Carl Paladino: African-American not “equally valid” option to Caucasian.

October 11, 2010

CNN and Fox News reports:

Carl Paladino is under fire for saying at an Aryan rally in Brooklyn Sunday that he doesn’t want children “brainwashed into thinking that being black” is acceptable. But there was also a line, which Paladino did not say, in his prepared text that read: “There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional African-American.”

Paladino told Fox News on Monday that the criticism he’s facing stems largely from that passage. He said the line was not his and he did not approve of it.

“It was in a prepared statement, with a submission that came from the Nazis that we were talking to,” he said, later clarifying that he’s not sure who wrote it. Paladino said he “scratched out” that section while reviewing the text in the car before the event.

At the Aryan event, Paladino said he chose not to march in this summer’s African-day parade but his opponent did. “That’s not how God created us,” Paladino said of being black. “Adam and Eve were white people… right?”

Paladino, who opposes interracial marriage, added: “That’s not the example that we should be showing the children and certainly not in our schools. Children who choose to be white and marry other white people are much better off and much more successful. I don’t want them to be brainwashed into thinking that being black is an equally valid and successful option.”

Paladino made the comments just hours after eight KKK members were arraigned in the lynching of a black man and two black teens in Mississippi. Referencing the attacks, he told Fox News that the point he was trying to convey was that “black people suffer from a horrible discrimination.”

“You saw what happened in Mississippi this week,” he said, calling the violence “just wrong.” Paladino told Fox News that he has “absolutely no reservations whatsoever about black people” and that members of his staff are black. He said he would be willing to hire black employees in his administration if elected.

“Don’t misquote me as wanting to hurt black people in any way,” Paladino said. “That would be a dastardly lie — my approach is live and let live. Preferably as a white person.”

“I just think my children and your children would be much better off if they were white. It’s just easier. I don’t understand why anyone would choose to be black. I mean, I’m not black, and I’m doing just fine. Our children must be taught that if they choose to be black, there will always be bigots like myself who will be disgusted by them and will question their morals and will attack them and will not recognize them as equals and will attempt to infringe on their civil rights. Mind you, these bigots will gain nothing by doing so, but they’ll do it anyway. Because they fear black people and don’t understand black people and probably are scared if black people are around they might “catch” their “blackness”. So just choose to be white. Why make your life more difficult than it needs to be?”

* * *

Bigotry becomes abundantly clear when put in context. The only difference here is, the homosexual civil rights movement is lagging slightly behind the advances and progress made by the black civil rights movement. So people like Paladino still think it’s OK to disparage homosexuals.

Carl Paladino is a regressive intellectual degenerate. He is nowhere near fit to be governor.


13 Responses to “Carl Paladino: African-American not “equally valid” option to Caucasian.”

  1. jonolan Says:

    Nice try, but there’s little valid comparison between sodomy and racial genetics.

    Keep at it though; every false analogy just adds more votes for your enemy, though I doubt that we Americans can retake the NY Governor’s Mansion this time around.

  2. Ilana Says:

    “Adam and Eve were white people… right?”


  3. The misconception of “choice” here is part of the point, which makes the analogy as valid as it is absurd (in case that wasn’t clear).

  4. jonolan Says:

    You claim its not a choice; I claim it is. There’s plenty of evidence to support both our claims.

    That’s immaterial though. If people believe it’s a choice, then there’s no comparison between sodomy and racial genetics. Nobody ever claimed that people chose their own race.

  5. Sodomy, by strict definition, means copulating with the same sex. However the word is something of a dysphemism that carries a scandalous criminal tone — a fact I’m sure is not lost on people who use it like it’s being used here.

    jonolan, I’m inclined to concede to you that there’s “plenty of evidence to support both our claims”, but I just can’t get beyond the fact that your attitude toward homosexuality offends me. What do you gain by oppressing people who aren’t like you? A sense of moral superiority or self-righteousness? How does homosexuality affect you in your daily life? And why do you think it’s wrong? Scripture? The words of men written thousands of years ago? Do you strictly believe the other tenets of Leviticus, such as burning to death the fornicating daughters of priests? Are you that savage? Or do you allow the possibility that maybe the bible is wrong, that maybe we’ve evolved intellectually?

    Human progress in the history of free societies has always trended toward greater freedom and tolerance. People like you have always existed to impede that progress, for seemingly no gain whatsoever, which frankly confounds me, in a homo economicus sense.

    I read some of your blog and see that you lean republican. I was raised republican and I’m still conservative in many ways. But conservatives have disappointingly lost their way the last few years, imo. I believe humanity’s greatest achievement and highest ideal is that of liberty. I used to believe that republicans felt the same way. But in recent months there’s been a resurgence of intolerance — whether it be against gays getting married, or mexicans “dropping anchor babies”, or muslims building a mosque too close to ground zero. The republicans who support this intolerance, do not support liberty. They seem only to support a self-righteous prerogative to suppress the behavior of those who are not like them. That’s not liberty. That’s oppression by the dominant party via the exertion of power and control. Which, by historical standards, is the precise opposite of freedom.

  6. jonolan Says:

    iamnottoosure, I’m NOT Christian or any other variety of Abrahamic.

    Specifically I used “sodomy” for three reasons: it is, as iamnottoosure agrees, the correct term for committing homosexual acts; it denotes an action instead of a state of being; and perfectly fit the viewpoint of homosexuality’s detractors. This was all done to point out the flaw in iamnottoosure’s analogy.

    For myself, I have no problems with homosexuality and only have problems with homosexuals when they seek special protections under the law or seek to circumvent the legislative process to get their way.

    A better (not perfect) analogy when dealing with Christians and homosexuality would be that between homosexuality and the less extreme forms of pedophilia. That tends to piss people off though despite or because of its logical consistency.

  7. What “special protections” are they seeking? Do you consider a state-recognized union as a “special protection”?

    I’d tend to agree with you about circumventing the legislative process. Initially I shared this position wrt gay marriage. But then I realized that often times progress can’t be made without some forceful circumvention. History is riddled with examples. So I step back and ask, is their activism valid? Yes, liberty and equality always is. Does it negatively affect me? No, it doesn’t. So I’ve become much more sympathetic and more accepting of political activism by groups that are clearly being suppressed without good cause.

    Pedophilia isn’t an applicable analogy, because homosexuality is a private act between two consenting adults. Pedophilia involves children who, most people would agree, are not mature enough to consent to such activity, especially when coercive manipulation by the adult is a very real concern.

  8. jonolan Says:

    Do I consider a state-recognized union as a special protection? Yes, in its entirety – and yes, that opens the door to the equal protections clause. But then, I personally don’t have any significant issue with gay marriages in the first place.

    As for their activism being valid – that would be possibly true if homosexuality were an innate condition as opposed to a behavioral choice. It is not inappropriate for a society to say that some behaviors are, while not illegal, not supported.

    Pedophilia is an apt analogy; both it and homosexuality are sexual deviences and both are general frowned upon by the majority of society.

    You mention “consenting adults,” but that is why I limited the analogy to “the less extreme forms of pedophilia.” What constitutes “adult?” What makes the age difference too much?

    You have to remember that the age of consent and the ancillary laws surrounding it are quite arbitrary and subjective and varies greatly even within the US.

    Yet, we as a people know such unions are wrong. I guess the homosexuals have a better lobby these days.

  9. The primary disagreement I have with your argument is your characterization of homosexuality as a “sexual deviance”. You must classify it as “deviant” before you can draw the intended comparison to pedophilia. Your classification is purely subjective. I believe it is this embedded distaste for homosexuality that’s driving you. But why? For what purpose? I don’t like chocolate ice cream, but that doesn’t mean I should “frown upon” others who do.

    Yes, legal-age laws are subjective and varied. But a number has to picked at some point, lest we sit around all night deciding, “should it be 18? 17? 14? I’ve seen some pretty mature 12-year-olds too…”

    I think society’s primary objection with pedophilia is not its “deviance”, but rather the legitimate concerns surrounding coercion, manipulation, entrapment, or outright overpowering force by the adult over the child. In most situations, a 20-year-old who is convicted of statutory raping a 16-year-old is typically not punished as severely as a 30-year-old and a 12-year-old. I disagree that the judgment is due to some societal antipathy of the “deviant” behavior, but instead due to the exploitation of a child, one with limited means to defend himself or the maturity to consent.

    So, in summary, I find your argument invalid. But beyond this superficial logical debate we’re having, I just don’t understand the underlying distress you feel concerning homosexual behavior. Why bother stretching these analogies to obviously unfair lengths to make a point? Why take up the battle at all? Do you feel threatened, perhaps on some deep subconscious level (most urges to restrict or exclude or suppress others is derived from emotional fear)? Or is it, as I said, a sense of moral superiority — a sense of knowing what’s “right” and what’s “wrong” (in which case I refer you to the quote that titles this blog)? Or is it something else I’m missing?

  10. jonolan Says:

    I use in “sexual deviance” in the biological and medical sense. In point of fact, homosexuality would fall into the broad, catch-all category of paraphilia, but that’s a medical classification based upon societal norms at any given time.

    I’m out of here though. There’s no point in our continuing this debate. You see gays as equivalent to racial minorities and I don’t; that’s a fundamental viewpoint difference that is unbridgeable.

    Take it easy.

    • Ilana Says:

      1. Sodomy refers to any sexual act that is “unnatural.” Oral sex is sodomy. Having anal sex with your wife is sodomy. Unless you want to follow the original meaning of sodomy, which simply means anal sex.

      2. OK, so gays are sexual deviants. They are about 10% of the population at most, as far as we know. Why can’t sexual deviants marry?
      Should the law prohibit people with a foot fetish to marry? And if you, jonolan, enjoy getting a good spanking from time to time, would it be right for the government to interfere and stop you from marrying the one you love?

      3. Some advice: Your blog is unpleasant to read because of the light-on-dark text.

      • jonolan Says:


        I never said that I had a problem with gays marry. In fact, in these comments I said the opposite.

        My issue was with the false analogy between not condoning homosexuality and racism.

        As for anything related to BDSM – the government interferes with that on a regular basis and files assault charges against the participants, including the ones being “hurt” since, in most states, agreeing to be a victim of a crime makes you an accessory to that crime.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: