Some low level flunky at the Iowa GOP posted this one slow evening, leading to rapid condemnation of Republicans for being Racist -- We are not amused! -- and it being quickly taken down and the flunky fired.
I'd add the Zimmerman Footnote:
Are they not white, but you don't like them, and you forgot to check to make sure they are white, and it's too late to backtrack now?
|
|
Yes
|
|
They are racist. And white.
Posts
25 comments:
They fired the flunky too, right?
Yes, they cannot control the narrative if you laugh at their sticks.
I look at this flowchart, obviously mocking how the term "racist" gets bandied about, and wonder: where, exactly, is the outrageous part?
"Are they not white, but you don't like them and you forgot to check whether they were white and it's too late to backtrack now? --> They are racist. And white."
LOL!
I AM SPARTARACIST!
http://www.vdare.com/articles/immigration-how-the-gop-lost-middle-america
Wall Street rich knew they didn't have the electoral votes to push their agenda. So, it made an alliance with social conservatives who voted for the GOP.
But once the Dems were won over to the NWO, free trade, and globalism, Wall Street no longer needed social conservative votes. Not in a nation where Obama serves Wall Street and can be elected twice.
So, Wall Street now waves the 'gay flag' and spits on social conservatives.
We were all taken for a ride. They just used patriotic tropes to get our votes, but their real agenda was free trade and globalism.
Wall Street will now use Democrats because, just as the GOP once gave the false impression that it was the party of social conservatism(when it was only using social conservative votes to push globalist policies), the Democratic Party gives the impression that it's 'socialist' and 'populist'--as opposed to the 'rich Republicans'--and cares for the people when, in fact, most the super rich are Democrats and the Democratic Party is really the part of the super new rich.
Because GOP needed social conservative votes to win, social conservatives thought they owned the party. But the party really belonged to the rich elites who only exploited patriotic symbols to hook the social conservatives to voting for them.
We've all been had.
The chart appears to be defective inasmuch as it does not ask whether the suspected witch weighs the same as a duck.
You can't be serious, Mr. Sailer. Don't you know that race doesn't exist?
"Auntie Analogue said...
You can't be serious, Mr. Sailer. Don't you know that race doesn't exist?"
-It doesn't exist except when its useful to hammer down stubborn white male nails. And when its useful to gets me some free shizznit. The rest of the time, it doesn't exist.
"ben tillman said...
The chart appears to be defective inasmuch as it does not ask whether the suspected witch weighs the same as a duck."
-If a racist weighs the same as a duck, then he's made of wood, and therefore- A WITCH!
"Auntie Analogue said...
You can't be serious, Mr. Sailer. Don't you know that race doesn't exist?"
Race doesn't exist. And yet, somehow, racism still does. Curious, isn't it.
For any isteve reader not up on the Zimmermann Telegram, it was one of the things that got the US into WWI, a proposal by Germany for Mexico to ally itself with Germany and declare war against the US.
British crypto guys cracked the code...
"...approach the Mexican Government with a proposal for military alliance, with funding from Germany. Mexico was promised territories in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona that had been lost to the United States starting in 1836 as parts of the former Republic of Texas, and in 1848 with the Mexican Cession. Eckardt was also instructed to urge Mexico to help broker an alliance between Germany and the Japanese Empire. Mexico, unable to match the U.S. military, ignored the proposal and after the U.S. entered the war, officially rejected it."
Regarding the Zimmerman Telegram: Why would anybody believe British Intelligence when they were giving us reasons to get into their war?
Because the Kaiser was openly aiding Carranza including military advisors to defeat Villa.
I think the power of the term 'racist' reached its peak about 1985. Let's set that power to an arbitrary scale point of 100.
If you were to call someone a racist in 1985 that person was toast. No reprieve. No possibility of atonement. Jimmy the Greek made an stupid but innocent remark and had to endure a protracted public humiliation in a futile attempt to gain absolution from Jesse Jackson.
The racism charge today is only about a potency of 50 on that scale. Every day this charge loses more and more juice as it is invoked in ever more marginal cases.
The charge of racism is like the invocation of 'Global Warming'. It makes some prima faciesense when it's hot outside, but only raises questions in the mind of the public when it is also invoked to explain the snow and ice.
White racism likewise sounds reasonable as an explanation for residential red lining but sounds ridiculous as a cause for black on black homicide.
Racism like Global Warming is fast becoming a punch line for late night comedians.
Albertosaurus
Discarded,
When we asked the Germans admitted it.
Whiskey: American General John Pershing briefly invaded Mexico to chase Pancho Villa. Why object to the Mexicans seeking other, competent, military assistance? They really did not and still do not liked being schooled by Norte Americanos. The German Army has long had a vey high reputation in Latin America, and the Mauser K98 was the rifle of choice for most Spanish speaking countries. A German presence south of the border was just normal business, and no legitimate concern of ours. And certainly not a reason to accept the word of a third party, the British, that wanted us to fight their war.
"We were all taken for a ride. They just used patriotic tropes to get our votes, but their real agenda was free trade and globalism...We've all been had."
Yes, and now Democrat voters will be had the same way as their wages are crushed into the dirt by mass immigration in the name of non-racism.
Too funny! I wonder if it can be made into a bumper sticker.
Regarding the Zimmerman Telegram: Why would anybody believe British Intelligence when they were giving us reasons to get into their war?
Because the Germans actually transmitted the telegram over the American trans-Atlantic telegraph wire (officially via the US Embassy in Berlin) because the British had destroyed all the German Atlantic undersea cables. (So presumably the US had no trouble verifying the actual ciphertext source and verifying the decrypt.)
The telegram was actually sent by Western Union, so there were probably physical paper versions (in those days store-and-forward telegraph systems were physical).
You can read the raw ciphertext.
The Germans messed up on their crypto because they didn't have a code word for Arizona.
The British concocted an elaborate story about British spys in Mexico to conceal from the US that they were tapping the American trans-Atlantic cable, unbeknown to the US.
You can read the plain-text here, note this looks like a US State department version, with security classification expired.
"A German presence south of the border was just normal business, and no legitimate concern of ours..."
Perhaps you've been served badly by modern US education and missed out on a significant chunk of US history with a lot of ramifications. US, Mexico, and Germany had a lot of issues in Mexico at the time.
The Pancho Villa raid of Columbus, New Mexico, in 1916 in which about 500 Villista cavalry (was there any other kind?) crossed into the US and attacked the town. About 70-80 Villistas were killed, 8 US soldiers and 10 US civilians killed. (The US soldiers had a few French Hotchkiss machine guns that pretty much got the upper hand):
"Despite being taken by surprise, the Americans quickly recovered... many of the townspeople were armed with rifles and shotguns. Many residents took refuge in the two story brick schoolhouse. ... "
The Battle of Veracruz, in 1914, resulted in the 6 month US occupation of Veracruz, Mexico. Veracruz is Mexico's oldest and largest port city, basically on the Atlantic coast east of Mexico City. The US had some 22 KIA and 70 WIA. This was not a minor incident:
"... Five additional U.S. battleships and two cruisers had reached Veracruz during the hours of darkness and they carried with them Major Smedley Butler and his Marine Battalion which had been rushed from Panama. The battleship's seaman battalions were quickly organized into a regiment 1,200 men strong, supported by the ship's Marine detachments providing an additional 300-man battalion..."
One reason the US could hold Veracruz was Mexico was in the midst of a 3-sided revolution: "While Huerta and Carranza officially objected to the occupation, neither was able to oppose it effectively...
...The occupation, however, brought the two countries to the brink of war and worsened U.S.-Mexican relations for many years."
You could say both the US and Mexico now had legitimate concerns with each other. Although there was considerable prior bad blood and incidents, the specific reason the US occupied Veracruz was:
(President) "Wilson was alerted of a delivery of weapons for Victoriano Huerta due to arrive in the port on April 21 aboard the German-registered cargo-steamer SS Ypiranga."
The US had declared an arms embargo which Germany was violating. (The real issue was Germany was supporting Huerta and Wilson wanted to overthrow him.) There were German advisers to Obregon, who defeated Pancho Villa in a classic WWI trench/machine-gun setup at the battle of Celaya in 1915, perhaps the largest WWI-style battle fought in the Western Hemisphere. "The battle is also important as it incorporated many tactical innovations from the Western Front... One of his most respected military advisers was Colonel Maximilian Kloss... Kloss’s military advice and remarkable insight into the nature of Villa’s style of war would prove decisive at Celaya..."
Then there was the ugly Bandit War, much of it fought by the Texas Rangers, "a series of raids in Texas between 1910 and 1918 that were carried out by Mexican rebels from the states of Tamaulipas, Coahuila and Chihuahua. ... The plan called for a race war, to rid the American border states of their Anglo American population..."
The Norias ranch raid in 1915 is fairly dramatic, "...one of the many small battles fought on American soil during the Mexican Revolution..."
So by 1917 there were issues.
"are they white/Can it be editted in post?"
What a surprise, Whiskey thinks US involvement in WW1 was a good thing.
*cough* Balfour Declaration *cough*
Actually the Zimmerman telegram merely proposed an alliance between Mexico and Germany IF the latter found itself in a war with the USA. Why shouldn't Germany have taken such possible precautions given the sham neutrality America practiced during 1914-17. As for Mexico they had their military examine the feasibility of the proposal and only rejected it when the generals said the USA was too strong. VDARE had an excellent article about this once. It should be in their archives.
German diplomats would have been remiss if they hadn't offered Mexico some sort of deal after the US Army invaded northern Mexico with about 5,000 troops and chased around for about a year trying to kill on capture Pancho Villa, fighting a number of small battles. ("The Pancho Villa Expedition".)
Villa led one of the 3 factions in the Mexican Revolution. The US got experience in a lot of new stuff during the Expedition, things like aerial reconnaissance and radio control of military operations. Patton got to lead armored trucks in the US's first motorized operations. The experience helped the US a lot when it entered WWI.
A number of the US troops were black cavalry "buffalo soldiers". US Apache Scouts played a role, the Apache were never adverse to invading Mexico... Not all these little battles ended in favor of the US. For instance: "Buffalo Soldiers of the American 10th Cavalry Regiment who were taken prisoner during the Battle of Carrizal, Mexico in 1916."
Well! I read almost all comments, Now i want to share which i think, Actually the Zimmerman telegram merely proposed an alliance between Mexico and Germany IF the latter found itself in a war with the USA. Why shouldn't Germany have taken such possible precautions given the sham neutrality America practiced during 1914-17. And you know that for Mexico they had their military examine the feasibility of the proposal and only rejected it when the generals said the USA was too strong. VDARE had an excellent article about this once. It should be in their archive.
Post a Comment