Racist? You Tell Me
January 19th, 2008 | by Craig |Read this:
- Commitment to God. “The God of our weary years” will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become White Christian Activists, soldiers for White freedom and the dignity of all humankind.
- Commitment to the White Community. The highest level of achievement for any White person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the White Community.
- Commitment to the White Family. The White family circle must generate strength, stability and love, despite the uncertainty of externals, because these characteristics are required if the developing person is to withstand warping by our racist competitive society.
Those Whites who are blessed with membership in a strong family unit must reach out and expand that blessing to the less fortunate.
- Dedication to the Pursuit of Education. We must forswear anti-intellectualism. Continued survival demands that each White person be developed to the utmost of his/her mental potential despite the inadequacies of the formal education process. “Real education” fosters understanding of ourselves as well as every aspect of our environment. Also, it develops within us the ability to fashion concepts and tools for better utilization of our resources, and more effective solutions to our problems. Since the majority of Whites have been denied such learning, White Education must include elements that produce high school graduates with marketable skills, a trade or qualifications for apprenticeships, or proper preparation for college.
Basic education for all Whites should include Mathematics, Science, Logic, General Semantics, Participative Politics, Economics and Finance, and the Care and Nurture of White minds.
- Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence. To the extent that we individually reach for, even strain for excellence, we increase, geometrically, the value and resourcefulness of the White Community. We must recognize the relativity of one’s best; this year’s best can be bettered next year. Such is the language of growth and development. We must seek to excel in every endeavor.
- Adherence to the White Work Ethic. “It is becoming harder to find qualified people to work in Chicago.” Whether this is true or not, it represents one of the many reasons given by businesses and industries for deserting the Chicago area. We must realize that a location with good facilities, adequate transportation and a reputation for producing skilled workers will attract industry. We are in competition with other cities, states and nations for jobs. High productivity must be a goal of the White workforce.
- Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect. To accomplish anything worthwhile requires self-discipline. We must be a community of self-disciplined persons if we are to actualize and utilize our own human resources, instead of perpetually submitting to exploitation by others. Self-discipline, coupled with a respect for self, will enable each of us to be an instrument of White Progress and a model for White Youth.
- Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.” Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.
Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:
- Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.
- Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
- Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”
- So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of White “middleclassness.” If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, White people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons.
- Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the White Community.
- Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions.
- Pledge Allegiance to All White Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the White Value System.
- Personal Commitment to Embracement of the White Value System. To measure the worth and validity of all activity in terms of positive contributions to the general welfare of the White Community and the Advancement of White People towards freedom.
43 Responses to “Racist? You Tell Me”
By Jim - PRS on Jan 19, 2008 | Reply
Bullseye.
By Mike on Jan 19, 2008 | Reply
Craig, certainly you know that only caucasian people can be racist.
Now excuse me whilst I return to the synagogue basement to control media coverage of the Nevada caucuses and SC primary, and print up some money to use over the next week. It’s how I roll.
By Crossbones on Jan 19, 2008 | Reply
Now I understand why white liberals support race mixing!
By Craig on Jan 19, 2008 | Reply
Care to elaborate?
By Mark T on Jan 19, 2008 | Reply
Yes, the white race does need some props after years of slavery and humiliation. I can see why they would want to stand up and scream “identity!”
By Mike LaRoche on Jan 19, 2008 | Reply
More double-standards and hypocrisy by liberals…
By Craig on Jan 19, 2008 | Reply
Nice try, Mark. Your troll-fu is weak on this one.
By Wulfgar on Jan 19, 2008 | Reply
Though there was a heavy dose of sarcasm involved, I don’t think he was trolling, Craig. He has a good point. Removed from all historical context (i.e. reality) than yes, what you posted would be racist coming from either a white community or a black community. In an ideal world (not this one) we would all point to the hypocrisy and have a nice country-club chuckle.
But the ideal that you’re presenting here is that promotion of a group instead of another (admittedly, you only imply ‘above another’) has no moral foundation removed from historical context. It would be interesting to see you (or any of the other self-righteous here) present such a moral argument.
(And if you really want to watch Mike’s head implode, follow your presentation to it’s logical conclusion and just suggest that the Jews need to get over that whole ‘chosen people – holocaust’ thingy.)
By Mike LaRoche on Jan 19, 2008 | Reply
Ah yes, the old moral relativism/situational ethics argument…
By Wulfgar on Jan 19, 2008 | Reply
And I notice yet again, LaRoche, that a) you present no moral argument for any position to be relative to, and b) Craig doesn’t chide you for trolling. Situational ethics, perhaps?
By Crossbones on Jan 19, 2008 | Reply
“Care to elaborate?”
Sure! The liberals know that (1) there is nothing that can be done about racism; because (2) they have spent 150 years and billions of dollars trying to make it disappear without success. So “naturally” they would encourage race mixing because the whole problem comes down to genetics. Change the genetics, and racism disappears.
[Note: You are always going to have a few old liberal babblers like Wulfgar who will either pretend there is no such thing as race or who will claim some kinds of racism are okay and others are not. But that’s all 80s college PC talk. Cutting-edge liberals go for race mixing.]
By Craig on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
That’s kind of what I thought you were getting at.
This is the “logic” that led to anti-miscegenation laws and other flavors of stupidness throughout the years.
Although it’s barely 6:30, I’m pretty sure that this is the stupidest thing I will be exposed to all day.
By Craig on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
Rob–
Mark is trolling — he knows my point isn’t about “white identity politics.” And I find the historical context argument to be a non-starter. The history of one group holding another in slavery goes way, way, way back. Should I get in touch with my Anglo-Saxon roots and get all pissy with the Normans? Or maybe I should get in touch with my Irish roots and get pissy with the English? The thing about history is that it’s history. Yes, we study it; yes, we try to learn from it, but we can’t try to live in it. It’s impossible to drive if you’re looking at nothing but the rear-view mirror.
To me, all identity politics is bullshit; nothing more than imaginary constructs to find someone — anyone — to take responsibility for our woes. We see it here in Montana and in other cultures that success, as defined by getting a good education, followed up by a good job is seen as “selling out to whitey.” Those who embrace those ideals are pariahs in their “communities.” There’s nothing inherently “white” about education. There’s nothing inherently “white” about getting a good job and providing for your family.
As to the moral argument. Is it moral to hold people responsible for actions or conditions that they had no part in? Is it moral for someone to claim a grievance against someone who has done them no wrong?
By Steve T. on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
I’ll remember that from here on out, Craig. Using historical context arguments equals trolling.
Nice.
By Craig on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
Changing the subject and ignoring the point is trolling.
Knee-jerk reactions that contribute nothing of worth to the discussion is just garden variety douchebaggery.
Carry on.
By Crossbones on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
I’m waiting to hear your solution to racism, Craig. Or are you all out of prizes for The Stupidest Post of the Day?
By Craig on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
Steve T. made a pretty valiant and rather impressive run at you, but couldn’t quite get there.
How do you “solve” racism?
You don’t. It’s existed from day one, and will always exist. The best thing you can do, in my opinion, is marginalize and ridicule those who think that melanin content, or lack thereof, determines character.
By Steve T. on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
Just because you are unable to see things from someone else’s perspective doesn’t mean that bringing that perspective up is changing the subject. Are you really that obtuse?
And by the way, Craig… are you blogging less now because you take this stuff personally? Because if that is the case, you might want to extend your hiatus. I’m surprised with you.
By Craig on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
You still trying to win the stupid post award from Mellon?
Fer chrissakes, you lecturing me on closed-mindedness is like Britney Spears giving a lecture on the benefits of chastity and sobriety.
Believe it or not, I’m able to see things from most perspectives, and then decide that some of them are just unmitigated bullshit. (Which you would know had you read the comment where I gave my reasons for rejecting the historical argument in this case.)
Further, I’ve learned that your dad likes poking people just to get a reaction, and I’m fine with that, and I choose to ignore it.
Same with you — your comments generate more heat than light, and that’s who you are. That’s cool. But you can’t come in and piss on everything like an alley cat and expect a fair hearing.
As for any so-called “hiatus,” I’m not sure where you got that idea, but like I said a while back, I blog as time allows, and having a houseful like I do, I just don’t have as much time as I used to.
It’s called commitment and responsibility. You’ll understand when you get older and mature a little bit.
Now then, if you have something useful, interesting, thoughtful and/or original to contribute, and can do so in a fairly articulate manner, I’m all ears. Otherwise, a simple click of the back button can solve all your problems.
By Steve T. on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
So yes, you are taking this stuff personally. Good to know.
Like I said, I’m surprised with you, Craig. I enjoy coming here from time to time because I’ve tended to think that we can poke fun at each other without getting genuinely angry. I can honestly say that while you’ve frustrated me with your inability to look at the bigger picture(again demonstrated here), I’ve never gotten genuinely angry with you. I would even say that I like you. You’ve even e-mailed me to tell me that you don’t take this stuff personally.
That you have all this pent up anger towards me amazes me. Where on earth did that come from?
So you’ve explained why you think historical context arguments are bullshit. That’s perfectly fine. One may even be inclined to agree with you if you weren’t being so irrational about it. I’ve had a lot of bullshit arguments thrown at me, even in a sarcastic tone (often enough by you, for that matter…), but I would not call it trolling. Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to me.
That you can dish it out but are completely and utterly unable to take it is telling.
And you’ve officially pissed me off for the first time with your little “you’re just too young to understand” lecture, Craig. Do you really think you can take the high-ground on me when it comes to hard work and responsibility? Do you know ANYTHING about me? Do you know what I have gone through to get through and finish school? Maybe you should inquire about that stuff before you thoughtlessly pop off like that. Trust me when I say – you have NO idea what you’re talking about. Don’t quit your day job.
I understand you’re a busy guy, Craig, and wouldn’t say otherwise. But for you to give me that “you’re just a little kid and don’t know what responsibility is” lecture is thoughtless, personal, and shitty.
And you’re telling ME to produce something thoughtful. Lead by example, oh sage of blogging.
By JP on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
Y’know Steve, you might have basis for argument if you’d actually said anything beyond your drive by comment earlier in the thread of:
Aside from that, you’ve said absolutely nothing about the actual substance of Craig’s post and the subsequent discussions. You’ve merely questioned Craig’s commitment, sincerity, and ability to comprehend your position. You haven’t made a position.
I can tell you with certainty that I haven’t taken any of this personally, and I’ve had many a grand argument with your father over the years – but jeezus Steve… to quote Neil Page from Planes, Trains, and Automobiles
“Here’s an idea; have a point. It makes things so much more interesting for the listener.”
By Craig on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
Here’s the thing, Steve. You come over and take a knee-jerk shot at me — that completely ignored what was actually said — then get offended when I call you on it. If that’s me being angry, then so be it, I guess I’m angry.
If you think it’s an irrational argument that I’m making, fine. Call it irrational, but let me know why.
I’ll admit that the youngster thang was a bit of a cheap shot, but I’m glad it pissed you off. Remember that next time you get ready to tee someone up or indulge in any keyboard psychiatry.
The long and short of it is that the world looks a hell of a lot different with 40 staring me in the face than it did on the short side of 25. I’ll buy you a beer in 15 years, and you can tell me that I’m right about that.
And everything else, too.
By Craig on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
Whoa! Simulpost!
By Steve T. on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
Calling someone a troll for disagreeing with you is irrational, Craig. That would be the crux of my problem with you today.
And from here on out, I guess I’ll remember the following blog-o-rule:
“Thou art not allowed to respond to the content of a comment thread without first responding to the content of the post which precedes it.”
I plead guilty to having violated this heretofore unwritten blog-o-rule. I await JP’s plea: Preliminary evidence shows that he too has committed this crime in the process of accusing me of committing it.
But then again, I could be splitting hairs at this point.
By Craig on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
I didn’t call your Dad a troll because he disagrees with me. I called him a troll because he was being sarcastic for the sake of provoking a response, which even you have to admit he does from time to time.
That is all.
Check Troll, sense 1.
By Crossbones on Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
“The best thing you can do [to solve the problem of racism], in my opinion, is marginalize and ridicule those who think that melanin content, or lack thereof, determines character.”
Translation: I am clueless, so I will immerse myself in a politically correct fantasy.
By JP on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
Hmm, lemme check. Yeah, pretty sure I didn’t say you couldn’t ignore the substance of the post.
What I called you on was not making any comment on the substance of the post:
And then getting defensive when that’s pointed out:
I’ll ask this. What perspective are you refering to? Yours? You’ve never stated yours – only that Craig can’t see it.
Now, I’ll freely admit this is a helluva complex and emotionally explosive topic – and there’s no simple ‘answer’ to the question. I’d also admit that I’m pretty darn close to Craig’s way of thinking but I’d add this:
One of the dangling questions to me is, at what point should we consider history to be just that? Last week? Last year? 60, 200, 1000 years? Is there a magic demarcation where it can no longer be considered a point of contention, and sublimates to a painful chapter of history?
Sure there’s a point – I’m not aware of too many Poles still bearing a grudge against Mongols, or a burning desire to enact revenge on the descendents of Timur the Lame; yet there is still a searing pain from those who have ancestors who were slaughtered, tortured, enslaved, and ripped from their homelands. That goes for Native Americans, Jews, and Blacks (among others).
Invariably, I end up with more questions than I do answers on issues like this – but I can’t accept that it’s OK because historically ‘Group A’ has been on the short stick. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
But two Wrights made the first airplane! <rimshot>
By Craig on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
I think that point is where hucksters can no longer profit from keeping things contentious.
By Crossbones on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
Craig:
Perhaps you didn’t notice that the racists are complaining today in the Bozeman Chronicle and the Billings Gazette about the lack of black people in Montana. Apparently, you are right: a lot of people think melanin content, or a lack thereof, determines the character of a state.
In any case, if you are emotionally or intellectually ill-equipped to deal frankly with the subject of racism, I suggest you not challenge yourself anymore by posting comments on the subject.
(Note to JP: The answer to your question, “At what point should we consider history to be just that?” is simple: when there is no chance of making any more money on it. As soon as the groups you mentioned–Native Americans, Jews, Blacks—discover that no matter how badly they act, no matter how much they whine and whimper, there will be no more money coming to them, history will become just that—history. And a hat tip to Craig for solving at least one part of the racism equation.)
By Craig on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
Inasmuch as you haven’t really contributed anything to the discussion than bullshit conspiracy theories and demanding solutions while offering none, I think we’re pretty much done here.
At least until you grow a pair and stop using proxies and use your real name.
Now, I refer you to the rules, specifically the one that says, “I reserve the right to edit or delete your comments.”
Thanks for playing.
By Steve T. on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
JP-
Obviously, there’s no magic number for how many years it takes for some kind of collective anger or feeling of victimization to just wear off. But there are factors that weigh into these feelings… they’re not made up, you know. But we’re not the ones who get to decide when they can go away.
Of course this mission statement isn’t right. But quite frankly, there aren’t going to be very many white people who get pissed off about it – and even fewer of them are going to let it affect their vote. Once again, there’s a reason for that. It’s the same reason that means that a white guy couldn’t run for president if his church had the alterations that Craig posits in this post.
Collective consciousness is a funny thing. The sad thing is, we’re not going to change it by getting pissed about it or pretending to be victims. If we do that, we’re really just spinning our wheels…
Which, for that matter, is about the only thing that can be happening by comment #31 of a post anyways.
By JP on Jan 21, 2008 | Reply
Well said.
By Mark T on Jan 23, 2008 | Reply
Wow, Craig – any other day you’d have taken it all in stride. You must be having a bad one. I missed all of this – but I’ll make my point again: You can’t judge what appears to be back racism outside its historical context. Slavery takes generations to overcome – the attitudes it bred, the families that were wantonly destroyed, the inferiority complex it breeds – none of that disappears overnight. Nor do former slaves necessarily feel they can now fit right in once the chains are taken off. Takes time.
In the meantime, it doesn’t hurt if they try to establish their identity, call the group into a circle and join hands. Then along comes you to accuse them of racism. Whadda guy.
I said all of that in a much pithier manner up above, but it teed off your inner demons. I’m not a troll, and you know it.
By Craig on Jan 23, 2008 | Reply
So, now that we’re 5-6 generations removed, do we still have to wring our hands over it? When does the statute of limitations expire?
Not saying that. I’m saying if it’s white, it’s racism, and if it’s black it’s not. Why is that? I dunno, maybe I took that whole “content of their character, not the color of their skin” thing to heart. And if they’re trying to “establisht their identity,” what’s wrong with white people doing the same thing?
Mark, you have a long history of throwing things out just to poke other people in the eye and get a reaction. That’s a troll, in the classic sense. For what it’s worth, I’m a bit of a troll myself sometimes.
By Mark T on Jan 25, 2008 | Reply
I do not know how many generations must pass before the effects of slavery disappear, just as I look around me at our Native American population and wonder how many generations must pass before their legacy of being a conquered people stops eating at them. Denzel Washington’s movie, Antwone Fisher, took at shot at the subject, where the young man was affected deeply by “slave behavior” learned and passed on from generation to generation. And I know the problem of disintegrating families is pronounced among blacks, whose families were scattered to the winds by slave owners. Interesting movie if you haven’t seen it.
White’s don’t really have the problem – we’re not former slaves (who didn’t rebel), so we don’t have to deal with that baggage, and we are the dominant force in this society.
Yes, I do like to get an exchange going, and sometimes come here and poke at you a little bit. I wasn’t aware that was trolling, since I use my real name – I thought trolling was the anonymous shit that goes around.
By Dave Budge on Jan 25, 2008 | Reply
Hey, The Budge family was kept in indentured servitude until the mid 1600’s. I wonder if I can get reparations from the Scots? I could use the dough.
By Mark T on Jan 25, 2008 | Reply
Mine worked the coal mines. I hear ya.
By Mike on Jan 25, 2008 | Reply
So, now that we’re 5-6 generations removed, do we still have to wring our hands over it? When does the statute of limitations expire?
You bring up a salient point, Craig. The fact is that the problem has become much more worse among generations of blacks far removed from slavery than among generations closer to the era of slavery.
Most black children were raised in two-parent homes, even under slavery, and for generations thereafter. Freed blacks married, and marriage rates among blacks were slightly higher than among whites in the early 20th century. Blacks also had slightly higher rates of labor force participation than whites in every census from 1890 to 1950. The same was true in Britain, where terms like “redneck” and “cracker” originated. What lower-class white communities in Britain and black ghettoes in the US have in common is a pattern of social pathology that became pronounced in the latter half of the 20th century, when similar ideas and policies became dominant in both countries.I wonder what those policies were?
As it pertains to further disparities today, W.E.B. Dubois (W.E.B. Dubois, The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study (New York: Schocken Books, 1967) 19th century study concluded that if all white people lost their racial prejudices overnight, it would not make much difference to most black workers. Though “some few would be promoted, some few would get new places” nevertheless “the mass would remain as they are,” until the younger generation began to “try harder,” until the “idle and discouraged” were stimulated and the whole “black race lost the omnipresent excuse for failure: prejudice.”
I think one could draw some logical parallels between DuBois’ work with blacks and the plight of many Native Americans today…but I’m not properly schooled to do it.
By Matt Singer on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
Feel free to call me a troll, Craig, but I’m honestly curious the last time you got concerned about an element of racially motivated rhetoric coming from white people in this country.
By Ed Kemmick on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
This thread would have been vastly improved had you discriminated on the basis of Mellonin.
By Craig on Jan 28, 2008 | Reply
Matt–
At about 6:13 this morning.
Ed–
You win the thread.