In Rhodesia a white government ruled and Rhodesia prospered, becoming known as the "breadbasket of Africa." Then the revolution came, and all the poor oppressed black people got to learn first hand how good life could be under Robert Mugabe.
Say what you want about apartheid Africa, it worked. Now, was it MORALLY right? Not by a long shot, but the real question remains whether or not white leadership was good for those nations, and the answer from every available metric is a "yes."
So how can people who believe that "communism will work if only the right people are in charge" also believe that "the right people" can't be white?
Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly operates under a revolutionary “progressive stack.” A normal “stack” means those who wish to speak get in line. A progressive stack encourages women and traditionally marginalized groups speak before men, especially white men. This is something that has been in place since the beginning, it is necessary, and it is important.
“Step up, step back” was a common phrase of the first week, encouraging white men to acknowledge the privilege they have lived in their entire lives and to step back from continually speaking. This progressive stack has been inspiring and mind-boggling in its effectiveness. Source http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/10/07/occupywallstreets-racist-speech-rule-white-men-last/
I give you the above quote to show you how enforced equality looks. It doesn't matter what you have to say, your ideas are not judged by their content but by the color of your skin. Wait, didn't another great American have something to say about that?
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
It seems that there are those who are unwilling to be colorblind, and in this day in age the content of ones character far outweighs the color of their skin. Had Herman Cain run against Obama the novelty of a main party black politician would have not been an issue, only the content of their character.
So while I agree with many of the points being made by Occupy Wall Street (chrony capitalism is an abhorrent deviation of free market principles), I do not agree with their end goals. I do not agree with their tactics. And I do not agree with their racist policy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The order in which people speak is all very well, but I'll bet you ten bucks the real leadership actually running things (to whatever extent anybody actually does) are white males. Some of them might be gay, though.
I've known some radical girls. They just want to play-act at making speeches, and the speeches they make are random, disjunct aggregations of phrases they learned by rote from their (male) TAs and professors. When they actually try to participate in decisions, their input is utterly insane and contradictory even by radical standards. When that happens, the men who actually run things have to waste some time defusing the situation. It's a hassle, but for radicals that kind of moronic and pointless interpersonal drama is a big part of the appeal. It gives them problems to deal with, on the scale they can actually handle. That makes them feel like they're really accomplishing something. If they weren't a bunch of narcissistic head-cases, they'd self-organize relatively easily, and then they'd have to face the fact that they're just sitting there blocking traffic and doing absolutely nothing whatsoever.
But it's worth noting that their most important rule is the one which governs the order in which they get to stand in the spotlight and babble complete nonsense while everybody applauds them. Everybody gets to be the star for ten minutes, and everybody wins a prize! That's the biggest draw of all, even bigger than pretending to "organize" a bunch of annoying potheads.
So while I agree with many of the points being made by Occupy Wall Street (chrony capitalism is an abhorrent deviation of free market principles), I do not agree with their end goals. I do not agree with their tactics. And I do not agree with their racist policy.
A broken a clock is right twice a day. That they are right about a few things might just be a random event.
They are right to protest crony capitalism, but the administration they're working for is crawling with it - from GM/Chrysler to GE to Solyndra to hundreds of others. Yes, there are bankers who deserve to be in jail, but all "bankers" as a group are not the trouble - the folks who regulate the banks have some 'splaining to do, too. Their manifesto is a rambling hodgepodge that goes from socialist to just plain insane.
However, they are well funded (Soros et all, as usual) so they will be there until the weather gets too brutal and again in the spring. The puppet masters behind these useful idiots are playing for keeps.
Interesting observations. I look at it this way. Democracy as we know it seems to work. Well some of the time, we in the west are used to the freedoms that it has provided us. If you look at other parts of the world, they have never in their histories been ruled this way. During the time of empire things went well, because us in the west know how to make an economy work, its what made us dominant to begin with.
At then end of empire our rules enforced by our military dominance faded, people all of a sudden had freedom of choice, and they were not ready for it. Strong men took power and imposed their will.
I hate the fact that both racial and sexual equality is enforced in government and business by law. White men have been brilliant in both for thousands of years, but rather than use our skills and experience we choose to allow others the right.
I agree its not morally right, but I think maybe we don't have to be morally right all the time. Think of china, financial wealth is accepted but political freedom is not, its not morally right either.
Makes you wonder why we think a white king over a black nation is racist. Why should the color of the kings skin make a difference?
If a monarchy is hereditary and a legitimate form of government then an oligarchy of an ethnic group is every bit as legitimate.
Of course legitimacy and morality are still two different things.
Of course, real leadership will be by men, because men self-organize, recognize intelligence and success in their leaders and support them for the benefit of the group. The women go along, because there is food/security/their men in going along. Trained women ARE useful in-general, and a scant-few women are capable of behaving much like men, when in the presence of men. The problem is that these women have been "unschooled" and trained to be uselessly dependent, and told that this is their God-given right to be this way. Isn't it great! Whee!
Women need to be trained to be internally organized to be useful, just like men do. A few do it spontaneously, but most need to be trained or have examples. This is the basis of civilization, so that we can expect to have decent lives past 30 years.
"The order in which people speak is all very well, but I'll bet you ten bucks the real leadership actually running things (to whatever extent anybody actually does) are white males. Some of them might be gay, though" -Anon.
+1
Post a Comment