Counterculture Con HQ

February 21, 2010

How To Deal With The Race Baiters

New rule: when they call you a racist, the conversation is over.

And again, here, with Democratic hatchet man Max Blumenthal:

When they pull the race card they aren’t looking for a conversation, they’re not looking for a meeting of the minds, they aren’t looking for an intelligent exchange.  At that point there’s little use engaging them because that’s not what they’re looking for.  And they’re right.  We’ve heard each other’s arguments a billion times over already, we can finish each other’s sentences.  What’s left to talk about?  Besides it’s not them we’re really trying to reach.  We’re talking to the undecideds.  And so are they.  The race card is just their attempt to shut you down and keep you from being heard by the undecided middle.  And they will engage in the politics of personal destruction and character assassination if that’s what it takes.  So you treat them accordingly:  when you invite them into your house only to be slandered as a racist, you do what Breitbart did– send them packing.

Advertisements

26 Comments »

  1. you’re right … but I think the same goes for ‘socialist’.

    but the underlying truth to both points is that the ‘conversation’ is over in American politics and the we’re close to the ‘knives’ coming out.

    Comment by paleocon — February 21, 2010 @ 11:23

  2. >>>you’re right … but I think the same goes for ’socialist’.

    Yes. Tactic wise they are the same. But calling someone a socialist isn’t exactly like calling them a “Nazi”. It doesn’t rise to that level. Calling someone a racist does. You can be a promoter of a benevolent (but failed) ideology and still be a decent human being. Not so if you’re a racist. Calling people socialist is like calling someone a “capitalist” after all the banks have crashed. Which is precisely what the Left did! Nobody is personally destroyed for being found a socialist, or a capitalist, but being tagged as a racist? Only a serial killer is lower than a racist. Don’t you think there’s a qualitative difference?

    Comment by Jesusland — February 21, 2010 @ 11:33

  3. And one more very important difference. It’s one thing to call something socialist when we’re talking about economics and fiscal policy, and quite another to race bait when we’re talking about anything else under the sun. Racism is just a gap filler at this point. The more I think about it, the less analogous your example looks.

    Comment by Jesusland — February 21, 2010 @ 13:29

  4. so when the label ‘socialist’ is used to describe any sort of tinkering with the economy (by a Democrat) other than what Republican’s view as ‘fair’ for business it isn’t a gap filler?

    Comment by paleocon — February 22, 2010 @ 10:25

  5. I think that the term ‘socialist’ is used by Conservatives as the most unamerican and traitorous label they can think of … besides ‘commie’ (which plenty do to). I think qualitatively no one has beef with ‘capitalism’; the beef is with unbridled ‘capitalism’ –so, they are not equivalent.

    Comment by paleocon — February 22, 2010 @ 10:38

  6. actually, the more i think about it, your attempts to parse a qualitative differences between the tactics of left and right through these banal examples plays right into the problem that got us all into this situation in the first place. Robespierre going after the ‘gramsciists’ in academia isnt the solution it only plays into the problem.

    So now we’ve digressed into appeals to ‘force’, now figuratively, but very soon literally.

    The way through can only be some other solution which draws on the strengths of the past (conservative) but acknowledges the sins of our fathers (progressive).

    Until that rhetoric enterns into the conservative arsenal then the only answer to the game is civil war.

    Comment by paleocon — February 22, 2010 @ 10:50

  7. >>>Robespierre going after the ‘gramsciists’ in academia isnt the solution it only plays into the problem.

    What exactly is “the problem”? Certainly not the failure to acknowledge the sins of our fathers. That’s all we do. That’s all academia does. So that’s not the problem.

    That leaves our failure to draw on the strengths of our past. And who is in the way of our society drawing on the strengths of our past? The gramscists in Academia for starters, and then the entire Secular Progressive movement they have spawned.

    So what’s the proper strategy for dealing with this problem? Unilateral disarmament? That’s already been tried. That’s what got us here.

    >>>the beef is with unbridled ‘capitalism’ –so, they are not equivalent.

    Calling someone an “unbridled capitalist” would be a good equivalent to calling someone a socialist. Both have the same baggage. Calling someone a racist however is in an entirely different league. That’s up there with Nazi, and Hitler, rapist and child molester. They are not equivalent, and that’s why I call them out for saying racist, not for saying “unbridled capitalist”, or “robber baron”, or “corporate shill”, etc. Those are also terms of the Left– WHICH I DO NOT CALL OUT.

    Comment by Jesusland — February 22, 2010 @ 11:25

  8. “So what’s the proper strategy for dealing with this problem? Unilateral disarmament? That’s already been tried. That’s what got us here.”

    The reign of terror it is then …

    Comment by paleocon — February 22, 2010 @ 11:52

  9. “That’s what got us here”

    no, what got us here is far more complex than that … and until you acknowledge that complexity then nothing will change. all will be useless rhetoric, illusory wishing and nostalgic pandering.

    Comment by paleocon — February 22, 2010 @ 12:06

  10. Then what’s the solution! lol. Out with it already.

    Comment by Jesusland — February 22, 2010 @ 13:48

  11. You dopes! Some of those fools actually are Socialists or Communists. They are what they are. Do you think you’ll offend them? Who cares if you do? Their whole aim in calling us racists-bigots-homophobes is to get us to shut up.
    I have to admire Breitbart’s restraint: personally, I would have dropped those dweebs in about 3 punches (especially that fat f**k who was so aggressive).
    let us take a moment to recall that William F. Buckley, Jr., advocated taking a horsewhip to Drew Pearson. Let’s us also recall the warning he gave to Gore Vidal on national TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8 “Now listen, you queer. Stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your G-D face and you’ll stay plastered.”
    In a better day, we had Dr. Samuel Johnson who, when asked about freedom of the press replied, “Freedom of the press, yes, but also freedom of the cudgel.”
    Man up out there! Or are you afraid of Code Pink?

    Comment by Thorvald — February 22, 2010 @ 22:14

  12. P.S. Anyone who calls me a racist to my face gets, first, my best impression of that great line Delroy Lindo has in “Get Shorty” (1995): “You don’t know me. You only think you know me.” I say it with menace sufficient that no one has thus far pressed the point.

    Comment by Thorvald — February 22, 2010 @ 22:24

  13. What William F. Buckley said.

    Comment by Jesusland — February 22, 2010 @ 22:51

  14. It’s just funny how quick you are to excuse the fact that “some of those fools actually are Socialists or Communists”. I’ve got news for you Thorvald, some Conservatives ARE Racists and bigots and Homophobes.

    Both sides have a living memory when both were the norm … So don’t be so quick to excuse one mode of action and condemn another!

    Comment by paleocon — February 23, 2010 @ 09:22

  15. PS: If ‘Man up out there’ means appealing to violence … then indeed, the knives have come out and only civil war is the answer.

    Comment by paleocon — February 23, 2010 @ 09:37

  16. Why do you assume it’s an appeal to violence? You also alluded to that with your “Robespierre.” We’re going to oust them exactly the same way they ousted us. Through peaceful and non-violent subversion of their institutions, the media, academia, and entertainment. No knives, no violence. Stop buying into the “violent Right” meme. We arent’ the violent ones, they are.

    Comment by Jesusland — February 23, 2010 @ 09:46

  17. “You dopes! Some of those fools actually are Socialists or Communists. They are what they are. Do you think you’ll offend them? Who cares if you do? Their whole aim in calling us racists-bigots-homophobes is to get us to shut up.
    I have to admire Breitbart’s restraint: personally, I would have dropped those dweebs in about 3 punches (especially that fat f**k who was so aggressive).”

    This is an appeal to violence.

    When Rhetoric is useless the knives come out … that is why i REASONABLY assume such.

    You say: “Stop buying into the “violent Right” meme. We arent’ the violent ones, they are.”

    But when Thorvald so effortlessly throws out a comment like “You dopes! Some of those fools actually are Socialists or Communists.” without the slightest consideration that some Conservatives are Racists and Bigots and Homophobes then I see how myopic the conversation is … on both sides.

    You say: “Stop buying into the “violent Right” meme.”

    Is your memory so short or so myopic that you forget the living memory of dogs, tear gas, water hoses and batons on peaceful marches in the 60’s? When that memory fades and conservatives show that they’ve learned something about the concerns of progressives AND reflect that in their rhetoric then the ‘violent Right’ “meme” (as you put it) can go away.

    Comment by paleocon — February 23, 2010 @ 09:57

  18. You seriously think that this country needs yet another empty swing of the pendulum? One task master for another … the only difference being that it is ‘mine’ not ‘theirs’?

    Comment by paleocon — February 23, 2010 @ 09:59

  19. Your entire approach assumes we are still under the social and political dynamics of the 60s, with the “peaceful” progressives speaking truth to power. It assumes that conservatives– as the ones in charge–should be learning something about the concerns of defenseless, powerless progressives. When the exact opposite is true. Newflash, we aren’t in charge. We aren’t the “power.” The tables have been turned. The Progressives own our cultural institutions, and we’re the ones on the outside looking in. We’re the ones speaking truth to power, not them. It is THEY who need to show that concern, not us. And it is THEY who will show up with the dogs and water hoses, not us. Check your paradigm, it’s out of date. We are the new counter culture. And when conservatives reclaim the institutions we aren’t going back to Jim Crow. That is cartoonish nonsense. We are seeking to conserve the best of our liberal culture. Small L.

    ps. racism doesn’t infest modern conservatism the way socialism infests modern Liberalism. Not that I consider socialism and racism morally equivalent. But we don’t have politicians who attended white supremacist churches for 20 years. Can you say the same thing about Afro-marxist churches? To secular progressives, socialism is entirely mainstream.

    Comment by Jesusland — February 23, 2010 @ 10:18

  20. “And when conservatives reclaim the institutions we aren’t going back to Jim Crow. That is cartoonish nonsense.”

    NOTHING i’ve read or heard from Conservatives and conservatives (including your and the rhetoric of others on this site) tells me this thought is ‘cartoonish’. But, your extreme attempt to discredit what i’ve said by appealing to the most extreme examples of the problem, Jim Crow and using the term cartoonish, is just quite disturbing.

    1. Nothing that Liberals are doing now, as much as i don’t agree with a lot of it, compares to what we’ve come out of.

    2. No, we are not under the political dynamics of the 60’s but YES we are a) under their shadow and 2) inheritors of that debate … espcially since so many still live now who remember those time. I once had a prof. who lost his eye to a baton blow in Alabama … You tell dish this story to him …

    3. You’ll have to tell me what you mean when you say my paradigm is out of date … i’m’ not smart enough for that.

    4. What do YOU MEAN when you say ‘we are the new counter culture’? What lease do you think that gives you to say and do? Certainly not to be forget history … oh but that history is long gone and could never happen again. right?

    Comment by paleocon — February 23, 2010 @ 11:07

  21. ps: don’t you see how if even here, amongst people who agree that we talk past each other, that truly the possibility of dialogue is gone?

    You act as though what you say makes perfect sense and if it isn’t understood it’s because the person must be a Liberal Fascist … well, not so.

    YOUR MISTAKE is to think that this ‘counter culture’ is analogous to the counter culture of the sixties … not so!

    Comment by paleocon — February 23, 2010 @ 11:10

  22. >>>What do YOU MEAN when you say ‘we are the new counter culture’?

    Is this an honest question? This can’t be an honest question.

    >>>Nothing that Liberals are doing now, as much as i don’t agree with a lot of it, compares to what we’ve come out of.

    That’s fine. I mostly agree with that. Are you implying that we want slavery back or something? You offer a false dichotomy, and that’s why I mean by cartoonish. Conservatives are vastly less race-conscious than SecProgs are.

    >>>NOTHING i’ve read or heard from Conservatives and conservatives (including your and the rhetoric of others on this site) tells me this thought is ‘cartoonish’.

    Then you must have a plethora of evidence. Give me a specific example, otherwise I’m just arguing with a strawman.

    >>>You’ll have to tell me what you mean when you say my paradigm is out of date … i’m’ not smart enough for that.

    Like I said, you’re still operating from the power dynamics and social/political issues that made Liberalism great in the 60’s, tapering off in the 70’s. Those days are long gone. Oh, but it just happenned yesterday! Right? You wouldn’t believe how fast the world is changing, my friend. You weren’t around when all that happenned. So see the world as it is NOW, not yesterday. Let the dead bury their dead. I’m not going to allow the present–or the future– be held hostage by the past.

    Comment by Jesusland — February 23, 2010 @ 11:28

  23. >>>YOUR MISTAKE is to think that this ‘counter culture’ is analogous to the counter culture of the sixties … not so!

    How not so? Please splain it.

    Comment by Jesusland — February 23, 2010 @ 11:33

  24. “I’m not going to let the present–or the future– be held hostage by the past.”

    not a conservative statement at all … the past is the only guiding star we have in our voyage to the future. You say let the dead bury the dead but indeed as ‘fast’ as you’d like to think things are changing that generation is still shaping our politics and remember what the debate was about. To ignore that memory –‘THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING’– is folly.

    “Then you must have a plethora of evidence. Give me a specific example, otherwise I’m just arguing with a strawman.”

    this thread is a microcosm of what I’ve been talking about … and you’ve ignored my pleas. For Thorvald to dismiss the ‘socialist’ claim (rather arrogantly i might add) and then 1) totally miss the point (even ignore!) that Racism-Bigotry-Elitism-Homophobia are REAL problems on the Right and then 2) appeal to his own threats of violence and you to stand silent (and agree with Buckley’s threat) is to say –in a nut shell– that the problem is equally balanced. Strawman? No.

    But you will say that the Right isn’t in ‘power’ so this argument doesn’t apply. I say, thank God the Right isn’t in power and there is very good reason the Right isn’t in power. And many are alive who will testify (NO, NOT ANCIENT HISTORY) why this is a good thing.

    With all of that said …

    Our/This counter cultue is vastly differnet from the counter culture of the sixties. That counter culture was a rejection of, and attempt to topple, the calcified status quo of modernism. Elitism, Racism, Sexism and abusive Colonization in the name of Progress and Rampant Industiralism with zero care for the shadows and nightmares of that dream.

    And damn, have they succeeded … This POST-modern morass has left us impotent to do anything now, as you point out so well on this site. But in many ways they have only succeed in aggravating the problem … this ‘post’-modernism is really nothing but ‘HYPER’ modernism. Exactly what they’ve hated they’ve begun. One task master for the next.

    Our counter culture MUST be different because with the strength of history and tradition we can now absorb the the voices of justice, which sadly were forgotten or never considered; we can burn the chaff of unrooted post/hypermodernism; we can move forward with the standard of Western civilization now purified with the blood of martyrs who dared to make America live up to the promise. You don’t want to be burdened by history … I say it is what we conservatives do best and should never forget that. As distasteful and problematic as the last half of the 20th century has been it is indeed ALL OF OUR HISTORY.

    This isn’t a lawless counter culture of toppleing the strong man … if it is it will only end up as another night of the long knives. BUT, if it is a counterculture which forces the LEFT to Remember who they once were and what they were capable of when they were indeed rooted in the wisdom of our fathers, then it will be lasting.

    The Buckley/Vidal debate is an interesting example: VIDAL was right … we didn’t belong in Vietnam, or at least in the way we were there. When that simple logic was ignored the debate turned to rhetoric against each other … and that lead to threats of violence. It could have just as easily come from VIDAL –and as you point out, indeed now comes. But the story is the same.

    Comment by paleocon — February 23, 2010 @ 12:19

  25. >>>Our/This counter cultue is vastly differnet from the counter culture of the sixties. That counter culture was a rejection of, and attempt to topple, the calcified status quo of modernism. Elitism, Racism, Sexism and abusive Colonization in the name of Progress and Rampant Industiralism with zero care for the shadows and nightmares of that dream.

    That’s fine. Their goals were different than ours. But our methods will be the same. No problem. And they largely succeeded in their goals. By doing so they became irrelevant. And in an effort to once again become relevant, they went off the rails. That’s when we parted company with them. That’s when JFK Liberalism became modern conservatism. The difference between the two is largely only SEMANTICS. We aren’t the southern plantation owners of your “conservative” imagination. Conservative is just a word, just like “Liberal” is just a word. When you fail to grasp that current truth, your paradigm fails. So all that racism crap makes no dent in me because that’s not what anybody’s fighting for! I’ve spent a good ten years in this camp and I would know. It’s what YOU say were are, but it’s not true. You are deceived and you are propagating an untruth. You’re not really talking to me and fellow conservatives, you’re talking to an “image” of us that exists only in your head. And you cite a commenter wanting to knock somebody’s lights out for slandering him as evidence of…what exactly? The Fourth Reich? Please. Say it with me…JFK Liberal.

    >>>Our counter culture MUST be different because with the strength of history and tradition we can now absorb the the voices of justice, which sadly were forgotten or never considered; we can burn the chaff of unrooted post/hypermodernism; we can move forward with the standard of Western civilization now purified with the blood of martyrs who dared to make America live up to the promise. You don’t want to be burdened by history … I say it is what we conservatives do best and should never forget that. As distasteful and problematic as the last half of the 20th century has been it is indeed ALL OF OUR HISTORY.

    I have no problem with that either. Modern conservatism has largely absorded all those things old school Liberalism fought for in the 60s/70s. Old school Liberalism WON. They SUCCEEDED. We have INTERNALIZED those truths. Modern conservatism isn’t trying to overturn those lessons of history. We’re trying to preserve the ones that are CURRENTLY being lost. We are fighting in the PRESENT to preserve our PAST. The GOOD parts of our past. Ironically, you are fighting in the PAST to preserve the PRESENT! lol. The worst parts of our present. Yes, when you defend modern Liberalism you are doing exactly that! You give them aid and comfort.

    Remember the Duke Lacrosse players? Remember how a young black female accused them of gang raping her and everybody on the Left (black and white) jumped to her defense and pretty much lynched the young white college kids? Guilty as charged? Remember how it turned out she was full of crap? Lives were ruined. People were bankrupted defending themselves. She, on the other hand, paid no price whatsoever. Now the same chick has just been arrested for attempted murder. She was a monster the whole time! But we couldn’t see it because of all those skeletons of “the past.” Those white kids were being held hostage by “the past.” Liberals today are being held hostage by the past. Blacks are being held hostage by the past. The West is being held hostage by the past! YOU, with the outdated paradigm, are being hostage by the past! Strong words, I know. But I canna lie to you.

    I happen to believe people don’t let those skeletons rest because it serves their political agenda. This operates mostly on a psychological level. They would never admit to it, and they’d telling the truth to the best of their knowledge if they denied it. So they can trot the same old tired skeletons out like it’s weekend at Bernies and say see, racism! If somebody responds and says “those kids are good kids, and that chic is a lowlife thug,” they respond like a miffed school teacher, “ah ah ah, racism!” You name the topic, and there’s the same broken down skeleton– ah ah ah racism! They are using it to hold us hostage. ALL OF US. White, black, liberal, conservatives. All of us held hostage to broken down skeletons– racism!!! You say we mustn’t forget the past. Fine, I agree! But they not only want us to remember the past— THEY WANT US TO RELIVE THE PAST, day after day, for ever amen. Because it suits their political agenda. You want to fight for your political agenda? Great! I have no quarrel with that. But I won’t be moved by any appeals to that broken down skeleton. It’s a false paradigm. That reality no longer exists on the ground. The battlefield conditions have changed drastically.

    Comment by Jesusland — February 23, 2010 @ 13:27

  26. nothing else to be said then …

    Comment by paleocon — February 23, 2010 @ 13:53


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: