Remember these facts:
The southern Democrats fought to preserve slavery.
When they lost their slaves, the Democrats created and maintained Jim Crow / Segragation by law.
Bull Connor was a Democrat, a member of the Democrat National Committee. He set the dogs on demonstrators and fire-hosed them.
The Democrats fought against Civil Rights under President Truman.
The Democrats fought against Civil Rights under President Johnson.
The Democrats created and maintain the ghetto plantations which have destroyed the black families, their work ethic, and their children, who are de facto constrained to the plantations for future exploitation.
The Democrats have supported the mass killing of black preborns with federal tax dollars.
The Democrats claim to be the party of Civil Rights.
The Democrats have constantly blamed all this on non-Democrats, a charge which is false and hate-filled.
If these facts don't bother you, then you are a Democrat. If it bothers you that these facts are placed for anyone to see and check out, then you are a Democrat.
17 comments:
Just a reminder.
The Southern Democrats were the conservatives.
If this fact doesn't bother you then you are a conservative.
Explain away Strom Thurmond.
JD,
Actually the pre-sixties Democrats were not conservatives, they were local totalitarians: Faubus, Long, Wallace, Maddox, Gore Sr, etc. Those are the ones who remained Democrat. The Northern Democrats have always been Leftist-socialist, while the Southern Democrats were racist-totalitarian. The Democrat party split and some of the Southern Democrats went Dixiecrat, and then Republican, but most of the racist Dixiecrat totalitarians remained in the Democrat Party (including Lyndon Johnson, as well as the other local despots) until they died out over time. The Democrats decided to capture the black vote by giving the blacks a little bit of what they demanded:
""These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957"
And,
"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
-- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"
The Southern Strategy revealed by Lee Atwater, Republican, was actually the Democrat Plantation strategy still in use today.
During the '60s many Southerners, like Strom Thurmond (and unlike Byrd) came to accept blacks: Thurmond had a black mistress and a black daughter, whom he accepted as being his daughter, Essie Mae Washington-Williams; in 1971, he was one of the first to hire a black staff member while in the US Senate; he personally enrolled his daughter in a 50% black school. He did this quietly, not mentioning his conversion from racism.
After the Democrats lost the increasingly tolerant and integrated South, what remained was the Northern Democrat Socialist-totalitarian mentality, which has increased steadily over time.
"In the 1960s, Democrats did as well in affluent districts as they did in lower-income districts. In the 1970s, the party began to experience greater success in lower-income districts, and that relationship has become stronger over time (McCarthy, Poole, and Rosenthal 1997; Stonecash and Lindstrom 1999)."
AND:
"The result is that now a much higher percentage of all Democratic House members come from core Democratic northern districts than was the case 50 years ago. The last three decades have been particularly important. In 1970, 40% of Democratic seats were from the North and 27% of those seats were core Democratic seats. This distribution entailed that roughly 12% of all national Democratic seats were from core Democratic northern districts, and these members had relatively high ADA scores. By the 1990s, with 50% of Democratic seats from the North and with 50% of all northern members coming from core Democratic districts, 25% of all national Democratic Party members were from northern core Democratic districts. These districts generate the highest ADA scores, and the increasing reliance on these districts has pushed overall Democratic voting to become more liberal."
By "liberal", read "Leftist" and Progressivist/socialist.
Whether you like it or not, the Leftist position that the black person is too weak to make it without Leftist-messiahist intervention - is racist; and it is Leftist. Blacks are certainly capable of getting their IDs so they can vote, they are not as stupid and helpless as the Left wants them to believe. Blacks should throw off their Democrat oppressors, and become libertarian and show their actual strengths as humans.
Denise,
Please read my reply to JD, just above. Thurmond became a Republican and slowly reformed away from his racism, as did the South in general. Most of the other racist-totalitarian Dixiecrats did not, and they remained Democrats until they died off, still racist, still totalitarian in nature.
I should have mentioned: Republicans have lost the title of conservative as they chase behind the Democrats toward Socialism. Today any belief in the US Constitution, and especially the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th Amendments, is considered radically reactionary.
Democrats have ALWAYS been the party of racial suppression: only their techniques have changed. Now they pretend that the blacks are perpetual, many generational VICTIMS of the exact party which liberated them, first from Democrat slavery, then from Democrat Jim Crow Segragation. Now they need to be liberated from their PERPETUAL VICTIM mentality, specifically generated by the Democrats and the Left.
No true Scotsman fallacy Stan! No real conservative would ever have different values than yours...
"During the '60s many Southerners, like Strom Thurmond (and unlike Byrd) came to accept blacks: Thurmond had a black mistress and a black daughter, whom he accepted as being his daughter, Essie Mae Washington-Williams; in 1971, he was one of the first to hire a black staff member while in the US Senate; he personally enrolled his daughter in a 50% black school. He did this quietly, not mentioning his conversion from racism."
Had a black mistress? He used his position, privilege and power to rape a teenager, bought her silence when he could no longer threaten her. There was no romance between Thurmond and the fifteen year old family servant. This was South Carolina.
"He never called my mother by her name. He didn’t verbally acknowledge that I was his child" the daughter wrote about being bought off and enrolled in a school. It stayed secret until after his death.
OK, Denise,
You are probably right, although none of the on-line bios contained any reference to rape, or forced silence. They did refer to post-mortem admission to the daughter's heritage.
I do not intend to defend Thurmond.
Nor does his activity while he was a powerful racist Democrat seem to reflect on Republicans who were in the process of bringing Civil Rights to blacks; nor does it reflect on the South after the sixties, even with Thurmond's conversion to the Republican Party.
If you wish to attribute racism to the south after the conversion of the south to integration, including the Republican south of today, then you'll have to do better than painting them with Thurmond. You'll need to show systemic suppression by Republicans, who actually freed the blacks twice. And who would like to see their total freedom from the Democrat plantation.
Modern systemic suppression is enforced by the Democrats, who constantly and purposefully reduce blacks to caricatures of incompetence - unable to learn like whites learn, unable to compete with whites, unable to get IDs to vote, unable to join the mainstream American culture, and unable to even survive without the help of their sugar-daddy Democrat messiahs... who see to it that it is so.
Show how that is not the case, if you want to disprove the perpetuation of Democrat suppression and exploitation of blacks.
Blacks who are caught in the Democrat web of perpetual Victimhood and perceived inferiority will never be freed, until they rid themselves of the suppression of welfare plantations and the exploitation of Democrat demagogues.
At some point, one must take responsibility for one's own freedom.
Bob,
You are right, because there are Republican RINOs who are merely Democrats who are a day late for the party. And BTW, I am neither conservative nor libertarian; I am a separate animal. I reject the Republican party as moral cowards and political consequentialists.
So show me a Democrat in Congress who opposes the Democrat/RINO plantation. There could be one, I suppose, but I've never heard one speak up against it. Many blacks are conservative (Sowell, Williams, Cain, Rice, Keyes, Thomas) and are excoriated as "not black enough" by the plantation supporters.
Bob,
I think you are misunderstanding the term: AtheoLeft.
I do not lump all Atheists as AtheoLeft; if I did that, then the term would not be needed: "Atheist" and "Leftist" would be synonymous, which I do not claim, despite that they are almost congruent demographics.
Nor do I lump all the Left as a subset of Atheism, for the same reason. There is however, a huge intersection between the set of Atheists and the set of Leftists. I call that AtheoLeftist.
There is considerable commonality of Leftist elitist messiahism with the self-derivation of Atheist morality and intellectual elitism to which Atheists arrive after leaving the Atheist VOID; it seems almost totally congruent, if not completely total.
It also seems highly unlikely that many, if any, Christians would arrive at such elitist messiahism - salvation by the governance of dictated Virtue Ethics: elitists promising equal outcomes with no personal inputs - whereas Islam and Atheism are similar in that they both are top down governing, implemented by elites.
Now, if you have an objection to that, then produce your case. Your attack on me, personally, is without any intellectual weight.
You seem upset that you cannot define me categorically in order to attack me further. That is precisely the reason that I decline to the AtheoLeft the opportunity to ignore their intellectual responsibility for defending their own position, and instead to exercise their logical fallacy by attacking me personally.
My experience is that the Atheists have no argument which supports their rejectionism.
My experience is that Leftists have only their elitist faux moralism for defending their Leftist programs.
My experience is that Atheists and Leftists have only one rhetorical tool with which to argue: attack the Other directly, since there is no direct logical support for their own positions. When AtheoLeftists do attempt to produce deductive logic here, it never works out well for them; they need support for a pre-determined conclusion (the Narrative). So they engage in rationalizing evidence to support their "necessary" conclusion… or they engage in fallacies, culminating in attacking the opponent directly, rather than attacking the opponent’s thesis.
It is quite common for an AtheoLeftist to accuse me of "hate speech" since I do not agree that their moral positions have any moral weight, beyond themselves since they presume the moral authority for all the Herd/flyovers/bitterclingers, but that moral authority has no weight either: they have no moral jurisdiction.
I don't think you realize that the entire comment you just wrote could be turned around to discredit the intersection of political conservative and religious fundamentalists. Pathetic.
The subject, once again, is Atheism, and its subset: Leftism.
Defend your Atheism.
Defend your Leftism.
Make a defense, other than silly Tu Quoque Fallacies (which don't even apply). Show us some disciplined logic in the defense of AtheoLeftist self-derived morality, self-derived elitism, pretense of intellectual superiority even while rejecting all absolutes such as truth, and Leftist hegemony by codependent messiahism.
Can't do it, can you?
You're the one with a blog, show us some disciplined logic in the defense of 'Stan-ist' self-derived morality, self-derived elitism, pretense of intellectual superiority even while rejecting all absolutes such as truth.
Can't do it, can you?
"Atheism, and its subset: Leftism."
The truth is...
Leftism is not a subset of Atheism.
The author of this blog keeps lying.
Truth and Bob and whoever else you are:
OK,
I'm slow on the uptake when it comes to sock puppets. But, since you are obviously all the same person, it is time to be rid of you again.
No matter how many different monikers you choose, you come out just the same: ridicule instead of any evidence or deductive argumentation.
You are banned ... again.
@Stan: hah, more chairs pulled in your way as the bored and the weak-minded attempt to get your goat. Thank you for hanging in there!
They're not here to discuss, merely to accuse and then duck (or ignore), then turn your carefully-crafted answers back on you and accuse again.
For the love of Pete, they aren't even coming up with their own stuff. They're merely putting what you write in quotations, screaming "NUH UH!" along with a choice insult or two, and letting fly. Hell, that's how they *started* this thread!
I should think that the drive-by nature of these posts has a sort of signature. It's written by lazy, bored people looking to troll. For all I know, they probably pipe this crap right back to a loser Atheism forum with a link so they can all stand around and have a good, self-congratulating laugh.
It's all buzzing in a vacuum, but they either don't know it or they don't care.
Post a Comment