Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Toxic Liberation Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/toxic_liberation#16069 Post contents: Scratch an American “conservative”, and he’s either a racialist or a libertarian (or both) (not Mr. Z, by the way). Mr. Z’s history isn’t quite correct. The “Left” in fact became “Right”. The Civil Rights movement became a nationalist and racialist movement. Removing Jim Crow morphed into Black Power and Black Panthers. King, right before his death, was already being dismissed as an “Oreo”. Even to call it after 1966 the “Civil Rights Movement” is wrong. “Affirmative Action” was just a euphemism for assuring that a particular ethnic nationalist group got power. The goal of the 1950s Civil Rights movement, a laudable and correct goal, was to get rid of skin color as a category. It failed, not for the risible reason of our Aryan racialists, who are so marginal as not to be taken seriously, but because of the exact same nationalist and approach among our pre-1808ers. Our racialists are just, so to speak, brothers under the skin with Black Nationalists and Black supremacists. There is really little difference among Frances Cress Welsing, Susan Brownmiller, and Prozium, save that the former are willing to use their real names. “Race” in reality is only skin color, which is as important for human culture as eye color. An ethnic group are the product of a particular history, not genetics. Gringos are purblind about this. Our pre-1808er “Blacks” are an ethnic group, not a race. West Indians are a totally different kettle of fish, as are “African” Africans because their history is differnt. In passing, physiologically there are a vast variety of groups in African, as in Europe, – another reason that race is a silly category. <i>it’s a huge step from there to say that the State must use its coercive power to restrict private association or freedom of contract</i> Which is exactly how the pro-death crowd sees it. “It’s my restaurant, it belongs to me, I can do with it as I wish” “It’s my body, it belongs to me, I can do with it as I want.” If you’re for “voluntary” [sic] Jim Crow for proprietors because they wish to exclude on the basis of a physical condition (skin color), you’re for “voluntary” [sic] for Pro-abortion, which also wishes to exclude on the basis of the physical condition embryo-ism. Of course the two can’t be compared. So spare me about “bad analogy”. (Today seems to be the day for “false analogy”). It’s just not how most folks see it. Abortion is the (bad) libertarianism of the “Left”, Jim Crow of the “Right”. And the pro-Life movement is the civil rights movement of today, thank goodness! And let’s have The State criminalize abortion! In passing, Personalism is a vastly better ideology than “national liberation” and liberalism/libertarianism. Odd, by they way, how the Austrian school’s central plank, that “The customer is king” (demand drives the market), is suddenly subordinated to “Let the proprietor be a tyrant!”. If Mr. Z means that the “Left” has become “Right” (identity politics = nationalism and racialism), then he’s quite correct. If he is offering the choice of either The State or a return to “voluntary” [sic] Jim Crow, and himself choosing the latter, this is a false dilemma. How would Mr. Z feel if we had “voluntary” [sic] discrimination against Croats. Has he forgotten the NINA signs? Does he wish NCNA signs? PS: see C. Vann Woodward, <i>The Strange History of Jim Crow</i>, chap. 1-3. Adriana is correct: Had we listened to (Gov.) Wade Hampton, all this would have been obviated. Sent at: 2009 01 08