Chuck Baldwin has penned another article critical of the two major-party candidates for their immigration views. Baldwin speaks scathingly about La Raza, an immigration group that he accuses of racism.
La Raza sponsors militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal grants). La Raza thrives on ethnic supremacy–and the elite’s unwillingness to call it what it is. As historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: “[The] organization’s very nomenclature ‘The National Council of La Raza’ is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of ‘race’ in Spanish, not ‘the people’–and that’s precisely why we don’t hear of something like ‘The National Council of the People,’ which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism.”
Baldwin goes on to clearly establish what he says is the “real battle”. Between Americans and globalists, over issues of sovereignty.
The real battle today is between Americans and globalists. Between those who believe in constitutional government, national sovereignty and independence, secure borders, and putting America first, and those who want to merge the United States into some kind of global New World Order.
As I said, John McCain and Barack Obama are globalists. And their pandering before an anti-American, racist organization such as La Raza proves it.
The whole article.
“One can state nothing but facts and still tell a lie. Like the little kid who is late for supper because his watch stopped but who neglects to mentioned that he stopped it himself so he would have an excuse. “My watch stopped” is a fact, but he is still telling a lie.”
That is the biggest pile of cow dung I’ve ever heard. “A watch stopped” is not remotely close to “he stopped it himself.” It is clear that the use of the words “it stopped” is to imply that an outside source beyond the little boy’s control stopped it – THERFORE, he shouldn’t be held responsible.
“My apologies. This kind of thing has me seeing Red.”
Apology accepted. I know from experience that when you’re arguing with 2 different people about the same thing, it’s sometimes hard to keep their arguments straight.
I guess what irritated me was that groups like the SPLC often respond to criticism by labelling their critics as bigots and/or apologists for bigotry. It seemed like that’s what you were doing, and that type of thing really drives me crazy, since it stifles a free exchange of ideas.
Anyway, it seems more like a misunderstanding than anything else. No hard feelings.
but given the number of false accusations (both explicit and implicit) that the normally logical Paulie has hurled at me in this thread,
My apologies. This kind of thing has me seeing Red.
Show me ONE SINGLE PLACE where I’ve made any of those claims. It’s hard for me to “keep†doing something that I’ve NEVER done.
You’re right, you haven’t. The thing that had me thinking that was where you were going is that you started blasting the SPLC rather than addressing the facts they brought up about the Cesspool, which is the only reason why I quoted them to start.
The question was that Red was (and apparently still is) disputing that the Cesspool is a racist show – I’m assuming he was trying to say more than that it is not technically owned by the CofCC.
SPLC has much evidence to the contrary. I don’t care if it was the Socialist Workers Party website, if the facts in their piece on Edwards are true, he is absolutely 100% without a doubt a hardcore racist.
pauli, this is just the kind of sloppy use of language that discredits the whole enterprise.
Paulie (with an e).
As far as I know, Kevin MacDonald has said very little about “whites.†He is criticized for writing about Jews. Even if he were a partisan for white ethnic interests, that wouldn’t make him a “supremacist.â€
Point taken. He’s a white separatist; I’m not sure if he is a supremacist. See the quote about a white ethnostate.
I don’t care how many times you have lunch with Michael Hill or how many neo-confederate rallies you attend. Until I hear you make a racist statement, I won’t label you as a bigot. However, if you keep quoting the SPLC to try to support your arguments, I might have to start labelling you as gullible.
Like it or not, they are the ones that document this stuff exhaustively. Yes, they do overreach and paint with too broad a brush. As I said, there’s associations and then there’s associations.
But, as I said with the issue of inherent racial differences, (did you ever read that reply?) whether Jews on average behave in a certain way is an at least somewhat empirical question.
Sorry, no. I had limited computer access, and don’t remember what thread it was in anymore. Would you repost it or provide a link?
Besides, Paulie has apparently run out of red herrings and decided to throw in the towel, so I’m going to bed.
Um, you aren’t the only one who needs sleep.
Sorry for lumping you in unfairly. My mistake.
And, as I said, I’m not a Dees fan. For one thing, he has been sued for discriminating in his own office. Talk about hypocrisy.
I brought up the SPLC article on the Cesspool because it contained a lot of evidence, including direct quotes. Not because of who wrote it, not to defend everything else they write.
I don’t place any faith in the SPLC and never said I did.
My or your faithlessness in them doesn’t justify stretching the truth in an effort to defame them, as both you and especially Red have done.
The article (“Kosovo and the Far Right”) that Raimondo unsuccessfully attempts to link to can be found here:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=355
I could keep digging these up all night, but what’s the point? If, after reading all these articles, you still place any faith in the crooks at the SPLC, you’re probably beyond hope.
Besides, Paulie has apparently run out of red herrings and decided to throw in the towel, so I’m going to bed.
Scroll down to the middle of the page to see Justin Raimondo’s thoughts on the SPLC:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j062399.html
Here they state that “…Lincoln-bashing has the same roots as other white supremacist campaigns…”:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=52
They paint a portrait of all opponents of Lincoln as neo-confederates who long for the days of slavery.
No mention of the fact that Rothbard was Jewish (as was Mises), nor of the fact that Rothbard supported the Black Panther Party (which the SPLC also categorizes as a “hate group,” so that wouldn’t be helpful, I guess).
Here’s another article (see Page 2) where the SPLC “implies” that Rothbard was a bigot:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=50
Again, for those who have problems with reading comprehension, I DO NOT support the sexist and anti-semitic views that the SPLC ascribes to Rothbard.
The LvMI is not “neo-confederate” and the SPLC’s assertion that they are deserves condemnation.
But the SPLC does NOT say the LvMI is a “racist, white supremacist” group and does NOT classify it as a “hate group” in their index thereof.
Again, you’re making the exact same kind of leap that the SPLC does.
GE,
But what evidence do they present for the claim that LVMI is “neo-confederate” other than their association with the LOS?
If that association is presumed to transfer the “neo-confederacy” of the LOS to LVMI, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that the racism and white supremacy “rub off” as well?
Of course, SPLC doesn’t explicitly say that. That would leave them open to defamation suits. Dees, a lawyer, understands this full well. He makes a lot of money off similar suits against others. So instead, the SPLC just strongly implies their slanderous claims, leaving them immune from prosecution. That’s how they roll.
Again, as a disclaimer, just so there’s no “misunderstanding”: I don’t believe in slander and defamation laws, but that’s irrelevant to the argument that I’m making.
I should probably clarify that I in no way support identity politics of any shape, form, or fashion, and I obviously don’t condone the glorification or celebration of slavery, the CSA, or any other coercive institution or practice.
Ordinarily, I wouldn’t think these kind of disclaimers would be necessary, but given the number of false accusations (both explicit and implicit) that the normally logical Paulie has hurled at me in this thread, I guess I’ll have to start spelling everything out, so as to leave no room for interpretation.
langa – The fact of the matter is that they do not say “the Ludwig von Mises Institute is a racist, white supremacist, neo-confederate group” as you clearly implied they did in comment #73.
They do say they’re “neo-confederate” by their inclusion in the article.
But the leaps you make are no less audacious than the leaps you (and Red) accuse the SPLC of making.
This is like the ultimate case of the (presumably white) pot calling the kettle black.
First, the article is called “The Neo-Confederates”. It’s a list of “neo-confederate groups”. Furthermore, they repeatedly denounce the LOS as “racist” and “white supremacist” (which may well be true). Finally, their reason for including LvMI on the list appears to be solely due to their alleged affiliation with the LOS. Thus, they imply that LvMI is “racist” and”white supremacist”. I’ll admit it’s poor logic, but this is precisely the type of “guilt by association” that characterizes virtually every article on the SPLC website.
Neo-confederate’s covered by the heading on the page.
I think the “(presumably white)” remark wasn’t just a stray thought.
I still don’t see where they say the LvMI is “racist, white supremacist, neo-confederate” though.
Yes, the SPLC’s comments on the LvMI are truly heinous:
They are not intellectually developed enough to understand Rockwell’s point.
It’s also interesting that both Rockwell and Tucker are (allegedly) listed as members of the LoS, but yet they both (allegedly) deny membership. Anyone know anything about this?
I think it is a mistake to associate with racial collectivists. The LoS wrongly glorifies the Confederacy, which was in many ways just as bad or worse than the evil Union.
At its root, racialist collectivism is the same no matter which group practices it or how virulent they are. However, there are gradations. The NAACP is not as bad as the Nation of Islam. VDARE is not as bad as Stormfront. They’re all bad. SPLC obviously gives non-white groups a pass where it doesn’t give white groups. They draw the line at any racial collectivism on the white side, and only the more odious forms on the non-white side. But they still categorize a LOT of non-white, non-Christian groups as “hate groups,” and rightfully so. Of the groups that they categorize as such on those pages, I don’t disagree with any of their assertions, that I know of. If the SPLC was only trying to spread awareness, rather than shake down people for money and pass coercive legislation, then I’d say their work would be admirable.
Other point: The NAACP today may be an odious group. But black identity is something whites forced on African-Americans. I do not discount historical blacks for being members or supporters of that organization, which was once widely open to whites and had as its purpose eliminating racial discrepancies in the law.
G.E., the SPLC has explicitly defended the NAACP and La Raza. Surely you do not think that the Frankfurt School neo-Marxist leftists at the SPLC are advocates of pure color-blindness. They clearly are not. I guess “only” is an absolute and easily falsifiable. But I highly suspect you got my point. If you will notice, I actually paid you a bit of a compliment. I said at least you are not hypocritical.
GE,
The Mises Institute is characterized as a “racist, white supremacist, neo-confederate” group on page 2 of this article:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=460
“If you want to maintain that the cesspool is not a racist program, or that the C of CC is not a racist organization, or that Kevin MacDonald is not a white supremacist, please by all means keep doing so.”
Show me ONE SINGLE PLACE where I’ve made any of those claims. It’s hard for me to “keep” doing something that I’ve NEVER done.
I don’t see the Mises Institute listed here:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp#s=AL
But I do see a lot of non-white, non-Christian groups listed here:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=3
and here:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=24
Not saying the SPLC isn’t full of crap. But the claims made here about them are just as inaccurate as some of the (false) claims suggest they are.
“or that Kevin MacDonald is not a white supremacist, please by all means keep doing so.”
pauli, this is just the kind of sloppy use of language that discredits the whole enterprise. As far as I know, Kevin MacDonald has said very little about “whites.” He is criticized for writing about Jews. Even if he were a partisan for white ethnic interests, that wouldn’t make him a “supremacist.” I suspect that Kevin MacDonald accepts the data regarding the high average IQ of European Jews at face value. Does that make him a Jewish supremacist?
It must get awful tiresome riding heard on any stray thoughts.
Oh, and the JDL is also included.
Are Jews white? Are they Christian?
Oh, and what about Voz de Aztlan?
“I’ve never called for the creation of a “white ethnostate†as Kevin MacDonald did, however; I haven’t called black people a “retrograde species of humanity,†a la CofCC; I haven’t lavished praise on David Duke or called him “above reproachâ€, as Cesspools’ Edwards has.
I’ve never said “Crime and violence follow African-Americans wherever they go,†; Edwards did. Nor, like Edwards, do I refer to African-Americans as “black animals†and “heathen savages.â€
I’ve never said “You had cultural and racial integrity in those days. …What’s been taken away from us, we can take back.†Edwards did. ”
To my knowledge, the Mises Institute has never published an article making any of those claims, either. Yet the SPLC insists on including them on a list of “hate groups”, which is patently absurd.
As I originally stated, I have no interest in defending Edwards, so you can knock that strawman down all you want. As far as I’m concerned, Edwards sounds like a piece of shit.
None of that, however, changes the fact that the SPLC is a group of smear artists, led by the conman Morris Dees. They line their pockets by exploiting fear and racial animosity, and just like a broken clock, the fact that they’re occasionally right doesn’t mean there’s any validity to what they have to say. They appear to operate on the principle that anybody who opposes the modern Leviathan is automatically a racist who pines for a return to the days of slavery.
I don’t care how many times you have lunch with Michael Hill or how many neo-confederate rallies you attend. Until I hear you make a racist statement, I won’t label you as a bigot. However, if you keep quoting the SPLC to try to support your arguments, I might have to start labelling you as gullible.
What’s the conservative spin here? Are the Nation of Islam actually white and Christian?
I thought it was only liberals who couldn’t see the distinction between being pro-segregation and being anti-CRA.
Absolute lie. The SPLC classifies the Nation of Islam, the 5% Nation of Islam, and several other black nationalist groups as hate groups.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/type.jsp?DT=3
paulie, I did dispute their spin. Rather plainly. I didn’t say they always misstate facts although I am sure they have. Facts are not the issue. One can state nothing but facts and still tell a lie. Like the little kid who is late for supper because his watch stopped but who neglects to mentioned that he stopped it himself so he would have an excuse. “My watch stopped” is a fact, but he is still telling a lie.
For example, let’s say that the CofCC was explicitly, on the record, pro-segregation, which it isn’t, but just for the sake of the argument. That would still not make it a hate group. Hate is an emotion. Someone could support any number of different political positions and not be motivated by hate. Is Ron Paul’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act motivated by hate?
I try to stay out of the business of condemning wrong think. There are enough people out there doing that already. They don’t need me. But I don’t have much use for Stormfront which is both nationalistic and ideological racial reductionist. And because paleocons such as me are not racial reductionist, we are often the subject of their wrath. But to compare Jared Taylor, who is a very serious and thoughtful fellow, with Stormfront is just a smear. There is no nuance. No subtlety. No proportion. Even the slightest hint of non-egalitarian wrong think and you might as well be drawing up the plans for a new gas chamber. It is just an absurd, dichotomous and simple-minded way to think.
And it only applies to white people and Christians. The SPLC defends racial and ethnic self-interest groups such as the NAACP and La Raza. This is just so obnoxiously hypocritical it boggles the mind. The cognitive dissonance these people must live with.
At least some libertarians try to play the role of purist color-blind individualists and therefore condemn both sides for not being sufficiently atomistic individualists. While I think this is silly, unnecessary, destructive, ahistorical, and contrary to human nature at least it is not flamingly hypocritical. The SPLC is textbook Frankfurt School neo-marxism.
Another example – Kevin MacDonald. I am well aware of his work. His article on neoconservatism is very helpful in understanding the group’s history even if you ignore his conclusions regarding Jewish self-interest. But, as I said with the issue of inherent racial differences, (did you ever read that reply?) whether Jews on average behave in a certain way is an at least somewhat empirical question. His conclusions are either correct or incorrect or some of both. If true, whether that is a group “evolutionary” strategy is a further partially empirical question.
Must one preemptively rule out the possibility of any average group behaviors? Bedouins don’t have certain behaviors? Gypsies don’t have certain behaviors? Don’t highland Appalachian Southerners behave differently than lowland Southerners? Would one have to be a bigot to think that? The Irish, on average, drink a lot. This is a verifiable behavioral fact? Is pointing this out anti-Irish?
I think Kevin MacDonald makes leaps and since I am not a purist materialist, naturalist evolutionist I don’t have too much use for his evolutionary psychology, but MacDonald is called names simply for asking or even formulating a question. Might MacDonald have ulterior motives? Sure he might. Who knows? But looking at the issue is not de facto proof he does, despite the SPLC’s protestations otherwise.
Many of the same people who shout down MacDonald for his thought crime, turn around and praise Galileo for daring to think thoughts that were unapproved by the powers that be of his day. (I’m thinking of a recent TPW thread, but I’m sure the same conversation has happened here.) The willful double-think and contortions that must go on in their minds is simply amazing.
langa, I’m not a defender of every single accusation the SPLC makes. Using the association standard, I too am a white supremacist, although I’m also a black supremacist as well.
Edwards is quoted directly in their article. I’ve posted materials from wikipedia as well. If neither of those sources work for you, research the Political Cesspool, C of CC, etc., through Google, Lexis Nexis or whatever you use.
If you want to maintain that the cesspool is not a racist program, or that the C of CC is not a racist organization, or that Kevin MacDonald is not a white supremacist, please by all means keep doing so.
About the whole association thing; there’s association and then there’s association.
I have had lunch with Michael Hill of the LoS before, set up a Libertarian booth at neo-confederate rallies in Alabama, and so on.
I’ve never called for the creation of a “white ethnostate” as Kevin MacDonald did, however; I haven’t called black people a “retrograde species of humanity,” a la CofCC; I haven’t lavished praise on David Duke or called him “above reproach”, as Cesspools’ Edwards has.
I’ve never said “Crime and violence follow African-Americans wherever they go,†; Edwards did. Nor, like Edwards, do I refer to African-Americans as “black animals” and “heathen savages.”
I’ve never said “You had cultural and racial integrity in those days. …What’s been taken away from us, we can take back.†Edwards did.
I don’t fight against racial integration and interracial marriage; the CofCC does. And so on.
If I had a radio show, it is conceivable that I would have one or two of those guests at some point. All of them? Nope, that’s a little bit more than mere association.
You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll repeat it. Is it legit for the SPLC to include the Mises Institute on a list of “hate groups” JUST BECA– USE OF WHO THEY ASSOCIATE WITH (and not due to any articles that they actually publish)?
If so, is it legit to include Roderick Long on a list of “white supremacists” JUST BECA– USE OF WHO HE ASSOCIATES WITH (and not due to any arguments that he actually makes)?
(Sorry about all the caps. I’m not trying to be rude; I just don’t know how to get it to do bold or italics.)
In other words, yes, the Mises Institute does feature the works of Samuel Francis, VDARE, at one point LRC was publishing Jared Taylor, etc. – but most of what they do is not this sort of race-baiting.
Correction; LewRockwell.com does.
Your response is a perfect example of the type of “guilt by association†nonsense that I’m talking about. For example, you seem to be a big fan of Roderick Long, who has close ties to the Mises Institute. Does that mean that Long should be classified as a “white supremacist†or a member of a “racist hate group�
Nope, I said Unfortunately, the Mises Institute has in fact associated with them in many ways, although that certainly does not define the bulk of its activity – unlike the Political Cesspool, CofCC, et al.
In other words, yes, the Mises Institute does feature the works of Samuel Francis, VDARE, at one point LRC was publishing Jared Taylor, etc. – but most of what they do is not this sort of race-baiting. Roderick Long is certainly not; I haven’t asked DiLorenzo personally in any detail.
On the other hand, most of what the cesspool does is in fact race baiting and hate stirring. That is the bulk, and main purpose, of their show.
Thomas DiLorenzo, one of the greatest living Americans, is in no way a racist. If you people actually read his writings or listened to him speak, they’d know that.
(I know no one here has said he is a racist, I’m just saying).
In fact, DiLorenzo goes way further than I would by saying IF Lincoln invaded the South to end slavery, it MIGHT have been justified.
Also, the Vermont Secession page you link to includes Tom DiLorenzo as part of “a Who’s Who of America’s anti-civil rights, anti-Semetic, neo-Confederate, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, white separatist, racist, umm, cesspool”.
The “evidence” for this accusation is a (conveniently broken) link to an article that DiLorenzo alledgedly wrote for the Stormfront website. If DiLorenzo were actually writing articles for such a notoriously bigoted group, don’t you think they might have mentioned it when he was recently interviewed on C-SPAN?
Paulie,
Your response is a perfect example of the type of “guilt by association” nonsense that I’m talking about. For example, you seem to be a big fan of Roderick Long, who has close ties to the Mises Institute. Does that mean that Long should be classified as a “white supremacist” or a member of a “racist hate group”?
While I’m certainly not going to defend Edwards or his show (which I’ve never heard), Red is right about the SPLC and their smear tactics. They’re the masters of innuendo and guilt by association. They’ve even gone so far as to lump the Mises Institute in with “white supremacists†and “racist hate groupsâ€.
Unfortunately, the Mises Institute has in fact associated with them in many ways, although that certainly does not define the bulk of its activity – unlike the Political Cesspool, CofCC, et al.
By quoting the SPLC you discredit yourself, and my point remains unchallenged. The Political Cesspool is not the national show of the CofCC.
It obviously is, although probably not formally.
And by trying to focus on the SPLC, rather than the facts they point out, it is you who are discrediting your own self.
First of all, the CofCC, whatever you think of their politics, is not a “hate group.â€
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Conservative_Citizens
The Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) is an American right-wing organization that supports a large variety of conservative causes. Some members of the CofCC board of directors are former leaders of the segregationist Citizen Councils of America, founded by Maj. Bob Patterson, which is sometimes referred to as the White Citizens’ Council.
The CofCC was formed by various leaders of the Citizens’ Councils of America, sometimes called “White Citizens’ Council”, the American Populist Party, and others. Lester Maddox, the late former segregationist governor of Georgia, was a charter member.
In 1997, several members of the CofCC attended an event hosted by Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front party. The delegation from the CofCC presented Le Pen with a Confederate flag, which had been flown over the South Carolina state capitol building.
The CofCC considers itself a traditional conservative group opposing liberals and neo-conservatives and they also seek to promote some of the ideals of the Confederate States of America. Its specific issues include states rights, race relations, and conservative Christianity. They have criticized Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Frankfurt School on their website. Consistent with paleoconservatism, they regard American culture as an offshoot of the European cultural tradition. The Council of Conservative Citizens is currently fighting against immigration by non-whites, affirmative action and racial quotas, interracial marriage, homosexuality, forced busing for school integration, and gun control. The CofCC also looks favorably towards European nationalist and anti-immigration groups such as British National Party, Front National, and Vlaams Belang.
The Anti-Defamation League describes the Council of Conservative Citizens as a “white supremacist” organization. The CofCC is considered by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to be part of the “neo-confederate movement.” The NAACP, League of United Latin American Citizens, SPLC (which lists it as a “hate group” Anti-Defamation League, and even some conservative groups, such as Conservative Political Action Conference, consider the Council of Conservative Citizens a racist and homophobic organization, pointing to its purported advocacy of white supremacy. This view is partially based on the CofCC’s statement of principles, which condemns racial integration (see item 2), immigration by non-Europeans (see item 2), homosexuality, and interracial marriage (see item 6).
The group has not responded to this charge. According to its opponents, the Council of Conservative Citizens resorts to slanted and inflammatory language and images to promote its message. An April 2005 photo essay on the CCC website shows gruesome pictures of decapitated, burnt and mangled bodies of white victims of black violence in South Africa, while the caption states that whites may one day become a minority in the United States.
(And that is assuming that the person really is a Holocaust denier because no label the SPLC places on someone can be trusted.)
You are seriously disputing that Mark Weber is a holocaust denier? He’s the head of the IHR.
Continued from wikipedia
Academic criticism
Although he acknowledges not having read any of MacDonald’s books at the time of issuing his Slate Magazine attack against MacDonald, in a letter to that magazine, Harvard University psychology professor Steven Pinker maintained that MacDonald’s theses were unable to pass the threshold of attention-worthiness and/or peer-approval, and contained a “consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language.[12]
Reviewing MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy in The Jewish Quarterly Review, Sander Gilman, professor of the Liberal Arts and Medicine at the University of Illinois in Chicago describes MacDonalds argument about a Jewish group evolutionary strategy as a “bizarre” one which “recasts all of the hoary old myths about Jewish psychological difference and its presumed link to Jewish superior intelligence in contemporary sociobiological garb.â€[13]
Reviewing Macdonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Eugen Schoenfeld, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Georgia State University said the book contained “sloppy scholarship” and says that Macdonald’s comparison of Jewish collectivism during the biblical period with eighteenth- and nineteenth-century English individualism “indicates a total ignorance of the impact of industrialization on Western societies.[14]
Reviewing Macdonald’s Separation and Its Discontents in the American Jewish Society Review in 2000, Zev Garber, Professor of Jewish Studies at Los Angeles Valley College, writes that MacDonald works from the assumption that the dual Torah is the blueprint of the eventual Jewish dominion over the world.†and that he sees contemporary anti-Semitism, the Holocaust and attacks against Israel as “provoked by Jews themselves.” Garber concludes that Macdonald’s “rambling who-is-who-isn’t roundup of Jews responsible for the “Jewish Problem†borders on the irrational and is conducive to misrepresentation.â€[15]
[edit] Praise from white supremacists and neo-nazis
A 2006 article in The Nation magazine reports that Macdonald’s 2004 Understanding Jewish Influence: A Study in Ethnic Activism “has turned MacDonald into a celebrity within white nationalist and neo-Nazi circles.”[16] Writing in the Journal of Church and State, Professor George Michael noted that MacDonald’s work “has been well received by those in the racialist right, as it amounts to a theoretically sophisticated justification for anti-Semitism,” and that on the far right MacDonald “has attained a near reverential status and is generally considered beyond reproach”.[7]
A colleague of MacDonald’s, Martin Fiebert[17] criticized MacDonald for being cited by white supremacist, anti-semitic, and neo-nazi organizations.[18] The Southern Poverty Law Center criticized MacDonald for holding panels and working with Virginia Abernethy, a self-described “white separatist” and member of the white supremacist organization Council of Conservative Citizens which describes blacks as “a retrograde species of humanity” among other things[19] The SPLC also criticized MacDonald for publishing in, and receiving a 10,000 dollar grant from, the white nationalist publication The Occidental Quarterly.[19] In October 2004, he accepted the Jack London Literary Prize from The Occidental Quarterly, using the award ceremony as an occasion to argue for the need for a “white ethnostate” to maintain high racial birthrates. In his acceptance speech, he stated, “The best way to preserve ethnic interests is to defend an ethnostate — a nation that is explicitly intended to preserve the ethnic interests of its citizens.” According to MacDonald, one of the functions of such a state would be to exclude non-European immigrants who are attracted to the state by its wealth and prosperity. At the conclusion of his speech, he remarked, “The alternative faced by Europeans throughout the Western world is to place themselves in a position of enormous vulnerability in which their destinies will be determined by other peoples, many of whom hold deep historically conditioned hatreds toward them. Europeans’ promotion of their own displacement is the ultimate foolishness — an historical mistake of catastrophic proportions.”[20]
MacDonald testified in defense of convicted holocaust denier David Irving, where he alleged that the suppression of Irving’s work was “an example of Jewish tactics for combating anti-Semitism.”[19][21] MacDonald said he was an “agnostic” in regards to the Holocaust.[citation needed] MacDonald’s testimony caused a backlash among his colleagues.
MacDonald has an extensive following among white supremacists and neo-Nazis.[22] Former KKK leader, David Duke has praised MacDonald’s work on his webite[23] Neo-Nazi Victor Gerhard wrote in a 2003 E-mail exchange that MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique “is completely true; that to rail against blacks and Hispanics without mentioning Jews is like complaining about the symptoms and not the disease.”[19] When MacDonald won his award from the Occidental Quarterly, the ceremony was attended by David Duke; Don Black, the founder of white supremacist site Stormfront; Jamie Kelso, a senior moderator at Stormfront; and the head of the neo-Nazi National Vanguard, Kevin Alfred Strom.[19] In 2005, Kelso told the Occidental Report that he was meeting up with MacDonald to conduct business. MacDonald is also featured in the Stormfront member Brian Jost’s anti-immigrant film “The Line in the Sand”, where he blamed Jews for destroying the European domination of America through their liberal pro-immigration views.[19]
Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center told the Los Angeles Times, “Not since Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ have anti-Semites had such a comprehensive reference guide to what’s ‘wrong with Jews.’ His work is widely advertised and touted on white supremacist websites and sold by neo-Nazi outfits like National Vanguard Books, which considers them ‘the most important books of the last 100 years.’ “[18]
MacDonald is best known for his trilogy that analyzes Judaism and Jewish culture from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, comprising A People That Shall Dwell Alone (1994), Separation and Its Discontents (1998), and The Culture of Critique (1998). He proposes that Judaism is a group evolutionary strategy to enhance the ability of Jews to out-compete non-Jews for resources. Using the term Jewish ethnocentrism, he argues that Judaism fosters in Jews a series of marked genetic traits, including above-average verbal intelligence and a strong tendency toward collectivist behavior.
MacDonald claims that “the organized Jewish community” has been the single most important and powerful group in favor of unrestricted immigration to the United States, and that the community has been acting in its “own perceived collective interests,” regardless of whether these are in conflict with the interests of other Americans.
Paulie, do you really think that the SPLC is a credible source? They are PC smear artists. Them reporting on the un-PC washed masses is no more credible than Pravda reporting on the Soviet Union.
SPLC is not the issue. If you dispute any of the actual facts in their report, tell me what they are lying about specifically.
With guests like “Dr.” David Duke, Lamb and Lynx Gaede (Prussian Blue), Aryan Nations attorney Edgar J. Steele, CCC’s Gordon Lee Baum and Joel LeFevre, abortion terrorist Michael Bray, Willis Carto, British Nazi Nick Griffin, Jamie Kelso of Stormfront, academic Judaeophobe Kevin MacDonald, Christian Identity leader Peter J. Peters, and Jared Taylor, you can pretty much see where the show is going.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Cesspool
Wikipedia also mentions that “The Political Cesspool is hosted by James Edwards, Winston Smith, Eddie “The Bombardier” Miller, Bill Rolen, and Geoff Melton.”
Winston Smith, aka Harold Covington, is a famous US and UK nazi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Covington
Yes, same guy:
http://vermontsecession.blogspot.com/2007/10/thomas-h-naylor-obviously-good.html
I agree with Langa most of all.
I’ll not defend Edwards, because he certainly does have despicable characters like Duke and Don Black on his show–but I wont take the SPLC’s word on anything. The Mises Institute, Thomas Dilorenzo, Thomas E. Woods, Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul, and Jimmy Duncan have all been defamed by the SPLC.
While I’m certainly not going to defend Edwards or his show (which I’ve never heard), Red is right about the SPLC and their smear tactics. They’re the masters of innuendo and guilt by association. They’ve even gone so far as to lump the Mises Institute in with “white supremacists” and “racist hate groups”.
Paulie, do you really think that the SPLC is a credible source? They are PC smear artists. Them reporting on the un-PC washed masses is no more credible than Pravda reporting on the Soviet Union.
First of all, the CofCC, whatever you think of their politics, is not a “hate group.” To label them as such and to casually throw that term around is simply discrediting and absurd. For another example, to casually lump Jared Taylor, Michael Hill, and Kevin MacDonald, whatever you think of their politics, in with a Holocaust denier is slimy and they know it. (And that is assuming that the person really is a Holocaust denier because no label the SPLC places on someone can be trusted.) Also, the Christian radio broadcasts are “homophobic†whatever that means. (Funny I have never met a single person who was afraid [phobic] of homosexuals.) So only non-Bible believing Christians can be SPLC approved? I could go on an on. Every SPLC “expose” is just like this. A tangled web of sleazy insinuations, guilt by association, the pathologization of normalcy, etc.
By quoting the SPLC you discredit yourself, and my point remains unchallenged. The Political Cesspool is not the national show of the CofCC.
Page 2
[Edwards] also said that David Duke, his favorite “Cesspool” guest, is unfairly maligned. “Most of his detractors come to their conclusions about him based upon what they hear parroted from a biased and controlled global media.”
Idolizing Duke
The Feb. 20 “Political Cesspool” broadcast featured a phone interview with David Duke, speaking from the Ukraine. Edwards made it abundantly clear during their conversation that he, like Duke, believes Jews control the media, among many other things. “We have a very small minority that has incredible power in the American media, the American government, in academia, and in the economy,” Edwards told the infamous author of Jewish Supremacism. “I find it amazing that no movement has been too big or too small that these people have not had their hands in. … You look at all the destructive movements of the 20th century. We’re talking about women’s rights, the civil rights movement, and today the newly protected minority status for homosexuals.”
Duke said in response: “Well, the way they have been able to do that, James, and everybody listening, is through organization. They have an agenda. They make a united front. When I was a university student at LSU [Louisiana State University] on campus, the very leftist, liberal anti-Vietnam war movement was absolutely led by radical Jews.” Duke failed to mention another aspect of his LSU years: In 1970, while still a student, he was photographed dressed in neo-Nazi regalia, including a swastika armband, to protest the appearance of left-wing Jewish attorney William Kunstler at nearby Tulane University. That photograph, along with hundreds of others of Duke in his Ku Klux Klan robes, have haunted Duke over the decades and hampered his attempts to win mainstream political office.
Edwards idolizes Duke. At the CCC conference, he repeatedly quoted “Dr. Duke” in conversation. But as much as he admires Duke, Edwards has also clearly learned from his mentor’s early mistakes. He does not appear at any hate group events where he knows swastikas and other white supremacist symbols will be photographed or filmed.
A frequent topic on “Political Cesspool” all of this year has been the gruesome murders of a young white couple in Knoxville who were allegedly carjacked, raped and murdered by four black men. “Hate crime laws were made for one reason and one reason only — to protect these black animals,” Edwards said during his May 28 “Cesspool” broadcast. “If these two souls [the victims] had been more aware of the racial realities of our time, perhaps they would still be alive today.”
Two days before that broadcast, neo-Nazi leader Alex Linder organized a protest against “black crime” in Knoxville. Edwards was nowhere to be seen. When he appeared on CNN May 29, the network rolled footage of the protest showing demonstrators wearing swastika T-shirts and displaying other white supremacist symbols. CNN host Kiran Chetry asked Edwards, “Why has this [murder] case become a rallying cry among the white supremacists?”
Edwards disingenuously dodged the question: “Well, I can’t necessarily speak for people that I don’t have any association with. But I will promise you this: Had the roles been reversed, and had the victims been black and the murderers white, this would have been the biggest news story in America.”
The next day on his blog, Edwards posted this message to his fans: “With regards to those who showed up in Knoxville (who were labeled ‘Klansmen’ and ‘Nazis’ etc.), conservative activists often get maligned with nefarious descriptions because they dare stand up and speak out. I don’t know the hearts and minds of those who attended the Knoxville rally because I wasn’t there. However, with regards to their demonstration, they were doing the right thing by bringing attention to the despicable double standard this case has received. God bless them for that.”
It’s not exactly a stretch to “label” a man wearing a swastika T-shirt and shouting “Heil Hitler” a Nazi. Edwards knows that, but he’s a master of carefully parsing his language so that he walks the razor’s edge between conservative commentary and outright neo-Nazi rhetoric. This balancing act allows him to continue building his core audience of white nationalists without doing irrevocable damage to his mainstream political aspirations As this article went to press, Edwards was scheduled to deliver the keynote address at a Sept. 15 meeting of the Missouri chapter of the League of the South, a racist, neo-secessionist organization based in Alabama. He also had recently announced that he was in negotiations with a Michigan-based media company to start broadcasting “Political Cesspool” nationwide.
His stated mission is “[f]ighting to advance a nationalist agenda based upon the Christian world view” and turning back the clock in America to the pre-civil rights era, “back when America had a strong moral compass,” as he put it during his May 17 show. “You had cultural and racial integrity in those days. …What’s been taken away from us, we can take back.”
Edwards works hard to maintain a professional appearance and demeanor. He wears suits, not Klan robes. But he’s doing more than anyone else in the white nationalist movement at this point to promote the views of neo-Nazis, Klan sympathizers, Holocaust deniers, academic racists and anti-Semites. Helped along by cable news television and the occasional sympathetic elected official, he’s beginning to look a lot like the next David Duke — and he’d almost certainly consider that a compliment.
The Political Cesspool is not the national radio show of the CofCC. It is James Edwards’ show, and last I heard was broadcast over a legitimate station in the Memphis area.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=817
When the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) held its annual national conference June 1 and 2 at a Holiday Inn in Greenville, S.C., James Edwards was the golden boy of the hate group’s proceedings.
Tennessee radio host James Edwards has worked assiduously to provide neo-Nazis, Klan associates and Holocaust deniers with a path to mainstream respectability.
Edwards, 27, is the host of “The Political Cesspool,” a shamelessly white nationalist radio talk show that’s broadcast for two hours every weeknight from a studio near Memphis, Tenn., where Edwards grew up and still lives.
“The Political Cesspool” in the past two years has become the primary radio nexus of hate in America. Its sponsors include the CCC and the Institute for Historical Review, a leading Holocaust denial organization. Its guest roster for 2007 reads like a “Who’s Who” of the radical racist right. CCC leader Gordon Lee Baum, Holocaust denier Mark Weber, Canadian white supremacist Paul Fromm, American Renaissance editor Jared Taylor, neo-Nazi activist April Gaede, anti-Semitic professor Kevin MacDonald, Stormfront webmaster Jamie Kelso and League of the South president Michael Hill have all been favorably interviewed on the “Political Cesspool” this year, along with former Klan leader and neo-Nazi David Duke, the show’s most frequent celebrity racist guest, who has logged three appearances.
“I have known Dr. Duke for a number of years and have found him to be a Christian man above reproach,” Edwards says on the “Cesspool” website. “Time and again, he has gone out of his way to help me, asking for nothing in return.”
Edwards is quite a bit younger than the majority of CCC members who attended the South Carolina conference. Many of those members’ involvement in the white supremacist movement dates back to the White Citizens Councils that were formed to oppose school desegregation and the civil rights movement and were later reincarnated as the CCC. Edwards sat with his wife at a table near the back of the conference hall, engaging in conversation with a nearly constant stream of admirers who looked twice his age or more. They slapped his back and shook his hand and congratulated him not only on the success of “Political Cesspool” — which is tailored for a southern, neo-Confederate, white nationalist audience — but also his recent triumphs in smoothly injecting white nationalist ideology into national mainstream media discussions of race relations and crime in America.
Edwards arrived at the hate group conference just three days after his third primetime appearance on CNN in the previous two months. “Crime and violence follow African-Americans wherever they go,” he said in his April 4 CNN debut, a panel debate on “self-segregation” hosted by Paula Zahn. “And if you think that is racist, then spend some time on the mean streets of south Memphis.”
Zahn, who initially identified Edwards to CNN viewers as merely a “radio talk show host” from Memphis, invited him back on May 21 for a “Paula Zahn Now” episode titled “The Changing Face of America.”
“Why not celebrate the diversity?” Zahn asked him in one exchange.
“My primary interest is to protect and safeguard my family,” Edwards replied. “Whites are in for the fight of their lives. America is becoming balkanized. We are being robbed of having a future in the very nation our ancestors carved from the wilderness.”
David Duke, who calls Edwards his “favorite radio patriot,” gave the “Cesspool” host’s CNN appearances a glowing online review: “He delivered a powerful performance, stuck to his guns and didn’t back down as he articulated an unapologetically conservative viewpoint regarding race relations.”
‘Heathen Savages’
Edwards began garnering similar accolades from his elders on the radical right last year as the “Cesspool” gained a larger and larger audience. (Although the show is broadcast only regionally on the airwaves, anyone can listen to it on the Internet.) “James is a bundle of energy and dedication who is deeply concerned about the genocide against European-Americans,” white nationalist Bob Whitaker stated online after appearing on the show. “He is also wiser than many of the older members of our movement. … He sticks with legitimate complaints that gentiles have and our fear of the genocide of immigration and intermarriage that respectable conservatives all advocate. The Political Cesspool is one of the first major steps toward making our perfectly legitimate and generally felt concerns — the ones that are presently denounced as heresy, racism and hate — the mainstream.”
The “Cesspool” host is a rising star of the white nationalist movement because he’s articulate, charming and equally at ease in a television studio, behind a radio microphone and standing in front of a crowd. He was a specially invited guest speaker at the CCC conference. His topic: “Creating Your Own Media.” CCC National Field Coordinator Bill Lord told a “Martin Luther Coon” joke in his introduction of Edwards. Lord and other longtime CCC members casually dropped racial epithets at the conference, but Edwards carefully avoided using such crudely derogatory language, as he always does when speaking in public, on the airwaves or to the media. Edwards allies himself with hate group leaders who call black people “niggers,” but he doesn’t drop the N-bomb himself. Instead he speaks in the more or less polished code of a suit-and-tie racist, calling blacks “heathen savages,” “subhumans,” and “black animals,” exclusively in the context of discussing violent black-on-white crime.
His audience of about 150 at the CCC conference included Jared Taylor, whose magazine specializes in race “studies,” and Don Black, the former Alabama grand dragon of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and founder of Stormfront, the largest racist forum on the Internet.
Edwards began by quoting Mississippi civil rights activist Fanny Lou Hamer, telling the crowd that he is “sick and tired of being sick and tired” when it comes to reverse discrimination against white people. He described “Political Cesspool” as “unabashedly pro-white” and detailed the show’s early success in rallying Memphis whites to “defend” the gravesite of Confederate cavalry general Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first national leader of the original KKK. The gravesite was the subject of a protest in August 2005 led by the Rev. Al Sharpton, at which about 200 whites squared off against a few dozen black Sharpton supporters.
“Sharpton denigrated the general’s gravesite with that kind of rabble there,” Edwards said. He then boasted of the lavish all-expenses-paid treatment afforded him by CNN, including, he said, fine hotels and limousine rides. Edwards finished by announcing that “as a result of listener demand, support from station ownership and a surge of interest from the recent CNN exposure,” beginning the following week “Political Cesspool” would expand from one hour per weeknight to two.
He received a standing ovation.
Biased and Controlled
The radio station that carries “Political Cesspool” — WLRM-AM — is a Christian station (WLRM stands for “We Love Radio Ministries,” according to its website). Most of its programming consists of standard nationally syndicated conservative Christian “news and views” content that is often homophobic but generally non-racist, including a two-hour weekday show by the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a well-known anti-gay minister who is African-American.
WLRM is not audited by Arbitron, the radio industry’s equivalent of the Nielsen Ratings system, so there’s no reliable estimate of the number of “Political Cesspool” listeners. Advertising on the show is cheap: $100 a week for a regular plug. Edwards describes “Cesspool” as primarily “listener-supported,” and the show’s website claims it has received nearly $15,000 in donations this year.
Because we’re not bloody socialists, rob in cal!
You want to engage in a national-socialist electoral battle over who can centrally plan the economy.
Exactly.
22 – thx
“Support for Al Gore
Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party primary election.[45] In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a “gay bill of rights” and stated that homosexuality was not something that “society should affirm”.[46] Phelps has stated that he supported Gore because of these earlier comments.[47] According to Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore’s 1988 campaign in Kansas. Phelps’ son, Fred Phelps Jr., hosted a Gore fundraiser, which Al and Tipper Gore attended, at his home in Topeka.[11][47] Fred Phelps, Jr. served as a Gore delegate to the 1988 Democratic National Convention.[47][48] Gore spokesman Dag Vega declined to comment; “We are not dignifying those stories with a response.”[49]
Opposition to Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Rodham Clinton
During the 1992 presidential campaign, Phelps protested Hillary Rodham Clinton during a campaign speech in support of the Clinton-Gore ticket at the University of Kansas on October 14, 1992. In Bill Clinton’s second presidential campaign, Phelps and the Westboro church also opposed Clinton and Gore because of the administration’s support for gay rights. The entire Westboro congregation picketed a 1997 inaugural ball,[50] denouncing Gore as a “famous fag pimp.”[51] In 1998, Westboro picketed the funeral of Gore’s father, screaming vulgarities at Gore and telling him, “your dad’s in Hell.”[51]”
Both you guys are missing the key point that I’ve reiterated more than once: The state of Mexico, nor any other state, has property (or any other) rights.
Andy,
GE is trying too hard, I think that is clear.
“G.E. // Aug 5, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Trent – As long back as their is a verifiable chain of custody. The chain is pretty clear: The U.S. stole the land from Mexico.”
Ditto what I just said above.
“G.E. // Aug 5, 2008 at 8:34 am
Silvarticus – Are you sure you’re not a neocon? How is it okay for the U.S. to steal land from Mexico, and not okay for a group to advocate that it be returned?”
And Mexico stole that land from the Native American tribes that were there.
Come on, Tom. “Democracy” can mean a form of private governance, but that is not normally how it is used. You say you’re not a “constitutionalist” — does that mean you object to private organizations writing constitutions and abiding by them?
GE,
Parse your own words.
Yes, democracy rests upon notions of majority rule by definition.
Democracy is a PROCEDURE.
More specifically it is a PROCEDURE which can be adopted by any number of kinds of organizations and which therefore does not inherently have any bearing at all on natural rights.
The state as such generally claims that its prerogatives trump natural rights (and in practice always attempts to exercise that claim whether it explicitly states it or not) — whether that state adopts democratic PROCEDURES in its activities or not.
Conversely, non-state organizations which use democratic PROCEDURE are almost universal in NOT attempting to substitute the mandate of said PROCEDURE for the prerogatives of individuals per their natural rights.
You’re mistaking a PROCEDURE for a PRINCIPLE, and then setting it in conflict with another PRINCIPLE where no such conflict is inherent in the combination.
Trent – I said “the Mexican state has no rights.” Land cannot rightfully belong to nation-states.
Tom – I don’t agree. Democracy rests upon notions of majority rule, which is uninhibited by natural rights. If the association in question is voluntary, then democratic governance (or any other kind of governance) is not unlibertarian. But states are not voluntary.
“Democracy” is a procedure, not a principle. It is not “anathema” to liberty or individualism unless liberty and individualism are construed to bar “free individuals” from participating in groups of any kind under any agreed-upon rules (which would be a pretty goddamn contorted construction of both terms).
The conflict which libertarianism addresses is “non-coercion vs. coercion,” not “individualism vs. collectivism.” Democracy is a procedural variant of the latter approach of the latter set, not inherently a practical variant of the latter approach of the former set.
GE,
As im sure you know, you wont find me laboring against the idea of secession–nor will you find Baldwin doing so. Those states arent going to vote to goto Mexico, nor would the US allow them too.
As for the verifiable chain of custody—seems dubious. We can verify that certain parts of Europe once belonged to Scythians—should that land, now inhabited by Germanic-Bavarians for hundreds of years, be restored to its “rightful owners”.
Rediculous notion. And terribly unrealistic.
Trent – As long back as their is a verifiable chain of custody. The chain is pretty clear: The U.S. stole the land from Mexico.
The only problem: The Mexican state has no rights.
But jeez… This is just jingoistic nationalist rabble-rousing. Like the U.S. is going to give up territories to Mexico. It’s just fearmongering on Baldwin’s part.
That said, if Michigan wanted to join Mexico instead of the U.S., I’d be all for it.
“Why doesn’t Chuck Baldwin support the right of the former Mexican territories to self governance?
That seems like a good solution. Allow them to secede, and if they’d like to rejoin Mexico or remain independent, then honor that choice.”
GE–if you phrased the question in terms of a secession referenda, Baldwin would–of course–agree. But then again,that isnt what La Raza wants, is it? They are in favor of a sort of Land-reparation, whereby the US “returns” “their land” to them. As Red previously stated–all land was previously acquired by one group or another–how far back does this righting-of-justice go?
Red’s got Baldwin pegged, for sure.
rob – That doesn’t change the fact that initiative/referendum are mob-rule democracy, complete anathema to liberty and individualism.
The Political Cesspool is not the national radio show of the CofCC. It is James Edwards’ show, and last I heard was broadcast over a legitimate station in the Memphis area.
Conservatives should not try to out egalitarian the left. They will lose every time. I have no use for leftist pro-immigration La Raza, but calling it an ethnic supremacy group (it is an ethnic interest group) and quoting Victor David Hansen to the effect that a name invoking race is hate speech is profoundly unhelpful. That Hispanics think in terms of race and group and vote their ethnic self interests is taken for granted. When whites do it, it is a hate crime. Note the supposedly untouchable CofCC. This is an obnoxious double standard. And I am sad to say that Baldwin is not helping the matter with I’m more color-blind than thou protestations.
As far as ceding back the Southwest, there has to be some statute of limitations on righting past historical wrongs. There are many Americans living in those areas that wouldn’t be at all happy being governed by Mexico who had nothing to do with our past land grab. This is an argument of infinite regress. What was Mexico except a cobbled together expanse claimed by Spain by conquest? If at one point it belonged to Native American tribe X, previously it belonged to Native American tribe Y. Where do you stop? How far back to you go righting wrongs? Much of human history is the story of one group conquering another. You will drive yourself mad if you take this way of thinking to its logical conclusion.
Actually GE, Switzerland is one of the least socialist countries in Europe, and both in Europe and in the US its often, not always but quite often, people on the political right who advocate greater use of initiatives, national or otherwise. In Italy, both the left and right have used the process.
Wow, G.E., do you try or does it just come naturally?
The situation: Silvarticus uses the common English phrase “our country” and expresses distaste for the transfer of territory under control of U.S. statist to even worse Mexican statists.
G.E.’s response: Accuse Silvarticus of sounding like a neocon/communist. Accuse him of being more Lincolnian (statist) than Lincoln. Accuse him of nationalism. Imply that Silvarticus’ views are similar to Sonny Landham, the statist madman.
Comedy gold.
Trent,
You write:
“Barr spoke to the CCC, and Baldwin did not.”
Bzzzt. Barr spoke at a local or state CCC meeting. Baldwin appeared on the CCC’s national radio show, Political Cesspool.
” Last I heard, it was YOUR PARTY’s senatorial candidate in Kentucky who is intimately involved with the CCC, not any of ours.”
Last I heard, the Boston Tea Party didn’t have an affiliate, let alone a senatorial candidate in Kentucky, and the LP had dumped the senatorial candidate you’re probably thinking of.
Why doesn’t Chuck Baldwin support the right of the former Mexican territories to self governance?
That seems like a good solution. Allow them to secede, and if they’d like to rejoin Mexico or remain independent, then honor that choice.
There is too much Lincoln in Baldwin for me. Even though I still may have to vote for him.
Because we’re not bloody socialists, rob in cal!
You want to engage in a national-socialist electoral battle over who can centrally plan the economy.
I would love to see some national referenda on these type of issues, such as overall levels of immigration, automatic citizenship for everyone born in US, HB visas etc. . Take these issues away from the globalists and the elites and lets have a knockdown, drag-out vote of the people. Bring on the national initiative/referenda. If Switzerland and Italy can vote on national issues, why not us?
Paulie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_phelps#Support_for_Al_Gore
Oh–and lets not forget that Al Gore was the preferred candidate of Fred Phelps (Of, GodHatesFags fame).
I did not know that. Got a reference/link?
The presidential candidate preferred by some racist street gangs (the Minutemen, the CCC, et al) is complaining that two other racist street gangs (La Raza and Mecha) might reallocate some turf from his preferred organized crime syndicate (the US government) and to another organized crime syndicate (the Mexican government).
To be fair, I think the turf that the Surenos are taking from the Crips and the Bloods rightfully belongs to the Crips and the Bloods. Or something.
Next thing you know, Baldwin will be shilling for those two slimeball gangbangers (â€US Border Patrolâ€) who ended up in jail for beating a victimless crime suspect who tried to surrender, then shooting him in the ass when he ran from the beating, then trying to cover up their crimes.
Disgraceful. Those two belong in general population.
Better Solution: The federal government should dissolve, sell off all of its assets, and pay off the debt and retire FRNs, prorata. THEN maybe we would not be governed by a foreign power and evils like the Mexican-American War of conquest could be avoided in the future.
I agree.
I’d say 100% of our country is under a “foreign power†known as the imperial federal government headquartered in D.C.
True.
Ontheissues.org – there are additional quotes from past years.
Address immigration as part of worldwide economic justice
Q: Briefly describe Nader’s position on Immigration Policy.
A: “Immigration is a challenging issue that must be addressed in a more cohesive way. We need to address economic justice in the US and the world and recognize the basic human rights of all people,” Nader says. “The long term solution to immigration is reducing the rich poor divide between the United States and other nations by peacefully supporting democratic movements.”
Source: Green Party 2008 Presidential Candidate Questionnaire Feb 3, 2008
H1B visas in US cause “brain drain” in Third World
Briefly describe Nader’s position on Immigration Policy.
A: Ralph Nader has stated that exploiting immigrant workers puts a downward pressure on US labor wages and standards. A $10 minimum wage would open many of these jobs to unemployed American workers. As for the H1B visas, the US should stop the “brain draining” of highly skilled people in the Third World who are desperately need to develop their own economies.
Source: Green Party 2008 Presidential Candidate Questionnaire Feb 3, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYnQjDlCeXU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-ee5Jx3u38
Last I heard, it was YOUR PARTY’s senatorial candidate in Kentucky who is intimately involved with the CCC
Landham is no longer an LP candidate, although I agree he never should have been to start.
I’d be surprised if no CP candidates whatsoever are involved in CCC, although I don’t know any who are off the top of my head.
I realize this is getting off topic, but does anyone know Nader’s stance on immigration. In 2000, I recall him speaking against the Brain Drain (the flow of educated immigrants into the US from other countries) with the implication that we should have less immigration. His current campaign website doesn’t mention immigration, unless I’m missing something. Whats his stance?
Tom,
Last I heard—Barr spoke to the CCC, and Baldwin did not. Last I heard, it was YOUR PARTY’s senatorial candidate in Kentucky who is intimately involved with the CCC, not any of ours. As for the Minutemen, 24% (according to the website) are of an ethnic minority (including hispanic). While this deosnt disqualify your term– racist, it certainly doesnt help it either.
Oh–and lets not forget that Al Gore was the preferred candidate of Fred Phelps (Of, GodHatesFags fame).
Geez,
The presidential candidate preferred by some racist street gangs (the Minutemen, the CCC, et al) is complaining that two other racist street gangs (La Raza and Mecha) might reallocate some turf from his preferred organized crime syndicate (the US government) and to another organized crime syndicate (the Mexican government).
Might be good script material for a Scorcese film, but in real life it’s just bizarre.
Next thing you know, Baldwin will be shilling for those two slimeball gangbangers (“US Border Patrol”) who ended up in jail for beating a victimless crime suspect who tried to surrender, then shooting him in the ass when he ran from the beating, then trying to cover up their crimes.
Oh, wait, he’s already done that.
Silvarticus – I’d say 100% of our country is under a “foreign power” known as the imperial federal government headquartered in D.C.
A true patriot is a citizens of his state, his local community, and loyal to his family — not his Empire.
Even Lincoln had the good sense and morality to oppose the theft of Mexico. Your jingoism in its defense is more Lincolnian than Lincoln, and your rank nationalism is anything but patriotic in the traditional, American sense of the word.
This does not mean I think Mexico should be given that which was stolen from the country by American imperial conquest. It is too difficult to sort out, of course, and land belongs to individuals not countries (“our country!” B.S.). Better Solution: The federal government should dissolve, sell off all of its assets, and pay off the debt and retire FRNs, prorata. THEN maybe we would not be governed by a foreign power and evils like the Mexican-American War of conquest could be avoided in the future.
BTW: Is “Silvarticus” a pseudonym for Sonny Landham?
Chinese: When I made the “racist” remark, I was complaining about Baldwin’s own use of the term. The CP was a target for the Southern Poverty Law Center in the past, and now Baldwin’s trying to use the same kind of rhetoric on his opponents. Way to sell your party’s soul.
I failed to read the whole article last night. I can see why Sivarticus made the mistake he did, Baldwin says
Baldwin seems to be under the impression that the NCLR started the La Raza thing, which it didn’t, or that it’s responsible for anyone else that uses the term, which it can’t be. As for MEChA, the reconquista elements Baldwin complains about are real, but the group itself more often than not acts more like any other ethnic student union. Even if the entire group was entirely revanchist, would Baldwin target the SCV or League of the South as wanting to “carve a racist nation” out of the South?
I see Baldwin, UNLIKE RON PAUL, is criticizing China, too. I guess they’re too capitalist for him. They’re certainly more so than the CP platform.
Oh, and god forbid that a group sponsor their own charter schools! After all, we might not like them!
Silvarticus – Are you sure you’re not a neocon? How is it okay for the U.S. to steal land from Mexico, and not okay for a group to advocate that it be returned?
“Our country” — you sound like a neocon/communist.
the day when Mexico gets “territorial reparations†for the war over 150 years ago
Hopefully sooner rather than later.
I’m not sure that La Raza are racist, but they are the scum of the Earth for wanting to bite off a chunk of our country and return it to Mexico. And no, I’ll be damned if I’ll ever live to see the day when Mexico gets “territorial reparations” for the war over 150 years ago. Too bad, get over it, not one inch of our country is ever going back under the command of a foreign power.
Okay unlike a face to face conversation I cannot tell over the internet if you are kidding or not. Anyways the fact is that wanting border secure is not racist. I am a moderate on immigration but in order to reform a system you first have to control it. And yeah I wouldn’t mind if Baldwin denounces the NAACP. We have civil rights now so the NAACP has not done one thing positive in the last 30 years. In the contrary it has failed to talk about the black genocide that is abortion. So in a way they are now ain’t civil rights. In regard to education we need a school vouncher system not affirmative action.
Racist, racist, racist.
I look forward to Baldwin’s next release denouncing the NAACP, assuming he’s doing all the minorities from the biggest on down.