Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:27 | #

Their insistence — the mainstream media’s insistence — on presenting constantly to the public an exact reversal of the real situation in regard to violent street crime (constantly showing it as something whites are doing to blacks) can only have been explicitly planned in back rooms and coordinated among the different editorial boards as a uniform policy.  That they’re all doing it simultaneously cannot be an accident.  The aim of the policy can only be to brainwash the broad public into accepting the necessity of race-replacement of the Euro peoples with non-Euros (to be achieved through indefinite continuation of the present régime of forcing excessive incompatible immigration, coupled with domestic laws, policies, rules and directives having the effect of subordinating whites and their interests to non-whites and theirs in myriad ways).  What else could be its aim?  Answer:  its aim can be nothing else.

This week’s required reading, for those who don’t know this foundational essay by Jim Kalb, is Anti-racism, whereof the following are some excerpts with relevance to the present log entry as it is seen from the viewpoint of my comments above:

Most members of our ruling elites are white, but they identify themselves by ideology and class rather than race, and their rejection of racial identification is fundamental to their claim to power. By attacking whites as a group they identify themselves with the principle of rule now ascendant. Whites are thus not immune to racial targeting. In the case of immigration and affirmative action governing elites routinely override lopsided popular majorities that would protect whites from adverse treatment as whites.

Indeed, anti-racism requires anti-majority racism. An anti-racist ruling class must treat the majority as presumptively wrong. “Ingrained social stereotypes” — the culture and habits of the majority — must be discredited because their dominance puts minorities at a disadvantage. Since habits and culture are what make a people what it is, the things that make the majority a people must be attacked; the majority must be defined as racist, and therefore evil and unfit to rule or even exist.[20] “Racist” has the same function today that “nigger” once did: it makes a man less than human and so unfit for self-government.

It was not logic or disinterested love of good things that led to [anti-racism’s position of unchallenged dominance today]. The considerations supporting anti-racism are far less compelling than those against, so its enormous social power must have other sources. Several are evident. To begin with crude considerations, anti-racism justifies the power of a new ruling class. Radical social reconstruction gives money, power and position to the politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, experts, educators, and media people who justify and enforce it. Those classes are the ones that most support anti-racism, and their control of public discussion has enabled them to impose on everyone the understanding of racial issues that serves their interests.

The new ruling class is aided by support from the direct beneficiaries of anti-racist measures, minority people who get entry to schools, jobs, and the like that would otherwise be out of their reach, and from non-minority people who feel at odds with settled traditional institutions. Other beneficiaries include adventurous and manipulative men who find their opportunities multiplying in an increasingly chaotic society attempting to order itself on abstract principles ordinary men find foreign.

Such crude explanations are helpful but not sufficient, because the failure of anti-racism would also be to the particular advantage of some men. Why is this ruling class and its clients the one that is winning? Beyond that, why is the moral authority of anti-racism so great? The pervasiveness of propaganda today, a result mostly of technological factors that favor centralization and make electronic media omnipresent, and the consequent power of the class that produces and distributes it is part of the answer, but not the whole.

Constructing a new order requires clearing away what already exists, and anti-racism attacks existing social arrangements. More particularly, the new order aspires to transform populations into easily manageable aggregations of human resources and purchasing power, without cohesion, complexity or non-economic interests that might complicate things for those in control. It therefore requires abolition of the social power of ethnicity. Big business, finance, academia and government, all strongly hierarchical, support anti-racism,[23] not because they love equality but because they want their own forms of inequality — financial, informational or bureaucratic — to prevail. Racial hierarchy must be abolished because function and hierarchy go together, and those now in power want to eliminate ethnicity as a competing power independent of bureaucracy and world markets.

[Footnote 13] The demands of multiculturalism are insatiable. Allowing white dominance in any setting would show that it is acceptable, so the world must be transformed so that whites nowhere dominate. Practical measures include legal rules that impose sanctions when a minority’s proportional presence falls below 4/5 that of whites, [...] and the requirement that depictions of the world emphasize nonwhites. Failure to violate traditional stereotypes is now thought shocking; Irish heritage festivals must feature black bagpipers. And since true multiculturalism cannot be achieved if representation of minorities only reaches their proportionate share of the population, abolition of the white majority in America through immigration has become settled government policy, permanently beyond popular revision.  [Emphasis added]

While anti-racism has triumphed with the support of social forces that seem irresistible, it will not last. It is flawed in principle, and to perfect it is to sharpen its contradictions to the point of incoherence. Some contradictions are obvious on the surface. Should a black person be treated as a black person or not? Both possibilities are thought racist. Other contradictions go deeper. The social rationalization of which anti-racism is a part destroys the prerational ties upon which social coherence and function depend. To weaken ethnicity degrades life by weakening the concrete obligations and common standards that order it. An anti-racist society, like any other, requires “racism”—coherent ethnicity—to function at all; its highest goal is therefore to destroy a principle necessary to its own existence.

To the extent anti-racism rests on rejection of the transcendent and therefore of stable classification it is part of a denial of the way things are, a denial that cannot attain even its own purposes and leads to personal and social catastrophe.[26] The modern frame of mind makes fruitful diversity impossible. Diversity that makes the world larger and more satisfying is diversity of things that truly differ from each other. It requires distinctiveness and stability, not constant change and blurring of lines.

At present the most important goal for those who oppose anti-racism is to raise consciousness. anti-racist opinion-makers dominate public discussion and suppress views at variance with their own to the degree that opposing views are difficult even to articulate.[29] Their power is greatly increased by the pervasiveness of the mass media, the role of experts in a technocracy, and the dependence of every man, in a society based on contract and bureaucracy, on public attitudes and understandings.

Anti-racism is nonetheless vulnerable because it depends on opinion, and it is weak on the merits. It will be vulnerable if confronted frequently and forcefully with argument. The relation of ethnicity to social order must be explained and awkward facts publicized. Views that lead to radical egalitarianism must be opposed, cultural traditionalism and acceptance of transcendence—the principle that we can never fully grasp the things we must rely on—promoted. Race must be put in perspective so that where it matters it can be treated as other things that matter are treated. The modern must be turned against the modern: since anti-racists dominate established media, their opponents must make use of new technologies that are less susceptible to central control, and since anti-racism is the status quo they must reach out to the young and disaffected.

A non-anti-racist society would therefore accept at least informal, limited and local ethnic hierarchy, and restrict immigration, especially of those whose ethnic background is radically different from that of dominant groups.

Bureaucratic centralization will have to decline radically and the importance of ties based on various forms of kinship grow.

By the way, here, from the same essay, is some additional explanation of how it’s been the British government who has created the chav phenomenon:

Because it is based on denial of truth anti-racism very quickly became the refuge of scoundrels, a stronghold of licensed abuse, bigotry and lies. The temptation to bad conduct seems irresistible. Martin Luther King’s plagarisms and infidelities are notorious. John Hope Franklin, a prominent black historian who was appointed by President Clinton to head his race initiative, invents racial grievances out of whole cloth, apparently habitually.[27] Examples could be multiplied indefinitely.[28] Anti-racism also fosters stupidity and brutality in social conditions. The disruption of community and tradition it necessitates destroys refined distinctions and complex modes of cooperation. In the absence of a coherent people free and responsible government becomes impossible and politics a matter of force, fraud, fanaticism and chaos.  [Emphasis added]

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:26 | #

Here‘s the home page of Jim Kalb’s web-site, Turnabout, and here‘s the blog.  (I add this because the URL I’ve always used to go to the Turnabout home page, http://www.jkalb.org , doesn’t seem to be working.)

Posted by Rnl on Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:03 | #

Fred Scrooby wrote:

Their insistence — the mainstream media’s insistence — on presenting constantly to the public an exact reversal of the real situation in regard to violent street crime (constantly showing it as something whites are doing to blacks) can only have been explicitly planned in back rooms and coordinated among the different editorial boards as a uniform policy.  That they’re all doing it simultaneously cannot be an accident.

I’m sure you’re wrong. No organized planning is required; only fear of transgressing the rules of racial correctness. Specifically, any mainstream journalist knows that the burden Black crime imposes on Whites is a forbidden subject, since it presupposes a White perspective from which Black crime could be perceived as a burden. You must first be a member of a group to be burdened by the misbehavior of another group, and the central rule of anti-racism is the absence of any legitimate White group identity. Whites do exist to be the targets of affirmative action preferences. We do exist as perpetrators of racial discrimination. We do exist as enemies of diversity throughout history. But we do not exist as a group with legitimate interests that we could pursue, such as the desire to live free from the burden of Black crime. 

I suspect the Telegraph cartoonist could have drawn a Black criminal attacking another Black. That would have been a strong image but still respectable, because it would suggest only that Blacks are hurt by Black crime, as of course they are. The threat Black criminality poses to other Blacks is a permissible subject in mainstream political discourse, though it must be handled with delicacy. The threat Black criminality poses to Whites is another matter entirely. It is unmistakably “racist,” and a cartoon image depicting it in a mainstream newspaper would encourage the idea that White group interests might someday intrude themselves into mainstream public discussion.

No journalist needs to be instructed in the rules, even if they are codified somewhere. He knows the subjects that are safe. He knows the subjects that are dangerous. And he knows the subjects that are impermissible. Any cartoon that introduced into mainstream political discourse the idea that Whites have legitimate group interests would be impermissible.

The Telegraph cartoonist chose the safer of the _two_ respectable choices that were available to him. He ended up with a ridiculous image of the racial demographics of crime, but that’s only because anti-racism has little or no contact with reality.

There was of course a third respectable choice: The cartoonist could have depicted a White criminal assailing another White. But that would have made crime appear colorless. Garland had to, as a gesture toward reality, put a Black _somewhere_ in his cartoon, indicating that the social problem he was representing had something to do with race. So he selected the safest image: He made the Black a victim of a White criminal.

Posted by Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report on Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:50 | #

No coordination required. The undisputable fact is that the vast majority of violent, non-domestic crime is black-on-black. For the most part, whites are indirect victims - for example, when they suffer financial loss by having to sell cheap in a neighborhood blighted by crime.

Nick Kasoff
http://www.thugreport.com

Posted by Englander on Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:52 | #

I’m not sure that the black void in the hood of the victim in that cartoon is supposed to represent a black face. It’s just a representation of the hooded youth.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:12 | #

I presume its also a take on the famous photo of the South Vietnamese police chief shooting a VC in the head.

Posted by Rnl on Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:19 | #

the vast majority of violent, non-domestic crime is black-on-black.

* “Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.”

But how can that be, when for years commentators of all political persuasions have insisted that the majority of the victims of black crime were themselves black? But it has been true for some time, because blacks increasingly target whites based on the color of the latter’s skin. The commentators have been guilty variously of lying and laziness.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/color.htm

***

the famous photo of the South Vietnamese police chief shooting a VC in the head.

The photo is here:
 
http://nerepublican.blogspot.com/2005/02/famous-photograph.html

that would also explain why the victim here is drawn with both hands behind his back

I assume the cartoon victim’s hands are behind his back to indicate that he is a passive victim of crime - i.e. not a criminal himself. He was just peacefully walking down the street when Violent Crime, in the form of an armed white criminal, attacked him.