← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 4042 | Posts: 23 | Started: 2002-12-16
2002-12-16 16:17 | User Profile
[url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news]Carol Swaim in New York Times[/url]
Carol M. Swain, a professor of both political science and law at Vanderbilt University, has studied racial attitudes for more than a decade. Her latest book, "The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration" (Cambridge University Press, 2002), argues that white nationalism is on the rise. To defuse its appeal, she counsels African- Americans to stop supporting affirmative action and reparations. Felicia R. Lee spoke with her.
You argue that an energized white separatist movement exists, despite polls that show more racial tolerance and an increasingly diverse popular culture. Why?
A lot of white people feel that diversity is being forced on them and it comes at their expense.
For example, in one of my focus groups with whites from the New York area ââ¬â men and women of different ages ââ¬â they were very angry. One person said employers will not take white males when they have to take blacks, Hispanics and Chinese; that there were quotas; that blacks could go to schools like Yale before whites; that blacks were lazy.
Blacks saw quotas as a ceiling and were angry about affirmative action, too. They said affirmative action was the receptionist out front and the guy who fixes the copy machine.
Racial extremists have a long history in this country. Why sound alarm bells now?
A constellation of forces are coming together at this point in time that we've never had before. There is the projection that non-Hispanic whites will be the minority around the year 2050. There's economic uncertainty, with a recession and globalization and loss of jobs. An immigration policy that means that some immigrants do compete with Americans for jobs. Racial preferences, a policy never accepted by the majority of whites. Continued white fear of black crime. And the ability of the Internet to reach people who want information about white nationalism.
Historically, rapid demographic changes and economic uncertainty put people on a collision course and lead to social ills.
Senator Trent Lott is under fire for saying that the United States would be better off if Strom Thurmond had won the presidency on the segregationist platform in 1948. Should he resign?
I think Trent Lott should lead the national debate on race. If we're going to have a serious discussion, we need people to say what's on their minds. I don't think he should step down. If we attack these people when they put their feet in their mouths, we can never get to the root of the problem.
Is the specter of whites as a minority the biggest race card the racists play?
Yes. They say that your children and grandchildren will be submerged in these teeming masses of people that don't share your values, don't share your culture. It's very dangerous that white nationalists are the only ones talking in open forums about what it might mean for white people being a minority in America.
You yourself overcame the disadvantages of being black, poor, a high-school dropout. And now you advocate restrictions on immigration and the end of race- based affirmative action as big steps toward creating a better racial climate.
We can neutralize white nationalists by taking away two of their best issues. One is affirmative action as racial preferences and another is liberal immigration policies. One of the concerns that many people have about immigration is that new immigrants, who don't have a shared history of discrimination in the same way as African-Americans, can be eligible for racial preferences; it works against the interests of African-Americans and other people who have a history in this country. Some of them are illegal immigrants, who tend to depress the wages of native workers.
We need to move toward race-neutral affirmative-action policies and guarantee people a working wage. I believe that affirmative action never reached down to the people who were most disadvantaged.
What do you think of the current national black leadership?
The house is on fire for African-Americans, but the black leadership is more focused on the easier, symbolic issues. Some of those issues that the black leaders champion push some white people into the neo-conservative movement as a reaction. Like the focus on slave reparations at this time in history ââ¬â the timing could not be worse. If whites don't support affirmative action, why would they support reparations? I think it comes at an enormous cost of resentments being stirred.
Black leadership needs to focus still on issues like black crime. Even though crime has dropped nationwide, it's still a pattern that separates African-Americans from other groups. There are cultural things that need to be addressed, like the high rate of illegitimacy. Close to 70 percent of black children are born illegitimate. AIDS is the leading cause of death of African-Americans under the age of 55, and that is not really being discussed by the leading black spokespeople.
Liberals, you say, are not any better in turning back white nationalists because they have no new ideas about race, immigration, poverty.
I think the left is very much focused on maintaining and defending the status quo of things put into place 30 years ago. They're not strategic at all.
How in the world is the average white person, who maybe doesn't like affirmative action, turned into a white nationalist?
To reach the mainstream white population, the group they'd like to politicize, white nationalists have very skillfully adopted the language of multiculturalism and the language of civil rights. The language of multiculturalism says it's O.K. for groups to organize for self-determination and self-pride. The white nationalists say if it's O.K. for blacks and Hispanics, then why not whites? And they say that white Americans are the group that is most discriminated against in America and that there's no one protecting their interests. They are talking about racial preferences, immigration, job loss. The K.K.K. is a dying organization, not because its views and hatred are not out there, but because people have other avenues, and white intellectuals, people who are well educated, are not going to be in any of those organizations.
2002-12-16 17:31 | User Profile
Boy, those White Nationalists are some crafty guys and gals. :blink:
I wonder why it is dangerous that white nationalists are the only ones talking in open forums about whites being a minority in this country. If true, which I'm not sure it is, is this because whites are currently the majority? Is this a majority/minority issue? Is there a corresponding concern with, say, Mexicans talking in open forums about becoming the majority?
Interesting how she pin points the two issues of affirmative action and immigration and how educated, middle class whites are not going to join the "traditional" organizations.
If two issues had to be selected that could give white nationalists the most mileage, would they be affirmative action and immigration? Given that educated, middle class whites will not join "traditional" groups like the Klan or NA, how will a growing movement manifest itself and in what organizations? I don't see any out there that fit the bill in Swain's mode of thinking on the matter.
2002-12-16 18:09 | User Profile
I must say, Swain ain't all that bad. At least she understands that White people's anger at immigration and intergration drives them to Nationalist groups, as opposed to strictly hate, like the media says. Immigration, "affirmative" action, and forced intergration have all been so terribly damaging to this country that I think it's almost too far gone to ever be good again. The most we can hope for is a separate White state(s) for our own use.
2002-12-16 18:11 | User Profile
**If two issues had to be selected that could give white nationalists the most mileage, would they be affirmative action and immigration? **
Definitely. Both are vote-winners among whites.
2002-12-16 23:08 | User Profile
I don't mean to sound like a lunatic continually sounding the same note, but I dread WNs being compartmentalized into 'hot-button issues' and being 'dialogued' with....when the sparks [of awareness of Jewish influence and power] are so close to the dry timber [the sleeping white majority].
I wonder, frankly, if the word 'Jew' even appears in Ms Swain's book; and I wouldn't be much surprised if it doesn't. But what creeps me out is the notion of a public [and wholly cosmetic] display of outreach to WNs on issues like Affirmative Action & Open Borders with David Horowitz and John Podhoretz taking 'our' side. It creeps me out because it's so obviously part of the Jew plan to infiltrate and control the Right.
Thanks but no thanks; I'd rather stay an 'outlaw' and a 'moral monster' and alert my fellow goyim to the yarmulke sitting on the head of the man behind the curtain.
2002-12-17 00:22 | User Profile
Dry timber?
That wood has been soaked by decades of constant rain.
I admire your optimism, but I do not see any combustible material in my vicinity.
2002-12-17 00:24 | User Profile
**I wonder, frankly, if the word 'Jew' even appears in Ms Swain's book; and I wouldn't be much surprised if it doesn't. But what creeps me out is the notion of a public [and wholly cosmetic] display of outreach to WNs on issues like Affirmative Action & Open Borders with David Horowitz and John Podhoretz taking 'our' side. **
And this "creepy" feeling, I suspect, is very close to the feeling of negroes in the 1960's as they watched Jews plot their -- the negroes' -- future.
2002-12-17 01:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 17 2002, 00:24 > I wonder, frankly, if the word 'Jew' even appears in Ms Swain's book; and I wouldn't be much surprised if it doesn't. But what creeps me out is the notion of a public [and wholly cosmetic] display of outreach to WNs on issues like Affirmative Action & Open Borders with David Horowitz and John Podhoretz taking 'our' side. **
And this "creepy" feeling, I suspect, is very close to the feeling of negroes in the 1960's as they watched Jews plot their -- the negroes' -- future.**
Few blacks were creeped out at all because few have the capacity to understand what is really going on, in terms of their being nothing more than tools to be used against the white goyim.
2002-12-17 01:53 | User Profile
The problem I have with Swain and her book is not her personally, but the fact is that a black person such as herself is making headlines bringing attention to White nationalism when it should be led by a White. This is because Whites cannot lead the way for White nationalism across the board in Amerikwa and be treated with courtesy. They are all denounced as "racists", "bigots", "hatemongers", and any other negative term of your choice.
Considering the way David Duke was treated on that infamous "Meet The Press" episode with Tim Russert a few years back, or the media's handling of William Pierce's funeral, right now it is impossible for a White face to act as a spokesman on behalf of White nationalism. How come the national press made no large-scale issue of what has been going on in Lewiston, Maine, or in Massachussetts, with Andrei Kievsky?? These Whites are hardly the types of people the media wishes to characterize nationalist-minded Whites as, yet we are supposed to think they don't exist and the only ones that do are the Hollywood-created "trailer park trash" with no morals or intellect. As long as this continues to be the case, White nationalism will never get off the ground.
I do not follow Swain, so I don't know what her take is on this issue. Of course, issues like illegal immigration are going to attract Whites to nationalistic beliefs, but it's defenitely more than just that. The everyday purpose of the our society, with its commitment to "diversity" and "tolerance", is what's drawing Whites to nationalism. Illegal immigration has a bit of a longer leash because it seems a bit "distant" as a whole. There is not a distinct group of people who are behind its agenda. They can be found anyplace. "Diversity", "multiculturalism" and "tolerance" has a close-knit, home-grown ambiance to it, and when Whites express dissent over this, it becomes a major problem. Who is prevalent in this department exclusively?? Chosenites, non-Whites, homosexual "activists", other leftists, and religious leaders.
I will give credit where credit is due. This is the first time that I can remember where White nationalism was no longer limited to a public get-together for one day only. As the events in Lewiston and the recent goings-on in Massachussets continue to unravel, we are seeing more and more of White nationalism, in some shape or form, begin to jell.
2002-12-17 03:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Roy Batty@Dec 17 2002, 01:10 > Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 17 2002, 00:24 > **I wonder, frankly, if the word 'Jew' even appears in Ms Swain's book; and I wouldn't be much surprised if it doesn't. But what creeps me out is the notion of a public [and wholly cosmetic] display of outreach to WNs on issues like Affirmative Action & Open Borders with David Horowitz and John Podhoretz taking 'our' side. **
And this "creepy" feeling, I suspect, is very close to the feeling of negroes in the 1960's as they watched Jews plot their -- the negroes' -- future.**
Few blacks were creeped out at all because few have the capacity to understand what is really going on, in terms of their being nothing more than tools to be used against the white goyim.**
We've got a couple of good threads on Swaim already as a search for "Swaim" will indicate. Regarding whether she discusses the Jews, she does address the issue somewhat
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=3858&hl]Backlash Building in White America[/url]
It would be interesting really to observe how much, granting this, what the real stance of her book is on the multiculturalist ideology in general, and the critical theory radicalism that helped create it. These are the ideologies of course that make impossible for white nationalism, or viable nationalism of any sort for that matter, to be discussed in any other terms by Klanwatch, ADL, Weisental Center etc.
2002-12-17 03:19 | User Profile
**Few blacks were creeped out at all because few have the capacity to understand what is really going on, in terms of their being nothing more than tools to be used against the white goyim. **
You're absolutely right, Roy. But some were hip to it.
2002-12-17 03:20 | User Profile
It would be interesting really to observe how much, granting this, what the real stance of her book is on the multiculturalist ideology in general.
This may sound a bit facetious, but I believe her stance is biculturalism good, multiculturalism bad. No reason for blacks to share the fruit of Whitey's labor with ethnic interlopers.
From Robert Griffin's review of her book (from The Occidental Quarterly), which I posted here:
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=3858&hl=swain]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=3858&hl=swain[/url]
The fact is the title of this book is a misnomer. This book isn't really about the new white nationalism; for that matter, it isn't even about the advancement of minority groups, plural. It is about furthering the agenda of the group to which Swain herself belongs, native-born black Americans. There is no evidence in this writing that Swain has the least concern for Asians or Hispanics or any other minority group. For instance, she makes it clear she thinks that racial preference policies should lump Hispanics together with whites, and that immigrantsââ¬âninety percent of whom are minorities in recent yearsââ¬âshould not be eligible at all.
Essentially, and quite remarkably, The New White Nationalism is about affirmative action for African Americans. Huge chunks of the book are devoted to the topic. By my count, seven of the book's fifteen chapters make no pretense of including a treatment of white nationalism. Really, they could have been written for another book, and frankly, I suspect they were. For instance, there's the chapter, "Affirmative Action Past and Present," which goes into great detail about the history of affirmative action, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all the rest and offers the conclusion that "many forms of affirmative action... are destructive to peaceful and productive race relations in America and are not needed to combat the very real discrimination that racial minorities often encounter." Swain goes on to say that these policies and programs have outlived their usefulness to blacks because they "they threaten to undermine public support for those principles of racial integration and racial justice that so inspired the nation during the civil rights era of the 1950s and 1960s."
2002-12-17 03:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Robbie@Dec 17 2002, 01:53 **This is because Whites cannot lead the way for White nationalism across the board in Amerikwa and be treated with courtesy. They are all denounced as "racists", "bigots", "hatemongers", and any other negative term of your choice...............
These Whites are hardly the types of people the media wishes to characterize nationalist-minded Whites as, yet we are supposed to think they don't exist and the only ones that do are the Hollywood-created "trailer park trash" with no morals or intellect. As long as this continues to be the case, White nationalism will never get off the ground.**
These attitudes basically derive of course from the way Jewish groups such as the New York Intellectuals have been so prominent in formulating the way isues siuch as these are debated in this country. See for example MacDonald
New York Intellectuals
This condescension and failure to respect other's ideas are particularly obvious in the New York Intellectuals attitude toward traditional; American culture, especially the culture of rural America. There is a large overlap between the New York Intellectuals and the anti-populist forces who, as discussed in chapter 5, used The Authoritarian Personality to pathologize the behavior of gentile Americans and particularly the lower middle class. ââ¬Â¦.. The New York Intellectuals associated rural America with "nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism; the urban was associated antithetically with ethnic and cultural tolerance, with internationalism, and with advanced ideasââ¬Â¦.The New York Intellectuals simply began with the assumption that the rural- with which they associated much of the American tradition and most of the territory beyond New York- had little to contribute to a cosmopolitan culture.
**I do not follow Swain, so I don't know what her take is on this issue. Of course, issues like illegal immigration are going to attract Whites to nationalistic beliefs, but it's definitely more than just that. **
Swaim is discussed rather extensively here.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=4098&hl]Racism Debate - Jerod Taylor vs. Carol Swaim[/url]
2002-12-17 03:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 17 2002, 03:20 > It would be interesting really to observe how much, granting this, what the real stance of her book is on the multiculturalist ideology in general.**
This may sound a bit facetious, but I believe her stance is biculturalism good, multiculturalism bad. No reason for blacks to share the fruit of Whitey's labor with ethnic interlopers.**
Matching your facetiousness, isn't going from multiculturalism to biculturalism a step in the right direction?
From Robert Griffin's review of her book (from The Occidental Quarterly), which I posted here:
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=3858&hl=swain]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...t=3858&hl=swain[/url]
The fact is the title of this book is a misnomer. This book isn't really about the new white nationalism; for that matter, it isn't even about the advancement of minority groups, plural. It is about furthering the agenda of the group to which Swain herself belongs, native-born black Americans. There is no evidence in this writing that Swain has the least concern for Asians or Hispanics or any other minority group. For instance, she makes it clear she thinks that racial preference policies should lump Hispanics together with whites, and that immigrantsââ¬âninety percent of whom are minorities in recent yearsââ¬âshould not be eligible at all. **
Actually I don't see anything in particular to quarrel with here. I and everyne else here I think pretty much agrees with Swaim's policies on non-black minorities. In fact, if these preferences for blacks weren't so easily extended to other minorities I think most people wouldn't find them nearly as objectionable.
**Essentially, and quite remarkably, The New White Nationalism is about affirmative action for African Americans. Huge chunks of the book are devoted to the topic. By my count, seven of the book's fifteen chapters make no pretense of including a treatment of white nationalism. Really, they could have been written for another book, and frankly, I suspect they were. For instance, there's the chapter, "Affirmative Action Past and Present," which goes into great detail about the history of affirmative action, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all the rest and offers the conclusion that "many forms of affirmative action... are destructive to peaceful and productive race relations in America and are not needed to combat the very real discrimination that racial minorities often encounter." Swain goes on to say that these policies and programs have outlived their usefulness to blacks because they "they threaten to undermine public support for those principles of racial integration and racial justice that so inspired the nation during the civil rights era of the 1950s and 1960s."
**
I don't see why its so remarkable that a book by a black college professor, who like most academic blacks of course owes her career to Affirmative Action, would focus on the subject. What is interesting is that she does manage to link the two topics, and it is remarkable that this theme of the book isn't picked up more clearly in reviews. She seems to be asserting a novel view among blacks, that multiculturalism ideology and postmodernism's hatred of nationalism and Christianity represent an unambiguous threat to the legitimate aspirations of blacks.
Of course I suspect she is not really that stalwart in this viewpoint, and much less the rest of the black community. I'd also suspect that behind the publicity being given to this book and the obstensively good recognition given to it is an attempt by the New York intellectuals and their syncophants to understand and defuse this skepticism toward multiculturalism in certain quarters and retain the black community firmly and irrevokably in the Jewish, left-wing, postmodernist camp.
2002-12-17 04:17 | User Profile
Matching your facetiousness, isn't going from multiculturalism to biculturalism a step in the right direction?
Certainly.
**She seems to be asserting a novel view among blacks, that multiculturalism ideology and postmodernism's hatred of nationalism and Christianity represent an unambiguous threat to the legitimate aspirations of blacks. **
Blacks hate multiculturalism.
2002-12-17 05:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 17 2002, 04:17 Blacks hate multiculturalism.
Yes indeed. The serious racial separatists out there are not white. And they're allowed to say it.
If Swain keeps this up, native born Americans will start to pick up the sort of phrases Canada has discarded. Not that many years ago in Canuckistan, they referred to the French and the English as the two "Founding Races" whose interest was in getting along together.
Multi-cult has knocked that sort of thing down for good in Canada, but there is no reason for America's two major Founding Races to pick up this kind of talk & see where it leads. It does not sound especially "racist" to me, and there is no technical reason known to me why it should.
2002-12-17 05:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@Dec 17 2002, 05:00 > Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 17 2002, 04:17 Blacks hate multiculturalism.**
Yes indeed. The serious racial separatists out there are not white. And they're allowed to say it.**
Well the Lott affair of course proves what happens when someone who is white says it.
**If Swain keeps this up, native born Americans will start to pick up the sort of phrases Canada has discarded. ÃÂ Not that many years ago in Canuckistan, they referred to the French and the English as the two "Founding Races" whose interest was in getting along together. ÃÂ
Multi-cult has knocked that sort of thing down for good in Canada, but there is no reason for America's two major Founding Races to pick up this kind of talk & see where it leads. ÃÂ It does not sound especially "racist" to me, and there is no technical reason known to me why it should.**
The example of Canada is instructve here in a way, in that I see, as you do, a certain similarity between the French and English there and the Whites and Blacks in the U.S.
In Canada the two "founding races" did manage to live in uneasy but working harmony through the years. Eventually though social radicalism, pushed by an intellectual elite (as in the US I'm sure disproportionately Jewish) after long targeting the disadvantaged minority (the French-Canadians) managed to sucessfully break through and gained control of Canada, using the minority as a foothold.
It is interesting along these lines that the French-Canadian social structure has been damaged almost as much as the black social structure here in the U.S. We had an interesting discussion along those lines over at LF.
[url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_culture&Number=352297&Forum=All_Forums&Words=Okiereddust&Match=Username&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=350950#Post352297]Liberty Forum - All the Sex.......Quebec[/url]
2002-12-17 09:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Dec 16 2002, 23:08 ** I wonder, frankly, if the word 'Jew' even appears in Ms Swain's book; and I wouldn't be much surprised if it doesn't. But what creeps me out is the notion of a public [and wholly cosmetic] display of outreach to WNs on issues like Affirmative Action & Open Borders with David Horowitz and John Podhoretz taking 'our' side. It creeps me out because it's so obviously part of the Jew plan to infiltrate and control the Right. **
Swain does discuss the Jews and their coalition with blacks. She is extremely concerned that Jews are considering abandoning blacks and making common cause with white nationalists like Jared Taylor. She laments Amren's relationship with Jews like Professors Hart and Levin. She even goes so far as to warn Jews that this will end in tragedy for them, comparing it to the scene in the Godfather where Michael Corleone is talking peace with a rival gang at a restaurant, excuses himself to go to the bathroom, then returns with a gun and kills them.
That's a bit over the top, in my opinion. But it seems to underscore real concerns that remain mostly unspoken on the Left.
Walter
2002-12-17 10:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 17 2002, 03:55 **She seems to be asserting a novel view among blacks, that multiculturalism ideology and postmodernism's hatred of nationalism and Christianity represent an unambiguous threat to the legitimate aspirations of blacks.
**
That's it in a nifty nutshell.
Swain is an Evangelical Christian, she's black and is interested only in helping blacks advance in America.
As I read yours and the other very fine comments here, it occurred to me that Swain is waxing nostalgic on us; she wants "the way we were, it was all so simple then," as Barbara Streisand sang. She wants to return to when the only participants in the conversation were whites and blacks, the terms of the debate were decidedly Christian, and the only issues involved how whites could help blacks advance in the broad context of Christian values. Now suddenly there are all these other interlocutors with their own agendas, own value systems and language of debate, and this creates huge problems for blacks. Suddenly, other groups have the ear of whites, appeals to a commonly-accepted Christian ethic are no longer countenanced, and whites are growing growing increasingly resentful of all this Babel. Blacks have just been demoted to #2 minority after Hispanics, and Swain doesn't like that one little bit, because she knows that Mexicans ain't about to indulge blacks the way whites have. Swain also explicitly decries the assault on traditional Christian values and the horrendous damage it wreaked on black society.
Also, I think that she's not at all convinced that the "Bell Curve" issues are as easily dismissable as she claims. She must know in her heart, or at least strongly suspect, that Herstein & Murray were right about blacks being less intelligent than whites for largely genetic reasons. Heck, that's completely obvious to any objective observer. Thus, she must realize that unchecked immigration of higher quality workers and relentless globalization conspire to displace low skilled blacks throughout the economy, and that this is nothing short of a catastrophe for blacks. If these trends continue, the majority of blacks will soon be made all but superflous in an economic sense (the bottom, say, third of them are already there). It's clear that reading between the lines Swain knows this, and is trying to sound a warning bell to blacks, and to whites who care about the fate of blacks, to prevent their total disposession in the land of their birth.
Walter
2002-12-17 20:06 | User Profile
She is extremely concerned that Jews are considering abandoning blacks and making common cause with white nationalists like Jared Taylor
She's right to be concerned about the former and I would argue that it's already begun (Cynthia McKinney, anyone?) but I wouldn't get worked up about the latter. White Nationalism is to Zionists what a garlic milkshake is to vampires.
No, the zebra has once again simply changed his stipes and called the same old thing something different. Socialism is now neoconservatism. Iraq is the greatest threat while the ongoing immivasion from Mexico is good for America. War is Peace, they hate us for our freedom, etc., etc.
As far as blacks go, I think Swain does indeed see the handwriting on the wall. As Walter has said, I don't think Aztlan is going to be a very hospitable place for "African-Americans" once Pancho Villa II rallies the racial troops, yet WN's are still the bugi-men who need to be co-opted.
Huh...
2002-12-19 04:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@Dec 17 2002, 00:00 > Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 17 2002, 04:17 Blacks hate multiculturalism.**
Yes indeed. The serious racial separatists out there are not white. And they're allowed to say it.**
I work with this White Canadian who came down South and married himself a black girl. I think he watched a few too many hip-hop videos on MTV. Anyway, he reports that when he and his wife are out in public it is the blacks that say things to them. He reports that her black family has more concern over their marriage than his family. Saddly, blacks have us Whites beat in terms of rejecting miscegenation and multiculturalism. They are far more willing to fight for their culture than we will for ours.
2002-12-19 06:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by amundsen@Dec 19 2002, 04:24 Saddly, blacks have us Whites beat in terms of rejecting miscegenation and multiculturalism. They are far more willing to fight for their culture than we will for ours.
That is what the Media hides under a rug. They know that blacks and other non-Whites are just as much to reject race-mixing, through marriage, dating, or offspring and ethnic "diversity" as Whites are, but it's the White's persepctive that sends the alarms blasting in the press rooms. They see images of the men in the white hoods and shaved heads dressed in black. Bad, says the press. Yet, the images of black separtists, dressed in "African" garb and bearing Muslim-inspired names gives the Media misty eyes. They wouldn't touch them even with an invisible pole.
Strange lot, they're.
2002-12-19 08:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by Robbie@Dec 19 2002, 06:47 > Originally posted by amundsen@Dec 19 2002, 04:24 Saddly, blacks have us Whites beat in terms of rejecting miscegenation and multiculturalism. They are far more willing to fight for their culture than we will for ours.**
That is what the Media hides under a rug. They know that blacks and other non-Whites are just as much to reject race-mixing, through marriage, dating, or offspring and ethnic "diversity" as Whites are, but it's the White's persepctive that sends the alarms blasting in the press rooms. They see images of the men in the white hoods and shaved heads dressed in black. Bad, says the press. Yet, the images of black separtists, dressed in "African" garb and bearing Muslim-inspired names gives the Media misty eyes. They wouldn't touch them even with an invisible pole.
Strange lot, they're.**
This double standard of course is an integral part of Frankfurt School originated postmodernist and multiculturalist "post-colonial", etc. theory. That's why I'm not too hard on whites for being soft at times. When you get beat on all the time after a while you tend to flinch a little bit.