Here's my new VDARE.com column.
Read it there and comment about it below.
Currently, the GOP brain trust of professional political consultants is baffled by the question of how the mostly white Republicans can possibly ever again defeat a growing coalition of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and liberal whites.
Hmmmhmmmhmm ... That's a tough one. Clearly, nobody in the entire global history of conflict has ever figured out a strategy to use against a large but diverse coalition.
Oh, wait, I have heard of a strategy.
It's called Divide and Conquer.
See, the idea is that you encourage the other side to squabble amongst themselves over their conflicting interests.
For example, the Republicans can say to the Democrats,
Of course, what the Democrats want is A) Both and B) For nobody to ever mention either topic in public.
In this decade, GOP leaders like Bush and McCain have been happy to play into Democrats' hands, with the inevitable results.
Currently, the GOP brain trust of professional political consultants is baffled by the question of how the mostly white Republicans can possibly ever again defeat a growing coalition of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and liberal whites.
Hmmmhmmmhmm ... That's a tough one. Clearly, nobody in the entire global history of conflict has ever figured out a strategy to use against a large but diverse coalition.
Oh, wait, I have heard of a strategy.
It's called Divide and Conquer.
See, the idea is that you encourage the other side to squabble amongst themselves over their conflicting interests.
For example, the Republicans can say to the Democrats,
"Okay, let's talk about a compromise on Racial Preferences and Immigration. Obviously, we can't afford to have both. If you'll stop and think for a moment, you'll see why.
"So, you Democrats go discuss amongst yourselves which one you want -- Racial Preferences or Immigration -- and which one you don't want. Let us know when you make up your minds. It's an important decision, so make sure to hash it out fully. Get input from all interest groups within the Democratic Party. Take your time!"
Of course, what the Democrats want is A) Both and B) For nobody to ever mention either topic in public.
In this decade, GOP leaders like Bush and McCain have been happy to play into Democrats' hands, with the inevitable results.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
112 comments:
"How can the majority afford to continue to provide racial preferences to minorities as it stops being a majority?"
Obviously this will come to an end real soon now. Any time now. Any day...
"You’ve said that you don’t think it would be fair for your daughters to benefit from racial preferences. What have you done as President to make sure they don’t?"
By working to bring closer that day when racial preferences will no longer be necessary.
"In case of an appeal, will your Administration side with the Fire Department of New York or against it?"
To take sides in such matters would be a violation of the 10th Amendment. I know about these things. I taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
"If, as you repeatedly claimed during the campaign, your highest priority has always been the care of your children, how could you have earned $317,000 in 2005 at the U. of Chicago Hospitals as the community outreach and diversity coordinator?"
I provided a strong role model and the highest quality daycare. They turned out wonderfully, don't you agree?
"The medical center eliminated your old position when you left it to become First Lady. Was this because the chief duty for which you earned $317,000 was being the spouse of a U.S. Senator?"
Organization charts change to suit the current mix of capabilities in the available personnel. Managerial flexibility is the name of the game in the globally competitive marketplace.
You use the phrase "Latino Elite."
I don't think the USA really has one. High socio-economic status latinos seem to intermarry with non-hispanic whites at a rate well above 50%, and even when they marry other latinos they are usually mostly to entirely white and fully assimilated.
If there are high-status mostly black/indian latinos I can't say I've ever met one. Because so many high-status hispanics assimilate into anglo white society, all that's left to form a "latino elite" is a few professors, politicians and NGO people who make a point of trying not to assimilate.
About half of these positions in LA seem to be filled by Cesar Chavez's large extended family.
The GOP is not going to do anything. The current GOP need to die out for anything to really change.
Newt Gengrich is the only GOP pol I know who has the smarts and the verbal acuity to talk seriously and persuasively about such a thing as race--and I wish he would.
What Newt says packs no wallop with the left but might do so with the vast middle.
I hope Gengrich recognizes that he hasn't a chance of being elected President so I hope he sticks to strategizing and/or appearing on television to talk about such serious issues as race and social policy.
It's unfortunate that because Newt cannot project warm and fuzzies there are those who will not listen to a thing he says, but I have hope--since just a few years ago I was a misguided liberal.
Oh, Rudy can talk race....but he's going to run for governor so I can't see his entering the fray.
Romney? I wish he had the political cajones, but he's already battling the baggage of Mormonism.
I wish I saw more women like Michelle Malkin on tv. Someone like Coulter is nothing more than a caricature. She speaks to the choir.
However, a Malkin can speak to women in the middle and to the relatively young. Unfortunately, we don't see enough like her.
At least Gates can not be said to be a true cosmopolitan in that his concern for the indigenous African-Americans trumps those of immigrant Africans and West Indians, who under the tenets of liberalism have as much right to a college education as the descendants of slaves. Gates would be exhibiting discrimination if he insisted on hindering the educations of the foreign born. With such conflicting tendencies it is a wonder that the diversity lobbies do not devour one another.
The current GOP elite consensus is - we gotta get hispanic voters, which means we gotta be pro immigration, no matter what. Dick Armey, Bush the lesser, etc.
There are two options:
1. People vote for candidates of their race.
2. Candidates vote for whoever represents their ideals (small government, when should we go to war) etc.
When talking about the hispanic vote, the MSM always assumes they vote along color lines, ie, Obama is the candidate more like them ethnically.
If that was the case McCain lost that vote already. If not he's assumed to be pandering to bigots.
McCain failed to stand up for the working class citizenry. He acts like a regular dude, and he is a war hero, but he's basically a Teddy Kennedy wannabe.
Most American's don't want more immigration and hated the *comprehensive* bill. It'll be interesting to see where the reaction to it comes from. If at all.
This piece is riddled with lies. Sailer puts quotation marks around the world 'friend' to make it seem like Obama sided with Gates purely out of racial solidarity rather than the fact that Obama personally knows Gates. Second, Sailer conveniently fails to mention that Crowley lied in his police report--a fact that makes Crowley look not so innocent. What we have here then is the hilarious sight of a racist screaming "Obama is a racist!"
Bob said:
"You use the phrase "Latino Elite."
I don't think the USA really has one. High socio-economic status latinos seem to intermarry with non-hispanic whites at a rate well above 50%, and even when they marry other latinos they are usually mostly to entirely white and fully assimilated. ..."
As far as every government and private enterprise is concerned, the are 100% latino, and 100% eligible for special treatment based on ethnicity that others do not receive, ie affirmative action. And the assimilated 'Latino' elite will make use of those preferences regardless of how assimilated or how little Latino ancestry they have, regardless of how elite and privileged that ancestry was, and regardless of their family and friends who do not qualify for preferences.
Good article, but its poison to go after a politician's family. Sure Michelle Obama got her hospital job due to nepotism, but that's par for the course for politicians' wives and children, no need to single out Mrs. Obama.
And perhaps your political logic is a bit off.
If you're advocating that we limit affirmative action to descendants of slaves and Indians (the only two groups singled out in the US Constitution), then you don't want to run down Skip Gates because it devalues his research about immigrants capturing so much of the affirmative action spoils.
Jim Bowery sez:
"How can the majority afford to continue to provide racial preferences to minorities as it stops being a majority?"
Please wake up. In South Africa whites are discriminated against in all public institutions and blacks automatically on the AA gravy train. Even blacks who recently illegally immigrated from other African countries get preference. Yet whites make up 75% of the tax base. So they are being forced to finance their own demise. Whites there now only make up 5%, after the ANC opened the borders and flooded the place with blacks from other African states (11mio illegals on top of a local pop. of 45mio, i.e. 24%). So no, there is no end in this. Even if only 1 white remains, he will be forced to pay for the AA of the rest. AA only ceases when every last white has been ethnically cleansed out of a country. Zimbabwe is a good example.
>This piece is riddled with lies.<
So using quotation marks the way that Sailer did can turn something into a lie. Amazing. I shudder to think what acts of rhetorical malevolence an evil genius such as Sailer could perform if he ever availed himself of that arcane punctuation mark, the semicolon. The world would tremble!
"beowulf said...
Good article, but its poison to go after a politician's family."
It seemed to work with the Clintons. Partly because Hillary was such a caustic and unlikeable person. As is Michelle Obama. I agree the children should be left of it. Rush Limbaugh proved himself to be one choice jerk when he started insulting a 14 year old girl on his radio show. (although when Chelsea became an adult, and got a high-paying job with McKinsey that was essentially a bribe to the Clintons, she became fair game).
"Sure Michelle Obama got her hospital job due to nepotism, but that's par for the course for politicians' wives and children, no need to single out Mrs. Obama."
Sure there is. Black women may like her, but probably few other people do. To most white men, she could be the very embodient of the whole diversity regime, which has as it's number one enemy white men.
Make her and her no-show job an issue. Early, and often.
I enjoyed the article. I think its spot on and basically a summary of talking points axelrod and his puppets have been and are avoiding like the plague. Once the public begins talking about this stuff in the open, the MSM and axelrod machine cannot deny it without looking either like people with evil intent or stupid.
kudzu bob--
You side-stepped the point that Sailer makes it look like Obama sided with Gates out of "racial solidarity" rather than the fact that Obama KNOWS Gates. It's inconvenient for Sailer that Obama and Gates happen to know each other, and it would have been much sweeter for him if they weren't acquaintances--hence why 'friend' gets a quotation mark. I'm sorry that the concept of using quotes to denote sarcasm eludes you.
The GOP is in shambles. What they should do--what they must do!--is take advice from a ranting racist as to how to fix their image and increase their popularity.
"I'm sorry that the concept of using quotes to denote sarcasm eludes you."
Dear Anonymous:
I wasn't being sarcastic. I put quotation marks around the world "friend" to indicate that I was quoting Obama on how he views Gates. The friendlier the relationship avowed by Obama between himself and Gates, the more he can get dragged into being asked his opinion over what Gates says.
Yes, indeed, what could be more self-evidently evil than to quote at great length from the President of the United States' memoirs?
Your post had no point to sidestep, any more than it contained any proof whatsoever that Crowley lied in his police report.
The President would never have run his mouth the way he did merely for some over-privileged white academic fraud who had had a run in with the fuzz.
No, the whole affair isn't so much about racial solidariy as it is drenched in racial solidarity.
Uh, your reading of Obama's book takes this form:
Sailer: Obama has deep animosity towards white people.
from Obama's book: "I once got mad at my grandparents because they were afraid of some black person on the street, or something."
Sailer: See, Obama is a racist who hates white people.
And so on.
Once again, Bob, you overlook the fact that Obama KNOWS Gates. What you call "racial solidarity" is more like "friendship."
And Bob, Crowley's police report is a matter of puplic record. He attributed to the person who dialed 9/11 that she claimed "two black men" were breaking into a house when she made no reference to race. Some error. If this fact is advertised (it isn't so much now) it would *certainly* erode any support that Crowley enjoys and make him out to be a racist. It's just curious that Sailer doesn't touch on Crowley's telling lie. I wonder why.
what a hideous dead end culture we have arrived at in america......the confident patriarchal culture of champions has been replaced by the international matriarchal culture of victimhood....and there is the rub.....
the laundry list of future political leaders in this country is so lame it reads like comedy......that lame list is a product of the culture and the sad fact is that a hopelessly broken culture can only produce hopelessly broken leaders........
culture is the whole ballgame...that is why the marxists attack it with such ferocity.....culture is the keystone of the civilization and once gramscian culture cracking goes mainstream then the battle has been won by the usurpers......and that is the ugly place where we are at today in america.......
it is now easy to visualize the entire continent of north america plunged into a thousand years of hyper destructive tribal warfare from say 2015 onward.......and the peaceful productive domestic tranquility of united states of america 1700-2000 period will be about as familiar to the future warriors as the roman empire was to the warring middle ages tribes of italy.......
Hey Anonymous --
You show 'em!
The most powerful man in the world may have his finger on the nuclear button and the media at his beck and call....but he needs even MORE defenders. And you stepped right up.
Afflict the afflicted and comfort the comforted. Or something. Right?
Because obviously the most important thing in the world right now is to attack Steve Sailer, the penniless truthteller, and to defend the multimillionaire in the White House.
Keep telling us that "racism" is the biggest problem in America when the most powerful man in the world is black. No one believes it any more.
Signed,
Another Anonymous
Headache - James Bowery was using that quote to make a point.
Believe me Headache, James, far from needing to wake up, is as about as awake as its possible to be on the issues here, if you look back on his comments here - and on other sites you will see this.
I don't think you would find any argument with him over the situation regarding whites in SA for instance.
Anyhow look him up...
"Yet whites make up 75% of the tax base."
Maybe 75% of the tax payers, but certainly much more than that in terms of total tax revenue.
Nevermind the last comment. I realize now that he was talking about SA, not the USA.
One problem, the neocons are GOP in name only. They are the same liberal elite as the DEMs are.
With well propagandized exception or empty rhetoric, the plurality of the neocon GOP is for:
- open-boarders
- affirmative action
- big government
- hate speech laws
- and nearly every other anti-national, anti-democratic and anti-conservative issue that the DEMs support
The GOP can't have a divide and conquer the DEM, because the DEMs have infiltrated and taken over the GOP. Hence, no GOP is going to even raise the issue.
With such conflicting tendencies it is a wonder that the diversity lobbies do not devour one another.
Too busy feeding on the fat white herd. But as that herd thins down to skinny, savvy survivors fewer in number, the jackals will start looking more like food to one another.
~Svigor.
So no, there is no end in this.
One difference is that SA is blacks vs. whites, not a coalition of NAMs, Asians, and everyone else against whites.
Then there's the fact that American muscle was always behind anti-Apartheid. Who's going to lean on white Americans?
~Svigor
You side-stepped the point that Sailer makes it look like Obama sided with Gates out of "racial solidarity" rather than the fact that Obama KNOWS Gates.
At this point it's practically impossible to disentangle leftism from black racial solidarity. So in this context they're synonymous.
That said, you're saying, if the sides were reversed in Gates vs. Crowley, Obama would've behaved the same way?
That's pretty hard to swallow. Impossible, really, as there is no leftist/white-racialist narrative to fall back on.
Nope, if Obama KNEW world-famous white history studies professor Crowley, as he KNOWS Gates, I have a feeling he wouldn't have thrown the whole weight of America's leftist pro-white "civil rights" narrative behind Crowley with a knee-jerk assumption that the black officer Gates "acted stupidly".
~Svigor
Obama, being familiar with his friend, thought that his arrest was stupid and commented as much. *You* are the one injecting race into this.
In the next universe over, President Romney was just impeached for siding with a world-renowned white studies professor (with whom he's acquainted) involved in a racial flap with a black police officer. Congress couldn't allow such old boy white supremacist networking, you see. Hyperbole? Well, of course, it's an alternate universe after all.
~Svigor
"Anonymous said...
Uh, your reading of Obama's book takes this form:
Sailer: Obama has deep animosity towards white people.
from Obama's book: "I once got mad at my grandparents because they were afraid of some black person on the street, or something."
Sailer: See, Obama is a racist who hates white people.
And so on."
And the twenty years that Obama sat in Reverend Wright's church, listening to him - without protest - accuse white's of engineering diseases which which to exterminate blacks.....Obama did this because he likes whites?
Once upon a time Steve Sailer made fun of the neo-cons who constantly kvetched about affirmative action without recognizing the root problem, that people are deeply tribal. I think the line was "hey, it's a lifetime gig."
Now Sailer seems to have joined them. Granted his program is more robust than anything suggested by, say, that David Brooks fellow, I don't see any difference in principle.
Meanwhile back in the real world, here is an example of what we are dealing with -- a female (thats for you testing99) white who laments the 'tragic' killing of a certain white teenage girl in LA by ... well, you know. Feeling guilty about actually caring more about someone who looks like her own daughter, see ends up railing against white men.
Lily was white. Like my daughter. Like my son. Like almost all of my family. Like the bulk of my friends. Like me.
I never knew Lily, but she feels very familiar.
While I choke up over pictures of the sweet little boy ruthlessly bludgeoned by his stepfather, I cannot as instantly relate to the circumstances.
...
Thus, in a country dominated by white people, nonwhite people are vulnerable to being marginalized and discriminated against.
For a white man, who has reaped the innumerable benefits of his majority status, to cry racism when a minority ever so mildly expresses sentiments born from firsthand experience is disingenuous at best.
When a large section of the white middle class can feel guilty when their children are murdered by another demographic, its unlikely that they are going to find affirmative action to be to great a burden -- even if their kids end up going to Cornell instead of Yale, or SDSU instead of UCLA.
Widespread reeducation (or rather, deprogramming) is necessary.
It's interesting that all four people at the beer party have been called racists.
I am beginning to think that the failure of the GOP is part of the larger problem of the enormous political influence of the big New York banks.
The international bankers love all the diverse people of the world because they are trying to make loan deals, peddle government bonds, and finance construction projects all over the world. International banks support politicians who will make the world safe for lucrative international-banking deals. As a result, bank-owned politicians never say anything that might piss off Africans, Latinos, Asians, Russians, or any other potential bank customers.
In order to get campaign cash from the New York banks, a GOP politician must neuter himself on immigration. He must also neuter himself on race preferences because that is a bone that is thrown to minorities in exchange for their political support of a party that enriches bank plutocrats.
Both parties, as we now clearly see, are all about enriching bank plutocrats.
But the Republicans can't divide and conquer because the Republican base can't stand blacks or Latinos (or, in the South, Asians) and everyone knows that. It takes about 5 seconds talking to your typical 50 year old white Southern Republican voter before the race hatred becomes glaringly obvious, and I don't know how the GOP can manage to hide that. The Republicans have had some success peeling off Asians and Jews but it's hard for Asians and Jews to be really comfortable with a party based on race hatred and stoking racial division. Most Asians and Jews suspect the Republicans would turn on them in a second if the blacks and Latinos were gone. The only party that has a prayer of stopping immigration is the Democrats - if you really care about immigration we need moles in the Democratic party to build a black-native American-long time Asian resident-Labor Union front against immigrants. That's the only strategy that will succeed. And immigration is a far far greater threat to the US than racial preferences, the two issues aren't even comparable.
I agree with you.
As much as I hate racial preferences for blacks, at least there is some historical justification for it. From a Constitutional standpoint, you can even use the "badge of slavery" interpretation of the 13th Amendment as a tipping factor that allows the Supreme Court to legitimately overcome equal protection arguments. There is no justification for providing preferences for Hispanics.
Note that as the Hispanic percentage increases, and black and Hispanics continue to get their guaranteeed share, and Jews and Asians outperform white gentiles, the white former majority will have a increasingly tiny share of the nation's spoils.
I think conservatives would do well to champion limited preferences for blacks while excluding Hispanics. Believe it or not, in the long term Republics are more likely to increase their share of the black vote, because as others have noted, when Hispanics become successful they often quit being "Hispanic." As a practical matter, if the Republican party isn't likely to do well with either group, let's at least pick one group that can honestly be said to deserve our help and close the border against the other.
“*You* are the one injecting race into this.”
Obama didn’t inject race into it? Ideology really can make people blind. Here are references to race from Obama’s initial and follow-up reactions (there are more race references, including all would be repetitive)
1. “[I don't know] what role race played in that. But…”
2. “there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.”
3. “a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately.”
4. “race remains a factor in the society.”
5. ” the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause”
Second press-release:
6. “ a testimony to the fact that these are issues that are still very sensitive here in America.
7. “be mindful of the fact that because of our history, because of the difficulties of the past, you know, African Americans are sensitive to these issues.”
8. “interactions between police officers and the African American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding”
Want me to go on?
Race-obsessed Gates made the story about race through his reaction. Obama followed.
By the way, it would have been even worse if the President of the country sided with someone (who most people who have followed the story correctly realize was the main culprit) out of friendship. That would be abuse of power and nepotism.
Lastly, Obama is incorrect (a partisan might say LYING, but I will assume he is honest but wrong) that police stop minorities “disproportionately”. First of all the evidence is mixed:
http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v109y2001i1p203-232.html
http://ideas.repec.org/p/har/wpaper/0507.html
And even if minorities are arrested disproportional to their population figures they also (shock) commit disproportional share of crime.
The correct question is if minorities would have been stopped more if they committed fewer crime than whites?
(by the way, it is wrong to assume that arrests should move proportional to offenses. Assume blacks commit twice at many crimes as whites, that this rate is invariant to police action, and that a police can stop 100 cars per day. The correct strategy for police in this example is to 100% stop black cars)
/Tino
@ one of the Anonymous:
I saw Malkin recently on the Today show discussing her new book.
I think she would be a great spokesperson for the HBD/conservative racial perspective. She spoke as if she was a regular commenter at iSteve (didn't she write for VDare?) and isn't afraid of voicing strong, un-PC opinions (defended internment camps).
Plus, she's pretty (every successful political movement must have babes on their side. both atheism and HBD suffer from white male nerd syndrome) and she's a minority and thus unable to be racist!!
Anonymous wrote:
" Crowley lied in his police report"
------------------------
I assume you are referring to the "two black men with backpacks" phrase in the police report.
Do people who say this is a lie think that Crowley just made it up out of whole cloth? We know the 911 call mentioned two men with suitcases. So did Crowley turn "suitcase" into "backpack"? Maybe they really were backpacks, and the 911 caller mis-identified them as suitcases. Did Crowley just INVENT the idea of the other man was black? He never saw the other man, who had apparently left before he arrived. I can't believe that Crowley would say the second man was black unless someone had told him that. What would be the point? What if the second man was not black, and he came forward as part of the investigation? It would make Crowley look like a fool to have just made up the fact that he was black. What would be the point in him making something like that up?
I suspect that Crowley might have got the idea of "two black men with backpacks" from another witness, maybe the older woman that Lucia Whalen (the 911 caller) mentioned. Whalen said that an older woman was the first to notice the men and drew her attention to them. So the older woman may have got a better look at the two men, and noticed that they were black.
Do we even know for sure who the other man was, and if he actually was black? No one seems to talk about him, and he hasn't come forward to get his 5 minutes of fame (as far as I know) If he was a cab driver, wouldn't there have been a cab sitting in front of the house? Whalen said she saw the two men go into the house, but didn't see them come out. She told the 911 operator she thought that they were both still in the house.
Maybe there is a lane behind the house, and the cab was parked there, and they only came around the front when they couldn't get the back door open. Maybe the other man WAS still in the house when the police arrived, but he is Gates gay lover so he hid out upstairs, whick might account for Gates being nervous and belligerent. The last sentence is pure speculation!
"Okay, let's talk about a compromise on Racial Preferences and Immigration. Obviously, we can't afford to have both. If you'll stop and think for a moment, you'll see why."
But most of their voters won't stop and think for a moment, and for many of those that do it would take far more than a moment. So the SWPL/SHBL retort will be "I deny the premises of your question."
Divide and conquer is a good strategy, but we need to get them discussing more concrete conflicts, for example the fact that Obama has hired many blacks and few Hispanics to top executive positions, or even the fact the blacks he has hired are so white.
Also set the your suggested conflicts in more concrete form, e.g. the illegals in California getting very expensive health care for free at the local ER through identity fraud (this is overwhelmingly Hispanics not blacks doing this).
That incident with the Grandmother shows Obama's soul.
Obama's parents have both abandoned him. The father to run back to Kenya and the mother to Indonesia. He could be tossed out on the street, but no, his white grandparents take him in. The white grandmother takes a job where she has to run a daily gauntlet of panhandlers, street people, and thugs. She does this to put Cheerios on the table, to keep little Barry alive. She's harassed. "Give me $5, old lady". She tells about her fears to the men in the house. Her husband, her protector, sneers at her. Her son takes the side of the muggers, because they're black, like him. What must it feel like to be a woman in a household like that ? It must be like living in hell. That episode shows the content of Obama's character.
Anonymous, the fact that Gates and Obama are friends in the first place has a lot to do with Gates' status, like Obama and many in his circle, as a part-black who has used AA to climb to elite levels. Learn some basic pattern recognition, for crying out loud.
And of course Obama didn't focus the event on the issue of racial profiling because he wasn't thinking about Gates' race, right?
Oh, I know, I should stop being a "racist" and believe your SWPL/SPBPL dogma and ignore my lying eyes and ears.
wait, is the anon who was on the verge of e-rage over the use of quotes around the word friend the same anon who now tries to rebut Sailer by making up absurd "excerpts" from Sailer's book and pretending they are representative of its tone?
has the unmistakeable whiff of someone getting into a snit over losing an argument
GOP brain trust
LOL, that's priceless humor. Thanks.
from Obama's book: "I once got mad at my grandparents because they were afraid of some black person on the street, or something."
No, asshole. This "black person" was verbally harassing and threatening his grandmother. That is what made her uncomfortable to begin with.
Besides, what kind of jerk sides against his won family? The kind of jerk who dislikes them because they are white.
Peter A - The Republicans have had some success peeling off Asians and Jews.
Not really, Asians overwheamingly vote Dem and I believe in 2008 @80% of Jews voted Dem (all the more staggering when you look at their socio-economic status).
If thats some success, what would failure look like?
it is now easy to visualize the entire continent of north america plunged into a thousand years of hyper destructive tribal warfare from say 2015 onward.......and the peaceful productive domestic tranquility of united states of america 1700-2000 period will be about as familiar to the future warriors as the roman empire was to the warring middle ages tribes of italy.......
I wouldn't exactly call 1861-1865 and the subsequent Reconstruction a time of productive domestic tranquility.
We don't need to fix the GOP. It's never going to happen. We need a new party that is explicitly pro-white.
As a result, bank-owned politicians never say anything that might piss off Africans, Latinos, Asians, Russians, or any other potential bank customers.
And all of this falls apart when you consider who controls whether any of those people get pissed off. Nope, not banks. Nope, not pols. Yep, the media.
The media runs the world. You can always reply that the bankers control the media, but that's just making my argument for me.
~Svigor
The Republicans have had some success peeling off Asians and Jews but it's hard for Asians and Jews to be really comfortable with a party based on race hatred and stoking racial division.
Why not sign your posts "I've never been anywhere near the American southeast"? It would clear up any doubt for the ignorant.
Southerners hate Asians? WTF are you smoking, guy?
Whoops, forgot to sign my southerners/Asians comment. Too busy scratching my head on the southerners hating Asians stupidity.
~Svigor
P.S., anecdote: I was working a job and the SE Asian neighbor gave me her imperious Asian routine and I gave her a ration of shit. She was clearly experiencing hostility from a white southerner for the first time in her life.
~Svigor
"The correct question is if minorities would have been stopped more if they committed fewer crime than whites?"
Another correct question is how often minorities over, say, about 45-50 get stopped. Gates is irrelevant here - the police were called to his house. They didn't just drive by, see a black man in a fancy house, and decide to "investigate".
"I wouldn't exactly call 1861-1865 and the subsequent Reconstruction a time of productive domestic tranquility."
Many states were untouched by the war. Not tranquil, true, but plenty productive.
Melykin:
Police do invent things full stop.
Recently in Florida, a cop crashed into another driver's car. So he and his buddies decided to make up a story about how she was driving with a cat on her lap.
A suitcase is not a backpack. One you pull on the ground or hold in your hand; the other is designed (as the name says) to be carried on the back.
And the caller said the intruder was "probably Hispanic". Changing that to black is a stretch.
Not to mention the little fact that Crowley acted illegally by not presenting his ID to Gates when repeatedly asked.
The last sentence is pure speculation!
Like the whole of your post.
"Peter A said...
But the Republicans can't divide and conquer because the Republican base can't stand blacks or Latinos (or, in the South, Asians) and everyone knows that. It takes about 5 seconds talking to your typical 50 year old white Southern Republican voter before the race hatred becomes glaringly obvious, and I don't know how the GOP can manage to hide that."
Next time you visit the south, you might want to spend some time outside of Klan rallies. What you've written is utterly wrong.
"The Republicans have had some success peeling off Asians and Jews but it's hard for Asians and Jews to be really comfortable with a party based on race hatred and stoking racial division."
Yeah, because Asians and Jews are so uncomfortable with racial divisions.
You're also wrong in thinking that southerners bear any special animus against (east) asians.
In fact, aside from "and", "the", and your name, I can't point to anything you wrote in your post which I would believe to be correct.
Speaking of "disparate impact".
THe US tax system has a disparate impact against White people.
Steve moderates his blog and lets in these kind of Comments?
Hmm....
“What we have here then is the hilarious sight of a racist screaming "Obama is a racist!"”
Not quite. First, the term racist is so nebulous and over-used that it has no agreed upon meaning and is not a useful term. And in any case, Steve is not calling Obama a “racist.” He is pointing out that Obama, like most other members of non-white gentile ethnic groups, engages in “racialist” thinking, i.e., whenever he approaches a problem or policy, he does a quick racial calculus and asks himself, “is this good for my people?” (Which in his case, are African Americans.) This is not “racist.” However, since most white gentiles do not think this way anymore, Steve is pointing out to them what is going on and making them aware that other people are thinking “racially.” He is telling white gentiles that if they don’t understand what is going on and get their act together, they, functioning as autonomous individuals will fall prey to America's emerging racial spoils system where other groups are working as a group to create special set-asides and preferences to benefit their group. It is not “racist” for non-whites to think about the welfare of their own groups, but it is also not “racist” for whites to do the same. All groups should come to the bargaining table and negotiate an acceptable allocation, which is exactly what Steve is suggesting the GOP try to do with African Americans about who should be eligible for affirmative action. Without understanding this, whites expose themselves to great harm and disadvantage.
Dear Mr. Sailer
I have to tell you buddy, you are talented and I read your site every day. As a few people have alluded this week, I feel as though you are without a doubt smarter than most of your posters, but every few months you get hold of a topic that makes you nash around crazily with your jaws locked like a rabid Rottweiler. 6 months ago it was Reverend Wright, 3 months ago Gladwell now Gates.
That great axiom does not say "the truth shall imprison you." There's a reason for that and I think it may be time for you to face it for the good of your own career and possibly health. Having read hundreds of your posts, I don't think it would be officious of one to conclude that:
1) you dislike anyone making a liberal arts fashioned living who makes more money than you.
2) You severely dislike blacks
3) You HATE mulattos.
4) Combining two of the above three turns you into a knuckle-dragging George Lincoln Rockwell.
In this piece, you write of "the cowardly ineptitude of John McCain’s strategy of running away from race in 2008." Do you really feel that McCain, he of the wet fire incident (having seen the swift boat ads just four years previously), and dumping his crippled wife for a younger model was going to cast a stone? He didn't live in a glass house - he was wearing a glass freaking overcoat!
After that you continue to write "Obama’s self-exposure of his racial prejudices raises obvious questions about his drive to take control of the health, energy, and education industries. It raises the central question of all politics: Is he on your side?"
Now Steve, what in the holy hell do "racial prejudices" (if they even in fact exist) have to do with "energy?". Is he going to dole out more kilowatts to inner city Detroit while instituting rolling blackouts in the Hamptons?
"If there are any Republicans out there unwilling to throw the next election the way McCain threw the last one..."
Now Steve, think about that for a second. I am as much into conspiracies as the next guy, but did McCain "throw" the election or was he just unelectable? I've been eligible to vote since 2004 and I think McCain would have lost to ANY democratic candidate; Dukaukis, Mondale and Kerry. He was simply that bad of a candidate.
You go on to suggest that someone should ask what the president will do to end affirmative action. Now, did anyone ask Boy George what he was going to do to end nepotism? Believe me, you are much more effected by that than AA.
Then you go into the infamous Michelle Obama (once again) first you harangue her for raising two kids while (gasp!) working a job. The you bring up the question as to whether her job was created simply because she was the wife of a senator; let me answer that question for you:
Hell to the mother-fucking of course it was! The US public expects it's Senators to steal, as long as it is kept on a reasonable level it's OK, why did the GOP not bring this up? because the Senator/Congressman stupid enough to make an issue out of an Ivy league lawyer making 317-freaking-thousand-dollars would have found himself gagged in the back of a Lincoln.
Do you really for one second believe ANYONE in the GOP would encourage the press to look at his party's own back room deals over $317 grand? That's like 98 freakin' cents in our world. They tried to stick the democrats over "family values" how's that one working out?
Just a few things you might want to think about. Anyway keep up the (mostly) good work.
Sincerely, your "friend":
Truth
"Truth said...
I am as much into conspiracies as the next guy,..."
Yeah, especially if the next guy is Special Agent Fox Mulder.
tell it!
Tell it TRUTH!
I love you Steve, but you need to pushed back sometimes.
Oh, I seem to have missed this one, also identical in construction and with the same missing comma:
>Tell it TRUTH!<
How careless of me.
TRUTH=MARAKIN=EPIC FAIL
--There's a reason for that and I think it may be time for you to face it for the good of your own career and possibly health.--
Yeah, for your "health," Steve. Your "friends" really care!
Why not sign your posts "I've never been anywhere near the American southeast"? It would clear up any doubt for the ignorant.
No kidding. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in the South couldn't help but notice widespread evangelical philo-Semitism.
Truth said...
"Steve, you're a jealous knuckle-dragging racist. I love your blog but don't EVER write about race or politics again. No one is allowed to criticize blacks or Obama, EVER."
Truth:
Steve would never defend himself against your charges (maybe he likes you!), so I'll do so on his behalf if you don't mind.
1) you dislike anyone making a liberal arts fashioned living who makes more money than you.
If that's a prejudice (as opposed to a "postjudice"), it's not a terrible one to have.
2) You severely dislike blacks
Disagree. He praises Barbara Jordan in this very article for Pete's sake! Off the top of my head, Steve has often said nice things about black athletes, drill sergeants, and musicians, and for good reason. And he seems to have utmost respect for Ward Cornerly (whom he wrote in for presidency) and Thomas Sowell. It's a shame some black folks don't seem to count those guys as blacks, but you're not one of them, are you?
If anyone should complain about racial dislike, it should be Mexicans. I don't recall Steve saying any good things about them.
And again, what if this is postjudice rather than prejudice?
3) You HATE mulattos.
Even more dubious. Please prove your assertion by showing that the "nation of coward" speech, "Blink," and the "act stupidly" remark would have gone down better with Steve had they come from pure white or black persons.
While you're graciously trying to set people free with the truth, Truth, I'd like to return the favor. We certainly don't want to leave you behind.
Whenever someone criticizes a black or mulatto person on this site, you assume that he does so only or mainly because of the person's race. The question here is the same as in the Gates incident: who's being prejudicial here?
Not too long ago, you said that Steve attributed Gladwell's success to AA. In fact, he's never said such a thing. Quite the opposite, Steve's acknowledged Gladwell's writing talent (I will give you links if you will enter into a formal wager). His gripe is that Gladwell uses his talent to peddle politically correct falsehoods that people like to hear. If you can't be bitter that the fact that well-written but innumerate lies fetch more money equally well-written but far more numerate truths, what can you be bitter about? The criticism that the US president gets for jumping into the local fray in support of multimillionaire friend? Right.
Your friend,
Tom V
Troof spake:
"1) you dislike anyone making a liberal arts fashioned living who makes more money than you.
2) You severely dislike blacks
3) You HATE mulattos."
Hehe - I'll take "Negrofascist Self Pity" for $500, Alex.
Thank Allah for Afro-Am "studies" graduates, eh? :)
America's minority/half minority "elite" is much more lolworthy than their ghetto counterparts. The latter have their entertainment value fo'sho, but they are surprisingly honest about their ignorance at times. See, for example, the amren.com article by a white teacher, whose black students readily admitted they would be "screwed" if left to their own devices. Gates, Troof, the Wise Latina, and the Halfrican Head Noob In Charge never show such candor - hence the hilarity.
Link to the teacher's comments:
http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2009/06/white-teacher-speaks-out-what-is-it.html
"No one is allowed to criticize blacks or Obama, EVER."
I criticize Obama and "blacks" myself. I've done it here many times. I voted for Nader.
"If that's a prejudice (as opposed to a "postjudice"), it's not a terrible one to have"
It's not a PREjudice, it's note a POSTjudice, it's a WEAKness.
"Disagree. He praises Barbara Jordan in this very article for Pete's sake! Off the top of my head, Steve has often said nice things about black athletes, drill sergeants, and musicians, and for good reason. And he seems to have utmost respect for Ward Cornerly (whom he wrote in for presidency) and Thomas Sowell...."
Yes, there is occasionally praise for the "good" ones, and the ones who can run with the football or play the guitar. That is why I said "dislike." I did not say that Steve was a Klansman did I?
"Please prove your assertion by showing that the "nation of coward" speech, "Blink," and the "act stupidly" remark would have gone down better with Steve had they come from pure white or black persons...."
Blink, see point #1 And if the "nation of cowards" speech had come from J.R Rushton..."
"Not too long ago, you said that Steve attributed Gladwell's success to AA. In fact, he's never said such a thing."
No, and the reverend Jeremiah Wright never SAID anything "anti-white. I will give you the links if you'd like to go double or nothing.
"His gripe is that Gladwell uses his talent to peddle politically correct falsehoods that people like to hear...."
Yes, and Steve himself uses his talent to peddle politically incorrect falsehoods that people like to hear. A half-white man raised in Hawaii with his white family who "hates" whites? a "Muslim" with a chief of staff who served in the Israeli army? a "socialist" who has given billions of taxpayer dollars to wealthy bankers and manufacturers? Come on.
Tom, to be perfectly honest, I don't give a damn what Steve thinks about blacks. Steve loving me is not going to pay my mortgage, and I think the most impressive thing that Svigor ever wrote here was very simple:
"I am a racist."
What bothers me is that I like to read his work and the Gates, Wright, Gladwell stuff that goes on and on for weeks on end severely fucks it up, it's as simple as that. If you need any further proof as to the level of reader Steve's "new style" writing appeals to, simply read the post so eloquently written by Mr. Nine-of-Diamonds beneath yours.
I appreciate your response.
Another Anonymous,
Great post, spot on!
To the other Anon about Jim, sorry if I overlooked his previous posts. I adressed the post to others, less to Jim, but thanks for the pointer.
To Peter A.:
whilst I agree about the 5s timelapse before the racial vitriol of a southerner starts, i almost chocked on this:
"but it's hard for [...] Jews to be really comfortable with a party based on race hatred and stoking racial division. "
that's rich about arguably the most race obsesed people on the planet.
"I don't give a damn what Steve thinks about blacks."
Which 'splains the anguished little whinge not too long ago about hatred of blacks, Moo Law Toes, etc etc.
Note the rambling justifications in many recent posts - typically verbose "concern" about the quality of SS's blog. Wail nice 'n loud about the mean WAY - CYST & then proclaim indifference even louder. After all, you're just trying to maintain blogosphere literary standards! XD
Not sure how many of you follow Roissy, but there was some decent commentary on his blog about the paradoxical narcissism of NAM's. Pretty much the same pattern over & over again - publicly blaring out a devil-may-care nonconformist attitude in public (music, "african" or urban clothes/"ethnic"holidays/thug attitude) while privately fixating on whether whites have disrespected them & view their culture unfavorably. Not a healthy mix, these internal contradictions. All you need is a minor spark, & before you can say "niggardly" you get the psychotic explosion - whether it's a working-class Afro-Am or a proud Hah-vahd man. I've seen it myself; you should have heard the reaction from half a dozen "confident young black men" in HS when a liberal white student made an uncomfortable (but valid) observation about college admissions. Same thing last year, when a female black student took exception to criticism of poor little Herr Soetero (sp).
THe US tax system has a disparate impact against White people.
Cat Patrol, please put down the logic and back away from it slowly.
That way lies madness (once you get started you realize you can go on that way forever...).
~Svigor
Truth, you've gone full-blown hilarious with this one. Projection City.
1) you dislike anyone making a liberal arts fashioned living who makes more money than you.
Truth feels guilty about making more money than Steve, despite being less qualified.
2) You severely dislike blacks
3) You HATE mulattos.
Lol, there's your tragic mulatto thing again. The first time you tipped your cards on this that I recall was quite some time ago, more than a year I think, when you played your "one drop rule" song on the world's smallest violin, pretty much on a tangent. You did it again when people (myself included) pointed out that Obama's more white than black, opining that he'd be a n_____ again the second he tried to marry our daughters, as if that had any bearing.
Funny stuff.
~Svigor
If anyone should complain about racial dislike, it should be Mexicans. I don't recall Steve saying any good things about them.
And more to the point, this is not even on T's radar, which kinda punctures his posturing as the local anti-racist.
~Svigor
"I am a racist."
Something tells me you missed the point (if you didn't, then you can explain it to me). Par for the course I suppose.
~Svigor
it's time to accept that all american politicians want open borders and identity politics. this is the new reality in the united states.
"No, and the reverend Jeremiah Wright never SAID anything "anti-white. I will give you the links if you'd like to go double or nothing."
ok. Provide them. And I'll give you links proving David Duke has no animus towards Jews, blacks, and other etceteras.
Actually I think Wight's a pompous Barnum and Bailey blowhard, giving the crowd what it wants. He saw a lucrative opening and hopped on it. He definitely does not believe blacks can create the kind of society that Wright really wants to live in. He sincerely hopes there will be no change, otherwise he'd be out of a job.
He's no more a religous person than I am the Pope--he's just making money the best way he knows how.
Duke, OTOH, really believes his stuff.
. "A half-white man raised in Hawaii with his white family who "hates" whites? a "Muslim" with a chief of staff who served in the Israeli army?"
Stranger things happen every day. "Hate" is an overused word that doesn't take into account the complexity of feelings and thoughts. "Hate" is probably not an accurate word for BO's feelings in this matter, though it does accurately describe his wife's feelings far as I can determine. However, he is not on our side, and in this divided society we are not yet admitting that races and ethnicities generally take sides. To the extent he can, he sides with blacks, not because he cares about them as a race, but because that's what HE IS (officially) and he's a bonafide narcissist if there ever was one, according to Sam Vaknin, world acknowledged expert on the subject and author of "Malignant Self Love: narcissism revisited."
As far as his political connections, come on. He tows the line for the people who put him in office. He got to where he is because of many non-black people willing to do whatever it takes to make this black person look good. Obviously for their own interests, but you must wonder what is running through their heads...
I have been visiting a blog called "Racialicious" which bills itself as a "safe-space" for POCs, which of course means that even patently anti-white cases like the Duke University nonesense is seen as evidence of "white racism." A bunch of frat guys got a black stripper they never wanted and threw her out? Personally I have always wondered about the opposite scenario--a white stripper sent to a bunch of blacks. Were a crime to have ensued, you can be sure it would have been well covered up. But I digress.
They live in their own world and consider it a "safe-space." Meanwhile, blacks are very rarely attacked by whites anymore while black on white assault and murder is an everyday occurance. Even these people know that though they keep the scale out of their consciousness. They deliberately keep on with the script that they are "oppressed" because they don't know what to do with their limitations if they can't blame them on "racism." They'd be empty without that "oppression."
Almost 100 years ago W.E.B.Du Bois warned about "negroes" whose monetary gain depends on keeping the notion of victimhood going when it no longer obtained. Incredibly, Du Bois wrote this in the early years of the 20th century, decades before official ending of "Jim Crow" in the 1960s.
I like how Truth tells everyone here that instead of whining they should go out and accomplish something, or even make the attempt to accomplish something by simply "doing", but when it comes to conveying social or economic or racial or political insights, all he seems capable of is commenting on Sailer's blog about Sailer's or his commenters' ideas, rather than putting forth any coherent broader outlook/critique of his own over at his blog (http://theroadsoda.blogspot.com/).
Honestly, you've got to note the hypocrisy, dude. It's way easier (i.e. lazier) to write a snarky comment about a piece than to actually formulate a cogent piece on your own and present it in a way that people understand. Sailer, while not everyone's cup of tea, day in and day out writes thousands of words about myriad topics. You comment on them. That's all.
You've got your blog. You're an interesting fellow, in an Attrell Cordes kind of way. You think, like a lot of us, that you've got it all figured out. So follow your own advice and stop griping and start working.
Peter A,
Yeah, jews aren't race obsessed? They seem bent on making us a minority in not only America but Europe as well and are quite happy about it.
Why do they push for open immigration here and in the UK but Jewish only immigration for Israel? How much clearer does it have to be?
i don't know that southerners have a particular brand of hatred for asians, but some are certainly uncomfortable around them.
when my asian friends' families first moved to the south, their houses were egged and/or snakes were put in their yard and mailboxes.
even if asians were suddenly convinced that racial preferences weren't necessary (probably not a hard sell), i'd bet that most wouldn't feel comfortable in the current incarnation of the republican party. it's too concerned w/ reglion, too anti-science, and too eager to place scarily stupid ppl (palin) into positions of power.
and it doesn't help to harp on immigration all the time when most asian americans are relatively recent immigrants. various historical exclusion acts and the difficulties asians experienced in coming to america make them naturally skeptical of immigration reform that is meant to keep more immigrants out. are republicans ready to buy off the asian american vote by letting in more asians legally while keeping illegal hispanics out? i doubt it.
"How can the majority afford to continue to provide racial preferences to minorities as it stops being a majority?"
Malaysia
and it doesn't help to harp on immigration all the time when most asian americans are relatively recent immigrants. various historical exclusion acts and the difficulties asians experienced in coming to america make them naturally skeptical of immigration reform that is meant to keep more immigrants out.
This is idiotic, and actually makes the case for why we need to end immigration now. According to you, the GOP needs to bow and scrape before ever spoilt and pampered "minority" in the country to win their votes, wile the dwinbdling number of Euro-Americans are supposed to suck it and sacrifice themselves and their posterity for the good of the party, though not of the counry.
Asians tend to be left wing because they tend to have been processed by those indoctrination centers we cal "institutions of higher learning".
it's too concerned w/ reglion, too anti-science, and too eager to place scarily stupid ppl (palin) into positions of power.
Of course the Democratic party never puts stupid people into positions of power. Apart from Obama, Biden, Conyers, Waxman, Frank, ....
Asians don't seem to share the lefts centruies old hatred of religion. There are masses of Asians in my neck of the woods and they can all be seen in church every Sunday.
I notice that "Pzed" is himslef a raher bigoted Asian, and a fine example of why we need to keep new Asians out and work to assimilate those here.
If Asians are so wonderful, Pzed, fell free to go and live among them. America did just fine before you dragged your sorry ass over here.
I like how Truth tells everyone here that instead of whining they should go out and accomplish something, or even make the attempt to accomplish something by simply "doing", but when it comes to conveying social or economic or racial or political insights, all he seems capable of is commenting on Sailer's blog about Sailer's or his commenters' ideas, rather than putting forth any coherent broader outlook/critique of his own over at his blog (http://theroadsoda.blogspot.com/).
Yup, he has one entire entry on his blog, and it's as empty yet self-important as the swill he normally serves up here.
"Truth feels guilty about making more money than Steve, despite being less qualified."
I would doubt that I make more money than Steve. I would guess that he makes low six figures and I make a little less than that.
"If anyone should complain about racial dislike, it should be Mexicans. I don't recall Steve saying any good things about them."
Steve rarely posts about "Mexicans," Unless, that is it is vis-a-vis blacks. I remember one posts some months ago in which he took his family to a park and watched some Mexican guys fighting and wrote something about "how much he admires parts of the culture."
I'm not a "mulatto" I look like your typical garden variety (handsome, studly, muscular sexy) 42 year old black male.
"Something tells me you missed the point."
No, by all means, you explain it to me. I don't see a lot of room for subtle nuance in "I'm a racist." maybe I'm wrong; but if you read most post, you will see that I COMPLIMENTED you on your candor here. IF everyone was so self-aware, the world would be a better place.
"it's time to accept that all american politicians want open borders and identity politics."
Bravo. And of course they do, it's good business.
"pointed out that Obama's more white than black, opining that he'd be a n_____ again the second he tried to marry our daughters..."
So it's not true?
"ok. Provide them."
Here are Wright's Hate
Whitey Speeches.
In case you are interested, here is a real patented Hate Whitey* Speech.
Otherwise, your assesment of Wright, in my opinion, is not far off.
"However, he is not on our side..."
Who exactly qualifies as "our?" Is Duke on "our" side?
"and in this divided society we are not yet admitting that races and ethnicities generally take sides.."
Yes they do. Of of course people have a tendency to cheat on their husbands and wives, drink until their livers explode and blow up malls, that does not make it a good thing does it?
"He got to where he is because of many non-black people willing to do whatever it takes to make this black person look good."
Eliminate the words "non" and "black" and you're speaking about any president.
"A bunch of frat guys got a black stripper they never wanted and threw her out?"
So you were there?
"Meanwhile, blacks are very rarely attacked by whites anymore while black on white assault and murder is an everyday occurance."
You killed, raped and stole from us for 400 years, for the last 30 we've been doing it to you. Keep your viagra handy, maybe in 50 years it will be your turn again.
"They deliberately keep on with the script that they are "oppressed" because they don't know what to do with their limitations if they can't blame them on "racism." They'd be empty without that "oppression."
Remind you of anyone? Apparently, so would you, that's why you guys spend so much time whining on this site.
"I like how Truth tells everyone here that instead of whining they should go out and accomplish something, or even make the attempt to accomplish something..."
I know, I know, call me crazy.
"rather than putting forth any coherent broader outlook/critique of his own over at his blog (http://theroadsoda.blogspot.com/)."
You are absolutely right there my friend, I have been lazy and negligent, and I intend to work on that. Unfortunately this has almost become an unhealthy addiction.
"Honestly, you've got to note the hypocrisy, dude. It's way easier (i.e. lazier) to write a snarky comment about a piece than to actually formulate a cogent piece on your own and present it in a way that people understand."
Agreed.
"Sailer, while not everyone's cup of tea, day in and day out writes thousands of words about myriad topics."
Agreed again, and so do Gladwell and Gates, that is why they have money/ acceptance and you don't. That is my major point here.
The point, my friend, is that I could be doing more, I know that I could be doing more, but I don't spend my life jealously criticizing those who are and diminishing their accomplishments by implying that someone gave them everything they have. One thing I do not do is besmirch a man's hard work. Get it?
it's hard for Asians and Jews to be really comfortable with a party based on race hatred and stoking racial division.
I'd like to think that this is really good parody. But from what I've seen around the internet, Peter may in fact be serious. There's no racist like a Jewish or Asian racist.
It takes about 5 seconds talking to your typical 50 year old white Southern Republican
The one group of people in America whom it is publically acceptable to hate are those "typical 50 year old white Southern Republican"s. What exactly have they ever done to you? Or anyone, for that matter?
"Truth"s blog is "Dedicated to Julie M. A cute blonde from rural Ohio".
You race traitor! What's wrong, you don't find Afro-American women attractive
"but it's hard for [...] Jews to be really comfortable with a party based on race hatred and stoking racial division. "
that's rich about arguably the most race obsessed people on the planet.
Yeah, it is rich, but it also happens to be true - sometimes irony is also truth. Sure, Jews are incredibly race obsessed but they don't want that message broadcast to the public. Supporting the party of affirmative action, civil rights and immigration allows Jews to appear tolerant. It's part camouflage, and also part Jews still bearing a grudge against the WASP establishment that openly discriminated against them for years.
And a lot of 50 year old white Southerners are fine nice people, but still stone cold racists. In 1960 people still used to wear that as a badge of pride, I'm not sure why white Southerners, who claim to be so proud of their heritage, get so rankled when people point out the obvious.
Disregarding someone's testimony only on the grounds that they are police officers is bigotted.
What about the documented fact that Crowley conducted his investigation illegally (i.e. refusing to show his badge)? Or the fact that the 911 call talking about possibly Hispanic intruders was changed to two black men somewhere along the line?
Supporting the party of affirmative action, civil rights and immigration allows Jews to appear tolerant.
Tolerant of what? You're playing games with language here, in a very liberal fashion.
And a lot of 50 year old white Southerners are fine nice people, but still stone cold racists.
They are no more racist than your average Jew or Korean, and probably less so. (Who are also "fine nice people", their racism aside.) So pardon me if I find your selective concern over racism to be unimpressive.
There is nothing "racist" about white people wanting to live in a white country, any more than there is about Jews wanting a Jewish country or Koreans, a Korean one.
When these "tolerant" Jews and Koreans start demanding that Israel and Korea dissolve themselves, get back to me on this topic. Until then you're talking out your ass.
What about the documented fact that Crowley conducted his investigation illegally
"Documented" by who?
Or the fact that the 911 call talking about possibly Hispanic intruders was changed to two black men somewhere along the line?
They were two black man, you ninny. Or has the left now decided that refering to two black men as two black men is "racist"?
the reverend Jeremiah Wright never SAID anything "anti-white.
Because it's not "anti-white" to say that the US invented AIDS to kill blacks, I assume.
I'm not sure why white Southerners, who claim to be so proud of their heritage, get so rankled when people point out the obvious.
I'm not rankled at at anyone "pointing out the obvious". I'm rankled at having to listen to stone cold racists (blacks, Jews, Asians, or whoever) pretending to hate southern whites for being racist.
Documented by Crowley in his report. It's illegal (in many places, MA included) for a police officer not to produce his badge upon request. He was asked to do so; he never did. Thus he was acting illegally.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/
Like I said, the caller described the intruder as Hispanic.
anon said: "According to you, the GOP needs to bow and scrape before ever spoilt and pampered "minority" in the country to win their votes, wile the dwinbdling number of Euro-Americans are supposed to suck it and sacrifice themselves and their posterity for the good of the party, though not of the counry."
asian americans are a spoiled and pampered minority? is that why they have to have higher gpa's and test scores than every other racial group to get into top colleges and universities?
but whatever dude. the reps are free to do absolutely nothing to win minority votes. they're also free to lose more elections than they win.
Documented by Crowley in his report.
You are a a liar, and a stupid one at that. The report is widely available on-line, and it does not "document" Crowley refusing to show his badge.
Here is the report. Read it and learn something.
Like I said, the caller described the intruder as Hispanic.
And the relevance of this is what?
It's illegal for a police officer not to produce his badge upon request. He was asked to do so; he never did.
The ability of the left to make up lies out of whole cloth still amazes me, even after seeing it for decades.
Now that I've read the police report, I have to say that Sgt. Gates writing is somewhat poor. I believe I read somewhere that his father was on the police force. Do you thing he was a legacy admit?
Now that I've read the police report ..
You've been mouthing off on the topic all this time, and you only just now read the report?
Somehow I'm not at all surprised by this. When you're a left-wing race hustler, facts are entirely optional.
"Now that I've read the police report, I have to say that Sgt. Gates writing is somewhat poor. "
"Sgt. "Gates!"
hahahahah.
You really can't make "truth's" stuff up.
Personally I think President Crowley did the right thing, only i would have preferred a Mad Tea Party complete with the Mad Hatter, a sleeping Dormouse and a confused, proper Al who endures it stoically and leaves the nutters singing drinking tea songs.
"Unfortunately this has almost become an unhealthy addiction."
Yeah, almost.
Yes, it does - and I did read the report.
He explicitly states, "Gates demanded I show my badge". He doesn't do so.
So why on earth are you calling me a liar?
Also, Massachusetts law states explicitly,
Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer’s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.
So I'm not lying about that either.
You guys - those of you who insisted I'm - don't know what you are talking about.
Now that I've read the police report, I have to say that Sgt. Gates writing is somewhat poor. I believe I read somewhere that his father was on the police force. Do you thing he was a legacy admit?
I assumed that was meant to be ironic.
No, just curious.
He explicitly states, "Gates demanded I show my badge".
Where does he "explicitly state" that, you stupid liar? Where?
The only reference to Gates asking for identification is this:
"Gates initally refused, demanding that I show him identification".
Nothing about Crowly "admitting" that he refused to show Gates anything!
FYI, a police officers badge is stuck right there on his uniform. Crowly's badge was staring Gates in the eye the entire time.
You remain a stupid and dishonest liar who has not bothered to read the report.
Now that I've read the police report
Why are you just now reading the police report, Mr Professional Bigot?
i'd bet that most [asians] wouldn't feel comfortable in the current incarnation of the republican party. it's too concerned w/ reglion, too anti-science, and too eager to place scarily stupid ppl (palin) into positions of power.
Indeed. Come on Reps, its not enough to contort yourselves to accomodate hispanics, now you must do it for asians too! Honestly, fancy having Palin on the ticket and garnering white votes. What kind of nonsense is that.
These pro-science asians wouldnt be anything to those with asians who believe in the properties of powdered rhino horn or tiger's genitals. Of course not. Feng shui and architecture, nope, never heard of it.
Post a Comment