I saw a McMullin tweet earlier wherein he stated that real Republicans and Conservatives put principle over party – it sounds like a reasonable statement until you examine it closely. What McMullin is saying is that any Republican or Conservative who supports Trump is unprincipled. That is an astonishingly arrogant thing to say.
I think it is pretty clear that I take a dim view of President Obama (for a mere $3.99 you can get all the details here), but I would never say that all those who back him are unprincipled…I believe most of his supporters back him precisely on principle. They are wrong principles, or misunderstood principles, but principles nonetheless. To be sure, a large collection of unprincipled hacks have attached themselves to Obama, and are also attached to Hillary…and, indeed, some such have attached themselves to Trump. That is in the nature of things – unprincipled hacks always try to hitch themselves to something the believe they can profit off of…but almost all people who back a candidate for elective office sincerely believe that candidate is the best choice on principle.
What McMullin’s tweet shows is a level of sneering contempt for people – for regular, honest folks who are making what they think is the best decision at the time. They may be wrong – they may, indeed, be fabulously wrong – but to think that they are all stupid, or venal is outrageous. And in practical terms, if one is Conservative, how are you to win if you just wrote off what will be – even if it is in defeat – about 60 million Americans as stupid?
The people are what they are – human beings being prone to error and folly…but the key to understanding is that no matter how gauche a person might be, that person is still a child of God, made for eternal joy with God. You dare not denigrate such a person – because, after all, given the observation that the last shall be first and the first, last, the person you are holding in contempt might be raised quite higher than you, in the End…and, as an aside, if you do hold that person in contempt you might find that in the End that you’ve chosen the very worst part of it. For better or worse (and in the long run, mostly for the better) we have decided that our government will be decided upon by the votes of the people – this means that you must first and foremost respect the people. Yes, even the barely-literate, poorly dressed, loud and vulgar lout who is making a ruckus. If you can’t respect that person then you’ve no business seeking office.
The people who are held in contempt are the farmers, the mechanics, the plumbers, the family men and women. In short, the people being held in contempt are those who actually do the business of making our society work day by day. You might not think much about that clean, running water which is unfailingly delivered to your tap every day, but it takes a lot of hard work by dirty, gritty people to make sure that water gets to you. All the investment bankers, artists and fashion designers in the world won’t help you much if someone isn’t willing to get down into the drains and fix things for you. And those people who do that sort of work for you – no matter how vulgar they are – deserve your absolute and immense respect. If you can’t give it to them, then you’re one of the saddest specimens of human being imaginable. Smart guy – you go listen to them, first; once you’ve done that, then you can tell them what you think; and if you truly listened, you are going to think differently than before you listened.
It isn’t that McMullin’s statement was the first bit of sneering contempt we’ve seen in politics this year – plenty of people have that attitude, left and right. I can’t see that working long-term as a viable electoral strategy. Come what may on November 8th, the future of Conservatism rests upon the ability to show respect for the people.
“The people who are held in contempt are the farmers, the mechanics, the plumbers, the family men and women. In short, the people being held in contempt are those who actually do the business of making our society work day by day.”
This is part of what I was talking about in a post in an earlier thread—-Leftists needing to feel superior to others. I thought about including snobbery, whether it be social or intellectual, but thought we could come back to that at a later date.
Yes, there is a sneering contempt for the “little people” who don’t have Ivy League degrees and live in snooty urban areas and drive Teslas or Priuses. I loved what Thomas Sowell said about “intellectuals”—all they produce is ideas, and they can lay claim to the title even when those ideas are wrong.
Look at the attitude of the Ivy League snobs toward Scott Walker, who doesn’t have a fancy college degree. My cousin’s son works for me, and these elites would look down their noses at him. Well, they would try—he is 6’4″. He was a rodeo cowboy, can train horses, is a crack shot, is a very talented professional musician who plays several instruments, and he can fix anything. He is one of the smartest people I know, with a range of knowledge that would put these narrow minded bigots to shame. His preference for hunting is bow hunting, because he loves the challenge of getting within 50 feet of an elk in the wild, and he eats what he shoots. He’s a Renaissance Man, without a college degree, and I would choose him over a hundred “intellectuals” to be on my side if TSHTF.
As for saying anyone who votes for Trump is unprincipled, I guess you have to define your principles. If they include letting the nation go down the drain in a death spiral of Leftist governance, then I guess non voters can preen about the self-defined moral superiority of THEIR principles. I know some will, and brag about it.
I guess he’d be my nephew-in-law – anyways, the guy who’s married to my niece. Not exactly the most highly educated guy in the world but he works hard, keeps his act together, treats my niece well…in the end, what more can anyone ask of a person? And it is people like him who actually get the job done. Sure, we need people of great knowledge…but not nearly as much as we need someone who can plant a crop, fix a roof, unclog a drain…
I think that the left is hunkering down and sticking to a “keep your powder dry” mode. Soon to be known as a “whistling past the graveyard” mode. I’ve tried to engage my fellow confreres in congenial dialogue at that other website but am met with the sound of crickets when the tenor gets to uncomfortable or icky for them. As adults (I think), they are unable to cope with the concept of race realism or rationally discuss the implications of unprecedented levels of third world emigration to the West. Shouldn’t adults be able to discuss these matters without sounding like Neo?
But to the point of your post Mark, yes, this is all they’ve got and all they are going with:
Trump is dumb
Trump supporters are dumb
Trump is dangerous
Trump supporters are dangerous
Trump is racist/xenophobic/sexist
Trump supporters are racist/xenophobic/sexist
There is nothing that the Clinton camp and her supporters are putting out there beside the word cluster posted above. It’s a clear reincarnation of the Daisy ad from ’64. Let’s hope the results are not the same.
So clear that out here in Nevada, at least, they’ve got an anti-Trump ad with video of a nuclear explosion!
Good golly, I haven’t been to this site for four years. Not sure why I left, probably was upset over Romneycare. Anyhow just dropped in to see what is being said. I am so glad to see Mark on here, I think last time I was here he had given up and found a better place. And Amazona, who I agreed with half the time and couldn’t stand the other half, yet ALWAYS had a rational place to stand on, hope you are doing well also.
Alas, it’s my harvest time so I’ll be out for a couple months anyhow. All the best!
Well, Doug, it’s good to see you. I do have to ask an obvious question. If you couldn’t stand Amazona half the time, but her stand was always rational, is that a comment about her or your mental health?
Keep your head out of the combine and be safe.
Welcome back – and that was a long time ago! About 5 years I think – and I just needed a break from blogging as, at that point, I was 8 years of several posts a day. Couldn’t keep that pace up. But, we’re still here!
but I would never say that all those who back him are unprincipled…I believe most of his supporters back him precisely on principle. They are wrong principles, or misunderstood principles, but principles nonetheless.
You’re hitting on something that I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. How often have you heard a politician say he/she was standing on principle, but that principle was never translated into accomplishing something worthwhile? I’m not saying we shouldn’t be guided by principles, but I think principles are often used as a crutch to avoid discussing solutions to problems. Perhaps we need to guide our conversations with our ideological adversaries more along the lines of debating the validity of the principles that define each of us rather than on the issues that divide us.
Everyone needs to realize that leaders of both parties, Democrat and Republican, are supporting and voting for Hillary, all world leaders are voicing their support for Hillary, all of Wall Street is in support of Hillary, the media elite support Hillary, the 1% including the Koch Bros., and Hollywood celebs are all in support of Hillary. In fact it was just announced today that former Republican President George H.W. Bush is now voting for Hillary. This should be one HUGE red flag for everyone.
The lower and middle class of this country are in deep kimchee if she wins. Trump has his failings but at least he is a common sense American who wants to protect the language, borders and culture of this country.
This should be one HUGE red flag for everyone.
We’ve talked for as long as I can remember about the “global elite”, but this is the first election in my lifetime where those who many of us traditionally thought of as allies have taken their masks off.
A friend emailed me an interesting article a couple days ago. It’s a long read, but worth the time. The money line (pun intended), IMO:
And they can’t stop it – because if they do stop the easy money, the entire financial system comes crashing down…of course, the flip side of it is that global debt is still increasing at a massive pace and as the old saw says, “debts that can’t be repaid, won’t be”. You and I have talked about this for years and I’m surprised they keep the ball in the air…eventually it has to come down and the longer they put it off, the worse in will be. Saw at story which says that China’s real Debt-GDP ratio is something like 265%…that can’t be sustained!
So I came across this article:
Interesting read and what I have suspected all along.
Well, it goes along with my theory that he’s actually working off a plan – and that even at least some of his so-called verbal gaffes are actually tactical. Whether or not he can pull this off remains to be seen – one still has to doubt it, given the balance of forces ranged against each other. But if he does pull it off, he’ll have re-written the way Presidential politics is done for a century.
Brandon Smith has a great take on who the Deplorables are.
Well I think we can officially say that we live in a 100% racist society. Two recent observations. Yesterday on the Steve Harvey show while speaking on the Tulsa, OK shooting, Hillary Clinton said that part of her job will be to talk to “white people” and educate us as to the perceptions of the black community. And this morning on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough was a little dismayed that the polls were so tight in Florida but that he understands how in “whiter” states the polls are close.
So I just glanced over at brand X for the first time in a long time and noticed that the gang over there is going full Alinsky on Rusty. If you have the stomach for it and are able to jump in the shower afterwards, you might want to take a look:
You see like the vast majority of Americans, Rusty has the awareness to recognize that unchecked illegal immigration and a stream of unvetted refugees pose a threat to not just the security of this country but also our culture as all of us have been witnessing in Europe. And because of this awareness, Rusty is quickly linked to the newly defined alt right and excoriated for the scant remnants of racism found in this fringe movement.
Of course people like Mersault and Watson, who have boundless sympathies for radical Islamists and of whom are in full support of Black Lives Matter, know a hell of a lot more about racism than any one of us, so we may have to defer to their expertise on this issue. And isn’t racism and xenophobia the two most important issues in this election? I know the Democrats are hoping they are, but there is a third contender and that is climate change. Casper has stated that he couldn’t possibly vote for any candidate who denies climate change. So according to progressive, the three most pressing issues in this country are “white” racism, nationalism, and climate change. Not the economy, not education, not inner city decay, not the endless stream of illegal immigration and the pressures put on the low skilled labor market and states resources, not the threat from radical Islam, not Putin, not China, and certainly not healthcare. Everything would be just fine if we could just rid ourselves of racist white people.
Yeah, super funny. It’s just amazing how unaware they are. Their whole gambit is to claim some type of moral high ground and then declare, based on their ethical superiority, all counter arguments invalid. I tried to point out to them that their contribution to that entirethread consists of nothing more than branding people racist and smearing people with guilt by association. They haven’t argued ONE idea in the entire thread absent their need to spread racial shame. Incredible.
I never gave much thought to Ama’s frequent comparisons of the left to communism, thought it was a bit hyperbolic at the time, but I actually know more than most about Communist China and I have to say the left’s methods of thinking certainly has parallels to it. Brand some schools of thought unmentionable and heretical, stake a position of universal righteousness and you have no need to bother with having to rationalize your own positions. Your opponents are a priori, ahem, deplorable and worthy of censure. Claim some historical truth to be sacred and all encompassing in perpetuity then bash your opponents head in with it whether relevant or not. This is literally the opposite of rational reasoning and a freedom of ideas, both of which are vital to our society.
Back in my unenlightened days, when I was a liberal though I didn’t know why, talk radio was just taking off, and there was a talk radio host in Denver named Mike Rosen. I started listening to his show off and on and had the same experience so often that after a while even I had to start to realize it was significant.
It was that a Liberal would call in and challenge Mike and whatever he had been saying, and Mike would ask him to explain his position. At this point I would really start to pay attention, because the Lib had just verbalized something I believed, and I could hardly wait for him to explain it so, to put it bluntly, I would know why I believed it. And never, not once, did said Lib ever answer a question or explain a position.
One day when this happened I found myself yelling at the radio “Answer the damned question ! ” and realized that every time Mike laid out a position he did so rationally, calmly, with precision, giving information and precedents and a carefully thought out rationale, while at least in the times I had listened to the show every single Lib caller had simply called in, unloaded a stinging attack or absolute opinion, and then been unable or unwilling to answer a single question or give a single objective reference.
That is when I started thinking I had better rethink my positions, because if I only felt those things but couldn’t back them up with facts or references or coherent rational thought then maybe they were not very good positions. I realized that “my side” would only answer questions with other questions, or with personal attacks and insults, and I didn’t want to be one of those people. I wanted to be one of the people whose positions came about after thought and research and discussion, not one whose positions just happened somehow and then couldn’t be explained or defended.
That is when I came up with my pyramid theory. That is, that conservatives start with a broad base of knowledge and conviction regarding the best way to govern the country, and then the next, smaller, tier is what we call “values” and then the next, smaller tier, is “issues”, then the resulting political philosophy, and then at the smallest part of the structure is the candidate, all in a logical progression with a broad, strong, base. I see Leftist politics as an upside-down pyramid. The point is at the bottom, and then above that all the other aspects build up and out, but the whole structure is teetering on that little point of Identity Politics that chooses the person and then tries to construct a political theory around him or her, and most of that is not actually political philosophy (or how best to govern the nation) but a toxic brew of hatred of a mostly invented Other.
Sorry about my initial post there referring to you all as clowns and maroons. I posted that a while ago before the full effects of my brain transplant took hold.
No problem. Once you break out and start going in the right direction, it’s amazing how fast you pick up speed, so May is like, you know, uh, like Ancient History, dude.
Ah May, those wistful days of my youth!
I’ve been called a lot worse than a clown or maroon.
Rusty, I have really enjoyed the travelogue of your journey on the road to Damascus.
Funny. Seems like I’m now banned from that noble, egalitarian, open-minded site founded as a counter breath of fresh air to that horrible censorious site B4V. Looks like facts on the ground combined with my biting but sensible commentary are a bit too much for Watson to take.
I refer to my previous post here about the similarities of the left to Communist China. I didn’t expect it to be proven so right this soon.
Also, as a funny aside, Watson recently posted this:
Cluster, good to hear from you, although you do it in a manner in which I am unable to respond. That’s kind of chicken shit, if you ask me.
…and then proceeded to ban me a few hours later. So Watson, since I know you’re reading this, you’re not chickenshit because….
Yeah, I guess we can say integrity is not high on the priority list for progs like this.
Well, you are welcome here as long as you agree with us 100% of the time and bow 5 times a day at the alter of Ronaldus Magnus. In all seriousness, I would actually prefer if you didn’t agree with us on any number of things, the only stipulation being that you can’t use Mother Jones, Think Progress or Media Matters as references, heh. Just as the only way science advances is for skeptical scientists to disprove existing theories, the only way we as individuals learn and expand our minds is for what we believe to be challenged.
As I said earlier, we don’t always agree with each other. But we do try to have civilized conversations. I can’t speak for the others, but I like nothing better than to walk away from a conversation thinking, I had never thought of that aspect of the issue before, or I never looked at it that way. There’s an old saying WRT Liberals. They like to think they’re open minded, but many of them have opened their minds so far that their brains fell out. With younger Liberals I suspect they are just a product of an education system that teaches what to think rather than how to think. With any Liberal over about 60, I can’t imagine what their excuse is.
There are a lot of problems facing the world right now, and we’re not going to solve any of them on this obscure blog. But you never know who, in some position of authority somewhere, might stumble across our conversations and think, “that’s a great idea,” and pass it on to someone in government or a think tank or a corporate board room. And if that NEVER happens, that’s OK too.
It seems that I will have to chime in at the swamp a little later but first re: North Carolina, how is a black police officer shooting an armed black suspect a race issue? Are we to believe that the black police officer shot the suspect because the suspect was black? The Tulsa shooting is another matter and doesn’t look good, but I suspect there’s more to that story. The end result is that all this chaos helps elect Trump in my opinion.
When I started the process I described, above, on my path from being an Unexamined Liberal to a Thought-based Conservative, I didn’t mention the role that the old B4V played in the process.
When I was forced to defend a position, or back up an opinion, it pushed me into a couple of directions. One was to work on how I present what I have to say, how to organize it and make it coherent, and one was to research what I wanted to discuss. The swarms of killer bee attacks from outraged/enraged Liberals made me a better thinker.
I can’t remember a Liberal presenting me with an idea that made me reflect, as Spook said, “…I had never thought of that aspect of the issue before, or I never looked at it that way…. ” because these attacks seldom if ever contained actual ideas, but my efforts to get Liberals to engage in thoughtful discourse made me think more carefully about what I personally believe, and helped form the political philosophy I have today.
Example: At one time I was going around and around with a Lib and there seemed to be a possibility of an actual discussion, if we could only prune away some of the emotion. So I said “I think we can have a better discussion of what we think if we can get down to the most basic and fundamental level of our political beliefs, so why don’t you just tell me your political philosophy?” The answer was something like “I think everything should be more fair and equal”. OK, that led to me having to analyze my own words, and define “political philosophy”, and respond that I was talking about his idea of the best blueprint for governing the country, not the results he wanted to see afterward.
It was this discussion, and the posts from all the other Liberals who swarmed in with their own definitions of political philosophy forcing me to reconsider what I had said, decide how well it described my political belief system, refine and reorganize my thought processes as they were challenged, that led to the formation of my political philosophy today. It is pretty much what it always was, just more organized and coherent.
When I posited that in my opinion there are only two truly POLITICAL choices we make at the ballot box, the choice between a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power with most authority left to the states or a federal government which can expand as much as desired, for any purpose, without restriction, the howls of outrage were deafening. I was lectured, often profanely and with personal attacks and insults, on the utter stupidity of that comment, and my ignorance in failing to understand the complexity and nuance of the decisions facing Americans, blah blah blah. That made me stop and think, and the end result was reinforcement of the belief that the real decision is just as I said, and the “nuances” and “complexity” relate to the issues not to how they must be addressed by government and at which level of government.
The pushback did not offer me new ideas, but forced me to examine, analyze, and synthesize my own.
It also educated me on the dominance of traditional International Left tactics regarding political discourse, which are the same ones you outlined, Rusty, in your talk about China. In everyday discourse, these patterns don’t show up as clearly, but when you engage a Lefty they jump right out at you, and once you have experienced them they are more easily seen in speeches by Leftists, even in their TV ads.
My late husband was an amateur war historian, and I found myself caught up in his passion, which meant a lot of hours spent listening to discussions between him and other like-minded people, including some rather famous professional historians and authors. I realized that while I wasn’t that interested in the weaponry or the field tactics, I was fascinated by the political aspects—why did a country do this, why was a general instructed to do that. etc. That led me to studying the evolution of Leftist political philosophy and strategy, particularly its use of language to sway, manipulate and control the people. This is why I am so sensitive to this kind of tactic used by the American Left, and see the American Left as merely a branch of an international movement. A branch or a puppet, the end result is the same.
BTW, over the past 10-12 years, I have asked every single Left-leaning poster to explain his or her political philosophy, and to date ONE has actually been able to do so. One. He is an avowed Marxist, has studied Marxism, and actually has a coherent political philosophy.
Literally every other Liberal faced with this question has been either unable or unwilling to admit to a political philosophy that involves shifting most authority to the federal government and giving it pretty much free rein (and yes, folks, that IS the right word) to get as big and powerful as they want it to be. A couple have said no, they don’t think the federal government should be “infinitely expandable” but when pressed would never give an opinion of a limit of power.
It also taught me that people who vote usually don’t know what they are voting for. Right wing voters in general have a somewhat clearer idea, but on the Left there is literally no clue. Literally. Ask a Dem why he or she voted for Obama, for example, and there will NEVER be the answer that he represented a political system he or she felt is the best way to govern the nation. People think they are voting for gay marriage, or abortion on demand, or feeding the children, or to show the world we are not a racist nation, or because he seems like such a sincere young man, with absolutely no concept of the fact that these issues are stalking horses for the underlying political system of Leftist governance.
my path from being an Unexamined Liberal to a Thought-based Conservative
I’ve haven’t known a lot of people who have made the journey from one side of the political spectrum to the other, but, of the ones I’ve known, their journey has almost always been from Left to Right, not from Right to Left. There may be “thought-based Liberals out there, but I can’t recall ever meeting one. If you look at the history of the Progressive Movement, almost none of it is based on critical thought or logic. In fact critical thought and logic are anathema to Liberalism. It’s almost exclusively based on subterfuge, obfuscation, deceit and just outright lies. It’s end game has always been about control and pitting one group of people against another as a means to achieving that end. It’s never been about prosperity for all but rather subsistence for most and prosperity for a few. It’s a destructive thought process, and one need look no further than the destruction of the black family as proof positive.
What’s striking is how childish they’ve all become at the LIR blog. They’re like kids running around the playground pointing at everyone and calling them a doodyhead, except instead of doodyhead they use the aspersion “racist”. In their world that’s all that’s required in a political discussion.
What the hell does it even mean to call someone a racist? It could mean a hundred different things. For myself, in a nutshell. I think you’re racist if you discriminate or otherwise harm somebody based solely on their race. Short of that, the vast majority of us are racist to one degree or another, and the vast bulk of that “racism” is completely innocuous; it consists of attitudes and preferences that come with being human.
Maybe some of you disagree with this and that’s fine, I’d be happy to discuss it rationally with you. What’s not fine is demonizing, ridiculing and marginalizing people merely for being honest about the human condition.
Here is one my last posts over there. I think it was one of the ones that tipped them over the edge. It was in response to meursault’s ridiculous congratulations he was heaping on himself for allegedly stigmatizing the alt right for their hate crimes.
Tell you what, let’s pretend I concede your point: the alt right is racist. What does that get you?
The problem with shouting “racism” at everything is that racism is not only a very subjective thing but exists on a very long scale of degree. There are people who recognize the science of race realism, people who don’t believe that all men are created equal, people who prefer not to live next to others of a different race, people who bemoan the abolition of slavery, people who murder others based on their race–all may be considered racist by different people.
So to rely on the talisman of “racism” as a discussion ender is actually pretty juvenile if you have any appreciation for nuance whatsoever.
I’ll also point out that having racist views (wherever they exist on the scale of degree) is not illegal in America, and I personally don’t believe that the opinions of “racists” of the milder variety should be automatically discounted. We (or maybe I should speak only for myself) don’t do this in most other walks of life. But perhaps you prefer a scarlet “R” for those that disagree with you, then you don’t have to substantiate your beliefs.
Rusty, your concept of racism is pretty close, if not identical to mine. The Left has expanded the definition of racism to the point where it’s nothing more than a meaningless pejorative aimed at people who disagree with them on any aspect of issues of race. In fact it’s even gotten to the point where it often isn’t even about race. I think it’s a last-gasp effort by many on the Left to hold on to the illusion that THEY are the champions of racial minorities, when, in fact, it’s becoming more and more obvious to more and more members of minority communities that Progressivism is more about enslaving them than it is about helping them, and I think the evidence of that will be born out in this election cycle.
Rusty, you are now experiencing what the rest of us did, the “childishness” that quickly veers into vitriol whenever a beloved concept is challenged. I can’t call those concepts “ideas” because I have yet to see real thought behind them.
I’d like to expand on your definition of “racism”. To me, it is assigning any quality, good or bad, to any individual based on that person’s skin color or ethnicity. So to me, it is racist to assume that someone from China is going to be good at math.
I like your term “race realism”. For example, it is not racist to assume that someone with a Masai heritage is going to have a body type and overall physiology more suited to long distance running than a sturdy Norwegian.
However, in this country anyway, I think some characteristics, such as intelligence, have been to some extent bred out of some groups of black people. I do not think this is due to their African heritage or skin color, but rather due to a toxic combination of cultural influences.
I think intelligence is cultivated, to move it from raw primitive ability to think into the realms of analysis and rationality, and we have had a cultural shift in many black subcultures where this has not happened. When we combine drug use in pregnant women, alcohol use in pregnant women, lack of intellectual stimulation for children growing up in dysfunctional situations without adult guidance or even supervision, poor nutrition, drug and alcohol use during the years when the brain is developing, and other external cultural pressures on a developing segment of a demographic, it is not “racist” to acknowledge that the intelligence of that subset has been negatively affected. When we factor in a cultural bias against developing intelligence in certain directions, and a social structure that contains no mental discipline (as even factory work demands to some extent) we are not “racist” if we admit that these subsets of our society are less intelligent, just because the subset we are discussing also happens to have black skin.
There are other subsets of American society with the same problems and characteristics, but with white people. Thomas Sowell has written about this in his book about rednecks and black culture, and I have been reading a book called “Hillbilly Elegy” that covers some of the same territory. However, these white subcultures, influenced by many of the same factors, are smaller and less concentrated in urban enclaves, so they are not as obvious or with such an impact on society in general. They serve mostly to show that skin color is not the deciding factor, but environment is.
I am seeing a decline in the thinking ability of millions of black people, who have been systematically deprived of the elements that lead to developed cognitive powers and mental discipline, to turn them into what is basically a mindless machine to be used to force social chaos, necessary for Leftism to move in and take over. The only characteristic I can think of that is part of this that might be related to actual race is the tribalism that makes so many black people, even those of high intellect, automatically use skin color as the basis of their politics and ideas and attitudes. I see this in the rejection of the beliefs and teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who is allegedly a hero of black people but whose core values and messages are now solely in the realm of white people, as black people have moved toward (or never really moved away from) using nothing but skin color as their criterion for any decision.
We can never analyze any of these ideas or possibilities, much less address them, because of the shrill shrieks of RACISM !!! that drown out any objective effort to get to the bottom of these divisive factors that are undermining our country.
“(Racism) is assigning any quality, good or bad, to any individual based on that person’s skin color or ethnicity.”
That’s not quite how I see it. It’s pretty obvious that intelligence is inherited; smart parents tend to have smart kids, etc. Extensive twin studies have also suggest a strong link between genetics, IQ and even behavior. The question then is are these heritable traits different between the races. Of course common sense tells you they should be just as any of the heritable traits we see with our own eyes are, and all attempts to measure intelligence of various races reach the same conclusion: Blacks scale on the lowest end, Whites rank higher, Asians and Jews at the tippy top. Cultural influences also certainly play a roll. So to me, it’s not racist to assume that someone from China is going to be good at math, it’s good odds.
The important thing to keep in mind in my opinion is to treat everybody you meet equally. Always remember that whatever differences you may recognize between the races are just averages that say nothing about an individual. The next Black guy you meet could be a well-adjusted Rhodes Scholar. And it goes without saying that our laws should treat everybody absolutely equally.
“The important thing to keep in mind in my opinion is to treat everybody you meet equally. “ Do you mean kind of like Dr. King’s dream that someday men will be judged on their character instead of the color of their skin?
BTW, regarding my comments on intelligence: I doubt that individual effects on the IQ of any person, such as a mother who used drugs and/or alcohol during her pregnancy, malnutrition, lack of nurturing, etc., affect the genetic makeup of the person, so it is probable that even an intellectually inferior man and an intellectually inferior woman, if one or both were below par intellectually due to external causes such as those I listed, could have a perfectly normal child, if that child were to be born after nine months in utero to a woman who had good prenatal nutrition and did not use drugs or alcohol, who is then reared in an environment in which he is properly nourished both mentally and emotionally, and encouraged to use and develop his brain.
In other words, while I believe that many black people are intellectually less capable, I also think this can be reversed in subsequent generations, and as I said are results of that toxic stew I described. I think many black people are committing intellectual and social suicide, but that this is an artifact of a destructive culture and not due to genetic weakness.
while I believe that many black people are intellectually less capable, I also think this can be reversed in subsequent generations
I totally agree with that and think all the determinative factors you mention can only have a positive influences on progeny. I don’t think we have any studies which track IQ through generations of the same family, but I’d bet dollars to donuts you’d see a dramatic net increase for families that stayed together and stressed education and work ethic.
I think many black people are committing intellectual and social suicide, but that this is an artifact of a destructive culture and not due to genetic weakness.
No doubt their culture is having a massive negative effect on them. Brain-dead victim movements like BLM are immensely destructive to black communities and our society as a whole, although you’ll never hear that in the media. Progressives unquestioningly embrace the victim mentality because they’re extremely committed to the narrative.
No doubt their culture is having a massive negative effect on them.
Cultural change is really the elephant in the room and goes way beyond black families. Globally upper class families are having fewer children while third world families are breeding like rabbits. The ramifications are already becoming evident in Europe, but eventually no country or region will be immune. One of the aspects that’s not talked about much is the tremendous amount of in-breeding in Muslim countries. By the middle of this century planet Earth won’t be recognizable unless something changes — and soon.
Brings us full circle to Trump. Immigration reform and border control is one of the most serious issues facing the country. Thankfully, I think more people are starting to choose the red pill.
This is too complicated to summarize or quote from—just take a look.
Let’s get back to that image of Hillary and Obama holding hands and promising that she will pick up the baton and continue what he has started. emphasis mine
The Daily Mail reported in 2014:
A self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S.hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.
‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and aformer CIA officer, told MailOnline.
She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..
‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’
‘The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’
‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research.
Yeah, gimme some more a that!
This is to Watson, because I know he reads this. Moderators, bear with me if you would. I was just banned last night. I suspect you probably don’t want this type of thing to go on forever so I’ll keep that in mind.
Watson, you and M. brought up race just as much as me in that thread, in fact M. was first to bring it up, engaging me directly about it, and it took off from there. So it’s highly disingenuous of you to accuse me of race baiting.
You asked me why I was asking a question and I answered because I was interested in your response. That’s about as honest and straightforward as an answer can be yet you claim it was “nonsensical, bullshit”.
What in blazes is wrong with you?
Let’s all take a walk though the Land of Oz:
The following is a recent comment from a progressive liberal and Democrat voter:
I find the normalization of white nationalism, white supremacists, and the alt-right to be truly troubling
And now, the following are some of today’s headlines:
WHITE MAN DRAGGED, BEATEN BEGGING FOR MERCY…
‘Protester’ smashing apartment windows on Live TV…
RIOTERS GO SHOE SHOPPING FOR SIZE…
Attempt to throw photographer into fire…
Victim’s Brother Calls All White People ‘Devils’…
White man with gun ‘allowed to drive away alive’…
Residents line up to buy firearms…
Congressional Black Caucus demands nationwide cop crackdown…
Media Paints Charlotte as Racist…
Do you have a good feeling that we are close to resolving some of our problems?
Yeah, I was listening to NPR today and after a brief, sanitized run down on the violent riots, er, I mean protests, they immediately segued to an in depth piece about Richard Metzger and the dozen or so white nationalists who live in Montana. Yeah, that makes sense, that’s the real story.
How about the journalist who was being beaten and kicked until someone yelled “He’s not white! He’s Asian!” upon which his black thug attackers helped him to his feet and apologized to him.
BTW, the cop who shot the guy who had his arms in the air is being charged with first degree murder. I wonder what more these
I’m sure you’re aware of this but that neo-Nazi Dalai Lama had a few things to say recently about the Middle Eastern immigrant crisis in Europe. In his opinion they have let in “too many” and they should be “only accommodated temporarily. The goal should be to return and help rebuild their own countries.”
“Germany cannot become an Arab country. Germany is Germany….There are so many”
In other words, the Dalai Lama is a vile racist and not welcome to post on blogs as pure as ‘Left is Right’.
GREAT opinion in the NYT about PC:
“When I was growing up in the ’60s and early ’70s, conservatives were the enforcers of conformity. It was the right that was suspicious, sniffing out Communists and scrutinizing public figures for signs of sedition.
Now the role of oppressor has passed to the left. In Australia, where I spoke, Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to do or say anything likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate,” providing alarming latitude in the restriction of free speech. It is Australia’s conservatives arguing for the amendment of this law.
As a lifelong Democratic voter, I’m dismayed by the radical left’s ever-growing list of dos and don’ts — by its impulse to control, to instill self-censorship as well as to promote real censorship, and to deploy sensitivity as an excuse to be brutally insensitive to any perceived enemy. There are many people who see these frenzies about cultural appropriation, trigger warnings, micro-aggressions and safe spaces as overtly crazy. The shrill tyranny of the left helps to push them toward Donald Trump.
Ironically, only fellow liberals will be cowed by terror of being branded a racist (a pejorative lobbed at me in recent days — one that, however groundless, tends to stick). But there’s still such a thing as a real bigot, and a real misogynist. In obsessing over micro-aggressions like the sin of uttering the commonplace Americanism “you guys” to mean “you all,” activists persecute fellow travelers who already care about equal rights.”
Read the whole thing, it’s short. It’s almost eerie how closely this reflects what we’ve been talking about and my recent experience at LIR blog.