Sunday, October 23, 2011
Two More Examples Of How Anti-Racism Is A Code Word For Anti-White
Big Jew Bill Maher thinks he is being Anti-Racist by suggesting Hispanics, and minorities generally, get "screwed over by Caucasians" (:02).
But why Caucasians in particular, Bill? Funny, I know some Jews who own high-interest "payday" loan centers. They operate in south Texas and "screw over" Hispanics all the time. Why not rip on those guys, Bill? Why not make jokes about how your tribe has "screwed over" the Palestinians? No? Not gonna go there? I see how it is. I guess your Anti-Racism is just a code word for Anti-White.
Maher's guest Touré --yes, that's a one word name, like Prince or Sade or Seal--also evokes an evil "racism" that whites are only ever guilty of, even when there is no empirical evidence to support that claim of guilt. Racism here is like a "Fog" that scuds in imperceptibly at the whim of black people, to justify any claim whatsoever they might make.
This ability of blacks and only blacks to make an unsupported claim of racism is about as convenient an exercise of arbitrary intellectual totalitarianism as was the concept of predestination for the Calvinists. If you have black skin, or orange-ish skin as in the case of Touré, you are predestined to wield this mystical weapon of "racism" against those white folk who are predestined to be eternally damned with the taint of supreme corruption, (i.e., of being "racist")
Touré is a male version of Melissa Harris-Perry, whom we have recently featured and whom Touré himself here references. They are both professional Anti-White victim-pimping race hustlers. They have made a career in mainstream culture by giving their Anti-White comrades precisely what they want to hear: it doesn't matter if their spoutings are incoherent; their message is Anti-White, and thus major networks will prop them up with airtime and large audiences.
Touré: Racism is like "Fog": I can't grab it and show it to you, but whitey sure is guilty of it!
P.S. A tangential point:
At :15 Touré says "...and sociologists talk about that."
Isn't his logic infuriating?: i.e. if "sociologists" talk about it, it MUST be true!