Paul Ryan Cites 'White Nationalist' to Blame Poverty on Lazy Men in 'Inner Cities'

Paul Ryan Cites ‘White Nationalist’ to Blame Poverty on Lazy Men in ‘Inner Cities’

Wingnuts • March 2014 • Views: 3,370

More: Paul Ryan Cites ‘White Nationalist’ to Blame Poverty on Lazy Men in ‘Inner Cities’

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) on Wednesday suggested that men in “inner cities” who refused to work were one of the main causes of poverty in the United States.

In an interview with conservative radio host Bill Bennett that was first noticed by Igor Volsky at Think Progress, Ryan reflected on his controversial poverty discussion at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference.

“We call it a poverty trap,” he explained. “There are incentives not to work, and to stay where you are.”

Ryan also pointed to the work of Charles Murray, a white nationalist, who has used “racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Recent Pages by Alouette (Vicious Babushka):
Zaka: The Volunteers Giving Dignity to Israel's Dead Holocaust Survivor Celebrates 90th Birthday in Auschwitz With 100 Descendants Under Linda Yaccarino, X Is Placing Ads for Major Brands on a Verified Pro-Hitler Account House Republicans May Have Committed Some Light Treason - the Bulwark Burn the Witch! Burn Her! GOP PAC Sets AOC on Fire

Jump to bottom

21 comments

Dark_Falcon Wed, Mar 12, 2014 10:09:00am

I don’t agree with calling Murray a ‘white nationalist’. He doesn’t display the separatism that typifies that breed.

calochortus Wed, Mar 12, 2014 10:11:40am

“There are incentives not to work…”
You mean like being unable to find a job, let alone one that could support a family?

wrenchwench Wed, Mar 12, 2014 10:25:02am

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

I don’t agree with calling Murray a ‘white nationalist’. He doesn’t display the separatism that typifies that breed.

Separatism may be typical, but is not a requirement to fit the definition of ‘white nationalist’. Racial elitism suffices. He has that, does he not?

Dark_Falcon Wed, Mar 12, 2014 6:14:28pm

re: #3 wrenchwench

Separatism may be typical, but is not a requirement to fit the definition of ‘white nationalist’. Racial elitism suffices. He has that, does he not?

With respect, I do not concur. ‘White Nationalism’ in my mind is proven by assumptions that America is for “white people”, and by policy preferences designed to benefit whites as whites, either without reference to other ethnic groups or to their detriment. Thus a policy that is intended to favor rural people or rich people does not qualify as ‘white nationalism’ because it is based on and justified by geography or income instead of race.

EPR-radar Wed, Mar 12, 2014 6:24:40pm

I can’t take full credit for this observation, since I saw it elsewhere on the net, but it is interesting enough to repeat here.

Rand Paul seems to be advancing the thesis that the “problem” is due to two alleged factors:

1) high unemployment in inner cities because some cultures do not value work
and
2) some people are genetically unsuited to work

Either part of this is bad enough, but combining these two leads to the repellant idea that an entire culture is dysfunctional because of the genetic makeup of the people in it (i.e., white supremacism 101, which is always in play when Charles Murray is cited).

There is no rational solution to a “problem” so defined that is not monstrous (e.g., mass deportation, mass imprisonment, genocide). That is what is so evil about the scientific racism of Murray et al.

EPR-radar Wed, Mar 12, 2014 6:32:22pm

re: #4 Dark_Falcon

With respect, I do not concur. ‘White Nationalism’ in my mind is proven by assumptions that America is for “white people”, and by policy preferences designed to benefit whites as whites, either without reference to other ethnic groups or to their detriment. Thus a policy that is intended to favor rural people or rich people does not qualify as ‘white nationalism’ because it is based on and justified by geography or income instead of race.

Is a distinction being made here between ‘white nationalist’ and ‘white supremacist’? Oy vey.

Charles Murray isn’t shy about his immutable racial categories, so it is hard to see how labeling him as a white supremacist is unfair. The fact that Murray tends to avoid making policy suggestions consistent with these views (instead preferring to let his readers ‘fill in the blanks’ according to their own prejudices as exacerbated by Murray’s pseudo-science) cuts no ice with me.

Varek Raith Wed, Mar 12, 2014 6:58:39pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

I don’t agree with calling Murray a ‘white nationalist’. He doesn’t display the separatism that typifies that breed.

He’s still a racist.

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Wed, Mar 12, 2014 6:59:48pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

I don’t agree with calling Murray a ‘white nationalist’. He doesn’t display the separatism that typifies that breed.

Seriously, this is your response to Ryan’s crap? This?

Pie-onist Overlord Wed, Mar 12, 2014 7:06:13pm

re: #5 EPR-radar

I can’t take full credit for this observation, since I saw it elsewhere on the net, but it is interesting enough to repeat here.

Rand Paul seems to be advancing the thesis that the “problem” is due to two alleged factors:

1) high unemployment in inner cities because some cultures do not value work
and
2) some people are genetically unsuited to work

Either part of this is bad enough, but combining these two leads to the repellant idea that an entire culture is dysfunctional because of the genetic makeup of the people in it (i.e., white supremacism 101, which is always in play when Charles Murray is cited).

There is no rational solution to a “problem” so defined that is not monstrous (e.g., mass deportation, mass imprisonment, genocide). That is what is so evil about the scientific racism of Murray et al.

1. It’s Paul Ryan, not Rand Paul (yeah they all look alike)

2. If “some people are genetically unsuited to work” THEN WHY THE FREAKING FUCK WERE THEY IMPORTING THEM FROM AFRICA FOR 300 YEARS!!!!!!

EPR-radar Wed, Mar 12, 2014 7:10:40pm

re: #9 Pie-onist Overlord

1. It’s Paul Ryan, not Rand Paul (yeah they all look alike)

2. If “some people are genetically unsuited to work” THEN WHY THE FREAKING FUCK WERE THEY IMPORTING THEM FROM AFRICA FOR 300 YEARS!!!!!!

Thanks for the correction.

WRT point #2, I honestly think this line of RW thinking has as its end point advocacy of the reinstatement of slavery. After all, the full version of “unsuited to work” is more like ‘unsuited to work without an overseer’.

Charles Johnson Wed, Mar 12, 2014 7:11:06pm

Oh, for Pete’s sake.

goddamnedfrank Wed, Mar 12, 2014 7:14:20pm

Murray’s vision of the future and his efforts to bring it about are even more chilling in the context of his early career. Murray started out working in Thailand for the Washington, D.C.-based think tank American Institutes for Research (AIR). While ostensibly conducting basic social science research in remote Thai villages, Murray and his colleagues were working with the U.S. military to develop counter-insurgency programs. AIR’s proposal to the military included plans to develop “stimuli” to bring about desired reactions in the populations; examples given included burning the villagers’ crops, assassinating political figures, “strengthening retaliatory mechanisms and similar preventative measures,” and “neutraliz[ing] the political successes already achieved by groups committed to the ‘wrong’ side,” the last of which “typically involves direct military confrontation.”
The proposal, which is now used as a textbook example of unethical practices in the social sciences, also stated that “[t]he potential applicability of the findings in the United States will also receive special attention. In many of our key domestic programs, especially those directed at disadvantaged sub-cultures, the methodological problems are similar to those described in this proposal; and the application of the Thai findings at home constitutes a potentially most significant project contribution.” As one prominent anthropologist commented, “It takes little imagination to recognize the identities of the ‘disadvantaged subcultures,’ and the circumstances that would be likely to make them targets of such measures.”

Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut Wed, Mar 12, 2014 7:15:11pm

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

I don’t agree with calling Murray a ‘white nationalist’. He doesn’t display the separatism that typifies that breed.

Seriously, Dark, this is what the fuck is going on in your party right now. Pretty much open racism, at the highest levels.

Doesn’t that bug you to the point where you want to respond to this with something other than a weak-tea defense of it?

palmerskiss Wed, Mar 12, 2014 7:15:31pm

re: #4 Dark_Falcon

With respect, I do not concur. ‘White Nationalism’ in my mind is proven by assumptions that America is for “white people”, and by policy preferences designed to benefit whites as whites, either without reference to other ethnic groups or to their detriment. Thus a policy that is intended to favor rural people or rich people does not qualify as ‘white nationalism’ because it is based on and justified by geography or income instead of race.

I’m not sure the analogy you used her really works : ‘a policy that is intended to favor rural people or rich people does not qualify as ‘white nationalism’ because it is based on and justified by geography or income instead of race”

Arent you setting up two different criteria?

1. He is not a white nationalist because he is not a separatist
2. Rural elitism is not white nationalism because it is not based on race.

‘either without reference to other ethnic groups or to their detriment. ‘

‘The Bell Curve’, without a doubt, is to all of our detriment….

palmerskiss Wed, Mar 12, 2014 7:16:20pm

re: #11 Charles Johnson

Oh, for Pete’s sake.

who is pete? and why does he always take the blame?

poor pete….. i stand in solidarity with pete…

palmerskiss Wed, Mar 12, 2014 7:18:20pm

re: #9 Pie-onist Overlord

1. It’s Paul Ryan, not Rand Paul (yeah they all look alike)

2. If “some people are genetically unsuited to work” THEN WHY THE FREAKING FUCK WERE THEY IMPORTING THEM FROM AFRICA FOR 300 YEARS!!!!!!

maybe someone can ask judge napolitano

Amory Blaine Wed, Mar 12, 2014 7:27:30pm

It’s funny coming from Paul Ryan. His family made its fortune building highways for the federal government. Then he cashed in on SSI to get himself a sweet free college education on the dole. Then onward to a government staffer position. All the way up to what he is now. A know nothing blowhard that has no legislative accomplishments under his belt and pathetic lies posing as fiscal policies after all these years. Paul Ryan is lazy, sly and has no ethics.

The Ghost of a Flea Wed, Mar 12, 2014 7:39:46pm

Okay, if we set aside the racism thing, how is Charles Murray still not completely repugnant, since he routinely writes about how a sizable chunk of children should be routed away from college on the basis of “environment” (class and family income) that corresponds to “low IQ”…IQ being a completely bullshit measure of functional competence?

This is the cowardly fuck who used SAT scores to back up his shit until they didn’t say what he wanted them to, then he declared them “ruined by political correctness.”

He’s never even attempted to be an honest analyst. He’s always worked to create data to match an existing position, and his CV shows who pays for him to put a fake science moustache on the wild-ass shit they believe.

HappyWarrior Thu, Mar 13, 2014 10:33:41am

re: #17 Amory Blaine

It’s funny coming from Paul Ryan. His family made its fortune building highways for the federal government. Then he cashed in on SSI to get himself a sweet free college education on the dole. Then onward to a government staffer position. All the way up to what he is now. A know nothing blowhard that has no legislative accomplishments under his belt and pathetic lies posing as fiscal policies after all these years. Paul Ryan is lazy, sly and has no ethics.

Yep. Ryan’s a hypocritical little shit head.

wrenchwench Thu, Mar 13, 2014 10:42:42am

re: #4 Dark_Falcon

With respect, I do not concur. ‘White Nationalism’ in my mind is proven by assumptions that America is for “white people”, and by policy preferences designed to benefit whites as whites, either without reference to other ethnic groups or to their detriment. Thus a policy that is intended to favor rural people or rich people does not qualify as ‘white nationalism’ because it is based on and justified by geography or income instead of race.

A definition ‘in my mind’ is not definitive. The idea that ‘assumptions that America is for “white people”, and [by] policy preferences designed to benefit whites as whites’, could possibly exist without reference to other ethnic groups is ludicrous. And we’re really talking about race here, not ethnicity.

Are you suggesting that there is a geographic element to Murray’s beliefs about whites being superior? You’re really not making much sense, or I have missed your meaning somehow.

The Ghost of a Flea Thu, Mar 13, 2014 2:19:14pm

On the subject of Charles Murray, a more complete roster of his bullshit:

He demonstrated that in his last book, “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.” Murray argues that white people have developed the same character problems that claimed African-Americans 50 years ago, which he outlined in “Losing Ground”: They prefer shacking up to marriage, they don’t go to church, they’re lazy and dishonest and enjoy the government dole. After all, the same percent of white children are now born to single mothers - just over 25 percent — as were black children back when Daniel Patrick Moynihan issued his alarms about “the Negro family.” And the reasons are largely the same: promiscuity, laziness, women who insist on equality - and lower IQ.

and

The other deeply offensive argument Murray makes in “Coming Apart” is that feminism helps explain the decline of work among lazy lower-class men. He approvingly cites Reagan-era anti-feminist George Gilder, author of the insane “Sexual Suicide,” who blamed women’s equality for letting women give up the job of civilizing men. “Gilder saw disaster looming as women stopped performing this function, a position derided as the worst kind of patriarchal sexism,” Murray noted. “But put in less vivid language, the argument is neither implausible nor inflammatory: The responsibilities of marriage induce young men to settle down, focus and get to work … George Gilder was mostly right.”

And again, the proof of Murray’s sexist theorizing turns out to be bogus geneticism: There are genetic reasons, rooted in the mechanisms of human evolution, why little boys who grow up in neighborhoods without married fathers tend to reach adolescence not socialized to the norms of behavior that they will need to stay out of prison and hold jobs….[Liberals] will have to acknowledge that the traditional family plays a special, indispensable role in human flourishing and that social policy must be based on that truth.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!