How many days per week do you practice white supremacy?

[B-Man]

 

 

THE GLARING PROBLEM WITH BIDEN’S WHITE-SUPREMACY WARNING:

 

Despite the president’s fearmongering, this is pitifully far from the most dangerous threat we face.

 

FTA:

Let’s put this in more context. Obviously, almost all serious terrorist groups are international in range, and very many are specifically Islamic — the stereotype of the Arab terrorist has been around for decades and didn’t come from nowhere.

 

At present, al-Qaeda, the group responsible for nearly 3,000 deaths from the 9/11 attacks, has cells worldwide and controls a considerable amount of territory in Mali, Somalia, and Yemen. ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) is based in those troubled nations where once Eden lay. New player Boko Haram is Nigerian and in practice controls much of the northeast of that rising Motherland power.

 

Obviously, none of these truly major terror organizations — some of which, in practice, come frighteningly close to being unrecognized nations — qualifies as a U.S. domestic actor. And, speaking frankly, terrorism overall is probably no longer a top-five security threat to the United States — when compared with the rapid rise of China, the opiate and fentanyl epidemic (which killed 110,000 Americans last year), surging crime (murders hit 20,000 annually back in 2020), and so forth.

 

So, why the national-level focus on the rather niche problem of white supremacy — on 20 deaths per year vs. 20,000? I sincerely think it’s because what some see as white conservative perfidy can safely be targeted in modern America, with little fear of “cancellation” or political backlash, at least from the Left. Since the civil-rights era of the 1960s, working-poor white Yanks have been very much cemented into liberal mythos as an enemy group: the whey-faced, dirty-handed rioters screaming abuse at sainted MLK. And, unlike other groups that may sometimes be unpopular — “hood” black dudes, “slut-walking” feminists, Muslim Islamists, the over-the-top Pride partiers we’ll all see in a month — they form a population that can generally be attacked without significant social risk. They are the Default Villains of the Prevailing Narrative.

 

{snip}

 

The answer is that certain deaths and harms feed into a preexisting narrative: that the United States of 2023 is a white-supremacist country, where the political Left continues to struggle alone against this entrenched evil, and where those killed by the “white power structure” should be presumed to be heroes or at least martyrs. Biden, by searching out some technical category within which he could call white supremacy our greatest national foe, served this self-same narrative during his Howard speech.

 

The big problem here, bluntly, is that the story line Mr. Biden just promoted on the national stage has been false for decades. Per the proud HBCU faculty of Tuskegee Institute, the last recorded U.S. lynchings took place in 1964. Violent crime involving both blacks and whites is today just 3 percent of all serious “Index” crime . . . and it slants 80–90 percent black on white. What of the police “genocide” we keep hearing about, from presumably serious people? Well, in the most recent year on record, the total number of unarmed black men killed by on-duty U.S. law-enforcement officers was twelve.

 

In the real world, the reason why today’s BLM stories are so unsympathetic and bizarre is that they are the best available in a tiny pool: There are no real Nazi lynchings or Terminator-style racist cops savagely killing innocents. In this real world, I have a real proposal for the president: Stop race-baiting and fearmongering, and let’s widen our focus broadly — across avenging not merely the 20 or so annual victims of white-supremacist hate, but also the other 20,000 people murdered here every year.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/05/the-glaring-problem-with-bidens-white-supremacy-warning/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

[aristocrat]

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

On 5/19/2023 at 6:42 PM, Unforgiven said:

None. the communists have put us on notice.

the gentleman makes a compelling argument. Why wouldn’t he be owed 3 million.

 

dumb question.. why hasn’t there been a massive class action suit to settle this? 

[All_Pro_Bills]

58 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

the gentleman makes a compelling argument. Why wouldn’t he be owed 3 million.

 

dumb question.. why hasn’t there been a massive class action suit to settle this? 

While we all can agree that slavery is immoral and wrong for the sake of argument it was also legal at the time.  The 13th amendment officially obolished slavery.  By the letter of the law and technically by the law nobody violated any law.  Slavery was legal, then it was not.

How about people that were busted and locked up for smoking and selling pot?  Now the laws have changed and what they did is now more or less legal.  Should they get reparations? 

How about women denied the right to vote prior to the constutional amendment?  Should they get reparations for being wronged?

How about people busted for drinking and selling liquor during prohibition?  Once that amendment was revoked and what they did was once again legal shouldn't they get reparations for time being incarcerated?

 

[SoCal Deek]

22 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

While we all can agree that slavery is immoral and wrong for the sake of argument it was also legal at the time.  The 13th amendment officially obolished slavery.  By the letter of the law and technically by the law nobody violated any law.  Slavery was legal, then it was not.

How about people that were busted and locked up for smoking and selling pot?  Now the laws have changed and what they did is now more or less legal.  Should they get reparations? 

How about women denied the right to vote prior to the constutional amendment?  Should they get reparations for being wronged?

How about people busted for drinking and selling liquor during prohibition?  Once that amendment was revoked and what they did was once again legal shouldn't they get reparations for time being incarcerated?

 

That’s an interesting take on it. I’d never considered it, nor have I ever heard anyone make that argument. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

21 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

While we all can agree that slavery is immoral and wrong for the sake of argument it was also legal at the time.  The 13th amendment officially obolished slavery.  By the letter of the law and technically by the law nobody violated any law.  Slavery was legal, then it was not.

How about people that were busted and locked up for smoking and selling pot?  Now the laws have changed and what they did is now more or less legal.  Should they get reparations? 

How about women denied the right to vote prior to the constutional amendment?  Should they get reparations for being wronged?

How about people busted for drinking and selling liquor during prohibition?  Once that amendment was revoked and what they did was once again legal shouldn't they get reparations for time being incarcerated?

 

I can’t answer any of those things. I know families and met their elders who survived the holocaust. They aren’t asking for a check. 
 

My families roots are novia Scotian, eventually northeastern in 1900s and modest. I’ve inherited NOTHING. But my parents had a good work ethic and values so inherited that and have worked into a pretty good place.
 

But our society has normalized victimhood. 
 

so let’s see the class action suit, let court decide this once and for all. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That’s an interesting take on it. I’d never considered it, nor have I ever heard anyone make that argument. 

I’ve heard the pot one exclusively from the above but tied back to the main rrrrrrraysist topic. 
 

agree. 
 

sure to be dismiss as whataboutism. 
 

the real question I have is when will people in line for reparations realize the folks dangling them in front of them don’t seem to pay up after they cash the vote 🤔 

[BillStime]

16 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

They aren’t asking for a check. 

From 1945 to 2018, the German government paid approximately $86.8 billion in restitution and compensation to Holocaust victims and their heirs.  Germany has also identified Nazi-looted objects – including art works, books, and objects within larger collections – and has returned 16,000 objects to survivors and their heirs over the last 20 years.  Thousands more pieces of looted art are still missing worldwide. 

 

https://www.state.gov/reports/just-act-report-to-congress/germany/

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

From 1945 to 2018, the German government paid approximately $86.8 billion in restitution and compensation to Holocaust victims and their heirs.  Germany has also identified Nazi-looted objects – including art works, books, and objects within larger collections – and has returned 16,000 objects to survivors and their heirs over the last 20 years.  Thousands more pieces of looted art are still missing worldwide. 

 

https://www.state.gov/reports/just-act-report-to-congress/germany/

Unblock 

 

the guy with an undesired wrist tattoo making the kids pancakes on Saturday didn’t ask anyone for any thing. 

 

Im 100% on board with guilty white liberals and beneficiaries of slavery turning over everything they own.  
 

do it. Do it tomorrow. 

You first 

[SoCal Deek]

12 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

While we all can agree that slavery is immoral and wrong for the sake of argument it was also legal at the time.  The 13th amendment officially obolished slavery.  By the letter of the law and technically by the law nobody violated any law.  Slavery was legal, then it was not.

How about people that were busted and locked up for smoking and selling pot?  Now the laws have changed and what they did is now more or less legal.  Should they get reparations? 

How about women denied the right to vote prior to the constutional amendment?  Should they get reparations for being wronged?

How about people busted for drinking and selling liquor during prohibition?  Once that amendment was revoked and what they did was once again legal shouldn't they get reparations for time being incarcerated?

 

I thought about this one overnight and while I still appreciate the basic theory I’m not sure that you’re coming at it from the right angle. The concept behind reparations is about society at large repairing a societal/moral wrong. The problem with it is that they’re trying to repair a moral wrong with a financial solution. To do that someone ELSE has to pay for it…and that’s where it goes fundamentally wrong. Just like the other examples you cite, we don’t have a tradition of compensating moral law with civil solutions. I guess they could always sue but who would they sue and who would be liable? In this case there isn’t a defendant with any ‘standing’. 
 

It’s an interesting discussion, for sure! 

[All_Pro_Bills]

45 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I thought about this one overnight and while I still appreciate the basic theory I’m not sure that you’re coming at it from the right angle. The concept behind reparations is about society at large repairing a societal/moral wrong. The problem with it is that they’re trying to repair a moral wrong with a financial solution. To do that someone ELSE has to pay for it…and that’s where it goes fundamentally wrong. Just like the other examples you cite, we don’t have a tradition of compensating moral law with civil solutions. I guess they could always sue but who would they sue and who would be liable? In this case there isn’t a defendant with any ‘standing’. 
 

It’s an interesting discussion, for sure! 

Thanks for the feedback.  There's a lot of different ways to approach the question and my theory is certainly not foolproof.  If this was a lawsuit it would be interesting to see how a plaintiff would establish standing for such a lawsuit, identify the defendant and attach cause, and how the court would determine pain and suffering and then calculate a dollar amount to attach to any award.  I assume these reparation committees follow a similar methodology although I've not seen any specifics on their activities other than some final figures.  

 

Another part of the issue is you're planning on compensating individuals that were not directly harmed by the practice with funds from people that had no voice or role in the practice.  Both the slaves and slave owners are dead and neither will receive reparations or pay for the harm they caused.  I've seen arguments that blacks have been harmed by the practice of slavery even after it was abolished through discrimination and while that can be true that isn't the same thing as the practice of slavery itself. 

 

Eligibility is problematic.  Can a person just claim a full share by being African American?  What about mixed race children?  Do they get a prorated proportional share?  What's the formula in the proposals such as the $5 million amount?  What's the methodology?  How about everyone that applies is subject to a genetic test and the amount of African DNA the test identifies (a percentage) determines how much of a share you get?  

 

The other question is about the political aspect.  Is this all just a hustle to get votes and are politicians being less than honest when it comes to intentions of making actual payments?  Will they really risk "pissing off" the other 87% or so of the population just to make their point? 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Thanks for the feedback.  There's a lot of different ways to approach the question and my theory is certainly not foolproof.  If this was a lawsuit it would be interesting to see how a plaintiff would establish standing for such a lawsuit, identify the defendant and attach cause, and how the court would determine pain and suffering and then calculate a dollar amount to attach to any award.  I assume these reparation committees follow a similar methodology although I've not seen any specifics on their activities other than some final figures.  

 

Another part of the issue is you're planning on compensating individuals that were not directly harmed by the practice with funds from people that had no voice or role in the practice.  Both the slaves and slave owners are dead and neither will receive reparations or pay for the harm they caused.  I've seen arguments that blacks have been harmed by the practice of slavery even after it was abolished through discrimination and while that can be true that isn't the same thing as the practice of slavery itself. 

 

Eligibility is problematic.  Can a person just claim a full share by being African American?  What about mixed race children?  Do they get a prorated proportional share?  What's the formula in the proposals such as the $5 million amount?  What's the methodology?  How about everyone that applies is subject to a genetic test and the amount of African DNA the test identifies (a percentage) determines how much of a share you get?  

 

The other question is about the political aspect.  Is this all just a hustle to get votes and are politicians being less than honest when it comes to intentions of making actual payments?  Will they really risk "pissing off" the other 87% or so of the population just to make their point? 

Thanks…I think you’re getting there now. I am not a lawyer but I imagine it could be argued that the plaintiff(s) has standing; their ancestors were harmed. The defendant(s) however does not have standing; the current government is not the one that harmed them. That’s where I believe you were spot on with your earlier ‘slavery was legal’ comment. In short, unfortunate as some might think it is, there is no one to sue. 

[BillStime]

11 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Unblock 

 

the guy with an undesired wrist tattoo making the kids pancakes on Saturday didn’t ask anyone for any thing. 

 

Im 100% on board with guilty white liberals and beneficiaries of slavery turning over everything they own.  
 

do it. Do it tomorrow. 

You first 

They didn’t have to ask… Germany stood up. 

[aristocrat]

12 minutes ago, BillStime said:

They didn’t have to ask… Germany stood up. 

 

i'm sorry what?  was germany at the potsdam confernce? 

[AlBUNDY4TDS]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

They didn’t have to ask… Germany stood up. 

If by stood up you mean forced

[aristocrat]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

They didn’t have to ask… Germany stood up. 

you just showed how you’re a nazi sympathizer. Changing history for them

[BillStime]

19 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

you just showed how you’re a nazi sympathizer. Changing history for them

You try so hard precious 

[aristocrat]

Just now, BillStime said:

You try so hard precious 

You just attempted to claim that the nazis were standup people and paid the money out of the good of their hearts. This is false history

[BillStime]

19 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

You just attempted to claim that the nazis were standup people and paid the money out of the good of their hearts. This is false history

Your reading comprehension is pathetic

[aristocrat]

8 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Your reading comprehension is pathetic

I understand very clearly what you said