He admitted not knowing what exactly the rally was about. "Some of you see it as a clarion call for action. Some of you more ironic cats see it as a 'clarion call' for 'action.' " He could only speak to his own intent, he said, which was to show that civil discourse and cooperation are possible. "We work together to get things done every day," he said. Most people are not political animals—they "don't live solely as Democrats or Republicans or liberals or conservatives. Most of them [are] just a little late for something they have to do." Likewise, things are not as bad as they seem.I've previously expressed my disdain for moderates, summing it up with this maxim:
To moderates and liberals, the pursuit of ultimate justice is subservient to appeasing all sides and avoiding "extremism" (read: an actual position)But how could I argue against civility, cooperation, and compromise? Well if liberals love it, there's probably something wrong with it. Some observations from the Rally attendees and a Salon.com article on the theme:
Kevin Guertler, 26, carried a sign saying, "Meh!" As a "raging apathetic," his goal was to protest protests. "If you really want to get things done, you don't go to a rally," said his friend, Chris Ellis. "You go get a job. You go start a social group. You don't hold a sign."This insistence on "calmness" and togetherness, reaching across the aisle and coming together is intended to paint conservatives as spit-spewing crazies. They contend conservatives are all irrational haters who engage in reflexive opposition and refuse to yield on anything. On the surface, they only ask that the Right opens their ears, listens to their side, and works together for the good of everyone. How could anyone oppose such a noble goal? How could anyone argue with a political landscape defined more by compassion than by enmity, one where the brightest of both parties come together and offer solutions combining the best of both worlds? Yet note that embedded within the calls for compromise is an underlying animus, an omnipresent allusion to the bucolic Right's presumed rage. From the Salon.com article:
The Rally To Restore Sanity and/or Fear, held on the National Mall Saturday afternoon, ridiculed the whole idea of a political rally. But it also managed to send a message about the broken political system, how the media abets it, and why it's OK to care—even for professional ironists.
When we move together, you see, we can literally create a groundswell.
But if you didn't feel a lump in your throat watching thousands of Americans on the Mall soulfully command us to join hands. My fellow Americans, if we don't have love, we've got zip.
What this crazy, not entirely well-thought out, quasi-free-for-all was about, it turns out, was we, the people. The proud, generous, spirited, non-yelling and non-bullying real Americans who know that "If we amplify everything we hear nothing."
Was Saturday the beginning of a new dawn in the American character? Did it cure hysteria, paranoia and rampant jerkwaddery? Only time will tell, but don't hold your breath. It was a message to the world that we are not the sum of our loudest, angriest parts.In essence, this isn't a call for compromise, it's a call for surrender. As a conservative, finding common ground is tantamount to failure. Adopting apathy and not engaging in active opposition means the progressive zeitgeist moves forward. Conservatism and traditionalism only work if its adherents have a steadfast loyalty to the underlying principles. If only milquetoast, half-hearted right-wingers exist, then the Ivory Tower and mainstream media push against an impotent force. They push against a cohort that will slowly cede ground and ultimately lose everything. And if we must express anger and rage at injustice, inexorable failures, and harmful policies, then alright. Only a man without principle could stand by silently as injustice reigns and a great nation falls. [FWIW: I do find both Colbert and Stewart quite adept at comedy. I often find them hilarious, yet I abhor their content and intentions.]
Update: HotAir calls it the "Rally to Support Hipster Irony". Of course, when they say hipster, they're really referring to SWPLs, but we can forgive their ignorance. Great quote:
Basically, this is a celebration of political laziness masquerading as ironic detachment, which is something generations have enjoyed in their early adulthood without making it an industry. Instead of having making actual, serious, and developed political arguments, it’s much easier to make fun of those who do on both sides of the political divide and pretend that one is above it all.
45 comments:
ReasonTV interviewing rally-goers was somewhat amusing.
B.B.
@ BB: Great video, thanks for the link.
FWIW:
I don't think liberals are crazy. I just think they're dead wrong about practical initiatives and their values couldn't be more twisted. Though occasionally, I do have sympathies with their perspective:
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2010/07/many-types-of-conservatives-and.html
This rally was aimed at liberals to.
It isn't conservative bashing you claim it is.
Civility helps support the status quo, which is liberal, so of course, liberals argue for civility.
Only conservative positions are condemned as extremist. Joy Behar called Sharron Angle a bitch who will go to hell for her "Wave" ad. Did Joy Behar call Sotomayor a bitch for her divisive comment about being a "wise Latina"? Of course not.
The whole Ozzy Osbourne versus Yusef Islam skit at the rally was awful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2pfapM8H7Y
"Civility helps support the status quo, which is liberal, so of course, liberals argue for civility."
How could that be if conservatism ipso facto seeks to maintain the status quo?
Hillarious.
They are trying to paint themselves as staid conservatives. Now that they are in control, they want to conserve it. They despise the "radical" conservatives who are energized and demand, gasp, justice for people who are normal. The so called conservatives are just tired of underwriting idiotic behaviors like single mothers and their illegitimate brats and skyrocketing costs in the lowest performing public schools, and HIV patients, and illegal immigrants and all other stupid loser behaviors.
They contend conservatives are all irrational haters who engage in reflexive opposition and refuse to yield on anything.
You agree though, at least with the second part.
On the surface, they only ask that the Right opens their ears, listens to their side, and works together for the good of everyone. How could anyone oppose such a noble goal?
Do you disagree that the right should even listen? How do you even know that the "traditionalism" you advocate mindlessly clinging to is even worth anything if you don't even listen to alternative points of view?
What did they do; first they mocked patriotism,
I watched the link. You're full of shit. They mocked the practice of anyone on the left or right bragging that they love America more than the other guy. Considering how much more habitual this kind of argument is on the right, the balance was a generous gesture.
Saw this pic of the crowd:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/30/rally_sanity_slide_show/image-2.jpg
Now, nothing is surprising about the color of those faces; nothing is wrong with the racial or gender or age demographics of the attendees.
However, the race demographics seem to suggest the group was less diverse than that at a Tea Pary rally; the gender demographics show a more heavily male demo.
So, what do you suppose the MSM will say about this group? That the Stewart-Colbert rally was atttended by bunch of angry, young, white males?
Hardly.
That the attendees showed a lack of diversity?
Hardly.
"Do you disagree that the right should even listen?"
Ugh, conservatives listen.
They hear a stupid, counter-intuitive idea that hasn't ever worked before, doesn't work now and won't ever work. Then they go through and explain all its failures and the mechanisms and human nature that work against it which is why it isn't working and won't work in the future.
Then the left calls them anti-science religionist haters even if they aren't even religious, or creationists.
@ Dave:
You agree though, at least with the second part.
The operative word was "reflexive". Conservative opposition is, as silly girl notes, largely based in reason.
Do you disagree that the right should even listen?
See silly girl's comment where she rips you apart. We've listened alright, but that doesn't mean anything you've said is reasonable or that we should cede ground in reaching compromise. When leftist say "listen", they mean "step back and let up re-engineer everything. And if you don't step back, we'll hurl vapid invectives at you until you do, idiot!"
I watched the link. You're full of shit.
Yea, you've proven yourself such a disinterested observer.
I really wpould like to have an intelligent Leftist make a case for why his program is a good thing. As things stand, perceptive Rightists see the left's program leading to civilizational ruin.
Can a thoughtful Leftist explain eiher why this won't happen, or why it will but that's a good thing.
In all honesty, I have never seen Leftists make good-faith arguments. All they do is call us names, or snark. Maybe sixty years of controlling the media and education has made them complacent.
@ Dave:
I've decided to grant you a guest post.
Topics: Why is HBD wrong? Why is conservative politics whereby whites are racially conscious wrong - morally, socially, and practically? Should America seek to maintain its white majority and the commensurate culture or should it open its borders and adopt compete multiculturalism? If the latter, will this have any repercussions for the state of the nation (education, crime, poverty, innovation, etc...)? Are there any positions taken by racially conscious whites that are acceptable - including but not limited to racial differences in intelligence, crime, promiscuity, and social civility and seeking to maintain a racial majority in their countries? And finally, why do you troll this site so much? Don't you have anything better to do with your life?
Anyone else:
Feel free to add to my list of questions for Dave's guest post.
For Dave:
#1 - As a childless SWPL claiming to live in East LA, why are you so worried about what whites "think" about NAMs?
#2 - And if there's so little to fear from being around NAMs, would you ever let your child attend a public school that was 45% mestizo and 45% black?
Civility is only possible or prudent if there are no existential issues 'on the table', so to speak. Demographic hegemony is an existential issue, and it is 'on the table'. Being civil about such an issue is insane. If you're on the other side from me, you're my enemy, plain and simple. Even if you agree with me on a lot of other non-existential issues, like, say, a lot of libertarians, you're still my enemy if you're fighting me on an existential issue. That's not civil, and it's not an argument, it is rather a drawn sword. Want civility from me? Take the existential issues off the table---which amounts to surrendering on them unconditionally to me. Again, not civil. Anyone who groks the existential nature of the issue won't be civil to you, EXCEPT as a matter of deception for tactical or strategic advantage. Since I see no such advantage with the audience here, I'll tell it to you straight in the hopes that just how high the stakes are will penetrate a few skulls. Suffice it to say that if I view something as existentially important to me and mine, and I see an avenue of victory, I'm inclined to take it regardless of any supposed rules of engagement. If you like a comfortable 1st world existence, tread carefully.
It's funny how Jews don't like the Tea Party, even though the Tea Party likes Jews.
Frum hates the Tea Party so much that he's talking about how a third party should be created just to undermine them, and now we have Stewart going through all this trouble to depict them as "extreme".
The operative word was "reflexive".
Yes, as in:
Well if liberals love it, there's probably something wrong with it.
That's the definition of reflexive.
We've listened alright, but that doesn't mean anything you've said is reasonable or that we should cede ground in reaching compromise.
Does it mean you should stop listening? Does it mean you should now dedicate yourself to reflexive opposition, as you've JUST advocated doing?
Yea, you've proven yourself such a disinterested observer.
You're even less disinterested, so I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.
If anyone wants to take a look at the video itself, they'll see how much more harmless it is than you're trying to mislead your readers to believe.
@PA
I really would like to have an intelligent Leftist make a case for why his program is a good thing.
Maybe you don't think I'm intelligent, but I've consistently been willing to explain why I think the way I do.
"I've decided to grant you a guest post."
Just saw this -- quite an honor. Sincerely. I'll be at my most civil in my response, and you can post or not post it as you see fit.
Maybe you don't think I'm intelligent, but I've consistently been willing to explain why I think the way I do.
I don't know your commetns well enough to judge and haven't read everything you posted here. My comment was directed at Leftists in geneal, as their MO is name-calling, snark, or "you're wrong!", but never plain arguments.
"Does it mean you should stop listening? Does it mean you should now dedicate yourself to reflexive opposition, as you've JUST advocated doing?"
Do you have kids?
I mean honestly, my kids are always coming up with some hair brained idea that I have to explain to them won't work. You can't just listen to fools who stand by failed systems of governance. Any system that is falling deeper into debt by the day is based on some flawed mechanisms, premises. It needs to be re examined. The left doesn't want to do that. All they are doing is the same old vote buying bull to stay in power and spread government largesse to their buddies. All the left wants to do is portray certain groups as victims to play on public sympathy and then fund programs that fuel problems like illegitimacy and sky high medical costs.
We have listened. We have observed.
The left's ideas don't work.
That is our problem with them.
Some intentions were good, but the actual programs are worse than doing nothing.
I would like to hear a Leftist try to prove that social programs that help the "disadavantaged" provide motivation for the "disadvantaged" to succeed. Let such a Leftist use data collected over the last 50 years. Good luck.
Part 1
How do you even know that the "traditionalism" you advocate mindlessly clinging to is even worth anything if you don't even listen to alternative points of view?
Here's how we know. The alternative points of view that you advocate have not only been listened to, they've been implemented for the last 50 years. What planet have you been on? They've caused untold ruin already, and have put in motion permanent demographic change that will turn America third world soon enough. We know because we can compare the America that we conservatives thought was a far better place 50 years ago, to the multicultural dystopia that we have now. It was better in nearly every respect in 1960. Surely it was better for our traditional majority, who made all the laws, created all the businesses, invented all the inventions, and made America the preeminent nation in the world a mere 50 years ago. I would argue that leftist policies have been catastrophic for our traditional minority too, and that with the demographic replacement you've ushered in, your worldview will ultimately be worse for both our traditional majority and minority. Your policies result in a temporary boost for third worlders who immigrate here, but as soon as they are here in sufficient numbers, and turn America into a third world country, it'll not be better for them either, and much, much worse for America's whites and blacks. That'll be the result of your radical egalitarianism and multicultural religion. With the relativism that leftists have ushered in, we've seen a degradation in nearly every aspect of society. Where there used to be standards of behavior, dress, accountability, etc, and a collective sense of right and wrong, we now have relativism and the 'no judging' of PC . Back then, when other groups had different mores and behaviors that we deemed substandard, as a confident and self-respecting group, we named those behaviors substandard. If a group consistently underperformed, be it in endeavors of intellect or others, we didn't run away from rational conclusions that are now considered too horrible to consider. We had excellence as an ideal; not the impossible attempt to make all groups equal in all meaningful respects. There's nothing mindless about rationally comparing a period when, by and large, our views held sway, with our present times, when yours do (and projecting out, it looks to be orders of magnitude more grim than anything we're presently experiencing). I overheard a soundbite from Stewart's rally where he said 'We're experiencing hard times, not end times'. I disagree. We are experiencing end times as a first world nation. Demography is destiny.
Part 1
How do you even know that the "traditionalism" you advocate mindlessly clinging to is even worth anything if you don't even listen to alternative points of view?
Here's how we know. The alternative points of view that you advocate have not only been listened to, they've been implemented for the last 50 years. What planet have you been on? They've caused untold ruin already, and have put in motion permanent demographic change that will turn America third world soon enough. We know because we can compare the America that we conservatives thought was a far better place 50 years ago, to the multicultural dystopia that we have now. It was better in nearly every respect in 1960. Surely it was better for our traditional majority, who made all the laws, created all the businesses, invented all the inventions, and made America the preeminent nation in the world a mere 50 years ago. I would argue that leftist policies have been catastrophic for our traditional minority too, and that with the demographic replacement you've ushered in, your worldview will ultimately be worse for both our traditional majority and minority. Your policies result in a temporary boost for third worlders who immigrate here, but as soon as they are here in sufficient numbers, and turn America into a third world country, it'll not be better for them either, and much, much worse for America's whites and blacks. That'll be the result of your radical egalitarianism and multicultural religion. With the relativism that leftists have ushered in, we've seen a degradation in nearly every aspect of society. Where there used to be standards of behavior, dress, accountability, etc, and a collective sense of right and wrong, we now have relativism and the 'no judging' of PC .
Part 2
Back then, when other groups had different mores and behaviors that we deemed substandard, as a confident and self-respecting group, we named those behaviors substandard. If a group consistently underperformed, be it in endeavors of intellect or others, we didn't run away from rational conclusions that are now considered too horrible to consider. We had excellence as an ideal; not the impossible attempt to make all groups equal in all meaningful respects. There's nothing mindless about rationally comparing a period when, by and large, our views held sway, with our present times, when yours do (and projecting out, it looks to be orders of magnitude more grim than anything we're presently experiencing). I overheard a soundbite from Stewart's rally where he said 'We're experiencing hard times, not end times'. I disagree. We are experiencing end times as a first world nation. Demography is destiny.
As your alternative points of view brought us relativism, they made noticing that certain behaviors were substandard a thought crime, so those different behaviors came to be regarded as simply different, but just as good, and just as valid as those of the majority group. With relativism, standards go out the window, and you end up with widespread bad behavior that previously was limited primarily to the underclass, because no longer are there social consequences to base and crass behavior. We went from not tolerating bad behavior, to tolerating it, to actually celebrating it (look at the popularity of vile rap and gangsters), and much of that stemmed from the adoption of multiculturalism and ideas like diversity being an inherent strength, so that no one group's mores and values formed the basis of our society.
Part 3
It was the end of how America thought of itself, or at least how the 'elites' thought of, and taught of America. In short order, with that shift in thinking we had the vilification of whites with notions like White Privilege, courses in Whiteness Studies teaching that whites are evil and non-whites noble, etc, etc. Yeah, it's safe to say that your group's 'alternative points of view' have been given their fair hearing, with catastrophic results.
Pardon us if we vitiate leftist platitudes about “mindlessly clinging to traditionalism”. Mindless is ruining your country for false notions about equality. Mindless is allowing your own group to be replaced by third worlders. Mindless is having a preening sense of superiority over the suicidal celebration of diversity. Mindless (no, evil) is valuing temporary status over the safety and well being of your progeny. You either don't understand, or don't care that you're consigning your kids and grandkids to living in third world conditions where they will, in all likelihood, at the very least, be resented (or far worse) at levels far greater than the resentment and loathing we see today (you think other groups are not emboldened as they gain numerical superiority?), and I'm pretty certain it's 'don't care' rather than 'don't understand', because though leftists make all the correct noises about diversity being a strength, they generally make good and sure that they don't live in neighborhoods too diverse, and if at all possible, won't send their kids to schools that are too diverse.
Part 4
You social engineers seem to deny something that is as obvious as the day is long to conservatives; that different human subpopulations are differently abled and create very different societies. You talk as though you think that race is a social construct and doesn't matter, and that replacing whites with Africans or Mestizos will have no impact on the type of society we have. You will not objectively look at places where whites have already been replaced with Blacks or Mestizos. You cannot name a single place where such population replacement has not resulted in worse living conditions. Not a one, anywhere, in the world.
Your form of 'argument' on these matters is pure ad hominem. Character assassination, invective, platitudes, and speech codes (codified or merely PC) are about the best 'argument' that you come up with. I wish that your arguments were merely pathetic, but sadly, they're suicidal.
Yeah! What John said! Copied and saved.
@SillyGirl
"I mean honestly, my kids are always coming up with some hair brained idea that I have to explain to them won't work."
But you do listen to your kids when they're talking, at least some of the time. And bother taking the time to explain why they are wrong.
@Silly Girl and John
All due respect, it doesn't really sound like either of you have been doing much listening at all. More like, you've gotten stuck on some idea of what defines "the left" and stopped listening long ago. Maybe that's why both of your posts are so full of conviction, but so short of actual examples of what you're talking about. Empty hostility and scorn, in other words.
John, in particular, for all the words you used, you really need to be more precise. Not all of us were alive with you in 1960. What are the sub-standard behaviors that were elevated to positions of equality? How was it done? Why did the decent majority of Americans allow it to happen? How does something become a "thought crime"?
Dave, I had another long screed to provide you with details that you said my previous posts lack, but in the end, I figured why spend the time to hunt down all the links to prove to you that the main thrust of my argument is true (that replacing Whites with NAMs will lead to third world conditions in this country, and is therefore a very bad thing.) Particularly when I recognize that in your response, you make no attempt whatsoever to refute any of the many points that I made. You throw up red herrings about empty 'hostility and scorn' because you have no real answers to the things I wrote. I'm certain the same will be true of the questions One STDV posed to you.
You know perfectly well that there are a zillion 'examples' that I could provide you of how NAMs create societies far less functional than those created by whites. I'm not going to waste my time on what is tantamount to you standing with a football and telling me to 'Go deep', with no intention of throwing the ball, i.e. actually responding to anything I wrote.
I'm guessing that you wouldn't care about stats and links anyway, as your belief in equality is more a religion than a reasoned conclusion, because your beliefs are entirely faith based, despite facts to the contrary, so what good would it do to show you stats and links? None, I suspect.
John, I've already responded to your arguments with several requests for clarification. You have neglected to answer any of my questions.
I have no idea what statistics you'd have provided if only I had been deemed worthy of your time. But I'm sure you can provide evidence that the nations of Africa and South America are less successful in all sorts of ways than those of Europe and North America. That's why I didn't ask you to go to the trouble -- it's stipulated.
What I did ask for, I will ask for again, in different language.
-If the elites of 1960 were so good and just, if they had such a perfected understanding of what behavior made for a good society, and were so deserving of their elite status, then how were they defeated and marginalized by people with inferior, suicidal ideas?
-You wrote "If a group consistently underperformed, be it in endeavors of intellect or others, we didn't run away from rational conclusions that are now considered too horrible to consider." What are those conclusions?
-What are the substandard behaviors that have become acceptable, and how are you measuring their inferiority?
If you don't feel like answering my questions, don't feel the need to spend two hundred words explaining why. Just don't reply, and spend the time you save doing something you enjoy.
Excellent comments by Jehu and John! Dave, your last comments show you as being too ignorant to be worth John's time.
manhood101 . com cures impotent white knighting conservatism.
Part 1 – yes, another hideously long post(s).
Dave, being new to Onestdv's site, I don't know if you're in the habit of just criticizing what others write without trying to refute the points they make (as it seems so far) or not, but I'll give this a go with you.
-What are the substandard behaviors that have become acceptable, and how are you measuring their inferiority?
Do you notice the pathology in the black community, Dave? Can you describe it? That is basically what I am talking about. If you don't know, or can't see what those substandard behaviors are, I'm afraid it will be difficult to make you comprehend, because it's less about seeing than it is about acknowledging what you see. You probably think that to label any behavior as substandard is an evil in itself. That would be 'judging', and a 'good' person never judges people of other groups. Nevertheless, I'll address some things that were unacceptable then, but are acceptable now, or at least above criticism, and how I think the change took place.
The reason for the change in how America regarded different behaviors is rooted in relativism and never negatively judging minority actions. When we decided that it was 'racist' to regard others different behaviors as crass, tacky, crude, or other, when they were not in accord with our own behavioral norms, it gave equal footing and treatment to behaviors that were previously deemed substandard in our own culture. People of different ethnicities, and more distinctly, different races, actually do have different temperaments, which result in different behaviors; behaviors that would likely be considered quite normal in their ancestral lands, but when side by side with the cultural standards of a different, majority group, would have been regarded as not only different, but substandard within the majority group. Around the time of the civil rights movement, there began a great morality play about how we regarded other groups, their behaviors, their differences, etc. Because different behaviors that were previously regarded as substandard within our own community (examples to follow), were far more commonplace within other communities, as part of the ongoing morality play, and because it had already begun to be regarded as evil (mostly by those on the left) to regard different behavior in other groups as in any way substandard, since it was not substandard for other groups, then by default, our definition of substandard behavior changed to accommodate the other's ways and behaviors. If the same behavior was not substandard in their group, then it became no longer substandard for our group either. Relativism results in the lowest behavioral common denominator.
Part 1 – yes another hideously long post(s).
Dave, being new to Onestdv's site, I don't know if you're in the habit of just criticizing what others write without trying to refute the points they make (as it seems so far) or not, but I'll give this a go with you.
-What are the substandard behaviors that have become acceptable, and how are you measuring their inferiority?
Do you notice the pathology in the black community, Dave? Can you describe it? That is basically what I am talking about. If you don't know, or can't see what those substandard behaviors are, I'm afraid it will be difficult to make you comprehend, because it's less about seeing than it is about acknowledging what you see. You probably think that to label any behavior as substandard is an evil in itself. That would be 'judging', and a 'good' person never judges people of other groups. Nevertheless, I'll address some things that were unacceptable then, but are acceptable now, or at least above criticism, and how I think the change took place.
The reason for the change in how America regarded different behaviors is rooted in relativism and never negatively judging minority actions. When we decided that it was 'racist' to regard others different behaviors as crass, tacky, crude, or other, when they were not in accord with our own behavioral norms, it gave equal footing and treatment to behaviors that were previously deemed substandard in our own culture. People of different ethnicities, and more distinctly, different races, actually do have different temperaments, which result in different behaviors; behaviors that would likely be considered quite normal in their ancestral lands, but when side by side with the cultural standards of a different, majority group, would have been regarded as not only different, but substandard within the majority group.
Part 2
Around the time of the civil rights movement, there began a great morality play about how we regarded other groups, their behaviors, their differences, etc. Because different behaviors that were previously regarded as substandard within our own community (examples to follow), were far more commonplace within other communities, as part of the ongoing morality play, and because it had already begun to be regarded as evil (mostly by those on the left) to regard different behavior in other groups as in any way substandard, since it was not substandard for other groups, then by default, our definition of substandard behavior changed to accommodate the other's ways and behaviors. If the same behavior was not substandard in their group, then it became no longer substandard for our group either. Relativism results in the lowest behavioral common denominator.
A concrete example for you would be in the realm of sports and sportsmanship. Before blacks entirely took over professional sports (owing to superior explosive athleticism), you did not see the over the top displays of self-aggrandizement after every play, the chest pounding, spiking, throat slitting pantomimes, etc, etc. Those were black introduced behaviors. In white society, such displays were regarded as crass and buffoon-like. They represented poor taste and poor sportsmanship, and a white behaving like that would have been regarded as quite probably retarded in 1960, or at the least, an utter buffoon. But because so many blacks behaved in ways that seemed crass to the majority (though normal in their community), it began to seem mean spirited to keep pointing out the crass behavior, and as part of the morality play of never criticizing minorities, we stopped calling crass behavior crass behavior, and in quitting doing so, there became a creeping tacit acceptance of the behavior as being now within the bounds of what is okay.
Part 3
If you are bombarded with the tacit message that there's nothing wrong here, it's just different, you begin to internalize that. People will eventually regard it as acceptable, and later, even something to be emulated, which is what has happened far too often. As another example, take rap music; In the 50s and early sixties, that would have been regarded as so vile by the white populace, that no one would have bought it. As something approaching near 30% of black males have done time in jail and/or prison, that type of music detailing the kind of vile realities of life in the ghetto is not a representation of some anomaly in an otherwise same as white society. It is representative of a huge portion of black society. And since it is now deemed 'racist' to to call bad behavior, bad behavior (at least as regards whites calling blacks behavior bad is concerned), you end up with even white kids thinking that said behavior is not only not bad, but actually something to emulate, so you end up with wiggers talking and otherwise emulating the black underclass. This behavior would have been unimaginable in 1960. And speaking of language, there's another example of a substandard manifestation of black society.
Many blacks, to this day, don't know basic English verb conjugation, and I mean basic. Black speech and ebonics endure despite slavery having ended 150 years ago. You'd think that blacks, by now, would have dropped the plantation grammar in America. Not the case. Black speech is often times regarded as 'keeping it real' in much of black America. Speaking properly is often a sign of being an Uncle Tom in many quarters. It is something they're proud of, in a militant way, as in 'I'm a real authentic black, and who are you, Whitey, to criticize the way I speak'.
Part 5
And it's not just literal crime, which, by the way, is diligently covered up the the media lest we show just how disproportionately blacks commit crimes. It is also an incivility that pervades in much of Black America.
These examples of bad behavior seem so self evident that I didn't think it required detailing, Dave, but there you go. There are a zillion more (in dress and many other aspects), and the premise is the same every time. You don't criticize something that would formerly have been regarded as utterly retarded (pants on the ground, anyone?) because the people behaving badly are minorities, and it ends up being emulated in our own community. Relativism.
-You wrote "If a group consistently underperformed, be it in endeavors of intellect or others, we didn't run away from rational conclusions that are now considered too horrible to consider." What are those conclusions?
Seriously, Dave? Utterly stumped? What could those rational conclusions about groups consistently underperforming in matters of intellect be? Here, I'll help. Groups whose average IQ consistently test at levels far below those of whites, whenever and wherever in the world the tests are given, and end up creating the same dysfunctional societies wherever in the world they are, whether or not the host country had any legacy of slavery or not, are in fact, not as intelligent as Whites, or NE Asians for that matter, and that intelligence, or lack thereof actually has real world implications, and that their relatively lower (group) stations in life are not the result of white racism, but rather, lower group intelligence.
Part 6 of response to Dave
-If the elites of 1960 were so good and just, if they had such a perfected understanding of what behavior made for a good society, and were so deserving of their elite status, then how were they defeated and marginalized by people with inferior, suicidal ideas?
I didn't say that the elites were so good. I said the state of the country was far superior back then. The elites proved to be decidedly undeserving of their status. They ushered in ruinous policies. Here's what I view as the genesis of the victory of suicidal liberal policies.
Altruism. Kindness. The legacy of Hitler. A sense of modesty that precluded rubbing peoples noses in the fact that their behavior was substandard or that their civilizational achievement was negligible, so that we downplayed our own achievements, and elevated those of out-groups. It became regarded as a sign of goodness to elevate others paltry achievements and minimize our own group's achievements. It became, somehow, a sign of goodness to not blame people for behaving badly, or committing crime, or doing poorly in matters intellectual, and even more status was to be derived from blaming whites. Somehow, when memes such as these take hold, and there's status involved, the memes take on lives of their own, and have little to do with reality. Otherwise smart people actually convince themselves that things that are patently false, are actually true.
The civil rights movement actually went far beyond giving blacks equal opportunities and rights. It gave them special opportunities and unique rights. It gave them preferential treatment.
I think that people who wanted to give blacks the same rights as whites saw themselves as morally superior to any that opposed civil rights. They probably stood on solid ground in many respects, although those who opposed civil rights were disproportionately southerners, and probably knew more experientially about how the races mixed, as opposed to many others, lacking actual experience of living around blacks, who believed that theoretically, all humans are the same in all meaningful ways. The problem, as I see it, is not in giving blacks equal rights under the law; it is that they went far beyond that to give them preferential treatment.
Part 7 of response to Dave
Anyway, the battle lines were drawn, and even many who supported civil rights, came to change their opinion of them when the government went well beyond equal treatment to preferential treatment. Those people joined those who had originally opposed integration, and even though facts on the ground had changed, i.e., that civil rights had morphed into preferential treatment and forced integration, and though it was logical and reasonable to reject the coddling and preferential treatment that blacks received, the polarization and sense of moral superiority had already taken hold in liberals, even though the pendulum of civil rights had swung to preferential treatment for blacks, many liberals clung to the idea of being superior to those who now objected to preferential treatment of blacks. Though circumstances had changed, they went from thinking people who opposed civil rights in the first place were morally inferior, to thinking that people who opposed preferential treatment of blacks were also inferior. They went from being probably right in the first instance, to definitely wrong in the second. It became a matter of pride and status among liberals to show how solicitous you were to non-whites, and again, more status was to be had by flagellating whites in the process.
That's the genesis of the divide. It is a basic good vs evil scenario in this polarized nation. Any policies that supported non-whites, even if at the expense of whites, was thought to be good (and status raising), and any opposition to said policies was thought to be evil, stupid and prole, regardless of the fact that actual discrimination is at this point, all against whites. And when people in academia, and the media are reinforcing these ideas, they become circular.
It doesn't matter to liberals at this point that whites are legally and institutionally discriminated against. It doesn't matter to liberals that bringing in hordes of low IQ Mestizos, who are net tax users, will ultimately cripple the country, changing it irrevocably. Immigration policy is not based on what is good for the country. It is based on status seeking hubris and pseudo morality.
Part 8 (and mercifully, last response to Dave)
It doesn't matter to liberals at this point that whites are legally and institutionally discriminated against. It doesn't matter to liberals that bringing in hordes of low IQ Mestizos, who are net tax users, will ultimately cripple the country, changing it irrevocably. Immigration policy is not based on what is good for the country. It is based on status seeking hubris and pseudo morality.
Your side won the meme war back in the 60s because initially, when civil rights was just about equal opportunity, you had firm ground under your feet. It's almost ironic that you have now done a near 180 on discrimination. You think it's perfectly okay to discriminate against whites, which is what AA does. You probably support insane legal notions like Disparate Impact, finding discrimination where there is no evidence of it, just because Blacks and Mestizos can't take tests as well as whites.
Your side long ago lost moral high ground. Yours is the side of evil at this point.
And I didn't even get into matters like it being natural and normal to favor your own over the other (in much the same way you favor your own children over others), and conversely, of course, it is unnatural to favor the other over your own. If white people of 150 years ago had thought like the suicidal moral preeners on the left these days do, there would be little left of the white race, as their radical egalitarian views would have ushered in third world immigration that much sooner, so that instead of whites being a minority in 25 more years, it would have happened already 50 years ago, and Europe would already be majority muslim, America majority Mestizo, etc, turning both Europe and the Anglosphere into third world dystopias, because demography is destiny. Your country is as your demographics are.
John, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Compared to your opening statements, I think these posts are very substantive.
What's ironic to me is that you've accused me of having being "religious" in my politics, in that I believe what I want to believe regardless of facts. Of course, as you've admitted, you don't know this about me -- it's just your assumption. But often I find that it's you whose politics are based on faith in unprovable assumptions.
For example, "demography is destiny." That's mystical language, and you've now repeated it to the point where it feels like a chant. And of course, it's quite unscientific -- whatever statistical tendencies you may have familiarized yourself with, they don't predict the future to a certainty.
I find your examples of sub-standard behavior to be fairly lacking. I asked you how you determine that one behavior pattern is inferior to another. You haven't answered. How is wearing your pants low worth less than any other fashion trend? Why should celebrating a touchdown be seen as buffoonish? These behaviors have only arbitrary values -- otherwise they're completely superficial. You prefer one, and insist that we shame the other, only because you assume that behavior associated with whites is automatically superior -- another religious tendency.
You've also managed to ignore the fact that society does already criticize and punish black behavior, even if the behavior is superficially harmless. All the sports stuff you're talking about? How many rules are there in the NFL and NBA to curtail "excessive displays of aggression"? (Of course, the same displays are worshipped in professional wrestling.) And try getting a job wearing fashion associated with black culture -- your odds decrease drastically.
I think you'd have the chance to get on solid ground if you argued for reasonable immigration restrictions, or against specific affirmative action policies, based on facts. But as it stands, with your talk of good vs. evil, your ridiculous exaggerations, your faith in premises you can't prove -- your arguments are sorrily unsophisticated.
Part 1 of 2
I think you'd have the chance to get on solid ground if you argued for reasonable immigration restrictions, or against specific affirmative action policies, based on facts. But as it stands, with your talk of good vs. evil, your ridiculous exaggerations, your faith in premises you can't prove -- your arguments are sorrily unsophisticated.
You may regard my arguments as exaggerations and unsophisticated, but the major contention that I have is that different human subpopulations, specifically Whites, Blacks, and Mestizos create very different societies, and that those created by Whites are superior, which is why Mestizos and Blacks, despite their incessant charges of racism against us, continue to come here in the millions, or won't leave, as the case may be. I also contend that as the percentage of the white population declines and is replaced by third worlders, the conditions will become more like the third world (as in Detroit, even though in the yoke of a white infrastructure). I contend that replacing whites with third worlders will result in third world conditions, which you regard as a mystical concept.
It's entirely unsurprising that “demography is destiny” would be “mystical” to you, Dave, if your contributions to this thread are representative of your ability to grasp concepts.
Whether you find my examples of substandard behavior to be adequate or not is moot to me. Regardless of how well or poorly I define it, doesn't alter the substandard behavior. It's rather like pornography in that respect. You know it when you see it, and if you can't see the vast difference in behavior between the black and white communities, it's because you choose not to, or you're not terribly swift. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you're not giving me much to work with in this thread.
If you can't see that Detroit is as Detroit is because it is populated by blacks, it's because you choose not to. If you can't see that Zimbabwe is as Zimbabwe is because it's populated, and now run by, blacks, it's because you don't want to. If you can point to a single place in the whole world where conditions improved upon replacing a white population with blacks, I'd look forward to seeing it.
Likewise, if Mexicans replace whites in a community, the community becomes more like Mexico.
Part 2 of 3
I'm not at all surprised that you were 'mystified' by 'demography is destiny', seeing how utterly stumped you were about what conclusions were to be drawn in the following exchange, which you blithely ignored.
-You wrote "If a group consistently underperformed, be it in endeavors of intellect or others, we didn't run away from rational conclusions that are now considered too horrible to consider." What are those conclusions?
Seriously, Dave? Utterly stumped? What could those rational conclusions about groups consistently underperforming in matters of intellect be? Here, I'll help. Groups whose average IQ consistently test at levels far below those of whites, whenever and wherever in the world the tests are given, and end up creating the same dysfunctional societies wherever in the world they are, whether or not the host country had any legacy of slavery or not, are in fact, not as intelligent as Whites, or NE Asians for that matter, and that intelligence, or lack thereof actually has real world implications, and that their relatively lower (group) stations in life are not the result of white racism, but rather, lower group intelligence.
Part 3 of 3
I'm sure there's a great deal that you're mystified about, Dave, but I'll not be wasting time trying to clear the mist for you.
Why don't you try to answer the questions One posed to you in this thread? I'm guessing it's because you never make any real attempts to prove your beliefs. You simply try, in vain, to tell others that they have not proven theirs. You're quite exposed here, Dave. If you've got anything of substance to bring to the table, now's the time. Try answering these:
Topics:
1. Why is HBD wrong?
2. Why is conservative politics whereby whites are racially conscious wrong - morally, socially, and practically?
3. Should America seek to maintain its white majority and the commensurate culture or should it open its borders and adopt compete multiculturalism?
4. If the latter, will this have any repercussions for the state of the nation (education, crime, poverty, innovation, etc...)?
5. Are there any positions taken by racially conscious whites that are acceptable - including but not limited to racial differences in intelligence, crime, promiscuity, and social civility and seeking to maintain a racial majority in their countries?
6. And finally, why do you troll this site so much? Don't you have anything better to do with your life?
Post a Comment