Monday, December 12, 2011


PJ Media's Belladonna Rogers advises how to respond when a woman finds herself the lone conservative at the table:
Before you attend another party, practice saying calmly, "I don’t accept the premises underlying your assumption." Say it as many times as necessary to feel comfortable uttering that sentence whenever you encounter a liberal.

In the context of your dinner conversation, here’s how it would go:

"What do you mean?" the shocked liberal will ask.

"First, I wouldn’t assume that anyone to whom you put that question would vote for Obama under any circumstances.

"A second premise of your question is that I vote as a woman. That’s a classic Democrat assumption."

Again, you’ll be facing a flummoxed liberal.

A word of warning: the more you say, the more the liberal’s response will turn to enraged apoplexy. By the time you’ve finished lucidly expressing your views, the liberal will react like a shrieking, psychopathic hyena being laced into a straitjacket. . .

In your calmest, most unemotional manner, point out to him that "the Democrat Party is based on identity politics. It has been for the last 40 years. For the first two-thirds of the 20th century, Democrats were the working people’s party, as well as that of so-called ethnic voters.

"With the rise of affirmative action, feminism and newly-minted ‘minorities,’ the Democrat Party began tailoring its strategies to pigeon-hole voters into discrete categories, assuming each would vote as members of beleaguered groups that required exceptional government intervention. To me, this is a pernicious public policy for all affected -- except, of course, the Democrats scrounging for votes.

"I’m a professional woman in my early seventies and I’ve never felt like part of a beleaguered minority. I received a fine education, then went to work and had a successful career that continues to this day. I worked in a meritocratic system and it rewarded me. It would be absurd for me to think of myself as a minority when women are, numerically, a majority. Although many companies didn’t welcome women when I was younger, they do now, and even then, I made my way and did well through hard work.

"I resent the Democrat Party’s assumption that I vote as a vagino-American when in fact I vote on the basis of my reasoning capacity and my skill at sizing up people. I vote as a national security-minded, free market-appreciating, patriotic American -- not based on my gender.

"I only wish more women and genuine minorities understood that their permanent victim status may serve the Democrat Party by providing it with votes, but it utterly fails to serve the ‘victims’ in the long run. In fact, nothing could be more detrimental to them."


KitWistar said...

Whoever this 70 year old woman is, I ADORE her!
(However, her host needs a talking to; I was brought up to understand that it is really bad form to discuss politics at a dinner table.)

See Jay Matthews in today's WP on PISA scores. Compare to Steve Sailer.
My comments on that are under the Dec 6th posting QOTD.

Hope you are feeling better.

KitWistar said...

Have you ever written about/thought of the political impact & or perceptions of clothes? Its fascinating, actually.

Carl said...

Kit: I read Matthews in the WaPo. I just haven't been able to write anything, given time and health constraints. (Better today, but not great.) I did read your thoughts on Sailer.

And, no, I've never thought about the political impact or perception of clothes. Should you wish to compose a guest post, however, I'd be happy to publish it.

OBloodyHell said...

>>> "the Democrat Party is based on identity politics. It has been for the last 40 years. For the first two-thirds of the 20th century, Democrats were the working people’s party, as well as that of so-called ethnic voters.

I've found being more direct is quite suitable.

"I don't see how anyone can tolerate being in company with so many overt racists."

They will be, of course, utterly mystified by this assertion.

"Well, I mean, the Democrats were the pro-slavery party in the Civil War, and it was their racist anti-black stance that cemented their appeal throughout the south for more than 80+ years. This was so even into the 1950s, as some Dems were trying to relax the stance on racism, there was a massive schism that almost tore the party apart, creating, in 1948, the "Dixicrat Party. You can claim that they weren't Democrats, but, hey, in 1944 they were Democrats, and, in 1952, they were Democrats again. Contrast this with one of the actual *planks* in the 1940 GOP platform that called for equality and equal rights for blacks." (see "Blacks": 1940 GOP Platform)

"Oh, but that's changed", they'll defend.

"Not really, it's just gone underground. This is why, in 1964, duly elected southern black representatives to the 1964 Democratic National Convention were shuffled off into a closet while white-elected representatives took their place in all the things that mattered ("Democratic Debacle"). It was this mess that led specifically to the Watts riots and the various race tensions in the late 1960s -- Blacks were sick and tired of getting sold a pig in a poke.
"But that was almost fifty years ago!!" they'll exclaim.

"Yeah, but it shows a pattern. Heck, why do you think Martin Luther King, Jr., was a registered Republican? "

"That can't be right!"

"It's true, nonetheless. Do you really think he would have registered with the party that was attempting to violently suppress him and other blacks?


OBloodyHell said...

...(continued from above)...

As far as these days, it's just been replaced with soft bigotry and a lot of subtle 'pay no attention to that man behind the curtain' kind of stuff. The Dems talk a lot about being all for equality, but in reality, they shoo all that under the rug until it's time to trot it out for the dog and pony show. That's why the 2004 Kerry campaign had no -- repeat NO prominent black people whatsoever until someone pointed it out, and suddenly, lo and behold, they managed to find one or two vaguely important positions they could hire blacks to fill. So much for 'equality': Equality, but not for me.

Meanwhile, the Bush Admin had already placed two black people fourth and sixth in the presidential line of succession, both of whom were regularly being denigrated with racist epithets by lefty cartoonists -- Powell was being called all manner of racial insults, from "Oreo" to "Uncle Tom" to "Stepinfetchit". Condi Rice was being depicted as a pickaninny and a mynah bird. If anyone used that imagery to refer to Obama, you'd never hear the end of it.

Q.E.D. -- The Democrats are the party of racists, and always have been. Their policies are entirely based on the unstated argument that black people are incapable of pulling themselves out of the gutter, and only with a hand from 'good Democrats' can they ever become 'Equal'. That those of oriental descent have not only managed to equal, but generally surpass, the intellectual and social accomplishments of whites with no such endless helping hand should be proof enough that the only 'helping hand' that blacks need is to be let alone to accomplish things under the same onus that every other person in America has endured. The policies of the Democrats have only led to a helplessly dependent and demoralized black population whose incarceration rate is a crime in itself, and has led to an entire generation of unemployable drug addicts with ridiculous incidences of HIV. If that's how the Democrats 'help' someone, I'd hate to see what they do to harm them intentionally...

The lie that the GOP is the party of racists is probably the biggest Con job of the 20th Century, outranking even Social Security and Green-Socialist Politics.

OBloodyHell said...

BTW, a more complete list to throw in their faces:

Civil Rights, The Left & The Legacy Of MLK

KitWistar said...

Sorry you are not feeling better yet--anything conclusive from the test?

I'm honored at your invitation for a guest post....I will work on this.
Remember that one of the words used to describe someone well dressed is
"conservative". Telling, no?

Warren said...


Great links. Thanks.

I like to cite the vote on the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

In the Senate, Democrats voted for it
47 to 17. Republicans 30 to 2.

27% of Dems voted against it. Only 6% of Republicans.

The part of the1940 Democratic Party Platform
on Negroes appears similar to the Republican's but on close reading you'll find that universal suffrage was left out of the Democratic's.

OBloodyHell said...

>>> I like to cite the vote on the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

I dunno if you read "Democratic Debacle", but, if anyone reading this hasn't then you're missing something that will, or should, really, really piss you off.

The #$%#$% Dems have sold a lie of truly epic proportions by painting the GOP as the party of racists. This ranks right up there with anything Pravda or Goebbels ever dreamed of achieving.

If the Dixiecrat thing, the history of the Dems in and around the Civil War didn't already make it clear, then that article should cement it in the mind of anyone without an outright religious bias in favor of the Dems.

The Dems are, and have ALWAYS BEEN, the party of racists.