Auburn Pay To Play Scandal

Former Auburn player Stanley McClover claims to have received sexual favors and money in exchange for his services at Ohio State and Auburn

Alabama

Most White Nationalists hate college football and professional sports. This is understandable when niggers like LeBron James are paid millions of dollars to dribble a ball.

Personally, I happen to think sports is an excellent way to introduce ordinary people to race realism. We saw this last year when the Cam Newton fairy tale exploded into a pay-for-play scandal that roiled the sports world and led to an official FBI investigation.

Even though Cecil Newton was found guilty of attempting to auction his son like a slave to Mississippi State, “Supercam” later won the Heisman Trophy, the BCS National Championship, took the money and ran away to the NFL draft before the smoke cleared on the Plains.

Less than two weeks ago, Auburn Athletics was embarrassed yet again when four players were kicked off the football team after being arrested and charged with robbery, burglary, and theft. They can now be found reciting the Auburn Creed at the Lee County Detention Center in Opelika.

Three niggers and a whigger driver broke into a house three miles from campus and robbed the owner (probably an Auburn fan) with a handgun. Among those arrested, Mike McNeil led the Auburn defense with 14 tackles in the BCS title game against Oregon.

If that were not bad enough, the news broke this afternoon that four other Auburn players from the Tommy Tuberville era are claiming in an interview with “HBO Real Sports” that they were paid thousands of dollars to play football at Auburn:

“Loyalty is the key,” Gray told “Real Sports.” “I believe in that a whole lot. This man give me money. I’m going to be loyal to him and go up to Auburn.”

Stanley McClover claims that he received sexual favors from women at Ohio State as well as money from boosters at Auburn, LSU, and Michigan State in exchange for his services:

McClover: “They send girls my way. I partied. When I got there I met up with a couple guys from the team. We went to a party and they asked me to pick any girl I wanted.

Kremer: “Did she offer sexual services?

McClover: “Yes.

Kremer: “Did you take them?

McClover: “Yes.

I remember seeing this nigger on campus. We were both at Auburn at the same time.

The moral of the story: niggers corrupt everything they touch, whether it be a mayor’s office, a police department, or a football team. This is why African-Americans were excluded from Auburn in the first place.

Auburn was better off when the likes of Stanley McClover, Mike McNeil, and their fellow “diversity” went to college down the road at Tuskegee. Just putting this out there. Someone had to say it.

About Hunter Wallace 9615 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments

  1. Substituting “the N word” for “nigger” is a continuation of a {by now lethal} hypocrisy that Mr. Wallace is obviously unwilling to buy- into. As we smell the smoke from the Race Card burning, we witness at least one layer of American hypocrisy weakening.

  2. I think Hunter got his calories a little to low and has been pushing himself a little to hard on the tread mill and is now going through the typical mood swings associated with hypercorticism and adrenal fatigue. That’s why the last two posts have been extra venomous.

  3. The day has been here we need white only university you the chimp I mean Champ didnt pick some fine lil black honey to have favors with… Lets find her dad and ask her what he probably would say about his daughter.
    Ok diversity is a lie and all the culture distorteres have a huge hand up but we can beat them back

  4. Hunter – I thought you were leaving “White Nationalism”? I thought you had moved on to bigger and better things in life and were leaving it all behind you? But here you are back on your blog, complaining about “niggers”? What gives? I only ask because I’m curious, I’m not trying to be a smart ass….

  5. This subject of nigger ball players being lured to certain colleges by sex with white women was discussed in some detail a year or so ago. I’d figured as much, but at first dismissed as exaggerated the claims several people were asserting in this discussion. However, it soon became plain that some of these people knew what they were talking about and even I had no idea of the extensiveness of the practice. As I recall, the University of Tennessee was the worst offender and was THE place for a black athlete to get white pussy.

    Many white men are puzzled why the white daughter, relative, neighbor or local girl starts screwing niggers. Well, these girls and women see just about EVERY white man pretty much ecstatic about the physical prowess of the black man. These white men are more than signaling that the black man is a hero, a god, a real man’s man. So is it any wonder why some white women start thinking along the same lines? After all, they see their brothers, fathers, uncles and every other white man asserting in one way or another the physical prowess and masculinity of the black man. And they see these white men sitting on the side lines and being spectators while the black man is “out doing it.” In fact, too many white men today are spectators who spend too much time watching other men “out doing it,” from sports to hobbies to business to even sex.

    Too many white men are spectators who watch other men “do it.”

  6. loathing, hating, and despising a group, but not saying the N word is disingenuous. Him just saying the damn word he’s thinking is at least being honest. liking or disapproving of the usage is just a matter of taste, and honestly, in 2011, a bit nitpicky.

  7. Andrew,

    (1) If memory serves, I said that I was giving up on White Nationalism.

    (2) I didn’t say that I had changed my views on race.

    (3) I didn’t say that I had given up writing either.

    (4) White Nationalists are a small fraction of racially conscious Americans. The vast majority of White Americans who are “racial” are not involved with the movement.

    (5) You are also right that OD is not my primary focus. That’s why the recent articles have been shorter and less serious.

  8. TAllagash,

    You have misunderstood me.

    (1) Niggers and black people are not synonymous. A “nigger” is a peculiar type of negro. The football players above really are niggers. Likewise, there are White people who are yuppies and rednecks.

    (2) Black people acknowledge the existence of niggers. In fact, they call each other niggers all the time, and move away from the niggers whenever they have the means to do so.

    I’m simply acknowledging that niggers exist. How is that wrong?

    (3) I don’t hate black people per se, but I am adverse to niggers. Likewise, I like White people, but I don’t really care for SWPLs.

    Got it?

  9. Hunter Wallace says:

    “(1) Niggers and black people are not synonymous. A “nigger” is a peculiar type of negro.
    (3) I don’t hate black people per se, but I am adverse to niggers.”

    JR responds:

    Well said. But understand it is taboo for White Americans to speak these truths in public. Occasionally a White public figure gets away with saying this truth such as the lead singer for Guns and Roses – Axl Rose, he once uttered almost these exact words.

    The person who best presents the reality of the divide between Black Americans that are OK and Niggers is the Black comedian Chris Rock.

    Here is Chris Rock’s commentary on…

    The great divide.

    http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DUi6-Wc0PDc4

  10. Well said, Hunter. We have far too many niggers and not enough black folks. I’d say the ratio in the U.S. is 75-80% nigger. At least the vast majority of rednecks aren’t violent.

  11. @Brutus

    While undoubtedly too many white males today are wimps why would any white women want to date a darkie, let alone screw for one? There is some horrible cultural sickness going on as the root cause. No wonder we are in trouble. McClover looks more like a gorilla or chimpanzee than a man’s man.

    @Hunter

    What do you think is the ratio of okay blacks to niggers? If there was some way to weed out the niggers would integration work, excepting micegenation of course?

  12. More of the same,

    No offense, and I am NOT being condescending, sarcastic, dry or any other form of derogatory here, but you simply don’t understand women. I know there has been a veritable avalanche of “self help” dating “coaches” and gurus who have come on the scene and many of them and much of their advice is indeed cheesy, but despite this, like a broken clock, they are 110 percent right about women being attracted to men of real or perceived power.

    Celebrity, wealth, physical ability and all other means allowing real or perceived dominance over other, common, men translates into greater success with women. Looks, tradition, even loyalty to race and country can take a back seat to this impulse.

    A few years ago even I was taken aback with a group of women I was talking to. In this case the subject of occupying and conquering armies was brought up. Now, many people know or have actually witnessed that the soldiers of a conquering army do not need to rape the local women. It is known, for example, that the Germans had a high old time with French women while they occupied France. What is NOT mentioned but known to many is that the French women did not need to be forced. Now, after I mentioned this to the women I was talking to and gave a few other examples, I said something about how could women do that. First one, then another, and then all of the women joined her and told me, “but you don’t understand. A women NEEDS…” this and that. Besides saying the obvious I pointed out that there were/are still men of their countries still around so why the “need” for the conquerors. I got a puzzled look from the women. Since that night I have occasionally “tested that water” to see how other women answered such a scenario. The final answers and opinions have about pretty much been the same as the first group. They were right at the time, I did not understand, but I certainly “got it.”

    Women are different.

  13. More of the same,

    No offense, and I am NOT being condescending, sarcastic, dry or any other form of derogatory here, but you simply don’t understand women. I know there has been a veritable avalanche of “self help” dating “coaches” and gurus who have come on the scene and many of them and much of their advice is indeed cheesy, but despite this, like a broken clock, they are 110 percent right about women being attracted to men of real or perceived power.

    Celebrity, wealth, physical ability and all other means allowing real or perceived dominance over other, common, men translates into greater success with women. Looks, tradition, even loyalty to race and country can take a back seat to this impulse.

    A few years ago even I was taken aback with a group of women I was talking to. In this case the subject of occupying and conquering armies was brought up. Now, many people know or have actually witnessed that the soldiers of a conquering army do not need to rape the local women. It is known, for example, that the Germans had a high old time with French women while they occupied France. What is NOT mentioned but known to many is that the French women did not need to be forced. Now, after I mentioned this to the women I was talking to and gave a few other examples, I said something about how could women do that. First one, then another, and then all of the women joined her and told me, “but you don’t understand. A women NEEDS…” this and that. Besides saying the obvious I pointed out that there were/are still men of their countries still around so why the “need” for the conquerors. I got a puzzled look from the women. Since that night I have occasionally “tested that water” to see how other women answered such a scenario. The final answers and opinions have about pretty much been the same as the first group. They were right at the time, I did not understand, but I certainly “got it.”

    Women are different than what most men think.

  14. I don’t know Brutus. As a white woman, I could never have relations with a man of another race. Perhaps by force but surely not willingly. However, if the invading army was white and they were saving me from this multicult hellhole, I just might, with a little liquor in me, spend a night with one of the conquerors as a great big thank you. As for the French women during WWII, I suppose they saw masculinity for the first time in their lives and the temptation was just too great. What most decent women like is a real masculine man and if they have class on top, it’s a windfall (not the majority of the Western males of today which I refer to as xx-men (no ‘y’ chromosomes)).

  15. Well, I would follow the Chris Rock distinction as well. But explain that to the mainstream first!

  16. In your article you stated, “ […] niggers corrupt everything they touch, whether it be a mayor’s office, a police department, or a football team. This is why African-Americans were excluded from Auburn in the first place.”
    (1) Niggers and black people are not synonymous. A “nigger” is a peculiar type of negro. The football players above really are niggers. Likewise, there are White people who are yuppies and rednecks.
    (3) I don’t hate black people per se, but I am adverse to niggers. Likewise, I like White people, but I don’t really care for SWPLs.

    Hunter,

    Do you really believe African-Americans should be excluded from public universities and institutions based solely on their race? Just a query.

    I have read several of your articles and you seem to be an intelligent and educated individual, but your beliefs on race are erroneous. I must admit that it is not strange to find an educated person who possesses such abhorrence for fellow human beings. One need only look on the Internet. However, you do not strike me as an individual who completely accepts your own communal convictions. You attempt to rationalize your utilization of the N-word by asserting, “niggers and black people are not synonymous, but that a nigger is a peculiar type of negro.” In doing so you acknowledge that black people, in general, are not N-words, but that a N-word is an atypical black person. Well, if that is your contention then who or whom determines who is a N-word and who is just a black person. Do you? It would be a critical and influential profession I must say.

    You allege the football players in your article are N-words. Did you arrive at that conclusion because they committed a crime and/or violated a rule? I know an abundance of college-age, white people who have committed crimes and/or violated the rules of universities or institutions. I am sure you will desire specific examples. So, read the newspaper. I do not hear you clamoring for their exclusion from public institutions or denigrating their race. You also state that you “do not hate black people per se, but you are adverse to niggers.” You immediately defend and rationalize the previous comment by stating, “I like white people, but I don’t really care for SWPLs.” The contention being I am not a racist because I hate nigger white people for the same reasons I hate nigger black people. If all this is true then why are you a white nationalist or a racist at all? The raison d’être I ask is if you hate black people for the same reasons you hate white people then why is it necessary to make a distinction between the two if the crimes and faux pas of both collections of people are equally despised and wrong. Why isolate black people as the only ones deserving of exclusion and derision? It would seem logical and reasonable for you to discontinue attempting to reconcile your beliefs with your feelings. In reality, you are not a racist or a white nationalist, but a confused, incensed white man pursuing a personal vendetta against a dissimilar people.
    Now, moving slightly off subject but still applicable. It seems you detest and yearn for the destruction of the government because you deem the government to be facilitators in the suspected ascent of the so-called inferior cultures of African-Americans and Hispanics. This concept is utterly and entirely false and base. Firstly, white people comprise 196.8 million of the U.S. population or 64 percent and despite the dissemination of fear mongering propaganda in 2050 the projected white population will comprise 47 percent of the U.S. population. Still higher than the projected numbers of African-Americans and Hispanics combined. Secondly, other than recent technological advancements the only reason Western culture could claim superiority over other non-Western cultures is its extensive and difficult journey from the repression of the Dark Ages to its fervent fondness for equality of the 20th and 21st centuries. However, if you fancy destroying the government Spinoza offered a solution, but I remain skeptical that you will concur with his core tenets:

    The last end of the state is not to dominate men, nor to restrain them by fear; rather it is so to free each man from fear that he may live and act with full security and without injury to himself or his neighbor. The end of the state, I repeat, is not to make rational beings into brute beasts and machines. It is to enable their bodies and their minds to function safely. It is to lead men to live by, and to exercise, a free reason; that they may not waste their strength in hatred, anger, and guile, nor act unfairly toward one another. Thus the end of the state is really liberty.

    Btw, Spinoza was a Jew. I plead with you to allow reason and understanding to occupy your thoughts and beliefs not ignorance and hatred. “Wisdom is a bitter-sweet delight, deepened by the very discords that enter into its harmony.”

    PS I apologize to anyone offended by the use of the N-word in this post. I attempted to use the word as little as possible and in certain places used a substitute for the word.

  17. Persto,

    (1) Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, public universities in Alabama were segregated on the basis of race. There were “White universities” like Auburn and Alabama and “black universities” like Tuskegee and Alabama State.

    Yes, I think we should return to the old system.

    (2) How are my views on race erroneous?

    The demographic composition of the Auburn student body is a underlying reflection of racial differences in intelligence and education and the failure to reconcile integration with a meritocratic system.

    (3) I don’t really “abhor” negroes. I just prefer the old system to the present one.

    (4) “Niggers” exist. Why deny the obvious? Yuppies exist. No one says otherwise.

    (5) It is an intuitive judgement.

    You can look at a negro and tell whether or not the word “nigger” is an accurate description of them. Their mannerisms, style of dress, their teeth, their lingo, their way of carrying themselves, etc.

    It is obviously a cultural thing. “Whiggers” attempt to emulate this style.

    Like I said above, the same is true of yuppies and rednecks. We have bars in Alabama that cater to all these groups. Some of these bars have rules which indirectly attempt to impose segregation in order to cater to the tastes of their patrons.

    (6) I went to college with Stanley McClover.

    I did not say that all niggers are criminals. It just so happens that criminality and being a nigger are two things that tend together. Both are a reflection of an underlying hostile attitude toward authority and a deficiency in traditional moral values.

    (7) If negroes were excluded from traditionally White colleges in Alabama, which there is precedent for in the Jim Crow, there would be less of the above undesirable behaviors.

    Similarly, if negroes were excluded from Alabama altogether, there would be far less violent crime and the schools would be much better. There would still be criminals. There would still be poverty. There would still be students who underperform academically.

    But I wager there would be far less of those things.

    (8) I consider myself a “racial conservative.”

    – I’m a racial conservative because I believe Jim Crow was superior to the present system of race relations.

    – I think a return to segregation would elevate Whites, culturally speaking, whereas integration has just the opposite effect.

    – I think the presence of blacks in our society is an albatross for White Alabama.

    – I do not believe in racial equality. By that I mean I do not believe that talent and intelligence is distributed equality within or between races.

    – Finally, while I believe in the existence of racial differences, this hardly implies that I like all White people, or that blacks are the cause of our all problems.

    – I might dislike “niggers,” but my animosity toward them is actually lower than my aversion toward “SWPLs.”

    (9) The behaviors we see above, although culturally mediated, as with the whigger effect, likely have genetic antecedents. At least that is what I believe.

    The root cause of this is low intelligence and low conscientious. The distribution of these characteristics varies substantially across racial lines.

    If blacks were excluded from our society, I think our society would be better in many ways. In my view, that is the justification.

    (10) The policies of the federal government are indisputably driving changing racial demographics, yes.

    (11) Is the U.S. Census engaged in “fearmongering” then? It is the U.S. Census that just came out and said that the “new America,” that is, a majority non-White America, is arriving sooner than expected.

    I’m pretty sure that White children under the age of 3 are already a minority in their peer group. The “minority-majority” is already locked in.

    (12) You are deliberately ignoring the fact that Hispanics went from less than 2 percent of the American population to more than 13 percent in a generation. What’s more, disproportionate birthrates, illegal immigration, and legal immigration are responsible for more than 1/2 of America’s population growth.

    (13) In terms of scientific and technological accomplishment, the West is objectively superior to the non-West, and is rivaled only by East Asians and other Caucasian groups.

    Comparing blacks to Whites in terms of human accomplishment is like comparing the Rocky Mountains to the hills around Auburn.

    (14) Seceding from the United States is quickly becoming the only viable option for Whites who want to maintain the type of traditional, prosperous American society that previous generations were accustomed to.

    (15) Unlike Spinoza, I don’t believe the state has any objective teleological end, or that humanity has any discernible purpose, much less “liberty” or “equality.” On the contrary, the world as it exists contains different groups which are simply in competition with each other over scarce resources.

    To the extent that any group thrives in its environment, it is due to the strategy that it pursues against its rivals. The original American settlers who conquered this land and built our society pursued a strategy which you would call “racism” which allowed them to thrive at the expense of the indigenous inhabitants.

    They built the state now called “Alabama” out of conquered and purchased Creek, Chickasaw, Choctow, and Cherokee lands.

    (16) I urge you to follow your reason to the conclusion that “humanitarianism” (which in the 19C was known as “philanthropy”) has no objective moral foundation but instead merely evolved out of heretical strains of Christianity and natural rights philosophy.

    Reflect upon the fact that the society which you inherited was founded on the basis of what you would call “racism” and “ignorance” and “hatred” and were it not for those things you would not be attending a public university or enjoying all the benefits of a prosperous modern Western nation in North America.

    Reflect upon the fact that your own prejudices are also merely artifacts of your environment which you would not be posting about here were you born in some other place and at some other time.

  18. Hunter,

    I am not disputing the prior existence of segregation. I am merely asserting that the core principle of segregation was to subjugate African-Americans. I believe the subjugation of an entire race of people in a particular region of the United States regardless of the motives is and was wrong. Following the Civil War, southern whites wanted the condition of African-Americans to be nearest to slavery as possible. That condition was segregation.
    (2) All I can say is whites are not intellectually superior to blacks or vice versa. Is everyone equally intelligent? Sadly, no, but it has naught to do with race.

    (3) The old system is rooted in racial prejudice, discrimination, and hatred. The present system while flawed is at least an attempt for racial equality.

    (4) Yes, yuppies exist. Should yuppies be segregated from white society?

    (5) The attire and attitude of an African-American determines whether or not he is a nigger. Really, you cannot base the most essential term in the lexicon of the white supremacist movement on garb and outlook. Can you? Yes, a cultural divide exists between whites and blacks, but blacks should not be subdued for this.

    (6) All blacks are not criminals and any insinuation that being black brands one a criminal is a faulty argument. Actually, that is racism.

    (7) So, you would rather expel people than assist them.
    Poverty creates crime. If an underprivileged African-American had the same privileges and luxuries as most whites I wager there would be far less adverse behavior among young African-Americans.

    (8) The albatross was an omen of good luck until some sailor killed it if my Coleridge serves me correctly.
    -The origins of humanity rest in Africa.
    -Blacks and whites are the same specie while certain individuals may be more or less intelligent their intellectual attributes do not apply to the entire collection of individuals of which they share ancestry and appearance. More succinctly, a dumb white person does not mean all whites are dumb and a smart black person does not mean all blacks are smart.
    -Just because you are white and hate a certain segment of whites does not mean you can hate most blacks.

    (9) I disagree entirely, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to elaborate on this matter. It would I am afraid be like shouting at the bottom of the ocean.

    (10) Could you explain?

    (11)No the U.S. Census is not engaged in fear mongering. My point was that despite the fears of whites in 2050 they would comprise almost 50 percent of the projected US population.

    (12) Yes, the Hispanic population is increasing and has increased, but in 2050 the projected Hispanic population will be about 30 percent of the US population.
    I am not sure what I am ignoring. My point is that whites currently comprise 64 percent of the US population and in 2050 will comprise 47 percent of the projected US population. Currently and in 2050 whites significantly outnumber the Hispanic population.

    (13)Finally, we agree. I stated this in my original post, “other than recent technological advancements the only reason Western culture could claim superiority over other non-Western cultures is its extensive and difficult journey from the repression of the Dark Ages to its fervent fondness for equality in the 20th and 21st centuries.”

    (14)There is no way the South could secede without a war. Didn’t the South try that once? Yes, it was a long exhaustive war that cost about 700,000 American lives. Do you really want that? Is secession the only viable option?

    (15) In a world of scarce resources unity would allow humanity to survive and thrive longer than disunity.
    Just because my ancestors raped, murdered, and pillaged the native inhabitants does not mean I have to agree with their actions because it may have benefited me. Rape is wrong. Murder is wrong. Theft and destruction of property is wrong. Yes, European-Americans secured and expanded their borders by these means, but it was not morally correct. I would not consider their actions racism, but genocide. Your reason for despising non-white races is that they are morally corrupt and inferior? Am I right?

    Well, the early Americans murdered the Native Americans, stole their land, and enslaved an entire race of people to labor on the stolen land. That sounds pretty morally bankrupt to me. Wait… the whites were the superior race. Manifest destiny and all that jazz. The end justifies the means.

    The only thing my ancestors have left me is shame, only everlasting shame.

    (16) “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I am not the only one.”
    I cannot reflect upon my past and say ‘what if’. I cannot reflect upon my past and dismiss the atrocities committed by my ancestors because I have a vested interest in their success. That is unconscionable. Why is the gilt tradition of your ancestors the basis for your belief in racism?

  19. Persto is a criminal, by his own admission. Persto has asserted that he is living in, utilizing, and enjoying the benefits of stolen property gained at the expense of violent criminal activity. This is a criminal offense as everyone knows. Receiving stolen property and benefiting from it is a crime.

    Nowhere in his two lengthy posts has Persto indicated he is going to stop using known stolen property gained during the commission of a crime. Feeling shame does not absolve a person of crime charges when he or she KNOWINGLY possesses and benefits from stolen property gained during the commission of a crime. Every court recognizes this. Persto is therefore a criminal. Period.

  20. Right, instead of using words that label and implying a negative distinction, we should continue the Liberal premise of non distinction. Henceforth, for example, if discussing the subject of a man who has sex with children, we should not call him a child molester, but instead simply what he is and say he only has an alternative sexual preference and in no way imply anything negative. When discussing theft, we should say only that an item was secured for use. Assault will be merely a physical expression. Low intelligence is a mental challenge. Murder, justice for an oppressed man.

    We do not want to dehumanize anyone, you know. That is very bad and hinders social acceptance and thus unity of mankind.

    All of this works, too. For example, when I was a boy and teenager, one could count on his or her fingers the number of fat people, and everyone called then fatso and the like and hurt their feelings and thus caused them to be uncomfortable and impelled to lose weight. But now that few use such derogatory words in public or even in private, many more people feel much more comfortable being themselves, and as you can see, overweight people are ubiquitous as flies today. Likewise, using the word nigger caused many white people to think of them as somehow different and not what one would aspire to associate with. But today that word is seldom used and look how much progress has been made in getting white people more and more comfortable with blacks and not seeing them as different or inferior in any way.

    Liberals are right, words do matter. And if you are prepared to accept the Liberal reorientation of language in order to further non distinction and non discrimination, then you should also be prepared to accept the ultimate purpose of that reorientation of language.

  21. Brutus,

    I believe your implication is correct that my accusations, condemnations, and judgments of my ancestors, while accurate, “are a useless scholarly exercise in morality.” It is too late to “denounce my ancestors in absentia.” However, morally and ethically I cannot abide or agree with such ghastly behavior. Howard Zinn said it best, “[…] to deemphasize their genocide, is not a technical necessity but an ideological choice. It serves–unwittingly–to justify what was done.”

    With that being said the actions of the early American settlers were condoned, encouraged, and assisted by the English government of the colonists and the American government of the revolutionaries. The rationale for this was the escalating American populace made necessary the acquisition of additional land to support the influx of immigrants or colonists. Also, and maybe most importantly, the government sought to divest the East of Indians so as to utilize their land for agricultural purposes, which in turn stimulated the agrarian economy of pre-industrial America and increased governmental monetary profits. The settlers, farmers, and landowners, who harassed and attacked the Indians, sought the land of the Native Americans for monetary motives as well. It was all financial. In order to achieve this the English colonists and the American settlers, with the consent of authorities, constantly and consistently thrust the Native Americans into lands further west. The means they employed to accomplish this feat were deceit, theft, murder, and violence of all kind.

    Now, these actions in most cases were criminal according to English and American laws of the period, but very few cases were prosecuted because the authorities overlooked, promoted, and aided these actions. (Recall Jackson’s forced removal of the Cherokee in Georgia, the actions of the English settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts against the Powhatans and the Pequots, and the attempted removal of the Creek from Alabama which led to the Creek Wars of 1811-1814 and 1836.) So, yes the majority of frontier American and English settlers were criminals (I know huge generalization) because they committed crimes, but I have committed no such crime nor was I complicit in their criminal endeavors. I entered American citizenry as an innocent infant incapable of understanding or grasping the atrocities and crimes of my forefathers, which created my then-current condition. My birthplace is irrelevant because I did not have a choice in where I was born. I was born and it was in America. Nothing criminal about that. However, I can be accused of accepting criminal property, but I believe the statute of limitations has run out on that particular one.

    However, if you are implying I should relinquish my US citizenship and property because of my ancestors deplorable and yet personally beneficial actions then you are going to be disappointed. I am a citizen of the most democratic and diverse nation in the world. It is a pleasure and privilege to live in America. However, I recognize the detestable actions of past Americans and revile them. As Albert Camus proposed, “It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of executioners.”
    Parting query, Brutus. Do you agree with me that the actions of most early Americans were criminal? If not, then you cannot claim I am a criminal based on the actions of my forefathers.

  22. Persto, with all due respect, judging people of a time period in which you did not live is ignorance. I lived in 90% white America and it was not what you’ve been told (or sold). I grew up in the 1960’s and 70’s and many blacks were just as predatory as they are now. At least in the North. I’ve lived in both the North and South and blacks in the North are more arrogant, combative, and violent. It’s the opposite of what you’d expect. And, MY judgments are based on MY experiences.

    You need to read real history and do not make judgment calls based on “information” printed within the past 50 or so years. Even Southern history is maligned, exaggerated, distorted and falsified. It’s propaganda and Americans are far better at it than the Soviets ever were.

    The actions of early Americans were not criminal. It was a matter of survival. The settlers were pioneers not immigrants. The indians were savages, make no mistake about it. We fought them and won. Learn to live with it. And, we live in a republic not a democracy. The world is not what is seems. Time will teach you that.

    And, by the way, it’s called “tolerance” for a reason.

  23. Andrew,

    I’m losing interest in genteel language. That ideal has been systematically perverted to the point where it is offensive for a White person to even discuss racial issues in a tone that is not slavishly politically correct.

  24. Persto,

    (1) First, you are wrong that the core principle of segregation was to “subjugate” African-Americans. That was not the case at all.

    The whole point of segregation was to create racially exclusive public places for the White majority in the South. White Southerners went to great lengths to create alternative public places for blacks – for they could reap the benefits of living in a White society.

    That is why blacks had their own schools, colleges, bars, movie theaters and so on, many of which still exist today, most of which were financed by White taxpayers.

    So why did Whites want to keep blacks out of public places like parks, swimming pools, theaters, restrooms, restaurants, buses, public schools, universities and so forth? Is it just because they “hated” black people?

    Once again, that wasn’t the case either. If blacks weren’t objectionable in some socially significant way, Whites would have included them. It was much cheaper to do so.

    Anyone with any significant experience with integrated public places in the American South, especially integrated public schools, knows why blacks were excluded.

    Blacks were excluded because Whites rightly believed their inclusion would degrade the quality of their public institutions. That is exactly what happened once the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed.

    Blacks moved into all sorts of public institutions, especially the public schools, and quickly ruined them. Whites now respond to the degrading effect that blacks have on their quality of life by moving to other areas and excluding them through economic segregation.

    (2) Second, excluding blacks from public places is morally wrong, but only if you accept the ethical premise that Whites exist to serve blacks, not to exist in their own right, and must be forced against their will to associate with blacks.

    If Whites exist purely for themselves and not to shoulder any “White Man’s Burden,” then clearly there is nothing wrong with Whites creating public and private spaces for their own enjoyment, and exercising their freedom to exclude people who would degrade their quality of life.

    This is why your ancestors behaved the way they did.

    It simply never occurred to them that they existed to uplift blacks and that their individual rights, which they had fought a Revolution to secure, had to be curtailed to promote this half baked, philanthropic vision of racially integrated, utopian society.

    (3) Third, you don’t seem to be all that familiar with the origins of the Jim Crow system, which emerged about thirty years after the Civil War. By that time, a generation of Southerners who never owned slaves had grown up under integration and experienced all the wonders of “diversity” for themselves.

    Whites didn’t create Jim Crow to bring back slavery. That’s ridiculous. The inability to ride in a trolley or drink from a water fountain was nothing remotely similar to the experience of being the physical property of another person.

    Do you feel oppressed because you are excluded from the women’s restroom? Do you believe you have a “right” to use a women’s restroom?

    Whites created Jim Crow because they saw the degrading effects that integration was having on their quality life, and wisely chose to abandon that system in favor one designed to favor themselves, not blacks.

    That’s what we should do.

  25. (4) Nearly a hundred years of psychometric data from every country in the Western world has consistently shown that intelligence is distributed unequally across racial lines.

    Whites are on average smarter than blacks. This is seen in every integrated classroom in America. Fifty years of forced integration and countless billions of dollars thrown at the problem has consistently failed to change that.

    It has absolutely everything to do with race.

    No environmental factor can possibly explain such a persistent pattern that has stymied countless attempts at social engineering. In hindsight, we know for a fact that “segregation” wasn’t the cause of racial differences in intelligence, as the public schools have been integrated for over fifty years in most parts of the country.

    (5) I suppose that is the way liberals see our past. Perhaps they taught you to see American history in such a way. It is a comforting myth.

    White people are motivated by purely irrational impulses like “racial prejudice, discrimination, and hatred.” There was no logic to their actions. The institutions they created served no purpose but to “oppress” minorities.

    That’s absurd.

    Here’s an idea: maybe they just wanted better schools for their children, better public amenities like parks and swimming pools, better restaurants, safer and cleaner neighborhoods, better restrooms, a healthier culture, you know, all the things that Whites seek today, in places where now only rich people can afford to live, where blacks are priced out of the market.

    Why should the present system be based on the ideal of “racial equality”? Does that work for White people? Has promoting “racial equality” lead to a higher standard of living for Whites?

    Most White people today say that America has gone into decline. Why do they say that if our society is so good at promoting racial equality? We have a black president now, right?

    Shouldn’t life be better than ever?

  26. (6) SWPLs are a plague on American civilization. This sub-culture was unknown a few generations ago. This is a cultural phenomena that could be eradicated under the right set of taboos.

    (7) “White supremacists” generally don’t use the word “nigger.” The term is most commonly used by blacks these days to describe niggers.

    When black people point out that niggers exist, which in a sane world would be an uncontroversial observation, White liberals don’t have any objection. Why is that?

    Do these niggers like Lil’ Wayne add value to our society? Alternatively, do niggers detract from the quality of life in a city, school, or neighborhood?

    I will argue the presence of “niggers” in our environment degrades our quality of life and that White people know that niggers exist and go absolutely out of their way to avoid interacting with niggers even if they will never admit in public what they are doing.

    Why can’t we exclude niggers? Doesn’t that come with freedom? If the government decides who we can and cannot associate with, are we “free” in any real sense of the word?

  27. (8) I never said that all blacks are criminals.

    The vast majority of black people are not criminals. It just so happens that criminals – thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. – are disproportionately black males.

    As a rule, the more young black males you have in a given area, the more violent crime you have.

    Suppose we excluded blacks as a rule from our society. Would there be more or less violent crime? I believe there would be a lot less poverty and significantly less violent crime. I believe Whites would be much safer than they are today.

    Is that not obvious?

    (9) I look at our integrated society from the perspective of whether or not it works to our advantage. It looks to me like integration has improved the quality of life for blacks, but Whites are worse off because of it.

    I don’t see how integration has made life better for White people. I can think of far more ways that it has made life worse.

    That is why I believe we should get rid of integration.

    (10) I don’t believe that poverty creates crime.

    Clearly, if you give these rap artists millions of dollars, they are no longer poor, but they are still niggers, and wind up broke again or in prison for that reason.

    Some of the safest areas in America are full of poor White people. This idea that poverty is the cause of crime is what led to the absurd idea that wasting billions of dollars on housing projects for blacks in the War on Poverty would eliminate crime.

    The housing projects were built, but niggers remained niggers, and know shows like The Wire are filmed in such places.

    The reason that “African-Americans,” unlike Asian-Americans, who were also discriminated against, don’t have the same privileges and luxuries as Whites is because they suffer from some type of biological disadvantage in intelligence and conscientiousness which inhibits their ability to a culture that rewards success.

  28. (11) Yes, the human species started out in Africa, but if you believe in evolution and know a thing or two about natural history, you know we are currently on something like humanity 6.0, and that the formation of races plays a critical role in the process of speciation.

    Just because the human species originated in Africa doesn’t mean that human populations haven’t evolved since leaving Africa. Clearly, they have done so.

    The differences in hair texture, skin color, and nose shape are all adaptations to different environments. In fact, the global distribution of the human species is a strong indicator that, if anything is true, humanity is probably splintering faster than ever in response to different environmental conditions.

    (12) Why can’t someone just prefer to live in a non-integrated, racially homogeneous society?

    The Japanese live in such a society. They have no intention of turning Japan into a flop house for the dregs of Southeast Asia.

    (12) Changing racial demographics in America is driven by immigration. That is a direct result of our immigration laws, in particular, the Immigration Act of 1965. The policies of the federal government are transforming the racial composition of the United States.

    (13) That’s like saying you are in a sinking ship, which is halfway full of water, but can take comfort in the fact that the Titanic has not yet sunk to the bottom, and that you have a few more minutes left before that happens.

    (14) I look at your numbers and what I see is that White Americans are fast becoming a minority in this country and that the policies of the federal government, which are unresponsive to public opinion (there was never a vote on this), is driving this phenomena.

    As it happens, that is more or less what the U.S. Census and the New York Times and every major newspaper in the country has already said, but whenever we mention this fact, which is widely acknowledged, it is called “fearmongering.”

    (15) We don’t agree on that point.

    Equality has nothing whatsoever to do with Western scientific and technological accomplishment. The West rose to primary over non-Western civilizations centuries before the United States existed.

    The United States was also a race based society until 1965. If you read a book like Charles Murray’s “Human Accomplishment,” you will see that “Dead White Males” are pretty much responsible for the world we take for granted today.

    (16) You are comparing apples and oranges.

    The 21st century South is nothing like the 19th century South. The Confederacy was an underpopulated, agricultural backwater, whereas that is hardly true of the South as it exists today, which is a center of war related industries, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.

    The people who would oppose secession also can’t even stomach conflicts as mild as Libya. They don’t have the stomach to fight a nuclear war with Dixie to stop secession.

    (17) The human species has always been divided into distinct tribes and nations. Human history is the tale of violent conflict between these groups. That is reality.

    (18) You don’t really believe these moral convictions of yours. That is just what you have been taught to believe. It is the politically correct thing to say.

    If that was the case, you wouldn’t be here enjoying all the privileges and advantages left to you by your “racist” ancestors, such as attending a public university on land that once belonged to Indians.

    (19) That’s a stereotype.

    Like the Japanese or Israelis, I would simply prefer to live a racially homogeneous Southern ethnostate, a state designed for the explicit purpose of being a nice place to live for my own people.

    I don’t hate other races because they are other races. Good fences make good neighbors. How would you feel if everyone in your neighborhood decided to move into your house?

    You probably wouldn’t like that living arrangement.

    (20) You obviously know little about the Indian Wars.

    (21) If you are so ashamed of your ancestors, why don’t you give all your property to non-Whites and move to Europe? Where is the sincerity behind this conviction? That’s what I am wondering.

    I don’t think you are really ashamed at all. You are just parroting what you have been told, which is not your fault, because human beings instinctively trust authority.

    (22) Most of those hippie dreamers ended up as homeless drug addicts on the West Coast. We should base our civilization on their example?

    Why?

    (23) My ancestors created a thriving, prosperous civilization for White people where one didn’t exist before. Unlike you, I am eternally grateful to them and seek to conserve their legacy for our posterity.

    I look at the present generation … and what I see are degenerates, the effete sons of great men, who are in the process of squandering their inheritance and throwing away the future of their descendants.

    It validates in my mind the conservative take on history.

  29. Persto

    I noticed you conveniently left out the part about how the Red Sticks (a branch of the Creek Indians) allied themselves with the British in the War of 1812 under Tecumsah and launched an unprovoked race war against White settlers, a real attempt at genocide, in the Fort Mims massacre.

    That is what directly led to the invasion of Creek territory under Andrew Jackson, the defeat of the Red Sticks at Horseshoe Bend, and the cession of much of the present day states of Alabama and Georgia to the United States.

    The heartless Jackson adopted a Creek Indian child as his son.

    It’s amazing what you can learn when you travel around this state and take the time to learn a thing or two about its history. 🙂

  30. Persto,

    As someone who has lived in Virginia, I can see you obviously know even less about the history of Jamestown and the colonization of Virginia.

    The English settlers didn’t set up camp there to attack the Indians. They came to trade with them and challenge the Spanish claim to the New World.

    It was the Powhatans who attempted to exterminate the English, not the other way around. After several failed attempts at diplomacy, the English colonists learned through experience how to deal with Indians.

  31. “It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of executioners.”

    Pifft!

    What you are doing, according to your own admission, is the equivalent of living very high on the hog in a deceased violent drug dealer’s house, spending the money he accumulated during his criminal career, driving the cars paid for with his booty, enjoying every privilege his criminal wealth and power created while simultaneously “siding” with law enforcement, in your free time, of course, and very much in the abstract while explicitly enjoying and utilizing a John Gottie’s criminal wealth and power.

    The truth is you are just what so many late coming immigrants were. They stood back and waited until America was cleared of savages, the land cleared for a decent civilization fit for a good living, in short, waited until all the hard work was done. Some of them then came here and soaked up the gravy that was then readily available and then started bad mouthing all the men and women who had gave their lives and/or did some of the hardest work imaginable to make this a country fit to live in. It was easy for them to bad mouth, after all better men and women than they had done the hard work and now the soft, the smarmy, the moralizing, the know-it-alls, could come and take advantage of all that hard work. They could talk about “murderers,” now that the Indians were subjugated. They could talk about “theft” of the land,” now that they were themselves living on it AND KNOWING THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO LEAVE, ala your smug ” I can’t help where I was born…it was all already done and so now moot” bullshit, half ass and ad hoc defense, or rather hypocritical dodge of a point blank, in your face pointing out that your type never has to face while sitting in comfortable school rooms theorizing and moralizing.

    Enough with you. Take a walk.

  32. Hunter,

    (1) Yes subjugation, suppression, control, restraint, prejudice, discrimination, hatred, and fear were the core principles of segregation. You stated, “The whole point of segregation was to create racially exclusive public places for the White majority in the South. White Southerners went to great lengths to create alternative public places for blacks – for they could reap the benefits of living in a White society.” That entire statement is ridiculous and laughable. Yes, I am sure southern whites wanted to create racially exclusive public places for social and personal reasons, but the racial exclusivity of segregation was integral and essential to the subduing, subjugating, and controlling of blacks. The black facilities were vastly inferior to white facilities and in some cases black facilities did not even exist, which meant blacks could not utilize any public facilities. To illustrate my point I have incorporated a few examples of the ‘separate but equal’ segregation of the Jim Crow South. The examples are courtesy of Ferris State University and Dr. David Pilgrim.
    -Jim Crow Etiquette
    1. A Black male could not offer his hand (to shake hands) with a White male because it implied being socially equal. Obviously, a Black male could not offer his hand or any other part of his body to a White woman, because he risked being accused of rape.

    2. Blacks and Whites were not supposed to eat together. If they did eat together, Whites were to be served first, and some sort of partition was to be placed between them.

    3. Under no circumstance was a Black male to offer to light the cigarette of a White female — that gesture implied intimacy.

    4. Blacks were not allowed to show public affection toward one another in public, especially kissing, because it offended Whites.

    5. Jim Crow etiquette prescribed that Blacks were introduced to Whites, never Whites to Blacks. For example: “Mr. Peters (the White person), this is Charlie (the Black person), that I spoke to you about.”

    6. Whites did not use courtesy titles of respect when referring to Blacks, for example, Mr., Mrs., Miss., Sir, or Ma’am. Instead, Blacks were called by their first names. Blacks had to use courtesy titles when referring to Whites, and were not allowed to call them by their first names.

    7. If a Black person rode in a car driven by a White person, the Black person sat in the back seat, or the back of a truck.

    8. White motorists had the right-of-way at all intersections.
    -Jim Crow laws pertaining to voting, justice, and every aspect of black southern life. These laws and restrictions applied only to blacks.

    a. Blacks were denied the right to vote by grandfather clauses.

    b. Black poll taxes. Fees for blacks to vote.

    c. White primaries. Only Democrats could vote, only whites could be Democrats.

    d. Literacy tests, which consisted of one question: name every Vice President and Supreme Court Justice throughout American history. Can you do that? I can’t.

    e. Separate hospitals, prisons, schools, churches, cemeteries, public restrooms, etc. The black facilities were infinitely inferior–older, less-well-kept prior to black ownership. In certain instances, there were no black facilities — no colored public restroom, no public beach, and no place to sit or eat.

    f. Violating these laws meant blacks risked losing their jobs, houses, families etc. It also could result in violence. Whites could physically beat blacks with impunity. Blacks had little legal recourse against these assaults because the Jim Crow criminal justice system was all white: police, prosecutors, judges, juries, and prison officials. Violence was instrumental for Jim Crow. It was a method of social control. The most extreme forms of Jim Crow violence were lynchings.

    g. Lynchings were public, often sadistic, murders carried out by mobs. Between 1882, when the first reliable data were collected, and 1968, when lynchings had become rare, there were 4,730 known lynchings, including 3,440 black men and women. Most of the victims of Lynch-Law were hanged or shot, but some were burned at the stake, castrated, beaten with clubs, or dismembered. In the mid-1800s, whites constituted the majority of victims (and perpetrators); however, by the period of Radical Reconstruction, blacks became the most frequent lynching victims. This is an early indication that lynching was used as an intimidation tool to keep blacks, in this case the newly-freedmen, “in their places.” The great majority of lynchings occurred in southern and border states, where the resentment against blacks ran deepest. According to the social economist Gunnar Myrdal: “The southern states account for nine-tenths of the lynchings. More than two thirds of the remaining one-tenth occurred in the six states which immediately border the South.”

    h. Any and all sexual interactions between black men and white women was illegal, illicit, socially repugnant, and within the Jim Crow definition of rape. Although only 19.2 percent of the lynching victims between 1882 to 1951 were even accused of rape, Lynch law was often supported on the popular belief that lynchings were necessary to protect white women.

    Hunter, segregation was about a racial exclusivity that subjugated blacks because of southern whites desire to possess dominance and control of blacks. Blacks were objectionable to whites because they were black, which all the above information suggests. To my knowledge no factual, accurate, or statistical evidence implicates blacks as the culprit in the failings of statewide public institutions. If some statistical evidence does exist then do not forget your Disraeli. “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Just a little humor.
    The inclusion of blacks at public institutions could not account for the current failings of the educational, governmental, or political systems of Alabama or the South. The reason being the present problems public institutions encounter are financial and economical not social or cultural. I am sure your counter argument will be the welfare-government assistance conditions of a significant number of blacks and minorities caused the monetary over-spending, which produced the current economical and financial crisis in the South and nationwide. However, high percentages of blacks are impoverished hence their need for government assistance. Why don’t they get a job? Well, current unemployment rates among African-Americans are significantly higher than among whites. There are three conclusions you can draw from that statement. (1)Blacks are lazy and will not get a job. (2)Racial discrimination still exists. (3)Coincidence. I choose number two.

    I, personally, believe blacks elevate the quality of public institutions.
    Not surprisingly, we are in agreement about whites excluding blacks through economic segregation.
    I need a respite. Hunter, I will finish my repudiation tomorrow.

    PS Just for clarification purposes it is not my intention to ad hominem. I am not attempting to attack, belittle, or criticize the personal character of any individual. I am not above mistakes or flawed philosophies. My intentions are to generate intellectual discourse, hopefully educate, and convey a different perspective and viewpoint in the conversation. Regards.

  33. Persto,

    (1) This is false.

    The goal of segregation was clearly to create racially exclusive public places for Whites – parks, restrooms, restaurants, etc. – in the American South. What you call “subjugation,” which was nothing of the sort, as blacks had their own parallel institutions to develop, was only a means to that end.

    (2) You have this exactly backwards.

    The blacks had to be excluded … because if they were included, they would have degraded the quality of life in White public places. The White people who lived back then used to call that “a free society.”

    They were simply exercising their freedom of association and property rights to create public places for their own enjoyment.

    Blacks were not excluded simply for the sake of “subduing, subjugating, and controlling of blacks.” That makes no sense whatsoever.

    White behavior was completely rational in terms of their understanding of both their political rights and the type of institutions they sought to create.

    (3) The black facilities were inferior because blacks lacked the intelligence and conscientiousness to build comparable institutions.

    Haiti is the poorest country in the New World because it is black. Iceland is one of the wealthiest nations in the world because it is Nordic.

    (4) I don’t see anything objectionable about the Jim Crow etiquette you cite above. I only wish that I lived in such a society today.

    Contemporary America has its own racial etiquette. For example, blacks are encouraged to take pride in the racial identity, whereas Whites are instructed to think of themselves as autonomous individuals, and are only allowed a negative sense of identity.

    (5) I disagree.

    Southern Whites wanted to (a.) control of their own society and (b.) their own racially exclusive public places. Segregation was a means to that end, but it wasn’t the end itself, which is what you are saying here.

    (6) Southern Whites believed, justifiably in my opinion, that blacks are different than Whites in many ways, and that including them in their society on a basis of social equality would degrade Whites and lower their quality of life.

    (7) What do you suppose “failing schools” are in America?

    (8) False.

    The disparity between America and other industrialized nations in subjects like reading, mathematics, and science is largely explained by the racial composition of the United States.

    The fact is, blacks and Hispanics drag down the American average because they consistently underperform Whites and Asians on standardized tests. What’s more, resources which could be spent on Whites are squandering on racial philanthropy, which results in White American students receiving an inferior education compared to their peers abroad.

    (9) Also not true.

    California used to have one of the best public education systems in America. Now it competes with Mississippi for the worst ranking. The difference between the California of the past and the California of the present is the human capital the state has to work with.

    “Diversity” drives out Whites because it lowers their quality of life. That cuts into the tax base. As recently as 2008, we saw how the mindless pursuit of “diversity” in subprime mortgages triggered the financial crisis that nearly collapsed the American economy.

    (10) Why do you believe it is our duty to uplift blacks and Hispanics? Where did that idea come from? I believe that Whites exist for our own sake, not to uplift non-Whites through misguided philanthropy.

    (11) That is explained in part by racial disparities in talent and intelligence.

    (12) I agree that racial discrimination exists in our society.

    There is widespread racial discrimination against Whites. This is called “affirmative action” and promoting “diversity.” The federal government, state agencies, Corporate America, public universities and so on all discriminate against Whites on the basis of race.

    In spite of this, Whites and Asians are still more successful than blacks. That only that proves (i.e., Whites succeeding in spite of racial discrimination) discrimination cannot explain relative black underperformance.

    Blacks enjoy advantages over Whites on the basis of their skin color. They are far more readily hired and promoted in Corporate America.

    (13) I strongly disagree.

    If you had told White Americans two generations ago that public schools would now be full of drugs, violence, pregnant teenagers, young girls dressed like slatterns, vulgarity, and so on, they wouldn’t have believed you.

    Those were all problems that Whites used to associate with the black community. It is why lower and middle class Whites were ferociously determined to keep blacks out of the public schools.

    Of course now that blacks are included and every negative aspect of their culture has rubbed off on Whites and degraded the quality of culture and education in America.

    On a final note, I am enjoying our little civil debate. Although I do not agree with your perspective, I enjoy the challenge of responding to your arguments. See you tomorrow. 🙂

  34. Hunter,

    (2) No, excluding blacks from public places is legally wrong. It is just my personal belief that it is morally wrong.
    However, this is a difficult issue for me. I agree the government should not force privately owned establishments to offer entrance to everyone and they do not. For example, some bars will not allow you entrance if you are wearing a plain white T-shirt, have a pet, are underage, possess a weapon, do not have appropriate identification, etc. However, it is illegal and unconstitutional to deny inclusion based on race, gender, ethnicity, religious preference, or creed. That is just the law.
    I am not sure I understand how allowing blacks access to public facilities burdens the white race. Also, you are not forced to associate with blacks. You just cannot exclude them from public facilities. If you do not want to associate with blacks in a public place then don’t. The government does not require you to have black friends.
    You are right the white southerners viewed blacks as property and inferior not equals. How is racial integration curtailing your rights? Our ancestors behaved the way they did because they believed other races to be inferior. They were not protecting your rights they were abusing other peoples rights in order to further their own personal agenda. It was about control. Power. Not individual rights.
    (3)Firstly, segregation emerged essentially about twelve years after the Civil War with the Compromise of 1877. In 1883, the US Supreme Court nullified the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which made illegal the exclusion of blacks from public facilities. Segregation was not established thirty years after the Civil War. So, an entire generation of southerners had not emerged completely ignorant of slavery. Nor had they had their fill with diversity. Well, maybe they had. That is something called the Myth of “Negro Rule”. Within a few years after the Civil War, white hostility to congressional Reconstruction began to dominate. Charging that the South had been turned over to ignorant blacks, conservatives deplored “black domination,” which became a rallying cry for a return to white supremacy. Such attacks were inflammatory propaganda, and part of the growing myth of “Negro Rule” which would serve as a central theme in battles over the memory of Reconstruction. Blacks were involved in politics but scarcely controlled the political arena. “They were a majority in only two out of ten state constitutional writing conventions (transplanted northerners were a majority in one). In the state legislatures, only in the lower house in South Carolina did blacks ever constitute a majority. Sixteen blacks won seats in Congress before Reconstruction was over, but none was ever elected governor. Only eighteen served in a high state office, such as lieutenant governor, treasurer, superintendent of education, or secretary of state. In all, some four hundred blacks served in political office during the Reconstruction era.” Reconstruction failed to alter the social construction of the South because white landowners dictated economic and political policy. Blacks could not effect considerable change without land ownership.
    I never said they wanted to bring back slavery. However, they would have if they could have. I stated, “southern whites wanted the condition of African-Americans to be nearest to slavery as possible. That condition was segregation.” I never said they wanted slavery, but the nearest condition to slavery.
    No, I have no desire to use the women’s bathroom. However, if the quality of the women’s bathroom were significantly greater than the quality of the men’s bathroom I would have a problem with that. Wouldn’t you? If the ‘equal but separate’ doctrine of the Jim Crow South were factual, then blacks would have had no desire to utilize or employ white public facilities. It was the differences in quality and availability that enraged blacks. The facilities were separate but not equal. That was the central dilemma of segregation for blacks.

    (4) For starters, the most intelligent man I have ever met was a black physicist. Yes. According to IQ tests, on average whites score higher than blacks and lower than Asian Americans. I do not dispute the findings that on average whites score higher on IQ tests than blacks. However, it has naught to do with race because the scores have considerable overlap. Blacks can be found at any point, highest to lowest, on the IQ test charts. Whites can be found at any point, highest to lowest, on the IQ test charts. Race does not matter. Whites score higher on average because most whites enjoy a higher standard of living than blacks. If the majority of blacks received the upbringing and education of current upper to middle class citizens, black or white, their IQ scores would be higher.
    (5) I have thoroughly discussed the topic of segregation vs. integration.
    People from every generation dating back to Mesopotamia claim the present generation is worse than their past generation or the present generation is declining. We, as humans, have a tendency to romanticize the past. The past was never as good as it seemed. Hell, they had WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, the Cold War, Vietnam, Civil Rights Movement, Feminist Movement, and the Korean War. I don’t see the appeal.
    It is nice to have a black president. The President is viewed as a liberal, but he is really more of a centrist. He has acquiesced too much to the Republicans and delivered too little to the Democrats. When you are traveling the center of the road it is hard to change or improve anything, especially in Washington.
    (6) I find SWPLs amusing.
    (7)Actually, numerous prominent black leaders and white liberals have denounced the use of the N word by any race especially African-Americans. However, blacks use the N word as a term of endearment. When whites use the N word in reference to blacks they mean to deride and belittle them. To clarify I have no problem with someone using the N word. Free speech, remember George Carlin’s bit about the N word. However, when the N word is directed at blacks it is offensive to blacks and me.
    Yes, Lil’ Wayne adds cultural value.
    Once again, the government does not mandate that you associate with blacks only that you do not exclude them from public facilities because of their race.
    (8)I apologize for the mistake. I am glad you believe the vast majority of blacks are not criminals.
    Again, blacks live in impoverished urban areas. Poverty creates, allows, and manufactures crime especially in urban areas. The reason black rappers continue with their gangster image is that the gangster image sells records.
    Next, if you present poor, unprepared 19 year old kids with millions of dollars of course some will make financial mistakes and end up bankrupt. The most integral period of a child’s life is the pre-adolescent stage. If we can properly educate and assist black kids at this stage I believe poverty and crime will be significantly reduced in the black community.
    (9)Yes, we have evolved since our exodus from Africa. My assertion was that all mankind has a common origin in Africa. All humans have a common origin not only in Africa, but the cosmos too. I find that understanding the origin of mankind can help break down racial barriers. That was my intent.
    Humanity may be splintering faster than ever (I disagree) but evolution is an event that requires hundreds of thousands of years to showcase the most minimal effects. We are going to be brothers for a long time.
    (10) You can prefer to live in a non-integrated, racially homogeneous society. It is just not realistic in the racially diverse South.
    (11) Racial demographics are changing. You are right the white population is slowly declining and the non-white population is increasing. It is just not at alarming rates in my opinion. That was my point.
    (12)I did not say equality assisted scientific and technological advancements. I said other than scientific and technological advancements the only reason Western culture could assert supremacy over non-Western cultures is its quest for equality.
    (13) I think you know secession is not a viable option. Are you really going to use nuclear weapons? Do you expect US troops to fight for the South? What military force would you use? The only chance of success would be a long exhaustive guerilla war. Secession is not plausible.
    (14)These are my convictions. I believe your implication is correct that my accusations, condemnations, and judgments of my ancestors, while accurate, “are a useless scholarly exercise in morality.” It is too late to “denounce my ancestors in absentia.” However, morally and ethically I cannot abide or agree with such ghastly behavior. Howard Zinn said it best, “[…] to deemphasize their genocide, is not a technical necessity but an ideological choice. It serves–unwittingly–to justify what was done.” If you want me to relinquish my US citizenship and property because of my ancestors deplorable and yet personally beneficial actions then you are going to be disappointed. I am a citizen of the most democratic and diverse nation in the world. It is a pleasure and privilege to live in America. However, I recognize the detestable actions of past Americans and revile them. As Albert Camus proposed, “It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of executioners.”
    (15)Obviously, the John Lennon quote was a little humor. Of course I do not think we should base a society on hippie love.
    (16)You must have forgotten. The Americans were the invaders not the Upper Creeks. The Americans were the ones intruding, at an ever-increasing rate, on the Creek lands. The Red Sticks or Upper Creeks did not declare war on America until 1813 btw. The declaration of war was not unprovoked, but an attempt to halt white settlers from encroaching even further on Creek lands.
    The Fort Mims Massacre was an atrocity of atrocities. Can’t argue there.
    I had no idea Andrew Jackson adopted a Creek Indian child. Even so, he still was heartless.
    (17)What does having lived in Virginia matter?
    You are right the English did not initially setup camp to attack Indians, but this how the events transpired.
    Jamestown was located inside of the Indian confederacy. Powhatan, chief of the Indian confederacy, watched the English settle on his land, but did not attack. In the winter of 1610 the English were in dire need of food, some settlers fled and joined the Indians so they could at least be fed. After the winter, the governor of the colony sent message that Powhatan return the runaways. Powhatan’s reply, “No.” English soldiers were sent to “punish Powhatan.” The English soldiers killed 15 or 16 Indians, burned the village, cut down the corn, took the queen of the tribe and her children into boats, then threw the children overboard and shot them to death. The queen was stabbed to death.
    Twelve years later, the English settlement was increasing in number and the Indians attempted a pre-emptive strike to exterminate the settlers. Can you blame them? The result was 347 English settlers dead. Then it was total war. However, within two or three years the English had avenged that day many times over. The strategy was the English would pretend to be peaceful and promise future cooperation with the Indian, but then right at harvest would attack them in the corn fields, killing all in sight and then burn the corn. Wow! What diplomacy!

  35. Sorry, I forgot to space the numbers before I posted. It may be a slightly difficult to read and respond.

  36. Persto,

    (1) You say that excluding blacks from public places is morally wrong. Why do you believe that?

    I can see how your opinion makes sense … if you accept the premise that White people exist to serve blacks, not for their own sake. If White people exist to serve blacks, then integration is reasonable.

    You can justify stripping White people of their freedom on that basis of that principle. Alternatively, if White people exist for their own sake, then they are under no moral obligation to uplift blacks by welcoming them into their institutions.

    Look at this way: should black people have the right to live in your house? If White people exist to serve blacks, why shouldn’t your house be their house too?

    It would immoral to exclude them from your private property. Likewise, it would be immoral not to tax you and redistribute your wealth to blacks.

    (2) So what?

    It is a crime to be an illegal alien in America, but there are over 10 million illegal aliens here now (60 percent of whom are on welfare in Texas) because the federal government unilaterally gets to pick and choose among which laws it wants to enforce.

    Barack Obama just unilaterally went to war with Libya. The U.S. Justice Department sued Arizona for defending itself from a foreign invasion. We already have a federal law that specifically outlaws the DREAM Act.

    The federal government doesn’t have the slightest intention of observing the Constitution or enforcing laws its doesn’t like. It cares more about illegal aliens than American citizens.

    Why should we care what the U.S. federal government says is unconstitutional? It has no legitimacy.

    (3) In theory, we live in a “free society.”

    In reality, the federal government tells us what to do on our own property. It tells us who we can and cannot associate with. The federal government now even has the authority to tell us what to believe.

    We don’t make our laws in this country anymore. They are made by lobbyists and powerful special interest groups at the expense of taxpayers.

    (4) We are forced to associate with blacks.

    Every restaurant and school in America is forced by the federal government to practice integration. You can’t sell your house to who you want to. You can’t even hire the people you want to without the permission of the federal government.

    The burden of proof is upon you to prove you are not discriminating against blacks. We now live in a society where Whites exist to serve blacks.

    (5) The whole purpose of “civil rights laws” is to take freedom away from White people and give it to unelected federal bureaucrats.

    (6) I see what you are saying here … black people have a “right” to a job at my business, a “right” to buy my house, a “right” to loiter, shuck, and jive on my property, a “right” to marry my daughter, a “right” to be subsidized by my tax dollars to promote various forms of liberal philanthropy, a “right” to live in my neighborhood, regardless of what I happen to think about it.

    Hmm … these “civil rights” for black people sound more like “duties” which the federal government unilaterally imposes upon me against my will.

    (7) That’s a good point.

    Who has the power? Who controls the money? Who makes the decisions here? Certainly not people like me.

    Federal bureaucrats have the power to make those decisions.

    (8) The Compromise of 1877 was not the beginning of Jim Crow. It was the withdrawal of federal troops from the South.

    (9) I have a personal hard copy edition of the “Jim Crow Encyclopedia” right here on my desk opened to page xviii of the Jim Crow timeline.

    The Jim Crow system was constructed in the years between 1890 and 1910 during a period which is called the “Nadir of the Negro.” A few isolated state laws were passed prior to Plessy v. Ferguson, but the Jim Crow system itself did not become widespread and institutionalized in the South until 1896.

    The Civil War ended in 1865.

    Like I said above, Jim Crow didn’t emerge in the South until thirty years after the Civil War. It was the work of a different generation of Southerners – a generation that had grown up and came of age in an integrated society.

  37. Brutus,

    Are you attempting to insult and ridicule me because I am educated, conveying a different perspective, or both?

  38. (10) Americans in the North and the South, including many former abolitionists like Charles Francis Adams, came to believe that Reconstruction had been a disaster and that the 14th Amendment was a huge mistake.

    In fact, that was the prevailing view in America right down until the aftermath of World War II.

    (11) There wasn’t any “myth of Negro rule.”

    Blacks held many elected offices during Reconstruction. They were a majority in several Southern states occupied by the Union Army. Louisiana had a black governor.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._B._S._Pinchback
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_officeholders_during_Reconstruction

    (12) Why do you suppose White Southerners opposed Reconstruction?

    Could it have had anything to do with the fact that the federal government abolished the states, carved them up into military districts, and appointed military dictators in place of popularly elected governors?

    (13) Blacks worked hand in glove with the carpetbaggers, scalawags, and the Union Army to pillage the South and bankrupt entire states in service to Northern railroad corporations. It took the South over a hundred years to recover from the damage inflicted upon the region during the Civil War and Reconstruction.

    (14) Blacks had a military tyranny on their side.

    (15) Whites wanted control of their own society. Segregation was nothing more than a means that Whites used to retain control of their own institutions.

    (16) Why shouldn’t public restrooms be desegregated? They are currently segregated on the basis of gender. Doesn’t this hideous discrimination completely handicap men in some critical way?

    (17) The differences in quality stem from the presence of blacks. Try using a public or private restroom in the South in an area where blacks are predominant. Then use a public restroom in an area where they are rare.

    (18) That makes no sense.

    Of course the scores overlap. Intelligence is distributed unequally within and between races. What you are saying here is exactly like saying that gender has nothing to do with height because some women are taller than men.

    (19) Granted, the same is true of men and women who are either extremely short or extremely tall, but men as a group are still taller than women, and that is due to heredity, not the environment.

    (20) If race doesn’t matter, why does the racial composition of every classroom in the United States and Canada (and every other country in the world) such a reliable predictor of average intelligence and educational accomplishment?

    For something that doesn’t matter, racial differences in intelligence seem incredibly stubborn and have a flawless track record of triumphing over government bureaucrats.

    (21) This is false.

    If that were true, then poor Whites and Asians would score less than wealthy and middle class blacks, but that is not what we see.

    (22) That was the discredited theory behind everything from integrated public schools to welfare to housing projects.

    Just change the environment of blacks. Give them money.

    Then the differences between Whites and blacks will disappear. Yet that is not what happened. Reality triumphed over social engineering every time.

  39. (23) The present generation had what is now called “The Lost Decade:” a period in which the richest people in our society grew fabulously richer, while the average American household went into debt, income inequality exploded, and wages stagnated.

    For the first time in American history, the average American believes their children will inherit a world that is worse than they inherited. That is unprecedented.

    (24) Why is it a good thing to have a black president?

    $3.70 dollar gas, doubling the national debt, the government takeover of healthcare, 9 percent unemployment, a whole new war in Libya.

    Is that what you call success? He looks like a failure to me.

    (25) There is little difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush on the real issues. He is just another puppet of the establishment.

    We have the same energy policy, the same trade policy, the same foreign policy, the same fiscal policies, the same immigration policy, and the same race policies that we had when George W. Bush was in office.

    Not one damn thing changed when Barack Obama became president.

    (25) Can Whites use “nigger” as a term of endearment? Why not? Blacks use the term “niggers” in both senses all the time. Ever watch Boyz in the Hood?

    (26) Lil’ Wayne adds cultural value? You are ashamed of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, but you think Lil’ Wayne has made a positive contribution to our civilization?

    (27) The government tells me what to do on my private property. It tells me what laws that people in my state are allowed to pass. It regulates everything from the water to free speech to what I can buy at the grocery store.

    That is not a free society.

    (28) If poverty is the cause of crime, why don’t black women who are equally poor, or elderly black people who are equally poor, commit violent crimes at the same rate as young black males?

    (29) Liberals have spent millions of dollars and decades on early intervention programs on the basis of that theory. They have done everything humanly possible to eliminate the hated racial gap in test scores.

    Of course they could simply accept the fact that Whites and Asians are smarter than blacks and that heredity explains the disparity. That would force them to repudiate their purely ideological conviction in racial equality.

    (30) No, it doesn’t.

    The domestication of animal species and resistance to antibiotics shows that evolution can occur in the blink of a historical eye. Think about it.

    The human species now has a global distribution. That means every climate on the face of earth is tugging at the genetic unity of the human species.

    (31) Bioethicists might disagree with that assessment.

    (32) Why isn’t that a realistic goal? We have ample precedent in American history for driving out non-Whites in the American south.

    (33) You don’t consider the collapse of the White population from 90 percent of America to 65 percent of America since the Baby Boomers graduated high school to be an alarming trend?

    (34) Why is the “quest for equality” indicative of superiority? I would argue that the Japanese are superior to the West in almost every way.

  40. (35) If Quebec can secede from Canada, why can’t Dixie secede from the United States? Puerto Rico is given the option of deciding whether it wants to join the Union.

    (36) The South could easily use nuclear blackmail to negotiate its independence should it be inclined to do so.

    (37) What genocide are you referring to?

    (38) That’s what I thought.

    The hideously immoral, evil White racists (not you, of course) created this country. You can’t abide such ghastly behavior, but like Howard Zinn you intend to personally reap every benefit of living within that society, and destroy what you inherited in order to promote a philanthropic vision of race relations which has no basis whatsoever in reality.

    (39) How so?

    What else are you promoting here except for a fuzzy, wuzzy version of kumbaya?

    (40) Yeah, I must have.

    Seeing how Americans were forbidden from settling in Creek territory under the existing treaties. The Red Sticks launched an unprovoked race war against Whites. Most of the Creeks didn’t even go along with their agenda. Many of them fought for Andrew Jackson.

    They started a war which they lost. That is why they lost their land.

    (41) I’ve been to that place. I know its history.

    (42) It was more like the Powhatans were a regional power that ruled over a loose confederation of tribes in the Virginia Tidewater through the use of brutal Stalinist tactics. They thought they could use the English to gain weapons which they could use to expand their dominion over tribes like the Monacans to the west in the Lynchburg area.

    Within days of establishing the Jamestown settlement, on an uninhabited landfill, which is still a swamp to this day, the local Indians attempted to exterminate the English. Later, they laid siege to Jamestown and attempted to starve out the colonists. They launched multiple assaults on the fort in an attempt to kill everyone there.

    This all culminated in 1622 when the Powhatans had spent years lulling the English into a false sense of security in order to launch a 9/11-style genocide attack (the Virginia equivalent of the Fort Mims Massacre) in which they tried to kill every English settler in Virginia. They succeeded in killing about 1/3rd of the colonists.

    It was really only after that baptism in fire that the English in Virginia finally gave up their dream of transforming Indians into Englishmen. They came up with a new practical strategy for dealing with Indians.

    The same was true of the Puritans in Massachusetts who thought they could turn Indians into Englishmen until King Phillip’s War. It took them decades to adapt to the reality of race relations in North America.

    The change in policy in both Virginia and Massachusetts was inspired by attempted genocides on the part of the Indians, not the other way around.

  41. Persto,

    I think Brutus is sick and tired of white people trying to defend black people by throwing other whites under the bus. Go sacrifice yourself – and your children – but leave us out of it.

    If you want to live among blacks and offer your goods to them as compensation for some cockeyed social outlook and/or for past “wrongs,” go right ahead. We are not interested. And, don’t expect us to make any more sacrifices for some delusional belief of yours. We will not stop you but don’t include us in your fantasy. You can bankroll your own dream. Turn down that next job offer and tell the employer you want them to fill it with a black. Only then would I take you seriously.

    Throughout time, humans have fought over land. Why is it that when whites fought indians for land — and won — it’s labelled “stealing.” Indians fought each other for the land. It is never referred to stealing in those situations.

    I also believe that constantly running to the defense of blacks is a form of supremacism. You believe blacks are incapable of being able to do anything for themselves without the assistance of whites. Like your reference to colonialism destroying the African way of life. How come Africans haven’t been able to lift themselves up now that the white man is gone. You always excuse black behavior and incompetence by shifting the blame to whites.

    Hunter,

    Indians didn’t have the concept of owning land.

  42. Terrific debate. I always thought OD was best when doing this kind of thing.

    As a Canadian I’m not familiar with a lot of this American history in the slightest, but I am enjoying learning more about it. White Canadians commonly get blamed for White American history involving slavery or wars against Amerindians even though we have no history of same, which should illustrate to any White person (or any person concerned about justice) how our supposed modern racial equality plays out in real life.

    Hunter, off topic but Joe Bageant died recently. He was the author of Deer Hunting with Jesus, a commentary on the White working class in the USA. I imagine he doesn’t fit in with your current conservative orientation but I recall your old posts where you were more sympathetic to an activist/semi-socialist government for White interests. Joe was pro-White, pro-labor, and anti-big business. Like the way that Democrats used to be. I wrote a post about him recently and thought you would be interested in writing about him as well.

  43. “Brutus,

    Are you attempting to insult and ridicule me because I am educated, conveying a different perspective, or both?”

    No, you are neither educated nor conveying a different perspective. Everyone under about 60 years of age has had the perspective you are conveying drilled into their heads since their school days. Everyone under 40 has been totally exposed to it since the cradle, every loudspeaker, so to speak, shouts out this perspective 24/7. To believe you are conveying a new or different perspective is the height of absurdity.

    I have yet to see any evidence of you being educated on any subject save English composition. To be sure you are quoting concise talking points that are found in numerous modern books widely available to the general public, but it is obvious you have no specialized knowledge or even general knowledge of the subjects you are discoursing on. Recently the cable networks reran the movie, “Good Will Hunting.” You are just like that character, except for possessing extraordinary genius in mathematics. You are precisely what the Robin Williams character stated about Will Hunting after their initial meeting ended so precariously. There is nothing you tell us that we cannot get out of any popular book. You can tell us all about the Sistine Chapel, but you have never been there and actually smelled the place. You can tell us all about love, but you have never been married. You can tell us all about war and causes worth dying for, but you have never held a friend’s head on your lap while he was gasping his last breath as the blood gushed out of him. Like Will Hunting, you tell us all about blacks, but it is obvious you don’t know much about them. You tell us all about the Indians, but it is obvious you know them not. You tell us all about crime and its causes, but it is obvious you have never known a criminal well. You tell us all about the 19th century South, but it is obvious you do not know the South or her people.

    I am bored reading your use of another much overworked cliche that must be a favorite device of idle white “thinkers” such as yourself. It is never a mechanic, a plumber, a soldier, a farmer, a retired school teacher or even an engineer or medical doctor, no, it is ALWAYS a physicist that white people like you know and who happens to be the most intelligent man or woman you have ever met. Now, I don’t blame you for picking that profession, I suppose it would be the first to enter my mind were I in a spot and needing anecdotal evidence. That is, it would have been the first to enter my mind at one time, but today I would most likely say a mathematician were I sharing your mentality. Though I would doubtless feel a little peevish when I reflected upon the fact that so few blacks enroll in even first semester calculus and know what a derivative is, or enroll in even a fist semester survey course in physics to study Newtonian Mechanics. And not a single black was in any of my own math and physics classes. Not one. But still, next time say he is a computer scientist or surgeon, will you? The black physicist bit is getting old. It seems every white Liberal has met and knows him. (But then, they also seem to personally know EVERY Mexican who has come across the border, and assure us all of their good character and intentions. Has anyone else noticed this extraordinary situation?)

    But I am not really ridiculing you, Presto. I am simply treating you just as I do a young relative who is a high school freshman and likes to tell me all about all the long hours he is planning on working in construction, or the coal mines, or pouring concrete in order to afford the nice pick up trucks he likes. His narratives are always long on talk of the cash he will have from working so much overtime at these jobs, and very short on any ideas about what it is actually like to put in a 1o or 12 hour day 6 or 7 days a week at one of these type jobs. I just smile and nod my head. I was once the same way, after all.

  44. I’m sure Persto is a good person.

    He has just been miseducated and places too much trust in authority. You can’t really blame someone for being a victim of our education system.

    The whole purpose of the American education system is to churn out deracinated, guilt ridden White people who don’t know the first thing about their own history.

Comments are closed.