Clarence Thomas is a pessimistic separatist black nationalist & thinks racism cant be fixed?!

[Thegospel]

your pale ass would cross the street if I was walking your way, this kind of talk is funny coming from a punk bytch like yourself

 

[BaggerofTea]

I explained this a while back in my white nationalist and thread.

MANY Black folks don't see white ppl as hurdles to be overcome. They just want to be left alone. And many white ppl agree. They don't want to utilize violence or use levers of government etc against Black ppl even though they hold racist views. If they gained power they would probably even support ensuring the US govt provides whatever material/financial support to Black community is necessary.

The crazy thing will be watching ppl in these groups build together - which I believe in inevitable bc of how political coalitions are shifting (as Black ppl become more willing to withold support from Dems).

And absolutely, ppl who live their lives within mainstream media/political circles would never see this phenomenon.

This is pure garbage and holds no weight in real life.

I grew up in rural Pennsylvania and know this is a lie.

 

[GoAggieGo.]

Will read later.

From some of the comments in here, it looks to be an interesting read.

 

[LV Koopa]

The fact you've been posting nonsense on this forum for years and only NOW took some time to actually listen and read what Clarence Thomas believes shows you're a sensationalist at the core and just want reactions and daps. You aren't interested in true knowledge.

 

[Vandelay]

He does a shyt job of getting this across, moreover he's a benefactor of everything he opposes. Oh, the irony.

 

[LV Koopa]

Whats wrong with Sowell?

Sewell is a gem. But he did support Reagan and loosely (afaik) supported that bs Reaganomics. Other than that, most of his talks on economic policy from as far back as the 80s have basically been shown to be absolutely spot on decades later. His views on Minimum Wage and price control are easy to work backwards from a business standpoint, and to see how government basically fukked people over ignoring him and others is something else.

 

[TheOptimisticCynikal]

Not saying I agree or disagree, besides the fact he married a white woman, what makes him confused in your opinion?

I feel that it doesn't have to be one way or the other. He can be militant, but pawg at the same time. We have no idea what conversations him and his snow queen be having. For all we know she could be one of those whites that fully understand the atrocities committed by her race.

While I was reading up a bit on him I saw that this woman went at Anita Hill (gal who was accusing him of some kind of harassment) demanding she retract her statements which to me showed she a rider to some degree.

Brehs can be suckers for a rider. White or black. Also, he seems like one of those blacks that suffered heavy bullying from colorism (Kids called him ABC meaning America's Blackest Child, which I ashamedly found hilarious af) and he feels a type of way against the women in his family.

We'd like people to rise above and be unaffected by childhood traumas, but that's not the case more often than not. I take his seeming contradiction and hypocrisy as him being human. That doesn't mean I can't agree with some of his thoughts and opinions.

 

[MostReal]

PART 3:



We see this argument in Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 affirmative-action case concerning the University of Michigan Law School. In the early nineteen-nineties, the school adopted an affirmative-action policy in order to create a more diverse student body. Barbara Grutter, a white applicant who was denied admission, alleged that she was a victim of racial discrimination and that the policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 5–4 ruling, the Court decided that because the policy involved “a narrowly tailored use of race,” with a candidate’s race weighed as only one factor among many, the program was not unconstitutional. Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented, arguing that there was nothing narrow or tailored about the program; it was more like a quota, he wrote, “designed to ensure proportionate representation . . . from selected minority groups.”

Thomas also dissented in Grutter. But his dissent focussed, uniquely, not on Grutter or other putative white victims but on what the law school’s affirmative-action program revealed about its creators. The leading interest of the school, he wrote, was to be “elite.” Affirmative action reflected that élitism. The simplest, most effective way for the Law School to diversify itself would be to become less selective. It could accept anyone who completed a certified program. It could stop relying on the LSAT, which, Thomas insisted and the Law School admitted, is an “imperfect” diagnostic tool. But the school refused to adopt such inclusive measures, not because it was committed to meritocracy—policies such as “legacy preferences” proved otherwise—but because exclusivity was its central objective.



For Thomas, affirmative action is merely a “solution to the self-inflicted wounds of [an] elitist admissions policy.” If a school insists upon maintaining “an exclusionary admissions system that it knows produces racially disproportionate results,” the only way to diversify itself is to rely on measures that maximize its discretion regarding race. Affirmative action, then, is not about racial equality; it’s about preserving the prerogatives of white élites, allowing them to bestow the blessings of society upon a few lucky African-Americans. Thomas does not believe this to be a constitutional value, much less one the Court should honor.

Much of Thomas’s skepticism flows from his rejection of diversity writ large. The key argument for affirmative action—and the grounds for the Court’s landmark 1978 decision in University of California v. Bakke, which declared the policy constitutional—is that diversity has an educational benefit: students will be exposed to different views and voices, which will challenge their beliefs. Thomas doesn’t quite buy this. If it were truly the case that diversity is a critical educational good, he thinks, élite institutions would stop prizing selectivity. The fact that they don’t suggests that the benefit argument is a ruse. What these institutions really believe is that diversity “prepares . . . students to become leaders in a diverse society.” It burnishes the style, image, and credentials of those students, mostly white, who will go on to run American society. Diversity, in other words, does not benefit students academically, or even produce diverse leadership; it just helps beautify “classroom aesthetics,” which are critical to the self-image of the ruling class. (“Racial aesthetics” and “aestheticists” are words that recur throughout Thomas’s opinions.) Diversity, as a value, is how white élites signal to other élites their sophistication, fashion, and taste. It marks black people as victims and whites as saviors.

In keeping with his conservative black nationalism, Thomas sees in such integration real harm to black people. In 1995, after a lower court argued that “racial isolation” in education—that is, continuing segregation of black and white schools, without formal state compulsion—was a constitutional injury to black schoolchildren, Thomas took offense. “If separation itself is a harm,” he wrote, “and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about blacks.” For Thomas, seemingly egalitarian policies like integration thus become evidence of racial paternalism. His argument echoes that of Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton’s “Black Power.” Integration, Carmichael and Hamilton wrote, “reinforces, among both black and white, the idea that ‘white’ is automatically superior and ‘black’ is by definition inferior. For this reason, ‘integration’ is a subterfuge for the maintenance of white supremacy.”

In 1992, in one of his first opinions on the Court, Thomas wrote, “Conscious and unconscious prejudice persists in our society. Common experience and common sense confirm this understanding.” Ten years into his tenure, he was still affirming that idea. “If society cannot end racial discrimination,” he wrote in a concurrence, “at least it can arm minorities with the education to defend themselves from some of discrimination’s effects.” That “if” flies by so quickly that the reader may not notice what Thomas is doing. Rather than setting up a conditional, he is presenting the inability to end racism as the condition of American society.

In this sense, the story of Clarence Thomas is the story of the last half-century of American politics. It is a story of defeat, not only of the civil-rights movement and the promise of black freedom but of a larger vision of democratic transformation, in which men and women act collectively to alter their estate. The citizens of the freedom struggle believed that society was made, and could be remade, through politics. Many of their successors, including Thomas, no longer believe that kind of change is possible. A deep and abiding pessimism now pervades our politics, transcending the divisions of right and left. Clarence Thomas, the most extreme Justice on the Supreme Court, turns out also to be the most emblematic. Should he remain on the bench for another nine years, he will be the longest-serving Justice in American history.

This piece was drawn from “The Enigma of Clarence Thomas,” which is out this month, from Metropolitan Books.

interesting point of view

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

This is pure garbage and holds no weight in real life.

I grew up in rural Pennsylvania and know this is a lie.

Being in a rural area during your formative years maybe has something to do with it. Very homogeneous experience. You don't know what you don't know.

I try to put ppl onto real life game, divorced from mainstream political expectations/trends/fads. If we disagree that's cool too.

 

[TheOptimisticCynikal]

Sewell is a gem. But he did support Reagan and loosely (afaik) supported that bs Reaganomics. Other than that, most of his talks on economic policy from as far back as the 80s have basically been shown to be absolutely spot on decades later. His views on Minimum Wage and price control are easy to work backwards from a business standpoint, and to see how government basically fukked people over ignoring him and others is something else.

I've been watching some Sowell videos on YouTube and he's another that I can't understand why he isn't more popular. His viewpoints definitely go against the conventional black thinking of 'Democrats can do no wrong and are always the lesser evil' but just like Thomas, I can't deny or say his thoughts and opinions are wrong. Especially when he speaks about white liberals

 

[MostReal]

Clarence Thomas was a Coli militant who was checking bedwenches and had Malcolm X racial separation speeches on tape, then got turned out by white p*ssy.

 

[ColdSlither]

This may be the guy I heard on NPR maybe a year or two ago. I might have the ebook or audio book. I horde those just like physical books and I don't know what the fukk I have. But anyway, Clarence was really militant in his youth, but he chose to c00n. I remember them saying that his grandfather was an inspiration. Because this was a man who had nothing in the heat of Jim Crow, but that adversity and struggle is what allowed him to make something of himself and his family. So he pretty much believes that blacks need to go through bullshyt in order succeed. It's why someone like him would be for every regressive policy and decision when it comes to us. He either sold out, or worse, he actually believes that shyt and knows in his heart that he's helping.

 

[sean360]

PART 3:



We see this argument in Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 affirmative-action case concerning the University of Michigan Law School. In the early nineteen-nineties, the school adopted an affirmative-action policy in order to create a more diverse student body. Barbara Grutter, a white applicant who was denied admission, alleged that she was a victim of racial discrimination and that the policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 5–4 ruling, the Court decided that because the policy involved “a narrowly tailored use of race,” with a candidate’s race weighed as only one factor among many, the program was not unconstitutional. Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented, arguing that there was nothing narrow or tailored about the program; it was more like a quota, he wrote, “designed to ensure proportionate representation . . . from selected minority groups.”

Thomas also dissented in Grutter. But his dissent focussed, uniquely, not on Grutter or other putative white victims but on what the law school’s affirmative-action program revealed about its creators. The leading interest of the school, he wrote, was to be “elite.” Affirmative action reflected that élitism. The simplest, most effective way for the Law School to diversify itself would be to become less selective. It could accept anyone who completed a certified program. It could stop relying on the LSAT, which, Thomas insisted and the Law School admitted, is an “imperfect” diagnostic tool. But the school refused to adopt such inclusive measures, not because it was committed to meritocracy—policies such as “legacy preferences” proved otherwise—but because exclusivity was its central objective.



For Thomas, affirmative action is merely a “solution to the self-inflicted wounds of [an] elitist admissions policy.” If a school insists upon maintaining “an exclusionary admissions system that it knows produces racially disproportionate results,” the only way to diversify itself is to rely on measures that maximize its discretion regarding race. Affirmative action, then, is not about racial equality; it’s about preserving the prerogatives of white élites, allowing them to bestow the blessings of society upon a few lucky African-Americans. Thomas does not believe this to be a constitutional value, much less one the Court should honor.

Much of Thomas’s skepticism flows from his rejection of diversity writ large. The key argument for affirmative action—and the grounds for the Court’s landmark 1978 decision in University of California v. Bakke, which declared the policy constitutional—is that diversity has an educational benefit: students will be exposed to different views and voices, which will challenge their beliefs. Thomas doesn’t quite buy this. If it were truly the case that diversity is a critical educational good, he thinks, élite institutions would stop prizing selectivity. The fact that they don’t suggests that the benefit argument is a ruse. What these institutions really believe is that diversity “prepares . . . students to become leaders in a diverse society.” It burnishes the style, image, and credentials of those students, mostly white, who will go on to run American society. Diversity, in other words, does not benefit students academically, or even produce diverse leadership; it just helps beautify “classroom aesthetics,” which are critical to the self-image of the ruling class. (“Racial aesthetics” and “aestheticists” are words that recur throughout Thomas’s opinions.) Diversity, as a value, is how white élites signal to other élites their sophistication, fashion, and taste. It marks black people as victims and whites as saviors.

In keeping with his conservative black nationalism, Thomas sees in such integration real harm to black people. In 1995, after a lower court argued that “racial isolation” in education—that is, continuing segregation of black and white schools, without formal state compulsion—was a constitutional injury to black schoolchildren, Thomas took offense. “If separation itself is a harm,” he wrote, “and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about blacks.” For Thomas, seemingly egalitarian policies like integration thus become evidence of racial paternalism. His argument echoes that of Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton’s “Black Power.” Integration, Carmichael and Hamilton wrote, “reinforces, among both black and white, the idea that ‘white’ is automatically superior and ‘black’ is by definition inferior. For this reason, ‘integration’ is a subterfuge for the maintenance of white supremacy.”

In 1992, in one of his first opinions on the Court, Thomas wrote, “Conscious and unconscious prejudice persists in our society. Common experience and common sense confirm this understanding.” Ten years into his tenure, he was still affirming that idea. “If society cannot end racial discrimination,” he wrote in a concurrence, “at least it can arm minorities with the education to defend themselves from some of discrimination’s effects.” That “if” flies by so quickly that the reader may not notice what Thomas is doing. Rather than setting up a conditional, he is presenting the inability to end racism as the condition of American society.

In this sense, the story of Clarence Thomas is the story of the last half-century of American politics. It is a story of defeat, not only of the civil-rights movement and the promise of black freedom but of a larger vision of democratic transformation, in which men and women act collectively to alter their estate. The citizens of the freedom struggle believed that society was made, and could be remade, through politics. Many of their successors, including Thomas, no longer believe that kind of change is possible. A deep and abiding pessimism now pervades our politics, transcending the divisions of right and left. Clarence Thomas, the most extreme Justice on the Supreme Court, turns out also to be the most emblematic. Should he remain on the bench for another nine years, he will be the longest-serving Justice in American history.

This piece was drawn from “The Enigma of Clarence Thomas,” which is out this month, from Metropolitan Books.

1/ what you say and what you do are 2 different things.
2/I skimmed it but since he been on the supreme
Court what votes has he given to improve the life of black people?
3/is he mister pro black? With a wife that’s maga? He is a c00n until proven otherwise.

 

[BaggerofTea]

Being in a rural area during your formative years maybe has something to do with it. Very homogeneous experience. You don't know what you don't know.

I try to put ppl onto real life game, divorced from mainstream political expectations/trends/fads. If we disagree that's cool too.

The central construct of white people and white supremacy is whites getting ahead of blacks

You are delusional and out of your mind if you think whites especially racist ones have any vested interesting in helping the black race, ludicrous.

Infact the whole right wing political underpinning is here

 

[OG Talk]

Black Liberals want to be loved and accepted by the dominant society.

Black Conservatives (outside of evangelism) just want to be left alone.

I’ve always said. Nobody believes in the concept of “good white peoples” more than the Black Liberal and the Black Christian. Which is why the church is used as such a huge political vehicle for these elections.



I met Clarence Thomas at a Wegmans outside of D.C. years ago. He was walking around the produce section dressed head to toe in Washington Capitals gear.

He had a heavy aura around him.