Should people be fired over the N-word?

We need to use a universal system based on the moral law, not on what some groups have decided to believe. If we are going to enforce a law, then every single American has to abide by it. If certain principles can only be applied to certain people, then what kind of society do we want to build?

15
1924

…by Jonas E. Alexis

Georgia state Representative Jason Spencer is in deep doo-doo. He was filmed shouting the N-word repeatedly and exposing his buttocks on Sacha Baron Cohen’s new television show.

Obviously for a politician to drop his trousers and show his naked ass on camera is ground for discipline, if not firing. That just shows that these so-called Republicans will do just about anything for money. They have no morals, and all you have to do is sign them a check for a few thousand dollars and they’ll just do anything. Just look at how Netanyahu has progressively gotten the Republican Party in his right pocket.[1]

But that is not what the media is focusing on right now. Race baiters are hinging on the idea that Jason Spencer should never have uttered the N-word because it presumes that Spencer is a bigot, a racist, or something equally weird. Those race baiters don’t even ask Sasha Cohen to cancel his program!

This has been a recurrent theme over the past decade or so. What the race baiters ended up saying is that only blacks can use the N-word, even in a derogatory sense.

This issue came into focus again in 2010 when radio host Laura Schlessinger commented that blacks frequently use the N-word and no one has ever gotten offended by it. In fact, Hollywood has made millions of dollars using the word. If you think this is far-fetched, then watch the recent movie Equalizer 2.

“Make sure you kill one of those niggas tonight,” said one black gangster to a naïve and fresh member who is just learning the ropes. Yet when whites use the N-word, red flags are immediately raised. That, to Schelessinger, is a double standard. And it is.

Although her conclusion was rational and balanced—not promoting racist sentiment at all—the media jumped on her. Mary C. Curtis, former writer and editor for the New York Times, wrote a ranting response, declaring, among other things, that “this is the word that people with ropes used as they lynched men and women for an afternoon’s entertainment.”[2]

Yet Curtis failed to actually address the point Schelessinger was making. Instead of responding logically and rationally, she attacked purely fueled by outrage. If that the word indeed has such a horrific connotation, then why do rap artists, for example, continue to make millions of dollars using it, and where is Curtis when you really need her?

Curtis’s only answer is that “most black people I know hate the word and never use it.”[3] Obviously that woman is living on a different planet. She almost certainly hasn’t turned on the radio in years! We would certainly advise her to do so because she has already made a fool of herself?

From a rational standpoint, these clumsy, emotionally-based reactions eventually lead to a thought police mentality. Historically, the word negro was not controversial until the latter part of the twentieth century. Black intellectuals during the 1950s and onward had no problem with it whatsoever, and the word was properly used in scholarly and academic works.

Harold Cruse’s influential book is entitled The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual; Henry Allen Bullock’s ground-shaking work was named A History of Negro Education in the South. Claude McKay used phrases such as “Nigger Hell” in his widely-read Home to Harlem. Jewish writer Norman Mailer had a famous essay entitled “The White Negro,” and Norman Podhoretz wrote one entitled “My Negro Problem.”

None of those people could be characterized as racists, given the record of their dealings with blacks. Moreover, Cruse was a black professor at the University of Michigan; Bullock was a black historian and sociologist at the University of Texas; McKay was a Jamaican-American writer. The words “Negro” and “Nigger” were not born out of racism, but simply described the language and context of the time.

Knee-jerk reactions like Curtis’s do not invite rational discussion, but, as Schlessinger rightly put it, merely display “hyper-sensitivity.” We need to grow up. We just can’t remain children for years.

As we have stated over and over, we need to use a universal system based on the moral law, not on what some groups have decided to believe. If we are going to enforce a law, then every single American has to abide by it. If certain principles can only be applied to certain people, then what kind of society do we want to build?

We will never make progress until we come to grip with this basic fact.


  • [1] For similar reports, see Bernard Avishai, “Netanyahu and the Republicans,” New Yorker, February 4, 2015.
  • [2] Mary C. Curtis, “Dr. Laura’s Rant on Race Begs the Question: Just who Needs a Doctor?” Politics Daily, retrieved August 19, 2010.
  • [3] Ibid.

Biography
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He is currently working on a book tentatively titled, Kevin MacDonald’s Abject Failure: A Philosophical and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and White Identity. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.
ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

15 COMMENTS

  1. You’ve missed the point altogether, you wrote a sentence that described a certain mindset and I pointed out that it was exactly the same as the Crowley Satanist theology. Point being, the two are the same and both indicate the same thing – a certain psychopathy/sociopathy within the mind of the person. Reich was describing this in other people, Crowley was espousing it as religious teaching.

  2. What you described is Crowley’s theology to a tee – the principle of do whatever you want, regardless of the consequences to others and society. You can call it psychopathy, sociopathy, any term you want, but it’s exactly what Crowley and the Satanists espoused.

  3. That’s a satanic principle you’re talking about, Crowley expressed it as ‘do as thou will” It is the route to one’s ‘inner beast’ and why satanists practice dehumanising rituals involving all kinds of sexual perversions normal people would find abhorrent.

  4. Or the n-word has been privatized to those few, who print the money from thin air. Then they’ll give the permission to some to use it. Sounds like slavery word to me with exception to the past days, that whites are at the same side of the fence as n:s.

  5. It’s an allowable defence when interwoven with “black anger”. They learn from childhood to use it against people to beat them up. Sometimes even weeks after the alleged event. Saw it used in my former neighbourhood (Delmas Terrace in West Los Angeles, Palms area) many times. Including when a person walked up to another’s apartment and shot them dead in the chest when they opened the door.

  6. Wheb one segment of the population can use the word niggar and the other can’t, You have a failed country…

  7. Law , and enforcement, are two completely different things. It is folly to imagine an entire population simultaneously following any law. So, the judges make examples, as deterrent. In some ways, companies have a moral obligation and civic duty to deal with societal stability at a pre-law enforcement level. Let’s keep getting them fired, so we don’t have to arrest people for words. Making public examples of racists is good for society, especially here in the US. It is an appropriate application of enforcement. Racism is cowardly ignorance.
    What actually exists, in non-cyber life, the one where people actually interact, is where the enforcement and examples are made. Since Trump, there is no question that a large amount of people need to know, it is not ok to be racist. It isn’t about the word, it’s the usage. Veterans should know, freedom means being able to walk around unmolested, among many other things.

    • The comedian in this case, should be given an award for Meritorious Civic duty. We can pound our key boards along side a million others, trying to tell the people how idiotic some of these elected officials are, and not come close to being as effective as the technique dude is using. It is brilliant. This particular case, where the guy drops trow, displays what these christian-zionists are willing to do, if they think they are talking to a Mossad member. Dude gets a medal. How many more Spencer’s do we have ?

    • David, if someone was born black, that’s the way it is then. If someone was born stupid, the same thing. Even then, when the criminal level of stupidity was exceed and decision to join Catholic Church was made. You say mocking blacks is coward ignorance, but on the other hand, You spend most of the time here mockin Catholics and how stupid they are. Don’t You think that is double standard. If You got double, You got nothing at all, just copy paste stuff from others.

    • JL, No it is not a double standard. One is oppressing a person due to looks or race , and a person is who they are and it is not a lie. If a priest brings me a book, I look at it, and if I find it is wrong, then I look to see if people understand this. If they do not understand, then I still say nothing. If they do not understand and then cause harm due to the lack of understanding, then I speak up. It’s called civic duty. If the priests themselves admit the book is made up, then why would I be different, if I say it in public. I will tell you, there are christian priests who agree with everything I say in regards to the historical veracity of the text, because they were taught this. You could say it is a public secret. Race has nothing to do with religion. A byproduct of religion, is prevention of knowledge.

  8. Isn’t this issue a trivial distraction when at the same time international criminal gangsters in Israel are murdering innocent Palestinians, stealing their lands, forcing them from their homes and generally terrorizing them while the whores in our Congress look the other way and hob nob with their friends in Israel while many of them are dual citizens of Israel too. Isn’t it a conflict of interest to be a citizen of another country while serving as a member of Congress of the U.S.? If not illegal shouldn’t this dishonorable practice be obviously shunned and avoided without having to tell the member of Congress that it is morally and ethically and should be legally wrong? America is moving quickly now backward toward the dark ages, censoring information left and right, while the whores in Congress pass illegal and unconstitutional acts called “Patriot” which rub our faces in feces. Shame on them. Wake up folks. Whores called lawyers are stealing your country from you.

  9. Well, as for Russia – since old times we call Arfican people negros (негр). And it has polite meaning without any negative shade. Origin is a negroid race for black skinned people from Africa. If you say Black man (черный человек) – no one will understand what you are talking about. Vice versa, the meaning Black will mean (dark, negative, bad,etc) for a person.
    But even i wouldn’t like to be as Bruce Willis from “Die hard”, naked, in the blacks block of a city, with a motto against negros. Because i would sooner fall down shot to death without opportunity to explain that it is OK in Russia to call them so and i’m a polite snowflake : )

  10. Dave Chapelle’s skit on a family with the last name a common racial slur was a humorous way of taking some of the starch out of the N word. Its use in art and music is borderline tolerable. Its use to hurt is not tolerated in polite society. Context means a lot when it comes to certain words. some folks exhibit restraint solely to keep from being punched in the head. Others are just simply kind. We can use a few more of the later type of people.

Comments are closed.