Uprooting the New Racism
In his Philadelphia address on race, Sen. Obama identified as a root cause of white resentment affirmative action—the punishing of white working- and middle-class folks for sins they did not commit:
"Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race," said Barack. "As far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything. . . . So when they . . . hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed . . . resentment builds over time."
On this issue, Barack seemed to have nailed it.
But then he revealed the distorting lens through which he and his fellow liberals see the world. To them, black rage is grounded in real grievances, while white resentments are exaggerated and exploited.
White resentments, said Barack, "have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. ... Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism."
What Barack is saying here is that the resentment of black America is justified, but the resentment of white America is a myth manufactured and manipulated by the conservative commentariat. Barack is attempting to de-legitimize the other side of the argument.
Yet, who is he to claim the moral high ground?
Where does this child of privilege who went to two Ivy League schools, then spent 20 years in a church where racist rants were routine, come off preaching to anyone? What are Barack's moral credentials to instruct white folks on what they must do, when he failed to do what any decent father should have done: Take his wife and daughters out of a church where hate had a home in the pulpit?
Barack needs to reread the Lord's admonition in the Sermon on the Mount: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer once wrote that all great movements eventually become a business, then degenerate into a racket.
That is certainly true of the civil rights movement. Begun with just demands for an end to state-mandated discrimination based on race, it ends with unjust demands for state-mandated preferences, based on race.
Under affirmative action, white men are passed over for jobs and promotions in business and government, and denied admission to colleges and universities to which their grades and merits entitle them, because of their gender and race.
Paradoxically, America's greatest warrior for equal justice under law and an end to reverse racism is, like Barack, a man of mixed ancestry. He is Ward Connerly. And his life's mission is to drive through reverse discrimination the same stake America drove through segregation.
And when one considers that the GOP establishment has often fled Connerly's cause and campaigns, his record of achievement is remarkable.
Connerly was chief engineer of CCRI, the 1996 California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209, which outlawed affirmative action based on ethnicity, race or gender in all public institutions of America's most populous state. Two years later, Connerly racked up a second victory in Washington.
In 2006, Connerly went to Michigan to overturn an affirmative action policy that kept Jennifer Gratz out of the University of Michigan, though she had superior grades and performance records than many minority students admitted. The Michigan proposition also carried and has been upheld by the courts.
One U.S. senator, however, taped an ad denouncing Connerly's Proposition 2 in Michigan and endorsed affirmative action for minorities and women. That senator was Barack Obama.
Comes now the big test. Connerly is gathering signatures to place on the ballots in Nebraska, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado and Missouri—the latter two crucial swing states—propositions to outlaw all racial, gender and ethnic preferences. Voting would be the same day as the presidential election.
"Race preferences are on the way out," declares Connerly.
Now that our national conversation is underway, Barack should be asked to explain why discrimination against whites is good public policy, while discrimination against blacks explains the rants of the Rev. Wright.
America is headed for a day, a few decades off, when there will be no racial majority, only a collection of minorities. When that day arrives, if some races and ethnic groups may be preferred because of where their ancestors came from, while others can be held back because their ancestors came from Europe, America will become the Balkans writ large.
Folks need to be able to separate the true friends of racial justice from the phonies who believe with the pigs on Orwell's Animal Farm—that "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
This all so tiresome but necessary. That's all I'll say about that, i'm zipping it.
Well, wait... these are our so-called values so - i'll comment. Are they ready to be fair to Us. ? It takes time...
this is big Giving that? or their having merited it ok - but yet are they ready to be really fair... we have to ask for ourselves. Or should we try to go the distance so that what they win is truly theirs?
"For I am shamed by that which I bring forth,
And so should you, to love things nothing worth." -W.S.
Are they 'ready' ... (are we?)
This is hardly tiresome, it's a very necessary discussion and I applaud Pat's stand. As usual the federal government has made a real mess of things (perhaps that was part of the plan).
The race issue has to be settled, but Barrack Obama only offers more of the same. Affirmative action needs to end.
Amen, Pat.
James, your comments are incomprehensible. Please work on your English.
“For I am shamed by that which I bring forth,
And so should you, to love things nothing worth.” -W.S.
you mean that - 'dominic' ... give an example...
make criticism girl comprehensible. kay? if possible for you, in time and space. not only the imagination in trees. ? scratch.
dominic -ho're- speak. i'm ready for battle... dominic... w'ho is nothing and nowhere. happily for me, and sadly for her. [actuality] ... i'd bet she WAS edward. - right Ed?
in this sacred spirit ... three cheers for WAR.
There is not 'racial injustice' in America. There is, however, 'racial unfairness'...and I am just fine with that.
Europeans came to this land and upon it founded what would become a great republic. Many factors attributed to the republic's downfall, not least of which was the non-repatriation of african-slaves... Allowing many and various other minority groups to enter America and establish roots was also a contributing factor to the nation's downfall...
To have barak 'n roll a viable if not leading candidate for the nomination to the highest federal office in the land is on the one hand--stupefying, and on the other hand--insulting.
I do not want reconciliation...I want the lot of them gone... By negotiation or by force of arms it is time to send the mongrels packing...
@ 7
"I do not want reconciliation...I want the lot of them gone..." Including Ward Connerly?
The United States is too big to be a civilized place to live. Better to see this "nation" broken up into dozens or hundreds of city-states.
Pat forgets to say here that Generation Diversity will coincide with Peak Oil. It will be less the Balkans than Mad Max.
If I understand the totals and percentages of voting Americans right. I would seem very possible that an organized "minority" in America could easily out vote the traditional voters.
We cannot discuss this issue because of Obama's other trick, calling people racist. He can discuss race all day long. But if you disagree with him LOOK OUT he will do to you what he helped do to Imus. He can even destroy you for humor. He is much worse than Joe McCarthy (who only went after legitimate targets). The word culturist helps disarm him.
If we want to discuss what he wants to discuss, we need to frame it in cultural issues. Black economic and educational achievement gaps stem from their cultural problems. We can productively discuss that. People cannot change their race. The government discussing white attitudes towards black cultural pathologies will not help. Using the word culturism directs the conversation where it needs to go.
Yes, they are poor. But yesterday I found out the high school within which I teach college students, has a fifty percent attendance rate. The Asst Principal who came and spoke to my class, explained that very few of the kids have fathers and many live in shelters. When I found the Asst Principal she was talking with a 14 year old student who was pregnant by a 27 year old. The reading level is 4th grade and the state has marked the school as failing. Discussing white attitudes about this in terms of race will not help.
In 1965, when the Moynihan report came out about black families being in trouble, the situation was not that bad. Such behavior is not race imbedded. The white out of wedlock rate of birth is now, I'm pretty sure, higher than the black one was then. Anyhow, all rates are higher. It is not because we've genetically mutated since 1965. It is cultural. Discussing racism with Mr. Obama, will not happen and it will not help. Discussing the impact of policy on culture, culturism, might.
http://www.culturism.us
Thank you, John Press!
Thank you, for thanking me, David Collins!!
John
Thank you for saying thank you guys to each other.
Perhaps we Can play together... why not-?-at this point -
and get something Done? (or when appropriate Not done.)
(Humor) - "Or call it winter, which, being full of care,
Makes summer's welcome, thrice more wished, more rare." -W.S.
I'm not sure that was an appropriate quote - I work under the assumption - you can't go 'wrong' with Shakepeare. ? Will someone explain to me what the above Shakespearian quote meant?
I would enjoy that.
I like Pat Buchanan's opinions on race much better when he doesn't sugar-coat the ending of segregation in America, which he unfortunately does in this instance. America never drove a stake through segregation. The federal courts unconstitutionally and therefore illegally ordered America to end segregation. Left-wing forces in the media and in academic circles then coerced America into a permanent belief that all branches of government at the federal, state, and all smaller levels are required by law to enforce the new court mandate.
Fortunately, Pat has in the past recognized the politically incorrect but factually correct history of the civil rights movement. In one of his books he noted that President Eisenhower could have used the incident of Brown vs. Board to pull an Andrew Jackson on the Supreme Court, and tell the justices to shed their robes and grab some guns and riot gear and enforce their precious new law themselves. The system of checks and balances between the three branches would have been maintained. My point I am stressing to Pat is this: To speak highly of the civil rights movement or even any of its aspects is a dangerous path for a Constitution-loving American conservative to walk.
Brock, in paragraph one you condemn illegality, in paragraph two you praise Andrew Jackson "over riding" the Supreme Court. You state that the Constitution / law does not apply to the President. Isn't that sort of dangerous? Is there a place where you see this sanctioned in the Constitution?
James, thank you for thanking us for thanking eachother. Playful or not, I think we so often bicker and try to "one up" that appreciation and civility are really a breath of fresh air.
Okay - here is my stab. The quote, if I'm not mistaken, is from "Taming of the Shrew." I remember it best from Elizabeth Taylor's version. What a shrieking maniac!!! It is at this point that Richard Burton (I bellieve) has finally, via much abuse, tamed her. During the day he says that the sun is the moon. She, being his wife, must agree. "No, lets call it Winter." "No lets call it Summer." "It is the moon." "Whatever you say my lord." This is the context.
At this point he has totally subjugated her via abuse. But this is not so negative as she realizes it is a game and decides to play along. She is being insane with him and it is the first time they really enjoy eachother's company. She has been tamed, all is in its rightful place, they can play his insane games together. He'll play lord and she, wife. At the end of the play she makes a huge anti-feminist speech, about the wife's place, which turns all feminist studies folk into shrews.
If the quote is not from the Taming of the Shrew, I have no idea what it means. : ) But, just the fact that someone mentions Shakespeare, improves us. You can't go wrong with Billy!
John Press,
upon what authority does the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution?
Yes. That's the context in my opinion too. Perhaps we're all 'crazy' but ok if in our rightful place?
Alright Billy, take it away:
"Sweet love, renew thy force. Be it not said
Thy edge should blunter be than appetite,
Which but today by feeding is allayed,
Tomorrow sharpened in his former might.
So, love, be thou; although today them fill
Thy hungry eyes even till they wink with fulness,
Tomorrow see again, and do not kill
The spirit of love with a perpetual dulness.
Let this sad int'rim like the ocean be
Which parts the shore where two contracted new
Come daily to the banks, that when they see
Return of love, more blessed may be the view..."
for this required too may be-?-
as you put it (John Press) - the taming of the shrew!?!
now in the vernacular... 'hey'Dog i'm down for it ... wizard!'
m.zurich, Ken Jones, Bill Temple, Brian Fagan, Haywood Hale, James Beck:
May I suggest you come up with one fake name and stick with it?
Pick any name. Engelbert Humperdink. Mohandas Ghandi. Sigmund Freud. It doesn't matter. Just settle on something, please.
Marbury v. Madison is the case in which Judicial Revew was established. Since that happened while Founding Fathers were around and alive (such as Madison) and there was no huge outcry, folks would argue it didn't thrash their expectations too harshly. I don't know of any denunciations of this role thereafter. Were there any popular ones that you know of? I'd love to read about them.
I am very much against activist judges. I don't think judges should make law. Their "discovery" of rights, as pre-existing without regard to the health of the polis, is something I attack in the book culturism. But, I think they protect abuse of power by having judicial review. Most Americans thought FDR's court packing scheme was an abuse of power and rose to the Court's defense to keep checks and balances.
After FDR's attempt to undermine them, the Court became like lambs. But then by the 1950s they were total lions. Do you know why? Was the only switch Earl Warren? What made them so heavily reinterpret their role within the Constitutional framework so quickly? Maybe it was putting a politician in charge of the court that did it. But that has happened before (Taft). Any insights?
http://www.culturism.us
Miller you're late. I already picked James Beck, and announced I would attempt to stick to it. And apologized for my obstusenesses. What do you want now a pound of flesh. If I post here I will not dump I will be terse and on point - I will be on best behavior or shut-up. I apologize. This should put you at ease...and rightly so.
John Press @16:
"Brock, in paragraph one you condemn illegality, in paragraph two you praise Andrew Jackson “over riding” the Supreme Court. You state that the Constitution / law does not apply to the President. Isn’t that sort of dangerous? Is there a place where you see this sanctioned in the Constitution?"
Quite the contrary, I was stating that the law and the Constitution DO apply to the federal courts. The Marshall Court in 1832 took upon itself the authority to order the state of Georgia to treat Cherokee Indians as a separate nation, immune to Georgia state laws. President Jackson thundered to the Court that they would have to initiate federal government force on the Georgians if they so chose (most disturbing to me is that even thirty years before the War for Southern Independence, it was already common practice for the justices to order U.S. Marshals to the concerned area to enforce activist decisions), because he himself would have no part of it.
I was stating what is true concerning the function of the judicial branch of our federal government, what had already been forgotten in 1832: that it has no authority to order another branch of government at any level to enforce a new law which was previously not understood to be in the Constitution, or U.S. Code, or whatever concerned framework of laws. That is the spirit of court activism, a concept introduced by John Marshall and put into regular practice by Earl Warren a century and a half later. What I sanction, and I believe the Constitution definitely sanctions, is the maintenance of our system of checks and balances when the courts push their limits of authority and power (and the courts were established as the MOST limited branch).
Brock, Interesting. So you trace the activist judges back much further.
But aren't activist judges those who decide what must happen as a remedy? For example, busing and levels of integration to satisfy them. Invalidating new laws is not, in my understanding, activist.
You obviously know more about the Cherokee removal than I. But my interpretation is that they were upholding contract. Jackson overruled the Court. Upholding contract is not activist, in my judgement. The judges were not ordering a remedy different than the status quo. Do I have my facts completely messed up? Do you define activist judges differently? And breaking contract, even by Presidents, is not legal, even if they disagree with the supreme court. Do you not agree?
James, nice "pound of flesh" reference. Mr. Miller, have you read the Merchant of Venice? Do we not bleed? I will agree, we jews have been at the forefront of judicial activism and the horrible concept of "social justice" in the U.S. But this is a negative cultural influence, not racial, in my book. In medeival Europe, Jews were conservative (not biting the hand that feeds them). The Ashkenazi Jews, not the sephardic, are the social justice Jews. That comes out of the secular Russian expereience. My grandfather was in WW II and was raised in Alabama. He was extremely conservative. This is not genetic.
I think you should fight ideas and not people. I think racist talk can only lead to violence. People cannot change their race, so unless there is genocide, speaking of race is not productive. Speaking of cultural tendencies within the U.S. Ashkenazi Jewish tradition is more productive. Unlike race, ideas and cultural presuppositions can be changed. As a conservative, I hope to change ideas. The idea of changing race is a no starter. Liberal and conservative are not genetic.
http://www.culturism.us
@John Press: I really appreciate your arguments on framing these debates in terms of culture, and you are right that race is not the only nor even the most important issue at stake.
The problem is that the left will not stand for arguing in any other terms, because since they have falsely claimed the moral high ground on racial issues it is just too tempting to slander their opponents.
And this is why the prospect of an Obama preseidency is so dangerous. Anyone who attempts to make a "cultural" or any other argument against amnesty for illegal aliens will be decried as a "racist." If the left will trash its one-time dollies for "racist" remarks about Obama they will certainly do the same to their sworn enemies.
Oh... and by the way, if under Obama a group of black activists stands up and argues about the negative effects of massive immigration on the wages of blue-collar blacks? Don't be the least bit surprised if he turns on them. I would bet any money the leftist machine finds a way to spin them as "Uncle Tom" mouthpieces for "xenophobic" whites.
John you make good points in yours right above. I used to make that point too as 'george' when posting on the old sf site. Not that it needed it, they weren't racists. As indocrinated Christians they do *not come out of for the past 1,500 years a supremacist ideology. But face it if possible, like judaism still is. So you see I don't fight me or you but ideas as well.
Being terse here's though a tiny problem or rub in terms of fighting ideas not people. ... When we evolved once conscious (aware of being aware) we only noticed what we were thinking-anyway. A thought (unlike an idea which is open-ended) is something complete in itself and something we can Do. ... Once pausing at this new conceptual level, we started to refine our thought if we didn't like the ones we were automatically having. So here's an example of a refined thought, something complete in itself and something we can do: don't confuse motion with action. ... One of the unrefined foundational thoughts for that one is: he has what I want I'll kill him and get it. ... Is that 'action' or motion? Over time we noticed doing that sooner than later tends to get me and all of my clan killed. So why not learn how to plant seeds and get the corn I want too. That too is comlete in itself and something I can do. So the learning became action and subsequently the killing motion. TIME is a factor.
The 'ideas of people' on the other hand (not actually thoughts per se) which are like wishes or dreams and open-ended and not complete in themselves (i.e. ideology), when they are drilled into peoples heads 'as if' actual and especially when supremacist and repeated over and over again for millennia - in this case about 2 1/2 - get so close to the bone, it becomes very difficult to separate the two. ... That's why judaism had to redeem itself after its catastrophe and became christianity ('G-d's second love.) ... But for the unredeemed - do you yet notice how close to the bone their ideology yet is - in how they are behaving today in Palestine? ... Ideas, wishes dreams all open-ended are great too but only when *identified as such. ... As a practical matter they realease the most endorphins in us i.e. the brain's natural painkillers (which allowed us *all with our frail and vulnerable bodies to evolve to our current pause at the conceptual level.) They tend to be more beautiful. Sure. ... But there is no willfully *implementing the Myth which is made-out-of-them. ... They're NOT complete in themselves, they're NOT something we Can do. Even when we have a golem like the United States with a silver hammer.
You see? There are a few deep-seated mistakes in Western culture (not so many). There are a multiplicity much, much more in Judaic culture which haven't been dealt with for those who never got with the Christian redemption of those errors... And just like the ever ready bunny those mistakes keep going on and on and on...so close to the bone in how they affect conceptual creatures like all of us, they don't even recognize it. You're a culturist, right? - See?
Remember the Beatles, 'bang-bang Maxwell's silver hammer came down on their head...bang-'bank' Maxwell's silver hammer made sure they were dead...'
Besides the Fact that ain't gonna work... is it racist, and aren't we better than that?
p.s. - to my above post to John P. ... aren't we smarter than that? - no, that's myth too. rent into strips one's garments and CRY out to the G-d or nothing above. [how's that for culture?] ... SCREAM - ... now we're getting somewhere farther along - the primal scream. amen. SCREAM. ouch, mama - oh, well there's humor too. Funny.
ouch, did you get the FEELING ... did the feeling grow... let's hope -
EVERYDAY I WANT TO BE CLOSER... to Being - daily walking closer -
totality of us each got it down in that soul
... did you get the feelin -?-! ... flying - here - too, then
(oh no i ain't to do posts like this ... sorry i forgot... ouch) write me off... oh, well -
NGPM, that would be very interesting if black people - some of the prime victims of immigration - actually started to talk about it. They would have to claim rights as Americans. I would be so happy if they did so. Michelle Obama might have to say she is not only not proud about being an American, but a black American.
James, I'm so sorry. I tried to get what you said, but don't quite get it. I'll try to respond, but I'm not sure It'll be relevant to what you think.
You are saying - sorry if I got it wrong - that we learn through experience and this requires time.
Ideoglogy or ideas, on the other hand, are assumptions impervious to experience. They are the assumptions we do not question. They are the operating assumptions upon which we might consider thoughts / actions.
After that you kind of lose me. I'm not sure what the Beatles have to do with your argument. The poetic second post seems to be a cry for despair. So I'll only try to respond to what I got out of the first post.
Culturism contains a chapter on natural science. It operates on the assumption that, as you pointed out, people do not think. That is, we are designed to absorb the culture we are born into without questioning it. It would be a suicidal flaw for a culture to question all its premises generation in and generation out.
We need to go for the throat. Culturism does not attack a particular policy, but the trunk and roots of the problem. Multiculturalism and anti-Western sentiments are eating us up. They are both being unconsciously transmitted (black rage) and taught. We need to fight this.
Culturism provides an alternative that can spread easily. It can give the silent majority the leverage it needs to easily propagate change. It can spread quickly via media. It also needs to be an official opposite to multiculturalism in order to be taught in schools. As per the general themes in this discussion, culturism drawing attention away from the constant cry of racism to the real problem, it does great ideological work.
Here is the bottom line. Culturism and culturist are potentially strong sources of identification, shifting the ideological basis of our discussions, disarming those who use the word racism too much, and making us aware of our need to value our traditions. The cost, nothing. All it costs is using the word in conversation. That lowers resistance to the word spreading and it also lowers the risk. In other words, we stand to gain a lot and risk nothing. Despair doesn't help (nothing will come of nothing). We have to try everything to bring sanity back into our political discourse about immigration, race, economic cause and effect, education and other debates.
http://www.culturism.us
I can't stand now that I am old enough to begin to grasp and be interested in politics and discussion about the world, that the tone discussing important matters is similar to the Starbuck's morning mommy kaffee-klatches. Reactionary, in-the-box-thinking, rulebook guided, and far from the calm, serious search for truth. Ferraro says something and grown men freak out. Obama this, Hillary that. It's all about the said/she said. It's catty and girlie and doesn't give me much faith that manly men are running things. I want to trust in you, I want to trust that you are unafraid, but my woman-radar is picking up something is very, very wrong.
@28: Some blacks are in fact standing up--Carol Swain, for instance. Media, academia and so-called black "leadership," soon to be known as the "Obama cohort," have at best aggressively marginalised and at worst demonised this sharp and inspirational woman for her observations on interracial conflict management and contention that blacks' failure to hold themselves accountable can only provoke white resentment. This is not the least because the three aforementioned institutions are largely responsible for planting the seeds of the trouble that's brewing. If they allowed the debate to shift on this subject it would effectively annihilate their credibility. Not that we shouldn't try, but we have to understand what we are fighting.
According to them, a "black leader" who doesn't trumpet the victimhood card does not qualify for a voice within the community. It's so absurd one might as well say Swain has effectively forfeited her right to be considered black, even though she has no white parent. It's as though a half-Jewish Nazi told me I'm not racist enough to speak for any "white" nation or be considered white.
As you suggest, independent thought may not be inborn. It is however one of the truly shameful signs of our times that our very thought-élite is by and large incapable of thinking, within or without a cultural framework and/or bias.
We are fighting a vicious, deceitful monster that will stop at nothing to continue on its destructive path.
@29: These are not inspiring times we live in or inspiring rulers we live under and this is not a comfortable or assuring situation for anyone. However, as a young man I appreciate hearing such a perspective on the revolting collapse of masculine leadership. In a culture like this we men need all the inspiration we can get to resist the tide of dependance and equivocation allowed and encouraged.
Thanks John. I forget what I said above in the 'poetic' posts. So let's move on to what you said which is more coherent.
"Ideoglogy or ideas, on the other hand, are assumptions impervious to experience. They are the assumptions we do not question. They are the operating assumptions upon which we might consider thoughts / actions." - John Press
Exactly. Ideology is akin to metaphysics which is an inquiring really about that which is beyond or 'over' us human beings. And to recover them/us vis a vis that view or perspective in toto for someone's 'grasp.' ... That's *impossible. ... But it is such a universal human desire, albeit misguided without qualifications - we all do it and fall prey to its being done to us. We're so sort of universally 'guilty' in knowing we're [all] like this...So we automatically 'forgive' it. Or if forgiveness isn't the word, expect and accept it. ... We say to ourself even if subconsciously - 'well I would have done that.' ?
That's the wrong use of ideology or metaphysics which is appropriate in its place. And its 'place' is *huge anyway. It's 'who' we are as human beings. It just needs to be curbed or the human desire for its preeminence curbed not so that it's not preeminent. It IS. But so that it's not too big. [Humor: metaphysics herself needs a shrink.]
It's why no amount of science can attain to the status or seriousness of metaphysics or philosophy because they are human nature itself. It's also the 'danger' of democracy or it's *downside.
BECAUSE since the truth of our metaphysical human nature dwell constantly on a ground that is in Fact groundless - for that reason it always also stands nearest to the worst sort of errors. -
Neocons - Bush - perfect examples - *not because they are doing what's needed that the people don't realize. But BECAUSE they are just like the people at their *worst in terms of metaphysical delusion.
When they then act that out in our world - (you witness the rest of it.)
The knee-jerk reaction to what I've written - would be - ok metphysics bad - science good. No both are real both are human both are necessary both are good & *bad.
In short you need a philospher king like me to rule for my and everyone's own good.
I accept.
Buchanan says "who the heck is Obama to say what Whites should do ? he didn't come from poverty, the deep south, south central LA-whatever-oppressed-black-stereotype-fits-best, in saying basically, what right does he have to preach, because let's call it what it is, there's a recipe here, although I am not sure of all the ingredients. 1/4 MLK, 1/4 Kennedy, maybe you can tell me who makes up the rest, but it doesn't smell original to me. I'm thinking , what does it matter if he was a product of an unknown father in the projects, whether or not Obama has 'ghetto cred' is not relevant.
Whether he is Ivy League or from poverty, I can't see handing over the reins and just throwing/giving away the old system completely, because some of it wasn't fair; merit>>baby>>bathwater>>no water>>third world>>etc
Obama's socio-economic status should not matter for YOUR decisions. It's like a kid saying, "but Bobby's nation lets everyone in, and take over, and they get to stay up all night and eat candy, you're not fair! you're mean! you hate children!" But, you, being the dad, have to set limits and say, "If Bobby's nation wants to do that, OK, but that is not what we think is good for our nation, we don't believe in that."
@ Beret, good to see you. I was starting to think only starchy old white guys posted here :p
As to the article, are you kidding me? Let the white male have his throat stepped on for about 400 years and we'll call it even. Yep, we are all talking about things that happened years and generations ago. The point is until it is repaid in kind we'll never be even. Oh, and after black americans are done with white men, we women get to have a turn at the lot of you for a few thousand years. Until white men are globally stomped into submission there can be no peace.
I wonder what conservative reading Steve Miller has done that makes him declare that "conservatism starts with race . . . " ? Burke? De Maistre? Metternich? Are there any of the founders of classical conservative thought who would have agreed with this silly idea? If there are, he needs to point them out. And as for finding blacks worth living next door to, I can show you lots of middle class blacks in my neighborhood who take a lot better care of their property, thus showing more respect for the community (and that, whether you know it or not, is a conservative value), than some of my disgraceful white trash neighbors. I also wonder how you define "civilized"? Ever read du Bois? Ever listened to the music of Ellington? Ever read the scientific work of Percy Lavon Julian? (Admit it, you don't even know who he is.) You may like or dislike their work, but by every rational standard they deserve to be called producers of civilized cultural contributions. I'm white, and have been disadvantaged througout my life by affirmative action. I detest it, and I detest the spurious rhetoric of the victimhood industry. But your history is laughable (Nubians and whites in Egypt - hilarious, man!), and your thinking doesn't hold up to rational scrutiny.
COMEON427,
if you're tired of us evil cave men keeping you down in America, why not go establish your own separate state as King wanted to do?
Prove to us that blacks don't commit more crimes, don't abandon their wives and aren't prone to polygamy, aren't lazy, aren't less intelligent, and are capable of building Egypt... on their own.
Regarding Egypt, yes, yes, as a young honky I admit we planted those mummies. Egypt has really always been a black state, you'll find the accepted history of Egypt is all just a pack of lies. Another example of whites keeping the man down.
Not... that I'm trying to be hateful, but if you've got it so bad then set up your own state. Be constructive and seek out your own path rather than blaming others and planning revenge.
And Egyptian pharaohs were not black for the most part until the 25th dynasty.
Blacks have a lot to be proud of, and there's no need to take credit for Egypt.
I was just reading - an archaic form of the word Being as 'Beyng' disappeared from Engligh after the 16th Century ... but even then or especially then they were 'smart'. It is as its own word signification - of the distance between Being and beings (in any moment personally speaking or in any epoch collectivley speaking.) Because you know in freedom we can go bogus; ... and in a given age the difference or distance can be too far to go. Being herein does not refer to a divine being or supernatural. But to the ground that is always preserved when we return to freedom or truth because the essence of truth is freedom.
'God' bless. See that One is already known... not necessary to be spelled G-d, in that one. ... The other one is unknown which is also ok. But as I was always saying on the old sf site (remember) we ARE and so you always need BOTH. Like two sides of a coin don't get confused it always also works out into one. This doesn't speak of peoples rather IDEAS.
What's the problem? -
Funny... is someone stupid? Or everyone? Probably the latter these days. funny... tom/s ... and joe's and johns LAUGH ? {if possible} Got to fight though especially domestically if love [in time/freedom] is yet a battlefield. And it IS when it is.
@Frank
I never said that black americans don't cause more problems nor did I suggest that any African state has been as or more successful than any caucasian state now or in the past.
That planet is getting browner, get over it.
Blacks might not do well in white societies, but they might well do better than whites in black societies.
The world isn't getting browner... if whites disappear, then Asians will inherit the Earth. The world won't get brown unless they give it up - it'll be up to them to decide.
As genetic engineering becomes more prevalent though, it will change things: naturalists v. transhumans might become an important front of conflict, though again the Asians will be the ones who decide if whites don't restore their nations.
Pat leaves out an important point - the "anti-racism" campaign is mostly class warfare by another name, just a way for the white upper middle class to separate themselves from the white classes below them while giving them a good kicking at the same time. They've been pretty much able to neutralize any political threat from the lower classes with this tactic.
"Let the white male have his throat stepped on for about 400 years and we’ll call it even."
Not a good analogy. Blacks live far better in the U.S, (and other white societies) than in Africa. That is being raised up, not having your "throat stepped on."
@ Bernie
"That is being raised up" According to you. It seems the majority of males on a site like this would rather take their chances with the uninterrupted stream of fate than find themselves subject to any other no matter how brief or seemingly for their betterment.
Once again, I am not saying that the black population of any African state has it better than African Americans. I am merely pointing out that we have an affinity for being in charge of our own destiny and chaffing at those incidents in history we see as limiting this potential. I believe that until I, as white, have an historical equivalent to slavery that informs my reality I have no grounds to object to my fellow African American citizens claims of unfairness.
Now as a woman, I know the male population will come to a sorry end. It is all a matter of time and technology. Women have a much more developed sense of long term revenge than the general male populace will ever appreciate.
Slaves can be treated well, as can subjects of a king.
Slavery in the South has often been compared to a father of a large family, and the blacks were indisputably treated better as slaves in American than slaves in Africa.
Slavery still exists in the world today.
It was whites who ended slavery... and yet we're blamed for it today because the West once was powerful enough to dominate the world. The West decided to use that power to allow for self determination and to remove its colonies and end slavery, but can you imagine what most any historical black leader would have done with such power?
Whites ought to be thanked for all they've done...
---
"Women have a more developed sense of long term revenge"?
Where are you getting this stuff? The reason women weren't given the right to vote originally is their inferior reasoning ability, on average.
Do you know how women are treated in most every nonwhite country? You're biting the hand that pets you...