Ziel at Your Lying Eyes:
Now Jimmy Carter is joining the "Joe Wilson's Outburst Was About Race" chorus. While using the "race card" to stifle criticism of the president is a concern, perhaps there's a silver lining? Perhaps there is a growing realization that, when it comes to pretty much everything, it's all about race?
Obama himself is all about race - he's nothing without his race - he'd be just another boring guy of above-average intelligence whom no one's ever heard of. Crime is all about race. Education is all about race. Government spending and taxation are all about race. The securitized-mortgage calamity was all about race. Income inequality is all about race. Is health care all about race? It's largely an issue of who pays for it vs. who benefits from it, and so like all such conundrums it too boils down to race. ... And, obviously, there's immigration.
Non-Asian minorities have lower average achievement levels economically (lower median income), in education (test scores, graduation rates). They have higher rates of street crime, of poor health effects (obesity, hypertension) and illegitimacy. These differences are statistically significant and, more important, noticeable to pretty much everyone on each side, particularly to people like Obama who are much higher achievers than average. The question is how do you respond to these differences - resentfully or practically? Immigration greatly exacerbates these divides because it results in very large increases in the numbers of one underachieving group (Mexican-Americans). And when it comes to contentious issues like universal health care, it's a problem that places like Canada - or Vermont - don't have to wrestle with. So, yes, Joe Wilson's outburst ultimately finds its genesis in race - but so does pretty much every other controversy that pops up in this racially divided nation.
Obviously, race -- a question of who is related to whom -- is hardly the only way that humans divide themselves, but it's among the most pervasively salient to politics, especially as the racial balance in the electorate becomes less one-sided.
Therefore, we'd be better off with a political culture that openly asks "Whose side are you on?" versus the alternatives -- the Chicago style of "Who sent you?" and the current dominant culture of covert "Who? Whom?" quasi-thinking.
For example, Sen. Barack Obama spent most of 2007 running for President, but he found time out from campaigning to donate $26,270 to Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.'s church. Yet, none of the hundreds of journalists assigned to Sen. Obama ever seemed to find time to ask him "Whose side are you on?"
P.S. We keep hearing about all the "crazies" coming out of the woodwork of the Republican Party, yet the President of the United States gave $53,770 to Rev. Wright's church after he'd been elected to U.S. Senate.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
46 comments:
Yet, none of the hundreds of journalists assigned to Sen. Obama ever seemed to find time to ask him "Whose side are you on?"
They don't have to ask because they already know the answer.
Because they know which side he's on and they approve: he's on the side of social justice. That is, being on the side of blacks is equalizing inequality. You know this, yet you frequently ask the question like no one really believes in equality. As you've said, the world has reverted to who-whom as the ideological wars have faded post-cold-war. Yet ideology hasn't faded that much among the ruling powers. The ideology of equality prevails, and the who-whom question doesnt impress them because they have an ideological justification for the side they've chosen.
Jimmy Carter has a lot of blood on his hands. Just cuz the peanut farmer happens to be on the right side of the MSM and the Dem party, or walks around with an arrogant self-righteous political-religious ideology, does not mean he is innocent. He has not uttered a word about the enormous human misery which his numerous ill-conceived policies have caused around the world in only 4 years. Of course the MSM are scrambling to cover for him and ignore the excrement laying about. Zimbabwe is only the more obvious case. 28 years after that Carter and his crony Andrew Young screwed that place up. The guy is the ultimate pain the ass.
There are essentially only two models for multiracial America: Brazilian or Balkan.
For a long time I thought the Brazilian model was more likely - a largely fair-skinned political and social elite, above darker masses. It would be maintained by providing just enough class permeability to prevent it becoming an outright aristocracy.
However, since Obama's ascension, I am giving more creedence to the Balkan model - a polyglot Yugoslav or Ottoman-style federation of various ethnicities that holds for awhile under strain before it eventually fractures violently along racial/ethnic fault lines.
The tipping point comes when people no longer seek to paper over their natural chauvinistic tendencies to favor their own, and instead admit it openly. Are we really that far away from an aggrieved white public figure - a Joe Wilson in extremis - plainly saying he is out to defend white interests on that basis? Indeed, soon it may be all about race.
Obama is clearly not the race politician you keep trying to paint him as Steve. All the evidence shows that Obama just wants his family and cronies elevated to the elite, he's quite happy to let the rest of the Black population go to hell once he gets his. Look at Obama's standard liberal line on immigration - a real Black nationalist has more interest in fighting immigration than White nationalists do. It's not like Mexicans and Asians are going to be very interested in Black equality. And Obama's sucking up to Wall Street shows he's ready to do the bidding of the monied interests. Obama is interested in Wright as a side show to get votes and nothing more - you're a smart man Steve, why do you fall for the paranoid crap when the real conspiracies are right in front of you?
So, yes, Joe Wilson's outburst ultimately finds its genesis in race - but so does pretty much every other controversy that pops up in this racially divided nation.
Except that the country isn't so much racially divided as Good Whitey - Bad Whitey - Superior People of Color divided.
Most of the people publicly slamming critics of Obama are WHITE PEOPLE, Whiter than White people. Those are the Good White people.
You see Obama doesn't need to play the race card ....HE IS THE RACE CARD.
The tipping point comes when people no longer seek to paper over their natural chauvinistic tendencies to favor their own, and instead admit it openly.
They agreed to because the authoritarian government insisted on it - once that authority dissipated, all hell broke loose. We're one mass ALT-A mortgage-default meltdown from that happening.
All us beta nerds who get a good education and get jobs that pay well are substituting that for what we really want: access to the best women and athletic prowess.
What EVERYONE (I've never seen anyone but me mention it) seems to miss is that when the Dems want to redistribute our income, they're distributing, all too often, to guys who got the women and have athletic prowess. To us, it seems as if they're taking from us have-nots to give to those who already have more.
Tom - I think there is a third option, or perhaps two versions of the Brazilian one.
Thats an Indian style hard caste system. Brazil has a soft caste system, your ethnic origin puts you in a socio-economic bracket but movement is possible. An Indian rules that firms up and you are stuck with your caste. Mind you, that would take a long time to develop, so I think we face the quick and dirty Brazil or Balkan outcomes.
Obviously we cant stop the situation arising, that would be insane and racist!
The American Experiment has always been a time-limited one, and that time is coming to its end. America will not be Brazil; the IQ disparities are too great to support that level of interbreeding. Nor will it be the Balkans; this isn't a feud among cousins.
As Steve notes, on top of the "who? whom?" is an overlay of "whose side are you on?," with NAMS tag-teamed with elites to raid the white middle class. This last group is doing what it can while it can: working in the cities and withdrawing at the end of the day to their suburban redoubts. (Unbelievably, they still send their sons out to fight and die so women in Iraq and Afghanistan can vote for their particular foreign aid sugar daddy.)
But even this geographic withdrawal won't be enough once reparations, cap-and-trade, universal health, and HUD social engineering kick into high gear. And after that, there's nowhere to run.
Garland said
> The ideology of equality prevails <
Well, egalitarianism is full of logical holes, non sequiturs, and departures from fact, as has been pointed out widely since something like 1830 A.D. It would go the way of all grass, like Puritanism did among the intelligensia, but for the raw power held by the "whos."
No ideology, but only power, is propping up the monster. Ideologically, the leg it is standing on is badly broken. It has no justification.
Lying Eyes has a good angle of attack. Boldly avow it's all about race. It is for our opponents (even if we won't admit they're opposing us), they can't deny that. They proclaim it constantly - and misuse us on account of it.
The NAMs of the La Raza et al. ilk consider themselves in a race war, or at least in a race struggle. The battle simply hasn't been joined. What if they got what they're asking for?
The problem is, you can't ask "Whose side are you on?" if you won't admit there are sides. The Left, of course, has no problem saying there are sides, because they want to portray the Right as being on the racist side. The Right tries to defuse that argument by saying that there are no sides, which is what they think we're all supposed to believe now. So the Right can't ask "Whose side are you on?" without abandoning their whole "no one sees skin color anymore" argument.
That's why McCain and most of the GOP was so completely helpless against Obama. They couldn't even talk about the things that matter most to Obama, because they've been claiming for years that they can't see those things.
Race is the 'machine code' of politics in America, and as with logic devices, it is the fundamental language of communication. Race speaks directly to the mechanism of wealth distribution in public affairs, but we only see the real exchange in extraordinary circumstances, when the 'higher-level' language of political discourse is incapable of dealing with an exception. Rep. Wilson has provided us with such an exception, and now the machine code of race is in plain sight on the 'blue screen'.
"Are we really that far away from an aggrieved white public figure - a Joe Wilson in extremis - plainly saying he is out to defend white interests on that basis?"
One day, someone will say "screw it" and do just that. Hopefully on live tv. Everyone will go nuts of course, but I would imagine that when his campaign contributions skyrocket, it sends a message to other politicians to do the same.
Schnitt yesterday mentioned that by Carter's logic, criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic and Carter a raging anti-Semite. Of course, I wouldn't put it past Carter to have been motivated by this: if they can call him an anti-Semite, he can call them racists. He might have relished the opportunity.
Obviously, race -- a question of who is related to whom -- is hardly the only way that humans divide themselves, but it's among the most pervasively salient to politics, especially as the racial balance in the electorate becomes less one-sided.
I submit that race is the most politically salient way that people divide themselves, ceteris paribus. Family would be number one, except, macro-family (race) can trump micro-family given free rein; sure, you have that mixed niece or nephew or cousin but you have all those millions of co-racialists.
There are essentially only two models for multiracial America: Brazilian or Balkan.
Agreed. I don't see how anyone whose elevator stops at all floors can argue otherwise (I welcome arguments though).
For a long time I thought the Brazilian model was more likely - a largely fair-skinned political and social elite, above darker masses.
I still do.
It would be maintained by providing just enough class permeability to prevent it becoming an outright aristocracy.
However, since Obama's ascension, I am giving more credence to the Balkan model - a polyglot Yugoslav or Ottoman-style federation of various ethnicities that holds for awhile under strain before it eventually fractures violently along racial/ethnic fault lines.
The tipping point comes when people no longer seek to paper over their natural chauvinistic tendencies to favor their own, and instead admit it openly. Are we really that far away from an aggrieved white public figure - a Joe Wilson in extremis - plainly saying he is out to defend white interests on that basis? Indeed, soon it may be all about race.
Want to explain what changed your mind? The only thing I see as favoring the Balkan option is that Americans (descendants of the British Isles and assimilated Euros) don't have the historical Spanish tendency to miscegenate, and have retained much more racial-genetic and cultural integrity right from the start. But there's a whole lot in the opposite column, including the will of the media-controlling elite and their masses-controlling media.
So what's the most likely path of Balkanization? I say it's decentralization and State's Rights; this has the advantage of letting people climb on board under various ostensibly non-racial banners (red state/blue state, libertarianism, Constitutionalism, communalism, religion, whatever); self-determination has great inherent appeal to everyone but a hegemonist (neolibs and neocons at the moment, but this is probably more to do with their current dominance than anything ideological).
I can think of far worse fates for these U.S. than a return to the founding system.
they have an ideological justification for the side they've chosen
But it's an intellectually bankrupt justification and it erodes rapidly in the the presence of opposition (or relevant experience); whites have a moral duty to point out that no, they didn't "break" blacks and no, their children don't "deserve" to shoulder the expensive consequences of the equality lie.
The centralized one-way media has been propping this up for a half-century now but I wouldn't want to have to bank on that persisting.
I'm pleased in holding a belief system that thrives, rather than withers, on the dissemination of the truth. The reverse would not give me faith in the long-term prospects of my belief system.
Oh, and Europe is a couple nudges from abandoning the whole nutty project. Western Europe, that is. Eastern Europe is about 1/16th of a nudge away. If America moves a couple nudges away, that could be all the nudging western Europe needs. Who's going to wag whom? Maybe each will feed off the other?
Then there's the economic situation. Western elites seem bound and determined to erode any economic advantage western populations have over the third world, and the nutty project is very much a function of wealth.
"Obama is clearly not the race politician you keep trying to paint him as Steve. All the evidence shows that Obama just wants his family and cronies elevated to the elite, he's quite happy to let the rest of the Black population go to hell once he gets his."
This is touchingly naive. Please have a look at any post-colonial African country, they all do this. For that matter you need go no further than Detroit, New Orleans or East St. Louis. Black rule is about self enrichment and the public be damned.
Aaron nailed it!
"So what's the most likely path of Balkanization?"
A prolonged economic depression and/or economic collapse. We are at the beginning of it already.
Unemployment should be atleast 11% by next years midterms.
"There are essentially only two models for multiracial America: Brazilian or Balkan."
Why must our situation unfold exactly like one elsewhere?
Carter should just shut the hell up. He was our worst president. What an ass.
Being inadequately educated, I was having some trouble grasping the implications of the "who? whom?" formulation Steve has been using a lot lately. I found a lengthy explanation in "Philosophy and Real Politics," by Raymond Geuss, pages 23-26, available on Google Books, or at http://preview.tinyurl.com/m384ll
Oh, and Europe is a couple nudges from abandoning the whole nutty project. Western Europe, that is.
Uh?? The church I'm in is currently writing the multicult LARGE. The major parties are all scuttling own the streets looking for a scarf-wearing person to dole a passport out to, whilst trying to disown the natives and have them sent to far off hard-labour colonies. Huge budgets are allocated to integrate these Muslims and punish those on the right. “Couple nudges away”, you must be dreaming.
There are essentially only two models for multiracial America: Brazilian or Balkan.
Agreed. I don't see how anyone whose elevator stops at all floors can argue otherwise (I welcome arguments though).
There are four models here, not two.
Brazil and the Balkans are happier options to contemplate.
There is the model where Whites dispossess their racial opponents. This could be called the American model - mass murders, forced marches, and ultimate quarantine of racial undesirables. Operation Wetback incorporates elements of this founding American style in scope and execution.
The other model, a sort of counterpoint to the American model, we could call the Zimbabwe model. I trust I don't need to elaborate on this possibility for the readers of iSteve. I also feel bound to add that the Zimbabwe option is already in motion in many major American cities. The sheer amount of propaganda required from our ruling regime to keep this quiet is breathtaking, and as for the cash spent on bribing African-Americans to not act more like Africans in Africa, that easily runs into the trillions of dollars. Without Affirmative Action and transfer payments, citywide riots would be everyday affairs.
But even this geographic withdrawal won't be enough once reparations, cap-and-trade, universal health, and HUD social engineering kick into high gear. And after that, there's nowhere to run.
This doesn't answer the question. Once middle class Whites have no where to run, the question of what they will do still remains. As does the question of what they should do.
@Svigor
How is "the historical Spanish tendency to miscegenate" relevant to Brazil?
> Without Affirmative Action and transfer payments, citywide riots would be everyday affairs. <
What happens when China pulls the plug?
"There are four models here, not two. "
This is shocking!*
You mean to tell me that you guys are unable to imagine anything in the future that has not happened already in the past? That you are unable to visualize the world being round, in other words.
That you cannot display the lowest levels of creativity, dialectic thought or imagination? That you are unable to mentally achieve a level of cognition that justifies god giving you opposable thumbs?
One hundred years ago, if someone had asked you what America's future would look like, you would have said: "Oh, it'll probably look like the Roman Empire, chariot races and stuff."
I could call you guys pathetic, but I think I've already used that one this week so I think I'll just say "laughably weak."
*This is sarcasm by the way.
Does Wintermute have his own site?
Svigor: I'm pleased in holding a belief system that thrives, rather than withers, on the dissemination of the truth. The reverse would not give me faith in the long-term prospects of my belief system.
Ditch the belief system and concentrate on the truth.
There are four models here, not two.
I should've phrased that better.
But I don't see your additions as nearly as plausible as Balkans or Brazil.
The better phrasing would drive home the actual point I was trying to make: that the liberal option is crazy - rubber room crazy. There's no way in hell their dream stabilizes.
Ditch the belief system and concentrate on the truth.
Two ways to say the same thing - or at least, that's the idea.
No ideology, but only power, is propping up the monster. Ideologically, the leg it is standing on is badly broken. It has no justification.
Yep. This is a central tenet of anti-stup... er, I mean, of the Nu Culture of Critique; raw power is all they've got. I'm often surprised anew at how many on "our" side don't get this at all. Read the Amren commentary, for example, to regularly see people on "our" side, who should know better, operating under the assumption that liberalism is persuasive on its own merits. It isn't. It's the opposite of persuasive on its own merits. Get past those fallacies, non-sequiturs, etc., and all that's left is a bunch of cheap marketing tricks.
If T likes we can call the Brazilian and Balkan options the Alpha Centauri and Jupiter options. That should convince him of their originality.
How is "the historical Spanish tendency to miscegenate" relevant to Brazil?
My bad, I meant the "historical Portugee tendency to miscegenate." Or Iberian tendency? Better?
Why must our situation unfold exactly like one elsewhere?
How about we use the creativity you accuse us of not having and come up with an outcome Troof would envision.
Rather than becoming like Brazil, the Balkans, or the Roman Empire circa 600, the USA will become a glorious multiracial utopia. Blacks will suddenly climb into the middle class after having their wealth destroyed in the minority mortgage meltdown through the malfeasance of their ethnic kinsmen in part. Latinos will suddenly decide that they like blacks and will stop running them out of places like Los Angeles at gunpoint. Conservatives (racists - same thing) will realize the folly of trying to keep their paychecks for themselves and will gladly hand over their tax dollars to be re-distributed by ACORN and the SPLC. Meanwhile, China will reverse its current course and decide that they DO want to keep underwriting our massive debt and entitlements, cognizant of our need to right historical wrongs going all the way back to Adam.*
*This is sarcasm, Troof.
cognizant of our need to right historical wrongs going all the way back to Adam
Loved your scenario, but maybe there should be a clause of some kind? Maybe a "true" before "historical wrongs"?
We don't want send the wrong message here. E.g., we don't want the trans-Caucasian slave trade (Muslims enslaving Slavs), or the Mongol depredations coming into play here.
"Rather than becoming like Brazil, the Balkans, or the Roman Empire circa 600, the USA will become a glorious multiracial utopia."
Not the outcome that I would envision, but for the first time using your brain independently, pretty darn good.
Don't worry, from here on out it gets easier! I remember my first time, although the situation was a little different:
I had been in existence for less than 9 months, and I was suddenly pushed, by a force I couldn't control, down this dark, wet tube...
Not the outcome that I would envision, but for the first time using your brain independently, pretty darn good.
Pretty big ASSumption on your part, but whatev. I'll give you an "Oh Snap!" for that one. Did I get that right?
We don't want send the wrong message here. E.g., we don't want the trans-Caucasian slave trade (Muslims enslaving Slavs), or the Mongol depredations coming into play here.
Those don't play into Troof's reasoning, so their not a part of my scenario.
I had been in existence for less than 9 months, and I was suddenly pushed, by a force I couldn't control, down this dark, wet tube...
Ah yes. Decanting day at the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre.
The better phrasing would drive home the actual point I was trying to make: that the liberal option is crazy - rubber room crazy. There's no way in hell their dream stabilizes.
Assuming their stated intention and their actual motives are the same. Perhaps it is time for you to revisit Dostoevsky?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Possessed_(novel)
I feel so strongly about the underlying reality of what "Your Lying Eyes" is trying to describe here that I don't even want to waste Komment Kontrol's time in rejecting the 5000 word essay that I would try to post about the topic.
It also gets at a point that I was making to The Derb the other day about explicit -vs- implicit racism, but I can't even get The Derb to agree to a definition of "racism" which doesn't cede the entire territory before the first battle over it is even fought.
"Did I get that right?"
I don't know sport, the "oh snap" era was a little before my time, you'll have to ask my dad.
"Ah yes. Decanting day at the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre."
Cute, I gotta admit. Nice to get a little comp. around here.
The other model is the US, where we've done pretty well assimilating very troublesome (at the time) waves of Italian, Irish, Eastern European Jewish, and Eastern and Central European immigrants. This was overwhelmingly a success story. At present, the same thing is happening with Asians, who seem to assimilate and intermarry within a generation or two and have unambiguously American kids who do fine in school and mostly keep out of trouble with the law.
To some extent, this has also happened with blacks. But it hasn't been the same kind of success, for whatever reasons (too large a difference in IQ, persistent racism, the visible difference that makes it hard to leave any ambiguity about your background, whatever). But I think that's the model that's being drawn on by liberals.
Truth: Not the outcome that I would envision
Just out of curiosity - what outcome do you envision?
Or have you thought about it at all?
"Or have you thought about it at all?"
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
There's the scintillating originality we were all hoping for.
Post a Comment