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."]

Luke 21:10


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 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."


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.


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," who says,

"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 necessary."

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 dance ..."

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.


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,"


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."]


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."

Fankboner continues 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."


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 a problem."

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 say:

"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 Iraq."

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." Barry wrote:

"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'."

He concluded:

"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 warrior brotherhood."


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.

Christopher Caldwell, 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 ..."


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 bunched together).

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."


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; he writes:

"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.”

Doggett continues:

"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 description."

"Centimanus" 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."

"Fulimnata" 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."


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 know me."

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]."


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 Black President."

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.

Prosecutors successfully 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.


Conservative talk-show host, Rush Limbaugh, reacting to all this racist in-fighting in the Democratic Party, opines:

"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."

Limbaugh continues:

"[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 …"


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."

Hutchinson continues:

"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.


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 absurd.

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 Fund."]


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 Hate."]


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 Hutus.

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 and 'cleansed'."


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 blacks."]

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.


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.


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 right.

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, 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 attests.

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").



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."]


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!

S.R. Shearer
Antipas Ministries



Finally, Remember the Word of God:




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 Archipelago."]




© Antipas Ministries