Posts Tagged ‘whites’

A Legal Precedent For White Civil Rights?

Friday, May 19th, 2017

In the lexicon of modern American government, the Irish are “white.” Despite Civil Rights being primarily interpreted — through intersectionality and privilege theory — as a one-way street, an older court cases raise the possibility of civil rights protection for European-descended people:

The most serious charge against five of the teenagers—Sean, Ashley Longe, Kayla Narey, Sharon Chanon Velazquez, and Flannery Mullins—is civil rights violation with bodily injury. Defense lawyers expect Scheibel to argue that Phoebe’s civil rights were violated because she was called an “Irish slut”—a denigration of her national origin—and because the bullying interfered with her right to an education. The bodily injury, the defense lawyers say, is Phoebe’s death by suicide. The maximum penalty for this charge is 10 years in prison. The teens are also charged with other crimes, including criminal harassment and stalking.

Unfortunately, while the precedent for prosecution was set, the case was not decided on the basis of the civil rights charge because the defendants pled out to lesser charges to avoid the risk of long prison sentences:

All five teens struck plea deals with the prosecution where, in exchange to pleading guilty on the misdemeanor charge of criminal harassment, the more serious charges they faced were dropped. Longe faced the most serious charges including one count of each assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, criminal harassment, disturbing a school assembly and a civil rights violation with a bodily injury resulting. The felony charge civil rights violation with bodily injury alone carries a 10-year maximum sentence. Some of the other accused teens also faced the violation of civil rights with bodily injury charge, as well as statutory rape and stalking.

While the civil rights charges were not assessed by the court for their validity, the threat was at least serious enough that lawyers from both sides approved these deals. Perhaps this is something that nationalists can resurrect as an idea in cases where white people face discrimination, including affirmative action cases.

For example, we might fragment the category “white.” If affirmative action is designed to protect minorities, the Irish deserve protection as well. From that point, we get into a game of subdividing the population to its smallest groups, revealing exactly how the “whites are victimizers, minorities are victims” (WAVMAV) approach to government has failed us.

White America Can Heal Itself… By Removing Diversity

Sunday, September 25th, 2016

white_genocide_advocates

T.D. Williams writes that white America denies what black Americans face on a daily basis.

His basic ideas are strong, but he — like most white commentators — struggles at the crucial point. The question is not whites and blacks, but diversity versus Nationalism, or the idea that the nation is defined by its founding ethnic group. When read in this context, his words take on greater weight.

Two weeks before the ’65 Watts riots, President Lyndon Baines Johnson, upon signing the Voting Rights Act, said, “Today, the Negro story and the American story fuse and blend.” The Life editorial astutely acknowledged that “the promise of American democracy has always aroused expectations that take more than laws to fulfill.” Amen. In human matters, changes of policy must been accompanied by changes in attitudes and within individual hearts. Equality for minority groups necessitates understanding and depth of empathy rather than empty posturing. Empathy for blacks has never been a strong point among Americans.

In 1965, as the Watts riot calmed, Los Angeles Police Chief William Parker compared blacks to “monkeys in the zoo.” He doubled down on the condescension and contempt that spurred the riots: “We’re on the top, and they are on the bottom.” In 2016, Rep. Robert Pittenger echoed that tone-deaf condescension and contempt in claiming blacks in Charlotte “hate white people because white people are successful and they’re not.”

Let us zoom out a bit. As Ann Coulter asks, has diversity of any form ever worked for anyone?

As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the “beautiful mosaic” — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.

“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”

What torments African-Americans is this: they cannot have pride in their society. This occurs for two reasons: history and diversity.

No matter how much America and Europe change into multi-ethnic societies, Africans in these nations will be aware of history, which is that they were brought here as slaves or post-colonial subjects. This society was not designed for them, or by them; no matter how much they advance, in it they are a conquered people.

Diversity provides the other half of the denial of pride. When a society is diverse, behavior becomes an unknown and trust evaporates. In a society of people of the same heritage, everyone has roughly the same goals, inclinations and capabilities. In a diverse society, no standard like that exists, so each person is an unknown, working for personal goal.

This denies the ability to have society-wide standards and identity. These are necessary for pride: a belief that the society one is in has been created for people like oneself, and that it has cultural and moral standards which benefit people of that type. Instead, people are merely occupants, hanging out for the money and political stability.

The candidate is a charlatan, a grifter, a sexist and a racist. He enjoys the support of a significant portion of Americans because these people live in an ahistorical vacuum and view American history only through distorted lenses that reflect their own delusions back to them. They live in a world where blacks created racism (racism against whites and racism against themselves), where blacks have had the same educational opportunities as whites as well as unfair advantages, where whites are blameless victims, bewildered by the inferior, dark animals among them. They live in a world that is a direct inversion of reality.

In actuality, diversity is the inversion of reality. In a realistic view, each group works toward its own self-interest, but this is obviously stifled by a diverse society. A Machiavellian realist would expect white Americans to work toward what is in their own best interests, and to trust other groups would do the same.

Western Europeans act in self-interest toward the type of society that benefits them: a nerdy, reverent, and highly organized social system. Whether or not others want the same, the version of that which fits their ethnic group is different, and so constant clash exists with the white order.

Conflict arises from the nature of diversity itself, which we can verify as true because other ethnic groups have clashes as well, not only African-Americans and European-Americans. Each group wants its own order and control of itself so that it can have pride and a sense of well-being. Diversity denies this.

The recent clashes in America have more to do with the introduction of Hispanics and (other) Asians than a white-black conflict. Without compatibility between its citizens, a nation becomes a conflict between special interest groups, and blacks are getting squeezed out. Instead of blaming an ethnic group, it is time to blame diversity itself.