If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Right-wing columnist urges GOP to abandon minority outreach: " 'Colorblind conservatism' is a dead end, and the future of the conservative movement is as a home for white ethnocentrism"   (rawstory.com) divider line 220
    More: Scary, GOP, John Derbyshire, Right-wing columnist, conservatives, alpha males  
•       •       •

3143 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Mar 2014 at 1:35 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



220 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-04 10:09:15 PM

palelizard: vharshyde: MikeyFuccon: HotWingConspiracy: "Women are just like that," Derbyshire said. "One thing we might try would be putting some alpha males up front, instead of mealy-mouthed cringing betas."

Oh god, he reads 4chan as well.

More likely the "men's rights"/"manosphere" fever swamp. 4chan I presume he leaves to his half-Asian children.

Yes, he has children. No, they're not white, and I hope for their sake they didn't inherit that neck.

[www.rawstory.com image 615x345]

All fooling aside, the editor of Derbyshire's new magazine (Taki Theodoracopulos) has a habit of romanticizing the Greek junta along with Vladimir Putin and other tough guys who make life more difficult for the "rootless cosmopolitans," mostly out of spite that they have the nerve to buy villas next door to his own in any number of fancy resorts. Birds of a feather.

"Where's your neck!? Where's your farking Neck!?"

Why is it the greatest champions of the white race always turn out to be the worst examples of it? YOU! Where the fark is your CHIN?


i965.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-04 10:15:05 PM
They're also unhappy that James Kilpatrick (probably best known the pop-culture imitations of him in "Kentucky Fried Movie," "Airplane," and Dan Akroyd's character in early SNL Weekend Update bits) back away from openly supporting segregation.

James Jackson Kilpatrick, Jr. (1920 - 2010) was a hugely popular conservative commentator of the latter part of the 20th century. Thanks to television, he became one of America's first "celebrity journalists" and, with William Buckley, personified the Right. Before that, however, he was one of the country's best known segregationists.
How did he make the switch? Did he change his views? Sacrifice his principles? A little-or a lot-of both?

Author Prof. Hustwit notes a very significant event in 1966. The  Saturday Evening Postoffered to publish the piece it had killed in 1963, but with a milder title, "Negroes Are Not Equal." Prof. Hustwit, who had access to Kilpatrick's private papers, quotes from his reply: "From my own professional point of view, the problem is quite simply that I do not want-and could not possibly afford-to be publicly associated with those views, phrased with such vigor." Kilpatrick explained that publishing the piece would hurt his column. The  Post had the publication rights, however, and Kilpatrick even offered to buy them back for $1,500-a lot of money at the time-if that was what it took to bury the column.

http://www.amren.com/features/2013/08/the-long-retreat-on-race/

Buckley and Kilpatrick were the most mainstream conservative voices of print and TV ("The Firing Line" and "Point-Counterpoint") of their era.  A lot of paleoconservatives felt betrayed when those two backed down from vigorously defending segregation.  I think guys like Derbyshire still feel betrayed. . .
 
2014-03-04 10:30:52 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: You do realize that one can recognize and acknowledge problematic behavior without hating the people exhibiting that behavior, right? Besides, have you spent any time around programmers? There's a whole lot of angry white guys in that industry.


Yeah, and there's too many angry black criminals in society.  Would it upset you if someone said that?  Probably, since I had an emotional reaction just writing it.  Do me a solid and look past the content though, I said it strictly to illustrate a point.

When someone tells me there are too many angry white men in programming, they (or you in hindsight) can try and hide behind plausible deniability, but it's pretty clear what that means:  White men are ruining the career, because by virtue of their whiteness they suck (or at least are more likely to suck).  Non-whites don't get angry, it's strictly a silly white person thing, so getting more non-whites in the career field surely will not result in angry non-whites.

Simply pointing out that there are a lot of angry white men isn't the problem with what he said.  There was a difference between the way you put it and the way he put it, namely that you were simply stating a statistically verifiable fact(?), while he was making an argument explaining why white men are inherently awful.  It might be easier to see in context of the speech, perhaps.

I'm not playing the victim card, I don't think white men are victimized by this mentality.  White men (mostly) have it pretty good, and will continue to have it pretty good, that's not what I'm talking about.  But unless you apply some convenient and implausible mental gymnastics to what he said, it's anti-white male sentiment.  I don't buy privilege as a reason why his anti-white attitude is morally superior to pro-white attitudes, but perhaps you and a lot of other people here do because racism is only racism if you have power and you're racist against those without power.  In my estimation, though, it would be silly to expect western whites, and only western whites, to not build a nation centered around looking out for their own when we accept the exact same thing in non-white nations all over the world as long as it doesn't get too violent.

Chameleon: Do you not remember 1994? "Angry white male" is a particular demographic--specifically one who is upset that non-white, non-males have a say in society. The guy was not likely actually denigrating the white race, dude.


Here's something you may need to consider:  If black people were the majority and in charge, they'd do the same thing.  You can spin the Wheel-o-Races and no matter where you land, it'll be true for that race as well.  You can't see it in a minority, because by definition they cannot be upset that the majority are encroaching on their "territory" or whatever you want to call it since they are the minority and the "territory" isn't theirs.  But since we don't have a counter-example in The West we have to use our imaginations, and Spike Lee's recent rant is a great example of what a society of Angry Black Men would look like.  Strangely, it looks exactly the same except for skin color.

Let's play "Angry White Man, or Empowerment".  Read this quote and answer the question:  "I mean, [people of another race] just move in the neighborhood. You just can't come in the neighborhood. I'm for democracy and letting everybody live but you gotta have some respect. You can't just come in when people have a culture that's been laid down for generations and you come in and now shiat gotta change because you're here? Get the fark outta here. Can't do that!"

Was that Angry White Man Syndrome, or Empowerment?

I'm pointing all of this out partially because I'm a contrarian, but also because if we deny the obvious about race relations....well I don't know what will happen, I just usually know that denial leads to bad things so it makes me wary.
 
2014-03-04 10:37:57 PM
The "Year of the Angry White Male" was partially a response to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Woman
 
2014-03-04 10:44:35 PM

nmrsnr: factoryconnection: Choice A: dilute the party's hard-line stance against gays, immigrants, the poor, and other sacred cows
---Pro: less alienation of independents, less chance of derp-storm candidates like that "shut the whole thing down" guy
---Con: they alienate their own base of voters and become a diet version of the Democratic party

Choice B: stick to their guns
---Pro: they get to feel good, keep their base, and hey... guns!
---Con: they get bred out of relevance, increased chance of more derp-storm candidates

This is really no choice at all, and is merely the evolution of a party. At some point it becomes clear that the majority of Americans no longer believe in what you are selling (in this case, the nostalgic days of women in the kitchen, gays nonexistent, and being poor meant being lazy). When this happens there will eventually be a point at which it becomes clear that there is no longer any way to win large scale elections, and winning regional elections becomes increasingly rare. When one party looks to become monopolistic, either the weakening party will adopt some of the less offensive to its principles of the opposing party in the hopes of siphoning off voters, or the larger party itself will fracture, since there are always many disparate voices in a big tent party. The pieces then coalescing into the new two party system.


parlorofhorror.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-04 10:52:28 PM

God-is-a-Taco: What other group of people welcomes extremely large and unsustainable amounts of outsiders of various cultures and ethnicities


I agree; maybe we shouldn't have let Derbyshire move here from Britain.

:-)
 
2014-03-04 11:31:00 PM
Finally...a Republican honest enough to admit the truth about his party.
 
2014-03-05 12:10:30 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: TheShavingofOccam123: [www.rawstory.com image 546x307]

"Look on my works, ye whitey, and despair."

Where is that cartoon about white supremecists having weak chins when I need it?


Is that a thing? Are chins a symbol of ... something? Masculinity? Virility?

First penises, now chins.... Someone let me know when thumbs become a symbol of manliness; I've got that shiat locked up.
 
2014-03-05 12:22:11 AM

IrishFarmer: Teufelaffe: IrishFarmer: The left-leaning folks here are going to condescend about this, but I don't see how the left's tendency towards thinly veiled disdain for white males people in a place of privilege who not only refuse to acknowledge their privilege, they attempt to play the victim whenever said privilege is mentioned to them is morally superior.

FTFY

White people, in my experience, generally acknowledge their privilege (except a lot of conservatives, but they aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree anyway).  But what's so surprising about the ethnic core of a nation privileging itself?  That's the reason nations exist in the first place, really.  In fact, pretty much every (non-white) nation on the planet does this, except it's only a problem when pale-faces do it because....because....I don't know, you tell me.  I never actually heard a reason why white people doing what every other nation/race does is wrong, it's just assumed everyone should have a problem with it apparently.

Those who play the victim card implicitly buy into the whole white guilt narrative, that's why they try and trump progressives by saying they're also victims and deserve of (ironically enough) the privileges of victimhood.



There's nothing "surprising" or unique about racism on behalf of any race. People have a problem with it, especially on an institutional level, because it's stupid and divisive and backwards and fundamentally unjust. You are apparently aware of complaints about racism against, say, black people in the US, and unaware of complaints about racism against Uyghurs in China or Armenians in Turkey or Koreans in Japan or Tutsis in Rwanda or Indians in Fiji or Amerindians in Mexico - or whatever - possibly because (1) US news hits closer to home for you and (2) knowing about this other stuff might make it harder for you to feel like people only have a problem with your racism because you're white.
 
2014-03-05 01:01:29 AM
I'm frankly offended that they assume that if you're white you agree with them. Actually that concept in itself is pretty farking racist. Does that make me racist for noticing?
 
2014-03-05 03:25:31 AM

IrishFarmer: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: You do realize that one can recognize and acknowledge problematic behavior without hating the people exhibiting that behavior, right? Besides, have you spent any time around programmers? There's a whole lot of angry white guys in that industry.

Yeah, and there's too many angry black criminals in society.  Would it upset you if someone said that?  Probably, since I had an emotional reaction just writing it.  Do me a solid and look past the content though, I said it strictly to illustrate a point.

When someone tells me there are too many angry white men in programming, they (or you in hindsight) can try and hide behind plausible deniability, but it's pretty clear what that means:  White men are ruining the career, because by virtue of their whiteness they suck (or at least are more likely to suck).  Non-whites don't get angry, it's strictly a silly white person thing, so getting more non-whites in the career field surely will not result in angry non-whites.

Simply pointing out that there are a lot of angry white men isn't the problem with what he said.  There was a difference between the way you put it and the way he put it, namely that you were simply stating a statistically verifiable fact(?), while he was making an argument explaining why white men are inherently awful.  It might be easier to see in context of the speech, perhaps.

I'm not playing the victim card, I don't think white men are victimized by this mentality.  White men (mostly) have it pretty good, and will continue to have it pretty good, that's not what I'm talking about.  But unless you apply some convenient and implausible mental gymnastics to what he said, it's anti-white male sentiment.  I don't buy privilege as a reason why his anti-white attitude is morally superior to pro-white attitudes, but perhaps you and a lot of other people here do because racism is only racism if you have power and you're racist against those without power.  In my estimation, though, it w ...


Contrarian? Crybaby is more like it. Grow the f**k up, and count your blessings. You were born on third base, and have never faced institutional racism (the ONLY kind that matters ) in your soft, pampered little life, and never will.
You are spoiled, ungrateful, and a crybaby - grow up.
 
2014-03-05 06:39:11 AM

Weaver95: Well at least he is honest enough to admit to beliefs that many conservatives silently agree with and pretend they don't share.


This guy was kicked out for being a fringe racist, but you want to paint all conservatives as being exactly like him.

Does that mean I can call you and all of your Progressive friends communists who want to make our country into Soviet Russia and exile and imprison anyone with a different opinion?
 
2014-03-05 07:21:04 AM

Animatronik: Weaver95: Well at least he is honest enough to admit to beliefs that many conservatives silently agree with and pretend they don't share.

This guy was kicked out for being a fringe racist, but you want to paint all conservatives as being exactly like him.

Does that mean I can call you and all of your Progressive friends communists who want to make our country into Soviet Russia and exile and imprison anyone with a different opinion?


The right wing in the US has been calling progressives and liberals "communists" for a long time now, and even moreso the last decade or so.

Don't you remember all those scare ads during the 2012 presidential campaign, where SuperPAC's ran ads saying that unless we elected Romney and repealed Obamacare that the US would quickly turn into a Soviet-style Stalinist state, or the endless shrill screaming on FOX News and the rest of the right-wing echo chamber during the Occupy Wall Street protests that it was some kind of attempted communist revolution in the US?

The American right has been trying to portray anything to the left of them as being indistinguishable from Soviet-style communism since at least the early 2000's.

The right wing, on the other hand, goes around with the conflicting rhetoric of basically wanting to abolish government "government so small you can drown it in the bathtub" and perpetually lowering taxes, while still having a massive military and being ready to go to war, and for a hands-off "small government" except when it involves regulating who you can marry and what basic gynecological procedures women can receive.  They basically want a military that would make Darth Vader proud, a government that would make John Galt proud, and a theocratic state cribbed from The Handmaid's Tale.  That's not an exaggeration, that's going from their own speeches and platform planks.
 
2014-03-05 07:26:57 AM

rewind2846: There aren't a majority of these types, but they are one thing that other voters aren't - CONSISTENT. That is their strength. If democrats and non-crazy republicans would get out and vote the way the nut jobs do, the tea party wouldn't even exist.


In a two party setup like the US has (and with non-compulsory voting), campaigning on hatred and fear is always superior to campaigning on positive aspects because it is so easy to rile up the base to turnout in decent numbers, whereas it is easy to attack constructive activities (like improving the welfare system or education) by using anecdotes (see Joe the Plumber or the "Obamacare" responses), and thus depress turnout.
 
2014-03-05 08:03:34 AM

jso2897: Contrarian? Crybaby is more like it. Grow the f**k up, and count your blessings. You were born on third base, and have never faced institutional racism (the ONLY kind that matters ) in your soft, pampered little life, and never will.
You are spoiled, ungrateful, and a crybaby - grow up.


img.fark.net
 
2014-03-05 08:20:31 AM

Animatronik: Weaver95: Well at least he is honest enough to admit to beliefs that many conservatives silently agree with and pretend they don't share.

This guy was kicked out for being a fringe racist, but you want to paint all conservatives as being exactly like him.

Does that mean I can call you and all of your Progressive friends communists who want to make our country into Soviet Russia and exile and imprison anyone with a different opinion?


You want to try that again, but with a bit more reading comprehension this time?
 
2014-03-05 08:32:30 AM

Animatronik: This guy was kicked out for being a fringe racist, but you want to paint all conservatives as being exactly like him.


He was a fringe racist for a long time. He just went a little too far for the National Review one day.

They seem to attract white nationalist to their paper for some reason.
 
2014-03-05 10:42:55 AM
FTA:

"The future of the conservative movement is as a home for white ethnocentrism," said Derbyshire, who had recently been injected with an experimental truth serum.
 
2014-03-05 05:09:26 PM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: There's nothing "surprising" or unique about racism on behalf of any race. People have a problem with it, especially on an institutional level, because it's stupid and divisive and backwards and fundamentally unjust. You are apparently aware of complaints about racism against, say, black people in the US, and unaware of complaints about racism against Uyghurs in China or Armenians in Turkey or Koreans in Japan or Tutsis in Rwanda or Indians in Fiji or Amerindians in Mexico - or whatever - possibly because (1) US news hits closer to home for you and (2) knowing about this other stuff might make it harder for you to feel like people only have a problem with your racism because you're white.


My real original complaint, and what I leave you guys with is this:  That those who are supposed to be against racism against minorities don't have a problem with negative sentiments (what you might call racism, if you're inclined) against the majority.  I don't care if you guys want to call out white racism against any other race in America, I have a general dislike for racism of any kind because it's typically irrational and usually it's an ineffectual way of addressing a real world problem, for instance the claim that blacks are more prone to violence because they're black, rather than say endemic poverty, failed public institutions, dissolution of the family unit, discriminatory laws/justice system and so on....even if race was a factor, it's the least significant factor and since you can't change race anyway there's no point in even considering it regardless.

But the anti-white male sentiments that the left is known for, even if we leave open the possibility that the perception is unwarranted, is bad PR for the left.  Even if I were sympathetic to liberal values, I'd always feel unwelcome in the movement because it seems there are a lot of people in it that don't have a lot of regard for me.  Call me a crybaby all you want, but I'm not going to waste my limited time on this earth associating myself with a movement that isn't too keen on me.

Whether you want to admit this perception exists or not, it's there and it does you no good to try and shout it down by calling "crybaby" or "bigot" every time someone points it out.  But I'll drop the other points and leave it at that since that was really the only reason I dropped a line in this thread in the first place.
 
2014-03-05 07:53:27 PM

IrishFarmer: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: There's nothing "surprising" or unique about racism on behalf of any race. People have a problem with it, especially on an institutional level, because it's stupid and divisive and backwards and fundamentally unjust. You are apparently aware of complaints about racism against, say, black people in the US, and unaware of complaints about racism against Uyghurs in China or Armenians in Turkey or Koreans in Japan or Tutsis in Rwanda or Indians in Fiji or Amerindians in Mexico - or whatever - possibly because (1) US news hits closer to home for you and (2) knowing about this other stuff might make it harder for you to feel like people only have a problem with your racism because you're white.

My real original complaint, and what I leave you guys with is this:  That those who are supposed to be against racism against minorities don't have a problem with negative sentiments (what you might call racism, if you're inclined) against the majority.  I don't care if you guys want to call out white racism against any other race in America, I have a general dislike for racism of any kind because it's typically irrational and usually it's an ineffectual way of addressing a real world problem, for instance the claim that blacks are more prone to violence because they're black, rather than say endemic poverty, failed public institutions, dissolution of the family unit, discriminatory laws/justice system and so on....even if race was a factor, it's the least significant factor and since you can't change race anyway there's no point in even considering it regardless.

But the anti-white male sentiments that the left is known for, even if we leave open the possibility that the perception is unwarranted, is bad PR for the left.  Even if I were sympathetic to liberal values, I'd always feel unwelcome in the movement because it seems there are a lot of people in it that don't have a lot of regard for me.  Call me a crybaby all you want, but I'm not going to waste m ...



Well, if the views of outsiders are more important to your decision-making than either reality or the experience of insiders, good luck with that. Since you aren't "sympathetic to liberal values" anyway, I'm sure you'll understand that your concern about their PR doesn't hold much water.

(Speaking of PR, I'd think that libs alienating some conservative white guys are not doing nearly the same damage as the right wing alienating...well, pretty much everyone else.)

For what it's worth, I agree with you that racism/bigotry is a problem regardless of who it's coming from. I also think that it poses a greater practical/societal problem when it supports domination at an institutional level, so in big-picture political terms it makes sense to be more attentive to that.
 
Displayed 20 of 220 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report