All in the Family featured the curmudgeonly Archie Bunker. Archie was television’s most famous grouch, blunt, blustering, straightforward and untouched by the PC crowd. He was the archetype of the conservative male. Michael desprately tried to reeducate him, but he persisted in his breviloquence.

Looking back at the last 40 years, we realize: ARCHIE WAS RIGHT!


White What?

I've been pondering this business about "white privilege".

Normally I take a detached view of PC terminology.  PC-isms are a play on worlds that serve to obscure and confuse the subject at hand.  How else can you explain phraseology whose purpose is to be "Politically Correct"?

Take for instance the phrase "differently enabled".  What does that mean exactly?  Individual members of the species homosapien are unique in their capacities and talents.  By definition we are all "differently enabled". 

The purpose of the phrase is to obscure a fact that may be discourteous.  The person being discussed is sub-normal in some portion of their makeup.  To the unknowing this may seem polite.

It is not.

If I mislead you about something that's not polite.  It's dishonest.  Being politically correct is about using words to obscure reality. 

Take the N-word.  It didn't start out as a derogatory word.  Nigger was simply a method of describing skin color.  The word means "black".  Nigger Jim (Mark Twain's literary character) was simply a way of describing which Jim that was being talked about.  It wasn't derogatory.

As a society we've morphed on what to call people with dark skin whose origins are in Africa.  Which is horribly silly.  Nigger, Negro, Negroid, Black are words that all mean exactly the same thing.  All four of those words have fallen out of favor.  Today we have Afro-American.  Tomorrow it will be something else.  We will still talk about "that black guy" because he will still be black.  Blacks will still talk about "that white guy" or "that Korean guy", because we will still have those groups running around.

What is "white privilege"?

I'm not asking what the PC crowd thinks it is.  I know what they mean by it.  They mean you should feel bad if you are white.  They mean that a white person is somehow unfairly taking advantage of everyone else simply because they are white.  It's the single most racist idea being pushed today.

White people are users and abusers, they have a "privilege" because they ain't some other color.  There is no need to judge the cracker by the content of his character.  The blue eyed devil is evil because of the color of his skin.  Casper can't be trusted.  They're a bunch of confederate corn-fed cow fucks.  Frosty and his flat assed flour bags didn't earn anything, they owned everybody.  Gomer, Goober and the other good ole boys are keep'n everyone down.  Those hillbilly hicks are as smart as Gump but they work the system.

"White privilege" is in vogue partially because "peckerwood", "honky" and "pigmentally challenged pig fucker" seem a little harsh to the PC crowd.  With a Clinton running again that don't want to say "trailer trash" to often either.

White Privilege doesn't mean a slight leg up by virtue of being white in a predominately white culture.  If it meant that there would be no need to bring it up, because the US is no longer a culture dominated by Caucasians.

White Privilege is code for anti-white boy racism.  It's OK to be anti-white, because they're to busy jam'n to Barry Manilow to care.  Let's ban their flag while were at it.


  1. I am not convinced that this insult is going to last as long as the other race card did. Why? Simply because most people actually understand that since AA was enacted decades ago, blacks and other minorities have been the ones with the privilege Res. Not us, them.

    So when they invoke the term "privilege" now, it is very easy to turn that immediately around and ask them WHO has the privilege? I don't qualify for AA but you do. You have had the field of opportunity tilted in YOUR favor for decades. If you can't make a go of it, that is YOUR problem, not mine.

    Pointing that fact of life out enough times should de-fang the insult in record time. I have actually seen it starting to happen on other websites that I frequent and comment on. They are not liking the fact that the pushback is starting. Not one single bit.

    1. Sorry, almost forgot. I have heard it called "differently ABLED" in the past. I think I like yours better.

    2. You make a great point about AA.

      When I was a senior in college I went to a job fair. There were a number of grad schools that had booths. I was considering getting an advanced degree and approached a big ten school. The black women running the booth told me I was the wrong color to attend her school.

      We all know what would have happened if a white recruiter would have said that to black student.

    3. Susan3:31 PM

      Sometimes I think that the poison that is AA has been around so long we are now permanently used to it and don't think about it.

      But it needs to be reintroduced back into the national discussion EVERY single time one of these liberal fools brings up white privilege.

      Because reality says that blacks have more privilege than whites do in this country thanks to AA. Just because blacks don't use AA to their own success has nothing to do with you and I being white. It is them being lazy and refusing to take responsibility.

      The hamster wheels will spin out of control if you say AA to the right liberal. The whole privilege argument would collapse like a blown up building if enough people would bring up AA and demand to know why blacks aren't privileged.

  2. WaterBoy1:41 PM

    Res Ipsa: "Today we have Afro-American."

    Technically, no we don't. That was also discarded into the bin of history in favor of "African-American".

    Something to do with stereotypes and hair, I think.

    1. Yeah I wondered who'd want to identify as a bad 70's hair style. Maybe they'll pick Jheri curl kids next.

      FWIW I only know of one African-American in the US today, and he lives in the Whitehouse.

    2. Susan3:36 PM

      Regarding that phony long form BC that was released a couple of years ago, You know how I know it was a phony?

      Where race is indicated, some PC moron put African American in the space. Back in the era when Obama was born, they would have used either black or negro.

      Not a PC term like African American. The SJW's can't even type the correct words to protect their own lie. Kind of ironically amusing in a way.

    3. WaterBoy12:02 PM

      Susan, here is a copy of the long form BC. Can you show us where it says "African-American"?

      The only mention of race is for Father ("African" -- which he was) and Mother ("Caucasian" -- which she was). No mention of "African-American" that I can see. And it is far more likely that Obama Sr would have called himself "African" than "black" or "negro".

  3. Susan6:00 PM

    This is not the same form as the one that I saw. Because the baby's race is not included here.
    I know what you are saying but this looks like the one that everyone was saying could have been filled out after the fact. Meaning the baby could have been born elsewhere, like it has been intimated, brought to granny's house in Hawaii within the legal 7 days, and voila! You have a birth certificate.

    I just remember that there was so much noise about it, especially from Trump, that the WH released a really bad quality long form certificate. I promise you waterboy, the spot that indicates race of baby said African American. It was such a glaring error to me that it has always stuck with me.

    The other thing too is that when that BC came out, on one thread I read comments on, people that were either born at that time, or were in the medical profession at that time said that African American is a modern term, black or negro was the accepted use back then.

    Wish I could be more help. My own pet conspiracy theory is that somehow the fact that he has Kenyan relatives and such, the UN is going to take a shine to him and elect him as their new SecGen. If you think about it, he would be very well suited for that job.

    1. WaterBoy6:30 PM

      This is the only one that the WH officially released...if there was another one with 'race of baby', it was likely a spoof or a poorly designed forgery.

      It would not be the first time somebody made something up on the Internet to sell their POV. I remember some of the so-called 'evidence' supporting the Moon-landing-hoax idea was so badly forged, it was comical.

    2. I also saw more than on version of the BC back when this first came out. It's interesting that after a half hour of searching yesterday, I wasn't able to come up with an example to link to.

    3. WaterBoy1:20 PM

      Again, it was probably a fake document to make it look like an error was made in a field that didn't even exist...if it existed at all

      Here are photocopies of the birth certificates for the set of twins born the day after Obama, at the same hospital. Note that a field for 'race of baby' simply does not even exist on the form.

      If you guys saw something different, then it would appear that somebody else was trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

      Or this lady was in on it, too. Unfortunately, she died last year at the age of 91, so it would be impossible to ask her now.

      Another possible explanation is that after years of reading and listening to 'conservative' commentators insisting that such a field was on the form, the power of suggestion has taken over and made you believe that you actually saw it.

    4. Susan8:27 PM

      Waterboy, you are extremely soggy. I will overlook your disrespect as to my mental agility. Being a Christian, it is not worth my time to lie to you or to anyone else about what I may or may not have seen.
      My eternal life is more important to me than trying to convince a total stranger of something that would be a lie.

      I am, thanks to Obama, way too cynical and I do not believe much of anything on the internet unless I read it elsewhere in another reliable source.

      I just know what I saw, and if it has disappeared, sorry but I had no control over that. I also know that there are two forms, long and short. The WH put out a poorly done lie for a long form.

      No Res, I am not cranky, but I am also not going to let anyone tell me that I am willing to pull a fast one, or that I am seeing things. That is just the way I roll.

    5. WaterBoy9:30 AM

      Ah, Susan, you silly goose. Nowhere did I disrespect your mental agility by advancing an alternative explanation, for that kind of error can happen to the sharpest of people. Nor did I ever accuse you of lying, so you can stop being so defensive and lower those hackles, too.

      If all is as you claim, then I can only conclude that you fell victim to a hoax. You were conned... duped... deceived... hoodwinked... bamboozled... snookered... hornswoggled... by someone with an anti-Obama agenda, as what you saw was not the official form that was released by the White House.

      Stating something that is incorrect but that one believes to be true is not lying. But persisting in pushing it as truth after one finds out otherwise would be.

  4. WaterBoy1:38 PM

    Here's a probable source for the error, a WND article from 2009.

    From the article:

    "The Nordykes’ certificates include information missing from the short-form document for Obama published online, including the name of the hospital, the name of the attending physician, name and address of the parents, the race of the parents and the race of the baby."

    [Emphasis mine]

    Note that they got it wrong concerning the 'race of the baby', as that field simply does not appear in the close up photo I linked to in my previous comment. However, anyone reading this article and taking its 'facts' at face value, would assume that the BC does list that field. After all, WND couldn't possibly be wrong, could they -- and who could possibly deny it from the photo they provided with the article?

    I've said it often enough before -- Obama has enough flaws to criticize without having to invent more of them.

    1. I remember that this was first an issue on BritBart and Drudge. I also remember that there were other "issues" at the same time, like his bi-sexuality and the fact that his publisher stated that he was from Kenya.

      I'm not up to date on the other issues with his BC documentation but I understand that there are more.

    2. WaterBoy9:44 AM

      That may well be, Res. But people persist in bringing up this particular issue as if it was a real problem, and it simply isn't as I have demonstrated above.

      I've said my piece, and I'm done with it.