No, It’s Not About Race

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

No, It's Not About Race

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: September 17, 2009

WASHINGTON

You wouldn't know it to look at me, but I go running several times a week. My favorite route, because it's so flat, is from the Lincoln Memorial to the U.S. Capitol and back. I was there last Saturday and found myself plodding through tens of thousands of anti-government "tea party" protesters.

They were carrying "Don't Tread on Me" flags, "End the Fed" placards and signs condemning big government, Barack Obama, socialist health care and various elite institutions.

Then, as I got to where the Smithsonian museums start, I came across another rally, the Black Family Reunion Celebration. Several thousand people had gathered to celebrate African-American culture. I noticed that the mostly white tea party protesters were mingling in with the mostly black family reunion celebrants. The tea party people were buying lunch from the family reunion food stands. They had joined the audience of a rap concert.

Because sociology is more important than fitness, I stopped to watch the interaction. These two groups were from opposite ends of the political and cultural spectrum. They'd both been energized by eloquent speakers. Yet I couldn't discern any tension between them. It was just different groups of people milling about like at any park or sports arena.

And yet we live in a nation in which some people see every conflict through the prism of race. So over the past few days, many people, from Jimmy Carter on down, have argued that the hostility to President Obama is driven by racism. Some have argued that tea party slogans like "I Want My Country Back" are code words for white supremacy. Others say incivility on Capitol Hill is magnified by Obama's dark skin.

Well, I don't have a machine for peering into the souls of Obama's critics, so I can't measure how much racism is in there. But my impression is that race is largely beside the point. There are other, equally important strains in American history that are far more germane to the current conflicts.

For example, for generations schoolchildren studied the long debate between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. Hamiltonians stood for urbanism, industrialism and federal power. Jeffersonians were suspicious of urban elites and financial concentration and believed in small-town virtues and limited government. Jefferson advocated "a wise and frugal government" that will keep people from hurting each other, but will otherwise leave them free and "shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

Jefferson's philosophy inspired Andrew Jackson, who led a movement of plain people against the cosmopolitan elites. Jackson dismantled the Second Bank of the United States because he feared the fusion of federal and financial power.

This populist tendency continued through the centuries. Sometimes it took right-wing forms, sometimes left-wing ones. Sometimes it was agrarian. Sometimes it was more union-oriented. Often it was extreme, conspiratorial and rude.

The populist tendency has always used the same sort of rhetoric: for the ordinary people and against the fat cats and the educated class; for the small towns and against the financial centers.

And it has always had the same morality, which the historian Michael Kazin has called producerism. The idea is that free labor is the essence of Americanism. Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country. In this free, capitalist nation, people should be held responsible for their own output. Money should not be redistributed to those who do not work, and it should not be sucked off by condescending, manipulative elites.

Barack Obama leads a government of the highly educated. His movement includes urban politicians, academics, Hollywood donors and information-age professionals. In his first few months, he has fused federal power with Wall Street, the auto industry, the health care industries and the energy sector.

Given all of this, it was guaranteed that he would spark a populist backlash, regardless of his skin color. And it was guaranteed that this backlash would be ill mannered, conspiratorial and over the top — since these movements always are, whether they were led by Huey Long, Father Coughlin or anybody else.

What we're seeing is the latest iteration of that populist tendency and the militant progressive reaction to it. We now have a populist news media that exaggerates the importance of the Van Jones and Acorn stories to prove the elites are decadent and un-American, and we have a progressive news media that exaggerates stories like the Joe Wilson shout and the opposition to the Obama schools speech to show that small-town folks are dumb wackos.

"One could argue that this country is on the verge of a crisis of legitimacy," the economic blogger Arnold Kling writes. "The progressive elite is starting to dismiss rural white America as illegitimate, and vice versa."

It's not race. It's another type of conflict, equally deep and old.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/opini ... ml?_r=1&em

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Also note that almost 50% of American Jews make 100,000 dollars a year or more...

However, Jews are not at all poor nowadays.  There are still some working class Jews in the USA and elsewhere, but not that many...and some Jews might be of the 'self inflicted' poor because of personal problems like mental illness/drug abuse/alcoholism, but again not too many of them either because Jews often have 'special places' for those types of Jews.

A recent survey found that almost half of American Jews make 100,000 dollars a year or more: http://jta.org/news/article/2008/02/25/ ... dy02252008 – "Results of the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released Monday showed 46 percent of Jews earning more than $100,000 a year.  Only Hindus, at 43 percent, were above 30 percent."
That's incredible...almost half of American Jews pulling in 6 figures a year – that means almost 50% of individual Jews make almost DOUBLE the average earnings of a standard White American FAMILY of 4 or 5 (i.e., 2 incomes).

However, Jews very often gain their wealth unfairly or through criminal means.  Jews accomplish this by intensively using ethnic-networking amongst themselves, and by blatantly promoting and/or hiring other Jews and completely bypassing all non-Jews for lucrative jobs.  There are many American law firms, banks, medical clinics/hospitals, colleges/universities, media companies, and so forth that are owned and ran by very ethnocentric Jews that will ONLY hire other Jews.  Affirmative action cases could easily brought against these hyperethnocentric Jews proving that they are using VERY discriminatory hiring practices against non-Jews by shutting them out and hiring only their fellow Jews (along with a few token Blacks and Asians for the needed "diversity," of course).  The laws must change so that Jews can henceforth be categorized as non-White/Semitic/Near Eastern in order to expose their vast over-representation in certain key sectors and industries in very many White nations.

I often wonder how Jews would feel if White (non-Jewish) Americans started using ethnic-networking as extensively as American Jews do?  No doubt accusations of "racism," "discrimination," and "exclusivity" would be heard incessantly from them: certainly a case of 'the pot calling the kettle black.'

—
A very important thing to understand is that nearly everything Big Jewry latches on to eventually becomes horribly corrupt, worm-eaten, and rotten.  Jews are always taking perfectly good ideas, businesses, political parties, etc and completely fucking them up.  Jews are RUINERS and DESTROYERS, not CREATORS and MAINTAINERS.  It is practically a rule of nature itself that everything Jews handle too much eventually turns to worthless stinking shit.

However, Jews do promote commerce and consumerism ('money-changing') wherever they go, and while some might consider that a good thing it is increasingly clear that too much commerce, too much 'progress,' too much industrialization, too much consumerism, and too much development are destroying the earth's environment and as such must be sharply reigned in to more sustainable levels.

[Jenny Lake]

I'm always leery of journalists like Brooks who present lots of verbage that initially appears off-topic to the subject and fail to illustrate what they mean.
Case in point:
He frames his theme..."we live in a nation in which some people see every conflict through the prism of race". He cites Jimmy Carter among them and then links an idea of racism to a 'populist' belief of "hardworking ordinary people...[that] should be held responsible for their own output. Money should not be redistributed to those who do not work...by condescending, manipulative elites", like Jimmy Carter? Then he makes his central point --it's (populist)Jeffersonian versus (elite)Madisonian-- and adds "we now have a populist ('producerist') news media" and says "and we have a progressive news media" where he's already linked 'progressive' to both "militant" and "elite".
okay then --"It's not race. It's another type of conflict, equally deep and old". Can you figure it?
... I think it's the one between the lying propagandists and everybody else.

[gurdgieff]

I agree its not black and white or left and right or muslim christian -catholic protestant.thats how they seperate us.
its up and down,rich man and poor man.the rich colaborate with the rich.