|
Date Posted: Monday 01-Oct-2007.
From the African Crisis web-site;
http://www.africancrisis.co.za/
Submitted by John in Perth:
I
have inserted this item here because it proves the great danger that the
European Western countries are in. When you read it do not fall into
the shock-horror that it is racist. If you do, then you are either one
of the perpetrators or just one of those who have allowed yourself to become
one of the "brainwashed masses". Consider the text, the
meaning and especially the facts. If you can agree with the
facts at all, then hope is not lost
What Is Racism?
By Thomas Jackson
There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror
than does the United States. (Yes there is; the
United Kingdom) Compared to other kinds of offences, it is
thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become
so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson that any but the most
spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of
American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off. For example, when a
white Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black
students are not as qualified as white students, it set off a booming,
national controversy about "racism." If the student had
merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and
criticism. Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on
full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach
against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?
Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word.
They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior
to others, or as the belief that culture and behaviour are rooted in race.
When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this.
Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding
what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the
current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear
evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally
talented and hard-working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to
be not merely wrong but evil.
The dogma has logical consequences that are
profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every
way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation?
Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible
explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly
poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive
racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject
state.
All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any
explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness
threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences.
Thus, even if today's whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress
blacks, yesterday's whites must have oppressed them.
If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them
unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified,
then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are
failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white
people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in
misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of
black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.
The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe
that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time
a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white
society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or
misbehaviour by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled
with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed
in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites will be, by definition,
thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to
strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin
that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people and
indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the
black Mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people can be racist.
Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance
Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all
whites are racist and that only whites can be racist. How else could the
plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of
racial inequality?
Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites can,
perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have been forced
into it as self-defence because of centuries of white oppression. What
appears to be non-white racism is so understandable and forgivable that it
hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism
depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when
done by whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse
is also true.
Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious
to list them: When a white man kills a black man and uses the word "nigger"
while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its
collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual
murders of random whites, the media are silent. College campuses forbid
pejorative statements about non-whites as "racist" but ignore scurrilous
attacks on whites.
At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote for a white
candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent,
it is whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 "historically
black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name
of diversity, but all historically white colleges must be forcibly
integrated in the name of ... the same thing. To resist would be racist.
"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that
could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred. It
is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction
and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to
ask them to learn English is racist.
Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the
law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in
favor of whites, would be attacked as despicable favouritism.
All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are
thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or
association expressly for whites is by definition racist. The National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly
for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The
National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns
merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.
At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set
up student unions for whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc,
and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white
students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a
minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that
non-whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today,
any club not specifically formed to be a white enclave but whose members
simply happen all to be white is branded as racist.
Today, one of the favourite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of
American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few
people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of whites (and
sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard
University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics, or Asians.
No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA)
would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one
suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the
NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defence and Educational Fund suffer from
a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to
celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-white group -- a company, a town, a
school, a club, a neighbourhood -- is thought to suffer from a crippling
lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when
whites have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved.
Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so
often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of whites. In
fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our
current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent
of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The several million
illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all
non-white. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable
contribution to "diversity." It is, of course, only white nations that are
called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to
imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of
this kind.
What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens
across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that
Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were
losing its majority population to poor whites who demanded that schools be
taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who
demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens, who clamoured for
"affirmative action" in jobs and schooling?
Would Mexico -- or any other non-white nation -- tolerate this kind of
cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not! Yet white Americans
are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their
country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their
own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession,
for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist.
There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non-whites
advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating"
another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be
activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can
agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of
whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone
ever suggesting that they are "anti-white."
Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative
action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are
clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually
go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that
they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage,
they are irredeemably wicked and hateful.
Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race
relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own
kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of
the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought
to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial
interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar
of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to
encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and
culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible
terms, white people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit
racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism.
Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly
natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people
and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are
doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United
States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born
whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that
they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters
to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the
once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and
is prepared to hand over land and power to whosoever shows up and asks for
it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain?
No, it is the white enterprise in the United States that is unnatural,
unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be
convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to
work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a
dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its
wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that
there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away
to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites
have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is
racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is
somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their
own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families
more than their neighbours, but this does not mean that they hate their
neighbours. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will
towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the
unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies.
What whites in America are being asked to do is
therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to
the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This
is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of
his neighbours, since to do otherwise would be "racist."
What, then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than
any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official
policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites
for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea
of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside.
It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have
defined nations since the beginning of history -- but only so long as the
aspirations are those of whites.
________________________________________________________________
There it
is! Why have so many whites been brainwashed into believing that
blacks as a race are institutionally the equal of other races? Is it
because of the fear of race wars? Laws have been passed to make
sure you are not allowed to think such facts as proven so like most people
who are basically honest, you do not dispute the facts. Sadly,
and I am not a racist as I want the best for black people but they must work
for it themselves now after years of affirmative action that has just proven
they are still unable as a group to keep up with other groups. Perhaps
it is because they have been given so many of these privileges over the last
fifty years or so but many are unable to take advantage of them.
Perhaps not. Perhaps it is because they now believe that they are
victims and are owed a life by the whites.
But in
the 21st Century, that is definitely not the case. When we look at
Zimbabwe and South Africa where one country is now on its knees after 27
years of black rule, and the other, South Africa, is well on its way down
the same path (don't believe me? Read the facts), we can only believe
the "truth by considering the facts". Liberia (since 1821) and
Haiti (since 1803) are other prime examples where after nearly 200 years of
black rule, they are still hell-holes on earth.
As a
retired engineer, we were taught that to solve a problem, you must find out
the truth, otherwise you will not be able to do so.
Think
about it, please.
___________________________________________________________________________________
MORE THINK ABOUT ITS.
From the USA where many negroen (African Americans) have made a life-long
career of preaching race hate and in the process, have made a good living at
it. The following is about the presidential contender, Senator Barack
Obama, a coloured gentleman who is trying for the top job in the land.
Has he got the right background to do it well? Or is his judgment
clouded after years of attending institutions where whites are insulted and
demands for money (reparations) from them constantly made. All this
after 60 years of affirmative action and privilege for being black in the
USA. Make up you own mind with this and other facts.
Patrick J. Buchanan, Human Events,
March 21, 2008
How
would he pull it off? I wondered.
How would Barack explain to
his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev.
Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our
maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black
people?
How would he justify not
walking out as Wright spewed his venom about “the U.S. of K.K.K. America,”
and howled, “God damn America!”
My hunch was right. Barack
would turn the tables.
Yes, Barack agreed, Wright’s
statements were “controversial,” and “divisive,” and “racially charged,”
reflecting a “distorted view of America.”
But we must understand the
man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350
years of slavery and segregation.
Barack then listed black
grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial
divide and heal the country.
The “white community,” said
Barack, must start “acknowledging that what ails the African-American
community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy
of discrimination—and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt
than in the past—are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but
with deeds … .”
And what deeds must we
perform to heal ourselves and our country?
The “white community” must
invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights
laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this
generation of blacks with “ladders of opportunity” that were “unavailable”
to Barack’s and the Rev. Wright’s generations.
What is wrong with Barack’s
prognosis and Barack’s cure?
Only this. It is the same
old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since
the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and
a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, “everybody but the rioters
themselves.”
{snip}
This time, the Silent
Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And
among them are these:
First, America has been the
best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black
people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40
million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest
levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.
Wright ought to go down on
his knees and thank God he is an American.
{snip}
We hear the grievances.
Where is the gratitude?
Barack talks about new
“ladders of opportunity” for blacks.
Let him go to Altoona and
Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited
lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving”
white kids. (This refers to the black kids being given preference
over whites, regardless of abilities, for top university places).
Is white America really
responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for
African-Americans are
seven times those
of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that
illegitimacy in
the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate
from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white
America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community
itself?
As for racism, its ugliest
manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of
violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black
victims 3 percent of the time, black
criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that
black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that
black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years
of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al sHARPTON (
A VOCAL RACIST BLACK LEADER ALWAYS DEMANDING MORE FOR
THE aFRICAN aMERICANS) about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and
Jena. And they all turned out to be hoaxes.
But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear
nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us
have heard it all before, about 40 years and $40 trillion tax dollars ago.
Original article
(Posted on March 21, 2008)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________-
|
|