It doesn’t explicitly call for the return of white-only lunch counters, but I think Scott Lemieux is right — these guys want to bring back segregation, among other more unsavory aspects of our recent past.
Read the “Catechism” for yourself; does it not sound as if they’d like to freeze the socio-political culture at about where it was in 1958?
It has been said that people do not naturally prefer living in a free society – why else would we have the First Amendment. Given the opportunity, certainly the Bush bunch provides the opportunity, to live in a segregated society people will naturally prefer it. It boils down to survival. The more the ruling powers can eliminate my competition, the better I like it – unless of course I’m the one being side-lined.
It’s easy to see why a democracy, or a republic through the ages has always been a struggle to achieve and a struggle to keep.
These guys are having orgasms just thinking about calling themselves reactionaries. Now that is something to aspire to. Oh the stupid….it burns!
That’s enough, I have had my fill. If you can’t appreciate diversity, go find yourself an island and continue interbreeding.
I want to see some enterprising reporter clip this and ask every single Republican candidate about every single item in the catechism. They should all have to go on the record either embracing segregation (etc.) or rejecting the core beliefs of movement conservatism.
Cella says in retort to a comment: “To observe, for example, that government is the self-organization of the community for its preservation and the perpetuation of its way of life, is to positively exclude the possibility of a polity legitimized by the recognition of ‘rights’ and privileges without respect of the specificity of the traditions observed by the subjects of those rights. The immigration and Islam questions come readily to mind in this connection.”
Segregation may only be the light lifting in what they would like to bring about. IMO yahoos like this can’t lead in the context of the group as a whole, and so in short order they must, in a democracy, their power wanes because they cannot maintain the integrity and fairness required for the benefit of the many versus the control of the few–and thus they are ousted a la 11/07/06.
Yikes, Maha. Reading at that site was about as pleasant as listening to a grade school band practice. I had to leave to clear my head of all the jarring uncoordinated ad nauseum-repeated notes.
P.S., there simply cannot be many psuedo-intellects like them in our world. So, thanks to their own manifesto, their tiny minority aren’t supposed to be important, anyway.
PPSS., anybody else notice the horrible sentence structure of the catechism? [Maybe they are still grade schoolers].
This has to be my favorite:
If progress occurs at all, it is slow, unsteady and often obscure.
“If progress occurs at all.” Oh, for the days of Roger Taney and Dred Scott…? Wait, that means we’ve had progress….
Second favorite:
[T]he Legislative Branch of government, being at once most representative and most deliberate, must be, if not supreme, at least primary over the other branches….
Still feel that way?
Otherwise, that tedious series of sclerotic opinions just made me sleepy. I may have nodded off over the pro-segregation one… maybe someone could point it out to me?
JoanR16
A healthy polity will have a majority population and culture; contemporary orthodoxy on diversity tends towards anarchy and strife.
¶ The right of a community to maintain its identity, autonomy, and independence is among the first principles of a free polity.
A healthy polity will have a majority population and culture; contemporary orthodoxy on diversity tends towards anarchy and strife.
A healthy culture allows for diversity; rigid control leads to stagnation.
The right of a community to maintain its identity, autonomy, and independence is among the first principles of a free polity.
Bullshit. The first principle of a “free polity” is respect of the civil liberties of every individual. When a community allows a majority faction to oppress a minority that is not freedom. It is tyranny.
Kyron, thanks. I think. Although… yuck.
It all seems like worthless poli-sci wanking, to me. In the literal, British-euphemism sense of “wanking.”
Don’t worry; I decided I didn’t want to associate with Kyron’s warped ass so I dumped him into the twit filter. You know how much I care about healthy polity and all.
A man must sit in silence before what is before he can act rightly.
Zen fascists?
Amazing, though, how views of “what is” can differ.
—Uncle Weasel
Where do they find this stuff? That voting is a privilege and not a right? Maybe I need to read the bill of rights and the constitution again to see if I can find this in there somewhere.
On another note, I do understand why they are against multi-culturalism. After all, we don’t want to embrace Sharia law do we? That’s another culture. Would it be ok to blend that in? We don’t want the religious right to have their way and turn us into a theocracy. All they are saying is we need to guard against cultures that would change our culture into something that we would no longer consider free and secular. Can’t happen? Won’t happen? Bush got elected twice didn’t he?
The right of a community to maintain its identity, autonomy, and independence is among the first principles of a free polity.
Bullshit. The first principle of a “free polity†is respect of the civil liberties of every individual. When a community allows a majority faction to oppress a minority that is not freedom. It is tyranny.
Comment by maha
I’m sorry maha. I can’t agree with such a blanket statement. I don’t want Muslims in America strictly adhering to their Sha’ria law while they are living in America. Think about it and what it would mean if they did. As it is now, they have to assimilate and bend to our Judeo-Christian based laws and our way of doing things. That’s the way it should be, that’s the way I want it. I don’t want to ever do things their way, ever. I’m talking about strict fundamentalists here – I don’t want to strictly adhere to the Christian Bible either – there’s stuff in the old testament that’s just ridiculous We are a secular society and I want it to stay that way.
I always believed that lovers of Fascism in the USA were just Fascists because they couldn’t be Monarchists and be taken seriously. But whether Fascist or Monarchist, the thing that always amuses and saddens me is that most of these middle-class high school or college freshman brownshirts don’t realize that they would be up against the wall like everyone they despise if their wet dreams really became reality.
They don’t and won’t ever be part of that “enlightened” ruling elite they so visibly crave membership in, and that knowledge subconsciously informs their resentment against liberal democracy.
And it sure reminds me of high school conversations with Ayn Rand acolytes back in the day. Most of us grew out of it.
A healthy polity will have a majority population and culture; contemporary orthodoxy on diversity tends towards anarchy and strife. And here I was thinking Kyron quoted this vomit from the so-called “catechism.”
After having a chance to eat dinner, refresh, and reflect, I see the quote above (and the “catechism” quote it magnifies) as having more the mentality of early-1990s Kosovo and Rwanda, than 1950s Alabama. Truly evil, stupid stuff. And a big mistake for its purveyors to couch it in such highfalutin’ language, considering the target audience of ethnic cleansers has a fourth-grade education, at best.
marijam, how does The first principle of a “free polity†is respect of the civil liberties of every individual support the enforcement of Sharia law? It’s the bullshit that maha called bullshit that does so: The right of a community to maintain its identity, autonomy, and independence is among the first principles of a free polity. Maybe you tried to skip dinner too.
Not really. It sounds more as if they’d like to freeze the socio-political climate at about where it was in 1158.
These are the people who think America was a gigantic mistake from its inception. (Note that their complaints anent “the liberalism which paralyzes us” are accompanied by a backhanded recognition that what they call “liberalism” is actually what has been traditionally referred to, up till now, as “conservatism”, insofar as it consists of a desire to preserve the foundations upon which this country is built.) Their readiness to accuse us left-wingers of “hating America” only proves that they got there first and best. The phrase would not bubble so readily to their lips had it not been stewing in their brains for a long, long time.
Marijam: You are wrong on several levels.
First, there is a long-standing tradition in this country of allowing people to live in religious communities separate from the secular culture. The Mennonites, Amish, many Orthodox Jewish communities, monasteries and convents of various types come to mind. As long as the people of these communities also follow the laws of their jurisdiction, they can keep themselves separate from the rest of the world all they like.
Second, here in New York and also New Jersey there is a substantial population of Muslims. The kids go to public school and the adults hold regular jobs. With the exception of one small radical clique in New Jersey a few years ago, there just isn’t a problem.
Of course, people who live in the U.S. have to live by the laws of the U.S., meaning that the more radical aspects of sharia law couldn’t be followed here, but some of the radical stuff couldn’t be followed in some of the more moderate Muslim countries, either. As long as they abide by our laws they enjoy equal protection under the laws, and that’s true of everyone, of every race, ethnic, and religious group.
The guy who wrote the catechism should get a job writing disclosure statements for credit card applications. You’ve got to read it three times to figure out what he’s trying to say.
It had to happen, didn’t it? A bunch of folks who say, “Say it loud, I’m reactionary and I’m proud.” For a long time, right-wingers have been calling us knee-jerk liberals, meaning we don’t think, we only react. Now some right-wingers are saying, we don’t think, we react, and it’s a good thing!
Like Noah’s son looking upon his nakedness: I must admit that when I first read that story in Genesis, I didn’t understand it at all. Is this a quote from Edmund Burke? Because today, seeing a parent of the same sex naked is no big deal. Who says there’s no progress?
If progress occurs at all, it is slow, unsteady and often obscure. Someone wisely observed that even those who want to bring back capital punishment aren’t trying to bring back drawing and quartering.
No right is more vital to the liberty of a people than the right of private property. That seems to be the unchanging essence of conservatism in this country. It was never true.
Bereft of order, liberty cannot exist. Well yeah. That’s why we liberals want to preserve the safety net; as Adlai Stevenson said, a hungry man is not a free man.
A State may legitimately claim the loyalty of its citizens or subjects. This claim, however, is far from absolute. Again, well, yeah. But people with different politics mean different things by that. So to ask a Republican if he or she agrees with that is meaningless.
A healthy polity will have a majority population and culture; contemporary orthodoxy on diversity tends towards anarchy and strife. Any society will have a common cultural framework, but it’s not true that there can be only two alternatives, uniformity and chaos. I’m told it’s mainly conservatives who like Tocqueville, but Tocqueville wrote eloquently about the tyranny of the majority.
Tradition and custom need not constantly explain or justify themselves as practice or policy. The presumption is in their favor. To drag them before the bar of a rigid rationalism is profound impiety. This is where we most disagree, I think. And segregated lunch counters are only the beginning of what this implicitly tolerates. How about slavery–that’s been the norm in most times and places.
And how about the confinement of women? The single thing for which I most thank feminists of the past is the freedom to come and go as I please. In some other times and places, “good” women were confined to the house and not even allowed to look out the window except perhaps from behind curtains or blinds. And if a woman was raped–God forbid–she was damaged goods; she had her pleasure, she must pay the price. Should the presumption be in favor of that?
Economics is a tool, which answers to other masters. We cannot use economics to articulate our picture of the good life any more than we can use biology to tell us why human life is sacred Amen. We progressives believe that too, at least about economics.
Voting is not a right but a privilege Beware! Anyone who says that _____ is a privilege and not a right wants to restrict it. What next? Return of the property requirement? Repeal of the 15th Amendment? Of the 19th Amendment? (N.B. The first President Bush, in a commencement address at the U. of Michigan, accused campus radicals of “abusing the privilege of free speech.” Like father, like son.)
In a republic, the Legislative Branch of government, being at once most representative and most deliberate, must be, if not supreme, at least primary over the other branches The good news: the authors are against the unitary executive theory. Are you listening, David Addington and John Yoo? The bad news: the authors seem to be against judicial review as well.
You have to love it when dim-wits try to sound like our Founding Fathers.
They just wrote the new “Bill of the Right!”
The “Stupid,” it must be applied evenly, and in large gobs.
I haven’t read anything this dumb since one of Bush’s speaches.
Second, here in New York and also New Jersey there is a substantial population of Muslims. The kids go to public school and the adults hold regular jobs. With the exception of one small radical clique in New Jersey a few years ago, there just isn’t a problem.
comment by maha
I don’t have a problem with people who assimilate by going to public school and holding regular jobs, what I am referring to is strictly the “radical cliques”.
I have no problem with the Amish, the Mennonites, or any other religious group that is keeping to themselves – but then you don’t see those religious groups performing barbaric rituals on their girl children either as one Muslim recently tried to do here in America. I believe he was arrested for it and I’m glad because I don’t want to tolerate that kind of extremism.. I am very appreciative of his being brought to justice and I would hope that no ACLU lawyer would ever represent such a person in defense of his or her “civil rights” or “religious freedom”. There has to be a line between church and state, that’s all I’m trying to point out..
Another example would be for any Indian woman who wanted to throw herself on a funeral pyre here in America. Yes, of course, it is getting rare in India as well but it is still happening amongst extreme fundamentalists.
Is it too much to ask of a so-called tolerant group to attempt to understand the other sides’ point of view by reading something like the book While Europe Slept or the Rings of Allah or Christian Fascists?
All I am saying is that I don’t want to tolerate extremism of any form, ever, whether Muslim or Christian or whatever.
Marijam … you must tolerate extremism, though, if you want to be an American citizen. Because of our freedoms, it is the right and priveledge of any person or group whatsoever to be as extreme and extremist as they wanna be … within the law. All tolerance is only within the law.
So yes, it is certainly possible to make an absolute blanket statement “The first principle of a ‘free polity’ is respect of the civil liberties of every individual. When a community allows a majority faction to oppress a minority that is not freedom. It is tyranny.”
So long as you understand that respecting civil liberties doers NOT mean allowing anybody to break the law.
-me
marijam — you’re not getting it. Certainly when ANYONE breaks the law, whether he’s a first generation American or a tenth generation American, he pays the penalty subject to due process of the law. The point is that ALL of us, regardly of race, religion, ethnicity, country of origin, etc., are equal under the law, and are not to be deprived of our civil liberties because the majority population wants to discriminate against us for whatever reason. This is an absolutely essential, bedrock, foundational principle that applies to all of us equally. As soon as you say “those people” have to be treated differently for any reason, then you’ve just ripped the protection of the law away from ALL of us.
As far as tolerating “extremism” is concerned — “extremism” often is a subjective judgment. At various times in the 19th century some groups of people went on rampages to burn Catholic churches and run Catholics out of their communities because they thought Catholics were “extreme,” for example. In the little town I grew up in, before I was born, several families of eastern European immigrants were hauled out of bed in the dead of night by a mob and forced out of town, and this was considered an acceptable thing to do because, the mob thought, “hunkies” are not like us. And don’t even get started about the atrocities committed against African Americans and native Americans because they weren’t sufficiently “judeo-christian,” among other things.
Lord knows there are huge numbers of people in this nation who think you and I are extreme.
I share with you concerns that extremist groups can undermine our nation and do great harm. My concern is one reason I write this blog, to expose them. But in America as long as people obey the law you cannot strip them of their civil liberty just because you are afraid of or disgusted by whatever group they belong to.
These examples you give are all about people who broke the law, meaning they are subject to penalty of law, and that’s as it should be. I don’t mind making immigrants aware in no uncertain terms that we do not tolerate bride burning or genital mutilation or revenge killing or many other practices that might have been tolerated where they came from. It’s clear the enormous majority of immigrants who come here get that, or the practices you cite would be a lot more common. In fact, some people come here to escape those practices.
maha, Thank you for not banning my postings from your web site and for being willing to hold a discussion. I think that we agree more than we disagree.
My great-grandfather was a Russian Jew who was forced out of Russian during a programme. I didn’t know my family had a Jewish background until I was in my early twenties even though my maiden name is Goldwater.
When I found out, I felt the weight of all that had been done against the Jews in Hitler’s Germany fall upon my shoulders and I wondered, since the family is now Protestant, if our being Protestant would have kept me from going to the gas chambers if I had lived at that time in that place. Thankfully I’ll never know the answer to that but sometimes the line seems very blurry between religiosity vs ethnicity.
Where I was coming from when I said what I did is from something I had read about Europe and how the Muslims live in segregation from the rest of the population and how the Europeans are ‘tolerant’ and ‘accepting’ of them to the point where no European court has jurisdiction over the Muslim community and would not dare to try and pass judgement upon them.
Europeans in various European countries are basically seen as not being xenophobes but they have forced the Muslims into ghettos and the Muslims there are not allowed to take any of the “good” jobs. I don’t want that kind of tolerance in America. Somebody HAS to make a judgement upon what is extreme and what isn’t at some point. I did not mean for my remarks to be taken as being totally in support of the rightie’s entire catcheism, or even that one part of it because I’m not.
Seeing more than one side of something and playing Devil’s Advocate can be a good thing because of the learning that can take place.
I just wish I had more faith in our government to keep out those that don’t, as you say, “get that” we will not tolerate certain behaviors.
Not everyone in America receives justice as you imply and we aren’t all equal under the law, although we should be.
My son got punched in the face when he was sixteen. We ended up rushing him to the emergency room where he had to have several thousands of dollars worth of plastic surgery to reconstruct his face. We sued, but the judge found both boys to be equally at fault and dismissed the case. Later, when my son was in the military, someone in his unit threatened him. His commanding officer told him to stand down but he wouldn’t and I don’t blame him after what he had been through. He got kicked out of the service because of it. America is not a perfect place where everyone is treated equally nor should it be because things are not completely black or white. It isn’t equality under the law that I want, its justice.
marijam, I take you to mean your grandfather was forced out by a pogrom, as opposed to a “programme” such as the The Office on the BBC, starring Ricky Gervais.
The fact is you’re taking slim information on a slim minority of a specific religious group, and making very inaccurate generalizations from it. While it is true that some Muslims in the West remain in isolated communities, and some of those seek to live in ways that don’t conform with the civil rights of their new country, the very same true of some Christians (been to Colorado City, AZ recently, where rape of an adolescent girl is not a crime?) and some Jews, Hindus, etc., etc. Most religions have their extreme sects, and sooner or later the extremists plop down into a country that has (or pretends to have) a Bill of Rights or Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
For example, Canada struggled with the Sharia question and still may not have resolved it, although last year the province of Ontario decided that allowing the enforcement of Sharia law would violated the aforementioned federal Charter. I have never seen maha advocate anything in this blog that supports the violation of anyone’s civil liberties because they live in a religious community of any sort. I have only ever seen her write consistently with her comment #23 above.
Once again, I suggest you reread the quote that maha rightly called “bullshit,” as it clearly advocates racially/ethnically pure enclaves. Which, history has shown, leads to pogroms.
That trip to Red State for their Catechism for CavePeople was pretty amazing. These are the blind and stunted freaks that have been running our country into the ground for the last generation or so.
It’s great that they’ve taken over the GOP and are in the process of destroying it.