Topic: Tales of New America

[Pandora]

I fully understand your point about the Thomas Sowells and Walter Williamses, but, Weisshaupt, if you don't know that's what you're dealing with, then you just don't know.  The author, Butterworth, demonstrated that with having the Black man in his example revert to type -- "you all Whities jest ain't to be trusted; racists, RACISTS".  He'd have done better to have us think about it by showing the man as keeping his dignity, and his racism in check, but he had a bigger point, don't you think?

What the author is also demonstrating is that forced integration is a bad thing, so we ought to let them have their areas, we'll have ours, and there could be an area where it doesn't matter -- come as you are -- in the interest of seeing how well that works out in the end.  You should have caught that part in one of the chapters.

[charlesoakwood]

In TEOWAWKI why should I expect a fair shake from a white person?

[Weisshaupt]

I fully understand your point about the Thomas Sowells and Walter Williamses, but, Weisshaupt, if you don't know that's what you're dealing with, then you just don't know.  The author, Butterworth, demonstrated that with having the Black man in his example revert to type -- "you all Whities jest ain't to be trusted; racists, RACISTS".  He'd have done better to have us think about it by showing the man as keeping his dignity, and his racism in check, but he had a bigger point, don't you think?

 The man was a well known friend,  and he DID KNOW.  You might treat him like that in front of the crowd, but you had to sure as hell visit him in his home and tell him  you said it to give him cover - because you DO have need of him after all.  Of course after reverting to type, maybe you couldn't trust him after all. The point here seems to be "you can't trust them, ever" because the blood is going to be thicker between those of the same skin color and  I think that is a bad point to take away. I lived in Harlem.  I saw it all, the good and the bad, and I assure both are there.

Any time you use force to substitute your opinions for another's, be it on  race or large sodas its a bad thing.  I am probably border-line aspergers, I don't read facial expressions well, and I am often a bad judge of character and motives because of it, but even I can identify the problem-child entitled racist/elitist lefty mindset within a few minutes of being with them.  I don't think identification of real threats will be difficult.  Leftists just don't understand liberty, or individuality- the concepts  literally are outside their ability to comprehend. They can't fake it. Their need for  self righteous affirmation and group acceptance  is too strong.  They NEED to be the "cool kids" and they will identify themselves that way every time.

This may end up looking like a race war, but it really isn't.  I could go find a  bus of white folks that would require those ankle collars and chemical castration too. This is a battle between  a  primitive, barbaric and communistic tribal culture against a modern, individualistic one.  Blacks predominate in one culture  because the left exploited the history to give them an alibi for failure as Eric Hoffer asserted , and a group to hate for it. Or as Richard Bach said "Argue your limitations and they are yours"

The final bit is the real thing - you can't live with those who refuse to live and let live. They are the enemy. Be they White, Black, Brown, red, yellow or blue.
 

[Weisshaupt]

In TEOWAWKI why should I expect a fair shake from a white any person?

There.  fixed it for you. Honest men deal honestly. Dishonest men don't. Liberals and liberalism are fundamentally dishonest.  When times are tough - dishonesty will abound  in all races and creeds, even ours. The people you place your trust in will be far and few, and given their scarcity, I don't think discarding honest men on trivial criteria will serve you well. The cost of Knowledge, as Sowell put it, will be high. Prior knowledge and dealings with an  individual will be invaluable in deciding trustworthiness  - even if that individual happens to be a minority.    

[Pandora]

I fully understand your point about the Thomas Sowells and Walter Williamses, but, Weisshaupt, if you don't know that's what you're dealing with, then you just don't know.  The author, Butterworth, demonstrated that with having the Black man in his example revert to type -- "you all Whities jest ain't to be trusted; racists, RACISTS".  He'd have done better to have us think about it by showing the man as keeping his dignity, and his racism in check, but he had a bigger point, don't you think?

 The man was a well known friend,  and he DID KNOW.  You might treat him like that in front of the crowd, but you had to sure as hell visit him in his home and tell him  you said it to give him cover - because you DO have need of him after all.  Of course after reverting to type, maybe you couldn't trust him after all. The point here seems to be "you can't trust them, ever" because the blood is going to be thicker between those of the same skin color and  I think that is a bad point to take away. I lived in Harlem.  I saw it all, the good and the bad, and I assure both are there.

I'm going to give over to you on this because I haven't had your experience with it; mine has been a confirmation of stereotypes, unfortunately.

Any time you use force to substitute your opinions for another's, be it on  race or large sodas its a bad thing.  I am probably border-line aspergers, I don't read facial expressions well, and I am often a bad judge of character and motives because of it, but even I can identify the problem-child entitled racist/elitist lefty mindset within a few minutes of being with them.  I don't think identification of real threats will be difficult.  Leftists just don't understand liberty, or individuality- the concepts  literally are outside their ability to comprehend. They can't fake it. Their need for  self righteous affirmation and group acceptance  is too strong.  They NEED to be the "cool kids" and they will identify themselves that way every time.

This may end up looking like a race war, but it really isn't.  I could go find a  bus of white folks that would require those ankle collars and chemical castration too. This is a battle between  a  primitive, barbaric and communistic tribal culture against a modern, individualistic one.  Blacks predominate in one culture  because the left exploited the history to give them an alibi for failure as Eric Hoffer asserted , and a group to hate for it. Or as Richard Bach said "Argue your limitations and they are yours"

The final bit is the real thing - you can't live with those who refuse to live and let live. They are the enemy. Be they White, Black, Brown, red, yellow or blue.

Bill Whittle preaches it the same way; the tribe is your people, whatever their race or color.  It's the mindset that matters.

The jury is still out for me.

[Pandora]

In TEOWAWKI why should I expect a fair shake from a white person?

Oh, exCUSE me?!  I hope this is facetiousness here.

[RickZ]

I followed a link at the Oculus sight.  This story should quell any questions about whose side the police are on.  (Hint:  It ain't on the side of the people who pay their bloated pensions.)

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/to_serve_but_not_protect_Qr3ume5gEhMhtg8LvHgzAI?utm_campaign=OutbrainA&utm_source=OutbrainArticlepages&obref=obinsource

City says cops had no duty to protect subway hero who subdued killer

He says he put his life on the line to stop a killer — and claims cops sat back and watched.

But city lawyers are arguing that the police had no legal duty to protect Joseph Lozito, the Long Island dad stabbed seven times trying to subdue madman Maksim Gelman — a courtroom maneuver the subway hero calls “disgraceful.”

A judge is currently deciding whether Lozito, who sued the city last year for failing to prevent the attack, will get his day in court.

The drug-fueled Gelman had fatally stabbed three people in Brooklyn and killed another with a car during a 28-hour rampage when he entered an uptown No. 3 train on Feb. 12, 2011.
 
Police officers Terrance Howell and Tamara Taylor were part of a massive NYPD manhunt. They were in the operator’s cab, watching the tracks between Penn Station and 42nd Street for any sign of the fugitive. Lozito was seated next to the cab.

In the official NYPD account and Howell’s own affidavit, Howell heroically tackled and subdued the killer. But Lozito tells a different story.

The 42-year-old mixed-martial-arts fan says he watched Gelman approach the cab window, barking: “Let me in!” Gelman even claimed to be a cop, but a dismissive Howell turned away, he says.

Gelman walked off. A straphanger recognizing Gelman tried to alert the cops, but was also rebuffed. A minute later, Gelman returned and set his sights on the 6-foot-2, 270-pound Lozito.

 “You’re going to die,” Gelman announced — then stabbed him in the face.

 Lozito leapt from his seat and lunged at the 23-year-old Gelman as the psycho sliced at him.

“Most of my wounds are in the back of my head,” Lozito said. “He got to the back of my head because my left shoulder [was] in his waist.”

In his account, Lozito pinned Gelman to the floor, disarming him. Howell then emerged from the booth, tapping Lozito’s shoulder: “You can get up now,” he said.

“By the time he got there, the dirty work was already done,” Lozito said.

Gelman was convicted in the spree — which left his girlfriend, her mother, his stepfather and a pedestrian dead, and five others injured.

Lozito says a grand-jury member later told him Howell admitted on the stand that he hid during the attack because he thought Gelman had a gun.

An angry Lozito decided to sue the city for negligence, arguing the cops should have recognized Gelman and prevented, or reacted more quickly to, the assault.

The city routinely settles such litigation but is playing hardball with Lozito, insisting his demand for unspecified money damages be tossed because the police had no “special duty” to protect him or any individual on the train that day.

“Under well-established law, the police are not liable for such incidents,” said city lawyer David Santoro. “That doesn't detract from the Police Department's public safety mission -- or the fact that New York is the safest big city in America."

Experts say it’s a long-standing legal precedent requiring police to put the public safety of all ahead of any one individual’s rights.

Lozito says his case is different.

“If the cop is on the train, and I get robbed by a stranger, of course, the cop can’t be clairvoyant,” Lozito told The Post. “But when they’re looking for Maksim Gelman, and Maksim Gelman bangs on the door and says, ‘Let me in, I’m a cop’ and all you say is: ‘No, you’re not?’”

1. Joseph Lozito enters the uptown No. 3 train, sitting behind the train operator. Officers Terrance Howell and Tamara Taylor enter the operator’s booth; a few minutes later, the train slowly pulls out of Penn Station.

2. Maksim Gelman walks up to the booth and says: “Let me in!” Howell allegedly dismisses him and Gelman walks away.

3. Minutes later, Gelman walks back up to the booth, looks at Lozito, says “You’re going to die,” and stabs him.

4. Lozito fights back, getting seven stab wounds during the 60-second struggle with Gelman, eventually pinning him and knocking the knife away.

5. Howell allegedly emerges from the booth, taps Lozito on the shoulder and says: “You can get up now.”

Now someone should ask Nanny Bloomingidiot if we can all have guns now, as the supposed protection that the armed police are to provide is nonexistent -- in the City's own words.

Oh, and somebody should shoot that City lawyer David Santoro for crimes against Logic.

[charlesoakwood]

In TEOWAWKI why should I expect a fair shake from a white person?

Oh, exCUSE me?!  I hope this is facetiousness here.

Not the least bit, disregarding the story line on the Asians or Jews as the author benignly put it (paraphrasing) they would rather be with their own and focusing on the black white aspect, I made a simple declarative; Weisshaupt quite accurately corrected and elaborated my point.
 
"In TEOWAWKI why should I expect a fair shake from a white any person?"

"There.  fixed it for you. Honest men deal honestly. Dishonest men don't. Liberals and liberalism are fundamentally dishonest.  When times are tough - dishonesty will abound  in all races and creeds, even ours. The people you place your trust in will be far and few, and given their scarcity, I don't think discarding honest men on trivial criteria will serve you well. The cost of Knowledge, as Sowell put it, will be high. Prior knowledge and dealings with an  individual will be invaluable in deciding trustworthiness  - even if that individual happens to be a minority."   

[Pandora]

In TEOWAWKI why should I expect a fair shake from a white person?

Oh, exCUSE me?!  I hope this is facetiousness here.

Not the least bit, disregarding the story line on the Asians or Jews as the author benignly put it (paraphrasing) they would rather be with their own and focusing on the black white aspect, I made a simple declarative;

I guess I'm just not understanding; why would YOU not expect a fair shake from a white person?

...  Weisshaupt quite accurately corrected and elaborated my point.
 
"In TEOWAWKI why should I expect a fair shake from a white any person?"

"There.  fixed it for you. Honest men deal honestly. Dishonest men don't. Liberals and liberalism are fundamentally dishonest.  When times are tough - dishonesty will abound  in all races and creeds, even ours. The people you place your trust in will be far and few, and given their scarcity, I don't think discarding honest men on trivial criteria will serve you well. The cost of Knowledge, as Sowell put it, will be high. Prior knowledge and dealings with an  individual will be invaluable in deciding trustworthiness  - even if that individual happens to be a minority."   

Yes, I got Weisshaupt's point, just not yours.

[Pandora]

"... Honest men deal honestly. Dishonest men don't. Liberals and liberalism are fundamentally dishonest.  When times are tough - dishonesty will abound  in all races and creeds, even ours. The people you place your trust in will be far and few, and given their scarcity, I don't think discarding honest men on trivial criteria will serve you well. The cost of Knowledge, as Sowell put it, will be high. Prior knowledge and dealings with an  individual will be invaluable in deciding trustworthiness  - even if that individual happens to be a minority."

Bolded part = true.  Some criteria, however, will be necessary to separate the maybe-trustworthy from the just-keep-moving-along, and Blacks have amply demonstrated by dint of their collective behavior that any member of their race is strict-scrutiny worthy, and I'm not referring to those we know through prior knowledge and dealings ... mostly.

I can better assess as possibly trustworthy *any* individual who doesn't come shambling up to me, pants hangin' down, hat on sideways, doing the hand-jive, and barely speaking English that I readily understand.  Does that go for an individual of any race?  Yes, as an initial assessment.  But in a SHTF scenario, everybody but Blacks are going to be picking up their pants, tucking in their shirts and putting their hats on straight if they know -- and they will -- that they'll get short shrift unless they do; Blacks mostly won't get it because = pick a reason:  they're arrogant/they'll call it "racist"/they'll call it being "dissed"/ _________ .

I'd rather have a decent Black person at my side, working with me to survive, than a trashy White or a trashy anybody, but I haven't had the experience nor pleasure of finding/dealing with many of them, very few actually.  Call me a bigot or a racist, I don't care; my personal experience, abetted by what I see going around me today, tells me better be safe than "open-minded".

[benb61]

I'd rather have a decent Black person at my side, working with me to survive, than a trashy White or a trashy anybody, but I haven't had the experience nor pleasure of finding/dealing with many of them, very few actually.  Call me a bigot or a racist, I don't care; my personal experience, abetted by what I see going around me today, tells me better be safe than "open-minded".

I don't look at skin color, dosen't matter to me.  As Dr. King said it's the "content of the character".  Must be trustworthy or actual blood.  Most family will be trusted but again character will still matter in the level of trust.  I havn't had any issues in my family, but my wife has 2 brothers that I don't trust as far as I can throw them.

[Pandora]

I'd rather have a decent Black person at my side, working with me to survive, than a trashy White or a trashy anybody, but I haven't had the experience nor pleasure of finding/dealing with many of them, very few actually.  Call me a bigot or a racist, I don't care; my personal experience, abetted by what I see going around me today, tells me better be safe than "open-minded".

I don't look at skin color, dosen't matter to me.  As Dr. King said it's the "content of the character".  Must be trustworthy or actual blood.  Most family will be trusted but again character will still matter in the level of trust.  I havn't had any issues in my family, but my wife has 2 brothers that I don't trust as far as I can throw them.

Well, that's you and that's okay, but signs from the other skin-colors indicate otherwise thinking. 

There's members of my blood I don't trust either, at all, except I can trust them not to be after me just because I'm White.

[Glock32]

There is a definite racial component to the whole "social justice" frenzy. I recognize in the Left a rabid quality, they have a bloodlust just like the Bolsheviks of 1917-1922, and the terrors of revolutionary France under Robespierre and the "Committee of Public Safety". Since the post-WW2 era they have added anti-colonialism, critical race theory, what have you, to their laundry list of ways to identify the kulak. If you are a white person, then it is at your peril to not at least be cognizant of it. You don't have to like it, just be aware that it's one of the unfortunate realities of the New Normal. They are agitating in blatantly racial terms. "Polar bear hunting" and "the knock out game" is just a sample of a mindset that already exists, and that was without the gasoline currently being thrown onto the fire.

To paraphrase an old saying, "you may not be interested in racial identity politics, but racial identity politics is definitely interested in you".

[Pandora]

Part 19 is up; "The Fighting Whities Redux, Part One"

[Pandora]

Part 20

Not getting much feedback lately, folks.  Unless anybody's interested, I'll just stop dragging 'em over here.

[Libertas]

Don't stop, I need to catch up!

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

Part 20

Not getting much feedback lately, folks.  Unless anybody's interested, I'll just stop dragging 'em over here.

I am loving it! Please keep posting this.

[Weisshaupt]

Agreed. Keep posting.
I went over there the week he was late, and then of course forgot to check back..

[Weisshaupt]

Part 20

Not getting much feedback lately, folks.  Unless anybody's interested, I'll just stop dragging 'em over here.

Those two were interesting.

A woman's greatest desire is for security, and for this reason, is emotionally incapable as a sex, in general, from evaluating the necessity of small government. If her children were going hungry, what mother would not beg, borrow, or steal to feed them? But then she applies this logic to the overall society when she hears of men out of work, children going hungry, people not receiving medical care. Whereas previously, she would have formed civic charities to aid the needy, with the vote, politicians persuaded women that government should do the job, and so women and the needy, who also were able to vote, robbed their husbands, brothers, and even their children to feed the government huge sums of money that was almost entirely wasted. Today we see the result."

 I do (as an evil male)  agree with the Author's premise that women are going to make emotional, care based decisions, and are basically incapable- as a group, of recognizing the idea of small govt.  Of course, with the left's war on Boys and Men,  much the same can now be said of that group as well - that is why we are at the tipping point now.   I do not believe that patriarchy is part of Natural Law.. at least  not where limited government is concerned, or even within a family.  As the author states: Men and Women are different.  And INDIVIDUAL men and women even more so. The Bible certainly teaches that the father is the leader of the family,  and lays down more duties for him than powers, but every Christian family <should> have within it the bonds of love that restrict the abuse of that power. A government? No so much.  Disfranchisement of women (or any group)  will only result  in abuse and persecution of that group.  Even if those in the Government are Christian. Or Hindu. Or Atheist. Its human nature.

Universal Suffrage did carry with it the seeds of destruction, but only because it removed a protection of Limited Govt,  and released the statistical truth of female voting patterns so well stated by the author.  The answer isn't denying women the right to vote, but instead formulating a new rule of participation. Suffrage should be decided simply by your ability to take care of yourself, and option we have already discussed here.  If you take handouts you have proven yourself incapable of making the correct decisions for your own life, and therefore must be prevented from making decisions that will affect the lives of others.  This could probably be further improved by further requiring voters to have a real stake in the future of the nation - like a performing military service that required your life to be on the line for the country,  or perhaps simply having  a child. ( I know before I had one, I did have a "devil may care" attitude about such things, because in the end only I paid for failure. The end of the line for me, was the end of the line for everything. )  Voters should have an appropriately adjusted time horizon that extends beyond their own death.

The Wanna-be tyrants would of course still be there, and still voting, but without the ability to get votes by bribing  or rewarding the non-contributing zeros with a box of  free condoms and taxpayer funded baby killings,  they would have a much harder time finding their way into power. Outlaw Unions and the job is done. No liberal would ever get elected- and women could still vote. 

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

Weisshaupt, that was impressive. Thank you.

Part 20

Not getting much feedback lately, folks.  Unless anybody's interested, I'll just stop dragging 'em over here.

Those two were interesting.

A woman's greatest desire is for security, and for this reason, is emotionally incapable as a sex, in general, from evaluating the necessity of small government. If her children were going hungry, what mother would not beg, borrow, or steal to feed them? But then she applies this logic to the overall society when she hears of men out of work, children going hungry, people not receiving medical care. Whereas previously, she would have formed civic charities to aid the needy, with the vote, politicians persuaded women that government should do the job, and so women and the needy, who also were able to vote, robbed their husbands, brothers, and even their children to feed the government huge sums of money that was almost entirely wasted. Today we see the result."

 I do (as an evil male)  agree with the Author's premise that women are going to make emotional, care based decisions, and are basically incapable- as a group, of recognizing the idea of small govt.  Of course, with the left's war on Boys and Men,  much the same can now be said of that group as well - that is why we are at the tipping point now.   I do not believe that patriarchy is part of Natural Law.. at least  not where limited government is concerned, or even within a family.  As the author states: Men and Women are different.  And INDIVIDUAL men and women even more so. The Bible certainly teaches that the father is the leader of the family,  and lays down more duties for him than powers, but every Christian family <should> have within it the bonds of love that restrict the abuse of that power. A government? No so much.  Disfranchisement of women (or any group)  will only result  in abuse and persecution of that group.  Even if those in the Government are Christian. Or Hindu. Or Atheist. Its human nature.

Universal Suffrage did carry with it the seeds of destruction, but only because it removed a protection of Limited Govt,  and released the statistical truth of female voting patterns so well stated by the author.  The answer isn't denying women the right to vote, but instead formulating a new rule of participation. Suffrage should be decided simply by your ability to take care of yourself, and option we have already discussed here.  If you take handouts you have proven yourself incapable of making the correct decisions for your own life, and therefore must be prevented from making decisions that will affect the lives of others.  This could probably be further improved by further requiring voters to have a real stake in the future of the nation - like a performing military service that required your life to be on the line for the country,  or perhaps simply having  a child. ( I know before I had one, I did have a "devil may care" attitude about such things, because in the end only I paid for failure. The end of the line for me, was the end of the line for everything. )  Voters should have an appropriately adjusted time horizon that extends beyond their own death.

The Wanna-be tyrants would of course still be there, and still voting, but without the ability to get votes by bribing  or rewarding the non-contributing zeros with a box of  free condoms and taxpayer funded baby killings,  they would have a much harder time finding their way into power. Outlaw Unions and the job is done. No liberal would ever get elected- and women could still vote.