Speak like a conservative

Theodore Bilbo. said what he meant, meant what he said

I know it is often hard to understand the difference between racists and conservatives, but here is some help to redefine the lexicon and come up with a simple translation guide.

Here are two examples of how the language of the racist is moderated into the language of the conservative:

Example 1:

Daily News (Jackson, Mississippi)
"Bloodstains On White Marble Steps"
May 18, 1954

. . . Human blood may stain Southern soil in many places because of this decision but the dark red stains of that blood will be on the marble steps of the United States Supreme Court building.

White and Negro children in the same schools will lead to miscegenation. Miscegenation leads to mixed marriages and mixed marriages lead to mongrelization of the human race.

Jonah Goldberg via Atrios

The idea behind "The Bell Curve," as many readers must know by now, is that I.Q. is destiny, determining how individuals get along in school, jobs and social relations. Since little can be done to raise "cognitive ability," the argument goes, little can be done to change the socioeconomic pecking order.

This is a grim message, the authors acknowledge, but someone must deliver it. "There can be no real progress in solving America's social problems," Mr. Herrnstein and Mr. Murray explain, "when they are as misperceived as they are today.".

Example 2:


Theodore Bilbo

To preserve her blood, the white South must absolutely deny social equality to the Negro regardless of what his individual accomplishments might be. This is the premise - openly and frankly stated - upon which Southern policy is based. This position is so thoroughly justified in the minds of white Southerners that it is sometimes difficult for them to comprehend the reasoning of those who seriously dispute it.

William F. Buckley

The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

See, we're used to the naked racism of the hood wearing Klansman. Yet, since the 1950's, most racism has been cloaked in the sort of academic langugae which hides the meaning of the statement.

We can reduce example one to saying: them niggers will fuck our white women and make us stupid. Yet, Goldberg is no more likely to say that than to run naked down the street. So he has to couch his language in terms which will be polite and acceptable.

Now, in example two, Buckley, says nearly the same thing as Sen. Bilbo, but in much less passionate language.

Of course, we could find literally thousands of examples of racist statements in the National Review and in speeches by the magazines editors. Which they, of course, know.

But that is not the purpose of this post. It is to teach you how to turn openly racist statements into conservative dogma. First, let's discuss the linguistic prinicples, then move on to some examples.

1)The language must be clinical.

One cannot say niggers are as dumb as stumps. Only ignorant Klansmen can say that. Instead, try this:

Murray's work on IQ shows what we have observed, that intelligence affect how people live and their incomes.

See, you're saying the exact same thing, but the second statement is slightly vague enough to other whites as to make them question the racial intent.

2)You couch your hostility in non-hostile, even sympathetic terms

Let start with: stupid niggers need to vote with us and not those Dumbocrats, who are owned by the Jews and faggots anyway.

Of course that's unacceptable.

"those non-conforming minorities who is threatening to bust up the liberal plantation from which Conyers and others earn a handsome living. "

Now, those words from Katherine Jean Lopez say the same thing, but in a more genteel, less overt way.

See, the pattern, it relies upon using other words to say the same thing. Your meaning is clear, but the heat is removed from the language, removing much potential anger. Let's combine the two:

Why do we pay so much for niggers to go to school? Let them fend for themselves and shift that money to our private academies where the kids actually learn.

Vouchers would give all parents school choice, public, private, parochial. Parents should choose whatever kind of learning they want their kids to have and if the public schools can't compete, then they won't get the money.

See, you have a code word, school choice, which sounds innocuous to the untrained ear, but to your fellow racists, means getting your kids away from those nigger infested public schools. It's such a neutral term that even non-racists will think it has the meaning ascribed to it in public. "Whatever kind of learning" means funding segregated private academies, but gives the illusion of educational choice. Now, the last part, is code for killing public education, but they can't say that. They couch it in terms of competition, the market place. But schools aren't in the market place. They can't say, we want only our kids to learn and the niggers to be our servants. They can't suggest that publicly, so they couch the defunding of the public schools as a matter of failing to meet standards. It's a false dichotomy, but it makes it sound like a contest of equals, which it is not. Public schools have obligations private schools do not, so there is no eqiviliency.

One final example:

Niggers are so stupid that we can fool them to vote for us like we did poor whites.

Blacks need to be members of both parties, the Democrats take them for granted. Besides, blacks are conservative and the GOP needs to make inroads there.


Of course, they don't say blacks need to be leaders in both parties. They just want you to shut up and go along, ignoring the role blacks play in the Democratic Party. Again, there is the creation of equivilency where none exists. Blacks are a majority in the party which listens to their concerns and promotes them. The Republicans are forced to rely on the grifters, hustlers and sellouts who come along. The brain power between the two groups is vast. An ambitious black democrat will have to work hard to be noticed and rise through the ranks because of the competition. A scheming negro will have many patrons in the GOP willing to use his skin color and ambition to make him or her a token. They will reach their full potential quickly because it is limited and tied to their patrons exclusively. Independence is impossible.

But in all these cases, hostile intent is masked by kindly words. Contempt couched as suggestion or advice. True intentions neutralized by clinical or academic language. The trick is to see what is under the words.

posted by Steve @ 1:48:00 AM