Readers of this blog are probably already aware of the soft spot I have in my heart for Ishmael Reed. Despite being one of the godfathers of multiculturalism and somewhat obsessed with pointing out the double standards active in America's race relations, Reed remains one of the most entertaining and thought provoking writers in the nation.
It was from Reed that I first encountered a favorable presentation of Booker T. Washington from a leading black leftist. Reed's contention that Washington's call for self-reliance, community control and alternative black institutions was not merely conservative, but a populist program of necessity given the racial climate at the time, stands in stark contrast to the narrative presented by many Marx obsessed lefties of various ethnicity's. To them W.E.B. DuBois was the real black leader of the post-"Civil War" period. Reed is no fan of DuBois and suspects his status with intellectuals has something to do with his "talented tenth" theory, an inherently elitist, quasi-Leninist idea that calls for ten percent of "educated, worthy" blacks to infiltrate white society, forming a vanguard that would somehow eventually lift all boats by virtue of their mere existence.
In my view that analysis by Reed is dead on, and in his new collection of essays, "Mixing It Up" Reed offers up another interesting interpretation of black conservatism that deserves some serious consideration. Referring to playwright August Wilson, Reed writes:
"For some African Americans, including myself, white conservatism is a euphemism for racism. Unlike traditional conservatism, American conservatives seem to have one issue: out-of-wedlock birth in the black underclass, about which they still write op-eds and long, ignorant books, even though the black teenage pregnancy rate has declined while that of white and Hispanic women is soaring."
"If August Wilson's plays have a conservative line, it was not an appeal to critics who misread him but a reflection of the attitudes of a large segment of the African American community. Wilson's conservatism was his, that of Booker T. Washington, Elijah Muhammed, Malcolm X, and Marcus Garvey, all of whom preached self-help and individual responsibility, and all of whom did business with white people; not theirs, which often took the form of vicious and nasty comments about the underclass. As Wilson said, "The ground that I stand on has been pioneered by my grandfather, by Nat Turner, by Denmark Vesey, by Martin Delaney, Marcus Garvey and the Honorable Elijah Muhammad"
What interest me here is not necessarily Reed's myopic, and in my view misplaced, appraisal of what he calls "white conservatism". Though Reed is right to take issue with the bizarre obsession certain "think tank" conservatives have with black parenting skills, he is wrong in arguing that such attitudes are defining trait of the American Right. In fact the "white" American Right has no defining trait, precisely because it has abandoned its principles.
What does interest me about the above quote is the argument that conservative principles are an authentic reality of Black America and that black conservatives actually adhere to those principles unlike their white counterparts.
In the past when I have argued for Malcolm and Garvey as expressions of conservatism I have been accused by folks on both the left and the right as being horribly misinformed. Usually they cite no evidence for their "counter arguments" that prove I am "crazy", presumably because there isn't any.
It breaks down like this; the right doesn't want anything to do with Malcolm, Garvey, et. because they have historically been camped out on the "radical left" and such associations frighten them. The left wants to keep them in order to maintain their monopoly on identity politics and the "oppression narrative". Everyone is happy in the end because after all, ignorance is bliss.
The unfortunate byproduct of this covert alliance is that American blacks that don't have any interest in the welfare/warfare state have no place to go. The Shelby Steele/John McWhorter axis of black think tank intellectuals have little interest in black institutions and black communities and primarily concern themselves with the attacks on the black underclass that Reed rails about. They are descendants of the "progressive" W.E.B. DuBois, talented tenthers of the heart, and nominally "conservative" even by contemporary standards. Meanwhile rank-and-file blacks note the anti-statism of men like Elijah Muhammed, who wrote books about culinary conservatism years before The American Conservative or TakiMag were even in existence, and are told by these supposed "conservative black leaders" that the Nation of Islam is a "left wing hate group".
It should not surprise anyone that black separatists, nationalists and self-help movements have been pushed into the waiting arms of the left, by the corporate American Right. Though principled conservatism is inherently suspicious and adversarial toward government largesse and imperialism, the fiercely unprincipled, political, bastard offspring that claims the mantle today is primarily interested in maintaining massive profits for the heavily subsidized industries of high finance. Uppity blacks that don't "know their place" have no business in a "conservative" canon devoted to the idea that all working class folks should be serfs on the CEO's manor.
The emergence of this "corporate conservatism" is in no way the fault of authentic black conservatism. The ideas of black capitalists and businessmen like Booker T. Washington and Marcus Garvey, have no influence on these folks. These "conservatives" bought their way into the movement, just as they bought their way into our government. The "diversity" plans and "tolerance" training they promote is supposedly a gift toward American blacks, but these are not the ideas of black men like the framed martyr, and black conservative, Denmark Vesey. Those men were largely advocates of community control, and were indifferent to diversity at best.
In fact the average black American is far closer to the principled conservatism of the Old Right, than are those who identify as "conservative" because they read National Review or agree with Bill O'reilly. Blacks generally take an "America First" view on foreign policy, oppose mass immigration (illegal or otherwise), and are culturally far to the right of most suburbanite whites who vote GOP. They are deeply suspicious of public officials, elected or otherwise, for good reason. Blacks also tend to be deeply interested in their tradition and heritage in ways that many American white conservatives would find bizarre.
This seems strange to many middle class whites who reflexively assume that blacks are "liberal" because they overwhelmingly vote Democrat, but it shouldn't. Republicans have done little to attract blacks and for strategic reasons that has probably been to their benefit. This however does not change the fact that the vast majority of black leaders were either outright conservatives or promoted platforms, causes and movements that had explicitly conservative agendas and goals.
The truth is that in America today there are two different movements that have roots in the principled conservatism of small government, community control, family values and traditional culture. One of them is the almost entirely white paleo/traditionalist conservatism of the Rockford Institute, The American Conservative magazine, et. The other is the black conservatism of the Nation of Islam, the Black Arts Movement, et.
The real goal for conservatives of all ethnicities should be to advocate for principle over politics, but this remains difficult when those that control the historical narrative continue to pretend that Malcolm X was to the left of Martin Luther King Jr. He was not. He was considerably to Dr. King's right, which is precisely why American elites came to find MLK as a hero and Malcolm as a radical degenerate.
After all, in the world of the elites liberalism will always be defended and conservatism always shunned.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Book Review-"Reclaiming The American Right"
The following is a book review of the recently rereleased book "Reclaiming The American Right: The Lost Legacy of The Conservative Movement" by Justin Raimondo
In the days and months following the passing of William F. Buckley earlier this year, the mainstream media offered tribute and praise to a man considered by many to be the embodiment of American conservatism. As the founder of National Review, Buckley had long cemented his legacy as one of the most prominent spokesman for the conservative movement and his death was seen as the end of an era. But for conservatives and observers a question was posed in a variety of opinion journals, both Right and Left - what might lie ahead for the Right in a post-Buckley America?
In "Reclaiming The American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement" (ISI Books), conservative-libertarian Justin Raimondo argues that the brand of conservatism advanced, promoted, and to some degree founded, by Buckley was a perversion of an older political tradition, now commonly referred to as the "Old Right."
According to Raimondo, conservatism's roots originally were defined by the uniquely American ideals of individualism, prudence, and respect for private property, basic concepts that have since given way to the modern state - big government, welfare statism and perhaps the most active agent, the national security state. Buckley and his cohorts are identified as enablers, if not outright culprits in this turn of events, and the case Raimondo presents is quite compelling.
While others have noted the heavy influence of ex-communists on the post-WWII Right, Raimondo is one of the few authors to note the Marxist sensibilities reflected in the "global revolutionary" mindset of the Cold War Right. Militant anti-communism became the sole litmus test for Right wing politicos in the 1950's and 60's, and the rabid militarism rightly associated with today's GOP is the logical extension of that crusade.
Raimondo, who is the editorial director for popular online magazine, antiwar.com, has no use for imperialism, democratic or otherwise. A long time opponent of what President Dwight Eisenhower once called the "military-industrial complex," Raimondo is more than willing to appropriate the language of various Leftists, particularly New Left founding father C. Wright Mills, specifically when the author refers to a "Power Elite" of "managerial" liberals at the helm of American political life.
Raimondo rightfully notes that American history overflows with conservative examples of opposition to foreign intervention and empire. The most prominent group, although perhaps the least organized, emerged in the period between WWI and WWII. In their day, writers like fierce critic of Franklin Roosevelt, John T. Flynn and the Saturday Evening Post's Garret Garrett were cherished political commentators with wide followings, published in mainstream publications. The Chicago Tribune, owned by the anti-New Dealer Robert McCormick, was a bastion of anti-imperialist patriotism, a concept that would befuddle many talk radio saturated "conservative minds" these days.
The goal of profiling these men is not to document a few eccentrics in the conservative closet. Quite the contrary - Raimondo's goal is to showcase the uniformity of such viewpoints on the American Right and their prevalence just a few generations ago. By "Reclaiming" the roots of an authentically American political philosophy, Raimondo is calling for conservatives to fight against bigness and indeed to rally around "America First".
Pointing to the dichotomy that exists between today's "neoconservatives" and the intellectual godfathers of the original movement, Raimondo is not just arguing against the inclusion of the globalists on the "right" side of the political spectrum, but is in fact arguing that the neocons and their allies in the GOP are literally promoting an alien ideology, that exists outside of the traditional culture and mores of American society. Vanguardists of any stripe cannot be conservative, or even loyal to their own country, and Raimondo clearly believes the contemporary Right is overflowing with folks who are more comfortable with Lenin than they are with traditionalist Republican hero Robert Taft.
In a post-Buckley world, the ideas and concepts of the "Old Right" ought to be considered strongly by conservatives looking for a way out of the wilderness and Raimondo's book is a useful guide to the key figures and causes of that movement. A return to individualism based on private property, non-aggression, and self-reliance was at the center of Ron Paul's youth inspired presidential campaign, and it should surprise no one that this book was a major influence on the Texas Congressman (in fact he provides a blurb for the book).
In the book's last chapter Raimondo writes:
"Yesterday they were New Deal liberals, today they are neoconservatives, but the result of their powerful influence has the same effect; to preserve and expand the specifically American form of incipient fascism which is the welfare-warfare state".
When those words were first written a decade and a half ago, many Americans likely would have deemed them the rantings of a reactionary crank. After eight years of the Bush administration, they come across as the sincere sentiments of a patriotic, principled American. An American Conservative.
In the days and months following the passing of William F. Buckley earlier this year, the mainstream media offered tribute and praise to a man considered by many to be the embodiment of American conservatism. As the founder of National Review, Buckley had long cemented his legacy as one of the most prominent spokesman for the conservative movement and his death was seen as the end of an era. But for conservatives and observers a question was posed in a variety of opinion journals, both Right and Left - what might lie ahead for the Right in a post-Buckley America?
In "Reclaiming The American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement" (ISI Books), conservative-libertarian Justin Raimondo argues that the brand of conservatism advanced, promoted, and to some degree founded, by Buckley was a perversion of an older political tradition, now commonly referred to as the "Old Right."
According to Raimondo, conservatism's roots originally were defined by the uniquely American ideals of individualism, prudence, and respect for private property, basic concepts that have since given way to the modern state - big government, welfare statism and perhaps the most active agent, the national security state. Buckley and his cohorts are identified as enablers, if not outright culprits in this turn of events, and the case Raimondo presents is quite compelling.
While others have noted the heavy influence of ex-communists on the post-WWII Right, Raimondo is one of the few authors to note the Marxist sensibilities reflected in the "global revolutionary" mindset of the Cold War Right. Militant anti-communism became the sole litmus test for Right wing politicos in the 1950's and 60's, and the rabid militarism rightly associated with today's GOP is the logical extension of that crusade.
Raimondo, who is the editorial director for popular online magazine, antiwar.com, has no use for imperialism, democratic or otherwise. A long time opponent of what President Dwight Eisenhower once called the "military-industrial complex," Raimondo is more than willing to appropriate the language of various Leftists, particularly New Left founding father C. Wright Mills, specifically when the author refers to a "Power Elite" of "managerial" liberals at the helm of American political life.
Raimondo rightfully notes that American history overflows with conservative examples of opposition to foreign intervention and empire. The most prominent group, although perhaps the least organized, emerged in the period between WWI and WWII. In their day, writers like fierce critic of Franklin Roosevelt, John T. Flynn and the Saturday Evening Post's Garret Garrett were cherished political commentators with wide followings, published in mainstream publications. The Chicago Tribune, owned by the anti-New Dealer Robert McCormick, was a bastion of anti-imperialist patriotism, a concept that would befuddle many talk radio saturated "conservative minds" these days.
The goal of profiling these men is not to document a few eccentrics in the conservative closet. Quite the contrary - Raimondo's goal is to showcase the uniformity of such viewpoints on the American Right and their prevalence just a few generations ago. By "Reclaiming" the roots of an authentically American political philosophy, Raimondo is calling for conservatives to fight against bigness and indeed to rally around "America First".
Pointing to the dichotomy that exists between today's "neoconservatives" and the intellectual godfathers of the original movement, Raimondo is not just arguing against the inclusion of the globalists on the "right" side of the political spectrum, but is in fact arguing that the neocons and their allies in the GOP are literally promoting an alien ideology, that exists outside of the traditional culture and mores of American society. Vanguardists of any stripe cannot be conservative, or even loyal to their own country, and Raimondo clearly believes the contemporary Right is overflowing with folks who are more comfortable with Lenin than they are with traditionalist Republican hero Robert Taft.
In a post-Buckley world, the ideas and concepts of the "Old Right" ought to be considered strongly by conservatives looking for a way out of the wilderness and Raimondo's book is a useful guide to the key figures and causes of that movement. A return to individualism based on private property, non-aggression, and self-reliance was at the center of Ron Paul's youth inspired presidential campaign, and it should surprise no one that this book was a major influence on the Texas Congressman (in fact he provides a blurb for the book).
In the book's last chapter Raimondo writes:
"Yesterday they were New Deal liberals, today they are neoconservatives, but the result of their powerful influence has the same effect; to preserve and expand the specifically American form of incipient fascism which is the welfare-warfare state".
When those words were first written a decade and a half ago, many Americans likely would have deemed them the rantings of a reactionary crank. After eight years of the Bush administration, they come across as the sincere sentiments of a patriotic, principled American. An American Conservative.
Paul Craig Roberts - "The Mother Of All Messes"
Long time readers of this blog will recognize Paul Craig Roberts as one of our favorite columnists. Though I have never had much use for the supply-side revolution of which Roberts was a driving force, his sharp, polemical, writing style is always a pleasure to read. More to the point, Roberts is one of a very small group of writers that is consistently opposed to the imperial state, both at home, and abroad. For this reason, Roberts columns regularly run in outlets as diverse as Counterpunch, VDare and Chronicles and he fits nicely the motif of this site.
A few days ago, Roberts published a column entitled "The Mother of All Messes", that is one of his best yet. While summarizing the damage done by the GOP Roberts made an interesting point, worth commenting on:
" Republicans view the Constitution as a coddling device for criminals and terrorists. Republicans think the Constitution can be set aside for evil-doers and kept in place for everyone else. But without the Constitution we only have the government’s word as to who is an evil-doer."
...
"However, Democrats, or at least some of them, do care about the Constitution. If it were not for Democratic appointees to the federal courts and the ACLU (essentially a Democratic organization), the Bush regime would have completely destroyed our civil liberties."
Many conservatives who are theoretically detached from modern Republican politics, would no doubt be repulsed by this statement by Roberts. Habit and tradition are conservative traits that one must be wary of breaking to be sure, but as it regards the GOP v. the Democrats, particularly on Constitutional issues, it is time to cut the chord that strangles the head.
The truth is that the Democrats for all their faults do care FAR more about the Constitution than the Republicans do. While the House has Ron Paul, Jimmy Duncan and a few other Republican patriots, in the upper chamber the only member to show a broad knowledge of Constitutional history is West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd. When it came time for the up or down vote on the Patriot Act, Byrd and everyone else capitulated, except for one Dem, Russ Feingold.
The Republican rank and file applauded the repeal of the Magna Carta, as they applauded the unconstitutional war in Iraq. The rank and file Dems on the other hand are seriously worried about civil liberties issues and our aggressive foreign policy. In recent years they have given us Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Jon Tester in Montana, two Senators better than anything the Republicans have offered in nearly a decade.
In 2004 most of the media regarded Al Sharpton's run for the Democratic nomination as a joke. This may have had something to do with the fact that the Reverend ran an issues oriented campaign, something Republican talking heads would reject in 2008 in favor of technocratic, Mormon Messiah, Mitt Romney. In 04 Sharpton acknowledged Constitutional procedure and called for a series of amendments to the Constitution to legalize his liberal agenda. In 08 Romney ran on a quasi-fascistic national health care proposal and a never ending regime of torture and war in the Middle East.
In my home state of South Carolina, the good lord has given us an old fashioned Dixiecrat in Bob Conley. Conley understands The Constitution. In fact he carries one everywhere. He voted for Ron Paul and has no use for the perpetual war state. His opponent, the Republican Lindsay Graham, is a John McCain lapdog who calls those who would defend the border bigots and thinks NAFTA has been a boon for the American worker.
I will vote for Conley in November of course, though I will not vote for Obama. Nonetheless the wind is shifting. Constitutionalists that used to look for a home in the Grand Old Party may want to cut their losses and cast their lot with the party of Jefferson.
A few days ago, Roberts published a column entitled "The Mother of All Messes", that is one of his best yet. While summarizing the damage done by the GOP Roberts made an interesting point, worth commenting on:
" Republicans view the Constitution as a coddling device for criminals and terrorists. Republicans think the Constitution can be set aside for evil-doers and kept in place for everyone else. But without the Constitution we only have the government’s word as to who is an evil-doer."
...
"However, Democrats, or at least some of them, do care about the Constitution. If it were not for Democratic appointees to the federal courts and the ACLU (essentially a Democratic organization), the Bush regime would have completely destroyed our civil liberties."
Many conservatives who are theoretically detached from modern Republican politics, would no doubt be repulsed by this statement by Roberts. Habit and tradition are conservative traits that one must be wary of breaking to be sure, but as it regards the GOP v. the Democrats, particularly on Constitutional issues, it is time to cut the chord that strangles the head.
The truth is that the Democrats for all their faults do care FAR more about the Constitution than the Republicans do. While the House has Ron Paul, Jimmy Duncan and a few other Republican patriots, in the upper chamber the only member to show a broad knowledge of Constitutional history is West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd. When it came time for the up or down vote on the Patriot Act, Byrd and everyone else capitulated, except for one Dem, Russ Feingold.
The Republican rank and file applauded the repeal of the Magna Carta, as they applauded the unconstitutional war in Iraq. The rank and file Dems on the other hand are seriously worried about civil liberties issues and our aggressive foreign policy. In recent years they have given us Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Jon Tester in Montana, two Senators better than anything the Republicans have offered in nearly a decade.
In 2004 most of the media regarded Al Sharpton's run for the Democratic nomination as a joke. This may have had something to do with the fact that the Reverend ran an issues oriented campaign, something Republican talking heads would reject in 2008 in favor of technocratic, Mormon Messiah, Mitt Romney. In 04 Sharpton acknowledged Constitutional procedure and called for a series of amendments to the Constitution to legalize his liberal agenda. In 08 Romney ran on a quasi-fascistic national health care proposal and a never ending regime of torture and war in the Middle East.
In my home state of South Carolina, the good lord has given us an old fashioned Dixiecrat in Bob Conley. Conley understands The Constitution. In fact he carries one everywhere. He voted for Ron Paul and has no use for the perpetual war state. His opponent, the Republican Lindsay Graham, is a John McCain lapdog who calls those who would defend the border bigots and thinks NAFTA has been a boon for the American worker.
I will vote for Conley in November of course, though I will not vote for Obama. Nonetheless the wind is shifting. Constitutionalists that used to look for a home in the Grand Old Party may want to cut their losses and cast their lot with the party of Jefferson.
I'm back
Well, I'm back. After a month of very limited net access, I now have full time access. Of course I am way behind on several writing assignments, not to mention how far off pace this blog has gotten, but I'm ready to hit the ground running.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
WWJD v. The GOP
James Dobson's endorsement of John McCain today was sad. While I have never had much respect for Dobson, or folks of his ilk, I had admired his commitment to principle in opposing the cultural liberalism of John McCain. By coming out for McCain this late in the game, the accepted wisdom is that some sort of back room deal was cut. Previous agreements between the "Religious Right" and GOP insiders have not given much to the rank and file Christian voter, but have given an awful lot to the foundation heads and leaders of the various "movement" organizations. One wonders how many pieces of silver Dobson got.
The really sad thing about this endorsement though is what it says about the state of religion in America. When the most respected pastor in the United States advocates voting for evil-lesser or otherwise-the crisis of our most long standing cultural institutions becomes almost comedic. A fundamentalist is by his nature obsessed with principle, tradition, and purity of form. When a fundamentalist tosses out all of the above in the voting booth there are serious problems to say the least.
Dobson's endorsement of McCain not only defies common sense, it is unbecoming of a pastor and arguably unChristian. The presence in the Presidential race of a consistent, cultural conservative, and Baptist minister, Chuck Baldwin, makes Dobson's great betrayal even more disgusting.
The really sad thing about this endorsement though is what it says about the state of religion in America. When the most respected pastor in the United States advocates voting for evil-lesser or otherwise-the crisis of our most long standing cultural institutions becomes almost comedic. A fundamentalist is by his nature obsessed with principle, tradition, and purity of form. When a fundamentalist tosses out all of the above in the voting booth there are serious problems to say the least.
Dobson's endorsement of McCain not only defies common sense, it is unbecoming of a pastor and arguably unChristian. The presence in the Presidential race of a consistent, cultural conservative, and Baptist minister, Chuck Baldwin, makes Dobson's great betrayal even more disgusting.
Internet returns on Saturday
This month has been very slow moving here. I've had an unusually large workload and the move has left me without home internet access for several weeks now. Still I've been chipping away at a few projects and in the coming weeks I hope to have a few book reviews up either here or elsewhere if things pan out. I also have a longer piece on the decadent pro wrestling industry in the works for the new LibertyWire online magazine that starts up in August.
Tomorrow I will be a guest of "The Southern Avenger", Jack Hunter, on local radio here in Charleston. The subject will be anti-war conservatism. Bill Kauffman will also be on the show. Expect youtubes in the near future. Also, keep your eyes out for Jack's article in the new issue of The American Conservative on South Carolina Senate hopeful Bob Conley.
More later.
Tomorrow I will be a guest of "The Southern Avenger", Jack Hunter, on local radio here in Charleston. The subject will be anti-war conservatism. Bill Kauffman will also be on the show. Expect youtubes in the near future. Also, keep your eyes out for Jack's article in the new issue of The American Conservative on South Carolina Senate hopeful Bob Conley.
More later.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Police quotas motivate unfair treatment
While driving home from work last night, I was followed for a few minutes by a police car. Although I was traveling just five miles over the speed limit, the moment I saw the police car I tensed up, cringed, waited and prayed he wouldn't pull me over.
I’m willing to bet that if I took a survey, most people would tell me they have similar anxieties when being tailed by the police. That people are unsettled by mere police presence is unsettling in-and-of-itself, especially considering that the main purpose of law enforcement is to “serve and protect.”
Typically, police won't issue warnings or tickets to drivers going a mere five miles over the speed limit, particularly on a busy highway where every almost other driver is doing the same. But that most people cringe when a cop pulls up behind them - even when no laws are being broken - is telling. Drivers not only cringe because they are aware that their fate is completely subject to the sporadic whims, mood and general disposition of that particular officer – but that sometimes police officers are compelled to be more heavy handed at certain parts of the month, issuing fines on the 30th, they would never consider on the 1st – to meet their quota.
Imagine that as a police officer, you simply want to uphold the law and prevent serious criminal offenses, but your own judgment must give way to your department’s policy of issuing a predetermined number of traffic tickets? Though you wouldn't normally pull someone over for certain minor infractions (like speeding a mere five miles over the limit), your own sense of proper justice is replaced by an arbitrary quota.
The justification is simple enough: quotas motivate officers to do their job, but it’s a false justification. Quotas are often rationalized as encouragement for law enforcement, but they also negatively influence the behavior and judgment of police officers, who for a brief period each month, are no longer “serving and protecting” but pilfering, as they become tax collectors for the city.
Many would accuse me of rationalizing my own desire to speed, but this is not the case. As a safe driver in general (I had never been issued a speeding ticket until last year) it still has become obvious that many aspects of modern law enforcement are more about harassment than protection.
Consider my first, recent traffic violation. While working as a chauffeur I was pulled over by a police officer for speeding near the airport. The speed limit was set at a ridiculous 25 miles per hour (I say ridiculous because the limit is still 25 even far removed from the airport where there are no pedestrians) and traffic consistently moves at a speed well above the limit. This is because most drivers assume, due to experience, that the speed limit is likely 35 or even 40 miles an hour. The police are aware of this common mistake – so they’ve set up a speed trap.
As a chauffeur, I have driven by the airport hundreds of times and have never seen an accident there. Is this because the police are constantly there to nail offenders? No, because almost no one drives according to the absurd speed limit along that stretch - that's why they're getting caught.
When I was pulled over, I explained to the officer that I hadn't noticed that the limit was so unusually low, that I was new on the job, and that I had never in my life been pulled over for speeding. I promised to be more careful and asked to be let off with a warning. The officer was unmoved, and instead gave me a $125 dollar ticket.
Why? Because I was a threat? A menace on the highways? I was following the normal flow of traffic on a road where there is no good reason for the limit to be 25 MPH, with nary a pedestrian in sight. Exactly why wouldn’t this particular officer, considering it was my first offense, let me off a warning? Here’s why - It was the end of the month and he had to meet his quota. To dismiss my assessment of what happened as unfairly skewed, or as an attempt to justify my own lawbreaking would be absurd when considering the repeat offenders who are often given warnings the first week of any given month – and yet a stiff fine is issued to a first time offender. I’m sure I’m not alone.
In a more human scale community, where the local officers were actually attached to the community and the people in them, it’s harder to imagine law enforcement harassing their neighbors to please the city treasurer.
Simply put, if there were no police quotas, I would have not been issued that ticket. Imagine a local sheriff, without pressure to issue fines and collect revenue, pulling over a guy from his neighborhood, or even some poor guy from the next town over who was clearly not a repeat offender. A warning to “slow down” would be more likely than a fine, and it would still be enough encouragement for drivers to be mindful of the speed limit. When cops are accountable to the people, particularly their reputations, you get better “service”. In modern, often disconnected, often overcrowded, “communities” (for lack of a better term) where cops are less accountable to the people because they neither know them nor fear them – you get quotas. Drivers become primary sources of tax revenue, not simply a traveling public to be protected.
I’ve even heard of police departments that hold contests where the officer who arrests the most drunk drivers wins a Playstation 3. If this isn't corruption - by encouraging officers to make arrests they might not otherwise - I don't know what is.
Contests, roadblocks, “check points,” and the like, in the end harass more innocent drivers than punish guilty ones, and yet quotas are still considered justified as an appropriate "law enforcement tool." However small, this is tyranny.
Just ask yourself this question; if the crimes of those who are typically punished due to quotas are indeed worthy of punishment, what is the purpose of quotas?
I’m willing to bet that if I took a survey, most people would tell me they have similar anxieties when being tailed by the police. That people are unsettled by mere police presence is unsettling in-and-of-itself, especially considering that the main purpose of law enforcement is to “serve and protect.”
Typically, police won't issue warnings or tickets to drivers going a mere five miles over the speed limit, particularly on a busy highway where every almost other driver is doing the same. But that most people cringe when a cop pulls up behind them - even when no laws are being broken - is telling. Drivers not only cringe because they are aware that their fate is completely subject to the sporadic whims, mood and general disposition of that particular officer – but that sometimes police officers are compelled to be more heavy handed at certain parts of the month, issuing fines on the 30th, they would never consider on the 1st – to meet their quota.
Imagine that as a police officer, you simply want to uphold the law and prevent serious criminal offenses, but your own judgment must give way to your department’s policy of issuing a predetermined number of traffic tickets? Though you wouldn't normally pull someone over for certain minor infractions (like speeding a mere five miles over the limit), your own sense of proper justice is replaced by an arbitrary quota.
The justification is simple enough: quotas motivate officers to do their job, but it’s a false justification. Quotas are often rationalized as encouragement for law enforcement, but they also negatively influence the behavior and judgment of police officers, who for a brief period each month, are no longer “serving and protecting” but pilfering, as they become tax collectors for the city.
Many would accuse me of rationalizing my own desire to speed, but this is not the case. As a safe driver in general (I had never been issued a speeding ticket until last year) it still has become obvious that many aspects of modern law enforcement are more about harassment than protection.
Consider my first, recent traffic violation. While working as a chauffeur I was pulled over by a police officer for speeding near the airport. The speed limit was set at a ridiculous 25 miles per hour (I say ridiculous because the limit is still 25 even far removed from the airport where there are no pedestrians) and traffic consistently moves at a speed well above the limit. This is because most drivers assume, due to experience, that the speed limit is likely 35 or even 40 miles an hour. The police are aware of this common mistake – so they’ve set up a speed trap.
As a chauffeur, I have driven by the airport hundreds of times and have never seen an accident there. Is this because the police are constantly there to nail offenders? No, because almost no one drives according to the absurd speed limit along that stretch - that's why they're getting caught.
When I was pulled over, I explained to the officer that I hadn't noticed that the limit was so unusually low, that I was new on the job, and that I had never in my life been pulled over for speeding. I promised to be more careful and asked to be let off with a warning. The officer was unmoved, and instead gave me a $125 dollar ticket.
Why? Because I was a threat? A menace on the highways? I was following the normal flow of traffic on a road where there is no good reason for the limit to be 25 MPH, with nary a pedestrian in sight. Exactly why wouldn’t this particular officer, considering it was my first offense, let me off a warning? Here’s why - It was the end of the month and he had to meet his quota. To dismiss my assessment of what happened as unfairly skewed, or as an attempt to justify my own lawbreaking would be absurd when considering the repeat offenders who are often given warnings the first week of any given month – and yet a stiff fine is issued to a first time offender. I’m sure I’m not alone.
In a more human scale community, where the local officers were actually attached to the community and the people in them, it’s harder to imagine law enforcement harassing their neighbors to please the city treasurer.
Simply put, if there were no police quotas, I would have not been issued that ticket. Imagine a local sheriff, without pressure to issue fines and collect revenue, pulling over a guy from his neighborhood, or even some poor guy from the next town over who was clearly not a repeat offender. A warning to “slow down” would be more likely than a fine, and it would still be enough encouragement for drivers to be mindful of the speed limit. When cops are accountable to the people, particularly their reputations, you get better “service”. In modern, often disconnected, often overcrowded, “communities” (for lack of a better term) where cops are less accountable to the people because they neither know them nor fear them – you get quotas. Drivers become primary sources of tax revenue, not simply a traveling public to be protected.
I’ve even heard of police departments that hold contests where the officer who arrests the most drunk drivers wins a Playstation 3. If this isn't corruption - by encouraging officers to make arrests they might not otherwise - I don't know what is.
Contests, roadblocks, “check points,” and the like, in the end harass more innocent drivers than punish guilty ones, and yet quotas are still considered justified as an appropriate "law enforcement tool." However small, this is tyranny.
Just ask yourself this question; if the crimes of those who are typically punished due to quotas are indeed worthy of punishment, what is the purpose of quotas?
Friday, July 4, 2008
Jared Taylor and White Nationalism
IQ has nothing to do with the desire to see one’s people survive and flourish. The North American Indians never got out of the Stone Age until the white man came along, but they want their people and traditions to continue. They hope their descendants will dance the snake dance and purify themselves in sweat lodges for ever, and God bless them for it.
My view is no different. It doesn’t matter if immigrants are smarter, better-behaved, better-looking, and superior to us in every way; I still don’t want to be replaced by them. I love the traditions of the West, not necessarily because they are superior but because they are mine, just as I love my children because they are mine, not because they have high IQs.
It is interesting that these words come from Jared Taylor of the "race realist" (White Nationalist) magazine American Renaissance. While I am absolutely sure that Mr. Taylor does in fact believe that his culture and race are superior to others, it is certainly admirable for him to admit that the real issue facing society is whether or not cultural secession and self determination is something that ought to be preserved. Debating the relative merits of one race v. another race in regards to IQ or athletics or anything else for that matter is uninteresting to me because it largely ignores these issues.
The bedrock principles of self government and federalism are predicated on the notion that relatively small groups, of a similar cultural background, ought to determine their own fates by their own standards. One may view Mr. Taylor's language regarding Native Americans as "bigoted", but I do not, nor do I care. The truth is that American Indians DO have the right to have their own social and cultural mores and norms. I imagine in the age of peak oil, industrial decay and resource wars, their lifestyle is much more attractive to a lot of white folks than Taylor may let on, but again the yuppies, working class whites, elites, et. should all have some say in their own affairs.
Of course paradoxically perhaps, this is precisely why an Americanist "White Nationalism" is a non-starter. Such a concept is not going to fly in Harlem or Watts for obvious reasons. We gave away Miami to Cubans in the name of the Cold War. My dad grew up in New Mexico pre-1965, and even then a purely White European culture would have been impossible without a massive suppression of local tradition and customs. A "sea to shining sea" White Nation, cannot happen in the States. On the other hand it could happen in a State or a community which is what the "race realists" ought to shoot for if they are serious.
My view is no different. It doesn’t matter if immigrants are smarter, better-behaved, better-looking, and superior to us in every way; I still don’t want to be replaced by them. I love the traditions of the West, not necessarily because they are superior but because they are mine, just as I love my children because they are mine, not because they have high IQs.
It is interesting that these words come from Jared Taylor of the "race realist" (White Nationalist) magazine American Renaissance. While I am absolutely sure that Mr. Taylor does in fact believe that his culture and race are superior to others, it is certainly admirable for him to admit that the real issue facing society is whether or not cultural secession and self determination is something that ought to be preserved. Debating the relative merits of one race v. another race in regards to IQ or athletics or anything else for that matter is uninteresting to me because it largely ignores these issues.
The bedrock principles of self government and federalism are predicated on the notion that relatively small groups, of a similar cultural background, ought to determine their own fates by their own standards. One may view Mr. Taylor's language regarding Native Americans as "bigoted", but I do not, nor do I care. The truth is that American Indians DO have the right to have their own social and cultural mores and norms. I imagine in the age of peak oil, industrial decay and resource wars, their lifestyle is much more attractive to a lot of white folks than Taylor may let on, but again the yuppies, working class whites, elites, et. should all have some say in their own affairs.
Of course paradoxically perhaps, this is precisely why an Americanist "White Nationalism" is a non-starter. Such a concept is not going to fly in Harlem or Watts for obvious reasons. We gave away Miami to Cubans in the name of the Cold War. My dad grew up in New Mexico pre-1965, and even then a purely White European culture would have been impossible without a massive suppression of local tradition and customs. A "sea to shining sea" White Nation, cannot happen in the States. On the other hand it could happen in a State or a community which is what the "race realists" ought to shoot for if they are serious.
Lack of updates/Happy 4th
My apologies for the recent lack of updates. I've been ill and Dylan's been in the process of moving and is still without internet. We are both going to try to get something up here ASAP.
Either way, we want to wish everyone a happy 4th of July.
Here's a great piece by Pat Buchanan on American Independence, and how to avoid losing it.
--Daniel
Either way, we want to wish everyone a happy 4th of July.
Here's a great piece by Pat Buchanan on American Independence, and how to avoid losing it.
--Daniel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
