- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Tom Wolfe’s Tribalist America

Tom Wolfe in person was rather subdued, even bland. I remember feeling oddly crestfallen when I discovered this, that the writer who had so long enchanted me on the page wasn’t a drawling troublemaker like Hunter S. Thompson or a puckish raconteur like Gore Vidal. Indeed, Wolfe’s personality may have been the only quiet thing about him, a contrast with his hair-on-fire prose, the 60s cultural geysers erupting around him, even his trademark white suit.

Yet how else should he have been? Wolfe, whose death this week left our literary scene all the hollower, is known today for his novels. But first and foremost he was the finest reporter of his generation, with an ear for dialectical precision and an eye for aesthetic nuance, none of which would have registered had he preferred to talk rather than listen, to flaunt rather than observe. Trained as a newspaper man, inspired by realists like Dickens and naturalists like Zola, he made a career first out of experimenting with feature reporting—which he eventually elevated into a literary style he called New Journalism—and then applying that to fiction. An indefatigable witness to the human condition, he ventured constantly to the places he sought to portray and skewered other novelists—among them John Updike and John Irving—whom he saw as succumbing to the entropy of the office. He called for intrepid writers who would, as he put it in his essay Stalking the Billion-Footed Beast, “head out into this wild, bizarre, unpredictable, Hog-stomping, Baroque country of ours and reclaim it as literary property.” In an age when impactful cultural melees like the one at Charlottesville are covered largely by spot reporters photosynthesizing in front of computer screens hundreds of miles away, that call is more relevant than ever.

It wasn’t just the meticulous research that distinguished Wolfe, but his contagious style, which has unconsciously slipped into the prose of many an admiring young writer. Wolfe alone could do Wolfe—that much was clear—yet his madcap way with words is essential study for anyone who wants to become an effective stylist. In high school, too many students are initiated into the cult of Strunk and White, those dread lords of awful writing who, were there justice in this world, would be put on trial for crimes against the language before some sort of writerly tribunal. Wolfe is the antidote to all that because he gleefully and methodically breaks every one of their dreary rules. His sentences slalom along through run-on clauses, fragments, dialects, slang, brand names, onomatopoeia, archaisms, alliterations, exclamation points, italics, neologisms. What English 101 builds up, Wolfe dynamites down, allowing one to reconstruct the debris into original style.

To Wolfe, a group of kids eating snacks in San Francisco City Hall was a “childstorm” that filled “the very air with a hurricane of malted milk, an orange blizzard of crushed ice from the Slurpees, with acid red horrors like the red from the taffy apples and the jelly from the jelly doughnuts, with globs of ice cream in purple sheets of root beer, with plastic straws and huge bilious waxed cups and punch cans and sprinkles of Winkles, and with mustard from off the hot dogs and little lettuce shreds from off the tacos, with things that splash and things that plop and things that ooze and stick….” The emaciated women of Manhattan high life were “social X-Rays,” the sarcasm-laden banter of college students was classified on a scale from “Sarc I” to “Sarc III,” and a passing fleet of custom cars meant “There Goes (Varoom! Varoom!) That Kandy-Kolored (Thphhhhhh!) Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby (Rahghhh!) Around the Bend (Brummmmmmmmmmmmmmm).” This style, manic and contortionist, was ideal for 1960s romps like The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, where most of Wolfe’s subjects were high on acid, but it also worked surprisingly well in The Bonfire of the Vanities, where his characters’ constant need to maintain class status results in plenty of hysterical angst.

Bonfire is probably Wolfe’s best work; it’s certainly the finest novel about New York City ever written. But it’s the underrated I Am Charlotte Simmons, Wolfe’s study of the modern university campus, that stands out for me. It was pilloried, not wrongly, by critics for its overreliance on stock characters and rush job of an ending. Yet Charlotte is also Wolfe’s most universal novel and for that reason his most familiar, full of little pinpricks of recognition for anyone who attended a stay-away college. Wolfe wrote it after four years of observing frat parties and sports tailgates, and the result is an alarming typhoon of sex and degradation, all seen through the eyes of a doe-eyed freshman from the hinterlands of North Carolina. In particular, the slow-burning set piece towards the end, which sees the heretofore awkward Charlotte pregame too much vodka and cozy up to frat-boy heel Hoyt Thorpe—while the reader simultaneously rejoices over her social acceptance and dreads the loss of her virginity he knows is coming—is impossible to look away from. And Charlotte’s aftermath of shame and depression is wrenching enough to make anyone reassess their own good times at college.

As all that might suggest, Wolfe was a man of the right. I say that not in the aspirational way that some conservatives claim South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone (“they make fun of liberals, so they must be one of us!”) but as a matter-of-fact descriptor of his politics. Not only did he find ample subject matter in the pathologies of 60s leftism, he railed against communists and radicals, wrote for the American Spectator, favorably blurbed Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism, and even had kind words for George W. Bush. This, I think, was both a genuine expression of his Southern upbringing and a celebration of Kingsley Amis’s dictum “if you can’t annoy somebody, there is little point in writing.” Wolfe was, to culturally appropriate Churchill, in the New York establishment but not of it, and he relished nothing more than poking its eminences in the eyes. As he put it, “I cannot stand the lockstep among everyone in my particular world. They all do the same thing without variation. It gets so boring. There is something in me that particularly wants it registered that I am not one of them.”

The eminences hit back on occasion. John Updike called Wolfe’s novel A Man in Full “not literature, even literature in a modest aspirant form,” while John Irving denounced the Wolfean style as “yak.” Christopher Hitchens, who had a limited respect for Wolfe, nevertheless declared: “There has probably never been a less prescient journo-novel than The Bonfire of the Vanities.” On that, at least, he had a point. Bonfire, which mixed together the dollar-chasing louts of opulent Park Avenue and the black underclass of the Bronx—just add vinegar—presaged a New York doomed to racial and class warfare. Whereas the city at the time of Hitchens’ writing was turning into a glorified daycare center, as Rudy Giuliani’s war on jaywalkers begat Michael Bloomberg’s war on canned soup. Crime was down, order was in, and the authorities had turned from the big to the trivial. Wolfe, it seemed, had gotten it wrong. That dovetails into another critique of Wolfe, which is that, rather than assess a college campus independently from Atlanta independently from New York, he applied the Bonfire model across the board, a sort of one-size-fits-all right-wing identity politics that sees different demographics as irreconcilable, whether rich and poor, blacks and whites, frat boys and nerds.

That lens may have proven distorted in New York, but position it over present-day America and it suddenly seems less smudged. Wolfe’s understanding of humanity was primarily tribal: people take on the customs and prejudices of the groups they belong to and clash with those they don’t. Hence why his characters are often accused of being universals rather than particulars. Hence, too, why his final (and weakest) novel, Back to Blood, was set in Miami and covered the tensions engendered by mass immigration. Contra Hitchens, what could be more prescient than that? In Back to Blood, the Cuban-American mayor of Miami tells the African-American police chief: “I mean we can’t mix them together, but we can forge a secure place for each nationality, each ethnic group, each race, and make sure they’re on the same level plane.” Is this our destiny, an America of subgroups that never quite melt into the pot? Are we doomed for more conflagration a la Charlottesville? Or is the liberal multicultural dream still possible, even desirable? That we’re even asking these questions suggests Wolfe has been vindicated more than his critics allow.

change_me

Ultimately, the only way we’ll get the answers is if we trouble to embark into this America of ours, sneakers laced, notebook paper crinkling in the breeze, lush phrases turning in our minds, determined to confront the weirdness in our backyard and chronicle it in a way that is—saints preserve us!—fun to read. Tom Wolfe’s work is ours now. May he rest in peace.

Matt Purple is the managing editor of The American Conservative.

20 Comments (Open | Close)

20 Comments To "Tom Wolfe’s Tribalist America"

#1 Comment By Rossbach On May 16, 2018 @ 11:42 pm

“Is this our destiny, an America of subgroups that never quite melt into the pot? Are we doomed for more conflagration a la Charlottesville? Or is the liberal multicultural dream still possible, even desirable? That we’re even asking these questions suggests Wolfe has been vindicated more than his critics allow.”

People (and nations) make their own destiny. Tom Wolfe knew this and so should we.

#2 Comment By The Anti-Gnostic On May 17, 2018 @ 8:23 am

Is this our destiny, an America of subgroups that never quite melt into the pot?

Assimilation = outmarriage and the result, historically, is not a uniform ethnicity but other and different ethnicities.

If the majority ethnicity, let’s call them Anglo-Europeans at this point, won’t marry into the baggage of an Arab Muslim family, then yes, Arab Muslims will always be an ethnic minority. Same for the physically distinct Meso-Americans. Since viable reproduction depends more heavily on female attractiveness and healthy wombs, the rule of thumb is probably how attractive the women are to out-groups. If it’s only a marginal top tier, then no out-marriage and hence, no assimilation.

What is the goal of American multiculturalism–less ethnic diversity or more? And related, what are we trying to get people to assimilate toward? The plan seems to be to deconstruct Anglo-American culture (and yes, that is the dominant culture, and distinctive in its own right) so that nobody gets marginalized. But why would anybody want to jettison their heritage and assimilate into a bland, consumerist anti-culture?

Eventually, all multicultural empires devolve into their constituent nations.

#3 Comment By Centralist On May 17, 2018 @ 8:33 am

I think Wolfe hit and missed something. The tribalism is real and politically powerful. It is easy to get people rallied around something like group id or “cultural” issues. I think though it is a fact the US is a bad empire and this is what leads to our constant infighting. We are a nation that needs a frontier. Imagine if we spent all the money from the war on terror 5.6 Trillion on say space exploration. Americans would likely not be exploring Mars we would be settling it and starting to figure out how to settle Venus.

#4 Comment By ku On May 17, 2018 @ 9:58 am

Matt Purple writes: “Christopher Hitchens, who had a limited respect for Wolfe, nevertheless declared: ‘There has probably never been a less prescient journo-novel than The Bonfire of the Vanities.’ On that, at least, he had a point. Bonfire, which mixed together the dollar-chasing louts of opulent Park Avenue and the black underclass of the Bronx—just add vinegar—presaged a New York doomed to racial and class warfare. Whereas the city at the time of Hitchens’ writing was turning into a glorified daycare center, as Rudy Giuliani’s war on jaywalkers begat Michael Bloomberg’s war on canned soup. Crime was down, order was in, and the authorities had turned from the big to the trivial. Wolfe, it seemed, had gotten it wrong.”

With respect to “a New York doomed to racial and class warfare,” Wolfe had, indeed, gotten it wrong. But in fairness, Tom Wolfe could not have anticipated two developments: (1) the enormous success of the NYPD’s tighter policing methods in reducing crime or (2) the fact that between 1990 and 2010 the number of Hispanics and Asians in New York City would increase by nearly 50% and the number of blacks would decline.

American Conservative publisher-at-the-time Ron Unz wrote about the 50% increase in the number of Hispanics and Asians: “The inevitable result was to squeeze out much of the local black population, which declined…[New York City] experienced an enormous drop in local crime, with the homicide rate falling by 79%…perhaps partly as a result of these underlying demographic changes. Meanwhile, the white population increasingly shifted toward the affluent, who were best able to afford the sharp rise in housing prices. It is an undeniable fact that American elites, conservative and liberal alike, are today almost universally in favor of very high levels of immigration, and their possible recognition of the direct demographic impact upon their own urban circumstances may be an important but unspoken factor in shaping their views.”

[1]

#5 Comment By Kurt Gayle On May 17, 2018 @ 10:00 am

Matt Purple: “Christopher Hitchens, who had a limited respect for Wolfe, nevertheless declared: ‘There has probably never been a less prescient journo-novel than The Bonfire of the Vanities.’ On that, at least, he had a point. Bonfire, which mixed together the dollar-chasing louts of opulent Park Avenue and the black underclass of the Bronx—just add vinegar—presaged a New York doomed to racial and class warfare. Whereas the city at the time of Hitchens’ writing was turning into a glorified daycare center, as Rudy Giuliani’s war on jaywalkers begat Michael Bloomberg’s war on canned soup. Crime was down, order was in, and the authorities had turned from the big to the trivial. Wolfe, it seemed, had gotten it wrong.”

With respect to “a New Yorkk doomed to racial and class warfare,” Wolfe had, indeed, gotten it wrong. But in fairness to Tom Wolfe, he could not have anticipated two developments: (1) the enormous success of the NYPD’s tighter policing methods in reducing crime or (2) the fact that between 1990 and 2010 the number of Hispanics and Asians in New York City would increase by nearly.

American Conservative publisher-at-the-time Ron Unz wrote about the 50% increase in the number of Hispanics and Asians: “The inevitable result was to squeeze out much of the local black population, which declined…[New York City] experienced an enormous drop in local crime, with the homicide rate falling by 79%…perhaps partly as a result of these underlying demographic changes. Meanwhile, the white population increasingly shifted toward the affluent, who were best able to afford the sharp rise in housing prices. It is an undeniable fact that American elites, conservative and liberal alike, are today almost universally in favor of very high levels of immigration, and their possible recognition of the direct demographic impact upon their own urban circumstances may be an important but unspoken factor in shaping their views.”

[1]

#6 Comment By Kurt Gayle On May 17, 2018 @ 10:02 am

Matt Purple: “Christopher Hitchens, who had a limited respect for Wolfe, nevertheless declared: ‘There has probably never been a less prescient journo-novel than The Bonfire of the Vanities.’ On that, at least, he had a point. Bonfire, which mixed together the dollar-chasing louts of opulent Park Avenue and the black underclass of the Bronx—just add vinegar—presaged a New York doomed to racial and class warfare. Whereas the city at the time of Hitchens’ writing was turning into a glorified daycare center, as Rudy Giuliani’s war on jaywalkers begat Michael Bloomberg’s war on canned soup. Crime was down, order was in, and the authorities had turned from the big to the trivial. Wolfe, it seemed, had gotten it wrong.”

With respect to “a New York doomed to racial and class warfare,” Wolfe had, indeed, gotten it wrong. But in fairness to Tom Wolfe, he could not have anticipated two developments: (1) the enormous success of the NYPD’s tighter policing methods in reducing crime or (2) the fact that between 1990 and 2010 the number of Hispanics and Asians in New York City would increase by nearly 50%.

American Conservative publisher-at-the-time Ron Unz wrote about the 50% increase in the number of Hispanics and Asians: “The inevitable result was to squeeze out much of the local black population, which declined…[New York City] experienced an enormous drop in local crime, with the homicide rate falling by 79%…perhaps partly as a result of these underlying demographic changes. Meanwhile, the white population increasingly shifted toward the affluent, who were best able to afford the sharp rise in housing prices. It is an undeniable fact that American elites, conservative and liberal alike, are today almost universally in favor of very high levels of immigration, and their possible recognition of the direct demographic impact upon their own urban circumstances may be an important but unspoken factor in shaping their views.”

[1]

#7 Comment By Thrice A Viking On May 17, 2018 @ 11:23 am

Centralist, how we settle a place like Mars, which has no atmosphere as I understand it? And Venus is literally hellish, as it turns out.

Very interesting article, Matt Purple. While a number of Wolfe’s predictions may not have panned out, they may yet in the future. Many of today’s trends are worrisome, to say no more.

#8 Comment By Jesse On May 17, 2018 @ 1:47 pm

“Is this our destiny, an America of subgroups that never quite melt into the pot?”

The only people refusing to melt into the pot, ironically, are white conservatives in exurban and suburban communities, hiding from the rest of the country. Meanwhile, the rest of us are living quite happily, if not without problems in urban areas.

#9 Comment By Centralist On May 17, 2018 @ 2:20 pm

Viking
We have this thing called technology that lets us do a lot of things human did not use to do. Like fly, travel great distance with ease, talk over great distances in instants, put a man on the moon. I guess I give humanity with a lot of resources and a lot of credit for creativity and innovation.

#10 Comment By Youknowho On May 17, 2018 @ 2:47 pm

Funny that no one worried about tribalism in America when George Wallace ran on a platform of “Segregation forever”. Or further back, when you had want ads “No Irish need apply”.

But then it was the dominant, majority culture that kept its distance, and everyone else was kept out.

Now that we are supposedly we are one big happy family, do we worry that people with long memories do not want to join?

#11 Comment By OogaBooga On May 18, 2018 @ 2:04 am

“presaged a New York doomed to racial and class warfare. Whereas the city at the time of Hitchens’ writing was turning into a glorified daycare center, as Rudy Giuliani’s war on jaywalkers begat Michael Bloomberg’s war on canned soup. Crime was down, order was in, and the authorities had turned from the big to the trivial. Wolfe, it seemed, had gotten it wrong.”

They say that about all the prophets.

#12 Comment By EliteCommInc. On May 18, 2018 @ 2:42 am

“Whereas the city at the time of Hitchens’ writing was turning into a glorified daycare center, as Rudy Giuliani’s war on jaywalkers begat Michael Bloomberg’s war on canned soup. Crime was down, order was in, and the authorities had turned from the big to the trivial. Wolfe, it seemed, had gotten it wrong.”

Mr Wolf did not get it wrong. The class warfare in NYC has existed since the city was founded. And one cannot really classify it as warfare. It was blacks at the bottom and no avenue left unturned to make sure they were kept there. One might want to take a loom at the history of New York City indepth.

It was by and large a one way warfare. My favorite observation was by a NYC historian who stated,
“Time and time again, this city has run up against the question of who was to be at the bottom and time and time again — the answer has been blacks.” PBS documentary NYC.

I won’t denigrate the BYC police department. But the anyone attributing the crime stats to police behavior is ignoring a very simple observation across the country in which crime was up across the board nationally in most major cities. That trend peaked in the mid 1990’s. And oddly enough the crime rate also declined nationally after the mid 90’s — and it did so across the board – nationally. And it did so in cities in which the broken windows policy was nonexistent.

Now unless the NYC police were policing in every metro and its clear that not even “broken windows” was not so applied — some other factor was in play regarding crime decreases. And the decreases were across the board as well, including among crime for which “broken windows” had little or no effect.

[2]

[3]

[4]

As for the rate of change —- between 1990 and 2000 you’ll have to demonstrate that by the numbers because overall said change doesn’t appear to have been large enough to have registered.

Demographics:

[5]

Given what is on the record, I have no doubt that Mr Wolf’s observations are still in play in NYC. i have no doubts that whites would love to displace blacks and it has nothing to do with crime stats, though the crime stats gambit plays well.

#13 Comment By EliteCommInc. On May 18, 2018 @ 1:42 pm

The economy was introduced to massive technological changes in the 1990’s most importantly, the public’s ability to buy and purchase said technologies which partly contributed to an economic surge to the positive — despite the usual overplay in the stock market and its consequences which blight the real growth that should have sustained itself for another twenty yeas or more. Technology products improved the economic out look in the US – which in tun boosted the fortunes in multiple areas of business and personal life.

I am going to decline to tease out the intricacies of how economic growth parallels in dime reduction. Buy among the most consistent factors in that relationship, the economy remains in play.

Also in play, are the intricacies that involve correlations between poverty stricken communities and the myriad dysfunctions that inhabit such environments. No, Poverty does cause crime — but the environments that are bred in poverty laden communities are consistent.

Note: the number of individuals involved in criminal activity are also fairly low in elation their populations. The percentage of blacks involved in violent crime: .3%

I am neither an advocate nor a liberal apologist for criminal behavior. But if we are going to assess data, it seems a good idea to be as objective on the data sets as possible. The black community despite its deliberate segregation can address aberrant behaviors in their communities, but blacks don’t hold a unique place setting to criminality.

#14 Comment By mikec On May 18, 2018 @ 4:52 pm

Odd we find comfort still in the black white transference. What I find in hyper active play is a big # filled movement of angst driven hopelessness. Not Wolf nor so few to be invisible have recognized or are recognizing nor speculating on the fact that we have, apparently, a line up of pull any trigger
swamp cleaners that insanely may figure high schools kids to be the enemy or worse, may figure they are doing the kids a favour by saving them the horror of facing (in their view) a liberal swamp run world. Its so sic that we loath to even look at it, much less deep enough to come up with a reasonable why. Guns gun galore….if outlawed there would be guns guns guns galore….its a feeble solution when closer to the bone ‘might’ be several 100,000 men filled with the energy of righteous indignation armed to the teeth,
over saturated with the ‘speed’ to maga, have nowhere to go and no infrastructure job in sight, sit on a vacuum of direction wondering wheres the leadership to use the ammo. Not forthcoming, that breeds some dangerous trigger fingers. Wolf never saw this fine but he was ‘on it’.

#15 Comment By EliteCommInc. On May 18, 2018 @ 6:48 pm

Excuse me.

Correction: No, Poverty does not cause crime — but the environments that are bred in poverty laden communities are consistent.

#16 Comment By Steve Sailer On May 18, 2018 @ 9:01 pm

“Christopher Hitchens, who had a limited respect for Wolfe, nevertheless declared: “There has probably never been a less prescient journo-novel than The Bonfire of the Vanities.””

Keep in mind that Rudy Giuliani’s election in November 1993 came six long years after the October 1987 publication of “Bonfire.”

And many of the trends Wolfe had identified in 1987 New York spread to the rest of the country in the early 1990s. The US went through a race-driven social crisis in the early 1990s (e.g., crack, crime, the LA Riots, etc.) that calmed down after the shame of the OJ Trial sank in. (But then it popped up again around 2012 as the Obama re-election campaign geared up.)

Actually, this 1987 novel was probably the most prescient, preceding the Tawana Brawley hoax involving Rev. Al, the Crack Years, the Crown Heights pogrom, the OJ trial, the Duke Lacrosse Hoax, the Trayvon Martin case, and so many other incidents:

Judge Richard A. Posner admitted in his mid-1990s book “Overcoming Law:”

“When I first read The Bonfire of the Vanities … it just didn’t strike me as the sort of book that has anything interesting to say about the law or any other institution…. I now consider that estimate of the book ungenerous and unperceptive. The Bonfire of the Vanities has turned out to be a book that I think about a lot, in part because it describes with such vividness what Wolfe with prophetic insight (the sort of thing we attribute to Kafka) identified as emerging problems of the American legal system… American legal justice today seems often to be found at a bizarre intersection of race, money, and violence, an intersection nowhere better depicted than in The Bonfire of the Vanities even thought the book was written before the intersection had come into view.”

#17 Comment By Kurt Gayle On May 19, 2018 @ 12:35 pm

“…Blacks don’t hold a unique place setting to criminality.”

But they do.

“…Official FBI statistics indicate that blacks today are still over 600% as likely to commit homicide than non-blacks and their robbery rate is over 700% larger.”

Please look at the graphs on pages 2-5 and 7-9:

[1]

I was a member of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in Virginia in the early ‘60s and I’m not in the habit of apologizing for presenting facts on issues which have a strong racial correlation: Hugely disproportionately-high black crime is an on-going problem in the US and we cannot address the problem if we fail to acknowledge the underlying facts.

White liberals do this important national little good when they ignore–or lie about–facts.

#18 Comment By Kurt Gayle On May 21, 2018 @ 9:48 am

It’s true that “many of the trends Wolfe had identified in 1987 New York spread to the rest of the country in the early 1990s,” but Bonfire of the Vanities was about New York City. And Christopher Hitchens and Matt Purple are talking about New York City where the Wolfe-identified trends—“a New York doomed to racial and class warfare”–had far less impact that in other major American cities.

#19 Comment By EliteCommInc. On May 22, 2018 @ 5:41 pm

This is an old issue discussed numerous occasions deciphering and explicating the stats. I am well aware of the proportionality arguments . . .

Well,

I am not a liberal But I do know that being black is not an indicator of criminality as is oft made by the abusive use of statistics.

As I noted in my comments regarding correlations which interestingly enough corresponds with income/poverty.

Here’s the most important indicator, If I remove blacks from the equation say during slavery, the highest crime rate were in the worst economic communities. Now I could argue there’s something about being white Irish that lends itself to criminal behavior, white Italians, of how about white catholics, afterall these were the crime ridden communities. Might as well include those Jews, Poles and Czechs, though they were outnumbered.

Since backs now occupy the worst of economic environment and given their unique socialization because of blackness — their climb out of that cellar (once owned by Italians, Irish and Jews) is going to be much harder. Backs, can modify their language, they can modify their dress, they can modify almost everything, except the color of their skin. Most important even now among the poverty laden back communities, most blacks do not engage in criminal activity. And as said population moves out of said environments, they may carry with them some of their past practices until such as time as they are no longer needed. This is the history of Italians, Jews and the Irish history in the US.

Sipping in the term liberal is convenient sight of hand, and while it is clearly not a trait I hold, I do think placing numbers/stats in context demands integrity. Something many of my fellow conservatives so called refuse to do because they are more interested in the power dynamic to control than the power dynamic to change, correct and improve.

One of the aspects I like about the election of Pres. Trump — he espouses what most whites think on either side of the aisle. And I think its good to have all of that out in the open. I read the article concerning the new incoming TAC editor. If he wants to remove identity politics, he will have rewrite history of the US.

Note: the language of blacks and crime is as of as slavery, odd given that they were saves. But if you take a look at the save training manual out of a Louisiana plantation, you come to understand that any save seeking to break from enslavement was a criminal, any violation of any rue paced on backs slave or free was to a call of “unruly” and tend to “criminal behavior”.

If you want me to support a policy of discrimination based on .3% of the black population scattered throughout the US in very specific locations, inhabiting and interacting largely with each other.

No sale here.

#20 Comment By EliteCommInc. On May 22, 2018 @ 5:47 pm

“Please look at the graphs on pages 2-5 and 7-9:”

Excuse the delay, I was sure I had responded to this days ago. i am aware of the statistical data. I am very generous with those that attempt to make the matter uniquely black by bumping up the numbers. They are not new nor is this press. I have responded to the numbers numerous times here and just recently in more detail over on Unz.com.