The Democrat Pecking Order for American Citizens and the Citizens of the World

In 1776 Thomas Jefferson wrote, “All men are created equal.” It was radical statement then, and it’s becoming a radical statement now. Under the “Progressive Democrats,” George Orwell’s concept of “Some pigs are more equal than other pigs,” is becoming more and more evident.

Here’s list how each group stacks up on the “Progressive” Democrats new standards for equal rights.

#1. Illegal aliens who enter our country from the Southern border.

These people get more rights than any other group. They have no right to be here, yet they enter the country illegally and get to stay. The Federal Government feeds and houses them and then gives them free bus or plane tickets to go anywhere in the U.S. at taxpayers’ expense. All they need do is look like they will vote Democrat, even if voter fraud is required to give them the ballot. There has been an editorial in “The New York Times” that has called for aliens to get the vote.

Oddly Illegal immigrates, who come from other areas, still have to jump through hoops. This applies to anyone who wants to come from Cuba because the “Progressive Democrats” perceive that they will vote Republican, if they get to vote. It also applies to anyone coming from Canada and even to the translators who helped our forces in Afghanistan. They missed the memo that all they needed to do was get to the Mexican border and cross it.

#2. Transgender people

Their superior status is emphasized if women, who were born male, decide to compete in women’s sports. The fact that they have had testosterone flowing into their bodies which made them bigger and stronger than a biological female does not matter. Women, who previously were given special treatment from the “Progressive Democrats,” must now take a back seat.

#3. The LBGQ Community

There are now over 200 genders according to the “Progressive” Democrats, and we must adjust our speech, especially with respect to pronouns, so that we do not offend them. It’s hard for “normal people” to detect which of 200 genders you might encounter during the day. So perhaps it’s better simply to refer to everyone as “it,” “they” or “comrade.” This is all very confusing.

#4. People of Color Who Commit Crimes

People of Color who commit crimes are often given a free pass. In some cities, the District Attorneys, who are controlled by George Soros, won’t even show up to prosecute people who are indicted for murder. The concept of bail and getting violent repeat offenders off the streets is now considered “racist.”

We also have a new “civil right” in California and probably other states. If you shoplift less than $1,000 it’s okay. You can walk right out the front door of a store with the swag in your hands, and you can’t be arrested. You can do this repeatedly, and it’s perfectly okay.

#5. Black Farmers

The “Progressive” Democrats made it official. Black farmers are entitled to government benefits ahead of White farmers. “The color blind” aspects of the law are not considered if it involves giving subsidies to specific people who fall into “Progressive Democrat” voting blocks.

#6 Member of the Teachers’ Unions

Given that the Teachers’ Unions pony up cash to the “Progressive” Democrats to vote for them, and most importantly indoctrinate children so that they will grow up to vote Democrat, they have really come up in the world. If a teacher does a lousy job of teaching minority students, who cares? The important part is what the teachers do for the “Progressive Democrat Party” before and on Election Day.

If the teachers decide that they don’t feel like working and still get paid because of Covid, that’s okay too. Paying their dues to the party has its privileges

#7. People of Color Who Do Not Commit Crimes.

People of Color used to mean more to “Progressive” Democrats, but since the Democrats figure that they have their vote in their hip pockets, this group has been demoted to a lower order. They have no right to complain about crime in their neighborhoods because the criminals are higher the social order than the honest people are. The “Progressive Democrats” will talk about “systemic racism” and “Critical Race Theory” to make their former favorites feel better. But if fixing the schools gets in the mix so that People of Color might get a better education, that’s off the table because the teachers’ unions rank above them.

#8. Young White Women

This group used to be in the upper echelons of the “Progressive” Democrat pecking order, but since their votes are now in the Democrats’ hip pocket, they have been demoted. This has become quite obvious when it comes to the rights of young White women versus the rights of transgender males.

#9. White Folks, Especially White Males

According to the “Progressive” Democrats, this group is responsible for all of the ills of society. They are systemically racist and have been so since birth. They can’t help it. They are truly loathsome people that are to be despised. They should rightfully suffer discrimination because of the color of their skin. They are especially despicable if they are wealthy and successful.

This group is expected to pull wagon and pay the taxes for all social programs without complaint. If they do complain they are labeled as “Republicans” or “Trump supporters” which leads us to social political class #10.

#10. Those Who Voted for Donald Trump

These are the people who are truly lower than whale manure. They are to be scorned, despised and ostracized. All of them are guilty for the January attack on the Capitol, even if they weren’t there and have condemned it. They voted for Trump which made the election close. Voting for Trump is the #1 political sin that a human being can commit.

Voting for Trump far worse than murder, looting and arson. Those are socially responsible activities when they are connected with the “Progressive movement." Actually the “Regressive movement.”


It’s interesting that no one, not even the conservatives on this board have cared to comment on this list. If you have been following the news, you know I’m right.

“Normal” Americans have become second class citizens under this administration. You will soon have men in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. They are now in women’s prisons because “they are trans.”

I don’t deny that there are individuals who are truly transsexual. The trouble is, you can’t have “your junk” and expect to run ruff shod over women’s rights and decency.

I don’t agree with the list entirely, but you make some valid points in theory. In a vacuum, you’d be right, supporting minority groups would be unfair. The issue is that what they’re trying to correct is hundreds of years of oppression. You have to recognize that even if there aren’t laws currently discriminating, the starting lines are not equal. Opportunity is not equal.

To clarify, I’m not saying outcome should be equal. However, if we were in a situation where opportunity was truly equal, we would not see such wide and persistent gaps in outcome for minority groups. It should naturally correct itself to a more equal outcome when opportunity is equal. Therefore, it must be concluded that opportunity is not equal in our current situation and we have a duty to correct that.

Perhaps the policies that have been adopted are not effective or overreach, but I think doing nothing and declaring everything equal is just as wrong. If Republicans want to actually negotiate and debate the policies, they have to at least come to the table.

Thank you for your response @Gene.

I don’t buy into this “hundreds of year of oppression” stuff. “The little professors,” the Democrats and the socialists sell that crap. You can talk about oppression up until the 1970s. After that each generation has had its opportunity to improve their lot.

One of the fundamental problems for minorities is that they have been forced to go to crappy schools. I went to a pretty bad high school. I had some very good teachers, but the school was not accredited. I had parents who pushed the dickens out of me. They wanted me to get out of the “cow manure town” where I grew up. All the people in the town were interested in was the football and basketball team. Their kids could grow up ignorant for all they cared. They spent millions on an athletic fieldhouse, but the science labs had not been upgraded since the school was built in the 1930s.

Regardless of my high school grades, which were excellent, the best college I could get into was my state university, the University of Delaware. Fortunately, it was a strong school for accounting which the degree I earned. It was also very strong in economics which the degree I really wanted, but could not afford. As things worked out, the degree I have left me very well off financially. And an MBA that I earned when I was 30 years old was a big help.

Many minority students are forced to go to elementary, middle and high schools that far worse than the one I went to. The main thing in many of these schools is to keep from getting the crap beat out of you or even getting killed.

Republicans have asked for school vouchers which allow all students and parents to chose the school of their choice. The Democrats are dead set against that because the teachers’ unions call the educational shots in the Democrat Party. The teachers’ unions come first; the kids, including the minority students, come second or even lower.

The Democrat leadership and the RINO Republicans don’t care about people. They care about power and money for themselves. Some day you might see the light and learn that lesson.

If you end up unable to read or do math, your life is going to be hell. You can’t hold any more than a low paying job, and you have no chance for advancement. Unless your kids are really exceptional, they are doomed to the same thing, especially is they have to go the same crappy schools.

This is why many minority people can’t get anywhere. Their education holds them back. As my mother, who was an elementary school teach, and darn good one, used to say, “There is nothing wrong with their heads; it’s their attitude that holds them back.”

She had one student who came into her class in the fifth grade, who spoke nothing but Spanish. My mother could not speak Spanish, yet she worked with her and got her up to grade level by the end of the year. That last I know about that young lady, she was working as an interpreter at the UN.

Once a minority person gets a good education, their opportunities are just about equal. There are quota programs that help them to advance in many corporations, although I will also admit that some of the programs don’t do them any favors. I could tell you some stories about the old AT&T, but I digress.

This is part 1 of a much longer discussion. The problem with race and poverty goes well beyond discrimination. It also has to do with educational opportunities and a desire to improve yourself.

I think you’re right, early education and schools are a big part of the problem. Something to ask yourself though, why are minorities forced into worse schools at higher rates? Isn’t that an inherent inequality of opportunity?

In theory I’m okay with school vouchers, but I’ve got a couple issues:

  1. They tend to hurt public schools in general by funneling their funding to private schools.

  2. It makes more sense in my mind to invest in education generally and target underperforming districts. With the voucher system, you’d still have terrible schools that now have even less resources to work with, exacerbating the issues for the students still in them. I know the implementation of “no child left behind” wasn’t great, but the sentiment behind it is valuable.

I think we need to distinguish between ‘race-oriented’ policies in principle, and how race-oriented policies are carried out in practice. You can be extremely critical of them in practice – as I am – without eschewing them in principle.

Here’s something to ponder: I grew up in Texas in the 1950s, and went to the local public schools (which were all racially-segregated at that time). I got into an East Coast University, and while there, I learned that there was a ‘Jewish quota’ … not a positive one, as in ‘We need more Jews’, but a negative one, as in ‘We mustn’t have too many Jews’.

This was just accepted, a matter of fact. It existed because if admission was purely on intellectual merit – as shown by your SAT scores – we would have had far more New York Jews in the Arts and Sciences School than we did. And no doubt the WASP alumni would have decreased their giving accordingly.

And I have no doubt that I got in, in part, because I was a white Southern boy, and thus increased diversity. Yes, my SAT scores were good, but there were probably Jewish kids whose scores were better. This isn’t to argue for or against ‘affirmative action’ … only to point out that when it worked in favor of white Christians, no one complained.

As for the argument that when official, legal discrimination against Blacks was ended – say, by passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 – then we could forget about the problem … that Blacks then should have been treated just like any other American … like, say, new immigrants from Taiwan, or Jews … I believe that is valid only if you take a principled stand against any recognition of social condition whatsoever by government.

That’s a coherent position, and one which has an honorable history. I won’t argue against it here, except to say that I believe those who hold it consistently – Libertarians – are in the grip of Ideology: the idea that a few simple principles or beliefs about human nature can then explain how society ought to be ordered to maximize whatever the believer thinks is important: human freedom in the case of Libertarians. (Human welfare in general, in the case of Marxists.)

But I believe we – certainly conservatives – should be pragmatists, and should recognize that government action can, in some circumstances, be a good thing, even if it in fact has a ‘disparate impact’ on various groups. [Usually, this idea is weapon of the Left: … but the concept is not wrong.]

Thus American Blacks have had different experience in America than whites have had. We all know the story. But to think that the effects of this experience suddenly vanished in 1965 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, is naive. When the slaves were freed, there should have been government action in their favor: assisted resettlement elsewhere, perhaps, as Lincoln favored. Or ‘forty acres and a mule’, an idea pushed by Radical Republicans but later aborted. []

Now you either oppose such government action in principle, or you don’t. If you don’t oppose it in principle, then the question arises of whether special government action in this case – trying to elevate the mass of American Blacks to the cultural and economic level of the rest of the population – would work, and if so, what should be done.

I think two points are relevant here: explicitly race-based discrimination, even with good intentions, is socially very dangerous – it undermines social cohesion. So … let these government measures be race-neutral, but rather based on economic conditions or some other, equivalent, factor which would in fact have a favorable ‘disparate impact’ on Blacks.

And … let them be controlled by states (and even lower levels where feasible), not the central government. I won’t go into why this would be a good idea, which is another argument altogether.

What might these measures be? This post is too long already so I’ll leave that for another time.

My take on school vouchers goes back to my studies in economics when I was in undergraduate school. The public schools don’t do their job well because they have monopoly power over many of their students. If there were vouchers, the public schools would have to step up their game and do a better job.

Most all of my economics professors were from the Milton Friedman, free market, monetarist school. They believed that most good economic results stemmed from freedom of choice, not government coercion. That is why Friedman was a advocate for guaranteed annual incomes, not government controlled programs for low income people. He thought that the poor could make the best choices for themselves.

I agree with Friedman, to a point (not with monetarism, where the subject is above my pay grade). However, I think it’s not correct that the underclass, if you just give them money, would make the best choices for themselves, unless you define ‘best’ as jidy what they want. For example, why give a poor single mother vouchers, which can only be spent on schooling for her children? Why not just give her the money that they’re worth instead? Why not? Because she’d spend it on drugs and alcohol instead of education for her children.

This is one of the basic assumptions of conservative economics. The theory is that people are better able to determine what to do with their assets, to their benefit, than the government. The theory works best with “the big picture” where overall market forces fueled by individual decision making bring about better results than decisions handed down from a central government authority.

If you think about it, the Friedman approach is far less racist or judgmental than the alternative. Friedman is saying the people are better off making their own decisions. rather than having the government spending money to administrate the programs. Obviously that opinion is subject to debate.

The Friedman plan was reflected in the negative income tax which was written into the tax code, I think in the 1980s.

I don’t think there is such a thing as ‘conservative economics’ … or rather, I don’t think the phrase is useful. I think we are better off – ie we can understand social reality better – if we use the word ‘conservatism’ to refer to a disposition, rather than an ideology. It’s not worth arguing over, however.

But Ideologies are very attractive. They simplify thinking. And conservatives have this strong motivation to borrow from the Ideology of Libertarianism on economics.

As for the idea that people are better able to determine what to do with their assets … this assumes that all decisions about disposing assets can be reduced to an individual making a choice in a market, and, of course being better able to make a rational choice since he knows better what he wants than a bureaucrat does, and since he has to pay the cost of his choice, will choose the least expensive way to satisfy his wants … which, again, a bureaucrat is not motivated to do.

As I recall, Friedman uses the example of (1) someone buying something for himself and paying for it himself, (2) someone buying something for someone else, but paying for it himself (he gets the cheapest but not necessarily what the person he’s buying it for wants – something I experience every Christmas – (3) a person buying something for someone else and not paying for it himself – the worst possible outcome.

And at a more general level, this is the ‘Socialist Calculation Question’ – which pretty conclusively shows that if you don’t have a market, you cannot make rational investment decisions, because you don’t know the real price of anything. Do you make your widgets out of material X, or material Y, both of which are identical in all respects except that one costs twice as much to produce as the other. But in a pure planned economy, prices have to be allocated by guesswork. It’s one of the ideas that finally cured me of Marxism. I’ve looked long and hard for a convincing refutation of the ‘Socialst Calculation Question’ (sometimes called the ‘Economic Calculation Question’) but I have never found one.

But … I believe that there are decisions which result in a better outcome for us all, when we allow democratically-elected politicians to dispose of some of our assets, which would not occur under a pure market system. And this remains true, even when they mis-use some of our assets. Nothing is perfect nor ever will be, where humans are concerned – which I think is part of the conservative world-view.

For example: the Pure Market – Libertarian – approach says: auction off the National Parks and National Forests. If people really want Yosemite to remain a park, they’ll voluntarily pay the entrance fee to whatever private entity ends up owning it after the auction. Or they’ll all join the Sierra Club and that entity will make the highest bid in a competition with real estate conglomerates. And if they don’t, then the private entity which wins the auction is free to parcel it up and make it into desirable retreats for billionaires, who will probably mainly be Chinese. And indeed the Libertarian Party advocates just this.

Similarly, the market for labor should not be restricted by immigration controls. If you want to hire cheap workers from Mexico for your chicken-gutting plant, you’re free to do so. Indivdiuals know best how to spend their money. And if you want to close your refrigerator-manufacturing plant and re-open it in China, and bring the assembled refrigerators back to the US, then fine. If it turns the American working class into casual laborers – competing with people from Mexico for whatever jobs are still available – well, that’s freedom.

And of course the old way of hiring labor for loading and unloading ships is best: unemployed men turn up at 6am on the docks, the foreman chooses who he wants to work that day, the rest go home. The organization of these men into a union, which can get effectively steady employment for their members, at the cost of restricting union membership to a specific number of men, and forcing the shipping/docking industry to pay higher wages, thus putting a penny or two on the price of imported and exported goods, is a restriciton on people spending their own money as they see best. The fact that organizing a union among the dockworkers turned a bunch of casual laborers into family men and homeowners is irrelevant.

So also with Social Security, government unemployement insurance, Workmen’s Compensation and similar acts, which force workers (and their employers) to, effectively, purchase insurance against future adverse events, including old age. An interference with the individual’s right to spend his money as he likes.

No one – except our Libertarian friends, God bless 'em – really advocates auctioning off the National Parks, or abolishing Social Security and similar programs. Libertarians say these are like narcotics … we’re addicted to these terrible interferences in our right to spend our money as we wish. But I think we have implicitly made the decision that in some cases, it’s better to limit our freedom a bit, in return for things like National Parks and old age pensions.

And … what about national defense? I haven’t read enough of the late Murray Rothbard – one of the main champions of the total-market approach – to confidently reproduce his views, but I believe that he extended, very logically, this idea to things like police and military protection. I recall Wiliam Buckley mocking his views by saying, if a lot of citizens wanted to get together to purchase an aircraft carrier, then fine. Otherwise, the government should stay out of this field.

I was a seriouis Marxist for about 20 years, and there is a lot of truth in Marxism. But it’s an Ideology: a set of simple ideas that incorporate a degree of truth, but which, if allowed to limit your understanding of society, leads you down the wrong path. So I have a lot of intellectual anti-bodies against Ideologies of any sort now.

We’ve built a pretty decent society in America, compared to many other countries. We had a lot of advantages, and some handicaps, but it’s been overall fairly successful in providing a framework for people who want to better their own condition, while also sustaining the sort of things that drag our species forward, like public libraries, public education, publically-funding research.

I can see lots of ways to improve ourselves, some of them in the direction of allowing the market – i.e. individuals making choices for themselves instead of the government doing so – more power. Education is the chief example, where I think we should go over to a system of vouchers. I would also look at Singapore’s approach to social welfare. But even here, we should go slowly.

I consider myself a conservative because I am extremely suspicious of attempts to radically change what we have slowly evolved over two and a half centuries, whether the radicalism is orthodox Marxism, the new Progressivism, or Libertarianism. [ Further elaboration here: ]

I’ll argue that that’s their claim, but not their cause.

I’m in the cry-me-a-river camp on this. If public schools can’t hack the competition, then their performance obviously isn’t competitive. Let them go the way of the dinosaurs if their results continue to be inferior.

You run the risk at throwing money at those terrible schools when money often isn’t the only (or any) reason why they’re terrible. New York (state) has about the highest-paid teachers in the land, and about the crappiest results.

And what Sendgop said about public school monopoly.

1 Like

To a democrat, any school that churns out below-intelligence leftists who will breed more below-intelligence-leftists needs to be sustained.

The purpose of an education is not an education but indoctrination. It’s not about teaching kids how to think it’s teaching them what to think. This is why the left loves the public school system so much. I guarantee you these days when graduating high school not one teen knows what pythagorean’s theorem is but every one of them can tell you exactly why the USA is racist.

And this is what democrats want. I don’t know why, other than that keeping people stupid produces more democrats? Just answered my own question. :expressionless:

1 Like

Here’s what a genuine free school, freed from control by leftist educrats and teachers unions, can accomplish for its children – in this case, mainly non-white:

The school’s site:

these kids have no idea how lucky they are

What’s interesting is how this school, with its astonishing achievements, is effectively ignored by people who ought to be trying to reproduce it everywhere.

Of course the Leftwingers hate it like poison. They did everything they could to stop it being opened. And when I mentioned it on a liberal/leftwing forum, and said its old-fashioned methods were turning out kids, mostly non-white, who were able to compete with the privileged children of white families who went to elite private schools – one idiot said it was ‘racist’. The Left really are morally bankrupt.

Over here, in the UK, the Tory Party [the Conservatives] ignores it – even though its existence is because of a Conservative Party initiative in the School Choice realm – because they couldn’t care less about non-white kids from poor backgrounds. They all send their children to expensive private schools. They probably even don’t like the idea that these kids will be competing with theirs for places at Oxford and Cambridge.

So it just exists in isolation. We need this sort of school everywhere.

1 Like

They weren’t for the other minority groups either. Chinese laborers were used as cheap, expendable labor, the Japanese were forced into interment camps in WWII.

And yet, today they’re ahead.

I have to point out, this doesn’t follow automatically. Disparate outcomes are the norm, it doesn’t matter where you look. Even outside America, you cannot find uniform outcomes among racial groups if they in anyway equate differing cultures.

Cultures have differing values, resulting in different goalposts for success, to include grades, trades, and debt levels, which of course affects outcomes.

Thomas Sowell pointed this out over 30 years ago:

The only way you could fix this, is to force all cultures to have the same uniform values.

1 Like

#5. Black Farmers

I don’t know the specifics of this one. Is it solely African-Americans or is it “people of color” which would include Asians? The Chi-Coms are buying up farmland.

#6 Member of the Teachers’ Unions

I would move their ranking up a few notches.

#7. People of Color Who Do Not Commit Crimes.

These people are screwed by the democrats in so many ways: wage suppression by illegals, big city law non-enforcement, big city anti RKBA laws, fighting school choice, black abortion genocide, destruction of two parent households. Their only hold on this group is years of habit and anti-republican racist slurs. I would move them down into the group “#9. White Folks”.

1 Like

Yeah that.

I am not so sure that the Chinese laborers are ahead of the Japanese. The Chinese Communist Government officials have certainly pulled ahead of the Japanese from the total GNP, economic perspective, but their civil rights record is abysmal.

Probably because a lack of government programs intended to help them