Overwhelmingly, enormous, seething, subsistence or below, underclasses, many of them savages, with no hope ever of Western prosperity.
The 1619 Project:
The bigger picture: After 1945, the central race question has nothing to do with the US South or the US North, or 1619.
Saturday, August 10, 2019
AMERICA AND EUROPE STEPCHILD MINORITY WHITES IN THE GLOBAL ROOM OF COLOR
RUSSIA WILL BE THE DOMINANT WHITE POWER, NOT YOU.
Thursday, July 18, 2019
why democracy is in trouble--- another interpretation VI
Population distribution[edit]
HOW MANY OF THESE GLOBAL DEMOCRATS OF COLOR DO YOU WANT?
| Region | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Asia |
4,307,107,875
| 60.3% |
| Africa |
1,037,524,058
| 14.5% |
| Europe |
816,426,346
| 11.4% |
| North America |
544,620,340
| 7.6% |
| South America |
400,067,694
| 5.6% |
| Oceania |
35,426,995
| 0.5% |
| Antarctica |
1,169
| 0.00002% |
| Total |
7,141,174,477
| 100.0% |
“The central question that emerges is whether the white community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is yes — the white community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race....It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.” W F Buckley Jr., 1957
American conservatives, pathetic as they are, had already lost the great game to American Left Liberals by 1945 who had demanded, as a condition of protecting Europe and Asia from Russia and China, an offer which at the time could not be refused, that the West divest itself of its empires and liberate all people everywhere.
Sir Michael Howard, Lessons Of History, "1945--End of an Era?":"Only one thing could have prolonged the existence of the European Empires---the continuing approval and support of the United States. It was the denial of that support that spelled the end of the old European Empires. The citizens of the United States had not joined in the Second World War to prop up a system of imperial domination against which they had been the first people to revolt. And it has been with genuine bewilderment that they find themselves today so generally reviled as its inheritor....."
DUMB AND DUMBER HYPOCRISY
Dumb hypocrisy was that which Samuel Johnson criticized, yelping for liberty while driving slaves.
Dumber hypocrisy was this: White colonial slave driving rebels like Jefferson even called themselves slaves of King George.
What a ridiculous, and deeper, hypocrisy.
Re DK's remarks about hypocrisy,
"...In the last half century, many, though not all, historians, other academics, and now, journalists and op-ed writers, have gone in a different direction, arguing that hypocrisy was really the defining feature of what the American revolutionaries accomplished, and that none of it had (or will have) any real meaning until it has been extended to everyone on a fully equal basis. They have not however been able to make that case, as the 1619 Project shows, without doing violence to the facts of American history..." DK
Count me in.
None of it had any good meaning, although there has been plenty of hard, irreversible, real meaning to go all around the world.
Think for example of 1789. There was some real meaning for you. Jefferson thought Robespierre a "wonderful man".
It certainly wasn't only Samuel Johnson's type hypocrisy.
It was dumb and dumber hypocrisy.
The kinds of hypocrisy accounts DK refers to above and criticizes are, I believe, a combination, a lumping together for exposition, of what I would call Whig Postmodern accounts, and anti Whig revisionist accounts.
The kind of American Revolution hypocrisy critique to which I subscribe is an anti Whig revisionist one such as Clark, not that of 1619 project authors or their Whig sources.
These two poles of hypocrisy account are worlds apart.
DUMB AND DUMBER HYPOCRISY
Dumb hypocrisy was that which Samuel Johnson criticized, yelping for liberty while driving slaves.
Dumber hypocrisy was this: White colonial slave driving rebels like Jefferson even called themselves slaves of King George.
What a ridiculous, and deeper, hypocrisy.
Re DK's remarks about hypocrisy,
"...In the last half century, many, though not all, historians, other academics, and now, journalists and op-ed writers, have gone in a different direction, arguing that hypocrisy was really the defining feature of what the American revolutionaries accomplished, and that none of it had (or will have) any real meaning until it has been extended to everyone on a fully equal basis. They have not however been able to make that case, as the 1619 Project shows, without doing violence to the facts of American history..." DK
Count me in.
None of it had any good meaning, although there has been plenty of hard, irreversible, real meaning to go all around the world.
Think for example of 1789. There was some real meaning for you. Jefferson thought Robespierre a "wonderful man".
It certainly wasn't only Samuel Johnson's type hypocrisy.
It was dumb and dumber hypocrisy.
The kinds of hypocrisy accounts DK refers to above and criticizes are, I believe, a combination, a lumping together for exposition, of what I would call Whig Postmodern accounts, and anti Whig revisionist accounts.
The kind of American Revolution hypocrisy critique to which I subscribe is an anti Whig revisionist one such as Clark, not that of 1619 project authors or their Whig sources.
These two poles of hypocrisy account are worlds apart.
No comments:
Post a Comment