An incrementalist strategy
Continuing the discussion
, “Radical thoughts, on race,” Mark Jaws writes:
Those of us over 50 can remember when whites could talk openly about black crime and other assorted social pathologies associated with blacks. However, by 1975 Stalinist-type PC thought control made such discourse taboo. If we are to alter the unacceptable status quo, we must adopt the tactics and strategy used by our adversaries which brought us to this sorry state of affairs.
- end of initial entry -
When we study the incremental approach used by civil rights activists we see an effective method that applied pressure on the white Southern power structure one obstacle at a time. In the early 1950s the civil rights movement focused on overturning school segregation. As soon as Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education was settled in 1954, attention was drawn to the Montgomery bus boycott in early 1955, and only the boycott. There were no accompanying demands for affirmative action or for banning the Confederate flag. But when the white power structure gave way on one issue, the civil rights movement quickly moved to the next target of opportunity, and so on.
We must adopt a similar strategy if we are to dismantle the liberal PC multicultural stranglehold on our culture. First, we must concentrate on toppling the weakest tower of this complex by breaking the long-imposed silence on black-on-white crime. We can do this with a tide of letters to our newspapers and to our politicians, and, more importantly, with calls to radio talk shows. By such a show of concentrated, unapologetic force we can bring black-on-white crime out in the open and put blacks on the defensive, especially given the candidacy and likely election of Barak Obama, which I believe is a gift from heaven. If Barak and Michelle Obama can sit their butts in a racist church for 20 years, then how can it be racist if we talk about black-on-white crime? If Barak and Michelle had no problem with black liberation theology which calls for “the destruction of the white enemy,” then why can’t we talk about white victims of black crime? If Michelle can claim her husband “as a black man is in danger just by going to the gas station,” then why can’t we talk about white men in comparable—and real—danger, and from whom? If Michelle and Barak want an open and frank discussion on race, then let’s give it to them—but from a direction which they do not expect and cannot deal with.
The first step we must take in restoring white racial consciousness is to assert our right OPENLY to discuss our concern, dismay and outrage at the staggering amount of black-on- white crime the past 40 years. We must make it acceptable for whites to engage in such discourse, period. No need to use disparaging racist talk or hyperbole. Just stick to the facts—and we have plenty at our disposal in “The Color of Crime” and other government statistics.
Juiz writes (July 6):
Concerning Mark Jaws’ post:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 05, 2008 12:18 PM | Send
American Renaissance and this website have been early and most valuable sources of info about crime by colored minorities. Mr. Jaws must be from the East Coast in that he mentions black crime only. There is an epidemic of “Hispanic” rape, murder, arson and vehicular manslaughter that merits attention too.
The “we” Mr. Jaws is talking about have begun acting as per his prescription. There are new voices. George Will has started venturing timidly into this thicket. And Heather MacDonald is invaluable because she comes up with original data, not only analysis. And now there is a new skillful voice, Takuan Seiyo (American despite the name) who has written some great pieces on this subject for The Intellectual Conservative and Brussels Journal.
But without Jared Taylor, Sam Francis, Lawrence Auster, and Peter Brimelow this could not have happened. I hope that one day all four will receive the wide and thankful recognition they deserve.