Students for a Democratic Society is at it again. Not content with closing down one speaker that they did not agree with and disrupting another speaker, SDS has now formed a new student organization called the UNC-Chapel Hill Protester’s Defense Committee and has now filed complaints against campus police.
The complaint, which can be read in full here, alleges that campus police violently assaulted protesters, using physical force, tasers and pepper spray.
The incidents in question have been caught on videotape by a number of sources. In this ABC news clip, you can see protesters fighting with police while trying to break into the room in which Tancredo was speaking. No one was tased, and pepper spray was sprayed in the air. Police officers who were pepper sprayed as part of their training have informed me that anyone who was sprayed directly in the face with pepper spray would not have been getting up and walking out of the building.
In their complaint, SDS alleges that the police action was politically motivated. They argue that police action on Franklin Street after the national championship and the flash rave in Davis was far more lenient. Considering that no police officers were being attacked and no one was trying to disrupt a hosted speaker at these incidents, it is not surprising that more force was used in the protests.
Now let’s review what happened here. Students for a Democratic Society decided that some people did not have the right to free speech. They then decided to stop them from speaking. In the process, they assaulted police officers, disrupted a University function and smashed a window. As a result, one member of SDS, Haley Koch, was arrested for disorderly conduct. She is a Morehead-Cain scholar. She should be an outstanding example for all Carolina students. Instead, she has spent her time at UNC compiling a criminal record for a number of protests going back to last year’s sit-in at Chancellor Moeser’s office. As a result, she could lose her scholarship.
SDS was completely unapologetic about this. They proudly took credit for driving Tancredo off campus, and blamed campus police for “escalating the violence of the situation.”
The next week, unknown individuals aligned with the protesters defaced campus property with a number of obscene signs. Then, protesters tried to disrupt another speaker, former congressman Virgil Goode. Campus Police were more prepared this time, and as a result, six people were arrested. None of them were UNC students, however, SDS has stepped up to the plate to defend them, saying that the arrests were unwarranted. Campus police should pursue further investigations to try and discover if these individuals coordinated their activities with SDS.
Now, SDS has leveled unfounded claims of brutality at campus police. SDS is the organization which has organized the violent intimidation of speakers with whom they disagree. This alone should be enough to call into question the propriety of their continued existence as a recognized student organization. While claiming to defend tolerance, SDS showed themselves to be the most intolerant of all the actors in this cast of intolerant individuals. Youth for Western Civilization and SDS are both intolerant of people that are different than them, but SDS has taken this a step further to engaging in acts of violence against those with whom they disagree. By attacking free speech they have assaulted the very foundations of democracy. There is room for free speech on our campus. What we do not have room for is the violent suppression of alternative opinions.
Great post, Chris. I read their full complaint – it just came across as so many pages of whining to me. I can’t believe they alleged that police want to “chill” free speech. The very reason the police were there was to keep order and to protect someone’s free speech rights as well as our right to listen and judge for ourselves. Why do they think the police would care enough about what they think to want to silence them? I definitely agree with you that campus police should continue to investigate how much involvement SDS had in conspiring to suppress free speech on campus at both events. Good work!
Let me first say that I value partisan press; I think it has its place. That said, I think this is more of an attack piece rather than presenting the information with a political perspective in mind, or allowing moral/ideological inclinations to inform your understanding of an event. I think that’s an important distinction to make because a few things get lost in the gloss.
Haley Koch is not a member of SDS. She is a member of UNC-NOW, but she nor any of the other people involved were acting as representatives of those particular student organizations. The UNC chapter of SDS is pretty small. Also, the clip doesn’t look like “fighting” or “violence” to me. It looks like people got pushed back and they stayed there. They didn’t rush the room; they were pushed out and the police were able to lock the doors to both the room and Bingham Hall. Assaulting a police officer is a very serious crime, one for which you can and should be immediately taken to jail. If anyone attacked a police officer, we’d be dealing with some different events with some very different police reports. Also, the complaint is against “excessive use of force”, not “police brutality” as you have listed. If any police brutality had occurred, we wouldn’t be needing a community complaint against the department a month later to be hearing about it. Dealing with the protest, arresting those who act inappropriately, and allowing those to are peacefully demonstrating to do so is part of the job of an officer of the law, and those who filed this complaint are calling into question whether or not DPS fulfilled their obligations. However, I think a big problem with the discussion of this event from both ends of the political spectrum is turning the actual events into a bigger fracas than they were. The moralizing rhetoric is well-wasted here.
Rather than making SDS the whipping boy associated with this issue, it would be well-advised to look at this community at large and see who the leaders are, student and non-student. Futhermore, an accidentally broken window, alarms and loud singing don’t amount to “violent intimidation”, especially when neither were perpetrated by members of SDS. Again, UNC SDS is pretty small, and to place such a large action on their mantle seems out of character for a press who a few months ago said that SDS represents the “relative lethargy” of the contemporary leftist movement. I’d hate to see so much energy placed on attacking one group when there are so many other important leftists to assail!
It was not an accidentally broken window. Multiple eyewitnesses tell me that someone purposely threw a brick or rock through the window.
I think your point about police brutality is really just semantics. Maybe SDS didn’t use the exact term police brutality, but they did say the police employed “violent and extreme use of force.” Not a big difference between the two as far as I can tell.
As for Haley Koch being an SDS member, my sources have told me this and she is also a member of the UNC-Chapel Hill SDS group on Facebook.
I am well aware of SDS representing the lethargy of the far left. Up until this past month, this was true. However, the creation of YWC seems to have given them a cause to rally around.
Multiple eye witnesses that can’t tell the difference between a brick and a rock? Where is the brickrock? did that hit anyone? As an eye witness, I’ll tell you what it was: a hand banging on a window, which was what the crowd was doing all around the room. The person who did had cuts from glass on their hand and arm, for which they went to the hospital.
Police brutality and excessive use of force are both forms of police misconduct, but situation and degree are important to understand. When police contagiously shoot a man 41 times, that’s police brutality. When a Highway Patrolman slaps you during a traffic stop, that’s excessive use of force. One gets a reprimand or suspension, the other a jail sentence. The sad truth is normally nothing happens in either situation. By your logic, intimidation and profiling could just as well be police brutality, since they are excessive and forceful. A journalist doesn’t throw up their hands and say “same difference”. Saying “my sources” (Wikipedia, a cop you talked to walking to your exam) doesn’t make you one.
So what if she’s in the Facebook group? I’m in a lot of Facebook groups. Just because I’m in the Starship Troopers Appreciation Society doesn’t make me a representative of the “organization”. It means, maybe, that she keeps up with what SDS does. I’m a member of the YWC on Facebook. The most recent wall post on the UNC SDS facebook is “Is this group still extant?” That post was made April 24, the most recent before that was September of last year. Maybe it’s not the best way to keep up with what’s going on, hm. Like any organization without dues, I’d say membership is determined by who attends meetings. I don’t think they have meetings with 68 people (# on Facebook) on the third floor of Alumni.
Again, you’re ignoring the fact that there were many more people there protesting than there are active members of SDS. My sources located in the two front sockets of my skull informed me that lots of people NOT in SDS were also upset about YWC being on our campus.
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read and I only read the first few sentences.
No hand was banging on that window. Were you even at the event?
Kids taking swings at police and shouting down a speaker will (hopefully) result in action to keep the peace. Equating mild action to police brutality requires willful ignorance of reality.
SDS has a lot of shell organizations, UNC-NOW happens to be one of them. SAW is as well.
“Youth for Western Civilization and SDS are both intolerant of people that are different than them”
Chris, would you kindly provide evidence to YWC’s “intolerance”? I realize that you think that YWC is basically a Hitler Youth group, but at least provide some sort of backing before equating YWC with SDS in any way, shape, or form.
“Sometimes a little ‘direct action’ is called for. After all, we’re not interested in dialogue — we’re interested in smashing left wing scum.”–Kevin DeAnna, YWC national president
That’s the same mindset that led to SDS running Tom Tancredo off of campus.
http://yafwatch.blogspot.com/2007/07/yafs-anti-african-american-ideology_26.html
Let me finish that quote for you. “…We are interested in understanding the Left and its arguments, true — but only so we can smash it more effectively.” It kind of changes the meaning of “smash”.
Also, regardless of YAF’s particular past actions, I have yet to see proof that YWC, the obviously undercover Nazi group, (Note YWC, not YAF. There is a difference) is “intolerant” to the extent that SDS is intolerant. YAF did make some fairly stupid mistakes, but YAF and YWC are two different organizations.
Let’ define intolerance and tolerance, shall we? Tolerance, in this context, means listening to the other side if and only if, you’ve opted to, for example, go to a speech sponsored by the other side. You are not required to agree with their opinions, but if you’ve decided to listen, you’re required to do that. If you don’t want to hear what they have to say then don’t go. THAT is tolerance. That’s the basic right that all people are due in this country.
Intolerance is what SDS did with Tancredo. They came to that speech with the intent to shut him down. They came to stop him from even opening his mouth. THAT, sir, is intolerance.
Now, until you provide actual evidence that YWC is intolerant, in the same way that SDS is, stop mingling you personal opinions with reported facts. Your “reporting”, just like with your sad and now quite shallow “denunciation” of YWC is simply making a mockery of what we know as journalism. Oh, and here’s a hint with finding your supposed “evidence”. Actions (ie not mindsets) are usually the best indicators of real intolerance. Seeing as YWC is such an OBVIOUSLY Nazi and white supramcist group, it ought to be incredibly easy for you find accounts of YWC’s intolerant actions.
Normally I’m a gentleman, and don’t use this language in a dialogue, but, Chris, you are a real jerk. NJR is exactly right in actually defining “intolerance.” We are a highly tolerant group–we have never threatened anyone, intimidated anyone, hindered someone’s free speech, etc. We would never think of doing such things. That is tolerance. Tolerance doesn’t mean that you have to accept or agree with someone’s opinion or way of life. It doesn’t mean that you have to condone it. It doesn’t mean that you have to like it. It doesn’t mean that you have to be mute about it. It doesn’t mean that you can’t work to change opinions so that the opinion with which you disagree ceases to exist. It only means that you treat people as good and intelligent, and assume that they intend for the greater common good. It is in that light that you tolerate their opinions.
As NJR pointed out, DeAnna wants to “smash” left wing scum in the sense that he wants to defeat philosophies and, much more important, attitudes that he sees as harmful to Western Civilization. And yes, he considers SDS “scum”–and rightly so. They are completely dishonest and hateful people who are not driven by reason or good intentions, but by ideology and hatred of Western Civilization. He isn’t interested in dialogue. So what? He not only graduated from college, but he is also a graduate student right now–in other words, he has been listening to the other side for the better part of his life. He knows what they think and he knows that he disagrees with it. He finds it difficult to find common ground with these people because they WON’T EVEN LET HIM TALK without calling him a hater.
You are a prejudiced person, Chris. You think that you can make conclusions about people based on insufficient/circumstantial evidence. It’s typical of you–just like when you tried to prove that I and YWC were violent because I had a profile picture that featured me pointing a gun. (I’d like to point out for the record that that picture was taken from a still-image/comic book-style movie that I starred in. I thought the shot was pretty cool, so I put it as my profile picture. The picture I had up before that one was of me holding a newborn baby.) Your evidence of our “intolerance” is ONE quote, taken out of context and spun to your liking, from Kevin DeAnna (who, although he is the founder and president, does not claim that all his opinions are a part of YWC principles and goals). Your “journalism” never ceases to amaze me. I truly hope that you’re just stupid, Chris. Because if you’re not, then you’re evil. You never issued me an apology, let alone a public apology, for your first TERRIBLE blog on YWC and me.
Besides a quote from Mr. DeAnna (which, even when taken out of context, can be spun in a variety of different ways), do you have any further evidence that we are intolerant? Oh, and, just so you know, YAF was founded by Bill Buckley, a guy the Carolina Review claims to idolize. Buckley himself said some pretty “intolerant” things throughout his career. And that’s the problem you’re going to continue to run into, Chris. The conservative movement is rife with “intolerant” intellectuals and politically incorrect intellectuals. If you don’t stop playing the politically correct version of politics, you are going to help run the conservative movement into the ground, since you will be playing into the hands of the left. Political correctness was invented by the left and for the left.
I won’t hold my breath awaiting an apology, since you obviously are not an honorable man.
“Now, until you provide actual evidence that YWC is intolerant, in the same way that SDS is”
I don’t believe I made this claim. In fact, I believe I claimed quite the opposite. I said that SDS is more intolerant than YWC:
“Youth for Western Civilization and SDS are both intolerant of people that are different than them, but SDS has taken this a step further to engaging in acts of violence against those with whom they disagree.”
@ Riley – I’m not playing the politically correct game. Your group espouses ideologies are a deeply morally offensive. That is why they must be opposed.
WHAT?! That is how you respond to the post by NJR and me?? Not even grammatically correct (which is typical of you, by the way)?
“Your group espouses ideologies are a deeply morally offensive.” Okay, even though it looks as if you were drunk when you wrote that sentence, I still think I understand what you’re trying to say. Are you serious? What “ideologies” (I myself like to call them philosophies, but whatever…) do we espouse that are “deeply morally offensive?” That’s an incredibly huge charge to make without actually explaining. We are against mass immigration, true, but we are also in favor of assimilation–that’s the most INCLUSIVE policy that can be adopted toward the immigrants who are already here. I don’t hear many other groups advocating for the better assimilation of immigrants, including the Carolina Review. The fact that we are in favor of assimilation is proof enough for intelligent people that we are not racist.
What else do we espouse that is “deeply morally offensive?” You make it sound like we are for the execution of anyone who comes here illegally. Look, Chris, just because you disagree with someone doesn’t make him Satan. Obviously, you don’t agree with YWC’s immigration views (even though most self-identifying conservative Americans do, which makes you more liberally-minded than the people you’re trying to lead by writing for the Carolina Review). That’s fine–disagree. But don’t say crap like our “ideologies are a deeply morally offensive”–crap in every conceivable way.
Here’s another thing for which you ought to apologize, but for which I won’t hold my breath. I’ve realized another thing about you, Chris: You’re arrogant.
Yes, you did say that SDS was MORE (there’s a not so veiled implication with the use of that word) intolerant. That suggests that YWC is also intolerant. You have yet to provide the proof I asked for. Instead, you dodged the majority of comment by playing a game of semantics that you have lost.
I’ll try to be more clear this time. Provide evidence that YWC, as an organization, is intolerant. You claim to be a journalist. So, start acting like one by checking your sources, providing evidence, and sticking to the topic. If what we espouse is “deeply morally offensive” then, as I said before, you should have NO PROBLEM finding hard evidence to support your claims.
Just keep digging, Chris. Don’t forget that you’re taking the CR’s credibility done with you.
OK, I’ll bite. Sorry I had to run earlier this morning so I had to make it brief.
Riley – First of all, I’d like to point out that the YWC website has removed the long version of their mission statement. Is there any particular reason for this that you know of?
The national leadership of YWC’s links to racist organizations have already been documented on this site, and I do not feel that they require continual re-posting every time we make a post with the acronym “YWC” in it. I also don’t feel like I need to argue why this is both intolerant and morally offensive.
And I do find opposition to mass immigration to be morally offensive and intolerant of other cultures. As a proponent of free trade, I also find it impractical. But that is beside the point.
As an America, an essential part of our national heritage is that we welcome immigrants. America began as a refuge for people not wanted in Europe, who were trying to escape government tyranny in their lives, as well as the poor seeking better economic opportunities elsewhere. Because of this, our nation remained open to immigration after gaining independence. In fact, our own statue of Liberty reads “Give me your poor, your hungry, your tired, your huddled masses yearning to be free.” YWC would have us reject this ethos almost entirely. Should we remove this plaque from the Statue of Liberty?
All nations that are primarily immigrant nations have a long tradition of being accepting to immigrants as part of their national character. This is true not only of the United States, but of Australia and Canada as well to give two more examples. Therefore, the idea that we should exclude immigrants is against our nation’s traditions and history.
The idea that we should exclude immigrants is also very offensive from a Christian moral standpoint. Christ called Christians to care for the poor, to help those in need. Who is in more need than a person fleeing a war-torn or totalitarian country? Who is in more need than a person so poor they are willing to risk their life to walk through the desert for three days to work a job paying illegally low wages, all so their family back home can eat? The idea that we should exclude these people as a threat to our culture and way of life is deeply morally wrong. Which is more important, our culture and way of life or their physical LIFE, period?
The idea that we should assimilate immigrants into our culture and force them to abandon their previous identity is simply ignorant of reality. First of all, it stems from a certain cultural arrogance that requires people to stay in separate cultures lest they risk changing each other. Second of all, it ignores the reality that cultures are always changing, mixing, combining and coming into contact with each other. Third, it violates the principle of personal freedom. People should be free to choose what culture they want to identify with, what culture they want to be a part of, without the government interfering. This is another moral issue, and why requiring immigrants to assimilate completely is morally offensive. Fourth, requiring assimilation is a collectivist doctrine which sees people not as individuals but as a group. This is also morally offensive, as it basically denies a person’s individual worth.
NJR – With regard to CR’s credibility, I think in the eyes of most people on campus it increases greatly every time we criticize YWC.
I have to respond quickly, since I have an engagement, but let me just note, Chris, that, one, you sound incredibly liberal in the sense that you are making the same arguments that liberals have been making for years about immigration, and, two, there is absolutely nothing un-Christian about our stance. That’s a pretty bold thing to assert considering how many Christians agree with our stance. Maybe it’s just that I’m Catholic, though, and therefore not Christian in your eyes…
You are clearly a member of the new breed of conservatives commonly called “neo-conservatives.” You put the economy and the free market before your country. You are therefore also a traitor. I hold you in contempt.
While America has been welcoming to immigrants, there has always been continuous and consistent opposition to immigration throughout the course of our history, but you probably aren’t familiar with traditionally conservative arguments against immigration because your mind has obviously been infected with the fallacious idea that we have some sort of obligation to allow immigrants to come unimpeded simply because other immigrants were allowed to come before. And how do you know that America wouldn’t be a better country than it is today if we hadn’t allowed all the immigration we did?
The fact is, you are obviously very poorly-read, extremely ignorant and not insightful at all. (I noticed that you quoted Thomas Jefferson in an earlier post. I wonder if you’ve read any of Jefferson’s work besides the Declaration of Independence.) Add arrogance to that picture and we have a person hopelessly stuck in his ignorance. You never once have actually explained these allegations before now. We only have “racist” connections if virtually every conservative intellectual and organization does, too (including the Carolina Review). You are prejudiced, arrogant and ignorant–a combination that will certainly keep you from attaining a true liberal arts education.
Also, you’ve never once attempted to get my thoughts on ANY of your allegations or theories on our group, as Justin Crowder did of his own accord. How honest and fair of you…
I’m wondering what the other Carolina Review writers think of Chris’ behavior. Bryan? Zach? Nash? Duke?
“The national leadership of YWC’s links to racist organizations have already been documented on this site, and I do not feel that they require continual re-posting every time we make a post with the acronym “YWC” in it. I also don’t feel like I need to argue why this is both intolerant and morally offensive.”
Yeah, I suppose if all of YWC and DeAnna is lying about Epstein’s involvement in YWC, then I suppose that you could say that YWC has a link to a racist, which is the case even for the Carolina Review, as Riley pointed out.
It also really sucks that you don’t feel like you need to argue your case. Unfortunately, reality dictates that when you make a claim, accusation, assertion etc, you are required to back that claim up. If you aren’t willing to argue your point, then don’t publicize your opinions.
With regards to the website, that website first came only mid March. So, it has been up for a grand total of what? 2 solid months? There must be some unwritten rule where once you put up a website, you aren’t allowed to change anything…..
So, Chris, I’m through with asking nicely. I’ll demand evidence for your claim this time. If you don’t care to respond (And who would since there is no evidence to back your slanderous claims), then post an apology for mingling personal opinions with reported facts.
If you refuse to act according, I guess we’ll have to see what the like of Brian or Justin have to say about allowing unsubstantiated claims to remain on CR’s blog. I believe that last time, you were required to change your post. So, quit digging that hole even deeper, and either provide non-existent evidence, or post an apology.
Oh, with regards to CR’s credibility. Yep, I’m sure that SDS, SAW, and NOW just LOVE it when they see this allegedly “conservative” publication use the EXACT same tactics that leftists use. Namely, mud slinging, lies, and refusing to back up claims. I wonder if CR wants to be known as a neo-conservative publication.
“[E]mpirical data…shows that added “diversity” from affirmative action adds little to nothing to intergroup relations.” –Duke Cheston
Hey Chris, is Duke intolerant? Never mind that he has a well-thought out, honest and bona fide opinion–he thinks that added “diversity” isn’t really a good thing, evidently, which means that he isn’t in favor of allowing blacks into the University on the sole basis of their skin color. He must be a racist!! He doesn’t want blacks in the University?!!
This, of course, is the argument that was made ever since the February 2009 issue of the Carolina Review was published.
Our concerns over immigration are well-considered, honest and bona fide, just as Duke’s concerns over affirmative action are. The fact that a so-called “conservative” would smear us the way you have is amazing to me. What was your thought process–wait, let me guess: “Gee, I wonder if these guys at YWC even have arguments…naw–they’re probably just raving white supremacists who just hate people of color.” Or did you just want a juicy story, and now that it blew up in your face, you’re too proud to admit you screwed up? Very Christian of you, Chris. In Roman Catholicism, slander is a grievous offense. Therefore, I consider you un-Christian.
Your claims about our “connections” are just plain stupid. Yes, Marcus Epstein is a very good friend of mine. He’s half-Asian and half-Jewish–an unlikely white supremacist. Michelle Malkin, also Asian, whom the Carolina Review has spoken favorably of, is a personal friend of Peter Brimelow, the real editor of VDARE, the allegedly-racist website that Marcus contributes to. Even though you’ve already expressed your contempt for Pat Buchanan, I guess it doesn’t hurt to point out to intelligent conservatives (who know that Buchanan is one of the pillars of American conservatism) that Buchanan also contributes to VDARE and is on good terms with Brimelow.
Chris, you’re simply a fool. All the issues discussed on VDARE have also basically been discussed by the National Review. By the way, Marcus didn’t contribute any of the controversial stuff. You need a class in basic logic, which I thought you were supposed to take in high school, but I guess you must have taken a class in tolerance instead.
Riley – You can put whatever political label on me that you would like. I’m not a member of a political party. I take no political label as my own. I put no faith in human political ideology. http://crdaily.com/2009/04/the-gods-that-failed/
“While America has been welcoming to immigrants, there has always been continuous and consistent opposition to immigration throughout the course of our history”
Well yes, but such opinions have usually been in the minority and not been something that our country as a whole is proud of. Opposition to immigration has led to some of the most shameful moments in American history, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the treatment of Irish immigrants in the 1890s and turning around a ship full of Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis and sending it back to Germany.
“because your mind has obviously been infected with the fallacious idea that we have some sort of obligation to allow immigrants to come unimpeded simply because other immigrants were allowed to come before.”
It’s our national culture. You also haven’t addressed the issues of why people are fleeing their home countries to come to the United States and any of the moral issues that excluding them raises.
“And how do you know that America wouldn’t be a better country than it is today if we hadn’t allowed all the immigration we did?”
Well, first of all, most of us wouldn’t be here. Were all your ancestors living in America in 1776? Secondly, America would have a far smaller population and would therefore never have become a global superpower.
“Also, you’ve never once attempted to get my thoughts on ANY of your allegations or theories on our group, as Justin Crowder did of his own accord. How honest and fair of you…”
I’m pretty sure we got your opinion and published it on this blog. In fact, the URL is right here: http://crdaily.com/2009/04/ywc-responds-to-accusations/
And Pat Robertson is definitely not a pillar of the conservative movement. He may have once been mainstream, but he has since moved to the fringe. He moved there at some point when he began writing books about how Britain started World War 2 and promoting them on Neo-Nazi radio shows, and compared John Demjanjuk to Alfred Dreyfus and Jesus and claimed that the mindset which is deporting Demjanjuk to Germany to stand trial for the murder of Jews is the same mindset that drove the Jews to crucify Jesus.
NJR – http://crdaily.com/2009/04/virulently-anti-immigrant-student-group-forms-at-unc-updated/ if you missed it.
Okay, I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, seeing that, God knows, any thinking person at this point realizes the ignorance and leftism of Chris Jones, but I must point one last thing out. Ann Coulter has been praised extensively by the Carolina Review (e.g., http://www.unc.edu/cr/archive/2004_12.pdf). Ms. Coulter is basically a self-proclaimed “bigot.” A simple search through a few different internet sources and a cursory glance at some of her books shows that Ann Coulter is basically openly intolerant. At one point or another, in one place or another, Ms. Coulter has basically talked about all the topics on VDARE and come to conclusions similar to those on VDARE. Where is your criticism of her, Chris? Are you parting from the Carolina Review on the Ann Coulter problem of your argument?
(Just for the record, I’m not saying that I agree with Ann Coulter or VDARE on everything, obviously. I’m also not saying that Marcus agrees with Ann Coulter or VDARE on everything. But I’m not willing (nor is Marcus) to stoop to the level of calling them “racists.”)
I haven’t heard Ann Coulter suggest that “black people do less well than whites in whatever country they are in” because “I’m not a geneticist, but” they might be genetically inclined to be less intelligent than white people. I have heard Marcus Epstein say such things.
Chris, your arguments do nothing but betray your ignorance.
“Well yes, but such opinions [against immigration] have usually been in the minority and not been something that our country as a whole is proud of.”
Not true. Opposition to immigration has typically come from people who are “conservative” in the sense that they don’t want their national identity to change (hence the term “conservative”–they want to preserve it), and they realize that immigrants change culture. Anti-immigration movements have been extensive throughout American history. The problem is that the conservatives typically lost, and losers never write history books.
“Opposition to immigration has led to some of the most shameful moments in American history, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the treatment of Irish immigrants in the 1890s and turning around a ship full of Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis and sending it back to Germany.”
So what? Are you suggesting that we are advocating such policies. Nice red herring, though.
“[Immigration is] our national culture.”
Correction: It’s a typical POLICY that America has adopted throughout her history. That’s not real culture. The acceptance of immigrants cannot be characterized as a part of culture. Even if it were a part of our culture, though, it is and has been a bad part, and needs to be changed. One of the most obvious problems with our immigrant past is that Americans do not have a real national identity–that’s why ethnicity- and race-based politics are so strong in American public policy. Americans are incredibly diverse and therefore disunited. That is why ASSIMILATION is so important. If all immigrants were assimilated, there would be no need for race-based public policy.
“You also haven’t addressed the issues of why people are fleeing their home countries to come to the United States and any of the moral issues that excluding them raises.”
What if I were to say that immigration isn’t the answer? WWWOOOWWW…bizarre thought process, Riley! What if wealthy Americans donated money to Mexico instead of having them come here to take the jobs of blue-collar, poorer American workers? That would be Christian, at least. The fact that Mexicans are leaving Mexico is essentially nailing the nail in Mexico’s coffin. They should be in their country working to make it a place worth living in. And, because of free market capitalists like you, who support the idea of a global economy and “free” trade, Mexican workers and Mexico herself are getting screwed over by greedy transnational corporations.
“Well, first of all, most of us wouldn’t be here. Were all your ancestors living in America in 1776? Secondly, America would have a far smaller population and would therefore never have become a global superpower.”
Well, first of all, I don’t want America to be a global superpower, neo-conservative Chris. I’m also fine with a smaller population. And no, not all my ancestors were living in America in 1776, but that’s just another red herring on your part. That’s like saying that a person who was brought into the world via fornication should support fornication because if it weren’t for fornication, he wouldn’t exist. See the consequences of your logic, neo-con?
“I’m pretty sure we got your opinion and published it on this blog. In fact, the URL is right here: http://crdaily.com/2009/04/ywc-responds-to-accusations/”
No kidding, genius. That’s why I said: “Also, YOU’VE never once attempted to get my thoughts on ANY of your allegations or theories on our group, AS JUSTIN CROWDER DID OF HIS OWN ACCORD.” If it weren’t for Justin’s sense of fairness, my opinion never would have gotten published, except on this forum. What I’m saying, Chris, is that YOU didn’t attempt to interview me for any of your blogs on YWC. You likened us to Nazis, but didn’t even bother to send me an e-mail saying, “Hey Riley, I’m about to tell the world that you are a Nazi. Do you have any comments on that allegation?” Again, let it be known that if it had been up to Chris, my side of the story wouldn’t have been told. That’s not mentioning the fact that just because I published my side of the story still doesn’t give you a right to slander me. There goes your logic again…
“And Pat Robertson is definitely not a pillar of the conservative movement. He may have once been mainstream, but he has since moved to the fringe. He moved there at some point when he began writing books about how Britain started World War 2 and promoting them on Neo-Nazi radio shows, and compared John Demjanjuk to Richard Dreyfus and Jesus and claimed that the mindset which is deporting Demjanjuk to Germany to stand trial for the murder of Jews is the same mindset that drove the Jews to crucify Jesus.”
Get it right, Chris. It’s BUCHANAN. Not Robertson. But I’m not surprised that you’d mix it up. Let’s go over what I actually said: “…Buchanan is one of the pillars of American conservatism.” And, yes, he is. He represents typical American conservatism before the neo-conservatives hijacked the movement. He is the chief voice of traditional conservatism. Read up on the history of the movement, Chris. Let me pose the following question: Has Buchanan “moved to the fringe,” or have self-identifying conservatives moved to the left? Any person with two brain cells to rub together knows the answer. Conservatives were traditionally the anti-war party, and so it makes sense that he would write the book to which you referred. In fact, many conservatives were originally against us fighting WWII–and they had their arguments, which you can either take or leave, but they weren’t ignorant arguments by any stretch of the imagination. I’d like to see you debate Buchanan on his book, Chris. It would be fun to see Buchanan mop the floor with you.
And considering that you consider anyone with a real/traditional sense of patriotism a “Neo-Nazi,” I hope you don’t mind that I don’t believe you when you say that Buchanan promoted his book on “Neo-Nazi radio shows.” I saw him promote it on Hannity and Colmes. Isn’t it funny that what seems to be bigotry to you is at least tolerated civilly by mainstream conservatives?
And, no, Buchanan didn’t say any of that nonsense you are saying he said. Quotes, please?
Finally, Buchanan is a regular contributor to the Rachel Maddow show. That tells a lot in and of itself. You’re pathetic, neo-con.
“NJR – http://crdaily.com/2009/04/virulently-anti-immigrant-student-group-forms-at-unc-updated/ if you missed it.”
I believe that I not only mentioned your sad little post on YWC, but that I also commented on the article itself, so I haven’t missed a thing. I’ll summarize what you said, since you MUST have forgotten. Only a complete moron would submit THAT as proof. Here we go. You believe that YWC MAY have racist LEANINGS. This COULD be the case because they are partially linked to Epstein, a SUSPECT racist.
So, uh, where is the whole bit about intolerance? I mean, there’s simply no way that you expect me, or anyone with the ability to read to take that as proof. Your previous post says absolutely NOTHING about intolerance or tolerance.
I had certainly hoped that you weren’t THAT dense, but you keep confounding me every time that I try to give you at least some credibility. I’ll have to stop doing that.
Riley’s already done a great job of proving that your not only a neo-con, but a poorly read one, at that, so there’s not much for me to add to that discussion. Oh, and did you read the part in my last sentence about “proving”? You want to know HOW he did that? It’s quite elementary. He found sources and quotes (Make sure they’re relevant to the topic at hand!), compared them to what is considered “neo-conservatism”, and deduced from that you are indeed a neo-con. You SEE!?!? It can be done! You can actually PROVE things! All you need is proof, and the ability to think logically (I won’t make the same mistake twice, so I won’t assume anything about your particular skills in this field of thought) and VIOLA! You have an argument! I believe that we learned these basics back in high school rhetoric. I think you might need to take a course in it.
Riley put it so well, that I’ll just have to quote him, as I can’t think of a better way to end this. “You’re pathetic, neo-con.”
“Opposition to immigration has typically come from people who are “conservative” in the sense that they don’t want their national identity to change (hence the term “conservative”–they want to preserve it), and they realize that immigrants change culture.”
Yes, immigrants do change culture. In fact, a lot of things change culture. Technology changes culture. Population dynamics (young versus old) change culture. Culture is always changing. Culture changes because of the individual choices that people make. There is no way to stop this except by placing undue restrictions on human liberty.
“Correction: It’s a typical POLICY that America has adopted throughout her history. That’s not real culture.”
Longstanding policies are generally a reflection of the culture of the nation which creates them.
“One of the most obvious problems with our immigrant past is that Americans do not have a real national identity–that’s why ethnicity- and race-based politics are so strong in American public policy. Americans are incredibly diverse and therefore disunited. That is why ASSIMILATION is so important. If all immigrants were assimilated, there would be no need for race-based public policy.”
If Americans don’t have a real national identity, then how can we expect immigrants to assimilate?
The truth is, Americans do have a national identity. It’s an identity which is rooted in the ideals of our founding principles, and therefore it is an identity which transcends ethnicity. That’s why America has successfully admitted so many immigrants of all ethnicities throughout its history.
“What if wealthy Americans donated money to Mexico instead of having them come here to take the jobs of blue-collar, poorer American workers? That would be Christian, at least. The fact that Mexicans are leaving Mexico is essentially nailing the nail in Mexico’s coffin. They should be in their country working to make it a place worth living in. And, because of free market capitalists like you, who support the idea of a global economy and “free” trade, Mexican workers and Mexico herself are getting screwed over by greedy transnational corporations.”
Wow, you’re anti-free trade and anti-capitalist? Those are some very liberal ideas there.
I think you’re just showing that if you go far enough to the right you end up on the left.
“Well, first of all, I don’t want America to be a global superpower, neo-conservative Chris. I’m also fine with a smaller population.”
And are you fine with American remaining the third world backwater that it was before the late 19th century? Or do you live today happily enjoying the fruits of American hegemony while condemning it? Just like the leftists who you despise yet who would agree wholeheartedly with your above statement?
“And no, not all my ancestors were living in America in 1776, but that’s just another red herring on your part. That’s like saying that a person who was brought into the world via fornication should support fornication because if it weren’t for fornication, he wouldn’t exist. See the consequences of your logic, neo-con?”
I see a parallel with Ronald Reagan’s statement that “I never cease to notice that everyone who supports abortion has already been born.” I never cease to notice that every American who opposes immigration has already immigrated.
“No kidding, genius. That’s why I said: “Also, YOU’VE never once attempted to get my thoughts on ANY of your allegations or theories on our group, AS JUSTIN CROWDER DID OF HIS OWN ACCORD.” If it weren’t for Justin’s sense of fairness, my opinion never would have gotten published, except on this forum.”
Carolina Review is a team. We work together as a team. We help each other with articles as a team. Your opinion was solicited after consultation between Mr. Crowder and myself before my article was published and I read your response before my article was published. We then decided to publish your response, unedited, as a separate post.
Note: There’s some sort of bug in the comments system, hence the three separate posts.
“Conservatives were traditionally the anti-war party, and so it makes sense that he would write the book to which you referred. In fact, many conservatives were originally against us fighting WWII–and they had their arguments, which you can either take or leave, but they weren’t ignorant arguments by any stretch of the imagination.”
I’m well aware of the history, I would say shameful history, of isolationism in America.
“And, no, Buchanan didn’t say any of that nonsense you are saying he said. Quotes, please?”
http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-true-haters-1495
“The ordeal of this American Dreyfus began 30 years ago.”
“He is to serve as the sacrificial lamb whose blood washes away the stain of Germany’s sins.”
“The spirit behind this un-American persecution has never been that of justice tempered by mercy. It is the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago.”
My apologies for the comment spam. Here is the last part.
“And considering that you consider anyone with a real/traditional sense of patriotism a “Neo-Nazi,” I hope you don’t mind that I don’t believe you when you say that Buchanan promoted his book on “Neo-Nazi radio shows.””
Here are links. Marcus Epstein appeared on the same program:
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Extremism_72/5310_72.htm
http://mediamatters.org/research/200808190010
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/09/pat-buchanan-advertises-his-book-on-neo-nazi-radio-show.aspx
http://patdollard.com/2008/07/pat-buchanan-advertises-his-book-on-neo-nazi-radio-show/
“Yes, immigrants do change culture. In fact, a lot of things change culture. Technology changes culture. Population dynamics (young versus old) change culture. Culture is always changing. Culture changes because of the individual choices that people make. There is no way to stop this except by placing undue restrictions on human liberty.”
Chris, it’s pretty obvious that “a lot of things change culture.” Duh. You never seem to cease using the red herrings, do you? Do you know what a red herring is, Chris? Look it up and find out.
The fact of the matter is that we as a nation have at least some control over our culture. Suppose we decide that cars, a result of modern technology, are no longer desirable. We would get rid of them. It doesn’t matter that we have the technology to make cars–we simply wouldn’t (just like the Amish). (I’m not in favor of getting rid of cars–I’m just using this as an example.)
Immigration is the same way. Because it changes culture, we, as a nation, have the right to determine whether or not we want that change. Conservatives, by definition, are wary of immigration, and, more often than not, against it because they typically want to CONSERVE the status quo as much as possible. The radicals are always the ones who are in favor of immigration because they hate the status quo and want to change it. It’s no coincidence that the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 occurred right before and during the cultural revolution of America.
While we cannot control all cultural changes, we can certainly control many. Either way, history teaches that bad things happen when things change too quickly, which is exactly what is happening in America. Should English be our official language? By your standards, Chris, English should not necessarily be our official language, because requiring Mexicans to learn English (a part of our culture, while not a part of theirs) when they come to America requires “a certain cultural arrogance,” to quote from your earlier post. Preserving English as our official language is an example of preserving a certain element of our culture, instead of throwing it away because it gets in the way of free trade.
“Longstanding policies are generally a reflection of the culture of the nation which creates them.”
Yeah, the culture in which we haven’t don’t give a crap about tradition and the culture that our forebears made. The culture of acquiring wealth, the pursuit of which is aided by cheap labor provided by immigrants.
“If Americans don’t have a real national identity, then how can we expect immigrants to assimilate?”
Very good, Chris! I can honestly say that this is the first time I’ve been impressed by a question you’ve raised or a point that you’ve made. The issue is very complicated, and I don’t claim to understand it completely myself. One thing, however, is clear: The only way by which Americans can have a real identity as Americans is by allowing their culture to be hammered out. If we continue, however, to admit a large number of immigrants, the situation will not be able to settle itself, and therefore American culture will never really be able to be defined. Once it’s settled, we can talk about immigration. But until then, it’s simply not prudent. Good question, though.
“The truth is, Americans do have a national identity. It’s an identity which is rooted in the ideals of our founding principles, and therefore it is an identity which transcends ethnicity. That’s why America has successfully admitted so many immigrants of all ethnicities throughout its history.”
Well, here’s where you lose me. I suggest you read up a little more on our “founding principles,” because we’ve long abandoned them. Not that I necessarily agree, but the founding fathers were what you would certainly call “racist.” Do you honestly think that they would have agreed with you or me on immigration?
Also, your idea that our national identity is rooted in ideals is confirmation, if a further confirmation was actually needed, that you are a neo-conservative. And if that “identity in ideals” were sufficient, then why do all Americans (white, black, Asian, Hispanic alike) identify themselves by the countries from which their forebears emigrated? If you asked a Frenchman what his ethnicity was, he’d say “French.” If you then asked what country he lived in, he’d say “France.” If you asked an American what his ethnicity was, he’d say, for example, “Irish.” If you then asked what country he lived in, he’d say “America.” Americans are some of the few people who don’t identify themselves by the country they were not only born in, but by the country that their forebears built, cultivated and lived in for generations. It’s a quite interesting study in sociology, albeit a disturbing and unfortunate one. Ultimately, Americans feel the need for an ethnic identity, and since America doesn’t provide one, they look to their nations of origin. Thus, you are clearly wrong if you think that an identity in ideals is sufficient for a national identity.
“Wow, you’re anti-free trade and anti-capitalist? Those are some very liberal ideas there.
I think you’re just showing that if you go far enough to the right you end up on the left.”
Well, I am against “free” trade, and I’m suspicious of capitalism (just like I’m suspicious of socialism) because it (like socialism) is a materialist doctrine (and materialist doctrines are not Christian, by the way). And, no, Chris, you are obviously not “well aware of the history [of the conservative movement].” Because if you were, you would know that the unfettered capitalism and the free trade doctrines were inventions of the NEO-CONSERVATIVE movement, which hijacked the original conservative movement. The economy, wealth, maximum produce for minimum cost, and business didn’t originally consume every thought of every conservative’s mind like they do today. So, no, historically speaking, my trade policies would be considered patriotic, while yours would be considered greedy and motherless, liberalism and conservatism aside.
“And are you fine with American remaining the third world backwater that it was before the late 19th century? Or do you live today happily enjoying the fruits of American hegemony while condemning it? Just like the leftists who you despise yet who would agree wholeheartedly with your above statement?”
You sound like an elite leftist University professor. I don’t consider America before the late 19th century a “third world backwater,” jerk. Please stop insulting my country and my ancestors. Let me repeat myself: YOU NEED TO READ MORE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON’S WORK. HE WAS AN AGRARIAN, WHICH, PUT SIMPLY, MEANS THAT HE BELIEVED IN THAT “THIRD WORLD BACKWATER” OF WHICH YOU SPEAK SO DISPARAGINGLY. I think that I’d enjoy a simple life on a family farm much more than I enjoy going to Wal-mart for my groceries, chain restaurants for dinner, churches that look like conference-centers, etc. There’s a reason why American culture is so poor compared to traditional European culture, and it’s largely due to our lack of uniform identity and our obsession with work and money. And, yes, I do have certain opinions in common with liberals. I’m not an ideologue like you.
“I see a parallel with Ronald Reagan’s statement that “I never cease to notice that everyone who supports abortion has already been born.” I never cease to notice that every American who opposes immigration has already immigrated.”
While President Reagan’s comment was clever, it wasn’t particularly insightful. The reason why abortion is wrong is NOT because those who would be carrying out the abortions are already born themselves. The reason abortion is wrong is because it is murder. Since you couldn’t actually address my excellent fornication example, you tried to be clever yourself. Nice try, but you still have to deal with the fact that you want immigration without checks or discretion. Anyone who thinks that the Founding Fathers would have agreed with your position is simply an idiot. Maybe you wowed a few people with your Reagan “parallel,” but, chances are, they were either simple-minded or fellow-ideologues.
“Carolina Review is a team. We work together as a team. We help each other with articles as a team. Your opinion was solicited after consultation between Mr. Crowder and myself before my article was published and I read your response before my article was published. We then decided to publish your response, unedited, as a separate post.”
Oh, really? Because that’s not what Justin told me. Here’s what he said in message to me at the eleventh hour on facebook:
“I do not necessarily agree with all of the implications presented in the piece, AND I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WRITING OF IT.” (emphasis mine)
He also told me in a personal meeting that he was highly frustrated with your behavior, and that, even though he didn’t know what to make of YWC, he still didn’t think that your blog was appropriate. He also said that he tried UNSUCCESSFULLY to talk you into taking a few things out of the blog. He was my main advocate to the Carolina Review as a whole. In his opinion, you were acting unreasonably and without collegiality. You may have read my responses to the questions posed by Justin, but I doubt it because you didn’t include one bit of my responses in your original article. But the fact is, master journalist, you should have contacted me directly and you should have asked me questions specific to ALL your charges. Instead, you relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center, just like a good leftist would.
I will address the rest of your points tomorrow. It’s getting late, and I’ve got work tomorrow.
You completely missed my point: Cultural affiliation is a choice, and when government gets involved in enforcing culture it inevitably means encroaching on personal liberties.
“The only way by which Americans can have a real identity as Americans is by allowing their culture to be hammered out. If we continue, however, to admit a large number of immigrants, the situation will not be able to settle itself, and therefore American culture will never really be able to be defined…And if that “identity in ideals” were sufficient, then why do all Americans (white, black, Asian, Hispanic alike) identify themselves by the countries from which their forebears emigrated?”
Because there is no such thing as an ethnic American. You view national identity as apparently inseparable from ethnicity. The problem is, there is no such thing as an ethnic American (except the ~2% of the population which is Native American), so there can be no American ethnic identity.
“So, no, historically speaking, my trade policies would be considered patriotic,”
And presently speaking, your trade policies are anachronistic. It’s not 1795 anymore.
“And, yes, I do have certain opinions in common with liberals.”
Well then don’t use “you sound like a liberal” as a put-down.
“The reason why abortion is wrong is NOT because those who would be carrying out the abortions are already born themselves. The reason abortion is wrong is because it is murder.”
Reagan’s comment was pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of the pro-choice movement. Mine did the same to the anti-immigration movement.
“I think that I’d enjoy a simple life on a family farm much more than I enjoy going to Wal-mart for my groceries, chain restaurants for dinner, churches that look like conference-centers, etc.”
Such places do exist and people do choose to live there. The Amish and Hutterites for example.
With regards to Justin Crowder, just because we work as a team doesn’t mean we always agree about everything. Also, when Crowder was meeting with you that day he was out of the loop with regards to what was going on, because he was in class and we couldn’t contact him.
Chris, you just don’t understand what cultural assimilation means. America is the only country that I have ever researched and heard of that actively encourages Mexican immigrants to preserve their culture in America.
Let me ask you this. Would/do you support the United States (whether it be through immigration, military force, or intimidation) moving its way into another country and literally forcing its culture onto that country?
If you do, then you ipso facto acknowledge the fact that one country’s culture is superior to another. To an extent, we believe this. We think that the best of what is defined as Western Civilization is something that should be fought for and preserved in the United States.
However, if you don’t agree that the US should impose its culture onto another country, I have to ask you a question. Why the double standard? Why is to just fine in your eyes for Mexican immigrants to impose THEIR culture onto ours? Especially when THEY are the ones coming here! That’s simply a passive form of invasion. If an American moves to Mexico, Mexicans have every right to “force” their culture onto that person.
By the way, Chris, I’m still waiting for proof.
*sigh* You’re hopeless, Chris.
“You completely missed my point: Cultural affiliation is a choice, and when government gets involved in enforcing culture it inevitably means encroaching on personal liberties.”
That’s just stupid. Government and culture can’t be separated, nor should we try to separate them. Government should enforce culture, if we the people decide that we want our government to do so. We at YWC have chosen that we want the government to enforce certain aspects of our culture, and the Founding Fathers would not only not call us “bigots” for this, but they would even support us.
“Because there is no such thing as an ethnic American. You view national identity as apparently inseparable from ethnicity. The problem is, there is no such thing as an ethnic American (except the ~2% of the population which is Native American), so there can be no American ethnic identity.”
Well, I actually don’t really view national identity as inseparable from ethnicity, but I won’t argue against that point. The fact of the matter is, ethnicities tend to develop over time, so an American ethnicity certainly could be born (it won’t, though, with the amount of immigration we have today). Let’s take a look at the French ethnicity. It didn’t always exist. It came into being after different extant ethnicities mixed. Ultimately, however, a Frenchman nowadays is a Frenchman–they don’t differentiate one Frenchman from another (ethnically speaking) to the best of my knowledge; yet, formerly, there was no such thing as a Frenchman as we know him today. Bottom line–we could form an American ethnicity. Gosh, you’re an unimaginative guy…
“And presently speaking, your trade policies are anachronistic. It’s not 1795 anymore.”
Are there any readers out there who are educated in paleo-conservative thought and who therefore see that Chris is probably ignorant of all ideas that he wasn’t introduced to in his high school days? Chris, here’s something I’m beginning to suspect about you: You probably haven’t changed a bit since you got to Carolina. You’re probably the type of person who is so stubbornly set in his beliefs that he constantly is thinking up new ways by which he might defend them. You see the world as a simple place that can reach its zenith by a simpleton’s philosophy of “liberty” (which, of course, is highly misunderstood and perverted in said simpleton’s mind), the free market/free trade, and protection against anyone who threatens the two latter things. How deep of you.
The fact is, free trade is especially dangerous for many reasons, one of which is that it encourages nations to abolish their borders. The abolition of borders has already been suggested in the New World, and Europe is experiencing similar problems with the European Union. Europeans are losing their unique identities because of free trade fanatics like you.
“Well then don’t use “you sound like a liberal” as a put-down.”
I guess I should clarify what I mean by calling you a liberal for expressing certain ideas that liberals typically hold. Here’s your first lesson on conservatism: Conservatism and liberalism are not really ideologies, but rather are attitudes and inclinations based on certain values. I agree with liberals’ criticism of transnational corporations’ treatment of Mexicans because I am inclined to agree with them via certain values that I hold, which are, for example, justice and patriotism. I think that the policy of protectionism in our day and age is necessary if we are to practice both the virtue of justice and the virtue of patriotism. But while my economic policies may change over time, my desire to practice justice and patriotism will never die.
But when you refer to America before the late 19th century as a “third world backwater,” or when you are so concerned with “tolerance,” or when you are so quick to yell “racist!,” or when you express core arguments that liberals have been using against conservatives for years concerning immigration, you are expressing a sentiment (or an attitude) which stems from the VALUES of liberals. I only agree with liberals when their POLICIES coincide with the practice of my values. Your values, on the other hand, are either those of liberals, or those of NEO-conservatives.
“Reagan’s comment was pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of the pro-choice movement. Mine did the same to the anti-immigration movement.”
(This is another example of your liberal VALUES, which bring about policies that hippies would endorse.) Again, if abortion were somehow not murder, then it wouldn’t necessarily be wrong to practice it, regardless of the fact that only the born can practice it on the unborn. President Reagan’s comment doesn’t prove that abortion is wrong, nor does it prove that those who support abortion are hypocritical. See what I mean about your logical faculty being faulty?
“Such places do exist and people do choose to live there. The Amish and Hutterites for example.”
Wow. That’s an incredibly stupid thing to say. I wonder if Thomas Jefferson would have agreed… I wonder if all family farmers would agree with you… (Just so you know, they wouldn’t. Family farmers are constantly put out of business by transnational agribusinesses.) Just goes to show how out-of-touch you are…
“With regards to Justin Crowder, just because we work as a team doesn’t mean we always agree about everything. Also, when Crowder was meeting with you that day he was out of the loop with regards to what was going on, because he was in class and we couldn’t contact him.”
What was “going on?” What was in “the loop” that would have changed his mind? Your article was as plain as day on crdaily.com. The fact is, nothing was “going on,” and nothing was in “the loop.” In fact, if I’m not mistaken, Justin tried to call you twice during our meeting.
Thus, my previous comment regarding Justin is perfectly legitimate and true. He did think you were being unreasonable. He did think that you were acting without collegiality. And there was no reason why he shouldn’t have, considering what was in your blog and considering that there was nothing in “the loop” and nothing else was “going on.” Now add to your list of attributes “liar.”
“Let me ask you this. Would/do you support the United States (whether it be through immigration, military force, or intimidation) moving its way into another country and literally forcing its culture onto that country?”
No.
“Why the double standard? Why is to just fine in your eyes for Mexican immigrants to impose THEIR culture onto ours?”
No one’s imposing their culture on you. No one is making you adopt Mexican culture. Being exposed to it does not equal having it forced on you.
“Government should enforce culture, if we the people decide that we want our government to do so.”
This is really an incredible statement. You basically support allowing government to remove our liberties and control our lives in order to preserve our culture for us. Well, if it takes government coercion to preserve a culture, then that culture is too far gone to be saved. Culture exists where people want it to exist. If it’s changing, that is because people want it to change.
Please note I’m talking about coercive measures here like enforcing things. I’m not talking about preserving culture through museums and cultural centers. That’s different.
“The fact of the matter is, ethnicities tend to develop over time, so an American ethnicity certainly could be born”
It could, but you can’t force an ethnicity to be born. You can’t force people to identify with each other.
“You see the world as a simple place that can reach its zenith by a simpleton’s philosophy of “liberty” (which, of course, is highly misunderstood and perverted in said simpleton’s mind), the free market/free trade, and protection against anyone who threatens the two latter things. How deep of you.”
I have already explained my views on ideology in full: http://crdaily.com/2009/04/the-gods-that-failed/
“The fact is, free trade is especially dangerous for many reasons, one of which is that it encourages nations to abolish their borders. The abolition of borders has already been suggested in the New World, and Europe is experiencing similar problems with the European Union. Europeans are losing their unique identities because of free trade fanatics like you.”
Like I said, culture is a choice! If people don’t like their culture, they change it or find another one. And just like a failing company, if a culture is changing it is changing for a reason.
“Well then don’t use “you sound like a liberal” as a put-down.”
“I only agree with liberals when their POLICIES coincide with the practice of my values. Your values, on the other hand, are either those of liberals, or those of NEO-conservatives.”
That may or may not be true, it matters little to me. Two sayings come to mind:
A broken clock is still right twice a day.
“Dear is Plato, but dearer still is truth”-Aristotle
“Such places do exist and people do choose to live there. The Amish and Hutterites for example.”
Wow. That’s an incredibly stupid thing to say.”
Wow, do you think that was some sort of put-down on the Amish? Not at all. I’m saying the option exists for people that want to live that lifestyle. You know, it goes back to how culture is a choice.
“What was “going on?” What was in “the loop” that would have changed his mind? Your article was as plain as day on crdaily.com. The fact is, nothing was “going on,” and nothing was in “the loop.”
Since you are not on Carolina Review staff and don’t know what was going on in our internal phone conversations, emails, voicemails, and face to face conversations, I suggest you not make broad statements like “nothing was going on.” There were in fact many internal discussions that day from 12-3 which Justin was not privy to due to being unreachable while in class.
“In fact, if I’m not mistaken, Justin tried to call you twice during our meeting.”
If he did it’s not showing in my phone’s missed call records. Also, Justin says he didn’t call me during his meeting with you.
“Thus, my previous comment regarding Justin is perfectly legitimate and true. He did think you were being unreasonable.”
I never said we agreed with each other all the time.
Chris,
Mexican’s HAVE forced their culture in multiple ways. I live in AZ, and every single public sign has some form of subtitles. Latin, which was previously the language that one knew coming into University has been replaced by Spanish. If I go into any fast food joint in Phoenix, the spoken language in the kitchen is Spanish. We’ve got 3 Mexican channels that are on the air constantly, and feature Mexican programming. The number of Mexican radio channels and shows are too numerous to address individually. We’ve got bilingual public schools. Why is my tax money paying for kids who haven’t been taught English? Because morons like you feel good when they say “We NEED to let these POOR people into our country, so that they can experience the benefits of the US!” Simply because you don’t see the effect that Mexicans have on our culture, doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening.
NJR,
This is not forcing culture. No one is forcing you to adopt any of these practices (with the exception of supporting bilingual public schools). Being exposed to other cultures does not equal having it forced upon you.
Besides, what are you suggesting? That we forbid the speaking of Spanish in businesses? That we ban Spanish-language TV and radio?
(Just so that the readers know, I’m not avoiding the Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter and Marcus Epstein issues. I haven’t been able to get to the bookstore to check a couple of things about Coulter, and I’d like to respond concerning all three at the same time.)
“This is really an incredible statement. You basically support allowing government to remove our liberties and control our lives in order to preserve our culture for us. Well, if it takes government coercion to preserve a culture, then that culture is too far gone to be saved. Culture exists where people want it to exist. If it’s changing, that is because people want it to change.”
To an extent, Chris, I agree with you. Desperate times call for desperate measures. You are correct to an extent that “if it takes government coercion to preserve a culture, then that culture is too far gone to be saved.” It, however, must be recognized that, as long as a fascist takeover of the military/government does not enforce laws to preserve our culture, and as long as WE THE PEOPLE elect to preserve our culture through existing laws and traditional political norms (which would be perfectly legal and in the spirit of our Founders), then the government’s action would in effect be our action, and WE THE PEOPLE would be doing what we want and what we think right. You are thinking of the government as Big Brother who’s always out to get us. Sometimes government can help.
Do you think George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, et al. would allow Mexican immigrants to cross the border at will? Of course, said former presidents wouldn’t/didn’t. Let me quote myself from http://crdaily.com/2009/04/ywc-responds-to-accusations/ (Note: My quote starts out with a quote from Pat Buchanan, who is himself starting out with a quote from Ben Franklin.):
” ” ‘Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them…?’ [Benjamin] Franklin would never find out if his fears were justified. German immigration was halted during the Seven Years War.” Here, Buchanan is obviously quoting Ben Franklin, who was concerned about the indigenous culture of the English being “Germanized.” It’s not that Franklin was “racist” against the Germans (after all, they were members of the same race), it’s just that he wanted to make sure that the Germans who were already in America were properly and effectively “Anglified.” That’s how we see America’s situation now. America is a branch of the tree of Western Civilization, yet it must be recognized that we are ONE NATION and we have our own unique identity in the West, and, indeed, in the world. We have a right to have a specifically American identity that is unique to us as a people. We therefore want America’s immigrants to be “Americanized.” And if we accept too many immigrants, we simply won’t be able to Americanize them well/fast enough–they will end up changing us more than we will change them, which will make our nation unrecognizable to our ancestors.”
Ben Franklin clearly was “enforcing” culture by hindering German immigration. And you know what? It was working until less wise Americans started breaking away from the wisdom of their Founders.
The purpose of YWC is really to change attitudes and values, so that people will naturally do what is necessary to preserve their valuable heritage. While we are a political group, we would really be happy if we just got Americans, particularly American college students, out of the intellectual rut they are in, in which they are incapable of understanding, among other things, what a nation actually is, and what it isn’t. If this happens, immigration laws will be enforced, just as Ben Franklin would have done, because the people (minded like Franklin) will demand that they be enforced.
“That may or may not be true, it matters little to me. Two sayings come to mind: [blah, blah, blah].”
If that’s the case, then why do you write for the Carolina Review, a self-styled conservative publication? You know, Chris, when you join a group, you lose certain rights that you held as an individual: You’ve now got a name to uphold. What if ISI is reading this right now? They are going to see that you are basically saying that it’s possible that you are a liberal and a neo-con who doesn’t like the idea of national identity, nor the idea of preserving a culture/civilization like that of the West because, as you see it, most people want traditional Western culture to be on its way out. And because most people seem to want it to be on its way out, you’re okay with watching it die. Grow some balls, yo… Thank God Charles Martel didn’t have your attitude.
The rest of your post isn’t worth replying to. I’ll eventually get to your other ridiculous accusations…*sigh*. The fact that you are obsessed with political correctness and “tolerance,” and the fact that you seem always to be on a witch-hunt for “racism” speaks volumes about your true values–what things are actually important to you.
Yes, I am suggesting that we give Mexicans a reason to learn English. And why not? It’s the US, which is an English speaking country. If you plan to live here, it is expected that you learn the language. Who are you (not you specifically) to think that when you enter a country, that everyone needs to pander to your cultural identity and language? So, no, I do not believe that there should be Mexican channels that show distinctly Mexican programming. And I don’t mean dubbed over shows. This is Mexican programming being fed into the United States for the Mexicans here to watch. Explain to me why, in your eyes, this is required.
And yes it is being forced. The majority of people in the US don’t support the idea of making Spanish a second official language. The majority of people don’t want to have to be Spanish subtitles on every sign in AZ. And yet, we still see it happening, because it doesn’t feel warm and fuzzy inside to tell someone to learn the English language. In Southern Phoenix, it is rare to hear English being spoken at places like Walmart and Target. And you don’t think that that is some form of a passive invasion? How naive can you be? Sure, I can choose to ignore it, and not go to a Target in south Phoenix, but what the hell is this? I have to avoid a particular part of an American town in order to NOT be “exposed” to Mexican culture? That is ludicrous.
Let’s look at history, shall we. There’s a great example called Texas. The Mexican government invited Americans into Texas. They were given land, allowed to work the land, and they got this basically for free, small taxes aside. So, everything is just cheery until the Mexican government notices how few Mexicans there are in Texas, and they don’t like it. They increase taxes and begin to demand more of the Americans. The Americans don’t like it, and guess what? Can you guess what happens, Chris? That’s right. Mexico inevitably loses Texas. When the Texans revolted, what had originally been a Mexican territory was no longer recognizably Mexican.
If I wanted to be exposed to Mexican culture, I would go to MEXICO. I shouldn’t be going to southern Texas and Arizona (both of which are in the US) to experience MEXICAN culture. Obviously, the cultures of two neighbors will overlap to a small extent at the border. But, we’re not talking about overlaps here. Do you think that there is Canadian television programming in North Dakota being broadcast on the “Canadian channel”? There’s obviously a large difference between Canadians and Mexicans with the difference in language, but Canadian culture can and does effect the states that border Canada. However, at the same time, those two cultures still remain separate. Canadians are Canadians, and Americans are Americans.
“as long as WE THE PEOPLE elect to preserve our culture through existing laws and traditional political norms (which would be perfectly legal and in the spirit of our Founders), then the government’s action would in effect be our action, and WE THE PEOPLE would be doing what we want and what we think right. You are thinking of the government as Big Brother who’s always out to get us. Sometimes government can help.”
We have checks and balances in our government system so that We The People don’t mob-rule America and remove the rights of minority groups. It’s part of the secret of American success in implementing democracy.
Besides, even if we created an American ethnicity, what then? Does it solve anything? You used Europe as an example but no European nation is ethnically homogenous.
“Do you think George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, et al. would allow Mexican immigrants to cross the border at will?”
Hmm…let’s see what they said on the subject:
“I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Albert Gallatin, 1806
“America is now, I think, the only country of tranquility and should be the asylum of all those who wish to avoid the scenes which have crushed our friends in [other lands].” –Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. Church, 1793
“[We wish] but to consecrate a sanctuary for those whom the misrule of Europe may compel to seek happiness in other climes. This refuge, once known, will produce reaction on the happiness even of those who remain there by warning their task-masters that when the evils of Egyptian oppression become heavier than those of the abandonment of country, another Canaan is open where their subjects will be received as brothers and secured against like oppressions by a participation in the right of self-government.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Flower, 1817
“Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that for admission to certain offices of important trust a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.
“Our ancestors… possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote public happiness.” –Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774
For George Washington see here: http://books.google.com/books?id=DjlpSl-x1gMC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=George+washington+on+immigration&source=bl&ots=2gq4SM1dmt&sig=AVbGil7b8dnOH6FtIRnwbn86bk4&hl=en&ei=6d8NStaPI8fBtwfmhIWZCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA149,M1
And Abraham Lincoln:
“I am not a Know-Nothing. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of Negroes be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it, ‘ all men are created equal, except Negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, ‘all men are created equal, except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.’ When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty—to Russia, for example, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”–Abraham Lincoln condemning the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party while a senator
“We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men, they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity that we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves — we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better than men in the age and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men-descended by blood from our ancestors — among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe — German, Irish, French and Scandinavian — men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as through they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, (loud and long continued applause) and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”–Abraham Lincoln
“They are going to see that you are basically saying that it’s possible that you are a liberal and a neo-con”
I’d rather be right than be ideologically pure. I’m pretty sure most of my fellow staff members would agree.
“The fact that you are obsessed with political correctness and “tolerance,” and the fact that you seem always to be on a witch-hunt for “racism” speaks volumes about your true values–what things are actually important to you.”
Yes, fighting racism is important to me. It’s more than a political issue, it’s a moral issue.
NJR,
“Yes, I am suggesting that we give Mexicans a reason to learn English. And why not? It’s the US, which is an English speaking country.”
I think Mexicans who come to this country have plenty of reason to learn English. If the majority of Americans speak English, that is reason enough.
On the other hand, being a bilingual nation hasn’t killed Canada, Belgium or Switzerland.
“So, no, I do not believe that there should be Mexican channels that show distinctly Mexican programming.”
So you want to forbid private TV stations from showing Mexican TV shows that they clearly have a market for?
“This is Mexican programming being fed into the United States for the Mexicans here to watch. Explain to me why, in your eyes, this is required.”
Because there’s a market for the product. Hence, someone will provide it.
“And yes it is being forced. The majority of people in the US don’t support the idea of making Spanish a second official language.”
Considering that the US has no official language, it’s hard to make Spanish the second official language.
“I have to avoid a particular part of an American town in order to NOT be “exposed” to Mexican culture? That is ludicrous. ”
You also have to avoid entire regions of the US to avoid being exposed to Southern, Cajun, New England, Creole, New Yorker, African-American, Native American, or Californian cultures. I don’t see how this is any different.
“So, everything is just cheery until the Mexican government notices how few Mexicans there are in Texas, and they don’t like it. They increase taxes and begin to demand more of the Americans. The Americans don’t like it, and guess what? Can you guess what happens, Chris? That’s right. Mexico inevitably loses Texas.”
In other words, don’t oppress your immigrants.
“I shouldn’t be going to southern Texas and Arizona (both of which are in the US) to experience MEXICAN culture.”
Going back to history, many Mexicans fought with the Texians against Santa Anna. Mexicans have been living in the American southwest since before it was part of the United States. After all, this is land we took from Mexico by force of military conquest. Look at a map, there are place names all over the Southwestern USA that are SPANISH names, that were there long before any recent “Mexican invasion”…a few names: San Diego, Los Angeles, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Las Cruces, Albequerque, Rio Grande river, Sierra Nevada mountains, Santa Fe, El Paso, Las Vegas, San Jose, Sacramento, Tuscon…need I continue?
Chris, your inability to concede even one point is simply astounding.
Do you not understand that there is NO reason for Mexican’s to learn English? Why would they? People working at Target walk around with buttons that say “I speak Spanish” so that the people who don’t know English can ask questions. There are schools that post signs ONLY in Spanish because of how many Spanish speaking children attend. Hell, in New Mexico, laws are published in both English and Spanish. They’ve got their own TV channels and programming, schools, people pander to “inability” to learn English, and you think that the fact that a lot of people speak English is reason enough to learn? Chris, you truly are a moron. IF that was true, then we wouldn’t need Spanish subtitles for EVERY sign here. Upwards of 90% of Americans speak English. So, tell me, Chris, why are there TONS of Mexicans who speak ONLY Spanish?
Interesting that you bring up Belgium. Yep, Belgium has 2 main languages. And those two languages have basically split up the country into 2 “communities” to use their own words. You’ve got the Flemish Community, and the French Community of Belgium (Also German, but they represent less than 1%). And, believe it or not, their customs, likes, dislikes, and cultures are different. Also, it’s great that you mentioned Canada as well. Quebec and the rest of Canada are STILL at odds with each other. Totally different customs and cultures, and we saw just recently that Quebec wanted to secede from the rest of Canada. No problems? Wow, Chris. Simply wow. Do some actual research on the topic and you’ll be surprised at how divisive language really is.
“You also have to avoid entire regions of the US to avoid being exposed to Southern, Cajun, New England, Creole, New Yorker, African-American, Native American, or Californian cultures. I don’t see how this is any different.”
That’s BS and you know it. Do you consider the different dialects of a language to be completely different languages? OBVIOUSLY, there are different aspects to any culture, but the culture as a whole, in terms of its values, remains the same.
“In other words, don’t oppress your immigrants.”
In other words, you missed the entire point of my example, by leaving out the last sentence. My point was that it was no longer possible to identify Texas as Mexican, because of American influence. When you allow unbridled immigration into an area without even remotely attempting to preserve your own culture, your culture will be pushed out of the way to the wayside. If the majority of people want that to happen, then fine. Unfortunately for you Chris, MOST people don’t want that to happen.
Regardless, I’m done. It was never my intention to convince of anything. I’ve made my points, and anyone who actually listens to reason will see what I am trying to say.
However, I would like you to explain one last thing. When you say that SDS and YWC are intolerant, but SDS takes it one step further, what do you mean by one step further? I’d like for you to explain how it is that YWC is just one step away from the “level” (didn’t realize intolerance had levels) of intolerance that SDS shows. Define what that “level” of intolerance is. I’ve already asked you to prove your claim, but you won’t, so I’ll at least ask that you explain your position with regards to YWC’s apparent “intolerance”.
Unfortunately, I can’t edit my last comment. Just to to be clear, what I meant to say previously was:
“It was never my intention to convince YOU of anything.”
“Hell, in New Mexico, laws are published in both English and Spanish.”
And they are also published in Navajo, Pueblo and Apache if I’m not mistaken. Should they change this?
Also, nice job ignoring the long history of Mexicans and the Spanish language in the American southwest.
And ignoring the fact that not every place in the US speaks English. The US is a diverse place, you can find communities that speak all sorts of languages, including: English, Spanish, French, German, Chinese, Russian, Hawaiian, Gullah, Navajo, Dakota, Apache, Cherokee, Yup’ik, Samoan, Chamorro, Carolinian, Choctaw and a whole host of Native American languages. Should we ban all these people from speaking anything other than English?
But that’s your real problem: You’ve complained about hearing Spanish spoken everywhere, but I haven’t heard you suggest a single thing that you would want the government to do about it.
“However, I would like you to explain one last thing. When you say that SDS and YWC are intolerant, but SDS takes it one step further, what do you mean by one step further?”
I thought I had made that clear earlier, sorry. What I meant was that SDS and YWC both don’t like people that are different from them, but SDS is worse because they have used violence and attempted to suppress opinions which are different than their own. YWC has not attempted to do this.
Ahhh, ok. So, not “liking” people is what makes us intolerant. We’ll try to be nicer, as respecting people’s opinions, while disagreeing with them and thinking that they are mistake isn’t enough. By golly, Chris, there must be a lot of intolerant people in this world! In all seriousness, Chris, you really do need to think about how you’ve defined intolerance. If anything, by your standards, your actions towards YWC have been EXTREMELY intolerant. However, in my opinion, while I think your tactics are underhanded, I don’t think you’re intolerant at all. Following your definition of, however, you are intolerant.
I didn’t want to comment, but you do bring up a valid point, as I did not pose a solution to the problem.
My personal solution would be to close to border to Mexico temporarily. My purpose in that would be to fix the massive problem that illegal immigration has become. Obviously, we can’t stop and find EVERY illegal alien, but with the proper amount of manpower, we could certainly do a better job. Once we’ve gotten that under control, we then open the border’s and then, brace yourself, make it easier to become a resident alien. You see, I believe that part of the reason why SO many Mexicans come here illegally is because getting the ability to work here legally is bigger pain in the ass than you’ll ever know. The amount of bureaucratic red tape and BS that you have to wade through JUST to get a green card is absolutely insane.
What do I mean by easier? Well, you run a background check on the guy, and if he has a criminal background, he isn’t allowed in. He’ll be given a temporary green card for an allotted amount of time, during which he’ll be expected to get and maintain a steady job. Then, he can apply for permanent residency, or if he should like, he can apply to become a citizen. If he doesn’t secure a job, or he commits a crime while in here, then he’s lost his chance, and he’ll be removed. That they’ll need to speak English is obvious, as the people working at the immigration office will be speaking English, and only English. Honestly, it’s for the immigrant’s own benefit, as it is rather difficult to get a steady and reliable job for a year, without being able to speak a lick of English.
And that’s basically it. Oh, and while bi-lingual schools will exist, they will exist for the sole purpose of teaching English, as English would become a necessary class to pass in order to move onto the next grade.
So, you see, it’s not so much that we’re forcing our culture onto them. It’s much more defensive than that. We’re simply protecting our own interests by ensuring that our culture remains OUR culture.
Look, Chris, all the quotes that you provided, with the possible
exception of Lincoln’s (who was known to change arguments as it was
opportune to do so), were either, at best, irrelevant, or, at worst,
taken out of intellectual and historical context. The idea that any of
these three presidents would have supported your expressed views on
multiculturalism is absolutely ludicrous, and anyone who is familiar
with the intellectual and historical circumstances of these three
presidents is laughing at you right now. You need to scroll down a
little on the link that you provided and see what Washington thought
about multiculturalism–he in fact had the same views that YWC holds on
assimilation. Even Washington’s views on freedom of religion, for
instance, came at a cost–religious people had to “demean” themselves
in order to fulfill their obligations to the Government. In other
words, they had to alter their religious views so that they didn’t get
in the way of the American culture of the 18th Century.
That said, I am willing to concede that I (and many YWC members) am
wary of the anti-Christian/Church Enlightenment principles that guided
the Founding Fathers. Nevertheless, they would have certainly seen your
views as completely ridiculous and harmful.
“I’d rather be right than be ideologically pure. I’m pretty sure most
of my fellow staff members would agree.”
I’d be highly interested in knowing for sure whether or not most of the
Carolina Review’s staff would agree with you on that. Because if so, I
would suggest that you guys don’t call yourselves “the conservative
movement” on UNC’s campus. (Note to Bryan, Justin, Zach, Duke, et al.:
I’m not saying that you guys aren’t conservative. I’m only pointing out
that Chris isn’t.)
“Yes, fighting racism is important to me. It’s more than a political
issue, it’s a moral issue.”
Look, Chris. You are acting like Al Sharpton, the SPLC (which
apparently you trust), the ACLU or the ADL. The fact of the matter is
that you, like them, are trying your best to construe everything you
possibly can about YWC as “racist.” So far, you’ve only been able to
come up with “connections” (which I will explain as soon as I have my
sources together–unlike you, I try to be sure about what I put in
writing).
As an introduction to my defense, however, I will say the following:
1. Pat Buchanan, in his book “The Death of the West,” actually uses as
his main argument against abortion the fact that Nazi ideology is
similar to the ideology that gave rise to abortion in America. Sound
like a good Nazi to you?
2. You have taken Marcus Epstein out of context, which is typical of you.
3. You are holding Marcus responsible for material that he didn’t write
and doesn’t control.
4. There are many conservatives, including conservatives whom the
Carolina Review has openly endorsed, who have associations with VDARE
and even with groups that are more “extreme.”
Again, I will give a detailed explanation, but I may not be able to get
to it for a few days. Very busy man, I am.
NJR,
Suprisingly, I can agree with ~70% of that although I am having trouble squaring it with your earlier statements about Mexican TV. Anywhere where you have immigrants who speak English as a second language, you will have a market for entertainment in these people’s primary language. Doesn’t matter if they are Spanish, Chinese, Egyptian, German, whichever.
“That said, I am willing to concede that I (and many YWC members) am
wary of the anti-Christian/Church Enlightenment principles that guided
the Founding Fathers.”
In that case, don’t use “the founding fathers said X” as an argument.
“In that case, don’t use “the founding fathers said X” as an argument.”
So are you saying that you can’t quote someone unless you agree with
him/her completely? What is it with you, Chris? Do you just like to
argue for arguing’s sake? Use your head for a change–your arguments
have been systematically demolished. It’s time to give up.
In giving up, you also need to apologize for what you’ve done so far.
You’ve smeared me personally. You’ve smeared Pat Buchanan, Marcus
Epstein and Kevin DeAnna (and, indirectly, many others). You’ve
misrepresented our group and our “connections.” You’ve relied on flimsy
sources. You’ve been completely unreasonable and illogical. You’ve been
astoundingly unwilling to concede anything. You’ve acted like a
complete and total leftist.
Of course, that’s what you get when, acting like Jesse Jackson, you
have knee-jerk reactions against anything that could be twisted into
“racism.” Your crusade against “racism” has made you incredibly stupid
and unimaginative, and, if I were on the Carolina Review’s staff, I
would try to get you canned, lest you ruin the Carolina Review’s good
name.
If you want to know what the Carolina Review staff thinks of your organization, you can easily contact all our staff. Most of them have expressed views of your organization that are less than complementary.
In your posts you continually appealed to America’s founding fathers as an authority on American values. And now you say you don’t agree with their values. That seems more than a little incongruent to me.
“If you want to know what the Carolina Review staff thinks of your organization, you can easily contact all our staff. Most of them have expressed views of your organization that are less than complementary.”
I noticed that this comment was edited. It said previously that, according to Chris, the Carolina Review wanted to annihilate YWC. I don’t think that is true, but, supposing it is true, is that very tolerant? YWC has only talked about changing (a lot of) minds (which, undoubtedly, every political movement wants to do) and creating movements that gain popular support (which thing, of course, requires college students agreeing with us). If this makes us intolerant, then I don’t know of a single tolerant political group.
If the Carolina Review wants to shut us down, I can respect that. But, by Chris’ standards, that is intolerant.
“In your posts you continually appealed to America’s founding fathers as an authority on American values. And now you say you don’t agree with their values. That seems more than a little incongruent to me.”
What I said was: “…I am willing to concede that I (and many YWC members) am WARY of the anti-Christian/Church Enlightenment principles that guided the Founding Fathers. Nevertheless, they would have certainly seen your views as completely ridiculous and harmful.” I didn’t say that I outright disagree with their values. Also, let’s go over what I’ve actually said about the Founding Fathers:
“Do you honestly think that [the Founding Fathers] would have agreed with you or me on immigration?”
“Do you think George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, et al. would allow Mexican immigrants to cross the border at will?”
Notice in both of these comments I was talking specifically about the Founders’ immigration views. And, of course, you responded with irrelevant quotes taken out of historical and intellectual context. I never once said that I agreed with them on everything, nor do I have to in order to quote them on certain topics on which I largely agree with them.
“If the Carolina Review wants to shut us down, I can respect that. But, by Chris’ standards, that is intolerant.”
We don’t want shut to you down. That implies using some sort of higher authority to end YWC. We’ve always defended your right to free speech and your right to exist as an organization.
I understand that, Chris. But that’s not really what your unedited comment implied before. I wish I could quote it, but, of course, you (or someone else?) removed it.
The fact is, if there’s any truth to your unedited comment (I’m not saying there is), then that’s not very tolerant, by your standards. The only reason why I would want to end a liberal club is by making their views obsolete and irrelevant. But your unedited comment implied that the Carolina Review was going to fight us actively until they were able to force us out of existence, whether we had good ideas some of the time or not. Your unedited comment did not give the same impression that Bryan gave when he told me that he disagreed with some of my views, that we nevertheless had much in common, and that, when we disagreed, we would do so respectfully and it would only be on the basis of philosophy and policy, not on the basis of my profile picture. Which is why you altered your comment.
“What I meant was that SDS and YWC both don’t like people that are different from them, but SDS is worse because they have used violence and attempted to suppress opinions which are different than their own.”
Riley, you missed his point. Intolerance is merely disliking people that are different from you. It’s fairly obvious that Chris dislikes YWC, and is intolerant of our group. SHAME on the Carolina Review for allowing such and intolerant person like Chris write for them!
The only quote that I can remember exactly from Chris’ unedited post was “write them out of the conservative movement”. Care to explain that, and defend your “intolerance”? Coupled with your past words regarding our group, and your slandering (yes it is slander until you back your claim up) of our name, it’s easy to use your own definition against you. You see, Chris, that’s the way accusations work. We find evidence, using your own words and actions, apply them to the definition of intolerance that you so kindly provided, and make our claim. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp/do?
“But your unedited comment implied that the Carolina Review was going to fight us actively until they were able to force us out of existence, whether we had good ideas some of the time or not.”
I’m sorry if you got that implication. The only implication that should be drawn is that there are very strong and fundamental disagreements between YWC and the Carolina Review.
“I’m sorry if you got that implication. The only implication that should be drawn is that there are very strong and fundamental disagreements between YWC and the Carolina Review.”
Chris, you are full of crap. Have you no pride at all? If that’s the implication that I should have gotten, and you’ve nothing to apologize for, then why did you edit it? Why did you take so much out?
What’s funny about you, Chris, is that, just like in your original blog about YWC, even though you write crap that you later regret, or are forced to change anyway, you never have the decency to admit that you were wrong about anything, or even offer an explanation of your actions. You simply lack the capability of saying, “I’m sorry. I screwed up.” Apparently, even though you are a student at UNC Chapel Hill, you’ve never learned that no one can be right about everything all the time. (I will admit, however, that it must be especially hard for you to confess your transgressions, considering how stupid, illogical, ignorant, liberal, slanderous, severe, reckless and rash they were.)
And listen, Chris, I know that I’m not on the Carolina Review staff, but I’ve had private conversations with at least three Carolina Review staff writers, and they’ve never indicated to me personally that they disagree with me or YWC as vehemently as you do, nor as vehemently as you say they do. It’s kind of hard to tell at this point. It’s your word against mine. Maybe if they started contributing to this discussion, we would have a better idea.
“you never have the decency to admit that you were wrong about anything”
I definitely remember apologizing for using your facebook profile picture in an presumptive manner.
Considering that this has degenerated into arguing about what other staff members think of YWC, I think this is pretty much it for this thread of discussion unless any other staff members decide to interject.
I guess you don’t want to comment on my accusation then? Can we assume that your silence is consent?
Now for my defense. Hold on to your seat, Chris, because if you think that you’ve had
trouble answering my previous arguments, you’re in for a real shock now.
1. Pat Buchanan.
http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-true-haters-1495 My defense for this link is simply to
have the readers click on the link and read the WHOLE article, not just Chris’ convenient
quotes taken out of context. You make your own decision. Questions you might want to ask
yourself are, for example: “Does Mr. Buchanan support Nazism?” “What’s the point that
he’s trying to make with this article?” etc. If you have one shred of intelligence, you
will realize that this in no way is a defense of the Nazis–quite the opposite, as a
matter of fact.
As far as Mr. Buchanan’s appearance on Political Cesspool is concerned, so what? He also
plugged that same book on Hannity and Colmes. He is a regular commentator for MSNBC, a
far left cable news network. For that matter, he commonly appears on The Rachel Maddow
Show–does he agree with her simply because he appears on her show? Rachel Maddow is one
of the most liberal people on cable news right now. Why does Mr. Buchanan support her
show by appearing on it? Why does he give legitimacy to her by having discussions with
her, even though she is obviously unfair and bigoted against the right? Using your logic,
Chris, Mr. Buchanan is also a liberal, feminist, Barack Obama supporter for appearing on
Rachel Maddow’s show.
The fact of the matter is that Mr. Buchanan is highly respected and supported by genuine
conservatives, i.e., not hard-core neo-conservatives. Even Sean Hannity, who is extremely
in favor of the Iraq War, is highly respectful to and supportive of Mr. Buchanan, a
strong and outspoken critic of the War. While Mr. Buchanan is much more traditional than
the average conservative, he is nevertheless highly respected in the movement as a whole.
You’ve also referred to his book “Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War” as being a
book on the fringe. I actually have a signed and personalized copy right here. Let’s go
over some quotes.
“About the justice of the causes for which Britain fought, few quarrel. And those years
from 1914 to 1918 and 1939 and 1945 produced days of glory that will forever inspire men
and reflect greatly upon the British people. Generations may pass away, but men will yet
talk of Passchendaele and the Somme, of Dunkirk and El Alamein. Two-thirds of a century
later, men’s eyes yet mist over at the words “Fighter Command,” and men and boys in their
Hurricanes and Spitfires who rose day after day as the knights of old in the Battle of
Britain to defend their “island home.” ” (Introduction xix)
“For their crimes, HITLER AND HIS COLLABORATORS, TODAY’S METAPHORS FOR ABSOLUTE EVIL,
RECEIVED THE RUTHLESS JUSTICE THEY DESERVED. … FOR WORLD WAR II WAS THE WORST EVIL EVER
TO BEFALL CHRISTIANS AND JEWS…” (emphasis mine) (Introduction xxi)
Does he honestly sound like a Neo-Nazi? Only a complete moron would believe so–are you
catching my drift, Chris?
2. Marcus Epstein.
You have taken Mr. Epstein’s words out of context. He was actually reporting a statement
by Dr. James Watson. Anyone care to guess who he is? That’s right, he is one of the
discoverers of the double-helix structure of DNA. Not that Marcus agrees, and not that I
agree, with Dr. Watson, but it’s a sad day when you can’t discuss a statement of Dr.
Watson about DNA. That’s all Marcus was doing–noting that Dr. Watson had discussed DNA
differences between the races and that we shouldn’t just dismiss his opinions on DNA
because they’re politically incorrect. Again, I want to make clear that Marcus and I both
disagree with Dr. Watson, but his opinions at least deserve to be discussed. That’s all
Marcus was doing.
As far as VDARE is concerned, you are holding Marcus responsible for material that he
didn’t write. Now, I know that you are going to justify your criticism on the basis of
Marcus’ association with VDARE. But what about Michelle Malkin, who diametrically opposes
your view via the following statement: “In another VDARE blog entry, MY FRIEND PETER
BRIMELOW observes that some people apparently think linking to VDARE is tantamount to a
hate crime.” (emphasis mine)
(http://michellemalkin.com/2004/09/26/steve-sailer-vindicated/) The Carolina Review has
quoted as an authority Michelle Malkin
(http://www.unc.edu/cr/articles/2008/10/michelleObama.html and
http://www.unc.edu/cr/archive/2008_10.pdf). And even if the Carolina Review hadn’t quoted
Ms. Malkin as an authority, does the Carolina Review have gall to condemn her?
And what about Ann Coulter? In this article, Ms. Coulter quotes who other than Peter
Brimelow as an authority: http://www.vdare.com/pb/060524_coulter.htm Ms. Coulter has
basically openly embraced the arguments presented in the book “The Bell Curve:
Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life”:
“When Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s book “The Bell Curve: Intelligence and
Class Structure in American Life” landed on the shelves in 1994, liberals responded with
their usual open-mindedness to scientific facts. The 850-page book represented eight
years of collaboration between Herrnstein, a Harvard psychology professor, and Murray, a
political scientist. “The Bell Curve” synthesized mountains of data culled mostly from
the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY), a federal study testing the intelligence
of more than 10,000 Americans beginning in 1980, with regular follow-ups for many years
thereafter. Contrary to the party line denying that such a thing as IQ existed, the book
methodically demonstrated that IQ exists, it is easily measured, IT IS HERITABLE, and it
is extremely important.” (emphasis mine) (pp. 172-173 “Godless”)
“Liberals were afraid of A BOOK THAT TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT IQ because they are godless
secularists who do not believe humans are in God’s image. Christians have no fear of
hearing FACTS ABOUT GENETIC DIFFERENCES IN IQ because we don’t think humans are special
because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of
liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what’s the point? After Hitler carried the
secularists’ philosophy to its bloody conclusion, liberals became terrified of making any
comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of
people–especially racial groups.” (emphasis mine) (p. 175 “Godless”)
[Let it be recognized for the record that I do not agree with Ann Coulter, Dr. Watson,
“The Bell Curve,” etc. I only bring this up to point out the double standard of Chris,
and possibly the double standard of the Carolina Review.]
Ms. Coulter goes on and on about how true and legitimate “The Bell Curve” really is.
Also, in another book, she defends the Council of Conservative Citizens:
http://cofcc.org/?page_id=71 and (since I know you trust the SPLC)
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/02/13/columnist-ann-coulter-defends-white-supremacist-group/
There’s a lot more on Ms. Coulter that I could provide, but a simple internet-search
would suffice. Or go to Wikipedia and search for her.
It seems that the Carolina Review respects Ms. Coulter very much:
http://www.unc.edu/cr/archive/2009_04.pdf
That’s not the only link I could provide.
So, if YWC has links to “racist” organizations, so does the Carolina Review–even more
overt links, as a matter of fact.
“The signs accusing YWC of being white supremacist appeared before I began researching
the organization.
“At first, I thought the signs were an unfounded accusation. Then, I started doing
research and found that it was actually true.” –Chris Jones
“The national leadership of YWC?s links to racist organizations have already been
documented on this site, and I do not feel that they require continual re-posting every
time we make a post with the acronym ?YWC? in it. I also don?t feel like I need to argue
why this is both intolerant and morally offensive.” –Chris Jones
So, by your own standards, Chris, the Carolina Review is also a white supremacist
organization.
“I concede that YWC advocates for a limit on immigration that some may interpret to be
racist (no one at the Carolina Review, however). I concede that they advocate for the
cultural superiority of the United States, which again some may interpret as racist. I
also must concede that there are questions about some of the figures involved with the
organization at the national level and their involvement with racist organizations.”
–Bryan Weynand
This directly contradicts what Chris Jones said not only in the first of his above quoted
statements, but also here: “Your group espouses ideologies are a deeply morally
offensive. That is why they must be opposed.”
The Carolina Review, although I think that most of its staff are good people, needs to
reign in Chris Jones. He is making statements that are not only false, but also are
convicting the Carolina Review of the same things that he is accusing YWC of. I hereby
request that the Carolina Review remove Chris’ blog titled “Virulently anti-Immigrant
Student Group Forms at UNC – UPDATED” and all such statements as the following: “I also
must concede that there are questions about some of the figures involved with the
organization at the national level and their involvement with racist organizations.”
(Bryan Weynand) And, of course, Chris needs to be reprimanded for his shoddy journalism
and his smear campaign, which involved either countless slanders against YWC or verdicts
against the Carolina Review.
Bryan, Justin, Duke, Nash, Anthony, Zach, et al.: I suggest that you don’t ignore this
post. I suggest that you step in and take action. It is for your own good, and it is for
the sake of justice. Chris Jones is hurting your publication. He is contradicting the
message that the Carolina Review has been trying to convey ever since Chris’ bogus
“expose.”
1. I never said that Pat Buchanan was a Nazi.
You are defining “genuine conservatives” as people that agree with you, and people that don’t agree with you aren’t genuine conservatives. This is a No True Scotsman fallacy.
2. You are taking Epstein out of context. He was quoting Watson as a source that supported the view he was proposing as a possible reason for his ridiculous statement that “blacks do less well than whites in whatever country they are found in.” Anyone can listen to the interview and decide for themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV4ppLfliTQ
As for Ann Coulter, please note that Coulter is drawing opposite conclusions: She says yes, racial IQ differences are real but they don’t matter because people are worth more than their intelligence. The folks at VDare argue that racial IQ differences should inform and guide public policy. Big difference.
Please note that I do not like Ann Coulter at all, and am also not a fan of Michelle Malkin.
As for CR’s double standard, that logic doesn’t work. I definitely haven’t heard Bryan Weynand suggesting that black people are genetically inferior to white people and I know for a fact that he would never write for a website like Vdare.com.
“As for Ann Coulter, please note that Coulter is drawing opposite conclusions: She says yes, racial IQ differences are real but they don’t matter because people are worth more than their intelligence. The folks at VDare argue that racial IQ differences should inform and guide public policy. Big difference.”
Did you not read the quotes that I provided? Maybe they were a little long for you, so I’ll quote the most relevant passage:
“Contrary to the party line denying that such a thing as IQ existed, the book
methodically demonstrated that IQ exists, it is easily measured, it is heritable, AND IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.” (emphasis mine)
If IQ is so important, and there are racial differences in IQ, then why is VDARE wrong in using IQ/IQ differences in informing and guiding public policy? Also, did you not click on the link in which Ms. Coulter quotes Peter Brimelow as an authority (http://www.vdare.com/pb/060524_coulter.htm)? My point in asking these question is to show that she is in agreement with VDARE.
“Please note that I do not like Ann Coulter at all, and am also not a fan of Michelle Malkin.”
Oh, okay. But you don’t matter. The Carolina Review nevertheless has links to both of them, regardless of what you think of them now that you actually have been exposed to a little real research. This, by the way, is an example of your ignorance. Informed people do not run into this kind of trap, because they have all their facts straight before they open their traps.
“As for CR’s double standard, that logic doesn’t work. I definitely haven’t heard Bryan Weynand suggesting that black people are genetically inferior to white people and I know for a fact that he would never write for a website like Vdare.com.”
You learn in basic rhetoric not to use an argument that your opponent can use also: I definitely haven’t heard Kevin DeAnna or YWC suggesting that black people are genetically inferior to white people. (As a matter of fact, if I’m not mistaken, the president of YWC at MIT is black. The #2 person in national YWC is Hispanic. Marcus Epstein never definitively stated any opinion that suggests that blacks are inferior to whites in intelligence. If you don’t believe me, then e-mail him and find out. Nowhere in that video does Marcus make any such definitive or definite statement. Contact me if you want his contact info.) And although I can’t guarantee that Kevin would never write for VDARE, I’m not concerned about that because it’s clear that he would be in good company if he did.
The fact of the matter is, Chris, that you simply are only scratching the surface in terms of controversial connections in the conservative movement. (This, again, proves your ignorance.) Just like in the liberal and neo-conservative movements, or in any political movement at all, there are going to be “skeletons” if that’s what you want to call them. That doesn’t mean that everyone in a given movement is evil incarnate, nor does it mean that everyone in the given movement is the same as everyone else in said movement. This is why I don’t blame Barack Obama for his “connection” to Bill Ayers–Ayers is an even uglier member of the leftist movement, but that doesn’t make Obama a terrorist.
While it’s admirable that you consider yourself an independent thinker (I consider myself the same), I’d like to note again that you write for the Carolina Review, the “journal of conservative thought and opinion published at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.” You are therefore not as free as you might think. You have linked yourself to a self-proclaimed conservative organization that has clear links to “skeletons.” You have therefore linked yourself to said “skeletons.” If you don’t like that, then you do have several options. You can leave the Carolina Review and renounce it. You can persuade the Carolina Review to sever its ties with and renounce Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and any other controversial figure to whom the Carolina Review might be linked, and the Carolina Review could adopt a policy of only linking itself to saints, saints, of course, canonized by the liberal status quo (this would end up destroying the Carolina Review as a conservative publication, of course).
If the Carolina Review doesn’t officially and publicly sever themselves from, for instance, Ann Coulter, then they ought to take down Chris’ blog “Virulently anti-Immigrant Student Group Forms at UNC – UPDATED” and all such statements as the following: “I also must concede that there are questions about some of the figures involved with the organization at the national level and their involvement with racist organizations.” (Bryan Weynand) PERIOD. It would be highly dishonest and unfair if the Carolina Review does not take action in this circumstance.
“If IQ is so important, and there are racial differences in IQ, then why is VDARE wrong in using IQ/IQ differences in informing and guiding public policy?”
Because, as Coulter says “we don’t think humans are special because they are smart.”
Ann Coulter is not a part of Carolina Review. Ann Coulter is not a leader in our organization. Ann Coulter is not linked to Carolina Review in any way except that she flipped through our magazine once. Michelle Malkin hasn’t even done that and as far as I know doesn’t even know that we exist.
“You learn in basic rhetoric not to use an argument that your opponent can use also: I definitely haven’t heard Kevin DeAnna or YWC suggesting that black people are genetically inferior to white people.”
I again refer you to the Epstein Young Turks segment. Anyone who is still reading this can watch it and decide for themselves.
Your intellectual dishonesty leaves me speechless.