Our Second Annual Appalachia Clothing Drive was one of our most productive and enjoyable get-togethers this year! American Freedom Party (AFP) is very enthusiastic about the growth in membership, donations and public recognition that the party has received recently.
Leaders began by discussing our local level activism for 2013, which included demonstrations against the illegal alien invasion; tabling at events such as the NPI Conference 2013 in Washington; Freedompalooza 2013 in Pennsylvania; campaigning for AFP candidates running for national office; and hosting meetings featuring National AFP Board members.
We also discussed a number of state efforts by AFP members this year. Highlights included formation of new chapters in the mid-West and West Coast, and the 4th of July Conference in Southern California. Our European representative, Dr. Tom Sunic, has been tirelessly touring and speaking on behalf of American Freedom Party throughout Europe.
Most importantly, we focused on upcoming chapter projects for 2014. We discussed potential candidates for local and national level office, and identified upcoming implicitly white events (ethnic festivals, exhibitions, concerts, sports) where we will be effectively promoting the Party.
Following the business meeting, members met up at a nearby pub for fine food and drink. The chapter collected numerous articles of winter clothing which we donated to the needy in nearby Appalachia. We encourage others to do likewise during this blistering winter.
We anticipate that 2014 will prove to be a banner year for AFP and renew the focus on issues concerning European-Americans here in America. Have a very Merry Christmas and we look forward to getting back to work with everyone in the New Year!
Correct. And someone who comes across as busy may actually be busy doing useful work.
Or they may just be coming across that way.
Yes, but that’s different than saying that anytime someone picks up a broom, they’re just trying to look busy. They might actually be trying to clean the floor.
Ever hear the expression “pick up a broom and look busy”?
The person with the broom comes across as doing useful work, but is actually just wasting time and accomplishing nothing.
But the appearance impacts how that person is treated.
“I believe that when someone says “any criticism of [so-and-so] comes across as racist”, that person is clearly trying to prevent any criticism of [so-and-so] by basically calling any potential critic a racist. They are trying to insulate [so-and-so] from criticism. At the same time, they are using the weaselly phrase “comes across”, so that if someone points out how ridiculous their argument is, instead of having to defend it, they can just claim that they weren’t “really” calling them a racist.
Basically, the whole thing is an attempt to dodge debate by intimidating your opponents into silencing themselves. Or at least it “comes across” that way.”
Well that was never my intention, but I get what you’re saying.
Jill, you make an excellent point. In fact, what you’re talking about (with regard to both Obama on the left and Israel on the right) is exactly the type of debate-stifling intimidation tactics that I am talking about. Why can’t people just refute arguments with logic, rather than trying to smear their opponents with personal attacks?
I believe that when someone says “any criticism of [so-and-so] comes across as racist”, that person is clearly trying to prevent any criticism of [so-and-so] by basically calling any potential critic a racist. They are trying to insulate [so-and-so] from criticism. At the same time, they are using the weaselly phrase “comes across”, so that if someone points out how ridiculous their argument is, instead of having to defend it, they can just claim that they weren’t “really” calling them a racist.
Basically, the whole thing is an attempt to dodge debate by intimidating your opponents into silencing themselves. Or at least it “comes across” that way.
I said that criticisms of Mandela come across as racist to me. In other words, that’s what triggers in my brain. If this in any way offends you, I am sorry, but I’m being honest. Perception is something that candidates & party representatives must be mindful of, especially when they’re using social media to promote their cause. That actually is the point I was trying to make.
This conversation reminds of the irony of the right who complains that they’re called racist if they criticize Obama, yet many of them call people anti-Semites if we criticize Israel at all, or even dare ask that the US quit giving them money.
So you believe there is no such as inadvertantly creating an impression?
Paulie, surely you’re not stupid enough to believe that you can freely hurl outrageous insults at people as long as you preface them with a thin veneer of semantic deniability. Or maybe you wouldn’t be offended by the suggestion that Jews merely “come across” as greedy parasites.
Yes.
No, I didn’t. I’m saying it comes across as racist.
Actually, what you said was:
It doesn’t matter how valid your criticisms, how well you make your point, you come off as racist. I see it with Mandela, any criticism comes across as WAY racist to me.
I criticized Mandela. Therefore I “come across” as a racist, right? And that’s somehow different than saying that I am actually a racist?
Using that standard, if I said that all gay people “come across” as child molesters, that would be different from saying that they are actually child molesters, right? And you wouldn’t be offended by that statement, since it’s just “perception” and not reality, right?
Face it. You made a ridiculous argument, I called you out on it, and now you’re furiously trying to find some way to spin your way out of it. You’d be better off to just admit your mistake and move on, because this semantic backpedalling is just making you look even worse.
If the shoe fits.
Throwing around the term ‘racist’ does not progress any argument. It is a sad reflection of our society when buzzwords like ‘racist’ and ‘homophobic’ can be used to chill speech. Anyone using these buzzwords to challenge one’s arguments should immediately be called out for arguing on the bottom of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement.
That any argument remotely related to something cast as ‘racist’ or ‘homophobic’ is perceived to be a great evil, is fueled by a lazy media and inadequate public education system. Rather than simply showing racism as the logical fallacy it is, schools teach that racism is an evil worse than most (if not all) crimes. The media perpetuates this standard. It doesn’t hurt Chris Brown’s popularity when he violently beats up his girlfriend, but when Paula Deen reveals she used the term ‘nigger’ in the 1970s, she becomes the worst person in the world.
This perception is a major impediment to free speech. To preserve liberty, it must somehow be defeated rhetorically.
Root’s Teeth Are Awesome (awesome name BTW)
If your goal is to be an activist, then you’re absolutely right.
If your goal is to be a politician, a leader, a representative of a political party, then no, your goal is to promote your ideas in a way that makes them appealing to the largest number of voters, and to try to be as unoffensive as possible.
So the Constitution Party (and other parties) should ask itself: Are we a group of activists, or are we a political party?
“Given that you accused me of being a racist, on the basis of nothing other than some preposterous theory that is a textbook example of logical fallacy, I don’t think I owe you any courtesy.”
No, I didn’t. I’m saying it comes across as racist. We’re talking about perception. I never accused you of being racist, I have no idea what’s in your heart, but when I see a criticism of Mandela that’s the first thing that pops into my brain instinctively.
There are lots of facts. Which ones you choose to emphasize communicates something about you, and sometimes that something paints an inaccurate picture. Again, see Hunter’s article I linked earlier for much more about that.
Ziggler: >> My reference to the Constitution Party bashing Nelson Mandela, is because they were saying the same things as the American Nazi Party. Sometimes word for word. It doesn’t matter what they intended, they cast themselves in the same light as true, genuine racists. <> being anti-Zionist will make you appear anti-Semitic to many, <<
So we should never criticize Israel, lest we sound anti-Semitic?
Should we also never criticize Hamas, lest we sound Islamophobic (as undoubtedly we would "to many").
Why not just state facts, and be damned with how that sounds "to many"? Because if you're worried about how you might sound "to many" lest you lose their votes, you'll never achieve anything truly radical anyway.
Sometimes you must offend, and lose some support in the short term, to change minds in the long term.
I have never once questioned your intelligence, I’d ask you extend the same courtesy to me.
Given that you accused me of being a racist, on the basis of nothing other than some preposterous theory that is a textbook example of logical fallacy, I don’t think I owe you any courtesy.
“So if you agree with a racist about anything, that automatically makes you come off as a racist? You can’t be serious. Most racists criticize Obama. Does that mean that a libertarian who criticizes Obama also comes off as racist? Hell, most racists would tell you that 2 + 2 = 4. If you agree with that, does that make you seem racist? This argument is beyond silly, and if you really think this way, it makes me seriously question not only your understanding of libertarianism, but your intelligence in general.”
No, but certain things will make you seem racist, no matter how you frame your argument. Just as being anti-Zionist will make you appear anti-Semitic to many, and being anti-gay marriage will make you seem homophobic to many. You’re taking the same side on a racial issue as a racist group, or impugning the record of an important figure in civil rights history, just as racist groups do.
I have never once questioned your intelligence, I’d ask you extend the same courtesy to me.
Now as for the AFP, they bash Mandela a lot, have nothing bad to say about the apartheid regime and probably think it did not go far enough and should be reinstated, and most likely want to bring bac both the CSA and nazi Germany if they could. And of course they are racists or “racialists” or whatever. But we agree there, I’m sure.
Absolutely. That was actually the point of my original comment, before the Mandela debate got started. By using the word “Freedom”, instead of, say, “Fascist”, the AFP gives genuinely pro-freedom organizations a bad name.
Actually, if they are looking for a new name, I would suggest calling themselves the Caucasian Racial Advancement Party. It even makes for a nice (and appropriate) acronym.
Only on IPR can an article about giving warm winter clothing to those in need evolve into a pontificating seminar on how libertarians are the most anti-apartheid people on earth. Add in a little name calling and all is well this Christmas season.
It can’t simply be assumed that general audiences presume we oppose slavery and apartheid.
That’s true, and we should probably be more careful about how we speak to non-libertarians. Here on IPR, though, most of the regulars are libertarians, and even most of the non-libertarians are pretty familiar with libertarian philosophy, so I don’t think the disclaimers are as necessary.
Also, there’s a big difference between Mandela and Lincoln. Lincoln was an admitted racist who stated on numerous occasions that he didn’t really care about slavery one way or the other, but rather, that his only goal was to preserve the Union, i.e. to maximize the territory under his control. There was absolutely nothing libertarian about Lincoln whatsoever.
Root was rightfully criticized for calling himself a “Reagan Libertarian”, whatever the hell that’s supposed to be, but the idea of a “Lincoln Libertarian” is even more ridiculous. From a libertarian perspective, Reagan was arguably one of the 10 worst presidents ever, but Lincoln was unarguably one of the 3 worst ever (along with Wilson and FDR). If the LP is going to shy away from criticizing Lincoln, they might as well just fold up shop.
Criticisms of Nelson Mandela do come off as racist, no matter how you frame it. Same with criticizing Lincoln. It doesn’t matter how valid your criticisms, how well you make your point, you come off as racist. I see it with Mandela, any criticism comes across as WAY racist to me. Why? Because racists make the same arguments! They say the same things! I’m sorry if that bothers you, but it is the truth.
So if you agree with a racist about anything, that automatically makes you come off as a racist? You can’t be serious. Most racists criticize Obama. Does that mean that a libertarian who criticizes Obama also comes off as racist? Hell, most racists would tell you that 2 + 2 = 4. If you agree with that, does that make you seem racist? This argument is beyond silly, and if you really think this way, it makes me seriously question not only your understanding of libertarianism, but your intelligence in general.
There are valid criticisms of Mandela and Lincoln. Especially Lincoln; at least Mandela averted a bloody civil war while Lincoln plunged right in. But they have to be tempered by acknowledging that ending slavery and apartheid were important steps, even if we disagree with some of how it was done or what came next. It can’t simply be assumed that general audiences presume we oppose slavery and apartheid. If we only ever criticize those who ended those they can certainly get the wrong idea. All too often, libertarians, conservatives and constitutionalists ignore perception in this regard. And that’s not good. Jack Hunter’s article touches on these themes well.
Criticisms of Nelson Mandela do come off as racist, no matter how you frame it. Same with criticizing Lincoln. It doesn’t matter how valid your criticisms, how well you make your point, you come off as racist. I see it with Mandela, any criticism comes across as WAY racist to me. Why? Because racists make the same arguments! They say the same things! I’m sorry if that bothers you, but it is the truth.
My reference to the Constitution Party bashing Nelson Mandela, is because they were saying the same things as the American Nazi Party. Sometimes word for word. It doesn’t matter what they intended, they cast themselves in the same light as true, genuine racists. In politics, that’s a big no-no.
As far as my personal views of Mandela, he’s a hero in my eyes. Not perfect, no one is. But he did end apartheid and peacefully unified a country. I’m sorry but that’s all that matters to me. Everything else would be a legitimate criticism if the man had just been another politician, but he wasn’t.
Nothing like that was obvious to me. It is probably meant as an insult by the people who call them that, though.
Sometimes it’s just a matter of what you choose to emphasize or how you phrase things.
If you choose to only focus on the bad things about Mandela and ignore the good, and choose to make it a prominent issue, and don’t say anything bad about the prior regime because you think it’s already obvious, that can paint a certain picture. Whether you mean it to or not. If you are then at the same time spending a lot of time criticizing Lincoln and American involvement in WWII that reinforces it further (even though I agree with you about both wars). Then if at the same time you say nothing bad about the CSA and the nazis it doesn’t help.
Now as for the AFP, they bash Mandela a lot, have nothing bad to say about the apartheid regime and probably think it did not go far enough and should be reinstated, and most likely want to bring bac both the CSA and nazi Germany if they could. And of course they are racists or “racialists” or whatever. But we agree there, I’m sure.
I am willing to bet their beef with Mandela is not that he was not a libertarian. I am sure we would agree on that too.
So like I said, a matter of emphasis.
Is it possible to say someone asked a pertinent question without being eager to praise them?
OK, “praise” was probably the wrong word. I should have said that he seems eager to “defend” Gingrich and others who “praise” Mandela. But my basic point remains that, overall, the gist of the article seems to be that being “sensitive” is more important than being correct. After all, saying “well, the Founding Fathers did bad stuff too” is not much of an argument, particularly to those of us who don’t hold most of the Founding Fathers in very high regard.
Saying that some people are mischaracterized as anarchists does not mean anarchist is an epithet…
No, and it is technically true that most Tea Partiers aren’t anarchists, but I think it’s pretty obvious that the author believes that calling them anarchists is not only inaccurate, but also insulting.
Where did I say that any or all of the articles do or do not refute any claims made by you?
Fair enough. I incorrectly assumed you were responding to my previous comment, although given the back-and-forth nature of the previous few comments, I don’t think it was a particularly unreasonable assumption, but if it was, I apologize.
I thought Hunter made some good points there in how various types of rhetoric project or reinforce a certain image, often completely unintentionally.
That’s probably true, although I don’t really see an alternative. Should libertarians refrain from discussing certain issues, or water down our message, simply to avoid stepping on anyone’s toes? Should we avoid criticizing Lincoln, for fear of coming off as “neo-Confederates”? Should we refuse to question American involvement in World War II, for fear of coming off as Nazi sympathizers?
The only other alternative would be to preface every comment with a lengthy disclaimer. In this case, I could have prefaced my comment about Mandela by saying that apartheid is obviously a massive violation of libertarian principles, although that really seems unnecessary, since anyone who is even remotely familiar with libertarianism should already realize that.
I just said that the articles are worth reading. I hope that people who are reading this discussion take the opportunity to do so. I think they put things in perspective, which does not happen when you pull out just one part of an article. Where did I say that any or all of the articles do or do not refute any claims made by you?
Does the sun revolve around your navel as well? Did I mention you or anything you said at all, much less say you are racist?
I said Off the topic of Mandela, but related to the way we discuss it:…. There’s something about how many of us often come off, often without meaning to.
I thought Hunter made some good points there in how various types of rhetoric project or reinforce a certain image, often completely unintentionally.
Whether that related to anything what you said or not, people can make their own determinations.
I don’t know how you drew that conclusion. The quote was After former House Speaker Newt Gingrich received hostile reactions to a personal statement he made expressing his condolences to South Africans and Mandela’s family following Mandela’s death he wrote a response in which he addressed Mandela’s connections to communism and armed struggle. In the statement, Gingrich rightly asks those who criticize Mandela’s actions before his imprisonment on Robben Island to consider not only how they would have acted in the same situation but also how some of the Founding Fathers behaved in response to British tyranny.
So the author believes Gingrich asked a pertinent question there. Is it possible to say someone asked a pertinent question without being eager to praise them?
Compare with the actual quote:
“Too often prominent political figures are lazily characterized both during their lives and after their deaths, whether it is calling Obama a “socialist,” Thatcher a “fascist,” or Tea Partiers “anarchists.” It’s a shame to see Mandela, a praiseworthy as well as imperfect man, being given similar treatment.”
Saying that some people are mischaracterized as anarchists does not mean anarchist is an epithet, although it is to some people.
Trent, I guess your list of “libertarian heroes” is much longer than mine, as it apparently includes anyone who has ever done anything good of any significance, or even anyone who has avoided doing something really bad, like starting a race war.
The military draft was really bad, and getting rid of it was certainly a good thing. Does that mean that Nixon also makes your list of libertarian heroes?
Paulie, I find the first article hard to take seriously, given not only the author’s apparent eagerness to praise Newt Gingrich, but also to imply that “anarchist” is an epithet on par with “socialist” and “fascist”. In short, he seems to be a typical Beltway “libertarian” who is more concerned with being “respectable” than with being right.
As for the Richman article, he makes some good points, as he often does, but I don’t see how he refutes my claim. In fact, he actually supports it, particularly in the last paragraph, when he says, “[Mandela] … and his movement were not nearly radical enough, because although they eliminated apartheid, they left in place a government powerful enough to control the economic system to the detriment of working people.” Does that sound like the actions of a libertarian hero to you?
Finally, while the Hunter article is interesting, I don’t see how it relates to what I said, unless you’re implying that my criticism of Mandela is motivated by racism. If so, that’s preposterous, and doesn’t deserve to be dignified with a response. I would have expected better from you, although maybe I shouldn’t have, given your previous attempt to imply that my opposition to any government involvement in marriage was somehow motivated by homophobia. Is this your default response to people who disagree with you, to smear them as bigots?
Off the topic of Mandela, but related to the way we discuss it:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/confessions-of-right-wing-shock-jock-jack-hunter-100261.html
I recommend reading all three pages. There’s something about how many of us often come off, often without meaning to.
Mandela wasn’t perfect, by any stretch, but he was a hero by pretty much any libertarian view of the world. It was within his power to start a race-war, either before or after becoming president and instead he sought to bring his country together in a way that did not rely on government for racial harmony, but on treating humans decently. He wasn’t Ghandi or Alec Reid, but he was pretty damned close.
See: http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/10/chinese-and-vietnamese-communists-helped
Chinese and Vietnamese Communists Helped Persuade Mandela To Liberalize Markets
http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/12/mandela-wasnt-radical-enough
Both worth reading IMO, and not just for the headlines.
True, but I didn’t say he was a devil. I merely said that he should not be considered a hero by libertarians, and I stand by that claim. The ultimate test of any revolutionary is what they do when their revolution succeeds, and they assume control of the tyrannical apparatus they once opposed. Do they choose to reduce its size and power, or simply to redirect it to their own ends? By that measure, Mandela was basically just another politician, and therefore no hero.
A balanced view of Mandela is best. He was neither angel nor devil.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t have much problem with people bashing Mandela. Sure, he did a few good things, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
If libertarians (and other opponents of the duopoly) are looking for heroes, I suggest people like Assange, Manning, Snowden, etc., rather than power-seeking sellouts like Mandela.
I don’t see much difference. They’ve always said they’re promoting the interests of white-Americans, but insist they’re not racists, and in fact call their detractors racist. They put out blatantly anti-Semitic material disguised as “Anti-Zionist”, yet claim they’re nothing at all like the Nazis.
To be fair to them, at least they weren’t all over Twitter bashing Nelson Mandela like the Constitution Party & its affiliates.
We discussed potential candidates for local and national level office, and identified upcoming implicitly white events …
At least they’re no longer trying to hide their true agenda. Now if they would just replace the word “freedom” with something more accurate … maybe “fascist” …
Yeah, that’s better.