Crazy, lying, violent, old racists who hate everybody
July 6, 2014 by Thomas Wictor
There’s a tiny, irrelevant newspaper called the WestView News. It claims it’s the “voice of the West Village.” If so, the West Village is full of crazy, lying, violent old racists who hate everybody.
The publisher of the WestView News is a demented, savage octogenarian named George Capsis. He keeps assaulting people in public. In 2012 he was arrested for slapping a police officer, and in 2013 he smashed a Democratic State Senator in the face with his fist.
He wasn’t arrested for the second attack. If he’d punched me, I would’ve hit him back as hard as I could. Elderly criminals are the worst. Since they’re now ossified, the only thing they respect is massive retaliation.
Even though George Capsis like to hit people in the face, he also fancies himself an enlightened, tolerant fellow who must call our attention to social injustice. That’s why he published a semi-literate, factually retarded op-ed by another old lunatic, James Lincoln Collier. James like to use the N-word to describe black people. In fact he called President Obama the N-word in the headline of this piece.
I couldn’t find the text of “The N—-r in the White House” anywhere, so I transcribed it from that screen shot.
By the way, I don’t care that black people call each other the N-word but get angry when whites do. It’s not hypocritical. All groups have what are essentially in-jokes. It’s incredibly presumptuous for an outsider to barge in and start using potentially offensive terminology. This is true for every group, so get over it. I’m not going to repeat Collier’s slur, because I’m not a mediocre, loser agitator who has a pathological need to shock and “Wake up the masses!”
Here’s the caption under the photo of Collier.
Jim Collier, above, is a straight-talking man so when a few months ago he wanted to use the word “n—-r” in an article to shock us into accepting that there are people who believe[sic] and use this outrageous word, our editorial staff took collective objection[sic] and we did not want to print it. The editorial staff continues to object. In this article however Jim reminded me that the New York Times avoids using the word which convinced me that WestView News should.—George Capsis, Publisher
Somebody needs remedial writing lessons. Christ. What does the New York Times’ avoidance of using the word have to do with anything?
And now Collier’s toxic, brainless screed.
The uproar in the press at the stunning defeat of Eric Cantor, the former majority leader of the House, “unrivaled in the history of Congressional primaries,” according to the New York Times, has shown a spotlight on the persistence of racism in the United States.
Nope. Sorry, James. That’s an assertion for which you provide no evidence whatsoever. You have to prove to me that Cantor’s defeat was based on racism, and your junker of an op-ed does no such thing.
The newspaper reports have said that Cantor was “insufficiently conservative” on issues like immigration. This is undoubtedly true, but it covers a greater and more important truth: Cantor was defeated mainly because his opponent, a man happily named Brat, was able to tie him to Obama in the minds of voters. Again according to the Times, Brat’s most effective campaign tool was a photograph showing Cantor standing next to the president. Brat took it for granted that a connection to Obama would be disliked by the voters in question. The Times added that such conservative Republicans have “a vocal base that demands unflinching opposition” to Obama and are “determined to stage confrontations with the president at every juncture.”
Well, James, that’s called “politics.” The Democrats won in 2008 because they were able to tie John McCain to the abysmally unpopular George W. Bush. McCain was called “McSame.” Currently President Obama is more unpopular than Bush was. Like any good politician would’ve, Dave Brat showed how Eric Cantor and the unpopular president shared ideals that the voters oppose. Cantor paid the price.
Presidents have been subjected to stinging attacks before. Franklin Roosevelt was royally hated by conservatives for his advocacy of social programs and support for unions; and Lincoln was shot for his tolerance of the recent enemy.
You blithering idiot. Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth, a Confederate sympathizer. Lincoln died for exactly the opposite reason you claim! How did you get through eighty-six years of life without knowing this?
Ironically, Obama has never strongly pushed for the strong social programs liberals expected of him. He has, indeed, been quite passive in his approach to governing.
Well, except for the Affordable Care Act, known as ObamaCare, the most sweepingly intrusive legislation in American history. And he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, nearly a trillion dollars of wasted “economic stimulus,” almost all of which went to public-sector unions. And he signed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” allowing openly gay people to serve in the military. And he’s radically changed public-school dietary requirements.
Though these next accomplishments aren’t social programs, they’re part of the liberal agenda.
He pulled the troops out of Iraq and set an arbitrary deadline for an Afghanistan pullout, both of which liberals had been demanding for years. And he began direct negotiations with Iran. And he’s put much more federal land off limits to oil exploration. And he signed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, also called Dodd-Frank, which guarantees corporate financial bailouts in perpetuity. And he’s closing coal-fired power plants and refusing to let new ones be opened. And he reduced our nuclear-weapons arsenal. And he’s shrinking the size of our armed forces. And he killed the missile-defense agreement we’d made with Poland. And he’s spent billions funding renewable energy companies (all of which have gone broke).
Conservatives ought therefore to have recognized that for a Democrat Obama was about as good as they could get. But, says the Times, “any hint of cooperation with the president” was the kiss of death for candidates in conservative territory.
Yup. Look at Mississippi. Senator Thad Cochran had his butt handed to him for voting with the Democrats over and over. And by “had his butt handed to him,” I mean “defeated Tea Party favorite Chris McDaniel.”
It is possible to draw only one conclusion: these far right voters hate Obama because he is black. The simple truth is that there is still in America an irreducible measure of racism. A large minority have for some six years have been[sic] quietly angry that they must have in the White House a member of an inferior class of people. Until recently, however, they have felt constrained to keep their mouths shut. But America’s increasing tolerance of far right opinion has made racism more acceptable, so long as it can be disguised, however thinly, as politics.
You bet. If only Obama were white, conservatives would’ve supported the ACA, the “stimulus,” Dodd-Frank, draconian new EPA regulations, etc., etc.
One question: President Obama was not only elected but re-elected. How did that happen in this racist country? The reality, James, is something called “projection.” YOU think President Obama is from an inferior race. That’s why you keep using the N-word in your books.
Unfortunately, the media, including the New York Times, has been wary of addressing this issue. In its reporting on the subject it says only that Cantor’s problem was his support for immigration reform, including the legalization of people who have been smuggled in as children. There is no doubt that easing restrictions on immigration, which basically means admitting more Hispanics from Central and South America, is opposed by substantial numbers of Americans. So doing is entirely consistent with what we know about the behavior of groups, about which I have written in WestView before. Groups don’t like strangers, and to non-Hispanic Americans these Central Americans are strangers, with a different language and set of folkways.
The reason the New York Times is wary of discussing this issue is that you and your ilk, James, have utterly debauched the entire concept of racism. By accusing others of racism because they oppose an ideology that they’ve always opposed, you’ve robbed the term of its meaning. Also, Americans reject amnesty because it undermines the rule of law. This “living in the shadows” shit is a total lie.
Illegals live in the sunlight—working illegally, driving illegally, renting houses illegally, getting medical treatment illegally, and committing fraud. These are people who walked across the desert and endured every manner of hardship to get here. They’re nobody’s victims. I know many of them. They’re tough, pragmatic, resourceful people who do exactly what they want, regardless, because they come from lawless cultures. By legalizing them, we create a stratum of Americans who are experts at breaking every law imaginable.
Their poverty is the rationale for their crimes. If we grant them citizenship, they’ll still be poor. Will they suddenly become virtuous, law-abiding citizens, or will they continue the sort of lifestyle at which they’re adept? What would you do?
One of the great surprises of this particular election was that the polls consistently showed that Cantor had a huge lead over Brat. The polls were not just slightly off, as they often are, but dramatically wrong. Nobody should have been surprised.
It was a great surprise that should not have surprised anyone. Are you drunk, James?
Clearly, a whole lot of people who would not admit to a stranger on the phone to being racist, in the polling booths did what their hearts urged them to do: vote against Obama, even though he wasn’t on the ballot. And one of the results of the Brat victory is that we are unlikely to see another black candidate for president for some time to come; the risks are too great for major parties to take.
Absolutely! That’s why the Republicans are running as fast as they can from Dr. Ben Carson.
And no conservative wants Allen West to run.
Herman Cain got no traction either. Because he’s black.
Look at this, James, you hate-filled old creep: On October 11, 2011, the top two Republican candidates in Virginia—the state you smear as racist—were Mitt Romney and Herman Cain. They were tied. I know what you’ll say, and it’ll be as irrelevant as your piddling, insane newspaper.
“Those are Uncle Toms!”
1. You say that because you hate black people who refuse to live on the plantation and refuse to kowtow to you for being so kind to them.
2. Even if they were Uncle Toms, that doesn’t matter. They’re black. You can’t say conservatives won’t vote for blacks and then move the goalposts by changing it to “They only vote for Uncle Toms.”
3. Call them Uncle Toms to their faces. I’ll pay for a plane ticket for you to say it to Colonel Allen West. My only request is that I be allowed to accompany you so I can film it and post it on YouTube.
Here’s the credit for James’s execrable op-ed.
James Lincoln Collier is a writer and musician. His book My Brother Sam is Dead (1974) was a Newbery Honor book that was also named an American Literary Association Notable Children’s Book and nominated for a National Book Award in 1975. His e-mail address is ????????????
Criminy. You’re touting a book you wrote forty years ago? That’s beyond pitiful. And I wasn’t able to find a single example of your professional trombone playing. Sorry.
Since you say those who oppose President Obama’s policies are racist, then I’ll use your own debating technique and say that I think you write children’s books because you’re a pedophile. How do you like them apples?
This article viewed 608 times.