← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · JoseyWales
Thread ID: 18493 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2005-06-02
2005-06-02 15:05 | User Profile
I have several people i know and talk to regularly that share most of my viewpoints. These folks in question also share a common set of traits:
(1)Consider themselves conservative, but are unaware of the difference between the terms neoconservative and paleoconservative, yet generally realize that the two major parties are one and the same.
(2)Are unaware of things such as the 1965 immigration act as well as the forces behind it, rarely or never visit news websites, message forums etc. They get most of their news, little as it is, from the local newspaper or news tv station, maybe cnn or yahoo news on occasion.
(3)Have a general opinion that if it isnt happening in their town or neighborhood, they dont care to get involved or even read about it unless possible someone emailed it to them, then only maybe.
(4)Quite possibly voted for GWB in both previous elections.
(5)Admit that there are deep differences among the races. However they will often try to convince you that everyone can be a conservative, get along, and share control of the country if we just try hard enough.
My point being, is that this might possibly represent a LARGE bucket of the white population that still calls themselves "conservative" and they are the ones to be won over. My intent is not really to point them to a new political party, because im not even sure what party that would be, but rather to change opinions on such things as race, culture and our herritage. Plant the seeds, apply water on a regular basis and watch the cotton crop grow. :)
2005-06-03 01:28 | User Profile
JoseyWales,
You are most Right!
2005-06-03 02:27 | User Profile
I like the way you think. Small question: who will pick the cotton ? :cool2:
[QUOTE=JoseyWales]I have several people i know and talk to regularly that share most of my viewpoints. These folks in question also share a common set of traits:
(1)Consider themselves conservative, but are unaware of the difference between the terms neoconservative and paleoconservative, yet generally realize that the two major parties are one and the same.
(2)Are unaware of things such as the 1965 immigration act as well as the forces behind it, rarely or never visit news websites, message forums etc. They get most of their news, little as it is, from the local newspaper or news tv station, maybe cnn or yahoo news on occasion.
(3)Have a general opinion that if it isnt happening in their town or neighborhood, they dont care to get involved or even read about it unless possible someone emailed it to them, then only maybe.
(4)Quite possibly voted for GWB in both previous elections.
(5)Admit that there are deep differences among the races. However they will often try to convince you that everyone can be a conservative, get along, and share control of the country if we just try hard enough.
My point being, is that this might possibly represent a LARGE bucket of the white population that still calls themselves "conservative" and they are the ones to be won over. My intent is not really to point them to a new political party, because im not even sure what party that would be, but rather to change opinions on such things as race, culture and our herritage. Plant the seeds, apply water on a regular basis and watch the cotton crop grow. :)[/QUOTE]
2005-06-03 12:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes] Small question: who will pick the cotton ? :cool2:[/QUOTE]
There is saying which im not sure of its origin but goes like this- "if i knew it was gonna be this much trouble, id would of picked my own damned cotton"
Point being, we should find ways to do things ourselves without relying on 3rd world labor living amongst us. Its rather a moot point now, without massive political change. My ancestors are calling and they want their country back.
2005-06-03 12:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=JoseyWales]There is saying which im not sure of its origin but goes like this- "if i knew it was gonna be this much trouble, id would of picked my own damned cotton"
Point being, we should find ways to do things ourselves without relying on 3rd world labor living amongst us. Its rather a moot point now, without massive political change. My ancestors are calling and they want their country back.[/QUOTE] I've seen that bumper sticker on a lot, down here in the Nueces Strip. :whstl:
FWIW: Most of the cotton picking in South Texas is by machine nowadays. As I understand it, hand picking gets a better yield per acre, but there are cost inefficiencies in hiring hand pickers, so most cotton concerns down here use machines.
2005-06-03 12:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]I've seen that bumper sticker on a lot, down here in the Nueces Strip. :whstl:
FWIW: Most of the cotton picking in South Texas is by machine nowadays. As I understand it, hand picking gets a better yield per acre, but there are cost inefficiencies in hiring hand pickers, so most cotton concerns down here use machines.[/QUOTE]
Interestingly there was an article on VDare a while back asserting that Mexico was going to more automated farming and that was a reason that there are more illegals coming in to the states and farms in the US were not going into more automation because the illegals are cheap.
2005-06-03 13:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=skemper]Interestingly there was an article on VDare a while back asserting that Mexico was going to more automated farming and that was a reason that there are more illegals coming in to the states and farms in the US were not going into more automation because the illegals are cheap.[/QUOTE] May have to do some research, things may have changed since the 80's. Thanks for the tip! :thumbsup:
2005-06-03 14:43 | User Profile
Three-quarters of the population of Georgia.
2005-06-03 21:10 | User Profile
Josey Wales: "my ancestors are calling and they want their country back." Your ancestors ain't callin' nobody, they're dead along with mine, including my Powhatan ancestors-whose country?
2005-06-04 06:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=horatio] Your ancestors ain't callin' nobody, they're dead along with mine, including my Powhatan ancestors-whose country?[/QUOTE]
The country belongs to those referred to as "Our Posterity" in the preamble to the Constitution; i.e. we descendants of Founders and the White pioneers who risked all to take the continent from your Powhatan ancestors.
2005-06-04 13:49 | User Profile
QUOTE=JoseyWalesAdmit that there are deep differences among the races. However they will often try to convince you that everyone can be a conservative, get along, and share control of the country if we just try hard enough.[/QUOTE]Not sure about this one. I find few conservatives who are willing to admit there are deep differences among races. Any differences that do exist are merely superficial, they would argue, and are caused by racist liberal policies. The typical conservative view seems to be that every non-white person is really just a typical middle class white person, just like conservatives themselves, under the skin.
[QUOTE=JoseyWales]My ancestors are calling and they want their country back.[/QUOTE]Mine are too. The din is getting too loud to ignore. :disgust:
2005-06-06 23:28 | User Profile
I know where you got your screen name, Bedsheet Buttwad. It's people like you that make me wish at times I could've seen the look on old custer's face. Did your crew "risk it all"? coming from filthy europe as you did, all you pretty much had to do was lace our blankets with smallpox, and wait for us to die off. Then, enslave my African ancestors to do all your work. Then, the "founding fathers" could make their long-winded speeches about liberty, Justice, etc. etc., and then go home and rape their slaves.
2005-06-07 11:15 | User Profile
all you pretty much had to do was lace our blankets with smallpox, and wait for us to die off.
I keep seeing this repeated. I doubt it would hold up to historical scrutiny. The very fact that there are so many current descendants of indigenous peoples belies the claim.
2005-06-07 14:36 | User Profile
Not sure about this one. I find few conservatives who are willing to admit there are deep differences among races.
I guess it depend where you are. Most Republicans in Dallas think blacks are very different, though many of them also believe that "everyone can be a conservative, get along, and share control of the country if we just try hard enough", just as Josey Wales said.
2005-06-07 23:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SteamshipTime]all you pretty much had to do was lace our blankets with smallpox, and wait for us to die off.
I keep seeing this repeated. I doubt it would hold up to historical scrutiny. The very fact that there are so many current descendants of indigenous peoples belies the claim.[/QUOTE] Yes I am pretty skeptical of these stories too. If Louis Pasteur did not come up with The Germ Theory of Disease until the mid-1800s, what is the likelihood that British soldiers in the 1700s would have understood that smallpox could be transmitted via blankets? Pasteur spent a lot of his life trying to convice surgeons that sterilisation of hospital instruments etc was necessary to prevent disease transmission, and this was more than a century later.
[url]http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blpasteur.htm[/url]
[QUOTE]The Pasteur Institute was opened in 1888. During Louis Pasteur's lifetime it was not easy for him to convince others of his ideas, controversial in their time but considered absolutely correct today. Pasteur fought to convince surgeons that germs existed and carried diseases, and dirty instruments and hands spread germs and therefore disease. Pasteur's pasteurization process, kills germs and prevents the spread of disease.
Louis Pasteur's main contributions to microbiology and medicine were; instituting changes in hospital/medical practices to minimize the spread of disease by microbes or germs, discovering that weak forms of disease could be used as an immunization against stronger forms and that rabies was transmitted by viruses too small to be seen under the microscopes of the time, introducing the medical world to the concept of viruses.[/QUOTE] It seems odd that the British had the knowledge to use smallpox as a biological weapon. Many Indians died from smallpox, but it was it necessarily deliberate on the part of the British?
2005-06-08 12:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Yes I am pretty skeptical of these stories too. If Louis Pasteur did not come up with The Germ Theory of Disease until the mid-1800s, what is the likelihood that British soldiers in the 1700s would have understood that smallpox could be transmitted via blankets?[/QUOTE]
It's within the realms of possibility. This page contains a fascinating wealth of detail on the small pox and blankets issue: [url]http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html[/url]
Note the section: [QUOTE]Colonel Henry Bouquet to General Amherst, dated 13 July 1763, suggests in a postscript the distribution of blankets to "inocculate the Indians";
Amherst to Bouquet, dated 16 July 1763, approves this plan in a postscript and suggests as well as "to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race." [/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inoculate[/url] [QUOTE]In the early 18th century, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, whose husband Edward Wortley Montagu served as the English ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1716 to 1717, witnessed inoculation in Constantinople. The process impressed her greatly: she had lost a brother to smallpox and bore scars from the disease herself. In March 1718 she had the embassy surgeon, Charles Maitland, inoculate her five-year-old son. In 1721, after returning to England, she had her four-year-old daughter inoculated. She invited friends to see her daughter, including Sir Hans Sloane, the King's physician. Sufficient interest arose that Maitland gained permission to test inoculation on six condemned prisoners at Newgate prison, witnessed by a number of notable doctors. The trial succeeded; the prisoners gained their freedom, and in 1722 the Prince of Wales' daughters received inoculations.
The practice of inoculation slowly spread amongst the royal families of Europe, usually followed by the more general adoption amongst the people. J.Z. Holwell described the Ayurvedic system of inoculation against smallpox to the Royal College of Physicians in London in 1767 in a tract called An account of the manner of inoculating for the small pox in the East Indies. He based his account on observations made during his residence in Bengal. [/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305881[/url] Dr John Z. Holwell `An Account of the Manner of Inoculating for the Smallpox in the East Indies', 1767 [QUOTE] They inoculate indifferently on any part, but if left to their choice, they prefer the outside of the arm, midway between the wrist and the elbow, for the males; and the same between the elbow and the shoulder for the females. Previous to the operation the Operator takes a piece of cloth in his hand, (which becomes his perquisite if the family is opulent,) and with it gives a dry friction upon the part intended for inoculation, for the space of eight or ten minutes, then with a small instrument he wounds, by many slight touches, about the compass of a silver groat, just making the smallest appearance of blood, then opening a linen double rag (which he always keeps in a cloth round his waist) takes from thence a small pledgit of cotton charged with the variolous [smallpox] matter, which he moistens with two or three drops of the Ganges water, and applies it on the wound, fixing it on with a slight bandage, and ordering it to remain on for six hours without being moved, then the bandage to be taken off, and the pledgit to remain until it falls off itselfââ¬Â¦ The cotton which he preserves in a double callico rag is saturated with matter from the inoculated pustules of the preceding year, for they never inoculate with fresh matter, nor with matter from the disease caught in the natural way, however distinct and mild the species. [/QUOTE]