Get Weird Capital

Some examples where Whites do not use words with their dictionary meanings:

All-American / American / British / Canadian, etc – White people.

ghetto (adj) – said of Black culture not approved by Whites.

cool (adj) – said of Black culture approved by Whites.

urban – Black.

inner city – scary Black neighbourhoods.

War on Drugs – War on Black People.

War on Terror – War of Terror.

nation building – nation destroying.

the police are just doing their job – the police are just terrorizing Black people.

let the process work – let the police get away with murder.

wait till the facts are in – wait till the police investigate themselves.

soft on crime – not keeping Blacks in their place.

Black-on-Black crime / just obey the law – police brutality is not a big deal.

no angel / no saint – deserved to be brutalized by police.

savages / terrorists / thugs – non-Whites who stand up to White violence seen as immoral.

thug – 1. The N-word. 2. Blacks as naturally violent. 3. Deserved to die for being Black.

native / savage – someone whose land is being stolen.

settler / pioneer / colonist – someone who is stealing land.

terrorist – 1. A Muslim who kills White people. 2. A non-state actor who uses violence to oppose Western interests.

freedom fighter – a non-state actor who uses violence to further Western interests.

freedom – freedom for White men.

the free world – the American empire.

regime – an anti-American government.

democracy – a pro-American government.

spreading democracy – American imperialism. See democracy.

justice system – injustice system.

progress – that which furthers White or US (business) interests.

truth / myth / history – as determined by White universities and the White press.

racist – 1. Someone who uses the N-word or joins the Klan. 2. A Black person who points out White racism.

whitey – a racist slur about Whites used to put down Blacks by putting it in their mouths to make them seem racist.

Some of my best friends are Black / it was just a joke / I’m not racist, but … – do not call out my racism.

sorry – sorry that you are oversensitive.

playing the race card / Martin Luther King / get over it – shut up, racism does not affect me so I do not care.

hard-working Americans / taxpayers – White people. Blacks are lazy.

gated community / nice neighbourhood / a good place to raise kids – a racist, lily-White neighbourhood.

proper English – White English, especially as a sign of intelligence and education as measured by standardized tests.

No problemo – improper Spanish, not as a sign of lacking intelligence, but of not being (ew) Mexican.

Where are you really from? – You are not really American, Canadian, etc.

You are pretty for a Black girl – White women are the standard of beauty.

You’re not like other Blacks – most of what I know about Black people comes from television and racist Whites.

I don’t see you as Black – Black people make me uncomfortable.

Group 1: The richest of the rich are in charge. They aren’t Republicans, they aren’t Libertarians… they are Privileged Plutocrats.

Group 2: The poorest of the poor. They aren’t Democrats, they aren’t Blue-collar Republicans. They don’t have the luxury of time (and, often education) to think about politics. They are simply trying to survive. And, they are likely homeless, children, people of color, or undocumented immigrants.

Then there’s “the rest of us:” Democrats, Republican, Independents, and an entire horde of political movement “wanna-be”s from The Tea Party to The Green Party.

“The rest of us” are actually split into two groups (with a few exceptions) who have all bought into the narrative the Plutocrats and their hired political and mass media henchmen have been selling us. When it comes right down to it, we are well divided down the middle: those who like what the current President (Clinton, Bush, and Obama) is doing, and those who don’t. “Us” verses “them.”

Group 3: Us.

Group 4: Them.

April 24, 1955: Heads of state of African and Asian nations convene at the Bandung Conference.

Sixty years ago in Bandung, Indonesia, representatives from twenty-nine countries across Asia and Africa gathered to discuss their collective future in the turmoil of the Cold War and in the aftermath of, for many of these nations, the end of formal colonialism. Its principal organizers were Indonesia, Burma, Pakistan, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and India. Also present were colossal figures of Third World decolonization and anti-imperialist efforts, to name a few: Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Ho Chi Minh and Nguyen Thi Binh, Nelson Mandela, Ben Bella, U Nu, and Indonesia’s own Sukarno. China’s exuberant Zhou Enlai was also present at the conference, where he alternately worried and placated other leaders about his country’s intentions. 

Many of these leaders and the populations they claimed to represent constituted the whole of the national social and class hierarchy - that broad spectrum included the interests of the wealthy bourgeoisie, the peasants, the workers, the landlords and industrial elites. Even across those countries that gathered in Bandung, often the only common factor was a shared history of colonialism and anticolonialist struggle. Their leaders included self-described Marxists and conservatives and all else in between. Sukarno acknowledged this when he declared that the countries were united not by “skins” or “religion” but by “a common detestation of colonialism in whatever form it appears… by a common determination to preserve and stabilize peace in the world.” Their principal goals, it was decided, would be to promote universal human rights and national sovereignty, to combat neocolonialism, to replace war, arms proliferation, and coercion with peaceful arbitration as the principal means of international intercourse. There were also considerations of spurring economic development and attaining economic independence through coordination.  

The United States, naturally wary of a conference of Third World leaders with an independent agenda, did not officially send a representative. Adam Clayton Powell, a black representative in the U.S. Congress, was in attendance against the advice of the State Department. He noted that the conference was “anti-American foreign policy” and that it would “become an anti-white movement unless a narrow-minded and unskilled American foreign policy is revised.” Another American, Richard Wright, was in attendance; in 1956 he published The Color Curtain, an account of the conference, and observed:

What had these nations in common? Nothing, it seemed to me, but what their past relationship to the Western world had made them feel. This meeting of the rejected was in itself a kind of judgment upon the Western world.