Mental Preconditioning Can Change the Qualities of Observed Objects

A commenter from India thinks that certain Caucasian women can look like “transsexuals.” I think he is saying that they can look somewhat masculine.

I think quite a lot of Arab, Persian and Middle Eastern Jewish women look a bit tranny. Its the face. The Persians less than the others.

Well, a lot of Asian guys don’t like White women much at all. They say that they don’t look very feminine, that they look masculine. It’s true that Asian women are the most feminine looking of them all.

I never noticed the masculinity of White women in my entire life, but as soon as I heard that, I started looking for it, and I found it! It’s true, a lot our fine White women do look kind of masculine. You just never notice it unless you are specifically thinking of it.

Like one time I was reading in some book about sex. They were interviewing lots of people, and they interviewed some queers. The queers were saying how they hated the way women look, how sickening and gross they were, disgusting, how much better men look. They kept saying that women are full of blubber and fat and all sort and mushy. They like guys who are firm, hard, muscular.

Weird, I never thought of it that way, but it’s true, even thin and in shape women are sort of fatty, because they have so much fat on their bodies. We hets like that and just say it’s their softness, but what the softness really is is fat! LOL, we just never think of it that way. It’s like a little bit of fat is fine as it just gives softness, but too much of it is gross and just makes her look like a hippo.

One guy said that women’s tits were disgusting! He said, “It’s sick! It looks like the udders on a cow! Gross, disgusting, ugh!”

Weird, I have always loved tits, but after I read that, I started looking at tits and wondering if they looked like udders, and it was starting to screw up the tits for me. It want tits and kept getting these udder things instead.

Funny how objects can change so much just depending on the object that we associate them with before we observe them. White women are never seen as masculine until we put the image “masculine” into our heads and look at them, then we see some masculinity in them. Breasts look fantastic until we put the image “udder” into our heads and look at them, then women look like cows!

It’s like perception can be preconditioned based on ideas in our heads.

I’m sure some philosophers somewhere have written about this before…I just can’t think of any offhand. Perhaps someone with a knowledge of philosophy can help out.

Rima Fakih Crowned Miss America

Rima Fakih, a former Miss Michigan, whose family are Shia Muslims from Southern Lebanon, was crowned Miss USA recently, the first Arab to ever win the prize. The neocons have gone insane, among other reactions, they are being led by some Jew named Debbie Schlussel, a blogger from Michigan. There are still a lot of Jews living around Detroit. In addition, many Arabs, mostly Shia Lebanese, have moved into the same area in recent years.

Rima Fakih in a bikini at the Miss USA contest. Hezbollah does not approve, and they said so.

No one knows whether or not Fakih sympathizes with Hezbollah, but 8

Excellent photo of Fakih after winning the prize. She has an interesting phenotype that I can't quite put a finger on. Italian? Armenian? Something like those Georgians? The closest thing she resembles at all is a former girlfriend, who was part Lebanese Maronite and part Greek, among other things.

The thing about Lebanon is that just about everyone hates each other. The Shia, the Sunnis of the North, the Druze and Maronites from the Center, there is no love lost with any of them, unfortunately. There are temporary alliances, but they fall apart a lot. The Greek Orthodox seem to get along with others better than the others, and they are not aligned with the Maronites in any way. The Orthodox have long lined up with Syria. Many of the first suicide bombers in Lebanon in the mid 1980’s were Greek Orthodox, often Communists or Leftists.

Rima Fakih photo in the dark, making her skin look a lot darker. I don't know what she looks like in this picture. Almost like a North Indian?

Fakih’s family varies. Some support Hezbollah and the more secular but still religious Shia Amal. Others are secular Shia who have no particular love for the religious parties. Some of these secular folks are even Communists. Communists are not unusual in Lebanon – there are still quite a few of them for some reason.

Here she is in her gown. A good look at her phenotype here, which seems pretty unique. These people probably are the remains of the ancient Phoenicians, and that was pretty distinct group of folks. Of course, now their genes are scattered about the Mediterranean. After Lebanese and Greek, my next suggestion would be that she looks something like some of the Mizrachi or Arab Jews in Israel, although their looks vary somewhat. I once met an Iranian Mizrachi Jew who looked something like this. A commenter has noted that she looks something like a famous Israeli Yemeni Mizrachi Jewish transsexual Dana International.

There is much misunderstanding about Hezbollah and Lebanon. Hezbollah is not trying to create a fundamentalist state in South Lebanon. They understand the secular nature of the multicultural Lebanese state. In interviews, Hezbollah said that they would only push for a religious state if they could get say 80-8

Here is another look at her, this time with much lighter skin, probably due to the heavy bright lighting. Notice that her skin is about the same color as the White women on either side of her, especially the one to the right.

The beach in Beirut is full of women in bikinis and downtown Beirut is full of women in skimpy clothing. Downtown nightlife is popping, with lots of bars, drinking and even call girls. Nothing much is done to crack down on any of this, and Hezbollah could care less. Down in the South were Hezbollah holds sway, things are a bit different, but I think booze is still legal, and you don’t need to wear a hijab, though it’s preferred.

Here she is pole dancing from two years ago. She won the contest. I think it's safe to say she's not a Hezbollah fanatic. I don't think that the Lebanese Shia, or any Lebanese, have much Black in them, but I am not sure. Syrians are about

Homosexuals are beaten, it is true, but that’s about as bad as Hezbollah gets. Beaten and turned over to the cops, as homosexuality is still illegal in Lebanon and it’s pretty taboo. Gay rights groups have tried to organize, but it’s not going anywhere.

The religious leader of Hezbollah, Fadlallah, has issued some very interesting rulings lately, including one that sanctioned female masturbation, especially if the female is unmarried and has not outlet.

Keep in mind that the Shia are somewhat like Catholics in that doctrine is allowed to be continuously updated to keep with the times, as opposed to the set in stone philosophy of the Sunni, whose Christian analogy is the Protestants. Like the Protestants, the Sunni have no real head religious authorities issuing rulings. Like the Catholics, the Shia have religious leaders (Popes or Ayatollahs) whose job it is to continuously interpret doctrine in the face of changing reality.

The Ayatollahs, including Khomeini, have even allowed transsexualism, and a famous Ayatollah has had a sex change, is now a woman, and is married to another Ayatollah! Then there is the temporary marriage feint which allows for somewhat casual sex outside of marriage. A famous Iranian Islamic religious scholar, a woman, recently authored a book in which she recounted her temporary marriage affairs with 40-50 Iranians, often top Ayatollahs and religious scholars. No one much batted an eye in Iran.

Lebanon is simply a conservative Middle Eastern country, with life centered around families and extended families.

Who Are the Smartest White Europeans?

A commenter suggests that Russians are the smartest Whites.

It’s not the case. Russians are not at all the smartest Whites. Here are some recent scores. There is a North-South cline, but it’s not perfect at all. Italian is a very much a Med state, and it’s IQ is very high. France is mostly a Northern state, and it’s IQ is not so hot. Spain is a Med state with a high IQ. Ireland is a Northern state with a lower IQ than the rest.

Notice I title this piece White Europeans, because as a Pan-Aryanist, I not only believe that most all Caucasoids of Europe are White, but I also believe that there are Whites outside of Europe who are just as White as those of Europe.

Germany        107
Netherlands    107
Poland         106
Sweden         104
Italy          102
Austria        101
Switzerland    101
UK             100
Norway         100
Belgium        99
Denmark        99 (median)
Finland        99
Americans      98 (for comparison purposes)
Czech Republic 98
Hungary        98
Spain          98
Ireland        97
Russia         96
Greece         95
France         94
Bulgaria       94
Romania        94
Turkey         90
Serbia         89

I don’t have much to say about these scores. If France can produce such a great nation with an IQ of 94, then others with similar scores can do well too. Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Hungary and the Czech Republic should be able to create some fine modern societies. They are surely smart enough to. These others listed below are certainly intelligent enough to do well for themselves. IQ is certainly not holding them back at any rate.

Mongolia                              100
Vietnam                               99.5
Estonia                               99
Latvia                                97.5
Ukraine                               96
Belarus                               96
UK East Indian                        96
Uruguay                               96
Moldova                               95.5
US Mexican-American (2nd generation)  95
Argentina                             94.5
Lithuania                             94
US Filipino                           94

Even Serbia has created an excellent modern society with an IQ of only 89. If you go to Belgrade, you would think you are in any modern US or European city. Even the countryside is not really backwards. Its health, education and development figures are excellent. There’s nothing inferior about the place other than their morals. If we take Serbia as the IQ at which one ought to be able to create a fine, modern, European-type society, things get a lot more interesting, and a lot more countries have the brains to do well.

Armenia                 93.5
Georgia                 93.5
Kazakhstan              93.5
Malaysia                92
Macedonia               92
Brunei                  91.5
Cyprus                  91.5
Chile                   91.5
Thailand                91
Albania                 90
Bermuda                 90
Croatia                 90
Costa Rica              90
Bosnia and Herzegovina  90
Cambodia                90
Cook Islands            89
Laos                    89
Suriname                89

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Georgian Girls

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb5GnMagL6A]

Interesting video of some very beautiful women from Georgia, not the peach state but the nation in the Caucasus. They have a most interesting phenotype, and there is a particular phenotype running through this whole series of women, which is quite interesting. They look pretty unique!

I guess their language is so Hellaciously difficult that they hardly get any immigrants!

They are quite dark, and at first you think they are some sort of Med types, but I think anthropologically, they are either Armenids or Caucasids It’s really hard to say what the look like. The one phenotype that hit me over and over was “Chechen.” I’ve seen a lot of Chechen guys, and I talked to one on webcam once. Obviously, you don’t see the women much. When I was talking to that guy on cam, I was tripping on his phenotype. I’d never seen a White person who looked quite like that!

I kept thinking “Turkish,” over and over. If you look carefully, they can seem to resemble Armenian women. If you use your imagination, you might seem something Jewish in them. One girl looked like a Lebanese Christian type.

I kept looking for Iranian, but I could not seem to see it. However, curiously, over and over, I seemed to see the same “Iranid” Caucasian type that you saw in the video of the Kazakh women. Whatever Caucasoid element went into those Kazakhs looks a lot like these Georgian chicks.

Obviously, these chicks are White? Where do White nationalists get off anyway. Well, fuck em, we Pan-Aryanists will gladly claim these chicks. Welcome aboard, ladies!

Are Whites Necessary For Modern Civilization?

A White nationalist commenter comments on the Neandertal thread:

Robert, I don’t get your strange form of ethnocentrism. You claim to think “we’re the best,” as a sort of superstition, while knowing that we’re not really the best; while in many respects “we’re the best,” is obviously true. You can’t compare Black supremacist ideology with White supremacist. The former may take things a bit too far and sometimes be a bit off the facts, but the latter is simply laughable.

Whites may not be perfect, but they do have a fairly high IQ and the most impressive track record in terms of scientific progress and high culture.

As far as the West not always being dominant– the Chinese had not discovered that the Earth was a sphere or that the sun was larger than the Earth by 1600 AD. We beat them to it by more than a millennium.

They were also amazed by Euclid as they had nothing comparable in mathematics; they had no system of formal logic or precise scientific method; excluding the Great Wall, no ancient architecture to compare with our great Cathedrals and monuments etc. you could go on and on. The Asians today have more great pianists to play Chopin, but where is the Asian Chopin? They are impressive people, but clearly less innovative.

The Arabs had a bit of a renaissance partly due to having better access to ancient Greek manuscripts; but it was short lived. Who’s following in the tradition of Classical Civilization today?

This whole “the West has only been ahead for a few hundred years,” line is silly. We really are in a different league than everyone else.

I get your point about it being in ill taste to constantly harp on and on about your own group’s superiority. But when we’re under attack – being flooded with nonwhites and told that Western Civilization really isn’t anything to be proud of, and even if it is, nonwhites will do just fine preserving the West despite having historically shown little to no ability to do so – well then we need to start making the case for being able to do something they can’t. The facts are on our side, we just need to have the nerve to use them.

If we want to preserve the civilization we love we’re going to have to accept that we can’t avoid hurting nonwhites’ feelings by telling them that they’re unable to maintain Western Civilization on their own.

As far as my form of ethnocentrism, well, it’s completely normal. Most ethnicities do think that their people are better or the best. It’s normal thinking. Many of these folks are also often non-racist to anti-racist. The two things are quite compatible. I don’t want to get into scientifically proving that we Whites are superior. What for? It’s a disgusting enterprise, and probably won’t be fruitful anyway.

I have some extremely serious problems with this line of thinking. For starters, its presumptions.

I do not think that NE Asian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, Siberian, Taiwanese, Singaporean, or Vietnamese people lack the ability to produce a great modern civilization. They can clearly do so. I see them as continuing to be able to produce great and modern civilizations into the future. I don’t even have a problem with the civilizations produced by SE Asians in general.

I doubt if the problems of Indians, South Asians, Central Asians and Arabs are due to their genes. After all, the UAE right now is one of the most spectacularly modern places on Earth. Saudi Arabian cities look like Tuscon suburbs. Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are quite similar. What’s so inferior about that? Sure, Islam is fucked, but there’s nothing in these folks’ genes that keeps them from producing great modern societies.

The North Africans should do pretty well too. Last I heard Libya is quite a modern country.

The Turks and the people of the Caucasus can produce modern societies, as can the Iranians. Iranian weaponry now is considered to be dangerously lethal by both the US and the Israelis. Recall the Iranian anti-ship missile that destroyed the Israeli warship off of Lebanon in the last war. Kickass product.

The Pakistanis and Indians produced nuclear weapons. No small feat that.

I do have a lot of worries about the abilities of Africans to produce great societies, but it’s basically their problem, not mine. We are not going to let Africans flood in here anyway.

Furthermore, looking at history is not too relevant. Sure, Africa did not produce much in the past, on their own. But Africa is no longer isolated from all outside influences. The great leaps of knowledge, science and innovation that occur in the rest of the world are readily available to educated and skilled Africans soon after they are invented or thought up. Therefore, Africa has a much better chance to become successfully modern than in the past.

Caribbeans, I don’t know. Trinidad and Tobago has a PCI of $20,000/year with totally free health care for all and 10

As suggested in the African example above, the modern world is changing so much that it can hardly be compared to older worlds. Technology is global, and it reverberates around the globe like lightning, as does knowledge in all forms. The smart people anywhere produce innovation and knowledge, and then these facts and things move around the planet faster than you can blink your eyes.

They are made available from more skilled societies to societies that are not as skilled. Therefore, the differential IQ factors are somewhat modulated as knowledge and innovation produced in high-IQ societies flows to lower IQ societies for free.

The Hispanics are flooding in, it is true. Their societies seem to be rather chaotic and violent, but if you go to their capital cities in the wealthier districts, you will think you were in any large US city. There’s no real observable difference. Their problems are mostly due to issues of wealth distribution.

It’s hard to use national IQ’s to calculate national potentials. For instance, Cuba has

Medical discoveries and breakthroughs occur regularly in Cuba and are published in scientific journals. Cuban biotechnology, a high-IQ industry, competes effectively with biotech from huge Western corporations and sells its excellent competitive products the world over.

All of these achievements have been done with a Cuban IQ of 85, lower than that of US Blacks, who White Supremacists consider to be a failed people, mostly due to an IQ of 86.8 or so. If Cubans can do so well with an IQ lower than US Blacks, how can US Blacks be a failed people due to IQ?

I don’t really believe that other societies produce inferior musicians or music, but maybe my tastes are different from yours.

What I would like to do is to eliminate illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration. I don’t care what race or ethnicity comes here, as I don’t buy your arguments that they are genetically inferior per se.

I would say that the combined average IQ of the immigrants we let in cannot be lower than the US average (either 98 or 100 right now, depending on scale used). So if 100 immigrants of whatever constellation of groups is let in, let their combined average IQ be 98-100. If the Jamaicans, Nigerians, Filipinos, Mexicans, Palestinians, Indians, Thais and Algerians we let in all average 98-100 IQ, what’s the worry? I don’t buy your argument that a 98-100 IQ person from one of these ethnicities is still somehow genetically inferior to a 98-100 IQ White American.

You say that Whites are going extinct and we are being flooded with non-Whites, but how are you going to save the White West? Even if you cut off all non-White immigration, you will still be only 6

Not to mention cutting off non-White immigration will be politically impossible. All the non-Whites will oppose it. Now you need to get 7

Do you honestly think that you can pull that off? It sounds impossible. Both political parties, the entire MSN media, etc will be deadset against it and will flood society with propaganda against it calling those who support it KKK, White Supremacists, Nazis, racists, etc.

Kazakh Girls

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abPit0-noG0&feature=related]

These are some of the most beautiful women on Earth. Their genetics is very complex. On some charts, they make it barely into the Caucasian square as Northern Turkics, yet on others, they look quite a bit like Mongolians.

Genetically, they average 2/3 NE Asian (mostly Mongolian and Turkic) and 1/3 Caucasian. The Caucasian is of Iranic element. Take a nice dose of NE Asian girl and add a healthy lesser mixture of Eurasian Caucasoid, and you end up with these startling beauties.

It’s hard to say what they look like.

They seem to resemble Japanese women a lot to me, but Mongolians say they look a lot like Mongolian chicks. If you use your imagination, you can even see Amerindian in them. Looking around some more, some look Korean, and others seem to look something like Thai or Cambodian women. Many of them seem to be simply unclassifiable, since you’ve never seen women who look quite like this. Probably more than anything else, they look like some of the Cantonese-Caucasian Amerasian mixes you see around here in the US.

We Whites, even us Pan-Aryanists, can’t really claim them, but the Asians seem to claim them as fellow Asians. They’re a tribute to hybrid vigor!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tghJbSom7TQ&feature=related]

The ones in the video above are models from beauty contests, but the picture quality is sort of crappy. The girls in the first video are more ordinary looking.

Here’s to Kazakh girls!

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

What Did the Ancient Caucasians Look Like?

The Cro-Magnons of Europe were clearly one of the earliest Caucasoids present in the skeletal record. An ancient specimen called Cro Magnon 1 was found in Cro Magnon village in France in 1868. This is the type specimen for the Cro-Magnons. Cro Magnon 1 is referred to as the “Old Man,” though he was probably only about 40-50 years old. Half of his face had been eaten away by some horrible fungus and he had lost most of his teeth as a result, but he still had incisors. He is dated at 27,680 YBP.

This is one of the best specimens to look at for a view of what the ancient Caucasians looked like.

The best analysis to date indicates that the Old Man was not a member of any extant race of man; instead, he was part of a race that no longer exists. He resembled the Indians of NW America more than any other group of extant humans.

A Makah Indian girl in a recent photo. Ancient European children looked like this.

The Makah Indians of NW Washington are a good example of the NW American Indian phenotype, and quite a few of them have survived.

Theresa Parker is Vice President of Makah Lummi Tribe in Washington State. The Lummi are another tribe in Washington that still has a lot of survivors. Parker is a good example of what ancient Europeans looked like.

So he looked like a Makah Indian from the Olympic National Park region of Washington state.

Makah Indian whalers, pretty much undiluted with White and therefore pure phenotype, in 1910. Ancient Caucasian men looked like this.

That the Makah are Amerindian Mongoloids and the ancient Caucasians were Caucasoids is unusual, but back then, the classic races of man had not yet formed.

An archive photo of Makah Indian women making baskets. Ancient European Caucasian women looked something like this.

Classic Mongoloids are only known from 9,000 YBP. Before that, they did not exist. Classic White Caucasians only go back 11,000 YBP in Europe, and blue eyes and red hair is even more recent (9,000 YBP). At 12,000 YBP, Europeans looked like Arabs and had genes that looked like Arab genes. So Arabs may be the remains of ancient Caucasians.

They Walk Among Us

Neandertals, that is.

New data indicates that all of the Out of Africa (OOA) people (that is, everyone but Blacks) are related to Neandertals, in part anyway. About 1-

Forget it. They didn’t do the math right. The Neanderthal difference between Whites and Blacks accounts for a whopping .0

Multiculturalists like to shriek about how much genes humans share with each other, but so what? Humans share 9

Sequencing of the human genome to look for human-Neandertal interbreeding has been going on for some time. For a long time, there was no evidence of any human-Neandertal breeding, but that was because they had not finished sequencing the entire genome. Now that they have finished, it’s clear that there was breeding between humans and Neandertals.

The breeding occurred when we first moved out of Africa 70,000 YBP, when the breeding occurred in the Middle East, and later on, there was more breeding in Eurasia. That breeding occurred soon after we moved out Africa in the ME means that all Out of Africa humans are related to Neadertals. Blacks are the only humans with no Neandertal in them.

Range of the Neadertals in Europe, Eurasia and the Middle East. They lived from about 400,000 to 30,000 YBP.

Much nonsense is being parroted about about this interbreeding. It was interbreeding because Neadertals and humans are so far apart genetically that Neandertals are a completely separate subspecies from modern humans. Subspecies of living organisms can always interbreed, but are usually prevented from doing so since they do not inhabit overlapping territories.

The fervor on the White nationalist boards is high, and predictably idiotic. WN’s all around the globe are swooning over these hideous, primitive Neandertal creatures.

A Neandertal kid. Good Lord, even the kids are hideous. I think they might still be alive, actually. I've seen kids like this around some trailer parks.

We bred with Neadertals! Niggers didn’t! Dontcha realize that this makes Whites superior to niggers, and it makes niggers inferior? Many theories are tossed about. Whites bred with Neandertals, and that’s what makes us superior to inferior niggers (those cool Neandertal genes), bla bla. Many posts are glorying in the wondrous beauty, brains and achievements of the great Neandertals.

Yeah, like I want to be related to this guy. Get real.

I had to LOL the whole time I was reading this stuff. This is one of those times I feel like playing Lou Reed’s song, “I Wanna Be Black.” Seriously, Blacks are superior for not having any fucking non-human Neandertal blood in them, not inferior! That Neandertal, non-human blood in us doesn’t make us better than Blacks, in fact, it’s an embarassment! At least Blacks are fully human! We Whites are part non-human. FFS, how humiliating is that?

I realize that there's porn for every fetish out there, but it's hard to believe there would have been much of a market for Neandertal porn. I hear Black guys never fucked these chicks. Good for them!

Neandertal women were incredibly ugly. Yes, our people mated with them. To me, this means that either guys will fuck anything, or human females love to fuck stupid hulking brutes who can barely even speak (Neandertals were apparently not able to speak human language, but they probably had advanced sign language).

There are many posts suggesting that breeding with Neandertals is what gave Whites and Asians their brains, since, you know, Neadertals were so damn smart and all. It’s true that Neandertal did have a large brain. But so what. So does a fucking elephant. But some suggest that most of the brain had gone over to memory. One theorist suggested that a Neandertal could remember every single day of his life, nice if he ever got questioned by the cops for an unsolved Paleolithic murder, but not much good otherwise.

In addition, all OOA folks have Neandertal in them, including Papuans (IQ 64) and Aborigines (IQ 62). Yeah, lot of good those super Neandertal rocket scientist brains did them, huh?

It’s clear that the Out of Africa folks (Yeah, the “niggers”) thoroughly outcompeted the Neadertals. Much is made of the Neandertal toolset, but the OOA folks had a better one. And the OOA folks had speech, which may have trumped them all. No one knows if we exterminated the Neadertals or if they just could not compete in a changing environment (I figure we took them out) but at any rate, the OOA folks handed the Neandertals’ asses to them quickly.

That WN’s are falling all over themselves for these hideous Neandertal non-humans shows how stupid racial nationalism is. At the end of the day, its sin is the sin of pride. As pride makes  a man act foolish (consult any good Greek tragedy) so does racial nationalism, nothing more than egotism writ across the entire race, with the volk subbing for the ego.

It's possible that either some Neandertals still live among us, or some Whites have a lot of Neandertal genes. Some researchers say that Nickolai Valuev, a Russian boxer, may be up over 9

One last theory.

Jews are Neandertals.

That’s the Jews are so evil, you know. Because they aren’t human. LOL.

“The Unsentimental Vision of Mark Twain,” by Alpha Unit

Mark Twain is a racist.

Or Mark Twain is most decidedly not a racist.

Well, it depends on who’s talking about him.

He actually occupied sane middle ground on the issue of race. Ground arrived upon with difficulty, sure. But isn’t sane middle ground the only place to be?

His novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, fed and force-fed to American kids for generations, was banned in various quarters right from the outset, labeled by its detractors as coarse trash. It wasn’t until much later that anybody cared that it contained the word “nigger.” In more recent times its use of this word and its depictions of Jim the slave have been decried for their potential to inflict catastrophic damage to the psyches of Black youth – and undermine the general welfare in these enlightened times.

Some people make the case that Huckleberry Finn is clearly an anti-racist novel. I tend to think so. But being anti-racist in Mark Twain’s time was not the same as being anti-racist now. Twain was not the equivalent of today’s American “liberal.” He didn’t deny the concept of race. He didn’t see racial distinctions as irrelevant.

What I admire about him is his recognition that Brown and Black people deserved to be respected in their own right. They weren’t less human than White people. Whites had no God-given right to treat them however they wanted.

Mark Twain did not entertain, either, any notion that Black people were automatically ugly in comparison to Whites. Because he actually saw them as people, he easily saw what he described as their beauty.

While visiting India, he compared a beautifully-garbed Indian delegation to what he and fellow Christians could have produced had they put on a show of their own. It wouldn’t have been as impressive, he said.

Then there would have been the added disadvantage of the white complexion. It is not an unbearably unpleasant complexion when it keeps to itself, but when it comes into competition with masses of brown and black the fact is betrayed that it is endurable only because we are used to it.

Nearly all black and brown skins are beautiful, but a beautiful white skin is rare…Where dark complexions are massed, they make the whites look bleached out, unwholesome, and sometimes frankly ghastly. I could notice this as a boy down South in the slavery days before the war. The splendid black-satin skin of the South African Zulus of Durban seemed to me to come very close to perfection…

The advantage is with the Zulu, I think. He starts with a beautiful complexion, and it will last him through. And as for the Indian brown…I think there is no sort of chance for the average white complexion against that rich and perfect tint.

Twain recounted this trip in Following the Equator, written toward the end of his career, in which he chronicles his travels to India, Fiji, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa. While traveling he got to see firsthand the way White colonizers interacted with those under their control.

He expresses sympathy for the Whites who must secure their lives in these strange territories they have put themselves in, and acknowledges the difficulties of both Whites and natives in trying to co-exist under trying circumstances. But he clearly recognizes that it is the natives who have the worst of it.

He tells the story of a White squatter who encounters some Aborigines while at his home – Aborigines who are clearly hostile. Afraid of what he sees as an imminent attack, the squatter persuades them to have a meal with him. It was a Last Supper of sorts; the pudding he served them contained arsenic.

Twain’s assessment:

It was better, kinder, swifter, and much more humane than a number of methods which have been sanctified by custom, but that does not justify its employment. That is, it does not wholly justify it.

He goes on to describe the way Whites had typically interacted with racial “others”:

In many countries we have chained the savage and starved him to death…In many countries we have burned the savage at the stake…In many countries we have taken the savage’s land from him; and made him our slave, and lashed him every day, broken his pride, and made death his only friend, and overworked him till he dropped in his tracks; and this we do not care for, because custom has inured us to it; yet a quick death by poison is loving kindness [in comparison] to it.

In assessing these and other acts that the civilized had committed against their inferiors, he concludes:

There are many humorous things in the world; among them the white man’s notion that he is less savage than the other savages.

This year marks the centennial of Mark Twain’s death. He was a great observer and critic of humankind, and remains an amazing teacher, to those who would be taught.

Every people he observed was of the same fallible humanity. The idea of one race’s inherent superiority over any other? A joke.

References

Twain, M., Warner, C.D., Paine, A.B. 1922. The Writings of Mark Twain, Volume 21. New York: Gabriel Wells Co.

American High School Girl Beaten to Death in Mexico

Elizabeth Mandala, an 18-year old high school girl from Sugar Land, Texas, went with two Mexican men, age 38 and 43, old enough to be her father, on a trip to Mexico to learn how to be a coyote and smuggle illegal aliens into the US. Smuggling illegals is a very good paying business. At the time, she was also working as a stripper in a local strip club. She was said to be “smartest girl in her class.”

Elzabeth Mandala, 18 year old US high school girl, beaten to death in Mexico.

I guess not too smart though.

She and the two men were found near the small town of Mina in a Toyota pickup truck that had crashed into the back of another truck. All three had been beaten to death. The killers then apparently staged the car accident. There was a cement block on the gas pedal of the crashed vehicle.

The two Mexican men were Dante Ruiz Siller, 38, and Luis Ángel Estrella Mondragón, 44.

Siller, a merchant, and Mondragon, a cab driver, were from a small town near Mexico City.

Comments are wide-ranging, many asking why Texas allows 18 year old girls to be strippers (All US states allow this). Many others asked why her mother allowed her to be a stripper and to go off to Mexico to learn how to smuggle illegals. I would say that she’s an adult and she can do whatever she wants, but that’s just me.

Her classmates at Kempner High School were shocked.

There is a lot of commentary about this on the White nationalist sites, much of it retarded, of course. Much of it is centered on the WN’s notion that Elizabeth was a mestiza, not White. However, the last name Mandala is Sicilian:

Mandala Name Meaning and History1. occupational name for a seller of scarves, from Greek mandilas.

2. altered form of Mannalà, a name of Arabic origin, derived from mann Allah ‘grace of Allah’. The surname is characteristic of the Palermo region and eastern Sicily.

Looks like Arabic -> Greek -> Sicilian language. The Sicilian language has a ton of Greek and Arabic words in it.

A number of Mandalas moved from Sicily to Houston, Texas around 75-125 years ago. All came from the same small village of 919 people in Sicily. Santa Cristina Gela is actually an Arbëreshë village in Sicily near Palermo. The Elizabeth is from Sugar Land, which is near Houston. She is plausibly related to this CBS photo gallery.

Furthermore, on her Facebook page, she has several friends with the same last name Mandala, quite possibly relatives. These Mandalas are all Italians living in Italy right now. The second one seems to be some sort of a Greek-Sicilian, which is possible, as there are Greek-speaking communities in Sicily. Furthermore, she is a fan of a Facebook group that is entirely in the Italian language, so it’s possible that she speaks Italian.

Excellent Shot Across the Bow at the Nordicists

This is a great comment from an earlier piece I wrote, The Racial Makeup of Hispanics. It has attracted many an idiotic comment, especially from ignorant Hispanics. However, this comment was a nice one. It was written by a Spaniard in response to a stupid comment by a Nordicist claiming that ancient Greece and Rome were Nordic and that Mediterranean types were inferior non-Whites.

Spain a bastardized race? Britain is by far more bastardized.

Tacitus, a Roman historian made a clear description of how the Romans, Greeks, Celts, Germanics and Middle Eastern Scythians were.

First of all, Roman historical documents describe Carthaginian port towns as far as in Ireland. Carthaginian traders were originally from Phoenicia. These documents from around 300 B.C. clearly describe the phenotype differences of the Romans from other Barbaric tribes.

The Roman description of themselves is clearly the same as modern day Spanish person, Roman nose profiles resemble a Spanish nose profile. Romans describe themselves as having pale, easily tanned skin, dark hair and mostly having amber, light brown and more commonly hazel eyes.

The Celts, contrary to common ignorant beliefs, were described in 300 B.C. as having pale skin that could tan, dark hair and to a large degree, blue eyes.

Many Hibernians (Irish), however, were describe as having brown skin and dark eyes. Others as White with dark eyes and large noses. Ireland was then inhabited by a majority of Basques, some Celtic tribes and many Carthaginian traders.

The Germanic tribes were described as tall, blond and and light blue eyed, and reddish white skin.

Scythians originated in what today is Kazakhstan and were describe by Tacitus as tall, grey eyed and red haired.

These historical descriptions explain why Italians, Spaniards, Southern French, Portuguese, and to some degree Romanians look alike. Romans were never a Nordic race, nor did they ever have blue eyes. The Mediterranean people are not a result of a bastardized race.

The Roman Empire extended its influence to Britain, and many Roman Nobles moved in what is today known as Wales. As an obvious result, a great

Greeks thought that blue eyes were a sign of cowardice and uncivilized people.

Romans viewed Celtic, Germanic and other tribes, except Greeks, as inferior to them. Before the Roman conquest, technologically and culturally speaking, they were right; they possessed a poor writing system, did not have massive constructions and lacked a truly organized state. Germanic tribesmen rarely possessed any metal armor and fought naked. For Romans, Celtic or Nordic features were barbaric.

Ignorant people think mestizo people look like Indians or Arabs. I’ve been to Mexico and have some friends who are blond, blue eyed and both their parents look Indian; some others have green, hazel and grey eyes with white reddish skin, and some are even red haired with swarthy parents.

I’ve seen mixed people in Sweden (a great

Ignorant people think mixed races among European and non-European have to look non-White, which is really stupid.

Hungarians are also a mixed of Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Magyar and Mongols. Many Russians absorbed Sami, Ugric and Mongoloid people for centuries. And Jews have also been mixing for almost a thousand years with some Europeans. If Jewish people hadn’t preserved their religion, they would be considered European. In Germany many blond Nordic looking folks were accepted in the Army even when their parents were Jewish.

The final point is that when mestizo populations are constantly absorbed by another group, over the centuries they become part of the culture that absorbed them. That is also the main reason why our languages constantly change; all Germanic languages used to be one but got mixed and changed. Same with Romance, Slavic and probably every single language in the world.

Some very nice comments here. First of all, my prejudices. I regard Nordicists as splitters who are trying to divide out great White race. Further, I like Med Whites a lot, and I surely consider at least all of the Meds in Europe as fully, 10

This comment makes clear that Meds and Spaniards are not some bastardized race, instead, they are simply the Meds, an ancient White people who are the direct ancestors of some of the greatest Whites that ever lived, the Romans and the Greeks.

Furthermore, the commenter notes that the British are quite mixed, with many Med types and Med features, especially among the Welsh. There is substantial Phoenician and Semitic (Middle Eastern Arab) blood in both the Irish and the British. Going back 2,300 years, the Irish were a dark haired and dark eyed people with heavy inputs from the dark Basques and Phoenicians and Celts.

Even the Celts, romanticized as uber-Nordics, are proven here to be have been dark haired with skin that tanned easily. They were very different from the Germanic types. Further, it is important to note a huge Celtic component in the Spaniards and Portuguese, especially in the north of Spain, in Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, the Basque Country, Argaon and Catalonia. There is substantial Celtic input in northern Portugal in the Lusitania region.

Celts are considered to be uber-Nordics, but the Spaniards are heavily Celtic, so are the Spaniards Nordics or what? The whole Nord vs. Med debate starts to get absurd because there has been so much Nordic-Med mixing over the millenia.

I laughed when I read that the ancient Greeks and Romans thought that Germanic Nordic types and features were inferior and barbarian phenotypes and peoples. How the world has changed, but it goes to show that all this crap is pretty subjective and there’s not a lot of “science” going on in the intra-European fights.

Surely the Hungarians are part Asiatic. You can sometimes see it in their eyes. Definitely, Russians are part Asiatic, mostly Siberian, as are Swedes and Finns, who have considerable Sami in them.

And of course Hispanic mestizos look like everything under the sun. One or both parents can be quite dark and indigenous looking, while one or more of the kids can be quite light, and vice versa. In the Caribbean, it works the same way, but the mix is Black and White. A genetic approach to Whiteness is nonsensical when denying Whiteness to someone who looks and acts White.

Myth: Whites Are More Likely to be Pedophiles and Child Molesters

There is a long-standing myth perpetrated by Blacks and White anti-racists like Tim Wise that Whites are more likely to molest children than any other race. This goes back to some stereotype of the creepy, nerdy, weirdo White guy who can’t get laid so he molests kids.

About time we shot this myth full of holes like it needs to be.

First of all, let’s look at child abuse in general, including sexual and all other types of abuse.

Stats:

Relative to their population, likelihood of child abuse compared to background population rate:

American Indian  +10
Blacks           +9
Hispanics        no difference
Whites           -3
Asian            -6

On an individual basis, American Indians are most likely to abuse a child in some way or other, then Blacks, then Hispanics, then Whites, then Asians.

The high Amerindian rate is probably due to the utterly collapsed nature of Amerindian families and societies as a whole. The high Black rate is because, well, Blacks have elevated rates of most crimes compared to Whites, Hispanics, Asians and Amerindians. Low Asian rate is probably because across almost all crime stats, Asians typically have the lowest rates of them all.

As you can see, not only are Whites less likely to abuse kids than Blacks, they have one of the lowest child abuse rates of any ethnic group in the US, surpassed only by Asians.

The argument that Whites are more likely to molest children uses these statistics:

Those inmates who were convicted of committing violent acts against children were more like to have been White, a percentage of nearly 7

The figure is from the Bureau of Prisons, 1991. In 1991, Whites were 7

The problem with the 1991 report was that, as usual, Hispanics were lumped in with Whites in terms of crime perpetrators, artificially inflating the White rate. The 1994 Justice Department report finally disaggregates Whites from Hispanics.

We can compare the BJS Report to the 1994 Census. According to the 1994 Census estimate, the US population is broken down thus:

7 11. 1

Extrapolating the Census data above to the BJS Report, we find that the Hispanics are broken down thus:

26,077 Hispanic molesters =

23,743 White
1,480 Black
303   American Indian

The results,

Whites    56.
Hispanics 23.
Blacks    19.
Other     1.

Now compare to their presence in the general population for likelihood of being a child molester as opposed to an average American:

Race     Molesters Population Ratio

White    56.
Black    19.
Hispanic 23.

This lines up with anecdotal reports of high rates of sex crimes in areas overrun with illegal aliens from Mesoamerica.

The myth lies shattered.

Hispanics are 2.3 X (13

Blacks are 6

Additional evidence comes from child abuse reports which were reported to authorities, which honestly are better because excellent anecdotal evidence from Black websites and interviews with Black women who grew up in the ghetto inform us that sexual abuse of girls is rampant in the ghetto. Some of the women even say things like, “All girls are molested in the ghetto.”

However, in the ghetto, sexual abuse of girls is considered so shameful that it may not even be discussed, and hence is seldom reported and there are few arrests. The whole affair is covered up with massive denial. This rings quite true with me as pathology of all sorts is elevated in ghettos, so why would child sexual abuse not be so.

This may also explain the relatively high percentage of White men imprisoned for this crime since White men who commit this crime are much more likely to be arrested and Black men often just get away with it and are never caught. So victimization surveys ought to clear this up for us.

According to this study at The Root (Drake et al 2011), Black children are reported to authorities for all types of abuse 7

Black children are 2
<p>Where did the myth come from? It’s not certain, but for most crimes, especially violent crimes, Blacks have rates that are up to 6-9 times higher than Whites. For child molestation, these wildly elevated rates for Blacks are not seen; instead, the Black rate is close to double the White rate, not 6-9 times higher. So in child molestation, Whites much more approach parity with Black crime rates. This greatly increased White rate vis a vis Blacks compared to other crimes may have given rise to the illusion that Whites are more likely than Blacks to commit this crime.</p>
<h3>References</h3>
<dl>
<dd>Drake, Brett; Jolley, Jennifer M.; Lanier, Paul; Fluke, John; Barth, Richard P. and Jonson-Reid, Melissa. February 7, 2011. <a href=Racial Bias in Child Protection? A Comparison of Competing Explanations Using National Data. Pediatrics 2011 127:3 471-478.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Imaginary Conversations About White Privilege

Conversation 1

Earnest PC Leftist: Hey, you have White Privilege!

White Person: I do? Nah, I don’t think so, man. LOL, what’s that, anyway?

Earnest PC Leftist: Yeah, you have White Privilege, and it sucks. You need to get rid of it.

White Person: But I don’t even have it in the first place, LOL. How am I supposed to get rid of it LOL?

Earnest PC Leftist: You have White Privilege, and it sucks! You need to get rid of it!

White Person: Bye.

Conversation 2

Earnest PC Leftist: Hey, you have White Privilege!

White Person: Like Hell I do. I just lost my job, my car got repoed, my kid ran away from home, my dog bit me, my wife is divorcing me, and my house is in foreclosure. The only good thing is that I’m not quite suicidal. Yet. And see that bottle of Jack Daniels sitting there? Well, that’s the other good thing.

Earnest PC Leftist: Yeah, you have White Privilege, and it sucks. You need to get rid of it.

White Person: (Rolls eyes). Sure thing, take my White privilege. Hell, they’ve taken everything else I ever had. Help yourself, man. (Disgusted sarcastic smile).

Earnest PC Leftist: Yeah, but look, losing your job, getting your car repoed, having your kid run away, having your dog bite you, having your wife divorce you and getting your house foreclosed is so much worse if you’re Black! It’s like 10 times worse! If those things happen to you when you’re White, it’s so much better! You have no idea!

White Person: (Rolls eyes). Yeah, I can imagine. I’m so lucky to be White, damn. (Cynical, sardonic smile.)

Earnest PC Leftist: You have White Privilege, and it sucks! You need to get rid of it!

White Person: Dude. Listen. I got to get going, OK? Nice talking to you.

Conversation 3

Earnest PC Leftist: Hey, you have White Privilege!

White Person: Really? Cool, guess today’s my lucky day. I won a $20 lottery ticket too. God works in small ways, you know.

Earnest PC Leftist: Yeah, you have White Privilege, and it sucks. You need to get rid of it.

White Person: LOL, why should I do that? You think I’m stupid?

Earnest PC Leftist: White privilege is evil. You’re oppressing poor, helpless non-whites.

White Person: LOL, yeah, I’m feeling bad already. Listen, take your morals to the bank and try to cash them in. See how much they give you for them. I’m sure they’re worth more than gold! (Sarcastic smile.)

Earnest PC Leftist: You have White Privilege, and it sucks! You need to get rid of it!

White Person: LOL, yeah right. I don’t think so. Get rid of it? Homey don’t play that. I kind of like the way this White Privilege tastes, and the price is right, too. Hey, waiter! Can I order seconds on the White Privilege? This stuff is to die for. Give my regards to the cook for this dish. And by the way, if it’s not too much imposition, could you show me where I can find a recipe for this White Privilege dish? I want to make some of this White Privilege shit at home. This stuff hits the spot.

Earnest PC Leftist: You have White Privilege, and it sucks! You need to get rid of it!

White Person: (Holds one hand, opening and closing it while grinning). Talk to the hand LOL.

A Few Short Thoughts on White Privilege

I just talked to a couple of Whites about White privilege. One is middle aged and the other is elderly. Their IQ’s range from 140-150. One got partway through Law School, the other is a freshman at the university. Both are extremely well-educated (self-educated) compared to the average White. One is liberal, the other is Leftist, a Communist.

Neither one had ever heard of White Privilege Theory. I had to explain it to them, from its origins on. They sat there shaking their heads and saying how dumb and absurd the theory was. They also said it would not resonate at all with average Whites, and all it will do is piss them off and make them want to go to a Tea Party.

For Whites like me and my friends, we think that White Privilege means something like while we have to eat a shit sandwich, Blacks have to eat a triple decker shit sandwich. So the White Privilege theory says that while we are eating this shit sandwich, we are yelling, “Damn! This sandwich tastes good! I’m sure glad I don’t have to eat that triple decker like the you know who’s.”

Within White society, Whiteness gives you no particular benefit. You’re just another person, and you get treated on your merits like everyone else.

If you are low on the totem pole, especially at work, you get treated like serious shit by other Whites. They really look down on Whites lower on the pecking order in the workplace. You’re treated like a “nigger,” mostly because you have a “nigger job.” They order you around like you’re a slave, brutalize you psychologically, then fire you for no reason. They don’t even attempt to disguise their contempt for you. You may as well be Black.

As I said, White has no advantages in White society.

It’s not like you walk into a party, and as soon as you step in the door, the White host says, “Hey! You’re White! Come on in! Free drinks all nite on the house, you get in free and free drinks to my pool bar every nite from now on, and by the way, here’s my daughter, I want you to marry her if you would like. She’s an attorney, she’s beautiful, and she’s a nympho.”

Yeah right.

White privilege is a favorite of the Black bourgeois and upper middle class Blacks. It’s a way for them to avoid talking about class. If you go Abagond‘s site, you will notice that he never discusses the “C” word – class. It’s all about race. In this way, Abagond gets to promote his class interests – those of the upper classes, while avoiding the real race problem in the US, which is one of class, not race.

I have a feeling that Abagond would go to the favelas of Brazil and harangue those poor, downtrodden Whites there about their White privilege and racism against their Black and Brown fellow slum-dwellers. I’m sure that will go over real well!

All these people talking of White privilege and other forms of Identity Politics are objectively contras – this line is counterrevolutionary and rightwing. It divides the working classes into male against female, gay against straight, one race against another, churchgoers against non-churchgoers, encouraging one of each pair, males, straights, Whites and churchgoers, to vote against their class interests and for the Right.

It also avoids discussing class, probably because of the upper class interests of the economically privileged folks who are dishing out this intellectual theory.

This is the same thing that the Right has always done – to divide working classes on race, gender, orientation and religion to keep them from uniting to vote for their class interests against the elite. This stuff is just bourgeois indulgence and ought to be irrelevant to any real liberation project.

What the Heck? Juggalo Funeral

Repost from the old site.

A real White trash funeral, complete with booze cooler casket and the bereaved dressed in their Sunday best.

There is something about this picture that really bothers me. Those people with the Insane Clown Posse t-shirts are known as juggalos. Juggalos are the fan base of the Detroit White hip hop group Insane Clown Posse.

Juggalos have lately gotten a reputation for being associated with a lot of crimes, to the extent that they are now considered to be a White street gang. But only about 1

The dead baby. Yuck. Ninja down!

There is something just so wrong about showing up at your baby’s funeral wearing Insane Clown Posse t-shirts. And the coffin looks like a beer cooler. And if you look at the really weird markings on the coffin, there are two aliens engaged in a shootout.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMv9d1pIoBA]

The story around this baby’s death is that it died preterm when the woman with the dyed hair was 6-7 months pregnant, due to her very heavy use of drugs. She was supposedly a very heavy drug user who took all sorts of drugs every day during her pregnancy, resulting in the stillbirth of the baby preterm. Afterward, she supposedly sued the hospital for killing the baby, when in fact it was her drug abuse that did it.

What’s even worse was she called in to some Juggalo radio show and talked about her dead baby for about a minute, then started bitching about some merchandise they never sent her.

Below is from her MySpace page. It’s worse. Here is a closeup of the cartoon images on the casket from the MySpace page along with some text:

The “psychopathics” from outer space are going to protect this stillborn baby from evil? WTH?

Here is the funeral announcement from the MySpace page:

Juggalo Ho posted:

R * I * P

*Anabelle Lotus Krawczyk* 05 – 11 – 2008

Mother ~ Julie aka Juggalo Julz Father ~ Joe aka Druggalo JK47

BORN ~ Mothers Day, Sun.

May 11, 2008 10:39am

DIED ~ Mothers Day, Sun.

May 11, 2008 10:52

FROM MOMMA, JUGGALO JULZ::

MY LITTLE NINJETTE DIED 1 IN A MILLION MEDICAL ERROR..FOR NO REASON. THE DOCTORS SHOOK THERE HEADS AT ME AND SAID WERE DONT KNOW WHY OR HOW. WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT? MY DAUGHTER SHOULD BE IN MY ARMS RIGHT NOW AND SHES GONE AND THATS PRICELESS TO ME!!! I PROMISED MY LOTUS I WOULD GET JUSTICE FOR HER DEATH TO MY VERY LAST BREATH! PLEASE HELP A JUGGALO FAMILY OUT…

EVERY & ANY JUGGALO & JUGGALETTE IS INVITED TO MY BABY NINJETTE ANABELLE LOTUS KRAWCZYK FUNERAL…WERE ALL A FUCK’N FAMILY AND OUR LITTLE LOTUS IS GONE TO SHANGRI-LA…PLEASE WRITE ME BACK HERE OR EMAIL IF U WILL COME. IM STILL MAKING ARRANGEMENTS. ON DATE OR TIME YET..

BEST WISHES ~

PLEASE WEAR ANYTHING DARK LOTUS OR IF U FONT HAVE LOTUS ANYTHING PSYCHOPATHIC GEAR TO HER FUNERAL

PLEASE JUGGALOS IF U CAN DONATE ANYTHING EVEN.

$0.01 OR $1.OO WILL HELP US TO GET A HEADSTONE FOR OUR DAUGHTER.

YOU CAN DONATE AT THE FUNERAL OR IF U CANT ATTEND PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STILL DONATE ANYTHING TO OUR HOME AND EMAIL ME ON HERE AND I WILL SEND U MY ADDRESS…

PLEASE BRING A LOTUS FLOWER THEY ARE SO RARE TO FIND. OR PLEASE TELL ME WHERE I CAN FIND ONE.. IM HAVING A LOT TROUBLE FINDING IT…

PLEASE FAMILY COME AND SUPPORT US IN OUR DARKEST HOUR…NINJA DOWN

MCL JULIE & JOE

WHERE ~ MALEC & SONS FUNERAL HOME

ADDRESS ~ 6000 N. MILWAUKEE AVE. CHICAGO IL 60646

FUNERAL HOME PHONE ~ 773 – 774 – 4100

DATE ~ FRIDAY MAY 23 2008

TIME ~ 9:00AM – 1:00PM (Service starts at 9:00AM then we go to the cemetery)

*REMEMBER AT A FUNERAL WE ALL FOLLOW TOGETHER TO THE CEMETERY AFTER THE SERVICE…..

LAYED TO REST AT ~ EDEN CEMETERY

ADDRESS ~ 9851 W. IRVING PARK ROAD SCHILLER PARK IL 60176

CEMETERY PHONE ~ 847 – 678 – 1631

*WE PRAY TO SEE ALL JUGGALOS THERE FOR ANABELLE LOTUS….

THANK YOU FOR YOUR LOVE AND SUPPORT, A GRIEVING JUGGALO MOTHER & FATHER

You’ve got to be kidding? “Ninja down”? The mother’s name is “Juggalo Julz,” and the father’s name is “Druggalo JK47?” Tell me this isn’t true. Something about that is just wrong.

I realize I have been told that it’s un-Commie of me to make fun of White trash, and there’s nothing really funny about a stillborn baby, but sometimes I just can’t help myself.

It’s always sad when a kid dies, but at least she didn’t get to be raised by these parents.

LOL. Not much I can say to this photo. I started busting up the first time I even looked at it, and it’s about a dead baby!

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Tim Wise, “What If the Tea Partiers Were Black?”

I have very mixed feelings about this guy, but sometimes he’s just right, or at least part-right. This is one of those times. Check it out. I don’t care if he’s a self-hating White. Big deal. What matters is the message, not the man.

Tulio wrote an “Imagine” piece in the comments a while back that was similar to this column. It was a tour de force, so great I was sure he copied it, but apparently he made it up. These thought experiments can be very useful because they illuminate personal and political issues in allegorical way that sometimes hits home in the solar plexus.

Lots of New Sick and Evil Videos Up on the Old Site

We have pretty much removed the sicko flicks from here because WordPress doesn’t want them, but we are continuing to post them over at the old site.

Traffic really plunged there. At the peak, it was up to 68,000 hits/day. Now it’s down to 3,500/day over there and 4,000/day here, for a combined total of 7,500/day for both sites. Traffic collapsed when the South Korean government banned my website! Everyone in South Korea has to go through some government server to get on the Net, so the government is able to ban sites pretty easily.

Anyway, for your twisted freaks on here:

Eating a Cooked Fish While Alive: The sickos in China think it’s cool to keep a fish alive until you cook it, then cook it in some weird way so it’s still alive, then consume the poor thing while it’s still alive! To be eaten alive! Good God, what a horrible punishment.

You know, the tribes of the SE US, from around Louisiana and the coast of Texas such as the extinct Karankawa, used to do this, . They would capture enemy warriors, tie them to a pole, then surround them with braves who would charge up to the poor sod with knives and slice off bits of his flesh, then eat them in front of him, just to freak him out even more. I assume at some point, they’ve eaten so much of the poor guy that he expires, but it’s sure a Helluva way to go. Gimme a heart attack any day. Hell, gimme cancer. Just not that.

Nick Berg Beheading Video: The original Iraqi Al Qaeda beheading video, released in 2003, with the poor, innocent but foolish Nick Berg meeting his end. The first time I watched this, I was shaking for hours afterward, and I was seriously freaked for a week or two. I watched it again and it was a little better, but not much. I’ve never watched it again – twice was enough! But it’s a classic as far as this shit goes. Includes a thorough writeup on the whole sad story behind the crime.

Man Electrocuted on Train in India: At a crowded train station in India, some idiot somehow finds himself on top of a train. He tries to get down several times, and people reach up to try to help him. Then he walks away and starts strolling down the roof of the train. Like a dumbass, at one point, he reaches up and touches a live electric wire. He is instantly electrocuted and killed. His body quickly catches fire, and he’s gone in a ball of flames in an instant. Electricity is a powerful motherfucker all right. I didn’t feel much sympathy while watching this because the guy’s such an idiot.

12 Year Old Pakistani Boy Beheads a Man: This has got to be about as evil is it gets. The Taliban bastards in North Waziristan capture a US spy, probably an ISI agent in the area, tie him up, and give the knife to a young kid so he can kill him. There are some other kids watching and holding the poor guy down, and maybe some girls watching too. It’s hard to tell. He takes forever to saw the guy’s head off, and reminds you of a butcher carving up an animal carcass. This is child abuse in its worst form. Don’t do this to kids.

Woman Electrocuted in China: Another idiot video. A middle aged woman, apparently mentally disturbed, climbs a utility pole in the middle of some seriously crowded Chinese city and won’t come down. The sheer mass of humanity below is breathtaking in itself. Rescuers are trying to get to her, but she’s just up there crying and won’t come down on the ladders.

There are power lines near her, and a few times, like a dumbass, she reaches up and grabs them, and of course gets electrocuted each time. But for some reason, possibly poor grounding, she gets off pretty easy. I’m told that she survived the ordeal with minimal injuries.

Worst Ankle Twist Ever: A soccer game is being performed, possibly somewhere in the Mediterranean or in the Southern Cone of South America – the players look like Med Whites of some sort. Anyway, soon some poor guy sustains a horrible injury to his ankle. People rush out, put him on a stretcher, and as he is being carried off, you see, incredibly, that his ankle appears to be twisted a full 90 degrees! I don’t know how that’s possible, or if there’s any way to fix it.

Arab Woman Stabs Guard at Israeli Checkpoint: A 21 year old Palestinian woman is getting ready to be searched before going through the Kalandia Checkpoint in Jerusalem. I do not understand the layout of this checkpoint, why it’s necessary, or where it goes to or from. Anyhow, the guards turn away from her, she reaches into her belt, pulls out a huge knife, rushes one of the male Israeli guards, and stabs him! Damn! He goes down, and other guards quickly pile on her and disarm her. The guard sustained minor injuries in the attack and survived.

Convicted Killer Tries to Grab Cop’s Gun in Court: A Black guy is on trial for the murder of his White wife and their son. Her family is in court. At some point, he rushes the bailiff and tries to grab his gun. Other cops, attorneys, all sorts of people, pile on the guy and handcuff him. Then they lead him out of court while the family of the dead woman he killed scream at him.

John Graziano Head Wound: Hulk Hogan’s son, age 17, borrows his Dad’s car and goes for a ride with his friend, Graziano. Possibly he’s drunk. At some point, he totals the car and nearly kills Graziano. Hogan’s son survives. The video shows this poor guy, Graziano, in the hospital afterwards. He seems to have lost a good part of the front of his forehead, that is, his brain! Somehow he’s still alive, but he’s a total vegetable. A lot of people were mad at the Hogans about this incident, and it’s apparently the source of a major lawsuit now. Really disturbing.

Photo of James Vance, Failed Shotgun Suicide: One of the really bad things about trying to kill yourself is that you might fail and actually survive afterward, but be so fucked up you wish you were dead. This is what happened to James Vance, a teenage boy from the US who was depressed and using drugs when he went to a playground and shot himself in the head. That night, he had been using drugs and listening to Judas Priest.

The case resulted in a lawsuit against the band for supposedly making this idiot try to kill himself, but the suit failed. There is a photo of Vance, plus a video interview with him. Even after much reconstructive surgery, he has one of the most fucked up faces on Earth. A few years after, he could not take it anymore, got some pills, and killed himself for good. I don’t blame him; I would have done the same if I looked like that.

Idiot Jumps Off Roof and Breaks His Leg: Stupid American teenagers are engaging in some weird sport called roof jumping, where you jump off a roof onto the lawn below. Something goes wrong, the kid lands wrong, and he breaks his leg. You can actually hear the bone snap on the video. Stupidity can be painful!

Nighttime Mobs Attack Cars in Oakland: This is the latest fad in some US Black ghettos. Crowds of young people gather on major street late at night, around 10 or 11 PM, on a weekend nite. Then they start attacking random cars as they drive by. Sometimes they try to pull the doors open to rob or assault drivers. Drivers fight back, hit them, try to run them over, etc. A good time is had by all, or many, or at least the attackers.

Mostly young Oakland Blacks here, but strangely, there are some young White girls there hanging out with the Blacks and attacking cars themselves.

If these fuckers did that to my car, I might try to hit them with my vehicle! I’ve already done so in a similar situation, and the dude went flying after I nailed him with my accelerating car! Don’t ever try this with me, punks!

Man Assaulted in New York Deli: A older White guy is ordering a meal in a New York deli with some young Black guy standing next him. Suddenly, at one point, the Black turns around and cold cocks the White guy, knocking him to the floor! Then he runs out of the building. No further info on where or why this happened, details on the crime, fate of the victim or results of the investigation.

Also lots of older stuff in foreign languages, but most of you won’t be interested in that.

Have fun, sickos!

Extremely Racialized Language and Memes in the Teabagger Movement

Are Teabaggers racists? As usual, it’s an interesting question.

Teabaggers are just Republicans. 8

I’ve known quite a few California Republicans, and not all are racists. Out here they are more about hatred of government and liberals than about race. California Republicans have close friends, date and even marry people of other races. It’s often a White Republican male marrying an Asian (often Republican) male. I’ve known young Republican males who openly dated Black women.

Many of these people would support the Teabaggers, and some were so nuts they would probably go to their rallies.

So the situation is complicated.

Nevertheless, I am on the list for a major Teabagger mailing list. The list owner is the founder and owner of one of the larger Teabagger groups (something like Teaparty USA). Anyway, I get this guy’s mails on a regular basis.

I must say, in all of my years following US politics, I have never seen such blatant racial language, imagery and code words used by any major US political movement. The racial language in these mails is palpable, open, obvious, and clear. It’s actually pretty shocking in the context of US politics.

TEA PARTY PEOPLE DON’T ACT LIKE THE BLACKS DID IN PHILADELPHIA, DETROIT AND WATTS IN THE 1960’s!

Whoa! That’s the headline of a recent Teabagger mail to me. Included was an ad for the Glenn Beck Show. Beck’s racial language these days is really shocking. I swear he sounds more like a White nationalist every day. He’s using the language, imagery and tone of the White nationalist movement on his program regularly. What’s he trying to do?

VOTE EVERY “BABY KILLING” DEMOCRAT OUT OF OFFICE IN 2010, 2011, 2012..MOST DEMOCRATS ARE LIBERALS, JEWS, RACISTS, pro welfare BLACKS AND IDIOTS!..DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE HE’S OR SHE’S…DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE BLACK, WHITE, YELLOW, PINK OR BLUE…DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE CHRISTIANS, JEWS OR…

This one is even worse. Note the anti-Semitism and racism, followed by projection of racism onto non-racist Democrats, followed by the denial of the racism and anti-Semitism later on.

This is pretty typical.

One day I will get a blatantly anti-Semitic email, then the next day, I get a mail accusing Obama of being an anti-Semite for selling out Israel. I get a racist email bashing Blacks, then the next day, I get a mail accusing liberals of being the only real racists, and accusing Blacks of being racists. Then it quotes MLK favorably to top things off.

US White racism is a funny beast these days. It’s really progressed from the days of Bull Connor.

Christians against Abortion; Black Politicians Racists?; Anti-Obama Care; Anti-Give Away to BUMS; Abortion & The Bible; We The People Michigan; Tea Party – Michigan+; Free Speech, 1st Amend; Fire OBAMA & Congress; Election Fraud; Don’t Trust Obama; Discrimination on Race; Free Speech,1st Amendment; Against Welfare 4 Immigrants; Against Welfare Fraud; American 4 Tax Reform; Angry White America; Anti-Give Away to BUMS; Anti-Socialism-Racism; Get BUMS off Welfare; Fleecing White America; Fleecing of America; Fed up with Barack Obama; Fair Reporting; Equal Rights & Social Justice; End Slavery Taxes; End Affirmative Action; Defeat Amnesty

Those are some of their affiliated grouplets.

The Michigan groups are heavily involved with the Michigan Militia movement.

Note that they are calling all Black politicians racists.

Anti-give away to bums means anti-giveaway to Black bums.

Note the strong Christian fundamentalist and anti-abortion sentiment. This runs through all Teabagger posts.

Election fraud means that Obama is not an American, therefore he has no right to be President.

Discrimination on race means discrimination against Whites, the only kind of discrimination these guys care about. The implication, taken straight from the White nationalist playbook, is that all discrimination against non-Whites is over now, and the only remaining discrimination is against the majority.

The anti-tax rhetoric runs through all this stuff. It’s tied in with the anti-Black and anti-immigrant stuff. White tax dollars are going to Blacks and Browns, who don’t deserve it. That’s the subtext.

Note the calls to get rid of affirmative action. That’s not racist per se of course, but in the midst of all this stuff, it’s just one more piece of the puzzle.

Note the attacks on the media. The media is run by liberals, supposedly. No matter how rightwing the media is, it’s never far right enough for Republicans, who keep calling the media liberal in order to keep moving the goalposts and pushing the media further to the Right.

Equal Rights and Social Justice

It appears that White Politicians must look after all the voters but there seems to be a different set of rules for Black and Latino Politicians.

I noticed that retired Florida Senator Mel Martinez did little to nothing about all the illegal immigrants in Florida, the same Martinez retired the day after he voted for Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, also Latino.

What I want to know as a White American Citizen is how do I know that Francisco Rodriguez, running for Florida State House, District 83 or Marco Rubio running for Florida State Senate will look after “All the People”?

I know these are sensitive questions, but they must be asked. These Politicians must be held accountable for their promises while campaigning and stop the lying to get elected!

Thank you, The Christian Patriot from Florida. April 10, 2010.

Whoa! That’s some pretty racialized language against Latinos!

What’s interesting about Teabagger mails is that there are many open references to White Americans. In US politics, that’s usually beyond the pale.

Equal rights and social justice is a play on the use of those terms by the Left. These guys are for equal rights and social justice, but only for Whites. They’re also implying that there no longer exists equal rights or social justice for White Americans. That language is from White nationalism.

THE “N” WORD IS WRONG, JUST LIKE THE HONKY WORD AND WHITE DEVILS WORD IS WRONG!

MAYBE WHITE AMERICA IS TIRED OF PAYING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND WELFARE, TIRED OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, TIRED OF ALL BLACK COLLEGES, ALL BLACK NEWSPAPERS, ALL BLACK UNITED NEGRO COLLEGE FUND, THE NAACP, RACIAL AGITATORS JACKSON, SHARPTON AND WRIGHT?

Maybe White America is very unhappy with the Democratic Party forcing them to support illegal immigrants so that the Democrats get the Latino vote?

WHITE AMERICA MAY BE TIRED OF CAREER BUMS ON WELFARE FOR 50 YEARS OR MAYBE THEY ARE TIRED OF PAYING FOR OTHERS PEOPLES REPRODUCTION ACTS?

Maybe White America is tired of all the Black violence and crime?

MAYBE WHITE AMERICA IS TIRED BECAUSE PRESIDENT OBAMA AND ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, BOTH BLACK, DID NOT PROSECUTE THE BLACK PANTHERS FOR BREAKING VOTING LAW ON ELECTION DAY, NOVEMBER, 2008…WHEN ARE THESE TWO POWERFUL BLACK MEN GOING TO END AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?

MAYBE THESE ARE REASONS THAT THESE THREE BLACK CONGRESSMEN ALLEGEDLY HEARD THE “N” WORD!

Whoa! That’s some really racialized language! Darn. I can’t remember the last time I saw that coming out of any major US political movement. That sounds like it’s copied from the commenters at American Renaissance .

American racism has moved way beyond Nordicism. The guy who sends me that stuff is an Italian guy from Florida.

The Teabagger movement is more about US White politics versus US Hispanic or Black politics. As such, they are dying for Black traitors to go to their racist parties and line up behind this White racist movement. There have always been Blacks who were willing to sell out their race and line up with the enemy.

Less ferocious forms of White racism (less virulent than say Jim Crow, segregation or slavery) use anti-Black Blacks to further the White racist project. In this way, they don’t hate all Blacks per se, and the racist nature of the project becomes foggy and hard to see.

All in all, based on the extremely racialized language they are using (shocking in the context of a major US political movement), I must say that this is one of the most openly and virulently White racist major US political movements I’ve seen in a long time. By virulent I do not mean to equate them with segregationists, slavers or Jim Crow folks. US White racism has moved beyond that for the most part and has evolved into a more benign, though still very racist, movement.

Teabagger Rally, Circa 1960

Notice how pro-Black = Communism in 1960? Now we have a proud pro-Black Black man in the Presidency in 2010, and pro-Black = Communism once again.

Same people, different decade.

Via this excellent, but very long, post at Daily Kos. The post is very long, but you might want to look through it. The liberals there are actually debating what role racism plays in the Teabaggers. It’s not an entirely unreasonable argument.

Honestly, it’s hard to say what role racism plays in the Teabaggers.

Sure, there is a Black Agenda and a White Agenda in the US. The Teabaggers are for the White Agenda and against the Black Agenda. They see this President as a “traitor” President. Not one of us – not an American, not a citizen, a Muslim, get it? Not one of us – he’s not White! However, most Teabaggers are more sophisticated than most White nationalists.

WN’s in general oppose Obama because he is, as they put it, “the latest outrage, a Negro President.” Most WN’s will not accept any Black as President, no matter his politics or agenda.

The Teabaggers in general are much more sophisticated than that. American White racism is subtle and hard to pick up on unless you are used to the code words.

The Teabaggers will use any Black who is anti-Black agenda and pro-White agenda. That is, Black traitors and sell-outs to Whitey are A-OK with most tea partiers. This is why the Teabaggers are so hard to figure out. The Teabaggers will gladly support any Black pol who backs their agenda and supports White America against his people.

So their opposition to Obama is not “based on the fact that he is Black.” He’s a Black who’s working for the Blacks, and in US White America, that’s called working for the enemy .

There is much discussion in the thread about whether or not Teabaggers have it in for poor Whites too. No one knows.

The Right in the US, from the KKK all the way down, always feared that low-income Whites would unite with low-income Blacks on class terms, and they’ve always sought to throw a wedge between that incipient alliance. They succeeded very well.

There is a good argument that Prohibition was a WASP project by WASP’s outraged at the drunkenness and Underclass behavior of “non-Whites” such as the Irish and the Italians. Prohibition was really a White Supremacy project.

When Prohibition ended, it was replaced immediately with marijuana prohibition. This was sold to frightened Whites on the basis that Underclass Mexicans and Blacks were smoking weed, getting horny and screwing White girls or killing White people. Worse, they were corrupting Whites with Underclass Black and Brown values. Marijuana Prohibition was a White Supremacy project.

Under FDR, Whites were adamant that they be allowed to discriminate for WPA jobs. And they did discriminate a lot. FDR tried to stop it by forcing WPA projects in the South to hire both Blacks and Whites, but it was a tough haul.

Notably, Social Security and other social protections were initially denied to farm workers and domestic workers . In the 1930’s, these classes of employees were for the most part Black. The sentiment at the time was the same as now – Whites saying, “I don’t want my tax dollars going to those people.” It was Tea Party 1934.

When Reagan came in, poverty was rewritten to mean “Black.” The phony and nonexistent welfare queen was created. I see this backlash as a reaction against the Civil Rights Liberation of the 1960’s. It was another Reconstruction reactionary backlash, the 2nd or 3rd Reconstruction if you will. Every time Blacks get some rights, there’s a White backlash to withdraw many of the rights newly granted.

There have always been plenty of White poor. Go to West Virginia sometime and look around. But for the last 30 years at least, poverty has been rewritten to mean “Black.” Poor = Black and increasingly Brown. When Teabaggers say that Obama is for the poor and against them, they mean he is for the Blacks and the Browns and against the Whites.

The problem in the US is that racism is all tied up in issues of class. Class and race are mingled in America for so long now that it’s hard to tell where one starts and the other ends. That’s why discussions about whether or not the Teabaggers are racist are ultimately futile. Until you understand the American race-class marriage and the decades-long use of code words for racialized projects, the discussion isn’t going anywhere.

I’m Ethnocentric and I Don’t Care If Whites Go Extinct

Someone asked me how one could feel pride in being White, but then not care if Whites go extinct. They inferred it was a conundrum.

But it isn’t. This is simply the way that all tribes have been all down through time. Few tribes, other than the Jews, have cared about genetic purity. Tribal membership or nationality was defined by, you know, sane things, like a common language, culture, religion, etc.

You could always marry into the group, as long as you assimilated to their language, culture and religion, in general no matter what your genes looked like. American Indian tribes were like this. They took Whites and Blacks into their tribes, and of course intermarried with other tribes, as they cared not one whit for genetic purity. The White or Black simply became just another Cherokee by marrying into the tribe and adopting their culture, language and religion.

That’s really the only sane way to be ethnocentric, and it’s the way that ethnocentrism has worked for millenia in human tribes.

As far as pride in being White, well I’m happy to be me, and I love my people, but I’m not concerned about our continuing existence or White extinction.

There’s nothing weird about that – I figure most Whites are like this. Careful surveys have shown that ~7

Actually, you will find this in most groups. I worked for an Indian tribe, and there was one full-blood left out of 800. The remaining ones were continuing to intermarry like crazy with non-tribals and even non-Indians. Obviously, genetic extinction is very important to them, but they never mentioned it once. They simply did not care about genetic extinction.

Nevertheless, the ethnocentrism of this tribe was off the charts. They were as ethnocentric as White nationalists, or worse.

Do Blacks care if Blacks go extinct? What does it mean anyway? WN White extinction means pure Whites will be gone. Well, pure Blacks are already gone in the US, so Blacks are already extinct here. Since Blacks are already extinct in the US in WN sense, why worry about Black extinction?

Do Hispanics care about extinction? Of course not? What sort of line even exists that could go genetically extinct? Hispanics are a genetic Cuisinart turned on high. There’s nothing to go extinct; there’s no pure race to take out.

Few, if any, tribes or nationalities on Earth are concerned about going genetically extinct, even tribes that ought to be. I’m not sure why that is, but I think it’s because most sane humans don’t care about the genetic purity of their race. It’s not healthy human thinking. Most sane humans think of tribal extinction in terms of the loss of language, culture, or religion, things like that. But it’s proving almost impossible to stop even those sorts of tragic losses. Life marches on nonetheless, and the appeal of global culture and an improved life is a strong one.

Most tribes around the world have figured out that you can’t regulate marriage and sex. Some of the more ethnocentric ones try to maintain the tribal language or religion even after intermarriage, but intermarriage has a way of taking those things out. The general attitude among endangered cultures and languages around the world seems, “There’s nothing you can do about it.”

Have you noticed that the only group on Earth yelling about the genetic extinction of their race is the WN’s? That’s because pretty much only WN lunatics care about genes and genetic purity. Most others think it’s a laughably stupid argument, and mass intermarriage is an unstoppable juggernaut anyway.

Who Says Black Chicks are Ugly?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J96ujGstSUw]

This is a video of a Black star who I’d never heard of, Kiely Williams, doing a song called “Spectacular.” The song really sucks – stupid, irresponsible and possibly dangerous bullshit. She goes to a bar, gets totally wasted, gets picked up by some guy, goes home with him, passes out drunk (!) to where she’s unconscious, and then gets laid by him while she is passed out drunk. Which makes the guy a rapist asshole and makes her a complete idiot. Nevertheless, it was all worth it because the sex was so great. Yeah, great for him. Since she was passed out, so she could not experience that greatness. The feminists are upset about the video, as they ought to be.

Anyway, this Black chick, Kiely Williams, is definitely a babe. I don’t see where these racists get off calling her ugly. Screw em.

It’s an article of faith among White Nationalists (WN’s) that all Black women are automatically ugly. I’m not sure at what point they have enough White in them to be good looking, maybe 2/3 or so. Anyway, attractive Black females simply do not exist.

This is pretty much the same with White anti-Black racists in general. Black women are automatically hideous. I once suggested to a friend of mine that some of them were darn fine looking. “Yeah!” He huffed. “If they’ve got some White in them!” Then he looked disgusted: “It looks like an ape!” he belted out. Since I was dating a Black girl at the time, there wasn’t much to say .

But this is a common White racist view. Black per se is de facto ugly, no ifs ands or buts about it. The only redeeming factor for Black women, and the only thing capable of making them good-looking, is White blood, preferably the more the better.

As Whites, we are brought to up to believe that Black features are not attractive, but it does take some reinforcement to make it sink in, males being the horny bastards that we are.

I remember when I was a young man, my friends and I frequently spoke of “Black foxes,” and how much we wanted one, mostly for the adventure of it. Black women really hate this kind of thinking, calling it “the White man who wants his jungle fantasy,” but I guess it’s better than writing them all off.

The main thing is that we Whites are not used to Black features. We are brought up with all White people, and that’s who we think is good looking. When I was growing up (pre-MTV era), there were few attractive Blacks in the media. Black features look sort of strange, odd or weird to most of us Whites, exotic at best, even if we don’t think they are ugly per se.

After looking at Black women for a long time, I finally realized that a lot of them actually are beautiful, but Black beauty is an acquired taste, like wine or coffee -most don’t like it at first, but it grows on you if you let it. There are many Black women, even very dark ones, who are strikingly attractive. That is, once you develop that acquired taste.

There is a Black woman who lives next door to me with a 15 year old daughter. Both are very dark, and the mother is quite heavy. But if you look at their faces, there is something knock-out drop dead gorgeous beautiful about them, once again, once you develop that acquired taste.

I’m glad I learned to appreciate the unique beauty that Black women have. It makes the world of women that much more of a beautiful, exciting and exotic place.

Are Lebanese White?

White nationalists (WN’s) typically say that all Lebanese are non-Whites, and in fact, they usually hate them, since they hate all non-Whites.

We get into the issue of who is White. Probably ~8

According to Nordicists, Irish, British, Icelandics, Faroese, Norwegians, Swedes, Finns, Danes, Germans, Dutch, Belgians, French, Swiss, Northern Italians, Slovenians, Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Belorussians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians and Russians are all White. These are the only White people.

Typically, Spaniards, Portuguese, Southern Italians, Croatians, Montenegrins, Serbs, Albanians, Kosovars, Macedonians, Bosnians, Greeks, Turks, Jews and Armenians are defined as non-Whites. Furthermore, everyone outside of Europe is automatically defined as non-White, which is preposterous and makes no sense, although some will say that Iranians are White.

This has always struck me as utterly insane. The only logical view of who is White is anyone who is part of the European native peoples or looks like they could be one of the European native peoples. We might have a tough case with the Lapps though, who are partly Asiatic.

By this view, Spaniards, Portuguese, Southern Italians, Croatians, Montenegrins, Serbs, Albanians, Kosovars, Macedonians, Bosnians, Greeks, Turks, Armenians, Jews, Georgians, Azeris, Iranians and Caucasus people are all White, flat out. No argument.

Furthermore, there are folks outside of Europe who look like Whites. So we could divide extra-European Caucasians into White Caucasians and non-White Caucasians. Therefore, while many Arabs, Berbers, Pakistanis, Indians, etc. are not White, there are indeed White Arabs, White Berbers, White Pakistanis and even White Indians. How do we know which is which? Mostly phenotype.

A classic example of White Arabs would be these Lebanese women demonstrating against Syria in the 2005 Color Revolution. Most of these women are probably Maronite Christians. Christian Arabs, even in Iraq, are often the Whitest Arabs of all for unknown reasons, possibly because they did not own slaves and therefore breed with their slaves as the Muslims did.

Look at the women in those pics. Where do these WN dickwads get off saying these chicks are not White? What a bunch of tools these WN’s are.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

I Say Quarantine Him

All right, Nushan, that does it. That mug shot just screams, "Quarantine me!" You just got convicted. Court of public opinion is adjourned.

As a civil libertarian, I’m generally opposed to quarantining HIV-positive people or AIDS patients, despite Cuba’s good experiences. However, I will make one exception for Nushan Williams, just getting out of prison after serving 12 years for infecting 12 females, 7 women, a 13-, 15-, 16- and two 17-year old girls, apparently all White, with HIV, which he had been told that he had, although he thought the medical staff were lying to run him out of town and he didn’t believe them. Two passed it on to their kids, and one passed it on to her boyfriend.

He had moved from a tough Brooklyn neighborhood to Jamestown, a White Western New York town devastated by manufacturing loss and experiencing rapid lumpenization. He said he was a Bloods gang member, and quickly become a popular drug dealer, and charmed his way into hundreds of girls’ beds, almost all of them White. His relationships with the women were characterized by brutality, physical abuse and drug use.

That’s what you get for fucking gangsters, wigger chicks.

He actually slept with 300 women and girls by age 21. Wow! That’s three times as many as Sexmaniacman, and Sexman is past 40!

Nushan continued to act horrible the whole time he was in prison, repeatedly being sanctioned for throwing bodily fluids, fighting, threats, possession of drugs and weapons, the usual. Obviously he hasn’t changed one bit. Officials say he has “problems in self-regulation.” Indeed, and in spades.

Officials are sentencing him to a mental hospital because he can’t control himself, he’s horny as fuck, and he thinks about screwing lots of chicks all the time. Nothing wrong with that, but if you’re HIV-positive and as irresponsible as this POS is, that’s going to be a problem.

Health authorities have a right to quarantine folks who have an infectious disease that they refuse to treat and are in danger of infecting others due to their negligence. If you don’t want to get quarantined, don’t act like a lobotomized gangsta if you’re HIV-positive.

I say quarantine the bastard. Either that or ship him back to Africa*, preferably a country with a very high HIV rate, assuming they will take him. Plenty of Black men all over Africa are acting just like this guy. He’d be right at home.

*Of course I’m opposed to the racist BS of “ship the Blacks back to Africa,” but I will make a few rare exceptions in cases like these.

US Blacks Make Great Educational Gains

Here.

From the paper:

In the United States, based on a national assessment of adult literacy, African Americans improved their scores more than any other racial/ethnic group in the years between 1992 and 2003. The survey measured three elements of literacy: prose, document, and quantitative literacy – which are reading, synthesizing information from documents and graphs, and basic math.ch are reading, synthesizing information from documents and graphs, and basic math.

There’s an agenda behind most of the White nationalist and race realist arguments about Blacks. It should be no surprise that almost all such folks are conservative to reactionary, and many are out and out libertarians. They nearly all subscribe to the philosophy of minimal government and a free market. Such an agenda always decimates public education, but that’s how they want it. They’re either going to home school, send their kids to private schools, or they’re idiots.

There’s a reason that they continually harp on lower Black IQ’s and fall all over themselves to say that the Black IQ has been flat for 100 years. This means that Blacks are, for all intents and purposes, ineducable. Any money you spend on educating them is money down the rathole since they’re incapable of learning. This is a very convenient argument for moneyed Whites who hate the public schools. If educating Blacks is useless, let’s just quit educating them and cut them off. Think of all those nice White tax dollars you could save.

Marx was right in a sense. Everything isn’t all about economics, but in the modern world, so much of life surely is.

And with the White nationalists and race realists, there’s an ugly economic argument behind all the racist rhetoric: “I don’t want my hard-earned White tax dollars going to educate useless niggers.” This is the thought process underlying a lot of the anti-government movement in the US for the past 30 years. I know. I’ve lived in rightwing White communities all those years, and I know exactly how my people think. The rightwing revolution, from Reagan on, was about a lot of things, but it was so about race.

Above we see that one of their prime arguments is a lie. Turns out Blacks are educable after all. Turns out that they can improve over time, giving the lie to the sly hereditarian assumption that Black achievement will be frozen by genetic constraints.

On the NAEP, Blacks have reduced the gap by about 1/3. You would never know this if you went to a White nationalist site. All they do is rant that there’s been no progress.

Blacks now nearly match Whites on vocabulary, controlling for socioeconomic status.

Controlling for economic status, Blacks now nearly match Whites on vocabulary. So increasing Black economic status raises Black vocabulary scores dramatically. At the same time, rising White economic status had no effect on scores.

Young Blacks have closed the B-W IQ gap by 5.5 points over 30 years.

Young Blacks have closed the B-W IQ gap by 5.5 points over 30 years. However, this applies only to Black minors. By age 24, the gain is all lost, and the B-W IQ gap is the same. One thing that is very interesting is that Black 5 year olds have IQ’s of 98 (US White IQ = 103). That’s only 5 points below US White IQ’s. People say it’s because Blacks mature faster, but that seems like a lousy argument. Black kids score about the same as Black adults in Africa.

On the cynical side, I could note that environmental effects are greatest in childhood. As one moves into adulthood, environmental effects diminish, and genetic effects tend to predominate.

However, this data does show that the extremely rich Western environment of the US is dramatically raising the IQ’s of Black children. It is interesting that this gap closing has occurred in the past 30 years, which coincides with Liberation from 1964-on. There may be hope yet.

All this positive news aside, any discussion of B-W achievement gap that does not include talk about IQ is useless. Yet that’s what passes for policy debate in the US.

The gap may never be entirely closable, but surely it can be reduced.

Is Afrikaans Close to English?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtKKJSfYraU&feature=related]

Cruising around the Net researching my piece on the Dutch languages, I read up on Afrikaans quite a bit. Afrikaans is the language, very close to Dutch, spoken in South Africa. It seems to be a Dutch dialect from a few centuries ago. It’s rather close to Flemish, and of course it is close to Dutch. It is often described as a simplified Dutch, and some Dutch speakers feel it almost resembles Dutch “baby-talk” or child speech. There are theories that Afrikaans is a creole (a simplified form of a language) but these seem to be discarded, though it does have influences from other languages, especially English and various African languages.

A number of English speakers on the Net said that as an English speaker, they could either communicate or almost communicate with Afrikaans speakers, each using their own language. I decided to test that out by listening to the “De La Rey” video above. There were English subtitles, but I turned my head away so I could not read them and just listened to the song trying to figure out English words.

If you listen to it with the subtitles up there, you can see a lot of cognates, but when we talk to other humans, we don’t get subtitles floating over each other’s heads so we can understand better.

I could hardly understand one single word of the Afrikaans speech in this song. I got Transvaal, but that’s just a place name, and your average uneducated American would never pick that up. I also got flammen, and I thought that might be flame. Close, it’s fire. The idea that Afrikaans and English are the slightest bit intelligible in spoken form is not supported.

Anyway, it’s a cool song. You might as well check it out. It’s banned in South Africa, though there’s nothing racist about the song. It talks about the Boer War, in which the Afrikaans speaking Boers fought against the British military around 1904 or so.

Your more educated White nationalists around the world love this war for some reason. I’m not really up on what the war was all about – apparently an anti-colonial rebellion? Anyway, this Boer War is an integral part of the South African legendary history of their time in this land, hence this song is part of their heritage. Where these Blacks think it’s racist, I don’t understand.

Goodbye and Good Riddance

Eugene Terreblanche was just murdered by Black farm workers in a wage dispute. A few years back, Terreblanche got into it with a Black guy at a gas station and severely beat the guy. The Black guy suffered serious brain damage as a result. I don’t know the details of the incident.

Eugene Terreblanche made racial hatred his whole raison d’ etre, and he reaped the hatred that his karma sowed. What comes around, goes around; paybacks are a bitch; you get out of this world what you put into it. Insert favorite aphorism here.

See that swastika-looking AWB insignia in the background? That’s not an accidental design. If being a White advocate means sticking up for bastards like this, I’d almost rather throw in with the Abagonds, but it ain’t much of a choice.

Terreblanche was a White nationalist hero, and there are a lot of comments on White nationalist sites about the White farmer murders. It is a very serious problem.

But it’s not some extermination campaign because they are White. As with most rural violence, it’s tied up in land tenure. If those White farmers had as much land as your average Black farmer did, they wouldn’t be getting killed any more than anyone else in South Africa. Those few White farmers have most of the farmland, and almost all of the good farmland, in the country.

The Blacks were removed from the land, banana republic style, to squatter “homelands” which quickly become overpopulated, overfarmed and badly eroded. But it was shitty land anyway (Malan 1990). Meanwhile, ~

Obviously, there needs to be some kind of a land reform, but it’s been stalled. The Black farmers are landless or have tiny and infertile plots, and they are attacking the White farmers to kill them and take over their land. Were a decent land reform done, none of this would be happening.

By the way, if you want to read an awesome book by a White South African that is coming from something like the Liberal Race Realism of this blog, check out the reference.

References

Malan, Rian. 1990. My Traitor’s Heart: A South African Exile Returns to Face His Country, His Tribe, and His Conscience. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

The World of the Bully and PC Anti-White Cultural Marxism

In the comments section, Bay Area Guy talks about the perpetually grievanced world of the intellectual non-White Cultural Marxist permavictims.

I’m going to riff on that by bringing up the stuff I dealt with for decades in my own crazy family. I don’t care if they read this, I don’t care what they do about it, and I don’t care who it pisses off. If they don’t want this going out to the whole world via the Intertubes, they should think again about how they treat me.

Bay Area Guy:

At the same time, if you visit blogs such as Abagond, angry black woman, Unapologetic Mexican, or other non-white blogs, all they talk about is white racism and the mindset of white people.

I can’t emphasize strongly enough how offensive the approach of these Black and Hispanic Cultural Marxists is. Even when you bend over backwards and try to accommodate them, it’s like we are never doing good enough. I go to Abagond, and a lot of times it is chastening. I think, “Wow, so this is what we are doing that is pissing off Blacks. Ok, let’s stop doing it.”

Then I resolve to do better.

But the grievance never ends, no matter how hard I try to do better. I’m still a White racist jerk, no matter what.

It’s like someone who hates you because supposedly you don’t act right, so you say, “Ok, I’m going to try to act right to get this person to like me.” You spend decades doing this, and no matter what you do it’s never good enough, and the whole time they are blaming you for the fact that they hate you.

Why do they hate me? Because I’m bad! They’re justified!

Wow, I need to stop being bad.

So you spend decades trying to “be good” to get these people to stop hating you, and they just keep moving the goalposts, keep on hating you, and keep blaming you for the fact that they are haters.

I dealt with this shit in my own White middle class suburban family for decades, and frankly it’s just bullying tactics. The person blaming me for the fact that he hates me is a bully. No matter what I do, the bully keeps on picking on me, laughing at me, ridiculing me, hating me and blaming me for everything.

I can never do anything right, the bully hates me, and it’s all my fault. I keep trying to do better, and eventually I get self-esteem problems because I think I’m bad and deserve to be hated.

What these intellectual Blacks do to us feels like the bullying I dealt with in my own family. They’re bullying us Whites. They pick on us, they ridicule us, they laugh at us and they hate us. And just like in my family, if I try to fight back even

In the bully’s world, Poland is always attacking Germany. You’re always Poland and the bully’s always Germany. If you try to defend yourself in the tiniest way, the bully flips out, goes nuts and turns it all around so the bully is the victim and the victim fighting back against the bully is the evil, psycho, sociopathic, criminal aggressor.

Some of us Whites are liberals, and we keep trying to be good non-racists and get these people to stop hating us. No matter how good we try to be, they keep on hating us and blaming us for the fact that they hate us. White liberals get low self-esteem and start thinking that Blacks hate us justifiably because were are perma-defective in some way.

After ages of this, you finally just throw up your hands and decide that the non-White bullies simply cannot be appeased. You’ve been trying to appease them for years, just like the jerks in your family, and it’s all hopeless. They’re going to hate us forever, they will blame us for them hating us, and no matter what we do, it will never be enough. The sane Whites will just say, “Fuck you, I’m done with you, and I’m keeping away from you,” just like the bullies in your own family.

Now, granted, if you study the history of Jim Crow in the US closely, it’s quite clear that this bully routine was par for the course under Jim Crow. Under Jim Crow, Whites bullied Blacks for decades, and Blacks just suffered in silence. If the Black man ever stood up to raise one pinky finger to fight back, Poland was attacking Germany once again and the poor victim, transformed into monster criminal, was hanging from tree, while crowds of grinning White murderers were transformed into outraged super-victims.

If you look at photos of Nazis dealing with Jews in Germany, especially in the early years, you see this same sort of bullying, with the Jews doing the same abject victim thing.

So it’s not anything unique to any one race or other. The tendency to bully others is simply a human one. Personally, I think it’s childish, and I don’t think adults should pick on or bully other adults. Are you still in high school? That’s something kids do. Adults don’t bully each other. It’s profoundly shameful.

“Racist!”

Note: This post is extremely long, at 108 pages, so be forewarned. However, it’s very good, and I think it’s well worth your time.

There is not a whole lot I can add to this seminal work by a University of Montana Professor of English named Paul Trout. The piece speaks for itself. Here it is, 15 years later, and not a single thing has changed,  has it? This means that serious forms of PC insanity have devastated our universities, and from there, spread, virus-like, into society at large for over two decades now. In the meantime, in the past 20-25 years, things have only gotten worse for non-Whites in general, Blacks and Hispanics in particular.

So, while a blatantly White racist politics has held sway over the nation, causing serious harm to various non-Whites as Whites attacked them, at the same time, an idiot PC Idiocracy has held a Dictatorship of the Idiotariot over society as a whole. One wonders what good this PC silliness does, other than just spreading even more stupidity and insanity through a society that has too much of both already.

The PC Idiot Class has not been able to prevent a White racist politics from gripping the nation, yet it has gone on a jihad against a bunch of a nonsense, and its most frequent victims were non-racist and even anti-racist Whites. One wonders how any of the incidents below affected any US Black or Hispanics polities as a whole in any real and meaningful way. They didn’t. So all PC madness is attack innocent Whites, usually, most perversely of all, the liberal ones who are friendliest to non-Whites.

The main conclusion that we liberal Whites draw from all this looniness is that minorities are nothing but trouble. Blacks in particular. Read the article below and I defy you to conclude that modern PC Blacks are anything but a heap of ridiculous problems waiting to blow up on you at any unknown time. The only sensible conclusion Whites, even non-racist ones, draw from PC madness is that minorities, particularly Blacks but to a lesser extent Hispanics, Amerindians and other Professional Victims, are just not worth the trouble and are best avoided.

If you read below, you will notice that the only sane people protesting the PC lunacy are conservatives, particularly White racist conservatives. Great. So White people can either be PC professional flagellants or they can defy it and be White racist jerks. Well! That’s certainly one Hell of a choice!

Conservatives are so crazy and wrong on most everything that anytime the conservatives are right, you know the Left must be catastrophically screwed up. It embarrasses me to no end that the only folks making sense below are the rightwing nasties at US News and World Report and the Wall Street Journal. Where are all the sane liberals? On vacation, I guess. Or, worse, afraid of being called racist.

Cruising around the Black blogosphere, you note that the PC nonsense below is the standard view on race at most intelligent Black blogs. This is a classical, and typical, example. And on many Hispanic blogs too. And, I am sad to say, it’s the standard view on most of the leftwing sites I read.

This piece was originally found on this site here. That’s a White racist site, and so is Nicholas Stix, probably, though I guess Nick has an excuse for being racist (he experienced a lot of terrible treatment by Blacks). One again, we see that the only folks promoting this eminently sane piece are racist Whites. How sad!

(This landmark monograph was originally published in 1995 in direct link nor the “Racist!” as an Epithet of Repression

Paul Trout

Dept of English

Montana State U – Bozeman

Montana Professor Journal

Fall 1995

Introduction

About the worst thing you can be called nowadays is “racist.” The word not only brands a person as intellectually and morally inferior but links him or her to hooded sickos who beat and lynch innocent minorities. And the accusation – whether merited or not – often brings stinging penalties, from shunning to firing. Ask Senator Conrad Burns, Andy Rooney, Jimmy the Greek, Marge Schott, or Christina Jeffrey. No wonder people who subscribe to liberal social and intellectual ideals, who abhor race prejudice, fear being branded with the scarlet “R.”

Since the term carries so much social opprobrium and can hurt a person’s private life and public career, it should be defined clearly and used cautiously. This is not the case, however, on today’s college campuses. The examples in this essay suggest that on college campuses across the country, the epithet “racist,” hard enough for dictionaries to define (see “Defining Racism,” Chronicles, August 1994, 46), has become alarmingly unmoored.

We have now reached a point where the term can be used, usually without explanation or justification, to stigmatize any policy, statement, symbol, statistic, outcome, word or expression that any minority member does not like, including all kinds of legitimate, scholarly, and protected material.

As Robert Hughes observes in The Culture of Complaint, the irresponsible and promiscuous use of “racist” has robbed the term of “whatever stable meaning it once had” (19). Even worse, since its use is sanctioned by the subjectivity of the user, there can be no false accusations of “racism.” In short, anyone accused of “racism” is ipso facto guilty.

As a result, the epithet “racist” has become a powerful weapon of intimidation, the contemporary equivalent of the 1950s charge of “communism.” Since nobody on campus wants to be labeled a “racist,” and since nobody knows what the term means, most people stay clear of saying or doing anything that some minority member may label as “racist.” Out of fear, most people – and especially Whites – studiously avoid touchy issues, provocative statements, or ambiguous symbols or behaviors.

Unfortunately, as the examples in this essay show, not everybody succeeds in avoiding trouble. An untoward statement, word, metaphor or observation, even an unpalatable research finding, can catapult a student, faculty member, or administrator, into the category of “racist” with regrettable results.

Of “Racist” Epithets There Is No End

Campus speech codes forbid and provide punishment for certain types of expressive behavior which causes an individual or group to feel demeaned or abused because of their racial or ethnic background (so long as they are non-White). Such codes are often said to be aimed at only the most outrageous ”ethnic slurs” and “racial epithets” (Cass Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, 198).

But anybody staying abreast of this issue knows that speech codes have been invoked to punish all kinds of acts and statements, from quoting upsetting statistics to evincing “disrespect” (see Rauch, Kindly Inquisitors, 26).

Part of the problem with these codes is that they do not emphasize the objective content of the behavior or language, but the subjective response of the self-proclaimed victim. So an “ethnic slur” or “racial epithet” is whatever that person deems it to be. Another problem is that these codes – remarkably – never list the epithets that they forbid.

What words or epithets are “racist”? The only right answer is, more and more of them. Now even the noun “Jew” is “racist,” according to WordPerfect 6.0’s Grammatik, which warns us to “avoid using this offensive term.” So is the verb “to welch,” according to the Welsh-American Legal Defense, Education, and Development Fund. So is “digger pines” (Pinus sabiniana), according to a curator at the California State Indian Museum, who claims it is a slur on Native Americans.

So is “spook,” as in “Spook Hill” (in Mesa, Arizona), according to the NAACP, even though it refers to ghosts who haunt the area (in Phoenix, there was a brouhaha over Squaw Peak).

Given people’s notorious and awe-inspiring linguistic inventiveness (see A. A. Roback’s Dictionary of International Slurs) and their exquisite sensitivity to grievance, the list of offensive epithets will keep going and going…It is already quite long.”

An author who gave a talk at Harvard on why liberals like Jack Kerouac were drawn to Black culture provoked protests by entitling his talk, quoting Kerouac, “Spade Kicks” ( CHE 10 June 1992). The phrase “playing goalie Kamikazestyle” was deleted from a story in a textbook because it was construed to be an ethnic slur (Campus Reports, December 1992).

Even the word “slave” is now dangerous to use. An Education Commission in New York recommended in 1991 that the word “slave” be replaced with “enslaved person” in all school textbooks. Students at historically Black Prairie View Texas A&M University complained that they were offended by the Latin term servitium, in the school’s motto Recercare, Doctrina, Servitium, because in the Middle Ages it allegedly meant slavery. Regents approved the following translation: “Research, Teaching, Service” (CHE, 3 August 1994, A4).

Murray Dolfman was fired for using this word. When no one in his University of Pennsylvania law class knew what the Thirteenth Amendment forbade, he said according to his version), “We have ex-slaves here who should know about the Thirteenth Amendment,” (in Kindly Inquisitors, 148-149). He also referred to himself as an ex-slave (as a Jewish ’slave unto Pharaoh’).

When several Black students complained after class, Dolfman apologized but that did no good. Black students invaded his class and read a list of accusations to Dolfman’s students. News of Dolfman’s amazingly clumsy remark convulsed the campus for weeks, and Houston Baker, the well-known scholar of Black literature, engaged in a little signifying by publicly denouncing Dolfman as an “asshole…unqualified to teach dogs” (Richard Bernstein, Dictatorship of Virtue, 112).

Dolfman’s contract was not renewed. Richard Bernstein draws this moral from the Dolfman affair: “In the era of political correctness and craven university administrations, the charge of racism, unsubstantiated but accompanied by a few demonstrations and angry rhetorical perorations, suffices to paralyze a campus, to destroy a reputation, and to compel an administration into submission,” (Dictatorship of Virtue, 114-115).

Other words one should stay away from include – according to the School of Journalism at the University of Missouri – ”shiftless,” “fried chicken” (“a loaded phrase when used carelessly”), and “watermelon.” In 1987 at Harvard, Stephen Thernstrom, a respected historian of race relations, was accused of “racism” by students because he used the words “American Indian” and “Oriental” (Maclean’s, 27 May 1991; Lingua Franca, April 1991, 37).

At the University of Virginia Law School, a hapless White guy got into trouble simply trying to be hip when he shot back at one Black student, “Can you dig it, man?” The next day an anonymous note called the teacher a “racist” and a “White supremacist,” without regard to his pro bono work for the civil rights movement, his membership in Klanwatch, and his work in recruiting minorities to campus (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 6).

At Antioch, Ralph Luker, an associate professor of History and a civil rights activist, was denounced as a “racist” when he said that in the eyes of the law, slaves in the antebellum South had the same legal status as domestic animals. Students thought that he was comparing Black people to animals and took over his class in protest (CHE, 17 June 1994, 4D; 22 June, A14). Afterward, he was denied tenure.

A political science professor at the University of British Columbia (my alma mater) said, during a discussion of apartheid, that “Blacks were at the bottom of the totem pole in South Africa,” (Globe and Mail, 6 August 1994, D7). One student felt the metaphor to be a “racist” appropriation of the sacred symbols of the Kwakiutl and the Haida.

And everyone in the country now has been alerted not to use “water buffalo” within the hearing of Blacks. One night in January, 1993, a group of Black sorority women were dancing and chanting outside a dormitory window at 3 a.m. Several dorm residents shouted for the women to be quiet, and apparently some racial epithets were exchanged.

One student, Eden Jacobowitz, shouted “Shut up, you water buffalo. If you’re looking for a party there is a zoo a mile from here.” (CHE, July 7, 1993, A32). (The women claimed he said, “Shut up, you Black water buffaloes,” and “Go back to the zoo where you belong!”; see “The Raging Water Buffalo” by John K. Wilson, in The Newsletter of Teachers for a Democratic Culture, 2 [2], Fall 1993, 11-12).

The five female students charged Jacobowitz with “racial harassment” under the university’s vague hate-speech code (Scott Shepard, “Penn: The Most Poisoned Ivy?” Campus 5 [1], Fall 1993, 6).

Jacobowitz, an Israel-born Yeshiva student, used the word “water buffalo” because it was the English translation for the Hebrew word “behemah” (there are various spellings for this word), which means “water oxen” and is used as slang to describe an inconsiderate or foolish person. “It was the furthest thing from my mind to call them anything racial,” he said (CHE, 5 May 1993, A39).

During preliminary hearings, Penn Judicial Inquiry Officer Robin Reed asked Jacobowitz if he had been “thinking racial thoughts” on the night his supposed offense took place. She also explained that “water buffalo” could be taken as a racial slur because it “is a dark, primitive animal that lives in Africa” (AP, 14 May 1993). Reed is wrong. The animal is native to southeast Asia.

Although several Black faculty members were asked to testify that “water buffalo” is not a racial slur (until now, at any rate), John Wilson has argued that the fact that the phrase “is not a common racial epithet hardly makes it immune from use in a racist way.” In other words, any word can be used as a “racist” epithet. Charges against Jacobowitz were eventually dropped.

Students and faculty must be especially wary of potentially “racist” color words nowadays. Recently, at Columbia University, “chocolate” and “vanilla” were held to be “racist” after two White students who worked for the escort service were overheard by a Black security guard referring to certain escortees as “chocolate” or “vanilla.” The students explained that chocolate merely meant “attractive” and vanilla “unattractive” or “plain.”

The director of the service, however, summarily fired them for uttering “blatantly racist” remarks (see Dogmatic Wisdom, 84).

In a similar vein, the U. of Missouri stylebook warns writers to stay clear of using the word “articulate” when describing Blacks, saying that it implies that most Blacks are not articulate. In other words, it could be “racist” to say to a minority student, “because you are extremely articulate, you will probably excel in my class.”

Hunting Indians, Minutemen, and other “Racist” Mascots

The Sherlocks of Sensitivity have found “racist” messages not only in the most neutral and honorific expressions but in all kinds of university logos, mascots, and icons.

American Indians have been particularly assiduous in finding “racism” in any and every use of Indian names and images. Over the last ten years or so, their campaign to get colleges to drop team names, logos, and mascots associated with Indian culture has been very successful.

This campaign took a new twist early this year when five students at the University of Illinois filed a complaint with the Illinois’ Human Rights Commission, claiming that the school’s mascot, Chief Illiniwek, causes a “hostile and abusive” environment for American Indians (Campus 6 [3], Spring 1995, 11).

The Commission noted that if the complaint were successful, it would set a precedent that would enable African-American groups to prevent showings of Birth of a Nation, Jewish groups to repress The Merchant of Venice, and Native Americans to prevent the screening of cowboy movies.

When Native Americans find these logos “offensive” or “insulting,” not much can be said, since these subjective terms are self-validating. But are these logos “racist”? That term should be applied to depictions that imply and promote contempt, even hatred. But the images of logos are honorific, usually connoting power, integrity, honor, and nobility.

The Ute tribe has, I think, understood this distinction. It recognized that the University of Utah, in calling its teams the “Running Utes,” was actually implementing (in a small way) the tribe and the state’s Native-American culture. So instead of campaigning against the name and logo, the tribe attempted to control them. All accouterments had to be authentic, all depictions respectful.

Some measure of just how touchy Indian activists have become is seen in the campaign to change the mascot of Fort Lewis College. The icon/mascot was not a Native American, but a White male, a mounted U. S. cavalryman carrying a sword.

Native Americans found the image offensive (CHE, 13 April 1994, 4A). In an effort to make the graphic palatable, the college first replaced the sword with a military banner (no good), then with an “FLC” pennant (not good enough), and then it removed the horseman’s rife and pistol, describing the figure now as “the Raider” (still no good). Finally it dropped the Raider entirely, replacing him with a golden eagle. The A.S.P.C.A. has not complained – yet.

While animals still seem to be a safe bet as logos and mascots, other images and symbols are sitting ducks for charges of “racism.” Any image of a White man is now automatically “racist,” the very term used to describe “Blaze,” the cartoonish Nordic warrior emblem of the University of Alabama. The logo of the University of Alabama – a White, gentlemanly, Colonel-Sanders type – was attacked as “racist” because it allegedly reminded some minority students of “plantation owners.”

Even the Minuteman mascot of the University of Massachusetts was decried as “racist” (it was also “sexist” for being male and violent for holding a gun). Said Martin Jones, the student who led the attack, “to have a White male represent a student body that is not exclusively White or male is culturally biased, and promotes racism.”

The university chancellor agreed, making the university, according to the president of the Republican Club on campus, look like a “politically correct wasteland” and the “laughingstock of the country” (CHE, 10 November 1993).

But after Jones did “some research” into the historic contributions of the Minutemen, and after the campus library was named for the founder of the NAACP (W. E. B. DuBois), he defended the image and announced his “mistake” in criticizing it. “These men, as the original liberators of America, have earned the right to be honored fully by Americans everywhere…Long live the Minutemen of Massachusetts,” (USA Today, 28 October 1994, 10A).

So far the “leprechauns” of the University of Notre Dame have escaped attack.

In these examples, images and logos are being called “racist” not so much for what they depict as for what they exclude – they don’t depict other races or ethnic groups. The Representation Police want school logos to look like Benetton ads, all cuddly rainbow inclusivity. That’s an awful lot to ask of a college logo. In “Mascot Studies,” a writer for The American Spectator (December 1993, 14) puts this foolishness into perspective:

At our universities, neither professors nor administrators apparently possess the discernment to distinguish between a harmless mascot and, say, a flaming cross on a hill…There is today on campus…an innocent assumption that any protester must have a point.

We have quite forgotten that familiar figure of the past, the malcontent. Past generations recognized these odious cranks when they commenced to bawl and took them cum grano salis. If by accident the malcontent had come upon a legitimate grievance, fine – the Republic initiated a reform and passed on.

Today the country is at the mercy of these disturbed people, and actually raises many to lifelong prominence…Worse, these grumblers have inspired thousands of common malcontents to take up a noble cause. Vexed debate over the campus mascot is but one of the unhappy consequences.

In other words, get a life.

Remove That Tattoo, That T-Shirt, and That Elihu Yale!

Official logos and mascots are not the only images on campus ‘under erasure’ for being “racist.” This section will overview a number of incidents in which harmless and relatively benign images and activities were proclaimed to be “racist” and then almost always punished. These incidents demonstrate once again just how unmoored and repressive the R-word has become on today’s college campuses. Let’s begin in the kitchen.

A dishwasher in a residence hall at Iowa State University got into hot water when students noticed he had a swastika and the letters KKK tattooed on his arms. He had neither said nor done anything “racist,” he just sported some old tatoos left over from when he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan (he explained that he repudiated the organization in a letter to the student newspaper).

Still, students demanded his removal. As one of them put it, “I’m for free speech. But…the KKK is wrong and has no place in a university environment.” What’s notable is that he had worked at the university for eighteen years before anybody noticed, or bothered to complain (U. Magazine, February 1994, 10). The university was warned by the state not to fire him.

Now to the infamous “racist” T-shirt at the University of California (Riverside). In 1993, Phi Kappa Sigma advertised its South of the Border Fiesta with a T-shirt featuring a figure in a serape and sombrero sitting on a beach looking at the setting sun and holding a bottle of tequila.

Next to the figure was a set of steel drums and a wooden Tiki head, in which was carved the word “Jamaica.” The lower half of the shirt shows a Rastafarian standing in the doorway of a Mexican cantina with a big smile and a six-pack of brew. This graphic was wrapped in a lyric from Bob Marley: “It doesn’t matter where you come from long as you know where you are going.” The shirt, according to the fraternity, was meant to show the ‘inclusivity’ of booze and partying down.

But campus Hispanic organizations charged the fraternity with “offensive racial stereotypes” and filed a formal complaint. Although the fraternity president, Rich Carrez, apologized to the campus Hispanic organization, the apology did no good. The fraternity was accused of being “racist,” even though it was the most racially diverse fraternity on campus (22 of its 47 members were non-White).

Carrez himself is part Native American, while the fraternity’s Vice President is Latino, and the student who designed the T-shirt is Hispanic. When this was pointed out, the Hispanic organization merely replied, “You should have known better.”

After a series of hearings, in which the fraternity was accused of launching a “racist” attack on the Latino community, the fraternity was forced to destroy all of the offending T-shirts, to write a letter of apology, to do 16 hours of community service, and to attend two sensitivity seminars on multiculturalism. But Hispanic students were still not satisfied, so the fraternity was also barred from intramural sports and rush activities, stripped of its charter and kicked off campus.

When the fraternity’s cause was taken up by the Individual Rights Foundation, the university settled out of court, agreeing to reinstate the fraternity, to drop all charges against it, and, in an unprecedented concession, to require two administrators to undergo sensitivity training in the First Amendment (see “Counter Coup: When Sensitivity Training is a Good Thing,” Heterodoxy 2 [3], November 1993, 12; “Campus Speech Codes Are Being Shot Down as Opponents Pipe Up,” WSJ, 22 December 1993, A1).

A similar graphic landed a student cartoonist at Portland State University in the gazpacho. In trying to point out that the American Free Trade Agreement was good for corporate America but not for the average Mexican citizen, the student drew a Mexican staring longingly at a display of beans, wondering if he could afford them. One would think that this would be received sympathetically by Hispanic students, but it wasn’t. All they saw in the cartoon was an implicit epithet: ‘beaner.’

The Chronicle of Higher Education sided with the thin-skinned students outraged by this scene, chiding the editors – “none of whom are Hispanic” – for not realizing that the depiction of beans could be construed as a “slur” (CHE, 17 November 1993, A39).

This spring, students at Yale demanded that the university remove a portrait of its founder, Elihu Yale, from its boardroom because it is “racist.” The painting portrays the school’s eighteenth-century founder seated in a chair with a young Black male (some think an Indian servant), perhaps kneeling, handing him a letter (CHE, 28 April 1995, A6).

Not nearly as exciting as the “Hovey murals” at Dartmouth, which feature drunken, scantily clad Native Americans, and which have been covered with panels since the 1970s because of protests that they were ”racist” (USA Today, 18 October 1993, D1).

At the University of Oregon, a banner depicting the faces of Michelangelo, Plato, Jane Austen, and eight other renowned, but White, figures was torn down by a group of students, who scrawled “racism” on it and painted some of the faces brown (CHE, 27 May 1992, A2).

What they did not realize, apparently, was that painting White faces brown was itself gravely “racist.” That was established in 1988, when a White Stanford student, to make a point, colored the face of Beethoven brown. The incident took place at Ujamaa House, Stanford’s “African-theme” dormitory.

One evening, a Black student claimed that Beethoven was Black. Several White students thought not. One of them found a big picture of Beethoven and, using a crayon, gave the composer an Afro and Black features and hung the poster outside the Black student’s room. When the Black student saw it, he was “flabbergasted,” and another was “outraged and sickened,” condemning the poster as “hateful, shocking.”

The White student explained that he did it only because disliked what he called “ethnic aggressivity,” and the campus obsession with race. He was also upset by a Black student who insisted that she would never marry anyone but another Black (a “racist” comment?). So he defaced the Beethoven poster “to show the Black students how ridiculous it was to focus on race.” He said the poster was “satirical humor.”

Threatened by members of an exceedingly hostile crowd of outraged Blacks, the White student apologized, but to no avail. Two days later, all the White students in Ujamaa – about 60 – found anonymous notes under their doors telling them to move out. In the photo display of the freshmen in Ujamaa, all the White faces had holes punched in them. Soon signs appeared that read: “Avenge Ujamaa. Smash the honkie oppressors!” (Chronicles, January 1990, 51-53).

And don’t even think about painting your own face Black! If you think Ted Danson got into trouble for his Friars Club routine, try it on campus. A number of frat boys have, and have been swatted with suspensions and hefty fines. No matter what the intent or context, painting your face Black is always a “racist” act, even when no Black person is present to be offended. The only problem is, that punishing people who do this is unconstitutional, even on campus, as a federal judge ruled in a case involving George Mason University (CHE, 4 September 1991).

At Brown, an art professor had to cancel a long-planned screening of the classic film Birth of a Nation when the local branch of the NAACP denounced it as “racist” (Commentary, September 1989, 22).

At Harvard, a government professor was forced to cancel a showing of It’s a Wonderful Life when Black students protested that its depiction of the household maid, which was both dignified and accurate, was a “racist” stereotype (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 217).

At the University of Pittsburgh, a professor of public relations scrapped the showing of a Nazi propaganda film, The Eternal Jew, when some Jews called it “racist” and “anti-Semitic,” which it is. But it was to be shown to instruct students about how the mass media could be misused (CHE, 13 November 1991). The logic that prevailed in these cases would forever cut us off from the past to avoid discomfiting the most thin-skinned.

Classroom movies aren’t the only thing that can provoke a charge of “racism.” In 1994, a French professor of psychology was roundly attacked as a “racist” for asking students taking a final exam to give the “clinical reasons” why the majority of Jews saw deportation between 1939 and 1942 as their “inexorable fate” (Chicago Tribune, 28 June 1994, 10).

This year a physics professor at MIT also got into trouble for an exam question: “You are in the forefront of a civil-rights demonstration when the police decide to disperse the crowd using a water cannon. If the cannon they turn on you delivers 1,000 liters of water per minute, what force does the water exert on you?”

After apologizing in print, the teacher explained that the question was intended to make physics come alive and to honor the courage of activists. A Black student responded that the question revealed how badly all faculty members needed sensitivity training (CHE, 3 March 1995, A33).

Another professor was called a “racist” for reading aloud in class from Moral Panic, 230). Apparently, David Mamet’s Oleanna is not an exaggeration.

In the censorious climate that prevails today on many campuses, even statements that are supported by observation, common sense, or statistics can be tagged as “racist.” A candidate for a university presidency did not get the job when it was learned that he had once said, perhaps after watching the Tom Brokaw special on “Black Athletes–Fact and Fiction” (1989), that “a Black athlete can actually out-jump a White athlete.” This occurred just before a movie enshrined this truism in its title (White Men Can’t Jump).

As Jared Taylor remarks, “Whites are not supposed to speculate about a possible Black superiority in athletics because to do so could be construed as a suggestion that Blacks may also have a natural inferiority in other areas. The tennis champion Arthur Ashe, however, is allowed to think Blacks may be specially talented at running because he, himself, is Black,” (222).

At Harvard, a memo distributed to students by the instructor was claimed to have created a hostile environment because it reported scholarly findings on negotiating styles that grouped Blacks and women as “low risk-takers.” A Black student said, “Just on the face of it, the memo is offensive,” (The Wall Street Journal, 30 October 1992, B1).

The prevailing assumption is that any generalization – favorable or unfavorable – about any minority that someone does not like is by definition “racist” and deserves to be suppressed – as long as it is said by a White person. Minority diversity consultants, in contrast, can parade, without a shred of empirical evidence, the grossest racial and ethnic stereotypes with virtual impunity.

Even statements about matters that are not directly racial are likely to be denounced as “racist” when they conflict with reigning groupthink. When Yale College dean Donald Kagan urged a group of freshmen to study Western Civilization, arguing that the freedom and civil liberties enjoyed by the West have led to a tolerance and a respect for diversity unknown in most cultures, the student newspaper denounced him as “racist, sexist, and out of touch,” (Campus Report, July/August 1993, 5).

In 1993, students at Cornell managed to free the epithet “racist” from all objective constraints. Someone spray-painted graffiti over an exhibition of art by Hispanic students. Although the graffiti contained not one “racist” slur, the students charged that the act was “racist” anyhow (CHE, 1 December 1993, A4). In short, even what is not “racist” is “racist.”

This perverse logic also governed the handling of a celebrated incident at Bowdoin College involving four fun-loving Asian students. What these students did was to dress themselves in White togas, wear bandannas around their heads, and march around the quad playing mandolins and harmonicas, holding candles and chanting, and throwing Toastee-Os breakfast cereal.

Incredibly, some students alleged that this was a “racist” demonstration. Because the togas were predominantly, but not exclusively, White, these students claimed that this was like having the Ku Klux Klan parading around campus – that they were, you guessed it, “intimidated” and “offended.”

While the Dean of Students conceded that these four festive Asians did not purposely set out to intimidate or offend anyone, nevertheless, the groups was charged with the Orwellian offence of being “grossly insensitive to the implications of their actions.”

The frolicsome foursome had letters of reprimand placed in their files, were forced to write an apology, to hear multicultural lectures on “issues involving racial sensitivities,” and to create an educational program on the conflict of freedom of expression with multicultural sensitivities (Campus, Winter 1992). Who better to speak from experience about the results of such conflicts?

Since anything can now be attacked as “racist,” it should not be surprising that this epithet has been hurled even at posters and exhibitions meant to combat racism. At Pennsylvania State University, a well-intentioned poster that listed almost fifty offensive slurs (“There’s a nasty name for everyone. Including you. Think about it.”) was itself attacked as “racist” (Campus, Fall 1991).

The same fate befell an art exhibit at Passaic County Community College attacking racism by depicting the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis and the epithets they hurl. The administration removed the paintings from a campus gallery when some students complained that they were “racist” (CHE, 8 December 1993, A6).

An exhibition at Johns Hopkins meant to honor the abolitionist movement unintentionally committed a ‘hate crime’ when it included material on James and William Birney, White abolitionists who released their slaves to demonstrate their anti-slavery commitment.

Blacks would have none of this sly “racist” endorsement of slavery. “This stuff will not be tolerated,” said Paul Brown, one of the Black students who staged a sit-in. “There are plenty of resources in the library if you just made a half-ass attempt to find something.” The library director who failed to make the half-assed attempt did manage the obligatory abject apology: “Personally, I deeply regret any offense given by the exhibit of abolitionist material,” (Heterodoxy, March 1993, 3).

This incident brings to mind the notorious attack on Jeanne Cannizzo, the University of Toronto anthropologist who curated the Royal Ontario Museum exhibit “Into the Heart of Africa” (1990), a well-meaning indictment of the humiliating way in which colonialists treated Africans.

Although no Whites protested this “insensitive” presentation of their forebears, some Blacks denounced the portrayals of vanquished African warriors as “racist.” According to this logic, any depiction of the victims of oppression must be “racist.” The protesters advised the museum that it should have exhibited only works of great African art.

Protesters mounted demonstrations not only outside the museum, but they invaded Cannizzo’s classroom, hurling insults and epithets at her. On one occasion, according to an eye-witness, “a large Black male chased Cannizzo down the hall.” Administrators and faculty did nothing to stop the defamation and assaults, abjectly afraid to oppose the will or criticize the behavior of campus minorities (“The Silencers,” Maclean’s, 27 May 1991, 63).

Cannizzo, shattered by this experience, left the university and eventually emigrated to England. All this, for organizing an exhibition that attacked racism!

This section ends where it began, in the kitchen. A group of dining-hall workers at Harvard wanted to have a “Back to the Fifties” party. But the Minority Affairs Dean denounced them for being “racist,” arguing that it was wrong to feel nostalgia for a decade that included segregationist sentiments (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 217; Newsweek , 6 May 1991).

A far more notorious incident occurred at the University of California-Santa Cruz, where the swampy multicultural atmosphere that now chokes ‘cutting-edge’ campuses led to a menu being found “racist.”

Two semi-autonomous colleges on the campus share a kitchen. Merrill College caters to ‘multicultural’ students; Crown appeals to science and economics students, many of whom are Asians. The incident began innocuously enough with the Crown kitchen staff deciding what to serve at a monthly College Night dinner.

Weeks earlier Merrill had chosen an Asian theme, but a Crown staffer, a Japanese-American, noticed that the dinner happened to fall on December 7, Pearl Harbor Day. Thinking this might appear to be by design and be misinterpreted, she chose a non-ethnic menu instead. While Crown students munched on chicken and spare ribs, a rumor spread at Merrill College that Crown had refused to serve Asian food because it blamed Asians for the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Soon fliers littered the campus denouncing the Crown administration as “racist.” Crown staff members were besieged by groups of angry students, angry phone calls, and even death threats. Meanwhile at Merrill, students and faculty, gloating at the troubles of their colleagues, issued a public statement about Crown’s “overt and covert racism” and calling the decision – keep in mind that it was made by a Japanese-American – ”the racist unconscious at work.”

After months of turmoil, the staff at Crown was forced to attend sensitivity workshops, which Crown’s provost, Peggy Musgrave, described as “brainwashing perations…humiliating experiences where people have to bare their souls and expose their innermost thoughts.” Musgrave was forced to resign. Crown’s bursar was so distraught and exhausted by the controversy that he was forced to take extended medical leave. Other Crown staff resigned.

All this bloodletting began, remember, over an allegedly “racist” menu (see Barbara Rhoades Ellis, “A Day of Infamy at UC Santa Cruz,” Heterodoxy 1 [3] June 1992, 6).

Muzzling the “Racist” Student Press

Unmoored charges of “racism” have sanctioned far more serious and repressive attacks on free expression and debate than the ones mentioned so far. The epithet “racist” has been used with particular effectiveness to intimidate and silence the student press. According to an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, during the academic year 1992-93 there were 38 “major trashings of publications” on campus.

At the University of Maryland, students stole 10,000 copies of the Diamondback, alleging that it is “racist” for misspelling the title of W. E. B. DuBois’s book The Souls of Black Folk (which came out The Sales of Black Folk; CHE 17 November 1993, A39). Most often, the accusation of “racism” is invoked to discredit opinions that minority members find uncongenial or embarrassing.

At Duke, the Duke Review was denounced as “racist” and summarily trashed by a Black student because it dared to criticize the Black Student Alliance as wasteful and monolithic (Campus 5 [2], Winter 1994, 13; 5 [3], Spring 1994, 12).

At the University of Iowa, Black students “filled the offices”– as the Chronicle of Higher Education euphemistically put it – of The Daily Iowan to protest the publication of a political cartoon comparing the Blacks who almost killed Reginald Denny to members of the Ku Klux Klan. Apparently the White editors had not heard that Blacks cannot be “racists” – by definition.

At the University of South Carolina, the student newspaper was threatened with a funding review by administrators when it published a student’s poem satirizing then presidential candidate Jesse Jackson (Illiberal Education, 145).

At Virginia Commonwealth University, Black students stole the entire press run of the student newspaper to punish it for running “racist” editorials charging that Black student groups receive disproportionate funding from the school: “We find you guily [sic] of several counts of vandalist, slanderist, racist, scandalist journalism. Therefore we are shutting you down.” The Black student newspaper complimented the thieves for “staging a courageous and peaceful protest,” (Campus Report, 10 [3], April 1995).

At Vassar, the student newspaper was called “racist” after it proclaimed Black activist Anthony Grate “hypocrite of the month” for espousing anti-Semitic views while denouncing bigotry against Blacks. The newspaper quoted Grate as saying “dirty Jews” and “I hate Jews.”

When the Spectator publicized the hypocrisy and racism of this Black leader, the Vassar Student Association attempted to suppress the offending issue, and then, when that failed, withdrew its funding. The newspaper had to be punished, according to VSA, for “unnecessarily jeopardiz[ing] an educational community based on mutual understanding,” (D’Souza, Ibid. 10).

On most campuses, it is presumptively “racist” to point out minority “racism.” The editor of the student newspaper at the State University of New York at Stony Brook provoked a tirade of abuse when he wrote that his experiences on this multicultural campus had “taught me to be wary, distrustful, and, at times, downright revolted by African Americans.”

In a column, Stony Brook Teaches Reactive Racism , the student wrote: “In one particular Africana Studies class I was called a ‘kike’ by one Black student, while another yelled out, ‘You! You Jew. You raped my people!’” The student, who is Jewish, said that other White students had told him that they also had been victims of racism by members of minority groups.

After the column was published, Black students didn’t apologize, as so many White students have been coerced into doing, but engineered a boycott against businesses that advertised in the paper. Although the student editor was physically threatened, the president of this “inclusive community” did not denounce Black racism or even investigate the charges – he denounced the column (CHE, 9 March 1994, A33).

At the University of California-Riverside, it is unhealthy even to criticize gangsta rap! The trouble for Mark Hardie, a Black 22-year-old senior, began when he wrote two columns in the student paper, one denouncing ‘gangsta rap’ and the other calling Afrocentrism a “racist” concept. Hardie was forced to resign his position as a staff writer and columnist because retaliation was promised if he stayed on.

Police had to provide Hardie with security escorts on campus because Black students threatened to kill him. One caller to a campus radio program said: “Ya know, he’s a victim here, he’s gonna be a victim. I’m waiting outside. I’m gonna kill him. I swear to God I’m gonna kill his family,” (Campus Reports 9 [4], April 1994, 3).

At the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Black students occupied the offices of, and temporarily closed down, The Massachusetts Daily Collegian when the White staff replaced three minority editors (others still served). Another grievance was that the paper refused to run an editorial condemning the first verdict in the Rodney King case. During the attack on the office, demonstrators broke a plate glass window and a stereo, and ripped up files, photographs, and documents.

When the student editor criticized the demonstrators in the Boston Globe, one Black student protester invaded the student-newspaper office armed with a baseball bat and attacked the newspaper’s photo editor, dragging him out of The Collegian office to the main floor of the Campus Center (CHE, 14 October 1992).

To also show their displeasure, the protesters confiscated or trashed most of the 19,000 copies of the press run. Although the theft of the papers was arguably a crime and certainly a violation of First Amendment rights, the administration refused to condemn, or even comment on, this act.

Throughout the controversy, the administration, as Gary Brasor points out, tacitly approved unlawful acts it deemed compatible with its multicultural agenda (for a blow-by-blow account, see Gary Crosby Brasor, “Weimar in Amherst,” Academic Questions, 8 [2], Spring 1995, 69-89).

At DePaul University, the DePaulia was recently denounced as “racist” and shut down by Black students who didn’t like the DePaulia correctly reporting that several DePaul students arrested for fighting at a campus “Bootie-Call” party were Black. In the story, the DePaulia quoted the police report, which described those arrested as “M/Bs,” police shorthand for male/Blacks and one of several routine abbreviations used by police to describe people either arrested or victimized.

According to the protesters, however, the abbreviation is “offensive” (Chicago Sun-Times, 12 April 1995, 11). Their leader said that the mention of race was “disrespectful” and contributed to negative stereotyping of Blacks on campus (Chicago Sun-Times, 11 April 1995, 13). In other words, quoting directly, quoting accurately, and having the facts straight are now “racist” if the truth discomfits minorities.

Predictably, DePaulia staffers will receive counseling about “cultural sensitivity” but the Black protesters will not receive tutoring in the First Amendment. And, of course, no reprimands for those who trashed the office and shut down the paper.

Perhaps the most outrageous attacks on a student paper occurred in 1993 at the University of Pennsylvania during the tenure of Sheldon Hackney, the Poster Boy of Invertebrate Administrators.

Gregory Pavlik, a politically incorrect columnist for The Daily Pennsylvanian, had criticized Martin Luther King for being a plagiarist and adulterer, Malcolm X for being a pimp, and racial preferences for being “racist.”

Pavlik wrote a column in March of 1993 that criticized university officials for expelling two White freshmen who dumped water on Black members of the Onyx Senior Honor Society who were holding an initiation/hazing ceremony under their dormitory windows at 2:30 a.m. (Maybe Penn’s code should tell students when to go to bed.)

Pavlik provocatively claimed that the two students were suspended because they were White, and that the Onyx Society was the real culprit and should be punished, even though Black.

The column ignited a firestorm. The university’s Judicial Action Office filed 32 charges of “racial harassment” against Pavlik, despite the fact that the newspaper is financially and legally independent of the university. In the most wonderful doublespeak, the Judicial Action Officer said she filed the complaint because she was “afraid for [Pavlik’s] safety” (Campus Report, 8 [5], May 1993, 4).

To protest the “blatant and voluntary perpetuation of institutional racism” at the newspaper and on campus, a number of Black students removed nearly all 14,000 copies of one edition from campus distribution sites (CHE, 28 April 1993, A33). 202 Penn Blacks signed a letter justifying the act.

A university report on this incident found that the theft of the newspapers was a “form of student protest and not an indicator of criminal behavior,” and that the campus police who arrested demonstrators caught in the act were wrong (see excerpts in WSJ, 26 July 1993, A10, and editorial). They should have contacted “Open Expression Monitors” to study the students actions (I am not making this up).

The police were sent to sensitivity training seminars to have their sense of fair play adjusted. The chief of security for a campus museum, who nabbed two protesters sneaking out with plastic garbage bags, was officially reprimanded for “racial harassment” and suspended. He too had to undergo sensitivity training. The Black students who threw away the entire press run of the newspaper were not punished (see “Penn Report Faults Campus Police for Response to Students’ Taking Papers,” CHE, 4 August 1993, A27, and 22 September 1993, A35).

In July 1988 – before many of these incidents had occurred – Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, issued a prescient statement:

We are extremely concerned about incidents…which we believe reflect a growing wave of campus censorship inflicted under the guise of fighting racism. Faced with a real concern about an important issue, universities appear to be accepting the misguided notion that viewpoint suppression is an appropriate means to their end.

We note with some irony that this same means was used a generation ago against students who were advocating equality and desegregation (in Illiberal Education, 145).

Suppressing Debate about Public Issues

As the previous section makes clear, the term “racism” has been used on campus to squelch debate about a number of crucial social issues. The term has proven particularly effective in silencing debate about racial preferences. “On virtually every campus,” writes Dinesh D’Souza, “there is a de facto taboo against free discussion of affirmative action or minority self-segregation, and efforts to open such discussion are considered presumptively racist,” (Illiberal Education , 238).

Jennifer Imle, a junior at Southwestern University in Texas, displayed in her room a poster attacking admissions policies based on race. She was soon attacked as a “racist” and ridiculed by her professors during class. The Dean of Students took one look at the poster and said “This must go!” circulating a memo that said the poster smacked of White supremacy.

Imle resisted the effort to suspend her First Amendment rights, and arranged to have Dinesh D’Souza and a campus advocate of racial preferences debate the issue before 350 students eager to hear the issue publicly and honestly discussed.

Other stories don’t have such happy outcomes. At one major university, an associate dean was asked to resign because of his candid opposition to affirmative action and multiculturalism (Lingua Franca, April 1991, 37). At another, an assistant vice chancellor of academic personnel was fired, and escorted by police from her office, when she pointed out that a new affirmative-action plan violated the university’s stringent guidelines for faculty search procedures Heterodoxy 2 [10], October 1993).

At Harvard, a professor got into trouble merely for defining affirmative action as “government enforcement of preferential treatment in hiring, promotion, and college admissions.” Black students denounced the phrase “preferential treatment” as “racist” (D’Souza, Illiberal Education, 199-200).

In 1987, at UCLA, a student editor was suspended for printing a cartoon ridiculing affirmative action. In the “intolerably racist” cartoon, a student stops a rooster on campus and asks how it got into UCLA. The rooster responds, “Affirmative action.” When another editor at a different school wrote a column criticizing UCLA officials for suspending the editor – and reproduced the cartoon to support his argument – he too was suspended.

The newspaper’s adviser, an assistant professor of journalism no less, said that his crime was publishing controversial material “without permission.” Incredibly, other editors agreed with her, clucking that the student journalist had learned “a valuable lesson in common sense,” (Dictatorship of Virtue, 209).

As John Leo put it, “Whenever the curtain parts and the public gets a peek at what is really going on in college admissions…voices are raised to expel the student who released the data, as well as the college editor who printed them. This kind of defense of furtiveness is routine,” (“Endgame for affirmative action,” U. S. News and World Report, 13 March 1995, 18).

The most outrageous example of denouncing a critic of affirmative action as a ”racist” involved Timothy Maguire, a law senior at Georgetown University Law School. After working as a clerk in the admissions office, Maguire wrote an article reporting that Georgetown admits Blacks with lower LSAT scores than Whites (a routine practice throughout the country).

The article provoked outrage, with one White student characterizing it as “assaultive.” “People were injured. I think that kind of speech is outrageous,” (in Hentoff, Free Speech for Me, 219). Black students accused Maguire of being a “racist” and demanded his expulsion (CHE, 29 May 1991).

When the law school prosecuted Maguire for revealing “confidential” admissions data (he named no names), lawyers refused to defend him out of fear of being called “racists” (Jared Taylor, Paved With Good Intentions, 1992, 181). The two who did were not only accused of being “racists” but placed on probation at the D. C. School of Law (Hentoff, 223-27).

Clearly, the safest way to express opinions about affirmative action on campus is anonymously, on the internet. At Yale recently, a posting contended that affirmative action should play no part in the selection of editors for The Yale Law Review, and defended using anonymity because “self-identification could lead to personal harm.” The law school dean determined that this posting had to go (CHE, 7 April 1995, A36).

Strategic interventions of the word “racist” have discouraged debate on other crucial issues as well. The University of Charleston refused to renew the contract of a conservative scholar after he criticized “diversity” standards for accreditation (National Review, 1 February 1993, 14).

At the University of Oregon, faculty members who had raised questions about a proposal to increase the number of required multicultural credits were called “racists” in a full-page ad published in an alternative campus newspaper. The ad listed the professors’ names, class schedules, and office telephone numbers (CHE 30 June 1993, A27).

Diane Ravitch was called a “racist” for criticizing “racial fundamentalism,” the notion that children can learn only from people of the same race. She has also been physically threatened: “‘We’re going to get you, bitch. We’re going to beat your White ass,’” (New York Magazine , 21 January 1991).

At the University of New Mexico, the contract of a part-time instructor was not renewed after she was charged with “racism” by a Hispanic graduate student for saying in class that “there are six generations of South Valley residents who cannot speak English. There’s no excuse for that since they have many opportunities to learn. There’s just no excuse for that if they want to stay in this country, and if that’s the case, as far as I’m concerned, they can go further south.”

Although the professor denied saying these words, no formal hearing was ever held, and she was not interviewed before she was released (NAS Update, 4 [1]).

At Chico State University, a professor got into hot water when he published a letter in the local newspaper arguing that demands for Indian teachers were unrealistic because there were not enough qualified candidates. He went on to say that Indian students ought to be on campus “to get the best education…not have their sensibilities stroked and grades of ‘A’ doled out on the basis of their race or correct politics.”

Native Americans across the country attacked these comments, and the Chico administration informed the professor that he had violated the school’s racial harassment policy, which calls for expulsion of faculty or students who create “an atmosphere of intimidation and hostility.” When the professor threatened to sue, the university dropped its charges (Heterodoxy 2 [4], December 1993, 3).

A similar incident occurred at the University of Alaska, when a Harvard-trained expert on Native American education was charged with “racism” and “discrimination” for saying that a teacher-education program at the university was under “equity pressures” to pass Alaskan Natives through the system.

Angry faculty and students organized demonstrations against her, and the Fairbanks Native Association filed a complaint with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. The OCR eventually determined that the professor’s remarks did not violate the rights of students (CHE, 23 September 1992; see also Steven Wulf, “Federal Guidelines for Censorship,” Academic Questions, 8 [2], Spring 1995, 58-68).

To avoid being stigmatized as a “racist,” it is best not to say anything that might disturb a minority member.

At Iowa State University, a White African-American history professor disagreed with a Black student about the role of Afrocentric theories in the course; the student, a member of the Nation of Islam, called her a “racist liar” and threatened her with a “jihad” (CHE, 20 October 1993, A5; 1 December).

At the University of Illinois a feminist scholar was removed from her course in women’s studies when she said of one Black student who “snickered” and trivialized rape that he fit the profile of a Black male rapist – a remark he found “racist.” She, of course, condemned the university for being “sexist,” (CHE, 7 October 1992).

At the University of Michigan, a White professor of sociology and the nation’s leading expert on the demography of Black Americans was denounced as a “racist” after he read a passage from the Autobiography of Malcolm X in which the author describes himself as a pimp and a thief. Black students called for a person of color to teach the course (and perhaps to re-write the Autobiography).

The professor stopped teaching the class and observed that several of his colleagues intended to drop any discussion of various important race-related issues from their courses, for fear of being accused of “racism” (Chester Finn, “The Campus: An Island of Repression is a Sea of Freedom,” Commentary, September 1989, 19).

One of the most notorious instances of intimidation was directed at two eminent, and exceedingly liberal, Harvard professors who co-taught a course on American history and demography. In 1987, both were attacked in the Harvard Crimson for being “racially insensitive.”

Bernard Bailyn’s crime was reading an exculpatory passage about slavery from the diary of a southern planter without giving equal time to the recollections of a slave.

Richard Thernstrom’s crime was assigning a book that defined affirmative action as “the government enforcement of preferential treatment in hiring, promotion and college admissions,” and endorsing Patrick Moynihan’s thesis that the breakup of the Black family is an important cause of persistent Black poverty (John Taylor, New York Magazine, 21 January 1991, 33-34).

As a Black student put it, “I am also left to question his sensitivity when I hear that Black men get feelings of inadequacy, beat their wives, and take off” (in Illiberal Education , 195-96). Thernstrom’s defense, that he “presented factual information in an objective and dispassionate way,” is beside the point; the facts hurt the feelings of Black students, and that, by definition, proves “racial insensitivity.” Thernstrom wrote:

Teaching in a university in which a handful of disaffected students can all too easily launch a smear campaign…one must think about how many times one wants to be a martyr. I love to debate historical interpretations, but what I experienced…was not public discussion of the validity of my ideas but an indictment of my character and motives. I am not alone in deciding to avoid yet another irrational and vicious personal attack like this…

I know of other scholars who have censored their courses by dropping any treatment of touchy topics such as the disintegration of the Black family. When I was an undergraduate in the 1950s, the menace to academic freedom in America came from the right.

Academic freedom is again under attack today, this time from leftist students…who believe in “no free speech for fascists” and think mistakenly that all the fascists are on the right ( Harper’s, February 1992, “Letters”).

Given this repressive climate on campus, it is now dangerous even to report widely accepted facts, if those facts are unwelcomed by, or embarrassing to, minorities and their protectors. At the University of Michigan, a professor of statistics (for 37 years) was accused of “promoting racism” and temporarily suspended after he noted in class that minorities average 55 points lower on the SAT than Whites (Campus 5 [2], Winter 1994, 12).

As Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer points out, “We have to deal with some very bad news when we talk about Blacks…We have to talk about unpleasant matters, matters that Blacks will find upsetting and depressing, and that can only make them unhappy.” If universities choose to have a curriculum that includes African-American Studies and courses on race, then universities, as Dinesh D’Souza argues, have a responsibility to make sure that professors and students are free to talk about these issues without intimidation (Illiberal Education, 201).

Suppressing “Racist” Research

The effort to discourage and suppress ’social risk’ research has a long and ignoble history (recall Bruno and Galileo). During the 1960s and early 70s, this urge took on a ‘humanitarian’ guise. The goal was to protect minorities from “racist” research that might harm the interests or psyches of minorities.

Why is it “ignoble” to suppress allegedly “racist” research? Jonathan Rauch provides an elegant answer in Kindly Inquisitors (1993). Rauch argues that the only way that liberal science can effectively work to find truth and establish consensus is to presume that any and all subjects are open to competent investigation.

To do otherwise would require authoritarian control of vast proportions, and countries that have tried to exert such control have suffered grievous social, political and economic deprivations as a result. The knowledge-making enterprise itself, with its checks and balances, is the only agent that can fittingly determine who and what is competent and when a case has been “proved.”

Liberal science, according to Rauch, “declares that the issue of race and intelligence should be explored by any researcher who cares to explore it and who will follow the rules,” (144). Whatever one thinks about this research, amateurs must leave it to experts and the processes of free intellectual debate to determine if and when it can be added to our body of knowledge.

Research that cannot withstand the vigorous fact-checking and error-finding that drives our knowledge-making enterprise will eventually be discredited and marginalized. Research that can withstand such scrutiny will be incorporated into the mass of data, findings, theories, etc. that we call knowledge. Once there, other agencies and forums can debate and deal with its political and social implications.

This crucial processes of testing can only occur, obviously, on research that has already been done and made public. To prevent research from being done, no matter how risky it may seem at the time or to some members of society, could rob society of potentially useful insights, and would likely, in the long run, lead to the undermining of the most successful and beneficial collaborative and international enterprise in the history of humanity.

Let me illustrate the truth of this observation. Back in 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan broke the silence on the problems facing Black culture with his book, The Black Family: The Case for National Action. Noting a sharp rise in the number of single-parent Black families, he forewarned that this trend posed a threat to Blacks’ social progress and to society at large.

For his efforts, he was vilified for “blaming the victim” and accused of “crypto-racism” (Joseph G. Conti and Brad Stetson, “The New Black Vanguard,” Intercollegiate Review , Spring 1993, 34). But as Adam Walinsky has recently pointed out, Moynihan’s dire predictions have come true; vilifying his “racist” research only served to blind people to the “long descending night” of violence which he foresaw and which is now upon us (“The Crisis of Public Order,” The Atlantic Monthly, July 1995, 48-49).

As Rauch has shown, humanitarians continue to attack scientific and social research that threatens to lead to findings that some minorities, and indeed some Whites, might find disturbing, especially if true. At the University of Michigan, for example, an administrator called for the suppression of “theories” that might conflict with a multicultural agenda, since “harassment in classrooms is based on theories held by teachers,” (Kindly Inquisitors, 136).

The notion that some credible scientific theories and findings are, in and of themselves, “racist” has spread to undergraduates, with dangerous implications for academic freedom. “An amazing 38 percent” of students evaluating a teacher’s lecture on the genetic contribution to intelligence felt that this was not an appropriate topic for a psychology course.

When these students were asked about the professor’s motives for presenting this material, “24 percent specifically mentioned ‘racist,’ ‘racism,’ or notions of ‘racial superiority’” (Stanley Coren, “When Teaching Is Evaluated on Political Grounds,” Academic Questions , Summer 1993, 77; reprinted in The Montana Professor, 5 [1], Winter 1995, 12-14). Clearly, scholars working on touchy subjects – and the list of these keeps growing and growing too – run their own risk of being label “racists,” no matter how valid their findings.

At the University of California-Berkeley, a professor of physical anthropology who argues that crime, intelligence, and other human behaviors are influenced by genetic factors and that there is a relationship between race and innate abilities, was prevented from teaching his class when 75 students marched into his anthropology class and drowned out his lecture (CHE, 4 March 1992; Russell Jacoby, Dogmatic Wisdom, 137).

Trouble befell a similar course taught at the University of Denver. Charles Murray, of Bell Curve fame, who studies the relation between race and IQ and how intelligence traits can be inherited and measured, was to lecture for half the course on intelligence and public policy with the other half reserved for his critics.

Not good enough. His critics at DU think his “racist” ideas were not worthy of any discussion and demanded that the course be canceled (Campus Report, June 1991; CHE, 16 January 1991). Fortunately for academic freedom, the university disagreed.

At the University of Maryland, a “thoughtfully organized” conference on genetic components in criminal behavior, which reviewers said did “a superb job of assessing the underlying scientific, legal, ethical, and public policy issues,” was canceled by the National Institutes of Health when Blacks said it would promote “racism.” The Committee to Stop the Violence Initiative, formed at Howard University, said of the conference, “It is clear racism. It is an effort to use public money for a genocidal effort against African Americans,” (CHE, 2 September 1992).

At the University of Delaware, two researchers were prevented from accepting funds from a private foundation some administrators deemed “racist.” The campus African-American Coalition claimed that the research threatened “the very survival of African-Americans,” (Campus Report, May 1992). An arbitrator, saying that the university based its decision on perceptions rather than on facts, overturned the ban (CHE, 4 September 1991).

Both researchers had already endured years of institutional harassment and character assassination for publishing the results of their research on race-norming (As a result of this work, race-norming was banned in 1991). After the Department of Educational Studies denied major credits for their courses and defined their publications and investigations as “non-research,” they filed a federal lawsuit to gain relief from the persecution and won an out-of-court settlement in 1992 (Campus Report 9 [2] February 1994, 6).

This humanitarian effort to restrict “racist” research can wind up inhibiting research by Blacks that could help the Black community! At the University of Chicago, a Black sociologist encountered all kinds of opposition to his research on racial integration, especially when he found that Black schoolteachers were less prepared than their White counterparts (Lingua Franca, April 1991, 37; CHE , 21 November 1990).

Other Blacks at the same school have also complained about the pressures they face to avoid research that might reflect badly on Blacks or bring unwelcome news. Professor William Julius Wilson observed, “There has been a tendency in our field not to discuss issues that are unflattering,” (CHE, 30 October 1991).

Personally, I very uncomfortable with the theories of Philippe Rushton and Michael Levin, who argue, as I understand them, that on average Blacks score lower than Whites and Asians on intelligence and most other tests, and that these results may have something to do with genetic endowment (see Jared Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions, 123-182 for an overview of comparative test results in many fields).

I am also offended by the notion that Whites may be, on average, less intelligent than Asians, or that, as Leonard Jeffries incredibly argues (he is not a researcher), Whites, as “ice people,” are not as nice as Blacks, who are “sun people.”

I, like many others, worry about how any of this information may affect immediate human behavior and long-term social policy. But I first want to know if it is true, as truth is consensually defined by the experts in the appropriate fields. If it is not true, then I can dismiss it as I dismiss horoscopes no matter how flattering. If it is true, then we have to determine how this information bears upon the way we live together.

We must allow social-risk research to be done because we cannot know beforehand if the risks will materialize or not, or if the research will benefit some of us in unexpected ways. After all, most knowledge entails social “risks” for some group or other. The only way to avoid such risks would be to profoundly curtail through authoritarian fiat the knowledge-making enterprise of Western civilization. This program of repression, however, would entail the gravest risks of all.

Conclusion

I have tried to show that the epithet “racist” is often used irresponsibly to punish and suppress a wide range of words, images, statements and findings – from innocuous metaphors to unwelcome facts and theories. I am not arguing, of course, that the term “racist” is only or always used this way, but I do contend that it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish legitimate uses of the term from exaggerated, promiscuous, and repressive ones.

It is time for responsible students, academics, and administrators to discountenance all heedless, negligent, and intolerant invocations of this word. The use of repressive and stigmatizing epithets has no place in a community of fact-gatherers, truth-sorters, knowledge-makers, and opinion-shapers.

How did campuses get into this fix? Why do so many students, teachers and administrators make, or treat seriously, patently preposterous accusations of “racism”? To understand this phenomenon, let me invoke a concept recently used by John Fekete in another context: the concept of “moral panic.” A moral panic emerges from the impulse to root out all moral evil and to prevent its germination.

Driven by a “zero-toleration” mentality, a campaign of moral panic feeds on itself, always expanding its boundaries (and thus enemies) and intimidating its adherents into ever more fervent demonstrations of compliance and support.

Many on campus – both minorities and non-minorities – apparently believe that such a panic is good for the “racist” souls of White folks. In Paved With Good Intentions, Jared Taylor explains why:

It is widely assumed that if the struggle against racism is not maintained at fever pitch, White people will promptly relapse into bigotry. Thus a great deal of the criticism of Whites is justified on the grounds that it will forestall potential racism…The process becomes circular.

Since Whites are thought likely to turn racist if not constantly policed, it is legitimate to denounce acts of racism they might commit as if they had already done so. In this climate, all charges of racism must be taken seriously because they are potentially true (107).

A couple of years ago, a Black student at Emory reported being racially harassed, eventually falling into silence and curling up into a fetal position. Emory’s president solemnly denounced “renascent bigotry” and imposed new speech-code rules. An investigation proved, however, that it was all a hoax concocted by the student to divert attention from her cheating on a chemistry test.

But today, even hoaxes are defended as being morally true, given the assumption of rampant White “racism.” What does it matter if Twana Brawley was really raped or not by five White New York politicos? The truth is that every once and a while a White man does rape a Black woman. Of the Emory hoax, the head of the Atlanta NAACP said, “‘It does not matter whether she did it or not, because of all the pressure these Black students are under at these predominantly White schools,” (Campus Report, July/August 1993, 5).

In the perfectionist and puritanical climate of a moral panic, even trivial, trumped-up, or absurd charges of “racism” can have valuable political and therapeutic effects. Since racism is a bad thing, the more opportunities to condemn it the better. As a result of this deranged view, “charges of racism can be made with the same reckless impunity as were charges of communism at the height of the McCarthy era,” (Taylor, 23). To ask for the facts supporting the charge is to expose one’s own “racism” and to invite more accusations.

Campus culture provides a fertile field for the flowering of moral panic. The campus equity bureaucracy plays a crucial role in fomenting baseless and capricious charges of “racism.” The income and careers of these people depend on the discovery and extirpation of White“racism.”

Each accusation, no matter how idiotic, is interpreted as evidence of the increased racial tensions on campus; increased “racism” justifies the existence of – and the increased power of – the race-relations experts who must spring into action to avert campus race war.

This readiness to believe any accusation colludes insidiously with the desire of activist minority groups to “mau-mau,” as the insightful Tom Wolfe phrased it, campus flak catchers. “Blacks learned long ago that Whites can be silenced and intimidated by accusing them of racism. White acquiescence has made the charge of racism into such a powerful weapon that it should be no surprise to find that a great many Blacks cannot resist the temptation to wield it,” (Taylor 61).

In short, minorities enjoy assaulting the dignity of ‘Whitey.’ To push an absurd accusation to a successful conclusion is the perfect way to do it and to demonstrate, and thus increase, one’s clout. The equity bureaucracy doesn’t oppose such shenanigans because almost every successfully prosecuted accusation of “racism” results in the hiring of more minorities and equity-specialists, thus driving up their price and increasing their clout.

Even White adminstrators are seduced into this game. By responding to all minority complaints, White administrators, most of whom seem riddled with guilt, can demonstrate their oneness with oppressed peoples, salve their conscience, and placate menacing groups of minority students (with their sun glasses, hooded parkas and military fatigues). Lending credence to every accusation also serves to strengthen the hand of administration.

Administrators like stringent speech codes not only because they testify to the purity of their motives but because these codes generate accusations that help intimidate the majority of students and faculty on campus, making them more dependent upon the intercessory goodwill and power of administrators.

Meanwhile, administrators, being insulated from classroom teaching and most direct interaction with students, are usually able to escape the pernicious effects of the repressive codes they champion. When they can’t, as in the case of Francis Lawrence, they call in their chits and hang on until the tempest blows over.

Countenancing trivial, baseless, and absurd charges of “racism” carries a terrible price.

First of all, it trivializes real racist incidents, which get lost in the moral panic over innocent logos, innocuous words, and legitimate research data.

Second, it sours even good-willed Whites on tolerance and diversity. If they are “racist” by virtue of their skin color, and if almost anything they do can get them into trouble anyhow, why try?

Third, it creates for Whites an intimidating and hostile educational environment. Those in favor of prohibiting the use of words that demean and victimize members of the campus community might want to consider adding “racist!” to their hit list.

Fourth, trivial and baseless charges of “racism” inevitably embitter many Whites, more and more of whom are sick and tired of their ritual role as “racists.” Even the Washington Generals got tired of being programmed losers, and they got paid for it.

And fifth, the moral panic over “racism” has led to outrageous double standards harmful to both Whites and Blacks. As Jared Taylor points out, “Whites are held to a system of ’sensitivity’ requirements that do not apply to Blacks,” (Taylor 217).

Whites are monitored, pestered, and punished for preposterous reasons – for a look, for an innocent word, for wearing a T-shirt, for expressing a plausible argument – but Blacks can say almost anything with perfect impunity. The wording of many speech- and conduct-codes explicitly sanctions such double standards, protecting only certain, privileged minority groups, not all students.

Taking the hint, many minorities advance the absurd but self-exonerating claim that they cannot be “racists,” and then feel free to expound the most absurd and vilificatory racist nonsense ever heard on campuses.

No doubt some Whites, angered by this punitive duplicity, are provoked into “racist” thoughts and acts that would not have occurred to them in a more tolerant and even-handed environment. Moral panic over “racism” may create racists, not eliminate them.

Nor is the moral panic surrounding “racism” good for Blacks and other minorities. The climate of moral panic generated by exaggerated and unfounded accusations of “racism” only serves to dangerously reinforce “an already exaggerated sense of grievance in Blacks,” (Taylor, 87). This is not good for race relations. It encourages Blacks to mistrust all Whites and to see themselves as saintly victims of a system in which they cannot prosper.

Phony or trivial charges of “racism” may seem harmless enough in their particular contexts, but cumulatively they gnaw away at freedom. The argument Catharine R. Stimpson made to defend art is relevant here: “Higher education cannot delude itself into thinking that the arts can lose a little freedom here, the humanities a little freedom there, and everything will still be manageable…For academic and cultural freedom is like air: Pollution in one zone spreads to another,” (CHE, 26 September 1990).

In Fahrenheit 451, that remarkably prescient book, censorship does not come from the top down, but from the bottom up, and it comes through a thousand ostensibly minor restrictions on freedom in the name of humanitarian good will.

There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick… You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can’t have our minorities upset and stirred… Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin . Burn it (Valentine, 53-4).

There are many ways to deal with false and trivial accusations of “racism,” but the one that seems most effective is to sue.

When something Eric Shane, the art historian, had written was said by another scholar to be open to a “racist construction,” Shane threatened to sue for defamation of character and libel.

The chastened critic, and her publisher, took out an ad in several major literary periodicals saying that the “slur” was “wholly unwarranted and [that they] deeply regret[ed] that the suggestion was made.” The ad went on to say that they were “pleased to have this opportunity to withdraw unreservedly this unfounded suggestion and to apologise most sincerely to Mr. Shane for the considerable distress and embarrassment which he has been caused,” (The Times Literary Supplement, 18 November 1994).

Given the moral panic that prevails on many campuses today, threatening to sue may be a more effective way of discouraging the irresponsible use of intimidating epithets than, say, appeals to this country’s principles of due process and free expression that still remain the envy and goal of so many people throughout the world.

More articles by Trout: Disengaged Students and the Decline in Academic Standards & Flunking the Test: The Dismal Record of Student Evaluations.

"The Delusion of White Exceptionalism," by Alpha Unit

Some Whites have the mistaken impression that what has been happening to Western Whites – and, specifically, to American Whites – is somehow unique in the history of Western civilization. They seem to be under the delusion that to be White means to be dominant – all the time. The fact that Whites in this country are on the defensive so much of the time, as they see it, dismays them and angers them. Unable to grasp the fact that no status quo is ever permanent, they seek to blame someone, or something, for the reversal of political fortune that Whites, as a race, have experienced in America. It’s Jews. It’s Leftists. As if it matters. Change always comes, one way or another. Whites are subject to the same vicissitudes of fortune as all other groups of people. White people are not special in this world. They don’t get to be exempt from the problems other groups have to deal with. They are not immune to what groups inflict on one another. It is a given that groups compete with one another and very often oppress one another. Whites are not unique in what they have done to others. And when the same thing gets done to them, there’s nothing strange about it, no matter how perplexed and upset racists get. It is a fantasy of White racists that the White race is above all others. It isn’t. The proof is all around. What has happened to other groups of people happens to Whites, too. It is the way of the world. Racists, who are unable to understand this, are essentially children. They cannot face the realities of the world or of humanity as they are.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)