I sure wish we had someone like George Wallace running today,I was out campaigning for Gov. George Wallace in Baltimore the day he was shot ...RIP Gov. George Wallace
Strom Thurmond tried in 1948 and failed. Barry Goldwater tried in 1964 and failed. George Wallace tried in 1968 and 1972 and failed. Pat Buchanan tried in 1992,1996,and 2000 and failed. Ron Paul is trying in 2012 and WILL SUCCEED!!! The Lamestream, communist newsmedia cannot continue to pick our president with the Internet in existence.
Think about it no one looks at Robert Kennedy and says: "Now that guy was a real fucking asshole." But everyone has to jump some serious mental hurdles to come to the defense of George Wallace. Nice legacy to carry on for eternity you have going for you, old man.
Just think. His body was buried in 1998. So for the past 13 years his body has been rotting back to dust. Now there's probably nothing left. So all we have left are these videos.
Isn't it strange that what you say in life: the lies, the prejudice, even people defending you when you renouce it later in life - is all you really have? I say you might as well spend your short life defending the weak. At least people will remember you and the memories in the minds of others is all that's left.
@rsharrieff Some of Alabama's present-day community colleges were all-black schools and some were all-white schools before becoming cc's. Wallace's original plan was to set up seven all-white cc's and three all-black cc's, which would include technical training as well. That was fair in proportion to our state's demographic. Approx. 70% white and 30% black. When the junior colleges opened in the mid-sixties, they were open to everyone. In fact they integrated quicker than the University of AL.
He "repented" for his racist views later in life when the political winds changed. I hope opportunistic scum like him, Robert Byrd and Jesse Helms are rotting in hell
@harley55100 You are highly mistaken. I live in Alabama, and the majority of the black people in this state over the age of forty have great respect and admiration for George Wallace. Wallace was the AL governor that pushed through the bill that established the community college system in our state. Roughly 80% of the black college students in this state attend those colleges. George Wallace did not hate black people. He was a true patriot who stood up against federal government tyranny.
@Sistarovat : Yes, but Black students were still routinely denied admission to community colleges when they were FIRST established; not today. Wallace did NOT establish the c.c. system to further higher education for Black students. I have no admiration and little respect for Governor Wallace. I lived in Hunstville, AL and graduated Robert E Lee High School in 1987.
Now those of you who want to criticize the GOP as being "racist", "bigoted", "KKK like",.........., here you had a presidential candidate who ran as a DEMOCRAT and who steadfastly supported segregation.
If not for the attempted assasination by Bremer, Wallace may never have changed his attitude and been more sympathetic toward the people he had managed to put down during his political career.
Lou Gordon is such a tard. The governor had to repeat himself 8 times, and regardless of the Governor's political positions, he made sense here; if the Republicans nominated Sarah Palin, Colin Powell likely wouldn't endorse her; same thing here, why cant Mr. Gordon just leave it at that?
As time goes by, and more keeps coming out. Regardless of ones views on George Wallace. Anyone starting to wonder if Arthur H Bremer was linked to Nixon's Plumbers...??
@ccasia2008 Amen to that. "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." Acts 17:26 It was never God's will for races to all hudle together and miscegenate, messing up the racial distinctions that he ordained. If God wanted us to all be one race, he would not have divided us up into three separate races of people.
wallace like the rest of those asswholes and the rest of you asswhole that still live in a world of color that says one color is better then another. all things are connected say the lord. Now as for you Chinese Christians in asia you really need to read your word more and listen to your friends and all dat bullshit less and you would be able to see your gov. wallace for the racist he and you really are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@publicatdamagnificen From your comments I can see you are a liberal, so you would be against Wallace simply because he was a social Conservative. He did not lose the governor's election due to the NAACP's endorsement, he lost because John Patterson was more well-known.
Chinese Christian in Asia: racism is normal and healthy to be proud of your white race! In Asia we would never elect a Obama!! Your American Negro is the most racist of all groups in your nation! 75% of of your Negro's are illegitimate 75% have a criminal record! Those are very bad statistics! Your Gov. Wallace was 100% correct! 75% of Asians in the USA want your Negro Obama replaced!
george wallace was a racist for the majority of his life , but in later life he apologized for his actions and denounced segregation. if this was a political ploy or if he was really apologizing is open for speculations.
All these white supremacists drooling over George Wallace obviously never read a book on the man. Wallace used racism as a political tool. Was he a die-hard racist himself? He surely wasn't when he first ran for governor of Alabama. The man opened a box of Pandora out of his insatiable political ambitions.
nothing like the hate that is being perpertrated today with the high rate of black on white violent crime. you hear of the knoxville murders or the wichita massacre and many more...build blacks up and put whites down this is the agenda of the socialists
they want us to race mix. man, all that forced school integration was not about the inability to receive an equal education..compare rural schools with larger city districts.one has lousy curriculums with no arts and the other every subject.
@publicatdamagnificen Good thing Wallace hated the KKK, he called them kooks, idiots and pests. He strongly opposed their senseless lynching and terrorist methods.
@Willredd94 ya know Will, I've done extensive research on George Wallace. He truly did hate the kkk. He had some Old South ways about him, but he really wasn't a hardcore racist. In fact, he once was very liberal and respectful towards black people.
He lost an election because he was endorsed by the NAACP, and from that moment, he re-invented himself to be a bigoted racist. In his heart he did not hate black people....He was just a power-hungry politician!!
@publicatdamagnificen I agree and when he ran in 1968 he had plenty of good proposals for important issues, yet the media misconstrued and distorted his views and always only wanted to talk about segregation and racism. They were grossly unfair and my bias US history teacher paints him as the worst and most evil man to ever have lived in the US. While I strongly dislike his support of segregation while he was governor in the 60s, I like him as a man with ideas who tried his hardest.
George Wallace best shot of becoming President was in 68 when the race was essentially up for grabs. But he blew it in an appointing a General who was out of touch to put it nicely as his Vice Presidential nominee. He blew his most important decision of his Campaign.
@FRSFreeState Are you speaking of General "Bombs Away" LeMay? I don't know how many times I've seen clips of that Pittsburgh press conference when the General wouldn't shut up about nuclear weapons and even Governor Wallace couldn't stop him. It would have been great for a "Laugh-In" skit if it wasn't so serious and hadn't scared the hell out of everyone.
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government." Thomas Jefferson in regard to the American Negro.
George Wallace was a demogauge, he actually wasn't a racist but when he lost his 1st election for Governor in 1958 he decided he lost the election because of the Civil Rights Issue & decided that he would have to use racial & States Rights rhetoric to get elected Governor of Alabama. George Wallace was actually progressive on economic issues & built schools & roads but felt the Federal Government shouldn't involve themselves in what he though was State Issues.
@FRSFreeState if he was not a racist then why did he later apologize to african americans for his racist views after he got shot? some races don't see the hate and anger they perpertrated to others until that same hate comes back on them. then they want to apologize.
@FRSFreeState so if i said that white people are devils and crackers and they shouldn't have the same basic human rights as other people and i advocated that position for 10 + years, you would not consider me a racist, just that i used racist rhetoric but i am not a racist?
To me a racist whoever they are and who ever they hate is about as ignorant and evil as a person can get. Right there with Murderers, Terrorists, Rapists. Because you could be one of those people and also be a racist and use your racism to commit those Violent Acts.
The term racist is so important of a term and a horrible label for anyone of conscience to have. So before you label someone a racist you better be correct. Thats not George C Wallace.
@FRSFreeState "I say segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." yes, i am quoting someone, george c wallace. you would be in an extreme minority of people who would say that does not fit the description of a racist. i guess it is true that "the nile" (denial) is not just a river in egypt. i wil give wallace credit though for later apologizing and recanting his views of the 60s and early 70s.
@vwnclubb, southern society was quite different back then. Even the politicians down there that fought against racism and were considered left-wing still used the 'N' word and racist terms in their personal dialog and still considered black people to be different.
It may not have been right, but standards and attitudes were different back then, and not just in the south.
@redarrowhead "Most people" obviously do not want to return the time of Jim Crow segregation, having the "negro" seen and not heard, people being hosed down the street by cops with the full support of local governments. Tea-baggers, dittoheads, and racists may want to return to the oppression of "yesteryear", but not most of America.
Tea-baggers want to "take back America". Conscientous Americans want it to go forward.
I hope people who post comments on this page understand the detail of party
politics. The fact is the democrats were ruled by the conservative, and republicans were ruled by progressives. Between around 1968, and 1972, the conservatives started to vote republicans after the democratic party became divided on multi issues. (especially racial issues). After 1972, the democratic party became liberal, and republicans became conservatives. All you have to do is look how south votes.
Why don't White Folks have a Right to live in a White Neighborhood, or to have their White Children attend a White School?
Why is it illegal for a White Business Owner to hire White Employees?
If you truly believe your own Propaganda that We are on the same then why are there restrictions on where White Folks are allowed to live, work, or go to school, but no restrictions on blacks or browns?
@rumisouth - It might not happen to you but you ask Mexicans Americans (legal ones) if they can live or go to school where they like. They can't. Exact thing with blacks and other minorities - not as free to move about as you may be - even in this day and age.
I'm not making racist things up - I'm just enlightening you on things that you probably don't come into contact with
@BoltJam There is such a thing as Freedom of Association, and just how free are White Americans to live anywhere they want? How about a white family living in South Central LA or Compton, try living in Douglas Park, La Villita, or Cabrini Green in Chicago; Blacks and Mexicans might get the cold shoulder in White areas, but Whites get murdered in minority areas. Thats the problem with multiculturalism: balkanization. Since 1965 America has become a cesspool of ethnic tension.
I don't think there is anything wrong with multiculturalism. Don't be one of those ignorant people who are afraid of anyone is isn't just like you. I live in a place and teach in a school which is a third white, a third black and a third Arab. There is plenty of interracial friendship, interracial dating, marriage, etc.
@AntonBatey I'm neither ignorant nor afraid, I'm just conscious of how exceptional the USA is and why it succeeded where so many other countries with just as many resources and opportunities for success failed. I don't want my country to become something my forefathers who have suffered for this country since 1620 never wanted, ie "a tangle of squabbling minorities" ( Pres.T. Roosevelt). America was founded as a white Christian English speaking nation, that is what it should remain.
@SitNomineDigna you're incredibly confused. First, how can you see balkanization as a bad thing when you believe in racial separation? Ethnic relations have never been amicable in this country. Second, do you think Mediterranean Whites should be excluded from the Republic, since they weren't participant in its founding? Third, Whites don't live in most the communities you listed because they left once Blacks migrated from the South, taking their wealth with them. Why go back?
But the fact is that Blacks don't move into White neighborhoods just to bask in White society; they move there because all the resources migrated to the suburbs in the 60's and 70's. Yet, under Jim Crow, Black families could live side-by-side with Whites in the South, and yet ran the risk of death if they opened up competing businesses or exercised their right to vote. Socio-economics, and not some group's natural propensity, is the cause of racial violence.
@DIOPJR that is the social determinist orthodoxy yes, but the fact is that even among black groups that have not suffered systematic discrimination the economic picture remains the same, this is true not only in the USA but also in Europe and the West Indies and Africa and anywhere else you could possibly look.
@SitNomineDigna oh, is that 'the fact'? What you mean by the "economic picture" is not clear, but if you mean that Blacks everywhere are poor, that's a patently false assertion. I don't know how you skidded to a claim about the Black poverty rate from a discussion on racial violence, but wouldn't it suck if I chalked up your evasiveness and lazy thinking to a general, immutable characteristic of your race?
@DIOPJR Another fact is that social determinism is a thoroughly refuted notion, although philosophically it is still the driving force behind liberalism, scientifically it is buried in a shallow grave along with other obsolete Lamarckian concepts. There are behavioral differences between different human groups based on their respective genetic histories just as there are behavioral differences between different canine groups based on their respective genetic histories.
@SitNomineDigna more mere assertions. All that I've heard lately about behavioral science is that genetics and environment have a dual influence on a person's behavior. Even allotting a behavior-shaping role to genetics, how does this assist the sliding narrative of White supremacy? For, all during slavery, White commentators remarked on the cheery obsequiousness of the Black man; and, only half a decade after Reconstruction, southern Whites killed thousands for the flimsiest social offense...
...what's more, Blacks during the same period were the most eager to achieve literacy, and pooled meager resources to bring in individual teachers from the North to school generations of their families. In some cases, the first public school in a given city was opened by the endless prodding of Blacks. Should we now typify southern Whites as more violent and averse to education than Blacks, by dint of genetics? They sure look like trans-historical traits...
@DIOPJR well if we qualify this discussion to only that which you have "heard" we won't have much to discuss at all will we? If you wish to refute what I've stated feel free to give me a citation (author, publication, and date if you please), or at least frame your argument logically. I'm not a race supremacist, I'm not making a superiority or inferiority argument, I'm arguing that there are behavioral differences, and that is well attested statistically by various census departments globally.
@SitNomineDigna lol...so basically, what you're telling me is that it's OK to peremptorily state "it's a fact that social determinism has gone the way of Lamarckian theory," but it's not OK for me to reject your unreferenced claim by appeal to what I remember from more reputable sources? Give me a break. I'm not the one advancing claims about heritable behavior. I assume that people respond to their environment, and try to follow that logic through historical anecdotes...
No, you're saying that those behavioral differences are genetic, and you're saying it in response to my claim that socio-economic factors shape human behavior, for good or ill. Let's try to avoid logical hiccups like that in the future, ok?
@DIOPJR Example: despite constituting only around 13% of the population, blacks are nearly 12 times more likely to commit violent crime than whites, blacks are also 7.5 times more likely to commit interracial crime, 31% of all robberies in the USA involved blacks robbing white victims, weapons violations are committed by blacks 5 times more than the general population. Those numbers were obtained by the FBI.
@SitNomineDigna does your example say whether the people committing these crimes are at or below the poverty line; does it outline the family structure; does it mention the rate of black-on-black crime; does it catalog the incidences of hate crimes, as against those committed for financial gain, and then bifurcate those along the same racial lines? If it does, why aren't you furnishing those numbers and factors, as well?
@DIOPJR firstly to save space, but also because as I said before, I am talking about group dynamics and trends across the spectrum of socio-economic circumstances, there are as many poor whites in this country as there are poor blacks, if your thesis which equates crime with race were true, whites would dominate crime statistics across the board. This situation is not unique to the US, in London 79% of those involved in gun crime are black, and they are only about 2% of the overall population.
@SitNomineDigna I didn't equate crime with poverty. C'mon, where's your polemical rigor when you need it? I only said that criminality doesn't inhere in the Black population. This is shown by the dearth of violent crimes among members of the Black middle class. I'm not one for monocausal explanations of group behavior, but I do imagine that Whites dominate white-collar crime stats in this country. What's the cause of that, race or class?
@DIOPJR I'd say race, whites also dominate check fraud and insurance fraud which is the blue collar white equivalent of "white collar crime." Studies in animals and primates, have shown that aggression and other traits which would relate to crime in the human world, are genetic, race specific studies in this area are lacking due to ethical concerns, but it stands to reason that if among advanced mammals and primates aggression is heritable, it is also heritable in humans.
@SitNomineDigna so basically, you believe that in a less racially-sensitive society, studies would prove that Blacks are naturally more aggressive than Whites, which explains their higher representation in violent crime stats. You don't have any *evidence* for it, but it's a haunting suspicion of yours. In other words, your best shot at the explanandum (are certain varieties of crime race-based) is as good as mine.
@DIOPJR@DIOPJR Well lets test that thesis (which is not mine, it has been advanced by many qualified experts, I'm merely repeating it); aggression is shown to be heritable among advanced mammals including primates, twin studies in humans have consistently demonstrated biological determinism to be the dominate force behind behavior, statistically blacks in all countries have a propensity toward violence, crime, and poverty. The evidence very clearly supports that thesis.
@SitNomineDigna qualified experts like whom? William Shockley? J. Rushton? There's no necessary causal link among aggression levels, violent crime stats, and endemic poverty, so the 'evidence' you've failed to present is, even in its outlines, discrete.
@DIOPJR Well then thanks for allaying my fears. I guess I'll just start loving this multiracial utopia. I'm going to move to Cabrini Green and walk around wearing a gold watch & silk tie, and when I'm being mugged, assaulted, or killed, rest assured I'll bear no ill will toward the black doing it, I'll know it was because his ancestors were slaves and subjected to cruel Jim Crow laws, how can he be expected to behave decently in society given what his ancestors endured over a century ago?
@DIOPJR I know that hurts your ideology, or if one is black it might smart on a personal level. And that is very understandable. But one should not ignore facts merely to prevent hurt feelings.
@SitNomineDigna it doesn't hurt on a personal or an ideological level, because it's a flat assertion. And also, I have the vantage point of history. The Greeks viewed Teutons as inferior, because they were overly-aggressive and unlettered, and so did the Arabs. The Egyptians, when they deigned to acknowledge White people at all, were certainly not over-awed by their level of civilization. The Chinese could hold Whites in contempt until the imperial age. Race prejudice is a power game.
@DIOPJR its all just a power game, race is a meaningless category, the fact that the majority of criminals are blacks is meaningless, because there are some law abiding middle and upper class blacks, so no need to characterize a racial group by any factual data or verifiable statistics, no no, we have Secular Humanist Socially Just ideology to do that for us.
And on that note, I have tons of studying to do. I've gotten a bit carried away in entertaining your pseudo-intellection, but really, I haven't heard the old Jared Taylor spiel in quite some time, and I thought I'd let off some steam from the cauldron of the 6 classes I'm taking now. Have a good night, and when you dream, I hope your dreams are all dancing swastikas, blonde maidens, and John Wayne cigarette ads, with not a nigra as far as eyes can see.
@DIOPJR oh hey don't forget the 6 million dead Jews man! And while we're at it lets throw in the Panzers rolling through Poland! Hell yeah! Git R Done! Cuz we all know anyone who doesn't agree with the enlightened view of us Cultural Relativists and Secular Humanist Social Democrats is just a Nazi Redneck clinging to his faith and gun! Hahaha.
@DIOPJR Now as to my statement regarding the "economic picture" I admit that was vague, let me instead say prevailing sociological trend, (but in the future lets not get distracted with semantics), objective statistics clearly show that Blacks tend toward crime and poverty no matter what community they live in. That is indeed a verifiable fact, if you wish to dispute facts please do so with logic and evidence and not fallacious attacks on my character.
What sort of logic can I use to combat a bland assertion? You're saying that a Black family that can afford to live in neighborhoods with property values in the 7 digits will still tend towards poverty and crime. No logic inheres in the claim, leaving aside its empirical truth. It's like saying "bats will tend not to fly no matter how many birds they fly among."
@DIOPJR we're not talking about statistical outliers, we're talking about group dynamics and statistical trends. There are a great many law abiding, peaceful, prosperous blacks in all economic levels, but those are outliers. No objective study qualifies its subject in terms of anomalies, conclusions are based on the consensus. Ie "bird is to flying as black is to crime" is a true statement despite the fact that there are birds which do not fly and blacks which do not commit crime.
@SitNomineDigna can you read? That's not the analogy I posited at all. You said that Blacks will tend toward crime no matter what neighborhood they live in. I offered an analogy that shows forth the palpable absurdity of your claim. You dismiss affluent Blacks as outliers, even in their own affluent communities, which doesn't alter the incoherence of your claim by even a little bit.
@DIOPJR I oppose balkanization in America in the sense that I don't think that a group that immigrate into this country should be allowed to carve off a sizable chunk for themselves, in regards to the blacks, they have suffered brutal injustices in this country since they were first brought here in bondage, but the gravest injustices were that they were given self-determination after Emancipation. I would fully support the creation of an autonomous region for them somewhere in America.
@SitNomineDigna oh, ok. I thought you were using 'balkanization' in a meaningful (i.e., not a pseudo-intellectual) sense. To your point: either you believe in racial quotas to preserve the "White Christian character" of this country, or you believe in the assimilation of immigrant groups. If it's the latter, you're the most singular White supremacist I've ever encountered. If it's the former, you still haven't explained why we should countenance these god-damn Italians and Greeks.
@DIOPJR White supremacy is the idea that the "white" race is morally superior to others, and I most certainly am not advocating that. As for the "Mediterreneans" I fail to see how that is at all pertinent to this discussion, we're talking about the social dynamics of different human races, specifically Caucasion and Negro, not interethnic relations betweeen races, Mediterrenean Europeans are Caucasians.
@SitNomineDigna no, it's the idea that the White race is superior per se. Where are your definitions coming from? I also see a bit of arbitrariness in your system of racial classification, as the Anglo-American authors of your "Caucasian race" mythos typically excluded Celts, Iberians, Slavs and other late 19th- early 20th- century ethnic groups from the pale of 'desirable' Whites, to the advantage of the Teutonic and Alpine 'races'.
@DIOPJR my definitions come from the current typical usage of the terms, and again you are fallaciously attacking semantics rather than the very clear thesis and facts of my arguments. Come now! Lets have some polemical rigor here DIO.
@SitNomineDigna which "typical definition" of White supremacy limits it to normative claims? Weren't you just ruffled by my reference to unnamed behavioral scientists? But here you are, conjuring "current typical usages" out of thin air. If we truly live in a "PC era," as per your lamentations, then how is my understanding of the term atypical?
But all that aside, you said that you'd prefer the country remain in the hands of people like the Founders of the Republic. People who spoke as you speak now, only 100 years ago, would have grouped Mediterraneans, Irish, Jews, and in some cases, Germans with the Negro as unassimilable and unfit for citizenship. As for "race," it is itself an antiquated idea, having no real genetic basis...but you're conversant in the latest scientific developments (smirk), so I'm not saying anything new, right?
@DIOPJR actually you are wrong DIO, the latest genetic research has shown very clearly that there are behavioral differences in the races, I'd recommend you actually read some peer reviewed scientific journals on the subject before you regurgitate the PC drivel you were taught in public school.
@SitNomineDigna how do you know I went to public school? Again, if acknowledging 'behavioral differences' doesn't make you a racial supremacist by the "typical current usage of the term," then why are the public schools discouraging or else ignoring your views, out of PC considerations? You're all over the place, man.
@DIOPJR I know you went to public school because you obvious have never studied classical polemics, and if you have, you need to review it. To state that something is different does not mean that one is superior to the other, and when it comes to talking about racial differences, that is politically incorrect. It seems you are ideologically committed a priori to the concept of absolute racial equality not matter what statistics show and if that is the case just say so and save me some time.
@SitNomineDigna what do "classical polemics" have to do with the fact that you're saying Blacks are genetically predisposed to violence and poverty, no matter their class standing? Not a damn thing. I doubt you read about the obsolescence of social determinism in Cicero, or about the desirability of a White Republic from Hume via Cleanthes. Stop cloaking your racial ill-feelings in genteel language and pseudo-science and just admit that you, yourself, have a confirmation bias.
@DIOPJR now, since you are so single minded in your pursuit of the topic of the "Meditterreneans" I will address it. Non-Hispanic White Ethnics (ie Slavic, Mediterreneans ect.) make up only about 15% of the total, meaning they are a small minority and are not demanding legally protected or "previously disadvantaged status" they are many cases culturally alien in this country, but at least they are law abiding and patriotic, as long as that remains the case they are fine by me.
oh, really? So there's no Serbian or Bulgarian mob in America? So Italians were never held in derision as unassimilable hoodlums, mobsters and Papist conspirators, along with the Irish? So White Anglo-Saxons don't have a violent history in this country, that was torn from Native Americans at rifle-point? What I'm saying about these groups is that you're gonna lose every time you predicate "violent group behavior" on a genetic basis. History is stained with Europeans' inhumanity to fellow man.
@DIOPJR Ok spare me your Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky tainted version of history, your "historical anecdotes" have very little bearing on this discussion. White ethnic mobsters, Catholic loyalty issues, and exaggerated injustices against American Indian don't change the factually verifiable black propensity towards crime.
@SitNomineDigna lol, why don't they? So what people have done in the past doesn't matter? Or has there been some radical shift toward placidity in the American genetic map that somehow left Black Americans unaffected? BTW, lol @ injustices against Native Americans being "exaggerated." Where did I exaggerate them? Is this is a "classical polemical" technique you're employing?
@DIOPJR They don't because they will only lead to an argument about interpretation of history, and also because you are not using an objective citation of a historical event, your argument is based upon the moral value you are attaching to that event, which is subjective. That is why classical polemics is a must, because it keeps the argument on topic and rigorous, not off into irrelevant tangents and dogged with fallacious reasoning.
@SitNomineDigna how do you define an "objective citation"? I don't know what historiography you've been studying, but people haven't believed in a "hard science" history since Ranke fell out of fashion. And for all your talk of "classical polemics," you should know from Protagoras and from the Skeptics that rhetoric is necessarily subjective, too, so how is classicism supposed to deliver us to objectivity? I think you're posturing right now, and you're gonna fall into a hole very shortly.
@DIOPJR Arguments are subjective, facts are not. And does you calling your Cultural Relativist view of history "hard science" does not make it so. I don't dispute the events you refer to, I dispute the moral value judgment passed on them, and that is a matter of ideology, not a matter of "hard science."
@SitNomineDigna ah, I see the problem now. Your "classical training" didn't teach you how to read carefully. I never said that my view of history is "hard science," I said that it's historiographical consensus that such a thing is not possible. You can't divorce history from value judgments, just like you can't couch racialist pseudo-science in strict objectivity...especially when you draw value-laden inferences like "Blacks should live separately in an autonomous region" from your 'science'.
@DIOPJR listen stop labeling my arguments as "racialist" and "pseudo-Science" if that is what you regard them to be, please cite me some facts that demonstrate it, as of yet you have not done so. You seem to only be interested in trumpeting your Cultural Relativistic fallacious deduction as vociferously as possible seemingly to make them right by your passion for them, but remember "certitude is not the test of certainty" Oliver Wendell Holmes.
@SitNomineDigna and you seem to think that your clumping together SAT words and your feigned classicism will so impress your interlocutor that they won't notice how vapid your basic premises are. So if I'm actually putting form before substance, we're on an equal footing...only, I don't think I am. I'm pretty sure you're just wrong, and frustrated because your smattering of 'racial realist' education isn't working for you here.
@DIOPJR I'm not frustrated in the least DIO haha. I'm having an interesting, if very beat around the bush, discussion with you. I just wish you'd stop going off on tangents and stay on topic. And again, whatever accusation you may make about my character, "feigned" "clumping" "vapid" or otherwise, doesn't change the facts I've cited.
@DIOPJR if my conclusions are incorrect, present some facts to demonstrate how and why they are incorrect, don't just call them "pseudo-science" or are you calling the FBI (from where I obtained most of my stats) a racist organization using pseudo-science? Come now.
@SitNomineDigna well, I think the FBI has a history of racist subterfuge, but I don't think they're behind the "peer-reviewed journals" that you vaguely referenced, which have dealt death to social construction. Like I said, what conclusions you've arrived at make no sense: statistics of contemporary violence by race matter, but historical ones don't, because they're subject to "value-judgments"; Blacks tend to poverty and crime, even when they're not impoverished and live in expensive homes...
@DIOPJR hahaha. You have a smug self righteous attitude which I find very humorous. Self assured as you are, you are none the less wrong, blacks living in expensive homes are not the statistical consensus now are they? They are statistical outliers, just like Ostrichs, though birds, are not the average bird. When I state peer reviewed journal I mean that these facts I'm citing having been published in such journals, meaning you don't have to take my word alone for their reliability.
@SitNomineDigna you said "no matter what their environment." Those were your words, and I shouldn't have to translate their meaning as "class has nothing to do with the behavior of Black people, they have a genetic predilection for violence and economic failure." Can't you grasp what violence the fact of the Black professional does to your deterministic premise? Or are you gonna continue parleying your meaning into something less embarrassing?
@DIOPJR for the last time, I'm not talking about what isolated cases may produce, I'm referring to trends and group dynamics. If you wish to ignore those and selectively focus on Black executives living in affluent suburbs, then yes the crime propensity drops significantly, although it is still higher then that of comparable whites, but that is not the statistical consensus, even an exceptional black community that has a lower than white average crime rate is not indicative of the consensus.
@SitNomineDigna why would you assume that, among Black executives, the crime stats are higher than among comparable Whites? Where's your confirmation of that? Also, for all your talk of "consensus" (I think you mean "trend" or "average" here), you still haven't furnished proof that violent crime is spread evenly through the socio-economic strata of the Black community; so, why repose on statistics that can be interpreted either way?
@DIOPJR first, that is not a fact, that is my opinion, opinion should be subjective and out to be value laden. And if you quote me, quote correctly, I said "I would fully support the creation of an autonomous region for them somewhere in America.." not "Blacks should live separately in an autonomous region." There is an ocean of difference between those two statements.
@SitNomineDigna you said that you would support the creation of an autonomous region for Black people to avoid having to interact with them, because you believe they're inherently violent. There's the thrust of your whole "empirical" enterprise. And yet, you ignore statistical data about racial violence toward Blacks during Reconstruction and Southern Redemption on principle, because it's "historic" and so "subject to value statements," when really, it just flouts your argument.
@DIOPJR I do avoid them, because that is not pertinent to this discussion, interracial crime in the present is heavily black on white not the other way around by a margin of over 20%. The argument of "blacks are violent because 150 years whites were violent towards blacks" makes no sense at all. 150 years Protestants and Catholics were at each others throats in this country, but they aren't today. But maybe thats because that was among whites.
You're right, that argument doesn't make sense: it assumes that "violent" is a predicate of Black America, and the violence of one group of people doesn't make another group violent. Whew! Good thing that was merely a straw man! No, my point is, if violence is genetic, we have to ask what changed over the course of 50 years (interracial violence stats still skewed towards White culprits in the 50's and 60's) to blot out the almost-savage aggression from Whites' genetic code in the interim.
@DIOPJR hahaha ok DIO, you win. I'm converted! You're trite comments and self righteous pontificating were just what I needed to turn me into a dyed in the wool secular Liberal! Lets all have an interracial love-in with Roman Polansky and Jane Fonda and watch some Michael Moore films while we eat pot brownies and plan how to bring down the moral majority! Woo hoo!
@SitNomineDigna I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I think that slinging around facile stereotypes about liberals is far more trite than creatively rebuffing your logical fallacy, then explaining my point lucidly, but with a twist of irony. I am, after all, not humorless. I don't hate people, in racial swaths or individually, and so, knowing how to relate to people, I avoid comedic abortions like the one I just read from you. That was reeeally bad. Maybe you should try some weed.
@AntonBatey and I really don't care if you call me a racist, bigot, xenophobe or anything else of the kind, I'm tired of being intimidated by those epithets. As far as your neighborhood, its definitely the exception not the norm, and is irrelevant to the fact that the American government should not have the right to force to associate with those with whom I don't with to, the reason doesn't matter.
@Live414 you're a moron. No one has said that White people can't work or live or go to school wherever they please; only that they may not make it impossible for others to do so. You also aren't allowed to create a legal zone where you can have sex with minors, or steal people's stuff. Wow, are people really this dense when it comes to basic constitutional ideas?
@SitNomineDigna relax yourself, guy. I was talking to Live414, who sounds like he just climbed out of the depths of a Mississippi backwater to give his feeble two cents on civil rights.
@DIOPJR Relax? DIO I'm as calm as a Hindu cow, this isn't the first time I've faced the fray with a Cutlural Pluralist ideologue haha. Polemics matters because irrelevant tangents, fallacious arguments, and endless contention over semantics just wastes time and energy. I would much rather have a polite, professional discussion based upon facts.
The FBI stats were wrong. As usual. The murder rate sky rocketed across the nation far higher than that and in Montogomery the murder rate was still the same contrary to Gordon's garbage.
Wallace had NO support from Alabama's black voters until after the 1970 governor's race when he started opening Alabama politics to minorities. His reelection in 1982 was the first time blacks had EVER turned out to vote for him.
Um, NO. We DO NOT agree. George Wallace pandered to racist assholes and turned a blind eye to the suffering of blacks out of simple political calculation, only turning away from racist politics after very nearly losing the 1970 Democratic primary to a man who openly courted the black vote. The only thing that saved Wallace was a strong third candidate to divide the vote three ways. George Wallace is burning in hell now and I'm quite okay with that.
I sure wish we had someone like George Wallace running today,I was out campaigning for Gov. George Wallace in Baltimore the day he was shot ...RIP Gov. George Wallace
TheRosemp 5 days ago
One less racist prick on the earth
jwh1999 4 weeks ago
Strom Thurmond tried in 1948 and failed. Barry Goldwater tried in 1964 and failed. George Wallace tried in 1968 and 1972 and failed. Pat Buchanan tried in 1992,1996,and 2000 and failed. Ron Paul is trying in 2012 and WILL SUCCEED!!! The Lamestream, communist newsmedia cannot continue to pick our president with the Internet in existence.
Sistarovat 1 month ago
Governor George Wallace, Democrat.
MoeGreensRightEye 2 months ago
Think about it no one looks at Robert Kennedy and says: "Now that guy was a real fucking asshole." But everyone has to jump some serious mental hurdles to come to the defense of George Wallace. Nice legacy to carry on for eternity you have going for you, old man.
Water4Jeremiah 2 months ago
Just think. His body was buried in 1998. So for the past 13 years his body has been rotting back to dust. Now there's probably nothing left. So all we have left are these videos.
Isn't it strange that what you say in life: the lies, the prejudice, even people defending you when you renouce it later in life - is all you really have? I say you might as well spend your short life defending the weak. At least people will remember you and the memories in the minds of others is all that's left.
Water4Jeremiah 2 months ago
@rsharrieff Some of Alabama's present-day community colleges were all-black schools and some were all-white schools before becoming cc's. Wallace's original plan was to set up seven all-white cc's and three all-black cc's, which would include technical training as well. That was fair in proportion to our state's demographic. Approx. 70% white and 30% black. When the junior colleges opened in the mid-sixties, they were open to everyone. In fact they integrated quicker than the University of AL.
Sistarovat 3 months ago
the ron paul of the democrat party
RedChilliGod 3 months ago
He "repented" for his racist views later in life when the political winds changed. I hope opportunistic scum like him, Robert Byrd and Jesse Helms are rotting in hell
DominoRyder 4 months ago
Is it just me, or does he not seem to be that comfortable in his seat?
Probably ought to get used to it, though....
spike1138 5 months ago
@harley55100 You are highly mistaken. I live in Alabama, and the majority of the black people in this state over the age of forty have great respect and admiration for George Wallace. Wallace was the AL governor that pushed through the bill that established the community college system in our state. Roughly 80% of the black college students in this state attend those colleges. George Wallace did not hate black people. He was a true patriot who stood up against federal government tyranny.
Sistarovat 5 months ago
@Sistarovat : Yes, but Black students were still routinely denied admission to community colleges when they were FIRST established; not today. Wallace did NOT establish the c.c. system to further higher education for Black students. I have no admiration and little respect for Governor Wallace. I lived in Hunstville, AL and graduated Robert E Lee High School in 1987.
rsharrieff 3 months ago
Now those of you who want to criticize the GOP as being "racist", "bigoted", "KKK like",.........., here you had a presidential candidate who ran as a DEMOCRAT and who steadfastly supported segregation.
If not for the attempted assasination by Bremer, Wallace may never have changed his attitude and been more sympathetic toward the people he had managed to put down during his political career.
harley55100 5 months ago
Whenever you hear the song "Sweet Home Alabama" you are hearing a tribute to George Wallace and segregation.
SamWiseGingy 6 months ago
Lou Gordon is such a tard. The governor had to repeat himself 8 times, and regardless of the Governor's political positions, he made sense here; if the Republicans nominated Sarah Palin, Colin Powell likely wouldn't endorse her; same thing here, why cant Mr. Gordon just leave it at that?
RonocDondra352 6 months ago
everyone hated busing. Segregation was 100% constitutional.
Seaworldexists 6 months ago
what a fucking tard
andrewmalacara1 7 months ago
As time goes by, and more keeps coming out. Regardless of ones views on George Wallace. Anyone starting to wonder if Arthur H Bremer was linked to Nixon's Plumbers...??
NOC1TIME 7 months ago
@NOC1TIME I have for years. McGovern and Humphrey thought so also.
BLOODYBILL1864 3 months ago
@BLOODYBILL1864 Thanks Mr Anderson. I am a member of A.P Hills Light Division my self. ANV..
Nixon was in Dallas the night before the assassination.. Finally took a little memory shaking a few years later to get him to admit it.
NOC1TIME 3 months ago
@ccasia2008 Amen to that. "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." Acts 17:26 It was never God's will for races to all hudle together and miscegenate, messing up the racial distinctions that he ordained. If God wanted us to all be one race, he would not have divided us up into three separate races of people.
Sistarovat 8 months ago
wallace like the rest of those asswholes and the rest of you asswhole that still live in a world of color that says one color is better then another. all things are connected say the lord. Now as for you Chinese Christians in asia you really need to read your word more and listen to your friends and all dat bullshit less and you would be able to see your gov. wallace for the racist he and you really are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6465unknown 8 months ago
@publicatdamagnificen From your comments I can see you are a liberal, so you would be against Wallace simply because he was a social Conservative. He did not lose the governor's election due to the NAACP's endorsement, he lost because John Patterson was more well-known.
Sistarovat 8 months ago
Chinese Christian in Asia: racism is normal and healthy to be proud of your white race! In Asia we would never elect a Obama!! Your American Negro is the most racist of all groups in your nation! 75% of of your Negro's are illegitimate 75% have a criminal record! Those are very bad statistics! Your Gov. Wallace was 100% correct! 75% of Asians in the USA want your Negro Obama replaced!
ccasia2008 8 months ago
george wallace was a racist for the majority of his life , but in later life he apologized for his actions and denounced segregation. if this was a political ploy or if he was really apologizing is open for speculations.
spenopian 11 months ago 3
All these white supremacists drooling over George Wallace obviously never read a book on the man. Wallace used racism as a political tool. Was he a die-hard racist himself? He surely wasn't when he first ran for governor of Alabama. The man opened a box of Pandora out of his insatiable political ambitions.
TennesseeOwnsMyBones 11 months ago
@TennesseeOwnsMyBones My family knew Wallace. He was a politician and only a politician. Just like Lincoln.
1Atomtan 9 months ago
nothing like the hate that is being perpertrated today with the high rate of black on white violent crime. you hear of the knoxville murders or the wichita massacre and many more...build blacks up and put whites down this is the agenda of the socialists
they want us to race mix. man, all that forced school integration was not about the inability to receive an equal education..compare rural schools with larger city districts.one has lousy curriculums with no arts and the other every subject.
MrSpringtime22 1 year ago
The news reporter is gay "I say segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."
fucktheNAACP 1 year ago
@fucktheNAACP I say "kiss my black ass today, kiss my black ass tomorrow, kiss my black ass forever"
fucktheKKK
publicatdamagnificen 9 months ago in playlist DOC :GEORGE C WALLACE
@publicatdamagnificen Good thing Wallace hated the KKK, he called them kooks, idiots and pests. He strongly opposed their senseless lynching and terrorist methods.
Willredd94 8 months ago
@Willredd94 ya know Will, I've done extensive research on George Wallace. He truly did hate the kkk. He had some Old South ways about him, but he really wasn't a hardcore racist. In fact, he once was very liberal and respectful towards black people.
He lost an election because he was endorsed by the NAACP, and from that moment, he re-invented himself to be a bigoted racist. In his heart he did not hate black people....He was just a power-hungry politician!!
publicatdamagnificen 8 months ago
@publicatdamagnificen I agree and when he ran in 1968 he had plenty of good proposals for important issues, yet the media misconstrued and distorted his views and always only wanted to talk about segregation and racism. They were grossly unfair and my bias US history teacher paints him as the worst and most evil man to ever have lived in the US. While I strongly dislike his support of segregation while he was governor in the 60s, I like him as a man with ideas who tried his hardest.
Willredd94 8 months ago
Why in 1972 the tv coverage is still in Black and White WTF!
12Aggiefan 1 year ago
WHITE RACISTS UNITE!
NOT VIOLENTLY BUT INTELLECTUALLY!
IN SPEECH!
IN MARCHING!
IN BOYCOTTING!
IN EDUCATING ALL OUR PEOPLE!
SNOOOOOO8 1 year ago
@SNOOOOOO8 The day "White racists unite intelletually" is the day they will stop having sex with their cousins!
publicatdamagnificen 8 months ago
DEATH TO CORPORATE FASCISM...
DEATH TO EGALITARIAN IMPERIALISM...
DEATH TO CULTURAL LEFTISM AND THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!
SNOOOOOO8 1 year ago
wallace was right ...he should have never coward to the left but that is what happens when someone puts a bullet through you....
this was an inside job...absolutely a government job...this guy was too dangerous to the corporate fascists and egalitarian imperialists...
SNOOOOOO8 1 year ago
i am a white racist separatist....
unlike egalitarians i am not an imperialist....
i want out of the united states.....this nation i was born in no longer represents
my right wing social beliefs.....
it belongs to the far left cultural imperialists...
with is pornography, homosexual propaganda media parades, marriage and military...radical feminist misandry...etc...
i want out...and white racial separatism speaks to me!
SNOOOOOO8 1 year ago
@1georg57 no Arthur Bremer was a great man.
000266617 1 year ago
Thank god he did what he did.
Gmancrap 1 year ago
rip george wallace
deiiii 1 year ago
And all of those are blacks and thats after the democrap blacks voted away 2nd amendment rights and shitte the cops
deltapunk21 1 year ago
Governor Wallace's voters had every right to be indignant. What part of political science 101 don't you understand, genius?
Jesse8501 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
May he burn in hell
Claronium780 1 year ago
George Wallace best shot of becoming President was in 68 when the race was essentially up for grabs. But he blew it in an appointing a General who was out of touch to put it nicely as his Vice Presidential nominee. He blew his most important decision of his Campaign.
FRSFreeState 1 year ago
@FRSFreeState Are you speaking of General "Bombs Away" LeMay? I don't know how many times I've seen clips of that Pittsburgh press conference when the General wouldn't shut up about nuclear weapons and even Governor Wallace couldn't stop him. It would have been great for a "Laugh-In" skit if it wasn't so serious and hadn't scared the hell out of everyone.
vidnut67 3 weeks ago
@vidnut67
Exactly you nailed it
FRSFreeState 3 weeks ago
I would have back-handed that hook-nosed shylok, lou gordon for talking to me like that.
FreiMarienburg 1 year ago
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government." Thomas Jefferson in regard to the American Negro.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
man, political pundits had balls back then. candidates today never have to do interviews like this
AgentCarter 1 year ago
@1georg57 The George Wallace of 1972 is hardly a radical in retrospect.
Once he dropped the segregation routine,
the country was moving toward him on many of the issues.
wheelinthesky300 1 year ago
George Wallace was a demogauge, he actually wasn't a racist but when he lost his 1st election for Governor in 1958 he decided he lost the election because of the Civil Rights Issue & decided that he would have to use racial & States Rights rhetoric to get elected Governor of Alabama. George Wallace was actually progressive on economic issues & built schools & roads but felt the Federal Government shouldn't involve themselves in what he though was State Issues.
FrsBigeasy 1 year ago 3
@FrsBigeasy he was NOT racist ???? I needed a good laugh
Claronium780 1 year ago
@Claronium780
George Wallace was a Demogauge not a Racist who used Racial Rhetoric to scare Caucasian Voters to vote for him.
FRSFreeState 1 year ago
@FRSFreeState if he was not a racist then why did he later apologize to african americans for his racist views after he got shot? some races don't see the hate and anger they perpertrated to others until that same hate comes back on them. then they want to apologize.
vwnclubb 1 year ago
@vwnclubb
George Wallace apologized for using racially charged rhetoric not for being a racist. His 2nd wife was of Middle Eastern descent.
FRSFreeState 1 year ago
@FRSFreeState so if i said that white people are devils and crackers and they shouldn't have the same basic human rights as other people and i advocated that position for 10 + years, you would not consider me a racist, just that i used racist rhetoric but i am not a racist?
vwnclubb 1 year ago
@vwnclubb
Yeah if I knew you were lying and were just a demogauge willing to do anything to get reelected like GOV Wallace.
FRSFreeState 1 year ago
@FRSFreeState a man is defined by his actions, not his words. you are what you repeatedly do, not what you intend to do.
vwnclubb 1 year ago
@vwnclubb
Are you quoting someone?
To me a racist whoever they are and who ever they hate is about as ignorant and evil as a person can get. Right there with Murderers, Terrorists, Rapists. Because you could be one of those people and also be a racist and use your racism to commit those Violent Acts.
The term racist is so important of a term and a horrible label for anyone of conscience to have. So before you label someone a racist you better be correct. Thats not George C Wallace.
FRSFreeState 1 year ago
@FRSFreeState "I say segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." yes, i am quoting someone, george c wallace. you would be in an extreme minority of people who would say that does not fit the description of a racist. i guess it is true that "the nile" (denial) is not just a river in egypt. i wil give wallace credit though for later apologizing and recanting his views of the 60s and early 70s.
vwnclubb 1 year ago 11
@vwnclubb
"What we have here is a failure to communicate" thats a quote for you
FRSFreeState 1 year ago
@vwnclubb, southern society was quite different back then. Even the politicians down there that fought against racism and were considered left-wing still used the 'N' word and racist terms in their personal dialog and still considered black people to be different.
It may not have been right, but standards and attitudes were different back then, and not just in the south.
PATSAINT85 1 year ago
Men of the 70s and the pre-70s do not exist anymore. I think most people would prefer the America of yesterday to the America of today.
redarrowhead 1 year ago 5
@redarrowhead "Most people" obviously do not want to return the time of Jim Crow segregation, having the "negro" seen and not heard, people being hosed down the street by cops with the full support of local governments. Tea-baggers, dittoheads, and racists may want to return to the oppression of "yesteryear", but not most of America.
Tea-baggers want to "take back America". Conscientous Americans want it to go forward.
HNK222 1 year ago
I hope people who post comments on this page understand the detail of party
politics. The fact is the democrats were ruled by the conservative, and republicans were ruled by progressives. Between around 1968, and 1972, the conservatives started to vote republicans after the democratic party became divided on multi issues. (especially racial issues). After 1972, the democratic party became liberal, and republicans became conservatives. All you have to do is look how south votes.
macdogq 2 years ago
Bill Johnson in Kentucky is a Senate candidate in the mold of Governor Wallace.
mepblue 2 years ago
Ol' Lou was a mean,nasty old bastard.But I never missed a show.
DwighttFrye 2 years ago
My God, this is not an interview, rather it is an argument or an interrogation.
NiveusVir 2 years ago
Typical leftist reporter.
eflint1 2 years ago
Stop the Hate- Separate!
Why don't White Folks have a Right to live in a White Neighborhood, or to have their White Children attend a White School?
Why is it illegal for a White Business Owner to hire White Employees?
If you truly believe your own Propaganda that We are on the same then why are there restrictions on where White Folks are allowed to live, work, or go to school, but no restrictions on blacks or browns?
Why are Rights only limited on White Folks?
Live414 2 years ago
didnt whites already get enough
jleelacy11 2 years ago
Really? I'm white and no one tells me where to live, work, or go to school.
I think you're just a racist making shit up as you go.
rumisouth 2 years ago
@rumisouth - It might not happen to you but you ask Mexicans Americans (legal ones) if they can live or go to school where they like. They can't. Exact thing with blacks and other minorities - not as free to move about as you may be - even in this day and age.
I'm not making racist things up - I'm just enlightening you on things that you probably don't come into contact with
BoltJam 1 year ago
@BoltJam There is such a thing as Freedom of Association, and just how free are White Americans to live anywhere they want? How about a white family living in South Central LA or Compton, try living in Douglas Park, La Villita, or Cabrini Green in Chicago; Blacks and Mexicans might get the cold shoulder in White areas, but Whites get murdered in minority areas. Thats the problem with multiculturalism: balkanization. Since 1965 America has become a cesspool of ethnic tension.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna
I don't think there is anything wrong with multiculturalism. Don't be one of those ignorant people who are afraid of anyone is isn't just like you. I live in a place and teach in a school which is a third white, a third black and a third Arab. There is plenty of interracial friendship, interracial dating, marriage, etc.
AntonBatey 1 year ago
@AntonBatey I'm neither ignorant nor afraid, I'm just conscious of how exceptional the USA is and why it succeeded where so many other countries with just as many resources and opportunities for success failed. I don't want my country to become something my forefathers who have suffered for this country since 1620 never wanted, ie "a tangle of squabbling minorities" ( Pres.T. Roosevelt). America was founded as a white Christian English speaking nation, that is what it should remain.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna you're incredibly confused. First, how can you see balkanization as a bad thing when you believe in racial separation? Ethnic relations have never been amicable in this country. Second, do you think Mediterranean Whites should be excluded from the Republic, since they weren't participant in its founding? Third, Whites don't live in most the communities you listed because they left once Blacks migrated from the South, taking their wealth with them. Why go back?
DIOPJR 1 year ago
But the fact is that Blacks don't move into White neighborhoods just to bask in White society; they move there because all the resources migrated to the suburbs in the 60's and 70's. Yet, under Jim Crow, Black families could live side-by-side with Whites in the South, and yet ran the risk of death if they opened up competing businesses or exercised their right to vote. Socio-economics, and not some group's natural propensity, is the cause of racial violence.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR that is the social determinist orthodoxy yes, but the fact is that even among black groups that have not suffered systematic discrimination the economic picture remains the same, this is true not only in the USA but also in Europe and the West Indies and Africa and anywhere else you could possibly look.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna oh, is that 'the fact'? What you mean by the "economic picture" is not clear, but if you mean that Blacks everywhere are poor, that's a patently false assertion. I don't know how you skidded to a claim about the Black poverty rate from a discussion on racial violence, but wouldn't it suck if I chalked up your evasiveness and lazy thinking to a general, immutable characteristic of your race?
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR Another fact is that social determinism is a thoroughly refuted notion, although philosophically it is still the driving force behind liberalism, scientifically it is buried in a shallow grave along with other obsolete Lamarckian concepts. There are behavioral differences between different human groups based on their respective genetic histories just as there are behavioral differences between different canine groups based on their respective genetic histories.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna more mere assertions. All that I've heard lately about behavioral science is that genetics and environment have a dual influence on a person's behavior. Even allotting a behavior-shaping role to genetics, how does this assist the sliding narrative of White supremacy? For, all during slavery, White commentators remarked on the cheery obsequiousness of the Black man; and, only half a decade after Reconstruction, southern Whites killed thousands for the flimsiest social offense...
DIOPJR 1 year ago
...what's more, Blacks during the same period were the most eager to achieve literacy, and pooled meager resources to bring in individual teachers from the North to school generations of their families. In some cases, the first public school in a given city was opened by the endless prodding of Blacks. Should we now typify southern Whites as more violent and averse to education than Blacks, by dint of genetics? They sure look like trans-historical traits...
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR well if we qualify this discussion to only that which you have "heard" we won't have much to discuss at all will we? If you wish to refute what I've stated feel free to give me a citation (author, publication, and date if you please), or at least frame your argument logically. I'm not a race supremacist, I'm not making a superiority or inferiority argument, I'm arguing that there are behavioral differences, and that is well attested statistically by various census departments globally.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna lol...so basically, what you're telling me is that it's OK to peremptorily state "it's a fact that social determinism has gone the way of Lamarckian theory," but it's not OK for me to reject your unreferenced claim by appeal to what I remember from more reputable sources? Give me a break. I'm not the one advancing claims about heritable behavior. I assume that people respond to their environment, and try to follow that logic through historical anecdotes...
DIOPJR 1 year ago
...If you're gonna refute those, then by all means. But let's not pretend like you said something substantive because you name-dropped Lamarck.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
No, you're saying that those behavioral differences are genetic, and you're saying it in response to my claim that socio-economic factors shape human behavior, for good or ill. Let's try to avoid logical hiccups like that in the future, ok?
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR Example: despite constituting only around 13% of the population, blacks are nearly 12 times more likely to commit violent crime than whites, blacks are also 7.5 times more likely to commit interracial crime, 31% of all robberies in the USA involved blacks robbing white victims, weapons violations are committed by blacks 5 times more than the general population. Those numbers were obtained by the FBI.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna does your example say whether the people committing these crimes are at or below the poverty line; does it outline the family structure; does it mention the rate of black-on-black crime; does it catalog the incidences of hate crimes, as against those committed for financial gain, and then bifurcate those along the same racial lines? If it does, why aren't you furnishing those numbers and factors, as well?
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR firstly to save space, but also because as I said before, I am talking about group dynamics and trends across the spectrum of socio-economic circumstances, there are as many poor whites in this country as there are poor blacks, if your thesis which equates crime with race were true, whites would dominate crime statistics across the board. This situation is not unique to the US, in London 79% of those involved in gun crime are black, and they are only about 2% of the overall population.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna correction, "crime with poverty" line 6 paragraph 2.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna I didn't equate crime with poverty. C'mon, where's your polemical rigor when you need it? I only said that criminality doesn't inhere in the Black population. This is shown by the dearth of violent crimes among members of the Black middle class. I'm not one for monocausal explanations of group behavior, but I do imagine that Whites dominate white-collar crime stats in this country. What's the cause of that, race or class?
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR I'd say race, whites also dominate check fraud and insurance fraud which is the blue collar white equivalent of "white collar crime." Studies in animals and primates, have shown that aggression and other traits which would relate to crime in the human world, are genetic, race specific studies in this area are lacking due to ethical concerns, but it stands to reason that if among advanced mammals and primates aggression is heritable, it is also heritable in humans.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna so basically, you believe that in a less racially-sensitive society, studies would prove that Blacks are naturally more aggressive than Whites, which explains their higher representation in violent crime stats. You don't have any *evidence* for it, but it's a haunting suspicion of yours. In other words, your best shot at the explanandum (are certain varieties of crime race-based) is as good as mine.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR @DIOPJR Well lets test that thesis (which is not mine, it has been advanced by many qualified experts, I'm merely repeating it); aggression is shown to be heritable among advanced mammals including primates, twin studies in humans have consistently demonstrated biological determinism to be the dominate force behind behavior, statistically blacks in all countries have a propensity toward violence, crime, and poverty. The evidence very clearly supports that thesis.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna qualified experts like whom? William Shockley? J. Rushton? There's no necessary causal link among aggression levels, violent crime stats, and endemic poverty, so the 'evidence' you've failed to present is, even in its outlines, discrete.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR Well then thanks for allaying my fears. I guess I'll just start loving this multiracial utopia. I'm going to move to Cabrini Green and walk around wearing a gold watch & silk tie, and when I'm being mugged, assaulted, or killed, rest assured I'll bear no ill will toward the black doing it, I'll know it was because his ancestors were slaves and subjected to cruel Jim Crow laws, how can he be expected to behave decently in society given what his ancestors endured over a century ago?
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@DIOPJR I know that hurts your ideology, or if one is black it might smart on a personal level. And that is very understandable. But one should not ignore facts merely to prevent hurt feelings.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna it doesn't hurt on a personal or an ideological level, because it's a flat assertion. And also, I have the vantage point of history. The Greeks viewed Teutons as inferior, because they were overly-aggressive and unlettered, and so did the Arabs. The Egyptians, when they deigned to acknowledge White people at all, were certainly not over-awed by their level of civilization. The Chinese could hold Whites in contempt until the imperial age. Race prejudice is a power game.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR its all just a power game, race is a meaningless category, the fact that the majority of criminals are blacks is meaningless, because there are some law abiding middle and upper class blacks, so no need to characterize a racial group by any factual data or verifiable statistics, no no, we have Secular Humanist Socially Just ideology to do that for us.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
And on that note, I have tons of studying to do. I've gotten a bit carried away in entertaining your pseudo-intellection, but really, I haven't heard the old Jared Taylor spiel in quite some time, and I thought I'd let off some steam from the cauldron of the 6 classes I'm taking now. Have a good night, and when you dream, I hope your dreams are all dancing swastikas, blonde maidens, and John Wayne cigarette ads, with not a nigra as far as eyes can see.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR oh hey don't forget the 6 million dead Jews man! And while we're at it lets throw in the Panzers rolling through Poland! Hell yeah! Git R Done! Cuz we all know anyone who doesn't agree with the enlightened view of us Cultural Relativists and Secular Humanist Social Democrats is just a Nazi Redneck clinging to his faith and gun! Hahaha.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@DIOPJR Now as to my statement regarding the "economic picture" I admit that was vague, let me instead say prevailing sociological trend, (but in the future lets not get distracted with semantics), objective statistics clearly show that Blacks tend toward crime and poverty no matter what community they live in. That is indeed a verifiable fact, if you wish to dispute facts please do so with logic and evidence and not fallacious attacks on my character.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
What sort of logic can I use to combat a bland assertion? You're saying that a Black family that can afford to live in neighborhoods with property values in the 7 digits will still tend towards poverty and crime. No logic inheres in the claim, leaving aside its empirical truth. It's like saying "bats will tend not to fly no matter how many birds they fly among."
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR we're not talking about statistical outliers, we're talking about group dynamics and statistical trends. There are a great many law abiding, peaceful, prosperous blacks in all economic levels, but those are outliers. No objective study qualifies its subject in terms of anomalies, conclusions are based on the consensus. Ie "bird is to flying as black is to crime" is a true statement despite the fact that there are birds which do not fly and blacks which do not commit crime.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna can you read? That's not the analogy I posited at all. You said that Blacks will tend toward crime no matter what neighborhood they live in. I offered an analogy that shows forth the palpable absurdity of your claim. You dismiss affluent Blacks as outliers, even in their own affluent communities, which doesn't alter the incoherence of your claim by even a little bit.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR I oppose balkanization in America in the sense that I don't think that a group that immigrate into this country should be allowed to carve off a sizable chunk for themselves, in regards to the blacks, they have suffered brutal injustices in this country since they were first brought here in bondage, but the gravest injustices were that they were given self-determination after Emancipation. I would fully support the creation of an autonomous region for them somewhere in America.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna oh, ok. I thought you were using 'balkanization' in a meaningful (i.e., not a pseudo-intellectual) sense. To your point: either you believe in racial quotas to preserve the "White Christian character" of this country, or you believe in the assimilation of immigrant groups. If it's the latter, you're the most singular White supremacist I've ever encountered. If it's the former, you still haven't explained why we should countenance these god-damn Italians and Greeks.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR White supremacy is the idea that the "white" race is morally superior to others, and I most certainly am not advocating that. As for the "Mediterreneans" I fail to see how that is at all pertinent to this discussion, we're talking about the social dynamics of different human races, specifically Caucasion and Negro, not interethnic relations betweeen races, Mediterrenean Europeans are Caucasians.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna no, it's the idea that the White race is superior per se. Where are your definitions coming from? I also see a bit of arbitrariness in your system of racial classification, as the Anglo-American authors of your "Caucasian race" mythos typically excluded Celts, Iberians, Slavs and other late 19th- early 20th- century ethnic groups from the pale of 'desirable' Whites, to the advantage of the Teutonic and Alpine 'races'.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR my definitions come from the current typical usage of the terms, and again you are fallaciously attacking semantics rather than the very clear thesis and facts of my arguments. Come now! Lets have some polemical rigor here DIO.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna which "typical definition" of White supremacy limits it to normative claims? Weren't you just ruffled by my reference to unnamed behavioral scientists? But here you are, conjuring "current typical usages" out of thin air. If we truly live in a "PC era," as per your lamentations, then how is my understanding of the term atypical?
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna correction, Caucasian not "Caucasion" in line 6 paragraph 2.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
But all that aside, you said that you'd prefer the country remain in the hands of people like the Founders of the Republic. People who spoke as you speak now, only 100 years ago, would have grouped Mediterraneans, Irish, Jews, and in some cases, Germans with the Negro as unassimilable and unfit for citizenship. As for "race," it is itself an antiquated idea, having no real genetic basis...but you're conversant in the latest scientific developments (smirk), so I'm not saying anything new, right?
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR actually you are wrong DIO, the latest genetic research has shown very clearly that there are behavioral differences in the races, I'd recommend you actually read some peer reviewed scientific journals on the subject before you regurgitate the PC drivel you were taught in public school.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna how do you know I went to public school? Again, if acknowledging 'behavioral differences' doesn't make you a racial supremacist by the "typical current usage of the term," then why are the public schools discouraging or else ignoring your views, out of PC considerations? You're all over the place, man.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR I know you went to public school because you obvious have never studied classical polemics, and if you have, you need to review it. To state that something is different does not mean that one is superior to the other, and when it comes to talking about racial differences, that is politically incorrect. It seems you are ideologically committed a priori to the concept of absolute racial equality not matter what statistics show and if that is the case just say so and save me some time.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna what do "classical polemics" have to do with the fact that you're saying Blacks are genetically predisposed to violence and poverty, no matter their class standing? Not a damn thing. I doubt you read about the obsolescence of social determinism in Cicero, or about the desirability of a White Republic from Hume via Cleanthes. Stop cloaking your racial ill-feelings in genteel language and pseudo-science and just admit that you, yourself, have a confirmation bias.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR now, since you are so single minded in your pursuit of the topic of the "Meditterreneans" I will address it. Non-Hispanic White Ethnics (ie Slavic, Mediterreneans ect.) make up only about 15% of the total, meaning they are a small minority and are not demanding legally protected or "previously disadvantaged status" they are many cases culturally alien in this country, but at least they are law abiding and patriotic, as long as that remains the case they are fine by me.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
oh, really? So there's no Serbian or Bulgarian mob in America? So Italians were never held in derision as unassimilable hoodlums, mobsters and Papist conspirators, along with the Irish? So White Anglo-Saxons don't have a violent history in this country, that was torn from Native Americans at rifle-point? What I'm saying about these groups is that you're gonna lose every time you predicate "violent group behavior" on a genetic basis. History is stained with Europeans' inhumanity to fellow man.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR Ok spare me your Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky tainted version of history, your "historical anecdotes" have very little bearing on this discussion. White ethnic mobsters, Catholic loyalty issues, and exaggerated injustices against American Indian don't change the factually verifiable black propensity towards crime.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna lol, why don't they? So what people have done in the past doesn't matter? Or has there been some radical shift toward placidity in the American genetic map that somehow left Black Americans unaffected? BTW, lol @ injustices against Native Americans being "exaggerated." Where did I exaggerate them? Is this is a "classical polemical" technique you're employing?
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR They don't because they will only lead to an argument about interpretation of history, and also because you are not using an objective citation of a historical event, your argument is based upon the moral value you are attaching to that event, which is subjective. That is why classical polemics is a must, because it keeps the argument on topic and rigorous, not off into irrelevant tangents and dogged with fallacious reasoning.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna how do you define an "objective citation"? I don't know what historiography you've been studying, but people haven't believed in a "hard science" history since Ranke fell out of fashion. And for all your talk of "classical polemics," you should know from Protagoras and from the Skeptics that rhetoric is necessarily subjective, too, so how is classicism supposed to deliver us to objectivity? I think you're posturing right now, and you're gonna fall into a hole very shortly.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR Arguments are subjective, facts are not. And does you calling your Cultural Relativist view of history "hard science" does not make it so. I don't dispute the events you refer to, I dispute the moral value judgment passed on them, and that is a matter of ideology, not a matter of "hard science."
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna ah, I see the problem now. Your "classical training" didn't teach you how to read carefully. I never said that my view of history is "hard science," I said that it's historiographical consensus that such a thing is not possible. You can't divorce history from value judgments, just like you can't couch racialist pseudo-science in strict objectivity...especially when you draw value-laden inferences like "Blacks should live separately in an autonomous region" from your 'science'.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR listen stop labeling my arguments as "racialist" and "pseudo-Science" if that is what you regard them to be, please cite me some facts that demonstrate it, as of yet you have not done so. You seem to only be interested in trumpeting your Cultural Relativistic fallacious deduction as vociferously as possible seemingly to make them right by your passion for them, but remember "certitude is not the test of certainty" Oliver Wendell Holmes.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna and you seem to think that your clumping together SAT words and your feigned classicism will so impress your interlocutor that they won't notice how vapid your basic premises are. So if I'm actually putting form before substance, we're on an equal footing...only, I don't think I am. I'm pretty sure you're just wrong, and frustrated because your smattering of 'racial realist' education isn't working for you here.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR I'm not frustrated in the least DIO haha. I'm having an interesting, if very beat around the bush, discussion with you. I just wish you'd stop going off on tangents and stay on topic. And again, whatever accusation you may make about my character, "feigned" "clumping" "vapid" or otherwise, doesn't change the facts I've cited.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@DIOPJR if my conclusions are incorrect, present some facts to demonstrate how and why they are incorrect, don't just call them "pseudo-science" or are you calling the FBI (from where I obtained most of my stats) a racist organization using pseudo-science? Come now.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna well, I think the FBI has a history of racist subterfuge, but I don't think they're behind the "peer-reviewed journals" that you vaguely referenced, which have dealt death to social construction. Like I said, what conclusions you've arrived at make no sense: statistics of contemporary violence by race matter, but historical ones don't, because they're subject to "value-judgments"; Blacks tend to poverty and crime, even when they're not impoverished and live in expensive homes...
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR hahaha. You have a smug self righteous attitude which I find very humorous. Self assured as you are, you are none the less wrong, blacks living in expensive homes are not the statistical consensus now are they? They are statistical outliers, just like Ostrichs, though birds, are not the average bird. When I state peer reviewed journal I mean that these facts I'm citing having been published in such journals, meaning you don't have to take my word alone for their reliability.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna you said "no matter what their environment." Those were your words, and I shouldn't have to translate their meaning as "class has nothing to do with the behavior of Black people, they have a genetic predilection for violence and economic failure." Can't you grasp what violence the fact of the Black professional does to your deterministic premise? Or are you gonna continue parleying your meaning into something less embarrassing?
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR for the last time, I'm not talking about what isolated cases may produce, I'm referring to trends and group dynamics. If you wish to ignore those and selectively focus on Black executives living in affluent suburbs, then yes the crime propensity drops significantly, although it is still higher then that of comparable whites, but that is not the statistical consensus, even an exceptional black community that has a lower than white average crime rate is not indicative of the consensus.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna why would you assume that, among Black executives, the crime stats are higher than among comparable Whites? Where's your confirmation of that? Also, for all your talk of "consensus" (I think you mean "trend" or "average" here), you still haven't furnished proof that violent crime is spread evenly through the socio-economic strata of the Black community; so, why repose on statistics that can be interpreted either way?
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR first, that is not a fact, that is my opinion, opinion should be subjective and out to be value laden. And if you quote me, quote correctly, I said "I would fully support the creation of an autonomous region for them somewhere in America.." not "Blacks should live separately in an autonomous region." There is an ocean of difference between those two statements.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna you said that you would support the creation of an autonomous region for Black people to avoid having to interact with them, because you believe they're inherently violent. There's the thrust of your whole "empirical" enterprise. And yet, you ignore statistical data about racial violence toward Blacks during Reconstruction and Southern Redemption on principle, because it's "historic" and so "subject to value statements," when really, it just flouts your argument.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR I do avoid them, because that is not pertinent to this discussion, interracial crime in the present is heavily black on white not the other way around by a margin of over 20%. The argument of "blacks are violent because 150 years whites were violent towards blacks" makes no sense at all. 150 years Protestants and Catholics were at each others throats in this country, but they aren't today. But maybe thats because that was among whites.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
Comment removed
DIOPJR 1 year ago
You're right, that argument doesn't make sense: it assumes that "violent" is a predicate of Black America, and the violence of one group of people doesn't make another group violent. Whew! Good thing that was merely a straw man! No, my point is, if violence is genetic, we have to ask what changed over the course of 50 years (interracial violence stats still skewed towards White culprits in the 50's and 60's) to blot out the almost-savage aggression from Whites' genetic code in the interim.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR hahaha ok DIO, you win. I'm converted! You're trite comments and self righteous pontificating were just what I needed to turn me into a dyed in the wool secular Liberal! Lets all have an interracial love-in with Roman Polansky and Jane Fonda and watch some Michael Moore films while we eat pot brownies and plan how to bring down the moral majority! Woo hoo!
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna correction your not "you're" in line 2
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I think that slinging around facile stereotypes about liberals is far more trite than creatively rebuffing your logical fallacy, then explaining my point lucidly, but with a twist of irony. I am, after all, not humorless. I don't hate people, in racial swaths or individually, and so, knowing how to relate to people, I avoid comedic abortions like the one I just read from you. That was reeeally bad. Maybe you should try some weed.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
Comment removed
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@AntonBatey and I really don't care if you call me a racist, bigot, xenophobe or anything else of the kind, I'm tired of being intimidated by those epithets. As far as your neighborhood, its definitely the exception not the norm, and is irrelevant to the fact that the American government should not have the right to force to associate with those with whom I don't with to, the reason doesn't matter.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@Live414 you're a moron. No one has said that White people can't work or live or go to school wherever they please; only that they may not make it impossible for others to do so. You also aren't allowed to create a legal zone where you can have sex with minors, or steal people's stuff. Wow, are people really this dense when it comes to basic constitutional ideas?
DIOPJR 1 year ago
Comment removed
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
@SitNomineDigna relax yourself, guy. I was talking to Live414, who sounds like he just climbed out of the depths of a Mississippi backwater to give his feeble two cents on civil rights.
DIOPJR 1 year ago
@DIOPJR Relax? DIO I'm as calm as a Hindu cow, this isn't the first time I've faced the fray with a Cutlural Pluralist ideologue haha. Polemics matters because irrelevant tangents, fallacious arguments, and endless contention over semantics just wastes time and energy. I would much rather have a polite, professional discussion based upon facts.
SitNomineDigna 1 year ago
where is the rest? I really wish another man would rise up.... someone as honorable as this hadnsome man, George Wallace <3.
jeremiahj13 2 years ago
The FBI stats were wrong. As usual. The murder rate sky rocketed across the nation far higher than that and in Montogomery the murder rate was still the same contrary to Gordon's garbage.
deltapunk21 2 years ago
Lou Gordon despite Wallace being Wallace is a lying putz too. Two douches douching it up.
deltapunk21 2 years ago
Wallace should have be in the whate house and the U.S. WOULD BE BETTER OFF TODAY
southernknight13 2 years ago
George Wallace was a fucking Neanderthal.
beingforitse1f 2 years ago
Shut your mouth.
fullgospelpreacher 2 years ago
Ain't you need to git back to yer Klan meeting, reverend?
beingforitse1f 2 years ago
Wallace would have WON and made President in 1972, but was gunned down.
DoRite0207 2 years ago
I agree. The ignorant fools on here don't seem to realize that Wallace had MUCH black support.
eflint1 2 years ago
Wallace had NO support from Alabama's black voters until after the 1970 governor's race when he started opening Alabama politics to minorities. His reelection in 1982 was the first time blacks had EVER turned out to vote for him.
rumisouth 2 years ago
So you and I agree. Yet the man is demonized to this day.
eflint1 2 years ago
Um, NO. We DO NOT agree. George Wallace pandered to racist assholes and turned a blind eye to the suffering of blacks out of simple political calculation, only turning away from racist politics after very nearly losing the 1970 Democratic primary to a man who openly courted the black vote. The only thing that saved Wallace was a strong third candidate to divide the vote three ways. George Wallace is burning in hell now and I'm quite okay with that.
rumisouth 2 years ago