CNN ballistic over Rep. Steve King’s tweet about demography being destiny

[rangerrebew]

CNN ballistic over Rep. Steve King’s tweet about demography being destiny

Posted by Ann Corcoran on March 14, 2017

Holland’s future or not? If left unchecked, the Turks and the Moroccans will outbreed the Dutch. It is a fact.

I’ve mentioned before that I watch CNN every morning while my coffee is perking. I recommend it to all of you because one is instantly oriented to what the political Left is going to harp on for the day.

This morning they were aghast at the remark Rep. Steve King tweeted in relationship to tomorrow’s election in Holland where Geert Wilders has a shot at winning.

Here is what got Rep. Steve King in hot water with the Lefties at CNN.

Isn’t this the absolute truth! The Dutch election tomorrow is about saving Holland and Western Civilization!

https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2017/03/14/cnn-ballistic-over-rep-steve-kings-tweet-about-demography-being-destiny/

[skeeter]

King's comment was non-offensive and 100% correct.

All that needs to happen is for him to tweet - 'no I won't take it back. In fact, stick it up your backside'.

No more apologies for stating common sense.

[Wingnut]

No more apologies for stating common sense.

Tell me about.  It's getting like its Europe over here.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

King's comment was non-offensive and 100% correct.

All that needs to happen is for him to tweet - 'no I won't take it back. In fact, stick it up your backside'.

No more apologies for stating common sense.

And neither was Jimmy the Greek's either; however, it was not PC.

[skeeter]

And neither was Jimmy the Greek's either; however, it was not PC.

The left never backs down.

It should be easier for conservatives to do the same - we're right.

[ABX]

Demographics are not destiny. That is something that is unique about the American system.

You are not bound to the class or status of your birth. We are not a caste system where once you are born into a caste you stay that way. We are not a royalty system where only those born with the right family can become a leader. In our nation, you are not bound by your race, your religion, your financial status. You are only bound by the limitations you put on yourself.

The only way for King's statement to be true is if we make it true. If we let the government put up barriers between classes of people (aka, Democrats 2 Americas as an example) and force everyone to believe in and stay in the little box the government assigns. The government makes a living out of keeping people in their little box, hating those in other little boxes around them. Never realizing the boxes are only artificial barriers.

We should be screaming from the hilltops, if you are poor and black or Hispanic or whatever, your destiny is not to be poor. You can achieve what you want, you do not have to act the way society makes it seem you are expected to act. You do not have to be a victim the way society and the government says you have to. You are an individual and your destiny is yours and yours alone.

[r9etb]

King's comment was non-offensive and 100% correct.

All that needs to happen is for him to tweet - 'no I won't take it back. In fact, stick it up your backside'.

No more apologies for stating common sense.

Except our own history shows that he's not "100% correct."  In fact, the xenophobes of yesteryear who warned about the micks and the wops and polacks and all those other immigrants were pretty much 100% wrong.

Our own history also shows that confidence in one's own culture is what's most important.  And lack of it is what causes problems. 

But xenophobia is always easier.

[Doug Loss]

And neither was Jimmy the Greek's either; however, it was not PC.

Truth generally isn't.

[skeeter]

Except our own history shows that he's not "100% correct."  In fact, the xenophobes of yesteryear who warned about the micks and the wops and polacks and all those other immigrants were pretty much 100% wrong.

Our own history also shows that confidence in one's own culture is what's most important.  And lack of it is what causes problems. 

But xenophobia is always easier.

Virtue signaling is even easier.

You can't rebuild your civilization with someone else babies.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Forgetting about the merits of the argument, it's not a white supremacist argument if you hear the whole thing. Context is everything.

[txradioguy]

Virtue signaling is even easier.

You can't rebuild your civilization with someone else babies.

Seems someone didn't convey that message to Liberals here at home or to Frau Merkel in Germany. LOL!

[r9etb]

Virtue signaling is even easier.

Whatever the heck that means.

[TomSea]

In the case of Netherlands to me, we are talking about religion and not about race. Islam seems to colonize, it should be beaten back.

A change in racial demographics is another thing.

I've heard people say "we don't want the Republican party to be the white people's party" and I fully agree, at the same time, it seems the Democratic party is largely the minorities party and Big Labor Union's party to an extent.  So, there is a subtle difference.

People in the inner city should see, the Democratic party really is not helping them any and is probably harming them. 

This balance may be subject to change.

Voting for the DNC for a long time, is a slight problem but could be overcome. The GOP needs to reach out more.

[TomSea]

I heard England has 3 million Muslims, England has a total population of 53 million.  So, that nears 5-6 percent of the total population that are Muslim.  That doesn't look like much of a problem but then, people start looking at fertility rates, what if a native English family has 2 children and a Muslim family has 4 children. It's a lot to think about and how it affects the future say 40 years into the future and so on.

[r9etb]

I heard England has 3 million Muslims, England has a total population of 53 million.  So, that nears 5-6 percent of the total population that are Muslim.  That doesn't look like much of a problem but then, people start looking at fertility rates, what if a native English family has 2 children and a Muslim family has 4 children. It's a lot to think about and how it affects the future say 40 years into the future and so on.

Well, yes, maybe.... But that's a purely static analysis, and it does not account for the fact that cultural changes can go in both directions.

The same dark warnings were out there in the US of back in the mid-19th century, when the Know-Nothing Party made a name for itself by warning about the great dangers posed by the millions of Irish and German Catholic immigrants who were flooding into the country.  However, the Irish assimilated, as did the Italians, Poles, Germans, and all those others.  It's basically impossible for us today, to understand why the Irish or German immigrants caused such fear.  Why are they not a problem?  Because they were expected -- required -- to assimilate, and they did.

The point is, it isn't so much a matter of how one is born, but rather the sort of citizen one becomes.  A nation that expects and requires immigrants to conform to its basic cultural norms, will eventually assimilate the immigrants.  For Islamic immigrants, I suspect that "assimilation" will naturally follow as soon as Islamic women are expected and required to become part of the normal culture of Britain, France, or Germany.  Islamic men seem to be the problem right now -- but in any society it's the women who change the culture.

[skeeter]

In the case of Netherlands to me, we are talking about religion and not about race. Islam seems to colonize, it should be beaten back.

A change in racial demographics is another thing.

I've heard people say "we don't want the Republican party to be the white people's party" and I fully agree, at the same time, it seems the Democratic party is largely the minorities party and Big Labor Union's party to an extent.  So, there is a subtle difference.

People in the inner city should see, the Democratic party really is not helping them any and is probably harming them. 

This balance may be subject to change.

Voting for the DNC for a long time, is a slight problem but could be overcome. The GOP needs to reach out more.

The US is a nation of many ethnicities already and will always continue to be, so the charge of 'racism' to those of us who think an immigration timeout is necessary is bogus on its face.

In fact, those who advocate for more immigration ought to explain why it is they want to change the nation's racial makeup - the obvious outcome of what they endorse - and why they think it'd be a good thing.

[r9etb]

The US is a nation of many ethnicities already and will always continue to be, so the charge of 'racism' to those of us who think an immigration timeout is necessary is bogus on its face.

In fact, those who advocate for more immigration ought to explain why it is they want to change the nation's racial makeup - the obvious outcome of what they endorse - and why they think it'd be a good thing.

Um.... so you've apparently made a an argument against immigration on purely racial lines. You seem to be saying that "changing the nation's racial makeup" is a bad thing.  Aside from the numerical idiocy of the claim, I'm wondering how you can make such an argument and still say that a suggestions of "racism" is "bogus on its face?"

[TomSea]

Well, yes, maybe.... But that's a purely static analysis, and it does not account for the fact that cultural changes can go in both directions.

The same dark warnings were out there in the US of back in the mid-19th century, when the Know-Nothing Party made a name for itself by warning about the great dangers posed by the millions of Irish and German Catholic immigrants who were flooding into the country.  However, the Irish assimilated, as did the Italians, Poles, Germans, and all those others.  It's basically impossible for us today, to understand why the Irish or German immigrants caused such fear.  Why are they not a problem?  Because they were expected -- required -- to assimilate, and they did.

The point is, it isn't so much a matter of how one is born, but rather the sort of citizen one becomes.  A nation that expects and requires immigrants to conform to its basic cultural norms, will eventually assimilate the immigrants.  For Islamic immigrants, I suspect that "assimilation" will naturally follow as soon as Islamic women are expected and required to become part of the normal culture of Britain, France, or Germany.  Islamic men seem to be the problem right now -- but in any society it's the women who change the culture.

This all may be so but one can point at cases in point, and say "Well, California voted for every Republican presidential candidate from 1952 until 1988 (except for 1964 with LBJ, quite an exceptional election) but now, it has turned a deep blue"; so there are real life examples of states changing heavily per demographics.  It's difficult to see California returning to be a red state in the foreseeable future.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-voting-history/

[Cripplecreek]

He would have been a whole lot wiser to say that our constitutional heritage is our destiny.

The simple fact is that American constitutional republican federalism can survive without whites if we can successfully sell it. The simple fact is that no one is more dangerous to the republic than white progressives on either side of the aisle. We need to be vigilante about who we allow across our borders but a true desire and willingness to become American should be a primary factor above all else.

I have a black friend in Detroit who started his life immersed in nation of islam, black panthers, black nationalism. He said that Thomas Sowell said something that made the rounds among the black nationalists as an insult but he took it as a challenge and began reading Sowell who led him to other conservative thought.

He said the nationalists didn't offer any answers. It was just "Hate whitey + ? = Wealth". He thought to himself that maybe he could have wealth if he wasn't wasting his time with NOI, BP, and BN and would be better off learning to do something and finding work.

Long story short, after nearly 50 years married to the same woman and having 8 kids none of which ever went to prison, I would have zero concerns leaving men like him in control if I were the last white man in America.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

He would have been a whole lot wiser to say that our constitutional heritage is our destiny.

The simple fact is that American constitutional republican federalism can survive without whites if we can successfully sell it. The simple fact is that no one is more dangerous to the republic than white progressives on either side of the aisle. We need to be vigilante about who we allow across our borders but a true desire and willingness to become American should be a primary factor above all else.

I have a black friend in Detroit who started his life immersed in nation of islam, black panthers, black nationalism. He said that Thomas Sowell said something that made the rounds among the black nationalists as an insult but he took it as a challenge and began reading Sowell who led him to other conservative thought.

He said the nationalists didn't offer any answers. It was just "Hate whitey + ? = Wealth". He thought to himself that maybe he could have wealth if he wasn't wasting his time with NOI, BP, and BN and would be better off learning to do something and finding work.

Long story short, after nearly 50 years married to the same woman and having 8 kids none of which ever went to prison, I would have zero concerns leaving men like him in control if I were the last white man in America.

"White" is relative. Within hispanic countries, there are "whites" and "blacks".


There was an article in the NYTimes a few years ago on how hispanics are increasingly marking themselves as "white".


Race is relative.

[TomSea]

Um.... so you've apparently made a an argument against immigration on purely racial lines. You seem to be saying that "changing the nation's racial makeup" is a bad thing.  Aside from the numerical idiocy of the claim, I'm wondering how you can make such an argument and still say that a suggestions of "racism" is "bogus on its face?"

Okay, I heard one politician say, one shouldn't be call a racist; and there is nothing wrong with being concerned about demographics. That alone does not make someone a racist.

[r9etb]

This all may be so but one can point at cases in point, and say "Well, California voted for every Republican presidential candidate from 1952 until 1988 (except for 1964 with LBJ, quite an exceptional election) but now, it has turned a deep blue"; so there are real life examples of states changing heavily per demographics.  It's difficult to see California returning to be a red state in the foreseeable future.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-voting-history/

It's not clear to me what this has to do with Steve King's tweet. 

[skeeter]

Um.... so you've apparently made a an argument against immigration on purely racial lines. You seem to be saying that "changing the nation's racial makeup" is a bad thing.  Aside from the numerical idiocy of the claim, I'm wondering how you can make such an argument and still say that a suggestions of "racism" is "bogus on its face?"

I did not present my argument in favor of an immigration timeout at all. I am referring to the usual charge made in response by those who like to impute dark motives, usually in the form of one word, to those with who they disagree. Because its easier than actually debating the issue.

[r9etb]

Okay, I heard one politician say, one shouldn't be call a racist; and there is nothing wrong with being concerned about demographics. That alone does not make someone a racist.

Which is fine.  But when one argues against immigration on the basis of "changing the nation's racial makeup," then it's not at all "bogus on its face" to wonder if racism is a factor.

[Cripplecreek]

"White" is relative. Within hispanic countries, there are "whites" and "blacks".


There was an article in the NYTimes a few years ago on how hispanics are increasingly marking themselves as "white".


Race is relative.

My friend and I have talked about that and reached the conclusion that mixed race people who consider themselves to be white tend to be conservative. As my friend said, if you go out of your way to include yourself in a group who considers themselves to be oppressed, you've got issues.

As for me, I spent several hours playing with my mixed race great niece on Sunday while watching NASCAR.