Barry Goldwater was never governor of Arizona. I think Senator Paul Fannin was, so perhaps he was the one who integrated the AZ National Guard.

I agree that Romney has taken over from Giulaini as the Rockefeller candidate,but Barry Goldwater was never govenor of Arizona.

And George Romney was governor of Michigan, not Massachusetts.

Thanks for the corrections, which we incorporated into the blog above.

Thanks for the corrections guys, I’ll try to be more careful in the future.

Barry, our first Jewish candidate for President, opposed desegregation for a libertarian reason, thinking that property owners ought be allowed to do as they like with their property.  To which I reply:

1. As Burke said, before we let people do as they like, we ought to ask what they like to do.  Racialism has no place in our social order whatsoever.  That includes, by the way, racialism against Celts.  Did Barry forget the NINA signs? Or the Japanese interment camps in CA? Has Mr. Epstein forgotten that ultimate expression of segregation, the ghetto for Jews?

2. One man’s liberty cannot be another man’s slavery. Burke said he could not congratulate a madman’s escape from the insane asylum or a murderer’s from prison because of his newfound liberty. Racialism put into practice would greatly restrict the rightful liberty of many citizens, and, depending on who the racialists are, potentially anyone’s.

3. There is a public sphere as well as a private, A view as old as Aristotle’s Politics.  And the public is all citizens.  A business that’s open to the public is thus to be open to everyone in the public innocent of “disorderly conduct”.  Put differently, private property open to the public isn’t quite private anymore—or not as private as one’s residence.

4. Of course, as we all know, color of skin is about as important as color of eyes. So let’s not give such injurious stupidity a license.

5. It is consistent Catholic Social Teaching that private property is not an end in itself and must be judged by other goods, among which is the Common Good, and the Highest Good which is charity. What is more, Mit Brennender Sorge ##8, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 23; Nostra Aestate #5; Populorum Progressio ##47, 62, 63, and 72 all make racism, racialism, and discrimination by race utter heresy, meriting excommunication.  In short, he who is racist or racialist cannot be a Catholic.  Archbishop Joseph Francis Rummel knew this and so excommuniated.  May his name be praised for keeping the Faith.

@Mr Cundiff

I can’t help but disagree.

<<A business that’s open to the public is thus to be open to everyone in the public innocent of “disorderly conduct”.>>

Define “disorderly conduct”.

For example, I have a business with which I use only to serve, say, proven Mormons.  Mormons are free to come in and purchase goods from me, but if someone that is not a Mormon attempts to enter, I force him out.

How is being forced to serve the non-Mormon not a violation of my own property rights?  Are you implying that the final say as to what is “disorderly conduct” is left up to some government body somewhere?  If that is the case, then would you not agree that since my capital is being controlled by that government, as it is being forced to be sold to someone I normally would not, communism is the very best form of government?  If not, then how do you intend on defining for what uses any type of property are in the “common good”?

I’m sorry to see Mr Capp, with whom I often agree, retreat into Humpty-Dumpty nominalism and word games.  “Disorderly conduct” is a legal term under the Common Law.  So also is “crime”.  These words are also moral principles based on the Natural Law. And the enforcement of Natural Law is the duty of government. That the law requires an enforcer is the ABCs of politics.

No one is obliged under the Natural Law to have as his customers in a restaurant those who, by ad oculos demonstration, spit in another’s soup.  Race is not such a category. It is not a “behavior” or a “conduct” at all. (and of course, as well all know, “race” is a myth invented by Artur de Gobineau.)

Racial discrimination violates the Natural Law and the Divine Law.  It now, correctly, violates the Positive Law.  The citations in my previous post I urge Mr. Capp to consider.

Interesting how for some Gringos their religious principles are quickly subordinated or even abandoned by “property rights” if they are libertarians, by “race” if they’re racialists, “identity politics” if they’re nationalists, “history” if they’re conservatives, “equality” if they’re Social Democrats, and “power” if they are Cultural Marxists. The Summum Bonum is none of these terms.

The Common Good is a long-standing principle in Catholic moral theology, and I’m surprised that I must tell a Catholic this fact. See “Common Good” in Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Città del Vaticano: Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 2004

Ah, Sid, the sad truth is that Christian belief tends
to come second to most people. They cherish their
idols, and tell themselves that because they are not
made of wood and stone, they are not idols.

You might yet derive “ideology” from “idol” I think.

Here is a litmus test. Do you tolerate anti-Chrisitan
rethoric from someone with whom you share belief in
“property rights"/"race"/"identity politics"/"history"/
“equality"/"power" than from someone you do not?

If that is the case, they you are breaking the First
Commandment, and are as much as idolater as if you had
whole panteons of pagan gods sitting in your living room.

Sid, part and parcel of the Natural Law is that of race/nation/ethnicity.  The Catholic Church throughout the centuries taught that Jews are to be discriminated against--barred from certain jobs. Jews were not free to travel or live where they wanted to, they were restricted to their communities. So also did the Orthodox Church.  So your ramblings are ahistorical.

The Catholic Church does not teach the dissolution of social cohesion of a race for Race is Family. Race is nothing but a family writ large and if the Catholic Church is the big defender of Family, then it must be a defender of Race as well. And any Race has the right to defend itself and protect itself. Racialism is part and parcel of the Natural Law, God created races.

AHA!

I bring up religion (Mormonism) and it becomes a discussion about RACE!

The two are not the same.

I would hope Mr Cundiff would agree with me that I have the right to be bigoted concerning my unwillingness to serve/associate with others of, what a Mormon might consider, the “wrong faith”, ie something other than Mormonism.

As Mr Wheeler points out, the Catholic Church herself allows for this kind of discrimination, but he then goes on to confuse Jewism with race.  Jewists are not a race of people, and the Church condemns them being discriminated based on such belief.  However, the Church HAS supported the discrimination of Jews, Mohammedans, Protestants, Cathars, etc. based on their heterodoxy.

@Andy

Religion is not the same as race because

1) Unlike religion, you cannot change your race.
Religion demands a component of free will

2) There is nothing unexpected in that the provisions
of a religion do not cover those who do not practice it.
There is a code of behavior for fellow believers and
another for unbelievers. On the other hand unbelievers
are not asked to follow the religion’s directives:
non-Jews can eat pork, non-catholics are free to divorce
as much as they’d like, etc.  With race, while certain
groups might be excluded from a polity that they have
no way to join, they still have to follow the same
laws.

I am surprised that you could not see such basic difference.

Adriana, that was my point.

Religion is not the same as race, ergo one CAN be treated differently because of his religion; eg a Jew can be barred from entering into certain contracts, until he has, under his own free will, decided to convert.  However, one can not make that same claim against a person because of their race, which he CAN NOT change.  For example, it would be wrong for society to tell a Black man that he can not be a scientist because he is Black.

Andrew Capp, what is missing from this discussion is that a lot of people are ignorant of is the differences of races, or of sociology of races.

Georges Dumezil has pointed out a very important ethnic character trait in Indo-European peoples, called “Trifunctionality” where the Indo-Europeans create caste societies.  Look at India, Mr. Capp, the caste system where there is discrimination based on the Aryan invaders discriminating and subjugating the indigenious people.  Prof. Mendle points this out in medival Britain where Anglo-Saxon society was in a caste system of those “who pray”, “who fight”, “who work”. The Doric Greeks did the same thing whereever they invaded. The indigineous people became the serfs and the Dorians were the higher caste.

You can see the same thing in Anti-bellum America where the Jim Crow laws enforced a caste system; a return to feudalism in a sense.  A Traditional European society. Races do discriminate one against the other.  And Mr. Capp, I travelled the world and observed it everywhere.  One must be a realist---not an idealist.

Trifunctionality is inherent in European racial makeup and hence the natural law for Europeans. We do discriminate by class, gender, race. To uphold the Old Order is true Conservatism.

Barry Goldwater wanted the “...integration of the Arizona National Guard.”

If you look at true Old Order European society, look upon the British military.  All ethnicities are in their own military units.  Race mixing is Cultural Marxism. In the British military system, the Welsh fought in their own regiments, the Scots theirs, and the Irish.  Ghurkas fight in their own regiments as well.

Barry Goldwater shows himself to be a progressive. There is NO true conservatism in America.  A true Conservative in America is a Loyalist wedded to the Old Order.  One cannot conserve a Novus Ordo.

As I was reading this I was thinking to myself, “I wonder how many posts it will be before Sid pipes in with his politically correct liberalism that he tries to disguise with conservative rhetoric?” Well, you didn’t let me down Sid.

The Civil Rights Act was blatantly unconstitutional. Period.

The Catholic Church throughout the centuries taught that Jews are to be discriminated against--barred from certain jobs.

Sorry Mr. Wheeler, Mr Capp, but antisemitism is against my religion, the Catholic Faith, and Mit brennender Sorge, Nostra Aestate, and Verbum Dei say so.  Maybe it isn’t against your religion(s), but it is against mine (The Catholic Faith). That my religion’s practitioners haven’t always been faithful to its teachings is a sad fact.

As for family and race, Mr. wheeler has developed a perfect example of a non sequitur. The minor premise of your syllogism is false. For the Church does indeed support family, yet family isn’t race (the church as never said that it is).  Were it so, every family would be its own race.

Please state Georges Dumezil’s competence in organic chemistry and molecular biology.  And then tell me which gene govern “trifunctionality”. In fact, the man was a philogist and dealt with folkway traditions ("culture"), not genes.  Skin color is as important for folkways as eye color is.  The whole idea of “race” is risible. By the way, Georges Dumézil thought Mussolini was really cool, associated with Nazi collaborators, and with the neo-Pagan Alain de Benoist.  But then Mr. Wheeler and Joe Populist (most likely the same person) are those two writebackers whose views, sadly, most mirror ol’ Benito’s. To be fair, Benito was a late convert to racialism. 

And, sorry again, racism is against my religion, the Catholic Faith.  Maybe its not against Mr. Wheeler’s.  And we’ll have to leave it at that.

Sid, I suspect that last diatribe was being written before you saw my post. Would you mind pointing out to me which Article and section or Amendment to the Constitution authorizes a Federal Civil Rights Act?

Thanks.

Sid, if you look up the word “racism” in the Oxford English Dictionary (20 vol.) it has the OLD meaning of racism meaning ‘knowing that there are differences amongst races’.  Now, is that not commonsense.  What does Religion or Catholicism have to do with the “observation of the eyes”?  So the Church says that there is NO difference amongst the races?  That it is against Catholic doctrine to say that there are differences amongst races?

Or Sid, you are participating in Cultural Marxism by using a propaganda term? We all know that changing the language, undermining definitions is part and parcel of Revolutionary strategy. Are you a conservative and if so, why are you using the bastardized form of the word instead of its true meaning?  Or is it that you have NO truth in yourself, can’t recognize Truth, and therefore use improper language because you are cultural marxist?

If you were a true Conservative--you would hold on to the True meaning of words! You would use proper definitions, not the colloquial political correct terms. Let me remind you Sid that Political Correctness, the word and concept, was developed in Soviet Russia by Communists in the 1920’s.  Why a poster on this site defends and upholds Political Correctness, I don’t know why and I find it hard to believe that you are a conservative in any measure of the term.

The argument between Romney and Goldwater is “to degrees of political correctness” and not to the essence of the subject at hand. Both were progressives. A progressive is a leftist or is Barry Goldwater following Benjamin Disraeli’s lead of a “progressive conservative” which in all actuallity is an oxymoron!

the 14th.  Yes I know that it wasn’t adopted correctly.

re: Wheeler: The only “revolutionary strategy that I am committed to is in Mit Brennender Sorge, Nostra Aestate, Verbum Dei, and Populorum Progressio, in the passages that I cited above.

By Wheeler’s absurd reasoning, The Catholic Church would be Marxist.

I commend to my fellow partisan Red the book by C. Vann Woodward, The Strange History of Jim Crow, the first three chapters.  When Jim Crow was abolished in 1964, Jim Crow in Dixie was only 60 years old.  Even during Southern Redemption (1877-1900) we didn’t have Jim Crow except on trains (the issue in the Plessy case). Wade Hampton—no Yankee sympathizer he!—opposed Jim Crow. 

And “black codes”, another term for Jim Crow, started in Yankee states, before Lincoln’s War. Indeed, Dishonest Abe voted for them in the IL legislature. We in Dixie didn’t have such codes until after 1900.  Why is indeed a strange history.

Sid, have you read the reaction of the Southern Senators to Brown? Not entirely the same thing as the Civil Rights Act, I know, but it addresses the 14th Amendment. The same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment segregated the DC school system. The 14th Amendment could not possibly have been intended to either compel desegregation or force integration.

Sid, Jim Crow is not the issue. Yes I know those laws came about well after Reconstruction. The issue is making it illegal to privately discriminate. To in essence criminalize a state of mind. And a state of mind that is not necessarily bad. Is it wrong for someone in Little Italy to only want to rent to other Italians? The Civil Rights Act says it is.

Jim Crow isn’t a Southern Tradition. It’s a Yankee tradition that came South around 1900. I’m in favor of Dixie’s traditions.

“Equal protection of the laws” —The 14th Amendment. Read section 1 and the last section.  What is more, were Anti-Jim Crow not part of the Constitution, it would still be evil, and worthy or resistance. So constitutionality is a moot point.

To in essence criminalize a state of mind. .  No, it criminalizes an activity.  By the way, The law does allow racial discrimination if it deals with one’s own resident, say renting a room in your house.  There is a place for privacy, even for bigots.  The question is the public sphere. 

And a state of mind that is not necessarily bad. I’m a Catholic, Red.  My church says that it’s bad. And we’ll have to leave it there.

To get back to something:

Anti-Semitism is not the same as anti-Jewism.

If I discriminate against a man because he is Jewish,
that is not racial discrimination, that is religious
discrimination.

My question is: does the Catholic Church, in your
opinion, Mr Cundiff, give me the right to discriminate
based on someone’s religious practices?

does the Catholic Church, in your
opinion, Mr Cundiff, give me the right to discriminate based on someone’s religious practices?

Only with reception of Holy Communion.  Catholics, like many of our Baptist friends, practice “closed Communion”.  Obviously Holy Orders are for men only and catechesis is taught be those qualified by training —or is supposed to be. I’m not sure that any this can be called “discrimination”.  By that word we mean, under Distributive Justice, obliging a criteron extraneous and irrelevant to the distributing—e. g.  “race”.

In the public world, we have by and large done away with sectarian discrimination.  Or is Mr. Capp in favor of the Test Act, the Five Mile Act, the Act of Settlement, and NINA signs?  I pray not.

I am sorry Mr. Cundiff, but you are wrong. Racialism is just fine by me. Jews have a tribal religion and there is nothing wrong with excluding people based on their race, just as it is not wrong based on gender etc. It happens all the time whether people like to admit it or not. You can give all the modern egalitarian garbage you want about skin color is only race, but race and culture are linked. Name a factor of like and race through is genetics is involved with it. The science and logic is not on your side. Get over it!

It happens all the time whether people like to admit it or not.
An interesting twist on the Bandwagon Fallacy!

but race and culture are linked [...]The science and logic is not on your side
No evidence given to support the claim. And logic itself means that claims must be substantiated and logical fallacies avoided, and natural science demands an empirical test under controlled circumstances.

Name a factor of like [sic] and race through is [sic] genetics is involved with it. I think the writer means (1)that all cultural factors have a genetic base and (2) that this genetic base is racial.  No evidence is presented to support the claim.  What gene in DNA chain is, say, the Beethoven gene in Germans?  Along with such evidence, the writebacker needs to state his credentials with respect to organic chemistry and molecular genetics, the the degrees held, his published research (correctly cited), and the institutions granting his degrees, so that we substantiate whether he be honest or fraudulent.

Why is the webmaster allowing every thread on the site to by hijacked by agents Capp and Cundiff? These frauds turn every issue into a Catholic vs Protestant battleground as deliberate divide & conquer strategy.

Their actions are as transparent as neo Nazis on a Jewish website stoking up animosity between the Ashkenazis and Sephardim no matter what the thread topic.

Why single out Romney, is there any other Republican or establishment conservative that doesn’t fall on the floor, curl up into a little blue ball and start sucking his thumb at any call to racial correctness?  Certainly not our Commander-In-Chief, with his annual tributes to the blatantly racist, blatantly separatist holiday of Kwanzaa, Here is a recent WSJ column by Bruce Bartlett in the “we’re the real anti-racism party” mode:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110011033

One of the things that caught my eye in Bartlett’s little list are the quotes about limiting Chinese immigration.  Don’t the conservatives who deplore the past limiting of non-white immigration realize they are deploring there own existence?  It’s like wishing your grandfather had never been born.  When it comes to matters racial any hint that you are even contemplating keeping the baby is heresy, and opens one up to the tender mercies of the Inquisition.