The 1950s are coming back

It's illegal to lynch them now.

It's illegal to force them out of neighborhoods or keep them out of neighborhoods..

It's illegal to discriminate against them when hiring.

 

I said the neo-50s were still several years away (about 2035 is my guesstimate), plenty of time for a civil war. As you said, "A lot of fools will have to settle down." They won't.

 

You lost me when you said “the hard left despises America” that is ridiculous. Sounds like the men who criticized women fighting for equal rights and accusing them of hating men. I Disagree with you that the white nationalists are shunned. When Our president says some of them are good people it should be viewed with out rage but instead it is met with silence.
As a Jew, I totally disagree with your perception. There was hardly any outrage from the right when the neo-Nazis marched in Charlottesville, chanting anti Semitic slurs Evangelicals who are pro-Zionism are not pro Jewish at all they just believe that the second coming will be in Israel and they assume that the Jews will convert. I am a Jew and I am not very happy with a lot of the things that Israel is doing. Does that mean I am anti-Semitic?
A keynote speaker presents a speech to all the teachers in a city. I also do staff development in prejudice awareness in individual schools.
We have The same problem with poor white working class kids but because of racism in this country we have more black people in poverty. White kids in poor areas come with the same baggage but they always had the advantage of being white. Middle and upper class black people have few problems just like white families.

 

Nervous laughter, yeah .. I get it. No one enjoys having their crimes held up and displayed.

 

When I read 80% of people getting tattooed are women, I know the site is bogus.

 

This is simply false, and has been debunked multiple times by multiple sources. Many men went to jail for beating their wives as long ago as the 17th century. Laws against domestic abuse started going into effect in the US in the mid 1800s. Divorce for domestic abuse has always been available.

https://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/09/fighting-domestic-violence-in-1950s.html

"As a Muslim, I am Shocked by Liberals and Leftists

by Majid Rafizadeh
March 25, 2017 at 5:00 am


https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10091/muslims-liberals-leftists

• It is the fear of this violence, torture and death, wielded by extremist Muslims, that keeps every person desperate to obey.
  
• If liberals are in favor of freedom of speech, why do they turn a blind eye to Islamist governments such as Iran, which execute people for expressing their opinion? And why do they not let people in the West express their opinion without attacking them or even giving them the respect of hearing what they have to say? They seem, in fact, like the autocratic people from whom I was fleeing, who also did not want their simplistic, binary way of thinking to be threatened by logic or fact.
  
• As, in Islam, one is not allowed to attack except to defend the prophet or Islam, extremist Muslims need to keep finding or creating supposed attacks to make themselves appear as victims.
  
• Finally, a short message to liberals might go: Dear Liberal, If you truly stand for values such as peace, social justice, liberty and freedoms, your apologetic view of radical Islam is in total contradiction with all of those values. Your view even hinders the efforts of many Muslims to make a peaceful reformation in Islam precisely to advance the those values."
  

This is exactly the kind of false motive-ascribing the left accuses the right of doing whenever the right says the left is promoting socialism or trying to take our guns away. You're ascribing motives to people you don't know and don't understand, and you're completely, 180 degrees wrong about them (us). Women and minorities doing well don't threaten anyone on the right. We have no desire to "turn back the clock". What we find threatening is the progressive turning of America into a brown third-world shithole like all the countries to our south, which are poor, socialist, and not free. That is what we want to stop. That is what we're fighting against.

Rewriting history doesn't change it, either. See the link above for the truth about domestic violence in the 1950s.

And then they complain that no man wants them. I wonder why.

 

I’m trying to figure you out. It was always the liberals who have fought for progress but then you become an extremist and say that we say everything is terrible. No we don’t say everything is terrible and we don’t say there has been no progress. But we seem to be going backwards and to me being silent is being complicit.
Far as Obama being elected president it certainly wasn’t the right wingers who elected him it was those people who hated him and accused him of being a Kenyan etc.

 

Yes, it was LIBERALS. Progressives are not liberals.

And yes, we are going backwards primarily because Progressives are driving the train in that direction. If liberals were involved, we'd be going forwards.

 

Divorce is a crime, is it? You really are a laugh

 

Yeah .. cause that's what I meant. Are you this desperate to 'appear to win'?

 

How sad for you that you think someone can ‘win’ on a forum.

 

On the Hard Left despising America.
What do you think about this fellow? Would you say he despises America? (He's standing on an American flag.)



Here's another example of what I'm talking about. I would love to be able to say that these people are tiny, insignificant minorities -- like Moonies or something -- but I am afraid they are typical of a strong and growing trend in American academia, and thus among elite American youth.

It's hard to make out what Donald Trump is talking about at any point. I do not believe that, re. Charlottesville, he meant that the neo-Nazis and Klan were good people -- his 'some of them' probably, in some vague way, referred to others there who wanted to defend the statue .... people like me. And when he said that 'good people' were on 'both sides', he probably didn't refer to anti-Fa on the other side. The idea that Trump likes neo-Nazis is just a smear by dishonest or weak-minded people, and it's exactly like the smear that FDR and JFK liked Communists -- even though the Communist Party supported both men in elections, and advocated lots of things that both men also advocated. It's an example of the way critical and careful thinking get burned up in the heat of political contention. I haven't followed this closely but perhaps someone else can parse Trump's statement in more detail. (I'm not a supporter of Trump, by the way.)

I promise you, if 'white nationalists' -- if by that you mean Klansmen or Nazis -- turn up at conservative or Republican events, they will be shunned. The tradition of non-racism is now very deep in the American psyche, just like the tradition of non-anti-Semitism, to use an awkward term. What would have been acceptable many decades ago, is no longer acceptable. (For instance, 'genteel' anti-Semitism was pretty much standard among upper-class Christians until the Holocaust. No longer. I experienced this personally at a family dinner among my very conservative, Christian, Republican Texan relatives one year: one of them, mainly I think to cause mischief among the rest of us, used the 'n-word' at table: there was a stony disapproving silence and he didn't carry on. There weren't any reporters around, it was purely private. The reponse of everyone there was quite genuine -- and probably different than it would have been sixty years ago.)

There are plenty of honest people on the Left. One of them is Jonathan Raban, an excellent writer and observer of America, who went to the national Tea Party convention as a kind of undercover agent, and wrote about it for the Leftist New York Review of Books. An excerpt from his report:

He goes on to describe the people there, many of them just the type that sophisticated liberals love to despise. Here is one. Please read to the end.

[ SOURCE ]

In fact, Republicans and conservatives go out of their way to play up those Black intellectuals, and other Blacks, who are on the Right. I don't expect the Left to stop screaming 'racism' wherever they can, no matter how unjustified, just as I don't expect the ultra-Zionists to stop screaming 'anti-Semitism' wherever they can, no matter how unjustified. These weapons are too powerful to put down, because almost everyone in America is against racism and anti-Semitism.

At the same time, serious people on both sides of the political divide who are honest about trying to understand political reality, need to be alert for the grains of truth that may be found among these otherwise-unjustified accusations. For instance, I'm skeptical about the 'Proud Boys', but I do note that so powerful is American anti-racism, that their leaders are at least paying lip-service to opposition to racism. A skeptical Leftist look at this phenomenon can be found here. Read the whole thing, to the end.

As for Evangelical support for Israel. My relatives in Texas are my American focus group on this. I don't think they are anti-Semitic at all, although maybe not pro-Semitic, whatever that should mean. It appears to me that their support doesn't really have to do with end-times theology -- they're not very theological -- but rather out of admiration for Israel for standing up to Muslims. This may not be a very sound basis for their views -- I can't make them understand the complexities of the situation, and why all truth and justice is not on one side only -- but it's nothing to do with hoping for Armageddon.

Of course being Jewish and being critical of Israel does not make you, or anyone else, anti-Semitic. That's just an ultra-Zionist ploy, exactly the same as the comforting ritual cry that 'conservatives are racists' from the Left. (I don't understand your comment here. Did you think I implied that?) In fact, it's what I expect of Jews -- who have been in the vanguard of people pulling the human race forward, which means believing in justice. In fact, at the moment, American Jews are more critical of Trump's attitude to Israel than American Christians. [It's an example of the insanity of American politics, or of some people, that they can simultaneously carry in their heads the idea that Trump favors neo-Nazis, and is too pro-Israel.] Two of my ex-wives are Jews and they are both very critical of Israel. (New York Jews, too, like you: one went to Bronx Science and the other to Music and Art. Don't know what they saw in a Southern white boy, I guess it was the appeal of the Other. Didn't last.)

One of the most important discussions Americans need to have, after foreign policy in general and the rise of China in particular, is the American Black question. i don't think Black failure in America is, now, mainly due to 'racism'. I was disappointed to see Bernie Sanders, for whom I have a lot of respect, attribute American Black educational under-achievement to 'implicit racism', whatever that is, in his most recent programmatic document.

I think it's a lot more complex than that. I don't think that 'racism' causes the phenomenon of the accusation of 'acting white' which Blacks use to pull down other Blacks who appear to be doing well academically in mixed-race situations. (Liberal friends of mine in Seattle saw this in person, when their own adopted Indian daughter began to excel in school -- up till then, she had been accepted by the African-American kids as Black. But when she began to beat the white kids to answering questions first in class, they turned on her. A tragedy. President Obama has mentioned this problem, and there is a Black social scientist at Harvard, Roland Fryer, who has studied it in depth. Click on this link to download a PDF article on this problem from my favorite Education journal, Education Next.)

 

WHO complains no man wants them?

WTF! You think women should have no rights because if they do no man will want them!!!!

YUP, that's what women have been told for centuries in an effort to keep them down and controlled…...luckily most women KNOW that what men say like that is just so much crap...



Only mentally disturbed women care more about "getting a man"" than having basic human rights......and contrary to what righties think most women are not mentally disturbed....


OH LOOK!! You showed ONE incident where a man was charged with assaulting his wife! Whoop dee doo.....Sorry you think that is the only case of domestic assault but it wasn't...….just because it was against the law doesn't mean it didn't happen and was prosecuted every time ...it was ACCEPTABLE to many and men had a free hand in beating, and raping, their wives...

History is NOT what YOU want it to be, it's what it was.

 

Yet in comparison, the black community is currently plagued by an absence of the family unit as mothers choose to raise children on their own and do not consider marriage as being worthwhile. Many members of the black community currently possess at least one felony conviction, and regard such as being a badge of honor that should be aspired to. Members of the black community are more likely to be subjected to harsher prison sentences than white individuals who commit the same offense. A significant portion of the black community is engaged in the dealing of illicit narcotic substances. Despite supposedly being equal to white individuals from a legal standpoint, law enforcement officers are far more likely to kill a black suspect than a white suspect, even if it is a nonviolent offense. Even when a killing by a law enforcement officer is particularly heinous, courts are less likely to indict the officer for such. There has also been a sharp increase in the rates of black individuals who are willing to set fire to their own neighborhoods and engage in rioting when one of their aforementioned killings by law enforcement occurs and no indictment is had. The united states news media is demonstrating a sharp increase in the public making false reports to law enforcement relating to black individuals doing everyday things such as mowing their lawns, and accusing them of being engaged in criminal activity.

The question must again be asked. How exactly is the black community better off than it was?

 

Was it illegal to murder a black individual during the aforementioned period of time? Or was there an exception in the law that held black individuals simply were not human and thus could not be the victims of murder.

There is also the fact many black individuals are murdered by law enforcement officers, who are never indicted for their actions.

And yet such is still being done.

Not if they have a criminal record that comes up on a background check, however.

 

Look, there are many currents of thought and feeling on both the Left and the Right. In politics people often exaggerate the wickedness of their opponents.

I recall people earnestly tolling me that Richard Nixon was a fascist and that repression was coming to America under his reign. The same thing was said about Ronald Reagan. The first Bush, I think, escaped most of this nonsense, but not the second. (I recall a lengthy explanation by some professor, in Hawaii I believe, about all the things in common between George Bush and fascism.)

It would be easy to accumulate an identical set of hysterical nonsensicalities said by the Right, about Democratic Presidents. (I have relatives in Texas, not otherwise stupid people, who solemnly tell me that Obama is a Muslim. I just change the subject.) Common-ists,common-ists, common-ists. Look the income tax ... it's in the commonist manifesto! Integration ... a commonist plot to destroy the white race through miscegenation! I've heard this all my life.

We could have a long discussion on the roots of what today, in the US, are called 'liberalism' (and now 'progressivism', which I believe is somewhat different), on the one hand, and 'conservatism' on the other.

At the base, they are manifestations of one of the two main ways politics is carried on in all countries: either a Left/Right division -- the struggle between the 'unsuccessful' and the 'successful', with the latter thinking that the status quo must be good and the former thinking it must not; or, a tribal division -- Protestant vs Catholic, Serb vs Croat, Greek vs Turk, Tamil vs Sinhala, Shia vs Sunni ....

The first sort of division can usually be settled with various compromises spread out over time. The well-off don't get dispossed, but some of their money goes to things that help the less well-off, and the continued operation of capitalism keeps lifting all boats. The fact that this benign process appears to be slowing done, even stopping, in the US, and ways to deal with it, is what we should be debating.

But tribal divisions cannot be successfully done away with -- at best you get an uneasy co-existence. (Hopefully, interbreeding will eventually make the divisions moot but that is a very slow process.) Where there is a huge economic difference between tribes, there is extra fuel for the fire. (A good book about this is Amy Chua's World On Fire. Her concept of 'market-dominant minorities' is critical for understanding a lot of the Third World. )

There is a conservative poster here who likes to torment me from time to time by congratulating me for being a principled liberal, And on reflection, I have to say that, historically, I'm probably an FDR/JFK Democrat more than anything else, just as my whole family was --hell, just as everyone we knew in Texas in those days was -- I don't think I ever physically saw a Republican, or not one who would admit it, when I was young -- I'm sure they existed, like homosexuals, but they stayed in the closet. But that's gone. (Leftists can comfort themselves by muttering 'the Southern strategy', and there was one, but it's not the one they like to think it was. Southern whites, in their majority, became less racist as they became more Republican.)

Now I think there is a strong trend on the Left to move away from the 'leftism' of my youth, which was mainly about economic issues plus equal rights for Blacks -- towards something else. Economic issues are still there, and I personally happen to agree with some of the solutions to them proposed by Democrats -- as, by the way, do many social conservatives -- because, as I keep repeating, among ordinary people, many social 'conservatives' are economic 'liberals', which is part of the explanation of Donald Trump's appeal to them. (If Trump announced a 'Red-White-and-Blue New Deal' to rebuild and modernize America's infrastructure, millions of workingclass Americans would cheer him to the echo. Some adroit theft from Elon Musk and a proposal for 500-mile-an-hour vacuum trains across America, powered by electricity from hundreds of new nuclear power plants, would get mass support from his followers. Nor would you find much opposition in the base to a national living wage, especially if it were coupled with extensions of the Clinton welfare reform measures aimed to move poor people off welfare and into work.)

Here's the bottom line: culture -- which is tied up with 'race' -- counts. All cultures are not equal. (Let's just loosely define culture as the daily habits and customs of a people, their ordinary behavior, what they consider 'normal' and what not. We can put a crude metric on one important component of it: literacy.)

Many ordinary Americans are concerned about the mass movement into the United States of poor people from Latin America. Many ordinary Europeans are concerned about a similar movement of poor Muslims into their countries. These concerns can be played on by sinister forces. But to just dismiss them as 'racism', as the Hard Left does, is supreme folly. And I see the Hard Left gaining ground rapidly among our 'intelligentsia' -- the infection spreading from academia where it has been festering and growing for three decades.

 

You're asking for a sort of binary yes/no -- better off, or not -- answer, to a complex question.
I'll give a simplistic answer: what percentage of Black people do you think would, if given a choice, return their condition to that of the 1950s?

Looking at your points in detail: some of them have to do with changes within the Black community, regarding its behavior and aspirations, which are bad: for example, births out of wedlock, and single Black mothers -- caused by the absence of responsible Black males to marry. Here we're dealing with tough questions of mass psychology, things like the 'acting White' phenomenon. Clearly, in many respects, this represents a serious deterioration.

But some of your points have to do with equality before the law. I could quibble about police treatment of Blacks and refer you to Roland Fryer's study, but let's assume you're right in everything you quote. Are you saying things were better before 1960?

 

In many respects they have no left such conditions in a manner that could be considered an improvement. In many respects they are exactly where they were some seventy years ago. The only difference is hollow platitudes being paid to them in terms of the law, but nothing of true significance.

Which leads to questions relating to the cause and source of the deterioration. Along with questions of whether the current and existing law is responsible for that deterioration, or if the law has actually been in response to that deterioration.

What is being said is that there is little to no change with regard to equality before the law. All of the supposed problems that existed in the untied states with regard to the black community previously, appear to still be present if not worse. The civil rights movement, and supposed equality under the law that exists in principle, means absolutely nothing if those legal protections simply do not apply in a real world setting where decisions are made within the span of a heartbeat. Case in point the individual Eric Garner, put in an illegal choke hold for failing to comply with law enforcement commands, died as a result, and the law enforcement officer who utilized the illegal choke hold was not tried as a result. Some would say it is due to just how far qualified immunity has been expanded, others would say it is because Eric Garner was a career felon with numerous convictions, and engaged in the commission of a crime while still on probation for his previous conviction of the exact same crime.

When all is said and done, is the black community in the united states truly better off than it was seventy years ago? Or has it merely been sold on the illusion of things being better than they were seventy years ago, when in truth they are actually worse off than ever before?

 

I understand the point you're making, I think. I cannot quantify this, or cite some sort of study that proves it, but my guess with respect to Blacks and law enforcement is the following: 70 years ago a Black in the South did not get the same treatment by the legal system as whites did, and now that has been vastly improved. As for the North, I don't know, but I would believe it's true there as well.

What Blacks face today is mainly 'statistical prejudice' -- the same prejudice that males face with respect to crime: proportionately males commit a lot more violent crime than females do, so we're subject to 'profiling' when looking for suspects. Same for Blacks. People like Eric Garner, who was arrested for selling untaxed cigarettes, are victims of the 'statistical prejudice' of policemen, including Black policemen: they know who commits crimes way out of proportion to their numbers, and act accordingly. If Garner had been a Yale schoolboy, he probably would be alive today, even if he had been selling marijuana.

The 1960s saw a great increase in the amount of violent crime committed in the US, per 100 000 people. Why, I don't know. And although the murder rate, after going up steadily, has now declined to early 1960s levels, other violent crime remains two to three times more prevalent today than then. So from the point of view of violent crime -- and Blacks are disproportionately victims of violent crime as well as committers of it -- you are correct.

But your argument has to be made carefully, not to sound like you're proposing a return to the era of segregation.

Here's an analogy: from the point of view of simple material well-being -- being fed and clothed -- it's possible that a case could be made that Southern Blacks were 'better off' in 1850 than in 1875. (I don't know whether this is true or not, but it's not entirely implausible.)

But man does not live by bread alone.

 

Is such the case, however? The legal system only applies to individuals who make it to trial by virtue of being alive for arrest. According to the united states news media, law enforcement officers are supposedly killing black suspects at an unprecedented rate, meaning they cannot even make it to trial for their case to be heard. On top of that, most black individuals that are brought to trial are often poor and unable to afford legal council beyond a public defender, who often urges them to plead guilty to whatever charges are presented simply because they do not have the resources to fight the charges. Essentially justice benefits those who can afford it, not those who actually need it.

From the start, it has never been about such. It has merely been an effort to draw attention to the fact that, for the black community in the united states, their situation has not truly improved by any significant amount. At face value it may appear their situation has improved. But closer analysis suggests such is simply not the case, and would actually suggest they are now worse off than when segregation was openly acknowledged and legally expected.

And no claim to the contrary has actually been made. Just an effort to cut through the constant race-baiting that so many present simply cannot seem to function without.

 

I think I see what you're trying to do, and if my understanding is correct, I agree with it. However, you appear to be arguing that the existing legal system today treats Blacks as it did before 1960 -- that is, just as unfairly -- and I don't believe that is true. I cannot prove this, but I suspect strongly that Black encounters with the police before 1960 had a higher proportion of unfounded encounters -- where the police were in the wrong -- than nowadays. Black problems today are internal. For example, before 1960 most Black children were born within wedlock. Now, not. Today, even in liberal California, the majority of Black boys in school cannot read at accepted standards. This has nothing to do with white racism, not even 'institutional racism'. Before 1960, Blacks went to segregated schools in the South, and you could plausibly argue that their poor academic performance was due to this different treatment. No longer. Almost all liberals, with a few exceptions, are absolutely, totally, completely unable to think about this issue -- all they can do is to say 'racism, racism', and to call for more money to be spent on welfare.

But I may have misunderstood you.

 

So you see a picture of a man standing on the American flag and therefore you draw the conclusion that people on the hard left hate America. ? That is so ridiculous. There was a time when I wouldn’t stand for the national anthem. It didn’t mean I hated America I was protesting the treatment of women.
Oh and there is the diss again that the educated are “the elites” as though it is a bad thing
Have to disagree with you quite strongly that almost all Americans are against racism and antisemitism....the number of hate groups are multiplying like rabbits....trump made it acceptable.
Your evangelical cousins do not support Jews just because they support Israel. They support Israel for they believe the second coming is coming there so please don’t fool yourself. It’s all about him again
If you don’t understand that Trump can support neo-Nazis and support Netanyahu, I am not going to start educating. He as corrupt as Trump

 

Post of year.

 

Only for the person who didn't win