ARCHIVE ARTICLES

 

 


"I would not live within a hundred miles of a damned Yankee."
-- Daniel Boone

 

 


It seems about every week or two Charlotte, North Carolina, is signing a new agreement on how they are going to "desegregate" their schools. This has been going on steadily since they first took care of the whole problem by hurrying to integrate some schools in 1955.

We are constantly asked how the Confederacy would handle "the race question." My response is to ask how the United States handles the race question.

If anybody thinks they know, he has not studied it. I used to think there was such a thing as nonracial public policy, even in a society which contains different races, but I found out different when I got to Capitol Hill. My job there required me to go into desegregation law in extreme detail.

In fact, I wrote some of it.

I was surprised at first at how complicated the whole question was. After all, can't you just ignore race?

Well, not really.

How do you know when a school system is really dedicated to nonracism? Remember that we are after unconscious discrimination, too, so you can't believe a person even when he thinks he is being honest.

There are thousands of school districts in this country, and I can find a good argument in one that another is not doing what it should be doing. There is no objective school to be cited. All cases differ. All school histories differ.

In order to make sure everybody is ignoring race you have to get into his or her mind. Is someone discriminating because of race, or are they discriminating because of what race MEANS?

If you are looking for illegal immigrants on the Mexican border, you will save a lot of money if you ignore blond people with Germanic accents. But the official position of the NAACP and other groups is that you must look just as hard at blond people as at swarthy people, or you are discriminating.

They are perfectly correct. You ARE discriminating.

When a young black man is shadowed by police in a rich white neighborhood, he gets mad at the police, at the establishment, and at absolutely everybody but the people who are responsible for the fact that he is being tailed.

He is being tailed because of all the young black people who commit crimes. The police are reflecting reality. They are not discriminating because of race per se. They are discriminating on the basis of what race obviously MEANS.

But they ARE discriminating.

The police who have so much trouble with blacks are not going to like blacks in general. They are going to have had so many bad experiences with blacks who fool them by acting innocent that they will find it hard to believe that a really innocent black man is really innocent.

Are we discriminating yet?

What about the real problem that a lot of blacks won't try to get jobs with some employers because they assume prejudice? When a black person comes into a job interview, exactly what is a nondiscriminatory attitude?

So you use affirmative action. Affirmative action says, in plain English: you can discriminate in favor of black people, but not against whites.

It is impossible to discriminate FOR someone without discriminating AGAINST someone. But this self-contradictory policy is written into the law, into the United States' "solution to the racial problem."

You think all this is complicated? Wait until you get into trying to figure out whether SCHOOLS are truly desegregated or not!

It is complicated for a very good reason. Race is real, and everybody thinks in terms of race. Nobody thinks more about race and in more purely racial terms than the professional antiracist. Black leaders think of little else BUT race.

The so-called American Solution of ignoring race is completely oxymoronic. You cannot concentrate on eliminating racism without thinking in terms of race. Like all professional antiracists, you soon find it impossible to believe that anyone else does not have a racial motive, too.

Take someone who dedicates himself to nondiscrimination.

The first thing he will do in any group is to count the black and white faces. He is trying to enforce something he cannot do himself.

The so-called American policy on race consists of chasing our tails.

So the North Carolina papers that Charlotte has just signed off on are another desegregation plan that will take care of the problem of white flight.

Again.

And nobody says this is ridiculous.

The nice thing about taking the liberal position is that when it turns out you were being silly, which is always the case, nobody is going to bring it up.

I remember reading the Charlotte Observer in the 1950s, and seeing them announce, again and again, that they had accepted some integration in their schools so their problems were over. They specifically made fun of our South Carolina contention that the integrationists would never, in all history, be satisfied.

They made fun of South Carolina for not following their lead into the final solution to the integration problem. Actually, the only reason they were not having more problems was because of South Carolina and Mississippi and other holdouts.

In 1963, the 101st Airborne Division introduced Social Progress to the University of Mississippi campus.

So, in 1964, with the Deep South finally crushed, racial busing started all over America. Charlotte was all for it.

That was thirty-five years ago. We now have another major program for chasing down whitey in North Carolina.

To me, this program and the Berlin Wall represent the same old leftist phenomenon. Everything the leftist "intellectuals" come up with is a total, absurd failure in the real world, but no one will say that. So they build walls in Marxist countries to force people to keep trying their nonsense, and they keep setting up programs to chase down whitey here.

And the respectable conservative say these are highly intellectual policy failures, not screaming nonsense that should be laughed out of existence.

In the meantime, liberals and the Jack Kemps and George Bush, Juniors, on the respectable right support hiring policies that discriminate against whites.

But these will end as soon as the integrationists are satisfied.

And it goes on, and on and on and on...

Let's secede.

 

Netanyahu has had to call new elections in Israel.

The peace process is in crisis.

The situation is grave.

Gosh.

How surprising.

How unusual.

How fascinating.

Liberals have to be fanatically pro-Israel. A large proportion of their money and their most dedicated support comes from the Jewish community. That means that anybody who is not deeply interested in Israel is anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

I watched Robert Kennedy debate the night before he was shot by the Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan. Kennedy and his opponent in the California Democratic primary were both "peace" candidates. This meant that they both demanded an immediate American withdrawal from Vietnam. But what they said in that debate was as far from "peace" as any discussion could conceivably be.

They were not debating about Vietnam. As two far-left Democrats competing for the same votes, they agreed on that.

What the two men were competing for was the large Jewish vote and monetary support for the far left in the California Democratic primary. No one who listened to that discussion would have called either one of them a "peace" candidate. Each one was trying to be harder on the Arabs than the other one.

I had heard many a really vicious attack on the Arabs by political candidates in the past, but I distinctly remember being appalled by the competing diatribes against them by Kennedy and McCarthy on that evening in 1968. I had heard a lot of people condemn the Arabs and demand force be used against them, but this sounded to me like two people bent on something frighteningly close to genocide.

Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian residing in the United States, got so angry and frightened by what Kennedy said that he shot him to death..

Having seen the popularity of conspiracy theories about the death of Martin Luther King and John Kennedy, a lot of people are now saying that Sirhan Sirhan may not have killed Kennedy on his own. Before there is any more of this kind of talk, everybody should see a rerun of that debate. Because I saw it, there is no doubt in my mind that Sirhan did it.

Liberals are pro-Israel. Liberals imply that any criticism of Israel is very close to Nazism. So naturally respectable conservatives are fanatically pro-Israel. Except for conservatives who are under a cloud, and are trying desperately to prove to liberals that they are really and truly respectable. They are BLATHERINGLY pro-Israel. The Christian Coalition is more fanatically pro-Israel than American Jews are. No anti-liberal commentator DARES say what so many of us are thinking: I don't give a damn about Israel.

So let me go on record: I don't give a damn about Israel.

There are an awful lot of people that I know who feel exactly the same way.

As soon as "...Middle East peace talks..." is mentioned on television, we all use that wonderful little remote and switch channels. In fact, the better the remotes have gotten, the shorter the pieces on Peace For Israel have gotten. Back when ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS owned all TV news outright, they would have long, long discussions of Israeli affairs, and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

Ah, but I forgot. Everybody but me and the legion of people I know are FASCINATED with Peace For Israel.

How do I know this?

Because I have never seen one single opinion writer on the left, on the right, or in the middle, who dared to say what I just said: "Israel means absolutely nothing to me."

Now, this is a free country, right? If lots of people were bored with Israel, somebody else would have mentioned this somewhere, right?

Maybe, just maybe, we're not as free as we brag we are.

I recently explained that our way to ruin is to continue to be "The World's Last Remaining Superpower." (Please see my January 9 article in the archives, "The Way to Ruin: Being 'The World's Last Remaining Superpower' ")

But we can travel down the road to ruin even faster. The way to do that is not merely to be The Last Remaining Superpower, but to be the STUPID Last Remaining Superpower.

There used to be some rules that everybody knew about foreign policy. To violate them was to invite destruction and, to repeat, everybody knew what those rules were.

One of these rules was that a Western country should avoid getting into "a land war in Asia." As described in the liberal David Halberstam's book, "The Best and the Brightest," the bright young liberals in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations decided they could violate this rule, and went into Vietnam.

Like every other liberal policy, Vietnam was a total disaster.

Another rule is that you NEVER try to straighten things out in the Balkans.

Europe tried that, and got into World War I. The Balkans have been a disaster for centuries and NOBODY who is sane gets in there.

Then there is the Middle East. Charles Issawi, an Egyptian who teaches in the United States, put it best. In his book, "The Laws of Social Motion," he gave Westerners advice, and I quote:

"ON SOLVING MIDDLE EASTERN PROBLEMS:

God sent Moses, and he couldn't fix it.
God sent Jesus, and He couldn't fix it.
God sent Mohammed, and he couldn't fix it.

Do you think YOU can fix it?"

The United States is still licking its wounds from the Asian land war no Western country should ever get into. And did we learn anything from Vietnam? Apparently not. Now we are in the Balkans AND we are in the Middle East. Once again, the liberals are violating the rules about sane foreign policy that everybody used to know.

We are in the Middle East for Israel.

We also say we are in the Middle East for oil. But the fact is we have ample oil for our needs in this hemisphere. We are in the Middle East for Israel and to preserve EUROPE'S oil supply. We are in the Balkans out of sheer, stumbling, blind stupidity.

Liberals are all for this. Respectable conservatives are BLATHERINGLY in favor of all this.

Let's secede, gang, as soon as we possibly can!

 

Home | Current Articles | Article Archive | About Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links | Privacy Policy

MENU

Home

Current Articles

Article Archive

Whitaker's World View

World View Archives

About Bob Whitaker

Contact Bob

Links

Privacy Policy


Current Issue
Issue: Feb. 13, 1999
Editor: Virgil H. Huston, Jr.
© 2001 WhitakerOnLine.org


Email List
Sign up for our email list to be notified of site updates:
E-Mail:

© Copyright 2001, 2002. All rights reserved. Contact: bob@whitakeronline.org