Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

[Master Debator]

If merely moving all Confederate statues out of dominantly black neighborhoods was all the Left wanted, I’d cheer all such efforts on. But I think you’re intelligent enough to know that this would not be sufficient. Activists have repeatedly attacked Confederate statues being on display, and they don’t care if they’re in white or black neighborhoods. (For symmetry’s sake I’ll set aside the matter of nutball radicals who want to abolish all American traditions, who may not tear down statues but who keep alive all the Marxist resentment.) The most “generous” proposal is that Confederate statues might be confined to museums, so that no errant citizen would get the idea that the culture as a whole should respect the soldiers of the Confederacy.

The trouble with this modest proposal is that Southerners often don’t accept the “white supremacy” narrative beloved by the Left, and, contrary to that narrative, those Southerners aren’t necessarily advocates of the Klan or a new Jim Crow. I, for one, view the Civil War not as a crusade to maintain the enslavement of blacks, but as an economic war between two groups of white people, one that profited from slavery and one that did not.

Now, kindly don’t excerpt a bunch of remarks from dead Confederates in which they wax rhapsodic on the topic of black inferiority. I’ve seen them, and while I don’t dispute that they prove racist attitudes, they are still at base abstract and therefore dishonest rationalizations of the Confederate’s real devotion to the profit motive.

The Left’s main argument re: contemporary Southerners is that if even one Southern citizen becomes a supremacist due to the statues, that’s enough reason to dump the statues. But Southerners don’t like being typed any more than anyone else, and a lot of them who reject the Klan also reject the attempt of liberals to say, “you cannot respect anyone allied to the Southern cause to resist Northern attempts at hegemony.”

There’s probably more to address, but that’s a fair place to stop.

No, the argument is let's not put up our keep statues of racist traitors and we as a country and the majority are coming to an end of our giving a **** how racist white wingers feel about it.

 

[Tigerace117]

Show me exactly where you think your cited example, the poster named Parrish, made reference to Floyd’s criminal status.

Oh look, a post which has absolutely nothing to do with what I stated.

But I’m not surprised the guy weeping “but Southerners don’t want to face the fact that the Confederacy was fighting for slavery” and wailing about people “not respecting” the Confederate thugs, isn’t capable of figuring that out.

Your claim that the war was fought to “establish a northern hegemony” is especially hilarious considering it was the south which had controlled the government for forty years prior to Lincoln’s election.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, the argument is let's not put up our keep statues of racist traitors and we as a country and the majority are coming to an end of our giving a **** how racist white wingers feel about it.

That’s the Mad Lib narrative, not the argument. You may have heard of these things called arguments, they always have two sides.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh look, a post which has absolutely nothing to do with what I stated.

But I’m not surprised the guy weeping “but Southerners don’t want to face the fact that the Confederacy was fighting for slavery” and wailing about people “not respecting” the Confederate thugs, isn’t capable of figuring that out.

Your claim that the war was fought to “establish a northern hegemony” is especially hilarious considering it was the south which had controlled the government for forty years prior to Lincoln’s election.

You linked to Parrish’s post, and now you’re changing the subject because you know it doesn’t say what you thought it said.

 

[Master Debator]

That’s the Mad Lib narrative, not the argument. You may have heard of these things called arguments, they always have two sides.

Yes. One side doesn't want to honor long dead racist slavers and the other side does and that's why that party is filled with old racists whites who's culture is going extinct along with their statues.

 

[JasperL]

If merely moving all Confederate statues out of dominantly black neighborhoods was all the Left wanted, I’d cheer all such efforts on. But I think you’re intelligent enough to know that this would not be sufficient. Activists have repeatedly attacked Confederate statues being on display, and they don’t care if they’re in white or black neighborhoods. (For symmetry’s sake I’ll set aside the matter of nutball radicals who want to abolish all American traditions, who may not tear down statues but who keep alive all the Marxist resentment.) The most “generous” proposal is that Confederate statues might be confined to museums, so that no errant citizen would get the idea that the culture as a whole should respect the soldiers of the Confederacy.

OK, but there is no other option than considering the monuments case by case. In the case of the monument in Memphis of N.B. Forrest, the legislature set up repeated hurdles that made it impossible for the city to move or relocate the statue. That's not activists but the people who wield the sole power to make those decisions. Then the legislature got involved and voted to keep honoring N.B. Forrest. Red states are making similar moves across the country It's kind of hard to come to a 'sensible' solution when the answer from those guys is "HELL NO!!!" for every request.

The trouble with this modest proposal is that Southerners often don’t accept the “white supremacy” narrative beloved by the Left, and, contrary to that narrative, those Southerners aren’t necessarily advocates of the Klan or a new Jim Crow. I, for one, view the Civil War not as a crusade to maintain the enslavement of blacks, but as an economic war between two groups of white people, one that profited from slavery and one that did not.

It's fine to not 'accept' something, but if there's no basis for the position, I don't really care. You can look at the history of the plurality at least of these monuments, and they were erected at a time and by open white supremacists, who made no secret of that, and why they were putting up the statue. The UNC statue was an example. At the dedication speech, the main person made a point of talking about how he'd beaten a black woman for having the gall to disrespect a white woman, and the audience laughed, of course, being a bunch of white supremacists who of course prohibited blacks from attending UNC at that time. So we don't have to guess why that statue was erected. The apologists for the statue want to rewrite or forget that history. They argue over time the 'message' changed, but when exactly did that happen?

And I agree that not all the defenders are racists or want a new Jim Crow, but if you are a racist and do want that, we know what side you're on. How, then, does such a statue bind the community? Black and white? Same goes for the confederate flag. It WAS the banner of those who fought the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and they were loud and proud about their white supremacy. So now we're supposed to forget that history, and pretend it's a benign symbol of something something southern that we like, when it's still a fan favorite of the open racists and white supremacists in THIS era? Show me a Klukker rally and I'll show you the confederate flag making an appearance.

Now, kindly don’t excerpt a bunch of remarks from dead Confederates in which they wax rhapsodic on the topic of black inferiority. I’ve seen them, and while I don’t dispute that they prove racist attitudes, they are still at base abstract and therefore dishonest rationalizations of the Confederate’s real devotion to the profit motive.

Great, so we are supposed to ignore what the men said at that time. That's how you want to remember and respect "history" by disregarding the parts that are uncomfortable in this era and that make it hard to see them as noble fighters for a noble cause, or merely people pursuing ordinary profit interests, that had the 'unfortunate' side effect of enslaving 4 million to achieve, which we should ignore....

The Left’s main argument re: contemporary Southerners is that if even one Southern citizen becomes a supremacist due to the statues, that’s enough reason to dump the statues. But Southerners don’t like being typed any more than anyone else, and a lot of them who reject the Klan also reject the attempt of liberals to say, “you cannot respect anyone allied to the Southern cause to resist Northern attempts at hegemony.”

There’s probably more to address, but that’s a fair place to stop.

It's convenient to ignore what came AFTER the Civil war.

 

[Tigerace117]

You linked to Parrish’s post, and now you’re changing the subject because you know it doesn’t say what you thought it said.

Uh.....no, the comment I called out as being “straight out of 1860” was from a totally different poster.

Likewise, no matter how much you sob, you can’t change the fact that maxparrish made a thread whining about Derek Chauvin’s conviction.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

No, the argument is let's not put up [or] keep statues of racist traitors and we as a country and the majority are coming to an end of our giving a **** how racist white wingers feel about it.

Presently, as if this is not absolutely obvious, there is an open assault on Whites, on *whiteness*, which will increase with each passing day. At this point Whites as a group have no defense. They cannot *identify* enough to mount a defense and so al their defenses are weak.

The terms of the attack are as they are revealed on this forum and in this thread: the original racism of those who founded the country, this *anthropology* as I have described it, and of course the legacy of slavery and African oppression in the United States which are *real things*. Now, the ex-slave population (excuse the direct term) and the allies in the world of color, have banded together to push the United States to what it has been *destined* to become. What this will ultimately mean remains to be seen.

The temperature of the assault is being raised daily. It is coming more and more out into the open. And it will increase as everyone consciously or intuitively knows with every passing year as the demographic shift continues. Does this surprise anyone? It really shouldn't. Why? Because the New Demographic is 'within their rights' to establish their own definitions. There is really nothing that they cannot do. And I mean this in terms of applying their chosen and preferred definitions. Take for example TigerAce and JasperL (and also FTP) as they make their *declarations* about the essential nature and being of the South. It is what they say it was, not what anyone else says it was.

But what this means is not so much that *truth* or even *fact* are at the center, but what they will to be true.

In my view what this points to is what has been termed *meta-political reality*. What meta-political reality means here is what the saying *demographics is destiny* means. The shift in demographics, undertaken as I have said back in 1965, has literally shifted and altered the make-up of the country. It is not the same country. It is now a *racially-mixed* country and the effect of this is not inconsiderable. Put more plainly: if anyone opposes that, or has a problem with it, they can be called and will be called (as Fight the Power regularly says) racists and 'white wingers'. Everyone says that the Republican Party is a white party and I do not think there is a racially-conscious or racially-concerned Democratic faction. So this really does make it blatant: this does have to do with race. There is no way around seeing this.

So obviously it should be clear that *demography is destiny* and that this is a meta-political issue. It stands over and above any specific political arrangement. And the meta-political issue extends beyond the United States to Europe, the the former English colonies -- to the 'white world'.

The following is what Madison Grant wrote 100 years ago almost exactly about what would happen (in the introduction to Lotrop Stoddard's book). Make of it what you will . . .

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes. One side doesn't want to honor long dead racist slavers and the other side does and that's why that party is filled with old racists whites who's culture is going extinct along with their statues.

Still just one side’s narrative, and not even very well written.

 

[Master Debator]

Presently, as if this is not absolutely obvious, there is an open assault on Whites, on *whiteness*, which will increase with each passing day. At this point Whites as a group have no defense. They cannot *identify* enough to mount a defense and so al their defenses are weak.

The terms of the attack are as they are revealed on this forum and in this thread: the original racism of those who founded the country, this *anthropology* as I have described it, and of course the legacy of slavery and African oppression in the United States which are *real things*. Now, the ex-slave population (excuse the direct term) and the allies in the world of color, have banded together to push the United States to what it has been *destined* to become. What this will ultimately mean remains to be seen.

The temperature of the assault is being raised daily. It is coming more and more out into the open. And it will increase as everyone consciously or intuitively knows with every passing year as the demographic shift continues. Does this surprise anyone? It really shouldn't. Why? Because the New Demographic is 'within their rights' to establish their own definitions. There is really nothing that they cannot do. And I mean this in terms of applying their chosen and preferred definitions. Take for example TigerAce and JasperL (and also FTP) as they make their *declarations* about the essential nature and being of the South. It is what they say it was, not what anyone else says it was.

But what this means is not so much that *truth* or even *fact* are at the center, but what they will to be true.

In my view what this points to is what has been termed *meta-political reality*. What meta-political reality means here is what the saying *demographics is destiny* means. The shift in demographics, undertaken as I have said back in 1965, has literally shifted and altered the make-up of the country. It is not the same country. It is now a *racially-mixed* country and the effect of this is not inconsiderable. Put more plainly: if anyone opposes that, or has a problem with it, they can be called and will be called (as Fight the Power regularly says) racists and 'white wingers'. Everyone says that the Republican Party is a white party and I do not think there is a racially-conscious or racially-concerned Democratic faction. So this really does make it blatant: this does have to do with race. There is no way around seeing this.

So obviously it should be clear that *demography is destiny* and that this is a meta-political issue. It stands over and above any specific political arrangement. And the meta-political issue extends beyond the United States to Europe, the the former English colonies -- to the 'white world'.

The following is what Madison Grant wrote 100 years ago almost exactly about what would happen (in the introduction to Lotrop Stoddard's book). Make of it what you will . . .


View attachment 67336189

Boo hoo for white supremacists.

 

[Master Debator]

Still just one side’s narrative, and not even very well written.

It's a narrative and a fact. Those statues are of racist slavers. Hurt white wingers just don't like the narrative the facts reveal.

 

[Ouroboros]

Uh.....no, the comment I called out as being “straight out of 1860” was from a totally different poster.

Likewise, no matter how much you sob, you can’t change the fact that maxparrish made a thread whining about Derek Chauvin’s conviction.

I can only follow the link you make, so that’s entirely your error. And now you compound that error by misrepresenting Parrish’s calmly reasoned post as “whining.” But I guess you’ve become desensitized to lying by listening to the RBM (Race baiting media).

 

[Tigerace117]

I can only follow the link you make, so that’s entirely your error. And now you compound that error by misrepresenting Parrish’s calmly reasoned post as “whining.” But I guess you’ve become desensitized to lying by listening to the RBM (Race baiting media).

Bud, he literally whines about how much he hates the fact Chauvin was convicted of murdering Floyd in the OP. Your frantic squirming can’t change that.

 

[Ouroboros]

OK, but there is no other option than considering the monuments case by case. In the case of the monument in Memphis of N.B. Forrest, the legislature set up repeated hurdles that made it impossible for the city to move or relocate the statue. That's not activists but the people who wield the sole power to make those decisions. Then the legislature got involved and voted to keep honoring N.B. Forrest. Red states are making similar moves across the country It's kind of hard to come to a 'sensible' solution when the answer from those guys is "HELL NO!!!" for every request.

It's fine to not 'accept' something, but if there's no basis for the position, I don't really care. You can look at the history of the plurality at least of these monuments, and they were erected at a time and by open white supremacists, who made no secret of that, and why they were putting up the statue. The UNC statue was an example. At the dedication speech, the main person made a point of talking about how he'd beaten a black woman for having the gall to disrespect a white woman, and the audience laughed, of course, being a bunch of white supremacists who of course prohibited blacks from attending UNC at that time. So we don't have to guess why that statue was erected. The apologists for the statue want to rewrite or forget that history. They argue over time the 'message' changed, but when exactly did that happen?

And I agree that not all the defenders are racists or want a new Jim Crow, but if you are a racist and do want that, we know what side you're on. How, then, does such a statue bind the community? Black and white? Same goes for the confederate flag. It WAS the banner of those who fought the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and they were loud and proud about their white supremacy. So now we're supposed to forget that history, and pretend it's a benign symbol of something something southern that we like, when it's still a fan favorite of the open racists and white supremacists in THIS era? Show me a Klukker rally and I'll show you the confederate flag making an appearance.

Great, so we are supposed to ignore what the men said at that time. That's how you want to remember and respect "history" by disregarding the parts that are uncomfortable in this era and that make it hard to see them as noble fighters for a noble cause, or merely people pursuing ordinary profit interests, that had the 'unfortunate' side effect of enslaving 4 million to achieve, which we should ignore....

It's convenient to ignore what came AFTER the Civil war.

.

A case by case basis is also what I advocate, but in my book that means that if your side loses a round, they accept the loss and try again later, sans vigilante action. I’m not seeing a lot of acceptance in your post.

I gave you the reason for the Southerners’ current position. Whatever the motives of the people who commissioned the statues or of those who defended them in past generations, it’s entirely possible for current Southerners to view the struggle as one aspect of the North’s crusade to diminish the South, and not because the North especially cared about Black people. You can loathe that view as much as I loathe the North’s pretending their ancestors were profound lovers of freedom, but both views fall under the heading of free speech. Your desire to see everyone take a side is something you can voice as much as you please, but having it happen to your satisfaction is not one of your rights.

I didn’t say we should ignore the old diatribes; I said they avoided acknowledging the profit motive and were therefore not entirely honest. You’re free to take them at face value if you wish.

In a free society, no group gets to call the tune for everyone. One party wins, the loser gnashes his teeth and makes ready for the second round. No one’s come up with a better system.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's a narrative and a fact. Those statues are of racist slavers. Hurt white wingers just don't like the narrative the facts reveal.

Glad you see you admit that you know the narrative is not anything like an argument.

 

[Ouroboros]

Bud, he literally whines about how much he hates the fact Chauvin was convicted of murdering Floyd in the OP. Your frantic squirming can’t change that.

Show your work, if you can.

 

[Master Debator]

Glad you see you admit that you know the narrative is not anything like an argument.

Maybe one day you can realize an argument in favor of idolizing racist slavers and traitors is ultimately a losing one.

 

[Ouroboros]

Presently, as if this is not absolutely obvious, there is an open assault on Whites, on *whiteness*, which will increase with each passing day. At this point Whites as a group have no defense. They cannot *identify* enough to mount a defense and so al their defenses are weak.

The terms of the attack are as they are revealed on this forum and in this thread: the original racism of those who founded the country, this *anthropology* as I have described it, and of course the legacy of slavery and African oppression in the United States which are *real things*. Now, the ex-slave population (excuse the direct term) and the allies in the world of color, have banded together to push the United States to what it has been *destined* to become. What this will ultimately mean remains to be seen.

The temperature of the assault is being raised daily. It is coming more and more out into the open. And it will increase as everyone consciously or intuitively knows with every passing year as the demographic shift continues. Does this surprise anyone? It really shouldn't. Why? Because the New Demographic is 'within their rights' to establish their own definitions. There is really nothing that they cannot do. And I mean this in terms of applying their chosen and preferred definitions. Take for example TigerAce and JasperL (and also FTP) as they make their *declarations* about the essential nature and being of the South. It is what they say it was, not what anyone else says it was.

But what this means is not so much that *truth* or even *fact* are at the center, but what they will to be true.

In my view what this points to is what has been termed *meta-political reality*. What meta-political reality means here is what the saying *demographics is destiny* means. The shift in demographics, undertaken as I have said back in 1965, has literally shifted and altered the make-up of the country. It is not the same country. It is now a *racially-mixed* country and the effect of this is not inconsiderable. Put more plainly: if anyone opposes that, or has a problem with it, they can be called and will be called (as Fight the Power regularly says) racists and 'white wingers'. Everyone says that the Republican Party is a white party and I do not think there is a racially-conscious or racially-concerned Democratic faction. So this really does make it blatant: this does have to do with race. There is no way around seeing this.

So obviously it should be clear that *demography is destiny* and that this is a meta-political issue. It stands over and above any specific political arrangement. And the meta-political issue extends beyond the United States to Europe, the the former English colonies -- to the 'white world'.

The following is what Madison Grant wrote 100 years ago almost exactly about what would happen (in the introduction to Lotrop Stoddard's book). Make of it what you will . . .


View attachment 67336189

I would agree that the current liberal representation is one that its adherents “will to be true.” At the same time, I believe that this is the only way both political groups and whole nations accomplish anything. The leaders, with or without input from the people, decide on a course and pursue it single mindedly. Whether the course is good or bad is irrelevant; the angels use the same tools and methods as the demons.

Take the North’s decision to challenge the South’s peculiar institution. I think that there existed altruists concerned with the evils of slavery, mostly abolitionists. I don’t think Northern politicians, like modern liberals today, cared about anything but power. But their concerted desire to break the power of the South trumped all other considerations, and that force of will, backed up by heavy industry, carried the day.

The trouble is, force of will doesn’t ensure anyone’s reign for all time. While I don’t endorse all of the actions certain Southerners took to fight Northern power, their insistence on their right to define themselves is something I do support. Whether they will be defeated in the current contest remains to be seen.

 

[Ouroboros]

Maybe one day you can realize an argument in favor of idolizing racist slavers and traitors is ultimately a losing one.

And I’m glad that’s not my argument. If you want to dispute what I’ve actually said, scan through my posts and take your best shot.

 

[Tigerace117]

Show your work, if you can.

Already did.

 

[Tigerace117]

I would agree that the current liberal representation is one that its adherents “will to be true.” At the same time, I believe that this is the only way both political groups and whole nations accomplish anything. The leaders, with or without input from the people, decide on a course and pursue it single mindedly. Whether the course is good or bad is irrelevant; the angels use the same tools and methods as the demons.

Take the North’s decision to challenge the South’s peculiar institution. I think that there existed altruists concerned with the evils of slavery, mostly abolitionists. I don’t think Northern politicians, like modern liberals today, cared about anything but power. But their concerted desire to break the power of the South trumped all other considerations, and that force of will, backed up by heavy industry, carried the day.

The trouble is, force of will doesn’t ensure anyone’s reign for all time. While I don’t endorse all of the actions certain Southerners took to fight Northern power, their insistence on their right to define themselves is something I do support. Whether they will be defeated in the current contest remains to be seen.

No amount of blatant lying can change the fact that the South was explicitly fighting to defend slavery.

 

[JasperL]

A case by case basis is also what I advocate, but in my book that means that if your side loses a round, they accept the loss and try again later, sans vigilante action. I’m not seeing a lot of acceptance in your post.

Where's the 'acceptance' from the defenders? I seem to remember a massive white supremacist rally when one side 'won' the decision to take down those monuments in Charlottesville.

I gave you the reason for the Southerners’ current position. Whatever the motives of the people who commissioned the statues or of those who defended them in past generations, it’s entirely possible for current Southerners to view the struggle as one aspect of the North’s crusade to diminish the South, and not because the North especially cared about Black people. You can loathe that view as much as I loathe the North’s pretending their ancestors were profound lovers of freedom, but both views fall under the heading of free speech. Your desire to see everyone take a side is something you can voice as much as you please, but having it happen to your satisfaction is not one of your rights.

As I've said on MANY threads on this subject, I want the decision resting in local communities. If they want to keep a statue of a dead confederate slaver and traitor, that's their business. I don't support vandalism, period. But when Memphis decided years before the current movement to relocate Forrest, that should be their decision. The state took that away from them, and rested it in the hands of a bunch of assholes 200 miles away. When

I didn’t say we should ignore the old diatribes; I said they avoided acknowledging the profit motive and were therefore not entirely honest. You’re free to take them at face value if you wish.

In a free society, no group gets to call the tune for everyone. One party wins, the loser gnashes his teeth and makes ready for the second round. No one’s come up with a better system.

I agree. But my point is it's hard to unify blacks and whites under banners and monuments erected to celebrate and defend white supremacy.

 

[Master Debator]

And I’m glad that’s not my argument. If you want to dispute what I’ve actually said, scan through my posts and take your best shot.

I read that little admission that you and other white wing Southerners want to live in a safe space where your statues of dead racist slavers aren't actually representations of racist slavers but economic injustice. Not for slaves of course but the economic injustice committed against a group of people robbing the lives and labor of black people. I did see that. And I found it hilariously weak as arguments go but entirely indicitive of the soft victim like mentality of today's millennial white wing.

 

[JasperL]

I would agree that the current liberal representation is one that its adherents “will to be true.” At the same time, I believe that this is the only way both political groups and whole nations accomplish anything. The leaders, with or without input from the people, decide on a course and pursue it single mindedly. Whether the course is good or bad is irrelevant; the angels use the same tools and methods as the demons.

Take the North’s decision to challenge the South’s peculiar institution. I think that there existed altruists concerned with the evils of slavery, mostly abolitionists. I don’t think Northern politicians, like modern liberals today, cared about anything but power. But their concerted desire to break the power of the South trumped all other considerations, and that force of will, backed up by heavy industry, carried the day.

Well, why did "they" in the north need to break the power of the South? What ends were accomplished by that if you don't reference slavery? Where did the interests of the north and south, other than on slavery, diverge to such a great extent that secession, then war, were the only options?

The trouble is, force of will doesn’t ensure anyone’s reign for all time. While I don’t endorse all of the actions certain Southerners took to fight Northern power, their insistence on their right to define themselves is something I do support. Whether they will be defeated in the current contest remains to be seen.

Interesting that the fate of black slaves makes no mention anywhere. Your narrative is of whites in the north versus whites in the south and 4 million slaves aren't even bit players. It's also notable that one position - the anti-slavery, barriers to expansion to the territories - is the clearly morally correct choice. You can't both sides slavery. There is in fact a right and a wrong, and the south chose the wrong side. Even at that time, the civilized world, except for the south, was recognizing this basic fact, that slavery of another race, because of their race, then their kids, and their kids forever in perpetuity, was not a defensible position. It was the 'original sin' of the founding, and simply not sustainable to a country founded on the idea of human rights, for all men.

 

[JasperL]

Presently, as if this is not absolutely obvious, there is an open assault on Whites, on *whiteness*, which will increase with each passing day. At this point Whites as a group have no defense. They cannot *identify* enough to mount a defense and so al their defenses are weak.

The terms of the attack are as they are revealed on this forum and in this thread: the original racism of those who founded the country, this *anthropology* as I have described it, and of course the legacy of slavery and African oppression in the United States which are *real things*. Now, the ex-slave population (excuse the direct term) and the allies in the world of color, have banded together to push the United States to what it has been *destined* to become. What this will ultimately mean remains to be seen.

The temperature of the assault is being raised daily. It is coming more and more out into the open. And it will increase as everyone consciously or intuitively knows with every passing year as the demographic shift continues. Does this surprise anyone? It really shouldn't. Why? Because the New Demographic is 'within their rights' to establish their own definitions. There is really nothing that they cannot do. And I mean this in terms of applying their chosen and preferred definitions. Take for example TigerAce and JasperL (and also FTP) as they make their *declarations* about the essential nature and being of the South. It is what they say it was, not what anyone else says it was.

But what this means is not so much that *truth* or even *fact* are at the center, but what they will to be true.

In my view what this points to is what has been termed *meta-political reality*. What meta-political reality means here is what the saying *demographics is destiny* means. The shift in demographics, undertaken as I have said back in 1965, has literally shifted and altered the make-up of the country. It is not the same country. It is now a *racially-mixed* country and the effect of this is not inconsiderable. Put more plainly: if anyone opposes that, or has a problem with it, they can be called and will be called (as Fight the Power regularly says) racists and 'white wingers'. Everyone says that the Republican Party is a white party and I do not think there is a racially-conscious or racially-concerned Democratic faction. So this really does make it blatant: this does have to do with race. There is no way around seeing this.

So obviously it should be clear that *demography is destiny* and that this is a meta-political issue. It stands over and above any specific political arrangement. And the meta-political issue extends beyond the United States to Europe, the the former English colonies -- to the 'white world'.

The following is what Madison Grant wrote 100 years ago almost exactly about what would happen (in the introduction to Lotrop Stoddard's book). Make of it what you will . . .


View attachment 67336189

Huh, so weird you'd quote a celebration of racist, anti-semitic white supremacy.....