Saturday, March 10, 2012

Southern Poverty Law Center: "We have a list ..."

Sen. Joseph McCarthy once famously announced that he had "here in my hand a list" of communists in the U.S. State Department. He proceeded o McCarthy's remarks have ever since been viewed as ideologically driven drivel, prompted by a general malice toward anyone to the left of his rather hard right political beliefs.

For years, the political left ridiculed McCarthy's remarks and his attempt to demonize people with whom he disagreed politically. But as the memory of McCarthy recedes into the historical mist, the left itself has taken up McCarthy's tactics. 

Now we have the "Southern Poverty Law Center," a left-wing political group that has set itself up as the arbiter of what constitutes a "hate group." The SPLC now annually makes a public announcement that it "has a list" of such groups. Liberal journalists uncritically pass the nonsense along. It promotes their own political agenda so, hey, why not.

The only stable criteria the group employs in making this determination are a) the group must disagree with SPLC political ideology; and b) the group must be on the political right (which, as it happens, amounts to pretty much the same thing).

Along with with hate groups in good standing like the KKK, there appear groups whose status as hate groups or racist groups is hardly clear. In fact, their past designation of the Family Research Council, a fairly mainstream social conservative group, as a "hate group," I have argued, brings the SPLC's whole approach to this issue into question.

One of the groups on their list whose status as a "hate group" I challenged was the League of the South. Louisville Courier-Journal reporter Joe Gerth took exception to my assertion that there is no clear evidence that the League of the South is a "hate group." He brings up a number of things in his comments that he thinks qualifies it as one.

So here's what we're going to do. First of all, I'm posting our dialogue below for those who haven't seen it on Facebook. Then I'm going to take every one of the things that Joe says qualify this group as a "hate group." Then we're going to apply those same criteria to other groups. Mostly left-wing groups, no less. And we're going to see if Joe will be willing to apply the same criteria to these left-wing groups as he would like to apply to the League of the South.

Championing Anglo-Celtic Culture
As I stated in the dialogue below, ""Anglo-Celtic" culture is English culture. Are we now saying that anyone who champions Western civilization as it was handed down in its English form and as it has manifested itself in American culture is a hatemonger or a racist? Mainstream conservatives have always championed English culture in this manner and at least the more traditionalist ones who haven't become complete utilitarians still do. In fact you can still find it ensconced in any university humanities core programs. You can go to basically any major traditionalist conservative thinker, either in the political realm (Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Jr., Leo Strauss) or the literary world, particularly among the humanists (T. S. Eliot, Irving Babbitt, Paul Elmer More) and the New Critics (Robert Penn Warren, Alan Tate, Donald Davidson) and see them not only championing English culture, but using the same terminology to do it (e.g., "Anglo-Celtic"). Our political, economic, and moral orders are all innately Anglo-Celtic, and I am unaware of it ever being even controversial. Heck, have you been to a Celtic heritage festival recently? I'm trying to think how hate is promoted by attending, say, Riverdance."

Guilt by Association
Joe charges that the head of the League of the South, Michael Hill, was involved in some way in a Todd County incident where racism was involved. He doesn't charge that Hill did anything racist himself, but that he was on the same side as the racists in an incident in which a man displaying a confederate flag was murdered. Joe not having produced any actual documentation on this, I don't see how we really deal with it other than to note that he is saying that Hill is implicated by having some indirect association with racists. 

But here's the thing about guilt by association: it is a double edged sword. If Hill is implicated in hate because he was against the murder of a man displaying a confederate flag, then are Blacks all implicated in murder because they defended, in even some weak way, the murder of the man?

Joe produces some other examples of  incidents in which some here are there who is associated with the League of the South made racist remarks. Are we going to apply this principle equitably

Secessionism
Let's start with the idea of secession. I think this is the loopiest of the League's beliefs, but I see such things as more of an eccentricity than some kind of malignant belief. Joe is clearly of the Malignant School of thought on this. The assumption, of course, is that the belief in secession of itself implies hateful beliefs. There is never any attempt to justify the assumption, it's just taken for granted. 

But if secessionist sentiments are by themselves racist, then are we going to call the secessionists in Quebec racist for wanting to secede from Canada? Austria seceded from Britain. Belgium seceded from the Netherlands. Pakistan seceded from India. Croatia and Slovenia seceded from Yugoslavia. Portugal seceded from Spain. There are still secessionist movements around the world today: in Australia, in Great Britain (and Ireland), and in India. There are racist motivations in some of these, I'm sure, but not most of them.

In fact, the United States for all practical purposes seceded from the United Kingdom.

I can understand that this position is unrealistic and absurd, but I'm looking for some evidence that it is hateful or racist, particularly when the League of the South is on record as explicitly repudiating racism.






26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Martin is certainly joking this time. He needs to hire a drummer to do a rimshot after every sentence.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Uh, just look at their website. The League of the South doesn't just defend secession as a political concept. They promote nonsense about how well off African slaves were, demonize the abolitionist movement and are highly critical of the civil rights movement. The League complains about "that devilish trinity of tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism" and claim there is a plot to cause, "floodtide immigration that is intended to replace the founding stock [read whites} with a more pliable Third World population [brown people]". The League doesn't like anyone who isn't a white, christian heterosexual southerner, and they don't even try to pretend otherwise.

Old Rebel said...

KyCobb,

Odd that an organization that "doesn't like anyone who isn't a white, christian [sic] heterosexual southerner" would invite them to join us.

Murray Rothbard, who was Jewish, was a charter member of the League. I regret that I didn't join in time to have met him. His writings are witty, well-researched, and convincing.

Why don't you read what WE say we believe in rather than passively accepting what the NAACP and SPLC claim we believe?

KyCobb said...

Old Rebel,

"Why don't you read what WE say we believe in rather than passively accepting what the NAACP and SPLC claim we believe?"

I did. I have read nothing about the League of the South from the NAACP or SPLC. Every quote I posted about the League of the South came off articles on its website. I don't know Mr. Rothbard, and I haven't seen anything on the website that is overtly anti-semitic. The website does have articles saying that the South stands for "orthodox christianity" and "ordered christian liberty", which, in light of history, ought to make any Jewish person nervous. There is also blatant race baiting on the website, such as saying: "We are also being overrun by an alien population as a result of unlimited and illegal immigration from Latin America."

Old Rebel said...

And why is it "racist" to want to enforce existing federal immigration law?

Are Israelis "racist" for restricting immigration in their country?

KyCobb said...

Old Rebel,

"And why is it "racist" to want to enforce existing federal immigration law?"

That's not what the article said. It said, "We are also being overrun by an alien population as a result of unlimited and illegal immigration from Latin America." Almost every word of that quote is false, and its designed to provoke fear and hatred of Hispanics.

Art said...

Two questions:

1. In the Southern utopia as seen by the League of the South, what qualifications or requirements must be held or satisfied to be regarded as a formal, legal citizen of the New South?

2. I notice that at least one state chapter of the League of the South considers the period beginning the 1950's to be tantamount to a second Reconstruction. This sounds to me as of the League of the South is still smarting from the dismantling of segregation and Jim Crow. How can this not be a very strong indicator of an inherently racist, segregationist core set of beliefs?

Martin Cothran said...

Art, Kycobb, et al.,

Is the Nation of Islam a "hate group"?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

The SPLC says the Nation of Islam is a hate group (according to you, I guess that means the Nation of Islam is on the political right). Do you agree with the SPLC? I don't know of any reason not to categorize them as a hate group.

Old Rebel said...

KyCobb,

"Almost every word of that quote is false, and its designed to provoke fear and hatred of Hispanics."

So - there is no illegal immigration?

And, yes, we ARE being overrun. The latest estimate is that the US will be majority minority by 2020.

Do we, the people, have the right to control our own demographics?

Old Rebel said...

Art,

It would look a lot like the South prior to Ted Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act, which would never have been passed had the American people not been deliberately lied to.

As to your second question, we do indeed object to the Civil Rights Acts. Thomas Sowell has demonstrated how that series of laws increased the power of the federal government, decreased personal liberty, and did more harm than good for blacks:

http://lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-jesse-jackson-wanted-to-castrate.html

Anonymous said...

an honest, open-minded assessment of the critque by one man, and of an organization. My, how refreshing. If only the lame-stream media could do such a thing, then they could be call 'professional journalists' again.

This is proof that one not need to agree and can give a fare, honest assessment of facts. A shame it's so rare in our society today.

GunRights4US said...

I recently attended a League meeting with my mixed race son, and my arabic best friend - and we were all made to feel welcome.

KyCobb said...

Old Rebel,

"So - there is no illegal immigration?"

I didn't say that, did I? If its any consolation, changing demographics and improving economies in Latin America is likely to significantly stem immigration to the US. In fact, as a result of the collapse of the housing construction industry, many undocumented workers have already gone home.

"And, yes, we ARE being overrun. The latest estimate is that the US will be majority minority by 2020.

Do we, the people, have the right to control our own demographics?"

And now the racism comes out. This is about white anxiety over no longer being the majority in the future.

KyCobb said...

Gunrights4Us,

"I recently attended a League meeting with my mixed race son, and my arabic best friend - and we were all made to feel welcome."

And yet old Rebel is worried that your son, your friend and other scary brown people like them will outnumber whites in the US soon. he wants to control "demographics", meaning, limiting the number of people like your son and your friend. How does that make you feel?

Old Rebel said...

KyCobb,

Here's what you posted at 9:08:

"We are also being overrun by an alien population as a result of unlimited and illegal immigration from Latin America." Almost every word of that quote is false, and its designed to provoke fear and hatred of Hispanics.

Is that quote false or not?

And I'm still wondering if you condemn Israelis for their "racism"? How about Mexicans who use their military against illegal immigrants from central America?

KyCobb said...

Old Rebel,

"Is that quote false or not?"

I said "almost every word". We aren't being overrun by an alien population as a result of unlimited and illegal immigration from Latin America. That doesn't mean that illegal immigration doesn't occur at all.

"And I'm still wondering if you condemn Israelis for their "racism"? How about Mexicans who use their military against illegal immigrants from central America?"

Why do you want to change the subject from the racism of the League of the South? This is America, and I am an American, so my primary concern is American racism. If it makes you feel better, I don't think any individual should be judged on the basis of the color of their skin, anywhere.

Old Rebel said...

KyCobb,

You're right. We should restrict ourselves to American issues. Consider these polls:

67% of likely U.S. voters believe that states should enforce immigration laws if the federal government fails to do so (Rasmussen, February 2011).

54% of likely voters oppose the DREAM Act, compared to 38% who support its passage (Pulse, November 2010).

U.S. registered voters support stricter enforcement of immigration law over "integrating illegal immigrants into American society" 68% to 24% (Quinnipiac, September 2010).

Americans oppose, 58% to 34%, granting automatic citizenship to a child born in the U.S. to an illegal immigrant (Rasmussen, August 2010).


So it looks like the League is closer to the American pulse than the Feds.

And if our traditional demographic will be in the minority within a few decades, then immigrants are, by definition, overrunning the country.

Our moderator has been VERY generous with us, and I thank him for that. So this will be my last post here. KyCobb, if you want, you can continue this at my blog:

http://lsrebellion.blogspot.com/

Art said...

Art,

It would look a lot like the South prior to Ted Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act, which would never have been passed had the American people not been deliberately lied to.


Since I was asking about citizenship in the New South, I am going take take this response to mean that people of other than north European ancestry (groups who were empowered by the 1965 act) would not be full-fledged citizens. Would they have any rights? Would they be able to vote? Would they be allowed access to due process in criminal and civil proceedings? Would they be allowed to own property?

What about non-whites who might be living in the New South when the new utopia was established? Would they also be disenfranchised?

As to your second question, we do indeed object to the Civil Rights Acts.

Since the objection goes back to the 1950's, is it safe to assume that you also object to the outcome of Brown v the Board of Education?

(I would ask about voting rights, etc., but this point has been addressed by the previous reply.)

Thomas Sowell has demonstrated how that series of laws increased the power of the federal government, decreased personal liberty, and did more harm than good for blacks:

http://lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-jesse-jackson-wanted-to-castrate.html


Sowell's essay demonstrated no such thing. The take-home message as far as I could tell was that freedom (you know, things like the right to vote, access to due process and fair criminal and civil proceedings, access to all public amenities such as stores, restaurants, transportation, schools, etc.) was bad for the well-being of blacks. A pretty pathetic argument, if you ask me.

Art said...

The latest estimate is that the US will be majority minority by 2020.

What's the problem with that?

KyCobb said...

Old Rebel said:

"So it looks like the League is closer to the American pulse than the Feds."

Segregation used to be pretty popular as well.

" if our traditional demographic will be in the minority within a few decades, then immigrants are, by definition, overrunning the country."

No, it might mean that white-only couples aren't producing as many babies as non-white and mixed race couples are. I won't be continuing a conversation with Old Rebel at his website since I don't comment at white supremacist websites. Old Rebel has done a good job of refuting Martin's premise that the League of the South is not a hate group, for which he has my thanks.

Southron said...

Cobb says whites are "racist" if we object to becoming a minority. And I suppose the groups that want to makes us a minority have have no racial agendas themselves and that their motives are as pure as driven snow.

Whites, having seen what has happened in Zimbabwe and South Africa, have legitimate concerns about becoming a minority. Self-preservation is not racial hatred. It is the first law of nature.

Yes, I want my people and culture to exist. And if that bothers you Mr. Cobb, make the most of it.

KyCobb said...

Southron,

Your people and your culture are American. Its not based on blood or a language or a religion. Anyone here who wants to be free and make a better life for themselves and their families is an American. My mother, who came here from England, is American. My children, who I adopted from China, are American. People who cross the southern border to work in the fields, or to build houses, or open restaurants, are Americans. Your paranoid fantasies about a coming race war have no place in modern America. If you can't deal with it, go hide in a bunker in Idaho or something.

Art said...

Now for a really important question: in the New South, will foreign cars (from Asia, Europe, or even the Old North) be allowed in NASCAR races?

Southron said...

Does the abstraction “American” have the power to impose uniformity not just on Americans but potentially on all humans as well? I think not. Real human beings are not bloodless, raceless ciphers. And despite whatever they may have in common, they have real differences in character and views.

Call me paranoid if you will, Mr. Cobb, but I can’t help but notice that every group but mine in this society has powerful well-funded groups such as the NAACP and La Raza to advance its interests, often at my expense. And I notice too that the dominant institutions in our society support them wholeheartedly. To wonder just where this is going, I suggest, is far more prudent than paranoid. One thing I’ve found in life is that folks take advantage of you when you let them.

As for your invitation for me to live in a bunker, I might do that some time. At least a bunker is real and very much a part of the primal earth. Now let me offer you to an invitation to move. Come down from your perch on the pinnacle of Mt. Kumbaya, where the rarified air distorts thinking and judgment. Come down to the lowlands of reality. Utopian abstractions have no place in the real world.

KyCobb said...

Southron,

"As for your invitation for me to live in a bunker, I might do that some time. At least a bunker is real and very much a part of the primal earth. Now let me offer you to an invitation to move. Come down from your perch on the pinnacle of Mt. Kumbaya, where the rarified air distorts thinking and judgment. Come down to the lowlands of reality. Utopian abstractions have no place in the real world."

I live in the real world, fortunately not in the dark distorted version of your paranoia and fear. Hispanics have made my life better. They built my house. They opened up nice restaurants in my community where I can get good food. Their kids go to school with my kids. I work with African-Americans who are good people. My children are Chinese, and I couldn't love them more. I look forward to you moving to your bunker where you can hide and nurse your fear and hatred while the rest of us live our lives. Or you might try practicing God's second greatest commandment; you might find that you actually like people instead of hating them.