[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
History See other History Articles Title: Who Still Believes In Integration? The results of our 30-year experiment are clear for all to see. by Samuel Taylor and Marian Evans In 1917 the Soviet Union set out to build a nation on a complete misreading of human nature: that people could be taught to live “from each according to his ability to each according to his need.” For decades the experiment staggered on despite the accumulation of mountains of evidence that human beings cannot be made to overcome self-interest. Long before the fateful experiment ground to a halt 70 years later, almost no one in the Soviet Union any longer believed that “Communism” was possible or even desirable. Some time during the 1950s and ’60s, the United States embarked on an equally misguided experiment based on an equally mistaken view of human nature: that people could be made to believe that race is irrelevant. Like the Russian Revolution, this change was imposed upon the country by a small band of fanatics. Unlike the Bolsheviks, these fanatics did not advertise their entire revolutionary program—because in all likelihood they did not have one. It was only gradually, as it unfolded through school integration, “civil rights,” open housing, immigration reform, affirmative action, “diversity,” multiculturalism and “political correctness” that the scope of the revolution became clear. Just like the Soviet experiment, the American multi-racial experiment staggers on despite the growing mountains of evidence that it has failed. What form the eventual collapse will take is impossible to say, but it is increasingly clear that, just as in the late days of the Soviet Union, few people any longer believe the official myths. The era of multi-racial harmony that Americans looked forward to in the 1960s has not come and will never come. Whatever they are prepared to say in public or even admit in private, Americans now go about their lives with a quiet understanding that race has hardly become irrelevant. Every year it looms larger in their lives and governs more of their decisions; every year the official bromides ring more hollow. Aspects of the obvious have even penetrated such bastions of obtuseness as Harvard University. Professor Nathan Glazer recently observed that “There’s a sense that we’ve tried everything and nothing works. We’ve gone through periods of expectations … But now no one seems to have any potential answers.” In 1954, when he argued for school desegregation before the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall believed that all American schools would be integrated within 5 years and the nation as a whole would be integrated in ten. Forty years later, whites and blacks alike have largely given up the notion of integration. When Martin Luther King proclaimed in 1963 that he dreamed of the day when his children would be judged by character rather than race, millions thought that day would come soon. Today, even the New York Times (Nov. 25, 1990) explains that to the old expression, “All politics is local” must be added the addendum, “All local politics is racial.” Thanks to our foolish immigration policies, racial politics no longer follow a simple black-white logic. With Hispanics, Asians, Caribbean blacks, and Arabs pouring into the country, America is divided by race as never before. Race is the unacknowledged subtext of virtually every continuing news story in America. Whether the press mentions it or not, everyone knows that race is at the heart of the afflictions destroying our country: crime, poverty, drug addiction, illegitimacy, welfare, and the decline in public civility. No, race has not become irrelevant. If, in the 1960s, Americans had known that integration, immigration reform, and the welfare state led straight to what we see around us today, we can be sure that none of these mistakes would have been made. The experiment has run its course. The data are in. Multi-racialism has failed. Dismantling Racial Consciousness Paradoxically it is whites—who pay the heaviest price for “diversity” and “multi-racialism”—who invented the idea that race could be made not to matter and who still cling to it most desperately. No people had ever abolished racial consciousness, but Americans believed they could. The bargain whites thought they had struck in the 1960s was that all people would dismantle racial consciousness. America would become a nation of individuals rather than an uneasy assembly of races. Though no one seems to have realized it at the time, the United States had launched a cultural revolution that was as radical and destructive as the one that raged through China. For the most part, whites kept their end of the bargain. They abolished legal segregation, accepted large-scale non-white immigration, submitted to busing, denounced “racism,” and forced all expressions of white pride and solidarity under ground. They abandoned the view that they had legitimate group interests and left all whites to compete in society as individuals. Black behavior, which then set the tone for other non-whites, was the reverse. Once whites had disbanded as a self-conscious racial group, blacks found they could exploit and intimidate whites simply by acting together. This was, of course, the purpose of the Congressional Black Caucus, “civil rights” groups, and the thousands of black sub-groups that proliferated through every university, fire department, profession, city, and student body in the country. One of the oldest truths of warfare is that a few disciplined men acting together can rout a disorganized rabble. Unified non-whites have been spectacularly successful in extracting benefits and concessions from disorganized whites. Be it affirmative action, censorship of data on race and IQ, suppression of crime statistics, bilingual education, the King holiday, ethnic studies departments, or welfare for illegal aliens, unified non-whites have routed a disorganized white rabble. Whites have, of course, been betrayed by many of their “leaders” and media “spokesmen” but this is just another sign of their disorganization and lack of racial coherence. Current orthodoxies now legislate a host of double standards, the most obvious of which is that non-whites are to make race the center of their personalities while whites are to pretend that they have no race at all. From Kwanzaa to Afro-centrism, from Cinco de Mayo to National Hispanic University, non-whites nourish and strengthen their racial identities while whites must embrace multi-culturalism. Of course, although whites still mouth the platitudes about diversity more loudly and piously than anyone else, their actions betray their real feelings. Few whites want diversity in their own neighborhoods. Virtually every white who can afford to, lives among other whites. In Chicago, it is said that the “white tax” on a house runs from $50,000 to $150,000 dollars. That is how much more the same house is worth if it comes with white neighbors. Drifting Apart Residential segregation is, in fact, one of the clearest signs that people are always conscious of race and that they are naturally inclined to live among their own kind. Our busybody government has been able forcibly to integrate schools and work places. It has forbidden restrictive covenants that used to prevent whites from selling houses to non-whites, and people of all races are free to buy any houses they can afford. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Americans want neighbors who look like themselves. Shaker Heights, Ohio and Columbia, Maryland are two cities that have made extraordinary efforts to get blacks and whites to live together. Shaker Heights, a wealthy suburb of Cleveland with a population of 31,000, first attracted a trickle of black doctors and dentists in the late 1950s. As early as 1964, the city forbade the display of “for sale” signs so that neighbors would not know people were selling houses and be stampeded into selling their own. It has since tried to manage its stock of people and housing as carefully and vigilantly as manufacturers handle inventory. For the last six years, the city has subsidized whites who were willing to move into neighborhoods that were more than 50 percent black and has given blacks low-cost loans to move into neighborhoods that were more than 90 percent white. Once they are in the same neighborhoods, the city’s office of community services keeps an eye on block parties and other gatherings to make sure they are integrated. The Ford Foundation has praised the city for its work. All Shaker Heights sixth graders get racial sensitivity training, and at the high school everything from places on the hockey team to year book photo layouts is carefully distributed by race. The school has not yet found a way to distribute ability by race; honors classes are still overwhelmingly white and regular courses are overwhelmingly black. Despite these efforts, only three of Shaker Heights’ nine neighborhoods are integrated. After school, blacks and whites go their separate ways. As the New York Times observes (12/31/91), “left to their own devices, people will resegregate. So the city does not leave them to their own devices.” Columbia, Maryland has made an even braver attempt to encourage racial mixing. The city was established in 1967 by developer James Rouse to be a model integrated community. Everything from its layout to its school system was supposed to encourage blacks and whites to live together. Home buyers were “lured” with the information that Columbia’s first baby was born to an inter-racial couple and the town promoted itself as “The Next America.” Columbia is still 20 percent black, but after the first flush of inter-racialism, blacks and whites no longer socialize. Bars and nightclubs attract single-race clienteles and churches that were once integrated are no longer. Last year, when the Columbia Jewish Congregation invited blacks to its Martin Luther King celebration, only one showed up. In previous years, black choirs, preachers, and churchgoers used to attend. A civic group called the Columbia Association used to hold integrated dances for teenagers but whites stopped coming. Now it holds separate dances for blacks and whites. It is worth noting that both Columbia and Shaker Heights are expensive suburbs. The median house price in Columbia is nearly $200,000 and in Shaker Heights it is $150,000. The whites who buy these houses are yuppies who have had the full university dose of current racial propaganda. The blacks are the fabled “hard-working, middle class blacks” that every white liberal claims to want as neighbors. Columbia was set up from the start to be a multi-racial paradise and has always attracted racial idealists. In neither town—no doubt because house prices are so high—are blacks threatening to swamp whites. It would be impossible to find more promising opportunities for racial mingling but it is not happening. In both towns, as their elders mournfully note, it is young people who are least likely to integrate. Finally, it is also worth noting that in both Shaker Heights and Columbia, it is city governments run by dewy-eyed whites that are trying to make integration work. Blacks do not make the same effort. There are, for example, a number of well-to-do, all- or majority-black suburbs in which blacks with enough money to live anywhere choose to live among blacks: Rolling Oaks in Dade County; Brook Glen, Panola Mill, and Wyndham Park outside of Atlanta; the Prince Georges County suburbs of Washington, D.C. Unlike whites, they do not pretend that they want integration. The black journalist Sam Fulwood writes of the pall that fell over a back yard gathering in a black suburb when a realtor was seen slowly driving a white couple down the street. “I hope they don’t find anything they like,” said one of the blacks; “Otherwise there goes the neighborhood.” As the black “sports sociologist” Harry Edwards puts it, integration has failed “because nobody wants it. Blacks have always wanted to associate with themselves.” Of course, whites have always wanted the same thing but have been afraid to say so. A preference for congenial neighbors is universal. In Southern California, which has become a babel of races and languages, Cambodian and Hispanic apartment owners are famous for refusing to rent to any but their compatriots. Korean landlords routinely evict Hispanics so that other Koreans can move in. In 1990-91, the Fair Housing Council of Orange County had 1,178 complaints from people who were denied accommodation because of race. The largest number was from whites who were refused housing by Asians and Hispanics. Californian blacks who drove whites from their neighborhoods years ago are now angry that Hispanics are doing the same to them. In South-Central Los Angeles, blacks have become a minority and resent people who play Ranchera music all night, keep chickens, and park rusting automobiles in their front yards. As the president of a black home-owners association recently complained to the city council, “[Hispanics are] a different culture, a different breed of people. They don’t have the same values. You can’t get together with them. It’s like mixing oil and water.” The rougher element does not take its grievances to city government. The Jordon Downs welfare housing project in Watts has traditionally been all black but the Hispanic population has increased to more than 20 percent. Blacks have responded by burning Hispanics out of their apartments. When five people died in a recent arson attack the Hispanic residents officially requested their own, segregated building. Resentments run the other way as well. The Hawaiian Gardens area of Los Angeles is now two-thirds Hispanic but a small number of blacks have begun to move in. Earlier this year, Hispanic gang members threatened to shoot up the house of a black family if it did not move out, and in March Hispanics fire bombed another house occupied by blacks. Self-Segregated Schooling The natural preference of people to separate by race is on full display at universities. Despite years of multi-cultural education and incessant propaganda from Hollywood and the press, the races rarely mix. College administrators—who probably live in all-white neighborhoods and have no non-white friends themselves—like to write despairing articles about how they sat for days in a dining hall without seeing any people of different races eating together. There are now eight, national all-black fraternities on college campuses and an all-Hispanic fraternity, Omega Delta Phi, was recently founded. It is routine for blacks to live in African theme dormitories and for Hispanics to live in Casa Latina. The University of Pennsylvania (lately of “water buffalo” fame) pays for a separate year book for blacks. Vassar, Dartmouth, and the University of Illinois have separate graduation ceremonies and activities for non-whites. Memphis State University no longer has a home-coming queen because blacks want a black queen and whites want a white. The University of California at Berkeley, which has a Chinese chancellor and at which whites are just one more minority, used to boast about its “diversity” the way the town of Columbia boasted about its mixed-race baby. Now, liberal white sociologists cluck worriedly because the races do not mingle. Cornell University has found that its main residential areas, West Campus and East Campus, have become racially segregated. Freshmen who have never even visited the campus know this and put in requests to live on the appropriate campus. Cornell decided that it would put an end to this by assigning freshman housing at random. The administration had second thoughts when it encountered stiff resistance, mainly from blacks. Once the proposal was put to an undergraduate referendum, it was defeated four to one. When given an anonymous opportunity to express themselves, whites are no more in favor of integration than blacks. At UCLA, the main walkway through the campus, called Bruin Walk, used to be lined with recruiting tables for sports teams, hobby groups, and political unions. Now it is crowded with ethnic organizations that do not hesitate to distinguish, for example, between American-born Chinese and foreign-born Chinese. Separation continues after graduation. Race-exclusive alumni associations are increasingly common, with Yale, Colgate, Syracuse, and Baruch Universities among those that have set them up. Ethnic alumni work for ethnic causes. Of course, among formerly-white colleges it is those that have worked the hardest to recruit and pamper non-whites that have suffered the most criticism. Wesleyan University in central Connecticut has made such a fetish of “diversity” that nearly one third of its 2,600 students are “people of color” and students call it “Diversity U.” One third of its courses are multi-cultural or otherwise non-traditional. Naturally, the non-white students are dissatisfied and have launched weeks of bitter protest for more money, “role models,” special treatment, and courses about themselves. In 1988 the trustees of Smith College adopted The Smith Design for Institutional Diversity. It started bidding wars to attract non-white professors and lavished scholarship money on non-white students. The more diverse it became, the more divided and tension-ridden it became. Smith now has a policy that forbids any criticism, no matter how thoughtful, of racial quotas or preferences. Schools that have not mounted racial recruitment drives can still educate students in peace. One of the reasons colleges like Smith and Wesleyan have trouble recruiting blacks is that the last decade has seen a big increase in enrollments at “historically black” colleges. These 117 institutions now serve about 300,000 students and grant one quarter of the bachelor’s degrees given to blacks. Compared to their fellows at mainly-white colleges, students get better grades and are less likely to flunk out. White race-mixing zealots are embarrassed by the resistance to integration shown by black colleges. They have nevertheless been forced by their own logic to make at least tentative attempts to merge black schools with neighboring white colleges. Blacks, of course, have not hesitated to defend what whites are eager to give up. When white students were coaxed with scholarships to attend the “historically black” campus of Tennessee State University, some were beaten up and others took to carrying weapons for self-defense. Most white students simply go to class and go home. They do not live in dormitories and do not stay for extracurricular activities. Unlike administrators of mainly-white schools, who are constantly thinking up new ways to “diversify,” administrators at black colleges let fly with the usual charges of racism and genocide when integration means breaking up voluntary concentrations of blacks. Raymond Richardson, a departmental chairman at Tennessee State University adds a fanciful new twist to the accusation of “racism:” There are no signs that anyone is drawing up The TSU Design for Institutional Diversity. The attempt to integrate public elementary and high schools has been a fiasco (see AR, July 1993). All across the country the attempt followed the same pattern: once the number of non-whites reached a certain level, standards collapsed and whites moved to the suburbs. During the past 25 years, most big-city public schools lost nearly all their white students. In Atlanta their percentage went from 41 percent to 7 percent, in New Orleans from 34 percent to 8 percent, in Detroit from 41 percent to 9 percent, in Los Angeles from 55 percent to 16 percent. Once a school district becomes overwhelmingly non-white it makes no sense to bus children across town to achieve a chimerical racial balance. Parents start doing what everyone took for granted before integration; they send their children to neighborhood schools. Whites in the suburbs do the same. The only difference is that now blacks and whites live even further away from each other than before, since whites have had to move all the way out of the district to find good schools. Today, two thirds of all black children go to schools that are predominantly non-white. That number was dropping until about 1972 but has since held steady. Ironically, schools are more integrated in the South than in the North, where cities like Chicago, New York, and Boston have essentially given up on integration. The New York Times (Jan. 19, 1992) acknowledges that school children now learn a fourth R: resegregation. The integration that continues in the South is mainly the result of court-ordered busing, housing patterns that have traditionally been less drastically segregated than in the North, and the inability of poor Southern whites to pay for private schools. As it does everywhere else, integration has costs. In Selma, Alabama, for example, the school board is reconstituted every year to give blacks and whites alternating majorities. This is simply explicit recognition of what most Americans accept implicitly: despite years of twaddle to the contrary, race matters. Since blacks accept this obvious truth more candidly than whites, they are increasingly sending their children to all- or mostly-black Afro-centric schools, both public and private. Atlanta’s public schools, for example, now teach an Afro-centric curriculum, complete with the usual silliness about black Egyptian scientists. The city of Detroit has pushed through a similar curriculum over the protests of Hispanic parents who, like poor whites, cannot afford to move to the suburbs or pay for private schools. For a time, fashionable opinion held that public schools exclusively for black boys would keep them from turning into criminals. Detroit, Milwaukee, and New York City all went forward with such schools until they were found to violate civil rights laws—not because whites were to be excluded but because girls could not attend. At private black schools, children are taught unabashed racialism. Every morning at the Chad school in Newark, New Jersey, the 500 students recite “A Pledge to African People” rather than the pledge of allegiance. At Shule Mandela Academy in East Palo Alto, California, students pledge to “think black, act black, speak black, buy black, pray black, love black, and live black.” Afro-centric schools routinely replace the Fourth of July with Emancipation Day, and invent African equivalents of Halloween and Thanksgiving. Ujamaa School, the oldest of Washington, D.C.’s four private Afro-centric schools, holds a family night every Friday. The school’s founder, who has taken the name Baba Zulu, likes to remind the audience that “We are not Afro-Americans. We are African people born in America.” On one recent evening a speaker was introduced with a ten-minute rap performance accompanied by drums. The audience enthusiastically joined in the chorus: “People get ready, there’s a war a-coming. No compromise, the last white dog must die.” All students at Ujamaa School must take African names, and Mr. Zulu speaks only to black reporters and black photographers. “Everything I do has to be with African people,” he explains. Not all school children manage to attend the segregated schools that many would prefer. It is mostly poor students who attend integrated public schools and that often means blacks and Hispanics. Friction between these groups is universal but the news is kept strictly local. Late in 1990, Chicago’s Farragut High School was temporarily shut down, the homecoming dance was canceled, and extracurricular activities were ended for 30 days. The “state of emergency” was called in response to violent confrontations and what police called “total polarization” between blacks, who are 32 percent of the student body, and Hispanics, who are 66 percent. This year in Dallas, Hispanic parents have been complaining angrily about blacks whom they claim prey on Hispanic children. During the month of February, black-Hispanic brawls erupted in Pinkston and Sunset high schools, and as many as 100 blacks and Hispanics fought each other in a melee at Boude Storey Middle School. Last year at Huntsville High School near Houston, Hispanic students pulled guns and knives on a group of black students who were threatening them in the parking lot. The Hispanics explained that they are always outnumbered by violent blacks. One Hispanic community leader complained that school officials are afraid to discipline “highly aggressive black kids who are very pushy, very obnoxious and very loud,” because this would bring accusations of racism. In 1991, the parents of 300 Hispanic children in a South Bronx junior high school successfully sued the school district to have their children transferred out of a mainly-black school. Sixth-grader Rebecca Gonzalez described the situation this way: “It’s horrible. A lot of kids going to the bathroom are being choked. They are stealing our chains and our money. When we go to the lunch room, they spit and curse us. They say, ‘Get out of our school; you don’t belong here.’” Last year the black and Hispanic students of Norman Thomas High School in New York got into a bloody racial brawl in the lunch room. Police and scores of “rapid mobilization guards” rushed to the school as students of both sexes hammered each other with fists and garbage cans. “The only thing people cared about was skin color,” explained 16-year-old Rudy Feliciano. When students were dismissed to go home the presence of dozens of police did not prevent more brawling in the street at the school’s prime Manhattan location at Park Avenue and 33rd Street. Across the country in Watts, Hispanic parents refused to send their children to black-dominated schools. They discovered that black administrators have no interest in bilingual programs and that black students rob and terrorize Hispanics. These children, who are growing up with firsthand experience of multi-racialism, are not likely to harbor any illusions about it. Integration Behind Bars Fortunately, most Americans—of all races—can avoid any but the most superficial racial integration if they really want to. However, there is a group of Americans who are forced to integrate in ways that are vastly more intimate than anything ordinary Americans would find tolerable. They are prisoners. Both state and federal prisoners live, sleep, work, and play in overcrowded jails where whites are often a minority. As on the outside, blacks and Hispanics organize themselves along racial lines while most whites are isolated. In many prisons blacks completely dominate whites, whom they often enslave for sexual purposes. In one Florida prison, black convicts were raping whites so often that whites sued the state for failing to prevent it. A study of the North Carolina prison system found that 77 percent of all inmates are assaulted every year and that 80 percent of all inter-racial assaults are by blacks against whites. Studies invariably show that the white prisoners who survive best in prison are those who join white racialist groups. Prisoners of all races would prefer segregation. When black prisoners rioted earlier this year at the maximum security prison in Lucasville, Ohio, and killed a number of whites, the press routinely reported that they were rioting for “better conditions.” Barely mentioned was that one of the most emphatically demanded “better conditions” was racial segregation. It is not likely to be met. So long as our country continues in its belief that racial mixing is somehow a worthy objective in itself, we will continue to impose upon prisoners an integrationist regimen that we would find intolerable. The Wages of Diversity Perhaps liberals have found it necessary to promote diversity more urgently every year because it has become so obvious that diversity is a curse and an affliction. Everyone has read about how terribly blacks treat the Korean merchants who bring attractive shops into their blasted neighborhoods. Despite government-sponsored efforts to “reach out” to each other, Koreans and blacks continue to feud. Late last year, the Los Angeles Black-Korean Alliance, which was formed to heal wounds between the two groups, disbanded. It found it could do nothing to improve relations and that its own members split along racial lines. In Chicago, it is Arab immigrants who tend to open stores in black neighborhoods and are hated for their hard work. In 1990, when a white opened a supermarket in a largely black area he won local approval by advertising that “no Arabs will be involved” in the store’s management. Sometimes diversity is comical. In 1990, when New York City put on a parade “to foster ethnic harmony” the results were the reverse. The boys and girls on the Arab-American float—who were students at the Abu Jihad school in Brooklyn—defied the organizer’s ban on flying the Palestinian national flag by sewing small replicas onto their costumes. This infuriated not just the Jews but the Kurds, who didn’t think of the idea and had duly left their flags at home. The Kurds noisily accused the Turks both of oppressing them back in Turkey and of stealing their drummer. The worst conflict erupted between the Taiwanese and the mainland Chinese. The two groups, dressed in colorful native costumes, poured into the street and got into a shouting match which would have escalated to fisticuffs if several dozen policemen had not intervened. Often, the very word “diversity” means little more than the furthering of non-white interests. When the Kappa Alpha fraternity at Auburn University finally yielded to pressure and gave up its 77-year-old tradition of wearing Confederate uniforms in an Old South parade, a former president of Auburn’s Black Student Union observed, “Maybe they’ve realized the need for tolerance and diversity.” The racial divide can, indeed, have its comical side. A reporter who managed to sneak into a conference of the National Women’s Study Association heard a black panelist talk about the anguish of joining a lesbian “support” group. It first splintered into two factions, black and white. There was then more vitriol within the black group. “Those of us in the group who had white lovers were immediately targeted… It turned into a horrible mess… I ended up leaving that group for self-protection.” On a more serious note, besides the determined way in which the races manage to live, study, and socialize apart, differences in their publicly-expressed views are often irreconcilable. When the New York Times (Oct. 29, 1990) asked blacks and whites whether they thought the government was funneling drugs into slums in order to harm black people, 60 percent of blacks thought it was either true (25 percent) or thought it might be true (35 percent). Only four percent of whites thought it was true and only 12 percent that it might be true. Likewise 30 percent of blacks thought it true or possibly true that AIDS was invented by the government to infect blacks, whereas only five percent of whites thought this. Similar disparities show up in response to questions about whether the press treats blacks fairly or whether the government singles out black officials for criminal investigations. Differences in attitudes show through in other areas. Although in 1988 and 1989 only nine percent of the students at the University of Virginia were black, they accounted for 27 percent of the investigations for violations of the student honor code. Furthermore, 75 percent of the blacks who were investigated were found guilty, as opposed to 30 percent of the whites. The popular Afro-centric view was that not only were the investigations hopelessly racist but that the honor code itself imposed meaningless “white” standards on blacks. Some blacks think that the police are a meaningless white standard. Especially since the well-publicized beating of Rodney King, black officers have endured much derision on account of their uniforms. Atlanta has a black mayor, a black police chief, and 53 percent of its policemen are black. Even so, officers may be greeted with shouts of “Sellout,” and “You’re black before you’re blue.” Other attitudes throw light on the gulf between the races. It is well known that black students who do well in school are taunted by their fellows for “acting white.” There is a whole range of other activities that blacks look down on as unbecoming to blacks: going to museums, doing volunteer work, giving blood, listening to classical music, recycling cans and newspapers, camping, being on time, and speaking unaccented English. These disparities are commonly dismissed as cultural differences, but there is more to it than that. Black Americans have lived in a European culture for centuries but most still cannot speak standard English. North Asians, who actually do come from different cultures, take readily to “white” behavior. Television viewing patterns also differ markedly by race. There is no overlap between the top ten shows watched by blacks and those watched by whites. Not surprisingly, with only two exceptions—“Blossom” and “Married … With Children,” which were numbers six and eight—the top ten black programs have majority-black casts. It is now common for black film makers like Spike Lee or playwrights like August Wilson to insist that only blacks can produce dramas about other blacks. When blacks express foreign policy interests they are unambiguously racial. They have taken to holding “African-African American Summits” in such places as Nigeria and the Ivory Coast, where they vow to force the American government to forgive African debt, pay reparations for slavery, and help overthrow white rule in South Africa. Leon Sullivan is best known for telling American companies the conditions under which they were permitted to do business in South Africa. At the 1991 conference he demanded that all American blacks be given the option of holding dual citizenship in the United States and in the African nation of their choice. All across the country, black Christmas shoppers are asking for black Santa Clauses to whom they can take their children. A black man who was “tired of playing with jacks, queens, and kings that don’t look like us,” has started selling decks with black face cards. Black-owned publishers now have full collections of children’s books with black characters, and Romance in Black publishes bodice rippers in which the heroines have anything but milky white shoulders and blue eyes. The city of San Francisco has an entire softball league reserved for—heaven help us—Samoans. Occasionally, in its ham-handed way, even the American government recognizes that races are not equivalent and interchangeable. Although it insists on school and residential integration on the assumption that race is the merest detail, the Voting Rights Act now requires the creation of majority non-white voting districts. Many of these have been carved out by drawing convoluted and improbable boundaries but they ensure that non-whites can elect representatives of their own races. But if the electorate is expected, even encouraged, to vote by race, why is it forbidden to hire by race or to divide neighborhoods by race? This unanswerable question is just another sign of the incoherence and foolishness of what the United States has undertaken. Laws of Human Nature Nothing is more natural, normal, and healthy than to seek the company of people like oneself. Whites have been browbeaten into thinking that when they do this it is “hatred” but that for non-whites it is healthy ethnic pride. More and more whites are rediscovering what their ancestors took for granted: a natural preference for and loyalty to their own race. This is just as proper and just as inevitable as loving one’s own children more than one loves the neighbors’ children. Nor does the love for one’s own children imply ill will towards anyone else’s—though this is precisely what dogma requires whites to believe about race. Once a nation has put enough blather and pig-headedness into a policy it may be impossible to correct it no matter how catastrophic its results. The Soviet Union persisted in the idiocies of Communism long after any objective assessment would have shown that it was a fraud. Cuba is still doing it. And yet the ever more ridiculous figure of Fidel Castro pretending that Marxism will pave the way to the workers’ paradise is no more ridiculous than American politicians gibbering about the joys of diversity. Only by the most monumental efforts of self-deception can these people possibly believe what they are saying. Surely, it does not take unusual powers of observation to notice that even after 30 years of whooping up the idea of racial harmony blacks and whites are hardly about to live together in loving peacefulness. Will another 30 years of whooping change anything? Surely, it does not take a genius to notice that Hispanics and Asians have their own racial loyalties that are, if anything, only getting stronger. A nation cannot be built out of groups that do not hold interests in common. Can it never have occurred to people like Senator Ted Kennedy or President Bill Clinton that if a racial program makes so little progress despite so much effort it might mean that it should never have been launched in the first place? Have they never noticed that they, like the Communists, are trying to force Americans into a conception of man that is at odds with human nature? A glance at a newspaper is enough to show that people are blowing each other to bits all around the world because of differences that are less important than race. There has never been a nation in the history of the world in which disparate peoples have lived side by side in frictionless bliss. Language, religion, race, and tribe are the age-old fault lines that divide people irreconcilably. The idea that the United States can somehow make a nation by deliberately accentuating every reason people have always had for murdering each other is so childish that only very intelligent people could have thought of it. The only reason that integration and multi-racialism have not already thrown the nation into civil war is that whites have capitulated in the face of every challenge. No doubt to their astonishment, non-whites get virtually everything they ask for. There is practically no act of intimidation, bullying, bluster or even outright violence that is not rewarded. Capitulation does not bring peace; it only brings yet more unreasonable demands. If whites ever started to fight for their racial interests as diligently as other races fight for theirs, America could become ungovernable. Besides the inherent instability that multi-racialism brings, there is another even more important reason for whites to look upon the current experiment with horror: it is being conducted at our expense. To note that different races do not get along well is one thing. To note that the current “celebration of diversity” is displacing whites and could reduce them to a minority is something else entirely. Europeans came to America to tame the wilderness, and they built a successful nation with a strong cultural core. Foreigners, whose own nations had failed, were naturally attracted to our country. We foolishly let them in. Now, whites are being asked to rejoice at the prospect of lowering their standard of living and sacrificing their cultural cohesion in the name of a racial experiment they never chose and for which they never voted. Massive non-white immigration, affirmative action, welfare programs that encourage high non-white birth rates, the constant denigration of European civilization—these are all practiced in the name of a mythical racial equality and are nothing less than cultural, racial, and national suicide. No one is asking Mexico or Haiti or Nigeria to “celebrate diversity” by reducing their majority populations to minorities. No one even pretends that if the United States were sending its poorest, least educated citizens into Mexico by the million—where they were asking for affirmative action and ballot papers in English—that Mexicans could be tricked into thinking this was “cultural enrichment.” What we are permitting to happen to this country is therefore a double calamity. It is a tragedy for any once-great nation to subside into the divisive ruin that racial diversity ensures. For the whites who built the nation there is the added, unspeakable horror of dispossession and eventual marginalization. There are still 180,000,000 white people in this country. Many of them are asleep but many are beginning to awake. There is rising anger over immigration and over the preposterous demands and accusations that now go by the name of “civil rights.” Whites are patient and long-suffering to a fault, but there are limits to what even they will tolerate. They will not forever let their government conduct foolish experiments that can only fail. When the white man decides to act, he is a marvelous thing to behold and nothing can stand in his way.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tauzero (#0)
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
You're not only living in a fantasyland, you're stupid. You also don't know anything about Neanderthals, either.
"He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative." - G.K. Chesterton
Spent your childhood, rather. Just imagine if all the world were a military base. I can see it now...
Jack: Mr. DeMille, if I don't bring you back a complete and original story in 24 hours my name ain't Jack Benny!
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Read between the lines. Its less about race than it is about culture. Take a look at it from that perspective and you'll see where segregation really comes from. In reality, it means that the assimilation engine was monkey-wrenched and brought to a steaming halt. Why is this? Because the *minorities* were not forced to adhere to the same dogma as the majority. That is the situation as it sits today. So long as minorities are coddled and subsidized and encouraged to segregate themselves by telling them it is a good thing to develop and maintain subcultures apart from the mainstream, there will be no integration. That's just how it is. The Military doesn't put up with such nonsense, which is why you don't see it there.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
Good way to judge a school district though.
Jack: Mr. DeMille, if I don't bring you back a complete and original story in 24 hours my name ain't Jack Benny! Wanna bet? Ain't what it used to be.
Jack: Mr. DeMille, if I don't bring you back a complete and original story in 24 hours my name ain't Jack Benny! I doubt you see "black tent zones" or "Hispanic Pride Day" on the battlefield. True, its not what it used to be, but its still better than what our College Campuses are encouraging.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
The reality is that we're all one species. The construct comes from creating a subculture, feeling inferior to others, deciding to "be with your own kind" and using that to separate oneself from others. So, I'll ask the question - if we're 'all one race' then why do certain groups with similar physical characteristics claim to be of 'another race' so they can demand special favors? Then, the second question - if we're 'all one race' then why do they get special favors using the above argument? This is where your argument falls apart - not from lack of accuracy, detail, or trying, but because when one person is colored differently from another, they feel different themselves and then they act on it. Particularly when various agitators (usually on College Campuses) encourage this thinking and then acting on that thinking. As the article states, "whitey gets it" but everyone else creates a subculture to separate themselves from others with. IMO, the so-called "minorities" need sensitivity training, and in very large doses, starting with the morons on College Campuses, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, all members and supporters of La Raza, and the twinks in California attempting to carve out an "Asian voting bloc."
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
Absolutely. Blacks have more fast twitch muscle fiber and smaller body cavities. I just can't agree with you that blacks are generally or usually superior to whites, Tauzero. If the criterion of superiority is basketball, they certainly are.
Jack: Mr. DeMille, if I don't bring you back a complete and original story in 24 hours my name ain't Jack Benny!
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I agree with you 100%. However, I still want to know why the "differently colored collective" can get away with it. Whitey is pilloried for any misstep, but they consistently get a pass? Is that not racism? Until the same 'rules, requirements, and expectations' are handed down to all, there is no such thing as 'equality' in the land. The funny thing is - 'minorities' and agitators don't want 'equality' because then they'd be out of a job and out of the public spotlight. The day the Black Panthers or Brown Berets are consistently panned in the Press the same way the occasional Klan Member is, and do keep in mind, there are less than 2500 Klansmen extant - and most of them are Law Enforcement Agents working undercover - we will know that Equality Has Arrived. I'm still waiting for that day. Despite the rhetoric, "special privilege" is the law of the land and there is NO EQUALITY.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Its still racism, no matter how it is cloaked or explained away.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
What's wrong with that?
Jack: Mr. DeMille, if I don't bring you back a complete and original story in 24 hours my name ain't Jack Benny! There's a reason that there are more black than Chinese basketball players, just as there's a reason there are more Chinese and Indian vs. black computer programmers or electrical engineers. Sure, there are individual exceptions, but the general trends are there to see to everyone who has eyes. Burying your head in the sand and saying "it's all just culture" is a cop-out.
The argument that we all the same species completely misses the point. All horses are the same species, and all horses can breed with other horses. But the reason we have different breeds of horses is because each brand of horse has been bred specifically to be a certain way. Anyone who has ever bred and worked horses knows this very well. If you don't know the difference in the confirmation, aptitude, and performance capabilities of Arabs, Saddlebreds, and Quarter Horses, for example, you can't intelligently train or assess horses. Anyone who thinks the typical Quarter horse will have more endurance than the typical Arab is wrong. Anyone who thinks a quality Arab will trot higher and better than a quality Saddlebred is going to be disappointed. Anyone who thinks he can make a Saddlebred into a better cutting horse than a Quarter horse is going to be in for a shock. They are what they are. Races are like breeds of horses, except each race evolved in an area which mandated that race survive and excel. There are differences in races of humans, just as there are differences in the breeds of animals. Whether those differences are emotional, physical, or intellectual would be an interesting study, but our political correctness prevents such open analysis. One can wish to see an end to race based discrimination without desiring integration as a goal in and of itself. Like peoples cling together. This has always been true because we seek commonality with our immediate group, the place we feel most comfortable. Antelopes and Zebras may graze together, but they live mostly with their own kind, and humans are not much different. Common interests and activities do not make us the same.
Every race has it's congenital losers and its superior specimens, because the reality is that we're all one race. We're the race that kicked the crap out of every other contender and won the humanoid sweepstakes. Has it ever occured to you that one group becomes "top dog" because of a better average intelligence, innovation and work ethic? If one race managed to kick the crap out of others in the game of economic and technological (including military) achievement, there's usually a good reason for that. "Whitey keeps us down" is just Marxism with skin color instead of social class.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Blacks are genetically superior to whites in basketball because they have inherently superior muscles, specifically, muscles which enhance both quickness and jumping ability. We can believe in equality of treatment without believing in universal equality of attributes.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Unseemly to those that haven't been mugged, anyways. It's very white of them.
Jack: Mr. DeMille, if I don't bring you back a complete and original story in 24 hours my name ain't Jack Benny!
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I haven't, no. But my father has. The city where he lives has become increasingly integrated.
Jack: Mr. DeMille, if I don't bring you back a complete and original story in 24 hours my name ain't Jack Benny! One one level my father blames the immediate perps. But his greatest anger is for those who favor and have favored integration. Which of course includes his younger self, many years ago. The day care I attended back then was majority black. My dad had a paper route in the area. The surrounding neighborhood was mostly white, clean and safe -- paperboys still collected money then. Riding in the car on the way home one day, I exclaimed "Look Mommy! That bus driver is a woman!" That she was black passed unremarked. Took some quiet pride in that, my folks did. Still my father spent some effort correcting my speech. "That, not dat." To which I replied "Dat's what I said. 'Dat'." (It's always the white kids that end up talking like the black kids, not the other way around.) A few years later there was a reunion of the day care staff and parents of that time. That my parents were still married was unusual and noted. Today the place is almost all-black, as is the surrounding neighborhood. Both of course are hell holes.
Jack: Mr. DeMille, if I don't bring you back a complete and original story in 24 hours my name ain't Jack Benny! I'd agree with you if you were to qualify the top dog "Whitey" as being Whitey women, Whitey jews, Whitey homosexuals/lesbians/bi-sexuals, Whitey hispanics, Whitey military veterans, and Whitey handicapped. Qualified as such, these peculiar types of "Whities" (aka victim cultists) do indeed get legal privileges guaranteed by a powerful central government.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Wanting the vast majority of blacks and Hispanics to go extinct is extremely racist of you. So you are a real human huh? Doesn't get much more racist than that. You don't have to tell me, it's obvious the cult you belong to.
God is always good!
Thank you. Now, because it is still racism, no matter how it cloaked or explained away, those who either accept it as "just fine" while decrying racism in other avenues of life are hypocrites, pure and simple. So, we have institutionalized hypocrisy as a result of the mess that is out there. Is institutionalized hypocrisy a desirable thing or should it be eliminated?
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
Whitey is still top dog. Oh...there's a big surprise. Privately owned universities (IV league) admit people for reasons other than academic merit. How much more outrageous can private colleges get......maybe preferential admissions based on religious affiliation? I'd bet that possibility would really frost your butt, wouldn't it? Privately owned schools routinely admit people based on many different kinds of criteria you might not like. Get over it. If you don't like it, you are equally free to setup your own private college, granting preferential admissions for your brother victim cultists. The real problem occurs when big government state schools and state university admissions are commanded by federal law to give preferential treatment that is based on anything other than academic merit. Curiously, but not coincidentally, virtually all public state universities have fallen in line with central government demands for them to offer preferential admissions based on a peculiar form of non-academic merit. The peculiar preferential admissions in state universities is uniformly biased in favor of people that are designated members of the jewish-style victim cult (aka secular zionism). Apparently, it isn't good enough for you that virtually all American public state colleges bow down to the victim cult. You want all American public AND all American private colleges to bow to your victim cult as well. Don't ever try to convince me your secular victim cult is anything else but an extremist political hegemon. The average pickle brain cultist isn't even smart or honest enough to admit that his cult leadership promotes mideast wars to convert and kill muslims! It ain't joe-six-pack whitey that is top dog, at least as far as big government weenies are concerned. Many jewish Whities have plenty of money to buy themselves disproportionate representation in Harvard, or any other similarly corrupt IV league college, but that convenient option is not available to Joe- six-pack whitey or his unfortunate kids that are not officially designated Victor Charlie (victim cultists). The private IV league schools still grant preferential admission treatment to victim cult members, despite your protestations to the contrary. Because they are corrupt or corrupted, contemporary IV league college directors are primarily money-driven, and now desire long-term access to federally sponsored grants and lucrative contracts. To get lucrative federal contracts, they must offer some token allegiance to political correctness and extend limited amounts of preferential treatment to designated victim cultists.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
You haven't shown any verifiable evidence where non-victim cult white people (oppressors or hillbilly-rednecks) get legal privileges codified in any current public laws. Similarly, you haven't shown any verifiable evidence where non- victim cult white people get legal privileges in real events. Scurrilous stories on television and juicy rumours don't count as real evidence, despite what you might like to believe. In reality, practically all hillbillies are poor people, so you'll have an uphill climb proving such people get legal privileges. Since you have reduced your charges to unsubstantiated rumour, I have to assume you are obliquely referring to privileges that are the domain of contracts, not public law. As such, you appear to be pretending that privileges granted to special people designated in the terms of a contract are somehow the same as privileges that are granted to special people designated in public laws. By pretending to conflate the two ideas as equals, you are very dishonest. Contracts are voluntary, uncoerced, and can be freely entered into by any people regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. Contracts are also not enforced by the deadly force of a powerful police or miltary power. The fallout of a contract breach is at worst a monetary loss for offenders. In contrast, public laws are involuntary, coercive, and can be enforced against people that are not parties to the agreement, There are innumerable examples of public laws in the US that discriminate in favor of certain people (victim cultists). The fallout of a breach of public law can be death or imprisonment for offenders. Your conflation of voluntary contracts with coercive public laws, implying the two types of relationships are somehow equal in effects, is very dishonest.
In reality, practically all hillbillies are poor people, so you'll have an uphill climb proving such people get legal privileges. Since you have reduced your charges to unsubstantiated rumour, I have to assume you are obliquely referring to privileges that are the domain of contracts, not public law. As such, you appear to be pretending that privileges granted to special people designated in the terms of a contract are somehow the same as privileges that are granted to special people designated in public laws. By pretending to conflate the two ideas as equals, you are very dishonest. Contracts are voluntary, uncoerced, and can be freely entered into by any people regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. Contracts are also not enforced by the deadly force of a powerful police or miltary power. The fallout of a contract breach is at worst a monetary loss for offenders. In contrast, public laws are involuntary, coercive, and can be enforced against people that are not parties to the agreement, There are innumerable examples of public laws in the US that discriminate in favor of certain people (victim cultists). The fallout of a breach of public law can be death or imprisonment for offenders. Your conflation of voluntary contracts with coercive public laws, implying the two types of relationships are somehow equal in effects, is very dishonest. co sign this powerful post
Your silence here reminds me of a similar tactic of jewish people when asked to show verifiable evidence of public laws protecting non-jewish citizens of Israel. Similar by design, the jewish-style victim cult in the US designates white male hillbillies as oppressors, and the jewish-style victim cult in Israel designates all non-jews as oppressors. Jews frequently claim non-jews are respected as legal equals inside Israel. However, when these same boastful jews are challenged to produce real evidence of Israeli public laws protecting non-jew equal legal status, they go silent....just like you do when challenged to produce public laws granting legal protections to white male hillbillies. A coincidence, perhaps? Not likely.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Comments (41 - 44) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||