I rarely touch on the subject of political correctness as a focus in my writings, partially because the entire issue is so awash in pundits on either side that the scrambling clatter of voices tends to drown out the liberty movement perspective. Also, I don’t really see PC cultism as separate from the problems I am always battling against: collectivism and the erasure of the individual in the name of pleasing society. Political correctness is nothing more than a tool that collectivists and statists exploit in order to better achieve their endgame, which is conning the masses into believing that the group mind is real and that the individual mind is fiction.
Last year, I covered the PC issue in my article “The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness.” I believe I analyzed the bulk of the issue extensively. However, the times are changing at a pace that boggles the mind; and this is by design. So, it may be necessary to square off against this monstrosity once again.
In order to better examine the true insanity of what many people now term “social justice warriors,” I must study a few aspects of that strange movement separately. First, let’s take a brief look at the mindset of your average social justice circus clown so that we might better understand what makes him/her/it tick.
Rebel Without A Legitimate Cause
I spent several years (up until 2004, when I woke up from the false paradigm madness) as a Democrat. And before anyone judges that particular decision, I would suggest they keep in mind the outright fascist brothel for the military-industrial complex the Republican Party had become at that point and remains to this day. Almost every stepping stone that Barack Obama is using today to eradicate the Constitution was set in place by the Bush dynasty, including the Authorization Of Military Force, which was the foundation for the National Defence Authorization Act and the legal precedence for indefinite detention without trial of ANY person (including an American citizen) accused of terrorism by the president of the U.S., as well as the use of assassination by executive order and the implementation of mass electronic surveillance without warrant.
But, hell, these are real issues — issues that many of my fellow Democrats at the time claimed they actually cared about. Today, though, liberal concerns about unconstitutional actions by the federal government have all but vanished. Today, the left fights the good fight against flags on the hoods of cars from long-canceled television shows and battles tooth and nail for the “right” of boys wearing wigs and skirts to use the girl’s bathroom. Today, the left even fights to remove the words “boy” and “girl” from our vocabulary. Yes, such noble pursuits as these will surely be remembered as a pinnacle in the annals of societal reform.
Maybe I realize the ideological goals of the social justice machine are meaningless on a surface level; and maybe you realize this, too. But these people live in their own little universe, which doesn’t extend far beyond the borders of their college campuses, the various Web forums they have hijacked and a trendy Marxist wine-and-swinger party here and there in New York or Hollywood. They actually think that they are on some great social crusade on par with the civil rights movements of the mid-1900s. They think they are the next Martin Luther King Jr. or the next Gandhi. The underlying banality and pointlessness of their cause completely escapes them. The PC cult is, in many respects, the antithesis of the liberty movement. We fight legitimate threats against legitimate freedoms; they fight mostly imaginary threats and seek to eradicate freedoms.
Don’t get me wrong; sometimes our concerns do align. For instance, liberty proponents fight back against the militarization of police just as avidly as leftists do, if not more so. But our movements handle the problem in very different ways. Look at Ferguson, Missouri, where anyone with any sense should be able to admit that the government response to protests was absolutely a step toward tyranny, ignoring violent looters while attacking peaceful activists. Leftists and PC cultists decided to follow the Saul Alinsky/communist playbook, busing in provocateurs from Chicago to further loot and burn down businesses even if they belonged to ethnic minorities. In the meantime, the liberty movement and Oath Keepers sent armed and trained men to defend those businesses REGARDLESS of who owned them and defied police and federal agents who tried to stop them.
The left gave the police and government a rationale for being draconian, while we removed the need for police and government entirely by providing security for the neighborhood (killing two birds with one stone). Either their methods are purely ignorant and do not work, or their methods are meant to achieve the opposite of their claims. In the end, the PC movement only serves establishment goals toward a fully collectivist and centralized society. Their publicly stated intentions are otherwise pointless.
Your average PC drone does not understand the grander plan at work, nor does he want to. All he cares about is that he has found a “purpose” — a fabricated purpose as a useful idiot for power brokers, but a purpose nonetheless.
People Must Be Forced To Bake Gay Cakes
I personally do not care if two people of the same gender want to be in a relationship, but I do find the issue of gay marriage (and marriage in general) a rather odd conflict that misses the whole point. Marriage has been and always will be a religious institution, not federal; and I find government involvement in this institution to be rather despicable. When the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage came down, I felt a little sorry for all the joyfully hopping homosexuals on the marbled steps of the hallowed building, primarily because they essentially were fighting for the state to provide recognition and legitimacy for their relationships. Frankly, who gives a rip what the state has to say in terms of your relationships or mine? The state is an arbitrary edifice, a facade wielding illusory power. If a relationship is based on true and enduring connection, then that is all that matters, whether the Supreme Court dignifies it or not.
The only advantage to solidifying gay marriage in the eyes of the state is the advantage of being able to then use the state as an attack dog in order to force religious institutions to accept the status of gays in the same way the government does. And unfortunately, this is exactly what the PC cult is doing. What they do not seem to understand is that recognition by the state does not necessarily translate to recognition by religious organizations, nor should it.
Should an individual, organization or business be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Should the state be allowed to force people into servitude to one group or another even if it is against their core values?
PC champions desperately try to make these questions a matter of “discrimination” alone. But they are more about personal rights and personal property and less about “hate speech.” Under natural law, as well as under the constitution, an individual has every right to refuse association with any other person for ANY reason. If I do not like you, the government does not have the authority to force me to be around you or to work for you. But this line has been consistently blurred over the years through legal chicanery. As I’m sure most readers are familiar, the issue of gay cakes seems to arise over and over, as in cases in Colorado and Oregon in which religiously oriented business owners were punished for refusing to provide service for gay customers. Keep in mind, these businesses did not refuse outright service to gays. What they did refuse, was to make gay wedding cakes. To do so would have been in outright conflict with their religious principles.
Punishments have included crippling fines designed to put store owners out of business and have even included gag orders restricting the freedom of businesses to continue speaking out against the orientation of customers they have refused to do business with.
In order to validate such actions, leftists will invariably bring up segregation as a backdrop for the gay cake debate. “What if the customers were black,” they ask. “Is it OK for a business to be whites only?”
My response? Yes, according the dictates of individual liberty, yes it is okay.
First, to be clear, I am talking specifically about private individuals and businesses, not public institutions as in the argument explored during Brown v. Board of Education. Private and public spaces are different issues with different nuances. I personally believe it is ignorant to judge someone solely on the color of his skin, and sexual orientation is not necessarily an issue to me. But it is equally ignorant for someone to think that the state exists to protect his feelings from being hurt. I’m sorry, but discrimination is a fact of life and always will be as long as individualism exists. The PC cultists don’t just want government recognition of their status; they want to homogenize individualism, erase it, and force the rest of us to vehemently approve of that status without question. This is unacceptable.
Your feelings do not matter. They are not superior in importance to the fundamental freedom of each individual to choose his associations.
If a business refuses to serve blacks, or gays, or Tibetans, then, hey, it probably just lost a lot of potential profit. But that should absolutely be the business’s choice and not up to the government to dictate. And in the case of “gay discrimination,” I think it is clear that the PC crowd is using the newfound legal victim group status of gays as a weapon to attack religiously based organizations. Make no mistake, this will not end with gay cakes. It is only a matter of time before pressure is brought to bear against churches as well for “discrimination.” And at the very least, I foresee many churches abandoning their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Again, marriage has been and always will be a religious institution. The PC crowd will not be happy with government recognition alone. They want to force recognition from everyone.
If a group wants fair treatment in this world, that is one thing. I believe a gay person has every right to open HIS OWN bakery and bake gay marriage cakes to his little heart’s content. I believe a black person has every right to dislike white people, as some do, and refuse to associate with them or or do business with them if that’s what he/she wants. I also believe that under natural and constitutional law, a religious business owner is an independent and free individual with the right to choose who he will work for or accept money from. If he finds a customer’s behavior to be against his principles, he should not be forced to serve that person, their feelings be damned.
This is fair.
What is not fair is the use of government by some groups to gain an advantage over others based on the legal illusion of victim group status. PC cultists want us to think that choice of association is immoral and damaging to the group. I have to say I find them to be far more intolerant and dangerous than the people they claim to be fighting against, and this attitude is quickly devolving into full bore tyranny under the guise of “humanitarianism.”
Gender Bending Does Not Make You Special
A man shaves his head and eyebrows, straps a plastic bottle to his face, and has his feet surgically modified to resemble flippers: Does this make him a dolphin, and should he be given victim group status as trans-species? I’m going to be brief here because I covered this issue in a previous article, but let’s lay everything on the table, as it were...
PC cultists are clamoring to redefine the scientific FACT of gender as an “undefinable” and even discriminatory social perception. No one, no matter how dedicated, will EVER be able to redefine gender, unless they have the ability to change their very chromosomes. Nature defines gender, not man; and a man who undergoes numerous surgeries and body-changing steroid treatments will always have the genetics of a man even if he gives the appearance of a woman. Take away the drugs, and no amount of make-up will hide the chest hair growth and deepening voice.
This might be deemed a “narrow” view of gender, and I don’t care. Nature’s view of gender is the only one that counts. Psychological orientations are irrelevant to biological definitions. Are you a man trapped in a woman’s body? Irrelevant. A woman trapped in a man’s body? Doesn’t matter. If we are talking about legal bearings, then biological definitions are the only scale that makes sense. I realize that gender bending is very trendy right now, and Hollywood sure seems to want everyone to jump on that freaky disco bandwagon, but there is no such thing as gender-neutral people. They are not a group, let alone a victim group, and do not necessitate special attention or government protection. There are men, and there are women; these are the only gender groups that count. Whether they would like to be the opposite does not change the inherent genetic definition. Period. To make such foolishness into an ideology or a legal battle is to attempt to bewilder man’s relationship to nature, and this will only lead to social distraction and disaster.
There Is No Such Thing As ‘White Privilege’
A person determines his success in life by his character and his choices. Color does not define success, as there are many people of every color who are indeed successful. Do you have to work harder to gain success because you are brown, or black, or neon green? I’ve seen no concrete evidence that this is the case. I know that people who identify as “white” are still around 70% of the American population, thus there are more white people in successful positions only due to sheer numbers.
I know that I personally grew up in a low-wage household and had little to no financial help as I entered the working world. Everything I have accomplished in my life to this point was done alongside people of color, some of whom had far more advantages than I did. I cannot speak for other people’s experiences, but I can say that being white was never more important in my life than being stubborn and dedicated.
I also find it a little absurd that most PC cultists who harp about so-called white privilege are often white themselves and haven’t the slightest experience or insight on what it is to be a person of color anyway. All of their concepts of discrimination are based purely on assumption. White privilege seems to be the PC cult’s answer to the argument that racism is a universal construct. Only whites can be racist, they claim, because only whites benefit from racism. I defy these jokers to show any tangible proof that an individual white person has more of a chance at success than a person of color due to predominant racism. Or are we just supposed to have blind faith in the high priests of PC academia and their morally relative roots?
The Cost Of Cultural Marxism
Marxism (collectivism) uses many vehicles or Trojan horses to gain access to political and cultural spaces. Once present, it gestates like cancer, erasing previous models of heritage and history in order to destroy any competing models of society. If you want to understand what is happening in America today, I suggest you research the Chinese Cultural Revolution of the 1960's. We are experiencing the same Marxist program of historical and social destruction, only slightly slower and more strategic.
Younger generations are highly susceptible to social trends and are often easily manipulated by popular culture and academic authority, which is why we are seeing PC cultism explode with the millennials and post-millennials. In my brief participation on the left side of the false paradigm, political correctness was only beginning to take hold. A decade later, the speed of the propaganda has far accelerated, and we now have a bewildering manure storm on our hands. The result is a vast division within American society that cannot be mended. Those of us on the side of liberty are so different in our philosophies and solutions to social Marxists that there can be no compromise. The whole carnival can end only one way: a fight. And perhaps this is exactly what the elites want: left against right, black against white, gay against religious and straight, etc. As long as the PC movement continues to unwittingly do the bidding of power brokers in their efforts toward the destruction of individual liberty, I see no other alternative but utter conflict.
Alt-Market is now launching our annual Summer Donation Drive!
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
You can contact Brandon Smith at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
written by justanobserver , July 15, 2015
Brandon,
Just wanted to say I agree.
And the benefits of favorable tax treatment will provide a stern test of religious organizations as to whether their tax exempt status is far more important than the commission with which they are charged.
written by M.C. , July 15, 2015
Thank you for this very well written, logical and intelligent piece on the "PC movement." If I hadn't deactivated my FB page I would have shared this so people who are decieved by the leftist/marxist PC cult (and get their "news" solely from FB) could have benefitted from this truth saturated commentary on the true agenda of the PC cult. I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I believe that every person, agenda, movement, etc is led by a spirit, either the Holy Spiritor the spirit of antichrist, and this "movement" is clearly led by the spirit of antichrist who is the father of lies, the thief who comes only to steal, kill, and destroy. This is not just an attack on our personal liberty, but on the souls of millions of people. The thief steals souls by spreading confusion, deceit, and false promises, and in deceiving individuals he is effectively destroying their souls. But there is One (Jesus) who came that we may have life, and have it abundantly (for eternity) John 10:10.
My God loved me so much that He left perfection and was born in the flesh in this sinful and fallen world to die a torturous death on the cross, effectively taking God's just wrath for my sins into himself, who was buried three days in a tomb, and then rose from the dead bodily (under guard mind you), walked alive among hundreds of witnesses for 40 days and then rose to heaven to sit at the right hand of God. He defeated death for me so that I can have eternal life with Him! He didn't do this just for me, but for the world. But we have to follow him, repent (includes turning away from) of our sins, and surrender to the Living God, and He will work in us by the power of His Holy Spirit to transform our innermostbeing into a new creation likened to Christ Jesus Himself. No other god has displayed a love so genuine. No other god came down from perfection to die for His creation. For other gods you must achieve for them, you must kill for them, you must climb up to reach them and they'll not give you a hand in it. My God came down for me, as He did for any who will choose a life connected in personal relationship to Him. There is a narrow road, that few find, but it is a road of eternal love in the arms ogf the Loving Father. Choose the narrow road.
written by Brandon Smith , July 15, 2015
@Currywurst
NONE of those programs are "benefits". They are all areas of life to which the government should have no involvement whatsoever. IRS taxation in particular...
written by LifeLongLearner , July 15, 2015
I've been a fan for years and once again you've clearly made some complex connections.
However I need to challenge one statement: "... I felt a little sorry for all the joyfully hopping homosexuals on the marbled steps of the hallowed building, primarily because they essentially were fighting for the state to provide recognition and legitimacy for their relationships."
In essence, yes, this is what they fight for. But in practice they have been fighting for more than that, which is to completely marginalize the Bible, what it teaches, and what it means.
And in my opinion, supernaturally, there is a continual desire for the state itself to replace any notion of a benevolent creative force that guides human conscience, whatever that force is called.
You have touched on this with the warning for churches and religious organizations in general. I just wanted to remind you, and other fans of your work, that there is a supernatural element here. While we must prepare ourselves, and be wise as serpents, in the end, cosmic, downright supernatural power will be the only thing that can save us.
written by Diane D , July 15, 2015
Christian persecution in America is about to skyrocket with the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. America’s 501(c)(3) ‘churches’ that refuse to conduct same-sex marriages will finally wake up to government tyranny. Lyndon Johnson set the trap in 1954 to silent (and hold hostage) churches opposing his liberal agenda. And it worked!
Barbara Ketay of the Biblical Law Center lays out the facts:
“A 501(c)(3) corporation is not considered a person under the First Amendment (religious liberty clause) or under the Fifth Amendment (protection against self-incrimination clause) to the United States Constitution. Therefore, an incorporated church has NO First or Fifth Amendment rights.”
And what if they want to get out from IRS bondage?
Ketay states, “The 501(c)(3) corporation is just considered another business. Its members do not own any of the assets. To dissolve the 501(c)(3) corporation, you must first give all your assets to another 501(c)(3) corporation. If you do not do this the State will take your assets and distribute them for you to other tax-exempt 501(c)(3)corporations.” Oh, the price of dealing with the Devil!
Sadly I predict most will cling to their IRS tax indulgences and conduct same-sex marriages. Fellow Christians, you know that God defined marriage, not government. Which definition will you honor? You can’t serve two Gods. Will you bow to God or Caesar?
I challenge Christians to vote with your feet and escape the bondage of the evil IRS. Brick and mortar do not make a church. Find a pastor who refuses to conduct same-sex marriages. Christ nailed it (John 10: 11-13). Find a pastor shepherd, not a hireling.
written by Andy Sloan , July 15, 2015
ON THE EVILS OF SOCIETY
INSCRUTABILI DEI CONSILIO
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on April 21, 1878.
"It is perfectly clear and evident, venerable brothers, that the very notion of civilization is a fiction of the brain if it rest not on the abiding principles of truth and the unchanging laws of virtue and justice, and if unfeigned love knit not together the wills of men, and gently control the interchange and the character of their mutual service.
Furthermore, that kind of civilization which conflicts with the doctrines and laws of holy Church is nothing but a worthless imitation and meaningless name. Of this those peoples on whom the Gospel light has never shown afford ample proof, since in their mode of life a shadowy semblance only of civilization is discoverable, while its true and solid blessings have never been possessed. Undoubtedly, that cannot by any means be accounted the perfection of civilized life which sets all legitimate authority boldly at defiance; nor can that be regarded as liberty which, shamefully and by the vilest means, spreading false principles, and freely indulging the sensual gratification of lustful desires, claims impunity for all crime and misdemeanor, and thwarts the goodly influence of the worthiest citizens of whatsoever class. Delusive, perverse, and misleading as are these principles, they cannot possibly have any inherent power to perfect the human race and fill it with blessing, for "sin maketh nations miserable." Such principles, as a matter of course, must hurry nations, corrupted in mind and heart, into every kind of infamy, weaken all right order, and thus, sooner or later, bring the standing and peace of the State to the very brink of ruin."
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13evl.htm
God bless all!
written by Bright Torch of Liberty , July 16, 2015
@Andy Sloan - If only the current pope spoke with such clarity and precision.
@Brandon - Nailed it as usual.
written by Brandon Smith , July 16, 2015
@jonsjon
You seem to have missed the point, which is not surprising for a leftist.
The article does NOT conflict with the concept of Gay unions, it conflicts with government involvement in ANY interpersonal union whatsoever, gay or straight. Marriage is a religious institution, NOT a legal one, despite the government's intrusion into it. If gays want to have some kind of "legal union" recognized by the state, then that is their foolish decision to give the state that kind of authority to designate their relationship as "legitimate". The real problem here is that the PC cult does not want to stop there. No, they want to force religious individuals and institutions to support and accept gay marriage as well, which is simply not going to happen being that it goes against the very core of their belief system.
I agree that laws based on religious taboo are abhorrent. Laws based on natural law tenets within religion, though, are absolutely essential (abortion, for instance, is indeed a violation of individual life and liberty, or murder, especially if you understand the mountain of scientific evidence of inborn character and psychological traits).
However, the PC cultists are no better than the theocrats. They want to use government as a weapon too, as a means to force their ideology onto others under threat of legal reprisal. Again, I don't expect you to understand this at all, but the real problem here is the abusive nature of government. Remove government from the equation, and most of these problems go away. But the PC left is addicted to government power right now, to the point that they think they can dictate everything, down to what passages of the bible should be removed, and the removal of the words "boy" and "girl" in public schools because they are "discriminatory" to transgenders (which as I pointed out, do not exist).
Attempting to have an argument over "who started it" is about as childish and fruitless an endeavor as I can think of. The reality is, the PC crowd is abusing government power right now, and that abuse is going to lead to war, a war they will ultimately lose (because they are all weaklings), but also a war we all lose in the fact that it is a distraction from the real enemy, namely establishment elitists and international ponzi financiers attempting to pit us against each other so that we don't turn our sights on them.
written by conscious black man , July 16, 2015
The points that I will agree with are rights to refuse service. If I had to make a white supremacist cake or face penalty I would be angry. I also fail to believe that relationship and gender choices should be sensationalized as much as they have been lately. One's right to exist should not violate others rights of privacy. But all people deserve the same fundamental rights regardless of how they live.
What I consider white privilege you may take for granted. I think that white privilege is best discussed by those who can actually experience it. Racism does in fact exist and it can be experienced by all. However, I think it is foolish to deny that in this capitalistic society that white on black racism has not hindered the progress of black workers both white and blue collar. I have witnessed and experienced circumstances where opportunities for advancement have been given to less experienced and less qualified white men. In these instances it boiled down to whom someone would rather spend their day with or nepotism. I resent the fact that racism on a grand scale (e.g. Police brutality) is denied and combatted so much that these injustices get swept under the rug. It feels like hitting a glass ceiling on "The planet of the apes." I want to work with people who can respect discreet cultural differences and be given opportunities based on my merit. Is that too touchy feely for you? That's what a racial disadvantage feels like. The other side of the coin is how I imagine white privilege feels.
written by Diane D , July 16, 2015
@privilege, it seems to me that the group hurting blacks most are blacks themselves, especially their so-called 'leaders'. Outrages crime statistics and immoral behavior goes unaddressed. And woe to any blacks who make a success of their life. It appears to me that they get torn down so as to preserve blacks' preferred 'helpless victim status'.
Just curious, if you could live in any country today, which one would you choose?
written by conscious black man , July 16, 2015
Are you talking about the leader of the free world?
Also please check the fbi data base and note there were more white on white murders than black on black 2010-2014. Criminals are criminals.
My comment was based on the denial of white privilege. I am a proud American. I contribute to this society just like anyone else. I'm not torn down in the slightest. The limited scope that you have further proves by point lady.
Someone who shows up and does good work everyday deserves their due regardless of race. The privilege that I believe exists prevents that.
written by justanobserver , July 16, 2015
conscious black man-
Which part of this society do you regard as capitalistic?
Do you even have a clue what capitalism was?
written by conscious black man , July 16, 2015
Private enterprise with regard to business.
What is your definition?
Our society is driven by capitalism. Every man for himself. My point, however, is illustrated pretty well in my first post.
written by John Q Public , July 16, 2015
I have been following and enjoying your writings for quite a while but I just had to write you for this one. This is an issue that is really important and has gained a lot of steam.
There is currently a man on trial in canada for disagreeing w/ feminists(sickly, ugly, weak, pathetic, spoiled rotten, pale-white, self hating, social justice warriors) on twitter.
You are spot on about everything and I hope your words reach and influence many. Please keep up the good work.
written by Brandon Smith , July 16, 2015
@Conscious black man
There is no "free enterprise" in the U.S., and hasn't been since the introduction of central banking in 1913-1916. Free markets have been completely eroded by government intervention and the welfare society. Nothing wrong today can be blamed on "capitalism" (a marxist term), because capitalism does not exist.
There is a greater number of white on white crimes because there are 70% MORE WHITES in this country. What you need to look at are black crimes with regard to their percentage of the population. According the Bureau Of Justice Statistics, Blacks commit around 52% of all murders in the U.S. (mostly killing other blacks), yet, they are only 13% of the total population.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Also, SHOW ME PROOF that white privilege exists. I'm so tired of hearing people complain about how they are held back by white privilege yet they can't seem to prove how. It seems to me that "white privilege" has become the catch all excuse for people who have a tendency to fail in life. Their failures and limitations certainly can't be blamed on them, and so, "white privilege".
written by justanobserver , July 16, 2015
conscious black man-
If that definition were true then the Texas shit head who was president in 2008 (and the Illinois shit head who became president in 2009) would not have signed into law/voted as senator to approve $800 billion to prop up banks that were insolvent.
Capitalism would have sent the insolvent institutions into bankruptcy, the depositors would have been made whole (up to the amount of deposit coverage), the assets would have been sold off to more honorable business persons, and the executives would have been tried for any number of criminal acts (as George Bush Sr. did with the savings and loan executives in 1989-1992).
The same can be said of the car companies. They would not have been bailed out (by a democrat president and the democratically controlled House and Senate in 2009), their assets would have been sold, and some other company (like Ford which did not need a bailout) would have taken over manufacturing cars at those facilities.
Get a clue. Private business in America is not capitalist. It is a ward of the state, it is a partner of the government, it is what Benito Mussolini called corporatism.
For a more real world view of capitalism, look at what happened after the panic (they were not called depressions yet) of 1921/1922. The Federal Government did absolutely nothing to interfere with the failure of businesses or the spike in unemployment and the economy came bouncing right back (until bank/wall street over-extension of credit to those who should not have been extended credit for playing the casinos of Wall Street) caused a bigger collapse. That was when we were capitalist.
Our society has not seen capitalism in a very long time. Which is of course why every critic of capitalism should actually be criticizing the fascist/socialist manipulation of the economy that both political parties engage in (for which they are well rewarded from their corporate masters).
written by justanobserver , July 16, 2015
Of course, it should be noted that deposit insurance is not a contrivance of capitalism. Before the 1930's depositors lost their money when a bank failed.
There was an old-fashioned remedy for bankers who destroyed the life savings of depositors. Bankers were hung.
Bankers knew their customers, demanded real collateral, and knew that failure to practice sound capitalist business practices could be to their detriment.
written by conscious black man , July 16, 2015
It is a mixed economy. I'm not getting any bailouts. The incorrect term for the economy doesn't change my point.
As I said before a criminal is a criminal. As a country we have a violent history don't put it all in one place. How does this violence stack up against the rest of the civilized world? We (Americans) murder the most. Period.
A better term would be institutional racism. This California Law review below can illustrate my point in further detail.
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2077&context=faculty_scholarship
I have failed. But I have been determined enough to follow through in the face of adversity. I've walked away from these situations humbled and empowered. But I am not naïve. The most successful people fail before they succeed. The privileged may weather storms too. But ultimately they have special concessions made for them because of the groups they're in. Not everyone has that luxury.
written by history observer , July 16, 2015
A very timely article.
Government has NO business being involved in the private romantic lives of people NOR should they ever be.
Marriage has ALWAYS been a RELIGIOUS institution (with official records kept also by Government) ... but intended for PRIMARILY for the PROTECTION of CHILDREN of that Marriage.
Yes, it elevates the institution of Marriage to something very special and honourable and in which CHILDREN are ensured their BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to both a Mother and Father devoted to each other and to their offspring (and because two mothers or two fathers simply CANNOT fulfil the roles of both Mother and Father).
There are now legal cases of adult children SUING their "same-sex parents" for DENYING them the basic human right of knowing just who were their biological parent/s.
Therefore it would be good for the Politically-Correct "useful-idiots" to note:
that for some Gay-style-"Sharia Law" (as it is proving to be in eg Canada) to be employing devious tactics to (eventually) effectively DESTROY (real) Marriage ... is a form of the MOST OUTRAGEOUS and BRUTAL of CHILD ABUSE!
written by Malcolm Reynolds , July 16, 2015
"I also find it a little absurd that most PC cultists who harp about so-called white privilege are often white themselves and haven’t the slightest experience or insight on what it is to be a person of color anyway. All of their concepts of discrimination are based purely on assumption. "
Just to quibble about what you wrote here Brandon... This seems to imply that white people don't know what racism is.
Well let me tell you, growing up in North Carolina in the 70s in a neighborhood full of black people who beat my ass constantly, called me cracker and honkey as a matter of course, defaced my parents' house, etc., I know what discrimination/racism is. You're right of course, there's no such garbage as white privilege, but white people do know what discrimination and racism are.
written by Andy Sloan , July 16, 2015
Osee (Hosea) 13:9
"Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in me."
After quoting a line from the poet Ennius, in which he said, “Rome’s severe morality and her citizens are her safeguard”, Cicero states “This verse,seems to me to have all the sententious truthfulness of an oracle. For neither would the citizens have availed without the morality of the community, nor would the morality of the commons without outstanding men have availed either to establish or so long to maintain in vigor so grand a republic with so wide and just an empire. Accordingly, before our day, the hereditary usages formed our foremost men, and they on their part retained the usages and institutions of their fathers. But our age, receiving the republic as a chef-d’oeuvre of another age which has already begun to grow old, has not merely neglected to restore the colors of the original, but has not even been at the pains to preserve so much as the general outline and most outstanding features. For what survives of that primitive morality which the poet called Rome’s safeguard? It is so obsolete and forgotten, that, far from practising it, one does not even know it. And of the citizens what shall I say? Morality has perished through poverty of great men; a poverty for which we must not only assign a reason, but for the guilt of which we must answer as criminals charged with a capital crime. For it is through our vices, and not by any mishap, that we retain only the name of a republic, and have long since lost the reality.”
Excerpt "Civitas Dei" - St Augustine Book 2; Chapter 21
https://littlemoretracts.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/roe-v-wade-and-the-republic/
written by Brandon Smith , July 16, 2015
@Malcolm
No, that is not what I am implying. I am implying that white PC cultists have no idea what "white privilege" is (because it is a fantasy premise), which is why none of them can provide concrete specific examples of white privilege in action.
written by Brandon Smith , July 16, 2015
@conscious black man
Again, show me specific recorded examples of modern "institutional racism" and how this supposedly benefits whites over blacks.
written by conscious black man , July 17, 2015
160M settlement. McReynolds vs. Merrill Lynch
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/07/08/top-10-most-expensive-discrimination-settlements-o?page=2
written by Brandon Smith , July 17, 2015
@conscious black man
Wow, only ten lawsuits on their list? I could probably list hundreds of lawsuits claiming discrimination, many of which were settled out of court just like the ones contained in your article. Civil lawsuits are not proof of institutionalized white privilege, just like rape accusations are not proof of rape culture. A lawsuit is NOT evidence.
Here are some examples of cases in which the minority was allegedly given preference over a white person. Does this mean that there is widespread "Black Privilege" in America?
http://www.doi.gov/pmb/eeo/cases/reverse.cfm
In reality, there are laws in the U.S. that give undue preference to numerous victim status groups (affirmative action, etc.), but not whites. White males are in fact the only "group" not given state recognized privilege or advantage.
Also, keep in mind that white privilege is supposed to pertain to all whites according to PC cultists, not just rich bankers paying settlements on lawsuits.
I'm looking for EVIDENCE, documented evidence, of widespread white privilege. If it is so pervasive, then where is all the undercover journalism? Where is all the recorded conversations of white people plotting to keep minorities down? Where is the hard evidence that white privilege is even an unconscious psychological bias like many Social Marxists claim?
The evidence doesn't exist because there is no such thing as white privilege. Most success in America today is determined either by individual effort or nepotism (bankers, .01%-ers, some levels of politics) but not gender or race.
I will concede, however, that it is becoming difficult in our nation today for anyone of any color including white to find success given the vast instability of our economy.
written by Anti-PC S-heads , July 17, 2015
You have not properly explained by PC shitheads are the shitheads they are.
written by lanzo , July 17, 2015
Strange - no comments about the very white woman who pretended to be black and got at the top of some sort of black loving organization.
written by Brandon Smith , July 17, 2015
@Lanzo
And are you for or against that? I'm just sayen', I thought we were trying to be all inclusive here...
written by Brad Smith , July 17, 2015
The petty tyrants (PC crowd) would be nothing to worry about at all, if not for the monopoly on force that the government enjoys. Their ability to co-mingle their petty tyranny with that power makes them dangerous.
When you are confronted by these people the best course of action is to remind them over and over that they are the tyrants. You can not give them one inch of moral high ground. They are the ones pointing guns at your head because they don't like how you think!
PC is mind control and it's dangerous and despicable. Just think about it this way. They are using the guns of the government in an attempt to not only control your body but more importantly your mind. They warp the language itself to do this. Talk about Orwellian!
Great article and I'm glad I stumbled upon it. I'll be reading more from you.
Best Regards, Brad
written by Ocko , July 17, 2015
It seems PC is based on a misconception of the constitution. The constitution rules the relationship between the people and the government.
And government should be colorblind, tolerant and all the other things.
PC takes the constitution as a blueprint of how people have to treat other people. But that is not the case.
And also, where the constitution does not fit their agenda their agenda, they use redefining terms to make it fit, like the homosexual marriage.
written by Billiam , July 18, 2015
What a great article! Recently I had to unfriend someone on FB, a woman I met many years ago in college, someone I considered my best friend at that time, and someone I had looked for for years on the net. It wasn't just that she was a liberal, it was the fact that so many of the liberal stands she took, judging by her postings, simply didn't make sense. She would post #black lives matter material and planned parenthood material, not realizing the inherent contradiction there. For a time I tried to avoid any unpleasantness by ignoring the more poisonous posts. Reasoned responses by me got no reply at all. For me the final straw came when she posted an article that stated that "thug" was some kind of racial slur. Since I knew the origin of the word was from India, I wrote that it sounded like someone looking for an excuse to be offended. I was told that since I was not a "sociolinguist" my opinion had no authority(never mind that it came up on my wall) and that I should enjoy my white racial privilege and "know your place." That remark drove the point home to me that she wasn't well-intentioned but misguided; instead she had become one of the petty tyrants herself.
