “—then at some point they should have been cut off right. Should have done a lump sum.

            xPraetorius:
            I don’t believe that a lump sum was ever in consideration. With that said, no one at the time would have accepted a lump sum as sufficient to wipe out “the debt.” I was paying attention at the time. Plus, there was not enough money in the United States to pay out what would have been demanded as a lump sum. With that said, I agree very much with you: a lump sum would have been better.

            sharina:
            We believe different and like i stated before…I am fine with that. If we all thought alike the world would be very boring. (FYI much of what I said is what quite a few of Abagond’s readers believe).

            xPraetorius:
            Presumably not all the readers who called me a racist and stupid and crazy and evil and all the rest? 🙂

            sharina:
            Also can we stop the Abagond talk because it is creepy and I am not a fan of talking behinds someone back (have been guilty of it before though)

            xPraetorius:
            after he pretty much kicked me out, I kind of view this as an extension of Abagond’s blog — let’s call it the mirror image…I’m kind of a mirror for Abagond.

            Best,

            — x

          6. “Presumably not all the readers who called me a racist and stupid and crazy and evil and all the rest?”—Welllll. A few of them may have, but I think it was simply your approach that led to that.

  6. <>

    xPraetorius’ double-standard behavior is on clear display here: the very title of your thread is an insult. From your glass house blog, you swiftly toss labels such as “race-baiters” or “leftists” at your opponents. Of course, these words connote a pejorative intent. As other posts on your blog reveal, you are infected with hypocrisy.

    <>

    Pace xPraetori, I read everything. May I restate what has already been said: you failed to refute Abagond’s reduction ad absurdum. In short, Abagond masterfully revealed inconsistency in the moral reasoning of many white Americans in his Hitler example. Furthermore, he took such reasoning to its logical conclusion, showing just how flawed and absurd it really is.

    Yet, you offered no substantive criticisms. Instead, yours was an amalgam of nitpicking, semantic quibbles, and red-herrings. Subsequently, you derailed the thread, insisting on your own talking points ( such as your “five points”) and slinging around more red-herrings (for example, the “$17 trillion claim” that had nothing to do with the argument itself).

    <>

    In any heated topic, some will respond with reason; others with emotion. For example, here on your own blog, Leila above called the Abagond’s commenters “group-think minions” and said Abagond reminds her of “Kim Jong-ll,” while complaining about ad hominems in the same breath!

    Her hypocritical response is akin to the self-appointed grammarian who, while highlighting someone’s spelling error, commits one herself. And I’m sure if you had more followers, the insults would go far beyond “race-baiters,” “leftists,” “group-think minions,” and “Kim Jong-II.”

    More to the point: “$17 trillion” is not even remotely germane to the topic of Abagond’s post about Hitler and white moral reasoning, as stated in the foregoing. Again, it is nothing more than a classic red herring.

    If your counter-argument were stronger, you would not resort to such nit-picking nor would you be inclined to use ridiculous, off-topic, red-herrings. Your replies were devoid of substance and progressively evolved into mere distractions, perhaps to cover your lack of a strong counter-argument.

    In effect, you were talking to no one but yourself. In your smug self-congratulatory subtle declarations of victory in a debate you only imagined, you actually became the perfect example of the newer form of colorblind racism Abagond often articulates.

    In any event, $17 trillion certainly doesn’t dismiss the following (repasted from Abagond’s blog):

    “Get stopped and searched by the New York police for no good reason – just angst.
    Mass incarceration of black men – just angst.
    Police brutality – just angst.
    Underfunded schools in black neighbourhoods – just angst.
    Shorter life expectancy for blacks – just angst.
    Higher infant mortality for blacks – just angst.
    Blacks and Asians getting paid less for the same education as whites – just angst.
    The black unemployment rate being twice that of whites – just angst.
    Bad policing in black neighbourhoods – just angst.
    Quotas against Asian Americans at top universities – just angst.
    The bamboo ceiling – just angst.
    Blacks losing half their wealth in the Great Recession due to shady practices by banks – just angst.
    Last hired, first fired – just angst.
    The gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – just angst.
    Resegregated schools – just angst.
    Racial steering – just angst.
    Hate crimes – just angst.”

    <>

    Your objection here is a semantic disagreement of what is “genocide”? That IS your counter-argument? Surely, you can do better. How does this refute Abagond’s ad reducio? That the same arguments commonly used against “race-baiters” to downplay American racism, colonialism, and slavery could equally be used to downplay Hitler’s actions?

    Let’s assume you are right about your definition of genocide (and I certainly disagree over your standard of genocide). The thrust of Abagond’s brilliant reducio argument is NOT what genocide is. Rather,it is the absurdity behind the excuses used to rationalize America’s racism itself.

    <>

    Hogwash. Another example of hypocrisy, which appears as frequently as diarrhea on your blog.

    Get this: you accuse Abagond of “mind-reading,” yet are guilty of the very same thing. Indeed, your replies seem to suggest you know how blacks think, act, and feel.

    The only thing to match your arrogance is your self-absorption, a certain psychotic obsession to be “right”; to be the all-knowing arbiter of truth over racial matters. Your desperate attempt to derail the conversation into being about YOU and your talking points is what is worthy of your “stupid” and “moronic” labels. When others pointed out your trolling behavior, YOU were the one who played the victim card.

    Moreover, your worldview assumes racism is “no longer a problem.” However, other intelligent commenters clearly disagree with you. Interestingly, many of Abagond’s own sources are WHITE experts themselves.

    Just as you call your opponents “race-baiters,” perhaps I should now call people who share your view “race-silencers.” Oh wait, we already have a term for your type of view – colorblind racism.

    1. TruthSeeker permalink

      xPraetorius’ double-standard behavior is on clear display here: the very title of your thread is an insult. From your glass house blog, you swiftly toss labels such as “race-baiters” or “leftists” at your opponents. Of course, these words connote a pejorative intent. As other posts on your blog reveal, you are infected with hypocrisy.

      xPraetorius:
      Yep. The premise of the blog post is that Abagond and the rest are, indeed, race-baiters and race-addicts. They’re obviously leftists. I DO invite criticism of those labels, and the supporting evidence that I gave for them.

      TS:
      Pace xPraetori, I read everything.

      xPraetorius:
      Sooooo…”except for the things I don’t read, I read everything?” Whatever, ts, whatever.

      TS:
      May I restate what has already been said: you failed to refute Abagond’s reduction ad absurdum. In short, Abagond masterfully revealed inconsistency in the moral reasoning of many white Americans in his Hitler example. Furthermore, he took such reasoning to its logical conclusion, showing just how flawed and absurd it really is.

      xPraetorius:
      Please feel free to restate what I’ve already soundly refuted. I don’t feel the need to re-refute. By the way, what does “many Americans” mean. It’s PERFECTLY meaningless out of context. For example, let’s say it’s 100,000 the same as the population of a sizable city. That would mean that one white person out of 1,800 uses the offensive moral reasoning. So, a HUGE number, but a TINY portion of the white population. The phrase “many white Americans” means nothing without MUCH more information and context. So, even if I’m COMPLETELY wrong about Abagond’s intent, and he’s right, then my MAJOR point REMAINS correct: white racism is no longer a big problem in America. Bottom line: Stipulating EVEN what YOU said, Abagond has said either NOTHING or the WRONG thing. Not a great effort.

      TS:
      Yet, you offered no substantive criticisms. Instead, yours was an amalgam of nitpicking, semantic quibbles, and red-herrings. Subsequently, you derailed the thread, insisting on your own talking points ( such as your “five points”) and slinging around more red-herrings (for example, the “$17 trillion claim” that had nothing to do with the argument itself).

      xPraetorius:
      I picked no nits. The others asked me to provide evidence, then got all upset and accused me of derailing when I did. You can’t have it both ways. I did no derailing; I answered questions. It should be pretty evident that Abagond’s moderating is pretty poor. Again, it was not MY job to moderate Abagond’s blog. Your problem is only that you, just like Abagond, are selective about your irritation. (1) Someone does it to me, (2) I respond, (3) you get irritated with me. Grow up.

      TS:
      In any heated topic, some will respond with reason; others with emotion. For example, here on your own blog, Leila above called the Abagond’s commenters “group-think minions” and said Abagond reminds her of “Kim Jong-ll,” while complaining about ad hominems in the same breath!

      xPraetorius:
      You can credit Abagond’s pathetic moderating. If he allegedly sets standards, then ignores them, or enforces them selectively, that means there ARE no standards. I was remarkably restrained throughout on Abagond’s blog ANYWAY, and LONG after he had allowed truly outrageous accusations against me pass without a single word of disapproval. After Abagond effectively equated Hitler with all white people and all white people with Hitler, he had no more right to complain. Obviously he has no right to complain about what’s on THIS blog…I haven’t yet published any standards…so YOU have no right to complain about anything on this blog either. However, on HIS blog, he indicated that he had some standards.He didn’t enforce those standards so, really, forfeited his rights to be upset on his own blog. Did you get all that?

      TS:
      Her hypocritical response is akin to the self-appointed grammarian who, while highlighting someone’s spelling error, commits one herself. And I’m sure if you had more followers, the insults would go far beyond “race-baiters,” “leftists,” “group-think minions,” and “Kim Jong-II.”

      xPraetorius:
      And such insults would be deleted, as I described above. Or, maybe not…as mentioned, I haven’t yet published standards. I’m tempted to use Abagond’s standards, to give him an opportunity to see proper moderating in action, but I’m confident he won’t visit here. Besides, some of his “rules” are really dumb.

      TS:
      More to the point: “$17 trillion” is not even remotely germane to the topic of Abagond’s post about Hitler and white moral reasoning, as stated in the foregoing. Again, it is nothing more than a classic red herring.

      xPraetorius:
      Again, people — including Abagond, who ALSO asked me for sourcing — asked for evidence of my opinion that white racism is simply not a big problem in America anymore. I used the $17 trillion factoid as a piece of my evidence.

      TS:
      If your counter-argument were stronger, you would not resort to such nit-picking nor would you be inclined to use ridiculous, off-topic, red-herrings. Your replies were devoid of substance and progressively evolved into mere distractions, perhaps to cover your lack of a strong counter-argument.

      xPraetorius:
      Again, I obviously picked no nits. You REALLY like just to say things, don’t you, TS? 🙂 Ready for my counter to you? Your arguments are devoid of substance, and progressively devolve into mere distractions to cover your lack of a strong counter-argument. Saaaaaayyy…that sounds vaguely familiar!

      TS:
      In effect, you were talking to no one but yourself. In your smug self-congratulatory subtle declarations of victory in a debate you only imagined, you actually became the perfect example of the newer form of colorblind racism Abagond often articulates.

      xPraetorius:
      For “talking to no one but myself,” I sure ruffled a LOT of feathers.

      Is color-blind racism like “mental genocide,” that someone else decided is shot through white history? “Color-blind racism!” Lol! Not bad…which rock did you find THAT nonsense phrase under? You guys cover your lack of an argument with so many contortions and gyrations and twists and turns and gymnastics, that you’re reduced — as was Abagond — to arguing that white condemnation of white racism proves white racism. Sometime, you REALLY ought to listen to yourself. That kind of thing is so dumb as to be pathetic. Let’s try something else…if you’re reduced to blustering that the big problem is “color-blind racism,” then I EASILY won the argument… a long time ago.

      TS:
      In any event, $17 trillion certainly doesn’t dismiss the following (repasted from Abagond’s blog):

      • “Get stopped and searched by the New York police for no good reason – just angst. [Probably just angst…greater rates of black crime would mean that “stop and frisk” focusing on white people would be, pointless and fruitless.]
      • Mass incarceration of black men – just angst. [meaningless without context]
      • Police brutality – just angst. [meaningless without context — again, there is simply more black crime than white crime. And, more to the point, more VIOLENT black crime than white. Also… it’s obvious that any alleged police brutality against a white person won’t make any news outlet. No one cares.]
      • Underfunded schools in black neighbourhoods – just angst. [meaningless without context eg: there is no relationship between the level of funding and the quality of schooling.]
      • Shorter life expectancy for blacks – just angst. [meaningless without context; eg: is this tied to the frightful incidence of black-on-black violence? VASTLY more context needed]
      • Higher infant mortality for blacks – just angst. [meaningless without context. Context indicates that greater attention to maternal health — by the mothers themselves — would remedy this]
      • Blacks and Asians getting paid less for the same education as whites – just angst.
      • The black unemployment rate being twice that of whites – just angst.
      • Bad policing in black neighbourhoods – just angst.
      • Quotas against Asian Americans at top universities – just angst.
      • The bamboo ceiling – just angst. [An abstraction. highly debatable.]
      • Blacks losing half their wealth in the Great Recession due to shady practices by banks – just angst. [meaningless without context. Ex.: are whites also losing their wealth in this economy? I sre did!]
      • Last hired, first fired – just angst. [meaningless without context.]
      • The gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – just angst. [Yep. ‘Cause it didn’t happen]
      • Resegregated schools – just angst. [this is an effort coming from black people as well. Context needed]
      • Racial steering – just angst. [meaningless without context]
      • Hate crimes – just angst.” [There’s no such thing. A crime is a crime. The term “hate crime” implies that there are superior motives for committing a crime. The term “hate crime” values people differently.]

      xPraetorius:
      I should have deleted that irrelevant block because (1) it’s off-topic, (2) It’s perfectly meaningless without context, (3) I could counter each one with just few words, each of which would simply provide a context that could make each “point” have EXACTLY the opposite meaning as you and Abagond intend. I DID your points (and added some bullets for greater readability), but please DO understand that all that silliness is WAY off-topic. I’m just feeling charitable for now. Oh, look for the square brackets [ ] for my remarks.

      TS:
      Your objection here is a semantic disagreement of what is “genocide”? That IS your counter-argument? Surely, you can do better. How does this refute Abagond’s ad reducio? That the same arguments commonly used against “race-baiters” to downplay American racism, colonialism, and slavery could equally be used to downplay Hitler’s actions?

      xPraetorius:
      Look, ts, if I REALLY need to tell you that if two people are arguing, they really ought to agree on the BASIC terms of what they’re arguing about, then I’m going to stop arguing with you right now, because you’re not up to the task. Again, my point was that Abagond CANNOT equate EITHER Hitler, OR the people who comment on his blog, to ALL white people, as he likes to do. If he can — read it well — I’m justified in saying that Abagond — and all black people — want to eat children like Idi Amin and Jean Bedel Bokassa.

      TS:
      Let’s assume you are right about your definition of genocide (and I certainly disagree over your standard of genocide). The thrust of Abagond’s brilliant reducio argument is NOT what genocide is. Rather,it is the absurdity behind the excuses used to rationalize America’s racism itself.

      xPraetorius:
      First, there’s nothing brilliant about conflating Hitler with all white people. It’s a dumb-as-a-stump concept. Sorry, dumber-than-a-stump. And, since no one whom anyone takes seriously is rationalizing America’s racist past, then Abagond’s entire post was pointless, stupid and a waste of his and everyone else’s time. Unless, that is, he IS, as I have said, a race addict. Then, his point is simple: to continue to feed the race addiction.

      TS:
      Hogwash. Another example of hypocrisy, which appears as frequently as diarrhea on your blog.

      xPraetorius:
      To extend your colorful metaphor, since diarrhea appears on my blog only once, I’m grateful for your conclusion that there’s likewise no hogwash on it. 🙂 . Oh, here’s the quote where diarrhea appears on the blog:
      “Look around: racism is a much less important problem than deaths by auto accident, or gun violence, or the fiscal mess, or cancer, or diarrhea (deadly serious here), or tooth decay (deadly serious here), or the common cold… or Democrat Party moronia.”

      TS:
      Get this: you accuse Abagond of “mind-reading,” yet are guilty of the very same thing. Indeed, your replies seem to suggest you know how blacks think, act, and feel.

      xPraetorius:
      Again, since Abagond opened the door in violation of his own standards, yes, I did occasionally read minds. Typically, I warned them when I was going to do it, as when I “read Herneith’s mind.” I may not have been absolutely perfect in adhering to the standards that I indicated ought to be adhered to. At the same time, I was NOT going to remain unarmed when it was evident that all the others were engaging in personal attacks and insults.

      TS:
      The only thing to match your arrogance is your self-absorption, a certain psychotic obsession to be “right”; to be the all-knowing arbiter of truth over racial matters.

      xPretorius:
      Nope. You’re wrong.

      TS:
      Your desperate attempt to derail the conversation into being about YOU and your talking points is what is worthy of your “stupid” and “moronic” labels. When others pointed out your trolling behavior, YOU were the one who played the victim card.

      xPraetorius: If you call pointing out OBVIOUS name-calling and insults as “playing the victim card,” — when ostensibly the blog forbids the practice — then I plead guilty to playing the victim card.

      TS:
      Moreover, your worldview assumes racism is “no longer a problem.”

      xPraetorius:
      ** sigh ** If I have to write again that: “white racism is no longer a BIG problem in America,” I ought to get a SERIOUS prize. Seriously, TS, is English not your first language? I mean that seriously. I have to had said that 50 times in the blog.

      TS:
      However, other intelligent commenters clearly disagree with you. Interestingly, many of Abagond’s own sources are WHITE experts themselves.

      xPraetorius:
      Well, since, other than me there were no intelligent commenters in evidence on the thread, I guess I have nothing to worry about. Btw, the commenters didn’t disagree with me, they called me names and questioned my intelligence, integrity, honesty and character…very few actually disagreed with me (<– by which I mean ACTUALLY put counter-arguments up). I NEVER even hinted that race addicts are confined to black people. There are plenty of white race addicts and race baiters…they're called: the leadership of the Democrat party. White people are VERY frequently wrong about race too.

      Just as you call your opponents “race-baiters,” perhaps I should now call people who share your view “race-silencers.” Oh wait, we already have a term for your type of view – colorblind racism.

      xPraetorius:
      Please feel free to call me whatever you want. If I think it's inappropriate, I'll moderate it out, as described above, with a message to you indicating the offense that drove the action. Btw, we've covered all this ground before…you're now repeating and repeating things that I long ago batted away. Please don't be upset if in the future, I simply suggest that you re-read something.

      Best,

      — x

  7. I see you do what you usually do, talk a lot and saying nothing.

    I just want to know what you think bloggers like Abagond and myself hope to gain with our “race baiting” and “leftist” ideals. By the way, I knew you would call it leftist sooner or later. I also want to know why you consider it leftist?

    And another thing, you haven’t even answered my question as to what racism is. You really seem to know a lot about about something you have no idea what it is.

    1. BW: Good point about not publicly defining racism. It IS important to be talking about the same thing. For me, it’s not gigantically complicated. However, I DO know you will disagree with anything I say. Let’s face it.

      So, to avoid that, I’ll simply go with: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” I’m pretty sure you’d approve of the source.

      I’ve been calling you and Agagond leftists for a long time. Racism is endemic on the left. It’s a “flavor” of racism that differs from what the grievance industry wants to peddle as “racism,” but it’s racism nonetheless. However, you’ve often said that you would support government remedies to the problems you claim to have identified. My left vs. right definition is even simpler. Left: supports concentrated central power. Right: supports diffused power, in a more federalist structure.

      As to what you gain from your screeds, that’s simple: validation of your beliefs. Everyone likes that. I do too. It’s obvious, however, that I don’t FEAR challenges to MY beliefs as, the record has shown, you and Abagond do. All Abagond’s and your “moderating” worked to push any dissenting voices out of the amen chorus.

      Btw, when you say patently dumb things like: “I see you do what you usually do, talk a lot and saying nothing.” from time to time, I’ll give you suggestions as to how you might express yourself better. Your post really needed only the last two paragraphs.

      Best,

      — x

  8. “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

    I actually agree with what you’ve said. Except you forgot one thing, one very important thing. Racism is also the practice of implementing oppression, discrimination or violence against another group based on the social construct of race. Though, I honestly am not surprised that you would leave that out completely.

    My left vs. right definition is even simpler. Left: supports concentrated central power. Right: supports diffused power, in a more federalist structure.

    So why is anti-racism supportive of centralized power when it calls for the disadvantaged marginalized groups of color to have a recognition of their humanity in a nation that has yet to admit that it has based their policies based on race?

    Also, if that’s the case, then the right must be doing the exact opposite. So, the right must be pro-racism to that effect going by YOUR definition.

    As to what you gain from your screeds, that’s simple: validation of your beliefs. Everyone likes that. I do too. It’s obvious, however, that I don’t FEAR challenges to MY beliefs as, the record has shown, you and Abagond do. All Abagond’s and your “moderating” worked to push any dissenting voices out of the amen chorus.

    In the first place, your dissenting voices support the very thing you claim you’re not and that is racism. And your simplistic 5-point formula for black people speaks to the chorus that consistently excuses and omits the part that institutionalized racism plays in.

    1. @BW: you didn’t ask me to tell you RESULTS of racism. Unlike you, I can’t ACTUALLY read minds. 🙂

      BW said:
      So why is anti-racism supportive of centralized power when it calls for the disadvantaged marginalized groups of color to have a recognition of their humanity in a nation that has yet to admit that it has based their policies based on race?

      xPraetorius:
      If it looks like a duck, walks and quacks like a duck…

      BW:
      Also, if that’s the case, then the right must be doing the exact opposite. So, the right must be pro-racism to that effect going by YOUR definition.

      xPraetorius:
      Uhhh…whuh? Sad to say, the American right is the ONLY political group that treats black people like REAL people in full.

      BW:
      In the first place, your dissenting voices support the very thing you claim you’re not and that is racism.

      xPraetorius:
      If my posts supported YOUR arguments, then you should have simply allowed them to pass without comment. I gather you just called me a racist again… **sigh**. Next time you do it, I’ll moderate the post as I’ve described above.

      BW:
      And your simplistic 5-point formula for black people speaks to the chorus that consistently excuses and omits the part that institutionalized racism plays in.

      xPraetorius:
      @BW: sometimes it IS helpful to simplify. When you agreed with my five points, it was because they weren’t wrapped up in a whole passel of hooey about institutionalized racism and color-blind racism and white privilege and double-super-secret-only-people-with-the-decoder-ring-can-see-it-but-it’s-everywhere racism.

      Best,

      — x

      1. you didn’t ask me to tell you RESULTS of racism. Unlike you, I can’t ACTUALLY read minds.

        What you described was basically PREJUDICE. I added the part that you PURPOSELY left out such as the systematic aspect that creates oppressive measures against certain people due to race.

        If it looks like a duck, walks and quacks like a duck… So, by that, and still going by your definition of what the left does, helping marginalized groups who are victims of systematic oppression is racism? If so, you really don’t know what you’re saying. Racism is the exact practice of keeping certain groups down systematically due to color.

        Uhhh…whuh? Sad to say, the American right is the ONLY political group that treats black people like REAL people in full.

        I will say that the American left hasn’t always been champions for blacks in history, especially prior to the 60’s, but the right, especially now…Well:

        Michael Bloomberg

        New York City’s mayor has faced a lot of criticism for his support of the city’s racially biased, probably unconstitutional stop-and-frisk program. Although the police harassment has been called out for unfairly targeting minorities, Bloomberg will hear none of it. “I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little,” he said in a radio address.

        Michele Bachmann

        The Minnesota Representative might be better known for her homophobic outbursts, but rest assured she has some offensive race-based views, too. In 2011, she signed a pledge that said a “black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African American President.”

        So she’s saying that blacks are better off in slavery? Actually, yeah, as it fits Bachmann’s larger philosophy that Christian slave owners knew it was immoral to own people, but felt it more irresponsible to set them free when they couldn’t provide for themselves. It’s a wonder it’s taken this long for her views to be so off-putting to the public that she’s finally declared she won’t seek reelection next cycle.

        Bob Allen

        While a member of Florida’s House of Representatives, Allen offered to pay an undercover cop $20 so that he would perform oral sex on him. Arrested and humiliated, Allen insisted that he was both innocent and not gay, and his excuse for what actually happened might be his most shocking assertion of all: fear of black men made him do it.

        “[The cop] was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park,” Allen said. He went on to explain that he was intimidated and was willing to say anything to avoid being harmed by these scary black men. I guess offering to pay for sex is as good as any way to keep yourself safe?

        Delusional, Allen attempted to maintain his elected office even after being convicted of soliciting prostitution, although that didn’t last long. But it sure is telling of the Republican mentality that Allen would sooner portray himself as an out-and-out racist than have anyone think he’s gay. In this case, I think most people just assume both now.

        Loy Mauch

        When it comes to racism, this recent member of the Arkansas House of Representatives may take the cake. Having written letters in favor of slavery, called the Confederate flag a symbol of Jesus, and labeled Abraham Lincoln a “fake neurotic Northern war criminal,” Mauch clearly isn’t concerned about his bigotry. He is even a known member of the “Sons of Confederate Veterans and the League of the South,” which promotes Southern secession and a white rule.

        Let’s not forget the likes of Fox News and their prophets Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Larry Elder, Geraldo Rivera, and several others. And this is just racism towards blacks, not including racism against other POC, although some of the Fox News gang have made racist remarks against them as well.

        If my posts supported YOUR arguments, then you should have simply allowed them to pass without comment. I gather you just called me a racist again… **sigh**. Next time you do it, I’ll moderate the post as I’ve described above.

        Like you said, if it walks like a duck…But then again, all you’re doing is prove that being called a racist is worse than actually being one.

        sometimes it IS helpful to simplify. When you agreed with my five points, it was because they weren’t wrapped up in a whole passel of hooey about institutionalized racism and color-blind racism and white privilege and double-super-secret-only-people-with-the-decoder-ring-can-see-it-but-it’s-everywhere racism.

        It is not helpful to simplify something complex, especially when you purposely leave out factors just because you “hate” hearing about them. Those five points would be good if there was (and is) an equal playing field.

        Let’s assume that one of you who claim is white is responding to what I’m saying. What do you base your conclusion that institutional racism, colorblind racism and whatever else kind of racism doesn’t exist? Have you been treated differently due to your skin often and by those within a institutional setting? If not, then how can you deny the reality of those who HAVE been treated that way and condemn them when they dare to speak?

        Whether you like it or not, that is part of the problem. That is why there are people who combat your views. You’re basically telling them that their problems are worthless to you. If you’re a good person, how can you be when you think that way about certain people? How?

        Your denial is not based on information because you never provided any that diminishes the reality. In fact I’ve been a victim of it a few times myself. Are you doing to tell me that it’s just whining to feel lower than a human being because you weren’t born with a certain skin color?

        It’s obvious that we can’t prove racism to you, because you will reject it. I do not believe there is no racism, because I’ve been a victim of it. And the reason why you’re not very liked is because you blame the victim. It’s like blaming a woman who was a victim of sexism because she was too pretty, dressed too sexy, etc. It is morally absent and insulting, and you should be ashamed that you are proud to have this mindset.

        A good person would listen. Take it in from the other person. Consider that what they said is true, stop and think and consider that their mindset is actually harmful. Then, they would work to change that mindset not just for the people they dislike (in some form) but for themselves.

        This whole thing is not about agreeing or disagree, or having fun debating. It is about what is right and wrong, good or bad. If you are into this blog just for antagonizing with your views whether they are right or left, it is neither right or good. This is about another way to see and feel things. But it’s obvious you’re too scared and afraid to step outside your zone.

        1. Brothawolf said:

          you didn’t ask me to tell you RESULTS of racism. Unlike you, I can’t ACTUALLY read minds.

          What you described was basically PREJUDICE. I added the part that you PURPOSELY left out such as the systematic aspect that creates oppressive measures against certain people due to race.

          xPraetorius:
          Again, NEVER try to tell me what I’m thinking. I left NOTHING out on purpose. Ok? I’LL tell YOU what I’m thinking and/or what is my purpose. Got it? I hope you FINALLY understand that. 🙂 For cryin’ out loud, why would I CONSTANTLY have to tell you that?!?

          BW:
          If it looks like a duck, walks and quacks like a duck… So, by that, and still going by your definition of what the left does, helping marginalized groups who are victims of systematic oppression is racism? If so, you really don’t know what you’re saying. Racism is the exact practice of keeping certain groups down systematically due to color.

          xPraetorius:
          Nope. Racism IS a set of beliefs. The beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the CONSEQUENCES of the beliefs. ALL “Ism’s” are doctrines. Beliefs, not acts.

          BW:
          Uhhh…whuh? Sad to say, the American right is the ONLY political group that treats black people like REAL people in full.

          I will say that the American left hasn’t always been champions for blacks in history, especially prior to the 60′s, but the right, especially now…Well:

          Michael Bloomberg

          xPraetorius: Very much a man of the LEFT, Michael Bloomberg has never ACTUALLY belonged to the Republican Party — look it up — much less to the political right. He used the “Republican” label because it was politically convenient following Giuliani, but that’s where the resemblance to a Republican ends.

          Bw:
          New York City’s mayor has faced a lot of criticism for his support of the city’s racially biased, probably unconstitutional stop-and-frisk program. Although the police harassment has been called out for unfairly targeting minorities, Bloomberg will hear none of it. “I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little,” he said in a radio address.

          xPraetorius:
          Ok…that is your man of the left supporting “stop and frisk.”

          Michele Bachmann

          The Minnesota Representative might be better known for her homophobic outbursts, but rest assured she has some offensive race-based views, too. In 2011, she signed a pledge that said a “black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African American President.”

          So she’s saying that blacks are better off in slavery? Actually, yeah, as it fits Bachmann’s larger philosophy that Christian slave owners knew it was immoral to own people, but felt it more irresponsible to set them free when they couldn’t provide for themselves. It’s a wonder it’s taken this long for her views to be so off-putting to the public that she’s finally declared she won’t seek reelection next cycle.

          xPraetorius:
          Thanks for this gift. She didn’t sign a pledge that said remotely ANYTHING like what you allege…she acknowledged a TRUE statistic: a “black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African American President.” Sorry…simply true. The numbers is the numbers. In no way did she EVER say that a black child was BETTER OFF under slavery. Ever. Furthermore, in no way did she EVER use that CORRECT statistic as an excuse to justify slavery. Her point — obviously — was to demonstrate how bad conditions are TODAY for black children. Go look up her REAL biography, and you’ll go and hide your head in shame for what you’ve implied about her today. You should be ashamed. I don’t need to brag for her, her bio does that by itself.

          BW:
          Bob Allen

          While a member of Florida’s House of Representatives, Allen offered to pay an undercover cop $20 so that he would perform oral sex on him. Arrested and humiliated, Allen insisted that he was both innocent and not gay, and his excuse for what actually happened might be his most shocking assertion of all: fear of black men made him do it.

          “[The cop] was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park,” Allen said. He went on to explain that he was intimidated and was willing to say anything to avoid being harmed by these scary black men. I guess offering to pay for sex is as good as any way to keep yourself safe?

          Delusional, Allen attempted to maintain his elected office even after being convicted of soliciting prostitution, although that didn’t last long. But it sure is telling of the Republican mentality that Allen would sooner portray himself as an out-and-out racist than have anyone think he’s gay. In this case, I think most people just assume both now.

          xPraetorius: Thanks for this one too! If you’re reduced to pointing to wacky, off-the-beaten-track, out-in-left-field incidents like this one, then why on earth are we arguing?!? Why aren’t you offering to buy me a beer and saying, “I’m so sorry, man! I was so wrong, and so silly!”? With me going, “That’s ok, don’t worry about it, BW…I’ll have a Bass Ale.”

          BW:
          Loy Mauch

          When it comes to racism, this recent member of the Arkansas House of Representatives may take the cake. Having written letters in favor of slavery, called the Confederate flag a symbol of Jesus, and labeled Abraham Lincoln a “fake neurotic Northern war criminal,” Mauch clearly isn’t concerned about his bigotry. He is even a known member of the “Sons of Confederate Veterans and the League of the South,” which promotes Southern secession and a white rule.

          xPraetorius: Thanks for this one! If you’re reduced to pointing to wacky, off-the-beaten-track, out-in-left-field incidents like this one, then why on earth are we arguing?!? Why aren’t you offering to buy me a beer and saying, “I’m so sorry, man! I was so wrong, and so silly!”? With me going, “That’s ok, don’t worry about it, BW…I’ll have a Bass Ale.”

          At this particular point, I really don’t have to make any more arguments. MY point — that white racism is not a big problem anymore in America — is being made a LOT more effectively by you and others.

          Still and all…

          BW:
          Let’s not forget the likes of Fox News and their prophets Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Larry Elder, Geraldo Rivera, and several others. And this is just racism towards blacks, not including racism against other POC, although some of the Fox News gang have made racist remarks against them as well.

          xPraetorius:
          This is where you step over the line into evil-land. None of the above-mentioned has EVER done or said or even HINTED at anything that could EVER be REMOTELY construed as racist. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Deeply ashamed. I don’t often say this, but if you don’t apologize for this irresponsible, disgusting, evil libel, then there’s no point in arguing with you. You will have proven yourself a complete and blithering, drooling, slack-jawed, mouth-breathing, IQ-deprived idiot. I WILL allow you to apologize in private, if your pride (as I suspect) won’t allow you to in public…but without said apology, you prove yourself, simply, a complete sleazeball. I have no interest in interacting with sleazeballs in any way, nor would I allow my children to. I’d suggest that they treat an encounter with you the same as they’d treat an encounter with a child molester.

          Apologize to the above people. NOW!

          BW: If my posts supported YOUR arguments, then you should have simply allowed them to pass without comment. I gather you just called me a racist again… **sigh**. Next time you do it, I’ll moderate the post as I’ve described above.

          Like you said, if it walks like a duck…But then again, all you’re doing is prove that being called a racist is worse than actually being one.

          xPraetorius:
          Ummm…Ok. Whatever. Don’t call anyone a racist if you have no actual evidence he is one. THAT, at least, ought to be pretty obvious.

          BW quoting xPraetorius:
          sometimes it IS helpful to simplify. When you agreed with my five points, it was because they weren’t wrapped up in a whole passel of hooey about institutionalized racism and color-blind racism and white privilege and double-super-secret-only-people-with-the-decoder-ring-can-see-it-but-it’s-everywhere racism.

          BW responds: It is not helpful to simplify something complex, especially when you purposely leave out factors just because you “hate” hearing about them. Those five points would be good if there was (and is) an equal playing field.

          xPraetorius: The playing field is America. You are correct …the playing field is NOT equal. If the government would get the heck out, and stop favoring black people, women, gays and minorities, it WOULD, finally, be equal. 🙂

          BW:
          Let’s assume that one of you who claim is white is responding to what I’m saying. What do you base your conclusion that institutional racism, colorblind racism and whatever else kind of racism doesn’t exist? Have you been treated differently due to your skin often and by those within a institutional setting? If not, then how can you deny the reality of those who HAVE been treated that way and condemn them when they dare to speak?

          xPraetorius:
          I have been treated differently, but that’s irrelevant. I’ve been denied housing, employment and credit because of the color of my skin. I deny nothing. I condemn no one. I simply challenge the validity of the individual story in condemning an entire country that has, after all, REALLY tried to make things up to black people — and, frankly, to any OTHER group that demanded free stuff! (see, eg: LGBTQQIAAP, for example) Oh, and I’ve never denied that white racism doesn’t exist. The concepts of “institutionalized” and “color-blind” racism are for race addicts. I’m not one, so I don’t use them.

          BW:
          Whether you like it or not, that is part of the problem. That is why there are people who combat your views.

          xPraetorius:’
          Nope…people “combatted my views” because I disagreed with them and they didn’t like it. They REALLY liked their little echo chamber, and when I came along, they reacted true to form — as did you. I couldn’t simply disagree, I had to be a racist, and a liar, and stupid, and crazy, and all the rest.

          BW: You’re basically telling them that their problems are worthless to you. If you’re a good person, how can you be when you think that way about certain people? How?

          xPraetorius:
          Nope. The scope of my criticism was ALWAYS global. My basic premise: white racism is not a big problem in America. Abagond’s post attempted to make global conclusions. I adhered scrupulously to HIS scope. YOU all — all of a sudden — decided that I needed to be aware of the perfectly IRRELEVANT individual experiences. Again, without context, an individual experience means absolutely NOTHING in terms of the global picture.

          BW: Your denial is not based on information because you never provided any that diminishes the reality.

          xpraetorius:
          Whatever THAT means! I HOPE you’re saying that I never provided any information regarding the GLOBAL reality, because information pertaining to YOUR reality, or to the reality of Other INDIVIDUALS is perfectly irrelevant. I DID, however, provide several cogent arguments that NO ONE saw fit to address: the Five Points, and the “$17 trillion,” as well as numerous OTHER subordinate arguments. In response, there were ONLY further accusations of racism, craziness, etc., etc., etc., and sadly, tiredly, lugubriously… etc.

          BW:
          In fact I’ve been a victim of it a few times myself. Are you doing to tell me that it’s just whining to feel lower than a human being because you weren’t born with a certain skin color?

          xPraetorius:
          Nope. Just that your experience can’t be extended to the entirety of the country. Your friend sharina is a complete and total treasure. I assume she’s a black woman in her adulthood…without prompting she admitted to NEVER having had a bad racial experience in her life. She seemed almost ashamed of the fact. She THEN seemed to need to tell me about an unenlighted white friend of hers who had an ignorant father or something. It was a cute and sad story. Check it out … it’s on this very blog. How can ALL that POSSIBLY be in this hellhole that is a racist America?!?

          BW:
          It’s obvious that we can’t prove racism to you, because you will reject it.

          xPraetorius:
          Nope. I’ve ALWAYS admitted there’s racism out there. You are one of the prime examples. You have admitted to me that thou are a racist. You excused it, but you admitted it. However, I’ve always said that, and I quote me, “White racism is no longer a big problem.” It still exits, but it’s CERTAINLY less of a problem than, say, diabetes. Or jaywalking. 🙂

          BW:
          I do not believe there is no racism, because I’ve been a victim of it.

          xPraetorius:
          Welll…thank goodness I’ve NEVER said that! And I think I’ve mentioned that I’ve been a victim of it too.

          BW:
          And the reason why you’re not very liked is because you blame the victim.

          xPraetorius:
          I didn’t come here to be liked. And, I’ve NEVER blamed ANY victim. Re-read.

          BW:
          It’s like blaming a woman who was a victim of sexism because she was too pretty, dressed too sexy, etc. It is morally absent and insulting, and you should be ashamed that you are proud to have this mindset.

          xPraetorius:
          Again, you are never again to tell me what my “mindset” is, or what I’m thinking, unless I tell you first. Got it? If not, get it. I’m tired of repeating it.

          BW:
          A good person would listen. Take it in from the other person. Consider that what they said is true, stop and think and consider that their mindset is actually harmful. Then, they would work to change that mindset not just for the people they dislike (in some form) but for themselves.

          xPraetorius:
          Oh? So YOU’RE the arbiter of who’s a good person and who’s not? In a rare moment of candor on your blog, you admitted you’re a racist. After that, you came up with a whole bunch of excuses for why it was okay that you, in particular, are a racist. I think that was shortly before you censored me from your blog. And, I’m supposed to accept YOUR definition for what is a good person or not? No, thanks!

          BW:
          This whole thing is not about agreeing or disagree, or having fun debating. It is about what is right and wrong, good or bad. If you are into this blog just for antagonizing with your views whether they are right or left, it is neither right or good. This is about another way to see and feel things. But it’s obvious you’re too scared and afraid to step outside your zone.

          xPraetorius:
          Yep. It’s about what is right and wrong. Are you REALLY trying to tell me that diving into Abagond’s blog somehow indicates that I’m “afraid to step outside my zone?” Really?!? Did I NOT dive into Abagond’s blog FREAKIN’ sufficiently for you? REALLY?!? What FREAKIN’ more do you WANT, as far as “stepping outside my zone” is concerned?!?

          I agree: It is very, very, very, very, very, very, very wrong for you to run around recklessly throwing out the EXTREMELY toxic accusation of racism. I await your SINCERE apology. AND I await your SINCERE apology to the people I mentioned above. If you are NOT forthcoming with that apology, then I stand by my allegation that you and other black people eat children, as did Idi Amin and Jean-Bedel Bokassa (and surely, many other black people). If you ARE man enough to apologize, then you are my friend forever, and I’ll drop the silly idea of equating you with Amin and Bokassa.

          I note that there has been no hint that Abagond would abandon HIS scurrilous, disgusting, evil attempt to equate Hitler with all white people and white people with Hitler.

          Best,

          — x

  9. My final notes (because this is becoming a repeat)
    Everyone sees there way as right and it is just human nature not to address flaws in their own reasoning. With that I will not be a hindrance in you seeing your way as the right way. I don’t want this to become a redundant back and forth. I wish you luck in your belief and blogs but this will be the end of my comment journey for now.

    1. sharina: Ok…I was going to to an at-length treatment of your previous post, but, as you say, we’re simply going back and forth. I still might, just for the fun of it.

      I trust your experience here was as pleasant as it could be based on the circumstances.

      Best,

      — x

      1. @ xPraetorius

        I am not mad at you, but I take this as a friendly agree to disagree type thing. You may indeed go through and respond to my last long post, but either way we are not changing each others minds. I think there is much to what has been said on abagond’s post but I do see where you may see differently, but it is foolish to discount one’s because it does not go with what I believe to be true.

        But it is ok for us to disagree with each other as it will serve to keep both of us on our toes.

  10. To add regardless of how anyone sees it the question still remains….how big of a problem is racism in America? and the truth is people will only see it as big as they see their experiences with it. For me not experiencing it will probably get a response of not that big, but a person who experiences quite often will see it as big.

    For example (I did mention this). There is a guy named William who comes on the blog but so often. He lost his good paying job for hiring minorities when the job did not want him to. He has been fighting in court to rectify this. I signed his petition because I did see that as wrong. He could tell a different story from his experience…just my thoughts.

    1. @sharina: again, you have posted a wonderful post. Your first paragraph is absolutely on the nose. That is THE big point. You rhetorical question neatly wipes out every post I’ve ever read of Abagond’s. Why? Because you show how Abagond’s method of pretending he can read minds cannot possibly support his conclusions.

      Your first paragraph is wise, intelligent, perspicacious, insightful and …devastating.

      Your first paragraph, for example, also beautifully and concisely refutes vast swaths of Howard Zinn’s faux-history book “A People’s History…”

      @sharina: You’re beautiful, I love you…will you marry me? 🙂 (*)

      Your second paragraph is a bit confusing. Are you suggesting that William was fired when he hired a minority, and his boss told him not to? I suspect he’ll do just fine in court if he has any REAL indication of that.

      However, I can tell you that — probably at least — the boss was looking first at green, not black, brown or white. I know this, because a company where I used to work was hiring brown-skinned people — lots of them — to replace white-skinned people, and a couple of black-and brown-skinned dear friends of mine. Yep. Outsourcing. I’ve since made some REALLY good Indian friends, but I still miss my other friends.

      Best,

      — x

      (*) Just kidding…I know you still don’t like me, but a guy can hope, can’t he?

      1. @ xPraetorius

        I am married and my husband is Mexican. 🙂 Just because I disagree with you does not mean I dislike you. Plus I think most misunderstandings can be cleared up through simply conversation.

        As for with William his case did not go over so well. With it being a government job I did not expect them to side with him.

        As for the case of welfare. My opinions extend to whites that take advantage of it as well. And there are some really amazing posters who have opened my eyes to this as well. I do believe Brothawolf is one of them.

  11. @ xPraetorius

    I am not really sure who you are but is it etiquette to post what people have said on another blog on yours. I think you should probably ask the blogger if you can take his blog, but did you ask the commenters. I am still wondering where has American etiquette gone. I use to be able to say we do have them but on return I find that business, personal, and private etiquette has someone been lost. I wonder if they have gone the way of “Mrs. Manners” still I do believe that etiquette is necessary. Now I have written on your blog, I guess that is somewhat permission. In the future I ask that you not be like the claude taking pictures of your dinner in a restaurant without asking.

    Please have a nice day.

    For you side of the fence I am not sure you can understand real racism until it slaps you and takes away your confidence. From the moment before that you might just feel good and think everyone feels the same as you. When you get targeted out and it is obvious it separates you from what you felt the norm was. Americans should just feel American they should be able to work together to improve the general stand of this country. If we are sinking then I guess we should all understand that we are all on the same ship. Yet, it seems that some people feel since the back end of the ship is going down and they are at the front it doesn’t concern them. There shouldn’t really be a left and right divide but a committed us working on the problem of making sure this country is great.

    For my side of the fence, I have had bottles, and have been threaten and from where I stood it didn’t seem like it was we Americans. It seemed more like this is my country not yours and yet I span more generations than a lot of people in this country.

    End note.

    1. “There shouldn’t really be a left and right divide but a committed us working on the problem of making sure this country is great. “—–Yes, I agree.

  12. King of Trouble:
    @ xPraetorius

    I am not really sure who you are but is it etiquette to post what people have said on another blog on yours. I think you should probably ask the blogger if you can take his blog, but did you ask the commenters. I am still wondering where has American etiquette gone. I use to be able to say we do have them but on return I find that business, personal, and private etiquette has someone been lost. I wonder if they have gone the way of “Mrs. Manners” still I do believe that etiquette is necessary. Now I have written on your blog, I guess that is somewhat permission. In the future I ask that you not be like the claude taking pictures of your dinner in a restaurant without asking.

    Please have a nice day.

    For you side of the fence I am not sure you can understand real racism until it slaps you and takes away your confidence. From the moment before that you might just feel good and think everyone feels the same as you. When you get targeted out and it is obvious it separates you from what you felt the norm was. Americans should just feel American they should be able to work together to improve the general stand of this country. If we are sinking then I guess we should all understand that we are all on the same ship. Yet, it seems that some people feel since the back end of the ship is going down and they are at the front it doesn’t concern them. There shouldn’t really be a left and right divide but a committed us working on the problem of making sure this country is great.

    For my side of the fence, I have had bottles, and have been threaten and from where I stood it didn’t seem like it was we Americans. It seemed more like this is my country not yours and yet I span more generations than a lot of people in this country.

    End note.

    xPraetorius:
    @King — I brought over the content only when Abagond began censoring me. His flock, and abagond himself, pushed me off-topic constantly, at which point Abagond chastised ME for going off-topic. At that point, the writing was on the wall, and I began to record the proceedings. Again, if Abagond had been an honest moderator, I’d simply have stayed on his blog. However, he was cutting off discussion that HIS supporters and, in particular HE, foisted on me. He was part of the whole chorus calling me a racist, challenging my facts — he even asked me for my source for the $17 trillion factoid — and otherwise trying to pile on. I didn’t want to lose MY contributions — as I sometimes re-use it in various books and publications — as it looked as though I was going to.

    I didn’t ask the other commenters, because they had posted their ideas in public where anyone in the world with an internet connection could obtain it. If Abagond’s blog were private, then I’d have asked permission first.

    I strongly agree with your assertion that manners are important. Please remember that Abagond’s premise is that I’m a racist by virtue of the color of my skin. That’s offensive, racist, vile, outrageous, disgusting. At the VERY least it’s rude. When Abagond tried — hard — to equate Hitler with white people and white people with Hitler, he was at the VERY LEAST rude. It’s REALLY ironic that one of Abagond’s “12 excuses” is “It was the time.” Yep. Abagond does this only because “it’s the time” that lets him get away with his scurrilous and rude insinuation. Really, he forfeited the right to a polite response with his post.

    Play a little thought game with me, King…if I come up to you and call you a so-and-so, and a such-and-such, and a lousy, rotten, scummy this and that, should I REALLY expect a nice, sweet reply from you?

    As for the rest of your post, I’m largely in agreement, except for some particulars. If no one can understand anything unless they’ve experienced it, then there’s no point in studying anything outside of one’s own direct experience. Non-victims of racism are perfectly able to study, understand, dissect, open up, and propose solutions to racism and all MANNER of things outside of their own direct experience. I like your ship image…we ARE all in it together…that’s why I get so ticked off when the Abagond’s of the world call me a racist. His false and scurrilous charges — and especially those of the entire race grievance industry — are deeply damaging to ALL people.

    Despite all that, I can tell you that I have been denied housing, employment and credit because of the color of my skin.

    King said:
    There shouldn’t really be a left and right divide but a committed us working on the problem of making sure this country is great

    xPraetorius:
    Agree to some extent. However, since it’s rare that we EVER achieve unanimity as to HOW to make and keep our country great, then we need SOME way to set up a context for debate. “Left vs. Right” is convenient for that.

    Overall, I agree with much of your post. I love the “claude” image — I think — but am not sure I understand it. Can you explain?

    King:
    “For my side of the fence, I have had bottles, and have been threaten and from where I stood it didn’t seem like it was we Americans.”

    xPraetorius:
    It’s heartbreaking to hear that. I can tell you that I personally consider you an American in full, with all the honors, rights and privileges appertaining thereto. It’s heart-breaking that any American would think one iota less of you and I hope and pray that those incidents are far in your past, never to be repeated again.

    You said: “Americans should just feel American” To that I say only, “Bravo!” Beautifully, clearly, succinctly, sweetly said!

    Best,

    — x

  13. Again, NEVER try to tell me what I’m thinking. I left NOTHING out on purpose. Ok? I’LL tell YOU what I’m thinking and/or what is my purpose. Got it? I hope you FINALLY understand that. 🙂 For cryin’ out loud, why would I CONSTANTLY have to tell you that?!?

    But was I wrong?

    You see, I wasn’t born yesterday. I’ve seen this tactic before by other like-minded individuals. That is, unless you WERE being honest in your definition.

    Nope. Racism IS a set of beliefs. The beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the CONSEQUENCES of the beliefs. ALL “Ism’s” are doctrines. Beliefs, not acts.

    Shouldn’t it stand to reason that beliefs can be carried out by actions? For instance, if you believe in God, wouldn’t you attend church?

    Very much a man of the LEFT, Michael Bloomberg has never ACTUALLY belonged to the Republican Party — look it up — much less to the political right. He used the “Republican” label because it was politically convenient following Giuliani, but that’s where the resemblance to a Republican ends.

    Actually, that was my mistake. He’s now an independent, but he used to be a Republican. Nonetheless, neither one of us was correct.

    Thanks for this gift. She didn’t sign a pledge that said remotely ANYTHING like what you allege…she acknowledged a TRUE statistic: a “black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African American President.” Sorry…simply true. The numbers is the numbers. In no way did she EVER say that a black child was BETTER OFF under slavery. Ever. Furthermore, in no way did she EVER use that CORRECT statistic as an excuse to justify slavery. Her point — obviously — was to demonstrate how bad conditions are TODAY for black children. Go look up her REAL biography, and you’ll go and hide your head in shame for what you’ve implied about her today. You should be ashamed. I don’t need to brag for her, her bio does that by itself.

    Now I know you’re full of it. You’re pretty much agreeing with the cancelling out a humanistic crime to present a half-hearted statistic. In a sense she’s almost defending slavery and you’re siding with that statement.

    Here’s the truth: slave families were broken up during slavery. They sold them to other plantations. Sometimes they would never see each other again. Some baby slaves didn’t know their families because they were sold right after they were born.

    I am not ashamed for what I’ve found out. Why should I? YOU should be ashamed for trying to avoid the obvious fact that what Bachmann said was reprehensible. But as usual, anything to stick up for white people, it seems like.

    Thanks for this one! If you’re reduced to pointing to wacky, off-the-beaten-track, out-in-left-field incidents like this one, then why on earth are we arguing?!? Why aren’t you offering to buy me a beer and saying, “I’m so sorry, man! I was so wrong, and so silly!”? With me going, “That’s ok, don’t worry about it, BW…I’ll have a Bass Ale.”

    At this particular point, I really don’t have to make any more arguments. MY point — that white racism is not a big problem anymore in America — is being made a LOT more effectively by you and others.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. It will be a cold day in hell before I concede to your white protectionism and blame the black people rhetoric that I haven’t heard a million times before by other white-minded folks who parade around as if they are pinnacles of morality and knowledge.

    I will not give in and say that you’re right because you aren’t because for the simple fact that I see the world different because I lived it differently. I don’t have the luxury of living in a false realm there we live in a post-racial society because I don’t benefit from it in any way. And living otherwise is being false to myself.

    I know you don’t understand where I’m coming from. That’s why you tell me what I should think. Whether you like it not, racism is still a problem. That is what I KNOW.

    Oh? So YOU’RE the arbiter of who’s a good person and who’s not? In a rare moment of candor on your blog, you admitted you’re a racist. After that, you came up with a whole bunch of excuses for why it was okay that you, in particular, are a racist. I think that was shortly before you censored me from your blog. And, I’m supposed to accept YOUR definition for what is a good person or not? No, thanks!

    At the very least I’ve ADMITTED that I am a racist. I don’t hide behind, nor do I deny it. I am not proud of it, but I am working to eliminate it.

    What’s your excuse?

    Yep. It’s about what is right and wrong. Are you REALLY trying to tell me that diving into Abagond’s blog somehow indicates that I’m “afraid to step outside my zone?” Really?!? Did I NOT dive into Abagond’s blog FREAKIN’ sufficiently for you? REALLY?!? What FREAKIN’ more do you WANT, as far as “stepping outside my zone” is concerned?!?

    I agree: It is very, very, very, very, very, very, very wrong for you to run around recklessly throwing out the EXTREMELY toxic accusation of racism. I await your SINCERE apology. AND I await your SINCERE apology to the people I mentioned above. If you are NOT forthcoming with that apology, then I stand by my allegation that you and other black people eat children, as did Idi Amin and Jean-Bedel Bokassa (and surely, many other black people). If you ARE man enough to apologize, then you are my friend forever, and I’ll drop the silly idea of equating you with Amin and Bokassa.

    You went to Abagond’s blog, but not to learn something new or converse. You came to throw your weight around steadfast on your convictions and try to disrupt the topic with any other topic to avoid the subject with condemnations and inflated egotism.

    Let me explain something to you. I am not stupid. I see right through you. Like I said, I’ve seen this before with other people. I have experience in this kind of white racial frame that you are adamantly proud of.

    I will not apology to the likes of you. I have nothing to apologize for. If I have to apologize for telling another truth, a different truth, a different mindset, then frankly, you can go to hell.

    Giving in to you is what you want because it helps feed your ego. That won’t happen in a million, billion years. I know what I said is right, my brain doesn’t tell me so, it’s my heart.

    And I’m guessing that’s how you think as well, using emotions instead of actual logic to make conclusions. I can see it in your responses.

    I’ll just await for the day that you will slip up and use a racial epithet and then deny that its racist.

    1. By the way, when you said you were a ‘victim of racism’, is that why you’re constantly defending whites, even the most obvious racist ones? Is so, then you are using emotions over logic in your arguments.

      1. What in the world are you talking about?!? When I said I was the victim of racism, it was a clever way (I thought) of telling YOU guys to lay off the stupid racism accusations.

        And, I’m DO defend innocent white people from scurrilous accusations of racism, because the vast majority of white people are … ummmm… Oh, yeah! innocent of racism.

        I defended NO racist whites. If you’re talking about your blog post about Paula Deen, I said nothing more than that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude she is a racist. Apparently a judge agreed with me…tossed out the racial components of the legal actions against her. I DO feel a tad vindicated.

        Best,

        — x

    2. “Again, NEVER try to tell me what I’m thinking. I left NOTHING out on purpose. Ok? I’LL tell YOU what I’m thinking and/or what is my purpose. Got it? I hope you FINALLY understand that. 🙂 For cryin’ out loud, why would I CONSTANTLY have to tell you that?!?”

      BW:
      But was I wrong?

      xPraetorius:
      Yes, you were wrong.

      BW:
      You see, I wasn’t born yesterday. I’ve seen this tactic before by other like-minded individuals. That is, unless you WERE being honest in your definition.

      xPraetorius:
      Again, you’re speculating on what I’m thinking. Stop it. You don’t do that to me, and I won’t do that to you. K? My definition came from a source that I figured you would trust.

      BW:
      Nope. Racism IS a set of beliefs. The beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with the CONSEQUENCES of the beliefs. ALL “Ism’s” are doctrines. Beliefs, not acts.

      BW:
      Shouldn’t it stand to reason that beliefs can be carried out by actions? For instance, if you believe in God, wouldn’t you attend church?

      xPraetorius:
      Yes. But you didn’t ASK me for my definition of racist acts…you asked me for my definition of racism.

      BW: Very much a man of the LEFT, Michael Bloomberg has never ACTUALLY belonged to the Republican Party — look it up — much less to the political right. He used the “Republican” label because it was politically convenient following Giuliani, but that’s where the resemblance to a Republican ends.

      Actually, that was my mistake. He’s now an independent, but he used to be a Republican. Nonetheless, neither one of us was correct.

      xPraetorius:
      Not that I care much, but where did I get something incorrect? You’ll note that I said “used” (past tense) the Republican label. He REALLY used to be a democrat. He “switched” to Republican temporarily for political expediency.

      BW:
      Thanks for this gift. She didn’t sign a pledge that said remotely ANYTHING like what you allege…she acknowledged a TRUE statistic: a “black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African American President.” Sorry…simply true. The numbers is the numbers. In no way did she EVER say that a black child was BETTER OFF under slavery. Ever. Furthermore, in no way did she EVER use that CORRECT statistic as an excuse to justify slavery. Her point — obviously — was to demonstrate how bad conditions are TODAY for black children. Go look up her REAL biography, and you’ll go and hide your head in shame for what you’ve implied about her today. You should be ashamed. I don’t need to brag for her, her bio does that by itself.

      Now I know you’re full of it. You’re pretty much agreeing with the cancelling out a humanistic crime to present a half-hearted statistic. In a sense she’s almost defending slavery and you’re siding with that statement.

      xPraetorius:
      Boy, you really, REALLY want to trap me, don’t you? It’s kind of funny. 🙂 ** sigh ** In no way does Bachmann even remotely attempt to justify slavery. Why? Because she DOESN’T justify slavery! No prominent white person or anyone whom anyone takes seriously DOES! And, no RATIONAL reading of what Bachman said can possibly support a bizarre conclusion that Michelle Bachmann justifies slavery. Her use of the correct statistic PLAINLY shows how bad conditions are TODAY. Play a little thought game with me BW: Let’s say that historians discover a positive fact about black people and their character during the time of slavery. Should historians simply ignore that fact because others might interpret it as casting a positive light on slavery? THAT would be pretty dishonest, now wouldn’t it.

      BW:
      Here’s the truth: slave families were broken up during slavery. They sold them to other plantations. Sometimes they would never see each other again. Some baby slaves didn’t know their families because they were sold right after they were born.

      xPraetorius:
      Yep. Slavery was horrible.

      I am not ashamed for what I’ve found out. Why should I? YOU should be ashamed for trying to avoid the obvious fact that what Bachmann said was reprehensible. But as usual, anything to stick up for white people, it seems like.

      xPraetorius:
      Nope. Anything to stick up for INNOCENT people, wrongly accused…of any or all colors. I’ve been doing that quite a lot in this and Abagond’s blog. I tried to do it in yours before you censored me. Where YOU have it VERY wrong is in disagreeing with this truth: An innocent white person is JUST AS innocent as an innocent black person. Where YOU seem to have a problem is in viewing people as people. They’re either POC or not, or this or that, or the other thing. No: People are people no MATTER what color their skin is. It’s this apparent inability of some people to see PAST skin color that is the MUCH larger problem in America. It’s what allows charlatans and mountebanks like Al Sharpton to howl to the high heavens over the Trayvon Martin tragedy, while ignoring the three black thugs who beat up the white teenager on that bus. And the truth about BOTH incident ALL ALONG, is that there simply was NO racial component in EITHER.

      The important point is, then, that I’M not ashamed for what you’ve found out either, and I’ve explained why at some length these past few days. What Bachmann said was true. The truth is never reprehensible…except on your and Abagond’s blogs.

      BW:
      Thanks for this one! If you’re reduced to pointing to wacky, off-the-beaten-track, out-in-left-field incidents like this one, then why on earth are we arguing?!? Why aren’t you offering to buy me a beer and saying, “I’m so sorry, man! I was so wrong, and so silly!”? With me going, “That’s ok, don’t worry about it, BW…I’ll have a Bass Ale.”

      At this particular point, I really don’t have to make any more arguments. MY point — that white racism is not a big problem anymore in America — is being made a LOT more effectively by you and others.

      I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. It will be a cold day in hell before I concede to your white protectionism and blame the black people rhetoric that I haven’t heard a million times before by other white-minded folks who parade around as if they are pinnacles of morality and knowledge.

      xPraetorius:
      Ok. I won’t hold my breath. However, when you DO come around…I’ll have a Bass Ale.

      BW:
      I will not give in and say that you’re right because you aren’t because for the simple fact that I see the world different because I lived it differently. I don’t have the luxury of living in a false realm there we live in a post-racial society because I don’t benefit from it in any way. And living otherwise is being false to myself.

      xPraetorius:
      So, then you don’t EVEN admit to the possibility that we BOTH could be right! Or, that we BOTH could be BOTH right in places and wrong in others? That’s a kind of simplistic view, dont you think? I will tell you an absolute, irrefutable, immutable, non-debatable truth: Your experience is just that YOUR experience. It has no bearing whatsoever on the condition of the larger country as a whole. Play a little thought game with me, BW: Once there was a country of 300 million people that had the following race problem: one white dude hates all black people. He singles out one black man and dedicates his life to making that black man’s life miserable. He commits curelty after cruelty against that black man simply because of the color of his skin. How would you then characterize race relations in that country? Easy: if that’s their ONLY race problem, then that country does NOT have a big racism problem. They have a problem, of course, in the person of the white guy. But, he’s not a big problem for the ENTIRE SOCIETY. Now, how do you think the white guy’s victim views race relations in that country? HE thinks things are pretty dismal, doesn’t he? However, being the smart man that he is, he recognizes that he can’t extrapolate HIS PERSONAL experiences across an entire country, so he does some ACTUAL research — not just sitting in echo chamber blogs — and discovers that other than the one white moron, things are pretty good elsewhere. So, he packs his bags and leaves and lives happily ever after, while the white moron spends his day sin frustration trying to find the black dude. Happy ending. Yes, yes, yes, I know…why should the BLACK dude have to leave? Why not the moronic white dude? Actually, in the CORRECT scenario, OTHER people approach the white dude and tell him either to shape up or ship out. However, the point was: (1) you can’t extrapolate YOUR PERSONAL experiences across an entire country, and (2) while the black hero of my thought game had some really bad experiences, white racism in the country is NOT a big problem. Just as in the USA today.

      BW:
      I know you don’t understand where I’m coming from. That’s why you tell me what I should think. Whether you like it not, racism is still a problem. That is what I KNOW.

      xPraetorius:
      Yep. I know it too. Thank goodness I never said it wasn’t. White racism’s just not a BIG problem. WAY smaller than, for example, alcoholism, or cancer or even the common cold. Much, MUCH smaller than the the current economic condition of the country. It’s a much smaller problem than illiteracy. It’s DEFINITELY a MUCH smaller problem than black racism, which is out and loud and proud and open and toxic.

      BW:
      Oh? So YOU’RE the arbiter of who’s a good person and who’s not? In a rare moment of candor on your blog, you admitted you’re a racist. After that, you came up with a whole bunch of excuses for why it was okay that you, in particular, are a racist. I think that was shortly before you censored me from your blog. And, I’m supposed to accept YOUR definition for what is a good person or not? No, thanks!

      BW:
      At the very least I’ve ADMITTED that I am a racist. I don’t hide behind, nor do I deny it. I am not proud of it, but I am working to eliminate it.

      xPraetorius:
      And I applaud you for admitting it. I, on the other hand, am not a racist.

      BW:
      What’s your excuse?

      xPraetorius:
      I’m not one.

      BW:
      Yep. It’s about what is right and wrong. Are you REALLY trying to tell me that diving into Abagond’s blog somehow indicates that I’m “afraid to step outside my zone?” Really?!? Did I NOT dive into Abagond’s blog FREAKIN’ sufficiently for you? REALLY?!? What FREAKIN’ more do you WANT, as far as “stepping outside my zone” is concerned?!?

      I agree: It is very, very, very, very, very, very, very wrong for you to run around recklessly throwing out the EXTREMELY toxic accusation of racism. I await your SINCERE apology. AND I await your SINCERE apology to the people I mentioned above. If you are NOT forthcoming with that apology, then I stand by my allegation that you and other black people eat children, as did Idi Amin and Jean-Bedel Bokassa (and surely, many other black people). If you ARE man enough to apologize, then you are my friend forever, and I’ll drop the silly idea of equating you with Amin and Bokassa.

      You went to Abagond’s blog, but not to learn something new or converse. You came to throw your weight around steadfast on your convictions and try to disrupt the topic with any other topic to avoid the subject with condemnations and inflated egotism.

      xPraetorius:
      First, I’LL tell you why I went to Abagond’s blog, not YOU. Got it? Sheesh! Second: Abagond’s basic premise was to equate white people with Hitler and Hitler with white people. If that’s not DEEPLY offensive, then nothing is. I wasn’t offended, because the premise was too stupid to cause offense. But, the response to the deeply offensive likely should NOT be a milquetoast one. I had a LONG discussion with sharina on this, in which she saw my point, but suggested that I use a different approach. I’ll definitely consider it. However, BW, let me ask you this: If someone were to approach you on the street and call you some horrible name, would you respond with all sweetness and light? Wouldn’t you think that a vigorous response might be justified?

      BW:
      Let me explain something to you. I am not stupid. I see right through you. Like I said, I’ve seen this before with other people. I have experience in this kind of white racial frame that you are adamantly proud of.

      xPraetorius:
      You don’t see through me in any way. I’m not any other people. I’m me. You have no idea UNDER THE SUN what I’m like outside the context of this duscussion. You’re NOT stupid; that’s why saying such a stupid thing ought to be beneath you. You should consider never saying anything like that to anyone ever again.

      BW:
      I will not apology to the likes of you. I have nothing to apologize for. If I have to apologize for telling another truth, a different truth, a different mindset, then frankly, you can go to hell.

      xPraetorius:
      You run around calling innocent people racists — the most toxic accusation in the country today — and you won’t apologize. What would YOU call that? Then, I guess it’s just fine to say it’s a FACT that you and Abagond and Amin and Bokassa are all the same, because of the color of your skin.

      BW:
      Giving in to you is what you want because it helps feed your ego. That won’t happen in a million, billion years. I know what I said is right, my brain doesn’t tell me so, it’s my heart.

      xPraetorius:
      You’re right about THAT one! There’s very little brain activity evident in your writing.

      BW:
      And I’m guessing that’s how you think as well, using emotions instead of actual logic to make conclusions. I can see it in your responses.

      xPraetorius:
      Nope. You can’t. @BW: now your just mailing it in.

      BW:
      I’ll just await for the day that you will slip up and use a racial epithet and then deny that its racist.

      xPraetorius:
      Ok…you wait. Since I’ve never done it in more than 50 years of life, I expect I won’t be “slipping up” anytime soon. However, you DID just reveal a MAJOR problem with the race grievance industry. One slip-up and people are RUINED. There’s no a person on earth — black, white, brown, red, yellow of other — whose life could withstand THAT scrutiny.

      Oh, and I’ll have a Bass Ale.

      Best,

      — x

      1. What in the world are you talking about?!? When I said I was the victim of racism, it was a clever way (I thought) of telling YOU guys to lay off the stupid racism accusations.

        Again, I’ve seen that tactic before by other people who want to deviate from the topic. Anything you’ve said, I’ve already heard of numerous times. What you’re saying and doing is nothing new.

        And, I’m DO defend innocent white people from scurrilous accusations of racism, because the vast majority of white people are … ummmm… Oh, yeah! innocent of racism.

        And most whites never speak out against racism. If they see it happen, they never say anything. That’s just as bad as actually committing the act of racism, and some – like you – try to defend those people who benefit from a system set up for them due to skin color.

        I defended NO racist whites. If you’re talking about your blog post about Paula Deen, I said nothing more than that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude she is a racist. Apparently a judge agreed with me…tossed out the racial components of the legal actions against her. I DO feel a tad vindicated.

        When you make any response that says that anyone who accuses her of racism is wrong, that is defending her, a racist white. And thinking that a judge is proof of that means nothing.

        You try and try, but you keep denying other points of view because you’re overprotective of your own. You’re just showing how afraid you are of the view from a black person who doesn’t think like you want him to think.

        Again, you’re speculating on what I’m thinking. Stop it. You don’t do that to me, and I won’t do that to you. K? My definition came from a source that I figured you would trust.

        Again with the sources. You have a source for every explanation, eh? lol Have you so much as QUESTIONED these sources? Do you look for only the type of sources to support your views and ignore opposing ones? If so, that is intellectually dishonest.

        You see, I and other people question your views, but you seem to be too sensitive to talk to. You seem to act like a crybaby when we disagree and call you out on your demeaning attitude. You act like a sociopath sometimes.

        Boy, you really, REALLY want to trap me, don’t you? It’s kind of funny. 🙂 ** sigh ** In no way does Bachmann even remotely attempt to justify slavery. Why? Because she DOESN’T justify slavery! No prominent white person or anyone whom anyone takes seriously DOES! And, no RATIONAL reading of what Bachman said can possibly support a bizarre conclusion that Michelle Bachmann justifies slavery. Her use of the correct statistic PLAINLY shows how bad conditions are TODAY. Play a little thought game with me BW: Let’s say that historians discover a positive fact about black people and their character during the time of slavery. Should historians simply ignore that fact because others might interpret it as casting a positive light on slavery? THAT would be pretty dishonest, now wouldn’t it.

        A positive light on slavery? Really?

        During slavery blacks were stripped of their homelands, culture and names. They were beaten to death, forced to work in harsh conditions, had their humanity and pride stripped by their slave masters, and was forced to love his masters unconditionally. They can never be human because they were never seen as human. And even after slavery was abolished, you still had the black codes, Jim Crow, segregation, and the War on Drugs.

        But then you may consider that as typical leftist garbage huh? Exposing the unpleasant truth is a leftist ploy, isn’t it, not simply a cry for moral and civil justice. SMH

        Again, you keep repeating yourself with the “white racism is not a big problem” as if saying it numerous times will make it true sooner or later. It’s not how it works in real life. How could you possibly know it’s not a big problem if you’ve never experienced its oppression or harsh treatment?

        I will tell you an absolute, irrefutable, immutable, non-debatable truth: Your experience is just that YOUR experience. It has no bearing whatsoever on the condition of the larger country as a whole.

        That much I will agree to an extent. My experience differs from that of the next person.

        HOWEVER, when you have a huge population people who have been the victim of racism, interpersonal or institutional, you CAN NOT sit there and deny their experiences and call them names like ‘race baiters’ and ‘reverse racists’

        White racism’s just not a BIG problem.

        You may THINK it’s not a big problem, but that’s just it, it’s what YOU think. It’s not what is true.

        You’re just beating a dead horse avoiding the truths from people different from you. You continue to protect white people as much as possible, and you it’s obvious that nothing I or anyone else can say can prove our cases because you’ve made up your mind and you want me sooooooo much to agree with you on everything. Uhhh, no thanks.

        In fact, you’re not even arguing anymore. You’re just babbling and repeating yourself. You seem to be running dry.

        I’m seriously getting tired of this.

        You show signs of a sociopath, those who’ve done something wrong to others, WILL NOT take any responsibility for it and blame it on victims just like many white people who can’t stand to take accountability for the wrongs their people have done to POC throughout history. And yes, white people have done a hell of a lot of things wrong against the world.

        White people have murdered, raped, displaced and enslaved POC around the world in their conquest of Earth to satisfy the greed of their European and American masters who can’t seem to get enough power, profit and privileges. The blood of my ancestors are on the hands of this country. And you are defending their savageness of slavery and racism.

        If this shames you, let it. You need to feel ashamed, not because of their crimes, but because you benefit from without apologies and you defend it subtly. You are devoid of conscious. Yet somehow, you have the nerve to tell us about our shortcomings on top of your soapbox. But you can’t stand it when someone calls you out on your BS. This is a sign of a sociopath.

        So yes, I call you a racist. And I know that hurts the hell out of you. But it’s the truth. You ARE racist just like your ancestors who annihilated the First Nation people, enslaved the African people, Bombed the Asian people, attacked and displaced the Latino people and all for the sake of taking over the world no matter how many people were destroyed. You’re not as innocent as you think you are. Remember that.

        Adios.

        1. @BrothaWolf: I’m going to give you a little lesson in writing and thinking. After each passage, where you do something that is either useless, or obviously incorrect, or constitutes magical mind-reading, or a throwaway or some other dumb thing, I’ll note it. That notation will be my response. Look for it surrounded by brackets as follows: [*** text here ***]. I’ve deleted the original text that I wrote to avoid confusion.

          BW:
          Again, I’ve seen that tactic before by other people who want to deviate from the topic. Anything you’ve said, I’ve already heard of numerous times. What you’re saying and doing is nothing new. [*** engages in magical mind-reading. You can’t tell people what they want or intend. ***] [*** uses throwaway phrase. “What you’re saying and doing is nothing new.” Response: So what? It took many years of people saying the same thing over and over again for the abolitionist movement to prevail. ***]

          And most whites never speak out against racism. [*** meaningless without context. Also incorrect: How does BW know what most whites do or don’t do, say or don’t say? ***] If they see it happen, they never say anything. [*** Meaningless speculation. BW has, of course, no idea what whites see happening around them. Furthermore, according to what he has HIMSELF said, they do NOT see it. ***]That’s just as bad as actually committing the act of racism, [*** engages in ridiculous exaggeration. Suggests that the act of killing someone for racist reasons is somehow BETTER than ignoring that killing. ***] and some – like you – try to defend those people who benefit from a system set up for them due to skin color. [*** Implies a non-existent conclusion. It is NOT a settled fact that anyone today actually “benefits from a system set up for them due to skin color.” ***]

          When you make any response that says that anyone who accuses her of racism is wrong, that is defending her, a racist white. [*** Doesn’t address the ACTUAL topic. An honest re-read shows that I never defended Paula Deen, merely said there was insufficient evidence to condemn her for racism at that point. Subsequent events have proven me correct. ***] And thinking that a judge is proof of that means nothing. [*** Dismisses objective evidence in favor of my point. ***]

          You try and try, but you keep denying other points of view because you’re overprotective of your own. You’re just showing how afraid you are of the view from a black person who doesn’t think like you want him to think. [*** Engages in magical mind-reading. The writer has no idea what I’m thinking or am afraid of. It is equally plausible to argue that my tenacity in staying in the ring with BW indicates a LACK of fear. ***]

          Again with the sources. You have a source for every explanation, eh? lol Have you so much as QUESTIONED these sources? [*** Irrelevant. Once I’ve posted them publicly, it is YOUR obligation to check them. If they are wanting, then you have quite a point in your favor. Sourcing ACTUALLY does a favor to the OTHER person; not the one doing the sourcing. ***] Do you look for only the type of sources to support your views and ignore opposing ones? [*** Rhetorical question inviting the response: No. Rhetorical questions ARE effective tools, but only when you can pose them, knowing that any answer NOT to you liking makes the responder look bad. THAT is the art of the use of a rhetorical question; eg: “Are you really trying to tell me that white people have made NO progress in their thinking and actions in two hundred years? Any answer in the affirmative makes the responder look silly. “***] If so, that is intellectually dishonest. [*** Concludes a weak paragraph based on silly tactics and substanceless arguments. ***]

          You see, I and other people question your views, but you seem to be too sensitive to talk to. You seem to act like a crybaby when we disagree and call you out on your demeaning attitude. You act like a sociopath sometimes. [*** Engages in magical mind-reading. Engages in pointless name-calling (“sociopath”).. At no point, do my text or my arguments make me look “too sensitive to talk to,” or “like a sociopath.” To the contrary, you and your colleagues, exhibit the hyper-sensitivity. “Sociopath” is a pointless exercise in dumb hyperbole. ***]

          A positive light on slavery? Really? [*** Deflects, Ignores the point. The text to which BE refers said that: no one in any position of prominence whatsoever has ever tried to shine a positive light on slavery. Again, this is BW either willfully or not ignoring the actual point. Either way, that is the tactic of the desperate — or the illiterate. ***]

          During slavery blacks were stripped of their homelands, culture and names. They were beaten to death, forced to work in harsh conditions, had their humanity and pride stripped by their slave masters, and was forced to love his masters unconditionally. They can never be human because they were never seen as human. And even after slavery was abolished, you still had the black codes, Jim Crow, segregation, and the War on Drugs. [*** Mostly irrlevant mish-mosh. The stuff referring to the crimes against blacks has nothing to do with the situation today. The black codes and Jim Crow are no more, bolstering my conclusion. The “war on Drugs” is part of a much bigger topic, of which “racism” is a sub-topic under debate. ***].

          But then you may consider that as typical leftist garbage huh? Exposing the unpleasant truth is a leftist ploy, isn’t it, not simply a cry for moral and civil justice. SMH [*** Throwaway. Furthermore, exposing “truth” is HARDLY something leftists are known for. ***]

          Again, you keep repeating yourself with the “white racism is not a big problem” as if saying it numerous times will make it true sooner or later. It’s not how it works in real life. How could you possibly know it’s not a big problem if you’ve never experienced its oppression or harsh treatment? [*** Irrelevant. Suggests that only personal experience can provide knowledge of the entire problem in the entire U.S. Repeats an argument long recognized as illegitimate. Whether or not I’ve experienced racism is perfectly irrelevant…to the BIGGER PICTURE. Whether or not BW has experienced racism is perfectly irrelevant…to the BIGGER PICTURE. The REAL topic is, as I’ve said many, many times…the current situation in America, where, as I’ve pretty much demonstrated, white racism is no longer a big problem. ***]

          That much I will agree to an extent. My experience differs from that of the next person. [*** Hooray! We can actually LEAVE this in! ***]

          HOWEVER, when you have a huge population people who have been the victim of racism, interpersonal or institutional, you CAN NOT sit there and deny their experiences and call them names like ‘race baiters’ and ‘reverse racists’ [Straw men, and no context. Huge population? Oh? Just because YOU say so? We’ve determined that your personal anecdotes are irrelevant, so I expect you to provide details on this. Are you REALLY trying to tell me that just as many or more black people experience racism that deleteriously affects their lives as 50 years ago? I’ll challenge that. I don’t think I’ll have a problem in demonstrating that WAAAAAAAAAAAYYY fewer black people experience racism that deleteriously affects their lives today than 50 years ago. Let’s see, want me to start naming names? If you ask me to name the names of FABULOUSLY wealthy and successful black people, I’m going to be here for a while. ]

          You may THINK it’s not a big problem, but that’s just it, it’s what YOU think. It’s not what is true. [*** Just says something. No supporting argument. Anyone can just say things. ***]

          You’re just beating a dead horse avoiding the truths from people different from you. You continue to protect white people as much as possible, and you it’s obvious that nothing I or anyone else can say can prove our cases because you’ve made up your mind and you want me sooooooo much to agree with you on everything. Uhhh, no thanks. [*** Again, just saying thing. Says only something that could be repeated right back perfectly legitimately. it IS, demonstrably, true that BW is “just beating a dead horse avoiding the truths from people different from” him. Engages in magical mind-reading. BW doesn’t know what I want as regards him. Maybe I’m just looking for a forum to say these things to a larger audience, and BW’s silly arguments provide that forum. 🙂 ***]

          In fact, you’re not even arguing anymore. You’re just babbling and repeating yourself. You seem to be running dry. [*** Gratuitous insults are ALWAYS throwaways. However, this particular one is a typical way for leftists, race-baiters and race-addicts to say, “I’m out of gas, so I’m going to call you stupid, not worth engaging, and go away.” ***]

          I’m seriously getting tired of this. [*** Throwaway. Why are YOU getting tired? I’m the one doing all the work here! 🙂 ***]

          You show signs of a sociopath, those who’ve done something wrong to others, WILL NOT take any responsibility for it and blame it on victims just like many white people who can’t stand to take accountability for the wrongs their people have done to POC throughout history. And yes, white people have done a hell of a lot of things wrong against the world. [*** More name-calling. Attempt at soaring rhetoric. Irrelevant. The blood of your ancestors is NOT on the hands of this country. 150 years ago it was, but not anymore. Sorry. Again, what white people have done around the world in the past is (1) debatable, and (2) irrelevant. They’re certainly not doing anything like that now, and haven’t been for 50 years. Furthermore, they’ve been trying to make amends to any group that could pull itself together and join the grievance industry. That whole process has been going on for more than 200 years, but at an accelerated pace for 50 years. Plainly not a racist race. ***]

          White people have murdered, raped, displaced and enslaved POC around the world in their conquest of Earth to satisfy the greed of their European and American masters who can’t seem to get enough power, profit and privileges. The blood of my ancestors are on the hands of this country. And you are defending their savageness of slavery and racism. [*** Muddled nonsense. The blood of BW’s ancestors is on the hands of people dead for more than a century. The first part of his screed is better, and more accurately written as: “White, black, red, yellow, brown, people have murdered, raped, displaced and enslaved people of all colors around the world in their conquest of Earth to satisfy the greed of their masters who can’t seem to get enough power, profit and privileges.” That is more accurate. ***]

          If this shames you, let it. You need to feel ashamed, not because of their crimes, but because you benefit from without apologies and you defend it subtly. You are devoid of conscious. Yet somehow, you have the nerve to tell us about our shortcomings on top of your soapbox. But you can’t stand it when someone calls you out on your BS. This is a sign of a sociopath. [*** Just a bunch of throwaway lines. BW, has a little book and goes to it to say, “Hmmm…let’s see. Well, Mr. x: #11, #17, #37, #41, #61…AND your mother dresses you funny! So there!” Throwaways do NOT constitute an argument. ***]

          So yes, I call you a racist. And I know that hurts the hell out of you. But it’s the truth. You ARE racist just like your ancestors who annihilated the First Nation people, enslaved the African people, Bombed the Asian people, attacked and displaced the Latino people and all for the sake of taking over the world no matter how many people were destroyed. You’re not as innocent as you think you are. Remember that. [*** Aaaaaand! Last, but not least the RACISM! accusation! Of course. This coming from an admitted racist, of course, carries no water whatsoever. And, guess what…I am EXACTLY as innocent as I think I am. Not one iota less or more. ***]

          Adios. [*** Vaya con dios, hermano. ***]

          Summary: BW: you had exactly one line that was worth preserving. It was: “That much I will agree to an extent. My experience differs from that of the next person.” For all the text you wrote, that’s not a very good record.

          Best,

          — x

    3. One more quick thing, BW. You HAVE, obviously, got under my skin at times, and I allowed myself to reply in an intemperate manner. For that I DO apologize.

      I’m DEFINITELY not above admitting when I’ve done wrong, and apologizing for it.

      So, again, I apologize for the times when I allowed myself to respond testily. I’ll try to keep my tone more civil with you.

      Best,

      — x

  14.  “MY point — that white racism is not a big problem anymore in America — is being made a LOT more effectively by you and others.”—The sad part here is you never proved it nor did others. You are riding on the don’t know to form a conclusion and claim a victory which is decietful. You may say unintentional but after continously pointing this out to you…at this point becomes intentional. Just because uou keep saying it is one way won’t make it true.

    1. Not sure I understand what you’re getting at here, sharina. I think I made quite a good point that white racism is not a big problem, and supported it with quite a bit of evidence.

      However, when Abagond did the censoring thing, yes, I get to declare “victory” of sorts, in that censoring, name-calling, personal attacks are all typical signs that someone’s out of gas.

      Best,

      — x

      1. “I think I made quite a good point that white racism is not a big problem, and supported it with quite a bit of evidence. “–I think and i did are two different things. I think peanut butter is gross but the vast majority may disagree. Instead of the I think I think. See where you didn’t and improve

        As to evidence…screaming 5 points and $17 trillion over and over again is not evidence and as to why is in my other posts.

        “However, when Abagond did the censoring thing, yes, I get to declare “victory” of sorts, in that censoring, name-calling, personal attacks are all typical signs that someone’s out of gas.”—Are you tired of pointing out what Abagond did to you like a victim? Can we converse without talking about Abagond in every post?

        1. Lol! Sure…but when I “declared victory,” it was precisely because of Abagond’s action, so I kind of had to mention him.

          Good point. I DO try to avoid the weak phrase, “I think,” in favor of more positive, forceful assertions.

          I didn’t scream anything…the tone of my posts is very measured, overall. And I DID use a LOT of evidence throughout all the proceedings.

          Best,

          — x

          1. “And I DID use a LOT of evidence throughout all the proceedings”—Yet you didn’t or rather what you conclude as evidence is not.

            What evidence have you provided that proves your 5 points works with the majority of black people? You have not provided evidence that a majority of black people were successful in following your 5 points. In fact when I have asked this previously the subject quickly gets shifted to something else (usually Abagond’s flaws).

            It is not being addressed at all, but you keep telling yourself what YOU falsely believe you did. I could be a yes man and tell you how so right you are, but I would be lying to you and myself. You didn’t do and changing to I DID does not make it so…it just allows you to carry the delusion you did and not improve.

          2. sharina: Once again, I told everyone that the five points were a thought exercise. I never characterized them as evidence. What WAS evidence was the lack of anyone’s attempt to address them seriously.

            Will they work for the majority of black people? The answer to that question is the crux of the entire thought exercise. My humble opinion? Yep.

            Now, as to your question: HAVE the majority of black people even tried them? I don’t know, but I’m guessing not. I admit it’s just a guess. A LOT of research would be needed with many, many hiring managers to know better.

            The $17 trillion data point was evidence. I sourced it as well.

            I don’t want a yes man or woman, but you DO owe it to yourself and to me to be honest. I HAVE — VERY plainly — addressed the objections.

            As you once said, we’re repeating ourselves, so I won’t respond to this again. I WILL, however, let you KNOW that we already covered it if you bring it up again.

            So, does this mean you won’t marry me? 🙂

            Best,

            — x

          3. “a thought exercise”—Then you know what I am going to say to this if it has not already been said.

            🙂

  15. Although I am not in the art of changing minds, I am trying to get you to see your own flaw so you can improve. I can’t make you see what you don’t want to and for that I apologize. It is my mistake and my head ache.

      1. @ xPraetorius

        Don’t apologize. My head ache is the result of me being sick.

        “at least a little bit — to change minds. “—That is very true. I personally have lost my passion to change minds (which may explain why I don’t see the point in others doing it) but that should not be a reason to deter you from doing such.

Leave a Reply to xPraetorius Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s