Doc's Talk: The Progressive Psychoracialists of McRacism

Thursday, October 24, 2013

The Progressive Psychoracialists of McRacism

Sultan Knish

Chris Matthews, MSNBC's own Wise Latina, began his latest attack by denouncing Ted Cruz's racism against "Browns".

Cruz had told a San Antonio audience that it was good to leave D.C. and come back to America.

"This isn’t a casual reference," Matthews declared. Like Freudian psychoanalysts, MSNBC psychoracialists know that there are no such things as casual references. A misplaced comma can reveal unspeakable hidden depths of racism and does every time Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes run short of material.

The Freudian psychoanalyst assumed that if you had a dream about a duck or the Orient Express, you were harboring a secret desire for your grandfather. The MSNBC psychoracialist knows that if you don't like Obama, you're a racist. All that's left is finding the comma that proves it.

"This 'We’re Americans, we white people out here in Texas, as opposed to people who live in the big cities: the ethnics, the blacks, the browns," Matthews sputtered. "'Those people in Washington, those liberals, they’re not Americans.'”

Chris Matthews had clearly never been to San Antonio which is twice the size of Washington D.C. and one of the largest cities in America. It's also fairly diverse. And Ted Cruz is more ethnic and ‘browner’ than Chris Matthews. Though in all fairness so is a stick of chalk.

It might be more racist to refer to the "Browns" of D.C. than to name San Antonio the real America. But progressive psychoracialists never denounce themselves. They're too busy drawing racist inkblots of Ted Cruz. And if you disagree with them, you probably harbor desires for your great-grandfather... and are a racist.

“This is McCarthyism writ large. Disagree with this guy and be prepared for the accusations,” Matthews said, demonstrating that he also has less self-awareness than a stick of chalk.

Oddly enough he wasn't talking about himself, but psychoracialists, like psychoanalysts, always find the dirty pictures and the racial slurs in someone else’s Rorschach inkblot.

McCarthyism was overrated. If it hadn't affected Hollywood, which never stops making movies about its own reflection in the mirror, we would probably have all forgotten about it; the way that Hollywood forgot about the Gulags, the Khmer Rogue, the Great Chinese Famine and Mike Farrell. But unlike McCarthyism, McRacism never seems to go away.

McRacism is the mass production of an ersatz racism for mass consumption. A cheap fake substitute for the real thing.

Thanks to McRacism, there is now more racism than ever before. We’re making less of everything except racism. There is somehow more racism to be found by dedicated progressive psychoracialists in a single Republican sneeze than there was in the entire first two centuries of American history.

The old racism was about slave plantations. The new racism is found in projecting your own distaste for "Blacks" and "Browns" onto a "Brown", who in a feat of Zimmermanian proportions, heads up the new Confederacy operating out of San Antonio; a city with more Latinos than the MSNBC janitorial staff (unlike its on-air staff.)

The liberal talking point of the government shutdown was that the Confederacy was back under the leadership of General Robert E. Cruz. The "South" was starting another civil war after having relocated to San Antonio and Michele Bachmann’s Minnesota. The Latino/Minnesotan Confederacy had managed to take Washington and the only thing keeping it at bay was MSNBC's dedicated staff of critical race theorists carefully analyzing Cruz's sneezes for explosive racial content.

Progressive accusations of racism start with the conclusion and work backward toward the accusation. Ted Cruz's racism is a given considering that he's not only a Republican (boo! hiss!) but also a conservative (boo! boo!) and in cahoots with the Tea Party (%^&@!). It's just a matter of proving what is already known by taking any random thing he says and shouting, "Racism!"

Racism is the accusation that proves itself. There are certain kinds of people who can be racist and certain kinds who can't. Ted Cruz, who likes San Antonio better than Washington D.C., is always a racist. Chris Matthews, who relishes occasionally seeing "Browns" in Washington D.C. from the window of his limo, isn't.

Racism, like race, is an inescapable part of a person. It doesn't relate to the content of his character, but whether he likes America better than he likes Washington D.C.

Chris Matthews who likes Washington D.C. better than America can never be a racist no matter how much he blathers on about the blacks and browns of the city. Ted Cruz, who doesn't like D.C., is a racist no matter if he's classified as White Hispanic, Brown Hispanic or Green Hispanic.

The real race of racism isn't skin color or genes. It's government. If you hate government, you're a racist.

It's one of those subliminal things, like an Oedipus or Electra complex. If you dream of a penny whistle and a lamppost, you must be harboring illicit desires for your great-great-grandmother. If you dream of restoring the Constitution and giving the bureaucracy the boot, you must be harboring illicit racial fantasies involving San Antonio.

And who better to explore the territory of subliminal racism with its illicit fantasies of abusing minorities than the progressives who have built an entire political system around that?

MSNBC racism requires a deep meditative state. The accuser spends some time floating in a sensory deprivation tank filled with Media Matters talking points. By the time he sits down in front of a camera, he is no longer aware that Ted Cruz is Cuban-American. Any facts extraneous to the organic process of calling a Republican racist have dissolved away along with his common sense.

Chris Matthews, the political hack’s hack, who last had a new idea around the same time Dan Rostenkowski was stealing stamps, fills the empty space with globs of McRacism. The thing that really offends this professional of government isn’t racial slurs… it’s government slurs.

But there’s no such thing as anti-government racism or anti-government hate crimes.

Not only isn’t hating Washington a crime, it’s practically a citizenship test. Despising the entire mess of politicians, aides, bureaucrats, lobbyists, union bosses and bartenders who make the government go round is the one bigotry that everyone can agree on.

The only way for government to get its own hate crime is by dressing up in blackface. Every time Chris Matthews cries “Racism”, he’s dressing up government in blackface. That’s what the selection of Obama was really about. It made race equivalent to government.

Chris Matthews’ government minstrel act is McRacism. Like other McRacist psychoracialists, he plumbs the depths of his own psychotic psyche to explain why government haters are racists to manufacture a cheap and offensive government substitute for racism that protects the abuses of career politicians and bureaucrats by teaching them to wear blackface and shout about racism.

McRacism is a blackface routine that makes hating government into the ultimate hate crime. Like McDonald’s, you slap something that looks like a patty on something that looks like a bun. And don't ask too many questions about what's inside. You can't make 7 billion burgers a year or 7 trillion accusations of racism an hour on MSNBC without cutting a few corners.

McDonald's doesn't really make burgers and the Democratic Party's McRacism doesn't really fight racism. There aren't enough cows or bigots to go around for the purposes of either establishment. McDonald's has to make do with greasy cardboard cut into the shape of a patty. McRacism has to build narratives around any random comment criticizing the government.

The burger place is offering a cheap meal. The liberal place is offering cheap triumphs against fake racism. And both are seductive in their own way.

In the twilight of American history, with the frontier shut down and the military denigrated, the last "great" period of history held up by Baby Boomer academics and media personalities is the Civil Rights movement. But there's only so many times you can battle dogs and fire hoses or march from Selma unless you start churning out cheap McRacism imitations of civil rights and claiming that defending government authority at all costs is the real legacy of the Civil Rights movement.

Liberal McRacism is to Martin Luther King as a McDonald's burger is to a black Angus with caramel glaze on a hearth baked three-seed bun. It may be cheap, it may be fake but it is widely available.

MSNBC is the McDonald's of McRacism. It makes it cheaply and distributes it to everyone. And in a society where pervasive racism has become a distant memory, it's easier to convince a gullible generation that the greasy McRacism burger sticking out of Matthews' mouth is the real thing.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk