The Problem with “White Countries for Everyone”

In the comments section for the Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, Latin America for Latin Americans, White Countries for Everyone! post, Erranter, a new commenter who is one of my smartest commenter, writes:

So, what can you do?

I really doubt my Numbers USA faxes have had much effect.

In fact, I’m beginning to accept the fact that “diversity is the future”. It won’t be all that bad. I look around at kids and see all colors playing together like never before. Sure, the multiculturalist philosophy has infiltrated our schools and brought a great deal of mediocrity, but without the myth of racial equality, wouldn’t there just be continuous conflict?

It seems necessary at this point, especially in CA where over half our population is non-white. I mean, you can’t tell 12 yr old that certain ones of them have higher IQs. And I’m not about to start deporting people en mass. I’d just like to see a drastic decrease in immigration, and mostly for population stabilization and not white preservation.

Sure, the average might go down a little bit but I never had much in common with the average and there will still be smart people here and there. Might be a little bit rarer, but oh well. We don’t breed. It’s our fault. It’s not like they’re doing anything wrong by being dumb. They can still be moral, helpful people, so long as they’re educated.

I mainly fear that the tribe will take over and all smart people will be taken out of positions of power due to excessive affirmative action in govt. Now that would be a disaster. As long as we have wise leadership we can get by. Human history is just getting by anyway. There’s always new problems.

Also, white American culture has shot itself in the foot because it readily has given up its culture and heritage for the sake of materialism and money. It’s not like people are listening to Bach and Beethoven and discussing Schopenhauer and Descartes in these little all-white towns. They might be quainter and cleaner than New York, but they tend to be culturally bankrupt and prefer it that way. Urbanity is hypocritical but it offers you a wider view of life.

This is probably just a typical liberal argument. Suffice it to say I still get pissed off driving through Oakland, Stockton, Richmond . . . (I could go on) and any other urban hellhole brought about by stupid, unrealistic policy.

As far as deporting people, the illegals have to go. I’m not interested in deporting anyone else.

The reason for the title is the hypocrisy of it all. The White elites, and of course, the rest of the world, have decided that White countries, and only White countries, need to be mass-invaded by non-Whites for a variety of reasons. Diversity, anti-racism, bla bla. But it’s only White countries that need to be mass-invaded by non-Whites in the name of diversity and anti-racism. Nowhere else on Earth is this invasion necessary. Only in White countries. What’s up with that?

The tipping point in Detroit was 2

This goes along with my philosophy of, “A Black a block. Spread em out and civilize em!” Mass concentrations of large numbers of Blacks in the US do not seem to be a good idea either for Blacks or for anyone else. Black culture in all its worst aspects takes over and the place goes to shit.

I don’t mind a little diversity. After all, I grew up in a California that was 20-3

Right now, I drive through town after town that looks and feels like it is a part of Mexico. There is a part of Los Angeles stretching for miles that looks and feels like San Salvador. In the San Gabriel Valley, you can drive for what seems like 10-20 miles through what looks like Taipei or Hong Kong. Most places in the world that look like downtown L.A. require a passport to get into them.

Here in California, we’ve always had immigration. The Mexicans, Blacks, Latin Americans, Samoans, East Indians, Filipinos, and Chinese are an integral part of this state. They’ve been here from the very start, or maybe 20-70 years afterwards. They’re part of the neighborhood. But for most of my lifetime, the immigration did not come in floods. I could go back to 300-400,000 legal immigrants a year no problem.

On the other hand, mass immigration to California, legal and illegal, has quite simply gone insane. It feels like we’ve been hit by a non-White foreigner tidal wave here. We never voted on this. No one ever asked our opinion on whether we wanted to be Foreigner Tsunamied or not. If put to a vote, most of us would have voted against it. We California Whites got race-replaced in our own homeland. Try it sometime. It doesn’t feel so good. Not only that, but the race replacement of California Whites has not led to a better California. Instead, it’s fucked up the whole state.

Many Blacks speak out in favor of turning the US into the United Nations. I’d like to ask them, “What exactly is in this for you?” How are you benefitting from the US being turned into a living zoo of Homo Sapiens? And I’d like to point out that we US Whites have been better to you Blacks than any of these immigrants replacing us will be.

What is Cultural Marxism?

This is a question that requires a long answer. This is as good an answer as any.

Abagond and the whole crowd over at his site = Cultural Marxism. Tim Wise, Robert Jensen, that whole crowd, that’s Cultural Marxism. Idiot radical feminists who hate men, that’s Cultural Marxism. Hispanic Aztlan revanchist shitheads are Cultural Marxists. Afrocentrist dumbasses wailing against Whitey, that’s Cultural Marxism. Radical queers pushing extreme pro-gay lunatic politics, that’s Cultural Marxism.

The Cultural Marxists pushed Identity Politics in the 1960’s. The result was the retarded division of White men from White women, White workers from Black and Hispanic workers, straight workers from gay workers, and all sorts of idiotic bullshit. Divide the workers, you know. The game the Right always does.

Except this time it was “Left” retards doing it. It defined Whites and males as the enemy, and Whites and males acted as you might expect: they fled from it like smoke from a burning building. Straight into the arms of the enemy, the Right. But the Left gave them this shove, or kick in the butt, in the first place.

That’s what it is, in a nutshell. Personally, I think it sucks, but that’s just me. It all goes back to Herbert Marcuse in the 1960′s. Originally it was a Left philosophy, so it was sort of ok in a way, but now it’s been taken over by bourgeois characters, mostly Black and Hispanic bourgeois who are not really Left people and often push rightwing economics. They just use it as grudge politics to try to get a bigger share of the loot for their bourgeois ethnic group, and a grudge against the bourgeois Whites supposedly not being nice enough to the Black, Hispanic, etc. bourgeois.

At worst, it is simply bullshit anti-White politics for the bourgeois of any race:

Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff.

Combine that with rightwing neoliberal multinational corporate capitalism. Mystery Shit Anti-White Worker Casserole!

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever here for any White worker. It fucks him when he walks in and fucks him again when he walks out. No one wonder it sells to White workers as fast as turd cupcakes. White workers are not as stupid as you think.

There’s nothing progressive about this politics!

Anti-White propaganda + neoliberal corporate multinational, multicultural, invite the world politics does not benefit White workers in any way, shape or form!

Leon Trotsky, Barack Obama And The Black “Vanguard Of The Revolution”

Excellent article on Vdare by Raymond V. Raehn. Although this is rightwing stuff, I am afraid that there is a lot of truth in it. Certain aspects of this piece, here and there, are noxious and even poisonous, but many others are spot on. This is a very complex piece covering a vast array of subject matter. The author is a brilliant man who did a good job of putting the material together.

Kevin MacDonald did previous work on the Frankfurt School. His analysis seems, as usual, to be quite correct.

The question is how much truth is here?

As a Leftist, it is painful to admit that there is a lot of truth here, although the whole thing seems like a vast rightwing conspiracy theory. I say this because I worked on the Left for many years, I have known many Leftists, spoken to high-ranking members of major Left parties, etc.

The project of the Western Left is indeed “the disuniting of America.” Many do believe that Whites must become “traitors to Whiteness.”

The Western Maoists have even redefined the US White working class as a hostile element who have identified with imperialism and earn their living and riches via assisting in the project to rip off the Third World. Some have even said that Western Whites need to be put in gigantic re-education camps after the revolution, their land taken over and distributed to non-Whites, etc. Others, often Maoists, champion a Black state in the Southeast and an Aztlan Hispanic state in the Southwest. Of course we Whites get no state of our own.

It is for all these reasons that the Western Left has failed so spectacularly.

Way to go, tools.

Define the White working class as a hostile element, abuse and attack them, tell them they “need to give up stuff” so their property can be redistributed to non-Whites, advocate treasonous “disuniting of America,” on and on. Way to win over White workers. Of course their project has been a breathtaking failure. And the workers who ought to be joining the Left are confused, apathetic or at worst going to Tea Party rallies.

Feel free to read and discuss this piece. There is a lot here and some it I’m not so sure of.

How the PC Left Utterly Fails in Their Analysis of US White Racism

9

However, all US White nationalists completley hate Blacks. The hatred of Blacks and to a lesser extent Jews is what the whole project is all about.

Supposedly there are a few who don’t hate other races, but just want to be left alone, but I don’t think I’ve ever met one. Sure, it’s possible.

White nationalism is the far end of White racism in the US. White racism is a continuum, ranging from extremely mild to full blown Nazis. What pisses me off about antis, Race Traitor magazine and Abagond types is that they insist that all White racism is the same. We’re all the same. We’re all racist. Those of us who are a tiny hint racist are just as evil as the KKK guys. It’s all the same thing. The only Whites who get a pass are the Race Traitor mag types.

In this way, these people totally fail in their analysis of White racism in the US. Yes, the idiots who devote their lives to the study of racism in the US (which only means White racism, since that’s the only kind of racism that exists) have totally and completely failed at this analysis. It’s hard to imagine how they could have failed in a worse way.

The far end White Supremacists often understand White racism quite well, and you can often read well-articulated and thought-out analyses on their sites. Where they error is only in thinking that most US Whites are open to their project. Not over our dead bodies, guys.

White racism exists in the US. Sure. In fact, I think that the overwhelming majority of US Whites are racist to some slight degree at least.

A coherent analysis of White racism would be an interesting sociological project. Maybe someone ought to take it up?

An Intelligent Comment on Daily Kos

What’s the unemployment rate in California, 1

I’ve seen the Mexican Government issued “Go be a paisano in the US” pamphlets with my own eyes. Maybe they didn’t think an American who could read Spanish would ever see them, but the pamphlet was telling the poor to go “retake the American southwest”. That’s a fact.

So the California Latino voter knows there is far more poverty in Mexico than there are jobs in California. It doesn’t do them any good to bring in more cheap labor and get tossed into the unemployment line, and then be just as poor as they were originally when their unemployment benefits run out.

We really need to stop this race based political thinking. Does the fact that I have Greek ancestry mean that I want the whole of Greece immigrating over here without the jobs to support them? No, so why would a Latino trying to hang on to his job want that either?

Illegal Immigration supports two groups of people. The CEO’s trying to exploit them for cheap labor, and the politicians trying to exploit them for votes. Everyone else knows they’re being scammed.

This is a great comment. Predictably, it was pummeled by the next four commenters. The last one told him to shut up, as Daily Kos is a pro-immigration reform (amnesty) site. Daily Kos represents the Left wing of the Democratic Party. Those four comments that followed were quite predictable, and it shows why the liberal-Left in the US is absolute shit.

Let’s go over this comment bit by bit. It’s quite possible that unemployment is over 1

I can tell you from personal experience here in California that the illegal alien tidal wave has had a disastrous effect on working class Americans. My friends were all Whites, so I can only speak to its effect on working class Whites. But I don’t see why it hasn’t hurt working class Hispanics and Blacks too. At the very least, it has glutted the low wage labor market and nuked wages down to a very low level.

It’s an absolute effect that the sickening rightwing Mexican elite uses illegal immigration as a cynical way to dump their poor on us. Poor that in any decent society they ought to be taking care of. But Mexico is an extreme class society that at its base is very rightwing.

The rich in Mexico, via the state, spend about as much on health, education and whatnot as the Haitian state does. They are just another evil 3rd World elite that has turned its country into a shithole by refusing to share with the rest. Like India, like the rest of Latin America, like the Philippines, like Indonesia.

That the US Liberal-Left fully supports the rightwing scum elite in Mexico in this rightwing and deeply anti-progressive project (shoving millions of their poor up here so they don’t have to create a decent society in Mexico) is infuriating. Why is the Liberal-Left in the US supporting a bunch of rightwing shits in Mexico? But you will never hear one single peep about this on the US Liberal-Left. One can only conclude that they are in bed with the Mexican elite in this game.

Similarly, the poster notes that the pamphlets that the Mexican government hands out that explicitly urge its citizens to go to the US also openly tell them to “retake the Southwest.” This shows that the Mexican elite is the enemy of America, and that Mexico is in a sense an enemy state.

It’s an enemy state because it continues to lay claims on the US Southwest. When you go to school in Mexico, you get a steady diet of revanchist propaganda about how the US Southwest is really a part of Mexico. 5

The poster also points out the insanity of race-based politics for California Latinos. Your average working class Latino citizen is not helped by the illegal flood. You can make a good case that he is harmed by them, and that illegals throw a lot of California Latinos out of work too. So why do California Latinos support illegals? Loyalty to La Raza. Your race trumps your pocketbook if you’re a Chicano? Wow.

Treason Lobby Does Damage Control On Birthright Citizenship

This article was originally posted on VDARE. I am reposting it here for your edification. I don’t agree with everything here. For instance, I support the education of illegal alien kids, and I support treatment of illegal aliens in emergency rooms.

By Washington Watcher

The Treason Lobby is getting very nervous about the issue of birthright citizenship—the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that gives U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., including the children of illegal aliens.

Arizona State Senator Edward Schumacher-Matos, an immigrant (formerly illegal) from Colombia; and libertarian Steve Chapman, respectively.

Both appear to be getting their misinformation from the same talking points, as their columns were nearly identical. [Denying citizenship for illegal immigrants’ children is a bad idea, by Edward Schumacher-Matos, Washington Post, June 27, 2010. Citizenship Should Remain a Birthright, by Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune, June 27, 2010.]

As Americans wake up to the problem of birthright citizenship, we can expect to see these same falsehoods repeated over and over—just like the mindless mantras that infest the immigration enforcement debate, such as you can’t deport 12 million people and “illegal immigrants are doing the jobs Americans won’t do.


Myth 1: The term “Anchor Baby” is improper, because you cannot sponsor your parents until you are 21.

Chapman [Email him] writes:

“True, an undocumented adult can be sponsored for a resident visa by a citizen child—but not till the kid reaches age 21. To imagine that Mexicans are risking their lives crossing the border in 2010 to gain legal status in 2031 assumes they put an excessive weight on the distant future.”

WW refutation: Given U.S. failure to enforce immigration law, it is not unreasonable for an illegal alien to assume that they can live here illegally for 21 years and then receive sponsorship from their US Citizen children.

Indeed, I could accuse Chapman of racism for assuming that Mexicans have short time horizons—Seattle Public Schools list having long time horizons as a form of “cultural racism”.

However, it is not family sponsorship that makes the children of illegal aliens “anchor babies”—it’s the fact that it then becomes incredibly difficult to remove their parents.

You need only look at the Treason lobby’s own rhetoric about how enforcing our immigration laws is tearing families apart to see how birthright citizenship is used as a way to prevent enforcement against the illegal alien parents. President Obama was at it again in his recent immigration speech—he specifically said we cannot deport illegal aliens because

“it would tear at the very fabric of this nation—because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens.”

Of course family reunification can occur on both sides of the border. But the anchor baby provision is an enormous incentive for illegal aliens to stay here.

In fact, of course, propaganda aside, American immigration law specifically allows for exceptions in the case of “extreme hardship” caused by deportations.

Indeed, immigration lawyer Bruce Hake [Email him] has created the “The Hake Hardship Scale: A Quantitative System For Assessment Of Hardship In Immigration Cases Based On A Statistical Analysis Of AAO [USCIS Administrative Appeals Office] Decisions” for the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Hake assigned points to various “hardships” that an illegal alien could appeal on.

In general, a score of 10 would be successful. Hake gave five points for the first US citizen child, and another for each child thereafter. [The Hake Hardship Scale: A Quantitative System For Assessment Of Hardship In Immigration Cases Based On A Statistical Analysis Of AAO Decisions, by Bruce A. Hake and David L. Banks, Immigration & Nationality Law Handbook, 2004]

With enough creativity and a few dollars, an immigration lawyer can try to make even one anchor baby reason enough. To get an idea of how this works, the Forensic Psychology Group’s website gives examples of different types of “expert testimony” they can provide at immigration hearings.

“In extreme and exceptional hardship cases, if one parent has to leave the United States, it can produce a separation anxiety disorder on the part of the child left behind. Some children, especially those who are very young and lack the emotional maturity to understand why a parent might have to leave the United States, might also develop a depressive disorder.” [Immigration Law, Forensic Psychology Group.]

And if that child is also a US citizen, it becomes a pretty substantial anchor to prevent deportation.

Moreover, the same supporters of birthright citizenship are trying to make it even more difficult to deport illegal alien parents of anchor babies. Solomon Ortiz’s (D-TX) Comprehensive Immigration Reform ASAP Act of 2009, which has over 100 co-sponsors, moves from “extreme hardship” exceptions to Peter Brimelow’s 1996 anti-immigration screed, Alien Nation, found that 15 percent of new Hispanic mothers whose babies were born in Southern California hospitals said they came over the border to give birth, with 25 percent of that group saying they did so to gain citizenship for the child. But this evidence actually contradicts the claim.

It means that 96 percent of these women were not lured by the desire to have an ‘anchor baby.’”

WW refutation: Once again, I could accuse Chapman of being “racist” for falsely assuming that every single Hispanic woman in Southern California is an illegal alien. Of illegal aliens, the number is necessarily much greater than

Schumacher-Matos writes:

“Pregnant Mexican women from border towns do commonly cross just to have a baby in the United States. But their extended families have often straddled the border for a century or more. The women tend to be middle class, pre-pay the hospitals in cash and go home, though their children can someday return.”

I do not see how Mexican citizens choosing to have their child born in the US, just so it will have to option to immigrate here in the future, is any less of reason to oppose birthright citizenship.

Schumacher-Matos [Email him] acknowledges that a “A handful of tourists do the same, but the total of all these is minuscule.” As usual, there are no good statistics on just how many people come to the country to give birth, but we do know it’s far from “miniscule”. There is an entire birth tourism industry complete with hotels specifically for pregnant women to have US citizen children.

Schumacher-Matos continues:

“Significant are the 4 million children in 2008 with one or more unauthorized immigrant parents spread throughout the country, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Repeated studies, however, show that their parents came for jobs or to join family. The children were normal byproducts of life, and not an immigration strategy.”

But no one is arguing that birthright citizenship is the only reason why illegal aliens come here, or even why they stay. Nevertheless, when we have somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens living in our country, a few percentage points has a lot of consequences.


Myth 3: Birthright citizenship has repeatedly been upheld by the courts, and was the intention of the drafters of the 14th Amendment.

Chapman claims that ending birthright citizenship “overthrows two centuries of legislative intent and court rulings” Both he and Schumacher-Matos mention the Plyler vs. Doe case, forcing school districts to accept illegal alien children, as an example.

WW refutation: In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment is Reconstruction legislation and therefore less than 150 years old.

Plyler was a terrible decision. But it did not rule on the issue of birthright citizenship—merely on public education for illegal aliens. It did, as Chapman and Schumacher-Matos note, state that the illegal aliens fit under the Jurisdiction Clause of the 14th Amendment. But it is up to future Supreme Court justices to decide exactly how far they wish to take it.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court was much more liberal when it ruled in 5-4 in Plyler than it is today. Even Sandra Day O’Connor voted against the illegal aliens in that case.

Chapman also alludes to the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this dealt with a legal permanent Chinese immigrant, not an illegal alien.

Schumacher-Matos goes back further to the actual debates over the Citizenship Clause:

“Go back… and read the transcripts of the 1866 debate in the Senate and you find that both those for and against the amendment readily acknowledged its application to illegal immigrants. A Pennsylvania senator [Edgar Cowan], for example, objected to granting citizenship to the children of aliens who regularly commit ‘trespass’ within the United States. The concern then was with babies of gypsy or Chinese parents.

“But Congress and the ratifying states opted instead to uphold a founding principle of the republic that was fundamental to the peaceful building of a multiethnic immigrant nation, however imperfectly. In a world plagued by bloody ethnic conflicts, that concern remains valid.”

Here, Schumacher-Matos falsely implies that the Amendment passed over these objections. But in fact Cowan’s objections were satisfied by Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. He explained that the Citizenship Clause

“will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

(WW emphasis).

Trumbull continued:

“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ … What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Keep in mind that Schumacher-Matos argues in the same column that it is perfectly unobjectionable for Mexicans who plan on staying in Mexico themselves to go across the border so that their children can have US Citizenship.

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan who wrote the Citizenship Clause was even clearer stating the Amendment

“will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” [Amicus Brief No. 03-6696, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, Center for American Unity]


Myth 4: Anchor Babies do not receive any additional welfare

Chapman writes: “Some of the main benefits available to undocumented foreigners, such as emergency room care and public education for children, don’t require them to have a U.S. citizen child. Illegal immigrant parents are ineligible for welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and the like. They can be deported.”

WW refutation: Chapman here debunks his own argument (as well as the libertarian cliché “Don’t end immigration, end the welfare state!”).

Of course, he is correct that the biggest fiscal drain caused by illegal aliens is education and hospital Emergency Rooms, which the courts have unfortunately made off limits. But this is an argument against further illegal immigration—because it overcrowds our schools and shuts down our hospitals—not an argument against birthright citizenship.

Nevertheless, although illegal aliens drain our economy through jails, hospitals and education, anchor babies can still further break our budgets in ways that illegal aliens cannot.

As Chapman notes, illegal aliens are barred from most federal means tested benefits under the 1996 Welfare Reforms.

However, their US citizen children are still eligible for these programs. And our welfare system is especially tilted to benefit those who are young and poor. Anchor babies ipso facto fit the former. According to the Pew Hispanic Center over 1/3 are living at or below the poverty level.

Additionally, the massive Obamacare overhaul specifically benefits anchor babies and their families. While illegal aliens are ostensibly ineligible for the “Affordability Credits”, insurance is based on families. According to Pew Hispanic, there are 8.8 million people in “mixed families” with US citizen children and illegal alien parents. According to the Congressional Research Service,

“it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families.” [Is the Congressional Research Service Making ‘False Claims’ Too? by Mark Kirkorian, Center for Immigration Studies, August 26, 2009]


Myth 5: Ending birthright citizenship would be difficult to implement.

According to Schumacher-Matos, “Abrogating birthright citizenship additionally would create practical chaos. All Americans would have to prove their citizenship. Birth certificates would no longer do. Yet we lack a national registry of who is a citizen.”

WW refutation: This is perhaps the silliest objection of all. No one is calling for retroactively stripping anyone’s citizenship, so birth certificates issued prior to the law would suffice as proof of citizenship.

And it does not take much of an imagination to come up with a simple non-chaotic way for birth certificates to be issued after birthright citizenship is abolished. There could be a separate birth certificate issued to children of US citizens and Legal Permanent Residents; or there could just be a box that says “US Citizen” that could be checked on the Birth Certificate.

There is a danger that, if Obama is serious about pursuing comprehensive immigration reformas Peter Brimelow has suggested, the birthright citizenship debate might end up getting put on the backburner by the Patriotic Immigration Reform movement. It has succeeded in defeating two amnesties and it will want to defeat this one.

But the hard truth is that the Patriotic Immigration Reform movement has made little progress getting any proactive changes in policy.

Arizona’s SB 1070 put the Treason Lobby in the corner. They are trying to fight back by throwing an amnesty back at us.

Instead of being content with stopping the amnesty again, we need to keep pushing forward with

  • more state laws;
  • a moratorium on immigration, and
  • abolition of birthright citizenship.

If we want to stop amnesty, and the destruction of the historic American nation, the best defense is a strong offense.

“Washington Watcher” [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

Source: VDARE.com.

Race Does Not Exist

Click to enlarge. Nigerians or Africans (no such thing) in light blue. Europeans or Caucasians (no such thing) in green and red. Asians (no such thing) in purple and blue. The nonexistent entities called Africans, Asians and Europeans are demonstrated in this chart. These constructs do not exist, nor do they differ from each other. That they seem to be plotting quite distinctly on this chart is simply an optical illusion. If you disagree, you are a racist scum and hopefully soon we will even be able to arrest you.

As you can see from this chart made by some racist mad scientist, race is clearly a social construct. His research violated the new Law of Political Correctness, and agents are shutting down his lab as I write this.

Race is clearly a social construct. But it’s a social construct with some powerful attributes. There have been wild and violent wars and battles between various social constructs around the world. These are termed social construct conflicts, social construct wars and social construct violence. The old terms ethnic conflict, ethnic warfare and ethnic violence are no longer acceptable and use of them is de facto evidence of racism. Use of those terms is considered such strong evidence of racism that it is even admissible in a court of Race Law.

Occasionally US cities erupt with what are called social construct riots, in which various social constructs try to destroy and burn down their cities for unknown reasons. Research into these riots has been banned because the social constructs involved were undefinable and do not even in fact exist. Recently there was the Rodney King Social Construct Riot. Before that, there were the Watts Social Construct Riots of 1965 and other famous Social Construct Riots in Detroit, Newark and other places.

These riots can be violent. Sometimes persons of one social construct will even attack persons of another social construct during these riots. How they know how or even why to attack someone of another construct is unknown, because there is no way to determine anyone’s particular construct, since the whole concept is all imaginary anyway.

Idiot Latino Politician Wants to Boycott Arizona, But Can’t Find it on a Map

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQp8M0bkarM]

I actually feel sorry for this woman, because, her stupid Latino tribal politics aside, she’s a good liberal Democratic Supervisor from Milwaukee. There are also a lot of comments calling her fat, but for an Hispanic woman of her age or so, she’s not really fat. She’s just normal. Past a certain age, fat is simply normal for US Hispanic women. The Hispanic guys could care less, and past a certain age, most of them are fat too.

Latino bullshit politics aside, I like Latino politicians, and here in California, I usually just go down the list on my ballot and vote for all the Latinos and against all the Whites, because the Latinos are always liberal, and the Whites are usually conservatards. If she was running in my area, I would probably vote for her, in spite of the fact that she’s stupid. Have some sympathy for stupid! Come on! If you start hating all the stupid people, you’ll hardly have anyone to talk to, and you’ll be home alone, smarty pants! And what’s so smart about being a shut-in?

On the other hand, I want to whop my liberal sister over the head with something, maybe a frozen burrito.

Here she is at a Milwaukee county meeting arguing that the county should boycott Arizona because Arizona is being all mean to her good folks. And hey, it’s true.

But halfway through the spiel, she has a stupid attack. She declares that Arizona’s law would make sense if Arizona was on the border with Mexico, but since Arizona is quite a ways from the Mexico border, the law is simply outrageous. Yeah, Arizona is quite a ways from the Mexican border, sure. For hundreds of miles, it’s like zero inches from Mexico! She even suggests that people use Google to check out about the law. She should have used Google herself to figure out how to read a damn map of her own damned country.

Later, a Republican White dude chimes in to give her a geography lesson and say that he supports Arizona Whites cracking down on Mexican burrito-biters, I mean illegal aliens.

I wanted to do a face palm when I saw that. I actually cringed. This is so embarrassing. It’s like someone went down to the local Taco Bell and picked up some random Latina, threw her in front of the podium and asked her to give a retarded speech. OK, so she’s fat, stupid and liberal. It could be worse. She could be fat, stupid and conservative. Then she could change her name to Rushette Limbaugh and get her own radio show.

My dear liberal politicians, please do your homework if you’re going to give a speech. The conservatards have practically cornered the market on stupid, so how are we going to beat them? Do stupid at a loss and drive them out of the stupid business? Give it up.

I wonder why she couldn’t find the state of Arizona on a map. Maybe it wasn’t on the map. Just look at her. Maybe she ate the state of Arizona. She looks like she could have.

There, I made a fat joke!

Sorry hun. Lay off the chimichangas hermana, and keep the liberal faith. Si se puede!

How Black and Hispanic “Values” Clash with White Middle Class Upbringing

Referring to the video here, a commenter disagrees that the people on the show were out of line to ask the White woman why she won’t date Blacks. He also denies that they said she was racist:

One again, did he actually use the word racist? I listened to that dialogue again and I did not hear it. At 8:48 he says something like “well that…” and then it becomes intelligible. Then all I could hear is “why?”

I also heard him say, “not everybody is going to be attracted to the opposite race…” We’ll forget for the moment that there’s no such thing as “an opposite race”, but he did seem to acknowledge that some will just prefer their own. All he asked is why.

1. They didn’t need to say she was racist. It was implied.

2. They should not have asked her why in the first place. I mean, in White culture, you ask a question like that, and people will look at you like, “What the Hell kind of question is that!?” And everyone can read that body language.

You know, I was not brought up that way. Would I ask some Black woman to go out with me (assuming I wanted to take her out), then badger her if she didn’t want to, then ask her why, then say she was racist for not dating me? I mean, in the White bread world I was brought up in, that is like the nadir of outrageous, audacious rudeness. You’re not “acting White.” You’re “acting like a nigger.”

But Black guys do this all the time. Ask White women out, badger them when they say no, then say they are racist for saying no.

Do you realize what White middle class socialization is like? We are brought up, and there’s like a million rules about every little stinking thing. It drives you mad just to keep track of them all the time and not be constantly violating them. Chronic violation of the rules leads to ostracization, rejection, not getting hired, firings, all kinds of bad shit. So you learn or you’re an outcast.

Violation of a lot of these rules, it is implied, is called, “Acting like a Black or a Mexican.” IOW, it’s low class. White people don’t act that way. Or, good White people don’t act that way. Trailer trash? Sure, but they’re hardly White. They are barely above the Blacks and the Mexicans. In some cases, worse.

In fact, even in White liberal environments, you will hear people say, often laughing, “Don’t do that! That’s not the White thing to do.” “That’s not White. That’s not a White way of acting.” That’s what, “Hey, that’s mighty White of you!” means. It means you are acting like an upstanding White person.

Now. Is there an implied supremacism behind that? Sure. But if supremacism is what it takes to get your group to act good, I say go for it. I would love it if Blacks would shame their kids who act bad, saying, “Don’t do that! You’re acting like a White person! How disgusting! Act like a proud Black person instead.” Indeed, this is part of the Afrocentrist mindset.

Now, maybe Blacks think we are a bunch of uptight nerds who keep dropping turds in the punch bowl and spoiling all the fun. Perhaps we are, I have no idea.

But I’m pointing this out to show you how profoundly offensive a lot of Black and even Hispanic behavior is to White bread, middle class suburban Whites. I mean, you were brought up that you don’t do these 100,000 and one things on near penalty of death. Then you see non-Whites not only doing this stuff, but doing it unapologetically, refusing to apologize when called on it, and even seeming to glory in it.

It’s so offensive to us it’s beyond words. It’s appalling.

Very Interesting Black Blog

Jamila.

Been checking it out lately. It’s quite amazing.

I figured the author was Black, but the writing was so bright and the person so well-read that I started to wonder, a function of my liberal racism. “Are you sure this person is really Black? I mean, they’re so smart!” So I went looking for evidence that the author was really Black.

I finally found it, but then they said they were wearing a dress in that photo. Huh? Because along with the Black hypothesis, I also assumed the author was male. Because the writing was so good and especially the thinking was so bright and erudite in that, you know, male way. That’s my liberal sexism. “This writing is so smart and good. No way it’s a chick!”

So I followed the link to their Facebook page and lo and behold, a Black woman, and not an academic looking one either, a young, pretty fun-looking one!

What’s really strange is the link list. There’s me (that’s how I found it), some Black woman blogs (including the awesome What About Our Daughters?), some super-feminist blogs, then the other extreme – some Men’s Rights Activist, masculinist and PUA blogs, then some race realist blogs, then some libertarian sites. Huh? Huh? Huh?

Reading around, she’s also sympathetic to race realism, which is really strange coming from her type, or really any Black blogger. Sensibly sympathetic to it, and taking some of the usual Blacks who are trying to tear it to pieces. She has an excellent review of Michael Levin’s Why Race Matters book. Levin is actually not a bad person, and his heart is in the heart place. I wonder if he’s a Liberal Race Realist at heart.

What’s weird is that to some extent, with all of her strange contradictions, she’s a bit of a Black female mirror image of me!

Very strange site. Very strange. But good stuff!

Anti-White Hate Propaganda on a British Talk Show

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kkXogn8Oeo]

That video is really pissing me off. It’s a British talk show about White women who are with Black guys. They interview a bunch of White women who prefer Black guys to White men. The Black guys, as a rule, are the well-behaved types that my friends and I call “White Blacks” – i.e., they act like White people.

We learn so many fascinating facts from these silly dames.

Black men are better in bed than White men. White men are lousy in bed. WTH?

Black men treat women better than White men. I can tell you right off that in my experience, that is not true.

Also notice at the end of the video, the one White woman who says she would not date a Black man, in fact – if he was the last man on Earth even – notice the propaganda here. They interviewed five White women who prefer Black men to White men, and one White woman who felt the opposite way; if you’re a moron, which most people are, the logical conclusion is that 8

Also notice how the “White Black” guy argues with the White woman who refuses to date Blacks and implies that she is a racist for having this opinion. Utterly sickening.

But this is what Black men and boys always do. In schools where there are many Blacks and Whites, this is the line the hyper-sexually aggressive Black boys use with the White girls. If the girl says she won’t go out with them, they badger and badger her about it, endlessly accusing her of being racist. After all, the only reason she could resist his irresistible Black Big Cock Godliness is racism, right?

Sadly, many White women are weak and stupid, and Cultural Marxism worsens these problems, so this lame line – “You won’t date me because I’m racist!” – actually works, incredibly enough.

I’m shocked that Black males would stoop so low as to use this line. If a Black woman would not go out with me, I would hardly accuse her of being racist! How rude can you get? I was brought in a civilized, mannered, White middle class environment, and a lot of stuff is just beyond the pale rude. Especially calling someone racist because they won’t date your sorry ass. How pitiful can you get?

I have known many White women who had relationships with Black men. Some even preferred Black guys. In the case of every single woman where they had a kid, the Black man had taken off, nowhere to be seen.

This is the typical scene. Single White or Hispanic Mom, or she has a new guy. The Black guy made one or more kids with her, then he took off. If you ask the child, he’s either mad at or indifferent to his absent Black father. Ask the woman, and the father is nowhere to be seen. He’s vanished from the Earth, takes no interest in his offspring.

In addition, the Black men were far more likely than White men to abuse, verbally and physically, imprison, browbeat, keep at home, rape, rob, steal from, and of course cheat on the White woman. I can’t think of one single case where the guy did not do at least one of these things. What I have seen, Black men treat White women appallingly worse than White men do.

Are there cases that are not like this? I assume so, just never met any. If I knew a White woman who was involved with a Black guy and thinking of marrying or having kids with him, I would recommend that she not do that. As evidence, I would cite the experience of the women I know who had relationships with Black men.

Was the sex great? Who knows, maybe it was. Did they treat these women better than White guys? Are you kidding? For White women, Black men may well be a fun ride for a bit. As far as marrying them or having kids with them, the odds are not on your side.

Evidence for Environmental Effects on IQ

The hereditarians are flat out wrong on IQ. They always say that there is an environmental effect on IQ, but then whenever you show them any evidence of it, they immediately shoot it down. There are few hereditarian researchers on IQ who actually acknowledge evidence for an environmental effect on IQ.

Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton and the snide, upper class, snooty, antisocial atavists over at Gene Expression lead the pack. Since nearly the entire HBD/race realist sphere follows the line of Jensen and Rushton, nearly this entire sphere has rejected all evidence for a direct effect of the environment on IQ. Every time we show them they evidence, they shoot it down.

Nearly all White racists and especially White nationalists reject all evidence for an environmental effect on IQ and shoot down any evidence they throw up.

White nationalists have a lot at stake in this debate.

White nationalism is founded on the idea that European Whites are a genetically superior race, and most of the other races, including Blacks, Bushmen, Pygmies, Eskimos, Amerindians, mestizos, mulattos, Polynesians, Melanesians, Micronesians, Southeast Asians, Papuans, Aborigines and Negritos are all quite genetically inferior in intelligence.

They also throw in all non-European Whites as genetically inferior in brains, including Arabs, North Africans, Iranians, Afghans, East Indians and the people of the Stans. Since most White nationalists are Nordicists, Southern Europeans and the people of the Caucasus are also thrown in as intellectually genetically inferior.

There isn’t much evidence for this, as Southern Europeans and the people of the Caucasus in general have IQ’s that are quite high. Furthermore, Eskimo and Maori IQ is high. The IQ’s of many groups in the US, including Mexicans, East Indians and Africans, are also quite high.

When we suggest that there are environmental effects on IQ, we shoot down their whole theory of genetic intellectual superiority and upset their whole theoretical worldview.

But there is quite a bit of evidence for environmental effects on IQ.

Wild IQ rises in the 20th century, mostly in the developed world, are impossible to explain by genetics.

The much higher IQ of US Blacks as opposed to other Blacks is hard to explain by genetics, though WN’s and the Gene Expression authors never tire of retarded explanations. The WN explanation for the 20 pt difference between US and African Black IQ is that it is explained by White blood in US Blacks. This explanation is retarded as it can only explain 4.5 points of the gap, leaving the other 15.5 points unexplained.

The Gene Expression folks say that African IQ is artificially lowered by malnutrition (they invoke environment only when it suits their hereditarian bias and reject it the rest of the time). Therefore, normative Black IQ is 80, and US Black IQ of 87 is also explained by White blood. But there is no evidence for their theory.

The White nationalists and their HBD buddies also pour cold water on the Flynn Effect showing massive IQ rises in the 20th Century. According to them, while IQ has actually increased, real intelligence has not gone up one single iota. The FE IQ’s are not on some BS called “g intelligence,” therefore they are nothing, meaningless ephemera. People are not getting smarter at all, not even

For instance there have been 22 different studies of IQ and breastfeeding, all the way up to age 50. All of these studies found cognitive benefits from breastfeeding. On the contrary, hereditarians recently championed one study that found no de novo effect for breastfeeding on IQ. Instead, the differences were tied up with mother’s IQ’s. That is, smarter mothers breastfed more and stupider ones did not. I will take 22 studies over one any day. (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 128)

The effects of nutritional supplementation in pregnancy on IQ of offspring have been studied.

Nutritional supplementation in pregnancy and later supplementation of children has been shown to have effects at age 24 in Guatemala (1980) and age 18 in Mexico (1982). Mexican boys improved on IQ, and Guatemalans improved on a range of cognitive and achievement outcomes. (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 124)

Lead levels in blood have a strong effect on IQ, leading to declines of up to 10-15 points. There is a clear cause effect relationship between blood levels and IQ. Blood lead levels are higher in Blacks than in Whites, because Blacks tend to liver in older dilapidated housing that has lead paint. Black children apparently ingest the paint chips somehow.

Iron level in the blood also effects IQ. consistently shown that malnutrition leads to low IQ and antisocial behavior in childhood. Iron deficiency is quite high in US Blacks and Hispanics.

One controlled study found that children who were severely malnourished in childhood ended up with IQ’s of 84 when returned to the home, 82 when institutionalized and 97 when adopted away (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 123).

A study in South Africa showed that intensive courses in college teaching Black college students the types of intelligence that are tested for on IQ tests quickly raised IQ’s from 83 to 97. Students were generally aged 18-22, above the age where environment is said to effect IQ. Even Philippe Rushton agreed that scores went up in this study, but he had some retarded reason why this had no effect on his hereditarian theories (Rushton and Jensen 2005).

It is a common canard among White nationalist and hereditarian circles that all early intervention programs designed to raise IQ have not been able to do so. It’s true that they often do not raise IQ, but they have other benefits. What matters is whether these programs are cost-effective or not.

Yet some very intensive programs have been successful. The Abecedarian and Perry Preschool projects (Sternberg and Grigorenko 1971, p. 108) showed long-term rises in achievement scores lasting all the way into adolescence. Abecedarian found rises of 4.5 IQ points all the way into adulthood. The problem is that Abecedarian was quite expensive. Whether 4 point IQ gains could occur in large populations given this treatment and whether this would be cost-effective is not known.

References

Rushton, J. Philippe and Arthur R., Jensen. 2005. Wanted: More Race Realism, Less Moralistic Fallacy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol. 11, No. 2, 328–336.

Sternberg, Robert J. and Grigorenko, Elena. 1971. Environmental Effects on Cognitive Abilities. New York: Routledge Psychology Press.

Negros in Negroland: A Fascinating Book

I have been spending the past few days thumbing through this amazing 268 page book, written in 1868 by a very racist White Southerner, an unabashed White Supremacist. Keep in mind that back in those days though, White Supremacy was simply normative for nearly all US Whites.

The impetus for this book comes out of the Radical Republican attempts at Reconstruction, which were, it is true, a disaster. Incompetent and uneducated Blacks were put in positions of power over Whites all over the South during this period, with catastrophic effects. It was not unusual to find Black judges, mayors, sheriffs, police officers, supervisors, etc., who could not even read or write. The object here was simply to humiliate the Southern Whites.

Blacks roamed all over the South aimlessly. Many, knowing nothing else, retreated to the plantations where they had been slaves, this time asking for wage labor. Encampments of them on their old plantations were not uncommon. Many others resorted to crime, often stealing only food to eat. There were many shootings by Southern Whites of Black criminals.

The South was in ruins, and Radical policy only added to the chaos. The finest of Southern White manhood was dead, wounded or hobbling around as amputees. Blacks had freedom but had not the faintest idea of what to do with it.

By the time this book was written, 1868, the Ku Klux Klan had just been formed and was beginning already to ride the torched night. Terrorist attacks on Blacks and White Radicals were growing. The North had just fought a horrible war with the South and was full of the dead and hobbling wounded themselves.

The intent of the Radicals was to humiliate the South in the traditional fashion of ancient man in war, exemplified by the Greeks.

It didn’t work.

Violent Southern reaction only produced disgust from an exhausted North. Soon after this book was written, Radical Reconstruction was ended or amended, and most troops had pulled out of the South. The North was washing their hands of the exasperating South and saying the Hell with them, moving on to their own affairs.

In the decades after this book was written, reactionary retrenchment set in, and much of the progressive changes for Southern Blacks were undone. It was not a full retreat to slavery, but it was a reaction back to Jim Crow, merely one step above.

Bearing in mind the era in which this book was written, its thesis is understandable. The author was actually a liberal for his time, as he was a Southerner who had long opposed slavery as a counterproductive and dying institution.

His solution to the Negro Question was Back to Africa, which seems racist to us, but was actually a progressive position at the time, even embraced by Lincoln. The attitude was similar to that of Herzl’s The Jewish State, where he stated that European anti-Semitism was incorrigible due to the behavior of both parties, and a divorce was the only way out.

The Back to Africa crowd had a similar mindset. Black and White in the US were interminably opposed, and Whites would never cut Blacks a square deal.

Back to Palestine in the case of the Jews, back to Africa for the Africans.

The full title of this book is The Negroes in Negroland, the Negroes in America, and Negroes Generally, also, the Several Races of White Men, Considered the Involuntary and Predestined Supplanters of the Black Races, a Compilation by Hinton Rowan Helper, a Rational Republican, Author of The Impending Crisis of the South, Nojoque, and Other Writings in Behalf of a Free and White America.

The book recites a voluminous amount of literature from early White explorers to Africa in an attempt to prove Black (apparently genetic) inferiority. His object in proving Black inferiority is to show what a crime it is to put an inferior race over a superior one in the South, and to show that inferior Blacks will never be able to succeed in America and will only degrade the country.

The various chapters on Africa were selected for the unflattering portrayal of Africans by explorers. I do not think that the explorers were making this stuff up. Indeed, Africans were living in a state of profound and debased barbarian savagery.

But so were many primitive peoples including Polynesians, Melanesians, Papuans and many Amerindian tribes.

The only lesson that can be drawn here is that Hobbes was correct about the barbaric nature of uncivilized man and his short, nasty and brutish lot.

The question arises whether the debasement of Africans was due to their genes or their culture. I suppose the best answer is both. However, reading through this, it immediately becomes clear that no matter how messed up Africa is today, Africa is immensely more civilized than it was 150 year ago. African Americans have gone much further, and do not resemble this picture much at all, although you can see hints of it in many places.

Africans’ genes have not changed much in 150 years, so much of their debased savagery must have been cultural. African Americans have actually changed genetically in the US in addition to undergoing massive cultural change whereby they lost most of their African culture and gained an American one.

One thing that I found interesting what that this very racist man actually quoted many explorers who said that quite a few African women were beautiful, and it would stand to reason that a White man could want one. They even said that African women made good wives. However, they noted that the African woman was coarse and lacked many of the finer civilized nuances of a White woman.

In particular, one notes the casual terror and murderousness of African life, the omnipresence of death and dead bodies, the minimal nature of mourning in which the dead are soon nonchalantly forgotten, the lack of compassion, romantic love and the other finer sentiments.

This got me to thinking as a race realist where US Blacks retain these qualities. In particular, White observers in Africa today remark that Blacks do not seem to have a White understanding of romantic love.

However, I know that Alpha Unit on this site has all of the finer sentiments that any White woman could have, and more so, honestly. The Black commenters on here, male and female, seem to display the finer sentiments of adequately civilized humans.

I was struck on Abagond’s site how similar the educated Black women on there were to White women in their understanding and desire for romantic love. Perhaps it’s a function of IQ or education. At any rate, I do not think that US Blacks in general, or Black women in particular, are in general lacking in the finer sentiments of romantic love vis a vis Whites.

The casualness of death and lack of compassion in these accounts was also striking, as was any lack of a real mourning period after death. This got me to wondering if US Blacks were deficient in this regard.

However, I have seen and heard many older Black mothers on TV and radio who still mourn for their dead or imprisoned children, some years after the fact. I have seen interviews where Black women in their 40’s and 50’s still keep the dead son’s room decorated with his photos and things and weep on camera for his death even 10-20 years after the fact. Although rationally one should argue that humans ought to get over it, extended and passionate mourning is definitely a finer sentiment and a sign of high civilization.

The thievery, wanton dishonesty and shocking amorality of Africans in this book is frightening. Surely, US Blacks are on average less honest, more thieving and more amoral than US Whites.

However, in this book, nearly every African encountered is essentially a laughing, guiltless, casual and amoral thief. That’s not the case with US Blacks. Many are bad, but many others are very honest to a fault, even moreso than you or me. Many US Blacks have highly developed consciences and even strong guilt complexes. I’ve even met some with the ultimate guilt neurosis, OCD.

What I am getting at here is that a lot of this shocking debasement, savagery and barbarianism of early Africa, which might seem at first to be genetic, is largely cultural. I don’t know much about Africans and Caribbeans today, but US Blacks are tremendously more civilized in their personalities and behavior than the Africans of 150 years ago.

The level of barbarism or civilization in a group often has more to do with culture than genes.

It’s Not Helpful to Arguments About Black Mental Inferiority…

When even the Black leadership acts like a bunch of retards.

Seriously? The NAACP can’t tell the difference between planetary “black holes” and “Black ho’s'”?

Someone needs to stop these Black people before they make fools out of themselves some more.

What’s worse is that Hallmark is vying with the NAACP for the Retardation Olympics and they actually pulled the card. That or Hallmark is afraid of being on the losing end of the Ghetto Lottery (I mean a fake civil rights lawsuit).

The NAACP used to be a standup organization. Now it just seems like they sit around all day and look for stuff to get pissed off about. Must be fun I guess.

The NAACP is getting more useless by the day. Someone ought to sue the NAACP on behalf of the sane people in the nation for wasting so much of our precious time with stupid bullshit.

As an aside, is this why there are so few Blacks in the US space program? They keep misinterpreting astronomical terms as racial slurs?

People wonder why Whites don’t like Blacks. Well, here’s one reason right here, hate to say it.

This behavior is not flattering in the least.

“Who Owns the Restaurant?” by Alpha Unit

Go into almost any business, particularly a restaurant, and you might see a posting that reads, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” This is perfectly lawful.

But you can’t refuse service for just any old reason. The government said so. You can’t refuse to serve someone because he’s Black. Or Jewish. Or White. Or because she’s a woman. Or disabled. Or Muslim.

The federal government says that you can’t refuse service on the basis of:

  1. race
  2. color
  3. religion
  4. national origin
  5. age
  6. sex
  7. familial status
  8. disability status
  9. veteran status

You can’t. That’s all there is to it.

“Well, I own the restaurant!” you declare. “Why can’t I decide who I will and won’t serve, however I want to?”

You own the restaurant, but the government lets you own it, you see. The government decides what you have to do to be able to own it and to keep owning it. Government-created infrastructure and government-mandated regulation of commerce make it possible for you to be in business.

The government’s got its hands all over and all into your restaurant. (It’s got its hand in the till, too.)

It gets to tell you how you can run your restaurant. That includes laying down the rules for refusing service.

“This is government going too far!” you and Rand Paul might insist. Maybe. Government has a way of doing that.

Somebody is always thinking that the government’s gone too far. And somebody is always thinking that it hasn’t gone far enough. One act of government can create both criticisms!

No matter what it does, somebody’s not going to like it. Guaranteed.

"Who Owns the Restaurant?" by Alpha Unit

Go into almost any business, particularly a restaurant, and you might see a posting that reads, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” This is perfectly lawful. But you can’t refuse service for just any old reason. The government said so. You can’t refuse to serve someone because he’s Black. Or Jewish. Or White. Or because she’s a woman. Or disabled. Or Muslim. The federal government says that you can’t refuse service on the basis of:

  1. race
  2. color
  3. religion
  4. national origin
  5. age
  6. sex
  7. familial status
  8. disability status
  9. veteran status

You can’t. That’s all there is to it. “Well, I own the restaurant!” you declare. “Why can’t I decide who I will and won’t serve, however I want to?” You own the restaurant, but the government lets you own it, you see. The government decides what you have to do to be able to own it and to keep owning it. Government-created infrastructure and government-mandated regulation of commerce make it possible for you to be in business. The government’s got its hands all over and all into your restaurant. (It’s got its hand in the till, too.) It gets to tell you how you can run your restaurant. That includes laying down the rules for refusing service. “This is government going too far!” you and Rand Paul might insist. Maybe. Government has a way of doing that. Somebody is always thinking that the government’s gone too far. And somebody is always thinking that it hasn’t gone far enough. One act of government can create both criticisms! No matter what it does, somebody’s not going to like it. Guaranteed.

The Agenda of the Racial Hereditarians

Almost all of the leading hereditarian race researchers have come out saying that they want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws. The reasoning is clear. If it can be proven that Blacks are genetically stupider than Whites, then clearly, people ought to have the right to discriminate against them, right? Anyway, that’s how their thinking goes.

A lot of these folks have recently been taking this further. Jason Malloy of Gene Expression spent some time trying to put together an argument that lower Black IQ made Blacks inferior employees. The conclusions are ominous. If we can scientifically prove that Blacks are worse employees, then the logical thing to do would be to discriminate against them.

But their arguments are not as good as they seem. Let’s take a look at them. First of all, are South African IQ scores valid? Yes, it appears that they are.

In South Africa it was found that job performance correlated with IQ. A Black with a 70 IQ performed the same as a White with 70 IQ, and a White with 115 IQ performed the same as a Black with 115 IQ. That is, based on this study, IQ scores for Black South Africans appear to be valid.

This study is used to claim that Black-White job performance differences are caused by lower Black IQ.

But this is not what the study proved at all. Black job performance, if caused by low Black IQ, would have to be over 1 Standard Deviations (SD) (maybe 1.3 SD) below White. Instead, Black job performance is .33 SD below Whites. Black lower job performance is not very much lower than Whites anyway, does not correlate well with Black IQ. In other words, Blacks perform far better on the job than would be predicted by their IQ scores.

From the study:

Black-White differences on job performance are rather small and much smaller than would be predicted based on IQ differentials.Main Effects

The results of this study reinforce some beliefs and change others. For Black-White comparisons, the overall results show a standardized ethnic group difference for job performance ratings of approximately one third of a standard deviation (when corrected for criterion reliability), and this is quite similar to Kraiger and Ford (1985).

We also had similar results for one of three types of performance measures used by J. K. Ford et al. (1986). Specifically, we found larger d’s associated with objective measures of job knowledge than with subjective measures of job knowledge.

Furthermore, Black-White wage gap is far worse than predicted based on B-W IQ gap. This is important because the hereditarians are going to say that Blacks make less money because they are worse workers, and they are worse workers because they are stupid. However, as you can see, the wage gap is far worse than would be expected by IQ, not to mention Black job performance, which exceeds Black IQ.

Nice try guys, trying to justify paying Blacks less, but it didn’t work. This study implies that there are other factors behind lower Black wages beyond IQ and job performance. One of them may be discrimination.

The hereditarians, whether they are right or not, do not have Black people’s best interest at stake. In fact, they are trying to provide scientific evidence to justify racism and discrimination. Blacks have every right to be skeptical about these people.

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.

New Anti-Illegal Immigration Bill in Arizona

Arizona just passed a new anti-illegal immigration bill which has people freaked out all over the country.

There is really a lot less to it than either side recognizes. All it does is make Arizona law the same as federal law, so it ought to be immune to court challenges. It also stipulates that cops can only check for immigration status after they stop someone for a legitimate reason, for example, for a traffic stop or if they are a suspect in some other crime. So there are not going to be any roundups or stops on the basis of someone looking Hispanic or speaking Spanish.

The Left has gone nuts over this bill, and the Obama Administration has registered their disapproval. That bills like this are being passed at all reveals frustration over the Feds’ refusal to enforce immigration law. So the solution, says everyone, is some crap called “comprehensive immigration reform.” Every time you see that word “comprehensive” with regard to immigration, start running away. That word is code for “amnesty.” Comprehensive = amnesty. It’s that simple.

It’s actually much worse than that.

The pro-illegal crowd not only wants amnesty for 12 million illegals, they also want to end “the militarization of the border.” What that means is that they want the Border Patrol pulled off the border.

They also want “an end to the raids.” What that means is that after we do amnesty, all of the new illegals will get a free pass into the country.

There won’t be any Border Patrol at the border, so the illegals will just walk across. Once the illegals are in the country, there won’t be any more raids, so they will get to stay here as long as they like. Until the next amnesty, that is. In other words, Open Borders.

The Democrats are trying to sell this “comprehensive immigration reform” stink bomb on this basis: We will legalize the 12 million already here, and then we won’t let one more illegal stay in this country. After we give them all amnesty, we are going to massively beef up border security and finally get control over the borders. They we will bust all the employers hiring the illegals, and we will make constant raids on any new illegals. The line is, “Sure, we are doing this amnesty once, but after that, there will never be another one.”

Forget it. Ain’t gonna happen. The US is never going to get control over its border because it doesn’t want to. The Republicans want the illegals to flood over for cheap labor, and the Democrats want them pouring over because that’s what their traitor Hispanic constituency wants.

The US is never going to bust all the employers. Ain’t gonna happen. There is already a workable program called E-Verify that can easily determine if any employee is an illegal or not. The Democrats have killed mandatory E-Verify and will continue to kill it forever.

The raids necessary to remove all of the illegals are never going to happen either.

Keep in mind that this was how they sold us that last treasonous amnesty in 1986 under Reagan. First it was only supposed to be for 500,000 illegals. It ended up legalizing 3 million of them. Back then, they said the same thing. We will give them amnesty this once, then we will get control over the border, crack down on the employers and remove all the illegals already here. None of these things happened because the powers that be want these millions of illegals here.

Furthermore, there will not just be 12 million illegals legalized. There will be another 30-40 million of their relatives coming in subsequent decades under family reunification, a much abused immigration law that needs a serious working over.

Let’s get this straight. Comprehensive immigration reform means not just amnesty for 12 million illegals and adding their 40 million relatives. It also means Open Borders. Because the pro-amnesty stance is essentially an Open Borders stance. Comprehensive immigration reform = amnesty = Open Borders.

I am going to tentatively support this law until we see how it actually works out. Supposedly, this makes me a fascist and a conservative. Fine, I’m a conservative and a fascist then, no problem.

Arizona has also done two other cool things.

They passed a law banning all ethnic studies programs at K-12 schools. There are Chicano Studies programs in many Arizona high schools, and they’re terrible. They are all being taught by Reconquista Aztlan MECHA and La Raza Hispanic traitors. This curriculum is furiously anti-White and openly treasonous. It has no place in US K-12 schools.

It’s lamentable that it exists at universities too, but all sorts of nonsense is taught at university level, and you can’t much get rid of it without running the risk of censoring higher education, which I don’t want to do.

Arizona also passed a law mandating that all English teachers in Arizona K-12 schools must be fluent in English and speak without a strong accent.

One wonders why such a law was needed.

Here is what happened. A while back, Arizona had bilingual education, which I actually support, since I have a Masters in Linguistics, and I know bilingual ed works for those who need it. Opposition to bilingual ed is not pedagogically sound or proper.

Eight years ago, Arizona got rid of all bilingual ed, a very bad idea. The schools had hired all these Hispanic bilingual ed teachers for their bilingual program, many of them from Latin America. Many of these folks spoke English only as a 2nd language and were not native English speakers.

After the state got rid of bilingual ed, the schools shifted the bilingual ed teachers to other subjects, mostly to teaching English. This bill is an attempt to deal with that problem. The bill is pedagogically sound. Indeed, only native English speakers should be teaching English in the US, where English is the de facto national language.

More states are going to pass such laws. Utah and Texas have introduced copies of Arizona’s bill. This will be nice because the more states that pass these bills, the harder it’s going to be for the pro-illegals to pull off their, “We are going to boycott this state!” threat. It’s fairly easy to boycott one state, but when it gets to two, three and more states, it’s going to be harder and harder to boycott so many states.

Anti-Racist Idiot Goes to Haiti, Gets Raped, Is Thankful for the Experience

The White nationalists just love this stuff. They can’t get enough of it.

But it does seem to show the sheer idiocy of some White anti-racists.

Amanda Kijera, a White liberal anti-racist (Facebook page here), went to Haiti to volunteer to help the Haitian people. After a few months there, she was raped one night by a Black Haitian man on a rooftop. After the rape, she says she feels grateful for having had this experience (Huh?!) and blames Whites for so screwing up Black guys all over the world that they do fucked up stuff like raping women. It’s all Whitey’s fault. You know, we’re forcing all these Black guys to rape women by oppressing them and all.

As she was being raped on the rooftop, she pleaded with her “brother” to stop and told him she was a Malcolm X scholar. I doubt if the illiterate punk even knows who Malcolm X was. As you might expect, this had no effect on the rapist.

If this woman goes back to Haiti without an armed guard, I say she’s an idiot.

Amanda Kijera, silly White woman from the Tim Wise School of Anti-racism, goes to Haiti, gets raped by a Black guy, then blames Whites, like a good anti-racist should.

Haiti’s rape rate is off the charts. I recently heard on the radio that 7

After the earthquake, there were widespread reports of Haitian men raping Haitian women and girls, even in the temporary camps set up to house them. That Haitian men have about a

This reminds me of the Amy Biehl case in South Africa during apartheid. This young liberal White woman went to South Africa to show her solidarity with the oppressed Blacks. At some point in her visit, she was surrounded by a mob of South Africans, including females, and stabbed to death. A radical group, the Azanian People’s Liberation Army, claimed responsibility for the murder. Apparently their revolutionary style was to murder any Whites in South Africa at random. They were responsible for a number of terrorist attacks on innocent South African Whites.

There was another fairly famous case of a young leftwing White woman who moved alone to a US ghetto to work with the oppressed. She was not there long when one night she was murdered by a crowd of young Black men by being set on fire in an apparent hate crime.

I’m not trying to make a case here that young Black males are so dangerous that all White females should avoid them. But there are some places a young White woman should not go to alone, like Haiti, a US ghetto at night and a South African Black township.

A lot of White liberals are actually secret race realists who are cynical about Blacks. They are non-racist to anti-racist in their views and politics, but nevertheless, they are frightened of Blacks and generally try to avoid them.

They live in White towns and send their kids to White schools. I admit I’ve been afraid of Blacks most of my life. That certainly doesn’t apply to all Black people, but it’s a general feeling. No doubt the standard anti-racist view is that this fear of mine makes me a racist. Well, fine, perhaps it does. OK, I’m a racist then. I’m comfortable with that, and I’m also still alive at 52.

“Caucasian Law Enforcement Defends Minority Rights,” by Alpha Unit

Harris County, Texas, is the site of the latest push for civil rights in America. The minority in question are Caucasians.

In Harris County, sheriff’s deputies seeking solidarity with like-minded others have their pick of civil rights “flavors” – the Mexican-American Sheriff’s Organization, the Afro-American Sheriff’s Deputy League, and, now, the Caucasian Law Enforcement Association.

Its founder, deputy Daniel McCool, is concerned, he says, with hiring practices of Sheriff Adrian Garcia, who was elected a couple of years ago as the county’s first Hispanic sheriff.

McCool doesn’t claim to have evidence of hiring malfeasance, but he believes that hiring is now based not on merit but on that old standard of “who you know” or on some kind of commitment to affirmative action. He and his fellow White officers are now, according to him, feeling the sting of discrimination that is coming from people “we used to call minorities.”

Mark Warren, whose article brought all of this to my attention, has a local’s take on the situation:

I’m from a little town in east Harris County called Highlands, and I can attest to the fact that there has always been a Caucasian Law Enforcement Association standing up for the rights of Whites. It’s called the “Harris County Sheriff’s Department.”

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.

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.

Racism and Dissidents in Cuba, From the Miami Herald

In the comments section, tulio, referring to a propagandistic Miami Herald article on Blacks in Cuba, disagrees with me about the Cuban treatment of Blacks.

But it’s a strict meritocracy.

That sounds like Castro propaganda. There are no strict meritocracies anywhere on earth. I have no reason to think one exists in Cuba, especially in was is still by western standards a corrupt Latin American nation. Things like bribing officials are still standard fare as is common the Latin countries.

You don’t see so many Blacks and mulattos in the top positions probably because their IQ’s are lower and they can’t cut the tests, etc. Cuban education is extremely competitive and if you can’t cut it, you’re gone. Cuba has no US style affirmative action.

There’s discrimination across the board, even lucrative jobs like tourist service and driving cabs. They don’t take high IQ and these jobs mostly go to white Cubans. So I don’t thing it’s just a matter of IQ. I don’t know what the average IQ of black vs. white Cubans is anyway.

Well, whether it’s a meritocracy or not, that’s what the WN’s on American Renaissance say it is. They all hate Communism and Castro, and they hate Blacks. If there was discrimination, they would openly admit it.

But as I can see in the article, there is indeed still racism and discrimination in Cuba. But it’s not true that if you bring it up, you go to jail. Lots of Black revolutionary Cubans have been talking about this for a long time. For the tourist industry, I guess they figure that the tourists would rather deal with a White person than a Black person. Cynical thinking there.

Cuba has the lowest poverty rate in Latin America at

As far as jobs requiring a good education, it’s well known that the Blacks and mulattos do poorly in school, get poor grades, etc. Further, they commit a wildly disproportionate amount of street crime, so that’s why the cops harass them. Black Cubans work in the worst jobs because they have the least education.

There is also a certain amount of ghetto type behaviors that started in the Special Period. The government would build brand new housing for Cubans, a bunch of Blacks would move in and in a few months, it would be ruined as they took apart everything they could unscrew to sell it on the Black market. It’s widely acknowledged that Cuban Whites would not have fouled their own nests like that.

Contrary to this lying article, there has been a huge debate in Cuba for many years about the Blacks and their elevated rates of various pathologies. Cuba has many sociologists, and they debate this all the time in their journals and publications. The current fashionable theory is Oscar Lewis’ “The Culture of Poverty” theory. So it’s not true that the regime doesn’t care about race or never talks about it.

The educational system is a meritocracy. There’s no affirmative action in the schools. The Blacks and mulattos do poorly in the schools and on tests. The Cubans test you all the time, and the educational system is very competitive. There’s no passing people along. A lot of the Blacks just can’t cut it academically, and Cuba doesn’t have educational affirmative action to inflate their numbers at the colleges.

However, I think that Raul should take an anti-racist stand and encourage the Blacks to form civil rights organizations. I don’t think he should worry it’s going to bring down the state.

That article seems wrong about other stuff. I’m not aware that Internet is illegal in Cuba. I thought it was legal. There are lots of Cuban bloggers, some anti-government, openly blogging and no one does anything.

I’m also not aware that satellite TV is illegal. If you go to the richer parts of Havana, you will see those dishes everywhere. If they’re illegal, no one is doing anything about it.

The Cuban dissidents, unlike the dissidents in Eastern Europe, simply have no support. Or very little support. That’s why they’re not popular.

There are ~2,500 dissident organizations on the island and ~500 political prisoners. You do the math. Most of dissidents, the government just leaves alone and ignores them.

But some of the dissidents are working with the US government and the CIA to bring down the government. They are working hand in hand with the US Interests Section (We have no Embassy). They go there, get money, advice, plans, etc. That’s illegal in Cuba. That’s what most of those arrests are for.

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.

Opposition to Health Care Reform Has Nothing To Do With Race

Video here .

Oh, of course not. In fact, this video really sums up what the whole Republican Party has been all about for a good 30 years now. Why do only

We have lots of Republican commenters on this site who insist that the party has nothing to do with race. Well, maybe for them it doesn’t. A lot of White Republicans don’t necessarily seem like very racist people. I’ve known some of them. On the other hand, they aren’t very anti-racist people either. And almost all Republicans are running interference for the racists in the party. I don’t know if that’s racism, but it’s almost getting there. I sure don’t want to be apologizing for racist jerks on here. My clean soul doesn’t need to be smudged with that grunge.

The calculus is simple. White America is a racist politic. Not that all Whites are racist, but if you want to get the White vote, the racists are such a huge block that you need to play to them. If you don’t play to the racists, you lose the White vote. The Democrats last carried Whites in 1964. That year mean anything to you?

1964.

That’s the year Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. With what I imagine was his classic haunted expression, Johnson presciently noted, “Well, we just lost the South for a generation.” It was longer than that, and it was worse than that. It wasn’t just the South, it was the White body politic. And it’s been more than one generation now.

I’m not even sure how racist your average Republican pol is. These guys are cynical like human snakes. Republicans get elected by mining White racist bullshit, so that’s the game plan, morality be damned.

Why don’t the Dems do the same? Well, there are no votes in it for us. If we imply, “Condi’s a nigger!” snigger, snigger, well, there are no votes in that. We can’t get the votes of White racist voters by playing to their racist bullshit. Our base won’t stand for it. If we make that Condi remark above, our base goes ballistic.

And anyway, the Republicans can always out-racist a racist White Democrat. Some conservative White Dems to try to run by appealing to White racism, but the Republican opponent can always out-KKK them, so the Dem always loses. When they have to choose between a real Republican and a fake one (A Democrat pretending to be a Republican), the voters always pick the real deal.

However, the Dems are not stupid. One way to play to the White racist vote is to run rednecks for President. So we get Southern good ol’ boys like Bill Clinton and Al Gore, with some implied racism to go along with it.

One thing for sure though, for a Democrat to win, he must carry through with one ritual: “Stick it to the Blacks!” At least once in the campaign, the Dem must “stick it to the niggers” to show the White rednecks that he’s not with the Black enemy, that he’s on their side in the race war.

Hence Bill Clinton’s ritual denunciation of Sista Soulja in one of his campaigns.

In another Clinton campaign, Bill ran home to Arkansas right before the election to pull the trigger and fry some retarded Black guy in the electric chair. He killed the poor Black guy, then ran back to Washington to campaign. He won the election.

One thing that was interesting about Obama’s election was that this was the first time in many years that a Dem has not had to ritually “stick it to the Blacks” in the campaign. Obama ran an openly pro-Black campaign all through the election, and he somehow won anyway. In America, that’s called a watershed. Predictably, crossing this racial Rubicon threatens to herald a giant step forward in US race relations. Alarmed, and frequently armed, the militias and Teabaggers are lining up in formation to combat the realignment.

"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.

“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 :)