How a knuckle-dragging conservative found out one day he was really a Marxist.
I was somewhat taken aback to learn from the comments to my recent essay "Off to the Races: The Perplexing Politics of Political Correctness," that I am not a “real conservative,” but rather a utopian Marxist.
The main reason for having my political beliefs reclassified, I was told, is that a real conservative believes in kith and kin and blood and soil, which means that “race matters,” which means that the amount of melanin in a person’s skin is a factor that must be taken into consideration by any True Believer on the Right (TBR) when assessing the worth of another human being. (I’m not making any of this up. For those of you who think I’m misrepresenting these views, I refer you to the comment section of that post.)
Since I’ve always been considered a knuckle-dragging neocon by my friends and family, you can understand my natural confusion at suddenly finding myself placed in the Commie-lib camp. Now as someone who actually knows people who are real Communists — not the name-calling kind, but people who are card-carrying members and proud of it — I can tell you that I’d last about 10 seconds in one of their little get-togethers before I’d find my formerly-neocon butt purged from the group by unanimous consent. But I do believe that the fundamental way to look at the world is not through the prism of race, age, sex or religion, and I guess that’s all any TBR needs to know to divide up the universe properly.
So here I stand (or actually, sit while I’m typing), stripped of my conservatism by the TBR Defenders of the Faith, compelled now to learn the words to the Internationale so I can find a new home among other kindred spirits. But before I don my Che Guevara beret with the little red star and start quoting from Chairman Mao instead of from Chairman Reagan, I thought perhaps we all might step back for a moment and see how many other poor deluded souls there are out there. I mean, if I’ve got to leave the conservative movement because of the strange things I believe, I’d like to see if there are some other equally deluded people out there who might keep me company.
So, to help all of you assess your political identity, I offer the following Racial Purity Quiz to help you decide if you, too, are a True Believer on the Right, or instead a misguided fool like myself who thinks that we shouldn’t judge a person by the color of their skin, but instead look beyond that when making our assessment of an individual’s intrinsic worth.
Question #1: When you think about a person in a uniform standing with their hand extended palm outward, do you get the mental image of:
A. A man in blue directing traffic, or
B. A man in brown creating havoc.
Question #2: When you think about the values embodied by “Rockwell’s work,” are you referring to:
A. Norman Rockwell, the artist who designed over 300 covers for the Saturday Evening Post celebrating the values and traditions of average Americans, or
B. George Lincoln Rockwell, the father of the white supremacist movement in the United States.
Question #3: When you say you are an admirer of Cato, do you think about
A. The philosophy of John Locke, whose notion of natural rights and the social contract helped form the underpinnings to the Declaration of Independence, in which all men are said to be created equal, or
B. That guy John Locke too, but only if the person is the right color to begin with.
Question #4: When you toss around words like “Marxist” to describe the philosophy of people who aren’t ardent segregationists, is your understanding of Marxism based on the concept of “alienation,” which you understand as
A. The relationship of an individual to the ownership and control of the means of production, or
B. A great movie staring James Caan a few years ago.
And finally, Question #5: When you find it necessary to use the word “kith and kin” to explain your philosophy, do people
A. Automatically assume you are speaking with a lisp, because no one uses archaic words like these anymore unless they’re trying to sound more educated and erudite than they really are, or
B. Nod their heads knowingly, because it’s the exact way they routinely say “friends and family” too.
If you answered “A” to each of the above questions, I’m afraid you are a Marxist fellow traveler too. The bus leaves at one o’clock sharp for the indoctrination and re-education camp. Don’t be late; I’ll try to save you a seat.
Or maybe, and this is just a wild thought that suddenly popped into my head, maybe it’s the True Believers on the Right who are the guys who haven’t quite gotten it right.
Believing that we should work toward a genuine color-blind society doesn’t make me — or anyone else who thinks this way — anti-Conservative because some Leftist moron polemicist a few years back tried to use the race card as a wedge-issue to weaken American society. There are lots of idiots in this world who hijack words and turn them around to mean something entirely different than they were intended. One only has to think about a “People’s Democratic Republic” to appreciate that such governments are rarely “democratic,” and never designed to benefit “the people.”
So why should I have to abandon my philosophy of looking beyond the color of a man’s skin just because some Frankenstein conspiracy got together with the Protocols of Zion to mess with the English language and use race as a weapon? As adults with even a community college education, we ought to be sophisticated enough to see past the mendacity of this blatant exercise in propaganda and not throw out the proverbial baby with the proverbial bathwater.
That is, unless the doors to the compound are so tightly shut, if you catch my drift, that a self-proclaimed TBR is just looking for an excuse to advocate racial segregation under the guise of a higher political principle. This says absolutely nothing about what constitutes “real conservatism,” but speaks volumes about the real character of the individuals holding this kind of position.
I’ve always believed that what separates “us” from the True Believers on the Left is our willingness to use our minds to think independently and arrive at positions which are best for the nation, not just one segment’s narrow vested interests. It’s why I can support a war on Islamo-fascism that is prosecuted by the same president whose policies on immigration I vehemently oppose. Contrast this with the Clinton kool-aid drinkers who wouldn’t concede any issues during his presidency for fear of giving the “evil Republicans” a tactical political advantage.
Since the conservatism I embrace is built on a value system that seeks real truth and real justice, in which the only genuine differences that exist among people are those they create for themselves, it doesn’t matter to me whether the author of a really bad idea calls himself a Democrat or Republican, a Liberal or a Conservative. I’m just as happy making fun of the foolishness and duplicity on the Right as I am the foolishness and duplicity on the Left. I can do this, as I explained in my previous essay, because assessing the fundamental value of another person (or their ideas) is based on only one factor, which the editors of this website have translated as “jerk” instead of the original word I used to make this point.
Nevertheless, whether the classification system employs the term “jerk,” or the exit point to a human being’s alimentary canal, the sentiment is still the same. The results I get from this simple exercise in judgment have proven time and time again to be the best predictor of future events. And this time is no exception.
This is probably a bit beyond Phil’s ability to reason, but I nevertheless shall try. I never said that a belief in segregation is a necessary condition for being a conservative. On the contrary, I meant that opposing segregation cannot be a necessary condition for being a conservative, especially if you recognize that many of the “godfathers” of conservatism were supporters of it. (BTW, Phil, Kirk and Weaver lived in the 20th Century, not the 19th.) This is what I meant. An understanding, though of ‘necessary condition’ may be a bit beyond Phil’s abilities.
Phil, a second point, Cato was a Roman republican who opposed the movement toward big-government imperialism. He was Cicero’s friend. He in no way would be associated with John Lock. Actually, Phil, Cato and Locke lived over 1,000 years apart. (Perhaps you should buy a copy of HAL Fisher’s History of Europe.)
Phil, a third point. I only attacked your academic credentials, and obvious cultural illiteracy, because of your inane comments about Larison on a previous thread. If you had actually read conservatives (like Weaver), you would know that the division of knowledge into “departments” has probably done more harm than good. It certainly has undermined intelligent discussion. Evidence: Phil Jackson.
Phil, a fourth point. Although ‘race’ per say was created in the modern world, the Greeks and Romans certainly did cherish kin and kith / blood and soil. In fact, ‘xenophobia’ generally had a positive connotation, the various clans self-segregated, they discriminated along ethnicity, and thought that one’s primary loyalty was to his immediate locality and bloodline.
Phil, a fifth point. It is just a fact that NeoMarxists created the charge of ‘racism’. They realized that they could not win the war on ‘class’ alone so many in the Frankfurt School decided that using the charge of ‘racism’ to attack whites would be a good way to break up European solidarity.
BTW, Phil, to use your NeoMarxist classification of ‘racist’, I am not a racist at all. I just find pseudo-intellectuals like you amusing.
I just browsed over some of the comments on the article linked in the body of the quiz and I have to say guys are all ‘white’ with me. ha ha ha. In general, I don’t agree with what most neo-cons have to say but I gotta go with Dr. Phil (I love your t.v. show and the Lakers, by the way) on this one. I answered A on all of the questions as well, but I don’t find myself consumed with Marxist erotica.
My Momma done told me, when I was in knee pants, my Momma done told me, “Son, never waste your time arguing with someone who throws a University of Chicago Ph.D. in your face, by way of introduction.”
I should’ve listened to my Momma.
Dr. Jackson,
I think you are on to something here. I guess I’m a Marxist too if that means to embrace the individual and his own private, legal, moral choices as being his own business; free market capitalism solving all economic problems; all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; and Walmart is not eeevil.
How ironic that we conservatives/libertarians are portrayed as jack-booted bigots marching in lockstep like mind-numbed robots when in actuality it is the extremist left that demands absolute ideological purity. It is conservatives/libertarians who embrace true diversity, which is intellectual diversity, i.e., the freedom to think for yourself and disagree with others without being thrown off the reservation.
Really, how often do you hear about pro-life Democrats in the MSM? Well, never. How about gays who are fiscal conservatives who believe in limited, constitutional government? Doesn’t happen. Do we see favorable stories about conservative blacks? Rarely, if ever. Yet these people are out there in growing numbers. Some of them fear to reveal their true beliefs because of repercussions from the “tolerant” ones.
The tolerant left believes its caricatures about us conservatives/libertarians so deeply that they have become inviolate truth. They can then dismiss us with a quick label (bigot, homophobe, misogynist, etc.) and not even have to engage a thought process. How easy and convenient for them!
Mountain Man —
I couldn’t have summed it up better myself. And you did it without ever once mentioning the need to take a DNA test to establish your conservative credentials. Idiocy is idiocy, regardless of how its proponents choosed to identify themselves. It’s just more personally disgusting when it’s the supposed-Right rather than the looney Left that spouts such nonsense.
If we allow Conservatism to be defined by the worst examples of humanity, we’ll end up where Liberalism is today. This is why I’m happy to expose these “Real Conservative” beliefs for what they really are.
Take care, Phil
“If we allow Conservatism to be defined by the worst examples of humanity, we’ll end up where Liberalism is today.”
That says it best, even better than the first commenters expose themselves.
Cato, my main man! Glad to see the electricity is back up inside the compound.
** The “Cato” I was referring to was you! I knew you’d instantly come through with another self-important history lesson. You don’t disappoint. But irony is often lost on the ironic, as Nick Stix’s momma would often say.
** Cato says “I only attacked your academic credentials, and obvious cultural illiteracy, because of your inane comments about Larison on a previous thread.” Guess you forgot about that little self-important tantrum: “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.” Comment by Cato | September 7, 2006
I told you I was going to treasure this comment and resurrect it frequently to let everyone know the stand-up guy you are, and how you really look at the world. “Conservatism” is just the cover story that lets you spout your genetic-superiority brand of racism.
** And finally, when a racist pseudo-intellectual calls you a Neo-Marxist pseudo-intellectual, it’s time to go deep and trot out the words and wisdom of Mr. Spock. “In an insane society, only the sane are considered insane.” The more you tell people I am nothing like you, the better I sleep at night knowing that I’m not a Clymer.
And to Nick Stix who’s graduated from prison gang-rape fantasies to even more disturbing Oedipal analogies, why am I not surprised that a 48 year old man still lives with his momma? Sorry if a good education offends you, but I’m sure you would have gotten a good one too if it wasn’t for all those gang-raping robbers that curse and break bones and somehow are supposed to have anything to do with this conversation that got in your way and kept you out of community college.
And to the rest of you race-conscious miscreants who are trying to hijack Conservative values the same way the ideologues on the Left butchered modern day Liberalism, the time for treating you little Adolphs seriously has long passed. Like Mr. Cato, you have no regard for anyone who doesn’t share your bloodline, or can’t trace their parentage back to the 14th century. So keep writing, because it just provides an endless amount of material to illustrate how inane your pseudo-intellectual race-based rantings are.
I’ve exposed you for exactly what you are by simply letting you make your own case.
Phil,
Again, you miss the main point. I shall try to reshape it again. Please try to focus.
You are not very literate in equating Locke (a modernist) with the communitarian position of Aristotle. I do not support Locke, who is mostly a rights-based theorist. I question any strong reliance of “rights” because they are largely a fiction of the liberal Enlightenment. (Phil, the Enlightenment (capital E) was a historical period, not a person, as in an “enlightened man.”)
I said that not supporting segregation is not a necessary condition for being a conservative. Why? Well, because many of its founders (e.g. Kirk and Weaver) did in fact support segregation.
Do you even understand what a necessary condition is? I’ll help you out: clouds are a necessary condition for rain, but rain is a sufficient condition for clouds.
The reason I gave so many examples of learned conservatives supporting segregation is to show that can be part of the conservative position.
Also, Phil, if you had actually read any philosophy, you would know that many conservatives have argued for the importance of kin and kith / blood and soil when considering tradition. Yes, Phil, tradition. Since these concepts have been very important for the past 2,000 years at least, probably since the beginning of time, it would be (as Burke would say) a little dangerous just to dismiss them. You argue more like a Jacobin than a thoughtful conservative.
For someone who has a Ph.D., you are not very bright.
Cato:
My genetic impurities make me incapable of grasping the value in assigning political rights based on race, or the need to validate one’s lineage through DNA testing before I can elevate my “inferior” status to something more acceptable to you and your fellow Burke-Kirk-Orwellian brownshirts.
But keep telling us how to spell Enlightenment, because it’s very important to associate important-sounding words with your racist drivel disguised as rational thought.
By the way, you’re violating your own kith-‘n-kin rules by associating with one of your inferiors, or is it okay to talk to the genetically-deprived as long as you don’t actually have to associate with them?
My guess is that you answered at least 4 of the 5 racial purity questions “correctly”. I just can’t figure out if you know who James Caan is, or don’t see the distinction in question #2. Probably a little of both.
The only saving grace in your otherwise empty life is the knowledge that if you do ever leave the compound long enough to reproduce, it will probably be with a first cousin. A couple more generations of recessive genes and you’ll be reading more about Mendle than you do now about Mengele, the other “authoritative source” you’ve obviously been consulting.
Like I said, the time for taking you guys seriously has long passed. I’m just to ignorant to “get it”, so I’m obviously a lost cause. Thankfully.
Give my best to the Green Hornet.
Cato,
YOU are the only person you are fooling. You are really sad:(
“…shouldn’t judge a person by the color of their skin, but instead look beyond that when making our assessment of an individual’s intrinsic worth”
Avoiding race/ skin color as the singular means of determining ‘intrinsic worth’ would be foolish on massive scale,
ignoring it altogether is equally foolish if not stupid and ignorant.
Must one be drawn to- and desire to collaborate with- races, creeds and colors other than one’s own in order to NOT
be considered a big-meanie-racist or an ‘Adolph’? Being good Americans compels us to cooperate with one another of course but noticing and valuing differnces shouldn’t be thought of as impractical of non-functional part of this too
should it?
Whenever did being ‘tolerant’ require self-hatred and denigration of one’s own racial identity, and history? Why does it only become a requirement if you’re white? Why is the reverse encouraged (if not mandated) for one is anything but white?
Is it not sad that being PROUD TO BE WHITE nearly always earns one a title of ‘supremacist’ or ‘bigot’?
Do blacks not consider themselves [as a race] to be better basketball players, better rappers [than some other races]…? Would members of other races not possibly agree?
Do asians not consider themselves [as a race] to have longer livespans [than some other races} and would not other races possibly agree?
Do Fundamentalist Muslims (be they Sunni or Shi'a) not consider themselves better suicide bombers than... Oh, sorry, that's a different discussion...sort of...
ASIDE FROM scientific, political, governmental contributions made by certain races/ethnicities over the last roughly 6000 years since life 'as we know it' began (any other words; at ANY time) OR THE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR LACK THEREOF by certain others... (LAVISHLY NON-existent?)...
IF one evaluates EVEN JUST A SMALL PORTION 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 (there are many
such articles [and research] by the way, so whether you think highly of what else you’ve read by Mr. Stix or not- the data exisits), then attention t0- 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
Phil Jackson: “And to Nick Stix who’s graduated from prison gang-rape fantasies to even more disturbing Oedipal analogies, why am I not surprised that a 48 year old man still lives with his momma?”
So, now you’ve graduated from pretentious semi-literate to outright liar.
Philip Jackson: “Sorry if a good education offends you …”
I’m not at all offended by education; as a Marxist friend once said, I make a religion of education. But your parents can’t buy you one, no matter how much money they may have.
Philip Jackson:
“I’ve exposed you for exactly what you are by simply letting you make your own case.
“Comment by Phil Jackson | September 8, 2006″
“Phil Jackson” isn’t by chance, a pseudonym for John Podhoretz, is it? Same shallowness, same dishonesty, same race-baiting. And with the same “Chicago” brand.
Very cool all! When I was running for Mayor of Pittsburgh (a Union Democrat enclave) as a Progressive Republican, a real Republican asked me a question I will always remember. I was not sure whether I was a conservative or not since I was doing my best to get the Gay and Lesbian endorsement while simultaneously trying to get a good rating with NRA. In the end NRA was moderately warm and the GLC endorsed me handily. Any way, my true Republican friend asked me what I intended to conserve. After all, he said, if you were a conservative in the Soviet Union you would be a Marxist, whereas in America the true conservative would have to conserve at least the bill of rights. So for all intents and purposes I guess that made me a conservative Libertarian. As in, do as you please so long as you do not infringe on my rights. I of course lost the election by a landslide since the Union lock-step crowd could care less about your character or your philosophy so long as the union boss likes you. Brains ain’t big for union voters.
The point is, Marxists do tend to say things about “rights” that our Cato said “I do not support Locke, who is mostly a rights-based theorist. I question any strong reliance of “rights” because they are largely a fiction of the liberal Enlightenment.” But the thing about Marx is really very simple. Marx hated Locke for his insistence on our inalienable rights and in particular the notion of private property. However, Marx entirely agreed with Locke’s labor theory of value. The value of a commodity is determined by the human labor invested in it not really the scarcity or usefulness of the commodity. What is wonderful about this ironically vitriolic conversation is we universally accept the ultimate classically liberal ideal: The marketplace of ideas must be an open marketplace where the best ideas will ultimately trump the not so good. None of us is saying the sort of Gramsci/Marxist/Platonic nonsense that bad ideas will drive out good ideas. And that is why the illiberal liberals like Reid and Pelosi are so dangerous to Liberal Democracies: They are advocates of censorship in ways that conservatives are not, whether we are libertarian, progressive, republican or downright paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan. If we are conservative Americans we really do conserve at least the First Amendment. Would PC Hillary? Could the Bell Curve have been published if Hillary were the world union Boss???
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.
Someone mentioned the documentary “The Frankfurt School Story” in the other post.
You can request a free copy of this documentary from the paleoconservative CoCC at:
http://www.cofcc.org/feedback/index.htm
It is about the history of the word ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ and how neomarxists invented these words.
Paul —
Thanks for assembling all those quotes.
It’s a great collection of completely inane racist claptrap assembled in one easy to read post. But you forgot to include Cato’s trump card proving the inherent superiority of this point of view: “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.”
Well done! This requires no further comment, because it’s all out there in “black and white” (I mean, “white and purer white”), for all to see.
Someone also mentioned “pure noble blood” and PROUD TO BE WHITE (although actually, it’s more of a pinkish-orange if you want to get technical, unless you’re from Italy then it’s kind of an olive green — but that puts you close to Africa, and well, you can see the problems that arise there) in another post.
You can request a copy of a documentary that further validates your preconceived notions of racial superiority at http://www.imanazimoron.com
It’s about how the Master Race drew from the same well as the True Conservative genetic purists to classify people according to the color of their skin, and pretend that this was what “God wanted them to do”.
By the way, here’s a fun game you can play with friends and family (or kith and kin). Read aloud the comments here and in the previous essay without identifying the author, and see if someone can guess who is making fun of the way some people actually think, and who is actually offering a supposedly serious opinion about what God wants them to do.
the other day i heard some asians talking about how they are going eventually to “wipe out” all the whites. youre right john. all other races do it. it’s about time whites get their act together.
How Racists Matter: Really dumb ideas
Isn’t it amazing that an article that started out making fun of Leftist who use race as a weapon to achieve their political goals has been transformed by comments from certain Enlightened (with a big “E” as we’ve been reminded) people who call themselves Traditional Conservatives into a polemic against every race but European nobility.
And just how do we know that their brand of white’s only Conservatism is the only brand? Here are a couple of quotes that Joseph somehow overlooked.
“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
“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
So, if you disagree with the conclusions reached by the Frankenstein Story, or think that maybe our level of sophistication has progressed a wee bit since Plato’s time, you are disobeying GOD!
You have all been warned. Let not me be the one to lead you astray. Use your own God-given intelligence to do that.
Shawn, way to go buddy!
You allegedly hear a couple of asians say something stupid, so now you want to commit counter-genocide against everyone who isn’t white.
I’m sure the True Conservative Enlightened One’s will welcome the addition of you to their ranks. I sure as hell don’t want you on my side!
Phil,
The point is that many traditional conservatives (paleoconservatives) reject the abstractions of the Enlightenment. They reject Enlightenment “rights theories,” and prefer a tradition modus vivendi of “natural hierarchies.” (To understand ‘natural’, perhaps you should read Thomas Fleming’s _Politics of Human Nature_. )
I am in agreement with folks like TS Eliot and Richard Weaver that Western Civilization made a wrong turn during the Enlightenment and we still have not recovered from it. The very fabric of our civilization is being ripped apart by cancerous abstractions such as “equal rights.”
.
WHO IS DELETING MY POSTS AND WHY?
Editor's note: Certain of John's comments are being deleted because he is using a fake email address and is effectively abusing the forum to contuct a personal argument, rather than debating in a shcolarly manner.
To the general audience: Comments are routed to a moderation cue. They are subject to review and editing or deletion, depending on their content. Everyone should be advised that Dr. Jackson's comments go through the same process, and have been edited on occasion. If your comments do not post to the site immediately, the editor may be unavoidably detained. Please be patient.
Phil, I’m with you. Some of this racist stuff here is just looney tunes now. My concern too is how the Liberal Left has used race in some tremendously dishonest ways. But some of the things here are downright frightening. Conservatism is certainly not race based, unless you intend to conserve some pretty wicked nonsense. After all I am pretty sure the genocide in Darfur is at least a smidgen race based as in these are murderous Arab Muslims who are systematically killing Africans in order to conserve their own hate filled ideologies. Yes, the Bell Curve looks at the relationship between IQ and race in the American Social Services Industry, but the value of the book is that it allows a genuine dialectic to occur, not that this is simply true. Rather it suggests that IQ measurements themselves may be faulty, yet the psychobabble community attempts to retain the validity IQ since it is their bread and butter. Had the Bell Curve not been written Psycho-profiteers would not have been forced to become skeptical of some of their own axioms. Oh, I think the notion of being proud to be white is perverse, like being proud to have big ears or a small nose, I would rather be proud to be a man of good character developed over a life time of courage in response to wickedness. Proud to be virtuous seems to me more apt than proud merely to be white.
No Cato, the fact is that while you invoke the names of Plato, Aristotle, Eliot, Locke and others — not to mention God — to argue a supposedly principled position, the people you actually attract to your point of view are individuals like
** Shawn, who wants to join the battle against all Asians because he allegedly heard a couple of idiots say something derogatory about whites, or
** John, who wants to “promote white interests”, or
** Chris or Nicholas who want to keep the races segregated, or
** Paul Joseph who thinks he’s doing you a favor by assembling all this tripe into one easy to read post where people can look at this in the true light it deserves.
There’s a half dozen more who came out of the woodwork too, including “Sir Anthony”, who I’m sure is attracted to your philosophy because he’s given it a lot of critical, independent thought; the fact that it keeps the lower classes in place is just a coincidental side benefit.
These people aren’t interested in the hallowed past. Like you they’re looking for a good-sounding excuse to justify their bigotry. “Hey man, all the blacks and Asians and Persians are uniting against the white race. We gotta do something about that!” Who the hell but a person consumed by race talks about PERSIANS in 2006?
You, in particular, are the worst kind of self-promoting, self-proclaiming, racially superior human being who can barely conceal his contempt for “an inferior blood line” because you have “DNA proof” that your “genealogy [goes] back to the 14th Century Europe, tied to noble homes.” Well, I don’t have a clue who my ancestors were beyond a generation or two, and I don’t really care. I judge a person on the basis of who and what they are, not whether Herr Frikengruber has made sure I’ve got all the Jew or Negro blood out of me thanks to the “one drop rule” you so articulately explained.
You and the other whack jobs who want to hijack conservatism mask your true motives in a reverence for “tradition”, but the truth is you’ve been completely exposed by your own words, and the publicly stated intentions of those who are attracted to your genetically-pure view of politics and history. Well, I may be a mongrel with an inferior blood line, but I’ve been smart enough to let you and your fellow brown shirts just go ahead and make my case for me.
You’re an embarrassment, but a self-made embarrassment. I’m proud to accept any scorn or insults to my inferior bloodline or inadequate education you care to heap on me, because it only puts me farther away from you and the other seething racists who pass themselves off as Enlightened human beings.
Please, please, please keep on writing and telling us all how your tradition-bound, philosophically-proven, God-inspired world view should be adopted by the rest of humanity. Or just the color or colors that matter.
I too agree with you Phil, that we are so fortunate to have so many people’s opinions from which to draw from.
“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.”
I’d like to point out about this comment, if you have or are now working for the government; Dr. King, if still alive would be saddened since his children are being judge by the color of their skin and it’s called Diversity, not Affirmative Action anymore.
This is a program sought after by minorities and instituted upon their behalf to completely ignore the content of their character.
I work for the government going on 16 years now, and I can tell you Affirmative Action is still alive and well although it lives under the new politically correct term “Diversity” it is none the less the same old duck.
When your Equal Employment Opportunity section is completely staffed by minorities; what part of Equal does that send the rest of us crackers (to borrow the term we are called down here in Georgia if you’re white)?
The racial slur Cracker(s) or Cracka(s) is a stupid word that means little to me unless the crackers have Oysters, hot sauce, horseradish, and a splash of lemon on top of them! I suppose now I’ll have to call them Saltines since cracker is a racial slur.
Phil
I look forward to the continued reading of your articles and enjoy them immensely.
Carmine, Dave in Georgia, and the others who’ve written me.
You get it. As I’m quite certain most of the people reading these comments do. It’s easy to point out the hypocrisy of the Left, as I’ve done on many occasions. But the true measure of a person’s character is when he can see it on his own side, and expose it for what it really is.
We are not the same kind of self-serving bigots you find on the extreme Left. I’m happy to let the dirty laundry air for the world to see just how perverse these people truly are. It only shows the world that we are not them. We can all either stand up and tell these people, and anyone who’s listening, that we have no more interest in their brand of “True Conservatism” than we do in any of the racist theories on the Left; or we can just allow pseudo-intellectuals with superior blood lines to tell us all what to believe because T.S. Eliot and God told them to.
I’m leaving this commentary now. I’ve said all I need to say on this subject, as well as in the essay on moral relativism I wrote on August 25. I feel like I have to wash my hands every time I acknowledge anything these people say, even if it’s just to illustrate how fundamentally stupid and frightening it truly is.
They can either take over the comments now and educate you all about how to be a good little Conservative, or you can let them know it’s not the way you think things should be. The Left lost its moral compass to the bigotry of its extremists. Now it’s our turn to join that club, or expose these people for who and what they really are.
Regards, Phil Jackson
Phil,
I want to say something up front because I believe it’s the way to best describe my position.
My best friend is black, my wife is bi-racial (half Japanese, half Jewish – she calls herself a Jap Jap). The rest of my friends are mostly non-white.
I myself am mostly a European mutt (Scots-Irish mostly) with a bit of various American Indian tribes (most of us Hillbillies are mixed this way). I have no great education and make no claims of knowledge, but have had a rather experienced life.
I believe telling you what I have is the best way to express that I’m not a White Nationalist and definitely not a Supremest (if you ask me, all people are monkeys). I also believe that God created us all in God’s Own Image – which seems mostly to have been a mistake =).
I wanted to ask you a question that I don’t think you’ve directly answered, but I don’t want to get into the usual cycle that’s gone on during the last two articles (I came from the article that lead to this one – http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/off-to-the-races-the-perplexing-politics-of-political-correctness/#comments ) I don’t like name calling and the like and you do seem to do a lot of that. I think you do that because they’re racist and easy targets and no sensible person would be bothered by your actions, but I believe you are cheapening the debate and playing to their side by the constant use of the word “idiot” and the like. You know it’s immature and that it doesn’t help. When people do that, it just makes them look like they’re avoiding a discussion.
I’m from Appalachia but now live in LA and am a minority here. So here are my questions and they’ve sorta been asked before.
If other races and groups organize to protect their own interests, shouldn’t whites? Isn’t the lack of representation in this manner dangerous to the white group interest? You might say that any group organizing is wrong, but it’s already happened and is the way of things at this point. So isn’t it only prudent that whites organize? Isn’t it time to stop assuming that whites who do so are secretly KKK lovers?
I, Jerrett Farmer, do not believe one is superior in the eyes of God just because of the color of their skin. I, Jerrett Farmer, believe that all of mankind is hopelessly flawed by God, purely for entertainment purposes. I, Jerrett Farmer, believe that whites must organize in a similar manner as other groups have or suffer the fate of any unrepresented minority.
Do you think that whites shouldn’t have a right to organize as a group? If so, how do they protect their own group interests against other groups who have already organized in face of the continually fragmenting landscape of America?
Thank you for your time sir.
shawn and johh – i work in computer programming and i’ve worked with a ton of asians and indians, and it’s amazing how racist they are. they are always talking about how they are racially superior to whites and how one day we’ll be their slaves.
Philosophy 101 begins with logic, not race. Ideas inspire for eternity; skin color does not. Since all known and unknown variables are not known to man, “superiority” talk is silly. Is God white or wise?
God alone is omnipotent and omniscience.
I’m reposting this comment. It was up just a little bit ago, but then it just got deleted and I don’t know why.
Phil,
I want to say something up front because I believe it’s the way to best describe my position.
My best friend is black, my wife is bi-racial (half Japanese, half Jewish – she calls herself a Jap Jap). The rest of my friends are mostly non-white.
I myself am mostly a European mutt (Scots-Irish mostly) with a bit of various American Indian tribes (most of us Hillbillies are mixed this way). I have no great education and make no claims of knowledge, but have had a rather experienced life.
I believe telling you what I have is the best way to express that I’m not a White Nationalist and definitely not a Supremest (if you ask me, all people are monkeys). I also believe that God created us all in God’s Own Image – which seems mostly to have been a mistake =).
I wanted to ask you a question that I don’t think you’ve directly answered, but I don’t want to get into the usual cycle that’s gone on during the last two articles (I came from the article that lead to this one – http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/off-to-the-races-the-perplexing-politics-of-political-correctness/#comments ) I don’t like name calling and the like and you do seem to do a lot of that. I think you do that because they’re racist and easy targets and no sensible person would be bothered by your actions, but I believe you are cheapening the debate and playing to their side by the constant use of the word “idiot” and the like. You know it’s immature and that it doesn’t help. When people do that, it just makes them look like they’re avoiding a discussion.
I’m from Appalachia but now live in LA and am a minority here. So here are my questions and they’ve sorta been asked before.
If other races and groups organize to protect their own interests, shouldn’t whites? Isn’t the lack of representation in this manner dangerous to the white group interest? You might say that any group organizing is wrong, but it’s already happened and is the way of things at this point. So isn’t it only prudent that whites organize? Isn’t it time to stop assuming that whites who do so are secretly KKK lovers?
I, Jerrett Farmer, do not believe one is superior in the eyes of God just because of the color of their skin. I, Jerrett Farmer, believe that all of mankind is hopelessly flawed by God, purely for entertainment purposes. I, Jerrett Farmer, believe that whites must organize in a similar manner as other groups have or suffer the fate of any unrepresented minority.
Do you think that whites shouldn’t have a right to organize as a group? If so, how do they protect their own group interests against other groups who have already organized in face of the continually fragmenting landscape of America?
Thank you for your time sir.
You posted that you were leaving this board right after my post was deleted.
I would really like an answer to the question Please? Or at least a “why” to why you won’t answer.
Is it really that extreme of an idea?
I’m really curious to how you feel. I’ve enjoyed your articles and thought you would be a great person to ask.
Mr. Farmer:
I’m not sure what your question was. Feel free to send me an email, and if it’s on-point I’ll be happy to reply.
Phil
OK, here is my group of questions which is really one -
Since whites are becoming a minority, and are already in many places now, shouldn’t whites have group representation like other groups in America? THIS IS THE QUESTION I”M ASKING
Maybe these other questions make my question more clear.
If other races and groups organize to protect their own interests, shouldn’t whites? Isn’t the lack of representation in this manner dangerous to the white group interest? You might say that any group organizing is wrong, but it’s already happened and is the way of things at this point. So isn’t it only prudent that whites organize? Isn’t it time to stop assuming that whites who do so are secretly KKK lovers?
Do you think that whites shouldn’t have a right to organize as a group? If so, how do they protect their own group interests against other groups who have already organized in face of the continually fragmenting landscape of America?
If it’s OK, I would rather have this discussion out in the open. Thank you Mr. Jackson.
This comment is primarily in response to Mr. Farmer's question.
As I grew up in the People's Republic of Berzerkeley, California, I was regularly dosed with ideas originating with people on the extreme political left. One of the statements I constantly encountered was that the people who were racial minorities in 1970 could never be racists because their experiences had taught them to behave otherwise. By the same logic, it was asserted that anyone of European background was a rascist simply because that was the way they were brought up. This, obviously denies the divisive attitudes of activists such as Jesse Jackson, the leadership of MECHA, and many others. It also denies that people are individuals, capable of making individual decisions; it declares them to be automatons, acting on pre-programed information which is just plain wrong.
You ask if white Americans should have group representation. My answer is no, qualified by the statement that no other group should have special group representation, either. When the courts get involved in setting legislative district boundaries, based on racial or ethnic population percentages they are, in my opinion, overstepping the proper bounds of their job. I would vastly prefer to have a computer generate the districts on an arbitrary basis, ignoring all but the size of the population in each district.
The issue you point out is that people are organizing on racial and cultural lines. This is, I believe, a result of the so-called Civil Rights Movement, and the racially divisive politics that followed in its wake. Words of Martin Luther King became the way to promote the antithesis of what he stood for. I have no problem with people who wish to promote their cultural or ethnic backgrounds. When I practiced law in California I assisted a group in forming a European-American cultural group. I charged them a very low rate because I considered them a minority interest in the vast field of other racial and ethnic based organizations.
Just last week I attended forum in Houston where generational demographics were being discussed. The "experts" who had prepared some of the material asserted that America was heading for a color blind society, because the youth had become sufficiently integrated that they were overlooking such things as skin color and were basing their friendships on shared interests and the like. Personally, I believe that this would be a benefit to the nation because it would put the race based poverty pimps out of business. We will have to wait and see what happens.
On a more personal note, I am a European-American mutt, who has dated people from a wide variety of backgrounds, including African. I am married to a woman from Vietnam. I have spent a lot of time in the Vietnamese and Asian communities, and have never found them to be racist. They generally have more against other Asian nationalities than against Europeans. Most are glad to be here, and many are quite patriotic. I have also had some recent experiences with Cuban immigrants who seem to have bridged the color line extremely well.
In short, there are no simple answers bringing instant results. However, if we wait long enough some problems may solve themselves. I believe that this may be one of them.
I just received an email on Yahoo Groups saying this is the place to be.
I was just reading some of the posts here. Phil Jackson, you are dead wrong.
In a forthcoming article, where I interview a Mexican member of La Raza, he says, “The race war is coming. We will reclaim the southwest.”
You see, other races are ganging up on us. As you say, they have “racial identity.”
As I say in other articles and my forthcoming book on immigration:
With a small exception of an upper class of pure European blood in Mexico, the rest of Mexicans are either:
(1) Amerindian
or
(2) “Mixed” (mostly Amerindian with a few drops of polluted Spaniard blood)
I am not saying they are inferior, but they definitely are not European. They definitely are not Western.
The point, as Mr. Farmer says, is that these people have basically declared war on the white race. As Ricky Sierra said, “We will run every single white person out of California.”
Whites basically have no choice but to stand up for themselves. By 2040 whites will be minorities, and as one minority recently said “come 2040, it’ll be payback time.”
I’ll be on the Hannity show in a couple weeks talking about immigration and anti-white racism in America.
William H. Calhoun
Most recent article:
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_13971.shtml
.
This Comment has been removed by the editorial staff because the author was using a fake email address, and for abuse of the comment opportunity.
It’s funny how when real conservatives enter the discussion neocons always want to play the PC trick: let’s censor them.
According to the U.S. Census in 2000:
The term White refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.” It includes people who indicated their race or races as “white” or wrote in entries such as Argentine, Chilean, Irish, German, Russian, Italian, Israeli, Syrian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Polish, Spanish, or Uruguayan.
FROM PHIL JACKSON:
Sir Tony —
I ABSOLUTELY INSIST that everyone go to this website!!
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/09/off_to_the_race.php#comments
If you ever had any doubt about what Cato and his buddies actually mean by “REAL Conservatism” and a “respect for tradition”, I give you Exhibit A. This is exactly what I said they are attempting to hide by their inane “Enlightened” philosophy.
This is exactly what they are — and what they want you to be as well.
“If you go to his discussion (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/the-“true-conservative”-racial-purity-quiz/) you can see that [Phil Jackson] really hates the white race with every breath he takes.”
“This Philip Jackson guy is some left-winger / neocon who thinks that whites should not be proud of their own heritage. He’s a real nutcase from what I can read.”
“This guy (Phil Jackson) thinks that we should be shut down for discussing race at all.”
“Didn’t someone mention a few weeks ago that he or she knew a schoolteacher who was accused of being a racist by one of those screeching project mamas because the classroom world map had on it a country named “Nigeria” whose main river is called the
’Niger’”
“True stories of white male Los Angeles Police Officers persecuted for speech crime by the infamous 400 pound lesbian former chairman of the University of California at Berkely Young Communist club presently California State Assembly monster Jackie Goldberg. … All the women officers who made the complaints were lesbians associated with Jackie Goldberg’s political machine …Thanks be to God Jackie is a lesbian who never adopted so her evil causes will die with her.”
This, ladies and gentlemen, is a practical application of Plato and Aristotle, Eliot and Locke, Kirk and Weaver, and all the other “Traditional” intellectual sources that provide a foundation for believing that God has ordained that you all look at race first and foremost, except when the “one drop rule” lets you have a little impure blood in an otherwise noble bloodline.
You literally can’t make this stuff up!
We are defined by our enemies. And I can’t thank Cato and Sir Tony enough for representing the exact opposite of what I believe.
Phil “the left-wing neocon white race hating” Jackson
Amy,
Up until the 1960s they only considered as “white” those whose ancestors came from Europe. After the 1960s, the PC crowd came into power at the US Census. Since then, they have actively sought “to transform the meaning of white.”
The concept of a “Caucasian race” was first proposed by the German scientist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840). His studies based the classification of the Caucasian race primarily on skull features, which Blumenbach claimed were optimized by the Armenians and Georgians, a people living in the Southern Caucasus. Populations, formerly called “varieties,” are no longer distinguished by Latin names, according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
The reason the Caucasus had such an attraction to Blumenbach and other contemporaries was because of its proximity to Mount Ararat, which is the historical homeland of the Armenians where according to the Biblical account, Noah’s Ark, eventually landed after the flood. Blumenbach believed that the original humans were light-skinned, that the Caucasians had retained this whiteness as a constant, and that darkness of skin was a sign of change from the original. The tribe of Japheth was supposed to have originated in the Caucasus, then spread north and westwards.
Later anthropologists, including William Z. Ripley in 1899 and Carleton Coon in 1957, further expanded upon the classification of the Caucasian race proposed by Blumenbach, and subdivided the group into Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean, and at times Dinaric and Baltic subdivisions. Another 19th century anthropologist, Thomas Huxley, considered the scope of Caucasian to be inaccurate and “absurd”, claiming darker Caucasians such as Western Europeans, Southern Europeans and Middle Easterns were actually hybrids of light-skinned Northern European Caucasians and indigenous dark-skinned Australians.
The term Caucasoid (Caucasian-like) also came into use to encompass a larger grouping of populations with similar skull-shapes, including many North African, South Asian and Middle Eastern peoples. Carleton Coon did not use the term Caucasian and Caucasoid interchangeably. Coon used the term “Caucasian” or “caucasic” to reference the subrace of Caucasoids located around the Caucasus.
Nordicism, the belief that the blond Nordic sub-division constitutes a “master race”, was influential in Northern Europe and the United States during the early twentieth century, eventually becoming the official ideology of the Nazi state. It was used to justify eugenics programs and the persecution and extermination of so-called “inferior” races then living in Europe, such as Jews and Roma. One of these Nordish-supremacists, Richard McCulloch, eventually rejected Caucasoid and Caucasian as having racial meaning because their scope was too expansive. He instead called them a “subspecies”, defining real races to include smaller populations like the Nordish race.
In Europe, usage of the term declined in the 19th century as it did not allow for enough distinctions as required by the new forms of nationalism which were emerging, but in the United States it enjoyed a use which continues to the present. It is currently often used in the US as a general term for “white”, and used by many physical anthropologists to refer to people of European origin. However, the so-called Caucasoids can range from light-”white”-skin (with blond hair and blue eyes) to dark-brown-skin (with black hair and black eyes).
In Canto 30 of Dante’s Inferno, Dante and Virgil come upon two falsifiers; one
a counterfeiter, the other the Greek Sinon, who persuaded the Trojans to
accept the horse. The two fall into an argument, and as Dante follows closely,
Virgil tells him, “if you’re so interested, I’ll quarrel with you!” At the end of the
canto, Virgil explains that to want to hear such a low argument is a base wish.
The sniping between Cato and Phil reminds me of this situation, in that both
have indulged in name-calling worthy of a fifth grade playground. Can
we not have some civility in this disagreement? It is base to want to hear
such a dispute; how much more so to participate?
“You ask if white Americans should have group representation. My answer is no, qualified by the statement that no other group should have special group representation, either…However, if we wait long enough some problems may solve themselves. I believe that this may be one of them.”
I hope from my previous message that you understand that I agree with the spirit of your post, but waiting for a problem to solve itself seems irresponsible and a bit like living by wishful thinking. Not that I don’t practice this lifestyle, but it’s rather risky in this situation, especially considering the scope.
I just get so depressed because I see this situation ending badly because so few people will treat the environment honestly. Everyone is so afraid of race, because they can lose their career and good name if they discuss the subject (I’m using my real name to show that I care enough to take a risk). People either scream “Racist” or “Marxist” and then proceed to debating tactics. No one will answer even the simplest questions. You know like…
If other groups organize shouldn’t whites since they’re becoming a minority and already are in some places?
You guys should think of segregation along these lines (the way that Kirk phrased it back in the 1960s):
(1) Do communities have the right to self-determination, to decide what kind of community they want, with what kind of people they what to live?
or
(2) does Big Brother have the right to tell them how they ought to live (mandatory codes, busing, etc.)
#1 is the conservative position. That is where I side.
.
Dave in Georgia,
Someone posted this story somehwere else on here, but you should read it. MLK was definitely a left-wing radical.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html
.
The way I see it is that all the other races are promoting their racial interests, as someone says above.
Whites have been trained by PC goons not to promote their interests.
If all other races promote their interests, but whites do not, you might as well put the white man on the endangered species list.
Phillip,
For the record, I am not a racist. I am a neoconservative.
But you seem to want to brush under the rug anything you find offensive.
The fact of the matter is that the first generation of conservatives in America (those you cite: Eliot, Kirk, Weaver) were racists. All 3 supported segregation. All 3 were anti-semetic. You can find dozens of articles on this.
I am willing admit that the first conservatives were racist.
BUT we have moved beyond this. That is why we now have neoconservatism.
William you say:
“With a small exception of an upper class of pure European blood in Mexico, the rest of Mexicans are either:
(1) Amerindian
or
(2) “Mixed” (mostly Amerindian with a few drops of polluted Spaniard blood)
I am not saying they are inferior, but they definitely are not European. They definitely are not Western.”
I didn’t know that. But I just looked it up and it is in fact true (CIA World Factbook). The US Census then should call them “Asiatic.” That would be the proper term.
Before I start: I am not racist. I am a moderate republican. I am writing my dissertation in political science on “race relations.”
There have been a ton of studies on “racial identity” and it is very strong among non-whites.
BUT these studies also show that the more whites become the minority, the stronger white racial identity will be.
Today racial identity among whites is stronger than it was in the 1960s / 1970s. And when whites become the minority in 2030 – 2045, the identity will be very strong.
I am not saying this for hyperbole, but there really are a ton of non-whites looking forward to “the year” (2040?) when it will be “payback time.”
Some racial identity among whites might actually be a healthy thing.
If you want to write me, go ahead: thomasincali009
Regarding race and philosophers, I just dug up these quotes by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant:
– “strong smell of the Negro which cannot be avoided through any hygiene”
– “the Negro is strong, fleshy, agile, but under the rich supply of his motherland, lazy, indolent, and dallying”
– miscegenation “gradually extinguishes the characters, and is, despite any pretended philanthropy, not beneficial to mankind”
All of these Kantian quotes can be found at:
http://www.yorku.ca/tteo/teach/Teo1999b.htm