A particular group of trolls (although you can't really call them trolls in the classical sense) have spent years attempting to derail and otherwise change the tone of a few liberal blogs, attempting to make sure that free, unfettered and anonymous conversation turns into bickering, backbiting and all-out nonsense. Other trolls assume the identity of minority groups in a bid to identify and commensurate with outspoken conservative trolls, or to engage in an orgy of self-hatred designed to bring about pity for that particular poster as the assailed token conservative who is set about on all sides by bullying liberal posters.
These trolls are highly annoying, in the sense that absolutely no amount of proof over how wrong their tactics are or how screwed their worldview is will dissuade them from depositing their bile and idiotic, clueless banter onto what should be a forum for intelligent (or at least troll-free) discussion. They don't want to learn and I always find myself having to leave posts that attempt to dispute their views and neutralize their bile, if only for the benefit of the casual reader who may or may not get sucked into the vortex of idiocy as crafted by said troll.
One troll's dissatisfaction with the liberal content put forth by the blog owner led me to think about the kind of people they would rather see the blog owner base their content and posting style on. I thought about another misguided commentator-turned-blogger from years back. And then I started thinking about Elizabeth Wright.
She's long gone, and nary a single black blog, mainstream or otherwise, acknowledged her passing. The only eulogies I've seen given have come from either "white empowerment" groups, staunchly conservative blogs and a couple of websites that engaged in critiquing the contents and legacy she left behind.
“When the white population falls below the 50% mark, the days of whites running interference for blacks will be over. And so will those special laws biased towards safeguarding perquisites for the “Disadvantaged,” which can be mighty expensive to enforce.
Again, what are the odds that those 18th century injunctions devised by those funny little men in britches and waistcoats will prevail, once the polyglot new Americans from Asia and Central and South America begin to flex their political muscle?
So many blacks and their white liberal gurus failed to appreciate those Anglo-originated laws based on “self-evident truths” and the consent of the governed, which were flexible enough to take under their protection the nation’s former slaves. Who will there be to ensure that jobs and scholarships and government contracts, and the surfeit of other entitlements, will be available for a people who have grown used to looking to others for slices from the economic pie, instead of baking their own share of it?
Once what’s left of constitutional law is gone, partly out of neglect, because the story of the Constitution and its creators will no longer be taught in the various Chinese-Indian-Latino-Arab colored school systems, a new corner will be turned. If blacks think they’ve been mistreated at the hands of whites, just wait until the affirmative action, set aside party is over—when there is no one to insist that they get undeserved perks, or have a “right” to intrude themselves into places where they are not wanted.
The new dominant ethnics come to this land with their own sob stories of oppression. Unlike whites, they are hardly likely to fall over one another to apologize for past wrongs. Nor are they likely to spend their time in Congress concocting new laws designed to discriminate against their own sons and daughters in favor of blacks.
“Reparations,” did you say? Just wait until the first move is made to un-name and re-name some of those Martin Luther King, Jr. boulevards.”
The basic translation is that whites have been far too nice and too lenient on black Americans, and when these whites are largely gone (in a demographic sense), black Americans won't have anyone to coddle or pet them, as other ethnic groups will begin relegating them back to second-class citizenship in a manner white Americans weren't ruthless enough to undertake.
If the message is how black Americans should have worked towards standing on their own two feet as an ethnic group so they can operate independently of any other ethnic group and the implication being how white Americans were slowly but surely working them up to that point during the time between the end of Reconstruction and the end of the Civil Rights movement, that message gets lost as people are immediately turned off by what they see as a black American woman wagging her finger at fellow black Americans while whites look on in a distinctly pleased and self-satisfied manner. "Bad" blacks being chastised by a "good one," thereby reaffirming the inherent "goodness" thought to be exclusive to whites and their innate concept of "whiteness."
I went back over a comment of mine concerning Wright that I noticed now felt incomplete. So I intend to complete that thought by finding out what it lacked:
In a nutshell, Wright believed that in the quest of granting equality to black Americans, whites ended up prostrating themselves at the feet of a black race who are now coasting along on a wave of hand-me-ups and federal largesse. She believed the "endless retelling" of Jim Crow, lynchings and other heinous actions visited upon the black community are just ways of "race pimps" and similar "extortionists" to keep the pot of psychological racial dependency bubbling. She saw a people who were, in her opinion, being crippled by embracing "perpetual victimhood" and that "white liberals" are to blame for "coddling" blacks. She believed that whites are "disgracing themselves" by apologizing and fretting over race, and that whites should be more outspoken on when to tell blacks to go "sit and spin" when presented with racial grievances, contrived or otherwise.
In other words, she specialized in something I find rather disturbing: the act of chastising blacks and pointing out flaws in black society for the indirect amusement of her fellow white Americans. Not to say that she shouldn't have done these things, but when you have folks from the Council of Conservative Citizens and Stormfront co-signing with you, you should take a good, long look at the message you're sending.
I knew I forgot to add something else to that colored paragraph: She didn't just specialize in chastising black Americans in front of white conservative audiences, she also worked to embolden white Americans in exercising their innate "whiteness" and attendant ethnic superiority. She genuinely thought whites were being cowed into shame over their "whiteness" and sought to free them of it. In other words, it was okay for a white person to say something that could definitely be construed as being "racist" or highly insensitive on ethnic grounds if it happened to be "the truth." And there's never any discussion on who exactly defines that truth, except when there is a convenient stack of FBI crime stats one can point to and say, "THERE!!!"
Crime stats, BET, YouTube videos, rap albums, music videos, and the occasional fear-inducing run-in with a black American under nearly any circumstance are supposed to be proof positive of a failed people with a failed culture.
Funny how no one points to videos of rednecks and rednect culture, the Jerry Springer show, skinheads, white American criminals, Spring Break revelers, sports rioters, and the occasional white American hate crime suspect as proof positive of failed white American culture. Instead, such acts and examples are neatly compartmentalized and set out of the way of greater white American culture. Those are the perks to be had as the dominant culture of this nation.
I don't know what kind of thought processes or environment led Elizabeth Wright to adopt the views she had up to her passing. The only way anyone can glean that information is to read the material she left behind and come to one's own conclusion.