White conservatives should not blame blacks for their anti-white attitudes

Stewart W. writes:

Patrick Buchanan recently published a reaction to Obama’s speech which, I must say, looks almost as if it could have come from VFR or Amren, and which was in fact posted on Amren. The Buchanan column makes very worthwhile reading. However, there is a comment on Amren about halfway down the page, by someone writing as “white, but not unjustly proud,” that is an excellent critique of Buchanan’s thesis, indeed of the reaction of many conservatives to the black outrages of the last 50 years. Mr. “white” points out that our fault lies not in the stars, but in ourselves, and in our continued refusal to acknowledge that we have caused much of the problem by maintaining social policies based on the presumption of equality between races. “[Buchanan] says we have done more than anyone to lift up blacks…. Either they need to be lifted up, or, the idea of lifting them up was completely wrongheaded to begin with.”

The final paragraph of the comment is one of the finest I have seen on the topic. We need to “take up the white man’s burden,” or we face extinction, and with us goes the light of civilization for the rest. I’ve copied the entire text of the posting below:

I’ll tell you why the “white community” (is there a white community in this country? Or a black one? I don’t think so) is responsible for black failings: we have been pretending that as groups the races are equal, and so giving blacks the excuse that all their failings in comparison with other races are due to racism. Why give them money if we are not making amends for being racist? Why indulge their criminality if not because we are making amends for our racism? We teach them they are in fact a race just like our own, and that all differences in lifestyle between blacks and whites considered as groups are due only to racism. So why should we complain when they say that every aspect of their lives that compares unfavorably with other races is due to racism?

Whites have to lead the way. Buchanan says the black illegitimacy rate is 70 percent. As if the white illegitimacy rate of what, 40 percent now, is so great? Who’s idea was it that illegitimacy was not so terrible? That broken families in the name of personal fulfillment is acceptable? Are these ideas that originated in the minds of the black intelligentsia?

Blacks, he says, are not grateful. Fine. Do we teach them to be grateful? Do we teach them that our founders, even the ones that owned slaves, were noble and great men? Do we teach them that they are responsible for their own actions, and that what they receive as a group is what they are able to achieve as a group in this free country of ours? Do we teach them, as Buchanan wrote, that they should above all thank God that they were introduced to salvation?

Buchanan is angry at blacks. I think he should be more angry at white liberals. Was justice Earl Warren a black man? The man that integrated public schools and desegregated everything? That man that drove prayer and the Bible from our schools? Who legitimized contraception? Or the men of the Berger court that discovered abortion to be a constitutional right? Was all that the work of black men, either in conception or in its becoming effected through our institutions?

Bablack is of course wrong about what whites need to do, as Buchanan rightly points out. But what would he have us do? He says we have done more than anyone to lift up blacks. Well, that is precisely the problem. You can’t congratulate yourself in one moment for lifting someone up, and then in the next blame the person who says they need to be lifted up still as being ungrateful. Either they need to be lifted up, or, the idea of lifting them up was completely wrongheaded to begin with. So either keep lifting and shut up, whitey, or admit you made a huge mistake in pretending that inequalities necessarily imply injustice.

As for interracial crime, Buchanan is 100 percent right. Why then is the white media silent about it? Who to blame for encouraging this horror, then, but the white liberals that conceal it? Is this the fault of the black owner of the NY Times? The black owners of NBC, CBS and ABC? The black chairs of the psychology, sociology and criminology schools in our colleges and universities?

Buchanan asks, are incarceration rates the fault of the black community itself, or white racism? It is certainly not the fault of white racism. That blacks are more prone to criminality is a fact of nature. But whose fault is it that this tendency has been exacerbated? Were blacks part of the Kerner Commission that blamed riots on white racism? Does Bill Cosby tell blacks to blame white people for their misbehavior? Did Booker T? In the case of crime, it is true, black leaders have not been guiltless in fostering an attitude that justifies it—Garvey, King, X. But if whites had not agreed with those leaders’ view of race and racism, there would not be the plague of black crime to the extent it exists today. But who first thought of the idea of crime as a legitimate means of self-expression? The famous black philosopher Nietzsche?

“Take up the white man’s burden.” That is the only way to save Western civilization, as, when Kipling wrote that line, it was the only way to spread it. Nietzsche did not take up the white man’s burden. Nor Justice Warren. Nor does the NYT. You have to responsibly lead the way, or be in the way. But either way, it will be up to white people, whether they choose to take it up, and save themselves and all, or commit suicide and at the same time extinguish the light for the rest.

BTW this implies, of course, having the courage to consciously elect a POTUS that is a white man.

LA replies:

This, from my 1994 article, “Murder on the Long Island Rail Road,” which was published at American Renaissance, may be relevant to the Amren poster’s thesis:

White liberals and mainstream institutions, far from disabusing blacks of this poisonous suspicion of whites, have encouraged it. President Clinton came to New York City during the mayoral election and charged that white voters’ only possible reason for not supporting Mayor David Dinkins was covert racism. Earlier, Clinton had picked Johnetta Coles—the black college president who has publicly endorsed the “whites are committing genocide” theory—as his transition advisor for education. American schools are now dominated by multiculturalism, an ideology based on the premise (in the words of the New York State Education Department) that non-whites “have all been the victims of an intellectual and educational oppression that has characterized the culture and institutions of the United States and the European American world for centuries.”

Hollywood and the news media hawk the image of a pervasive, barely repressed, racism hiding behind the bland, smiling face of white America. Businesses across the country hire “diversity consultants” to indoctrinate their employees on the need to get rid of the “white male” way of doing things. Corporations such as Gillette and Bell South sponsor a conference of Afrocentric high school teachers, where Western civilization is described as “vomit” and the participants recite: “We, the African community, in the hells of North America, do pledge our minds, our selves, and our bodies to further the struggle … ” Ironically, while white America is routinely condemned for its “institutional racism,” the real institutional racism in this country is the systematic message—put out by the schools, the mass media, and the whole liberal culture—that whites, and the civilization they have created, are essentially evil.

Should it be any surprise, then, that many blacks take this message to heart? White liberals think that constant reminders of the sins of the white man will root out racism. In fact, the endless drumbeat about black victimization only gives blacks reasons to hate whites. It is as if whites, in their guilt-ridden attempt to compensate for past injustices, were doing every thing within their power to encourage blacks to hate whites.

Mark J. writes:

While I agree with “White But Not Unjustly Proud” that the white liberal establishment bears responsibility for widespread black hatred by tolerating, enabling, and even encouraging anti-white teachings and pathologies which characterize much of black America today, I would not fault Pat Buchanan for making his case about black ingratitude. He deserves our praise for paving the way for renewal.

Those of us 50 and over know very well that this entire anti-white, affirmative action, multicultural movement was not imposed with one big bang, but rather foisted on us piecemeal from the 1960s and through the Reagan years. First, with appeals to our Christian consciences. Then, calls for equal access, followed by presidential pleas for short-term preferential treatment from LBJ. With that ideological beachhead secured, the Marxist multi-culti’s inserted their non-traditional historical figures (such as Harriet Tubman) into school curricula, ultimately paving the way for the tarring and feathering of the Founding Fathers and just about everyone and everything central to the White American experience from Jamestown to Selma.

In unraveling this sinister system of liberal lies, I advocate using their step-by-step approach in reverse. First, we demonstrate a la Buchanan that no matter how much we lavish black America with attention and treasure, we end up with mostly ingratitude and hostility. We have at our disposal indisputable black-on-white crime statistics and an endless array of bloviating black blowhards, whose very words condemn them as ignorant and ungrateful buffoons whose black liberation theology cannot stand up to scrutiny (e.g., black Jesus and black Moses). Second, we illustrate that no matter how much we spend, our “anti-poverty” programs have intensified, rather than ameliorated, the problems. Here again, government statistics on illegitimacy and the “achievement gap” between white and blacks serve our purpose.

These first two steps pave the way for the unavoidable third and final step in asserting the causes of black failure and European and Asian achievement. It is here where the proverbial rubber meets the road. And if we are to survive and energize our people, we must address the very root causes which have propelled the European and Asian races to stand head and shoulders above their tropical counterparts. We must begin with the migration out of Africa and explain how over the course of tens of thousands of years the unforgiving climate and geography of the Ice Age produced a stock of people who had overcome adversity not encountered in the tropics. Everything falls into place after that and once we cross that Rubicon we must use whatever instruments at our disposal to include emerging data on the G-nome and the vast repositories of MRI data which may indicate different cerebral functions among the races. It will be ugly, but it will be necessary. And as our societal affluence wanes, so will the patience of our people to continue along with the liberal status quo. If we can make a reasonable and passionate plea, we can begin to undo the damage and put into motion the majoritarian reconquest you speak of.

Buchanan provides the first step. He should be mightily and highly praised.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 22, 2008 02:09 PM | Send