DOES OBAMA'S CANDIDACY SIGNIFY AN END
TO RACIAL HATRED IN THE UNITED STATES?
- THAT'S NOT WHAT THE BIBLE INDICATES
By: S.R. Shearer
July 17, 2008
"... Nation (ethnos)
shall rise against nation (ethnos), and kingdom against kingdom
..." [meaning, "ethnic group shall rise against ethnic group, and
nation against nation."]
Paul Krugman, a liberal columnist for the New York Times,
writes optimistically concerning Obama's candidacy and what it portends regarding
race relations for the country:
"Fervent supporters of Barack Obama like to say that putting him in
the White House would transform America. With all due respect to the candidate,
that gets it backward. Obama is an impressive speaker who has run a brilliant
campaign - but if he wins in November, it will be because our country has
already been transformed …
"Obama's nomination wouldn't have been possible 20 years ago. It's possible
today only because racial division, which has driven U.S. politics rightward
for more than four decades, has lost much of its sting.
"The [RACIAL] DE-RADICALIZATION of U.S. politics
has implications that go far beyond the possibility that we're about to elect
an African-American president. Without racial division, the conservative message
- which has long dominated the political scene - loses most of its effectiveness."
KRUGMAN ASSERTS THAT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OBAMA PHENOMENON
Krugman gives much of
the credit for the country's "RACIAL DE-RADICALIZATION"
to the straitjacket that "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" has imposed
on "white haters." Krugman writes:
"Although everyone makes fun of "political correctness," I'd
argue that decades of pressure on public figures and the media have helped
drive both overt and strongly implied racism out of our national discourse.
For example, I don't think a politician today could get away with running
the infamous 1988 Willie Horton ad."
Krugman ends by saying:
"If Obama … wins, it will symbolize the great change that has taken
place in America. Racial polarization used to be a dominating force in our
politics - but we're now a different, and better, country."
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS NOW BEING
REINFORCED BY THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
And it's not just the
fact that "political correctness" puts, as Krugman maintains, "pressure
on public figures and the media to drive both overt and strongly implied racism
out of our national discourse," but also the fact that "political
correctness" has insinuated itself into the judicial system and has been
successfully used to strip "hate groups" of their financial assets,
rendering them impotent.
For example, in 1987,
the ultra liberal Southern Poverty Law Center won a $7 million verdict against
the United Klans after the killing of a black man in Alabama, forcing the
group to give its headquarters to the victim's mother. It also convinced a
Portland, Oregon, jury to award $12.5 million to the family of a Somalian
immigrant who was beaten to death with a baseball bat by skinheads from a
group called White Aryan Resistance; and it won a similar judgment against
Aryan Nations leader Richard Butler in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, for a 1998 attack
on a woman and her son outside the Aryan Nations headquarters.
In each of these cases,
the defendant was not involved directly with the alleged crime, nor was he
(they) there at the commission of the crime; but he (they) was (were) nevertheless
found guilty for "inciting to violence." These kinds of verdicts
cannot help but greatly reinforce the concept of "political correctness"
on whites, and render them speechless insofar as any "honest" discussion
of race is concerned.
All this to say nothing
of high-profile whites losing their jobs for making statements that were deemed
an affront to blacks - like "Jimmy the Greek" and Don Imus.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS MAY BE DOING
NOTHING MORE THAN MASKING WHITE RAGE
It's precisely because of this - i.e., the silence
that has been imposed on whites insofar as race is concerned - that Lynell
George of the Los Angeles Times thinks that all "political correctness"
is doing is masking white rage; she says that "political correctness"
can work for a while; but if things turn sour, the dam could burst on the
phenomenon; again, she fears that all it has accomplished is force most whites
into a sullen silence regarding race. She cites a friend of hers, Janet Fitch,
a '60s radical pre-disposed to the concept of "political correctness,"
"The whirlwind that has developed around race ... has rendered [white]
people not just cautious, but silent ... "
But once again, silence - as Fitch implies - does
not necessarily equate with "acceptance."
That worries Ellis Cose, a contributing editor
and essayist for Newsweek. Cose echoes George's concerns about the
silence that "political correctness" has imposed on whites:
"The inability [of whites] to talk about [how they really feel about]
race [and culture] in anything resembling honest terms ... renders silence
And so - one more time - we're back to the very
real fact that whites may not be reacting "honestly" with regard
to their so-called "acceptance" of blacks and other minorities in
"Mainstream America." George writes:
"Like a tumbleweed, the subject of race gathers all sorts of cast-aside
delicate issues in the course of its travels; class or privilege, or an exact
definition of who and what is racist. [Whites] ... prefer not to have that
tense, if not unpleasant conversation. Instead ... [they] walk in circles;
talk in metaphors. The avoidance at times is as intricate and showy as a modern
Jackie DuPont-Walker, a senior projects director
and a manager of urban development and housing for Los Angeles, says,
"We live in a society where we define politeness in a way that encourages
avoidance ... It's impolite to confront a reality that may be unpleasant."
It's not without reason, then, that people like
George, Cose, and DuPont-Walker worry that "political correctness"
may be masking an underlying reality - that the matter of race in this country
is not quite as settled as some people would like to believe; that the country's
"RACIAL DE-RADICALIZATION," as Paul Krugman puts it, is not quite as advanced as he thinks.
OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS CARRY ON
Still, Obama's liberal supporters believe that
America is at a turning point insofar as the subject of race is concerned.
And it's not just "talking heads" like Krugman who see the end of
racial divisions in the United States. Take average people like Kwabena
Sam-Brew, a 38-year-old immigrant from Ghana, who took her daughter to a rally
that effectively crowned Senator Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee.
She said to one reporter:
"I will tell her, 'Tonight is the night that all Americans became one'."
And she went on to say:
"We as black people now have hope that we have never ever had before."
Alison Kane, a white
34-year-old transportation analyst echoed Sam-Brew; she said that Obama's
success as a biracial politician would have a similar effect on her 21-month-old
biracial daughter, Hawa:
"When she's out in, God knows where, some small town in rural America,
they'll think, 'Oh, I know someone like you. Our president is like you'. That
just opens minds for people, to have someone to relate to. And that makes
me feel better, as a mom."
Then there's Ronald
Jeffers, who gets a good sense of [New York] Harlem's pulse handing out fliers
under the marquee of the Apollo Theater; he says that he has heard passersbys
buzzing about Obama's victory. Jeffers remarked to a reporter:
"I think it's a monumental step,"
THE "STRAITJACKET" OF
Nevertheless, one has
to worry that Lynell George may be right about "political correctness:"
that it can work for a while; but if things turn sour, the dam could burst
on the phenomenon - especially in light of the age
in which we are living; an age that the Bible warns ominously will be characterized
by ethnic violence:
"... Nation (ethnos) shall rise against nation (ethnos),
and kingdom against kingdom ..." [meaning, "ethnic group shall rise
against ethnic group, and nation against nation."] (Luke 21:10)
Does one really think that the United States will be immune from
this phenomenon? [Please see our articles on race relations, "Dogs
on a Leash" and "Beware!
- All Those Who Don't Fit into America's Euro-Centric, Christian
Culture: The Brownshirts Are Coming for You."]
Indeed, there are a
number of reasons to believe that a reaction against the phenomenon of "political
correctness" is already "afoot" in the United States; and while
this reaction may not yet be strong enough to prevent an Obama victory in
November - especially in light of the economic and military crises facing
the country - if Obama falters even a little in his presidency, it could ignite
a firestorm against "liberalism" and the dream of "racial harmony"
that would make the firestorm that was ignited against "Reconstruction"
[i.e., the imposition on the Old South after its defeat in the Civil War of
"racial harmony" (specifically, the 13th, 14th,
and 15th Amendments to the Constitution)] look like a picnic. [More about that in our next article.]
This is especially worrying in light of the fact that if the elites see the
Obama presidency veering away from their economic interests, they
are very liable to pour gasoline on the flames of white hatred
in order to stop Obama. [Please see our previous article, "A
Revolt against Elite Power Is in the Air, and the Elites Are Breathing
Fire against It."]
THE DEMONIZATION PROCESS AGAINST
"POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" IS ALREADY UNDERWAY
And it's not as if such
a reaction against "political correctness" and "racial harmony"
is not already far advanced in the United States; this is made apparent by
the great number of conservative "talking heads" who have taken
on the task of DEMONIZING the subject of "political correctness."
One can hear them on "talk radio," and on Fox News any time he turns
on the radio or the TV. Even CNN is "on board" in this DEMONIZATION
PROCESS; one has only to tune in Lou Dobbs, CNN's most watched commentator,
to get an idea as to how highly evolved the process is.
Take William Fankboner,
a "talking-head" and pseudo-intellectual who attacks "political
correctness," calling it an IMPLACABLE CENSORSHIP:
"An impalpable censorship is eliminating all intellectual and artistic
vitality in Western society with a vengeance."
An impalpable censorship?
The elimination of intellectual and artistic values? This is what "political
correctness" aims at rather than eliminating such ugly and hurtful words
as "Nigger," "queer," "Jap," etc. from the common
lexicon. If that's the case - if that's what "average white people"
who listen to "talking-heads" like Fankboner (and evidently approve
what he is saying) are beginning to think - then Krugman may be way off base
when he says that the United States is "… now a different, and better,
country …" as a result of "political correctness."
in his rant against "political correctness," accusing it of creating
"… a coercive atmosphere of guilt, fear and intimidation … [that] inhibits
the easy give-and-take of human discourse, the life-blood of democratic institutions,
and ultimately of man's own social and spiritual life …"
A "coercive atmosphere
of guilt?" For what? Calling a black person a "Nigger?" People
who use such language should feel guilty. But that's not what Fankboner thinks,
and he goes on to link "political correctness" to the so-called
"ills" brought on the country by the "liberals" of the
1960s whose -
"… childlike faith in the efficacy of social engineering is hopelessly
naïve; the unctuous solicitude for downtrodden minorities and clammy compassion
for the unfortunate are an affront to human dignity."
Eee gads! The "unctuous
solicitude for downtrodden minorities?" The "clammy compassion for
the unfortunate?" And these are the feelings that "political correctness"
is masking in white households countrywide? Again, if that's the case, then
one false move by an Obama presidency - one failure - could cause a massive
reaction against what Krugman calls the country's "RACIAL DE-RADICALIZATION PROCESS."
RACIAL RADICALIZATION - NOT DE-RADICALIZATION -
IS ALREADY AFOOT IN THE MILITARY
Finally, there is the
matter of what's been happening in the military; the extent to which not racial
de-radicalization has advanced there, but racial radicalization. The very
real fact of the matter is, according to John Kifner -
"A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist
hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed
'large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists' to infiltrate the military."
Kifner reports that
the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia
groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands and thousands,
citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings
on racist Web sites and magazines. "We've got Aryan Nations graffiti
in Baghdad," the group quoted a Defense Department investigator … "That's
The report said that
neo-Nazi groups like the National Alliance, whose founder, William Pierce,
wrote The Turner Diaries, the novel that was the inspiration and blueprint
for Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, are seeking
to enroll followers in the Army to get training for a coming race war.
The groups are being
abetted, the report said, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the
Army, to meet quotas that are more difficult to reach because of the growing
unpopularity of the war in Iraq. The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense
Department investigator, saying,
"Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists
to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military
even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members."
Barfield goes on to
"They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting,
about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military.
Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in
The report cited accounts
by neo-Nazis of their infiltration of the military, including a discussion
on the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. "There are others among
you in the forces," one participant wrote. "You are never alone."
An article in the National Alliance magazine Resistance urged skinheads
to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units.
The Southern Poverty
Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former
Special Forces officer who was the alliance's "military unit coordinator."
"Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war
and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war.
It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or
city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where
they can be hunted down and 'cleansed'."
"As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United
States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the
coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan
JUSTIFYING RACIST ATTITUDES
And just how deep this
animosity goes in the white community was unmasked several years ago in a
book by Richard J. Herrnstein (the late Edgar Pierce Professor of psychology
at Harvard University) and Charles Murray (a prominent researcher at the American
Enterprise Institute, one of the largest private social science research organizations
in the country) entitled The Bell Curve, a book which, incidentally,
was extremely well received in evangelical Christian circles; the book lends
a pseudo-intellectual basis for racism.
Herrnstein and Murray
postulate that the key to explaining much of the economic disparity between
whites (on the one hand) and blacks and Latinos (on the other hand) has to
do with intelligence or "cognitive ability" - as measured by I.Q.
reporting in The American Spectator, a conservative magazine popular
with politically motivated Christian evangelicals, writes,
"The central argument of The Bell Curve is that intelligence
is important to success, and that there are measurable intelligence differences
between the races that education can narrow only slightly, if at all. The
lumpen class the authors envision will be disproportionately black and Latino
CHARTING THE SUPPOSED DISPARITY IN INTELLIGENCE
BETWEEN WHITES AND OTHER MINORITIES
According to the "evidence"
"amassed" by the authors, when one charts people along an axis by
intelligence, the resulting distribution is a "bell curve" - a statistical
curve which gives its name to the book - with the vast majority of people
stacking up in the middle range, and the remainder on two slopes at each end
of the curve - one with significantly dumber individuals (the left slope,
where, according to Herrnstein and Murray, blacks and Latinos are lumped together),
and one with significantly smarter people (the right slope, where whites are
This data, the authors
suggest, leads one to the inevitable conclusion that America is gradually
developing into two societies - one which is full of bright, high-achievers
(namely whites); the other full of the dull, the violent, and the economically
dependent (namely, blacks and Latinos).
Herrnstein and Murray
warn that THESE CONDITIONS CANNOT HELP BUT LEAD INEVITABLY TO A RACE WAR
IN THE UNITED STATES. They maintain that, as a result of all this -
"RACISM WILL REEMERGE IN A NEW AND MORE VIRULENT FORM. The tension
between what whites are supposed to think and what they are actually thinking
about race will reach something close to a breaking point. This pessimistic
prognosis must be contemplated: when the break comes, the result, as so often
happens when cognitive dissonance is resolved, will be an overreaction in
the other direction."
The authors continue,
"We realize how outlandish it [may] seem to predict that educated and
influential [white] Americans, who have been so puritanical about racial conversation,
will openly revert to racism, [nonetheless, we believe it is worth worrying
about] ... [We think that] it is more than just possible."
The contention by Herrnstein and Murray that the races can be differentiated
on the basis of their intelligence is, however, pure RUBBISH,
both biblically and intellectually. The so-called "evidence"
gathered together by the two authors is nothing new, and bears
a striking resemblance to the racial pseudo-science promulgated
by Nazi theoreticians in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. We URGE
you to read our rebuttal to The Bell Curve,
"Racism and Right-Wing Christianity:
Laying the Intellectual Foundations for an Attack on America's
Minority communities by America's Majority Community."]
The important thing
to observe in all of this is just how far the idiocy of racism has - under
the radar, and out of sight of most commentators - gone in this country; and
just how far, contrary to the thinking of Paul Krugman, the counter reaction
against "political correctness" has advanced, and in the process,
weakened the dam that, according to Krugman, has been holding back the flood
waters of racism from inundating the country.
As we indicated above,
what The Bell Curve has done is provide the intellectual basis
for the MASSIVE white reaction against blacks and Latinos that Herrnstein
and Murray - as well as Pierce (who, like Herrnstein, was a professor of psychology
at Rice University in Texas) and others like him see coming - a reaction that
becomes very problematic if an Obama presidency fails and if white racists
are able to portray the Obama presidency as "anti-white."
MANY "HATERS" ARE HOPING THAT AN OBAMA
PRESIDENCY WILL "WAKE WHITE AMERICA UP"
That's precisely the concern of Mark Potok of
the Southern Poverty Law Center; Potok worries that a "failed" Obama
presidency - one that white racists could successfully portray to average
whites as "ruining the America they love," (e.g., the "John
Wayne," "Gary Cooper," "Father Knows Best," "Leave
It to Beaver," "Mayberry" America of their mythology) - could
ignite a colossal wave of white racism against blacks and Latinos in the country;
"With the nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential
candidate clinched, large sections of the white supremacist movement are adopting
a surprising attitude: Electing America’s first black president would be a
very good thing.
"It’s not that the assortment of neo-Nazis, Klansmen, anti-Semites and
others who make up this country’s radical right have suddenly discovered that
a man should be judged based on the content of his character, not his skin.
On the contrary. A GROWING NUMBER OF WHITE SUPREMACISTS … THINK THAT A
BLACK MAN IN THE OVAL OFFICE WOULD SHOCK WHITE AMERICA, AND POSSIBLY DRIVE
MILLIONS TO THEIR CAUSE, AND PERHAPS EVEN SET OFF A RACE WAR THAT, THEY HOPE,
WOULD ULTIMATELY END IN AN ARYAN VICTORY."
Ron Doggett, a Virginian
who has been a key activist in the Klan, the paramilitary White People’s Party
and the neo-Nazi National Alliance, writes:
"He [i.e., Obama] will make things so bad for white people that hopefully
they will finally realize how stupid they were for admiring these jigaboos
[sic] all these years.”
"I hope Obama wins because in four years, white people just might be
pissed off enough to actually do something … White people aren’t going to
do a thing until their toys are taken away from them. So things have to be
worse for things to be better."
Another racist, "Darthvader,"
writes on the neo-Nazi Vanguard News Network web forum:
"I believe in the motto ‘Worse is Better’ and Obama certainly fits that
writes on the white nationalist Stormfront website:
"Oh man, I am gleefully, sadistically looking forward to Obama as president.
… It will be a beautiful day when the masses look at the paper and truly realize
they have lost their own country."
writes on the same website:
"To the average white man and woman, they could look at Obama and see
plain as day that whites are not in control."
Another writes on "TheLastOfMyKind" website:
"Could it be that the nomination of Obama finally sparks a sense of
unity in white voters? I would propose that this threat of black, Muslim rule
may very well be the thing that finally scares some sense back into complacent
whites throughout the nation."
Finally, there's David
Duke, America's leading white racist; he writes:
"Obama is like that new big dark spot on your arm that finally sends
you to the doctor for some real medicine … Obama is the pain that let’s your
body know that something is dreadfully wrong. Obama will let the American
people know that there is a real cancer eating away at the heart of our country
and Republican aspirin [of the John McCain variety] will not only not cure
it, but only masks the pain and makes you think you don’t need radical surgery
… My bet is that whether Obama wins or loses in November, millions of European
Americans will inevitably react with new awareness of their heritage and the
need for them to defend and advance it."
Again, all this to say,
according to Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, that -
"Increasing numbers [of white racists] think that a bad situation with
a black president will be good for their movement."
AND IT'S NOT JUST "HATERS;" THERE ARE CRACKS
SHOWING UP IN THE DEMOCRATIC COALITION
Moreover, there is a great deal of concern that
this kind of thinking is not necessarily confined to white racists or Republican
Party conservatives, but in fact penetrates deeply into the Democratic Party
coalition. Take, for example, the cracks that have appeared between white
feminists and blacks in the Democratic Party. Geraldine Ferraro, an icon for
Democratic Party feminists and the 1984 Democratic Party Vice Presidential
nominee, has written angrily concerning the Obama phenomenon:
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if
he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens
to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Obama supporters immediately pilloried Ferraro
for these comments, implying that she was a racist; but Ferraro angrily defended
her comments by saying:
"Every time the Obama campaign is upset about something, they call it
racist. I will not be discriminated against because I'm white. If they think
they're going to shut up Geraldine Ferraro with that kind of stuff, they don't
Then there's this reaction
from a YouTube video by Harriet Christian that has received a lot of attention:
"I'm proud to be an older American woman. ['Where are you from? A reporter
asks her'.] New York City, Hillary state. The best nominee that's possible,
and the Democrats are throwing the election away. For what? An inadequate
black male, who would not have been running had it not been a white woman
who was running for president.
"I'm not going to shut my mouth anymore. I can be called white but you
can't be called black. That's not my America. It's equality for all of us.
It's about time we all stood up for it. I'm no second class citizen [just
because I'm white]."
ADDITIONAL FRACTURES IN THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY COALITION
Then there's the matter
of the schism that has developed between blue-collar whites (largely a Clinton
faction) and upscale white liberals (largely an Obama faction) - with charges
of "racism" and "reverse-racism" being hurled back and
forth between the two camps. The Clintons are convinced that the Obama campaign
engineered a "reverse-discrimination," anti-white campaign against
them, and went out of their way to portray the former president as a racist,
a person who not more than one-year ago had been touted as the "First
The schism between the
two factions became apparent with Clinton's 55% to Obama's 45% win in Pennsylvania.
Exit polls for U.S. media suggested that Clinton won by taking the votes of
blue-collar whites, and that his [Obama's] advantage with upscale, liberal
whites was unable to make up for that loss; this process was repeated over
and over again, with Clinton winning where there was a majority of white,
blue collar workers, and Obama winning where there was a majority of black
voters and upscale whites.
All this to say nothing
of the very real schism that developed between Latinos and blacks in the Democratic
Party primaries - with blacks going for Obama, and Latinos for Clinton; all
this on top of the growing tension between average blacks and average Latinos
in the nation's poor minority ghettos.
For example, take what's
been going on in Los Angeles. Last November, three members of a LA street
gang known as the "Avenues 43" were sentenced on federal civil rights
charges for their roles in the murders of two African American men, Christopher
Bowser and Kenneth Wilson, in separate attacks in the Highland Park neighborhood
of northeast Los Angeles.
demonstrated that both Bowser and Wilson had been targeted because of their
race as part of an ongoing campaign to intimidate African Americans in the
neighborhood. News reports described the effort by the Latino street gang
as an attempt at "ethnic cleansing" - claiming that the Latinos
were “ethnically cleansing” their African American neighbors in southern California.
These reports have circulated
widely in print, broadcast, and Web media, generating alarm in civil rights
circles throughout the country. All this is contributing heavily to a black
/ Latino split in the Democratic Party coalition, despite fevered efforts
by leaders in both camps to "paper over" this schism.
RUSH LIMBAUGH ON THE DIVISIONS
IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
host, Rush Limbaugh, reacting to all this racist in-fighting in the Democratic
"All of this racism … all of these things that supposedly the Republicans
are guilty of and that the country is guilty of, were in full display during
the Democrat primaries. Barack Obama is out there virtually ignoring the fact
that it was the Clintons and any number of other Democrats who were … [accusing
him of reverse discrimination] … So Obama is out there accusing the Republicans
of playing the race card …"
Limbaugh went on to
warn his listeners that there will be "dancing in the streets" by
black racists if Obama wins the election:
"I told you so. See? This is the bottom line. Everybody says, 'Rush,
you gotta understand here. If Obama wins, we have crossed the threshold. We
have reached the Promised Land. We have reached the mountain top."
In other words, look
out "Whitey; move over; we've arrived."
"[And] it's [i.e., the gloating] going to get worse. Obama is playing
the race card now, saying any criticism of him is racist. Any mention of his
name [i.e., Hussein], any mention of his race, any mention of Michelle [i.e.,
his wife], it's all racist."
Then Rush launched into
a virulent attack on whites who would dare to vote for Obama in November:
that they [meaning "guilty," white liberals who vote for Obama]
are essentially saying by their support of Obama -
"He's the guy. He us the one that we've been waiting for. He's the one
I can support; Finally I can vote for a black guy, get over the guilt I feel
for slavery that I had nothing to do with …"
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WHITES IS OKAY;
BUT NOT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BLACKS
Finally, there is this:
Discrimination against whites seems to be okay in the new paradigm, but not
discrimination against blacks. Earl Ofari Hutchinson, an author and political
analyst, explains; he points out that there is a lot grumbling going on among
many whites who are asking the question, Why is it that the whites who backed
Hillary Clinton were lambasted as racist, yet the black voters that backed
Barack Obama in record numbers aren’t? Hutchinson writes:
"The question has angrily rolled off more than a few lips in the wake
of the racial brick wall that Obama crashed against with legions of white
voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky. The charge of a
racial double standard started with a few random comments from some white
voters who said they wouldn’t vote for Obama because they were turned off
by the sight of so many blacks deliriously backing him. This convinced them
that blacks backed him solely because he’s black, and their only interest
was to get one of their own in the White House."
"In exit polls in North Carolina, nearly a quarter of black voters admitted
that race was the big factor in motivating them to vote for Obama. This is
the sore point for some whites … And there can be no question that Obama could
not have come as far and as fast as he has without the votes and cheers of
African-American voters …"
These schisms in the
Democratic Party (of all places), e.g., the growing schism between blacks
and whites, the developing schism between Latinos and blacks, the feminist
/ black schism, and the blue collar / upscale liberal schism, while not enough
to "rob" Obama of the presidency in November - again given the economic
and military crisis facing the nation - bode ill should the Obama presidency
fail to deliver. The support of these constituencies is very thin for Obama,
and it may totally disintegrate in the face of a racial and cultural upheaval
- again, the kind that Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center fears
may occur as the result of a failed Obama presidency.
RACISM: A NIGHTMARE THAT WON'T GO AWAY
As we stated early on,
most upscale, white liberals - people such as Paul Krugman - scoff at the
idea that racism could ever again be a "player" in the American
political arena. They believe, as Krugman put it, that "… we are now
a different, and better, country."
To liberals, the issue
of race is settled history now. There's no going back to revisit these issues.
Ground once taken and occupied by "liberals" can never be retaken
and reoccupied by "conservatives" (by which they mean, "racists").
Lefties believe that to think otherwise is not only wrong, but it's "unfair."
Such is the idiocy of liberals.
Liberals seem unable
to fathom the fact that "progress" in these matters is not always
on their side. They are seized by the notion that the history of man leads
ever upward (i.e., towards a multicultural world in which matters such as
race, ethnicity, "civilization consciousness," etc. don't matter).
The thought that, after thirty years of integration and racial progress, the
country could again be plunged back into open racial conflict seems to them
But what they fail
to realize is that a great portion of the nation is already engaged in just
such a conflict, only it's not being honestly reported on.
It's being fought right in the gloom and despair of America's economic
backwaters; and it is not just a war that revolves around a black-white axis,
but around a multiplicity of such pivots; for example, as we just suggested,
black on brown, and brown on black violence, Asian on black, and black on
Asian violence, whites against everybody, etc.
Again, it's a war that is being purposefully shrouded in obscurity by the
elite media; but just because no one is reporting on it, and most
middle-class Americans don't know anything about it, doesn't mean
that it will go away any time soon, and that it doesn't have the
very real potential of breaking out of the shadows and eventually
encompassing all of us in violence. Indeed, this is what racists
like Ron Doggett, "Darthvader," "Centimanus,"
"Fulimnata" and institutions like the Pioneer Fund,
StormFront, the National Alliance, etc. are hoping for. It's also
what radicals in La Raza and the Nation of Islam are hoping for.
[Please see our article on the "Pioneer
THE IRRESTIBLE DYNAMICS
OF ETHNIC CONFLICT
Now, it's important at this point to understand exactly why ethnic conflict
is - in the end - so irresistible, and why the Bible sees it as one of the
defining characteristics of the "end of the age."
Put simply, ethnic conflicts are disputes between
communities that see themselves as having distinct heritages and racial identities.
And following this logic, it goes without saying that tension between and
among differing ethnic groups hardens ethnic identities. Even those who
at first put little value in their ethnic identity are pressed towards ethnic
mobilization as the tension widens and intensifies.
There are essentially two reasons for this phenomenon.
First, extremists within each community are likely to impose sanctions on
those who do not contribute to the "cause." Take, for example, what
occurred in the former Yugoslavia: In 1992 the leader of the Croatian Democratic
Union in Bosnia was dismissed on the ground that he "was too much Bosnian,
and too little Croat." In such instances, conciliation is easy to denounce
as dangerous to group security or as actually traitorous. Indeed, such arguments
drove ethnic extremists to overthrow President Makarios of Cyprus in 1974,
to assassinate Mahatma Gandhi in 1948, to massacre nearly the whole government
of Rwanda in 1994, and to kill Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. This is now clearly
breaking out in the ethnic disputes that have broken out between blacks and
Latinos in Los Angeles and other cities throughout the country.
Second, and more important, ethnic identity is
often imposed by the opposing group, specifically by its most murderous elements.
Assimilation or political passivity did no good for German Jews, Rwandan Tutsis,
or Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh - and the same was true in the ethnic
struggles in the former Yugoslavia. Take the case of one Bosnian Muslim school
teacher (a former "moderate") who lamented:
"We never, until war, thought of ourselves as Muslims. We were Yugoslavs
(i.e., multiculturalists). But when we began to be murdered,
because we are Muslims, things changed. The definition of who
we are today has been determined by our killers." [We URGE
you in this connection to see our article, "Hardening
Our Hearts Against God; Becoming a Prisoner of a Pathology of
MODERATES & RADICALS
The opportunity of choosing between a "moderate"
ethnic identity and a "radical" ethnic identity slowly disappears
the longer the conflict continues - forcing more and more individuals in each
ethnic group to adopt "radical" (i.e., hardcore) identities. Multiethnic
towns as yet untouched by war are swamped by radicalized refugees, undermining
moderate leaders who preach tolerance. For example, while a portion of the
pre-war Serb population (mostly "moderates" committed to multiculturalism)
remained in Bosnian government-controlled Sarajevo when the fighting started,
their numbers declined rapidly as the war progressed and as the government
of Bosnia began to take on a more narrowly defined Muslim religious character.
As a result, pressure on the remaining Serbs increased leading to expanded
levels of Serb emigration out of the city. Where 80,000 remained in July 1993,
only 30,000 were left in August 1995. Since then, almost all have left.
And it's not just in Yugoslavia that this kind
of pathology has taken hold; take what's happening in Rwanda. The Tutsi Rwandan
Patriotic Front (RPF) showed remarkable restraint during the 1994 civil war;
but since then - as the horror of what the Hutu terror had done became manifest
- the RPF has imprisoned tens of thousands of genocide suspects in appalling
conditions, failed to prevent massacres of thousands of Hutu civilians in
several incidents, and allowed Tutsi squatters to seize property of many absent
NOTE: Again, as we just suggested, it is precisely this dynamic
that is now at work in many of the ghetto areas of our country's larger
cities where Latinos are ethnically cleansing blacks where they have lived
for years. This is what the Latino "Avenues 43" gang was doing
to blacks in the Highland Park neighborhood of northeast Los Angeles. And,
of course, it's not just a phenomenon unique to Latinos; it affects all
of the nation's neighborhoods to some degree - especially white, middle
class neighborhoods which still exclude minorities using a plethora of nuanced
zoning laws and other such devices. It is, however, in the minority neighborhoods
of the nation's inner cities where violence has broken out - and that is
due largely to the fact that these minorities cannot avail themselves of
the zoning laws and other nuanced devices that whites are able to utilize
to ethnically "cleanse" their neighborhoods.
What can finally eliminate all possibility of
choice between "radical" and "moderate" courses of action
is fear of genocide. The hyperethnic rhetoric used for group mobilization
often includes images of the enemy as a threat to the physical existence of
the nation (group), which in turn justifies ever higher levels of violence
against the ethnic enemy. Naturally, this kind of activity and discourse does
not go without notice by members of the target group, which in turn results
in heightened counter-activity on its side. For example, how else but through
the device of "counter-violence are blacks supposed to respond to Steven
Barry of StormFront who advocates clearing blacks and Latinos in -
"… house-to-house [fighting] until your town or city is cleared and
the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down
EVEN WORSE …
Even worse are the actual massacre of civilians once warfare between ethnic
groups actually breaks out, especially when condoned by leaders of the perpetrating
group [which is exactly what Barry (above) is advocating - and this even before
real violence has taken hold in the United States]; this kind of activity is
virtually certain to convince members of the targeted group that group defense
and counter-activity is their only option - which is exactly what the Black
Panther Party of the 1960s advocated, and the Nation of Islam advocates today.
For example, take what happened in Northern Sri Lanka in 1987: A Tamil justifying
the massacre of Sinhalese in Trinco explained:
"This is a payback for (the massacres of) 1983 and all the years they
attacked us, going back to 1956. Will it ever stop? I do not think it will.
But at least with the Indians here now, we have some peace. If they were to
leave, however, it would mean death to all Tamils. They will kill every one
of us. If the Indian Army leaves, we will have to jump into the sea."
Once the conflict reaches the level of large-scale violence, tales of atrocities
- true or invented, perpetuated or planned - against members of the group by
the ethnic enemy provide hard-liners with an unanswerable argument. In March
1992 a Serb woman in Foca in Eastern Bosnia was convinced that -
"... there were lists of Serbs who were marked for death. My two sons
were down on the list to be slaughtered like pigs. I was listed under rape."
The fact that neither she nor other townspeople had seen any such lists did
not prevent them from believing such tales without question. [This is a tactic
used ever since "Reconstruction" by whites who never tire of making
up stories of black on white rape to justify their killing sprees of "uppity
Another tactic used by extremists to radicalize co-ethnics is to accuse the
other side of crimes similar to their own. In July 1992, amidst large-scale
rape of Bosnian Muslim women by Serb forces, Bosnian Serbs accused Muslims of
impregnating kidnapped Serb women in order to create a new race of Janissary
soldiers. The Croatian Ustacha in World War II went further, terrorizing Serbs
in order to provoke a backlash that could then be used to mobilize Croats for
defense against Serb retaliation.
Worse still, hard-line ethnic murderers have been known to disguise themselves
as members of their ethnic enemy and perpetrate massacres on their own group
to further enhance "group identity" on their own side and, ipso
facto, justify even more radical measures on their side against the ethnic
enemy. Indeed, there is evidence that this is exactly what happened in a number
of instances during the siege of Sarajevo when Bosnian gunners are reputed to
have shelled their own populations and then blamed it on the Serbs.
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN GROUPS
Adding to the intractability of ethnic conflict is the fact that it usually
requires little effort to identify members of "enemy" ethnic groups.
Often, ethnicity can be identified by outward appearance, public or private
records, and knowledge possessed by locals and neighbors. In societies where
ethnicity is important, it is often officially recorded in personal identity
documents or in the census. In 1994 Rwandan death squads used neighborhood target
lists prepared in advance, as well as roadblocks that checked identity cards.
In the 1993 riots in Sri Lanka, Sinhalese mobs went through mixed neighborhoods
selecting Tamil dwellings for destruction with the help of Buddhist monks carrying
electoral lists. And while it might have been absurd to predict the Yugoslav
civil war thirty years ago, one could have identified the members of each of
the warring groups as far back as 1961 when minority groups demanded to have
their ethnic identities imprinted in the census and on official documents in
order to take advantage of certain ethnically oriented social and economic policies
instituted for their advantage by the Tito government - policies which were
meant to encourage the assimilation and integration of the various groups.
The 1961 Yugoslav census was carried out to such an extent and with such multicultural
(i.e., socialist) enthusiasm that only 1.8 percent of the population was left
unaccounted for. Socialist policies under Tito (and for that matter throughout
the Communist east) demanded an end to ethnic identities; socialists believed
that the main divisions of mankind were economic divisions, not ethnic divisions;
that ethnic divisions resulted from economic advantage; and that with the rise
of the socialist state, ethnic divisions would fade away. But, of course, that's
not what happened. Socialism had merely masked the divisions which had evidently
continued to simmer just beneath the socialist facade.
Again, it's this very real possibility that worries people like Lynell George,
Ellis Cose and Janet Fitch: That liberal elite policies and a liberal elite
mindset have merely been masking ethnic hatred in the United States - after
all, the multicultural and assimilation policies championed by liberals over
the past forty years emanated essentially from the same basic mind-set which
was behind the multicultural policies of the former Yugoslavia.
If that's the case, it then wouldn't be that farfetched to ask if - in their
enthusiasm to take advantage of "affirmative action" policies designed
to give them a "bigger slice of the economic pie" - American minority
groups may have been "setting themselves up" for the same kind of
disaster that overtook minorities in the former Yugoslavia? - which is not as
improbable as it first might seem given the anti-immigrant feelings now simmering
between Mexican immigrant populations (legal and illegal) and Anglos in such
places as San Diego, Los Angeles, Brownsville, etc. Of course, Americans would
say that ethnic conflict of the kind that has swamped the former Yugoslavia
could never happen here, but that's what Yugoslavs said back in 1961.
Finally - and as we just suggested insofar as the Black Panther Party of the
1960s and the Nation of Islam today - once violence (or abuse of state power
by one group over a second group) reaches the point that ethnic communities
cannot rely on the state to protect them, each community must mobilize to take
responsibility for its own security - setting up a cycle of action-reaction
which seemingly possesses a life of its own. This is exactly what was beginning
to occur in the 1992 riots in Los Angeles when Korean shopkeepers mobilized
to protect their stores from roving bands of black and Chicano rioters when
it became apparent that the police couldn't do the job. The cycle was only broken
when the National Guard intervened - and ugly feelings on both sides remain,
ready to erupt into violence again if and when police power breaks down anew.
RADICALIZATION IS A
"STOP AND GO" PROCESS
Now it should be remembered in this connection that "radicalization"
is a "start and stop" process. It does not run continually in a straight
line or at the same speed. It's a tug of war between "moderate" and
"extremist" elements, with the "extremists" in control of
the dynamic. For instance, take what happened to Robert Dornan in California's
46th Congressional District several years ago. Dornan is a fire-breathing, hard-right
ideologue whose rival was Loretta Sanchez, a left-leaning Democrat with strong
roots in the Hispanic community. Sanchez beat Dornan in a hotly contested campaign
in 1996 - a race filled with charges of voter fraud. Dornan accused Sanchez
of using the votes of Mexican illegals to win. Most commentators say he's probably
When Dornan entered the 1998 Congressional race against her, most Republican
Party "moderates" wanted Dornan to bow out. They felt that Dornan's
candidacy would only enflame the radicalization process in Southern California
- and they wanted none of that; they preferred to lose a Republican seat rather
than see that happen. Indeed, the Lincoln Club, one of Southern California's
most exclusive "moneyed interest" clubs asked Dornan to do so - as
did virtually all the other "moderates" in Orange County where the
46th Congressional District is located.
NOTE: At that time, the elites were doing everything they
could to "tamp down" racial hatred in Southern California.
Their economic interests at the time lay in pacifying racial
hatred; they felt that they could "get along" with
Sanchez every bit as well as they could with Dornan, at least
insofar as their financial interests were concerned - and
hang the cultural issues that divided Sanchez and Dornan.
They had no real interest in these things. However, as we
have already indicated, that may no longer be the case. Indeed,
their economic interests may lie in the direction of race
warfare if that's what it takes to stop Obama and his cohorts
from straighjacketing capitalism in the United States and
dismantling the American New World Order System. [Please see
our previous article, "A
Revolt against Elite Power Is in the Air."]
But Dornan, who once referred to feminists as "lesbian spear chuckers"
and revealed a fellow Republican's homosexuality on the House floor, didn't
care! He called Sanchez a "stalking horse" for Mexico's takeover
of Southern California - and in doing so forced issues into "play"
that moderates would just as soon see ignored. These kinds of issues do nothing
but radicalize the population.
Dornan eventually lost to Sanchez, but in winning Sanchez became beholden to
radical Hispanic elements in her party - the kind that wave Mexican flags in
downtown San Diego and Los Angeles. Since then, these elements have forced her
to take unpopular "Hispanic issue and radical feminist stands" in
order to placate her constituencies. This, in turn, has only served to heighten
the radicalization process in Southern California and further radicalize heretofore
"moderate" (Anglo) elements in the Republican Party which had not
been previously disposed to Dornan's rhetoric.
AND SO THE PROCESS CONTINUES …
And so the process continues, ultimately eroding the centrist positions of
so-called "moderates" and radicalizing those who remain. It's the
same "action-reaction spiral" that took hold in the former Yugoslavia.
It's irresistible, and "moderates" are helpless to stop it once it
gets started. Indeed, the limits to which this process can eventually extend
itself are breath-taking, as the example of what occurred in the former Yugoslavia
Some might object, saying that conditions in the United States vis a vis
the former Yugoslavia are not similar. But that's not necessarily so - especially
when one examines the contestants involved: On one side is arrayed the so-called
"majority culture" consisting largely of white, Europeans who claim
Christianity as their religion (about 70 percent of the population), and on
the other side is a minority culture consisting largely of blacks, Latinos,
Asians (and it doesn't seem to matter to most whites that many, if not most,
in these communities claim Christianity as their religion as well - such is
the cultural arrogance of most whites) and Jews; it also includes a smattering
of white "radical feminists" and what is now referred to as the "gay
and lesbian community" (all told, about 30 percent of the population).
This is not to say that all those in either the majority or minority communities
in the United States have yet been "radicalized," or that they at
present feel themselves to be directly involved in this struggle (only about
a third of the larger white community is so far involved; and perhaps about
half of the minority community; for the most part, those not involved claim
to be "moderates" or "centrists").
BUT, AGAIN, WHAT PEOPLE LIKE MARK POTOK OF THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
ARE WORRIED ABOUT IS THAT A "FAILED" OBAMA PRESIDENCY - ONE THAT WHITE
RACISTS CAN CHARGE WITH BEING "ANTI-WHITE" (CHARGES REINFORCED BY
ELITE MONEY) - COULD SOONER OR LATER INVOLVE EVEN "CENTRISTS" AND
"MODERATES" IN RACIST WARFARE. THIS IS THE SAD REALITY CREATED BY
THE "ACTION-REACTION SPIRAL" OF SUCH A DYNAMIC, A DYNAMIC THAT, AS
WE HAVE ALREADY SUGGESTED, HAS AS A NATURAL PART OF ITS PATHOLOGY A WAY OF UNDERMINING
AND EVENTUALLY WRECKING THE "MIDDLE."
THERE IS A PATTERN TO HISTORY
History has a way of repeating itself - and this is precisely what's happening
now. There is a pattern to history. This is what the Bible says:
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which
is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been
already of old time, which was before us." (Eccl. 1:9-10)
Yes, sociological pathologies have a way of repeating themselves over and over
again - and so in our time, the same pathology which took hold on Germany 70-years
ago and the former Yugoslavia 15-years ago is now taking hold on this country.
Now, it's important to note that when such pathologies begin, very few people
have any real insight as to the enormous lengths these pathologies can extend
themselves. Who in 1991 would have thought, for example, that the fighting in
Yugoslavia could have reached such lethal dimensions? - pitting neighbors who
had once called each other friends in murderous juxtaposition to one another
in so short a time.
The sad fact of the matter is, racial warfare creates a VORTEX, an upwardly
spiraling tornado of hate and indignation, and as it grows in strength, it sucks
in greater and greater numbers of people who heretofore would have never been
disposed to getting involved in such a fight. Like the Bosnian Muslim school
teacher who had lamented that until the war, she had never thought of herself
as Muslim, but merely as a Yugoslav, they find - like she did - that the other
side is forcing on them an identity they had never before assumed. Like her,
they begin to feel that, " The definition of who we are today has been
determined by our persecutors."
This is the kind of swirling, hate-filled vortex that produced Hitler in 1933.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROCESS THAT IS NOW AT WORK IN THIS COUNTRY,
and with each passing day, the process intensifies. AND IF
ONCE THE ELITES DETERMINE THAT THEY MUST STOP AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY
IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THEMSELVES, THEY WILL POUR GASOLINE ONTO
THE FIRE OF RACIAL HATRED. They are capable of anything! [And
for those who don't think so, we urge you to read our article,
"Measuring the Depravity of
the Elites; Pacifying the Poor through Drug Addiction."]
GET OUT WHILE YOU CAN
This is what this article is all about: To bring to your attention just how
swiftly these currents are running in the United States, despite the optimism
of people like Paul Krugman. The very real fact of the matter is, despite the
very real possibility of a black man in the presidency, racist currents are
flowing strongly in all ethnic communities (and all nations of the earth) today,
exactly as the Bible said they would:
"... Nation (ethnos) shall rise against nation (ethnos),
and kingdom against kingdom ..." [meaning, "ethnic group shall rise
against ethnic group, and nation against nation."] (Luke 21:10)
Brothers and sisters, listen to me here: Do not overestimate your ability to
resist being subsumed by this diabolical process, a process that
has already taken hold of many "good" Christians in
the United States; a process that is - even now - mutating them
into MONSTERS. [We urge you to read our article,
"When Fascism Comes to America:
Morphing One's Self into a Monster."]
It's not without reason that the Lord warns His followers to -
"COME OUT OF HER [i.e., Babylon, that is to say, the United States],
my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of
her plagues." (Revelation 18:4)
Now, one would be well advised to ponder the awful meaning behind this command:
No where else in human history has God ever ordered His people out of a certain
country, save for the singular instances of Sodom and Gomorrah; not even in
the case of Nazi Germany. But here He does so. YOU SHOULD THINK LONG AND
HARD ABOUT THIS.
God bless you all!
P.S. IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, ORDER YOUR FREE DVD ON THE AMERICAN NEW WORLD
ORDER SYSTEM NOW.
Finally, Remember the Word of God:
"IF WE HAVE SOWN UNTO YOU SPIRITUAL THINGS, IS IT A GREAT THING
IF WE SHALL REAP YOUR CARNAL (MATERIAL) THINGS?" (1 Cor. 9:11)
We need your help to spread the word concerning Antipas Ministries and the
eschatological viewpoint it represents; WE NEED YOUR
HELP BECAUSE WE DO NOT "LINK" WITH OTHER SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN"
WEBSITES which are, for the most part, "in the tank"
insofar as their loyalty to the United States is concerned
- a loyalty that has made them partners in the BLOODY
trail the American military has left in its TERROR-RIDDEN
rampage throughout the world, as well as making them partners
in the abject poverty that American corporations have
imposed on the peoples and nations the American military
machine has ravaged - A BLOODY, TERROR-RIDDEN RAMPAGE
THAT HAS TO A LARGE DEGREE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME
OF THE "PRINCE OF PEACE." [Please see our articles,
"The Third World
as a Model for the New World Order," Inside
the American New World Order System" and "The
American Empire: The Corporate / Pentagon / CIA / Missionary
YOU CAN HELP BY EMAILING
THIS ARTICLE TO
YOUR FRIENDS AND