When Whites Became an Endangered Species

When the Sun reappeared after the nuclear winter that followed the 21st century’s nuclear war, no life was left in what formerly was Europe, Great Britain, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Japanese no longer existed. The only white-skinned people were Russian and American/European expatriates living in South America, Africa, Thailand and other parts of Asia.

Wildlife organizations designated white people “an endangered species.” The few remnants outside Russia, now the world power with China, were rounded up and put in zoos. Programs were developed to breed them and reintroduce white people into their former territories once the radiation subsided. Russians were designated “non-white” as they lived for centuries under Asiatic rule. “Scratch a Russian, find a Tarter (Mongol)” sufficed for one of the ruling powers to escape the designation of White.

Because of the American neoconservatives’ responsibility for the nuclear war, gentile whites, when it should have been Zionist Jews, were blamed for the war for their pursuit of American hegemony. There were fierce debates whether preserving the white race was sensible or even permissible, considering their crimes documented by the New York Times’ 1619 Project, the curriculums of Harvard, Yale and the Ivy League universities, and the Western media’s insistence that all white persons are “racists.” Many objected that preserving the white race was the same as preserving Adolf Hitler.

Whites are the people who, according to their own school texts, written by white people and adopted by white school boards, were responsible for enslaving black people, for oppressing women, homosexuals, transgendered people, and people incapable of knowing their own gender. White people were guilty of using gender pronouns, which unfairly limited gender to male and female, a limitation on the species so old as to be biblical.

The relatively few whites who had been living as repatriated lords in lesser parts of the world now found themselves akin to animals subject to zoo keepers. Would they survive as an endangered species or be eliminated as a dangerous species? The richer ones who had gold coins in their personal possession lobbied for laws in the jurisdictions in which they lived that preserved them as an endangered species. In Africa the blacks bred the whites for slaves.

Russia and China, being the hegemonic powers, made the decision that white people would be declared an endangered species as it would be a century and more before their diminished numbers could result in a population of any size. Over this time whites would be educated into permanent self-doubt like the Americans did to the Germans in the 20th century.

Paul Craig Roberts

Is America Regressing to Tribalism?

The Republic of Sudan has 500 ethnic groups who speak over 400 languages. We do not have to be reminded how tribalism has played out over decades and even hundreds of years in terms of conflict and violence. The same disaster has befallen other African countries such as Ethiopia, not to mention other African regions and non-African continents.  Native America tribes often fought each other. Conflict and even wars to the death between tribal collectives are part of world history.

American was founded as an exception. It was based on the principle of individual rights:  everyone was equal before the law and the government could not initiate force against its own citizens. Many modern intellectuals claim to be baffled about what American exceptionalism is, but it is simply the principle of rights. It is not pure democracy as such—not just voting—but a republican form of government. The Constitution protects individuals from mob rule.

With some exceptions at certain periods, almost everyone was welcome.  America was a country of immigrants. Between 1820 and 1996 there were over 61 million immigrants from over 40 countries and territories. The ideal was for America to be a melting pot—a place where people with radically different backgrounds and traditions would have equal rights and could live peacefully together, intermarry if they chose to, and make their way economically through free trade. They were free to have their own traditions and neighborhoods within the limits of the law.

To a great extent the melting pot has been a success. There are 200 or more Christian denominations in the U.S. and all world religions are represented. People are free to be agnostics or atheists. There is freedom of philosophy, but no state religion. We are officially a secular country. Religious traditions are allowed, but they may not contradict the Constitution. Everyone has the same rights and is bound by the same laws (though, in some cases, unfortunately, there are religious exemptions from the law). All races are represented in the U.S. (Race is defined by DNA, but many people have DNA from more than one race).

This is not to say that the path has always been smooth. The first issue that had to be addressed in America was slavery. Slavery eixisted since the first written records of human civilization.  It was imposed on us by the British when we were a colony. The Declaration of Independence and the American revolution made slavery morally impossible. It was ended, heroically, by means of a bloody civil war. But we know that racism (sometimes accompanied by violence and by discrimination in the private and/or public sectors) did not just go away, though things have drastically improved over some 160 years. Blacks have been the worst but not the only victims of injustice. (The U. S. passed an anti-lynching law only recently). Jews have been discriminated against for thousands of years all over the world. Franklin Roosevelt, though he had Jews in his cabinet, turned away a ship loaded with Jews trying to escape the Nazis and they were later killed. There were Jewish quotas for admission to universities and professional schools in the US. Japanese citizens were put in internment camps during World War II. Anti-Asian quotas exist today in educational institutions. In recent years street violence has been directed at people of every race, some of which is due to a cultural decline with emotionality replacing reason in every aspect of society. (A minority of police today are biased against bothbali Backs and Hispanics. Police reform, including better selecsmtion, training and discipline is necessary). Immigration has been limited time and time again over the years and still is now.

A popular movement today demands “social justice,” which means that every collective must come out the same in results with respect to its percentage in the population. “Diversity” means getting the percentages “correct.”  But observe that this requires that people be treated unjustly. For example, Asians must be (and are) discriminated against in school and university admissions, because they are too competent. Some of their spaces must be given to those of different races just based on a numbers game. In contrast, blacks, on the average, are to be held to lower standards in education and employment compared to others in order to get their numbers up, thus depriving more qualified people of those spots. This is social injustice.

There is no basis for to assuming that all disparities between collectives in every job category or profession are due to racial discrimination. Many factors could play a role, among them cultural factors such as the value placed on education and family traditions, not to mention the use of role models and personal attributes including interests and passions. The diversity movement is a revolt against merityou are not to get what you deserve which means that it is a revolt against reality because everyone does not have the same skills, abilities, and energy. Members of a racial collective are not interchangeable units but individuals with the faculty of reason, which includes volition. There is no such thing as group rights.

It should be noted that there is another arbitrary element here. Which collectives are to be chosen for specials benefits or penalties? Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian are not the only possible collectives. And what of mixed races? What percentage of each racial DNA puts a person in a favored or disfavored group? Is the government to be the arbitrary of the correct racial mixtures? What about non-racial collectives such as the overweight, the weak and the uncoordinated in sports, the tone deaf in music, the dyslexic in reading, and so on. How would this work? Obviously, it would have to be based on which collective has the most political pull.

As I noted at the outset, all this pushes us in the direction of tribalism, even tribal warfare. If it comes, this will be the end of America. It will be a regression to the primitive.

Edwin Locke

Is there such a thing as Racism ?

Racist. No word has such power. It can end careers, embitter families, and provoke amazing displays of cowardice. But the word means nothing anymore. It’s doubtful if it ever did.

Until recently, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) had a definition of racism most Americans would probably agree with: “Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics.”

Even this definition has problems. Few say that one race is inherently “superior or inferior” to another, even though races do differ in average intelligence and in broad psychological traits. A person’s success or failure often depends on intelligence, which can be measured by IQ and standardized test scores.

Who we are is not a product of voluntary choice. Our inborn characteristics shape us, and race is one of them. If “racists” are people who recognize this, then they are the ones who see reality clearly.

Race realists and white advocates aren’t “racist” when we talk about scientifically demonstrable racial differences, but defending the term is like slugging the tar baby. Sam Francis wrote:

“Racism,” therefore, is a term originating on the left, and has been so defined and loaded with meanings the left wants it to have that it cannot now be used by the supporters of white racial consciousness for any constructive purpose. Anyone who uses the term to describe himself or his own views has already allowed himself to be maneuvered onto his opponents’ ground and has already lost the debate. He may try to define the word differently, but he will need to spend most of his time explaining that he does not mean by it what everyone else means. As a term useful for communicating ideas that the serious supporters of white racial consciousness wish to communicate, the term is useless, and it was intended by those who developed it that it be useless for that purpose.

Fortunately, the ADL has changed the definition of racism, so we never have to worry about it again.

The new definition is “the marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.”

This is bewildering. It means the Chinese could exterminate blacks in their country and not be racist, if they are privileging Asians but not whites. Blacks who set out to murder the first white they find can’t be racist. Only whites (or, presumably, non-whites who fight for white supremacy) can be racist.

If racial differences in achievement are caused by “institutional racism,” whites can be racist without even trying. This is “racism without racists,” at least under the old definition of “racist.” The new definition fits better with the conventional wisdom that all whites are racist. Racism practically defines whiteness.”

But what’s a “socially constructed racial hierarchy”? We still need a way to tell “people of color” from “white people.” There must be a physical difference — something not socially constructed — or we can’t victim from oppressor.

Some people find this confusing. Whoopi Goldberg does. She recently said on The View that the Holocaust was not about race, but “man’s inhumanity to man.” “This is white people doing it to white people,” she said, “so y’all going to fight amongst yourselves.” In later comments on Stephen Colbert’s talk show, Miss Goldberg said that “as a black person,” she thought of “race as something I can see.”

Jews, to her, are white, but apparently she got it wrong. Actor Michael Rapaport complained, “It was only about race. It was about kill the Jews, exterminate the Jews. ‘They’re not white, they’re Jewish.’ ” ABC suspended Miss Goldberg from her show for two weeks, despite her groveling. Would she have got the same treatment if she had just said she thinks Jews are white – without mentioning the Holocaust?

Many blacks lump Jews in with whites, especially because Jews historically ran shops in black neighborhoods. Blacks also commit crimes against Jews in places such as New York City. Do they attack Jews because they think they are white or because they are Jews? Because they’re both?

It’s all so confusing.

The Term “Everything is Racist” is Racist

There are some folks out there who don’t believe that Critical Race Theory exists.  (This despite the fact that many organizations have unapologetically come forward admitting that it does.)  Others believe it’s just “teaching our history.”  (This despite the fact that we’ve been “teaching our history,” more or less, warts and all, at least since I was in first grade, 36 years ago.)  But I get it.  It’s a subjective term and hard to define.  So let’s get rid of the hard-to-define terms and go with some hard, factual examples.

This particular example doesn’t come from the education sphere, but it does show how race (which, as a reminder, is a made-up construct — we all belong to only one race: the human race) has been “weaponized.”  And when everything is racist, nothing is racist.

It involves two “minorities” (again, I don’t even know what that particular term really means, but it’s what the left would like us to focus on, so I’ll play the left’s game for the purposes of this example and point it out), Lorena Gonzales, a Hispanic woman, and Bruce Harrell, a half-black, half-Japanese man.

The two are running for mayor of Seattle.  Harrell said something a number of years ago when the gay white mayor at the time was accused by numerous men of child sexual molestation.  (I don’t care how much pigment is in your skin or whom you’re attracted to, but since this is all about identity politics and that man was elected largely because he was the “gay candidate,” I figure I’ll include it in the narrative.)

Before all the facts had come to light and that mayor had resigned in disgrace after it was clear the allegations weren’t just “a homophobic attack trying to paint all gay men as child sex abusers,” Harrell came to his defense by speaking the unspeakable — namely, pointing out that we should, gasp, follow due process and not jump to any conclusions.Top Articles By American ThinkerRead More

People Notice When the Elites Lienull

Because of Harrell’s unspeakable comment, Gonzalez has launched a campaign ad using those and other things he’s said out of context as well as having some other people insinuate that he is a “rape apologist.”

Dirty politics is nothing new.  What is fairly new is immediately defaulting to “YOU’RE A RACIST!!!”  In this case, according to those deemed worthy to judge these things, Gonzalez is a racist because, apparently, there’s some racist trope about black men being rapists, and Harrell is apparently black.  (Not that I’ve ever given it any thought, but when I saw this article and was forced to think about his race, because I’ve known of Harrell for a number of years, my immediate thought was, “Isn’t he Japanese?”)  It can’t be that Gonzalez is just playing dirty politics that has nothing to do with Harrell’s skin color — although it is good to know where black/Japanese men rank compared to Hispanic women the next time I’m playing “intersectionality bingo.”

To bring this back to the beginning, CRT views all of history and socio-political relations through the lens of race.  As I heard one proponent of CRT quip, “racism in America is like a pie; it’s baked right in.”

If someone cuts you off in traffic and you happen to be black, he’s a racist.  If you don’t get a job, it’s because the company is racist.  The disproportionate number of black people in prison can only be attributed to racism.  There can’t possibly be another explanation.  It can’t be that the person who cut you off is a bad driver or rushing home because his wife just went into labor.  It can’t be that the other person was just more qualified, did a better job at interviewing, or provided better references.  It can’t be that over 90% of prison inmates grew up without a father.

If your opponent attacks you in an admittedly dirty way, it can’t be that she’s just doing what politicians have been doing since the dawn of time and just trying to get a shot in any way she can.  It has to be that she’s racist.

It’s gotten so bad that it’s almost comical.  The L.A. Times ran a column calling Larry Elder “the black face of white supremacy.”  “#UncleTim” trended on Twitter after Senator Tim Scott gave the response to the State of the Union address.  Joe Biden told voters “you ain’t black” if you won’t vote for him.

Examples like this make it clear that this has zero to do with race and everything to do with pushing a statist agenda.  Those who get in line are everything that is good and holy in the world.  Those who don’t are racist.

We get what we focus on.  If we want to be divided by race and all the other fun little boxes those who seek to control us are trying to put us in, we’ll get those boxes and that division.  Or we could follow the words of Morgan Freeman and just stop talking about it.  There used to be rampant discrimination against Italians, Irish, and Catholics.  Joe Biden’s Catholicism was barely mentioned during the 2020 election.

If we don’t seek to stop division, it will never be stopped.  Let’s say we “solve racism.”  People will just find another reason to divide themselves.  (Read “The Butter Battle Book” by Dr. Seuss, which was an allegory for the then-raging Cold War but involved two groups at war over something as silly as whether they ate their toast butter side up or butter side down.  Considering some of the silly things we see fights break out over, I’m not sure that would qualify as satire anymore.)

So the next time someone says something you perceive as mean or unfair, or cuts you off in traffic, or you lose out on a job or a table at a restaurant to someone else who happens to be of a different ethnicity, religion, sex, etc., you can throw yourself a pity party; call up the ACLU, NAACP, and whatever other acronym you can think of; and sue everyone in sight over the great tragedy — or you can think, “Hmm, that person must be having a bad day, or maybe he just has different opinions from mine, and it doesn’t have a thing to do with the color of his skin or any other superficial difference that exists, and maybe I should see what I can do to bless him or what common ground we can find.”

| Print| Email

Around The Web

FOLLOW US ON

American Thinker on Facebook
American Thinker on Twitter
American Thinker on MeWe

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

About Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | RSS Syndication © American Thinker 2021

The People Calling You Racist are Racists

Google has reportedly launched an “antiracism” initiative that claims American capitalism is “white supremacist.”

Only a racist would equate capitalism–economic freedom–with white supremacy. Because when you claim that some races can flourish under economic freedom while some races cannot, you are in fact being racist. It takes an individualist–the total opposite of a racist–to embrace meritocracy and dispense with all concerns about race.

Today’s real racists are those fixated on race, the pompous and self-described progressives. They project their own racism onto people who cherish freedom and liberty. In the process, they are bringing down all freedom and ushering in a world where people of all races will suffer from stagnation, poverty and despair. It’s so utterly irrational, so wrong and so tragically unnecessary.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

White Privilege is a Scam to Advance Racism

There’s so much talk of “privilege”. The mere term is used to invoke guilt. Privilege refers to something you didn’t EARN — something that was handed to you.

In other words, if you achieve a lot of success, you are “privileged”. But how is it privilege if you earned it? If Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi become billionaires through the abuse of power and redistribution of wealth, then I get how it’s privilege.

But if your commercial enterprise makes you a billionaire, you earned it. Biden and Pelosi didn’t earn anything. But most of us do honestly earn what we produce.

To make matters worse, we’re now attaching the concept of “privilege” to race. If you’re of one race (we’re told), you’re privileged and automatically undeserving of whatever success or happiness you enjoy; if you’re of a different race (we’re told), then you’re automatically and always deserving of achievement and success.

It doesn’t matter if you call it “progressive”; this kind of thinking is still racism. Racism is racism. RACE has nothing to do with achievement or failure. Your actions and choices do. The minute you claim (or imply) that race determines your moral status, YOU ARE A RACIST.

Our culture cannot and will not go on with this irrationality. We’re falling apart, and gradually collapsing into anarchy and division. Ideas have consequences, and rotten ideas lead to bad things. The billions of dollars of Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Gates or Bezos cannot turn falsehood into truth; or vicious prejudice into enlightenment. If the majority continue to accept this kind of thinking, or even pretend they do, it’s going to end in disaster. It always has.

Change your thinking, people: While you still can.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project

The 1619 Project was developed by Nikole Hannah-Jones of the New York Times that supposedly focuses on the cause(s) and consequences of slavery, etc, but does this “project” miss the target intentionally or otherwise?

Before anything like this “project” (opposed by President Donald Trump and numerous other politicians, educators, etc, across the United States) should have even been attempted, much less potentially taught within classrooms in high school or beyond, were the times before the 1600’s explored or even much less considered? Those origins could be covered in a “1400’s Project” that deals with how the slave trade began in the 1400’s with African tribes who collaborated with Europeans in the slave trade. A further examination of the slave trade could be brought about by delving into the rampant slavery conducted by Muslim areas of the Middle East even before the 1400’s and the degree to which they enslaved both blacks and whites. And did any nations in the Middle East before the 700’s-1000’s AD engage in a slave trade, even during BC times?

Pertaining to the slave trade and the 1600’s, has an in-depth and comprehensive analysis been conducted and published looking beyond merely which nations were involved and perusing which specific companies were involved in any way or capacity (primarily, secondarily or even tangentially), who owned the slave ships, where were the slave houses in Europe or across the ocean located, on what days was the selling of slaves conducted, and on and on?

Pertaining to CRT and/or any of its proponents, how could they, if they were to say so, possibly declare that enslaving others is indicative of only one race and ignore it being a problem potentially found within all humans of the past?