EM, Words have consequences except for Neanderthals like Tuma who choose to fish and swim in the sewers of history.
I say, the little white caveman is not worth a waste of our precious time. We've got a job to do, a revolution to win. vukoni ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 4:58 PM Subject: ugnet_: A TYPICAL WHITE MAN'S SOLUTION > TO END RACISM... > WE MUST END BLACK SUPREMACY > > By: Kevin Tuma > > In this column, I am going to attempt something risky. I am going to > rationally discuss racial politics. I realize I shouldn't, of course. > It's dangerous to do so. > > I'm white, you see. White people are not supposed to discuss race in any > critical fashion--we do not have the right to do so. We are supposed to > sit in the corner and remain silent while academics and activists tell > us how evil our culture is, how greedy we are, how many advantages we > have reaped from the sweat and toil of black people, and so on. Never > mind the fact that half the white people in America were poor immigrants > around the time of the Civil War, or even came along many years after > the slaves were freed. Never mind the fact that the Africans ended up on > slave ships in the first place because they were sold into human bondage > by other Africans. We aren't supposed to talk about these things, > because we aren't supposed to talk about race at all. We don't have the > right to talk about it. > > > > > That this seed has been planted in the minds of many Americans is very > evident in the wake of the Trent Lott controversy, and its craven, > somewhat shameful resolution. > > Trent Lott is no folk hero. In my mind, he is a lot like Saddam Hussein; > he is a despicable man who is being hated for all the wrong reasons by a > bunch of phony people who are even more despicable. > > In a way, it was marvelously symmetrical to see a constitutional ghoul > like Trent Lott taken down by the haughty, pretentious Washington power > structure he always sucked up to; we do not usually get to see poetic > justice delivered so quickly. Time wounds all heels, but it usually > takes a decade or two, and we don't often get to see the results in the > headlines, where we can gleefully chortle at the victim. And chortling > was very appropriate in Trent Lott's case. He deserved nothing better. > > But there are some problems with the process by which this scurvy worm > was squished. It was certainly unjust..although, after the Clinton > Impeachment Trial, one could almost say that Lott deserved injustice. > What he didn't deserve, however, was to be a victim of thought control. > No human being deserves to be sacrificed for his thoughts. > Unfortunately, we have now arrived at that juncture in America-the > punishment of thought crimes. Lott's supposed "gaffe" could not be > categorized as anything else. There was nothing racially charged or > insensitive contained in his remarks. Everything that was said that > pertained to race was inserted by > oversensitive black Americans who chose to take offense. All Trent Lott > did was praise Strom Thurmond, and say that he should have been elected > President in 1948. Because black racial activists have judged Thurmond > to be a racist, the spectacularly presumptious leap was made that Lott's > praise for Strom Thurmond was an act of racism in itself. This ludicrous > charge stuck, and it had repercussions. > > So, apparently, it is now only necessary to praise a person or thing > that a black man doesn't like, and that is racism--for which a white man > may be severely punished. This is thought control of the highest order; > even more so than the Confederate flag issue. It is tyranny of one group > over another group. It is philosophical domination. > > Forget the fact that Lott's public crucifixion was also sheer partisan > hypocrisy. There's absolutely no question that if Trent Lott had been a > Democrat, he would have been excused for his remarks, patted gently on > the head, and escorted back to the Dixie Congressional White Men's Club, > to play dominoes with Ernest "Jim Crow" Hollings and ex-Klansman Robert > Byrd. Had Lott been a Democrat, the lickspittles of our race-baiting, > whorish news media would have hardly wasted a day on the controversy. > > Forget, also, that the entire Lott controversy--and the involvement of > the Bush Administration in it---speaks volumes about the 'conservatism' > of our current President, and the supposed 'traditional values' of the > party he represents. The temptation to say 'Ronald Reagan would have > handled it differently' is very great, but the days of Reaganism--when > Republicans actually stood for something, even if they were wrong---are > gone forever. Any conservative worthy of being called the name now > belongs to a Third party, and probably left the GOP in disgust some time > ago. > > Forget, even, for the moment, that the 'thought police' in this country > are a very hostile, palpable threat when they have the power to remove a > United States Senator from a position of high authority over a silly > remark made at a birthday party. There is nothing funny about the phrase > "Politically Correct" anymore. Anyone with half a brain should realize > here and now that Political Correctness is a dire threat to freedom of > speech...or whatever tattered remnants remain of it. > > However, in addition to all these things, there is another, largely > unspoken issue: White Americans need to wake up and realize that they > are under attack from sociological forces that it would be unwise to > ignore. It is a culture war, and whites are losing it, because most > whites don't realize it's a war. Their adversaries in the US civil > rights > movement--which has largely become a mockery of its former self--are > drawing battle lines based purely on skin color. > > It is time for white people to realize that they are sitting ducks. > White Americans are targets. Their history is a target, their culture is > a target, even their government is a target. Most civil rights leaders > are not interested in doing away with prejudice; they are interested in > profiting from prejudice. They are interested in fomenting prejudice, > and agitating a war between the races. > > There are a few notable exceptions. Roy Innis and Congress of Racial > Equality show a lot of promise. Ward Connelly is a noted opponent of > affirmative action. Columnists like Walter Williams, Alan Keyes, and > Thomas Sowell reject politics based on race. Other groups appear to be > forming to promote a color blind society. But to most liberal civil > rights advocates, "color blind" is a dirty phrase. They do not want > equality; they want to be judged according to the color of their own > skin--and they want to judge whites the same way. > > Some black activists profit directly from racial enmity on a financial > level; others profit by acquiring fame, notoriety, making speeches, > selling books, or winning seats in government. It is in the interests of > all these people to keep the fires of racism burning hot. They fully > understand that their demagoguery over symbols like the Confederate flag > will stir up more racial hatred, not less. That isn't a problem for many > black racial activists, because they know stirring up more racial hatred > on both sides of the fence feathers their nests. It's their job, you > see. If they did away with racial hatred in the United States, they > might actually have to find some other way to make a living. > > In the case of Confederate symbols in particular, there is no worry > about stirring ill feelings there: Most black racial activists do not > want to make friends with white southerners--they want to punish white > southerners. That's one reason they keep Abraham Lincoln on a > pedestal--despite the fact that it's common knowledge Lincoln was a > white separatist who considered black people to be inferiors. For every > Bad Guy, there has to be a polarizing Good Guy. To militant black > leaders, the polarizing Good Guy was Lincoln. He may have been a racist, > but he also punished white southerners and slave owners. The white man > of the South is the Bad Guy. He is the enemy. Lincoln crushed the South > and destroyed its civilization. He burned its plantations and cities. > That, in itself, earns him bonus points over 'evil aristocrats' like > George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Even though Thomas Jefferson > apparently never said one ill word about black people all his life, was > troubled by the institution of slavery, and is even presumed to have had > a poignant love affair with a black woman who was one of his slaves...he > is the villainous rich white man. Not Lincoln, who only wanted to > emancipate southern slaves--leaving the northern ones in captivity--and > who planned to send the emancipated slaves back to Africa after the end > of the Civil War. Lincoln was a hero, because he crushed the rich white > slaveowners of the south. Jefferson was an evil man, because he profited > from the labors of blacks, and thereby made money. Money is very > critical to understanding the passions and hatreds of militant black > activists, because these activists are > predominantly Marxists. > > What white people need to understand is that, in the view of militant > racial activists, rich white Americans are Czarists, and black militants > are the heroic proletariat. And in the view of the Marxist, "you are > either part of the problem or you are part of the solution." Does anyone > recall the solution the Bolsheviks had for the Czarists of Russia? > Here's a hint: It was not 'live and let live'. > > One of the key goals of Western Communism has been to tear apart the > culture and value system of white people, and to pit minority groups > against that culture. To set one group against another, and one class > against another. Or, more precisely, to set all groups and classes > against white males whenever possible. White males are made to be the > source of all evil. Economic class warfare is what the Bolsheviks > practiced. What is practiced by Western Marxists is racial class > warfare. > > Does anyone think the motivations behind the push for "reparations" are > greed, or a lust for money? If so, allow me to come to the defense of > the reparations movement: It is not about greed at all. > > It is about revenge. > > The dirty little secret no one wants to discuss is where what we call > 'prejudice' actually comes from. It does not derive from people looking > different from one another. That is a fiction that Marxist academics > would like for you to believe. The truth is that bigotry is not about > skin color or physical characteristics--it is about getting even. It is > about grudges. It is about revenge. > > As an example, there are many white Americans who are bigoted against > Africans, but there are very few white Americans who are bigoted against > people from India or people from Thailand. The reason why is because > even though these groups are common here, look different from whites, > and have dark skin, there is no past history of conflict with Thais or > Indians. There is no brooding group resentment. > > Black militants like to excuse their own inherent racism by pointing out > that their people have suffered in the past. That is not a valid excuse. > In point of fact, all racism is based on suffering, resentment, and > perceived wrongs of one group against another. > > Bigotry against blacks did not exist during times of colonial > slavery...slaves were chattel--property--not enemies. That wasn't a good > thing, but it wasn't racism, either. A dairy farmer does not hate his > cow. Racism between whites and blacks did not develop until after the > Civil War. The racism began with Reconstruction. That was when the Ku > Klux Klan originated. Had there been no Civil War...no Gettysburg, no > Sherman's March to the Sea---the racism might not have happened at all. > It is entirely conceivable that if American slavery had ended peacefully > the way it did in England in 1833, or France in 1848--instead of being > umbilically connected to America's bloodiest war---many feelings of > group > victimization might have never developed to any large degree. > > All forms of racism derive from feelings of group victimization. > > Adolf Hitler did not exterminate six million Jews because he didn't like > the way Jews look, or the shape of their noses. He exterminated Jews > because he saw Jews as a threat, and he had a grudge against them. He > blamed Jews for trying to take over European society, and he had lots of > grievances against Jews based on class envy. They owned banks. They had > money. In Hitler's view, they were a privileged group with > disproportionate economic advantages, who wielded power over his own > race. > > Sound familiar? It should. It is much the same basis for hatred of white > people that is preached by black racial activists. > > It's unfortunate that racism exists. It's even more unfortunate that > civil rights charlatans have a vested interest in perpetuating the > racism...beginning with their own. And there is no such thing as > "reverse" racism. Racism is not dependent upon skin color for its > definition. You are either a racist, or you are not. There are no > special labels for those who cry about group victimhood. > > It is time to introduce a new term into the political lexicon: Black > Supremacy. This is what large portions of the US Civil Rights movement > have become---a black supremacy movement. The anger is undisguised. > Racism, to a black supremacist, means anything that stands in opposition > to the economic and political interests of black Americans. If the > economic and political interests of black people are better served by > robbing white people, anyone who stands in the way of robbing white > people is a racist. And that, by the way, is the entire philosophical > base for affirmative action and the 'reparations' movement. > > If there is to be any peace between the races, any end to racism, black > supremacy must be ended. The Robert Mugabes of the world cannot continue > to dominate racial politics. If they do, a racial war between blacks and > whites is inevitable. > > A color-blind society is not only the best solution---it's the only > solution. > > > "Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this > notice and hyperlink intact." Kevin Tuma can be reached at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 12/6/2002
