Eufaula, Alabama
A video has surfaced of the Rev. Al Sharpton speaking in my hometown on behalf of Johnny Ford, a black Democratic candidate, back in July.
According to Sharpton, Johnny Ford had to defeat Billy Beasley, a White pharmacist from Clayton, because our Alabama state senate district is the “heir property” of blacks like himself.
“Outsiders” are trying to take the “heir property” of the Civil Rights Movement. Al Sharpton, a native of Brooklyn, New York, considers himself an “insider” in East Alabama.
On what basis does Al Sharpton qualify as an insider? On what basis is Billy Beasley an outsider? On the basis of race, of course, which is supposedly irrelevant now in our “post-racial society.”
Most Whites in Alabama are intelligent enough to see through this charade. Beasley later defeated Ford in the Democratic primary with 62% of the vote. Unfortunately, the connection between race and politics isn’t so clear to Whites who live elsewhere in America.
Implicit Black Nationalism
A generation ago, negroes successfully diluted Black Nationalism into a more implicit brew. Instead of staking claims on American territory, race hustlers like Martin Luther King sold White America on the notion that they were “civil rights activists” who simply wanted justice, fairness, and equality for all Americans.
The radical wing of Black Nationalism, represented by the likes of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, failed to sway the White majority. The moderate wing, represented by Martin Luther King and the NAACP, succeeded with their toned down rhetoric.
Blacks have been moving the goal posts for over a century now. Every concession by White America has led to more pushing of the envelope. It is a demonstration of how moderate demands contain the seeds of radicalism.
The Whites who abolished slavery and condemned lynching could not have imagined they were being led down a road toward miscegenation and race replacement. Similarly, the Whites who put Barack Obama in the White House are equally clueless that they are paving the road to his more radical successors.
Implicit Black Nationalism to Explicit Black Nationalism
The old radicals like Al Sharpton never gave up on their real dream of “bottom rail on top.” The White public has swallowed it in small doses over half a century. What in earlier times would have sparked a revolution is now passively accepted without comment.
There was a slow transition in “civil rights” rhetoric from pure colorblindness to racial discrimination to promote colorblindness to outright racial hostility to Whites in the name of social justice.
Under Ben Jealous, the NAACP is openly hostile to White America. It attacks Whites on the basis of race. Whites are so accustomed to surrendering to racial agitators that emboldened non-Whites no longer hesitate to push them around.
Al Sharpton will get away with staking a racial claim to my little corner of Alabama. He is a radical who has been driving a wedge into the American mainstream for his entire adult life. Our radicals could profit from reflecting upon the success of their opposition.
Editor’s Note: Check out From The Provinces for my latest posts.
HW: “The radical wing of Black Nationalism, represented by the likes of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, failed to sway the White majority. The moderate wing, represented by Martin Luther King and the NAACP, succeeded with their toned down rhetoric.”
It’s hard to argue with the success non-Whites have had using the moderate rhetoric, move the goal posts slowly approach. It is what it is.
I wonder where WN would be today if we had adopted this approach 20 years ago.
Miscegenation dates back far before the civil rights movement, don’t kid yourself. Many a slave-master took his recreation in the slave quarters, which is why on average American blacks are about 20% white.
Many who argued for civil rights were very interested in miscegenation, which is why “Loving vs. Virginia” was brought by the ACLU in 1967.
I believe people on both sides of the issue circa 1965 well understood that the civil rights movement would ultimately result in miscegenation on an even larger, more open scale than was already happening.
Most blacks and activist Jews (ie: ACLU) supported this outcome. The good Christian men of the South did not. Most liberals, then as now, were in denial and would probably have claimed it was an overblown fear, while still supporting the rights of people to follow their desires. Idiot traitors like LBJ apparently didn’t care.
Jackson: Why do people assume that all the mulattos were the offspring of masters? Overseers and other lower status Whites had a lot more contact with slaves than the master in the big house. And the house slaves put their privileged positions at risk if the mistress found out they were putting out for the master. No doubt couplings between masters and slaves occurred, but far more of it was between slaves and White employees of the master. And much of that was completely voluntary.
I remember reading–somehere online–that the vast majority of miscegenation happened during the years when there was a large Union Army presence throughout the Confederacy.
The black women were eager to go north and begged the Yankee soldiers to take them. The soldiers promised to, but couldn’t, wouldn’t, didn’t. The South was then burdened with masses of abandoned mulatto babies whom war-impoverished whites were then obliged to support.
Discard: It is my general impression that White superiority was such a foregone conclusion that black slave women desired half-white children. This may have been so the children would be looked on more favorably than they were. Anyway, it makes a lot more sense that the White workers would be lured into sex with black women than the genteel Southern plantation class. Sexual mores prevented White men from taking White women before marriage and young, lower class White men working on farms had to work for years to accumulate the money to make a marriage proposal.
However, it is also possible that the children of the plantation class might have their first sexual encounters with black women since they were so available. Thus, the offspring would carry the genes of the upper class, though not the genes of the plantation owner.
I find it almost inconceivable for the owners to be the main culprits behind it. For them it would be like bestiality.
Hunter is missing some critical points about “moving the goalposts”. Organized negroes already won over their own people with explicit black nationalism but needed to sway enough of the 85% white majority to implement their agenda. Enter MLK and his moderate, mostly race neutral rhetoric about equal rights and achieving a color blind society. This is similar to a majority of mestizos supporting the anti- white extremist groups Mecha and the brown berets while La Raza serves as the above board, respectable face of the mestizo invasion and takeover for gringo consumption. Many La Raza members are ex “Mechistas” from their college days but that’s a subject for another day.
American Jews brought their media power and political influence at the national level to bear in favor of racial integration and racial set asides for blacks under the banner of “civil rights”. Jewish media barons made sure Americas were treated to nightly television images of white Southern mobs shouting nigger and beating blacks senseless. This elicited nationwide sympathy for the civil rights movement. The rest is history.
Lately we’ve been treated to essays describing how the moderate approach is a proven winner for moving white Americans towards race consciousness and white nationalism. Perhaps, but one would think if this were true the Council of Conservative Citizens would be inundated with thousands of new membership requests and the bi-annual Amren conferences would have to be held at Madison Square Garden instead of a hotel auditorium. Instead, those movable goalposts got shoved back in the face of Jared Taylor who was prevented from having his conference in 2010 by unidentified left wing radicals who don’t believe in playing nice like we do.
This is not a cheap shot at Jared or his organization but the left will continue to tar us as Nazis and racist pigs regardless even when we use the proposed sunshine and lollipop approach. Jared has been described by many on the anti-racist left as just a “slick Nazi”. Since the moderate approach hasn’t been sufficient enough to convince mainstream media hyenas of our pure motives we may as well go for broke and stop pulling punches.
NBG said, “…White superiority was such a foregone conclusion that black slave women desired half-white children. This may have been so the children would be looked on more favorably than they were.”
This same dynamic could be what is driving so many white women to have brown mixed children. Consciously or subconsciously whites are aware the racial dynamic has changed and don’t want their children to suffer negative consequences of being too white. Especially as those negative consequences are increasing daily.
The only thing I can see that will change this is for white people to become more assertive about protecting their tribe.
I think Al Sharpton and I are linguistically isolated from one another. Other than ‘heir propana!’ and a few instances of ‘thasright’ from the crowd, what the hell was being said?
NGB, You’ve got that right. Black women wanted Mulatto babies for the same reason that Filipinos are willing to marry off a 20 year old daughter to some overweight, middle-aged White loser: To hook up with the gravy train.
NGB, You’ve got that right. Black women wanted Mulatto babies for the same reason ……..
Robert Wilson Shufeldt makes the same observation about black women in his 1907 book The Negro a Menace to American Civilization. Of course blacks would deny this today making it as they needed to fit their political arguments. Always with the refrain that whites understand nothing about blacks and blacks see and understand everything about whites.
A black today may find it offensive that a black woman would have sex with a white man with one of the motives being that she would prefer a mulatto baby but I assure you that they can find it no more offensive then I find a white women having a black baby today; which I see in increasing numbers.
The mainstream approach taken by AmRen and CofCC may not have been all that successful over the last fifty years, but violence on the part of White Nationalists has proven to be downright counterproductive. During the early days of racial integration we had mainstream politicians like George Wallace supporting White racialism, but unfortunately we also had Samuel Bowers. David Duke seemed to be making headway in the late 70’s and early 80’s, but then along came Joseph Paul Franklin.
In my opinion, the closest that explicit White Nationalism came to entering the mainstream, at least in recent memory was following the bloodbath at Ruby Ridge. Mainstream Whites began to understand where White Nationalists were coming from. They began to comprehend their displacement in other words. Tim McVeigh and Buford Furrow brought it all to a screeching halt though. Erroneously being called a “Nazi” is unpleasant, I know firsthand, as I have been on the receiving end of such misconceptions, but it’s far better than correctly being called a terrorist and murderer.
Amren and CofCC are explicitly racial and have remained marginalized for that reason. Outside the Deep South, Whites shifted outside the explicit column a generation ago. If they are ever going to be led back into the fold, it will have to be done by pro-Whites operating within the implicit mainstream, who are willing to start where Whites find themselves today.
The CofCC could have undoubtedly have more success in the Deep South (where 40% to 60% of Whites are explicitly racial) if White Nationalists in the region were only willing to be a little more realistic and patient with their contemporaries.
Unfortunately, that is a tall order.
White Nationalism is still at the stage where parading around in Nazi uniforms and denouncing Christianity is still thought by many to be the path forward. Then you have people here who pitch White Nationalism by opening up on the Jewish Question.
The majority of the miscegenation occurred after the Civil War when black women who were migrants in urban areas sold themselves as prostitutes. That’s why the lightest blacks you will find in America are in the urban areas and the darkest ones are in the Black Belt counties.
Contrary to popular legend, the purest blacks in America were the ones who lived in the plantation belt. In the areas where blacks were more thickly settled, there was less miscegenation, not more.
Mr. Dithers,
Like blacks and mestizos, the White majority is our target audience. This means working within the framework of ideas they already hold to nudge them in a more pro-White direction.
In the 1960s, blacks sold White America on the incredible idea that White separatists like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were precursors of the Civil Rights Movement. The intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Founding Fathers was to create a colorblind society.
It was historical nonsense at the time. It remains so today. But that is missing the point.
Blacks were intelligent enough to exploit the American political tradition, an incredibly racist one at that, and twist it to their own ends. They convinced Whites to accept the basic premise that a racially segregated society was unjust. This was the radical kernal that sprouted into the oak of anti-racism that we see today.
White Nationalist websites are full of denunciations of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Didn’t Beck praise Martin Luther King? Didn’t he claim the mantle of the Civil Rights Movement?
Sure he did.
He also twisted it into something it was not. Martin Luther King was FOR affirmative action and economic empowerment of blacks. He was AGAINST the war in Vietnam. As a man, King was as much as a crypto-communist as Barack Obama is today, but as a myth in White America he has been transformed into something else.
America 2010 is at the point where racial discrimination against Whites in the name of diversity is said to be one of our highest ideals. Setting the clock back to doctrinaire colorblindness represents a pulling away from the Civil Rights Movement. It expands the gulf between the NAACP and White America.
Progressives cannot tolerate the thought of America 2010 on race moving backward to America 1965 on race. They instinctively react by going beserk on White America. That increases polarization and pushes moderates in our direction.
Simply pulling back, however slightly, which is all that Beck and Palin are doing, is enough to induce a dramatic deterioration in White America’s attachment to the Left as they generally don’t like being led in that direction anyway. If the 2012 election were held tomorrow, Barack Obama would get a stunning 28% of the White vote!
What Beck and Palin have done here is to unwittingly get White America to act more like a racial voting bloc. They are polarizing the electorate and strengthening White America’s sense of identity. Every polarizing media spectacle moves White America closer to the day of embracing identity politics.
Granted, these are baby steps, but they are real steps forward, unlike empty rhetorical posturing in cyberspace which is emotionally satisfying to the individual radical, but is too out of tune with the mainstream to move anyone not already on the fringe.
Many a slave-master took his recreation in the slave quarters, which is why on average American blacks are about 20% white.
This is another false meme perpetuated by blacks and liberals to denigrate the Old South, that all Southern slave owners did was beat black men and rape black women. The truth is they were treated far better here than in Africa, and slave owners rarely had anything to do with slaves, they had a trusted black or lower-class White man manage them.
The majority of miscegenation was with lower-class Whites, as it still is.