The bitter clinger Trump voters
You probably remember something about that fundraiser speech that Obama gave in 2008 in San Francisco, the one that featured his infamous, insulting, condescending, and reductionist “bitter clingers” remark. But looking back on it, it strikes me that Obama’s approach was far more subtle and effective than Hillary Clinton’s when speaking of the same phenomenon.
Here’s the relevant text (and audio) of Obama’s speech. Scroll down for the text:
…[O]ur challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Earlier in the speech he has also done a typical Obamish thing, which is to say this isn’t really racism on their part and then to say it is. Here’s what I mean:
Because everybody just ascribes it to ”˜white working-class don’t wanna work ”” don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’ That’s…there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today – kind of implies that it’s sort of a race thing.
Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by ”” it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).
Cute, isn’t it? Are they racists, or are they not?
Here is Hillary Clinton in 2016 saying much the same thing. She just says it differently:
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic””you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
She said the other half of Trump’s supporters “feel that the government has let them down” and are “desperate for change.”
“Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well,” she said.
Both Obama and Clinton were speaking to supporters at fundraisers—he in San Francisco, she in New York, both liberal bastions. They were characterizing the same people as “bitter clingers” and “deplorables.” When Obama was speaking he didn’t call them “Trump supporters” because Trump wasn’t a political force at the time, but he was clearly talking about the same people. Essentially, Obama said they were racists and Clinton said they (half of them, anyway) were racists, but she said it outright and he said it in his usual indirect, ha-ha wink-wink way.
Obama also said they were xenophobic and Islamaphobic and Hillary said the same, except she said it outright and he couched it in phony psychobabble: “it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” They’re not really bad people, says Obama; they’re just the victims of psychological forces beyond their control, forces which he, Obama, understands in the enormity of his wisdom and compassion.
And of course there’s no real or rational or valid reason for these people to be against immigrants. (Note that he doesn’t say “illegal immigrants,” he says “immigrants,” although it’s far more common to be against illegal immigration, or the way immigrants are inadequately vetted, than to be against legal immigration in its entirety).
The difference between Obama and Clinton on this topic was mostly of emphasis and tone, but I believe that difference accounts at least in part for the fact that Obama got elected and Clinton didn’t. Oh, there were other reasons as well, but this tone difference was a big one.
Personally, I prefer the more direct approach of Clinton to the subtle one of Obama. With Clinton, it’s easier to see what you’re getting.
I sometimes think that the most effective thing the Democrats have done politically in recent years is to label their opposition this way: as racist, stupid, emotional haters. Whether it’s done with more subtlety and fake-sincere “understanding,” as Obama did it, or whether it’s done more openly and nastily as Clinton did it, it’s done by Democrats almost constantly.
And there are people on the right who share that view of Trump supporters, as well. I believe that at least some of the conservative Never-Trump fervor has to do with not wanting to get into bed with the deplorable bitter-clinging riffraff.
That doesn’t mean that some supporters of Trump aren’t racist. Some definitely are. But it is a strategic ploy to characterize that group as constituting some huge number/proportion (Hillary cites half), or to say that racist/xenophobic hatred is the most important motive for policy positions such as opposition to illegal immigration. But it’s a strategy that works with a lot of people, who have a horror of being called racists or of casting their lot with people who have been labeled with that term.
[ADDENDUM: And here’s Hillary today with more condemnation of the people who were not smart enough and tolerant enough and productive enough to vote for her.]
” I believe that at least some of the conservative Never-Trump fervor has to do with not wanting to get into bed with the deplorable bitter-clinging riffraff.”
If any of those diseased Nevers ever try to get in bed with me they will be met with…
THE STARK FIST OF REMOVAL!
the Tanin levels just went skyhigh
however, in good old marxist fashion, they will not accept a judgment unless its the one they want… that’s a thread that has run historical with the only vassilating point of it being whether you had power to make it so or whether you had power to just whine yell annoy scream refuse to accept lie about parts, etc.
[please note that once you erase the alternative stuff we know by living through it all you will have is the tapes of people claiming lies and things without any such alternative… history is being written already!!]
they would rather shoot the barn, and draw targets around the bullet holes so they are perfect shooters as far as anyone is concerned…
at least now we have scientific reasoning behind their refusing to learn from a false history they create.. (or rather, since they do that, they dont believe any of it)
In response two Neo’s two March 12 posts, re Bitter Clingers and UK Sex Abuse, I have to say that a dose of racism seems to be an entirely reasonable position. To pretend the blacks and browns are “just like us” flies in the face of factual realities, and makes those who so believe just as bad as the British cops and their extarordinarily sluggish responses in Rotherham, etc. 86% of British cops are white, BTW.
Frog:
Are you sure you mean “racism”? Racism is assuming you know what a person is like by membership in a certain race. Racism is not the same as acknowledging that certain characteristics are more common—for whatever reason—in people of different backgrounds and cultures.
For example, a black person who comes from Jamaica and a black person who comes from Nigeria or a black person born in this country are from different cultures although they are all black people. Not only is each individual different from every other individual—including those from the same country and/or culture—but each individual is not going to be exhibiting the characteristics of the majority of his/her compatriots. However, different traits and beliefs are expressed by different percentages of individuals in all those cultures, and they might differ from the traits and beliefs of other immigrants from other cultures (and of other races) as well as the general culture in the country to which they emigrate.
It is not racist at all to say that men from Pakistan come from a different culture that generally treats women differently than women in Britain are generally treated. You could probably list the differences in opinion on women and how to treat women between Pakistani culture and British culture. Based on those differences, you might expect to find the crimes against women committed by Pakistani immigrants to be different both in type and frequency from the crimes against women committed by those from western European cultures. But that is not racist; it’s just the way it is. However, it is racist to say that, based on those statistics, you can say that those differences are innate in some way when there is not evidence that they are anything other than cultural, and it is most definitely racist to say that if a man is from Pakistan originally and emigrates to England then that man is doomed to become an abusive criminal towards women.
In short, different groups may exhibit different behavior in terms of how frequent that behavior is in members of that group, but it doesn’t say that behavior is innate nor does it tell you anything about any particular individual member of that group.
I sometimes think that the most effective thing the Democrats have done politically in recent years is to label their opposition this way: as racist, stupid, emotional haters.
neo: Over at Watt’s Up With That, the climate blog, I read through a history of the “climate denier” smear. I’ve long found the term annoying. I had assumed it was a nasty piece of work which had gotten out of hand.
Seeing all the “deniers” concentrated into one read, I was struck that “denier” must be a deep strategy orchestrated from higher-up. It’s one thing for blog commenters to toss off near-blood libels like stinkbombs in the heat of the moment but another to see “denier” in “Nature,” the most-cited science journal in the world.
In various blogs I have asked the climate activists if they had thought “denier” through. Since they were wrapping themselves in the mantle of science and reason, it struck me that coming off as vicious political operatives damaged their brand, as well as possibly alienating skeptics permanently.
However, this bothered none of the climate activists. Mostly they doubled-down even if they conceded — and some did — that it was a deliberate evocation of “Holocaust denier.”
My take is liberals/progressives/climate activists have given up on debate. All too often they lose real debates. They’ve moved on. They are out to “deplatform” conservative speech. Next comes criminalization, if they can.
FWIW — A Brit friend tells me the UK “Asians” involved with the sex rings and terrorism are specifically Pakistanis from rural areas.
A data point. I don’t know if it’s true or significant.
Neo,
Back to the original subject of your post. Get on the net and see what Hillary just said about the great unwashed of the American electorate while on her visit to India. Not hard to find. Going viral. An astonishing arrogance and ignorance. Well… not astonishing. After all, it is Hillary.
The elites of the left and their hordlings through words and deeds tell me that they want me and mine dead or at a minimum marched at gun point (how ironic) to ‘reeducation’ camps. They need to realize they live in urban blue islands surrounded by a sea of red clingers.
Neo: you are trying very hard to find differences while ovelooking similarities. Specifically, violent crimes in the US, the UK, Jamaica, Pakistan and Nigeria are predominantly committed by the melanin-bearing strain of humanity. Or perhaps I should say disproportionately so, since the latter three are overwhelmingly melanotic. A Boko Haram moment, perhaps?
Is it racist to suppose, just for a moment, that the skin-color gene is linked to a trait for violence, just like trisomy 21 is linked to a trait for smiling cheeriness? Or is that merely coincidental?
Ralph Kinney Bennett:
Yes, I just saw it a little while ago here. What a piece of work she is! But I assume that the Democrats think this approach is the winning one: all the nice people vote for us. So it shouldn’t be any surprise at all, the only difference being that starting with her “deplorables” remark, Hillary’s been saying it loud and clear and unequivocally.
Odd that I wrote this post today, though, and here she is, right on schedule. I hope I’m not channeling Hillary!
Frog:
Do you really misunderstand me, or are you just reading too quickly, or what?
Of course there are differences between groups. I know that there are statistical differences between groups in the amount of crime (for example) committed by people in various groups. I am merely saying that racism is thinking that this represents an innate difference when there is no evidence that it does represent an innate difference rather than a cultural one, and/or racism is imagining you can come to any conclusion at all about an individual member of that group based on those statistics.
You’re supposed to have a background in science, so I don’t know why you wouldn’t get that.
For example, of course more violent crime is committed in this country by African-Americans than by white people. But that doesn’t tell us why this is the case, nor does it tell us what any individual will do. The majority of black people are law-abiding citizens.
You can postulate anything you want in any racist way you want, but I have never seen any valid evidence for what you posit, and I’ve read a great deal on the subject.
I will add that even if there were such evidence it doesn’t matter. Most people in all groups are not criminals and are not violent. Some cultures celebrate and/or allow or reward more violence than others, that much I can observe, but I see no evidence whatsoever that this is genetic.
It’s linked to being male, however. So what? It tells us nothing about what any individual man will do.
I like the part where Hillary says that these people “feel” that gov. has let them down. So we must understand them and empathize with them. Not actually fix the gov. mind you!
Of course, if their feeling is a delusion or an irrationality, then it makes sense.
The videos of Hillary in India confirm, in spades, that my decision to vote against her was well taken. Every time I think what things might be like with HRC as President, I cringe. And rejoice that Trump (with all his faults) is in the Oval Office.
Hillary is afflicted with what I identify as the “progressive gene.” My favorite cousin has the gene. She is an intelligent woman and a capable administrator, but she cannot grasp conservative ideas. She offered to proof read a book I wrote about a man who, through long life experiences, had arrived at his conservative principles. To hear her tell it, reading it was like reading a foreign language. She just couldn’t grasp the ideas. I thought my writing must be too murky. Then a conservative friend read it and raved about it. That provided, IMO, anecdotal evidence of the inability of some people to intellectually grasp conservative principles.
She and I are still good friends, but we avoid politics. 🙂
I wish Hillary would avoid politics. We’d all be happier. Is she thinking about another run? Please, please, no!
“[N]or does it tell you anything about any particular individual member of that group” — agreed.
But depending on the prevalence of a particular behavior in people of that race, as compared to the prevalence of the same behavior in people of other races, is it unreasonable to be wary of all people of the race in question? Or, at a minimum, to be wary in circumstances conducive to the behavior in question, involving a member of that race who you do not personally know?
But it’s a strategy that works with a lot of people, who have a horror of being called racists or of casting their lot with people who have been labeled with that term.
I am afraid you are correct, Neo. My childhood experiences led me to the conclusion that we all define ourselves by in-groups and out-groups, by us and the other. Therefore, none of us are free of bigotry/racism/xenophobia/whatever-phobia.
There are many who believe that bigotry/racism/xenophobia/whatever-phobia is to be found outside themselves, in others.They are most vulnerable to the racist/bit charge. “Not me!” My reply to such a charge is that yes, I am, and so are you.
From the Hillary link:
Texas isn’t diverse? Florida isn’t diverse? Georgia isn’t diverse? Regarding those “dynamic, moving forward” places she won: in quite a few of those “dynamic, moving forward” states you won, the dynamics of moving van economics indicate that a lot more people want to leave those “dynamic, moving forward” states than want to move to them. Think California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey.
Who won the vote in Oklahoma, a.k.a. Indian Nation?
The more Hillary talks, the better my vote for Trump looks. I bet she will be a candidate in 2020. She doesn’t sound as if she has reconciled herself to her loss.
I don’t think that most Trump supporters are racist. I think it’s just easier for racists to infiltrate organizations that support Trump and attempt to poach their members.
A lot of ethno-state people, for example, “took over” the Discord affiliated with the_Donald subreddit. Basically, they try to convert more libertarian leaning supporters to their point of view by throwing a bunch of “facts” at them. Sometimes it works. A lot of the time it doesn’t. What worries me is when they do it to high school students.
I think the humor that tends to dominate sites like that provide a lot of cover for some nastier elements. I used to try and stay on some of those Discords to try and counter act their constant “red pilling”. I’ve sort of given up. Despite meeting a lot of interesting people, the overall environment was just too toxic.
I have no idea what’s going on in Austin, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out to be some high school student or college student that was fed a bunch of garbage on one of those sites. At the same time, I don’t think the threat posed by such groups is in any way comparable to the threat posed by Islamic extremism.
I just think that as a conservative, I have to be aware that their are progressive threats to our republic, but there are also reactionary threats to our republic. I think people are so worried about the Overton Window and the ratchet.
I can’t remember exactly what the ratchet is called, but it’s the idea that things always get more progressive, never less progressive.
@ dex: The ethno-state types have some interesting points but in the end they fail to understand that half of the issue within their own actions and faults.
@GRA I didn’t like discussing things with any of the ethno-state people. Thankfully, they weren’t the only sorts of people there. They were just the most vocal. I just didn’t like the pseudoscience the ethno-state people tended to hide behind.
It was interesting because the people on those sites seemed very different from text-based communities. Voice chat seems to really change a lot of the dynamics. Idk, do other people have experience with political voice-chats?
I’m sort of curious to find one that’s a little more mature.
I disagree that it’s effective. Perhaps once it was, but the power of the insult is wearing off. In fact, I don’t know how Clinton’s insults played in your part of the country, but here in Texas they backfired hugely. Women here didn’t vote for Trump because they do whatever the men in their lives tell them to do. Hillary Clinton just made them angry. They got sick and tired of hearing about how their husbands, sons, fathers, etc., were deplorable racists and misogynists. After all, what does that say about the women who chose to marry the men they did, and whom they love along with their sons, fathers, et al.
So they said, “screw you, Hillary Clinton, you bitter shrieking harpy, I’m voting for Trump.”
Frankly, I’ve never seen any sign of intelligence in that harridan. Clearly her strategy for 2020 is to insult more people. She’s convinced she lost because she didn’t insult enough people.
“. . . the only difference being that starting with her “deplorables” remark, Hillary’s been saying it loud and clear and unequivocally.”
This is true, and it’s the oddest thing. Hillary is a profoundly dishonest politician, perhaps the most dishonest that I’ve ever encountered — and yet on this topic she is (perhaps accidentally?) completely transparent and frank, in a way that most of her cohort knows better than to be. Plenty of reasons suggest themselves (defensiveness about her loss driving her to prefer to despise those who voted against her rather than trying to understand them? Sheer snobby cluelessness about the lives of people who differ from her? Pure inborn cussed meanness?) The list goes on, but I have to go get ready for work now . . .
Neo-
I am trying to have a discussion.
You write in reply, ” I am merely saying that racism is thinking that this represents an innate difference when there is no evidence that it does represent an innate difference rather than a cultural one.”
No evidence? I concede that. You cannot prove a negative, and that is your problem. By speculating about a genetic basis for behavior, for which we have much evidence in ourselves and in other species, I am looking for a different root cause than you. You put it down to “culture”, whatever you might mean by that, since culture is an aggregate shared group of behavior patterns. Then we get to what determines culture? Poverty? I think not. Not historically, anyway. There are, for example, fairly non-violent subgroup cultures; see the Yazidis in Iraq.
I suggest there MAY be a genetic basis for why India is more democratic and better governed than Pakistan or Bangladesh: Greek DNA brought to India by the armies of Alexander the Great.
Our viewpoints differ. I look at things from the organic, biological (medical) standpoint, and you start from a behavioral (legalistic, behavioral therapist) standpoint. The truth likely consists of elements of both.
Sounds like Hillary is the real “Bitter Clinger” to me
Neo, I can assure you that you are not “channeling Hillary.” No better example than your reply to Frog at 10:46 last night. Astute. Considered. Reflective of thoughtful research. Grace-under-pressure patience (even the fist-slightly-clenched patience of that first sentence). In these difficult discussions you always seem able to display what the writer of Hebrews (5:14) calls “powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.”
It’s not sexist to note that women average shorter than men. It is not sexist to note that there are very many more tall men than women for the same height.*
What would be sexist is to refuse 6′ 4″ Sally for your pickup game because everyone knows women average shorter than men.
What would not be sexist is to have some kind of position requiring a minimum of height of 6′ and end up filling it with men, since the number of qualified women you’d have available might well be zero.
Averages are properties of populations, not of individuals. There are many cases in which the average value is not possessed by any member of the set, because “average” is different from “typical”.
I hope the analogy to race and racism is obvious because I do not plan to spell it out.
*Average height in the WNBA is 5’11”. Less than 0.5% of women are this tall. 30% of men are. In other words if you are a 5’11” man, there are about 750,000 American women as tall or taller than you are. If you are a 5’11” woman, there are about 15 million men as tall or taller than you are.
It’s not a new problem.
In the sixties, the Democrats pushed hard on Civil Rights (which was pretty much a complete reversal of their earlier policies), which was a great thing for them and for the country.
But in the process, they alienated, and sometimes demonized, the southern white voters who had been a core constituency for almost a century.
Those voters responded by switching their support to the Republicans.
Apparently Democratic leaders missed the lesson of that, because they’re still trying to win over the voters by insulting them, a strategy which has consistently failed for about fifty years- which they consistently fail to notice.
To paraphrase somebody (I forget who, sorry), they’re trying to catch fish by standing on the shore and yelling at them.
That doesn’t mean that some supporters of Trump aren’t racist. Some definitely are.
While there are exceptions, they are not diversitists (i.e. judge people by the “color” of their skin) in principle (i.e. character), which precludes painting a class of people with broad, sweeping strokes.
The difference that matters isn’t Race, it’s Culture.
Race is a function of your DNA. You’re stuck with it.
Your actual behavior is a function of your culture, which is learned and therefore can be changed.
An example of the difference is that we’re all posting in English. We all have different genetic backgrounds, but we all write in the same language (which most of our ancestors probably didn’t speak) because our language is part of a culture which we all share, at least to some degree.
The issue with immigration is several-fold. One, it is a cover-up for collateral damage from social justice adventures (e.g. elective wars). Two, it is exploited as labor arbitrage and redistributive change (e.g. welfare profits). Three, it is used to gerrymander the vote and disenfranchise American citizens. Four, when it exceeds the rate of assimilation and integration, it promotes prejudice (e.g. Spanish-speaking radio stations, bilingual services, etc) and factional progression. Five, it avoids emigration reform and the abnormality of mass exodus. Six, it compensates for the wicked solution, Planned Parenthood, and dysfunctional orientations.
Race is a function of both nature and nurture. It is a construct derived from genetics, but also from character (e.g. principled alignment).
is hating someone who is the instigator of hatred a good kind of hate? that is what the democrats are promoting, they rationalize their hate toward conservatives by claiming that the conservatives are haters who started the hating cycle and hating them back not only okay but encouraged, in fact you are racist if you don’t hate racists with every drop of rage you have.
That is how Obama corrupted America, due to his socialism and community organizer background, whose specialty was to incite hatred and protests in community to get what they wanted politically, he taught the left to fight hate with hate.
Richf at 12:14. You’re exactly right, it’s Culture. I grew up in Cleveland in the 1950s. My mother had a cousin who owned several five and dimes, as dollar discount stores were known in those days. He had one on the West Side where all the heavy industry was, steel mills, auto assembly plants, and the like. It was populated by literally hillbillies, poor and uneducated, who had come north from Appalachia for all the jobs. He could go out for 20 minutes to get a sandwich for lunch and when he got back they’d be waiting in line with their money and purchases, or they’d leave a quarter on the cash register and a note listing what they’d bought.
He had another store on the East Side in Little Italy that was populated by recent immigrants from Sicily (and the Mafia). He had to close the store because he couldn’t turn his back on the customers or they’d steal him blind. I just read a history of Sicily and guess what, that’s how life has been lived there for the last several hundred years. If you ever go to Italy, you’ll learn that the main land looks down on them as lawless scum.
oh oh…
somebodies cleaning house..
SECOND HIT FEARS Counter terror police launch probe after anti-Putin Russian mogul Nikolai Glushkov found dead in ‘unexplained circumstances’ with ‘strangulation marks’ at London home
The Democrats, again, have always been the authoritarian political party. Their “civil rights revolution” was really nothing more than a ploy to get African-Americans hooked on socialism, which naturally devolved into the same master-slave relationship all socialist states do, with the slaves too reliant on supplies bestowed upon them by their community organizers to dare rebel.
The Democrats have just become so good at subtle projection that they’ve successfully convinced the Republicans themselves that they are the party of racism, when really they’re still the same party of libertarianism (*effective* libertarianism, unlike the self-proclaimed Libertarian Party) they’ve always been. Even after the Democrats restarted the slave trade by putting the Barbary Pirates back in charge of Libya, and are busy destroying Confederate history to keep anyone from realizing the original slave trade grew from arguments like “They’re only doing jobs citizens won’t do” and “We’re rescuing them from certain death and teaching them to be civilized” that they are seriously making in defense of illegal immigrants today.
That’s the power of propaganda for you. It can’t change reality, but it can make people commit mass suicide, homicide, or even genocide trying to.
@dave, it’s an Alinsky tactic, Accuse your opposition of what you yourself do! Google Alinsky tactics, a very short read and a template for Hillary, Obama & DNC.
Frog:
You are wrong about the way I look at things.
I look at things from a psychological and legal point of view, and ALSO from a biological, scientific, philosophical, logical, artistic, etc.etc.etc…. point of view. I try to balance all those things when appropriate, but I have training (for example) at the graduate level in statistics, and I have been trained (for example) to be able to critique research in all the sciences that deal with humans (so-called social sciences, much medical research, genetic research, etc.). It is not so much that I’ve mastered each of those fields—of course I have not—but I know the logic and basis of research and research methods, particularly with human subjects.
You are going on emotion and I don’t even think you realize it.
THIS should cheer up neo!
🙂
Madonna to Direct Ballerina Movie…
http://variety.com/2018/film/news/madonna-directing-ballerina-movie-taking-flight-1202725212/
“Taking Flight,” based on the life of ballerina Michaela De Prince
That should bump up the CHASE phone app residuals..
too bad no one remembers the other doyens
they are diligently fixing it now…
Re: charges of racism, humans have an innate *fear* of a stranger, we are programmed to be wary of whomever is different be that another race, another tribe, the nasty folks in that village 10 miles away from my village. We have to *work * to overcome this wariness, we just cannot pronounce ourselves as welcoming of everybody. & bingo it actually happens. Forging friendships and tolerance is a two way street. .
Democrats are also very good at exploiting logical fallacies to push their agendas. example: because some black person was murdered by racists in the past implies every murder case with a black victim and white perpetrator is because of racism…
Affirming a disjunct: There are black and white people, since white people are racist, therefore black can’t be racist is class Affirming a disjunct, they can both be racist, but the democrats have exploited this fallacy and make the public believe that racism can’t be mutual, only one side can be racist against another side but not the other way around.
Apropos of Hillary lecturing her (ahem) inferiors, the net is bubbling with visuals & comments of allstripes after seeing her failure to negotiate the steps at some site in India, she loses her balance not once but twice even though she is assisted by one solid looking gent & then another man comes to her aid and she slips again! This woman is not well, whether it’s attributable to her past health woes, or drinking or something *new* ( I am thinking a harbinger of alzheimers)
As falls & repetitive dialogue indicate problems with brain function. Her obsession with who to blame.for her loss counts as the repetitive part. Something abnormal about not.
*moving on* HRC. The world is fortunate that all her inferiors passed on the rhetoric she offered.
“For example, of course more violent crime is committed in this country by African-Americans than by white people. But that doesn’t tell us why this is the case, nor does it tell us what any individual will do.”
Statistically, rural blacks and whites have similar crime rates. No big difference. It’s the inner city blacks with the out of sight crime rates. What’s the difference between rural and inner city blacks? Family structure.
True, Dave. those dems always have more arrows in their quiver.
Ray:
That’s interesting, and it certainly argues against any innate difference based on race.
Do you have any links on that?
another big one is because guns were used to kill kids, and conservatives support the 2nd amendment therefore conservatives are child murderers. Its as ridiculous as saying because many deaths were resulted from people texting behind the wheel, and apple invented the iphones, therefore steve Jobs is a murderer. how steep of a slippery slope do democrats or piers morgan have to go through to come to that conclusion? Scott Adams calls that mind reading hysteria or something like that.
I found myself persuaded by “The Bell Curve” (Herrnstein & Murray) that the mean IQ scores of blacks are indeed 15 points lower than whites.
Which of course doesn’t prove a thing about any individual black or white that one meets.
However, if true, it does matter in dealing with, say, liberal equal outcome efforts to pressure universities and corporations to accept/hire proportionately equal numbers of blacks in high-IQ positions.
So “The Bell Curve” is an extraordinarily hot potato in today’s world. I have looked but not found persuasive rebuttal, only indignation and handwringing that the authors would say something so problematic aloud.
The solution seems to be to cease all studies of race and IQ and to stage violent demonstrations should Charles Murray attempt to speak in public.
If you have the opinion that blacks are committing crimes because they are in fatherless homes, consider the fact that in slave times (1619 thru 186?) there was the high likelihood that the male in the family would have been sold off & likely would have another family in yet another location. So this situation of fatherless ness was *taught* to these enslaved people. There was an opportunity to rectify this behavior in the early to mid 20 th century when intact families were the norm but then LBJ & his great society decided to pay per child in fatherless families & all races got on board with that.. So now uncle gov can be yo daddy !
blacks are committing more crimes because they are full of anger and people who have a chip on the shoulder tends to lose temper very easily and commit many impulsive foolish crimes. Why are black youth full of anger? Who could stay clam when you have the Democrats like the shoulder devil whispering into your ear 24/7 that the whites are out to get you, taking away all your opportunities and your dad was taken away to fill the pockets of white baddies.
So Hillary believes, or says she does, that we white women vote as we are told by our menfolk. She is apparently forgetting, or ignoring the fact that we have the secret ballot and Papa, hubby, baby-daddy, or the CEO, would never know how we cast our votes. Could she really think that women, even we deplorable women, don’t know that?
Neo-
You are indeed well-trained in critique, including the statistical side, but critique is no substitute for actual knowledge of the science(s) at issue. You did not respond to my Down syndrome analogy at all. My point was to raise a genetic question, which you metaphorically shouted down; critique does nothing to answer that and similar questions.
The critic of theater plays never makes a good playwright.
MollyNH said:
Actually, Thomas Sowell has studied the black family in the 19th century. Even under slavery intact families were the norm. Slave owners encouraged cohabitation and procreation after The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 went into effect in 1808. It was the only way to guarantee a supply of new slaves. Britain also outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and began conducting anti-slavery patrols almost immediately but it was only a token effort until after the war of 1812. The USN began anti-slavery patrols in 1819 and indirectly assisted the larger Royal Navy effort, although combined both navies only succeeded in suppressing the transatlantic slave trade but not eliminating it. Still, it was enough of a threat to the plantations owners that they encouraged their slaves to have children. 75% of slave families consisted of children who all had the same two parents.
Which is why, according to Sowell’s research, over 80% of black families in the post civil war south were intact. You are entirely correct about the welfare state. It did to the black family what Jim Crow and the KKK couldn’t do during the latter half of the 19th century through the mid 20th century.
Demoncrats have been using culture and religion to control people for awhile now. The Leftist alliance as it currently stands is perhaps better at it than ever before, but the Demoncrats had it playing out quite well amongst the Scott/Irish clans in 1830s.
Back then, Marxism and Leftist social policies weren’t valid or even applicable, but the Demoncrats still used the same type of control mechanism to gain power.
The whites were made to be scared of blacks taking their women. The dreaded gender and sex conflicts were old methods, way before Leftist gender constructs and gaystapo came on the scene. This rule through fear system that the Demoncrats employed was quite effective and Luciferian, without the internet and modern communication exposing its flaws. These days all I have to do is to look at the primary sources and compare it to current generational perspectives of those days, to see the differences.
The Scots Irish were scared of foreigners taking their land and people. The blacks were scared of freedom or scared of slave masters. The white slave masters were scared of a slave revolt. Even after CW1 was officially over with an amnesty for all surrendered Confed officers, the aristocrats that no longer have their slave farms any more, still joined and funded the KKK. Even after the founder of the KKK ordered it disbanded, since he wanted to create a Free Mason society much like the Founding Fathers had, in order to promote mutual prosperity and benefit. The surviving slave lords were still pro slave, still pro power, still totalitarian, and couldn’t even be convinced by the SOuth’s war hero Nathan Bedford Forrest. They even succeeded by convincing Americans in this generation and right here, that NBForrest was on the KKK’s side for race tyranny. That’s how effective many Americans have been deceived by their ancestors.
Frog:
If I don’t respond to every point you make it’s simply a lack of time (and/or interest). You are not my teacher, giving me an exam.
However, since you asked so nicely, I’ll respond to your Down syndrome analogy. You wrote:
(1) It is not racist to ask a question about such a possible linkage. However, it is racist to assume such a linkage until there is proof of it.
(2) What’s more, even the observed linkage between the trait of “cheerfulness” and the Down syndrome trisomy is not necessarily quite as clear and/or clearly biologically (genetically) based as you might think. Please look at this article. Here’s an excerpt:
I could go on quoting, but the point is that we really don’t have a good understanding of what the “cheerfulness” of Down syndrome children is about, and what causes it. Is it some sort of linkage to trisomy 21, as you posit? Or is it many Down syndrome children’s reaction to the combination of cognitive and developmental deficits they experience and their relative lack of deficits in the social arena that causes them to focus on and use the latter more and more to distract from and to deal with (in the social sense) their cognitive deficits?
You don’t know and I don’t know, and researchers don’t seem to know. So the premises of your supposed analogy are not as strong as you seem to think.
(3) Down syndrome children vary to a certain extent in their general health, their cognition, and their social skills. But trisomy 21 is a very discrete and clear either/or thing—a person either has it or he/she doesn’t have it. Race is very very very different in inheritance, as is dark skin color.
Your phrase “the skin-color gene” shows a lack of knowledge about a number of things. The first is the way in which skin color is inherited. There is no “skin-color gene.” Skin color inheritance is far more complex than that:
We still don’t know for certain the number of genes involved in skin color inheritance, but research indicates there are at least three, plus alleles, and it is possible that there are more (and this article says that half a dozen have been identified).
Also:
The article then goes on to give a hypothetical in which three genes (plus alleles) for skin color could generate, from 2 parents, 64 different color possibilities. It is very complex, and some simple linkage with “violence” (also a very complex trait) is certainly something you are free to speculate about, but it is sheer imaginative speculation at this point and the comparison with trisomy 21 makes little to no sense.
In addition, skin color is not race. It is one of many traits connected with race, race being a set of convenient categories each of which represents a collection of many traits that vary over geography. “Skin color” ranges in all races, with some Southern Indian people (for example; there are other examples) exhibiting very dark skin color.
As for Democrats being the party of Andrew Jackson, that is a very popular motiff amongst some parts of the US.
I liked to say that the followers of Andrew Jackson had all of Jackson’s vices but none of his virtues. When they all get together to form a political party, the Democrats were what Americans got. Pure ornery, sob that will sell out the country if the price is right.
As for Frog’s confidence in current genetic comprehension, I’ll just tell a story, the way Jesus did with his parables.
Back when DNA sequencers were trying to compare monkey DNA to human DNA, the popular refrain was “we’re 9x.x% similar to chimps! We must have evolved from them”.
What they didn’t tell the public was that the specific DNA to DNA match in the helix of chimp to human was less than 68%. They threw out most of the data and called it “junk DNA”. That’s sorta like pulling up 30% of the html code and your OS code, deleting it, and saying it is junk code, we don’t need it. Oh maybe we do, but the people deleting it doesn’t know how to read the code.
Humans still don’t know how to read the DNA code. It’s like trying to backwards engineer JAVA or C++, when you don’t actually know how the code language works. You notice that some lines, when changed, seem to affect operations, so you tinker with them to see what affects what, but 80% of the code is a complete mystery.
So it doesn’t really matter what people say about the genetic code sequence. They don’t understand it any more than normal people do.
Neo,
This is all I can find now. I know it’s somewhere in the DOJ statistics.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/usrv98.pdf
The biggest example of how much human “scientists” got it wrong is the comparison between epigenetics and the classical understanding of how inheritance works.
Ray: Thanks for your work in running down a source for us all. Unfortunately it does not bear out the claim rural blacks commit about the same amount of violence as rural whites.
According to the pdf, rural blacks commit proportionally 2.5 times as much violent crime as rural whites.
For example, between 1993-98, 90% of the rural population was white and whites were perceived to have committed 72% of rural violent victimizations. Although blacks comprised 8% of the rural population, they were perceived to have committed 16% of rural violent crimes.
–pp. 9,10
I guess one could argue blacks are more likely to be “perceived” in committing violent crimes, but still a 2.5X factor is hard to explain away.
Pingback:Visit Now
Pingback:lechman lawn service