"But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right." - Bill O'Reilly to John McCain on immigration
This isn't the first time O'Reilly has revealed his "white, Christian, male" persecution complex.
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.Now notice that O'Reilly usually frames the so-called culture war in terms of "secular-progressives" (e.g. New York Times) trying to tear down "traditional" America. I tend to think that s-p/traditional was something O'Reilly came up with for marketing purposes, but I begin to wonder if it has something more to it than that ... perhaps O'Reilly is creating a cognitive model that allows him to blind himself to the inherent prejudice of his beliefs.
12 comments:
These quotes are quite amazing. There is the implicit assumption that "race" actually matters. He is not content only to defend male dominance in gender relations, or the demographic dominance of the Christian religion. He sees the need to defend "white-supremacy". O'Reilly sees it as significant that it is whites that are at the apex of this power structure. And that black, hispanic, or Asian Christian men would not be adequate partners' in his concept of "America". Followed to it logical conclusion, O'Reilly is a racist, out and out, near KKK type of racist. By his own analysis, he is a white supremacist! And he is the host of a highly rated "news" program on a major cable "news" channel. And they support white supremacist propaganda! Incredible!
Bill is just the perfect Conservative. As I've recently learned, thanks to Hume's Ghost, Conservatism is basically rejection of liberal goals. Since a primary liberal goal these days is equality of race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, Bill automatically (and without thinking) must be opposed to these goals.
Many moons ago now I watched Bill's appearance on the Daily Show, where he stated that he hadn't decided whether to vote for Kerry or for Bush. At the time, I thought he was a lying sack of poop, but I have come to realize that he was being truthful in his own way. He truly hadn't decided, because there was no decision to make. A perfect Conservative like Bill had no choice but to pull the Bush lever, just as he has no choice now but act like a white supremacist.
O'Reilly has internalized, apparently, another right-wing meme. That being the concept of multiculturalism is reverse racism against whites.
Dave Neiwert wrote about that here
Its not just Fox, though. Lou Dobbs - also being documented at Orcinus - has been spreading white supremacist propaganda at CNN
"Its not just Fox, though. Lou Dobbs - also being documented at Orcinus - has been spreading white supremacist propaganda at CNN"
Yep, Dobb has gotten info. from the White Citizens Council. However, it is significant that O'Reilly came out rather explicitly in support of white supremacy.
This should garner the type of attention that Imus' comments got. But using racist insults is viewed more harshly than actual comments supporting white supremacy. They get away with it all the time by talking about the dangers of whites becoming a demographic minority. Of course, if we lived in a socially just and equal society, being a "minority" wouldn't be a problem at all, would it?
I don't think it fair to say that O'Reilly argued explicitly in favor of white supremacy.
He stated that the country's power structure is predominantly white Christian male. This is true. And then he said that "the left" wants to allow immigration in order to undermine that powerstructure for hateful (reverse racism) reasons.
O'Reilly would say that he's opposed to immigration not because it will depower white Christian males but because illegal immigration threatens national security, burdens the tax system, etc.
That's why I characterized his views as paranoid psuedo-fascism. But it's easy to see how such fears and paranoia make O'Reilly a ripe vehicle for the transmission of white supremacist propaganda (and he did by citing Buchanan).
HG,
A thing I've often wondered about is why "hispanic" is applied to Mexicanos. Sure, they speak Spanish, more or less -- I'd suggest that you not try to claim that too strenuously to someone from Spain -- and they're Catholic, of course. But they are descended, genetically, primarily from the people who lived in Mexico before the Spanish arrived, with an admixture of others.
Think of this as Red Cloud's revenge. There's really a kind of poetic justice in the whole situation.
Buenos Noches.
While I agree factually with your point, the term hispanic has become a general catch-all term for people who come from a Spanish language heritage. A recent heritage, as few Mexican people living in this country speak Nuahtl, Zapotec or a Mayan language.
Hume's Ghost,
Perhaps I have overstated my case. Maybe O'Reilly did not explicitly argue for "white supremacy", but he did so implicitly. He certainly would deny it vehemently. But I think this because he assumes that "whiteness" and the preservation of that demographic superiority is important.
"O'Reilly would say that he's opposed to immigration not because it will depower white Christian males but because illegal immigration threatens national security, burdens the tax system, etc."
But wait HG, in those quotes you posted he does say exactly what you say he wouldn't. He says that SPs want to undermine the white male Christian power structure. And this is what Buchanan worries about and who O'Reilly cites approvingly.
And take note that if you were concerned about protecting Christian male power then where would the problem be the influx of Latin American immigrants? Most Latin American immigrants are overwhelmingly Christian, along with their Mexican and Latin American machismo. Yet they are also people of dark complexion, a point O'Reilly does not hesitate to allude to.
In fact the national security and tax burden arguments are to a certain extent legitimate concerns. The tax burden argument is flat out wrong, but the unregulated entry of peoples is a threat to national security. (I agree we should regulate entry into the country).
What we are seeing it the mainstreaming of the ideology of white supremacist ideologies. Yes the rhetoric is more moderate and subtle, but similar themes are there.
Sheldon,
White supremacist ideology has always been mainstream. It was supported by law and custom until the sixties, when it became a minority view among the dominant leadership, and many such laws were struck down. It's even more of a minority view today, and looks fair to finally become vestigial sometime in the next generation.
Because it fell out of favor, white supremacists became more guarded in their public speech, relying more on "signs, portents, and symbolism" -- but make no mistake, the beliefs are still operating behind the scenes.
The not-too-bright and those whose speech has become too careless have still let fall the occasionally undeniable racist statement. O'Reilly falls into both those groups. If he worked for NBC, he might find himself canned, but, since he is on Fox, the outrage won't get traction.
Besides, as it's now directed against Hispanics, it's allowed among Fox viewers.
I think that "hispanic" is an attempt by both sides to frame the debate in terms of language and religion. As such, it simplifies the debate into something that O'Reilly's audience can understand. I still enjoy the irony.
c2h50h,
Yeah, you are right, white supremacy has for along time been in the mainstream. However, there has been movement to push it into the margins. What we are seeing with Fox and O'Reilly and alot of rhetoric from the right is a reaction to white supremacy being pushed to the margins.
Interestingly enough, you mention NBC. Buchanan works at MSNBC, and his latest book brings in this fear of a "white-minority". I don't know if he has ever brought that view on to MSNBC however.
As for Hispanic, the term began to be promoted in the late 1970s to make generic all the culture/ethnic and national variation of people with Spanish surnames in the U.S..
But wait HG, in those quotes you posted he does say exactly what you say he wouldn't. He says that SPs want to undermine the white male Christian power structure. And this is what Buchanan worries about and who O'Reilly cites approvingly.
He says that the motivation of S-Ps is to undermine the white male Christian power structure, and he cites Buchanan as being correct on that point. But O'Reilly does not say that he's interested in protecting the white Christian male power structure. He is charging S-Ps of racism.
One can make an a case that there is an implicit defense of the Christian white male power structure, but that would still be a consequence of O'Reilly's fears of immigration, not a directly argued motivation.
This is how O'Reilly functions as a bridge between supremacists and non-supremacists who share xenophobic fears of an "invasion."
HG,
Well yes, O'Reilly does not, and will not explicitly come out to say, "I want to protect the power of white men". But when he imputes motives against so-called SPs that they want to replace the "white Christian male power structute" this reveals a theme of his thinking about something that he thinks needs protecting, "white power".
Of course, there is no SP conspiracy. Which you and I most likely agree.
I can't help but think that there are in fact many white Christian males who own businesses that benefit from the cheap labor of illegal immigrants, and want to maintain the status quo.
Then there are people on the left, of which identify myself (i.e. SPs), that believe that illegal immigrants ought not to be scapegoated and whose human rights and interests ought to be considered in this debate and problem.
O'Reilly's racism is not something even he is probably explicitly aware of. That might be said for the racism of alot of people.
Post a Comment