[Vision2020] [Vison2020] Say What?

[Joe Campbell]

Sorry for trying to communicate with you. I won't make that mistake  
again!

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:38 AM, Nous Tweaker <noustweaker at hotmail.com>  
wrote:

>
> (Sorry, I don't know why Hotmail does not let me reply to a post  
> without mangling the formatting. Re-sending . . . )
>
> Mr. Campbell,
>
> Roy Blunt is being accused of being a racist for telling the exact  
> same monkey joke that he was telling YEARS before Obama came to the  
> White House. His joke only became about African-Americans when some  
> very pathetic race-baiters inferred that connection entirely on  
> their own.
>
> Pardon my French, but the only thing to say of such people is, TO  
> HELL WITH 'EM. I'm not going to waste one second of my time worrying  
> about the feelings of people whose bigoted minds work like that.  
> Perhaps the supreme example of such a mindset, at least among people  
> in the public spotlight, is Michael Eric Dyson, whose Ph.D. is  
> obviously in race-baiting and of whom it should be said (if the same  
> standards are to be applied equally to all people) that he is to  
> racism what Fred Phelps is to gay-hating. Dyson was happy to go on  
> national television and "unpack the full meaning" of Joe Wilson's  
> two-word outburst during Obama's speech before Congress as follows:  
> "[I heard 'You lie boy!'] and a lot more. 'You uppity "n"!' and so  
> forth."
>
> Come on. That sort of talk tells us far more about Michael Eric  
> Dyson than it does about Joe Wilson. People like Dyson are legion.  
> They are part of the problem, not part of the solution, and  
> incidents like the above, each of them rife through-and-through with  
> hypocritical double standards, are too many to count. You should  
> read Dyson's book "Why I Love Black Women" where he rails against  
> inter-racial dating; if a white guy was to go into print with  
> something like that he would be permanent persona non grata on every  
> television network and yet nobody bats an eyelash when a black guy  
> does it. I'm not trying to make a point about inter-racial dating;  
> I'm trying to make a point about hypocritical double standards.
>
> Mr. Campbell, don't sit there on your high horse and talk down to me  
> with vacuous platitudes about the history of racism in America  
> without facing up to the fact that among the biggest race-related  
> problems America faces today is race-baiting and the never-ending  
> fabrication of victims. We have a complete industry of professional  
> guilt-manipulators.
>
> TO HELL WITH 'EM.
>
> Oh, and Mr. Campbell? If you, O mighty "philosopher," can only get  
> the rusty machinery of your mind to produce bigoted, illogical, self- 
> serving crap like "You want liberals to be offensive, for in your  
> sick little mind they only justify your own insults," you have my  
> unmitigated pity. Like I said in my last post, if that represents  
> your "integrity," please, go ahead and assume whatever you want and  
> say whatever you want about me. I really don't care.
>
> Yes, I take it as self-evident that racism is a problem in America  
> today, because at the very least every last race-baiter qualifies as  
> a racist of the first order. That is not the entirety of America's  
> race problems, but it occupies a big chunk of the territory. It's  
> hardly a phenomenon limited to race-related problems, but many  
> American special-interest groups ostensibly dedicated to the  
> eradication of various problems in reality do NOT want to see the  
> problems eradicated, because the eradication of their pet problem  
> would mean the eradication of their source of income! Indeed, they  
> often seem to be working overtime to stimulate and produce more of  
> the problem, or at least a grossly magnified perception of the  
> problem. The SPLC is a prime example of this sort of mischief. They  
> constantly bang their alarmist drum, working their donor base into a  
> frenzy with letters that seriously distort the truth, viz:
> http://www.vdare.com/misc/090928_tancredo.htm
> One does not need to be a fan of Tancredo to recognize that the SPLC  
> twisted his words to make it sound like he was saying something that  
> he did NOT say.
>
> God hates liars, and so do I. And if people care so little for the  
> truth that they are willing to say or believe anything about someone  
> they have taken a disliking to, just to smear them, then TO HELL  
> WITH 'EM.
>
> ". . . all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth  
> with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." -- Revelation  
> 21:8
>
> Nous Tweaker
> ===========
> Can you handle the truth?
> http://noustweaker.blogspot.com/
>
> ----------------------------------------
>> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>> To: noustweaker at hotmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Say What?
>> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:23:43 -0700
>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>
>> Nous,
>>
>> I don't think you'll get very far with the "I'm not a racist" theme  
>> if
>> you can't see that jokes about African-Americans being monkeys are  
>> not
>> funny. Suppose a joke began with the following. "Darwin was walking
>> with some monkeys -- and by the way, all the monkeys were
>> Christians ..." I'm sure you'd be offended. And rightfully so. And
>> we're not even mentioning why it might be even more offensive to
>> blacks, given the history of racism in America. So I don't think you
>> are going to convince many people that you're not a racist by
>> defending those monkey jokes. To anyone but your white friends (and
>> maybe your wife), those jokes are clearly racist. That you defend  
>> them
>> only shows that you are either racist or clueless. If I give you the
>> benefit of the doubt, I'll have to suppose you're an idiot.
>>
>> And it won't help if you say that anti-Christian jokes don't bother
>> you. Of course they don't. You want liberals to be offensive, for in
>> your sick little mind they only justify your own insults. But of
>> course that's just the fallacy of two wrongs make a right. Nothing
>> justifies your insults.
>>
>> Give it up. If you're not a racist, you might as well be since you
>> certainly look like one. Go up to Spokane and run around telling  
>> those
>> jokes and we'll see how far you get. Let's test your confidence.
>>
>> Wwjd? He'd tell black monkey jokes!?! Holy crap!
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Nous Tweaker
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> (Re-sending, hopefully more legible this time)
>>>
>>> ACS wrote:
>>>
>>> [[ Not surprising that you're agreeing with this antisemitic
>>> diatribe, considering that you believe that Jews are the enemy of
>>> God and that the Nazis got a bad rap. ]]
>>>
>>> Mr. Schou,
>>>
>>> Speaking for myself, I want to try to criticize other people on the
>>> basis of positions that they actually hold, rather than attacking
>>> straw men. I do not want to violate the ninth commandment when I
>>> criticize other people. I
>>> don't doubt that I have fallen short of the mark in that department
>>> on occasion, but at any rate that is how I try to approach people I
>>> disagree with. If you are only interested in insulting and
>>> slandering people you dislike, then please feel free to ignore the
>>> rest of this post; go ahead and assume whatever you like, putting
>>> words into my mouth, misconstruing my statements and my motives,
>>> etc. However, if that's not the case -- if you want to actually
>>> understand where your opponent is coming from -- then please read  
>>> on.
>>>
>>> 1. I acknowledge that in today's world, charges of racism (whatever
>>> that might mean) or sexism (whatever that might mean) or even anti-
>>> Semitism whatever that might mean) can be hard to refute because
>>> subjective feelings of offense held by an offended party virtually
>>> constitute proof of the objectively offensive nature of the
>>> behavior. The following link provides one recent example, although
>>> many more could be cited.
>>> http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/09/where-reason-never-sleeps-.html
>>>
>>> 2. Apparently the fact that I read and post at a Kinist blog is
>>> taken as evidence that I am a racist, even though I explicitly
>>> reject Kinism. According to that sort of logic it would make just as
>>> much sense to lump me together with Keely Emerine-Mix. For the
>>> record, I visit that site primarily to ask questions and try to
>>> understand their whole system, without embracing it. Let me add that
>>> although I strongly disagree with much of what they say, they also
>>> not infrequently make some very good points. In my opinion, the sort
>>> of treatment that David Thompson was subjected to by EGC (the
>>> example in 1. above) is simply crazy. The Kinists can provide a
>>> seemingly endless list of examples of such Kafkaesque situations
>>> relating to race in America today. If the Kinists are wrong on race-
>>> related matters, it does not automatically follow that people who
>>> oppose Kinists are correct on race-related matters. The whole
>>> subject of
>>> race is one of the most difficult areas to discuss rationally in
>>> America today; everybody is dragging around so much baggage that it
>>> is really rare to find clear, dispassionate thinking on race-related
>>> issues. As a Christian, I'm still trying to figure out where "race"
>>> fits into God's scheme for things; I am acutely aware of the need to
>>> keep an open mind and consider various views on the subject. I'm not
>>> going to reject out of hand EVERYTHING a politically
>>> incorrect person says simply because some of what they say is wrong
>>> or because the source of the information is "tainted."
>>>
>>> 3. As to the charge that I am a racist, I wonder whether you are
>>> aware that I am married to a person of a different race. I have been
>>> advised by Kinists that if I ever want to become a Kinist, the first
>>> thing I need to do is divorce my wife and send her and the mongrel
>>> kids "away."
>>>
>>> 4. Since I never mentioned it, there is no way you could be aware
>>> that in a previous life I operated a shelter in the middle of a poor
>>> black neighborhood that took in troubled (mentally ill, destitute,
>>> etc.) people referred to me by the city's social care workers. I
>>> lived under the same roof and broke bread with black people (along
>>> with people of other races), some of them with really serious
>>> issues, more or less continually over the course of two years.
>>>
>>> 5. As to the charge of anti-Semitism, for whatever it might be
>>> worth, I should point out that I have close relatives who are
>>> Jewish; we get along just fine and I am not aware of harboring any
>>> animosity toward Jews on account of their Jewishness. I do have
>>> serious misgivings about Zionism, but then so do many Jews. Your
>>> accusation that I think "Jews are the enemy of God" is simply false;
>>> I emphatically deny thinking that Jews are THE enemy of God. I
>>> believe that ALL MEN who have yet to come to faith in Christ are in
>>> a condition of enmity with God. That would include Jews but not in
>>> any special sense. I view the apostasy of Christians, such as my own
>>> mother, with far more concern than I do any Jew.
>>>
>>> 6. Because of point 1. above, I am aware that points 2. through 5.
>>> may mean nothing: I could still be a racist, sexist anti-Semite
>>> because somebody else took offense at something I said. Frankly, I
>>> gave up caring a long time ago. There is no such thing as a right to
>>> not be offended. So if this be racism/sexism/anti-Semitism, then I
>>> say make the most of it. Let the people who take offense over words
>>> like "niggardly," or over political monkey jokes that have been told
>>> for years and suddenly become off limits because we've got a black
>>> president in the White House, etc., stew in their own juices. I
>>> agree with the sign at the Tea Party: "It doesn't matter what the
>>> sign says; you're going to call it racist anyway."
>>>
>>> 7. As an example of 6. above, perhaps somebody might have taken
>>> offense that I said the Nazis got a bum rap. Please note well, that
>>> is not the same as saying the Nazis did not do any of the things
>>> they have been accused of. (I made that quite clear in the statement
>>> you misquoted.) However, it remains true that the Nazis have been
>>> widely accused of things that they never did. For example, for
>>> nearly half a century they were accused of having massacred
>>> something in the neighborhood of 25,000 Poles in 1940, when in fact
>>> that was actually committed by the Soviets. The USA and the U.K.
>>> were deliberately complicit in hiding the truth until the Soviets
>>> themselves finally admitted the truth in 1990. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
>>> ) And that is hardly the only example of lies that have been told,
>>> and continue to be told, about the Nazis. I rejoice that Hitler is
>>> and shall always be tormented in eternal damnation. He deserves
>>> every bit of his eternal punishment. But I fail to see why it is
>>> necessary to perpetuate lies and distortions about ANYONE, including
>>> the Nazis. They were plenty bad enough for what they actually were,
>>> and what they actually did, without any need to paint them as worse
>>> than they really were. I also think it is disgusting that some Jews
>>> have produced fake Holocaust memoirs that they attempt to pass off
>>> as factual, and that some Jews have managed to turn the Holocaust
>>> into an industry from which they make a very nice living indeed,
>>> thank you. The Nazis were human beings JUST LIKE US and that should
>>> scare all of us. One reason why fastidious adherence to the truth,
>>> without embellishment or exaggeration, is so important is that
>>> failure to do so can play into the hands of genuine haters who want
>>> to paint the Nazis as "the good guys" and who think that all the
>>> world's problems would somehow just disappear if every last Jew
>>> could only be killed.
>>>
>>> 8. Regarding Qaddafi, I never said that I agree with him. I do not
>>> agree with him. However, given that the police work surrounding the
>>> JFK assassination was so terrible as to be criminal in its own
>>> right, and given that the Warren Commission's investigation was
>>> somewhat of a fiasco, we really cannot say with any confidence that
>>> JFK was assassinated the way the Warren Report claimed it was. Under
>>> the circumstances, Qaddafi's guess is as good as anyone's. We have
>>> the U.S. government to thank for that.
>>>
>>> 9. Regarding Iran's nukes, I was glad to see that Obama got rid of
>>> the missile shield over Poland that was ostensibly supposed to be
>>> protecting from Iranian missiles. That whole thing was an
>>> unwarranted provocation of the Russians and the fact that the shield
>>> project was dropped simply proves that it never had anything to do
>>> with Iran in the first place. However, I worry that as part of the
>>> deal Russia may have agreed to allow Israel to take some sort of
>>> military action against Iran in the near future. This prospect
>>> really bothers me; I consider the United States and Israel to be the
>>> two big trouble-making bullies on the block, not that any other
>>> country one might care to mention deserves our praise as a paragon
>>> of national virtue. Relatively speaking, however, we can say two
>>> things. 1) Iran has been repeatedly shat on by the USA. Considering
>>> all the harm that we did to their country, the Iranian people as a
>>> whole are remarkably amicably disposed toward the American people.
>>> Pat Robertson and his ilk could learn a thing or ten from the
>>> Iranians. 2) In matters nuclear, Iran is playing by the rules. It
>>> has signed the NPT, has informed the IAEA of its nuclear facilities
>>> (which are entirely legal in the context of international law), and
>>> is allowing inspections. Contrast that with Israel, which has
>>> hundreds of nuclear warheads and the ability to deliver them
>>> anywhere in the Mideast, has never signed the NPT, and has refused
>>> repeated requests from the IAEA and the United Nations to allow
>>> inspections of its nuclear facilities. Iran is playing by the rules
>>> and Israel is not.
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbjgDERSuiI
>>>
>>>
>>> Nous Tweaker
>>> ===========
>>> Can you handle the truth?
>>> http://noustweaker.blogspot.com/
>
> Nous Tweaker
> ===========
> Can you handle the truth?
> http://noustweaker.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limit 
> s.
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================