There have been more blacks come into the US from Africa since 1965 than were ever imported in slavery.
Keep that in mind when you are looking at the black population in America. What is the relevance of “the slavery story” to these recent immigrants? Just what is the black population in America today?
Look at Obama’s bio.
The demographic arithmetic is just plain out of kilter with backward looking PC. But it is the anti-white whites who get this the least.
— Dave
#1 by Simmons on 07/07/2008 - 11:24 am
If the antis were asked of course they would fumble, but thankfully for them there is respectable and semi-respectable conservatism that tries to finish off the liberal rhetoric with its esoteric reasoning. EG; the thread of comments over at AR with 500 word responses to what amounts to the advocation of white genocide by two low paid cultists at Takimag.
#2 by Simmons on 07/07/2008 - 9:38 pm
At AR Mr. Gottfried replied with a reasonable answer, and I say that because he came closer to addressing the issue of genocide than Mr. Taylor (who seems to be stuck on minorities are mean and uncivil the semi-respectable out). I shall try once again to post such but I seem to be at a 50 percent pass thru on their censors over at AR.
#3 by shari on 07/08/2008 - 6:34 pm
Simmons, I tried to back you up with a short comment, at AR, but apparently it was unacceptable. It really says something when those who you might think of as allies do this.
#4 by mderpelding on 07/08/2008 - 7:37 pm
The first requirement of attending the yearly AR conference, besides having sufficient funds to pay, is that one must wear a suit and tie because one must be a gentleman. First and foremost.
Of course, the Left doesn’t buy this, so they say “Nazis in suits”. Or, “gentlemen racists”.
I agree.
Elbow patches are optional, and a good briar is always a plus. And houndstooth is SO Anglo-Saxon.
All bullshit.
Get 50 pissed off voters in a room with local TV coverage and a print reporter and you will cause the political leadership of 80,000 people to stand up and take notice.
Do the math…
500 pissed off voters will effect the political leadership of 800,000.
That should cover the lion’s share of electoral bodies in the U.S.
How do you accomplish this?
Going door to door like Saul Alinsky.
Local TV stations will love you for it.
They have to provide “public service” to keep their FCC licenses.
Better to have a “breaking” news story on pissed off home owners than the latest Museum fund raiser.
If you can give a local a big enough story, they will think “national” coverage. What do you think that would mean to them?
A network feed is the promised land for a video reporter.
Jared Taylor wants to slay the dragon, all by himself, with you as his cheerleader.
Democratic politics is a numbers game.
Attire doesn’t count.
Except in Hollywood.
#5 by Simmons on 07/08/2008 - 8:20 pm
I did get thru the next day to my suprise because even though I had some faint praise for Mr. Gottfried I critiqued Mr. Taylor’s insistence on academic esoterica style debate. But yes it was sandwiched between 300-500 word responses which while technically correct would lose most people. I’m going to go back to that thread and ask the pointed question of the semi-respectables – respectables – antis what are the limits, boundries and rules of “Identity Politics.”
#6 by mderpelding on 07/08/2008 - 10:42 pm
Simmons…
Define “Identity Politics”.
Everybody wears many different hats in this world.
So we have many identities.
Father, Son, Nephew, Cousin, Grandfather, Grandson.
And those just scratch the surface of potential familial identities.
We haven’t even begun to address out family relations or heirarchical identities or those related to profession or belief.
The establishment loves to talk about “identity” politics because it is a value neutral category.
A machinist would say that different milling machines have individual identities.
An auto mechanic will feel the same way about various motors.
The biological researcher will make the same claim about lab rats.
The lawyer about defendants.
The Doctor about patients.
The intellectual about ideas.
The Priest about parishioners.
The musician about songs.
It’s as if you are arguing about defecating.
Everybody shits.
Everybody has an identity.
So why do you argue about nothing?
#7 by Simmons on 07/09/2008 - 11:42 am
Well Pelding it is why I ask this of the antis and respectables. Try it sometime. I’ll bet you find that there is nothing there as you said, and that is because there is nothing to modern liberalism behind the smoke and mirrors of PC.