Willis Hart, Rothbardian Libertarian tRump Supporter

So, Libertarians AREN'T racist? They just support enabling racism? Because... freedom?

Hmmm, Willis Hart identifies as a Rothbardian Libertarian? Why does Willis specifically identify as "Rothbardian" as opposed to just a "regular" Libertarian?

So I looked up Murray Rothbard and found that he "was a racist, and believed in the voluntary separation of the races".

Wikipedia/Murray Rothbard. Murray Newton Rothbard (3/2/1926 to 1//7/1995) was an American economist of the Austrian School, economic historian, political theorist, and activist. Rothbard was a central figure in the 20th-century American libertarian movement and a founder and leading theoretician of anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard opposed egalitarianism and the civil rights movement, and blamed women's voting and activism for the growth of the welfare state. Later in his career, Rothbard advocated a libertarian alliance with paleoconservatism (which he called paleolibertarianism), favoring right-wing populism and defending David Duke. In the 2010s, he received renewed attention as an influence on the alt-right.

Yeah, Rothbard sounds like a great guy. If you ignore the fact that he was a racist. Why the Hartster identifies with his brand of libertarianism? It just makes so much sense to him. I mean, everyone knows that the races shouldn't be mixing, right? That makes sense, economically, yes?

Wikipedia also notes that Rothbard thought Ayn Rand's Novel "Atlas Shrugged" was "not merely the greatest novel ever written, [but] one of the very greatest books ever written, fiction or nonfiction". Though he later had a falling out with her. Though not over his belief that allowing women to vote was a bad idea, apparently.

Given that Rand was also a misogynist. A woman that wished she had been born a man? I mean, the hero in another of her books, "The Fountainhead" was a powerful man who took what he wanted. Including a woman he wanted, who he raped. And the woman (as written by Rand) liked being raped. It wasn't really rape, since she welcomed it.

Willis Hart is a rape skeptic. Meaning, he thinks women often lie about getting raped. They decide to have sex with a guy, then later (after the sex) change their minds and cry "rape". They WANTED it at the time but later regretted it. And (for some reason) decided to try and ruin the innocent guy's life.

Does that sound plausible? Maybe it happens. But as frequently as Willis seems to think? No. Absolutely not. I think that (far more often) a guy thinks a drunk woman "consented" when she didn't. But it's the woman's fault, of course. In fact, maybe SHE raped him (if he was also drunk)?

But back to Rothband... he defended David Duke? And, "in the 2010s, he received renewed attention as an influence on the alt-right"? You don't say. Makes sense. One racist defends another racist. Alt-Right racists take cues from another racist. Could be why Willis Hart specifically identifies as a Rothbardian racist, I mean Libertarian. You think?

 OST #226 @ 

Bigotry From Clueless White Guy Based On Said Cluelessness

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is a bigoted and clueless White guy who loathes the Black Lives Matter movement. According to Mr. Hart BLM is "vile, vulgar, and slimy" and African Americans who agree with the BLM movement are "belly-achers".

So, no surprise that he feels the same way about the Hispanic organization La Raza (AKA the National Council of La Raza, which is now known as UnidosUS).

Willis Hart: On La Raza... It means, the race. THE RACE; a proclamation that if a white group had made it would have been excoriated 24/7. And Hispanic isn't even a fucking race, for Christ (Mexicans for example are 20% European, 20% Native-American, and 60% Mestizo)!! I mean, hello!! (10/23/2017 at 6:19pm).

Wrong. La Raza does not directly translate to "the race". Well, it is "often translated into English as race", but there is more meaning behind the term. "La Raza" isn't simply and just about race. It's actually not about race at all, because (as Willis correctly points out) Mexican isn't a race.

The Spanish term raza translates as "race" or "people", Spanish raza having the meaning of "race, ethnicity; breed, strain, lineage". The term originated in the 1925 book, La Raza Cósmica (English: The Cosmic Race) by the Mexican writer José Vasconcelos. He described la Raza Cósmica as the product of gradual racial mixing that was already underway in the Latin world. Vasconcelos believed that eventually all of the people within the former Spanish Empire would be completely mixed into a new race. The term expresses ethnic or racial pride. (Wikipedia/La Raza).

Note that the originator of the term said "La Raza" is "the product of gradual racial mixing". Does Willis know this? Obviously not. He makes an assumption and gets outraged based on his (incorrect) assumption. BTW, you might also have noted that "The term expresses ethnic or racial pride", which is something else that would very likely cause Hart's blood to boil.

Why is it that non-Whites can have "racial pride" but Whites can't, Hart wonders. His conclusion (I'd bet) is that it's non-White people who are racist (more so than Whites). But the TRUTH is that, when White people say you're inferior (which is what happened here and in Mexico) it isn't racist to try and counter that.

Oh, and yes, there is racism in Mexico.

The enduring taboo subject [in Mexico] is skin color, whether an individual's complexion betrays an allegiance to the Spanish who conquered the Aztec empire in 1521 or the Aztecs who were conquered. It's no exaggeration to say that, in this country and especially in this city [Mexico City], the best, highest-paying, most important jobs often seem to go to those who, in addition to having the best education and the strongest connections, have the lightest skin. (In Mexico, racism hides in plain view by Ruben Navarrette Jr., CNN Contributor. 11/20/2012).

That an oppressed people form an organization to spread pride is a NATURAL reaction. A White group HAS made such a proclamation, btw. These groups are known as the KKK, Neo Nazis and White Nationalists. They're racists because White people haven't been oppressed!! Not on this continent, in any case. A FACT that the clueless Hartster ignores. If Whites had been oppressed and their taking pride in their race was a push-back against that oppression, the situation would be different. BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN.

When a race that has been historically the perpetrators of oppression takes pride in their race, it's because they're racists. It's because they LIKE the fact that they are members of the oppressor class. Despite their BULLSHIT cries of "reverse racism" and insistence that it's Black and Brown people who are the "real racists".

Willis Hart is one of these people, btw. He is a racist and a bigot in addition to being a clueless White guy. The (deliberate?) cluelessness and racism seemingly go hand-in-hand with these types. Hard to believe he isn't a Trump voter. A Trump defender, yes, but not a Trump voter.

OST #213

Racist Scumbag Blogger Outraged At People Protesting KKK & Nazis!

Sometimes you just have to shake your head in disbelief. Like when the racist-in-chief insisted that (in regards to the events in Charlottesville) both sides were to blame. And that, on the Nazi/KKK side, there were some "very fine people".

Sentiment the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart apparently is in agreement with. Although he, unlike Trump, never even said that Nazis and KKKers were in the wrong (I refer to Trump's 2nd scripted and reluctantly read statement). Because ALL Hart's outrage is directed at the people protesting racism.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Hordes of Young, Lost, Stupid, Illiberal, and Fully Indoctrinated College Students Apparently Think that by Shouting People Down, Tearing Down Statues, and Calling Anyone Who Disagrees with Them a Nazi or a Racist, They Are Somehow Putting On Display Virtue and Moral Superiority. Not a legacy that I'd be proud of and I seriously doubt that down the road they'll be proud of it, either (those that ultimately develop critical thinking skills, I'm saying). (9/9/2017 at 8:28am).

Why shouldn't people carrying Nazi and Confederate rebel flags be called a Nazis or a racists? They're carrying the flags, so they're OBVIOUSLY self-identifying as such. Also, WTF is wrong with speaking out against these things? If people have the free speech right to protest the removal of statues honoring traitors, surely other people (non racists) have the right to counter-protest? Apparently the Hartster believes they do not.

BTW, all these Confederate statues were NOT erected immediately following the end of the Civil war (1865), but during the Jim Crow/KKK-ascendant era (1900-1910), and then again (more monuments built) during the Civil Rights era (1955-1960). Obviously the point of the statues was not to "honor our history" but as a message to African Americans. "We liked it when you were slaves and don't be getting it into your heads that you're in any way equal" is what these statues are meant to say to Black people.

They were built to "to physically symbolize white terror against blacks" (the phrase used by the author of the 8/15/2017 Mother Jones article "The Real Story Behind All Those Confederate Statues").

It's long past time for these monuments to White superiority to go. We need to get rid of them. The people who want to keep them (people who took to the streets chanting "Blood and Soil") are the illiberal ones. They are narrow minded and bigoted. As are the people who support them (Willis Hart and his ilk). They are incredibly illiberal.

The counter-protesting "hordes" aren't putting on a "display of virtue and moral superiority" (to make themselves feel good about themselves, I guess)... they are counter-protesting because they are genuinely outraged. They are also in disbelief that this shit is still an issue in 2017 (I know I am, at least). But to Willis Hart it's "indoctrination"... to not be a racist! Or tolerant of racists, at least. Some of them are "very fine people", after all.

For the record, I am ANGRY that Trump is emboldening the "Alt-Right". Everyone who doesn't lack critical thinking skills should be. Because racism is STUPID. And people who think that the rest of us should sit back and say nothing because chanting "Jews will not replace us" while marching and carrying Nazi and Confederate rebel flags is free speech... these are the people lacking virtue and morals! Because they stand with the Nazis and "slavery was cool" enthusiasts.

As for why Willis Hart stands with racists and against people protesting racism... obviously it is because he is a racist and a bigot himself. I mean, condemning racism is an easy one. Although it's a test the so-called president also failed. Explaining why Willis is still writing screeds about how horrible Hillary Clinton is. And is largely silent about Donald Trump. Except to criticize people who don't like Donald Trump.

And (can you believe it?) he also blames the Left for these racist scumbags crawling out from under their rocks to march and protest in public! "What do you expect" he says. What with the Left "slandering" Whites as racist (HRC's whole "deplorables" comment, etc). Telling the truth, in other words. Un-f*cking believable! Although perhaps not so much, given the fact that Willis actually authored a pro-KKK post.

OST #211

On Willis Hart's Belief That Blacks (Circa The Lincoln Presidency) Were Thankful For The Free Boat Ride To America (How Their Ancestors Got Here)

Apparently this is something the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart agrees with Pat Buchannon on. That a "free boat ride" to America was something slaves should have been (Buchanan) - or actually were (Hart) - grateful for.

Willis Hart: On the Strong Possibility that a Large Chunk of the Blacks that Lincoln, Beecher-Stowe, Stevens, and the Rest of the Colonization Crowd Wanted to Deep-Six Back to Africa Would Have Been Re-Enslaved by the Far More Virulent African Slavers and Worked to Death... Yeah, Lincoln and company didn't seem all that concerned (as long as the black folks were gone, I guess). (4/16/2017 at 11:26am).

So, I guess Hart has never heard of Liberia? A country in Africa that "began as a settlement of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who believed blacks would face better chances for freedom in Africa than in the United States". This was a country that "declared its independence on 7/26/1847", which was before the beginning of the Civil War. Former slaves journeying to Liberia didn't go there to be re-enslaved, as far as I know.

And, for the record, Lincoln was a supporter of VOLUNTARY colonization (resettling freed Blacks outside the United States, including in Liberia). Although to hear Willis tell it the resettlement was involuntary ("deep-six back to Africa").

Obviously, given these two facts, the Hartster's post is pure bullshit. Free Blacks returning to Africa (which some did) were not re-enslaved by "the far more virulent African slavers". Nor was any free Black "deep sixed" (sent back to Africa involuntarily). Or, I'm not aware of any large scale effort to send any Black person back to Africa against their will.

Wikipedia/Abraham Lincoln and slavery: Lincoln pursued various plans to voluntarily colonize free blacks outside the United States, but none of these had a major effect. ...he firmly opposed compulsory colonization... Historians disagree over whether or not his plans to colonize blacks were sincere or political posturing. Regardless, by the end of his life, Lincoln had come to support black suffrage. ... In his second term as president, on April 11, 1865, Lincoln gave a speech in which he promoted voting rights for blacks.

It was because "Lincoln in 1865 firmly denied that racial harmony would be possible in the United States" that he supported colonization. As opposed to wanting to "deep six" Blacks back to Africa because he hated them. He just didn't see a future in which Whites and Blacks lived together in harmony.

Clearly Hart's intense hatred for Abe Lincoln is the driving force behind all his posts about how horrible our 16th president was. Not any anti-racist sentiments. Ironic, given the fact that (on 9/23/2011) Willis wrote that Abe occupied the number 1 slot on the list of "Greatest Presidents in U.S. History" (OST #130).

Also ironic given the fact that Hart is himself quite racist. In fact - what he writes about how horrible it would be for Blacks returning to Africa - sounds to me a LOT like what Pat Buchanan wrote about African Americans who are Americans as a result of their ancestors being kidnapped and brought here as slaves.

Pat Buchanan: First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American. (A Brief for Whitey by Pat Buchanan. Patrick J. Buchanan Official Website, 3/21/2008).

This was a post Buchanan wrote in response to President Obama's 3/18/2008 A More Perfect Union speech ("Wright" is a reference to Barack Obama's preacher, Jeremiah Wright). A commentary that many have interpreted as Buchanan telling descendents of slaves in America that they should be saying "thanks for the free boat ride" their ancestors got (despite the fact that "about 12.5 percent of slaves transported died in the Middle Passage, 4.5 percent died on shore before the date of sale, and one-third died in the process of acclimating to the Americas - a total mortality of about 50 percent").

[Pat Buchanan's commentary said] In essence: Be grateful to God (with his beautiful, piercing blue eyes) that we offered you a free boat ride to paradise, you Black savages. (Re: A Brief for Whitey by Michael Arceneaux, 3/25/2008).

America is a paradise that Blacks would not want to leave - AKA be "deep-sixed" to an African hell where they would be worked to death? That sounds a LOT to me like "thanks for the free boat ride". "Thanks for the free boat ride to paradise. I don't want to go back". Even though some did.

But (in the Hartster's mind) Lincoln wanted them gone (and didn't care what happened to them after they were forcibly resettled), because he (Lincoln) was so racist. As opposed to Hart being the racist. Which isn't to say that I agree with re-colonization or resettlement of Blacks. Regardless of how they got here, they had been here for multiple generations (at this point) and this was (and is) their country as well.

I just don't believe that Lincoln's belief/worry that there could never be racial harmony is proof of intense racism. And that Lincoln just wanted Blacks gone and was therefore quite willing to "deep-six" them to an African hell. Hart's guesses are all completely wrong. Or largely wrong. I mean, given the fact that Libera existed at the time and some free Blacks had already left America to return to Africa.

And there is the fact that this idea of Blacks leaving America en masse never really went anywhere. So why the obsession? Just something to bash Lincoln over, I guess.

OST #205

So, Willis Hart Is A Nazi Now?

Is the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart a Nazi? I ask the question because of the fact that he advocates for a White homeland for a "dispossessed white race". Also because he calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" of the United States.

OK, so it's actually the American Nazi Richard Spencer who wants a "peaceful" ethnic cleansing in order to make the USA a White Homeland, and not Willis Hart. But Willis absolutely does articulate very similar thoughts on his blog.

Like in this post, for example.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Even Though the Modern Nation-State Was Largely Brought About by a Common Ethnicity, Language, and Culture and the Overwhelming Evidence Is that Ethnocentric Societies Tend to Perform Much Better In Terms of Social Cohesion, the Mainstream Narrative Continues to Be One of Pushing for Diversity and Multiculturalism with Diversity Invariably Being Seen as a Strength. (2/24/2017 at 9:53pm).

Surely sounds to me like he thinks separating the races is the way to go [1]. Just like the Nazi Richard Spencer. Someone Willis INSISTS, btw, is not a Nazi (OST #195). Fact is, the Hartster sez it's "unreal" to suggest Spencer is a Nazi.

That's despite statements such as the following (re DJT being installed as BLOTUS).

In the same speech Spencer went on to praise Trump for reminding us of what makes "the White race truly unique and truly wonderful". Something (the wonderfulness of Whitey AKA "Western Civilization") WTNPH pontificates on in the following commentary.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Even Though Western Civilization Has Given the World Science, Liberal Democracy, the Rule of Law, Equality Before the Law, Freedom of Thought and Expression, the Universal Concept of Human Rights, the Separation of Church and State, Economic Liberalization, etc., etc., the Leftists Continue to Denigrate it While Simultaneously Giving Non-Western Cultures a Total Free-Pass. And we're the only culture that engages in this form of pathological altruism and self-criticism. Why is that, I wonder? P.S. And, no, I'm not saying that we haven't done some bad things, just that every other society has as well and that these folks never get criticized (African slavery, for example, having been infinitely worse than Southern Victorian slavery and yet zero criticism) it seems. (2/23/2017 at 9:57pm).

More Richard-Spencer-White-Nationalist-type rhetoric, I think. i.e. Whites are superior [2]. No wonder a (correct) reference to Spencer as a Nazi offends Willis so. They are of a like mind (i.e. they are both Nazis). Or one is a Nazi (Spencer) and the other (Hart) is sounding more and more like a Nazi every day. Even if he isn't a Nazi, he surely is a racist. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever.

For the record, I am NOT referring to Hart's "new" definition for a Nazi, which is (he sez) "anyone to the right of Jane Fonda bat-shit crazy".

Nazis (as per Wikipedia) believe in "racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism" and that White people belong to a "master race". Under this definition Richard Spencer is a Nazi. And Willis Hart, who apparently agrees with him (as per the posts I cite above) is also a Nazi. Or Nazi-ish, at the very least.

Notes
[1] Nazism "aimed to overcome social divisions and create a homogeneous society, unified on the basis of racial purity".
[2] "In its racial categorisation, Nazism viewed what it called the Aryan race as the master race of the world - a race that was superior to all other races".

OST #197

On The Racist Blogger Willis Hart Referring To African American Public Figures As "Mildly Retarded"

The Libertarian biggot Willis Hart previously has used the racist term "minstrel" to refer to African American public figures he hates (SWTD #281). Now a new one. Instead of being "minstrels" they are "mildly retarded.

First it was Congresswoman Maxine Waters, then the academic, journalist, author, activist, and television personality, Marc Lamont Hill.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Mildly Retarded (and, Yes, I Realize that They're Using a Different Term Now - SUE ME!!) Congresswoman, Maxine Waters (Who for Some Strange Reason Continues to Get a Microphone Placed In Front of Her), Appeared on MSNBC the Other Night and Essentially Accused the Trump Campaign of Colluding with the Russian Government and Really Didn't Endure All that Much Push-Back as the Result of it... I'll take, "Yet Another Example of 'Fake News' that You Can't Blame on Alex Jones, Breitbart, etc.", for a thousand, Alex (the other one). (1/18/2017 at 5:22pm). Willis Hart: Note to the Mildly Retarded and Racist Demagogue, Marc Lamont Hill... Hey dude, you don't need "institutional power" to violently attack somebody and the proof of that is that when you control for population, a black person is nearly 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. [blah, blah, blah] ...REALLY, want to help black folks, SHUT THE FUCK UP!! (1/24/2017 at 6:04pm).

"Yes, I realize that they're using a different term now", Willis sez, referring to him using the word "retarded" as opposed to "intellectually challenged". He knows it's offensive, but uses it anyway ("sue me" is his response). But what about the FACT that neither Maxine Waters nor Marc Lamont Hill are retarded AT ALL? Mildly or otherwise. In fact both of their bios prove that they are both accomplished and intelligent.

So the real reason why they are "mildly retarded" is that Willis disagrees with their political opinions. Maxine Waters said "if there was collusion with Russia, Trump committed impeachable offense"... OH, NO! How dare she question Trump's legitimacy? No wonder Willis is offended.

Marc Lamont Hill says "black people don't have the institutional power to be racist or to deploy racism" (a statement I agree with, btw. See SWTD #195) and Willis loses his shizzle because Barack Obama (a Black man) served as POTUS #44. Because one minority president out of 45 means racism is over. And this we know for a fact because the BLOTUS AKA #45 is the least racist White guy ever "elected" (and yes, I mean that sarcastically).

Oh, and Wills trots out the Black on White violence stats (as he has several times previously), why? WTF do these stats have to do with African Americans lacking institutional power? Absolutely nothing, that's what (he cites them because he is a racist).

Anyway, using the term "retarded" as an insult (regardless of whether or not the word "mildly" is placed before it) is offensive and bigoted. Offensive to (Willis') African American targets and to offensive to, and bigoted against, intellectually challenged persons. And there is the fact that both of the persons in question are NOT intellectually challenged! Although they are both Black. And I doubt Willis will ever refer to a White person as "mildly retarded". He might, but he has not so far.

I'm thinking "mildly retarded" is similar to "minstrel"... which is clearly a replacement for the n-word. Note that he had to throw in there HOW INCREDIBLY VIOLENT these Black animals are. We already knew he was a racist, now he proves he's also bigoted against intellectually challenged people.

Image: Intelligence by race in the Harster's view? And yes, he writes posts about how Asians are smarter... and he thinks that's proof he isn't racist. When Asians being smarter and Blacks dumber is the racist view... from a comment thread on StormFront (The Bell Curve & European IQ versus Asian IQ) "Asians as a group have a higher IQ than we do".

OST #192

Hartbart, The Alt-Right "News" Fool

Looks like the Libertarian idiot Willis Hart has been taken in by BS propagated by the White Nationalist "news" source Breitbart. This would be the website run/ran by the anti-semite Steve Bannon. The guy incoming "president" Donald Trump tapped to be his closest advisor.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that We Actually Live in a World Now in Which, "I'm White but I Identify as Black", Is Taken Not with a Grain of Salt but Seriously... I guess that they just weren't down with all of that "white privilege". And how far can we take this shit? I mean, can I go down to the avenue tomorrow and scream, "Stella, Stella!!", and when the coppers come over to me I can tell 'em, "Yes, I'm Will Hart but I identify with Stanley Kowalski"? Please, please, give me some parameters here. (1/8/2017 AT 10:00pm).

The following images were attached to the Hartster's post. The pictures are of two people who allegedly are White but identify as Black.

Rachel Dolezal (the person in the first picture) is a White woman who identifies as Black. While she did initially claim to be Black, she was outed by her parents (two White people). Later she said "I acknowledge that I was biologically born white to white parents, but I identify as black". I don't know what her deal is and I don't care. This story is from June 2015. She will likely never be heard from again. At least as far as the national news is concerned.

Shaun King (the person in the 2nd photo) is biracial. He is "the senior justice writer for the New York Daily News, and a political commentator for The Young Turks" as well as a Black Lives Matter activist (quoted from Wikipedia). Shaun was supposedly "outed" by Breitbart as White.

Shaun King (unlike Rachel Dolezal) says Breitbart has their info wrong. Breitbart says King's parents are both White (while King has said his father is a light-skinned Black man). Also, that a police report from 1995 lists his race as White (the reason for the report was that King was assaulted).

King's response is that his mother had an affair with a Black man, and that the officer listed him as White because there was no box to check for bi-racial. According to the officer "I believe that he's biracial. I could just tell when I saw him. I marked him white because he's very light complected. He was there with his white mother. My crime report there's only two things you can check: black or white. It doesn't say biracial... anyone from around here who knew him knew he was mixed".

So Willis is wrong. King does not "identify" as Black, he actually is Black. Or bi-racial. At least he has not admitted he is actually White like Dolezal, so saying these are two people who identify as Black is blaoney. Surely as far as Hart's stupid post goes. Because King has NEVER said "I'm White but identify as Black".

Although Willis takes Breitbart's "reporting" as gospel. They said, he believes it. Shaun King is a White guy who identifies as Black. BTW, my info comes from a 8/19/2015 Snopes article. August 2015, or 16 months ago.

King has NOT since resigned/quit the Black lives matter movement, as Rachel Dolezal quit her NAACP job. The story obviously went nowhere. Because the facts are as Shaun King lays them out, would be my guess. I mean, Dolezal's story didn't hold up and she admitted the truth.

Something that has NOT happened in regards to King. Given that, my opinion is that someone identifying as Black BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK is logical. Also, Willis Hart is a fool for Alt-Right "news".

BTW, notice that he puts "White Privilege" in quotes. It's because he doesn't believe it is a real thing. Because he is a racist. Black people aren't discriminated against, they're just bellyachers!

OST #190

How Often Does Willis Hart Don His White Robes With The Pointy Hood & Attend Cross Burnings?

Not a picture of the racist Libertarian blogger Willis Hart getting together with a few friends, but an image depicting what such a gathering might look like.

So, while the truth is that Willis probably never dons a white robe and pointy hood, I believe it is possible he does. Although it's more likely he is simply a racist who denies his racism. As most racists do.

Which does not mean he isn't a racist. Further proof of Hart's virulent racism include recent commentaries in which he states that the Congressional Black Caucus is "the tool of white leftists", that crime comitted by Black people is due to their "culture", and that (in regards to Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon being a White Nationalist and Breitbart News being a platform for the Alt-Right), there is "nuance to the subject".

These are exact quotes/exactly what he wrote. Horribly racist crap. But, as I've discussed on this blog before, Willis is a big consumer of Alt-Right media (OST #176). This was the commentary ("How Much Alt-Right Media Does Willis Hart Consume?") in which I discussed the fact that Willis is a big fan of Colin Flaherty, a fellow virulent racist.

Flaherty's life's work is writing and Youtubing about "black mob violence and black criminality". Willis blogs on this subject frequently (and has cited Flaherty in some of these posts). According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Flaherty has "allies in all the wrong places - racist cesspools like the hate forum Stormfront".

The racists who hang out on the StormFront site love Flaherty's writings, and I'm sure these racists would also love Willis Hart's blog. What do you think, me-buck?

In any case, there is no nuance to Steve Bannon's hate. I watched the video Willis directs people to watch (fast forward to 3:30, he says). The dude who blabbers on for over an hour (I only watched about a minute), Stefan Molyneux, puts forward a false equivalency argument (an argument the Hartster LOVES). Which is that Black Lives matter and Communists support the Left, and that is proof that BOTH SIDES have their "radical elements".

The WTNPH post in which he CLAIMS (non-existent) nuance is one in which he says Don Lemon of CNN either didn't do his research or had the goal of deceiving his viewers. OF COURSE! It couldn't be because Lemon disagrees with the bogus "both sides do it" argument, right? BTW, the Communist Party in the US is virtually non-existent [1]. They are a non-entity that nobody cares about (due to their being small and having ZERO political influence). Unlike the alt-Right, which is a little larger and now ENERGIZED and EMPOWERED by the Trump win. That's the difference, you racist Hart!!

Oh, and killing people is not a part of the Communist Party USA platform. I mention this because Willis points to all the people Communists killed in the USSR. But those murders were under a totalitarian dictator, not a leader carrying out promises he laid out beforehand as a part of the Communist Party Platform.

My point is that this is another false equivalency. Also, that the Communist Party of the United States has never, and will never, have power. They wouldn't have had any power under a B-S administration and they wouldn't have had any power under a HRC administration. Whereas they absolutely are going to have power under a Trump administration, you f*cking racist Hart!

And, Steve Bannon isn't the only racist Trump is hiring, either. There is also Jeff Sessions as AG and Michael Flynn as national security adviser. (Donald Trump Building Team of Racists, Daily Intelligencer article by Jonathan Chait).

Video: White Supremacists chant "hail Trump" while performing Hitler salutes at Alt-Right conference. Election of Trump a victory for "our people" says president of the Alt-Right National Policy Institute Richard Spencer at a gathering in the Ronald Reagan Building (Washington DC) on 11/19/2016 (2:10).

Footnote
[1] The Communist Party USA estimates it's membership to be 2,000 (Source). The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that there are 190 active KKK groups with between 5,000 and 8,000 Klan members in the U.S. (Source). The KKK, however, would be the hardcore racists. As for how large the Alt-Right is, Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance (a self-described "race-realist, white advocacy organization"), says it's "absolutely impossible to say" how large the movement is, but that "it is growing very rapidly, no question about that". He added that "I would say that there are millions of Americans who subscribe to the alt-right philosophies" (Source). So... 2k versus "millions". And they (the Alt-Righters) are convinced that Trump is their man, and not for no reason, but because Trump has courted them. As his appointments of Bannon, Sessions and Flynn proves.

OST #185

Who's Forcing Willis Hart To Listen To The Music Of Kanye West?

According to a 9/13/2016 commentary someone is forcing the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart to listen to music he doesn't like.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Both of These Performers Are Considered Musical Geniuses but as Anybody with Even a Scintilla of Gray-Matter Can Tell You, Only One of Them Is and it Isn't the Pecker-Head on the [Right]. And what a sad trajectory it's been, hey, folks (the fact that black music has gone from Miles Davis and Thelonious Monk to the cavalcade of miscreant hip-hop stars that we're presently forced to listen to)? (9/13/2016 AT 11:08pm).

Miles Davis (1926–1991) and Kanye West (dob 1977).

I don't listen to the music of either of these individuals. Nobody has ever attempted to force me to listen to either Miles Davis or Kanye West. For the record, I used to like Kanye West - due to his truth-telling concerning former preznit bush re Katrina.

...the rapper's first large-scale controversy came just days following Late Registration's release, during a benefit concert for Hurricane Katrina victims. In September 2005, NBC broadcast A Concert for Hurricane Relief, and West was a featured speaker. When West was presenting alongside actor Mike Myers, he deviated from the prepared script. Myers spoke next and continued to read the script. Once it was West's turn to speak again, he said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people". West's comment reached much of the United States, leading to mixed reactions; President Bush would later call it one of the most "disgusting moments" of his presidency.

Since then, however, he's done/said things that have changed my opinion of him. I believe I've heard some of his music - by way of him performing on Saturday Night Live. Although (as with almost every musical act that performs on SNL) I press the fast forward button on my DVR.

But Willis Hart not liking the music of Kanye West is (IMO) a typical case of someone who isn't young generally not liking newer music. But instead of admitting such is the case, the 60 year-old Hartster makes his dislike of Kanye's music a Black thing. Because he's a pecker-headed racist.

BTW, while I'm not familiar with Miles Davis, I suspect I'd prefer his music to that of Kanye West. But I wouldn't attribute this to Black music going from being good to a "cavalcade of miscreant hip-hop stars". First of all, there are White hip hop stars (something WTNPH is apparently unaware of), and secondly (and as I areadly pointed out), older generations generally don't like the music of younger generations.

Anyway, who is "forcing" him to listen to it? Black Lives Matter? Black coworkers or neighbors that Willis curses under his breath (possibly using the N-word)?

Video1: Terence Blanchard's "Levees". A cut from the 2008 album A Tale of God's Will (A Requiem for Katrina). A work by Blanchard (a BLACK artist) that came about when film director Spike Lee commissioned New Orleans native Blanchard to compose the score for his 2006 four-hour award-winning HBO documentary When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts (8:09).

Video2: A track from my favorite Terence Blanchard film score, 2001's The Caveman's Valentine (3:32).

OST #179

On Willis Hart (A Racist Piece Of Human Debris) Equating Killer Mike To David Duke

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is on a tear re the rapper Killer Mike (Michael Render) with the following two posts.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Killer Mike's Video in Which He Asks, "When You Niggas' Gon' Unite and Kill Those Police Mother-Fuckers?", Is Still Up on Youtube... I guess that it meets their "community standards". (9/15/2016 AT 9:46pm). Willis Hart: And Bernie Sanders Doesn't Have to Theorize as Why this Piece of Human Debris (the a Fore Mentioned Killer Mike) Is Supporting His Presidential Run. Why exactly? I mean, there couldn't possibly be a double-standard (Trump having to explain David Duke but Bernie and Hillary get a free-pass when it comes to some of their unsavory minions), could there? (9/16/2016 AT 3:04pm).

Killer Mike's father was a police officer. Wikipedia notes that "he has been vocal on the subject of police misconduct, his father being a former police officer". As for the rap song that Willis objects to, someone else brought this up to Killer Mike, and he replied (on Instagram).

Question: I just heard you on HBO talking about respecting police who deserve it and building community relations while condemning police brutality. Great to hear a public voice that understands what a complex situation, since extreme positions get the most play. So I decide to check out your catalog a little deeper and the first song is "let's unite and kill those police motherfuckers". Which message of yours do think will reach the most people? Which message is yours? Killer Mike: the song U heard was a story of a prison rebellion in which guards and an evil warden are being sought out by inmates to exact revenge. The line is actually to Crips, Bloods and other street Orgs and it said "when u Niggas gone Unite and kill the police mutha fuckers". So like any movie it's just fantasy. Deniro never killed anyone in Taxi Driver for real. love and respect. (Source).

He's not calling for the murder of police. Although it's likely Willis wouldn't believe it. But in his actual life (not song lyrics) Killer Mike calls people in marginalized communities to use their vote to enact change. To peacefully protest and to boycott businesses that aren't on the right side. He has never called for murdering police officers. (An Emotional Killer Mike Preaches Economic And Political Empowerment In The Face Of Police Brutality).

Oh, and that Killer Mike supported Bernie Sanders for president (a White Jew) kinda suggests an absence of racism. Unlike with David Duke. We all know he's a racist. That's why Bernie got a "pass", you idiot. So no "double standard".

BTW, Killer Mike is NOT supporting Bernie Sanders' presidential run. He supported it (past tense). Bernie Sanders isn't running any longer. Willis must have forgotten. Possibly due to an anoxic brain injury. Given the fact that Bernie Sanders dropping out is something NOBODY could possibly forget (also, "aforementioned" is one word, not three).

Anyway (for the record), I don't know Willis Hart in real life, so it's possible that referring to him as "human debris" is a bit harsh. On the other hand (given the racist nature of much of what he writes on his blog), using these two words to describe the Harster could be spot-on.

Image: Killer Mike cited Sanders' stance on the Voting Rights Act, health care, education and ending the war on drugs as reasons to vote for Bernie Sanders (excerpted from an 11/25/2015 HuffPo article by H.A. Goodman).

OST #178

How Much Alt-Right Media Does Willis Hart Consume?

First of all, what is the "alt Right"? The following via Wikipeida.

The alt-right is a segment of right-wing ideologies presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in the United States. It has been described as a movement unified by support for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, as well as by opposition to multiculturalism and immigration. The alt-right has no official ideology, although various sources have said that it is associated with white nationalism, white supremacism, antisemitism, right-wing populism, nativism, and the neoreactionary movement.

So, I do know that the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is a Colin Flaherty fan (both Colin and Willis are members of the "some of us" who are standing up to the tyranny of the Social Justice Warriors).

And Flaherty, as an author who has written a lot of books pumping base racism (fear of violent Black people), is a hardcore alt-Righter. Heidi Beirich, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center, points out that Flaherty has "allies in all the wrong places - racist cesspools like the hate forum Stormfront" (where they love his books and American Thinker articles). Add to that the blog "Contra O'Reilly" (the author of which has praised Flaherty more than once).

But, aside from the Flaherty posts, I (until recently) wasn't aware of just how much alt-Right media WTNPH consumes. By recently, I mean since Trump began running for president, hired the anti-semitic and racist Steve Bannon of Breitbart News as the "Chief Executive Officer" of the Trump campaign, and REALLY fired up the hardcore racists (David Duke: Trump's attacks on Muslims and illegal immigration have brought his own beliefs into the mainstream).

Re Bartbart, late night talk show host Stephen Colbert has said "if you haven't heard of Breitbart News, that means you do not have a racist uncle on Facebook". Racists being fans of Breitbart because, as Media Matters points out, it's the "leading outlet" for alt-Right news. The alt-Right being "a rebranding of classic white nationalism for the 21st century".

And Willis Hart believes it is "interesting".

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Breitbart.com Has Gone From an Interesting (Albeit Partisan) Alternative News-Site to What Is Now Essentially a Propaganda Mouthpiece for the Trump Campaign Well, being that their daily traffic has gone up 6-7 fold, I guess that it was a good decision, business-wise at least (and isn't that what it's all about these days; making big money while still being partisan?). (8/24/2016 AT 9:24am).

So Willis is disappointed that Breitbart has become "essentially a propaganda mouthpiece for the Trump campaign", but he was a fan previously. Because he found their take on the news "interesting". Breitbart's take being articles that appeal to White Nationalists.

But Breitbart isn't the only alt-right media that Willis consumes, apparently. As he reveals in this next post.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Alt-Right Radio Host, Kyle Hunt, Constantly Makes a Massive Deal Over the Fact that Five of the Past Six Fed Chairpersons Have Been Jewish (G. William Miller Being the Only Christian)... Well, being that all of the Presidents who've nominated them and 99% of the Congresspersons who've approved them HAVEN'T been Jews, methinks that Hunt might be riding some paranoia here (not surprising in that these clowns are always serving up one conspiracy or another with the term, Jewish bankers, always peppered throughout). (9/5/2016 AT 9:23pm).

OK, so it's criticism of an alt-Right radio host that is the subject of this post. But in said post Willis does reveal that he listens to alt-radio. Or I'm guessing he listens. Me, I've never heard of Kyle Hunt. Nor have I heard this incident mentioned on the news. So, that Willis heard Kyle say this while listening to alt-radio? It's a reasonable assumption to make, I think. Especially given the fact that he previously revealed that he is (or was) a Breitbart fan.

All of which caused me to wonder, just how much alt-media does WTNPH consume? My conclusion is that it's likely quite a bit. And I think he seeks it out because he agrees with the racist POV presented by alt-media outlets. Because he's a racist himself.

Video: Steven Bannon, while "Executive Chairman" of Breitbart News, said "we are the platform for the alt-right" (3:05).

9/7/2016 Update: I just noticed that WNTPH authored another commentary defending the horribly racist (but very like-minded) Colin Flaherty. Apparently YouTube suspended his account. Willis sez "Surprised? I'm not... the fact that Youtube is run by the same people who run Google and we all know how biased that those leftists are". "Biased", yeah, that's it. Biased against hardcore "alt-Right" racists. Which is a good thing, IMO.

OST #176

Willis Hart (A Racist Misogynist) Slams Al Gore For Suggesting African Women Should Be Empowered

Clearly the idea of empowering women seriously pisses off the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, as when Al Gore suggested that women should be empowered via education so that they can decide when and how many children they have, the creep's response was to fling lies at the former president.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Al Gore's Recent Calls for Population Control in Africa Sound Creepily Similar to the Lingo of Early 20th Century Eugenicists... [video: Al Gore on African population] As his segregationist father smiles down upon him, this creep. (8/26/2016 AT 11:10pm).

The video in which Al Gore calls for "population control" according to Willis Hart (0:50).

In the 50 second clip Al Gore says "I think that, the wonderful work that Bill and Melinda Gates are doing, for example, illustrates how crucial it is... because, depressing the rate of child mortality, educating girls, empowering women, and making fertility management ubiquitously available - so women can choose how many women, and the spacing of children. Is crucial to the future state of human civilization. Africa is projected to have more people than China or India by mid century. More than China and India combined by the end of the century. And this is one of the causal factors that must be addressed".

So, you hear any "calls for population control" or any language "creepily similar to the lingo of early 20th century eugenicists"? I know I sure as hell don't. I hear Mr. Gore calling for women to be educated and empowered so they can decide how many children they have and when they have them (not "eugenicists").

And, given that is ALL Mr. Gore says; that (educating and empowering women) MUST be what the racist misogynist Willis Hart is objecting to. According to an article by Brigid Fitzgerald Reading, a staff researcher at the Earth Policy Institute, "Education leads to lower fertility and increased prosperity. A growing world population will undoubtedly contribute exponentially to "spreading hunger and poverty, along with the conflict and disease".

And Willis Hart slams Al Gore for suggesting there is something that can be done to empower women so they can make better choices? Is he such a hater of women that he wants them to stay uneducated, barefoot and pregnant rather than see them empowered? Or is it just that we're talking about African women? I mean, what's influencing him here more - his hatred for women or hatred for Black people?

I'm going to guess both. I would also add that his hatred for Al Gore is surely another factor. But whatever the reason for this idiotic post, the Hartster is surely a racist misogynist creep in my book.

As for eugenicist-type thinking, Herbert Spencer (a popular author during the 19th century who was one of the foundational thinkers in the development of the Libertarian economic philosophy) "supported strict limits on the government and even opposed many forms of charity towards the poor [and] also believed that neither government nor private charity should interfere with this process of natural selection" (SWTD #280).

This kind of thinking is clearly Objectivist. Ayn Rand believed the poor should die as well, advocating that what should be done (re poor starving people) is nothing. So "nature will take its course" (SWTD #343). Which is, I'm thinking, at the root of Willis Hart's objections.

Poor Africans growing their populations and thus "spreading hunger and poverty, along with the conflict and disease" being the outcome he WANTS. Because it's the "natural selection" (poor die/rich prosper) that Ayn Rand believed in. BTW, I should note that Africans don't need some White man (Al Gore) to tell them what to do here. I'm sure what Gore is saying is being said by intelligent Africans. But Al Gore talking about empowering women surely can't be harmful. Unless you WANT people to die. Poor people, specifically. In this case poor Black people.

Poor people dying in large numbers (via widespread famine) being a likely wet-dream for classist racists like Willis Hart, an anarcho-capitalist Libertarian Ayn Rand worshipper (OST #135).

Image: An image that might cause Willis Hart to chuckle with delight? Although these kids aren't dead yet (at least when the pic was taken), so perhaps he'll only be happy when richer nations stop trying to help. Cutting off aid being something WTNPH has advocated, quoting Libertarian economist James Shikwati (SWTD #165).

OST #175

Willis Hart (A Racist) Believes A Majority Of Black People Are Stupid Dimwits Who Are Easily Fooled

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart can't, for the life of him understand why more Black people aren't conservative. It's because he thinks Democrats win Black votes by fooling them.

For example, he believes that Lyndon Baines Johnson said, in regards to signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, "we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference". The goal being to "have them ni**ers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years". Black people would be fooled into voting for Democrats, in other words.

This, despite the FACT that LBJ, after he signed the CRA, told his Press Secretary (Bill Moyers) "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come". So, instead of helping the party by tricking Black people into voting Democratic, he was actually concerned that he had hurt the Democratic party (by losing the South) (SWTD #228).

Another example of how Willis believes Black people have been tricked, is in regards to them giving up their babies for slaughter (by Planned Planethood). In order to "exterminate" the Black race. (That abortion is "Black Genocide" is a conspiracy theory Mother Jones awards a kookiness rating of "5 tinfoil hats" and which Ebony magazine says is a myth).

Willis Hart: From a 1939 Letter by Margaret Sanger to Dr. Charles Gamble, Subject - "The Negro Project"... "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members". And Mrs. Clinton relishes her recent Margaret Sanger Award. why exactly? (8/24/2016 AT 7:53pm).

Margaret Sanger "was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse [who] popularized the term "birth control", opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America" (Source: Wikipedia).

She is also a person who, today, is the subject of the RW conspiracy theory (the one Willis cites), concerning a plan to "exterminate" Black people via the convincing of Black women to abort their babies. Even babies they wanted, apparently, as most babies are. Wanted, that is. How can an entire race be exterminated unless every (or at least most) Black babies are aborted? Certainly you'd have to be consistently aborting more Black babies each year than are born. And for generations (which isn't happening).

In any case, what Sanger was actually talking about was her not wanting the word to go out that they (choice advocates) wanted to exterminate the negro population... BECAUSE IT WAS A LIE!

New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project, argues that in writing that letter, "Sanger recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South... (Wikipedia/Margaret Sanger/Race).

Wikipedia follows that sentence by citing the "opposing view", which is the one Willis believes. As if either view could be true. But the conspiracy theory that Sanger wanted to exterminate the entire Black race is clearly absurd. Because it relies on the belief that Black mothers could be talked into aborting babies they wanted! Because Black people are so stupid they'd given up wanted babies. And nobody would notice the African American population was decreasing (to the point of being exterminated) until it was too late.

And there is also the fact that "Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects [and] Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from MLK Jr [and] W.E.B. Du Bois, a civil rights legend [who] co-founded the NAACP".

So, MLK Jr and Du Bois were both fooled by Sanger, a virulent racist who wanted to exterminate the entire Black race? That's what we're supposed to believe? Because Black people have been totally fooled by the Left. For the life of them, racist Conservatives like the Hartster can't comprehend why African Americans vote Democratic in overwhelming majorities (LBJ getting 94% of the Black vote in 1964). Because the majority of Black people are dumb and easily fooled.

Or "dim-witted", as per the Wikipedia entry for "Minstrel show". "Minstrel" being a racist term WTNPH likes to apply to African American Liberals.

Image: 94% of African Americans voted for LBJ after he signed the 1964 CRA. Proof that Black people were totally fooled by the CRA, which was only a "little something". It quieted the stupid Blacks down, even though it was "not enough to make a difference"... according to racist Conservatives.

See Also: Wikipedia/Black Genocide Conspiracy Theory/Abortion.

OST #173

Willis Hart Goes Out On A Racist Limb (Re The Nightly Show Cancelation)

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart sez he's "going out on a limb" with a guess, although he isn't framing his guess as such. Sounds to me like he's asserting (sans proof, as usual) that his guess is exactly what happened.

Willis Hart: Larry Wilmore's Explanation as to Why Comedy Central Deep-Sixed His Show? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, racism (you know, as opposed to the much more plausible reasons; the show sucking big time, him not being particularly humorous, piss-poor ratings, etc.). (8/19/2016 AT 10:11pm).

Larry Wilmore has absolutely NOT given any such explanation. Or indicated that he believes racism is why The Nightly Show was canceled. How about the fact that Trevor Noah, the man who replaced Jon Stewart, is a Black man, and Comedy Central says they are happy with Noah's ratings? (so I'm going to say no racism from Comedy Central).

Wilmore's show did tackle race related issues, however, so there might be something to what Willis is saying. Frankly I'm surprised the Hartster didn't throw out this suggestion and then AGREE with it. But Willis' take would be that, because Wilmore covered things such as the Black Lives Matter movement (which Willis hates, saying they're "vile, vulgar and slimy"), that it was Wilmore's racism that turned off White viewers.

Because, in the world of racist Whites like Willis Hart, it's Black people who are the racists, not Whites.

Willis Hart: Yeah, there's racism in America alright; blacks hating whites being the bulk of it. (5/29/2016 AT 8:31pm).

Yeah, so I don't know why Willis didn't say the Nightly Show was canceled due to racism... the racism of Wilmore. Because, with Willis, if you're African American and not a Conservative, everything bad that happens to you is because of your race. This is how Conservative racists like Willis view Black people who aren't Conservative (the majority of African Americans). Not that I would agree with him (at all). I watched and enjoyed the show and was (and am) quite disappointed that it's canceled. So, no, I do not think it "sucked big time".

The real reason Willis thinks The Nightly Show sucked big time (and I do not believe I'm going out on a limb here) is because Wilmore and his contributors and guests were having that honest discussion on race that Willis does NOT want to occur. He says he does, but his idea of an "honest discussion" is that the discussion starts with Black people admitting they're huge belly-achers (his word) and that racism is not as big a problem as Black people are making it out to be.

As for the real reason cited by Wilmore as to why he thinks his show was canceled?

[Wilmore] does fault Comedy Central for not taking more time to cultivate both programs, which broke ground by presenting an all-black block of late-night talk shows. (Did Race Play a Role in Larry Wilmore's Downfall? by Adam Howard. NBC News 8/19/2016).

An assessment I agree with. I think they should have given it more time to find an audience. It took awhile for The Daily Show to evolve and become as popular as it is today. 4+ years according to Wikipedia, which says "the show's 2000 and 2004 election coverage, combined with a new satirical edge, helped to catapult Stewart and The Daily Show to new levels of popularity and critical respect". So, TDS first aired in 1996, but it wasn't until 2000 that it took off.

IMO I think the show should have been expanded to a full hour. That way the round table discussion could have lasted longer. Although, given the fact that this is when some serious discussions took place, the viewership might not have agreed. I read one post mortem that cited a lack of laughs as a reason why the ratings weren't good.

Yes, I thought the Colbert Report was a funnier show, but I doubt Comedy Central will ever replicate the success of Colbert. Whatever comes next, I seriously doubt it's going to be a hit. Yeah, it sucks for them that they lost Colbert, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Although in the case of Willis Hart, that would be a racist cookie (because the dude's a racist). And I'm sure he hated the show. But racists like Willis were NOT the target audience. Although they did need some White viewers, and I think the honest discussion on race they were having may have made some Whites a little uncomfortable. Whites not as racist as Willis, but still a little biased when it comes to things like discussing race relations.

Conclusion? Yeah, I think racism was a factor. In that the focus of the show (which was originally going to be titled "The Minority Report") made Whites uncomfortable. Or they just aren't interested. Being White and not having to deal with the problems/issues Black people have to deal with (explaining the "piss-poor ratings").

But, to repeat, Larry Wilmore's did not give this explanation. About this Willis Hart is lying.

Video: Jon Stewart shows up for the last episode of TNS. According to Stewart, Wilmore "started a discussion that was not on television when you began". This would be the honest discussion on race relations that racists like Willis Hart would almost certainly characterize as vile and vulgar. Because they didn't start the discussion by immediately conceding that the majority of Black grievances are invalid (4:34)

OST #171

White Racist Blogger Clueless That Racism Is The Primary "Lingering Effect Of Slavery"

Yet another stark example of just how racist the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that (According to Historian, William Shaler) the Arab Practice of Enslaving White Europeans (a Practice that Lasted FOR CENTURIES) Didn't End Completely Until 1816 (When the British and Dutch Joined Forces and Shelled Algiers to Rubble)... So, can I blame all of my problems on the "lingering effects of slavery"? Can I at least give it a shot? (7/30/2016 AT 9:13pm).

Perhaps if Willis was a White guy living in Algeria (depending on the state of race relations there, which I am 100 percent uninformed on). But we're talking about the United States, where the vast majority of slaves were Black.

And that Black slaves were looked at (basically) as livestock (inferior to Whites) is why we still have racism today. THAT (I'd say) is the primary lingering effect of slavery. I mean, does Willis believe that today there is complete equality between Whites and Blacks?

BTW, cluelessness, when it comes to the issue of racism, is itself racist, IMO. Or a sign of it. Here we have a fellow who is so steeped in his White privilege that he totally misses this obvious fact! And he thinks that, because White people were enslaved elsewhere in the world; and elsewhere in the distant past (1816) that he too (as a White guy) can claim he's suffering from the "lingering effects of slavery".

Which he says sarcastically, of course. What he really means is that he isn't suffering from the "lingering effects of slavery", and NEITHER ARE BLACKS. Because both examples are totally equal and totally ridiculous (in his racist mind). When sane people (Blacks, Whites who are far less racist than the Hartster) would disagree. Strongly.

And recognize that Willis Hart's comments are those of a stupid clueless White-privilege-enjoying racist asshole.

For the record, and as Willis has pointed out, some slaves (in the United States) were White. Most of them (I believe) were indentured servants (see footnote). But none of the descendants of these slaves are subjected to racism today. You know, BECAUSE THEY'RE WHITE!

Footnote
Wikipedia/Indentured servant/Indentured servant: About half of the European immigrants to the American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries were indentured. Between one-half and two-thirds of white immigrants to the American colonies between the 1630s and American Revolution had come under indentures. However, while almost half the European immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies were indentured servants, at any one time they were outnumbered by workers who had never been indentured, or whose indenture had expired. Free wage labor was the more prevalent for Europeans in the colonies.

OST #165

On If The Conservative Elite Was Put in Charge of Patrolling America's Most Dangerous Inner-Cities

Oh, they'd be gunning down young black men left and right. You kidding me (the fact that they're racist, cowardly, hypocritical, etc. and would probably shoot out of fear anything that moved)?

Racist Libertarians like the blogger Willis Hart, while not among the "elite", would react in the same matter, IMO.

BTW, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, previously ran as the "law and order" candidate (Wikipedia: Johnson's campaign... platform emphasized tax cuts, job creation, state government spending growth restraint, and law and order). And, as we know, Donald Trump is going around saying he's the "law and order" candidate.

"Law and order" being code for getting tough with the BLACK criminals. That being a message that rich racist Whites like.

Image: Willis "White Privilege Is A Myth" Hart reading the newspaper (cartoon depiction). "Another Black man put down by the police? Meh. He likely deserved it or otherwise brought it on himself" is usually his reaction.

OST #163

Willis Hart Piling On The Strawmen In A Racist Commentary Re Yet Another Black Man Shot By Police

I think the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has made it very clear that he has no problem with cops shooting Black suspects. Armed or unarmed. Even running away (and shot in the back), he has only ever criticized either the victim, protesters who object to the killing, or the media for how they've handled the killing.

Not once has he EVER defended the victim. Case in point - regarding the shooting of Philando Castile by Jeronimo Yanez, Hart's reaction is to post a strawman-laden commentary. (And he also attaches a meme that, when I searched for it, I found a couple of very racist/bigoted commentators who agreed with Mr. Hart... see image below).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Leftist Media Is Doing its Damnedest to Hide the Fact that the Cop Who Shot Castile in Minnesota Is Mexican. And try calling this fellow a "white Hispanic" (in an effort to preserve the narrative of white racist cops killing innocent young black men for no reason whatsoever). I dare you to. (7/12/2016 AT 10:01 PM).

If the Leftist media is "doing it damnedest to hide the fact that the cop who shot Castile is Mexican" where is the proof? You'd think if the Leftist media were doing this, Willis would be able to come up with ONE example.

In any case, the fact that the officer is Mexican-American doesn't mean that prejudice (against African Americans) couldn't have been a factor. As reported, Jeronimo Yanez, the St. Anthony MN police officer who shot and killed Philando Castile, pulled over Castile because he thought he looked like a robbery suspect "because of the wide-set nose".

Of course this remark does not mean there was any racial prejudice at play, but it does say to me that there might have been. In any case I think he clearly overreacted.

[As per the video shot by Castile's girlfriend Diamond Reynolds] Reynolds stated that Yanez "asked him for license and registration. He told him that it was in his wallet, but he had a pistol on him because he's licensed to carry". The officer said, Don't move. As he was putting his hands back up, the officer shot him in the arm 4 or 5 times". Reynolds tells the officer: "You shot four bullets into him, sir. He was just getting his license and registration, sir". On the video, Reynolds says "Please don't tell me he's dead", while Yanez screams: "I told him not to reach for it! I told him to get his hand open!"

If someone is going to shoot you, It seems absurd to me that they'd first tell you they have a gun. Seems to me that Castile shouldn't have mentioned the gun. Because as soon as he did the officer panicked and shot him. Possibly due to racial prejudices or institutional racism (trained to view Blacks as criminals).

As for the "narrative", it isn't that "White racist cops killing innocent young black men for no reason whatsoever" (another strawman). It is that cops (no matter their race) are shooting Black suspects at a rate disproportionate to White suspects.

In 2015, The WP launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of [7/10/2016], 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since 1/1/2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race). But... comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population. According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62% of the U.S. population but only about 49% of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24% of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13% of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers. (Aren't more white people than black people killed by police? Yes, but no. by Wesley Lowery. The Washington Post 7/11/2016).

Finally, I SERIOUSLY doubt that anyone is going to refer to Yanez as a "White Hispanic", despite Hart's "dare" (AKA strawman attempt to link this shooting to the police identifying George Zimmerman as White).

I would dare Willis Hart to stop it with the strawmen, but I know such a dare would be pointless. He is clearly NEVER going to stop. Especially when it comes to Blacks being shot by the police. Because the dude is strongly racist. He actually wrote (re Blacks being killed by the police) "I'm actually quite insulted that this bullshit is being placed not just at my doorstep but the law enforcement community's".

Yeah, Black people being killed by the police is "bullshit" and the Hartster is clearly angry that the Black Lives Matter movement exists and is "insulted" that it's objecting to members of their community being gunned down BY THE POLICE at a rate 2.5 times higher than for Whites. Police killings SHOULDN'T be placed at the law enforcement community's doorstep???? What?!!

No, sorry, but law enforcement needs to answer for ALL the people they kill. Justified or unjustified. And it's the ones in that last category that BLM is concerned about and protest (killings that appear to not be justified). They don't protest when the police kill someone and it's clearly justified.

So WTF is Hart's beef? Apparently his primary argument is that since Black people kill other Black people at a rate greater than Whites killing Whites - that somehow gives police a free pass?!! That BLM has no right to protest. But how the hell are criminals killing people in any way the same as law enforcement killing people?

Clearly Hart's argument is a specious one. "STOP BLOWING YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT" he yells (copied from his blog as he wrote it... in all caps). As if innocent Black victims are responsible for getting killed by Black criminals.

Image: Found on the website F169BBS along with the caption "Remember, kids - there is absolutely no low that niggers, jews, faggots, and liberals will not go". Also found on "The Last American Newspaper" attached to an article that claims "the media and political manipulators want the Blacks and Mexicans to love another and stick together so they can be more easily manipulated come vote time by the politicians" ("explaining why the media is "hiding" the race of Yanez). Apparently this conspiracy involves a US census form. Concerning this form, the author remarks "I will bet my bottom dollar a Jew or two were involved in the creation of [it]". Does it say something about Willis Hart that this meme (which he obviously agrees with) can be found on two CLEARLY racist/bigoted sites? I say yes. No, I actually say HELL YES!

OST #159

Another Example Of Willis Hart "Coming Out Early Tonight" (Transphobia, Trumpesque Bigotry, White Supremacistish Racism)

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart getting bent out of shape because "social justice warriors" fight back when racist Rightwingers spout off.

Willis Hart: Like with this Garrison fellow who did the Michelle Obama looking like a power-forward cartoon (which, yes, was somewhat distasteful but then a great amount of satire tends to be - HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!). The SJWs [Social Justice Warriors] went after him full-bore (he even got death-threats which makes SJWs no better than al Qaeda) and now he's more popular than ever. Oops, OOOOOOOOPS. (5/31/2016 AT 5:13pm).

The quote above is just a portion of his rant, which mostly concerns his outrage over racists on the Right being boycotted when they spew their racism. Though he ends with cheers because this Ben Garrison asshole supposedly is "more popular than ever". (Note: RationalWiki page for Garrison says he isn't an "overt racist", and I agree. His racism, like WTNPH's, is not overt).

The cartoon that Willis refers to (see below) depicts a butch Michelle Obama next to an image of Melancholia Trump (what a First Lady should look like according to the cartoon). Notice that there is a bulge in an area suggesting Michelle is a transexual. A "joke" Willis previously indicated that he found hilarious (wondering in a blog post which bathroom Michelle uses). You know, because she used to be a dude and due to new discriminatory laws should be using the men's room (OST #144).

The Left getting offended by the depiction of Michelle Obama as a transexual is very funny according to Willis. Even if it is "somewhat distasteful". Although some have disagreed wit the "somewhat" part.

A cartoonist has been accused of racism after he portrayed Michelle Obama as masculine and butch next to a pageant-ready Melania Trump in a controversial drawing. The cartoon – which has been branded "racist and misogynistic" – shows a muscular Mrs Obama wearing a green dress with a bulge in the groin area. (Make The First Lady Great Again?!? Racist Cartoon Compares A Butch Michelle Obama To Melania Trump).

Racist? Yeah, I think so. Misogynist? Absolutely. Transphobic as well. That's who Willis is cheering on (a sleaze who'd draw such a cartoon). But Willis, a Libertarian who SAYS he's "socially tolerant", has displayed bigotry for transexuals on several occasions; referring to a trans-woman as "some transgender" and assuming she's a Leftist (obviously all transgender people are Leftists, OST #140); thinks Garrison's bigotry is only "somewhat distasteful". As opposed to being highly offensive. In fact that is actually the super funny part. Leftists being offended. Or "triggered", as he puts it.

Here, it isn't a victory for the assholes, racists, transphobics, misogynists and bigots that Willis is offended by, but the "Social Justice Warriors" who take offense. Scumbags who, with Trump as the gop potus nominee (whom Garrison is a supporter of), have been GREATLY emboldened. And Willis too, apparently. The post above being another example of him "coming out early tonight". That phrase being code for displaying his racism, I'm guessing (from a comment Willis says a "marginally literate boob" submitted to his blog).

Ugh. Can there really be ANY doubt any more that this guy is a hardcore bigot? Frankly, I'm wondering if the Hartster is a White Supremacist given his recent comments re Black people being "the real racists".

I refer you to a Willis comment in which he says "there's racism in America alright; blacks hating whites being the bulk of it" (his conclusion after posting about black-on-white violent crime). Versus White Supremacists who "issued a statement saying that Dylann Roof had some legitimate grievances against Black people and that the group's website accurately and honestly reports black-on-white violent crime".

Image: Racist misogynistic transphobic "satirical" cartoon by Rightwing Trump-supporting slimeball Ben Garrison. Given that satire is "the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc"... is this satire? I mean, I see the ridicule, but what vice or folly is being exposed? My guess is that (in the view of Rightwing racists like Garrison) it was "folly" to elect a Black man POTUS.

OST #148