It comes as a blow to the solar plexus to confront the fact that in urban African American communities all across America a frank racist hate-filled rhetoric is not merely condoned but actually celebrated. We white conservatives have been taught for the last generation to button our lips and never to give utterance to a racist thought. We thought that we were parties to a bargain: that if we shut up and truckled to the liberal race bullies sooner or later we would emerge from the post civil-rights era and its hypocrisies of affirmative action and diversity and we would ascend to the sunny green uplands of post-racism.Yes, we've been had. Or, rather, our "leaders" have been had. I never believed that celebrating that which makes different (diversity) would bring us together. I alway knew instinctively that seperating us would, well, seperate us.
Lawrence Auster got it right.
The Path to National Suicide by Lawrence Auster (1990)
An essay on multi-culturalism and immigration.
Click the Pic!!!!
Excerpt....
How can we account for this remarkable silence? The answer, as I will try to show, is that when the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 was being considered in Congress, the demographic impact of the bill was misunderstood and downplayed by its sponsors. As a result, the subject of population change was never seriously examined. The lawmakers’ stated intention was that the Act should not radically transform America’s ethnic character; indeed, it was taken for granted by liberals such as Robert Kennedy that it was in the nation’s interest to avoid such a change. But the dramatic ethnic transformation that has actually occurred as a result of the 1965 Act has insensibly led to acceptance of that transformation in the form of a new, multicultural vision of American society. Dominating the media and the schools, ritualistically echoed by every politician, enforced in every public institution, this orthodoxy now forbids public criticism of the new path the country has taken. “We are a nation of immigrants,” we tell ourselves— and the subject is closed. The consequences of this code of silence are bizarre. One can listen to statesmen and philosophers agonize over the multitudinous causes of our decline, and not hear a single word about the massive immigration from the Third World and the resulting social divisions. Opponents of population growth, whose crusade began in the 1960s out of a concern about the growth rate among resident Americans and its effects on the environment and the quality of life, now studiously ignore the question of immigration, which accounts for fully half of our population growth.
This curious inhibition stems, of course, from a paralyzing fear of the charge of “racism.” The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.
Very poignant clip from Mr. Auster's thoughtful book.
But now, when looking at stats, where and in what cities is crime the highest? It's usually Democrat or Black Leadership locations. Where is black on black crime the highest? Dittos.
The continual assertion by Black Leadership that until they are completely and utterly in charge of the "system" crime and chaos like this will be the result due "white racism" is inclined to make most people look askance at such utterances and declarations.
If, in fact, as Wright asserts, Blacks innately process thought differently from Whites, this is singularly even more alarming, if current trends give a glimpse into a picture of a future.
America is not over. Black Nationalists demanded power, they got power. And I don't think Americans are at all as spineless as Mr. Auster paints.
Quite the contrary. I think Americans listen to others "different, not deficient" from ourselves. We go quiet often, in order to permit others to voice themselves. That some in our larger community haven't a clue as to that, is their problem.
When Americans have had enough, they begin to raise their objections, and take their thoughts into the voting booth.
If Americans didn't appreciate NEWNESS, there's no way America would be the super Economic power that it is: Americans are intrigued by newer inventions and creations, newer personalities, assisting and taking part in the productive and positive evolution of mankind.
And, frankly, I think they resent being told to shut up by some special interest group thinking it has the lockhold on any and all conversation (through the use of "racism, homophobia, ad nauseum).
In the article I posted, Mr. Chantrill's last couple of paragraphs sum neatly what might have been Wright's response, instead of what he delivered.
I've not been at all quiet all these past years as sex/race identity political groups plied their rhetoric in "path to power." "The Path to Suicide" is what describes what has been going on inside each of these race/sex political identity groups. High stats in re abortion, massive crime, tribalism in our cities and towns.
And along comes Wright to proclaim we outta have more of that.
A liberal becomes a conservative, usually, once he's been mugged by reality. And if the comments section at the San Francisco SFgate.com are any indication, it has been quite interesting to observe the transformation as more muggings continue, and now in the tonier parts of the City.
I never believed that celebrating that which makes different (diversity) would bring us together. All the years I spent in classrooms in college and grad school and now as a teacher in those same venues, I have to say that "diversity" made absolutely no difference in terms of the quality and quantity of knowledge gained/imparted. What did matter was how hard one was willing to work to learn the material, and effort paid no mind of "diversity". You either worked hard and learned or you didn't.
I alway knew instinctively that seperating us would, well, seperate us.
History again is our guide here. We saw what the Balkanization of Europe did in the early 20th century. It brought about (in large part) the most calamitous event to befall mankind up to that time. Whereas prior wars killed their thousands, the first world war killed its millions. The present push to "diversity" and "identity politics" is taking us down the same road, but from within. That's not to say we're all to be cookie cutter assembly line golems, but at one time in this country recognition of diversity led to a desire for unity, a blending of different peoples under one flag and nation, steeped in a tradition of individualism and personal liberty and freedom. Now, the opposite is occurring. The push for "diversity" is leading, ironically, to further erosion of personal freedoms and individual liberty, i.e., toe the line, or it's "sensitivity training" (re-education camp) for you.