"Black Lives Matter" In One Graph

Via Intergalactic Source Of Truth

 

"Black Lives Matter" in one graph.

H/t: Maggie's Farm.

HawaiianBioDiversity - Keoni Galt

Another Intstant Classic by the Hawaiian Libertarian

HawaiianBioDiversity

My favorite Southron Paleface called me a pineapple a couple of posts ago that elicited a hearty Laugh Out Loud In teh Real Life from me.

He followed up the with this: "...see, racists can make racist nicknames against each other. in the good ol' days that meant camaraderie!"

Commenter Victor Michaelson weighed in as well: "It reminded me of the America I grew up in, where guys could razz their buddies and it wasn't a Federal offense."

Damn straight you raciss crackers!

We got a special word for you melanin-deficient and solar-sensitive folks here in Hawaii: Haole (pronounced "How-Lee").

From the greatest movie ever filmed in Hawaii

Most folks that have never been to Hawaii, or who have only visited briefly on vacation, have usually only heard of the word haole associated with only negative, racist connotations...the equivalent of the "N-word" for white folks.

That's simply not true. It's a very versatile word and can be used as a simple adjective, a term of endearment or employed as a provocative epithet. As a fair-complexioned (but not totally pale) hapa-haole mutt, I've had the term used on myself in all of these contexts at one time or another. Yet, whenever haole folks come to Hawaii and find themselves being referred by that term, they almost always take immediate offense.

Take this guy for instance:

More haole den haole...

Shua ting, brah, you one human...but you still one haole.

But seriously, let's take a closer look at where this term came from. It's a common myth that the term comes from the Hawaiians who first encountered Captain Cook and his crew's pale faces, they called them Ha'ole, a compound word made from combining Ha- meaning breath, with 'ole meaning without.

This legend is up for debate, as the linguists who study Hawaiian language and the Pidgin English have belabored to dispel the commonly accepted origin. To the credentialed classes, haole is it's own Hawaiian word, and it simply means foreigner:

So if we are to literally go by the textbook, haole really doesn't have anything to do with white skin. In theory, yes, but in practice, no. Thanks to the deluge of immigration from all corners of the globe mixing and miscegenating for a couple of centuries, Hawaii is the so-called ideal "melting pot" our modern day SJW's and progressives say they are supposedly working towards with the rest of the world. In such a chaotic environment of so many different skin tones, hair and eye colors, race is the first way we immediately identify each other, and in that context, haole means white.

I do believe Hawaii is the ideal "melting pot" society....but there are two distinct features about what we have here that makes it much different from the progressive/SJW ideal.

First thing that makes it "work" is we are all race realists, race conscious and racist to the core. It's the only way we can all get along. We don't try to uphold some unrealistic, mystical feeling of holiness attributed to the supposedly ideal paradigm of  "color blindness." In fact, we have the exact opposite. We're more color aware, we're all equal opportunity racists. We LOVE our stereotypes and our racist jokes. At least that was the Hawaii I grew up in. Because of this, we all have similar words like haole that are used to designate all the various races that call our islands home. We got similar words for the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Samoans, Micronesians, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, Vietnamese, and Hispanics. Most of these terms are just like haole - they can serve as simple adjectives or spitefully intended perjoratives. In most cases, you just add the word fuckin' in front, and the harmless adjective turns into hateful, bigoted and racist invective.

Here's a song from the 70's from Hawaiian music's most popular act of that era, the Beamer Brothers. with one of their most popular songs that is still sung and played by musicians at parties and backyard jams everywhere in the islands to this day. In this song, all of the major ethnic groups and their sterotypes regarding their cultural practices and socio-economic status are fair game for good natured-ribbing:

The ending of the song really highlights the main point of this post here:

One thing I when notice 'bout this place

All us guys we tease the other race

It's amazing that we can all live in the same place

I sadly see more and more of the next generation of local folks accepting the progressive SJW mind rot programming of "equality" and "anti-racism," and our common culture is suffering for it. For decades, local stand up comedians made entire careers out of night club routines and television specials making fun of all the races that made up the multi-ethnic society of 20th century Hawaii. There were no sacred cows. We were all fair game...and it had us all laughing our asses off. Yeah, we may have been laughing at you...but then one minute later, it was my turn and you were now laughing at me too. And thus, we were all both laughing at and with each other.

This locally produced tell-a-vision show from 1984 could be considered a good representation of the high point of Hawaii's functionally racist society. It was a childhood favorite of mine, and I was pleasantly surprised to find a clip of it posted on youtube.

In case you didn't figure it out yet, while black folks are "foreigners" they are not haole. We call them Popolos. Hawaiian island/urban legend goes that the first African descendants who came to our shores where of the particular hue that was so dark, the Hawaiians thought they looked purple. The Hawaiian word for purple is popolu...hence popolo. I don't know if it's true or not, but I do know this: just like the word haole, popolo can be used interchangably as mere adjective, a term of endearment, or a race-based slur.

Speaking of stereotypes, we local folk also understand that most popolos that recently arrive from the mainland for are far more sensitive about race than any other race. We have met more than a few black folks that quickly figured out popolo was the Hawaiian word for those of African ancestry, and many immediately equate it with the N-word in significance. Not true though. If we are trying to be deliberately offensive, we'll use the N-word like any other garden variety racist in the world today.

Nevertheless, if we local folks are trying to talk about black people and there may be some within hearing distance when we are conversing who may possibly get offended, we may sometimes say Olopop instead of Popolo (popolo said backwards).

As I mentioned earlier, I was pleasantly surprised to find the preceding clip on youtube, because it is not commercially available anywhere here in 2015. This clip was undoubtedly someone using their smartphone to video clip their VHS or betamax copy of the program. You see, in the last decade or so, our formerly somewhat cooperative society of equal opportunity racism has been infected with the PC mind virus, and the SJW's holy church of blessed colorblindness has caused many folks to scream victimhood at racial humor that was one of our mainstays of local Hawaiian culture of the 20th century. So many of these race-based shows and stand up comedy routines are no longer available or reproduced or re-released anymore, out of fear someone or another will get offended and file a lawsuit to recover damages for their soiled panties or sand filled ass cracks.

That being said, one of the original local comedians from that earlier era of racist harmony still seems to be going at it on youtube, and this clip will give you a pretty good rundown on our history of ethnic diversity and multi-cultural adaptation with regards to linguistics and cultural attitudes of our multi-cult society:

This comedian, Andy Bumatai, was one of the most popular stand up comedians and local tell-a-vision personalities of the 80's. In 2015, this kind of comedy is increasingly coming under fire. Note his disclaimer at the beginning of the clip. Even 5-10 years ago, such a disclaimer would not have been necessary. Times they are a changin'. More and more of the younger generations of Hawaii's locals have been assimilated into the PC-SJW Borg by globalized mass media programming and public education brainwashing.

No siree, it's the 21st century, and we can no longer hurt anyone's FEEEEEEEELLLLLIIINNGS. 

Everybody is so fuckin' sensitive. It sucks. I want my openly racist society back. More and more we see letters to the editors and magazine articles and tell-a-vision programs pushing the "colorblind" paradigm and that all of the racist stereotypes that bonded us all together in common racism in 20th century Hawaii, are now being considered more and more to be  thoughtcrime and badthink that must be expunged from our consciousness. It makes me sick to see Hawaii's uniquely harmonious and cooperative society founded on a solid sense of racial differences, slowly and inexorably being subsumed by the homogenized and globalized Brave New World Order mass media culture programming of hypersensitivity and ludicrous "equality."

Up until recently, we didn't have a pretend, fake ideal that everyone supposedly openly touts while harboring secret racism in their carefully guarded hearts and circumspect tongues. No siree, here in our island paradise, we embraced bigotry and race-based differences whole-heartedly and without reservation. 

Our code word for it nowadays is "local humor" I've been to parties where people asked if it were okay to tell "local jokes," basically asking permission from all present if it's okay to tell race-based stereotypical jokes. Most are still down with the program...but more and more people are starting to reject what was once a proudly and openly racist society...and from where I sit, we 'aint better off for it.

See...one of the reasons our society of mixed races "works" is because no matter what race you are or what culture you come from, we have this overriding culture of  "ALOHA SPIRIT" that most people quickly assimilate to. In many ways, it's similar to how all the different pale face crackers assimilated into the AMERICAN DREAM in the 19th century. Anglo-Germanic-Iberian-Mediterranean-Slavic-Aryan-Nordic migrations all arrived with different cultures and languages, with the only thing in common being melanin-deficient and solar-sensitive skin. But buying into the American dream eventually gave us what many now consider simply as white Americans (or Canadians).

Just as the miscegenation of all those Euro-strains of paleface resulted in a generic, homogenized race called "white" we have the same thing here in Hawaii....but it 'aint called Hawaiian. Only those of us with actual Half-Savage Aboriginal blood in our veins can be called Hawaiian. Those who are born and raised here, but have no Hawaiian blood, and are for the most part the Oriental descendents of the plantation workers imported by the haole sugar barons as third world serfs, they are something else - "local." 

Here are some examples of this common culture of "Aloha spirit" that define "local" off the top of my head:

* We get rush hour traffic as bad as anywhere else in our modern world. But nobody honks their horns here...ever. Unless it's due to an extreme situation like an imminent accident or trying to catch someones attention in a dire situation, we just don't use our car horns like that. If you find yourself in Hawaiian rush hour traffic and you hear someone honking their horn in frustration... well there's the fuckin' haole (regardless of the race of the actual driver.)

* When you try to merge into traffic, put on your traffic signal and in a manner of moments, someone will let you in, guaranteed. A couple of fuckin' haole's may blast past you and not let you in, but eventually a local is going to slow down and hand wave you in. We even let haole's merge, but then curse them when they don't show appreciation for the courtesy.

* Speaking of traffic in Hawaii, here's one of our more popular bumper stickers:

*  Other than traffic customs, we have a generalized culture of common courtesy like holding the doors open
for complete strangers, and before the ubiquity of cell phones, we always stopped to help fellow motorists with broke down cars and flat tires.

* When we eat in self service restaurants, fast food joints and plate lunch places, we clean up our tables and throw away all of our rubbish. The first time I went to the US Mainland at age 18, one of the first big culture shocks I experienced was seeing fast food patrons leave their trays and rubbish at their tables when they were done eating for the workers to clean up.

These are just a few examples of what I'm trying to get at. The "melting pot" ideal can only work when their is a common ideal that various racial stocks strive to assimilate to. 

As the comedian stated in the preceding clip, there are two kinds of haole, local haole and haole. I believe it actually goes further than that. In terms of use as a harmless adjective, haole just means white skin. No more, no less.

As a perjorative, however, it really means a white skinned person who doesn't conform to local norms aka "No more aloha." Most of us mixed race mutts and half savage racists of Hawaii got no problem with local haoles...or even haoles who are not born and raised, but demonstrate an affinity for the Aloha spirit ethos. Many a local who 'hates' haoles in general, end up marrying one and making hapa-haole babies. Despite having a paleface spouse and paleface children, will still "hate" haoles (the NO ALOHA kine.)

For real kine...some of my best friends are Japs, Pakes, Soles, Kanaks, Pordagees, Buk Buks, Yobos, Haoles and Popolos. I also know folks of all said races who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.

I once got into a scrap with a filipino kid in middle school, because he called me a fuckin' haole. I told him to fuck off, I'm Hawaiian, and that he was a dumb flip buk buk whose parents came here to pick pineapple for $.05 a day and that he should take his ass back to the Philipines. We punched each other in the face a few times, the teachers broke us up, and we later became friends when we had to serve detention together. He would often greet me as "haole boy" and I'd call him buk buk, and we'd laugh as we shook hands.

It's pretty much how we roll here in Hawaii.


In summation, racial awareness plays an important role in Hawaiian society, but it's not the be all end all. If you "get" what Aloha means, you can fit and find a comfortable space amongst others, regardless of your race.




To wrap things up, I offer you this quick guide for HBD-Hawaiian Style.

Since most of the previous section of this post discussed the term Haole, Whites are omitted here to avoid excessive redundancy. We talked enough about da haoles.

Blacks: Popolo, Olopops. Most popolos come to Hawaii as stationed military personnel. Most usually don't get it any better or worse than any other minority in Hawaii. If they get involved in an aggressive or violent conflict, the N-word may get used on them, but popolo is usually preferred. There are no real popolo jokes unique to Hawaii, as most are just popular black jokes that just substitute the word popolo for the N-word.

What do you call 1000 popolo skydivers jumping out of  da airplanes all at da same time? Nightfall.

Chinese: Pake ('Pah-kay'), Chink, slant-eye, slope, Cha Wan (chinese name for the rice bowl haircut), Chang. Terms When used perjoratively, Pake and Chang denote stinginess, miserliness, an unhealthy love of money and unscrupulous in acquiring it. Most Jewish jokes will work in Hawaii by substituting Pake.

Wot da difference between one Pake and one canoe? Canoes sometimes tip.

How do da Pakes name their children? They copy da sounds of da cash register! Ching! Chang! Chong!

Whats da odda way dey name da kids? Dey throw silvah weah down da stairs!

Filipinos: Flip, Buk Buk ('Book-Book'), Manong (Mah-nong). Notorious for eating goat and dog meat (particularly black dog), avid gamblers and chicken fighters. Also notorious for living with 30 extended family members in a 3 bedroom townhome...or buying a 3 bedroom house and building large extensions that resemble Spanish villas, so they can house 30 more family members.

You heard of da new Filipino cookbook? 101 ways for wok your dog.

What do da Buk Buk's call da dog catcha truck? Meals on Wheels

What do Buk Buk's call da Humane Society? (local animal shelter) Foodland! (local grocery store chain)

Japanese: Japanee, Jap, Buddha-head, rice-eye, bolo head, nip. Haole-fied Japanese are called katonk or  banana (yellow on the outside, white on the inside). The largest homogeneous ethnicity block in Hawaii. Least likely race to date, marry or even socialize significantly with all the other races. Back in da school days, if you wanted to start a scrap with a jap, you said this:

What you said, Buddha-head? Eh, no lie, rice eye!

Jews: Haole. Since most Jews are fair skinned, we don't give them their own racial category. They're just haole.  And we don't really tell Jewish jokes here either. That's what Pake jokes are for. But that does remind me of the one Jewish joke I once heard at a party...told by a hapa-haole Jew (he was half Jewish, half Popolo, born and raised here):


Know how copper wire got invented? A Jew and a Pake were fighting over a penny.


Koreans: Yobo, Kim Chee, Kink (Korean chink), Seoul Brother (A Korean that acts black). Because Koreans were relatively late comers in terms of immigration compared to the other Oriental ethnicities, Korean jokes are not that popular, but there are a few. Yobo is the Korean word for sweetheart, but in Hawaii, it's used as a derogatory reference. Most korean jokes are puns off of the word.


Heard of da Korean police man? Yobocop! 


Samoans: Sole (So-lay). Due to their reputations as very large, strong and fierce fighters who are ready to scrap at the drop of a hat, there are no real derogatory terms for Samoans. Sole is what Samoans call themselves, and locals usually can use the term casually....but even using that word wrong with an easy to anger Samoan could prove volatile. Most Sole fall into two categories: 1) super nice, easy going, humorous, fun loving and gregarious. 2) Ultra violent, looking for trouble, very easy to anger and always ready to give Palagi and others a sase (strike)! Nevertheless, there are a large number of Samoan jokes that mostly focus on making fun of their speech. These jokes are usually only told in hushed whispers after checking around to make sure none are around to hear....

Heard of da Samoan Accoutant? Tua Tua Isa Foa!

Heard of da Samoan who fell off da couch? Sole Fe Lafa Sofa!


Portuguese: Portagee, Pordagee, Pocho, Porcho. Haoles often think they get the worst of the prejudice jokes in Hawaii. They're wrong. That would be the Pordagees. Infamous for being obnoxious by talking way too much, talking without thinking first, and considered the dimmest, least intelligent race. Take any Polak joke and substitute Pordagee and you have typical Hawaii pordagee jokes. Despite the joking reputation, Pordagees are usually quite sharp and witty, and many of the most popular comedians are proud Pordagees who tell the best-loved Pordagee jokes.

You heard why get no more ice in Portugal? Da old Pordagee lady with da recipe when die.

Know why da Pordagee farmer was feeding his sheep scrap metal? He was trying for raise steel wool.

As I said, their reputation is one of dim wits....but here's a Pordagee joke that belies the stereotype:

Know why Pordagee Jokes are so short? So Hawaiians can understand them.

A Pordagee guy told that one to me after I told him a Pordagee joke. Touche!


Hawaiians: Kanaka, Kanaks, Kanaka Maoli. Oft stereotype is lazy, indolent; don't like to work. When the haole sugar plantation owners needed a workforce to farm their sugar, there were not enough Hawaiians to work because so many had died from introduced diseases like small pox, measles and STDs. And those that did survive, would still only work 'Hawaiian style." We can broke ass, but we goin' take one mid day break when da sun is hottest in da sky. The haole plantation owners didn't like that one bit, so they brought in all the other immigrants who would work from sun up to sun down with barely a break for minimal wages.

 Take any lazy jokes about blacks and substitute Hawaiian.

How come da Pakes no like marry Hawaiians? Dey no like kids too lazy for pick sugar cane.
How come da Buk Buks no like marry Hawaiians? Dey no like kids too lazy for pick pineapple.

How come da Popolos no like marry Hawaiians? Dey no like kids too lazy for steal.


'Aint diversity grand?




Update:


Remember: "Nobody Listens to Turtle".


And Conan's view of the races/race relations:


"There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here you are all equally worthless."

 

Racism and Hate Facts From the 2010 National Crime Victimization Survey

via NC Links via comment at TRS

What Really Happened to Emmett Till

I have always wondered what the full details of this incident were.

Killer's Confession from Look Magazine

The Shocking Story of Approved Killing in Mississippi
By William Bradford Huie
Editors Note: In the long history of man's inhumanity to man, racial conflict has produced some of the most horrible examples of brutality. The recent slaying of Emmett Till in Mississippi is a case in point. The editors of Look are convinced that they are presenting here, for the first time, the real story of that killing -- the story no jury heard and no newspaper reader saw.

Disclosed here is the true account of the slaying in Mississippi of a Negro youth named Emmett Till.
Last September in Sumner, Miss., a petit jury found the youth's admitted abductors not guilty of murder. In November, in Greenwood, a grand jury declined to indict them for kidnapping.

Of the murder trial, the Memphis Commercial Appeal said: "Evidence necessary for convicting on a murder charge was lacking." But with truth absent, hypocrisy and myth have flourished. Now, hypocrisy can be exposed; myth dispelled. Here are the facts.
Carolyn Holloway Bryant is 21, five feet tall, weighs 103 pounds. An Irish girl, with black hair and black eyes, she is a small farmer's daughter who, at 17, quit high school at Indianola, Miss., to marry a soldier, Roy Bryant, then 20, now 24. The couple have two boys, three and two; and they operate a store at a dusty crossroads called Money: post office, filling station and three stores clustered around a school and a gin, and set in the vast, lonely cotton patch that is the Mississippi Delta.

Carolyn and Roy Bryant are poor: no car, no TV. They live in the back of the store which Roy's brothers helped set up when he got out of the 82nd Airborne in 1953. They sell "snuff-and-fatback" to Negro field hands on credit: and they earn little because, for one reason, the government has been giving the Negroes food they formerly bought.
Carolyn and Roy Bryant's social life is visits to their families, to the Baptist church, and, whenever they can borrow a car, to a drive-in, with the kids sleeping in the back seat. They call Shane the best picture they ever saw.

For extra money, Carolyn tends store when Roy works outside -- like truck driving for a brother. And he has many brothers. His mother had two husbands, 11 children. The first five -- all boys -- were "Milam children"; the next six -- three boys, three girls -- were "Bryant children."
This is a lusty and devoted clan. They work, fight, vote and play as a family. The "half" in their fraternity is forgotten. For years, they have operated a chain of cottonfield stores, as well as trucks and mechanical cotton pickers. In relation to the Negroes, they are somewhat like white traders in portions of Africa today; and they are determined to resist the revolt of colored men against white rule.

On Wednesday evening, August 24, 1955, Roy was in Texas, on a brother's truck. He had carted shrimp from New Orleans to San Antonio, proceeded to Brownsville. Carolyn was alone in the store. But back in the living quarters was her sister-in-law Juanita Milam, 27, with her two small sons and Carolyn's two. The store was kept open till 9 on week nights, 11 on Saturday.
When her husband was away, Carolyn Bryant never slept in the store, never stayed there alone after dark. Moreover, in the Delta, no white woman ever travels country roads after dark unattended by a man.

This meant that during Roy's absences -- particularly since he had no car -- there was family inconvenience. Each afternoon, a sister-in-law arrived to stay with Carolyn until closing time. Then, the two women, with their children, waited for a brother-in-law to convoy them to his home. Next morning, the sister-in-law drove Carolyn back.

Juanita Milam had driven from her home in Glendora. She had parked in front of the store to the left; and under the front seat of this car was Roy Bryant's pistol, a .38 Colt automatic. Carolyn knew it was there. After 9, Juanita's husband, J. W. Milam, would arrive in his pickup to shepherd them to his home for the night.

About 7:30 pm, eight young Negroes -- seven boys and a girl -- in a '46 Ford had stopped outside. They included sons, grandsons and a nephew of Moses (Preacher) Wright, 64, a 'cropper. They were between 13 and 19 years old. Four were natives of the Delta and others, including the nephew, Emmett (Bobo) Till, were visiting from the Chicago area.

Bobo Till was 14 years old: born on July 25, 1941. He was stocky, muscular, weighing about 160, five feet four or five. Preacher later testified: "He looked like a man."
Bobo's party joined a dozen other young Negroes, including two other girls, in front of the store. Bryant had built checkerboards there. Some were playing checkers, others were wrestling and "kiddin' about girls."

Bobo bragged about his white girl. He showed the boys a picture of a white girl in his wallet; and to their jeers of disbelief, he boasted of success with her.
"You talkin' mighty big, Bo," one youth said. "There's a pretty little white woman in the store. Since you know how to handle white girls, let's see you go in and get a date with her?"
"You ain't chicken, are yuh, Bo?" another youth taunted him.
Bobo had to fire or fall back. He entered the store, alone, stopped at the candy case. Carolyn was behind the counter; Bobo in front. He asked for two cents' worth of bubble gum. She handed it to him. He squeezed her hand and said: "How about a date, baby?"
She jerked away and started for Juanita Milam. At the break between counters, Bobo jumped in front of her, perhaps caught her at the waist, and said: "You needn't be afraid o' me, Baby. I been with white girls before."

[ED NOTE: The phrase "I been with white girls before" might have been possibly "I f**ked white girls before." or something similar. Court records show Carolyn Bryant testified that Till used an "unprintable word":

Carolyn Bryant described the August 24 incident at Bryant's Grocery & Meat Market.  Bryant said that "just after dark" with her alone in the store, Till strongly gripped her hand as she held in out on the candy counter to collect money.  She said she jerked her hand loose "with much difficulty" as Till asked her, "How about a date, baby?"  When she tried to walk away, she stated, Till grabbed her by the waist and said, "You needn't be afraid of me.  I've"--and here Bryant said Till used an "unprintable word"--"white women before."  Bryant testified, "I was just scared to death." 

I looked at Wikipedia to see what it had in reference to this. Wikipedia's account suggests something different, as if some random curse word was just thrown out. ]

[Also, from a comment found, edited for vulgarity:

"Now, I'm going to stop right there. Close your eyes. Imagine it is 2013. You have a 100-pound wife. A 14-year-old, 150-lb white kid grabs her and says, "Don't be afraid; I've f**ked married women before." What are you going to do to that kid? Now imagine it's 1955, and a white kid did that to your wife. The truth has very little to do with the fact that Till was black. It has everything to do with the fact that Till acted like (trashy, verbal/sexual assaulter).....

When Till's friends saw what he was doing, they grabbed him and quickly hustled him out of the store. Carolyn Bryant stopped, ran out the front door behind them to her brother-in-law's car, and grabbed a pistol from under the seat. She was terrified. I don't have to explain to any of you why. "]

At this point, a cousin ran in, grabbed Bobo and began pulling him out of the store. Carolyn now ran, not for Juanita, but out the front, and got the pistol from the Milam car.
Outside, with Bobo being ushered off by his cousins, and with Carolyn getting the gun, Bobo executed the "wolf whistle" which gave the case its name:
THE WOLF-WHISTLE MURDER: A NEGRO "CHILD" OR "BOY" WHISTLED AT HER AND THEY KILLED HIM.
That was the sum of the facts on which most newspaper readers based an opinion.
The Negroes drove away; and Carolyn, shaken, told Juanita. The two women determined to keep the incident from their "Men-folks." They didn't tell J. W. Milam when he came to escort them home.

By Thursday afternoon, Carolyn Bryant could see the story was getting around. She spent Thursday night at the Milams, where at 4 a.m. (Friday) Roy got back from Texas. Since he had slept little for five nights, he went to bed at the Milams' while Carolyn returned to the store.

During Friday afternoon, Roy reached the store, and shortly thereafter a Negro told him what "the talk" was, and told him that the "Chicago boy" was "visitin' Preacher." Carolyn then told Roy what had happened.

Once Roy Bryant knew, in his environment, in the opinion of most white people around him, for him to have done nothing would have marked him for a coward and a fool.
On Friday night, he couldn't do anything. He and Carolyn were alone, and he had no car. Saturday was collection day, their busy day in the store. About 10:30 Saturday night, J. W. Milam drove by. Roy took him aside.

"I want you to come over early in the morning," he said. "I need a little transportation."
J.W. protested: "Sunday's the only morning I can sleep. Can't we make it around noon?"
Roy then told him.
"I'll be there," he said. "Early."
J. W. drove to another brother's store at Minter City, where he was working. He closed that store about 12:30 a.m., drove home to Glendora. Juanita was away, visiting her folks at Greenville. J. W. had been thinking. He decided not to go to bed. He pumped the pickup -- a half-ton '55 Chevrolet -- full of gas and headed for Money.

J. W. "Big Milam" is 36: six feet two, 235 pounds; an extrovert. Short boots accentuate his height; khaki trousers; red sports shirt; sun helmet. Dark-visaged; his lower lip curls when he chuckles; and though bald, his remaining hair is jet-black.
He is slavery's plantation overseer. Today, he rents Negro-driven mechanical cotton pickers to plantation owners. Those who know him say that he can handle Negroes better than anybody in the country.

Big Milam soldiered in the Patton manner. With a ninth-grade education, he was commissioned in battle by the 75th Division. He was an expert platoon leader, expert street fighter, expert in night patrol, expert with the "grease gun," with every device for close range killing. A German bullet tore clear through his chest; his body bears "multiple shrapnel wounds." Of his medals, he cherishes one: combat infantryman's badge.

Big Milam, like many soldiers, brought home his favorite gun: the .45 Colt automatic pistol.
"Best weapon the Army's got," he says. "Either for shootin' or sluggin'."
Two hours after Big Milam got the word -- the instant minute he could close the store -- he was looking for the Chicago Negro.

Big Milam reached Money a few minutes shy of 2 a.m., Sunday, August 28. The Bryants were asleep; the store was dark but for the all-night light. He rapped at the back door, and when Roy came, he said: "Let's go. Let's make that trip now."

Roy dressed, brought a gun: this one was a .45 Colt. Both men were and remained -- cold sober. Big Milam had drunk a beer at Minter City around 9; Roy had had nothing.
There was no moon as they drove to Preacher's house: 2.8 miles east of Money.
Preacher's house stands 50 feet right of the gravel road, with cedar and persimmon trees in the yard. Big Milam drove the pickup in under the trees. He was bareheaded, carrying a five-cell flashlight in his left hand, the .45 in the right.

Roy Bryant pounded on the door.
Preacher: "Who's that?"
Bryant: "Mr. Bryant from Money, Preacher."
Preacher: "All right, sir. Just a minute."
Preacher came out of the screened-in porch.
Bryant: "Preacher, you got a boy from Chicago here?"
Preacher: "Yessir."
Bryant: "I want to talk to him."
Preacher: "Yessir. I'll get him."

Preacher led them to a back bedroom where four youths were sleeping in two beds. In one was Bobo Till and Simeon Wright, Preacher's youngest son. Bryant had told Preacher to turn on the lights; Preacher had said they were out of order. So only the flashlight was used.

The visit was not a complete surprise. Preacher testified that he had heard of the "trouble," that he "sho' had" talked to his nephew about it. Bobo himself had been afraid; he had wanted to go home the day after the incident. The Negro girl in the party urged that he leave. "They'll kill him," she had warned. But Preacher's wife, Elizabeth Wright, had decided that the danger was being magnified; she had urged Bobo to "finish yo' visit."

"I thought they might say something to him, but I didn't think they'd kill a boy," Preacher said.
Big Milam shined the light in Bobo's face, said: "You the nigger who did the talking?"
"Yeah," Bobo replied.
Milam: "Don't say, 'Yeah' to me: I'll blow your head off. Get your clothes on."
Bobo had been sleeping in his shorts. He pulled on a shirt and trousers, then reached for his socks.
"Just the shoes," Milam hurried him.
"I don't wear shoes without socks," Bobo said: and he kept the gun-bearers waiting while he put on his socks, then a pair of canvas shoes with thick crepe soles.
Preacher and his wife tried two arguments in the boy's behalf.
"He ain't got good sense," Preacher begged. "He didn't know what he was doing. Don't take him."
"I'll pay you gentlemen for the damages," Elizabeth Wright said.
"You niggers go back to sleep," Milam replied.
They marched him into the yard, told him to get in the back of the pickup and lie down. He obeyed. They drove toward Money.

Elizabeth Wright rushed to the home of a white neighbor, who got up, looked around, but decided he could do nothing. Then, she and Preacher drove to the home of her brother, Crosby Smith, at Sumner; and Crosby Smith, on Sunday morning, went to the sheriff's office at Greenwood.
The other young Negroes stayed at Preacher's house until daylight, when Wheeler Parker telephoned his mother in Chicago, who in turn notified Bobo's mother, Mamie Bradley, 33, 6427 S. St. Lawrence.

Had there been any doubt as to the identity of the "Chicago boy who done the talking," Milam and Bryant would have stopped at the store for Carolyn to identify him. But there had been no denial. So they didn't stop at the store. At Money, they crossed the Tallahatchie River and drove west.
Their intention was to "just whip him... and scare some sense into him." And for this chore, Big Milam knew "the scariest place in the Delta." He had come upon it last year hunting wild geese. Over close to Rosedale, the Big River bends around under a bluff. "Brother, she's a 100-foot sheer drop, and she's a 100 feet deep after you hit."

Big Milam's idea was to stand him up there on that bluff, "whip" him with the .45, and then shine the light on down there toward that water and make him think you're gonna knock him in.
"Brother, if that won't scare the Chicago -------, hell won't."
Searching for this bluff, they drove close to 75 miles. Through Shellmound, Schlater, Doddsville, Ruleville, Cleveland to the intersection south of Rosedale. There they turned south on Mississippi No. 1, toward the entrance to Beulah Lake. They tried several dirt and gravel roads, drove along the levee. Finally, they gave up: in the darkness, Big Milam couldn't find his bluff.
They drove back to Milam's house at Glendora, and by now it was 5 a.m.. They had been driving nearly three hours, with Milam and Bryant in the cab and Bobo lying in the back.
At some point when the truck slowed down, why hadn't Bobo jumped and run? He wasn't tied; nobody was holding him. A partial answer is that those Chevrolet pickups have a wraparound rear window the size of a windshield. Bryant could watch him. But the real answer is the remarkable part of the story.

Bobo wasn't afraid of them! He was tough as they were. He didn't think they had the guts to kill him.
Milam: "We were never able to scare him. They had just filled him so full of that poison that he was hopeless."
Back of Milam's home is a tool house, with two rooms each about 12 feet square. They took him in there and began "whipping" him, first Milam then Bryant smashing him across the head with those .45's. Pistol-whipping: a court-martial offense in the Army... but MP's have been known to do it.... And Milam got information out of German prisoners this way.
But under these blows Bobo never hollered -- and he kept making the perfect speeches to insure martyrdom.
Bobo: "You bastards, I'm not afraid of you. I'm as good as you are. I've 'had' white women. My grandmother was a white woman."

Milam: "Well, what else could we do? He was hopeless. I'm no bully; I never hurt a nigger in my life. I like niggers -- in their place -- I know how to work 'em. But I just decided it was time a few people got put on notice. As long as I live and can do anything about it, niggers are gonna stay in their place. Niggers ain't gonna vote where I live. If they did, they'd control the government. They ain't gonna go to school with my kids. And when a nigger gets close to mentioning sex with a white woman, he's tired o' livin'. I'm likely to kill him. Me and my folks fought for this country, and we got some rights. I stood there in that shed and listened to that nigger throw that poison at me, and I just made up my mind. 'Chicago boy,' I said, 'I'm tired of 'em sending your kind down here to stir up trouble. Goddam you, I'm going to make an example of you -- just so everybody can know how me and my folks stand.'"

So Big Milam decided to act. He needed a weight. He tried to think of where he could get an anvil. Then he remembered a gin which had installed new equipment. He had seen two men lifting a discarded fan, a metal fan three feet high and circular, used in ginning cotton.
Bobo wasn't bleeding much. Pistol-whipping bruises more than it cuts. They ordered him back in the truck and headed west again. They passed through Doddsville, went into the Progressive Ginning Company. This gin is 3.4 miles east of Boyle: Boyle is two miles south of Cleveland. The road to this gin turns left off U.S. 61, after you cross the bayou bridge south of Boyle.
Milam: "When we got to that gin, it was daylight, and I was worried for the first time. Somebody might see us and accuse us of stealing the fan."
Bryant and Big Milam stood aside while Bobo loaded the fan. Weight: 74 pounds. The youth still thought they were bluffing.

They drove back to Glendora, then north toward Swan Lake and crossed the "new bridge" over the Tallahatchie. At the east end of this bridge, they turned right, along a dirt road which parallels the river. After about two miles, they crossed the property of L.W. Boyce, passing near his house.
About 1.5 miles southeast of the Boyce home is a lonely spot where Big Milam has hunted squirrels. The river bank is steep. The truck stopped 30 yards from the water.

Big Milam ordered Bobo to pick up the fan.
He staggered under its weight... carried it to the river bank. They stood silently... just hating one another.
Milam: "Take off your clothes."
Slowly, Bobo pulled off his shoes, his socks. He stood up, unbuttoned his shirt, dropped his pants, his shorts.
He stood there naked.
It was Sunday morning, a little before 7.
Milam: "You still as good as I am?"
Bobo: "Yeah."
Milam: "You still 'had' white women?"
Bobo: "Yeah."
That big .45 jumped in Big Milam's hand. The youth turned to catch that big, expanding bullet at his right ear. He dropped.
They barb-wired the gin fan to his neck, rolled him into 20 feet of water.
For three hours that morning, there was a fire in Big Milam's back yard: Bobo's crepe soled shoes were hard to burn.
Seventy-two hours later -- eight miles downstream -- boys were fishing. They saw feet sticking out of the water. Bobo.

The majority -- by no means all, but the majority -- of the white people in Mississippi 1) either approve Big Milam's action or else 2) they don't disapprove enough to risk giving their "enemies" the satisfaction of a conviction.

Origin Of The Term Racism

From comments at Western Rifle Shooters Association - Things Fall Apart

On my original post– I had hoped followers of this thread would do a little research on their own to see where this word RACISM originated and why. But I understand most people on this thread work and have lives—so I’ll make it easier for everyone. The first known use of the word racism was coined by LEON TROTSKY the Bolshevik/Marxist leader of the Red Army in the Soviet Union. He first used it in writing in his 1930 History of the Russian Revolution. The term was used numerous times by a Bolshevik Sexologist from Germany known as Magnus Hirschfeld he used the word numerous times to attack his critics. Hirschfeld worked close with the Frankfurt School which is a [sic] Communist Think Tank. The National Socialists deported most of the professors and shut it down. Many of the Marxist professors moved to New York City and set up shop at Columbia University. The Frankfurt School was re-established back in Germany in 1953. The school promotes critical theory, and political correctness in order to destroy traditional western culture and replace it with a Marxist world view. Most the propaganda of a communist nature has entered our society via these college professors and their sympathetic media apparatus. The Soviet KGB used the professors methods to target the US. The method is known as ideological subversion. Ideological Subversion is a four step process; Demoralization of a Nation, Destabilization, Crisis and finally Normalization. The long part is the demoralization phase. The idea is to change the perception of citizens’ reality to such an extent that no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country. If you can pump the heads of at least three generations of youth full of Marxist ideas of equality and social justice you can move to the destabilization phase. It doesn’t matter that the USSR no longer exists. Once the poison takes hold its irreversible and must be sorted out in the crisis phase. Labeling your ideological enemies as a RACIST is a weaponized word established and promoted by communist, It is used to immediately shutdown any valid points made by their enemies (Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Traditionalists etc.) Once the label is attached it closes the minds of the masses to those anti-Marxist view points.It has entered our societies vernacular. That even like minded liberty minded people will even target each other with the word without knowledge of its origins.

Vox Day: Answering a Simple Question

Vox Day responds to a question:


Will Shetterly poses questions for me and for NK Jemisin. I don't know if she will see fit to answer him, but I certainly don't mind doing so:

What do you want, besides book sales? You both have strongly-held beliefs, Critical Race Theory and Human Biodiversity, but you're both silent about the practical application of those beliefs.

Vox Day, you say:

"I have repeatedly pointed out that the existence of different human sub-species and/or races does not make those different sub-species and/or races any less validly human. A dog is a dog whether it is a Bichon Frise or a Great Dane. A man is a man whether he is Yoruba or Prussian. My basic argument on race and civilization can be most accurately summarized as the observation that if you wish to pull a sled, you would be well advised to select Siberian huskies rather than chihuahuas or pit bulls."

If people with your beliefs were in power, what changes would there be? Legal segregation of the races as you understand them? A ban on miscegenation? Breeding programs to increase the virtues you see in the different human races, stronger blacks and smarter Asians to serve the more "alpha" whites?

Let me first point out something that many people fail to keep in mind when they are occupied with being offended at something I have said. I am a libertarian, so it should always be kept in mind that I am intrinsically skeptical of the idea that government can be effectively utilized to solve most societal problems, or even avoid making them worse, regardless of how serious we all agree those problems happen to be.  The fact that I point to something as being a problem should NEVER be taken as an implicit suggestion that the solution can be found in government action.

With regards to race, I would be more than content to see the U.S. federal government and other governments across the West firmly respect the right to self-determination, the right to free speech, and the right to freedom of economic association on the part of individual, as well as the political sovereignty of the several States.

This would likely lead to legal segregation in some states, most likely beginning, ironically enough, with the States where Hispanics are expected to soon be the majority. In most of the rest, I expect a return to Constitutional federalism and the concept of democratic laboratories would merely lead to bans on enforced desegregation and government violations of the freedom of association; history indicates that people have a tendency to naturally segregate as that is how most of the various population groups were formed in the first place.

I do not support bans on miscegenation nor do I believe they would be required in any environment that permitted genuine freedom of speech and association. Despite being inundated with heavy doses of pro-miscegenation and pro-equalitarian propaganda in the media, relatively few women of any race have shown themselves to be open to sexual involvement with men of other races.

Being an anti-eugenicist, I do not support breeding programs of any kind, especially not government-sponsored programs.

As for the idea of stronger blacks and smarter Asians serving whites, that could not be further from my own position on ideal interracial relations. My belief is that every population group, every human sub-species, every nation, is better served by furthering a homogeneous group interest.  To put it crudely, whites would do well to pick their own cotton and count their own money, blacks would do well to build their own power stations and grow their own crops, and yellows would do well to develop their own technologies and establish their own university systems. Let Israel be Israel and let Myanmar be Myanmar.

Inter-societal communication and assistance is a good thing, so long as it is the sort that involves teaching men to fish and not fishing for them... and if the fishermen are left alone to deal with the consequences of their catch. Trade is generally good. Information exchange is generally good. Even immigration can beneficial in small and limited doses. But the benefits of moderation does not extend to the extremes. For example, trade can benefit both sides, but truly free trade will inevitably destroy the more prosperous side.

It should be noted that the consequences of mass migration are all but indistinguishable from the effects of invasion and occupation, and multi-ethnic societies have shown a strong historical tendency to collapse amidst vicious ethnic violence. No one who recalls the intra-black violence in Rwanda, the intra-white violence in Yugoslavia, or the intra-yellow violence in Vietnam should be misled into thinking that expanding the range of population heterogeneousity is going to alleviate, rather than exacerbate, the eventual inter-ethnic violence.  Ms Jemisin may be more right than she knows about how everyone will eventually be forced to take a side, whether they want to or not.

I understand that three generations of Americans who have been raised to venerate the Civil Rights movement will find it hard, if not impossible, to grasp that history may ultimately prove to be firmly on the side of those they have always believed to be monsters of bigotry. But if what logic suggests is the most probable outcome indeed comes to pass, I suspect that forced segregation and non-violent ethnic cleansing will be the best case scenario in consequence of the damnable social engineering of the grand multicultural experiment that began in 1965.

It may already be too late for a peaceful return to historical segregation patterns. But if history is an even remotely reliable guide, the West will return to them one way or another. And keep in mind that my expectations of the future have nothing whatsoever to do with my personal preferences, any more than I wanted to see the global financial system seize up when I predicted the 2008 economic crisis six years before it happened.

There is a flaw in someone's assumptions. The error may be on my part. But based on the known historical patterns as well as the way in which increased integration throughout the West has observably increased racial tensions rather than eliminating them as the multiculturalists so confidently asserted, I very much doubt it.

So, to answer the original question, what do I want? I want to preserve the greatest, most advanced, and most humane civilization the human race has ever known. I want the West to avoid descending into violence and chaos on a scale that will threaten to end our advanced civilization as we know it. And I believe continued mass migration, forced desegregation, reconciliation, government intervention, and racial integration only serve to increase the likelihood of a nightmarish scenario taking place.

Fast Fact: Persons Lynched in the USA, 1882 - 1968

By The Elusive Wapiti

Wherin Ms. Oprah is taken to school by Kathy Shaidle.  First, Ms. Oprah's fast-and-loose application of three orders of magnitude to blacks lynched in pre-Civil Rights Act America:

In the [Parade Magazine] interview, Winfrey explained her sadness that so few Americans know about the history of the civil rights movement: “They don’t know diddly-squat. Diddly-squat.” She then said of the historic use of the [word "nigger"]:, “I always think of the millions of people who heard that as their last word as they were hanging from a tree.”

And then Ms. Shaidle's correction to Ms. Oprah's race- and victim-mongering:

“According to a Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute study, between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites.”

Oh, and 1,297 whites.

Perhaps before Saint Oprah evangelizes us unwashed heathens about the Civil Rights movement, she would do us all a favor and get her Whig History correct.  Even better, I suggest she would do better by addressing the 6,329-ish black folks killed each year in the USA, 93% [page 13 of this PDF] of whom are killed by other blacks. But that would mean she would have to care more about blacks actually dying in the here and now at the hands of other blacks, than in guilt-tripping (and making beaucoup $$ in the process) whites via a false narrative of a past long since gone.

Discrimination

Kristor at VFR writes at this post:

I would like to enter a word of support for discrimination. You can't run your life without it. The doctrine that we should not ever discriminate among people would entail that it is offensive and biased for a woman to withhold her sexual favors from anyone at all, or to favor her own children over those of other women. Likewise, it would be offensive and biased for her to prevent anyone who wants to from staying in her house and eating her food. These are absurd examples, to be sure, but they serve to illustrate the general principle that it is not possible to organize social activity except by discriminating among people.

If it is wicked to treat some people as citizens because they were born here, and others as aliens because they were not, then in order to avoid that wickedness a nation would have to treat everyone in the world as its citizens, entitled to vote in its elections, reap all its civil benefits, etc. But then "citizen" and "nation" would become empty terms, and that society would vanish along with the lines and definitions and distinctions that had differentiated it from its neighbours. Thus suspicion and distrust of abnormal people, inclining us all to discriminate against them and favor those we recognize as fellows, is the only way societies survive.

To have a nation, a society, a firm, a church, any organization at all, you have to draw lines. Furthermore, you have to empower people differently, or dignify them differently. For example, if there is to be any leadership whatsoever, leaders must be somehow disproportionately empowered. Ditto for citizenship, or membership in a group or club: one must pay one's dues, the membership cannot be free or it is void. In the world as it is actually constituted, nothing is free (with the exception of God's love for creation, which, being infinite, can be provided to creatures without any cost to God). Ditto also for mate selection, which is an act of discrimination for one person, and against all others.

One of the inescapable elements of discrimination is a moral or aesthetic judgement that some people or things are better than others, in at least some important respect. It would be perverse to dignify someone as a leader if you thought he was not likely to do better at it than the average bear. It would be stupid to turn for counsel to the village idiot. The same holds on the playground when boys are picking sides, and in triage on the battlefield. Discrimination can really hurt. But you can't run a society without it. And it does work in practice, too, because some people really are better than others, at job x, or in terms of characteristic y.

So it is a fantasy to think that we can make life equally nice for everyone. The world doesn't work that way.

Note that none of this is to say that in deciding someone is not right for citizenship, or for cohabitation, or for our soccer team, we are deciding also that they are ipso facto actively bad, and that we are justified in persecuting them. That inference is not justified; that only one runner wins the race does not entail that his competitors should henceforth be kept off the track. To decide that a person or class of people are actively bad, or dangerous, requires a further determination. But we can't shrink from making that determination, either, if we are to survive. For some people truly are bad or dangerous, and if we are to survive we must harass and persecute them: the serial killer, the enemy in wartime, and so forth.

Many members of this community are either Christians, or used to be, or are sort of Christian, or something; at any rate, they hold in high esteem Jesus' injunction that we should love our neighbour as ourselves. This saying at the core of the faith, and thus at the core of our civilization, had always been a stumbling block for me, because it seemed as though it contravened the whole order of the universe, which operates on gradations in value and worthiness, on differences; and that it contradicted also the entirety of Biblical religion, in which God is (among other things) a Judge discriminating the relative merit of everything that happens, right up to the differences among the choirs of angels.

The best interpretation I could come up with was that Jesus' first great commandment that we should love God with all our being meant that I should have no love left over for myself. This would not be the death of me, because in loving God I should also love his will for me, which provides for my best good. That is, I should be more inclined to do His will, and so to prosper. Loving God instead of myself would be good for me. How then should I love my neighbour? Just as I should love myself: not at all. If I love God with my whole being, then I will do what is best for me, and I will also do what is best for my neighbour, because God wills what is best for both myself and my neighbour.

I recently read a comment by a fellow named Sage McLaughlin that, "When we are told to love our enemies as ourselves, this does not mean we are to treat them the same way we treat ourselves--Christ did not say, "Don't have enemies." He takes for granted that we shall have foes, but demands that we love them as human beings and that we hate the disfiguring effects of sin on their immortal souls, just as we hate them in ourselves. We must do this, and we must forgive all those who ask our forgiveness--but we do not have to outdo God, who abandons to eternal damnation all those who turn from Him and walk in darkness." I.e., we are to love the good and hate the bad in other people just as we love the good and hate the bad in ourselves. In order to do that--in order to move closer to goodness and further from wickedness in ourselves, and in our society, and in the creation at large--we must discriminate between good and bad, and choose goodness. That we forgive the wickedness of our enemies does not automatically make them friends; and if they cannot let go of their deadly hatred of us, then in order to control the risk to us of their hatred, we must perforce destroy them with it. In that case, we cannot survive to forgive them except by defending ourselves, and working their destruction, however that may grieve us.

One STDV: Special Guest Post: You Are All Racist

LINK - OneSTDV: Special Guest Post: You Are All Racist

The following is a very special Guest Post from a college student in Race and Gender Studies.

Click the above link for an UPDATE

I am glad that OneSTDV, despite being an incorrigible racist, has given me this outlet to inform you inbred hicks about true racism and legacy of the authoritarian menace that is the white race and the nefarious deeds said race has foisted upon People of Color in lands that they have never been welcome in despite thinking that they are welcome there, indubitably. Since I am currently studying these courses at a top American university, I am far better equipped to understand the historical infractions engendered by the white race as it proffers its legacy of extirpation around the world. People of Color have been mere innocent bystanders as racist whites have taken over their lands, destroyed their traditions, rapaciously plundered all the intrepid innovations of People of Color, raped their women, and then had the audacity to impose upon them the racist standards of modern society. Just to be clear, you are all racist and I am only writing this post because it is incumbent upon the informed to inform the uninformed and even though I believe you all are inconsequentially perturbed and beyond redress, I have a duty to my brothers and sisters of color to do so.

Now I am a white male so one must understand that everything I say and everything I know is undeniably motivated by the insidious and vapid constructs of social and societal and political privilege that dominate this racist and sexist and colonialist and ableist and genderist and socially constructed and racist and sexist and biased and anti-fat and anti-anti society that I unfortunately must call home and that pays all my bills via student loans. So while I'll try my best to relay the information about historical legacies of structural and institutional racist sexism and People of Color suffering inherent to society's structures, only a handicapped, half-blind, fat, invalid, black, female-trans, lesbian could do so in a sufficient manner.

Since OneSTDV, probably because he's a racist, has only given me limited amount of space, let me just explain why you're all racists. First, you're all white and even those of you that aren't white have been fomented by the invidious constructs of social construction that underpin the institutional racism that pervades this society. In other words, white people are all racist because society makes them all that way. You can do nothing about it, only the tears of a Person of Color, preferably an illiterate lesbian from South Africa, can cure you of this affliction. White people can not understand the plight of People of Color because they are blinded by society and its inherent white morality, a morality that views all People of Color as intractably below them. Only People of Color can understand the vast problems of society because they must deal with white racists every single day and every single minute of their lives.

Further, every single white in the world should be held accountable for the collective moral transgressions of the white race. People of Color have been victimized by whites for far too long and until those past sins are expunged from the moral record of whites, either by disenfranchisement or as in killing such as in the justified killing of Amy Beihl, then whites must ask for forgiveness every day. Any crime committed by a Person of Color is justified because People of Color can never do any wrong. They are just reacting to a racist society and so anything they do, even killing for no reason, is justified and should be celebrated. Whites can never complain about crime because white people killed some People of Color in 1750 and we will never forget that. People of Color who commit crime today can never get back all the years of abuse from whites and so whatever they do now is just collective retribution for white transgressions of the past and so I think every Person of Color criminal is actually a hero because they are righting a wrong inferred by the callous actions of the white man, who is bad.

People of Color do not commit crimes then, they commit acts of justified retribution. Every death of a white person, especially of a cop, is justified because People of Color can never do anything wrong. People of Color in prison are all innocent because they never did anything, it was racist judges and racist lawyers and racist policemen and racist shopowners and racist grandmothers and racist dogs and racist squirrels and racist buildings and racist cars.

Damn, you hicks just don't understand the struggle. I grew up in New Hampshire and I knew a black kid once and I felt for him so much because all the other kids at school were so nice to him and so willing to include him in everything they did. And all the other parents would treat him like all the other kids. Damn racists.

Now, I know you racists will throw out some racist stuff like test scores and everything, but those are culturally biased. Asians score better only because they hate themselves. Blacks would actually score better than whites if the tests were appropriate. Did I mention that you guys have small penises and you're just jealous that black men have big penises and could give it to me so hard? Back to test scores and statistics, statistics are really just a ploy of racist whites to keep People of Color down, same with victim surveys (racist eyes), track and field, and education. All racist and all wrong. In fact, even reading those racist studies is racist, so I don't do that.

Finally, let me explain why People of Color have done everything good in this world. They commit no crime, it only looks that way because Law and Order has racist writers and so does the news and the crime pages and the newspapers and YouTube and cameras are racist too. People of Color have invented everything good in the world, but then white people stole it all because that's what the insidiously criminal white race does to the humble and generous and sacred People of Color, with their hard bodies and their voices and their chocolate skin and their rapping, oh their hardcore rapping is so great. So white people steal stuff and then try to take credit for all the great stuff invented by People of Color who are way better than they are. Whites just can't compete with People of Color so that's why they run and hide. But you can't hide for long racists, People of Color are taking over and we'll have our utopia of big, bad, brothas and their doorags and their Tim boots and oh yea, can't wait for that. People of Color will rise up and then we'll have the society we always wanted where there is no crime, no oppression, no victimization, and nothing wrong because any problem ever caused in the world, white people did it. Even if they didn't directly do it, they did it by being white and existing and also by looking at People of Color with their white privilege.

But the day is coming when People of Color will undermine white privilege and it will be great. So heed my advice you racists, with your math and statistics and incontrovertible evidence for every single racial disparity, you will rue the day when People of Color, the rainbow coalition, rises up against you and your horrible society with the highest standard of living, the best medicine, the most stable social landscape, and the most opportunity for success. When this racist society comes crashing down on your racist heads, you will understand how it feels and you should grovel for the forgiveness of People of Color who have done the thankless work to keep your society going - running drugs and guns across the border, working in your prisons (for free!), maintaining gang life, rapping about bitches and hoes, and updating the lexicon and social landscape with stuff like making it rain and droppin' it to the flo'.

White privilege is done racists. So take your computers, your technology, your food, your modern medicine, your democracy, your poetry, your music, your low level of crime, your civic service, your academia, your science, your philosophy, and your stable societies and shove it.

Oh and race is a social construct, we're all the same except blacks are the best, there's more variation in group than out group, tests are all biased, institutional racism, white supremacy, Western beauty standards, and mother's basement losers small penis in the ass jealous.

The Suicide Cult

The Suicide Cult

On November 17, 1978 members of an American religious cult known as the “People’s Temple” who a year previously had followed their leader, Jim Jones, to a commune in Guyana committed suicide en masse after members of their group murdered an American congressman. In the decades since the incident it has come to take on cultural significance as a symbol of the dangers of uncritical groupthink. Variations of the now familiar phrase “don’t drink the Kool-Aid”, used to urge people not to blindly follow the crowd or some charismatic leader, are a reference to the poisoned communion which brought the sect and the lives of its members to an end.

Communities and societies, like individual persons, are alive, and like all living things in creation, can die. To remain alive, an organism must be constantly regenerating itself, growing new cells to replace the old ones that are dying. This is true of a society as well. The cells that make up a society, its people, are constantly aging and dying. For the organism that is a society to survive it must replenish those cells. It must be constantly reproducing itself.

Note that I said “reproducing” not “replacing”. Today, through modern science, we can extend the lives of people by replacing entire organs with transplants or prosthetics. Our ability to do so is not unlimited, however. Suppose we were to develop prosthetic equivalents of every organ in the human body. We would still not be able to keep a man alive indefinitely by replacing all of his organs. If we were to attempt to do so, then at some point, we would actually kill the man rather than extending his life. Where the line is to be drawn is difficult to say, exactly, but if we keep replacing organs, until no natural organs are left, and it is just 100% prosthetics, even if they are working perfectly, you will have a robot and not the man you started with. That man will be dead.

This is true of a society as well. For a society to be a real, living society, it must reproduce itself. The present generation must be descended from all previous generations and all future generations must be descended from the present generation. This is true generally speaking. A society can survive having some of its members leave and join other societies. Likewise, a society can bring in new members from other societies and incorporate them into itself without losing its identity and dying.

At some point, however, a line exists. On one side of the line, a society is alive and healthy, and reproducing itself. Some people leave, some people move in, but the general sense that the society today consists of the descendents of past generations of the society and the ancestors of future generations of the society is not compromised. On the other side of the line, the society has ceased to reproduce itself and is relying entirely upon immigrants to replace its aging and dying members. This is a society that is dying. It is dying because it is replacing itself rather than reproducing itself.

It is difficult to say exactly where this line is, but it is also not necessary that we identify its exact location. A healthy, thriving, living society, is not interested in getting as close to the line as possible without crossing it.

Western societies today are not healthy societies. Western countries experienced a huge drop in fertility and birth rates over the course of the twentieth century. This was briefly interrupted, by a baby boom which began immediately after World War II and which extended into the mid-60’s in most Western countries, and in some as far as the mid’70’s. Following this boom, however, fertility and birth rates dropped below the levels needed to sustain a population and have remained dangerously low ever since.

In this same period the governments of Western countries have implemented liberal immigration policies. A country with a liberal immigration policy accepts considerably larger numbers of immigrants than a country without a liberal immigration policy would. A country with a liberal immigration policy will also accept far more immigrants from cultures and populations radically different from its core culture and population than a country without a liberal immigration policy. Indeed, a government with a liberal immigration policy, although it will nominally be a non-discriminatory policy, may actually encourage immigration from cultures and populations that are further removed from its core culture and population over immigration from cultures and populations that are closer to its core culture and population.

When a government implements a liberal immigration policy in a period of dangerously low fertility this indicates that a society has moved away from reproducing itself and towards replacing itself. It has started to commit suicide.

During this period of low fertility and high immigration, several movements and ideologies have sprung up encouraging Western societies to embrace aspects of this culture of death. The sexual revolutionaries sought to separate sexual intercourse from any and all sense of social responsibility and place it entirely within the self-enclosed sphere of personal physical pleasure. They were encouraged by the development of new and more efficient contraceptive technology. Then the feminists attacked society’s promotion of the wife/mother role for women as “patriarchal oppression” and demanded that society eliminate gender roles. This went hand-in-glove with the promotion of abortion on demand, for if women were not able to terminate pregnancy at will, all talk of eliminating gender differences and producing either an purely individualistic or an egalitarian society was meaningless. Then the gay rights movement came along and demanded that society affirm rather than discourage same-sex eroticism.

What all of these ideologies and movements have in common is that they place the physical pleasure or the emotional “fulfillment” (or some such nebulous concept), of the individual or a group within society, over the good and even the survival of society itself. They are all also manifestations of the general ideology known as liberalism.

Liberalism’s orientation towards death can be illustrated by comparing its positions on capital punishment and abortion. Liberalism tends to produce minds that are opposed to capital punishment but which favour abortion being readily available and even paid for by the state. Now, liberals come to each of these positions from separate chains of arguments which to them appear to have no connection with each other. A connection is there nonetheless which is plain to see.

Capital punishment upholds the sanctity of human life. It is reserved, or should be reserved, for crimes on the level of first degree murder – the deliberate taking of human life in defiance of social and moral law. By imposing the death penalty upon someone who has cold-bloodedly, in a calculating fashion, taken the life of another human being in defiance of law, society is saying that human life is so precious, that only the life of the murderer is acceptable as just payment for the crime of taking it. (1)

Abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. It results in the death of the fetus. The fetus is unquestionably a human life. The moment it’s father’s sperm and mother’s egg united to form a single cell, it possessed a complete set of human chromosomes making it fully human. Immediately, the process of growth through cell-division was started. It was fully human and fully alive. The fetus has not committed a crime that demands societal retribution in the form of death. Nor is the fetus an aggressor the killing of whom can be justified by self-defense. In the majority of cases abortions are committed because pregnancy imposes either a hardship or an inconvenience upon the parents of the fetus.

Allowing human life to be terminated for those reasons cheapens human life. So does the abolition of capital punishment. Liberalism is consistent in its low regard for human life which goes hand-in-glove with its embracing of societal and civilizational death.

The connection between liberalism and the death of the societies that make up Western civilization has been discussed in the past. The best treatment of the subject was probably James Burnham’s Suicide of the West which was originally published in 1964. (2) In this book Burnham described liberalism as the “ideology of Western suicide”. He did not mean by that that liberalism was an ideology created with the goal of bringing about the death of Western civilization. Rather he meant that liberalism served to rationalize after the fact the self-inflicted mortal wounds of Western societies.

Our focus for the rest of this essay will be narrower than liberalism in general. We will be looking at a specific ideology and movement within liberalism which has provided the other liberal ideologies and movements mentioned above with the rhetorical weapons and conceptual framework with which to make their arguments and which has also long served as a shield to protect the replacement-over-reproduction trend within our societies from criticism. This ideology/movement is the suicide cult of Western society.

The ideology/movement in question is anti-racism.

Before proceeding to examine anti-racism’s relationship to Western societal suicide we will first have to carefully define what is meant by anti-racism. To avoid confusion the first step in defining anti-racism will be to make clear what we do not mean by the term anti-racism.

The first distinction to be made is between anti-racism and non-racism. Anti-racism is not the same thing as non-racism. Anti-racism and non-racism are both terms which are defined negatively in reference to “racism”. Non-racism, however, is neither an ideology nor a movement. A person who is a “non-racist” is just someone who is not a racist. To be an anti-racist requires more than that, it requires active opposition to racism.

There is a sense in which everyone who is opposed to racism is an anti-racist. For the purposes of this essay however, we will be using a narrower definition of anti-racism. Another distinction needs to be made and that is between the person legitimately opposed to or even outraged at actual racial injustice and racial violence and the person we are calling an anti-racist.

There are two main differences between the two. The first, is that the “racism” an anti-racist actively opposes is a much broader category than actual racial injustice and racial violence. The second is that someone legitimately opposed to racial injustice and racial violence is opposed to these things no matter who the perpetrators are and who the victims are. Anti-racists, on the other hand, consistently oppose any expression of group solidarity on the part of one racial group no matter how benign while overlooking significant racially-motivated violence directed against members of that same group. The racial group in question consists of people groups descended from those who in classical antiquity were the Greeks, Romans, Germans and Celts, that are European in origin and who are most often just called “white” people.

So anti-racism is not just non-racism nor is it to be equated with opposition to actual racial injustice/violence. What is it then?

Anti-racism is the idea that injustice and violence towards people of other races is the inevitable result of believing mankind to be divided into races and treating race as being more than just a trivial difference between people. To see oneself as being a member of a race and other people as not being members of that race is the racism which anti-racists oppose. They insist that we see ourselves as individuals who are members of the human race and to attach no importance to groups intermediary between the individual and the species. To attach importance to such groups, the anti-racist declares, creates divisions which lead to injustice and threaten the future of humanity. Therefore, racism, is an evil which must be eliminated through extensive measures including the use of government power aimed at eradicating all sense of racial identity.

At least if you are white. Anti-racists have no objection to racial consciousness, identity, and solidarity on the part of other racial groups. When was the last time you heard of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People being denounced as a racist organization?

Anti-racism is one of many errors that arise out of liberalism’s root error. The core of liberalism is the idea that human beings are basically and essentially good therefore the evils which are manifest everywhere in the real world must be caused by something outside of human nature. If we can only identify the causes of evil and eliminate them, the liberal believes, we will achieve a just society, a paradise on earth.

In World War II racial violence was escalated to an extreme level. The horrors that Allied soldiers discovered in the concentration camps of the Third Reich as they liberated occupied Europe were photographed and filmed for the world to see and as the story came out of what had occurred there people were shocked, appalled and disgusted.

The liberal mind, presented with such glaring evidence of the falsehood of its most foundational belief, the goodness of mankind, desperately searched for an origin outside human nature. It latched on to the concept of “racism” as its explanation. Hitler had been famous for his theories of Aryan racial superiority. They were foundational to the ideology of the Third Reich. Therefore, the liberal mind concluded, racism is the cause of atrocities like those committed by Hitler and will always lead the racist to commit atrocities like Hitler’s. Racism must therefore be eliminated for society at all costs.

There are several problems with this idea.

First of all, its basic presuppositions are false. Evil does have its origins in human nature. Attempts to eliminate evil by political and social solutions aimed at the elimination of “causes” of evil that are external to human nature will always fail. The only way to eliminate human evil through such means is to eliminate human beings.

Secondly, the theory does not fit the facts it seeks to explain. Hitler believed in white supremacy – but so did Sir Winston Churchill, and indeed most, if not all, of the leaders of the Allies. Before, during, and after the time period in which Hitler was committing his atrocities, Joseph Stalin was committing even greater atrocities.

Finally, the anti-racist theory itself becomes a justification for injustice against two different groups of people.

First, it is a justification for injustice against those who are labeled “racists” by the anti-racists. People generally do not apply the label “racist” to themselves. It must therefore be attached to them by others, by the anti-racists. The label itself creates a stigma resulting in a presumption of guilt against the person labeled a “racist”. If the person denies being a racist, the anti-racist replies “all racists deny being racist, therefore you must be a racist”. People who have been accused of racism in Canada alone have been charged with violating “hate speech” laws, subjected to long inquisitorial trials before the Human Rights Tribunal, issued life-time gag orders, fined thousands of dollars, had their homes and property vandalized, had their persons’ violated, had their children taken away from them, been subjected to harassment, stripped of their jobs and careers, and turned into social pariahs. The treatment a “racist” receives at the hands of the anti-racists shows some remarkable resemblances to the treatment Jews, gypsies, and others received at the hands of Nazi Germany.

Secondly, it is a justification for injustice against the various ethnic groups that are collectively referred to as “white people” and particularly against specific groups within that broader category that are particularly associated with “racism” in the mind of the anti-racist – groups such as Southern whites in the United States, Germans, and Afrikaners (South African whites). Countless examples of such injustices could be discussed but there is one major injustice that overshadows all others. Namely that anti-racism requires that people groups within the category “white” commit collective suicide and disappear from the earth by replacing themselves with immigrants rather than reproducing themselves.

To restate our definition of anti-racism it is the idea that racism is the recognition of the existence of races within humanity and the attributing of significance to the category of race, that racism leads inevitably to horrible racial injustice, and that therefore racism is an evil to be eliminated through repressive government measures if necessary. Anti-racism also refers to the movements and organizations which act upon that idea.

To say that anti-racism, as described above, is the suicide cult of Western civilization is not to say that anti-racism is the cause of the factors contributing to Western suicide. It would be absurd, for example, to argue that anti-racism is the cause of low birth rates and low fertility among Western societies. It is, however, foundational to several of the ideas which serve to justify, if they are not themselves the cause of, anti-natal behavior. Feminism, which encouraged women to place careers ahead of motherhood, is an anti-natal movement which borrowed many of its concepts from anti-racism.

While anti-racism is not the cause of low birth-rates and may not be the primary cause of Western governments having adopted policies of multiculturalism and liberal immigration, it is certainly a justification invoked for the latter policies. More importantly, it prevents those policies from being abandoned.

How does anti-racism do so?

One way is by providing officials who don’t want to change those policies for whatever reasons with an easy means of justifying their actions and smearing their critics. “You don’t like what we are doing? You must be a racist!”

Another way, related to the last one is by stifling political discussion and marginalizing people and organizations that seek immigration reform and an end to multiculturalism. Even if the spokesmen for an organization seeking a more restrictive immigration policy and an end to multiculturalism express themselves in irenic tones and try to make a positive case for their people that does not reflect negatively on other people groups, the anti-racists will seek to marginalize the organization. The organization that is trying to argue its case positively will be condemned as a “hate group” by anti-racists who certainly do not disguise the loathing they feel for the organization, its leaders, and members, and anyone who happens to agree with it.

The anti-racists will justify this by explaining to us that “racists” speak in code language. For this reason, they must be marginalized, and their words banned from public forums where everybody has easy access to them, such as the internet. Otherwise uninformed people might be misled by them. People should only have access to the thought of “racists” as carefully filtered through anti-racist “experts” who understand the code language. Otherwise we might hear a “racist” say something like “white people have rights too” and think that that is a reasonable position without realizing that it is an “old canard” that really means that all other people should be enslaved or slaughtered.

There is one more way which we will consider in which anti-racism prevents the suicidal policies of western societies from being reversed. That is through instilling in us, from our earliest childhood, the idea that “race is only skin deep” and that is a great evil, if not the greatest of all evils, to treat people differently because of something like race. This is what makes anti-racism’s marginalization technique so effective and it is carried out with the full cooperation of the government, media and educational system.

If all the public schools, and public service announcements, and diversity and sensitivity seminars, were doing was telling us that we need to treat everybody fairly and justly, regardless of their race, there would be no problem with it. Instead, however, they are telling us that treating people justly means treating them the same and they are telling us that race is only a matter of skin color. Both of these things are falsehoods.

Note carefully that there is a difference between the idea that we should treat all people fairly and justly and the idea that we should treat all people the same. A person should be fair and just to both his father and to a complete stranger. That does not mean that he should treat his father and a complete stranger in the same way. Indeed, because of a man’s relationship with his father, justice demands that he treat his father differently than he would treat a complete stranger. Thus the idea that treating people justly means treating them the same is a falsehood.

So is the idea that race is only a matter of skin color. In fact, not only is race more than skin color, skin color is not even essential to the meaning of the word race.

The English term “race”, when applied to human beings and not used to mean the sport of competitive running or an election campaign, comes through a French derivative, from the Old Italian word “razza”, which refers to lineage, ancestry, or stock. Race, when applied to people, refers to a line of biological descent. We use it this way in a number of sense. Sometimes we speak of the entire human species as “the human race”. What this expression means is that if we go back far enough, all human beings are descended from the same original stock.

Another use, one which is now rather archaic, is to refer to a particular family’s ancestors as it’s race. “The race of the Smiths” or “The race of the Joneses” would be examples.

The use however, that is most relevant to discussions of racism and anti-racism, is to refer to large human populations whose descent from a common ancestral stock is indicated by a set of shared physical characteristics which is common to the members of the population and which distinguishes them from other people. Two things should be noted about this use of the word race.

First, it is a set of characteristics, and not one particular trait like skin color that distinguishes one race from another. A dark-skinned Australian aborigine might share the same skin color with a man from a sub-Saharan African tribe. They are not of the same race, however, nor would the albino son of either of them be of the same race as an Englishman or a German.

Secondly, even here, it is common ancestry that is the essential meaning of the word race. The physical traits associated with race are only racial insomuch as they indicate common ancestry.

It is important that we grasp this. The groups of people that we call races, are races because they are descended from a common ancestral group, not because they have distinct physical characteristics. The reason members of a race have distinct physical characteristics in common is because they are of a common stock. It is ancestry that is the most important part of the meaning of the word race.

Ancestry, however, is not something trivial like skin color. Anti-racists wish to trivialize. Hence their reducing race to its most trivial accident and speaking of it only in terms of skin color. They wish to eliminate any sense of loyalty to a group that is grounded in that group’s shared ancestry. Such loyalties stand in the way of their vision of a world where the individual’s only loyalty is to mankind. Therefore, they tell us from an early age that race is inconsequential that it is not important because it is only about skin color. We believe them because we recognize that group loyalty based upon something as shallow as skin color would be incredibly silly.

Our acceptance of their doctrine, however, hinders our forming a proper, natural attachment to our own people, even though such an attachment would not be based upon skin color but upon something far deeper. The anti-racist switch-and-bait has proven to be a remarkably effective brainwashing tool. We have drunk deep from the poisoned chalice containing their Kool-Aid.

Ordinarily, when he does not have something like liberal, anti-racist ideology being shoved down his throat since he was in diapers to hinder him, a man will form an attachment to his people. This attachment, this sense of loyalty, develops out of his first natural affections which arise out of relationships. He grows to love his parents and his siblings, to form bonds with his friends, to develop various relationships with his neighbors, and all of thee relationships form the basis of his loyalty to his community as a group. From this loyalty to his community his patriotic affection gradually spreads to encompass his country and his people. It is only out of such love for his own that any real love for mankind as a whole can arise, as Edmund Burke pointed out years ago.

The people, for whom a man develops this patriotic attachment, is not his “race” in the sense in which I have defined the term above. That meaning of the word “race” is only really useful for scientists and political ideologues. It would be more accurate, perhaps, to call the people which is the object of a man’s patriotic affections his “nation”. A “nation”, like a race, is a people group with a common ancestral identity. A nation, however, is smaller than a race, which is a continental population, and a nation is distinguished from other nations by cultural distinctives – a common language, usually a common religion, common customs, habits, manners, dress etc.

This kind of patriotic affection for one’s people, for one’s nation, rooted in one’s first affections for ones family, friends, neighbors and community, built upon a foundation of blood, relationship, and shared experiences is the lifeblood of an organic society.

The racialist and nationalist ideologies and political movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries committed the fatal error and the deadly sin of ignoring the source of patriotic affection and demanding that race and/or nation replace family, home, friends, kin, neighbors, community and even God in people’s hearts and affections. Human loyalty and affection have to start with the small and grow towards the big. When you put the nation or race ahead of the family and community in the chain of affection you develop unnatural affections which breed fanaticism.

Liberalism in its anti-racist manifestation commits the same error and sin on a much larger scale. It demands that our first loyalty be to all of Humanity. All other loyalties are regarded as threats and hindrances to the goal of eliminating hatred and injustice and finding salvation for mankind through the establishment of a unified, just, peaceful, new world order. This sort of fanaticism demands a sacrifice – the sacrifice, through suicide, of the white peoples and Western societies in this world.

Perhaps it is time we put the Kool-Aid down.

(1) Having said that, I shudder to think of the power of life and death being in the hands of modern liberal governments composed of democratically elected politicians and administered by self-righteous bureaucrats. On principle, capital punishment is necessary for justice. Modern governments are the wrong kind of governments to administer justice. This is a subject for another essay however.

(2) James Burnham. Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism. The John Day Company: New York, 1964. Although this book stands on its own it can also be read as part of a series that began with the author’s The Managerial Revolution and continued in his The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom. A good profile of the author and overview of his thought can be found in James Burnham by Samuel T. Francis, published as part of the “Thinkers of Our Time” series in 1999 by The Claridge Press in London.