Once Again We Pagan Feminists Try to Ruin America By Turning Us All Mexican

Damn that Bill O’Reilly!  Here I am, sweating over a hot cauldron trying to come up with just the right mixture of blue agave and eye of newt for my potion designed to enchant hot Mexican men into sneaking over the border and becoming the sex toys/housekeepers of white women or running for office, you know, whichever, when I discover, thanks to a link at Salon.com, that Bill O’Reilley is onto me.

Listen, I know at some level this is not funny because people really do think this kind of stuff:

O’REILLY: OK, I think it’s a small part, but I think it’s there. On the other side, you have people who hate America, and they hate it because it’s run primarily by white, Christian men. Let me repeat that. America is run primarily by white, Christian men, and there is a segment of our population who hates that, despises that power structure. So they, under the guise of being compassionate, want to flood the country with foreign nationals, unlimited, unlimited, to change the complexion — pardon the pun — of America. Now, that’s hatred, too. It’s a different kind of hatred, but it’s hatred and best exemplified by The New York Times, which today says in its editorial, quote: Those who want [the immigration] bill to be better are horribly conflicted by it. Their emotions still seem vastly overmatched by the ferocity of the opposition from the restrictionist right, with talk radio lighting up over ‘amnesty,’ callers spitting out the words with all the hate they can pour into it, unquote.

Now, this is a theme of The New York Times, that if you oppose the immigration bill that you hate Latinos. Now, there’s a segment that does, but most oppose it on policy. They just think it’s bad policy, rewarding bad behavior. Bad policy. But The New York Times, which is an open border, OK, let-everybody-in concern — that’s what they want, because they want a totally different power structure in America.

Number one, they realize that 40 million new citizens — and that’s, you know, probably the estimate that if you let all the illegal immigrants and all their extended families come here, which is what The New York Times want, would wipe out the two-party system. You’d only have a Democratic party, because new immigrants are probably gonna break 3-to-1 Democrat, and that’s what The New York Times wants. But more than that, they want to change the white, Christian male power structure. That’s what they want.

Now, these are hidden agendas. The New York Times would never cop to that, ever, but if you read consistently their editorials, they have no solution to border security. They don’t want any sanctions on illegal aliens who come here and even commit crimes. They want criminal aliens to stay, and they don’t want any sanctions on businesses who continue to hire illegal aliens even after the Z visa is issued. It’s an open border, Let them all in, anybody who wants to come here.”

That’s insane. We don’t have America then. America disappears. That’s where Pat Buchanan is right. You let that happen, there’s no more United States of America. It’s gone. You have United States of the World, because everybody comes here with no restrictions. So you’ve got racism on the anti-Latino front, and you have racism on the anti-Christian, white male front. Aha! Isn’t that interesting? [emphasis courtesy of Media Matters]

Y’all, I’m sorry.  White, Christian men, you know I love you.  I do.  I have you for relatives.  I’ve welcomed you into my home and into my cooter.  But this stuff is hilarious.

Let’s think of it this way.  Let’s say that “privilege” is cookies.  Let’s say that, at any given time, there can be only 100 cookies (I don’t know why.  Maybe this is hell.).  White Christian men, let’s say, can make 40 cookies–for various reasons that aren’t anybody’s fault or anything; they inherited an awesome oven from their grandma and they’ve got a great recipe they were able to buy off the internet.  Sure, there are folks who are grouching that White Christian men aren’t 40 percent of the population, so it’s not right that they get 40 cookies, especially when, say, it was Black people’s grandfathers who built their ovens in the first place.

And then let’s say that there are some fuckerly White Christian men who out and out take other people’s cookies.  So, now White Christian men have 42 of the cookies.  Then, let’s say that those men are, for the most part, married and they’ve gotten their wives to contribute their share of cookies.  So, now the white Christian men have 60 cookies.  It goes like this for a while and then the black folks start hollering “We’re not going to keep harvesting your grain and making your ovens just so that we can have 14 cookies.”  And so the White Christian men are all, “Fine.  We’ll find someone else to do it.  Hey, women, get out there and get some grain harvested.”  So, off we go, until we’re like, “Dang, we’re doing a lot of work and I only see about half of the White Christian men out here working with us and I haven’t had a cookie in days, have you?”

Anyway, my point is that, at some point folks are like, “You know, I wonder if it’s true that there are only 100 cookies at any given time.  That seems like a big oven.  And what are they doing when all of the cookies are made?  What if, once they made their 60 cookies, they got out of the kitchen and gave us a shot to make 60 for us?”

And the loudest of the White Christian men are all, “No, no, there can only be 100 cookies.”

And we’re all, even including some White Christian men, “But no, there can be more.  Look.”

“No, don’t fuck with our tradition.  God said there can only be 100 cookies.”

“Dudes, God doesn’t say anything about cookies in the Bible.  Now, you have your 60 cookies; get out of the way so that we can bake.”

Now, don’t get me wrong.  It’s not all smooth.  The white women think they should get to use the oven first.  Black folks are still like “Hey, we made the oven.  Now we’re going to use it.”  And the Latinos are all “We picked all your ingredients.  Try to use the oven without those.”  Nobody’s above that nonsense.

But, if we can figure out how to work together, everyone can have cookies.  Maybe not 60 cookies, but maybe 40, which is what the White Christian men could make on their own.  And, in the end, we’d end up with a buttload more than 100 cookies all together.

You’d think this would obviously be a good thing.  But instead, you’ve got fools complaining that they’re going to have fewer cookies.  Other fools complaining that it’s wrong that we’re not following tradition.  And you have damn fools like O’Reilly complaining that he’s uncomfortable with the racial make-up of folks in the kitchen and, if all those folks insist on being in the kitchen, it must be some kind of punishment for, some kind of hatred of, White Christian men.

Yes, yes, that’s exactly it.  It’s not that everyone wants access to the good stuff in the kitchen; it’s that we hate the people who occupy it.


Some pagan feminist needs to come up with a potion to turn him into a toad.

14 thoughts on “Once Again We Pagan Feminists Try to Ruin America By Turning Us All Mexican

  1. OMG – I know you didn’t mean to, but do you realise you just made a conservative economic argument? (against zero-sum ways of thinking – this is key in supply side economics) I might even use the hundred cookies illustration myself – beautiful.

    BUT – why give a buffoon like BOM any attention at all? He’s not even conservative; he’s an idiot Lou Dobbs populist. (I reserve the term for true idiots; the man can’t even formulate a coherent opinion)

    Anyway, as to the actual substance, I can almost agree with you totally.(I guess I’m a traitor to my race for making America a little more brown ;) ) .

    I can’t agree with the idea of an absolutely open border, because I’m not a globalist. I prefer a “wholly welcoming border”. No real restrictions on border movement, but we’ve gotta know who’s here. That’s quite a liberal position to take for a conservative, so give me a little credit.

    But why quibble over 1%, when we agree on the other 99% ? Especially on a beautiful Friday?

  2. Let’s see … the argument here is that the hateful people who hate governance by white Christian men want to increase Hispanic immigration? OK … I’m fairly sure that Hispanic immigrants would identify themselves as Christian at a slightly higher rate than would native-born USians of any/all ethnic backgrounds. So that can’t be the hateful part that thpwhgbWCM hate, and that makes O’Reilly hate them. And, looking at the governance of majority-Hispanic countries, I notice … men. Lots of men! Men in just about all the powerful positions, in fact. So that can’t be the hateful part that makes O’R hate thpwhgbWCM, either. So it looks like there’s only one part of the equation left that turns O’R into a hater: the white part. No racism here, no sir, just keep moving along.

    On an unrelated note, I want to point out to Slarti that:
    X is a Y type of argument
    X is a Z type of argument

    does not lead to:
    therefore Y is a Z type of argument.

    That is, it’s not only supply-side economics that reject a zero-sum economy. F’rinstance, classical Marxism rejects a zero-sum economy, too; Marx waxes rhapsodic about the increase in wealth that will result from the workers’ ownership of the means of production. And many conservative economic theories do posit a zero-sum distribution.

  3. Yes, there can be more cookies. But where supply-siders and me part company is the idea that there’s would be cookies for everyone if we’d all just get into the kitchen and get cracking. Some folks aren’t going to have the know-how to bake. Others won’t have the huevos. Others will be too short to reach the stove. And so forth…

    But I agree that there could be a hell of a lot more cookies than there are…just gotta get some people to quit bogarting the bowl.

  4. nm, bridgett – I know that. It’s just that while I was reading B’s post, I kept thinking to myself, “Where have I heard this argument before?”.

    And I was just having a little fun. It’s Friday. I don’t want to argue supply side economics in an immigration thread today.

    I’ve already got Kat convinced I’m a sexist pig; in a comment at her place that isn’t about gender.

    Speaking of (and totally switching gears): is there, like a threshold of time a man can reach where his interactions with women have proved to them that he’s not a mysoginist? Or is he on a kind of permanent probation, always having to prove his fealty to the feminist cause forever? I’m just wondering how long I’m going to have to continue to watch every word I say, lest it be taken the wrong way.

    Anyway, it’s Friday, and I DID agree with B’s premise here, so I refuse to get all bent out of shape.

  5. Well, if your uncensored speech is full of sexist comments you don’t recognize, the chances are that you haven’t reached that point yet. It doesn’t mean that you never will, of course.

  6. Yeah, and in order for Black folks to build the ovens, first those Bootstrapping WCMs had to kill off the Natives and steal the land so they’d have a place to put the damn bakery. Seems we could just ALL bake up a whole shitload of cookies, enough to make sure everybody’s got a baker’s dozen each, and hey, how ’bout sending everyone to Culinary School so the entire population benefits from everyone being educated in the art of cookie baking.

    And what’s up with this mess: “So you’ve got racism on the anti-Latino front, and you have racism on the anti-Christian, white male front…” What? White Christian Males are victims of racism now? I’m of the school of thought that Racism = Prejudice + Power. Yes, people of color can be personally prejudiced against white folks. But on the whole people of color do not hold the power in this structure. So there is no racism against the WhiteChristianMale power structure. This country was purposely constructed by white people for the benefit of white people. The reason they don’t want to “break with tradition” is because for things become equitable, some folks are going to need to come up, and others (WCMs) will have to give up a bit of their privilege and power. That’s going to involve some kicking and screaming, there.

    Great analogy with the cookies. I spit in Bill’s specific direction.

  7. Actually, Slarti, thats a fair question. In fact, I’ve had this conversation with B, sort of. I think she boiled it down to something I could understand, even though it shocked me when i first heard her say it. It is fear, man. I use to think that I was a fairly considerate man, that is, if the situation arose that I had to talk to a strange woman, say…in a parking lot, I kept a safe distance, so not to appear threatening. I try to be mindful of people’s fear in general. Do I sometimes think that perpetuating a stereotype about women just shouldn’t be fear inducing? Sure, but, I think we (by that I mean, you. ;)) get lazy with our generalities, and then we get surprized when women call us out on it. I can accept permanent probation, I suppose, since i’m fairly sure the penalty is just a public chastisement. I mean, what if they all cut me off? The horror.

  8. Slarti, I think they were just funning you a little, too, you know.

    As for how long you’re on probation, yes, it’s forever. But not to feminists, to all women. We’re just the ones who articulate the problem, so we get blamed for it as if we created the problem. But let me rearticulate the problem for those of you who are still confused at home.

    Bad men–rapists, woman-beaters, woman-killers, misogynist assholes, etc.–do not look any different than good men. In fact, many bad men are very charming and considerate and nice otherwise most of us wouldn’t get involved with them. I mean, fuck, if I knew for certain you were going to rape me, I wouldn’t let you buy me a drink; I’m not stupid. But, I have no for sure way to tell if you are a good guy or if you are a bad guy just biding his time until I’ve let down my guard.

    So, like most folks who feel threatened by an unseen enemy, we get superstitious–does that word-choice mean he’s secretly bad? If I spend the night here is he going to wait until I fall asleep and rape me? If I love him, how long until he smacks me? We get fucked up by always being in fear of you. I’m sure that’s irritating, to have your every word and action scrutinized for secret meaning. Believe me, from our end, it’s tiring, too.

    But here’s the thing: we have good reason to fear you–men in general–and so it’s not on us to give you–man in particular–the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I think it’s on you men in particular to be understanding of the fucked up position we’re in and to signal safe as well and as often as you can. And you can signal safe by word choice or body language or listening or whatever.

    It doesn’t make one less manly to go through life that way. Our friend Exador reads as exceptionally manly and yet, in person, he signals safe to women like a pro. Same with Mack. Would you ever doubt that Mack’s a real man and yet he’s got feminist women all over this blog swooning and wondering if he could talk his wife into polygamy.

  9. Pingback: dammit! now i want a cookie... « it’s all ashes in the end…

  10. I dunno, I don’t think I live in fear of men. Wariness, perhaps, but even that seems to me to be overstating it. No, I’m afraid that in my case I just have a low threshold for being disrespected. And a lot of the metaphors and similes that most people use, however unconsciously, disrespect women. It doesn’t mean that I think that men who use them are more likely to rape me; it just means that they piss me off. I can’t speak for KC, of course, but my excuse is plain old-fashioned touchiness.

  11. I’ve already got Kat convinced I’m a sexist pig; in a comment at her place that isn’t about gender.

    No you don’t. You’re assuming that my having bristled (ha! Pig pun) over a word-choice means that I think you’re a pig.

    I don’t. I just got done explaining my thinking about the whole thing over there.

    I thought someone had something valuable to say, so I echoed it at my blog. I don’t care if that person is a woman, a man, a democrat, republican, athiest, whatever.

    I wanted to talk about the ideas, not about the personal motivation of the person stating the idea. That, coupled with a dismissal that was (unconsciously) sexist, bothered me.

    It ties in with this Bill O’Reilly mess because that’s the same thing he does all the time. Dismissing an idea because he doesn’t like the person who said it or he’s suspect of that person’s motivation.

  12. Gotta love how BOR starts his paragraphs with “OK” and “Now, I think …”, and other such patter to make it sound like he’s being perfectly reasonable and logical and there can’t be any reason why you shouldn’t agree completely with his line of reasoning … But yeah, why would anyone want to further inflate this bloviating buffoon, as Slartibartfast says. FYUTA BOR! Say No More.

    Nice discussion on male/female dynamics. It’s my hope that the paradigm is shifting female this millenium. I hope that gals get the chance to prove that they can fuck up the world just as well as the next guy. Or not. Maybe the motherly energy can yank us back from the disastrous precipice. I sure hope so!

Comments are closed.