For example, "The world could get by just fine with zero white people." Would you consider that statement to be just as racist? I would hope you'd answer in the affirmative.

The assumption behind comments like that is the idea that, had African, Meso-American, or Asian people achieved world dominance early on, as did European people, they would not have preyed upon and enslaved other races the way European people did.

However, a careful study of history shows that all races had a history of raiding other tribes, enslaving captured enemies, raping the women of enemies, etc. That's human nature, not white nature.

Here's a bunch of headlines in this vain -

https://gab.com/media/image/bq-5c11b8a9e1bfb.png

E.g. Pretty Sure Our Problems Started When White Men Decided To Start "Discovering" Things

It really boils down to one simple concept,"Bad behavior should not be emulated."

The victim narrative absolves one of any guilt for hating the "oppressors". Never mind that never before in history did a dominant race give up their legal dominance over others (ending slavery), waged war to stop the slave trade (England), fought a war to end slavery, instituted special legal protections etc.

The idea that life in the Americas was ideal before whites came....well, you can think that living with the Aztecs who cut hearts out of living victims is just peachy, but i don't. You can actually go live in a teepee if you want (I know people who have...in Florida), but not me. It is easy, but false, to compare the imperfect world we have to an imaginary one that never existed and cannot exist (like Lennon's Imagine song).

It is easy, but false, to compare the imperfect world we have to an imaginary one that never existed and cannot exist (like Lennon's Imagine song). ~ cc at December 13, 2018 8:39 AM

One of the reasons for the rise of the Communist and National Socialist parties in Weimar Germany was the myth of the perfect and harmonious world that was Germany in 1914, before it was sold out by the greedy capitalists. And a promise by each party that only it could return Germany to such harmonious perfection. Such myths can be dangerous.

It is easy, but false, to compare the imperfect world we have to an imaginary one that never existed and cannot exist (like Lennon's Imagine song).
_________________________________________________

It's interesting to note that on more than one occasion, people in THIS century have refused to utter the line "and no religion too." (Funny how they don't usually mind singing "imagine there's no heaven.")

It's also been said that Lennon would have been delighted to know that even today, many people are still uncomfortable with that line.

From Hollywood Reporter (Jan. 2012):

Cee Lo Green rang in the New Year with a New Controversy. The "Forget You" singer fueled outrage after his performance on NBC's Times Square telecast for doing what many John Lennon fans deemed sacrilege: changing the lyrics to the late Beatle's song "Imagine" to say "all religion is true" instead of "and no religion too," as was Lennon's original verse.

Green, who moonlights as a judge on the NBC talent contest The Voice, performed alongside Justin Bieber, Hot Chelle Ray, Pitbull, and Diego Torres on the Ryan Seacrest co-hosted Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve special...

(snip)

And, from Patheos dot com:

"So Cee-lo Green sings “Imagine” before the ball drop and, as has been done before, the lyrics are appallingly sanitized, changing “no religion too” to “all religion is true”. It’s sheer cowardly pandering bullshit. If you can’t respect the ideas of the song then just don’t sing the song. Leave it alone. Don’t twist it to say the very antithesis of what it was meant to say. I don’t even particularly like the song very much. But don’t take something deliberately provocative and counter-cultural and neuter it as an expression of inoffensive, bland conformity. Don’t take his dream of the end of religion and swap it out with a dream that all religions be equally accepted as true and good and pretend those are remotely the same things. They’re antithetical ideas.

"And so to censor John Lennon’s rejection of religion—while not censoring his rejection of nation states and not even censoring his rejection of private property, which is something far more integral to stability and prosperity of the modern world—again exempts religion from equal criticism on no legitimate grounds. Yeah, maybe the new version still offends fundamentalists since it declares “all religion is true” and that’s not exclusivist enough for them. And, yeah, I would rather see “true religions” than worry specifically about having no religions. But neither of those were Lennon’s dream solution to the plague of pointless religious conflict that has unnecessarily divided human beings for centuries. And that should be respected. The dissenting voice should be respected. Not those institutions and individuals who are intolerant of all dissent from their baseless dogmas.

"Maybe next year on New Year’s Cee-Lo will read us passages from Christopher Hitchens’s book God Is Great: How Religion Fixes Everythingor Richard Dawkins’s The God Solution."

And from The Guardian (from the comments):

dirkbruere
6 Jan 2012 13:33

"The worst "Imagine" could be accused of is naive idealism.
"If only that was the worst religion could be accused of..."

6 Jan 2012 13:46
Contributor

(GK Chesterton gets quoted more than he gets read these days, but he anticipated the present age: "It is often supposed that when people stop believing in God, they believe in nothing. Alas, it is worse than that. When they stop believing in God, they believe in anything.")

"And it's been debunked time and time again as a narrow-minded lack of empathy by someone who can't imagine not following something in blind faith.

"There are some of us out there who manage to live fulfilling lives and, shockingly, even care deeply for others without any religious beliefs. Maybe try speaking to us sometime, I'm sure you'll see Chesterton was talking rubbish too."

(end)

Maybe try speaking to us sometime, I'm sure you'll see Chesterton was talking rubbish too.

The problem is that Gilbert Keith's viewpoint has been borne out time and time again. People want a fundamental belief system, one that tells them their life has meaning and is worth living. If they can't, or won't, find it in religion, they'll find it in something. And that something may not always be benevolent.

All belief systems can be twisted for evil and nefarious purposes. Some even start out that way.

Worldwide Communism has a higher body count than National Socialism, probably higher than Medieval Christianity and Islam put together. Yet, Che Guevara, Mao Tse Tung, and the hammer and sickle adorn t-shirts and novelty items.

These symbols of evil past regimes are seen as socially acceptable, while the Christian cross must be erased from public life. Admitted socialists get thousands of Twitter followers and are elected to office while admitted Christian office holders are chastised for their belief systems and are told to leave them at the door.

The dogma lives loudly in many, not just Catholics.

> People want a fundamental belief
> system, one that tells them their
> life has meaning and is worth living

It's worse than that!!

Dear Blog Readers: I have an assignment for you in calendar year 2019—

For every book you read, for every article, for every broadcast item, for every blog post and for every text & Tweet, ask yourself: Does the composer of this notion presume that it flatters him- or her- self?

The demand will be made of you without guile. (Have you noticed that SJW's are like shameless children? And that your fellow blogbitches are like children as well?)

People are, as a rule, fucked in the head and incapable of humility. Coney understates the problem: They have a Twinkie on the tongue and an air conditioner howling in the window frame: Their lives are obviously worth living, and they couldn't argue otherwise.

The only thing left to ask of our provident Universe is that they themselves be certified as especially cute 'n courageous... Even if they've spent their lives sitting in AC, eating tawdry sweets.

Personally, I believe that if you can only express yourself PRIMARILY by wearing clothing with writing or political symbols on it, you shouldn't be expressing yourself at all - or maybe you're just too young to be expressing political beliefs.

As Judith Martin said: "Miss Manners is all in favor of freedom of speech for people, but she thinks it is time for clothes to shut up."

And from Buster Keaton (he and Charlie Chaplin were drinking beer in Keaton's kitchen, and Chaplin was the political type while the uneducated Keaton never even voted in his life):

"What I want,” (Chaplin) said, banging the table, “is that every child should have enough to eat, shoes on his feet, and a roof over his head!”

Naturally, this amazed me, and I asked, "but Charlie, do you know anyone who doesn't want that?" Charlie look startled. Then his face broke into that wonderful smile of his, and he began to laugh at himself...

"The worst "Imagine" could be accused of is naive idealism."

Not true at all. Lennon's Imagine is beautiful evil. It takes truly horrific things and puts a veneer of respectability and good intentions on top of them. The reality of the world Lennon is imagining is one where all humans are dead. And in a painful way at that.

Like what? He didn't mention communism in the song, if that's what you mean.

FWIW, Richard Dawkins called the song "magnificent," and if HE were a communist or some such, we'd know by now.

So, if I talk about an animal with a long nose, gray skin, very big, but I don't mention an elephant then I'm clearly not talking about an elephant Lenona? Don't be dense. And no Dawkins doesn't excuse the inherent evil that song promotes.

And to be clear I wasn't referring to communism either when I called it beautiful evil. But Lennon clearly was.

Let's look at one specific lyric: "Imagine there's no countries. . .". Hate to break it to you, John, but if there were no countries, there would be hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of tribes. The number would dwindle over time as they killed each other off in ceaseless petty wars.

I agree that Imagine is a very creepy and nihilistic song that most people completely misinterpret.

One the anti-white theme..

It's worth re-reading Ezra Klein's defense of Jeong, which boiled down to 'everyone talks that way' in his circles. But he doesn't take it personally, so it's OK.

What he acknowledged by this(indirectly)is that 'white' in his world means 'those whites' - the ones who aren't woke Progressives and probably eat at Applebees.

In a lot of ways the promotion of anti-white racism is a front in a proxy war by white progressives against the white middle class and the 'deplorable' white working class.

They nurture angry non-whites like Jeong to attack and degrade whites in the ways they can't.

What the hell song are you people listening to, Lennon is talking (or Imagining) about a world where people are living in harmony with one another. Where is that a "beautiful evil". If Lennon could be accused of anything it is being an idealist. And to be clear I don't even really like the song but at least learn to interpret the lyrics correctly.

What the hell song are you people listening to, Lennon is talking (or Imagining) about a world where people are living in harmony with one another. ~ M. Tuttle at December 14, 2018 4:41 AM

Lennon imagines that harmony and peace can only come from the things advocated by Karl Marx and his adherents: no borders, no property, no religion - i.e., nothing to divide us.

Notice he doesn't sing about peace coming from you staying on your side of the fence and me on mine (i.e., Frost's "good fences make good neighbors"), but of their being no fences at all.

These things lead to collectivism, which leads to totalitarianism. All things are for "the state" or "the people" and the government will decide what's the best use of it, naturally in the name of "the state" or "the people."

Personally, I think the song's inane drivel, but I won't leap over the couch to change the station if it comes on.

"Lennon imagines that harmony and peace can only come from the things advocated by Karl Marx and his adherents: no borders, no property, no religion - i.e., nothing to divide us."

Even more to the point, the song advocates the idea that humans can live in harmony only if all human institutions are eliminated. To me, it's a very sad song; it says, "What if there was no reason to live?" Lennon, as noted by Ben, was sliding into nihilism at the time he wrote this; the sarcastic-but-hopeful Lennon was being replaced by the misanthropic Lennon, who had basically turned over all responsibility for his thoughts and opinions to Yoko Ono. If I want to listen to that sort of thing, I'll go put on Type O Negative's "Gravitational Constant"; at least it has grit.

Add: What this really comes down to is the leftist vision of the ideal common men and women as interchangeable parts. Tools to be used, with the leftist leaders as the puppet masters. One doesn't work right, you throw it away and get another one. It's how a narcissist views humanity.

but of their being no fences at all. ~ Conan the Grammarian at December 14, 2018 6:39 AM

Apple's autocorrect is broken and will be the death of me, or the death of my blog handle. I typed it correctly and it should have read, "but of there being no fences at all."

This is not the first time it has done this to me. I now get red squiggly correction lines under the correct versions of two/too/to, you're/your, and even they're/there/their. I guess the illiterates have gotten jobs after all, at Apple.

Of course, I still have the option to edit the submission before clicking [SUBMIT], but I choose to blame Apple instead. It's all Cook's fault.

Imagine no autocorrect.

The only people I've heard calling the song "nihilistic" tend to be fundamentalists.

But how many famous individuals say it's pro-communist? (I can't name any of them.) Certainly not any significant percentage of the population.
________________________________________

So, if I talk about an animal with a long nose, gray skin, very big, but I don't mention an elephant
________________________________________

Would you mind specifically naming what you WERE talking about, if not communism?

And, for the record:
________________________________

https://theneedlefish.com/songs-of-the-day-archive-2/

"I always found its utopian sentiments a little naive and silly, and not at all like the cynical John we all knew (Lennon may have thought so too; at one point he was bitching about royalties when someone on staff reminded him 'Imagine no possessions, John', to which John responded 'it’s only a fucking song'."
______________________________________________

So even IF - that's "if" - he believed at some point that communism could work, chances are he wasn't really faithful to that ideal.

For a Lennon song from that era that's a lot more fun, check out "Instant Karma". That's Alan White, later of Yes, bashing away on the cymbals.

> more fun, check out "Instant Karma".
> That's Alan White

That's an interesting thing to mention, and much more representative of his post-B catalog.

[1.] First hearing of "Imagine" was in a church basement with a bunch of cute girls, similarly pubescent. I thought the song was just fabulous.

[1(a).] I grew out of that shit right away.

[1(b).] The song, not the girls.

[2.] That drum riff (yes, THAT one) from White was a clarifying demonstration that life goes on for your childhood idols even after that childhood and those idol parts are over, and it can be EVEN BETTER.

[3.] The failure of the chorus to enrich and entertain was compelling evidence that Lennon's best work was always going to have been as a partner to The Cute One.

[4.] Bruford did fine work with Yes, including things nearly as strong as the Beatles melodically, and White would eventually prove to to be a reliable presence in many ensembles.

[5.] My favorite Lennon solo piece was probably this, though that might not be the mix I remember. It calls to mind driving through the summery, humid hillsides at night, towards the richkid neighborhood where that girl lived.

Yes, that one.

I or someone nearby may have been smoking a lot of weed in those years. It's hard to say.

Amy: A particularly disgusting term is "white privilege."

Agreed. That's why it should be changed to "groveling bilious goblins privilege."