In a strange twist of collectivist nonsense, paleoconservative David Yeagley has equated “interracial” sex with communism in a recent commentary on Why Communism Loves Indians.
“Communists say they are agents of social change. They present themselves as champions of the poor and oppressed, like Robin Hood, robbing the rich and giving to the poor.
Communists appear like apostolic Christians, who believed in sharing everything. No one should have personal property (Acts 4:32).
Equality is made as visceral as human flesh, and interracial sex its ultimate expression.”
Now, I’m a libertarian and about as anti-communist as they come. I’m also of multi-generational “multiracial” descent and “interracially” married as these ridiculous inaccurate, arbitrary terms are applied. Am I suddenly a communist by virtue of NOT being a stay-in-the-race-lines collectivist, regardless of my ideology? How would embracing Yeagley’s obvious “racialist” collectivism make me not a communist? What in the Hell is he talking about? Are those of us who can tally our so-called “races” in more than one category part of a secret world-wide conspiracy to take over the planet and force communism on everyone? What about “interracially” married conservatives like retired Senator Phil Gramm, current Senator Mitch McConnell, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, columnist Michelle Malkin and activist/businessman Ward Connerly? Are they all communists too?
Obviously, he’s implying that there’s something wrong with “interracial” relationships without being man enough to come right out and say it overtly. The fact that this is in David Horowitz’s publication is not surprising.
Yeah, I read that guy’s site today after I saw your link. Boy oh boy. I’d read about him before because he’s one of those speakers that YAF contracts out to college students. But I never realized he was such a crockpot and obvious racemonger.
People like him legitimize the whole race debate for those paleoconservatives and such who don’t want to be “ashamed” of being pro-white or whatever they are. They see him and go “see, he’s proud of his heritage.” To make matters even better, he seems to have plenty of scathing criticism for black people.
His arguments about so-called black indians, was the most non-obvious argument in favor of the absurdity of racial classifications there is. In his book, I guess you can only be one or the other..none of this being multiracial stuff.
::sigh:: Oh well…
6/30/2003 1:28
Just discovered this site.In defense of Horowitz, he doesn’t agree with every idea I have, nor with every idea of any other of his columnists. We’re not robots.
Now, you all sound as if you would deny anyone to have love for his own race, as if that would lead to disregard of other races. Why?
Love thy neighbor as thyself must also include a healthy notion of positive regard for one’s own race and cultural identity. In fact, it is a prerequisite for being able to appreciate and respect someone else’s race and culture.
Whether you happen to be a result of parents who had no regard for race or culture is not the issue. You are the one’s not facing that fact, not “man enough” to come out and say it…
Does being a mixed breed exempt you from identifying with any culture or race? If so, why? Why idolize yourself that way? You commit worse error than that of which you accuse me.
7/24/2003 12:20:16 PM
Yeagley said: “you all sound as if you would deny anyone to have love for his own race”
No sir, that’s just another way of saying you favor collectivism. Just be a man and admit it.
Yeagley said: “Does being a mixed breed exempt you from identifying with any culture or race? If so, why? Why idolize yourself that way? You commit worse error than that of which you accuse me.”
Why not be an individual instead of a “race”? How is your collectivist embrace of “racialism” going to protect us from communism. Your collectivist approach has its roots in the very thing you claim to be against. It seems to me that you are espousing the same “racialist”nonsense that Al Sharpton and Julian Bond promote. You would sacrifice the rights of the individual on the altar of group-think and herd mentality. Sorry, I’m not buying any today. Further, you seem to be implying that being of mixed-race puts one in error. How exactly is my existence an error?
You are nothing more than a run of the mill “racialist”. I pegged you correctly.
7/24/2003 12:47:15 PM
You seem a little overly concerned about “being a man,” so I won’t go there.
Everyone seems to have key words which activate his thought system. You like “collectivism” as a power word. I apparently react the same way to the word “communism.”
In the name of equality, communism denies racial distinction. (It uses race here in America only to agitate social unreast, according to the documented plan.)
To love one’s race is hardly comparable to a political position. Politicians merely USE such a disposition. If you have no such disposition, fine, but, to deny it to others on the basis of a political abstraction is ideological prejudice, is it not?
7/29/2003 2:06:29 PM
Weird flex bro, on the “being a man” thing. Neo-conservative weirdness is the weirdest of weirdness, especially ‘cuz you guys think you are wittier than you actually are in reality. Of course, your weird ass is now dead, so there is that.
Mr. Yeagley’s views are just an example of his raciat obsession with IRs, multiracials, and blacks he hates so much. His latest obseesion are about multiracials of African ancestry and how threatened he is by them. Mr.Yeagley is just plain loco in my opinion.
Stephanie
Comment by stephanie — 10/12/2005 @ 9:50 pm