|
|
|
"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
|
|
|