Rich Morin, Pew Research Center, Sept. 24, 2009
It may surprise anyone following the charges of racism that have flared up during the debate over President Obama’s health care proposals, but a survey taken this summer found that fewer people perceived there are strong conflicts between blacks and whites than saw strong conflicts between immigrants and the native born, or between rich people and poor people.
A majority (55%) of adults said there are “very strong” or “strong” conflicts between immigrants and people born in the United States. Nearly as many—47%—said the same about conflicts between rich people and poor people, according to a nationally representative survey by the Pew Research Center Social & Demographic Trends project.
The survey found that about four-in-ten (39%) believe there are serious conflicts between blacks and whites, and only a quarter (26%) see major generational divisions between the young and old.
The findings come at a time when discussions about the role of racism in American society has featured heavily in media coverage of Obama’s presidency—triggered first by the arrest in July of a prominent African-American Harvard professor in his own home, and more recently by the assertion by former President Jimmy Carter that much of the opposition to Obama’s policies is racially motivated. The Pew Research survey was conducted from July 20 to Aug. 2, shortly after the Harvard incident but before President Carter’s recent comments.
The survey found some notable demographic patterns in the public’s perceptions of social conflicts. For example, blacks, Hispanics and women are significantly more likely than whites and men to say major conflicts exist between groups in at least three of the four areas tested in the survey. Blacks, in particular, consistently see more social conflict than do other demographic groups. But not even blacks believe that racial conflict is the most prevalent kind of conflict in the country today. A bare majority of blacks (53%) say there are “very strong/strong” conflicts between blacks and whites. At the same time, nearly two-thirds of blacks (65%) say there are significant conflicts between the rich and poor, and 61% say there are significant conflicts between immigrants and the native born. Blacks also are twice as likely as whites to see major generational conflicts (42% vs. 21%).
The pattern is mixed among other groups. Older adults are significantly less likely than younger people to see strong conflicts between immigrants and native born and between the rich and the poor, but just as likely to see serious generational differences and racial disputes.
Similarly, half of all Democrats (46%) but a only third of Republicans (33%) say there are serious conflicts between blacks and whites. The partisan perceptions gap is even bigger on perceptions of conflicts between the rich and poor: a 55% majority of Democrats see very serious or serious conflicts between haves- and have-nots, compared with 38% of Republicans. At the same time, there is no significant difference by party affiliation in perceptions about conflicts between immigrants and native born or between the generations.
{snip}
Disagreements between immigrants and native-born Americans emerge as the most prevalent and serious type of social conflict among those tested in the survey. A clear majority (55%) of adults say there are “very strong” or “strong” conflicts between these groups, including 18% who say there are “very strong” conflicts and 37% who describe them as “strong.”
Hispanics in particular see serious clashes between these groups: nearly seven-in-ten (68%) say there are major conflicts between immigrants and the native born, a view shared by half of whites (53%) and six-in-ten blacks (61%).
At the same time, those born outside the United States are no more likely than the native born to say there are serious conflicts between immigrants and people born in the U.S. (56% for native born vs. 53% for foreign born).
{snip}
About four-in-ten Americans see major conflicts between blacks and whites, including 53% of blacks and 47% of Hispanics, but a significantly smaller share of whites (35%).
{snip}
Race and Perceptions of Social Conflicts
Blacks were more likely than whites to see “very strong” or “strong” conflicts in three of the four areas. In the fourth domain—disagreements between immigrants and native born—the difference also was large but fell just short of statistical significance (61%for blacks vs. 53% for whites). Nearly two-thirds (65%) of blacks but 43% of whites say major disagreements exist between rich people and poor people, a view shared by 55% of Hispanics.
The racial divide is nearly as wide on perceptions of racial conflict. A majority of blacks (53%) but slightly more than a third of whites (35%) say major conflicts exist between the two races. Hispanics also are more likely than whites to see serious disagreements between blacks and whites (47% vs. 35%).
The gap is narrowest between blacks and whites on conflicts between immigrants and the foreign born, 61% vs. 53%, an eight-point gap. But there is a 15-point gap between Hispanics (68%) and whites (53%) on this question. There is also a sizable gap in views about generational conflicts: blacks are twice as likely as whites to see major conflicts between the generations (42% vs. 21%), a view shared by 39% of Hispanics.
The Politics of Social Conflict
The issue of race has been thrust onto center-stage of American politics this summer. In July, President Obama hosted a “beer summit” at the White House to try to smooth over a controversy he helped to fuel with his comments at a press conference regarding the arrest of a black Harvard professor by a white Cambridge policeman. More recently, prominent Democrats such as former President Carter have publicly speculated that race—and, by implication, racism—is behind some of the attacks on President Obama at venues ranging from town-hall meetings to the floor of Congress. Meanwhile, Republicans accuse Democrats of playing the race card to deflect legitimate criticisms of the president’s policies.
The Pew Research survey suggests these very different views on black-white relations reflect deeper partisan and ideological differences. Nearly half of Democrats say there are “very strong conflicts” (10%) or “strong conflicts” (36%) between blacks and whites. In contrast, only about a third of Republicans say racial disputes are as serious (7% say these conflicts are “very strong” while 26% characterize them as “strong”).
At the same time, nearly six-in-ten Republicans (59%) say there are no major areas of contention between the races, a view shared by 48% of Democrats. Conservative Republicans are significantly more likely than liberal Democrats to see relatively few racial conflicts (63% vs. 50%). But their counterparts on the left—self-described liberal Democrats—are no more likely than other Democrats to say major conflicts exist between blacks and whites (48% for liberal Democrats vs. 45% for moderate or conservative Democrats).
{snip}
Original article
(Posted on September 25, 2009)
Comments
I know this is going to rile a lot of the readers of this site, but Blacks & Whites are natural allies against out-of-control immigration. Where I live, we have built a very successful coalition of Blacks & Whites upon this issue.
I’m talking a grass-roots coalition, since Black “leadership” is still trapped in the hate-Whitey mindset of the 1960’s. These Blacks have joined the ranks of the Elites, and are not impacted by immigration.
But average Blacks have direct experience with the problems of illegal immigration. They see their status as America’s “minority” going down the drain. They see their economic opportunities being stolen. Their kids are being killed by hispanic gangs.
Blacks give our coalition access to Black politicians and provide “cover” against charges of racism. They are also more likely to show up at protests. (I’m sad to say that Whites are usually too timid/lazy to show up for protests.)
For those who think along the lines, “But Hispanics are not as bad as Blacks,” think about this: There is a finite number of Blacks in the US. They speak English & their birth rate is about the same as ours. There are no African nations on our border that would provide them with guns and refuge in case of violence. They have no territorial ambitions.
Blacks and whites at least usually acknowledge eachother’s right to be in the country, as much as we often dislike eachother. However much I may resent blacks, I have to admit that there ancestors were probably here before mine. On the other hand, both blacks and whites often don’t want hispanics here and don’t think they have any right to be here.
Blacks wouldn’t numerically overwhelm with their unchecked reproduction us for 100 years or so, Latinos well overrun us in 20, its not rocket science.
Anonymous:
If you’re hoping for this grand black-white coalition great pumpkin to rise out of the patch, then let me advise you not to miss the party.
If blacks were so upset with mass immigration, mainly Hispanic, why do they keep voting for open borders black politicians? Since blacks have been most acutely hurt by mass Hispanic immigration in areas where they coexist, one would think that open borders talking heads like Maxine Waters would have been out years ago. But, it’s not happening.
Similarly, half of all Democrats (46%) but a only third of Republicans (33%) say there are serious conflicts between blacks and whites. The partisan perceptions gap is even bigger on perceptions of conflicts between the rich and poor: a 55% majority of Democrats see very serious or serious conflicts between haves- and have-nots, compared with 38% of Republicans. At the same time, there is no significant difference by party affiliation in perceptions about conflicts between immigrants and native born or between the generations.
A big part of the Republican/Democrat disparity here is down to the blame whitey game; Republicans tend to reject the blame whitey game more often than Democrats, and this sometimes takes the form of rejecting white/black conflict as a proxy for the blame whitey game (tending to place the blame for “black failure” (an absurd term) on blacks).
From Anon #1:
“…But average blacks have direct experience with the problems of illegal immigration…black leadership is still mired in the hate-Whitey mindset of the 60s…”
Yeah, no kidding. Black ‘leadership’ supports open borders and as much as Whites despise it, it is devastating to the black community. Yet blacks continue to support their elected fools because they openly disparage Whites. Black politicians are not being ethnically cleansed from the White neighborhoods they choose to live in.
As for the article:
I’ve never seen such a stupid survey in my life—conflict between rich and poor? Asking hispanics if they “see serious disagreements between blacks and whites (47% vs. 35%)?”
The BIG racial war will be between blacks and hispanics, especially as White numbers dwindle. This is already playing out in California, violently, in the prisons, in the schools, in neighborhoods everywhere black and hispanics come in contact.
Richard Hoste writes in OO:
“…Last year, LA County Sheriff Lee Baca told an audience in Compton that some of his deputes had heard a Latino crime boss tell his followers to kill Black gang members. If none could be found, he told them to ‘shoot any African-American you see.’…. An LA Times writer has claimed that ‘Latino ethnic cleansing of African Americans from multiracial neighborhoods’ has become a ‘common trend.’
Yet blacks are urged to view Whites as vicious, dangerous, racist and a threat to national security as jerks like nancy pelosi and the department of homeland security tell the nation that ‘right wing groups (Whites) could be spurred to violence’ because of the election of black president.
Now for a better, more realistic survey from a group called ‘Diversity in Education’:
“….almost 59 percent of Latino immigrants reported feeling that ‘few or almost no Blacks are hard working.’ One third said that Blacks are ‘hard to get along with.’ And 57 percent found that ‘few or no Blacks could be trusted.’
The study also found that sharing neighborhoods with Blacks reinforced Latino’s negatives views, and reinforces their feelings that they have ‘more in common with Whites.’…”
http://tinyurl.com/ydoroy6
Yet blacks will foolishly continue to seek out The Great White Bigot even as they are being violently driven from their homes, their children assaulted in the streets and schools, their many jailed relatives viciously attacked in the prisons—all by illegal hispanic colonists, not by White bigots.
Bon
My black coworkers are Democrats, they worship Barack Obama, and so we don’t agree on much. But when it comes to the illegal invasion, boy, are they MAD, as mad as whites are. We’ve commiserated together about all the illegal Mexicans and how they should be deported, etc.
The so-called black “leaders” might be salivating at the thought that Latinos will unite with them against whitey. But the rank-and-file blacks know better. Latinos not only outnumber blacks, they hate them.
Yet blacks will foolishly continue to seek out The Great White Bigot even as they are being violently driven from their homes, their children assaulted in the streets and schools, their many jailed relatives viciously attacked in the prisons—all by illegal hispanic colonists, not by White bigots.
Bon
GOSH! maybe this story DOES hava a happy ending. I would and have walked in Mexican cities, and barrios in L.A. and other cities but would not do the same in a black controlled city. I don’t fear them, I know them. Someone said once, “know thine enemy” and I do, as do we all here.
“Blacks, in particular, consistently see more social conflict than do other demographic groups.”
The fact is that about half of blacks don’t like whites and see conflict, more than whites. blacks also don’t like immigrants. blacks are full of resentment and empty of productivity. Eventually, blacks have to go. Some Hispanics are basically whites; they can contribute to our nation in a way blacks never do. Of course most hispanics are quasi-Indians who are stuck in a Third World culture and big govt dependency, like blacks are stuck on govt care.
Also FYI- most of the West was first Spanish- then Mexican before it was lost to the US - which means that a lot of the so-called Latinos in those parts are descendants of the people who lived in those areas while the borders changed. They are NOT immigrants.
“Also FYI- most of the West was first Spanish- then Mexican before it was lost to the US - which means that a lot of the so-called Latinos in those parts are descendants of the people who lived in those areas while the borders changed. They are NOT immigrants.”
Not true. There were no Mexicans living in the Southwest, only unpacified Indian tribes. That territory never belonged to Mexico.
Which group is worse: Blacks or Latinos? That is a very good question. Though I personally think blacks are much worse than Latinos (I have actually had many Latino friends throughout my life, being the Californian that I am), it’s hard to say which group poses a greater threat. While Latinos have higher birthrates than blacks and an entire continent supporting them, they are not the same irritant that blacks are. Blacks are the ones constantly whining about institutionalized racism, white dominance, oppressive policies, etc. Their yelling and complaining is what led to our open borders policy in the first place, thanks to the assistance of the likes of Ted Kennedy. Though Latinos may represent a greater demographic threat than blacks, I still have a greater deal of disdain for blacks because of the fact that they’re a perpetual thorn in our side.
The big lie -
Also FYI- most of the West was first Spanish- then Mexican before it was lost to the US - which means that a lot of the so-called Latinos.
There were very few “Latinos” as most Mexicans did not want to live in the Southwestern US. Mexico treated its Indians worse than the US. Mexico had such a hard time getting real Mexicans (Spanish descendants) to migrate that they eventually let Anglos into Texas and soon regretted it. Why didn’t they just make the Commanche citizens?
If Mexico had been willing to make a deal with the Indians and arm them they might have held onto the place. The Apache actually supported the US over Mexico - even though they realized neither could be completely trusted.
Some people here feel that some kind of ‘White-black’ alliance against the hordes of post 1965 immigrants (particularly Mexicans) is realistic and desirable.
Reply to no.10,
“Also FYI- most of the West was first Spanish- then Mexican before it was lost to the US - which means that a lot of the so-called Latinos in those parts are descendants of the people who lived in those areas while the borders changed. They are NOT immigrants”………that’s true. I need to correct you - they are ILLEGAL immigrants.
“…FYI- the Spanish and French colonized the North American continent LONG before the English…”
So What. That is neither here nor there. Last time I checked, the Southwest—hell, the Northwest, East and South are still part of the United States, subjected to the laws thereof.
Neither the French, Spanish nor the mexicans created the most advanced First World civilization the world has ever seen. First World technology, including the computer you are typing on, arose from the White population of the United States, no one else.
If the French, Spanish or (heaven forbid) mexicans repelled the English colonists what sort of civilization would have been created here? Look no further than the hell-hole, narco-state of mexico, marked by corruption, grinding poverty and violence—why do you think that is? Why can’t anyone get ahead in mexico? Even the mexicans don’t want to live there!
As a recent AmRen article stated:
“…One in three Mexicans would migrate to the United States if they had the chance, and many would go illegally at a time of rising drug violence in Mexico…”
This is what the mexicans created for their own people, an unlivable, violent civilization. Are you not relieved that the mexicans did not create a country here?
Are there massive world-wide hoards risking their lives to join mexico’s civilization? Is Spain a more advanced country than the US? Or would you prefer France’s large, violent muslim population, dying socialist government and exorbitant taxation of its citizens? Would the US have been better off, better developed under those countries’ rulers? Would you be more free and have the same opportunities you do if not for a White-created US government?
ALL of what has been created here— ALL OF IT— is an outgrowth of a set of LAWS and an economic system that arose from those original laws—laws created by a small population of highly intelligent, WHITE, English-speaking people that inhabited a small land mass—a series of islands really.
A small land mass that gave rise to the fairest system of economics, the greatest opportunities for the greatest amount of people ever—British Common Law, which gave rise to The Industrial Revolution. No other country has even come close to what this system of laws has gifted to the people of the United States —a system of Free Markets and educational opportunities for almost anyone to rise to the best of his abilities, with little government interference, using his own natural gifts.
How many rags to riches stories have we heard about in America? In other countries? How many immigrants want what they call the ‘American Dream’—a chance to succeed, unavailable in their own countries.
Instead of petty quibbles over who was here first—history is rife with bloody battles over whose ancestors ‘own’ which piece of land and people groups usurping each other for primacy in certain areas. We could spend lifetimes wringing our hands over injustices of the past.
I’d say a MUCH bigger concern is an out of control, monstrous US government that is hell-bent on tearing down the remaining vestiges of The Constitution and enslaving the American people through ‘hate speech’ laws, attacks on private property, government take over of the economy (also private property), an unequal system of justice against Whites, usurious confiscation of earnings and wealth and redistribution of that wealth to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it, a welcome mat to poor, unhealthy, uneducated, unskilled minions of the Third World who flood and close our hospitals, ruin our schools and neighborhoods, and demand that the American people take care of them and their children via lavish government services.
Too many of them are coming here, not for the American Dream, but to get Free White Money for themselves and their families.
This is the ‘hope’ and ‘change’ obama promised—government take-over of every aspect of America, a ‘change’ from liberty to the ‘hope’ of tyranny—endless, costly foreign wars, a large, an expansive parasitic population, class envy, racial hatred, White suppression and dispossession, restraints on Free Speech to prevent criticism.
This is NOT what the Founding Fathers envisioned—a people enslaved by the government.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“When the people fear the government you have tyranny, when the government fears the people you have liberty.”
Seems we’re becoming more like mexico every day, doesn’t it?
I don’t know about you but I prefer liberty to tyranny.
Bon
I’d rather have more latinos than blacks. For the most part, blacks still hate whites, blame us for their problems, and so on. Latinos are more like whites (or like whites use to be as far as church values and work ethic) than are so whites. I’ve not gotten the hate stares or uncomfortable feelings being around hispanics as I have blacks. I don’t know.
Since then both groups want the same thing, territory, I think we are in for a sharp conflict. I don’t think there ever will be a formal recognition of Hispanic demands for exclusive control of land since it would be so destructive of American ethical legitimacy, and impossible institutionally. However I do think we are seeing the beginning of the end of the two party system. I also think we are going to see a much more powerful internal police force, and possibly concentration camps for those Hispanics perceived to be not merely gang members, but guerillas.
10-Anon: As 13 Mark pointed out, Mexico invited Americans into Texas to do the job that Mexican peons wouldn’t do, fight Commanches. The Mexican farms and ranches were being abandoned by their laborers in the face of Indian attacks, and reasonably so. Why die for the patron’s land? So the govt of Mexico invited Yanquis in and gave them land. It was controversial in the National Assembly, with some members warning that the Yanquis would take over. By the time of Texas’ independence, the territory was 7/8 American by birth.
New Mexico was (is) pretty barren, but there were few pueblos there in relatively fertile areas, dating back to the 1600s.
Arizona was Spanish in name only, and controlled by hostile Indians.
California had its 21 missions, largely abandoned by the 1820s, and a few forts and villages. The real government was the ranchos, huge self-supporting tracts of land that sold hides to passing ships coming back from China. The ranch owners were the ruling elite, practically lords, and they welcomed enterprising Whites off the ships and gave some of them their own ranches, since there was so much open grazing land available. If you read up on the history of the time, you’ll see all the White names. John Sutter, John Marshall, John Bidwell, Jonathan Temple, Abel Sterns, and Thomas Larkin. They were doing the work that not enough Mexicans would do, like building a civilization. If you look at the California flag, it says CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC. This was a government established by White and Mexican ranchers and merchants, who saw no reason to endure the rule of the dictator Santa Anna, and wished to be part of the modern world. At the time, the population of the Territory was 7000, with almost half being Americans or Europeans.
These small numbers of Mexicans that were incorporated into the U.S. are not the ancestors of the tens on millions here today. Even most of the pre-1965 Mexicans were descendants of people who came here illegally between 1910 and 1920, fleeing the Mexican Revolution. Very few Hispanics in this country have roots as deep as even the “Ellis Island” Americans.
If there is one thing a reader can garner from the statistics enumerated here, it’s that blacks are in conflict with more areas of concern by the largest percentage margin than any other group.
I think that says a lot about the makeup of the African man. Ask anyone of any race who has had more than a modicum of interaction with black people if they are not belligerent, argumentative, and often prone to mindless violence over the most trivial of perceived slights.
In regard to Post Number Ten, re: the Southwest first belonged to Spain, then Mexico, then the US - with logic like this, should Spain ever want the Southwest back, being there before the Mexicans, then they would have that right.
And what did Spain and Mexico do with he Southwest? Not a lot. White people built canals to irrigate the land, and great cities sprung up. We buolt dams, and nuclar power plants. Roads connect every town and city. And now, the Mexican wants it all. How convenient for them, and how typical of the entitlement minority mind-set at that.
The comments here are depressing. Choosing up sides, really? There is only one side for whites, and that is the white side. Not the mestizo side, not the black side, OUR side.
Instead of asking which race we want to side with, we should be asking which race we can get rid of (peacefully via deportations and pay-to-leave schemes, of course) first.
Mestizos would be the easiest to get rid of via deportation and possible annulment of previous citizenship/greencard handouts. Blacks we can try to get rid of by creating massive programs whereby blacks are taught the language of some african country and then paid to go live there(we would of course pay the receiving country handsomely, or alternatively threaten sanctions if they do not comply) as well as tear up their US passport.
Though I’m sure that the more intelligent ones realize that no matter how much they hate us, they’d hate their not-so-white fellow africans much much more. After all, american blacks are roughly 20% white if I remember correctly.
Main Entry: re·nais·sance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/renaissance
It’s going to take more than futile hand wringing and incessant preaching to the choir by whites to launch a “renaissance” in America. It will require blood and sacrifice to set this nation back on the path forged by our Founding Fathers…
Bon the tax slave
The bigger issue is the racial transformation of America. Apparently you and other “America is=to free market economy” types would be happy to reduce Native Born White Americans to an ever dwindling racial minority wihin the borders of America at the hands of tax paying LEGAL immigrant asians.
By the way, the La Raza-THE RACE-folks have always had a very effective response to “illegals don’t pay taxes kick em out” argument:LEGALIZE THEM..they want to pay taxes.
“Also FYI- most of the West was first Spanish- then Mexican before it was lost to the US - which means that a lot of the so-called Latinos in those parts are descendants of the people who lived in those areas while the borders changed. They are NOT immigrants.”
Here are a few facts about California.
The Spanish did not colonize California until they set up a military post and mission in San Diego in 1769. California belonged to Spain until 1822 when the Mexican revolution suceeded in achieving independence. The Americans had their own revolution in California in 1835. California became independent from Mexico in 1836.
So California was part of Mexico for only 14 years, 1822 to 1836.
The last Mexican government census was in 1830. The census recognized only 2 ethnic groups; Mexican and other. “Other” included the original Indians, black and white Americans, Europeans, Chinese refugees from the Cantonese rebellion, Australians, Pacific Islanders and various others who had drifted in.
Mexico only had California for 14 years. Americans have had it for 173 years.
FYI you don’t seem to be able to distinguish between a hispanic whose family lived in Texas, Arizona or New Mexico for hundreds of years from an illegal alien hispanic who arrived yesterday. You accuse us of making the mistake you make, confusing American hispanics whose ancestors settled the southwest under the Spanish 4oo years ago with illegal hispanics who arrived yesterday.
“A small land mass that gave rise to the fairest system of economics, the greatest opportunities for the greatest amount of people ever—British Common Law, which gave rise to The Industrial Revolution.”
I don’t agree. If you look at what Judge made common laws have done to Whites neither would you.
British common law was created solely by life long tenure elitist Judges who ruled pretty much as they wished, for instance deciding in the 17 century that the death penalty could be applied to children as young as 7 and filling Australia and the American colonies with people who were deported and transported for stealing things worth as little as one shilling.
Those laws were not made by parliament. Those laws were created by Judges in accordance with the British common law system whereby the Judges, not parliament created laws.
Here is a good illustration of British common law.
Mary Anne Evans, age 19, widowed Mother of a 2 month old baby and a 2 year old was arrested and hanged for shoplifting 3 shillings worth of diaper material for her baby.
She married at 16 to a prosperous skilled blue collar worker. They had no money problems. He was kidnapped by the press gangs and sold to the Navy to fight in a Falklands Island war around 1790. Without him and pregnant she had no money. Apparently there was no family to take her in. She became a beggar. It was noted that she was pretty enough to have been a successful prostitute but she was virtous.
Member of Parliament James Meredith tried to get her sentence changed to a prison sentence. He was unsuccessful. The Judge insisted she be hanged. The baby died soon after because gruel was no substitute for Mother’s milk.
That is what happens when Judges rule.
American Judges have used their extraordinary powers to destroy Whites. No racially conscious White should admire British common law actually dictatorship by life long tenured Judges who can rule as they wish.
Here is a list of what Judicial dictatorship has done to White Americans since 1956 Brown vs. Topeka.
Judges desegregated the schools. Judges ordered busing, billions of dollars and 50 years of Whites terrorized by feral black young. Judges enabled blacks to destroy our greatest cities by Judicially enabled and encouraged crime and violence.
Aided and abetted by Judges, blacks drove Whites out of the cities. It has been Judges, not legislatures that have destroyed Whites professionally and economically through affirmative action. Judges changed criminal law to favor criminals against the police, prosecutors and victims.
Those criminal law changes made by Judges, not legislatures enabled blacks to start their ongoing crime spree against Whites.
How can you not be aware of what Judges have done to Whites? If you are on this website you must be aware.
Under continental European law, Germany, Spain, France, all the European countries, Judges have no power to make laws. The laws are made by elected legislatures, not lifelong tenured, racist, facist, marxist Judges brainwashed by their law schools and professional associations to hate Whites and misuse their powers to destroy Whites.
Every anti White government activity for the last 60 years was ordered by Judges.
Here is just one example on the affirmative action front. The State Department was ordered by a federal Judge to re-classify White women who scored 90 percent or more on the FSO exam as WHITE MEN so as to discriminate against White women.
Think about it. The Federal Judiciary has the power to order a very important department, the State Department to classify White women as White men. It’s more like a news story out of N. Korea. Yet it happened.
Whites will never get our civil rights back under this common law Judge made law system.
Another thing, Germany, Italy, Spain, France and all the continental countries don’t have much affirmative action for non White invaders. Only England, with its common law Judicial dictatorship system has affirmative action for non White invaders in everything from benefits to jobs to college admissions to government appointments.
The common law Judicial dictatorship system is extremely detrimental to Whites in America. Read the affirmative action rulings and news stories. All the anti White regulations come from Judges.
The only way Whites will get our civil rights back would be a serious constitutional change that would prevent Judges from making laws or negating laws made by legislatures.
That won’t happen in our lifetimes. The common law system will continue to permit the Judges to destroy us. Under our English derived common law system, their is nothing we can do about it.
Look at all the anti affirmative action referendums. Every one was overturned by Judges. That’s what would happen under English common law if they ever had an anti affirmative action referendum. Under the continental system, anti affirmative action referendums would stand because under the continental system Judges have no power to nullify the results of referendums or laws made by the elected legislature.
Of all European countries England is becoming a state under Muslim law. It is Judges who gave the Muslims that power.
BON wrote “I’d say a MUCH bigger concern is an out of control, monstrous US government that is hell-bent on tearing down the remaining vestiges of The Constitution and enslaving the American people through ‘hate speech’ laws, attacks on private property, government take over of the economy (also private property), an unequal system of justice against Whites, usurious confiscation of earnings and wealth and redistribution of that wealth to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it, “
BON, that is the result of Judge made laws, the horrible result of our heritage of British common or Judge made law. All those things were ordered by Judges. Then the govt agencies carried out the orders.
“I’d rather have more latinos than blacks. For the most part, blacks still hate whites, blame us for their problems, and so on. Latinos are more like whites (or like whites use to be as far as church values and work ethic) than are so whites. I’ve not gotten the hate stares or uncomfortable feelings being around hispanics as I have blacks. I don’t know.”
What???? Yes, sure. We all know that Mexico, Honduras, etc…. are more like white America and white Europe in the 1950s than white America and white Europe are today. Seriously, what are you talking about? I will take the work ethic of modern whites over hispanics any day.
Some of you posters argue the foolish, misguided argument that “you do not fear walking in a Hispanic neighborhood or barrio.” as opposed to walking in a Black area. Well, I have no intention of walking into either type of neighborhood.
I remember Jared Taylor making a point in one of his many insightful columns the fact that whether we like it or not, Blacks, given their involuntary voyage to America and their long history here, do have a legitimate claim to American citizenship. Hispanics and most other non-Whites do not have such a argument to stand on.
Secondly, the last time I have checked, Black slang or ebonics is not the official langauge of any major American city. However, it is the official language in Miami, Florida. It is rapidly becoming the major language in Los Angeles, there are tons of Spanisih speaking companies, commericials, newspapers etc… You cannot even go three blocks without seeing Hispanic influence somewhere!
I am not a fan of either group. However, as far as I am concerned, I would much rather deal with Blacks for the reasons I have mentioned. The fact is that Hispancis are rapidly displacing Whites (and all other groupss) with thier culture!
I do not understand why some of you cannot see this fact!
“…The bigger issue is the racial transformation of America. Apparently you and other “America is=to free market economy” types would be happy to reduce Native Born White Americans to an ever dwindling racial minority wihin the borders of America at the hands of tax paying LEGAL immigrant asians…”
Jupiter:
You couldn’t be more wrong about my views!
I well understand your anger and frustration, I feel the same way. I am over 50 and well remember when the US was 90% White and was safe, peaceful and prosperous. Do you think I like what it’s become? What it is now? The further destruction obama’s handlers are calling for?
I live in California, outside of Los Angeles, and have had a front row seat to the degradation of the Golden State through both massive illegal AND legal immigration—I don’t like it anymore than you do as I am daily forced to put up with hostile peoples not my own, and pay satanic taxes to support them and their children, not my own. I resent it with every fiber of my being, down to my bone marrow.
Free markets and Libertarian tenants can and did exist without massive numbers of non-White ‘workers’ flooding the US. Being for Free Markets, Capitalism, and Libertarian tenants does not mean I want my homeland flooded with uneducated, dirt poor, unhealthy, unskilled, low IQd non-Whites so businesses can make a higher profit.
The first order of government should be to protect the country’s borders and its people—as Libertarian leader Harry Browne wrote and spoke often about.
But that is not the main reason the government opened up the floodgates in 1965, —it was to destroy the racial make-up of the US.
I believe ALL and I mean ALL immigration should be cut off immediately, never to restart again, illegals purged from our midst—all 20-30 million of them. I believe in segregation is OK—integration will never work, it the schools and in neighborhoods and it breed suspicions, distrust and eventually violence.
The 1924 cut-off should have been made permanent as far as I’m concerned. Professor McDonald believes if academia, intelligentsia and the media had not been taken over by hostile, elite, out-groups, Boas-inspired ‘thinkers’ (We are all the same! There are no differences in IQ!) the 1924 cut-off would have remained in effect and if or when immigration were opened up again, it would have reflected the current ethnic make-up of the US, instead of the 90% non-White immigration we now have.
What happened after 1924, though, is that the debates immediately became about ‘Nordic Superiority’ and got ugly from there with screams of xenophobia and racism thrown at White Americans who wanted to preserve the country they created for themselves (Imagine that!).
William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists was correct when he said from the floor of Congress:
“…Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world.
What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it….”
Imagine if this were said today:
“…We are determined that they shall not…It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves….”
For more information as to what happened in 1924 and after:
http://tinyurl.com/6epgls
Bon, Supporter of Free Markets and Limited Government, not Immigration
“…BON, that is the result of Judge made laws, the horrible result of our heritage of British common or Judge made law. All those things were ordered by Judges. Then the govt agencies carried out the orders…”
Margaret—Thanks for the history lesson (and I do not mean that sarcastically).
Judicial activism and rule by unelected judicial fiat is indeed the Achilles Heel of Free Markets and Limited Governments! The one thing I would change in our system would be to make every judge accountable to the people and removable from the bench via the election process—no more unelected, social engineering judges with lifetime appointments, including and especially SCOTUS
Do you remember what happened after Prop 187 passed in California? One judge mandated a TRO against a Prop that passed with almost 60% of the vote and another Judge (a female judge!), twisting all known forms of common sense, declared it ‘unconstitutional.’ One activist judge was able to overturn the Will of the People. This is why propositions in Kalifornia are written differently now in order to make it very difficult for a single, unelected judge to overthrow the people’s will.
You are correct that unelected judges with lifetime appointments have rained down hell on the people of the United States as Judge Garrity did in Boston (he was the judge that mandated and oversaw busing). One schools chief resigned, saying that Judge Garrity “had a paternalistic mentality that all goodness and all knowledge flow from the federal court.” Busing was a monstrous fiasco that wasted billions of dollars, helped no one and tore Boston apart at the seams—all from the bench of ONE judge.
Do you recall what happened to Judges Rose Bird, Cruz Reynoso, and Joseph Grodin? In California: (this is from Wiki):
“… Judge Bird was the first Chief Justice to be removed from that office by a majority of the state’s voters. California justices are selected by the governor but must be regularly reconfirmed by the electorate; prior to Bird, no California appellate judge had ever failed such a vote…..She was removed in the November 4, 1986 election by a margin of 67 to 33 percent…”
The two other lefty justices, on the ballot with her, met the same fate. They all blamed each other.
That is how it should be! Tyrannical justices should be held to the will of the people, accountable for malfeasance and for their judicial decisions. I remember Rose Bird’s defeat as being the most satisfying EVER! (Prop 13 as well).
That being said,
Economics follow Law, is an outgrowth of Law, and if it were not for British Common Law and America’s version of it (at its founding that is), The Industrial Revolution and subsequent Technological Revolution would not have taken place. Free Markets and Limited Government Interference, held in check by enforced Common Law, are what allowed Britain and later the United States to become the freest, most prosperous nations the world has ever seen.
No system is perfect, a number of things have been corrected in the US and Britain over the years such as slavery, which was ended by WHITES in Britain and later the US. Children no longer work 12 hours six days a week in factories or the darkness of mines due to Child Labor Laws.
Slavery and child labor, however, continue apace in hell-hole countries all over the world, people (especially women) are suppressed and oppressed with few or no rights, little chance of redress, their lives ruled by tyrants and petty dictators who enrich themselves at the expense of their own people. Other government impose punitive taxes and regulations making business hard if not impossible to conduct.
I defend and accept the political and economic system that arose from British Common Law and its American version, whatever its faults, to one in any other country in the world! It has allowed the most people to prosper, to enjoy liberty, to better their lives and that of their loved ones, than any other political system in the world.
It is too bad that The Constitution is being spit on and tossed on the garbage heap, replaced with a one party system hell-bent on instituting government control over every aspect of our lives starting with Free Speech. Our job-creating businesses are being taxed, regulated into oblivion, primed for government takeover.
Those in control will come for our wealth to support socialized medicine and a massive welfare state, our children after that to provide cannon fodder for their endless, useless foreign wars. It is no wonder my conservative investment magazines are predicting violence, lots of it including food riots, and telling investors to stock up on non-perishable food and ammunition. Notice all the ‘Cash for Gold’ advertisements lately? Why are gun stores being cleaned out?
Britain, of course, which has disarmed its citizens, is being wholesale destroyed through massive, non-White immigrants with birth rates approximately six times that of Native Britons. How far they have fallen. A muslim flag will fly over Britain in the future if no action is taken.
Sorry for the long length, I didn’t know where to cut, hope this isn’t too screed-y.
Margaret: What sort of government system do you think would work better?
Bon
Margaret: What sort of government system do you think would work better? Bon
Anything that kept out of control dictatorial Judges from discriminating against the majority population of the country. You are a LAUSD teacher.
You are aware that the discipline problems are caused by Judges forbidding the schools to control unruly students.
You are aware that the schools are run by unqualified barely literate affirmative action administrators. This is due to Judicial created affirmative action.
You are aware that the district is overrun with illegals and anchor babies with the average IQ of 85 who cannot learn past about 4th grade if they work hard. This is due to Judicial orders preventing any enforcement of immigration laws and ICE Judges refusing to deport illegals, even felons.
The only way Whites will get our 14th amendment rights back is to reform the Judiciary. Eliminating life long tenure is just a start. The goal is to eliminate Judicial supremacy. Since 1804, Marbury vs Madison, the Judiciary is by law(common law made by the Supreme Court Judges in 1804) superior to the executive and the legislature.
We don’t have a balance of power between the 3 branches of government. Our system consists of Judicial supremacy with the President and congress subservient to the Judiciary.
I heard one California assembly man once say something to the effect of “why bother making laws when the Judges just overturn them.”
It has been Whites and the horrible school system you teach in that has been destroyed by the Judiciary.
Bon, I am very aware of what Judges did to prop 187. I was very aware of Rose Bird who never met a murderer she didn’t like. I learned to h*t* feminazis when they asked me to work on their campaing to defend Rose Bird against the campaign to remove her.
I tried to educate the pro Rose Bird feminazis re Rose Bird’s defense of rapists, the bete noir of feminazis at the time. But feminazis don’t want to hear about black on White rape. Nor did they want to hear that she and other liberal Judges were responsible or the rise in crime because the predators were no longer sentenced to prison.
That’s why I think Judicial supremacy needs to be abolished by re writting the constituion. I have relatives in European countries. The good thing about the continental system is that if the laws are changed it is a result of debate in the elected legislature. Voters have influence with their elected representatives.
Here in America Judges can change the law in just one day with no debate or input from anyone else. That is why I object to Judicial supremacy.
Just read that youth unemployment is 52.2 percent, the worst since 1936 depths of the depression. Youth is 16 to 24. Not so bad for the 16 and 17 year olds, horrible for the 18 to 24 year olds. About teen unemployment. Teen age jobs were very helpful for the average working family because the teens got jobs or baby sat or did yard work. That meant they didn’t need their parents money for movies, clothes and things kids spend their money on.
“Yet blacks will foolishly continue to seek out The Great White Bigot even as they are being violently driven from their homes, their children assaulted in the streets and schools, their many jailed relatives viciously attacked in the prisons—all by illegal hispanic colonists, not by White bigots.”
It may take a generation, or even several, for blacks to …. re-define who their new enemy has become. Meanwhile, they will go on hating (and envying) whites as a kind of thoughtless knee-jerk reaction after so many, many years of propagandizing.
. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They may not even bother to re-define it. Will it be worth it? The simple fact is, blaming the white man has proven an immensely profitable scam. Many benefits have been extracted. Whites are an easy touch, and their guilt is easily played upon. But blaming Latinos (or Asians) will be a complete waste of their time. It will get them absolutely nowhere.
