Alabama
“Perish the colonies, rather than sacrifice one iota of our principles.”
– Maximillien Robespierre
I’m not sure how many OD readers saw the 400+ comment exchange with Connie Chastain of “180 Degrees True South” on the League of the South Facebook group.
The thread has since been pulled. Chastain has returned to her own hermetically sealed echo chamber on Facebook where she has surrounded herself with anti-Southern liberal trolls like Ray O’Hara, Neil Hamilton, Rob Baker, Corey Meyer, and Eric Jacobsen.
I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed seeing muddleheaded Baby Boomer liberalism and anti-racism attempt to take on authentic and principled Southern conservatism and nationalism.
The debate was an excellent illustration of how muddleheadedness naturally degenerates into liberalism. We saw how the rotten fruit of liberal conclusions are derived from the bud of liberal premises.
By the end of the debate, Chastain was reduced to squawking about how blacks had been oppressed, how their present condition was a result of oppression, and finally how the South was unjust and immoral until it was redeemed by the noble Yankees who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
There is nothing “Southern” about the substance of Chastain’s political views. For all her talk about “Southern heritage,” her modern liberal and anti-racist values – which are descended from the Black Republicans, not the Confederates – make her uncomfortable with defending that heritage.
These people don’t subscribe to the principles of our ancestors. They reject those principles and the culture that was built and sustained upon them for generations. That’s why they alone are unable to defend Southern heritage from criticism.
It is like celebrating Christmas without understanding the meaning of Christmas. In much the same way, you have Baby Boomers who dress up like Confederate soldiers, although they reject everything the Confederacy was based upon, and say things that would have shocked the men who wore that uniform.
In the early twentieth century, Thomas Dixon, Ben Tillman, and Margaret Mitchell won the culture war. They had no problem defending their culture because they still believed in the foundations of Southern culture.
Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens wrote memoirs about their war experience. They never attempted to justify the Confederacy on the basis of marvels like “Black Confederates” and “Heritage Not Hate.”
We lost the War Between the States, but we didn’t lose the South. Defeated on the battlefield, the ex-Confederates preserved their culture and refused to be defeated where it really counts, which is to say, in their hearts and minds.
It wasn’t until the Baby Boomer generation that we lost the culture war. A generation of White Southerners inwardly died and bought into the noxious principles of the Civil Rights Movement. The inevitable result has been the physical outward death of the South.
The logic of anti-racism, multiculturalism, and political correctness is creating a new South: one where Whites are being pushed into minority status, where the past is wicked and illegitimate, where aliens are establishing their dominance and elbowing us out of our own territory.
It is people like Connie Chastain who have created this world. It reflects their values and their mindset and their genius. They see BRA as moral and legitimate and Jim Crow as immoral and illegitimate.
These people have thrown away the birthright of future generations of White Southerners out of their sick and unnatural love of the pitiful Negro. To quote Thomas Jefferson, they have become the murderers of their own children.
The shameful condition of the South is a monument to their unbelievable folly. It will stay that way until their Radical values are finally condemned and rejected.
Note: I’ve put together a selection of videos for any scalawags reading this website who may wish to patronize the “180 Degrees True South.” The music complements the substance of the discussions that go on there.
Glory, Glory, Hallelujah! Connie is marching on!
HW, pardon me a little occidental dissent. I won’t continue it but I’ve been impressed enough with your writing about history that I can’t resist taking up current events.
You seem to have some sort of block in your mind separating Chastain from Hill & Co. Last I checked they’re on the same page, short the sort of differences between the GOP and the DNC, rhetorical.
But then, you did go to the trouble to vote. For Romney? Because Paul expressed a very minor point you disagreed with? Never mind that Paul’s election would drastically change the entire political landscape while Romney’s assures the status quo.
You’re too good a writer to not know these things.
(1) I’ve never been a member of the League of the South. I first heard about them about ten years ago, remember being excited at first, but never joined after stumbling across something about “racism” that turned me off.
(2) If you have been a member of the LoS, then you probably know more about them than I do.
(3) I was ready to vote for Ron Paul (you saw the threads here) until he started campaigning on immigration in Nevada. He said that illegal aliens were like the Jews in Nazi Germany and that’s why he refused to support building the border fence.
(4) Ron Paul didn’t campaign in Alabama, but he did campaign in Nevada for the Hispanic vote. It doesn’t matter now anyway because it is mathematically impossible for Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination.
If I ever start sounding like that, slap some sense into me, or wait until I sober up.
This women’s version of the South reminds me of modern cuntry musak. If have to hear that little bug-eyed puke Brad “Paisly” croon about Rosa Parks one more time…
Her version of the South is total muddleheadedness: it is standard fare Baby Boomer liberalism and anti-racism, which she manages to combine with a nostalgic defense of the forms of the Confederacy, a hazy and incoherent vision of “the South” that never really existed but in her own mind.
How does she reconcile her liberal anti-racist value system with the historical reality of a race based conservative slave state? Through a combination of ignorance, intellectual laziness, and romantic fantasies.
Her opponents are not as lazy. Their liberal anti-racist operating system violently clashes with the reality of Southern heritage. It is an intolerable affront to their beliefs. They are unable to compartmentilize their minds and resolve the cognitive dissonance in the usual liberal way.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)
So, Chastain is (in the best Harry Potter allusion I can make) a ‘Muddle’ (Muggle).
I have no doubt in my mind that Caucasoids are the Elect of God. I preach and teach this, albeit not overtly. Because to come to such a conclusion, when you have so many White ‘skulls full of mush’ out there, does tend to make the illustration of said premise more difficult to corroborate: but then, one hundred years of Bolshevik Statist Marxism masquerading as ‘Edumification’ does that to one. Read Iserbyt and John Taylor Gatto, though they both still probably believe that blacks merely need ‘enlightenment’ if only to ‘achieve their potential.’
I now believe that the only ‘potential’ Blacks should be given, is a [Literal] cotton-picking race- or a one-way trip back to the ‘Motherland,’ where Oprah et al. can be the ‘princes and princesses’ they claim they be….. for Once a slave, ALWAYS a slave.
The utter LOATHING as to the ‘chay of the field’ the CI folk speak of, now makes complete, utter, perfect sense. It was the Jews and their Frankfurt School propaganda, that worked tirelessly to ‘legtimiz’e an utterly unlegitimizable race- why, even Tiger Woods couldn’t keep his ‘wood’ in his pants, even after marrying a lovely WHITE women – who should have known better.
Cambria [www.cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com] each week points out – not the failings of Negroes as a race (that would be too easy- just look at the fact that John Kersey has two BOOKS of it already on market!) – but instead, he notes the utter IDOLATRY of WHITES, in seeking to find the ‘noble savage’ where there ‘ain’t no such ani-mule’- precisely because a savage has to be considered, or at least tacitly given, ‘human ontological status’ to BE something more than an ‘animal on two legs.’
But that’s all they ever will be. And no amount of ‘mocha makeup’ can EVER make a Nigger look human- I almost retched this week, when there was a ‘closeup’ of snit Kelly Ripa with some nigra-buck on ‘her show’, and their ‘comlementary shades of makeup’ were so OBVIOUS, you wanted to PUKE!
Ever since Regis retired, the lineup of sychophantic faggots, twits, pretty boys, airheads, and Niggers has been enough to make a person puke up their pabulum in the rest home….. And yet, a Jew (once again!) says the ‘right match’ for ‘star’ (cough, hack) Kelly, is a ‘hard fit.’ A ‘star’?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/michael-gelman-live-with-kelly-regis-philbin-replacement_n_1244531.html
(When this [Ripa] is what passes for WHITE TALENT, you KNOW the Jews OWN the Media- my God, even Bess Myerson was more interesting than Kelly – give me Kathie Lee, any day- lololol!)
So, Hunter, when you wrote: “It is people like Connie Chastain who have created this world. It reflects their values and their mindset and their genius.” We are dealing with the ‘competent mediocrities’ of the world pretending to be geniuses. And, as Salieri in Shaffer’s “Amadeus” says at the end of the play- “I absolve you all.”
Except I don’t. God does not tolerate stupidity masquerading as intelligence, any more than he tolerates whoring around, as virtuous righteousness.
White rule for Whites, by Whites. End of story. Secede now. Secede from this mindset? Forever.
Can the rule of law exist in a multi-racial society? The rule of law provides among other principles that everyone must live by the same rules. The choice is to have everyone live by the same rules or have different rules for different groups in order to obtain a specific outcome. We have seen that having the same rules apply to whites and blacks result in whites dominating most endeavors with the notable exception of sports. Blacks in order to make substantial inroads into most areas require active and ongoing legal privileges such as quotas, set-asides and affirmative action. It is conceivable of course to have a multi-racial society possessing the rule of law. This would be a meritocracy and there is much worthy of admiration in such a society. But in practice as we have seen over the last several decades a meritocracy is difficult to maintain simultaneously with the concept of racial egalitarianism. Disparities in achievement cause the genetically disadvantaged race to dispute the reality of the meritocracy. Thus this truly merit based system will soon be undermined and legal preferences based on race will be put in place that actually invert ability and will lead to societal degradation. The choice therefore is either the expulsion of the racial minority or the legal equivalent of Jim Crow that recognizes the reality of racial and genetic ability and limitation although it will fail in some individual cases. Meritocracy simply isn’t a viable long term solution.
If it is unjust to treat people who are the same differently then it is also unjust to treat people who are different the same. Let us hope that genetic science advances soon enough so that the lie of racial equality will be rightly held in contempt.
No such thing as “anti-racism” it is anti-white, period.
I am simply commenting out of interest and don’t expect anyone to agree with me.
The Marxist rebuttal to this statement will be that views that are not based on present material conditions are reactionary. In other words, a proper analysis looks not at “history” but at the current material conditions. Therefore the ancestors are out of date.
Great struggle arises between people who hold to an outdated analysis and people who have an up to date analysis.
Metal Gear/Iceman, are you a Marxist?
Know I’m just a stupid girl, but it does seem RP would change the terrain, at least set a very different tone. Romney IS mexican, anyway— and will open border further, challenge states rights in trying to define how the citizens wish to live, etc. Santorum is an open Theo-fascist and his ideas are totally incompatible with constitutional life. Pro-war (as long as it is not in the direct interest of Generational Americans)–and pro-life as long as it’s just a fetus— and thinking this stance actually constitutes something anyone with half a brain would call “morality.” Feeding from the public, and bragging about how he uses that money to opt out of public systems (like schools)—- when the people who pay for his sorry bullying butt have to use them, due to his spending. A real neo-feudalist parading as a “working” man—- the public that buys such a level of double-speak deserves what it gets.
All the “home-schoolers” around here are exactly like that. LOL— never met one who didn’t take a public paycheck. Pretty funny when the welfare people are the ‘home schoolers.” But at least GRC is trendy, which is sort of strange. Trendies are the ones flying the Gadsdens now, ever since Cain showed up, then end the fed turned into ows.
what a world.
Marx has had a big influence on my thinking. I guess that makes me a Marxist in my view.
Bill Yancey writes:
“But then, you did go to the trouble to vote. For Romney? Because Paul expressed a very minor point you disagreed with? Never mind that Paul’s election would drastically change the entire political landscape while Romney’s assures the status quo.”
Bill, Ron Paul was accused in 2008 of blasphemy – heresy against BRA for daring to print comments in his RP newsletter saying negative comments about Black criminals, Black rioters and for presenting the truth that BRA false gods like Martin Luther King Jr. were flawed humans and for printing heresies that American foreign policy is corrupted by Israeli interests. Instead of standing strong for our people, standing strong for the truth, he backed down, took the 30 pieces of silver, denied he wrote, said or even thought such horrible RACIST heresies.
What did RP gain by backing down, by betraying our people? Did these compromises allow him to sneak in and get elected President, where he could do so many good things? No, the new (actually very old 76 yrs) politically correct anti White Ron Paul didn’t win a single primary, his anti White pandering didn’t win him any Black votes, any Mestizo votes, any Muslim immigrant votes.
The moral of this sad story is for Whites not to back down and take the 30 pieces of silver – it never works.
Another moral to this story is not to support 76 year old White men, go with youth, find White men who aren’t scared to fight for our people.
The Ron Paul that everyone remembers so fondly didn’t even exist. He didn’t write the newsletters. It was a staffer.
Everything sets everbody off in a fury of righteous anger. Understandable, but it won’t help. I suggest reading this, about CHANNELING that anger to get something done.http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2012/03/17/bugs-strategy-is-based-on-our-being-right-all-along/comment-page-1/#comment-55210
The US Founders never would have imagined an American elite so corrupt that they would dissolve the people and import a new one. But how about the WHITES? There future?
How is this not genocide:
White countries are being flooded by non-whites. We are told to be
TOLERANT. We are forced to integrate. With assimilation we see the
extinction of one race only, the white race.
Its not funny, not comedy, its white genocide.
Connie Chastain is an anti-white pushing white genocide.
In the Facebook comments, she mused that our descendants might one day be living in rags and hovels. That’s why I included the quote from Robespierre. Nothing but liberal ideological fanaticism can explain such insane behavior.
Robespierre is said to have famously uttered, “Perish the colonies rather than our principles.” He probably never said that explicitly, but that was definitely the Jacobin mindset.
That’s the Chastain mindset too. The “principle of equality” requires a total indifference to our own fate. Who is to say that our own people matter more than blacks? It is liberal abstractions that take priority, not kinship, for the anti-nationalist liberal.
Such lesser radicals are lazy thinkers, won’t or can’t separate facts from feelings, and let themselves be carried away and go full steam ahead with unproven “principles” handed to them by the real satanic instigators.
Metal – Marx was a lying fraudulent DISGUSTING Kike. He was filthy dirty. He was a MESs. Are you White? How can ANY White man be conned by his Jew Spew?
Chastain will eventally be murdered by one of her pet Niggers. Either beaten to death, when she’s old and frail, by some Nigra looking to steal the change in her purse, or by some Haitian nursing home aide, who lets her burn and wallow in her soiled bedclothes, until the infections from the sores takes her. The Darkies are NOT kind to the Old White Debbils, wot have no protective family.
That’s the Chastain mindset too. The “principle of equality” requires a total indifference to our own fate. Who is to say that our own people matter more than blacks? It is liberal abstractions that take priority, not kinship, for the anti-nationalist liberal.
In effect, it’s not really ‘equality’ at all: blacks don’t end up mattering ‘as much as’ whites; they end up mattering more. Policies are permitted that specifically better blacks’ lives and only blacks’ lives, yet it all passes under the rubric of ‘equality.’ This is true wherever you look, even where blacks have achieved total dominance, such as S. Africa or Zimbabwe. No matter how egregious it’s never described by liberals as what it is: institutional anti-white racism. The liberal mind cannot apparently even conceive of such a thing, let alone detect its presence.
#10: “History” is in fact a material part of any of the “material conditions,” and must be so. We live in human bodies on planet Earth, not in a mathematical equation — and human bodies have, yes, a genealogy and a history, both physically and in memory, which is itself of course a physical phenomenon (cf. Dennett and Searle, “brains cause consciousness” etc etc).
This being so, it means your analysis is _not_ “up to date”: in fact your Marxist analysis is and must be wrong, and categorically so.
Your idea of what constitutes “material conditions” is nothing more than cherry-picking.
It might do you and your fellow Marxists some good to go out and pick some actual, “material” cherries, rather than the metaphorical kind.
You’d probably learn something, for the first time in your poisonous lives.
“Great struggle arises between those who” blabbety blabbety yak yak yak, good lord, it’s unendurable.
In reality, 9 times out of 10 (see, because there’s no “scientific” 100 per cent co-relation, because human affairs _aren’t_ science!), “struggle” merely arises between resentful, hate-filled dimwits –like Marxists for example, or YKW’s– who are fond only of causing trouble and their own self-importance, and those who see the world more clearly.
“Hunter Wallace says:
March 17, 2012 at 8:49 pm
In the Facebook comments, she mused that our descendants might one day be living in rags and hovels. That’s why I included the quote from Robespierre. Nothing but liberal ideological fanaticism can explain such insane behavior.”
Of course. Others pay for Connie’s imagined sins against the Subhuman savages. Just as long as it’s not her, now….
Just looking at her mannish hairstyle and eyeglasses one can tell she is aping masculinity and trying to play the role of male defender. But as a woman she is fundamentally incapable of fulfilling that role – ordained by the Almighty – and is betrayed by her gender’s predilection to sentiment and emotion. She believes that she can dissolve all differences in a universal smothering motherly embrace. It is, nonetheless, a commentary on the weakness of the current generation of men that she feels the necessity to try to fulfill a role for which she is ill suited.
Brooks Simpson is like “will they denounce the immorality of Hunter Wallace?”
Who cares and don’t make the mistake that he has any lasting moral commitment to his position. You should just call him what he likely is (if he isn’t a member of the tribe) – a morally bankrupt rent-seeker who is purposely obfuscating his mercenary motivation with quasi religious camouflage. If he is a ykw, why would anyone be surprised at his posturing?
“Others pay for Connie’s imagined sins against the Subhuman savages. Just as long as it’s not her, now…”
Denise, you have captured the spoiled baby boomer’s mentality perfectly.
Brooks Simpson isn’t just asking if the Southern Heritage crowd will “denounce the immorality” of Hunter Wallace – he’s asking if they will “have the courage” to denounce Hunter Wallace. Like it takes a lot of courage to denounce a pseudonymous writer with non-mainstream views. Quite the opposite. What a moron.
What does “YKW” stand for? I can’t keep up….
More of the same – I’m sorry i have captured the mentality of this sort of social degenerate perfectly. This sort of mentlaity ought not exist.
I could not find that thread, on the FB page, before [it] was pulled. I think I ought t oattack her (verbally), since she is atonomically female. Attack her AS a woman. Women know what sort of ego-driven, subterranean, irrational Queen Bitch chothnian motives motivates OTHER women.
I must study the target.
I will make her CRY.
Ben Tillman… Really?
Noxious principles of the Civil Rights Movement? Such as? Do you mean such “noxious principles” as that blacks are human and should have the same rights as all other citizens, such as the right to vote, and be treated with dignity?
Was Jim Crow not immoral? Of course it was!
Admirier perfectly captures the essence of the Simpson ilk:
” a morally bankrupt rent-seeker who is purposely obfuscating his mercenary motivation with quasi religious camouflage”
I got booted from Massa Simpson’s blog not due to my musing on Nigras, but due to the fact that I asserted that he would NEVER tell the truth abut his Pet Darkies, as he would lose his social status, and his cushy academic gig. THAT’S when I was bannned.
(1) “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman was a great man. You can find his statue on the grounds of the South Carolina state house.
(2) “Noxious principles” like the communist ideal of social equality.
(3) I don’t believe in “human rights” or “the right to vote.”
(4) If you are a liberal, someone who believes “morality” is synonymous with racial equality, then yes, Jim Crow was “immoral.” But, if you are not a liberal, and you do not believe in social equality or anti-racism or human rights, then no, it was not “immoral.”
Marc Ferguson – the Civil Rights (Wrongs) was Marxist legislation, created and implemented to destroy White Christian hegemony, in a White Christian social order. I am sorry that so many White Christians were utterly conned by the demoic “moral” fraud – but they were. And now society is literally going to Hell for dealing with the Devil.
In short – the “Civil Wrongs” legislation was not only wrong, and evil, but Satanic.
Negroes are subhuman evolutional throwbacks. Negroes are overall, social, evolutionary, and genetic disasters, and destroy every place they infest. No – they should not be accorded Human Rights, as overall, as a species, they do not know how to live as Humans. The Jim Crow laws were based on Natural and Divine law, as these rules were based on First Principles. Thus righteous. MarC.
MarC – if you are so worried about Nigra well-being – why don’t you gather them all up and take them with you on your next trip to Israel?
Brooks is just a typical Yankee liberal.
It was called “communism” in the United States for almost forty years before it was relabeled “civil rights.” In the 1920s, the only people who were pushing that worldview were the communists.
Hunter,
“Typical Yankee Liberal” = ” a morally bankrupt rent-seeker who is purposely obfuscating his mercenary motivation with quasi religious camouflage”
Ah, the racists have come out into the open: “white christian hegemony.” very revealing! Blacks are “evolutionary subhuman throwbacks”? What idiocy!
Next trip to Israel? What are you talking about, Denise?
Moral bankruptcy? Racism is “morally bankrupt!” I am comfortable with reasonable people reading your racist and idiotic comments and making their own judgements.
MarC – “Racism” is health,y and normal. As a matter of curiosity – because I am curious (as I snicker to myself) – what type of an effect did you imagine that you would have, by coming ot a White blog, and calling us “racists”?
FYI – the whole of human history, as well as science data, supports our positions. We think YOU are the idiot. I cannot speak for the others, here-in – but I think you are seriously mentally deficient and/or deranged, as well. Really trulyloony-tunes.
Please explain why you think Negroes are NOT evolustionary throwbacks.
Thanks.
1.) I do believe in a race based society.
2.) We had black ancestors 70,000 years ago in Africa. We evolved.
3.) Why is racism morally bankrupt? Is it because that is what people say on television? Before television, most people didn’t consider racism to be immoral.
4.) Reasonable people are racists – they look at the evidence and conclude there is no reason to believe in racial equality. The evidence supports the theory of racial inequality, not the other way around.
Hunter -please do not repeat that “Black ancestors in Africa” canard.
Asians and Caucaisans share Neanderthal DNA.
Africans do NOT.
Skeletal remains have been unearthed, in what is now Northern China, that are almost twice as old, and FAR more human, than that orangutan “Lucy”.
We are NOT “out of Afreaka”.
Yes, a new human species was recently discovered in Southwest China, Red Cave Man or something like that. For some reason, they are not around anymore, so they are unable to respond to Marc here about “human dignity.”
What became of the Hobbit creatures that were found in Indonesia a few years ago? Did that pan out?
Ah, yes, you just gotta love Baby Boomers.
Hey, Marc, do you know how many kids (35 and under) in the South who actually *lived* the hell of integrated schools buy our parents pie-in-the-sky one-love bullshit?
Not many.
Racism: if it was good enough for poppa and granny, its good enough for me.
You see, the grandparents are a lot cooler than your generation. They actually kept their marriages together, didn’t worship their egos over their children, and didn’t feel the need to try every narcotic on earth in their youth.
They never told me that blacks and mexicans are my equals. They never told me that my blonde daughters must be sent to school with them and that I must teach them to go against all common sense and their own instincts and be “open” to dating a nog or a chulo.
They never told me that I was anything but the cream of the crop. They love ME above all else. They care deeply that I am told the truth and that I develop *true* “self-esteem” by knowing who I am and where I come from.
Nobody buys the boomer bullshit anymore. Because that’s all it has ever been, feel-good, holier-than-thou bullshit.
Deo Vindice.
Ferguson is likely a radical egalitarian who believes that it is white man’s duty (we never escape our burden, do we?) to elevate our black brothers to material conditions exactly equal to ours. In believing that it is our obligation to do so, he is falling into a modernist heresy that material circumstances are the be-all and the end-all of existence. In the process he also is likely betraying fundamentalist predilections for ignoring or even denying quantifiable differences between the races that make radical egalitarianism impossible.
I believe on the other hand that the Lord himself tasked us with an achievable goal – that we teach the Gospel to our black and brown brothers and sisters and baptize them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost. As they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, we also should practice charity toward them. However, our Lord never asked that we take upon ourselves the responsibility to elevate the material conditions of another race so that they are exactly equal to our own. He also never commanded us to accept the rape and murder of our own people in some misguided project “to atone for the sins of our forefathers” – an unchristian belief if there ever was one. Rather, as men we have the duty and the obligation to defend our own families and those of our own race against predatory outsiders – for “we are not to stand idly by the blood of our neighbors” and as men we should be prepared to sacrifice ourselves for our families like Christ sacrificed himself for the Church.
Ferguson also likely totally disregards the fact that the white working class is paying the check that the white elites are writing to black and brown citizens – for it is mainly the white sons of the white working class that are being discriminated against by the regime – not the sons of the elites.
The latest cutting edge research in sociology had shown in the 1950s that racial inequality was caused by segregated schools. I would crack a joke but public education in America is still based on that assumption.
Doc Brown is more likely to fly out of the clouds into my front yard in the DeLorean than a single school district in the United States is to ever demonstrate racial equality.
Mr. Ferguson: Blacks cannot sustain our level of civilization. If you believe they can, please provide an example.
Jim Crow and Segregation, like Apartheid, gave blacks their own schools, restaurants, communities and churches. What’s racist about that, except that blacks CAN’T build and sustain any of the above? That’s why they NEED whites and the NEED integration, so they can get access to what whites build. You and your kind, sir, are the ignorant ones, literally. You purposely IGNORE plainly visible truths. That’s ignoarance. You would do well to disprove this: Civilization, blacks and equality–you can only pick two.