Steve Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism has uncovered a 2005 speech by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the organizer of the Ground Zero mosque project, in which he blasts the United States-his adopted country. I am cross-posting this from the Investigative Project on Terrorism web site.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2121/rauf-lecture-reveals-radicalism
Keep in mind that Rauf is a native of Kuwait, the country we liberated not so long ago from Iraqi occupation. Some gratitude.
How does this match with Rauf's repeated claims that this proposed Islamic center is going to be a bridge between Islam and the West? I'm not buying it. The first time Rauf or anybody else stands up in that building and repeats these charges he will be making a mockery of this whole project. Those words spoken in the would-be Cordoba House, Park 51, or whatever they choose to call it will be a slap in the face to every American.
God only knows what Rauf is telling people in the Middle East as we speak on his State Department-paid trip.
*Update:
Today, State Department spokeshole PJ Crowley defended Rauf's comments and the decision to send him to the Middle East.
"We are aware of those remarks," said Crowley. "I would just caution any of you that choose to write on this that once again you have a case where a blogger has pulled out one passage from a very lengthy speech, if you read the entire speech, you will discover exactly why we think he is rightfully participating in this international speaking tour."
Mr Crowley, the Investigative Project on Terrorism is much more than a blog. Steve Emerson is doing the work our government should be doing.
How stupid and gullible we are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Pardon me, but did you by chance post the wrong link? I saw absolutely no instance of Rauf "blasting" the United States. Pretty much everything he said was simply observational in nature and a completely reasonable assessment. Sorry you can't handle rational, nuanced criticism.
No, it's not the wrong link at all. Rauf is free to spout those opinions all he wants. I am not arguing that point. My point is that I don't consider this guy to be a so-called moderate at all. He has also advocated the wish that the US become shariah compliant. Do you know anything about shariah law? Look up the shariah positions on gays, women and apostacy.
Then just imagine -not from a legal point- if this man were to stand up in this new mosque and say the same things he has already said. What a sacrilege to the victims of 9-11. This guy is no bridge builder. If he were, he would never have even considered building this mosque in that location. Now he ignores the sensitivities of most of the American people regarding the location of the mosque. That is no bridge builder.
As far as my ability to handle rational, nuanced criticism, I can handle it very well. I am not calling for the guy to be dragged off to jail. I am taking issue with it. Am I not allowed to do that?
What you are implying is that if someone speaks what you call "rational, nuanced criticism," that we are supposed to remain silent.
Say, you aren't Keith Olbermann, are you?
Honestly it's not even worth the time or effort to debate you and the other Islamophobic bigots about this any more. And yes, 50 years from now that is how you people are properly going to be remembered: as bigots.
Dear Anonymous,
If it's not worth the time to debate me then I'll be glad to see you go. Once you have run out of arguments, the last weapon is the bigot charge.
It won't work.
The fact is that you are confusing who the aggressors are here. We are not the aggressors. We are standing up against the aggressors-not all Muslims, but the ones who want to conquer the West for the sake of Islam. We are going to fight them, and we can only hope that the decent, law-abiding Muslims who have not bought into this version of jihad, will stand with us.
If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, I could care less.
It's not just in my eyes. History is going to judge you the same way it has judged those who held similarly bigoted views towards blacks, Catholics, Jews, and the Japanese. Fifty years from now, we will view you and your buddies just the same way we view all of our country's previous bigots. Chew on that.
Oh, stop it. Besides, I can't chew when I'm laughing.
I don't want to get into the game of calling people bigots or questioning their intentions, but I also don't see Rauf's comments as "blasting" America either. Shoot...I've said some of the things he's said. Am I a radical Islamist?
Lance,
Let me repeat. Rauf enjoys freedom of speech. But I do not regard this guy as a bridge builder to anything. I would be outraged if he builds this mosque, which he labels as something to build bridges, and repeats all the statements we know he has made. Illegal? No. As far as I am concerned this is another wolf in sheeps' clothing. Am I allowed to say that? Or should I-as nancy pelosi implies- be investigated?
I think you should be able to say whatever you want. However, you're doing something that I find disingenuous - and this is something that happens all too often whether it's Sean Hannity on the right or Kieth Olbermann on the left - you're not looking at the broader context.
I don't think that what he's saying here is all that bad, especially when taken into context with the other things he's said about America and Islam.
Besides, isn't he a Sufi? They're the Unitarian Universalists of Islam. They take the Koran about as un-literally as one can, so I don't worry about them too much.
Dennis Prager nailed this predilection of the Left to demonize their opponents. They never argue the substance of an issue but they immediately attack the person and their supposed motives. (That's because they are all so kind-hearted that if you oppose them you MUST be a monster.)
Here is the opening. It is worth the read. (link to the full article is below)
Demonization of opponents is a fundamental characteristic of the left. It is not merely tactical; they believe people on the right are bad. (Here's a test: Ask someone on the left if active support of California Proposition 8 -- retaining the man-woman definition of marriage -- was an act of hate.)
A related defining characteristic of the left is the ascribing of nefarious motives to conservatives. For the left, a dismissal of conservatives' motives is as important as is dismissal of the conservatives as people. It is close to impossible for almost anyone on the left -- and I mean the elite left, not merely left-wing blogs -- to say "There are good people on both of sides of this issue." From Karl Marx to Frank Rich of The New York Times, this has always been the case.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2010/08/24/for_the_left,_opponents_cannot_have_decent_motives_the_ground_zero_example
.
What he said might be debatable, but it's hardly "blasting" the U.S. I don't have the facts myself, but I know that he's not pulling the 1 million figure out of thin air. Still, what amount would make it bad enough?
And again, I've read some quotes from him which are decidedly pro-America and pro-Western values.
Regarding Shariah, you're oversimplifying things. It's not exactly like all Muslims even agree on what that means. I know, for instance, that he has stated that he rejects the punishment of death for apostasy. Find out exactly what HE means by it, and then you'll have something beyond a meaningless talking point.
You know who the real victors in this whole "Ground Zero Mosque" mess is? Al Quaeda. What a propaganda boost for them. "See? The Westerners claim to have religious tolerance, but this proves that they don't!"
Lance, I suppose you are referring to my observation that "They [those on the Left] never argue the substance of an issue but they immediately attack the person and their supposed motives." and believe I counted you among them. Of course I don't mean every Leftist and every time on every issue. I do mean it is a constant recurring tactic by the oh so tolerant Left.
If you actually read Prager's article you would have seen his numerous references of examples of this phenomena. As I have written here before you typically don't see that coming from the mainstream Right. Those sample quotes were from the literati of the Left and, as I say, typical of the breed.
As your other apologetics and minimizing of the horrors in the Islamic world daily... in the name of their religion... I don't suppose you read the MacCarthy piece that Gary provided or the links to the count on the Islamic atrocities daily that I posted. You want to trivialize what you don't know and believe that it simply can't be as bad as it is because you don't know about it. You think that the individual Muslims you know represents Islam.
And by the way, Al Quaeda, has a propaganda victory either way in this whether the Mosque is built
or not. Nothing we do will change that.
The half million (not million) dead children that Rauf came up with is a debunked figure that Saddam Huessein used to flog so that he could keep the UN sending in relief to Iraq, which he plundered.
Rauf bought that figure and the ready acceptance of how truly evil the US is. (Another concept about how bad American are and have been that the Left freqently assumes.)
To the extent you employ or embrace these tactics and ideas about Americans, you are absolutely included in my characterization.
Miggie,
That's a lot to cover, but let me just say this: if you think that the right doesn't do what you're saying the left does, then you're just not paying attention. I'll give it to you that the left can be guilty of it, but come on...
Lance,
You were just supplied with numerous examples of the ad homonym attacks just recently that all the Left Wing intelligencia made. There was a comprehensive article by MacArthur that you ignored. There was all the references of Muslim atrocities I supplied you on the links.
And yet, your response is "You guys on the Right do it too"? There is nowhere near the equivalence you suggest.
You don't want to look at the underlying data on the severity of the problem.
C'mon, Lance, you are either being lazy or too entrenched in your world-view that everybody and all religions and all parties are about the same that you don't want to look at the facts.
Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue...
...Extremism in defense of liberty is an oxymoron.
I don't find the term "moderate" helpful here, just as I don't find it helpful to hear some Hutu Rwandans described as "moderately" opposed to genocide. Its media pablum of the worst order.
I do see a flaw in your responses Gary. Two people have said "I saw no instance of Rauf blasting the United States," (Anonymous, and Lance). On both occasions, you respond "He has every right to spout his opinion." However, you fail to address the point that two different observers don't find IN the opinions he spouts the hostility you have characterized him with. Could you elucidate on where and what and how that "hostility" appears, and how it is of a different order than what Lance has freely said about his own country?
I could give another example. On Sept 16, 2001, I was proud to be seated in a church where the pastor had the good sense to observe "You know we are one cocky arrogant nation. What happened to us last Tuesday was terrible, but don't you know there are people in the world who wake up every morning wondering if a bomb will fall in their living room? What makes our pain so much more important than theirs?"
It wasn't about Islam vs. America, it wasn't blaming America for bringing 9-11 on itself, it was simply a wake-up call that we are not the first or the last to suffer, nor have we suffered the worst that's ever been perpetrated, and maybe we should tone down the pathos about how DARE anyone do this to US, like that's a special case. Maybe that's what Rauf was trying to say?
Siarlys,
So because Lance and Anonymous don'ty see Rauf as blasting the US, I am supposed to concede defeat?
Just read what he has said. True, it is protected speech and could have been said by Lance and Anonymous in a bar, doesn't mean that I can't be offended by it. This is the guy who calls himself a bridge builder. And he talks like this and wonders why Americans are upset that he is going to build a mosque at Ground Zero?
C'mon, Lance, you are either being lazy or too entrenched in your world-view that everybody and all religions and all parties are about the same that you don't want to look at the facts.
Too lazy to write specific examples. I'll give you that. I'm starting to not care about this - must be a sudden shift in priorities in my life.
That's one of the main characteristic of cognitive dissonance. It is so painful to reconcile the conflict between unavoidable facts (some 18 examples of demonization of the Right by Leftists in the Prager article and thousands of examples of Islamic terrorism on a daily basis inthe link I supplied) that it is better to supply some excuse, too busy, too lazy, too uninterested, etc.
That's why they say facts are stubborn things... sometimes they are painful. They cause you to reexamine strongly held convictions and entertain the possibility that you may have been a pompous ignoramus for years. I know, I went through it around 9/11/01. I have been sane, sober, and happy since then.
.
Lance had pleaded guilty to laziness, but Gary, you are still indulging the same passion, and you're being totally evasive to avoid facing up to it.
Just because Anonymous and Lance don't see Rauf blasting the U.S., you are supposed to...
...make your case by pointing out specific language you consider to be "blasting the U.S." and why you find the cited text supports your analysis.
You still haven't done that. All you did was say "Just read what he has said." Two people did that, and didn't find what you said was there. Where is it? Specifically?
Siarlys, I guess it all boils down to what someone at UCI allegedly said a few years ago;
"One man's hate speech is another man's education".
The fact that Lance & Anonymous are not bothered by Rauf's comments applies only to Lance and Anonymous. The gals at Code Pink say things that bother me, but I don't advocate they be arrested. Same goes for Rauf. Yet, what Rauf has said tells me he doesn't think much of America, and is not the proper person to be sent to the ME by DOS to explain the US. He is also not the person I would like to see put up a mosque at Ground Zero.
Now if Steven Schwartz or Zuhdi Jasser were putting up the mosque, I could believe what they say about being a symbol of reconcilation.
But they don't think the mosque should be there either.
I guess it is time that I let you all know that Lance's shift in priorities has come because he has become the father of a beautiful, healthy boy, Logan Henry Johnson, born on August 18.
Being the happy grandmother I am sure he won't mind me telling all of you that for the time being this is more important.
Okay Miggie, can we leave it at one example? Want to talk about Prop 8? Want to talk about the ruling? Listening to conservatives, none of them actually seem to delve into what happened at that trial or how Constitutional it is in the first place. All they can do is say stuff about an "activist" judge as though he just randomly gave his opinion without examining the evidence given on both sides.
And hey, let's have some real fun and discuss global warming! I have yet to see a "conservative" denier who can even define what it is! All they have are lame-ass arguments about the local weather and other stuff that shows that they don't even know what the heck they're talking about.
Is that good enough? I'm guessing it isn't. I'm glad that you think that you're so smart, and that I'm suffering from cognitive dissonance. You talk a lot about facts, but I see a lot more assertions and distortions than anything else coming from you. Even when you have facts, your conclusions are laughable. You take 2 + 2 = 4 and use it to conclude any crazy thing you want.
Or do you want me to remind you of those two articles you posted some time ago that supposedly debunked what I said about Ann Coulter and they had NOTHING to do with the topic at hand? Remember that? I gave you the opportunity to gracefully admit your mistake without rubbing it in what a fool you made out of yourself.
Might want to check that plank in your eye before you look at the speck in mine. If you're what's considered to be "sane" then I'll happily stay sober.
And you read too much into what I write. I said that I didn't have the time because my wife just gave birth to a son, and I didn't see any point in trying to reason somebody out of something that he obviously wasn't reasoned into in the first place when I could be spending time holding and playing with him. Why do I have time now? Because school just let out, and I have to wait for the traffic to die down before I can leave.
How about just arguing the topics at hand without all the ad hominems and bragging about yourself? You've made a fool out of yourself more than one (see the Coulter thing) and I don't feel the need to rub it in...until now, but now you've had it coming.
Okay Miggie, can we leave it at one example? Want to talk about Prop 8? Want to talk about the ruling? Listening to conservatives, none of them actually seem to delve into what happened at that trial or how Constitutional it is in the first place. All they can do is say stuff about an "activist" judge as though he just randomly gave his opinion without examining the evidence given on both sides.
And hey, let's have some real fun and discuss global warming! I have yet to see a "conservative" denier who can even define what it is! All they have are lame-ass arguments about the local weather and other stuff that shows that they don't even know what the heck they're talking about.
continued...
Is that good enough? I'm guessing it isn't. I'm glad that you think that you're so smart, and that I'm suffering from cognitive dissonance. You talk a lot about facts, but I see a lot more assertions and distortions than anything else coming from you. Even when you have facts, your conclusions are laughable. You take 2 + 2 = 4 and use it to conclude any crazy thing you want.
Or do you want me to remind you of those two articles you posted some time ago that supposedly debunked what I said about Ann Coulter and they had NOTHING to do with the topic at hand? Remember that? I gave you the opportunity to gracefully admit your mistake without rubbing it in what a fool you made out of yourself.
continued...
Might want to check that plank in your eye before you look at the speck in mine. If you're what's considered to be "sane" then I'll happily stay sober.
And you read too much into what I write. I said that I didn't have the time because my wife just gave birth to a son, and I didn't see any point in trying to reason somebody out of something that he obviously wasn't reasoned into in the first place when I could be spending time holding and playing with him. Why do I have time now? Because school just let out, and I have to wait for the traffic to die down before I can leave.
How about just arguing the topics at hand without all the ad hominems and bragging about yourself? You've made a fool out of yourself more than once (see the Coulter thing) and I don't feel the need to rub it in...until now, but now you've had it coming.
And congratulations to Lance on the birth of his baby boy. May he grow up to be a conservative.
And congratulations to Lance on the birth of his baby boy. May he grow up to be a conservative.
He's far too introspective already for that. But in all honesty, I'd rather he be one so long as he comes to it of his own accord than have him just regurgitate the things that I say.
Oh, and:
If you're what's considered to be "sane" then I'll happily stay sober.
should read:
If you're what's considered to be "sane" then I'll happily stay crazy.
Okay, time for a nap while I have a chance. I need all the sleep I can get.
...and George Bush's terrorist was Ronald Reagan's freedom fighter.
You still haven't offered a single sentence you could point to and say "This is what I call blasting the United States." Until you do, the entire discussion degenerates into "did not," "did so."
Oh congratulations Lance. May the current liberal vs. conservative divide be ancient history when your son comes of age.
Lance,
Get some sleep. Go back on your meds. You are all over the place, jumping from topic to topic. Try focusing!
We were talking about Rauf and whether or not he was blasting America. Gary says he has the right to say what he wants but he is not an appropriate guy for the NY mosque and the NY mosque itself is inappropriate, considering the feelings of New Yorkers and the large majority of Americans.
It got into a question of who demonizes their opponents and you wrote that both sides are about equally guilty.
I gave you an article with about 18 CURRENT references of Left Wing Demonizing and you begged off supplying similar examples coming from the Right.
Now you want to change the subject again to talk about Prop 8 and global warming????
Jeez, you are all over the place. Changing your mind is a tough thing to do, even when faced with evidence. Typically, people just tune out or change the subject to avoid confronting their own ah, flaws in reasoning... to put it as gently as I can.
You are a typical Left Winger... always critical of the US, always supportive of those who hate us, always thinking it must be our fault that they don't like us, which you desperately crave. None of you (including the President) ever acknowledges that this is the greatest country in the history of mankind. The strongest, wealthiest, most generous, and better for all its people than any other country on the face of the earth. There is more opportunity here for everyone compared to anywhere else ( ... unless Obama succeeds in ruining it)
As is common to the breed, you don't consider consequences. In this particular case, the NY mosque. Will you get a nice warm feeling when they commemorate the mosque on 9/11? Or when all the Muslim countries in the world celebrate in the street with the triumph of Islam at the site of the attack? Maybe you will appreciate the sound of the beautiful call to prayer that would emanate from the mosque each night, wafting of the graves of their victims.
You maintain that Islam is a Religion of Peace in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. In all your intentional ignorance you insist that it Islam is the same as all other religions, ignoring the dual religious and political aspects of Islam. You enable them with your stupid arguments to game this tolerant society without a bit of caution.
You guys make me puke!
.
Wow, Miggie. Thanks for the big vat of crazy that you just unloaded.
I wrote a longer response, but I deleted it figuring that it was pointless. I'll just point out one thing: You mock me for "changing the subject" to Prop 8? Allow me to quote you...
Ask someone on the left if active support of California Proposition 8 -- retaining the man-woman definition of marriage -- was an act of hate
You brought it up. I was giving examples to...ahh...why am I bothering?
Miggie, there are a handful of people in the "black" neighborhoods I am familiar with -- the neighborhoods you like to write about but are probably paranoid about walking into -- who think that when they know they are caught dead to rights, obviously guilty, not a leg to stand on, no excuses, the best response is a long-winded tirade accusing their accuser of everything under the sun -- the main point is never to stop shouting because then nobody gets to ask a simple factual question like "but did you do that?"
There are equivalent strategies among con artists with congenital melanin deficiencies.
Your writing style betrays the same strategy. You never respond to a direct question, you just spew out a long-winded rant about Lance. If you feel like puking, there are facilities designed for that purpose, among others. Go there. Don't spew it all over Gary's site.
Lance,
You wrote "I wrote a longer response, but I deleted it figuring that it was pointless. I'll just point out one thing: You mock me for "changing the subject" to Prop 8? Allow me to quote you...
Ask someone on the left if active support of California Proposition 8 -- retaining the man-woman definition of marriage -- was an act of hate
You brought it up. I was giving examples to...ahh...why am I bothering?"
If you had read the post you would have known that you were not quoting me... it was the opening of the Praeger article. He was pointing out how the Left demonizes the Right and he used that example so that if you truly asked yourself, being on the Left, what you thought about people on the other side of the argument, you would acknowledge that you HATE them.
He was not talking about the merits, pro or con, of Prop 8, he was talking about the nature of the Left... demonizing those on the other side (probably because they feel so self righteous ). He then went on to give many other examples all having to do with the NY mosque.
I was not bringing in a new issue but that is how you saw it. Instead of reading the words, you only look for things you can pick apart.
.
Siarlys Jenkins,
I invite you to skip over anything I write if there is anything about it you don't like.
I rarely read anything you write primarily because you don't know what you are talking about but like to pretend you do.
You say I use "equivalent strategies among con artists with congenital melanin deficiencies." What kind of con artists have this deficiency? There is nothing about con artists or writing too much for you to read.
Here is the definition. (Bottom line - you are a poser who uses words you don't understand.)
Genetic disorders and disease states
Melanin deficiency has been connected for some time with various genetic abnormalities and disease states.
There are approximately ten different types of oculocutaneous albinism, which is mostly an autosomal recessive disorder. Certain ethnicities have higher incidences of different forms. For example, the most common type, called oculocutaneous albinism type 2 (OCA2), is especially frequent among people of black African descent. It is an autosomal recessive disorder characterized by a congenital reduction or absence of melanin pigment in the skin, hair and eyes. The estimated frequency of OCA2 among African-Americans is 1 in 10,000, which contrasts with a frequency of 1 in 36,000 in white Americans.[9] In some African nations, the frequency of the disorder is even higher, ranging from 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000.[10] Another form of Albinism, the "yellow oculocutaneous albinism", appears to be more prevalent among the Amish, who are of primarily Swiss and German ancestry. People with this IB variant of the disorder commonly have white hair and skin at birth, but rapidly develop normal skin pigmentation in infancy.
.
Oh crud...Gary, delete my last post. I was calling Miggie out for plagiarism, but I just saw that by the context that he was giving the definition and wasn't implying that it was his own words. My mistake. If it does get through, please be sure to post this retraction though. See? I admit my mistakes!
I was not bringing in a new issue but that is how you saw it. Instead of reading the words, you only look for things you can pick apart.
Miggie, I was responding to that particular point, which whether you originally wrote it or not, was still brought up by YOU. I was countering that assertion that all the left does is demonize the other side and proving my point that the right does the same thing that you and Prager accuse the left of doing.
After all, I've debated Gary a billion times on Prop 8, and I've never accused him of hate. Have I, Gary? So Prager, and you, are being rather selective with your "facts". Yes, there are leftists who boil it all down to that talking point. Bottom line, that's not what we all do. (Even though I've never referred to myself as a leftist in my life. I just like to think of myself as not being a "conservative".)
Maybe both sides need to stop painting with such a broad brush when they talk about what the other side is doing. Can we agree on that? Or is anybody who's not a conservative simply evil/stupid in your book?
Oh, and I finally took a look at Prager's article. I actually like him sometimes, even though I usually disagree with him. I'd rather see him having the popularity of guys like Beck and Hannity, as at least he's willing to have a sincere discussion.
Still, he misses the mark and oversimplifies things with that article. I read the entirety of the Roger Ebert article, for instance, that he refers to, and Prager is engaging in quote mining. He can do better.
So, I'm not impressed. And the really funny thing, which you continuously miss, is that nearly every one of your rants against me and "leftists" is doing EXACTLY what you (and Prager) are accusing the left of doing. Or are you just doing a little exercise in irony?
Lance,
We are arguing my point that the Left typically demonizes their opponents rather than address the issues. Right? You claim the Right does it too.
I supplied you with a long list of examples from the article which you finally got around to facing and since have quibbled about one of them because it asks Leftists to look into their hearts and admit that on the Prop 8 issue they hate the other side. I don't think it was reciprocal. Keep in mind we are talking about the tactics of each side in that issue and not the merits of the issue. That did not bring Prop 8 into the discussion, it was Praeger's way of introducing the 18 or so other examples of Left wing demonization, all within a day or so and all from leaders of the Left (all on a separate issue being the NY mosque).
You asked me to supply you other evidence and I referred you to one Left Wing site, which you said you don't read.
You claim both sides are equally guilty but you never actually supply any evidence to support this fantastic claim. Don't chase me around looking for support for your argument, list all the examples of the Right demonizing the Left as I gave you. It certainly happens here and there but there is nowhere near the name-calling you get from the Left. To me is because their ideas don't stand up so they rely on some emotional argument without substance.
I read your last post about Prager and notions about Beck and Hannity. I also see that you said Prager missed the point. These are all abstractions without explanations or evidence. It is your opinion without substance. By the way, citing "everybody knows that ..." (fill in the final words as you choose) is called "idiot's proof" so I know you don't want to use that kind of evidence.
.
Miggie, forgive me, but I checked out one of the sites he mentioned, and I determined it to be over-simplifying the matter. Do you really think that I'm going to take the time to read every single damned one of those? I don't do snipe hunts. One was enough for me to know that he's not being genuine in his analysis of what was said.
As for a counter example, I presented you with...you. You're doing exactly what you're accusing the left of doing. I know you're a fan of the phrase "cognitive dissonance." Perhaps it's because you're in a constant state of it.
And I see that you're STILL dodging your little faux pas regarding your "debunking" of what I said regarding paleontologists and evolution. I can tell you that's one of the reasons why I'm not going to thoroughly examine anything you send. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
By the way, citing "everybody knows that" is called "idiot's proof"
Ummm...I didn't do that. Are you now arguing the voices in your head?
Miggie, miggie, miggie,
I use "congenital melanin deficiency to refer to those in the general human population who, for the past 500 years, have been referred to by the curious term "white people," a self-serving invention of the Portuguese who invented the intercontinental slave trade (as distinct from the Arabic merchants who invented the transcontinental African slave trade that European merchants tapped into).
I'm not talking about a disease. I'm talking about a secondary characteristic that is unworthy of notice, which our nation has devoted far too much attention to.
I was pointing out that there are both "white" and "black" con artists in the world. I try not to use the terms "white" and "black" because they are artificial distinctions.
Incidentally, if I ignored everything anyone said that I didn't like, I would be profoundly ignorant. It is the things people say that I don't like that I most need to read.
Post a Comment