Tea Party Is ‘Bald-Faced Racists,’ White Privilege Conference Speaker Tells Sea Of White People

[mfcorey1]

Members of the tea party movement are “screw-loosers” who range from “sort of a generic racism” to “bald-faced racists,” and they tend to become further more racist the further the longer they associate with tea party ideas. Also, “tea partiers are not overly concerned about the economy,” love “gun rallies,” want power in the hands of white people and hate President Barack Obama because he “broke the white monopoly on the presidency.”

Such was the message of a speaker on the first day of this year’s White Privilege Conference, currently happening at a posh hotel in downtown Louisville, Ky.

The speaker was Leonard Zeskind. The author and activist hosted a session concerning the tea party, a limited government movement that shared in the responsibility for returning the U.S. House of Representatives to Republican control four years ago.

Zeskind’s Thursday afternoon talk was entitled “The Denial of White Privilege, the Tea Party Movement and the Building of Our Response.”

The former factory worker turned “social change maker” began his lecture by stressing that his “area of expertise is the white nationalist movement.” He claimed to have begun paying attention to the tea party because, he said, white supremacists swelled in the tea party ranks after Obama was sworn in as president in 2009.

“All this business about government and ‘constitutional’ is a smokescreen that’s really all about, ‘I want this country back for me.’ And ‘me’ meaning ‘white people,’” Zeskind told an overflow conference room crowd.

“We consider the tea party a post-Cold War nationalist group,” he went on to explain. Tea party aficionados “have an internal life around gun rallies” and “around constitutional study groups.”

“I don’t think I have to convince you that they have sort of a generic racism,” Zeskind informed the audience, to many approving nods. He also used the term “bald-faced racists” to describe the tea party. (And the term “screw-loosers.”)

http://news.yahoo.com/tea-party-bald-faced-racists-white-privilege-conference-034604824.html

[blm]

1. Wow. Glad to hear it being stated OUT LOUD and in public.

The denial that these ranks have grown by leaps and bounds and ARE having an effect on this nation's societal fabric has been an interesting thing to observe. That level of ignorance is pretty scary, really. Idiocracy comes to mind.

[Scuba]

2. Well, at least he didn't say anything controversial. At least not in my opinion.

[jtuck004]

5. This made me laugh...

"...Zeskind noted with dismay that after last year’s White Privilege Conference in Madison, Wis. he came under considerable criticism because “some goomball [sic] conservative tea partiers or whatever” reported that he had “cited the fact” that “the longer you are in the tea party, the more racist you become.” (RELATED: White Privilege Conference: Tea Party Equals RACISM)

This year, Zeskind doubled down on the racism allegation, citing it again and insisting that it is true based on an obscure “longitudinal study” he himself did not carry out — but has totally read...."

He does paint a pretty good picture of them. Wish the 7 step thing was available, not on his web site.



The article ended weird, I thought - last line.

"Taxpayer funds from several states go to pay for conference fees."

Yahoo's editors seem to be Obama/liberal haters, so is that last line chum for their target audience?

[romanic]

11. I think the ending of that article

made an attempt to point out the contradiction of the WPC in that it seems "Anti-American" but American tax dollars are subsidizing some of the fees related to the conference. The part where it mentions the WPC taking place at a "posh hotel" also struck him as the article being tongue-in-cheek about the elitism of it all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. The whole article is for liberal haters - it's from Tucker Carlson's The Daily Caller

It's by Eric Owens, their 'Education Editor' - though, before I saw his title, I wondered if it was by an intern, since it is really bad at reporting actual facts about what was said, and reads more like what he scribbled down.

In the past, he's been responsible for mocking transgender students.

[brush]

37. Yeah, I didn't come away from reading it and knowing whether . . .

it was from "The Onion" or if Zeskind is really liberal or a teabagger himself or what.

Don't know if he is to be trusted.

Anyone else know more about him?

[Ligyron]

3. you should read the responces on Yahoo

page after page of RW trolls calling him and the conference in general of the usual librul, America hating Socialists.

[Enthusiast]

7. I quit reading those responses

after I found that they are a paid army of sockpuppets.

They are obviously organized because their numbers far exceed their actual numbers in the population.

I used to painstakingly respond and fight back. What a waste of my time.

[dembotoz]

19. i still do mostly on facebook

if you don't, folks get the impression that what crazy stuff is being said must be ok

i have a number of folks who really seem to hate me....an i am ok with that

i do keep much of my location info vague cause after all they are crazy

[MadDAsHell]

20. This group is bigger than you think, and I doubt they're paid...

"They are obviously organized because their numbers far exceed their actual numbers in the population."

The last 5 years of elections would indicate their numbers are huge. And even if their all getting paid to troll comment boards (which really seems like a waste of money), is there a similar secret stash of money paying them all to vote?

[Enthusiast]

23. Really?

Actually Democrats cast more votes in the last election than Republicans. Republican success was mostly due to gerrymandering and low voter turnout. Democrats also won the last two presidential elections.

So, no, weirdo far right wing posters on Yahoo do not reflect huge numbers of these mouthbreathers in real life.

Obviously they are a paid organized group. They jump on certain issues by the hundreds. They are always pumping up some untrue corporatist right wing meme.

The fact that you do not recognize this makes me highly suspicious.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. 2014 House popular vote: Repub 40 million, Dem 35.6 million

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2014

Which 'last election' are you referring to?

I really think you should drop your 'highly suspicious' stuff, just because someone has an idea of what happened in the 2014 election.

[Enthusiast]

25. I can be as suspicious as I want and justifiably so. And what is it to you, if I might ask?

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. You drive off new members, who, when they point out realities,

are met with mistakes like yours, and unfriendly suspicion.

[Enthusiast]

27. Are you the arbiter of all posts?

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Are you? You're the one who started criticising posts, in this sub-thread

That's why I suggested you drop the 'highly suspicious' stuff.

[Enthusiast]

32. Again...

what is it to you? Why the BIG DEAL?

The army of far right posters on Yahoo has been an issue for me for a long time. Defending them aroused my suspicion. And until today I have never heard anyone on DU defend that army of sockpuppets.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. You're the one using capitals and bold font

It seems a far bigger deal to you.

I already told you why your 'highly suspicious' remark was a bad idea. It's a divisive thing to say, and you drive away members. You're convinced those commenters are paid; the other DUer thinks there are many people in the USA who do actually think that way. They were not 'defending' them. You are just suspicious of someone who hasn't come to the conclusion that you chose about people's motivations.

[Enthusiast]

34. Follow the responses over there and you will see why it is not a reasonable conclusion.

[MadDAsHell]

39. Thanks.

That other poster is either in denial, or lives their life in a complete bubble. Whether it's at work, school, or play, there are (unfortunately in my opinion) millions of people who think very differently than I do about race, gender, equality, etc. and if I think I'm right and want to "show them the light," I don't pretend they don't exist. I acknowledge that those opinions exist and try to determine why.

[MadDAsHell]

38. If pointing out facts is "highly suspicious" then consider me Benedict Arnold...

The political enemy is real, and zero is accomplished by pretending they're not. In fact, if I was going to entertain your little game, I might argue that trying to convince other DUers that they don't need to worry about the opposition looks mighty suspicious itself.

And desperately worrying about pathetic little ineffective trolls that may occasionally slip past MIRT is kind of a sad existence, in my opinion, and yes, it does completely turn off new members.

[Enthusiast]

40. Your post reveals how little you know about me.

[MadDAsHell]

41. Doesn't feel so good when someone makes assumptions about you from 1 post does it? nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

4. White privilege - a bizarre euphemism.

'White privilege', my eye! 'Black harassment' is another favoured euphemism. Why can't Americans come straight out with it and say, 'black persecution' or 'persecution of blacks'?

The daft implication of the term, 'white privilege', in the context of policing, is that their regular, weekly gunning down of unarmed, law-abiding Americans should be regarded as unexceptionable and normal. It is not, nor should it be - whether the victim is black, white or brindle (I'm of the latter persuasion, myself).

The American and British public have been anything but privileged - ever since Reagan and Baroness Lady Cardboard(City) took over the reins of power.

[Adrahil]

14. Disagree.... the concept of White Privilege is important.

Because those who benefit from White Privilege in our culture don't even have to be racists themselves. That's why it is insidious... people benefiting from it don;t have to be actively racist, and many times aren't even aware that they ARE benefiting from privilege. When it's pointed out, many are shocked to the point of denial. We need to work against that.

[Joe Chi Minh]

43. No. You miss the point.

No. You miss the point. The point is that it is yours by right. It only seems like privilege, because another group of citizens are desperately persecuted, in comparison.

If that sounds like privilege to you, then you have very low expectations, because the US public have themselves been under the cosh (blackjack) of an increasingly totalitarian oligarchy of kleptocrats.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. "White Privilege" goes far beyond

"black persecution". And the only thing that is "daft" are your lame definitions and understanding of the multi-century pathos in the United States, that for decades, was essentially codified into law.

[LiberalArkie]

17. It isn't just "White" privilege it is really "White Male" privilege.

There may be some strong women in the group, but they will say that their husband is really the head and boss of the family.

[Nye Bevan]

49. How about white, male, heterosexual, cis-gendered, able-bodied privilege? (nt)

[KansDem]

18. I tend to agree...much to the dismay of fellow DUers

When I see a black man wrestled to the ground and 'cuffed for no reason other than he's black, I see his rights violated. When I see a black man murdered by police, I see his rights grossly violated. And I see "racism."

For me, it has to do with the US Constitution: these rights are the same for all Americans.

But then, fellow DUers would argue it's because of "white privilege." I tend to think that mindset tends to downplay the Charters of Freedom.

[gollygee]

42. White privilege isn't just about not having your rights violated

there are tons and tons of smaller things that add up to make white people's lives much easier. Being let off with a warning rather than getting a ticket. Having an easier time finding a job (and this is true - white people with criminal records have an easier time getting a job than African Americans with no criminal records, easily verify able with a quick Google search.) Being taken more seriously by doctors and nurses, which has a huge impact on health and also the infant mortality rate, which is shamefully much higher for African American babies than white babies even when other reasons for a difference such as education, wealth, etc. are taken into account.

White privilege is much bigger than you think it is.

[Joe Chi Minh]

44. Precisely

Equality under the law is not a privilege for black folk or white folk. If it were, it would reflect very low expectations on the part of the 'privileged.

It is the lawful right of both.

[Joe Chi Minh]

45. I get the feeling most poor white people

get comfort from the notion of white privilege, as no-one likes to think of themselves as being bottom of the pile. Hence working-class whites think and speak of themselves as 'middle class', apparently holding the black folk to be the bottom of the socio-economic order.

The expression may even suit the African Americans too, as even with one innocent young black man being killed every 28 hours (as someone noted), they are already used to be accused of being whiney do-nothings. Imagine if they made a hullabaloo about being actually persecuted!

[Orsino]

6. Oversimplification, but doubtless true to a large extent.

Racism and anti-gummint paranoia can coexist.

[Enthusiast]

9. The Tea Party is proof that racism and anti-gummint paranoia do coexist.

Both are far right wing characteristics. And ignorance, can't forget ignorance.

[Orsino]

12. And we can still claim a bit of progress.

Isn't it nice that the Tea Partiers aren't bald-faced racists--that most, if not all, feel they have to cloak it in birtherism and other dog whistles?

The strain shows every time they speak, and I enjoy that much.

[Enthusiast]

15. There is nothing more embarrassing to a racist than to be outed as a racist.

They won't own it.

At least in the society at large racism is not cool. Let's keep it that way.

[KingCharlemagne]

29. Racists' standard initial response is to deploy the 'Tu quoque' fallacy, as in "But

Blacks are racist too!" as though that somehow excuses their racism and privilege.

FWIW, individual blacks may be bigoted against white or the white race. But blacks as a race cannot be 'racist,' so long as they are in the minority and so long as every socioeconomic metric places them at a disadvantage to whites.

I was shocked to read some of the comments in the online St. Louis newspaper websites last August in the wake of the Mike Brown killing. Residents were using the "N-word" and other racial epithets in their comments and seemingly posting under their own names! So it seems as if the taboo against overt expressioons of racism is stronger on the coasts than in the country's heartland.

[Enthusiast]

30. That is truly a shame.

[Joe Chi Minh]

46. Bear in mind that

you are accusing the black people of racism for fighting back against the racism they have habitually been suffering for a very long time; in other words, of reacting in self defence! It's like accusing the Israeli Jews of being terrible bullies of the Palestinians, for fighting back when they are threatened with rocket attacks. And fighting back in a measured way, at that.

Wars of conquest have consequences. Particularly, for the losers. The Pals and the Arabs lost. Nevertheless, the Israeli Jews ceded land back to the Pals, yet still the so-called 'international community' are after the Israeli Jews' blood.You'd think it was they who were sawing people's heads off with blunt knives, burying people alive, etc.

[KingCharlemagne]

47. Are you sure you meant to respond to me? Because I'm most definitely NOT

accusing the black people of racism for "fighting back against the racism they have habitually been suffering." On the contrary, I said explicitly that it is impossible for black people to be 'racist' (as the term is commonly understood), although individual blacks may well be racially bigoted. Oppressed groups can never be 'racist'; only the majority oppressing group can be racist.

[Chakab]

8. Would have been more accurate if he'd said "Republican base" instead of "Tea Party."

We all know that the Tea Party doesn't really exist.

[romanic]

10. He's stating he obvious.

Don't need to attend some "conference" to hear it.

And really this White Privilege Conference sounds ridiculous. Before anyone jumps down my throat and calls me a troll, I do believe white people have privilege over minorities in the eyes of the justice system and employment opportunities. But this so-called conference sounds like an expensive mental retreat for egghead elitists to hear themselves talk without doing the walk. Interesting that there seems to be more white people in attendance than minorities/poc. Isn't the criticism about racial discussions that whites overtake the dialogue, guess that's not the case for the WPC. -_-

[Fred Sanders]

28. Your comment indicates you need to go to a conference to understand the term. You clearly do not.

It is not a term intended to insult, it is a term intended to enlighten on a difficult subject for white folks.

Some of course will or can never be.

It is not "interesting" more white folks attended!

Who needs the enlightenment?

[romanic]

35. If you bring me some popcorn

maybe i can tolerate the academic loons talk about stuff they don't know about and be entertained in the process.
And i perfectly understand what white privilege is, I just don't have it cause im not white so opp @ you.

[Fred Sanders]

36. You are "not white", so you say? You still need to go to a conference.

"Academic loons"?......interesting choice of words.

[romanic]

48. Don't bait me.

.

[secondwind]

13. HUGE K&R

[CatWoman]

21. nother K&R