Posted on 12/31/2014 12:36:17 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
I made a point that confused one democrat so much they called me a racist before I even finished. “Who have the black voters consistently sent to represent them? Who are the political leaders in these areas? In NY it’s democrat governors, democrat local legislators, democrat state reps and democrat federal reps. Why do they keep voting for failure?”... before I could finish the point that democrats have been acting in the worst interests of their constituents for generations, I was called racist, which means they lost the point.
Please, other than a tiny few bigots like David Duke who tried adopting a Republican label only to be soundly rejected by the party, give us some examples of Republicans in the South who have advocated a return to Jim Crow, black church bombings, or discrimination of any sort. The role reversal in the south has been from black to white and white to black preferences between the Republican and Democratic parties. But if you’re implying that the Republicans had to become the equivalent of Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, and George Wallace to accomplish that feat then I think you’re off the mark. Southern whites moved to the Republican Party away from the Democrats for reasons and policies largely if not totally unrelated to race. The latters’ open embrace of socialism, anti-religious bellicosity, gun control, and anti-Americanism in general gave younger conservative whites no place else to go. The dwindling core of troglodyte unreformed segregationists have died off or not found a new political home.
When LBJ passed his "great society legislation" in the 60s, he said, " We'll have these n*gg#rs voting demonRAT for the next 100 years".
That is all the demonRATs care about, not about helping blacks or the poor, its about power.
The demonRATs will never admit it, but the evidence is right there in the open.
“Until blacks are held to the same standard as whites (in education, job performance, even proficiency in English), this can never improve”
Actually, blacks and black culture were much healthier before recent attempts to implement a single standard.
Are you sure what you are proposing is a good idea?
Not to disagree with your point, the Republicans being the party of no compromise with the Confederacy and the first real total war, with those memories taking a century to overcome, before Lincoln and the Republicans came along being a Whig could get you lynched in the South too.
This reinforces something that I've been thinking for several years now. The people who buy influence in our government have had a two-part program in place for years that is aimed at addressing this dilemma in two key ways:
1. Free access to abortion, to eliminate the black underclass.
2. Open borders for immigrants mainly from Asia and Latin America, to replace them with a true working class that doesn't have the same permanent cultural and emotional flaws as the black underclass.
In 1865, the "jubilee" vote was supposed to swamp, cancel out, and replace the votes of the Jacksonian Democrats so that the Republicans/Old Whigs could have their way with the national agenda. (Before the Civil War, there was no "national" agenda: there was a "federal" government and a "Union" ... But not a "nation".)
Words matter, and "nation" + omnipotent federal government + annihilated States + massive immigration breaking wages + tariffs + other crony-capitalist buncombe were pretty much the "national agenda" wanted by the business Interests since the days of John Quincy Adams and before (going back to Hamilton and his snaky "general welfare" Clause) ; and it was Quincy Adams who articulated the idea of "reorganizing" the South if it misbehaved (like kicking over the table if they saw they were going to spend eternity as Boston's butt-boys), and simply taking over its government and depriving Southerners of their voice in "national" affairs.
Which might or might not have been overheard by young Lincoln, who was just arriving for his term of office in the House. We have no written record of it. But that is, in fact, what eventually happened. (Posters to this board will recognize that a person has been deprived of his rights, if he is made dead by the "national agenda".)
Republicans got the black vote all through the Reconstruction era until Democrats struck their deal in the Tilden-Hayes scandal to get rid of federal troops and the Freedmen's Bureau in the South, and "white supremacy" became the political standard of the ex-Confederates after their early experience with "diversity". Blacks were relegated again to something like bond labor and became politically nigh-invisible as they were rolled up by populist pols who didn't think for a second that blacks were really part of "the People" : the postwar Amendments were always, to them, just a political plot by their blood enemies to enslave them. They could, with that thought in mind, rationalize practically everything that ensued, from lynching to labor corvees at the county jail to Birth of a Nation flag-waving.
Roosevelt found the black vote in the big cities useful to his policies (urban socialism), so he abandoned the populist/racist/supremacist Old Jacksonian in favor of the city machine votes, who had a strong black component. In 1924, the Klan sent >600 delegates to the Democratic convention; 24 years later, the "Dixiecrats" bolted the Party and wandered off into waterless places. They faced a future in which their enemies, black politicians and Roosevelt's successors, would expect to get Southern populist votes effortlessly, for zero-zip-zilch in return, and Republicans would continue to support policies that had impoverished the South in the years after the Civil War, and indeed, under the banner of the Tariff, would have impoverished it before the Civil War if not for the profitability of the cotton trade, whose huge inflows masked the economic predation of the North on the South and the cities on the rural countryside (and, btw, the vast majority of the population).
Today the South is unwelcome in the Republican tent: just read Brooksie or Jennifer Rubin or David From, or metasearch up what Bush 41 once said about Gov. Perry of Texas and his "ilk" (they're an "ilk" around the Bush dinner table, just ask Babs if you want a frank, blunt opinion). It's the old animosity of Beacon Hill, and before that, Yankee colonial Congregationalists who decried the luxury and comfort of Carolina planters, and despised them to their core for being Episcopalian supporters of prelacy and other Romish abominations. And oh, by the way, they were slave owners.
David Horowitz, June 2000:Hillary Clinton and "The Third Way" How America's First Lady of the Left Has Bamboozled Liberals and Conservatives Alike".........Ever since abandoning the utopian illusions of the progressive cause, I have been struck by how little the world outside the left seems to actually understand it. How little those who have not inhabited the progressive mind are able to grasp the ruthless cynicism behind its idealistic mask or the fervent malice that drives its hypocritical passion for "social justice." No matter how great the crimes progressives commit, no matter how terrible the future they labor to create, no matter how devastating the catastrophes they leave behind, the world outside the faith seems ever ready to forgive them their "mistakes" and to grant them the grace of "good intentions."
It would be difficult to recall, for example, the number of times I have been introduced on conservative platforms as "a former civil rights worker and peace activist in the 1960s." I have been described this way despite having written a detailed autobiography that exposes these self-glorifying images of the left as so many political lies. Like many New Left leaders whom the young Mrs. Clinton once followed (and who are her comrades today), I regarded myself in the 1960s as a socialist and a revolutionary. No matter what slogans we chanted, or ideals we proclaimed our agendas always extended beyond (and well beyond) the immediate issues of "civil rights" and "peace."
New Left progressives—including Hillary Clinton and her comrade, Acting Deputy Attorney General Bill Lann Lee—were involved in supporting, or protecting or making excuses for violent anti-American radicals abroad like the Vietcong and anti-American criminals at home like the Black Panthers.* We did this then—just as progressives still do now—in the name of "social justice" and a dialectical world-view that made this deception appear ethical and the fantasy seem possible.
As a student of the left, Jamie Glazov, has observed in an article about the middle-class defenders of recently captured Seventies terrorist Kathy Soliah: "if you can successfully camouflage your own pathology and hatred with a concern for the 'poor' and the 'downtrodden,' then there will always be a 'progressive' milieu to support and defend you."* Huey Newton, George Jackson, Bernadine Dohrn, Sylvia Baraldini, Rubin Carter, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Rigoberta Menchu and innumerable others have all discovered this principle in the course of their criminal careers.
There is a superficial sense, of course, in which we were civil rights and peace activists—and that is certainly the way I would have described myself at the time, particularly if I were speaking to a non-left audience. It is certainly the way Mrs. Clinton and my former comrades in the left refer to themselves and their pasts in similar contexts today.
But they are lying. (And when they defend racial preferences now—a principle they denounced as "racist" then—even they must know it).
The first truth about leftist missionaries, about believing progressives, is that they are liars. But they are not liars in the ordinary way, which is to say by choice. They are liars by necessity—often without even realizing that they are. Because they also lie to themselves. It is the political lie that gives their cause its life.......
.....Why would you admit that, despite your tactical support for civil rights, you weren't really committed to civil rights as Americans understand rights? What you really wanted was to overthrow the very Constitution that guaranteed those rights, based as it is on private property and the individual—both of which you despise.
It is because America is a democracy and the people endorse it, that the left's anti-American, but "progressive" agendas can only be achieved by deceiving the people. This is the cross the left has to bear: The better world is only achievable by lying to the very people they propose to redeem......
.....It is this same idea that is found in the Social Gospel which impressed the youthful Hillary Clinton at the United Methodist Church in Park Ridge, Illinois. She later encountered the same idea in the New Left at Yale and in the Venceremos Brigade in Communist Cuba, and in the writings of the New Leftist who introduced her to the "politics of meaning" even after she had become America's First Lady. It is the idea that drives her comrades in the Children's Defense Fund, the National Organization for Women, the Al Sharpton House of Justice and the other progressive causes which for that reason still look to her as a political leader.
For these self-appointed social redeemers, the goal—"social justice"—is not about rectifying particular injustices, which would be practical and modest, and therefore conservative. Their crusade is about rectifying injustice in the very order of things. "Social Justice" for them is about a world reborn, a world in which prejudice and violence are absent, in which everyone is equal and equally advantaged and without fundamentally conflicting desires. It is a world that could only come into being through a re-structuring of human nature and of society itself....
...They have "behaved as though they are justified in using any tactic in pursuit of their goals," including illegality, deception, libel, threats and "ruining the lives of perceived enemies . . . " They believe, she continues, "they are justified in using any means to achieve their ends for a simple and uncomplicated reason. It is that they are superior individuals whose gifts and backgrounds entitle them to leadership." They do it for themselves; for the continuance of Them. But the fact is they all do it. The missionaries of the big progressive causes, the Steinems, the Irelands, the Michelmans, the Friedans, and Hillary Clinton herself, were all willing to toss their feminist movement overboard to give Bill Clinton a pass on multiple sexual harassments, and on a career of sexual predation that reflects his utter contempt for the female gender.
Indeed, the Clinton-Lewinsky defense—accord which the feminists signed onto, can be regarded as feminism's Nazi-Soviet Pact. Their calculation was both simple and crude: If Clinton was removed, Hillary would go too. But she was their link to patronage and power, and they couldn't imagine losing that. Their kind was finally in control of the White House, and the conservative enemies of their beautiful future were not.
Almost a decade earlier—in the name of the very principles they so casually betrayed for Clinton—the same feminists had organized the most disgraceful lynching of a public figure in America's history. Despite fiercely proclaimed commitments to the racial victims of American persecution, they launched a vicious campaign to destroy the reputation of an African American jurist who had risen, unblemished, from dirt-shack poverty in the segregated south to the nation's highest courts. They did it knowingly, cynically, with the intent to destroy him in his person, and to ruin his public career.
Has there ever been a more reprehensible witch-hunt in American public life than the one organized by feminist leaders who then emerged as vocal defenders of the White House lecher? Was there ever a more sordid betrayal of common decency than this collective defamation—for which no apology has or ever will be given?.....
.....And that is why they hate conservatives. They hate you because you are killers of their dream. Because you are defenders of a Constitution that thwarts their cause. They hate you because your "reactionary" commitment to individual rights, to a single standard and to a neutral and limited state obstructs their progressive designs. They hate you because you are believers in property and its rights as the cornerstones of prosperity and human freedom; because you do not see the market economy as a mere instrument for acquiring personal wealth and political war chests, to be overcome in the end by bureaucratic schemes.
Conservatives who think progressives are misinformed idealists will forever be blind-sided by the malice of the left—by the cynicism of those who pride themselves on principle, by the viciousness of those who champion sensitivity, by the intolerance of those who call themselves liberal, and by the ruthless disregard for the well-being of the downtrodden by those who preen themselves as social saints.
Conservatives are caught by surprise because they see progressives as merely misguided, when in fact they are fundamentally misdirected. They are the messianists of a religious faith. But it is a false faith and a self-serving religion. Since the redeemed future that justifies their existence and rationalizes their hypocrisy can never be realized, what really motivates progressives is a modern idolatry: their limitless passion for the continuance of Them."
You cut to the core issue that no small number of conservatives have brought up. To wit: Abortion on demand and welfare have had a real world impact on the black family that would cause any rational person to reflect that it is as if the KKK came up with them.
There currently is no single standard; the collapse of black American life started when the single standard that had been the norm until fifty years ago was removed. Prior to that, blacks were expected to have some measure of education, gainful employment, and procreate within a family structure; that has all been removed. Now they are given meaningless diplomas and degrees (with no accompanying education), employers are being forced to hire them under threat of lawsuit (since many have little to offer prospective employers), and breeding outside of marriage is encouraged by the welfare state.
Where do you see any attempt as a “standard” at all today? In fact, even suggesting one is labeled “racist”.
Bump for later
Funny you say that. I distinctly remember listening to the Rush Limbaugh show, 20 odd years ago, when this unknown professor was subbing for Rush. Walter Williams. He said something so profound that I stopped to write it down: (paraphrasing) If I was the Grand Dragon of the KKK, I could not have thought of a better way to destroy the blacks in America than by what the Democrat party has done with welfare and abortion.
This paragraph describes the liberal/conservative construct better than any that I've ever read.
Only the young, naive conservative can believe that libes are misinformed idealists and confuse the "Low Information Voter" with a dedicated liberal.
There are too many ignorant Americans that vote only in the Presidential elections and have so much effect on the direction of the country, that I'm in favor of a "citizen test" in order to vote.
The test would be the same one required by our government of any person wanting to become a LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZEN.
If an immigrant can learn enough about the USA to pass this test, surely a born in America, citizen can pass the same test in order to vote.
I know it will never happen, but it should.
The "Second Klan," the 20s version, which was by far the largest and most powerful, was a bipartisan operation.
In the South it was exclusively Democratic. In the Midwest and West, where it was arguably more powerful, it was almost exclusively Republican.
This is because in the North the Klan was aimed mostly at immigrants, especially Catholics, there being few blacks around to pick on. The Democratic Party was (always had been) the party of immigrants, so in the North Democrats didn't join the Klan.
The dynamic was different in the South, where there were few immigrants.
If I was the Grand Dragon of the KKK, I could not have thought of a better way to destroy the blacks in America than by what the Democrat party has done with welfare and abortion.
Liberals wanted to believe blacks had children as children themselves out of ignorance; the fact is that they were doing it as an income source. Most weren’t qualified to earn an income legitimately, and this was a way to be set up with an apartment, an income stream, etc.
Despite their protestations that this was not so, the fact that their birthrate dropped steeply after the 1996 welfare reform (passed to dissuade the growing number of whites & Hispanics that had begun following the same “career path”) would indicate that it is spot on.
What kind of future do people with such limited education/training have?
What kind of future do people with such limited education/training have?
"...blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths..."
and this, recalling a client he was urging to plead guilty and avoid a jury trial. His advice to the culprit required empathy to understand. This was no moral lecture; he was trying to convince the culprit to follow his own self-interest:
I asked him whether he felt bad for the women he had beaten and terrorized. He told me...“What do I care? She ain’t me. She ain’t kin. Don’t even know her.”
This seems accurate from what little I've seen in my own visits to the city and the courthouse, though I try to stay away from these places.
The thing is, this is classic psychopathy, cultivated by our own government.
Yes, I believe it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.