Off to the Races: The Perplexing Politics of Political Correctness
by Phillip Ellis Jackson | View comments |
Print This Post
"Macaca" takes on "white nigger" and wins in a landslide.
A few years ago the newly-elected mayor of Washington, DC had to dismiss a member of his staff for using a racial slur in a policy-planning session. The white Caucasian of Anglo-Saxon descent was speaking to his colleagues when he dropped the N-bomb, shocking everyone in attendance. They immediately demanded that this individual be fired, despite his profuse apologies for using the offensive word. Under great pressure the man offered his resignation, which the mayor accepted, putting an end to the controversy.
With justice served and sensibilities restored, the government of Washington, DC returned to the people’s business, secure in the knowledge that racism would not be tolerated in any form, shape or manner. Only there was one small thing about the incident that didn’t quite fit the paradigm. You see, the offensive word that was used was “niggardly,” which is found in dictionaries everywhere, and means stingy or parsimonious. It was in use in the English language several centuries before the similar-sounding racial slur came into being.
But you see that didn’t matter, because the ignorant, uneducated employees of the Washington, DC government didn’t know that. And because they didn’t understand that niggardly was a perfectly acceptable word to use when discussing budgetary matters and public spending, it became a racial slur. To add insult to injury, the white Caucasian of Anglo-Saxon descent who dropped the non-N bomb apologized to everyone for offending them with the use of that term. He should have known they were too stupid to understand the English language, and used a more appropriate word to communicate the fact that the DC government was running out of money, and it was about time that someone started to implement sensible spending policies.
Now fast-forward a few years. A sitting U.S. Senator used an actual racial slur in a public setting. This isn’t a case of a similar-sounding word misinterpreted by a thirty-year-old bureaucrat with a fourth grade education. The guy actually said it! This makes him unfit for public office, and we ought to join the chorus of voices demanding his immediate resignation. To tolerate activity like this is completely unacceptable whether the man apologized or not, and whether he professed that it was only a slip of the tongue that does not represent his true feelings about people of color. If we opened his bedroom closet I’m sure we’d find white sheets and a hood, because once a man reveals his true character by his words and actions, no amount of “explaining away” can erase the stain of his past.
I’m speaking here, of course, of Senator Robert Byrd’s use of the phrase “white nigger” on Fox Television in 2001. You all remember the chorus of condemnation that followed Byrd’s racist utterings on national TV? Funny, neither do I. You see, this man who was the Exalted Cyclops of his local KKK Klavern, who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and who is the only US Senator to have opposed both black Supreme Court nominees, is a Democrat. So he gets a pass.
But Republican Senator George Allen referred to a young man of Indian descent as “Macaca,” and for this there is no forgiveness. Forget about the fact that until a couple of weeks ago not a single human being in the United States knew what a “Macaca” was, or even how to spell it. George Allen is a racist who routinely uses racist words to denigrate non-white Caucasians of Anglo-Saxon descent. And for this he must be defeated at the polls.
Those of you old enough to remember Mad Magazine’s non-smear political smear will appreciate the irony of where this phony outrage of political correctness has led us to today: “My opponent has a nephew who subscribes to a phonographic magazine. His wife is a thespian and has performed her acts in front of paying customers . . ..”
This is why the Left has no credibility when they manufacture charges of racism against conservatives and Republicans while ignoring obvious examples of actual practices by Liberal Democrats. It’s how Speaker-to-be Pelosi can denounce Republicans as the party of corruption while one of her own party’s members is caught stashing $90,000 in bribe money in his refrigerator. And it’s how the mainstream media can routinely talk about the failure of the Bush economic policy as unemployment falls, real wages rise, and the government collects more tax revenues than projected.
The root of all our problems, I contend, can be traced to the day that we collectively decided that “colored people” was an insult (even though the NAACP is still called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), but “people of color” is just fine. Try explaining that to a friend of mine from England who to this day still can’t understand why a preposition (or lack thereof) makes you a racist or not.
So when I hear someone describe me as a “neo-con” without having the slightest idea what that actually means (it just sounds “harsh”), or throw around words like Marxist or “Jeffersonian Republican” with absolutely no idea what they are talking about, I think back to the glory days of American history when sanitation engineers were garbage men, para-professionals were hired help, and racists were people who judged other people by the color of their skin. Today, those who don’t immediately separate human beings on the basis of skin color, sex and religion are called “racists,” while those who categorize every person by their race/sex/religion/gender preference are said to be the enlightened ones.
As a public service to those who feel the need to categorize and classify their fellow human beings, but who want to avoid being Borked or Macacaed by the guardians of political correctness, I offer you a substitute way of viewing the world. It’s one that has served me well, and has allowed me to develop genuine friendships with many people from a wide variety of divergent backgrounds.
It all boils down to a simple formula. When we meet someone for the first time, we tend to put that person into a category (young/old, black/white, attractive/ugly, educated/uneducated, etc.) so we can have an initial frame of reference. We use that frame of reference to then begin a longer-term (and more precise) evaluation of them. The trick is to put each person in the proper fundamental category so that all of our subsequent evaluations are meaningful.
Now, most people divide up the world incorrectly. They want to hire someone "young," marry someone "beautiful," only listen to someone "from the right school," and so forth. Thus, for example, by focusing only on a young person for a new hire, they miss interviewing older, potentially better candidates. Not only do they limit the pool of people they could hire/marry/take advice from, etc., they maximize contact with someone who could potentially injure them or lead them astray.
I've avoided this by focusing on the proper fundamental question when I first meet a person. I still see the same young/old, pretty/ugly, etc. attributes as everyone else, but I base my initial judgment of their worth on another variable, the fundamental one. I ask myself the simple question: Is this person an a**hole?
A black jerk will screw you differently than a white one, a pretty one differently than an ugly one, and so on and so forth. But the net effect is that you will always get screwed. By dividing up the world properly, I limit the opportunity for people to do injury to me while, at the same time, broadening the possibility of having contact with positive, productive people.
It’s a formula that works every time it’s tried. I highly recommend it to liberals who feel a genetic need to categorize and classify, and to conservatives who are tired of getting Borked by people you thought were your friends.
It will also have the additional salutary benefit of removing any and all PC considerations from your daily life, because in the final analysis I don't really care about a person's color, sex or other qualities. What I really want to know is the answer to that single, simple question. Understanding it tells me everything I need to know.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
A brilliant idea! Since there are jerks amongst the young/old, male/female, and every race/color, this would be the $64,000 question! Is this person an jerk? Quite simple, but yet efficacious.
One possible hinderment to obtaining a true answer to this question would be my personal ability to gage properly whether or not a particular person is, or isn't, a jerk. So, for my benefit, I need to sit down and write out some definitions to help me. I would greatly appreciate any help among the readers/participants with this personal effort.
Thanks, Phil, for your superb efforts in debunking the silly Left. God be thanked for people like you who are passionate enough to put in print things that most Americans believe in (at least most of the Americans I know).
Your friend,
David L (This comment was edited for language)
Comment by David L | September 2, 2006
This is just down right funny! It is also the reason liberals have such a difficult time framing the debate these days. They frame the world into psycho-therapeutic terms. Consequently, they have actually eliminatied this category from their lexicon. All is psychobabble for liberals. I tell my students, when making fun of the DSM IV, which I do every semester: When I was young and I opposed liberal tripe I was just a jerk, now when I oppose liberal tripe I receive the DSM diagnosis of o.d.d., "oppositional defiancy disorder," that is until they find out I am a conservative then I am no longer simply mentally ill, I am once again a jerk. (Note: This comment was edited for language)
Comment by Jim Carmine | September 2, 2006
What is DSM IV? I've never heard of such.
Comment by Lane Russell | September 2, 2006
The real game here is "oneupmanship." It's said we're a divided nation. Well … I think it's our leaders, most of whom have big egos - playing the "game," each trying to outmaneuver the other, who promote that divisiveness. Most Americans, when they sit down one on one, are not so different. I don't expect angels in office. I expect results. Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat … we're all guilty of the same offenses. When the tiniest crack appears, someone on the opposite bank wants to turn it into a chasm.
We're all human, which means sometimes we say and do the wrong things; sometimes we screw up. When you do, you ought to be man enough to admit it. I'm always offended when the "N" word comes up … no matter what form it takes and no matter who says it. However, I don't think its use is necessarily an indication of racism on the part of the person saying it. It's more a matter of insensitivity and ignorance. To be honest, I think a big deal is being made over George Allen's use of the "M" word. I've heard the word before. I was aware of what it means. Allen screwed up. It wasn't huge. He apologized. We should all accept his apology.
This country is capable of great things. However, we ALL need to move beyond the game of "oneupmanship" and work together to accomplish them. Most of us know what's fair and what's right. Most of us know when emotion; be it anger, compassion or indifference … is being played.
Comment by John Ross | September 3, 2006
David L —
To answer your question, I’ve always applied a simple rule of thumb when evaluating other people for their “A-H” quotient:
1. Does the person lie or exaggerate about simple, everyday occurrences (i.e. they say it’s a torrential rainstorm when it’s barely drizzling outside). I know then that they can’t be trusted to give me an honest opinion, or tell me the unvarnished truth about any situation, which will get me into trouble if I act on what they say.
2. Can they play a friendly game of sports (where no trophy is involved) without sliding spikes-up into second base; and conversely, when a trophy is involved, do they try their best and/or play for the team instead of their own personal glory.
3. When confronted with evidence that indicates their original position is wrong, do they concede the point (or speak to the evidence when offering a rebuttal), or do they simply ignore what I said and continue pressing their original point.
4. Do they make fun of other people behind their backs while pretending to be their friend? (You’ve all seen the guy who makes faces while talking to someone on the phone, all the while pretending to be serious and earnest during their conversation).
5. And finally, last but not least, when all else fails I just ask them who they voted for in the last election. If they won’t tell me, they are either unwilling to admit to holding un-PC beliefs (in which case they’ll throw me to the wolves the first time someone criticizes my political opinions), or they proudly proclaim their support for some bozo who couldn’t find his butt in the dark if he used all ten fingers. Either way, they score a perfect 10 on the A-H meter.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 3, 2006
DSM IV is the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition" It is the book any hack on earth with some vague relationship to the social sciences can use to diagnose you with virtually any mental illness they please without any true objective criterion. There is no blood test or x-ray to prove sanity once you arrive at Bedlam.
Comment by Jim Carmine | September 3, 2006
I have some questions:
You said, "A black jerk will screw you differently than a white one, a pretty one differently than an ugly one, and so on and so forth."
Why is this so? I recall you writing, "in the final analysis I don't really care about a person's color, sex or other qualities."
If this were true, how can you make the statement that there are differences concerning the actions of people according to their race or looks? Your comment seems to be built upon the assumption that race or looks DOES indeed affect one's behavior, which implies you do indeed care about colors and other qualities, specifically in this case, looks. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You go on to say, "By dividing up the world properly, I limit the opportunity for people to do injury to me while, at the same time, broadening the possibility of having contact with positive, productive people. "
How does one define "properly?" In the 1960s is was "proper" to hate African Americans, now of course it's not. So, who gets to decide what's the proper way to divide the world? Shouldn't we work to not be divided at all - "one nation, under god, indivisible, with…."?
Another interesting note - In words, conservatives preach perfect idealistism concerning race (i.e. "it doesn't really matter about a person's color, etc."). However, in practice I rarely hear conservatices really say that racism is indeed wrong. It should not matter if a conservative or liberal said what racist comment - the message should be he or she should not have said it at all. Conservatives rarely say this. They point fingers, as you have done in your article, to liberal examples of the same problem - as if that makes it all right. But two wrongs don't make a right. Liberals and conservatives alike should speak out against whoever makes comments like "macaca" and "white nigger." If you agree, why have you not said this in your article (unless I have missed it, in which case I do apologize.) DO you disagree with the macaca and other statments?
"The root of all our problems, I contend, can be traced to the day that we collectively decided that “colored people” was an insult (even though the NAACP is still called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), but “people of color” is just fine. Try explaining that to a friend of mine from England who to this day still can’t understand why a preposition (or lack thereof) makes you a racist or not."
Comments like this exemplify the social isolation that I find many Caucasions find themselves in from all the other races of the country. It's not about the preposition - it's about the people. African Americans are offended by 'colored people' because it was used at time in history that was very painful for them. The NAACP was created at this time, which explains why it uses the phrase itself. (Perhaps it should be changed, to reflect the times.) At any rate, the bottom line is as human beings, we should be attuned to one another's needs as much as possible. Africans Americans find it offensive, so out of respect and love for their humanity, others should attempt as much as possible to comply. You don't HAVE to - but it speaks to your character and intergrity to be socially aware of hurtful phrases, words, and assumptions about ANY race to make the necessary changes if you are found guilty. This goes for African Americans towards whites as well. Would you agree?
Doing so, I believe, would increase understanding of each other, perhaps leading us to a point in time where such an article or response about race wouldn't even be needed.
Comment by Lewis | September 3, 2006
Lewis: Regarding the questions you asked –
1. I don’t judge the intrinsic value of a person by the color of their skin, their gender, their attractiveness, etc., which is why I said “in the final analysis I don’t really care about a person’s color, sex or other qualities.” This has nothing to do with the second statement that “A black jerk will screw you differently than a white one, a pretty one differently than an ugly one, and so on and so forth.” This is a simple statement of fact, and has no value-judgment associated with it at all. Men and women do not act identically in every situation. Young people do not act the same way as older people, etc. The point is, if you look at race, sex, age, etc. as the fundamental issue when assessing other people, you’re making a big mistake. A young “jerk” may hack into your bank account or throw a brick through your window, while an older “jerk” will undoubtedly choose other methods to screw you. If the person is a “jerk”, it doesn’t make any difference in the final analysis what his color/sex/religion is, because you’re going to get screwed. Only the way they do it will differ.
2. Lewis asked: “How does one define ‘properly?’ In the 1960s is was ‘proper’ to hate African Americans, now of course it’s not.”
Lewis, I’m treating these as honest questions, because I believe from the tenor of your comments that you are sincere, so I’m going to answer them frankly. Please forgive any unintended offense if I seem to be overly-direct. I’m not trying to belittle you, but rather challenging the way you seem to see the world. I don’t know how old you are, but I lived through the 60s. It was never ‘proper’ to be a racist. It may have been more overt in parts of the deep South, but it was by no means ever considered to be “proper” by the people of the times. If racism was “proper”, there would have been no 1964 Civil Rights act, and other similar legislation that followed.
3. Lewis asked: “So, who gets to decide what’s the proper way to divide the world?“
I think you’re playing with words a bit here. The whole point of my essay was to argue against generalizations based on race, sex, religion, etc. Which means, to do it “properly” we have to look at each individual themselves and determine, for ourselves, whether that individual is an a**hole. So to answer the question “who gets to decide?” — you do, for yourself, looking at the person for who and what they are, rather than assigning (or subtracting) any value because of their race, sex, religion, etc.
4. Lewis said: “Another interesting note - In words, conservatives preach perfect idealism concerning race (i.e. “it doesn’t really matter about a person’s color, etc.”). “
Actually, I believe it was Dr. King who said “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” You’re not condemning Dr. King, or suggesting that he didn’t really believe what he said, are you? I’m confused here.
5. Lewis said: "However, in practice I rarely hear conservatives really say that racism is indeed wrong."
You should start watching Fox news and reading the Washington Times instead of CNN and The New York Times. In all candor, this is a highly over-simplified observation. I rarely hear Liberals speak about the importance of God and religion, but I haven’t accused the Left of being across-the-board atheists. I skewer them for the things they’ve actually done (or not done). I don’t need to invent outrages to rail against. This is a “beating your wife” question, anyway. How am I supposed to prove/disprove a negative?
6. Lewis said: “Conservatives … point fingers, as you have done in your article, to liberal examples of the same problem - as if that makes it all right. … Liberals and conservatives alike should speak out against whoever makes comments like ‘macaca’ and ‘white nigger.’ If you agree, why have you not said this in your article (unless I have missed it, in which case I do apologize.) DO you disagree with the macaca and other statments?
I did indeed say that Liberals should have spoken out forcefully against Robert Byrd. But as I pointed out, they did not. As for Macaca, I still don’t know what the hell it means. Google the word and you’ll get half a dozen different meanings. And if you polled the American people in July 2006, you wouldn’t find one person in 100,000 who could tell you whether it was an insult or not — unlike the word “nigger”. What I do know is that Allen was making fun of the guy who worked for his opponent (which in and of itself isn’t inappropriate), and that Allen believes that he said something wrong and that Allen apologized for it (which is significant). To immediately conclude that Allen is a racist who used racist code words is pure sophistry, particularly when Bird’s “white nigger” comments get a complete pass.
7. Lewis did not like my observation about colored people vs. people of color. He said that “It’s not about the preposition - it’s about the people. African Americans are offended by ‘colored people’ because it was used at time in history that was very painful for them. The NAACP was created at this time, which explains why it uses the phrase itself. (Perhaps it should be changed, to reflect the times.)”
Which is precisely my point. The word “negro” has completely disappeared from use by any Civil Rights organization, and I respect their wishes not to be addressed this way. I fully understand the history behind the use of the term “colored people”, but the fact is it isn’t painful enough to have the NAACP change its name. So it’s okay for me to speak aloud the full name of that organization, but inappropriate for me to use that same language when speaking about that organization. This is pure PC bulls**t. It underscores the very point I am making, that the people on the Left are more concerned about words and symbols than actions and deeds. This does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of social harmony.
8. Lewis says: “the bottom line is as human beings, we should be attuned to one another’s needs as much as possible. Africans Americans find it offensive, so out of respect and love for their humanity, others should attempt as much as possible to comply. You don’t HAVE to - but it speaks to your character and integrity to be socially aware of hurtful phrases, words, and assumptions about ANY race to make the necessary changes if you are found guilty. This goes for African Americans towards whites as well. Would you agree?”
I agree with your sentiments, but not your conclusions. Exactly who defines the “proper phrase” to describe another race? And why do they get to decide? Clearly the NAACP isn’t bothered by the phrase “colored people” to identify itself. There are certain common sense things we shouldn’t do out of respect (like join the KKK and use the word “nigger” — white or otherwise). This is a message best communicated to the Democratic party, however, and not conservatives. By focusing on the words we use to the exclusion of other factors, we get into a self-defeating debate. When I have to expend more energy thinking about whether to call a person Asian or Oriental, black or African American, white or Caucasian, or whether the term “Islamo-fascist” is offensive to those who murder Jewish school children and ram planes full of people into office buildings, then there is no time left to deal with the real issue that divide us.
This next comment is not directed at Lewis, but at those who were ridiculed in my original essay. People need to stop expressing phony outrage over “Macaca” while being understanding and forgiving about “white nigger” (all because of the party affiliation of the person speaking the words). And they need to stop worrying about what they’re called by well-meaning people, and start questioning whether the so-called opinion leaders speaking on their behalf are actually working for them, or using phony issues to enrich themselves at the people’s expense. I’m happy to have fired the first shot in this debate by moving the issue away from how another person is valued (or described) on the basis of their race, sex or religion, to focus on the only meaningful issue each of us needs to consider. And I’ve done it in this response by refusing to assume that Lewis is a Leftist-flack just because he challenged my essay and spoke about conservatives the way he did. Instead, I’ve answered him honestly and directly as I would any person making sincere inquiries.
In short, I’ve applied the same fundamental reasoning to this interpersonal exchange that I do with every other person I meet or interact with. Having divided the world into two basic camps, I’ve placed Lewis in the favorable category, and thus give him the courtesy and respect he deserves even though we may disagree on basic issues. Unless I’m grossly mistaken, we may never see eye-to-eye, but I won’t be subject to any personal attack simply because we disagree. And as long as that remains the case, I know we can have a spirited, but civil exchange. However, had Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, David Duke or some KKK Grand Exalted Cyclops written to me, I would not have treated the messenger the same way. By their past deeds or present positions I know they fall into the a**hole category, and know that it’s only a matter of time before what I’ve said will be deliberately distorted or manipulated to make it seem as if I am a racist simply for expressing an opposing view.
Like I said before, when you look beyond race, gender, age, religion and other secondary characteristics and focus on the REAL issue that divides us all, you know exactly how to treat another person. It’s a method works every time it’s tried.
Regards, Phil
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 3, 2006
Many neoconservatives are just as utopian as traditional Leftists in thinking that we can have a color-blind society, where only ideas matter: the "proposition nation."
The "proposition nation" is a very radical idea, dreamed up by Enlightenment Leftists and later Marxists. It is sad that so many neoconservatives are siding with the Marxists on this issue.
Traditional conservatives have never felt this way. Race does matter. So does loyalty to one's family, ancestors, region, blood and soil, kin and kith.
Comment by John | September 4, 2006
John: Exactly who created the rules for the so-called “traditional conservatism” you referenced?
I’ve always considered “Enlightened Leftists” to be somewhat of an oxymoron, so I have absolutely no idea what this philosophy represents. I can tell you that Marxism deals with the economic and class divisions of society, which has nothing to do with race other than in a very peripheral and ephemeral way. As far as “racial loyalty” goes, that concept was tried around the mid-part of the 20th century, and ended up with a suicide inside a command bunker.
I can still have loyalty to my country, my family and my friends without interjecting race into that calculation. It’s sad that the first thing you apparently see when you look at another person is the color of their skin, followed by a DNA test to establish the purity of your familial line.
No one believes that we’ll completely eradicate racism any more than we’ll completely eradicate stupidity. But knowing that we’ll never reach zero-stupidity is not a reason to embrace and practice it as a deliberate way of life.
If there was ever a reason to adopt the way of looking at the world that I discussed in my essay, this more than illustrates my point.
The only thing worse than a bigot on the Left is a bigot on the Right. If you can't see the wisdom in working toward a color blind society, then all I can say is "kith" my ass.
Phil
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 4, 2006
Phil,
NeoMarxists invented the term 'racist'. You should watch the documentary "The Frankfurt School Story" for a history of this. NeoMarxists realized that they could not win on class alone, so they wanted to weaken the west by building racial consciousness among non-whites but weakening it among whites.
Comment by John | September 4, 2006
Phil,
I don't think you realize how left-wing / neoconservative / NeoMarxist your position is.
Comment by John | September 4, 2006
The idea of a "color blind society" is a recent concept, promoted by classical liberals and neoconservatives. They, however, probably unknowingly, borrowed this concept from NeoMarxists. The Frankfurt School came up with this idea to undermine European / White solidarity.
Traditionally, blood and soil / kin and kith have been central to conservatism.
Aristotle supported such a concept, borrowing the very phrase "blood and soil" from Plato. St. Augustine supported this as well.
In more recent times, up until recently, almost all conservatives supported a basis of society on blood and soil / kin and kith. They also supported keeping the races separate. For example, both Russell Kirk and Richard M. Weaver (the "fathers of American conservatism") supported segregation.
Comment by Cato | September 4, 2006
I once used the 'n-word' to describe myself, in terms of my beliefs and opinions on matters economic and financial. Would you believe I was expected to apologize to myself? When I refused I was told my presence was no longer needed or allowed in this particular setting.
Yes, the world has gone crazy. Any suggested medications for resolution, other than a thump up side the head with an open palm or a kick in the arse?
Comment by The Outlander | September 4, 2006
John:
And I don't think you realize how big a jerk you are. So I guess that makes us even. (This comment was edited for language)
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 4, 2006
I am not a really deep thinker but in my life I have seen:
People that hate Blacks
People that hate Whites
Anti-semites
People that hate gays
People that have a label for everyone esle, except themselves
Athiests that hate people of deep religious faith
People that hate Christians
Christains that hate others
Others that hate everyone else
Muslims that hate everybody
Gays that hate straights
Rich that hate poor
Poor that hate the rich
They all had one common denominator,,,
They were all jerks,
You put a finger on it
Comment by Richard | September 4, 2006
Cato:
I can’t tell whether you’re simply offering a neutral statement about the idiocy of certain past beliefs, or whether you are in fact supporting these notions today as John appears to do. So if in fact what I’m about to say doesn’t accurately represent your feelings, I’d like you to clarify a couple a questions for me so I won’t improperly assign a high A-H quotient to your last comments.
Plato also thought the world was flat. (He also thought “soil” was an element.) And George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both owned slaves. And the word “gay” once meant “happy.” And Liberals used to embrace what are today Conservative values.
So your point is?
Rather than obfuscate the conversation with arcane references to the past that have no relevance to the way the world actually operates today, why not just cut to the chase and you — or John — state clearly and emphatically what your view is regarding “race mixing”, misogyny, or whether Jews automatically go to hell because they don’t believe in Jesus? I’m waiting to hear how a “good conservative” is supposed to act when a black non-Christian woman moves into the house next to me.
I expect sophistry and pure nonsense from the Left, and am rarely disappointed. The fact that a different kind of sophistry comes from the Right doesn’t make it any less idiotic or worthy of condemnation.
So if I won’t let the Left get away with calling all Conservatives “Nazis,” why should I (or anyone else) give anyone on the Right a pass when they suggest that “true conservatives” need to understand that “race matters”.
If these don’t represent your beliefs, I give you an opportunity to clarify them. If they do, well then, I’m happy to wear any label you or John want to attach to me, because I only have one classification system that I employ, and it doesn’t require you to acknowledge it or not.
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 4, 2006
Couple of points.
First of all, the obvious difference between George Allen and Robert Byrd is Allen is running for president. You can be quite sure that if Byrd were running for president, his KKK past would be an insurmountable obstacle. And I'll go out on a limb and predict that if Hillary Clinton started talking about "white niggers", that would be hugely damaging to her as well.
The other troubling thing (at least for me) about this particular incident wasn't macaca - I admit that it was actually much funnier in its foolishness than it was offensive. It was the "welcome to America" part — which is a pretty good indication that when Allen sees an Indian-looking dude he starts with the assumption that he's an immigrant. That's not the kind of mindset I want in my president.
Anyway, as a Republican, you should be glad. An Allen nomination would be a disaster for you guys.
Also, for what it's worth, apparently Byrd DID feel compelled to apologize.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/04/byrd.slur/
You can always find extremes to illustrate a point, and certainly the "niggardly" episode was one ridiculous example. But I think it's a stretch to claim massive hypocrisy here. When you start assuming that staffers in the Washington DC mayor's office (7 years ago) represent the entire national Democratic establishment, you're veering way into strawman territory. (I recognize, of course, that both sides of the blogoshphere are guilty of this sort of tactic).
Comment by Jay | September 4, 2006
Lewis
You missed the point completely.
You have a real hang-up with anything that remotely confers racism.
I got the point; different people will screw you differently.
I guess the politically correct thing to do is from now on never mention the word “black people” and we should now treat it like the "n-word" and I'm not talking niggardly.
What I have come to realize is that I don’t care what race, religion, or sexual preference you are I'll make my own decision based on your actions towards me over a time period.
What I don’t understand is after years of civil rights and the fight for equality the same group that was fighting to be counted turns around and segregates themselves all over again by requiring the term African American to be used to describe the racial group they belong to.
Ironic or an Oxymoron in real time, call it what you will but I find it insulting to those who fought so hard to simply be put back into a racial status of sorts.
We are all Americans and when we distinguish ourselves in a manner such that segregates our racial group we prohibit unity from conquering pride.
Phillip
I enjoyed reading your article and understood what you were trying to convey however mysterious it may have sounded :)
Dave
Comment by Dave | September 4, 2006
Phil,
Unlike you, I am a real conservative. I'd never support a "color-blind society." Obviously you have been brainwashed by crackpot Leftists. Not only does race matter, but I think that whites should promote their own racial interests. All other races do it, but whites think that it is wrong for themselves to do it.
Comment by Cato | September 5, 2006
Cato:
I appreciate the clarification of your point of view.
Of course, when I express my views, I provide my full name and an email address for people to contact me. I can understand why you do neither.
One other thing. When a government calls itself "Democratic" or a "People's Republic", it's a sure sign it's neither. When a person has to tell a person that he's a "true" this or that, instead of allowing his own words and actions to define who and what he really is, it's another practical application of the theory I put forward.
I owe you and John a debt for allowing the fullest possible expression of the origional point I made in my essay.
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 5, 2006
Jay —
A couple of things struck me about your comments.
First, I don’t think you meant to imply that people are held less accountable for their words and deeds if they are running for a lower, rather than a higher office. I know that’s not what you said, but I have to reconcile your observation with the drumbeat of criticism Trent Lott received over his “birthday remarks” a few years back. When compared to the virtual silence over Byrd’s comments, or Gore’s “extra chromosome” insult, or Jessie Jackson’s “Hymietown” slur, or Joe Biden’s “7-11” comments about Indian employees, etc., the only different variable here is party affiliation. Democrats get a pass on things that Republicans never do.
As for Byrd making an apology, that’s a given. Senator Packwood also apologized for getting a little too frisky with the ladies, but it didn’t matter. He was still driven from office. A Democrat in a somewhat higher office was subject to considerably more detailed charges in this same regard from a variety of different women. He apologized for being “forced to lie”, and saw no pressure from his own party or the media to resign. If anything, the higher the office, the less likely it is that these actions have consequences — unless, again, we take party affiliation into account.
I still don’t know exactly what a macaca is, although it’s clear it wasn’t meant as a compliment. That doesn’t necessarily make it a racial slur, as you pointed out. I’m less troubled than you by the “Welcome to America” remark, because it was actually “Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.” The intent, I think, was pretty clear. I often welcome my Liberal (though as the preceding commentary shows, I’m now going to have to start saying “extremist”) friends to “the real world”. In doing this, I’m not suggesting they are aliens from another planet; Uranus jokes notwithstanding.
For the most part I agree with the sentiments of your comments that each side routinely makes a big deal out of nothing. It’s just that I see the “big deal” applying disproportionately to Republicans and conservatives than it does to Democrats and liberals, as I indicated above.
The one point I disagree on is the consequences Hillary would face for using a slur like Bird did. If the Dean of the US Senate who is a former Klansman suffers no consequences for dropping a version of the N-bomb, then why should a Senator from New York State see her presidential ambitions spoiled? It didn’t hurt Jessie Jackson to make a slur against Jews when he was running for president.
Finally, I assume by your comments about “you guys” that you are a Democrat (or at least not a Republican). I always take it as a sign that my guy is going to be a pretty tough candidate when the opposition party tells me that he’s an albatross and we should get rid of him. I mean, why would you want to see a stronger candidate run against the Democratic party nominee in 08?
In this spirit, my unsolicited advice is to stay away from Joe Lieberman and the other two or three moderate, mainstream Democrats, and then by default nominate someone like Hillary, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, John F. Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or anyone one else of a similar political bent.
From what I can see the Democratic party is already taking this advice. It should be an interesting next two years.
Regards, Phil
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 5, 2006
"I base my initial judgment of their worth on another variable, the fundamental one. I ask myself the simple question: Is this person an Jerk?"
This is exactly how I make my initial assessment of another. Been doing this for years now, almost verbatim, and it has rarely let me down.
Comment by Steve S | September 5, 2006
The "proposition nation," created by Enlightenment liberals and later Marxists, says that ethnicity does not matter. One only has to believe in ideas (e.g. the flag is good) to be a good citizen. This is a very radical idea.
The traditional conservative position is that ethnicity, race, blood and soil, kin and kith do and should matter. This is the position that I support.
Comment by Thomas | September 5, 2006
Thomas —
If I'm not mistaken, this same sentiment can be expressed in 14 words.
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 5, 2006
David,
I think you make excellent points in comment #19. The self-segregation of blacks (in the name of pride), has amazed me.
Comment by Paul | September 5, 2006
Like my hero T.S. Eliot, I support segregation. And there is not a damn thing wrong with this.
Comment by Chris | September 6, 2006
The documentary "The Frankfurt School Story" is excellent. Only a NeoMarxist or Leftist would accuse someone of being 'racist'.
Comment by David | September 6, 2006
Will those brave segregationists and proud non-race mixing “true conservatives” care to identify themselves with their full names and emails addresses? I didn’t think so.
I’ve always found it amusing that the truest of believers on either the Left or Right are never willing to actually stand up and be counted, unless they can do it anonymously.
You read a couple of misanthropic ideologues and cherry pick a more familiar name or two of people who support your point of view, and suddenly this becomes the one and only “True Conservatism”. [By the way, you haven’t mentioned the names of other supporters of racial segregation who are better known than T.S. Eliot. I wonder why?]
It’s really funny as hell to read about “kith” and “kin”. Most normal people would simply say “friends and family”. But then again most normal people don’t require genetic purity tests before considering the intrinsic worth of another human being.
Speaking of which, I’m still waiting for an answer to my question in comment #17 about what I should do if a black, non-Christian woman moves into the house next to me. Just exactly how should True Conservatives conduct their daily lives, other than to go around kithing and kinning and bleeding on the soil? I’m still waiting for the practical action guide to implement your philosophy. So far all you’ve offered us are platitudes about “Real Conservatism”.
Like most sloganeers on the Left who need to classify people by color and political ideology, you do the same. There’s really not a dime’s worth of difference between you and the “jerks” on the Left who do the same exact thing. I’m sure the irony is lost on you, but not to everyone else!
Signed Phil Jackson LRE — “Liberal” to the far Right, “Reactionary” to the far Left, “Extremist” to the moderates.
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 6, 2006
OK. I’m signing into this late. But Phil, you are just wrong.
If you look at traditional philosophical conservatism (e.g. Weaver, Kirk, et alii), there is much allowance for distinctions made on race, etc. Kirk, Weaver and Eliot all supported segregation – a very wise concept. Such distinctions (based upon a Burkean ‘prejudice’) have been central to conservative thought. Conservatives should rail against the meaningless abstractions of the Enlightenment (such as “we are all equal”), and harbour a more traditionalist outlook: kith and kin / blood and soil. As Cicero said of natural law in De Legibus, it is based upon traditions of the “ancestors.” In short, blood lines are important and so are their proximity. In modern terms, the more DNA you share with someone, the more you obligation will be to this person.
In short, only a left-wing ideologue or utopianistic neoconservative would say that race is unimportant. Race is important, and so is a proud and strong defense segregation. If God wanted one race, he would have made us all beige. But he in fact created different races – distinct – and we should respect his divisions.
Comment by Cato | September 7, 2006
Cato:
God apparently gave us different levels of intelligence too.
You talk about race through the platitude of "we are all equal" as if that means we must all be part of a communist society. That's pure sophistry. My point was simple: if the first thing you see is race when you evaluate the intrinsic worthiness of a fellow human being, you end up saying and doing incredibly inane things. If your main concern is the purity of your race’s bloodline, you might benefit from an introductory course in human genetics. There are a few problems that arise from excessive inbreeding, but I suspect you may already be aware of that.
You also define “Traditional Conservatism” through the eyes of racist ideologues, as if the issue is settled simply because they said it was. That’s pure sophistry as well. This is why you and the others can’t do anything other than quote sources to promote your point of view. You found a conclusion you like, and a so-called authoritative source, and when questioned about it you simply keep repeating the citation. You can’t defend the position because the more you do, the more inane it all sounds, and you realize that. Submit a paper to IC outlining the reasons why we should embrace your “True Conservatism”. You won’t because you can’t, and doing so would also mean attaching your real name to the essay.
You and the others who adopt this position are no different from the racists on the Left who use skin color as a means of avoiding rational thought and/or achieving their own political objectives. Like I said before, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between you and Malcolm X, except for the specific way you use color as a weapon.
I know the piece is rather long, and there are a lot of big words in it, but you might have a look at the essay I wrote on August 25 regarding moral relativism. Of course, it wasn’t written a few thousand years ago by someone who thought that the world was flat and that “soil” was one of the 4 basic elements of life, so it can’t possibly be correct — particularly since I spoke about “children” and not “white children”. But it does address the subject of what ‘God wants’ from a more objective perspective than the moral relativists on the Left contend, or as I now understand True Conservatives inherently understand because we’re not all beige.
It is comforting to know that you’re probably not living in the US since we don’t spell harbor “harbour”. Either that, or God didn’t give your computer a spell check function because he was too busy making different colored (or should I say “coloured”) babies for us to avoid.
Amazingly stupid thought coming from someone who allegedly thinks about this kind of stuff. But it’s no more inane than the 14 words that have also grown out of your interpretation of God’s word: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children”.
I’ve seen some of your comments on other posts, so people can’t accuse me of making you up just to illustrate the main of my essay about anal cranial inversions. But like I said, the more you hide behind the anonymity of a code-name, the more apparent it is to everyone that even you know you really can’t say this kind of stuff in public without being laughed at. It goes to the common moral code issue in my August 25 post, with this essay being a practical illustration of what I said before.
So what would you do if you found out you had a little “coloured” blood in the family tree, Cato? Resign from the kith & kin klub, or suddenly discover that God had a few other things to say about race that weren’t quite so — pardon the pun — black and white?
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 7, 2006
Cato
What a bunch of fluff! You guys love to argue the definition of conservative and little else!
You claim the more dna you share with someone, the more obligated you are to that person? What in the world is that supposed to mean? You could argue for virtually anything with a statement like that.
"Proud and strong defense segregation"?
What evidence do you have to backup your "fact" that God created different races and wants them separated?
Comment by Paul | September 7, 2006
According to recent DNA studies (see U. Penn Genetics Survey), about 95% of “white Americans” are of pure European blood. Probably about 5% would have one African ancestor out of about 256 ancestors. True, many blacks and whites had babies together, but there was the “one drop rule” and these kids would have been considered black, and never would have “crossed the racial line,” which is why you only have about 5% of whites with African blood. (About 45% of blacks have white blood.)
I know I am of pure noble blood. I have DNA proof, and I have my genealogy back to the 14th Century Europe, tied to noble homes. I suspect Phil Jackson to be of an inferior blood line – hence his anger and frustration. You can’t help but pity him. Poor guy.
Without kith and kin / blood and soil, without any recognition of the importance of ethnicity, you are left with the left-wing “proposition nation,” given to us by Enlightenment radicals and later Marxists.
Like Kirk and Weaver (the “fathers of American conservatism”), I think that race does matter. It is natural for races to want to keep to themselves. It has always been this way (think of mandatory ethnic segregation in Ancient Greece or Rome, or in Jerusalem, or in Medieval or Modern Europe).
This is God’s plan. I do not want to interfere with it.
Comment by Cato | September 7, 2006
Cato: Well, we certainly wouldn't want to disappoint God, now would we?
Thank you for again illustrating why when confronted with a challenge to their absurd beliefs, the best an extremist can do is mouth platitudes and talk about inferior blood lines.
I owned a purebred dog once. Dumbest animal on the planet, thanks to all that inbreeding and those recessive genes. Not that this comment has anything to do with a racial purity DNA test that goes back to the 14th century!
I will treasure your comments and re-post them any time you or your fellow misanthropes make another idiotic comment about any subject matter that touches on your inane world view. Having made it my life’s purpose to be despised by ideologues on the Left by exposing their stupidity for what it is, I’m happy to provide the same service to the Ubermenchen on the Right.
Pure European blood! What a hoot!
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 7, 2006
Phil,
My main point is that what you are arguing is not conservative. Regarding national identity, if you think what a person believes is more important than his ethnicity, then you are a proponent of the “proposition nation,” a radical concept put forward by revolutionaries and Marxists. Prior to the Leftists introducing the “proposition nation,” a more traditional mode of life reigned supreme.
You obviously are not very well read in political philosophy, especially since you did not recognize the gist and importance of my references. I can tell you lack of knowledge of the essentials (e.g. Aristotle’s communitarian ethics, Cicero, Eliot, Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk, etc.). I suspect that you have your Ph.D. in some proletarian subject like “English” or “Political Science,” those disciplines created in the late 19th Century (vide Matthew Arnold) for those “too poor, or too ignorant to acquire a real degree.”
Comment by Cato | September 7, 2006
Cato:
You've already shown us all who and what you are. No need to speculate further on my inferior bloodline or poor academic background! The University of Chicago did not offer a course on racially-idiotic interpretations of classical literature as expounded upon by pre-propositional pure white True Conservatives, so I gladly admit to not having your depth and breath of knowledge about what God wants us to understand about keeping the races apart.
I'm also happy to wear any label your genetic purity tests wish to assign to me.
And as long as you like tossing around people's names, why not proudly share yours with us as well? It's not every day we get to hear from some one with a 14th century, noble white DNA, genetically inspected pure bloodline.
What? Still no interest in proudly proclaiming your theories? I wonder why.
What a Clymer!
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 7, 2006
Be careful Cato, Phil will have your posts deleted if you contradict him!
Comment by David | September 7, 2006
Listen. Maybe in a perfect world people wouldn't recognize race. But this isn't a perfect world.
No one can deny that among all races (except whites) racial identity is very strong. Just the other day I heard some Asians talking about how racially superior they are to all other races in terms of intelligence. It's quite common.
I figure that since all the other races do it, so should whites. If we don't promote white interests, we are basically signing our own death warrants.
That's my take anyway.
Comment by John | September 7, 2006
Actually David, I intend to preserve them and have made sure they won't be deleted. Yours too. Nothing illustrates stupidity better than the actual words of a true believer! You just can't make this stuff up!
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 7, 2006
Then put them back up Phil!
Comment by David | September 7, 2006
John:
I’ll take your comments at face value and give you an equally respectful reply, since this is the first comment that actually addresses a real issue instead of simply citing one’s genetic purity as if it is an issue of any real importance. If I acted too hastily in lumping you in with the more extremist views, please accept my public apology.
I don’t think whites have any exclusive claim to being racists. I’ve seen it on all sides, so you are indeed right that it’s common.
The question is, do you believe any one race has the right to claim moral or genetic superiority? If you’ve read any of my other essays, you’ll see I can no more abide the narrow minded, pseudo-intellectual bigotry of the Left than I can the Right. This is one reason I wrote my essay on why it makes absolutely no sense to see the world through a racial prism.
It’s one thing to say that there are broad based generalized differences among different races, age groups, sexes, etc. that might have a basis in fact (depending upon how truly objective the study is), and another thing to say that every single member of a group shares that characteristic because of their skin color, sex, age., etc. That’s just plain ignorant. Women, as a group, have less upper body strength than men, but I’ve known several individual women who were stronger than certain individual men. The same is true of mental acuity with younger and older people, just as we’ve all seen individuals defy the stereotype of their racial or ethnic group. That is, of course, assuming that we actually associate with people of other races.
But saying that because of the emphasis placed on education by one group they have higher test scores than another group, is not the same thing as saying that Group B is genetically inferior to Group A. There could be a lot of reasons for this outcome that have nothing to do with skin color. This is the dishonest intellectual slight of hand those who proudly proclaim their genetic purity would have us believe.
A lot of the 19th century political philosophy that focused on race was based on scientific studies that purported to show the genetic superiority of whites. There’s an excellent book by Steven J. Gould on “The Mismeasure of Man” that documents this. He points out, significantly, that these studies were not deliberately deceitful. In fact, many were conducted by people who believed they were being scientifically objective. But Gould read their notes and re-worked their tests, and shows how cultural influences shaped certain assumptions and choices that skewed the results.
If you look at the world believing from the start that your 6 centuries of racially pure genetics gives you an automatic superiority to other races, then everything you read or see will confirm that “fact”. The Clymers on every side of the racial spectrum do this. It’s what the Islamo fascists do today, only they use religion instead of race.
I guess we have two basic choices to deal with the idiocy of this when non-white races want to claim special status or distinction based on the color of their skin. We can either join them and become as big a Clymer as they are, or we can block their stupidity the same way we damp down the pseudo-intellectuals of our own “race”.
What I think is lost on most people who get sucked into this racial superiority garbage by quoting from Classical literature is the fact that Plato, Aristotle and other great classical theorists wrote about politics and political theory at a time when a person lived or died within miles of where they were born. City states and nascent states relied on strong family ties and bloodlines to hold the community together. This is where "kith and kin" truly mattered, because this literally was "your world".
Over the ensuing years this same rationale was used to establish hereditary bloodlines for monarchic dynasties and feudal fiefdoms. It also established the rigid class systems that eventually helped give rise to Marxism.
I've read Plato's Republic, and John Locke, and other classical works these pseudo-intellectuals cite. They don't justify overt segregation or racial purity. That's a distinctly 19th and 20th century perversion of classical "conservative" principles. What the race-based so-called conservatives do is blur a line between traditional, conservative principles and philosophy as expressed in classical literature AND the practical actions that were necessary to act in a non-industrialized world. The fact that kith and kin are important to Plato is a function of their constant proximity and limited technology, not a core universal principle.
These racial superiorists further distort the issue by pointing to words adopted by Leftists to promote a particular radical agenda (such as "equal rights"), and then say that anyone who wants to work toward a non-racist society must automatically embrace the underlying Leftist objectives because the words sound the same. This is pure sophistry, and explains why they are incapable of framing any original thoughts on their own. All they can do is cite studies or authors who confirm their prejudicial interpretations. But they can't really tell you WHY they believe what they do, other than to say they are genetically purer than you are.
But the best measure of truth is the one I pointed to in my August 25 essay. Those who speak of their inherent racial superiority — of which they are so proud — must hide in anonymity, because they know how utterly foolish this claim is when subjected to a real debate, and they are afraid to be publicly identified with it.
Regards, Phil
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 7, 2006
Note to everyone regarding David's last comments. Unless a profanity was used that was blocked by the filtering software, nothing has been deleted. It's just more of the same "honest debate" we've all come to know and love from the racial purists.
But if David feels that he has significant words of wisdom that he needs everyone to hear but can't get them past the filter, I invite him to send them directly to my email at phillipellisjackson. I'll delete the profanity and submit them through my own post in their otherwise original form.
I think it's important that everyone hear more about my parentage and lack of genetic purity so they can fully evaluate my position, and I'm more than happy to relay anything David has to say.
And I promise not to reveal David's full name and email address so no one will really know it's him making the comments.
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 7, 2006
Phil you are being dishonest. I have never used profanity in any post and more than a few have been deleted. I'm guessing thats because you couldn't answer them or I presented facts which contradict your world view. How long will it take to delete this one?
Comment by David | September 7, 2006
Phil,
You refused to answer my question. Assume that all or most other races (except whites) do have a strong "racial identity." This is a given I think. And they always promote it. I have never heard so many racist comments as I have from Asians and Indians - about how racially superior they are.
So - here is my question. If all other races promote the interests of their race (you see blacks and Asians doing this every day), and whites do not, won't this put whites at a disadvantage in the long run?
This seems very straightforward to me. It is a matter of survival.
Comment by John | September 7, 2006
It's still up there David, as you can see, along with absolutely nothing from you but slurs and accusations. Interesting that you didn't "resubmit" your comments and instead chose to only say once again that you supposedly did before.
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 7, 2006
If it had an ounce of truth that all must wind down to purity in race, philosophy (any philosophy) would have been bunk for the past two millenniums. If indeed each must carry and maintain his/her own racial purity in order to maintain unblemished cultural origin, short of being God, how would mere mortals know or truly understand anything other than his/her own cultural ingredients? What purity? What “superiority”? How?
Intellectual? I think not.
Just want to add: Kudos to Dr. Phil! Both cerebral and visceral, he give as well as he takes. Keep it up!!
Comment by L.L.M. | September 7, 2006
Phil , I'm speaking of the posts I left on the "Rummy is Right" article. If you ask me questions and make accusations against my views the least you could do for your readers is let them read the posts and see for themselves who makes the most sense. If you are telling me you wont be deleting or censoring future posts….good!
Comment by David | September 7, 2006
David:
All I do is write my articles and respond to the comments, as inane as some of them are. I don't own the website.
Even my own articles/comments get edited if my comments violate their policy, which is why I keep having to use the words like "jerk" and "Clymer" instead of what I'd really like to say.
Besides, the "Rummy is Right" article isn't even my own article!
But if it makes you feel any better, I promise not to delete things I don't have any access to or control over anyway. In fact, I contacted the editors right after Cato went off on his genetic purity rant to insist that even if that somehow violated policy, they absolutely HAD to keep it up. Having my parentage and genetic purity questioned by a superior human being is one of the proudest moments of my life, because it means I can NEVER be a member of any group this Class-A Clymer belongs to!
Besides, I intend to resurrect that little genetic purity gem every time Mr. Cato (or his benfactor, the Green Hornet), drops another inane word of wisdom in a future post so everyone can appreciate the genetic superiority of the person making the comment.
L.L.M. — I appreciate your comments here and on the Hollywood essay. Phil
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 7, 2006
David (more)
Oh yeah, now I remember who you are. You're the high school kid who makes things up about world history just to see if people will take the bait, and claimed you were a "Jeffersonian Republican" who said Lincoln had no authority to fight the Civil War just to get a "rise" from us. That's probably why your comments were deleted … assuming you're telling the truth about that.
Sorry, you'll have to wait your turn. I'm only talking to genetically pure Real Conservatives in this essay. As looney as these guys are, at least they cite real books.
Don't you have some homework to do? Phil
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 7, 2006
What exactly is the difference between kith and kin anyway?
Wow, Phil, I was away for a couple of days and was going to respond to your response to my comment….I was all prepared to concede to you some instances of hypocrisy (on both sides actually) and then explain why other instances were unique (particularly the Trent Lott episode). But that was before the KKK hijacked your thread. I have to admit, I thought you were kinda out there on the extreme (guess that makes me a moderate), but it turns out there are people who make you sound like a moderate. And apparently these people aren't even literally retarded. Fascinating. So I guess I have to commend you as an extremist who at least has his heart in the right place. (Even if you can't go more than a few sentences at a time without giving in to your temptation to insult us lefties, I can still feel the love in ya, ya big crazy galoot.)
Hey, since we have the Klan in the house, maybe one of them can answer the question that started this in the first place. I've read rumors that Macaca is a code word within the Klan for black or minority or some such. Can you boys either confirm or deny this? I believe it's safe for you to say so, since as Phil points out, you're still wearing your cyber-hoods.
Peace out
Comment by Jay | September 7, 2006
Mr. Jackson,
Are you trying to be comical? If so, it is working.
"Rather than obfuscate the conversation with arcane references to the past that have no relevance to the way the world actually operates today…”
Uhm, Mr. Jackson, respecting the past and the received wisdom of our forefathers would be this little thing we call … err … I don’t know … maybe … perhaps … CONSERVATISM!
If “arcane” references to the past are for you an attempt to obfuscate and have no relevance then I would suggest that you are a modernist and not a conservative and perhaps you would feel more at home at a website called Intellectual Modernist.
The problem is that your “enlightened” attitude, and your obvious contempt for people who hold older, less “enlightened” beliefs is very typical of modern “conservatism.” That is why Dabney was right when he said that American conservatism has never conserved anything. It is just go slower progressivism. But I’m sure you wouldn’t be interested in what Dabney said since any reference to him would be arcane in your mind I’m sure.
Given the hostility of the PC Gestapo to anyone who dares to transgress PC right think, it is perfectly understandable that people would not want to give their full name and e-mail address. It shows no bravery on your part that you are willing to do so since you are giving a pitch perfect rendition of the establishment party line.
Red Phillips
redphillipsmd
Regular Ether Zone columnist
Comment by Red Phillips | September 7, 2006
Jay –
Man, first I’m called a neocon, then I'm labeled a Marxist, now I find out I may actually be a moderate. I feel like I hit the political tri-fecta!
Unfortunately, we have our bozos on the Right just like you guys have them on the Left (although I still contend there are a lot more Michael Moores out there than genetically pure True Conservatives). Still, it’s embarrassing enough to know that my side can be as nutty as yours on any given day. It just goes to show how silly it is to label people instead of debate ideas as you were decent enough to do with me.
I am about to unleash a series of essays about the really outrageous beliefs of the Left, so don’t take too much comfort in what you see here. I think you’ll find, in general, that the political Right tends to let the facts lead their opinions instead of their opinions creating the facts, which is why this kind of discussion is ultimately very useful. It forces people to say what they actually mean, rather than hide behind platitudes and arcane citations.
By the way, kith and kin essentially means homeland and family, or friends and family, depending upon how exclusive you want it to be. Think of it like a Sprint ad – but for whites only.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 7, 2006
Red:
I appreciate your decency in at least identifying yourself, so what I’m about to say doesn’t particularly apply to you unless you actually think this way.
Anyone who wants to state that “Real Conservatism” requires you to be a segregationist and recognize the genetic superiority of inbred white Europeans is an idiot.
As I explained in comment #41, if you want to deliberately distort what the Classical political theorists said about politics to suggest that everyone needs a DNA test to choose their political allies, you’re an idiot. I don’t know how to put it any more clearly than that.
Just because a couple of pseudo-intellectual bozos at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution decided that God wanted all True Conservatives to avoid “race-mixing” doesn’t mean that this is the definition of “True Conservatism”. It means that these people are idiots, and anyone who still thinks this way in the 21st century is an idiot too.
And just because some idiot on the Left hijacked the term “equal rights” and turned it into a weapon against conservative values doesn’t mean that whites are superior to blacks, and the races should be kept apart. It means that these people on the Left are as big an idiot as the people on the Right who think their 600 year old alleged bloodline makes them a superior human being.
Now unless you want to boldly proclaim your adherence to any of these idiotic principles, no one is going to attack you. If you actually read the article I originally wrote, you’ll understand that stupidity on the Right deserves the same response as stupidity on the Left. This is about as un-PC as you can get.
So before you chastise me for not immediately embracing the “enlightened views” of closet racists who want to justify their idiotic conclusions by bastardizing Plato and Locke, you might want to step back and actually think about the “enlightened views” that were presented by the people you are defending. I spent a lot of time in a different essay talking about the philosophical underpinnings of the Declaration of Independence and how it has impacted issues from slavery to abortion. Not once did I require anyone to prove their genetically pure bloodline to take advantage of the inalienable rights bestowed by our Creator.
As for asking all racists to proudly identify themselves instead of hiding behind their anonymity, it has absolutely nothing to do with “PC Hostility”. But it has everything to do with not wanting anyone to know you’re an absolute raging Clymer who still believes that only whites can talk to God, and that only the genetically pure deserve the right to call themselves Conservatives.
Comical? Hardly. It’s embarrassing to have people who think this way profess to hold the values of Locke, Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan.
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 7, 2006
Well. Whatever happened to “Lewis”? He seems to have disappeared.
That means that I cannot respond to him; you can’t respond to someone who isn’t there.
And since Phil resides on such a higher moral plane than the likes of me, he could never look down far enough from Mt. Olympus to see me on this earthly street.
But for the sake of anyone reading this, I will say of Lewis’ statement, that it is impossible to have a good faith discussion with someone who uses lies as his point of departure, and who demands that I slavishly follow his lies.
I was born in 1958 in the state of New York. During my childhood, the word “colored” was never a racial insult. Period. Not only that, but it was the most widely used term among both races, to refer to blacks. As a young child, I never heard the word “negro” or the “n”-word.
(The term “negro” was always written lower-case until ca. 1903, when W.E.B. DuBois undertook a letter-writing campaign to the editor of every daily newspaper in America, to harass them into capitalizing it.)
“Negro” was used by the wealthy, the press, and public figures in public discourse. I never heard the “n”-word until I was at least eight years old. When I was a teenager, although I spent as much time around blacks as whites, I heard it almost exclusively from whites. Over the past twenty years, I have heard the term much more than I did in my childhood, app. 95 percent of the time from blacks, app. 5 percent of the time form Puerto Ricans, and less than .01 percent of the time from whites.
I don’t know what race “Lewis” is, but he strongly insinuates that he is black, and assumes based on that insinuation that he is racially privileged to lie about history and define the terms being used, in order to rig the discussion. To him and his ilk, I say, Slavery was abolished 141 years ago. You don’t get to rig the race debate, or any other debate, for that matter.
To Phil: I am in awe of you, Sir.
I was raised a devout, fundamentalist integrationist. But I ran into a problem: Blacks are not integrationists; the vast majority of them are segregationists. (I also once believed Stephen Jay Gould, until I found out that he was, shall we say, a fibber.) Unless a white is wealthy (since there are some blacks willing to integrate with “green” people) or a saint, like Phil, trying to integrate with segregationist blacks leads to absurdities … and boo-boos. After all, not even Martin Luther King Jr. believed his own line about “the content of their character,” which he, after all, uttered in a speech in which he elsewhere demanded race-based affirmative action and reparations. And so, Phil is even more of a saint, if that is possible, than MLK was.
Some more reasons for my awe of Phil follow:
He manages, so he tells us (and who am I to doubt him? I don’t want to be called a racist!) to be color-blind in relation to people for whom everything is reducible to race.
He manages to remain color-blind, in spite of having been singled out for brutal beatings and robberies; and having been arrested on false charges, and gang-raped in prison, based on the color of his skin; the women in his life having been singled out and raped, robbed, and murdered; and his young children having been cursed, threatened, their bones broken, and robbed; all based solely on the color of their skin.
After all, a saint like Phil would never talk the way he does, based on having lived in a racial cocoon. His beliefs must be based on his having experienced the full range of racial reality. He and his must have scars. (I am not speaking figuratively here.)
But I do have one question for St. Phil. Given that whites who publicly make statements (e.g., that race matters or even much milder ones, such as “we should teach all black children Standard English”) using their real names that show less saintly enlightenment than he does risk being fired from their jobs and whitelisted from their professions, while blacks who make the same sort of statements are rewarded with prestigious, high-paying jobs and book deals, why does he reserve his ire for whites? After all, I know that given his own moral purity, he would never call on whites to sign their real names to a defense of segregation, while hoping – and helping – that their lives will be destroyed. Right?
Comment by Nicholas Stix | September 7, 2006
Generally conservatives are pro-segregation while neo-conservatives are anti-segregation.
I'm a conservative, and I definitely support segregation. It is a part of human nature. Only a utopianist tries to undo human nature with Big Brother projects (racial integration, busing, etc.).
Comment by Sir Anthony Walters | September 8, 2006
John:
Okay, maybe my original instincts were right after all.
I didn’t “refuse” to answer your question. You just stopped reading. I figured that anybody who advocates national policy based on the conversations they overhear from other people, and then assumes that the entire world is like that, might benefit from an explanation about the difference between logical and illogical conclusions from a given assumption.
Here’s what I said:
“I guess we have two basic choices to deal with the idiocy of this when non-white races want to claim special status or distinction based on the color of their skin. We can either join them and become as big a Clymer as they are, or we can block their stupidity the same way we damp down the pseudo-intellectuals of our own ‘race’.”
We can’t stop people from saying stupid things, since this is America and you have a right to be a fool. But we can educate against ignorance in whatever form it appears, and organize ourselves to block the passage of racist legislation (whatever its source) within the context of the American political system. Since we live in a pluralist democracy the results will not be instantaneous. This is one reason why we have elections.
Or, we can just be as stupid as the other people who spout racist tripe and join that club.
I write at length in my essay “What Kind of Car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?” about how we battled the ignorance that justified human slavery in the 19th century, and how we can overturn the abortion culture today. I’d apply that same prescription to this issue.
Now tell me how being a white racist fool is going to help you “defeat” all the other non-white racist fools?
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 8, 2006
Mr. Stix
It’s a little hard to tell where reality drifts off and allegory takes over in your comments. It might be time to check those meds, or at least have a neighbor look in on you from time to time.
Sir Anthony
Why am I not surprised that anyone who calls himself “Sir Anthony” is a segregationist.
To everyone else
Notice how a simple proposition that the fundamental way to look at another person is to ask the question “are they a ‘jerk’?”, rather than “what color/age/sex., etc are they?”, becomes a polemic by genetically-pure True Conservatives who need to tell you how innately inferior everyone else in the world is, and then launch into discussions of forced busing, overheard conversations, and prison gang-rape to justify their positions?
This is obviously what Plato and Aristotle had in mind, not to mention Locke and St. Augustine, when they laid down their ten point plan for REAL Conservatism.
All you have to do is let people talk and the truth will reveal itself in many different ways.
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 8, 2006
NEW ESSAY
I see they just posted my Racial Purity Quiz. Many thanks to those of you who provided the material for this essay.
I won't be responding to any more genetically-superior commentary on this essay now that the Quiz is up. So for those of you who feel the need to tell us about your centuries-old DNA trail, or have any other forced busing or prison-rape fantasies you need to explore, go at it with all the gusto you you can manage. It will be a lot of fun just watching you define yourselves even further without the need for additional commentary from me.
Last one out of the gene pool is a neo-Marxist, or whatever other big word you can remember to illustrate your innate superiority.
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 8, 2006
Mr. Jackson,
Your reply to me deserves a book in response, but I will post a "brief" reply under your new essay since that is where I suspect the action will be transferring.
But would you please answer me one question? What exactly is a "Clymer?"
Red
Comment by Red Phillips | September 8, 2006
Adam Clymer was a national correspondent for The New York Times. During a campaign event, then candidate Bush saw him and said into an open microphone "There's Adam Clymer, that major league a**hole from the New York Times."
And so, his name has become synonymous with the exit point of a human being’s alimentary canal.
Comment by Phil Jackson | September 8, 2006
How Race Matters: Ideas
"Traditional conservatives have never felt this way. Race does matter. So does loyalty to one’s family, ancestors, region, blood and soil, kin and kith."
(No. 9)
Thank you John
"…I support segregation. And there is not a damn thing wrong with this."
(No. 27)
Thank you Chris
"…The Frankfurt School came up with this idea to undermine European / White solidarity. Traditionally, blood and soil / kin and kith have been central to conservatism.
Aristotle supported such a concept, borrowing the very phrase “blood and soil” from Plato. St. Augustine supported this as well."
(No. 13)
"If you look at traditional philosophical conservatism (e.g. Weaver, Kirk, et al), there is much allowance for distinctions made on race, etc. Weaver, Kirk and Eliot all supported segregation – a very wise concept.
Such distinctions (based upon a Burkean ‘prejudice’) have been central to conservative thought. Conservatives should rail against the meaningless abstractions of the Enlightenment (such as “we are all equal”), and harbour a more traditionalist outlook: kith and kin / blood and soil. As Cicero said of natural law in De Legibus, it is based upon traditions of the “ancestors.”
In short, blood lines are important and so are their proximity…"
(No. 30)
"According to recent DNA studies (see U. Penn Genetics Survey), about 95% of “white Americans” are of pure European blood. Probably about 5% would have one African ancestor out of about 256 ancestors. True, many blacks and whites had babies together, but there was the “one drop rule” and these kids would have been considered black, and never would have “crossed the racial line,” which is why you only have about 5% of whites with African blood. About 45% of blacks have white blood.
Without kith and kin / blood and soil, without any recognition of the importance of ethnicity, you are left with the left-wing “proposition nation,” given to us by Enlightenment radicals and later Marxists.
Like Kirk and Weaver (the “fathers of American Conservatism”), …race does matter."
(No. 33)
"Regarding national identity, if you think what a person believes is more important than his ethnicity, then you are a proponent of the “proposition nation,” a radical concept put forward by revolutionaries and Marxists. Prior to the Leftists introducing the “proposition nation,” a more traditional mode of life reigned supreme.
…the essentials (e.g. Aristotle’s communitarian ethics, Cicero, Eliot, Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk, etc.)."
(No.35)
Thank you Cato
"Maybe in a perfect world people wouldn’t recognize race. But this isn’t a perfect world.
No one can deny that AMONG ALL OTHER RACES/ groups (except whites) racial identity is very strong.
Asians-
[Blacks]
[Mexicans/ 'Chicanos']
[Persians]
[Arabs]
…so should whites. …promote white interests [!]…"
(No. 38)
"…other races (except whites) do have a strong 'racial [ethnic] identity'…they always [most GENERALLY at least] promote it.
(No. 44)
Thank you John
"…your 'enlightened' attitude, and contempt for people who hold older, 'less enlightened' beliefs is very typical of modern 'conservatism.' …Dabney was right when he said that American conservatism has never conserved anything. It is just go slower progressivism… Dabney…arcane [?]
Given the hostility of the PC Gestapo to anyone who dares to transgress PC Right Think, it is perfectly understandable that people would not want to give their full name and e-mail address. It shows no bravery on your part that you are willing to do so since you are giving a pitch-perfect rendition of the establishment [more Politically Correct] party line."
(No. 51)
Thank you Red
"Blacks are not integrationists; the vast majority of them are segregationists."
(No. 54)
Thank you Nicholas
And, THANIKS AGAIN to those intelligent and thoughtful commentators listed above for their posts. How refreshing.
Is it not sad that being PROUD TO BE WHITE nearly always earns one a title of 'racist' or 'bigot'?
Lunacy.
ASIDE FROM scientific, political, governmental contributions made by certain races/ethnicities over the last roughly 6000 years since life 'as we know it' began OR THE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR LACK THEREOF by certain others… (Would I be more correct to describe it as LAVISHLY NON-existent?)…
IF one considers EVEN SOME of the copious data in articles such as the one titled
"The Color of Crime: Ground-Breaking New Study Released" by Nicholas Stix, October 2005 (Thank you YET ONCE MORE Nicholas), then attention to and respect for, DIFFERENCES IN RACE MUST be recognized.
Being 'created equally' and 'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights' DID NOT MEAN, and SHOULD NOT MEAN that patterns of speech, behavior, family interaction; appetites and inclinations to conduct one's self in a respectful/ respectable, law-abiding, civilized, and dare I say patriotic (?) COULD NOT or WOULD NOT correlate generally to race or that there WOULD NOT or MIGHT NOT be 'interference' to behaving in such a manner because of one's ethnicity…
Political Correctness = Animal Farm
Burn the farm.
Comment by Paul Joseph | September 8, 2006
THIS CONVERSATION HAS MOVED TO A NEW THREAD.
MAKE COMMENTS AT:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/the-“true-conservative”-racial-purity-quiz/
Comment by Brian | September 8, 2006
Dear Paul (#61),
Thank you for your kind words.
Comment by Nicholas Stix | September 12, 2006
Dear Nicholas-
You're welcome.
Because of your skill and abiltiy to research for , then write such compelling articles… I wonder what your thoughts are about writing one similar to that which was referenced in #61, but related more specifically to Criminal Aliens in the United States (fromMexico & Central America in particlur, but from everywhere else too…)…?
Keep up the good work.
Comment by Paul Joseph | September 14, 2006