When it comes to negotiating for whites there is a reality:
Which, again, is so obvious that no one mentions it.
Everybody WANTS to be white.
That is why libertarians get short shrift. They argue that whites should have the same right to all-white communities that other races do their own communities. This never sells but that never stops them.
This nice-sounding argument is dismissed for a reason everyone knows but no one mentions. It is assumed that, if whites are allowed to separate, there wouldn’t be any whites who would choose to live outside their own communities.
Exactly that happened when busing was at its peak. There were not enough whites left after white flight to racially balance schools. In one famous faux pas, a black government official said that, “White children are a precious resource which must be distributed carefully.”
I don’t think I need to tell you about the storm that THAT piece of bare reality caused. It was the whole basis of busing, but it was also NEVER to be mentioned.
Bill O’Reilly with his education degree states the whole basis of the respectable position:
“There can be no all-white ANYTHING in America.” This assumes that all non-whites want to be white, and every non-white negotiator goes in with that assumption.
Once again, this is so obvious no one says it, exactly like the Mantra. Everything here interrelates, and this interrelates with the Mantra. There can be no white escapees AND WE ALL KNOW WHY.
#1 by backbaygrouch4 on 11/23/2008 - 2:57 am
It has struck me that the implementation of Jim Crow laws in the the post Reconstruction South was not racially motivated. Yes, there was a large component of the population that did act from racial antipathy. But they required additional support to acquire a majority.
This was not attained until the 1890s when the utter corruption of the biracial factions became unsustainable and the goo-goo classes, groaning under bankruptcies caused by Blacks and race traitors, switched sides. They made the hard decision that property was more important than equality. The point is this, segregation was not the majority position in the South per se, it required allies. This is not to say that the resultant governance was scandal free, but the scale of the corruption was manageable. After all, we are men, not angels.
What does this have to do with today? Often our side is blinded by the demographic fact that we are in a majority. Racially, yes. But the racial idea is not a majority and, possibly, never will be. In order to succeed we will have to deal. We must stop waiting for the torchlight parade that rights all. Ain’t gonna happen. We need allies. More importantly we need cohesiveness and self identification. At that point we have a lot of aces, more than the race traitors do.
The mantra forces the fence sitters to divide along lines favorable to our cause. This should lead to alliances in the same way that looting of the Southern state governments in the 1870s and 1880s led the non racially motivated Whites to abandon biracialism. Exactly when, and for exactly what reason, this will occur is as clear as the date of the Soviet implosion was to the Kremlin watchers. It will come. The ever mounting cost of trying force equality out of inequality will lead to a breaking point. The timing is a tad murky though.