R.O.T.A.: The Revolution of The Apes Who Left That Big O Tree?

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

In the Time that it began to ascend and make national headlines, who amongst us has not heard of the phenomena known as the Tea Party? And in hearing, who has not been moved to observe and study? You? Why? Haven’t heard? How? Can you honestly tell us that you have not heard the ruckus? And in hearing, can you honestly say that you were not drawn to examine that which is at a center of that ruckus? Really, judging from the news coverage and attained notoriety, should one not conclude that there are plenty who have been moved in this way? And if so, can you blame anyone for taking to such an activity?

Now, was it not in hearing that one was moved to observe and study? But while studying, did one not help but to notice another activity that was also moving in its intensity? And in noticing, could one not help but to be drawn away to study and observe this activity whose proximity was so close that it had nearly become indistinguishable? What activity, you might ask? Well, was it not the chatter of the critics surrounding the Tea Party? Was it not the chatter whose voice was of the ruckus that had led one to observe and study? And again, in hearing, who can you blame? Can one study a phenomena such as the Tea Party without studying the voices that swarm around? Are they not plenty that have amassed around her? And if so, can you blame anyone for taking to such an activity?

So, was it not so that as one took to observing and studying the ruckus, there was heard in concert voices proclaiming the monstrosity that is this Tea Party? Or were we not there? Was this simply some fancy imaginings of Things that do not exist? And if so, did we then not hear of the terror that is this movement? Did we not hear of their insanity? Was it not heard of a “great evil” or ”sin” that she had wrought in the midst of a society? And in hearing, did we not say to the self “What is this “great evil” or “sin of which is heard?” And as one continued to hear and study, was the question not answered? Was it not seen that this “great evil” or “sin” that had so terrified the voices was the fact that this Tea Party is composed of a number of people of a certain race or stock? Was this not according to the ruckus a “great evil;” an unforgivable Act that in the religion of these is so vile and despicable that it deserved and merited ridicule and condemnations:

1. A What If... thought experiment on white privilege

Quote = Thanatos
Hi there. I'm white and I think the tea party is mostly white people. This is because the TP is, in fact, mostly white people - and their color vision is definitely working just fine.Don't deny the obvious just because it sucks.


2. Liberal logic

Quote = Thanatos
For better or worse, it's mostly rich white old farts at the rallies. Deal with it.


3. A What If... thought experiment on white privilege

Quote = Maryjane
“Blacks only see color? Does it escape you that this Tea Party participant is a white female? It does not (nor has it ever) escaped me that finding people of color at a TP rally is like a game of "Where's Waldo?"


4. Tea Party is working

Quote = Lsbskins
No, I claim what is true. That would be that the Tea Party is made up, disproportionately, of older white guys with a little bit higher income level than the average American.


5. Tea Party is working

Quote = RickSp
The facts are that the those who align themselves with the Tea Party are overwhelmingly white and has been documented by polling are more biased that the nation at large. At the risk of repeating myself:


6. Ann Coulter The Love of My Life

Quote = RickSp
You have your wish - a caucus for stupid white people. Michele Bachman unveils her Tea Party Caucus! Michele even hired a black woman and baby for the photo op! Now isn't that special?


7. Tea Party is working

Quote = Notthecheatr
Look at any tea party rally. If you see one black guy, you'll see a thousand rednecks.

As one continued to observe and study, was it not so that it appeared as if the condemnation of the Tea Party for its racial composition was indisputable? That is, would it not be so that the criticisms were unquestionable if it were not for the fact that these who have claimed the mantle of the most tolerant are those of the ruckus? Is it not so that these who have claimed the mantle of the most tolerant are these who attack the Tea Party for its whiteness? Or is it so that these who condemn have not sold the tale to each individual that a) they alone are without intolerance; and b) that in their own hate of the T-Party there lies no racial prejudice, hatred, or bigotry? But after hearing, how is this the case? Can you really despise the T-Party for its “whiteness” and there not be any intolerance in your despisition? Can you really despise the T-Party for its “whiteness” and there not be any racial prejudice or bigotry in you? How about hatred? Racial preference? Doesn’t exist? Why? Impossible? Why? Insane? How? Fantasy? Where?

CONT….

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

...INUE

So, some questions which may be debated:


First, if you have an issue with the amount of whites who compose a group, how is it that you are not bigoted and intolerant? How is it that you are not racially prejudiced? Can you despise a group for its “whiteness” and not be racially prejudiced and bigoted? Can you ridicule and condemn a group for its “whiteness” without being racially prejudiced and bigoted? Is such an individual himself not caught in the grasp of sanctioned bigotry and intolerance?


Secondly, how about the issue of preference? Do such attacks not shew any sort of racial preference at work?


Thirdly, if it is that you will engage in bigotry and racial prejudicial actions as you yourself attack others who are said to do the same, are you not feigning to be that which you are not?


Fourthly, if it is that you will attack the Tea Party for racism and bigotry, do you with the same vim and vigor attack those who attack the Tea Party for her whiteness? If not, can you please tell us why?


Fifthly, who or what is it that has sanctified this racial intolerance and bigotry? Who or what has made it so that it should not be questioned? On what grounds has it made such a sanction? Or again, is this not so?


Sixthly, with an acceptance of hatred, intolerance, prejudice, and bigotry, should we not conclude that these are admitting that hatred, intolerance, prejudice and bigotry are acceptable? Or was the message that we should take from this Behavior is one that says that it is just this hatred, intolerance, prejudice and bigotry that is acceptable?

Seventhly, when studying this phenomena, is it not found interesting the whites who are attacking the Tea Party for its whiteness? What is it to be made of such attacks? What is the reason behind them? What moves these to attack in this manner?

[Jack]

When a group portrays itself as representing all Americans cannot one question the composition of that group when it appears to be composed of primarily a single segment of society and not "all Americans" as it claims?

[grandpa]

When a group portrays itself as representing all Americans cannot
one question the composition of that group when it appears
to be composed of primarily a single segment of society
and not "all Americans" as it claims?

Any group claiming to represent "all Americans" is doing something silly. At best, an individual can represent a section of themselves at a time. So what are the odds of an entire society being adequately represented?

Grandpa h.

[Thanatos]

Mxy, it's the fact that they're interested in repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that they seem to be afraid of Mexicans, Muslims and an extinct species known as "black Cadillac welfare queens" - and also a lot of them like David Duke for some reason.

[Maryjane]

Stating the fact that a person in a group is of a particular racial demographic that coincides with the overwhelming racial demographic of that group is "attacking" them and makes one bigoted?

Fact: my T-party neighbors are white. Because I have a son in the military, fly the American flag, and I'm white, they assume I share their political opinions. They say things to me they wouldn't dare say to the faces of people of color. They engage in repeating stupid things they've heard other TPats say instead of having one original thought in their heads. They substitutes racists names for the POTUS like Osama for Obama. They flat out call him a nigger. The other day, one even had the nerve to say to me the world would be a better place if the POTUS was assassinated. (something I've heard a self proclaimed member of the TP say here on this board) He never took into account it's best not to say STUPID shit like that to a widow. Because they often repeat what other Tpats say, it doesn't lend well to my admiration for their level of intelligence when they claim they have the best interest of the people of this country (or the world for that matter) at heart.

[grandpa]

Stating the fact that a person in a group is
of a particular racial demographic that coincides with the overwhelming
racial demographic of that group is "attacking" them and makes
one bigoted?
Fact: my T-party neighbors are white.

Stupid men and women comes in all shapes, colors, sizes, beliefs and intelligence levels. This much I have learned, and I will not retract this statement. It applies to the "Mongoloid", "Negroid", and "Caucasoid" races (and not necessarily in that order).

Meanwhile, this is going on:
"While the rich in this country pillage our paychecks, destroy
our retirement funds, and take away our livelihoods, we gladly hand our
resources to them. After all, liberty doesn’t exist without the
protection of these rich people to own that property. They have the
right to even own us, in fact.
By its very nature, the concept of private property has destroyed us
and allowed the rich to ride all over us."
Of Tea-Parties and Patriots: Liberty for Who? by Dave Strano | The Institute for Anarchist Studies

Pretty smart of us average citizens, huh?

Grandpa h.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

When a group portrays itself as representing all Americans cannot one question the composition of that group when it appears to be composed of primarily a single segment of society and not "all Americans" as it claims?

And who amongst those still standing would have it any other way? Should it be you? Who would rather that we not question those involved? Should it be you? And if so, should we then have concluded from declarations that you would be of those who would rather have it so that individuals could not question? Should we then have concluded from declarations that you would be of those who would stand in approval of some way that would make it so that individuals could not question? So Mr. Jack, if it appears that you would not have it so, should we not make sure that we question those that are involved?

Now, in the light of opinion and based on the attacks that have been witnessed, would it be safe for us to conclude that you would essentially contend, that being “composed of primarily a single segment of society” is a composition that does not represent “all Americans?” And since so, in society, when such a constitution is shewn by a group, following a guideline that stipulates that its members set upon said group with attacks is more than an appropriate Behavior for an institution; it is a fitting and proper policy? In other words, in respects to the Tea Party, is it not so that we have a group wherein it is seen that its “constitutional whiteness does not represent all Americans?” And is it not so that this “constitutional whiteness,“ in your view, justifies the assault from those in society who have set upon her in attack?

Secondly Mr. Jack, would you say that there are other such groups found within the society who are fashioned as the Tea Party is? That is to say, would you agree that there are other groups in American society that are “composed of primarily a single segment of society” that does not represent “all Americans?” Or could we count on you to argue that no other such groups exist? Would you argue that the Tea Party is sole in this regards?

Now, if it is that you would not say that no other such groups exist, then would you argue that those whose guideline has led them to attack the Tea Party for being “composed of primarily a single segment of society that does not represent all Americans” are conducting themselves in the same manner when it comes to these other such groups? Would you argue that they are following the same guideline where it is that other such groups are concerned? Would you say that we can find them engaged in the same attacks where it is that other such groups are involved? In other words, if we were to look out, would you tell us that we would see these who are attacking the Tea Party for a “constitutional whiteness that does not represent all Americans,” also engaged in attacking other such groups for being “composed of primarily a single segment of society that does not represent all Americans?” Would we find them conducting themselves in the same way regarding those other such groups who are “composed of primarily a single segment of society?” Would we find them following the same guideline?

Thirdly, if it is that we do not find these who attack the Tea Party for a “constitutional whiteness that does not represent all Americans,” also engaged in attacking other such groups for being “composed of primarily a single segment of society that does not represent all Americans,” then should someone not rise up to question why? Should someone not rise up to ask why it appears that “constitutional whiteness” has been singled out for attack? Should someone not rise up to ask what has led to the singling out of the Tea Party for attack on this basis? And if it is that someone should not do so, then can you please tell us why? Can you please explain to us why it is that someone should not question why it appears that those whose guideline demands that they set upon and attack groups for being “composed of primarily a single segment of society that does not represent all Americans,” are only given to attack a specific group?

In other words, Mr. Jack, if it is that a guideline dictates that members of an institution should set upon and attack those groups that are “composed of primarily a single segment of society that does not represent all Americans,” and it is that you would say that, besides the Tea Party, there are other such groups found within the society who are “composed of primarily a single segment of society that does not represent all Americans,” , then should we not find it strange that the Tea Party has been singled out for such attacks? Should we not find it strange that such attacks have been made appropriate only where the Tea Party is concerned? Should the institution that has instituted such a policy not be seen engaging in the same activity where it is that other such groups are concerned? And if not seen, should someone not rise up to question why?

[grandpa]

And who amongst those still standing would have it any
other way?
Should it be you?...

Before we deal with the race issue, could you find a better format, so people could actually understand what you are saying? Half the time I don't understand you, and half the time I wish I didn't.

Grandpa h.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Any group claiming to represent "all Americans" is doing something silly. At best, an individual can represent a section of themselves at a time. So what are the odds of an entire society being adequately represented?

And can you please expound on this Point for us, Mr. Grandpa?

Secondly, what is “adequate?” Who or what defines it? Whose “adequate?” Your adequate? Why?

Thirdly, if an individual in society has judged that this “adequate” of yours is not “adequate,” then what? What be your advise at this Point, Mr. Grandpa?

Mxy, it's the fact that they're interested in repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that they seem to be afraid of Mexicans, Muslims and an extinct species known as "black Cadillac welfare queens" - and also a lot of them like David Duke for some reason.

And Mr. Thanatos, would you then say that we should recall where it is that you sat silent as the “constitutionally white” Tea Party rose to make their voice heard? Or would you say then that we should recall where it was that, as these made this voice heard, your voice was not heard challenging their very constitution? In other words, should we remember where it is that you yourself endorsed the Tea Party? And yet, is it so that you yourself are not supposed to be afraid of the Tea Party? And yet, is it so that you yourself are an individual who believes that there is no “logical reason” for the fear of theirs? And since so, what then should we attribute this fear of yours to? Why is it that you are so afraid of Tea Partiers? What “logical reason” should we chalk this fear up to, which will not allow you to be silent? What “logical reason” is this that would not allow you to sit back and endorse the Tea Party without a fight?

Secondly, in light of your “logical reason,” should we take this to mean that fear and “logical reason” belong to you alone? Or maybe it is that you believe that you alone should be allowed to Act on your fear and “logical reason?” And if so, why?

Thirdly, based on the OP, should we then also conclude from your responses that what you are essentially arguing is that the racism and bigotry that has been directed towards these individuals is a welcomed and necessary tool that must be used to prevent them from rising to prominence and repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act ? Or are arguing that no such racism and bigotry exists?

Fourthly, if, by your own assessment you have found this racism and bigotry to be a welcomed and necessary tool that must be used to prevent these, can you tell us why? Can you tell us why one as yourself has embraced racism as a means to prevent these from rising to prominence? Can you tell us why the {vile} and {repugnant} “evil’ twins of racism and bigotry are now the tool of choice that must be used?

Fifthly, this “they” whom you say “are afraid of Mexicans, Muslims and an extinct species known as "black Cadillac welfare queens," who are they? Who exactly would you be referring to? Would you be referring to the same “they” who are of those who complain about discrimination and the Tea Party repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act even as “they” themselves are of an administration that discriminates and repeals:


I. Ethnic Profiling: Former Marine outlines secret dossiers: Muslims, Arabs not targeted, FBI says

Extract = Article
Many of the stolen files centered on the meeting spots of “people of interest,” including places of worship, businesses and travel plans, he said.Maziarz's case could have repercussions well beyond Camp Pendleton.The existence of CIA, FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement documents profiling specific minority and religious groups in the United States could undermine contentions by the FBI, the primary federal agency for domestic security, that no programs target upstanding Muslims and Arabs.“The FBI does not monitor the lawful activities of individuals in the United States, nor does the FBI have a surveillance program to monitor constitutionally protected activities of houses of worship,” FBI spokesman Darrell Foxworth said in an e-mail.


II. ACLU sues in NJ over FBI ethnic data collection

Extract = Article
NEWARK, N.J. — The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit in New Jersey Wednesday over the FBI's collection of racial and ethnic data in local communities.In the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Newark, the ACLU said it filed a Freedom of Information Act request in July seeking the release of records about the FBI's "mapping" of local communities under the Domestic Intelligence Operations Guide.The complaint alleges the FBI sent back some documents in December that were improperly redacted and has failed to release any more since then.An ACLU-New Jersey spokeswoman said more than 30 ACLU branches around the country filed similar requests for documents and are considering legal action. The organization said the FBI program raises civil rights concerns.The FBI had no immediate comment on the lawsuit.The complaint said that under the domestic intelligence directive, the FBI is permitted to identify locations of "concentrated ethnic communities," and analyze racial and ethnic demographics and data about "ethnic-oriented businesses" and cultural traditions.The ACLU claims the collection of that information could lead to illegal and unconstitutional racial profiling.


III. U.S. rights watchdog accuses FBI of racial profiling

Extract = Article
The American Civil Liberties Union said memoranda it received under Freedom of Information requests and lawsuits showed the FBI was associating criminal acts with racial and ethnic groups and then using census data and other information to profile entire communities.The group pointed to 2009 memos from FBI offices in Detroit, Atlanta and San Francisco, among others, that discussed potential criminal activities in Muslim, black and Asian communities, respectively.


IV. ACLU: FBI guilty of 'industrial scale' racial profiling

Extract = Article
The American Civil Liberties Union is accusing the Federal Bureau of Investigation of using racial, ethnic, and religious profiling in its attempts to fight crime and domestic terrorism within the US.In a letter to US Attorney General Eric Holder Thursday, the ACLU pointed to “growing evidence … that the FBI is illegally and unconstitutionally targeting innocent Americans for investigation based upon their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, and political activities protected under the First Amendment.”


V. FBI 'Mapping': Racial Profiling on a People-Wide ScaleA Black Agenda Radio commentary

Extract = Article
Until the events of 9/11, Black America seemed to be winning lots of battles in the fight against racial profiling. The term “Driving While Black” had become almost a household word due to heavy media exposure of wildly disproportionate stops of Black drivers by police on Interstate highways. Racial profiling had become politically and socially unacceptable, with few public advocates even among law and order Republicans. And then the Twin Towers came down. Almost instantaneously, racial profiling was back, with a vengeance – directed most dramatically against people who “appeared” to be Muslim, whatever that looks like, but with renewed vigor against African Americans, the historical targets. The FBI, which was never a respecter of the rights of darker peoples, repositioned itself to aggressively pre-empt any threat to national security. That means going after people even when there is no evidence of a crime. Although it remained against the rules for FBI agents to launch investigations based solely on race, religion of ethnicity, those factors could be taken into account. It was a loophole big enough to drive a busload of Knights of the Ku Klux Klan through. By asserting that certain racial, religious and ethnic groups – Blacks, Muslims (especially Black Muslims) and Latinos – were more prone to crime and acts of terror, the FBI cold justify all manner of methods to massively penetrate these groups in the interest of national security.


So, Mr. Thanatos. if it is that you are supposedly an individual who is this worried about “they” who would obtain power and engage in such Behavior, then should we not conclude that you are also an individual who is even more concerned about “they,” who having obtained such power, are already engaged? Or should you not be just as concerned about these who are already engaged?

Sixthly, can you tell us more about this David Duke? Why do you believe that “a lot of them like David Duke for some reason?” How do you know? What would you say is them reason?

Seventhly, would this “extinct species known as "black Cadillac welfare queens" be anything like the “nonexistent death panels” that we have heard so much about?