Comments on: Gold Standard

By: Jonathan Maccabee

Jonathan Maccabee — Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:28:25 +0000

Re the Texas GOP’s opposition to the War Powers Act: No president has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, which was passed in 1974 over Nixon’s veto and with good reason. Not Nixon, not Ford, not Jimmy Carter, not Reagan, not Bush, not Bush, not Bill Clinton. The act actually requires, for one thing, that the President get Congressional approval before attacking or invading another country. I don’t know whether this is a case of power corrupting or actual sticklers for the law being filtered out before they can reach the Presidency. The Supreme Court, when asked, said the War Powers Act was constitutional in 1974. Unanimously. This is the only situation in my lifetime comparable to Worcester v. Georgia. That Supreme Court decision, President Andrew Jackson defied by deporting the American Indians of the Southeast to Oklahoma, which began a state of constant, illegal war against the Indians directed by the executive branch until they were utterly defeated and nearly annilhated. I do wonder what the reaction among our elite would be if the Supreme Court was defied in a decision which officially sanctioned violence (Dred Scott v. Sandford? Roe v. Wade?) rather than limiting the President’s power to make war.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 08 Sep 2003 20:20:59 +0000

I have a question for everyone here. More like a challenge. Government and society are two different things. Why do you speak of them as if they were one? Now, this may perplex you, after all you believe there is this majestical being that calls itself ‘Government’ which heroically steers society where it needs to go (else all society would slide into the abyss!). Consider this quote: “Some people have so confused government and society as to think the two are the same, but they are different and have different origins.” Who said this quote? It is not a modern thought, it is from 1776. It is not from an obscure document, everyone read it. In fact, this quote was THE VERY FIRST LINE of a popular text and the thoughts of this quote provided the content for the entire document. It is the first line from “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine. Oh, to make things even worse, talk to a Constitutional Lawyer. The Constitution is not a social document. Did you know that the Bill of Rights do not apply to you? You have no ‘right’ to speech. The Bill of Rights applies to the government, not to people. The GOVERNMENT may not restrict your speech, but your mother/ employer/ property owner can. In fact, the very theme of seperation of Church and State is to seperate State and Society. The State was not to mold Society like kings and dictators did. In this thought, society steers itself. People become human and not a statistic or clay to be experimented on. The freedom of society is not defined by the law, rather the freedom of society is defined by society yearning to be itself. An increasing legalistic society is a decreasing society. A tyrannical society does not exist for a government is tyrannical when NO society can exist. Society is not a ‘form’ which can be constructed with architect attitudes from intellectuals. It is letting everyone be Human, to realize that Mankind has a natural societal form and to impede on it is a violation of Nature. This is why the ‘platform’ listed above is NON-REFLECTIVE of conservative thought. This is a document of politicians (who, when in office, must ‘do something’). Conservatives are happiest when the government does nothing and gets out of the way of society. When you read a republican document that lists passing more laws and such, it is the coinage of politicians deattached from society. But realizing this would take an intellectual rigid approach, which is rare because we are so lazy now days. Many people ‘don’t hear’ certain things and hear ‘other things’ because it fits their world view rather than challenging it. The best system for Society is no system- which is called LIBERTY. And this is why I’m a Republican.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Mon, 08 Sep 2003 18:28:47 +0000

Ted, I have a question. Since this entire post seems designed to create the impression that there is some sort of moral symmetry between the views expressed by MEChA in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán and that of the Texas Republicans in their party platform, perhaps you could explain for me how the two are morally similar? The preamble of El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán for example states the following (emphasis added):

In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal “gringo” invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our hearts. Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent Brotherhood unites us, and love for our brothers makes us a people whose time has come and who struggles against the foreigner “gabacho” who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlán. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada. (which translates to “By the Race, everything. Outside the Race, nothing.” )

The excerpts you took rather liberally from the Texas GOP platform don’t make it quite clear which provisions you find to be the equivalent of the blatantly racist sentiments expressed in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán. Are you suggesting that favoring a gold standard for currency, opposing a minimum wage, and repealing the income tax are somehow the moral equivalent of referring to other citizens of a different race as “foreign Europeans” and saying you want everything for members of your race and nothing for people of other races? If so, that seems to me to be similar to the lunacy of people who refer to tax cuts as “ethnic cleansing” and “Jim Crow.” If not, please explain to me why we should in anway consider the views of the two documents to be morally equivalent and what the views are in the Texas GOP platform which we should consider just as racist and hateful as those expressed in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán

By: Barbar

Barbar — Sun, 07 Sep 2003 19:36:50 +0000

But those MEChA documents, those are of the utmost relevance. Cruz Bustamente, renounce MEChA now

By: Beldar

Beldar — Sun, 07 Sep 2003 16:19:33 +0000

What a smug, meaningless post. Bring me a screed from extremists from any political party and I can write just such a post as this. But only if you pay me, because otherwise it’s a waste of time, and doesn’t even produce something very funny. I’m a Texas Republican, meaning a Texan who tends to vote for Republican candidates most of the time. Like almost all other Texas Republicans, I didn’t know before I read this post what was in the official 2000 state party platform. I didn’t care. Now that I’ve read it, I still don’t care. Party platforms were very important in, oh, say 1842. They’re essentially meaningless now for either major party, at either a state or federal level. They have virtually nothing to do with who gets nominated, who gets elected, or what they do when they’re elected. Reading about party platforms on the internet is particularly ironic. Friends, if there ever was a nail in the coffin of party platform relevancy, it’s the internet.

By: Realish

Realish — Sat, 06 Sep 2003 20:52:25 +0000

I agree with Tacitus as well (that’s two!). Bustamante should have said, vocally and clearly, when this silliness started: “I did not take Mecha to be advocating racism or violence; I do not personally advocate these and think it is regrettable if indeed certain elements of Mecha advocate them.” Easy, right? But, contra Joey, I think Bush et al’s responsibility for the Texas GOP platform is greater, and a more serious matter, than Bustamante’s for Mecha. Bustamante was a kid, and there’s every reason to believe that he never came into contact with the loonier elements in mecha, and there’s no reason to believe that he holds those views himself. However, Bush is an adult (kind of), as are the members of the Texas GOP (kind of). They consciously and deliberately chose these views, and this language, and there’s every reason to believe that they held and continue to hold the same views. Unlike an obscure student group, the GOP platform for the second largest state in the U.S. matters, and really does have consequences. Bustamante flirted with nutjobs, but nobody thinks he is one. Bush and Texas’ GOP representatives and senators flirted with nutjobs, and have given us no reason to believe they are not among the ranks. That’s the difference.

By: Phelps

Phelps — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 21:19:07 +0000

From “Action – 3)”

Self-Defense against the occupying forces of the oppressors at every school, every available man, woman, and child.

That sounds like violent opposition to me. Since the oppressors are the “foreign Europeans”, that sounds like “Kill Whitey.” As for it being a racist organization, I usually avoid that word, since most people use racism and bigotry interchangably when they aren’t interchangable. In this instance, when they are talking about “the call of our blood”, they really are talking about race v race.

By: JRoth

JRoth — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 19:43:13 +0000

OK, Joey got a little reasonable on us at the end, but leopards and spots…. He equates (“marginally less [reprehensible]”) rabid, violent revolution with “the establishment of a ethnic-nationalist “chicano” mind-set that defines itself as being in opposition to the mainstream of American life.” And he shows, again, that he has missed the entire point of the document (which, of course, has effectively no relationship to Bustamante, who is the only reason it comes up). The phrase “mainstream of American life” is very clearly homologous with “white.” And that’s exactly what El Plan has a problem with! The idea that American life is what white folks say it is, and that la Raza, who have been in the Southwest longer than the white folks, had better just put up and shut up. It’s not that Joey, et al are racist. It’s that they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge a worldview in which whites are not the definers of culture. Multiculturalism is about saying. “Hey, we’ve got something to offer, and something to say, as well.” And anyone who dares say that in this country will be equated with Nazis and the KKK. Why would the response be so virulent? Why doth the lady protest so much? And why does Joey keep putting paraphrases in quotes mere words away from the originals. Does he not know the meaning of the word “tendentious?” Joey, if your reading were not tendentious, you wouldn’t have to change the words to make them say what you want them to. “Bronze land” is not “bronze people,” and as has been pointed out, bronze isn’t a reference to skin color anyway. Finally, all of this is about El Plan – yet every poster from the right slips effortlessly from the Plan to MEChA. They’re not the same. Most of the lefty websites I go to include links to Instapundit. What kind of asshole would I be to insist that every one of those bloggers is responsible to denounce every distasteful word that drops from Glenn’s mouth? MEChA is exactly as radical as Hillel or the NAACP - and I bet that some websites associated with those estimable organizations include links to groups that are more overt in their ethnic pride. And I don’t doubt for a moment that some on the right would happily tar every mainstream black and Jewish politician with the most tendentious reading of the fringe groups’ writing. All the time insisting that, while they quote the American Patrol, they actually oppose it. Oh, and last thing: as Schwarzenegger’s group American English shows, Speak English or Die types are, in fact, closely tied to, and sometimes the same as, Aryan Nation-style racists. I’m sorry if you don’t like that fact, but your dislike of it doesn’t change it.

By: D-Rod

D-Rod — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 19:12:27 +0000

It certainly does not seem asinine to suggest the Texas GOP might share some responsibility with sodomy in tearing at the fabric of society. Good post.

By: Tacitus

Tacitus — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:23:57 +0000

I agree with Tacitus above. Finally! Someone!

By: Eric Deamer

Eric Deamer — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:11:52 +0000

I agree with Tacitus above. Those who are affiliated or were affiliated with the Texas GOP should be called to account for this document just as much as Bustamante should be called to account for past affiliation with MEChA. How is asking a politician about their affiliation with a gropu with extremist ideology an asinine exercise? It is clear that the Texas GOP is one such group. MEChA is clearly another. Even the most cursory glance at any of the platforms and documents associated with this group unequivocally prove that to be the case. I’ve read all of the attempts to whitewash this (Wienert, Barlow etc.) and none of them are anything but a bunch of doublespeak and semantic back-flips. This would not even have been a big deal but it’s just utterly amazing how you guys will go to such lengths to defend racism, anti-semitism and homophobia, out of what? party loyalty? political correctness? I honestly just do not get it.

By: cerebrocrat

cerebrocrat — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 15:50:50 +0000

Nice work, Ted. Somewhat off topic, but, when they say that sodomy “tears at the fabric of society…” what the hell does that actually MEAN?

By: joey

joey — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 15:28:04 +0000

Keith: Try this excerpt on for size: “For that matter, so are American Patrol doctrines. Of course, the latter seem not to bother you much.” The American Patrol is pretty much a nutjob racist organization. He suggested that their doctrines don’t bother me much. Maybe I overreacted, but when someone suggests that I’m “not bothered” by such views, it indicates to me that they think I might be a racist. As for the “ideas have consequences” bit. I always thought an important component of anti-racist movements was emphasizing the psychic damage inflicted on those who hold hateful views. I think anything that inculcates a sense of racial superiority in a group or individual wreaks that severe psychic damage. It forces you to view your fellow man though your ethnic-nationalist filter. Many people had fought long and hard—and continue to fight—to eradicate this impulse. (Why in the hell am I having to remind leftists of all this?) I made the point that I don’t actually believe Atzlan will ever come to pass—just like any nutjob white separatists who believe they’ll get a homeland in Montana, or black separatists who would claim the Deep South as their homeland. As for your argument about Atzlan being a “state of mind,” see my statement above about psychic damage. I’m still stunned by the reluctance of so many people here to apply ONE STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR to all people, regardless of the color of their skin. (You could probably find a bible quote to back you up there, too, Keith.) As for Ted Barlow’s original point, again, you’re equivocating a mainstream political party’s platform (which includes certain ideas that I’m not at all comfortable with) with a document that could be construed as calling for either a separate Chicano homeland in the American Southwest, or the establishment of a ethnic-nationalist “chicano” mind-set that defines itself as being in opposition to the mainstream of American life. The first is absolutely reprehensible, the second is only marginally less so. In my opinion, they’re not in the same league. This will be my last comment on this thread. Thanks, I’ve enjoyed it.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 10:32:09 +0000

They continually amaze me, the people who deny the distinction between racism by the oppressor and racism by the oppressed. It’s psychologically revealing, I think. Of course racism is, in general, bad. But that doesn’t mean that all forms are equally bad; and it certainly doesn’t mean that all forms require an identical response. The Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats are instructive examples. Minority and majority, oppressed and oppressor, have traded places over time. If we agree that oppressor racism is bad, we can agree that oppressed racism is also bad, if for no other reason than it historically has been shown to very often lead to oppressor racism. Having said that, it’s quite natural and correct for us to react to and judge differently the man prone on the ground cowering under the baton who is filled with hatred and bigotry than we do the hate-filled and bigoted man towering above him. When one goes out of one’s way to concentrate on identifiying and denouncing the sin’s of one’s enemies, particularly when one is quite vulnerable to criticism on the same grounds, it’s almost always a diversionary and perhaps self-deluding tactic. (Matthew 7:3, etc.) Whites who are obsessed with “reverse racism” are clearly doing this, and it’s morally infantile.

By: Michael J. Totten

Michael J. Totten — Fri, 05 Sep 2003 05:00:31 +0000

Nice, Ted. Very nice. I needed that.