From USA Today:
House Democrats will make history in the 2012 election, sending to Congress next January the first women and minority-majority party faction in U.S. history.
A new analysis by the Cook Political Report reveals a further progression of white flight from the Democratic Party, which is increasingly represented by women and minorities, while the GOP remains a party dominated by white men.
The projections were calculated by David Wasserman, an election analyst for the non-partisan Cook Political Report, who details the rise of women and minority influence in the Democratic ranks in the latest issue of National Journal magazine out today.
In 1950, white men constituted 98% of House Democrats -- a percentage that fell precipitously to just 53% following the 2010 elections. Based on the makeup of candidates in the current congressional races, Wasserman projects that the 2012 elections will result in a House Democratic Caucus that will be 46%-48% white males when the next Congress starts in January -- whether or not Democrats win a majority.
In contrast, white men continue to make up the vast majority of the Republican Party. In 1950, House Republicans were 97% white men, which fell to just 86% in 2012 -- a figure that Wasserman says will remain largely unchanged in the next Congress.
The change in sex ratios doesn't necessarily mean much: the sterling career of Nancy Pelosi is a continuation of the D'Alesandro family's political dynasty: her father and brother were both mayors of Baltimore, back when that was a fun job, and her father was in the House before her.
Still, if you look at America's most globally competitive industries, especially ones that are apparently considered too cool to have to worry much about discrimination lawsuits, such as Silicon Valley and Hollywood, you'll notice that white men pretty much run everything.
Posts
66 comments:
"David Wasserman, an election analyst for the non-partisan"
Any relation to Debbie Wasserman of the DNC?
Since the Democrats are the Party of Parasites, it's only natural selection at work.
Any relation to Lew Wasserman?
Excepting the fact that there's a disproportionately high number of Asians in leadership positions in SV, you are correct.
Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign director, said it in 2000: "The Democratic Party is the party of blacks, women and gays."
There plenty of Asian and Indian in SV leadership.
Taiwanese
Chinese
Indians
Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign director, said it in 2000: "The Democratic Party is the party of blacks, women and gays."
Follow the money. 60% of Dem funds come from Jews.
Nah, Silicon Valley's upcoming EEOC apocalypse is actually a horse of a different color...
steve, ot, but how could you have missed this::
Justin Knapp, 30, from Indianapolis, has edited Wikipedia at a rate of 385 edits per day, or just over one every four minutes, since signing up in March 2005.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9215151/First-man-to-make-1-million-Wikipedia-edits.html
and for the full SWPL version:
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/20/151023826/justin-knapp-makes-history-on-wikipedia
here's his picture:
http://www.soundbeatmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/9ad07_facebook_Justin-Knapp-600-275x171.jpg
Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign director, said it in 2000: "The Democratic Party is the party of blacks, women and gays."
_________________________________
She should know: she's all three, isn't she?
Interestingly, the Democrats in the Texas Legislature include only two white women, one in the House (Donna Howard) and one in the Senate (Wendy Davis). All the other white women are Republicans. And their are 2 black Republicans and 6 Hispanic Republicans in the Texas House. Looks like the Republican Party is the party of all Texans. The Democrats are just for inner city and border minorities.
"Here's his picture"
Genetic cul-de-sac
The alt-right really needs to look at the Affirmative Action quotas for Democrat delegates under the party rules. It's how professional feminists took over the party and displaced largely sane working-class whites.
I abandoned Liberalism when I realized that White males are on the receiving end of the last 30 years of "Progressivist, Feminist and Multiculturalist" Revolutions.
Democrats are sounding mighty triumphalist lately about their cool minority-majorityness. But it wouldn't surprise me if the party headed into some kind of crack-up, with all those different groups fighting for the Ring.
The amazing thing about the Democrats is that they threw out the Southern whites in the 1960's, and they have been in the process of throwing out the Catholics since that time, yet they are still potentially a majority.
A redistributionist party like the Democrats could have 90% of the votes if they wanted to. The only reason they are closer to 50% is that they continually eject large blocs of people so as to reduce the number of people who share the spoils.
In my view any competitiveness the GOP has is an illusion. Democrats can crush the GOP any time they want to. (Mencius Moldbug has made much the same point.)
"Still, if you look at America's most globally competitive industries, especially ones that are apparently considered too cool to have to worry much about discrimination lawsuits, such as Silicon Valley and Hollywood, you'll notice that white men pretty much run everything. "
They can show how Disparate Impact shouldn't apply to them. In the case of the tech industry it was pure luck that it worked out that way, and of course foreign cheap labor is taking it to the (white)man.
Jeff W, the politics of redistribution are rife with who?Whom?
In other words, Democrats self-limit their majorities by taking from married White couples to give to NAMs, elite Whites, and single White women. The Gender aspect of spoils politics has killed their ability to form a permanent majority. As is their necessarily innate hostility to most White men.
If you are a rich White guy, sure the Dems are for you: Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Haim Saban being good examples. Also Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, and any number of guys like that. Joe Average White guy, not so much.
"In my view any competitiveness the GOP has is an illusion. Democrats can crush the GOP any time they want to. (Mencius Moldbug has made much the same point.)"
That was the way it worked out pre-1960s, but the democrats would have to shed their anti-white image to get back to that.
"Anonymous peterike said...
Since the Democrats are the Party of Parasites, it's only natural selection at work."
The Republicans are a party of parasites too - just different parasites.
"In contrast, white men continue to make up the vast majority of the Republican Party."
Doesn't do us much good, however.
A redistributionist party like the Democrats could have 90% of the votes if they wanted to. The only reason they are closer to 50% is that they continually eject large blocs of people so as to reduce the number of people who share the spoils.
In my view any competitiveness the GOP has is an illusion. Democrats can crush the GOP any time they want to. (Mencius Moldbug has made much the same point.)
That's a double-edged sword.
What happens when Whites get it into their heads that they can redistribute their share of the spoils to themselves, and let others fend for themselves?
Hahaha, it just had to happen!!
"Maria Burns Ortiz: NFL Draft Lacks Latinos"
More pornitanicalism.
Jews, gays, women, asian chinese and indians etc taken together constitute the majority in Silicon Valley. Hollywood is still run by jews.
"The amazing thing about the Democrats is that they threw out the Southern whites in the 1960's, and they have been in the process of throwing out the Catholics since that time, yet they are still potentially a majority.
A redistributionist party like the Democrats could have 90% of the votes if they wanted to. The only reason they are closer to 50% is that they continually eject large blocs of people so as to reduce the number of people who share the spoils.
"In my view any competitiveness the GOP has is an illusion. Democrats can crush the GOP any time they want to."
Not sure if I follow you. How can they capture 90%? As you point out they are already kicking out groups, because there are not enough spoils to go around. No? I would imagine white women will be the next to get the heave ho (no more AA for White ladies) once Whites are a permanent minority leaving Jews, Blacks, and Hispanics and perhaps Asians as the permanent dominant coalition power.
But I still don't see how you can get to 90% because tbe spoils are subzsdized by a 15 trillion dollar national debt whose line of credit will some time in the near future get pulled. The Chinese and Japanese are already no longer buying our debt in the quantities they use to (they have enough thank you). As the Chinese internal market for goods continues to expand their distaste for American debt will grow. Basically, their brand of mercantilism is allowing them to develop their own domestic markets from scratch by lending us money which they know will be repaid in weaker dollars. They needed to do this because they had no internal markets but now that they are developing one you can already see a change in there policy starting to take place (ie. reduced desire to subisidize reckless American spending).
Taxing the wealthy in the U.S to pay for more spoils is a non starter for anyone who has actually crunched the numbers (even if we confiscated all the assets and income of the top 10% that would only put a dent in the the 15 trillion).
Of course the top 10% would not take it lying down either think of tons of Blackwater security and Military Industrial Complex types cracking down big time on leftists who advocated such policies. Who do you think pays the salaries of the 1.7 million strong Department of Homeland Security and why do we need such a large force? Why it is the taxpayers not the poor or indigent. Perhaps you remember Huey Long and his "share the wealth" philosophy. Why was he murdered you might ask and by whom? Gee, I wonder.
,
Regarding the near term future, if Republicans have any hope of turning tide they will either have to win the Hispanic vote or White women vote. Perhaps they could out bribe the Democrats by offering cradle to grave security for all women (regardless of race) with the proviso that men would be on their own.
Since most white men (but not NAMS) would be okay with it because they already get nothing now such a policy would put a world of hurt on the Democrats and their ethnic coalition would probably collapse.
I am not sure how it would be implemented or worded but it is interesting to think about.
"There plenty of Asian and Indian in SV leadership."
Is this actually so? I'm not sure I see it and I expect I'd know. I do see lots of Asians (both Indian and Chinese) in the trenches. There are many first-line managers of course, often leading teams of co-ethnics. There seem to be a decent number of VP types... Asians spend a lot of time in ethnic cheer-leading, so fact-checking is probably in order...
A paper "The Failure of Asian Success in the Bay Area: Asians as Corporate Executive Leaders", March 28, 2009 v1.3, Buck Gee, Wes Hom, Corporate Executive Initiative (CEI), Ascend – Bay Area Asia Society – Northern California, contains this:
"Given that Asians are 23% of the Bay Area employee pool, the remaining figure of 6% as an Asian CEO population and 5% board population means that Asians have not been successful at the highest rungs of the corporate ladder."
...
"Because the overall Silicon Valley population is 5% South Asian and 25% Pacific Rim Asian, it appears that both South Asians and Pacific Rim Asians are not being successful in attaining CEO positions, but that Pacific Rim Asians are even more unsuccessful."
The paper notes 30% of the employees might be Asian, total. Is this true? I don't know. But the professional-ethnic cheer-leader types might not have the most accurate picture or by the most trustworthy source on the matter.
"the sterling career of Nancy Pelosi is a continuation of the D'Alesandro family's political dynasty: her father and brother were both mayors of Baltimore, back when that was a fun job, and her father was in the House before her."
And for Nancy Pelosi's sake it's a good thing she moved her dynasty to Sodom-by-the-Bay: 4 of the last 5 mayors of Baltimore have been black. Of course as San Francisco gets more Asian/Jewish it will soon run out of room for people like Nancy.
In the not-too-distant future white gentile Democratic dynasty's like Pelosi's will be kaput, as the Dems get darker, browner, and jewishier. I hope the GOP of the future has the good sense to reject families like the Pelosis, Kennedys, and Bushes when they try to switch to the GOP.
And yes, for the sarcasm deficient, the inclusion of the Bush family in that list was intentional.
Since the Democrats are the Party of Parasites, it's only natural selection at work.
This gives me hope that Asians may actually move right, especially as so many are in close contact with Hispanics on the Coast. If we ever go with stricter numerical limits on immigration, Asians may actually see themselves as competingwith Hispanics there, too. They already do, to a degree - the public won't go for increased legal immigration so long as half a million Hispanics keep coming illegally each year.
In Utah, and probably a lot of other states, the future's here already. Of 105 total legislators in the Utah House and Senate, there are 24 Dems (not counting the members who only pretend to be Republican). Here's the demographics:
White Hetero Women: 9
White Hetero Men: 7
Hispanics: 4 (2M/2F)
Gay Men: 2
Jews: 2 (1M/1F)
Overall the genders split evenly: 12 men, 12 women. Including the gays and Jews, only 10 of the 24 Dems in the legislature are white men.
The state legislature is part-time, so many of them have outside jobs. A solid plurality of them - perhaps a majority - work in parasitic occupations: government, government subsidized non-profits, etc.
Diversity means a future where straight gentile whites are absent. Gay gentile whites are welcome because they don't breed, and if they do have kids its adopted non-whites from China or Africa.
When LBJ started spraying his hippopotamus shit around way back in 1968, anyone with a brain would have told you there and then that this was the only real, logical and intended result of his policies.
Anyway, don't think for one moment that the Republican Party is the party of 'white men', basically on this issue they are just Democrats lite.
Of course the irony is that wreckers like LBJ or JFK would never have got a start in the first place if this policy was in place back in the day.
As for Steve's attempted riposte and parting shot that white men still basically create the modern world, well as the saying goes 'everything is politics'.
Article on intelligence decline in left-liberal Prospect magazine confuses Lynn & Flynn!
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2012/03/intelligence-quotient-james-flynn/
"In 2002, the psychologist Richard Flynn and political scientist Tatu Vanhanen co-authored IQ and the Wealth of Nations"
If the GOP wasn't so stupid. If it dropped the abortion issue and just went to arguing against Roe v. Wade as unconstitutional and became more like Marine Le Pen (not obbessed with cutting medicaire but in a immigration moratarium when unemployment is above 6 percent) white women would begin to abandon the Dems aswell by now. We must purge all the Bush/Chamber of Commerce types. Read NRO, former Bush guys are all bashing Le Pen there because she's not talking about taxes and won't ignore immigration.
Of what value is it to me that "White men pretty much run everything" as you put, in the sense you mean it? I don't fun anything. Those are a tiny fraction of White men that don't represent us or work for our interests? To be blunt, BFD that Microsoft has White men at the top. From what I can see, they work AGAINST our interests most times.
And are they "running" things? If they are in Silicon valley, they are PROVIDING things, but not exercising power over what kind of country we will be, other than building it's technical capacity - they don't get to determine national policy.
And you call the people running Hollywood "White men"? Uh, OK. I'll play along, but we can all agree they are the most anti-White people in the country.
We have Wall Street too.
The change in sex ratios doesn't necessarily mean much...
Are you kidding? Whiskey is actually right on this one. Our modern experiment in putting men and women in head-to-head economic competition with each other means white women no longer vote for the interests of their prospective mates. Women are voting themselves sinecures and handouts from men. It is a huge and appalling development.
"The paper notes 30% of the employees might be Asian, total. Is this true?"
It's somewhere around this percentage for Asians/Indians among Silicon Valley employees but there's an obvious problem with the comparison of variables. Most of these employees were born in foreign countries and arrived in the States in adulthood. I have a hard time seeing people of those culturally distant backgrounds becoming CEOs. (There are exceptions. IITians are from culturally familiar turf and can become a CEO.)
It would be much more useful to figure out how the American born Asians/Indians are doing in SV.
The New Deal coalition came to an end during the Carter Reagan era because the grease that bought off the various voting blocs dried up. Prior to that, the Democrats could always buy off their various constituents by doling out infrastructure projects using Federal money. The Republicans had to play ball if they wanted to be in on the pork barreling. In America’s fast growth heyday where there were damns and highways needed building this also made a certain amount of economic sense. Nowadays, the left is held together by noncapital expenditures which is why we get so little return on our investment. Granting money back to the states so they can continue to pay for bloated State payrolls, Medicaid, and extended unemployment benefits and the like is not investing. It is just spending. The best way to derail the left is to simply stop slopping the trough.
"If you are a rich White guy, sure the Dems are for you:"
So shut up and use that 1573 you scored on that test in high school to become a rich White guy.
This gives me hope that Asians may actually move right,
stop hoping sweetheart,
orientals are discovering that its easy to raid the public coffers (example:Gurjartis getting themselves classified as asian, not caucasian so they get low interest loans) or shield themselves from criticism (example: espionage : wen ho lee avoids jail time simply by screaming 'racism!')
Orientals are scarier than blacks because like other hostile market dominate minorities, they an learn to use white guilt for far more than handouts.
I'm not as alarmed as I gather others are - at least the female politicians part.
I won't go into the gay issue here except to point out briefly that the Cochran-Ewald gay infection theory predicts we won't have gays around much longer. I think it's caused by the toxoplasma gondii parasite but no matter which agent is responsible, Gay marriage and gay politicians won't be a problem soon. Say 2100.
Black politicians are different. They are much worse than whites in several objectively verifiable ways. I did some original research on this issue a year or so back. I invested about a half hour of my time on Wikipedia. By my count blacks are about two and a half times as corrupt as whites. Check my figures for yourself.
There are a plethora of funny anecdotes too. Hank Johnson's fear of Guam capsizing is my personal favorite.
Women are a horse of a different color. Women seem to have some natural advantages in politics. It's complex of course. Men are more diverse and men are more aggressive and dominant.
Greater diversity means there are more men at the top (and bottom) of many talent distributions including political talent. But the mean for women's political talent may be higher than that of men.
I observed a lot of local government boards when I was in government and it always seemed to me that women more than held their own. There is a considerable scientific literature on group processes. The central finding is that men are task oriented while women are process oriented. In practice men stay on topic better while women worry about how things are going in the group. Process orientation is a very good thing to have on a typical county board that deals with a wide range of constituents, issues, and priorities.
Men have complementary advantages in executive positions. In the movies there is often an obsessed character who locks himself in his lab. No food, no drink just a focus on the task at hand. That character is always a man.
In nature of course primates follow a dominant male - a silverback. Oddly enough elephants follow a female, but in our branch of the animal kingdom, male leadership is "natural". Will Hayden of Sons of Guns is a silverback. Everyone in the show and in the audience feels comfortable with his authority. There are many such examples in reality TV and no counterexamples.
Another sexual difference in politics is simple interest. Women aren't very interested in politics. Don't be deceived
by all the hotties on Fox News. Normal women not in the business know less about almost any political issue. The Man on the Street knows very little about serious political matters as only too many shows have shown. The Woman on the Street knows less.
Women have a natural advantage at being a fighter pilot. Their ability to take G's is better. They stay awake in high speed turns better. But women aren't interested in combat. Go to the mall and observer the game arcades. All boys on the first person shooter games.
In a way this means that Democrats may benefit from the political ignorance of women. When the Democratic Party becomes identified as the "Women's Party" they may reap the same kind of benefits that they now get from being identified as the "Black Party".
Albertosaurus
In Texas, the state government has gone out of its way to gerrymander the district lines to make sure no white Democrat gets elected.
Oh, my,my: seems a black Detroit Tiger gets arrested in NYC for a hate crime, yelling racial epithets at a panhandler wearing a yalmulke.
Now, would this have happened w/out the guy having on his yalmulke? Is he white...or Jewish...and is there a difference?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57422981-504083/delmon-young-detroit-tigers-outfielder-arrested-on-hate-crime-charge-in-nyc/?tag=re1.channel
Whoops, spelling correction: should be "yarmulke"
i now actively engage in discussion with euro american men who vote democrat, trying to understand why. i even talk to euro american women about it sometimes.
my discussions with them have changed in tone and nature over the last 5 years. some of them really are, finally, starting to understand that voting democrat is a mistake, and that all democrat policy and all democrat leaders are actually trying to destroy them.
it took decades, but some middle class democrat voters are finally starting to get it. obama, perhaps, has finally made it front and present and clear enough, for long enough, that these blue collar guys have noticed the democrat leadership is out to get them. they need to have it in their face, repeatedly, for several years in a row, to get it.
occassionally accidentally encountering the anti-european nature of the modern democrat party is not enough, and they won't even connect the dots or get it in that manner. they won't understand what actually is happening in situation X, Y, or Z, and probably will just be briefly confused or puzzled, then go back to pulling the D lever every election. in previous decades they wouldn't have put all the pieces together to see the recurring pattern of targeting european men for punishment and replacement.
now, with a leader who openly hates them, and has trouble hiding it, bringing it to the forefront regularly, they can finally connect the dots, have that epiphany in their mind, get that moment of clarity and vision. hard stuff to grasp when you have an IQ between 100 and 115 and your literal ethnic enemies have been conditioning you and brainwashing you for decades in schools and on television.
i understand why poor, lazy, worthless europeans vote democrat. for the handouts. but it's increasingly unclear to me why productive, skilled, successful blue collar american men would vote D at this point. and it seems to me, they're asking themselves the same question.
As a young man, I generally supported the most libertarian or environmentalist candidates, and in the pre-Clinton era, that usually ended up being democrats. Republicans of that era were still pandering to the evangelicals, instigating the War on Drugs (no-knock-raids and property seizure), and were growing the federal government (and deficits) to enormous proportions.
The major events that turned me off to the dems in the 1990's were the Waco Raid (bold-faced tyranny), OKC bombing aftermath (vilifying constitutionalists/militia), flip-flop on illegal immigration, pushing NAFTA/GATT and supporting the agendas of sexual deviant and non-white grievance groups.
Ever since 1994 I've voted either republican or third party out of spite. There is no place for self-respecting white men in a democrat party brazenly pushing a post-modern leftist agenda.
Wasserman projects that the 2012 elections will result in a House Democratic Caucus that will be 46%-48% white males when the next Congress starts in January
That many?
Considering that it is the official position of the Democratic party that white men are the locus of evil in the world, I'm shocked to discover that they still allow any white men to be Representatives.
Delmon young, a black guy, arrested over a hate crime. He said some things about Jewish guys. If he had instead called them crackers or honkeys he would not have been in trouble.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/7862121/detroit-tigers-delmon-young-faces-hate-crime-charge-new-york
The psycho-logic of celebrity.
"In Texas, the state government has gone out of its way to gerrymander the district lines to make sure no white Democrat gets elected."
Good grief. It wouldn't even be possible to draw a district in Texas that had a majority of white democrats. Only 29% of whites in Texas are democrats.
Houston has had several white democrat mayors and Texas has had them as governors but that has way more power and influence than being a white guy in the minority party.
Pat said,
"I won't go into the gay issue here except to point out briefly that the Cochran-Ewald gay infection theory predicts we won't have gays around much longer. I think it's caused by the toxoplasma gondii parasite but no matter which agent is responsible, Gay marriage and gay politicians won't be a problem soon. Say 2100."
Honey, while 2100 is "soon" from an evolutionary standpoint, it's forever politically if the country is what you're considering...
Oh, and while I think Cochran's right, t. gondii is probably not the cause. If it were, likely pediatricians would be seeing lots (say 1.5-2%) of male infants with brain cysts or evidence of cysts.
Oh, Albertosaurus, "Pat" is you! I thought you disappeared and was worried about you. (Still don't think it's toxo, though although I like reading Dr. Sopalsky's stuff on it.)
Donna Brazile, Al Gore's campaign director, said it in 2000: "The Democratic Party is the party of blacks, women and gays."
Follow the money. 60% of Dem funds come from Jews.
That's only the official figures.
How about unofficial Satanist funding, delivered through underground tunnels and by black helicopters at night?
"...Hollywood...white men pretty much run everything."
'White men'. One infers Methodists in suits and ties, or something akin, from this statement.
Methodists Run Hollywood. Spread the word.
So shut up and use that 1573 you scored on that test in high school to become a rich White guy.
I see you hadn't noticed the nation of millions keeping us back.
This tread is about the Democratic Party and its changing composition so I won't try to rebutt criticisms of what I said on homosexuality. I don't want to hijack.
I take the silence about my calculation of black politician corruption to be assent. If the Democrats become more black they will likewise become more plagued with scandal. I'm not sure that matters if you control so much of the media.
My major point was that females are not very interested in politics but many of them are quite good at it. However, their style style and fashion are quite different.
I used to call the male style of argument - "See my hairy chest". If someone disputes evolution and doesn't believe that they are descended from apes, I direct them to observe the US Senate.
Albertosaurus
"Oddly enough elephants follow a female,"
Females and children follow the matriarch, and
you haven't seen this
"Women have a natural advantage at being a fighter pilot. Their ability to take G's is better. "
and men's testicles make them worse at being astronauts
(for simplicity of discussion, we are not including testicularly-challenged-at-birth men)
"As for Steve's attempted riposte and parting shot that white men still basically create the modern world, well as the saying goes 'everything is politics'. "
Precisely, who controls the present....
it's not hard to imagine that history might be a little bit different in the future or that Einstein might have Alberta as first name or to be more modest, all female relatives of a great man get their own biographies, detailing the constant interruptions of patriarchy that prevented them from achieving much more than the privileged male.
A month ago, there were talks of jesus being intersex by a university professor. With white male patriarchal logic finally ditched for goddess's intuitions, who knows what other wonders we might miss out on in the glorious future besides some little changes to herstory of womanunkind.
Regarding the lack of Asians in SV leadership, or the supposed lack of Asians in corporate leadership in general, here's my observation: When Asians are represented in the boardroom in Corporate America, it is overwhelmingly Indians. Perhaps upper caste Indians are better at creative thinking than typical East Asians. But I think it's more because Indians are less removed racially from the white European majority than East Asians are. Even in a post 9-11 U.S where those with brown skin are suspect, Indians are trusted more by white Americans than East Asians are. I can't imagine two, let alone one Southern U.S. State electing a Chinese American governor, the way they've elected Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal.
"Hollywood is still run by jews."
We built it. Deal with it. Or, like certain minorities, do you want what someone else built to be handed over to you?
Build your own studio.
"Indians are trusted more by white Americans than East Asians are. I can't imagine two, let alone one Southern U.S. State electing a Chinese American governor, the way they've elected Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal."
1) Indians do look more like Europeans than Orientals do.
2) The only three Asian-American Republican pols I know of - all from the South (Cao, Jindal, Haley) - are all Christian. I think their Christianity matters more to voters than their appearance.
3) China is more of a threat to the US than India is. In that respect, looking Chinese is a detriment.
4) Politics is a people profession. Orientals are naturally more aloof a introverted than Indians or Europeans. They don't seem to excel in any people profession - neither politics, nor sales, nor acting, etc.
5) Politics is a profession of trust. It's hard to know what politicians are doing with their power behind the scenes. Their voting records don't tell you everything.
Republicans definitely need to be more welcoming to those groups that don't fit inside the traditional base - gays, non-Christians, etc.
"YKW said...
""Hollywood is still run by jews.""
We built it. Deal with it. Or, like certain minorities, do you want what someone else built to be handed over to you?"
At least that's a more honest reply than one usually gets the preponderance of jews in Hollywood, which is "That's not true. We are a powerless minority. Now, shut up, or we will crush you."
Anyway, now that you've conceded the point................
"Build your own studio."
Go build your own ivy league universities and your own supreme court.
And are they "running" things? If they are in Silicon valley, they are PROVIDING things, but not exercising power over what kind of country we will be, other than building it's technical capacity - they don't get to determine national policy.
On another thread on isteve somebody noted how people still associate whites with various positive things. That the anti-white media message handt worked all that well.
I disagree. The point is not to totally denigrate whites, white men.Its to delegitimize the idea of whites having actual political power.
They are allowed to provide stuff, organize things but there it must end. Whites future is planned as a an elite technocratic slave caste, well rewarded but with no formal, legal, political control over anything.
Delmon young, a black guy, arrested over a hate crime. He said some things about Jewish guys. If he had instead called them crackers or honkeys he would not have been in trouble.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/7862121/detroit-tigers-delmon-young-faces-hate-crime-charge-new-york
My favorite comment so far:
"Give me money etc etc"
"Go away"
ANTI SEMITE!
WASPs were left in charge of the automakers in the last century. That business could have been taken from them as easily as newspapers/radio/TV etc. But it wasn't taken because that industry doesn't translate much into leveraged political power and Kulturkampf high ground.
The aspect of auto making that does have political ramifications - the unions - was indeed taken from WASPs early on.
It's all about Power Niches and notice that car guys are not exactly VIPs at Davos.
""Hollywood is still run by jews."
We built it. Deal with it. Or, like certain minorities, do you want what someone else built to be handed over to you?
Build your own studio."
Can't you open your heart a little and find a little room for the people who defend your freedom of speech and fight the never ending war to defend your homeland?
""Hollywood is still run by jews."
We built it. Deal with it. Or, like certain minorities, do you want what someone else built to be handed over to you?
Build your own studio."
To my knowledge, Jews did not invent moving pictures, electricity, or American theatre, from which the early actors were drawn. They "built" the management stucture. The actual hardware and software, as we would say today, was not. By and large.
I actually don't have - or didn't- have a problem with Jewish film moguls. They did very well by religion prior to the 1970s, and produced and/or directed countless films that were positive toward mainstream American culture, even towards Christianity, especially Catholicism. That last, though, was partly due to the power the Church at that time had. I still remember the Catholic Review's film ratings--you really paid attention to them. A "Condemned" rating put you in a position of possible mortal sin. I always wondered about the guys that had to view them to rate them--did they sin? Anyway, that was VERY influential in the 30s through the 60s. Don't know about after that.
People get away with what they can get away with. Anyway, that was a much earlier generation. The people running things there now have mostly been born in the last half of the 20th century and are themselves far from any immigrant experience, except for a few former Soviet block people.
Post a Comment