Regarding your recent series of posts: I’m wondering if you were somehow abducted by aliens who managed to swap your brain with mine of about five years ago. Really, I never thought I would see the day when you would be beating the drum about revisionism, anti-Semitism, Nordicism, and Third Reich fetishism of all things. These were the major themes of The Civic Platform for years. As for myself, I am now the outspoken critic of Jewish influence. It seems we have come full circle!
Now that the irony has been addressed, which seems to have everyone complaining about whiplash, I find your recent awakening to the Liberalism Question to be a sign of intellectual growth. I don’t agree with the Single Jewish Cause of Western decline either. My own stated view is that the Anglo-American political tradition (or “liberal capitalist democracy”) is the meta problem which has facilitated the disease of minority culture distortion.
Whites are locked up in an ideological prison. They can see only individuals, not the machinations of groups. They believe non-discrimination is a cardinal moral principle. They believe all human beings have a natural right to liberty and equality. This philosophical problem will have to be dealt with before we even get to the planning stages of creating racially homogeneous white republics.
So far, I’m with you.
We agree on several further points: subracial squabbling, Holocaust revisionism, and Third Reich fetishism are distractions from the major issue of racial preservation. I will also agree that addressing the Jewish Question isn’t politically expedient, although I believe it is necessary.
Here is where we part ways:
I take a dim view of anything that smacks of conservatism. Although Geert Wilders has been successful in the Netherlands, I don’t think anything will come of it. There won’t be any mass expulsions of Muslims. I predict nonwhite immigration to Western Europe will continue unless racial nationalists capture power. Wilders could be just another scheming opportunist like Nicholas Sarkozy (Jew) in France, but I don’t follow European issues these days enough to know for sure. I haven’t seen him attack liberalism as a philosophy either. Rather, Wilders strikes me as more of a neocon: a zealous defender of Western liberalism against illiberal Islam.
The conservative record in the United States could not be more clear. The GOP’s last presidential nominee was John McCain (an open borders fanatic). The GOP controlled the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court for most of the last decade. When George W. Bush left office in January, America was worse off racially speaking than it was under Bill Clinton. This is airtight evidence that conservatism is a dead road for White Americans.
What do you say?
“They believe non-discrimination is a cardinal moral principle.”
Yes they have faith or confidence in that principle, however, it is not derived from Anglo-American tradition (or “liberal capitalist democracy”), which was racially/ethnically discriminatory (even Mill was an ethno-nationalist). The AA tradition was perverted after WWII from the force of law protecting the discriminator to the force of law (and public opprobrium) protecting the victim of discrimination. Clearly, clearly, clearly it was one ethnic group who drove that change (in alliance with others) to the philosophical universalism of non-discrimination.
Desmond’s wrong.
The non-discriminatory [liberal] component of our Anglo-American heritage can be seen in the radical abolitionist movements of the 19th century as well as in our immigration policies, which allowed for huge waves of turn of the century European immigrants (including the infamous Ashkenazim). If the culture of the U.S. was truly ethnically discriminatory it’s hard to imagine how these events could have happened.
Desmond is not wrong. He’s one-hundred percent correct. Proze is wrong, as is notuswind. The “one ethnic group” which Desmond doesn’t name, but I will, is of course the Jews. Yes there were all sorts of unrealistic unworkable “idealistic” notions and movements afoot in Anglo-Saxon North America from the time of Ann Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and others on down through the Quakers, Shakers, utopian Transcendentalists, and “lefty” types like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, Henry David Thoreau, John Brown, and so many others. BUT: they didn’t prevail. The whole country didn’t turn into Transcendentalist communes or “drop out” with Thoreau at Walden Pond or insist on being buried in a Negro cemetary when they died, as did Civil-War-era U.S. Senator and major troublemaker Thaddeus Stevens, or sign onto a violent, bloody slave revolt as John Brown hoped to touch off. Always common sense, due recognition of reality, and a hard look at the ultimately anti-utopian distinction between the workable and the unworkable, between reality and fantasy, eventually ended up prevailing over the fantasists and wacko utopianists. What’s happening now is the wackos are winning non-stop. They’re on an unbroken roll now some forty-five years old and counting. It’s because the normals are prevented, by Jewish control of the mass media, from communicating with each other and with the mass of the people. Instead they’re hysterically demonized by the Jews and forbidden the same platform from which to voice their views as the other side are given. The pendulum is being prevented from swinging back in the other direction, the normal direction, by the Jewish hand reaching out and holding it in place, keeping it from swinging. The mass media of a society are the society’s nervous system. Wrest control of the mass media and you immobilize the society. Communication can’t take place in any direction other than the one mandated by the ones in control: synapses leading anywhere else are simply blocked. The only ones permitted to “go through” go in one direction only, toward the society’s destruction.
Before the Jewish ascendancy we had fair weights and measures, and the better man, the better idea, was free to win if he/it could. No more. What we have now is the Jewish thumb on the scale at every turn. It’s no longer free and fair, but fixed.
Scroob,
You’re forgetting that the non-discrimination principle had been enshrined in the 14th and 15th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution ever since Reconstruction. Most of the Northern states also had anti-discrimination civil rights laws on the books while the South was under Jim Crow.
Compare:
http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/outside_south.htm
http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/geography.htm
The slow motion domino collapse of racialism had long been in progress before the Jews became powerful and influential in the 20C. It can’t be attributed exclusively to Jewish influence. All the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did was to extend the long established Northern system of race relations nationwide.
The slow motion domino collapse of racialism had long been in progress before the Jews became powerful and influential in the 20C. It can’t be attributed exclusively to Jewish influence. All the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did was to extend the long established Northern system of race relations nationwide.
Nonsense. The period immediately following the Civil War was a low point for white racialism in the US. It started to head back up from there, peaking again in the 1920s/30s. The decline from there was clearly related to Jewish activity.
Obviously there was a problem in the US before the Jews came to power, namely, that Jews were allowed in in large numbers and allowed to come to power. But as nearly as I can tell, that was about it. The idea that racialism had “collapsed” in the 20s with the rise of eugenics and the like is just stupid.
Follow the links above. The Northeast and Midwest never recovered from Reconstruction. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were enforced there. The various Northern states passed their own anti-discrimination laws. These laws had long been on the books before the 1960s.
Illinois is a typical example:
Prozium,
Don’t you see, the Jews did all that stuff in 19th century Illinois. America’s native culture isn’t responsible for any of it.
Like I said, it was a slow motion collapse:
1.) Several Northern states (New York, Vermont, Minnesota, etc.) never had anti-miscegenation laws. They had little de jure segregation or restrictions on voting rights.
2.) The Northeast began to move away from racialism as early as the 1830s when Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law and the second abolitionist movement began to gain steam. By the 1860s, the Northeast already had diehard anti-racists in Congress like Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts (author of the Civil Rights Act of 1875) or Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania.
3.) The Midwestern states began to outlaw racial discrimination after the Civil War. See above. Illinois was a typical example.
4.) The Western states began to abandon racialism after the Second World War.
5.) The South was forced to abandon Jim Crow when the rest of the country passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The outcome of the Civil War, and more so with WW2, were definitely wars against racialism and separation/segregation.
However, it’s not liberal whites who have created hate speech laws and organizations that constantly monitor hate groups and train law enforcement, as well as Holocaust indoctrination.
I don’t completely blame Jewish influence, but I think it’s the major cause.
Prozium, just curious what you think the South would have done with the black slaves if the South had won?
Jim Crow Laws: Kansas
“Although the state barred school segregation in some districts beginning in 1874, by 1905 a law was passed allowing for schools in Kansas City to be segregated. An 1874 statute barred public accommodations segregation.
1868: Education [Statute]
In cities of more than 150,000 persons, separate schools for black or mulatto persons were to be established.
1874: Barred public accommodations segregation [Statute]
Prohibited state universities, or other public schools, inns, hotels, boarding houses, places of public amusement, and public transportation from discriminating based on race, or previous condition of servitude. Penalty: Misdemeanor. Fines between $10 and $1,000; liable for damages to be paid to the injured person. Fines would be allocated to the public school fund.
1879: Barred school segregation [Statute]
Cities larger than 150,000 could separate students by race, except in the high schools, where no discrimination would be allowed on the basis of color.
1889: Barred school segregation [Statute]
Prohibited discrimination in Wichita’s public high school based on race or color.
1905: Education [Statute]
Schools in Kansas City, Kansas, may organize and maintain separate schools for education of white and colored children, including high schools; “but no discrimination on account of color shall be made in high schools, except as provided herein.”
1923: Civil rights protection [Statute]
Outlawed racial discrimination, including racial discrimination in any state university, college or other school of public instruction. Penalty: Criminal prosecution and damages.
1949: Education [Statute]
Upheld 1862 and 1868 statutes providing for separate schools for black or mulatto students.
1949: Barred public accommodations segregation [Statute]
Prohibited discrimination within state universities, hotels, public entertainments, public carriers. Penalties: $10 to $1,000 and liable to pay damages to injured persons.”
Much of the earlier discriminatory legislation was overturned. The point being is that the ability to discriminate does not mean you must discriminate. There is a choice. Non-discrimination means that there is no choice of even thinking of discrimination. Both the thought and action are fundamentally verbotten. State legislatures invoked non-discrimination legislation then, in many cases, overturned it. Since the Civil rights legislation, that is not possible.
Okay, so it was technically desegregated. Questions:
1) How many black people were there in the north, really?
2) Were these laws enforced?
3) Are you seriously claiming that there was anything remotely like the affirmative action of the post-1964 period back then? I.e., quotas for hiring and the like? I don’t see anything in the stuff you pasted above about discrimination in employment at all.
“All the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did was to extend the long established Northern system of race relations nationwide.” This is truly delusional.
Are liberal whites capable of producing awful anti-racist legislation by themselves? Anyone who has any doubt about that should compare Charles Sumner and “Beast” Butler’s Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was championed by the Jews.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/recon/civilrightsact.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Appended to the above reference:
Jim Crow Laws: Illinois
Fourteen anti-segregation statutes banning separation in schools and public facilities were enacted between 1865 and 1958, marking the state’s legislative record as one of the most progressive in the nation. However, Illinois, beginning in the 1920s, became a leader in using restrictive covenants to maintain residential segregation.
Mark,
Jewish influence is obviously a major problem. It’s not the only problem though. As for the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis wanted to resettle negroes in Latin America. Lincoln had similar views.
Reader,
1.) Quite a few. By the 1960s, half of America’s negro population were living in Northern cities.
2.) Yes. The North has had integrated schools and public accomodations since the late nineteenth century. This is essentially what we have in the South today.
3.) AA, no; Integration, yes.
4.) The North has been integrated in most places for a century or more. In some areas, it was always integrated.
1) No, it’s not the only problem. That’s correct and, as Proze himself has pointed out to others, it’s a strawman. No one says it’s the only problem.
2) All major problems need to be counterattacked by name, including by group name. None of this business where every culprit can be counterattacked by name except one.
3.) AA, no; Integration, yes.
Okay, but the lack of AA is what Fred Scrooby pointed out and you objected to (see comments 4 and 5). Also, the “integration” was almost certainly entirely on paper. It’s still largely that way today.
1) No, it’s not the only problem. That’s correct and, as Proze himself has pointed out to others, it’s a strawman. No one says it’s the only problem.
It is by far the most important problem. Can’t really do much without retaking control of the government, media, and all other major institutions from the Jews.
By extension, we have to eliminate the system that allowed Jews to settle here and take control of major cultural institutions in the first place.
Prozium,
I agree with you.
I think the vast majority would have been repatriated or relocated. Southerners supported the American Colonization Society that founded Liberia for ex-slaves. There was also a ban on any further importation of negroes.
With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, mass slave labor wasn’t necessary.
By extension, we have to eliminate the system that allowed Jews to settle here and take control of major cultural institutions in the first place.
The main point is that right now it’s a battle between whites and Jews for power, period. What drove whites in the north to pass some desegregation laws in the 19th century is a mildly interesting question but frankly irrelevant when the Jews are in a position of total domination over us and are not going to permit any actions that would be good for white people. Pulling up this archaic crap, just for the sake of being able to say “it’s not a single Jewish cause!!!!”, is stupid. It’s basically a single Jewish cause, and anything that diverts attention from that is counterproductive at this point.
Had the Confederacy successfully fought off Lincoln’s invasion, slavery would have been history by World War I at the latest, and possibly as early as the mid-1880s. It was an institution that was on the way out by the 1860s because it wasn’t profitable: as the Georgia woman and chronicler of the Civil War era (can’t think of her name) wrote very shortly after the turn of the XXth Century, it had finally been understood that wage slavery was more profitable than chattel slavery.
“Reader’s” comments are essentially correct. I used to agree with the Auster/Kalb/Guessedworker/Gottfried/Jobling/etc. view (now also the Braun view and to some extent the Proze view, though a little less in Proze’s case) that white liberalism was the problem. I’ve gotten away from that false view. It’s mostly the Jewish hegemony over the U.S. that’s responsible for it. Without that, and the advent of women’s suffrage, white liberalism wouldn’t be so entrenched in the driver’s seat.
The culprits, in order of guilt:
1) the Jews
2) the advent of women’s suffrage
3) all the others in whatever order you want
I’m in favor of women’s suffrage but you can’t let them within a million parsecs of a voting booth without first putting certain iron-clad protections in place in your constitution, or you had better be prepared to kiss good-bye to your nation and your race.
“Here is where we part ways:…”
We don’t disagree.
I don’t think conservatives offer solutions to out predicament.
I situate Wilders outside the multiculit/liberal ideological paradigm. That’s a good start. As I’ve said, there are problems with him and his movement. They look good, however, in comparison to the liberal/internationalist European Establishment parties. They’ve attempted to draw a “cordon sanitaire” around him (like they’ve successfully done to other nationalist movements) but it has backfired on them. At this point and time he’s wise not to racialize his discourse; he’s already prosecuted for hate speech as we speak. He doesn’t need to give his numerous enemies additional ammunition. Let’s keep in mind that the vast majority of migrants dispossessing and replacing the natives are Muslim; therefore, if you get rid of Muslims, you’ve also solved the EGI question or the racial question, if you prefer. If autocthonous Dutch were en masse converting to the crackpot “Religion of Peace”, it would mean ziltch in terms of the EGI of the Dutch (besides showing the world that the entire nation has gone bananas). Personally, I wouldn’t give a damn. Further, he has said that he sees himself as being ideologically close to Israel’s ethno-fascist Lieberman and has frequent contacts with him. Lieberman is a genuine National Socialist politician of the highest order. Again, this indicates to me that Wilders has exited the muliticulti/liberal paradigm. Can you picture Cameron or Sarkozy say something like that? Actually, in a recent meeting with Netanyahu, Sarkozy told him to get rid of Lieberman. Keep in mind that even Griffin used Churchillian imagery (as if it were a shamanistic talisman) in his latest quite successful campaign. In a way this type of imagery is meant to inoculate the politician/user who knows that he’s skating on very thin nice in post-W.W. II Europe gainst charges of crypto-Nazi sympathies. But as I’ve said, I would personally intermix my message with allusions to Dutch ethnic survival, but any overt talk about race is an extremely dangerous game. Ultimately, we have to see Wilders in power to evaluate him.
As to the genetic refuse of VNNForum, what have they achieved in ten years? They think that concluding every sentence with DEATH TO THE JEWS! is a productive and appealing method. I don’t. It’s basically a sandbox for misfits and mental defectives. Like going to the zoo, it’s mildly entertaining for a while, but you eventually get sick of seeing the same dumb animals pounding their heads against the cage while flicking their feces and clasping their genitals. These people are not only not helping, they’re an immense roadblock. If the ADL doesn’t have Linder on its payroll, they should consider putting him on. After reading that he has lately bought a $900 car, I think he could use some additionally income. He seems completely isolated in what passes for the W.N. movement. When even extremist think that you’re an extremist and won’t have anything to do with you, you have a problem.
I consider anyone in America who takes “National Socialism” too seriously to be psychologically suspect and am not surprised when they totally change their beliefs, as they often do.
“1.) Several Northern states (New York, Vermont, Minnesota, etc.) never had anti-miscegenation laws. They had little de jure segregation or restrictions on voting rights.”
These states had almost no blacks before 1900. Vermont still has almost no blacks. There was de facto segregation of the few thousand blacks who lived in NYC before migration from the South. They were discriminated against in every aspect of life and only allowed to live in one or two poor neighborhoods. The North was not really integrated before WWII whatever the laws said. The were restrictive housing covenants in many places that were not challenged until after WWII. You make it sound like the North was some kind of multicultural la la land. In fact it was, by today’s standards, extremely racist and was getting much more racist in the early 19th Century. The Northern Anglo-Saxon elite had turned strongly toward racialism and “white supremacy” in the early 20th Century. America was on the right course and then something happened.
As for the South repatriating Africans from the Confederacy, don’t be ridiculous. The whole purpose of succession was to maintain the slavery system for the economic benefit of the Southern elite. There is and was a massive amount of denial about this among Southerners that I would compare to Jewish self-deception of the “we were forced to be bankers and merchants against our will by the wicked gentiles” variety. The Southern elites tried mightily to stop blacks from leaving the South after the civil war. They didn’t want to loose their cheap labor. But reading some of the writings of large slave owners, you would think they were loosing money and only had slaves for the purpose of “uplifting the benighted negroe race through Christian virtue” and such nonsense.
Scrooby is arguably the biggest oddball on the Internet.
Many blacks in the rural South were kept in de facto slavery like conditions well into the 20th Century. That’s why so many of them left. Slavery would be profitable in a manufacturing economy. It’s also more profitable to not pay your workers than to pay them. I don’t think White Nationalists should make any excuses for slavery or exploitation of other races. We want our own societies, that’s all.
1.) You don’t find the fact that half the country was committed to full blown racial integration for a 100 years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be in anyway significant?
2.) How can you address the Jewish Question while ignoring its cause? It was liberal democracy that allowed the Jews to triumph in the first place.
I’m a National Socialist: unless race is made explicit your racial enemies genocide you in a cakewalk. They may genocide you anyway under National Socialism but they’ll have a harder time.
Virtually every non-Eurosphere country today is one form or another of a National Socialist apartheid state. Israel is a good example of one.
ATBOTL,
I don’t find that line of reasoning persuasive. It makes no sense. By seceding from the United States, the Confederacy lost all the Western territories. Slavery wouldn’t have taken root in the Southwest for climatic reasons anyway. The hotspurs of South Carolina didn’t generally support national expansion. That was the cause of the New Orleans imperialists who were strong Unionists.
For those who understand German, here’s the account of the U.S.’s genocide of fourteen million Germans after Germany’s 1945 surrender — when you’re National Socialist they’ll genocide you anyway if they can (in this case the Americans genociding the Germans) but they’ll have a harder time:
http://nonkonformist.net/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=89eae33cb92da32bbaedba3fcea552f0&topic=2274.0
Simple analogy regarding the JQ…
Human body = white societies
Immune system = white nationalism and protectionism
Cancer = Jewish control and expansion of power.
Obviously the cancer (ie Jewish power and control) needs attention first and foremost, though it is a very complex symptom to our overall disease, which is our inability to be protectionists and ruthless against the “others”. Without a breakdown in our immune system way back when, the cancer would not have been allowed to sprout roots and spread. That, I believe, is Prozium’s point.
This, in no way, absolves the Jewish effect on our culture and societies, though in a healthy, ethnocentric society their effects would be null to minimal.
“1.) Several Northern states (New York, Vermont, Minnesota, etc.) never had anti-miscegenation laws. They had little de jure segregation or restrictions on voting rights.”
Right, the same states that voted for Obama. But we’re supposed to believe they’re really racist? Come on…
1.) You don’t find the fact that half the country was committed to full blown racial integration for a 100 years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be in anyway significant?
As has been pointed out already, this is just not an accurate depiction of what things were like in the north. It’s not even a good description of it now. Racialism was alive and well in the 1920s, with eugenics, nordicism, immigration restriction, and the whole bit. Pretending otherwise is delusional. The idea that we’d be in the position we’re in today, or anything like it, if Jews did not have the power they did, is completely insane.
2.) How can you address the Jewish Question while ignoring its cause? It was liberal democracy that allowed the Jews to triumph in the first place.
And how can we address liberal democracy without getting to the cause of that? And how can we address the cause of liberal democracy without getting to the cause of the cause? And how can we… how far back into ancient history should we go?
Obviously letting in tons of Jews and allowing them to take control was a mistake. Okay… now what?
I would amend that analogy to include liberalism and aracial, self-hating whites. There is probably a genetic predisposition for it.
43% of whites voted for Obama, that gives us an idea of what we’re dealing with in our own race.
There must be something about the South that just makes it hard for people to “get it” about Jews. Like, I look at all the evangelical types who complain about lawyers, Hollywood, feminists, bankers, the mass media, and elite academia but can’t figure out what it is that ties these groups together. What gives? Even racialism in general doesn’t seem to catch on. As you’ve said, people in the South tend to be mildly racist but aren’t at all interested in white nationalism. I remember reading William Pierce saying that they didn’t recruit very well in the South. Supposedly whatever David Duke would say about Jews just went over his supporters’ heads, they were mainly just interested in hearing him bash blacks.
I guess down there, it’s just “the North”. Problems come out of the North. Yankees, Jews, whatever – all Northerners. From the Civil War to Civil Rights, everything was just fine down in Dixie until a bunch of liberals had to come down and screw everything up. Is that about what the general frame of mind is like out there?
Interestingly enough, after the mass migration north of blacks into Chicago and the rise of restrictive realty covenants to keep white neighborhoods free of blacks, it was the ADL that filed it’s “first-ever amicus brief in Shelley v. Kraemer, a pivotal civil rights case before the Supreme Court, where the court found that discriminatory property ownership laws were unconstitutional.”
“In 1948, a black family by the name of Shelley purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri. At the time of purchase, they were unaware that a restrictive covenant had been in place on the property since 1911. The restrictive covenant barred “people of the Negro or Mongolian Race” from owning the property. Neighbors sued to restrain the Shelleys from taking possession of the property they had purchased. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the covenant was enforceable against the purchasers because the covenant was a purely private agreement between the original parties thereto, which “ran with the land” and was enforceable against subsequent owners.
There is an interesting story regarding the brief filed on behalf of the United States government. It was written by four Jewish lawyers: Philip Elman, Oscar Davis, Hilbert Zarky, and Stanley Silverberg. However, the Solicitor General’s office chose to omit their names from the brief. The principal assistant to the Solicitor General, Arnold Raum, who was also Jewish, stated that it was “bad enough that Perlman’s name has to be there, to have one Jew’s name on it, but you have also put four more Jewish names on. That makes it look as if a bunch of Jewish lawyers in the Department of Justice put this out.” [2]
Friedrich Braun has suffered a serious moral collapse. He now seems to believe that the hideous crimes, genocidal in intent, committed against the prostrate German people, following their singularly heroic efforts to save themselves from annihilation at the hands of the “Allies” deserve to be swept under the rug. The truth will out, and when it does it will bring down this house of cards. Let us speed the day.
Not instituting Dixie-style formal, legal Segregation doesn’t mean “committed to full blown racial integration.” Proze, you know about the North’s informal but entrenched system of de facto segregation, right? Whites and Negroes always lived physically apart in the North — I was born and raised in New York City. That’s exactly how it was there. They never saw each other. After the Jewish Revolt (aka “the ’60s”) the Jews put an end to the previous time-honored arrangement and forced everyone together.
“It was liberal democracy that allowed the Jews to triumph in the first place.”
More broadly, it was the sociobiology of Whites that allowed Jews to triumph in the first place. Just as it was cigarette smoking that allowed those with a higher genetic vulnerability to lung cancer to develop said to manifest. You cut out the smoking, but you also cut out the cancer – if you want to live.
I definitely haven’t studied the history of integration outside of the South, but the impression that I always got was that although there was no legal segregation or anti-miscegenation laws in many of these places Whites and non-whites still basically stayed completely separate from each other. Interracial dating/interracial marriage was somewhere between extremely rare and non-existent, Whites lived in their own neighborhoods, and the vast majority of White children rarely ever had even a handful of non-whites in their classes.
Was my impression wrong in any way?
As someone who grew up in New York City and environs (mainly Long Island — or lawn-GUY-lindt as one kind of local accent says it) I can affirm Rand’s description is precisely the way it was.
Here’s something I already posted in MR but is so emblematic of our situation that I’ll post it her as well. Simpson is a WASP.
Self-loathing Canadian journalist Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe & Mail offers a luminous example of why Whites are being dispossessed from their lands, without providing any resistance. In the case of Simpson, he’s an enthusiastic cheerleader of our replacement. Note the same old same old Left-liberal, multiculti, progressive, immigrationist, pluralistic, peecee, and, above all else, “modern” propaganda one continuously is exposed to in our irrelevant and conformist (and dying, thank God!) )papers. One cannot imagine a column that strays from the multicultural party line getting published in a major Western journal. Michaelle Jean is Canada’s first Negro (Haitian) governor general (following in the footsteps of the first Oriental, and equally exotic, Andrienne Clarkson), she made international headlines recently for eating a seal’s raw heart, arguably one of the most bizarre moments this century:
Ms. Jean is a great deal more charismatic than the dull white men running our national political parties. And what a contrast she will offer this fall when one of the British royals wanders around Canada.
Prince Charles is coming in November. If his very presence doesn’t drive up the number of people who want to clip our umbilical ties to the British monarchy, nothing will. In fact, in a poll conducted by The Strategic Counsel for The Globe and Mail and CTV, 65 per cent of Canadians think we should cut those ties after a new monarch is crowned.
The contrast between the very Canadian, contemporary, bilingual, multicultural, modern, worldly Ms. Jean and the stodgy British prince and king-to-be (with Camilla) will be startling. Ms. Jean also will be an excellent host, and showcase for Canada, when she greets the many heads of state attending the Winter Olympics in British Columbia in February.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/why-canadians-owe-great-thanks-to-michalle-jean/article1202410/http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/640978
What a piece of shit.
That’s good to hear, Fred.
Illinois:
Until very recently nearly all the blacks in Illinois lived in Chicago. De facto segregation was very strong in Chicago until the passage of the civil rights acts of the Sixties. There were major white anti-black riots in 1919(the big one), the South Deering-Trumbull Park area of the SE Side in the Fifties(sort of a log-running guerilla warfare), and the Calmuet Park area of the SE Side in 1957. Intimidation of blacks moving into white areas by mass ralllies of whites was common in late Forties and the Fifties.
The first Mayor Daley was regulary denounced for his policies of gerymandering school districts and utilitiziation of “Wllis Wagon” trailers (named after a Chgo School superintendent of the time) to slyly prevent desgregation.
Fred Scrooby,
A slow motion collapse of racialism has been going on in the North ever since the Revolution. I don’t know any other way to describe the phenomena. Most of the Northern states once had chattel slavery, participated in the slave trade, anti-miscegenation laws, racial restrictions on voting rights, Jim Crow laws mandating segregation in public accomodations and education, laws that denied any number of rights to nonwhites (such as firearm ownership, ability to purchase alcohol, ability to sue and testify against whites in court, etc). A few outlawed black settlement altogether. In some cases, Indian tribes such as the Pequot were exterminated, sold into slavery, or removed. For many years, the North was not unlike the South or West.
The racialist consensus in the North slowly eroded though under the weight of the duel influences of Revolutionary ideology and Quaker/Unitarian theology. First, it was the slave trade which was branded immoral and abolished. Then it was slavery. Next came the Jim Crow laws which had to go. Racial discrimination itself was finally outlawed in almost every Northern state. This process was already well underway before Jews became a powerful and influential force in American life.
By the 1930s, the North was down to little more than racial covenants in housing. Those were outlawed by the Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer and soon thereafter by Northern state legislatures. White racial consciousness had been waning in the North since modern polling began there. It was rapidly evaporating even before the spread of television.
The North had state laws that explictly outlawed segregation in education, public accomodations, and housing. Blacks and other minorities had voting rights there. Is that not “full blown integration”?