Reason Magazine

Site Search

Ron Paul Un-endorses White Supremacist

Bill Johnson, who is running for Superior Court judge in Los Angeles (with the help of campaign manager Holly Clearman, who is a California coordinator for Paul's presidential campaign), was the author of the 1980s Pace Amendment to the Constitution, which read in part:

No person shall be a citizen of the United States unless he is a non-Hispanic white of the European race, in whom there is no ascertainable trace of Negro blood, nor more than one-eighth Mongolian, Asian, Asia Minor, Middle Eastern, Semitic, Near Eastern, American Indian, Malay or other non-European or non-white blood, provided that Hispanic whites, defined as anyone with an Hispanic ancestor, may be citizens if, in addition to meeting the aforesaid ascertainable trace and percentage tests, they are in appearance indistinguishable from Americans whose ancestral home is in the British Isles or Northwestern Europe. Only citizens shall have the right and privilege to reside permanently in the United States.

"Thought-tormented Ron Paul fan" Tim Cavanaugh extracts a statement from Paul chief of staff Tom Lizardo:

Over the past several weeks, I have also been involved in assisting Dr Paul with the consideration of candidates who are seeking his endorsement for their campaigns.  We have gone through the process of setting up a method by which candidates are to be considered for such endorsements.  During that period, we have also received and reviewed requests from dozens of candidates.

Although Bill Johnson's name ended up on the endorsement list, he did not go through this process.  In light of this fact, and in light of the revelations regarding his past statements and associations, Dr Paul has retracted the endorsement and hopes that, in the future, the process that has been put into place will mitigate the likelihood of similar errors.

Cavanaugh spars with angry Paul supporters here; Paul supporters argue amongst themselves here; other coverage of Johnson by the Metropolitan News-Enterprise and the L.A. Times' Opinion L.A. blog.

Dave Weigel has been all over the ongoing Ron Paul Republicans story, including a forthcoming column in the July issue.

Send this article to:

« Tracy Ingle's Website | Main | Mon enfant, ma mère »

Comments to "Ron Paul Un-endorses White Supremacist":

Jaybird | May 8, 2008, 2:01pm | #

For a magazine called Reason, Eric Dondero, cosmoterian, drink.

Also, ever since Postrel.

Elemenope | May 8, 2008, 2:02pm | #

Whoops.

John-David | May 8, 2008, 2:03pm | #

LIZARDO!

Episiarch | May 8, 2008, 2:05pm | #

WEIGEL BETRAYED RON PAUL WITH HIS GAY LOVER KIRCHICK blargh COSMO unnnhhh ORANGE LINE ack thhpptt LEW ROCKWELL IS A GREAT MAN aiiighhhhh

Neil | May 8, 2008, 2:08pm | #

Wow someone actually wrote that in 1980!?

Bingo | May 8, 2008, 2:16pm | #

Racism isn't compatible with libertarianism FOR THIS REASON you goddamn Paultards. Racists are simply hitching a ride on the minimal-government bandwagon as an ends to their means, they obviously have no problem with using the government to enforce their viewpoints.

That amendment is the most ridiculous shit I've ever read.

Fred Church Ortiz | May 8, 2008, 2:17pm | #

So the question becomes... why was he put on the list without going through the process? By virtue of being a meetup guy?

Rick Barton | May 8, 2008, 2:18pm | #

This is the salient part:

Although Bill Johnson's name ended up on the endorsement list, he did not go through this process. In light of this fact, and in light of the revelations regarding his past statements and associations, Dr Paul has retracted the endorsement.

Bingo | May 8, 2008, 2:20pm | #

Rick: Unfortunately if you read some of the discussion pages some of the idiots are defending Bill Johnson.

Francisco Torres | May 8, 2008, 2:20pm | #

Racism isn't compatible with libertarianism FOR THIS REASON you goddamn Paultards. Racists are simply hitching a ride on the minimal-government bandwagon as an ends to their means, they obviously have no problem with using the government to enforce their viewpoints.

For racists to be able to shape society to their image, they need Big Government, not small.

By the way, there is a BIG difference between being racist (which in itself, it is not a bad thing), and imposing racists laws and regulations upon a free people (like Jim Crow, Marriage laws and anti-discrimination laws, the last which generate animosity between groups)

Jamie Kelly | May 8, 2008, 2:21pm | #

Pre-emptive "go fuck yourself, edward."

So, go fuck yourself, edward.

jj | May 8, 2008, 2:23pm | #

Racism isn't compatible with libertarianism FOR THIS REASON you goddamn Paultards. Racists are simply hitching a ride on the minimal-government bandwagon as an ends to their means, they obviously have no problem with using the government to enforce their viewpoints.

And yet it's okay for reason to spew venom, and for reason commenters to call for the annihilation of religious people, even people who follow the Zero Aggression Principle? I get it, I get it, you can hate on someone who chooses to pray a prayer, even when he does you no harm.

I see the pot calling the kettle black.

Jamie Kelly | May 8, 2008, 2:23pm | #

Most white supremacists are national socialists, not the rustic individualists the media make them out to be.
In other words, they're the worst sort of collectivists, and for that and many other reasons, their "philosophy" is antithetical to libertarianism. Down the line.

R C Dean | May 8, 2008, 2:25pm | #

Most white supremacists are national socialists, not the rustic individualists the media make them out to be.

Dunno what channels you get, but it seems to me the media is pretty relentlessly negative on white supremacists.

joe | May 8, 2008, 2:26pm | #

Actual, honest-to-God white supremacists seem to think that the existence of the modern state is a net loss for racism, and a net gain for racial equality. They seem to see small-government conservatism, and not the big-government conservatism of, say, the neocons, as providing more fertile ground for 1) finding like-minded people and 2) producing a social order to their liking.

Why do you think that might be?

Bingo | May 8, 2008, 2:27pm | #

Nice straw man, jj. Libertarians don't like people that use coercion to enforce an authoritarian viewpoint. Doesn't matter the color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual preference, or shoe size of the individual.

Bingo | May 8, 2008, 2:29pm | #

Joe: White supremacists aren't small-government or even anti-government. They are just anti-government-in-its-current-form and, as indicated by that stupid fucking amendment, have absolutely zero problems passing retarded authoritarian laws as long as they are the ones in charge.

bluebeard | May 8, 2008, 2:29pm | #

Actual, honest-to-God white supremacists seem to think that the existence of the modern state is a net loss for racism, and a net gain for racial equality. They seem to see small-government conservatism, and not the big-government conservatism of, say, the neocons, as providing more fertile ground for 1) finding like-minded people and 2) producing a social order to their liking.

Last I knew: 1. "finding like-minded people and 2) producing a social order to their liking." is not a criminal offense. Why shouldn't they live out in their little white hick colony, if they like? It's when they rob steal, or rape others that it becomes a problem. I'm guessing you're not a libertarian, Joe?

it's that time again | May 8, 2008, 2:29pm | #

reason sucks

Bingo | May 8, 2008, 2:30pm | #

I am so pissed after reading that amendment, argh. Okay low-blood sugar ranting off.

joe | May 8, 2008, 2:30pm | #

Most white supremacists are national socialists, not the rustic individualists the media make them out to be.

That must be why Don Black donated to Mike Huckabee, and why Bill Johnson sought out McCain's endorsement. Because it's the corporatist right and welfare-state conservatism that they relate to. All that stuff about them viewing government as the enemy is just the media making stuff up.

Oh, wait...

jj | May 8, 2008, 2:31pm | #

Nice straw man, jj. Libertarians don't like people that use coercion to enforce an authoritarian viewpoint. Doesn't matter the color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual preference, or shoe size of the individual.

So reason's not libertarian? I'm guessing you're just feigning ignorance of their promotion of bigoted anti-religious, pro-war writers?

Call it a straw man if you like. I smell a double standard. And, as a jew I claim street cred not to be a racist either :)

Bingo | May 8, 2008, 2:34pm | #

Gee, jj, try addressing my point. Islam is very authoritarian. I'm anti-war and I certainly don't think we should spend a trillion dollar bombing the bastards. But they love to oppress people so fuck them.

Neil | May 8, 2008, 2:34pm | #

Joe remember it was Republicans who abolished slavery, and the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act while your party voted against it.

The only thing you have offered blacks since then is affirmative action and welfare checks. The new generation will realize for all your pandering they don't get anything from your party.

joe | May 8, 2008, 2:34pm | #

You can keep saying that, Bingo. You can keep playing "No True Scottsman" if you'd like.

But by their actions ye shall know them.

They hate the left. They don't even like mainstream conservatism. They seem to disagree with you, and find the anti-government/militia/2nd Amendment/anti-civil rights laws conservatives as their natural allies.

And now, I'll eagerly await the responses from people making the "All men are John" fallacy, and rebutting a nonexistant argument that I just said small-government conservatives consider white supremacists to be their allies.

MikeP | May 8, 2008, 2:34pm | #

jj,

You are rather light on details in your accusations, but accepting for the sake of argument that they are true...

...do you not see the difference between writing an article and proposing a Constitutional Amendment?

joe | May 8, 2008, 2:35pm | #

I'm guessing you're not much a reader, bluebeard.

Why don't you try that again.

Neil | May 8, 2008, 2:38pm | #

The Democrats are the real Party of Racism and their history shows it.

short, fat bastard | May 8, 2008, 2:38pm | #

And, as a jew I claim street cred not to be a racist either . . .

You haven't seen discrimination until you've walked a mile, or maybe a quarter-mile with a few rest stops, in my size 7EEEE loafers.

anon | May 8, 2008, 2:39pm | #

Sky Lopez could stay in the USA, so what's the problem.

Colin | May 8, 2008, 2:40pm | #

Boy, I wasn't even planning on voting on the judge part of the ballot next month. Now, at least, there's one person I'll be voting against.

I hope Reason is going to write about the two competing eminent domain propositions that are on the same ballot.

joe | May 8, 2008, 2:41pm | #

And Reverend Wrong chimes in with:

Neil | May 8, 2008, 2:34pm | #

Joe remember it was Republicans who abolished slavery,
Yes, back when they were the liberal party and the Democrats were the social conservatives

and the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act Nope. The Civil Rights Act was a bipartisan measure, that had support from some Democrats (like Kennedy and Johnson) and opposition from others (like Thurmond, where'd he end up again?), and also support from some Republicans (the Rockefeller wing that was driven out of the party) and opposition from others (like Goldwater)

while your party voted against it. The Democratic Party of the pre-civil rights - a period that ended a decade before my birth - is not my party.

The new generation will realize for all your pandering they don't get anything from your party. Sure they will, Neil. They just need enlightened white Republicans like you to show them the error of their ways, since, apparently, they lack the capacity to figure out their interests and values by themselves.

John Thacker | May 8, 2008, 2:41pm | #

Does anyone know how Michael Young is doing? Seems like things are tense in Beirut right now...

jj | May 8, 2008, 2:41pm | #

Mike P, I do. And as a libertarian I believe that reason has the "right" to thumb their nose at whomever they darned well please.

I'm simply trying to hold reason to the same standard to which they hold Ron Paul and LRC. No one's accusing LRC of ACTING on its bigotry, just of writing bigoted articles. The same should apply to to reason who supports candidates who call for the demise of all religious people. How is that any less offensive?

My point is simply, that if we can distinguish between those thuggish black people and their peaceful black neighbors, perhaps we can extend the same favor to religious people. G-d knows the libertarian coalition is not much bigger than a pup tent, but let's not rip ourselves more openings.

bluebeard | May 8, 2008, 2:42pm | #

And, as a jew I claim street cred not to be a racist either . . .

>>>>>>You haven't seen discrimination until you've walked a mile, or maybe a quarter-mile with a few rest stops, in my size 7EEEE loafers.

I was keeeeeeding.

Fluffy | May 8, 2008, 2:43pm | #

Actual, honest-to-God white supremacists seem to think that the existence of the modern state is a net loss for racism, and a net gain for racial equality. They seem to see small-government conservatism, and not the big-government conservatism of, say, the neocons, as providing more fertile ground for 1) finding like-minded people and 2) producing a social order to their liking.

Why do you think that might be?


It's an accident of history.

Both movements view themselves as restorationists.

Small-government advocates want to return to a past where government was smaller.

White supremacists want to return to a past where minorities had no rights.

Libertarians tend to pretend to themselves that the US was more libertarian from 1870 to 1932 than it actually was, and frame their arguments as a return to a golden past that we have fallen away from. By modern libertarian standards the US was a pretty shitty place during that time frame in a great many respects, but libertarians still employ touchstones and symbols from that period in their "marketing".

Unfortunately those touchstones and symbols are subject to varying interpretations, and the white supremacists have their own interpretations of the Constitution ["the organic Constitution"], the history of the common law, etc. that are incompatible with libertarianism but not with the symbols libertarians sometimes employ.

And then there's the simple fact that white supremacists often have direct experience with federal law enforcement abuses that inform their opinion on issues of federal power in ways that aren't directly related to their underlying ideology. If I was a Communist who was spied on by the FBI, had my mail read, my organizations infiltrated, my friends harassed, etc., I might endorse libertarian views on the power of the federal state as well - but that wouldn't mean that there was some sort of special affinity between Communists and libertarians.

MikeP | May 8, 2008, 2:44pm | #

The same should apply to to reason who supports candidates who call for the demise of all religious people.

Okay, now I'm going to have to ask for details.

Neil | May 8, 2008, 2:44pm | #

Robert "KKK" Byrd is still in your party Joe.

PC | May 8, 2008, 2:45pm | #

"G-d knows the libertarian coalition is not much bigger than a pup tent."

I always pictured it as a cannabalistic Hooverville composed of unread Reason magazines, due to all the cancelled subscriptions.

Fluffy | May 8, 2008, 2:46pm | #

The same should apply to to reason who supports candidates who call for the demise of all religious people. How is that any less offensive?

Can you name for me a candidate who calls for the deaths of all religious people?

joe | May 8, 2008, 2:47pm | #

Bingo,

Every single party and faction that has a political platform beyond "keep the status quo" - which is to say, every single party and faction - is opposed to "government in its current form."

Yet white supremacists only seem to find one faction of the non-white-supremacist body politic to be potentially friendly.

You really don't need to repeat the explanations about libertarian ideology being incompatible with racism on the level of ideas. I understand, and I even agree. If you recall, I lauded Ron Paul's performance on CNN after the newsletters story broke, in which made exactly that point, on these threads.

And yet, the fact of the (mainly one-way) affinity remains. I agree with you, this affinity doesn't stem from a common set of ideals about the good society, or the good government.

So..what gives? Is it just the newsletters? The opposition to the Civil Rights Act? The respect for gun ownership among those with an unalterably violent ideology?

Guy Montag | May 8, 2008, 2:47pm | #

MikeP,

Yea, I did not know any of the faith-hating commentators here on H&R were running for office.

I second the call for details!

short, fat bastard | May 8, 2008, 2:48pm | #

I was keeeeeeding.

You think you're the only one?

♪ | May 8, 2008, 2:49pm | #

I'm glad the "Ron Paul Un-endorses White Supremacist" headline came out before the "Ron Paul Endorses White Supremacist" headline. I think it shows somebody waited for confirmation, "do you really endorce him, or is this a mistake?" instead of pouncing.

Either that or the RP campaign was just really, really fast.

joe | May 8, 2008, 2:50pm | #

Damn good answer, Fluffy. Damn good.

Props on acknowledging and contending with an ugly reality, instead of just wishing it away.

Guy Montag | May 8, 2008, 2:50pm | #

Either that or the RP campaign was just really, really fast.

Faster than Warren Wallace, I hear.

joe | May 8, 2008, 2:51pm | #

Neil | May 8, 2008, 2:44pm | #

Robert "KKK" Byrd is still in your party Joe.


And NOT in the KKK, having renounced the racial views that led peole like Thurmond and Helms to switch to the Southern Strategy GOP.

Ayn_Randian | May 8, 2008, 2:51pm | #

By the way, there is a BIG difference between being racist (which in itself, it is not a bad thing)

Wait, what? are you kidding or trolling?

Racism is bad. End Statement!

Fluffy | May 8, 2008, 2:51pm | #

I think it's important to point out that this Johnson guy has changed his name a couple of times, which to me says he has made a deliberate effort to obscure his past.

So if Paul's people say they didn't mean to endorse him, the fact that this guy may be hiding from his time as a guy named "Pace" is in their favor.

They got bamboozled.

Karsten Nicholson | May 8, 2008, 2:52pm | #

I've been in Bill Johnson's house. We had our regular Pasadena and Los Angeles Ron Paul meetups in there. There were often over 100 people in there, of all races. He was kind to all of us, and spoke about the importance of tolerance and diversity in the Ron Paul movement. I spoke with my asian friend who was in the Pasadena meetup group. He also expressed shock about these accusations towards Bill Johnson, stating that Bill was very nice and respectful towards him, and even gave him the security password to his house!

I have no idea if Bill really said or did those things, but people change. The Bill Johnson I knew was nothing like the Bill Johnson depicted here. And unlike all you people just anxious to grab onto anything that will help forever destroy the Ron Paul movement, I knew the guy in person. Bryd, one of the most liberal senators, was a former Klansmen.

The more I see stupid shit like this, the more clear it is that these Ron Paul attacks are attacks on the PEOPLE in the movement. Over the past year, I have been to dozens and dozens of Ron Paul events, from marches to rallies to sign wavings. I can absolutely say that the people who showed up to the events were very diverse. There were people there of all ages, races, and backgrounds. Yes, there were blacks there, yes there were asians, yes there were a number of hispanics. They were some of the nicest and most helpful people I have known. If I needed flyers or slim jims, I needed onto to post a message in the meetup and within and hour or 2 I would have a dozen people emailing me telling me I could come over and pick them up. During our rallies and marches, people would share food if I didn't have any, and we would always help each other out. How else does a network of over 100,000 national meetup members for if not for such un-predjeduce hospitality. If you are implying that RON PAUL SUPPORTERS are predjeduce and bigoted, I TAKE GREAT OFFENSE TO THAT. Say what you want about Ron Paul, but please do not diss the movement.

I believe these attacks are attacks against the energetic and enthusiastic movement of ANTI-WAR Libertarian movement. Reason is obsessively anti-drug war, but waffles on intervention vs. non-intervention. You hate the fact that RP can logically and consistently oppose nearly all intervention from a conservative and libertarian standpoint. It was successfuly because the anti-war sentiment is high in America right now, and it's fusion with the anti-government libertarian message created the massive movement. A pro-war Ron Paul would not have had nearly the same impact.

Like it or not, the Ron Paul movement was the biggest and more energetic and amazing libertarian movement they has ever existed in our lifetimes. I marched with literally hundreds of people across santa monica and down the peer for a mock tea party, and holding Ron Paul signs. There was about a thousand people at the USC rally last September. These huge rallies occured all over the country, as we know. It his 20,000 in the rally at the Univeristy of Michigan. It is clear that this bashing of Ron Paul would not be so frequent if it wasn't for the massive amount of DIVERSE support that he had during his campaign.

joe | May 8, 2008, 2:53pm | #

jj is talking about Hirsan Ali, the anti-Muslim Somali-Dutch candidate for the Dutch Parliament. Reason had an interview with her.

I though the interviewers' response made it pretty clear that he considered her violent and extreme proposals to be nuts, but then, I'm not trying to damn Reason.

Aveagewhiteguy | May 8, 2008, 2:55pm | #

English, Scottish, Manx, Irish, French, Saxon, Austrian and Liechtensteiner. I'm a mongrel, but I guess I get to stay. So, who else gets to stay and who else has to go?

Could not resist... | May 8, 2008, 2:56pm | #

"Either that or the RP campaign was just really, really fast."

♪ | May 8, 2008, 2:49pm | #

Weigel hit the snooze button this morning so Welch didn't get to work on time.

Jamie Kelly | May 8, 2008, 2:57pm | #

Hey joe, when you've interviewed more than 100 of them, and attended their rallies, and written more than 50 newspaper articles about them, then you can lecture me on what you think white supremacists are.
Until then, you're just a fucking clueless idiot. As usual.

PC | May 8, 2008, 2:58pm | #

"jj is talking about Hirsan Ali, the anti-Muslim Somali-Dutch candidate for the Dutch Parliament. Reason had an interview with her."

So that's her background. I thought she was made in a test tube in the AEI.

Karsten | May 8, 2008, 3:00pm | #

Now this is personal. Also villifing Holly, who was my friend. She was not racist, and we are not racist. This is personal. I'll get you, reason!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rimfax | May 8, 2008, 3:02pm | #

This is another example of the fair-weather-federalism of paleos: "Leave the issues to the states that I think will go my way at the state level, but enforce at the federal level the things that are less likely to go my way." They have predictably abandoned the ship of federalism whenever the Republicans have the White House and either the House or the Senate.

short, fat bastard | May 8, 2008, 3:03pm | #

Jamie, please note that this "joe" is not the same "joe" that has an email with "boyle" in it.

To the current "joe", you should recognize that this handle has been used by someone else who has been posting here for years. You should do something to make yourself unique.

Episiarch | May 8, 2008, 3:05pm | #

This is personal. I'll get you, reason!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Episiarch | May 8, 2008, 3:06pm | #

joe, is the non-hyperlinked "joe" you, or someone else?

Jamie Kelly | May 8, 2008, 3:07pm | #

White supremacists view the CURRENT government as Zionist-occupied, working not just against the interests of white people, but to eradicate them. They also believe that our cultural institutions -- media, entertainment -- are all controlled by Jews.
They'd gladly replace this government with their own, removing or eradicating all "mud" people in a police state with socialized industry.
Sound familiar, joe?
Oh, that's right: One of them gave money to Huckabee.
You imp.

Fluffy | May 8, 2008, 3:08pm | #

Karsten:

I attended Ron Paul events as well and the people were very nice.

But the simple fact of the matter is that this Johnson guy acknowledged to the LA Times that he used to be named Pace and did in fact author the Pace Amendment.

Maybe he changed, and if he did it's nice that he changed. But certain fuckups disqualify you from holding a judgeship even if you show up and say that you've changed. And certain fuckups mean you don't deserve an endorsement for a judicial election even if you show up and say that you've changed.

This would be on that list of fuckups.

MikeP | May 8, 2008, 3:08pm | #

I'll wager that this is well-known joe, and he forgot to set his email.

Fluffy | May 8, 2008, 3:09pm | #

A fake joe?!?!?

I thought I was talking to the real joe.

I feel violated!

Could not resist... | May 8, 2008, 3:09pm | #

"Either that or the RP campaign was just really, really fast."

Well if you ever had an endorsement retracted by the RP campaign you do know how fleet footed they can be.

short, fat bastard | May 8, 2008, 3:12pm | #

I'll wager that this is well-known joe, and he forgot to set his email.

I'm guessing that this is a new "joe" that doesn't realize the size of the shoes he is stepping into.

Rimfax | May 8, 2008, 3:15pm | #

Karsten,

Per, Fluffy, above, the only one being accused of racism is Bill Johnson. If he's not a racist anymore, but he used to be and wrote this drivel, he essentially lied to you and Holly Clearman.

If you are as close to him as you say, you should be able to find out the truth. When you do, please share it here, or email "hitandrun@reason.com" so they can post it fresh.

Episiarch | May 8, 2008, 3:15pm | #

I'll wager that this is well-known joe, and he forgot to set his email.

I agree--the conversational style is joe's--but I just want to make sure.

short, fat bastard | May 8, 2008, 3:16pm | #

You can tell, because hyper-joe(boyle) always fucks up the italics ;-)

Rimfax | May 8, 2008, 3:19pm | #

Sounds like the real "joe" to me, and choosing against capitalization is still a minority choice, it appears. I frequently have to reenter my URL in the comment thingy. I can easily see joe just bagging it for this thread.

joe | May 8, 2008, 3:20pm | #

Until then, you're just a fucking clueless idiot. As usual.

Whereas you, Jamie, are ever the man of letters, whose demonstrated knowledge is matched only by the flawless logic with which you construct you arguments.

So, basically, you got nothing. As usual.

joe | May 8, 2008, 3:21pm | #

No, it's me.

The only think Jamie has to notice is that he still can't answer the question.

Rick Barton | May 8, 2008, 3:23pm | #

Rick: Unfortunately if you read some of the discussion pages some of the idiots are defending Bill Johnson.

I did read the links, Bingo. My point was to marginalize Johnson and his supporters-as in "Who cares whet they think?"

joe | May 8, 2008, 3:25pm | #

Sound familiar, joe?

No, not really. It's tough to come up with another movement that supports both a Jewish conspiracy-based genocidal platform AND socialized industry. Stalin's "anti-cosmopolitian" plan, perhaps?

I know you meant to refer to the Nazis, but as usual, you don't know what you're talking about - in this case, not understaind their fuhrer-principe-based, corporatist, pro-industrialist economic program.

Rick Barton | May 8, 2008, 3:25pm | #

Racism is the most primitive form of collectivism. Thanks, Ayn.

Ayn_Randian | May 8, 2008, 3:25pm | #

I'll get you, reason!!!!!!!!!!!!

And your little dog, too!

Fluffy | May 8, 2008, 3:25pm | #

Could not resist wins the thread.

Other Matt | May 8, 2008, 3:28pm | #

I agree--the conversational style is joe's--but I just want to make sure.

If not, someone's doing a very good job of imitaing his typical bullshit lack of coherent logic type racist comments. So, I'd vote for, sound's like the same "piss off you moron" joe to me.

Jim Walsh | May 8, 2008, 3:32pm | #

No person shall be a citizen of the United States [if] more than one-eighth American Indian...

Like Archie Bunker said, if them Native Indians don't like it here, let 'em go back where they came from...

joe | May 8, 2008, 3:33pm | #

Still, Fluffy, I'm not sure the historical accident account you give is comprehensive. Every other strand of conservatism harkens back to ye old golden era as well. Not to mention, the racist/small-government alliance against the Civil Rights Act and that "communist" Martin Luther King was all about preservation, not restoration.

Let me offer a couple of other possibilities.

Libertarianism is a fringe, as opposed to neoconservatism and other elements of the modern conservative movement, so there is a possibility that libertarians would bother to give them the time of day.

And here's the one that's really going to go down rough: the modern liberal project actually does help minorities, actually does promote greater equality, actually does advance solidarity among diverse groups, and actually does alleviate the material conditions that lead people to, ahem, "cling to antipathy towards people who aren't like them."

short, fat bastard | May 8, 2008, 3:34pm | #

No, it's me.

If you're going to use a sock puppet, you should change the handle as well as dropping the email link ;-)

joe | May 8, 2008, 3:36pm | #

I love it.

On a thread about a fellow who sponsored a Constitutional Amendment specifically for the purpose of promoting white supremacy, Other Matt (who really, really just hates racism) is bestirred only to denounce the abhorrent racism in...er...my observation that this white supremacist sought to make common cause with libertarians.

I am blessed in my enemies. It's how I know I'm on the right track.

Ken | May 8, 2008, 3:36pm | #

Johnson's supporters seem to be divided between saying (1) it's all a lie (denial), (2) people are too quick to make charges of racism on no evidence (evasion; the evidence is indisputable that Johnson was a racist by any reasonable definition of that word in the 1980s), or (3) he's not racist now.

The third argument is the only one worth any serious thought at this point. And I don't buy it. He's not running for dogcatcher; he's running for Superior Court judge. He's going to be charged with administering justice neutrally without reference to ethnicity. Yet he's openly advocated changes to the law that would strip non-whites of rights and citizenship. The appearance problem is manifest. I know I'd never allow a client to appear before him -- I'd use California's one-shot-per-case no-questions-asked disqualify-the-judge measure (CCP 170.6) to get rid of him and be transferred to another judge. I suspect everyone else would as well.

Is there redemption? Maybe spiritually. But I don't buy that someone who took that position can be redeemed until he's fit for a judicial position. And he certainly can't come close to being redeemed without addressing his past and repudiating it -- instead of running for various offices in different states under different names, which is what he's done.

I'd ask his supporters who say he's not a racist now this question -- has he addressed what he wrote in the past? If not, why not?

I wrote about this election (and why there's a real danger he'll be elected) on my blog, linked in my name.

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 3:38pm | #

Good luck getting that toothpaste back in the tube.

The Paulians have a lot of energy. If the GOP were smarter, they'd be trying to find ways to harness that rather than suppress it.

Colin Clout | May 8, 2008, 3:40pm | #

Neil,

Strom "Dixiecrat" Thurmond switched to the Republican Party in 1964.

The Democratic Republican | May 8, 2008, 3:41pm | #

Karsten Nicholson: MANY of the people in the Ron Paul movement DESERVE to be attacked. Every person whose political beliefs are tied to racism and conspiracy theories needs to be attacked -- especially since many of those people (looking at the Rockwell crowd) have been responsible for tarnishing the movement and making the rest of us, who support Paul for legitimate reasons, look like assholes.

So the next time some Rockwellite can't understand why people attack the poor, collectivist Ronulans (who are now fighting for such a ridiculous goals at the RNC), consider that you should blame the people who have done and said racist things and not those who are trying to clear the racist skeletons out of the libertarian movement.

The Democratic Republican | May 8, 2008, 3:42pm | #

Did I mention my conspiracy theory that Rockwell probably had something to do with this guy "accidentally" being on the endorsement list.

Or maybe it was the hosting people...donating lots of money....

Probably both

Fluffy | May 8, 2008, 3:43pm | #

Not to mention, the racist/small-government alliance against the Civil Rights Act and that "communist" Martin Luther King was all about preservation, not restoration.

Well, I think this is the result of a different historical accident, which is related to the first one:

The issue on which the federal government and the state governments fought their battle for supremacy was civil rights.

So you have some varieties of libertarians who have tactical reasons for wanting a weak federal government and more robust states - and you also have racists who were agitated about the issue that was itself in dispute between the feds and the states.

I think that if the big battle between the feds and the states had been, say, gay marriage instead, you might have seen different alliances form. And libertarianism would be "that gay ideology" instead of "that ideology for secret racists".

Neil | May 8, 2008, 3:43pm | #

Well joe you do support a racist for President who got the nomination on the basis of racist identity politicking.

Other Matt | May 8, 2008, 3:44pm | #

Other Matt (who really, really just hates racism) is bestirred only to denounce the abhorrent racism in...er...my observation that this white supremacist sought to make common cause with libertarians.

No, joe, I pretty much concur with AR's original statement. I just abhor your version equally, the other version is sufficiently addressed already. However, since you can't read without inferring something, note that I was simply pointing out that in my opinion, you were your same fuckwitted self, that's all.

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 3:44pm | #

And here's the one that's really going to go down rough: the modern liberal project actually does help minorities, actually does promote greater equality, actually does advance solidarity among diverse groups, and actually does alleviate the material conditions that lead people to, ahem, "cling to antipathy towards people who aren't like them

We'll fight racism with more racism! Asians, you get 20 points off your SATs, because you tend to come from a culture that studies harder than others. Blacks, you get +20. Now we're really judging people by the content of their character!

But let's not stop there! Let's also establish all sorts of exclusionary identity politics groups: the Black American Bar Association, the Congressional Black Caucus, the National Hispanic Leadership Council. We're getting closer to a colorblind society every day!

Colin Clout | May 8, 2008, 3:45pm | #

Rick Barton,

I always figured that racism came long after the other "collectivist" attributes of human society.

Neil | May 8, 2008, 3:47pm | #

Dave you silly typical white bitter person every good liberal knows only whites can be racist.

joe | May 8, 2008, 3:48pm | #

Fluffy,

I agree with what you wrote at 3:43, but don't you see how that confirms by theory that white supremcists find common cause with small-government conservatives becasue the liberal project really does advance racial equality?

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 3:49pm | #

You know, what's sad is that, left to their devices, most people growing up in America today are like the kids in that South Park episode who are so non-racist they don't understand why a flag depicting a lynching has any racial significance.

But the racial grievance-mongers like Jesse Jackson have to make a living. Oh well, maybe we'll outgrow them someday.

joe | May 8, 2008, 3:50pm | #

Neil | May 8, 2008, 3:43pm | #

Well joe you do support a racist for President who got the nomination on the basis of racist identity politicking.


Actually, Neil, I've been supporting Obama over Clinton, and far from getting the nomination, she has lost the race.

Colin Clout | May 8, 2008, 3:50pm | #

Neil,

FWIW, The Southern Strategy.

Neil | May 8, 2008, 3:50pm | #

Did Clinton get 90% of the white vote Joe?

fyodor | May 8, 2008, 3:53pm | #

Actual, honest-to-God white supremacists seem to think that the existence of the modern state is a net loss for racism, and a net gain for racial equality. They seem to see small-government conservatism, and not the big-government conservatism of, say, the neocons, as providing more fertile ground for 1) finding like-minded people and 2) producing a social order to their liking.

Why do you think that might be?


Three likely rasons I can think of.

One: they think small government policies at the federal level would keep the federal government from interfering with active racist policies enacted on the state or local level.

Two: they think that small government policies keep the government out of interfering with noncoercive racist activities, such as a restaurant refusing to serve blacks.

Three: they're stupid.

All three have some truth to them. I recognize that there are trade-offs to principled libertarianism and that freedom inherently means that not everyone will exercise their freedom the way I would like them to, but as long as they're doing it noncoercively, that's their right.

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 3:54pm | #

theory that white supremcists find common cause with small-government conservatives becasue the liberal project really does advance racial equality?

Then why do the Hispanic supremacist and black supremacist groups tend to be leftist?

It's not about equality, its about power. The white racists have their side, the others have theirs.

Nick_M | May 8, 2008, 3:54pm | #

It's nice to see that Reason has found a way to top its guilt-by-association smear of Ron Paul:

Guilt by second-hand association!

That's what I call ingenuity!

joe | May 8, 2008, 3:55pm | #

Gotta feel good to know that Neil's on your side, eh TallDave?

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 3:49pm | #

You know, what's sad is that, left to their devices, most people growing up in America today are like the kids in that South Park episode who are so non-racist they don't understand why a flag depicting a lynching has any racial significance.


I'm sure you find that quite sad. It helps to explain your passionate flogging of the Reverend Wright story.

Gotta keep those fires burning, or the American public won't vote the way you want them.

I always hear about white supremacists supporting a revolution, and also that liberal racial justice policies cause an increase in racial antagonism.

We saw the Communists adopt a "worse is better" philosophy, opposing liberal policies which alleviated the radicalizing suffering of poor and working-class people. They realized that such policies would reduce the bitterness and anger they relied on.

If affirmative action and multiculturalism were causing the racial hostility that some people posit, wouldn't we expect to see white supremacists arguing in favor of them? Or at least, not denouncing and working against them?

And yet we don't. Interesting, that.

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 3:57pm | #

It helps to explain your passionate flogging of the Reverend Wright story.

Yes, it's good to see racism and those who flog racism exposed.

If affirmative action and multiculturalism were causing the racial hostility that some people posit, wouldn't we expect to see white supremacists arguing in favor of them?

Duh, only if they could get the system rigged in their own favor.

joe | May 8, 2008, 3:58pm | #

Neil | May 8, 2008, 3:50pm | #

Did Clinton get 90% of the white vote Joe?


No, for all the flogging of racial-charged issues, she just didn't manage to move that many Democrats with it. Maybe a few in the South and lower mid-west, but when a political faction is deep in the minority, they do tend to take on some of the characteristics of the majority.

Citizen Nothing | May 8, 2008, 3:58pm | #

joe,
white supremacists aren't as intelligent as Communists.

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 3:59pm | #

only if they could get the system rigged in their own favor.

In fact, that's exactly what the Jim Crow laws and poll taxes were: affirmative action for white people.

fyodor | May 8, 2008, 4:00pm | #

I agree with what you wrote at 3:43, but don't you see how that confirms by theory that white supremcists find common cause with small-government conservatives becasue the liberal project really does advance racial equality?

But joe, that's like the argument that being against the invasion of Iraq was being objectively pro-Saddam Hussein. I imagine there are Democratic candidates who enjoy the support of people for whom they would not return the favor as well. Your guilt by association campaign here is unbecoming.

DW | May 8, 2008, 4:01pm | #

"But certain fuckups disqualify you from holding a judgeship even if you show up and say that you've changed. And certain fuckups mean you don't deserve an endorsement for a judicial election even if you show up and say that you've changed."

So how does this then compare to Obama's recent, 20-year long mistake with Rev. Wright? I'm not defending Johnson, but let's put this in perspective here.

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:02pm | #

So how does this then compare to Obama's recent, 20-year long mistake with Rev. Wright?

Obama gives prettier speeches?

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:06pm | #

Then why do the Hispanic supremacist and black supremacist groups tend to be leftist?

It's not about equality, its about power. The white racists have their side, the others have theirs.


True enough, for the most part, but not quite accurate. The distinction between "equality" and "power" is illusory, when speaking of a subordinate group; working towards equality and increasing their power is, to a certain extent, the same thing.

As opposed to a dominant group, for whom all efforts to increase their power are efforts to oppose and reduce equality.

The upshot being, there are legitimate, pro-equality reasons to make common cause with those working to increase the power of the underdogs, while there are never legitimately pro-equality reasons to make common cause with white supremacits. (Except maybe in Zimbabwe, I suppose).

It's a fine parallel on paper, but it runs into problems in the real world.

Citizen Nothing | May 8, 2008, 4:07pm | #

Speaking of the Rev. Wright, am I the only one around here who thought a lot of the stuff he was saying (apart from the AIDS nonsense) had a lot of validity?
Granted, I didn't pay that much attention, DW, so he may well have proposed something equivalent to "no u.s. citizen shall have a drop of negro blood" but I didn't hear it.

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:07pm | #

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

What a tragedy he's not still around saying this.

Did you know that many musical tryouts are held behind a screen, so that the judges aren't influenced by the person's gender or ethnicity? If only we could do that for politics and job interviews.

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:07pm | #

I didn't actually notice anyone at Reason declaring Paul guilty of anything related to racism, Nick M. Could you quote it for us?

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:09pm | #

Duh, only if they could get the system rigged in their own favor.

That whooshing sensation on your scalp when you read about the "worse is better" strategy?

Don't worry about it. It's nothing.

joe,
white supremacists aren't as intelligent as Communists.


Good point, CN.

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:10pm | #

The distinction between "equality" and "power" is illusory, when speaking of a subordinate group; working towards equality and increasing their power is, to a certain extent, the same thing.

Sophistry and nonsense. Racism is racism, whether it helps a minority or a majority.

Equality is colorblindedness.

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:11pm | #

the "worse is better" strategy?

Nonsense. By this argument, Republicans should be for higher taxes.

That whooshing you hear is you missing the obvious.

DW | May 8, 2008, 4:11pm | #

"Speaking of the Rev. Wright, am I the only one around here who thought a lot of the stuff he was saying (apart from the AIDS nonsense) had a lot of validity?"

Well, except for Wright's constant ranting against the “U.S. of KKK A,” “rich white men,” “white arrogance” and the “racist United States of America” ...

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:12pm | #

fyodor,

But joe, that's like the argument that being against the invasion of Iraq was being objectively pro-Saddam Hussein.

Actually, no. It's like the argument that Saddam Hussein was against the invasion of Iraq.

It's the bad guys noticing something desireable in a movement that has nothing to do with them, not the movement itself supporting the bad guys.

Your guilt by association campaign here is unbecoming. I'm making my own arguments, thank you.

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:13pm | #

So how does this then compare to Obama's recent, 20-year long mistake with Rev. Wright?

Obama has never advocated for any of Wright's offensive beliefs, whereas Johnson actually put together a political movement to make the United States Constitution adopt white supremacy as official doctrine.

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:19pm | #

TallDave writes, What a tragedy he's not still around saying this.

How true. What a tragedy he's also not still around to express his thoughts on affirmative action:

In Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities, King staffers gathered data on the hiring patterns of corporations doing business in black communities, and called on companies to rectify disparities. "At present, SCLC has Operation Breadbasket functioning in some 12 cities, and the results have been remarkable," King wrote (quoted in Testament of Hope, James Washington, ed.), boasting of "800 new and upgraded jobs [and] several covenants with major industries."

King was well aware of the arguments used against affirmative action policies. As far back as 1964, he was writing in Why We Can't Wait: "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."

King supported affirmative action";type programs because he never confused the dream with American reality. As he put it, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" to compete on a just and equal basis (quoted in Let the Trumpet Sound, by Stephen Oates).

In a 1965 Playboy interview, King compared affirmative action";style policies to the GI Bill: "Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs.... And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war."


If you think Martin Luther King's vision precluded affirmative action, you don't understand his vision, and should stop speaking for him.

Martin Luther King is not your teddy bear, TallDave.

Mike Laursen | May 8, 2008, 4:20pm | #

OK, putting aside that Johnson is a racist asshole for a minute, suppose something like the Pace Amendment were to become the law of the land. How exactly would they determine whether someone has "Negro blood" or more than one-eighth of some other impure blood.

You get sickle-cell anemia and the doctor has to report you to the State Department?

By blood does he mean DNA? How would you measure one-eighth of someone's DNA. By dividing the number of foreign genes they have by their total number of genes? What if you have foreign mitochondria -- does that figure in the equation?

Oh, maybe you're neighbor could just accuse you of being impure, and a Superior Court judge could make the determination.

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:22pm | #

Shrug. So he was right in the speech and wrong in other statements.

As I said, what a shame he's not still around advocating for people to be judged by their character rather than the color of their skin.

MikeP | May 8, 2008, 4:25pm | #

don't you see how that confirms by theory that white supremcists find common cause with small-government conservatives becasue the liberal project really does advance racial equality?

joe, if I may fix this for you...

White supremacists find common cause with small-government conservatives because the liberal project claims that it really does advance racial equality.

Much of politics, and pretty much all of identity politics, is about perception, not actuality.

Now add on top of that the observations by fyodor...

they're stupid.

and Citizen Nothing...

white supremacists aren't as intelligent as Communists.

and you can see that the behavior of white supremacists provides scant evidence for whether the liberal project advances racial equality.

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:25pm | #

Equality is colorblindedness.

Martin Luther King, of course, was too intelligent and knowledgeable to fall for such foolishness.

Colorblindness: a bank examiner goes into a bank, and pores through its mortgage records. 90% of the white applicants have their mortgages approves, and 90% of the black applicants have theirs denied, despite having comparable credit profiles.

After a week of research, the wonderfully-colorblind bank examinier reports back that the institution has an arbitrary and incomprehensible method of approving mortgage applications, and there seems to be no logic behind their approvals and denials.

And he goes home, congratulating himself on his colorblindness, and the town's black residents remain unable to move out of the bad neighborhood, never build any equity to pay for their kids' college, and remain in a manifestly unequal situation.

But as he drives home, he congratulates himself for not taking race into account. Because that would racism, just like Jim Crowe.

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:26pm | #

I mean, it's not like we can't help disadvantaged groups without beign racist about it. Just base "affirmative action" on economic status rather than race.

Under the current system, a penniless North Korean immigrant family fleeing political persecution is penalized while Oprah Winfrey's kids get a leg up. How does that make any sense?

Sulla | May 8, 2008, 4:26pm | #

Well, except for Wright's constant ranting against the “U.S. of KKK A,” “rich white men,” “white arrogance” and the “racist United States of America” ...

I mentioned this once before on an unrelated issue. There is more racism in the U.S. than the "typical" white person believes there is. There is less racism in the U.S. than the "typical" black person believes there is. I say that as a biracial person who can pass for either black or white depending on my clothes/hairstyle/accent.

Just because Rev. Wright overstated things doesn't mean his statements were completely without merit.

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:26pm | #

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:22pm | #

Shrug. So he was right in the speech and wrong in other statements.

As I said, what a shame he's not still around advocating for people to be judged by their character rather than the color of their skin.


Well, some of us actually do agree with his vision. Which was not, as a matter of fact, primarily about feelings.

MattXIV | May 8, 2008, 4:27pm | #

joe,
That must be why Don Black donated to Mike Huckabee
Actually, big government conservativism was sufficient to get Mike Huckabee invited to speak at the Council of Conservative Citizens annual conference twice. He initially agreed to attend both times and only backed out the second time after drawing media heat for it (he didn't go in person the first time because of duties as lt. gov, but he send a video speech anyway).

White supremacists do tend to have it in for neocons, but that seems to because they consider them a part of a Jewish conspiracy; in my experience people who are conciously racist are likely to be conspiratorially-minded as well (often as rationalizaton for why the course of society hasn't gone their way). As in the Huckabee case above, they don't seem to have much of a problem with big government as long as they think it's one of the good ol' boys at the helm, but they don't trust the establishment, so like troofers, they gravitate towards anti-government politics.

Rick Barton | May 8, 2008, 4:27pm | #

Colin Clout :

I always figured that racism came long after the other "collectivist" attributes of human society.

Interesting. There's the chronologicaly primitive, but there is also "primitive" as in base or without a mindful foundation. Perhaps what Ramd meant to say is that racism has its foundation in the primordial,"Same as me = good-Different from me = bad" impulse.

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:28pm | #

Colorblindness: a bank examiner goes into a bank, and pores through its mortgage records. 90% of the white applicants have their mortgages approves, and 90% of the black applicants have theirs denied, despite having comparable credit profiles.

That makes no sense. If they have similar credit profiles, then obviously they aren't being judged on a colorblind basis.

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:28pm | #

Mike P,

White supremacists find common cause with small-government conservatives because the liberal project claims that it really does advance racial equality.

So what you're saying is that white supremacists tend to be credulous about the claims liberals make.

I don't find that to be a terribly compelling argument.

Brandybuck | May 8, 2008, 4:29pm | #

Not everyone who says "Ron Paul! Ron Paul!" follow his libertarian principles. It's very sad that far too few Ron Paul supporters realize this. Many of them are eager to throw their entire support behind anyone who utters the magic name. We Ron Paul supporters are a naive bunch, and too easily led astray by racists and truthers promoting their own agenda.

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:29pm | #

Well, some of us actually do agree with his vision.

And some of actually oppose racism, rather than wanting the "right kind" of racism.

Neu Mejican | May 8, 2008, 4:29pm | #

By the way, there is a BIG difference between being racist (which in itself, it is not a bad thing), and imposing racists laws and regulations upon a free people (like Jim Crow, Marriage laws and anti-discrimination laws, the last which generate animosity between groups)

...Racism is bad. End Statement!


I second Ayn Randian's comment above.

Move to put it up to a floor vote

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:31pm | #

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:26pm | #

I mean, it's not like we can't help disadvantaged groups without beign racist about it. Just base "affirmative action" on economic status rather than race.


Actually, things are moving in that direction.

It's hardly a controversial statement that the link between race and economic status is weaker than it used to be. A great deal of the liberal project to promote racial equality has worked, and our society is vastly different than it used to be.

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:32pm | #

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:11pm | #

the "worse is better" strategy?

Nonsense. By this argument, Republicans should be for higher taxes.


Ever hear of Starve the Beast? Larger deficits = higher taxes.

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:33pm | #

Actually, things are moving in that direction.

ZOMG I think joe and I agreed on something!

I'm taking the rest of the day off to celebrate.

Just to make the point again: it's not like we can't help disadvantaged groups without beign racist about it. Just base "affirmative action" on economic status rather than race -- and guess what, that will disproportionately help ethnic groups who are disadvantaged.

And again, under the current system, a penniless North Korean immigrant family fleeing political persecution is penalized while Oprah Winfrey's kids get a leg up. That just does not make any sense.

J sub D | May 8, 2008, 4:34pm | #

And yet it's okay for reason to spew venom, and for reason commenters to call for the annihilation of religious people,

As one of the resident atheists here I don'r recall anybody calling for the annihilation of religios people. I'm confident such a proposition would get a gang beatdown by other commenters here.

IOW, linky-link?

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:35pm | #

If they have similar credit profiles, then obviously they aren't being judged on a colorblind basis.

Quite right. They are not. They are being SUBJECT TO RACISM.

And when the bank examiner ignores this reality and does his job in a color-blind manner, he allows that to continue.

Which is why Martin Luther King (sooooooo glad you brought him up) abjured such a foolish stance on behalf of the government. That terrible racist.

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:36pm | #

You heard it here first, folks.

Martin Luther King's philosophy = racism.

Ayn_Randian | May 8, 2008, 4:36pm | #

If they have similar credit profiles, then obviously they aren't being judged on a colorblind basis.

Hear, hear. joe, you should know better.

MikeP | May 8, 2008, 4:37pm | #

So what you're saying is that white supremacists tend to be credulous about the claims liberals make.

No. I am saying that white supremacist leaders are appealing to a base of (nearly universally stupid) white supremacist followers and that liberal claims of using the government to promote racial equality are red meat for the white supremacist cause.

David J. Heinrich | May 8, 2008, 4:37pm | #

Just guilt-by-association smearing of Ron Paul. Of course, people ignore the fact that many countries explicitly want to maintain their cultural and ethnic heritage; that doesn't mean that the State should be dealing with immigration -- I say leave it to private property owners to deal with trespassers. Part of the problem is all these idiotic "anti-discrimination" laws, which truly prevent freedom of association and disassociation. There wouldn't be these kinds of calls for State policies if people could form private communities with whatever criteria they wanted.

Really, this is just hyper-PC humbug.

Ayn_Randian | May 8, 2008, 4:37pm | #

Martin Luther King's philosophy = racism.

Well, joe, if part of it involves preferring (by law) one group over another, then yes, part of MLK's governmental philosophy was racist, or at least racialist.

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:39pm | #

TallDave,

If you are genuinely interested in how affirmative action-type policies can evolve, google "Cambridge Massachusetts School Assignment."

Basically, they consider economic status first, and if that doesn't produce racial integration as well, it can be used as a secondary factor.

(Oh, and btw, if using race that way is racism, then using economic status that way is class discrimination. Why are you a classist, TallDave?)

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:40pm |