Why The 1950's Were Not So Great - Why The South Must Prevail by William F Buckley
In August of 1957 William F Buckley of the conservative magazine The National Review wrote an article advocating for racial discrimination in voting rights.
Why The South Must Prevail by William F Buckley
The most important event of the past three weeks was the remarkable and unexpected vote by the Senate to guarantee to defendants in a criminal con-tempt action the privilege of a jury trial. That vote does not necessarily affirm a citizen’s intrinsic rights : trial by jury in contempt actions, civil or criminal, is not an American birthright, and it cannot, therefore, be maintained that the Senate’s vote upheld, pure and simple, the Common Law. What the Senate did was to leave undisturbed the mechanism that spans the abstractions by which a society is guided and the actual, sublunary requirements of the individual community.
In that sense, the vote was a conservative victory. For the effect of it is - and let us speak about it bluntly- to permit a jury to modify or waive the law in such circum-stances as, in the judgment of the jury, require so grave an interposition between the law and its violator. What kind of circumstances do we speak about? Again, let us speak frankly. The South does not want to deprive the Negro of a vote for the sake of depriving him of the vote. Political scientists assert that minorities do not vote as a unit. Women do not vote as a bloc, they contend; nor do Jews, or Catholics, or laborers, or nudists - nor do Negroes; nor will the enfranchised Negroes of the South. If that is true, the South will not hinder the Negro from voting - why should it, if the Negro vote, like the women’s, merely swells the volume, but does not affect the ratio, of the vote? In some parts of the South, the White community merely intends to prevail - that is all. It means to prevail on any issue on which there is corporate disagreement between Negro and White.
The White community will take whatever measures are necessary to make certain that it has its way. What are such issues? Is school integration one? The NAACP and others insist that the Negroes as a unit want integrated schools. Others disagree, contending that most Negroes approve the social separation of the races. What if the NAACP is correct, and the matter comes to a vote in a community in which Negroes predominate? The Negroes would, according to democratic processes, win the election ; but that is the kind of situation the White community will not permit. The White community will not count the marginal Negro vote. The man who didn’t count it will be hauled up before a jury, he will plead not guilty, and the jury, upon deliberation, will find him not guilty. A federal judge, in a similar situation , might find the defendant guilty, a judgment which would affirm the law and conform with the relevant political abstractions, but whose consequences might be violent and anarchistic.
The central question that emerges - and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal - is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes - the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro : but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes’, and intends to assert its own.
NATIONAL REVIEW believes that the South’s premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence. The axiom on which many of the arguments sup-porting the original version of the Civil Rights bill were based was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from this premise all else proceeds. That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do not generally have the vote, and it is not seriously argued that the difference between 20 and 21-year-olds is the difference between slavery and freedom. The residents of the District of Columbia do not vote: and the population of D.C. increases by geo-metric proportion.
Millions who have the vote do not care to exercise it; millions who have it do not knowhow to exercise it and do not care to learn. The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could. Overwhelming numbers of White people in the South do not vote. Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of freedom. Reasonable limitations upon the vote are not exclusively the recommendation of tyrants or oligarchists (was Jefferson either?).The problem in the South is not how to get the vote for the Negro, but how to equip the Negro- and a great many Whites - to cast an enlightened and responsible vote.
The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness to preserve the Negro as a servile class. It is tempting and convenient to block the progress of a minority whose services, as menials, are economically useful. Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that permits it to function.
Why The South Must Prevail - whythesouthmustprevail-1957.pdf (wordpress.com)
Tags
Who is online
405 visitors
Parts of this article read more like something someone might have seen in the 1870's as southerners tried to keep blacks from being granted the vote after emancipation. But no, this came during the so-called (by some conservatives) "the greatest decade" . I think one guy on Newstalkers here has called the 50's the pinnacle of American greatness.
I was inspired to look up this column by Buckley after reading a seed Bob Nelson put up yesterday. I wish it had gotten more comments because its theme is related to what I have posted here, only on a present day basis. A writer for the right wing think tank The Claremont Institute wrote a new article where he paints the current situation in America as a fight for western civilization, and he specifically mentions black lives matter as being an enemy of western civilization. I think he would have made Buckley proud.
Yeah, dude, those Democrats were really something back in the day, eh?
I wonder how many Democrats took Buckley seriously enough to enact Jim Crow laws?
I guess enough to qualify as being prejudiced and suppressing votes.
William Buckley is a conservative god.
Nice , huh ?
No he is no god.
Liberal imagination run amok again.
WTF does that have to do with Democrats actually DOING some of the things he suggested?
Looks like the playbook used by Democrats to pass Jim Crow laws.
I don't recall Democrats getting all riled up over it.
Your silly attempts to derail this article will not work.
Just reminding you what Democrats did that somehow you wish to blame anyone BUT Democrats for. You seem to tend to like to whitewash Democratic Party history in your rush to pillory all conservatives.
I don't care what party he or those words came from - he was still an asshole & his words are shit.
Not whitewash, merely pointing out that for Democrats, that is HISTORY. For Republicans that attitude is present day.
You need to make up your mind Texan. Are Democrats progressive or conservative? You seem to flip flop back and forth on that little fact.
I see no where here where any person is disputing that.
Who are you arguing with?
A Democrat is a Democrat.
Where have I claimed that Democrats are conservative?
I claimed Democrats instituted Jim Crow laws, and denial of that fact is senseless.
Southern Democrats for the most part were conservatives.
I am not arguing. You are the one making a big deal of his political affiliations. Why not address the words he uttered rather than if he is jackass or elephant.
So the best you can do is point out that 50 - 100 years ago, Democrats had different opinions on things.
You realize that is what progressive means, moving forward, changing with the times. Democrats today no longer standby the beliefs of the Dixiecrats, whereas Republicans of today seem to be embracing them. That is the difference between progressives (Democrats) and regressives (Republicans).
Yes, I get that Democrats like to distance themselves far, far, far away from their racist past.
The Democratic Party certainly didn't seem to mind embracing racism for well over a hundred years.
Especially when it meant control of the House and Senate.
Did being conservative make them somehow less of a Democrat?
They MAY have very well been mainly conservative, but last I checked, they were still Democrats.
The ONLY point (obviously ignored or deliberately missed) is that DEMOCRATS were far more in line with his thinking, as evidenced by Jim Crow laws.
I haven't claimed anything about Buckley other than to correct some erroneous statement that he is a conservative god.
I don't support his way of thinking. But lots of Democrats did.
So WHY not address the actual words instead of pushing your hatred of everything Democrat agenda? Who cares what Democrats supported in the past - it is the past - why do you keep looking there - how about looking at today (which I am pretty sure what this article is doing - comparing REPUBLICAN thinking of today with that of people like him). You don't support his way of thinking, but you support Republicans that do.
I did. Here, I will repeat it just for you:
Now, just because I don't get poutraged over something written long ago by a man long dead now has nothing to do with whether I liked or supported what he stated.
[deleted]
Yea, too bad it is being seen more & more in today's world.
Unless it is something that bothers you personally or threatens your way of thinking. If you truly believed what you had written - you wouldn't have commented at all. Your Democrats bad histrionics is all over NT.
As is your conservative bias.
You want on one hand to dismiss what Democrats did in the past but want to take seriously words written over 60 years ago as some kind of litmus test for conservatives even though Buckley changed his views after publishing this article.
LOL - you have no idea what my political leanings are. I belong to neither party and in some ways am very conservative (as in fiscally conservative). I am socially liberal.
The words he wrote years ago are being played out today & you fail to address that at all - but whatever - you will hysterically cling to your beliefs that the US has no issue with racism at all - but again - whatever.
Have a good day. Blessed Be!!!
Oh and BTW - you want us to ignore words written 60 yrs ago, but you keep harping on what the Democrats were back then - hypocrisy know thy place.
Do those Republicans (un-named, of course!) support what Buckley wrote shown in this article or what he later supported?
Which of the Republicans do you claim I support with regards to those positions?
Which Republicans have expressed their liking of Buckley's statements?
JR posted this as a hit piece on conservatism.
I pointed out that plenty of Democrats were conservative.
I didn't ay ignore what he wrote--but I do implore you to research just a teensy tiny bit and see how his views changed--just like ya'll always claim Democrats' views changed.
See post 1.2
Well, then, argument over.
Always is when one side has to resort to outright lies about what the other has claimed or stated.
Poutrage onward!!!!!
You leave out the key identifier in that comment, conservative. The fact is those were CONSERVATIVE Democrats, which pretty much doesn't exist among the Democrat party of today. The conservatives are still here, but they hold to a different party now and call themselves Conservative Republicans. They are the ones who continue to cling to the confederate memorials, to the confederate flag, to Jim Crow-like policies such as their attempts to depress the black votes in the South and other Red State strongholds. The fact that you leave this glaring fact out of your comments proves you're only trying to obfuscate the truth behind a smokescreen using the term "Democrat" only to malign a current progressive liberal Democrat party that looks nothing like the old conservative Democrats of the South who fought civil rights and voting rights and erected the confederate monuments and memorials and flew their confederate flags, all the symbols that are now embraced by the conservative Republican party today.
I know conservatives have tried to shed the image of their past racism and support for segregation, but they can't as long as they continue to cling to the policies and vestiges of the old conservatives they claim to be so different from. William F Buckley, if he were alive today and advocating for the "South to prevail" would no doubt be a conservative Republican and have voted for and supported Donald Trump just as his conservative legacy the National Review do today. And while he and conservatives today claim to denounce racism, Buckley claimed that because the black population lacked the education, economic, and cultural development to make racial equality possible, segregation should be maintained until "long term equality could be achieved" and that the white South had "the right to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine cultural equality between the races". I see little difference between Buckley and his conservatism and the conservatism of most conservative Republicans today who are now the primary power in the South much like their conservative Democrat predecessors.
This isn't an ideological battle between Democrat and Republican, it's an ideological battle between conservatism and progressivism/liberalism. So when you leave out those key identifiers it's obvious you're trying to confuse and obfuscate the truth in an effort to protect your chosen "ism".
oh, God, do regale us all with some more fantastical tales of how all the Southern conservative Democrats magically turned into Republicans.
The Democratic Party certainly embraced ALL Democrats--liberal AND conservative--when it meant power to them.
This trying to distinguish between Democrats is exhausting. A Democrat is a Democrat.
And they should be distancing themselves from it.
Yet Republicans seem quite comfortable with their racist past, and are still embracing it.
Gee, you mean the racist past when they freed slaves and fought a civil war against the Democrats who demanded to keep slavery?
THAT racist past?
I'll live with it, while you can live with slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow as the great Democratic legacy of racism.
Nope, before then.
Okay, you go ahead and live in the past. I'll continue to live in the present, looking towards the future.
Gee, read a history book.
Or even Wiki:
Now, how do you explain "the racist past of the GOP" when it was founded to help stop slavery?
Please enlighten me on what the GOP did in the seven whole years it was around before the Civil War started that YOU are considering racist.
When such blatantly false claims (lies) are presented---it shows a lack of understanding of history.
It's true, liberal Northern Democrats did welcome the Southern conservative Democrats votes for a long time when it meant control of the government, but we all know that hasn't been the case in several decades. The Republican control of the Southern States was pretty much complete by 1991 and from then on the conservatives in the South, who used to almost all consider themselves Democrats, now almost all vote for the party that has picked up the conservative banner, along with the confederate flag, and now support conservative Republicans. Why the fuck would any Southern 'Good ol boy' confederate loving conservative in the South vote for the Democrat party today? You and I both know they wouldn't and don't and know exactly what party they support now. It's not like they all shriveled up and died or moved out of the South, that's ridiculous, and to think those confederate flag flying conservatives would be voting for the progressives running the Democrat party of today is preposterous. I don't know why you're so desperate as to try and hide the fact that conservatives in the South now vote Republican, it's a proven fact no matter how many times you try and deflect and distract from it. Just accept it, the Republican party of today embraced conservatism and the conservative Southern Democrats.
Thank you.
I love the pretense that Southern Democrats flocked to the GOP like magic.
They left one party with whom they had differences and went to another party that they had even more differences with?
Sure they did, because THAT makes sense. LOL.
Conservative, liberal....whatever.
By whatever name, historically, the Dems were were party of slavery and practitioners of racism
What a foolish comment . Almost every Democrat who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a southern conservative.
It's no use, John. Their minds are closed to facts
Mitch McConnell’s ancestors owned slaves, according to a new report.
Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics
Some of them owned slaves.
You have not shown any lies yet. Mere claims are worthless, especially since you have been known for making factless claims before.
But you go ahead and keep worrying about how Republicans are viewed 100 years ago, while completely ignoring their actions today.
Name some then. Which Republicans owned slaves? You do understand that Mitch isn't his relatives, right? And do you have proof that Mitch's relatives from long ago were Republicans?
A southern conservative Democrat.
Glad to see it finally admitted to..
Have you ever wondered why no one ever talks about Southern Republicans or Northern Republicans? Because the Republican Party doesn't label its members by geographical location or liberal or conservative.
Which is why I won't bother.
You keep living in the past, telling everyone how great the Republican party was 100 years ago.
I'll keep pointing out how racist the current Republican party is.
Easy way out so you don't even have to pretend to defend your claims.
Do you see what you did there? So a political party "pilloried" a political ideology? Tell me, Tex, were the klan conservative or progressive?
"It's no use, John. Their minds are closed to facts"
Deaf, dumb, and blind . . . or is it willful ignorance?
Buckley was a conservative's conservative.
Well since Jim Crow was enacted in the 1870's, I'd say none.
Again, since Jim Crow was decades old when the article was written, your comment is ridiculous.
It makes a lot of sense when you realize that Republicans began to embrace the same kind of conservatism that Southern Democrats valued. Republicans were the minority party for decades and many of their strategists knew the only way they would ever become a majority was to appeal to the disaffected Southern Democrats who were angered by the Northern Democrats passage of the civil rights act and voting rights act.
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are." - Republican political strategists Kevin Phillips in 1970 interview with NY Times.
The more you try and twist and contort the truth the more desperate you look to divert attention from it.
If you take the party names out of the equation and just leave it with 'conservatives' vs 'liberals', which group today resembles the Southern Democrats of the 1950's & 1960's? Which group is almost entirely made up of white Christian conservatives who defend confederate monuments, fly confederate flags and attract the vast majority of white supremacists, KKK members and white nationalists? Which group are often anti-immigrant, anti-diversity, anti-lgtbq? Which largely control the local and State governments of every former confederate State? Which group continues to complain and whine about integration policies like affirmative action? I think the answer is clear and is exactly why many left one party that no longer represented their beliefs and ideology and joined the other that, while once being a champion for minority rights and liberal policies such as abolition, was now embracing their brand of conservatism.
A few decades ago if you saw a parade going through the middle of a Southern State town flying confederate flags you'd have said they were obviously Southern Democrats, now we all know that same parade is almost entirely made up of Southern Republicans. They haven't changed that much, they still live in the same places, still hold to the same beliefs as their parents and grandparents, cling to their bibles and guns and their deep seated prejudices that have been passed down from one generation to the next. The only thing that changed was the party name and that they had hid their prejudice behind a thin veneer of what they called "Southern hospitality" which was just short for "as long as minorities stay in their place we'll smile and wave at them happily from across the tracks".
That's an ironic statement Tex.
YOU on one hand dismiss Buckley's conservative views as 'written long ago by a man long dead now' but insist that Democrats of TODAY should be held accountable for the actions of Democrats actions from 'long ago by men long dead'.
Considering the fact that YOU continually ignore that Democrats have 'changed their views' WHY do you think it's relevant that Buckley did?
Clinging desperately to their bibles, guns, and ignorance . . . .
I fail to see this as anything other than a hit piece on conservatives. interesting that it is from well into he past century.
WHY do you advocate for research on how his views changed when the empirical evidence that Democrats have changed doesn't matter to you?
I just wanted you to be informed before posting anything else.
too late. I see
He refuses to even acknowledge that the majority of Democrats had changed back in the 1960's since it was a majority of Democrats who passed the 1964 civil rights act and 1965 voting rights act and a Democrat President who signed them into law, why would he admit that today Democrats are obviously completely opposite from the Southern Democrats of that time who fought tooth and nail against civil rights? All he can focus on is the word "Democrat" because that plays into his warped narrative and makes him feel better about his chosen conservative Republican party that he refuses to admit has any white supremacist taint at all contrary to all current evidence. He doesn't care that nearly every white supremacist and Neo-Nazi and KKK leader of today have professed loyalty and support for Trump and the conservative Republican party or admit they are the only party defending confederate monuments and the confederate flag. Republicans haven't been the party of Lincoln for a long time, why would the party of Lincoln protect confederate monuments? But some still want to cling to that fantasy and just use the party names of the past to vilify and paint modern Democrats even though they look nothing like the racist Southern Democrats of half a century ago.
Your failure.
Why deflect with a personal comment Tex?
Why not just answer my question?
Because that is all he has.
Because it cannot be answered by his "Democrats bad - Republicans good" rolodex of answers. It is also not answered by "that's what you are, what am I?"
lmao
And that's their 'A game'
LOL!
lol
I may indeed spend too much time laughing. but. come on, dude. y'all are as funny as hell!
Don't worry, be happy!
Just. Let. It. Go.
lol, keep trying!
Awfully gleeful for being wrong every time!
That is a great idea.
what do you think I got wrong?
you may quote me, but please ensure you do so accurately. none of this claiming I said or meant something unless you can quote it.
Very, very good!!!
And you actually quoted me accurately!
Care to answer my question, Tex? Were the klan conservative or progressive?
The KKK was largely Democrats, as you probably well know, or should, anyways.
You didn't answer my question. Were they conservative or progressive? You do understand the difference between a political party and a political ideology, right?
I answered, you just didn't like it.
Why do only Democrats differentiate between conservative and liberal party members when it is all the same party?
No you didn't, Tex. It's a simple question. And you're obviously dodging it.
Since you seem to be able to differentiate between conservative and liberal, I'll ask again. Were the klan conservative or liberal? It's an easy question, Tex.
The Klan was largely conservative Democrats.
As you should know by now with any effort on your part to learn it.
Did the Democratic Party shun its conservative members?
Kick them out or anything?
So they were conservative. So which party would the klan align with today?
I often wonder if the conservatives today would have been Republican or Democrat 50-60 years ago.
They didn't need to. As Dismayed Patriot pointed out earlier:
You can try to erase or ignore history, but I won't be participating in that.
I get that Democrats WANT to distance themselves from the horrible things that happened under their party banner. But they can't erase what happened
That's a copout, Tex. I'm not trying to erase or ignore anything. You are though by denying that the Democrats were once conservative and now they are progressive.
I can only imagine how different this country would be if people like you stopped focusing on party and started focusing on ideology. Because if they did, they would realize conservatives have been on the wrong side of history on every social advancement issue from slavery to women's suffrage to civil rights et. al.
Sure, sure, it was all conservatives, just many of those conservatives were proud Democrats.
Thanks for proving my point.
Thanks for finally admitting that they were Democrats!
I never denied it so not sure what your point is.
Care to answer this question since you seem to be so caught up on party affiliation? Which party would the klan align with today?
Which party aligns itself with the Klan today?
I asked you a simple question, Tex. Why do you have such a hard time answering simple questions?
I'll answer yours though. Hopefully neither one. Your turn. Can you do it?
I don't give a fuck who the Klan aligns itself with. Not something either party can control now, unless they are Klan members themselves.
[deleted]
You're the one hung up party affiliation. But I see you can't answer simple questions without deflecting so I see no reason to continue with you.
PS.. I'll bet you do know which party the klan would align with. And I know why you refuse to answer. I'm done here.
I am IMPRESSED!!!!!!!!
You managed to accurately quote me TWICE now!!
Whoo Hooo!!!!!
Yes, they did by pushing progressive and liberal ideals and policy. They pushed for civil rights, they pushed to get rid of bans on interracial marriage, they pushed to get rid of bans on gay marriage, they pushed for lgtbq rights, they pushed for women's rights and equal pay for women, all things that conservatives fought to conserve. How is this news to you? How are you still clinging to the delusion that the Democrat party of today shares anything with the conservative Southern Democrats of half a century ago when they are so blatantly and obviously opposite and opposed to everything the Southern Democrats stood for? Why do you so desperately cling to the shared word "democrat" as if that means jack shit today? The facts are clear, the Democrat party of today share nothing with the conservative Democrats of 60 years ago other than a word just as conservative Republicans share nothing with the party of Lincoln from 160 years ago. Considering how wrong you've been in almost every post so far, perhaps you should take your own advice when it comes to trying to falsely paint Democrats of today with the racist brush of last century and "Just. Let. It. Go.".
The Democratic Party certainly did not shun its conservative members.
No way they were willing to give up the power those conservative Democrats afforded them.
Is that why there are soooo many self proclaimed conservatives among their ranks today? Oh, wait... only the Republican party is chock full of those self proclaimed conservatives who cling to their bibles and guns and defend confederate monuments and memorials and are often seen flying confederate flags in their parades and in front of their homes and have almost universal support from white nationalists, white supremacists, KKK members and neo-Nazi's today. Your tired narrative of trying desperately to stick the conservative Southern Democrat label to the Democrat party of today is beyond moronic, it's completely laughable. I don't expect you to give up trying though, you no doubt have too much invested in trying to deflect and obfuscate the truth to protect your precious conservative Republican party no matter how ridiculous you appear.
I like you.
You are entertaining.
You've participated in ignoring history when it's bolsters your agenda Tex.
Prove it!
He ignores the fact that Democrats used to be conservative but are now progressive because it doesn't fit his narrative.
Links to this article don't prove what I asked--as usual, I guess!
Why not Tex. I stated:
You demanded:
BOTH of the links to YOUR comments in THIS thread are examples of YOU participating in ignoring history to bolster your agenda.
THAT is a fact.
I bet he just cut and pasted it, otherwise, it would have been all out of whack.
that is not even close to a fact, but at least I now know about the alternative world you inhabit.
lol!
How about 'we' let 'our readers' follow the links and decide for themselves?
Sadly, another devolution to personal comments because of a lack of worthy contribution.
Please instruct us exactly how the fuck one would manage to 'accurately quote' a member WITHOUT cutting and pasting their statement. I'll wait...
Well for those of us that understand the English language, we are able to quote something by typing the exact same thing that the person you are quoting did.
Cutting and pasting is just fucking lazy
You must cut and paste a lot.
WTF does understanding the English language have to do with using computer functions?
Well gee bugsy, did YOU type the exact same thing that I posted and just pretend to block quote it or did you use the 'fucking lazy' method?
Look, I (WE) get it. You dug yourself another hole you can't get out.
let me put it in another way...
You said that someone cannot "accurately" quote someone without cut and pasting the comment.
I showed you how stupid of a comment that was. get it?
And by the fucking way, Dulay, I did not cut and paste anything in this "conversation"
You're just mad you lost another argument.
Go ahead...the last word that you so cherish is on you.
Actually, I said no such thing bugsy. It's pretty fucking hilarious that you are misstating MY comment in a thread where YOUR 'we' are whining about being misquoted.
I get that YOU block quoted [copied and pasted] my comment and then stated that doing so is 'just fucking lazy', which is utterly hypocritical.
Why post that lie bugsy? 'WE' can all see that you DID copy and paste my comments in your 1.1.112 AND your 1.1.115 replies.
That is a delusional comment.
Your comments are becoming more and more personal. Why?
Let me explain basic computing to you.
Highlighting a comment, then hitting "reply" is not cutting and pasting.
Cutting and pasting is when you highlight a comment, right click your mouse or pad, click on "cut", then move your pointer to where you want the comment, click one time there, right click, then click on "paste". Your comment should show up there.
BT fucking way, Dulay, accusing someone of lying is considered a CoC violation, but I guess because you have a HUGE D next to your name, it is perfectly accepted on here.
I can't believe I have to explain basic computing.
Bullshit. It's merely cutting and pasting within a window.
Actually, I stated that your POST is a lie. That is a perfectly acceptable comment within the CoC. Read more carefully.
Flag it and stop whining about it.
I can't believe that you think you could.
Call it what you want, Dulay. No matter what you want to call it, it is still not "cutting and pasting".
As far as calling me a liar, you did so, simply by stating an original post by me was a lie. I don't flag very much because I prefer stupidity to stand loud and clear. That's why your CoC violation still stands.
BTFW, Dulay, I forgot to say "you're welcome" for the education.
You're welcome.
Use it wisely.
See how easy that was? You can just type it out and still have a direct quote.
Maybe your little friend above can use those words of advice.
Actually what I call it is 'copying and pasting' and that's what the NT block quote function is AND what r.t.b did.
NOTHING was 'cut' from Tex's comment, in fact the cut function isn't available after highlighting part of a members comment. So it was COPIED and pasted, NOT cut and pasted.
I can't believe I have to explain basic NT functions to a self proclaimed expert.
You lose the bet.
She's not playing with a full deck in the first place
If it is that important to you to be "right", then OK, he COPIED and pasted, not cut and pasted.
However, I have a 12 year old nephew that has better "debate" skills than some on here.
The appropriate term is ACCURATE.
We all want our kids to exceed their parents.
Good to know yours know how debate.
Bob obviously reads Salon. What you and he need to do is be fair when you decide to write about any historical figure. By the time William F Buckley ran for mayor of NYC in 1965, eight years later, he had changed his views considerably. He was the first & leading Conservative to endorse affirmative action. He also promised to crack down on labor unions that discriminated against minorities in addition to advancing a welfare “reform” plan whose major components were job training, education and daycare. One other thing. That National Review article was completely out of step with the thinking of Republicans, such as Dwight Eisenhower, at that time.
Oh the horror ... Bob's article didn't come from Salon.
So.....if William F Buckley can change his spots, why can't Democrats such as Robert Byrd?
Why? William and Robert were zebras, one was black with white stripes and the other white with black stripes obviously.
I imagine he concluded it would be hard to get elected mayor of NYC if his racist flag was flying.
In February of 1965, Buckley debated James Baldwin at Cambridge University. Are you familiar with what Buckley said and how he was received ?
from the book "The Fire Is upon Us: James Baldwin, William F. Buckley Jr., and the Debate over Race in America by Nicholas Buccola
The interesting thing about all this is that we are still seeing some of these arguments being made by the right 60 years later. "Black culture" , or Native American culture, or hispanic culture , or Asian culture, threaten western civilization. Supposedly.
Is that what the alleged 'cancel culture' is all about?
Oh by the way, something like 70% of the Cambridge students in attendance at the debate , which was about 750 students, voted afterward that Buckley lost the debate.
No, no, no, no, no and don't ask me why . . . or why not
When did I bring up Robert Byrd?
Not in this seed, but there have been plenty of times in the past where you or your comrades have brought him up and reminded everyone that he was a member of the KKK at one point in his life.
So. Why is it ok for Buckley to change his spots but Byrd will never get credit for it from you guys?
Am I interested in how either Buckley or Baldwin were received? No, I'm not, but thanks for the opinion piece. For anyone truly interested - the actual debate can be found on You-tube. What happened after Black Americans had won their civil rights in the 60's, was that the modern progressive movement decided to go in a different direction, in which the idea's of equality taught to us by MLK were rejected & replaced with what is recently called "equity." Equity seems to mean reparations and an equality of results based on race rather than merit. That's the discussion we should be having rather than a thinly veiled attempt to smear Conservatives.
What nonsense.
By the way, Buckley's racist comments during the debate were met with resistance in the form of audible noises from the audience at various times during his speech, and questions from the audience that objected to what he was saying.
The Buckley - Baldwin debate took place early in 1965, well before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed or put into effect. (August) At the time of the debate Mississippi as well as other southern states were still trying to prevent Negro voting.
As far as Martin Luther King goes, he fought for equal rights up until his death over three years after the debate.
As I noted in connection with this article, and as I am sure you are aware, some conservatives today claim that black lives matter is a threat to "western civilization". There was another article on Newstalkers yesterday, where a far right advocate suggested that exact thing. But claiming blacks seeking rights is a threat to "civilization" doesn't just pertain to today's demand for equity, it was being used as Buckley's main argument in the debate with James Baldwin 56 years ago.
I'm only responsible for myself. Most of the good people are gone.
So. Why is it ok for Buckley to change his spots but Byrd will never get credit for it from you guys?
The worst straw man argument ever. This seed is a smearing of Buckley and you are the only one talking about Byrd.
That may be the most ridiculous sentence ever seen on this forum.
The seed is a word for word reproduction of a William F Buckley column in his National Review magazine from August of 1957. It's his own fault it was vilely racist.
That's in the eye of the beholder, John. There is a huge difference between what a real racist is and the millions that have recently been called "racist."
The Buckley - Baldwin debate took place early in 1965, well before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed or put into effect. (August) At the time of the debate Mississippi as well as other southern states were still trying to prevent Negro voting.
I don't need you to tell me. I lived through all of that. I watched the debate quite a few times and I was keenly aware of what was going on back then.
As far as Martin Luther King goes, he fought for equal rights up until his death over three years after the debate.
And today his biggest fans would be Conservatives, his biggest critics would be progressives.
As I noted in connection with this article, and as I am sure you are aware, some conservatives today claim that black lives matter is a threat to "western civilization". There was another article on Newstalkers yesterday, where a far right advocate suggested that exact thing. But claiming blacks seeking rights is a threat to "civilization" doesn't just pertain to today's demand for equity, it was being used as Buckley's main argument in the debate with James Baldwin 56 years ago.
Black Americans have their rights in addition to protected status. It's no longer about what they want. It's about where white progressives want.
Conservatives have been trying to co-opt King's message for years, based on one sentence.
That is the sum total of what most conservatives know or like about King, who was a radical for equality his entire life. Few conservatives would be fans of King's entire message.
It's not ridiculous, John. There are those who change their views and those people should be viewed in their totality. Cancel culture, which is a hateful, vicious disease wants to smear people based on something they said or did at some point in their lives. So Salon magazine dug up this old piece and we are suppose to gather together to condemn the most brilliant man in two generations. How about we dig up those 4 years of articles that did no more than call Donald Trump names?
You see, I can chronicle what people once said. It's the wonder of the internet.
That would be democrats. They once enslaved blacks and now they seek to use them.
And a registered Republican.
Learn the meaning of "straw man" argument.
I asked a question. You may say you only speak for yourself, but those "good" people as you call them weren't very nice and that's why they're gone. So please answer my question. But if you don't have an answer, just say so. [deleted]
Interesting statement
Another interesting statement. We see this trope (?) trotted out quite often these days
Clinging desperately to their bibles, guns, and ignorance
You are inserting Robert Byrd. There is no such person in the conversation.
[deleted meta][]]
So please answer my question.
Your "question" is not a question
But if you don't have an answer, just say so.
I gave you the necessary response.
[[][deleted]
Let's call it the era of the left.
I don't know what Salon magazine dug up. Salon magazine has nothing to do with why I posted this seed or where I found the 1957 magazine article by Buckley.
I assume you are referring to the article Bob Nelson posted by the person from the Claremont Institute. I dont know what the source of that article was but I dont think it was Salon . The article was an essay written by someone speaking on behalf of the right wing Claremont Institute which claimed that there is a civilizational struggle going on between the "good people" and groups like Black Lives Matter. The "good people" were described as Trump voters (what a stretch !). In any case , in that article the writer mentions that the founder of the Claremont Institute was an inspiration to William F Buckley. I remembered that Buckley had written about "civilization" in his writings on racial issues and looked up both the 1957 article and the 1965 debate with Baldwin.
Salon has nothing to do with it. The 1957 article from National Review and the Baldwin-Buckley debate are stand alone material.
Just admit that it's ok to continue to berate Byrd for his transgressions but not Buckely...or any rebpublican
We know that as late as 1965 Buckley was not particularly interested in seeing Negroes vote.
As for Republicans and conservatives being fans of King , how many conservatives would be fans of this ?
Gee, get with the program TG. IOKIYAAR
OMG!!!! Are you saying Dr King verged on the brink of ......SOCIALISM?????
I keep forgetting. Age ya know
How is that relevant Vic?
John posted Buckley's editorial verbatim. HOW the fuck is that 'unfair'?
So what? Buckley used his position on NR to advocate for segregation and the suppression of the votes of 'negros'. The editorial in the seed isn't the first time he did so nor was it that last. Many of those he employed at NR were as bad or worse.
Eisenhower may have been a Republican President but HE was 'out of step with the thinking of Republicans'. Proof of that is evident in the huge difference between the GOP 1952 platform and how Eisenhower campaigned and governed.
The NR was NOT out of step with the Taft wing of the Republican party.
Where did you come to the unfounded conclusion that 'the idea's of equality taught to us by MLK' didn't include reparations Vic? MLK spoke about reparations in 1968, just before the 'Poor People's March on Washington' and said 'We are coming to get our checks'.
I find it hilarious how many paleo-conservatives here are decrying a verbatim post of Buckley's speech a a 'hit piece'.
Only when they think they can invoke him to support their own agenda and it's almost always fallacious, as your 1.2.11 post proves.
Delusional.
We have that. Some want an equality of results.
The same article you did. They did it a few years ago.
assume you are referring to the article Bob Nelson posted
Nope, I don't read anything he posts. You referenced him.
The 1957 article from National Review and the Baldwin-Buckley debate are stand alone material.
Stand alone for anyone ignoring the lifetime body of work of an intellectual who tried to prevent America's decline.
Oh. I don't necessarily remember what Salon did a few years ago.
All that proves is that you make kneejerk assumptions.
Salon isn't the only media outlet that has referred to Buckley's editorial. I'm surprised that you didn't cite the Intercept article since you've posted seeds from there. Of course, the Intercept article scathingly documents Buckley's and NR's racism. It's actually quit a good article:
For the second time - you have that. You say no? Show us how there isn't a level playing field.
Vic said:
and Buckley said:"
I just thought that I would put that up for perusal where people can think about it for awhile...
So it's just a talking point. Got it.
I think it was prophetic, don't you?
NO, WE DON'T HAVE THAT.
NO, WE DON'T HAVE THAT EITHER.
Prophetic? Hardly. More of "telling" as to what someone thinks is going backwards (or atavistic, as used by Buckley in the quotation) while other people, the majority in this case, think that the direction which society is moving is positive and towards a more level playing field.
I mean, the whole paragraph is basically him saying that white people need to take control of the lesser peoples because they cannot be trusted to govern themselves and that the eventual outcome of letting these lesser peoples have power will be the destruction of "civilized" (read "White") society. I think that the majority of people can see that this is a false narrative. How you get "prophetic" out of it is... interesting.
To the contrary, America's civilization is long gone. We are now in a state of violent debate, double standards, indecency and victimology.
You perfectly describe trumpism.
It's the ideology of the left.
Nope - it's trumpturdism.
You are just too good at debating!
[deleted]
93% of the black lives matter protests have been completely peaceful. It is a peaceful movement that has had outlier violence.
[removed]
Yes, and the majority of those outliers were right wing agitators.
Without counting the loss of life and all the injured cops:
"The costs have amounted to the costliest period of civil unrest in insurance history, overtaking the 1992 Los Angeles riots that cost $775million which, with inflation according to Axios , would be $1.42billion.
Property Claim Services assessed the damage caused during the Black Lives Matter protests from May 26 to June 8.
The timeline covers from just one day after George Floyd died after former cop Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for eight minutes.
Loretta L. Worters of the Insurance Information Institute told the outlet that this case is different because "it's all over the country" and not just in one state.
"And this is still happening, so the losses could be significantly more," Worters noted.
Tom Johansmeyer, head of PCS, added: "Not only is this the first, this is the first — kind of with a cymbal crash."
Back in June, the city of Minneapolis said the looting and property damage had caused at least $55 million in destruction.
At the time, vandals had damaged or set fire to at least 220 buildings."
Thank God it was 93% peaceful and I might add about 95% underreported and close to 100% ignored by prosecutors.
The 95% of BLM protest that were PEACEFUL had NO loss of life or injured cops OR property damage.
Fail.
You must have thought I couldn't find it?
"At least 11 Americans have been killed while participating in political demonstrations this year and another 14 have died in other incidents linked to political unrest, according to new data from a non-profit monitoring political unrest in the United States.
Nine of the people killed during protests were demonstrators taking part in Black Lives Matter protests. Two were conservatives killed after pro-Trump “patriot rallies”. All but one were killed by fellow citizens."
And we will never forget this man:
David Dorn, a 77-year-old retired St Louis police officer. was shot and killed at a pawn shop on 2 June 2020. Photograph: Scott Bandle/AP
Just out of curiosity, why end a statement with a question mark? Did you get that from Fox?
Secondly, I didn't ask you to find anything. I made a statement. Your reply doesn't refute my statement.
Brought about by what and perpetrated by whom?
Violent debate. This has been a constant throughout human history, usually because someone is stepping on someone else in some form or fashion. Always have we had conflict as to how to run our societies.The only people who thought their times were not permeated by violent debate are the ones who were insulated from the debate by means of social and economic status that most often occurred because of an accident of birth.
I can't speak for most people, but I know that I just want to live and not be run over by somebody who has a Big Stick up their ass, like Buckley had.
Double Standards? Come on. Multiple double standards existed and multiple double standards still do.I would posit that the only reason you think that double standards are applied now as to then is because the double standards that existed in your youth helped you, so you did not really notice them. Now, they are trying to or have already emplaced new standards that are to the benefit of someone else. You don't need them. You are already comfortable living out your curmudgeonly existence. Stand aside, it is time for someone else to take the wheel.
Indecency is in the eye of the beholder. Quite frankly, it matters not one whit to me as long as nobody is being demeaned.
Victimology? You mean like you are doing right now?
You've been asked multiple times to show your proof of this, but somehow, you never seem to be able to do it..
I know, I know...you don't answer to me, blah, blah, blah...
The truth is you don't have any proof.
You don't have to respond.
He always does. I wonder if he has a Trump Tramp Stamp on his ass like Roger Stone has of Nixon on his back.
The truth is exactly what I said.
No
It appears some members here prefer to live in the past.
Nice, huh ?
Has echoes to today.
It appears some members here prefer to live in the past.
They are scared to death to allow others to have the same constitutional, ethical, and moral opportunities as they demand for themselves.
I can no more dismiss Buckley for being a product of his times that can I Richard Wagner for being a product of his. Both made one think.
Buckley was racist for many years and people say he changed later in life. Okay fine, his racism alone was not the purpose of seeding this article. We have people saying in our society now, today, including at least one prominent conservative voice on Newstalkers, that we need to protect western civilization and even try to mimic the way the nation was during the 1950's. One of the precepts of white supremacy is that they want to 'return' to the days when whites were the norm and everyone else needed to aspire to be like whites.
Elsewhere on NT there is an article by a right wing think tanker who is making roughly the same type of arguments Buckley was making 65 years ago.
There are no conservative voices on Newstalkers. If some beg to differ, ignore them.
Just like the alleged 'compassionate conservatives' back in the day. No such thing.
How many times have I posted "Scotty, please beam me back to the 1950s"? Who needed computers and internet back then? Those were my teenage years, and some of the best times of my life - of course it was in Canada where there wasn't the racial turmoil that America was experiencing. My only experiences back then with racism was when I was vacationing at Xmas (1954) in Miami Beach. In a department store I saw something I had never in my life seen before - certainly not in Canada - a water fountain with a sign above it "Colored Only". I used that fountain. As well, I got on a bus and went to my favourite spot to sit - the back of the bus. The driver turned around and told me to come up front. I said no, I like it here, and he said he would not move the bus until I came up front, and all the "white" people on the bus started yelling at me so I had no choice. Welcome to 1950s America.