Posted on 02/15/2009 4:39:56 PM PST by EveningStar
I won’t give them a pass. Conservatism has nothing to do with race, and their stupid segregationist attitude erases any legitimate positions they might have.
I think you are being too vague. What actions are you referring to here when you say "integration" and "'race mixing'"? If you are referring to actions that citizens voluntarily engage in by their own choice then I might agree that objecting to such actions constitutes "racism". But what if the actions being objected to are government programs that force people to do things against their will?
The real issue here is that you are accusing people of racism without coherently explaining what you mean. I think you have been duped into doing this by the leftists and that you should un-dupe yourself.
I ain’t givin’ them a pass. Screw it.
So what exactly is their "stupid segregationist attitude" to which you are objecting here? Why is it that when it comes to charging others with "racism" even self-conceived conservatives are satisfied with vague, mealy-mouthed rhetoric?
People should have a right to associate with those whom they prefer. Which is what I agree with. What has been blurred by the liberals is the difference between racism and racialism. I have accessed Google and found the glib statement by liberals that they are the same.
Not so. A racialist who and if wise keeps it pretty quiet, believes that their group is the better contributors to the human race. They believe that they have better scientists, better doctors and better system of democracy. At the same time, they do not upset or be unkind to others of a different racial group. They are very careful of saying anything derogatory or doing anything mean or underhanded to those people.
I am amused at educated people with money who discriminate. They sidle off in little groups, they have their own psuedo- intellectual bon mots. A working class Canadian expression, I learned was that, "such people would not spit on the best side of YOU". I loved it. Race had nothing to do with it. Just the recognition of the effete of their own kind.
Human nature.
Actually, the one note that I worry about is the Creationists who frequent FR. Charles is at least on the correct side on that one.
I have worried about how racists have tried to exploit counter-islamicist feeling to get buy in for some of their nastier ideas. Good on Charles for smoking some of them out. Too bad for some of the people who have sold out to get some allies of dubious value and more dubious virtue.
If I am being too vague, it is because the language on the CCC’s website is too vague - they talk vaguely about being against immigration and “efforts to mix the races,” but without explaining exactly what they mean (for instance, would they disagree with Brown v. Board of Education?).
Sure, it’s possible that the CCC is benign, and merely opposes “government programs that force people to do things against their will.” But, in light of some of the other things on their site (there are several references to “negroes” on the website, for example, as well as other instances of “dog whistle politics”/not-so-subtle-code-language), the organization looks a little bit more sinister.
One of the SPLC’s main “hate” groups is pro-lifers. They kept Joe Scheidler in court for years.
I saw than Ann Coulter had jumped the shark last year when she was trashing Fred Thompson.
The way she is going, she will be making excuses for Obama soon.
“What makes the CCC worse than the Islamists among us?”
Not my point and not a valid comparison - the Islamists are scum without a single redeeming quality.
After skimming most of these comments and reading many, I have not seen evidence that anyone posting has read the “offending” pages in Coulter’s most recent book, Guilty. The SPLC and LGF authors apparently did not prior to writing their screeds against her. In her book Coulter refers to the CCC on pages 24-26, in her treatment of the double-standards to which conservative politicians are held relative to left-liberal politicians. Coulter’s perception of the CCC’s agenda or beliefs is not the substance of that treatment, and is mentioned only in passing. The SPLC and LGF reactions to Coulter’s mentioning it, however, demonstrate the validity of the point she was making in doing so.
Coulter asserts that the most indirect, tangential association with a group considered racist permanently taints a conservative politician and renders unacceptable anything he says or believes, while liberal politicians are not called to account even for direct participation in groups exhibiting overt racism. She compares conservative politicians’ tenuous, temporary, indirect associations with the CCC to Obama’s 20+ year association with virulent anti-white preacher Jeremiah Wright. Any conservative’s connection, however brief or immaterial, to an undesirable actor or philosophy colors all of that person’s views, actions, history, etc... There is no comparable effect when a liberal overtly embraces people or ideas that are at least as intolerant or bigoted.
That’s the only point Coulter makes with respect to the CCC. The hyperbolic responses to her passing mention of the CCC are eloquent testament to the validity of that point. Coulter, as a conservative, ought to be damned, banished to outer darkness, and dropped into the wilderness away from civilized discourse, on the basis of her merely mentioning a possibly racist organization as a device to help make a different rhetorical point. Obama, simply because he’s a liberal, gets a complete pass despite having listened to racist rants on a regular basis for decades.
Whether the CCC is actually a racist organization doesn’t matter in the least. The perception that it is suffices for the left to attack and berate any conservative for having the temerity to mention it for any reason whatsoever. Liberals function under no comparable constraint. That was Coulter’s point, and it’s completely accurate.
“But what if the actions being objected to are government programs that force people to do things against their will?”
Fair point- I assume Brown v. Board of Education is a “government program” under their/your definition?
CCC is a racist organization from a reading of their own history and literature. So much for its defenders!
Don't paint with a brush with a wide sweep or you will get paint where you don't want it. I was just stating that the CCC publishes a good amount of PC incorrect material that will not come to the forefront unless they do it. I have seen a good amount of it here after its been out for a while.
Fair point- I assume Brown v. Board of Education is a “government program” under their/your definition?
CCC is a racist organization from a reading of their own history and literature. So much for its defenders!
You argue just as the leftists have trained you to; much sanctimony and little rationality. Do you have any real knowledge of the actual implementation of "Brown v. ..." over the last forty years? Is anyone who objects to these actual policies as implemented a "racist" in you eyes and thus deserving of the disrespect and scorn you show here.
You should consider the possibility that your post is exactly the result the leftists have sought, that they have used your pride and gullibility to dupe you into undermining America and conservatism by attacking any who think for themselves on their pet subjects. (Race is just one.)
Your sanctimony is leading you to dishonesty. No one here is arguing for segregation as policy.
The CCC is opposed to integration and intermixing of races. That counts as segregation in my book.
What do you call it?
What do you call it?
I am drawing a distinction between individual citizens' personal preferences for how they live their own private lives and government policies that involve force, public expenditures, and the rule of law. When I talk about segregation as policy I mean exactly that, government policies that enforce segregation. That is a thing of the now-distant past and no one here on FR is advocating for its return.
Why do you post so much without saying what you mean? Whose interest is being served by that?
“That is a thing of the now-distant past and no one here on FR is advocating for its return.”
Straw man alert! My post wasn’t discussing FR but CCC.
CCC has/is a racist organization. Essentially, they are a bunch of KKK types who wear suits instead of sheets.
Some are defending CCC on this thread - expect a response.
FWIW, I see that there are more posters who disagree with CCC’s “ideas” than who agree with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.