The Deplorables

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 15:51:37 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 6:01:10 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >"Cheers,
>> >James Arthur "
>> 
>> You know the sickening bleeding heart liberals are going to call you all kinds of names for that post.
>
>Since you didn't include any text I don't know which post.  If you're
>referring to the Civil War lady, I merely summarized what she said.

Since when does that matter?  You're the messenger.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 16:52:56 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 14:40:47 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 1:33:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 08:10:05 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 11:17:47 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >> You go right ahead, but we ain't taking no more shit. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> 1. Women, White Men gave you your rights.
>>> >> 
>>> >> 2. Blacks, White Men gave you your rights.
>>> >> 
>>> >> I, a White Man am willing to die for your rights right now. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> Who would do the same for me ? 
>>> >> 
>>> >> T^T
>>> >
>>> >It's got nothing to do with skin color.  It has to do with ideas that
>>> >happened to arise first in Europe, e.g. liberty & natural rights.
>>> >
>>> >You're confusing the power of ideas with pigmentation.
>>> >
>>> >The beauty of our system was that no one had to care about anyone's color
>>> >or the cut of their jib, provided we each lived freely without harming
>>> >anyone else.
>>> 
>>> That certainly wasn't true in 1850.
>>
>>If you read their writings, the founders thought their Constitution's ban
>>on slave importation beginning twenty years after signing would end the
>>institution in America.  But Eli Whitney's cotton gin came along and
>>changed the economics completely, making a failing practice suddenly
>>highly profitable.  Technology.  The founders couldn't have foreseen that.
>>
>>> Or in 1950. When I was a kid, no
>>> black person (defined as 1/16th black or more) could eat in a white
>>> restaurant, use a white drinking fountain, go to a white school or
>>> university, or enter any of a number of professions, or live in a
>>> white neighborhood.
>>
>>It's pretty interesting how that came about.  I recently read
>>"Recollections of 92 Years, 1824-1916," by Elizabeth Avery Meriwether,
>>a southern woman who lived through the thick of it.  I was very
>>surprised to read of the Civil War from a Southerner's perspective.
>>If you're inclined, a few passages give you the flavor:
>>
>>"After Lee's surrender the people of the Sought were anxious to know
>> how their conquerors were going to treat them.  Would they be merciful,
>> or would they be bitter and cruel as they had been during the four years
>> of war?"
>>
>>"This merciful treatment of Virginians by Lincoln evoked from every Southern
>> heart the deepest appreciation; the people of the South hoped and believed
>> that at last the hate and bitterness of the war were to die out on both
>> sides and a true friendship between North and South was to make the country
>> really one again."
>>
>>Lincoln was assassinated though, and his replacements preferred to
>>humiliate and punish the South instead.
>>
>>Congress "[A]nnulled the State governments then in peaceful operation,
>> divided the Southern States into Military Districts, placed them
>> under martial law, disenfranchised all white men who had not actively
>> sided with the North (this meant practically that all white men were
>> disenfranchised) and enfranchised all black men!"
>>
>>New local governments were quickly assembled from the unschooled ranks of
>>the former slaves.
>>
>>"At a banquet given here the other day, among the guests were three
>> ex-Governors, two ex-members of Congress, and an ex-Justice of the
>> Supreme Court, besides a number of lawyers, doctors, and prominent
>> business men. But the only persons in the Banquet Hall who could
>> either vote or hold public office were the negroes who waited on the
>> table!" (letter from a North Carolina friend, 1868)
>>
>>Who began promptly to spend the public monies, threatening to ruin
>>the distraught Southerners, who, disenfranchised, had no voice or
>>legal recourse.
>>
>>"The adventurers from the North who swooped down upon the South to make
>> their fortunes...
>> Under the malign influences of these self-seeking carpet baggers the
>> ignorant, poor negroes made but sorry use of the franchise thrust upon
>> them. [...] Negro legislatures would vote millions and millions of
>> dollars for public works that were never executed; but the carpet
>> baggers would get hold of the bonds..."
>>
>>Meriwether then describes the Democrats' remedy: conquered and desperate,
>>occupied by two million soldiers and living under martial law, they
>>formed the Klu Klux Klan.
>>
>>
>>> That produced a cultural isolation that exists
>>> still.
>>
>>I credit Johnson's Great Society for that.  America has had several waves
>>of newcomers since who have already been assimilated and are fully
>>integrated into society.  But his aim to keep "n****ers voting Democrat
>>for the next 200 years" necessitated the divide and conquer tactics
>>Hillary Clinton is still spouting today, even this past week.
>
>Surveys now show Trump with about 20% of the black vote!

If that's true, stick a fork in Hillary (please).

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 2:49:25 AM UTC+10, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Jim Thompson wrote:
> > I haven't quite figured out why it's always liberals that want to stir
> > up racial tensions.
> 
> They believe that history is a class struggle.  They see everything as 
> haves and have-nots.  I've said before that this explains a lot of their 
> behavior.

Marx believed history was a class struggle, between capital and labour. It's often a useful simplification.

Technically speaking, a liberal is somebody who believes in free trade. When the term was invented to out-of-touch-with-reality right wingers - a class that seems to include Jim Thompson - believed in protectionism. Since Americans know very little history, "liberal" in the US now means "somebody more left-wing than me". In Jim Thompson's case that's most of the country.

> Some of them won't admit they believe in the basic tenets of Communism, 
> but most of them don't know where their philosophy comes from.

The idea of a class struggle between capital and labour is a basic tenet of Communism, but the communists inherited it from the broader socialist movement, so it's not a reliable way of identifying communists (and never was - the original socialists threw out the proto-communists for being undemocratic).

So Tom del Rosso doesn't know where that element of liberal philosophy comes from either. Engels and Kropotkin do seems to have been the first to use the term class struggle in the modern sense, and Marx did latch onto it.

That Karl Marx later became wrong-headedly enthusiastic about the leading role of an elite party in improving society - the communist error - doesn't actually invalidate the insight, and it is subordinate to the central idea that society is a cooperation within the whole population, rather than a device to make the rich richer.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney 

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 7:45:55 AM UTC+10, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 11:49:25 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > Jim Thompson wrote:
> > > I haven't quite figured out why it's always liberals that want to stir
> > > up racial tensions.
> > 
> > They believe that history is a class struggle.  They see everything as 
> > haves and have-nots.  I've said before that this explains a lot of their 
> > behavior.
> > 
> > Some of them won't admit they believe in the basic tenets of Communism, 
> > but most of them don't know where their philosophy comes from.
> 
> Zactly. 

In fact it is a misleading formulation. Tom del Rosso doesn't seem to know that the Communists got that philosophical element from broader socialist thought.

>And who has the inferior education and skills? 

Tom del Rosso, obviously, but you didn't know enough to notice his error either.

>But they want to give our money away. How about they give their own money away.

They do. It's part of the same package. You raise more taxes from everybody to spend on making the poor a healthier, better educated and more productive work force, which eventually pays off for everybody. More of the extra taxes come from the well-off, because they've got more money - the poor don't have enough to cover the cost of collection - but most of the long term benefit ends up in the pockets of the well off because they get to hire more productive workers, and make money out of the extra production.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 7:41:43 AM UTC+10, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >"I haven't quite figured out why it's always liberals that want to >stir up racial tensions. "
> 
> To try to "make their point" and bring more liberals into the herd of sheep. Stop thinking. We are all the same under the skin even though a million years from now they can tell your race from your fossilised remains. And they have the fucking nerve to call people who question even the extent and scope, not even the existence of global warming stupid and not knowing any science.

Perfectly correctly. If you haven't found out that global warming is going on, and got some idea of what it involves, you've got to be a bit stupid.

Making sense of the evidence does take some scientific education, but you can choose to ignore the evidence no matter how much education you've got. About ten of the top 300 climate scientists have made this choice. The examples I think I can identify are making the choiuce for rational reason - Spencer and Christy are born-again Christians who can't believe that God could be so mean to us.

John Larkin has less scientific education, and chooses to believe everything he read in the Murdoch media - which is an other way of being irrational.

> They think science is democratic. Sure was when they were spraying DDT all over the place and feeding us margarine and saccarine, or was that cyclamates? 

Science isn't democratic. The people who have the best explanations beat out the dumb majority every time. Science may have made it possible for us to make margarine, saccharin and cyclamates, but the decision to put them into production was purely commercial. The FDA may have rubber-stamped it, but it took a lot more scientific investigation before we started waking up to the idea that it might be a bad idea.

Similarly, digging up coal and oil and burning them for fuel looked like a great idea when we first started doing it, but it took a lot of scientific investigation to make it clear that it wasn't an idea that we ought to persist with.
 
> >"I've stated before, I grew up in a mixed community, post WWII VA
> >housing, 1/2 acre minimum lots, heritage immaterial, always >assisting the black family two houses up rounding up their turkeys if it rained "
> 
> LOL, what's wrong with it raining on turkeys ? Seems like it would give them a shower and they would smell better. 
> 
> >"My current community is probably 35% Caucasian, 35% Hispanic, 30%
> Black... no tensions... NO crime... everyone is armed... "
> 
> Know how they say good fences make good neighbors ? Well good guns make even better neighbors. 

But considerably more dangerous ones. A neighbour who goes insane isn't likely to use his fence to kill anybody.

>I just hope they keep them out of children's reach because those little fuckers have proven that they can shoot, like the kid who shot his own Father. 
> 
> Life is really funny sometimes, on a bottle of bleach it says "KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN" but not on guns, not on carkeys, not on a few other things either that really need such a sign.

There is the problem that the kids that really need to read that kind of sign can't read.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 9:48:52 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 14:48:08 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >>"There were hardly any male-dominated societies in history who
> >>voluntarily offered equal rights to women or racial minorities.
> >>They/we had to be shamed and forced to do it. Jurb's comments that
> >>"White Men gave you your rights" is not what happened. "
> >
> >They couldn't even vote. What the fuck are you talking about ? 
> 
> Of course they couldn't vote; white males wouldn't let them.

Initially, only property-owning males could vote - in the US this started out as only 6% of the population. The US liberalised this marginally faster than the UK where even the 1884 reform bill only allowed some 40% of the male population to vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage

> UK and US, women's vote. South Africa, everything. India, everything. In the
> US, the civil rights movement and gay rights. All were won by the
> repressed, with political action and shaming and lawsuits and some
> violence.
> 
> The US south would still have whites-only laundramats [1] if ML King
> and his allies hadn't revolted, and died, for equal rights.
> 
> [1] The signs said "Whites Only except Colored Maids in Uniform." I
> remember that. 

In the UK there were places that had signs saying  "no Irish", not that John Larkin was being specifically targeted.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 1:10:24 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 11:17:47 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> The beauty of our system was that no one had to care about anyone's color
> or the cut of their jib, provided we each lived freely without harming
> anyone else.
> 
> When the gov't starts harming you for your color, to benefit those of
> another, though, that's a horse of a different color.
> 
> Therein's always the problem of governments getting involved in
> redistribution--they have to hurt some to benefit others, which
> sets peoples against each other.

All governments redistribute - initially from the citizens being "protected" to the protection gang, aka army that's protecting them.

This does damage the people being protected, though not as much as an invasion would. People more intelligent than Jame Arthur have worked out that the idea can be generalised to cover other services that benefit society as a whole. Universal health care and universal education are examples that James Arthur finds particularly damaging to the people who have to pay for them, after they have been educated and before they get sick.

It's an interesting blind spot, but James Arthur is intellectually consistent - he does idolise the founding tax evaders who took the original thirteen American states out from under the thumb of British tax collectors.

He's less well-informed about the Whiskey Rebellion, when some members of the new colony objected to the tax they had to pay on the whiskey they were distilling.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 10:19:22 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 7:53:02 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 14:40:47 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
> > wrote:
> 
> > >> That produced a cultural isolation that exists
> > >> still.
> > >
> > >I credit Johnson's Great Society for that.  America has had several waves
> > >of newcomers since who have already been assimilated and are fully
> > >integrated into society.  But his aim to keep "n****ers voting Democrat
> > >for the next 200 years" necessitated the divide and conquer tactics
> > >Hillary Clinton is still spouting today, even this past week.
> > 
> > Surveys now show Trump with about 20% of the black vote!
> 
> That's awesome.  It's about time someone punctured all these myths and
> got people voting on policy rather than party.

As if Trump had anything consistent enough to be called a policy.

At least he's now decided not to be a Birther any more.

The fact that some survey's now show that Trump has 20% of the black vote suggests that least impressive end of the US education system is quite as unimpressive as I've been pointing out here for some time now. It's awesomely horrible.

Nobody in their right mind could vote for Trump, if they understood how erratic his proclaimed policies actually are.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

>"Technically speaking, a liberal is somebody who believes in free >trade."

You gotta be kidding.

>"In Jim Thompson's case that's most of the country."

So you know the thoughts and desires of all of us from ten fucking thousand miles away, right ? 

Come on over and I'll GIVE you that oceanfront property in Arizona. Then you can have a gunfight with Jim. But he will win because he has one and you don't. 

I ain't pussyfooting around with anyone anymore. You got nothing.