Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 10 of 11     «   Prev   7   8   9   10   11   Next
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,901
Reply with quote  #136 
And I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Warren never claimed more than has been established, and never traded on what, it turns out, was genuinely her heritage, gaining her academic posts purely on grounds of qualification and capabilities. Harvard traded on the claim without her knowledge, a disgrace to it but not to her. As a side issue, perhaps you are unaware that, under the law of some US states, 1/64th would have been more than ample to establish you as black, American Indian or whatever, with all the disadvantages that entailed, known as the 'one drop of blood' doctrine. Those days are happily gone, but even a trace descent like this one is still viewed as being significant by many US people. So at least stop mocking that part.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,122
Reply with quote  #137 
Minority status in job applications can carry weight, especially in this context. Warren knew what she was doing, whether she needed to identify as a minority or not. She stopped listing it when she got tenure, by the way, which is telling. To claim such status at the Harvard of the 90s was either self-serving or deluded. Perhaps, like Rachel Dolezal, she just really wished to be a minority. That is the kind of person Pocahontas Warren is. She also spoke about her parents eloping because of her mother's heritage, which is yet another piece of absurdity, and self-serving, given the clear politicking involved. You act as if she vaguely alluded to some distant ancestor, whereas she clearly identified herself as a native American, repeatedly and publicly, at best showing a strange enthusiasm to identify herself with a minority heritage on the slightest pretext.

One could respond with examples, like the Nuremberg laws, where the criteria of the most extreme racialists was only grandparents, or the mention the Cherokee rules themselves (which, I believe, are usual for native American tribes). But I don't think that is necessary. This is just common sense. Warren isn't native American. At best 1/64th heritage is tiny, not what we would call enough, in non-political context, to actually identify as an ethnic group. As noted, her native ancestry seems to be within, or close to, the range of most whites in America. To use this for employment and political purposes is either cynical or deluded, but definitely hilarious. I have no idea how anyone can take her seriously.

Even the Onion couldn't resist a dig at Warren after this spectacular own goal of hers - which already reads like some Peter Simple might have made up (I recall his university activist character claimed Aztec heritage):

https://politics.theonion.com/elizabeth-warren-disappointed-after-dna-test-shows-zero-1829766407?utm_medium=sharefromsite




I suppose one good thing to come out of this is everyone can now basically be a minority by these standards, so it might deflate the minority caste systems that identity politics leftists seem to wish to build.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,122
Reply with quote  #138 
Royston Vibes was the character I had in mind, and yes, he did claim Aztec descent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Peter_Simple_characters

Quote:
Royston Vibes — 18th-year sociology student at Nerdley University. Claims to be head of an Aztec community that conquered Nerdley in the Dark Ages and demands ever-increasing concessions and benefits from local government, including the inalienable right to commit human sacrifice on subsidized step pyramids.


It is amazing how much the modern left is like Peter Simple characters come to life.
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 384
Reply with quote  #139 
Thanks for the previous posts. The historic Pocahontas (daughter of Wahunsunacock, Chief of the Powhatan tribe) actually appears on the Genealogics.org website. She married Englishman John Rolfe, and they removed to England. They had one child, a son Thomas. Pocahontas died in 1617, and is buried in England.

Thomas Rolfe, who'd grown up in England, married Jane Poythress, moved to his mother's homeland of Virginia and died there aged 31. They'd had one child, a daughter Jane. Jane Rolfe married Colonel Robert Bolling, and they had one child, a son John. She died in 1676 in Virginia. Colonel John Bolling married Mary Kennon, and they had a large family of children and grandchildren. John died in 1729 in Virginia. John and Mary were the ancestors of many of the First Families of Virginia (the Tidewater Aristocracy), whose numerous descendants have included several Virginian governors and senators, and have been prominent in American and Virginian politics, literature, and culture down to the present time. They include North and South Pole explorer Admiral Richard Byrd, and  former Virginia Senator Harry Byrd Jr., who died in 2013, aged 98.

One branch of the family is traceable on Genealogics down thru the 1970s. A descendant, Pauline Fairfax Potter (died 1976 in California), married as her 4th husband Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovitch (grandson of Czar Alexander II). They had no children, although Grand Duke Dmitri, through an earlier marriage, founded the Romanov-Ilinsky family, which is still extant in the cognatic line.

__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #140 
One more, mainstream media and social media users act as if the SPLC is some kind of authority and hence repeat its smears:
https://twitter.com/ishapiro/status/1052591583588175877

Meanwhile, no condemnation from the SPLC and the broad Left of Bill Clinton, Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour for their take on Louis Farrakhan:
https://twitter.com/LegInsurrection/status/1052921581045985280

Something does not quite line up here - the Left, Islamists and the Nation of Islam all on the same side, yet would seemingly have little in common. Or do they?

The issue is that the NOI is not recognised by orthodox Muslims as truly Islamic. Yet Islamist activists like Sarsour seem to have no problem with them. And the NOI's views on abortion, homosexuality, drugs and welfare are the very opposite of what SJ Ws generally believe in.

The other issue is that the SPLC's inclusion of the NOI and other Black Nationalist groups on its "hate groups" list is pure tokenism. They do so and write about them, but have failed to condemn liberal and leftist public figures for even remotely associating with them, as they do with anything on the Right.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #141 
If you need to find out more information, these websites help:

https://splcinfo.com/
http://splcexposed.com/
http://www.splclies.com/
https://exposesplc.com/
https://farleftwatch.com/
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,901
Reply with quote  #142 
Here's what the SPLC actually say about Nation of Islam. Doesn't sound too tokenist to me, more like unreserved condemnation. Never heard of the other two and haven't bothered to look into them, but so far as I can discover former President Clinton's 'take' on the loathsome and despicable Farrakhan consists of having shared a public platform with him. At Aretha Franklin's funeral. What was the poor man to do? Remain silent, and be condemned for not speaking out against his no doubt unwelcome company, or object to Farrakhan's presence, and be condemned for making waves at a funeral? He chose the first option, which I think was the more decent course of action. As for why Farrakhan was even there, that's a question for the Franklin family to answer.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #143 
Well it is tokenism in that were it someone appearing on stage with David Duke or David Irving, they would rightly be condemned for it and/or asked to explain themselves to the public. But this has not happened with Bill Clinton, even as his own daughter recently condemned Farrakhan on Twitter. The fact that Louis Farrakhan gets a free pass from many liberals and black community activists is appalling. Clinton also shared the platform with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, both of whom are divisive and damaging figures.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,901
Reply with quote  #144 
Fairly or otherwise, Clinton was condemned, though. Can't disagree with your last two sentences, Farrakhan is a dangerous and evil lunatic and the other two are dubious individuals to say the least.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,122
Reply with quote  #145 
As you know, I'm weary of guilt by association, and I probably wouldn't be too harsh on Clinton for this. But I do think the media and establishment are extremely hypocrital. Clinton was condemned, but the question is by whom and to what degree. He was condemned by some conservative outlets. The condemnation from the mainstream media was muted to nonexistent. As I said, on its own, I wouldn't care, but if a conservative had done something remotely similar, it would have been a much bigger deal. This is common media practice. Look at what happened last year. A left-liberal activist attempted to mass murder Republican congressmen, and only failed because of his bad aim. He did shoot one congressman. This was barely a blip on the mainstream media radar, whereas we'd never have heard the end of it if it had been a conservative (or even someone vaguely on the right) and the congressmen had been Democrats. Personally, I'm not sure the Democrats and left-liberal have any responsibility for the shooter, but Republicans would certainly be tarred in a similar situation (there are still those who try to do so for the Gifford shooting, when the shooter was literally psychotic and not a conservative, or of any consistent and coherent ideology at all).
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #146 
That's just it. We have to constantly apologise for our very being, but liberals never have to apologise for anything on their own part. Their bankruptcy is revealed in their refusal to distance themselves from the growing problem that is Antifa, and their unholy alliance with Islamists on a local level and internationally.

But the whole point of outrage over Farrakhan is not necessarily about Clinton himself, but the way liberal society and the black community give this odious creature a free pass that would never be afforded to white supremacists. And also pointing out the evident ideological inconsistency between the "social justice" agenda and the Nation of Islam, unless you consider their common goal of destroying Western Civilisation.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,901
Reply with quote  #147 
Here comes Jesse Jackson
He talks of common ground
Does that common ground include me
Or is it just a sound?

A sound that shakes
Oh Jesse, you must watch the sounds you make
A sound that quakes
There are fears that still reverberate

Jesse you say common ground
Does that include the P.L.O?
What about people right here, right now
Who fought for you not so long ago?

The words that flow so freely
Falling dancing from your lips
I hope that you don’t cheapen them
With a racist slip

Oh common ground
Is common ground a word or just a sound?
Oh, oh, common ground
Remember those civil rights workers buried in the ground

If I ran for president
And once was a member of the Klan
Wouldn’t you call me on it
The way I call you on Farrakhan?

From Good Evening, Mr Waldheim by Lou Reed (1989)

Note the date. These problems and even these particular people have been with us a long time, with nothing really done. I don't mean legally, though with Farrakhan that wouldn't be a bad idea, but culturally, to turn away from Farrakhan's vileness and reject him utterly, along with Jackson's hypocrisy. Still, at least the late, great Lou Reed, certainly not a politician but undeniably a liberal figure, was unequivocal in his condemnation.

And Jesse you're inside my thoughts
as the rhythmic words subside
my Common Ground invites you in
or do you prefer to wait outside

Or is it true
the Common Ground for me is without you

Oh is it true
there's no Ground Common enough for me and you
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #148 
And problems for the ADL:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-shame-of-the-anti-defamation-league/
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,911
Reply with quote  #149 
PETA claims that milk is a symbol of "white supremacy":
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/22/cows-milk-racist-peta/
https://www.indy100.com/article/peta-dairy-milk-cows-white-supremacists-tweet-reaction-8597456

Meanwhile, Trans Ideology is threatening the integrity of women's sport:
https://twitter.com/laurenjadepope/status/1054480587271168007
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,901
Reply with quote  #150 
That one was so bizarre I had to look into it. What PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) actually claim is that white supremacists have recently taken to asserting that adult ability to digest milk is an aspect of white superiority, since black people can't. In fact some black people can and some white people can't, the most marked trend being among East Asians and American Indians, where the vast majority cannot cope with the stuff. This gives more detail of the spread of lactase persistence, which appears to be a recent evolutionary response to the development of pastoralism, enabling people to consume the products of their herds as well as the herds themselves.

PETA gave no evidence that I saw of their assertion, just swiftly debunked the supposed claim to superiority and moved on to their real topic, the inhumane treatmen of animals in the dairy industry. I imagine they saw the white supremacy nonsense, whether invented by themselves or genuinely arising from racist groups, as an attention-getting peg to hang their actual topic on. Personally, while not indifferent to what they have to say I don't plan to change my habits in response, because I don't drink milk anyway. Not on ethical grounds and not because of lactose intolerance, but for the simplest reason of all; I don't like the taste.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.