In The Washington Post, Kevin Boyle has a review of Carlotta Walls LaNier’s memoir of the Little Rock 9, the small group of negro students who led the integration of Central High School in Little Rock back in 1957. President Eisenhower famously sent the 101 Airborne Division into Arkansas to force integration on the school. Little Rock was one of the first major showdowns on the Civil Rights Movement. It was a scene of many famous photo ops, video reels, and soundbytes: mobs of angry White people waving Confederate flags and trying to save their school from clueless liberals and government oppression.
In 2007, HBO produced a documentary called Little Rock Central: 50 Years Later. I got the chance to watch it a few weeks ago. The neighborhoods that surround Central High School were abandoned by White property owners and have since degenerated into a crime infested black ghetto. Like Detroit, it looks like a neutron bomb went off and “tore up the community.” The hated racial gap in average test scores – the whole rationale for desegregation – stubbornly remains. In the words of a black teacher, “the gap should be closing, but it doesn’t appear that it is.”
Who could have ever predicted that?
I also like these kinds of posts. The current liberal regime needs to be held accountable for its many failures and broken promises, most of which movement conservatism isn’t willing to talk about.
I wonder why HBO would produce a documentary on this subject, a retrospective of this kind could only be subversive.
The new White nation needs to have an exceedingly strong, immutable constitution designed to preserve AND improve our race at every turn. We should start working on it.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) and Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 (1899), were sound Supreme Court decisions in my opinion.
Brown v. Board of Ed (1954) was largely based on sociological considerations and related subjective crap.
Depressing. I’m afraid this scene will be repeated over and over again, an endless cycle of anti-White race hate, repression, race replacement, and overt ethnic cleansing. Eventually something will break the cycle. At least I hope so. Today Whites are in an even more beleaguered position than they were in 1957 and have less to lose by kicking against the system.
” In the words of a black teacher, “the gap should be closing, but it doesn’t appear that it is.””
And it never shall since negroes are a “retro-grade species of Humanity”. It really is that simple!
” Today Whites are in an even more beleaguered position than they were in 1957 and have less to lose by kicking against the system.”
Men with nothing left to lose are dangerous and we are losing more and more due to affirmative action and the 2nd Great Depression we are currently mired in. The Zionist Occupied Government had better start paying attention to some White Nationalist demands and soon before there we reach an Event Horizon and peaceable protest is no longer an option…
No offense, Southerners, but you’ve been ruining things for white Americans for 300 years. First you import thousands of Africans, assuring our degradation forever, then you provoke a bloody civil war, effectively ending the original Republic, then you mismanage your black problem to the point it incites a black uprising that quickly spreads nationally and today threatens us with ethnic genocide. Now you want to manage white nationalism? Thanks, but, uh, maybe you should leave this to others.
Rick gets it mostly wrong but that’s OK, as long as he’s generally on our side on race-replacement I’m not going to quibble.
I’ll just say the biggest piece of fucked-upness in Rick’s comment was where he said the South “provoked a bloody civil war.” What “civil war”? There was no “civil war.” Was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor a “civil war”? Was the Normandy Invasion a “civil war”? There was an unprovoked invasion of an independent nation, the Confederate States of America, by another nation, the United States, on account of the latter’s half-crazed bloodthirsty totalitarian president rumored at the time to be part-Negro through his mother, rumored at the time to be from a melungeon family. There was no “civil war.” Just about every other sentence besides that one in Rick’s comment was so screwed up as to qualify for the babble one typically hears in the hallways of a psychiatric hospital coming from the patients.
What ended the original Republic was an action by one of the men who had set the original Republic up in the first place, and he himself knew he was contravening the Constitution, and commented on it: the Louisiana Purchase by President Jefferson.
It was all downhill from there, the biggest violator and destroyer of the Republic being, of course, the melungeon, and after him, tied for the second biggest, were the pair of Jew-tools Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Let’s not even talk about what came after FDR — you’re talking nightmares that make Freddy Kruger look like Mary Poppins.
Rick,
There are a lot of holes in your perception of history.
The slave trade began in Europe and was exported to the Americas.
The South didn’t create the slave trade, they just had a need for them because of their agrarian economy.
Georgia for example was founded on anti-slavery and it was banned for some time.
The North profited greatly from the slave trade.
“The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England’s economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy. –Lorenzo Johnston Greene, “The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,” p.319.
Whether it was officially encouraged, as in New York and New Jersey, or not, as in Pennsylvania, the slave trade flourished in colonial Northern ports. But New England was by far the leading slave merchant of the American colonies.
The first systematic venture from New England to Africa was undertaken in 1644 by an association of Boston traders, who sent three ships in quest of gold dust and black slaves. One vessel returned the following year with a cargo of wine, salt, sugar, and tobacco, which it had picked up in Barbados in exchange for slaves. But the other two ran into European warships off the African coast and barely escaped in one piece. Their fate was a good example of why Americans stayed out of the slave trade in the 17th century. Slave voyages were profitable, but Puritan merchants lacked the resources, financial and physical, to compete with the vast, armed, quasi-independent European chartered corporations that were battling to monopolize the trade in black slaves on the west coast of Africa. The superpowers in this struggle were the Dutch West India Company and the English Royal African Company. The Boston slavers avoided this by making the longer trip to the east coast of Africa, and by 1676 the Massachusetts ships were going to Madagascar for slaves. Boston merchants were selling these slaves in Virginia by 1678.
Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England’s antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.
Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands.”
The South wanted to secede, the North wanted war.
From what I see in the media, the South is the last bastion of white identity in America. The rest of the country has surrendered. The last racist front that is left they tell us is the South.
1.) The hundreds of thousands of negroes deposited on our shores were brought by Southern slave ships?
2.) The cause of the Civil War was Lincoln’s decision to invade the South.
3.) Jim Crow was overthrown by the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal civil rights legislation that passed Congress. Guess who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration Act of 1965?
” There was an unprovoked invasion of an independent nation, the Confederate States of America, by another nation, the United States, on account of the latter’s half-crazed bloodthirsty totalitarian president rumored at the time to be part-Negro through his mother, rumored at the time to be from a melungeon family.”
That is True!
If it is ok for the United States to secede from the British Empire, then it must also be ok for the Confederacy to secede from the United States. (this could be termed ‘the law of secession’!)
In todays world the same reasoning process should be utilized to justify the secession and creation of a Future White Ethno-state! YES!!
‘The slave trade began in Europe and was exported to the Americas. ‘
No, actually, the African tribes took prisoners of war and used them as cheap labor, not unlike many ancient societies. (I seem to recall that even Beowulf had thralls, but I don’t have the text in front of me, so I’m open to correction.)
After the fall of Rome, there were no African slaves exported in any great quantity.
At some point after the Dark Ages, African tribes sold slaves to outsiders such as Arabs. African slaves became an export commodity. Much, much later, whites got involved as buyers, after Arabs had been buying for a long time.
So, *no*, there have been various kinds of slave trading throughout history, but Europe has never been the world’s innovator of slave trade.
If it is ok for the United States to secede from the British Empire, then it must also be ok for the Confederacy to secede from the United States. (this could be termed ‘the law of secession’!)
–Darklord Thaynhammer
Of course the Yankees didn’t see it that way, but their inconsistency is even more bizarre when you consider the case of Texas.
The Lone Star State won her independence from Mexico before being admitted to the Union; it was a sovereign country during the interim period. The period of independence lasted almost a decade.
Texas eventually joined the United States voluntarily. However, her
admission to the Union was delayed by Northerners, who wanted to keep the Lone Star State out because of slavery. Of course, Texas was eventually admitted to the Union as the 28th state, but she later seceded and joined the Confederacy. Like ten of the eleven other Confederate states, Texas was punished for seceding by being placed under a harsh “Reconstruction” regime after the war.
All this raises two questions: Why was it okay for Texas to secede from Mexico, but not from the United States? Also, since the Northern abolitionists wanted to keep the Lone Star State out of the Union in the first place, why did they want to punish her for seceding?
One of the best benefits of the Industrial Revolution has been the invention of a many labor-saving machines that have (mostly) replaced the need for human slave labor. We still need menial laborers, but not slave laborers because nearly all back-breaking work that slaves were used for in the past can now easily and quickly be done with machinery.
Human slaves are dangerous because they so often tend to be of low non-White racial stock, and also because they must live directly within the society they are enslaved by. This is dangerous because the physical sharing of geographic space by two or more racial groups has, throughout most of human history, resulted in the racial mixing of those groups and thus the permanent lowering or even extinction of the racial level of the higher and better race.
So instead of human slaves we now use machines as our slaves, which is far better because machines of course don’t seek breed with us and thus soil our White blood.
I screwed up the italics in my previous comment…apologies.
Continuing the thought, the main problem in many modern Western and heavily-industrialized nations is that non-White menial labor is increasingly obsolete because of the use of White-invented labor-saving machinery and mechanical automation. The mechanization of farming in the USA, for instance, has thrown millions of Blacks in the American South out of the agricultural sector entirely. Their menial/slave labor is quite simply no longer needed, and their mere presence on this continent now constitutes a major threat to the permanent preservation of the White race through the slow influx of non-White genes in to the White gene pool in North America. Same with the Hispanics in North America, or the Turks in Germany, or the North Africans in France, the Pakis in the UK, etc.
Whites also can take some blame for their increased shirking of manual labor. It is indeed somewhat demeaning for people with high IQs and lots of personal creativity to waste their talents in endless amounts of menial and back-breaking work. But there is a solution: if all Whites were strongly encouraged to work just a few hours every week (probably 4-6 or less) in a menial labor position, say processing chickens, picking up garbage, running a cash register, changing tires, repetitive packing/shipping/stocking, assembling autos, filling potholes, then we could eliminate non-White labor (and thus the threat of race mixing) from our continents entirely and forever. These various jobs could be rotated on a weekly or monthly basis amongst individuals to keep things changing and at least somewhat interesting. And again, each person would likely only have to do this for no more than 4-6 hours per week if the vast majority of the able-bodied White population participated. This would be a very slight and unobtrusive block of time which wouldn’t interfere with people’s real professions, hobbies, family life, and so forth.
Too much avoidance of manual/menial labor and reliance on technology and non-White slaves or underlings also makes a race or a group ‘soft’ and lazy over time too, which leads to other weaknesses appearing like the toleration of race-mixing, Jewish domination, personal neuroses, and the gutter filth found in the media. The constant shirking of manual labor is also a very Jewish trait, since they are well known for avoiding manual labor entirely in a constant effort to engage in very easy and parasitic professions like paper-shuffling finance or running their mouths in a courtroom all day.
One of Spengler’s last books, MAN AND TECHNICS, warned us of some of the pitfalls of advanced technological/industrial societies and the anarchic urbanism/deracination that results from it; we must be sure to heed the numerous warnings of him and other Western thinkers:
In a comment in the above article I wrote:
Not so historically distant from Little Rock was the 1963 Kenyan independence, to the celebration of which the US Govt dispatched LBJ. At the official handing – over party, held at Colonial Government House, the liberal Texan was swanning around gladhanding and cosying up to Kenya’s new Black rulers. He put his arm around one uncharacteristically reserved Black and bellowed (doubtless for the benefit of the departing Brits) “Well now, how does it feel to be free?”
“Don’t ask me, I’m from Alabama”, came the diffident reply.
From a book (the title of which has temporarily escaped me) on post Colonial Africa by Martin Meredith, a Fellow of St Anthony’s College, Oxford.
“If it is ok for the United States to secede from the British Empire, then it must also be ok for the Confederacy to secede from the United States. ”
Its funny, that is such a blindingly obvious, powerful argument and yet until just now I had never heard it articulated before (or thought of it myself).