I will try really hard in the future to debate the issues rather than to launch ad hominem attacks on the intelligence, the education, the background, the character of those who disagree with me.

I'm not Mom, just an Assistant Editor at TMV with a reminder to commenters… Please dont shoot the messenger… and Please do read or reread the TMV comment policy if in doubt about our rules and policies for civil commenting. Our commenters are asked
–to stick to the basic topic in the article,
–with no ad hominen attacks on the writer or other commenters.
–This includes no high-jacking of the thread, no vulgarities, and no posting of long articles in response…
–however you are welcome to leave links to those articles in comments as usual.

In the meantime, commenters who violate TMV's rules will be edited and/or warned once, and if a commenter then chooses to continue violating commenting rules and policies for civility at TMV, they will be banned.

You are welcome to debate, as we say in USAF, flying with pure blue lightning… which doesnt mean using 'blue language,' but rather means to fly with all the expertise in you.

Thanks,

Dr.E
Assistant Editor and Columnist at The Moderate Voice

I think I’ve found the problem.

You can see the words on the page, you can read and understand the meaning of the individual words, but when you try to put them all together with meaning and context your mind makes up little stories around each grouping.

This isn’t an isolated case. Many liberals who don’t read widely have the same affliction that affects comprehension. I’m not trying to be glib here, I’m serious.

What happens is your mind already has a set of parameters that you associate with a certain grouping of words and a source. If the words have anything to do with blacks and the source is on the right, your mind automatically inserts the texture to the scenario so that regardless what was actually said, it registers as “racist”.

You can “unlearn” this over time, but once the synapses are used to firing in a certain manner, it’s hard to change.

You are either a moron or not at all familar with WW2 history. Adolf Hitler never had any desire to conquer and rule over Europe and North Africa. He didn't want a war with Britain and France either. It was Britain and France that turned a localized border dispute with Poland into a World War by declaring war on Germany.

How did I miss this gem on the first read-through? Holy cow dude, it is pretty much inherent in the definition of “racism” that if you think that white people should rule because they are white, and black people should not rule because they are black, then you are a racist. Your question boils down to: “what is inherently wrong with being racist?” Now, if you think there's nothing wrong with being racist, I guess that's your opinion, but don't pretend to argue in good faith on the issue of race.

Good lord, does the google not work from your computer? It took me about 10 minutes to find these quotes. Besides, if they're all perfectly fine things to say, does it matter?

The “negroes” comment was from his autobiography, Right from the Beginning, which was published in 1988. “Negro” was most certainly NOT the proper way to address a black person at that time. And for the record: yes, I do oppose referring to black people as “negroes”. I know Pat has written a lot about WWII and Hitler — what was that bit about how if Churchill had just been groovy with Hilter's taking over all of Europe, the Holocaust and WWII never would have happened? Charming.

“All of these quotes need to be researched and debated.”

Go for it. They're all out there in the world of google. I would love to see you try to come up with some “context” in which these statements somehow come out not being racist. I warn you though, the contexts don't leave a lot to work with if that's your aim.

“Shall we discuss Robert Byrd’s quotes or Joe Biden’s?”

i don't see how such a discussion would be germain to this conversation — that's not what this post is about. You got up in arms because the OP had the audacity to call out Pat as a racist, and you said “I’m absolutely certain that Pat Buchanan isn’t the slightest bit racist.” I think that's bull-ploppy, and gave evidence. If you have evidence in contrast to that (and note: “I met him one time” doesn't count), I am very willing to hear it. Whether there are liberals who are racist has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Pat Buchanan is racist.

I wish you would have provided links to the quotes. That would help in establishing the actual words, the context and time frame it was spoken in.

Is it possible that what Buchanan said when taken in the proper context are true and accurate statements and opinions that lack the 21st century gloss of political correctness in their phrasing?

Did you oppose people calling blacks Negroes? Were you politically active back when Negro was the proper way to address a person of color? What is it about the Hitler statement that you disagree with? Did you know that Buchanan is quite a historical scholar on the subject?

What is inherently wrong with white rule of black majority?

All of these quotes need to be researched and debated.

Shall we discuss Robert Byrd’s quotes or Joe Biden’s? I think you’ll find that it all depends on how you look at isolated statements to be able to brand someone a racist.

No, it's not. While I do support some affirmative action, I do not think that it makes one a racist to think otherwise. Reasons I think Buchanan is a racist:

On why things were better before desegragation: “The negroes of
Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses,
playgrounds and churches; and we had ours.”

Referred to “so called Holocaust survivors syndrome” which he described as involving”group
fantasies of martyrdom and heroics.”

“integration of blacks and whites — but even more so, poor and well-to-do — is less
likely to result in accommodation than it is in perpetual friction, as the
incapable are placed consciously by government side by side with the
capable.”

Of the statement “white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong” regarding Apartheid: “Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this.”

Of Hitler: “an individual of great courage…Hitler's
success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an
intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness
masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood
in his path.”

Apposed the USJD's special investigations unit to prosecute Nazi war criminals, saying that SS troops were “victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps.” This, of course, when he wasn't writing for Holocaust denying publications.

“Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our
religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free.”

So, yeah, those were just the quotes I could find quickly. Yes, I think he's a racist. So when a man with this sort of background, well documented through 30 years of public life, heads up an “English Only” conference with another man who identifies as a “white nationalist”, then yes, I think there are some pretty disgusting racial undertones there. Not to mention that I think “English Only” is a ridiculous idea anyway — it's incomprehensible anti-intellectualism. I also think there's a racist undertone when this type of person derides the very obvious intelligence and incredible education and background of a SCOTUS nominee who graduated at the top of her class, but happens to be non-white, or that of a presidential nominee (when he was one), who also happens to be non-white. When you've heard someone say so many racist things, it's hard to take their ideas about race seriously.

I see we’re devolving into “circle jerk” territory. Let’s see if we can work through that.

It’s obvious that you believe, as Michael does, that Buchanan is a racist. Buchanan opposes affirmative action. Is that part of the proof you are depending on to support your belief?

Do you support affirmative action?

Sure, I guess. Although you most certainly didn't answer any of my questions, which I think I posed in an overtly respectful tone, considering your constant demonization of the left. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from on this issue. Don't know why, really, but it does bother me when people think you have to have a swastica printed on your sleeve in order to be a racist, or that racism is only perpetrated when people point out actual racism — somehow this is racism against white people. Pat Buchanan has shown himself repeatedly that he is one of these people, and you seem to fit that view as well.

“rocking back and forth wondering why everyone ganged up on him”

Something tells me he doesn't consider you and DLS having a little circle jerk that consists primarily of “liberals are evil, ain't that funny?” as being ganged up upon. But I won't speak for him.

“Apparently, one of the extreme left’s favorite tactics when they can’t win an argument on logic and reason is to demonize their opponent through personal destructive methods such as claiming racism or sexism or homophobia or anything that detracts from the original argument.”

Give me one logical statement, and maybe you'd have a point. You've not made an actual argument in this entire thread except that you don't like the poster and liberals = bad. If your logic is derived entirely from that premise, then it's pretty clear why you don't think it's ok when liberals or even slightly less draconian conservatives say anything at all.

As I mentioned, I don’t know a lot about Brimelow so I need to reserve judgment on him. I’ve seen too many people mischaracterized as racists when they simply had a different view than the far left.

Apparently, one of the extreme left’s favorite tactics when they can’t win an argument on logic and reason is to demonize their opponent through personal destructive methods such as claiming racism or sexism or homophobia or anything that detracts from the original argument.

People who are adamantly against illegal immigration aren’t racists because of that. Neither are people who believe that the United States has it’s origins in being a “melting pot” and that immigrants should strive to assimilate to the U.S. culture as opposed to rigidly hanging on or even promoting their original culture at the expense of U.S. traditions. These are simply people who have different ideas of what this country is.

I have a number of words and actions that I consider racist, but I’m sure it’s no surprise to you that my list consists mainly of things liberals do and say.

One of my biggest problems is keeping the people and policies separate. I know practically every liberal in the country is a well-meaning individual who only wants the best for mankind. I also know that liberal policies are responsible for the greatest evil, the most pain, suffering, hopelessness, death and poverty. Of course, that wasn’t the desired results when the leftists came up with these plans and actions, but that has been the unintended consequences.

As far as Michael goes, I feel bad. You know how empathic conservatives are and it’s killing me thinking he’s curled up in the fetal position, rocking back and forth wondering why everyone ganged up on him.

In his world, people actual talk like conservatives are all racists. On the websites he reads and links to, he would be called smart and witty for his clever observations. No one thinks differently or questions assumptions like his. Then, all of a sudden at TMV, a place he thought was just as safe to spread this type of bile, someone speaks up in a tongue he’s never heard before. The shock must be overwhelming.

Oh well, I’m over feeling bad now.

Let’s speak again tomorrow.

Hopefully, he won’t like how this article was received and the next time he reads something as ridiculous as this he will think twice about reposting with ever expanded vitriol.”

I don't necessarily agree with everything Michael Stickings writes, sometimes I disagree with everything Conservative authors and commenters write.

However, it is one thing to embarrass a writer by pointing out his or her ignorance of the facts,his or her poor writing techniques, or whatever. But to try to embarrass an author–expose him in a rather unflattering manner–, to in fact intimidate him or her , by personally insulting him or her so that he or her “will think twice” about ;posting (with or without what the reader considers to be “vitrol”) is just beyond the pale.

Dorian

Yes, let me have it now.

ok, taking this another slow step (I'm in earnest trying to tease out your position here, while trying to ignore its earlier cloaking in your liberals-are-diseased stuff). Do you think that there are people who do not say “I am a racist and hate [fill in group]” like the neo-Nazis do, yet are still racist or at least capable of doing or saying racist things on a regular basis? What kind of actions or words would you consider racist?

As we see also and have for years now toward the insuffienciently pious, and stupidly-robotic and not-hysterical-enough, in the case of the leftist Convenient Religion of Global Warming, but (as with Mikey's extremist-hate anti-Religious Right bigotry) that's just another subject, another example of the pathological phenomena. (Man, what they've done not only to academia again but to a fascinating subject of study…)

I don’t know much about Brimelow, but I’m absolutely certain that Pat Buchanan isn’t the slightest bit racist. I’ve read his columns, two of his books (although they were historical as opposed to political), I’ve heard him speak and even met him once years ago at a function with Phil Gramm.

My argument with Michael is that the hate speech he insists on reposting from left wing extremist sites makes the assumption that if someone is conservative, they must be racists, knuckledraggers, Nazis, etc. When he goes off on Pat Buchanan, who the progressive radicals believe is anti-Semitic and racist, I believe it’s time to call him out.