This is why the US is screwed!

Marcus's picture
Submitted by Marcus on Thu, 2012-08-02 11:18

A black and white issue!

Romney Up 22 Points Among Whites

"Mitt Romney holds a 22-percentage point lead among white voters, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll.

A total of 58 percent of whites say they support Romney while only 36 percent go for President Barack Obama.

However among black voters, Obama receives 88 percent support to Romney's 10 percent and in respondents classed as "other" the president gets 56 percent to Romney's 34 percent.

The stark racial divide is shown in the daily tracking poll released by Rasmussen on Wednesday. The overall figure gives Romney a 47 percent to 44 percent lead over Obama.

The poll also showed that 61 percent of African Americans believe the country is on the right track. Only 25 percent of whites feel the same.

Obama gets an approval rating of 87 percent among blacks but only 38 percent among whites. Those classified as "other" give him a 60 percent approval rate."


( categories: )

Anti-discrimination...

Marcus's picture

...is in fact targeted indiscrimination.

In other words making value judgements by rote, disengaging the brain.

So what I should have actually written is that:

Blacks indiscriminate in favour of other blacks.

Ditto women, gays and other PC activist groups.

The more discriminating one is,

Sandi's picture

the more rational one is likely to be.
What's the alternative? Indiscrimination. That's only for the irrational. The insane gunman running amok"

So very well said Marcus and indeed the rest of your comments.

“If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
-George Orwell

Marcus

Doug Bandler's picture

You make a good point that non-discrimination, ie egalitarianism, is intimately linked with relativism and skepticism.

Don't judge, don't value, don't discriminate and so destroy you own rational self-interest.

This is just another way of saying there are no absolutes so therefore don't even try to find them. Of course the Left cheats on this as they treat altruism, egalitarianism and collectivism as untouchable absolutes.

"Anti-discrimination" is a war on the human mind.

Doug...

Marcus's picture

...you are not racist.

Liberals have it ass-backwards. They will tell you that discrimination is an "evil" morality. It is not.

The more discriminating one is, the more rational one is likely to be.

What's the alternative? Indiscrimination. That's only for the irrational. The insane gunman running amok.

However we are told more and more we should not discriminate.

Not against age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, appearance, low proficiency, lack of ability, poverty, stupidity...etc...

When increased discrimination is the sure sign of a rational mind at work.

No it's not PC!

Don't judge, don't value, don't discriminate and so destroy you own rational self-interest.

Racism, sexism and bigotry are not due to too much discrimination, but too little discrimination.

Of course, the preachers of this anti-discrimination morality are some of the worst hypocrites.

Blacks discriminate in favour of blacks.

Minorities discriminate in favour of minorities.

Women discriminate in favour of women.

Gays discriminate in favour of gays.

This is the hypocrisy at the heart of our anti-discrimination culture.

And the hypocrisy is essential, otherwise they would have to face the very same anti-life values they promote in the name of "not discriminating".

Islam and Blacks

Doug Bandler's picture

Their aims are a direct assault on every individual’s freedoms. It is infinitely preferable to let the Muslims continue their squalid existence in their own territories, and by doing so, observe the triumph of reason versus primitivism. It is altruism to allow them the benefits of civilization, that same civilization they wish destroyed. To allow immigration to this particular political force is cultural relativism. It ought not be confused with religious freedom or tolerance. It is not rational, it is the sanction of the victim, to proceed otherwise.

I wish this sentiment would be the popular one with Objectivists. But sadly it isn't. Greg would undoubtedly be called a "collectivist" by most Objectivists; even ones with phds like "Dr. Diana Hsieh". I would go further though. I think Islam should be banned and Muslims deported. Islam is a military organization whose objective is to conquer the West. 1st Amendment protections do not apply to such a phenomenon. Not even Dr. Peikoff would agree with me though.

Blacks are not a threat. (Altruism generally is the root threat.) The West is rotten already and vulnerable to the ‘slime. Blacks vote for President B.O. in greater proportions simply because they disproportionately figure among the less educated poor who are hoodwinked into thinking he will bring financial benefits.

On the deepest level, you're right. But on the level of "the boots on the ground" "how-to-survive-in-the-here-and-now" level, blacks do represent a significant threat. The Left has created a feral black underclass that has a demonic hatred for whites. There is currently a significant wave of black on white violence that the media is covering up. If you even mention it you will be fired from your job and denounced. Witness John Derbyshire at NRO no less.

Survival today demands that a person take into account the race of the person he is dealing with. All ethnic or inner city blacks are suspect today. And sadly many suburban and seemingly well adjusted blacks harbor anti-white hatred that could manifest itself as violence if triggered. I'm not happy about this but this is the world I live in. If I see suspicious blacks or hispanics (or even Southern Asians) I avoid them. I don't care if the world, and many "Objectivists", would consider me racist.

An "Obsessive" rants..

gregster's picture

“Muslims are not natural socialists. Ethnically yes, like the black vote. But from a religious point of view they are not.”

Could you do me a favour and point to any evidence for that first sentence? I see them as worse than off-colour Tony Blairs, with Cherie-picked bits of religion reinforcing a malevolent social justice. Some commentators class the vocal ‘slime “far right” but in effect that is the same as far left. Was Hitler socialist or far right?

“Anyway. Where did this rubric come from that Europe is screwed because if a threat from Muslims, but the US is not?”

The whole world is screwed if the ‘slime continues as it is, unchecked. (Who here said that anyway?) Of course, that depends on one’s perspective. One may enjoy the sacrificial destruction of Humankind’s highest achievements by hordes of savage killer mystics. The ‘slime generally does, as does every other twisted altruist.

If the moral method for the West against the enemy in the cold war was to isolate the enemy, to allow it to collapse by its own evil, then this principle is not being applied to the ‘slime problem. Instead, progressively-comprachicoed western nations suffering altruist blindness, have done the opposite.

The ‘slime self-professedly wish to conquer all men, if not by the book, then by the sword. It is in a category to which special conditions apply. Islam should have been isolated after 9/11 (- if not before – the signs were there), penned back like the less-than-cattle it is. Mosques should have been closed down. All victorious imams exported to Pakistan or Iran, or somewhere equally desirous to them, at their own cost, preferably.

Islam is a supremacist political movement, in religious sheep’s clothing.

“Have you forgotten that 9/11 happened in the US?” What a woeful statement. It wasn’t a product of the US. 9/11 “happened” because of the ‘slime. It amounts to “animals don’t shit in their own nests.”

I believe that 9/11 could have been prevented by the caging of those subhumans in their original territories.

Submitted by gregster on Mon, 2011-08-15 11:58. Comment #99778 It is an irrational contradiction to believe in the right to one’s life - and therefore the right to one’s self-defence – and at the same time to countenance Muslim immigration.

Their aims are a direct assault on every individual’s freedoms. It is infinitely preferable to let the Muslims continue their squalid existence in their own territories, and by doing so, observe the triumph of reason versus primitivism. It is altruism to allow them the benefits of civilization, that same civilization they wish destroyed. To allow immigration to this particular political force is cultural relativism. It ought not be confused with religious freedom or tolerance. It is not rational, it is the sanction of the victim, to proceed otherwise.

“It seems Gregster and yourself are obsessed with this topic as if it were a competitive beauty pageant.

I bring up the block black vote for Obama, to my mind mostly based on skin colour, and you two jump up to tell me that things are so much worse in Europe because of the numbers of Muslims.”

Blacks are not a threat. (Altruism generally is the root threat.) The West is rotten already and vulnerable to the ‘slime. Blacks vote for President B.O. in greater proportions simply because they disproportionately figure among the less educated poor who are hoodwinked into thinking he will bring financial benefits.

Same for the 'slime given the privilege to vote, anywhere.

“Blacks or African Americans” are 12.6% in America, and they don’t want to take the world back to slavery, unlike the ‘slime for whom you apologise.

“If your view is that NZ and the US have low "numbers" and thereby have kept their heads down and avoided these issues it's nothing to be proud of.”

There are too many here, I’m not proud.

Martin Luther King...

Frediano's picture

...was a Republican.

Of course he was; Wallace, Barnett, Faubus -- those Southern state governors clinging to their hatred and Stars and Bars (confederate flag from Civil War days) were all Democrats. Southern Dixiecrats. When all that was going on, it was Eisenhower -- a Republican president -- sending the federal troops down South to enforce civil rights.

In 2012, this would be a shock to young Americans, including black Americans. The crawl back from the abyss by the Democrats, who have somehow managed to paint themselves as the champions of civil rights long after that actual history of being a barely hidden front for the KKK in the south, is what has driven this odd polarization. With some irony, the Democrats have managed to bamboozle blacks in America back onto the plantation.

JFK was a New England liberal Democrat and conservative by modern measures, but LBJ-- LBJ for chrissakes, is heralded as a civil rights hero. Up is down, left is right, black is white.

In 2012 -- long after the lynchings and abuses of the 50s under Democratic governors -- it is the GOP that is somehow painted as the party of bigotry and hatred. The biggest indictment is that modern blacks in America actually buy it so readily. They are bought so cheaply, in case they haven't noticed. Those pictures from Detroit look worse today than they did 50 years ago. "Progress" is defined as, we turned alcoholics into drug addicts. In white Appalachia, the pictures of which were also abused 50 years ago, we've managed to turn stills into Meth labs.

I wonder when the poor are going to start to notice that all this blind fealty to the Democratic party is buying them exactly ... nothing?

They sell their vote so cheaply...and are repaid with what can only be called 'social justice.'

So why do you bring this up...

Marcus's picture

...when this thread is about the US?

It seems Gregster and yourself are obsessed with this topic as if it were a competitive beauty pageant.

I bring up the block black vote for Obama, to my mind mostly based on skin colour, and you two jump up to tell me that things are so much worse in Europe because of the numbers of Muslims. This even though I have pointed out the US has just as many if not more Muslims than any single member of the EU. Even if it doesn't have the "numbers" Muslim political power is just as strong in the US as it is in Europe, perhaps even worse.

Especially if you consider the US has a pro-Islam President and many of the challenges to Islam come from Europe. Such as the "Danish" cartoons or the "Dutch" films and politicians and even French (anti-Burkha law) and British (books and wars) provocations.

If your view is that NZ and the US have low "numbers" and thereby have kept their heads down and avoided these issues it's nothing to be proud of.

I don't know where this

Richard Wiig's picture

I don't know where this "holier than thou" came from. I haven't said the Islamic threat is confined to Europe. It's this simple. Greg made a point. You disagreed with it. I defended his point. Import lots and lots of muslims, in the context of democracy, and you'll be even more screwed than you already are.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Oh god, the timidity is nauseating. There is no outrage anywhere. And to add insult to injury, Diana Hsieh has said that she would prefer Obama and his Leftist cohorts to the contingent of Christian moms. This sentiment that religion is a greater danger than modern liberalism is still strong in the Objectivist movement. I can't explain it.

So she's become a Hsiekovian again? Good Gobby!

Shades of Peikoff's rationale for the fatwa—"socialism is dead." Yeah, right.

I see the Obamarx filth is now 9 points ahead in the latest Fox poll. And still Objectivists are asleep, or Dem-scum-voting.

ARI has become weak

Doug Bandler's picture

The "Browning of America" is scary not because of "Brown" but because of "Brown's culture."

I really want to believe this and hope it proves to be true. But deep down I wonder if race does affect culture. I mean it has been the Europeans that have done more to civilize the world than any one else. Hell, what is "Western Civilization" if not European civilization? But I don't know enough to say for sure and I am desperately trying to fight off political biologism if for no other reason than the preservation of my soul.

Why the unconscionable timidity from ARI and TAS? Because they're non-profit? Then they may as well fold their tents, which would appear to be nothing but mini-monuments to cowardice.

Oh god, the timidity is nauseating. There is no outrage anywhere. And to add insult to injury, Diana Hsieh has said that she would prefer Obama and his Leftist cohorts to the contingent of Christian moms. This sentiment that religion is a greater danger than modern liberalism is still strong in the Objectivist movement. I can't explain it.

not 72% only 63%

Doug Bandler's picture

in the US 72% of the population are white/European while only 13% are black.

This is misleading. The 72% number is reached if you count Hispanics as white but they are not. The number of non-Hispanic whites is only 62-63% of the population.

America is turning into Brazil.

Regarding Muslim immigration. Thanks to President Bush, 25% of the Muslims currently in America got here in the last 10 years; ie post 9-11. Can you imagine the insanity of this. America is attacked by Muslims and as a result we open up our doors to them. No this is not insane, this is modern liberalism and post modern relativism.

I really would like to see the Objectivist movement tackle the question: what exactly is Leftism? And why is it so much more lethal today than it was 50 years ago?

Richard...

Marcus's picture

...Muslims are not natural socialists. Ethnically yes, like the black vote. But from a religious point of view they are not.

Anyway. Where did this rubric come from that Europe is screwed because if a threat from Muslims, but the US is not?

Have you forgotten that 9/11 happened in the US? The acts of Muslim terrorism in Europe were all of a smaller scale. There are Muslims serving in the US congress and senate. In the US newspapers are frightened of provoking the anger of Muslims.

Was there widespread outrage at the US Muslim soldier going on a rampage in a US military base? Hell no! It's not even talked about.

Was the preacher who wanted to burn the Koran cheered on in the US, or was he attacked by politicians and media? Hell no! He was cut down to size from the President to the press.

So why all this "holier than thou" talk of the Muslim problem only being confined to Europe?

An Islamic policy isn't

Richard Wiig's picture

An Islamic policy isn't needed, Marcus. The muslim population in Europe is a sizable voting bloc and the socialists court their vote. It's a built in obstacle to freedom.

According to the official stats...

Marcus's picture

...in the US 72% of the population are white/European while only 13% are black.

So am I missing something! According to Rasmussen figure of 58% of whites above for Romney, he must be creaming Obama in the polls.

So why isn't he?

After a quick calculation I realise it is the block black vote that balances the two candidates in the polls. If Obama loses just a few percentage points on the black vote he will be in serious trouble.

Paradoxically if Romney were to constantly bang on about Obama being pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion it might win him the election more than banging on about Obama's economic record.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

In your admirable exasperation you write:

No Objectivist ever deals with the subject of the Left's Racial Egalitarianism. All they ever deal with is economics (ie the ARI). I can't tell you how boring official O'ism has become to me.

I think you've mis-identified what we're up against. It's not "racial egalitarianism," it's Black Supremacism: anything "black" is by dint of that fact superior.

But still the issue is not one of race—it's one of culture. Auster's generalisations about Blacks are not simply "harsh" (a ghastly politically correct weasel-word)—they're flat-out wrong. Blacks are capable of achievement beyond the mediocre; they don't "inherently" lack "significant abilities." They have a culture that discourages them from cultivating those abilities. The "Browning of America" is scary not because of "Brown" but because of "Brown's culture."

And I say, again, it serves the rest of you right. Objectivists especially. I call Obamarx the most evil person on the planet, beyond Assad, Ahmadinejad and Putin. That judgement is true, in the same sense in which Rand's judgement of Kant, c/f Hitler and Stalin, was true—and recognition of its truth is pivotal. So where the hell are the rest of you??!! Tut-tutting away about "intemperate language," no doubt. Why the unconscionable timidity from ARI and TAS? Because they're non-profit? Then they may as well fold their tents, which would appear to be nothing but mini-monuments to cowardice.

A vote based on religion...

Marcus's picture

...is more rational than a vote based on race.

At least religion represents a set of values, race on its own does not.

What political influence has Islam had in western Europe?

There is the usual race/religion/minorities protection racket, but that exists in the US too.

If you look at France, a country with the most Muslims in western Europe, they have banned Burkhas in public places.

Hardly am Islamic policy.

There has been scant backlash over the new law either.

A quibble... Their vote is

Richard Wiig's picture

A quibble... Their vote is determined by their racism. My first post was in response to your no muslim party point. A muslim vote is determined by religion. If muslims vote for what they can get, which they do, then Gregsters comment holds true. You won't see muslims, enmass, voting for freedom any time soon.

Auster on Blacks

Doug Bandler's picture

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ar...

Auster is a racialist but his insights into Islam, the Left, and the feral Black underclass that the Left has created are potent even if flawed. Here he is on Blacks, the Left and Obama:

The reason the left feels this way about success is that their own success has been largely based on stealing and other forms of injustice. Consider the Obamas. Without special privileges for blacks, would Michelle Robinson have gotten into Princeton and then Harvard Law School? Would she have had a sinecure at some Chicago hospital pulling in two or three hundred grand a year as a diversity bureaucrat? Without special privileges for blacks, would Barry Seotoro / Barack Obama have been admitted into Columbia College and then Harvard Law School and then become the president of the Harvard Law Review? Without the massive literary help he undoubtedly received from William Ayers, would Obama have been able to “write” a book that won him a reputation as a sensitive literary talent? Without the media covering up for him, would Obama’s presidential candidacy have survived the Reverend Wright revelations in March 2008? And on and on. Obama’s own success is based on lies, special favors, and no real achievement. So it makes sense that he thinks that the same is true of everyone else.

No Objectivist ever deals with the subject of the Left's Racial Egalitarianism. All they ever deal with is economics (ie the ARI). I can't tell you how boring official O'ism has become to me.

And the same pattern applies to blacks generally. Other than in the areas of entertainment, sports, and self-promotion, blacks are generally incapable of achievement beyond the mediocre. They don’t know what it is to create something, to build something, to achieve at a high level. Most of what they get, they get through manipulation of other people and—ever since we constructed our present system of black preferences—through special favors. Most of blacks’ success is due to the fact that they live in a white country which creates the surplus wealth which, transferred to blacks, makes U.S. blacks the wealthiest blacks on earth. Being incapable of high-level accomplishment themselves, blacks cannot conceive of the reality of high-level accomplishment, and therefore they assume that anyone who has achieved notable success and wealth got it only by being given it.

This is harsh and I wouldn't phrase it this way. It would be interesting to see what Blacks would do under true liberty and laissez-faire. But Auster is right about the fact that today's welfare state is being largely defended and promoted to assist Blacks. Blacks have been sacralized by the Left. They have been made into the Leftist equivalent of the Christian Saints.

Blacks did not invent leftism. But because of their lack of significant abilities and their dependence on others, they make the strongest leftists of any ethnic or racial group.

Again harsh and deterministic. I have no definitive opinion on the abilities of Blacks at the population level. But Auster is again right in one sense. Blacks, and to a significant extent non-whites (even Asians who are on average more successful than whites and have no need of the Left - yet such is the strength of anti-white hatred that Asians still vote in large measure for Democrats - the Paul Hsiehs of the world are not that common), are a huge contingent of the Left. People like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams are literally one in a million.

I know, I know, Objectivism promotes individualism. And so do I. But I have to live in the world as it is NOW. I refuse to live with blinders on. The Browning of America and the West in our current context scares me more than anything else. Even more than Islam.

Coulter is right...

Marcus's picture

...about the country changing, but not the cause.

Immigration from third world countries has had minimal effect. That's a typical hysterical conservative opinion with little foundation.

The real change has been from within.

"The African American trend of voting for Democrats can be traced back to the 1930s during the Great Depression, when Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal program provided economic relief to African Americans; Roosevelt's New Deal coalition turned the Democratic Party into an organization of the working class and their liberal allies, regardless of region. The African American vote became even more solidly Democratic when Democratic presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson pushed for civil rights legislation during the 1960s.

After over 50 years, marriage rates for all Americans began to decline while divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births have climbed. These changes have been greatest among African Americans. After more than 70 years of racial parity black marriage rates began to fall behind whites. Single-parent households have become common, and according to US census figures released in January 2010, only 38 percent of black children live with both their parents. While 52% of Democrats support same-sex marriage, only 30% of black Democrats do...Blacks also hold far more conservative opinions on abortion, extramarital sex, and raising children out of wedlock than Democrats as a whole."

So why do 89% of blacks support Obama? For the obvious reason.

Coulter is right ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... it's not the same country. Again, RIP America.

Doug...

Marcus's picture

Is Ann Coulter an objectivist? I knew she was a conservative, but an objectivist.

Richard...

Marcus's picture

...if they vote black because they are black then their vote is determined by blood. I never claimed anywhere that being black means you must vote black, did I?

Indeed the stats show 10% of blacks supporting Romney.

And we all know there is quite a vocal number of whites who vote for Obama because he is black too.

How many would vote Romney because he is white we don't know because they would be socially stigmatised if they were ever to admit to it.

If America Loses its White Majority - then what?

Doug Bandler's picture

The subject of race and culture is a controversial one. One very few if any O'ists want to touch. There was a discussion over at ROR on this subject. An HBD advocate (Human Bio Diversity) debated with two Objectivists on the subject of race, immigration, IQ, etc. I think it was a stand off. Here is the link:

http://rebirthofreason.com/For...

If we had an Objectivist minarchy then I would say race wouldn't matter, or at least I hope it wouldn't. Even if there is a difference in IQ and other attributes at the population level, my assumption is that laissez faire provides self-corrective feed-back loops to solve any problems that might arise because of population differences.

But in a Leftist egalitarian welfare state?

Some non-racialist Conservatives are starting to take notice of the "Browning of America". Here is Ann Coulter:

http://townhall.com/columnists...

The Left wants white America to die. They want a mixed race American citizenry so they can play race politics and secure a Democrat hegemony. Which is why I am so down on open immigration in the current context. I recently returned to the city were I grew up and I couldn't find a white person. I saw nothing but Hispanics, Indians, Arabs (!!) and Blacks. I felt depressed. Not because I'm a racist but because I know that none of these people will accept Objectivism or anything remotely approaching laissez faire.

If there is to be some stop to the advance of the Left it is going to come from the Republican party. As bad as they are only the Republicans can be reformed. O'ists that think that Democrats can be reformed are fucking insane (or stupid). If America loses its white majority there will be no stopping the Left and the Republican party will die. America will then be on the path to a mixed race Banana Republic. And there will be massive violence unleashed against whites like what happens everywhere blacks and non-whites take control of a former white country. (Imagine if the whole of the USA looked like Detroit. Well that is what the Left will create - those rat-fuck-sons-of-bitches. I hate them all.)

I know, I know. Objectivists are supposed to be race blind. Whatever. I fear the Browning of America and I cry for the loss of pre-1960s white America. Maybe I'm wrong to think that way but that is how I feel. I wish America had remained 89% white like it was in the 1950s and fought the philosophical battle with collectivism first. And then when Objectivism came to dominate and only then to allow non-white immigrants. That would have been far better than what we've seen since 1964.

What I mean is, their votes

Richard Wiig's picture

What I mean is, their votes aren't determined by their blood. They may well be racists, but that of course is a consequence of their ideas.

How do you know...

Marcus's picture

...it's not race?

Looking at the Obama coverage from 2008 of black voters it definitely was race that drove their support.

The context is the voting

Richard Wiig's picture

The context is the voting mind, and the minds vote isn't determined by race. It certainly might be by religion.

Ross

Richard Goode's picture

But in NZ it's quite politically incorrect to equate one party with a racial group. In fact, I think it may even be slightly illegal to suggest such a thing.

The Maori Party.

Think about the context...

Marcus's picture

...dick.

Muslims don't have to have a

Richard Wiig's picture

Muslims don't have to have a Prime Minister, or a political party, to screw you, Marcus.

It was a reply...

Marcus's picture

...to gregster.

Is that for me, Marcus?

Ross Elliot's picture

You have a habit of replying to the thread and not to the comment. Hit reply after the comment.

If Muslims have the numbers...

Marcus's picture

...then show me in Western Europe where there is a Muslim prime minister or even a
Muslim party in parliament.

Induction - lest we forget

gregster's picture

Implicitly Europe has a head start in screwed-ness by the numbers of muslim maggots it has allowed.

You mean it is not the case...

Marcus's picture

...of black voters voting for black skin?

It is poor black voters voting for socialists in order to get more handouts?

Well that's much better then.

Marcus...

Ross Elliot's picture

...the US is not screwed because of race politics, they exist everywhere.

I'd contend the US is simply more honest about it.

In NZ most Maori vote for Labour. And that's because Labour is more inclined to give handouts and breaks to Maori.

But in NZ it's quite politically incorrect to equate one party with a racial group. In fact, I think it may even be slightly illegal to suggest such a thing.

The discussion over race and politics in the US is born of a no-holds barred attitude to speech. That said, the racial divisions in the US go far deeper due to slavery, emancipation and regional sensitivities. But I'd rather call a spade a spade, than a fucking shovel.

And, no, spade has no color implications. It's just a saying.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.