The training material for a major company shows a drawing of a crowd where an Asian man stands in the front, with Blacks, Browns etc. Whites, as usual, represented by a woman. In another picture there is a White man, but his face is covered by a beard and glasses.
When I was looking to buy noise-cancelling headphones some years back, the pictures on the websites were full of Blacks, and then a White woman thrown in. One page did have a White man at the top, an old man with the face covered by a beard.
I have seen this in many places, where they avoid including a picture of an ordinary White man in his twenties or thirties.
Yes, this is definitely hate.
----------
Yet they claim Whites are the oppressors. From a Dutch study about immigrant youth:
"First, the participants perceived a higher level of discrimination directed at their group as a whole than at themselves as individuals."
They aren't discriminated against themselves, but they "know" their group is discriminated against. That's the power of the media controllers at work. So discriminating against the evil Whites is then allowed.
Conservatives can be just as condescending as lefties when it comes to tokenism. A couple days ago a conservative group- I think it was called Young America's Foundation- sent me a 16 page, full color newsletter. Nearly every photo had at least one black in it. Allen West and Star Parker were prominently mentioned for a summer tour cruise.
Since 18 May 2022, DoD DEI are retaliating / discriminating against me for whistleblowing on contracting fraud by minorities. The DoD DEI Manager covering up, Clothilda Taylor, SES is now threatening me with termination!
The problem with phrasing it as "anti-White hate" is: the people running it were also, generally, White. They were not, generally, masochists. The hate was real, but the target was not all Whites in blunderbuss fashion, even if it sometimes looked that way.
Plus, a large share of White people agreed with (believed) the central claims. While they were stuck in an Ethnomasochist frame (not of their own creation), they were not personally masochists.
There has been something else going on, for which we lack a good vocabulary. The word "Wokeness" took hold because of the implicit perception that some new term was needed to reflect dominant ideological conditions, which became hegemonic (and still are, even under Trump and co., who are like court-jesters who've taken over for a while) but which lacked a decent name.
Wasn't it John Derbyshire (I hope you are reading SteveSailer.net, Mr Derb), who said it was Good-Whites vs. Bad-Whites? I think he or others began to write the terms as "Goodwhites" and "Badwhites," a blending of the concepts and not as much an adjectival-type use.
Steve constantly writes about the statistical difference between whites/Asians versus blacks/Hispanics. Steve usually implies the gaps are due to human biodiversity and culture. The left believes that it is a result of racism and discrimination. What is happening now is that the right is saying that the gaps are really due to genetics and culture and that we are wasting our time and money trying to close the gaps.
I'm sorry, but I disagree at this time. "Anti-white" is the intention and the result. Here's an example. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that whites have no right to complain about discrimination against them in admission to a major university law school, "diversity" became a slogan of race relations leftists. The came out for "diversity" in every circumstance. But they have no minimum goal for whites; their "number goals" (as the called them prior to the "diversity" ruling" have always been inequalities with no goal for having any whites. Some programs seem to make exceptions for white disabled people, white transgender folks, or even white women. But alas, for them black disabled people, black transgender folks, and black women are preferable to the evil whites.
Race relations leftism holds that whites are the cause of everything that is wrong with or turns out badly for whites and everyone else. The whites in favor of race relations leftism might not or might not be practicing BDSM safe-sane-consensual people, but they are indeed neurotic masochists.
I think Democrats are incapable of changing course, at least for the foreseeable future. Ironically, if Trump completely obliterates DEI - not just in the government, but by ultimately ditching "adverse impact" and making even old-timey affirmative action illegal across American society, backed up by the Supreme Court - then it may solve the Dems' problem for them by rendering it a moot issue, similar to how abortion was mostly on the back burner during the Roe vs. Wade years.
A more immediate prospect is that while the Right won the battle, the war may be far from over. Republicans' House majority is slender, could easily tip back in 2026 (especially if DOGE's teenager workers trip over a power cord at the US Treasury), and a combination of lawfare, investigations and legislative paralysis could blunt the impact of Trump's executive actions.
I enjoy the image of the DOGE guy tripping over a power cord and suddenly...what...there's no money for a few minutes until the system comes back up :)
Wall Street guys be like 'OMG my money!!!!!!...oh wait, it's back'
The revelations of waste and incompetence coming out daily are taking the wind out of the sails of the lefties (both Democrat and Republican).
The number of normal people that want their tax dollars to pay for lesbians operas in Ireland likely rounds to zero.
This USAid thing is a huge hit for Trump and he’s been in office for a couple of weeks. The expulsions of some the filth that’s accumulated here in the past decades is another giant hit among normal folks.
I just think people tend to over-extrapolate from electoral swings. It feels like Trump won this massive landslide but we are talking about a popular vote margin of 1.5% and 3-4 House seats. Swing voters don't necessarily know or care much about elite issues like DEI, the war over Activism Inc (of which USAID is a part), struggles between MAGA and the bureaucracy, or foreign-policy stuff involving Israel and Ukraine. Democrats can easily win the House again and a Senate seat or two in 2026 if eg bird flu sends eggs to $25 a dozen, or unemployment ticks up by a point.
The election of Barrack Obama as president in 2008 marked the beginning of a new era in American politics. The Democratic Party became the anti-white party in 2008 and most normal whites figured it out. By accident, the Republicans became the normal white person party. This intensified with the 2010 Republican route of the Democrats and the election of Donald Trump as president in 2016.
The Democratic Party escalated its hatred of normal whites with its reaction to the George Floyd death in 2020. Riots and the taking over of certain neighborhoods in leftist cities by leftist gangs were justified. Democratic politicians took knees for Mr. Floyd, a violent criminal and drug addict. Little things piled up. The Redskins football team changed their nickname because it was "racist." Aunt Jemima pancake flour was banished to the memory hole as was Uncle Ben's rice. Normal whites found the gyrations of the left over George Floyd bizarre and anti-white.
I don't know whether the Democrats can change. They are beholden to a myriad of leftist interest groups. The party is funded by the IT community, Jews, Hollywood and homosexuals, each a leftist interest group. Blacks, feminists and urban Hispanics provide the bulk of the votes for the Democratic Party. The Democrats will most likely choose to remain as they are. Their inept presidential candidate won 48.5 % of the vote in 2024. So why change?
You overestimate how much of political identity is based on specific policy positions. Almost all of it is a team sports instinct. That's why the two major parties can completely switch positions over time and no one cares.
Electing Obama should have been the end of the discussion about how White Americans felt about Black Americans. But we can't have that. If the bad people agree with the good people about such a key issue, they can't just take the win, they need to find some new material, something too far out for the bad guys. How else will we be able to distinguish them?
That's also why they couldn't just take the W on homosexuality; they needed some new stuff, some stuff so obviously bonkers that the bad guys would never agree, extreme trans.
It is an exaggeration to say the parties can "completely switch positions and no one cares"; Whites in the Southern states DID all leave the Democratic Party, after all, after over a century of loyalty.
The key to the Trump victories was a similar, smaller but electorally decisive, shift by a section of Whites in the Midwest.
See "Revisiting the “Sailer Strategy” after the Trump-2024 victory: Whites cast 80%+ of Trump’s votes, but some call the Sailer Strategy obsolete–Why?" (mid-November 2024):
sure, but I said 'can'. Such things must be done in increments and still no guarantees. It remains rare for people to switch parties over a flip in party positions and that is more about the nature and character of the switcher.
As an aside, in this interview with Ross Douthat, Steve Bannon highlights the past writings of Sean Trende on white voters, and does not mention Steve Sailer.
> "Blacks, feminists and urban Hispanics provide the bulk of the votes for the Democratic Party."
The underdiscussed component of the Democrat voter bloc is _fraud_. The D margin of victory in most elections is entirely explainable by fraud. When voter rolls are cleaned and voter ID required, Democrat votes decline by about 10%, which would erase most D victories. It is no coincidence that blue states forbid voter ID while red states allow it. Most blue governments couldn't exist with honest elections.
Between vote fraud and near-monopolistic media control, the modern Democrat part is basically a psy-op. If they had to earn votes honestly, they would either cease to exist or advance a very different—and much more popular—platform.
I find it very funny that Democrats vociferously oppose IDs for voting, a condition every country in Europe has as a condition to vote. The Democrats are almost telling you that they are cheating.
I know that Washington, Oregon and Colorado lean fairly strongly to the Democrats these days but this wasn't always the case. It became the case when all three went to mail-in voting. I don't think a Republican has won a statewide race in Washington and Oregon for over twenty-five years and twenty-three years since Colorado elected a Republican statewide.
Do not hate your own laudable impulse to bring excellence to metaphors. That being said, I’ve never seen a piñata pay off all at once. The blindfolded hitter usually begins with a few misses or glancing blows till they zero in on the target. Next the blows start to crack the structures integrity and yield partial payoffs which gradually increase to a substantial crescendo.
Do you like beating a rented mule till it drops better?
No, if a piñata has a few steps of little sustainable payoffs before all the treats are exhausted at once then it's better than the rented mule. Especially so given that your host pays for the piñata but you would pay for the mule.
The fairytale of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and all of its iterations in the following decades is over. It was sold to Americans as a way to help descendants of American slavery and Jim Crow. It soon (as predicted) begin to morph into a rewrite of the Constitution. "Age of Entitlement" by Christopher Caldwell is an excellent read to see the timeline of how this occurred.
In 1960, you could fit the entire population of people neither White or Black in present-day Phoenix Arizona.
Even if you agree with the original premise of the CRA, policies like Affirmative Action and other programs apply to any non-White who steps on the magic dirt shores of America, anyone claiming Hispanic heritage, or just someone who can claim oppression, this was the end of the goodwill of Whites towards these programs. It has become entirely weaponized and used as a political cudgel that neither promotes equality, or social cohesion.
Arthur, you're neglecting here what may be one of Mr. Caldwell's most-famous lines, from an earlier book (2009):
"One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong."
(Christopher Caldwell, "Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West," published July 2009. -- An alternative subtitle to that book, used by a paperback republisher, was: "Can Europe be the Same With Different People In It?")
This sidebar comment on what so-called "affirmative action" is, and how it works, came in the chapter titled "Liberalism and Diversity." That chapter grappling with the usual problem of a Western-open society's institutions and norms taking in alien people and cranking them through the same system; and critical of many Western Europeans seeking to emulate the USA's "affirmative action" policies for Nonwhites. (The problem of European emulation of the USA may happen a lot less now that everyone is angry at Trump for his wacko proposals such as U.S. annexation of Gaza.)
My point is, "the end of the goodwill of Whites towards these programs" has always been in a race against the rise of a client class, an elite patron class of those clients, and empowered Elite-Migrant caste. We see plenty of exemplars of the latter here in the 2020s. It's really not as simple as "White-Christians getting fed up."
Steve says, "most voters wouldn’t mind a return to the affirmative action days of smiling friendliness see[n] in stock photos rather than the DEI days of utter racist hate", but the former is the larval stage of the latter, so if you tolerate Stock Photo Affirmative Action, you will eventually get the snarling Utter Racist Hate DEI.
"anti-white hate was a major theme of NYT discourse in roughly 2013-2022"
The turn-over point, towards such things being possible, long predates the various "hockey-stick graphs" that the one guy started producing a few years ago. I find those graphs misleading, for that reason. They are not showing some monumental axis-point of history in the way it's easy too interpret them.
The real turn-over occurs decades earlier. Things reached a saturation-point in the 2010s. Then again, mid-2010s-to-early-2020s Wokeness was, all along, itself probably tied closely to the rise of discourse on the Internet. The Internet, high-speed connections, smartphones, apps, and cultural changes towards mass use of the Internet as a norm (as with online dating-apps) turbocharged existing trends in a way we're still not able to understand fully, I think. The Internet, it's been argued, created Cluster-B personality-disorder-like traits at social scale. Wokeness thrived but was not born, through the shock of Internetization between ca.2005-2015.
As for the New York Times' institutional position. Its "turn" towards this ideology could likely be shown to date to the 3rd quarter of the 20th century, and could be shown to be complete by some point in the 4th quarter of the 20th century. Getting more precise than that becomes contentious.
Lothrop Stoddard (1883-1950) was a New York Times correspondent. He was published somewhat regularly and sympathetically treated, his books positively reviewed, all through the 1910s-1940s, if I'm not wrong. Lothrop Stoddard was not some oddball exception at the time. A figure like that associated with the New York Times would be quite impossible in the latter few decades of the 20th century. It's not like the NYT could plausibly have had a Lothrop Stoddard in 2012 and then, from 2013, turned into anti-White crusaders for the next ten years, out of the blue.
I really do wonder what Democrats will have for their "cause/causes" in 2028. The abortion issue, which was so reliable for them, is getting eliminated with many states now voting on it. What can they do? Double down on trans identity? Resurrect BLM? Outlaw the police? Sarcastic suggestions, but I truly don't know what they are left with. All they've got is hope that Trump really messes up somehow. Otherwise.....
Looking back, it seems like the Republic lost its sense of balance and the practical goal of letting people have as much personal freedom as possible while keeping the Nation safe, secure and economically healthy. Reasonable tradeoffs and a desire to have a wonderful Nation for all is a worthy vision, IMHO.
"Most normies we're tolerant of a moderate amount of discreet affirmative action, useless NGO spending, and soft-major nonsense until beginning in 2013 and peaking in the "racial reckoning" of 2020-2023, the left went nuts.."
I was trying to make this work as written, i.e. Most normies we are.. and it does work up until "until". So I suppose it should be "were"?
It reads: Most normies Comma (,) we are tolerant of a moderate amount of discreet affirmative action, useless NGO spending and soft-major nonsense STOP (.) Until Comma (,) beginning in 2013... The problem was insufficient punctuation.
A laundry list of things for Democrats to keep and to dump if they ever want to win again nationwide.
Keep a woman’s right to choose for the first trimester. Dump abortion until birth unless the mother’s health is at risk.
Keep a concern for climate change and grow nuclear power. Dump intermittent, unreliable renewable energy.
Keep and develop new effective vaccines. Dump vaccine mandates.
Keep equality of opportunity for all. Dump equity of results based on discrimination against men, whites and Asians (aka D.E.I.).
Keep the protection of gay and lesbian rights. Dump men in women’s sports, private spaces and prisons. Oh, and mutilating children who might grow up to be gay.
Keep an opportunity for selective high value immigration. Dump sanctuary cities and open borders.
Keep helping the homeless find jobs and a place to live. Dump camping in cities and allowing open drug use.
Keep a concern for due process in criminal justice. Dump letting shoplifters and other petty thieves off the hook.
Do all of the above and they might find their way back to power.
Guest: No homeless person should be arrested unless they are violent, stealing or selling drugs. Those who cannot survive without help should be given custodial care but not in jail.
Guest: Loitering in my mind is not the biggest problem. Camping is stopped by putting their tents and trash in a dumpster and hauling it away. Relocation to the fringes of the community returns the central part of the city to productive citizens.
Confiscation of property would result in lawsuits and would need to be done under the color of law. And once again, playing hot potato with the homeless never works.
Guest: “Confiscation of property”? You can’t be serious. It’s illegal to camp in most cities. The Supreme Court has authorized such cleanups and many cities have begun to do it. It’s fixing a clear public health and safety risk. And again no one who does not violently resist needs to be arrested.
The masks have slipped. Maybe the next generation won’t remember. But I hope they’re well-taught.
When you bite the hand that feeds you…
The training material for a major company shows a drawing of a crowd where an Asian man stands in the front, with Blacks, Browns etc. Whites, as usual, represented by a woman. In another picture there is a White man, but his face is covered by a beard and glasses.
When I was looking to buy noise-cancelling headphones some years back, the pictures on the websites were full of Blacks, and then a White woman thrown in. One page did have a White man at the top, an old man with the face covered by a beard.
I have seen this in many places, where they avoid including a picture of an ordinary White man in his twenties or thirties.
Yes, this is definitely hate.
----------
Yet they claim Whites are the oppressors. From a Dutch study about immigrant youth:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9664864/
"First, the participants perceived a higher level of discrimination directed at their group as a whole than at themselves as individuals."
They aren't discriminated against themselves, but they "know" their group is discriminated against. That's the power of the media controllers at work. So discriminating against the evil Whites is then allowed.
Conservatives can be just as condescending as lefties when it comes to tokenism. A couple days ago a conservative group- I think it was called Young America's Foundation- sent me a 16 page, full color newsletter. Nearly every photo had at least one black in it. Allen West and Star Parker were prominently mentioned for a summer tour cruise.
Contracting Fraud in The Pentagon
Since 18 May 2022, DoD DEI are retaliating / discriminating against me for whistleblowing on contracting fraud by minorities. The DoD DEI Manager covering up, Clothilda Taylor, SES is now threatening me with termination!
https://militarycorruption.com/rick-lamberth/
https://militarycorruption.com/volume-ii-lamberth-vs-pentagon-dei/
V/R,
LTC Rick Lamberth, USA(Ret.)
Program Manager, NH-0343-04 / GS-15
linkedin.com/in/rick-lamberth-5a08051a
The problem with phrasing it as "anti-White hate" is: the people running it were also, generally, White. They were not, generally, masochists. The hate was real, but the target was not all Whites in blunderbuss fashion, even if it sometimes looked that way.
Plus, a large share of White people agreed with (believed) the central claims. While they were stuck in an Ethnomasochist frame (not of their own creation), they were not personally masochists.
There has been something else going on, for which we lack a good vocabulary. The word "Wokeness" took hold because of the implicit perception that some new term was needed to reflect dominant ideological conditions, which became hegemonic (and still are, even under Trump and co., who are like court-jesters who've taken over for a while) but which lacked a decent name.
Wasn't it John Derbyshire (I hope you are reading SteveSailer.net, Mr Derb), who said it was Good-Whites vs. Bad-Whites? I think he or others began to write the terms as "Goodwhites" and "Badwhites," a blending of the concepts and not as much an adjectival-type use.
Steve constantly writes about the statistical difference between whites/Asians versus blacks/Hispanics. Steve usually implies the gaps are due to human biodiversity and culture. The left believes that it is a result of racism and discrimination. What is happening now is that the right is saying that the gaps are really due to genetics and culture and that we are wasting our time and money trying to close the gaps.
Don’t underestimate the strength of the Democratic Party among college educated whites of both sexes. They are still their largest voting bloc.
I'm sorry, but I disagree at this time. "Anti-white" is the intention and the result. Here's an example. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that whites have no right to complain about discrimination against them in admission to a major university law school, "diversity" became a slogan of race relations leftists. The came out for "diversity" in every circumstance. But they have no minimum goal for whites; their "number goals" (as the called them prior to the "diversity" ruling" have always been inequalities with no goal for having any whites. Some programs seem to make exceptions for white disabled people, white transgender folks, or even white women. But alas, for them black disabled people, black transgender folks, and black women are preferable to the evil whites.
Race relations leftism holds that whites are the cause of everything that is wrong with or turns out badly for whites and everyone else. The whites in favor of race relations leftism might not or might not be practicing BDSM safe-sane-consensual people, but they are indeed neurotic masochists.
I think Democrats are incapable of changing course, at least for the foreseeable future. Ironically, if Trump completely obliterates DEI - not just in the government, but by ultimately ditching "adverse impact" and making even old-timey affirmative action illegal across American society, backed up by the Supreme Court - then it may solve the Dems' problem for them by rendering it a moot issue, similar to how abortion was mostly on the back burner during the Roe vs. Wade years.
A more immediate prospect is that while the Right won the battle, the war may be far from over. Republicans' House majority is slender, could easily tip back in 2026 (especially if DOGE's teenager workers trip over a power cord at the US Treasury), and a combination of lawfare, investigations and legislative paralysis could blunt the impact of Trump's executive actions.
I enjoy the image of the DOGE guy tripping over a power cord and suddenly...what...there's no money for a few minutes until the system comes back up :)
Wall Street guys be like 'OMG my money!!!!!!...oh wait, it's back'
The revelations of waste and incompetence coming out daily are taking the wind out of the sails of the lefties (both Democrat and Republican).
The number of normal people that want their tax dollars to pay for lesbians operas in Ireland likely rounds to zero.
This USAid thing is a huge hit for Trump and he’s been in office for a couple of weeks. The expulsions of some the filth that’s accumulated here in the past decades is another giant hit among normal folks.
I just think people tend to over-extrapolate from electoral swings. It feels like Trump won this massive landslide but we are talking about a popular vote margin of 1.5% and 3-4 House seats. Swing voters don't necessarily know or care much about elite issues like DEI, the war over Activism Inc (of which USAID is a part), struggles between MAGA and the bureaucracy, or foreign-policy stuff involving Israel and Ukraine. Democrats can easily win the House again and a Senate seat or two in 2026 if eg bird flu sends eggs to $25 a dozen, or unemployment ticks up by a point.
Yea, you’re likely correct.
The election of Barrack Obama as president in 2008 marked the beginning of a new era in American politics. The Democratic Party became the anti-white party in 2008 and most normal whites figured it out. By accident, the Republicans became the normal white person party. This intensified with the 2010 Republican route of the Democrats and the election of Donald Trump as president in 2016.
The Democratic Party escalated its hatred of normal whites with its reaction to the George Floyd death in 2020. Riots and the taking over of certain neighborhoods in leftist cities by leftist gangs were justified. Democratic politicians took knees for Mr. Floyd, a violent criminal and drug addict. Little things piled up. The Redskins football team changed their nickname because it was "racist." Aunt Jemima pancake flour was banished to the memory hole as was Uncle Ben's rice. Normal whites found the gyrations of the left over George Floyd bizarre and anti-white.
I don't know whether the Democrats can change. They are beholden to a myriad of leftist interest groups. The party is funded by the IT community, Jews, Hollywood and homosexuals, each a leftist interest group. Blacks, feminists and urban Hispanics provide the bulk of the votes for the Democratic Party. The Democrats will most likely choose to remain as they are. Their inept presidential candidate won 48.5 % of the vote in 2024. So why change?
You overestimate how much of political identity is based on specific policy positions. Almost all of it is a team sports instinct. That's why the two major parties can completely switch positions over time and no one cares.
Electing Obama should have been the end of the discussion about how White Americans felt about Black Americans. But we can't have that. If the bad people agree with the good people about such a key issue, they can't just take the win, they need to find some new material, something too far out for the bad guys. How else will we be able to distinguish them?
That's also why they couldn't just take the W on homosexuality; they needed some new stuff, some stuff so obviously bonkers that the bad guys would never agree, extreme trans.
It is an exaggeration to say the parties can "completely switch positions and no one cares"; Whites in the Southern states DID all leave the Democratic Party, after all, after over a century of loyalty.
The key to the Trump victories was a similar, smaller but electorally decisive, shift by a section of Whites in the Midwest.
See "Revisiting the “Sailer Strategy” after the Trump-2024 victory: Whites cast 80%+ of Trump’s votes, but some call the Sailer Strategy obsolete–Why?" (mid-November 2024):
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2024/11/12/revisiting-the-sailer-strategy-after-the-trump-2024-victory-whites-cast-80-of-trumps-votes-but-some-call-the-sailer-strategy-obsolete-why/
sure, but I said 'can'. Such things must be done in increments and still no guarantees. It remains rare for people to switch parties over a flip in party positions and that is more about the nature and character of the switcher.
As an aside, in this interview with Ross Douthat, Steve Bannon highlights the past writings of Sean Trende on white voters, and does not mention Steve Sailer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/31/opinion/steve-bannon-on-broligarchs-vs-populism.html
https://archive.is/FRlcf
No they’re unlikely to change although are some Dems game for it. But not enough to stand up to the powerful groups defending identity politics.
> "Blacks, feminists and urban Hispanics provide the bulk of the votes for the Democratic Party."
The underdiscussed component of the Democrat voter bloc is _fraud_. The D margin of victory in most elections is entirely explainable by fraud. When voter rolls are cleaned and voter ID required, Democrat votes decline by about 10%, which would erase most D victories. It is no coincidence that blue states forbid voter ID while red states allow it. Most blue governments couldn't exist with honest elections.
Between vote fraud and near-monopolistic media control, the modern Democrat part is basically a psy-op. If they had to earn votes honestly, they would either cease to exist or advance a very different—and much more popular—platform.
I find it very funny that Democrats vociferously oppose IDs for voting, a condition every country in Europe has as a condition to vote. The Democrats are almost telling you that they are cheating.
I know that Washington, Oregon and Colorado lean fairly strongly to the Democrats these days but this wasn't always the case. It became the case when all three went to mail-in voting. I don't think a Republican has won a statewide race in Washington and Oregon for over twenty-five years and twenty-three years since Colorado elected a Republican statewide.
And a white South African refugee is the apotheosis of our retribution...
The DEI piñata was paying off so well, they couldn’t resist hitting it harder and harder.
I hate to be the metaphor police, but doesn't a piñata pay off only once, after you hit it harder and harder?
I have never actually had the privilege, but i have seen them on TV
Do not hate your own laudable impulse to bring excellence to metaphors. That being said, I’ve never seen a piñata pay off all at once. The blindfolded hitter usually begins with a few misses or glancing blows till they zero in on the target. Next the blows start to crack the structures integrity and yield partial payoffs which gradually increase to a substantial crescendo.
Do you like beating a rented mule till it drops better?
No, if a piñata has a few steps of little sustainable payoffs before all the treats are exhausted at once then it's better than the rented mule. Especially so given that your host pays for the piñata but you would pay for the mule.
Then piñata it is. 😉
The fairytale of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and all of its iterations in the following decades is over. It was sold to Americans as a way to help descendants of American slavery and Jim Crow. It soon (as predicted) begin to morph into a rewrite of the Constitution. "Age of Entitlement" by Christopher Caldwell is an excellent read to see the timeline of how this occurred.
In 1960, you could fit the entire population of people neither White or Black in present-day Phoenix Arizona.
Even if you agree with the original premise of the CRA, policies like Affirmative Action and other programs apply to any non-White who steps on the magic dirt shores of America, anyone claiming Hispanic heritage, or just someone who can claim oppression, this was the end of the goodwill of Whites towards these programs. It has become entirely weaponized and used as a political cudgel that neither promotes equality, or social cohesion.
“In 1960, you could fit the entire population of people neither White or Black in present-day Phoenix Arizona.”
You would still think so if you never visit the US and just consume its music and TV.
Arthur, you're neglecting here what may be one of Mr. Caldwell's most-famous lines, from an earlier book (2009):
"One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong."
(Christopher Caldwell, "Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West," published July 2009. -- An alternative subtitle to that book, used by a paperback republisher, was: "Can Europe be the Same With Different People In It?")
This sidebar comment on what so-called "affirmative action" is, and how it works, came in the chapter titled "Liberalism and Diversity." That chapter grappling with the usual problem of a Western-open society's institutions and norms taking in alien people and cranking them through the same system; and critical of many Western Europeans seeking to emulate the USA's "affirmative action" policies for Nonwhites. (The problem of European emulation of the USA may happen a lot less now that everyone is angry at Trump for his wacko proposals such as U.S. annexation of Gaza.)
My point is, "the end of the goodwill of Whites towards these programs" has always been in a race against the rise of a client class, an elite patron class of those clients, and empowered Elite-Migrant caste. We see plenty of exemplars of the latter here in the 2020s. It's really not as simple as "White-Christians getting fed up."
Agree.
Steve says, "most voters wouldn’t mind a return to the affirmative action days of smiling friendliness see[n] in stock photos rather than the DEI days of utter racist hate", but the former is the larval stage of the latter, so if you tolerate Stock Photo Affirmative Action, you will eventually get the snarling Utter Racist Hate DEI.
"anti-white hate was a major theme of NYT discourse in roughly 2013-2022"
The turn-over point, towards such things being possible, long predates the various "hockey-stick graphs" that the one guy started producing a few years ago. I find those graphs misleading, for that reason. They are not showing some monumental axis-point of history in the way it's easy too interpret them.
The real turn-over occurs decades earlier. Things reached a saturation-point in the 2010s. Then again, mid-2010s-to-early-2020s Wokeness was, all along, itself probably tied closely to the rise of discourse on the Internet. The Internet, high-speed connections, smartphones, apps, and cultural changes towards mass use of the Internet as a norm (as with online dating-apps) turbocharged existing trends in a way we're still not able to understand fully, I think. The Internet, it's been argued, created Cluster-B personality-disorder-like traits at social scale. Wokeness thrived but was not born, through the shock of Internetization between ca.2005-2015.
As for the New York Times' institutional position. Its "turn" towards this ideology could likely be shown to date to the 3rd quarter of the 20th century, and could be shown to be complete by some point in the 4th quarter of the 20th century. Getting more precise than that becomes contentious.
Lothrop Stoddard (1883-1950) was a New York Times correspondent. He was published somewhat regularly and sympathetically treated, his books positively reviewed, all through the 1910s-1940s, if I'm not wrong. Lothrop Stoddard was not some oddball exception at the time. A figure like that associated with the New York Times would be quite impossible in the latter few decades of the 20th century. It's not like the NYT could plausibly have had a Lothrop Stoddard in 2012 and then, from 2013, turned into anti-White crusaders for the next ten years, out of the blue.
I really do wonder what Democrats will have for their "cause/causes" in 2028. The abortion issue, which was so reliable for them, is getting eliminated with many states now voting on it. What can they do? Double down on trans identity? Resurrect BLM? Outlaw the police? Sarcastic suggestions, but I truly don't know what they are left with. All they've got is hope that Trump really messes up somehow. Otherwise.....
Looking back, it seems like the Republic lost its sense of balance and the practical goal of letting people have as much personal freedom as possible while keeping the Nation safe, secure and economically healthy. Reasonable tradeoffs and a desire to have a wonderful Nation for all is a worthy vision, IMHO.
"Most normies we're tolerant of a moderate amount of discreet affirmative action, useless NGO spending, and soft-major nonsense until beginning in 2013 and peaking in the "racial reckoning" of 2020-2023, the left went nuts.."
I was trying to make this work as written, i.e. Most normies we are.. and it does work up until "until". So I suppose it should be "were"?
It reads: Most normies Comma (,) we are tolerant of a moderate amount of discreet affirmative action, useless NGO spending and soft-major nonsense STOP (.) Until Comma (,) beginning in 2013... The problem was insufficient punctuation.
"Most normies WERE tolerant of .... and soft-power(?) nonsense, until the left went nuts, beginning in 2013 and peaking...."
Remember back in the day we were all worried about quicksand? Well, that turned out to be not a problem for most of us…
… except for DEMOCRATS…
D.E.I. is just one part of the Democrats problem:
A laundry list of things for Democrats to keep and to dump if they ever want to win again nationwide.
Keep a woman’s right to choose for the first trimester. Dump abortion until birth unless the mother’s health is at risk.
Keep a concern for climate change and grow nuclear power. Dump intermittent, unreliable renewable energy.
Keep and develop new effective vaccines. Dump vaccine mandates.
Keep equality of opportunity for all. Dump equity of results based on discrimination against men, whites and Asians (aka D.E.I.).
Keep the protection of gay and lesbian rights. Dump men in women’s sports, private spaces and prisons. Oh, and mutilating children who might grow up to be gay.
Keep an opportunity for selective high value immigration. Dump sanctuary cities and open borders.
Keep helping the homeless find jobs and a place to live. Dump camping in cities and allowing open drug use.
Keep a concern for due process in criminal justice. Dump letting shoplifters and other petty thieves off the hook.
Do all of the above and they might find their way back to power.
Playing hot potato with the homeless never works and using the county jail as a homeless shelter is an expensive way to deal with the issue.
Guest: No homeless person should be arrested unless they are violent, stealing or selling drugs. Those who cannot survive without help should be given custodial care but not in jail.
If one does not want the homeless to loiter or camp in public, then one is going to have to arrest them.
Guest: Loitering in my mind is not the biggest problem. Camping is stopped by putting their tents and trash in a dumpster and hauling it away. Relocation to the fringes of the community returns the central part of the city to productive citizens.
Confiscation of property would result in lawsuits and would need to be done under the color of law. And once again, playing hot potato with the homeless never works.
Guest: “Confiscation of property”? You can’t be serious. It’s illegal to camp in most cities. The Supreme Court has authorized such cleanups and many cities have begun to do it. It’s fixing a clear public health and safety risk. And again no one who does not violently resist needs to be arrested.
They've all become articles of the faith for too much of their base.
Dems have reaffirmed men in women’s in sports just because Trump banned it for institutions receiving federal funding.
It’s unpopular even amongst Dems but the activists win again.