Friday, August 13, 2010
The lefty blogs are in high dudgeon over Laura Schlessinger's repeated use of the "N" word in an exchange with an African-American woman who called in with a genuine issue, her frustration -- which sounds legitimate to me -- that her white husband would not stand up for her when his friends and family make "racist" or at least race-based comments. Conservatives should object just as loudly. Dr. Laura's rant is brain dead stuff from beginning to end. Forget the N-word baiting. Where's the sense or compassion in advising people to avoid "marrying out of their race" if they do not want suffer the indignity of dumbshit generalizations? Huh? You do not have to be a politically-correct academic liberal to think that is both idiotic and mean. And, by the way, it is bad for America, which could use a little more interracial marriage.
Makes me embarrassed to be a conservative.
Professor Althouse more along the same lines.
Ashamed to be a conservative?
What does it mean to "Conserve", anyway?
Conserve means to hold. If you read Genesis, God gives this command to Adam: "To cultivate and to Keep". That is what it means to conserve.
You conserve ones' race. It is an oxymoron for a conservative to say "let's allow interracial marriages" for one's duty is to conserve, keep, advance one's race.
Furthermore, a conservative is one who is Obedient to the Rule of Law. If conservatives are anything, it means to "Obey the Law" whether it is Divine, or Human.
St. Isidore of Seville that part of the Law of Nations is that one marry one's own. The Law of Nations, i.e. the Natural Law, is that miscegenation is forbidden. That is the Law.
Does the Natural Law coincide with what the Bible teaches? Divine Revelation on many occasions condemns interracial marriages. The Bible uses the word "Mamzer" in Hebrew to describe mixed race people. They were NOT allowed to enter the Temple.
A conservative is one who upholds the natural law and what divine revelation teaches. Moreover, a Conservative is one who upholds the Old Order. That is the Original meaning of the term, coined that way in France at the time of the French Revolution. Conservatives were against the French Revolution and tried to uphold the Old Order. The Old Order is the Natural Order and that includes Race. Race is part of the Old Order which is the duty of conservatives to conserve (keep).
To advocate race-mixing is leftist, progressive and nihilist. It is Cultural Marxism. What do conservatives have to do with Cultural Marxism?
Plutarch, whose writings have had a huge influence in Western Culture and with the FFofA, was a priest at the Doric Temple at Delphi for some 20 years. For context, the Spartans were Dorians. And Plutarch passes on what was their teaching at Delphi the seat of Apollo: "We are not in this world to give the laws, but in order to obey the commands of the gods".
I don't make the Laws, sir, I obey. The whole basis of Western Culture is Socrates which is about basing one on Fact and Science not on opinion. Opinion is always wrong. The West stands out because it is based on man moving to reality.
Again, America is a Masonic country with the motto "E pluribus Unum" which is Latin for "Out of many, One". It is about taking many races together and building a Novus Ordo. America is a new creation contra the Old Order. My loyalty and duty is to Truth and the Old Order irregardless of man's opinions. Our duty is to God who separated the Races at the Tower of Babel. As St. Maximos the Confessor said, "One man with the Truth is the majority".
I'm a conservative too, TEA PRTY participant & between the botoxed Debbie Riddle & the baboon's ass Rep. Gohmert (Pyle) of Tex. lying about TERROR BABIES (See AC360 videos at CNN)...it makes me sick..we are going to not capture either house if we give food for fodder. Dr. Moron Laua should be suspended at minimum. I've brought this up on my blog:
Hate to break this to you (well, maybe 'hate' is too strong a word here), but Dr. Laura has been an obnoxious ass for as long as I can remember.
If she's a 'conservative', I don't think I wanna be one...and I think Obama is the second coming of Hitler...
GOP...Party of Lincoln (Abolish Slavery) then, Party of Lincoln (Abolish Abortion) now.
This woman is still on the radio?
Not just a tool, a power tool.
I thought Aaron Sorkin took her down a decade ago.
Frankly, this incident transcends the left/right dynamic, but the primary way of disempowering radio hosts who dispense advice -- and do so without any discernable qualifications -- is for listeners to stop listening.
This doesn't excuse Dr. Laura's dirty mouth, but I did get some perspective from the person that our local ABC affiliate (KOMO) brought brought on to comment on her -- Al Sharpton.
I'm pretty sure they didn't bring him on to ask him about his history of slander and race baiting. Or even to ask him why he was acceptable to nearly every leader in the Democratic party.
Dr. Laura has recognized she was wrong, and has apologized. As far as I know, Sharpton has never apologized for his race baiting, even after the deaths.
(FWIW, I don't think Dr. Laura has been very closely tied to the Republican party.)
TH - I've read hundreds of your posts but this is the first time I've felt strenuous enough about my disagreement to leave a comment. Having read the entirety of Laura Schlessinger's comments, they are perhaps misguided (she never really gets to the heart of the caller's question) but I don't think one can fairly characterize them as 'brain dead' or make one in any way feel embarrassed to be a conservative.
I have always been struck by the way popular culture and societal norms have empowered some groups of people to make purely racially based comments which, were the colors or ethnicities reversed, would be cause for charges of racism. The 'n-word' is a perfect example.
Ms. Schlessinger is correct that black people, and specifically black comedians, use the word with alarming frequency. But if you're white, it's the word-who-shall-not-be-named, like the villain in the Harry Potter series. There are plenty of other examples - the movie Death at a Funeral is full of them - where black characters get away with statements that no white character would dare utter. This is the essence of Ms. Schlessinger's argument, that there is a double standard. At one point she brings up Obama, and how it's fine for black people to vote for him because he's black (or half-black). What she doesn't say is that it's not OK for white people to vote for a white candidate (or not vote for a black candidate) because of race. The former is not racist, but the latter is.
I fully understand how and why this came about. But at the same time, words or thoughts that are completely fine for one race, but are completely forbidden for another, stands in direct opposition to judging someone on the 'content of their character, not the color of their skin.' Conservatives - the ones I read at least - constantly bash the left for maintaining or seeking to widen racial and ethnic divisions in this country. I, and most conservatives in my opinion, yearn for the day when the NAACP goes out of business because we will have at last reached our post-racial goal (and having travelled extensively around the world, I can observe that the US is far closer to it than any other nation).
As for her advice to avoid "marrying outside of their race," note that she added "if you're sensitive to racial issues or don't have a sense of humor." Now, I've heard her show before but will turn it off almost immediately because she is far too judgmental for my taste. This comment is, in my view, completely consistent with her personality and some of the other advice I've heard her dispense. Was it ill-advised? Sure, as was the use of the 'n-word.' But in a larger sense I think her point was valid.
One final point - you say that America "could use a little more interracial marriage." I don't necessarily disagree, but why would that be desirable? Because more interracial marriage would promote more understanding and less division among races. Ms. Schlessinger's comments, and more specifically the reaction to them, illustrate the fact that racial divisions are still alive and well. When a white person can't say a word, ANY word, even when she's quoting a black person, then we still have a long way to go. Language is important and words mean things, and we'll never be 'equal' as long as the same words uttered by people of different races can cause completely different reactions.
Perhaps this is a generational thing - I didn't live through segregation and the civil rights movement. I'm military and was in a company-sized unit where whites were in a minority. And I've seen real, deadly, racial/ethnic discrimination in Iraq. So I would venture a guess that my experiences aren't representative. But my hope is that in another generation or two, we'll be looking back at controversies like this and wondering what in the hell all the hubbub was about.
I'm slow on getting the "take-away" from this thread:
Is it "radio shock jocks say the darndest things"?
Or, is it "people of non-color should be congratulated if they never utter the n-word -- in any context -- and won't tolerate any person of non-color who does -- again, in any context."
Or, is it "people of the left need any distraction they can get right now."
"The sheriff is near ..."
Stoned for saying Jehovah (Life of Brian)
I'm not only a product of an inter-racial marriage, but I entered into an inter-racial marriage as well. All I have to say from first hand experience is that Dr. Laura is 100% spot on. So you need to shut yo WASP mouth, Crakahawk.
That last comment is full of win. Hah!
Someone says something controversial about race, and suddenly white people who have no interest in the events whatever are falling over themselves to denounce it in order to demonstrate how enlightened they are, even going so far as to announce their embarrassment for the most remote philosophical association with the speaker.
*yawn* Must be Friday.
To Anonymous, of Fri. Aug 13, 06:31:00 PM, who wrote:
I, and most conservatives in my opinion, yearn for the day when the NAACP goes out of business because we will have at last reached our post-racial goal (and having travelled extensively around the world, I can observe that the US is far closer to it than any other nation).
In "my opinion". Reality doesn't care about "opinion". When the Bible teaches that "The Ungodly reason but not right reason" and that "the multitude is easily decieved" shows that opinion is not something to base action, morals or ethics upon.
This supposedly "conservative" seeks a "post-racial" America is really absurd. The Natural Law is that "Birds of a feather flock together" and that "Blood is thicker than water". Liberalism can't nullify that. What ever your "opinion" is, is not going to change that. When the Soviet Union, that post Racial Marxist nation collapsed, people separated by blood. When America collapses, the same thing will happen. You can not break the Natural Law and live.
The term "conservative" in the Anglosphere actually is Liberalism. Anonymous just shows himself to be a liberal and not a conservative. The man is hopelessly deceived.
I never thought I would see a post like this...wherin the blogger actually lifts a link from MEDIAMATTERS and rides with the implication that the target of the latest Mediamatters rant (Laura Schlessinger) is a "tool".
Mediamatters is probably one of the most destructive organizations (funded by Mr Soros, of course) for the purpose of using Politically Correct dialogue, or, in this case, infractions of the rigidly enforced dialogue, to create political smoke and fire.
The key ingredient in the success of Mediamatters is that the reader is not expected to actually review the source document. It is often MEANT to be taken out of context.
I'm not a fan of "advice radio". I hear enough about other people problems all day long to want to tune in at night, so I am not a Dr. laura Fanboy.
That being said, I went ahead a aread the entire transcript. what she said, including the use of the-word-that-must-not-be-named (at least if you are white)was SPOT ON.
It was NOT a "rant" in the Mel Gibson sense. It was a statement on our culture that actually rings quite true. As long as we have to have "special" behaviour around the members of certai nraces, there will never be anything close to racial harmony. The "special behaviour" preserves and protects and reinforces racial separation.
The "special behaviour" I refer to is Political Correctness.
I am astounded that TigerHawk would pen a blog in support of such destructive behavior using information from MediaMatters...the standard bearer for such abject foolishness.
Shame on you, sir!!!
Where is TigerHalk and what have you done with him!!!
Clinias - this is anon from above.
First of all, you were very quick to note that I'm hopelessly deceived. It takes most people a few weeks to figure that out and you did it from a single comment on a blog post. Good for you.
Second, I hadn't spent any time on your earlier comments in this thread when I wrote mine. I've now gone back through them and I have to tell you, it's pretty interesting stuff. If I'm reading you correctly (and please let me know if I'm off base), boiled down to its essence your argument is: (1) God separated the races, (2) God didn't intend for the races to ever intermarry, (3) to the contrary, God's command is to 'preserve' the individual races, (4) you're a God-fearing person and are simply obeying Him.
Assuming that I haven't naively stumbled into some blogging practical joke, that's a dangerous train of thought. Not 1984 or Catcher in the Rye kind of dangerous, but Mein Kampf and Turner Diaries dangerous. It has no place in any serious political or public policy debate. This is a wonderful blog and TH is a thoughtful, intelligent writer. It's a shame to see his comments section polluted like this (and I'm pretty sure that's reality, not just my opinion).
There has to be a eugenics blog somewhere on the internet in search of some of this type of wisdom.
Yeah, I was wondering about Clinias. I've been on vacation. Is he new? Have folks tried to reason with him on other threads?
Nice summary, anonymous. I could add bits, either from the history of the Church refuting heresies, or from evolutionary biology, but think your foundation is enough until Clinias gives more idea where his assumptions come from.
General rule: whenever someone says they don't have opinions, just facts, they very often mean they have unexamined assumptions which therefore "feel" like facts.
Anonymous, you are completely right in your observations (1), (2), (3), and (4). But it is not only the witness of the Bible, but also the testmony of the Natural Law. Two or more witnesses establish the Truth in a court of law.
But I am not a socialist, but an advocate of the Natural Law which the ancient Greeks called "The Logos". I'm also a Roman Catholic and so I don't follow Freemasonry and its tolerance/diversity agenda. What the old Roman Catholic Church fought against "Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism". There is a confluence between what Freemasonry teaches and Marxism teaches and they are both enemies of traditional orthodox Christianity. As Christ said, "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" and that is called Divine Revelation, the Bible. Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevism is about rebuilding the Tower of Babel. It was called the League of Nations now it is called The United Nations.
See what you don't understand Anonymous is the dictum of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist theorist, who divined that "Culture defines Politics" and that political correctness, cultural marxism that most "conservatives" now ape is really the first step in creating Global Government. They are replacing Western Culture with Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is the necessary step of creating the desired culture for globalization.
As Karl Marx strove and advocated the destruction of the nuclear family, Marxism/communism/International Socialism all dictate the destruction of race. Miscegenation destroys race. A true conservative upholds race as he upholds Family for Race is family writ large. Loyalty is a virtue and being a traitor is villany. As one is loyal to one's family, one must be loyal to one's race. Otherwise, you're a traitor. Conservativism has an ethical/moral dimension.
How can Loyalty be dangerous? How can love of one's kind be dangerous? Should I betray my family? Should I betray my kinsmen? Must I climb aboard the Marxist/Masonic bandwagon to perdition?
So, Clinias, how far does this separation go in your opinion? Scandinavians look different than the Greek, but they are both white, so would they be able to marry? How about Africans and Australian Aborigines? They look sorta same, but their ancestors have been separated for a very long time. Chinese and Japanese, or Japanese and Thais? Were should the lines be drawn? And what matters more, the looks or the actual DNA differences (which exists, statistically, but not in sharply divided terms)? I'm a Finn, and we have enough Eastern genes in the mix that sometimes you can get individuals who look sort of half or quarter Mongol even if that mixing happened hundreds or thousands of years ago, how would you classify them? Not to mention the fact that the last DNA studies say there is actually a very sharp division between the Eastern and the Western Finns. They look the same, and they have the same culture, but on that level they are supposedly more different than, say, Greeks and Germans.
Where do you propose to draw the lines?
"The key ingredient in the success of Mediamatters is that the reader is not expected to actually review the source document. It is often MEANT to be taken out of context."
JPMt, did you even open the link to Media Matters? It has both the written and audio transcript of the show TigerHawk is referencing, AND which has miraculously disappeared from Schlesinger's show's web site. What's so wrong with that? If by posting the original audio tape, Media Matters is guilty of taking the original source "out of context," than my name is Dr. Laura. Heaven forfend.
Clinias - anon from above one last time.
I appreciate your candor, thank you for clarifying your position. And at the risk of going even further down what I consider to be a delusional tangent, I'll make a couple more points and then leave this topic (hopefully) forever.
First, I was raised Catholic. My father studied for the priesthood before he met my mother, and is now a deacon. I went to Catholic schools from the age of 5. I have degrees from two different Catholic institutions (neither are in theology or a related field however). And I have almost literally no idea what the hell you are talking about. I can pretty much guarantee you didn't learn any of this from the Catholic Church. The Christ I've read about in the New Testament is a pretty tolerant person (which leads me to a thought from a commenter above - Christ was a Jew, does that make him a different race than a non-Jew? Can non-Jews be Christians?Discuss.)
Second - and I want to preface this by saying that I don't know you except by what you've written here - I think you need help. And I'm being completely serious when I say that. Your views are so far removed from - take your pick - reality, history, or Christ's teachings as to be dangerous. You use large words and quote long dead people in an attempt to sound intelligent and well read, but if you were actually intelligent and well read you'd realize the fallacies of your own arguments.
Admittedly, I'm not addressing many of those arguments in this comment because (1) this isn't my blog and we're way off topic and (2) a good portion of world history in the last few hundred years was dedicated to an attempt to eradicate world views such as yours. And I personally have spend the better part of the last 5 years trying to kill or capture people with analogous views halfway around the globe.
Read the book The Nazi Doctors, see Schindler's List, expand your horizons and challenge your own thoughts and assumptions a bit.
The only 'race' you should show loyalty to is the human one. We're all brothers and sisters in that race. If you choose not to accept that premise, then we have nothing further to discuss.
I listened to the Dr. Laura audio twice and could not figure out what was offensive. She was quoting black comedians who do say nigger very often. But context matters and it is more likely to be offensive to say that word if you are white. It all depends on context.
I spent half of my childhood in Chicago 2 blocks from the black neighborhood. My class was 50/50. Also, Louis Farrakhan lived 3 blocks from my house, ironically in the white area, and his son Abner went to my school. I find that the whites, especially liberals, who are most likely to kowtow to P.C. language codes have no experience living with blacks. Most blacks can handle the truth and will quickly recognize when they are being patronized by well meaning whites. What Dr. Laura did was tactless but it wasn't racist. Eric Holder was right about needing a dialogue on race because Americans are way too sensitive and we need a bunch of honesty if we are going to stop letting the leftist race hustlers divide us.
As an interracial dating expert, I thought Dr. Laura's comments were beyond insensitive, not just the N-word rant, but that is it was so misplaced. This was not a conversation about being PC or even racist, it was a woman with a real marital problem that was reaching out for advice, which is really hard for most people and instead of really listening and helping her with her problem Dr. Laura uses Jade to put forth her own agenda.
Our blog, Racy JC focuses on dating within different races and cultures (Asian, Black, Indian, Jewish, Latino, among others) and approaches these issues in a new, honest, real, and non-PC way. Please check it out!
social media: jcdaviesauthor
And never forget intercultural dating is great and you can do it! Racy JC