Nation Once Again Comes Under Sway Of Pink-Faced Half-Wit

Post Reply New Topic

You're kidding? 43.5/44 US Presidents so far have been white. 43/44 have been at least nominally Protestant (perhaps 42 if you want to exclude Jefferson whose religious status is questionable) and 44/44 have been Christian. The overwhelming majority of governors, senators, and congressmen are, and have historically been, white anglo-Saxon Protestants. Virtually all high-paid corporate executives are white. Franky, claiming that WASPs are not in control in America is nothing short of delusional. You are simply numerically wrong.

The Triumphant Decline of the WASP
By NOAH FELDMAN
Published: June 27, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opini ... ldman.html

FIVE years ago, the Supreme Court, like the United States, had a plurality of white Protestants. If Elena Kagan — whose confirmation hearings begin today — is confirmed, that number will be reduced to zero, and the court will consist of six Catholics and three Jews.
It is cause for celebration that no one much cares about the nominee’s religion. We are fortunate to have left behind the days when there was a so-called “Catholic seat” on the court, or when prominent Jews (including the publisher of this newspaper) urged President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1939 not to nominate Felix Frankfurter because they worried that having “too many” Jews on the court might fuel anti-Semitism.

But satisfaction with our national progress should not make us forget its authors: the very Protestant elite that founded and long dominated our nation’s institutions of higher education and government, including the Supreme Court. Unlike almost every other dominant ethnic, racial or religious group in world history, white Protestants have ceded their socioeconomic power by hewing voluntarily to the values of merit and inclusion, values now shared broadly by Americans of different backgrounds. The decline of the Protestant elite is actually its greatest triumph.

Illuminating...Mr. Kaufmann shows how the culture of 'white Anglo-Saxon protestants,' or Wasps, was constructed and, from the early 20th century, gradually dismantled.
--Christopher Caldwell (Financial Times )

[A] compelling study...Kaufmann writes with admirable detachment and objectivity, and reveals the mechanism by which the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant founders of the U.S. lost their political and cultural dominance. Kaufmann shows how a longstanding cosmopolitan element within Wasp ideology shifted from a symbolic role to the core of national life, and the Wasp population recast their own role accordingly. In other words, they did it to themselves...It is so refreshing to read a generous, open and positive book on this subject--what a pity that it is Huntington who has attracted the attention.
--Nicholas Cull (Times Higher Education Supplement )

Jewish Power dominates at Vanity Fair
by Nathan Burstien
The Jerusalem Post October 12 2007
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/Jewish ... x?id=78121

"It's a list of "the world's most powerful people," 100 of the bankers and media moguls, publishers and image makers who shape the lives of billions. It's an exclusive, insular club, one whose influence stretches around the globe but is concentrated strategically in the highest corridors of power.
More than half its members, at least by one count, are Jewish."

This thread, yes, the onion quote has to do with this nation in particular. How about prior to 1200 AD? As long as proponents of racism against WASPs keep dragging up the past, lets drag it all up and make generalizations from everywhere so that all grudges of the past may continue ad infinitum.

Part of your post focuses on WASPS and part just on “whites” (which in the US can include Hispanics, Arabs, Jews and Persians). I’m tempted to ask you to name “all high-paid corporate executives” so we can have a closer look.

What does it mean to say WASPs are in control in America?

Prior to 1200 AD, the Chinese, the Arabs, and the Romans (I guess technically they might be considered white today) were dominant at various times. But I don't really see your point. The claim "Whites are dominant in America" was a rebuttal to your nonsense claim that whites are somehow being oppressed in this country. Whites are in power in almost all major governmental and private offices and we are the majority. How can you claim we're being oppressed? And who's advocating racism against WASPs? Seriously, who out there is in a position to make that kind of threat against the dominant demographic?

I'm sick of your shifting yardsticks and transparent rhetorical ploys. I know I can't expect you to be honest (you would have to admit you're wrong, which you will never do) but you should at least construct better dodges.

Keet, enough of this nonsense. You asserted that WASPs are not in control in America, and indicated that believing they were proved someone was completely out of touch. You were proven wrong. Quit shifting the goalposts and just admit it, for once in your life.

So, where did you ever develop the impression that "The white, Christian, largely affluent core of society, [...] has historically always been in control, and clings desperately to the status quo because they believe it's the only way to maintain their dominance"? Such has not been my experience, residing in Texas and Minnesota.

Right here, keet. I'm really getting sick of your over-exaggerated strawmen.


You expressed astonishment that anyone who had ever stepped foot in America could ever be under the impression that WASPs were in control of American society. You then denied it when I called you out and went on some absurd rant to try to deflect from the issue.

In short, you're wrong.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRYmudWEUSo[/outube]

Show me where I asserted that WASPs were not in control, as if that mattered whether or not they were. But of course, WASPs are in control of everything in the universe. They control the falling of objects and they intentionally go after all non-WASPs and hunt them down and eat them. The first Thanksgiving meal was not made with turkey. WASPs are conquering all of the known and unknown universe as we speak. They're conquering the Pegasus galaxy and displacing a population of innocent blue aliens. WASPs are hell-bent upon the destruction and eradication of all other life in the universe, and after that the multiverse also. They seek to continue their evil dominance to the end of all things!! ! And then conquer that too!! ! ..........................................

The matter is the demonization of people on the basis of ancestry, melanin concentration, or on other matters which are irrelevant to the individual people. The racism of people is the focus upon such irrelevant matters as what shade of skin covers them.

Reductio ad absurdum: the last refuge of the debater against whom the empirical evidence is stacked.

One use of modus tollens is the reductio ad absurdum argument, i.e. showing that a premise is false by demonstrating that it implies an absurd conclusion.

An example is the effort by Bishop John Shelby Spong to show that homosexual acts are OK because some animals practise them. As it stands, the argument is invalid. To make it valid, another premise is needed that states: whatever animals do is OK.

1) Animals practise homosexual acts;
2) Whatever animals practise is OK;
∴ Homosexual acts are OK.

To prove the argument to be sound, that premise must be proved to be true. Conversely, to prove the argument to be unsound, the premise must be shown to be false. This can be done by showing that it leads to a ridiculous conclusion:

1) Animals practise rape and cannibalism;
2) What animals do is OK;
∴ Rape and cannibalism are OK.

Now if one does not accept the conclusion, if one is logical one must reject one or more of the premises. As (1) is empirically true, (2) must be the false premise. So Spong’s argument contains a false premise and is thus unsound.

Another example: pro-abortionists often claim that the unborn child is merely a disposable part of the woman’s body. However, see what happens if this premise is combined with other indisputable premises in the following argument:

1) If a is part of b and b is part of c, then a is part of c (This is called a transitive relation—an example is: if a brick is part of a wall and a wall is part of a house, then the brick is part of the house);
2) A male unborn baby has a penis (that is, a penis is part of him);
3) This baby is part of the pregnant woman;
∴ A woman pregnant with a male baby has a penis.

As the conclusion is false (feminists would detest it especially), at least one of the premises must be as well. All premises are indisputably true except the pro-abortionists’ (3), which was the disputed issue. So this argument proves it false.

If it's so irrelevant, then why, as Orwell pointed out, have 43/44 (or technically, 42/43) Presidents been Caucasian?

I agree with you on one point. In a less judgmental world, in a less judgmental iteration of America, skin color (regardless of what color one might be) would not mean anything insofar as economic or social status. Alas, this is not that world, and our society still has not reached that point. Case in point, all the lower class African Americans who've been evicted from their homes in New Orleans due to mixed-income developments replacing affordable housing projects. In this case, the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina is being used as a pretext to gentrify the city, and to force people who lived there, some for their whole lives, to go elsewhere.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=2688

If this isn't at least in part racially motivated, then I don't know what is.

If it's so irrelevant, then why, as Orwell pointed out, have 43/44 (or technically, 42/43) Presidents been Caucasian?

How many Russian Premiers have been white? How many kings of Nubia have been black? How many ruler's in Japan have been Japanese? How many British Prime Ministers have been white? How many ... etc. It's a matter of voting for the person you think is best. I voted for McCain, and not Obama. Not because Obama is black but because he's a Democrat and all he seems to be good at is campaigning. Prior to my coming of voting age, there was a Republican candidate who was black in one of the primaries during the 90's. He seemed like he might have been okay. Heck, if Mr. T. were running for office, I'd vote for him. Not because he's black, but because he'd pity you foo's.

Obama is half white.

In this context, "whites" means "Europeans." You can either count or exclude Jews if you want, it doesn't change the overall conclusion.


That they dominate our public political life and control the lion's share of the economy. As I already said, 43.5/44 US Presidents to date have been white.