Marc and Marx Prove Tea Party Racism

Well, it happened. Someone finally showed “proof” that the entire Tea Party is racist.

Last night on O’Reilly’s show, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill presented clear and simple facts to Bill that show the Tea Party as a whole has a racist agenda.

The various racist signs were shown, along with those thought to be racially motivated—but let’s just assume they are blatantly racist—and the tally comes in at about a dozen signs per the thousands at every event.

A normal Tea Party event with thousands of signs (We'll be nice here and give it a nice round number later) has a handful of questionable signs: the big-tooth, big-ear Obama, the "Why so Socialist?" Joker dig, and other other things thought basic insults when done about previous presidents. Then you do have the occasional N-bomb, monkey business, and other nasty signs. It's true. It takes about 20 cameras and 40 PI plants to find them, but they are there. Events of thousands produce around a dozen. Always.

So...

12/1,200 = 1%. That’s math – true science. But more on the latter later; right now, find peace in the fact that an educated man such as Dr. Hill and others basking in the glow of their own self worth see fit to call a miniscule percentage—and I’m being kind with the 1%—mainstream and not simply the fringe.

Per Hill’s reasoning, being, don’t forget, a supposedly well educated professor at a prestigious school, the “fringe” doesn’t show up to multiple events. The “fringe” becomes the actual movement if it does.

1% tops of all signs depicting racism means Tea Partiers, by and large, are racially motivated.

So, that means the 1% of signs at anti-war protests making threats of “Kill Bush!” make the entire anti-war movement criminal.

No? Well, why not? Oh, common sense rules all, you say? Not so fast. We haven’t got into the “social science” yet.

Hill cited a study conducted by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality. Okay. So it’s a survey—polling!—and not actually a legitimate study. Never mind that. Christopher Parker, who directed the study, did flesh it out and give postulation some purple prose to stand on.

According to this study, which isn’t really breaking news and has been out a while, Tea Party members have a “higher probability” of being racially resentful; they’re also supposedly all-around more racially motivated than other whites. “Whites” being the key “race” here, but more on that later.

First, what is social science? Well, it’s not science like most people know science. Social science is more of a philosophical approach to the sciences, using some strange techniques to create data where data is needed, and it works in one major way above all else: the Y is adjusted to fit the X.

Social science was brought along by individuals like Karl Marx.

Christopher Parker is a professor of social justice.

What do these things matter in terms of “science”?

How much “science” does anyone think is involved with a system crafted by Marx and employed by a social justice advocate? And not to bash on social justice, but that’s already a biased cause. That’s like asking the oil industry to assess its own safety rating on an oil rig. Oops.

Social justice, in the context of American society, already assumes all whites are advantaged compared to all minorities, and that wealth need be redistributed and that the economy need be taken over to level the playing field.

So, what was the “science” behind the study?

People were read statements like this, for example: “If blacks would only try harder, they could be as well off as whites.”

Your choices: agree or disagree. 73% of Tea Partiers read this statement agreed, thus they’re branded racists.

But that’s not a standalone statement—question—in this “scientific” study. (Okay, it’s a crooked poll aimed to trick people by asking questions Frank Luntz could ask way better. But let’s not quibble.)

Every question and statement was geared toward white vs. minority. The idea being, supposedly, to find out if a Tea Party already suspected of racism was really racist.

So, here’s my question: If you want to be truly impartial and at least attempt to make a Marx method ring true as science, then why not ask flat questions. How’s this – “Do you think all races are equal?” Or how about, “Can people achieve equally regardless of their race?”

Then, if they’re racists, they’ll answer accordingly.

Instead, however, the platform was set with questions making minorities appear the victim by singling them out specifically, and then presenting carefully worded statements about “blacks trying harder,” giving individuals with an already planted image of a struggling minority a choice on whether they agree or disagree.

Sorry. This is not science. This is not even close to science. Someone telling me otherwise better be ready to get dizzy from all the spin.

And not to bash Hill and Parker and these other individuals who have made their way in the world by being advocates for America’s supposedly oppressed, but there is absolutely nothing scientific about the way they approach social sciences. There isn’t. And if we weren’t so afraid to be politically incorrect in America, we would call this crap exactly what it is – glorified pollster spinning.

That’s all it is.

Anyone can do it. I’ll tell you how.

Start out with an agenda, first and foremost. Devise questions and statements that suit your agenda. Target a specific group of people and claim they’re a fair sampling of the whole. Ask your questions in a way which no answer is wrong (read: right). Compile the numbers afterward to mean whatever you want them to mean.

For example: I’ll ask you, “If blacks worked harder, could they be as well off as whites?”

Now, as the questioner and you the questioned, you’re assuming that I’m asserting blacks aren’t as well off as whites. Why? Because I am.

But if you answer yes, I will say you have racial leanings and think blacks aren’t as well off as whites. If you say no, I will say you have racial leanings and that you think blacks can’t be as well off as whites.

Yeah. It’s real “science” we’re dealing with here. Sarcasm alert!

Social sciences matter only in circles where empathy is so strong that logic superseding postulation and speculation actually seems cruel. It’s garbage, pure and simple. Al Gore’s science is really two grades above these “social” methods. And that’s saying a lot.

Is the Tea Party racist? If so, you wouldn’t think they would need to be coaxed into it. You wouldn’t think 1% would need to become the majority.

Funny how these “social” things work in America. No wonder most Americans—“most” meaning more than 1%!—don’t want anything “social” around us. We know it means bad news and more placating junk for empathetic purposes.