Comments on: Neoconservatism: Why Black America Needs It

By: Patrick Mulligan

Patrick Mulligan — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 07:28:59 +0000

Cato,

As humorous as it is to see you directly copy the same comments in response to each and every article posted, what exactly does NeoMarxism or your favorite Russell Kirk quote have to do with what was written in the article? Did you even read it? Or did you just see “Neoconservatism” in the title and decide you needed to give us yet another glimpse at the breadth of your intellect?

By: Cato

Cato — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 03:57:56 +0000

It is interesting how almost all neocons are ex-Marxists (like Horowitz) or ex-Leftists. You also see Neomarxist terminology rife in their writings: like “regime change.”

“Neoconservatism” is just really Wilsonian liberal internationalism repackaged. There is not a thing conservative about it.

Russell Kirk for good reason said that neoconservatives have “[mistaken] Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.”

By: carmine

carmine — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 19:55:24 +0000

Wonderful article, I am particularly struck by the suggestion that psychology, generally the paternalistic tool of Social Worker liberals, is perhaps one of our nation’s most insidious varieties of racism. This, in fact, is why I believe Brown v. Board of Ed did not yield the benefits it should have. I am not at all convinced that the doll study proved much of any thing, other than to pander to liberal guilt. As a consequence, African American children are clearly not receiving the level of education that white children receive. Psychological presumptions about African American children make it vastly more difficult to recognize much less complex factors standing in the way of fair and adequate education for all students. Teachers are allowed to demand more from their white students without fear of charges of racism. And so teachers do demand more of their white students. For all of its problems the one true beauty of No Child Left Behind is it is genuinely color blind, since it rejects psychological excuses for poor performance.

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:03:44 +0000

Mr. Twyman, like a skilled boxer, has excellent timing. His essays of late arrive at a perfect juncture in time — when increasing numbers of blacks are exploring the negatives of negative thinking.
His example of Langston will inspire some, yet those invested in division politics and dedicated to the search for black identity will use the man’s success as an example of selling out.
The proof? Langston was successful and respected by whites. He clearly did something to betray his race.
Keep it up Mr. Twyman. The tide is with you and your efforts to point out that the recipe for achievement and respect remains the same as it always has been.
It strikes me that the matter of convincing some to follow Langston’s lead is a bit like getting a style-concious Paris Hilton to pull on some “un-cool” boots when walking in snake country. The ugly footwear may not conform to her overly bankrolled sense of style and self, yet it is the practical and only choice for safety, and makes possible the success of her journey.
If I read him correctly, Mr. Twyman’s point is that many blacks refuse to pull on the white man’s boots, which means they are:
A. Missing opportunity/excluding themselves.
B. “Keeping it real” and getting snakebit — variously dying from the bites or blaming them on “the man.”
Whether A or B, he becomes proof of discrimination to those in the race division industry, be they seeking power, wealth or votes.
It’s a vicious circle back to the same starting point, kept that way by stigmatizing blacks who traverse the path to success by conforming to logic and outfitting themselves properly, celebrating only those who, often due to their athletic or artistic talents (in some cases their gangsta talents), managed to make the trek to fame and fortune without compromising their “blackness.”
Has anyone estimated the price blacks pay to “keep it real?”
Thankfully, some, like Mr. Twyman, are running the numbers.