RSS
It’s the blecks (1): Guns. My biggest email bag of the month came after I hypothesized, in the March 23rd Radio Derb, that the enthusiasm white Americans display for owning guns, unusual among Western nations, i s connected to the other distinctive thing about our country: the presence in it, from the beginning, of a large black sub-population.
When I was through hypothesizing I said:
I’m exploring the dark depths of the white American psyche here. Or possibly they’re just the dark depths of my psyche, I don’t know. By all means email in and tell me.
People did. Their responses fell into four pretty distinct categories.
1. Well, duh! “Mr Derbyshire, that is the most obvious thing you’ve ever said. Of course it’s the blacks. We know how much they hate us.”
I’ll say again what I said on the podcast: It’s not hard to understand why a lot of blacks hate us. Strangely enough, though, it is possible to appreciate that a person has good reasons for wanting to kill you, while yet being unwilling to let him do it.
2. No, it’s distrust of government power. “Mr Derbyshire, we cherish the Second Amendment because it guarantees our liberties against the rise of a despotic federal government. Plenty of black Americans feel the same way.”
That’s a noble sentiment, and one that appeals to my own love of personal liberty.
I have my doubts, though. The wording of the Second Amendment leaves it not altogether clear whether “the security of a free state” refers to security from foreign occupation, or security from domestic despotism.
The key factor in establishment of a domestic federal despotism would be the military. Would they be on-side with the despot? If they were, with modern weaponry and surveillance techniques, I wouldn’t place my bet on Red Dawn-style citizen guerillas being able to restore the Republic.
Would the military take a stand for liberty? I wish I could be sure. With women in submarines, though, and General Casey telling us that the loss of “diversity” would be a greater tragedy than the murder of a few troopers … I’m not.
3. Yes, it’s the blacks; and we don’t have to wait for catastrophe to see law and order break down. As one emailer wrote pithily: “The name Reginald Denny mean anything?”
I got many hair-raising anecdotes from people who had lived through race riots and vowed never to find themselves unarmed in such a situation. It wasn’t just the Rodney King riots, either. Many others have slipped down the memory hole. I got a long, graphic, and very eloquent email from an eyewitness to the 1980 Miami riots.
4. You’ve got it coming, cracker!
Your spoiled white ass wouldn’t last a week after collapse. Don’t kid yourself. It will mostly be your spoiled white neighbors after for [sic] your food and water. A moment of ultimate self defeat before you go down into the cosmic dustbin of pathetic existence.
Feel like kneeling yet?
No, actually: I’ll die on my feet before I’ll live on my knees.
It’s the blecks (2): Immigration. Having gone this deep into the zone of the shockingly unmentionable, I may as well add the following, as further support for the hypothesis that a great many peculiarities of life in the U.S.A. have something to do with that big black subpopulation.
Here’s a different peculiarity: the insouciance of white non-Hispanic Californians to mass illegal immigration from south of the border.
Thirty-seven percent of California’s population is non-Hispanic white. Fifteen percent is Asian; 39 percent is Hispanic. The 37 percent, together with some portion of the Asians and identify-as-white Hispanics, likely give a clear majority of Californians with no tribal enthusiasm for the kinds of open-border lunacies we’ve been getting from state officers — including the Governor — recently.
If that majority truly has no enthusiasm for the sanctuary-state and related policies, why do they put up with them?
Possible answer: It’s the blecks.
It may be that white and honorary-white Californians haven’t minded the mass influx of foreign nonblacks because that influx has driven out domestic blacks. Ron Unz, who lives in California, has made this argument.
According to Census data, between 1990 and 2010 the number of Hispanics and Asians increased by one-third in Los Angeles, by nearly 50 percent in New York City, and by over 70 percent in Washington, D.C. The inevitable result was to squeeze out much of the local black population, which declined, often substantially, in each location. And all three cities experienced enormous drops in local crime, with homicide rates falling by 73 percent, 79 percent, and 72 percent respectively, perhaps partly as a result of these underlying demographic changes. Meanwhile, the white population increasingly shifted toward the affluent, who were best able to afford the sharp rise in housing prices. It is an undeniable fact that American elites, conservative and liberal alike, are today almost universally in favor of very high levels of immigration, and their possible recognition of the direct demographic impact upon their own urban circumstances may be an important but unspoken factor in shaping their views.
More recently, a reader at Unz Review, apparently a Californian, posted this comment to an article by Jared Taylor:
We’re down to only 7.5 [I think the commenter means “percent”] blacks thanks be to God. It’s amazing how life in the cities has improved since the Asians and Hispanics have dispersed them.
The Hispanic police are even allowed to arrest them without fear of a Ferguson style uprising.
Could the Rodney King riots happen in Los Angeles today? The black population of the city has fallen from 14 percent at the time of the riots to probably less than nine percent today; so perhaps not.
Sacramento, on the other hand, is still 14 percent black. True, black Sacramentans are not rioting on anything like the 1992 L.A. scale. They’ve been kicking up some dust over a recent police shooting, though:
Just beyond the council chamber’s doors, angry protesters took over City Hall’s main lobby and in one instance skirmished with police officers. “You shoot us down, we shut you down!” they chanted.
Plainly what Sacramento needs is a flood of Asians and Hispanics.
What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? Bloggers and commentators occasionally feel the urge to list all the types of paid employment they have had.
This urge came over me recently, so I may as well post the results here.
- Putting corks in bottles of wine.
- General laboring work in a brewery.
- Sales assistant in a haberdashery store.
- Mailman. (Around Christmas the British Post Office used to recruit high-schoolers to help cope with the rush.)
- Warehouse porter (in a greeting-cards factory).
- Construction laborer.
- Bartender.
- Waiter.
- Schoolmaster.
- Military officer.
- Computer programmer.
- Nightschool ESL teacher.
- College lecturer (programming, accounting, airline travel, English language & literature).
- Newspaper proofreader (at The Bangkok Post).
- Movie extra.
- Dishwasher & general kitchen help.
- Writer.
Writing down that list, I can’t suppress a shiver of pride at the number of links — that is, at the quantity of copy I have squeezed from some not-very-remarkable occupations.
That’s a thing writers do: Turn the dross and drudgery of life into words and get paid for it. Amazing, really … although, looking at the hundreds of books I have amassed over the years, I don’t feel at all sure I’ve come out ahead financially on the writer/reader balance sheet.
Only an ‘opeless fancy. I linked to Orwell there because I have him in mind. I have him in mind because I was just browsing through my old “Straggler” columns, and re-read number 85, which is about the Singularity.
Included therein is a mention of the song Winston Smith heard the prole woman singing in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as he waited for Julia in their love nest.
Under the window somebody was singing. Winston peeped out, secure in the protection of the muslin curtain. The June sun was still high in the sky, and in the sun-filled court below, a monstrous woman, solid as a Norman pillar, with brawny red forearms and a sacking apron strapped about her middle, was stumping to and fro between a washtub and a clothes line, pegging out a series of square white things which Winston recognized as babies’ diapers. Whenever her mouth was not corked with clothes pegs she was singing in a powerful contralto:
It was only an ‘opeless fancy.
It passed like an Ipril dye,
But a look an’ a word an’ the dreams they stirred
They ‘ave stolen my ‘eart awye!
The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub-section of the Music Department. The words of these songs were composed without any human intervention whatever on an instrument known as a versificator. But the woman sang so tunefully as to turn the dreadful rubbish into an almost pleasant sound.
It occurred to me that as pop lyrics go, those aren’t bad. Has anyone ever tried to work up a suitable tune?
Over to YouTube. Of the TV and movie adaptations of Orwell’s novel, both the 1954 BBC-TV production and the 1956 Hollywood version made an effort, but the results were not very good. I can’t find a relevant clip from the 1984 John Hurt movie.
Full productions aside, there have been some amateur attempts on the song, but, while I’m sure people tried their best, I’m not impressed.
I’d like to think that some enterprising professional songwriter might take up the challenge. That’s probably just an ‘opeless fancy, though. The age of memorable pop-song writing is long gone.
Ask a roomful of well-socialized adult Americans the date of the most recent song anyone can spontaneously sing a few lines of, advertising jingles excluded. What would you get? Something later than 1980? I doubt it.
Bring on the versificators!
[Footnote: Did Orwell really write “diapers”? I copied that from an internet version. English people say “nappies.” The word “diaper” is very American; I never heard it used in speech until I came to the States. Anyone got a first edition of Nineteen Eighty-Four to check?]
It passed from the roll of the Nations. From the London Times, April 1st:
London overtook New York in murders for the first time in modern history in February as the capital endured a dramatic surge in knife crime.
Fifteen people were murdered in the capital, against 14 in New York. Both cities have almost exactly the same population.
London murders for March are also likely to exceed or equal New York’s. By late last night there had been 22 killings in the capital, according to the Metropolitan police, against 21 in the US city.
Eight Londoners were murdered between March 14 and March 20 alone and the total number of London murders, even excluding victims of terrorism, has risen by 38 percent since 2014.
Plainly the Brits need knife control.
That’s flippant, though. What’s happened to Britain — and is still happening — via mass Third World immigration is a horrible tragedy, a real case of national suicide. Recall Rudyard Kipling’s definition of “white man”:
The race speaking the English tongue, with a high birth rate and a low murder rate, living quietly under Laws which are neither bought nor sold.
That’s somewhat idealized of course, but today’s Britain has drifted way further from the ideal than she was in 1897. Kipling would have wept to see it.
Being old enough to remember England when she still was England, I’m sometimes close to tears myself. Just the other day, for example, when watching this YouTube clip of Winston Churchill’s funeral, full of English faces and grave English reserve.
Orwell yet again: “The crowds in the big towns, with their mild knobby faces, their bad teeth and gentle manners, are different from a European crowd.”
It’s gone, all gone. And no-one did this to the Brits; they did it to themselves. Back to Kipling:
T here was no need of a steed nor a lance to pursue them;
It was decreed their own deed, and not chance, should undo them.
The tares they had laughingly sown were ripe to the reaping.
The trust they had leagued to disown was removed from their keeping.
The eaters of other men’s bread, the exempted from hardship,
The excusers of impotence fled, abdicating their wardship,
For the hate they had taught through the State brought the State no defender,
And it passed from the roll of the Nations in headlong surrender!
Kevin Williamson to The Atlantic. There’s a flap — I think the technical term today is “Twitterstorm” — about Kevin Williamson, formerly of (conservative) National Review, migrating to the (left-liberal) Atlantic.
The cause of the flap is that Kevin has sometimes expressed himself very directly in ways that shock Progressives. Here he was four years ago, for example, mocking the conceit that you can be whatever sex you want to be.
A fellow named Laverne Cox, not otherwise known to me, had announced that he was, in fact, a woman. Kevin pooh-poohed this, and made a point of using male pronouns when referring to Cox.
Kevin’s argument was not so much with the person, though, as with the defiance of reality that characterizes our age.
Cox’s situation gave him an intensely unhappy childhood and led to an eventual suicide attempt, and his story demands our sympathy; times being what they are, we might even offer our indulgence. But neither of those should be allowed to overwhelm the facts, which are not subject to our feelings, however sincere or well intended.
To say that facts are not subject to our feelings is gross heresy nowadays. In the Current Year, feels take priority over reals.
As a fellow heretic, I’m mostly on Kevin’s side. I also like his writing style, which is literate, punchy, and well-informed.
I actually know him quite well. We were two of the smokers at National Review. Since smoking isn’t allowed in New York City offices, he and I would leave the building and stand on Lexington Avenue, chatting randomly while poisoning ourselves and any passers-by who ventured close enough.
Kevin has a ready wit. Here’s a sample.
His most obvious personal problem is his weight. He packs on the pounds until he can’t get through doors any more, then diets himself down to a normal physique, then gets complacent and balloons up again.
During the last few months of the time we overlapped at National Review Kevin was in the slim phase of this cycle. Then, in April 2012, I got canned from the magazine and didn’t see him again until the Fall, when he showed up as a guest one evening at a dinner club I frequent. He was blimp-sized again.
Standing around in groups having drinks before dinner, I passed a gently-mocking comment on Kevin’s weight, as one might with a close acquaintance. “Gone off the diet, I see, Kevin” — something like that. He laughed insincerely, the way you do when a friend brings to your attention something you would rather not have had brought to your attention. We then chatted very amiably, me quietly wondering whether perhaps I should not have made the remark, which several other club members had overheard.
We sat down to dinner, and went round the table introducing ourselves in turn for the benefit of guests and new members. Kevin introduced himself as being from National Review. He then added: “I’d like to say for the record that I had nothing to do with Derb getting canned. I didn’t approve of it … although if it happened right now, I WOULD approve!”
Shakespeare guilt. In common with, I am sure, a lot of other educated people, I’m occasionally afflicted with Shakepeare guilt. That is, I fear I don’t know half as much of the Bard’s work as I ought to.
So then I buy one of the BBC & Time–Life productions, feed it to the DVD player, and sit there with one finger on The Complete Pelican Shakespeare assuaging my guilt.
My latest venture in this line was Pericles. For one thing, it’s the least-known of Shakespeare’s plays, so there’s underdog appeal. It’s also the least regarded. My 1955 Oxford Dictionary of Quotations has a mere three quotes from Pericles; Othello gets 175. Even The Two Gentlemen of Verona gets 15. Scholars think Shakespeare didn’t write more than half of Pericles.
For another thing, my Shakespeare guilt is a tad more acute in the case of the Romances. The standard drill at English schools in my boyhood was to make us read through one each of the Histories, Tragedies, and Comedies. (My year got Henry V, Macbeth, and Twelfth Night.)
The Romances were left out. I was well into adult life before I saw even The Tempest acted. (The BBC & Time–Life production of The Tempest, by the way, is gayer than an Easter bonnet. Check out the banquet scene in Act III. Hoo-ee.) I’ve never seen a stage performance of The Winter’s Tale, Cymbeline, or Pericles. How often is there a stage production of Pericles?
So I bought the darn thing and watched it. Meh. Sure, the recognition scene is nicely done, and the Bawd is amusingly bawdy. The main storyline doesn’t make much sense from the get-go, though. If Antiochus doesn’t want people to know he’s boinking his daughter, why does he invite her suitors to guess it?
I wouldn’t be as harsh on Pericles as Dr Johnson was on Cymbeline (“unresisting imbecility“) but I doubt I’ll be replaying the DVD.
I’ve purged my Shakespeare guilt for a while, though — that’s the main thing.
Former Trumpers. For the longest time there, people who had made some acquaintance with my name and wanted to know more about me would start by asking whether I consider myself Alt Right. I’ve never been able to think up a satisfactory answer in less than 500 words.
Now I may be off the hook. I’m anticipating that these inquirers will more and more often want to know: Am I a Former Trumper?
Frank Bruni at The New York Times, March 30th:
Donald Trump has a boatload of problems. Ann Coulter, the author of a 2016 book titled In Trump We Trust, is now one of them … During a long conversation with me at The Times on Thursday afternoon, she sent him a warning about the wrath he’d face if the wall doesn’t rise: “The Former Trumpers should keep Donald Trump awake at night.”
No, I’m not a Former Trumper. Sure, the President frequently drives me to exasperation and despair. I’ve vented freely about that.
Sometimes, though, it’s the hour that makes the man. Yes: Trump is inconsistent and unreliable. So was Winston Churchill. He changed parties twice. He was widely regarded by parliamentary colleagues in the 1930s as a second-rater and showman. When the hour came, though, Churchill was a rock.
Perhaps that’s Trump’s destiny, too. Perhaps something big will happen: big enough to concentrate Trump’s mind, to make him cast aside the dithering, tweeting, and double-talk — big enough for a real national leader to emerge from inside all that fluff and bombast.
Am I clutching at straws? Yes, I guess I am. Looking at the alternatives, though, while there are straws to clutch at, I’ll clutch at them.
If nothing big does happen to bring Trump to the test, I’d expect his presidency to sputter out after four years in futility and rancor. He will have been merely a transitional figure, the too-early advocate of a style of populist nationalism that sooner or later will find more effective representation as the old cozy Republi-crat globalist consensus completes its disintegration.
Math Corner. For this month’s brainteaser I’m obliged to an old friend currently employed at a major investment bank whose name (the bank’s, not the friend’s) is an anagram of ADAM’S SCHLONG.
You are last in a line of 100 people waiting to watch a play in a theater with 100 seats. Everyone has an assigned seat, but one of the people in front of you is a Free Spirit who will ignore his ticket and choose a seat at random (which might of course be his own).
The other theatergoers will all obediently follow instructions, except that if one of them finds someone else sitting in his seat he will also take a seat at random.
What are the odds that when everyone is seated you will be in your assigned seat?
![2010-12-24dl[1]](https://www.vdare.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2010-12-24dl1.jpg)
John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com:FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
It’s not all gone.
Here’s a photo essay about the City of London by the English photographer, Martin Parr. In many ways, it’s the same as it must have been in 1965, at the time of Churchill’s funeral.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2016/feb/19/photographer-martin-parr-eccentricity-city-of-london
That should cheer you up.
On the other hand, here’s another photo essay by the talented Mr. Parr, but this time, of the British seaside.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2018/mar/20/martin-parr-the-great-british-seaside-photo-exhibition-national-maritime-museum
Back to reality.
Cheer up. The British documentary photographer, Martin Parr, did a photo essay recently about the City of London. It looks pretty much as it must have in 1965, at the time of Churchill’s funeral.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2016/feb/19/photographer-martin-parr-eccentricity-city-of-london
On the other hand, he did another photo essay, soon after, about the British seaside.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2018/mar/20/martin-parr-the-great-british-seaside-photo-exhibition-national-maritime-museum
Back to reality.
[Funny, I was pretty sure I posted this already. Doesn’t show up as pending…]
“The key factor in establishment of a domestic federal despotism would be the military. Would they be on-side with the despot? If they were, with modern weaponry and surveillance techniques, I wouldn’t place my bet on Red Dawn-style citizen guerillas being able to restore the Republic.
Would the military take a stand for liberty? I wish I could be sure. With women in submarines, though, and General Casey telling us that the loss of “diversity” would be a greater tragedy than the murder of a few troopers … I’m not.”
Regarding your point number 2, … how good is the US military really? Seems to me it has performed very poorly in whatever theater you might care to mention for a long time. Iraq I, II, sure sure.
But those were anomalies frankly. My god the enemy actually had tanks to destroy and military bases to bomb (did they even bother so send up one of their fighters? can’t remember).
But it has been about 15 years in Afghanistan, and has spent beaucoup money. Anything been accomplished?
In the end the US military has about 13 Army Divisions, 3 Marine Divisions, and a bunch of Guard and Reserve units of questionable (particularly the Guard and Reserve) loyalty to whatever regime you care to define.
If we were talking about pacifying Pakistan with 210 million people any military expert would laugh his ass off at that.
Let alone the fact that if you are actually going to be using the US military directly against the American people the economy, stock market, and lots of other stuff is going to be going to hell at the same time.
Whether the US population has it in them to rebel, I truly do not know. But I can tell you that all the Carrier battle groups in the world won’t do much in this fight.
And strangely I believe while our elites would be totally on board with saturation bombing of Chattanooga or Minot, I’m not so sure the air crew or maintenance/prep guys would be. If I were on the flight line, and I knew the plane was going to hit Marysville, Tennessee I’d do what I could at the loss of my own life to make sure that plane did not function.
And no, I’m not joking or talking out of my ass. In that situation I definitely would.
Not that I would be in the loop on the plane’s target, but at that point it doesn’t matter what gets personalized.
Actually thinking about this some more… assuming there were any real resolve by flyover country I can’t see how the powers that be could hold on to this. No real military solution to it.
You might say it’s been done in the past, like Japan and Germany after WWII. But those nations had bought into the change, forcibly or no. And there was a huge, powerful, nation overseas bankrolling the whole occupation. A totally different scenario than what we are discussing. Unless China could be pursuaded to bankroll or help out militarily with the whole thing.
And I don’t know how much resolve there is on the part of our elites either. Hell a semi organized effort to plink transformers with armor piercing ammo takes a lot of the electrical network out of commission for a long time – if anyone takes it that far.
Think the elites around you in NYC are going to put up with Baghdad levels of electricity availability circa 2003 or so? What if you cut off the water to NYC? Just dig up and destroy fiber optic cables willy nilly (who the hell do you think planted them?).
What happens if someone “appropriates” a manpad and shoots down a passenger jet taking off from JFK? It only takes one to make a Wall Streeter’s butt pucker enough to squeeze coal into a diamond (maybe they are supermen).
The British aristrocracy up to some time after WWII had balls of steel and stiff upper lips. These American elites are not cut from the same cloth.
Mike Tyson once said “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”
I submit to you our elites are in just as sorry a shape as someone frying their brain with meth in a West Virginia trailer.
These guys are not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill after all. They are snowflakes evolved to do well in very special circumstances. And it is child’s play to utterly disrupt that special ecosystem they call home.
If you are willing to pay a price that similar movements in the past would have found laughable.
I think those words could be set to the tune of Oom-Pa-Pa
Well Derb, the best I can say is that as usual, you started with the best; Blacks, and ended with your own, somewhat dull and uninspiring life, and viewpoints on everything else.
When this is read with a quasi-table of contents, as you did above, it’s fairly easy to see why you begin most of your columns with Blacks.
I would like to hear the “good reasons” blacks have for wanting to kill whites. Seems like the very column to put Derbyshire back in National Review’s good graces.
This idea of bringing in Hispanics as a buffer between blacks and whites is misguided. Sort of like how it’s a brainstorm to introduce a species that will predate upon an unwanted other species only to have the solution become a problem itself. Hispanics never have revolutions, never riot, are exemplary citizens? Look south of the border and what does one see? Coming soon to a neighborhood near you. One can’t count upon the police so that’s why people want guns. When seconds count the police are minutes away and that’s highly optimistic; they may not come at all as in the various riot situations we’ve had. Get your crystal ball out: When and where will the next race riot be? Guns are an insurance policy in this low trust country.
Derb quoted this comment from a Californian:
However, he actually left out the real punch line. The remark was made by a hard-core White Nationalist who’s been living in the state for at least the last 45 years…
That hideous song from Titanic, “My Heart Will Go On”, came out in ’97. Although the Versificator might have written it.
Just the other day, for example, when watching this YouTube clip of Winston Churchill’s funeral, full of English faces and grave English reserve.
I went to Winston Churchill’s funeral. It was a bitterly cold day, which explains why everyone was looking so “reserved”. After the parade, my friends and I went to a dog-show where one of our mothers was showing dogs, and had a better time.
Derb wrote:
1. Don’t forget the police/LEOs. They will be key and would likely help direct the military.
2. Some military and a smaller proportion of LEOs would rebel/refuse to oppress Americans. They would be removed from their duties and charged with the most serious charges to be found in the UCMJ/fed-state laws.
3. Replacements will be found to do the dirty work. Authoritarian regimes have no problem finding thugs to do the dirty work as long as the pay is regular and hte regime looks stable enough.
The reasons Americans developed a liking for guns:
1. Slavery and the fear of slave revolts (now morphed into a fear of black crime)
2. Indians (the red kind)
3. Hunting (America was and to some extent still is full of game whereas Europe was mostly hunted out)
4. Most recently, the crime explosion that started in the 60s and did not peter out until decades later
5. An American taste for egalitarianism (Samuel Colt style)
6. A general feeling that if one cannot defend oneself (which in our times means with firearms), one is not really free
P.S.: California is still not a bad place to live if you have money and a lot of the remaining white people are relatively well-off liberals. The dispersal of the black communities by Hispanic takeover/violence has been a mixed blessing. The ghettos of the large cities are emptying out and some blacks are leaving the state but you also see blacks in suburban areas where they were once rare (e.g., my former home town now suffers from black gang violence which was once unheard of there).
“Let It Go” reached the top five on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, and won both the Academy Award for Best Original Song in 2014 and the Grammy Award for Best Song Written for Visual Media in 2015. The song gained international recognition, becoming one of the most globally recorded Disney songs, with numerous covers being recorded in different languages.
The reasons Americans developed a liking for guns:
1. Slavery and the fear of slave revolts (now morphed into a fear of black crime)
2. Indians (the red kind)
3. Hunting (America was and to some extent still is full of game whereas Europe was mostly hunted out)
4. Most recently, the crime explosion that started in the 60s and did not peter out until decades later
5. An American taste for egalitarianism (Samuel Colt style)
6. A general feeling that if one cannot defend oneself (which in our times means with firearms), one is not really free
Nice summation DutchBoy
“When the hour came, though, Churchill was a rock.”
Well, a stone, maybe, on the order of a bladder stone aka a gleet.
Derb needs to explain himself because blacks have virtually no reason to hate whites other than blind racial hatred. Has he caught the Fred Reed disease of looking at racial issues from the other race’s point of view? In Fred’s case he acts as attorney for the Mexican people.
If anyone has reason to hate the other whites have reason to hate blacks and seek their demise given the threats their leaders periodically issue and the bad things some prominent blacks have publicly wished upon us (Ex, Oprah: older white people “just have to die” for racism to end) and the innumerable race riots. And let’s not forget the interracial crime statistics and how blacks are about 25X more likely to commit violent crimes against whites when adjusted for percentage of population.
Blacks need us. We don’t need them and deep down they know it.
Derb, what on earth are you talking about man? US is one Democratic presidential term away from open borders population tsunami, with Whites losing a majority status and TX and FL turning permanently blue. Trump is the last, desperate chance, a real-life “Mission Impossible”. I can’t believe you call yourself a pessimist! What I’m afraid of is that Trump is more like a late Roman hero (Stilicho or such), who only temporarily halts the final slide into the abyss.
It appears he did. Another Internet version, which claims to be a text copy of 1949 first edition, does contain “diapers.” Notably, it has Chapters 1 through 23, unbroken into three parts like in the two editions I have.
Take up the White Man’s burden —
Send forth the best ye breed —
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild —
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
“the security of a free state” refers to security from foreign occupation, or security from domestic despotism.
It has been a long time since college, so I cannot give you chapter and verse. The “militia” (now referred to as the “National Guard”)in the Second Amendment was the “Governor’s Army” for defendse agaist fedral intrusion. Even today, the National Guard cannot be “nationalized” without the Governor’s consent.
Sir, you must be an incurable optimist. I live in California, the event horizon itself, and I can tell you the demographic cake is baked. Democrat President or not, the relative age profiles, birth rates and inter-breeding guarantee a US that looks like California with politics to match.
Trump’s contribution has been to spark awareness in the people being replaced and a sense of identity. Awareness is the first step to the solidarity and purpose needed for the struggles in the decades to come.
We need Affirmative Disarm-ment.
Take guns away from blacks, and crime will go down much.
Orval Faubus might dispute that.
The story is set in the year 1984. Orwell might have been throwing in a small prediction of Americanisation. Nappies and diapers hold all the body s***
It’s time for nationalists to start talking openly and extensively about repatriation of various non-White groups. I do so frequently on Facebook (especially WRT the demographic upheaval in Europe).
Sad to see him him turn cuck in his old age….
You have a lot in common with Fred Reed who also keeps getting teary eyed remembering Appalachia, yet you both ran away from these supposed whitopias to foreign lands, married non-white women and settled in places that are far less white than England and Appalachia are today. Hypocrisy much?
The punch line is a joke, and the joke is on this WN. The black population of California was less than 10% 45 years ago and the percentage decline of blacks since then is a lot lower than the percentage decline of whites. So basically the WN is gloating over whites going from a solid majority to a rapidly declining minority in California.
Check out the chart on page 27 of this pdf:
http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/res/pdf/multireports/DemoTrendsFinal.pdf
64%.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/11/03/south-sacramento-robberies-black-asian/
Blacks are also targeting Asians in Sacramento.
Now I do uh give our good friend Mr. Derbyshire a friendly ribbing here and there over his fascination with blacks, but in all fairness, I think it is fair to point out that blacks have been beating up/robbing Asians in the Bay Area for years now.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Dirty-secret-of-black-on-Asian-violence-is-out-3265760.php
-LMAO.
Africans have no valid or understandable reason to want to kill me, a white man, or my Asian wife.
My ancestors didn’t own slaves in the USA or in Europe before that. Both sides of my family, Slavic and German and Scandinavian on one side, and Italian on the other, settled in the USA 2-3 decades after slavery was abolished. This is true of tens of millions of American whites.
More broadly, only a tiny percentage of white people in the USA ever owned slaves, sold slaves, or even benefitted from slavery. Not including any of my family.
Africans in North America hate us because they want to hate us, because it’s easy, because it’s rewarded and encouraged by our media and government, and because they simply enjoy hating and frightening and hurting any human being, including us and their “brothers.”
Anyway, who should resent whom here? How many white people (and now Asian people) in the us have been murdered by Africans? Raped by Africans? Assaulted or mugged by Africans? Far more than the number of Africans ever suffering the same crimes at the hands of whites here.
They all seem like sound reasons.
Perfectly said. We build a wall and station troops on the border, and end birthright Citizenship and chain migration, or we are finished soon.
No, but white nationalists do.
Authoritarian regimes have no problem finding thugs to do the dirty work as long as the pay is regular and hte regime looks stable enough.
Quite right. However, what you can’t whip up by waving money around is people who are willing to die for the regime.
The USSR’s Brute Squad was well-stocked right up to the day the regime fell apart. But there was nobody at all who was willing to fight and die for that regime.
With all America’s problems, there are still quite a few people willing to fight and die in her defense.
There is major precedent for considering 2A of our Bill of Rights to be addressing resistance against tyranny more than anything else. Yet almost nobody, on either side, ever brings it up.
In 1689 the English had just had their Glorious Revolution, kicking out the Stuarts who most Englishmen thought were tyrants. The King had attempted to solidify his power by a standing army, as had been used almost universally throughout Europe to impose autocracy. The English were clearly concerned with being armed to protect themselves against future monarchical attempts at tyranny.
So in 1689 Parliament passed and the new King signed “An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown.”
One of its provisions: That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
This idea was imported directly into our Bill of Rights with a few modifications. The religious test was taken out, as was the class issue. Also, it was made superior to any law, so could not be infringed by law, as the English permitted.
But the English Bill of Rights had nothing to do with self-defense against crime, much less with hunting.
It’s “fairly easy to see” you’re obsessed with Derb. Why?
… free speech denied at, of all places, Takimag – where comment is 100% suspended … not a good move …
Me? My assigned seat? Probability that I’ll be in it? 100%
The real problem with Trump is that he does not drink nor nap like Sir Winston. A nip and a bit of shuteye might clear his mind and steady his hand.
Actually, “Alden” is a smart and level-headed *woman*, who is also very well-read in actual books. And as I said, she’s a hard-core White Nationalist who’s been living in California for at least the last 45 years.
Meanwhile, you’re just some random nitwit who hangs around my website for some reason, endlessly quoting extremely long passages from Wikipedia, which you apparently believe represents the absolute truth on all important matters…
Try it, bitch. We are well armed.
In defense of the American people and our land, rights, and way of life, yes.
In the service of Israel, oil companies, agribusinesses, or the military-industrial complex, not so much.
LOL, how I am “obsessed?” It’s a public forum and I leave my opinion. Occasionally I even read the article on which I leave comment. I do it for Reed, Mercer, Weissberg and the rest of the rogue’s gallery as well.
Hey I don’t fit that description, I’m black.
Not if she doesn’t have an issue with interracial marriage she isn’t.
Do you know her personally?If you don’t, how can you be absolutely sure……And I’m not certain how level-headed she can be be if she is sanguine about the Latinx invasion…
As opposed to fake ones?
MMM, I’m a native Californian, but I’m not a “hard-core White Nationalist.” On the other hand, I’m not keen about being replaced by the Latinx….
Gotta work on those insults, Ron. Prole-tier, dear fellow.
Fighting off the ennui, Ron. Anything for a laugh.
Now, now, Ron. Be fair. I also like quoting Pope and Kipling.
Absolute truth…..probably not….but it is a useful source for certain kinds of facts……
Derb’s life seems to have been a rather interesting one, and he certainly has a lot more to say that is both interesting and true than anything you’ve ever said. And your viewpoints are……………………….what exactly? Cars that use water as a fuel. The Earth is flat. Your viewpoints are a sampling of ridiculous crankery.
Is Kevin Williamson going for the Anton LaVey look? Because he seems to have it down pretty well.
I would consider his defection from NR to the Atlantic a matter of some small importance if I had any respect for NR, the Atlantic, or Williamson. However I don’t.
And, in the present day, perhaps even less still with actual rights.
The overall %, of course, is not as useful as % Blacks among males 14 to 40.
Another useful statistic here would be the White-Black ratio. Or for present-day California purposes, a White-Black-Asian ratio. I calculate it here from Census data:
The White(Non-Hispanic) to Black [fixed at 1o] to Asian Ratio, California
1940: 497-10-14
[large-scale Black in-migration from 1942 (war industry) to 1970s]
1970: 111-10-4
1980: 87-10-7
1990: 78-10-13
2000: 72-10-17
2010: 65-10-21
Both White and Black net out-migration from 1990s, but relatively more Whites.
The same White-Black-Asian ratio for live births by race of mother in 2015 (CA) is:
46-10-26
In summary, the commented-upon “Black population decline in CA” perception is an illusion in relative terms. Blacks continue to slowly gaining on Whites, but are steadily losing to Asians, and it turns out to be a wash: Whites/Asians combined outnumber Blacks in the 2010s at almost exactly the rate they did in the 1980s (the 1980 to 2010 census all find Blacks outnumbered 9-to-1).
The only change is that Whites have been replaced by Asians. (Speaking of Whites being replaced…Steve Sailer’s “men wearing gold chains” ex-Soviet/Middle-East types, so much more numerous today than in 1970, presumably pad White numbers still further. Then again, some number may also get counted as ‘Asian’, so the effect is unclear).
(Source, Census Bureau here, here, and here.
Maybe it’s just me, but there’s a lot of funny material this week. I have worked in various times of my life with inner city populations. That includes the demographic in CA. And i have to say, I didn’t hear revenge violence in KC, not in MA and not in CA.
Once again, I think there’s a myopia that is distorting the view. Your questions were posited to your viewers, who let’s face it, attend to your program because you reflect what they feel or think. Nothing wrong with that in my view. But those same viewers are going to reflect your view and they will do so in large numbers. That’s not an objective random sample.
But your opening salvos reveal that twisted logic used to justify an overripe fear. That whites have preferred Hispanics and Asians, actually anyone to blacks is a practice that been around longer than slaves have been free, but in practice with vigor since the end of slavery. Tales of fear about blacks existed since slavery. Now, I don’t know about you, but slavery was a mighty brutal practice and those willing to risk their lives might have had to engage in some fairly violent tactics. incorporate a brutal system as system as slavery was and you might turn out some very brutal human beings. The socialization to fear blacks has been consistent and intense. this is of course why whites flipped Christianity on its proverbial head to advance white superiority — so as to justify their own brutality against blacks as part of God’s will. Whites love docile black people who believe in God. So sure i get it, whites have been fanning flames about “blacks as brutal animals” since they first met. And while there certainly have been some brutal exchanges — by far whites have been the most dishonest and brutal, even with each other.
Taking snippets of “blacks acting bad” and saying this is how they are as a group is not new. The police made an art of the schema long ago with full complicity of whites in general, north, south, east and west. Nat Turner and run away slaves were the toasts of the town for fear mongering, in their day.
In LA (not Louisiana- that is a fear mongering beast with far less subtlety, in fact, the guidebook for slave treatment was written in Louisiana — well at least one of them — it’s a juicy little pamphlet.) you can still get the recordings about black animals, gorilla’s, etc. Even a nifty description by police unions about how blacks required strangle holds because their necks were so large. Which brings us to the unfortunate incident
— skipping a mass of info — The LA riots were not a spontaneous reaction to white power structure or fear mongering. It was a response to a long practice and of police abude, cover-up and justifications based largely on the fear rhetoric and motiffs of whites. While tragic,. Mr King was symbolic of standard practice and then the subsquent blame on the abused.
Yhis scripture came to mind
“Weep not for , but for your children and your children’s children.” For if they do these things in green tree, what will be done in the dry.”
Finally, decades of complaint about police behavior was caught on tape. The long standing cry of imagined, unreal, blacks as sensitive souls, weak minded, just a pack of whiners was buttressed by a singular spectacular event for all to see — granted it was only one incident. But it set the stage for what is standard police by the police and supported by whites across this country. Regardless of the tape, somehow the police representing white fears and all manner of shenanigans and tropes to justify said fears and abusive behaviors managed to paint the police as victims and Mr. King as abuser or at least his beating as his own fault. The indictment that the system run and owned by whites was in fact illegitimate because it sought and practiced disparity, most noteabley when it involved black people — ruling repeatedly against them. The response even then was not immediate. It simmered and slow burned. And has been the habit of people segregated they expressed their frustrations largely in their communities, against themselves.
Now there is no way for me to justify what happened to Mr. Denny. It was wrong regardless of the angle of rhetoric. It was wrong. But it was not marauding black men or women seeking white people, it was an angry clique that bumped into a white man. There was no color war. Blacks in those communities assisted whites to get out of harms way in significant enough numbers to say quite firmly, that they behaved with generosity and care to a people who benefited from their deliberate disadvantage — utterly contrary to the suggestion of this and no doubt past, present and future articles. The men responsible for the assault on Mr. Denny were caught with the assistance of blacks , who identified those involved.
I was going to the issue of deserving of infliction — I will bite on that for now. But if history is any indicator of what amounts to deserve, then there is plenty of reason to be afraid. Because have a long way to go before they exert equitable damage on whites as a population. Starting with your “displacement theory”. Which at face value says, that whites should engage either foreigners or other people’s for the express purpose of denying blacks their rights as citizens and thereby continue to disenfranchise them from their rights as citizens. This illegal practice has been in form since the first “free black” arrived on this continent in the 1600’s. Since the constitution, the practice has been heavily engaged and alone explains the system we have today. And yet it is only but one aspect of a legacy we expect blacks to swallow wholesale with a grin of gratefulness that they are no longer slaves, as though the declaration itself is just a byword right of passage for whites only – true in practice perhaps, but a violation of intent and spirit of the ideology.
It’s 2018 and the whites today seem intent on pressing 1850’s attitudes overtly and covertly as policy and social practice. Nevermind that no policy intended to remedy has been exclusively provided. each said action has been unequally distributed in favor of whites, especially white women and the favored non-whites, Mr Derbishire and others would prefer to use to displace blacks.
I am not sure of the integrity of undercutting remedy and then bemoaning why said remedy hasn’t worked. It’s a tough slog untangling the web of deceit we have manufactured to justify discrimination to something as benign as skin color. I certainly have my disagreements with blacks and for a lot of very good reasons, but it’s about policy and social agendas to politics, I hope that is the case. Trying to justify any polity on skin color is not a battle whites can win. The weight of history is an Everest size mountain to climb in making the case. The best one can do is select single cases or isolated groups of cases —- but tit for tat – magnitude, numbers, and impacts, it’s a losing battle, unless of course you control the media, the educational system, the military, the courts, legislature, WH and the police, then one can go about exaggerating with very little impunity that all the world’s a stage and blacks are responsible for every bad scene.
The LA riots, actually are a testament to unlikelihood of some monolithic black revenge on whites . The impression I get of most black people is a kind of patient “poor soul” frustrated attendance to white as a whole.
Sassing your host is bad form. Don’t do that in the physical realm, or you’ll get the bum’s rush out the door.
Here’s what we collectively have reduced ourselves to:
Hither Green ‘burglar’ stabbing: Man, 78, arrested
A 78 year old homeowner is attacked in his own home by two much younger intruders, fights them off by stabbing one of them, who dies. For some reason the police attending think the appropriate response is to take the homeowner into custody on suspicion of murder. The dead criminal appears not even to have been in one of the special protection minority categories!
In a right thinking country, the response would be a public outcry, a witch-hunt into the decision-making process and personnel that led to this man even being suspected, let alone taken into custody, and the dismissal of any personnel involved in order to make an example, followed by changing any laws that gave them the idea in the first place to make it clearer that the law will always be on the side of the man defending his home and family.
The man has done society a favour by ridding it of a predatory home invader who (if the judiciary were to do their job for a change) would at best otherwise have been costing society his maintenance in prison for a period before being released to most likely offend again, victimising more innocents.
Increasingly we live in a topsy turvy society of zero tolerance for dissent and for self reliance, and endless tolerance for real criminality
Disrespectfully disagree. Responding to kvetching from the host is the best of forum protocol. The host, he or she, is simply another hoomin bean, not some o’er-arching judge of character and content value.
If the host has too much attitude, there are other forums. If he can’t take a shot or two across the bow, in good humor and wu-wei, then the bad outweighs the good.
build that darn wall already clean house on illegal immigrants.
Aaah Glasshoppa, it has be detelmined by the councer that you wier NEVEL tha Dojo.
Please plepare the tofu for dinner.
… but, but but, AR-15’s! We can’t fight the US military. I moved from that old country where they arrest the homeowners to my new home in Florida, where I keep telling people that WE need more gun control! /Mason
Must be incredibly irritating having Brits endlessly and ignorantly lecturing you about gun control in your own country, whether they are foreigners still living in Britain, for whom it’s absolutely no business of theirs, or expat runaway Brits who’ve moved away from their gun controlled nation of serfs to yours and now want to make your country more like the one they ran away from.
You have my sympathy, fwiw.
And while I’m on the general topic of o tempora o mores (someone pointed out the other day that you can generally work out what country Unz posters are from by which country they spend their time criticising), the femocaust proceeds apace in merry olde England:
Derbyshire Police cuts ties with male voice choir after they refused to include women in their line-up
Ideological zealotry triumphs yet again, and that sneaking fear on the part of aptly named feminazis that someone, somewhere might be briefly happy while offending against the dogmas of their faith is momentarily assuaged again. And of course the cowardly [presumably he’s more likely a collaborator rather than a true believer] Mr Goodman preserves his own institutional skin.
No our troops will not fire as troops during a civil war. they may desert and join a side though. the (((elites))) know this and try to muddy the forces but its impossible to have an effective army of niggers and bitches. The military might side with the people depending on situation but never against.
The ((( elites))) will continue to avoid confrontations that might spiral they know they are on a powder keg but think soon they will have us all in tech matrix. In the event something spirals out of their control or an insurrection is started they will use all power to frame as terrorist racist criminal riot etc, this will keep the cops and mil following orders for a while and citizens swallowing the shit. but this is the land of iphones and internet anything that burns even a little out of meme control well the revolution will be televised. Washington understood this. he was one of a handful of leftist rebels, but he knew if he could just stay in the field the super power british military would do what armies do and the people would turn. if the people turn and decide the meme is bullshit the army and police will stop the action and gop defend their own families and areas. the elite cannot win a war but they can boil frogs with tech and mind fuck and of course niggerization. i hope to god we get some heros willing to be the first before we are boiled
https://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Malcolm%2009132011.pdf
“I have my doubts, though. The wording of the Second Amendment leaves it not altogether clear whether “the security of a free state” refers to security from foreign occupation, or security from domestic despotism.”
It is absolutely clear which one “the security of a free state” is referring to. Both. I will never understand how people can say that the meaning of 2A is unclear. I understood it quite clear since the first time I ever was introduced to it back in high school. It says what it means, and means what it says. Its not open for debate, interpretation or emotions.
For possible “solutions” to our present “deep state” problem, please obtain and read “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross.
When this book first came out, sellers were routinely harassed by “deep state” types (FBI, ATF, DEA) and other alphabet agency types.
It is a good read and is still available, somewhat expensive on paper, but is available as a free download.
This book combines history lessons, law lessons, and a good story line with possible solutions…
Ref: “I have my doubts, though. The wording of the Second Amendment leaves it not altogether clear whether “the security of a free state” refers to security from foreign occupation, or security from domestic despotism.”
When I see people write nonsense like the quote above, I marvel at the stupidity fostered and promoted by mass media and the grossly defective “education system”.
A presumption seems to be that security is solely an external concern. How can anyone be THAT stupid?
Hey, I don’t fit that description. I’m black.
Notice the difference?
The answer the the math question is 50/50 odds. This can be seen from symmetry — if you and the free spirit swapped tickets this would have no impact on the likelihood that you’d end up in any given seat (since neither your nor his seating decision depends on the ticket you hold), hence the probability you end up in your seat must be the same as the probability you end up in his.
Where is the condition stated that anyone is going to “swap” tickets? The only condition is that one person will sit where he wants, not (necessarily) in his assigned seat.
The probability that YOU will sit in your assigned seat is determined by your decision to sit in your assigned seat. If the free spirit is in your seat when you get there, remove him.
Yes, I am aware that the “brain teaser” was incorrectly transcribed by Derbyshire. However, as written, when all is said and done and the Maitre D’ summoned as situationally required, everyone will end up in the seat they’re assigned, or a seat determined by mutually-satisfactory negotiation.
No, but I notice the distinction.
“Far more than the number of Africans ever suffering the same crimes at the hands of whites here.”
Conveniently, you leave out the impact of slavery and Jim Crow.
The problem does not state that anyone is going to swap tickets. I use that hypothetical to show that the odds of ending up in your seat are the same as those of ending up in his, given that the result is independent on whether you swap tickets or not. Said another way – neither you nor the free spirit need even look at his ticket when sitting (he because he’s a free spirit, you because you only have 1 option when its time to sit down), hence the symmetry.
Hmm…but, the only variant possibility that affects you (assuming you don’t demand your seat, vocally and as nastily as necessary) involves some other person taking your seat, either as the free spirit or as a person displaced by the free spirit. Thus, the testable event where you are not in your assigned seat is 1 of 100, making the odds of you being in your assigned seat are 99 out of 100.
@Steve Gittelson
Considering a brutal war just fought and won over this exact issue. Its unfortunate, yet forgivable in 20-30 somethings and younger due to ‘education’ these days, but there is zero excuse for anybody over the age of 40 to even remotely questions the implications of that phrase.
Or anyone having the benefit — however unlikely — of a “classic” education. I’ve noted that even ‘STEM’ graduates have, of late, begun to demonstrate the damages produced by the American “education system”. It certainly is a ‘system’, I’ll grant that.
I was watching some “womens’ show” on TV, and I learned that US states actually have punitive legislation in place to prosecute parents who would allow their children to walk on streets, or play in parks. Or, god forbid, travel six blocks from home.
It’s horrifying. No wonder the Millennials cannot parse reality. No exposure to it.
Suppose you had seet 1A and the free spirit had 2A. You are saying there is a 99% chance you end up in 1A.
Now suppose you had 2A and he had 1A.
*You would have both behaved exactly the same*
Hence, is there still a 99% chance you end up in 1A? Clearly not (since that was his seat).
Well, it’s more a case of me saying there are factors — real factors — other than projected possible scenarios, each such scenario entirely invented, entirely speculative as to end result, etc. Which is neither here nor there, but does support my opinion that such speculations are a complete waste of time.
With respect to your most recent response:
My assigned seat was 2A. The question asks the probability I would end up in my assigned seat. The probability remains 99%; the tested event selects the 1% outcome. There is only ONE Free Spirit; there is only ONE “me”. The probability remains 99% that I will be in my assigned seat.
While loading my trash collection into the pickup, in preparation for a Saturday trip to the dump (a people circus of huge dimension), I realized an effective explanation is much simpler.
1. There are 100 seats.
2. There are two sitters, A and B.
3. A has an assigned seat.
4. B may sit in any one of the 100 available.
What is the probability that A will successfully claim, and sit, his assigned seat?
Answer: 99%
What Mr. Derbyshire says in re blacks and Hispanics is entirely correct in my considerable experience of both but runs against the assertions of the Alt-Right that theLatin presence results in a crime wave. I have walked the streetsof Guadalajara for some fifteen yeas without receiving a cross look. I do not recommend trying it in Detroit.
“Blacks need us. We don’t need them and deep down they know it.”
This is the very reason that many blacks hate whites. Because deepdown they know they are inferior on every socially valuable trait. Nothing is more certain to inspire nihilism and hatred than the recognition that others are better than you.
I should have added. People,especially those driven by low intelligence and emotion, don’t “hate” for reasons like the fact that some of their ancestors were slaves or that their countries were colonised. That kind of nonsense is all to hide the real visceral causes, one of which I have stated in my previous post. Another, that mainly motivates black women, is that they are all so physically unattractive relative to white women and Asian women, and they know it.
Actually, it’s the smarter blacks who are most prone to hatred.
It’s similar to Mensa. Average and stupid people are impressed by your membership. The ones who resent it– and boy, do they ever– are those who are almost, but not quite, there. They even have a group, Densa.
I would be very curious to see exactly what plan a Federal tyranny could institute upon the State of Texas.
The town I live in has 140 cops and 1400 members of the local gun club, plus at least 2x more too crazy or paranoid to join the gun club. Think the cops would even consider orders they consider unlawful? Well, maybe you could call in the National Guard….wait a minute, the Texas national Guard taking orders from the Feds to shoot Texans?
Ok, call in the regular military, and then deal with all 500 pumping rigs in Texas stopping at the same time. You would have national food rationing in a week, massive civil unrest in a month. While you, ah, go house to house fighting Texans? Bomb us into the stone age (bye bye oil production)? Way more worried about the Russians nuking us than any of that.
Then there are the long term consequences of even a short burst on actual warfare in general terms. This wouldn’t be a US military vs. peasants conflict in some far off place, it would be the US military vs. former US military fought dead center in the tax base funding that military. Plus the wildcard factor of new technologies, such as drones used to target the homes and families of the people giving orders(on both sides), EW attacks on vehicles carrying supplies, and a host of other simple, but brutally effective, non conventional warfare methods. And not even assuming seriously nasty NBC level (especially the B part of that) events.
I am more concerned that Revelation is literally true than I am that there could be ever be anything like a Civil War level event again in this country. On the other hand, I am more hopeful that I can sprout wings and fly than I am that most Americans today could stick their pwecious wittle feelings up their butts where they belong and start reasoning anything through.
The first thing we need to realize, is that we are in a real cultural war. A REAL war. So the first thing to do is to polarize people. This means to first, convince people that there is in fact a real war. And then, to polarize people, which is to push and convince people to buy into the fact that they, by necessity, need to buy into and commit to one side or another. Most people will want to just live their lives and not commit to one side or another. This is normal, but it is not useful in a real war.
Thus, we do not need to “bring people together” This is the exact opposite of what is required to win a real war. To win a real war, people need to be committed to actually fight and win, and this is the exact opposite of what most people think of when we have a controversy. Most people think the way to proceed with a controversy is to come together and consolidate. Nothing could be further from the truth. We need to be polarized and committed. Nothing else will enable us to fight and WIN this coming war.
It’s gone, all gone. And no-one did this to the Brits; they did it to themselves.
Mostly, although the U.S. contributed by its determination to see the British Empire destroyed. The loss of the Empire was a blow to national confidence from which Britain has never recovered. And no country is going to defend itself once national confidence has disappeared.
The importation of American trash culture also hasn’t helped.
And the traitor Churchill turning Britain into an American vassal was a major factor. Does Churchill count as a traitor? He was after all half-American. And his cringeing loyalty to the U.S. never wavered.
Not even a prediction. More an acknowledgement of what had already happened. He wrote the book in 1948 at which time Britain was already part (and a very insignificant part) of the American Empire.