Tag Archives: faggot

The cultural war on white people

Image result for white walker

So popular within the American culture is the war on white people that the blue-eyed devil is the biggest villain in the very popular HBO TV series “Game of Thrones.” Just sayin’.

That headline is intentionally provocative, but it’s not entirely hyperbole. Discussion of civil rights and racial equality and interracial relations has, over the past few years, increasingly become less and less about reconciliation with whites and more and more about the demonization of and revenge against whites.

And it’s ironic, because many if not most of those seeking revenge against whites are non-whites (mostly black Americans) who have not directly been touched by the worst of what white Americans perpetrated upon non-whites (mostly black Americans) throughout U.S. history. (I think that I have fairly privileged non-white college students in mind the most.) And many if not most of the demonized whites of today have not perpetrated the worst of what white Americans perpetrated upon non-whites throughout U.S. history; they were just born white.

A dream was deferred — and racial revenge has been deferred, too.

The popular message to whites today is that you’re evil because you were born white. You cannot escape your whiteness, and therefore you cannot escape your evil, you blue-eyed devil.

This message is contained in even just the title “Dear White People” — the title itself is so offensive (“Dear Black People” or “Dear Hispanic People” or “Dear Asian People” wouldn’t be OK, but “Dear White People” is perfectly OK, you see, because all white people are evil) that I haven’t been able to get into either the movie or the TV show of that name.

I did get all the way through “Get Out,” the black-paranoia suspense movie in which the central message very apparently is that every white person is an anti-black racist and that no white person can be trusted by any black person.*

I guess that the white actors who appeared in “Get Out” thought that they were being good guilty white liberals by participating in this movie whose central purpose apparently is to tell its primarily black audience that Yes, you’re right, every white person is evil and is out to get you, and, given enough time, will betray you eventually.

That’s such a healthy message.

And this message was “confirmed” in the fairly recent incident in which Bill Maher bizarrely and unfunnily referred to himself as “a house nigger” on his HBO politicocomedic talk show.

Maher was “outed” as just yet another secret white supremacist, you see — his having had many black guests on his show over the years, his $1 million donation to Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, and his black ex-girlfriends obviously all were just elaborate cover for his greatest love, which is, of course, to practice white supremacism — and so on his next show he had to undergo the obligatory flagellation (Bad white man! Baaad!). It was a fucking debacle.

As I have noted before, while white Americans were evenly split between Bernie Sanders and Billary Clinton in the Democratic Party primary elections and caucuses, what helped Billary win the nomination is that black Americans supported her over blue-eyed devil Bernie by a margin of three to one.

Ironically, the true blue-eyed devil was and remains Billary, but no matter.

And I expect Bernie to face anti-white (and anti-Semitic) sentiment from black voters again should he run for 2020. But we’re not even to talk about these facts, since they don’t fit the anti-white, only-whites-can-be-racist narrative that is so en vogue.

But could it be that treating a whole race of people like demons might actually induce some of them to act like demons, in a self-fulfilling prophecy? I mean, that has happened to some blacks due to the white demonization of them, has it not? Why wouldn’t it work in the opposite direction?

Lest you think that I’m going overboard here, there are these concluding paragraphs in Slate.com writer Jamelle Bouie’s piece on the recent KKK rally in Charlottesville, Virginia (to protest the removal of Confederate “hero” statues):

… But while the Klan is a faded image of itself, white supremacy is still a potent ideology. In August, another group of white supremacists — led by white nationalist Richard Spencer and his local allies — will descend on Charlottesville to hold another protest.

Unlike the Loyal White Knights, they won’t have hoods and costumes; they’ll wear suits and khakis. They’ll smile for the cameras and explain their positions in media-friendly language. They will look normal — they might even be confident. After all, in the last year, their movement has been on the upswing, fueled by a larger politics of white grievance that swept a demagogue into office.

The Klan, as represented by the men and women who came to Charlottesville, is easy to oppose. They are the archetype of racism, the specter that almost every American can condemn.

The real challenge is the less visible bigotry, the genteel racism that cloaks itself in respectability and speaks in code, offering itself as just another “perspective.”

Charlottesville will likely mobilize against Spencer and his group, but the racism he represents will remain, a part of this community and most others across the United States. How does one respond to that? What does one do about that?

I’ve been reading Bouie for years now, I believe it has been, and for the most part his discussions on racism and race relations have been fair, balanced and insightful, which you often don’t find in the discussion.

But the spirit of the paragraphs above is disturbing. Its message is that no white person can be trusted; we can’t go by the type of clothing anymore, so we can only go on the color of the person’s skin. Indeed, Bouie’s sentiment above mirrors the central thesis of “Get Out”: “The real challenge is the less visible bigotry, the genteel racism that cloaks itself in respectability and speaks in code, offering itself as just another ‘perspective.’ … What does one do about that?”

Indeed, if every white person probably is the enemy, what do you do?

Apparently the only hope that a white person has these days to get acceptance from non-whites, especially blacks, is to denounce his or her entire evil race in the strongest terms possible and to state strong agreement with every word stated by non-whites. But even that isn’t enough, you see, because the denunciations of one’s own evil, white race and the claims of sympathy and empathy with the non-white probably aren’t sincere. They’re probably just a cover-up for the blue-eyed devil’s true, inborn evil.

We cannot continue to “function” this way, not if we ever want interracial reconciliation. But therein lies the rub: Many (if not most) non-whites (blacks especially, very apparently) don’t want interracial reconciliation, because their entire identity is wrapped up in being a perpetual victim of the blue-eyed devil. (Often, even their income depends on it.) This victimization (real or fabricated) must continue for their identity (and, sometimes, their income) to remain intact, so they continually will find “proof” of this victimization whether it even exists or not.

I surmise that Bouie asked his concluding question (“What does one do about that?”) rhetorically, but I’ll answer it anyway:

You don’t worry about what other people think of you, as you have no control over that, for the very most part. You do, however, become concerned if anyone’s bigotry or hatred translates into words or actions that are meant to harm you.

As a gay man, I know that there are plenty of heterosexuals out there who claim to support equal human and civil rights for us non-heterosexuals but who actually are quite homophobic. Since we’re on the subject, I’ll add that more white Americans (64 percent) than black Americans (51 percent) support same-sex marriage (which to me is a pretty good litmus test for homophobia), so, it seems to me, a black stranger that I come into contact with is more likely to be homophobic than is a white stranger.

And as a white man I never know, when I approach, for the first time, a non-white person (perhaps especially a black person, given the ugly history between the two races in the U.S.) whether or not he or she hates whitey or whether he or she is willing to give me a chance (I do, after all, have blue eyes…).

But I don’t lose sleep over whether or not someone is an anti-white racist and/or a homophobe. Ignorance, bigotry and hatred would be and would remain that person’s problem — until and unless he or she committed a word (such as “faggot,” which black boxer Floyd Mayweather shouted at white boxer Conor McGregor on Friday**) or words and/or a deed or deeds that made it my problem.

I’d give that same advice to Jamelle Bouie and to every other black person with whom I can be an ally as long as he or she doesn’t have an intractable “Get Out”-style perception of me, just waiting until I finally, inevitably demonstrate my “true colors” (because I have, you know, just traded my pointy white hood for khakis).

P.S. I have been following “Game of Thrones” for years now and await tonight’s season-seven premiere, but the fact that the show’s biggest baddies are blue-eyed “white walkers” — the symbolism of that — hasn’t been lost on me…

*The movie has its fatal flaws, of course, such as the central plot contradiction that anti-black white supremacists want their brains transferred into the bodies of black people.

Of course, contained within that contradiction actually is black supremacism — the idea/belief that it’s actually better to possess a black body than a white body, because if it weren’t, then why would these racist whiteys steal black bodies to inhabit?

Of course, plot contradictions in “Get Out” are to be pushed aside, because, again, its central, apparently-very-appealing-to-some message (aside from black supremacism, ironically) is that every white person is out to get every black person.

**To be fair and balanced, Conor McGregor, very apparently no towering genius himself, has made anti-black racist comments, but, to my knowledge, McGregor isn’t gay, and so when Mayweather hurled the epithet “faggot” at him, those of us who actually are “faggots” were just collateral damage, you see, and I don’t believe that Mayweather’s homophobia is at all uncommon among black Americans, who routinely hypocritically claim that ignorance, bigotry and hatred always belong to someone else.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

It’s NOT about health care

For some Americans, the debate that has dragged out for months indeed has been about health care. Those who can’t afford health care, those with serious medical problems who have been screwed over by their for-profit health-care insurance companies, and yes, those Repugnican politicians who are on the side of the for-profit wealth care — er, health care — system that profits obscenely from Americans’ pain and suffering (which, if you oppose, makes you a “socialist”), and the wealth-care corporations, too, of course: for them, it was about health care (that is, trying to obtain health care or profiting obscenely via the long broken and corrupt health-care system).  

For everyone else, though, the battle was somewhere between a referendum on the November 2008 election of President Barack Obama with 53 percent of the popular vote (to Repugnican John McCainosaurus’ 46 percent) and a sort of second civil war; the battle was over whether or not the mostly white, mostly racist, mostly white supremacist Repugnican Party would allow the nation’s first black president to have a major legislative victory.

Those yelling “nigger” and “faggot” and the like at Democratic lawmakers this past weekend — and the Repugnican lawmaker who screamed “baby killer!” at a Democratic lawmaker — yeah, you know, that wasn’t about health care.

That was about a dwindling demographic — the stupid white man and those who support him — that is terrified of the increasing political power that historically oppressed minority groups are gaining. (“Nigger” for blacks and other non-whites, “faggot” for non-heterosexuals, and “baby killer” for those uppity women who want equal rights and who oppose patriarchal rule.)

And those screaming “nigger” and “faggot” and “baby killer” aren’t just “a few bad apples.” The Repugnican Party and the “tea party” is a whole fucking orchard of rotten apples.

The Repugnicans in Congress already are talking about trying to repeal the uppity black president’s landmark legislation. They want to assure their racist/white supremacist base that they’re not going to allow the black president to get anything — or, if he does manage to get anything, to keep it.

And, of course, the Repugnicans and their allies, such as the “tea party” fascists, like democracy only when democracy goes their way.

The “tea party” fascists who “stormed” Capitol Hill this past weekend and called at least one black legislator a “nigger,” spat on at least another black legislator, and called an openly gay lawmaker a “faggot” — and yes, the Repugnican lawmaker who called another lawmaker a “baby killer” — are no different from the mob of Repugnican Party operatives, pretending to be ordinary outraged citizens, who disrupted the ballot-recounting process in Florida in late 2000.

When democracy doesn’t go the wingnuts’ way, they try mob rule. Which is one of the many reasons I call them fascists. (If the boot fits, wear it!)

We let the fascists get away with that shit — their bullying — in late 2000. And look at what it cost us.

We truly patriotic Americans — those of us who respect democracy, even when the democratic process doesn’t give us the outcome that we want — need to stand up to the fascist bullies who want to subvert our democratic system even further than they already have.

We need to push back; that is all that fucking bullies understand.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

‘Homosexual’ as a dirty word

You know what, homo-haters?

Just go ahead and call us gay men and lesbians “faggot” or “queer” or “butt fucker” or “carpet muncher” or the like.

You know why?

Because at least that’s more honest about your feelings.

The homo-hating wingnuts have taken to using the word “homosexual” as a pejorative. They think the venomous ideas that they espouse sound less venomous if they use the word “homosexual” instead of one of the many homo-hating epithets that are available to them. Because, you know, these people are such great fucking “Christians,” and all that it takes to be a good “Christian” is to dress nice and to refrain from using vulgar language (and, of course, to breed like a good little het should!). 

There is the Mormon assbite (I know, redundant…) who in a comment on my blog today dorkily called me “Mr. Homosexual Man.” (Really — how gay is that?)

And in a news story on how the California Supreme Court has agreed to listen to arguments on whether or not the unconstitutional Proposition 8 is constitutional, homo-bashing wingnut Randy Thomasson (whose pictures, interestingly, sure set off my gaydar) is quoted as having said:

“It’s unfortunate that the judges are giving time to the mushy, subjective arguments of homosexual activists who reject the clear reading of the constitution and the clear reading of Proposition 8. If the court disobeys the constitution by voiding Prop 8, it will ignite a voter revolt. It will also threaten the validity of all future constitutional amendments.”

Gee, there was no such “voter revolt” in California after the unconstitutional, immigrant-bashing Prop 187, which California voters passed in 1994, was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court, and California state government continues along just fine although Prop 187 was shot down, as it should have been. I’m sure that the pro-Prop 187 fascists were forecasting cataclysm then, just as the pro-Prop 8 fascists are now.

But anyway, note Thomasson’s use of the term “homosexual activists.”

See, we “homosexuals” don’t call ourselves “homosexuals.” We call ourselves “gay” or “lesbian” or even “queer” or the like.

So the use of the coldly clinical term “homosexual” by those who hate us is meant as a pejorative.

So, homo-hating wingnuts, just get some fucking balls and say what you mean: call us queers or fags or pole smokers or AIDS fuckers or whatever.

Because, you see, having been oppressed by you our entire lives, we can take it, and always having been the comfortable oppressors, you cannot, you anti-American “Christo”fascist motherfuckers.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized