Posted: 19 July 2007
Copyright 2007 by Frederick B. Meekins
USED WITH PERMISSION
Don Imus' comments that the Rutger's ladies basketball team were a bunch of tattooed nappy-headed hoes might not have been the kindest thing to say about these athletes, though one must note the claim has not been entirely refuted as interestingly in appearances before the press the players have decided to conceal themselves behind jumpsuits so the American people can't determine for themselves whether or not the team at least merits the tattooed classification. However, the response to these remarks, especially on the part of renowned rabblerousers such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, has gone far beyond the momentary discombobulation such a guffaw might elicit from more balanced people.
Not content to enjoy his victory, Al Sharpton now seeks to enshrine himself in a position as some kind of grand inquisitor with power greater than any elected office as from such a station there would be little way for the American people to drive him from his position of power as Sharpton plans to "...have a broad discussion about what is and is not permitted in terms of the airwaves."
Observers astute enough to translate such verbal sludge oozing from the lips of politicians and similar human debris know that what Sharpton really means is that any White person that dares tick off rampaging Black leftists and their cowardly Caucasian sycophants are fair game for what Clarence Thomas categorized as an electronic lynching during his confirmation back in the early 1990's.
Tolerancemongers and hyperpluralists such as Sharpton and Jackson might get up there and claim that they want public elocution elevated and dignified. However, in the end it will only be White folks bearing the brunt of the wave of censorship as minorities and those embracing certain radical perspectives will be permitted to spew their mental filth as they see fit.
For example, Snoop Dog (who is so usually strung out on dope that he was arrested after his appearance on The Tonight Show), is quoted in an ABCNews.com story titled "On Imus Crossing The Line" dated 4/2/07, who unlike Imus who did not technically use a single obscenity, let loose with a string of explicatives revealing the contempt percolating in his own heart towards Caucasians when he said justifying hate speech on the part of human ghetto filth, "It's a completely different scenario. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white man that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mother f------s say we in the same league ."
And what about Don Imus? Why isn't what he has to say just as relevant to what he has to say or feel? Furthermore, why such a double standard?
Though Afrosupremacists such as Sharpton, Jackson, and Snoop Dog claim to despise those derided as "dead White males", what they really mean is that they despise those that advocate a set of standards that judge human beings as individuals. For these racialists have little problem incorporating into their modus operandi hints and suggestions from some of history's most notorious scoundrels as evidenced by their propensity for double standards.
For example, as stated previously, these malcontents have no problems whatsoever of holding Whitey to the highest standards imaginable --- even ready to slit his throat for the utterance of a phrase as linguistically bland as "those people" as Ross Perot can remind you --- and heaping laurels upon themselves constantly reminding the world as to what color they are while standing ready to bash your head in if you happen to exhibit the slightest reluctance about handing your children over for compulsory intermarriage. Though they might not be smart enough to realize it, when they advocate such a standard they are in fact invoking blatant Hegelianism or even Marxism.
According to Samuel Stumpf in Socrates To Sartre: A History Of Philosophy, Hegel believed that revolutionaries cannot be judged by the morality of an epoch out of which a particular nation is emerging (338). Thus, in the eyes of Sharpton, he is free to do and say whatever he pleases to further his cause.
For example, while Imus is to be banished for any utterance short of pledging unending fealty as Sharpton's personal vassal, on a number of occasions Sharpton has enunciated much more seditious verbal incantations that have been far uglier in context and resulted in actual incidents of violence. Bobby Eberle of GOPUSA.com documented a number of these in a 4/17/07 blog post titled "Will the biggest racist please stand up?" These incidents include the following.
In 1991 at the funeral of a Black child run over by a Jewish motorist, Shaprton mobilized hundreds to rampage through a Jewish neighborhood where a rabbinic student was stabbed as a result of Sharpton's pastoral counsel.
In 1995, a Jewish merchant was forced to raise the rent on his Black subtenant as result of the Black landlord raising the rent on the entire building. In response, Sharpton organized a boycott where in a display of utmost Christian decorum his lackeys spat on customers and some of the protestors got worked up into such a lather with "Burn down the Jew store" that one of them eventually burst into the shop, shot four employees, and immolated the premises in order to carry out the threat.
The overly tolerant and genteel will respond, "But comments such as Imus' are inappropriate and shouldn't be allowed." Yet not one word of what he said, while impolite, could be considered obscene.
Thus, if policing the airwaves is to now go from preventing certain obscenities to expunging certain combinations of non-obscene words that elicit offense in certain protected groups, where will the line be drawn? For while most of us are schooled in the dying art of commonsense, there are powerful leftist forces in this country gathering under the banner of political correctness out to lump together humor of questionable propriety and any scathing insight that dares to question prevailing liberal orthodoxy.
According to an April 13 2007 WorldNetDaily article titled "It's Just Not Imus: Brock Group Makes Case Against Limbaugh, Savage, Beck & O'Reily", an interest group headed by David Brock (a former Conservative turned Sodomite) contends that these talk show hosts should be removed from the air for the following offenses.
Rush Limbaugh dared to abbreviate the National Organization of Women as NAGS, suggested that the Hispanic team might win the race-based edition of Survivor because of the knack of that ethnic group for undertaking arduous journeys with little need of water, and to muse that the race-based Survivor format was scrapped probably when the Whites started winning the challenges. Interesting how the criticism is leveled against someone daring to notice the race-based edition of Survivor rather than at the producers for devising such a concept.
Michael Savage is to be sent to the broadcast gallows, according to Media Matters, for observing that gay rabbis would bring the same kind of pedophilia into Judaism as gay priests had brought into Catholicism. Savage also dared to enunciate the feelings shared by the vast majority of Americans when he said, "You know, I'm sick and tired of the whole country bending over backwards for the junkie, the freak, the pervert, the illegal immigrant. All of them are better than everybody else. Sick. Everything is upside down."
John Gibson of Fox News is to be rounded-up for a stay in the reeducation camp because he extrapolated from demographic trends that White folks aren't having as many kids as their Hispanic counterparts (who are no doubt getting hefty government subsidies doing so often birthing their babies outside of marriage). I wonder if Media Matters care to comment on remarks by Hispanosupremacists ecstatic about old White people dying off or perhaps they are keeping quiet hopin' one day they'll get a job settin' the massa's table.
Once more, those more wrapped up in propriety and decorum rather than mounting a vocally vigorous battle cry rallying the troops to the defense of what little remains of the Old Republic will claim that all they want to do is curb offensiveness and increase civility. But what they really mean is that they want to squelch anything they happen to disagree with.
For if the linguistic preferences of the leftist malcontents are implemented to their fullest as they will have to be in order to assuage them from rampaging in the streets and insinuating violence as Sharpton and his ilk have done in the past, it won't only be "derogatory" slurs and epithets that will become verbal taboos but also elocutionary combinations that express perfectly legitimate ideas and concepts.
For example, those that improperly enter the United States are referred to as illegal aliens because, number one, such an act is a violation of the law and, number two, because the individual in question is not of the place they have entered. However, if certain agitprop movements and allied radical activists have their way, the particular phrase will eventually join others such as "nappy-headed hoes" among those things one does not say for fear of losing one's job or even one's life in certain dark alleys of inner city America.
Wanting to normalize their behavior and to condition the American people into embracing this violation of our sovereignty, Hispanic subversives at rallies across the United States have bandied about the slogan "No human is illegal". As the weak-minded find themselves brainwashed by such Pavlovian manipulation, eventually such perspectives migrate from the realms of mere posturing to forging concrete mental shackles.
For example, according to a story posted February 28, 2007 on WorldNetDaily.com, Florida State Senator Frederica Wilson wants to ban the phrase "illegal aliens". Her bill would forbid state agencies or officials from employing the term in state documents (thus being about the only place illegal aliens couldn't be employed) though there would be no penalty for using the words elsewhere --- for now anyway.
There is no telling what the future might hold as each generation comes to accept the extinction of the liberties curtailed in the one before it. Some future Imus might very well find himself subject to coercive mental reconditioning from a pair of electrodes strapped to the sides of his head or some other kind of corrective neurochemical manipulation for uttering such a phrase.
Senator Wilson might want to take note of this since revolutions have a tendency of eventually consuming their own and she will also be exposed by the thought police as an historical ignoramus and possibly as something much worse (a potential bigot). This elected loon said, "All of us are immigrants except the American Indian."
For starters, if one is to make verbal inoffensiveness the foremost ethical imperative on par with something like Star Trek's Prime Directive as suggested by the Sharptonians, who does this old bat thinks she is calling those found here first "American Indians"? For isn't it the epitome of insensitivity and arrogance to American Indians since technically they aren't Indians and "America" is the name imposed this continent by the White devils?
The ethnocentrism of this state official does not end here. For if we are to sniff out every whiff of bigotry like one dog at another's rear-end, the notion that the American Indians are not immigrants is another delusion. Their ancestors traveled here just like the rest of ours, only they, it is believed, came over the Bering Land Bridge. Therefore, if we have to listen incessantly about how their land was taken from them, why shouldn't we be able to complain about the demise of America's Anglocentric foundation being diluted as a result of immigration overdose?
Such questions, my friends, you may never have the opportunity to raise if leftist elites have their way. For if they had their way, such intellectual dissent would never be allowed to be articulated.
Many contemporary liberals have moved beyond the tendency of thinking their position is the correct one to thinking that their view is the only one acceptable within the parameters of a civilized discussion. And since it's the only rational perspective, all other should be banished from consideration.
For example, confined to broadcast outlets few seldom care to watch such as PBS, one would think Bill Moyers would applaud an enthusiastic enunciation of ideas whether or not he agreed with them. However, rather than counter any fallacies or logical inconsistencies found in conservative talk radio, he dismissed the genre in its entirety by labeling the medium as a "freak show of political pornography" according to a Dec. 20, 2004 NewsMax.com story by Phil Brennmen titled "Bill Moyers Attacks Hannity, Conservative Media".
Moyers' phraseology is quite revealing as to what he and his brethren think of conservative dissent to their ideas. For even though they themselves would be among the first usually to defend obscene works of art and generalized broadcast debauchery, what he is referring to is that in the American system pornography does not enjoy the same degree of protections as other forms of expression since it is considered to possess no redeemable cultural or educational merit.
Liberal effetes will claim that verbal brawlers such as Hannity, Savage, and Limbaugh should be removed from the airwaves because, it is usually argued, that these pontificators are "mean spirited", "coarsen our society", and "lower our levels of civility". These phrases that cause the discerning mind to want to vomit once you hear them once you actually know what they mean actually translate into normal English as "How dare those pundits enunciate their disagreement with leftist assumptions."
For if you really think the apostles of tolerance and inclusion want to elevate the tone of discussion in this nation, you are dangerously deluded. As a regular segment on his program, Sean Hannity broadcasts exerts from the Hate Hannity Hotline and some of it is so exceedingly profane that if listeners were permitted to hear them without the obligatory bleep they'd make the ramblings of Don Imus sound like a harp strummed by an angel in heaven.
Those seeking to retain the shreds of the facade of tolerance that remain claim that such loons should not be used as evidence to pronounce judgment against left of center movements. And perhaps fair enough.
Perhaps then we should bring forward for examination one of their most beloved. Often Garrison Keillor is placed on a kind of pedestal as an example of the kind of programming public radio could provide more of with increased funding. However, if one digs deep enough, one finds that this pug-faced font of tolerance and whimsical expression is not all that far removed from Don Imus along the scale of distasteful curmudgeons.
For example, in a May 3, 2005 Nation article titled "Radio Waves: Confessions Of A Listener", Keillor calls conservative talk radio personalities "...evil, lying, cynical bastards who are out to destroy the country..." Is this the type of linguistic tolerance liberals claim they crave? Where is Al Sharpton calling on Keillor to use "more appropriate language"? But since Keillor's remarks are about White people, I guess Sharpton doesn't give a darn.
Though the liberals claim they believe all viewpoints are equally valid, by his very comments Keillor reveals that what liberals really want to do is impose their orthodoxy upon the rest of us to an extent those Keillor derides as "rightwingers" would seldom think of doing.
For example, to say that someone is evil, one must admit that good and evil exist beyond mere social conventions. Furthermore, to say that someone is lying is to admit that, contrary to postmodernist conjecture, not everyone's "truth" is equally valid and one must by definition correspond to an objective reality both sides of a debate are privy to.
Terms such as "cynical b--t--d" are simply clubs the American people are constantly beaten over our heads with as to why we should have smiles plastered across our faces as the necks of our liberties are laid on the chopping block. One would think it would be a civic virtue and obligation to shout out that the emperor has no clothes.
Those thinking Keillor's comments in the Nation are a rare slip of the tongue for one of the grand wordsmiths of the age should think again. It seems such slips of the tongue are common practice leveled against those happening to think perhaps the government really doesn't know best as to how your paycheck should be divied up.
In yet another column published in the September 20, 2004 issue of In These Times titled "We're Not In Lake Wobegon Anymore", Keillor classifed conservative Republicans as "fundamentalist bullies, freelance racists ... and aggressive dorks." I don't know how many of you have seen what Garrison Keillor looks like, but frankly he's about the last person that should call someone a dork. From the standpoint of his physical countenance, he actually makes Barbara Streisand look attractive.
If all this back and forth confined itself to the institutions of a free press and blogosphere, everything would be OK as the Founding Fathers envisioned the First Amendment as a mechanism Americans could use to blow off steam so they'd be less inclined to blow off heads. However, since radical liberals cannot tolerate the idea that anyone would disagree with them (which is ironic since most of their measures restricting liberty are often couched in the language of tolerance) a number of them wish to move beyond the arena of verbal brinkmanship to actually punish those speaking out on issues even beyond regarding ethnicity and race. For example, according to a press release posted by the U.S. Senate Commission on Environment and Public works on 10/11/06 titled "Nuremberg-Style Trials Proposed For Global Warming Skeptics", staff writers at a magazine with close ties to both Bill Moyers and former Vice President Al Gore have called for the establishment of global tribunals like those bringing the Nazis to answer for their crimes against humanity. Typical of the tolerance displayed by leftists of those disagreeing with them, those questioning the assertions of this dubious political theory are dismissed as "bastards". But as the enlightened Sharpton reminds us, such sentiments are within the bounds of linguistic propriety so long as one does not utter the word's "ho" or "nappy-headed".
The desire to curtail the free speech of conservatives and to possibly even exact some kind of criminal punishment upon them is not an isolated sentiment. It is fact a sentiment under consideration for actual implementation on the part of those holding power.
According to an article titled "Liberal Totalitarianism" by Jeffery Kuhner posted on the website of Insight Magazine, backed by megalomanical globalist financier George Soros who has already conspired to strangle free expression throughout Eastern Europe's fledgling democracies, Congressional Democrats of a socialistic bent such a Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Maurice Hinchey of New York are proposing to reintroduce the fairness doctrine (essentially a "Hush Rush" bill as such measures were referred to in the 1990's in honor of Rush Limbaugh whom was the predominant talk personality of that decade). According to Kuhner, if enacted, the legislation backed by Pelosi allies would require that all views be given equal time by broadcasters. Wouldn't this require that for every pundit that said that the Rutger's ladies basketball players aren't nappy-headed hoes there would need to be one to say that they are?
As dangerous as this would be as it would give too much power to the government to determine the ideological content of broadcast programming, even more disturbing is the suggestion by Representative Hinchey that these radio personalities should be declared threats to national security for advocating militarist approaches to foreign policy. While some might dismiss such as rhetorical hyperbole, the threat, nevertheless, should be taken seriously.
For you see, in the current state of emergency, if one is categorized as a threat to national security, one does not enjoy the civil protections most Americans take for granted that shield them to an extent from police power run amok. While the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity might never be detained in some kind of reeducation camp as their high profiles and deep pockets grant them a degree of immunity, what is to protect the legions of bloggers, podcasters, and hosts of less prominent talk shows just as dedicated to exposing the truth but who do not enjoy the benefits of the fortunes accumulated by media celebrities. About the only thing positive thing that might come about as a result of such a scare is that those enamored with the Patriot Act might at last realize what a dangerous piece of legislation it can be when political winds change direction.
John 3:19 says, "...and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." The last thing that the most evil of men --- namely the diversity mongers and confiscatory socialists --- want is for light to be shined upon what they have in store for us until it is too late.