> >http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates15.html > > Racism? Or Independence? > > by Steven Yates > > Last week the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) released a series of > "Intelligence Reports" purporting to reveal an upsurge in "white > supremacist" and "racist" groups during the late 1990s. "A > neo-Confederate movement, increasingly rife with white supremacists > and racist ideology, is growing across America," cries the bold print > of one of the lead documents, Rebels With a Cause. The document > proceeds with the (probably true) allegation that a neo-Confederate > movement has gained some momentum since July 1 of this year, when the > Confederate flag was removed from the South Carolina State House Dome. > But what are the real causes, and the real implications? > > One of the SPLCs chief targets is the Alabama-based League of the > South, the leading group whose leaders speak openly of seceding from > the Washington government and creating a Southern Republic. Other > targeted groups include American Renaissance, the Council of > Conservative Citizens, Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Confederate > Society of America, the Heritage Preservation Association, the > Southern Military Institute (a private academy that does not as yet > exist apart from its website and fundraising efforts), the Southern > Legal Resource Center, the Southern Party, the United Daughters of the > Confederacy, the Rockford Institute, and - incredibly! - the Ludwig > von Mises Institute. They also target the sole news periodical, a > monthly, that presents news and commentary from a staunch pro-South > point of view, the fledgling Edgefield Journal, based in the small > town of Edgefield, South Carolina, west of Columbia. > > In fairness, some of these groups I had barely heard of despite my own > League membership. I cannot vouch for or rail against the ideas > attributed to them by the SPLC, never having seen a copy of American > Renaissance, for example (the magazine apparently published by the > organization of that name). I hardly need point out the likelihood > that the groups in the above list are different from one another, with > different aims and possibly different ideological perspectives. This > makes tarring them all with the same brush fundamentally suspect. I > will concentrate on those I know. > > Consider the Mises Institute. It was founded to recover from > near-oblivion, study and have studied, and further develop, the ideas > of Ludwig von Mises, a central figure in Austrian school economics. > Mises was the author of Human Action and other paradigmatic works, > following a perfectly respectable notion: that the methods of the > human sciences cannot legitimately be modeled on the methods of > physics. Hence the writings of Austrian school economists employ > deductive reasoning from first premises, not reams of statistics and > empirical models applicable only to this or that situation, or > economy. One of Mises conclusions, for which he produces formidable > and very detailed arguments, is that political interference in > economic activity by the central state is bound to be destructive in > the long run (there might be some short term benefits). The path to > genuine prosperity, in the Misesian view, is a free market unhampered > by government fetters, regulations, licensure laws, and restrictions. > There is now an enormous literature devoted to this approach, > including a quarterly refereed academic journal and an annual > conference featuring scholars drawn from all over the world. The > influence of the Austrian school in economics is being felt > practically everywhere. > > While bound to be controversial and likely to receive more than a few > blank stares of noncomprehension in this age of statism and low > educational attainment, what we have here is hardly a picture of a > "neo-Confederate" organization of "white supremacists" and "racists." > Of course, one of the consequences of the idea that central-state > interventions are harmful to all concerned is a rejection of such > policies as affirmative action preferences - and we know how such > rejections are invariably interpreted by left-liberals. Mises, of > course, never applauded state-sanctioned chattel slavery any more than > his intellectual descendents favor our present-day de facto slavery > (paying almost 40 percent of our incomes into taxes). However, we do > not find analyses of Mises views or of taxation in the SPLC report, > because these would not serve the purpose of tarring all the opponents > of Washington-centered statism with a single brush. > > How about the League of the South? It seems that the SPLC cannot even > mention the name of the group without using the adjectives racist or > white supremacist (or both) in tandem, or of describing it as a "hate > group." This, to a logical mind, is known as poisoning the wells, a > fallacy in reasoning common in all forms of political propaganda. > Tagging the League of the South with such labels is the primary intent > of its document A League of Their Own. Both here and in Coloring Crime > the SPLC assaults League of the South and other groups on black crime, > especially the idea that whites are justified in fearing the black > underclass. With a great show of statistics, the SPLC tries to refute > the methodology of such claims. However, it does not deal with a > central issue: the blatant double-standard in how black-on-white crime > with clear racial overtones is reported by the news media. For > example, when a black man was dragged to death in Jasper, Texas, in > 1998, it was national news for well over a year, as the trial and > punishment of the three prepetrators was forced down our throats. > However, when a white man was knocked from his bicycle, beaten over > the head with garbage cans by a group of black teenagers and left to > languish in a coma, as happened in North Charleston, South Carolina, > last year, it was local news only. There are now quite a few > illustrations of this double-standard, one of which actually makes it > into the pages of the SPLC study itself: the murder of Michael > Westerman by a black youth for flying a Confederate flag on his pickup > truck. > > The SPLC is right about one thing, however: LOS membership has risen. > While 9,000 people (assuming that figure to be accurate) is hardly a > majority or even a significant minority, it is still the size of many > a small town. There is indeed a movement which is capable of becoming > a serious threat to the left-liberal hegemony of thought. Moreover, it > has supporters in places other than the South. There is organized > opposition to the rising tides of political correctness. > > While one may of course single out individual statements made by > leaders and members of all these groups as excessive, one can also > find plenty of excessive and irrational statements by leftists. A > well-known example is that Professor Leonard Jeffries of City Colleges > African-American Studies program in New York City. He once divided the > world into "ice people" and "sun people," and went on to contend that > white peoples ("ice people"s) problems derive from melanin > deprivation. That aside, there are serious problems with the leftist > strategy for cashing this issue out in terms of race. The St. Andrews > Cross emblem which adorns the Confederate flag was not invented by the > Confederacy, after all, and its use today is not limited to so-called > neo-Confederates. The symbol was sighted in Eastern Europe, for > example, as symbolic of those peoples liberation from the totalitarian > rule of the Soviet Empire. It has been seen in other parts of the > world as well. Everywhere it has been seen, it has stood as a symbol > of freedom from centralization and authoritarian governments. > > Moreover, a mindset that is willing to entertain the idea of secession > is not limited to 9,000 or so Southerners. There are, for example, > secession movements in both Hawaii and Alaska. There are also > secession stirrings in Texas, Arizona, and elsewhere. Even in the > illustrious Northeast - specifically, New England - there is a "home > rule" movement. Blaming "racism" or "white supremacism" for all these > movements sounds a bit forced, to say the least! > > Why have such movements developed, mostly just over the past decade or > so? Partly because of the widespread and growing perception that the > Washington government has gotten too large, too expensive, too > corrupt, and too unresponsive; moreover, this perception includes the > idea that, Reform Party ideals notwithstanding, the Washington system > cant be reformed from the inside. Finally, there is mounting disgust > with the dominant political / legal climate that emanates from the > Washington-New York City corridor, a climate that has given rise to > everything crass, tawdry, materialistic and profane in American > popular culture today. This political / legal climate provides huge > federal grants to artists who submerge crucifixes in urine, and calls > this "free speech" protected by the First Amendment, yet tries to > stifle student-led prayers before football games in "public" high > schools. This political / legal climate has turned "choice" into a > sacrosanct concept, but knows nothing of responsibility. The 1990s saw > the coming of age not just of political correctness but of militant > nonjudgmentalism. Essential to nonjudgmentalism is the deadly notion > that all value judgments, including moral judgments and issues of > virtue and character, are subjective and personal; thus it bears upon > us to regard all "lifestyle choices" as equally valid, valuable and > entitled to respect. > > This, I submit is what the neo-Confederates and others are rebelling > against. Left-liberal groups have a vested interest in maintaining > focus on racism, slavery, and white supremacism, and - given the low > educational level of the public - this has not proven hard to do. > After all, allegations of racism are not hard to understand; > discussions of the objections to central-state micro-manipulation of > the economy, or how bad Supreme Court decisions can impact negatively > on the larger culture for years to come, take a bit more cognitive > labor to follow. Left-liberals and their disciples in the media have > learned well how to exploit an educational system more geared to the > production of technicians and bureaucrats than men and women capable > of (or interested in) independent thought. > > Now it may well be that those of us involved in freedom movements in > one way or another should do more to repudiate explicitly all form of > racism and white supremacy. Some of my correspondence has suggested > this, and the idea is certainly tempting. One writer emailed me a very > detailed statement about the abominable nature of slavery that he > believed we should endorse. Of course, it goes without saying that I > do not believe in slavery - in any form. However, does it accomplish > anything to apologize in some way for an institution - chattel slavery > - that ended almost 100 years before I was born? Moreover, by > disavowing slavery in all forms I am also disavowing tax slavery of > the sort left-liberals desperately need (without calling it that, of > course) to fund their countless government programs. > > And speaking of calling things by their proper names or getting to the > core of essential concepts, in the case of racism, precisely what - in > the eyes of left-liberals - are we repudiating? Would such > repudiations be listened to, or dismissed out of hand? The > "neo-Confederates" I know no longer bother. When told that so-and-so > has accused them or racism, they are more likely to respond, "So what > else is new?" > > Finally: Why? Are any of us morally compelled to answer left-liberals? > When the left-liberal commands, "Jump!" are we obligated to respond, > "How high?" > > With such thoughts in mind, the day the SPLCs intelligence report > appeared on its website, I sent them an email. I did not argue or > present the kinds of claims made here, as that would have been > pointless. I merely asked two questions, questions so basic that even > left-liberals ought to be able to understand them. I asked (and repeat > the questions now): What is your definition of racism? And Why is your > definition of racism the correct one, and not some other? The point: > it is just too easy to turn legitimate, if very basic, political and > Constitutional disagreements into allegations of racism, achieving > propagandistic purposes and leaving the public confused and > intimidated. > > Upon arriving home from work that evening, I had received an > electronic form response indicating that my questions had been > received and would be passed along to Mark Potok, SPLCs Editor of the > Intelligence Report. Thus far I have received nothing further. Perhaps > I should not be surprised. While left-liberals love to (and need to) > control the language of the public conversation, the last thing they > like to do is define their terms. One of the easiest ways to make a > liberal mad is to ask what he means by racism. But unless such > questions are addressed, I submit that we can discount his allegations > against the League of the South and other "neo-Confederate" groups as > nothing more than left-liberal propaganda directed against a > grass-roots movement increasingly perceived as a threat to what has > become the new status quo of political correctness and political power > centralized in Washington. > > September 16, 2000 > > [yatess.jpg] Steven Yates has a PhD in philosophy and is the author of > Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (San Francisco: > ICS Press, 1994). A frequent contributor to LewRockwell.com and The > Edgefield Journal, he lives and freelance writes in Columbia, South > Carolina. He is at work on a new book entitled The Paradox of Liberty. > > > > > <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
