Forum Post: Voting and the White Leftist
Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 25, 2012, 2:41 p.m. EST by frogmanofborneo
(602)
from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I fear the many pro Occupy people can rightly be called "white leftists" meaning not that they are white but that their leftism ignores black oppression and is in fact "white." For example this post got shadow banned pretty fast. http://occupywallst.org/forum/in-the-latest-nbc-poll-romney-got-zero-percent-of-/ Why are zero percent of black people saying they'll vote for Romney? Even McCain got four percent of the Black vote. It's because Black voters see this election as a life and death matter, no joke! White "leftists" (meaning adherents of the white left, some may not be white themselves) ignore the fact that you now have a member of a racist cult (a mormon) running a down and dirty lying racist dog whistle campaign against the first Black president of the united states. At issue is the little that's left of the social safety net and voting rights, and gay rights, and women's rights. Importantly at issue is really whether Blacks are really Americans. The seriousness of this situation just doesn't penetrate the skull of the head up his ass "white leftist.
A day ago there was a posting regarding Michael Jackson whose birthday is today- he was born on August 29, 1958. Michael Jackson, beloved all over the world wasn't much loved by white hipsters, which is probably why the post got quickly banned here. The song that was posted was "They don't care about us." It is a powerful indictment of the global one percent. Considering that other protest songs have been posted and have survived this forum one has to come to the conclusions stated here.
http://adelsongate.blogspot.com/2012/08/michael-jackson-born-august-29-1958.html
I've always liked Michael Jackson. His songs had some important messages. Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36sKMwbwfWc
John had just finished a family album and had plans to begin a tour, Michael was rehearsing for a new world tour, and Bobby had just won the California primary, Martin was still with miles to go for what he had already won the Nobel Peace Prize for, I don't believe folks are all that good at planing things, but damn can't we catch a break.....
Sadly, you speak a lot of truths there.
Mirror Mirror on the Wall, who's the fairest of them all? What new "rights" shall we now take from thee, to satisfy our "diversity"?
That;s a really cool post. I like it. Says a lot.
It has always been my contention that the measure of one's assimilation is the measure of one's indifference; one cannot be indifferent to all things American and be American - it's not a question of definition, it's a question of identity and citizenship. For what truly is the definition of "natural born"?
Natural born must mean born of American citizen parents as McCain was born in Panama and George Romney who ran for President as a Republican was born in Mexico in a polygamous commune.
It means that if an individual is born on American soil they are citizens not requiring a formal naturalization, regardless of the status of the parents. In my mind, if a child is born of an American citizen (singular), even in a foreign land, unless "she" has formally renounced "her" American citizenship, the child is a "natural born," American citizen, possessed of a dual citizenship. While this I suppose can be debated in reference to a desire to deny those of foreign allegiance admission to the Presidency, I yet know of no law capable of denying that American citizenship born of an American mother. This definition may go slightly beyond what we might traditionally see but it has basis in American law and in universal conceptions of identity.
McCain and Romney are both citizens, yes.
So, then, even if Obama was born to his American mother in Kenya he would be natural born American.
In my opinion, yes. Any child born of an American mother, anywhere in the world, is definitely a "natural born" American citizen - the biological father is of no concern whatsoever in accessing citizenship. There is no other possible conclusion, nor has there ever been. This is a position, I believe, fully supported by our immigration law.
There is no way for us to access one's allegiance regardless of citizenship; what the Founders do here is actually publicly misrepresent... the intent was not merely to ensure that none occupied the office possessed of foreign allegiance but also to ensure that as "born and raised" in America they shared our prejudice of monarchy and aristocracy. This is a very valid concern when we consider that all other nations on earth, including those of Africa, bow to monarchy. Or worse, the dictatorship.
This is the very reason no British historian can accurately access an American history; he is not possessed of American sentiment. Nor is the Roman Catholic, who has traditionally deferred to those of power.
I can write pages here...
But look around - America is no longer a nation with a government; it's a government with a nation. It rules by Presidential decree to pass any law it so desires, propped up by a political court, and actually sublets the machinations of governance to the lesser vassals of corporations - this is the political economy; this is not merely an elitism, it is monarchy.
Imagine... Congressmen that pass laws they never read, propped up by a Constitutional court to rule on issues of American "legality" that has never even read the Constitution, let alone the legislation on which it rules...
To me there is a distinct difference between multiculturalism and assimilation. A multicultural society has largely distinct and separate cultures, Assimilation is to blend into the existing culture. It seems to me multiculturalism has never been successful in any society, The various separate cultures clash, sometime violently. On the other hand, assimilation seems to be readily accepted.
Case in point. I am a Texas farm boy ( no I’m not a redneck). I lived in San Francisco for a couple of years. I was not accepted in the San Francisco culture. Even though I am educated and was a mid-level manager for a for a large financial firm I was seen, I think, as being somewhat uncivilized. I learned quickly to avoid all political or social issues talk. One day, just because I felt like it I wore boots to work. People laughed and openly ridiculed. In another instance someone brought up hunting and I said I was a hunter and fisherman. They thought I killed Bambi. After a couple of years it was clear I didn’t fit that culture; and I moved back to Texas.
The point of that story is that if you’re going to get along you will have to assimilate. Holding on to your cultural norms will probably always invoke some degree of hostility.
There are many many multi ethnic multi religious states in this world (Probably the majority of states) . Some function fairly peaceably some do not. Though I am not a conservative they say one thing I do agree with: "Some problems cannot be solved." Forced assimilation is a very dangerous road to tread. What is the terrible problem in having people with different cultures, religions and languages having one citizenship? Why should it bother you?
What is most interesting to me is that those that support diversity insist on monologue - they do not permit a diversity of opinion.
I think the lack of assimilation is a measure of indifference... we can reasonably debate the source of that indifference... but even so one cannot be possessed of a natural born citizenship, with assimilation as inherent in definition - in any nation on earth - if one adamantly resists that assimilation. I may not have explained that very well but I have come to question the very citizenship of some that have lived here for generations; this view is further enhanced by an obvious choice to align with those new immigrants who refuse to assimilate. .
I've been at war with multiculturalism for ten to fifteen years now; if we continue to polarize as we have we will eventually see three distinct cultural regions in the US. And unfortunately for CA they will definitely be far more Tex-Mex than the blue and pink haired Tie Dye they would prefer to be. Worse, they will not be "American."
Another word that I have never cared for is this one: "ethnocentric"... the Left has also admitted this one to their vernacular. But in reality it simply does not and cannot exist.
We celebrate cultural diversity in many ways... clothing, food, music, whatever... but the idea of a hyphenated American is pure anathema to anything of a positive cultural nature - America cannot and will not survive.
No forced assimilation. That definitely does not work.
I agree: just deport them all.
fuck you
Bluntly stated, I think as the economy further deteriorates, people will gather together by race, culture and beliefs for safety and security. If SHTF as so many people are now predicting, then safety will be with “your” people. Not trying to dramatic, but if things get bad enough there will probably be tribes or clans of like minded people. It’s basic survival instinct. Multiculturalism will be a thing of the past.
I’m one of the people who think society will unravel, that SHTF will occur when the government can no longer afford to provide financial support to the masses as is now the case. Cold, scared, hungry people are dangerous.
However, I think this scenario will take a few years to get that bad. The government will implement stop gap measures along the way. In the mean time I’ve stopped trying to change anybody’s mind on social and political issues. People have already decided what they believe and rarely change their mind. Charts, graphs or data don’t matter. People are illogical and irrational and will not change their views when their mind is made up. So I’ve stopped trying.
A possible nightmare scenario. "Biting the bullet" "making hard choices" making the tough decisions" "no more kicking the can down the road" are exactly politi speak for not taking any more measures to reduce the suffering of the poorest whose numbers are steadily increasing as we all know.
Yea I'd agree with most of that.