The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

E.W. Jackson, Per Dr. Michael Dyson, Speaks White Supremacy. Who Knew?

Posted on | May 26, 2013 | 25 Comments

by Smitty

Pimping traffic for the Fairfax Free Citizen again, I’m a little stunned by Dr. Michael Dyson, a Sociologist at Georgetown. NewsBusters lays down the transcript, emphasis mine:

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Yeah, the philosopher Jay-Z had it right. We don’t believe you, you need more people. We don’t even know you. You pop out of nowhere. The Republicans seem incapable of making any kind of planning. You’re talking about Oklahoma where they won’t even have $12.9 billion for disaster mitigation because they didn’t want to study.
Planned Parenthood is not about abortions. It’s about cervical cancer screenings. It’s about breast cancer screenings. And it’s about planned, teaching people how to be parents. Now here you got E.W. Jackson puffing up, and here’s a guy who’s a black puppet. He’s a vent, he’s being ventriloquized. His mouth is moving but white supremacist ideology is floating through it, and the most repressive sorts of ideas that we can imagine are being evoked here. Black people are not dumb. Just because you put a black face on buffoonery, we still know the color of ignorance.

Where can E.W. Jackson go from there? Should E.W. offer readings of Mein Kampf? In the original German?

What fascinates here is that both men are ordained ministers. Then again, so are Jesse Jackson, Sr. and Al Sharpton. Are one of those elderly denizens of the Racism Industrial Complex preparing for the Eternal Pasture of the Raaaaaacist Mind? Maybe Dyson is bucking for a promotion in the knucklehead club.


25 Responses to “E.W. Jackson, Per Dr. Michael Dyson, Speaks White Supremacy. Who Knew?”

  1. RocheRants
    May 26th, 2013 @ 5:00 pm

    @smitty_one_each Dr Michael Dyson gets his political talking points from his bookie! And they’re OFF! 🙂

  2. M. Thompson
    May 26th, 2013 @ 7:06 pm

    Self-beclownment, that if played often enough, would result in the end of a certain party.

    Not that it’s that likely.

  3. Bob Belvedere
    May 26th, 2013 @ 7:16 pm

    What fascinates here is that both men are ordained ministers….

    Hey, I’m an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church, so it means jack to be one.

    It’s Free!:

  4. bobbymike34
    May 26th, 2013 @ 7:23 pm

    He’s lying about Planned Parenthood to when asked the President of PP had to admit THEY DO NOT DO CANCER SCREENINGS.
    Why does the left lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie They are psychopaths.
    Guess what they can only be defeated there is no compromise anymore with them. The right has been compromising for 50 years and the left keeps taking one step further left and saying meet me 1/2 way, one more step meet me 1/2 way and on and on leftward.

  5. JohnC
    May 26th, 2013 @ 7:40 pm

    You’re not going to defeat the left. They have a permanent lock on power due to demographics, and it’s going to get much worse. There will never be another Republican president. Soon they will have the Supreme Court stacked with libs, and they will start implementing their wishlist: revoking gun rights, enacting Canadian-style “hate speech” laws etc.

  6. bobbymike34
    May 26th, 2013 @ 7:48 pm

    Did the left have a permanent lock on power in the Soviet Union? Yes I know it took 70 years, etc. but your defeatist attitude won’t get us anywhere. Enough conservatives stayed home in 2012 to beat Obama that is hardly a ‘lock’ on the Presidency. Romney needed 2% more of the white vote I THINK that Is doable, don’t you?

  7. smitty
    May 26th, 2013 @ 8:05 pm

    Wait, I thought you were Roman Catholic. Is that kosher?

  8. smitty
    May 26th, 2013 @ 8:06 pm

    The main point in your favor is the Federal Reserve.

  9. JohnC
    May 26th, 2013 @ 11:08 pm

    I agree, it was doable last election, but you’re still swimming against an irresistible tide. The demographics are cast in stone, and they are extremely favorable to the left. There is no chance at all of “taking our country back” etc. Look at the stats: the US is going to get browner and more Dem with every passing year. That very much is a “lock.”

  10. K-Bob
    May 27th, 2013 @ 12:27 am

    No, he didn’t need any extra percent of the “white” vote. He needed more normal people and less fraud.

    Only Democrats Care About Skin Color

  11. K-Bob
    May 27th, 2013 @ 12:30 am

    Dyson’s mouth is moving, but I’m hearing him claim that intelligence is somehow related to skin color.

    Unsurprising, really.

  12. bobbymike34
    May 27th, 2013 @ 5:17 am

    I was making a point based on relevant facts concerning the breakdown of the 2012 electorate using the categories in the study. It was also in direct response to someone discussing demographics what do you think they meant by that?
    My numbers are factual on how the electorate was broken down certain numbers of ethnicities voted a certain way and then just doing the math.

    I don’t ‘care’ about skin color just the facts.
    White man robs bank has me looking for a white man, no? Or should I not ‘care’ about skin color?

  13. SDN
    May 27th, 2013 @ 8:41 am

    And then we have that Revolutionary War II we’ve needed for 50 years. Only took 3% to win the first one.

  14. Guest
    May 27th, 2013 @ 9:55 am

    Ugh… just give that idiot a banana and be done with it.

  15. Adjoran
    May 27th, 2013 @ 4:59 pm

    I think they call this, “projection.”

    And who is this “Dr.” Dyson? Has he a medical license, or is he just another poseur with a liberal arts degree who likes to think of himself as special?

  16. Bob Belvedere
    May 27th, 2013 @ 5:32 pm

    I am a Roman Catholic, Fallen Division.

  17. K-Bob
    May 28th, 2013 @ 12:12 am

    It wasn’t a “color gap” by any means. It was a combination of Romney’s refusal to go after barack on Benghazi and other major-league screwups, and Romney’s simultaneous refusal to stand up for founding principles. He never bothered to explain why liberty is better than central-control over everything. So he failed to pull in the usual muddled middle who only saw a “cool guy who’s trying” vs. a “stiff-looking guy who promises to do a better job.”

    All it took after that major miscalculation by the Romney camp was fraud in a few key districts. which gave barack Florida and Ohio.

    It had very little to do with skin color.

    And no, you don’t just look for a white man who robs the bank, you look for any person meeting a high percentage of the profile. Color is always a very small point of matchup in a profile. Especially since so many shades of brown exist among the so-called “white” population.

  18. bobbymike34
    May 28th, 2013 @ 12:27 am

    Of course there was a ‘color’ gap did you know Romney won whites 18 to 35? Of course what you say is valid as for other reasons Romney lost but I defy you to put an absolute numerical value on those issues. Again to repeat I PERSONALLY AM NOT looking at skin color just the actually data from the election. Don’t shoot the messenger.

    Whether you agree or not I can tell you, based on the government’s OWN DATA, how many votes Romney needed to win. You cannot tell me how many votes Romney would have won using another ‘strategy.

    If Romney ‘went after Obama’ on Benghazi tell me EXACTLY how many votes he would have won? In what states would he have won them and in what counties? Of course you can’t in fact the mushy middle might have thought him too harsh and his votes actually decreased.

    Look whether you like it or not there was a breakdown of how people of different demographics groups voted and in what numbers. I AM USING those numbers I DID NOT create the numbers.

    As for my ‘bank robber’ example of course there are white northern European, to swarthy southern Europeans to darker skinned white Hispanics BUT I won’t be looking for a Ethiopian or a Korean will I?

  19. K-Bob
    May 28th, 2013 @ 12:52 am

    You deny the ability to predict votes that would be gained through a strategy. That’s fine. But you aren’t working from a “what he should have done” perspective when you claim “if only the numbers had gone this way”. You are simply wishcasting.

    What matters is why Romney lost, not how many BoB he managed to get, or how many RBI he earned while doing it.

    (Addendum: what I meant by “no color gap” was really “no more than we always expected” In fact, we had ample evidence that barack lost a percentage of the black vote compared to 2008. That’s why I wrote “no color gap”. The usual, expected gap was not a factor in the loss.)

  20. RichFader
    May 28th, 2013 @ 12:56 am

    Planned Parenthood has about as much to do with actual women’s health and family planning issues as slavery did with guaranteeing good working conditions for African Americans.

  21. bobbymike34
    May 28th, 2013 @ 1:06 am

    Well your use of the word predict tells the story. Karl Rove ‘predicted’ Romney would win Ohio shows how predicting worked out.

    But I do agree that our posts are going round and round to different issues. But let’s agree on one thing Romney lost.

    So let me be clear (stolen from our current President) EVERYTHING you say is correct, every issue you point to ‘could have’ contributed to Romney’s loss. I have NO argument with you on those points.

    And yes my argument takes a simplistic view based on math, votes cast and for who and does not delve into the reasons, of course I WAS NOT attempting this.

    The statement Romney needed X number of votes to win can be shown to be totally accurate (simple but accurate) The statement Romney would have won if he did…………………. cannot be shown to be certain no matter what predictive tools you might employ.
    If Romney hammered Obama every day on Benghazi he ‘could’ have won, sure, we can’t prove that.
    Romney gets another 400,000 voters to turn out in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida and he WOULD have won.
    How he COULD have gotten those voters to turn out is open to speculation and ‘prediction’.

  22. K-Bob
    May 28th, 2013 @ 5:19 pm

    That’s all well and good, but my point is, focusing on “getting more white votes” (or hispanic votes, or any ethnicity or skin color group) is something that misleads people into thinking you can actually “go after” any particular xenophobic/non-Liberty-focused groupings to get votes. That form of racism is totally owned by the Dems (and they are welcome to it). It NEVER works for Republicans. The main reason why is because it is totally against all that Conservatism and Libertarianism and The Constitution stand for.

  23. bobbymike34
    May 28th, 2013 @ 7:26 pm

    You are mistaking ‘math’ with me being a proponent of some ‘strategy’ to attract votes from certain ‘groups’
    Republicans should sell their small government liberty agenda to ALL AMERCANS I have never thought differently.

  24. K-Bob
    May 29th, 2013 @ 12:53 am

    Heh. Well I thought you were mistaking ‘math’ for some notion of pulling in more white votes. I assume you would therefore be thinking that some strategy would be employed.

    Sounds more like we agree than disagree. Just know that I always hammer anyone’s use of focus on skin color. Liberty applies to all, and I continually point out that it is the left who are obsessed with skin color, not the right.

  25. bobbymike34
    May 29th, 2013 @ 8:40 am

    The strategy on how to get them to vote for you is another matter all together. My original post was in response to someone saying basically, the demographics makes it impossible for Republicans to win so I responded with an answer based on demographics that all.

    Personally I want a true conservative presidential candidate to travel around the country trying to convince all people of the power of how low taxes, less regulations and smaller government can improve their lives white, black, Hispanic and Asian.