Yes, it’s quite amusing that (white nativist) Pat Buchanan and “white nationalist” Peter Brimelow spewed their bigotry and ignorance beneath a banner that misspelled the word “conference” — it was spelled “conferenece,” with an extra ‘e’ (for eugenics?) — but what’s rather more serious, if not genuinely disturbing, is that this sort of bigotry and ignorance still plays so well on the right and throughout much of America. Indeed, the point of the confereneece (I’ll add in an extra ‘e’ for evil) was to revive racism in the Republican Party in hopes of winning over “working class white Democrats” and “building the new majority.” (Of course, there’s already more than enough racism both in the GOP and in Buchanan’s right-wing nativist circles to feed off and build upon, so I’ll assume it’s a work-in-progress — or, rather, a work-in-regress.)

As you might expect, one target of the white-first, English-only bigots was Sonia Sotomayor, whom both men ridiculed, as well as Obama, who supposed will require Americans to speak Spanish — not that that’s true, of course, but the truth hardly matters here, and what’s the problem with bilingualism anyway? (Well, it’s a huge, huge problem for the bigots, of course, because it threatens their English-only linguistic hegemony, and, what’s more, Spanish is spoken by Mexicans, among others, whom they regard, as they regard all “colored” folk, as dirty and less than human.

But who am I to protest? This is the new majority! This is the future of the Republican Party!

If this is what the GOP wants, if this is what the GOP really is, then, sure, by all means, let it show us all its true colors. (So to speak.)

I’m sure Pitchfork Pat will lead his party to the promised land. It’s just a matter of time.

(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)

MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 The Moderate Voice
  • DLS

    Uh-oh, Mikey’s being florid and effluent-effusive again. What set the dog barking this time?

  • jwest

    I would question this article, but I am convinced that you are ignorant enough to believe what you wrote.

    There is no hope in trying to educate you to the fact that people who have a different viewpoint from your own aren’t, by definition, racists, white supremacists, Nazis, anti-Semites, fascists, religious zealots or any number of left wing inspired fantasy villains.

    You go through life looking for the evil in everyone you see or hear. How do you sleep at night knowing, in your warped mind, that right wingers are probably just outside your door? If someone is following too close on highway, do you know in your heart it’s one of those conservative extremists? What kind of demented life can you possibly live running from shadow to shadow hiding from the evil ones?

    By wanting so badly to be a good little liberal, to be admired for your caring about minorities and your courage for standing up for civil rights, you need to project the opposite tendencies on conservatives to validate your insanity.

    Get help.

    Better yet, get with Kathy Kattenburg and seek counseling together. Find the right medications and stick with them.

    • There’s a lot of truth to what you say Jwest, in that certain liberals or progressives assume that all conservatives are of a certain ilk. Group Think is just as dangerous as Group Labeling, and does not address the underlying causes of racism.

  • $199537

    It would save a lot of time if both Michael and Kathy just posted links to ThinkProgress and firedoglake and write “what they said”.

  • JSpencer

    It’s clear from responses so far that denial is alive and unwell in the good old US of A, just as racism is also alive and unwell. If either of the two major ideologies (if we can generalize for a moment) provides any haven to that particular poison, I think we all know which one it is. Of course most republicans are not racist, but there is a neglected corner of their closet that is badly in need of cleaning out. Pretending otherwise ignores the problem.

  • Anna

    jwest:

    Now this I found truly stunning…on the one hand you say that people of differing viewpoints aren’t “evil” or “fantasy villains” (which I would agree with) and then in almost the same breath claim that Michael (who is someone of a differing viewpoint than yourself) is “warped”, lives a “demented life” who has to “validate your insanity”. You are also the same person who has referred to liberalism as an “infection” in other comments. I guess if you’re recommending that others “get help” and “find the right medications”, then I can only assume that you will do the same since you are spewing exactly (albeit the opposite side of the same coin) what you are accusing them of doing. Truly unbelievable.

  • tidbits

    This piece is too slanted to be taken seriously.

  • jwest

    Oh, Anna,

    You weren’t “stunned” at all. You’re just looking to find something to help defend Michael.

    I don’t condemn whole classes of people who have differing views, as the warped little cretin does. Don’t waste your time with him. He’s indefensible.

    As to the charge that I referred to liberalism as an “infection”, I meant that in the kindest of way. It explicitly implies that liberalism is something that can be cured, like a venereal disease. This should give much hope to the great unwashed masses.

  • DLS

    “It’s clear from responses so far that denial is alive and unwell in the good old US of A,”

    I have to laugh at the poor logic above, which is far from the first time it has been exhibited.

    Mikey is simply florid and fulminant, as he often is without any rational purpose or reason.

  • JSpencer

    Btw jwest, if your intent isn’t to portray yourself as an offensive dolt, then you are failing mightily. Insult and sarcasm do nothing to make your case, zero, zilch, nada. All they do is highlight your emotional immaturity, and serve to undermine what few shreds of credibility you might (in my overly-generous assessment) still have here.

  • DLS

    ” … referred to liberalism as an “infection” in other comments.”

    Well, it normally is outgrown, but never goes away, and is contagious and even virulent among the more highly susceptible, if you insist on a suitably clinical description.

    [dusting hands]

  • DLS

    “This piece is too slanted to be taken seriously.”

    At least it didn’t include a caricature-cartoon (as Mikey used with his anti-Religious-Right savage bigotry some months ago) that with a few changes could have come right out of der Sturmer.

  • DLS

    “Don’t waste your time with him. He’s indefensible.”

    Typically I ignore him, but given his poor behavior, it’s open season for scolding (even if the “impaired” cannot understand why, or respond wrongly for other reasons).

  • jwest

    Jspencer,

    I’m sorry if I offended your sensibilities, but I believe it’s important to answer challenges like Michael’s in the manner they are presented.

    No amount of reasoned, logical discussion is going to drive home the point of how offensive his parroting of left wing hate sites is. The only method of discouraging future articles that follow this theme is to expose him in a rather unflattering manner.

    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.

    Hey, it may work.

  • JSpencer

    We are judged on the substance (or lack of substance) of our own examples, not the examples set by others. If you truly believe Michael is beyond the pale, you are hardly going to “expose” him by acting beyond the pale yourself… that is, unless you are a devotee of the DLS school of logic. 😉

  • DLS
  • “There is no hope in trying to educate you to the fact that people who have a different viewpoint from your own aren’t, by definition, racists, white supremacists, Nazis, anti-Semites, fascists, religious zealots or any number of left wing inspired fantasy villains.”

    jwest: So as to be perfectly clear on this, do you think that Pat Buchanan and Peter Brimelow are not racists? I mean, the post certainly didn’t quote much of what they actually said, but I’m trying to see where your argument lies. It may very well be that the entirety of your argument boils down to “liberals are stupid and evil”, but if there’s something else there, maybe you could say it.

    DLS: ditto to you

  • You know, there was a time when the American left had to clear out and marginalize communists and communist sympathizers to remain relevant. I think the time has long passed for the American right to clear out and marginalize the hate-mongers in their midst.

  • jwest

    Roro,

    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.

    • jwest: First, Brimelow is the founder of a large anti-immigration group that maintains that they are only against immigrants (even the legal ones), while at the same time publishing numerous extreme racist articles. For example, the site after Katrina was lousy with psuedo-science about how race and intelligence are linked, which is why Japanese disaster victims don’t die at the rates that Katrina victims did, because they’re not black and therefore not stupid like black people. Hopefully, we both can agree that that is racist. If not, well, I would say that you no longer get to comment on who is and who is not racist. Brimelow is a white nationalist, and identifies as such, which is why “white nationalist” is in quotes in the first line of the post. He himself explains it more in a casual way — saying in so many words that he’s only a white nationalist because most Americans are white and most immigrants aren’t, and he doesn’t want any immigrants, so therefore he doesn’t want any non-white people. I don’t know if he’d identify as “racist”, per se, if one were to ask him outright.

      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?

  • DLS

    What’s remarkable on this thread is what we see among many liberals — the hype and abuse and other routine misconduct and worse directed at those they don’t like, who may be offensive themselves but in most cases are not doing anything wrong other than rejecting pathological political correct orthodoxy or threatening the more disturbable adherents of it. The responses on this thread illustrate the problem, as of course Mikey does at the start of the thread, displaying his routine extremism and fulminantly diseased behavior, even psychotic in its nature as well as vile and vulgar. Disease, communicable, indeed.

  • DLS

    “hype and abuse and other routine misconduct and worse directed at those they don’t like, who may be offensive themselves but in most cases are not doing anything wrong other than rejecting pathological political correct orthodoxy or threatening the more disturbable adherents of it”

    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…)

  • DdW

    “The only method of discouraging future articles that follow this theme is to expose him in a rather unflattering manner.

    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”, in effect to try to muzzle him or her–to in fact attempt to intimidate him or her into not continuing to express his or her views by personally insulting him or her so that he or she “will think twice” about posting (with or without what the reader subjectively considers to be “vitrol”) is just beyond the pale.

    Dorian

    Yes, let me have it now.

  • jwest

    We can explore this more in depth tomorrow, but for now let me just say a few things.

    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.

  • “Let’s speak again tomorrow.”

    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.

    • jwest

      Roro,

      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?

      • “Buchanan opposes affirmative action. Is that part of the proof you are depending on to support your belief?”

        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.

        • jwest

          Roro,

          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.

          • “I wish you would have provided links to the quotes.”

            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.

          • “What is inherently wrong with white rule of black majority?”

            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.

          • jwest

            Roro,

            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.

  • The reason that society is incapable of addressing the racial issue is because we view it from the wrong perspective. We talk all around the fundamental, underlying reasons for racism, and make it an emotional issue. How does one expect to cure the cancer without focusing on the cancerous cells? Focusing on the symptoms is an ineffective mechanism to employ. Consider this: http://www.tinyurl.com/aq4cdb

  • Prozium

    roro80,

    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.

  • Prozium —
    Because you don’t deserve a more thorough response, I’m just going to copy and paste directly from the wiki a list of countries occupied by Nazi Germany:
    Albania
    Austria
    Belgium
    Byelorussia (part of the USSR)
    Channel Islands (part of Britain)
    The Crimea (part of the USSR)
    Czechoslovakia (absorbed half, the other half forming the country of Slovakia)
    Denmark
    Estonia
    France
    Greece
    Latvia
    Lithuania
    Luxembourg
    Netherlands (Holland)
    Norway
    Poland
    Russia (partially)
    The Sudentenland
    Parts of the Transcaucus region (part of the USSR)
    Ukraine (part of the USSR)
    Yugoslavia
    In addition, a large part of Italy after the country changed sides in 1943, and Hungary in 1944-45

  • archangel

    Hi, Dr. E. here,

    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

  • Thanks, Dr. E, I will certainly make a better effort to keep out the vulgarity and post links instead of lists in the future.

  • DdW

    Thanks for me, too, dr e.

    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.