Tweet
Take a look at this picture from Stewart's rally [click here for larger version of photo:
Look at that sea of white faces. Didn't we learn, from the progressive media, that any rally with such overwhelmingly white attendance is by definition evil and racist? Isn't that supposed to be proof positive of bigotry? The racial make-up of the tea parties and Glenn Beck's shindigs were deemed to be of extreme importance and of profound significance by the left, and yet for some strange reason there's no mention in the progressive media (that I have seen) of what the overwhelming whiteness of Stewart's supporters reveals about their true (and by definition sinister) motivations.
Strange, no?
Look at that sea of white faces. Didn't we learn, from the progressive media, that any rally with such overwhelmingly white attendance is by definition evil and racist? Isn't that supposed to be proof positive of bigotry? The racial make-up of the tea parties and Glenn Beck's shindigs were deemed to be of extreme importance and of profound significance by the left, and yet for some strange reason there's no mention in the progressive media (that I have seen) of what the overwhelming whiteness of Stewart's supporters reveals about their true (and by definition sinister) motivations.
Strange, no?
LA replies:
Great catch, and of course you are right. But if you asked a liberal these questions, he would say something like, "White liberals are not racists, because we support Obamacare and other social programs that take from white haves and give to nonwhite have-nots; we support the legalization of Hispanic illegal aliens; we oppose efforts to enforce immigration laws against Hispanic illegal aliens; we support the Ground Zero mosque; we oppose Islamophobia, etc."
However, these answers are not responsive, because tea partiers, Sarah Palin supporters, and plain old Republicans have often been called racists, not for their substantive positions, but for the mere fact that at their gatherings there were no, or virtually no, nonwhites among them. Thus a Sarah Palin book signing last year was called "racist" because all the people waiting on line to get their book signed were white, the implication being that nonwhites were somehow being kept away from the book signing. Thus the Republican Party has been repeatedly called racist because virtually all the delegates at GOP national conventions have been white, the implication being that the GOP was deliberately keeping nonwhites away. Of course the true reason that nonwhites are absent from conservative gatherings is not that the GOP or the tea partiers or the Palin supporters are excluding nonwhites or have any pro-white racial agenda, but simply that they have a conservative agenda, and that nonwhites are overwhelmingly on the left. Yet the conservatives are terrified at pointing out this obvious fact of political life, because that would be taken as anti-nonwhite! In reality, the conservatives are so far from being race-conscious, that they will not even point out obvious facts that would clear them of the charge of racism, if those facts involve making critical, true statements about nonwhites, such as that nonwhites overwhelmingly favor big government and the transfer of wealth from whites to nonwhites.
The above is a further example of my idea that liberalism and its lies can only be effectively opposed by people who have stepped outside liberalism.
]Now, getting back to the Stewart rally, why are there no nonwhites there? Well, in large part because Jon Stewart's and Stephen Colbert's ironical humor has little appeal to nonwhites, just as the conservatism of the tea partiers has little appeal to nonwhites. Yet the tea parties are called racists because there are no nonwhites among them, while the Stewart fans are not. This gross double standard must not be accepted. It must be shoved in the liberals' faces at every opportunity. Conservatives should keep demanding of liberals: Why aren't you calling this all-white Stewart rally racist? And the conservatives must not let the liberals get away with an evasive answer. They must keep pressing the liberals for an answer until they are forced to admit the double standard that they use against conservatives.
Great catch, and of course you are right. But if you asked a liberal these questions, he would say something like, "White liberals are not racists, because we support Obamacare and other social programs that take from white haves and give to nonwhite have-nots; we support the legalization of Hispanic illegal aliens; we oppose efforts to enforce immigration laws against Hispanic illegal aliens; we support the Ground Zero mosque; we oppose Islamophobia, etc."
However, these answers are not responsive, because tea partiers, Sarah Palin supporters, and plain old Republicans have often been called racists, not for their substantive positions, but for the mere fact that at their gatherings there were no, or virtually no, nonwhites among them. Thus a Sarah Palin book signing last year was called "racist" because all the people waiting on line to get their book signed were white, the implication being that nonwhites were somehow being kept away from the book signing. Thus the Republican Party has been repeatedly called racist because virtually all the delegates at GOP national conventions have been white, the implication being that the GOP was deliberately keeping nonwhites away. Of course the true reason that nonwhites are absent from conservative gatherings is not that the GOP or the tea partiers or the Palin supporters are excluding nonwhites or have any pro-white racial agenda, but simply that they have a conservative agenda, and that nonwhites are overwhelmingly on the left. Yet the conservatives are terrified at pointing out this obvious fact of political life, because that would be taken as anti-nonwhite! In reality, the conservatives are so far from being race-conscious, that they will not even point out obvious facts that would clear them of the charge of racism, if those facts involve making critical, true statements about nonwhites, such as that nonwhites overwhelmingly favor big government and the transfer of wealth from whites to nonwhites.
The above is a further example of my idea that liberalism and its lies can only be effectively opposed by people who have stepped outside liberalism.
]Now, getting back to the Stewart rally, why are there no nonwhites there? Well, in large part because Jon Stewart's and Stephen Colbert's ironical humor has little appeal to nonwhites, just as the conservatism of the tea partiers has little appeal to nonwhites. Yet the tea parties are called racists because there are no nonwhites among them, while the Stewart fans are not. This gross double standard must not be accepted. It must be shoved in the liberals' faces at every opportunity. Conservatives should keep demanding of liberals: Why aren't you calling this all-white Stewart rally racist? And the conservatives must not let the liberals get away with an evasive answer. They must keep pressing the liberals for an answer until they are forced to admit the double standard that they use against conservatives.
I see about 10 blacks in that sea of white above. Sure one might claim the picture was cherry picked, but is anyone here seriously doubting considering the demographic of Jon Stewart fans and other reports they have seen of the event that it was the Whitest thing in Washington since the last klan rally?
I don't really have a problem with that, but the funny thing is that they couldn't emphasise enough that 90%+ of Tea Party attendants where White and how this was clearly a sign of implicit racism.
The answer is clear. Implicit whiteness is bad only when its the wrong kind of white people (mostly the poor) doing the gathering. SWPLs mostly use nonwhites as status accessories. White liberals like Al Gore have the right to live in expensive 95+ % White SWPL enclaves as long as they viciously criticize rednecks for their rassism and unsustainable pick-up trucks.
){ :|:& };:
Comment