In the first half of the 20th Century, one of the deepest fault lines in American politics divided labor unions from manufacturers. They constantly fought over who got the bigger piece of the pie.
Yet, these political enemies also united to back one major policy: tariffs. They understood that they had a good thing going together here in America, so why let outsiders horn in on the deal? It was in their interest to agree 5% of the time so that when they fought the other 95% of time they'd both come out better off.
This same old-fashioned logic suggests that American whites and American blacks would be wise to unite politically to restrict immigration. Whatever else you can say, on the whole, we've all got a good thing going together here in America, so why let outsiders horn in on the deal? We can get back to fighting over how to divvy up the pie afterwards.
But, this kind of common-sensical single-purpose political alliance seems much harder to pull off these days, when globalist interests control most of the vocabulary on all sides of the fence. Now, it's far more morally respectable for globalists of varying hues to put together an enormously cynical coalition to increase immigration.
Posts
53 comments:
The problem is that blacks want whites to pay higher taxes to support the blacks. Blacks don't really care about things like jobs and immigration as long as they keep getting their welfare checks, medicaid and food stamps.
Maybe, the opposition needs a better tactic, Allan Wall mentions that we portray Mexico as the worst placed which it isn't. Its poorer than the US but so is Puerto Rico. Allan Wall mention about some of the improvements and Brenda Walker mention about an article where some return to Mexico and made it. Mexicans even in California teen birth rate dropped from 70 to 42 since the early 1990's, so the teen birth rate is now 28 in the state. Maybe this means adult rates which are even more foreign born are dropping.
It's a natural alliance.
I would like to see blacks join with whites on the immigration issue.
Two things come to mind right away:
1. Look at the comments on your own blog and ask yourself: If I were black, would I feel the people who say and think bad things about me -- without knowing me personally -- ever change?
Too many people forget that most black people don't commit crimes; that blacks are more likely to be victims of black crimes than whites; and that blacks will lose out even more to increased immigration than whites will.
2. Black leadership's dedication to following the Democratic Party line on immigration policy. Some of this is thinking that the more nonwhites v whites, the better the nonwhites will do (nonsense, of course). Also a lot of the black politicians end up with immigrants in their districts. The desire to be reelected seems to prevail desire to protect black neighborhoods from competition for jobs and housing.
Remove some of the barriers and the natural alliance might just develop into something very useful and positive for everybody.
Probably the only angle that would motivate blacks is to see their black leaders will be voted out and they will lose representation. That would at least motivate the politicians.
The Left has successfully persuaded black people that their collective lot is better served by opposing a white majority than conserving it. The zero-sum proposition if it's bad for white people, it must be good for me is the premise, I guess.
Nachoan
Two things come to mind right away:
1. Look at the comments on your own blog and ask yourself: If I were black, would I feel the people who say and think bad things about me -- without knowing me personally -- ever change?
Too many people forget that most black people don't commit crimes; that blacks are more likely to be victims of black crimes than whites; and that blacks will lose out even more to increased immigration than whites will.
2. Black leadership's dedication to following the Democratic Party line on immigration policy. Some of this is thinking that the more nonwhites v whites, the better the nonwhites will do (nonsense, of course). Also a lot of the black politicians end up with immigrants in their districts. The desire to be reelected seems to prevail desire to protect black neighborhoods from competition for jobs and housing.
Remove some of the barriers and the natural alliance might just develop into something very useful and positive for everybody.
This is true, some places in the US blacks have lower tenn births, crimes or dropping out of school than whites, its usually where the black population is the small. Blacks against Hispanics is tricky, I read some blogs by non-republican blacks that complain about being out of construction jobs because illegals were hired. However, either has the small number of liberals opposed to the current bill and the right wing opposition know how to deal with this.
IF there is a sudden mass exodus of whites into Detroit that can become the demographic majority electing white politicians, Detroit will come back.
I think many white libs are waiting for the right moment to finally pounce on Detroit. But it must die first.
Good working class jobs are gone, so blacks look to gubment, and Democrats mean more gubment, and brown voters mean more Democrats in power.
Also, browns do work that blacks won't do, and brown labor makes white liberal businesses possible. Also, even non-whites like Arabs and yellows hire cheap brown labor. All such people pay taxes and taxes fund government which takes care of blacks in jobs and welfare.
Flee at last, flee at last!!
"WACP stands for 'we are creative people'."
ROTFL.
"The racist caucasian male is providing food, shelter, clothing for the black woman. You are doing none of those things. Yet you wanna be treated like a man... but you want this woman to respect you.."
Yep, NY TIMES is right. Blacks don't talk enough. LOL.
Remember to sign the petition to kill the amnesty bill.
http://killthebill.us/
The dialogue has poisoned Steve.
In some ways there already is one:
Reviewing the Daily Beast's Story on the March for Jobs | Center for Immigration Studies
The Black American Leadership Alliance seeks to protect American jobs through responsible #immigration reform.
DC MARCH FOR JOBS
@Anonymous:
"Two things come to mind right away:
1. Look at the comments on your own blog and ask yourself: If I were black, would I feel the people who say and think bad things about me -- without knowing me personally -- ever change?
Too many people forget that most black people don't commit crimes; that blacks are more likely to be victims of black crimes than whites; and that blacks will lose out even more to increased immigration than whites will."
Very good point! As one of those in the majority of non-criminal Black men, I have say indeed.
Though immigration – primarily from Latin America and to a lesser extent, Asia – are currently the most pressing issues where HBD is relevant, the current climate within it, especially exemplified by the comments here, don't exactly make it a welcome place for minorities, particularly Blacks, who are in some ways in the same boat as Whites.
Who's the guy who says to chunk out "Southern White" (colloquial: Dixie, on the Census 'American') as a distinct American ethnicity from "White" (Yankees, WASPs & etc)?
Once you do that, remember your true history then realize that the 'Southern White' and the 'American Black People' are used to each other, more so than the Yankee is to either of them. And have established multiple stable equilibrium over the past 500 years.
From antebellum conditions, to Jim Crow, and nowadays even with Section 5, great national institutions are based on cooperation between Dixie and Black; the NFL and High School Football, the non-commissioned corp of the Army, the departments of every functioning city and State, popular music.
Whether it's pre-war tariffs, reconstruction, the NAACP, the NRA, the EEOC, interference from the Yankee is what keeps southern white and American black from making their natural peace with each other.
So instead of today of holding rallies in 100 cities for dead Trayvon, blacks would've spent better energy by rallying (perhaps along with whites) for either: A moratorium on immigration OR for a call on Congress to not pass this legislation period and even perhaps to build a border fence across the Southwestern states.
While in short term it wouldn't have benefitted Trayvon or his family it would have benefitted blacks in the long run, economically speaking.
@Anonymous 7/20/13, 2:48 PM:
"Whether it's pre-war tariffs, reconstruction, the NAACP, the NRA, the EEOC, interference from the Yankee is what keeps southern white and American black from making their natural peace with each other."
Those damn Yankees... ;)
[QUOTE]IF there is a sudden mass exodus of whites into Detroit that can become the demographic majority electing white politicians, Detroit will come back.
I think many white libs are waiting for the right moment to finally pounce on Detroit. But it must die first.[/QUOTE]
I don't see the racial demographics of Detroit ever turning into another Salt Lake City or Portland.
The best Detroit can hope for is becoming another Washington D.C.
Greater regionalism is needed first. In Arizona and thereabouts, whites seem ready enough to take on immigration by themselves, and more and more as the problem gets worse, rather than surrender in white flight.
Plus there aren't many blacks in the Southwest to team up with anyway, though I'm sure they would.
In the Deep South, whites and blacks could probably agree to disagree on race stuff and focus first on keeping out immigrants. They know how to relate to each other, and there are enough blacks in the region to be worth extending the offer to.
I'm dubious about the prospects of a coalition in the Bos-Wash corridor. Lots of blacks to team up with, but they're not as tolerant of whites as the southern blacks are (race riots were a northern thing).
And the father north, the more Puritanical, awkward, and dull the whites get -- making white-black common ground more difficult to find. And everyone's so cynical and self-centered, regardless of race.
The Midwest would probably be as hopeless as the north/east region. Very deep resentment of blacks toward whites, large fraction of whites on the Puritanical weenie patrol -- both making it impossible to relate to blacks, and making it more common to rat on your fellow whites.
I think the Pacific Northwest could go well, being just behind the Southwest. Whites aren't so assertive, but they're not a bunch of Anglo-Nordic Nazi types more interested in drumming up witchcraft trials than building community.
As with the SW, there aren't many blacks to team up with, but they'd probably go along. Blacks from Denver and Seattle are pretty cool.
The Plains states I don't know about. The Dakotas would probably go along with the SW / NW regions, but that's not exactly a lot of backup force. Down into Kansas, St. Louis, and Dallas, I don't know. It's got its own flavor, plus the Midwest influence, the Deep South influence, and a bit of the intermountain West influence.
Texas seems to be on the brink of civil war. Half would fit in in the steward-minded SW, and the other half would fit in in the sell-out Midwest or Northeast.
Are Texan blacks more like the ones from the Deep South or the resentful Midwest?
As for California... it may just need to be reconquered by Arizonans. Sorry, but you guys fucked it up too bad, and aren't doing anything to fix it. Just fleeing en masse into Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Utah. Who woulda thought that Los Angeles would send more people to Provo than vice versa?
But at least the Californian blacks could be recruited for a coalition. They really despise Hispanics. Getting priced out, plus the low-level race wars of the past 20 or however-many years.
Given all these dramatic regional differences in the feasibility and pay-off of reaching out to blacks on immigration, we need to get more of the policy-making devolved down to the regional level. Then let the Nordic socialists ruin their own mini-country, as long as they can't foist the same on the rest of us.
Final Example: This weekend Al Sharpton, community leader, is leading in 100 cities these protests for Trayvon. All that wasted time and energy for a dead teenager to once again, race hustle, threaten, and blackmail various other groups and businesses and the government to gimme gimme gimme more free stuff.
A moment is being lost. A moment, a great one, to affect change on a national level. But it would require not being race based, but good for America based.
Instead of marching and rallying for a dead teenager who in short term does nothing to affect real change, why don't blacks hold rallies and marches to affect immigration policy? Maybe to march side by side with other groups, fellow Americans, to demand the government stop enacting illegal immigration policies that affect all of us and only harm us in the long run.
Why couldn't that kind of rally be held and organized? Know why? Cause blacks have never rallied or marched to support something that didn't directly affect them from a race based standpoint. Not over the last half century. It doesnt seem to occur to them to support and rally for something without asking for more free stuff and threatening to burn down and riot and steal stuff if they don't get their way.
How about growing up and marching for America's best interest? You have a chance to enact real change here. If this immigration bill passes, it could prove disastrous for all Americans black white etc. It's not good for America.
Why can't blacks ever rally and support in public a cause or policy that doesnt directly afffect them in a race based way? Answer: Cause they dont want to. And their leaders certainly don't care to. They'd have to think about others besides themselves. So no, I'm not confident that blacks care enough to march for something as monumental as an immigration policy that will have long term ramifications most of them bad for this nation. To do that they'd have to think about America and not themselves long enough. And they're simply not capable of doing that in a group mentality that's lead by yet another long list of grievances pushed down the nations throat by professional hustlers.
AWOL on America or don't care about the policies that affect the rest. That's how the group acts, thinks, behaves. And until they learn to change and think for themselves things will only get worse for them and for the rest of America.
Y'know, if people really are serious about starting a coalition to take on something as big as the pro-immigration octopus, you're going to have to make it fun for everyone involved. The biggest turn-off of activism is how joyless and socially isolating it is.
That'll make a good test of which whites and which blacks will actually stick it out with each other against a common enemy. Just hold regular dances to give the coalition a place to bond, and play '80s music. Back then, white folks had enough soul, and black folks enough class, to create a common popular music style, centered around dancing.
Today's white music is too neutered, and black music too ghetto, to bridge the two groups. Blacks who are into contempo white music are the wussy SWPL types, and whites into black music are wigger try-hards.
Cutting a little rug together to "Let's Groove" or "Ain't Nobody" would do more to cement the coalition than having some pointless conversation. You'd get a visceral sense of it by the end of the night.
"Like, can you imagine Mexicans trying to get into the groove, or making good dance music? Wait, that's right, they've never been a part of a common culture here, have they? And isn't their food awful? What ever happened to greasy hamburgers and chicken with the skin on it?"
There needs to be some foolproof way to pose ourselves against the SWPL whites who've sold black folks out. The SWPLs are such uncoordinated dance-haters and taco-holics that using music and food would do the trick.
Maximize in-group similarity and cohesion, while heightening the contrast with the out-group.
This approach would alienate the East Asians, who are basically the brainier cousins of the Latinos, who left Asia before agriculture made Asians smarter. But they're not particularly conservative, patriotic, or numerous enough to lose sleep over alienating. And they're likely to be, or be related to, recent immigrants, so they're going to be a hard sell no matter what.
Allow me to advance a slightly less implausible coalition: White Americans from one region of the country siding with White Americans from the other.
"A white-black coalition on immigration?"
Don't hold your breath, as before that coalition forms, Satan will first poop ice cubes.
There are a million hurdles to it taking off but logically it makes the most sense especially if you realise blacks are in the process of being thrown - maybe not off the Democrat bus - but thrown to the back of it simply because the Democrat coalition is an ethnic spoils system and black people are decreasing as a percentage.
The trouble is black Pavlovian racism. A black will always prefer a brown face to a white one. And immigration is seen as "getting Whitey". Blacks are the first people to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
"This approach would alienate the East Asians..."
I think you're looking at this the reverse way round. I'm not talking about an active GOP tactic - especially as they are pro-immigration anyway - but an eventual forced alliance.
The Democrat coalition is based on an anti-white ethnic spoils system. As the proportiopn of asian and hispanic increases some of those spoils have to be taken from the black pile and given to the others.
Any eventual - even if extremely unlikely - black-white coalition doesn't involve being best buddies.
It's a natural alliance.
No, it isn't.
I would like to see blacks join with whites on the immigration issue.
Why? Blacks have higher crime rates than Hispanics. If it is a choice between having a black neighbor or a Hispanic one then I think most sensible people would rather have a Hispanic neighbor.
Too many people forget that most black people don't commit crimes;
But they commit them at higher rates than other racial groups including Hispanics.
that blacks are more likely to be victims of black crimes than whites;
One of the reasons for this is that most whites try to live as far away from blacks as possible.
and that blacks will lose out even more to increased immigration than whites will.
Why? Blacks will still get their welfare, medicaid and food stamps.
As for California... it may just need to be reconquered by Arizonans. Sorry, but you guys fucked it up too bad, and aren't doing anything to fix it. Just fleeing en masse into Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Utah. Who woulda thought that Los Angeles would send more people to Provo than vice versa?
Arizona and Utah are better off than Texas at 38 percent hispanic its closed to California only a little more resentment but the next govenor Dewhurst or Lt Gov Patterson are big supporters of lots of guest worker programs/ Dallas like Houston is full of mexicans and blacks. Blacks might go on side of whites.
I see some have taken the time and trouble to describe why Blacks won't work with Whites on immigration -- while making quite clear they themselves never considered the idea seriously for a minute.
Enough people seemed open to idea to make me feel like there's hope. If just one segment of America tries to do all the work, it won't be enough.
The conservative Republicans who dominate the "less immigration" side of the debate also usually ignore the Democrats and Independents out there who disagree with the official Democratic Party line and various special interest lobbies.
The "less immigration" people have tens of millions of untapped potential allies and helpers out here in the vast country of ours. The country is full of disappointed, worried and increasingly desperate people who realize our leaders' plan is to continue to ignore most of us for as long as possible.
@Anonymous 7/20/13, 5:37 PM:
"Allow me to advance a slightly less implausible coalition: White Americans from one region of the country siding with White Americans from the other."
Good luck with that.
The one consistent theme at work is this: Is it bad for Whites. If the answer is yes, it gets promoted. I don't know why Whites have such a thick-headed refusal to understand they can be hated - especially by a subset of Whites who are anti-White.
The purpose of the Democratic Party is to put together a coalition of 50% plus one so as to plunder the other 49%+. Getting a majority gives them the power they need, but getting plumper victims into the 49%+ is what makes that power more lucrative.
As poor immigrants are added to their majority, the leaders can boost revenues by moving an equal number of well-off supernumerary Democrats to their target list.
Catholics still can't believe that they are now on the Democrats' target list. "We have been discriminated against too," they say. "Remember No Irish Need Apply? And we are an important swing voting bloc!" But that has nothing to do with it. To increase the revenue stream from plundering the 49%, Democrats want to put together a richer 49%, and native Catholics are relatively well off, so they properly belong with the other plundered groups rather than with the plunderers. This is sad for Catholic Obama voters who once had high hopes of sharing in the plunder.
The relative poverty of blacks assures that they will always be the core group of the Democrats' coalition, and the more their majority can target additional rich, white, soon-to-be-former Democrats, the more juice there will be for the blacks.
I see liberal, Gentile whites in the blue states as being the next logical targets. As more immigrants are added to the 50%+, more of those whites can be moved to the target list.
Government-dependent blacks can be expected to wholeheartedly approve of a more lucrative targeting strategy which requires enrolling millions of new, poor immigrants as voters.
As has been effectively noted above, how the hell can you have a white-black alliance on immigration when you can't even have a white-white one?
If whites had stuck together on immigration -- which, long term, ultimately screws up the US for everyone -- we wouldn't have had this problem.
And frankly, until we get the majority Hispanic population of California voting to secede from the US and join Mexico, we still won't get white-white cooperation.
In fact, I bet even then we still won't.
The fact is this: All politics in the USA is organised via the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, there are no other players.
Basically, the Democrats are run, at the highest echelons, by soft, wet commie types who see 'equality' - and thus knocking down white males - as the main lodestone of their political lives. These type elevate blacks as some type of supreme victim uber-class and thus blacks are theeffective masters of the Democrats. The Democrats give blacks everything they want and more (basically they are the sae folks who run the Trayvon industry), so blacks are very happy with the staus quo and won't change.Keeping the soft commie brains of the party happy by playing along with equality is a small price to pay, for an alliance that has been so outstandingly succesful and beneficial to blacks.
As for the Republicans, they are a wholly ownwed subsidiary of big business. Big business and its paid for heralds (eg The WSJ, The Economist and scores of 'academic' economists), desperately want open borders to ease the bottom line and maximize profits and thus cushy lives for themselves and their families. The paymasters want the Repubs to be 'open borders' and so they are. A few kick-backs go a long way.
And there you have it, A classic stitch-up, but a stitch-up so strong and cunning that you'll never, ever break it. It will break you instead.
I believe immigration realists can team with environmentalists and unions to restrict immigration. It would require accepting more environmental and workplace regulation which personally I can live with. Hey, if we can turn David Suzuki, anything's possible. Suzuki sure has all the right heads exploding in Canada over his anti-immigration comments.
"desperately want open borders to ease the bottom line and maximize profits and thus cushy lives for themselves and their families."
Kind of like how wealthy Southern plantation owners wanted more and more slave labor to maximize profits and cushy lives for themselves and their families. And how did that turn out in the long run - both for their descendants and society at-large?
Then as in now, our elite have proven to be shortsighted. Would you rather have a net worth of $500 million, but be reasonably assured that your kids and grand kids would grow up in the same solidly middle class society that you grew up in? Or would you rather have a net worth of one billion, and have your future generations live behind gates and electrified fences, and hire security forces to keep their loved ones from being kidnapped?
Won't happen. Politics in our time is emotive and identitarian. This sort of rational calculation of interests is pure 19th century.
"Won't happen. Politics in our time is emotive and identitarian. This sort of rational calculation of interests is pure 19th century."
Politics has always been 'emotive'.
It's not facts or dry ideas that get people fired up but moral righteousness.
Was there any political march for reasons of logic, facts, or the truth?
No, it was always over issues of right vs wrong, justice, revenge, etc.
Look at the Trayvon thing. The facts and laws are on Zimmerman who did nothing wrong. Also, he's not KKK but Democratic Hispanic who voted for Obama. And evidence absolved him.
But never mind all that.
The morally self-righteous and supremacist have, with support of the media, decided to cast him as a paranoid evil white guy who murdered an unarmed child!!!
Liberals know this. They pay lip service to rationalism but have worked in the mode of moral hysteria.
Support 'gay marriage' or else you are PHOBIC, 'LESS EVOLVED', and 'hateful'. Worship MLK, faint at the feet of Obama, poor poor victim who was,OMG, mistaken as a waiter in 96. Btw, did anyone ever use the n-word against him? I mean what can be worse? White people have to deal with trivial annoyances like polar bear hunting, flash mobs, black rapists, black armed robbers, black bullies, black thugs, etc. But poor poor Obama was once told to get someone a drink.
Oh boo hoo hoo, someone save him from the great evil of our age. (Did Obama ever lock his car door when black thugs were nearby? Did he ever tell his daughters not to venture too far out from the white oasis of Hyde Park? If he's not afraid of other blacks, why did he buy a home next to whites? And why did he racially profile Jews and homos as his ticket to fame. What a whore.)
PS. I guess it's okay that Obama (mis)took us for suckers and used NSA to profile us in so many ways.
Since politics must be emotive
in order to gain momentum, conservatives must emotionalize and moralize every issue, but conservative politicians just rely on facts and figures, like Paul Ryan the number cruncher. No wonder conservatives are so fixated on abortion as the great emotive issue that s allowed.
Why can't conservatives be more emotive? Because lib Jews control the media. They get to decide which emotions are righteous, sane, moral, and wonderful AND which emotions are paranoid, phobic, ugly, extreme, divisive, odious, noxious, toxic, rabid, virulent, etc.
The media also associates positive images with certain emotics--wonderful homo couples--and negative images with certain emotics--fat ugly rednecks who wanna keep mexicans out.
So, 'war against women' isn't hysterical. So, abortion up to nine months is not 'extreme'. So, Sharpton is not rabid and virulent. So, its own coverage of the Zimmerman thing is not toxic and noxious. They are all moral and passionate.
But if cons get emotional and moralistic, it's 'hateful', 'judgmental', 'delirious', etc.
The whole paradigm must change, and in order for this to happen, we must challenge Jewish stranglehold on the media. Like a python with its prey, it is squeezing the emotional life out of conservatism.
Because the right has been tagged with negative emotions, it feels obligated to repress its emotions as much as possible and focus on economics.
But since the 'left' has been tagged with positive emotions, it can be as excessive with its emotions as possible.
At any rate, politics is emotional and people are attracted to morally righteous causes with high emotional content.
What about a white-latino coalition against blacks, white liberals/SWPLs, and the Scots-Irish? That sounds more plausible.
A white woman is Trayvonned in San Francisco.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAgjaV_EPbs
OT, but this study on the effect of crack-cocaine addicted mothers on their offspring's IQ is interesting, but probably does not show what the author wants.
1. Perhaps the low IQ of the parents meant that there wasn't much room for IQ depression anyway. It seems that they must have been around 81, given that the average IQ of the children of the controls was around 81.
2. It provides a depressing picture of the future for largely black cities. With average IQs around 81, is there really much of a future revenue base there to support a city?
Average Joe beat me to it. Blacks do not feel competition from Hispanic illegals because they are not in the job market - at least the job market for the kind of jobs for which Mexicans cross the border.
When I was laid up I tried to get some help for my yard and house. I tried all ethnicities. I advertised on Craig's list. The whites I got were very marginal people and expected high wages.
San Francisco across the Bay has the highest minimum wage in the nation at $10.55 an hour. That silly policy has distorted the labor market throughout the Bay Area. No one can afford a legal white man unless they have some serious defect that keeps them out of regular work.
I tried blacks but I could never find a sober one who wanted to work. The Chinese didn't speak English and seem to be looking for jobs in software engineering. Where are the fabled coolies of yesteryear?
Your former mayor Villaraigosa once said of Hispanics - "They clean your toilets". And he was right. The only people I could get to clean my toilet were Mexicans or Mayans.
I eventually I found a white alcoholic to be a 'handyman'. In my experience all handymen are drunks or crazy otherwise they would be able to keep better paying work on a crew somewhere. I pay $20 an hour for a white alcoholic. He is not too dependable but he does speak English and when sober does good work.
I learned to my cost that Mexican and Mayan casual labor must never be given a tool more complicated than a hammer. Power tools like a string trimmer or a pressure washer are simply beyond their capabilities. Yet they have contempt for blacks as being too stupid.
For years the Labor Department pressured unions to admit blacks into union apprenticeship programs. Typically unions preferred nepotism as a strategy. Some of that was naked racial prejudice but some of it was rational. A real union master carpenter is a job that takes some smarts and plenty of experience. Moreover just one below par craftsman on a team can suck all the profit out of a whole job. The organizing principal behind American craft unions had always been that hiring a 'union man' was a guarantee of competence and so was worth the higher wages demanded.
This reality always split the sympathies of the policy makers in the federal Labor Department. The department was created to advance the agenda of the labor movement but the liberals in and around the Labor Department always saw unions as allies of racists who excluded blacks from the best paying craft jobs.
That's one of several reasons federal 'job creation' programs have always been failures.
Albertosaurus
"1. Look at the comments on your own blog and ask yourself: If I were black, would I feel the people who say and think bad things about me -- without knowing me personally -- ever change?
Too many people forget that most black people don't commit crimes; that blacks are more likely to be victims of black crimes than whites; and that blacks will lose out even more to increased immigration than whites will."
Very good point! As one of those in the majority of non-criminal Black men, I have say indeed.
1 in 3 black men will be incarcerated in their lifetimes, is what I keep reading. So, I don't know that it's really safe to say that the majority of black men are non-criminal. Not all criminals get caught or incarcerated. 1/3 is up there. I suppose we could quibble over the definition of "criminal."
Though immigration – primarily from Latin America and to a lesser extent, Asia – are currently the most pressing issues where HBD is relevant, the current climate within it, especially exemplified by the comments here, don't exactly make it a welcome place for minorities, particularly Blacks, who are in some ways in the same boat as Whites.
Is that supposed to be a coherent thought? I don't even know what that means.
Kind of like how wealthy Yankees set the northern war machine to invading and burning the south and then freed the negroes. And how did that turn out in the long run - both for their descendants and society at-large?
FIFY. There's really no blaming the black problem on southerners. Yankees did it.
A white/Latino coalition against blacks and liberals as Laguna Beach Fogey proposed is infinitely more plausible than any sort of black/white coalition against immigration. A black/white anti-immigration coalition is as plausible as Frank Herbert's idea of Buddhism and Islam merging. And considering recent events it's even less likely. The interests are too divergent.
"Basically, the Democrats are run, at the highest echelons, by soft, wet commie types who see 'equality' - and thus knocking down white males - as the main lodestone of their political lives. These type elevate blacks as some type of supreme victim uber-class and thus blacks are theeffective masters of the Democrats. The Democrats give blacks everything they want and more"
The Democrats are cleansing black people from New York, DC and LA.
"The Democrats are cleansing black people from New York, DC and LA."
Wringing them. It's so much easier to wring 'racism' from your heart if you wring blacks out of their apartments.
Racial wringing.
Blacks will never rouse themselves to climb into an ideological bed with a bunch of bigots
So being against black crime makes someone a bigot?
"So being against black crime makes someone a bigot?" - Why not?
Robert E Lee said something similar to your comment about Dixie's treatment of Negroes.
"Socially Extinct said...
On the street, many Blacks are against immigration, but this does not manifest as public action or a national movement. Perhaps if a Mexican illegal alien shoots a 17-year-old Black hoodlum, your pie-in-the-sky white-black coalition might happen. Otherwise, Blacks will never rouse themselves to climb into an ideological bed with a bunch of bigots, or what they perceive as such."
Blacks have not traditionally cared about job-market competition because so many of them were not in any job-market. The lower classes opt for careers as welfare spongers or habitual felons, with their material needs taken care of by the federal government or by state prisons.
Of those who do work, many of them found employment in the government sector, where citizenship requirements shield them from competition with latinos. But this is changing. The increasingly large number of (technically) legal hispanics due to chain-migration and anchor-babies is giving government managers more options. They are often required to hire black or brown employees; when given the choice, they opt for brown over black, as the hispanics are generally not lazy and troublesome, as the blacks are. Blacks are going to find themselves increasingly frozen out of government hiring as well.
As for myself, I don't care. I wouldn't want blacks as political allies. They are always more trouble than they are worth. Better to side with just about ANY other group than with them.
Was this a satire?
Where is the alliance between feminists leaders and jews against muslims in Europe?
Where is the hispanic leadership defending zimmerman?
Are these "leaders" really interested in their ostensible groups, or are these minority groups vectors to be exploited to destroy western civilization?
Post a Comment