Lawrence Auster writes:
“Fair points. I don’t know that Mr. Kersey has said what he thinks we should do about the problem (assuming liberalism didn’t stop us from doing them). I will direct your comment to him.”
To my knowledge, OD is the only racialist site in existence that has defined the problem in painstaking detail (see the many discussions about this in our archives) and consistently hammers away at the only solution to the problem:
(1) Is the problem simply that negroes are committing a lot of violent crime? No, OD is the only racialist website that defines black-on-white violent crime as a consequence of black freedom.
Blacks in prison aren’t committing crimes. Locking blacks up in prison has successfully reduced the crime rate by taking away black freedom. Whites are also able to reduce the threat posed by black-on-white crime by buying overpriced homes that blacks can’t afford and by relocating to sparsely populated rural areas which like the urban amenities that are attractive to black populations.
The explosion in black-on-white crime in free society was predicted by slaveowners and segregationists who were already familiar with racial crime and incarceration statistics when it was a regional problem peculiar to the Northeast and Midwest.
Black crime is the inevitable consequence of black freedom.
(2) Is the problem simply that Jews are using the blacks to destroy Whites?
Historically speaking, the coalition between DWLs and blacks goes back to the prewar abolitionist movement, when Northern reformers like William Lloyd Garrison forged the original alliance with free negroes like Frederick Douglass.
Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law in 1843. Starting in 1865, Massachusetts began to lead the nation at the state level by passing comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, or civil rights laws. Blacks were already voters in Massachusetts before the War Between the States.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was vetoed by Andrew Johnson, who was subsequently impeached by Black Republicans in Congress, was the first stab at federal civil rights legislation in American history.
The Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases in 1883, attempted to accomplish most of what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to do in the twentieth century. The Federal Elections Bill of 1890, which was defeated in the U.S. Senate, was the precursor of the Voting Rights Act.
In the twentieth century, Jewish influence had the effect of exacerbating a preexisting problem: Jews didn’t create the coalition between DWLs and blacks or even set its long term utopian goals of integration and eradicating racial prejudice.
In the late nineteenth century, the Jews came along like Hispanics and Asians would later do after the Immigration Act of 1965. They augmented the leftwing coalition with their wealth and media influence.
Jewish influence was more like, say, a necessary condition of the national triumph of the Left. Just like the rise of the mass media, the GI Bill and higher education, or Allied propaganda in the Second World War.
(3) Is the problem the demise of restrictive covenants? Is the problem, say, the entirety of the Civil Rights Movement?
No, restrictive covenants was just one of many “discriminatory barriers” to the advancement of black freedom and equality. The poll tax and the white primary were similarly struck down by the Supreme Court in order to advance Americanism, which is to say, the identification of America (and ultimately the whole world, as it is progressively infected by the disease) with liberalism and democracy.
What was the intention of outlawing restrictive covenants? The intended effect was to advance black freedom. The intended effect of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 was to advance black freedom. The intended effect of the Voting Rights Act was to advance black freedom and equality by giving them the right to bloc vote in democratic legislatures.
In the North, restrictive covenants coexisted with a society that had been committed at the state and federal level to the larger project of integration ever since Massachusetts passed the first civil rights law in 1865. Minnesota barred school segregation in 1877. Michigan banned public accommodations segregation in 1885. New York banned public school segregation in 1894.
The demise of restrictive covenants was just the fall of one more domino at the hands of the same constituency of liberal utopian reformers (like the progression of cancer, spreading throughout the body) that had already succeeded in abolishing slavery and repealing anti-miscegenation laws and banning every other form of segregation.
The move into prohibiting “housing discrimination” was natural and consistent with a society already on a trajectory toward supporting affirmative action and banning “disparate impact.” Just like the abolition of slavery, it was one more reform that was consciously implemented to advance the positive ideal of black freedom and equality:
The bottom line here is that there is a constituency in America with a peculiar vision of “Americanism,” which they define as the neverending ideological expansion of liberty, equality, and democracy, and the eradication of all barriers to these holy utopian ideals (racial, cultural, religious), whether foreign (Nazi Germany) or domestic (Confederacy), which has been driving America’s racial and culture decline ever since the abolitionist movement began in the 1830s, if not since the American Revolution began in the 1770s.
Who is this foe?
There is a long historical arc of racial and cultural decline that stretches from 1776 to 2012. It leapfrogs from one utopian reform to another without missing a beat: revolution to abolition to civil rights to women’s suffrage to world peace to feminism to gay marriage. The same people are usually involved in multiple liberal reform causes.
The instinctive goal of the revolutionary spirit is always to chew up and tear down traditions and established hierarchies, to “liberate” everything in its path, to “level” everything it finds, based on the assumption that nihilistic destruction of the existing social order is inherently good.
For some strange reason, each new utopian reform, each new degenerate movement to destroy the existing social order (whether it be revolution, abolition, civil rights, feminism, or fagging the military), is invariably launched into cultural orbit from the Northeast, and imposed on the holdouts in the rest of the country through the centralization of power in the federal government.
The Northeast never actually wins these cultural debates. Instead, it triumphs through imposing its ideal of Americanism on the rest of the country, usually through control of the centralized government in Washington. Then resistance collapses, submission and demoralization sets in, and we “move forward,” to whatever beckons as the cutting edge of degeneracy.
OD is the only racialist website which observes this broad historical pattern, recognizes its importance, draws attention to its existence, and recommends disrupting it through the dissolution of the Union.
If an international border was drawn across the Mason-Dixon line, the cycle would accelerate in the rump of the Union, as it once did during the War Between the States and Reconstruction, because the force that is driving the whole process is and always has been based in the Northeast, and the secession of the South would increase its relative power in Washington.
The dissolution of the Union would fatally weaken the influence of “Americanism” worldwide. It would change the whole international order by fatally undermining Washington in its own backyard.
Alternatively, the preservation of the Union will exacerbate the problem by flooding the recalcitrant areas in the South and West with non-White immigrants dependent on the welfare state, who will politically align themselves with the cultural arsonists in the Northeast, thereby weakening the already diminished and retreating forces of conservatism in the United States.
Dissolving the Union and repudiating Americanism along with its demographic base is the only way to put an end to these neverending cycles of liberal reform. Nothing else will suffice to arrest and reverse our decline.
Disunion is the solution.