Racial Victimology

Vic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

This page is supposed to be about race and racism; but, again, on yet another topic, groundwork must be laid by describing the dichotomy between Left and Right; between various forms of Marxism and our unique, American combination of capitalism and Democracy. I know it may seem that I’m harping on the topic, but this largely unspoken problem really does touch almost every aspect of our lives, and it colors almost all social discourse. Marxist “idealism” is nearly in the air we breath. American academia is almost solidly Marxist, and so are most American teachers. Most of us ordinary people are educated in it, consciously or otherwise, and we are daily steeped in it because of it’s overwhelming influence over the news media.

The claim that history is always written by the victors is a clear falsehood; the one with the typewriter and who is allowed to just type away writes history, and, in a free society, the one with the typewriter cannot be stopped, nor can he be made to be truthful and responsible. Though the last war, political campaign or argument might have been clearly lost by the Marxist side, that doesn’t matter, because, unless and until the Marxist side ultimately wins, the losing side will always be free to continue to live, to be free, to speak, and to write. And to write history. Paper will stand still for anything.

The current popular view of Left versus Right, for instance, incorrectly lays the blame for history’s largest and most flagrant, glaring and most frequent acts of racism, genocide, anti-Semitism, racial eugenics and so forth at the feet of the Right, when it clearly, perhaps totally, belongs at the feet of the Left. The fact that current disciples of Socialism don’t know that points out the fact today’s disciples of Socialism have never studied or read the masters of the subject. To most, Socialism is just another system, no better or worse than any other. Young Marxist idealists see the thing as a very simple case: Communism is the antidote or hero-to-the-rescue system opposing Fascism, which in their mind equals Totalitarianism. Simple as that.

Most modern American college students feel or sense that they want to associate with Socialism or be Socialists, but they don’t really know anything much about Socialism. They’ve been academically nursed on Socialism; they’ve been lead to Socialism, by the nose. In academia, Leftist ideas are in, particularly when they may be found under very trendy names such as anti anti-Communism.

Engles wrote in 1849 about a program of racial extermination; modern teachers, like newscasters, don’t like to talk openly about that today, because it’s a truth that needs to be properly “deconstructed” first so that it will not be taken literally or completely. But, although Socialists always avoid hard evidence, hard evidence still exists. Hitler’s Mein Kamph described Nazism (National Socialism) as deriving from Marxism. He stated in 1939 to Hermann Rauschning that all of National Socialism was based on Marx. Goebels wrote in 1941 about how, after the Nazi victory, “real” Nazi Socialism would replace Bolshevism in Russia. The Nazis felt that the Communists had Socialism all wrong, and were creating “herds” rather than “liberated workers” who would more reliably displace the rule of capital. This was public rhetoric only, of course; both Communists and Nazis employed slave labor. Both systems were totalitarian.

In the 1930s, genocide became an established practice and even a tradition of both dominant forms of Socialism. The Nazis used the Russian concentration camps as the model to emulate in making their own camps, which, of course, would be more efficient. In almost any war in history, atrocities will have occurred. But flat out concentrated and repeated genocide may only be found where authored by Socialists. And extreme racist ideas and views favoring genocide, anti-Semitism, clear racial favoritism, racial eugenics and ethnic cleansing and acts to purify or cleanse or restrict human blood lines or create a more “pure” species of man may be found solely among the writings of Socialists. I make no apologies to your professors. That’s the way it is. There is no non-Socialist tradition of genocide in Europe. Genocide is Socialist policy. And Communism equals Nazism equals Socialism equals Marxism equals Leftism. Study it. Try actually reading about it.

Old time Socialists scoffed at the timid and “soft” attitudes of those not ruthless enough to do the hard things necessary to work toward utopia, and utopia, to old-time Socialists, was strictly a white gentile atheist sort of thing. Millions of people have to die? Well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs; the ends justify the means. Modern Socialists avoid the subject, lie about it, trivialize it, or deconstruct it. In actual practice, all existing Socialist states are (or were) totalitarian dictatorships. They may have (or have had) some complexities and formalities and bureaucracies or councils or congresses attached to them, but make no mistake about it, the Fuhrer or the Premier or the General Secretary or whatever he chooses to call himself is in absolute command, always. That ceases to be true only when the nation begins to move away from Socialism.

In truth, Socialism is a sham. In actual practice a Socialist revolution is a purposeful destabilization and creation of turmoil, dissent and animosity, created for the sole purpose of giving an opportunity to someone who is not in power to get in power. The very ideas of Socialism do that very thing, by feeding the lowest instincts in men. These ideas are successful because they are seen not for what they are, but for what they are portrayed to be: lofty idealism regarding uplifting the lowly.

Now, America’s racial problems began long before Marx was even born, and it may be argued that they were imposed upon her against her will, as we shall see. You can go to the Church and Slavery page to see how the Roman Catholic Church responded to forced or captured or kidnapped slavery. A little history on the American slavery story may be in order before addressing contemporary problems between the races.

An indelible stain upon the honor of America, slavery, was first imposed upon the colonies by England. The first African slaves brought to Virginia (by the Dutch) in 1619 became indentured servants, little different than white indentured servants from Europe who were common at the time, and were released as free men after, most usually, seven years of bondage. Nevertheless, moral questions were immediately raised regarding the fact that the African slaves were brought here against their will; they were not willing servants. Those colonies which passed laws to prevent or outlaw this “unjust” slavery promptly had their own laws nullified by the British government. Which is an interesting point, because, later, in the pre-revolution debates and arguments, England would be first to free her black slaves, and then accuse the Colonies of preaching freedom while driving slaves.

This first delivery of slaves presented a terrible moral, social and economic wedge issue, dividing people right off the bat. Although it was clearly wrong, it was made legal. Which raised questions in many minds regarding how a thing that was immoral could be made legal. Whenever something like that is made legal, someone is going to take advantage of it. So, right up front, farmers, millers, smiths . . . anyone who could produce a product or a service cheaper with a servant, if the price was right, than without one, stood eyeball-to-eyeball with their competitors, seeing who would blink first. If a man could buy two or three or ten black slaves for the price of one European indentured servant, he might be able to drive his competitors out of the market.

This was the beginning point of slavery in America. It should be taught and held up as a lesson that a little immorality always, always leads to more. In more ways than one. Eventually, many slave owners became virtual economic addicts of slavery. It got to a point where if they sold or freed their slaves, the result would be instant personal impoverishment. It began to be seen as impossible, short of everyone giving up their slaves all at once, so that no one suffered economic disadvantage. And that was something that nothing short of a war could get everyone to do.

Some time during the 1640s black slaves no longer came with indenture-period contracts, although many whose assumed period expired continued to be freed. As late as 1651 some blacks whose period of indenture expired were still being assigned land for themselves.

Then in 1661 the first explicit law was passed condemning black slaves to a perpetual condition of bondage, even extending unto future offspring. This was too much for the social conscience of many Quakers and other religious groups, and the smoldering embers of abolition began to glow white hot. By 1700 most Quakers had freed their slaves, abolition societies were increasingly petitioning their governments for new emancipation laws and politicians were speaking out against the horrors of the slave trade. Even though slavery (in other forms) had existed for thousands of years, and continued to exist in virtually every part of the world (and still does; the current Moslem price for a black slave in Sudan is $15,) the issue involving free people being forced into slavery raised heated debates that kept the political controversy alive throughout the entire history of slavery in the United States. As time went on, there were increasing economic, social and military issues under debate; but the main moral issues overpowered and dramatically affected all other issues.

The basic moral problem was not only that black slaves would never be free and were condemned to a hopeless life, but more importantly, that black slaves were the first, and only, people brought to America against their will, by force. This simple fact could not be denied, altered, softened or brushed aside.

The other burning moral issue was that the very existence and legality of forced slavery allowed immoral men to purchase or obtain slaves for immoral purposes.

The social and military issues pertained to the problems attendant to the existence of a large and growing population of racially distinct people carried off and held in fierce bondage against their will.

Many saw this as a social powder keg which would sooner or later result in bloodshed on a massive scale; many argued not only for abolition, but to return the blacks to Africa. Opponents of abolition pointed to the fundamental right of men to own property, and questioned the authority under which any man or group of men could force another to divest himself of his slaves, which were his private property. Others argued that blacks were, if not sub-human, then certainly inferior to other humans, and probably incapable of handling the responsibilities of freedom anyway. Once a man moves down the immoral slope, he often seeks immoral means to justify and maintain his immoral direction. This includes lies, making things up, and just uncritically accepting any argument that supports the immorality in question.

Since neither the moralists nor the slavers would be swayed, the topic continued to heat up.

Slavery had increased so rapidly over such a short time that it had a very serious effect on the economy. All an owner had to do to employ his slaves was to feed, clothe and shelter them - tasks which, it soon became apparent, the slaves could very well do for themselves. If a farmer worked his slaves past the time of any real or assumed period of indenture, or until his investment was returned to him, then he could sell his produce at a far lower price than could any competing farmer who did not employ slaves.

In the long term, his slaves reproduced themselves, giving him more generations of slaves long after his initial investment was forgotten. He could thereby eventually profit enough to not only buy the lands of his now poorer neighbor farmers, but he could buy more slaves and continue the process on a larger scale. For obvious reasons, this economic reality increased the attraction of employing slaves, as it did the demand and the price for slaves throughout the period of slavery.

As it became increasingly difficult for non-slave farms and industries to compete in the open market, slavery became ever more tightly interwoven into the economic fabric of the colonies, and increasing anti-black racism began to establish itself as an actual component of the national character. Immorality must find an excuse, however feeble, to justify itself in the eyes of men. Better to harp on mythology, fanciful imaginations and feed fear than to objectively look at the subject too closely. But purchasing, and even actually, actively breeding human beings made in the image of God for the sole purposes of producing slave labor could never be seen by thinking men, or by all men, as anything other than purely evil.

Many slave owners had acquired their slaves not by purchase, but by other means, such as inheritance, or marriage (men acquired the property of their wives upon marriage.) However their slaves were acquired, for many people, setting their slaves free would mean complete financial ruin; for most, the prospect of poverty, as a simple matter of practicality, overrode any existing feelings of guilt or shame over the immorality of it. Thus, in the history of the period, we find the very interesting dichotomy of slave owning proponents of human freedom. The greatest difficulty facing moral men who owned slaves was how to become financially independent of them; obviously, most were not moral enough to suffer economically over the issue. The economic realities of the era increasingly made voluntary abolition economically impossible for many families, and for many areas, and for many industries.

The moral issues heated up, kept the debate alive, and eventually won. Open criticism of the chief spokesmen for liberty stung the founding fathers. Samuel Johnson, an English opponent of American independence asked “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?” Slave owning compromised the defense of American rights, and the principle of liberty itself. As war commenced with England, slavery was declared to be a dangerous contradiction to the revolution, and abolition was publicly advocated by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry, John Adams Albert Gallatin, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and many other august figures.

Jefferson condemned slavery in a passage which was very narrowly deleted from the Declaration of Independence; had it passed, all competitors in the free market place would have lost their slaves simultaneously, perhaps avoiding or lessening the risk of economic ruin.

There was another opportunity in the Constitution to be ratified. The southern block of delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, however, was powerful enough to be capable of destroying the proceedings by simply walking out. The founding fathers, both federalist and anti federalist, were above all nationalists, and felt that secession was to be avoided at all costs. Further, the very basic issue of the sanctity of private property made emancipation by government edict as repugnant to them in theory as it was impossible in practice. As a result of these factors as well as spreading and increasing racism, protection for the planters rather than emancipation was incorporated into the Constitution; it clearly sanctioned slave ownership; and it contained so many sectional compromises as to appear vague and ambiguous in many areas.

The invention of the cotton gin by Elli Whitney in 1793 made cotton “King”, and transformed the South into a world economic power, and the problem of slavery became much more localized. The North had been freeing slaves for years, and threatened future local emancipation laws had caused many Northerners either to free the remainder or to sell them in the South. Southern plantations boomed, and the planters bought more slaves and become more opposed to emancipation as they gathered wealth. The planters had actually become a distinct aristocratic class, as in a status society. But the two distinct classes, planters and slaves, were not rigid, as under feudalism; planters occasionally lost their status by poor management or fortune, and many slaves continually found new ways to get themselves free.

“Free men of color” had been living among whites from earliest slavery times, in some areas some of these free men of color owned black slaves; a few, notably Creoles, became planters and aristocrats. By 1811, slavery was all but abolished in the North, and seemingly permanently entrenched in the South, as the issue inexorably heated up. By the 1840s the South had become the most formidable economic power in the Western world, due entirely to cotton and slavery. As a result, the federal government had evolved into a defender of slaveholder’s interests in both domestic and international affairs. But the hot national moral debate about slavery eventually created an irreconcilable split between North and South; increasing abolitionist activities, including violence, and the election of anti slavery candidate Abraham Lincoln, and Lincoln’s own inevitable and relentless personal philosophical change from a more secular man to a more spiritually oriented one, induced the South to secede from the Union and to form the Confederate States of America.

The Civil War, from 1861 to 1865, and the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 finally settled the matter once and for all - slavery was outlawed, and the nation was forcibly reunited. The South was devastated, the planter class was destroyed, and much of the Southern aristocracy was reduced to abject poverty. Blacks still had very serious problems ahead of them, but American slavery was dead forever.

Post Slavery.

Post emancipation, there are epic tales of male and female ex-slaves spending entire lifetimes relentlessly wandering and searching America for lost husbands, wives, children, parents, siblings and so forth, having been separated by being sold apart. The notion that blacks might be inherently non-family oriented is quite false. Many of the predominantly animist pro-family traditions and taboos from Africa were even stronger than Western Culture variants. It was long known by slave owners that if a male slave sexually abused a child, whether his own or not, that the owner would have to sell him far away from his fellow slaves, because they might kill him for it.

The Post-slavery post-war period was a time of social upheaval, danger and opportunity. The newly impoverished Planter Class was forced to compete with former slaves in the job market, at the lowest levels, in the fields, and in all of the skilled trades. Altruistic support your local white workers ideals ran up against the hard reality of economics. People simply could not afford to pay multiple dollars to a newly skilled white wheelwright for a new wagon wheel, for instance, when they could get an equally good wagon wheel for one or even less than one dollar from a heavily experienced black wheelwright. Economic reality trumped racial preferences.

The infamous Jim Crow laws were passed for this very reason; to guarantee business to white artisans, tradesmen and merchants. And, Jim Crow laws were ultimately defeated by hard, cold, economic reality. Whites regularly violated to law, by dark of night if necessary, to get the goods and services they needed for life at the lowest prices available. Destitution being common on both sides of the color line, criminal elements predictably arose on both sides of the color line. White gangs, including the infamous Klan, arose and sought to intimidate blacks, teach them “their place” and terrorize them into not competing in the open market place. (You can see more about the birth of the Klan in the National Existence page.)

If American racism got it’s first big boost from whites seeking moral grounds on which to justify forced slavery, it got an even bigger boost during this period, by whites seeking moral grounds on which to justify terror, murder and atrocity. The very pretence that the actions and goals of the KKK were in any way Christian was an abomination and a sacrilege on its face. These were the fathers and founders of a whole class or category of mostly Southern Americans known for many generations as White Trash. Raised on racial hatred, devoid of morals or scruples regarding non-white humans, the lack of decent conscience and guiding ethos inevitably crept into all other areas of their social behavior.

Despite the efforts of the racists, blacks continued to make progress in assimilating into American culture. Their talents were widely recognized by normal whites in many areas, but perhaps most particularly in music. White audiences took a lot longer to recognize black talent than did white musicians. Yet even audiences were positively moved on hearing black musicians when they couldn’t see their faces, and eventually major contributions were made to music by blacks, and black musicians advanced the image of the human normalcy of blacks in general. Probably the most significant advances came during the Eisenhower Presidency with the end of forced racial segregation. The law appealed directly to the Judeo-Christian ethos of the overwhelming majority, and it struck a positive chord.

The Sixties: Black Progress Ends and Black Regression Begins.

The great social revolution of the sixties carried with it the new “felt need” of many whites to “prove” their racial tolerance and non-racism. Dr. King’s Dream speech did much to instill a sense of collective guilt in the white conscience. These emotions and re-discovered moral grounds met head-on with the most determined racist forces still alive, and there was bloodshed in the streets. Juxtaposed against white racists was something entirely new: black racists, who were just as open about their racism as their white counterparts.

Neosocialism got it’s first really big boost during Johnson’s “Great Society” years. Much more civil rights law was passed under Johnson’s Great Society, as was more government programs, and black progress, and economic progress, suffered mightily as a direct result. Until then, black progress toward normalization and assimilation into the larger society had progressed at the same pace as that of every other ethnic minority ever introduced into America. As a direct result of sixties government programs, black progress first slowed, then stopped, then reversed, and has not stopped regressing since. Not due to prejudice or racism, which of course exists, but due to back-fired direct government action, and grandiose liberal social plans that always produce something near the opposite of that which is planned.

The most marked and measurable retrogression during this time was in the increase in female-headed one-parent families, which were rare in earlier times, almost unheard of during slavery, yet common and growing from then to today. The breakdown of the black family was an actual precursor to the breakdown of the American family. It all started in the sixties. Note well that the family is the primal social unit; as the family goes, so goes the larger culture.

There is one effect that is even worse for America than the regressing poor black condition: many native born American blacks were and are so alienated that they were and are forming a completely separate nation within a nation, fiercely resistant to assimilation into the larger culture. Every other ethnic group that ever came to America has faced prejudice from the larger population, gradually overcome it (although never totally so,) improved their condition, and gained acceptance. This historic and ongoing process includes immigrant blacks from Haiti, Africa and other places, who come here poor, and in one or two generations, sometimes in the same generation, make themselves obviously successful and accepted members of society. But the new situation for so many native American blacks is, in part, a reversal. A significant fraction of the population of blacks of American slave ancestry is now deeply and increasingly prejudiced against the larger American society, and determined to remain not only apart from it, but at odds with it.

Leftism, i.e., Marxism, seeks to feed this animosity; Marxism never prospers more than when there is a “class” of people who see themselves as downtrodden and disenfranchised. Leftist white politicians and black opportunists colluded, knowingly or otherwise, to establish and strengthen political support for racial “equality”, “inclusiveness” and “tolerance”, and a new and powerful political platform was born. It would soon include every other identifiable “alienated” minority, from the homeless, to migrant workers, to homosexuals, to atheists, and to unwed mothers, hoping eventually to make a majority out of many minorities. In opposing Capitalism, and therefore private property and private business, this movement had earier sought and won approval of big labor, and falsely portrayed itself as the champion of the working man.

Chief among the black “leaders” to capitalize on this situation was Jesse Jackson and his “Rainbow Coalition.” He developed unique new forms of high-visibility political and economic social extortion in getting big, public apologies accompanied by very large monetary “contributions” to his cause, in exchange for calling off demonstrations, boycotts and bad publicity. Lots of other black “leaders” jumped on this lucrative, very high profit bandwagon. Today, publicly capitalizing on white guilt in this manner is a virtual career path if not profession for high visibility black “leaders”.

Today, the lofty level of liberal elitist conceit, arrogance and condescending racism is incredible. The topic of forced racial quota systems, under the liberal label “affirmative action,” quickly exposes liberals as the worst imaginable form of racial supremacists. Their twin racist assumptions are

1. that every single black American, regardless of personal advantages or the lack thereof, regardless of talent, IQ, family, environment, education, wealth, achievements, experience, honor, or any other factor, is not capable of getting ahead and couldn’t possibly do it without the magnanimous and heroic direct intervention of the vastly superior, paternalistic and condescending white liberal Sugar Daddies; and
2. that every single white American, regardless of personal advantages or the lack thereof, regardless of talent, IQ, family, environment, education, wealth, achievements, experience, honor, or any other factor, is somehow privileged, and an exploiter of blacks, and therefore, if he had any sense of decency at all, should be proud and happy to step aside and let his family go hungry so that lots of blacks, whether truly disadvantaged or not, whether better qualified or not, can move ahead in this cruel, unfair, racist country.

By this same convoluted logic or racist conviction, take your pick, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Colin Powell and Bill Cosby - all of whom are black, all of whom I admire and hold in high regard, and none of whom have ever even heard of me - are deemed disadvantaged when compared to me, and I am privileged, when compared to them, simply because I’m white and they’re black. If we all applied for the same job, mopping floors, and their only reason for applying was to pick up a little pocket change while training for the big, televised, Gala Celebrity Mop-Offs, and I had 15 years of progressive experience at the job and a PhD in moppology, and was broke, homeless, naked, freezing and starving, I would still finish dead last in the competition, because I’m so advantaged.

Yeah, right. Give me a break.

To oppose affirmative action is to expose oneself as a closet racist; to actually say the forbidden word “quota” is to brand oneself an outright racist, and another heretic ready for the rhetorical fires of liberalism. Yet, the truth still is available for those still capable of doing good critical thinking.

The dictionary definition of racism has been co-opted by a newer legalistic one, which survives and even thrives because of the smoothness of the lie and the support of the Lefties. The newer usage indicates that whites have a sort of patent or a copyright on racism, and thus only whites can be racist. All so-called affirmative action racial preference programs are designed to undo some previous racist results, and therefore are not really racist; see? Laws, regulations and private industry programs under the title of Equal Opportunity represent perfect illustrations of this. They are a lie even in their name. There is nothing equal about any opportunity involved. Equal Opportunity is a racist program that operates to the detriment of the white race, pure and simple. It pretends to operate against prior racist effects, but it actually operates against people who never owned slaves, even whose ancestors never owned slaves, in preference of people who never were slaves, and even whose ancestors never were slaves. Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action programs will always enjoy the near unanimous support of helpless little dependents looking for a handout. And America's Lefties will always work to keep America's blacks seeing themselves as helpless little dependents, who just couldn't make it in this evil country without regular handouts.

Racism is, definitively, a belief in the superiority of a race, or a prejudice based on this belief, or antagonism shown solely to a race. All of us would immediately recognize detrimental treatment of someone based solely upon the color of his skin as a form of racism. And yet, so-called Affirmative Action is a program intended to grant favoritism to members of a race based solely upon being members of that race. I submit that it is not possible to grant favorable treatment to someone based solely upon race without simultaneously giving detrimental treatment to someone else based solely upon his race. Detrimental treatment of someone based solely upon his race is, definitively, racist. Affirmative Action is therefore racist.

There’s nothing complicated about any of this. It takes a little more thinking to understand the underlying reasons why across-the-board black assimilation ended in the sixties, and a major fraction of our black race began the social regression that continues today. Free people can be morally persuaded to embrace racial equality concepts, but they cannot be forced to accept anything. Yet, Leftist-Marxists, true to their nature, literally seek to force people into boxes while promoting social discord. In the Leftist view, alienation is good. It gives politicians the opportunity to play super-hero-to-the-rescue.

Black “progress” among America’s alienated blacks will not get back on track in a big way until the black family begins to get back on track. When responsible fatherhood and traditional family values are seen to be more “cool” to the ghetto kid than pimping, gang-banging and styling, and when lifelong fidelity to one woman is seen to be of higher value than the Super-Fly image, real black manhood will begin to return to the American scene. Until that happens, I’m afraid that a major part of American black men will merely be caricatures of manhood, play-acting at being real men, going through life imitating their own warped and twisted vision of what a real man is supposed to be.

Many of them have been turned into super-sensitive little wimps on the inside, even when big and strong on the outside. It’s a phenomenon publicly demonstrated almost daily. Just let one of the super delicate, oh, so fragile little dears just hear the word (shudder!) nigger, for instance. Oh, the calamity of it! The responses are so predictable, so repeatedly heard as to make one wonder if they are not actually scripted somewhere. I wonder if they’ve learned these responses in some college course.

The opening response will be something like How dare you, followed closely by As a black male, I am deeply offended by your remarks, and then maybe another How dare you?, and maybe an I am personally insulted!, and maybe a closing with an I demand an immediate apology! delivered with a stern look, arms folded, and a hot, glaring countenance. To which the offender is supposed to publicly wilt, beg, and perhaps openly weep in a demonstration of contrition. But no rhetorical mercy will be shown; after all, poor, super delicate little feelings have been hurt here.

In point of fact, in a rule invented and enforced by the SLIMC, you can’t even say the word nigger today without potentially being charged with a hate crime or suffering something even worse. You have to say ”The N Word” instead, because otherwise, you might hurt the delicate little feelings of someone somewhere, and, Heavens to Betsey, we can’t have that. Some poor little dear might never recover from it.

This over sensitivity has even got to the point of censoring or “burning” such English language classics as Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, written by an author with no racial animosity, using English language that was in absolutely common usage everywhere, and in an era when “The N-Word” was not even a pejorative term, in any context, when used by anyone, in any usage at all. Today’s English majors are not as well educated as they were back then. Or, they are moral wimps, afraid to speak up about it.

Out here in the suburbs, where most of us live, and in rural areas of America, with some exceptions, it may be generally said that blacks live lives much the same as all the rest of us. They live in families, and they live apparently typical family lives. Seemingly as the black population concentration gets heavier, moving into the cities, you find more and more of what’s described above. The fact that they represent an easily identifiable voting block, and that they quite consistently vote Democratic, says a lot about them. They almost vote on queue, based on support or opposition of issues or candidates dictated by their recognized public black “leadership.” Voting as a racial block is even more important to them than moral issues, which says a lot. Many if not most of their “leaders” claim to be Christian ministers.

Black political blocks of votes have elected disgraced and criminal candidates in cities such as Washington DC, showing that morality is trumped by a feeling of solidarity with the rest of the black political voting block, over and over again. Just like with a lot of Liberal whites, it shows how people who call themselves Christian can vote in people who champion abortion and homosexual marriage, who oppose public Christian religious exercise, and so forth.

The Democratic Party, the ACLU, the SLIMC and the courts will pounce unmercifully on any Republican candidate with the unmitigated gall to electioneer inside a Catholic or other Church, or any Priest or Minister who endorses any Republican issue or candidate from the pulpit. Not so with the black voting block. Democrats are regularly invited to black Churches for virtual political rallies, and black preachers regularly endorse Democratic issues and candidates from the pulpit. Only black America is granted the free and open practice of religion, completely unfettered by government edict and IRS rules. Religious freedom is granted solely to black America. It’s a racial thing.

Underlying it all is, of course, the purely racial government hand-out. It keeps blacks dependent upon their Democratic Party white sugar-daddies. So long as significant numbers of American blacks see more value in receiving government entitlements than in the possibility of earning a truly decent living, they will remain dependents, and nothing more. They will remain consumers of wealth, rather than creators of it. The call to increasingly rob the smallest part of the American budget – Defense – in order to increasingly feed the largest part of it – unearned entitlements – will always be heeded by those with their hands out. Always. Under the advice of their trusted black “leadership” and their elected political sugar daddies.

Many of America’s blacks have embraced the non-ethos of America’s Leftist whites, who perennially seek to be taken care of by the mommy-state. It is the goal of the Left to encourage a sense of state dependence among the populace, and to grow the government, and its reach, accordingly. This is what the Leftist Elite Class loves to see.

To most of us, it’s all quite disgusting.

I don’t pretend to know the solution to this problem. There is and can be no rational response to obstinacy; we can only “shake the dust.” I know that American black men, like all other men, need to adopt and direct their lives by a good external guiding ethos, but I don’t know how to get them to do that. I know that they need to learn to do good critical thinking, but I don’t know how to get them to do that. I know that they need to become more individual and more independent and to move away from any hint of any herd mentality or sense of dependence, but, again, I don’t know how to do that.

Each of us has to come to Truth on his own. There is something here in America that is bigger than each of us, bigger than all of us, bigger than our race, more important than our ethnicity. And there is something in the Judeo-Christian morality that is more freeing than binding. Men become enslaved to what they think makes them free, and men become most free when they give themselves totally to something other than self. Man wants to say, this is my life; buzz off and leave me alone. Jesus Christ said, this is my life, broken, and given up, for you. Surprisingly, it is not the selfish, but the self-less, position that is the most freeing; for this isn’t all there is. There is, after all, eternal life to consider.

Almost all of us call ourselves Christians. At one time or another, we’ve all talked the talk. It’s time to walk the walk. We all need to do it while we still have time. One man at a time.

Seek the Truth; find the Way; live the Life.

Reference Material

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.