text:
For the last time, QUIT COMPARING ME TO A NIGGER!
Monthly Archives: May 2010
The Crappy Race Of Failures
The Crappy Race Of Failures (An open letter to niggers)
Caution: Not recommended for some readers. For some, to read this letter may be hazardous to your health, if symptoms of shock followed by chest pain occur, discontinue use and contact emergency services. Not recommended for liberals, progressives, democrats, or even conservatives.
Face the facts, NIGGERS, your race are a failed race because you're a feckless, unruly, uncivilized horde of feral proto-humans. You never figured out how to live in a society bigger than one or two squabbling families. Starting thousands of years ago, everyone else on this planet without exception did – they invented religion, the idea of law, and the ideas of property and respect for the value of human life. This enabled tribes to coalesce into bigger groups and become organized. The rest is history, or rather civilization.
But your lot never did this, did they? Abstract thought and problem- solving have never been the black man's strengths, have they? Did they invent a long-lived and intellectually coherent religion? Nope. Did they ever build a city? Nope. Did they even invent bricks? Nope (the reason there's no Stonehenge in Africa is because it took more than 20 people to move the slabs of rock – clearly a non-starter in Africa, where assembling more than 20 niggers normally results in a war). Did they till the land? Nope. Did they domesticate an animal for their use? Nope. Did they invent a written language? Nope. Did they invent the wheel? Mainly, nope. Were they curious enough about what lay out across the sea to sail upon it? Nope.
And blacks are the only "humans" on this planet of which all this is true. Eskimos are more technically advanced than blacks were, despite the handicap of having no raw materials to work with other than dead fish and snow. Indians managed to domesticate the elephant. Why couldn't niggers?
So why do you fail everywhere even today? Let me offer you jigaboos a hypothesis. It's because feral behavior – innate savagery, murderous violence if annoyed, predisposition to rape many women and thus fecklessly father many children – conferred valuable survival advantages on individuals in the backward, Paleolithic milieu of Africa. But they don't help your kind in a civilized society. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the last few hundred years have not been long enough for these behaviors to have been domesticated out of you all. So you're all still at it.
Let me illustrate this for you by analogy. Technically, an American pit bull terrier and an English golden retriever are exactly the same species. They can produce offspring, if crossbred.
The former was bred to exhibit certain characteristics – wanton aggression, propensity to fight, physical strength, powerful bite, and so on. The latter was bred to retrieve birds shot and killed by its masters, and to do this, it has to have a docile, placid, non-aggressive nature; otherwise it would treat what it found as its own kill and refuse to hand it over.
Now imagine that your small children, aged maybe two or three years old, are going to be locked in a room with five or six of those dogs, and the dogs haven't been fed for a week.
Which breed would you rather lock in there with *your* children? Hungry pit bulls, or hungry golden retrievers? Or do you figure that, even though they *look* differently, they're all the same species really, so of course the pit bulls certainly won't act any differently?
All this PC crap we hear spouted in the media about how "there's no such thing as race" is just that – crap. A dog has four legs and a tail; a cat also has four legs and a tail, but that doesn't make it a dog. The superficial similarity between cats and dogs and between whites and blacks is just that – superficial. If there really were no genetic difference between niggers and humans, then presumably my white woman and I could very easily produce a black baby between us at any time, and any nigger and his ho a white one.
But we know what we'd say to them if that ever happened, don't we? :-)
Whenever blacks achieve a certain critical mass numerically in a pre-existing non-black society, they start to exhibit their natural feral behavior and to turn their environment back into a recognizably African, essentially Stone Age one. Thus, Africa has the jungle; black enclaves have "da 'hood." Native Africans were small wandering herds of marginal animals, one famine away from extinction, and which therefore fought each other savagely for pieces of territory. Large groups of "African-Americans" at liberty in the west actually deliberately break themselves down into *smaller*, tribal hordes, because they feel uneasy in and unaccustomed to a larger society. Negro gangs of twenty to fifty individuals assert their rights to "tag" other people's property through gang violence, but fail to co-operate otherwise.
For instance, a 15- or 20-strong horde of negroes was recently filmed by a security camera inside a London bank they were robbing. Once they had terrified the cashiers into handing over the money, they then fought *each other* for it, in the middle of the cashier's hall, like hyenas fighting over an antelope. Having stolen from the bank, they instantly started to steal from each other. The idea of escaping first, then sharing the swag, was just too complex for them to understand, never mind implement.
And so it goes on. You *cannot* fuse blacks into existing large societies or standalone nations because they are just plain not adapted to it. I'm sorry for you niggers and for your savagery, and I'm sorry you were born a violent black aboriginal savage in a civilized society, but I'm more sorry for the white societies that are having to tolerate all your crime while we try to absorb you.
This is why all black nations fail economically and sink into corruption, civil war, and permanent dependence on the white man's generosity.
And presumably this is also why you pathetically allowed yourselves to be enslaved: you're savage enough still to be angry about it long after it ended, but you were too backward to stop it at the time. No black Spartacus, is there, niggers? Why no slave uprisings among blacks? Slaves repeatedly rose against the Romans even they knew they'd be crucified for it, when captured.
*White* slaves, that is. They cared enough about their stolen liberty that they were prepared to risk even that. So what's different about the negro? Why did you all sit there, enslaving each other even in America, and still enslaving each other even today in Africa, until a kindly but misguided white benefactor set you free? Is it because, as slaves, you were fed, watered, and housed, and that you as a race had no ambition beyond that if it entailed doing any work or taking any risks? What are you – lazy, cowardly, stupid, or all of the above?
And you're *still* bleating about slavery now. If slavery is the root of all your problems, why did Australia prosper? England used Australia as a dumping ground when her prisons overflowed. Within a hundred years, a nation manufactured from convicts in irons had its own autonomous elected government, and barely a hundred years on from then, Australia is now a major economic power in the Pacific. And at no time have *they* niggerwhined for handouts from the mother country – in fact, if anything, it's mostly been the other way around.
You know what? It's because Australia is *white*. Oh yes it is. Just imagine if there had been a Black Australia. Look how few aborigines were able to live in Australia's climate, and now look at how many whites can. If President Monroe had sent his niggers there, they'd be niggerwhining about how Bwana dumped de po' black folks on a desert island in the middle of nowhere, so they never had a chance. Every week there'd be news of a new famine or civil war in Australia. The Africoons would be slaughtering the Aborigines, or the other way around, or whatever. The collecting tin would come out regularly, but the money would be stolen and spent on Kalashnikov s, and Black Australia would still owe Whitey billions which we'd be expected to just forget. If all those unfortunate convicts we sent out there had been black, Australia today would just be yet another Liberia – a crappy failed nation of murderous warring niggers, with one hand held permanently out for money in the general direction of Bwana. And you know it.
So quit whining and thank the white man you live in America, not in Africa.
Jared Taylor smokes a nigger in a debate on Racial Profiling on BET
Cities Start to Go Bankrupt in California
Cities Start to Go Bankrupt in California
by Jeff Davis
The financial rock slide that will eventually bury the state of California has begun.
A Reuters article reports "Two years after Vallejo, California, filed for bankruptcy protection, officials in nearby Antioch are also tossing around the 'B' word. Antioch's leaders earlier this month said bankruptcy could be an option for the cash-strapped city of roughly 100,000 on the eastern fringe of the San Francisco Bay area. Antioch's fiscal woes are standard issue for local governments in California: weak revenue from retail sales and property taxes is forcing spending cuts, layoffs and furloughs. But cost-cutting measures may not be enough to keep Antioch's books balanced, so its city council is openly discussing bankruptcy. 'We just want to alert people to the possibility,' Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Mary Helen Rocha said."
California is rapidly changing from a White state to a Third World state. Illegal aliens cost California $13.1 billion dollars per year. The highly productive and creative White people who made California the wealthiest state in the nation, are being driven out by ever increasing taxes and being replaced by Mexicans, Asians, Hindus and Pakis. The resulting heavily multi-racial state is not stronger due to its diversity. It is weaker and teetering on bankruptcy.
The article notes "Orange County Treasurer Chriss Street would not be surprised if more local governments across the Golden State sound a similar alarm. Street expects more talk of municipal bankruptcy across California because local government finances are in such dire shape — a situation underscored on Wednesday when a top finance officer for Sacramento County projected a worse-than-expected shortfall for the county of $181 million, which could force more than 1,000 layoffs from the county's payroll."
Municipalities all across the country are facing destitution due to an almost complete collapse in some places of the traditional sources of revenue, namely property taxes and retail sales taxes. When millions of people have been foreclosed and evicted from their homes, there is no one to pay property taxes. Technically speaking, the banks who have foreclosed and repossessed the homes should be liable to pay, but lots of luck to a town like Antioch in collecting taxes from some bank that has itself just been seized by the FDIC.
And in regards to retail sales, when people are unemployed and broke, they're not exactly swarming into the shopping malls and buying up lots of nonessential stuff.
So where do municipalities get money for garbage collection, police and other government services when they fall short? Usually the state or sometimes the federal government bails them out. In view of the fact that the state of California itself is on the verge of bankruptcy there's no chance of a state bail out.
If you live in Antioch, California, better hope you don't get robbed or your house doesn't catch on fire. You may call 911 and get sent to voice mail.
Vanguardists vs. Mainstreamers
Vanguardists vs. Mainstreamers
A reasonable "mainstreamer" movement is needed.
Greg Johnson has asked me to address one of the thorniest issues in White Nationalism: the quarrel between the older, "vanguardist" wing of the movement and the newer, "mainstreamer" wing. In recent weeks, Arthur Kemp has thrown gasoline on the fire and a debate has raged here and at other sites. Leonard Zeskind and Carol Swain have published books about White Nationalism that revolve around this division.
Origins and Beliefs
The lineage of the "vanguardists" can be traced back to a number of twentieth century neo-fascist fringe groups. The most prominent are William Dudley Pelley's Silver Shirts, Gerald L.K. Smith's Christian Nationalist Crusade, George Lincoln Rockwell's American Nazi Party, William Pierce's National Alliance, Glenn Miller's White Patriot Party, Richard Butler's Aryan Nations, Ben Klassen's World Church of the Creator and Cliff Herrington's National Socialist Movement. Let's be sure not to forget the oldest, most storied vanguardist group of them all, the Ku Klux Klan. A constellation of pro-White vanguardist organizations has existed on the far right since the Roaring Twenties.
The vanguardist wing has a few distinguishing characteristics: a willingness to advocate or resort to physical violence, esoteric rituals, symbols and dress, a strong or exclusive emphasis on the Jewish Question, a skeptical or hostile attitude towards democratic politics, a rigid attitude on doctrinal purity, a total rejection of incrementalism, and above all else, a belief that only a minority of Whites can be swayed to our political views, always combined with a focus on creating small organizations of the elect few. Insofar as they have a strategy, vanguardists dream of seizing power in the aftermath of their long anticipated "collapse" of the federal government.
In a certain sense, the "mainstreamers" have always existed. America was explicitly founded as a "white man's country." Racialists dominated American politics from the ratification of the U.S. Constitution until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Usually Southerners, these people were ordinary, respectable middle class businessmen, doctors, and lawyers, the traditional elites of the small towns, who found their racial beliefs under attack by a hostile liberal elite and the black underclass. They are not the sort of people who naturally gravitate towards the political fringe. The mainstreamers were pushed to the margins after America's WASP ruling class was overthrown by monied, urban Jews in the mid-twentieth century.
The split between the "mainstreamers" and "vanguardists" can be traced back to the aftermath of the Brown decision. Whereas the Klan resorted to violence and intimidation, the traditional Southern elite, the incipient "mainstreamers," created the White Citizens' Council. They litigated integration, protested in the streets, created sovereignty commissions, hoisted the banner of states' rights, invoked interposition, engaged in economic boycotts, outright refused to comply with federal court orders, defunded or closed the integrated public schools, created private academies, and voted for George Wallace in his presidential campaigns. They promised and delivered "massive resistance" to integration.
In the final days of Jim Crow, the "mainstreamers" kept the "vanguardists" at arm's length. They generally wanted nothing to do with them. Outside of the liberal imagination, there was no cognizance of belonging to a shared political movement. The mainstreamers were not the type of people who went around firebombing churches and lynching negroes. Typically, they hated fascism and took pride in America's role in the Second World War. Many of them had actually fought in Europe. These people were FDR's voters and the base of the Democratic Party. In every way, they considered themselves normal, decent, patriotic Americans who combined their racialism with a strong belief in liberty, federalism and Protestant Christianity.
Unlike the "vanguardists," the "mainstreamers" are defined by their belief in engaging in democratic politics. They believe a majority of White Americans can be persuaded to share our views. They advocate an electoral path to victory. The "mainstreamers" reject violence, strongly disapprove of vanguardist esoterica, reject or downplay the Jewish Question, advocate moderation, incrementalism, and mass membership organizations. They reject the vanguardist myth of social collapse and attack fringe groups for their lack of a practical strategy.
Since the late 1980's, the "mainstreamer" wing has enjoyed a resurgence in the pro-White movement. According to Leonard Zeskind, Willis Carto was the trailblazer with Liberty Lobby and the Populist Party. David Duke is the most notable racialist to make the transition from vanguardist to mainstreamer. He took off the Klan robes, moderated his message, and successfully ran for elected office in Louisiana. The White Citizens' Council evolved into the Council of Conservative Citizens. Jared Taylor, the most prominent mainstreamer, launched American Renaissance. Peter Brimelow launched VDARE. There are a number of other websites and bloggers pushing the "mainstreamer" point of view.
In the 1990's and 2000's, largely due to the spread of the internet and the death of "vanguardist" leaders, the "mainstreamers" wrestled back control of the pro-White movement from the "vanguardists," who had dominated the scene in the 1970's and 1980's. The typical White Nationalist is now a middle class, White male professional unaffiliated with any organization. These people are usually non-violent, college educated and internet savvy. The majority of them have been recruited online and participate in the movement exclusively in cyberspace.
The Mainstreamer Catastrophe, I
Ever since the resurgence of the "mainstreamers," a destructive myth has begun to circulate and gain traction, namely, that the "vanguardists" are responsible for the marginalization of racialists. If only the costume clowns would disappear, the Kluxers and the Nutzis, media access and respectability will follow, or so the theory goes. Hence, the triumphant mainstreamers can often be found advocating a massive purge of the vanguardists from the White Nationalist movement.
This theory rests on a severe case of historical amnesia. The "mainstreamers" once dominated the entire American nation, but they progressively lost control of it over two centuries and ruled only in the Jim Crow South by 1964. This historical process had been going on for over a century before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before the crusade against fascism in the Second World War, and long before the emergence of any of the vanguardist organizations.
The Northeast was the first region of the country to succumb to anti-racism. The American Revolution was quickly followed by the abolition of slavery in the area. Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey never passed anti-miscegenation laws. Pennsylvania repealed its anti-miscegenation law before joining the Union. In Massachusetts, the state anti-miscegenation law succumbed to abolitionist pressure in the 1830's. In the name of "liberty" and "equality," the remaining anti-miscegenation laws and the few segregation statutes in the region were repealed in the wake of the Civil War.
The Midwest was strongly racialist in the Antebellum Era. Several Midwestern states imposed stiff fines on black settlers. Jim Crow was pioneered in the region. In the Midwest, anti-slavery was often synonymous with anti-black sentiment. As in the Northeast, racial attitudes weakened in the aftermath of the Civil War, and most of the anti-miscegenation laws and segregation statutes came tumbling down in the late nineteenth century.
The West held out the longest. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that it was sparsely settled. In this region, the Indian Wars were still fresh in the historical memory. Chinese and Japanese immigration represented a potent threat to White labor. A weaker version of Jim Crow prevailed in the West until the aftermath of the Second World War. From 1945 to 1964, the Western states voluntarily repealed their anti-miscegenation laws and segregation statutes.
In the South, racial attitudes hardened after the Second World War. White liberals like Claude "Red" Pepper and Franklin Graham were thrown out of office. Southerners dug in their heels and defiantly resisted the national consensus on race. Jim Crow was overthrown by force: Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans united in Congress to defeat Southern filibusters and ratify the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The latter piece of legislation revolutionized Southern politics and destroyed White voting power in the socially conservative Black Belt counties.
In 1945, White racialists controlled the Jim Crow South. We controlled parts of the Jim Crow West. There were explicit laws that mandated segregation and outlawed miscegenation in these regions. An informal system of segregation existed in the Northeast and Midwest, but White racial attitudes had dramatically weakened there. By 1964, they had collapsed in the Northeast, Midwest, and West.
In 1964, Jim Crow was overthrown in the South. The Southern anti-miscegenation laws were struck down a few years later in Loving v. Virginia. From 1964 to 1991, White racial attitudes collapsed in the South and steadily began to approach the national norm. Simply put, the South was Americanized as the national television, radio, and print media penetrated the region and changed its culture. Hitherto, the South had remained an outlier because Southerners had always gotten their news from local newspapers controlled by segregationist editors.
The Mainstreamer Catastrophe, II
At this critical junture, the "mainstreamers" suffered a catastrophe from which they never recovered, one that had nothing to do with the "vanguardists." The bulk of racially conscious Southern Whites responded to the defeat of Jim Crow by getting involved in conservative politics. They bought into the moderate argument that the way forward was to fight the Civil Rights Movement through non-racial arguments against "big government." Instead of fighting the racial battle, they would focus instead on defending their culture. They would engage in "practical politics," strategically retreat, and extract revenge on the hated liberals who had usurped control over the Democratic Party.
The first tentative steps in this direction were taken in the 1964 presidential election when Barry Goldwater carried several of the Deep South states. In 1968, the liberal integrationist Hubert Humphrey was defeated by Richard Nixon, Wallace carried the Deep South, and the Democrats lost every Southern state but Texas. In 1972, Nixon defeated McGovern in a landslide and Wallace won several Democratic primaries. In 1976, the South was lured back into the fold by Jimmy Carter, a Southern candidate. In 1980, Reagan wiped the floor with Carter, who had been discredited as an enfeebled liberal, and again with Mondale in 1986.
In the 1990's, the Bush/Clinton years, American politics settled into its familar pattern. A socially liberal New England and West Coast became the base of the Democratic Party. A socially conservative South became the base of the Republican Party. The sectionalism of the two parties hardened under George W. Bush into the famous "Red State" vs. "Blue State" divide. The Obama/McCain electoral map masks the fact that Obama barely won Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.
To cut a long story short, the ex-segregationists became conservatives, got into the habit of voting for the Republicans, focused on "practical politics," and became steadily deracialized over the next forty years. This is where their descendants are still at today: checking the box for every fraud with an (R) beside his name.
Vanguardists Triumphant
The "vanguardists" who gained hegemony over the pro-White movement in the late 1960's, 1970's, and early 1980's didn't win through superior arguments. They inherited the mantle of White leadership by default. The "mainstreamers" suffered a catastrophic loss of their base and most of them quit the field to get involved in conservative politics. The fringe groups left behind moved into the vacuum and recreated the pro-White scene in their own image. The media happily played along.
In the late 1980's, the "mainstreamers" began to stir again, but found themselves up against the backdrop of the previous twenty years, when the pro-White scene had sunk to an all time low in the United States. They found themselves branded Neo-Nazis and Klansmen in the press. The fringe group image stuck and lots of "mainstreamers" began to draw the erroneous conclusion that it was the cause of their predicament … which brings us to where we are today.
Vanguardists vs. Mainstreamers
There is a lot of merit to both sides of this argument. In the "mainstreamers" favor, the "vanguardists" have attracted the dysfunctional, kooky, sociopathic types that are always found in fringe politics. They have been unable to create viable or stable organizations. The "vanguardists" have no strategy aside from waiting on a mythic social collapse. The costume scene is ridiculous, stagnant and brings White Nationalism into disrepute.
In the "vanguardists" favor, it is easy to talk about winning elections, but in reality it is a near impossible mountain to climb. The racial situation is so far gone that victory at present looks like a pipe dream. The "mainstreamers" might be able to achieve some political success, say, a few city councilmen or state legislators, but will never possess the majority required to enact necessary constitutional changes. The "mainstreamers" are following in the footsteps of the conservatives, but will never be as successful, and with all their electoral success the conservatives have nothing to show for it. They retort by pointing out that mass membership organizations are flypaper for the dregs of society. If that were not enough, the "mainstreamers" are accused of dishonesty and dishonorable conduct on the Jewish Question.
In my view, the critiques of both sides are more impressive than either of their platforms. I come down somewhere in the center of this debate. I can see a need for "practical politics," but I am convinced that it shouldn't be our primary emphasis. We should spend roughly 80% of our time and resources trying to change the culture; 20% on building momentum and attracting new recruits through political campaigns. Without a stable cultural foundation, which I define as pulling the national discourse on race in our direction, political victories will only prove costly and temporary.
There is a residual level of racial consciousness in the Deep South. We should take advantage of that and try to build a real world base in the area. If we can't win in Mississippi and Alabama (winning is changing attitudes), we are doomed. It is conceivable that we could win a few state legislature seats and get on some city councils in this region. That will require a moderate platform: pro-identity, pro-immigration restriction, anti-affirmative action, anti-multiculturalism, anti-political correctness. For good measure, throw in some economic nationalism and cultural conservatism. This is not unlike what Kemp suggests.
The Jewish Question and White Nationalism are too radical for voters to digest. However, I don't think they should be ignored. Along with racial differences, they should be the focus of educational campaigns. There will always be websites that focus on these matters and we could use more of them. These issues will have to be introduced incrementally into the national mainstream. Once again, "incrementalism" is forcing the mainstream right to become more like us, not the other way around.
The esoterica/costumes are weird, unnecessary, and off putting. Neo-Nazism and Third Reich fetishism are losers. Holocaust revisionism is an irrelevant waste of time. Better quality control is a no-brainer. A private, invitation only "vanguardist" organization could work; every social movement needs a capable leadership. I'm not opposed to creating pro-White political action committees. As Kemp says, it is too late to create a third party. It just won't work in the American context.
After ten years, I have given up on waiting for "the collapse." It could happen, but I wouldn't bet on it. The recent economic crisis has shown that White Nationalists are unable to capitalize on fortuitious current events. We should hope for the best; prepare for the worst. If nothing else, that means keeping the pro-White flame alive like St. Benedict in the Dark Ages.
The Fringe
In dealing with the fringe, we should follow the example of the Left with the anarchists. We should keep a respectful distance and ignore them in public. Instead of slamming Neo-Nazis, we dismiss them as mostly harmless kooks and patiently explain why pro-Whites are driven to such extremes. Whenever possible, I think we should try to romanticize and rehabilitate our extremists. There should be an element of prestige to being uncompromising. The Left has done this with any number of figures: Malcolm X, Che Guevera, Stokely Carmichael, Rosa Luxemburg, etc.
Look at it this way: If a gangster like Omar from The Wire can be a sympathetic figure, President Obama's favorite television character, why not Bob Matthews or David Lane? Murderers like Jesse James and Billy the Kid have been folk heroes before. The Klan was rescued from disrepute by a single film and went on to dominate Northern states like Oregon, Colorado, and Indiana. The Birth of a Nation was wildly successful. Unfortunately, it is one of the few examples of the Right successfully using film to change the culture.
Via the Overton Window, extremists can play a useful role in pushing the margins of our national discourse. Next to a William Pierce or Alex Linder, who are unthinkable, a Jared Taylor can appear merely radical, next to a Jared Taylor, a Pat Buchanan can look "acceptable," next to a Pat Buchanan, a Lou Dobbs can appear sensible. The Left has mastered the Overton Window and has steadily pushed the cultural envelope in their direction by staking out ever more extreme positions and then running a "moderates" that appease them.
The best example of this is gay marriage. It runs completely against the grain of traditional Christian mores. It is a political albatross for the Left. It has gone down in flames in over thirty states. A few decades ago, gay marriage was unthinkable. Now the debate is over whether it is radical or acceptable. The same was once true of abortion, feminism, and civil rights. Gay marriage is starting to garner the momentum of inevitability.
Next to Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael, Martin Luther King, Jr. was seen as an acceptable moderate. FDR was seen as "moderate" compared to Huey Long nipping at his heels. The argument was successfully made that we had to enact civil rights reform, affirmative action, or the minimum wage/social security to stop radicals from swooping in and taking over. The fringe has been exploited and put to good use by more capable men in the past.
Final Thoughts
I will let this stand as my decisive statement on the issue. A reasonable "mainstreamer" movement is needed: one that incorporates "vanguardist" insights, one that doesn't scapegoat the "vanguardists" for every setback, one that recognizes the fringe will always be around and has a role to play, and finally one that doesn't slip into fantasism at our chances of political success.
'Civil Rights' and Total War
'Civil Rights' and Total War
by William Norman Grigg
by William Norman Grigg
Recently by William Norman Grigg: 'Kill Them All, for God Will Know His Own'
"The Vendee is no more, my republican comrades…. The streets are littered with corpses which sometimes are stacked in pyramids. Mass shootings are taking place in Savenay because there brigands keep turning up to surrender…. [P]ity is incompatible with the spirit of revolution."
~ General François-Joseph Westermann, commander of the "infernal column" that slaughtered tens of thousands of Vendean secessionists during the French Revolution
"[F]or five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire…. Meridian no longer exists."
~ Union General William T. Sherman, reporting on the federal destruction of Meridian, Mississippi in 1862
"We must kill three hundred thousand [as] I have told you so often, and the further they run the harder for us to get them…."
"I was satisfied, and have been all the time, that the problem of war consists in the awful fact that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright rather than in the conquest of territory…."
~ William T. Sherman, the Union Army's General Westermann, in separate letters to his wife Ellen and to General Philip Sheridan, as quoted in The Soul of Battle by Victor Davis Hanson
William Sherman's march to the sea, writes Victor Davis Hanson approvingly, was a war of "terror" intended to destroy an aristocratic Southern culture he hated because of its impudence in resisting the central government's authority.
Although rarely acknowledged as such, Sherman could be considered America's first "civil rights" crusader. This isn't an endorsement of Sherman; it's an indictment of contemporary "civil rights" ideology.
While it's true that Sherman never descended to the depths of mass-murdering depravity plumbed by Westermann and his army of berserkers, he was prepared, by his own repeated admissions, to annihilate civilians by the hundreds of thousands in order to vindicate Washington's supposed authority.
Those who didn't render immediate and unqualified submission, he warned, would be "crushed like flies on a wheel."
Following Appomattox, Sherman's genocidal skill-set proved useful to the corporatist federal railroad combine, which required the removal of the Plains Indians from land that it coveted but couldn't be troubled to purchase on honest terms. In carrying out that task Sherman abandoned what little restraint he had exercised in dealing with white southerners. In the meantime, the war of federal consolidation and cultural liquidation against the South continued by way of what was euphemistically called "Reconstruction."
In theory, "Reconstruction" was the process of re-integrating the rebellious states into the One Holy Eternal Union. In practice, it was a reign of terror and plunder swaddled in the rhetoric of righteousness and carried out through the apparatus of military dictatorship.
"After the Civil War, radical Republicans sought to drastically alter the social and political structures of the states of the former Confederacy," notes historian Benjamin Ginsberg of Johns Hopkins University in his book The Fatal Embrace. "They sought to establish a regime that would break the political power of the planter class that had ruled the region prior to the war."
The "radical Republicans" to whom Ginsberg refers were Jacobins, not Jeffersonians. The most powerful figure in that cohort was the detestable Thaddeus Stevens, a Pennsylvania Congressman who, in the words of historian Paul Leland Haworth, "possessed much of the sternness of the old Puritans, without their morality."
Rep. Stevens hated the pre-Lincoln Constitution with a passion eclipsed only by that he nurtured toward the South; the document produced by the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, Stevens once told an associate, was nothing but "a worthless bit of old parchment."
As co-chairman, with Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner, of the Joint Committee for Reconstruction, Stevens adapted Cromwell's schematic for military dictatorship in England for use in administering the conquered Confederacy.
"Where Cromwell had divided England up into eleven military districts, each governed by a major general with wide-ranging powers, [Stevens and the radical Republicans] divided the South into five districts, each ruled by a military governor under the overall direction of General Grant," explains Daniel Lazare in his book The Frozen Republic:
"The military authorities banned veterans' organizations and other groups deemed threatening to the new order, fired thousands of local officials and half a dozen governors, and purged state legislatures of pro-Confederate elements as well. A twenty-thousand-strong army of occupation, aided by a black militia, enforced order…. Political rights were withdrawn from thousands of Confederates who had been granted executive clemency by the President, and all told some one hundred thousand white voters were stricken from the rolls."
As Dr. Haworth observed in his 1912 study Reconstruction and Union, military governors on the occupied South "proceeded to create a new electorate and through it new civil governments." Those "civil governments," predictably, used patronage and officially sanctioned plunder to entrench themselves.
When federal subsidies and confiscation of private wealth proved inadequate, the Reconstruction governments turned to deficit financing, driving the states they misruled into even deeper economic misery.
The Reconstruction regime, writes Haworth, was built on a "sinister alliance" between military governors, their political satraps, and state-allied secret societies within the "Union League" (also known as the "Loyalty League"). Those criminal cabals were used to enforce political discipline and carry out covert acts of terrorism against dissenters. For example, notes Haworth, League members "resorted to whipping or otherwise maltreating Negroes who became Democrats."
In South Carolina governor Franklin Moses, a "scalawag" (that is, southern Quisling) sold tens of millions of dollars' worth of junk state securities while he and his cronies pilfered everything of value.
Moses, who became known as the "Robber Governor," enforced his will through a 14,000-man militia "composed mainly of black troops … led by white officers," recounts Dr. Ginsberg. That Praetorian Guard protected Moses against enforcement of legal judgments and was deployed to harass, intimidate, and threaten potential political rivals in the 1870 election.
Similar conditions prevailed elsewhere in the prostrate South. In Louisiana, for instance, "wholesale corruption, intimidation of new voters by the thousands and tens of thousands, political assassinations, riots, revolutions – all of these were the order of the day," records Dr. Haworth.
State-sponsored terrorism in the occupied South precipitated the creation of the Ku Klux Klan – a development that could be considered the first recorded example of "blowback."
In both its ritualized, oath-bound organizational structure and the terrorist tactics it employed, the KKK was morally indistinguishable from the terrorists whose depredations inspired the Klan's creation. Unlike the Union League-aligned terrorists, however, the Klan operated without federal sanction. Thus in 1870 and 1871, Congress passed two Enforcement Acts (the second commonly called the "Ku Klux Klan Act") under which President Grant deployed troops to suppress "rebellion" in the occupied South.
The use of active-duty federal troops as a post-war domestic "peacekeeping" force "represented, from a military standpoint, the darkest days in the history of the Army," writes Professor James J. Schneider of the Army Command and General Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth. "The Reconstruction activities of Army units were unprecedented in their time, and they sound remarkably familiar today."
The occupied South was where Washington field-tested methods later used to "liberate" and "pacify" the Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries through mass slaughter and military dictatorship.
By January 1877, embattled southerners had managed to gain sufficient political traction to extract an end to the military occupation as the price of supporting a compromise awarding Rutherford B. Hayes the electoral votes he needed to prevail over Samuel Tilden (whose popular vote tally exceeded that of Hayes by roughly 164,000 votes).
Two months after Hayes was inaugurated, federal troops were withdrawn, and the Reconstruction plunderbund dissolved. A little more than a year later, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act forbidding the use of the Army as a domestic law enforcement body.
Jim Crow could be considered – at least to some extent – another example of "blowback" from Reconstruction, which did much more to exacerbate than alleviate racial hostilities in the South. Like all measures intended to restrain the Regime's powers, the Posse Comitatus measure is ignored at the whim of our rulers. Thus on more than one occasion since 1878, troops have been deployed to the South to enforce federal decrees intended to break down systems of government-imposed segregation at the state and local level.
Although the post-war military dictatorship in the South ended in 1877, the 1964 "civil rights" act is a continuation – and expansion – of Reconstruction. That act was designed and intended to make every private institution, transaction, and relationship subject to federal scrutiny in the name of abolishing "discrimination."
In principle, and sometimes in practice, the federal "civil rights" apparatus is literally making war upon Americans whose hiring policies, business practices, and private associations don't find favor with the exalted beings who have made themselves the arbiters of acceptable attitudes and social outcomes.
Those numinous creatures – as wise as the overseers of Plato's ideal Republic, as omniscient as the Guardians of Oa – are somehow exempt from the prejudices and unworthy passions to which we lesser beings are heir. They are thus suited to the task of micro-managing social affairs and compelling the rest of us to live according to their decrees, lest we be crushed "like flies on a wheel," as their predecessor "Uncle Billy" Sherman put it.
The most candid and compelling summary of this perspective doesn't come from a right-wing revisionist, but rather from Columbia Law School Professor George P. Fletcher, an establishment academic of an unabashedly Marxist bent.
In his valuable book The Secret Constitution, Fletcher acknowledges that the war waged by Abraham the Annihilator was not an effort to "preserve the Union," much less to restore the pre-war constitutional order. Instead, that war was intended to consolidate the united States into a unitary state governed by what Fletcher calls a "New Constitutional Order." In the New Order, writes Fletcher, the founding premise is that "the federal government, victorious in warfare, must continue its aggressive intervention in the lives of its citizens." (Emphasis added.)
There is nothing hypothetical about the federal aggression Fletcher correctly identifies as the central feature of the post-Lincoln Soyuz (the term "union" is inapposite here). Since, from the perspective Fletcher represents, Lincoln's war supposedly settled the question of the central government's "authority" to kill Americans in any quantity necessary to reconfigure society, there are no limits to what it can do in the interest of establishing "social justice."
"Civil rights," as the term is used today, has nothing to do with the rights of individuals apart from the role played by some members of designated classes as a pretext for federal violations of the property rights of others not granted such protected status. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, an associate professor at Princeton and self-appointed watchdog of the "radical right," makes that point with the eager earnestness of someone who assumes that her political opponents aren't listening.
According to Harris-Lacewell, the 1960s civil rights movement was valuable because it was a tool to expand and consolidate federal power.
Because of southern resistance to Washington's demands, the "legitimacy of the central state was challenged," she writes in The Nation. "[This] is why the Civil Rights Movement was so powerful. The overt abuse of state power evidenced by the violence of Southern police called into question their foundational legitimacy. The federal government had to act or risk losing its authority as a state altogether."
This is to say that the chief accomplishment of the civil rights movement was not the validation of the individual rights of those victimized by government-imposed discrimination, but rather the validation and enhancement of federal power.
For Harris-Lacewell and other acolytes of the unitary totalitarian state, Reconstruction continues to this day. The genuine outrage is not that the South was ruled for a decade by a military kleptocracy, but rather that the military dictatorship was brought to an end through what she calls "the unholy Hayes-Tilden compromise of 1877." And the chief task for the forces of "tolerance" today, she insists, is to "guard against the end of our new Reconstruction" – a system Ronn Neff perceptively describes as "polite totalitarianism," in which the 1964 Civil Rights Act is an indispensable pillar.
That measure, it should be remembered, was enacted by a government that was in the early stages of its war of aggression against Vietnam – a conflict in which, as Stokely Carmichael aptly put it, "white people [drafted] black people to make war on yellow people [supposedly] to defend land stolen from red people." The government in charge of enforcing that Act today is slaughtering "people of color" in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and (lest we forget) Detroit, and looking for an excuse to inflict its lethal humanitarianism on Iran and North Korea.
And yet, as we see in the contrived controversy over Rand Paul's views of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it is a grave civic blasphemy even to suggest that the Regime responsible for such murder and mayhem shouldn't have the power to scrutinize and regulate every aspect of private life.
May 29, 2010
William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.
Copyright © 2010 William Norman Grigg
What is Freedom?
What is Freedom?
May 29, 2010
by James P. Harvey
The word "Freedom," applied to the interaction of human beings, is a misnomer. There can be no absolute individual freedom to do things that hurt other people and expect peaceful interaction. Even if groups separate into clans of like-minded people, there is no peaceful freedom if one clan adopts a practice amongst themselves that incites hatred from their neighbors. Retribution is sure to follow if my neighbor decides he is free to injure, kill or rape any person that crosses his property. This is only one example out of many hundreds of reasonable demands that society must consider if peaceful co-existence is the goal. If my neighbor claims the right to do anything he pleases, let him never be without the means to kill me. For when his actions hurt my loved ones, or make it impossible for me to live with my conscience, I will surely kill him.
These are the things that humanity has had to deal with from the beginning, and I see no end in sight. If human beings are going to live together, or even in close proximity to one another, they must conform to an agreed set of principals. Certain geographical boundaries that are designated as States have the same responsibilities to other States, as they are nothing more than groups of people.
Remove this requirement and pandemonium will result. Make no mistake about it. I will not let my neighbor be a monster, and I will not live among people who will. One does not have to be a tyrant to co-exist, but one must respect his neighbor.
These are the reasons governments disintegrate, and why the most powerful try to control everyone else. Differing opinions on what is and is not acceptable behavior will never end as long as humans live in THIS life. Since human beings will not accept God as their sovereign, they will be subjected to this calamity. That statement identifies me in most peoples mind as one who believes the Christian Bible is the only acceptable standard for humans to co-exist; not so. Humans will never co-exist in peace in THIS life, but we are required to try.
If God's requirements are not acceptable to any man, then let him consider the problem of trying to survive in a society where no restrictions exist.
Now let us consider the ever present problem at hand. How do we, who mistakenly assume we are in agreement with the majority of other humans in America, get control of our future? Do we continue to participate in the present system of government that has left us with over a hundred years of evidence that it is not following the wishes of the majority of citizens? Do you still believe the election process is legitimately working? That is the first set of propositions to consider. If you believe it works as designed in the Constitution, please prove it! The absence of that possibility is enough proof for me.
Next, let us consider the possibility of getting the attention of our government, and elucidating our concerns and solutions. Is anyone reading this that naïve? How about getting the majority of voters to agree on changes that need to be made…do you think that will work? I'm beginning to think we're too many to agree!
Does anyone agree with that? If not, do you have a better solution than separating from the central government, and retracting into smaller State governments that assume the responsibility of negotiating a working agreement among each other?
Seriously folks, consider the possibility of every State agreeing on just one thing for starters, and that being that every State has the authority to secede without recourse from the federal government. A show of unity to the monster in DC is a sure way to discover if I'm right. I believe that they would rather kill us than part with their power.
How much more evidence do you need than seeing one seceding State attacked by the feds? And may I remind you of the civil war? How much more proof does one need, than to recall the atrocities committed by Lincoln and his supporters? Do you believe that every State was intended to be a permanent part of the whole? If so, you are ignorant of the history of our country. The perpetuity of the States union was dependent on the States legislatures. And, if you believe all we need is for Congress to follow the Constitution, then tell me why the highest law of the land cannot be enforced.
"Just throw the bums out," you say! Please tell me how that's possible. And how would we manufacture that much unity in the first place?
The tea party folks are trying to resurrect the dead. They still hold a fool's dream that the Federal Government is fixable.
If this article, the history of lost rights, and the present state of the Union does not convince you we need to do something drastic before it's too late, I fear you desperately need to become more informed about the future existence of anything resembling a republic, or even a democracy, surreptitiously called the UNITED States of America.
By placing a requirement on men of higher intellect to write a dissertation on how to reconstruct a homogeneous system of governance, we could begin to form separate States that agreed on the necessary principals to co-exist in peace. In the intervening period we could all study the history of man's attempt to co-exist in peace by a system of governance, and a plebiscite of our future attempt could be organized.
James P. Harvey
Learning How to Milk the Taxpayer
Learning How to Milk the Taxpayer
This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal yesterday
Fourteen-year-old Cornelius Thomas slipped off a raft and drowned in a high-school swimming pool earlier this month in Alexandria, La. He had never been taught how to swim. There aren't any "pools for kids to learn how to swim around here," Forest Martin, the boy's grandfather, said Tuesday as he wept.
Cornelius's drowning reflects a problem USA Swimming hopes to highlight Thursday in a report showing that 70% of African-American children and 58% of Hispanic children have little or no swimming ability, compared with 40% of Caucasian children.
Evidence of a continued swimming gap comes as the economic slowdown has cut back opportunities for inner-city kids to swim. With the approach of Memorial Day, the official start of swim season, "some cities are cutting back on pool hours if not closing pools altogether, and they're also cutting public-safety budgets, including lifeguards," says Christiana McFarland, director of finance and economic development for the National League of Cities.
What kind of logic is this? Black children are drowning so they need more swimming pools so they can learn to swim and not be in danger of drowning in swimming pools? Why not just keep them away from the water?
Why does this story sound familiar? I did a quick search and found this from the Seattle Times almost exactly two years ago.
Nearly 60 percent of African-American children can't swim, almost twice the figure for white children, according to a first-of-its-kind survey which USA Swimming hopes will strengthen its efforts to lower minority drowning rates and draw more blacks into the sport.
In two years USA Swimming apparently realized that it would need higher numbers and a few sob story spokesmen to have a better chance of getting federal funding.
The standard HBD reasons why blacks are more likely to drown are more muscle density and worse native judgement. Also, while searching the topic I found another x-factor that may explain why black females in particular might not like jumping in the water: hair.
Article Info
Richard Hoste
Richard Hoste is the editor of the HBD blog at Alternative Right. He writes prolifically on race, immigration, political correctness and modern conservatism. His blog is HBD Books, where he regularly reviews classic and modern works on these topics.
The Coming Collapse of the United States
The Coming Collapse of the United States
Igor Nikolaevich is a political scientist, an academician at the Russian Military Academy, and a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He holds PhDs in psychology and political science. Panarin has made a career of long-term geopolitical commentary, much of which has been far less rosy than that by a standard talking head on a major news network. Last year Panarin shocked the North American press: one of his predictions regarding the imminent collapse of the U.S. was widely publicized. That forecast was actually ten years old, but it suddenly made waves in the context of the deepening global economic downturn, in general, and the American bailouts, in particular.
In the interview with Economic Strategies, Panarin suggests that what we are seeing today is the crash of a 600-year cycle of global development. This cycle is based on two major components — the drug trade and the slave trade — the foundation of all European colonial empires, especially the British Empire. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union marked the near-exhaustion of this particular geopolitical model.
Let me remind you that since 2006, the Fed has not been providing any information about the number of dollars it prints, even at the request of the Congress. Consequently, ideologically [Americans] are not able to create a new model. Colonial liberalism, which dominated the past 500-600 years, is at the end of its journey. Marxist socialism-colonialism was a part of this colonial liberalism, developed during the information war waged by the British Empire. Marxism, in fact, was an imported project, used to suppress Russia, Germany, and other alternative financial and economic systems. Protestants were the shock force in the construction of colonial liberalism. Whether they liked it or not, the spiritual and economic components were precisely Protestant-Lutheran.
As the U.S.-dollar model of liberal colonialism ceases to exist, Igor Nikolaevich projects that it will be replaced by three key currencies: the rouble, the Euro, and the Asian Monetary Unit (ACU) — based on the Chinese yuan. When it comes to North America, in particular, the Canadian dollar may become the source of a new regional currency, because the U.S. dollar is likely to disappear as a result of the U.S. collapse. He reminds us that the Canadian dollar is supported by natural resources, and can, therefore, gain strength. However, if the U.S. smartens up and reinstitutes something like the silver dollar, then it might be possible to create a new regional currency on the Can-American basis. This currecy would allow for a relatively painless way out of the economic crisis, "Those people, who have been an influence on the geopolitical and economic situation, of course, do not want to lose power. They fear, say, physical elimination."
Panarin believes that there is reason to forecast the collapse of the U.S. as early as July, which would be led by California. The collapse of California would trigger a default, which would have a fatal impact on the U.S. economy.
The U.S. has already taken two attempts to overcome the crisis. The first was an alliance with China, where 70% of its problems had to be moved to China. The second was a transition plan for the Amero, i.e. an attempt to redistribute the tension to Canada and Mexico. Nothing happened. Iran, all these Israeli Wars […] — these are much less convenient options to solve the global crisis.
Currently, as the U.S. continues to struggle, it is also being pushed out of the new financial model. The plan to introduce a common North American currency on March 1, 2010 and save the sinking American financial system failed.
Two years ago, a conference was held with participation by countries in Latin America, North America and the Caribbean, [at which] Mexico proposed to exclude the U.S. from the Amero zone, but not Canada. Only the United States. However, this was a preliminary decision, which had no impact […] And suddenly, when the U.S.-China relations worsened, there was a summit in the Americas, were [they] decided upon the establishment of a new continental economic organization without the United States or Canada. And this occurs a week before the introduction of the Amero…There was an information leak on the subject on the internet, even the printed bills of the new currency.
He credits China with dealing a "knockout blow to the American globalists." The Chinese apparently offered economic assistance to Mexico, and it suddenly argued against the Amero.
What concerns me is that a few days after this historic conference [about the Amero project], all of Latin America was struck by a series of earthquakes and tsunami. We have not witnessed such seismic activity in a long time in a region, where the [ACU] will be introduced. This makes one wonder…The causes of such natural disasters may have been manmade.
The reason China wields so much influence is the fact that it won an information war with the United States:
[Americans] have already, in effect, "given away" Taiwan; China has made a number of harsh statements; this [was] actually an ultimatum. Americans have asked to visit Beijing themselves, which [was] humiliating for them.
Therefore, an alliance between China, a "large factory", France, representing Europe, and Russia, the center of Eurasia, may turn out to be quite fruitful. Igor Nikolaevich finds Medvedev's choice to propose the new architecture of international financial relations in Paris, which was subsequently supported by Sarkozy, rather significant. "But France must be the same as under de Gaulle", he adds. He was first to begin "the war with the Bretton Woods system, demanding to exchange Eurodollars for 2,000 tons of gold." Essentially, Medvedev-Sarkozy cooperation is an attempt by the global elite to find a way out of the crisis through the rouble and the euro.
Now, at the bifurcation point, France is more important for [Russia] than Germany, which, in fact, is still occupied by the U.S. troops. What are 75 thousand U.S. soldiers doing in Germany, which no one threatens? Soviet tanks left East Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, and other European countries 20 years ago, while the most powerful group from the United States is still on West German soil. In the 1940s, these two countries signed a secret agreement, which severely limited German national sovereignty — this is what the former heads of the German secret service describe in their memoirs.
Finally, Panarin believes that Russia is capable of reestablishing those positions that it held prior to the Bolshevik takeover. Stalin's restoration of the territorial integrity of the Russian empire serves as historic precedent. However, Igor Nikolaevich suggests a fundamentally new model. Currently, there exists the potential of increasing Russia's influence in Turkey, Mongolia, and Iran. Turkey, for instance, already uses roubles. This influence should be combined with the possibility of pushing the rouble into other areas, such as India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, in addition to the former USSR and Eastern Europe. As a result, Russia would become the true center of Eurasia.
Thus, the ACU-rouble-Euro model makes financial and geopolitical sense as the replacement of the U.S. dollar, according to Panarin. In fact, he proposed a global currency, ACURE, in March of 2009. Igor Nikolaevich also hopes to see the healing of a thousand-year old schism as the cultural replacement of colonial liberalism, "Today, Orthodoxy and Catholicism must interact in the process of building a new model — a model that is more just, spiritually moral, thereby creating a kind of an ideological structure, a [certain] solidarity."
Article Info
Nina Kouprianova
Nina grew up a subway ride away from the Kremlin, and is still a proud Muscovite at heart. A PhD candidate by day, a graphic designer by night, a Japanophile and a rocker, she is a jack of all trades and master of…some!
The Civil Rights Myth
The Civil Rights Myth
Integration & the End of Black Self-Reliance
Wasn't there time between that little NPR fiasco and the Maddow debacle for his advisers to sit him down and sort out the preferred approaches on all kinds of subjects? You know, "This is the way we're gonna handle this issue." He does have advisers, doesn't he?
How could it come as a surprise that race, of all subjects, would be front and center for any candidate, especially a declared Republican? Such lack of insight betrays a peculiar denseness. The subject of race is a "pressing issue" in every campaign and will remain so, as long as white men like Rand Paul can so easily be backed into a corner and put on the defensive. Maddow simply picked up on Paul's obvious discomfort during the previous NPR interview and ran with it.
I misread Rand Paul entirely. I thought that he wanted to make a point of getting particular ideas into circulation, and not that he cared whether he succeeded in winning political office, certainly not at any cost. If the political route was too degrading, I thought he might make use of the publicity he had acquired during the primary period to add a critical voice to mainstream propaganda. But the lure of office and the power it brings is, apparently, tantalizing. Even this "purist" libertarian could not resist backing down from his principles. I had assumed he would chuck the entire effort if it meant he'd be expected to prevaricate and become a dissembler — i.e., act like a "real politician."
When pressed by the cunning Ms. Maddow, I half expected Paul to declare: "Yes, this is what I believe. Those who own private property have the right to reject from their premises whomever they wish. If this is unacceptable to voters, then I will not hold office." In other words, Take your stinking Senate seat and stick it!
In an article filled with improbable hypotheticals, and meant to be a defense of Paul, the Future of Freedom Foundation's Jacob Hornberger, referencing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its legal coercions, asks, "Why were liberals so intent on forced integration of private businesses?" Before answering that question, let's take a step back.
Remember, the problem to be solved by a section of the Civil Rights Act was that of public accommodations. When traveling and in need of food, sustenance and overnight shelter, what were blacks to do, since white establishments, especially in the South, generally rejected their presence.
No one bothers to ask why this posed a problem in the first place, because so little is known or cared about the incentives that drove blacks to create multitudes of institutions throughout the segregation period, even before slavery was officially ended. These were institutions such as restaurants, stores, motels and movie theaters. There were banks, insurance companies, newspaper publishers. It is assumed that all blacks were helpless victims, financially crippled drudges, with no resources to pool among themselves. In fact, most of black entrepreneurial success originated in the South, the poorest region and the one of greatest need.
White liberals were so intent on forced integration of white businesses because it never occurred to them to put the onus on blacks themselves, and to ask, Why should whites, or any other group, be compelled to go against their preferences to satisfy yours? Why aren't <i>you</i> taking care of these matters and fulfilling your own needs? At one point in our history, circles of resourceful blacks did exactly that.
There were blacks asking these impertinent questions of one another. "Where's our self-respect?" so many black men asked in another time. It flew out the window when forced integration flew in. How is it possible to win the respect of others, if you produce nothing? This question was already being asked back in 1852 by the black Abolitionist Martin Delany, who denounced middle-class blacks that long ago for desiring only to ride on the coattails of whites. These elites were determined not to risk their own capital. Such people earned the scorn of enterprising blacks, who did take risks.
Why didn't whites support those blacks who, back in the 1950s and 1960s, challenged the strategies of the proliferating numbers of civil-rights leaders, and who insisted that blacks must not be taken down the road of dependency? One reason is that ever since the days of Abolition, whites had grown used to having this mass of people to pity. These black victims of the "bad" whites made the "good" whites feel expansive and noble, as they still do. The graphic depictions of past sufferings relentlessly offered up by the NAACP suited these whites just fine.
There were persevering blacks who understood early on that greater independence comes through the ownership of businesses and land. Thomas Sowell has pointed out that even minimum skills and resources can be applied to create and develop modest businesses out of which the most ordinary person can earn a living. With this understanding, the wise educator Booker T. Washington, in the early 20th century, urged poor blacks to emulate the immigrants who often began with almost nothing yet managed to elevate themselves and families.
Many blacks took Washington's advice. In fact, it's documented that thousands did. The reason that Washington formed the National Negro Business League was due to the prominence of so many black-owned businesses, especially in the South.
However, see what happened to some ambitious blacks in Charles Smiley's Chicago, when their elites disapproved of too much enterprise among them, for fear that such independent activity might inhibit the movement for integration. After all, if whites see that we can do for ourselves, the fearful ones worried, they won't employ us in their more financially advanced companies and other establishments, and ease our paths to prosperity. Those black men who felt shamed by such attitudes and worked towards self-sufficiency were summarily censored and vilified by fervent integrationists.
Blacks once had some of the best teachers and mentors steering them in the right direction, that of economics. However, the opponents among them, who strove only for "social justice" and "equality," the theme so beloved by whites, were determined that recalcitrant entrepreneurial types would not mess up their game plan. See what they did to S.B. Fuller. And they were at it again, in a more contemporary fashion in the mid-1990s, when they set out to destroy John Goode. The elites were not dumb. They surmised that the strategy of "civil rights" would lead more quickly to greater power than they could acquire at a slower economic pace.
This is the key to why so much terrible stuff befell blacks and ultimately befell the country. The elites who ran such organizations as the NAACP cared nothing about the overall health or long-term welfare of the group, but only about how they might take short cuts to power via the beneficence of whites.
With the help of their white compatriots they managed to turn what was essentially an economic problem to be solved into a moral crusade. And the typical white ate it up. After all, economic solutions would not have led to all that Freedom-Riding and marching and anthem singing. Oh, how those white folks loved all that melodrama! And still do.
Their worship of Martin Luther King is so ridiculous as to make one's head spin. Those few dissenting whites who dare to rant about King's Communist affiliation have no idea of the deeper, more serious implications involved in King's playing the role of mentor to black males. The total acceptance of King by whites, confirmed when this preacher was granted a federal holiday, fixed for all time the notion that the path on which he took blacks was the only correct one.
It was comforting to believe that no shame was attached to black negligence and other forms of middle class treachery that led to the disappearance of hundreds of commercial establishments and, more importantly, the non-development of many more. It was much more gratifying to point to the "immorality" of whites who initially refused to forego their own individual rights at the behest of the black cause.
For many blacks, it was often incongruous, when not downright infuriating, to watch as members of their race heroized the act of "sitting in" at a lunch counter while demanding respect from the white store owner. Surely, only the most blinding delusions could have prevented such people from recognizing this clear demonstration of their own lack of self-respect. (It is hard to keep from laughing when viewing part of an actual Woolworth lunch counter that has been preserved as a Holy Relic.)
The Harvard-educated economist Andrew Brimmer, who had served in three Presidential administrations and was a member of the quintessential black bourgeoisie, was, in the early 1960s, already citing the deaths of black-owned "restaurants, barber shops, hotels, hardware stores and mortuaries." But Brimmer was not lamenting this loss. As a staunch integrationist, desirous of all the goodies that would come from more intimate contact with whites, he approved the disappearance of black-created institutions and the industrious souls who had launched them.
Multiply the likes of Andrew Brimmer by the thousands, and you will see what the ordinary black was up against during that consecrated 1960s period, so beloved and celebrated by whites, who were still smarting from the recent riots and other mayhem.
Had not the promise of integration in the 1950s and 1960s brought out so many black opportunists and outright charlatans, who moved into leadership positions, we might have seen a rejuvenation of the spirit of enterprise that prevailed years before. And maybe those unconstitutional sections of that Civil Rights bill would never have been contemplated because they would have been considered irrelevant.
Where were the so-called conservatives and libertarians? Was Barry Goldwater the only public figure to suggest that there was something wrong with this picture? For all their talk about personal and individual responsibility, notice how libertarians dismiss such foundational thinking when it comes to blacks. Libertarians are no different from the liberals they rebuke — a fact that Rand Paul has made clear.
The responses to Maddow need not have been couched in theoretical gobbledygook, but in common-sense reality based on the manner in which people prosper in a capitalist country. The reason why the Civil Rights Act was wrong is because blacks should be held to the same standards as all citizens, and the Constitution forbids the government from removing the rights of one set of citizens (white property owners) in order to exalt the rights of another.
Those middle-class blacks in the 1960s who were the most vociferous protestors for biased race laws should have been reminded of their past history, as cited above. If their recent ancestors, during what had been called "the worst of times," had been able to provide much-needed products and services, why should the rights of others now be abridged in order to accommodate the desires of this class?
Although these bourgeois types would deny it (for obvious self-interested reasons), by the 1960s, it was clear that there was nothing preventing blacks with resources from taking advantage of a market niche, which would not only be profitable to them but beneficial to masses of people.
You can be sure that no sooner had black business people begun to open new restaurants and constructing hotels and other commercial establishments targeted to black customers, their white counterparts would have rushed to get in on this lucrative market. If Congress had resisted the social pressures and stood by the principles in the Constitution, what was supposedly a race problem would quickly have been resolved. And imagine, the black bourgeoisie would have had to compete in order to prosper. Or as Martin Delany put it, the black man could no longer sit while the white man produced, but would have been forced to "endeavor to rival his neighbor, in honorable competition."
Article Info
Elizabeth Wright
Founding editor, in 1985, of the hard copy newsletter, Issues & Views. Its editorials countered notions of victimization and collective entitlement prevalent in the black community. Although reflecting a conservative and often libertarian perspective, it was never rightwing, and did not affiliate with any political party. The newsletter's conservatism was derived from the wisdom of earlier generations of American blacks, like Booker T. Washington, who attempted to steer their people towards greater economic self-reliance. The newsletter also challenged ideologues who misused "civil rights," in order to deny basic rights to others and to impose politically correct mandates.
Feminization of Japan
Feminization of Japan
May 18, 2010 by guywhite
Japan is yet another high IQ, very successful country that is going liberal. It started later than Europe and the US, but it's also going in the same direction.
What bothers is me is why this is happening as people become more successful.
Locust: Another great people, flushed down the drain of liberalism.
More from Stuff Black People Don't Like
#106. Acknowledging Their Love for Soul Food
We live in a world governed by few rules, but the most important of all laws that must be acknowledged without fail is simply this: Thou Shalt Not Display Black People in a Negative Light.
Thus, the need for a month dedicated to celebrating accomplishments of a race largely devoid of any accomplishments or contributions to the United States (outside of entertainment or sports), for Black people's conspicuous absence from collective historical relevance is an unflattering truth that can't be explained away by white racism.
Undoubtedly, you have heard of the first rule of Fight Club – you don't talk about fight club. In the United States of America, anytime a Black person of significance screws up their race is a careful guarded secret – save for their discernible melanin-enhanced skin – and anytime a city with a majority Black populace falters, any mention of the racial makeup of that municipality isn't tolerated.
The corollary to the First Rule of Black Run America (BRA) is you can't acknowledge Black people lest you do so in a positive manner.
Even in Pre-Obama America, Black people found these rules were largely the law of the land.
Unfortunately – as in any society – criminality does exist and we do happen to have individuals who mock the law and defy the edicts set forth by the judiciary in charge of all acceptable public discourse on Black people.
It is discussed in impolite circles that Black people have the strange habit of never passing on seconds and this nearly unspeakable truth has led to gross imbalances in the distribution of calories between the races and thus, the pendulum of corpulence swings Black (the following statistics are from – and we are not making this up – the Office of Minority Health, a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services… and you thought BRA wasn't holding up a kernel of truth):
- African American women have the highest rates of being overweight or obese compared to other groups in the U.S. About four out of five African American women are overweight or obese.1
- In 2007, African Americans were 1.4 times as likely to be obese as Non- Hispanic Whites.
- From 2003-2006, African American women were 70% more likely to be obese than Non-Hispanic White women.
- In 2003-2004, African American children between ages 6 -17 were 1.3 times as likely to be overweight than Non-Hispanic Whites.
It is strange to think that a dynamic population that represents 13 percent of the United States population is immune from public discourse, even during Black History Month. We are to celebrate Black History, correct?
Obviously, Black History includes a heaping portion of food, or why else would McDonald's find it profitable to market to Black people with the company's 365 Black promotion? 13 percent of population is relatively small, unless those Black people eat a disproportionate amount of the unhealthy food served under the Golden Arches.
It is vital to remember the Iron Law of BRA as we navigate the treacherous waters of the Black diet and find out that a staple of the 'colored' food pyramid is universally known, yet fanatically kept quiet, providing a hilarious dichotomy of truth and untruth.
Black people love fried chicken. Black people have had numerous riots over fried chicken in geographical unrelated cities, providing incidents for sociologist to study that establish a linkage between the unmistakable craving for finger-licking good food that can't be denoted as isolated.
Black people have a fond relationship with Soul Food, a constant ally in times of trouble and a delicious reminder that Black people's best friend will always been fried:
Soul food is an American cuisine, a selection of foods, and is the traditional cuisine of African Americans in the United States. It is closely related to the cuisine of the Southern United States. The descriptive terminology may have originated in the mid-1960s, when soul was a common definer used to describe black culture
Enslavers fed their captives as cheaply as possible, often with throwaway foods from the plantation, forcing slaves to make do with the ingredients at hand. In slave households, vegetables were the tops of turnips and beets and dandelions. Soon, slaves were cooking with new types of greens: collards, kale, cress, mustard, and pokeweed. They also developed recipes which used lard; cornmeal; and offal, discarded cuts of meat such as pigs' feet, oxtail, ham hocks, chitterlings (pig small intestines), pig ears, hog jowls, tripe and skin. Cooks added onions, garlic, thyme, and bay leaf to enhance the flavors. Some slaves supplemented their meager diets by maintaining small plots made available to them to grow their own vegetables, and many engaged in subsistence fishing and hunting, which yielded wild game for the table. Foods such as raccoon, squirrel, opossum, turtle, and rabbit were, until the 1950s, very common fare among the still predominantly rural and southern African American population.
Yes, Black people love soul food.
However, remembering the most important of all laws governing BRA, this factoid is a closely guarded secret and can't be discussed. Just consult with the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), gatekeepers and defenders of the Iron Law of BRA, and you will find this truth to be self-evident:
"A special NBC Black History Month lunch spread — featuring fried chicken, collard greens and black-eyed peas — sparked a commissary controversy yesterday, but the African-American chef who planned it doesn't understand the fuss.
"All I wanted to do was make a meal that everyone would enjoy — and that I eat myself," NBC cook Leslie Calhoun told The Post last night.
Calhoun's proudly planned feast, which she began last year, hit a snag when Ahmir "Questlove" Thompson, the drummer for Jimmy Fallon's "Late Night" show band, The Roots, shot a photo of the menu outside the network's Rockefeller Center cafeteria and posted it on Twitter.
A disappointed Calhoun, who has worked at NBC for eight years, said she's been begging for years to make special entrees in honor of Black History Month, and got her wish last year. The plan was to have one special meal every Thursday during February — although she said she's nervous about next week.
Asked if she understood why some people might find her menu concept offensive, Calhoun said, "I don't understand it at all. It's what I eat."
Calhoun was in violation of the main law that holds aloft the pillars of Black Run America (BRA) and daring to showcase a universally accepted truth might make her a modern-day Sampson and bring that exalted structure crumbling down.
Disingenuous White Liberals over at National Public Radio (NPR) dared to openly flaunt the first rule of BRA back in 2003, when they discussed "soul food" and how to have a successful Black History Month dinner:
Black-eyed peas, rice, yams, greens, okra and cornbread. To commemorate Black History Month, Talk of the Nation looks at the story of African Americans through the lens of southern cooking, often known as soul food.
The very fact that certain foods are even on the menu in most American restaurants today tells a story of how Africans came to this country and what happened when they got here. The discussion also covers how Southern cooking has come to be known by some as soul food, what that means and what it doesn't, and how the term "soul food" has come to mean more than just food.
Discussing the importance of soul food and family cooking are NPR's Vertamae Grosvenor, author of Vertamae Cooks in the Americas' Family Kitchen, and Norma Jean Darden, co-author of Spoonbread and Strawberry Wine: Recipes and Reminiscences from a Black Family and the owner of the Harlem eateries Spoonbread Too: Miss Mamie's and Miss Maude's.
Black History Month is a special time when the open defiance of the Iron Law of BRA is on display, for the entire month is a viewing of the theater of the absurd. Attempts to locate minute contributions from Black people and pass them off as major achievements in the advancement of history leaves little room for the inclusion of any real Black History.
One such advancement befuddled Bill O'Reilly, the Fox News host, who was incredulous that Black people are capable of eating soul food in riot-free environment:
"I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City," said O'Reilly on the Sept. 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show.
"There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who [was] screaming,'M-Fer was, I want more iced tea," he told National Public Radio's Juan Williams. "[It] was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."
Contributions in the culinary arts, plus the civilized manner in which Black people satiate themselves at the dinner table are profound, and the expanding waistlines of Black people – odd that belts would be an accoutrement missing from Black people's wardrobe – should be celebrated, not ridiculed. Makes you wonder how pants on the ground happens in the first place.
But BRA can not last long if the first rule governing decency is violated. Take this similar story out of Denver, where the law was broken and the punishment was swift:
Denver Public School officials are apologizing after a parent complained that a school lunch meant to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was stereotypical and offensive.The lunch, planned for Friday, was to include southern-style chicken, collard greens and a biscuit in honor of King.D.P.S. spokesman Michael Vaughn released a statement that said:
"The plan to serve a Southern-style meal in recognition of Martin Luther King Day was well intentioned but highly insensitive in light of certain hurtful cultural stereotypes still harbored in parts of our society."
Stuff Black People Don't Like includes acknowledging their love for soul food, for this is a crime of the highest offense and in many cases, punishable by medieval methods. We live a strange world, and in this Black Run America, to be among those who can see is a troubling burden. Black people may love soul food, but to acknowledge this is a act of sheer defiance in the face of BRA.
Those who can see are in violation of the number one law governing the United States of America, but remember, civil disobedience is written into the Declaration of Independence.
And here, for all to see, is a menu courtesy of Google that serves up a veritable buffet of stories dealing with Black History Month and Soul Food. Bon Appetite!
And better, Vince McMahon and his take on Soul Food.
Anarcho-Tyranny—Where Multiculturalism Leads
Anarcho-Tyranny—Where Multiculturalism Leads
By Sam Francis
In Europe, if not in the United States, some people are beginning to grasp that just maybe they made a mistake when they decided to welcome millions of immigrants over the last several decades.
The most recent European to get it is former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who has been making noises about the damage he and his colleagues have inflicted on their own societies.
Interviewed in a Hamburg newspaper last month, Mr. Schmidt confessed, "The concept of multiculturalism is difficult to make fit with a democratic society" and that importing thousands of Turkish "gastarbeiter," or foreign guest workers, into Germany over the last several decades was a bit of a boo-boo.
As the London Daily Telegraph reported the story, Mr. Schmidt, Social Democratic chancellor of West Germany from 1974 to 1982,
"…said that the problems resulting from the influx of mostly Turkish Gastarbeiter, or guest workers, had been neglected in Germany and the rest of Europe. They could be overcome only by authoritarian governments, he added, naming Singapore as an example." [Turkish workers a mistake, claims Schmidt, by Hannah Cleaver, November 25, 2004]
He's hardly the first to see this, although admittedly, at the age of 85, he's just a wee bit behind the curve.
As long ago as 1990, I wrote, in an article in Chronicles magazine,
"The late Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the dominions of the Habsburgs and the Romanoffs, among others, all presided over a kind of rainbow coalition of nations and peoples, who for the most part managed to live happily because their secret compulsions to spill each other's blood was restrained by the overwhelming power of the despots and dynasties who ruled them.
"Political freedom relies on a shared political culture as much as on the oppositions and balances that social differentiation creates, and when the common culture disintegrates under the impact of mass migrations, only institutionalized force can hold the regime together." [July, 1990, PDF]
That's a bit of a mouthful, but I gather it's what Mr. Schmidt was driving at. To have freedom on a stable political basis, you have to have a homogeneous culture and society, composed of people who share the same values and beliefs.
If they don't share them, you can hold them together only by force.
That lesson is becoming clear in Europe, where the brutal murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh last month by an Islamic fanatic shows what happens when you destroy homogeneity by importing fragments of alien and hostile cultures.
Much the same lesson ought to be clear in this country, not only from the 9/11 atrocities themselves but from the recent slaughter of six white deer hunters in Wisconsin by a disgruntled Asian immigrant.
"Society cannot exist," wrote the great eighteenth century conservative Edmund Burke, "unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more of it there must be without."
Restraints come from within when a population shares cultural and moral values; when they don't, external force has to provide the restraints.
Only a week or so after the murder of Mr. Van Gogh in Holland, the neighboring country of Belgium outlawed its main opposition party, the Vlaamsblok, for being a "racist organization."
The Vlaamsblok, which two opinion polls found was the most popular political party in Flanders the month before, was notable mainly for its strong opposition to immigration. That's what made it "racist" and that's why it had to go.
This month Great Britain simply arrested two of its leading opponents of immigration, Nick Griffin of the British National Party and the party's founder John Tyndall, on charges of "inciting racial hatred." Each, it seems, had made (in private meetings secretly taped by undercover informants) derogatory (or perhaps merely critical) remarks about Islam.
The arrests are transparent efforts by the British overclass to muzzle rising political challengers, but they're also part of the drift toward authoritarianism that mass immigration provokes.
We see the drift in this country, with the Patriot Act and its spawn at airports and in random searches of law-abiding citizens—all because our own overclass will not enforce standing laws against illegal immigration and does nothing to halt the transformation of American society by millions of aliens.
Unwilling to control immigration and the cultural disintegration it causes, the authorities instead control the law-abiding.
This is precisely the bizarre system of misrule I have elsewhere described as "anarcho-tyranny"—we refuse to control real criminals (that's the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that's the tyranny).
What is now becoming obvious in Europe, even to decrepit socialists like Helmut Schmidt, ought to be no less obvious to our own decrepit rulers here.
It's already obvious to those they rule.
All they need is a leader with the guts and brains to say it out loud.
Race And The American Prospect: An Introduction
Race And The American Prospect: An Introduction
By Sam Francis
[Vdare.com Note: The late Sam Francis was editing this collection before his untimely death. His views on race may be considered unfashionable, but are actually milder than those of every President of the United States, (not excluding Abraham Lincoln) up until the John F. Kennedy Administration. See Steve Sailer's review of this book for even more irenic views. And Sam's advocacy of what is here called "white racial consciousness" is still about ten times less strident than anything said by Julian Bond of the NAACP or Raul Lowery Contreras. This is the last Sam Francis piece we will be able to run—there isn't any more, although we have a five year archive, and more of his work is available at Samfrancis.net.]
The following essay is Sam Francis's introduction to Race and the American Prospect: Essays on the Racial Realities of Our Nation and Our Time, a newly published collection of essays edited by Dr. Francis. The book is available from Amazon or directly from The Occidental Press (P.O. Box 695, Mt. Airy, Maryland 21771; 301-829-2995;) $34.95 (hbk); $19.95 (pbk). This unique collection of essays, from fourteen cutting-edge experts on race, offers an incisive alternative to the politically correct dogmas of racial egalitarianism. The table of contents can be found here.
If an analogy between the Victorian sex taboo and the contemporary race taboo were to be drawn, the essays in this book are logically the analogue of pornography, or what conventional Victorians regarded as pornography. Every one of these essays deals with race in a way that the dominant culture of the present day rejects, forbids, and indeed punishes by one means or another. Every one of them deals with aspects of race—its reality as a part of the biological and psychological nature of man and its importance as a social and historical force—that contemporary culture is at best reluctant to discuss at all and absolutely refuses to acknowledge as true. At the same time, in contradiction to the stereotype promoted by "anti-racist" forces, not one of these essays or their authors expresses here or anywhere else any desire to harm, exploit, dominate, or deny the legitimate rights of other races. This book is not a tract promoting "white supremacy" or the restoration of forced segregation.
All contributors to this volume are white, well educated, and articulate; several are or have been academics or professional journalists and authors, and what unites and drives them as a group is a common concern that their race today faces a crisis that within the coming century and in the United States and Europe could easily lead to either its physical extinction, its subordination to and persecution by other races, or the destruction of its civilization.
Most readers who continue to believe what the dominant culture tells them about the meaning and significance of race will find this concern bizarre. Even if race does exist as a biological reality, it certainly has no meaning for behavior, culture, intelligence, or other traits that influence and shape social institutions. Moreover, any effort to take race more seriously is either a deliberate and covert attempt to justify racial hatred or injustice, or is at best a misguided enterprise that is all too likely to lead to hatred, injustice, and even genocide, as it has in the past. This is the conventional attitude toward race that the dominant culture in the West today promotes and enforces, and it is precisely from that attitude that the authors of these essays dissent.
The commonly held beliefs about race mentioned above—that it does not exist or is not important and that serious concern about race and racial identity leads to negative and undesirable consequences—are wrong. Yet it is precisely those beliefs that make it impossible for whites who accept them to preserve themselves as a race and the civilization and political institutions their race has created. As black historian Shelby Steele acknowledged in the Wall Street Journal ( November 13, 2003), "Racial identity is simply forbidden to whites in America and across the entire Western world. Black children today are hammered with the idea of racial identity and pride, yet racial pride in whites constitutes a grave evil. Say 'I'm white and I'm proud' and you are a Nazi.". Indeed, he made use of the widely shared (by non-whites as well as whites) demonic view of whites to reject and deny any white claim to their own racial identity:
No group in recent history has more aggressively seized power in the name of its racial superiority than Western whites. This race illustrated for all time—through colonialism, slavery, white racism, Nazism—the extraordinary human evil that follows when great power is joined to an atavistic sense of superiority and destiny.
Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson, as well as Hispanic leaders Cruz Bustamante and Mario Obledo, have no problem exulting in their own racial identity and the political power they expect such solidarity to yield. They exult in language that is explicitly anti-white, in the most primitive and threatening terms. Yet they are seldom called to account for it. When Mr. Obledo, proclaimed a few years ago, "California is going to be a Mexican state, we are going to control all the institutions. If people don't like it they should leave—go back to Europe," he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Clinton soon afterward. It is not very likely that a white leader today who said, as Senator Stephen Douglas in a debate with Abraham Lincoln in 1858 did say, "I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever" would be awarded anything. Douglas's comment (and many similar ones) expressed a sentiment more or less parallel to Mr. Obledo's, though Douglas did not go so far as to invite non-whites to leave the country (it was Lincoln himself who did that). Douglas in fact won the election and was the Democrat's national candidate for president two years later.
In contrast to Mr. Obledo, when Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott in December 2002 remarked that the country would have been better off had Strom Thurmond won the 1948 presidential election, he was denounced from both the political right and left and hounded into resigning his leadership position in the U.S. Senate. Mr. Lott had said nothing about race, and there was no evidence he was even thinking about that aspect of the campaign; but he was obliged to engage in protracted and repeated retractions, anyway—all to no avail.
One main reason for the obvious double standard is that non-whites are easily inflamed and mobilized by the slightest appearance of white identity, and their mobilization can have disastrous consequences for institutions—the Republican Party—that seek or depend on non-white votes or market patronage. Yet these are by no means the only reasons why whites "cannot openly have a racial identity."
The truth is that whites deny themselves a racial identity. Mr. Steele can utter sweeping generalizations about "the extraordinary human evil" (ignoring the long and brutal history of slavery, conquest, genocide, and repression by nonwhites in Africa and Asia that persists to this day) in a major newspaper owned and managed by whites because most of the white elite will not question this kind of anti-white opinion. White tolerance of such anti-white sentiment is due to the guilt that is injected into white minds.
The consequences of this denial and demonization of whites and the civilization they have created and ruled for the last several centuries are what concern the contributors to this collection of essays. The processes by which those consequences may come about are already apparent.
White leaders no doubt assume that the multiracial future of the country will not threaten whites or the country because all races accept or are coming to reject race in the same ways they do. This assumption is demonstrably wrong. Like most revolutions, the one led by non-whites like Martin Luther King, Jr. moved from a moderate phase demanding merely equal treatment and the end of legal racial discrimination to a far more radical stage demanding outright racial privileges for non-whites. It is this radical phase that established now that threatens to become even more radical.
"Color blindness" denies a biological reality that is obviated in two ways. First, scientifically: The work of scientists like Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, J. Philippe Rushton, H. J. Eysenck, Richard Lynn, Richard Herrnstein, and a number of others established that race exists and is a significant factor in human mental traits. There is little doubt about this today and fewer and fewer scientists dispute it, though few also are willing to risk their careers by talking or writing about it. As long ago as 1981, Arthur Jensen itemized a host of such differences:
Different races have evolved in somewhat different ways, making for many differences among them. A few of the many physical characteristics found to display genetic variation between different races are body size and proportions, hair form and distribution, head shape and facial features, cranial capacity and brain formation, blood types, number of vertebrae, size of genitalia, bone density, fingerprints, basic metabolic rate, body temperature, blood pressure, heat and cold tolerance, number and distribution of sweat glands, odor, consistency of ear wax, number of teeth, age at eruption of permanent teeth, fissural patterns on the surfaces of the teeth, length of gestation period, frequency of twin births, male-female birth ratio, physical maturity at birth, rate of infant development of alpha brain waves, colorblindness, visual and auditory acuity, intolerance of milk, galvanic skin resistance, chronic diseases, susceptibility to infectious diseases, genetic diseases (e.g., Tay-Sachs, sickle cell anemia), and pigmentation of the skin, hair, and eyes.
As Kevin Lamb shows in his essay for this book, the scientific evidence for the natural reality and social significance of race is now overwhelming. As Richard Lynn shows in his essay, racial differences in intelligence and behavior patterns significantly affect such societal differences as levels of technological achievement, political stability and freedom, criminal violence, and standards of living. What kind of society and how much civilization a people creates, is clearly related to their race. Race by itself is certainly not sufficient to create civilization, but it is necessary to creating it. Non-whites may indeed create a different civilization of their own, but it will not be the same as the one we as whites created and live in, and most of us would not want to live in it.
The recognition of the significance of race does not imply or lead to "hate" or domination of one race by another, but racial differentiation does imply social differentiation. The existence of significant biological differences between groups of human beings means there will be social differences between them: differences in educational and economic achievement, personal and political behavior, and social and cultural institutions. And if there is social differentiation between races, then competition and conflict between them is also likely, especially if they occupy the same territory. "Hatred," domination, and racial antagonism may therefore result, not as relationships to be desired or advocated, but as the consequence of the natural reality of racial differences and the effort to ignore or deny such differences.
The second way in which race has been rediscovered is as a socio-political force, the racial consciousness and solidarity discussed above that in the last century has swept through the non-white populations of the United States and the world. This rediscovery constitutes what Lothrop Stoddard in the frank language of the 1920s called "The Rising Tide of Color against White World Supremacy" and is identical to what the late Robert Nisbet termed the "racial revolution." The "single fact…that stands out" is "that racial revolution as an aspiration is becoming increasingly separate from other philosophies or strategies of revolution."
What has occurred in the last century, then, consists of two processes—first, the evisceration of white racial consciousness and identity, and second, the development, around the same time, of the non-white and anti-white racial consciousness that animates the emerging national non-white majority. The scientific rediscovery of race as a socially and historically significant reality of nature is part of a reaction against the "racial revolution" and can be expected to assist in the revival and relegitimization of white racial identity, but remains largely an academic abstraction understood by only a handful of scientists and scholars.
There are three general reasons why a revival of white racial consciousness and identity is needed.
- First, we now know enough about the biologically grounded cognitive and behavioral differences between the races to be able to say with confidence that race deeply affects and shapes cultural life. Races with a lower level of cognitive capacity could have produced neither the modern West, with its scientific and technological achievements, nor the ancient West, with its vast political organization and sophisticated artistic and philosophical legacies. Nor is the inclinations of white Westerners to innovate, explore, expand, and conquer apparent among most non-white races, even if their cognitive capacities are greater than those of whites.
- Second, whites, like any race, should wish to survive and flourish simply for their own sake whatever their merits or flaws. Even this minimal rationale for racial survival is denied to whites today because of their constant demonization.
- And third, white racial consciousness is necessary simply as a means of self-protection. It is an integral component of the historic identity of America as a culture and a nation. As Jared Taylor notes in his essay in this volume, explicit white racial consciousness has been a commonplace and important feature of American history, a belief that has shaped the events, leaders, institutions, and norms that have defined us as a people and a nation throughout our past and in all regions.
You cannot have it both ways: either you define the American nation as the product of its past and learn to live with the reality of race of the racial particularism that in part defines our national history, or you reject race as meaningful and demand that anyone who believes that race means anything more than that be demonized. If you reject race, then you reject America as it has really existed throughout its history, and whatever you mean by "America" has to come from something other than its real past.
Even more dangerously, the absence of racial consciousness among whites disarms them as a group in confrontation with races that possess such a consciousness. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other non-white racial and ethnic groups are able to act and react in highly unified patterns, political and cultural. They protect what their leaders perceive as their racial interests and, in particular, to resist, denounce, and attack any manifestation of white racial solidarity.
Whites may be more or less unified with respect to objective material characteristics—income, education, residence, voting behavior, etc.—but they are not unified and indeed barely even exist with respect to racial consciousness and identity. At a time when anti-white racial and ethnic groups define themselves in explicitly racial terms, only our own unity and identity as a race will be able to meet their challenge. If and when that challenge should triumph and those enemies come to kill us as Robert Mugabe has threatened to do to whites in Zimbabwe, they will do so not because we are "Americans" or "Christians" or "conservatives" or "liberals," but because we are white.
Given the intensity of non-white racial consciousness, the emergence of a counterbalancing white consciousness may well lead to violent conflict between the races. There is in fact an immense level of violent conflict against whites going on right now through interracial crime and terrorism; by mass immigration, legal and illegal; and by the deliberate refusal of ruling white elites to enforce their own laws and protect their own people.
The restoration of white racial supremacy in the United States today is not desirable or probably even possible. As Sam G. Dickson notes in his essay in this volume on race and the South, the core of Robert E. Lee's personal objection to Southern slavery was that it encouraged the corruption of the whites, a corruption that cripples and weakens whites in creating free social orders and high civilizations. A race that dominates needs to establish what is essentially an authoritarian system of political and social control that inhibits the dominant race almost as much as it restrains the subject race.
Probably the most desirable and mutually satisfactory (if not the most likely) resolution of the escalating racial conflict would be the voluntary separation of races into distinct nations. There are obvious problems with such a division of the national territory—who would get which part, what would happen to those of one race who refused to leave the areas assigned to another race, who would be counted as part of a race and why, how would the separation be authorized, how would each section be governed, etc. Moreover, most white Americans would recoil from endorsing an actual territorial division of the nation for whatever reason. Racial separatism, far more than "white supremacy," is today favored by most whites advocating white racial consciousness, but there appears to be little prospect of the larger white population embracing it in the near future. Nor is "racial federalism," under which local communities or even whole states determine their own racial arrangements, laws, and policies, likely. The insistence by nationally dominant elites that race and immigration policies that are effectively anti-white be determined entirely by the centralized state under their own control means that localism and federalism are no more probable in race relations than in most other areas of American public life.
Nevertheless, if whites cannot expect a total, permanent, and mutually satisfactory resolution of the racial conflict through separation or federalism, they can at least work to achieve results that would protect or guarantee their own survival and that of their civilization. The political, legal, and cultural agenda on which whites should insist includes a permanent moratorium on all legal immigration into the United States, the expulsion of illegal aliens, the rigorous enforcement of laws against illegal immigration, and the removal of incentives to further illegal immigration (e.g., availability of welfare, education, and affirmative action for illegal aliens and of automatic birthright citizenship for their children); the end of all "affirmative action" programs and policies and of all "civil rights" laws that discriminate against whites and circumscribe their constitutional
rights of association; the repeal of all "hate crime" laws and "Politically Correct" policies and regulations that penalize the peaceful expression of white racial consciousness and identity; and the abolition of all multiculturalist curricula, "sensitivity training," and similar experiments in brainwashing in schools, universities, businesses, and government. At the same time whites must seek to rebuild their own institutions—schools, businesses, churches, media, etc.—in which their own heritage and identity as whites can be preserved, honored, and transmitted to their descendants, and they must encourage measures that will help raise their own birth rates to at least replacement levels. Even these policies, however, would pit racially conscious whites against the dominant elites that continue to demand white racial dispossession and their non-white allies. Moreover, none of these measures will be adopted unless and until white racial consciousness is far more developed than it is today. Neither conventional conservative nor liberal ideologues show any serious interest in these particular measures or the racial identity they reflect, nor do either of the major political parties.
Non-white and non-Western holidays are observed in schools, by businesses and some local governments, and national leaders (including President George W. Bush). In San Jose, California, a proposal to construct a public statue to Col. Thomas Fallon, who captured the city for the Americans in the Mexican-American War, was rejected, and a statue to the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl approved instead. Mexican-Americans at a soccer match in Los Angeles in 1998 booed and jeered the playing of the American national anthem before the game. "Hate crimes" against non-whites are front-page national news for weeks, and national leaders descend upon the local community to show their solidarity with the victim. Yet even more brutal massacres of whites, like the rape, torture, kidnapping, and murder of four white men and women by two black criminals in Wichita, Kansas, in 2000, are seldom mentioned in the national news and excite no commentary whatsoever. O. J. Simpson, despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt in the murders of his white ex-wife and her friend, is acquitted when black jurors reject incriminating evidence as "racist."
It is perhaps significant that Shelby Steele wrote that whites today "cannot openly have a racial identity." If white racial consciousness is forbidden and does not exist, there is certainly a powerful racial subconscious among whites, as evidenced by patterns of school attendance, housing, church membership, marriage, and even voting. The "color blindness" about which conservatives like to chirp does not exist wherever races are free to choose their own associations. Whites, of course, will often avoid explaining or defending their preferences in racial terms. They move to the suburbs because tax rates and crime rates are lower; they send their children to mainly white schools because these schools are better; they attend the churches they do because those are the churches of their parents and their friends. But all such explanations—lower taxes and less crime, better schools, the habits of one's parents and friends—have obvious racial dimensions.
A recent study by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, the Washington Post reports, shows that today "schools are almost as segregated as they were when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated." [U.S. School Segregation Now at '69 Level By Michael Dobbs, January 18, 2004] The segregation is due not to legally enforced discrimination but to the voluntary residence and attendance preferences of whites, who simply abandon communities and schools when non-whites arrive. For much the same reason, Christian churches also remain racially exclusive. "Just 8 percent of Christian churches in the United States are multiracial, defined as one ethnic group making up no more than 80 percent of the membership, according to a 2002 study."
Voting behavior shows the same racial patterns. In 2000, 54 percent of whites voted for the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, while only 42 percent voted for Vice President Al Gore, the Democrat. Bush received only 8 percent of the black vote and some 31 percent of Hispanic votes, while Gore won 90 percent of blacks and 67 percent of Hispanics. Nearly 20 percent of Gore's total vote came from blacks. No Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of the white vote since 1968, at the latest.
Moreover, as non-white immigrants occupy more and more of the national territory, "white flight" extends not just from city to suburb and suburb to countryside but from region to region. As University of Michigan demographer William H. Frey and reporter Jonathan Tilove wrote in The New York Times Magazine (August 20, 1995):
For every immigrant who arrives [in large metropolitan areas], a white person leaves. Look collectively at the New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston and Boston metropolitan areas—5 of the top 11 immigration destinations. In the last half of the 80's, for every 10 immigrants who arrived, 9 residents left for points elsewhere. And most of those leaving were non-Hispanic whites…. The places that whites were leaving for were metro areas like Tampa-St. Petersburg, Seattle, Phoenix, Atlanta and Las Vegas, all of which attract relatively few immigrants. ["Immigrants In, Native Whites Out," not online.]
Whites are leaving entire metropolitan areas and states—whole regions—for white destinations. And new census estimates indicate that this pattern of flight from big immigration destinations has become even more pronounced in the 90's.
And, in marriages, the overwhelming fact, despite constant acclamation by racial liberals of increases in interracial unions, is that whites continue to cross marry less than any other race, and they do so in negligible numbers. The 2000 Census reports that only 3.5 percent of whites marry non-whites. Given the ending of legal barriers to interracial marriages nearly forty years ago and the immense increase of the nation's non-white population since that time, this persistent preference of whites for marriage partners of their own race is strong evidence of their enduring racial identity as whites.
The clear existence of a white racial subconscious means that the problem for whites is mainly to bring what it contains into consciousness. They need to learn that race, as much as sex, is part of human nature and the human condition, that it can no more be expelled or denied or excluded than any other important fact or force of nature. Whites need to learn also that racial consciousness is no more a license for repression, exploitation, hatred, and violence than recognition of the reality and importance of sex is a license for rape, seduction, and debauchery. Obviously there are criminal and pathological elements that will use sex and race for criminal and pathological ends, but their existence does nothing to diminish the legitimacy and urgency of what those who demand their recognition for healthy purposes are seeking.
Finally, whites need to form their racial consciousness in conformity not only with what we now know about the scientific reality of race but also with the moral and political traditions of Western Man—White Man. The purpose of white racial consciousness and identity is not simply to serve as a balance against the aggression and domination of other races but also to preserve, protect, and help revitalize the legacy of the civilization that our own ancestors created and handed down to us, for its own sake, because it is ours, and because, by the standards of the values and ideals we as a race and a civilization have articulated, it is better. After generations of denial and distortion, what we have permitted to be expelled and repressed now returns, and we now know again, as our ancestors once knew also, that in the absence of the race that created that legacy, it would never have existed at all. If the legacy is to pass on to our own descendants, it will be because we as white men and women understood who we were, what it was we created, how it came to exist, and how it will endure. The essays collected here are a first step toward that goal.
Sam Francis, who died February 15, 2005, was published on VDARE.com for the last five years of his life.
Is Racism a Mental Illness?
Racism a Mental Illness?
SBPDL travels a lot. Having the opportunity to visit virtually every state in the union grants a unique perspective to the tastes and peculiarities of Black people in geographically diverse areas.
Recently while waiting for a connection in the surprisingly clean Detroit Metro Airport, an advertisement was played on the bothersome giant flat screens in the terminal that have the menacing quality of Orwell's dystopia.
That advertisement in question featured CNN's Jane-Velez Mitchell defiantly claiming "racism is a mental illness." Here is the transcripts from the show in which that quip has its origins:
But also from a psychological perspective, realize that the person exhibiting the racism is the person with the problem. The person exhibiting the racism is the person who has low self-esteem because otherwise, there would be no reason for them to try to elevate themselves in this manner over someone else. And that essentially, in my humble opinion, racism is a form of mental illness, and we have got to start really treating it as a sickness.
An avid reader of zombie literature, the writer behind SBPDL looked around and realized that we already live in a world where the zombie apocalypse has occurred. Watching individuals shift aimlessly through the airport with little drive or motivation and displaying an incurable level of fecklessness is one form of proof, but the slavish mentality that people watch television in airports and unwittingly nod their heads at such statements is further justification of the existence of the apocalypse we all now live through.
If 'racism is a mental illness' why did Newsweek devote an entire article to bemoaning the recent scientific findings that babies notice racial differences?:
In our new book, NurtureShock, we argue that many modern strategies for nurturing children are backfiring—because key twists in the science have been overlooked. Small corrections in our thinking today could alter the character of society long term, one future citizen at a time. The way white families introduce the concept of race to their children is a prime example.
For decades, it was assumed that children see race only when society points it out to them. However, child-development researchers have increasingly begun to question that presumption. They argue that children see racial differences as much as they see the difference between pink and blue—but we tell kids that "pink" means for girls and "blue" is for boys. "White" and "black" are mysteries we leave them to figure out on their own…
How do researchers test a 6-month-old? They show babies photographs of faces. Katz found that babies will stare significantly longer at photographs of faces that are a different race from their parents, indicating they find the face out of the ordinary. Race itself has no ethnic meaning per se—but children's brains are noticing skin-color differences and trying to understand their meaning.
When the kids turned 3, Katz showed them photographs of other children and asked them to choose whom they'd like to have as friends. Of the white children, 86 percent picked children of their own race. When the kids were 5 and 6, Katz gave these children a small deck of cards, with drawings of people on them. Katz told the children to sort the cards into two piles any way they wanted. Only 16 percent of the kids used gender to split the piles. But 68 percent of the kids used race to split the cards, without any prompting. In reporting her findings, Katz concluded: "I think it is fair to say that at no point in the study did the children exhibit the Rousseau type of color-blindness that many adults expect."
As has already been established here at SBPDL, only white people can be racist. Never mind the near monolithic support Black people gave Mein Obama in 2008's Presidential Election, nor the near perfect approval rating that Black people give Zod Obama today (as every other definable group bails on him, even Disingenuous White Liberals), only white people have the innate capacity to be racist.
This is a healthy reaction to the zombie apocalypse that threatens to overwhelm us all, the banding together of a distinct group to protect group interests. White people, when faced with the zombie apocalypse around them have decided to endorse Ayn Rand as their antidote and embrace the cult of the individual.
There are some who make the claim that race is a societal construct and that the pernicious manner in creating division within the "we are all one" world by stating race is a biological fact is not only erroneous, but worse – evil.
Regardless of which you take, one truth must be stated: the inhabitants of modern-day Detroit are a socially-destructive people. Worse, cities don't spring forth like Athena from the head of Zeus. They are designed and inhabited by people, built and maintained by individuals working together for the good of the collective – not just the economic benefit of the individual.
Reason magazine recently ran a cover story on how to save America's dying cities by dispensing libertarian advice on improving the quality of life in Cleveland:
Since its population hit a high point in 1950, Cleveland has lost more than half of its residents and essentially all of its economic and cultural capital. The Rapture happened here, but instead of going to the bosom of God in heaven, the elect ended up in Houston, Charlotte, Los Angeles, New York, and, most galling of all because of its proximity and broad-shouldered similarity, Chicago. There was a time, at the turn of the 20th century, when Cleveland and Chicago were real rivals, but that competition long ago devolved into a sort of lopsided Clippers vs. Lakers fiasco in which the clear winner need not even acknowledge that a competition ever existed.
As Chicago was becoming the hog butcher for the world and tool maker and stacker of wheat, Cleveland peaked as the seventh-largest city in America, with nearly 1 million residents, before beginning a long, slow, steady decline underscored by race riots, the Cuyahoga River bursting into flames, and a 1978 default on its municipal bonds. This year Cleveland earned the dubious honor of being named "the most miserable city" in the U.S. by Forbes.
Strange that the decline of Cleveland eerily parallels the declining percentage of the white population and the dramatic rise of the Black population.
An interesting piece from The New York Times published in 1996 points to the disturbing trend of white flight and the Black people who realize that this migration of white folks is merely a precursor to financial and societal destabilization:
In 1980, Matteson was 84 percent white. Ten years later, the figure was 53 percent. Today, this village of about 11,000 residents, settled by German immigrants, is 47 percent white and 48 percent black.
Now, the interracial village board is aggressively trying to woo whites to town with a carefully aimed "affirmative marketing" campaign. Some here say the plan is a necessary step toward maintaining property values and diversity as the hopes of "I Have A Dream" are fading across the country. Brotherhood, they say, sometimes needs a push.
As we learned when discussing Whitopia's, those white people who dare decide to congregate in the same geographic area do so because of the school's, never admitting that the reason the school's are so good is due to the obviously distressing homogeneity of the students.
Harvard educator Robert Putnam showed in his meticulous studies that diversity leads to a chronic breakdown in trust and civility within a town:
IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.
But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
Forbes ran a story in 2007 about the top cities for volunteering, where Putnam's ideas quoted above brought to light a harsh reality that helps elaborate on the picture presented in the New Orleans vs. Nashville debate: cities with a lot of Black people seem to be places of extreme mistrust:
So does some heightened sense of civic good grow deep in the heartland? Maybe. But there are pragmatic reasons as well. According to the study, four major factors tend to encourage high volunteer rates: attachment of a community (such as high levels of home ownership), low commute times to and from work, high education levels among the population and the presence of nonprofit organizations in a community.
"These factors tend to build social capital and to directly or indirectly encourage volunteering," says the report "Volunteering in America: 2007 City Trends and Rankings."
The coming collapse of Birmingham, Alabama and the complete collapse of Clayton County in Georgia aren't attributable to the factors delineated by Reason magazine when they lament the passing of Cleveland. No, the direct cause of each of these places is simply the tragic loss of the white populations that built and sustained them until the societal indicators of impending chaos as described by Putnam where entered into the equation.
Reason is wrong about Cleveland and that city's jaw-dropping fall, but as devout followers of Ayn Rand they believe that collectivism is racism. They too are part of the zombie apocalypse, but they cling to hopes of an undefinable rebirth of individualism that will to thwart what ails society.
As Rand Paul has shown, this will not come. Like some tin-foil hat wearing nut, these people will retreat to their cabins in the wilderness and hope the storm of collective insanity rushes past them, never comprehending that that storm passed long ago.
The zombie apocalypse has happened and for those who can see this once believed to be a prospect of horror and science fiction, is but an eventuality that comes as no surprise.
Major cities throughout the United States are designated no-go areas and off limits for those who long ago fled the metropolises that their ancestors once lived in without fear. Save for the few sporting events that families who participated in the great Dunkirk of white flight might attend, major cities in America continue to languish in squalor and criminality.
Racism is not to blame. The current inhabitants of these major cities are to blame. However, since we live in a world where the zombie apocalypse occurred bloodlessly, racism will be designated a mental illness soon.
It is those who can see that pose the only threat to the mind-numbing falsity of egalitarianism, which blinds Libertarian and Disingenuous White Liberal, Crusading White Pedagogue and proponents of Black Run America alike.
It is not human flesh that the zombies lust for, but the continuation of egalitarianism at any cost that sustains them. Even if it means the insolvency of Cleveland and Birmingham in the process.
A Black female undergraduate journalist from Florida A&M sums up the strong points of the mental illness of racism by writing:
Racism is an issue that many people try to avoid, although it is something that still exists today. Can racism be tied to something deeper than a difference in skin tone, perhaps, a mental illness?The issue was first raised 40 years ago by a group of black psychiatrists who asked the American Psychiatric Association to classify forms of extreme bigotry and prejudice as a mental disorder.
The APA rejected their request on the grounds that racism is a "cultural and social problem and cannot be attributed to any disorder."
The APA also said that labeling racism as a mental illness will not do anything to rid society of the problem and doing so will carry too many political implications.This has remained the general consensus.
Recently, some psychiatrists argue that the notion deserves a second look. "To continue perceiving extreme racism as normative and not pathologic is to lend it legitimacy. Clearly, anyone who scapegoats a whole group of people and seeks to eliminate them to resolve his or her internal conflicts meets criteria for a delusional disorder, a major psychiatric illness," said Alvin F. Poussaint, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard University.
Not recognizing racism as a mental illness seems to legitimize it. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV, a mental disorder is defined as a behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom.
Black's who engage in monolithic support of Mein Obama are excused from the mental illness of racism. Only white people can be racist, thus only white people can be mentally ill.
The zombies won. Watching CNN's advertisement featuring Mitchell's declaration of retardation for those who profess racism was dumbfounding. The cable channel who brought us 'Black in America' has all but declared war on white people without realizing that the Newsweek cover story about the proclivities of babies to respond positively to members of their own race speaks to the biological reality of race in ways no boring study on IQ and racial differences in LSAT or SAT studies could.
Racism isn't a mental illness. The rejection of what guides the various races to self-segregate is unhealthy and the true mental illness, but when you factor in that the world has undergone the zombie apocalypse already then it all makes sense.
White people recoil in fear at the mere mention of the word racist. It is this cowardice that is unhealthy.
Regardless, Cleveland will continue to lose residents and no amount of individualism and Libertarian magic from Reason can change that fact.
Stuff Black People Don't Like can only laugh at the question of racism being a mental illness, as this illness – as defined by CNN – is only found among white people.
Boarding the airplane to leave Detroit and upon taking off, the writer behind SBPDL could look out the window and view the crumbling ruins of that city from an ascending point of view. Acres upon acres stretched out in ominous sadness, a massive monument to the tragedy of racism being viewed as a mental illness.
Sipping on a Coke and eating poorly salted peanuts, it became crystal clear that we live in a world governed with the same rigged and enforced tyranny as the one depicted in the remake of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
#17. Pre-Obama America
On this Fourth of July, Black people finally have something worth celebrating in America: the rebirth of the United States into a multi-racial state with Barack Hussein Obama as the Czar of Change.
Prior to November of 2008, Black people viewed the United States of America with a suspicious eye, as the view of one long train of abuses and usurpation's at the hands of whites against Black people was prevalent among the Black community.
Black people have never felt comfortable in "Amerikkka", the land they felt kept them down, thanks in large part to the ubiquitous and eerie "The Man", who did everything he could to keep Black people down.
Then came St. Obama and the angels of the lord did declare him the fiery angel Black people had longed for and desired: exit polls show that Black people voted for Obama:
"Fully 96 percent of black voters supported Obama and constituted 13 percent of the electorate, a 2-percentage-point rise in their national turnout. As in past years, black women turned out at a higher rate than black men."
Prior to this, Black people viewed America as the land of intolerance and evil, regardless of how much money was being poured into Black peoples coffers.
Obama's pastor of 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright had this to say about America:
"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns…Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."
Hundreds of Black people have made similar quotes about Pre-Obama America, but none more damaging than his beloved wife, Michelle Obama:
"Speaking in Milwaukee, Wisconsin today, would-be First Lady Michelle Obama said, "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback…Then in Madison, she said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
Black people never liked the old America, that passed into the hands of Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, and left the old, tired white-bread world and entered the unchartered land of minority rule in America, which Michelle Obama is only to be proud to be a part of, just like the 96 percent of other Black people who voted for "Change" in 2008. Black America voted to secede from the Pre-Obama America in 2008 thereby cementing that Stuff Black People Don't Like will include Pre-Obama America forever.
Is The U.S. Economy Being Tanked By Mistake or By Intent?
Is The U.S. Economy Being Tanked By Mistake or By Intent?
by Bill Sardi
Recently by Bill Sardi: Who Is Left Holding the Bag on US Debt?
The government wants Americans to believe the greatest economic collapse in history was the result of ineptness and mistakes yet still have confidence in their financial institutions.
Should American bankers be let off the hook because they self-declare, before an investigational panel, that the failure of their newly invented risk swaps and other highly leveraged investment schemes was simply due to "mistakes"? Not malfeasance – just every-day mistakes? Bankers just fell asleep at the helm at a critical juncture in American history. Is that what we are being led to believe?
Oh well, it's just 18 million American homes that now lay empty in the wake of unprecedented foreclosures, and the bankers have collected obscene bonuses for reckless lending of their depositors' money. It's like the captain and crew of a ship saying, not to worry, twenty-percent of the passengers were lost overboard, but this was due to unavoidable mistakes, and then being rewarded with bonuses when they reach port.
Are Americans to believe that the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to create a false bubble in the economy, at the same time the Securities Exchange Commission allowed investment banks risky reserve ratios and exerted lax control over investment tycoons like Bernie Madoff, and in lock step, the credit rating agencies (Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poor's) handed out sterling A+ credit ratings on risky mortgage-backed securities, while the US Treasury Department stood by and did nothing?
Shall Americans conclude the world's largest economy is beyond the management skills and regulation of virtually every financial arm of government and the private sector? If so, widespread incompetence would suggest Americans had better come up with some institution or instrument of their own invention to protect their money.
Whatever or whomever did bring down the American economy, it appears to be an orchestrated effort. If one arm of the financial industry had objected or performed their job responsibly, the whole economic collapse could have been averted. The credit rating agencies alone could have put an abrupt halt to what amounts to a financial collapse of western civilization.
Lenses into the future: a planned default?
Americans cannot see the economy as the elites do. The elites have lenses into the future. They have access to information that foretells the future of our economy. They can see a better picture of when mounting debt will rise beyond the ability to repay.
They certainly can see pension funds, private and public, are under-funded and there is no way, with Baby Boomers now entering their retirement years, these obligations can be met. Medicare expenses are totally out of control with enrollees able to rack up bills in the tens of thousands of dollars beyond what they ever paid into the system.
At some point, seeing no way out, maybe a decision was made to default on our debts. There are rumblings that the world economy is being intentionally brought to its knees in order to usher in a one-world currency.
There are other hints that the US is intentionally tanking its economy.
- Normally the US Patent & Trademark Office could be seen as a pathway to jump-start the economy. Some 6300 patent examiners hold the future fate of the American economy in their hands. But the patent office is backlogged. It embarrassingly has 6 years of patent applications, what amounts to over 1 million filings, waiting to be evaluated. Over $700 million of fees have been siphoned off by Congress to pay for other extraneous government projects, slowing the patent approval process to an agonizingly pace. About 7 of every 10 applicants were granted a patent in the past. But today, less than half are approved.
- In the past decade there also appeared to be an effort to drive States into debt. Colorado, a State that had a mandated spending limit, was belittled for stifling its economy. Lies were told that Colorado was so bogged down with this limitation that it repealed its spending limit bill. That was far from the truth.
- Another business stifling practice has been to limit the amount of large funds actually available to the economy in what is called M3 money supply. M1 is the amount of currency and traveler's checks in circulation outside banks, along with demand deposits and other checkable deposits. M2 is M1 plus savings deposits, such as money market accounts. M3 is M2 plus large time-restricted deposits, institutional money-market funds and other large liquid assets. M3 is the best official measure of the total supply of money.
As of March 23, 2006, the M3 money supply is no longer published by the US central bank. So Americans can't get a full view of what government is doing with the total money supply. The M3 is now estimated by two websites – ShadowStats.com and NowAndTheFuture.com. A severe contraction in the M3 money supply began to be reported in August of 2008. It appears there has been a sudden downturn in M3 funds, which could choke the economy at a critical time.
"Total money"
M3 plus credit, recent time
By plan or mistake?
It would be difficult for the American public to even contemplate the idea that their government may be intentionally tanking the economy. So we are left with the commonly-heard claim that people in government are just incompetent, there is no conspiracy of any kind. Regardless, heads should roll, and we still have the same derelict captains (Bernanke, Geithner) at the helm.
Whatever is planned for the future US economy, there certainly must be contingency plans in place to devalue the dollar, issue new currency, declare banking holidays, reappraise the value of real estate to true market value (~ 30% drop), sell off government-held real estate assets to hedge funds, confiscate guns, invoke marshal law, etc. If these events occur, they won't be without forethought. Call it conspiracy if you will.
On November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt stated, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the United States since the days of Andrew Jackson."
Few Americans recognize the merger of state and corporate powers, with the news media also subservient to those in power. How gullible the public has been over recent decades to not see how government and business have conspired to raise the price of goods.
The oil embargo of the 1970s
I can recall the gasoline crisis/OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s. I was traveling around the US on business at the time and I noticed that shortages of gasoline were not nationwide but were actually being staged in different regions. In Seattle there was no shortage of gasoline, but there were long lines at gas stations in Los Angeles. There was no scarcity of gasoline in Atlanta, but later there were long lines at gas pumps throughout Georgia. TV screens around the nation made it falsely appear the shortage was nationwide.
The 1970s gasoline crisis was a concerted effort between government, oil producers and the news media to fool Americans into thinking there was a pervasive shortage of gasoline despite the fact OPEC, the oil-producing cartel, was founded because of an over-abundance of oil.
I recall reading an article in Fortune Magazine in 1963 how oil companies longed to find a way to raise the price of gasoline to European levels. Pre-OPEC, oil was sold at competing prices. That couldn't be tolerated. A spot-price had to be introduced. Then one country couldn't undersell another and prices would "stabilize." The OPEC cartel eliminated competition, except for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in recent times. Of course, Chavez is demonized. We do not have free markets, we have controlled markets based upon contrived events.
Graph of oil prices from 1861–2007, showing a sharp increase in 1973, and again during the 1979 energy crisis. The orange line is adjusted for inflation.
Examine this map of failed banks in 2008–2009. There are over 2000 failed banks the FDIC indicates it needs to dissolve. Notice how evenly the bank failures are spread geographically across the US. The geographical locus of home foreclosures is centered in California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. But bank closures appear to be more evenly spread, as if to create public awareness (and fear) in every geographic region that banks are in trouble. This is eerily similar to the geographically revolving gasoline shortages in the 1970s.
Tax cut or payoff to oil companies?
Another example of complicity between government and industry is the most recent run up in gasoline prices which began early in the past decade. The news media failed to note that when GW Bush passed his first tax cut in 2001, early in his first term in office, it was rapidly followed by an increase in gasoline prices at the pump. Had President Bush cut taxes in order to put money into consumers' hands so they could then pay ghastly high gasoline bills? The tax cut appears to have been a hand-in-hand arrangement between oil producers and the federal government. Gasoline prices rose till the public began curtailing their driving. The oil companies had now determined the top price they could get for their refined oil without collapsing demand.
There is nothing wrong with companies determining the top price consumers will pay for their goods, but there is something wrong when government secretly schemes with oil companies to create false market value, as they have also done in real estate.
Looking back in recent American history, there were also shortages of coffee and bananas in the 1970s and 80s, all staged events blamed on storms in South America that ruined crops. In those days, Americans didn't have easy access to weather maps and information via the internet. These shortages were prolonged and prices rose until usage declined. Then the barons who ruled the coffee and banana industries had found the top price they could sell their products at without dampening demand. Suddenly, the shortages disappeared. The public never imagined these shortages were all artificially created.
Just as the price of oil, bananas and coffee were covertly engineered by a hidden alliance between government, industry and news outlets, is currency being gamed in the same fashion today? If so, current economic events are not by mistake.
Since President Roosevelt banned citizens from owning gold in 1933, the people were left holding increasingly worthless pieces of paper.
Americans can't imagine how monetary policy has eroded their purchasing power. The US was officially taken off the gold standard in 1971. Issuance of silver certificates ceased in 1964. Had the US dollar continued to be backed by gold, the rise in the value of gold would have offset recent increases in gasoline prices at the pump, a fact Ron Paul has brought to the public's attention.
For example, a portion of the rise in oil prices in recent years is due to erosion in the value of the dollar. Had the dollar remained strong the relative price of a barrel of oil would only have been around $65 in 2007-2008. If you compare the spot price of oil to gold, there has been almost no increase. Imagine what a gold-backed currency would do for America? Again, government (the Federal Reserve) has now admitted that it has arranged gold swaps with foreign banks in a prearranged way to suppress the value of gold.
Is inflation inevitable? Or is it planned? Will the American public ever imagine the value of their money has long been manipulated just as the price of coffee, bananas, gasoline and gold have been engineered in an unholy alliance between government and bankers and corporate enterprise? Will the American public ever realize their government is working against them, plunder their wealth, in a growing fascist alliance with American corporations? The enemy is not the underpants airplane bomber as we are falsely being led to believe. The enemy is not a towelhead in Afghanistan. The enemy is not China. As Pogo once said, "we have met the enemy, and he is us."
January 19, 2010
Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a frequent writer on health and political topics. His health writings can be found at www.naturalhealthlibrarian.com. He is the author of You Don't Have To Be Afraid Of Cancer Anymore.
Copyright © 2010 Bill Sardi Word of Knowledge Agency, San Dimas, California. This article has been written exclusively for http://www.LewRockwell.com and other parties who wish to refer to it should link rather than post at other URLs.