The Charge of White Racism

Christopher Donovan: Rand Paul, The Civil Rights Act, and My Evening at Wendy's

The other night, there was a fundraiser at the local Wendy’s.  Ten percent of the evening’s proceeds went to the local library, so my wife and children headed over for some delicious greasiness.  Not our usual dinner routine, but it was for a good cause.

Every person in the restaurant — including, believe it or not — the employees, was White (perhaps the library fundraiser skewed things).  Compared to the typical ghetto-area fast-food restaurant experience, this one was delightful.  The restaurant was clean.  People were friendly.  Families were interacting.  There were older couples smiling at the babies crawling on the floor, mothers chatting with each other.  It was as comfortable as a family dinner.

I reflected on all this after having listened to Rand Paul be grilled by Robert Siegel, a Jewish NPR host, about his views on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Paul, as most know, is the son of Ron Paul, and has recently emerged the winner of the Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky.

Whatever Paul’s real views, he of course has been taking the careful tack of insisting that he opposes “racism”.  I trust Siegel relished needling him about whether he’d allow roadside barbecue joints to bar entry to Blacks.

I don’t know how I’d handle that one myself if I were serious about getting high elected office in America today.  The legal distinction between government discrimination and private discrimination isn’t one most people grasp in dumbed-down America, so arguing Constitutional principles wouldn’t work.

How about this?

“Robert, the Civil Rights Act wasn’t about expanding rights, it was about taking them away — from Whites.  Everyone’s got a right to decide whom they’ll associate with, and whom they won’t.  This is probably the most fundamental right.  The government has no business dictating who our associates will be.  This may be awkward and painful at times, but that’s life.  How would you feel if the government forced you to host three Ku Klux Klansmen at your condo in D.C.?”

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

The Arizona Ethnic Studies Law: The Last Gasp of American Individualism

Things keep getting more and more interesting in Arizona. Now they have penalized school districts that have ethnic studies courses: As reported by the NYTimes, “any school district that offers classes designed primarily for students of particular ethnic groups, advocate ethnic solidarity or promote resentment of a race or a class of people would risk losing 10 percent of its state financing.”

The people involved in teaching these courses deny that there is any advocacy of ethnic solidarity or racial resentment against Whites. And if you believe that, I’ve got some land I’d like to sell you.

Tom Horne, the state superintendent of public instruction, is the main man behind the law. He points to an incident in which all the Mexican students walked outon a speech by his deputy, a Republican Latina who was trying to counter another speaker who said that Republicans hate Latinos: “In the middle of her speech, a group of students that are in the Raza [!] studies program got up, put their fists in the air, turned their back to her. The principal asked them to sit down and listen, and they walked out on their own principal.” Sounds like a hostile act of ethnic solidarity.

The NYTimes article mentions that Horne objects to Pedagogy of the Oppressedby Paulo Freire, and the LATimes mentions Horne’s objection to Occupied America: A History of Chicanos, by Rodolfo Acuña, a professor and founder of the Chicano studies program at Cal State Northridge. Who would ever think that titles like that could lead to resentment against a certain (very evil) race?

Actually reading these books is well beyond my tolerance level. Friere’s book sounds like straight cultural Marxism right out of the Bill Ayers playbook. A reviewerquotes Friere: “Education as the exercise of domination stimulates the credulity of students, with the ideological intent (often not perceived by educators) of indocrinating them to adapt to the world of oppression.”

Occupied America emphasizes the evil that Whites have inflicted on Mexicans and Native Americans in the past. An Amazon review titled “Abajo con los Gringos!” (“Down with the Gringos”) states that Acuña’s book “contributes additional heft to the indictment of White settlement and expansion in this hemisphere as the cause of immense suffering by an essentially stone-age culture at the hands of a militarily superior civilization.” Another states that Acuña

pulls up countless accounts of slaughter, rape, torture, mutilation, and abuse of Mexican men, women, children, mostly incited as a sort of blood sport by American cavalry, enlisted men, volunteers, and associates, as well as the leveling of Mexican cities and towns just for target practice. To add to the war crimes, most of the Americans involved, even the command of Zachary Taylor, were never brought up on any charges, nor even in the most slightest way, reprimanded for their actions.

One has to agree with Horne and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer that this sort of thing is likely to produce hatred toward Whites. A spokesman for Brewer stated, “Governor Brewer signed the bill because she believes, and the legislation states, that public school students should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people.” Horne says much the same.

So the ideology underlying the bill is to let bygones be bygones and get on with the project of getting along with each other. The intellectual basis is classic libertarian individualism. Horne puts it this way:

I believe that what’s important about us is what we know, what we can do, what’s our character as individuals, not what race we happen to have been born into. And the function of the public schools is to bring in kids from different backgrounds and teach them to treat each other as individuals. And the Tucson district is doing the opposite. They’re teaching them to emphasize ethnic solidarity, what I call ethnic chauvinism. And I think that’s exactly is the wrong thing to do in the public schools, and that’s why I introduced this legislation to give myself the authority to put a stop to it.

This libertarian ideology is indeed the last hope of those intent on avoiding a race war as the inevitable consequence of present trends. The idea is that the faces will look different as the US absorbs all these immigrants, but we’ll still have a consensus commitment to individualism — nothing but vestigial group loyalties. No group conflict. No retribution for what happened in the past.

But now that America has gone so far down the road of minority ethnic consciousness and has signed on to massive non-White immigration motivated by fear and loathing of the traditional White population, is it really possible to turn back and pretend we are all nothing more than individuals? One reason to think that this is very unlikely to happen is that individualism is a unique creation of Western culture. No other culture has developed individualist institutions, and there is no reason to suppose that the millions of non-Whites who are crowding our shores will do so. Certainly these programs of ethnic consciousness raising will do nothing but strengthen group loyalties and hatred and resentment and hatred of the White majority.

At TOO we have repeatedly emphasized that White Americans are crazy to voluntarily become a minority in a society where the non-White majority has historical grudges against them and continues to have a strong group consciousness. Hostility to the traditional people and culture of America is a powerful current among Jews, spanning the entire Jewish political spectrum, from leftist intellectuals like Susan Sontag (“The white race is the cancer of human history”) and Howard Zinn (whose A People’s History of the United States has been a staple of college history courses for three decades) to neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz (see also here). It goes without saying that these attitudes are common among Blacks, and the fact that Acuña’s work is mainstream among Latino intellectuals is yet another indication, if any were needed, that it is common among Latinos too.

All the indications are that non-Whites are coalescing into a powerful political coalition centered in the Democratic Party. This coalition is formidable in large part because of the prominenc of Jews who are such an important component of American elites in the areas of personal wealth, media and political influence, and in the legal and academic worlds.

This plea for individualism is really the last gasp of hope for avoiding a racial bloodbath in the future. It is simply inconceivable that a non-White majority led by racial and ethnic activists filled with anti-White hatred of the sort that we see every day now will somehow be magically transformed into an idyllic Neverland of individualists of all races, ethnicities and religions. Unless Whites manage to develop a separatist state or manage to massively reverse the changes of the last 45 years, they will be in a physical fight for survival.

This is not to deny that Whites have been brutal towards other peoples in the past. But it is naïve to suppose that non-Whites would behave any differently if they could have. Speaking as an evolutionist, the idea that Western culture is uniquely evil is ridiculous.

But the idea that Western culture and White people are uniquely evil have been common among the intellectual activists of the left that now dominate in the academic world, beginning with the Boasian anthropologists who dominated anthropology for most of the 20th century. The Boasians created an imaginary past expunged of ethnic violence and warfare (see here, p. 29 ff.) Non-Whites were portrayed as gift-givers and myth-makers, not at all prone to ethnic warfare.

Non-White intellectual activists are now celebrating their ethnocentrism and hostility toward Whites. Legions of them are tenured professors in departments of ethnic studies. Acuña’s department of Chicano studies at CSU-Northridge has 28 professors, and it’s the same pretty much everywhere. The Arizona legislation shows that this sort of intellectual ethnic activism also pervades the K-12 curriculum.

So Whites really have three choices:

  • Reverse the trends of minority empowerment by getting rid of ethnic studies programs and deporting illegal immigrants, as Arizona is doing. However, that won’t be enough, unless they succeed in getting the very large numbers of legal non-White immigrants to leave.
  • Stake out a White separatist area in North America.
  • Get ready for the coming race war.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Who's Worse: Anti-Whites, or Race-Denying Confederate Sympathizers?

Christopher Donovan: It’s a question in my mind.  It’s a well-established kabuki dance:  anti-whites call conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Confederate sympathizers “racists” who are hiding their true feelings.  The conservatives respond with indignation, insisting that “Southern heritage” and the free market are their real concerns.

In the New York Times this morning, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham denounces the Virginia governor’s declaration of Confederate heritage month.  It’s a typical yawner about how bad Whites are, and I’m sure someone will complain that “we’re not racists, we just want to honor the South” or some such.

There is a third position, however:  White advocacy.  It admits the anti-White critique that Confederate flags mask more direct racial concerns, but rejects the anti-White conclusion that the concerns aren’t legitimate.  Why can’t this position get a hearing in the New York Times?  Believe me, I’ve tried.  But the New York Times is like a thick, high gray wall, allowing only the perspectives that advance its anti-white agenda.  Its gatekeepers are always liberal and often Jewish, and they probably know full well that if an institution as grand and respected as itself lends credence to White advocacy, the universe as they’ve constructed it would start to crumble.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Edmund Connelly: Moral Panics and Anarcho-Tyranny

Edmund Connelly: No sooner did I get my column on Selective Moral Panics in Higher Education done than a perfect new example popped up in front of me. CNN is now spawning yet another moral panic

Police in New Jersey arrested a teenager in connection with a public-address-system announcement telling “all Blacks” to leave a Wal-Mart store, a police spokesman said. The 16-year-old boy is from Atlantic County, New Jersey. 

I remember when such a thing was merely called a prank. Now the national media has gone into overdrive to cover it. Let’s think a little more about why that is.

Here again I turn to James Edwards and his crew from The Political Cesspool, specifically his co-host Keith Alexander. Mr. Alexander was unknown to me a year ago when I was invited to appear on The Political Cesspool to talk about my Hollywood writing. My interview went very well thanks to the professionalism of both James and Mr. Alexander. In fact, I was flattered to discover that Mr. Alexander was very familiar with my writing for The Occidental Quarterly.

Since then, I’ve learned to download the weekly show and have become even more enamored of the show, especially the first-hour banter between James and Mr. Alexander. First, to this Northerner, it is an eye-opener to discover what great manners these Southern gentlemen have. Further, their facility with the English language leaves me embarrassed. It is a superior form of communication.

Last week (March 13) we were treated to two hours of James and Mr. Alexander talking, and Mr. Alexander perfectly placed what was happening with these anti-White moral panics. First, they presented a list of cases where minorities were given exaggerated attention for alleged offences against them.

For instance, as was recounted on the radio show, a black man driving through Georgia is now suing Georgia police for $10 million because he was stopped and arrested. Never mind, as Mr. Alexander pointed out, that the arresting officer was also black. White racism is at fault.

Then there was the case where police posted a sketch of a black serial rapist. When a White man called in a sighting of the rape suspect, he was investigated for a hate crime.

Finally, we were treated to the story of three White Los Angeles school teachers charged with racism and suspended for allegedly mocking Black History Month by giving students pictures of Dennis Rodman, RuPaul and O.J. Simpson. The kicker is that all three African Americans were on a list approved by the school district for inclusion in Black History Month.

As James Edwards summed it up: 

Got that? Is that incredible, or what? In other words, these three teachers have been fired for following the approved curriculum. The school had actually approved these three, including a tranny and a double murderer, as appropriate subject matter for Black History Month, but when “white males” follow the curriculum, they’re suspended and are probably facing termination.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Alexander was able to draw a larger lesson from these stories. He explained during the second hour (go to the 25 min. 40 sec. mark) that these developments constitute what the late Sam Francis identified as “anarcho-tyranny.” Let’s allow Wikipedia to describe it for us:


Samuel Francis argued that the problems of the managerial state extend to issues of crime and justice. In 1992, he introduced the word “anarcho-tyranny” into the paleocon vocabulary. He once defined it this way: “We refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).”

In one of his last essays, he explained the concept:

What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny—the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.

Francis argues that this situation extends across the U.S. and Europe. While the government functions normally, violent crime remains a constant, creating a climate of fear (anarchy). He says that “laws that are supposed to protect ordinary citizens against ordinary criminals” routinely go unenforced, even though the state is “perfectly capable” of doing so. While this problem rages on, government elites concentrate their interests on law-abiding citizens. In fact, Middle America winds up on the receiving end of both anarchy and tyranny.

The laws that are enforced are either those that extend or entrench the power of the state and its allies and internal elites … or else they are the laws that directly punish those recalcitrant and “pathological” elements in society who insist on behaving according to traditional norms—people who do not like to pay taxes, wear seat belts, or deliver their children to the mind-bending therapists who run the public schools; or the people who own and keep firearms, display or even wear the Confederate flag, put up Christmas trees, spank their children, and quote the Constitution or the Bible—not to mention dissident political figures who actually run for office and try to do something about mass immigration by Third World populations.

I have mixed feelings about all of this. Was the hard fist and truncheon of Soviet control more deadly to our race, or is this American form of White dispossession actually more effective?  Personally, as I’ve written time and again, I think what we Americans have seen thus far heralds a move to the far deadlier tactics of Soviet tyranny.

Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: Edmund Connelly on White Victimization

Kevin MacDonald: Edmund Connelly’s current TOO article (God Helps Those Who Help Themselves) is fittingly subtitled “The Beginnings of White Victimization in Multicultural America.” As he emphasizes, we can already see Whites being targeted by criminals because they are White, with little or no concern on the part of either the media or the government. But these trends are likely to increase in the future as Whites edge closer to becoming a minority with less political power. Anyone with common sense and an appreciation for the brutal history of ethnic conflict around the world must realize that voluntarily becoming an ethnic minority carries huge risks, especially when many of the groups who will collectively become a majority have historically conditioned grudges against the White population. Some of these historical grudges are real enough, while others are mainly the imaginings of ethnic activists intent on rewriting history to suit their current ethnic agendas. (My favorite is the lachrymose view of Jewish history in which for 2000 years Jews have been helpless, innocent victims of irrational hatred by Europeans.)

But in the end, it matters little.  Connelly makes an analogy to the Bolshevik revolution, quoting the Black Book of Communism, “The Bolshevik leaders encouraged anything that might promote this aspiration to ‘social revenge’ among the masses seeing it as a moral legitimization of the terror, or what Lenin called ‘the just civil war.’” Right now, the media ignores brutal Black on White crimes while fomenting moral panics when some college students at UC-San Diego failed to express officially sanctioned attitudes on Black History Month. (The LA Times has had 13 articles on this crisis, with no end in sight.) This demonization of Whites is the first step in large scale murderous revenge.

And yet the vast majority of White Americans would doubtless choose their own extinction rather than suffer the opprobrium of being called a racist for expressing their legitimate ethnic interests. The anti-White revolution has been internalized among Whites. It reminds me of a book by Jewish activist Alan Dershowitz. The plot of Just Revenge is that a Jew finds a German officer responsible for the death of his family and convinces the German to commit suicide in repentance for his crimes.  Decades of propaganda emanating from the most elite academic and media institutions has resulted in a White population that is overcome with guilt — guilt to the point of suicide. The first step is to change that. 

The Kvetcher, the ADL, and David Duke

Patrick Cleburne over at has done a great job publicizing the Kvetcher’s comments on the enthusiasm of the organized Jewish community for displacing Whites. The oddity here is that Kvetcher is not only Jewish but rather blatantly Jewish.  Kvetcher gets it — he understands that people who advocate for Whites have absolutely normal human concerns about their future and that the ADL and the HIAS are pushing a hostile and aggressive Jewish ethnic agenda that should be abhorrent to every White person in America.

The ADL advertizes this quote from Duke as symptomatic of Duke’s vicious hatred:

As America is transformed from a 90 percent European American nation, as it was in the 1960s, to one where we will soon be a minority, should we not ask some pertinent questions? Is this racial diversity enriching, or will it be damaging to our social fabric?

The Kvetcher writes:

How is this not a good question? What does this say about the ADL and its donors that they cite this as a proof of how evil David Duke is?

Is this about “fighting anti-semitism,” or is this about the ADL’s attempt to smear anyone who questions the ADL’s fanatical goal of a white minority (as soon as possible) as a white supremacist?

Exactly. For the ADL, David Duke is the supreme bogeyman. The very first move that Jewish activists (including the ADL’s Abe Foxman) made in their campaign to discredit Mearsheimer and Walt was to solicit Duke’s approval of their writing — and Duke’s approval was then dutifully published throughout the mainstream media, from the Washington Post to the New York Sun and the Wall Street Journal.

It’s simply ridiculous to go after Duke because he deplores the fact that a powerful set of interests like the organized Jewish community has a fanatical goal of displacing Whites. But using Duke is doubtless very effective as a fundraising tool for the ADL and the $PLC.

The pathetic thing is that we get excited when we find a Jew who has the temerity to stand up to his own community on an issue like immigration, much less race. Non-Jews are well aware of the very powerful forces that will come down on them if they advocate for the interests of Whites or defend anything that Duke has ever said. The vast majority of Whites tremble at the very thought of challenging anything the ADL says for fear of being branded a racist or anti-Semite and then having to wonder if they will have a job next week. Kvetcher presumably doesn’t have to worry about that.

It’s good that the Kvetcher is writing like this, but he obviously has a very long way to go to really change things in the organized Jewish community.

Bookmark and Share

"Fearful suspensed animals trodding into rendering plants for destruction"

The following is from a correspondent. I suspect it reflects the attitudes of quite a few Whites observing their impending dispossession and feeling “empty, afraid and cynical.” It amazes me that such people do nothing but cower in fear aware of their impending doom but doing nothing to change things — terrified even to utter the phrase “White American.” Obviously we have to hope that a significant number of Whites are made of sturdier stuff.

Just finished your article  “The ADL: Managing White Rage“, in which you present the sinister influence and seemingly evident quandary that characterize the academia/political forces that represent the worst of “Zionist” intentions in the U.S.

I don’t think any attempt at scholarly discourse would serve any useful purpose, so I will wisely refrain from doing so.  But rather I would like to present another dimension aside from such.  That being the defeated underbelly of the collected,dispirited ethnic entity which is becoming America’s unrealized embarrassment — homogenized Whites.

Just speaking the words “White American” can cause such a range of unsettling emotions that elicit actions based on negative thoughts that totally surrender all logic and evolved pride of self. I find myself a reluctant observer to a devolvement and dissemination of once proud peoples who like fearful suspensed animals trodding into rendering plants for destruction — likewise unwaveringly plod towards unrepentant impotence.

I read with trepidity various social commentators such as yourself, exposing the beast among us — the judas priests of race if you will. I reflect, intone, and even commiserate your insights and spot-on commentary, but even after the feast of revelations and indictments, I still only feel empty, afraid and cynical for the state and future of affairs that will likely fulfill our destiny.  And I’m afraid the collective conscious that sits next to me in neat rows in deck chairs, oblivious to impending disasterous destiny on the USS Amerika, …maybe have only the dimmest of precognition of the great berg waiting in darkness at the edge of final resolution…..

Bookmark and Share