Fred on Everything

hm1996

Moderator
Staff member

Fred Reed (born 1945 in Crumpler, West Virginia) is a writer and was formerly a technology columnist for The Washington Times. A former Marine and Vietnam War veteran, Reed is a police writer and an occasional war correspondent. He currently writes weekly columns for the website Fred on Everything. His work is often satirical and opinionated.

Quote:
Black Power: A Done Deal
By Fred Reed


It is curious that blacks, the least educated thirteen percent of the population, the least productive, most criminal, and most dependent on governmental charity, should dominate national politics. Yet they do. Virtually everything revolves around what blacks want, demand, do, or can't do. Their power seems without limit.

Courses of instruction in the schools, academic rigor, codes of dress, rules regarding unceasing obscenity, all must be set to suit them, as must be examinations for promotion in fire departments, the military, and police forces. Blacks must be admitted to universities for which they are not remotely qualified , where departments of Black Studies must be established to please them. Corporate work forces, federal departments, and elite high-schools must be judged not on whether they perform their functions but on whether they have the right number of blacks.

Do laws requiring identification to vote threaten to end multiple or illegal voting? The laws must go. Do blacks not like Confederate flags? Adieu, flags. Does Huckleberry Finn go down the Mississippi with the Jim, or did Conrad write The Jim of the Narcissus? These must be banned or expurgated to please blacks who haven't read them or, usually, heard of them. Do we want to prevent people coming from regions infested with Ebola from entering the United States? We cannot. It would offend blacks.

We must never, ever say or do anything that might upset them - as virtually everything does. It is positively astonishing. One expects the rich and smart to have disproportionate power. But America is dominated from the slums . One might think that a single set of laws should and would apply to all citizens, and that things should be done without regard to race, creed, color, sex, or national origin, and that all should have the same rights and responsibilities. It is, sadly, not so. The dominance of the media by blacks is impressive.

If a white shoots a black to defend himself, it becomes national news for weeks, or months, and riots follow. But when blacks engage in their unending racial attacks on whites, the media demurely look the other way. The attackers are never black. They are "teens." Reporters who say otherwise are likely to be fired. In effect, the thirteen percent censor the national press.

Much of their mastery has become so deeply engrained as no longer to be noticed. There is the DC Hesitation . In the bars and restaurants of Washington, a man weary of an incompetent affirmative-action hire in his office will, before commenting to a friend, lean forward, lower his voice, and look furtively over both shoulders to see whether anyone might overhear: The DC Hesitation. People don't even know that they are doing this.

Defensive behavior by whites has become nearly universal. A sort of Masonic recognition-ritual occurs among white people recently introduced in social gatherings. Is the other person, for want of better terms, a liberal or a realist? Dare one speak? One of them will say something mildly skeptical about, say, Jesse Jackson. The other rolls his eyes in shared disgust. The secret handshake. Or, if the listener is politically correct, the bait is not taken. In either case, blacks dominate political conversation.

So extreme is the power to control speech and even thought, that politicians have to avoid mentioning watermelons, or that neighborhoods of high crime must delicately be called "sketchy" instead of "black," though all understand who lives there and what is meant. The avoidance of racial reference is not an even-handed if despotic attempt to oppose racism since, as we all know, blacks freely apply any derogatory wording they choose to whites. In short, they rule. Which is amazing.

The dominance extends to children. When in junior high one of my daughters brought home a science handout with common chemical terms badly misspelled in a way which suggested a particular speech pattern. "Is your teacher black?" I said without thinking. "Daaaaaaady!" she said in anguish, having made the connection but knowing that she shouldn't have. Blacks control what you can say to your own children in your own home. And of course if I had gone to the school and demanded that the teacher be fired, it would have been evidence of my depravity and probable KKK membership.

The word "unbelievable" has lost all force. Things that ought to be unbelievable, and once were, have become routine. Still, there it was: Don't expect a junior-high teacher to have the level of literacy I had in the fourth grade. Instead, make it dangerous to notice their stupidity. This is not new, and it hasn't changed.

In 1981, in a piece for Harper's, I wrote:
"The bald, statistically verifiable truth is that the teachers' colleges, probably on ideological grounds, have produced an incredible proportion of incompetent black teachers. Evidence of this appears periodically, as, for example, in the results of a competency test given to applicants for teaching positions in Pinellas County, Florida, cited in Time, June 16, 1980. To pass this grueling examination, an applicant had to be able to read at the tenth-grade level and do arithmetic at the eighth-grade level. Though they all held B.A.'s, 25 percent of the whites and 79 percent of the blacks failed. Similar statistics exist for other places."

Nothing has changed. Blacks now control the presidency and thus, most importantly, the Attorney Generalship. In this the staggering political power of blacks is most evident. Obama was elected because he was black: an equally unqualified and negligible white politician would have had no chance. He is now fiercely pushing the most profound transformation of America ever attempted, by opening the floodgates to immigration from the south. To effect this end he apparently will simply ignore Congress and the Constitution. The people will not be consulted. Laws will be ignored.

It is hard to imagine why he does it except from racism, from a desire to get even with whites by enrolling their country in the Third World. A short-sighted policy, yes, since Hispanics do not like blacks and will soon be more powerful-but that will come a bit later.

Note that self-inflicted problems of blacks consume inordinate amounts of public and governmental attention, even though only blacks can solve them. I might say, "should solve them," since they never have and we all know they seem to have no desire to do so. Yet we hear about them endlessly.

Are blacks in Chicago killing each other in large numbers? The solution might be to stop doing it, might it not? While I do not wish these young dead, I can do nothing to stop them, and it is not a problem I can solve.

Are black children growing up illiterate? This gives me no pleasure, and I have various reasons both selfish and moral to wish it were not so. But perhaps the solution is for their parents, or parent, to see that they do their homework, or even to teach them. I cannot do this for them, and again it isn't my problem to resolve.

Why do I have to hear, endlessly, about the "achievement gap?" Whether of genetic or cultural origin, it seems as immutable as Avogadro's number, and I can do nothing about it. I raise my children. They need to raise theirs. They rule. It is astonishing.


Regards,
hm
 
Fred's article is very well thought out and he makes some good points but I suggest he's not seeing the whole picture clearly. (Though I'm not sure any of us do or will.)

Yes, society pays a disproportionate reverence to blacks. But let us not forget the gender/sexual perversion crowd. Nor should we forget women. How could we EVER forget women? Nor Muslims. Nor Atheists. Or field mice. Let us not forget the plight of the field mouse.

All useful idiots. None are "in control".

Again, the proper overall perspective must, imho, be spiritual. We can only really begin to grasp what is going on in this world by lifting up the veil to see the underlying works.

What is the solution to all of this? More government? Hardly. Anarchy? Get real. Revolution? No. Even a mild political revolt such as we are seeing with Trump ultimately fails. Why? Because man's solutions always end up with evil at the top. Our own original Revolution was, perhaps, one of the shining moments in man's achievements. Not the Revolution itself but the establishment of this nation. And where are we now? At best, we would end up right back here. At worst, our nation would be devastated. A nation turning to God? Again, at best, a temporary fix.

The ONLY permanent fix is in God's hands alone. And that fix is coming in the person of Jesus the Messiah. Man has proven it again and again - without God we are bent on self-destruction. Yes we've had "help", if you want to call our adversary that. Until that adversary is totally defeated, our efforts will come to naught.

God bless,

Andy
 
I agree Andy except for one small thing which I'm sure you know and meant to imply, but for the sake of clarity I would point out that our enemy WAS totally defeated at the cross. We just wait for him to be chained, removed from this world and thrown into the fiery pit.
 
Azmastablasta,

While I understand your point, I was actually referring to 2 Thessalonians 2:8  

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:"

My primary point is we will continue to be under attack until Jesus comes for us and the adversary will still be a factor until the event of 2 Thessalonians 2:8. Even then, he is to be loosed after a thousand years. Literally speaking, it looks like he will not be "destroyed" in the sense that he will cease to exist.

That said, what I should have emphasized is we do not know how much time we have left - 1 day or 10,000 days or more. I do not know when this age of grace will cease or what will be available to gentiles at that time. Thus I am turning my focus to offering every opportunity to anyone I can to accept Christ. I know this should have been my focus for the past several decades but I have been remiss. I have never felt comfortable "evangelizing". It is not my strong suit but nothing else matters any more.

God bless,

Andy
 
We've all been remiss Andy, you're certainly not alone, and me, much worse in many ways than others. But for the grace of God I could never stand before Him with the other sheep instead of the goats. I did not mean to imply the adversary was destroyed, only defeated. We know his eventual fate and hope for it quickly. In fact my personal way of resisting his frequent attacks is to remind him that I do indeed know his eventual fate and he could better spend his time somewhere else. So far it's seemed to work very well. Fortunately the enemy is not omnipresent, and his minions are weaker than he. It would do well for those readers interested and may not be aware to remember that unlike our Father, the enemy cannot read your thoughts. You must rebuke him out loud. The best way is through Biblical knowledge, never challenging him, never provoking him, in the manner Jesus did by refuting his temptations with the phrase "It is written.....and repeating the verse most appropriate. Resist him and he will flee.
 
This writer uses examples of one person as if they exemplify an entire race of people.

When a "black" gets any position of power or control they in fact have to be far more careful of how anything they do looks. If anything they have to err in the opposite direction of what can be seen as biased toward their particular race or ethnicity.

The Black Chief of police in Dallas took a department that had one of the worst records for police brutality toward minorities in the country and turned that around. He did not do that by treating blacks with a sense of biased priorities, it was done by fostering a sense of understanding and respect for the police, and the police working on a sense of respect for the minorities they serve. It isn't about black people being treated better than white people, it's about cops seeing them in the exact same light and treating them the same.

There are cities where if a black guy in a suit were to drive through a bad area in an expensive car there are cops who would pull him over with a probable cause along the lines of "what was a black dude doing driving a Bentley, he must have stolen it". That is profiling and it's prejudice. The cop who doesn't think like that pays no attention, might think something like "nice car".
 
Originally Posted By: woodguruThis writer uses examples of one person as if they exemplify an entire race of people.

When a "black" gets any position of power or control they in fact have to be far more careful of how anything they do looks. If anything they have to err in the opposite direction of what can be seen as biased toward their particular race or ethnicity.

The Black Chief of police in Dallas took a department that had one of the worst records for police brutality toward minorities in the country and turned that around. He did not do that by treating blacks with a sense of biased priorities, it was done by fostering a sense of understanding and respect for the police, and the police working on a sense of respect for the minorities they serve. It isn't about black people being treated better than white people, it's about cops seeing them in the exact same light and treating them the same.

There are cities where if a black guy in a suit were to drive through a bad area in an expensive car there are cops who would pull him over with a probable cause along the lines of "what was a black dude doing driving a Bentley, he must have stolen it". That is profiling and it's prejudice. The cop who doesn't think like that pays no attention, might think something like "nice car".


Uh huh, Because you and your lot NEVER use a singular sample to make a judgment. Tell us caitlin, is it required for you to be blindly hypocritical or do you just choose to be that way? I have never been a socialist so I honestly don;t know the answer.

You see, I choose to be accountable for myself and not rely on others to take from someone else to give to me. I know that is a foreign concept to you, but think about it if you can. Don;t hurt yourself though.
 
Back
Top