McMaken's article is thought provoking. I don't think there is any question that by today's standards, William Buckley, as well as most if not all of the writers of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s National Review, would have to be classified as racist. (I am reminded of Buckley's ongoing battles with Willis Carto, who Travis knows quite well by the way, but the point being, is that Buckley, the National Review, and to a small degree, E. Howard Hunt of Watergate fame, sued Carto and the Liberty Lobby on several occasions, over allegations that Buckley was a racist.....Buckley claimed that Carto was an anti-semite, and that the Elders of Zion manuscript was a forgery. All of these allegations were for naught, and made several attorneys a lot of money.
The big distinction here, is that Buckley never ran for President. Ron Paul is running for President, and remarks made fifteen years ago, or even twenty or twenty five years ago, are still pertinent to the man's character.......As McMaken points out. Bottom line? Crazy Uncle Ron is a racist too. It makes no difference that Buckley was a racist, or that Lou Rockwell or Murray Rothbard are/were crackpots. Lou and Murray never ran for President, or their charming little ditties that they have written over the years would be up for scrutiny also. On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 4:25 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > *Bill Buckley and National Review: Whites Are 'the Advanced Race' > *Posted by Ryan W. McMaken <[email protected]> on December 24, 2011 > 02:00 PM > > I find it interesting that the remnants of the Buckleyite wing of the > right wing are trying to read Ron Paul out of the movement for his alleged > racism. Yes, much better to profess a belief in equality for all ethnic > groups, and then proceed to favor policies like the drug war that > overwhelmingly punish non-whites more than whites. And then there is the > mass murder of various brown-skinned foreigners by Obama, which will no > doubt continue under any successor to Obama who is not named Ron Paul. > > The disciples of Buckley of course conveniently forget *National Review*'s > position on civil rights. Let us remember Buckley's > comments<http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1543/article_detail.asp>on > how the whites in the South have a right to government-enforced > segregation because they are "the advanced race": > > “The central question that emergesand it is not a parliamentary > question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of > the rights of American citizens, born Equalis 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 Yesthe White community is so entitled > because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.” > > Buckley and NR then go on to defend the use of government violence against > anti-Jim Crow protests: > > “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" > > Note how NR contrasts alleged "civilized standards" with opposition to the > brutal use of government force, via Jim Crow, against tax-paying blacks > strictly on the basis of race. In other words, voluntary free association > among individuals is not the "civilized" choice. And, if need be, the white > minority, which asserts segregation, is entitled to use violence to > preserve its state-enforced prohibition on free association. Thus is the > ideological patrimony of Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru and all the other > scions of conservatism who now try to crush the libertarian Ron Paul who > has always opposed such collectivist nonsense. > > Later, Buckley said that Martin Luther King may have been to blame for his > own assassination: > > "the cretin who leveled his rifle at the head of Martin Luther King may > have absorbed the talk, so freely available, about the supremacy of > individual conscience, such talk as Martin Luther King, God rest his > troubled and compassionate soul, had so widely and indiscriminately made." > > (Found in Buckley's 1969 book The Jeweler's Eye) > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
