In no way fashion or form will we accept evil as the solution to evil. In no way or fashion of form will we accept separate but equal. In no way or path to hell and heaven will we accept racism as the solution to racism.

See “Epiphany” for a further explanation. Chain gone. LOL

Since you have mentioned systemic racism and how blacks are being kept downtrodden by the system, which is run by whites, how then would you explain why blacks are not favored but whites are? You do, after all, believe in white privilege, which is part of systemic racism in your view, which is why you wish to end systemic racism because you don’t believe whites are inherently superior, they just got more wealth and status by stealing it from blacks or what not.

So, if in your view, blacks and whites are equal, you have to provide a reasonable explanation of how whites got power in the first place over blacks. And you also have to provide a justification for, if whites and blacks are equal, why blacks need the help of whites to tilt the system in favor of blacks by turning government intimidation and power on other whites and blacks.

In all your descriptions and support of Obama, you believe that it is the system, the government, or white Democrats that can equalize things. True equality only comes about if whites and blacks are equal and neither are given an advantage. Yet you see equality has been achievable by taking from whites and distributing to blacks. If blacks were really as equal as whites, they wouldn’t need such a “handicap”. The idea of a handicap is one is superior to the other and thus needs to be brought down a bit to make things equal.

So when you say that you don’t believe in racism, the inherent superiority or inferiority of a person or nation based upon color, your actions directly contradict this belief of yours.

The reason I fight racism (which I do because I am a committed Christian) is that I believe that the position of blacks is morally stronger than that of the white majority, when blacks fight with the tools of non-violence.

You think the machinations of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the race baiters and black overseers of this generation, to be “non-violent”? Violence takes many more forms than just the physical.

I believe equality will come, but how it comes is very much up to the white majority (because they are the majority).

The idea that numbers provide superiority or power is a thing of majority rule, which is just another way of saying rule by the 1%. As for the majority having the power to vote in change here in America, that is due not to numbers but to the system. The system that you believe was conceived in sin in America. The very system which provides a way for blacks to be “morally superior” without being “submersed in the ground” is also the system you seek to change if not destroy. A rather extreme bit of irony.

If it comes to violence, which it may do, that will be the fought of whites who waited to long to act.

When the responsibility for individual or group actions comes from whites, this means whites have the morally superior position, for it is they who are responsible for actions, bad or good.

When blacks are not responsible for actions, yet have some kind of “moral superiority”, this just means they are protected and given power and privilege by the whites, who are responsible people, for good or ill.

Main Point: Creating equality through cooperation is morally stronger than creating an underclass through unfair competition.

Once fake liberals find a way to repeat Johnson’s Great Society without creating an underclass of blacks through unfair competition, then maybe you can speak about having this “main point” of yours. But until then, you do not have it. It is a fiction, cause it doesn’t exist and it has never existed in Democrat history in their dealings with blacks.

Besides, you answer “unfair competition” with “we’re going to redistribute white wealth and be even more unfair”. That’s not really a solution people should get, since it starts the cycle of oppression and once it is started, it doesn’t end unless with a war. Like the Civil War.

Lets’ end racism non-violently.

That’s like saying let’s end hate non-violently. Let’s also end love non-violently. Let’s even end jealously and arrogance non-violently. You cannot remake human nature in your own image, especially when your own image, your values and your basic human nature, is not modifiable anyways.

Racism will end when everyone is of the same race and there will be no outward signs that they might be perceived to be a difference race. Racism wil lend, thus, when everyone has the same features, same hair color, same tone of skin, same tone of tan, same height, and so forth.

If you want to end racism, you should be realistic about your goals and your chances of accomplishing it. Otherwise it becomes a perpetual justification for injustice and redistribution of wealth. For if ending racism will take forever, then obviously the fight to create equality will also take forever, no? A never ending cycle of power and intimidation based upon a never ending cycle of justification and excuses, is not what humanity should build for their children.

Creating an even playing field (where all can compete) demands a re-distribution of wealth.

Conservatives, Republicans, or classical liberals don’t really choose to live in a world where there is a zero sum policy. We would rather create wealth and create an even playing field by allowing people to take personal risks to create wealth for themselves and everyone else, than to live in a world where the only way to get rich and powerful quickly is to steal power and wealth from others.

Obviously if there is only one pie in existence and that pie is the only food that will ever exist, I’m going to have to kill the people competing with me and cheat, cause I can win in no other way. Now if there is a way to bake more pies and to perpetually create the ingredients for the baking of pies, then I no longer have to cheat and exploit to win, I can specialize and use hard work, in cooperation with others, to get my slice of the pie. In fact, I’ll probably get more than just a slice, but many many pies. This is far better than a world that says “you have one pie and that will be it, until eternity ends”.

So no, creating an even playing field where all can compete doesn’t demand a re-dstribution of wealth. Re-distribution of wealth from those that have it to those that don’t inevitably creates crime, chaos, death, violence, oppression, and misery. The poor will cheat the rich and the rich will cheat the poor, for they then become eternal threats to the other via the class warfare engendered by Marxism.

It’s one thing to say you don’t want to convert America to socialism, it is quite another thing to think that after pitting rich against poor, white against black, that you can stop the march of socialism. Socialism is inevitable once class warfare begins, once it is fueled by redistribution of wealth.

Yes. But it’s our money.

So you’re going to redistribute your own money and that’s it? You won’t use the power of government to redistribute other people’s money, because it won’t really be their money now will it.

You have got to be a bit more serious here.

Taxes become public monies.

So it’s not the money of America going to pay UN peacekeepers to rape children in Africa? It’s just UN money and Americans can say “nothing off my skin”? An amazing way to treat humanity, helen.

It is funny that while these taxes are “public monies”, the public aren’t the ones that decide where it goes. Congress does that and only a few people vote for Congressmen and only for their own. So can the Congressmen of a district in one state refuse to provide tax money for the other districts or can anyone use tax money for their own enrichment simply because it is the public trough from which anyone, with power and connections, and make use of it?

This is not a very equal or fairly competitive system you have imagined.

And we don’t even know what we got for it.

Why would an individual want to keep track of other people’s bank accounts and money trails? So why would individual Americans wish to keep track of public monies when it ain’t their own? Logic is not your forte, it seems.

As to the n- word, white people need to use it NEVER, and black people need to police it themselves. I am not so much concerned with black people’s actions as I am white people’s actions.

Most Republicans and all classical liberals will never accept double standards, a “separate but equal” political or philosophical policy. Not and think it will create equality at the same time. We accept double standards if we either can’t change them or if changing them would be counter-productive. We will not accept a separate but equal policy as national policy to create “an even playing field”, for it will not create an even playing field and is thus counter-productive.

P.S.

By way of explanation, I had every intention of replying to Mike’s comment today. We’d been commenting back and forth for almost two hours and also the previous day (here and on another thread), and I thought it was time for a break.

This doesn’t really concern me either was, and was not a subject I gave much care to.

—Email me on this one at my personal email address. I wanted to chat with you on one of these issues specifically. Positively, proactively, personally.

Glad you came to my blog. By way of explanation, I had every intention of replying to Mike’s comment today. We’d been commenting back and forth for almost two hours and also the previous day (here and on another thread), and I thought it was time for a break.

From what I’ve seen many conservatives just want to call people names rather than finding out what makes them tick and if there’s any truth in what more liberal thought has to offer.

Now, as to whites being superior to blacks, that’s the position of racism: the exact opposite of what I believe, which is what happens when people keep asking nit picky questions instead of taking the main ideas of the whole and studying for themselves. There’s clearly a difference in trying to learn one’s point of view and trying to prove one wrong. I had lots of time for the former and little for the latter.

The reason I fight racism (which I do because I am a committed Christian) is that I believe that the position of blacks is morally stronger than that of the white majority, when blacks fight with the tools of non-violence. I believe equality will come, but how it comes is very much up to the white majority (because they are the majority). If it comes to violence, which it may do, that will be the fought of whites who waited to long to act.

Main Point: Creating equality through cooperation is morally stronger than creating an underclass through unfair competition.

Blacks have been extremely patient in their wait. But the time for equality will come. I say, let’s make it now. Lets’ end racism non-violently. Let’s don’t tear up our nation in the process. If riots come, white people will lose personal property, black people will lose personal property, and we will all lose public property, including building and such of historical importance.

And noblesse oblige is Faulkner. Let’s not go there.

As to socialism: I think I. Obama. black theologists, King, etc. have certain socialist leanings. But none of us are true socialists. However, just as Obama is, in some ways, using “by any means necessary,” so will the others (except King, who’s no longer alive, and therefore, not subject to change). I am not (and do not think Obama is and Democrats are) committed to replacing capitalism with socialism and certainly not with communism.

Creating an even playing field (where all can compete) demands a re-distribution of wealth. It means all Americans (and I’m talking here about Americans first because we are Americans) will come up to minimum standards of food, shelter, health care, etc. Should we care about people in other countries? Yes. But it’s our money. Conservatives are fond of saying it’s their money (rob the rich to pay the poor) but it isn’t: Taxes become public monies.

And what about the national debt? It’s so stupid big we don’t even get it. And we don’t even know what we got for it. So why not run it up 100,000 trillion more and have decent homes, food and health care for everyone? See how silly it gets.

That’s because we don’t want to solve the problem. That’s because lots of people don’t even think it’s a problem. Racism continues to hurt people year after year, and we refuse to consider it real, because we won’t listen to what black people have to say.

**

Hi Mike,

Yes. Both parties must be involved. Otherwise it isn’t a discussion. I think white leaders and black leaders (and that will include Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton) have to sit down and formulate a plan. How do we know what black people want, if we don’t ask them? Congress has to instigate the plan, of course. I don’t think blacks want to be “victims” forever. I think they want whites to share the power: legally and economically, so that blacks no longer feel second class.

“Feel” is a dangerous word. But it is involved, so we have to deal with it. We can’t go back to the beginning. We don’t even know where the beginning is. This is not about gathering all possessions in the US and dividing them up. It’s about making sure old black people see doctors when they need to and that young black people get access to education and jobs. This is not about making lazy people work either. Maybe that verse should really be “The lazy you will always have with you.” Not the poor.

An official apology for slavery must be forthcoming. That should be obvious. Reparations need not mean a given dollar value to each black person. We’re way beyond “forty acres and a mule,” but it should mean opportunity for those who need it. Either education or money to start a business or a down payment on a house. Just as a re-distribution means more tax for the wealthy (not a certain number of dollar per person), it will also mean more help to those black (and poor) people who need it. There are too many details for anyone to figure out in advance of action.

The question is not, what will it cost to do this ? but, what will it cost not to do it?

As to the n- word, white people need to use it NEVER, and black people need to police it themselves. I am not so much concerned with black people’s actions as I am white people’s actions.

Oh, and none of this means we should develop personal relationships with individual people of other races (and religions). In reality, we break down hatred one heart at a time.

Given that whites are superior in helen’s eyes, that is the right way to change things.

The fact that a white recognizes and benefits from their superiority, yet isn’t willing to pay the noblesse oblige price of the white man’s burden, really is an excuse to maintain power on an unequal basis. Since all power and wealth comes from whites, it is the whites that must provide it to the blacks.

This is all very logical and to be expected of socialism when applied to blacks or black liberation theology.

It’s time to stop for a while. Your responses are getting full of excuses. You have plenty to think about. And you don’t have to end up agreeing with me. More later.