Discuss this post in our forums

312 Responses to “CPAC racism panel derailed by audience member who suggests slaves should have been grateful for food, shelter & clothing”

  1. euansmith says:

    “Trump the Race Card”? Has Donald heard about this?

  2. toasterslie says:

    I was going to say, “Christ, what an asshole” but I see you’ve already tagged the post with it. Good work, Cory.

    • billstewart says:

      As a Christian, I find the constant use of that phrase here really offensive.  Even though the guy clearly is an asshole.

      • millie fink says:

        Maybe it would help to realize that words have different meanings and connotations in different contexts.

      • danimagoo says:

        What the hell does being Christian have to do with it? You’re not taking God’s name in vain … unless you think God’s an asshole.

        • Metapony says:

          Christ isn’t God, he’s (supposed to be) the Son of God. When you say “Christ, what an asshole”, you’d think that somewhere in the mythical heavens that Jesus is smiling (because he *loves you*) and nodding in agreement because yeah, what an asshole. 

          • Ito Kagehisa says:

            It’s quite a bit more complicated than that.  Most Christians are trinitarians.  For them, the Council of Nicea pretty much settled the question in 325 AD – Christ is God, and so is the Holy Spirit, and it’s a great mystery (much like a Zen koan) how one God can be complete in three persons and also in any one of them alone.

            So, for most Christians, the use of Jesus’ name as an epithet is at least a sorrowful indication of the wayward state of the world, and at worst a blasphemy calling for application of a nice cleansing fire.  It’s an article of their faith that it’s wrong and blasphemous for them to do it (exodus 20:7, deut. 5:11), but only the nastiest most militant Christians want to burn anyone else at the stake over it; the rest of them just don’t want to have to hear it.  In my opinion it’s not wrong for anyone to let a preference be known, and frankly I’d rather not chastise the Christians and Jews for being open about their beliefs.

            One would think that the use of his Greek title Christos (translated from “messiah” meaning “annointed one”) should not be particularly offensive, but most Christians don’t know much about the language of their faith – it’s not what their focus is – and many of them probably think of Christ as being a part of Jesus’s given name.

      • marilove says:

        Christ, stop being an asshole.

        (Seriously? IN a thread about awful, awful racism, you find a silly phrase that isn’t in any way directed at you offensive? And so offensive you must comment on it?

        You’re not helping the general view of Christians with this silly comment. I hope you know that.)

        • allenmcbride says:

          I have no problem with people saying “Christ, what an asshole,” but geez (-us Christ), you could respond with a little humility and respect to someone who prefers not to see the name of someone he worships associated with the word “asshole” so often. You can decline someone’s request without calling them names for making it.

          • BunnyShank says:

            Just as being offended doesn’t make someone right, neither does being offensive.

          • marilove says:

            He certainty doesn’t have to stick around. If he had any humility, he’d quietly leave, instead of trying to make everyone bend to his tastes all because he’s Christian.

            Oh, and FUCK humility. Humility is just another word for submissive.

            Sorry, no, I won’t be submissive to HIS tastes all because he’s Christian. “I’m Christian! You offended me! You must stop doing what you did all because I am A Christian!” What utter bullshit.

            And, quite frankly, the fact that he’s “really offended” (!) over such a silly phrase that isn’t even directed at him and how sure he is that he is not only right, but that we must bend to his tastes and do as he says (stop using the silly, non-offensive phrase) just goes to show how much humility he lacks.

            Is it because he’s a Christian? Is that way he and apparently you thinks he gets to set the tone around here and lecture people on silly phrases that aren’t directed at him and aren’t in any way offensive? Is that why? Again, bullshit.

            Christ, you’re also an asshole.

          • allenmcbride says:

            I didn’t realize some people consider “humility” and “submission” to be synonyms. I didn’t intend to suggest submission, but rather the idea that an awareness of our own imperfections might cause us to see those of others from a perspective less inspiring of vitriol. But maybe you don’t agree with that version of humility either. In that case, how about “civility”? That’s an oft-stated internet forum value. Might some respect for civility encourage you not to call people assholes in response to polite criticism?

            EDIT: Looking back, I should have left out the “Jesus Christ” if I wanted to claim that my criticism was as polite as billstewarts’. I’m sorry about that.

          • millie fink says:

            Civility on whose terms? Middle-class people? Or working-class people, who often don’t see a problem with “vitriol,” and even expect it?

          • allenmcbride says:

            [response to millie fink; tips on replying past max indent level welcome:] I don’t think standards of civility break down along class lines as clearly as that. But let’s say BoingBoing’s standards.

          • millie fink says:

            The BB community, such as it is, clearly has no problem with “Christ, what an asshole.” Nor with liberal sprinklings of “fuck,” “shitface,” “dickhead” and so on. Nor with railing at someone angrily, especially if they (by BB’s standards) deserve it. 

            All that said, I do think there are middle class features of the discourse (and much else) about BB, so I do agree that standards don’t break down all that clearly along class lines.

          • wysinwyg says:

            I didn’t realize some people consider “humility” and “submission” to be synonyms.

            They’re not.  When an act of humility is born of someone recognizing and acknowledging their own limits it is not submission.  When an “act of humility” is born of someone telling someone else to shut their dirty blaspheming mouths that actually is submission.

            Considering how tone-deaf Christians are to how anyone who isn’t Christian feels about default Christianity I’m inclined to take marilove’s side on this one.  I’ll stop offending Christians when they stop offending me.

          • allenmcbride says:

            [response to wysinwyg]: It seems to me that you’re stereotyping both Christians and non-Christians. I’m not Christian, and yet I’m aware that Christians are a diverse group that includes people who can’t reasonably be seen as doing anything to offend me or you. By the way, “humility” was my word, not billstewarts’. And I was using it to describe the manner in which I’d have expected Boingers to *refuse* billstewarts’ implicit request.

          • Jambe says:

            Worship does not inherently deserve respect, and it deserves outright mockery when it’s reactionary and laughably thin-skinned (“O Lord, make my faith-defending fingers swift!”).

            billstewart certainly has a right to be offended, but I have just as much right to say, “Your Christ was an asshole because he recommended unethical nonresistance and pathological prostration before an eternal cosmic dictator”.


            Christopher Hitchens, when asked whether his dying of cancer changed his views on the afterlife, said:

            “… it’s considered perfectly normal in this society to approach dying people who you don’t know, but who are unbelievers, and say, ‘Now are you going to change your mind?’ In fact, it’s considered almost a polite question.

            I mean, if Sam [Harris] and I were to form a corps of people to go around religious hospitals, which is what happens in reverse, and say to people who are lying in pain, ‘Did you say you were Catholic?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Well, look, you may only have a few days left, but you don’t have to live them as a serf, you know. Just recognize that that was all bullshit—that the priests have been cheating you—and I guarantee you you’ll feel better.’ I don’t think that would be very ethical. I think it would be something of a breach of taste. But if it’s in the name of God, it has a social license. Well fuck that, is what I say! And will say if it’s my last breath.”

            I’ll imbibe a dram in his honor and reiterate in solidarity: fuck that.

            Just to be fair here at the end: Big Jeezy (whether an individual or a syncretic amalgamation) wasn’t all bad. The case might even be arguable that he preached more niceties than badness! But in any case, regardless of whether you believe him a deity made flesh, getting worked up over associating his name with sphincters is silly, and if he actually existed and were even half as radical as he is made out to be, he’d think you were silly, too.

      • Gilbert Wham says:

        I’d be more concerned by the fact that he purports to be a christian too, rather than the usage of ‘christ’ as a modifier to express greater disdain in a catchphrase.

      • and.. ===>>>>> billstewart <<<<<=== wins thread derail of the month! /claptrack

  3. knoxblox says:

    Just have to remark that this sounds so much like my older brother…and Christ, is he ever an asshole.

  4. Doran says:

    Be sure to read the response of the panelist from the Frederick Douglass Republicans where he blames the whole thing on a woman reporter for asking uppity questions.

    • Robert Drop says:

      That and his* implication that after having a private talk with the guy afterwards, they were now BFFs who were in basic agreement on everything.

      *Edit: by which I mean the panelist.

    • Petzl says:

      Every time I hear Frederick Douglass Republican, I wince.  These people don’t seem to understand that Republicans of Lincoln’s time were liberals.  Democrats were the conservatives

      If Frederick Douglass were alive in 2013, he’d identify as a Democrat.

  5. Andrew Kay says:

    Not sure whether it’s really fair to call it a “minority outreach” panel, the basic premise was about how to defend the Republican party when it is called out on being racist – rather than, you know, fixing the obvious problem which is that the party is largely racist. An actual white supremacist turning up is just racist icing on the racist cake.

    • Mordicai says:

      Right, like “I can’t believe our hollow attempts to brand our party while still pursuing racist policies & racially divisive strategies could have ever collided with our attempts to court people who want to pursue racist policies & racially divisive strategies!  & who would have thunk it that he’d be a misogynist, too!”

  6. addalled says:

    I’m calling BS. That guy is just a troll.

    • unclemike says:

      First time seeing conservatives in their natural habitat?

      • IamInnocent says:

         In all honesty this ‘environment’ seems simply astounded at this guy claims.

        I am sick and tired of the Dems having no other recourse but to hunt down extreme examples like this one to dismiss the whole of what the Republicans stand for. This effort is to cover the smell of their own shit, a Sisyphean endeavor if there ever was one, which gets more suspect by the day.

        • unclemike says:

          And by “hunt down” you mean…record and playback? 

          • IamInnocent says:

             Omitting anything good that can still come out of the GOP.

            Full disclosure: I am fed up with both parties.

          • unclemike says:

            Oh, I don’t think people reporting on this conference have been omitting anything…CPAC on full display, warts and all.

            Don’t be afraid of reality.  Not every conservative I know is racist, but every racist I’ve met has been conservative.

          • C W says:

            “anything good that can still come out of the GOP”

            Protip, these guys are why nothing good that can still come out of the GOP, not people outside the party. Progressives have much less effect on them than supposedly “independent” persons such as yourself. Fix your party or don’t plant these stupid false equivalencies and expect us to smile and nod and say “BUT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE TO CONSERVATISM”.

            Lee Atwater has something to say about that.

          • C W says:

            “Not every conservative I know is racist, but every racist I’ve met has been conservative.”

            And I’d remind that IamInnocent that there are plenty of racist Dems (that happen to be conservative.)

          • Boundegar says:

            You left out the part about, “both sides are equally to blame.”  Go on, say that.

          • Brainspore says:

            Omitting anything good that can still come out of the GOP.

            It’s not the Democrats’ responsibility to tell everyone about the great things the GOP has done for minorities. That’s the responsibility of the GOP, and so far all they’ve been able to come up with is “…remember that one time 150 years ago when a socially progressive Republican President ended slavery?”

          • blissfulight says:

            You must be one of those ‘independents’ who votes Republican every single time.  

        • chrisdag says:

          The distinction between Democrats and Republicans in these sorts of areas is pretty clear. The Democrats work pretty hard to marginalize and keep their crazies as far away as possible from the mainstream. They are “fringe” when it comes to visibility and impact. 
          Conversely, the Republicans invite their crazies to headline CPAC panels and run them as presidential candidates. Not trying to be snarky at all. You can clearly see a difference in how both parties treat the “fringe” elements. The Republicans share the stage with their crazies, use them to raise money, campaign with them and otherwise cynically benefit from the agitated base. The Dems try to keep their fringe at at arms length. 

          • IamInnocent says:

             I’ll grant you that.
            Your point doesn’t address mine unfortunately. In the case of this video, where everyone is a republican I suppose, we see one crazy person and a large collection of dropped jaws. In spite of that generalized reaction, all of them are supposed to be bigots… by association ?

          • Snig says:

            I think most are not bigots, but they will happily cater to bigotry if it helps them win elections.  Bush operatives smeared McCain by alleging he had fathered an illegitimate black child in 2000, Republicans used gay marriage in 2004 as a wedge issue (now partly their undoing as gay marriage is less frightening to the voting populace), and the whole birther nonsense about Obama.  No grownup in the Republican party believes the birther nonsense, but the gentleman in the story is exactly who it appeals to.  So enough noise is made about it by high ranking Republicans to get the racists on board.   Their tacit support of the crazy encourages racial hatred.  Dems calling Reps on this is not playing the race card, it’s pointing out the stark fact of Reps playing the racist card.

          • anon0mouse says:

            That’s not the reaction I saw.  The jaw dropping was more in disbelief, not that he said that, but that he would say that out loud.  I even heard more than one random clap in there too after he said it.  Not a lot of discernible outrage that I could tell based on the tone.

          • C W says:

            “In the case of this video, where everyone is a republican I suppose, we see one crazy person and a large collection of dropped jaws”

            This video is devoted to people who are interested in minority outreach. There was not a collection of dropped jaws because they disagreed, there was applause and confirmation.

            Your response indicates you made your opinion on this long before you watched the video.

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            “Dropped jaws”

            The gasps and shock you saw in the video were by observing NY students, not by the older Tea Party folk who were actually participating. Never mind that the whole “Frederick Douglas” thing is stupid and racist to begin with.

            The high school students (liberal, visiting from New York City) cannot believe what they have just witnessed.

            “That guy wants to get slavery back. I’m frightened for my life,” mutters the high school student sitting on the wall next to me.

            “I don’t understand how aligning yourself with a black person who lived a really long time ago makes you not a racist,” Katie Hirsch, the high school student next to me, says.
            “Even aligning yourself with a black person today doesn’t make you not a racist,” her friend Alexandra Barlowe adds. “Can we just talk about how the man just stood up over there and literally asked for segregation?

            “The fact that there is a session like this shows how ignorant the Republican Party is in so many ways. The fact that they’re on the defensive about this.”

            “We’re from New York City,” Hirsch says. “We don’t really deal with people like this.”
            “Essentially what it is is allowing people to justify their racism by saying they’re a Frederick Douglass Republican,” Barlowe notes.


          • Brainspore says:

            …we see one crazy person and a large collection of dropped jaws.

            I also saw a lot of giddy smiles and heard a smattering of applause.

          • dhparlee says:

            By marginalize and keep at arms length, do you mean send them to Congress?

          • billstewart says:

            This is the CPAC meeting, not a general party meeting.  It’s the place they let the crazies out to play.

            The purpose of the Tea Party is to take all the right-wing crazies and haters and put them and their energy to work attacking Democrats so the Republican Party machine, which is corporatist, can get their candidates elected.  It’s not to let those people actually make decisions about anything important*.  You’ll notice that they stuck the balanced-budget people over on the right with the crazies; the party machine has no intention of actually balancing a budget.

            * From a corporatist perspective, issues like gay marriage aren’t important.  Lower taxes for rich people are.  Maintaining the military-industrial complex are.  Immigration policy is important, because cheap labor and keeping educated engineers here are important, so you’ll notice that George Bush was at odds with the right wingers on immigration.

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            Yeah useful idiots, not unlike middling Democrats.

          • Ito Kagehisa says:

            I think you’ve summed it up rather nicely!  As long as you include the gold-standard types in “crazies” anyway.

        • UnderachievingSheep says:

          Look, if this was an isolated case, I’d agree with you. However, this is just another incident in a long string of awful Republican outbursts. Let’s for a second entertain your idea that the Party doesn’t harbor raging racists. What do we do with the misogyny and homophobia then? Are you going to say that the history of Republican representatives proposing outrageous laws that hurt women, making scandalous statements about rape, denying lesbian/gay/queer people rights is also something that “Democrats hunt down to make the Party look bad”?

          The Republican Party gets an A++ for effort in making themselves look terrible.

          • IamInnocent says:

             “Let’s for a second entertain your idea that the Party doesn’t harbor raging racists”.

            When did I say that ? Strawman.

            I simply comment on what anyone can see with their own eyes and contrast this with the intent of the post.

            My point is that the present polarization inside the American society is making the country, or at least the shrinking minority that still identifies itself with one or another party, blind to the obvious.

          • foobar says:

            One could suggest that the polarization has something to do with one of the poles being batshit insane.

          • C W says:

            “When did I say that ? Strawman.”

            I don’t think you understand what a strawman is. You implied it directly by claiming that these people are not representative of conservatism. 

          • Snig says:

            Gallup polls over the last nine years don’t agree that a shrinking minority identifies as one or the other party.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
              And how are simultaneously polarized but also less identifying with one or the other party?  Source or clarification otherwise?  

          • robuluz says:

            The Republican party is now completely devoted to sucking the wealth from the planet and distributing it amongst a small elite, fuck everyone else. Every other position they espouse is pretence.

          • blissfulight says:

            It’s pretty simple:  where are all the black people?  

          • CLamb says:

             How do you know that the lad making the comment is a Republican?

        • millie fink says:

          You’ve come to the wrong place for starting up another merry round of goal-post-shifting.

        • len says:

          no other recourse but to hunt down extreme examples like this one to dismiss the whole of what the Republicans stand for

          Apparently Democrats only win elections by pointing out what buffoons Republicans are. Which is sad, really, because buffoons can have really great ideas.

          • IamInnocent says:

             You can point at buffoons and have no ideas of your own: is this so much better ?

          • Andy Reilly says:

            Look at the buffoons who want to ban gay marriage, let’s just do the opposite. Or, look at the buffoons that want church involved with state, lets do the opposite. Yeah, I guess you can just look at the buffoons and have no ideas of your own. In the last election I just read the GOP platform, then I knew exactly what I wanted. It was a platform of racism, sexism, homophobia and Christian theocracy. I knew that was what I didn’t want.

          • Snig says:

            Good ideas that are being shot down because of outright opposition from Republicans, and equivocation from Independents:  Increased minimum wage.  Green energy.  Increased taxation of the top 1%.  The existence of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Universal Health Care.  Legislating to curtail the abuses of Citizen united.  Recognition and efforts to fight global warming. Increased spending on national infrastructure. Better pollution control. 

            Our moderate Democratic president has been trying to get these through.  I think they’re all good ideas that could make the country and the world a better place.  Republican opposition to these is making the world a worse place.  I think you can cherry pick things you don’t like about both sides and feel justified in inaction.  Or savor the hipster artisanal preciousness of a third party who will never be elected. And if the 3rd party were magically elected, they’d still be fighting the same pinheaded Republican nonsense opposing the ideas above.  

          • C W says:

            Your kneejerk defenses don’t really show any evidence of the independent thought you claim to be the sole possessor of (just like every other unique Republican snowflake.)

          • SomeGuyNamedMark says:

             You can’t polish a turd

          •  Actually, you can polish a turd, but it’s still a turd.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Or it could be a polished coprolite.

          • Brainspore says:

            Mythbusters did it once. Apparently elephant turds weren’t the best material to work with though.

          • Petzl says:

            The odd thing is, you can.

        • Robert Drop says:

          I was willing to see that guy as a disruptive aberration until,
          A) Members of the audience cheered him, and reading that
          B) The guy running the event totally downplayed the racism while claiming they talked afterwards and were in agreement, and then blamed a female reporter for being disruptive with a question.

        • C W says:

          “This effort is to cover the smell of their own shit”

          Your “NO U” really stings, broseph. Grats on not being able to come up with a better defense for the pillars of conservative thought.

          • millie fink says:

            “I know you are but what am I! Neener!!”

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            It’s funny that they think the “But Dixie-crats!” argument is legitimate.

          • Marja Erwin says:

            Especially given the Republican leadership’s praise for the late Strom Thurmond, segregationist Dixiecrat and influential Republican.

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            It’s a bizarre ahistorical argument that tries to invert/extricate the meanings of conservative and progressive. I usually just ask if it was conservatives or progressives that were beating, abusing, and murdering blacks and activists during our historical civil rights struggles.

        • Navin_Johnson says:

          “hunt down”

          Not really necessary when racist outbursts are kind of a weekly thing among the GOP/Tea Party.
          The people that let out the “gasps” are students from New York that were observing and horrified. Not the Tea Party folk.

          • Brainspore says:

            It’s like the kind of hunt where you open your kitchen window and wild game just hurls itself into your stew pot.

        • Saltine says:

          Well, it’s not like the GOP invented the “Southern Strategy” nor that race-baiting is a significant campaign strategy for them, nor that they gerrymander districts to split up the black vote. So, yeah, since the GOP never does any of those things, any publicizing of racist idiocy by GOP types is just the result of a Democratic conspiracy and not at all representing a typical behavior of some elements of the GOP. It’s really, really unfair isn’t it? My little heart breaks for you.

          • billstewart says:

            The GOP doesn’t gerrymander away the black vote because of racism.  They do it because most black people vote Democrat; they can’t afford to waste gerrymandering on race except where one party already has a really solid majority.  The reason black voters are concentrated in cities has a lot to do with suburban segregation policies from when they were moving up from the South after the war, as well as with that’s where the industrial jobs were.

          • millie fink says:

            There you go again, typical white person — concentrating on racist intentions, rather than racist effects. It’s the latter that matter.

          • Brainspore says:

            The GOP doesn’t gerrymander away the black vote because of racism.  They do it because most black people vote Democrat…

            “We don’t use divisive race-based election strategies because we don’t like you, we use them because our success depends on systematically disenfrachising you. Why does everyone try to paint that as something ugly?”

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            Most black people vote Democrat because the GOP and conservatives are openly and actively racist. It isn’t some kind of mystery and blacks aren’t “dumb” or on the Democrat plantation.

          • marilove says:

            The GOP doesn’t gerrymander away the black vote because of racism.  They do it because most black people vote Democrat…

            It’s not one of the other. Why do you think it’s one or the other? You can’t have one without the other.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          You get into the CPAC by invitation.  None of the gay Republican groups got in.  This guy did.  You’re an apologist and should be ashamed of yourself.

        • teapot says:

          FWIW to people outside the US (and hence with less/no skin in the game) the GOP look and sound like a bunch of geriatric racists whose ideas of good policy reflect something from the 60’s. I’m sorry but it’s just true.

          If you want to prove your point then find some examples of moderate Republican behaviour (you wont, because if a repub speaks against party rhetoric they are ostracised) or alternatively find some examples of Dems being asshats like these brainless fucks.

          Don’t be upset that people who call themselves republicans keep making your team look stupid. It’s your team’s own fault for allowing it.

    • tlwest says:

      Actually, my fear is that he’s actually a Democrat trying to act as agent provocateur.  If that turns out to be the case and he gets exposed… Ouch.

      (It’s not impossible that this is for real, but it’s about as likely as someone publicly claiming to be a Democrat talking proudly about “our plan to send bourgeoisie exploiters of the masses to re-education camps”.  Both are far more representative of their opponents fears than reality.)

      • tré says:

        Kinda what I came here to post, I almost think this had to be someone actively trying to make CPAC look like bigots. If that’s the case, I don’t know why this person even got out of bed that day; did he think they needed his help in that area?

      • Saltine says:

        I don’t think this guy is a troll. I’ve heard plenty of white guys say the same sort of thing (in the Midwest and in the South), and this fellow seems pretty earnestly butthurt to me. I’ve even had students float ideas like this in class. I’ve been on Boing Boing recently pointing out that plenty of people in the South are intelligent, even intellectuals. But it’s also true that I can look out my door and see that some asshole is flying a rebel flag and a Gadsden flag in his backyard, likely put there when black people moved in to the house next to me. (The flag flies over their yard.) So, anyway, never ever underestimate the prevalence of racist thinking in the US. It hasn’t been that long since white people were exterminating the aboriginal inhabitants and keeping slaves. And even less time since we were turning away Jews fleeing the Shoa. So it’s no surprise that the white US population has a lot of people spouting crap like Mr. Ahm Edumacated Neckbeard up there.

      • Dave Shevett says:

        You should read some of the other crap that’s running around CPAC. It’s like a breeding ground for the right wing fringe. Even the most batshit right wing ideologue claptrap is given room to grow and present. So no, I don’t think the Dems need to do anything here, just sit and watch. This set of comments doesn’t surprise me at all.

        • billstewart says:

          Well yes, it’s CPAC – it’s purpose is to get the right-wing crazy people to hang out together and support each other and have fun listening to right-wing speakers like Limbaugh and Palin.  It’s not a meeting of the corporatist Republican Party machine, it’s cheerleader camp.

          • brucearthurs says:

            “One time, at cheerleader camp….”

            Do I really want to think about what CPAC attendees hooking up together would be like?  No, no I don’t think I do.

        • Gregory Primosch says:

          From Terry’s web site:

          However,  after the session was over, I approached Mr. Smith, and we had a great conversation.  He put some of my fears to rest, and assured me that he agreed with Booker T. Washington’s statement (about us all being as united as a hand, but separate as the fingers – in fact, said Mr. Smith, Washington got that from Frederick Douglas to begin with!)

          If that is the general attitude of the Frederick Douglas Republicans (and I believe they were sincere), then all I have to say is:  It’s about time!  I hope it catches on.

          Apparently Fredrick Douglas Republicans agree that re-segregation is the way to go. How do these people get let in the door to CPAC?

          • Charles-A Rovira says:

            How do these people get let in the door to CPAC?

            They get the coloreds to hold it open.

            Part of the problem is that, given the fact that they’d shoot any that try to move into their trailer park, they have no interaction with said coloreds or with anything but the hermetically sealed white echo chamber.

            For some people whose family tree does not fork for several generations, its white bread and mayonaise all the way.

            They only speak ‘Murican and it has no words for concepts like diversity, erudition or acceptance.

          • C W says:

            The people who think “political correctness” is a thing that actually exists.

          • KP says:

            I wouldn’t say that their family trees are all white bread and mayonnaise. Remember that the white slave owners back in the pre-Civil War days had a tendency to get a bit rapey with their slaves. (It wasn’t all rape though. Some probably really did fall in love, in as much as that was possible in an owner-slave relationship.) American families tend to have branches all over the racial spectrum. (The President’s family may be a more extreme version of this, but it is not atypical.)

            Oblivious whiteness is not hereditary though. The white people who marry into our non-white families tend to look less awkward at our family gatherings after only a short amount of time.

          • C W says:

            “It wasn’t all rape though. Some probably really did fall in love, in as much as that was possible in an owner-slave relationship”

            Regardless of the rosy story the kids invented, this was still a power dynamic that involved very little consent.

          • millie fink says:

            Exactly. I cringe whenever I hear someone speak in rosy terms about the “relationship” between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.

          • Brainspore says:


            I cringe whenever I hear someone speak in rosy terms about the “relationship” between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.

            Whenever someone pulls out a Jefferson quote to bolster a political talking point as if he was an unimpeachable fountain of truth and righteousness, I like to point out that they’re quoting a man who supported genocide while fucking underage slaves.

          • millie fink says:

            Heh. Thanks, great way to put it.

          • Ipo says:

            I’d like to point out that Jefferson is believed to have started his sexual “relationship” with Sally Hemings in 1788 or 1789 when Hemings was 15 or 16 years old.  
            In the United States, a century later, the age of consent still was only 7–12 years of age.  
            As far as we know, Jefferson didn’t fuck underage persons. 
            The age of consent really is a minor point in a situation where consent  itself wasn’t required. 
            Slavery has always been fucking convenient for the 1%.

          • Brainspore says:


            I’d like to point out that Jefferson is believed to have started his sexual “relationship” with Sally Hemings in 1788 or 1789 when Hemings was 15 or 16 years old.

            I read 14 or 15, but if you wish I’m happy to amend the description to “…a man who supported genocide and fucked slaves who were in their mid-teens.”

            The age of consent really is a minor point in a situation where consent itself wasn’t required.

            Maybe not the most important point but hardly a “minor” one. Even among those who commit sexual assault, targeting children is considered especially heinous.

          • C W says:

            ” How do these people get let in the door to CPAC?”

            The people who in the video and in person want to re-enable segregation under the “right to free association” ARE the people conservatives want running their minority outreach campaigns. This is working as planned!

          • blissfulight says:

            White guy talked with black guy, and they both agreed on different things:  
            1)  White guy thinks he’s not racist, and that black guy agreed with him that he’s not racist.  2)  Black guy thinks white guy is racist, and did not agree with him, while pretending to agree with him.  Modern-day bigotry in the Republican party:  complicated.  

        • mattand says:

          You might want to actually read some of the comments on any given Little Green Footballs post, Jim. Whatever rep the site has being right wing vanished a loooong time ago.

          • millie fink says:

            Really? It somehow went left-wing? Centrist? Or . . . ?

          • mattand says:

            I’m terrible at labeling things politically, but center-left may be an apt description.

            I went there a few years ago, because I had decided I needed to at least read a few right-wing/conservative blogs. Basically, Charles Johnson, the guy who runs it, kicked out all of the loons.

            Let’s put it this way: have you seen any right wing sites, from Free Republic on down, actually criticizing the behavior of the nutjobs at that CPAC panel?

          • C W says:

            More centrist, mostly progressive, there are a few “conservatives” there, but a principled ones that really don’t say crazy or outrageous things and can actually discuss things like civilized people (and have no place in politics these days. LGF is reviled by Redstate, Freep, all the “serious” discussion sites.

          • Preston Sturges says:

            Charles split with the Islamophobia crowd several years as their public links to European neonazis and various white supremacists became clear, so if by “right wing” you mean “white supremacist,” yeah.

          • Jim Saul says:

            Correction noted – a brief glance around recent posts shows that it no longer is the cesspool it was in the ‘aughts.

        • Preston Sturges says:

           Actually the white supremacists on Stormfront make some deliberate effort to fit in with society and not appear completely insane, while the Tea Party is over the top batshit insane compared to the white supremacists.

        • Gyrofrog says:

          I noticed the “Arguments Against Miscegenation” at the first website.

          Now then, as for “Arguments For Miscegenation,” I proudly present my kids.


          The Miscegenator

      • Nick Weaver says:

        Nope.  Scott Terry’s companion (or at least sitting next to the guy at the event) was Matthew Heimbach, who’s been on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s radar for a while:


        • tlwest says:

          Dear God.  Well, at least that’s one fear put to rest.

          I almost feel sorry for the Republicans.  It’s like having the Marxists showing up and getting filmed at your “Fair Taxation” meeting.

          • K-9 says:

             The differences being that Marxists are a negligible portion of American voters and Democrats are not inflaming and encouraging them in a cynical effort to divide the electorate.

            I think there is a place for liberalism and conservatism in governance in the same sense that there’s a place for an accelerator and brake pedal in a vehicle, but the GOP won’t get any sympathy from me until and unless their national leadership is no longer comprised of or catering to ignorant, gibbering, paranoid, bigoted lunatics.

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            Except that would never happen.

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            Yes I suppose if you can imagine it in your brain then it is possible……
            We see what you’re doing btw.

          • Lotney says:

            And “Fair Taxation” is up for debate as opposed to slavery.. right?

          • Gilbert Wham says:

             I’d be all for more Marxists showing up at meetings about taxation. Splendid idea.

          • wysinwyg says:

            If Marxists showed up at your fair taxation meeting they’d probably just talk about Basic Income Guarantee and shit like that.  Most Marxists I’ve ever met are soft-spoken, non-confrontational liberal types, not screaming revolutionaries. Slavoj Zizek is actually pretty scary for a Marxist. (And yes, he’s a goofy teddy bear, not the least bit scary in the first place.)

            Marx, Marxism, and Marxists are not the one-dimensionally evil boogeymen the right and corporate media would lead you to believe they are.

      • Felton / Moderator says:

        Both are far more representative of their opponents fears than reality.

        No.  One of those is a total fabrication.  The other is a very real and commonplace sentiment.

        • tlwest says:

           Well, I was educated in Canada which tilts a little to the left of the US, but I have to say that I’ve never personally met someone like the idiot (who is apparently real, wow), but I happily engaged (university, right?) those on the left who certainly earnestly expressed the ‘fabrication’ of re-education.  I’ll agree that perhaps ‘execution of executives involved in the financial industry’ is a more plausible right-wing caricature of the left, Marxism having lost its allure.

          The point is that we don’t waste any time and effort finding wing-nuts on our own side.  They exist, and they’ll always exist, but we know that such people on our own side are powerless.  Claiming that the other sides wing-nuts represent the true nature of opposition but our’s don’t represent us is pretty much a classic “hate the enemy”.

          I understand why this is done in war.  However, I consider it counter-productive in situations where we desire a peaceful outcome.  Let the Republicans stand (or more likely, fall) on their *actual* policies.  No need to invent “approval of restarting slavery is a real and commonplace Republican sentiment” fallacies.

          • Jim Saul says:

            I live in Kentucky, and find it simply adorable that there are places where scum like this guy and his ilk are so rare.

            Democrats have a long-standing tradition of marginalizing even moderate leftists – it’s commonly known as “hippie-punching.”

            Republicans, conversely, have had their party apparatus largely taken over by their radicals. You needn’t search for them, just turn on CSPAN.

            It is counterproductive to pretend false equivalencies.

          • Brainspore says:

            @tlwest:disqus :

            Racism?  Absolutely.  But slaves being grateful??  Restarting slavery??!?  Come on, I know that the South has a bad reputation, but really.  Are you seriously saying that that sort of sentiment is held beyond 1%?

            On a very good day you might find that small of a percentage of Southerners willing to voice those sentiments out loud at a public gathering designed to bridge racial differences. 

            But if you think that fewer than 1% of white Southerners don’t privately believe that black people are better off today because of enslavement and introduction to “civilization” then you are just kidding yourself.

          • retchdog says:

            The way Bruce Sterling put this was to imagine if Robert Anton Wilson (rip) were to be a significant figure in the democratic party.

          • Ean Moody says:

            I think the point here is that the “wing nuts” on the american liberal side are just a bit… idealistic. They think we should convert to total communism or socialism, share everything equally, take all the money away from the rich people, and the world will be a utopia of awesome. Alternately they think that if we just scaled back the government’s role to “stop people from actively hurting one another”, society would sort itself out through direct democracy or limited anarchy or whatever. If they had their way it would almost certainly be a disaster, but at least the intent is to give everyone a great life and make everything wonderful for everyone.

            Conservative american wing-nuts on the other hand tend to be more like this guy. They tend to think that what’s bad in the world is a direct result of overturning iron-age biases and traditions, and that the only solution is to put them back. They would stop the blacks and minorities and immigrants from ruining their country, get those uppity women back into their place, and ensure that the world isn’t run by over-intellectual gays. (I shit you not I have heard this come out of a person’s mouth, in west-central Florida even, which isn’t exactly a conservative hotbed.) If they had their way society might actually last a lot longer, but it would do so at the expense of the rights of of 90% of the world’s population.

            It’s not that either of these people actually “represent” their party as a whole, but they do kind of establish the bounds of their thinking. If you were take their thinking to its extreme interpretation, where do you end up? What might some of these people say and do if they didn’t feel the need to “soften” their opinions for general consumption? These sorts of people help give you an idea of the answer to those kinds questions.

            Given the choice, I’ll take “Man, we should share everything equally, man” guy over “The african-americans should be allowed to vote in Africa” guy any day.

          • tlwest says:

            I am in complete agreement.

            No doubt the right wing crowd would point out that in the attempts to reach these extremes, one produced America, while the other produced tremendous slaughters in both Russia and China, but assuming that neither wing-nuts visions are going to come to pass, I’ll go with more benevolent intention.

            My point was only that I don’t think “hate-on’s” are morally productive.  Perhaps hate and loathing is necessary to motivate the troops to action, but I find it disheartening to think “my” side needs to resort to such tactics.

          • Gilbert Wham says:

            The fact that some form of limited socialism in government is considered ‘wing nuttery’ is massively depressing.

          • Preston Sturges says:

             While the “socialism” of religion and its all encompassing “political correctness” is merely taken for granted, and deserves direct government subsidies.

          • wysinwyg says:

            No doubt the right wing crowd would point out that in the attempts to reach these extremes, one produced America, while the other produced tremendous slaughters in both Russia and China, but assuming that neither wing-nuts visions are going to come to pass, I’ll go with more benevolent intention.

            The right wing crowd would be completely wrong about that.  The founding of the USA was a liberal (in the classic sense) experiment, not a reactionary return to “more traditional” ways of life.  The right wingers of the time would have been called “loyalists” because of their loyalty to the crown and the old order.

            We know what right-wing reactionary revolutions look like and the kinds of governments and nations you get as a result.  Unfortunately if I got into specifics someone would come along to scream “Godwin” at me.  People are really quick to point to the Bolshevik revolution as an example of what happens when political idealism goes too far but the internet has a special rule to prevent anyone from pointing to a few other revolutions as examples of what happens when racism and traditionalism go too far.

          • Felton / Moderator says:

            I see that you added some words when you “quoted” me.  I meant that it’s a very real and commonplace sentiment in the US in general, particularly in the south, where I’m from.  I’m glad for you that you’ve never run across it until now.

          • tlwest says:

            Sorry if I misconstrued your statement (I wanted to make it explicit, but obviously I misinterpreted what you were saying.)

            Would you be willing to explicitly delineate what you meant?

            If what you are saying is that there is an unspoken undercurrent of racial superiority/inferiority is commonplace in the south, where common is defined as being held by > 10% of the populace, I’d find that uncomfortable, but not impossible to believe.

            But what this nut-case says (and why I assumed your comment was directly relevant here) is blacks should be grateful for slavery and that he’s okay with re-activating slavery.  I’m sorry, but I find the idea that it’s a common (>10%) sentiment anywhere in the USA very hard to believe.

            I’m glad for you that you’ve never run across it until now.

            Well, the Internet introduces you to all sorts.  But *personally* met anyone that crazy?  No, I live in a nice middle-class bubble :-).

          • C W says:

            “I’m sorry, but I find the idea that it’s a common (>10%) sentiment anywhere in the USA very hard to believe.”


            Educate yourself.

          • Andy Reilly says:

            tlwest, the problem with what you propose is that the left’s fringe are far enough on the side of personal freedom that they find it hard to come together as a group against certain people. The right’s fringe is just the opposite. I have to say I side with the sentiment “the truth has a liberal slant”. Why? Because truth only comes from asking hard questions and valuing the answers over your own desires of the what the answers should be. Exactly why the conservatives came to power with Reagan and the Bush twins. Liberals want to do their own thing and let you do your own thing, conservatives want a structure where they can feel secure in doing what is “right”. That’s not just a political view, that’s the philosophical angle too. When the GOP began publishing daily talking points that got passed down by fax and email from the very top to the bottom of the organization, they started to come into power. Humans are social animals, and in social animals “herd instinct” can be played upon. The political ideologies at the fringes of each side do well when people stick to talking points and dogma over truth. It’s just that the fringes on the conservative side (religion based government, us vs. them, etc.) do better than the fringes on the personal freedom side (Anarchist, Libertarian) when it comes to voting as a block. As for their “actual policies”, you should read the GOP platform from the last election. It’s not what this guy is spouting but it’s not that far off. And it allows for a place for him, but not for atheists, gay marriage, separation of church and state, etc. 

          • C W says:

            “I have to say that I’ve never personally met someone like the idiot”

            Your lack of worldly experience doesn’t define the world.

          • C W says:

            “Is the American Democratic party really so narrow and right wing that it can’t encompass socialism even in its wing-nut fringe?”

            It absolutely is. Greenwashing is still corporation-friendly, marxism is not.

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            Communists, Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists, and Maoists.

            @tlwest:disqus Ha. They’re a small minority at protests, let alone at any kind of sanctioned Democratic Party event….

      • Charles-A Rovira says:

        It’s not impossible that this is for real, but it’s about as likely as someone publicly claiming to be a Democrat talking proudly about “our plan to send bourgeoisie exploiters of the masses to re-education camps”.

        Not likely, no NASCAR loving red-neck ever uses words like bourgeoisie (and they certainly cant pronounce it properly at a truck pull either.)

      • C W says:

        “my fear is that he’s actually a Democrat trying to act as agent provocateur”

        Sorry, there’s no left-wing Breitbart. They really are that horrible.

      • Navin_Johnson says:

        Except that he’s a known NC racist conservative. Good diversion though.

      • nachoproblem says:

        I’m pretty sure I’ve talked to this guy in real life before. He really exists. Oh, he might have been wearing a different body at the time, but for all purposes I care about it was the same person.

        • tlwest says:

          Yes, he’s for real, all right.

          Hard to imagine why he’d want to damage the Republicans like this, but then rationality may not be his strong suit.

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            His views aren’t that out of the mainstream for conservatives, and his “oppressed white male” (“reverse racism” “pc gone mad”, “affirmative action”, “gay agenda” etc. etc.) narrative is completely commonplace, even among the most “mainstream” conservatives.

            There have also been a number of conservative verbal gaffes or just plain convictions that blacks are better off from slavery than they would have been if they weren’t brought here against their will. This is a sadly common narrative among conservatives.

          • Thing is, at least in a material sense, a case can be made that the modern descendents of slaves living in the US have, on average, a higher standard of living than the descendents of those who managed to avoid being kidnapped and send to the us.  But that in no way excuses the evil of slavery.  It’s not like they were recruiting immigrants in Africa with the promise that although they would lose their freedom there was a small chance that their great great great grand children would see some benefit if they were fortunate enough to be able to have children before being worked to death.  Because most of the carriben colonies never did have a self supporting population of slaves.  Instead the always needed new slaves to replace the ones that had died off.

          • millie fink says:

            Thing is, at least in a material sense, a case can be made that the modern descendents of slaves living in the US have, on average, a higher standard of living than the descendents of those who managed to avoid being kidnapped and send to the us.

            So fucking what? That kind of allowance legitimizes absolutely nothing that comes from the right.  

          • Oh, I agree, Millie, it legitimized nothing.  Another way to look at this is just how EXPENSIVE it was to buy slaves.  Between 60-120 thousand adjusted for inflation. The difference between what it cost to feed, clothe, shelter, and threaten the labor out of a slave was MUCH less that it cost to hire free labor to do the same ammount of work.  THAT’S why people were willing to pay the equivalant of several years wages to buy one.  So the idea that slaves owed something to their enslavers for being fed is an absurdity.

          • millie fink says:

            Got it, thanks, and agreed.

    • chrisdag says:

      Oh please …  Scott Terry has a huge and longstanding public footprint as an out and proud white nationalist. It’s not hard to verify. 

    • Ean Moody says:

      Welcome to the world of extreme conservatism, where Poe’s Law Rules and the points don’t matter.


      “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing.” A corollary of Poe’s Law is that “An extreme enough example of fundamentalism is indistinguishable from a parody of itself.”

    • Robert Drop says:

      If he were a troll, then he’d be treated like a troll at the event. He isn’t.  The speaker attempts to engage with him, rather than telling him to fuck off, and later downplays the racism, while reaffirming that they had things in common.

      • C W says:

        Right, that he was treated as a serious thinker and applauded IN THE CONTEXT OF MINORITY OUTREACH and not just a horrible lunatic to be escorted out by security is extremely telling of the popularity of this idea.

        • CLamb says:

           No, what it is telling of is the tolerance of the event. Extremely liberal questioners also get treated seriously. At this past CPAC I heard a fellow from the Washington Blade question the constitutionality of not supporting same sex marriage and a questioner expounding on the great fruits of the labor union movement. The only time I’ve ever seen folks escorted out is when they attempted to interrupt and disrupt other people speaking.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            At this past CPAC I heard a fellow from the Washington Blade question the constitutionality of not supporting same sex marriage and a questioner expounding on the great fruits of the labor union movement.

            Did you really just equate slavery with gay marriage and labor unions?

    • smut clyde says:

      To repeat other commenters: He maintains a white-supremacist website. He takes pride in inclusion in the SPLC’s list of neo-nazis. If he’s trolling, he’s a very well-prepared one.

    • Gilbert Wham says:

      No chance, the only way you wouldn’t get arrested for disturbing the antics of the GOP with demented, eye-wateringly racist. inflammatory bullshit like that is if you meant every word of it. If he’d been taking the piss, he’d have been tazed and hog-tied before anyone knew what was going on.

  7. awjt says:

    According to Ancestry.com, my family are likely descendents of Jefferson Davis, too.  So I could be related to this turd.  Well, I disown you, man.  You clearly *d.o.  n.o.t.  g.e.t.  i.t.*

  8. Shouldn’t the party of “Don’t let illegals stay in the country because they’re stealing our jobs,”  REALLY REALLY hate the institution of slavery.  Because if you think that it is difficult to get a job with a decent living wage is hard when you’re competeing with an illegal immigrant, it is even more difficult when you’re competing against chattel slaves.  When the Republican party was founded as an anti-slavery party that was the motivation of many, rather than any believe in the equality of ALL people.

    • gracchus says:

      You would think that, but that’s expecting logic and an awareness of historic continuity in the GOP’s rhetoric — not a strength for them. At its core the modern Republican party specialises in getting lower-middle-class and working-class whites to vote against their own economic self-interests to the benefit of people who (were the “peculiar institution” extant today) would be wealthy enough to own other human beings.

    • CH says:

      Yea, but see if there was slaves then there would be somebody lower than them in status (they are of course assuming that they themselves would not be slaves), and in their dreams they would be the masters. I’m pretty sure they would be totally excited if one suggested that illegals could be turned into slaves.

      If it wasn’t for those meddling human rights people they could be somebody great and wealthy!

    • anon0mouse says:

      Definitely not.  It’s not the work that they object to having someone else do…it’s the paychecks they object to someone else getting.

    • C W says:

      They don’t find themselves competing, they find minorities as lessers.

    • billstewart says:

      Take a look at the prison labor business some time.  They’re not just making license plates and cleaning up roadside trash, and they’re getting far less than minimum wage for their work.  And Republicans are generally just fine with that, because they’re criminals.

      • IronEdithKidd says:

        Prison labor is part of the reason real wages have stagnated for the average US worker.  99.9% of us should be screaming mad and marching in the streets over this.  It’s a brilliant strategy because to speak against it makes one an easy target for the “soft on crime” trope.

  9. gracchus says:

    Hey, if Terry wants to spend the rest of his life doing manual labour for me in exchange for clothes from the Wal-Mart bargain bin and food from the budget menu from Jack-in-the-Box (better than those 19th century ingrates got, tellyuhwhat) he can contact me here. He can sleep in the (uninsulated) garage. Same offer goes out to his supporters.

    • tré says:

      You forgot the parts about the life of constant fear and the atrocious idea of one human being owning another, and that his ancestors will never see justice, even if they are freed from this particular kind of injustice.

      • Charles-A Rovira says:

        I find it amusing that the idea of apartheid that got so embarrassing that the South Africans voluntarily gave it up as an official policy over a decade ago, is alive and well in the minds of some trailer dwellin’, cousin fuckin’, troglodyte Southerners.

        • millie fink says:

          Yes, let’s roll out the lazy, classist stereotypes while we’re at it. That’ll surely help.

        • Gyrofrog says:

          “cousin fuckin'”

          I resemble that remark.  (Family tree merges, though no one realized till they had already made baby troglodytes)

        • Deidzoeb says:

          You want to find some racist white people, track the white flight from Detroit to the suburbs. Read the Detroit News or Free Press for a few days and check out how they still argue about how to withdraw white people’s tax dollars from areas where Black people live. See how an unelected financial OVERSEER, I mean emergency financial manager, has been appointed by the state to run Detroit, overruling the elected city officials there. [WSJ called him an “overseer.” I applied head to desk repeatedly.] Fifty percent of African Americans in Michigan now live in areas controlled by unelected financial managers, according to Democracy Now. The South doesn’t have a monopoly on racism.

      • anon0mouse says:

        …and the healthy doses of having your wife and daughters raped whenever the master gets an itch in his pants.

      • billstewart says:

        No, we’re not forgetting that.

        There’s also the part that slave owners didn’t give their slaves food and shelter – they made them grow the food and build the shelter.

    • UnderachievingSheep says:

      I assume you are going to be “humane” and “modernize” and not rape them, their women and pre-pubescent children? Also, you won’t be selling their children as soon as they are past toddler stage?

      I am not surprised that in the list of things this asshole claims slaves should be grateful for, he conveniently forgot about systematic rape and sexual abuse. In fairness, also in that regard, he seems well aligned with the mainstream of his party.

      • millie fink says:

        Wouldn’t it be awesome if someone could find out and reveal that he actually has black ancestors? 

        • UnderachievingSheep says:

          I’m not joking when I say this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he committed suicide upon finding out. To me, there is a difference between the ignorant racist that spouts an insult and the kind of guy like this one, basically stating that slavery is “great”. The former type can be educated. They can be somewhat “brought over”, especially through direct experience (being exposed to something different than hatred, for instance). This guy though is the kind where to me, the racism is a symptom of something else, somewhat revealing a very unstable and sick mind. I might be wrong here, but this is the kind of guy capable of “going postal” with a gun in a public space. White, male rage is not a joke. This guy appears to have it (see above his history with neo nazi and white supremacist crap).

          • Dlo Burns says:

            I’d also like to remind people that (excepting for 9/11 since it was a lucky strike) we’ve had far more neo-nazi/ultra-patriot/militia related terrorism than from any other group.

          • millie fink says:

            Yes indeed. The reluctance of the corporate media to label white-wing extremist actions and planned actions “terrorism,” let alone pay much of any attention at all to it as a collective phenomenon that’s more of a threat than Islamic terrorism, is maddening.

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            And only on the rise in recent years, yet they spy on environmentalists and occupy…

          • IconoclastTwo says:

             “I’m not joking when I say this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he committed suicide upon finding out.”

            You meant to recommend this as an idea, right?

          • anon0mouse says:

            I don’t know.  I get the feeling that this guy thinks that because he got a gold star in learnin’ at Butthumpin University he believes he’s got a grip on history.  It would really be hard to say if he’s evil. He’s definitely a miseducated pompous ass. I’m not defending his brand of ignorance, it just makes me sad.

          • Marja Erwin says:

            [Trigger warning: rape, slavery, systematic rape. may cause panic and/or nausea.]

            Slaveholders invented the one-drop rule because, after generations of rape after rape, many slaves had more European ancestry than African. Young girls who looked more European than African, and looked healthy otherwise, were often sold to the brothels.

          • Snig says:

            People can change, link is about the racist skinhead who found out he was Jewish.  He and his wife are now practicing Jews.

        •  Actually, if he has Southern roots going back to before 1740 or so, he very likely has a black ancestor. Racial lines were less rigid then and many whites married black freedmen (and freedmen too). There were not many miscegenation laws and if you looked pretty white, you were white.

  10. chgoliz says:

    This is what I was told my entire life.  It’s part of a larger problem: people not having any empathy for others…only changing their opinions if something directly affects one of their loved ones.  (And even then….the number of anti-choice zealots who get an abortion for themselves or a family member and then go right back to angry protesting outside the very facility they just used is scary.)

    In the vein of “never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance”, I’ll posit that for many people, they just can’t bear to face the ugly truth so they have to imagine a silver lining exists somehow.  Slavery was bad, OK, we’ll grant you that, but at least they were given food and clothes….that’s something, right?

    • tré says:

      If someone is a white American who can’t “bear to face the ugly truth” of slavery and the history of racism in this country, that person needs therapy, not to indulge in some fantasy land where people enjoy being owned, beaten, and forced into work for their entire lives.

      You think it’s hard for white people to deal with this history? Try being a POC in this culture.

      • chgoliz says:

        Guess I wasn’t clear: I myself was told by officials and outsiders to be grateful I was getting food and clothing, and to stop complaining about having to work up to 18 hours a day for free for 15 years (while being regularly beaten and otherwise abused).  It’s not only a historical problem…. the lessons are still not learned, because people really don’t want to believe it could be “that bad”, then or now.  Therapy?  That assumes such people are at a higher level of self-awareness than they probably are.

  11. TacoChuck says:

     Talking Points Memo also had a reporter at the session, their coverage is informative as well:


  12. Jim Saul says:

    So that’s what they mean by “job creators.”

  13. paddle2paddle says:

    I at least take solace in the fact that the woman in the front row (and clearly others as well) showed her incredulity and shock.

  14. CH says:

    Hmm… what year was this again? I think my watch is off by quite a few decades.

  15. Steve Laudig says:

    For Douglass’s letter: http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1121.htm
    Scott Terry is quite clearly ignorant. a victim, perhaps, of an educational system. Ignorance needn’t be a permanent state. It is curable. If he’s stupid, well, that’s a different matter.

    • BookGuy says:

      I can certainly seeing blaming a flawed educational system when someone can’t do the simplest math or thinks that Hawaii isn’t part of the United States, but I can’t see this as an educational issue.  If a person is so lacking in empathy and so filled with hate that they think slavery is mitigated by food from the slave masters, then that’s as fundamentally broken as you can be as a human being.

      • Marja Erwin says:

        Except that Southern states have been pushing this propaganda everywhere, and especially in the schools: they tried to brainwash us while we were young…

        • marilove says:

          I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.

          Besides, it’s 2013 now.  There is something called The Internet.  There isn’t as much of an excuse anymore.  You’re privy to the ENTIRE WORLD and a variety of other views and opinions now if you have internet access. And this guy *certainly* does.

      • Mr. Winka says:

        I’ll add that the food and shelter was procured by the slaves themselves. The only thing provided by slave masters was the use of the land.

      • Brainspore says:

        It’s also amazing that anyone would assume those things were even provided for the benefit of the slaves themselves, rather than a pragmatic investment in an asset. Deprive your slaves of food, shelter and clothing and you just have a bunch of dead slaves.

        • millie fink says:

          “Deprive your slaves of food, shelter and clothing and you just have a bunch of permanently broken machines.”


          (But yes, good point well said.)

    • silkox says:

      “I know you to be a man of some intelligence, and can readily determine the precise estimate which I entertain of your character.”  That letter is a must-read, but there’s no forgiveness there.

    • C W says:

      “a victim, perhaps”

      The only victims here are those affected by the willfully ignorant. This is no accident, even if it’s a tragedy.

  16. Guysmiley says:

    Oh yes, the systematic disenfranchisement of young white men. LOL! I mean, he studied American literature and stuff.

    • mccrum says:

      I remember last time I went to vote and they were all like “get out of here, white guy!”

      Totally bummed me out, so I went home and watched Django Unchained and was all like, black people are cool!

  17. andre paris says:

    nobody is that stupid maybe he is staying in character like Sacha Baron Cohen did in Borat

    • millie fink says:

      Read upthread about his previous and other current adventures. He’s the real deal.

  18. Stefan Jones says:

    OH MY GOD . . . what if CPAC itself was actually a sinister liberal plot?

    Its main achievement has been to make the Conservative Standard Model crazier, making the GOP candidates more appealing to their shrinking base while becoming more out-of-touch with the country as a whole

    • david steinmuller says:

      There is a similar theory kicking around the further reaches of the crazy sphere that says CPAC was actually taken over by stealth Jihadists. I’m not sure whether they consider liberals or Muslims scarier.

  19. Dv Revolutionary says:

    Where is the LPAC where we can read stories of Dennis Kucinich suggesting all people have inalienable rights US citizen or not. Where Al Franklin and Al Gore get in a fight about what is the most effective way to fight global warming right now.

    I know these CPAC people are the worst of the worst but they have this confab where they make headlines every year. Their ideas are pushed out into the mainstream by transmission belt called the media. We may laugh at them for the disaster they are and hope they finally implode but they are getting their awful ideas out there and getting their reprehensible reps and political “entertainers” tons of attention every year.

    • silkox says:

       Wait: I think all people do have inalienable rights, and I do think we need to be fighting global warming right now. So I’m a liberal Scott Terry fellow traveler?

    • Navin_Johnson says:

      Yes, those are called “Human Rights”.

    • C W says:

      A place where the media gives a shit about any of these narratives.

    • anwaya says:

      where is the LPAC…

      It’s called “Netroots Nation”, was originally called “Yearly Kos”. About the worst that Fox News has been able to say about it is for Sean Hannity to call it “Netkooks” as part of an interview with/report from Andrew Breitbart, who went to a public area at the conference a couple of years ago, and was hassled by a rather shrill and angry man. The attendee’s point was, I think, to try to show Bretbart that what he thought were his hostile ambush interview techniques are very unpleasant for the interviewee: though AFAIAA, the hostile ambush interview is a technique more used by Fox.

  20. Charles-A Rovira says:

    Pity the Repubes…

    There is no mixing down at the bottom of the barrel.

    What a pity that the majority of these cellar dwellers would rather loudly hold onto their disparate, abhorrent opinions and vote for them

    Eventually, there will be a bunch of parties, each representing some aspect of political (or worse real,) miscegenation, and getting into vociferous arguments will tear the Repube base to pieces.

  21. Edoardo Paolo says:

    If the Republican tent is big enough to accept ideas as extreme as this guy’s, it defines it as more a circus tent than a political one.

  22. CliffordS says:

    I’m more surprised that someone like K. Carl Smith exists rather than Scott Terry.  

  23. jennybean42 says:

     I was really hoping it was the Yes Men. But it’s not subtle enough.

  24. fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

    But if slavery gave blacks food, shelter, and clothing; doesn’t that mean that slavery was almost like Welfare, which we all know is a vile program? 

    • C W says:

      Nope. This is “personal charity”, which they support 100% (through their churches, not personal donations.)

  25. Kurt says:

    Sounds like a set up. They plant a racist to make horrific statements so they can look progressive arguing him down. Now they’re good guys.

    • Felton / Moderator says:

      If that’s the case, it would have looked much better to an outside observer if they had said “those are horrible, racist, outdated ideas, and they have no place in the Republican party.  Now, please leave.”  Bizarro World stuff, I know.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

      Many posts above that show that he’s an established racist conservative, and very real. You’re trolling.

  26. agonist says:

    The best way to tear something down is from the inside. If that guy isn’t a troll, then I see a great opportunity for motivated young actors to sow discord.

    • Gilbert Wham says:

      As I said earlier, saying insane bullshit like that to ’em is OK so long as you mean it. Otherwise, that’s a Tazin’…

  27. grs says:

    For people claiming this is a set up or that this guy is just a troll, Littlegreenfootballs has some some internetting on the guy. He seems like a legit bigot: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/41742_About_Scott_Terry_-_CPAC_Slavery_Defender_and_Disenfranchised_Whites_Illustrated

  28. Diogenes says:

    Yes, but they did allow an African American to shine their shoes.


  29. Brandon Wright says:

    The hippies back in the 60-70’s were a lot smarter than we give credit for. The main philosophy behind the hippy movement was that “by changing yourself, you change society”. Why do you think they were black sheeped so fucking fast, they were actually posing a real threat to the status quo, and were promptly eliminated, in the exact same way Occupy was crushed, not by the government, but by instilling the mentality that these people are lower than the low, and thus using the people themselves to defeat an idea that would be beneficial to them…

    The hippies were right though “by changing yourself, you change society”. Look at the empathy and behaviour of people today, completely non condusive to cooperation and sharing, and it shows in society with the lowest IQ scores ever in our history, extreme violence being perpetrated by younger and younger people (now even children are killing/murdering), mass pollution, a government that has lost all sense of progress and efficiency, and much much more… In fact it is safe to say that it will be substantially harder to change society, than it was in the 60’s/70’s, simply because people gave two shits about each other back then.

    The ultimate proof? In the event of police abuse, or a violent attack, notice not the offender/victim, notice instead that every time these events occur NO ONE IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY HELPS ANYMORE, instead they pull out their cameras and start filming like sick voyeurs, unaware that if they banded together at that moment they could drive back the violent offender, cop or otherwise. We have lost the basic mentality of strength in numbers, because we have been made to think we are special, and alone, and everyone around me is an idiot who couldn’t help me out even if they wanted too.

    There’s your new America folks..

    • millie fink says:

      tl; dr

      Also — source?

    • C W says:

      “The hippies were right though “by changing yourself, you change society”.”

      This sounds perfect… for any Ayn Rand devotee who played at “free love” and narcissism in the 60s and predictably turned Neocon.

    • wysinwyg says:

      The ultimate proof? In the event of police abuse, or a violent attack, notice not the offender/victim, notice instead that every time these events occur NO ONE IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY HELPS ANYMORE, instead they pull out their cameras and start filming like sick voyeurs, unaware that if they banded together at that moment they could drive back the violent offender, cop or otherwise. We have lost the basic mentality of strength in numbers, because we have been made to think we are special, and alone, and everyone around me is an idiot who couldn’t help me out even if they wanted too.

      You seem to be mixing up different scenarios to get the result you want.
      1. People don’t traditionally jump in the middle of “police abuse” because assaulting a police officer is a felony and they’re usually pretty well-armed.  This is not some new 21st century thing.  For as long as I can remember people have tried to avoid picking brawls with cops for some really good reasons.
      2. But in the case of violent assaults that don’t involve police officers people do routinely intervene contrary to your assertion.
      3. Filming police violence is a great deal more effective than intervening directly.  Intervening directly will get both parties locked up and the jury will take the cop’s side.  The video evidence is essentially the only way to hold the cop to account.

      If you get together a gang to beat up on a cop he will call in his gang and his gang is bigger, tougher, and better-armed than your gang.  You’re just being ridiculous.

  30. medontlivenoprahsworld says:

    I noticed a number of comments on the american south, where this fella hails, but there is a lot of racism in the suburbs of all of america as well. These are the people that give money to the GOP and support it through and through. Check the comments on a local news website of a crime committed by a person of color, there you will find men and women just like the speaker.
    It’s impact on our lives is just a shame, but these folks live everyday with their views and teach them to their children. The cycle continues, that is why this should be alarming.
    It has hurt cities and politics all over the nation, polarizing the locals and creating barriers of every sort.
    So if you personally don’t know of someone like this, then you’re are fortunate.
    A quote I’ll always remember is from the famous Geraldo Rivera chair throwing show when the Rabbi said (paraphrasing here): I wanted to go to a trial of a Nazi and look at his face. What does a Nazi look like? A Nazi looks like your neighbor cutting his lawn.

  31. Bob Hamer says:

    Most of you are being successfully divided by the Democrat/Republican thing, it is planned that way you know.

    • millie fink says:

      Meh. I’m perfectly capable of critiquing Republicans while retaining my capacity to also critique Democrats.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

      No, it’s conservative vs. progressive.  A lot of Democrats fall on the side of conservatism as well.

    • marilove says:

      Oh, we know, do we? Do you know? Something other than your word would be very helpful.

    • C W says:

      Let me guess, you’re an “independent” “free thinker” who brings us “outside the box” politicians like Ron Paul.

      When our alternatives are insane, it brings respect to the douchier establishment options.

  32. bcsizemo says:

    As a Southerner who’s parents are from a more rural area things like this barely blimp my radar.  Now when someone pulls out the, “Blacks should be grateful they were slaves.  They’d all still be back in Africa dying of HIV if it wasn’t for us.”, that’s the point when you know you are dealing with a really really high class individual….  (and yes, sadly, that is something I’ve heard said before in a serious manner)

    Stereotyping is bad enough (I’m certainly guilty of it), but god I hope this shit fads away over the next few generations.

  33. ArghMonkey says:

    Whats more racist than your average GOP member? A bunch of conservatives at a panel, trying not to be racist

    • C W says:

      “trying not to be racist”

      This is not the same thing as whitesplaining.

      • Gilbert Wham says:

         Hmmm, yeah, IF they were trying not to be racist rather than just acting not racist…

        • ArghMonkey says:

          Good point, it was all for show, amazing that they cant contain their true feelings long enough to BS their way through it, oh well, its too normal peoples benefit that conservatives are so unapologetically vile

  34. Preston Sturges says:

    One of the key differences between liberals and wingnut fringes is that it is the conservatives who are stripping the shelves of ammunition and their blogs often describe apocalyptic genocidal fantasies.

    Many of them are believe the country is about to have race war, and this has been part of their DNA since Reconstruction

    Many of them believe they are about to have a civil war with…….someone

    Bottom line is that there are hundreds of thousands of these right wing goobers who have endless fantasies about hunting down and killing their neighbors because nothing says “Freeeddddooom” like killing everyone that disagess with you.

  35. Preston Sturges says:

    Well “Republican” literally means the party of strong central government, and they did burn Atlanta, and they gave the South Sherman’s March. 

  36. unit_1421 says:

    I have to ask, what would a Liberal Political Action Conference conference look like? Would panel topics look like this:

    Hooker vouchers for teens hitting puberty, too late?

    The Gay Agenda: What next after making their bags match their shoes?

    Who would you put on a plane for GITMO; David Duke, Rush, Hannity. Coulter, people who text at movies?

    After Universal Healthcare: Free boob/pect jobs for boosting self esteem?

  37. Marko Raos says:

    He should have ended his speech with “We’re the aristocrats!”

  38. Ness Creighton says:

    As a white southerner who lives not too far from Klan Mountain, I apologize whole heartily that men like this still exist. We keep trying to get past this, and we have so many who keep dragging us back. I partly blame the schools here, which focus on American history as “Revolutionary War, Civil War, nothing else” from K-5. Heck, I hadn’t even studied WW2 until high school. 

  39. Petzl says:

    […] I really came to love my people and my culture.

    Right.  Because when you’re reading the great works of someone like Shakespeare, the first thing you think is, Isn’t white culture breathtaking?

    The audible gasps of disbelief (and horror?) were, at least, present when he suggested Fredrick Douglass thank his slavemaster for his food and lodgings.

    That’s some serious racism there. He’s so deep in it, he doesn’t even know he’s a racist.

    • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

      It’s so…unsurprising… how the ‘white race’s biggest fans often aren’t exactly its shining stars…

      • Petzl says:

        That’s always a fun thing about white racists: they extol “white” culture and achievements, but with the next breath they’ll excoriate the intellectuals and scientists who produced same.

  40. teapot says:

    I love BB… it tells me what to hate about ‘murrica, then gives me thoughtful comments by Americans to remind me that while your country is bass ackwards in so many ways there are a lot of you who know it, and rail about it.

    I’m just waiting for the aged bigots to kick the bucket so you guys can have an awesome country over there. Fringe morans like Terry and Heimbach will be less than 0.01% once that’s happened.

    • IronEdithKidd says:

      As long as there’s no upward economic mobility in the US, racism will live on.

  41. Cowicide says:

    The is yet another reason to destroy (yes destroy) the republican party.  Like we needed any more reasons?

  42. howaboutthisdangit says:

    Yessiree, this country needs to return to those good, old-fashioned values.  That’ll make everything right again.

    The Republican Party has a long-running, lucrative con going on here.  They have managed to convince millions of average Americans that they are somehow represented by a party that is lead by ultra-privileged extremists.

  43. Gyrofrog says:

    Between this guy and Craig Brittain, I am seriously considering shaving.  I’ll just try and keep thinking of Pharoah Sanders.

  44. blank blank says:

     “He claimed to be a direct descendent of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.”  –  Then I think he should be allowed to vote in Confederate elections.  Confederate, and ONLY Confederate