Monday, October 31, 2011

The Disappearing Act!

"Now you see them, now you don't."

Illusionists, such as David Copperfield, Criss Angel, and others, have thrilled us for years with their uncanny feats of magic, making objects disappear that defy logic and commonsense--in the case of Copperfield, the Statue of Liberty. But compared to the disappearing act yet to come, these illusionists have nothing on Life's greatest illusionist, Father Time.

For all of Father Time's illusionist skills, the Disappearing Act won't take place all at once, engulfed within a large cloud of gray smoke for effect, but gradually over a few decades--actually around A.D. 2041, says the Census Bureau.

At that time, this nation's white majority will have disappeared, and, for the first time in a long time, assume a minority status.

And not everyone is pleased with this Disappearing Act, and not everyone is clapping and cheering for what Father Time is about to wrought, chief among them, Patrick J. Buchanan, Republican.

To show his displeasure, Buchanan wrote a review of the coming A.D. 2041 event, writing it long before the event (the disappearing act) has had a chance to crystallize in the record books, and long before it has had a chance to register in the hearts and minds of the Americans of that day.

Back in June of this year, I advanced a thesis--one that I knew would require a book-length treatment if I were to substantiate my position--in the comment section of my blog. I'm going restate it here, and ask that you take a bite of it, roll it around on your tongue, and tell me if it has the taste of authenticity.

But before I do that, let's read a little from Buchanan's review on the Disappearing Act facing white America--an eventuality which Buchanan is now dreading, despite the prediction that it will occur years in the future. He titles his observations simply, .A.D. 2041 -- End of White America?

"John Hope Franklin, the famed black historian at Duke University, once told the incoming freshmen, "The new America in the 21st century will be primarily non-white, a place George Washington would not recognize."

In his June 1998 commencement address at Portland State, President Clinton affirmed it: "In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States." The graduates cheered.

The Census Bureau has now fixed at 2041 the year when whites become a minority in a country where the Founding Fathers had restricted citizenship to "free white persons" of "good moral character."

With publication today of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" this writer takes up what this portends. And while many on the left are enthusiastic about relegating the America of Eisenhower and JFK to a reactionary past, I concur with the late Clare Boothe Luce.

In this world, she said, there are optimists and pessimists.

"The pessimists are better informed."


Clever statement from Pat, sounding the alarm, but what, if anything, can be done to offset the inevitability of the white Disappearing Act? You'd think not much, given the coming population shift, and the ensuing "Incredible Shrinking White Population." But then you'd be wrong. That's where my thesis comes in. I've used every skill and my disposal, my intuition, and my reasoning, to reveal a plot to keep power--especially political power--in the hands of whites.

Next, Buchanan prepares his readers for the consequences of a white Disappearing Act, and what it means for our national economic superiority:

First, the end of a national Republican Party that routinely gets 90 percent of its presidential votes from white America.

California is the harbinger of what is to come.

Carried by Richard Nixon in all five presidential elections when he was on the ticket and by Ronald Reagan all four times he ran, California, where whites are now a shrinking minority, is a state where the GOP faces extinction. John McCain's share of the California vote was down to the Barry Goldwater level of 1964.

When Texas, where two-thirds of the newborns and half the schoolchildren are Hispanic, goes the way of California, it is the end for the GOP. Arizona, Colorado and Nevada, also critical to any victorious GOP coalition, are Hispanicizing as rapidly as Texas.

In every presidential election since Bush I in 1992, Hispanics have given 60-70 percent of their votes to the Democratic ticket.

For Hispanics, largely poor and working class, are beneficiaries of a cornucopia of government goods - from free education to food stamps to free health care. Few pay federal income taxes.

Why would they not vote for the Party of Government?

Second, the economic crisis of California, brought on by an outflow of taxpayers and a huge influx of tax consumers - i.e., millions of immigrants, legal and illegal - will be mirrored nationally.

For though the majority of immigrants and illegals comes to work, and work hard, most now come from Third World countries and do not bring the academic or professional skills of European-Americans.

Third, the decline in academic test scores here at home and in international competition is likely to continue, as more and more of the children taking those tests will be African-American and Hispanic. For though we have spent trillions over four decades, we have failed to close the racial gap in education. White and Asian children continue to outscore black and Hispanic children.

Can the test-score gap be closed? With the Hispanic illegitimacy rate at 51 percent and the black rate having risen to 71 percent, how can their children conceivably arrive at school ready to compete?

Should this continue for three decades, what will it mean for America if Asians and whites occupy the knowledge-industry jobs, while scores of millions of black and Hispanic workers are relegated to low-paying service-sector jobs? Will that make for social tranquility?

Affirmative action is one answer. But this is already causing a severe backlash, and the reason is obvious.

When affirmative action was first imposed, whites outnumbered blacks nine to one. The burden of reverse discrimination on the white community was thus relatively light. Today, however, not only blacks, but Hispanics and women - two-thirds of the entire population - qualify for affirmative action in hiring and school admissions.

And the burden falls almost entirely on white males, who are one-third of the country but three-fourths of the dead and wounded coming back from Afghanistan.


No where does Pat mention the Dream Act, which Republicans detest, and its power to close the education gap that he says exists between Latinos and whites. He suggests, further, that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have served primarily to reduce a large number of an essential class of whites, specifically white males, upon which this country will someday depend to fill its "knowledge-industry jobs."

For the sake of this country's future, it would have been better, he seems to say, if Latinos and blacks were the primary fighters in those wars, as they're more expendable than white males.

How close can you come, if you're Pat Buchanan, to saying that blacks and Latinos are intellectually inferior to Asians and whites, without crossing that line?

Pat had a few more things to say, or rather, lament over:

Can Western civilization survive the passing of the European peoples whose ancestors created it and their replacement by Third World immigrants? Probably not, for the new arrivals seem uninterested in preserving the old culture they have found.

Those who hold the white race responsible for the mortal sins of mankind - slavery, racism, imperialism, genocide - may welcome its departure from history.

Those who believe that the civilization that came out of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome and London to be the crowning achievement of mankind will mourn its passing.
Read more here.

Come now, Pat: Are you saying that we should forgive the "sins" of European people, because of what they built ("the crowning achievement of mankind"), and not condemn them for the harsh and brutal tactics that were used to erect these "crowning achievements"?

That the end justified the means?

Here's my contention: Plans are in the making to assure that, with the "passing of the European peoples," it will be business as usual in this country, that the torch of power and control will be passed forward, as it has for centuries, to its supposed rightful owners--European people.

From one of my favorite movies, Dune, we get this line of dialogue: "He who controls the spice, controls the universe." I'm going to make a point here by altering this familiar line from the movie somewhat: "He who controls the jobs, controls everything else."

Here's the full thesis that I promised a ways back. Let me know what you think.

A population shift is now taking place in this country, with a rise of Latinos, and a decline of whites.

The Latino demographic will, in a decade or two, wield most of the political power in this country, with whites falling precipitously to the back of the electoral bus.

What's needed to offset this shift is a new power dynamic assuring that whites will continue to assert their will over the political and social landscape.

Whites will "not go gentle into that good night...[but will] rage, rage against the dying of the light."

How do they preserve their once monopolistic power in the midst of this population shift? Simple. Transfer it to corporations. And this what we're now seeing take place, unabashedly, by the Roberts Supreme Court.

Corporations, recently raised to the importance, and stature of the individual, can now use their collective power to influence the outcome of elections and the passage of legislation.

They already have life's largest bargaining chip--jobs, the creation of the them, and the destruction of them.

Further, any regulations, or regulators that would challenge the new authority of corporations can be bought, or defeated, in some other way.

In addition, because unions support labor, they, too, will have to go in this new power paradigm. A weak, disorganized, labor force won't be able to challenge the power of the corporate purse.

Further, use everything at your disposal to weaken the hand of the Federal Government and those agencies that would stand in the way of the fledgling corpocracy.

I think all of this is by design, and is not happenstance. Look for more shifts of power from the people to the corporations--shifts that will dilute our democracy, and empower corporations.

[In response to a remark regarding the indoctrination of those on the Right, Republicans and conservatives, in preparation of this demographic shift, I had this to say:]

That's easy to do, and easy to understand, in light of the new power paradigm: Whites know that their historical position--Alpha dog, Massa, owners of white privilege--is quickly coming to a crashing end.

What good is a democracy, "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people," if you're not the people to whom it refers.

A race war would go a long way toward assisting whites in their struggle to hold onto what's slipping away.

They would, then, have an excuse to legally suppress minority groups that are threatening to be the majority and the ramifications that shift would entail.

36 comments:

GrannyStandingforTruth said...

@ Diaspora, Pat Buchanan is the devil's disciple. He and his sister are so full of hate. I hate to beg his pardon though because the black and hispanics students have improved in school and more of them are graduating from college as well.

But old Pat is true to his grand wizard position in the kkk known as the conservative citizens council. He is a die-hard racist and does not mind letting folks know it in his book. It wouldn't hurt for him to go back to school because it is better that he had remained silent than open his mouth and let the world know that he is an ignoramous, racist, and idiot.

Black Diaspora said...

@Granny: "I hate to beg his [Pat Buchanan's] pardon though because the black and hispanics students have improved in school and more of them are graduating from college as well."

Pat's remarks are racially tinged, designed to scare white folks, regardless of their political affiliation, into believing that this country is going to the dogs, and that we had better do something soon to save it.

Granny, I have no doubt that blacks and browns will rise to the challenge, and continue to create an America that's free and strong--perhaps stronger an freer than it's been since its inception.

For one, with whites in the minority, erstwhile minorities won't have to compete against a formidable white bastion of privilege, but will be able to participate in a true meritocracy, and not just a sham of one.

By biggest concern, right now, is that we might lose our democratic rights in a nation ran by corporations, the elites, and plutocrats.

GrannyStandingforTruth said...

"By biggest concern, right now, is that we might lose our democratic rights in a nation ran by corporations, the elites, and plutocrats."

It is mine too!

Black Diaspora said...

@Granny: "It is mine too!"

This is why I'm supportive of the Occupy Movement, although there are those who would attack them, without understanding or appreciating that the protesters are not only sacrificing their well-being and creature comfort to preserve their democratic process, but ours as well.

Someone posted that the OWS movement was made up of bums that should get a job, that they didn't have a message.

Here's the message I believe that OWS adherents and protesters are sending to the Nation: "As Wall Street has occupied our government, we, the people, will occupy Wall Street, until this illegal occupation of The People's House is brought to an end."

Redeye said...

White Supremacy in action. Whites have an ingrained belief blacks are inferior to them. That's why they have to make sure President Obama is a failure.

Black Diaspora said...

Redeye said...
"White Supremacy in action."

As you know, Pat has a history of this sort of thing. Recently, things got so bad, ColorOfChange called for MSNBC to fire him as a paid commentator.

Greg L said...

BD,

This is a very thought provoking entry. Buchanan has been crying and moaning about this for year, but at least he's not behind closed doors and his discussions about this allows us to peer behind the door to see what's going on. I can also see here outlines of your theory behind why Herman Cain is being supported so heavily by those on the right. It's a bid to retain power. Everything from abortion on down to the so called immigration debate is a reflection of this demographic trend and many of the most divisive issues are being put out there to prevent folks for coalescing around an agenda; the classic divide and conquer tactic that has been used since time immemorial.

This same trend is also playing out in Europe. I think all of the resource wars and the economic pillaging that's gone on with all of the financialization schemes are also a reflection of this. Resources are dwindling along with demographic shifts and both impact politics and social fabric. They've decided to grab all the lifeboats and jump ship.

Middle class and lower class whites have always been that buffer used to keep the elite in power by fooling them in aligning their interests with the elite. In no small measure, this allegiance was purchased by a broader distribution of wealth; a sort of sharing of the spoils of exploitation. And now that is being pulled back as well and the buffer will now be hired mercenaries. This trend has been well established with the privatization of the military. What we'll be seeing in the future are private interests, rather than governments, in control. These trends have been well established.

Great post!

Black Diaspora said...

I

@Greg: "[B]ut at least he's [Pat Buchanan] not behind closed doors and his discussions about this allows us to peer behind the door to see what's going on."

White supremacists have never kept their mouths shut when faced with a perceived threat to their dominance.

Thank God, Pat's no exception, as he's entrenched in the mainstream of the national media, and has greater visibility.

You're right: By sounding the alarm, Pat gives us a rare peek into his mindset, and the mindset of others like him.

Here's a thought: If the Koch brothers are willing to spend untold millions to assure the supremacy of the Republican party, and Republicanism, how far will they go to assure white supremacy, as whites' majority status slips away?

"I can also see here outlines of your theory behind why Herman Cain is being supported so heavily by those on the right."

Excellent observation. Yes, I'm laying the groundwork for a larger thesis, one which Herman Cain is the central figure. When you think about it, Cain has something the other candidates don't have: His positions aren't as ideologically restricted or hardened, and he's willing to play along.

[I'm giving too much away!]

"It's a bid to retain power."

True. If you have the power, you set the agenda. You're right, it's all agenda driven, and the direction in which it's all headed is to the extreme Right.

"Resources are dwindling along with demographic shifts and both impact politics and social fabric."

The social upheaval has only begun unless we come up with a new social and political paradigm.

Don't forget: There's pent-up demand in China, and a populace eager to enjoy the good life that Europe has enjoyed for decades.

This will only aggravate the "resource wars," as the nations of the world scramble to control the dwindling resources on the planet.

"Middle class and lower class whites have always been that buffer used to keep the elite in power by fooling them in aligning their interests with the elite."

Oops! The curtain has been pulled back, and we're now seeing who's pulling the levers and turning the dials.

And the result of these revelations: The Occupy Wall Street movement.

Predictably, not all are pleased with the movement, and not all are willing to admit that they've been bamboozled.

I've long held that the modern-day Republican party, and its conservative philosophy was created to assure that some in the populace would work towards the support of the "elite," while the elite could stay in the background, and manipulate outcomes that a certain segment of the populace was already predisposed to.

To illustrate: Recently, Mitt Romney, to thunderous applause, told a crowd that when he's president, he would repeal Obamacare.

For all its imperfections, Democrats' "Affordable Healtcare Act," is a step in the right direction, but that's not why the crowd was jubilant.

Government had overreached and violated one of their Republican/conservative tenets: "Government shall not do for the people what the people should do for themselves, and the private sector is the only place where this should take place."

Black Diaspora said...

II

Republicans continue to push the position: Socialism and communism are the enemy of the people, not because they call for a fairer distribution of the wealth (which would be the outcome, if properly done), but because they're unfair, punish the wealthy (no higher taxes here!), stifle job growth, and is bad for democracy and the wellspring of capitalism.

Hence we hear, "Don't punish achievers, and if you're poor it's all your fault," while the wealth continues to be redistributed to the top (now almost 300% [1]), and, to no one's surprise, with the blessing of too many at the bottom.

Occupy Wall Street want to put a stop to this income inequality.

"In no small measure, this allegiance was purchased by a broader distribution of wealth; a sort of sharing of the spoils of exploitation."

For a time this was true, but the tides have reversed: Unions are the problem. The poor are the problem. A minimum wage is the problem. Government sponsored health care for all is the problem. Illegal immigrants are the problem. Welfare is the problem. Entitlements are the problem.

And the biggest problem of all: a demographics shift that will make us a nation of minorities, including the once white super-majority.

"This trend has been well established with the privatization of the military. What we'll be seeing in the future are private interests, rather than governments, in control. These trends have been well established."

Very true: Privatization is the trifecta that completes the corporate takeover of this country. Corporations will have, finally, full control over the lives of the people, especially the growing Latino population.

Therefore I said in my blog entry:

From one of my favorite movies, Dune, we get this line of dialogue: "He who controls the spice, controls the universe." I'm going to make a point here by altering this familiar line from the movie somewhat: "He who controls the jobs, controls everything else."

[1]

"For the 1 percent of the population with the highest incomes, average income grew 275 percent between 1979 and 2007, the [CBO] report said. Middle-income Americans saw just less than a 40 percent rise during the same period, while the 20 percent of the population on the bottom saw an 18 percent increase."

WD said...

@ BD

First why are white people supposed to cheer their own extinction? American society tells white people that Diversity is the highest ideal, and diversity means everyone but them. White people are not only supposed to think their replacement is a good thing, but they are supposed to actively cheer it and support it.

All other races are encouraged to be proud of their racial identities, but if a white person expresses the merest discomfort with the idea that he and his people will not be part of the future, he is labelled a Nazi.

Second, race based affirmative action cannot be the answer if there is no more white majority, and blacks are decreasing as a percentage of the population as well. White people have accepted that blacks are owed favoritism in college admissions and job applications due to the historical injustices of slavery and segregation. How amenable will the new majorities be to black needs?

Be careful what you wish for.

Black Diaspora said...

WD said..."First why are white people supposed to cheer their own extinction?"

That's not my position and you know it. But that's the inane point that you want to debate, rather than the one I posed.

Here it is again:

How do they [whites] preserve their once monopolistic power in the midst of this population shift? Simple. Transfer it to corporations. And this what we're now seeing take place, unabashedly, by the Roberts Supreme Court.

I think that the world is better place, and certainly this nation, when there is shared power, and not power vested in one group or one entity that lord it over another, whether that group is white, or that entity is a coporation or corporations.

"American society tells white people that Diversity is the highest ideal, and diversity means everyone but them."

Again, you've taken up a white grievance that doesn't exist, so that you can dismiss valid grievances by people of color.

"White people are not only supposed to think their replacement is a good thing, but they are supposed to actively cheer it and support it."

I don't care how you perceive it. It's neither a good thing or a bad thing. It's merely what is. What I am concerned about is what whites will do to preserve their racial dominance.

Whether whites "cheer it and support it," is for them to determine, but here's the unvarnished truth--they can do little or nothing to stop it.

Those whites living then will have to decide who they wish to be in light of this momentous population shift--will they accept it willingly, will they carp about it (as you and Pat have done), or will they embrace the reality before them and still work to make this country the envy of the world.

"All other races are encouraged to be proud of their racial identities, but if a white person expresses the merest discomfort with the idea that he and his people will not be part of the future, he is labelled a Nazi."

What balderdash! Be proud of your "racial identity." Express whatever "discomfort" you wish about a white future in this country.

But to say, as has Buchanan, that the country without whites in the majority is doomed to a third-world status, because of minorities, is unacceptable.

And all whites who think as he thinks, don't deserve to be a part of the New America.

"White people have accepted that blacks are owed favoritism...."

If it's Affirmative Action you're referring to, from its inception, whites fought against it, and many still do.

For the record: Affirmative Action also benefitted white women, Asians, and Latinos. This notion that it benefitted blacks only is pure mytholgy.

"How amenable will the new majorities be to black needs?

"Be careful what you wish for."

These so-called majorities can't treat us any worse than how we've already been treated at the hands of whites.

Further, I "wish" for nothing, but that all people of this nation be treated as valuable memebers of society--no more and no less than what I wish for now, but rarely see.

In addition, I don't celebrate the disappearance of any race. I only wish that whites had seen things that way as well--Native Americans wouldn't have been decimated in numbers that reached genocidal proportions, and blacks wouldn't have been subjected to slavery (and the depopulation Africa) and the horrors of the Middle Passage.

WD said...

"These so-called majorities can't treat us any worse than how we've already been treated at the hands of whites."

We are not talking about worse than in 1850, we are talking about worse than now. You are right that AA has benefitted many other groups; I think this is wrong and only African Americans have a legitimate claim for favoritism. Once whites are no longer the majority, there will be no AA for blacks.

You wish whites in 1500 had had modern ideas about multi-culturalism? Who had those ideas 500 years ago? The Mayans or Aztecs, who enslaved and sacrificed whoever they could? The Arabs, who ran the world slave trade? The Chinese, who considered everyone else sub-human?

"Native Americans wouldn't have been decimated in numbers that reached genocidal proportions"

There was no "genocide" of Native Americans; this is leftist revisionism. The population density of North America was very low, and the native culture was simply overwhelmed by a technological farming culture capable of sustaining a much higher population density.

The large Native American societies of Central and South America were much more advanced, and had relatively large populations. They were decimated primarily by Old World diseases (particularly small pox). This would have happened regardless of how East and West met, whether the Aztecs had sailed to Spain and brought it back with them, or if the Spainards had come to America bearing gifts of gold for the Aztecs, smallpox would have come to the New World just the same. No one understood germ theory in 1500.

And I have not read Buchanan's book, but if the premise is that a United States populated by a majority imported from the Third World will have difficulty remaining a First World country, then that seems a very legitimate proposition.

Greg L said...

>>>I've long held that the modern-day Republican party, and its conservative philosophy was created to assure that some in the populace would work towards the support of the "elite," while the elite could stay in the background, and manipulate outcomes that a certain segment of the populace was already predisposed to.<<<

I agree. I consider the political/economic/media system in its entirety to be a problem. The elite own all of it and have set the stage for the issues and the political debate that we have. This prevents the real issues from being discussed and examined, but try as they might, reality is not altered by these mechanicians, but they can certainly influence how they're perceived--at least until reality rears it's head and rudely refuses to be ignored. That's the situation we currently find ourselves in and is the main reason spurring OWS.

The OWS movement has real potential to be the tip of the spear so to speak, but the media is limiting information on it. For example, I heard very little about the November 5th bank withdrawal movement, but I know of a lot of people, including me, who've opened up accounts at credit unions---actually, I did this a year ago. It's precisely those sorts of tactics, along with other things we can do, that will take the fuel from those who are the manipulators. People have to wake up and behave with enlightened self interest and the economic conditions are contributing to this new awareness. That's a good thing.

Greg L said...

>>>Second, race based affirmative action cannot be the answer if there is no more white majority, and blacks are decreasing as a percentage of the population as well. White people have accepted that blacks are owed favoritism in college admissions and job applications due to the historical injustices of slavery and segregation. How amenable will the new majorities be to black needs?

Be careful what you wish for.<<<

First AA has been under fire so much such that it's basically a non entity now. Moreover, it's somewhat telling for you to presume that in the absence of white majorities that blacks need to be concerned about what happens. The implication is that in the absence of whites somehow "taking care of us", we'd fall on hard times. That's almost like the slave master telling his slaves that they might not be able to fiend for themselves unless they remain his property.

There is life after the white man.

The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy said...

@ Greg

Which elite own the media? The same elite that own the democrat party, and the same elite that elected Obama.

Who is behind OWS? The same elite who support Obama: George Soros, Big Labor, and yes Wall Street, who have given more money to Barack Obama than any candidate in history. Hell, OWS was even organized by an ex-member of Obama's administraiton, Van Jones, and is being run by his ex-employer, ACORN.

The national networks did 33 stories on OWS during the first week of the protests. They did 3 stories on the Tea Party during the first 6 months of the much larger Tea Party rallies. How is that "limiting information"?

OWS is Obama is the mainstream media.

You mistake political theater for conflict and a bought-and-paid-for show for a real movement.

This is the end of the left.

Gershom said...

Greg said...First AA has been under fire so much such that it's basically a non entity now. Moreover, it's somewhat telling for you to presume that in the absence of white majorities that blacks need to be concerned about what happens. The implication is that in the absence of whites somehow "taking care of us", we'd fall on hard times. That's almost like the slave master telling his slaves that they might not be able to fiend for themselves unless they remain his property.

There is life after the white man.

--------------

A non-entity? What? AA is the law of the land.

AA has helped many blacks achieve a middle class lifestyle, but it also crippled black's ability to survive without it.

The new majority will owe blacks nothing, not even freedom.

There is life after the white man, but it is going to much poorer, much meaner, and much shorter.

Greg L said...

>>You mistake political theater for conflict and a bought-and-paid-for show for a real movement.<<<

If we were talking about the T-Party, this statement would be true. Of course, there weren't any T-Partiers getting truncheoned or arrested. That bit of reality doesn't qualify as theatre. Moreover, OWS appears to have a global structure rather than one strictly domestic. That makes it a bit harder to manipulate.

Now I don't deny that there will be some in the organized political system who will attempt to co-opt certain elements of OWS for their own purposes, however to the extent that the movement remains independent, it will build in strength.

To see this strictly in the right vs left paradigm limits what you see.

Greg L said...

>>The new majority will owe blacks nothing, not even freedom.

There is life after the white man, but it is going to much poorer, much meaner, and much shorter. <<<

Please. Life has been brutish for many folks under the white man, including the white man himself.

And again, you seem to think that black folks are only capable of achieving something as an appendage or extension of the white man. Don't overstate your importance or underestimate the desire and ability of any people to rise.

Frequently significant changes, demographically, economically and otherwise, create vacuums and opportunities. Frequently, the old order is precisely the thing that's in the way that prevents freedom and development. Frequently, the old order only exists to the extent it's been able to ride on the backs of others. A dramatic change in circumstance can create a change in direction that you'd never anticipate. It's not a matter of what the new majority owes or what they might do. It's what we do in response to the changed conditions that matters. The power you think you have is overstated.

There is life after the white man.

Black Diaspora said...

@Greg L: "The OWS movement has real potential to be the tip of the spear so to speak, but the media is limiting information on it."

How true: Most of the media, I find, have a general unwillingness to report the activities of the movement, or to cover their concerns. It's a smattering of interest at best.

The only network giving it the attention it deserves is Current, in particular, Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

If you wish to keep abreast of his reporting, and you don't wish to tune in, Olbermann/Countdown has a link on the site (Current.com).

"People have to wake up and behave with enlightened self interest and the economic conditions are contributing to this new awareness. That's a good thing."

It is a good thing. People have been forced, by conditions, to take a closer look at the political landscape that caused our economic decline, and the subsequent loss of jobs in this country.

It will be a better thing if the people continue to use their clout--their purchasing power--to force the political realities that will give this country a fighting chance in the expanding global economy.

As it stands now, we're losing ground, and that loss will continue if we don't remain vigilant, and hold our political representatives accountable.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who gets their news from Keith Olbermann lives somewhere south of Reality.

That is really sad, BD.

Anonymous said...

Greg said... Of course, there weren't any T-Partiers getting truncheoned or arrested
----

Maybe because there weren't any Tea Partiers throwing rocks at police, vandalizing businesses, assaulting people, selling drugs, or committing rape.

Ya think?

Black Diaspora said...

"This is the end of the left."

You're hoping this statement will cause us trepidation?

Let me take it a step further: I hope, too, that it is the end of the Left, and the Right as well, as we've known the two political entities (although I believe the Right, more than the Left, is in its death throes).

Corporate and special interest money has corrupted our political process (in the courts and both chambers of government) to such an extent that the people's business rarely gets done these day in favor of the monied interests.

"Who is behind OWS? The same elite who support Obama: George Soros, Big Labor, and yes Wall Street, who have given more money to Barack Obama than any candidate in history. Hell, OWS was even organized by an ex-member of Obama's administraiton, Van Jones, and is being run by his ex-employer, ACORN."

Regarding the Occupy Wall Street Movement: Your statement is so much Fox News drivel, that it's laughable.

But don't behave so piously: Republicans and TeaPublicans have their corporate supporters as well:

"Koch Industries owner Charles Koch — who, along with brother David, has quietly spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years building a right-wing network of businessmen, think tank scholars, and political operatives — inviting hedge fund managers and industry captains and whomever else to his biannual "retreat."
[...]
"The participants included some of the nation's wealthiest families and biggest names in finance: private equity and hedge fund executives like John Childs, Cliff Asness, Steve Schwarzman and Ken Griffin; Phil Anschutz, the entertainment and media mogul ranked by Forbes as the 34th-richest person in the country; Rich DeVos, the co-founder of Amway; Steve Bechtel of the giant construction firm; and Kenneth Langone of Home Depot."

Black Diaspora said...

Anonymous said...
"Anyone who gets their news from Keith Olbermann lives somewhere south of Reality.

"That is really sad, BD."


Your sadness is my gain.

Black Diaspora said...

Gershom said..."There is life after the white man, but it is going to much poorer, much meaner, and much shorter."

In that case, blacks have nothing to lose: For many, life is already much poorer, much meaner, and much shorter.

Adding another superlative to the superlatives we already have won't improve the "white man's" standing in history, or his sullied reputation in black communities, when whites are in the minority.

The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy said...

"Who is behind OWS? The same elite who support Obama: George Soros, Big Labor, and yes Wall Street, who have given more money to Barack Obama than any candidate in history. Hell, OWS was even organized by an ex-member of Obama's administraiton, Van Jones, and is being run by his ex-employer, ACORN."

What exactly is false about that statement?

Soros doesn't fund both Obama and OWS?

The SEIU doesn't fund both Obama and OWS?

Wall Street hasn't donated more money to Obama than to any candidate in history?

Van Jones did not plan the OWS protests as part of bringing an "Arab Spring" to America?

Facts are facts, BD.

Black Diaspora said...

@WD: "We are not talking about worse than in 1850...."

Don't worry, WD, I'll repond to you in time. Right now is not the time.

Black Diaspora said...

The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy said...

"Facts are facts, BD."

I don't have a problem with the statements--whether true or not.

But until they're more than assertions from you, and Fox News, I'll remain skeptical.

Back up your statements on OWS, and Van Jones. I hope you can: It'll mean that their initiatives will have legs, and the financial backing to effect change--you know, the kind of financial backing that Republicans and the Tea Party have long enjoyed from the Koch brothers and others.

Black Diaspora said...

@WD: "We are not talking about worse than in 1850, we are talking about worse than now."

You want blacks to agonize over some unknown, over some future uncertainty, that is the product of your frenzied mind.

It's enough that you look to yourself, and how whites will respond when they're in the minority, rather than predict an uncertain future for blacks that you believe (hope?) will bring experiences much worse than those we're currently experiencing.

"Once whites are no longer the majority, there will be no AA for blacks."

You say this as though this is something that we should fear, or, at the least, grieve over.

We won't. We won't have to. White privildege won't be replaced by brown priviledge, or yellow priviledge. We'll all be on an equal footing--something that we have to fight like hell to get now.

Don't forget: Other groups, now the recipients of Affirmative Action, will be impacted as well: White women, Asians, American Indians, and Latinos.

I think we'll survive without it, with the removal of a major white stumbling block--an eventuality we can all expect once the population shift has occurred.

"You wish whites in 1500 had had modern ideas about multi-culturalism?"

Yes. And not just whites, all people. Humans have been slow to evolve. And those who did show signs of evolving, we labelled savages, and uncivilized.

"There was no "genocide" of Native Americans; this is leftist revisionism."

Europeans very presence in the Americas was genocidal. Had they stayed in Europe, where they belonged, rather than venture forth in search of riches, the indiginous people of the Americas would have been spared their fate--their untimely deaths.

We all know: White greed killed them!

WD said...

"Europeans very presence in the Americas was genocidal. Had they stayed in Europe, where they belonged, rather than venture forth in search of riches, the indiginous people of the Americas would have been spared their fate--their untimely deaths.

We all know: White greed killed them!"
----------

If Europeans had stayed in Europe, then it would have been the Chinese. In any event, the Old World and the New World would have met, and smallpox would have had its run.

If no one had come to the Americas, it would still be a miserable place, marked by constant warfare, savagery, and human sacrifice.

And if Europeans had stayed in Europe, you would be sitting in a hut somewhere in West Africa, without a computer. More likely, you wouldn't exist, as the population of all of sub-Saharan Africa would still be less than the number of black americans today, about 40 million, rather than the 1 billion it is today.

It was Western culture that decided that slavery was morally wrong, and it was the Western powers that enforced an end to the Arab slave trade.

Your own ideas about human equality, human rights, and the evils of racism are all Western ideas.

What majority culture in history has gone to such lengths to protect the interests of its minorities? What majority nation in history has elected a minority as its leader?

But, as you well know, demography is destiny.

As whites become a minority in America and even Europe, none of these progressive accomplishments will matter.

Everyone hates the white man. Your last comment: "White greed killed them!" is the only sentiment that will matter in the end. Hate never dies.

When that day comes, whites will be butchered like Tutsis. And it will be rationalized, like black-on-white crime is today, by statements such as yours.

Black Diaspora said...

@WD:

For reasons of time constraint, I will take up your assertions one point at a time (piecemeal), but not necessarily in their natural order.

I wouldn't respond at all, but for the fact that the conversation up to now has been civil.

"Everyone hates the white man. Your last comment: "White greed killed them!" is the only sentiment that will matter in the end. Hate never dies."

Don't arrogate to blacks the depth, height and breadth of hatred that has been our lot to receive from too many whites over the years.

If it's your intention to cast me and other blacks as haters, not only are your motives suspect, but your accusations lack credibility.

Sure there is hatred on both sides (some black hatred a response to white hatred), but black hatred isn't as widespread as your words suggest, and white hate seems to be on a decline, and in time will be eradicated altogether.

Let me speak candidly: First, I hate no one, be they white or what have you.

True, I am repelled by what humans have done to each other in our modern era, especially with the advent of the Age of Enlightenment, and before, when Greek culture flourished, giving rise to such thinkers as Plato and Socrates.

"Your last comment: "White greed killed them!" is the only sentiment that will matter in the end."

In the end? The end of what: white dominance?

Second, it's the "dominance" of greed and other human failings--turpitudes that have long held this world in thrall--that I would like to see an end to, not white civilization.

The white race--indeed the whole of the human race--has the power to change the cultural stories (the general "sentiment") which have long defined it.

Because there is no "end" to our evolution as a species, we can make up for past deficiencies, and choose new stories and definitions, stories and definitions that speak to our grandest vision of who we are, and who we can become.

Third, and finally, the death of "hate" is inevitable, for reasons you wouldn't understand if we're having this conversation.

There's a cosmic joke at play here, and I would like nothing better than to make you privy to it. But, alas, you wouldn't get the joke, because, I'm afraid, the joke's on you.

Black Diaspora said...

@WD: "When that day comes, whites will be butchered like Tutsis. And it will be rationalized, like black-on-white crime is today, by statements such as yours."

You want me to believe that, it's "statements" like mine, rather than the actions of whites, by which they will judged.

I hate to disabuse you of a fondly held position, but any future treatment of whites will come as a result of their own behavior, and not as a result of my words, or the future utterances of any words founded on truth.

What drama: "whites will be butchered like Tutsis."

This is hyperbolic nonsense, and you know it. It appears you've projected what whites would do were the situation reversed.

Here's my vision of what's to come, and it's diametrically opposed to yours, but that's not surprising given your they against us mindset: Not only will we see a new era of racial harmony and cooperation, but a greater appreciation for, and a greater valuing of, the contributions of each person in society--an appraisal that's been elusive here for too long.

We have sought to compete with the rest of the world by tying one hand behind our back--by not extending opportunities to all within our borders, regardless of sex, color, race, and national origin.

"And it will be rationalized, like black-on-white crime is today, by statements such as yours."

You're attributing to my "statements" more power than they have, now or in the future.

To call a thing what it is, is not the same as providing a rationalization for a criminal act, but to provide a milieu from which it may be discussed and abolished.

Your statement suggests that white-on-black crime receives rationalization as well.

I take umbrage to your claim that referring to white actions as prompted by "greed," rationalizes criminal attacks upon them.

It does no such thing, but, again, given your predispositions, such claims aren't surprising or shocking.

On both sides, I'm sure color is used to rationalize all sorts of behavior. But to suggest that all whites rationalize white-on-black crime, or that all blacks rationalize black-on-white crime, is to play loose with the facts, and reality itself.

WD said...

Black Diaspora said...
"This is hyperbolic nonsense, and you know it. It appears you've projected what whites would do were the situation reversed."

The situation is reversed, yet breathe you do.

You say whites will be judged by their actions, but which ones? Will my grandchildren be judged by the actions of someone else's grandfather? That is nonsense, yet that is the hatred that is being passed down by thinkers such as you.

America is irredeemably guilty for the original sin of slavery, and nothing can make up for it in the minds of blacks, because what whites are really guilty of is existing.

"There's a cosmic joke at play here, and I would like nothing better than to make you privy to it. But, alas, you wouldn't get the joke, because, I'm afraid, the joke's on you."

It's on me, but it's no joke.

Black Diaspora said...

@WD: "That is nonsense, yet that is the hatred that is being passed down by thinkers such as you."

It appears that the conversation has come to a standstill: Regrettably, you haven't paid attention to my comments, and are still insisting on a black-white status that resides only in your own mind, rather than in reality, or in my carefully-crafted words.

"America is irredeemably guilty for the original sin of slavery, and nothing can make up for it in the minds of blacks, because what whites are really guilty of is existing."

Again, more pity-partying, falling back on an imaginary grievance that, frankly, doesn't exist. I can tell you that you're wrong until I'm white in the face, but you'll still insist on this mythos that blacks hate whites, and that they hold all whites responsible for slavery.

"It's on me, but it's no joke."

You presume to know the "joke." But I assure you, were you to know the joke, really understood it from it's various dimensions, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and you'd never bring the subject up again, as it would be the height of folly.

I had hoped to show you another perspective, one that would put the lie to your most cherished beliefs.

You have shown, instead, that your old tattered clothes bring you more comfort and warmth than the new attire that I offered.

For that I offer you my sincerest condolences, and my profoundest regrets.

At another time--in a time, no time--this conversation will come up again, and you will regret that you chose to end it in the way that you did.

Until that time.

WD said...

I will leave you with the words of a real Nazi, Hans Fritzsche - a radio journalist and Goebbels protege, who, although intially skeptical of the stories being told, when confronted with the true horrors of the holocaust during the Nuremberg trials wrote this:

It seems to me as though people can only manage to see things at all clearly when some political wind or other is blowing from behind them; if they turn against it, it blows directly into their eyes, and they become blinded. My first reaction to this discovery was a feeling of profound contempt for my fellows; a feeling which, on closer examination, turned out to be quite unjustified.

For our views about the world we live in are in truth like so many flags, kept flying by the prevailing current of opinion. If the wind is strong enough, they will continue to display their colours in the same direction -- until the weather changes. In the dock I used often to discuss with Speer and Schirach the question of maintaining a happy medium between a too inflexible and a too impressionable political outlook; and we came to the opinion that many of the sufferings of our nation could be traced back to this one question, in which politics, morals, intellect and character all play their separate parts.


Fritzsche, though acquitted at Nuremberg, was retried by a West German court and released in 1950, dying of cancer three years later.

Ernesto said...

"How do they [whites] preserve their once monopolistic power in the midst of this population shift? Simple. Transfer it to corporations. And this what we're now seeing take place, unabashedly, by the Roberts Supreme Court."

Excellent point, BD. I have been saying that the Citizens United decision was the Dred Scott decision of our day, i.e., it will inevitably spur the end of the system it sought to protect and/or expand. This will be hastened once people like WD come to realize they are not really in the club, except as a water carrier.

Black Diaspora said...

Ernesto, I'm happy to see you back. The blogosphere is not the same without you.

I would have responded sooner, but have been out of town for a few days responding to a family crisis.

There's a saying, enunciated from within the unlikeliest of sources, the movie Jurassic Park, "Life will find a way."

The Citizens United ruling is anti-life--the life of our democracy, and the life of our sovereignty, as it transferred the people's power to corporations.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement is life finding a way.

"I have been saying that the Citizens United decision was the Dred Scott decision of our day, i.e., it will inevitably spur the end of the system it sought to protect."

True. Within it is the seed of its own destruction. It's both illustrative and edifying to remember how Chief Justice Taney met his end.

As you sow you reap, now and later:

Taney, whose health had never been good, spent his final years in worsening health, near poverty, and despised by both North and South. Since the Merryman ruling, he was all but ignored by Lincoln and his cabinet. Taney lost his Maryland estates to the Civil War and suffered from his poverty.