—————————
freetomanifest.com team; place you can read Rosa Parks biography

—————————
freetomanifest.com team; place you can read Rosa Parks biography

People wanting to lump Southern hicks and Dixiecrats with modern “conservatives” are idiots. (Oh, sorry, at best they don’t know what they’re talking about). The most salient refutation* of such psychological projection coming from contemporary “liberals” is the existence of Woodrow Wilson (cf. above) and those pesky little Aryan writings of his libs don’t want you to know about and which — until a few months ago (thanks to scholar Ronald Pestritto) — were suspiciously out of print for over half a century.

—-

* Oh, wait, also: FDR’s early admiration for both Hitler and Mussolini. Silly me, how could I forget.

6. The Evidence: India. — As has been intimated, the evidence upon which the first-named view is based is drawn chiefly from the history of what I have called the central races of the world, — those Aryan races, namely which now dominate the continents of Europe and America, and which, besides fringing Africa with their intrusive settlements, have long since returned upon the East and reconquered much of their original home territory in Asia. In India the English have begun of late years to realize more fully than before that they are in the midst of fellow-Aryans who stayed civilization and long-crystallized institutions have kept them back very near to their earliest social habits. In the caste system of India much of the most ancient law of the race, many of its most rudimentary conceptions of social relationships, have stuck fast, caught in a crust of immemorial observance. Many of the corners of India, besides, contain rude village-communities whose isolation, weakness, or inertia have delayed them still nearer the starting-point of social life. Among these belated Aryans all the plainer signs point to the patriarchal family as the family of their origins.

[The "first-named" view, to which Woody refers]:

1. Nature of the Question. — The probable origin of government is a question of fact, to be settled not by conjecture, but by history. Its answer is to be sought amidst such traces as remain to us of the history of primitive societies. Facts have come down to us from that early time in fragments, many of them having been revealed only by inference, and having been built together by the sagacious ingenuity of scholars much as complete skeletons have been reared by inspired naturalists in the light of the meagre suggestions of only a fossil joint or two. As those fragments of primitive animals have been kept for us sealed up in the earth’s rocks, so fragments of primitive institutions have been preserved, embedded in the rocks of surviving law or custom, mixed up with the rubbish of accumulated tradition, crystallized in the organization of still savage tribes, or kept curiously in the museum of fact and rumor swept together by some ancient historian. Limited and perplexing as such means of reconstructing history may be, they repay patient comparison and analysis as richly as do the materials of the archaeologist and the philologian. The facts as to the origin and early history of government are at least as available as the facts concerning the growth and kinship of languages or the genesis and development of the arts and sciences. At any rate, such light as we can get from the knowledge of the infancy of society thus meagerly afforded us is better than that which might be derived from any a priori speculations founded upon our acquantance with our modern selves, or from any fancies, how learnedly soever constructed, that we could weave as to the way in which history might plausibly be read backwards.

Yyeaahhh—-so what that shit Leiter’s talking about? ‘Conversvatives’ (whatever that means) of “each prior era in America in the last century were, without an exception I can recall, on the morally reprehensible side of every major social and economic issue.”

Leiter missed his calling. It’s absolutely no exaggeration to say, the man would’ve acquitted himself marvelously as one of Stalin’s or Mao’s show-trial lawyers.

http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/spring2004/alexander.html

Thacker — you stole my thunder on that one.

It’s good to be mindful, too, that Woody Woo’s segregation policy was an act of RE-segregation. He merely overturned efforts at integration made by previous administrations of Republicans. Yeah, what bigots.

People should read Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism by Pestritto. Most revealing. Absolutely blows the lid off of libs’ carefully groomed conceit (as promulgated by university & media) to being the antipode to fascism. What fiction.

One may wonder what justification the winks and nudges could have except for social norms.

(And those might be totally terrible!)

It seems plausible that when we decide which winks and nudges we should respond to and how we’re usually making reference to social norms (that may conflict or just plain suck).

This reminds me of a conversation I once sort of overheard in a university hallway while waiting to get into a classroom for a class team taught by a political theorist and an economist.

[I may be making this up.]

They must have been talking about the “Cambridge 27″ and the so-called “post-autistic economics movement”, when I arrived.

Someone was questioning: “What is wrong with being autistic anyway?”

A professor said: Some researchers think that Thomas Hobbes was at least a little autistic.

I think that he then went on to say something like: “Personally, I like the idea of being completely obsessed with just how to act appropriately, even to the point of neuroticism.”

But he seemed to think that this was a defense of autism, which it does not seem like at all to me.

{It does not, that is, unless one subscribed to the theory that autism, even though it seems like obliviousness, is actually the result of hypersensitivity to social norms. Maybe that is plausible. Maybe social norms are incoherent, thus inspiring autism in those disposed to pay too much attention to them.)

This is an example of what’s wrong with trying to make sense of conversations that you only half overhear!