Racists Have No Place in the Conservative Movement (ZO!)

PJTV ^ | Zo

[mnehring]

Zo has strong words for neo-confederate libertarians, especially those who infiltrated the CPAC conference. He reminds viewers why some libertarians have no place in the conservative movement, and why Republicans should embrace the vision of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.

(Video at link)

[jboot]

Agreed. To be frank, I'd LOVE to be proved wrong. I'd love it if someone could come up with an actual plan to make productive citizens of the dependent classes and convince me that it could work. A plan that actually puts real, living human beings to work supporting themselves, mind you, not just high talk and spin and "affirmation" that seeks to enable, not ennoble.

But I ain't holding my breath. The sticky wicket is that I want workers. The Pubbies want voters.

[Lee'sGhost]

LMAO! The irony!

Neo-comm BroJoe is an authority on comrade Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. I am NOT surprised. I will say that I’m mildly impressed that you can recall the rules from memory.

You can’t make this stuff up.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "You are seriously distorting antebellum south.
The majority of people in the south owned no slaves, worked their own farms, were carpenters tradesmen and lived lives that neither benefited from or were harmed by the 'peculiar institution'. "

Sorry, FRiend, but it is you who may be seriously mis-informed.
Data from the 1860 census showing percentages of households owning slaves, by state, can be found here.

What it says is that, roughly speaking, slave-holders lived in

1. nearly half of household in the Deep South (i.e., SC, Mississippi),
2. about a quarter in the Upper South (i.e., Virginia & Tennessee) and
3. around 10% in Border States (i.e., Maryland and Kentucky).

As for who did (or did not) benefit from slavery, many posters have pointed out: the entire nation benefited from slave-holders' growing prosperity in exporting profitable cash-crops like cotton and tobacco.

And that alone well explains why the Deep South was eager to secede in 1860, while the Upper South was reluctant, refused at first to secede, and Border States never voted to secede, even after the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

So the formula here is simple -- the deeper south and higher percentage of slave-owning families in a state: the more eager they were to secede and declare war on the United States.

[ek_hornbeck]

A lot of Republicans and conservatives are so afraid of being tarred with the dread "racist" label that they've adopted their own form of watered down left wing political correctness, and aren't willing to call a spade a spade when it comes to cultural or ethnic differences.

For the same reason, many in the GOP have adopted the liberal line on immigration, and have muted their opposition to affirmative action, hate crime laws, and other forms of reverse-discrimination.

[BroJoeK]

mnehring: "The 3/5ths clause came from restricting slave owning state's representation until they freed the slaves.
There was a lot of abolitionist sentiment among many of the founders."

I accept your additions and corrections, just trying to keep my telling as short, simple and accurate as possible.

But I had never before considered that 3/5 representation was intended as an incentive to free more slaves.
Interesting. And note how little it seemed to work.

Obviously economic calculations outweighed political advantages back in those days.

[mnehring]

I think it is possible but it would require some severe cultural changes (in the country as a whole, not just any specific demographic).

1. Our side would need to realize that we aren’t going to get a complete elimination right away. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of action. As Reagan put it, go for incremental steps.

2. Begin by severely limiting what can be purchased with food stamps or how other benefits are used. It has gotten to the point where I can predict who will be using a “Lone Star Card” when I go shopping because they are the ones piling up steaks and junk food in their carts. It has gotten to the point that what once was ‘luxury’ items that one had to work hard to achieve can now be achieved by being on public assistance. There isn’t anything to strive for through work that can’t be gained from a handout. Steaks, cell phones, etc, are all now givens as part of the assistance programs.

3. Have a major crackdown on the fraud that takes place in the welfare system. These ‘day care’ games are a good example. Every welfare mom and her sister has a daycare business watching each other’s kids and reaping government dollars through child care payments. Another fraud that is costing millions is people selling food stamps or other benefits to others. Require photo identification to use any sort of assistance benefit like food stamps or EBT cards. I have a co-worker I saw using a Lone Star card at the store even though between her and her husband make over $100K per year. They simply bought the card from someone else so that person could have some cash. The sad part is many of these scams are coordinated in and by churches.

4. The marketing is the big challenge but it needs to be approached. We need to change the culture. This will involve recognizable, young and ‘hip’ faces (Zo would be a good example) who will begin to start preaching the value of self-sufficiency and independence. Getting public assistance should be treated like something shameful unless absolutely needed (we will never get to the point where we don’t have benefits to those truly in need who can’t work). Tell the young guy on welfare that he is stealing food out of his grandma’s mouth by taking assistance he doesn’t need. Another poster suggested that we as business owners and executives start mentorship programs for inner city youth who would otherwise end up in the welfare cycle. I think this is an excellent idea.

I have reams of other ideas (as I’m sure we all do) but not the time to post them today.

[BroJoeK]

Lee'sGhost: "Neo-comm BroJoe is an authority on comrade Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.
I am NOT surprised.
I will say that I’m mildly impressed that you can recall the rules from memory."

LOL.
I first heard the term "Saul Alinksy's rules for radicals" a few years ago on Glen Beck's program.
Rush, Sean and Mark Levin have all also explained them, in great depth.

So, recently I had occasion to google exactly what they were, and came across this listing, which is easy enough to reference.

But we should note, Lee, that you seem utterly dependent on them -- whether you can recite the numbers or not -- in that you refuse to take on arguments directly, instead relying 100% on:

• Rule #5: " 'Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.' and

• Rule #13: 'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.' "

I simply point out that on a forum such as Free Republic, your efforts to become an Alinsky Radical are more likely to backfire than anything else.

It's much better for you if you just stick to discussing important facts and interpretations.
Leave Alinsky's game out of it, pal.

[mnehring]

One of the founding father’s (I can’t remember who, I’ll look it up later) had a journal of the events and outlined a proposal that was given to the slave states that would give them full representation if they freed their slaves. The slave states refused so the 3/5ths clause was put in place limiting representation and Article 1, Section 9 clause regarding banning of the importation of slaves after 1807 was a work in to start the process of ending slavery. They then started the process of ending almost immediately with the Slave Trade act of 1794 and the Importation Act of 1807. There was fast and early movement to stop Slavery, something the Slave states greatly opposed and all referenced either as the primary or secondary reason for secession in their various articles.

[Lee'sGhost]

“But we should note, Lee, that you seem utterly dependent on them...”

It only seems that way because you’re not very bright. Nothing I can do about that.

[rdb3]

Said if for years, Rap and Hip Hop culture is the KKK’s dream come true.

Preach!

[Hot Tabasco]

We need to make sure these racist trolls don’t infiltrate our organizations.

I suspect there's many on this site but keeping a lower profile than they did 12 years ago when articles from Stormfront were regularly posted and subsequently zotted........

[rdb3]

Road Glide quoting to jboot: " 'The only logical reason for conservatism is to preserve a genetic entity, a race, or a nation, intact - all other reasons given are mere circumlocutions.'
Since the mid-sixties, it seems that there has been a concerted effort in America to do just the opposite of what is stated above."

Sorry pal, but you appear confused and may not belong posting on Free Republic.

Interesting.

Maybe it's the times (under 0bama), but I've noticed statements like this in the comments section of American Thinker on story after story. FR had more than its share, too.

The American Thinker is one of my favorite sites! I guess I don't mind people of whatever race/ethnicity stating what they really think because the snake I can see is not a danger.

It's the hidden snakes that are problematic.

[central_va]

You’ve seen “Gone With The Wind” to many times....

[rockrr]

I've seen them, too. I see it as part of that conversation that AG Holder claimed that white America didn't have the courage to hold. It would appear to me that we are having it, good, bad, and ugly.

[GOPJ]

I’m not racist, but I am culturalist...and the fact is many blacks, and whites for that matter, subscribe to an inferior culture, and it’s time to call them on it.

I'm with you on this... all cultures are NOT equal. What's happening now isn't going to hold because it's based on a conspiracy of delusion.

Many black communities - like Chicago's South Side - Detroit and Philly - are run by thugs. It doesn't matter the color - forced to live in fear is wrong. Clturally inferior. Honest blacks living in those hellhole neighborhoods where they're afraid to go out at night, afraid to stand up to teen bullies, and afraid to expect better... It's an indictment of inner city culture.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "You’ve seen “Gone With The Wind” to many times...."

Hardly, but it turns out that in some (not all) parts of the South, the movie was not completely inaccurate.

My main source here is James Huston's 2003 book "Calculating the Value of Union -- Slavery, Property Rights and the Economic Origins of the Civil War".

Huston presents data from the 1860 census and makes the case that Southerners generally, and the Deep South especially, were far better off economically than is usually understood.
Indeed, they were better off, on average, than their Northern cousins.

Reasons include the two most important economic aspects of slavery:

1. Slaves produced huge incomes from cash crops like cotton and tobacco exported internationally, and

2. Values for slaves themselves rose correspondingly over all those years -- such that by 1860 slaves represented nearly half of all Southern wealth (second only to the land itself).
   Those rising slave values meant, just like rising home prices today, that owners could take out "slave-equity" loans, just as we might take out "home-equity" loans.

So slave-equity owners could afford to live well, just so long as economic demand for slaves increased and slave prices continued to rise.
But any threat against the South's economy would cause its whole house to come tumbling down, and that, truly, is what motivated Deep South slave-holders' secession in 1860.

[BroJoeK]

Lee'sGhost: "It only seems that way because you’re not very bright.
Nothing I can do about that."

When your "argument" consists of nothing more than spurious insults, it is a self-confession that you've lost the discussion on its merits, and can only resort to what you know how to do, pal.

[Absolutely Nobama]

Never trust a liberaltarian.

[Pelham]

Don’t waste your time on them. They celebrate nothing and spend their time here hate mongering. It impresses no one.

[Cronos]

I’m not racist, but I am culturalist.

well said.

Let's see Thomas Sowell or Bobby Jindal or Nikki Haley etc. -- what color are they? Who cares? No one even knows that

But what culture are they? Conservative