“Mollie Tibbetts was murdered b/c she told a man to leave her alone while she was jogging. Her murderer happens to be undocumented. This isn’t about border security. This is about toxic masculinity. Mollie Tibbetts lost her life b/c a man couldn’t take her saying no. Full stop…Her murderer actually might not even be undocumented. Regardless it is problematic for people to characterize an entire community based off the actions of one person. The majority of mass shootings in America are carried out by white men. So are we going to round them all up?…”
—Symone Sanders, former Bernie Sanders spokeswoman and current CNN contributor.
- So now we know that Symone Sanders is a bigot and an idiot. Is the left really going to try to push this latest fad bigotry, targeting men as being a virus on society? Is this wise, especially as some high-profile feminists have been hit with credible sexual assault and sexual harassment accusations?
- Sanders says that “it is problematic for people to characterize an entire community based off the actions of one person” immediately after she used the actions of one person to impugn his entire gender! How arrogant and dim does someone have to be not to realize that she’s contradicting herself in the same tweet series?
- The argument that Sanders appears to be too slow to comprehend is not that all illegal immigrants (the terms is illegal, Symone, not “undocumented”) are killers, or even dangerous (unlike the assertion you made that being male makes us “toxic”), but that no crimes of any kind should be committed by people who are in the U.S. illegally, and if the laws were enforced as they should be, Tibbetts and other victims would be alive.
- “The majority of mass shootings in America are carried out by white men. So are we going to round them all up?” Gee, what a deft, apt, persuasive analogy! You see, Symone, unlike being in this country illegally, being a white male is not a violation of the law. Being in the country illegally, in contrast, is. This is both an intellectually dishonest comparison and a jaw-droppingly stupid one.
- How dare CNN hire contributors this bigoted, this dishonest, and this dumb? What possible justification can there be? It is irresponsible and disrespectful to inflict such fools—talk about toxic!–on a trusting audience.
Source: The Blaze
53 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Week: Symone Sanders”
I really hope America is paying attention, because Ms. Sanders is definitely indicative of the mindset Dems are running on this election. Also, look up Senator Warren’s reaction to the Mollie Tibbetts story. She says it’s real sad, but we need to deal with real immigration problems, like babies being separated from their mamas. The condescension is amazing. I guess when Americans are separated from their mamas by getting killed by people, who have no business being here, that isn’t a “real” immigration problem. Can President Trump goad the Dems into saying “we only care about brown illegal aliens, everybody else can burn in hell, and women killed by illegals were probably asking for it, should’ve known better.” Also, would relatives of people killed by illegals in sanctuary cities have standing to sue the city for putting citizens into unnecessary risk? How many more folks have to die, because some people are using the song “Imagine” for their policy? My guess, many more, to the great misfortune of the American people…
” Also, would relatives of people killed by illegals in sanctuary cities have standing to sue the city for putting citizens into unnecessary risk? ”
I can envision a scenario where ICE is impeded or prevented from arresting someone by a ‘sanctuary’ city’s policies, and they then commit a heinous crime like this. Perhaps some of the lawyers here could weigh in? Interesting point.
Sorry ‘cis-gender’ men…you only have 50 years left apparently.
Set in a not-too-distant future, R + J takes place 50 years after society has exterminated cisgender men.
Apparently you’ll pick your sons, and your daughters too, from the bottom of a long glass tube.
+1 autorec for classic Zager and Evans reference. What a great song, I remember it as a child climbing trees in my best friend’s yard. Thanks for that bit of nostalgia to start the morning.
Thanks, Mrs. Q.
It’s been a good run.
Every day I feel like withdrawing further from this sick and ignorant society. Warren, Sanders, the MSM, et.al. are forcing a predominantly, intentionally false narrative onto us.
It is becoming socially criminal to hold certain values and defend the Constitution.
I’m almost 60; I probably can keep my head down long enough to avoid the nasty mess coming.
They want you to keep your head down. That is the GOAL.
adimagejim wrote: Warren, Sanders, the MSM, et.al. are forcing a predominantly, intentionally false narrative onto us.
The problem here is that you could not define the *correct* narrative. Based on what else of yours I have read, you are significantly wrapped up in ‘false-narratives’ but cannot see them as such. What a quandary!
You are not alone though. American Conservatism is in a profound crisis.
The object: define a conceptual pathway and a strategy that will lead to regeneration and renewal.
“The object: define a conceptual pathway and a strategy that will lead to regeneration and renewal.”
Some might call that a Revival
Did I sniff some glue or something? Hasn’t this actually been happening since at least 2016?
Two characterizations in one, really; an entire gender, and the light-skinned variant of that gender with the mass shootings slur. I feel so filthy now.
It’s only problematic when people who disagree with the progressive left use these characterizations. The rule is, the Left can use them at need, the rest of us cannot.
I wonder if she’d mind if I characterized Bernie Sanders this way:
“Bernie Sanders is a rich, white, cisgendered man, characteristics shared by most rapists, homophobes, KKK members, mass murderers, and white collar criminals. He just happens to be a socialist.”
I’ll bet she would, but my smear of Sanders above is no more or less apt than that calumny she laid out. Describing her as an idiot is an insult to idiots.
“Is the left really going to try to push this latest fad bigotry, targeting men as being a virus on society?”
Yup. They’ve been really pushing it since the Santa Clara murders.
“How arrogant and dim does someone have to be not to realize that she’s contradicting herself in the same tweet series?”
You don’t have to be either if you’re on the left, just understand that different rules apply to different groups.
“The majority of mass shootings in America are carried out by white men. So are we going to round them all up?”
Not yet, but, given the power, I am certain that there is a growing number of minority and female demagogues who would do exactly that.
“You see, Symone, unlike being in this country illegally, being a white male is not a violation of the law.”
Give it time.
“How dare CNN hire contributors this bigoted, this dishonest, and this dumb? What possible justification can there be? It is irresponsible and disrespectful to inflict such fools—talk about toxic!–on a trusting audience.”
They’re just doing their part to blunt the damage that Trump and other old, white, cisgender men are inflicting on this country, which was in such great shape under their Messiah.
I used to think that prejudice against Christians, especially Catholics, was the last acceptable prejudice left standing. However, in the last four years a really problematic open hatred of white cisgender men has grown up. Oh, it’s not at the point of targeted or mass murders yet, but the rhetoric is getting disturbingly close to that which preceded those kind of actions historically. I think any kind of rhetoric should be checked to see if it passes what my dad and I dubbed “the black Jew test.” This has nothing to do with the small community of Ethiopians who practice a version of the Jewish faith, claiming descent from King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, This means that if you direct rhetoric against any community, first sub in the word “black” for your target. If it then sounds like the Ku Klux Klan could have said it, you’re probably spewing hate. Just to verify, then sub in the word “Jew” for your target. If it then sounds like something that could have come from the pen of Adolf Hitler, you’re verified hateful.
Think about it. Is there really a whole lot of difference between saying “white male privilege” and spouting off about “ill-gotten Jewish wealth?” Not from where I stand. Either way you are saying a group doesn’t deserve their success and are presumed not to have worked for it. Is there much difference between saying “rape culture” and saying “thug culture?” I don’t see it. Either way you’re saying that individuals, simply by being born members of a certain group, are presumed to be criminals in chrysalis, just waiting for the right moment to make them burst out in all their natural evil. Is there that fine of a distinction between saying “white men, step away from your power, we got this,” and saying “all Jews/Irish/blacks are excluded from the franchise, public office, and professions?” Not really. Either way you are saying a certain group, just because of who they are, needs to be excluded from all meaningful aspects of society to make society better.
I find that especially ironic in light of Andrew Cuomo’s recent attempt to say that not only was America never great (separate response) but it won’t be great until every man, woman, and child is fully engaged. Apparently at least some of the left, probably a good chunk of it, thinks that only means every person who is not a white, cisgender, believing male. THEY need to be fully disengaged, the women and people of color have got it from here, BUT, if they go without any resistance or even a peep of protest, maybe, just maybe, mind you, the women and people of color will hate them just a teensy bit less, and isn’t that a concession worth having? To die knowing the people who hate you up to 11 now just hate you at 10?
An aside: I think that cynical, sarcastic and hopeless hyperbolic gloom like this is self-indulgent, and encourages complacency. Ultimately it’s lazy, because it relieves everyone of the responsibility of attacking the problem. Why bother even talking about issues if this is going to be the response? “Just wait, it won’t be long before “they” are rounding us all up.”
I also don’t think it represents the blog very well. Every comment should be written with the thought, “If this were the first and only comment a new reader saw, a) would he or she be likely to keep coming back? and b) if so, would that be a good thing?
OK, my attempt to be clever and sarcastic came off the wrong way. My main point is that there really are people out there who think like this, they’re becoming more mainstream, and that’s scary. If you’re saying we need to take the next step and come back with better scholarship, better ideas, better principles, I agree. That said, it can sometimes be very frustrating knowing that if you walked on water the other side would just say you couldn’t swim.
I will say this: if the day comes when they actually come for this white, Catholic, cisgender guy, who’s never lynched anyone, who’s never raped anyone, who’s never done anything out of the ordinary, I’m going down fighting, with any and all means at my disposal.
Symone Simmons said: “The majority of mass shootings in America are carried out by white men. So are we going to round them all up””
She can try.
Sorry…Sanders. No coffee yet.
Right. I have some sort of privilege that means I did not earn what I have worked for. It was given to me.
Bullshit. Being white worked against me, but never for me per se. This is the reaction of many whites in the Heartland. Maybe this was so on the coasts, I cannot say. But not here in rural Texas.
This alone was enough to elect Trump, and this will contribute to his next term.
I respect your opinion but I did not find Steve’s comment particulary cynical or gloomy. It is his perspective that can be challenged on the merits. This perspective could be exactly what Alizia Tyler recommends to counter the “lies and self deception” white Americans practice.
Where we are in agreement is that much of his comment is merely a rehash of your thoughts with emphasis.
The link Ms Q provided suggests there may be some truth that there are some demogogues who would perhaps consider the elimination of cisgendered males. A book review in USA Today praised the book that labeled Mike Pence a Christian supremacist. This was a follow on to a NYT book review.
What I found useful in Steve’s comment was not simply that which he wrote today but the evolution of his comments over the last few years in which I have followed this blog. That evolution, in my opinion has become darker. Now assume that his perspective begins to spread across the white ethnic community due to Ms Sanders’ and other’s rhetoric.
I believe it is imperative we challenge the left’s demonization of all things conservative while simultaneously challenging our own conservative propaganda. There can be no workable solutions if we hunker down in our own desire to villify others who are different.
I worry that in the absence of a critical mass of intelligent, analytical progressives in the commentariat encourages kind of a mass right wing grump here> It’s a tone that keeps me off of other sites, and from listening to, for example, Mark Levin, among others. It also represents the Left as a monolithic force that it just isn’t, encouraging the same kind of demonizing, good guys-bad guys rhetoric that has poisoned all political discourse.
My comment/link was put out hastily. My shock at the word “exterminate” coupled with applying this word to a whole group of people seemed like good fodder for this post.
However this rhetoric isn’t new. In my high school LGB group (no T at the time) we used to chant (supposedly mimicking anti-gay conservatives) “I hate gays, they spread AIDS.” Followed immediately by “I hate straights, they spread babies.” At 16 I found this acceptable to shout at people with my friends but it was utterly dehumanizing to all involved.
This dehumanization isn’t new but from my perspective it is worse in the LGBT network and should be addressed by those who explore ethics. However I should have added more meaningful content rather than act as an instigator. EA is my ‘social media’ but it’s not a place to dump mind poop. I apologize.
After putting up with Chris, no one else can be punished for dumping mind poop. He did the equivalent of about 20 railroad car loads of the purest mind poo.
Agreed, but context is important. Coming from an economics background I focus on changes – specifically behavioral ones. That was my primary point. I have seen a shift away from quality engagement. The question not asked is why there is an absence of a “critical mass of intelligent, analytical progressives in the commentariat “. Is it because they choose not to engage or is it because that such commentary is fast becoming an anathema to the forces who espouse the type of cognitive incongruity as evidenced in the original post. A sense of belonging is a powerful human motivator. It is imperative then to give the people you wish to attract the feeling that their ideas are valid and belong here. The more we attempt to marginalize the value of ideas that lie anywhere more than one standard deviation from of our position on the progressive/conservative continuum the more likely those people will disappear from the community of thought you have created.
In economics parlance the disappearance of intelligent analytical progressives might be similar to Friedman’s ideas on “crowding out” or Gresham’s law in which when two commodities have the same face value the one with more intrinsic value will disappear from circulation. If the latter is true, one can begin to draw historical parallels to current progressive rhetoric which is what I understood Steve to be doing and did not see that as a lazy and cynical thought process. He may be wrong. He may be right. I don’t know, but the perspective does deserve consideration.
I recognize in myself that I have been guilty of simply disengaging because at some point in time one gets tired of being berated or belittled which is why I must force myself at times to engage. I have been fortunate here not to feel this way. That is not to say I have not been challenged. It simply means that the communtariat here is generally respectful.
“If you prick us, do we not bleed?”
White conservative normal (to hell with ‘cisgendered,’ I won’t concede the left their framing of the language) Christian men have been targeted for too long not to have this push back. Human nature does not change.
Some push back on the level of the push will happen. If the left does not get a taste of their own medicine, ‘why would they ever stop?’ is a rational observation I find increasingly hard to refute.
On my more cynical days.
Here is a video said to have been ‘released by the White House’:
A statement by President Trump:
“Mollie Tibbetts, an incredible young woman is now permanently separated from her family. A person came in from Mexico, illegally, and killed her. We need the wall. We need our immigration laws changed. We need our border laws changed. We need Republicans to do it because the Democrats aren’t going to do it. This is one instance of many. We have tremendous crime trying to come through the borders. We have the worst laws anywhere in the world. Nobody has laws like the United States. They are strictly pathetic. We need new immigration laws, we need new border laws, the Democrats will never give them. And the wall is being built. We’ve started it. But we also need the funding for this year’s building of the wall. So, to the family of Mollie Tibbitts, all I can say is: God bless you. God bless you.”
As with all things in this American present, and in respect to the American mind and American perspective and American interpretation, everything eVeRYtHiNg is hyper-complicated and requires meta-analysis.
You would think, examining the *surface*, that this is about the issue of illegal-entry immigration into the US. We, it is, and it is at the same time more, much more. This requires analysis and explanation.
1) The present manifestation of the uprising against ‘illegal immigration’ is connected to a long historical chain bound up with nativism.
2) If there are those who might be said to be genuinely concerned about illegal immigration, but yet are not among those who have issue with the sort of person (that is, their race and ethnicity and sometimes their religion>/i>) entering the US, there is very definitely a *mood*, if you will, among the native population that has issues with immigration from the non-white world.
3) Therefor, in my view, there is an *understructure* to the present culture-wars on-going in the US. This has to be seen and talked about. But to do this involves a very difficult thought-manoeuvre which is exceedingly difficult in thought-controlled America (sorry, but it is true).
4) President Trump is obviously communicating with his *base* and this base is becoming aware of *the real nature of the struggle* as distinct from the *story* told about it.
What Symone Sanders is really on about is different from what she allows herself to come out and say. This is a tricky issue because though the American Right and its so-called Conservatives are incapable of openly stating truths, and thus are steeped in lies and self-deceptions, so too is the Left, yet perhaps less so (?) They, and in this case Symone Sanders, make it largely clear, though not fully explicit, just what is really going on: it is low-scale civil conflict that turns on specific issues related to political power, demographics, the browning of America, and the weakening and eventual destruction (what other word?) of the *original white demographic*.
In my (exceedingly) humble view, once one gets the *real issues* out in the open, then one is in a better position to make decisions about where one stands in relation to them. But not until the moment that one can tell oneself the real truth.
As I said: As with all things in this American present, and in respect to the American mind and American perspective and American interpretation, everything eVeRYtHiNg is hyper-complicated and requires meta-analysis.
What I have come to understand — significantly but not exclusively through my participation on this Blog — is how deeply the entire culture is enmeshed in lies and deceptions. Literally from the top down to the bottom. True, that statement needs to be qualified and backed-up. But this can certainly, and really rather easily, be done. One just has to find the will to do it. The truth does provide freedom though. The effort is worth it.
Sorry: italics issues. Oh well…
Sorry, but contra your suggestion, some things are just not that complicated.
This country has always been friendly to immigrants, and welcomed them. It still does. The problem is that we have refused, for political reasons, to enforce our borders and control immigration. This is not only a national security problem, it forces the creation of lawless subcultures within America that remain unassimilated, and damages the fabric of society.
The rise of nativism, and it surely is rising, is tied up in the advent of these subcultures. It may subside if we get control of our border and immigration system, but if not, it will only get worse.
Glen Logan, my dear friend, this is an example of the ‘intrusion’ of a lying narrative that seeks to ‘impose’ itself on perception. You have made a seriously false statement.
The *country* has not always been *friendly* to immigrants and has definitely not *welcomed them*. It is in fact nearly the total opposite.
Your *interpretive statement* (“The rise of nativism, and it surely is rising, is tied up in the advent of these subcultures”) is also (IMO) part of a lying narrative to which you have become wedded. I would modify ‘lying’ to ‘mistaken’ or ‘ill-informed’, yet it amounts to the same thing, in effect.
My view — certainly by no means conventional, nor *allowed* — is that the white demographic needs to actually see what is going on clearly and without self-deception, and to organize perception in relation to a more honest and truer view.
This is ‘meta-politics’. If ever you want to have more extended conversations on these themes just let me know. I will decimate you. Why? Because your views are established within deceptions and semi-truths. That is no solid platform!
Aliza, I’m so glad we’re dear friends!
We’ll have to disagree. I think your objections are references to the usual ethnic friction that has occurred when large groups of immigrants came in legally. But the country, as a whole, both accepted and supported them. They came into conflict with local citizens, to be sure, and brought their own brand of lawlessness, which tended to be generalized. But this was just growing pains, and only tangentially similar to what’s going on now.
And why isn’t your view allowed, I wonder? It’s really just disagreeable and, I think, wrong, but I certainly have no objection to your having it. And ducking back into word-games is unworthy of you. Say what you mean, not some opaque nonsense like:
What does this mean? Only Aliza knows, and apparently, keeping it a secret. Reminds me of a Led Zeppelin lyric:
Glen Logan writes: We’ll have to disagree. I think your objections are references to the usual ethnic friction that has occurred when large groups of immigrants came in legally. But the country, as a whole, both accepted and supported them. They came into conflict with local citizens, to be sure, and brought their own brand of lawlessness, which tended to be generalized. But this was just growing pains, and only tangentially similar to what’s going on now.
But with this you have — more accurately — modified your previous statement. With it, you are closer to the truth. And I did not say, nor would I say, that things did not smooth out for those *unwanted* types that immigrated right around 1900.
All I wished to do was to correct your initial statement, bound up in ‘the tenets of America’s civil religious views’.
Glen: And why isn’t your view allowed, I wonder? It’s really just disagreeable and, I think, wrong, but I certainly have no objection to your having it. And ducking back into word-games is unworthy of you. Say what you mean, not some opaque nonsense like:
Alizia: … the white demographic needs to actually see what is going on clearly and without self-deception, and to organize perception in relation to a more honest and truer view.
I do not see why that statement is ‘opaque’. I think it is pretty clear.
So you know (and I have never concealed my orientation nor my objectives), I am interested in helping so-called Conservatives to understand better those who are ‘right-wing critics of American conservatism’. If you wish to say ‘Alt-Right’ I would not have a problem. But I prefer New Dissident Right as ‘Alt-Right’ as a label became quickly contaminated.
We have 3 basic premises:
1) Demography is Destiny.
2) It is possible, and necessary, to deconstruct the reigning Left ideology and to locate, in it and behind it, adamant Marxist players. One can then locate those who fabricate these ideologies, and see how they have ‘marched through the institutions’. We assert that American Conservatism is no such thing! and has been coopted to playing the role of Junior Partner to Radical Progressivism.
3) A general movement against whites and whiteness is underway and is being carried out in our present. You can call it ‘white genocide’ if you wished to be dramatic. But ‘white replacement’ is apt.
In relation to these 3 premises we are beginning to a) counter the Radical Left hegemony in art, ideas, society and politics, and b) express our ideas so that those ideas enter in and have effect in culture.
If Number 1 in my List-of-Three is accurate, then you can better understand my opaque statement.
We are certainly friends! I define no enemy. I do not seek nor make enemies. I do define idea-structures as definitely enemy though.
If you desire to understand better *my position* and *our position*, keep reading what I write. I am open to any and all critique!
Ah, clarity at last!
I don’t agree with premise 1. We have seen, and continue to see folks assimilated into American culture. I would agree with the idea that uncontrolled immigration, if continued to long, may well produce an outcome that may be loosely described that way, but it requires essentially a borderless country and a more massive un-assimilated demography than we currently have. But if continued unabated, illegal immigration may produce an outcome that could be defined as “demography is destiny.”
Premise 2: I’m pretty sure I agree with this.
Premise 3: I don’t quite agree with this. I think it’s less about white replacement than white marginalization for the purposes of political power. I admit, I may be looking at it far too leniently, and could be persuaded that it is more nefarious than my construction.
I don’t see that, and I wish I did. I see an awareness of how the Left has been allowed to dominate education, art, and politics, especially urban politics. I see an attempt by those who oppose the Left to counter those factors, but it’s weak, insubstantial, and mostly ineffective. The main failure of those not on the Left has been allowing them to completely dominate the education of children, which has weakened the social fabric of what the United States is and replaced it with a group of young people prepared to embrace statism.
Conservatives (or at least, non-Leftists) were out trying to make millions while the Left sucked up marginal salaries and indoctrinated children in the hopes of obtaining power via future generations. It is likely to succeed, it seems to me. They also used their political clout via unions to make teaching jobs pay better, making it more palatable. They used their influence to make non-Leftists unwilling to navigate the shoals of educational careers, reducing the numbers of non-Leftist in education to a vanishingly small few.
I have no enemies that I know of — only opponents.
Nice. I appreciate what you have said. I will make this *comment* about your opposition to my (*our*) Point Number 1:
GL wrote: I don’t agree with premise 1. We have seen, and continue to see folks assimilated into American culture. I would agree with the idea that uncontrolled immigration, if continued to long, may well produce an outcome that may be loosely described that way, but it requires essentially a borderless country and a more massive un-assimilated demography than we currently have. But if continued unabated, illegal immigration may produce an outcome that could be defined as “demography is destiny.”
Do you think that Mr Biden, then, is not speaking to a ‘truth’? You can find many such statement’s as Bidens. They get quoted and circulated as ‘memes’.
We are not talking about illegal immigration, we are talking about a specific shift in immigration policy that came into effect in 1965. And we are talking about reversing it. A very direct statement.
But, we are also talking of genuinely conflict-laden questions about Who Owns America? (And What Is America?)(and Europe). I admit, as openly as possible, that this ‘nativism’ does have links to so-called white supremacism and to ideological groups such as the American Klan. I wish I could say that were not so, but it is so. And I have done my research. And I have also discovered that some part of the radical right was radicalized as a result of service in Vietnam. Louis Beam is the best example. And that connects Ruby Ridge and Waco to present manifestations. These are ‘rural’ movements. And they are located ‘deep within the political body’ (in my view).
The movement that is afoot, like it or not, has clear an unmistaken antecedents in more crude forms of nativism. I cannot see any way around stating this as a ‘simple fact’. But in relation to this I have my own way of understanding it. (I write about ‘social engineering’ often).
Premise 3: I don’t quite agree with this. I think it’s less about white replacement than white marginalization for the purposes of political power. I admit, I may be looking at it far too leniently, and could be persuaded that it is more nefarious than my construction.
I have had the thought that the ‘Alt-Right’ exaggerates conditions. But then I have looked at information on the demographics of some European and American cities. London is a good example. London is definitely no longer white nor particularly English. It is something else. Thus, Demography is Destiny.
The 3 tenets you made were what I spoke of in our previous lengthy thread. By establishing a declarative statement of belief it can be examined, evaluated, and judged on its merits.
I would be interested in understanding why demography is destiny or more specifically why an integrated demography with assimilated value sets is less preferable to a homogeneous demographic with its unique value set.
American conservatism in a heterogeneous culture will be substantially different than that of conservatism in more the more homogeneous cultures of Europe, Asia and Africa, specifically because of our Constitution and political structure. If it has been co-opted – which I agree that it has – it was by those that use its brand for power purposes. I’ll repeat my definition of conservativism. My brand is to conserve all that has been proven to promote long term human advancement, reject that which does not, modify those ideas whose defects become manifest, while still being open to new ideas that have the potential for long term human advancement. That is predicated on the foundation of personal responsibility, liberty, and tolerance of others doing the same.
I am not yet ready to accept that there is a movement underway to create white replacement but I will admit that there is reason for you to believe that. Identity politics is a tool nothing more. It is used by all races and genders to create a bogeyman in order to gain power, prestige, money and notoriety. It is just now that it is wielded by groups other than non-white males. Furthermore, those that use it care little for the people they say they are standing up for. For if they did our predominantly minority rich cities would not be in decline.
Chris M. writes: “I would be interested in understanding why demography is destiny or more specifically why an integrated demography with assimilated value sets is less preferable to a homogeneous demographic with its unique value set.”
The statement ‘demography is destiny’ is I think one of the foundation-principles of the New Dissident Right. It is, obviously, a challenge to the reigning assertion on which the ideology of ‘multiculturalism’ is based. Your question, though a good one, yet is framed within narrow limits. In order to, shall I say, *correctly* pose the question you hint at, one would have to contextualize it. That contextualization is problematic (and often is the stuff of the Culture Wars).
What does ‘integrated demography’ mean? Who had established it as a *value* and as something desirable? On what ideological basis? My non-expert impression is that this integrationist ideology has roots that extend a long ways back in time. I would suggest to the American Civil War. And what that means, or represents, could be said to be an *intervention* in culture, and the sovereignty of States, by a national government to impose its values and ideas which, certainly in Reconstruction, were manifestations of occupation.
Myself, I have been interested in the notion of *occupation*, and hence of ‘social engineering’ when I have examined then and more especially it in later history: the various (the many) occupations in the Caribbean in the early 20th century for example. (Leading to the perverse idea of ‘remodeling of the Middle East’ and the imposition of Radical American and Progressive ideology on the entire world!)
The construction of a so-called hegemony carried out to favor business interests in the early 20th century is an important area of criticism. My critique is simply that by engaging thusly, the ‘sacred Constitutional value-set’ was overtly violated. A centralized, national power-structure that sets itself up as-against the regional sovereign states does seem a danger to ‘fundamental principles’ it seems to me. And when that national power-structure, after 100 years+ of continued usurpation and collusion with business has usurped, as it will, the ‘will of the nation’ and represents it, I think that in that context one can gaze upon the government of our present, and its collusion in the social conditions of that present.
I think that to answer your question more one would have to examine economic issues that are a part of Postwar history, specifically toward the 1970s. I suggest E Michael Jones’ ‘The Slaughter of Cities’ to gain some idea of what has informed my present opinions. When manufacturing jobs were exported out and when the ground was laid for the ‘globalized’ economy so disadvantageous to the US culture generally. My understanding is that the situation and the conditions of the present have a long history and trajectory. They are bound up with power, with cultural engineering, and with what should be termed neo-imperial will. (And the amazingly destructive effects of a war-footing and the repercussive effect of war-destructiveness on our own population (Vietnam being a perfect example).
With that said, my further understanding is that the opening of the floodgates of immigration in 1965, though an expression of Civil Rights adjustments, had other *functions*, if you will, in processes of ‘globalization’. More can be said of this.
The arguments that I have read about why excessive plurality is harmful are based, obviously, in ideas and views that are seen as thoughtcrime in hyper-liberalized culture. Obviously, down at the core of this hyper-liberalized, globalized ‘multiculturalism’, there operates quite evidently the undermining notion that ‘whiteness is a social construct’. With this — note — one’s own identity is undermined. Therefor one is not allowed to see and say that whites have an identity that can be spoken of openly, and that can be defended. Defense of oneself, therefor, is defense of categorically wrong, but also of what is *evil*. This must be understood as one of the foundational premises of multiculturalism. It is ideologically-laden, and complexly so.
Therefor and again one must lay out on the table the entire *context* of a sort of idea-war waged against whites and white culture, Europe and European culture, but it goes much further — because acids, once empowered and released take on their own life and mission — and leads, I suggest, to a spiral of destructiveness which, in my opinion, needs to be seen and examined, and reversed. I think that this process began in Europe and resulted from the horrible destructiveness of the 2 major wars. Horrifyingly, there is no exterior *responsible agent* that can be blamed. The ‘destruction of the Occident’ is an internal affair and it is an affair of the soul of Occidental man.
To define its *cure* is to define regeneration, spiritual empowerment, metaphysical reestablishment, and the reversal of ‘postmodern nihilism’. Diseases in the social body.
When the present, if you will allow me to say, *construct* that is the Postwar American construct (the Americanopolis as I have said, a term coined by Pierre Krebs) is examined more closely, and if one is allowed intellectually to penetrate its inviolate barriers to be able to critique its ‘operative ideology’, I think that one would then come to the edge of the possibility of being able to describe what the Dissident Right is on about.
I have not answered your more focussed question have I? Or, have I only set the ground for the beginning of an answer? The latter!
The question: “[Explain] why an integrated demography with assimilated value sets is less preferable to a homogeneous demographic with its unique value set” is simply not (quite) the right question. But it is, I think, the way the question is generally structured. You cannot really answer the question without seeming to appear a ‘bigot’ and of turning against the tides of progress.
But I will try to answer the more specific question you have asked in another post. (The dreaded ‘Part Two’ that sends people out screaming…)
Intermediary note …
American conservatism in a heterogeneous culture will be substantially different than that of conservatism in more the more homogeneous cultures of Europe, Asia and Africa, specifically because of our Constitution and political structure. If it has been co-opted – which I agree that it has – it was by those that use its brand for power purposes. I’ll repeat my definition of conservatism. My brand is to conserve all that has been proven to promote long term human advancement, reject that which does not, modify those ideas whose defects become manifest, while still being open to new ideas that have the potential for long term human advancement. That is predicated on the foundation of personal responsibility, liberty, and tolerance of others doing the same.
I cannot imagine that you have not been influenced by John Stuart Mill and a specific form of American ‘utilitarianism’, am I right?
The ‘original culture’ that established the US established it for ‘ourselves and our posterity’. Yet, it would seem, you (that is ‘you’ Chris and not a plural you) no longer define the US in those terms. That is, as created by a specific people for themselves and their posterity. Why? How has this come about?
Therefor I would ask: How is this defined as ‘conservatism’? When in fact it runs largely contrary to the ideas and the expressed statements of numerous of the Founders? And even to statements of Abraham Lincoln himself?
If you recognize ‘cooptation’, would you be able to see your own views (your organization of ideas) as being expressions of cooption? And it someone defined a counter-option, a counter-cooption, on what basis would you oppose it? What idea-structures would you have recourse to?
This phrase interests me: “…those that use its brand for power purposes’. I think I know what you are referring to, because it is part of conservatist ‘criticism-lite’, but could you take it to a more penetrant level? That is, as part of a critique of the Postwar Construct that is American Culture? (in its glory and in its disease).
This is a very very complex phrase, Chris!
My brand is to conserve all that has been proven to promote long term human advancement, reject that which does not, modify those ideas whose defects become manifest, while still being open to new ideas that have the potential for long term human advancement.
You have it settled ‘what promotes long term human advancement’? Can you really say that you do? Could you articulate that within a cultural movement? That is, one that seeks to correct, challenge, engage, and even to operate to defeat radical progressivism? How far would you be willing to go?
I think that if you examine what you have written — this is my impression, correct me where I am wrong — you will discover an entire set of implied values, but yet these values are established in a sort of utilitarianist ideology that is very convenient for the American Present. It arises in it, it expresses it, and yet — this is my assertion — it is not precisely ‘conservative’.
I would say that the New Dissident Right, and those critics of American Conservatism, are compelled to examine in more detail the question of ‘values’ and ‘first principles’, and through them define their countervailing stance.
“ It is just now that it is wielded by groups other than non-white males.”
I beg to differ.
Ask the Chinese how they use these tools. Ever heard of the Cultural Revolution?
Chris M. asks: I would be interested in understanding why demography is destiny or more specifically why an integrated demography with assimilated value sets is less preferable to a homogeneous demographic with its unique value set.
Demography is destiny is, as I implied, a counter-idea to the gloriously reigning ideological meme that holds up multiculturalism as an ideal. My impression of the ideology of multiculturalism, with such statements as ‘diversity is our strength’, is that it conceals its real origin and also its real designs. As you might guess, I would point out that the ‘multicultural ideology’ which has been presented through slick use of public relations, conceals Marxian intentions. I admit that the scare-term ‘Marxist’ and ‘Marxian’ are used a bit freely, as is the term ‘cultural Marxism’. Yet the more that one understand, the better one can see the effect of these ideas-in-operation. So, if this is true, the ideology of Marxism stands to some degree or other behind the ideology of ‘multiculturalism’. And if you accept that an idea- or psychological-war has been set in motion by those of Marxist inclination and intention, and if you accept that their object is to weaken the structures they define as ‘oppressive’ or ‘exploitive’ and ‘mystifying’, with that in mind one can better analyze their *destructive efforts* to undermine social structures, established communities, the cohesiveness of communities and their ‘identity’. I would suggest that when one recognizes this particular strategy and their ‘praxis’, a good deal about how these acids function becomes obvious to the eye.
In that light I would suggest — as a possibility — the examination of your phrase: “an integrated demography with assimilated value sets”. Who establishes a) the value of integration and b) who has the power and the will to ‘socially engineer’ it? I think that Lucky made an interesting reference to the Maoist ‘cultural revolution’ with its injection of high-powered ideological engineering into the social processes guided of course by an ‘ideological elite’. I would suggest, because I think that it is true, that one can quite easily locate and notice a similar use of culture-modification tools within America. When did this begin? Probably at the point when the public relations industry came into existence and when it was used to socially manipulate the population into accepting, and indeed rooting for, the invasions and occupations of Cuba and the Philippines. It was at the early stages then but began to be honed and perfected as WW1 developed. My impression is that Americans generally cannot see how our own public relations propaganda usages mirror, but do not necessarily duplicate, such social engineering activities as we easily recognize, and contemptuously contemn, in Communist China. But when government, PR, intelligence operatives and industry combine their efforts a clearer picture emerges.
So, I suppose that my ‘answer’ to you is becoming more clear? It hinges on an analysis of *what has happened* in the last 50-60 years, and definitely in the 1950s and 1960s, and the degree to which ‘social engineering managers’ and a management class worked to mold culture according to specific designs. Once seen, the question you ask is in fact understood differently. For example: Why do you ask it? To what degree is it a rhetorical question that, in your own mind and according to your own view, is really already answered?
The phrase ‘demography is destiny’ is a counter-ideological idea-tool that is employed in resistance to social engineering going on in our present. It is a starting point for a ‘historical revision’ that takes another look at large processes that have gone on in our world, but specifically within the US nation. I can provide one large example: South Africa and the ‘engineered will’ to undermine and destroy the Afrikaner society. It is, in truth, completely inaccurate to see the Afrikaner as an evil invader and conquerer, and to get behind the reductionist narrative, inspired by overt Communism and not simply Marxian ideals, which have led to present conditions in South Africa. The Marxian tool-set, though, reduces the real facts and the real truth to a *narrative* that one can easily get behind and ‘believe in’. My point is that it is these sorts of ideological reductionisms that define how people see their world, and these must be seen all over again: revisioned.
I think your question has to do with how an ideological-based community — a sort of intentional community? — will fare in the real world. You are asking a question that has to do with the function of a ‘propositional nation’. That is, people who come together to live under the regime of an idea or in some sort of model community? *We* tend to disbelieve the glowing reports, based in glowing idealism, that such community is in fact desirable. It was definitely not ever intended by the Founders and that much must be stated honestly. To answer your question is really to present a counter-arguments to its assertion, and thus to critique ‘the American present’. Unlike you, I see that it is providing its own evidence of its unworkability (as the term is used) by the fact that the false-bonds of false-ideology, established by Marxian social engineers, is now coming undone at the seams.
Based on this soundbite alone, I’m not convinced that Sanders is bigoted against men in general. I don’t think her use of “toxic masculinity” indicates that masculinity itself is toxic, but rather that it can become toxic. That’s why she made the point about not making generalizations about entire communities.
Her assertion that deporting illegal immigrants is itself bigotry is still absurd, though. No sane people are saying all illegal immigrants are murderers, just that they’re all illegal immigrants.
‘Toxic Masculinity’ is a beautifully succinct motte and bailey argument. Typically used, especially in context with the rest of their misandric ranting, it speaks of the toxicity that it is to be male. When pressed, however, the focus magically becomes on the toxic part of the phrase. The only problem here is those male behaviors which are toxic! We love those positive male traits!
That being said, if you press for details, such as “what positive male traits are you talking about?” Then you’ll be dismissed for derailing the conversation. If pressed if ‘toxic feminity’ is a thing, then they’ll recoil with disgust that you would even suggest such a thing, and how dare you slur an entire gender that way?! Press for any kind of definition of ‘toxic masculinity’ at all, and be met with an eye roll and the firehose of gibberish about the patriarchy, male privilege, oppression, and whatever else nonsense makes up the hateful swamp water they use for thought.
I think it’s handy to recognize their tactics, although you’re better off arguing with a tree. At least the tree doesn’t try to shame you into submission, and is 72% more likely to have a cogent argument!
Practically everything has its LD50. If a person can define feminine or masculine traits, they can identify where they start to be destructive.
I can see where the phrase might be a motte and bailey argument, but when people try to make the switch I do press them for details. I find there are many times when it is better to challenge people than to ignore them.
Great comment Aaron – you might have just opened a door to solidifying a definition of “toxic progressivism” (if that isn’t a redundancy) – props to you!
The phrasing is bigoted, and as applied to any other group, would be immediately taken as so. Toxic femininity? Toxic blackness? Toxic ethnicity? Toxic homosexuality? None of these would ever be uttered.
Close enough to misandry for me!
Toxic Islam? Terrorsplaining? Muzziesplaining? Libsplaining? Actually homosexuality could be described as toxic in terms of exposure to diseases, but I think I am over 30 year old hate-spew.
I’m afraid this Ms. Sanders is simply spouting standard issue lefty cant she was marinated in in college. It’s group think. These products of the American academy are moving out from the academy into the media, the government and even industry.
The phrasing is bigoted, and as applied to any other group, would be immediately taken as so. Toxic femininity? Toxic blackness? Toxic ethnicity? Toxic homosexuality? None of these would ever be uttered.
A few thoughts…
Each of those terms, it seems to me, could be explained.
Original feminism made a good deal of sense, given how culture had changed. But when feminism encountered Marxian praxis and became a tool for the undermining of social structures, well, at that point it definitely became ‘toxic’! And radical feminists of that sort, and falling under that ‘spiritual disease’, became toxic-in-effect. Destructive.
Toxic blackness is not hard to understand if given background. No enslaved people, no oppressed people, will ever be live through that experience and not seek to reverse the condition they suffered under. It is a very human mechanism. And it lives deep within the body, and is communicated from generation to generation. Toxicity would be expressed when 1) it is not consciously dealt with, or 2) if the original conditions are seen, in whatever form, as still going on in the present. The issue of ressentiment, a special term with special meaning, would have to be thoroughly explored.
Toxic homosexuality is no less real. It could be expressed in a similar way as aggressive feminism or black ressentiment. It would be a psychological mechanism though, perhaps primarily, and would take effect through various forms of rationalization. Certainly there is a degree of toxicity expressed against Christianity which represents the moral authority that opposes homosexual practice.
The three of these combined? Good Lord!
It is pretty obvious what role these three have played in certain *destructive processes*.
Connected with these Three is perhaps the ur-definition: Toxic Anti-Patrimonism (unsure how to write it) and misandry of a specific sort .
It is a ressentiment-war against the man but also, if one looks into it, against Man.
Radical Marxism is, I think a form of ‘psychological acid’ that eats away at whatever structure it is applied to. Some say that when it cannot make headway in the economic arena that it turns inward into something like virulent self-hatred.
It is that, right there, that must be seen, confronted and countered.
“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Malcolm X
The media has set aside real journalism and ethics in favor of outright brainwashing. Pavlov just trained dogs.
People shouldn’t wonder why I write things like this…
I agree with you. I’ve watched it happen for 73 years. I see no solution.
Being curious how my own opinions may change over time, this morning I went back and looked at some of the things I’ve written in regards to my opinions of Trump. What surprised me is that my overall opinion of Trump, the person, really hasn’t changed but what has changed is now I’m more likely to jump to using unethical rationalizations in my thinking regarding Trump behavior. I try to push aside those unethical thoughts in favor of more ethical thinking ad then the anti-Trumpers open their ignorant mouths again.
What I said above, I believe to be true…
…but I also believe these things to be true…
I’m becoming more conflicted every day, I dislike Trump in every way except most of the policies. Trumps personal character that is projected to the public is terrible and personal character is very, very high priority on my priority list. What the political left is doing to Trump is terrible and I believe morally bankrupt, but on the flip side I feel that by basically overlooking the terrible character traits or Trump, the person, in favor of policies is also morally bankrupt. All this moral conflict is leading to more pessimism about the future of politics and civility the United States. I’m truly worried about our collective future.
How can an independent that leans right support a person like Trump without constantly forcing themselves to actively use unethical rationalizations in their thinking; for that matter how can anyone support what the political left has been doing since Trump was elected. The United States has jumped the tracks into moral chaos and we’re all just waiting for the wide-spread rationalizations to circulate that will justify the start of open violence against those with differing opinions, then it’ll be open tit-for-tat “warfare” with escalating retaliations along the way.
There is no win, there is only lose.
I no longer have a morally clear path.
How do you vote at all? In my lifetime, no candidate survives above city council level without the taint of which you speak, morally and ethically.
Any such in the 2016 GOP primaries were destroyed by Hillary and the MSM collusion to get Trump nominated.
How does such a candidate resist the machine and get the votes?
“The lesser of two evils” gets me through the night, DD.
Sorry, that was directed a Zoltar
slickwilly wrote, ” ‘The lesser of two evils’ gets me through the night”
My problem is that no longer works when there is no perceived lesser of two evils, the once dark line between the two evils has been grayed out so much that it’s damn near invisible.
That… makes it difficult. However, as DD states below, I would vote for a ham sandwich (and a rotten one at that) before Hillary. That the ham sandwich stinks is a consequence of what it is, before I helped make it POTUS.
I can live with that.
No problem. Trump is a lout, in way over his head and we knew it going in. But the alternative was…Hillary.
Well, you can do what I do, and criticize people for what they do wrong, while also criticizing other people for criticizing people for things that they aren’t doing wrong.
The situation can’t continue, though, which is why I’m moving ahead with my plans to change the way people think so that they’re less prone to stupidity. I am not content with my vote standing as the extent of my influence on politics.