“I believe this information should make us more charitable and more willing to find ways through charity and the laws of softening the rough edges of a free society for those who are, in certain important respects, permanent children.”

Take the overt racism out of this comment and it could have been uttered by any number
of leftists who view the mass of the governed as children in need of Government
paternalism.

Reprehensible!

It’s information in general.  There are a lot of whites on the left half of the Bell Curve too, you know, and I don’t lose sleep over the integrity of elections, for example, when they can’t figure out a butterfly ballot, nor do I particularly mind that state social workers check in sometimes to sure their kids are getting three hots and a cot.

Not everyone is capable of living independently, but they do not necessarily have to be institutionalized either.

As for the racial dimension, let’s just say concern for the tender feelings of the black race is why teenaged girls were gangraped in the New Orleans Superdome for a few days after Katrina.  It would have been racist to recognize what was bound to happen in the case of a bad storm in a very violent, mismanaged black-majority city.

Caleb, I changed my wording in the interest of clarity.  I did not intend to imply that all the members of any group, race, or ethnicity were “permanent children,” but I do believe certain low IQ individuals are essentially such.  Children, however, are not objects of hatred or derision where I am from.

The paternalism that Mr. Stegall worries about has always been here for the least intelligent and resourceful, it has simply changed shapes.

In the past, it came in the form of things like church, town, and individual charity.  Just as importantly, communities demanded moral and responsible behavior, helping to keep self-destructive tendencies at bay.  Today, federal and state governments have decoupled the moral expectations from the aid, removing the incentives for good citizenship.

Since he brings up paternalism, here’s an analogy.  The federal government is like the father that spoils his children, giving them gifts and presents with no strings attached.  Local communities used to be like a good father, giving his children gifts and privileges only when they were earned with good behavior.

In other words, bring back the poor house.

Mr. Roach, your thinking is perverse.  Racism is bad but misguided, not the worst of all sins, while you reserve your strongest rhetoric for “anti-racialism.” Compare this sentence:

“I do think real racism is wrong-headed and often mean-spirited.  But it’s chiefly an error of the intellect, a misunderstanding of why groups are different.”

to this sentence:

“Anti-racism is at the heart of much of the suicidal anti-western apparatus at work in our society, both governmental and otherwise.”

This is perverse and misguided.  What you should be saying is that racism is a significant evil that leads to one kind of excess, while anti-racist attitudes are fundamentally right but capable of leading to different kinds of excesses.  Opposition to racism is not the worst of all evils and is not and has not been as damaging as racism, a fact clear to everyone but racists like yourself.

I forget where he wrote it, but Sam Francis pointed out that the accusation of ‘racism’ was largely popularized by the Cultural Marxists to undermine Western Civilization.  Conservatives, I think, should abhor such PC finger pointing.

“I believe this information should make us more charitable and more willing to find ways through charity and the laws of softening the rough edges of a free society for those who are, in certain important respects, permanent children.”

Especially since, in certain important respects, we are all permanent children.

(and you can substitute gender for race below)

Racism finds its evil excess in treating individuals based on the averaging of that group.

Anti-Racism has the exact same evil excess, but expands the group to human beings as a whole, instead of recognizing the individual, goes farther in the wrong direction.

“They are black” to “He is black” becomes not “He is himself”, but “We are all human”.

Perhaps they are striving to bring the fictional “Borg” into reality - one collective where there are no individuals.

Jim,
Liquidating entire peoples through institutionalized anti-Racism is sick and evil. Anti-racis attitues are not “fundamentally right.” Here’s Jim Kalb on the reasons why it’s not:
http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/1447

@ C. Roach, Since you and I have gone back and forth on this and other subjects, I’m going to let this one lie. n I truly hope you don’t believe the drivel you’re putting out.  If you do, shame on you.  I suspect you take these positions simply to get a rise out of people.

Remember the old saying, “You can’t judge a book by its cover?” You can’t judge a person by his race.

Finally, on our Durgs/Prohibition argument, you may may want to look at http://www.interlockfacts.com.  I think that site is a perfect example of what happens when government is given latitude to decide what is good for society.

Given the tone of your posts and columns, I doubt you’ll ever make progress as a thinker..  Therefore, I am going to pass on responding to you further.

Sayonara

Mr. Roach, your honest and truthful views have been extremely refreshing in this frequently sanctimonious atmosphere. It’s certainly possible to take a realistic view of race and human limitations without being a raving Neo-Nazi or segregationist.

Mr. Roach you committed the Steve Sailer evilcon sin of suggesting that some groups might need more moral guidance than others. BTW this might apply to hillbilly whites too but it doesn’t offend me and my West Virginia ancestry.

“Modern anti-racism depends in part upon the idea that great disparities in outcome between the races are due to past discrimination and widespread ‘invidious’ racism.”

...And this is the reason for the erroding validity of “racism” as a concept, at least among the targets of that particular charge. White people see a steady decline of fortunes among the oppressed, decades after the disappearce of Jim Crow and night riders. At the same time groups that value industry and education - especially Jews and Asians - consistently thrive. Today, a growing number of white Gentiles hear the word “racism” - and stop listening.

There are still scattered dunderheads who need the self-righteous jolt impied by “anti-racism.” And they can be “anti-racists” in this country - and throughout the rest of the Western world - with absolutely no fear of reprisal or sanction; “anti-racism” is a bold stand that requires no boldness at all.

The cornerstone of such self-aggrandizement is moral providence, delusional authority to sit in judgment of the rest of the world and apply unachievably high standards to the rightness and wrongness of everything rooted in, rolling on or sucking up oxygen from Mother Earth.

Uh...when has “anti-racism” “liquidated” anyone? 

“Anti-racism” requires the recognition of significant differences—we can only be racists if racial differences are recognized.  Human rights rhetoric addresses only the -political- subject and the basic rights all human beings have. Before the law, all human beings should be equal.

In our lived social reality, of course not all human beings are equal and should not be—equality before the law and at least a theoretical equality of opportunity and potential is the minimum a just society requires. 

This isn’t PC—these are the basic principles “conservatives” should be upholding.  Being “conservative” is not equivalent to being racist, nor is it to stamp an imprimatur upon systemic injustices.

“I believe this information should make us more charitable and more willing to find ways through charity and the laws of softening the rough edges of a free society for those who are, in certain important respects, permanent children.”

What a bunch of patronizing paternalistic twaddle. “Permanent children?” What next, the white man’s burden?  It is quite easy for Mr. Roach et al to write such elitist tomfoolery since they are not on the receiving end of racism, sexism, and adoptionism in the US--yet apparently are threatened enough by “the other” to see payback coming. What I’ve seen here lately is the last gasp of male white privilege. Next we’ll be hearing the how woman suffrage destroyed the country.

BTW, it’s been amusing to read all of this IQ jumble.  The concept of IQ is part and parcel of eugenics.  Eugenics = Margaret Sanger = Bad.  Eugenics = IQ = Good.

You guys must live in a bubble. Do you ever get out with real people?  Do you ever ride a bus around town?  Go to the mall?  Read comments in you hometown newspaper? If the government really got out of our lives, you’d be out of work.

“Uh...when has “anti-racism” “liquidated” anyone?” Well actually it’s happening right now. If you don’t like “liquidated” then I’ll use Brimelow’s phrase “dissolved.”

Our dissolution seems to be historically unique. Usually it happens when people are conquered but this time it seems to be our own elites imposing it in the name of anti-racism. I can’t think of another historical example off the top of my head.

“What I’ve seen here lately is the last gasp of male white privilege.”

We are the primary factor in creating the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world. We instituted representational government, an equitable judiciary and a system that celebrates a free and open exchange of ideas.

We put men on the moon… and got them back alive.

We deserve our privileges.

Save your whining for the day your multicultural playpen becomes the order of the day - and you’re wearing a sack from the top of your head to the tips of your toes.

“Save your whining for the day your multicultural playpen becomes the order of the day - and you’re wearing a sack from the top of your head to the tips of your toes.”

I grew up in the neighborhood WASP, English, Scots, Greek, Italian, German, Czech, Slavic Jewish, and Syrian “multicultural playpen.” We all turned out just fine, thank you. It seems that “multi-culturalism” is only bad when it’s about skin color. If the state would stop interfering in the free market, a lot of your problems would no doubt disappear.

BTW, what is so great about sending men to the moon on the taxpayers’ dolar?

...More knowledge than we could possibly gain sending deficient students to school on the taxpayers’ dollar.

Morality presupposes the legitimacy of self-interest and invokes rules to mediate conflicts of interest.  “Racism”, however, has come to include any expression of racial self-interest, particularly white self-interest.  Defined thus, “racism” simply cannot be wrong. 

Moreover, it’s awfully suspicious that of all the types of self-interest, only “racism”—and, more specifically, “racism” by whites—purports to be proscribed by the prevailing power structure. 

If the pursuit of one’s self-interest is proscribed, how exactly is one to survive?  Isn’t the foreseeable (and therefore intended) consequence of this proscription the death of the one that may not look out for itself?