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.