Posted on 06/23/2008 3:37:04 AM PDT by forkinsocket
It's one of those crazy paradoxes which so characterize liberal, politically correct, anti-White ideology: the idea that ours is a country marked by 'White privilege', a country in which blacks and other non-Whites are excluded, marginalized, deprived, and mistreated by arrogant, bullying Whites.
Does such a country exist anywhere? Has such a country ever existed? Not to my knowledge, although I do remember a country in which the majority set the tone, set the standards. I remember a country in which the descendants of those who founded the country were confident and self-assured, and were sensibly protective of their way of life and hence guarded the country's borders and its integrity as a predominantly European, English-speaking, Christian majority society.
Is the society I just described a 'racist' or 'White supremacist' society? By no means; this country once exemplified what was the standard for any sovereign country with a vigilant concern for protecting its people and its way of life. Of course, in today's politically correct world, those things are synonymous with the ultimate 'evil' of 'racism'.
Today's changeling America, which bears less and less resemblance to its original self each day, is a country in which the descendants of the Founding stock are in a permanent apology mode, every day rehearsing some past injustice done by our ancestors against one of the protected 'victim' groups. Our country (or what's left of it) is consumed these days with apology and repentance and talk of reparations for the guilt we supposedly bear for something done by people of generations past, to people of generations past.
Our country today has uncounted millions of illegal immigrants, the vast majority of them nonwhite. And our country is too fearful of being called names to eject these people, (who are conspicuously present everywhere, and easily located.)
And even more unbelievable if looked at from the perspective of 'old America' is the prospect of the majority of our fellow 'Americans' voting for a rather mediocre, untried politician to be our next President -- primarily because he is black, and because doing so would be a way of 'bridging the racial gap' and 'healing our wounds' and above all, proving that this is not a ''racist'' country.
This whole situation dumbfounds me when I think about it. Surely, isn't the very fact that the candidate in question is where he is today, on the verge of being our next President, prima facie proof that Americans are not 'White supremacists'? If White supremacism was the dominant philosophy in our country, we would not be a country on its way to being majority non-White in a decade or two. We would not be frantically importing millions of mostly nonwhite immigrants and refugees into our midst, as though we were in a race with other Western countries to see who can be the first off the cliff. And we would not have this absurd and insane system called 'political correctness' which causes many of us to obsess over words and phrases, and which causes us to elevate people of mediocre abilities and questionable character to high positions just because they are NOT of our race.
How on earth does the childish fiction about our 'racist' system persist, when it is so obviously at odds with the reality we observe around us?
This post was inspired by a blog entry by Guy White, in which he shows a picture of two young males, one black, one White, walking towards each other on a sidewalk. The white man's path is shown as crossing the street as the black man approaches. The caption says 'Racism, just in case.'
The common accusation, when real-life Whites behave in that fashion towards blacks, is that racism is the reason, and that for the White to avoid the black is indicative of 'hate' and/or fear. Even fear in such an instance is interpreted as based on malice and not on simple common sense or on a wish to avoid conflict.
Guy White makes the point that fear, based on real-life probabilities, is behind the tendency to avoid blacks. I would wager that many other non-whites would exhibit the same behavior in that situation. But only Whites are accused of 'racism' for wanting to avoid a confrontation or the chance of being a victim of crime.
Sadly, although the White may simply be acting out of common sense by crossing the street, just playing it safe, his behavior is not only identified as being a sign of racist malice but at the same time, a sign of weakness. Just as the tendency to apologize for everything has only fueled more accusations and demands for more apologies, any attempt to avoid a confrontation, however sensible that may be, is seen as weakness. Weakness leads to more brazenness on the part of the aggressor. Always.
Women are sometimes intimidated in different ways by nonwhites; they may make overtures to the woman, which, if ignored, are followed by the perpetual question: ''are you racist or something?" Faced with that accusatory query, too many women feel under compulsion to prove they are not.
So if a woman crosses the street in such a situation, or even simply avoids eye contact, she knows she will be thought 'racist.'
In short, Whites are all too often on the defensive. Would this be the situation if we really were some kind of 'racist' supremacist country? Imagine such a country full of intimidated, defensive, guilty White people. The thought is just ludicrous. Guilt and supremacism are not compatible. Guilt puts one in a state of indebtedness and beholdenness to the 'wronged' party. Indebted people cannot be totally free people, much less any kind of dominant people.
I actually remember a time when things were not this way. I remember very clearly when things changed; it was near the end of the 60s, when our government had effectively capitulated, and when ''our'' leaders had openly sided with nonwhites against their people. There was a new confrontational attitude abroad, and the supposedly 'oppressed' were now becoming more openly truculent. The old arms-length truce was gone; there was much more open hostility -- mostly the other side, of course, while the rest of us were expected to hold our tongues and make concessions so that we could all live in 'harmony'.
The propaganda ramped up, and more and more, race became this taboo topic, about which only one side of the story could be heard. The White majority, far from being arrogant and intimidating towards nonwhites, became the new 'Silent Majority', expected to take it without flinching, and to keep a low profile.
Attitudes changed overnight because there were signals sent by those in charge that they were, in essence, surrendering, pleading no contest, willing to be tried and re-tried for past crimes, real and imagined.
40 years later, and it has only escalated. The promised 'racial harmony' has not materialized, and we are farther from it than ever. But closer to another such 'change' -- and another change not in our favor.
And as if the black-White rift was not troublesome enough, we now have the Moslem-Infidel conflict and the Hispanic-Anglo grudge match, along with blacks vs. Hispanics.
None of this madness would even begin to develop in a 'racist', or more accurately, a strongly ethnocentric country. And one doesn't have to be 'racist' to want to live in a society where people are not naturally at odds and in perpetual conflict with others unlike themselves.
There can be no 'neutral' multicultural society, despite what the demented utopians would have us believe. One culture (and hence, one people) will dominate if only by default. As it is, the 'victim' groups dominate but only because our morally derelict leaders foster their interests, and have fixed the game in their favor. They would not dominate by mere ability, intelligence, competence, or shrewdness. They only prevail at this point because our treasonous leaders coddle and favor them.
So the next time you read some childish news article about how the poor immigrants are 'living in the shadows' and 'afraid', look out your window, or walk down the main street of your town, and chances are you will see multitudes of illegals brazenly parading down the sidewalk, looking you in the eye as they pass. They are not in the least fearful of us, and they are definitely not in the 'shadows.' The same for all the rest of the perpetual victims, complaining about mistreatment. The very fact that they are here -- and that they have chosen to stay here -- gives the lie to their complaints of ill-treatment.
And it certainly demonstrates that we don't have a society which affords us special 'privileges'. Somebody is lying to somebody.
....and Aunt Esther don’t lose, leastways not against Fred and Lamont.
as well as European
from way back, even before New World applications
course the Cotton Gin, invented by a Yankee of all folks did make it more of a southern institution
frankly, modern blacks have more reason to decry Jim Crow than slavery
long term slavery was a boon to the descendants.
average black in the US today even those on the dole is far better off than their counterpart in West Africa.
at least from what I've seen in 50 years of observing black culture in the South, Urban North, Caribbean, Latin America and West Africa
for that matter, womyn....who bitch almost as much have never had it so good as here either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.