In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

At least he’s honest.

Jill

Bill O’Reilly:

But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you’ve got to cap with a number.

I’ll at least give him some credit for admitting that white Christian dudes run things around here, and that his conservative political beliefs stem from pure self-interest in maintaining a power structure that allows him to walk all over everyone else. Some of us would call this belief system “white supremacy,” but I’m sure such a term would have Mr. O’Reilly howling about how we’re anti-white-male bigots, and besides he’s not racist or sexist, he just thinks that white Christian men run the country because they’re generally superior, and so their power should be maintained by systematically oppressing people of color, non-Christians, and women.

What’s white supremacist about that?

via Feministing.

17 thoughts on At least he’s honest.

  1. So here we are, fascism at our doorstep. People who watch this garbage let it soak in their brains and roll around in a septic stew of ignorance, gullibility and fear. I come on the jobsite and often get the pleasure of hearing the final distilled product.

    I want the left (you know the people I know), to take specific, direct and targeted action against such speech. That it is blithely ignored to deal with the big picture is foolish when someone else is drawing another picture altogether in the public’s mind and we aren’t in it.

  3. Huh. Of course, that self-same white male Christian power structure systematically excluded and discriminated against men with last names like O’Reilly and Buchanan about 100 years ago. They simply had to have a cap to keep those undesirable Irish out.

    But hey, Bill O’Reilly and Pat Buchanan have theirs now. The rest of the world, apparently, can go stuff it.

  4. I want the left (you know the people I know), to take specific, direct and targeted action against such speech.

    Personally, I think it’s time to really start exercising our freedom of speech, and call out these assholes every time they utter some sort of bigoted asshattery. Sure, they get to say whatever insane, selfish, cruel idiocy they want, and we get to call them insane, selfish, cruel idiots. You’d be surprised how effective constant repetition of “Wow, what a cruel, mean-spirited, bigoted, ridiculously stupid thing to say. Way to exercise the freedom you so obviously despise, you un-American (or other unflattering pop-their-illusions reference) Asshole,” can be.

    It’s like calling the self-proclaimed pro-life crowd “reproductive slavers.” Because that’s what they are, at heart, but they don’t wanna hear it. It’s up to us in the reality-based community to exercise our free speech and MAKE them hear all the horrible things they’re directly responsible for. They won’t like it, and most of ’em won’t change their ways so much as hate you more, but accurate labelling of evil can change the perceptions of others around, and maybe serve as a clue-by-four for a few onlookers.

    It’s not much, but it’s a start. Words have power, and we have the right to use ’em. The way to react to those trying to take away our freedoms is to use those freedoms, every chance we get. Fight fire with fire, every single time. It sucks, yeah, but would life in the theocratic fascist America these asshairs are trying to create suck worse?

    Now, to follow my own damned advice more…

    Bast

  5. the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I

    So they’re openly admitting this now?

  6. They won’t like it, and most of ‘em won’t change their ways so much as hate you more, but accurate labelling of evil can change the perceptions of others around, and maybe serve as a clue-by-four for a few onlookers.

    Exactly. Call the demon by it’s name, and you gain power over it. As many others have said, these idjits only have traction as long as they can cloak their anti-human crap in lies.

    I am a Canadian, but I like to hope that you guy down south won’t ever get to the point of full-on fascism. Seems to me that they’re always going to be a certain contingent of racist/sexist assholes. They just need to be beat back under their rocks again.

  8. belledame222, THANK YOU- never knew about that site and forwarded it to some deserving folks. Great PSA…

  9. Pingback: for once, we agree « The Girl Detective

  10. QLH–

    Yeah, this was O’Reilly’s annual admission that white Christian men are still in charge. Now for the next 364 days, he’ll go back to whining about how white Christian men are oppressed in America.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Rupert Murdoch will burn in hell for putting this pig on the air.

  11. This is a quibble, but “conservative” isn’t really the right word for O’Reilly–even moreso than most politicians who get labeled that way. He himself describes his politics as “populist,” but IMHO, he’s a real, live fascist.

  13. Yup. Him and Buchanan both. they’re populists the way the (Godwin alert, yes, but in this case appropriate) National Socialists were. the only way they’re more “conservative,” O’Reilly at least (dunno enough about Buchanan there) is on the economic front.

  15. Lesley, you hit it in one. The hilarious thing about “race” is that we’re always changing our mind about who’s inferior and who’s okay.

  16. I thought the official anti-feminist line was that there was no patriarchy. I guess Bill did not get that memo.

    I guess the argument is going to be like global warming: there is no patriarchy, if there is, it’s not a big deal and if it is a big deal and bunch of people get hurt, there is not anything we can do about it after all it is a naturally occuring phenomenon.

  17. the only way they’re more “conservative,” O’Reilly at least (dunno enough about Buchanan there) is on the economic front.

    Yes and no. Real economic conservatism requires one to be pro-free trade, and Buchanan hates the browns too much for that.

Comments are currently closed.