Ross Douthat blogs in the New York Times:
Claims of Republican race-baiting have a way of descending into self-parody (especially at this point in the campaign season), but there is obviously a thread of what I’ve previously described as white identity politics woven into contemporary conservatism — not a politics of white supremacy or traditional racial animus, but a politics of racial/ethnic/native-born grievance, which regards contemporary liberalism as fundamentally hostile to the interests of middle class and working class whites. (David Frum’s attempt to channel the mood of G.O.P. convention delegates captures what I’m talking about pretty well.)
This sense of white grievance can be noxious, divisive, and deeply problematic for Republican politicians trying to broaden their party’s appeal. It can help harden divisions and increase tensions between otherwise like-minded Americans. But it isn’t likely to diminish so long as the Democratic Party continues to be a vessel for the much more explicit identity politics that Klein’s column deplores, and to support policies that often resemble a kind of racial/ethnic spoils system for non-whites: Permanent racial preferences in education and government, a “disparate impact” regime that can blur into a de facto quota system, immigration gambits that don’t even pretend to be anything other than plays for the Hispanic vote, and so on.
This kind of ethnic/racial patronage is hardly a new thing in our politics, and it doesn’t make today’s liberals the “real” racists, or prove that President Obama is actually some kind of post-colonial score-settler, as the Michael Moores of right-wing identity politics are wont to claim. But it does means that when it comes to exploiting America’s ethnic divisions to mobilize key constituencies, today’s Democratic Party sins as much as it is sinned against. And it means that the Democrats’ struggle to reach Klein’s “plain old white insurance salesman” and the Republicans’ struggle to reach Hispanics and African-Americans are in some sense mirror images of one another. They’re both a consequence of party leaders taking the path of least resistance on racially-charged issues, and they’re both reminders of the hard truth that the more racially diverse America of the future could easily become, and remain, a more polarized society as well.
Much of the libertarianism of the Tea Party is an attempt to come up with a principled ideological justification for the banding together for mutual political protection of the only group left in America that's not supposed to band together. Julian Castro is not expected to put forward a principled defense of his special privileges, but white Americans feel the need for principles. That makes it easy for, say, plutocrats to hijack the Tea Party because it's not allowed to even conceive of what it's really about.
Posts
116 comments:
This kind of ethnic/racial patronage is hardly a new thing in our politics, and it doesn’t make today’s liberals the “real” racists
It doesn't? Why not, exactly?
Today's liberals are motivated by an explicit anti-white animus. according to "racism " is currently defined, that makes them racist.
This sense of white grievance can be noxious, divisive, and deeply problematic for Republican politicians trying to broaden their party’s appeal.
Remember, everyone - the problem is not the racism of the left, the problem is you dumb white guys taking offense at bigotry aimed at white guys!
Tea Partiers were/are trying to put together a party for people who work and who believe in work.
I am always amazed at how main stream writers never seem to realize that white folks like Tea Partiers don't hold animosity for people of any color who work, who want to work, who look for work, who teach their kids to work and who don't hold out their hand.
It's not about race but about lazy-assed people who have grown used to getting hands outs, and that includes whites who behave that way.
I think Douthat is correct about the race-hustling on the left and on the right. The "path of least resistance" remark is strange, though. Race hustling on the left and the right is intended to bring in votes and money. If it's only the path of least resistance, then what better (if harder) path is there to that goal?
I'm also extremely skeptical of Sailer's story about the Tea Party. Is there any, um, evidence for it? Surveys, manifestos, whatever?
I admit, I don't have any personal experience with the Tea Party people. Still, they seem to be banding together on socio-economic interests, which correlate well with race. That's very different from banding together on race.
Libertarianism, like most if not all ideologies, is adopted by self-deception, not by conscious rationalizing of special interests. Tea Partiers are not saying, "Golly, we need to justify our desire for tax cuts, let's put on periwigs and tri-cornered hats." My experience is that libertarians, like most ideologues, sincerely believe in the objective good of their ideology.
Tea Partiers are not libertarians, in spite of various libertarians efforts to claim the Tea Party as theirs. (The "plutocrats" who want to "hijack the Tea Party")
"That makes it easy for, say, plutocrats to hijack the Tea Party because it's not allowed to even conceive of what it's really about. "
Maybe the plutocrats like it this way? And since they fund both parties, maybe that's why issues affecting the living standards of ordinary middle- and lower-middle-class working families of all colors are not on the political agenda of either party? Trade, immigration, wage-and-hour laws, tax reform (not privileging unearned over earned income), etc.
It seems to me that the plutocrats own the internal communications mechanisms of the tea party, and pay the salaries of a great many people commonly held to be the legitimate voice of the tea partiers. So whatever the ideas of the individual tea partiers may be, it turns out that the tea party has no united purpose on issues the plutocrats don't want them to have.
I dunno about the Tea Party, or the Republicans in general--the pasty woman editor of Salon ginned up some headline blurb so cliched, so hackneyed, that it didn't sound intentional re: Romney-Ryan "doubling down on whiteness"--but the Democrat version will bust up eventually under its weight. Most people have lives and can't study the increasingly arcane rules (modern environmentalism w/ a similar problem). If even Stevie Wonder ran into the gay etiquette buzzsaw somehow this is a Tower of Umbrage Babel that will have to collapse inevitably
Also, one other thing about Steve Sailer's Tea Party story: Maybe there's evidence supporting it, but if not, then this seems to be yet another example of race realists committing the Disparate Impact Fallacy: If something has a significant disparate impact on race, then (according to this fallacy) there must be racial discrimination behind it.
It might seem surprising that race realists tend to commit this fallacy, considering that they're often the ones pointing it out in their opponents, but it's really pretty common. I've seen the fallacy in Kevin MacDonald's writings several times (not counting his "implicitly white" stuff, which is usually speculative). On the other hand, maybe there's actually evidence for the story told here, who knows?
I agree with everything you said, steve.
Would you care to speculate on how this situation came to pass?
"Much of the libertarianism of the Tea Party is an attempt to come up with a principled ideological justification for the banding together for mutual political protection of the only group left in America that's not supposed to band together."
The problem is that white people are capable of letting an ideology guide them against their own interests and the Tea Party advocates extreme individualism, colorblindness and an aracial American identity.
We have seen over fifty years of conservatism, that in conflict between underlying race consciousness that may be motivating some white Republican voters and the official aracial ideology, that the later usually wins. We don't seem to be capable of playing the same double game as others can. Victories have been defensive in nature -- ie stopping amensty vs. actually doing something about the border or deportation.
Also I love the neo-Lewis Carroll media meme that these white ID political people are communicating solely (ergo more powerfully!) by "dog whistling" which really puts the openly organized, publicly funded, overtly racialist ID groups at a, like, major disadvantage
that is an unusually frank discussion of some unspoken issues that are usually 'talked around' by mainstream media. I wonder why....
excuse me but how does it "blur" into a quota system when i'm told explictly that it's literally laughable for a white male to apply for a government job unless he's a veteran? qualifications, resume, civil service exams, etc. don't matter. being a gay black woman veteran does. there's nothing blurry about that.
The principle governing modern politics is "Who? Whom?". As soon as one realizes that, the primary principle that must guide your political sensibilities is "Above all, don't be the 'whom'."
First off, I disagree with Steve's general theme that Hispanics are going to be some political bust in the near term. They pretty much always demand Hispanic congressmen in their districts the moment they get the chance, and things are reaching a critical point.
Second, politics will get much more racial very soon. This is the last election we will have where race isn't explicit. The careers of those who denied the importance of race will be over in short order.
As Jimmy Carter (the best and most underrated American president of recent times, that dumb putz Reagan wasn't fit to clean his boots), the 'Tea Party' is really just a whine against having a black man as president. Nothing more, nothing less, I wouldn't dignify hem with any higher calling. Never mind that that dumb, worthless, bastard George W. Bush was the *real* American catastrophe (what with economic meltdown, trillion dollar wars for Israel, immigration amnesty and the rest), they have a pet hate against Obama (who is a million times a better man), simply because of the unpardonable sin on his part that he is half-black.
The Tea Partiers are turds.
A lot of fat, obese, belly-wheeled, unattractive, ugly people, wearing silly little baseball caps waving silly little flags and just making fools of themselves.
Never mind that Big Business (TM) that controls the Republican Party thinks of them as embarrassing white trash - fit for vote fodder, grunt labor and serving the 1%, but nothing else.
No, the Brooks Bro set laugh down their sleeves at these 'disgusting' people. 'Ha, ha, ha' they cackle, we've outsourced your job, we've displaced you with hard working brown folk from Mexico, you have bben rendered worthless by free trade and the 'American way', but we'll throw you a few bones so that the porn mills grind over and the Cadillac's serviced.
Second, politics will get much more racial very soon. This is the last election we will have where race isn't explicit. The careers of those who denied the importance of race will be over in short order.
Agreed, but the critical question is whether white women will remain on the Democrat bandwagon, and for how long.
The tone of the conventions made it pretty clear that both parties are well aware of this.
"Agreed, but the critical question is whether white women will remain on the Democrat bandwagon, and for how long."
IIRC, it's single white women, not white women per se. At some point the genes for producing gullible white women have to start petering out as the owners of those genes either refuse to have children or create more permanent Democrats with non-whites. The future white single women are going to be increasingly of a less naive, more racially conscious strain.
Agreed that pro-white politics is about to go mainstream. It's certainly as mainstream as I've ever seen it. Who knows, maybe 2016 will hear a non-Democrat politician explicitly talk about a previously ignored constituency - middle class white America - and what's in it for them. And if you don't like the message, deal with it.
I'm also extremely skeptical of Sailer's story about the Tea Party. Is there any, um, evidence for it? Surveys, manifestos, whatever?
You mean evidence apart from the fact that they're virtually all white?
David Frum link is the best part of the piece. Maybe the ghosts of all the conservatives he scalped are visiting him at night. If he gets anymore honest, he'll be collecting his salary through tax free donations to Vdare.
This sense of white grievance can be noxious, divisive, and deeply problematic for Republican politicians trying to broaden their party’s appeal.
It all depends on who they are trying to broaden their appeal to. If it's the non-white horde, then the only thing they can do to broaden their appeal is to change parties. Trying to appeal to this voter is IRRELEVANT for the GOP. WASTE... OF... TIME.
Maybe that sort of heretofore unheard rhetoric is "noxious, divisive and problematic" to the nice white ladies who vote Democrat. I'm really not sure they are going to ever vote GOP. But for married couples and white single men, it might work. And by not simpering and cowering, you might, just might motivate the base to turn out and vote. Legitimize the racial aspect and you might start to convert some of the single white women as well, as they figure out which side they are on.
And it means that the Democrats’ struggle to reach Klein’s “plain old white insurance salesman” and the Republicans’ struggle to reach Hispanics and African-Americans are in some sense mirror images of one another.
This is a lie. The Democrats can't hope to reach the "plain old white insurance salesman" because they are the party of racial spoils for non-whites. Furthermore, by encouraging immigration (legal and illegal) of future Democrats they seek to guarantee their future success indefinitely. As an attack goes, it's hardly more subtle than say, attempting to conquer Canada by moving the surveying pegs back a few feet each year.
What's pathetic is that the GOP acquiesces and panders to this fight to the death! The Republicans do honestly attempt to try and get Hispanics and blacks to vote for them as if the playing field were level, but it's wasted effort. Nothing they give can ever compare to what the Democrats offer.
Aaron in Israel, a question.
How much does ethnicity play a part in Israeli politics? Do Jews from Russia/North Africa etc identify soely as Jews, or does the non-Jewish admixture that, to look at them, all Jews have in their blood-lines play a major part in Israeli politics?
Agreed, but the critical question is whether white women will remain on the Democrat bandwagon, and for how long
White women (really the single ones) have been a disappointment - more loyal to Uncle Sugar than their own people. In the end, however, race always trumps gender, and as pro-White politics starts to go mainstream, I suspect they will vote White, probably by 2016.
Who knows, maybe 2016 will hear a non-Democrat politician explicitly talk about a previously ignored constituency - middle class white America - and what's in it for them. And if you don't like the message, deal with it.
I think that is exactly right. Some new batch of politicians will see the opportunity and seize it. The Dems are openly touting themselves as the non-White party. Here is the funny part - it will mostly likely be the "respectable conservatives" such as Hannity and Rush who will be the biggest impediment and will have to be thrown overboard. They have too long a history of being "anti-racist".
It's hard for mainstream commentators to address the National Question. Douthat tiptoes around like a gypsy in a jewelry store at midnight. Another term for what he is doing here is 'leftist ju-jitsu'. If one cliche can help illustrate a point then why not three: The problem with Douthat's tactical game is that the bad guy (who is more ruthless) usually ends up with the gun AND the girl.
Gilber Pinfold.
Much of the libertarianism of the Tea Party is an attempt to come up with a principled ideological justification for the banding together for mutual political protection of the only group left in America that's not supposed to band together. Julian Castro is not expected to put forward a principled defense of his special privileges, but white Americans feel the need for principles. That makes it easy for, say, plutocrats to hijack the Tea Party because it's not allowed to even conceive of what it's really about.
This might be the single worst paragraph that I've seen you write in the six or seven years that I've been following you.
1) You can't allow your enemies [and their tactics] to define you - that's Freudianism, pure and simple [or at least it's a really sick, twisted, intellectually masochistic inversion of Freudianism].
2) But what makes it all the worse is that the Freudians [i.e. the Frankfurt School Nihilists] are PRECISELY our enemies in all of this: They're the ones who introduced these ancient mediterranean/orientalistic techniques of divide-and-conquer into our society.
As a recent poster here put it so succinctly:
I think the primary goal is to spread division - divide and rule basically. Take every issue there is (or was) a consensus on and one by one promote the exact opposite until you have the entire population at each other's throats - and therefore not at the throats of the instigators... I think the people pushing gay marriage like to minimize cohesion and consensus... because they think division is in their interests.
What made Christianity [which is to say, Northwestern European Protestantism] and America so very special was that they were founded on the very idea of principles in the first place [unlike any other culture or cultural movement at any other point in all of human history].
Your paragraph, then - if one were to take it seriously - would hold that, of all the peoples in the world today, ONLY Northwestern European Christians are capable of having principles - that somehow the very ability to have principles is inextricably linked to the organism's DNA.
[And if that's true, then God have mercy on us all.]
that's Freudianism, pure and simple
Oops - sorry - not sure whether I included the link.
Last time you made this argument it wasn't plutocrats doing the exploiting (directly), it was people like Paul Ryan. Ever since he became the veep nominee you've been highly deferential.
"This sense of white grievance can be noxious, divisive, and deeply problematic for Republican politicians trying to broaden their party’s appeal."
This "sense" - more like reality - of white grievance is what gives neoconservative, neofeudalist Republican politicians tens of millions of votes they don't really even have to work for. It's the reality that the white middle class has absolutely no party looking after its interests. Democrats care more about the concerns of the permanently unemployed black underclass than they do of white, blue collar workers.
The Tea Party is not a racist movement. It is a movement directed against the continued sudsidization of that share of the populace which refuses to work, which behaves irresponsibly, and which feeds at the taxpayer teet. That group may include a disroprotionate number of blacks and Hispanics, but it does not exclude whites. The Tea Party has been so thoroughly careful to avoid being tarnished with the label of "racist" that it has completely avoided addressing the issue of illegal immigration.
"White women (really the single ones) have been a disappointment - more loyal to Uncle Sugar than their own people. In the end, however, race always trumps gender."
I'll certainly take issue with single white women, but one of the biggest cures for that particular problem who be if millions of white men up and bothered to propose to them. If 5-10 single white women got married tomorrow, the D Party would shit a brick. Married white women vote for Republicans at a higher rate than single white men. For every 5-6 million white women who get married, the Dems lose a million votes.
There are plenty of educated white women out there with l.a. degrees who are struggling to pull down $30k/year. Under those circumstances, it's hard to blame them for voting for government handouts.
"they have a pet hate against Obama (who is a million times a better man), simply because of the unpardonable sin on his part that he is half-black"
I think they hate Obama because he put racists like Eric "my people" Holder in power.
europeasant
The reorganization of our political parties is driven by demographic change. When whites were a large majority of the population, they could be indifferent to racial politics. But as the percentage of whites declines, this will no longer be true. The Democrat party actively pushes the racial agendas of blacks and hispanics against the interests of white. Eventually, either the Republican party will become an explicitly white party, or it will be disappear and be replaced by a white party.
A spoil system based explicitly on race is likely. Strict quotas and government classification of people by race is likely.
Anon 11:01PM:
Perhaps what you're being told is bullshit? There are lots and lots of white male federal employees, the majority of whom never served in the military.
More broadly, affirmative action, set-asides, racial gerrymandering of voting districts, and related stuff is deeply corrupt, and all that stuff should be gotten rid of. And yet, on average, white men do quite well in this society. In terms of income, life expectancy, education, net worth, etc., whites do a whole lot better than blacks and hispanics and American Indians.
Similarly, the whole PC bit where empty-headed journalists on TV talk up the dangerousness of white criminals bashing blacks is indeed stupid. But white men go to prison a whole lot less than black men, and generally get lighter sentences for similar crimes. (Though I think this is largely due to the difference in who has lawyers and the surrounding details of the legal case.)
The existence of a bunch of stupid crap that ought not to be there and that imposes costs on whites does not actually imply that whites can't get ahead. That's the same error made often by blacks, who see that there is still some discrimination and prejudice, and that blacks aren't doing all that well, and try to connect the two. There may just not be much connection.
Anon 12:39:
I think the beginnings of the Tea Party were linked to the huge bailouts at the end of Bush's term, and more generally to the loss of faith in the Republican party by a lot of small-government conservatives. (And the right amount of faith for a small-government conservative to have in the good intentions of the Republican Party is zero.)
The images I've seen on TV of the Tea Party have focused heavily on the whites that are freaked out by having a black president. My impression is that this isn't terribly representative, but I don't really know. As best I can tell, any political movement that challenges powerful people in the US will be massively distorted and smeared by the US prestige media. You can see that with antiwar rallies (some guy in a chimp suit, beardo-the-weirdo wearing a Ché T-shirt), the Tea Party (obese redneck racists carrying guns and wearing T-shirts with a confederate flag), and the Occupy movement (unemployable drugged-up wannabe hippies camping out with their iPhones and venti lattes.)
Now, each of those images probably has some reality. But I guess none of them are very represenetative. I know people involved in the Occupy rallies, and they're not at all like the media image. I saw antiwar protests with my eyes and saw what was reported in my local media (nothing, like it didn't happen).
The prestige media is part of the establishment, part of the court that hangs around the nobility that runs things. They will never be truly friendly or fair to any insurgency, because it threatens their position and the people they identify with and serve.
I would not be surprised to see white racial identity become respectable in politics in the next couple decades. But unlike a lot of people here, I think that will be a disaster--countries where the voting breaks down on ethnic or religious lines don't, as far as I can see, get good government. Instead, they vote for the crook they know is looting the city and wrecking the schools, because at least he's *their* crook instead of the other guys' crook.
We would be far better off if racial identity politics actually was unacceptable across the board. But the situation where every ethnic group except Gentile whites is allowed and encouraged to engage in racial identity politics, whereas whites doing the same is the second coming of Hitler, is just not stable. Once the dam breaks, it will quickly go from covert to overt, and we will see pols very openly targeting their appeal to white voters..
It doesn't? Why not, exactly?
Maybe he is implying that if it is racism for the liberals then it is racism for the conservatives as well, because both sides do it. So liberals wouldn't be the 'real racists', they would be one side of the racist coin.
I pretty much agree with this article.
I also don't have the slightest idea what the ramifications will be.
Does anyone know a lot of history? There have been several empires (not nations as far as I know) with lots of ethnicities represented.
Some of them seem to have lasted a while like the Romans and Russians.
And the Austro-Hungarians.
But in general these types of states don't seem too stable.
But yeah, the Tea Party rank and file won't do too well, no matter the results of this election.
I think the problem goes far deeper than the "evil plutocrats hijack virtuous tea party" narrative.
The real problem is that everyone on the right--rich, poor, middle class--has been fooled into believing that social collectivism and economic individualism are the same thing when they are in fact polar opposites.
They are all hooked on the false idea of "freedom" which in turn based on the false idea of "equality". If you don't accept the premise of equality "freedom" makes no sense because some people will end up dominating over other people in any "free" environment.
So the problem isn't evil plutocrats sitting around plotting against us. The rank and file tea partiers advocate libertarianism and are reluctant to admit racial identity just as much as the plutocrats. It is ultimately a problem of ideas, ideas that stretch back all the way to 18th century "Enlightenment" and which opened the door for the disasters that followed.
I think you see a lot of this sublimation in American politics. It was funny, for instance, how many people wanted to describe their support for Chick-Fil-A as about "free speech".
David Frum link is the best part of the piece. Maybe the ghosts of all the conservatives he scalped are visiting him at night. If he gets anymore honest, he'll be collecting his salary through tax free donations to Vdare.
Agreed, it's great!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/27/republican-delegate.html
As Jimmy Carter (the best and most underrated American president of recent times, that dumb putz Reagan wasn't fit to clean his boots), the 'Tea Party' is really just a whine against having a black man as president. Nothing more, nothing less, I wouldn't dignify hem with any higher calling. Never mind that that dumb, worthless, bastard George W. Bush was the *real* American catastrophe (what with economic meltdown, trillion dollar wars for Israel, immigration amnesty and the rest), they have a pet hate against Obama (who is a million times a better man), simply because of the unpardonable sin on his part that he is half-black.
The Tea Partiers are turds.
I'm not convinced Obama haters are anywhere near as racist as some in the media want us to believe. The liberal media conveniently forgets that the same people hated the clintons with just as much passion (if not more so) in the 1990s.
"A lot of fat, obese, belly-wheeled, unattractive, ugly people, wearing silly little baseball caps"
Sounds like every black ghetto in America.
In the end, however, race always trumps gender
Correct, but is anyone other than me smart enough to know why race always trumps gender? I'll be grading your answers.
Well, Obama is also bad on illegal immigration, maybe just deported a few more people to look good to blacks. He exports jobs also to China or Finland because of the green environmental stuff. Fisker already had operations in Finland. Obama had some wars like social unrest in Syria, Egypt and Libya. The Tea Party was used from that I see to get old whites to leave California or New Jeresy since they are high tax and business regulated states to moved to Texas of Florida. If you read teas party rhetoric this is where they tell you to go. Never may that both states also have Hispanics as well. In fact I have heard Tea Party people complain about illegal immigration in California ignoring in Texas which is just behind California in the illegal immigrant mess
The Republican party would win more if they became more pro-white while simultaneously becoming a little less economically conservative. For instance they could win over the teachers and cops (HBD aware people already) if they stopped demonizing government workers. Of course the only reason that rhetoric exists is because they need a scapegoat and cannot address the real issues(NAMs and single moms and general social dysfunction).
Well, take Texas if get rid of Hispanics then their stats are competitive with the rest of the US and so would most of the south if you get rid of blacks. If Texas was as white as it as in 1980 then most people today would be behind the Republicans since it would have lower out of wedlock births and low poverty and so forth and probably better home ownership Texans are not so much against free trade since probably about 40 percent of the factory work is mainly Mexican in Texas. What is interesting is California were factory work is done about 60 percent by Mexicans and Asians you hear more anti-trade noise because Cal whites are more democratics
Another thing is the Tea Party tends to be self=employed or have small business with some college but no graduate degrees, so low taxes and regulation would be popular and free trade usually bothers them less since few are into manufacturing.
I think you guys are insane. The playing field is not level, remember? There's not going to be a "legitimate" "mainstream" explicitly pro white political organization of any kind. Period.
The other side (which always rules regardless of the party nominally in power) will not allow it to happen. I can't say what means they will use, but all options (and I do mean all options) are on the table.
There will come a tipping point when whites figure out en masse that not only is the game is rigged against them, but that the people who rigged it consider them subhuman. This is the same kind of slap in the face that led to the first american revolution.
The other side will use any means necessary to ensure that there are no legitimate mainstream pro-white institutions existing when that tipping point occurs, because these would serve as the precursors to a revolutionary army.
If I start a political party based on planks of lower taxes and regulation, gun ownership, and school choice, because I honestly believe those things would be best for my country as a whole, and only white people show up to my rallies, have I really engaged in "white identity politics"? Is it my fault no non-whites happen to agree with my vision of the future?
That seems a far cry from, say, going to the NAACP and specifically promising to do things for their race-based constituency. In fact, Republican candidates regularly engage in black identity politics by doing just that, but they never do anythng on that level with whites.
The Tea Partiers have defined themselves completely in economic terms. This means with 100 percent certainty that they will be race-replaced. And the process of race-replacement will be quite nasty. This is just another way of saying that Tea Partiers are morons.The Asians will bury them.
The Tea Partiers are the party of Ron Paul at best. And this makes them the party of White American race-replacement. How can you take seriously a political party that wants to privatize SS and medicare?
The endgame for White Americans is ferociously nasty competition with nonwhites for the scarce resources of the US. What is this a blueprint for?
"I'm also extremely skeptical of Sailer's story about the Tea Party. Is there any, um, evidence for it? Surveys, manifestos, whatever?"
This book:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/AmericanPolitics/?view=usa&ci=9780199832637
Skocpol and Williamson found that grass roots Tea Party people are older white conservatives who are hostile to illegal immigrants and to Muslims. Many of them are on social security and Medicare. None of the grass roots Tea Party people they met wanted the programs changed.
The DC organizations that claim to speak for the Tea Party, like Dick Armey's Freedomworks, are eager to privatize SS and Medicare and don't care about immigration or Muslims.
"Tea Partiers are not libertarians, in spite of various libertarians efforts to claim the Tea Party as theirs."
That't true, and similarly they aren't social conservative "hawks" although it's true some socons have tried to make the two synonymous. The didn't have success in linking social issues but the main stream media promoted that connection and were given wind to their sails when Michelle Bachmann got into the race.
"See, see," the media cried, "The Tea Partiers are dinosaur anti-science socons.
I'm also extremely skeptical of Sailer's story about the Tea Party.
What specifically are you "extremely skeptical" about? Steve did not write any story about the Tea Party. He made some passing remarks about it.
Also, one other thing about Steve Sailer's Tea Party story: Maybe there's evidence supporting it, but if not, then this seems to be yet another example of race realists committing the Disparate Impact Fallacy: If something has a significant disparate impact on race, then (according to this fallacy) there must be racial discrimination behind it.
Maybe English s not your first language, but those sentences are incomprehensible. What is "yet another example of race realists committing the Disparate Impact Fallacy"?
"Remember, everyone - the problem is not the racism of the left, the problem is you dumb white guys taking offense at bigotry aimed at white guys!"
LMAO, no the problem is you poor, dumb white guys, who are falling all over yourselves to help Mittens cut his taxes.
the critical question is whether white women will remain on the Democrat bandwagon, and for how long
What do you mean "remain"? White women voted for McCain last time and I'm sure they'll vote for Romney this time.
Democrats hope to win "the womens vote" by keeping their loss among white women as low as possible and running up huge margins among black, Hispanic, and Asian women.
White women want alpha males. Republicans will get more of their votes by being unapologetically pro-white than they will by being squishy.
Responses:
Silver: That's a perfectly clear example of the Disparate Impact Fallacy. Illustrates my point, that this fallacy is very common among race realists.
Anonymous: Living in Israel doesn't give me any more insight into Israeli politics than you'd get from reading Israeli newspapers (in English) online. Also, you started out asking about ethnicity and then switched to race midway through your question. I'll answer the ethnicity question.
Ethnicity is hugely important in Israeli politics, more important and more open than in American politics. Likud: Middle Eastern base. Shas: Middle Eastern, especially Moroccan. Arab parties: obvious. Yisrael Beitenu: Russian base.
"First off, I disagree with Steve's general theme that Hispanics are going to be some political bust in the near term. They pretty much always demand Hispanic congressmen in their districts the moment they get the chance, and things are reaching a critical point."
We will see a flipping of Congressional districts from red to blue across the whole Southern half of the US at some point. Huge swaths of the South will go blue due to higher black birthrates(TFR underestimates the difference in growth rates because of the younger age of black mothers)and Hispanic immigration/birthrates.
White children are already the minority of births in MS. GA is down to 56% white, including Middle Eastern people.
Right now, Republicans are enjoying the lag effect of minority populations being too young to vote or non-citizens.
Right now, Republicans are enjoying the lag effect of minority populations being too young to vote or non-citizens.
Indeed. The train has already left the station, and without some massive racially-based deportation policy (ha ha, as if), whitey is doomed.
Regarding non-citizens and voting, I would expect a major initiative of Obama II would be to extend voting rights to "residents," eliminating any citizenship requirements. After all, there are no illegal people, and therefore no illegal voters neither. So sez I!
such as Hannity and Rush who will be the biggest impediment and will have to be thrown overboard. They have too long a history of being "anti-racist".
Don't forget O'Reilly.
"LMAO, no the problem is you poor, dumb white guys, who are falling all over yourselves to help Mittens cut his taxes."
Truth, you disappoint me, man. This was weak, really, really weak, as if Mitt Romney gives a damn about cutting his taxes.
Cut yourself free, Truth, come on, man, do it. Didn't you say you had a kid?
"Much of the libertarianism of the Tea Party is an attempt...etc."
Spot on.
"I'm also extremely skeptical of Sailer's story about the Tea Party. Is there any, um, evidence for it?"
It's not conscious.
They have a white interest - based simply on the dominant culture being extremely anti-white - but they've been programmed to be psychologically incapable of expressing that interest in racial terms so you get these implict white rationalizations which have to be built on certain universalist principles because that's how white people cohere as a group.
However the fact they can't express their prime interest - mutual defence against an explicitly anti-white dominant culture - in plain terms means the idealogical constructs they try to build as a substitute can be manipulated.
The Tea Partiers I know tend to be younger, so maybe they aren't the main representatives, but they would be appalled at the idea that they're engaging in any sort of racial identity politics. They'd love to have bunch of minorities show up and carry banners with them. They're completely blind to the race angle of their cause.
The ones I know are a lot like Perot voters before them: upset about overspending, lost jobs, and a general sense that the government is giving ordinary people the shaft somehow. They don't really have specific things they want to cut, except some vague stuff about bailouts to banksters and maybe some foreign aid. They'd be hard pressed to find 5% of the budget to cut, if you forced them to get down to the details. They'll yell about lost jobs, but if you start to lead them down the logic chain to mass immigration, they'll start reciting that Ellis Island poem as a reflex.
There's a certain amount of libertarianism in them, but that's because they're mostly upset about government being too big and too powerful, and libertarians talk a good game against that. Also, among the younger ones, you get some that are wired up on the recent discovery of Atlas Shrugged or the like and want to share their epiphany with everyone. They actually believe that most Americans would choose freedom over goodies, that every child can become whoever he wants to be, or that Ron Paul could get elected. Lots of enthusiasm and good intentions, but charming in their naivete.
"I'll certainly take issue with single white women, but one of the biggest cures for that particular problem who be if millions of white men up and bothered to propose to them."
Plenty of white "nice guys" would love to propose to a woman, if they could get one to listen. First you'll have to convince the women in their twenties to consider marriage, instead of assuming they can put marriage and motherhood off until 35 after they've had a fulfilling career and traveled around the world sampling exotic....um, "accents."
"Agreed, but the critical question is whether white women will remain on the Democrat bandwagon, and for how long."
Divide and rule.
It's not white women it's government jobs and the gender disproportion in government jobs.
The thing about having a truthful analysis is it answers questions easier e.g.
"but the critical question is whether [the millions of white people in government jobs] will remain on the Democrat bandwagon [when those government jobs no longer exist because they can't be afforded any more]"
"of all the peoples in the world today, ONLY Northwestern European Christians are capable of having principles"
Not capacity, need. Clannish populations are perfectly capable of universalist principles - they use them all the time when choosing between two brothers or two cousins i.e. where the blood-ties are equal they use universalist principles and where the blood-ties are unequal they use particularist principles...
except geeks who are wired up different
...on the other hand NW euros (and others who have been northeurofied in places like the US) *need* universalist principles to cohere around because of centuries of outbreeding.
Let me answer for Aaron. There is a huge ethnic gulf in Israel, but it is between the ultra religious Jews and the secular/atheist Jews. The ultras have 8-10 kids apiece and continually run scams so they can stay on welfare, housing vouchers,dodge the draft and the like. The seculars pay the bills, get drafted, and have maybe 2.1 kids apiece. The ultras, when provoked, riot, mob, block the streets with burning dumpsters, beat women who sit at the front of the bus, throw feces and dirty diapers, scream obscenities at little girls wearing school frocks for dressing like "whores", etc. Nasty.
This doesn't go down well with the seculars who are paying all the ultras' bills. But the ultras now have enough votes, so what can the seculars do? Step into an ultra riot and shoot a few? Not a chance. The seculars are too guilt-ridden and gutless. Killing Goyim for throwing rocks is one thing. Killing Jews--even Taliban Jews--is something else altogether.
Imagine America with NAMs in the majority, block voting in lockstep, and crafty as hell. That's where Israel is right now. Not a nice place. And only getting worse as the ultras vastly outbreed the seculars.
Much of the libertarianism of the Tea Party is an attempt to come up with a principled ideological justification for the banding together for mutual political protection of the only group left in America that's not supposed to band together.
Libertarianism and libertarian-ish politics started becoming popular in the South after Jim Crow ended and whites were forced to "share the commons" with blacks. Southern politics was quite corrupt and aggressively sought Federal spoils and pork. That was the basis for the Democratic coalition of the South and urban North. After Jim Crow, there was a retreat from the commons by white Southerners since they were forced to share it with blacks.
There was/is a similar dynamic among whites outside the South though it doesn't involve just blacks but other minorities and immigrants.
I wish race realist paleo-cons would stop pretending that the MSM shilled for the Iraq War. It makes me think that their idea of shilling means not actively sabotaging (except that Geraldo did do that)the war effort. If anything the MSM censored just how poisonous and red/pink tinted much of the anti-war movement was.
Judith Miller got sold out precisely because she supported the war.
I'm pretty ambivalent on the war, certainly no supporter, but this kind of misrepresentation doesn't help your cause. We should take encouragement from the leftists inability to stop the war because it means that even in the face of media opposition policies can be enacted.
Two people who met grass roots Tea Party members in three states found :
"Tea Party worries about racial and ethnic minorities and overly entitled young people signal fear about generational social change in America."
"One might imagine the changes that worry Tea Partiers to be primarily economic. But Tea Party members rarely emphasize economic concerns. The nightmare of societal decline is usually painted in cultural hues, and the villains in the picture are freeloading social groups, liberal politicians, bossy professionals, big government and the news media."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-30/live-from-america-tea-partiers-speak-commentary-by-skocpol-and-williamson.html
http://understandingtheteaparty.com
Legendary Linda, to answer why race trumps gender, I would say, offhand, because women (and men) have children of both sexes. A woman's genetic interests are actually served when her male son does well (actually more so than a successful daughter). We all have ethnic genetic interests - I'm phrasing it badly.
I would also agree that Clinton was hated and feared greatly in the 90s. I do think the Tea Party is a temporary phenom on the way to something race-based.
Legendary Linda, to answer why race trumps gender, I would say, offhand, because women (and men) have children of both sexes. A woman's genetic interests are actually served when her male son does well (actually more so than a successful daughter). We all have ethnic genetic interests - I'm phrasing it badly.
I don't grade phrasing, only SUBSTANCE, and you get an A+. Your answer is the correct one.
America needs a Socialist government like France to set thing straight.
Anon 2:49:
New York Times apology on Iraq war reporting.
Wikipedia article on Iraq War media coverage.. This links to two studies done that demonstrated a strong media pro-war bias--specifically, very few people opposed to the war were shown on TV in the US. Other countries' news sources were quite a bit different.
<a href="http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-03/dan-rather-rather-outspoken-my-life-news/transcript>This interview with Dan Rather</a> includes a couple places where he explicitly apologizes for the way the US media behaved in the runup to the Iraq war, and attributes it to fear of being called unpatriotic or traitorous.
All this tracks very well with my memories. In the runup to the Iraq war, the national news seemed to me to be massively pro-war. I do not recall ever seeing a coherent antiwar position discussed in the mainstream broadcast US media. I saw antiwar protests with my own eyes that the local media never mentioned. I saw coherent, well-thought-out arguments against the war online, and in foreign media (via the internet), but never in the MSM.
This pattern continued. To this day, the prestige media won't call the stuff we did to prisoners torture, even though they call exactly the same stuff torture when done by anyone else. The New York Times and NPR
"
Plenty of white "nice guys" would love to propose to a woman, if they could get one to listen. First you'll have to convince the women in their twenties to consider marriage, instead of assuming they can put marriage and motherhood off until 35 after they've had a fulfilling career and traveled around the world sampling exotic....um, "accents.""
Well put by Aaron B. Don't you all read Hannah Rosin's work on the "hook up culture"?
Marriage and babies are sooooo old-fashioned...
Silver: "I'm also extremely skeptical of Sailer's story about the Tea Party. Is there any, um, evidence for it? Surveys, manifestos, whatever?"
You mean evidence apart from the fact that they're virtually all white?
Actually, I don't think that's correct. I think Steve fell into the same trap of accepting the MSM narrative at face value.
I remember back a couple of years ago, I read a major NYT expose on the "horrifying whiteness" of the Tea Party movement, which went on for something like three full pages of newsprint.
But near the bottom, it provided an actual racial estimate of Tea Party membership. The blacks were 1% just as the journalist implied, but the Hispanics+Asians were almost exactly the Hispanic+Asian share of the U.S. population (I think the Hispanics were a little low, and the Asians were a little high).
(In fact, the most successful early Tea Party candidates was that Hispanic small businesswoman who came from nowhere to make a plausible bid for the Texas Republican nomination for Governor, until she was unmasked as a "9/11 Truther" leading the MSM and FoxNews people to portray her as a lunatic, and hand the victory to Rick Perry.)
The key thing to remember is that in media-speak, "lily white" is defined as "few blacks," just as in the Rodney King jury.
"Truth, you disappoint me, man. This was weak, really, really weak, as if Mitt Romney gives a damn about cutting his taxes."
What, rich guys like paying taxes now?
"Plenty of white "nice guys" would love to propose to a woman, if they could get one to listen."
Dude, you look like 35-40 in that picture, isn't that excuse a little tired?
I think you guys are insane. The playing field is not level, remember? There's not going to be a "legitimate" "mainstream" explicitly pro white political organization of any kind. Period.
When you have journalists like David Frum actually articulating our arguments instead of some straw man caricature, that is progress the likes of which I would not have thought possible 5 years ago. I have also heard mainstream mention of the term White Nationalism as opposed to White Supremacism/Neo-Nazi/KKK label. Never would have thought that would happen so soon.
WN or HBD views used to be found only in obscure corners of the internet, say, 10 years ago. 7 years ago it was only a few blogs and Stormfront. Today you can't read comments on a news blog without encountering HBD/WN views... and when users are given the power to vote on each comment, those comments are the most popular by far.
The left is losing or has already lost the ability to frame the debate on its terms - leftist orthodoxy versus straw man. Their flock are exposed to the heresy itself, and they are starting to see that we don't have horns and a forked tail. Even some of their priest class are seeing the writing on the wall and that there is actually some merit in what we say.
When this happens, the old taboos start losing their power. The word "racist" loses the magical power it once had.
As far as the elites letting this happen, the only elite that counts is the Jewish elite. A reasonable number of them do see the writing on the wall. Their primary concern will be that a pro-white movement does not become a violently anti-Semitic movement. There is no reason why it must be that way, especially if some Jews or partial Jews are prominently in the vanguard. Maurice Glasman is a good example.
Hell, even Google's Brin and Page deserve some credit for leaving the search results for "Jew" and the like as they are, and with only "this concerns us too" or whatever it is they have as a little warning. They deserve some credit for that little action of glasnost, and by extension, their kind.
Have the Democrats thought about what happens when Republican-voters agree it's about people, not ideas, and start choosing up sides?
I pretty much agree with this article.
I also don't have the slightest idea what the ramifications will be.
Does anyone know a lot of history? There have been several empires (not nations as far as I know) with lots of ethnicities represented.
Hopefully we just drift apart and stake out our separate spaces. Otherwise, it's like the Balkans and no NATO to swoop in and keep the lid on things.
The last time a group of us decided to take things in a different direction we killed 600K of each other.
in response to this:
"Remember, everyone - the problem is not the racism of the left, the problem is you dumb white guys taking offense at bigotry aimed at white guys!"
Truth said:
"LMAO, no the problem is you poor, dumb white guys, who are falling all over yourselves to help Mittens cut his taxes."
What is happening is that the PseudoLeft/Dems/Libs are drawn into a white-hating, diversity-loving culture created by the plutocrats, and in response to the anti-white, anti-male hatred by the PseudoLeft, a bunch of white males are pushed away from leftwing economics ideas, such as taxing the rich. Why are they pushed away? The pseudoLeft propaganda against white males pushes them away.
Americans are forced to choose one of two plutocrat-approved bundles of issues:
1) on the pseudoLeft Dems side, you can be against war, for taxing the rich, for the welfare state, but you have to be against whites, against males, for multiculti and mass immigration, etc. You know the drill
2) on the pseudopopulist GOP side, you can be against mass immigration, against affirmative action, race-spoils PC, etc, but you have to be against taxing the rich, for more wars, for relaxing regulations on predatory Capital, etc. You know the drill.
The plutocrats have set it up so that they win with either party, just in different ways.
And it is absolutely forbidden to mix and match issues from the two sides. You absolutely cannot say that you are against mass immigration, aganist multiculti PC race spoils, for white unity, against more war, for taxing the rich more, for a strong welfare state, etc.
You cannot hear what I am saying, can you?
the 'Tea Party' is really just a whine against having a black man as president. Nothing more, nothing less
That was pretty obvious to anyone with a clue.
To the credit of Romney and his team the party is over for the Tea Party. The Republican Convention clearly showed that they have been marginalized.
A better principled ideological justification than libertarianism for opposing Obama (if white voters have to choose something for opposing the racial spoils system directed against them) would be opposition to cronyism and corruption.
That was how the original spoils system ended and we got objective civil service exams. The problem is that the progressive movement today puts diversity ahead of fairness, so there is no one left to make the argument.
Libertarians are willfully blind to all the ways the rich use government to structure markets for their own benefit (e.g. huge Wall Street bailouts didn't precipitate any tea parties) and ignorant of the fact that all successful postwar economies have required industrial policy.
I wish race realist paleo-cons would stop pretending that the MSM shilled for the Iraq War. It makes me think that their idea of shilling means not actively sabotaging (except that Geraldo did do that)the war effort. If anything the MSM censored just how poisonous and red/pink tinted much of the anti-war movement was.
Judith Miller got sold out precisely because she supported the war.
I'm pretty ambivalent on the war, certainly no supporter, but this kind of misrepresentation doesn't help your cause.
This might be the worst "concern troll" ever. The MSM were unanimous in their completely uncritical support for the war, and everyone here knows it.
Fine keep whining about the war. The left loves using you just like MSNBC used Pat Bucchanan.
Of course speaking of the Balkans Bucchanan was perfectly happy sending troops there to defend
Croatia. Who/whom indeed.
Big bill, the ultra-orthodox are still in the minority. The system couldn't sustain their lack of contribution otherwise. But the mainstream does appear to be squeamish about them, and the fractious nature of Israeli coalition politics gives even small parties like theirs some disproportionate influence. As Aaron suggests, I've heard this just from reading stuff online (I've known a couple Israelis personally, but didn't discuss Israeli politics with them).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Religion
According to a 2010 Israel Central Bureau of Statistics study on Israelis aged over 18, 8% of Israeli Jews define themselves as haredim (or Ultra-Orthodox); an additional 12% are "religious" (non-haredi orthodox, also known as: dati leumi/national-religious or religious zionist); 13% consider themselves "religious-traditionalists" (mostly adhering to Jewish Halakha); 25% are "non-religious traditionalists" (only partly respecting the Jewish Halakha), and 43% are "secular". Among the seculars, 53% say they believe in God. Due to the higher natality rate of religious and traditionalists over seculars, the share of religious and traditionalists among the overall population is even higher.
"The DC organizations that claim to speak for the Tea Party, like Dick Armey's Freedomworks, are eager to privatize SS and Medicare and don't care about immigration or Muslim.
Actually Dick Armey does care about illegal immigration - he's for it. Armey and Freedomworks effectively hijacked the Tea Party movement to keep it from raising the issue of illegal immigration.
Plenty of white "nice guys" would love to propose to a woman, if they could get one to listen.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply the task was easy, or the large number of single women is mostly the fault of men. But there are millions of white women out there - attractive, intelligent, marriageable white women - who would gladly be married if white men were more serious.
I do think the Tea Party is a temporary phenom on the way to something race-based.
The Tea Party doesn't need to be race-based. We can attack legal and illegal immigration from an economic perspective. We can attack welfare and the bloated government from a budget perspective. We can attack AA and quotas from a justice and fairness perspective.
Doing all of those things helps whites and any other productive citizen, law-abiding citizen. Yet none has to be addressed explicitly in racial terms.
"You cannot hear what I am saying, can you?"
Yes I can, that was actually a very good explanation of your point. I could make a few minor quibbles, but I'm impressed, so what for?
"Aaron B. said...
The Tea Partiers I know tend to be younger, so maybe they aren't the main representatives, but they would be appalled at the idea that they're engaging in any sort of racial identity politics. They'd love to have bunch of minorities show up and carry banners with them. They're completely blind to the race angle of their cause."
That's been my experience too, and applies to the older ones as well. Tea-partiers don't see their cause as remotely racial in nature. They think that blacks and mexicans would flock to their movement, if only they would see the light. The fact that the Tea-Party movement is so deluded is one reason I haven't been very interested in them. That, and the fact that they have been coopted by the Republican party establishment and it's wealthy patrons.
But there are millions of white women out there - attractive, intelligent, marriageable white women - who would gladly be married if white men were more serious.
-Matthew
Just out of curiosity, how old are you?
"I wish race realist paleo-cons would stop pretending that the MSM shilled for the Iraq War."
Good luck with that.
I remember the moment when I realized that the MSM WANTED war. It was in 2003 as the troops were pouring into Baghdad. I had not realized it at the time, but prior to and during the invasion, the MSM had been pounding home the theme that the invasion of Iraq was good for the people of Iraq, that the invasion was going to save them from the horrors of living in a backward nation under a cruel and oppressive dictator. I guess this MSM theme was in the back of my mind at the time, but only subconsciously.
Then one of the major news networks had some reporter reporting live from Baghdad as the troops took control. The reporter was telling us about what Baghdad looked like and so forth. He started talking about the cell phone towers in Baghdad. He said something like this: "the troops are now taking control of communications here in Baghdad. Baghdad has cell phone tower, would believe it? It is really a very modern city!"
Then at that moment, a certain micro-expression came over his face briefly. It was an expression that told me that he knew he had screwed up. At that moment I did not know what it was he had done wrong. But he stopped talking for a moment. There was an uncomfortable short silence. Then he cleared his throat and went on to another subject.
I wondered to myself what it was that make him so uncomfortable. I thought about it for a while and finally realized that he was saying something that went counter to the dominant theme of the invasion--that it was all for the good of the people of Iraq. Well, the thing about the cell phone towers and how the city of Baghdad was so nice and modern, belied, ran counter to, that dominant MSM theme.
That was an epiphany for me. I first realized then that the MSM wanted war. And I began to realize the depth and omnipresence of MSM propaganda. This was one of the personal discoveries that radicalized me.
I thought about it for years afterwards. I began to see that the american military is a machine to do many things for Capital, one of those things being to 'open new markets' for Capital to sell its goods and find new cheap labor. That is really what these wars are about, at least in large part. Capital, which controls america, always wants new markets to exploit for the purposes of selling its good and for exploiting cheap labor. That is why Capital and its tool, the MSM, hated the USSR, pre-sellout Red China, etc, and why they hate North Korea.
It's not a conspiracy; it's an ecosystem.
The only mainstream American media I saw opposing the Iraq war was Oprah. The day after Colin Powell gave his U.N. Speech making the case for war that the rest of the media was praising, Oprah did a TWO DAY special showing clips from people all over the world begging America not to go to war:
http://www.google.ca/url?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D2hoYisRDBWI&rct=j&sa=X&ei=oWnBT62qM6TW6gHOtsS1Cg&ved=0CFsQuAIwAA&q=oprah+tries+to+stop&usg=AFQjCNGj0gyXsuBEZF9NS4pQpe8tKXEMSg
Then 48 hours before the war began, she had on Michael Moore and professor fawaz gerges to protest the war.
Blacks in general opposed the war in Iraq because black soldiers die in these wars in large numbers and blacks don't have a strong connection to middle east politics
"Aaron B. said...
Plenty of white "nice guys" would love to propose to a woman, if they could get one to listen."
"Truth said...
Dude, you look like 35-40 in that picture, isn't that excuse a little tired?"
Yeah, Aaron, you should do what "Truth" did ..... sire a bastard son who now wants nothing to do with him. When in doubt, always take marriage advice from a black man. They're so damned good at it.
Bush wanted to privatized Social Security but not really since he wanted illegal Hispanics to eventually get Social Security. And illegal Hispanics would not have put their money in the private sector.Personality, I would not have mine to had been able to invest my money with the Social Security, you can do that in Great Britain and Chile. As for the Occupy go to their websites they are further to the left than the tea party is to the right. They were against toll roads in upper middle class Orange County were the toll roads are at. They are against charter schools. All they want to do is give to minorities particularly blacks. In Houston occupy had alliances with the black Panthers. In Orange County they had an alliance with gang members in Anaheim. The people here that want a lot of government to help them are as bad as the minorities. Granted, some people are out of work for a while but you need to try to get a job I certainly did, so stop whining like minority groups that you need the government a lot.
"If I start a political party based on planks of lower taxes and regulation, gun ownership, and school choice, because I honestly believe those things would be best for my country as a whole, and only white people show up to my rallies, have I really engaged in 'white identity politics'?"
According to the left, you have.
"Is it my fault no non-whites happen to agree with my vision of the future?"
According to the left, it is.
Because you haven't identified and shared the concerns of people of color, you haven't reached out to the black community, you haven't shown your willingness to embrace the joys of diversity, you haven't promoted a policy that's inclusive, you don't demonstrate any appreciation for the contributions that a vibrant community can bring to the table at the end of the day.
Etc.
Hey, don't blame the messenger! I know from reading your blog that you are very busy (I envy your energy). So I'm guessing from that and from this comment that you simply don't have the time to lurk on leftwing sites. If you did, you'd know that what I said above isn't just a not terribly clever parody but the actual thought process and belief system of the left.
Tea party people usually are more wealthier than the media shows many have their own business. In TExas the wealthly counties which are mainly white support the Republicans these counties have stats that are as good as Marin County is in California which is Democratic. In the South they are now nice suburbs where whites that are successful live and these are the strong counties for the Tea Party. Tea Party is probably weaker in poorer sections of West Virginia. West Virginia mainly has been leading Republican because of Coal.
Only Texas and Florida could go Democratic in the future since Hispanics are growing much faster in the youth population than blacks. Hispanics are about 20 to 25 percent of babies in the US and in Texas around 50 percent now and in Florida probably around 30 to 35 percent. Blacks are not a growing group that much and the Hispanic population of the rest of the south is only 10 percent in most states and some states under 5 percent.
Tax remittances even a lot of tea party people would not object unless its Grover Norquist. California is 27 percent foreign born so their is a lot of illegal and legal immigrants. New York would also benefit, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Arizona and Nevada and Hawaii since they have higher foreign born populations.
Anon 7:42:
Why in God's name would I care whether I was making leftists, rightists, Nazis, or the devil himself happy with this observation?
Either the MSM did or it did not shill for the Iraq war, to the point of minimizing or black-holing coverage of antiwar protests, seldom or never allowing any American to talk on the air from an antiwar perspective, and serving as stenographers for the administration's leaks. There is substantial evidence, some of which I linked to above, that it did. There is a lot more evidence where that came from. Google for the pentagon military advisors' scandal, or for how the Valerie Plame case came down (not the politically-motivated prosecution, but the revenge leak), or the bit where someone from the Bush administration asked the CIA to dig up dirt on Juan Cole.
Who is made happy or sad by this fact is irrelevant. You will never learn anything about reality by trying to figure out what beliefs will make various powerful people happy, though you may have a successful life working at think tanks and broadcast news that way.
The MSM were unanimous in their completely uncritical support for the war.
They were not.
Now, were they as bitterly and uniformly opposed to the Iraq war as they are towards whoever is the Republican Presidential candidate every four years? Of course not. But that's not the standard.
I saw coherent, well-thought-out arguments against the war online
That's odd, because I never saw them. And I'm pretty sure they won't appear on this thread either.
The left-wing of the Democratic party, which is well-represented in the media, was its usual deranged self with respect to the Iraq war. But its response was anything but coherent and well thought out. "BusHitlers Racist War For Oil!" was the standard anti-war pose.
"Yeah, Aaron, you should do what "Truth" did ..... sire a bastard son who now wants nothing to do with him. When in doubt, always take marriage advice from a black man. They're so damned good at it."
LOL, Grasshopper you should write my autobiography when the time comes, I don't think my own mother goes to the point of remembering my past as much as you do.
Iraq and Iran are/were threats to Israel and the media and its owners are largely Jewish. Connect the dots. It's not rocket science people.
The left-wing of the Democratic party, which is well-represented in the media, was its usual deranged self with respect to the Iraq war. But its response was anything but coherent and well thought out. "BusHitlers Racist War For Oil!" was the standard anti-war pose.
God, that brings back memories. Ten years sure can pass quickly. "Shrub mafia!!" was one of the more bizarre epithets I recall.
That is an interesting version of Ockham's razor. Attribute characteristics to things and then watch as they confirm your biases. I prefer to look at the actual news stories and editorial page coverage of the Iraq war. (looks at New York Times from 2003. Yep, I'd say they were opposed.
You are in denial. Even liberals admit that the New York Times probably did more to sell the war in Iraq than anyone else on the planet:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/15/165145/-NYTimes-Washington-Post-and-Tim-Russert-led-us-to-war
Why would such a liberal paper support such a conservative policy?
Most obviously; because it was in their ethnic genetic interest to do so.
Occam:
The NYT's behavior seems strange to you because you are using a broken model. The NYT is establishment liberal, no more inherently antiwar than Fox News, or NPR. They are generally in favor of our wars, police actions, assassinations, etc, at least until things go sour.
Just A Clown, what is it you're talking about with "tax the rich"? Is this vengeance or revenue enhancement? I ask, because, no matter what the personal income tax code says, personal income taxes always bring in 19% of the GDP.
Rattlesnakes should be killed and the rich should be crippled by high taxation of their wealth. Otherwise they will use their wealth to control our govt.
"Truth said...
LOL, Grasshopper you should write my autobiography when the time comes, I don't think my own mother goes to the point of remembering my past as much as you do."
More of that black self-delusion, thinking that one is the center of everyone's universe? I actually take what other people write seriously, unlike you, for whom every post is nothing but a sneer.
As to writing your biography: I'm a poor artist. I really couldn't do justice to a comic book.
By the way, an autobiography would be written by you, not someone else.
"By the way, an autobiography would be written by you, not someone else."
I was making a satire on Obama-Ayers, there, Mr. Spock.
Rattlesnakes should be killed and the rich should be crippled by high taxation of their wealth. Otherwise they will use their wealth to control our govt.
This is an extremely shortsighted view. Lots of solid yeoman stock make good money catering to the demands of rich people. Your point is well-taken, but confiscatory taxation isn't the way to address it.
"Blacks in general opposed the war in Iraq because black soldiers die in these wars in large numbers and blacks don't have a strong connection to middle east politics."
They don't die in large numbers. The great majority of high-risk tours of duty are white and hispanic. Blacks sign up for mostly out of the line of duty jobs. They certainly do not perish is numbers above what would be normal for their percentage of the population, or percerntage in the military. And they have not been signing up much in the past two decades. Not that I blame them. The military was so hard up around 2005-6, it started accepting psychos and ex-cons. Hence the 4 black "marines" who murdered the commanding officer (white) and his wife (black) in 2008. Obama did not say any of them looked like his sons. Nor did he say the wife looked like his daughters.
When I think about what Obama has actually said, blow by blow, (what he's actually done is even worse), I truly don't get it why any white person would want anything but to see the back of him getting the hell out of Dodge. His fans must be from money and live in areas with few "minorities" (are they still). Otherwise, it's just insanity.
Still, the Republicans may not be much better but Romney, should he win, won't be blaming Obama.
"Truth said...
I was making a satire on Obama-Ayers, there, Mr. Spock."
My apologies. Given that you are a parody of yourself, it's difficult to know when it is intended.
I ask, because, no matter what the personal income tax code says, personal income taxes always bring in 19% of the GDP.
Except under Obama The Socialist, when they skyrocketed to...15%.
(Btw, you're talking about total federal revenue, not just federal personal income tax.)
Post a Comment