← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Maximillian
Thread ID: 4152 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2002-12-22
2002-12-22 18:33 | User Profile
I hope someone hasn't posted this already- I thought it was a pretty good overview of the integration movement- from [url=http://www.whitakeronline.org/current.htm]http://www.whitakeronline.org/current.htm[/url]
Chasing down Southern Whites, Phase II
It's been called the Civil War, the War of the Rebellion and the War of Northern Aggression. The War to Keep the South covers all these names, and is the accurate one.
This title, The War to Keep the South, makes the perfect connection between that struggle and the (more recent) civil rights struggle for integration:
In both cases the main purpose of America was to keep Southerners from being left alone.
When I was coming up, the idea that blacks had a right to my company seemed absurd. Once again, they didn't want rights. They wanted US.
All the magazines are full of the black girl who is Bond's girl in the new film. She is on the cover of Jet Magazine with the Irishman playing Bond. That makes me nostalgic. In the 1950s, every single issue of Jet Magazine had a mixed couple on the cover.
Mixed couples were the only dream of black people in the 1950s. The argument for integration was the exact opposite of today's Holy Diversity. Back then no one dared use the word "black." They were "Negroes."
In the 1950s, a "Negro" was a white man in a coat and tie and a black skin. Every "Negro" on TV or in the movies had to look exactly like a white man, and they were usually less than a quarter black.
The original aim of the civil rights movement was that there be no diversity at all in America. Everyone would simply be brown. Everybody would have the same education, the same liberal outlook, and the same low rate of illegitimate births that whites had then.
This would all be done by forcing Southerners to integrate with blacks.
The Argument for Integration Changes
In the 1950s, the argument for integration was that it would end diversity. Everybody in every white majority country would eventually become a uniform brown. Funny, integration has never been demanded of any non-white country!
This ideal of ending all diversity in white countries was preached by Franz Boas as the means of getting rid of the white race, which he viewed as the common enemy of Jews and all other minority groups.
To be fair, a few of the most outspoken opponents of integration were Jews. The founder of US News and World Report, David Lawrence, demanded the repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ironically in 1961, his issue commemorating the beginning of the War to keep the South was the best case ever made for the Southern Cause.
Right through the 1960s, the NAACP never had a single black president. They were all leftist Jews.
But by the 1960s, some blacks started to wonder what BLACKS would get out of all this. Some black leaders began to realize that "Negroes" was not just a hard word for Southerners to pronounce, it was also hard for BLACKS to pronounce. It had never occurred to any civil rights leaders that blacks had any purpose except as a battering ram against whites, and no black appointed as a Leader had questioned that goal.
So in the 1960s the old goal of getting rid of whitey was not enough. The argument for integration changed.
Integration became "de-segregation". This "de-segregation" was now "to get equal schools for blacks." You bused white children to black schools, said liberals, so that whites would be forced to give black schools equal funding.
Black Schools could have been Equal
Before 1954, on average black teachers in North Carolina were already paid more than white teachers. This was to avoid integration.
Governor Byrnes of South Carolina introduced the state's sales tax to provide equal funding to black schools. If blacks had been willing to trade integration for funding they could have had all the money they wanted for their schools.
For integration, blacks threw away their opportunity for huge funding for their schools. No one questioned the fact that the function of blacks was to act as a sledgehammer to break up white society.
So for liberals to say that they wanted busing just to get funding for black schools was nonsense. Yet by then,, no conservative would dare point this out.
But the bottom line on integration was the same as the bottom line on the War to Keep the South. White Southerners wanted to be left alone.
If we stick to that goal, we can win.
Please see November 9, 2002 From that: ââ¬ÅHOW TO WINââ¬Â and also ââ¬ÅDO WE GET THE MINORITY VOTES WE WILL NEED MORE AND MORE IN THE FUTURE?ââ¬Â
Is it Possible for some Minorities to have some real Pride?
The rise of black militants in the late 1960s changed more than the word "Negro." It also exposed how humiliating the whole liberal approach to integration had been. Please see February 9, 2002 - WHITE ANTIRACISM IS REALLY VERY RACIST.
Militants pointed out that "Negro" just meant a dark white man and blacks only goal was to mix with whites. It has always been true that leftists look upon blacks as more sub-human than Klansmen do, but Stokeley Carmichael and other militant blacks shouted that out for the world to hear.
By the 1960s, when Susan Sontag declared the open and honest liberal position that "the white race is the cancer of history," the blacks she depended on to get rid of whites were showing signs of having some purposes of their own.
The ââ¬ÅAbolish Whitesââ¬Â Movement was being threatened by Black Pride.
The Argument for Integration Changes, Phase III
White integrationists still regard blacks as a sledgehammer with which they can break up white society and get rid of whites. Integration is NOT "race-mixing." Its NOT "mixing the races." Integration is only demanded in white majority countries.
Integration has nothing to do with "the races". It is ONLY intended to be used as a sledgehammer against the white race.
But regarding blacks as nothing but a sledgehammer against white society is insulting to blacks, so whites have not been able to say that since the 1960s.
So now integration is not AGAINST whites. It's FOR whites. It gives them Diversity. That shows that blacks educate us just by sitting beside us.
Oh, goody!
Meanwhile, I am still a white Southerner and I want to be left alone.
We'll pay blacks for the privilege of being left alone, just as we were willing to fight a war to be left alone.
But not leaving Southerners to themselves seems to be the only purpose Northern whites and liberal minorities have.
Pathetic, isn't it?
2002-12-22 19:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by Maximillian@Dec 22 2002, 18:33 ** By the 1960s, when Susan Sontag declared the open and honest liberal position that "the white race is the cancer of history," the blacks she depended on to get rid of whites were showing signs of having some purposes of their own.
**
Good one, Max.
Sontag didn't say "white southerners" were the cancer of history, she said the white race, period. As long as people in the south think everyone up north is liberal, we'll all keep getting run over by diversity. Thanks in part to the college-boy League of the South, lots of whites south of the Mason-Dixon think yanks are worse than local coloreds. The Europeans used to call this "salami tactics."
Was Rockwell right? In the 60s he said that whites up north knew squat about blacks and whites in the south knew nothing about Jews. Put this ignorance together and you have defeat. So far his formula has been right on the money.
2002-12-24 16:07 | User Profile
Ragner,
Not true. I have to take issue with you on this:
As long as people in the south think [u]everyone up north is liberal[/u], we'll all keep getting run over by diversity. Thanks in part to the college-boy League of the South, lots of whites south of the Mason-Dixon think yanks are worse than local coloreds.
While I can`t speak for the League of the South, I can speak of people that I know. Most of us have better sense than to believe the above, despite how the media portrays us as a bunch of Israel First bible thumpers.
Let me put it to you this way. I make a distinction between a Northerner and a "yankee." A Northerner appreciates all of America`s history, and that, of course includes that of the South as well. People like me can appreciates the service of their ancestors as well. After all, that is part of our history.
A "yankee," on the other hand, is someone who is a know it all who not only wishes to lord over everyone, but unfortunately, has the power to make life miserable on the rest of us no matter where we hail from. These people are the direct descendents of the abolitionlists. Today we call them "liberals," and their bastard stepchild Neo-conservatives.
Incidently, we have a southern version of "yankees" down here.
We call them scalawags.
Now, on this:
**Was Rockwell right? In the 60s he said that whites up north knew squat about blacks and whites in the south knew nothing about Jews. [u]Put this ignorance together and you have defeat. So far his formula has been right on the money.[/u] **
Like Pierce, he is right on that and probably a number of other things as well. This is something that scares the hell out of people. My disagreement with them is their idea of the solution.
I think that this business about "refighting the Civil War" is something that our enemies use against us. I admit that some folks who should know better aid and abet them. Arator comes to mind with his "Perfidious albion" statements while promoting "christian" zionism. To paraphrase Frederick the Great, "he who attacks everthing attains nothing." With the Right we should concentrate our fire on two things. Organized Jewery and the Plutocracy made up of corrupt gentiles. We can document their crimes against the West with their own words and use them as a claymore against them.
2002-12-24 19:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by Sertorius@Dec 24 2002, 16:07 **
Let me put it to you this way. I make a distinction between a Northerner and a "yankee." A Northerner appreciates all of America`s history, and that, of course includes that of the South as well. People like me can appreciates the service of their ancestors as well. **
True enough, I was responding to the tone of the article. The LoTS types also forget the number of northerners with southern roots, who came up here from Tenessee, Alabama, the Carolinas, etc, and stayed. Their grandchildren and children now include my inlaws and several millions more.
Some of us are only touchy when it comes to things that seem to divide us. There ain't enough of us palefaces left for that. The best way I've seen the issue handled lately, oddly, was Jim Giles. He specifically criticized the "Yankee-Jews" and that was right on the money. The more specific, the better, and everyone hates the NY bankers, the California media barons, and the liberal judges everywhere. Giles' term covered them all. Good. There's a way to do it right.