Yep, the concept of “white race” was quite exclusionists
in the old days. Someone mentioned once a trial for
miscegenation (because the State had the right to tell
you who you could or could not marry in those days, a
prelude to the days when they could sterilize you). The
judge refused to convict because while the man was black
the wife was Italian, so she was not white.

As to how should we treat others, well, when Jesus spoke
of the Golden Rule, he did not specify race nor ethnicity,
nor anything else, only to deal with them as we should
wish them to deal with us. Or in the words of St. Peter
Claver, remembering that each of them was redeemed by
the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

By the way, Scott, did you see the telecast on EWTN of
the March of Life?  Talk about trascending race. Those
people were not interested in discussing whether race
existed, and what it meant. They just cared about stopping
the killing. It was a true Rainbow Coalition, much better
than the one offered by the unRev. Jackson. There were
Spanish language signs there for everyone to see, and
a rabbi blowing the shofar, and speeched reminding the
participants what was at stake.

Indeed, the Catholic Church is universal, or it is not.

This article has the loss and the gain, and, I’m happy to say, more gain than loss.  I point out first the loss

Fallacy #1: The references to racial differences in these documents are not rejections of such differences, but acknowledgments of them.
The Fallacy: “Because someone talks about something, it must be important.” A non sequitur.  People talk about UFOs.  Does that make them important?  The refutation of UFOism might be important. A fortiori so also the Church’s refutation of racialism, something that is not only non-existent but also has caused enormous suffering.  The Church does NOT acknowledge race; She acknowledge that racialism is a very bad ideology.  By the way, Praise God that Mr. Richert isn’t arguing that Paul VI was a bad man.

Fallacy #2: In fact, most of the anti-racialists hold, at root, the same assumption as the racialists.  For both, race matters more than anything else
Simply false.  Anti-racialists are anti-racial not because race would be important or even less because it would be the most important thing, but because point of fact that race has no importance, and that racialism has caused great suffering.  (Other bad ideas have caused suffering as well.)

Fallacy #3 against empirical evidence.
What evidence, empirical, scholarly, or scientific?  There’s “empirical” evidence that people have blue and brown eyes.  What’s lacking empirical evidence – or any evidence – is that blue and brown eyes, or lighter or darker skin, has some kind of importance other than to manufacturers of sunglasses and suntan oil. 
We might as well deny that [...]the sun rises in the east.
With Copernicus and Galileo, I in fact do deny that the sun rises in the east.  The sun doesn’t rise at all; the earth turns.  Of course, if one is a mere empiricist, the Sun indeed would circle the earth.  Empiricism is inadequate.

Falacy #4: St. Paul is clearly not denying the differences between Jews and Greeks, any more than he is denying the differences between male and female or master and slave.  False analogy.  Gender is indeed a significant category, especially if one wishes children.  Eye and skin color are not. Slave and master were cultural, not natural conditions.  Surely Mr. Richert isn’t arguing, as Aristotle argued, that certain humans by nature merit being slaves.  As for Paul, see the New Perspectives on Paul movement: From Paul’s point of view, Jew and Greek are cultic communities (not ethnoi or “races”).  One “gets in” to the the Jewish community and the pagan community differently.  The work of the Redeemer provides a different and superior Community, and one “gets in” to it a different way.

Fallacy # 4:[...] distinctions between families; between kin groups; between ethnoi; between nations.  Yes, all of these are related, in some way, to the question of race.
No, they are not related to race, unless Mr. R, correctly, means that moderns tend falsely to so relate them.  In which case, I have misunderstood him.

With the loss comes the (more significant) gain:

i. Mr. Richert correctly points out that racialism is a modern fantasy.  The demands of space prevented him from elaboration.  Race was a fairy tale told by Arthur Gobineau to justify nationalism and imperialism.  I urge him to go the next step: that racialism is not just anti-Catholic, but also anti-conservative.  Tory conservatives know that people are the product of history, habit, custom, tradition, ceremony, and religion – NOT of something so risible as “race”.

ii. Mr. Richert quite correctly points out that racialism is a Catholic heresy.  However he may have come to his conclusion, he has come down in the right place. 

Aside from the four fallacies above, this is a very good article.  I point out the fallacies not out of animosity to him but only because they weaken Mr. Richert’s main point (# ii).

@Sid Cundiff:

“Mr. Richert quite correctly points out that racialism is a Catholic heresy.”

Actually, I don’t point out any such thing, because I wouldn’t know what it could possibly mean.  Heresy is belief that is contrary to orthodox doctrine; but the Church does not hold doctrine about race the way that She holds doctrine about the Trinity or the Incarnation.

“The Church does NOT acknowledge race”

And yet here’s Pius XI, in Mit Brennender Sorge:

“Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.”

The Holy Father offers a list of things--race, the people, the State, etc. and then goes on to say “or any other fundamental value of the human community.” In other words, he is indeed acknowledging the reality of race, just as he acknowledges the reality of the people and the state.  The problem, as he goes on to explain, is not that there is no such thing as race even though people insist that there is; the problem arises whenever we “[raise] these notions above their standard value and [divinize] them to an idolatrous level.” Whoever does so “distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God.”

In other words, Pius XI even acknowledges that race, the people, the State, etc. have a “standard value.” Insisting that this is actually an argument against the very idea of race is not fruitful.  That’s why I suggested reading this and other documents more closely.

Mr. Richert,

Thank you for the sensible post.  I often feel that the racialists and race deniers are two sides of the same coin.  The fault of many racialists is their obsession with things like IQ and their hostility towards Christianity.  In this respect, I think they’ve done Anglo-European Americans a disservice.  The problem with many race deniers is their failure to recognize that Westerners are a unique people and, sine eis, the West would cease to exist.  Any sensible description of Western man will be multilayered, including religion, tradition, custom, habit, and race.  I think that the enlargement of categories (e.g. from Polish, Anglo, etc.) to “white” has to do with the shrinking of the world.  Any non-white will identify a Brit or Russian as “white,” which also reinforces this category.  (I was once in Mexico with a Russian friend, and the natives made no distinction between us, calling us both ‘gringos’, although I’m of Anglo-Western European stock, and she of Russian.) Regardless of the novelty of the broader categories, they are not going away. 

Sid,

Arthur Gobineau did not invent ‘race’, as the mere etymology of the German Rasse will attest, but popularized a modern version of it.  Furthermore, the English understanding of the Latin ‘gens’ as ‘race’ predates Gobineau.  The Oxford Latin Dictionary gives ‘race’ as the primary meaning of ‘gens’.  There is an older notion of ‘race’ that predates Gobineau.  I think it’s important to make this distinction

Thanks Scott, this is probably the most sensible thing I have read on the subject. Both the ardent racialist (“race is all that matters”) and the vigilant anti-racists (especially the ones who absurdly argue that race does not exist) are blind ideologues.

Speaking of blind ideologues, I see Sid beat me to the punch. Sid, as silly as I think your “race does not exists” dogmatism is, your constant invocation of the highly flawed doctrine of the New Perspectives on Paul is worse because it threatens to lead people astray, and I am not sure what it has to do with the topic at hand. Like all obsessives you can’t help throwing your little pet ideas out there.

Sid Cundiff fails to see the irony in describing an ascribed, hereditary, measurable, glaringly obvious physical characteristic such as race as a “fairy tale.” Here is a guy who believes in the Assumption of Mary, transubstatiation, the Passover, Noah’s Ark - in other words, magic - on the basis of something he calls “faith.” Sid is struggling with the concept of race, not angels and demons. I will wager good money that he doesn’t get evolution either.

Prozium’s dismissal of faith as (presumably) something non-empirical is as misguided as the attempt to deny the reality of race.  Faith, at least in its effects, is empirically observable.  Witness the history, architecture, art, music, and literature of Christian Europe, including the many examples of such that were created to honor the artist’s belief in the Assumption, transubstantiation, etc.

Scott,

Perhaps another way to look at it from the Catholic perspective would be from an understanding of the theological virtue of charity. 

We are bound by charity to love our neighbor for the sake of God, where ‘neighbor’ is clearly intended in a universal manner. 

But someone who possesses a mere abstract love for humanity in general does not possess supernatural charity since this must manifest itself in concrete actions. 

With respect to concrete acts of charity, theologians distinguish between the persons who claim our love.  This is the ordo caritatis, or order of charity, which ranks the strength of obligations towards others in descending order of importance based on personal ties. 

The old Catholic Encyclopedia (entry on “Charity") suggests the following order: self, wife, children, parents, brothers and sisters, friends, domestics, neighbours, fellow-countrymen, and all others.

The question, then, is “is there a place for ‘race’ somewhere in the order listed above?”.  If the answer is ‘yes’, where should it be ranked? 

From your quote of Mit Brennender Sorge, it appears only to condemn raising notions such as race “above their standard value and diviniz[ing] them to an idolatrous level”. 

So, for example, would it be disordered to rank race before fellow countrymen but not disordered to rank race after it in the schema listed above?  Or should race not appear at all in the order of charity, but rather related notions such as culture, language, ethnicity, etc.?

Certain Eastern and Southern Europeans were not considered White in the sense that they weren’t one hundred percent White. And there is evidence for that considering the huge invasions that came from the east.

@Brad C:

Excellent points.  Race, by itself, obviously has no place in that ranking.  Rather, it is a potential attribute of any or all of the types of men listed.

Which brings us to an important point: Love of neighbor really does mean, as the order you quoted shows, that actual neighbors--those people with whom we come into contact--have a greater demand on our charity than those people whom we will never meet.  And that means that I have obligations to the black family that lives on my street that I don’t have to, say, the Englishman in London whom I’ll never meet--even though the Englishman and I are both white and, therefore, share something that my black neighbor and I do not.

What my black neighbor and I do share is, in this case, far more important and concrete than what I share abstractly with the hundreds of millions of white men I’ll never meet.

Mr. Richert writes, “The idea of a “white racial consciousness” that encompasses all white Europeans is alien to their [Founding Fathers’] thought.”

Yet we see that a 1790 act of Congress specified:

“That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof...”

That’s not to say that differences among Europeans didn’t count, but only to note that citizenship in this country was originally to be limited to whites. Evidently our Founding Fathers DID attach considerable weight to that category (although many would have liked to restrict citizenship further to WASPs, as you note).

The problem of equivalencing race to family is that
we have a different attachment to them.

I feel kinship to my family and to those people I get
to know through daily contact.  Other people are more
distant and abstract.

I balk at the idea of feeling kinship towards Dick
Cheney (as Obama was forced to do when he looked at
his family tree...), Bush, any neo-con, Charlie Manson,
or any one else whose only claim to such kinship is
that their skin is as light as mine.

I go and look back at the March for Life. Race
conciousness would make me more beholden to a white
abortionist than to a black marcher for Life. Ridiculous!

In other words, Pius XI even acknowledges that race, the people, the State, etc. have a “standard value.” Insisting that this is actually an argument against the very idea of race is not fruitful.
What then is The Church’s teaching as to the “standard value” of race?  I respectfully submit that the “standard value” is is zero and that She so teaches. Note also the Holy Father’s use of the subjunctive: “however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things”.  He isn’t making a claim about race. These documents do indeed need to be read closely and carefully. 

I thank Mr. Richert for providing links.

11. None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are “as a drop of a bucket” (Isaiah xI, 15).
There it is: “superficial minds”, “narrow limits”

17. The peak of the revelation as reached in the Gospel of Christ is final and permanent. It knows no retouches by human hand; it admits no substitutes or arbitrary alternatives such as certain leaders pretend to draw from the so-called myth of race and blood.
There it is: “so called” “arbitrary alternatives”. And “myth” here means what the Nazi’s meant by it, and the reference is to the title of Alfred Rosenberg’s book. 

Or this:
47 [...] It is not just a question of fighting wretched conditions, though this is an urgent and necessary task. It involves building a human community where men can live truly human lives, free from discrimination on account of race, religion or nationality, free from servitude to other men or to natural forces which they cannot yet control satisfactorily. It involves building a human community where liberty is not an idle word, where the needy Lazarus can sit down with the rich man at the same banquet table
62. There are other obstacles to creation of a more just social order and to the development of world solidarity: nationalism and racism. [...]
63. Racism is not the exclusive attribute of young nations, where sometimes it hides beneath the rivalries of clans and political parties, with heavy losses for justice and at the risk of civil war. During the colonial period it often flared up between the colonists and the indigenous population, and stood in the way of mutually profitable understanding, often giving rise to bitterness in the wake of genuine injustices. It is still an obstacle to collaboration among disadvantaged nations and a cause of division and hatred within countries whenever individuals and families see the inviolable rights of the human person held in scorn, as they themselves are unjustly subjected to a regime of discrimination because of their race or their color.
72. Technical expertise is necessary, but it must be accompanied by concrete signs of genuine love. Untainted by overbearing nationalistic pride or any trace of racial discrimination, experts should learn how to work in collaboration with everyone.

There it is: “unjustly subjugated:, not a “trace of racial dsicrimnation”.  Thus the logic is that we ought not discriminate by race because such a discrimination has no natural foundation.

I am grateful that Mr. Richert as a Catholic Christian ends up in the right place. I write because I wish to strengthen his main argument.

Red: I mentioned Paul because Mr. Richert did.  Paul’s statement which Mr. Richert quotes needs interpretation.

Bede: “gens” is best translated “clan”.  it meant for the Romans the extended family.

All:  For the record. I DO NOT DENY THAT DIFFERENT SKIN COLORS AND DIFFERENT EYE COLORS EXIST. I deny those differences have any significance. One might as well call the blue eyed and brown eyed, the short and the tall, the thin and the fat, different “races”.

Adrian is right to point out how risible it would be for me, Scots-Irish/Anglian Bernician to call a Latvian “bro’” or “sista”

I’m curious at to what other here think will be the
future of race relations in North America. Not personal
values or preferences, but what do you think will
actually happen in the future. Will everyone learn to
get along? Will there be a multiethnic ethnic that rules
despotically over the laboring masses? Will there be
social breakdown and a race war like that depicted
in Tom Chittum’s Civil War Two?

I’m curious, because this seems to really be an important
issue to many people and it’s often hard to engage in
civil debate with people with differing views. Some of
the discussion lists I belong to get most postings from
more people when race issues are raised than any other
topic, even on lists where race isn’t the primary
purpose of the list.

So where do you think things will go in the future?

Sid:  “One might as well call the blue eyed and brown eyed, the short and the tall, the thin and the fat, different “races”.”

Yea, at my local prison all the people divide themselves on a random basis.  You have a gang of tall people, a gang of short people, a gang of thin people, and a gang of fat people.

@Sid Cundiff:

To write, as Pius XI does, that “None but superficial minds could . . . attempt to lock . . . within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe,” is, once again, not to deny race, but to acknowledge it, and then to say that God is not the God of any single race, but of all men.  You’re reading your own ideas back into the Holy Father’s text.

If the Church really taught that the standard value of race is “zero,” as you claim, then you should be able to find an unequivocal statement that this is so.  The quotations that you offer are not such statements.

To continue to make your claim in the absence of such statements is to insist that you know better what pontiffs and council fathers meant than they did themselves.

“Thus the logic is that we ought not discriminate by race because such a discrimination has no natural foundation.”

No “natural foundation?” Sid, have you ever seen a school cafeteria? Ever driven through a mixed race town? Ever observed church attendance on Sunday? Ever heard of white flight? And as Bede mentions, ever seen how prisons organize? All these things occur spontaneously. They are not coerced. The natural foundation which is adequately testified to by casual observation is transmitted by this natural thing called DNA. You are familiar with DNA aren’t you?

Also, thin brown-eyed white parents can give birth to blond-haired, blue-eyed, fat kids. They cannot give birth to black children. Your denial borders on delusional. My suspicion is that you don’t really believe it. You just have to steadfastly maintain it because to do otherwise would, in your mind, be the slippery-slope to Nazism.

There is this little thing some of us like to call nuance. You should try it.

Billy Bob

Of course the naturalization law and the militia law of 1792 prove that there was a conception of race as being someone of European descent. The early America legislators didn’t specify that ‘Englishmen, Germans, and Scot-Irish’ had to serve in the militia, it was ‘white men’.

Obviously this doesn’t mean they were devotees of the ‘fourteen words’ or the turner diaries. But they were not only aware of a white race, they put the concept into political practice.

A further word on this devotion to ethnie v. race. The fact is that in todays politics, things boil down to race, or the semi-racial category hispanic. Insisting on breaking white folks down into little ethnic groups is a technique of divide and conquer. I fear this is the fatal flaw of Chronicles-style paleoconservatism. Retreat into your local community, your little ethnic community. Well, you can only retreat so far, the little islands will be swallowed up. I don’t want to be swallowed by 100 million mestizos, or 200 million Chinese thanks.

@stari_momak:

Insisting on breaking white folks down into little ethnic groups is a technique of divide and conquer.

Interestingly, as I’ve discussed in articles in Chronicles and in two presentations at the John Randolph Club, historically, the opposite is true.  The destruction of the various European ethnic identities in the United States as a result of a concerted effort by government to impose an “Americanization” program paved the way for the destruction that occurred after the Immigration Reform Act of 1965.

The thin gruel of the American identity that was imposed from above, rather than growing up organically, proved no match for the immigrant groups who have arrived over the past 40 years--groups who still have an organic ethnic identity to cling to.

Mr. Richert: regrettably I must say: Tu quoque.  I ask again, what is the Church’s teaching as to what exactly the “standard value” of race?  I await your citing an “unequivocal statement”. To continue to make your claim in the absence of such statements is to insist that you know better what pontiffs and council fathers meant than they did themselves. And you ignore the subjunctive.

To all:  I regret to say this, because otherwise Mr. Richert’s bottom line is a good one.

Mr. Richert at least has qualifications in the matter about which he writes.  I demand that William Robert Outlaw tell us he degree in organic chemistry, his degree in genetics (Mendelian and molecular), and the institutions that grated his degree and the dates. He also needs to tell us is real name.  It is not I who is making a claim that genetic “race” is significant.  Mr. Outlaw is, and it is he who has the burden of proof. I await his credentials.

@Sid Cundiff:

“what is the Church’s teaching as to what exactly the ‘standard value’ of race?  I await your citing an ‘unequivocal statement’.”

I haven’t claimed that the Church has such a teaching.  You, however, have claimed that the Church does, and that the standard value is “zero.” Therefore, the burden of proof falls on you, not me.

Sid, I do not need a degree in organic chemistry or genetics to say race is a real biological entity any more than I need a degree in meteorology to say the sky is blue or a degree in botany to say the grass is green. I do know enough to know that organic chemistry has very little to do with the issue. Where is your degree in whatever subject matter would make one an expert in race denial? Cultural Marxist studies from the New School maybe.

Charles Murray has commented very intelligently on race without being a geneticist. So has Steve Sailer.

Billy Bob

Sid, what’s the point in asking WRO his name and qualifications?  Have you ever considered that Outlaw may be his name?  And what if he does have an extensive CV with advanced learning in biology or genetics?  Would that make the least difference to you?  No, none of these things would satisfy you, because you won’t be satisfied by anything short of complete agreement.  Why tarry, arguing points with loathsome browns and stormfronters, just call for a purge and get it out of your system.

Blue versus brown eyes actually do matter. Not in the way Gobineau or the nazis meant though. Nature always promotes genes that are better fit for surviving in a certain environment. The point with nature promoting blue eyes before brown ones is that the blue ones are better at surviving the lack of light during long winter nights in nordic geographies. Most Samis in Scandinavia, who are considered to be of mongolic stock, do have blue eyes.

Brown eyed individuals are more sensitive and depressed by the lack of light than blue eyed ones. This is a clinical and biological function and has nothing to do with any wishes or prejudices. Just like people with particularly white skin who get easily burned by the sun.

Since New York is somewhere on the same latitude as Lisbon, Portugal, one can assume that Americans generally don’t lack light (nordic style), unless they live in Alaska. One can draw the conclusion that nature would thus promote the genes for brown eyes in continental USA.

Craig Senna present the Lamarckian view.  How the Comrade Lysenko would love it! I’m not faulting Mr. Senna. “Acquired characteristics” seems sensible enough, just as “the sun rises” would seem sensible.  But the later is the view of no astronomer since the 17th C, and Larmarckianism is the view of no biologist from Darwin on. Pray tell, How many Eskimos have blue eyes?

Mr. Outlaw, not me, mentioned DNA.  He is under the obligation to tell us his certified qualification for having an opinion on genetics (based on organic chemistry) whatsoever.  Again, call it an old debaters habit, but the affirmative, not the negative, has the burden of proof.  No proof = no case.

The burden of proof is not only on the affirmative, not the negative, but also on the writer of an published article, not the writebackers.  Our writer has made a claim that the Catholic Church teach (to use the unreal subjunctive) that race supposedly matters.  His proof is to quote a document that says no such thing.  Indeed, when read in its entirety and in its historical context, it is a document so fiercely opposed to racism and racialism—Rosenberg directly alluded to—that it is utterly, utterly ludicrous to use it to suggest a support for any racialist theory.  When asked for a document that does say race to matter, our writer shirks the duty to his readers. The fact is there is not now nor ever has been a document of the Magisterium that says “race matters”. I have quoted enough to show that The Church says quite the opposite.

And I thought only certain New Order liturgists twisted document to mean what they want them to mean! Let’s throw in another document that our writer doesn’t bother to mention:

5 [...] The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to “maintain good fellowship among the nations” (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.
-- Vatican II, Nostra Aetate.  Now what part of “any discrimination” do you not understand?

@Sid Cundiff:

“Our writer has made a claim that the Catholic Church teach (to use the unreal subjunctive) that race supposedly matters.”

I made no such claim.  What I wrote was that Pius XI a) acknowledges the reality of race; and b) says that race, the people, and the State have “their standard value.” That’s not the same as saying that the Church “teaches” something.  To say that the Catholic Church “teaches” something has a specific meaning, and thus I’m very careful to use that phrase correctly.

Someone who spends so much time tapping out so many words might profitably spend a little time actually reading what other people write and trying to understand it.

“it is utterly, utterly ludicrous to use it to suggest a support for any racialist theory.”

Again, I’ve done nothing of the sort, nor would I, since I’m not a racialist--except, of course, in the fever dreams of Sid Cundiff.

And yes, the burden of proof is on you.  I never claimed that the Church “teaches” anything about what the “standard value” of race might be; I simply pointed out that Pius XI’s words indicate that race, like the people and the State, have a “standard value.”

You, on the other hand, wrote: “What then is The Church’s teaching as to the ‘standard value’ of race?  I respectfully submit that the ‘standard value’ is is zero and that She so teaches.”

To which I reply, one last time: Prove it.  If She so teaches, then show me one--just one--unequivocal statement where She teaches that.

And no, the quotation from Nostra Aetate is not such a statement.  “Any discrimination” means “any discrimination”; it does not mean “There is no such thing as race.” What part of “their race, color, condition of life, or religion” do you not understand?

Thank you Mr. Richert for your thoughtful article. I appreciate your simple combination of common sense and orthodoxy , those things which of course go together, but are often thought to be somehow polar opposites.

“What my black neighbor and I do share is, in this case, far more important and concrete than what I share abstractly with the hundreds of millions of white men I’ll never meet,”

Thank you for articulating this important point. It always annoys me to read about the necessity for an overwhelming racial solidarity that demands that I ignore my black friends, neighbors and inlaws and pretend that I have a sacred link with every Finn, Frenchmen and Fleming whom I have no connection but common humanity and the smallest genetic link.

This series of threads show exactly why America has moved more and more to the left and Ron Paul (who I support) has done so badly. Blacks are overwhelmingly Christian yet vote overwhelmingly Democratic, why? Because Democrats pander to them as a race and give them what benefits them as a race (EX: affirmative action). Hispanics are overwhelmingly Christian yet vote overwhelmingly Democratic, why? Because Democrats pander to them as a race and give them what benefits them as a race (EX: amnesty, mass immigration). Face it, RACE is everything in contemporary American politics.

That is why Ron Paul is doing so bad. The Cold War is over, free markets and constitutional liberty mean nothing to voters in the age of diversity and multiculturalism. The Soviet Union is dead, Christianity and free markets are no longer effective weapons. You “conservatives” who think only faith will safe you are living in a dream world. That is why you are so irrelevant politically and keep losing. If you’re too scared to fight the battle of race move aside and stay in your delusion while organizations such as American Renaissance, vdare, The Political Cesspool, and others such as them have the courage too.

@Craig Langley

Do you want to know why blacks vote Democratic though
Chrisitan? Why Latinos do?

Because each time they get close to the Republican Party
they get to hear some yahoo call them animals and a
blight to the Republic, so they leave convinced that
there is nothing for them there.

They might not like the Democrats that much, but at
least they treat them like human beings.

Conservatives, having blown their chance during the
Civil Rights movement, seem determined to compound
their mistake, forgetting the old say that you catch
more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Adriana and I have discussed this before: There were good reasons to oppose the Civil Rights Act that had nothing to do with any desire to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, and everything to do (as both Russell Kirk and Ron Paul have pointed out) with the fact that it drastically increased the power of the central state, which has been no friend to blacks or other minorities.

That said, I agree that the rhetoric of a Craig Langley is not helpful, and I find it amusing that he appears to believe sincerely that American Renaissance and the Political Cesspool will ever have any significant political impact in the United States.

Some final thoughts for the night:

Wherever men escape from their daily confrontation with the saving and threatening powers of the cosmos and apprehend themselves as a community that meets the pressing needs of existence that perdures through generations, there history as a form of salvation has its origin: the individual is no longer exposed alone to the abysses of his own existence but sees himself as a member of a race, a nation, a culture that bestows directly upon him the form and direction of that existence, that guarantees him safety, freedom, life--that are “salvation.” It is race that makes possible for him the peaceful management of his daily existence; that provides him with the external means of mastering that existence and, in the structuring of marriage and family as well as in the ordering of social relationships in general, supplies him with answers to the question about his own existence; that enables him to form and interpret in terms that are essentially human the open riddle of existence.  History becomes his salvation, the makers of history become for him those special divine powers in whom he has more confidence than in the distant cosmic divinities: “God-Son” is nearer than “God-Father,” the distant and mysterious Being who becomes near and gracious through the mediation of the Son.

This is, in essence, the principle of “salvation history”: salvation comes through history, which, therefore, represents the immediate form of religious experience.  History is thus a shelter; it gives existence its true character (not its alienation), because this history is divinely established and it is precisely in the reception of the historical that that which transcends history--the eternal--becomes present.

Adrianna,

Liberals are for anti-racism, multiculturalism, and government handouts for racial minorities. Conservatives are for anti-racism, multiculturalism, and government handouts for multinational corporations. No wonder Blacks and Hispanics vote overwhelmingly Democrat. It makes sense for them to do so.

Conservatism is failure. Do you realize how silly you people look when you attack racialism? When racialists controlled America, there was no abortion, third world immigration, gay marriage, civil unions, feminism, pornography industry, divorce, affirmative action, war on Christmas, etc. The expressivist freak show pop culture was still in the future. The Church had a good ride. This was paradise from a paleo perspective. All of these sordid developments in our culture have coincided with the rise of conservatism and the demise of white racialism - why?

A people who are ashamed of their own racial and ethnic identity, who sympathize with aliens over their own kin, are degenerate. Those who have been perverted in such a way are not going to defend the unborn. They certainly aren’t going to summon the will to reinforce the boundaries of their decomposing culture.

Homosexuals now parade in the streets of America. Women visit their abortionist like their local dentist. Insane neocon warmongers control of our foreign policy. The Southwest looks more like Mexico every day.

Here you are attacking us. Think about it.

Mr. Richert,

You acknowledge that race exists and you acknowledge that it matters. It seems to me that if you also say that your own race matters, there is no plausible way to deny that you are a racialist. These would be the three necessary conditions. Some might say that a willingness to act on these beliefs might also be a sine qua non, but I think that’s rather more like evidence of belief. I would find it strange indeed if you thought race matters, but not your own, which is pretty much the position of all white liberals. This is then the minimalist position of racialism: race exists, it matters, and my own race matters. Why the exercise in denial?

Adriana,

What delusional world do you live in? Republicans treat blacks and hispanics like animals when they come near them? Republicans have done everything they can to pander to them. Bush, McCain and the likes have acted like Hispanics are the greatest thing since slice bread with amnesty. When it comes to blacks affirmative action only made the trnasformation to racial preferences under Nixon under a revised “Philidelphia Plan” in 1969. You are merely spouting the mindless cliches about Republicans and race put out by the leftist controlled media and colleges. Also you question the effectiveness of the Political Cesspool and American Renaissance but I ask you to look at Ron Paul. He has done worse and worse with every new state election thereby proving the uselessness of his message and his poor showings discredit his beliefs in the eyes of the majority of voters who only support a winner (ie: electibility). Whereas the Political Cesspool keeps growing with it now in syndication. Once again “conservatives” like you guys are the reason America is in such a mess because you refuse to take head on the big issues (ie: race) and focus on minor issues (ie: gay marriage).

I’d have to read the articles you have written on ‘organic’ ethnic communities, but rather doubt they would be convincing. Fact is that both Americanization and the 1924 immigration act worked, there was a sense of American identity , that sense was that America was mostly white. Nor can one say that labels such as ‘Hispanic’ or ‘Latino’ or organizations such as MALDEF are ‘organic’. They are political tools used to gain power by people who share a phenotype.

On another topic, you make much of the obligations to ‘our black neighbor’. But who your neighbor is is largely a function of race, as anyone remotely aware of the geography and sociology of the US is aware. There are exceptions to the rule, but really quite few considering government force (wasn’t your beloved Rockford under some sort of desegregation order) and ‘elite’ opinion making. So your analogy is somewhat false. Indeed, in most situations were large groups of blacks, whites, others do live in close proximity, various real and symbolic barriers are set up (think of the doorman at the Manhattan condo building, the Chinese gates and signs at the ‘Chinatowns’ in the West, the ‘tagging’ which marks out black or ‘Latino’ areas.

Finally as a somewhat ‘rootless cosmopolitan’, I know that bonds of race do transcend neighborhoods, cities, and borders. Other things equal (education level etc) I feel much more comfortable around your average group of white Spaniards than an average group of black Americans. My personal background has brought me into close contact with both sorts of groups. Or think of it this way, I don’t see Chronicles doing their summer institutes in Harlem, Oakland, or Atlanta—seems you are always jetting of to traditionally ‘white’ countries.

I used to feel bad about rooting for, say, Argentina or Yugoslavia when they played basketball against the US. Not any more. And truth be told, I think most white Americans feel the same.

I am not familiar with Lamarck, but I know about Lysenko, although I’m not a great fan of his ideas.

The reason for Eskimoes not having blue eyes is because they don’t have them in their genes to begin with. That is, if we are talking about un-mixed Eskimoes.

When it comes to the Samis of Scandinavia, who may well have been the first settlers in that area, they came some 10.000 years ago and gradually mixed with the Indoeuropeans. Samis are today a stabilized mixed race between mongols and caucasians. Judging by their looks only, I’d say they’re at most 25% Mongolic, many are 0%. Actually, most white Scandinavians are mixed with Mongols too, but in different proportions. There are some very visible traces of Mongol features among both groups. Their typical mongolic nose is flat, upturned and wide. The mongolic eyelids are present without exception among Scandinavian babies. They normally disappear after a couple of years, but some Scandinavians keep them, on one eye or both, and to varying degrees. Striped or straight hair, without curls, is another typical Mongolic feature common among the Scandinavians.

Other typically Mongolic features are almost completely gone. It is unusual among Scandinavians, Sami or Caucasian, to have short legs. Black hair is very rare, if it exists it is probably drawing lineage of later immigrant groups that came to Scandinavia, like the Wallons. And brown eyes are very rare to. The skin color is never yellow or brown, but white, pink and red (in the face). People with blond hair do seem to tan easily and get real brown in the sun though.

This is of course all changing due to the modern influx of immigrants. But if we stick to the “ancient” dwellers of Scandinavia, the Samis and the Caucasians, we can easily see that Nature has promoted certain features, and they are the same ones, among two racial mixes of peoples living in the same geographical area.

The problem with discussing race is that everyone has a personal stake in it. Was it John Ball here that was married to a Chinese woman? And Adriana seems to be a “brownie” herself, or is likely related to some brown or black people. So they feel the need to “defend” racial rainbows or whatever they call it. Their arguments for universal racial brotherhood strike me as irrational and false as those overdriven appeals to the superiority of the Aryan race among the nazis.

The racism against blacks in the USA (and other Anglo-Saxon countries) and the racism against Italians or Slavs are of different types and shouldn’t be put in one bag when discussing these matters. The Anglos knew very well that they weren’t really whiter than the Slavs and many Italians, but they wanted to keep the privileges of belonging to the white race to themselves. What happens to a commodity that is in plentiful supply? Its value decreases.

@ Craig Senna, “The problem with discussing race is that everyone has a personal stake in it. Was it John Ball here that was married to a Chinese woman?”

First, before anyone accuses me of being unduly belligerent, let me remind you that I’m only belligerent (verbally and, if necessary, physically) against those who violate basic rules of courtesy, decency, and honour.  If “you don’t want nothin’?  Then don’t start nothin’!”

On this forum I’ve disagreed passionately with honourable men who fight like Gentlemen, like Dr Cathey, and even John Zmirak whom I almost idolise.  But there are some lines of basic decency which, if one crosses, one surrenders any claim to basic decency, let alone courtesy, let alone the rare jewel of Honour.

So now I say to Craig Senna:  You crossed a line into the swamps of dishonour, by bringing the Lady I love into this.

In answer to the dishonourable question you raised:  No I am not married.  But the Lady in my life was born and raised in Hong Kong.  She was born as a subject of Queen Elizabeth II, and remains one today as a citizen of Australia - a very patriotic one.  She is a devout Christian of the Anglican communion, and for many years (at personal risk to herself) she used to smuggle Bibles to the underground churches in China.  She has a PhD from an Australian university and speaks and writes better English than 99.9 percent of Australians or Americans or Brits.  She despises the Chinese Communist Party and has been instrumental in assisting Chinese dissidents who are persecuted by the Communists, especially the Chinese Christians.

She loves the Australian flag and she flies it in our window.  On my recent birthday, January 26 - which is Australia’s national day like America’s July 4 - she wept while she saw the fireworks celebrating this country, of which she is a true patriot - a true patriot, all the more so because she was born in Hong Kong and watched it being handed over to the bloody Communists in 1997.  She loves Australia all the more for that.

And, she agrees with me, that the Australian flag SHOULD keep the British flag in one corner of it, because Australia would not be the country which she (a “Chinese") loves, if it were not for Australia’s British heritage and laws and culture.  And Western, and Christian, civilisation, to which she belongs as a devout Christian.

So I say, if ALL Australian citizens were
like HER - REAL patriots who really love this country - Australia would become an even better place than the beautiful “Lucky Country” that it is today.  More
Asian (CHRISTIAN, ANGLOPHONE!) immigrants like her?  YEP!  BRING ‘EM ON!

Ah, but I wonder if, maybe, Craig Senna might be envious of men like me who are loved by the best kinds of Asian women.
I imagine, many of the “White Nationalists” have White wives who look like this:

http://www.newslose.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/hillary_clinton.jpg

...and they envy lucky men (like me) whose ladies and/or wives are like this:

http://english.chosun.com/media/photo/news/200705/200705220016_00.jpg

Heh, I have no “personal stake” in any “race” issue, because I’m bloody PROUD of my Hong-Kong-born Lady.  (I’m refraining from writing her name here only because she has not given me permission to do so, because she wishes that I would boycott this blog 100 percent, because she is sickened by the racist bullshit which pervades this blog.  Our compromise is that I will continue to comment here, but without publishing her name, because she does not want to be associated with this blog.)

Anyway.  I have no “personal stake” in “racial” issues - because I have myriad reasons to be PROUD of the (ancetrally Chinese) Lady in my life - quite unlike most White American “racial realists” whose women are, well, of the same “kith and kin” as Hillary Clinton.  The Lady in my life is a great beauty with a big heart and a brilliant mind.  I’m lucky.  But a hell of a lot of American “White Nationalist” men aren’t so lucky, with their “White”, obese, vulgar, harpie wives who are of the same “kind”, the same “race” as the ghastly Hillary Clinton...hmmmm....

Craig:

I do not know what you mean by “brownie”, if by that you
refer to my Hispanic heritage - Asturian peasants to be
exact, or to the Romananian Jew side.

In any case, I am very proud of my Spanish descent as the
Spaniards were inheritors of the Roman culture - and through
them I claim the classic authors, while all you can claim
were savages who painted themselves blue and worshipped
Druids with human sacrifices.

Learn to be polite when talking to your cultural superiors,
sir.

@Craig I meant yahoos like you.

Like the ones who stoke up the anti-inmigrant argument into
an anti-Latino argument.

I recall years ago when California passed some laws
restricting access to services to inmigrants, which for many
translated into restricting access to Latinos, and were
carried out in a spirit of yahooism.  That’s when I said
that the GOP could kiss the Hispanic vote goodbye.

Scott

The problem with the Civil Rights law was that they addressed
an existing problem that those affected saw as urgent. You
did not have to like the solution offered, but given the
urgency, your political self-preservation dictated tht you
should offer another solution.  People with urgent problems
do not look kindly on those whose only contribution is to
point out thta the only solution offered has problems of its
own.

Look at it his way. There are two plumbers, and the work of
one is of a higher quality and cheaper than the other, but
if you have an emergency, it is the other one who will come
fix it, be it in the middle of the night.  You bet that when
your basement is flooded you do not care so much about
quality and price, but “how fast can you get here”?

Failure to understand the same priorities for those who
asked for the civil rights led to the present situation.

1. Mr. Senna would now have us base a social and political order on the shape of noses!

2. Mr. Richert might as well be the newspaper character from Cooper’s novels named “Steadfast Dodge”.  If the Church doesn’t define “standard value” of race, and if She insists on no discrimination by race, then race has a value of zero. Had it a value, that value would be the basis for some kind of discrimination. QED.

But at the end of the day, however confused he may be about “race” (a supposed biological catagory) and history (a human artifact), Mr. Richert comes home to his senses.  I thank him profoundly for pejorative judgement of racialism and the American Renaissance rag.

3. Mr. Ball once again rides to our rescue from our racialists, he naming what is really important to human beings. And of course, or racialists are anything but gentlemen.

@kowalski:

“You acknowledge that race exists and you acknowledge that it matters. It seems to me that if you also say that your own race matters, there is no plausible way to deny that you are a racialist.”

Of course there is.  Read the entire article, including the final two sentences:

“race, while a component of family, kin, and nationality, is no substitute for any of them.  In making it the ‘whole ball of wax,’ both racialists and anti-racialists betray their own rootlessness.”

@stari_momak:

“I’d have to read the articles you have written on ‘organic’ ethnic communities, but rather doubt they would be convincing.”

Then, of course, you don’t have to bother reading them, since you’ve clearly already made up your mind.

“Fact is that both Americanization and the 1924 immigration act worked, there was a sense of American identity , that sense was that America was mostly white.”

I have this discussion with racialists all the time.  “The only way to undo what’s been done is to go back to the white racial consciousness that existed between 1924 and 1965,” they say, and I always respond: “If that is the solution, why didn’t it keep things from falling apart in 1965?”

There’s the rub: The sense of American identity that was imposed through the Americanization movement was very, very shallow.  It did succeed, however, in displacing--through the force of the central government--much deeper ethnic identities of Americans of European descent.  Those identities might have withstood the onslaught of massive immigration post-1965.  More likely, had they not been destroyed in a misguided attempt at Americanization, they would have prevented the passage of the Immigration Reform Act.

And, eventually, through long association with other Americans of (different) European descent, and through attachment to their particular places in this land, an American national identity would have emerged organically.

John Lukacs’ Outgrowing Democracy (reissued a few years ago as A New Republic) does a far better job than I can in this little space to explain how, at the various times in American history when an American national identity began to coalesce, something--war and immigration, most prominently--came along to disrupt it.

@Sid Cundiff:

Early on, in response to my remark that “anti-racialists feel compelled, against empirical evidence, to deny the very reality of race, because once they admit it, they believe (as the racialists do) that that reality has to trump everything else,” you wrote that:

“Anti-racialists are anti-racial not because race would be important or even less because it would be the most important thing, but because point of fact that race has no importance, and that racialism has caused great suffering.”

Yet if this is true, why do you now insist that:

“Had [race] a value, that value would be the basis for some kind of discrimination. QED.”

It’s possible for race to have a value, as Pius XI indicates, and yet not be used as a basis for policies that discriminate.

@Sid Cundiff:

“But at the end of the day, however confused he may be about race’ (a supposed biological catagory) and history (a human artifact)”

May I ask what I wrote about history that you’re referring to in this quotation?

@John Ball & Adriana

Overreacting, aren’t we?
John, you don’t want us to refer to your woman as “Chinese”? As if it were an insult? You said it yourself, that she’s Chinese. What’s the problem then? And why the long defensive speech about her? She is not under attack and needn’t be defended. Also, your idiotic general attack on white women is just below the belt. Why is it you keep on talking of Honour when you obviously lack it?

Adriana, forget your fantasies about the Romans. We live in another reality now.

What Craig? Will you deny that Roman civilization
was superior to those of blue unwashed savages in
the boondocs of Europe?

Whatever is of value in Classical thought did not
come from those savages. Their contribution was
nil until the Romans civilized them.  Blond and
blue eyed meant only unwashed savage then.

Never forget it, and speak respectfully with the
heirs of that culture.

Sid, you read things and see what you want to see. Scott did not condemn American Renaissance as far as I could tell. He just suggested that it wasn’t succeeding any better than the supposed failure of conservatism that Craig Senna was asserting.

Modern American “conservatism” is most certainly a failure as Craig asserts, but it is a failure because it is not really conservative not because there is something wrong with conservatism properly understood. Modern “conservatism” is a brand of slightly less liberalism than the other guys.

@ S. Richert

I notice you did not address my substantive points about the non-organic nature of MALDEF etc. Nor about the racial geography of the United States, or even about the ex-Yugoslav basketball team. You managed to score a debater’s point though—touché.

As for the failure to stop the 1965 immigration act, that is a good point. One answer would be that the act was sold with outright lies, as Buchanan has shown. Wild underestimations of numbers etc. Another would be the very topic of this thread, or more so the Zmirak comments. There has been internalized among white people a belief that any expression of racial—not ethnic but racial—interest, pride etc is the absolute worse thing one can do. Another angle is the part, as documented by Kevin MacDonald, of organized Jewry in the passing of the act (no I don’t agree with him on everything or even most things, but his history on this is absolutely correct). Now, Jews I take it that Jews are one of those European ethnic groups that are ‘organic’ and much to be admired in your model. Well, what white racialists say is lets emulate them, lets pursue our interests as a people. We’ve already shown that the concept of a ‘white America’ extends back to at least as early as 4 years after the Constitution was drafted. It is time to remobilize that community.

@Adriana:

“The problem with the Civil Rights law was that they addressed an existing problem that those affected saw as urgent. ”

People often see things as urgent that aren’t, and sometimes they rush into “solutions” that are worse than the problem.

The central state in Washington, D.C., is no friend to blacks or other minorities.  Whatever they have gained over the past 40 years has been more than offset by what they--and the rest of us as well--have lost.

The answer was always the question of changing people’s hearts.  Anyone who knew Russell Kirk knows how he opened his house and pocketbook to men and women of all races and nationalities.  The people that he helped benefitted from his help; the people that the sponsors of the Civil Rights Act “helped” did not.

Sid,

Do you ever give up?  Take a drop of saliva to your local crime lab, and with 99.9% certainty they can tell you whether the person is white, black, mestizo, Asian, etc.

Adriana,

You should read your Germania by Tacitus.  He ascribes to northern Europeans the virtues that the Romans lost under the yoke of empire.

For the record, the vast majority of people from Central and South America (places like Argentina excepted) are mestizo, not European.  And I am not imposing this classification upon them.  Only read the La Raza literature.

Bede

Sure, Tacitus thought the Germans more virtuous
than the Romans.

Just like today you find plenty of Lefties who
think that Thirld World societies and peoples more
virtuous that the USA.  Same old, same old

As for people in Central and South America, they are
Hispanics and are recognizned as such in Spain.

The rest is irrelevant.

Scott

If the people involved saw it as urgent, then it
was urgent. In the words of John Lukacs, when
somebody says that the situation is intolerable,
what they mean is that they are not willing to
tolerate it any further.

That’s what urgent means. That if they did not
receive attention in the span of time they allotted
to it, they would take their business elsewhere.

So they did.

Ask yourself why they could not get prompt attention in the
direction you wished, and why no effort was made to keep
them reasonably satisfied.  Complaining now that they did
is inconsequential.

For a long time conservatives were saying that the racial
problem would solve itself, with time. Well, it did, and you
do not like the way it was solved. But you see, any problem
that solves itself without your input will never be solved
to your specifications, and you’ll have to live with it.

@Adriana:

“ Well, it did, and you do not like the way it was solved.”

So I take it you do?  Is the United States--and all of us, black, white, brown, yellow, and red therein--better off today than 40 years ago?

@ Red Phillips

It appears you have mixed up us Craigs here. You are probably referring to the poster Craig Langley here. It is he who claims that conservatism has lost.

Let’s pay more attention to details in the future, uh?

@ Adriana

>Will you deny that Roman civilization
>was superior to those of blue unwashed
>savages in the boondocs of Europe?

What does that have to do with you, or with me? Modern Europeans are so mixed with each other that anyone, from Turkey to Norway, or Ireland to Russia, can claim Roman heritage. Big deal.

>Whatever is of value in Classical thought
>did not come from those savages.

No, it must have come from your wonderful and culturally accomplished buddies in the Rainbow March.

>Their contribution was
nil until the Romans civilized them.

Probably so. However, many of those groups you so enthusiasically promote here haven’t YET contributed with anything that resembles civilization. But I guess that must be us evil whites who are stopping them. As usual.

>Blond and blue eyed meant only unwashed savage then.

We have unwashed savages nowadays too. What is your first thought when meeting a black or mexican man in a dark alley when on your way home? That he may well be the coming Shakespeare? The new Mozart? A coming deep sea explorer, like Jaques Cousteau? I don’t think so. You are probably stiffening your steps and reaching for your mace.

>Never forget it, and speak respectfully
>with the heirs of that culture.

We are all heirs of that culture.

Seems you in fact *like* racism, as long as you are the one setting up the rules of the game. Roman good, barbarian bad. Bow to “heirs” of Romans, talk respectfully to these “heirs”. You’re very bigotted and toxic, aren’t you? But the rest of us are expected to embrace humanity, and particularly “your” choice of humanity.

The same right you take to pick and choose who’s to be talked respectfully to, meaning you and people like you, and who’s a savage, should be extended to the rest of us too.

Adriana, you are no conservative, you’re just another commie pretending to be conservative. Or neoconservative, as it is called nowadays.

Craig, I was pointing out your inconsitency. You
tout the excellencies of your race, with the
superiority of Western Civilization as the proof,
and when I remind you that your race had little
to do with laying the foundations, that it was
lowly Mediterranean types who did it, while your
ancestors of which you are so proud behaved just
like any other primitive tribe shown on “National
Geographic”, they you claim that the inheritors
of such culture are universal.

I guess that race matters unless you get the
short end of the stick…

The Rainbow Coalition Evaporates
Black anger grows as illegal immigrants transform urban neighborhoods
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_blacks_and_immigration.html

Hispanic Immigrants Lower Black Wages And Raise Black Unemployment
Steven Malanga describes rising black opposition to Hispanic immigration and what it costs blacks.
This Latino “tsunami,” as Los Angeles–based Hispanic-American writer Nicolás Vaca calls it, has intensified the well-founded feeling among blacks that they’re losing economic ground to immigrants. True, early research, conducted in the wake of the big immigration reforms of the 1960s, suggested that the arrival of newcomers had little adverse impact on blacks—one study found that every 10 percent increase in immigration cut black wages by only 0.3 percent. But as the immigrant population has in some places grown six or seven times larger over the last four decades, the downward pull has become a vortex. A recent study by Harvard economist George Borjas and colleagues from the University of Chicago and the University of California estimates that immigration accounted for a 7.4 percentage-point decline in the employment rate of unskilled black males between 1980 and 2000. Even for black males with high school diplomas, immigration shrank employment by nearly 3 percentage points. While immigration hurts black and white low-wage workers, the authors note, the effect is three times as large on blacks because immigrants are more likely to compete directly with them for jobs.
Blacks don’t get deported as the Hispanics flood in. The blacks are still here in even worse shape than they were before. It is ridiculous to think we all come out ahead when our most impoverished group becomes even more impoverished and more idle.
Blacks used to be able to get jobs in janitorial work. It is low status work. But it is real necessary work. In LA the blacks have been replaced by Hispanics.
A case study of Los Angeles janitorial services cited in a Government Accounting Office report captures the enormity of the shift. It began in the late 1970s, as several small firms began hiring Mexican janitors at low pay, prompting building owners to drop contracts with the companies that employed blacks in favor of the cheaper upstarts. As the immigrant-dominated firms grabbed more business, industry wages slipped from a peak of $6.58 an hour in 1983 to $5.63 an hour in 1985. The number of black janitors in L.A. plummeted from about 2,500 in the late 1970s to only 600 by 1985. Today, the city’s janitorial industry, like apparel manufacturing and hotel services, is almost entirely immigrant.
We’ve already got the consequences of globalization where lower paid manufacturing work such as in the garment industry has mostly been sent abroad. For the remaining low paid work to get shifted over into the hands of a newly arrived group just makes a bad situation worse.
Body shop work used to earn a decent hourly wage in LA but no more.
Former mechanic Anderson felt the effects of low-wage immigrant competition in his old line of work. “I used to sell parts to body shops, and I knew Americans who were making $20 an hour repairing dented fenders,” he says. “Now, 95 percent of South Central L.A. body-shop jobs are held by recent immigrants making $7 or $8 an hour.” Says Joe Hicks, former chair of Los Angeles’s Human Relations Commission and now head of the nonprofit Community Advocates: “It’s hard to find a black face on a construction site or in a fast-food restaurant around here any more. People from the black community have noticed.”
The poor folks are going to vote for Robin Hood taxes that will make the open borders libertarians quite unhappy. Yet many of the libertarians will avoid connecting the dots, being strong in faith.

Blacks are getting ethnically cleansed from LA.

The Latino influx into formerly black-majority urban neighborhoods has sparked deadlier kinds of conflict. While most violent crime in these areas is still black-on-black or Latino-on-Latino, interethnic violence is mounting, and in some locales, much of it—perhaps surprisingly, given high overall black crime rates—is Hispanic-on-black.

In the heavily mixed-race community of Harbor Gateway in Los Angeles, for example, Latinos now commit five times more violent crimes against blacks than vice versa. Countywide numbers are just as startling. Though blacks make up just 9 percent of L.A. County’s population, they were the victims of 59 percent of all racially motivated attacks in 2006, while Latinos committed 52 percent of all racially motivated attacks.
The problem for blacks looking to leave is to figure out where to go to. Huge growth in Hispanics in the Old South makes those states less appealing though probably still the best bet.

Scott:

I do not argue that the solution to that problem
was a good one, only that it was timely - in
politics, like in comedy, timing is essential.

My comment was on the dangers of letting things
solve themselves with time. The solutions might no
be good ones, and far of what we would hope, but then
if you leave a patch of ground untended, letting
nature take its course, you would hardly expect a
harvest of wheat, would you? You’d likelier to get
dandelions.

Conservatives hoped that the race situation would solve
itself with time. They should have wondered if it would
solve itself the way they would want it to be solved. So
it got a solution of sorts, because it was the only
thing offered in a timely manner. No one is asking you
to like it, only to recognize that your wishful thinking
in hoping it would work itself out without your having to
put some effort made it so taht it was the only solution
available.

Craig, I was pointing out your inconsitency. You
tout the excellencies of your race, with the
superiority of Western Civilization as the proof,
and when I remind you that your race had little
to do with laying the foundations, that it was
lowly Mediterranean types who did it, while your
ancestors of which you are so proud behaved just
like any other primitive tribe shown on “National
Geographic”, they you claim that the inheritors
of such culture are universal.

Everything you said here above is simply wrong. Maybe you too mix me up with someone else? I have not displayed any particular “pride” of my ancestors. I do not have anything whatsoever derogatory to say about Meditteranean “types”, present or past. If anything, I tend to like them. I have not particularily stated the superiority of Western Civilization, although it is my own civilization and I very much like it.

If it makes you feel better, I am somewhat of a Meditteranean type myself. I look like Sean Connery, no blue eyes and no blond hair. OK? My exposé of the natural benefits of blue eyes had nothing to do with promoting myself or my physical features. I thought that what I had to say was less known and that it may interest people.

Why I was interested in the subject had to do with my wife being from Sweden.

Stop being an evil witch and behave nicely now, please.

Sean Connery is your idea of “a Mediterranean type”?

@ R

So what do you suggest then?

For the record, Craig’s Irish ancestors had a great decentralized civilization for hundreds of years and have one of the fastest growing economies in the world. And of course Ireland is a beautiful country(which needs good Irishmen to keep the land :)