The Perverse “Conservatism” of National Review

National Review

Maggie Gallagher’s contribution to Derb’s firing is the most perverse example yet of the type of “conservatism” that you will find on display at National Review:

“As a literal child of the Sixties (I was born in 1960), I have always accepted cultural taboos on racist talk as a social good.”

As a literal child of the 1960s hippie counterculture, Maggie Gallagher has always accepted that radical leftwing social revolution is a social good.

“Race is different from anything else. A whole race of people was enslaved in my country — imported from other countries in order to systematically deny their basic human rights and American guarantees of civil rights, which stem from God not government.”

Actually, the “American guarantees of civil rights” stem from Supreme Court precedents like Brown vs. Board of Education and laws passed by Congress like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There isn’t a word in the Bible about the sinfulness of “racism” or “basic human rights” or “civil rights.”

“When slavery was overthrown, a whole set of other barriers, formal and informal, to the exercise of basic human rights by African-Americans was created and imposed to sustain a racist legal and social order, a system which lasted roughly 100 years after slavery.”

This is false.

The Jim Crow system was created in the 1890s and 1900s. It was also limited to the South. If this silly woman knew anything about history (she obviously doesn’t), she would know that the North has been generally integrated since the 1880s.

“Dismantling this government-imposed and encouraged racism was a gargantuan undertaking. Social taboos against racist language or genuinely racist ideas were part of this process.”

It was a gargantuan undertaking that was launched by communists in the 1920s. “Conservatives” are not in the business of destroying ancient traditions in the name of utopian social planning.

“At the same time, taboos against racism ought not to be allowed to shut down legitimate political or intellectual debate generally.”

Mission accomplished.

“The tendency of the Left from the beginning to redefine “racism” to mean “any conservative idea or person we don’t like” is obvious.”

The Left is the dominant force in our culture. It controls the news media, the entertainment media, the universities and other culturally sensitive institutions.

The way this works is that the Left determines who represents the sock puppet Right by hand picking its “conservative” opposition and by excommunicating anyone from “respectability” that violates its norms.

Professional conservatism is on the same level as professional wrestling. In order to be a “mainstream conservative,” you are required by definition to renounce conservatism and embrace liberalism, and respect the “prevailing system of taboos” that has been established by the Left.

“Because taboo-setting on racist speech became a pathway to power, including the power to exclude and marginalize the taboo-breaker as racist — the inevitable incessant temptation concerning this taboo is to politicize it, to use its power to exclude and marginalize not those who are genuinely racists, but just one’s political opponents.”

As previously noted, the Left is culturally dominant in America, and the official Right is merely its sockpuppet. That’s why there seems to be a “double standard” when it comes to race.

It is not really a double standard because there is no equality in the power relationship. The Left is dominant. The sockpuppet Right is submissive. Its owes its very existence to recognition of its legitimacy by the Mainstream Media.

“Because power corrupts, I do not see any way around this temptation except to honestly attempt to draw and sustain an important moral line. And to resist efforts to politicize it, or worse, to expand it to ever new categories of victims. The story of race in this country is sui generis. Nothing else is like it.”

(1) Who drew the “moral line”? The Left drew the moral line.

(2) Why did the Left draw that “moral line”? The Left drew that “moral line” because it reflects its own political self interest.

(3) How did the Left draw that “moral line”? Through its control of the mass media in the 1950s and 1960s.

“I don’t know in the post-web era if “respectable” opinion exists or means anything anymore.”

What does “respectable” mean? It means “respectable” in the eyes of the dominant liberal media. Sufficiently close enough to their point of view to prove useful and non-threatening.

“I do know the conservative movement I joined is profoundly pro-individual, pro–human rights, and ideologically opposed to racism.”

This is just bizarre.

In what sense can you possibly describe the radical overthrow of ancient traditions by utopian social engineers using the centralized power of the federal government as “conservative”? Besides the sense in which Hulk Hogan, Triple H, and the Undertaker are wrestlers?

What is meant by a conservative movement that is “profoundly pro-individual”? How can you be “profoundly pro-individual” while demanding absolute conformity to BRA’s racial etiquette? If you were really “pro-individual,” the existence of contrary opinions wouldn’t bother you.

“For NR to kowtow to outside pressure would be weak, but drawing the moral lines we are willing to stand on as a movement is leadership.”

If National Review didn’t kowtow to outside pressure, it wouldn’t be recognized as “respectable” or “legitimate” in the eyes of the Left. It wouldn’t be playing its assigned role in the system. Some other “conservative” magazine would be recognized as the official opposition and you wouldn’t be an employee in a New York City office.

Why does NR kowtow to outside pressure? That’s exactly like asking: what’s the original recipe of Kentucky Fried Chicken?

“… the game is rigged by the Left.”

Of course it is: that’s why you work for the “flagship” of American conservatism, not Derb or Jared Taylor.

“But the views expressed by John Derbyshire in this one piece are in fact, racist, if that word means anything.”

So?

“Who are we as a movement? Does the U.S. conservative movement include genuine honest racism, openly (however politely) expressed?”

A sockpuppet of the Mainstream Media? A laughingstock? The false opposition? The biggest racket in America?

About the Author

Hunter Wallace
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

49 Comments on "The Perverse “Conservatism” of National Review"

  1. Oh nos!!! Not da racism!

    Conservatives are such pussies.

  2. Conservatards*

  3. You just deconstructed and exposed her entire goody goody gum drop article for what it is. These people are nothing but the servants of the cultural marxists in this country. Good work Hunter.

  4. Hunter, I think Faust (and others) have already stated this in one form or another over the past weeks and months, but I too hope that you live to see your work recognized and rewarded for the gold it is.

    We are lucky to have you.

  5. Just to show how fucked up things are, she’s getting killed by (I guess) NRO readers in favor of gay marriage.

  6. Chinese are raysssisss! See comments section. H/T chimpout.

    http://www.chinasmack.com/2011/pictures/africans-in-guangzhou-opportunities-discrimination.html

    the Chinese predict Al Sharpton will soon arrive in Chocolate City.

  7. Was any notable conservative ever in favour of human rights? That’s a concept alien to “conservativism”. (Argue about the spelling)

    That’s just something that does not gel.

  8. Exactly, John. The problems is, as Hunter has written, that “conservatives” always ceded the highground in every battle of the Culture Wars. Conservatives, as well as the Marxists, worship at the alters of the gods of Equality, Democracy and Tolerance. I love this site and it’s comments, because we seek to tear down these false idols and trample them underfoot. I’m convinced it is the only way to win.

  9. RobRoySimmons | April 14, 2012 at 1:31 pm |

    She basically stated that “anti-racism” is a fraud then concedes to the chains. Very well stated HW, the alt-right is the only source for intellectual discourse in this country. The Left has only crackpot metaphysics for its damaged constituents and the right wing of the establisment is completely servile.

  10. Perhaps the prevalence of “Magical Negroes” on TV, adverts, columnists, anchors, politics, sport is evidence that the official discourse On race in America has narrowed down to such an absurd point that it is unsustainable.

    The discussion we are allowed to have about each other is so heavily censorsed (on one side) that it simply has no legitimate function anymore. It reflects a fantasy world that we are supposed to: “ought” to live in, or “should” live in–determined by an arbitrary moral philosophy that has no precident in human history.

  11. RobRoySimmons | April 14, 2012 at 2:17 pm |

    She has the mind of a child and she is quite proud of that fact. If she were asked if she believes in the Blank Slate Theory I don’t think she would equivocate for a second before saying yes. (Though some people try and finesse an answer, knowing full well it is a fairy tale)

    The BST is also the battering ram ideology against all tradition that she cherishes, she is doomed.

  12. more of the same | April 14, 2012 at 2:42 pm |

    Just what the hell are “human rights” anyway? Who started that one? You hear everyone talk in a matter of fact manner about them.

    Want to have some fun? Ask a human righter if the White race has a “human right” to exist and not be subjected to genocide.

  13. Indiana Mike | April 14, 2012 at 3:00 pm |

    This is an actual article from National Review? Good grief, It reads like a forward to a textbook on “white priviledge”

  14. Watching MSNBC. They are doing a segment on human sex trafficking. Minors women etc.

    They compared it to slavery. It used to be called white slavery. The presenter is a dreadlocked mulatto.

    Anyway, who do you think most of the traffickers are? It’s not Anglos. Mainly blacks. They failed to talk about pimps or at least use that word. In the UK the sex traffickers are invariably Pakistani or Africans. Preying on a mix of white under and over age girls.

    Admittedly the Russians have a reputation for this bu. The presenters are NOT talking about who is actually in the criminal gangs. Fckn DWL and their pets.

  15. Confednnorth | April 14, 2012 at 3:12 pm |

    Many years ago, I noticed that the ‘conservative’ movement in my neck of the woods was timid or divided about race. They were especially nervous about the ‘Jooos’. I heard one ‘leader’ wail “If we say anything about them, we’ll be blown out of the water!” At that time in my life, I wasn’t a hard-core believer in black inferiority, iIwas however, very leery about the Jews, because I was becoming somewhat knowledgeable about the Talmud and Jewish political extremism. But now, thanks to the rising tide of black crime in my town, what I see of the same in other cities, reading honest books about black culture like Scam and Negrophillia, and the hypocritical way many whites will accuse you of being a ‘racist'(?!) because you object to immoral or criminal behaviour by minority groups, I now see that a conservative movement that doesn’t take race realism into account is totally useless to provide leadership for a country, nation, or even a neighbourhood.

  16. http://m.thegrio.com/opinion/no-one-can-imagine-what.php

    it’s disproportionatly a black thing to sex traffic. MSNBC. Please at least report who is doing it.

    Blacks enslave each other. They are mental thralls.

  17. “The U.S. Department of Justice reported that as of September 30, 2008 there were 1,229 alleged incidents of human trafficking. Of human trafficking suspects for whom a race designation was available, blacks represented the largest category (36 percent). Furthermore, blacks accounted for the largest percentage of overall sex trafficking suspects at 44 percent and the largest percentage of child sex trafficking suspects at 52 percent. The U.S. DOJ also reported that blacks also accounted for 21 percent of alleged human trafficking victims. That is a scary number considering that blacks made up only 13 percent of the population in the year 2000.”

    it’s almost all blacks doing this. Add in Foreign gangs: Hispanics and Arabs and it appears white Anglos are disproportionately disconected from this modern day “slavery”. Indeed we and our Beloved daughters and sisters are the victims of darkies.

    You would not know this listening the screeching Red Guard Mulatto on MSNBC.

  18. Fuckers. We really are at war: Blacks and stupid purblind DWLs connected at the fucking hip.

  19. Melissa Harris-Perry. Underage sex traffic in America.

    It’s No Limit Niggas 52% of the time honey. Just say it! Come the fuck on admit it.

  20. Melissa is attempting to blame Village Voice’s Backpage for the biz. It’s your bro’s Melissa. Trayvons, Tahquons, Tahreems, Tavavious… Whatever nutty fucking name they come up with next.

  21. Playing Roots Backwards | April 14, 2012 at 4:32 pm |

    One more name for the (s)hit list.

  22. Vox Validus | April 14, 2012 at 5:18 pm |

    You can always tell the cultural retards by their use of the communist made up word….” racism. ” The term racism was never in the the English language. It was invented the a communist Jew Leon Trotsky.

    It’s only real purpose is as a stop word to any meaningful discussion where the ridiculous claims of cultural Marxist, libtards, Neo Cons and Judeo Christian brotherhood of man can be disproven and shown for the destructive lies they are.

  23. What the HELL is the Colonel thing all about? That is Mel Gibson. How did he get Sollenberger to do that? That was awesome!!!

    FYI – I know people who know him, and his Dad. I’ve heard stories…

    The new flick he’s working on….can’t wait.

  24. Me too Denise …..Give em HELL, Mel!!

  25. I’m currently penning my position on Freedom of Association, because I’m tired of seeing ethnopatriots stupidly champion segregation. Segregation was a systematic abuse, using illegitimate gov’t power to force Whites and Blacks apart. Integration is a systematic abuse, using illegitimate gov’t power to force Whites and Blacks together.

    They’re both authoritarian. Perhaps more to the point, they’re both un-American.

    I say we smash authoritarianism altogether; let people decide for themselves how they will live.

    We need a broad, explicit Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing Freedom of Association.

  26. Segregation: massive gov’t abuse of power for the purposes of social engineering (and of course, justifying increased gov’t power and intrusion).
    Integration: massive gov’t abuse of power for the purposes of social engineering (and of course, justifying increased gov’t power and intrusion).

  27. I’d much rather see White libtards free (and encouraged) to breed with Blacks. In fact, I really wouldn’t mind if they chose to enforce Integration on themselves. In fact, I kinda like that idea.

    I just don’t want anyone forcing any of this shit on me, or anyone else who doesn’t want it.

  28. “The tendency of the Left from the beginning to redefine “racism” to mean “any conservative idea or person we don’t like” is obvious.”

    The inevitability of the broadening of any exceptions to our Rights and Freedoms is obvious.

  29. On that video. If that carriage had been whites only, you could safely bring a small child and not have them witness two blacks behaving like monkeys.

    Snackman would have been just sitting down reading a paper. He would not have needed to go Sondercommando.
    Blacks should not share space with us. Really.

  30. http://www.chinasmack.com/2011/pictures/africans-in-guangzhou-opportunities-discrimination.html

    Anyone who doesn’t understand the term, “Chinese Fire Drill,” load that page.

    I’m continually amazed at Yellow competence.

  31. The Africans surrounded the cop station demanding cibil rights. That’s how it starts. Pretty soon they will elect mayors. A half breed will rise among them and become Premier , Soon NOC “Nation of China” activists will say Confucius was black really… You know how it’ll go.

  32. That chinasmack comments section is priceless! I like this one:
    “Chinese people know their place and are orderly wherever they are, an active and motivated people… As for black people, they are lazy and carefree wherever they are, and like to cause trouble, not diligent in learning, nor in work. One day, Guangzhou too will have riots, beating, smashing, and looting and then they’ll recognize their mistake, and be paralyzed. While Han people are limited form having children and these black people have so many, what will we do when they come? Paralyzed. Go to Xiaobei, it’s all black people, I don’t even know if I am in Guangzhou or Africa.”

    One day it dawned on me that the habits of the three primary races can be seen in how each crosses at a crosswalk. The White will use the crosswalk in traffic and wait for the green light, the Asian will wait for the green light even if there are no cars coming, but the Nigger will start walking across even in the heaviest traffic. They just can’t wait a minute. It explains the number that are run down in traffic like raccoons.

  33. This is why I have no worries about China supposedly becoming the new “superpower” in the world. Chinese gooks are scared to so much as lift a finger against unwelcome, dangerous niggers, even on their own indigenous Chinese soil.

  34. The question is: who is reading this trash? It reads like The Nation used to read in the 90s. I know; I subscribed the The Nation for years for their arts and cultural coverage.

  35. Ed The Department Head | April 14, 2012 at 11:01 pm |

    Hunter Wallace,
    You should look into the “opposition” parties in the German Democratic Republic and then write about how the fake conservative movement is their modern equivalent.

  36. TabuLa Raza | April 15, 2012 at 12:45 am |

    We need a broad, explicit Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing Freedom of Association. Right. For Whites only. Others are free to start swimming.

    “Rights” pertain only to those who could have developed such notions.

  37. TabuLa Raza | April 15, 2012 at 1:05 am |

    Just what the hell are “human rights” anyway? Who started that one? You hear everyone talk in a matter of fact manner about them.

    U. N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

    PREAMBLE

    Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity (huh?) and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

    Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

    Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

    Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

    Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

    Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

    Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

    Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

    ^ Top
    Article 1.
    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

    ^ Top
    Article 2.
    Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

    ^ Top
    Article 3.
    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

    ^ Top
    Article 4.
    No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

    ^ Top
    Article 5.
    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

    ^ Top
    Article 6.
    Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

    ^ Top
    Article 7.
    All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

    ^ Top
    Article 8.
    Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

    ^ Top
    Article 9.
    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

    ^ Top
    Article 10.
    Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

    ^ Top
    Article 11.
    (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
    (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

    ^ Top
    Article 12.
    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

    ^ Top
    Article 13.
    (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
    (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

    ^ Top
    Article 14.
    (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
    (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

    ^ Top
    Article 15.
    (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
    (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

    ^ Top
    Article 16.
    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    ^ Top
    Article 17.
    (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
    (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

    ^ Top
    Article 18.
    Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

    ^ Top
    Article 19.
    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

    ^ Top
    Article 20.
    (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
    (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

    ^ Top
    Article 21.
    (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
    (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
    (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

    ^ Top
    Article 22.
    Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

    ^ Top
    Article 23.
    (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
    (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
    (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
    (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

    ^ Top
    Article 24.
    Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

    ^ Top
    Article 25.
    (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
    (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

    ^ Top
    Article 26.
    (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
    (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
    (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

    ^ Top
    Article 27.
    (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
    (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

    ^ Top
    Article 28.
    Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

    ^ Top
    Article 29.
    (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
    (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
    (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

    ^ Top
    Article 30.
    Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

    History of the Document

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, was the result of the experience of the Second World War. With the end of that war, and the creation of the United Nations, the international community vowed never again to allow atrocities like those of that conflict happen again. World leaders decided to complement the UN Charter with a road map to guarantee the rights of every individual everywhere. The document they considered, and which would later become the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was taken up at the first session of the General Assembly in 1946. The Assembly reviewed this draft Declaration on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms and transmitted it to the Economic and Social Council “for reference to the Commission on Human Rights for consideration . . . in its preparation of an international bill of rights.” The Commission, at its first session early in 1947, authorized its members to formulate what it termed “a preliminary draft International Bill of Human Rights”. Later the work was taken over by a formal drafting committee, consisting of members of the Commission from eight States, selected with due regard for geographical distribution.

  38. Goodnight, TabuLa Raza!

    Just put up a link next time. I hate when people post a wall of text like that. Nobody reads all of it.

  39. Or, once I saw the letters “UN”, any of it.

  40. Robert Oculus III | April 15, 2012 at 9:14 am |

    tl;dr

  41. In Svigor’s link, one of the captions is: In practice, the main reason they like to come out at night is to avoid police inspections.

    Sound familiar?

    Then there is the caption: There are even some African bosses who through their ability and economic foundations have married and had children in Guangzhou, laying down roots in China. Photo is of an African businessman and his Chinese wife.

    Chinese wife? Look at that nose ….

    Another photo caption: A Chinese person who is familiar with Africans says: Africans are afraid of the police, so they do their best to avoid contact with the police. According to regulations, they are supposed to register at the foreigner service center within 24 hours of entering Guangzhou, but they have this fear, so they don’t go register but this actually creates problems for themselves. Photo is of a police officer checking the identification of an African personal.

    More lawlessness ….

    In 2009 July, a black person attempting to hide from the Guangzhou police inspection/check accidentally fell from an 18 meter building to his death. This incident incited hundreds of blacks to gather in front of the police station the next day in a confrontation with the police.

    The comments are telling:

    ?? [??????????]:

    What can Africans bring us besides AIDS?????!!!!
    I am a customs officer who monitors infectious diseases, just look at how many people checked that are AIDS sufferers from Africa and you’ll know we should keep such garbage far away.

    hugejob [??????]?

    To be honest, I don’t have any confidence/trust towards Africans.

  42. As for Maggie Gallagher, she is an idiot:

    “Race is different from anything else. A whole race of people was enslaved in my country — imported from other countries in order to systematically deny their basic human rights and American guarantees of civil rights, which stem from God not government.”

    American guarantees of civil rights stem from government, not God.

  43. “As a literal child of the Sixties (I was born in 1960), I have always accepted cultural taboos on racist talk as a social good.”

    Then she hasn’t learned a damn thing during her entire, sorry, pitiful, and wasted existence on planet Earth.

    Her ‘views’ are nothing less than the ideological equivalent of that sorry ‘ho’ kneeling at the feet of an uppity N*gger, crying crocodile tears over the supposed ‘sin’ of [sic] ‘racism,’ but looking like she would commit fellatio at any minute, which I saw online.

  44. TabuLaRaza | April 15, 2012 at 8:47 pm |

    I’ve got to pay my taxes- here is my two cents.

  45. stonelifter | April 19, 2012 at 3:32 pm |

    thanks for posting the link about negros in China, I got the biggest kick out of reading what they had to say in the comment section. I guess us evil White men infected them with racism

  46. Maggie Gallagher’s color-blindness actually is less “hippie” than Catholic authoritarian. She’s the sort of person who agrees with Church authorities who believe America is an international magnet, not a nation with a definable identity, and which has an obligation fill pews. She has a personal stake in this, too, having been married to a subcontinental Indian for a good two decades, even though the husband never seems to show his face in public. Her official name is Margaret Srivastav.

Comments are closed.