Political correctness and the creation of thought crimes are hammers statists and progressives use to stifle freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association and to deflect attention from the crimes of the regime as they push toward an egalitarian, centrally planned society devoid of liberty.
Last week, the PC crowd and their media enablers got all atwitter at the very idea of a rancher’s observation that dependence on the welfare state might have created a new form of slavery in the U.S. as egregious as the actual human ownership-type slavery that existed prior to the Civil War.
His actual quote, which was taken out of context (surprise) by The New York Times, was not “racist” in any way when one stops for a moment to consider what was actually said:
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
Bundy’s crime is he had revealed an actual truth that the regime wants to suppress: That government social programs have created a new class of slaves who are dependent upon government and those same programs have been as destructive – if not more so — to black families as actual pre-Civil War slavery. To my mind, Bundy’s only error was in restricting his observation to black families. Anyone dependent upon government welfare programs for subsistence is a slave to government, and social welfare programs are destroying the fabric of U.S. society on the whole, not for just one race.
These facts have been uttered before without creating quite as much controversy. In August, 2013, Virginia candidate for Lieutenant Governor E.W. Jackson, himself a descendent of slaves, said government welfare programs had done more to destroy black families than slavery ever did. Dr. Walter E. Williams is quoted as saying, “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery could not have done, the harshest Jim Crow laws and racism could not have done, namely break up the black family.”
Entertainer Bill Cosby has noted much the same thing as has Dr. Ben Carson. So are these men” racists?” Or is racism limited to whites who speak the truth? Only in a PC world.
When one is uttering a truth, that truth is made no less relevant by the color of the utterer’s skin, nor does it suddenly become “racist” based on the utterer’s skin color, despite what statists would have you believe.
Much was also made of Bundy’s use of the word, “negro,” as if that word has suddenly become equated to the word “nigger” as a black pejorative. Negro is an anthropological term used to describe one of the three races of humans.
This is something that was once taught in school, before they became nothing more than government indoctrination centers. Many of those of Bundy’s generation (and mine) learned in school that the three races of humans are Caucasian (Caucasoid), Mongolian (Mongoloid) and Negro (Negroid). The term “negro” as a race designation has long appeared on U.S. government documents, including on the 2010 census form. It also remains in use by some organizations that purport to advocate for black causes, not the least of which is the United Negro College Fund.
That progressives suddenly don’t like the word, as evidenced by one progressive’s intellectually void comment in my article, He’s A ‘Racist,’ Now The Feds Are Free To Kill Cliven Bundy, is irrelevant.
The PC crowd also cleverly mischaracterized Bundy’s comment by claiming that he wanted to see blacks go back to picking cotton. To miss the metaphor Bundy used when he stated, “…because they never learned how to pick cotton,” reveals either a dearth of intellectual capability or a devious attempt at deflection.
Unfortunately, the hue and cry of the PC crowd and their enabling government propaganda machine, combined with the cowardice of conservatives who are cowed by the very mention of “racism,” have served to deflect attention away from the larger issue of the Bureau of Land Management’s egregious treatment of Bundy, his cattle and the supporters who rallied against big government. That’s exactly what the PC crowd hoped for.
While “nigger” has become the “N-word” and apparently the PC crowd is aiming to make “negro” a new “N” word, there is another “N” word that progressives are using to intimidate conservatives and shut off any legitimate debate. It is the word “Nazi” and its associated “F” word, “fascist.”
Conservatives almost always run away from these terms and abandon any conversation where they are employed – exactly the aim of the person using them — because they don’t know how to respond. Response is quite simple.
Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) was the Nazi party. Nazis controlled Germany and transformed it into a fascist totalitarian state that controlled industrial production and just about every aspect of German life including thought and speech.
Statists falsely equate Nazism as a “right wing” philosophy and “socialism” as left wing. But Hitler himself points out that they are equal and therefore, left wing. He said, “Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is socialism — not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our socialism goes far deeper.”
Whether you call them statists, progressives, socialists, liberals or RINOS (Republicans in name only), they are the ones who advocate for policies more akin to the Nazis and fascists.
One such example comes from an Obamacare troll named Paul Edward who appeared suddenly attempting to “defend” Obamacare in my article, Obamacare Is A Success. I engaged him at length out of enjoyment and to let him expose his own hypocrisy and ignorance. He did not disappoint.
See, for instance, this comment:
Here are some example of Paul Edward’s “intellectual talents.”
And lack of any vestiges of “racism” or “classism.”
It is not conservatives who want bigger government. Those who want government involved in every aspect of people’s lives from cradle to grave, those who favor heavy regulation of industry and business, like the German fascists, and those who advocate for wealth redistribution programs, like the communists, are the statists, progressives, socialists and liberals.
It is not conservatives who try and stifle free speech and who create “hate crimes” and “thought crimes,” like fascists, it is statists, progressives, socialists and liberals.
It is not conservatives who forced the ouster of Brendan Eich from Mozilla because he supported traditional marriage, it was statists, progressives, socialists and liberals.
It is not conservatives who are engaged in a war on Christianity and who are trying to stop public prayer and other public religious expressions, like the fascists, it’s statists, progressives, socialists and liberals.
It is not conservatives who are using government databases (the IRS) to gain information with which to silence and marginalize people, like the fascists, it’s the statists, progressives, socialists and liberals.
Conservatives such as myself advocate for lassez faire capitalism. Conservatives such as myself advocate for freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association. Conservatives such as myself would not call for a company to fire a man for contributing to causes anathema to our belief system. Conservatives such as myself advocate for a return to Constitutional governance, the elimination of the welfare state and for the end of the Federal Reserve.
Conservatives such as myself are not intimidated by the Paul Edwardses of the world and PC crowd. Do not be concerned with their “N” words.
Update: Article corrected to show that Jackson was candidate for lieutenant governor in Virginia, not Wisconsin.