Obdicut—-everybody has principles and values which inform their beliefs and affect their behavior.

You want us to ascribe intent (i.e. what is in one’s brain and heart) based upon whether or not behavior conforms to your your personal political preferences.

You propose that we must accept your principles and values as the only valid template for what is right and decent.

If everything in life was as self-evident as you seem to think — then we would have no need for courts, judges, or juries. Instead, we could just consult the Obdicut Book of Ultimate Final Truth No deviations would be permitted. No alternatives would be considered valid or even considered moral options. All decisions would have to be made according to your desires.

The JBS (and many conservatives who despised the JBS) were opposed to the CRA not just because of what they thought were unConstitutional federal usurpations. They also worried that the civil rights movement was being subverted and used by radicals with a long history of involvement in Communist enterprises. Nor was this opposition limited to perceptions about “communists”. There was also the radicalism and violence associated with the Nation of Islam, the Black Panther Party, and other black nationalist groups.

I don’t know how old you are —- but those of us who lived during the 1960’s experienced a period of immense social upheaval — often accompanied by horrific acts of violence: the assassination of President Kennedy, the murders of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., and the attempted murder of George Wallace. In addition, there were DOZENS of riots in our major cities and numerous race-related bombings, arsons, etc.

One has to be familiar with the context of what was happening daily during that time before making judgments about how people reacted.

With respect to Brenner: of course I have read his dissertation. I have a copy 10 feet from me right now. Merely repeating that you are using Brenner’s examples does not address the points I made.

Again, for clarity, the JBS, as an organization, did not subscribe to racist ideology or recommend racist publications. It did not recommend or endorse mistreatment of minorities; it did not use bigoted language when referring to minorities; it did not advocate disadvantaging entire categories of Americans just because of their racial background; it did not condone or excuse violence, intimidation, or harassment and it did not solicit members from racist organizations.

As I previously mentioned, it was a JBS member (Rev. Delmar Dennis) who infiltrated the most violent Klan in our country — and who testified against numerous Klan members. Rev. Dennis was largely responsible for the convictions of real “bigots” and “racists” in Mississippi and he then was hired by the JBS as a paid speaker to report on his experiences. Significantly, he was ostracized in his community to the point where he could not find employment; his life was threatened; his wife divorced him; and he eventually had to move out of Mississippi. It is EASY and RISK-FREE for you to condemn the JBS for being “racist” — while ignoring the sacrifices of someone like Dennis.

re: #77 Obdicut

And supporting a racist system because you oppose the expansion of federal power necessary to end it is, in fact, supporting discrimination.

I can. The judicial system in the US is institutionally racist. This doesn’t require that any individual inside it actually be bigoted.

They’re not my examples. They’re Brenner’s examples. And the example he gives on those pages is Welch himself. Have you read Brenner’s dissertation?

Your argument is now simply that the JBS would eject people who were too obviously racist. I fully endorse that position.

I’m glad that you were able to refrain for personal attacks and other bizarreness in your last post. Thank you for that.