But man doesn’t live on bread alone. Even if a free white farmer and a black slave had to work equally hard and ate the same kind of food and lived under similar conditions, the white man had the advantage of full legal rights and all the psychological benefits that came with it. While the law in Southern states made provisions for the well-being and decent treatment of black slaves, it was nothing like being free and being legally protected under the system of democratic government. Also, no man wants to feel himself to be the property of another man, at least in a world defined by concepts of liberty and freedom. To be sure, in certain societies, some people didn’t mind being the properties of the king, noblemen, or the state since they were raised to think and feel that way from cradle to grave. In Japan, elements of the lower castes were willing to give their lives for their masters and preferred death in the name of honor and loyalty(to their masters) than be free of their obligations. (Obligations and servitude, even if often unjust and harsh, at the very least provided the servants or slaves with a sense of purpose and meaning. It’s like dogs would rather serve a master than roam around freely. There is an element of dog-psychology in all humans. Indeed, when slaves are suddenly freed by their master, they might feel anxiety than liberation for they knew their lot under slavery but don’t know their future under freedom. This explains why a large segment of Russians longed for the old Stalinist days after the fall of communism and the economic devastation of the 1990s. At least things were steady in the good ole bad ole days. And Germans were all too willing to give up their freedoms to Hitler in exchange for security and stability. And even black slaves in America, when offered the chance of freedom and return trip to Africa, declined. They’d rather live under white folks than be free as an African savage. At least under white folks, you knew where the next meal was coming from, whereas in Africa, you might have to hunt a hippo that turn around and might bite your black ass in two, or worse, some black tribe might capture you and have you for dinner, especially if you were an albino.) And the Janissaries(enslaved boys from Christian families trained to fight for the Sultan) in the Ottoman Empire were raised to believe in the honor of serving their Muslim lord. They took pride in their roles as warrior-slaves against Christendom, the very realm into which they’d been born.
Even so, not all forms of slavery are the same. Some forms of slavery may take away your freedom and property but ‘spiritually’ make you feel empowered as a part of the collective. This was the appeal of communism. It took away individual property and freedom, but the people were made to feel as ‘comrades’ united in struggling for the common goal of creating a ‘better world’. In contrast, some forms of slavery are more nakedly honest, and perhaps the most extreme was Nazi slavery(of non-Germans) that made the slaves know that they were no better than cattle and would be treated as such. As Nazi ideology was rooted in biology than spirituality, Nazis didn’t care if non-Germans had souls or not. Germans were seen as the higher breed of pure wolves while certain other races were seen as inferiors breeds of dogs or mongrels.
The American South justified its slavery on loftier grounds, not least because the dominant cultural heritage even in the South was Christianity(even more so than democracy, which had been gained through independence from the British as the result of the efforts of mostly northern and mid-southern forces than deep southern ones; more key battles were fought in the north than in the south). Defenders of slavery argued that black Africans, being so wild and savage, needed to undergo a historical and cultural transformation so as to become worthy of living as free men alongside white folks. This line of argument believed that even though slavery would be wrong when applied to civilized white folks, it would do some good for Negroes who’d learn the virtues of hard work, discipline, order, organization, and obligations. (After all, before white folks gained freedom, they too had been civilized from brutality and barbarism through long yrs of iron discipline and servitude under kings and noblemen. In other words, there could be no short cut from barbarism or savagery to civilization. Spiritually, culturally, and perhaps even biologically, a people had to progress gradually from brutality — the world of black African savages — toward civilization where free men had rights. It took whites thousands of years to become civilized enough to be finally worthy of democracy and freedom, and so, it made no sense for blacks, the least civilized people in the world, to make a sudden jump from savagery to freedom. Ideally, they had to undergo the process of discipline, organization, thrift, and industriousness under the presumably benign guidance and management of white folks who’d made the arduous historical transformation earlier. So, if slavery was an evil when applied to civilized men, it could be a blessing, a helping hand, if applied to savages who had no concept of God and higher values. It’s like it’s wrong to treat an adult as a child, but it’s also wrong to treat a child as an adult. Of course, modern Americans scoff at views such as this when applied to Negroes, but the Liberal and even Conservative reluctance to pass proper judgment on bad black behavior suggests that there is a tendency to view Negroes as a bunch of children who simply cannot be judged like the rest of humanity. It’s like we shouldn’t expect Negroes to act like full-fledged adults since they are naturally ‘childlike’.) Thus, white Southerners rationalized black slavery as a kind of civilizing mission. The Negroes had to be fully tamed through the generations before they could rightfully claim equal freedom and full legal rights.
In any case, the Negro’s lot as a slave essentially depended on the moral character of his master. Was the master kindly and decent and did he take care of his slaves? Or was he mean and nasty and treat his slave like a dog and unduly call him ‘nigger’ too often? Of course, even the kindly master used cruel means to maintain order and discipline when Negroes rebelled or ran off. Even a kindly master may order a whipping to teach a lesson to the runaway slave, and other slaves would be made to watch the whipping as a lesson lest they too ‘get rabbit in their blood’. It’s like what the Strother Martin character says in COOL HAND LUKE. He can be a real good guy or a real mean son of a bitch. And of course, there were a whole bunch of masters who were neither too kindly or too mean but something in between.
Therefore, it’s difficult to defend slavery on the basis that some masters were indeed humane, relatively speaking. The fact remains that the slave’s condition depended on forces beyond his control and will. If a master was mean and nasty, he still had to work for that master. He couldn’t, like a free worker, just quit and go off to find another job. The slave was stuck in his place. Also, even if a master was nice and kindly, the slave had to always be mindful to be on his best behavior and act servile to ensure that the master will continue to treat him nice. So, when push came to shove, a slave under a good master was no freer than one under a bad one. So, at least from the moral perspective of our times, slavery cannot be defended on the basis that some masters were decent and good. At best, it can be argued that slavery in the Deep South was not uniformly the horror show that film-makers and others would like us to believe.
At the very least, we can all agree that the central fact of the SOCIALLY SANCTIONED SLAVERY in the American South was that the slave was at the mercy of the master. The master had to be good for the slave to lead a decent life since the slave lacked the freedom to make his own mind and decisions. And to that extent, American slavery was an unjust system — though much preferable to the kinds of slavery practiced by barbaric Asians, cruel Arabs, and savage black Africans, none of whom saw anything wrong with slavery(even of their own kind).
But the same kind of problem exists in the case of BIOLOGICAL SLAVERY. American Slavery in the South was a form of Social Slavery. White masters ruled over black slaves because whites were better armed, had the power of law on their side, and were better organized to maintain their form of power structure. Whites ruled over blacks not because they were tougher or naturally more dominant than blacks but because they’d created a mighty civilization that had given them a decisive advantage over the non-white parts of the world that lacked big ships, guns, factories, and the like.
Abolitionists demanded the ending of slavery on the religious/spiritual ground that all men of all races and colors were equally the children of God and imbued with souls equally dear to Him. Abolitionist, who were religious fanatics, didn’t care about biological factors or issues — and were even hostile to science. They thought in terms of God, God, and God, and they were certain that as long as all humans had souls equally loved by God, it was sinful for one group to enslave another group for whatever purpose or reason. Of course, not all Abolitionists were religious fanatics. Some came to support the Abolitionist Movement and sought to free the blacks, but they still believed in the inequality of races and wanted to keep blacks separate from whites. Abraham Lincoln was such a man. He wanted to free the slaves but also saw them as dangerous innate savages and wanted them shipped back to Africa or to relocated to some place in South America.
In the 20th century, many white liberals swallowed the notion that all races are the same except for skin color. The leftist Jewish takeover of anthropology had a deep impact on social thought. Also, WWII and the great crimes of Nazi radical racism cast a pall over the very notion of the science of races; the baby came to be thrown out with the bathwater. With the so-called ‘free world’ having defeated the oppressive systems of Fascism, Nazism, and Japanese militarism, Americans felt good about themselves as not only the proud defenders of but ardent crusaders for the land of freedom and equality. Also, the Cold War with Communism pressured the US to make social reforms, especially in the area of racial equality, so as to neutralize Soviet Union’s accusation of ‘racism’ as the defining characteristic of American capitalism/imperialism. For US to win over the hearts and minds of the Third World(the main battleground during the Cold War), it just wouldn’t do to have TV images of Bull Connors unleashing his dogs on Negroes beamed all over the world.
But as things turned out, the races were not equal, and the differences weren’t limited to skin color. In general, blacks are less intelligent than whites, though blacks have superior talents in certain mental areas, just as rhythmic patterns and making jazzy and funky music. Blacks also have more colorful ape-like charisma. Like a chimpanzee, blacks can talk and act in an amusingly brash manner that delights white folks to no end. It’s no wonder THE JEFFERSONS was one of the most popular shows of all time even though George Jefferson did little else but insult white folks by hollering at them like an intelligent ape. He was colorful. So was Eddie Murphy during his heyday. (In a way, whites have valued blacks as their darker id, the repressed animal nature that has no inhibitions about sex, aggression, dominance, and pleasure. So, white people sometimes let loose and try to dance like blacks, talk like blacks, gesticulate like blacks. The have sexual fantasies of having sex with blacks or even indulge in such acts. Jewish-controlled porn peddles such fantasies, and not surprisingly, much of porn since the late 90s involve black males and white females. It’s as if white girls want the singing voices of black females, as if white guys want the muscles and penises of black males, and as if white girls wanna be ravaged by the Negro stud. White boys wee in their pants in awe of feats by black athletes, and white girls cheer for black sports kings and put out to them after the games. Thus, part of the appeal of blackness is in the allure of animal amorality or even immorality. The natural black beast, like King Kong, breaks free of the shackles of civilization & its obligations and rampages around seeking total dominance for the sake of power and pleasure. It’s like the experiment in ALTERED STATES where William Hurt’s character reverts to a stronger and more aggressive form of early ape-man. It’s a gangster fantasy, which accounts for the popularity of the ‘gangsta’ image of so many black rappers, which white rappers try to ape with varying degrees of success. Thus, it’s rather ironic that so many white ‘progressives’ are upset with black attitudes against homosexuality. On the one hand, white ‘progressives’ take delight in the wild and unruly aggressiveness of black masterfulness that ruffles the feathers of white society — white ‘progressives’ credit wild black energies for having liberated repressed and dull white people from their old priggish and prissy ‘Victorian’ and ‘Puritanical’ hangups — , but on the other hand, white ‘progressives’ — who are ideologically neo-puritanical in their bent — are so very distressed and perturbed by the fact that so much of wild black energies are of a hostile, nasty, and vicious nature, especially against certain groups favored by ‘progressives’, such as homosexuals. But, this is rather like celebrating the glorious wild energies of a tiger or grizzly bear but then getting upset over the fact that they don’t make for good table manners. ‘Progressives’ want black to run wild and free but not punch out nice Liberals like Matthew Yglesias. They admire and cheer on blacks for singing and shouting whatever’s on their minds — or lack of them — without inhibition, but if the words coming out of the mouths happen to be ‘faggot’ or ‘Jew motherfuc*er’, ‘progressives’ get awful upset, which is rather like setting a wild dog loose to run around in a kitchen but then getting all miffed because it ate all the caviar. This is further complicated by the fact that ‘progressives’ subscribe to the notion that there’s no such thing as a race, which means there can be no racial differences; if that is really the case, why do ‘progressives’ worship blacks for being better athletes, having more powerful voices, being better dances, being more colorful personalities, and having bouncier butts on the women and bigger penises on the men? To confuse the matter even further, the appeal of black animality is intermixed with the notion of the Negro as the spiritual savior of white folks. This side of the myth would have us believe that blacks are so noble that they have no time or energy for sexual interests or violence. Even a mountain-sized Negro in GREEN MILE has no thoughts of vengeance, no thoughts of sex with white women — or any kind of women — , no desire to beat up white boys and fuc* them in the ass as so many powerful black males to do white men in America and South Africa. The ONLY thing the Noble Spiritual Magic Negro ever wants to do is to love and redeem mankind, and of course, MLK played this role to the hilt, though his closeted real nature was closer to King Kong, as his main passion away from the camera and microphone was to have endless orgies, drink like a fish, and cuss like Eddie Murphy. Western morality since the 1960s is utterly confused and unstable since its core myth tries to have the cake and eat it too, i.e. it would have us believe that the ‘Nigga’ as the amoral animalist fantasy of raw power and domination is compatible with the Magic Negro as the spiritual fantasy of higher truth and transcendence.) But when it comes to most areas of intelligence involving logical problem-solving, math, and reading, blacks have been proven to lag behind other races. To be sure, there are cultural factors to this, but if blacks were naturally smart like Jews, they would show more interest in brainy matters as smart people generally gravitate to things that challenge their minds, just like fast and strong people naturally gravitate toward athletic or physical pursuits. No amount of cultural upbringing is going to turn a dumb black woman into an intellectually curious person. Even Michelle Obama, who had the advantage of being admitted to Princeton and Harvard Law School via ‘affirmative action’ never had a single original thought in her entire life. She’s just a bundle of politically correct and Afro-centric cliches picked up from patronizing professors who passed and recommended her on the basis of race.
But all said and done, the most crucial factor that underlies the racial relationship between whites and blacks is not intelligence but physical-and-emotional differences. While it’s true that dumb people achieve considerably less and end up as economic burdens on society, they are not necessarily destroyers of civilization nor much of a threat to the smarter members of society purely on the basis of their lower IQ. Suppose most blacks had low IQs and were physically like Emanuel Lewis, the little Negro child star of WEBSTER. While a bunch of them might fail in school and live on welfare(and be something of an economic burden), would they pose a threat to the white race? Of course not. There are plenty of dumb ‘white trash’ folks, but the problems they cause to the general population is nothing like the damage done by blacks.
So, what is the crucial difference between whites and blacks? It’s about time that the White Right stopped beating around the bush. White Right always complains that the media — controlled by Jews and Liberals and cowardly Conservatives — don’t properly report black-on-white crime, but the White Right itself is too wussy to deal with the true nature of such violence, namely that blacks are physically stronger and tougher than whites(by a considerable margin) and emotionally more aggressive. Blacks are also naturally more psychopathic, i.e. lacking in qualities such as empathy, self-criticism, reflectiveness, conscience, and shame. And I suspect in due time, with advances in genetic research, all these observable facts will be proven with hard data, which may be why the forces of political correctness are currently working extra-hard to expose whites to such a heavy dosages of ‘white guilt’ radiation so as to render them defenseless against political correctness even with the emergence of scientific data proves that many blacks are unfit to live alongside whites — or, more accurately, whites are physically unfit to live safely alongside stronger and nastier blacks. White people will still go on weeping over sanctimonious MLK speeches even when the hard facts of biology demonstrate that whites would be much better off living separate from blacks.
Anyway, the problem with social slavery was that even though some white slave owners were decent and kindly men, the indisputable fact was that blacks lived at the mercy of white power. Blacks had to hope and pray that whites who had power over them were good because if they weren’t, blacks could be treated harshly, and worse, there wasn’t much they could do about it.
A similar problem hangs over white people living under the system of BIOLOGICAL SLAVERY. In an integrated neighborhood, whites might be left alone or treated kindly by decent blacks who are kindly and conscientious, and of course, such blacks exist just as there were decent white slave owners. But there are also nasty and brutal blacks who are lacking in conscience and any sense of remorse. (Worse, the ‘white guilt’ narrative that predominates in America imbues even horrible blacks who commit the worst kinds of crimes with a sense of righteousness, i.e. their violence against whites was just payback for what the ‘cracker honkeys’ had done to blacks in the past; and of course, films like TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE will only harden such perspectives, not least among violent black thugs.) Since blacks are generally stronger than whites, nearly all whites in an integrated community are biological slaves of blacks. Though whites have legal rights that protect them from bullying, intimidation, hostilities, and crime, the fact is there is no way a white person can effectively rely on the law all the time for protection from Negro bad behavior. For one thing, the cops have better things to do than to be protecting whites from every case of intimidation and bullying from blacks as the integrated community could be reeling from rapes, shootings, robberies, murders, and other kinds of mayhem. Also, even when the police arrive, it’s often too late as the thug took off already after brutalizing the white victim. Also, many whites are afraid to call the cops for fear of reprisals. If the cops arrest a certain Negro for having attacked you, his family members and friends might come after you and your family in ways big and small. So, even though the law and the police do exist to ensure equal protection for all citizens, the fact remains that in an integrated community, blacks will biologically rule over whites because the power of the law only goes so far in our lives. In schools, white guys who are attacked by blacks will also be unlikely to report the abuse since (1) little will be done about it as the bullies aren’t legally adults and will only be slapped on the wrist (2) white guy will be seen as a ‘pussyboy faggot’ for not fighting his fight and instead relying on school authorities and (3) the black attacker doesn’t care if he’s suspended since such types don’t give a crap about studying anyhow and (4) the black attacker will hurt the white kid even worse for having told on him. (There is also the problem of ‘micro-aggressions’ against whites. A black guy might ‘play’ with the white boy like a toy. He will do everything within the law to belittle, taunt, and humiliate the ‘white boy’ without throwing the first punch. Thus, he hasn’t violated any law. If the ‘white boy’ walks away, he’s been pussy-whipped. If he talks back and escalates the situation or, in a fit of uncontrollable white rage, throws the first punch, the black guy will be justified in whupping the white boy’s ass. There are psychological means by which tougher guys can mess with weaker guys, as in the scene in SHANE where Jack Palance’s character legally manipulates the ‘sodbuster’ to dig his own grave. He is ‘owned’ by Palance’s character. The oft-heard term among young people today is ‘own’, and Oprah’s channel has the same name. In an integrated neighborhood, blacks OWN whites physically and psychologically. Physically, blacks can beat up whites. Psychologically, blacks can mess with whites without whites doing anything about it out of fear. Also, blacks sexually own whites. If blacks have a thing for a certain white girl in school, they can make sure that white boys don’t go near her for if they do, they’ll get their asses kicked. And white girls often submit to such sexual ownership by blacks since women naturally want to be dominated and conquered by alpha males. The only chance for whites in such a situation is to study harder, make something of their lives, and move out of the neighborhood, but ‘affirmative action’ hampers the social progress of poor whites as it favors blacks and rich whites over poor whites; and even if they make it out of the troubled community, there are Section 8 programs to relocate lots of bad blacks to the very areas that whites fled to.) Of course, such white victims don’t have any defender in the Jew-run media that cackle with glee over black-on-white-gentile violence(Jews only care when blacks attack Jews) nor among white conservative elites who seem more eager to recruit more blacks to the GOP(as trophy Negroes that prove that Republicans aren’t ‘racist’) than to call attention to the problems of biological slavery suffered by so many whites who are stuck in integrated communities and OWNED by blacks.
Thus, under biological slavery, whites have a choice between decent black biological masters or nasty black biological masters. Either way, whites are under a form of slavery, a biological one at that, which is far worse than the social one, because, while social slavery can be ended by new legislation and social values, nothing will change the nature of biological slavery. It’s like no matter how many laws we pass and enforce, most sexual violence will be male on female since men are stronger than women. Thus, the sexual threat of violence is always male-on-female, and that makes women the biological slaves of men, and to this extent, feminists have a point. But what feminists overlook is that women have a natural attraction to the power of men. By their very nature, women want to be with strong men who can ‘own’ them emotionally and sexually, if not legally. This passion and desire make the unequal relationship between men and women not only tolerable but meaningful and blissful for both partners. Even if women want to be equal with men legally, they want to meet men who are stronger and more masterful. Even lesbians have an hierarchy of the alpha female and beta female. And this sexual attraction between unequal sexes is what ensures the survival of humanity. Without the unity of men and women, no race can survive.
In contrast, there is no need for one race to co-exist with another race to survive. Japan will be Japan even if not a single Negro sets foot on the island. Norway will continue to be Norway forever even if not a single Japanese or African sets foot on Norway. So, races don’t need one another. While all races have much to gain by learning from one another, trading with one another, and even mating with other races, no race needs to mix with other races in order to survive and thrive. And some races are bound to lose out if they mix with other races. Suppose we were to mix Russians with Vietnamese. Clearly, Russian men, being stronger and bigger, will win out over Vietnamese men. While Russian men will be taking lots of Vietnamese women, Vietnamese men will not only lose their own women to beefier and bigger Russian men but they won’t be getting much Russian poon either since Russian women will still prefer bigger and beefier Russian men to scrawny Vietnamese men. Of course, one could argue that Russians will lose out too. If a whole bunch of Russian men mix with Vietnamese women, their Russian-ness will become diluted in a genetic sea of yellowness.
Same goes for blacks and whites. Despite all the rosy and idealistic yammering of ‘thinkers’ on both the mainstream ‘left’ and mainstream ‘right’, the fact is racial integration between blacks and whites can only lead to the biological slavery of whites being OWNED by blacks. In schools all across the nation, the racial violence is overwhelmingly black on white. In prisons, black thugs rape white inmates in the ass. In sports, blacks dominate over white guys who are relegated to bench-warming status and to the humiliation of watching white blonde cheerleaders shaking their asses for black athletes who mostly clobber white guys. In streets, in buses, and other public places, blacks swagger around like they OWN the whole world while white boys are reduced into dickless wimps who are afraid of being knocked out by ‘teens’.
Sure, there are good, kindly, and decent blacks, but that means whites are at the mercy of blacks being nice to them. Since blacks are stronger than whites, blacks don’t have to worry about whether whites are nice to them or not. Even nasty white guys can easily be whupped by tougher blacks. So, blacks can rule over both nasty whites and nice whites, but whites, being weaker, cannot rule over blacks. Thus, whites have to hope and pray that blacks are nice than nasty. If a black guy is like Arthur Ashe, wonderful. But if he’s like Mike Tyson, it’s big doodoo.
Now, suppose whites were stronger than blacks, i.e. stronger than both nice Negroes like Ashe and nasty Negroes like Tyson. Whites need not worry since the nice Negro won’t mess with them and since, if the nasty Negro messes with them, they can whup his jigger-jiving ass.
But reality being what it is, whites are only okay with blacks when blacks are nice, whereas blacks are okay regardless of whether whites are nice or nasty. Nice whites won’t mess with Negroes and even nasty whites are too afraid of blacks to mess with them. Thus, blacks are the lions, the masters of the community, whereas whites are like the weaker hyenas who always have to be on the lookout for nasty lions. (Also, even nice Negroes will come to sexually own the white race since even nice Negro men will lust after white chicks no less than nasty Negroes; and since nice Negroes are tougher than white men, white women will go with nice Negroes. Whether white women go with nice Negroes or nasty Negroes, it’s a humiliating loss for white men. Similarly, regardless of whether Negresses slept white nice white masters or nasty white masters, it was a case of white social slavery owning and humiliating the pride of black males. Would it have been much of a consolation for black males in the Deep South during slavery if the nice white massuh than a nasty white massuh slept with their mother, wife, or daughter? Pathetically enough, a whole bunch of white guys welcome the union of nice Negroes and white girls. It’s as if they’re so afraid of the accusation of ‘racism’ that they wanna show "how far they’ve come in the goal of racial harmony", though, of course, this "racial harmony" is premised on stronger Negroes making their moves on white territory and owning white females sexually and owning white males psychologically. Of course, some white guys hope that by offering or surrendering their white women to nice Negroes, the latter will protect the whites from nasty Negroes. And indeed, the psycho-politics as to why so many whites voted for Obama owes to such an psychology. White folks OWE and black folks OWN.)
During the age of social slavery, all whites has legal and institutional advantage over all blacks. Even a poor white knew he was a free man and legally on equal footing with rich whites. He also knew he could never be a slave. But even relatively well-off blacks who were given decent tasks by their rich and kindly white slave masters knew that their welfare depended on the kindness and mercy of decent whites. If they were to fall into the hands of nasty whites, their rights could be stripped overnight and they could be reduced to being ‘cotton picking Negroes’ again.
So, if one thinks about it, the dynamics between social slavery and biological slavery is pretty much the same. The slave side depends on the good will of the master side. As long as whites live next to lots of blacks, their well-being depends on the decency of blacks since nasty blacks can push them around and beat them up real good. Also, even nice Negroes will come to OWN white women and wussify white males as beta-male second-raters in the sexual marketplace.
Thus, the ONLY WAY for white people to be free at last, free at last, and free at last is to invoke the necessity of RACIAL RIGHTS, i.e. all races have a right to live in peace and safety for the sake of their own self-preservation and posterity. Since integration with blacks leads whites being biologically OWNED by blacks, whites are being reduced to the status of the slave race under stronger blacks(and more intelligent Jews). For whites to be free and to determine their own future and fate, they need to break free from this biological bondage.
--------------------------
So much of PC idiocy is the product of a mono-moral narrative where one side was totally good and the other side was totally bad.
That is the template of how the US sees race relations.
Whites were totally bad, whereas non-whites, esp blacks, were totally good.
It’s a cartoon vision of history, and it mortally wounds white moral pride since NO JUSTIFICATION has been offered for the Segregationists. Thus, they had no reason but PURE EVIL in having opposed Martin L. King and Civil Rights Marches.
So, all the rightness and justification during the Civil Rights Era are placed with blacks & allies and NONE with whites who opposed the movement.
Now, if blacks were just whites with dark skin, the anti-segregationists would have been right, more or less. Why deny full rights to a people solely based on skin color?
But races do exist and racial differences are real and go beyond skin color. Whites southerners(and northerners too as it turned out) had good reasons to fear social equality with blacks since blacks are the superior race when it comes to physicality, aggression, thuggery, and etc. It’d be like integrating retrievers with pit bulls. Same species, but different races.
So, while the laws were legally unfair to blacks, getting rid of those laws would have been biologically unfair to whites. Blacks would act aggressively toward whites, and lots of whites would get hurt. White guys would lose male pride and see their women go with stronger Negroes. What humiliation, what shame. Interracism is ‘racism’ insofar as women go with men of another race on the premise that they are superior as men.
And even though white northerners mocked white southern 'bigots', the Liberals in NY an Chicago and Detroit and etc. all discovered the same truth. They too began to be terrorized by black thuggery and moved away from darkening areas. White flight was due to white fright of the stronger meaner more aggressive Negro.
So, a mono-moral narrative is bogus. We need a duo-moral narrative that tries to understand both sides. (We do such for Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East Conflict. We know Jews are oppressing Palestinians, but we also know that if angry Palestinians were given full equal rights, they will violently strike out at Jews whom they see as occupiers and imperialists. So, both sides have legitimate fears and rages. We don’t use mono-moral narrative on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.)
Now, the Civil Rights Movement was a compelling one for blacks. They had a right to be angry and demand justice.
BUT, justice for blacks could only lead to all sorts of problems of whites who were likely to be treated like Jerry Quarry at the fists of Ali and Frazier.
THAT side of history should be told as well. From a biological viewpoint, whites did have some compelling moral justifications for opposing racial integration and social equality.
And given what happened to NY and other cities due to rising black crime and thuggery, we’ve seen how White Liberals sneakily resorted to massive incarceration, gentrification, and stop and frisk to control blacks or push them out demographically. They talk of ‘racial justice’ but act in ways that increase haute-segregation for themselves. Notice how rich Lib cities just get whiter and more Jewish(and maybe more Asian).
Also, if Nixon used the Southern Strategy against Democrats in 68 and 72, Liberal elites used the Foreign Strategy. They used immigration to use yellows and browns as buffers between themselves and dangerous blacks. In other words, let yellows and browns get beat up by blacks instead.
And by filling the Democratic Party with more immigrants, the party became more viable in the long run because a Black Party is bound to fall to ruin like Detroit.
In contrast, a party where browns and yellows increasingly count more than blacks is viable for the white/Jewish/homo overlords of the Dem party.
Foreign Strategy vs Southern Strategy.
