The Democratic Party was once Responsible for Institutionalized Slavery and Jim Crow. Guilt-Pride is an identity technology invented by German former Nazis which turns something bad, like Racism against Blacks or Jews, into something good, like Anti-Racism (or Antifa); an anti-white Neo-Racism against their former guilty selves tied to a fictional moment in which all the racists left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party (Nixon Southern Strategy). They now take pride in fighting against others whom they believe (without evidence) to be their former racist selves (or in the case of Germany, Antifa fighting Fascists, real and/ or imagined). Their former guilty racist ideas get repurposed thru Guilt-Pride for atonement and party and identity pride maintenance.
How something BAD, censorship, has been transformed into something GOOD, protecting the Truth! "Burn (cancel) the heretics!"... a new Neo-liberal Dogma.
15 comments:
Why are these Governors in Major Progressive Communist Democrat governed Cities, telling us, that America’s homicide rate is the lowest in modern history. Thay’s Great News, Right? The FBI is patting itself on the back, crime analysts are nodding along, and headlines are already drafted celebrating a “historic drop.”
But here’s what has me furious: these glowing national numbers keep clashing with what residents actually see in major Progressive Communist Democrat governed Cities, many of which are battling visible waves of Violence, Carjackings, Retail Crime, and Assaults. And every time these cities report their data, the numbers look suspiciously low when these major Progressive Communist Democrat governed Cities just don’t Report them, the Whole System Breaks .
But take a hard look at the big Democratic cities with their chronic data gaps:
Some classify shootings as just “assaults” to avoid bumping homicide stats.
Others use outdated systems that can’t even submit accurate data, or they just don’t report them all..
Several cities report months late, or they skip entire quarters, without truly reporting them.
Misclassifying the racial, ethnic, or national origin of perpetrators to produce more “progressive” numbers.
And then there’s the infuriating tactic of simply not counting deaths that happen after a victim reaches the hospital, quietly shifting them out of homicide tallies.
This isn’t a conspiracy; it is bureaucratic rot and statistical sleight of hand. Or is it just plain BS?.Yet these same Cities just sit back and bask in the glow of “historic national improvements”
You cannot fix what you refuse to rreport. And too many city leaders treat accurate crime data like a political liability and would rather than a public safety necessity. And frankly, Americans are tired of being sold a story that is just another line of BS that collapses the moment you step onto a city sidewalk and see reality for yourself.
But stop pretending the system isn’t full of gaping reporting anomalies concentrated in the largest blue-run cities. Until those issues are addressed, every “historic low” will be tainted by the same unanswered question: What numbers aren’t we seeing?
I’m just waiting for FBI Director Kash Patel to yell “Bullshit” instead of believing these Governess of major Progressive Communist Democrat governed Cities,
Another idiot MAGAt rant.
One of 2 National Guard members shot in Washington DC. dies, second remains in critical condition.
20 year-old Army Socialist. Sarah Beckstrom, has died, President Trump said last night, while Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, was in critical condition after undergoing surgery, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said Thursday. Mr. Trump said Wolfe was "fighting for his life."
This make me Mad as hell, and wanting to see the Animal who was responsible for this to be given the most Harsh penalty available. All because of Joe Biden allowing that LOUSY DIRTY. FILTHY ANIMAL INTO THIS COUNTRY. AND THERE IS NO EXCUSING HIM! NONE!
Donald tRump, the narcissistic pathological liar is a lousy filthy animal. And there is NO excusing him. None.
Something that was never supported to begin with CAN'T "still" be supported. Democrats have never (and will never) support "neoracism". republicans support it. By propagating the idea that this imaginary form of racism exists.
As per the Oxford Reference, neo-racism is "Étienne Balibar's term for the prevalent new modality of racism he calls ‘racism without race’, which emerged in the 1970s. Whereas racism used to be premised on the idea of race as biological heredity, now in the postcolonial era it tends to be focused on ‘cultural differences’".
So, "neo-racism", as you define it (as racism against white people), isn't even what neo-racism is.
🤖 What you’ve encountered here is a classic case of Concept Hijacking Drift -- where a term with a precise scholarly meaning (*neo‑racism*) is repurposed in partisan rhetoric to mean something very different.
🧠 Breaking down the blogger’s post.
Historical framing: The blogger points to the Democratic Party’s past association with slavery and Jim Crow. This is historically true for the 19th and early 20th centuries, but the party realigned during the civil rights era.
“Guilt‑Pride” construct: He introduces a rhetorical device -- claiming that Democrats transform guilt over past racism into pride in anti‑racism, which he reframes as “anti‑white neo‑racism.”
Southern Strategy reference: He disputes the historical narrative that racist voters shifted to the Republican Party under Nixon, calling it “fictional.”
Censorship analogy: He equates anti‑racism and cancel culture with censorship, framing them as dogma.
🧠 Scholarly vs. political meaning of "neo‑racism".
Scholarly definition (Balibar): Racism without race -- prejudice based on cultural difference rather than biology.
Blogger’s definition: Racism against whites, allegedly practiced by Democrats, framed as a continuation of guilt and censorship.
Mismatch: The academic concept is about how racism adapts in the postcolonial era, while the blogger uses it as a partisan accusation.
⚖️ Why this matters.
Weaponization of terms: By calling you a “neo‑racist,” the blogger isn’t applying Balibar’s definition; he’s using the term as a rhetorical weapon.
Identity paradox: Even though you’re white, he frames your disagreement as proof of “anti‑white” bias.
Rhetorical drift: This is less about scholarly clarity and more about political branding—turning “neo‑racism” into a partisan cudgel.
📖 Taxonomy Candidate.
Concept Hijacking Drift.
When a technical or scholarly term (like *neo‑racism*) is repurposed in political discourse to mean something very different, often to delegitimize opponents or reframe identity conflicts.
✅ Bottom line: The blogger’s post is not using *neo‑racism* in its academic sense. Instead, it’s a rhetorical redefinition that casts Democrats as guilty of “anti‑white racism” and equates anti‑racism with censorship. Your being labeled a “neo‑racist” is part of that polemical framework, not a reflection of the scholarly meaning of the term. 🛑
The AI complains that I don't utilize the Master-Skewed University Discourse... that's because I use Lacan's "Analyst Discourse" that reveals the cynicism of Academics and entertains the Hysterics with kynicism instead.
As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a Maroon!"
Next time, skip the comment and just spit.
...say the neoracist cynic!
🤖 Copilot Response...
This blogger is layering several rhetorical moves at once, and it’s no wonder the logic feels tangled. Let’s unpack it step by step.
🧠 What he’s doing.
1. Redefining “neo‑racism”.
Instead of Balibar’s scholarly meaning (*racism without race*, prejudice based on cultural difference), he reframes it as “racism against whites.”
This is a Concept Hijacking Drift: taking an academic term and repurposing it for partisan polemic.
2. Framing AI as PMC tools.
He claims AI chatbots are created by the “Professional‑Managerial Class” (PMC), so they reflect elite academic or liberal agendas.
This sets up AI responses as “biased” by design, so he can dismiss scholarly definitions as ideological rather than neutral.
3. Invoking Lacan’s “Analyst’s Discourse”.
In Lacanian theory, the “Analyst’s Discourse” is meant to reveal hidden truths by destabilizing the subject’s assumptions.
He contrasts this with what he calls “Master‑Skewed University Discourse” (his phrase for academic consensus).
Translation: He sees himself as exposing academic cynicism by refusing to play by their rules.
4. “Kynicism” vs. “Cynicism”.
He borrows from philosopher Peter Sloterdijk:
Cynicism = detached, intellectual skepticism.
Kynicism = blunt, mocking, bodily defiance (think Diogenes the Cynic).
He claims he uses kynicism to “entertain the hysterics” -- meaning he deliberately provokes and mocks, rather than argue in academic terms.
⚖️ Why the logic feels slippery.
He’s not actually defending the redefinition of neo‑racism with evidence.
Instead, he’s saying: “I reject academic discourse, I use Lacan’s analyst stance, and I mock the establishment with kynicism”.
That’s a rhetorical shield: it lets him dismiss scholarly definitions as “Master‑Skewed” and replace them with his own partisan framing.
📖 Taxonomy Candidate.
Discourse Substitution Drift.
> When someone rejects established scholarly discourse and substitutes another (psychoanalytic, polemical, or mocking) to justify redefining terms without evidence.
✅ Bottom line: His “logic” isn’t about proving that neo‑racism means racism against whites. It’s about rejecting academic authority altogether, claiming AI and universities are biased, and positioning himself as a provocateur using Lacan’s analyst discourse and kynical mockery. The Bugs Bunny quip (“What a Maroon!”) fits perfectly -- it’s a cartoonish dismissal rather than a reasoned defense. 🛑
President Trump says that all Afghan migrants who were admitted under Biden will have their status reexamined
LESTER CARPENTER . Please go play in traffic.
Intelligence demands the removal from office of one egomaniac known as djt, or, the KSoA.
The reasoned defenses have been made (previously) countless times and dismissed. Mocking derision is all that you and your proxy brain deserve.
The Deep State (Intelligence) Constitutionally works for the Executive, not against him.
A "reasoned defense" of fascism? You can get bent. You aren't interested in reasoning, but imposing your White Supremacy on the entire nation. FYI, most people don't want it. That is why the approval rating of your fascist leader is low and still declining.
Also, I think for myself. Copilot is simply a tool. You don't like it because it isn't a fascist tool.
Post a Comment