Buchanan’s latest column is cringe worthy. It’s supposedly a defense of Richard Nixon against the charge of racism. While everything in the column is technically correct, it’s PC pandering. It is a common trick of PC phobic “conservatives” to claim that Republicans supported Civil Rights and Southern Democrats opposed it. Yes, because Southern Democrats were the more conservative element at the time. And all those white Southern Democrats became Republicans as the parties somewhat switched roles. Buchanan is better than this. I’m really disappointed.
Nicholas Wade has published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal defending his book against his critics. Unfortunately it is behind a paywall. I saw the editorial because a copy of the WSJ is available in my employee lounge. Props to the WSJ for printing it.
The following post is prompted by a couple of comments bellow, which were tongue-in-cheek, but I do think represent the feelings of some.
There seems to be some people who see everything through the lens of their racialism, hence a lot of them are hostile towards professional sports, and feel other whites should be as well. But doesn’t the differential performance of different races in different sports lend credence to HBD arguments?
Myself, I don’t see how a male can grow up in America, esp. the South with regard to college football, and not have at least some interest in sports. I know there are people who just aren’t wired that way, but I have always been a bit suspicious (tongue-in-cheek) of them. They generally fall into two types, “nerds” (Star Trek > football) or arty types (music, the arts, etc. > sports). There is something normative about sports fandom in America and something “odd” about not liking sports. The former groups just seems disinterested. The later group is often pompous about their lack of interest in such ruffian pursuits.
At times in the past I have tried to talk myself out of getting too emotionally invested in sports. Based on the fact that it causes your emotions to be dependent on a bunch of people you have absolutely no control over, and in the case of college football, a bunch of kids at that. I figured it would be more emotionally and physically healthy if I took up a sport myself, then that way the outcome would be in my hands. But I always go back. I’m actually less emotionally invested in college football than I used to be. I used to be a nervous wreck on the day of a big game and would pout for a couple of days if we lost. I’m not that bad now.
Reactionary Catholic physics professor Bonald analyzes the concept of racism. He is unimpressed by disingenuous liberal theologians who have identified racism as the deadliest of sins:
If by “racism”, one means “the sin of having a special loyalty and preference for one’s own group”, then [one is] trying to define a natural and non-sinful attitude to be sinful. “Racism” as “the sinful belief that one race is superior in some way to another” is also guilty [of trying to define a natural and non-sinful attitude to be sinful] because such a belief may be true or false, but there is nothing inherently wicked in entertaining it.
The comments which follow are fascinating. By the way, not only is having a special loyalty and preference for one’s own group not a sin, we have it on good authority that it IS a sin to LACK that special loyalty and preference. (1 Timothy 5:8)
If you haven’t already purchased Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance, you should.
Time Magazine has reprinted a section of A Troublesome Inheritance: “What Science Says About Race and Genetics“
Today The Spectator (UK) published an essay by and interview with Nicholas Wade: “The genome of history: DNA explains more than you think“
As you can expect, this book has caused quite the stir. The Cultural Marxists are outraged. Roundup of book reviews at Occam’s Razor.
What a story…
Donald Sterling is the most eeevil man in the world because, in what he thought was a private conversation with his Black/Mexican trophy wife, he made statements revealing he did not want her bringing black people to basketball games.
Yes, on the Hate-o-Meter, this is bigger than the Holocaust and slavery combined.
But the truly pathetic thing about this story is how Republicans took that ball and ran with it while screaming that the latest “most evil man in the world” was another racist Democrat. In the Bizarro world of the Republican Party, Republicans are the true inheritors of Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy of color blindness. Not only that, but – and they’re especially proud of this – Republicans are Israel’s best buddies, defending that country no matter what it does. As EVERYONE KNOWS, criticizing Israel’s policies is just a cover for anti-Semitism. Plus, defending Israel’s interests is what defines real conservatism. Really.
So once again, Republicans have endorsed leftist ideology. “Racism” is a leftist concept. Its core idea is that anything that impedes the leftist agenda is evil and irrational. But the word can be quickly modified to include racial hatred, or arguing that there are differences among the races, or that race even exists. By using the word, Republicans have implicitly agreed that it is not just wrong, but evil to hold views that can be considered “racist.” And never forget that it is leftists who get to define whether an idea, policy, group, or individual is “racist.”
This latest absurdity is amplified by revelations that Sterling was due to receive a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP, and that he is actually a registered Republican. Oops. Proving once again that lunacy can only lead to more lunacy.
Why Don’t They Just Get it Over With and Start Calling the Oscars the PCscars?
Let’s see, Ellen, practically dressed like a man, was the hostess.
Jared Leto won Best Supporting Actor.
Matthew McConaughey won Best Actor.
Twelve Years a Slave won Best Picture.
The bottom three were entirely predictable.
I’m not saying that McConaughey and Leto didn’t give deserving performances or that Twelve Years a Slave wasn’t well done. What I’m suggesting is that having a PC angle clearly gives you a leg up on the competition. For example, last year Django Unchained won recognition way out of proportion to its merit because it was a white guilt fest.
Rod Dreher, who is normally pretty squemish regarding un-PC topics, has stirred up a hornets nest with a recent post about evolution and the culture wars. His blog post has 348 comments at the time of this writing. Brad Delong has responded with typical PC outrage. I don’t know how many comments his post has because I can’t see where they are numbered, but Steve Sailer says there are 250+.
I have not read the comments at either site yet. I wasn’t even aware that there was a raging Dreher post at TAC until I read the Sailer article above. I’m just passing along the controversy for now. I’ll try to wade through some of the hysteria when I have time.
Dreher has replied here.
Walter has already commented below on Mark Shea’s recent PC rant against the Dark Enlightenment. Shea’s post is a virtually content free denunciation of wrongthink, but I want to comment on one of the comments. That comment is by Jordan Bloom, and is an eminently sensible response to Shea’s rant. What stands out about it is that Jordan Bloom (or J. Arthur Bloom) is the same guy who recently wrote a hit piece against Richard Spencer and the National Policy Institute for the Daily Caller. We discussed that hit piece here. I replied to Jordan in the comments. I should have replied specifically to his comment, but I wasn’t thinking at the time and just commented in general, so who knows if I he has seen it. So what gives? Does Jordan oppose PC denunciations of wrongthink, or does he engage in them? Will the real Jordan Bloom please stand up.
Every year in the days leading up to the MLK Holiday, we are subjected to the absurd spectacle of mainstream and other neutered conservatives attempting to claim that MLK was one of our own. This rant is occasioned by several such posts I have seen today on FaceBook. I don’t know whether this is more pathetic or transparent, but it is clearly both. Anyone with any intellectual honesty at all should be able to see through this foolish narrative. It is rank historical revisionism, and I highly suspect that most of the people who do it know this. It certainly does not fool liberals who mock us for it. The only people it seems to fool is the mainstream conservative masses who lap it up. “See, we’re not the racists. It’s those evil Democrats who are the racists.” But I’m not convinced that even most of those folks believe it. It is simply a narrative thay can latch on to to innoculate themselves against charges of wrongthink, and think they can get the better of liberals in a debate.
MLK was a man of the left. This is not debatable. It is a fact. King is sometimes accused of being a communist (either big C or little c) by his opponents who have yet to sell out. While King was never, as far as we know, a Communist, he surrounded himself with Communists, addressed Communist front organizations, and attended a Communist front training facility (the Highlander Folk School). As I said with regard to Nelson Mandela, I don’t really like communist (big C or little c) as an epithet so I don’ necessarily hold his associations against him per se. MLK was a far leftist by the standards of his day and such people were bound to interact with Communists because that was the far left milieu at the time. But his associations with Communists and other radical leftists does contextualize who he was in his time. He is never accused of being a secret McCarthyite, for example, because that is not the milieu he traveled in. This was obvious and taken for granted by people at the time. Conservative voices like National Review and Human Events had no problem placing King on the left in his day. Attempts by conservatives striving to prove they are not politically incorrect to appropriate King and his legacy is a relatively recent phenomenon, and only passes the laugh test because enough time has passed and people forget their history.
The narrative goes something like this: King was allegedly a Republican. It was Republicans who were largely responsible for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and mean nasty ol’ Southern Democrats who opposed it. If they’re really laying it on thick, they’ll cite Lincoln freeing the slaves and how blacks voted Republican during Reconstruction and for decades beyond. Since the Republican Party is supposedly the conservative party today, ipso facto, King was a conservative. While this is all technically true up to the assertion at the end, it is meaningless.
First of all, it is not even true that King was a Republican even thought this is widely asserted by the craven cons. See here for example. For the sake of brevity, I’ll let the link speak for itself, which it does, although I’ll take up Kings’ opposition to Barry Goldwater below.
That said, yes, it was Southern Democrats along with self-identified conservative (that should tell you something) Republicans like Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley who opposed the Civil Rights Acts, but Southern Democrats and self-consciously conservative Republicans were the conservative element of the day. It was liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans who supported it. Some free-market and small government conservatives will protest that Southern Democrats couldn’t have been the conservative element of the time because they openly loved their pork, which is true, but again largely irrelevant to the point at hand. (A lot of modern conservative Republicans love their pork too, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, but that is for another post.) The two parties have not always been aligned as they are today. The division of the two parties along perceived left vs. right lines was just beginning in King’s day as was the transformation of both parties, which is what makes this all more confusing than it ought to be.
Historically we have traditionally had two parties that were organized around the perceived commonality of interests of a rather diverse coalition of forces. The Republicans were the Court Party and the Democrats were the Country Party, so to speak, and whatever ideological considerations there were were primarily a pretext for self-interest. Since the 60′s, the parties have largely switched roles and taken on the left vs. right dichotomy. White Southerners have migrated to the GOP and blacks have migrated to the Democrat Party, the latter a phenomenon that started with FDR and the New Deal. Now why and how this happened deserves a discussion of its own, but happen it did and racial issues clearly had a lot to do with it. To pretend otherwise, as the PC cons do, is to be willfully ignorant.
The PC preening conservatives sit on their high horses and bash those bad ol’ Southern Democrats, but demographically speaking those old Southern Democrats and their progeny are the modern base of the GOP and they know it, although they may pretend not to. Five Deep South states, including my own state of Georgia, broke the strangle hold that Democrats had had on the “Solid South” when they voted for Goldwater in ’64, largely based on Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Did, the alleged Mr. Republican Martin Luther King support Goldwater in ’64? Inconveniently for the PC cons’ tidy little narrative, no he did not. See the link in paragraph 4 above. Most of those same states, again including my own state of Georgia, voted for George Wallace four years later in 1968. This gradual transition of the South from a Democrat to a Republican bastion was seen up through the Clinton elections. That transition is now complete. (And potentially being reversed again due to other demographic forces.)
Do the PC grandstanders assert that all these suddenly enlightened white Southerners who now dutifully pull the lever for Republicans are actually all transplants from the North and Midwest who have demographically displaced those mean nasty ol’ racist Southern Democrats who continue to remain a small remnant of the Democrat Party? In fact, the opposite is the case. It is the migration of liberal whites (along with immigrants) into the South that has made states like North Carolina turn purple. Who were the whites in North Carolina who pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 that gave the state to him? Was it the old Southern Democrat remnant? That is absurd on its face, and again the grandstanders know it. When they bash those mean ol’ racist Southern Democrats, they are bashing their own demographic base. But I guess scoring PC brownie points is more important to them than honor and intellectual honesty.
Regardless of what someone may think about Martin Luther King and his legacy, he was not a man of the right and to argue that he was is intellectually discrediting. The PC cons should just be honest and admit that they have turned over their intellectual man card to the Cultural Marxist Division of PC Rightthink Enforcement, and spare us all, left and right, their farcical historical revisionism.
Addendum: I understand why some conservatives might want to sit out the MLK debate in order to not bring the PC rightthink enforcement apparatus down on their heads. I think it’s weak, but I can understand it. But it is one thing to sit the debate out cautiously and another thing to join in the debate on the side of the Cultural Marxists. Even though their revisionism is obviously inaccurate, their regurgitation of it still feeds into the PC narrative and empowers the PC Beast. As I have said repeatedly, conservatives who feed the PC Beast are fools. They will never keep it from attempting to devour them and the civilization they say they want to conserve. They are contributing to their own demise. This is ultimately what I am decrying even more than the specifics of their MLK retelling.
Great news from Oklahoma! The self-appointed censors who shut down the American Renaissance 2010 conference just got their knuckles rapped:
On August 8, 2011, David Yeagley of Oklahoma filed suit against Jeffrey Imm and Daryle Lamont Jenkins in the District Court of Oklahoma County of Oklahoma for allegedly civilly conspiring and tortiously interfering with his contract to speak at the New Century Foundation’s American Renaissance February 2010 conference. …
Yeagley’s motion for summary judgment was filed on December 3, 2013, and Jenkins did not file a responsive brief to it. During the morning of January 3, 2014, a hearing on the motion occurred, and the judge granted it: Jenkins has been ordered by a court of law to pay Yeagley $50,000.00 for shutting down the 2010 American Renaissance conference.
Hurrah for David Yeagley! Check out his website here.
Ted Cruz posted a tribute to Nelson Mandela on his Facebook account. Some of his supporters then expressed their displeasure. Now the PC Media thinks his supporters expressing displeasure is a news story. Here is what Cruz wrote:
“Nelson Mandela will live in history as an inspiration for defenders of liberty around the globe. He stood firm for decades on the principle that until all South Africans enjoyed equal liberties he would not leave prison himself, declaring in his autobiography, ‘Freedom is indivisible; the chains on any one of my people were the chains on all of them, the chains on all of my people were the chains on me.’ Because of his epic fight against injustice, an entire nation is now free. We mourn his loss and offer our condolences to his family and the people of South Africa.”
First of all, regardless of what facts and opinions may be in dispute, Cruz’s post is gratuitous PC grandstanding. Best to say nothing at all because almost anything you say is going to appear to be PC placation, and the PC beast needs to be resisted and challenged, not placated. If you must say something then a simple Rest in Peace would do.
As the Daily Beast article linked above points out, US conservatives long took for granted that Mandela was the bad guy in this drama. (Of course the Daily Beast pointed this out as an indictment, not for educational purposes.) He was a Communist who headed a terrorist Communist organization. Now I believe people should be judged in the context of their time and situation. So I don’t much like Communist as an epithet. Mandela was a revolutionary, and African revolutionaries at that time were likely to be communists (big C or little c) because that was the milieu they were in. This is similar to the random pre-war German who is accused of being a Nazi. Well yeah, he might have been a Nazi, because a lot of pre-war Germans were Nazis. And a lot of the people who throw around the accusation would have been Nazis also if they had been Germans at the time just based on numbers alone. So I’m not crazy about communist as an simple epithet coming from rightist any more than I am Nazi as an epithet coming from leftist. That said, the fact that he was a Communist is not nothing either, and shouldn’t be swept under the rug the way the fawning media is doing. I hold against him that he was a member of an authoritarian and viscous Communist party more than I do the fact that he might have thought Marx was on to something.
But the fact that conservatives used to routinely criticize Mandela but now supposed conservative stars like Cruz feel it necessary to praise him says a lot about how oppressive the PC atmosphere has become.
Let me begin by saying that I have always liked Jack Hunter. I have only met Jack once at a Ron Paul event in Georgia, but I consider him a virtual friend. He is my Facebook friend. I was always especially fond of Jack because in addition to us both being Southern paleocons, we also shared a love of professional wrestling, especially of Ric Flair and the old NWA/Georgia Championship Wrestling on TBS era. We also shared a fondness for old school action movies. Jack, while a few years younger than me, reminded me a lot of myself. He was an intelligent guy who talked about Kirk, defended the South and seemed to really get it politically, but also couldn’t get beyond his Southern, blue collar tastes. The combination of someone who could talk intelligently about Kirk and Weaver one minute and then be a geeked out fanboy of Ric Flair and Sylvester Stallone the next was rare. Most people who can do either, can only do one or the other. Very few can do both. Hence I always felt a kinship and familiarity with Jack that exceeded our actual familiarity. While I don’t know if Jack felt the same way, I know he knew who I was and that he was familiar with this website.
I have been aware of Jack’s Southern Avenger persona since well before he revealed his identity. In fact, I recall going on an internet snooping session at one point to see if I could figure out who he really was. (To no avail.) The reason I was curious to figure out his true identity is because he seemed so well versed in paleospeak that I figured he might be someone I was (virtually) familiar with. We frequently posted his videos on this site. Contrary to Jack’s protests that he was young and naive, part of the reason that I liked his commentaries so much was because he was very articulate and often threw in references to Kirk and others that seemed intended to established his paleo bona fides. They struck me as winks of a sort. His way of saying “I’m one of you” without wearing it on his sleeve.
So it was with dread that I read his “Confessions of s Right-Wing Shock Jock” which appeared yesterday at Politico. I knew before reading it that he was going to prostrate himself before the gods of political correctness begging forgiveness and seeking to be accepted back into polite company, and he did, as I expected, just that. No worse than what I expected but no better.
I don’t now dislike Jack. I’m not going to disown him. I’m not going to call him names. I’m not going to un-friend him. In fact, when this “scandal” first broke, I counseled others against attacking Jack personally. Since I do consider Jack a virtual friend, to now attack him would be disloyal. It’s also unhelpful. I will say that I’m disappointed that this is the way Jack has responded to the “revelations,” which as someone noted (David Weigel maybe?) when this first broke, had always been hiding in plain sight.
When this came out, Jack had two options. He could do what he did and is doing which is backtrack and denounce his past. Or he could defend what he said vigorously. As I pointed out at the time, nothing he said, taken alone, was all that scandalous. Everything he said was common amoung paleos and in many cases mainstream conservatives. He could have appologized for some of the way he put things – suggesting that Lincoln and Hitler would have been best of friends is a bit provocative – without apologizing for the substance. He could have said he had become more libertarian over time, without casting aspersions on his old belief systems. His backtracking didn’t save his job them, and I’m not sure it will get him back into polite company now. What I do know is that he has hurt the cause he once (maybe still?) supports by accepting the framing of the enemy that what he said was scandalous. It was not. What the system needs is not another generic libertarian. What the system needs is smart articulate people like Jack who aren’t afraid to defend authentic conservatism against the PC mobs whether they be liberal “anti-racists” or Lincoln idolizing neocon thought policers.
I don’t doubt that Jack over time has become more libertarian. The simplicity and reductionism of libertarianism is seductive and has a way of drawing in people who are around it. And while I never got the impresion that Jack was hostile to religion, I did sense that he wasn’t personally very religious, so the slide into libertarianism was likely easier for him than it is for religious socons. Also, I don’t doubt that Jack has become over time more politically pragmatic. Playing the political game tends to do that to people. I had noticed this myself as Jack became somewhat of the designated spokesman for the Ron Paul campaign against conspiracy theorists and no-compromise libertarians. Now whether this was a job Jack was asked to do because it was felt he had credibly with the proponents of these issues or if this was a cause he took upon himself, I don’t know. It is possible that realizing his own past put him in jeopardy, Jack was trying to establish his reasonable bona fides, but this is just speculation.
That conceded, his handling of the racial and Southern issues in the article struck me as completely craven. Jack sort of walks back his support of secession as a principle for example. The passage where he addresses it is confusing. Jack is a good writer and there was no need for the passage to be confusing. I think the passage reflects his own ambivalence. I suspect he felt he needed to say something that he didn’t really want to say. Jack is schooled enough in Southern conservatism and Rockwell style libertarianism to know that secession is on firm intellectual and historical grounds.
His framing of racial and immigration issues as largely matters of sensitivity was pretty pathetic. As I pointed out at the time, the shock quote that was trotted out in the original hit pieces that was supposed to be so damning regarding race, wasn’t shocking unless you’re a lefty PC hysteric or an easily PC intimidated cowardly conservative. It wasn’t pro-white racialism. It was a standard color-blind conservative denunciation of the racial double standard. Jack’s yammering on and on about the need for conservative sensitivity on racial issues per se and Southern issues in general is profoundly harmful because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. It accepts their framing of the debate. When a PC hysteric points and sputters because you denounced Cultural Marxist double standards, the way to respond is not, “Oh I’m so sorry. I’ll be more sensitive next time.” The way to respond is “You’re darn right I decried the Cultural Marxist racial double standard! What kind of conservative would I be if I didn’t? Do you defend it?”
My hunch is that Jack doesn’t believe his own crap here, and is just throwing himself on the mercy of the PC rightthink guardians. While he may believe that more care when discussing racial issues is prudent, in the same way he now embraces more pragmatic politics, I don’t think he really accepts that conservatives should abide by PC strictures with regard to language and policy lest they be guilty of wrongthink. Likewise I don’t think he really believes that defense of the South, secession, states rights etc. automatically means one is guilty of thoughtcrime. He’s too smart for that and too much a product of the roots that gave rise to the Southern Avenger.
So I am disappointed that Jack has chosen this route. I wish he had chosen the honorable route that Jason Richwine chose which was to vigorously defend himself because he knew he hadn’t done anything wrong. If Jack wants to remain a libertarian and a politcal pragmatist, I’m fine with that. I think that transformation is genuine. But accepting the framing of left-wing PC obsessives and neocon hit men is not OK. Hopefully Jack’s conscience and pride (the good kind) will set him back on the right path and one day he’ll write a mea culpa for his mea culpa. Maybe Jason Richwine can give him a call.
Attn: This story is now officially a hoax. Ignatiev is not even retiring.
I actually didn’t doubt the quote, because I knew Ignatiev’s history, but I did doubt the sincerity of the website that was praising it. But finding out this was a hoax was not easy. I ran several web searches before I found the story above.
Original story begins below.
Noel Ignatiev is the infamous white hater who edits the journal Race Traitor (Yes there really is a “journal” called Race Traitor.) and is probably most infamous for this quote:
“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”
Not content with that little gem, he recently used the occasion of his retirement to let lose with this doozy:
“If you are a white male, you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease, white males have never contributed anything positive to the world! They only murder, exploit and oppress non-whites! At least a white woman can have sex with a black man and make a brown baby but what can a white male do? He’s good for nothing. Slavery, genocides against aboriginal peoples and massive land confiscation, the inquisition, the holocaust, white males are all to blame! You maintain your white male privilege only by oppressing, discriminating against and enslaving others!”
Ignatiev, who is of Russian Jewish heritage, of course looks as white as I do. (See above link.) The link is to a site called Diversity Chronicle. I have yet to decide if Diversity Chronicle is legit, or if it is really an elaborate spoof of the foolishness of people like Ignatiev. This paragraph makes me think it may really be a spoof:
The good Professor’s sound and reasonable words resonate with every enlightened and progressive mind. They are indisputable and no one can debate them. They should not be controversial in the slightest, yet remarkably a few far-right extremists object to the Prof. Ignatiev’s advice.
No one could seriously be that clueless, could they?
Addendum: The whole quote along with Diversity Chronicle may be a spoof. I’m still looking into it.
I know some here aren’t crazy about Top Conservative News, but this is too rich to pass up.
White hater Tim Wise is in hot water for … wait for it … wait for it … alleged racism. Ha ha. It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
Here is the article that TCN links to. Read the anti-Wise tweets if you can stomach them. If they don’t make you weep for the future of this country, nothing will.
These White haters (often self-loathers) have their own language. If you have ever seriously uttered the words “cis male” (look it up) or “white privilege” then you should be permanently banned from polite company and nothing you say should be taken seriously again.
BTW, Tim Wise has apologized like the wuss he is.
I won’t try and defend the tone of most of my remarks. It was inappropriate. Period.
I fell into the same kind of vitriolic and sometimes personal attack mode that had gotten me angry in the first place. I shouldn’t have. I will strive to do better.
He showed a tiny flash of manhood by calling out his hecklers and now he must retreat back into eunuch status lest the anti-White peanut gallery hound him out of his profitable gig. You can’t make this crap up.
Oprah recently accused Trois Pommes, a Swiss luxury shop, of racism after it was hesitant to sell the billionaire a handbag for 35000 Swiss Francs. Likely the sales clerk routinely recommends a cheaper item to any but a very few known wealthy, but Oprah declares she’s the victim of racism. This isn’t the first time Oprah has created drama at a luxury shop. In 2005, Oprah was “victimised” by the Hermès flagship store on the Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré for denying her entry at closing time. (The French store owner made a televised walk of shame to make amends in 2005.)
Trois Pommes shop owner, Trudie Goetz, responds to the recent 2013 accusation (from same Reuters article):
Of course that’s not the case. Who wouldn’t want to sell a purse for 35,000 francs?
From The Irish Times, Goetz further replies:
My salesperson, she wanted to give her the handbag in her hand but Mrs Oprah didn’t want to take it in her hand, she just wanted to look at the bag
From BBC, Goetz declares:
[The salesclerk] takes care of the most spoilt customers from all over the world.
It appears that neither Goetz nor the Zurich Tourism office has formally apologised. Good, why should they when there’s been no wrongdoing?
This might be the 35000 Swiss Franc handbag by Tom Ford that caused such a stir:
As I said in the post below, I never followed the intricacies of this case the way some did. When I would argue about the case on blogs, I was often amazed at how much detail some people knew. I guess if I knew that other people clearly knew more about the subject than I did then it would have been wise for me to keep my opinions to myself or at the least to hedge, but I was aware of the general scenario, and I had such confidence in my thoughts about that that it gave me confidence to speak on the matter as a whole. Perhaps that confidence was unwise, but it was there nonetheless, and in hindsight it looks entirely justified.
What I knew was the general scenario. The original local jurisdiction did not charge Zimmerman because they didn’t think they had a case. The State appointed a Special Prosecutor in response to the cries of the PC mob with the assistance of a complicit liberal media because they didn’t get the indictment they wanted from the local jurisdiction, and that Special Prosecutor brought an indictment (surprise, surprise!).
Here is why I think this case is a litmus test. It indicates where a person believes bias predominantly resides. If you asked me who I think is more competent to investigate a potential murder case, the state or the local jurisdiction, then I would say the state because they obviously have more experience, more tools at their disposal, etc. In fact, I could imagine a local jurisdiction that doesn’t deal with this kind of thing much doing a pretty incompetent job of it (unless the local jurisdiction is Sheriff Walt Longmire’s. Then the killer is as good as in jail. ). But this was never largely about competence. Some alleged the local jurisdiction did a slap shot job with the investigation, but the issue of the competence of the investigation was always in the context of the question of bias. What was primarily being debated here was the issue of bias. So here is the issue boiled down: do you believe the local jurisdiction is more likely to be biased because the victim was black and the perpetrator was non-black and that a PC outrage motivated state investigation is more likely to be less biased, or do you believe that the local investigation is less likely to be tainted by bias?
The latter seems so obvious to me that it is hard for me to even frame the question without indicating my own thoughts on the matter. The former accepts the obvious and known bias of the external calls for an indictment, and still thinks that is less bias than the unknown bias of the local jurisdiction. This is almost unfathomable to me. Imagine how much unknown bias you have to presume on the part of the local jurisdiction for that to be more than the known bias that is behind the state investigation. I am no apologist for the police, as anyone who knows where I’m coming from will know. I think police officers often have a power complex and abuse people’s rights. And cops are people so I don’t doubt that they often engage in the same kind of profiling that we all do on a daily basis. But what group A has to presume here is not just profiling or commonplace bias, but that an indictment was not brought because Martin was black and Zimmerman was non-black. In fact, I think it is much more likely that the local jurisdiction was actually more careful to avoid the appearance of bias because of the sensitiveness of the situation and the scrutiny, than it is that they refused to indict Zimmerman because of bias. My assumption when arguing with the anti-Zimmerman crowd was that the motives of the local jurisdiction were likely either benign or excessively scrupulous. This strikes me as a no-brainer, and why I had such confidence in trusting the motives of the local investigators over the obviously politicized state investigators. The assumption of the anti-Zimmerman crowd was that the motives of the local jurisdiction were malign and that the state case was necessary to set that right. This strikes me as borderline delusional.
In all the hoopla over the Jack Hunter smear campaign, Daniel McCarthy’s rather tepid (and telling) defense of Jack Hunter deserves to be commented on separately. His defense is conciliatory from the start and basically says that “Jack has re-examined his thinking” so we shouldn’t hold his past views and persona against him. “Jack Hunter has grown” we are told and is now attempting to “apply conservatism to uniting a country riven by ideological, economic, and yes racial divides.” But the conversation turns truly bizarre in the comments section. I complained in a comment that “the tone of this post is needlessly and unhelpfully conciliatory” and defended a past Hunter column on race that McCarthy said was naive. McCarthy’s reply to me is truly a jaw dropper.
It’s naive because there’s a very obvious reason why white Americans shouldn’t express their ethnicity in the same way that nonwhites might. The historical status of whites in this country is very different from that of any other group, and to say whites are “not afforded the same right to celebrate their own cultural identity” as others is rather clueless. And no, affirmative action doesn’t change that.
As you say, Red, Jack was merely giving voice here to the conventional right-wing view, but it happens to be wrong. I’ve parroted lines like that too, and it takes work to tear up the ideological script—which Jack has done.
What?! McCarthy just explicitly endorsed the Cultural Marxist double standard that sensible conservatives complain about. I responded and didn’t pull any punches, but I don’t think my response was out of line. Unfortunately, my comment did not make the cut. Since it has been a few days and comments have appeared below mine, I think it’s safe to say that my comment is not going to be approved. Here it is below. You tell me if it was out of line.
“It’s naive because there’s a very obvious reason why white Americans shouldn’t express their ethnicity in the same way that nonwhites might. The historical status of whites in this country is very different from that of any other group, and to say whites are “not afforded the same right to celebrate their own cultural identity” as others is rather clueless. And no, affirmative action doesn’t change that.
As you say, Red, Jack was merely giving voice here to the conventional right-wing view, but it happens to be wrong. I’ve parroted lines like that too, and it takes work to tear up the ideological script—which Jack has done.”
I’m so dumbfounded by this response that I hardly know how to respond. The essential element of the Cultural Marxist narrative that we anti-PC forces are trying to combat is precisely that, that ethnocentrism and ethnic identity and pride is OK for non-Whites but anathema for Whites. What is considered natural and good and healthy in non-Whites is the vilest of thoughtcrimes for Whites. This is an obviously obnoxious construct and should be called out and denounced whenever it appears. Either everyone gets to be ethnocentric (the natural order) or no one gets to be ethnocentric (ideological “color blindness”). And historical status has nothing to do with it. Let’s look at an analogous situation. Japan has long oppressed their Korean minority, but do only Koreans in Japan get to have ethnic pride, while the Japanese don’t? When is the last time you saw a PC Enforcer hand-wring about Japanese ethnic identity and pride? As the white nationalists are fond of saying, Cultural Marxist PC is not anti-racist. It is objectively anti-White.
In the Free Beacon article, one of Hunter’s alleged sins is writing for the “paleoconservative” websites The American Conservative and Taki Mag. That “stank” is still on you Daniel, and no amount of front page articles about gay civil rights is going to remove it. I really don’t know who you think you are going to impress with such nonsense. So Daniel, what are you going to do when the long knives of the PC Rightthink Enforcers come after you? I can read the article already. “McCarthy attended meetings of the racist John Randolph Club. McCarthy used to write for the racist … secessionist … neo-Confederate … Lincoln hating … anti-Government extremist … blah, blah, blah … website Lew Rockwell…” And if that happens, who do you think is going to come to your defense? It will be me and people like me who can be reliably counted on to counter attack the PC Beast. It won’t be Jon Huntsman or David Lampro. They’ll be fleeing for the tall grass just like all the rest of the “respectable conservatives.”
The PC Beast must be kicked in the teeth, not placated.
As times before, the modern Baptist/Bootlegger coalition emerges again with the trial of George Zimmerman. Rumors that a riot will come if Zimmerman is not found guilty, come from the money grubbing agents of the local security services--ever looking for a payoff. The race hustlers are assuredly looking for a payoff as well, or the mob gets unleashed–or not, it’s all acting to try and get some coin. The Rent-A-Mob beckons to serve “higher” purpose, be it in Egypt or Florida.
I wrote on the case in April of 2012, that Zimmerman would be railroaded, but there is “happy” talk, after a ridiculous trial so far, that Zimmerman will be acquitted.
American Hard Right dissidents, of whatever persuasion, recognized right away that this was a case of self-defense that called our attention–not just an apathetic, who cares, but engagement–without regard to who Zimmerman might be, where he came from, what his DNA says. Tales of American “materialism” would have to be put on hold.
A similar effect, though slower developing I might add, has occurred with Snowden (are we harder on our own, or what?) as the dissidents from many persuasions, now Right and Left, follow his case.
I wish I was kidding, but I’m not.
The author, David Sirota, has a picture at the bottom. He appears to be white. Can you say “self-loather?
The article is laughable. He babbles about “white male privilege.” It reads like something written buy some race or gender studies academic. How do people like David Sirota look at themselves in the mirror? Has he no shame?
Addendum: I have been struggling to figure out just how to characterize this article. When I first read it I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I know Salon is a liberal magazine, but in my experience it generally attempts to be pretty serious. I can’t imagine William Saletan writing something like this for example. But this article is just not serious. It reads like a paper written by an undergraduate in some gender or race grievance studies class who is desperately trying to impress his professor. I mean he starts babbling about white privilege in the first freakin’ paragraph! Take a breath David. Here is a piece of unsolicited advice: you should probably lead off with a few explanatory paragraphs before you drop the white privilege bomb if you want real people to take you at all seriously.