Skip to main content

The most racist article of the year goes to Daniel Greenfield

I read an article last night, entitled, "O'Reilly Has The Guts To Point The Finger Where It Belongs," and it made me want to point my finger and say a few things to the article's author, Daniel Greenfield of the ultra-conservative site, FrontPage Mag. This may go down as the most racist article I've ever read.

The piece starts with this:

"When do black lives matter? When white people take them."

Oh, it only gets better from there...

"That's the theme of #BlackLivesMatter, a racist movement which claims to care about black lives, but actually helps take them by weakening the police officers who are the only thing standing between armed gang members and black urban residents."

Interesting... So he's attempting to reverse the tables by saying those whom share the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter after an unarmed black person gets killed by a police officer are the actual racists? With this line of thinking, if someone were to use the hashtag #BlackLivesDontMatter, would this then prove they're not racist? Okay then... Please continue...

"Bill O'Reilly's willingness to take on #BlackLivesMatter's greatest hypocrisy, its lack of concern for the victims of black crime as it not only ignores them, but enables their killers, is important."

Right, so while many of those in the #BlackLivesMatter community also support: Additional gun control laws, a minimum wage increase, equal education across the board, prison/criminal justice reform, etc., we're hypocritical because we ignore the "victims of black crime"? Is this article going to get any more ridiculous? My gut is telling me yes...

"#BlackLivesMatter claims that police shootings are black genocide. The closest things to black genocide can be found in Planned Parenthood and prison. The lawyer who helps put criminals back on the street is responsible for more black deaths than an entire police department."

"Black genocide"? Coming across a little strong there, don't you think?

Also, here's Planned Parenthood's annual report:

Total services: 10,590,433

Abortion services: 327,653 (3.1% of Planned Parenthood's total services, leaving 96.9% of Planned Parenthood's services for things other than abortion)

So, once again, the term genocide appears to be used quite loosely in this paragraph. Moving on...

"As O'Reilly pointed out, black lives can best be saved in Chicago by 'flooding the zone with officers and stopping the madness. Yet those people will not do that, because they're only interested in condemning white society. That's all."

"Those people"? Greenfield doesn't shy away from his racism at all, does he? Yet, according to him, standing up for unarmed blacks being killed by cops is racist. Fascinating...

"By standing up to #BlackLivesMatter, the major broadcast anchor with a number one rated cable show was taking a major risk. Not only Democrats like Martin O'Malley and Hillary Clinton had bowed to the hate group, but some Republicans had joined them as well. The violent racist group specialized in disrupting events and had just threatened to attack the Republican National Convention."

O'Reilly wasn't taking a risk. For O'Reilly to join the #BlackLivesMatter movement on the right-wing propaganda channel Fox News would have been him taking a risk. Also, Greenfield seems to have things backwards when it comes to hate group:

A minority of police officers: Unfairly discriminate against African-Americans and shoot/kill them at much higher rates than other races, even when they're unarmed

The #BlackLivesMatter movement: Standing up against such abuses of power, calling for police reform so those instances occur less frequently

Daniel Greenfield's reaction: "Well, it's obvious #BlackLivesMatter is the true hate group here!" Uh huh... Carrying on...

"At a time when no one in the media was willing to do anything except praise the racist hatemongers, O'Reilly once again spoke up to condemn them and call them out for their self-righteous hypocrisy. While not all Republicans and conservative anchors have bowed to Black Lives Matter, the fact that O'Reilly remains the only major figure in the media who is willing to place responsibility for the miseries of America's inner cities and the violence that plagues them squarely where it belongs - on the destruction of the black family by the liberal welfare system. He is also only the major media figure who will not be backed down in defending law enforcement as the thin blue line that protects inner city minorities from the attacks of lawless African Americans who are encouraged in their lawlessness by liberal politicians including the president and attorney general of the United States. O'Reilly is more than a TV anchor in the battle that is being waged against our country from within. He is an American hero."

Jesus... I thought Bill O'Reilly was into sexually harassing former female producers, not getting blown by writers at FrontPage Mag. Whew... So, anyway, Mr. Blacks-are-the-evil-of-this-country-and-all-of-the-unarmed-ones-who-were-shot-and-killed-by-police-obviously-deserved-it, what else do you have to say?

"We know who is doing the shooting and we know who is being shot and they are the same people. 83% of those murdered in Chicago in one year had criminal records. Chicago has an estimated 70,000 gang members. There are more gang members in Chicago than there are officers in the Air Force."

Okay, here's the first paragraph of the article which doesn't sound entirely racist. However, since general terminology is used, and given what Mr. Greenfield has written up to this point, one has to wonder who this who is he's REALLY talking about here...

"Pro-crime policies advocated by #BlackLivesMatter and implemented by Obama and the mayors of big Democratic cities have actually taken more lives than police shootings."

Care to explain? Given your history, I'm guessing not, but I will provide you the opportunity. I know; I'm sweet like that...

"Baltimore's murder rate has hit its highest level in 43 years. 70 more people have already been killed this year than last year. 166 more have been shot. Even Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake admitted that, 'Recent events have placed an intense focus on our police leadership, distracting many from what needs to be our main focus: the fight against crime.'"

Okay, I'm still waiting for that explanation... I'm not going to get it, am I?

"But #BlackLivesMatter is a pro-crime movement aimed at fighting the police. When politicians pander to it, black lives are lost."

So, let me get this straight... When the black community and the #BlackLivesMatter movement are angered after a trusted police officer shoots and kills an unarmed black man, call for police reform, and the president echoes these sentiments, this results in black lives being lost? So the more appropriate action would be for us to stay mum on the issue, allow the cycle to continually repeat itself, and for more black lives to be lost as a result? That makes sense, said no sensible person ever...

"Baltimore police did not shoot an extra 70 people this year. The thugs of the city did. And Rawlings-Blake helped make it happen by ordering police to give them the 'space to destroy' that they needed."

Way to take a quote out-of-context and ignore her elaboration. Well done, Daniel Greenfield; well done. I feel a sarcastic slow-clap coming on...

"BlackLivesMatter didn't just bloody the streets of Baltimore. The Ferguson Effect has spread around America. Shootings are up 500% in an East Harlem precinct and it's not the terrorized NYPD, two of whose officers were murdered by a #BlackLivesMatter activist, who are responsible. They're up 39% in St. Louis where the pro-crime racists of #BlackLivesMatter were particularly active."

Hey, Mr. Racist, just to let you know, studies have shown that "The Ferguson Effect" is just a myth, spread by racists such as yourself. If you don't believe me, try ignoring the phony numbers in your head and doing a little actual research. I'll give you a start - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/07/23/so-much-for-the-ferguson-effect-killings-of-cops-are-down-25-percent-for-the-first-half-of-2015/. You're welcome.

"The first victims of this crime wave are black people. By the time it has a significant impact on white people; it will already have become a new reality in urban areas."

We've got exaggerations, myths, racism, and now speculation. This article has it all, I tell you!

"These are the extra rows of graves and morgue cabinets filled with black people that #BlackLivesMatter and its local leftist allies like Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and Mayor Bill de Blasio have made."

Okay... Is this piece of garbage over yet? Please?

"O'Reilly has rightly talked about the scourge of black-on-black crime and it's a topic that most of the media chooses to sidestep because there is no way to blame it on white people. Every petty altercation between a white cop and a black suspect caught on body camera now dominates the national news for a week, but the constant shootings in Chicago, Baltimore, Los Angeles and New York don't go national."

Ah, that whole black-on-black crime spiel. Hey, guess what, Mr. Racist? This country is still rather segregated, so a large majority of black victims are killed by other blacks, and as much as I know you  will hate to hear this, the same is true with regard to whites. Approximately 83% of white victims are killed by fellow whites. In 2011, 3,172 whites were killed, 2,630 at the hands of other whites (82.9%). As far as blacks are concerned, 2,695 of them were killed in 2011, 2,447 at the hands of other blacks (90.8%). No, the numbers aren't that different, so enough with that rather pointless and racially-charged talking point, and let's move on to the next one, shall we?

"Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors accused Bill O'Reilly of fueling 'anti-black racism' and giving ammunition to the likes of Dylann Storm Roof, but her movement has been the one to fuel anti-white racism while helping kill more black people than Roof did."

Facts please? From a source other than Fox News or The Onion? If we really want to talk about hate groups, how about the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups, Mr. Greenfield? You know, the groups who claim that #BlackLivesDontMatter? Yeah, the groups that you apparently contend aren't racist...

"It isn't racist to point out that her movement is racist. It's the truth."

No, the truth would be to say that Daniel Greenfield is a racist attempting to disguise his prejudices by pointing to other groups of people as the actual racists. It isn't racist to say African-Americans don't deserve to be discriminated against by police officers; to be presumed dangerous by the color of their skin, hair, or style of clothing; and be killed as a result of this very discrimination and fear. It is racist to make those presumptions about a group of people based on an innate characteristic, which leads one to act in a fearful panic toward a person of that demographic.

"And the biggest threat to #BlackLivesMatter is the truth. This is a racist movement based on lies. Its tactics rely on shock and hysteria. Its activists terrorize others while making a spectacle of themselves."

Having studied psychology, this is a classic example of projection. Mr. Greenfield is a racist who bases his beliefs on lies; his tactics largely rely on shock and hysteria; and he makes a spectacle of himself.

"O'Reilly accurately noted that the #BlackLivesMatter movement is guilty of thuggish tactics, but intimidation has been the movement's only real tactic all along. Its activists don't participate in conversations, they shut them down. Even while they claim to care about the suffering of black people, they are far more obsessed with what hurts white people than with what helps black people."

Yes, when members of the #BlackLivesMatter movement are approached in a civilized manner by people like Daniel Greenfield, who calls us thugs, racists, and the reason for cops and more blacks being killed, we should all be expected to smile and say, "Gee, thanks! You're so sweet! Can I have your number? Oh, you're already seeing Bill O'Reilly? Really? Does he know that? Oh, so he's blocked your calls? Have you ever thought about seeing a therapist? Okay, well, have a nice day."? Okay, is that all? I'm not sure how much more of this racist nonsense (yes, a tad redundant) I can take...

"The truth about #BlackLivesMatter is that it is the newest brand of an old radical template. Its worship of cop killers like Assata Shakur leads to the murder of police officers. Its appetite for destruction leads to riots, burning buildings and rising murder rates."

The author seems to be quite befuddled by the word truth. As I already noted, studies have shown the so-called "Ferguson Effect" to be a myth. So, anyway, please continue with this seemingly never-ending drivel...

"When O'Reilly states that #BlackLivesMatters is trying to 'tear this country down', he's only echoing Cullors at Netroots Nation chanting 'burn everything down'."

Holding police officers accountable for abuses of power is tearing this country down? With that kind of thinking, would holding Democratic politicians accountable for abuses of power tear this country down as well, Mr. Greenfield? Take your time. I wouldn't want to catch you being inconsistent at all...

"When you chant 'burn everything down', your message isn't constructive, it's destructive. Cullors and her racist crowd were urging more Baltimore style riots at a progressive event."

Didn't I just comment on this very paragraph?

"The only people that black racism ever created a future for were black racists. Al Sharpton concluded his long dirty career with an MSNBC show. Jesse Jackson got sensitivity training gigs. Farrakhan got money for a soap factory and one day Cullors will be yelling about racism at the miserable employees of some corporation which paid dearly for the privilege of her brand of racial enlightenment."

So African-Americans who speak loudly about the issue of equality pertaining to their demographic, preach out in favor of protesting, contacting their representatives, signing petitions, voting, and fighting for the change they seek is racism and prompts more racism? So does this make Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. racists according to Daniel Greenfield? That's what it certainly sounds like...

"Meanwhile the dead in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Baltimore will stay dead. The black lives taken by #BlackLivesMatter will be added to the terrible toll of black lives lost to liberal policies in the inner city. The gang members will go on shooting each other and occasionally their bullets will claim the life of a child. The police officers will retreat into safe routines. There will be tears and blood until the horror touches enough lives that it will become a national crisis and then history will repeat itself once again."

Once again, no explanation on how the #BlackLivesMatter movement or liberal policies have resulted in the deaths of blacks. Once again, Daniel Greenfield sounds like he's just a racist in denial. What have liberal groups, like #BlackLivesMatter, been fighting for, which most conservatives have attempted to halt? Common sense gun laws. Minimum wage increases. Prison/Criminal justice reform. Equal education. Police reform. Equal opportunity in the workplace. But, "guns don't kill people; people kill people" (ask the families of the 30,000+ people who are killed by them every year); minimum wage increases will cripple businesses (studies show otherwise, and there's a poverty-crime link, not a race-crime link); the drug war can still be won (nonviolent criminals are overpopulated in our prison systems and this leads to additional struggles finding a job once such an individual is released); cops always do the right thing (yeah, this would be more likely if they all wore body cameras as studies show, and even then, nothing is ever full-proof); and we have to cut spending somewhere (with improved education comes an improved chance of earning a good job and making a decent living, and every person deserves that opportunity). So, what was that about liberal policies killing blacks? That's what I thought...

"These are truths that are rarely spoken to black power which is motivated less by pride than by hate. The evidence of that can be seen in the black lives it has taken and will go on taking until it is exposed."

No, sorry, as Daniel Greenfield showcased time and time again, truth is as foreign to him as calculus is to a newborn. He didn't provide any evidence in this angry, hateful, and ridiculous article that the #BlackLivesMatter movement is racist and resulting in the deaths of blacks; it only proved that Daniel Greenfield is a very angry and racist man, attempting to deny himself the guilt of this by writing an article pointing his fingers at others. The truth is progressives have been fighting tooth and nail to implement policies which would better serve the African-American community, and time and time again, they're shot down by conservatives, whom then point the finger back at us liberals for the problems in the black community. #BlackLivesMatter isn't a racist movement. We greatly admire and respect a large majority of law enforcement whom help keep us safe, yet like with any other position of power, we also expect them to act in accordance with the law, and if one should abuse that power, they should be called out on that, prosecuted, and no longer be in a position of authority. Also, while all lives do matter, it appears that the importance of black lives often gets ignored. So when we say #BlackLivesMatter, we're not saying other people's lives don't matter; we're simply saying, "Psst... Many don't seem to believe this anymore, but guess what? Black lives matter too!" I guess when making an argument, apparently Mr. Greenfield doesn't believe ignorance matters...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259666/oreilly-has-guts-point-finger-where-it-belongs-daniel-greenfield#.VcD25f0lIMA.twitter

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/04/sandra-smith/fox-business-reporter-95-planned-parenthoods-pregn/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/18/waco-texas-biker-gang_n_7307050.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"