One has a lot of kids in three hundred years. Of course, no one living today swore a sacred oath to maintain this union until their death -- there is no bond of honor that should prevent them from walking away if they wish.
I find myself almost hoping for Scotland to vote for independence. If for no other reason than to put a little fear of centralization into Washington DC. Yes, the Supreme Court in 1869 ruled that secession is Unconstitutional. But Supreme Court decisions have been overturned before. And how much of a Third World dictatorship would we look like if we were so backwards as to try and keep those who want to leave peacefully from doing so? I for one would welcome a Californian independence movement. :)
I'm a little beyond 'almost' hoping. My sense is that they probably won't win: the "No" vote has a lot of economic plausibility, and a lot of people are likely to vote their financial interest (whether in personal access to British welfare, or in personal access to British markets -- several hundred thousand Scots live and work in England itself).
I don't know if you've seen the news lately, but we're at war with the Islamic Caliphate. Scotland may or may not go free today, but the New Middle Ages are here.
It's difficult to say whether Scottish greens and socialists are the way they are because of Scotland, or because of England. If England is removed, and the Scots magickally restore themselves to something more virtuous, that'd be like the South regaining virtue by throwing out the Democrat majority regime. Economic and military power house it became next, but only after then.
The blacks went the opposite direction, including Jews, by adopting Democrat customs and cultural religious values. How long would the inner black communities of America take to recover and cancel out the welfare breeding if they could get rid of Democrats? Certainly multiple generations.
The blacks went the opposite direction, including Jews...
I assume you mean something like 'as did the Jews,' since 'Jews' is not a subset of 'blacks.'
In any case, I'm not sure you appreciate the degree to which the South didn't get rid of the Democrats. Most of those Democrats just switched parties. There were some sea-change areas, but that was mostly because of people moving in from outside the South who voted Republican before the local politicians realized they needed to swap parties. Still, they got around to it soon enough.
I assume you mean something like 'as did the Jews,' since 'Jews' is not a subset of 'blacks.'
Blacks, 95-97% of which are Democrats. Jews, about 60-75% of which are Democrats. Democrat party loyalty being the root.
Most of those Democrats just switched parties.
Many people were Democrats only because the Authorities and culture dictated that it be so. Robert E. Lee, although not known for political sympathies, is a symbol. He didn't like the policies he saw, but couldn't say or do much about it. NB Forest wanted the KKK to be a civilian, community supporting initiative, to rebuild post war and forget the war's ideological struggle. The rest of his Democrat faithful refused that path.
Many Democrats decades later tried to fix their own internal issues, but they were denied by the group mentality. That group mentality began to break down sometime after WWII.
Thus all the people who switched, only switched because the power system and hierarchy were already shattered. People just didn't realize it. A lot of it was physically shattered decades before Reagan, but people were scared or restrained down by tradition.
Getting rid of the shackles of the Democrat party doesn't mean voting or not voting for Democrats. Just as converting from one religion to another, doesn't mean destroying all your traditional rituals. What you don't realize is that the Democrat party, like the Leftist alliance, had its hold on the people not because of politics but because of other things entirely.
There were some sea-change areas, but that was mostly because of people moving in from outside the South who voted Republican before the local politicians realized they needed to swap parties.
Perhaps that was a contributing factor... to the elections. But it doesn't account for why generational descendants of Lee and the Confederate fighters would be able to reconcile their loyalty to tradition and spirit, to voting or supporting Republicans.
That's like a black man voting for Obama while praising Republicans. There's a kind of religious contradiction there, that has little to do with political parties.
I saw a piece by a liberal writer the other day that was saying that he thought the TEA Party was so strongly supported in the South because it was basically a Confederate party. That's the kind of thing you're after, I suppose: What would allow the descendants of supporters of Lee to vote Republican? Well, if they are moved by resistance to central authority, and the locus of that movement changes, so would their loyalty and interest.
But I think the author's view of history is stunted. It's not that the TEA Party is secretly motivated by Confederate sentiment. It's not that the TEA Party's ancestors were Confederates. It's that the Confederacy's ancestors were among the Revolutionaries, and their ancestors among the Jacobites, and the Glorious Revolutionaries, and the Covenanters, and the Yorkists, and...
I saw a piece by a liberal writer the other day that was saying that he thought the TEA Party was so strongly supported in the South because it was basically a Confederate party.
These must be the same guys who got lobbyists to blame, country wide, Nathan B Forrest for the KKK's crimes against humanity. I asked a few modern Americans about him, and they still think he is the reason the KKK became the Democrat branch's version of ISIL. ALthough this was before the advent of Hussein O's ISIL funding.
The propaganda is so wide, it's corrupted many things that would not normally be connected.
It's not that the TEA Party is secretly motivated by Confederate sentiment.
People have no real clue what Confederate sentiment was these days. So using history isn't going to work, except as a WMD. Weapon of Mass Deception.
That's the kind of thing you're after, I suppose: What would allow the descendants of supporters of Lee to vote Republican?
That's not the exact question I'm going for. But the answer, which was before this btw, is that Southerners disassociated the Democrat and Republican strategies of the past to a tradition, but super imposed the new generation's view of American patriotism on top of it. So instead of loyalty conflicting, it cemented it instead. But it didn't erase people's emotions and WMD inflicted propaganda. That still stayed. It just wasn't directed against harmful antics or parties.
The blacks, however, seemed to have been overcome by their feeling of betrayal from the Republican party, for allowing the KKK and the South's Democrat plantation system to re exert itself, even though so much blood and sacrifice was shed in the Civil War I to end it. Reconstruction was a failure, both for the blacks that fought on the side of the Union, the blacks working on Democrat plantations, and the whites that didn't have nearly as much political power as the Democrat plantation class (slaves counted as votes).
So blacks came to be convinced the Democrat welfare was good for them, while blaming Republicans.
Southerners, though, did something else. They converted previous societal hostility and angst towards something positive. Sort of like Germans and Japanese did, even though they lost a war.
Arabs and Africans though, seem less capable of this.
15 comments:
"Sure we hate each other . . . but let's do it for the kids!"
One has a lot of kids in three hundred years. Of course, no one living today swore a sacred oath to maintain this union until their death -- there is no bond of honor that should prevent them from walking away if they wish.
I find myself almost hoping for Scotland to vote for independence. If for no other reason than to put a little fear of centralization into Washington DC. Yes, the Supreme Court in 1869 ruled that secession is Unconstitutional. But Supreme Court decisions have been overturned before. And how much of a Third World dictatorship would we look like if we were so backwards as to try and keep those who want to leave peacefully from doing so? I for one would welcome a Californian independence movement. :)
I'm a little beyond 'almost' hoping. My sense is that they probably won't win: the "No" vote has a lot of economic plausibility, and a lot of people are likely to vote their financial interest (whether in personal access to British welfare, or in personal access to British markets -- several hundred thousand Scots live and work in England itself).
But the "Yes" vote has the right of it.
No it doesn't; not at this distance from the middle ages.
And the SNP are just nasty. Punching old people in the head because they have the temerity to disagree?
I don't know if you've seen the news lately, but we're at war with the Islamic Caliphate. Scotland may or may not go free today, but the New Middle Ages are here.
It's difficult to say whether Scottish greens and socialists are the way they are because of Scotland, or because of England. If England is removed, and the Scots magickally restore themselves to something more virtuous, that'd be like the South regaining virtue by throwing out the Democrat majority regime. Economic and military power house it became next, but only after then.
The blacks went the opposite direction, including Jews, by adopting Democrat customs and cultural religious values. How long would the inner black communities of America take to recover and cancel out the welfare breeding if they could get rid of Democrats? Certainly multiple generations.
The blacks went the opposite direction, including Jews...
I assume you mean something like 'as did the Jews,' since 'Jews' is not a subset of 'blacks.'
In any case, I'm not sure you appreciate the degree to which the South didn't get rid of the Democrats. Most of those Democrats just switched parties. There were some sea-change areas, but that was mostly because of people moving in from outside the South who voted Republican before the local politicians realized they needed to swap parties. Still, they got around to it soon enough.
"I assume you mean something like 'as did the Jews,' since 'Jews' is not a subset of 'blacks.'"
Sammy Davis Jr.
You need a Venn Diagram for that one.
I assume you mean something like 'as did the Jews,' since 'Jews' is not a subset of 'blacks.'
Blacks, 95-97% of which are Democrats. Jews, about 60-75% of which are Democrats. Democrat party loyalty being the root.
Most of those Democrats just switched parties.
Many people were Democrats only because the Authorities and culture dictated that it be so. Robert E. Lee, although not known for political sympathies, is a symbol. He didn't like the policies he saw, but couldn't say or do much about it. NB Forest wanted the KKK to be a civilian, community supporting initiative, to rebuild post war and forget the war's ideological struggle. The rest of his Democrat faithful refused that path.
Many Democrats decades later tried to fix their own internal issues, but they were denied by the group mentality. That group mentality began to break down sometime after WWII.
Thus all the people who switched, only switched because the power system and hierarchy were already shattered. People just didn't realize it. A lot of it was physically shattered decades before Reagan, but people were scared or restrained down by tradition.
Getting rid of the shackles of the Democrat party doesn't mean voting or not voting for Democrats. Just as converting from one religion to another, doesn't mean destroying all your traditional rituals. What you don't realize is that the Democrat party, like the Leftist alliance, had its hold on the people not because of politics but because of other things entirely.
There were some sea-change areas, but that was mostly because of people moving in from outside the South who voted Republican before the local politicians realized they needed to swap parties.
Perhaps that was a contributing factor... to the elections. But it doesn't account for why generational descendants of Lee and the Confederate fighters would be able to reconcile their loyalty to tradition and spirit, to voting or supporting Republicans.
That's like a black man voting for Obama while praising Republicans. There's a kind of religious contradiction there, that has little to do with political parties.
I saw a piece by a liberal writer the other day that was saying that he thought the TEA Party was so strongly supported in the South because it was basically a Confederate party. That's the kind of thing you're after, I suppose: What would allow the descendants of supporters of Lee to vote Republican? Well, if they are moved by resistance to central authority, and the locus of that movement changes, so would their loyalty and interest.
But I think the author's view of history is stunted. It's not that the TEA Party is secretly motivated by Confederate sentiment. It's not that the TEA Party's ancestors were Confederates. It's that the Confederacy's ancestors were among the Revolutionaries, and their ancestors among the Jacobites, and the Glorious Revolutionaries, and the Covenanters, and the Yorkists, and...
I saw a piece by a liberal writer the other day that was saying that he thought the TEA Party was so strongly supported in the South because it was basically a Confederate party.
These must be the same guys who got lobbyists to blame, country wide, Nathan B Forrest for the KKK's crimes against humanity. I asked a few modern Americans about him, and they still think he is the reason the KKK became the Democrat branch's version of ISIL. ALthough this was before the advent of Hussein O's ISIL funding.
The propaganda is so wide, it's corrupted many things that would not normally be connected.
It's not that the TEA Party is secretly motivated by Confederate sentiment.
People have no real clue what Confederate sentiment was these days. So using history isn't going to work, except as a WMD. Weapon of Mass Deception.
That's the kind of thing you're after, I suppose: What would allow the descendants of supporters of Lee to vote Republican?
That's not the exact question I'm going for. But the answer, which was before this btw, is that Southerners disassociated the Democrat and Republican strategies of the past to a tradition, but super imposed the new generation's view of American patriotism on top of it. So instead of loyalty conflicting, it cemented it instead. But it didn't erase people's emotions and WMD inflicted propaganda. That still stayed. It just wasn't directed against harmful antics or parties.
The blacks, however, seemed to have been overcome by their feeling of betrayal from the Republican party, for allowing the KKK and the South's Democrat plantation system to re exert itself, even though so much blood and sacrifice was shed in the Civil War I to end it. Reconstruction was a failure, both for the blacks that fought on the side of the Union, the blacks working on Democrat plantations, and the whites that didn't have nearly as much political power as the Democrat plantation class (slaves counted as votes).
So blacks came to be convinced the Democrat welfare was good for them, while blaming Republicans.
Southerners, though, did something else. They converted previous societal hostility and angst towards something positive. Sort of like Germans and Japanese did, even though they lost a war.
Arabs and Africans though, seem less capable of this.
Post a Comment