The face of black rule

Nicholas Stix points out that in Rep. Al Green’s colloquy with reporter Kerry Picket following the King hearings on Thursday (see full transcript here), he was not “responding” to her simple question, but seeking to intimidate her:

I’ve seen such intimidation by racist black public figures before, including academics such as Johnetta Cole, the former president of segregated Spelman College, and tenured propagandist Michael Eric Dyson. They seek to refuse to permit any white, or even “insufficiently black” opponent to speak.

Stix concludes:

Whites cannot engage in “dialogue” with such people, and must—without apologies—do everything possible to protect themselves from living under black rule, because what one sees from the likes of Al Green is the face of black rule….

[T]here has never been a public dialogue on black racism, which makes my concerns as fresh as tomorrow’s news from Japan. However, since every group seeking to destroy America, including Hispanics, continues to ape the civil rights movement, demanding just about everything that black revanchists have demanded, including reparations (e.g., all of America), and blacks’ demands alone are insatiable, if patriots are going to have any chance of saving America, they must directly confront black racism, and the totalitarian black will to power.

LA writes:

I obviously agree with Mr. Stix. However, I don’t think it’s so much about confronting black racism, as though our main battle were against blacks, as it is about confronting the truth about black racism, and confronting whites’ supine response to it. I don’t see blacks as an enemy that has to be defeated. Rather, I think that blacks have acquired the power they now have as a result of whites’ giving it to them. If whites woke up to reality and began standing up for themselves and stopped giving blacks that power, the entire racial dynamic in America would be transformed.

As a friend put it to me recently, blacks in America live a “secondary” existence. Their thoughts are always on whites, what whites are doing to them or for them, or what whites are not doing to them or for them. They don’t live their own life, independent of whites.

Well, in the same way, most of the power blacks have in America today is secondary power. They didn’t develop this power on their own; it has been, and continues to be, bestowed on them by whites. If whites just turned off the faucet, cut off the continual flow of special favors for blacks and of excessive accommodation and deference to blacks, most of the unjust and undeserved power currently enjoyed by blacks, including that of the racist blacks like Dyson, would be ended.

Also, a quibble on language. So many on the right today overuse the word totalitarian. For example, they constantly call Islam totalitarian. That’s not correct. Totalitarianism means that a single person or group exercises absolute control over a society, such as in Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany. While the Islamic law is certainly tyrannical and all-embracing, it does not have the centralized aspect of total rule that we associate with totalitarianism. And to speak of blacks’ totalitarian will to power is way overdone. There is a range of words short of totalitarian that are often more appropriate but that conservatives seen to have forgotten, such as dictatorial, authoritarian, tyrannical, and so on. Now everything that we don’t like, or anything that is not democratic, is “totalitarian.”

Cary J. writes:

Regarding your posting on at March 14, 2011 11:28 AM, may I make two suggestions?

1) I agree that “totalitarian” is the incorrect word in the instance you provide, but it would be eminently fair and accurate to refer to Islam as “totalizing,” meaning that it provides believers with a total frame to explain every thing they might read on the front page. Their slogan might be, “No need to research this, it is already predicted and explained here in the Koran.”

2) I wonder about the use of “whites” as a noun as follows:

” … confronting whites’ supine response”

” … a result of whites’ giving it … ”

” If whites woke up to reality … ”

In a racial context, “white” or “whites” is really an adjective to be added in front of the true noun, e.g., people, peoples, Americans.

LA replies:

I have no problem with describing Islam as “totalizing” or “totalistic” or “total.” But “totalitarian” has a specific meaning and Islam doesn’t fit that.

Your suggested rule is good to remember as perhaps the preferable way, but could not be followed consistently. I think “whites” and “blacks” have been used as nouns by good writers at least since the late 18th century.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 14, 2011 11:28 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):