How a Young Black Man Became a Race Realist

[Shadow]

Alright, I just recently discovered this article from the American Renaissance written by a self-described Black man who fully endorses Race Realism and who totally gave in to the concept of Black inferiority. This article is very interesting to say the least. It just tells you how much self-hatred one must have to be seriously mentally ill and dangerous. It reveals the mindset of these types of people, if I may dare refer to them as such, who slither their way within Black society and spread their pathetic opinions and ideas to us, but most of all give the White supremacists an easy target to use as their dog. I'm very surprise to see a Black man of all sorts embraced these idiotic ideas especially since he put up this article on a White Supremacist website of all things, but I shouldn't be too surprise. Tell me about you guys opinions about this guy, theirs various things he details from his early life to when he first encounter these ideas in the first place. The Coon even brought the Ancient Egyptians race into this and he briefly mentions how he was disappointed to see how the modern inhabitants didn't match up to his expectations as being a Black population. Anyway here's the article, the guy was interview by that old bastard Jared Taylor. I would later post the video under the article.


I am a 21-year-old black man. I am an atheist, a registered Republican, and a member of Mensa. Already a minority within a minority within a minority, I have yet another idiosyncrasy that puts me in an even more unusual category: I am a race realist. I believe that consistently observed racial disparities in societal outcomes are largely


Elementary school

I grew up in a two-parent, upper-middle-class household in a predominately black city. My parents worked hard so I could attend high-performing private (predominately white) schools throughout my life. They taught me to be respectful, to value education, and to take life seriously. Most notably, they taught me that race did not matter in the least, and that one should not consider it either when forming friendships or when dealing with people in general. I had mostly white friends and sought to assimilate into mainstream American society.

Two incidents while I was in elementary school were informative from a racial perspective. I recall a visit to the local children’s museum in which historical footage was being shown. What particularly struck me was a recording of Africans swinging from vines in the jungle, wearing minimal clothing, and living in primitive conditions. This was an utter shock to my sensibilities. Prior to this, I had believed that Africans had sophisticated and technologically advanced civilizations. This image of Africans as simple and unaccomplished did not at all fit into the framework of my beliefs about the world. Moreover, this was an actual video recording, not something that could be dismissed as hearsay or fabrication.

Another noteworthy challenge to my views on race came in the form of an issue of National Geographic we were assigned to read in class. It was about ancient Egypt, which I had until then thought to be a black civilization. It included pictures of modern Egyptians who were more Arab in appearance and clearly not black Africans. I was disappointed, as my view of ancient Egypt as a black achievement had been jeopardized. These events forced me to reevaluate my worldview, although they did not yet sway me all the way to race realism.

Middle school

Once I reached middle school, I became even more aware of race. I went to a highly selective and academically rigorous Catholic school that prided itself on producing well-mannered Christian gentlemen. It required prospective students to submit elementary school grades and discipline records, and to take a standardized test in order to be admitted. The school was grade-level-accelerated, meaning that the curriculum was geared one level above students’ actual grade: fifth graders were expected to do sixth-grade work and so on.

I was one of only a few black children in a school of about 300 students. Hispanic and Asian enrollment was also low, but these groups were a similarly low percentage of the city’s population. What demanded an explanation was how blacks could be only one percent of the school’s students when they were 60 percent of the city’s population.

Aside from my shock on the first day of classes at how overwhelmingly white the school was and my later astonishment at how starkly my classmates’ views on Barack Obama differed from mine, race seldom came up and was never an issue. If anything, I could sense that other students felt compelled to be more kind and pleasant than they otherwise would have been so as to avoid accusations of racism. For example, there was a tradition, observed shortly before graduation, in which classmates chose by vote the person whom they considered most likely to become a priest. Although I had not done anything particularly virtuous, I was chosen for this honor.

I enjoyed a great deal of academic success. Within the school we were tracked by academic aptitude, and the highest-performing students were put in a particular homeroom. In accordance with my performance on the standardized admission test, I was put in the most academically accelerated homeroom, where I performed at the top of my class.

I never had any sense of anyone trying to hold me back. Many of my classmates were even heavily into black culture and kept up with the latest hip-hop and rap trends.

The school awarded plaques at the end of the year for top grades.
The school awarded plaques at the end of the year for top grades.

Although I welcomed the favor of whites, I was honestly perplexed by their kindness. These were the same people who had purportedly enslaved my ancestors, relegated them to inferior schools and housing, and then fled in droves to white suburbs once blacks had finally achieved equal rights. I especially resented whites for white flight, since the chasm in neighborhood quality and commercial services in black and white areas was so obvious. Whenever I wanted to shop at any store that was remotely upscale, I had to go to a predominately white suburb where most of my classmates also lived. How could such evidently good-natured people have carried out such horrendous things as slavery and Jim Crow? Why did they historically view blacks as inferior?

The supportive attitudes of my white classmates was in sharp contrast to the more disparaging attitudes of blacks in my neighborhood. As a rule, they were much ruder and more likely to be obnoxious and inconsiderate. During a pickup basketball game with some ghetto black kids who had moved under the Section 8 housing program, I was mocked and called a “white boy” due to my nerdy and non-thuggish appearance. (That I was not particularly good at basketball probably did me no favors, either.) Whites behaved in a more intelligent and civilized manner, but I continued to chalk this up to differences in culture and personal choice, not innate differences.

High school

High school was similar to middle school: academically rigorous and overwhelmingly white. This high school posted high average scores on standardized tests and had a reputation throughout the metropolitan area for producing successful and influential alumni. Blacks were again underrepresented. Despite special programs and efforts intended to lure blacks, they were no more than six percent of students.

The typical pattern was that the freshman class would have the highest number of blacks—about 25 in a class of 250)—but half would either fail or be kicked out before they became upperclassmen. There also were scarcely any black teachers. Low-skilled workers provided the most noticeable black presence; nearly all of the cafeteria workers and janitors were black.

This was the first time race predominated in the social climate. I started to notice people self-segregating along racial lines. But most confusingly, black students who did not conform to stereotypes were considered “Oreos:” black on the outside, but white on the inside. I remember the following comments:

“You’re so quiet. Do you consider yourself black?” This from a white classmate, genuinely confused as to why I bucked the general black trend of rambunctious and loud behavior.

A white classmate says something racially offensive in my presence and another asks, “Why would you say that with a black person standing by us?” Answer: “It’s fine; he’s white at heart!”

An Asian classmate: “You’re an embarrassment to your race.”

A group of black students are listing black classmates whom they think act white, and include me: “Yes, he’s white on the inside. He has no accent and hangs out with too many white boys.” (The person who said that flunked out at the end of the school year. He enrolled in a predominately black high school and went to an HBCU. Two months ago, as of this writing, he was killed in a black-on-black crime. There were no protests or riots carried for him, since his death could not be made to look like black victimhood. He got nothing but a few people on Facebook posting his obituary. Maybe he should have acted more “white.”)

I not only saw blacks accuse other blacks of “acting white,” but, even more often, I saw whites accuse their black friends of “acting white.” My Asian friend—of whom I was quite fond—would often say that he didn’t consider me black. I found this extremely puzzling. To me, “acting white” meant being an Uncle Tom—someone who is intentionally betraying his race and cares more about the approval of whites than of other blacks. Being called an “Uncle Tom” is definitely not a compliment. In fact, it is one of the harshest insults for a black person.

The self-hating black person is derided in black culture, as in Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks and Clayton Bigsby from the Dave Chappelle Show. Many blacks would rather associate with a murderer than with an Uncle Tom. This is not mere hyperbole. The black community eagerly embraces thugs and criminals who destroy their neighborhoods while it ostracizes its most principled members—educated and conservative blacks.

Even more confusing, I noticed that the more intelligent blacks would be particularly prone to accusations of “acting white.” All my life I had believed that trying to come across as an intelligent and civilized person, working hard, speaking standard English, assimilating into American society, not playing the race card, and not acting like a minstrel show character were characteristics of intelligence—not traits associated with any particular race. That ghetto blacks would accuse others of “acting white” I could, to some degree, understand. After all, the more academically oriented blacks did tend to associate more readily with white people than with other blacks, who tended to be ignorant. But what was truly mind-boggling to me was how whites and Asians could accuse blacks—even their own friends—of “acting white.” Why did they mock their black friends for doing what they were supposed to do? Why were intelligent and civilized blacks so often called race traitors by both blacks and whites?

Like an idiot, I succumbed to this pressure. I came to view hard work and academic success as “white” activities. I began to take school and life less seriously, approaching it with a half-hearted attitude, as if giving it my all would be “white,” and antithetical to the very core of my identity. I tried to the greatest extent possible to distance myself from my white classmates—not a good idea at a school that is 90 percent white.

I ended up graduating nowhere near the top of my class but still got into an elite college due to affirmative action and good test scores. I felt a bit guilty for gaming the system, but I felt I experienced discrimination—because of the “acting white” comments—and affirmative action was my way of getting back at an unfair system. (The same college also gave offers of admission to two other blacks from my high school. Their level of achievement was, obviously, high by black standards but also nowhere near the level that would have been required of a white or Asian.)

College

In college it soon became clear that I was woefully mismatched. I began to doubt whether I was smart enough to work at such an elite level. Perhaps the problem was me, not society.

Other black students were constantly on the watch for imaginary racism. They felt so self-entitled they drew up a document intended to force the school to accept more students and hire more professors from underrepresented races.

Students majoring in STEM often did poorly and got discouraged, even though they probably could have done well at a less elite school. Even those who were more successful were constantly worried they might confirm negative stereotypes.

Once, I overheard a black senior who had been the valedictorian of his (black) high school talking on the phone about how upset he was that a class he was taking to fulfill distribution requirements would cover derivatives. It was too late to drop the class, and he was genuinely worried: “I don’t even know what derivatives is! [sic]”

I doubted my abilities to such a great degree that I decided to get my IQ tested. My FSIQ (full scale IQ) was 141 — 99.7th percentile!

I have included my hand in the photo to confirm that I am black
I have included my hand in the photo to confirm that I am black.

I read the book Mismatch by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor and became resolutely opposed to racial preferences on both philosophical and practical grounds. I decided to transfer to a less demanding school and am now regularly getting straight As and performing closer to my full potential.

It is now clear that my academic difficulties were due to my own shoddy work habits and mismatch due to affirmative action: both were my own doing. Once I stopped feeling as if I were owed something because of my race and simply worked hard, I succeeded. This experience changed how I saw the world. My failure was not due not to racism but to my own poor decisions. Perhaps this reasoning could apply to blacks as a whole.

Acting white

For years I was convinced that the major cause of black social pathology was this “acting white” accusation and the phenomenon of having to “prove” one’s blackness. It had certainly had a great effect on my life and impacted other high-IQ blacks around me. However, one day I came across a brilliant article by Steve Sailer addressing this topic.

He made the incisive point that doing well in school would not be considered “acting white” if blacks and whites had the same average IQ. That was my turning point. I realized that this was not a discrimination issue at all or even evidence of racial bias. What my white and Asian classmates meant when they accused blacks of “acting white” was not to call them “Uncle Tom” or “race traitor,” but something more along the lines of “you act more like a stereotypical white person than a stereotypical black person.” Factor in the differing average IQs, and it’s no wonder why the more intelligent blacks are often accused of “acting white.”

Of course high-IQ blacks will tend to associate more with a group that has an average IQ of 100 than a group with an average IQ of 85. This “acting white” phenomenon is exactly what one would expect when groups differing as significantly in intelligence as do black and whites co-exist: Behavior that is associated with intelligence becomes associated with whiteness.

I am now amused by how difficult it is to separate behavior that is stereotypically black from behavior that is generally associated with low IQ: making poor life decisions, failing in school, getting in trouble with the law, being loud and obnoxious, speaking poorly, promoting destructive and ignorant behavior, etc. Conversely, it is difficult to distinguish behavior that is “white” from behavior that reflects high IQ: being polite and civilized, showing emotional restraint, working hard, speaking articulately, being educated, being goal-oriented, listening to classical music, etc. It’s as though everyone subconsciously picks up on the IQ differences even if they don’t explicitly realize that what they’re noticing is different levels of intelligence.

iq
It’s no wonder that people associate high IQ with whiteness.

I continued to study the question. I found that that other black members of Mensa are commonly told they are “acting white.” This pattern holds true throughout the world. High-achieving blacks in Britain hear the same thing. Successful Brazilian blacks are called the complimentary term “black with a white soul.”

I learned that literally everywhere in the world where blacks are found in large numbers, they exhibit lower rates of educational success and higher rates of criminality than other races. It’s no mystery why blacks who buck these trends are seen as different from other blacks.

I got my own DNA tested. I found out that I am 25 percent European—which is to be expected among American blacks. More interestingly, I learned that I was in the 96th percentile for Neanderthal ancestry among African-Americans. I find it amusing that I’ve so often had my blackness questioned; I’m unusually high in genetic material that is completely absent from pure Africans.

neanderthal
Compelling quotations

Here are a few observations by blacks that have stuck in my mind.

“Most of the people who were popular in my high school are either dead or in jail.” — my aunt

“This area was so nice when white people lived here.” — my grandmother, driving through a black ghetto

“I have been called ‘white’ my entire life. It’s a shame that just because I didn’t get high, skip class, and steal from the corner store I was thought of as a lame individual.” — a female cousin

“It’s not too often we get a young brother like you here. You’re proper. Most of the young black men I know besides you are thugs.” — a middle-aged black man I met during a summer internship

“N*ggers are terrible.” — my father, who often comes into contact with ghetto blacks in his line of work

“If it’s stupid, they like it.” — my grandmother, referring to young black people

“Why do we always have to come up with dumb shit?” — my extremely militant and pro-black uncle, lamenting black people’s proclivity for ignorance

It’s IQ, not racism

I now have no doubt about race realism. All the lines of evidence, from history to life experience, point to the same conclusion. All the usual excuses for black dysfunction are epiphenomenal and stem from the basic fact of lower average black IQ. Others viewed us as inferior because we never developed the wheel, a written language, a calendar, a mechanical device, or a two-story building. Slavery happened because whites (and Arabs before them) were able to enslave blacks; they had better technology and capitalized on the lack of black cohesion. Historians estimate that 90 percent of the slaves shipped to the New World were first enslaved by other Africans. (This is also consistent with Phil Rushton’s application of r/K theory; Africans have always shown low in-group preference.) All the usual explanations for black failure melt away once the fact of lower IQ is acknowledged. Anti-intellectual culture, poverty, bad schools, single-parent families, lack of role models, you name it—they are exactly what you would expect in a population with a lower average level of intelligence.

I certainly have learned much more about how the world actually works from great men like Phil Rushton, Richard Lynn, Steve Sailer, and Jared Taylor than I have ever learned from hucksters like Ta-Nehisi Coates, Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton. One might find race realism to be a depressing worldview; of course no one wants to believe that his race is much less intelligent on average than other races. But I truly believe that if you evaluate the evidence from an unbiased perspective and use logic rather than emotion, you cannot come to any other conclusion.

Furthermore, a worldview that takes into account human biodiversity is certainly more realistic and even hopeful than eternally yearning for whites suddenly to “wake up to racism” or voluntarily renounce their thirst for destroying “black bodies”—something Ta-Nehisi Coates thinks comes naturally to them. It is more hopeful than waiting for blacks around the world to stop creating “cultures of incompetence,” for which they seem to have quite a knack. It is more hopeful than waiting 250 years for the achievement gap to close or 228 years for the black-white wealth gap to close.

I now know what would theoretically be needed to close these gaps: a higher black IQ. I am free of any resentment against whites, for no matter how bad slavery, Jim Crow, or any other misdeed that whites are frequently made to feel guilty for, blacks around the world are infinitely better off than they would have been if whites had simply left them alone to live in mud huts and tote spears in Africa.

I feel empowered, for I now know that there is no impenetrable wall of white racism holding me back. In the words of the founder of logic, Aristotle, “The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think.” If admitting the truth makes me an “Uncle Tom,” so be it.

As for my uncle’s question, “Why do we always have to come up with dumb shit?”, applying Occam’s razor will yield an elegant and parsimonious answer.

Link: www.amren.com/features/2017/01/young-black-man-became-race-realist/

[Shadow]

Here's the YouTube video of that Cooning Black Twat being interviewed by that Cretin, Jared.



Link: youtu.be/xtjfOgD5jsw

[anansi]

Shadow... The dude you quoted, already made up his mind about us and his/our collective ancestors, from supposed lack of high civilization and positive histography , to modern every day group characteristics of his understanding, he is about that "Whiteness" , frankly
I could forgive the generation before mine, pre-internet Goole search and all , a library in my early dayz, meant I had to chose to go visit on a Sat/Sun, it meant for me watching Gil Noble and guests or Gary Bird on WLIB radio, then follow up with whatever lil money I earned butchering cloth from Alex fabrics (horrible scissor manship) never fired ma tho, to take the subway all the way to Harlem and shop at revolutionary book store or that other one from Flat Bush when they had stuff They I wanted, it took effort back then , image how much more trouble for the generation before mine , when such information was scant.

He sounds bright but not intelligent..some folks u can't convince of anything with all the info at one's finger tip.

[Shadow]

Jun 4, 2019 12:04:54 GMT -5 anansi said:

Shadow... The dude you quoted, already made up his mind about us and his/our collective ancestors, from supposed lack of high civilization and positive histography , to modern every day group characteristics of his understanding, he is about that "Whiteness" , frankly
I could forgive the generation before mine, pre-internet Goole search and all , a library in my early dayz, meant I had to chose to go visit on a Sat/Sun, it meant for me watching Gil Noble and guests or Gary Bird on WLIB radio, then follow up with whatever lil money I earned butchering cloth from Alex fabrics (horrible scissor manship) never fired ma tho, to take the subway all the way to Harlem and shop at revolutionary book store or that other one from Flat Bush when they had stuff They I wanted, it took effort back then , image how much more trouble for the generation before mine , when such information was scant.

He sounds bright but not intelligent..some folks u can't convince of anything with all the info at one's finger tip.

I don't think it's simply about convincing them their ideas are wrong or dangerous. To me it's more like humiliating them and making them submit to logic and reason. Be it as it may I think it should be taken in account how people with a mindset like this guy who dare spread propaganda should always be debunked.

[Shadow]

I should note that this guy is just in his early 20s, so this to me is very beneficial for the Swines out there who indeed would want to make this guy or others like him a token to soften up their racial agendas. It just maddening that have to deal with such nonsense especially since people who are very conscious of the very nature of reality got to deal with White Supremacists on a daily basis. These lackeys as I would refer to them are very fresh and new, yes far from it they are not like the old Coons. They are very much as low as it comes, but they are nothing like older generations of Coons. Back when White supremacy was not hidden, Coons generally wanted Blacks to be submissive, although to an extent this still happens to this very day, but the difference is that the new Coons are very much trying to convince their White peers to embrace their dominance and continue to be a burden on Blacks.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Race realist or race TRAITOR


I fear despite your good intentions you
are inadvertently spreading the message
of a true nobody no one ever knew even
existed before now until seeing his shitty
asininities spreaded here in full form by
you. And no I didn't bother to read this Cac
posing as a Black or possibly a self-hating
yte loving negro pet/slave licking yte ass.

His kind will always be around working negativity.
My goal, and I hope that of all here is to swamp
the 'net with verifiable positive information about
Africa and Afrikans at home and abroad.

Yet we each do what we can as we best see fit.
Continue doing what you see best needs be done
but please don't be duped into reposting negatives
authored by an obscure asshole with a slave mentality.



Thank you for taking time to consider
these words from a senior involved in
our Struggle for 50 years now grounded
in Kawaida and especially the Nguzo Saba.

A luta continua
The struggle continues
The struggle is continuous
Our Struggle is ongoing

[Shadow]

Although it was bound to be addressed, after all despite being a nobody it is still an awaring matter that must be addressed.

[zarahan]

The negro is seriously confused, assuming he is real at all since a common ploy is to
have fake frontin' from alleged "Black" or "minority" fronts making propaganda points.
A true black race realist is critical of the race where deserved, but
is balanced about it, knowing the many factors in play, and does not buy into
white right wing, or white racialist propaganda such as that pushed by
Jared Taylor. Below is a critique of his book "WHite Identity" in which he
uses numerous bogus strawmen to set up his arguments. That's a common pattern
with these people-strawmen.

Another technique such so-called "race realists" use is repitition of a lie or false
claim. THrugh much repetition they hope to establish their claims. Lack of logic
is also another marker. Taylor for example complains that white people lack" racial identity"
which is not only laughable but illogical. If white people lack racial identity
why is their NOW a 2 year backlog of EEO race discrimination cases (mosty blacks)?
WHy do white people erect barriers to blacks in getting housing including landlords or real estate
agents outright lying or "steering" black people away from "reserved" white areas?
Why do housing disctimination complaints field with HUD STILL number thousands every year?

Why do white people get lesser sentences for the same crimes? WHy do blacks get offered
worse financing and loans than whites even when credit and other factors are the same?
Why do job applications with "black sounding" names get so few callbacks? This is stuff
that is happening NOW, not in the 1960s. In fact after the 1960s white (I dont say all white people)
tactics changed to more undercover, harder to pin down racism with heavy layers of deception.
So how can white people lack "Racial identity"? Ti the contrary white people are
very race conscious, and act accordingly. Again I don't say ALL white people.

A few points suffice to expose the "black" realist: He says:



Already a minority within a minority within a minority, I have yet another idiosyncrasy that puts me in an even more unusual category: I am a race realist.

Maybe what he really means is that he is a follower of distorted white right-wing race propaganda.
There have always been plenty of "race realists"- Malcolm X, Garvey and even ML KIng, who
once said "I want to be the white man's brother, not his brother-in-law."


My parents worked hard so I could attend high-performing private (predominately white) schools throughout my life. They taught me to be respectful, to value education, and to take life seriously.
Yawn. This supposed to be something special? THis is Values 101 for millions of stable black church goers
not to mention millions of Carribean and African immigrants.


Two incidents while I was in elementary school were informative from a racial perspective. I recall a visit to the local children’s museum in which historical footage was being shown. What particularly struck me was a recording of Africans swinging from vines in the jungle, wearing minimal clothing, and living in primitive conditions. This was an utter shock to my sensibilities. Prior to this, I had believed that Africans had sophisticated and technologically advanced civilizations. This image of Africans as simple and unaccomplished did not at all fit into the framework of my beliefs about the world. Moreover, this was an actual video recording, not something that could be dismissed as hearsay or fabrication.

This "testimonial" right away strongly suggests that the "black realist" is a fake- a front
behind which sits a white lamer typing racialist propaganda talking points. If the dude
went to such a good white school in a good white neighborhood, and attended a local
museum in a predominantly white hood, then thse places are highly unlikely to have a video of
"Africans swinging from vines in the jungle, wearing minimal clothing". No credible
school including white ones these days would show such nonsense.

Even more fake is that "black" author's "realization" that the video clashed with belief
"that Africans had sophisticated and technologically advanced civilizations."
This is so fake its laughble, and the author trips himself up with bogus storytelling.
A good white school or museum would not only NOT be having any "swinging on vine" video,
but would these days have a basic set of standard material of precisely the sophiscated
African civilizations. In fact one of the complaints of white race realists (read- racists)
is precisely the opposite of what is portrayed above. They complain that there is TOO MUCH
material on African civiliztion etc, including school kids observing Black History Month
and so on, or too much multicultural history etc, etc. Again no credible white school or
museum would be portraying what the author claims they are portraying.

The whole "black testimonial" fails the smell test on just this paragraph, and appears as a laughable fake.
One does not have to discuss more equally shaky talking points, which can be easily debunked
one by one in detail. Furthermore if the author is such a high IQ MEnsa, he would know that
a video (assuming it is even real) of SOME people dancing in Africa is not representative of Africa,
a vast continent of almost 1 billion people. There is video of white people doing primitive things
like running from bulls in Spain -some with minimal clothing, but who thinks this is "representative"
of all of Europe or white people? Again, the so called "black" author seems more and more a fake
and the standard repetition of white racialists talking points further confirms the impression.

[zarahan]

CRITIQUE OF JARED TAYLOR'S BOOK: "WHITE IDENTITY"


Four slanted tactics of "race realists"
Jared Taylor is an effective propagandist- a genial Gobbels that serves up more of his trademark racialist claptrap in this book, likely pleasing to the echo-chamber of “the faithful” but easily debunked and exposed by anyone with a basic knowledge of history, science and social policy. There are 4 basic patterns characterize Taylor’s claim:

(a) distortion and half-truth,
(b) the injured-innocence routine,
(c) the posture of a brave, noble teller of truths persecuted by “politically correct” forces and
(d) pervasive hypocrisy and double-standards.

The half-truth misrepresentation/ caricature means distorting the record of history and science, while piling on seemingly supportive data distortions.

The air of injured innocence means painting a picture in which innocent virtuous white people are on one side, “persecuted” by unreasonable, pathological “minorities” on the other.

A third tactic is to posture as a man of bravery and nobility, fearlessly “saying what no one else dare say”, and “reporting on the facts” while allegedly being “unjustly” criticized by “politically correct” detractors.

Finally a deep root of hypocrisy pervades Taylorism- if whites are under discussion- build them up as virtuous paragons of humanity, but paint blacks and other targeted minorities in as lurid and negative terms as possible, including pseudo-scientific claims that their alleged “defects” are inherent in their “evolutionary” makeup.

Once these 4 basic patterns and/or tactics of the genial Gobbels is grasped, many of his claims fall apart like a bad hand of cards.

One fundamental point to grasp before examining some of Taylor’s claims is that white people are already pursuing their own selfish interests, having been doing so since the founding of America and continue to do so. These days however a snarling racist face is just not good publicity. A more subtle, seemingly race-neutral web of control and co-optation does the job more effectively, without raising too detailed examination of other things. Token numbers of blacks can be hired for example, as a way of dismissing too much deep scrutiny and without exposing the deeply embedded systems of discrimination and favoritism whites have always used to benefit their own. “Affirmative Action” can be pinned as something negative on “the culluds” while quietly proceeding with self-serving policies ensuring that most “affirmative action” beneficiaries are white. White privilege, profit and self-service are well in hand. Why rock the boat with some sort of tedious “white power” campaign that will spark a draining counter-hostility and embarrassing scrutiny? “The Taylorites” as we shall see, simply have not gotten the memo... Hence they are a continuing embarrassment to most white people- like a curmudgeonly elderly relative that keeps farting at your dinner party. Now let’s take a look at some of Taylor’s arguments shall we..


DIVERSITY OF RACE, LANGUAGE, RELIGION, ETC. IS NOT A STRENGTH FOR AMERICA BUT A SOURCE OF CHRONIC TENSION AND CONFLICT.

Diversity of race, language, religion etc is a source of tension EVERYWHERE ON EARTH not only in America. This is news? Some profound impartation of “knowledge” – received in an awed hush by “the faithful”? Yes there are tensions where such differences exist- just as there has been “tension” between an Irish minority trying to integrate or assimilate in Britain. We call this some sort of profound insight? ”Tension” does not need non-white minorities to happen. In America diversity has also caused “tension” WHERE THERE ARE MOSTLY WHITE PEOPLE- just ask the white Irish and almost everyone else.

What Taylor conveniently skips over (he does a lot of convenient skipping), is that in many cases it is WHITE people who instigated, created and pushed tension, sometimes with murderous results, as the numerous lynchings, riots and mass murders against black, brown and yellow Americans attest. Taylor papers over how WHITE America is a supreme example of a force creating “tension” and “conflict.” But see, only those troublesome cullud minorities are to blame in the simplistic racial fantasy world of the “Taylorites”…



ONLY WHITES CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN TRANSCENDING RACE AND TRY TO MAKE THE UNITED STATES A NATION IN WHICH RACE DOES NOT MATTER, AND ALL THE GOOD THINGS DONE BY WHITES ARE DISPARAGED BY THE CULLUDS.

Laughable nonsense that sets one on the floor rolling in mirth. In fact the main obstacle in United States to “transcending race” is white racism. It was white racism that put vicious violence in place for centuries, that erected the apartheid system of unjust Jim Crow barriers, and that continues in some more subtle ways using institutional levers to perpetuate certain patterns. As a result what has been created is a legacy of poisonous suspicion and resentment that will last for even more decades. To many, indeed most whites race does indeed matter, and Jared Taylor is one of the greatest hypocrites on this score- a race-monger par excellence who purports to be concerned about the issue of “transcending race”… One can only marvel at the sheer hypocrisy of Taylor- but then again he is working from the Gobbels playbook- where a huge exaggeration or bogus claim, if repeated long enough, will eventually be accepted by “the white faithful.”

As for all the good things being done for the culluds, are they really being done for said “culluds” or is white self-interest the bottom line? “Southern heritage” types for example always like to point out the northern industrial hegemony factor in how the Civil War came about. Such is not the only reason for the abolition of slavery but it is a clear factor of white self-interest. Likewise it was in the interests of white America to give “the culluds” basic civil rights because its apartheid system was an embarrassing point of vulnerability in the Cold War competition with the Soviets. Minor concessions here and there also served white self-interest as a placating force that kept the natives quiet and avoided raising wider questions about discriminatory white privilege. White unions and corporations for example could fund a few minority programs, or incorporate some token employment while leaving their unearned privilege untouched, and unexamined in detail.

And Taylorites are indeed hypocritical speaking about the “good things” created by white people. When the whole record is examined whites were often reluctant to share any of said good things with “the culluds,” and indeed fought hard NOT to.


TAYLOR ARGUES THAT WHITES MUST EXERCISE THE SAME RIGHTS AS OTHER GROUPS--THAT THEY MUST BE UNAFRAID OF CONSIDERING THEIR OWN LEGITIMATE INTERESTS.

Anyone with a little knowledge of history and social policy will see through this claim for the rubbish it is. Who says that whites ever stopped exercising their rights “like other groups”? What plane of fantasy do “the Taylorites” live in? Who says whites ever stopped guarding their own selfish interests?

And who says whites are not asserting themselves numerically and culturally? Whites just don’t want to be PERCEIVED as mean-spirited baddies. They want the mantle of goodness, virtue and justice. This is not necessarily new but is part of America’s founding ethos- a sense of special virtue above and beyond the supposed cynicism and corruption of “Old Europe.” But the bottom line of whites guarding their selfish interests has never ceased in America, and the cynicism and corruption of “Old Europe” found fertile ground in white America. Taylor well knows this but his method is to churn out a steady stream of bogus propaganda that the naïve “faithful” gratefully consume.

Anyone with a “realistic understanding of race” knows whites are busily protecting their privileges around the clock. It is in their interest these days to not present the snarling visage of the Nazi mass-murderer or southern lynch mob, or Irish race-rioter. It’s just not good publicity. WW2’s mass genocide was the modern-era naked exposure of white racism- the final modern era bottom line of “racial reality”- although the case was exposed before in gruesome detail- in slavery. Racists like Taylor have never ceased sympathizing with that "racial reality," albeit in a “softer” Jim Crow form that celebrates the heyday of American apartheid system, and hopes for its modified continuance.


“DIVERSITY” AND “MULTICULTURAL” PROGRAMS SERVE TO MUZZLE WHITE EXPRESSION AND MAKE WHITES FEEL GUILTY.

Multicultural initiatives are not necessarily anti-white- in fact some have been very useful in creating a more accurate narrative of history and policy- much better than previous segregationist or “manifest destiny” propaganda in various places and school textbooks well into the 1960s. And “multicultural” initiatives have given more exposure and more accurate coverage of WHITE ethnics- a development conveniently missed by “the faithful.” And other “diversity” initiatives have not really touched the core of white power or dominance. In fact whites have moved to profit from them- whether as “diversity” bureaucrats and functionaries.

And “multiculturalism” does not necessarily create “white guilt.” To the contrary- some “multicultural” initiatives promote white self-esteem and self-congratulation. Whites feel noble for “progressive” measures that removed the Jim Crow apartheid system, and other measures to help blacks get a stake in the system, like opening up democracy via gasp- actually allowing black people to vote! Imagine that!

Another benefit of “multi-culturalism” to whites is that it allows restive minorities to be fobbed off with chump change- a small grant here, a “diversity coordinator” job there. “Beads for the natives” if you will.. This keeps them quiescent and ensures that more fundamental questions about the power structure, and the systematic networks of white privilege are not effectively raised. This is an old pattern going back to some of the “War on Poverty” OEO programs when small-potatoes grants, jobs and programs were dispersed, “cooling off” unrest and/or criticism of discriminatory white privilege. In some cases it even helped split minority coalitions into petty recipients squabbling with one another over petty funding that ultimately served as a more effective lever of control than snarling dogs, ranting racists and blasting firehoses.

And “Multicultural diversity” has opened up new opportunities for white people to get paid: including assorted funding and jobs for white coordinators, bureaucrats and miscellaneous processors of paper. Twenties (1920s) style marches in white hoods and robes are not needed for white people to enhance their control and profit. They are accomplishing the same by more subtle means- with a veneer of civility these days. Whites have figured out numerous ways to get paid using “multiculturalism.”

There has been SOME “muti-culti” abuse, most notably by mostly “politically correct” WHITE lefty types on SOME mostly WHITE college campuses. They deserve criticism and both whites and blacks have been doing that. More can always be done to curb excesses. But one thing glaringly missing from the blanket condemnation of “multiculturalism” is that in many cases it delivered a more accurate rendering of history (actually telling the truth oftimes- a slippery concept to Taylor and his cultists), and that truth is not all bad. It is a matter of record that the US did eventually move to clean up the abuses of its oppressive apartheid system, and such helped restore US credibility overseas to talk about democracy- an extremely important consideration in the face of a ruthless Cold War enemy. These are worthy accomplishments, accomplishments that would never have come to pass if the segregation-loving Taylorites had held the reins of power.


WHITE PEOPLE ARE BEING CRITICIZED UNFAIRLY BY MINORITIES AND ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK OUT

This is a key complaint of Taylor but like his other complaints it is full of distortion, half-truths, and outright dishonest propaganda. There are 5 reasons for this.

7A- IN MANY CASES, “THE COLOREDS” HAVE GOOD REASONS TO CRITICIZE WHITE PEOPLE. Think dear reader, think! Why would the coloreds criticize at all? Can you think of a reason? I KNEW, you could. Under the Taylorite propaganda barrage, the coloreds should be perfectly content and stop mentioning, oh say… slavery, lynchings, mass murdering riots and pogroms such as that against the Chinese in California, or blacks in the town of Rosewood, Florida etc, outright strong arm robbery and thuggery in seizing of Native American land in many cases, a long history of biased “justice” in the courts, and a century of oppressive apartheid otherwise known as Jim Crow. All these things done by white people have created a deep legacy of hurt and anger that will take multiple generations to erase, and they have produced damaging fallout that scarred and hurt millions of non-white lives. The generations deep fallout did not magically go away because white people signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. White people poisoned the field, and reap the fruit of what they have sown. But see none of this counts. The coloreds should just be quiet- singing gentle songs of Old Virginny… And when white people like the white Irish criticize their British oppressors, well see that’s OK. It’s only when “the coloreds” do the same that it becomes a “problem” for Taylor and his followers.


7B- IN MANY CASES, BOTH WHITE AND NON-WHITE PEOPLE ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT TAYLOR SAYS HE IS DOING, AND ADVOCATES DOING- “REPORTING THE FACTS”.

Taylor rails against what he sees as anti-white bias but much of his complaint is based on embarrassment by the truth being reported on white behavior. Taylor himself wastes no time in amassing negative statistics to on blacks for example, but hypocritically, is offended when statistics are gathered on whites. Yes there are relatively high levels of violence and criminality among SOME blacks- mostly young males, but there are likewise the same on whites- from the well documented violence, substance abuse and criminality of the white Irish, the similar high rates of violence among white southerners, to the violation of laws and protocols themselves put in place by white people- the mass violence and genocide of the Holocaust, or the mass murder of Stalin’s collectivization push- the Holodomor. Why is it OK to report on blacks but not on whites? A persistent streak of hypocrisy and double standards runs throughout Taylorite propaganda.


7C- WHITE PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING “MUZZLED” BASED ON RACE. IN FACT THEY WASTE NO TIME EXPRESSING THEMSELVES IN THE MEDIA- INTERNET, BLOGS, BOOKS, WEB FORUMS, ETC, INCLUDING GIVING FREE REIN TO RACIST SENTIMENTS.

Has anyone checked the Internet recently? Seen the vast, snarling, sneering sea of anti-non-white prejudice (particularly anti-black prejudice) in countless venues- from discussion forums, to blogs to Youtube videos maintained by whites? What fantasy land do the Taylorites live in where white people are “not allowed” free expression? But then again it may not be fantasy for Taylor. He knows the above quite well, but his bogus propaganda method, like that of Gobbels before him, is to relentlessly distort what is actually going on. As Gobbels proved, lies can be established as “truth” with enough repetition.

And in older media like print books and magazine articles, white people have not been “muzzled” at all- contrary to the dishonest propaganda insisted on by Taylor and his cultists. The 1980s and 1970s for example saw a vast outpouring of books and articles against “political correctness” “liberals” and the pathologies afflicting blacks. Black crime, out of wedlock births, etc. etc. were, and have been well reported, and sneeringly commented on. None of it is “hidden” by “the media.” In fact, credible scholars of “the media” have noted how it continually plays on white fears and double standards- showing whites engaged in similar activity as blacks in a more sympathetic or neutral light for example.

Time and time again, white media have seized on the most sensationalist black imagery to reinforce the image of the feckless, threatening, primitive negro-- like the bogus, but suitably lurid “stories” of “baby rapes” during 2005’s Hurricane Katrina. Books like: Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. 2007. By Martin Gilens) and The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America, Robert M. Entman, ‎Andrew Rojecki – 2010 expose much of this detail. Blacks have received little special treatment from “the media”- to the contrary. All this continues today, in more muted and coded form than in the past, but still in place. Where is this mysterious “muzzling” of white people the Taylor cultists cry so piteously about?

And white right-wingers for decades have been milking anti-black sentiment among whites often using “coded” references and campaigns. Yes there was a “southern strategy” and it was based on race as detailed works on the Nixon era show. This is but one example. The “coded” references of the Reagan regime on a number of fronts are another example. White right-wingers hypocritically cry about how the “liberals” are playing race cards, when they themselves have been milking “race cards” about “the culluds” profitably for years. Tayor’s bogus pose of injured innocence on this score is an all too typical pattern of his modus operandi.

In SOME venues, like white politically correct ones, and non-white ones as well, anti-white sentiments have been expressed. Sure. But is this some vast conspiracy by “the media” that is “muzzling” white people, supposedly “shutting down “free expression”? Not at all. And since when is the US supposed to be a land where there is no ethnic tension? You mean after 100 years of Jim Crow there should be no anti-white sentiment among SOME blacks? Whence this magical land? Is there such a fantasy country with multiple ethnics where tension and hostility miraculously disappear? Whereabouts? Mr. Rogers’ hood? And where is the fantasy land where the white people are all nice and polite and say nary an unkind world against the culluds? Disneyland?


7D- One key reason white people keep silent is not because they are “muzzled” by “the coloreds” but that they do not want further exposure of white behavior and discriminatory privilege.

It does not seem to have occurred to the Taylor cultists that it actually pays some white people to NOT go about arguing with the coloreds, because to do so risks even more EXPOSURE of negative white behavior and discriminatory white privilege. The vast information explosion of the Internet means accurate facts are a few clicks away. Things covered up in the past can no longer be. The cruel story of how white unions forced hard working black men out of decent jobs is but one example, as is the vast web of even more negative history just lying beneath the surface. Why for example were black women who tried to protect their families also murdered by white lynch mobs? Why were blacks lynched for such “crimes” as being RELATIVES of people who were lynched? Such ugly facts and many, many more are there, just below the veneer. When Taylor moans about white people not “speaking out” there is a reason. They want things to quiet down, and to cool off, and not give opportunity for further exposure.

Similarly, one of the reasons for AA quotas via the consent agreements often made to settle lawsuits is that quick quota programs shut down further exposure of discriminatory institutional, corporate or union practices. It is a lot easier to hire a small number of blacks and make a lawsuit go away than risk exposure of deeply entrenched racial-preference practices in favor of whites. Numerous institutions took the “quick fix” approach of quotas. The much commented phenomenon of “tokenism” in the 1970s and 1980s is part of this. Police departments for example have long been entrenched strongholds of discriminatory white privilege in employment (such as the “good old boy” Irish networks) until lawsuits started to expose them. Quick fixes made headaches vanish- another way of imposing a silence, lest more messy dirty linen be revealed. White people are not anxious to see such linen.



INTEGRATION HAS BEEN “A FAILURE”.

This claim is a half-truth and partial strawman erected by the Taylorites, delivered as if they are making some new, profound point. But its old news, and flawed for 3 reasons.

8a- Most blacks and whites were always realistic about the limits of integration despite the headline grabbing platitudes of people like Martin Luther King.

This is well documented by credible historians in books on Civil Rights (such as Taylor Branch’s trilogy on the King Years). Many civil rights activists and ordinary blacks for example were skeptical of King’s “love” meme and saw it primarily as a tactic. If it worked at the moment they were willing to go along. People getting their heads beat in for the mere right to equal service for a cup of coffee, or getting on a bus did not “love” white people. They simply wanted the same deal under an equally constituted law, as everyone else. The Taylorites act as if they just discovered this “truth.”

Likewise there was ALWAYS black ambivalence and anger about how segregated institutions were dismantled. Taylor insinuates that blacks PREFERRED segregation. Nonsense. They deeply resented America’s apartheid system. They wanted to build up their own institutions BUT ALSO wanted the same rights as everyone else in society-- including the right to have their institutions equally treated, the right to move around freely, the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor unmolested, and the right to freely participate in free market transactions without a web of harassment, restrictions and barriers imposed by whites. Furthermore much black disappointment with integration is/was based not on the concept of “integration” per se, but HOW whites went about doing it, and HOW WHITES GOT PAID in doing so. In some cases whites were quite malicious- quickly tearing down black schools that were sources of community pride and achievement, and implementing the wholesale firing of experienced black administrators, teachers and coaches.

How did white people get paid by integration? Credible scholars and researchers like Dorn 2007 and Sowell (1993, 1981, 2004) and others show:

(a) they got huge amounts of federal money to ease along better facilities for blacks,
(b) the money could be and was diverted to improve white facilities as well -more so when the black ones were destroyed,
(c) they got more jobs as the black teachers and administrators were displaced,
(d) they gained even more jobs as white bureaucrats- soaking up the fed money being put into social programs,
(e) they profited from social policy like “affirmative action” that actually made whites its biggest beneficiaries (white women, in particular),
(f) the end of legalized Jim Crow opened up numerous profitable transactions for whites with blacks and
(g) they gained in profitable real estate transactions as older housing stock in formerly “reserved” white communities could be unloaded on “the coloreds”.

h) And on the political front, integration helped white Democrats pick up the bulk of black votes by the late 1960s, whereas before it was more evenly spread.

In short, white people of many stripes have done fairly well from “integration” but you would never know this from reading Taylorite propaganda.


8b—Far from being a so-called total failure integration was helpful in securing American victory in the cold war.

One of the things for example that moved along civil rights for blacks after WW2 was not white goodwill but how American whites were embarrassed internationally by their apartheid system and the conduct of its guardians. Bold talk about “democracy” and “justice” was repeatedly exposed as mere hypocrisy when the brutal realities of the apartheid system came into view. In the face of a powerful Soviet competitor that relentlessly exposed their hypocrisy US whites sought to save face and thus were forced to grant the basic concessions that they did grant. There is much scholarship on the issue- such as Mary Duzdiak’s “Cold War Civil Rights.” The bottom line however is that integration helped the US in fending off its international enemies, by removing a source of their countless attacks- America’s apartheid system.


8c- Integration had SOME failures but also attested to much to be proud about for American society.

The failures are well known, like some of the dubious school initiatives including busing. Again, criticism has been widespread and in many cases deserved. Ironically, such long-standing criticism gives lie to the Taylorite propaganda bout white people being “muzzled” against “speaking out.” Nonsense.. There has been no shortage of white people “speaking out” against things like busing, school integration or AA quotas. Whites don’t speak out as much on the AA quotas (whether historical or present) benefiting whites, but that is another story..

Integration like any other difficult social policy was no panacea. It NEVER was. The naiveté or high hopes of some have been adjusted. Nothing earth-shattering there- that’s social policy 101, not only in the US but elsewhere. The Catholic Irish for example experienced several difficulties integrating into British society and they have done so in large measure, while retaining a distinct sense of being Irish. There is still tension between the Irish and the larger English society, and the Irish still show certain negatives such as substance abuse problems, violence etc but their integration is well in hand. Blacks and others are on their way to doing the same.

Taylor conveniently skips the fact that many of integration's failures were due to white opposition. It took until 1988 for example, 20 years AFTER the Open Housing Act of 1968, for real enforcement provisions to be put into fighting housing discrimination. It is telling that Taylor wants to distort the whole picture on integration as a “failure”, because he OPPOSED even basic civil rights for blacks, as a number of white right wingers still do. This open position is no longer considered respectable so they dance around it and repackage their arguments to be more palatable, but that racist bottom line remains. It Taylor and his cultists had held power America would still have remained an unjust apartheid state, and even the tiny number of interracial couples would still be “criminals.”

Ever the propagandist, Taylor wants to have it both ways: he wants to take credit for things HE and his followers would never had done in the name of whiteness (like civil rights) while at the same time condemning and disparaging the very same. He wants to take white credit for civil rights while condemning civil rights for blacks- not as openly before but in a more subtle way by alleging that it is all a “failure.” Well if it is all a “failure” why are you trying to claim credit for it in the name of white people?

Regardless of such double standards, it is a fact that the United States, to its credit, and despite massive white opposition in some quarters, before and after the civil rights era, did discard its repugnant apartheid system, freed up artificially locked markets hindering black AND white people, improved its standing overseas and thus against the Soviet competitor and to some extent at least, approached the promise of its founding constitution and documents in a real, concrete way. This is an accomplishment to be proud of, helping restore full credibility to American democracy. Furthermore it promotes a needed unity and shared values among all Americans- something alien to the racialist bottom line that underlies Taylorism and its sympathizers. Integration doesn’t mean you have to “like” somebody. It NEVER did. The Taylor cultists go around like a freshly-minted Captain Obvious- who has “discovered” this and is now “sharing” this keen insight with the faithful. Integration overall has not been the “failure” in the United States. SPECIFIC programs, policies and people have SOMETIMES failed or been flawed. They can be tweaked, adjusted or discarded/dismissed, just like any other set of programs, but that does not mean integration is a “failure.”

-------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------

SUMMARY AND BOTTOM LINE

What the Taylorites don’t get is that to maintain their “new look” racism, they need to continually demonize a “race enemy” a non-white “Other.” This in turn will provoke push-back from the no longer quiescent “Other.” White contenders on the liberal side will seize on this conflict to inflict pain on their conservative opponents- one contemporary example is white gays piggybacking on the black civil rights movement to win sympathy and backing for their agendas. Claims to the contrary, many liberal whites are just as much concerned about white supremacy as right wingers- they just don’t want to appear mean-spirited, and brutal- but pursue the same bottom lines in a quieter way. White privilege, profit and self-service are well in hand. In this sense, Taylorism is more than simply and unwanted embarrassment, it is ultimately irrelevant.

[ycoamigofull]

Your long spiel misses a bunch of things. A lot of black nationalist leaders like Malcolm X condemned integration as a sham, led by weak leaders. So it seems these black leaders were closer to Jared Taylor's position than yours. Second thing is most blacks have been disappointed by integration. Third thing is that much of the civil rights movement was unnecessary. As Charles Murray said some years ago in a devastating criticism- most of the gains like higher black employment, more schooling, more public accommodations were already underway after WWII, and there is nothing gained by the civil rights movement that can’t be explained by existing trend lines.

[zarahan]

Malcolm Jim crow supporter?
I don't think you understand what Malcolm was talking about in full context. Malcolm
in no way supported the vicious white Jim Crow regime. In fact many of his speeches
railed against it. His criticism was that given white opposition for even such trivial
things as eating next to black people in a restaurant, then integration was (a) a waste
of time, or (b) a sham of petty concessions that left real power untouched. Malcolm would
then tout ELijah MUhammed's alternative vision of a separate black state, which, ironically,
was massively more unrealistic. It met with skepticism from many blacks, who noted that
the Muslims talked militant up north, but seldom appeared down south. or even in many
northern venues to openly confront the very same Jim Crow thy riled against. THis criticism
was true, and pained Malcolm much, and towards the end he sought ways to appear relevant to the surge
of black civil rights/freedom struggle around the nation. So he was in no way "closer" to
white racists like Taylor. To the contrary he condemned such racists repeatedly, as well as
Elijah Muhammed for dallying with and meeting with such racists, like George Lincoln Rockwell
of the American Nazi Party. His shift was only partially successful. Less than a year after breaking from
the Muslims, he was iced by the very same separatist organization he had spend years helping to build.

Disappointed by some specifics
You also say blacks are "disappointed" by integration. I have already addressed this at length
above. To the contrary no sane blacks except for a few fringe black libertarians like ELizabeth
Wrightand blinkered right wing types like George Schuyler in the 1950s-60s wanted any return to
Jim Crow's injustices. And even people like Wright try to frame their issue in terms of a specific
item, like black business loss etc, not any "return to Dixie." There has been disappointment
on SPECIFIC programs like busing, etc but overall most sane black people are glad to see Jim Crow gone.
People who make the "disappointed blacks" argument too often forget to mention that many of these
specific programs failed due to white opposition, sabotage, and sandbagging. In short whites
engineered the failure then come around talking about "black disappointment." Seriously? Only the
naive lap this up. And as already stated for many blacks the issue is not integration but HOW whites
went about doing it such as rapid firing of black teachers, coaches etc, (meaning mo white job slots)
and diversion of federal money to aid blacks into white hands. New "integrated" schools built for
example were mostly built with white labor. It took years of lawsuits and arm-twisting to even begin
to address such things after the major Civil Rights laws passed.

Integration not to blame for every negative
And many of the key losses are not due to "integration" per se, but to general economic changes. The rise
of big chain stores for example was wiping out small black businesses as far back as the 1920s. It only
got worse ion the post ww2 era, even as many businesses and factories, in another general trend, moved
out of central urban areas to the more lucrative suburbs- wiping out more small businesses. Integration
did cause SOME losses, but many wHite small businessmen saw their prospects shrink under these changes as
well. Blaming every decline on "integration" is really simplistic.




Civil Rights unecessary?
As for Charles Murray let's get real. His so called "devastating" critique is more like a fizzled
squib that only keep burning in the right wing echo chambers. OUt in the real world his argument
is laughably weak. First "trend lines" of Jim Crow and prejudice co-existed quite nicely with rising
black incomes or education. White racism in employment, housing and education kept on. In 1950s north
for example black families trying to use their new income to purchase bettr housing were met with howling
white mobs and death threats. As late as the 1960s the federal government itself refused to give loans
in areas that they "redlined" off. Just the presence of one black family on a block could trigger the
"redline" loan denials. IN the meantime on into 1970s, white real estate people kept right on "steering' black
people into ghetto properties, even as white politicians kept building roads blasting through
"negro" areas to destroy them or to use them as barriers to wall the "culluds" off from "reserved"
white areas. Up into the 1970s white unions kept sandbagging black employment in the skilled trades.
Many more examples could be given but who says "trend lines" were necessarily positive
before the civil rights laws, or executive action?



It was civil rights that aided or helped shape the positive "trend lines"
Another big hole in Murray's argument is that his so called "trend lines" of positivity for blacks came about
substantially, or in part, BECAUSE of civil rights agitation. IN WW2 time and time again whites went on strike,
sometimes violently to block blacks from getting better paying defense industry jobs even though there was
a war on. IN one war plant white women went on strike and shut production down because, gasp, a few
negroe women were hired and gasp, they would share the same toilets! Heavens! Da end of white civ!
Forget those German and Japanese hordes. There's negroes in the restroom listening to me poop Jolene!
(SEe- Black Labor and the American Legal System: Race, Work, and the Law By Herbert Hill, 1985)

BS like this made A. Phillip Randolph threaten to lead a black March On Washington. Such a dangerous civil
rights demonstration threat forced embarrassed white officials to begin opening up more defense jobs, and begin
some anti-discrimination enforcement. After all how could they be boosting "democracy" against facism
when they could not even guarantee basic decency for negroes in their own back yard, or keep war factories open?
ANd so it went. In the 1940s it was civil rights agitation and lawsuits that created the positive trend
lines, forcing southern state regimes to finally pay black teachers same as whites. It was civil rights
agitation after black soldiers were attacked on buses that finally moved Truman to his landmark
desegregation of the armed forces. It was only after the civil rights act of 1964 that the "white only"
southern textile industry finally started hiring blacks above the menial jobs a boon for black employment.

It was civil rights arm-twisting that forced JIm Crow southern hospitals to admit black people- a boom
for black health care. It was "unneeded" civil rights that pried open the spigots of federal money that gave
millions of blacks a chance to get some jobs and money beyond the most menial. As regards the discriminating white
unions, they so pissed off conservative President Richard Nixon that to show his civil rights bona-fides, he had
his Dept of Labor implement his famous "Philadelphia Plan" requiring that the white unions admit black workers for projects
using federal money. Etc etc etc. In short, while civil rights cannot take credit for all the positive trend lines, it
was a key part in making those trend lines effective for, or encouraging them on for blacks.

Ironically, towards the end of his life Mr. Conservative hisself, William F Buckley, who had for 30
years scornfully dismissed or downplayed civil rights, finally had to admit that the movement was
necessary (Time Mag interview 2004 circa). So much for Murray's "devastatingly" bogus critique.

[ycoamigofull]

World War II created a boom economy that hired many blacks, so the trend line was positive going forward. How can you say civil rights had anything to do with that? You also conveniently don't mention that the south began to upgrade black schools with more buildings and funding after World War II, which was part of a positive trend line, that didn't need Martin Luther King.

[zarahan]

You don;t seem to be able to grasp the facts. Up above it is said that of course
WW2's expansion helped boost the economy -which of course helped many blacks. Who
doesn't know this? What you seem unable to grasp is that even some of these gains
are due in part to relentless civil rights pressure on white ruling regimes, from
threatened street marches by A Philip Randolph to relentless court cases filed
and appealed year after year, as every credible history book shows.

As for WW2 a significant slice of white people put blockading black employment AHEAD
of defeating Nazi Germany or the Japanese, and ahead of so-called "free markets."
When black folk got jobs due to "free market" hiring, whites moved to shut it down.
When war production was urgently needed whites moved to shut this down too. Why, when
production was urgently needed at the front to defeat the evil Axis enemies of democracy?
Why? Because black folk were finally getting a tiny piece of the action. QUOTE:

"On May 24, 1943, Alabama Dry Dock employed nearly 7,000 black workers,
none of them in skilled occupations. Suddenly, in compliance with a six-month-
old direc-tive from the President's Committee on Fair Employment Practice (FEPc),
the once-recalcitrant company upgraded 12 blacks to welding jobs. The next
morning, after the twelve men had gone home, the yard erupted. Responding to
cries to "get every one of them Niggers off this island," enraged whites
assaulted their black co-workers with pipes, clubs, and other weapons from
their workaday world. Some blacks sus-tained serious injuries in the melee,
and virtually all of them experienced hours of terror, which ended only when
United States Army troops from nearby Brookley Field arrived on Pinto Island
to restore order."
--FROM: Nelson, Bruce. 1993. Organized Labor and the Struggle for Black Equality
in Mobile during World War II. The Journal of American History volume 80, issue 3

-
And- even President Harry S. Truman got pissed at the racist "trend lines" on the railroads:




--
and


^War production? Forget war production! There's negroes getting a job here!

"Many [strikes] were based on racism as whites objected to African Americans
getting new jobs in defense plants. Perhaps the most shameful occurred in Baltimore,
where black employees rose from 2 percent to 29 percent at a Western Electric plant
in the first two years of the war.. 'twenty-two white women walked off their after
one black woman was transferred into their formally all white department.' Their
objection focused on integrated toilet facilities which previously had been
segregated by race. When the War Labor Board ruled in favor of integration, 'about
70 percent of the company's workers' struck- a percentage that included almost all
white workers both men and women.. Army troops took over the company for the first
three months of 1944 -until the company gave into the white workers and re-segregated
restrooms."
-- Doris Weatherford 2009, American women during World War 2: An Encyclopedia. pg 436

So while WW2 is the prime booster of the economy for all Americans, it took relentless
civil rights lobbying and court pressure to get blacks even a small slice of that expanding pie.
The expanding trendline was due in part to that pressure.





You also conveniently don't mention that the south began to upgrade black schools with more buildings and funding after World War II, which was part of a positive trend line, that didn't need Martin Luther King.

What's there to mention? Every informed Af-Am knows that knows that the South scrambled
after WW2 to make some upgrades. But you yourself skip why that was. It wasn't out of the
goodness of southern white hearts. To the contrary, they scrambled because a built up wave
of relentless civil rights pressure descended on them, backed by the outspokenness of
hundreds of thousands of black veterans who had embraced the WW2 "DOuble V" campaign.
ONe of the most significant hammers of that pressure was the landmark "Brown vs Board
of Education" decision. They upgraded some schools in hopes of heading off the final application
of Brown, so they could claim faithful implementation of separate but "equal" facilities,
which they had failed to do for 60 years after Plessy. This is why so many black high
schools were built or finally upgraded in the 1950s, so that they could avoid or
ride out the civil rights tsunami. But by the end of the 1950s it was too late for the
old fraudulent "separate by equal" games.

So Charles Murray or extensions of various of his arguments fails again. The "trend lines"
were heavily influenced by the very same "unneeded" civil rights pressure he tries to poo poo.
And most of this was happening BEFORE ML King showed up on the radar and became prominent.