We should blog more about environmental issues on Amerika; however, the issues seem so obvious that I at least feel like I’m repeating myself even more than on articles about Crowdism.
The environmental problem is so simple that almost everyone has overlooked the correct solution.
Instead, they’re indulging in the usual slavishly religious-dogmatic thinking, which is to say they’re chasing comfortable illusions and puffing up their own peacock feathers with self-important “solutions” that solve nothing.
Let me make clear what will not save the environment:
Fluorescent light bulbs.
Your average media watcher in the USA will be appalled by this list of things that will not save the environment. They have been told these are “solutions.”
For us to save the environment, we need to first understand what threatens the environment; then, we need to figure out how to reverse that.
What threatens the environment? Many things. However, when you distill them all down to their common origin, you find that human expansion in both population and space used is what pushes natural species aside, and shatters ecosystems.
Many conservationists have been united in animosity toward Tanzania’s plan to build the so-called Serengeti Highway. The road, after all, would divide Serengeti National Park, threatening one of the world’s last great large-mammal migrations.
“There will be demand for use of that road in the future,” said Blanton, co-director of the nonprofit Serengeti Watch, based in Ithaca, New York. “And once it does get truck traffic, the soil there won’t support it and [the road] will have to be paved.”
If that happens and the wildebeest migration is affected, it could prove disastrous for Tanzania’s economy. – National Geographic
How do we reverse that? We put humans in smaller areas, and ideally, have fewer humans around. It would also be great if we could only grow the kind of humans who instinctively do not litter, buy big cars, shop at Wal-mart a lot, and eat tons of cheap beef.
Think about it this way:
The earth is a living, self-renewing organism. It needs space for its organs, namely its ecosystems and the species of plants and animals that maintain them, to act.
Humans have dominated all of earth. There are no longer patches of ground where you can go and think humans have never been here; it’s rare to find patches of earth where there isn’t a coke can or cigarette butt nearby (people like to leave these things, I think; it guarantees them some immortality).
Even on the floors of our oceans, it’s rare to find long stretches where there isn’t some sunken ship, used condom, junked engine block, or plastic detritus.
This domination of earth means that we have divided up the natural ecosystems with roads, settlements, fences and litter.
At full function, these self-renewing ecosystems would purge themselves of our pollution and instead provide healthy air and clean water. That’s how it worked up until the 1970s or so, when human expansion got big enough that you could no longer expect streams to be clean, air to be pure, or fruit from the trees to be non-toxic.
A return to primitivism won’t help — even primitive people had huge consequences for the environment when they expanded beyond their initial settlements:
When the first European settlers arrived in Australia in the 17th century, they observed a strange farming practice among the natives. The aborigines routinely burned grasslands and vegetation in many parts of northern Australia during the cool months of the dry season between winter monsoons. These controlled burns were intended to help stimulate regrowth during the upcoming rainy period. But they may have also inadvertently caused the end of that summer dry spell to be much warmer and drier than normal, a new study suggests.
Previously, researchers have linked such burning to the extinctions of some species of Australian megafauna, including several species of kangaroos, wombats, and other marsupials, thousands of years ago. But whether these burns affected the region’s climate was unclear.
The team’s results, published this month in Geophysical Research Letters, reveal substantial changes in climate during the premonsoon months of November and December. Total precipitation during these months declined by more than 3 centimeters. This may sound small, but those premonsoon rains are vital for the region’s ecological recovery after the dry season.
“The dry season in this region is about 8 months long, so the first monsoon rains have quite an effect on biology,” says Robert Wasson, a geomorphologist at Charles Darwin University (CDU) in Darwin, Australia. “The onset of the monsoon is a critically important time.” – Science Magazine
We will soon be to the stage where we don’t trust the air, and demand it be filtered or bottled like our water.
The solution here is to return to the ratio of land use we had in the 1950s and 1960s: humans took up relatively little of earth, and the unused space was not cut up by roads, fences and military bases.
In fact, if we want a comprehensive environmental solution, it could have two parts:
Reduce land use. Reclaim the inner cities with high-rises, retreat from the countryside, use less land for farming and chop up many of our roads.
Make luxuries expensive. Big engined cars, constant purchases of consumer goods, flights in jet planes and other high-pollution activities should be off-limits to most of us.
This environmental solution does not involve us sacrificing our industry or technology. Instead, we just cut back on the stuff that has no impact on those things.
Most American cities are wastelands after dark. People ran away when crime came. Instead of taking a leadership-oriented approach and banishing crime, our society shrugged and moved to the suburbs.
A more intelligent approach involves removing those who commit crimes and letting the downtown areas get re-settled by people who are not criminals.
In addition, instead of encouraging mass immigration that imports uncontrolled numbers of people who have nothing in common with each other, we should focus on local cultures. England for the English. Let other places manage their own population.
Finally, we can stop — already — trying to save every idiot from himself or herself. We don’t need new warning labels. In fact, if we can leave some things difficult so our dumber citizens manage to set their sex organs on fire, so much the better.
At the same time, making goods more expensive would force the average citizen to find new ways of spending time other than shopping and driving around.
In 2006, California passed the nation’s most comprehensive climate law, mandating a cut in carbon pollution to 1990 levels by 2020 — about 10% below today’s emissions. Although Congress balked at similar legislation in 2009, California has moved forward. Its plan to cap greenhouse gases at 600 industrial plants and allow companies to buy and sell emissions permits is modeled on Europe’s 6-year-old cap-and-trade system.
The European system, which covers 12,000 companies in 30 nations, traded $123 billion in carbon allowances last year and is on target to slash emissions by 21% below 1990 levels over the next decade. But the market has been jolted by an estimated $6 billion in tax fraud schemes along with the recent cyber-theft of $50 million in carbon credits stored in the Czech Republic registry. – L.A. Times
Between these two forces, we could eliminate our environmental problem once and for all.
If you’ve found yourself asking, “What’s wrong with people?” the answer is probably that you are expecting them to be something they are not. I have an alternate proposition:
Human nature varies between individuals.
That apostate, blasphemous and possibly criminal statement (if it’s not elitist, it’s classist) tells us what we need to know. There are many people who by instinct refuse to litter, waste water, drive big cars, or shop compulsively; however, most people are not this way. Some are given to being wasteful because they are oblivious or sociopathic, but most are somewhere in the middle, a fair amount narcissistic and generally not aware of the world around them and the consequences of their actions.
Instead of trying to “educate” or, when that fails, coerce these people into doing The Right Thing, we should limit their access to the ability to do the wrong thing.
We should also make sure that for all of their activity, there is enough space for nature to keep itself healthy and thriving, so that even if humans don’t get their act together, another species gets a chance.
I fully expect these practical environmental notions to be totally disregarded. It is a clear, obvious, simple and thorny path to fixing our environmental problem; people instead prefer complex non-solutions as these don’t disrupt their lives.
Here’s another reason that the love of money is the root of all evil: a new study from Aalto University in Finland shows that spending is not just bad for your pocketbook, but for the environment too.
In a paper released earlier this year, researchers discovered a strong correlation between the consumption of goods and carbon footprint, noting that as income increases, so do greenhouse gas emissions.
For years, it has been widely accepted that living in a city – with its public transportation systems and closely-spaced housing – is more environmentally-friendly than living in the countryside.
But when the scientists compared the greenhouse gas emissions of people in Finland living in concentrated metropolitan centres and those in less dense surrounding suburbs, they found that, contrary to popular belief, there’s little difference.
In fact, there’s nearly no correlation between where someone lives and their CO2 emissions, according to Jukka Heinonen, the lead author of the study.
What matters is how often they open their wallets. – Trust
Buying $4 fluorescent lightbulbs and searching for “green” adult diapers will not displace most people at all. If we forced ourselves to re-use land, houses in the suburbs might be more expensive and/or people would be forced to be brave and live in inner-city multicultural and multi-socioeconomic neighborhoods.
By the same token, a simpler solution would not waste our time and would disrupt less of the human activity that produces results of merit. It’s our choice for the future: self-destruction, or moving past this sad episode by using a little self-discipline and common sense.
After centuries of living in a terrible horrible no-good place where the little people did not matter, the people banded together — and accepted everyone, especially misfits and goofballs — and overthrew the bad elites.
Now the little people are listened to.
For this reason, when a big international banker (the people who caused the recent financial collapse, not the 20 million idiots who signed ARM loans) is accused of rape by one of the little people, we take it very seriously.
We throw his ass in jail and then start looking for the facts.
Over time, those pesky facts pop up like blackheads:
According to the two officials, the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded.
That man, the investigators learned, had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. He is among a number of individuals who made multiple cash deposits, totaling around $100,000, into the woman’s bank account over the last two years. The deposits were made in Arizona, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania.
The investigators also learned that she was paying hundreds of dollars every month in phone charges to five companies. The woman had insisted she had only one phone and said she knew nothing about the deposits except that they were made by a man she described as her fiancé and his friends.
In addition, one of the officials said, she told investigators that her application for asylum included mention of a previous rape, but there was no such account in the application. She also told them that she had been subjected to genital mutilation, but her account to the investigators differed from what was contained in the asylum application. – NYT
Holy fucking shit, I’m having a flashback… wait… here it is…
The sexual assault nurse’s report of blunt force trauma was undermined by other accounts of her activities as a stripper the weekend before the lacrosse party. There was no other forensic evidence to support her account. And other than the accuser, no one claimed to have witnessed the assault —including a second dancer hired for the evening and the 20 or so men at the party.
Mr. Cooper succinctly summed up the evidence this way: “No D.N.A. confirms the accuser’s story. No other witness confirms her story. Other evidence contradicts her story. She contradicts herself.”
One of those contradictions forced Mr. Nifong to drop the rape charges in December. The woman, who had repeatedly said she endured violent penile penetration, suddenly said she could no longer be sure what had penetrated her. This came after it had been revealed that sophisticated DNA tests found no traces from any of the three defendants — or any other Duke lacrosse player — on her body or clothes. DNA from other men, however, was found. – NYT
For a moment, I thought I stepped into the same movie.
Morgan Freeman was the victim’s father, Maya Rudolph the accuser, and Seth Rogen, Shia LeBouef and Jake Gyllenhaal as the accused. Kenneth Branagh would be deputy DA Mike Nifong, and Crispin Glover would give a sinister performance as the defendant’s lawyer.
If you swapped out Brian Cox for Rogen, LeBouef and Gyllenhaal, you’d have the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case.
Rich, white, powerful people abuse little people and think they’ll get away with it because they’re rich and powerful. Then thanks to the goodness of people, the little people turn the tables on them.
Except in both cases, it wasn’t this way.
However, I’m glad Dominique Strauss-Kahn will not be resuming his political career. I’m also of limited sympathy for whoever planned the Duke lacrosse party with a stripper.
Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself. – from the first NYT article
If you are a wealthy and powerful person, you are one thing to all people below you in the socioeconomic scale — a target.
Unlike in Hollywood movies, where the goodness of all people equally is featured again and again (and again and again), in life many people are opportunistic. They also know they have almost no chance of being turned down in our current climate, where movies about the big and powerful abusing the small are very, very, very popular.
You don’t, as a world-leader politician, or as a child of privilege, ever involve yourself in any dubious business with the lower social classes. They’re going to take you to the cleaners.
You, as a rich white kid, do not hire a poor black prostitute as your stripper. First, strippers are notorious criminals; they’ll do anything for coke. Second, prostitutes are criminals. Finally, there’s no way you’ll escape the narrative of money, class, power, and racial resentment.
With its overtones of race, sex and privilege, the Duke case instantly drew national news media attention. The accuser was a poor, black, local single mother working at an escort service while enrolled at the predominantly black North Carolina Central University in Durham; the Duke students were relatively well-off, white out-of-staters — members of a storied lacrosse team at one of the nation’s most prestigious universities. The accuser’s vivid account of racist and misogynistic taunts also fueled a simmering debate about the off-field behavior of elite athletes and the proper role of big-time sports on America’s college campuses. – from the second NYT article
Being able to cry racism or rape is how the little people take revenge.
Our society is stupid enough to take them at their word, mainly because rich white men in judge’s robes wanted to protect these little people.
What they didn’t take into account is that people who are poor drug-addicted prostitutes are the cause of their own problems. Their behavior shows an inability to take charge of any aspect of their lives.
You should expect them to see you, a rich white idiot, as a gold mine.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn had some kind of sexual contact with this nutcase of a woman, which shows he is without a clue as to the workings of the real world. Women cry rape when they think they’ll get away with it, and when there’s something to win, like a nice rich guy’s payout.
She was undoubtedly oblivious to the fact that she ended his political career; she didn’t care.
In the end though, what did him in was an inability to handle his power. To be above others, and both not abuse that position and not take their lies at face value, is the mark of a leader.
I haven’t read this book. I will order it soon enough, because I like the topic:
Sometime in the 18th century, the word equality gained ground as a political ideal, but the idea was always vague. In this treatise, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn argues that it reduced to one simple and very dangerous idea: equality of political power as embodied in democracy. He marshals the strongest possible case that democratic equality is the very basis not of liberty, as is commonly believed, but the total state.
He uses national socialism as his prime example. He further argues the old notion of government by law is upheld in old monarchies, restrained by a noble elite. Aristocracy, not democracy, gave us liberty. – Mises
Who made society comfortable for the rest of us?
What are aristocrats?
Nietzsche says they’re the most warlike, vir-laden, powerful and smartest men among us. The beast that tames itself. The creative demon.
Everyone else is sitting around bickering about who got too many turnips, who’s kissing who under the plum tree, and what they’re going to eat, drink or fornicate with this weekend. In short, what you see on Facebook is what’s running through most people’s heads.
Aristocrats are the ones who think toward the future. Our academics and politicians now are wimps in comparison.
To an aristocrat, conflict is inevitable and not to be avoided. For that reason, one must do what is right and ignore those who are offended. Tolerance, feelings, equality, justice, etc. are the whining of those who cannot understand this principle.
The truth of these two axioms only ceased being obvious the day it was desired to base social relations on mutual hypocrisy, when it became necessary to forgive our neighbor’s vices in order to forget our own. And so now the reproach of intolerance has become the most terrible one that can be addressed to any man who, due to the exaltation and affirmation of his own opinions, tends to trouble the customary peace.
From this time forward, any policy that doesn’t benevolently assure that all forms of government are good, the apostle who doesn’t salute the rival religion with good-nature, the critic who refuses to speak of all works with the same banal indifference, all of these will receive nothing but the hatred of their fellow citizens, offended in their repose and tranquility.
It is possible that tolerance is the obligation of he who judges. He who seeks the beautiful wherever it is capable of showing itself can find it in Shakespeare and Alighieri, in Goethe and Rabelais. But wasn’t it Goethe’s duty to admit to be beautiful only that which Goethe saw? And what powerful reason could have incited him to write “Faust’ if he had perceived alongside this poem something of an equal beauty. The artist must be intolerant, just as the philosopher is intolerant, the sociologist is intolerant, and the priest is intolerant.
No being animated by a sincere faith, valiant and forward looking will admit there is a better or even equivalent faith. If he admits there’s a better one, why didn’t he choose it? And if he preferred a mediocre ideal to a superior one isn’t he like a poor madman who casts aside an inestimable perfume in order to satisfy himself with a vague odor? If he conceives of a faith equivalent to his he can only decide to choose by virtue of considerations exterior to that very faith, and in truth he will be without convictions or belief.
Nothing that has been great in this world was founded with tolerance, and sectarians alone have been creators. Can you imagine the fathers of the Catholic church making room for the pontiffs of Cybele and Originus saying to Celsius: “Maybe we’re both right.” Do you see Luther saying to the Pope: “We can come to an agreement,” and the Jacobins of ‘93 murmuring to the émigrés: “Everyone is right.” In the symbolic debate between Queen Atahalie and the young Joas, it’s Joas who is in the right: “He alone is God, Madame, and yours is nothing,” he says. Only our ideal is god, the others are nothing. So every spirit must deny and reject that which makes it suffer and can only admit thoughts that do not contradict its norm. This is the vital condition for its dreams and their realization. – Bernard Lazare, “On the Need for Intolerance”
Tolerance is the cry of the fence-sitter and person who fears injury more than doing what is right.
It is a backward-looking worry, a neurotic fear of the bad things that might happen, instead of looking toward what needs to be done for the future to be better.
Like all things whiner, it focuses more on methods than goals. It is worried that the methods used might hurt or cause offense; in doing so, it ignores the goals.
The West was won by aristocrats who brushed aside such objections, and while everyone else (especially the whiners) sat around keeping their thumbs warm, just did it.
True virtue is facing a problem head-on and doing what is right regardless of the cost.
Heroes do this. When faced with certain death, they don’t wimp out; they charge ahead and figure that being dead and known as a man of virtue is better than being dead and known as a pants-shitting coward.
Virtue means being ready to wage war at all times. You wage war against the problem, which means you act aggressively to fix it and you don’t care what the cost is to yourself or others. You do what is right.
No matter what the situation, there will be a majority of people who sit around whining that you are trampling on their rights, feelings, investments, conventions or other passive-aggression things. These people are usually useless at anything but complaining about their rights. Ignore them.
In our modern culture of weenies, we have become more concerned with not offending anyone than with fixing problems. This cuts men’s balls off. It makes us into permission-asking, sits-to-pee weenies who cannot discover our inner man, who wants to grab a sword/axe and fix the damn problem.
Ryerson computer science instructor, Ilkka Kokkarinen, is under fire after making what are being called sexist and homophobic comments on his blog, Sixteen Volts.
After being alerted by The Ryersonian, computer science chair, Alireza Sadeghian said the department neither accepts nor condones Kokkarinen’s views.
“I will personally suggest to Dr. Kokkarinen that he enrol [sic] and participate in appropriate seminars to obtain a proper understanding of human rights and discrimination,” said Sadeghian in an e-mail. – Steve Sailer
What was this world-renowned, highly-praised computer scientist’s crime?
He dared tell a whole truth:
On April 1, Kokkarinen wrote in his blog: “The female overrepresentation is heavily concentrated on the fluff fields that … which makes these fields suit the female mind better…basically all fields that don’t require any mathematics or logical and analytical thinking beyond the elementary school level.”
The news article cut it to hell, but all he said was that females concentrate on easier fields.
Some have noted that this happens because a woman must find a career that can be split in half for a two-decade period in which she raises her children.
The best careers for her then are ones that are more “fluffy” than hard computer science, which requires many hours of reading and experimenting every year just to stay current.
Womanhood and motherhood are more important than careers, anyway. We can live without computer science; without motherhood, we cease as a species.
But in the eyes of the greedy and stupid, this becomes an unforgivable offense:
Mandy Ridley, a RyePride co-ordinator, found his comments to be harmful.
“He’s clearly promoting hate upon women and queer-identified women.”
We need to promote hatred (we speak English here; hatred is the noun form) against all forms of fence-sitting, whining, passive-aggression and other testicle-slicing weenie behavior.
Those behaviors are moral cowardice because they put people’s “feelings” and pretense in the path of fixing problems. Fixing problems comes first, or should.
We have made ourselves into a culture of weenies by listening to the complainers before we care about fixing a single problem.
A contract takes the form of I give you x in exchange for y.
Sex is a contract. You think it is offered freely; it never is. You’re going to pay with your dollars, your self-esteem, or through sticky moral situations. Or you may just burn out your soul.
When you make the contract clear, everyone wins.
When you leave it up in the air? Then the first person to play scumbag wins:
Here’s how a scenario like that played out in real life. Jody (not her real name), a 32-year-old account manager for a major New York ad firm, decided to speed things along with her boyfriend two years ago by getting pregnant without telling him. “It’s not about trapping the guy,” Jody says. “That’s kind of old-fashioned. Yeah, you want him to be into it, but there are other ways to get a guy to commit. If you’re smart and in a good relationship, it’s just about the fact that you want a kid.” Even in her circle of young, urban, and gainfully employed friends, Jody says, this particular brand of subterfuge isn’t exactly condemned the way one might expect. In fact, it’s sort of, well, normal. “I see and hear people talk about it, and I understand. I get it,” she says, “and I don’t even think it’s that manipulative. It’s more like, ‘Hey, the timing is right for me. I got pregnant—oops! Well, it’s here, let’s have it.’ I think that’s more the way it is now than it was back in the day when you had to marry someone before you got pregnant. Marriage doesn’t matter now.” – Details
If you fathered the kid, society is going to expect you to pay for it. Even if you win in court against a woman who does this, what about the child?
Are you going to just pretend it didn’t happen? Maybe grab a tire iron and bash its head in right there in front of the judge?
Of course not. By the time you get to this situation, everyone has already lost.
Here’s an alternative plan:
From the beginning, you make it clear what’s going on.
“You know, Julie, I’ve gotten to know you and really appreciate you. I’d like you to be my girlfriend. Yes, that’s old-fashioned, isn’t it? But it’s there for us to know that we’re dating, which means that if this gets more serious, we have to talk about it. For now, it’s just dating. No kids, no marriage. We should revisit this in six month and see where we are.”
Now on to the part where I get in trouble: if you’re not looking for a girl to marry, you’re a dumbass and a loser.
The best women are marriage-minded because they are smart and can see that in the future, they will want to have families. It’s what healthy people do.
They get snatched up by the first men to mature, stop being children devoted to video games and beer, and provide for these women.
This means you’re in a race to find the good girls. If you blow it off, you’re going to be left with the sluts, drug addicts, mental health cases and burnouts.
There will also be a few girls in there who got abused by their dads and so are slow maturing like you. But they are very few and you can’t count on finding one.
Guys who date forever get scammed or end up alone because girls figure out they’re man-boys. Man-boys are betas who refuse to grow up and keep scamming their way through life, taking stupid jobs and blowing all their cash on pleasures. Man-boys have no plan. We’ve all been there and it’s a good stage to leave behind.
Sex is a contract. Marriage is the only contract that trumps it. If you want happiness in life, you want to find a girl you can marry.
Before you get to that stage, you need to make it clear to any woman you’re sleeping with what is expected of her, and what you’ll do.
If you leave those important issues unclear, she may get some insane notions in her head and act on them.
I don’t believe in rights. I have wandered the whole world, and never found such a thing.
What I have found is a consistent human pattern:
The truth is complex and not all good.
Scammers offer simpler half-truths.
Idiots make those scammers rich and powerful.
Everything goes to shit.
Words like “rights”,”freedoms”,”justice” and “equality” don’t mean a goddamn thing. They’re on par with the crap that Billy Mays promised on his late night junk sales.
The “Men’s Rights Movement” has fallen into the same trap feminism has. You took the scammers at face value.
In reality, you’re not going to get equal rights, and that’s not what you want.
What you want is parity, meaning that you have a special role to fill and that when you do it well, people recognize it. This also means you don’t get screwed out of your family or home by “equal rights.”
No one with a functional brain should want equal rights. Equal rights means that whoever complains first wins.
Instead, you should want a unique role for males:
Sex. You are the bringer of the semen, and you make a choice where it goes. This choice determines who you are.
Violence. Your job is to find truth and fix problems, not make sure no one is offended. You have to break some eggs to make an omelet.
Virtue. You need a social role where you are trusted to do the right thing, and praised when you do it. No more being equal and having no one care when you do right.
The whole “pick up artist” is a game for men of low self-confidence to think they are somehow gods of a giant penis because they can pick up underconfident dipsomaniacs.
A real men’s movement will be based in the idea not of more sex for men, but of men not being defined by reaction to feminism or a need for sex. You are faking it if you think sex makes you a man.
Right now, “men’s rights” means men acting like feminists. Who cut yours off?
To cut out this hippie bullshit, we are launching a new movement as of right now.
Instead of men being equal, it’s based on men being unique and having a role to play that women cannot.
We are against making the world safe, and being obedient to safety and inoffensiveness.
We want a frontier again, lawless and with no warning labels. We don’t want more captive pleasures like bungee jumping, hang-gliding, BASE jumping, and other surrogate adventures. We want adventure.
We want nature kept around, and not just the cute animals. We want a nature that bites back. If it can’t kill you, it’s a Disneyland ride, not an adventure.
We do not want to be modern men, kept captive by stupid jobs and laws that protect the meek. We reject women who insist on dominating us even though it disadvantages them by making them “equal” and thus prey. We want chivalry.
We aren’t going to swing the opposition direction, and be either weenie pickup artists like “Mystery,” or be whinging man-feminists who are upset that men get the short end of the stick.
We’re here to do what’s right and kick some ass instead.
You hear this rather tired phrase: “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.”
What they mean is that the rich get richer, and so in relative terms, the poor have less value. They still have roughly the same lifestyle and expectations. But that doesn’t fit into a catchy phrase.
As globalism has rolled out across the world, the rich have been getting richer — because they’ve been trying to.
Now that our economy is global, the rich are smaller fish in a big pond.
Now that our global economy is unstable, it takes more money to have bought your way out of the system.
As we see the number of poor people rise, and crime rise, the only safe place to be is in a gated community with private security who are so well paid they can’t be bribed.
Look at Mexico, Iraq, Argentian or Brazil. The risk of kidnapping is huge. You’re not rich until you have private security.
The USA is heading in that direction. We talk about “the rich,” but no one ever defines it. To me, “rich” means you never have to go to work again, and you’ll be living well. That means private medicine, because the public plans suck. Private schooling for your kids, because the public schools suck. A gated community and bodyguards.
It used to be you could just be a millionaire, and do fine. Now you may need ten or a hundred million to truly escape the system.
And that seems to be what everyone wants.
For years, statistics have depicted growing income disparity in the United States, and it has reached levels not seen since the Great Depression. In 2008, the last year for which data are available, for example, the top 0.1 percent of earners took in more than 10 percent of the personal income in the United States, including capital gains, and the top 1 percent took in more than 20 percent. But economists had little idea who these people were. How many were Wall street financiers? Sports stars? Entrepreneurs? Economists could only speculate, and debates over what is fair stalled.
Now a mounting body of economic research indicates that the rise in pay for company executives is a critical feature in the widening income gap. – Washington Post
Why do they want this money? They must be greedy! screams the media.
But if you ask every person on the street, you’ll get the answer: yeah, I’d like to be rich. Rich enough to leave this all behind.
You can’t do that on $20,000. Or even $200,000. Maybe you could on $2 million, but more likely, it’s $20 million or more.
If you want to know why our executives are pulling away and leaving the rest of us behind, it’s because our society is collapsing to third-world levels of crime, disorder, filth, corruption and instability.
The only way out is to get rich, get into that gated community, and buy your way out every way you can.
For forty years now, we’ve heard about how the old generations didn’t know anything and were oppressive, but the new generations are coming to save us.
Starting with the hippies, who are now aged crones and decrepit hulks, these new generations have told us how the past was cruel, but they — the new way — are altruistic, compassionate and fair.
Words, words, words.
We can redefine words to mean just about anything, or just misuse them. We can use them to mean only a part of their meaning in the whole, and use that to fool you. If I tell you this used car has low miles on it, that’s only part of the truth — I forgot to mention that it has no engine. But hey, low miles. I didn’t lie.
Let’s look at the actions of these people, 40 years apart:
Woodstock Festival, 1969
A garbage truck rumbled by, loaded to above the brim with filled green bags of garbage — the green bags passed around the audience enthusiastically a few weeks before. Along the sides of Hurd Road and the other roads in the area was more garbage. There were more piles of garbage in the woods on the way to the Hog Farm area, as well as huts and lean-tos, wooden booths, and thousands of flies. The Hog Farm area itself was empty and clean except for a few portable toilets, some scattered farm implements, and metal fence posts and tent poles. “Happy Birth” read a section of red snow fence. – The Village Voice
It takes $100,000 and several days to clean up the site. Workers bulldoze tons of trash and debris into a pit and burn it. – About
What started four days ago amid a sea of mud today ended with an ocean of rubbish as 180,000 revellers left the Glastonbury music festival site carpeted in cans, bottles and the odd lost welly boot.
Litter covered the ground as far as the eye could see in fields that for most of the year look as pristine as any of the surrounding Somerset countryside.
It will take an army of workers days to clear up the 900–acre site after one of the most memorable – and controversial – festivals in years. – Article and picture from The Daily Fail
Gosh, it looks like… it looks like the same thing.
People show up for a “cultural event,” trash the place, riot, rape, steal, loot, burn and defecate all over everything they can find. In the meantime, artists sing about “all good things” — love, peace, justice, happiness, equality — and this is what they attract.
But the artists don’t seem to care; they’re interested in getting paid.
The fans don’t care; they’re there for a party, and it’s someone else’s job to clean up the mess.
Perhaps the people who shout loudest about being altruists are the most selfish.
We are fortunate to have Daryl Davis, author of Klan-Destine Relationships, to interview here on Amerika.org. Daryl is a brave fellow who as an African-American interested in issues of race, has contacted a number of members of the Ku Klux Klan and interviewed them, often before tipping them off to his ethnicity.
A good number of these Klansman later became friendly with Daryl, and from the stories they told and his own experiences, he formed the basis of what would become Klan-Destine Relationships. In addition, Daryl is a fully accomplished musician who has played with more famous names than this writer is able to recognize (see the pictures page for Daryl next to Chuck Berry, Bob Dylan and Aretha Franklin, among others).
Thanks to his generosity in answering our questions, we are able to offer you a short interview with Daryl Davis on the topics of nationalism, race, racism and of course, how these ongoing issues might be resolved.
Daryl, thank you for being with us today; you’re live on Amerika.org!
Thanks again for considering my perspectives to be included in your blog. I appreciate the opportunity and will do my best to provide you with answers that best define my opinions. I would preface these forthcoming answers with the fact that I am speaking solely for myself and I do not portray myself to represent those who may agree with me. My answers to your questions are based upon my own academic knowledge, empirical experiences and personal conjecture derived from said knowledge and experiences.
For your book, “Klan-Destine Relationships: A Black Man’s Odyssey in the Ku Klux Klan,” you confronted a number of Klansmen under friendly circumstances, without telling them in advance that you are African-American. How did introducing them to the person first, and then the ethnic background, change how they reacted to you?
As a Black child, I had been the target of occasional racist incidents by some White perpetrators. These incidents have always remained fresh in my mind, even today at my present age of 53. But it was a couple of personal encounters in 1974 and 1982 that I had with Matt Koehl, who took over the leadership of the American Nazi Party when George Lincoln Rockwell was murdered, that played a key role in my quest of wanting to learn more about racism, supremacy (White and Black), and separatism.
From the age of 15, I began spending a lot of time in libraries and bookstores, purchasing every book and publication I could find. I sought out conversations with every person who would give me the time of day, regardless if they were racist or not, but who had opinions, knowledge and experience in these areas. Over time, I educated myself in this subject matter. I don’t wish to be at the risk of stereotyping, but I must say, it got to the point of where I could accurately predict the thought process of many of practitioners these ideologies.
That being said, it was not my intent to deceive or trick anyone by not foretelling them of my pigmentation. Rather, it was my goal to secure a candid, spontaneous answers to my interview questions. I acquired and supplied my White secretary with the phone numbers and had her make the initial calls to the prospective interviewees. My presumptions, many of which were later confirmed to be accurate, were that some of these people with whom I wanted an interview, would not have spoken with me, had they had the foreknowledge that I was Black. I did not want to take the chance that they might be able to tell the color of my skin by certain inflections in my voice over the phone and therefore refuse my request for an interview. However, I knew they would have no doubt by her voice, that this woman calling on my behalf, was absolutely White. I knew that most of these people would not automatically assume that a White woman would be working for a Black man writing a book on the Ku Klux Klan. In their minds, there would be a presumption that her boss was White.
It was also my assumption that they might have different answers for a White interviewer than they would have for a Black interviewer asking the same questions, if they had time to prepare their answers knowing the interviewer was Black. So, I would let them decide once they saw me, if they wanted to follow through with the interview. I instructed her not to reveal my color unless asked. Most did not ask and agreed to meet me for an interview. Some invited me over to their homes, not knowing I was Black. Others met with me at predetermined locations, such as hotels, restaurants, parking lots. All were completely shocked, but most complied with my interview while a few refused at this point. One of the Klansmen who initially refused, later approached me and requested that I interview him.
I think their initial reactions to me being Black were predictable, but that’s where predictability ended and individualism entered. While many of the people I interviewed shared the same common beliefs of White superiority and Black inferiority, no one can say that each Klanmember is cut from a standard cookie cutter. They all come from various walks of life, educational backgrounds, levels of intellect, socio-economic status and religious denominations. We often found ourselves having more in common with each other than we had in contrast. There were times I was surprised by some of their answers as they were by some of mine. The fact that I knew a great deal about the Klan, and in some cases more than some of them did, afforded me a higher degree of respect in their eyes after their getting over the initial shock of my being Black. I do believe that by introducing them to the person first, sight unseen, over the phone, and allowing them to form their own preconceived notions, prior to facing my ethnic background, did in the end, work to all our advantages. They met and interacted with someone they did not accurately predict and the spontaneity of our encounters has led to many long-lasting friendships.
When people join a group like the Klan, we can talk about their underlying psychology or their political influences, but often it is more instructive to try to figure out what they value. What kind of society do you think these Klansmen, that you have spoken to, desire? What is their ideal place to live in?
Well, as I said in the previous answer, a Klanmember is not cut from a standard cookie cutter. Based upon their own environment, social and educational achievements (or failures), levels of acceptance or tolerance, can determine what their ultimate desires may be in terms of the ideal place in which to live. At the very least some KKK members (White separatists) will tolerate or might even accept co-existence with other races in this country as long as there are separate schools, residential neighborhoods, work places, churches, etc. Some on the extreme end of separatism, have shown me a map of the United States with certain States designated for Blacks, certain others designated for Whites, and others for Hispanics and remaining races and ethnicities.
Just over the line from the extreme KKK separatists, are the KKK extremists (White supremacists). These are ones who tell me that this country is, “For Whites only. All non-Aryans (or “mud races” as they refer to non-Whites) must leave this country or be exterminated in RAHOWA (Racial Holy War). Some supremacists at the extreme end of supremacy will not talk with me.
You are quite an accomplished musician, having performed with a number of “big names” in blues and rock, and a number of rather large venues including the Kennedy Center. What made you desire to go into music, and was your own ethnic background a consideration in choosing a predominantly African-American form of music?
Thank you for the compliment. I actually started out late in life compared to most musicians who took lessons and played as children. Up until about 11th grade, I wanted to be a spy. I was fascinated with James Bond. To this day, I still have my James Bond briefcase that fires plastic bullets and my 007 decoder belt from my childhood!
During my junior year of high school, I thought about people that I most admire. Two names came to mind; one was Elvis Presley and the other was Chuck Berry. What was it about these two gentlemen that prominently stood out in my mind?
It was the fact that they each had made millions upon millions of people all over the world happy with their music. These were people who may never see them in person, let alone meet them. But, they would hear their music and dance and be happy. Who has never heard Elvis Presley’s Hound Dog or Chuck Berry’s Johnny B. Goode? Some people have been fortunate enough to see Elvis and Chuck perform live, but most have only seen video clips or filmed performances. Most people who admire these two artists, have never met them.
Back in the day, as we know, many concert halls and live music venues did not allow Blacks. If they did, they were segregated with ropes going around the seating sections with signs hanging that read, “Seating For White Patrons Only” or “Colored Seating Only.” Should you go to see Frank Sinatra, Glen Miller, Tommy Dorsey, Benny Goodman or whoever back in the 1940s and you sat in your seating section as designated by the color of your skin or you were subject to arrest if you cross-sat with a member of another race, regardless of whether or not the other person was your close friend. This was law and it was strictly enforced.
Most concert goers abided by this rules. These Jim Crow laws were still in place in the 1950s as well. But midway through this decade, two phenomena happened. The first was the invention of Rock’n’Roll by Black artists like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Fats Domino, Bo Diddley and others. It was quickly adopted and popularized by White artists such as Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins, Buddy Holly, Bill Haley and others.
The second was that for the first time in the history of this country when any of these Rock’n’Roll or Rockabilly artists performed, Black kids and White kids would bounce up out of their seats, knock down the ropes and start dancing and boogying in the aisles together. This had never happened before. Naturally, the powers that be a/k/a the White Establishment, blamed it on the sexual and Satanic rhythms of Black music. City officials all over the country began cracking down on it, banning “Rock’n’Roll shows from taking place in their towns because of the “race mixing” that would ensue resulting from this Black music. When Black and White kids would start dancing together at these shows that managed to take place, the police would arrive and end the concert. It was called everything from race music, jungle music to nigger bop.
White artists like Elvis Presley, were considered a disgrace to the White race for advocating, promoting and performing this music. On top of that, he was wiggling around and gyrating his lower body “like a nigger.” How could, and why would, a White man “lower himself to the level with a nigger?” Some of the Establishment even went so far as to call this advent in Black music, a Communist plot to disrupt America and corrupt White youth.
White youth it seemed, couldn’t get enough of it and record companies began getting their White artists to “cover” these songs by the original Black artists. Since the most revenue in music came from the pockets of White youth and they were gravitating toward this Black music, something had to be done to avert little White girls from idolizing and screaming over a Black performer. This is why record companies got people like Pat Boone to record songs like Little Richard’s Tutti Fruiti and Fats Domino’s Blueberry Hill. This was where the term “cover song” first originated. It meant a White artist “covering” a Black artist’s song. While the Establishment realized they couldn’t get away from this bizarre new music, the best thing they could do, was to have their own kind perform it rather than have their kids become enamored with Black purveyors of this despicable noise Black people called music.
But here’s the irony. The establishment hated Elvis Presley. They kicked him off television for shaking his hips and “dancing like a nigger.” But within a couple of years when they saw how much money they could make from this same music, the very people who condemned Elvis, now embraced him and claimed the music as their own, appointing him the King of Rock’n’Roll. Yeah, the White man who was called a sellout, a disgrace, a corrupter of White youth and a nigger lover, was now being called a King and the inventor of this music known as Rock’n’Roll. Go figure that one!!! Forget the real inventors who were Black, like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Fats Domino and Bo Diddley.
The fact that it was created by Blacks really had nothing to do with my choice of deciding to play that genre created by members of my ethnicity. I liked the style and the power that it has to bring people of all races and walks of life together, be it on a dance floor or at a concert. When I decided to become a musician as a teenager in my junior year of high school, I taught myself to play and had friends of mine who could play, show me different things on the piano and guitar. I purchased books and taught myself to read music. I wanted not to imitate but to emulate what Elvis and Chuck had done, in terms of making many people happy through the power of music. Since they and their contemporaries were my idols, I decided to study not only them, but also whoever they listened to. Where did this Rock’n’Roll come from. That’s how I discovered the Blues and Boogie Woogie. I made it my mission to meet Chuck and Elvis and I accomplished that goal. I also met many of their contemporaries and their predecessors to whom they listened, like Pinetop Perkins, Johnnie Johnson, Muddy Waters and other great Blues and Boogie Woogie artists.
I went to Howard University and graduated with my degree in music in 1980. My major was Jazz Performance and my minor was voice. What my college training taught me was how to analyze and write the music I had taught myself to play and sing. The emphasis there was on Jazz and Classical music. Today in addition to Rock’n’Roll, I also play Country, Jazz, Swing, Boogie Woogie, Bluegrass, R&B and some other musical genres as well.
In 1983, I was a new member, not to mention the only Black member, of a Bluegrass/Country band. The places we placed were predominantly patronized by Whites. One of these places was an all-White truck stop lounge in Frederick, Maryland. To be clear, I don’t mean that Blacks were not allowed entrance. They simply chose on their own not to come there and it was a good choice, because they were not welcome. We’ll here I am in this place for the first time and after the first set the band went on break. I was walking across the dance floor to sit at a table with the bandleader and my bandmates when someone walked up behind me and put their arm around my shoulder. I stopped and turned around to see who was being so familiar with me. I could see all the other bandmembers and I didn’t know anyone else at this place.
It was a White gentleman in his mid to late 40s and he said, “I really like your all’s music.” I thanked him and shook his hand. He went on to say, “I seen this here band before, but I ain’t never seen you. Where’d you come from?” I replied that I had just joined the band a couple of months prior to this gig. “You know, this is the first time I ever seen a Black man play piano like Jerry Lee Lewis,” he goes on. I was truly naïve and taken aback in disbelief at his statement. I asked, “Where do you think Jerry Lee Lewis learned how to play?” He said Jerry Lee invented that style of playing on his own. I explained that Jerry Lee learned to play that style from the same sources from which I too had learned, Black Blues and Boogie Woogie pianists. Jerry Lee’s first cousins, Mickey Gilley and the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart all used to watch these Black pianists perform at a Black club in Ferriday, Louisiana. This gentleman did not believe me and simply refused to believe that Jerry Lee Lewis could have possibly learned anything from a Black pianist and laughed at my telling him that. Even after I told him that I knew Jerry Lee and he was a good friend of mine and he told me himself where he learned to play, this guy still would not accept it. I don’t believe he even bought that I knew Jerry Lee. But he wanted to buy me a drink.
I don’t drink, but I agreed to go to his table and have a cranberry juice with him. When the waitress returned with our drinks, he paid her and took his beer and cheered my glass proclaiming that this was the first time he had ever sat down and had a drink with a Black man. Again, I was taken aback. It was the first time he had ever heard a Black man play piano like Jerry Lee Lewis and now it was the first time he had ever had a drink with a Black man. This gentleman was having quite a night of firsts!
I was 25 at the time and had sat down and had beverages, meals, and conversation with thousands of White people and couldn’t imagine how it was that this guy who had been around at least 20 years longer than me, had never sat down with a Black person before. So I asked him why. He revealed to me that he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. At that point, it was my turn to laugh, because I didn’t believe him. Why on Earth would a Klansman put his arm around my shoulder, praise my piano playing and want to buy me a drink? I stopped laughing when he pulled out his Klan card and handed it to me. Again, this demonstrates the power of music to bring unlikely people together in camaraderie. Matt Koehl planted the seed with me and this guy was the first blossom and this experience would later serve as an important catalyst in my writing KLAN-DESTINE RELATIONSHIPS.
As the child of a successful diplomat, you lived in many places around the world and saw children of different ethnic backgrounds interacting pleasantly, before you returned to the United States and were exposed to racist abuse. Do you think the diplomatic community provides a representative sample of humanity?
I think the diplomatic community provides a representative sample of what humanity could be, certainly not what it currently is. I grew up as an American embassy brat. Combining my travels abroad as a child of parents in the U.S. Foreign Service, with my travels as an adult musician performing gigs nationally and internationally, to date, I have been in 51 different countries on 5 continents. I have seen many examples of different cultures getting along in harmony, but I’ve also seen tribal and religious strife as well.
Some of my elementary and junior high school years were spent overseas where I would attend international schools. All the kids from the various embassies in these countries, attended the international school as well. So consequently, in the 1960s overseas, I was in classes with Nigerian, Japanese, Russian, French, German, Danish, Chinese, Italian and whatever other kinds of kids were there, usually as a result of their parents being with the embassies of their respective countries. We all went to school together. At the same time back home here in the States, my peers were in class with all Whites or all Blacks, or just Blacks and Whites, depending upon whether or not that particular school was integrated or segregated. Additionally, at that time in our history, there was not the large amount of racial and ethnic diversity that we see in our classrooms today.
So, at the end of our tour of duty, we would return home, here to the United States where I would attend school for 9 months to a year or so, until our next assignment on the other side of the world. I was therefore in a very unique position as a child to be able to see opposite sides of the spectrum while at the same age. When I was overseas, sometimes in third world countries, I was living in the future. My classrooms there, represented what wouldn’t come to the United States for another 20 years. The multicultural environment of our American classrooms of today were experienced by me 20 years before it happened here. Overseas, I was literally living in the future of what was to come in my own country. This is the sample of which I am speaking. It worked in the diplomatic community over there and is now common place over here, but it still needs a lot of tweaking.
Do you think a multiracial/multicultural society can function? If so, do you have any examples of any throughout history or in the present time that you’d like to share?
I guess it depends upon the definition of multiracial/multicultural. One definition of these terms is people from a multitude of different or various races and cultures co-existing in the same societal environment. Another definition refers to the physiological and ideological characteristics of someone who is the offspring of mixed race ancestors and cultures. For example, a girl whose mother is Vietnamese and Buddhist and her father is Italian and Catholic, could also be considered to be multiracial/multicultural.
I believe a society containing inhabitants fitting either definition can indeed function as long as there is a uniform and universal respect for humanity in general. There are those in our society who believe in a need to maintain the purity of their own race & culture, and therefore do not endorse cross-pollinating or miscegenation. Some have this belief out of their own feelings of racial superiority, while some others share the belief but do not feel that other races are inferior, but are in fact equal. However they simply wish to preserve their own history. The common fear of both these groups is that their history will become extinct and their society will become uniracial and unicultural. Society is indeed heading in that direction. There was a time when you could look at someone of mixed ethnicity and tell the two backgrounds that produced them. Today, there are many more people with so many different background characteristics, it is hard to tell without asking them.
Personally, I don’t think this is a bad thing and most Americans would be hard pressed to truly find that their DNA and heritage are completely pure of other races and cultures. I think it’s important that people have the choice to cross-bred if they so desire as well as the choice to maintain their “purity.”
I am neither French nor Bahai, but off the top of my head the country France and the Bahai faith come to mind as examples I might suggest as multiracial/multicultural societies or environments that function quite well. Although, France in recent years is having great struggles with this. While I can’t give you long standing, proven situations without thinking long and hard, and perhaps they don’t currently exist, I do however believe as younger generations come up, older habits and people die out, paving a path for this to be possible. But again, it requires a common unity in the belief and practice of treating all people as human beings, regardless of their station in life and whether or not someone chooses to retain their “purity” or augment the gene pool.
On our tiny little blog, we advance the supposition (wholly stolen from Zionist writer Theodore Herzl) that diversity itself, and not the ethnic groups involved, may be the cause of the racism and racial antagonism we see in multicultural societies. We extend “diversity” to not only ethnic group and race, but also to religion, even philosophy and average intelligence, and cite examples like Belgium (breaking up as we type), Russia, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavian area as examples of similar ethnic groups finding diversity not to their liking. In your experience and view, is diversity regardless of ingredients the cause of strife? Or is something deeper going on?
I have had the pleasure of visiting all of those countries you mentioned with the exception of Rwanda. I did however visit many other African countries during my 10 years on that continent while my parents served as U.S. diplomats. It’s a shame to see the strife that currently permeates those countries. They were not like that during my visits and since then, the diversity in those countries has increased. You have raised an excellent, very interesting, and thought-provoking question, as to if it is due to the increased diversity in those societies. I can see where it gives that appearance. However, it is my opinion that it is not diversity, regardless of ingredients that cause this strife. There is indeed, something deeper going on. I believe that while it is not the diversity in and of itself, it is rather how each diverse group attaches self-importance to their unique ingredients that make them diverse from others. This self-importance comes in the forms of White Pride, Black Power, etc.
To remedy this problem, we need to start by returning to the original definition of the words, “pride” and “proud.” I think one of the problems is that we in this country, and worldwide for that matter, have skewed the definitions of these terms over the years and this has caused great damage within societies, such as religious wars and ethnic cleansing.
I cannot say, “I am proud to be Black.” A White person cannot say they are proud to be “White,” nor can a Jew say, “I’m proud to be Jewish.” Let me explain.
It used to be that “pride” or the sense of being “proud,” was something one derived from one’s own accomplishments. The operative words here are “one’s own accomplishments.” I can show pride and say I am proud of my published book, KLAN-DESTINE RELATIONSHIPS. I set forth to write a book on a particular subject. I completed it, a publisher gave me a book deal and it sells. No one did this for me; I accomplished it on my own. I can therefore say, “I’m proud of my book.” The musician and actor who take home a Grammy or Oscar can be proud of their accomplishments in the entertainment industry. You can and should be proud of this blog you’ve created. This is your accomplishment. A doctor, an Olympic gold medalist, an Eagle Boy Scout, the winner of a dance contest or cake baking competition, can all and rightfully so, proclaim pride in these endeavors to which they put their own efforts into in order to achieve this accomplishments.
I did not accomplish my being Black, you did not accomplish becoming a White man. We had no choice in these matters. Our parents accomplished this for us. The only reason a person is Jewish, according to Jewish law, is because he/she was born to a Jewish mother, regardless of what the father may be, and not through one’s own accomplishment, unless he converted to Judaism. So, when I hear someone say they are proud to be Black, White Jewish, I have to laugh at their false sense of misplaced pride in taking credit for what they did not accomplish.
Of course I can and will say, “I am not ashamed to be Black” and I believe that Whites and Jews or anyone else, needn’t be ashamed to be whatever they are if they had no control over that accomplishment in the first place. What is most important is not what the person is born, but what he/she accomplishes with the short time he has on this Earth before his demise. It is one’s accomplishments that garner respect. Respect can come in many different ways. While there are those who hate Martin Luther King, Jr., there are millions worldwide who respect him for his accomplishments in the Civil Rights movement. At the same time, while there are those who abhor Adolf Hitler, there many in the Nazi and neo-Nazi movements that respect his accomplishment of exterminating six million Jews. I’m referring to those in that movement who don’t believe the Holocaust was a hoax. Regardless of whether the accomplishment is positive or negative, it is an accomplishment nonetheless and for that reason it will garner respect from certain groups of like-minded people.
We should give basic respect to all human beings as a baseline and then determine if they warrant an increase in that respect by judging them on their personal accomplishments or what they’ve achieved towards the betterment of others in their society. If a White man has a life-threatening car accident and the only thing that can save him is a blood transfusion, does it and should it, really matter that the process by which this is accomplished was invented by a Black man named Dr. Charles Drew? Does it and should it matter to that White man who is waking up in the recovery room, that his successful transfusion operation was performed by a Jew, a Muslim, a male or female? The doctor who may have diverse racial, cultural and/or socio-economic ingredients from the patient can certainly express pride in his/her having saved a life. That patient regardless of his/her disposition in life, should be grateful and respect and judge that doctor his credentials and accomplishment in saving that patient’s life. The patient’s false or self-sense of racial pride or diversity did not play a role usually gets put on the back burner when they realize they are facing death. The more we can return to the original definitions of “proud” and “pride” and offer basic respect and judge one on their accomplishments or as Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “Judge one on the content of one’s character and not the color of one’s skin,” there will be far less strife in societies with diverse ingredients.
John Baumgardner, the “revolutionary Klansman,” suggested that both African-American and white separatist/nationalist groups desire the same thing, which is ethnic self-rule for all groups, and that what holds that vision back is mostly commercial interests and the disconnected opinions of elites who work comfy desk jobs or in academia, far from the middle-class and working-class neighborhoods where this drama plays out. Has Baumgardner been influential in encouraging you to do what you do?
John Baumgardner is a very interesting gentleman, whom I would like to get to know better. I’ve never met him in person, but we’ve spoken a few times over the phone back in the 1990s. The late Grand Dragon of Pennsylvania, Roy Frankhouser had given Mr. Baumgardner my number and he phoned me a few times. By the way, I was pallbearer at Mr. Frankhouser’s funeral a couple of years ago, along with some other Klan members and friends.
At the time of my phone conversations with Mr. Baumgardner, he was organizing and participating in marches with the Pan African Congress. I enjoyed my conversations with him and hope one day to meet him and continue our conversation. I agree with the first part of his assertion, that a number of Black and White separatist/national groups stand united in their desire for ethnic self-rule, but I don’t know that their common vision is entirely held back by the elitists in the comfy desk jobs and academia.
Many groups of elitists also desire self-rule and often achieve this by creating situations that pit the middle-class and working-class groups against each other. This naturally diverts attention and focus away from the elitist orchestrators of this “divide and conquer and thereby control,” philosophy. Apart from those elitists who may have commercial interests and disjointed or disconnected opinions, there are quite a number of people from all classes who have no interest other than their true passion to see a “united” United States of America. There is very little uniform or united about our country. While there are some who advocate for a unicultural society there are those who simply advocate for a society in which everyone is treated equally regardless of who is doing the governing and are not governed by people ruling with a bias toward or against any particular group. Would a separate but equal self-ruling society work? Not for long. Inevitably, each self-ruling group will become the elitist and then engage in the divide/conquer/control strategy against the other groups as each group expands over time and then the separatist/nationalist transforms into the supremacist.
It was back in 1985 when I first met Osiris Akkebala, Chief Elder of the Pan-Afrikan International Movement (PAIN). Chief Akkebala hosted a radio show in an all-black community where we had a scheduled demonstration. PAIN follows a Garvian philosophy, and understanding that Marcus Garvey had met with the Klan in the 1920s, Chief Osiris approached me for a private meeting. We hit it off well and have been good friends ever since.
Sometime in 1990 we began holding joint demonstrations–the Klan in their robes and the Africans in their dashikis. Needless to say it sparked quite a backlash. Many klansmen were angry at me for even considering such a thing. In my view it was a match inspired by God. Why should we have a problem with black men who are strict racial separatists and want to establish a homeland on the continent of Africa? I have even publicly endorsed the payment of reparations to blacks but only for the purpose of repatriation back to Africa.
I believe that all people have a right to self-determination, a right to choose their own government, and their own religion. Clearly, blacks in America have not had those opportunities. As Minister Louis Farrakhan said: “If we can’t get along together, then we need to separate.”
I’m a revolutionary white separatist, not a white supremacist. I don’t feel superior to any man because of the color of my skin but I understand that the Aryan people (making up only about eight percent of the world population) must have a separate land uninfluenced by other races or by the criminal government that occupies Washington D.C. – A Revolutionary Klansman: Interview with John Baumgardner
Mr. Baumgardner has created a symbiotic dichotomy out of what historically has been two diametrically opposing groups; the Ku Klux Klan and Black repatriatists. His quest to unify these two groups who historically are at opposite ends of the spectrum but are closer than two peas in a pod ideologically, to achieve their common goals, is quite interesting. Mr. Baumgardner’s vision can be considered that of a forward thinker only if the spectrum is a straight horizontal line. In this regard, the two groups come together in the middle to agree to go their separate ways with the aid of each other. The further they move away from each other, the farther apart they become. However, if the spectrum is arced ever so slightly, as each end continues to move, they eventually connect, thus forming a circle. So, it can be said in this situation, Mr. Baumgardner’s thinking would be backwards. The two groups would start at a common point in the center of the spectrum arc, but the further they move away from each other, the closer they get to each other at the bottom of the arc when the circle connects. Thus the definition of having come or having gone full circle.
Mr. Baumgardner has proven that these groups can work together to separate. His influence upon me, would be that if they can work together to separate, then that gives me impetus and encouragement to see if they can work together to unite as well.
What defines a civilization, and holds it together? For example, is it a political idea (democracy), an economic idea (capitalism), a religion (Buddhism), a culture (Judaism), an ethnic group (German) or a racial group (Caucasian), or is it some combination or variation of all of the above?
The definition of a civilization to me, is a well-oiled machine or engine made up of humanity in which all gears, wheels, pistons, valves and other working parts are actually human beings, all working together doing their roles to keep the whole thing running. What holds it together is the realization by these human beings that each one them, is equally important to, and dependant upon, all the other ones to keep the motor running sufficiently. It takes the coming together of all the ingredients you mentioned, political ideas, cultures, ethnicities, races and economic ideas coming together to have it run efficiently. When all of this is fully realized by society, the civilization rises to the level of running proficiently.
It bothers me a great deal, as an American, that we call ourselves the greatest country on Earth. Certainly by technological standards, we’ve surpassed all over countries around the globe. We have the ability to put a man on the moon. While Neil Armstrong was up there walking around, we could talk to him live, all the way from Earth to the moon via satellite radio phone. We in the U.S. can talk instantly to anyone in anywhere in this country, China, Africa, Europe or Australia via email or on our cell phones. How is it that we Americans can communicate all over the world, cyberspace and the universe, but can’t talk to the person who lives right next door to our home because he or she is of a different race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality? It seems to me that before we can consider ourselves to be the greatest nation on the face of this Earth, our ideology needs to catch up with our technology.
Daryl, we appreciate your being with us today. These were not the easy questions, and you handled them admirably. I think all of us can learn a lot from this interview.
Contemporary science shows us genes, evolution and sometimes extinctions.
Ancient traditions show us cyclic history and reincarnated lives or alternatively, judgement from life before God, as each of us struggles onward to a superior state even though many of us will nonetheless fail.
Although each method takes a different path, in a broad sense both are in agreement with their conclusions.
Individuals are essentially vessels serving extrinsic ends whether for perpetuating their own dna or to breathe life into an ongoing culture they were born into.
Which distinct subspecies variant that neglected the former still exists? How many among history’s diverse civilizations that abandoned the latter are still around?
Individuals cannot primarily be an isolated end unto themselves. Nor can a Western hemisphere of two billion people, each heading off into two billion random, often conflicting directions continue because this enterprise will rapidly disintigrate as an inclusive and tolerant yet failing modern world has shown us all.