Travis Gettys has this article at The Raw Story on the American Freedom Party’s recent robocall efforts in Idaho and Mississippi promoting their message and presidential candidate Bob Whitaker. An excerpt:
“We have to robocall you at home because we all know that the media will not carry our message: Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, white countries for everybody,” a young-sounding woman says in the recorded call.
Columnist Lena Mitchell, of the (Tupelo) Daily Journal, reported that she received one of the recorded calls earlier this month.
“Everybody says there is this race problem,” the caller continues. “Everybody says that this race problem will be solved when the Third World pours into every white country, and only into white countries. Everybody says the final solution to this race problem is for every white country – and only white countries – to assimilate, i.e., intermarry with all those nonwhites.”
“They say they are anti-racist,” the caller warns, using slogans promoted by Whitaker. “What they really are is anti-white. What they want is white genocide. Genocide is a crime.”
The calls end with a promotion for Whitaker’s long-shot campaign and a request for financial or volunteer support.
The party has responded:
Raw Story described American Freedom Party as “Neo-Nazis” and as White Supremacists, whatever that means. Our attorneys sent Raw Story and Travis Gettys a demand to retract their defamatory pejoratives or face civil litigation. Stay tuned…
It’s perfectly natural, normal and logical to pay more attention to the laws where you live than in other parts of the world. You can try to read things into that, but your time would be better spent reading the links I posted earlier in the thread.
Paulie:
Well, then, you are doing PRECISELY what many other people (in addition to myself) strenuously object to. Hypocrisy and double-standards are often, even usually, displayed when a person objects to one fact, though he has rarely anything to say about an analogous fact.
Another major example is when The Left fails to criticize Muslims and Muslim countries for severe abuses of women, gays, and others. No, I’m not saying they NEVER do so; rather, they seem to criticize them _eventually_, particularly if they have somebody they’d prefer to object to, like some Conservative (or perhaps a Libertarian.)
I’ve already explained my theory: Many people who call themselves “leftists” are really just anti-conservatives in disguise. They figure, rather than take a lot of time and trouble to decide which side of an argument to take, simply decide what the Conservatives would say, and reverse it. So if they figure the Conservatives would be opposed to Muslim governments, then they as a default position will simply be in favor of anything a Muslim government does. (or, in rare occasions, just shut up and say nothing, for example if a Muslim government executes a gay or stones a women, etc.)
See how simple life can be for people who don’t want to bother to THINK?
(Note: I’m not suggesting that the roles are never reversed! Presumably, there will occasionally be a person who calls himself a “Conservative” but really ends up being “anti-liberal”. But this seems much less common.)
Once again: I do say that those other regimes’ edicts are wrong. I am just less concerned with them than with my local tyrants. No “invention” or “excuse” just reality.
Paulie, you clearly misunderstand. I didn’t PARTICULARLY object to YOUR personal position. Rather, I was objecting to people who, in general, criticize American immigration laws but who never bother to even investigate those of other nations. You, like they probably do, invent an excuse for doing that: You can’t be bothered. I say, to the contrary, that people who claim American immigration laws are wrong had better have been at least as willing to criticize those laws of other nations, and to actually do so.
Exactly!
I don’t see what it matters. The only race I want to preserve, protect, and strengthen is the human race.
Jim, once again, a lot of unnecessary typing would be saved if you follow the links I posted above, both print and video. The Whitaker mantra just does not stand up to logical scrutiny, period.
It sounds like a lot of Mexican-Americans in the southwest – states such as NM, Texas, CA, AZ… did not use to call themselves Hispanic, if that’s the case. But so what? At one time the US had a lot less Italians, Germans, Poles, Irish, or what have you. Immigration happens and this has always been a nation of immigrants. I don’t care if they are some people’s idea of “white” or not. A lot of these white racist boneheads don’t consider me white either.
Same here. Mostly because I don’t know much about the laws in those countries. Chalk it up to being an ignorant American.
Nope. It evidences that I don’t live there. There are many laws in many countries which are worse than US laws. I don’t like those laws, but my primary concern is addressing US laws because that is the jurisdiction where I reside and may actually have some say, however small. If you ask me about gun laws in say Australia or the UK, or taxes in Denmark, or drug laws in Singapore or whatever, I will share my opinion, but I rarely broach the subject myself.
I agree with Jed though, including his latest comment as well.
Jim: Look again. You are misquoting me. I did not say that. Someone else did; Jed I believe. Scroll up to see for sure.
LOL at Jim’s “logic”. White people invaded this country, and now they MUST keep out invaders! To quote an annoying commercial, that’s not how it works, that’s not how any of this works!
People have a natural right to immigrate. Period. Europeans had the right to do it in the 1700s (their crimes against Native Americans being a different story), and people of all races, colors, and creeds have the right to do it now.
Paulie: I should have gotten to this days ago.
“My understanding is that Mr. Whitaker and the AFP are saying that the left is saying (even though I’ve yet to hear any leftist say it) that Africans and Asians have the right to their countries, but that America and European countries should have unrestricted immigration. Whitaker thinks that’s wrong, and that white countries should preserve their heritage. Am I wrong? If so, how?”
The key phrase is what you said, “…I’ve yet to hear any leftist say it”. One example of hypocrisy, raised by people you’d probably call “The Right” is that “The Left” frequently complain about America’s immigration laws, but it turns out that (for example) Mexico’s immigration laws are much stricter, and are actually enforced.
Sometimes, even most of the time, bias is displayed not so much why what some people say, but why what they DON’T say. You may also object to Mexico’s immigration laws, once somebody challenges you on the subject. But you, or at least most people who object to America’s immigration laws, DON’T object even more strenuously to Mexico’s immigration laws. That evidences bias.
‘Furthermore, America is not a white country.”
If your definition of “white country” is one where 99%+ of the citizens are “white”, or even 90%+, you are correct. But the two main exceptions were slaves, and the mistake in bringing them here was originally made by England and other colonizing countries, and occurred until about 1808, and now Hispanics, and most of those have probably come in the last 50 years due to immigration law changes in about 1965. In other words, it’s artificial.
Look at the history of Hispanics in America:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States About 6 percent in 1960, 16% in 2010. It was less than 1% in 1910. About 1.5% in 1940.
” Applying their own logic, America is a RED country, and Mr. Whitaker is trespassing, as are all white people. If Mr. Whitaker was sincere in his beliefs, he’d already be on a boat back to Europe.”
There is a limit to how much we can correct the errors of the past. To a large extent, the reason Europeans came to and stayed in America was that it was tremendously underpopulated. It was not surprising that in light of such a population vacuum, people would be attracted.
Langa, ok, thanks. I do know what exaggeration is. I can’t say I never do it myself, but my default position is to stick to the truth the best I can. I find it more effective.
Countering PC exaggeration with another exaggeration leads to confusion and away from balance.
On the other hand, there are people who practice their own sort of “political correctness” by vastly overapplying the “political correctness” label. When I see one of them trying to stick that label on me, I know I am dealing with the latter type, as I am far from what the real “politically correct” types consider to be acceptable.
To be clear, Paulie, when I mentioned the extreme advocates of political correctness, I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about, for example, the people who were basically calling for Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley to be lynched (no, not literally, RC, it’s called exaggeration) for their “all lives matter” heresies.
Again, when you find yourself demanding that people apologize for stating obvious truths, it’s a pretty clear sign that you’ve gone off the rails.
Brilliant!
http://chainsawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/20141204-patreon-590×210.png
On the other hand, there are people who practice their own sort of “political correctness” by vastly overapplying the “political correctness” label. When I see one of them trying to stick that label on me, I know I am dealing with the latter type, as I am far from what the real “politically correct” types consider to be acceptable.
langa is entirely correct – there are people that fit that description.
L: the adherents of extreme political correctness (the so-called “social justice warrior” types) seem to automatically assume that whenever a so-called “privileged” person speaks, everything that comes out of that person’s mouth is a product of bigotry.
me: Please provide evidence for this assertion, esp. the use of the word “everything.”
Yes Paulie, I understand all that. But the problem is that the adherents of extreme political correctness (the so-called “social justice warrior” types) seem to automatically assume that whenever a so-called “privileged” person speaks, everything that comes out of that person’s mouth is a product of bigotry. This attitude makes it basically impossible to engage in any sort of reasonable discussion with these people. They are not interested in trying to ascertain truth. Rather, they merely wish to spew buzzwords and use accusations of bigotry to silence anyone who dares to challenge their orthodoxy. It’s a mentality which seems to me to be thoroughly incompatible with the free-flowing exchange of ideas that is necessary for the existence of a truly free society, and thus, a mentality that should be opposed by libertarians.
Black lives matter and all lives matter are both true statements. The problem is that the people saying them are talking past each other and perceiving something different than the person speaking probably intended to convey. I’ll try to explain if I can:
There has been an epidemic of police violence, disproportionately directed at black people. Yes, not only at black people, but the rate of black people being killed by police and the lack of attention most such cases received lead to the pervasive perception in black communities that to white society black lives don’t matter. The black lives matter movement was intended to counter that. So when someone says black lives matter they are (usually) trying to say black lives matter just as much as non-black lives (i.e. all lives matter).
But then some people hear that and what they hear is more like “only black lives matter” or “black lives matter more than other lives” so they respond “all lives matter,” and this in turn translates to “all lives matter except black lives” to some of the people who hear this response to “black lives matter.” Now, a small percentage of those who say “black lives matter” may indeed mean only black lives matter or black lives matter more; but most mean black lives matter *too*. And likewise, I think most of the people replying all lives matter actually mean all lives do matter, including black lives, but they just don’t realize that the people saying black lives matter already believe all lives matter but hear “all lives matter” as “all lives matter…except yours.” A few people who say all lives matter when they hear black lives matter may actually mean the latter, but I think most do mean all lives matter period.
It’s a very sad situation of people talking past each other and misunderstanding what the other person intends to convey. I don’t think there is anything wrong with apologizing for the misunderstanding when you realize how you misunderstood the other person and were misunderstood yourself. I agree with you though that such apologies should not be demanded.
I would personally not want to push their petition. I’d sign it as a member of the public if asked and if I was eligible.
Yes. I did just recently have a client that I did not personally circulate for, and would not want to, although I did make some money on the management end. I don’t want to say who it was because the door has not been closed to possible future business, but I’d have a hard time pushing them as a circulator. Other petitioners I know couldn’t care less so I hooked them up and made a wee bit as a middleman.
Generally speaking, I agree with Paulie’s arguments here, and I certainly am no fan of the AFP (who I have long maintained should change their name to the Caucasian Racial Advancement Party — or CRAP, for short).
However, there is one area where I agree with Jim, and that is with regard to the “Black Lives Matter” controversy. Yes, black lives matter, and I have no problem with people pointing that out. However, I have a major problem with the idea of people being expected to apologize for saying that “all lives matter” — regardless of the context in which it is said, “all lives matter” is a true statement, and no one should be expected to apologize, or feel ashamed, for speaking the truth. The idea that one should be expected to apologize for speaking the truth is an example of the very worst kind of political correctness.
To Paul, out of sheer curiosity, if the AFP came to you as a petitioner to get them on the ballot somewhere, would you do it or refuse based on their beliefs? Have you ever turned a party or candidate down based on ideology?
It sure doesn’t sound like Jim followed the links to the articles and videos I posted which completely debunk the ridiculous Whitaker mantra in many different ways. That’s OK though, maybe someone else will follow the links.
Jed does get a few things right though:
* “there is nothing wrong with culture, heritage, and tradition. God knows I love decorating Christmas trees and coloring Easter eggs. There is however, something terribly wrong with believing that your RACE is somehow better or more important, or somehow in danger and in need of preservation. Of rejecting the possibility of new traditions, enriched culture. Multiculturalism is a wonderful thing! In America, in Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in Australia, everywhere.”
* “Furthermore, America is not a white country. Applying their own logic, America is a RED country, and Mr. Whitaker is trespassing, as are all white people. If Mr. Whitaker was sincere in his beliefs, he’d already be on a boat back to Europe.”
* “I also hope neither he nor any other nationalist or communist ever gets any power in America, because if they do, God help us.”
I fully agree!
My understanding is that Mr. Whitaker and the AFP are saying that the left is saying (even though I’ve yet to hear any leftist say it) that Africans and Asians have the right to their countries, but that America and European countries should have unrestricted immigration. Whitaker thinks that’s wrong, and that white countries should preserve their heritage. Am I wrong? If so, how?
If I’m not wrong, then my objection is this: there is nothing wrong with culture, heritage, and tradition. God knows I love decorating Christmas trees and coloring Easter eggs. There is however, something terribly wrong with believing that your RACE is somehow better or more important, or somehow in danger and in need of preservation. Of rejecting the possibility of new traditions, enriched culture. Multiculturalism is a wonderful thing! In America, in Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in Australia, everywhere.
Furthermore, America is not a white country. Applying their own logic, America is a RED country, and Mr. Whitaker is trespassing, as are all white people. If Mr. Whitaker was sincere in his beliefs, he’d already be on a boat back to Europe.
Don’t mistake this as animosity toward Whitaker or the AFP, though. No matter how much I despise nationalism as an ideology, I’m glad Bob is running outside the two major parties and putting himself out there. I wish him the best of luck in getting on as many state ballots as possible. I also hope neither he nor any other nationalist or communist ever gets any power in America, because if they do, God help us.
Jed: I think I see the problem. The article included the text
““We have to robocall you at home because we all know that the media will not carry our message: Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, white countries for everybody,” a young-sounding woman says in the recorded call.”
The message, “Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, white countries for everybody” is NOT what they are advocating, quite the opposite. They are exposing the hypocrisy of people who call themselves “anti-racists”, but who exhibit a biased double-standard.
It is the so-called anti-racists who would say, “Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, white countries for everybody”, thereby displaying bias.
Jed: I think somebody is misinterpreting the “Asians for Asians” thing. What SOME people are objecting to is that the left is promoting “Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, and white countries for everybody”. In other words, objecting to the double-standard and hypocrisy. As I recall, this article makes it sound like they (the people you apparently dislike) are promoting that. Maybe there’s an error in the article, or maybe there’s a misunderstanding of the original meaning of the objection.
LOL, exactly …
Applying Mr. Whitaker’s “Asia for Asians” logic, I eagerly await his giving his land back to native Americans and returning to Europe.
I don’t think it will be in the distant future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthuman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
At some point, in the distant future, the white race, the black race, and whatever else race will be blended together into a single human race. I firmly believe this, because it is impossible for it not to happen that way.
The children of that world will look back on us and wonder what in the world all of the bullshit was about, but that will be a conversation for that time, and those people.
In the here and now, I am THRILLED to see people saying things like this in public! I am thrilled, because they are NOT saying it in one of their mother’s basement as they plan some way to do violence against some unsuspecting innocent person whose only mistake was being of the wrong ethnicity.
Bob, please keep talking you irrelevant racist piece of shit.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
Since most people can’t be bothered to read a couple of old discussions here is the most relevant comment:
A bit about the moronic mantra that these racists are pushing:
A good place to start : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-racist_is_a_codeword_for_anti-white
I don’t usually cite the SPLC, given the poor quality of many of their articles, but they seem to have done a pretty good job with this one: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2013/fall/Following-the-White-Rabbit
First video response;
Second video response:
Racists are sneaky statists:
A rather thorough non-video fisking: http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-racism-codeword-t183621/index.html
And another: http://genocidalracetraitor.blogspot.com/2013/08/contemporary-white-nationalism-and.html
This one is good: http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca/2011/07/boneheads-are-so-cute-when-they-think.html
Take a few minutes or hours to familiarize yourself with what this “mantra” is, why and how it is being pushed and why it is total nonsense.
I actually love it from a tactic standpoint and think libertarians should use similar tactics. I’ve taken some time to familiarize myself with the racist “bootcamps” and their lessons on spreading their bullshit mantra. Great stuff if you can get past the ridiculous content and focus solely on the tactic.
“Nope, I said this particular group is nazis and white supremacists. Please pay attention. Do a search of past discussions about them here.”
Okay, I was being slightly hyperbolic there. I should have added something like, “on this kind of subject”.
“For example this thread https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/rose-city-antifascists-meet-the-oregon-chapter-of-the-american-freedom-party/”
Unfortunately, this sounds like yet another hyper-sensitized and hysterical reaction to people who are basically doing what leftists and racial minorities have been doing for decades. Me, I’m a libertarian, so I’d never join one of these groups, but that does not mean that they don’t have A POINT. If the only thing they are doing wrong is imitating the behavior of the left (which this article specifically mentions and variously alludes to) I’d say, “give them hell!”.
“Or this one https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/american-freedom-party-immigration-opposed-in-oregon/ (I included some comments debunking thoroughly Whitaker?s moronic racist mantra ? yes, he calls it that ? about ?white genocide? as exemplified in the body of this article). There are others; just use the IPR search box. I am not throwing out the accusation at random, I am very familiar with this particular group of boneheads.”
I don’t like the fact that people feel that they have to engage in this, but they are facing a very real opposition, one that the biased news media will hardly acknowledge exists.
“”incapable of seeing racism in racial minorities””
“Also nonsense. I only explained why ?black lives matter? is not an example of that, since you are missing the context.”
I am not challenging the idea that “black lives matter”. I am challenging the fact that many of the people who are promoting that idea are doing so for non-credible and biased reasons. Their unconcealed hostility to “All lives matter” or even “lives matter” demonstrates this well. Even worse, far worse, is that by far the greatest threat to young black life is other young blacks, and ‘nobody’ seems to speak up on this subject, at least far less in proportion to the supposed problem of other causes of death. That’s called “hypocrisy” and is certainly a double-standard.
Nope, I said this particular group is nazis and white supremacists. Please pay attention. Do a search of past discussions about them here. For example this thread https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/rose-city-antifascists-meet-the-oregon-chapter-of-the-american-freedom-party/ Or this one https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/american-freedom-party-immigration-opposed-in-oregon/ (I included some comments debunking thoroughly Whitaker’s moronic racist mantra – yes, he calls it that – about “white genocide” as exemplified in the body of this article). There are others; just use the IPR search box. I am not throwing out the accusation at random, I am very familiar with this particular group of boneheads.
Also nonsense. I only explained why “black lives matter” is not an example of that, since you are missing the context.
The rest of your comment is faulty due to these inaccurate premises or interpretations of my prior remark.
Unfortunately, Paulie, the main thing you’ve done here is to demonstrate in spades (Note: This is not intended as a racial crack) what PC is, why it is wrong, and why it is just as wrong as what you call “racism” is. It also demonstrates that you are incapable of seeing racism in racial minorities, which has long been a fault of PC thought.
And you are also trying to pretend that it is not possible for anyone to oppose you, without being a “nazi and white supremacist”. Sure, that’s what you WANT to do, but generally only the people who think like you are fooled. Or more accurately, they are fooling themselves.
Basically, you’re trying to shut down the debate.
http://www.amazon.com/End-Discussion-Outrage-Industry-Manipulates/dp/0553447750
I say, instead, that there is nothing wrong with continuing the debate. When the PC people demonstrate biases, I see nothing wrong with identifying it and saying so.
Bullshit. All it means is that black lives matter just as much as other lives. The context is the epidemic of police violence.
It only seems that way. Actually, they really are nazis and white supremacists, they’re just slick enough to market it a little better.
Truthiness: Why call them “white supremacists”, either? Consider that there are two other terms, “white nationalists” and “white separatists”. Perhaps one of those is more appropriate? Or neither? They are pointing out that there is an extreme double-standard in existence today. When blacks cry “Black lives matter” and they openly deride people who counter with “All lives matter”, that is certainly racist. But the biased news media ignores this.
I realize that in these PC times, racial minorities are incapable of being ‘racists’, and everything done by white people is automatically wrong.
It seems to me that these people are merely doing what racial minorities have been doing for years, even decades, the latter having gotten very little blowback. Perhaps they are doing that simply to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those minorities and liberals: Is imitation the sincerest form of parody?
So these white supremacists don’t like being called “neo-nazis” and “white supremacists.” Okay, I don’t see any swastikas, so let’s drop “neo-nazi” (whether they are that or not) … and stick with just calling them white supremacists and racists. Those shoes fit this odious party and hateful candidate just fine.
It’s not Politically-Correct to oppose things these days.