I am honestly not sure what several of my “guests” were trying to argue in the thread about my Coulter post from yesterday, but part of it was taking issue with my assertion that Coulter was being racist in her column.
Regardless of what their exact point was, part of it was an attempt to reject the very notion of racism as Marxist and I think to assert that Coulter wasn’t being racist and that their support for the column simply was an assertion of “real conservative” which they define as being fundamentally about kinship (indeed, they keep asserting that it had to do with “blood and soil, kith and kin, and genophilia (instinctive attachment to family and tribe)”).
A telling turn of events takes place in the “discussion” when at some point for some reason two of the commenters decided that I was black and from there started to get even more insulting, attacking my intelligence and asserting that I had to have been an affirmative action student at my undergrad and grad institutions:
You need to take Logic 101. Your statements do not even follow each other. You sound like some left-wing MLK soundboard. Do you know anything that is not a left-wing cliche? Can you engage in basic reasoning?I would be shocked, but I can see that you were accepted both into UT and U of C – Irvine based on affirmative action, not academic merit. Big surprise. You are not very bright.
Of course most of the attempts at “argument” were either name-calling or pseudo-intellectual talking points, so the generation into race-based name calling was no surprise.
It is rather illustrative that once they thought I was black that they became even more insulting. But Heaven Forbid that I should assert that anyone is being a racist. Nope, no proof of that anywhere…
I didn’t expect an enlightened debate, but it was all rather intriguing as to the degree to which these fellows became living examples of judging people based on skin color. A few comments after the “affirmative action” statement we have the somewhat difficult to parse comment #21 that starts using phrases like “Steve Doggie-Dog” (which I assumes he means me, or, the black me he thinks me to be) and “homies” and whatnot. I presume he is trying to be insulting using what he sees as black street slang. Still, as I say, the syntax makes it rather difficult to really understand what in the world he is trying to say.
Regardless, it is a revealing thread, although I would venture to say that the participants in the thread have no idea what they have revealed.
June 10th, 2024 at 1:52 pm
Dr. Taylor, I think you are playing dumb. An attempt to not directly address our arguments, perhaps.
You are a trained political scientist. You know what we mean by left-wing, and you know what the proposition nation debate is all about.
We are not so much labeling you or calling you names (I concede PC enforcer is a name.) as we are identifying the origins of your argument. Is there something wrong with that?
Now, back to the original subject of Ann Coulter. Her point was that in 1960 America was 90% white. Now it is less than two thirds. By 2024 or before whites will be a minority. She and we think that is a bad thing.
Is it your contention that that is inherently racist? Does, in your opinion, racism not require some sort of hate or ill will? Are you suggesting that that profound change in demographics is trivial? That it is irrelevant? That it is insignificant? If you are, then I suggest that is flat earth society territory. It is just not credible.
According to your CV, you are a Latin American scholar. Especially Columbia. Would you similarly suggest that the demographic makeup of Columbia has no impact on why it is different from Argentina for example? Again, that is just not credible.
So, is your argument that any concern about or discussion of how demographics will be impacted by immigration is inherently “racist”? If that is what you are suggesting, and I do not think that is an unfair or overly simplistic characterization, then I do not think that is serious thought befitting a scholar. That is the stuff of the demagogue and the ideologue.
June 10th, 2024 at 2:52 pm
I have figured out what you mean by “proposition nation” although I hate to tell you this, but it is not a mainstream term of art.
And while “left-wing” is a fairly standard term, I had to figure out your definition of it–which as best I can tell isn’t a standard one. In the broad panoply of political theory “left” and “right” end up being somewhat relative and really aren’t all that useful same as generalities. You clearly wish to use the terms with great specificity and you want to anchor it in the French Revolution.
In regards to the name calling, as I noted there was some very specific name-calling, but even your attempt to try and ascribe the origins of my views is more diversionary tactic
than argument. Even if my positions are “Marxist” or “left-wing” or “PC” that does not invalidate them nor would it take away the burden on you to directly deal with them. You cannot simply dismiss something that you don’t like and it doesn’t make ideas go away if you think you label them. You (and some of the others) seem to think you if can somehow link an idea to some category that it is like Kyrptonite and that it kills the other side’s position. It simply doesn’t work that way unless you are sitting around with others who already agree with you.
Regardless in regards to Coulter and your support thereof. If the argument is, which is seems to me that it is, that American is automatically worse off because it is less white, then yes that is by definition racist. You (and she) are stating that a) one race is superior to another for no other reason than color, and b) that somehow being truly American is linked to whiteness. The variable you are both using to delineate your argument is race. It is, therefore a race-ist argument. That doesn’t seem all that complicated to me.
Part of the problem with your argument over demographic shifts is that you assume that the Not White People can’t behave the way White People do. That, too, is inherently racist.
In regards to Colombia and Argentina–you are going to have to ask a more specific question than that for me to be able to give a coherent answer.
June 10th, 2024 at 9:41 pm
Here’s another twist on that whole white race as the minority…How many cross racial couples do you see now? There are alot of black and white, but do we even know how many are hispanic and white? Probably more than we know. Could this be where Filmer’s audience is going? BTW, I’m an Ann Coulter fan for the most part, but I’ll have to say it’s difficult to interpret her comments any other way but racist.
Being a soldier for close to twenty years, I guess this kind of debate is one of the reasons why I do what I do. So this kind of discussion can take place. Have fun guys!
June 10th, 2024 at 10:14 pm
There is little doubt that Filmer and friends would have a serious problem with race-mixing.
But of course, part of my point is that race can be a far more fluid concept that some would like to see it.
And there was a time that I could stomach Coulter, but those days faded some time ago.
June 10th, 2024 at 10:57 pm
Frankly, I’d *love* to see these guys’ transcripts.
I missed the original comments, but now I must see this for myself.
I mean, I’ll check it out, Homey.
June 10th, 2024 at 11:07 pm
Checked it out.
Yech.
June 10th, 2024 at 11:17 pm
That about sums it up.
June 11th, 2024 at 7:16 am
Stevie? As I said elsewhere, at least they got the ‘v’ . . .
Here’s a fun question: if a white guy marries a hispanic gal (pretty likely around here), who is fairer skinned, and their kids look like whites, would it be a problem to marry the kids? I mean, you’d really have no way of telling their race anyway, would you?
This isn’t even a theoretical – I know families like this – you could never tell there was “non-white” blood in them if you didn’t know the family and what their origins were. In my mind, it just illustrates the ridiculousness of racism – if you can’t tell the difference, then what’s the real difference when you can tell? NONE!
June 11th, 2024 at 1:27 pm
Dr. Taylor,
I respect that you want this debate to end, but I just want to clear up a few loose ends.
Re. superiority and inferiority. You and your cohorts raised that issue and were the first to use those words. Neither I nor my cohorts used those words at all except Frank Lee who used them in response to you.
Superiority is a loaded term and you know it. Invoking the “white supremacists” term is a PC tactic often employed by SPLC types. (Along with the word “hate.”) It is meant to invoke people in hoods or goose-stepping in jack-boots. That is not what paleos are about and you know it.
Nor is this really about who is or can be a “good American.” Sure people of any color can be good Americans. This is about what America is. And America is a particular nation like all others (a British colonial nation, generally Protestant, etc.) We are not a universal or proposition nation. What America is is intimately related to our history, heritage, demographics, culture, religion, etc. In short our particularity. Change one of those elements and you change the whole. The proposition nation conceit is actually ridiculously simple-minded and beneath a serious academic. And why is conserving American particularity anything other than conservative?
Also, a quick lesson in conservative typology. Paleos are not nationalists. We are decentralist, regionalist, and localist. We generally denounce the post French Revolution modern nation state as a large part of the problem. Perhaps that is why Michael Hill posts at CHT occasionally. Or is pro-secession Dr. Hill some sort of nationalist?
Nationalists, often called White Nationalist, (some embrace that term and some don’t) agree with paleos in rejecting the proposition nation conceit and in decrying political correctness. But they are often quite different from paleos. They often accuse paleos of not being focused enough on race. Also, because they are modern style nationalist, they often oppose secession. Paleos view them as too friendly to the modern nation state, and as embracing an ideological commitment to race. Both “racism” properly understood and the rigorous anti-racism that rules PC land these days are unnatural ideological thought systems.
The regionalism of paleos actually allows for a lot more nuance re. race than you imagine. Paleos tend to view race as an artificial supra-category that is only an issue here because of the artificial importation of black slaves and modern mass movement of people/immigration. Before most Europeans ever saw a black person they were slaughtering each other on the basis of ethnicity. Look at how the Irish were treated by other white people. Is that “racism?”
There is also opposition arising to the proposition nation from the more mainstream pro-war right. They see the PN concept as a problem because they want to restrict Muslim immigration. Many of these folks are also Jewish and view the PN idea as imperiling the existence of Israel as a particular Jewish religious and ethnic state. I am pretty sure this is the position Robert Locke is arguing from, although I have no idea if he is Jewish. That is why his stuff appeared at Front Page Mag. Paleos have many disagreements with these folks as paleos oppose the Iraq War and foreign intervention, and a lot of this group are uber-hawks.
Also, paleos are almost all orthodox (small o) Christians. If you were trying to insinuate that we are Christian Identity or something like that then you are way off. For the record, I am a conservative Protestant who is also a paleo.
Re. Filmer. I used my screen name Filmer because I obviously came over here from Conservative Times, and I wanted you to know which poster over there you were dealing with. I agree with Filmer about much, but not all. I do not believe in the Divine Right of Kings. In fact, I think Paine made a very good argument that monarchy is not the Biblical norm, although Paine was not a believer. Most traditional American conservatives accept some degree of liberalism. We are, as Mark C. Henrie calls us, liberal conservatives by historical standards. (By contrast, neocons are conservative liberals.) I have meet a few Jacobite paleos, but most paleos are clearly more Roundhead than Cavalier. But I agree with Filmer that the family, not the individual, is the primordial political unit, that all authority does not rest on consent, and that “social contract theory” is philosophical nonsense. The only societies that come close to social contracts are small scale communes and such. Never in the history of mankind have people come together and contracted blah, blah, blah… America is more prone to this idea because of our status as a break-away former colony, but we broke away on ground that was already firmly laid and anchored in a real past/heritage. (Also Locke’s tabula rasa is utter nonsense, and is a very unconservative and un-Christian understanding.)
People with a view similar to Filmer’s re. the family and the generally inherent nature of authority are Althusius, Dabney, and Calhoun.
Think on this for a while. Your notion that everyone who rejects the PN ideas is some frothing at the mouth “racist” is way off base.
BTW, I would be more than happy to debate you publicly on the idea. I don’t live too far from Troy.
Have a good day.