What To Do About Extremist Speech by 60 Guilders

What To Do About Extremist Speech  by 60 Guilders

The question of what to do about extremist speech—or speech deemed extremist, which are two rather different things—is one that frequently bedevils people. The basic responses are threefold: Refute, suppress, or ignore. Each has its merits in certain situations—yes, even suppression, although its value is limited to dealing with speech that actively incites people to criminality.

This is relevant due to one of the interesting consequences of the recent election, which is the local furor surrounding a speech by Richard Spencer at Texas A&M University.

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with the fever swamps of the Internet, Richard Spencer—well, the polite way to say it is that he makes a certain expatriate’s views on racial issues look like those of our esteemed hostess. No, seriously. If you don’t believe me, try and make it through the first paragraph of this article.

Anyway, a white nationalist alumnus decided to rent a space at the university—as anyone can do, since it is a public facility, paid for by American and Texan tax dollars—and invite this charming fellow to speak. Naturally, when the announcement was made, a firestorm of protest went up from many quarters, and provided some truly excellent examples of how, and how not, to handle dealing with the expression of protected, if odious, speech on public property.

The illiberal left, of course, demanded that Spencer be either explicitly shut down for expressing hate speech or that Texas A&M find some way to use its regulatory power to gig him for violating some obscure clause in the contract signed by the person who made the reservation, lest they somehow be seen as giving approval to the event. The university, thankfully, pointed out that as a public entity it could not do this, despite finding Spencer to be a reprehensible jerk.

Others, less illiberal, decided to protest the event, and the university jumped on board this train rather quickly, by setting up a counter-event in the football stadium, Kyle Field, to display that the persons presently at Texas A&M stand united against Spencer. Personally, this seems like making a mountain out of a molehill, as it gives the man far more attention than he deserves—his particular brand of racialist ideology has relatively few adherents in the United States, and, if responded to correctly, should gain few more. However, the overall reasoning is laudable, if misguided—this guy’s trying to divide us, let’s show him that we believe that being part of Texas A&M is more important to us than being part of a racial group.  (I will note that this is a case of the university reacting to an ideology deemed extreme more than to an actual extreme ideology. There was nowhere near this level of protest when Gloria Steinem, supporter of abortion rights extraordinaire, was invited to speak at an academic conference last year. That is, however, another story.)

Student groups, meanwhile, planned a protest as near to the venue as they could get. Again, see above for the logic—he wants to divide us, let us unite. This was a good thing. A troubling sign, however, was the constant emphasis on the fact that they opposed his rhetoric rather than his ideas. While they probably meant that they opposed both his words and the ideas behind them, the fact is that bad ideas deserve to be opposed no matter how smooth the words are that advocate for them. Failure to recognize this leads to actions of an imprudent and self-destructive nature. However, they at least tried to stay relatively sane.

Unfortunately, as is guaranteed in any sort of public response to an event, someone responded in a way that was utterly counterproductive. This person was a sociology professor, whose biography describes her as a “sociologist, critical race theorist, and lawyer” who “engages the provocative intersections of race and the law.” As could be expected from this self-description, she decided to set up an event called “Challenging the Right to be Racist on Campus: White Institutional Space, the First Amendment, and Thoughts on Racial Equity” which will supposedly discuss the burning question of “the connection between racist expression on college campuses and institutional white supremacy” and whether “free speech [is] equally accessible to everyone or…only free and protected when it reinforces whiteness?”

The answer to this latter question, by the way, is that the former proposition is true and the latter is purely the product of grievancemongers’ fevered imaginations, but the problems with this talk go much deeper than that. Indeed, the main problem isn’t even the fact that the title of the event heavily implies that she wants speech to be suppressed that she doesn’t like. (And at the point where that isn’t the main problem, you’ve got a problem.)

The problem with this event is that it furthers the goals of the person the event is supposedly designed to counter. Spencer is, at his core, a collectivist—and, like all collectivists, seeks to put individuals into neat little boxes based on some clear identifying trait. What Moore, to be charitable, does not understand is that she is doing the exact same thing by singling out “whiteness” (whatever that means) as some kind of crucial trait that determines how people react to what someone else says. Now, arguably Moore is applying the principles of racial collectivism somewhat differently than Spencer is, but when you tell people their race matters, if they start to believe you it’s much easier for men like Spencer to get their hooks into them than if they believed otherwise.

Chief Justice John Roberts said it best in Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District No. 1—“ The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” It would be a wonderful thing if the people who said they were against racial discrimination would actually check to be sure that their actions would bring about that outcome—instead of furthering the racial divide.

The likelihood of this happening, given how they’ve behaved towards people actually trying to make a world where race doesn’t matter, isn’t high.

Addendum: Nothing of any significance happened during the event, and, as could have been anticipated, protestors outnumbered supporters by dozens to one, at the very least—which sort of turned the whole thing into even more of a virtue-signaling rather than productive event than it was from the get-go. Unfortunately, in yet another moment of counterproductive foolishness, there were several Soviet flags flown by various students, who demonstrated both their historical ignorance and their receptivity to collectivism as long as it mouths the right slogans. Furthermore, in making this a national news story, activists and the MSM gave Spencer more publicity than he could ever hope to buy. How to handle the resurgence of collectivist thought, racial and otherwise, in the United States is an extremely important question. Unfortunately, this incident mostly serves to illustrate how not to handle the problem.

141 thoughts on “What To Do About Extremist Speech by 60 Guilders

  1. Okay, illustrating my ignorance here.
    Why would they have flown soviet flags? Exactly what history/philosophy did they think they were supporting?

    1. At a guess, most of those flying the Soviet flag would be quick to denounce Russian hacking of the recent presidential election.

    2. Communism, of course. They aren’t that ignorant. They know full well what philosophy the hammer-and-sickle represents.

      They support the Communism that leads to all races being equal, a complete absence of sexism, total sexual freedom, and such abundance that no one has to work and everyone has the freedom to sit around composing great works of art. You know, the kind of Communism that has existed nowhere ever but surely will work here as soon as we get the right people in charge.

      1. The first part- the theoretical good stuff- they have heard from their teachers their entire lives; the actual reality and history is dismissed as hysterical McCarthyism and Rightist propaganda

        1. I’ve mentioned before that we were covering the “red scare” in Social Studies when the KGB agent telegrams were finally released, the ones that showed the Rosenbergs were not framed.

          Take a wild guess what we were taught, and how well “But the SOVIETS say that they were!” went over. And how much it changed anything, other than none of it being on the test.

            1. The John Birch Society thought Dwight Eisenhower was a Communist agent. (Or more precisely, an agent of the Dark Forces behind Communism.) There were good reasons why the Birchers were expelled from the conservative movement.

          1. Meanwhile, I was taking Russian from a Hungarian in 1989.. and she kept saying DON’T trust them and reminding us that ‘mir’ meant both ‘peace’ and ‘the world’.

          2. Some of these leftists know fully well how genocidally evil communism is–and they approve. I have personally known some of them.

      2. “””You know, the kind of Communism that has existed nowhere ever but surely will work here as soon as we get the right people in charge.”””

        And the biggest irony is that, while such utopianism is impossible, the closest we have gotten to such societies are typically described by the word “capitalist”, and they typically provide their utopianism by “the right people” in charge completely ignoring what everyone else is doing…

    3. They want to be seen as aligned with a noble cause – giving people the (false) idea that they’re the good guys. They’re trying to define themselves amongst the naive and uniformed by what they are not, because what they are wouldn’t go over well.

      Soviets and communist Chinese did this all the time with radical American groups during the Cold War. There’s mention of them in The Autobiography of Malcom X wheedling their way into support of the radical black movement.

  2. It’s important to stress that we not give views credence beyond their merits. The fear over the alt-right makes it seem much bigger than it is, and emboldens jerks of all stripes to come out of the woodwork and act on things because they think the majority agrees with them. The appropriate response would give some sense of scale to the white nationalist groups, showing how tiny they really are in proportion to the population.

    1. Witch Hunters are always in need of witches to pursue.

      The goal of such as Spencer is to make himself the center of the discussion, just as the goal of Al Sharpton is to put the focus on Al Sharpton. People are too prone to focus on the moving walnut shells and not the pea.

  3. Oh …. piffle!

    Some people need to read and contemplate the advice of Mssr. Screwtape:
    “Whichever he adopts, your main task will be the same. Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the ‘Cause,’ in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favour of the British war effort or of pacifism.”

    It does not matter which side of the argument the person is on so long as he can be induced to adopt an extreme position, one which polarizes and alienates other participants, driving rational speakers from the arena.

    Trolls are determined not by their positions but by their methods.

  4. The problem with the Left, both the illiberal and allegedly liberal sides, is that they’ve run out of tools to deal with the alt-Right. Yeah, it sounds like Spencer might truly be beyond the pale, but who’s going to believe that coming from the same people who’ve claimed everyone from Ben Shapiro to Ayaan Hirsh Ali as beyond the pale? They’ve become “The Students Who Cried Racism,” and it’s going to end the same way that the folk tale did.

      1. Probably emboldened it. In for a pence, in for a pound. A lot of my trust has been burnt in last few years for similar reasons.

  5. There is a small town in North Carolina who, because the law required they do so, would grant the members of KKK/Neo Nazis of the area a permit to hold their annual march on a small stretch of road that ran along side a shopping center leading to one of the factories in town. Twenty or so members would assemble and march up the road and then back down. Then they would give speeches to themselves.

    Most of the rest of the people of the town (of all races) who were not at work that day would bring picnics and set up lawn chairs on a hill at the golf practice range across the street from the shopping center. They chose to treat it as a sad bit of theater by some badly mixed up people, and a chance to get together with friends.

    After a while the group stopped requesting a permit.

    1. I recall a few years ago, a similar group requested a permit to have a white supremacist parade in a city about 90 miles north of my neck of the woods. The permit was granted, naturally, as it should have been.

      As I recall, the citizens organized a protest (who knows if they applied for their own permit) but it became moot because the original paraders never showed up.

      1. Tbh I hope they did get a permit. The rules and regulations must apply uniformly. I loathe the seemingly growing assumption that civil disobedience should not come with consequences if it is done for a “good” cause.

        1. Amen, especially since it puts cops in a horrible position where they either fail to enforce the law, or have to enforce it against the folks who are trying to be good.

          Part of being a “good guy” is avoiding putting other folks in a tough spot.

    2. I read a story about a neo-Nazi group some years ago trying to raise money for a rally (or parade? something, anyway) in some small town largely populated by survivors and descendants of survivors of the Holocaust and various pogroms. What did the town do? They bought the sponsorships, enabling the group to have their rally. And then, when they showed up to do it, made sure that the group knew that all these Jews in the town had sponsored them. Suddenly the neo-Nazi group didn’t have so much enthusiasm for the whole shebang…

      My other favorite is about a tiny little Mormon branch in the stake (larger geographical region that encompasses all the LDS congregations within that area) where I grew up. Some of the other locals, for whatever reason, got all het up about “those evil Mormons” and decided to rally the town to ‘kick ’em out!’ So they booked the local community-event-whatever and planned to show the anti-Mormon film “The Godmakers.”

      And the Mormons showed up. With cookies and drinks.

      That fizzled, too…

      1. *laughs*

        Oh, that’s delightful!

        It only works if the folks are basically decent but gone wrong, rather than bad looking for an excuse*, but oh, I love it.

        * That poor idiot woman who tried to hitchhike across…some place…wearing a wedding gown, to show that people were basically decent. They did find her body.

  6. “What To Do About Extremist Speech by 60 Guilders”?

    We need to sit 60 Guilders down and give 60 Guilders a stern talking to.

    1. Depends on exactly what the speech is and what form the extremism takes. 60 Guilders may well be justified in quoting Goldwater: “Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice.”

    2. Maybe we could split it up, so it’s just “What to Do about Moderately Provocative Speeches by 30 Guilders and 30 Guilders”.

  7. Back when I was at UC San Diego, one of the philosophy professors there was Herbert Marcuse, notable for coming up with the concept of “repressive tolerance.” As I understand it, this is the idea that if you allow people to say bad things about leftist causes, this has a repressive effect on advocate of those causes and on society as a whole, by limiting the ability of leftist ideas to get accepted; if you want to avoid repression you have to censor any statements of anti-leftist views, including racist, sexist, nationalist, or capitalist beliefs, or criticisms of welfare programs or socialist policies. (I’m reminded of the character in a Poul Anderson novel who complained that his freedom of religion was denied because he had to endure seeing other people practice Catholicism.)

    Anyway, Marcuse must be dancing in his grave at the astonishing success of his illiberal ideas.

    1. I’m reminded of the character in a Poul Anderson novel who complained that his freedom of religion was denied because he had to endure seeing other people practice Catholicism.

      So, add another to the list of things where scifi authors accurately predicted the future?

      1. Actually, that was set in an alternate history version of the past; the speaker was a seventeenth century English Puritan preacher, who, upon being told that France, a Catholic country, tolerated Protestants, complained that it tolerated Catholics as well, meaning that those who would die to scorch error from their country were forced, cruelly forced, to live within very earshot of its preachments. The book is A MIDSUMMER TEMPEST.

      2. Yes, well. Didn’t someone famously observe that there is nothing new under the sun?

        There are those in this country who are arguing that they should never have to be exposed to religion at all. For example, they want places that have them to be forced to remove all religious symbols from their property because to display such where it might be seen is an infringement on their freedom from religion.

        There have been other times in history when similar, if not more extreme, attitudes prevailed, such as in 1793 when Notre Dame de Paris was rededicated to the Cult of Reason, sacked, and converted into a warehouse.

  8. No, suppression never has merit. Not even if you ignore the obvious fact that it is a flaming violation of the Constitution. Alleged incitement of criminality is hardly a valid excuse. Who decides? On what basis?
    What *is* valid is to say that “speech has consequences”. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean your employer is required to continue employing you. (Many may — consider the foolishness of NFL teams as an example.) Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you aren’t liable for *actual* damages proven in a court of law to be caused by your speech. So if a crime is committed and it can be proven that the criminal was incited by a certain speech, then — and only then — may you perhaps have a case against the speaker. But not until then, and not in the absence of legally valid proof.
    Meanwhile, it’s a good point that offensive speakers should not be given more attention than the minimum practical. But the left don’t ignore that principle out of ignorance; they do so on purpose. Their purpose (as Zsuzsa points out) is to create controversy at every opportunity, and to turn every trivial disagreement into a shouting match about racism. The bigger the noise about the original speech, the more they feel validated, the more they feel supported in the delusion that they actually matter and their opinions are things that any thinking person might care about. It’s hardly surprising you can see this particularly clearly in the “fuzzy subjects” departments of universities, where facts don’t exist and political correctness is all that counts.

    1. My understanding is that incitement to riot – “Let’s go and murder/burn/destroy those people, don’t hesitate, here are the torches and pitch forks! Sic ’em!” – is punishable speech, because the goal is to cause harm right here and now, so stopping the speech or act is considered preferable than waiting for trouble to actually start. However, as you suggest, who decides what is “calling for attacks right now” versus “oh. Him again. Yawn” is open to abuse.

      For a murkier example currently happening every Friday – at what point does an imam preaching that @llah commands the faithful to kill Jews and Christians cross the line from re-stating what is in the Koran and hadith to incitement-to-riot?

      1. It actually goes beyond that. For example, the legal definition of assault, at least in California, is (a) making a threat to strike or injure another person (b) that you have the ability to carry out and (c) that would cause a reasonable person to fear being harmed. It is not required that you actually strike the other person, or even attempt to do so. Within certain limits, the expression of intent is a crime in itself.

        1. Followers of the news can be excused for harboring doubts about whether this definition would be evenly applied, such as in instances of some wannabe rapper gang-banger waving a gun and declaring he’s gonna pop a few caps on some cracka cops.

          Of course, rumour has it that the last reasonable person in California is only there because of inability to rent a U-haul.

          1. I resemble that unreasonableness!

            And the market has quantized the supply and demand equation for just such a CA exfiltration as compared to the inverse and extremely hypothetical CA infiltration in the opposite direction, using U-Haul one-way rental rate quotes for a 26′ truck, for pickup on Jan 02, 2017:

            San Jose, CA to Plano, TX: $2,616
            Plano, TX to San Jose, CA: $768
            CA to TX delta: +$1,848, 71% of the CA to TX rate

            This widely respected U-Haul rate delta metric cannot be explained by the current official unemployment rates:

            San Jose, CA: 3.9
            Plano, TX: 3.4
            CA to TX delta: +0.5, TX being 12% less than CA unemployment number

            It must be something else – another unsolved mystery…

            1. I’m impressed that your example of a destination in TX is Plano! I think it’s a very nice town. But I didn’t know that it had become famous!

              1. Lots of Tech in that general area around Dallas, plus a prior employer had a sales office there that my group supported, so it springs to mind more rapidly than, say, McGregor for all the SpaceX rocketry relocations, or maybe Austin for the folks who don’t really want to move to Texas.

                1. In case you didn’t know: A lot of companies have relocated their national HQs Plano. Other companies picked other parts of TX. Namely Austin etc. Houston is a quite active port. Is McGregor in TX or NM?

                  1. McGregor, TX, just southwest of Waco. SpaceX does rocket motro testing there, as well as the Annoying of the Cows with the hover testing of the first stage test articles.

                  1. They’re the reason we moved here; we followed their descriptions on their blogs and decided we’d rather be in Plano than “urban pioneers” in Atlanta.

                    That was the term used by our Atlanta realtor, defined as moving into a gentrifying area inside the perimeter and fending off the “native” drug gangs….

                    1. Pretty much our take.

                      We came out to Plano to look for a house and the first day, there was an advertisement for one of the local ranges on the DART bus. We said “This is the place.” 😎

          2. If there was no cop present who would be in imminent danger, that general threat is constitutionally protected and cannot be deemed to be an assault on the police in general.

        2. That is actually a widely accepted definition for “assault” – at least since Blackstone and his dictionary.

          From the World Encyclopedia of Law:

          An assault is defined as an unlawful attempt to inflict bodily injury upon another, or the threat to do so coupled with the ability to immediately carry out the threat. An assault can be committed even though the offender does not actually touch, strike, or do bodily harm to another person. In some jurisdictions, it is an assault for one person to give another person reason to fear or expect immediate bodily harm-for example, if a woman threatens a man with a gun that she knows but he does not know is unloaded.

          If an assault results in physical contact, a battery has occurred. Battery occurs when a person unlawfully applies force to another human being. Any objectionable touching, even if it does not involve physical pain, may constitute battery. The force may be caused by a fist, weapon, stick, rock, or some other instrument.

          Note – “another person” is considered in an individual and specific context. Issuing a verbal threat against a particular amorphous group is not assault. “Immediate” means just what it says – it has to be right now.

          It does not matter whether it’s a KKK bozo in his momma’s old bedsheet – or a BLM bozo in his fat daddy’s old pants – neither one can honestly be accused of assault for their screaming tantrums.

          Which is why “incitement to riot” is a completely separate crime.

          1. To phrase it in a way that makes the logic a bit more obvious:
            grandma doesn’t have to survive a hit from Bubba the 8 foot tall rugby player before it’s assault. “I shot at him– but I missed!” doesn’t get you out of attempted murder.

            It’s not there because “let’s ban speech,” it’s there because “hey, this is in the category of stuff that you should reasonably take as a real attempt to do you harm, so you can respond to it like you took a hit without that pesky requirement to be in physical condition to survive the attack.”

            Kind of like that news story a few years back where “judge tells man he’s still dead.” That would be the scumbag Donald Miller, if anybody wants the details.
            Strictly speaking, the judge said that the presumption of death for the guy stood– and so he couldn’t screw his wife into paying social security back the death benefit for their two kids, which would enable the deadbeat to draw on social security and retire. When he abandoned them, he’d also piled up a ton of debt; in the nearly 20 years between abandonment and his attempt to win d-bag gold, he was obviously not working legal jobs and paying in to social security.
            Incidentally, the legal ruling was sound as well as just– there’s only three years to reverse a declaration of death.

      2. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (overturning conviction of KKK leader on First Amendment grounds) is the key to understanding Supreme Court precedent around this issue. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Under that decision, “mere advocacy” of any doctrine, including one that assumed the necessity of violence or law violation, is per se protected speech. So, your example (along with the imam) is probably not punishable speech unless the resultant action is likely to be immanent. [See also, Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973)]

      3. At one point in time I know that the line was set when the discussion moved from a general call to actions to more specific admonitions.

        Of course, as someone elsewhere points out there is a school of music that appears to be pretty specific, but is dismissed because for the most part it has proved to be empty posturing.

    2. A wise man once pointed out that suppressing speech is always more damaging to the suppressor.
      In this example, the alt-white troll got all the controversy he was looking for. That his mere words are able to mobilize such a large reaction gives him power. That his ideas are seen as something that needs to be censored or shouted down gives those same ideas value.
      The act of trying to suppress him alone gives the guy power, and his words value. Just think of how many clickbait articles are sold by being “things they don’t want you to know”?
      The act of trying to suppress creates interest in others. Why are they trying to ban this guy? People who otherwise would have ignored him now know he exist.
      And of course, if you have a culture of suppression, you stop hearing legitimate criticism, complaints, or any possible good advice counter to the party line. Problems go unfixed, and the whole thing comes crashing down.

      1. Whattya mean, “suppressing speech is always more damaging to the suppressor” – look at how well suppressing dissident voices worked for President-Elect Hillary.

  9. let’s show him that we believe that being part of Texas A&M is more important to us than being part of a racial group.

    Given being an Aggie is to join a cult, especially if you join the Corps (example, when I lived there ads for a cemetery located so you could be buried where you could see Kyle Field were common) pretty much any ideology matters less than being an Aggie.

  10. As could be expected from this self-description, she decided to set up an event called “Challenging the Right to be Racist on Campus: White Institutional Space, the First Amendment, and Thoughts on Racial Equity” which will supposedly discuss the burning question of “the connection between racist expression on college campuses and institutional white supremacy” and whether “free speech [is] equally accessible to everyone or…only free and protected when it reinforces whiteness?”

    I would ask her this: which event did the University itself organize a counter protest to, yours or the one which “reinforced whiteness”?

    1. I’ve been half-expecting something of the sort, against the Christmas markets in Germany. There was a failed bomb-plot against another German Christmas market just this week alone.
      In Tom Kratmans’ Caliphate, there was a chapter towards the end, when the native Germans eventually had to stop doing the Christmas markets, under pressure from the local Muslims.

      1. I’m hoping Europe starts waking up before its too late. Sure, I might not like the attitude a lot of Europeans have toward America and Americans, but I think it would be a real shame to see the cradle of Western Civilization culturally destroyed.

    2. I count at least three such events on RedState, plus the apparent Turkish policeman assassinating the Russian ambassador to Turkey.

      Obviously radicalized by US media coverage of election, electoral votes.

        1. There is a possible fourth also in Istanbul – see the Insty link about the US Embassy being on lockdown and warning people to stay away via Twitter (since Erdogania apparently has a media blackout law after any terrorist attack and has clamped down hard in the internet there, nothing else newswise is coming out).

            1. Likely, but three incidents happened with timing that suggests coordination. There were probably other incidents planned with similar timing. That security forces were not alerted in time to stop the known ones suggests that others may have gone through.

              1. And the initial reports had a shooting out in the streets near the US embassy – perhaps that was the penultimate shootout between the off-duty police officer and “Admiral Akbar” shouting assassin and the on-duty cops who ultimately ended his freelance international relations efforts and fulfilled his martyrdom request.

                    1. Sounds like a good time to leave Ankara. I’ve read that Turkey is most of the way to becoming an Islamic state. The founder of secular Turkey must be rolling in his grave.

                    2. Good news everybody! The Turks and Russkies say it was the CIA.


                      This is as transparent an international deescalation as pinning the Kennedy assassination on domestic white supremacism.

                      1. The CIA probably isn’t competent enough to pull this off. The CIA has been wildly overhyped for decades, and given current counterintelligence problems should have a harder time assassinating Russian officials.
                      2. Trump hasn’t been in office long enough to set this up, so it would’ve been set up under Obama. What CIA Bureaucrat is going to risk jail time doing this for Obama? The only way a career government bureaucrat is likely to sign off on that is if they dug themselves into a hole under Obama, are panicking over Trump, and are hoping that if they escalate enough he won’t dare admit to it in public.

                    3. Trump isn’t in office at all, yet…..

                      If the claims are accurately reported, though, it makes it much more likely that it was a false flag to excuse someone Putin wanted to do.

        1. This century answers to Twentieth Century II, XX Century Junior, and Son of 20th Century.

          1. Alternately, Attack of The Twentieth Century, Revenge of the Twentieth Century, The Twentieth Century Strikes Back, or Return of the Twentieth Century

              1. A New Twentieth Century, The Phantom Twentieth Century, and The Phantom of the Twentieth Century.

  11. A question never explored by the purveyors of white supremacy and the purveyors of white privilege is; who exactly are ‘white’ people in this country? This country has been mixing ‘races’ for generations so how exactly to you determine which ‘mixed’ race person is white and which isn’t? Looks? Behavior? DNA test?

    1. White is a very vague term.

      You hear “academics” talk about how the Irish became “White” because the Irish went from a hated minority to part of the majority.

      Of course, some of “whiteness” is confused with “position in society” and the Left assumes that anybody who doesn’t identify as “Black” or “Brown” is part of the “Ruling/Oppressor Class”.

      As for how the “white supremacy” clowns view “who is white”, quite frankly I don’t care what they think. 😦

    2. Meh. They know them when they see them.

      They’re the ones who work hard, get good educations, keep personal debt down, defer gratification … you know: act white.

    3. Our so called racial demographics are catch all vague groups that conflate descendents from sets of ethnicities. White includes Russian, Finnish, German, French, English and Irish. Asian includes Chinese, Korean and Japanese. Hispanic, Indian, and Black are likewise not groups that can hold the loyalty of a sane man whose political loyalties are a genuine question of life or death.

    4. By the color of their skin, obviously. Never mind that my aunt (of primarily German-Russian descent, a little Polish and possibly a smidgen of Greek – there’s rumors, but no one has bothered to do a DNA analysis. Personally, given all the different foods we’ve apparently stolen from the Jews and renamed I’m thinking we’re more Jewish than Greek) is as dark skinned as K. Tempest-in-a-teacup Bradford.

      You can’t go by such a thing as ‘European ancestry’ because all those descendants of former slaves seem to also have some European ancestry as well. And the recent immigrants (not their kids though) look at the race bating and scratch their collective heads over all the sturm und drang in the comparative utopia they’re now living in.

      1. Never mind that my aunt (of primarily German-Russian descent, … … is as dark skinned as K. Tempest-in-a-teacup Bradford.

        Dude. I HAD the DNA analysis done, found out I’m 93% Northwestern European, and if I spend a few days in the sun, I’m darker than that.

        1. If I remember the test right, it actually shows “places where there’s the highest rate of people with the same genetic markers.”

          Pretty sure folks here can see how this is just a science-colored version of “they look German.” (Or Japanese, or what have you.)

          1. From Ancestry’s website, it’s even worse: they are literally looking at your DNA and finding the places where their samples look the most like yours…..

    5. Congrats to TBlakely – This is the single best example of arguing and questioning the premises of those folks who would believe in “white supremacy” in the entire thread (at least in my opinion). If Spenser did a Q&A session at the end, that is the sort of question I’d like to see put to him. Add on Paul’s comment below – should the Irish be considered white for these purposes?

      As a side note, the linked article on the “Pro-Life Temptation” is an interesting insight into the philosophy of the alt-right and a reminder that many of the historic “Pro-Choice” advocates (like the founder of Planned Parenthood) were definitely also believers in eugenics. Admittedly, it makes me want to wash out my brain after reviewing the analysis, but intellectually it is an interesting argument. (Once again, there are a number of assumptions like poverty + willingness to use abortion as after-the-fact birth control = lesser human beings who shouldn’t be reproducing that are simply wrong, but analyzing the various flaws in that linked article is not the purpose of this side note.) I especially like the potential for that argument to make certain heads on the left end of the spectrum explode when they realize they are advocating the same position as that endorsed by the alt-right (and certain other groups which I will not name here for fear of someone invoking Goodwin on me).

    6. Where do I fit on their damned spectrum since I’m 1/32nd Cherokee. Then a mix of irish gaelic, scots gaelic, general random german and french blood lines so at least another branch of the sons of the gael in my blood. But by their magic seeking I think that cherokee blood somehow trumps the whiteness ooooh.

        1. Unless he votes for the people maintaining the BIA (and seeking to expand its scope to all Americans) he isn’t “authentic” and doesn’t count.

      1. Unless you’re a professional Indian Rights Activist and/or terrorist, you’re white. And probably guilty of not using your magic White Guy powers to stop offenses that they never bothered to report, and which may or may not be anything like claimed when investigated.

        (I’ve got some cousins who are movie-extra looking Paiute, but their philosophy is “ranch kid” rather than “rez kid.” So having one great-grandfather who was white makes them white. The cousins who were self believed victims, otoh, and had a lot more “white” ancestors, count as Indian…..)

      2. Legally you’re Cherokee. Check out the Federal laws regarding adopting Indian children. They’re bizarre and a bit appalling – a great example of good intentions poorly applied.

        1. Good intentions? I don’t agree. Racism is racism, especially when done by the government — intentions or pretend-intentions be damned.

    7. Here’s a question I’ve asked a couple of times, with regards to reparations to the blacks–And, usually getting the effect of brain-lock.

      Generally, the rationale for the reparations is that the black person receiving them is owed that for the years of slavery their ancestors endured.

      So stipulated. You’re owed because of your ancestors, and I owe because of what mine did to yours.

      Of course, to be totally fair about it, what about the ones of mine that arrived here after slavery was ended, or who were abolitionists, or who died in the civil war? Do I get a discount, or something?

      The other question I want answered, and this is the one that cause brain-lock, is this: Most blacks here in the Americas have significant amounts of white, European-derived genes, mostly due to interbreeding and the usual trips down to the slave housing that the various overseers and owners would make. Soooo… If you are gonna claim you’re owed ‘cos of those slaves, what the hell do we do about the fraction of your ancestry that was the slaveowners? Do we take a sample, figure out what your ratio of white-to-black is, and then make reparations accordingly? I mean, if I’m gonna get charged because some of my ancestors were slaveowners, wouldn’t it also be fair to bill you for the same sin?

      Usually, when making this point, I would get sputtering and frothing at the mouth, followed by “But… But, some of my ancestors were victims of slavery, damn it…”, to which I’d sweetly answer “But, what about the ones who weren’t…? Shouldn’t you, as a descendent of slaveowners, be paying the same fees the rest of us are…?”.

      More often than not, by the time we got done with the argument, my interlocutors would be throwing their hands up and going “Screw it… This is stupid…”. And, I’d agree with them.

      What’s really bad is that a couple of times I was able to point out that, since they couldn’t actually document any real slave ancestors in their family tree, and I could… Well, they’d be paying me the reparations.

      That got utter and complete brain-freeze from a couple of “activists”.

      1. Eh, you’ve been talking to the slower-thinking, or perhaps less indoctrinated ones. The times I’ve seen someone try that, they came back with, “That just makes it worse, because that means my (or “their”, in the case of white activists making the argument) ancestors were raped, so their white ancestry doesn’t count.”

    8. Well, it’s generally pretty obvious, with a small minority of ‘indeterminate’. If you can’t tell a Swede from a Swahili, you perhaps need better glasses.

      What really matters is that in an age where group politics (schoolyard / jailhouse rules) are practiced and enforced, not belonging to a group is a poor choice. You then default to the group known as ‘easy prey’.

    9. Do you know if any lighter-skinned persons coming from families of darker-skinned people have claimed to be white? We know that there are persons claiming darker skin who are from families of lighter-skinned people.

        1. It is a critical plot element in the classic Jerome Kern & Oscar Hammerstein II musical Show Boat, the 1936 film of which is currently playing on TCM.

          Adaptation of the Broadway musical. Magnolia Hawks is the lovely but protected, and thus very naive, daughter of Cap’n Andy Hawks, the genial proprietor of a show boat that cruises the Missisippi, and his nagging wife, Parthy. She is best friends with the show boat’s star, Julie LaVerne, but Julie and her husband Steve are forced to leave when it is revealed that Julie has “Negro” blood in her, thereby breaking the state law by being married to the white Steve. Magnolia replaces Julie as the show boat’s female star, and the show’s new male star is the suave gambler Gaylord Ravenal. “Nola” and Gaylord fall in love and marry against Parthy’s wishes. They and their young daughter lead the high life when Gaylord is lucky in gambling, but live like dirt when he’s unlucky. During one such unlucky streak, a broken Gaylord leaves Nola, and she is forced to start over by returning to the stage. Like Old Man River, as the famous song from this show goes, she just keeps rollin’ along.
          From IMDb

          It was a theme in a number of films through the Fifties, most notably Elia Kazan’s Pinky, starring Jeanne Crain. It was also (I believe) a recurring motif in the novels of Edna Ferber, one of the best-selling and most influential novelists* of the mid-20th Century.

          *How fleeting is importance

  12. Recently got into a ‘discussion’ on FB on a friend’s wall over a meme she posted. “All you Christians complaining that moderate Muslims do nothing about ISIS…what have you done about the KKK?” using a photo from a 1921 Klan rally in Chicago. I countered with an article about the Catholics holding their own rally against the KKK in 1924. “What’s your point?” was the response. Well, considering that Klan membership in the ’20’s was a couple of million, with probably 10X as much support, and the Klan membership today is only a few thousand, the KKK isn’t really a problem anymore. The people back then stood up and said ‘enough’ so that we don’t have to. The point of the meme might be that in the modern era it’s time for the moderate Muslims to stand up and say ‘enough’, which some of them are.

    1. People forget the Klan was as much anti-Catholic as anti-black, especially in the northern midwest. I’ve mentioned here before the family lore about my grandfather getting wind that the local Klan was sending over a deputization (what is a grouping of Klan types – a Sewerage of Klan maybe?) to point out the error of his ways when he started courting a Catholic girl. Said deputization was met out on the road by my Grandpa and his shotgun, with which he ran them right off. And there were enough males from my Grandmother’s extended family watching from the various porches to back him up (I guess the family approved of him).

      Point is, those white Catholic farmers in Southern Illinois and Indiana were very much not Klan material, back when the KKK was officially sanctioned (spit Wilson spit), and they made that abundantly clear.

      1. They were anti-Irish whether or not you were Catholic.

        I’ve told the story before, but my ancestor on the O’Brien side went Protestant after emigrating, marrying a minister’s daughter and both adopting a compromise church. So that side is all various flavors of small town Ohio Protestant. They all lived in Greenville, Ohio, the place chosen for the biggest KKK rally of all time. And my great-great uncle had a big sign for “O’Brien Florist” right downtown.

        So yeah, the out of towners messed up his flower- growing area. And he got out the ancestral brass knuckles and Irish temper. And that was the end of that.

    2. They had recruiting drives all over the place– my grandfather went to some of the picnics when he was a “kid,” somewhere around the great lakes. So would’ve been…20s?

      They treated it pretty much like those Vegas condo deals, where you go and listen to total BS for a few hours and get a free, really good meal. My dad’s summary of his dad’s review: “Their ladies could really cook.” If they’d had the faintest clue about who they were feeding, those guys would’ve had hysterics. :rofl: Not only could they not manage to hook anybody with the recruiting attempts, I can just imagine how any of their more muscular attempts would go over when at least one of the preachers English preacher’s wives was either Indian, or half Indian. Very proper lady, too.

      Contrast with how folks behave in relation to Daesh– it’s more like how not-politically-active, just-decent-people liberals behave when the BLM activists are getting violent. They act like the bleeping terroristic “protests” are what you really should be doing, not a bunch of pricks hijacking a good cause to do property damage.

    3. ‘Moderate Muslims’ are unlikely to ever speak up against the ‘radicals’. 1. The radicals will kill them and rape their women and children. 2. The ‘radicals’ are more faithful to the tenets of their religion than they are. The religion explicitly calls for violence. The ‘moderates’ are Muslims on Fridays, and easily shamed about that in their cultures.

      They really aren’t at all like us. They KNOW that their deity wants them to conquer and destroy us. It’s written down in their holy book quite clearly, and preached by their holy men regularly.

        1. Realized something rather sinister the other day.

          Folks here may be familiar with animal conservation– and how the method with the objective best results is when you have the locals being able to set up safaris, and make money from taking rich folks out to hunt their problem animals.

          Part of why his works is that the locals stop poachers. This is usually looked at from the stance that they’ll turn a blind eye– but it also means that they have guns and will kill the poachers. Notably, the poachers aren’t shy about killing locals who don’t turn a blind eye.

          So the “conservation via harvesting” has an additional benefit of making it so that itty-bitty villages in BFN, Africa, are armed and able to defend themselves when warlords come calling.

          No wonder it’s so unpopular with a Certain Spectrum of politics.

          1. Don’t forget Hanlon’s Razor–I don’t think those people have ever thought it through that far.

            Also, side note, the main warlord problems are in areas where you can’t really do safaris.

            1. Guns have a nasty habit of spreading, especially if they are shown to be effective against the little bandits.

              If I remember right, the highest correlation between warlord issues and anything else was prior UN involvement… they ARE good at getting one big bad.

  13. Y’a know, this reminds me of a small incident way back in 1970. Vietnam war era, okay? I was at the University of Colorado in Boulder at the time, studying hard. Now, a busload of kids from a military academy were coming to campus for some reason, which raised a whole lot of noise. Anti-Vietnam protesters came out of the woodwork, and so forth. Everyone expected an explosive situation.

    However, what I think was one of the most effective moves possible was pulled off by one young woman. I don’t believe it made the news, but she was one of the first people to greet the bus as it arrived on campus. With a bag full of … was it brownies or cupcakes? I’ve forgotten, but I think it was brownies. Anyway, as the military kids got off the bus, poised for violence, she handed each and every one of them a brownie. Not Alice B. Toklas brownies, just plain old mouth-watering brownies.

    Hey, you might be ready to fight a protester, but a young woman handing you a brownie? What can you do but say, “Thank you!”

    Kids with their hands full of brownies looked at other kids with their hands full of banners and just kind of grinned. I think I remember seeing a military kid actually split his brownie with a protester.

    Defused the whole situation, and actually made a rather nice statement. Even if no one, including the news people ready to cover the confrontation, could figure out just what her position was. As I remember it, her response to questions was simply, “They looked hungry.”

    I still consider that young woman to be the hero of that confrontation.

  14. Now, arguably Moore is applying the principles of racial collectivism somewhat differently than Spencer is, but when you tell people their race matters, if they start to believe you it’s much easier for men like Spencer to get their hooks into them than if they believed otherwise.

    They’ve got a (false) starting assumption in common, so when they apply the data that they have direct access to (what they know of themselves) and interpret data in light of that assumption (the security guy is following me, it can’t be that I have a huge purse, keep picking stuff up and putting it down, and keep looking at all the same stuff– it must be that I’m black) then you get wrong but in different direction conclusions.

Comments are closed.