The Naked Face Of The Enemy

The Naked Face Of The Enemy

http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2012/05/naked-face-of-enemy.html

I’ve considered long and hard. I’ve agonized. I’ve cast about for alternatives until all the skin has worn off my fingers. I’ve repeatedly refused to accept the implications of what my senses repeatedly told me. I simply can’t do it any longer. The evidence is overwhelming.

America is currently in a state of civil war, and has been for some time.

It’s not a conventional, easily recognized, flying-lead sort of war. That’s what makes it so deadly. That’s why the Right must win it. Should we lose, the carnage will be unimaginable.

I can practically hear what you’re thinking: “Porretto has finally flipped his wig.” Perhaps I have. That’s always a possibility. As the saying goes, there’s a fine line between genius and madness. But perhaps I’m right…and perhaps you’ve inhabited the same State of Denial in which I hid from reality for so very long.

We shall see.

* * *I have several citations this morning. They don’t stand alone. Indeed, none of them, in the absence of much other evidence would be significant at all. That’s part of what makes the ongoing hostilities so lethal: it takes a perspective both wide and deep to grasp the pattern.

The first is from the esteemed Mark Alger:

…Police and Fire are the primary fiduciary responsibilities of government. They should be budgeted first and cut last.An official was quoted as saying that the citizens he’d talked to didn’t want to raise taxes to “pay for the fire department.” How much you wanna bet he never heard any of them say, “… until you quit wasting taxpayer money on massage parlors and sweetheart deals for your brother-in-law.”

Right?

Step into my office. I’ve just heard about this bridge…

Here lately, Teh Won has been on the stump (How is it proper for a government official to campaign for particular policies?) trying to persuade us that, if Congress doesn’t raise the debt limit (How does that make sense?), we’re going to lose [insert laundry list of sacred cows]. Bridges, roads, armies — the latter day version of teachers, cops, firemen.

Saying nothing about bank bailouts, green energy boondoggles, union payoffs, CAGW scams, ACORN, and the rest of the treasury-looting going on…

Right.

No. What we want to do is bit-flip the selected duties of government which we are going to fund. We’re going to start with your charter, fiduciary responsibilities, like protect the borders, run the courts, maintain the roads, deliver the mail. The rest of that crap can hold a bake sale.

The tactic employed by the unnamed official (and by Barack Hussein Obama) has a long and dishonorable history. It’s called the Washington Monument Defense. It hearkens back to an incident in which, when Congress dared to reduce the rate of increase of the budget for the operation of the District of Columbia, the city’s lower levels of government immediately retaliated by closing down Washington’s most popular tourist attractions — that is, by denying non-residents access to the only features of the city they really enjoy and value. The outcry was so sharp that Congress immediately restored the full amount the bureaucracy had demanded.

Like other items with the WMD acronym, the Washington Monument Defense can bring an opponent to heel with no more than a suggestion. Consider, if you will, this passage from William E. Simon’s A Time For Truth, about the 1975-1976 New York City budget crisis:

When informed that cuts in jobs and in pay were inevitable, the municipal unions ran amok. It is only fair to say that Mayor Beame’s cuts in the summer of 1975, under the supervision of the Municipal Assistance Corporation (MAC), were deliberately inflammatory. They were calculated for the purpose of “proving” that the city needed state and federal aid. Beame dismissed nearly 5000 policemen and more than 2000 firemen (closing twenty-six firehouses) and fired nearly 3000 of the city’s 10,000 sanitation workers. The unions understood that this was an act of political blackmail. In June 1975 the firemen’s and policemen’s unions published a four page leaflet which they distributed to tourists. Titled “Welcome to Fear City,” with a lurid skeleton’s head on the cover, the pamphlet advised visitors to New York to stay indoors after 6 P.M., avoid public transportation, and, “until things change, stay away from New York if you possibly can.” In July the sanitation workers went on strike. They threatened to turn “Fear City” into “Stink City” and shouted from picket lines, “Wait till the rats come!”

Anyone familiar with New York City’s monstrously bloated government — no less so in the Seventies than today — will realize at once that Beame and the aforementioned unions were playing the Washington Monument Defense. It worked, by the way.

* * *The thrust of the Washington Monument Defense is obvious: Punish the citizenry for not conceding what the government has demanded. The original incident merely angered tourists to Washington, D.C. More recent invocations of the Defense have struck directly at the legitimate and proper functions of a government: defending the citizen against predation and maintaining peace and order in public places. Mark Alger’s piece above describes the dynamics of such incidents beautifully.

The attitude that gives rise to the Defense is one that divides the nation into “us” and “them.” The inside or “us” group is composed of those who regard their positions in government, or as beneficiaries of government, as theirs by right and not to be challenged or questioned. The outside or “them” group, against whom the Defense is wielded, is composed of everyone else — i.e., those of us who are compelled by threat of punishment to pay for the State’s activities. The Defense itself actuates the threat, albeit not in the conventional manner of indictment, trial, and imprisonment or expropriation.

Before I press onward, ask yourself: What makes the Defense possible? That is: what combination of circumstances and cessions produces a state of affairs in which the insiders — government functionaries (elected, appointed, or hired) — can deprive us on the outside — private citizens under a nominal regime of self-sufficiency — of the protections of life and property?

I’ll return to this.

* * *The Washington Monument Defense isn’t the one and only weapon in the State’s arsenal, but it does outline the mindset of those inside the “us” group:

If you’re not one of us, you’re the enemy. Any promises we might have made to you are not binding upon us. Our aim is to bring you to heel.Of course, the candor of that implication doesn’t entirely serve the “us” group. Insiders would generally prefer to maintain the facade of “service” — i.e., that they’re merely dedicated public servants straining to do their duties despite the obstinacy of the “them” group about providing what they “need.” Toward that end they’ll lie so baldfacedly as to create new low-watermarks in the annals of public deceit.

But there are lies and lies. Some lies are easier than others to establish and perpetuate. Take as an example the lie that labor laws, by which Washington can descend on a firm for not having hired enough Negroes, or cripples, or brain-damaged welders of Moldovian descent, actually serve the interests of those of us who work for a living. Or the lie that the many “affirmative action” (i.e., preferential treatment by race, sex, and ethnicity) laws truly improve the prospects of minorities and the character of the American workplace.

Let it be said at once that such intrusions into properly private relationships do nothing to help their supposed beneficiaries, but rather do them a great deal of harm. The statistics speak unequivocally on this point. Indeed, the apartheid regime of pre-Mandela South Africa was brought into existence in part by the imposition of minimum-wage laws; high-ranking members of the National Party admitted that they knew what result would come of them, and steered deliberately toward it. But for a member of the “them” group to speak openly about such effects is to court counterfire of the most devastating sort.

Which brings me to my second citation: a thirty-year-old essay by the great Thomas Sowell:

In the movie, Absence of Malice,lives are damaged and even destroyed by irresponsible reporting — and the law offers no real protection. In real life as well, the most damaging, unsupported, and inaccurate statements about an individual can be written and broadcast coast to coast, without the law’s offering any meaningful recourse. Judges have so watered down the laws on slander and libel that only in special cases can you nail those who are being irresponsible, vindictive, or even outright liars.I know. As one who has taken controversial stands on various issues, I have been the target of a smear campaign for more than a year. Demonstrably false statements have been made about me in the media and positions attributed to me that are the direct opposite of what I have said for years in my own published writings. And yet a lawsuit would probably do nothing but waste months of my time, at the end of which the smear artists could slip out through one of the many loopholes — and proclaim themselves vindicated and their charges substantiated.

[Applause to Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury for digging up this stunning piece.]

The entire essay is invaluable. It should be read and digested by every American with an interest in the consequences of supposedly well-intentioned public policies. Nor is Dr. Sowell, one of the nation’s strongest and clearest voices for limited government, the only target the “us” group has attacked.

(An aside: In For The Defense, the second of F. Lee Bailey’s legal autobiographies, he narrates the legal ordeal of Captain Ernest Medina, one of the officers accused of perpetrating the My Lai butchery. A telling passage in that tale concerns Time magazine’s slanders against Captain Medina as he awaited trial, for which Bailey and Medina sued under the libel statutes. Time escaped the judgment by claiming, successfully, that Medina was a “public figure,” and thus fair game for anything, by virtue of Time’s own efforts to that effect. Enjoy the irony.)

To give the lie to an “us” group’s representations is, in the minds of the “us” group, a declaration of war — and they believe in total war, in which no weapon and no tactic are off limits. Their entire cadre of hangers-on in the communications trades will mobilize at once to destroy the target. The truth or falsity of their chosen shafts is never under consideration. Victory — the silencing of the dangerous “them” voice — is all that matters.

Compare that behavior to what totalitarian regimes have done to dissenters. Americans of the “them” persuasion aren’t yet in fear for our lives, but it needn’t remain so forever.

* * *Some years ago, back at Eternity Road of late, lamented memory, I posted the following:

Just a few days ago was the first anniversary of the judicially sanctioned torture-murder of Terri Schindler-Schiavo by her soi-disant husband, Michael Schiavo. During that gruesome process, your Curmudgeon penned a cri de coeurthat, had he had his druthers, would have been read by every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth.To cut to the chase: it wasn’t. At least, it wasn’t taken to heart.

On March 2, 3, and 4 of this year, the Texas Academy of Sciences held its annual conclave, at which it awarded a certain Eric Pianka, a biologist at the University of Texas, with its Distinguished Texas Scientist Award. Whatever Dr. Pianka’s achievements as a researcher or educator might be, they were overshadowed, for the moment at least, by his proposition that 90% of the human race must die:

“Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine,” Eric Pianka cautioned students and guests at St. Edward’s University on Friday. Pianka’s words are part of what he calls his “doomsday talk” — a 45-minute presentation outlining humanity’s ecological misdeeds and Pianka’s predictions about how nature, or perhaps humans themselves, will exterminate all but a fraction of civilization.Though his statements are admittedly bold, he’s not without abundant advocates. But what may set this revered biologist apart from other doomsday soothsayers is this: Humanity’s collapse is a notion he embraces.

Indeed, his words deal, very literally, on a life-and-death scale, yet he smiles and jokes candidly throughout the lecture. Disseminating a message many would call morbid, Pianka’s warnings are centered upon awareness rather than fear.

“This is really an exciting time,” he said Friday amid warnings of apocalypse, destruction and disease. Only minutes earlier he declared, “Death. This is what awaits us all. Death.” Reflecting on the so-called Ancient Chinese Curse, “May you live in interesting times,” he wore, surprisingly, a smile.

So what’s at the heart of Pianka’s claim?

6.5 billion humans is too many.

In his estimation, “We’ve grown fat, apathetic and miserable,” all the while leaving the planet parched.

The solution?

A 90 percent reduction.

That’s 5.8 billion lives — lives he says are turning the planet into “fat, human biomass.” He points to an 85 percent swell in the population during the last 25 years and insists civilization is on the brink of its downfall — likely at the hand of widespread disease.

“[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity,” Pianka said. “We’re looking forward to a huge collapse.”

Let’s get one thing straight before we proceed: Anyone who agrees with Dr. Pianka had better keep his hands where your Curmudgeon can see them.

An attitude like Pianka’s can only come from an ivory tower. One must be utterly isolated from real life and real people to contemplate their extinction with such cheerful equanimity. Yet according to the linked story, Pianka is well supplied with admirers and acolytes:

Most of Pianka’s former students are bursting with praise. Their in-class evaluations celebrate his ideas with words like “the most incredible class I ever had” and “Pianka is a GOD!”Mims counters their ovation with the story of a Texas Lutheran University student who attended the Academy of Science lecture. Brenna McConnell, a biology senior, said she and others in the audience “had not thought seriously about overpopulation issues and a feasible solution prior to the meeting.” But though McConnell arrived at the event with little to say on the issue, she returned to Seguin with a whole new outlook.

An entry to her online blog captures her initial response to what’s become a new conviction:

“[Pianka is] a radical thinker, that one!” she wrote. “I mean, he’s basically advocating for the death for all but 10 percent of the current population. And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he’s right.”

Today, she maintains the Earth is in dire straits. And though she’s decided Ebola isn’t the answer, she’s still considering other deadly viruses that might take its place in the equation.

“Maybe I just see the virus as inevitable because it’s the easiest answer to this problem of overpopulation,” she said.

Of course, “this problem of overpopulation” is a completely impersonal matter. It has no bearing on the identities or futures of identifiable individuals. Were Miss McConnell asked if she expected to be among the doomed 90% or the fortunate 10%, what do you suppose she would say? Is it not likely that in her unspoken thoughts, she assumes herself to be among the architects of the annihilation, rather than an honoree?

Your Curmudgeon calls this the Commissar Complex. It puts him in mind of an anecdote from the 1848 French Revolution, when a coal-carrier scoffed at a lady of the upper classes: “Yes, madam, everything’s going to be equal now. I’ll go in silks and you’ll carry coal.” They who imagine the remaking of the world after their own preferences are like that.

Never imagine that they aren’t serious. Consider the following:

“The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’” — philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics

“Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet….Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” — biologist David M. Graber, in review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, in the Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989.

But in keeping with the “death cults” motif, your Curmudgeon must emphasize the underlying attitude: Superior individuals, disdainful of the common herd and disinclined to rub elbows with them, theorize about the management of the hoi polloi while sipping Cointreau. Such management connotes a shepherd-to-sheep relation. Certainly it would include a willingness to “thin the herd” at need — with need determined solely by the self-nominated master intellects in the closed circle.

“Kill five-billion-plus people because their continued existence offends us? Why not? Haven’t we acceded to the deaths of millions of unborn children in the name of convenience? Haven’t we argued that to let a child be born with a birth defect, or against its mother’s will, is an act of ‘wrongful life?’ Don’t we have such luminaries as Peter Singer to justify infanticide as a form of retroactive abortion? Haven’t we condemned a president and his administration specifically for liberating two nations from monsters who were slaughtering tens of thousands each year? Haven’t we argued in the highest chambers of power that ‘a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy,’ and that rocks and moss and tundra are more precious than the human lives the oil beneath them could sustain? When we argued for those things, did anyone rise to stop us? Who could stop us now?”

Gentle Reader, I wish I had preserved for your edification the batch of hate mail I received after posting that piece. It was an undifferentiated mass of viciousness. You would have thought I’d come out in favor of executing homosexuals, or discriminating against rhythm-challenged Negroes, or the designated hitter rule. But if memory serves, not one of my correspondents dared to address the central thread of Pianka’s lectures — that the death of 90% of the human race would be a good thing — even though Pianka himself has openly said so.

Why would a hate-mailer address that thesis? It’s so clearly anti-human that only someone who actively hates other people and desires their destruction would adopt it. So anyone determined to defend Pianka, but equally resolved to represent himself as a “good guy,” must treat Pianka’s thesis as “off the table.” He must assail the one who dares to express shock and horror that anyone could espouse such an idea as somehow evil.

Doesn’t that suggest that the hate-mailer finds the thesis worthy? Doesn’t it bring to mind the faux-equality of the Parisian coal-carrier — the “Commissar Complex” mindset I alluded to in the above piece?

Which brings me to my third citation: a look at one of Pianka’s more overtly genocidal fellow-travelers:

This is Finnish writer Pentti Linkola — a man who demands that the human population reduce its size to around 500 million and abandon modern technology and the pursuit of economic growth — in his own words. He likens Earth today to an overflowing lifeboat:

What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.

He sees America as the root of the problem:

The United States symbolises the worst ideologies in the world: growth and freedom.

He unapologetically advocates bloodthirsty dictatorship:

Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent a dictator that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. The best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and where government would prevent any economical growth. We will have to learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves. A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life have been organized on the basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her.

As is often the way with extremist central planners Linkola believes he knows what is best for each and every individual, as well as society as a whole:

Just as only one out of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or mankind as a whole. In this time and this part of the World we are headlessly hanging on democracy and the parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments of mankind. In democratic countries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most. Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromising control of the individual citizen.

Linkola’s ground assumption is that the current penetration of environmental alarmism is an adequate popular basis for his recommendations. He’s wrong, of course; most Americans, at least, would not consent to having nine-tenths of their number liquidated and the survivors subjected to rigid totalitarian rule for any reason, much less to “save the planet.” But his aim isn’t truly to bring about mass death and totalitarian rule for the sake of the environment; it’s to use “the environment” as the rationale for mass death and totalitarian rule. Indeed, he hardly bothers to disguise it.

The disturbing things about this vile notion are:

  • That there are many, including many in the United States, who would call Linkola’s unsubstantiated assumptions of ecological crisis, like those of the aforementioned Eric Pianka, rational and defensible;
  • That the “us” group now promulgates those assumptions as dogmas beyond question;
  • That those dogmas are now the overt basis of public policies at all levels of government;
  • That anyone who gives these obscenities true coloration — i.e., as expressions of hatred and contempt for Mankind — will come in for the full vituperative, calumnious force of the “us” group, most particularly via their mouthpieces in the media.

Do you disagree? Read this, and tell me if you still do.

* * *I hope my central point hasn’t been lost among all the atrocities covered in the above. My tiny participation in the incidents I related is insignificant; I’m so far down the list of English-language political commentators that I don’t deserve personal mention. The pattern beneath these incidents is what matters.

We are at war. Not by our decision — that is, the wills of those of us in the “them” group — but by those in the “us” group. The “us” group aims at our complete, unquestioning subjugation, a campaign in which effort no weapon is to be held in reserve, and no tactic deemed beyond the pale.

Bu really, that’s only one of the major points I’d like to make today. The other concerns this snippet from an earlier segment:

Before I press onward, ask yourself: What makes the Defense possible? That is: what combination of circumstances and cessions produces a state of affairs in which the insiders — government functionaries (elected, appointed, or hired) can deprive us on the outside — private citizens under a nominal regime of self-sufficiency — of the protections of life and property?

Like most of the genuinely basic questions about social and political affairs, to ask the question — sincerely, determined to know the answer regardless of what it might tell us about ourselves — is to answer it.

We are no longer self-sufficient.
We have ceded all responsibility for the protection of our lives, our property, and peace in the streets to The State.
The State has taken advantage of that cession to reduce us ever more completely to helplessness before it — in some regions, mainly psychological helplessness, but in others objective helplessness as well.
The State has compounded our subjugation by creating numerous mascot groups, some of which are merely strident, others of which are ready and eager to use violence, in support of the State’s overall agenda.
Our response to these developments has mostly been to shrug.

Please, please, please: Interpret “the State” broadly, not narrowly. Anyone who, for any reason, wields coercive force or the threat thereof to compel obedience to some external dictum is at that time and in that place an agent of the State. Ask Massachusetts ice cream vendor Mark Duffy whether it mattered to his livelihood whether the “armed environmental police” were hirelings of Washington, or Massachusetts, or the town of Carlisle, or claimed to be “private citizens” solely interested in “the public good.” Ask him whether he would have regarded an equal or greater force that dared to stand in his defense against those “armed environmental police” as enemies, or as courageous and infinitely praiseworthy American patriots.

Then ask yourself whether, should you ever be in a position comparable to Duffy’s, such a force is at all likely to appear in your defense.

* * *Political salvation has become extremely unlikely. Yes, I meant what I said in this essay about the desirability of buying time. We need time for the general recognition of the war between “us” and “them” to burgeon and mature. But I can’t see a reversal of the trend through political mechanisms alone as plausible.

If that’s the case, we can go in only two directions from here:

  • Acceptance of de jure subjugation, coupled with as much “underground resistance” as is possible to us;
  • Open armed revolt.

We are not ready to revolt. Not only do far too many Americans still believe in “the system;” there aren’t enough of us ready, willing and able to put “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” at risk for a chance at a Constitutional restoration. Among the Constitutional movement’s weaknesses is that too many of us are in our “declining years.” Though we recognize the rumble of Juggernaut’s carriage, we’re far more inclined toward “riding it out” than taking up arms against it.

Far more Americans must grasp the enormity of our common plight before an overt uprising would have a significant chance of success.

* * *One cannot recognize a state of war yet deny that an enemy exists; the latter posture makes the former impossible. My overriding purpose in the above was to make it more difficult to deny the existence of the enemy — to some extent, to give us of the “them” group “a face to hate.”

I wish I could think of a way to end that last sentence with some other phrase. Hatred is always destructive. Indeed, it’s the engine of willed destruction itself: the conscious desire to do harm to someone else. Christians are enjoined against hatred…with one exception:

Then an experience that perhaps no good man can ever have in our world came over (Ransom) – a torrent of perfectly unmixed and lawful hatred came over him. The energy of hating, never before felt without some guilt, without some dim knowledge that he was failing to distinguish the sinner from the sin, rose into his arms and legs till he felt they were pillars of burning blood. What was before him appeared no longer a creature of corrupted will. It was corruption itself to which will was attached only as an instrument. Ages ago it had been a Person: but the ruins of personality now survived in it only at the disposal of a furious self-exiled negation. It is perhaps difficult to understand why this filled Ransom not with horror but with a kind of joy. The joy came from finding at last what hatred was made for. As a boy with an axe rejoices on finding a tree, or a boy with a box of coloured chalks rejoices on finding a pile of perfectly white paper, so he rejoiced in the perfect congruity between his emotion and its object.

Elwin Ransom’s Adversary was already damned. We cannot wish for — certainly not labor for — the damnation of the “us” group; that’s theological hatred, hatred unto eternity, which is the worst of all kinds. But we can ardently desire their downfall and disgrace. We must look upon their faces, not merely as a group but as individuals, dispel the notion that they’re simply “misguided,” acknowledge the enmity between us, and respond to their ill-concealed desire for our subjugation with a confident, justified desire for their ruin. More, until we allow ourselves to do so, we will make no headway at restoring liberty and justice to these United States.

Ratcheting Up The Crisis In Europe

Ratcheting Up The Crisis In Europe

“Crisis in the eurozone” stories are getting boring and this is one two year old soap opera the world would just as soon see disappear. Nevertheless it grinds on; yesterday the German finance minister said it could go on for another two years.  Unfortunately, he’s right.

But while the news from Europe is complicated and inconclusive (they are always threatening to jump off the bridge but so far, no one has), this is still a story one has to watch. And after months and years when the crisis was mostly in the hands of elites — heads of government, central bankers and the like — in the last couple of weeks the public has been getting involved, and that makes the crisis more dangerous and harder to solve.

The Greek and French elections were the public’s first real chance to get a word in on how Europe is handling the crisis, and the word from the public is one of those expletives that we don’t allow at Via Meadia. The public not only doesn’t approve of the way Europe is handling its problems; it wants to hang, draw and quarter the people responsible. The Greeks and the French both voted for candidates who wanted to rip up the fragile agreements already negotiated; as more European countries hold elections we must expect that more European politicians will come to power with mandates to change Europe’s direction. Many like the new French President François Hollande will try to manage this artfully, but the Greeks are unlikely to be the only bull in Europe’s china shop by the time this is done.

The other way that public sentiment threatens to blow Europe sky high is swifter, less predictable and far more dramatic. As Greek savers and investors read the writing on the wall, they are pulling their money out of Greek banks. They know that if Greece pulls out of the euro, the government will do something funny to the banks; they aren’t sure what (nobody really is), but there is a strong suspicion that any money left in Greek bank vaults will be converted from euros to drachmas at the stroke of a pen (more likely, by the tap of a keyboard), and those drachmas will soon be worth much, much less than a euro.

Better to have your money in Swiss or German bank than in a Greek one, every sentient vertebrate in Greece has to understand; as a result, hundreds of billions of euros have been moving out of the Greek banking system. At one point last week, television networks were sending camera crews out onto the streets to look for panicky customers standing in line at ATMs or at bank counters; but then they realized that these days you can do it all on the net. We have entered the age of the invisible bank run and are waiting for the first virtual panic.

An invisible bank run is a hard thing to watch; not only is it less telegenic than the old-fashioned kind, one relies on numbers from official government agencies for statistics. How much money left the banking system today? How many banks need emergency liquidity to meet the tide of withdrawals? In the old days, reporters could and did watch lines form outside the banks and watch the armored trucks arrive with cash. These days it is happening anonymously and you only know what they tell you.

They are very unlikely to tell you the truth. Officials lie like rats in times of financial panic; they do it out of a sense of duty. They will insist that a given country will never leave the euro until the moment that it does; they will say that a deposit freeze is unthinkable until they announce that they’ve done it; they will tell you a bank is rock solid until the moment they padlock its doors. This is all for your own good, of course. They don’t want you to panic — and they want to make sure that your money is trapped when they take it away or turn it from gold into straw.

Bank runs, even virtual ones, are the method by which public fear can blow up the eurozone. A bank run, as hundreds of thousands of depositors decide to pull their money out of a bank or a banking system at the same time, is the financial equivalent of a dam break. Banks, even very well run ones, never have all the money that their customers have deposited in their vaults. They lend that money out to other people, and because they charge borrowers a higher rate on their loans than they pay savers on their deposits, they make money.

At least they make money as long as enough of the borrowers can pay back their loans.

When borrowers can’t repay their loans, the bank sooner or later has to “write down” the value of those loans. In bad economic times, when borrowers are going bankrupt and the collateral on their loans loses value, banks can make huge losses. This is how Ireland lost its shirt; the banking system collapsed as the Irish real estate bubble burst, making building contractors and home owners bankrupt all over Ireland, and making the real estate that served as collateral for their loans almost worthless at the same time. The government — to prevent a panic and bank runs — guaranteed the deposits held by Irish banks, and ended up assuming such a massive debt that the Republic of Ireland needed a bailout from Europe.

Since then, European bailouts have been the safety net for all the countries in the eurozone. When investors worry that countries like Spain, Portugal and Italy will have a Greek style financial meltdown and the interest rates on their bonds rise to reflect that risk, the ECB steps in to buy their bonds and the panic goes away — for a while. More, when individual banks are having trouble, the ECB has made huge amounts of money at extremely low interest rates available to them. Spanish banks, for example, can borrow cheap money from the ECB in order to buy Spanish government bonds at high interest rates. They pay one percent interest to the ECB and collect four percent interest from the Spanish government, and use the profit of three percent to offset their losses on their loans to private companies and consumers who are going belly up in Spain’s savage recession.

The success of this little merry-go-round is why Europe calmed down last December. The ECB in effect prints money which it gives to busted banks. The busted banks lend the money to insolvent governments at artificially low rates (but at rates that still allow the banks to make a profit). It was a neat little trick that kept the crisis quiet without forcing the Germans to admit openly that the ECB was in effect using German resources to bail out the rest of the zone.

Bank runs, even virtual bank runs, would blow this fragile arrangements to bits. As the prospect of Greece leaving the euro becomes more likely, savers in Portugal, Spain and Italy have to start wondering if their countries, too, will have to jump ship. Sophisticated investors have been moving their money out of those countries for some time; things may soon reach a pass in which ordinary, unsophisticated investors start to do the same thing. Again, why have your money in some gut-shot Spanish bank when you can transfer it to a German, Austrian or Dutch bank with a mouse click? And if you are worried about the whole eurozone, or that devious financial trolls will find a way to convert all deposits held by Spanish citizens in European banks to pesos when and if the change comes, put the money in Switzerland, the UK or even the US.

If a few thousands or a few tens of thousands do this in Portugal, Italy and Spain, no problem. But if hundreds of thousands or millions of people shift their money out of their home banking systems, then you have a new and very grave bank crisis that blows the December fix out of the water. Either the ECB would start creating trillions of euros to bail out the Club Med banks (and Club Med under some circumstances could stretch as far north as France), or banking systems start exploding like firecrackers across the southern tier. At the same time you would have a new panic on the bond markets; nobody is going to want to own Spanish or Italian debt under those circumstances.

This is one of those cases when what is good for one is bad for all. A good financial investor would probably be suggesting to anybody in Spain or even Italy that it is a good idea to separate the fate of your savings from the fate of your country’s currency or its banking system. The trivial costs of moving money into a safer banking system are well worth the protection you gain.

But if everyone gets and acts on this sound and prudent advice, the whole banking system and perhaps the whole eurozone comes down.

Europe’s stability now rests on the sloth and stupidity of European savers. As long as millions of retail investors think their money is OK, it will be sort of OK for a while. But while governments can and will lie, and while soothing official pronouncements can be printed up almost as fast as the ECB produces euros out of thin air, sooner or later people may start to put two and two together.

Voters are not nearly as scary as depositors right now from the standpoint of Europe. Elections in Greece can’t cause as much trouble as bank runs in Barcelona or Turin.

This isn’t an abstract or imaginary worry; on Thursday rumors of a bank run in Spain led to a fall of thirty percent in the value of Spanish bank shares; the government denied any run was taking place, and, this time, people believed the denials. The panic stopped and the next day the bank shares recovered most of the loss.

Bank panics are contagious; everyone who read last week’s stories about the banking problems in Greece and the rumored problems in Spain is suddenly aware that the safety of their money is something that they need to think about. Invisible runs can spread and spread fast; this is the specter at the feast of the G-8 leaders as they meet at Camp David.

Republican Immigration Fantasies

Republican Immigration Fantasies

Little of Substance Has Changed Since 1996

http://www.toqonline.com/blog/republican-immigration-fantasies/

Republican Immigration FantasiesIn my previous post concerning immigration, entitled “Immigration and Conflict,” I quoted the thinly veiled threat of Fernando Torres-Gil, assistant secretary for aging in the Department of Health and Human Services:

“The nation will be heavily dependent on workers from minority groups ‘for the productivity and labor skills and the political willingness to pay taxes to support an aging population that will be largely white,…”

“Maybe we need a new GI bill for this segment (minority groups) of the population.

“But the spending will not be possible, he said, without the approval of the aging white population. ‘It will be up to senior citizens, with their tremendous political clout, to protect their benefits like Medicare and Social Security and also invest in a new diverse, younger population,’ he said.”

Thirty years from now, the black and brown coalition plans to pit its new brown majority against aging whites, threatening to cut off Social Security benefits (ie, make it a means-tested benefit) unless the retired white baby boomers vote for exorbitant taxes on their minority, middle-class offspring.

The black and brown coalition is going to pit the older generation of whites against the younger generation of whites to pay the future bills for welfare and education for America’s new Third-World majority.

So the ongoing struggle within the Republican Party over immigration becomes critical. Realistically, the Democratic party is the party of black and brown. If we are to protect ourselves through the political process, the Republican Party will have to be the vehicle.

It is going to be a tough and ugly road ahead.

As the editors of National Review state in their March 25, 1996 issue (page 18) concerning the fate of the immigration reform bills:

“And there is a danger of defeat-posed, curiously, by Washington’s conservative establishment. It mounts two sets of arguments against the reforms: first, that immigration is a clear continuing benefit to American society; second, that reduced immigration would damage GOP and conservative political prospects. To which we reply: if you believe that, you’ll believe anything.”

As NR points out, the Republican establishment is bent on offending its own natural constituency:

“The socio-economic case was put in a ‘Manifesto for Immigration,’ written by Malcolm Wallop (Steve Forbes’s campaign manager), Spencer Abraham, William Bennett, and Jack Kemp, and published (where else?) on the Wall Street Journal editorial page.”

They claim, quoting Julian Simon, that “the studies uniformly show that immigrants do not increase the rate of native unemployment.” Not so. For example, David Jaeger at the Bureau of Labor Statistics has published a study demonstrating that roughly half the decline in real wages of native dropouts is caused by immigration.

They argue, quoting Bill Gates, that limits on skilled immigration will damage American companies and U.S. inventiveness generally. But Norman Matloff of the University of California at Davis shows in a new report that a) almost all the major technical advances in computers have been made by U.S. natives; b) U.S. universities are turning out more domestic graduates each year than the computer industry needs; and c) skilled foreigners are hired simply because they are cheaper.

But the real problem is that so many in the Republican Party are driven to political fantasies about all these new immigrants voting Republican. As the editors of National Review point out, this will be politically fatal:

“And in most elections Hispanics vote Democratic over Republican by 70 to 30.”

“Population projections, moreover, suggest that continued high levels of immigration pose a real threat to the GOP’s fragile national majority. The Census Bureau estimates that, if immigration continues at present levels, Hispanics will account for between 20.2 and 24.6 per cent of the U.S. population in 2050. If their political loyalties remain unchanged, that would give the Democrats a clear national majority. Hispanics would need to shift massively into the GOP column before that demographic shift was even negated, let alone reversed.”

But the worst problem is that Republican leaders are so ready to alienate whites by refusing to represent them. The Democrats blatantly appeal to the racial interests of blacks and browns, but somehow it is “unclean” for Republicans to appeal to the racial interests of Euro-Americans.

The Republican leadership would rather lose elections that give up its vision of integrationism.

The ability to deny racial consciousness among minorities is very important for many Republican leaders because they find defending the racial interests of Euro-Americans socially repellent.

In truth, they are so threatened by the prospect of being perceived as “white trash”, that they cannot bring themselves to represent whites politically. Thus, they can only be leaders of a de-racinated fantasy land that exists nowhere except in their own minds.

It is more important for them to uphold patrician rituals of manners than it is to recognize reality and save Western Civilization in North America.

And it is this powerful Republican status fear that produces such ridiculous ideological inconsistencies. For what these “free market conservatives” are forced to insist, by stubbornly clinging to their integrationist vision, is that each immigrant is “new socialist man” who loses any racial consciousness upon crossing our borders. It is a vision of blacks and browns as raceless automatons, conveniently stripped of racial aggression and instantly remade into the bolshevik ideal of creatures motivated solely by economic calculations.

Now what exactly is it about American capitalism that makes it able to precipitate Marxist cultural results with such dispatch? The truth is that such a transformation occurs not in the real world, but only in the minds of Republicans with status insecurities that render them unfit to lead.

The truth is that integrationism is a failure. The minority coalition will settle for nothing less than victory and dominance. It promises nothing but conflict.

The Republican Party has two choices:

  1. Preserve the Euro-American majority in a peaceful political process now, or…
  2. Allow Euro-Americans to slip into a permanent minority status in which their interests can only be defended through violence and secession.

That is it.

There are no other choices!

avatar

Yggdrasil is the pen name of a frequent contributor to TOQ Online.

Rethinking Colonialism

Rethinking Colonialism

Moving beyond a narrow victimology

Rethinking Colonialism Colonialism: time to re-examine the clichés

The subject of European Colonialism is arguably one of the most important historical topics in the modern world, because it is heavily intertwined with contemporary issues of morality, globalism, indigenism, religion, economics, ethics, etc. Whatever your opinions may be about it, European Colonialism is clearly one of the most important epochs in human history and still very relevant.

European Civilization and its subsequent colonization of practically the entire world have laid the foundations of Modernity. So broadly speaking, Colonialism and Modernity are interrelated, and the latter may be considered as a continuation of the former. And though this assertion may be refutable on an intellectual level, it remains incontrovertible on an emotional level, particularly for those who harbor feelings of victimhood. People throughout the world are now plugged into the global economy, the global village, and the globalist project, whether they want to be or not. And this condition has its precursors in European Colonialism.

Because of this situation, it is therefore reasonable to assert that a rethinking of the era of European Colonialism will – to some extent – lead to a rethinking of Modernity. In this regard, I would like to point to an interesting observation made by Eric Hoffer with regards to the legacy of European Colonialism:

“The discontent generated in backward countries by their contact with Western civilization is not primarily resentment against exploitation by domineering foreigners. It is rather the result of a crumbling or weakening tribal solidarity and communal life.

The ideal of self-advancement which the civilizing West offers backwards populations brings with it the plague of individual frustration. All the advantages brought by the West are ineffectual substitutes for the sheltering and soothing anonymity of a communal existence. Even when the Westernized native attains personal success – becomes rich, or masters a respected profession – he is not happy. He feels naked and orphaned. The nationalist movements in colonial countries are partly a striving after group existence and an escape from Western individualism.”

The True Believer, p.42

This alternative narrative to Western Colonialism is very original in that it does not portray this period in history exclusively as a period of evil and oppression, but more generally, as a period of social and cultural upheaval. It presents a narrative where Western Colonialism did not destroy traditional non-white cultures, but rather, it made the latter obsolete and unstable by simply existing.

From when Europeans, with superior technology and the means to circumnavigate the globe, explored and colonized most of the world, the worldview of many non-white cultures, with few exceptions, became obsolete. Their cosmologies, their technologies, their socio-economic systems had become, generally speaking, outdated. Something stronger and more sophisticated had come along to show them that there are bigger fish in the pond.

However, the obsolescence of traditional forms of non-White culture did not end with Colonialism. It was simply the beginning, and now, it continues with Modernity. Colonialism – as the primary vehicle of spreading Western culture throughout the world – has rendered many human social systems obsolete, setting into motion what we now know as the Clash of Civilizations.

However, it is Modernity which has dealt the killing blow. Where vestiges of local and ethnic identity existed and resisted the hard power of Colonialism, the soft power of Modernity now seeks to homogenize all national and ethnic identities by sublimating them in an egalitarian and Universalist system.

Therefore, if we are to move beyond the dangers of Modernity and “Post-modernity,” it is crucial to reevaluate the era of European Colonialism, and to examine it beyond the narrow confines of contemporary discourse.

It needs to be said that the victim morality which underpins most discourses on European Colonialism creates a very one-sided perspective on the issue. It’s true that European Colonialism has brought social upheavals, genocide, and exploitation to the rest of the world, but it also brought development, science, technology, medicine, etc.

Also, the narrative that Colonialism is responsible for the poverty of the Third World is also wearing increasingly thin, not only because of changing global power structures, but also because of the existence of prosperous ex-colonies. Despite the pervasive existence of exploitation in many European colonies, the truth is that the colonial system also brought trade and industry. Hong Kong, Singapore and Macao, for example, are very wealthy places despite their colonial heritage. Moreover, the Panama and Suez canals – both of which are important contributors to the Panamanian and Egyptian Economies respectively – can also be considered, broadly speaking, as products of Colonialism.

So, in any analysis of Colonialism, it is important to approach the issue beyond the confines of Liberal morality. To do so will allow us to view the period of European Colonialism from a practical and more balanced perspective. This is necessary in light of the complex changes that have been brought about as a result of European Colonialism, and subsequently, Modernity. Without an objective approach to the analysis of European Colonialism, the lessons of the past will be obscured by the moralistic posturing and skewed victimology of the present.

However, this brings up an important question. If we are not to look at Colonialism as a moral issue between oppressed peoples and oppressive nations, then how should we look at it?

My answer to that is to look at Colonialism as a perennial pattern of human behavior that will continue to exist in human affairs but constantly take on different forms. This view is inherently conservative in that it assumes that conflict, conquest and expulsion of populations will not be done away with at the Liberal “end of history” but will continue in ways that will defy the definitions set by the prevailing zeitgeist.

However, this pessimism is tangential. What really matters is that this new perspective will give all people a more realistic perspective on Colonialism, and to perceive it as something that is not uniquely European, but instead, a behavior pattern that is shared by all humanity, thus removing it from the persistent narrative of good (darkie) vs. evil (whitey), which I have already mentioned above. It will also allow us to examine Colonialism in its various forms, and not just the ones perpetrated by Europeans. Of course, such a new perspective can have a considerable effect on the zeitgeist, and will force a lot of people to recognize that despite the promises of our age, the dangers of our past are still here, lurking in new forms and preying upon those who have the hubris to think that they have overcome the burdens of the past.

It is necessary to point out also that the modern definition of Colonialism is ultimately related to Western identity. For the rest of the world, the White man is the colonizer even when he is not colonizing anything. The modern system of economics and politics, although not always imposed upon the Non-white masses of the world, is copied as a matter of economic, social and technological necessity.

In former colonized nations, Non-whites may have expelled the White man, but he also kept the White man’s stuff, along with the White man’s system of economics, politics, morality, and in many cases, religion. The same thing is happening now with Modernity. Non-white societies that are “empowered” or “developed” are defined as such when they attain a certain level of success and prestige within the norms of Modernity. As such, among the problems of Modernity is the uniformity of values that it imposes upon a complex multiplicity. This imposition – like Colonialism prior to it – leads to an alienation that is not yet fully felt among many developing countries.

To put this into context, it is important to compare European Colonialism with other forms of Colonialism perpetrated by other racial groups. Historically speaking, the Turks, the Japanese, the Mongols, the Arabs and various Malay groups have at some point in history engaged in what can broadly be considered as Colonialism. Even today, we can argue that non-whites still engage in Colonialism. Two very obvious examples include the Chinese colonization of Tibet, and of course, mass non-white immigration into White/Western Nations.

And yet, all the various colonial expansions of Non-white groups and populations are conveniently ignored by the moral narrative. Even Genghiz Khan, whose Mongol hordes caused untold destruction and death, has been historicized into a footnote of history. He even has an airport named after him.

Of course, the reason why such colonial expansions by Non-white groups are ignored is that their legacies have largely been historicized. Despite Genghis Khan’s vast empire, the Mongol people of today play a very minor role in the world stage. Not so with the ‘White Devils.’

European Colonialism – on one level – was the expression of European culture on a global scale. And to attack European Colonialism in this context is to inevitably attack European culture as a whole. The changes wrought by European civilization upon the entire world are still very relevant today, even if most of the world takes such changes for granted and sees them as inevitable. In this context, Colonialism ceases to be an act perpetrated by certain European nations on Non-white groups or nations. Instead, on a subliminal level, it becomes a world-changing process that has culminated in what is now Modernity, one that dilutes meanings and boundaries between peoples and cultures.

Modernity is similar to Colonialism in that it imposes a set of Western and Liberal norms and morality upon Non-white societies. The complication however is that many Non-whites do not actually want to get rid of globalism and Modernity. Many Non-white groups – considering their desire to mimic Western technological and socio-economic systems – only want to get rid of those aspects of Modernity which don’t serve their interests, which is another manifestation of the “Go Home Yankee But Take Me With You” Syndrome, which I spoke about in a past article. The result is a desire by Non-whites to recreate Modernity in their image, which needless to say, creates a set of very complex problems.

It is therefore important to understand mass immigration in this context. On a macro level, the breaking apart of traditional Non-white social systems has also broken down resistance to Modernity and systems based on the Western Liberal paradigm. Therefore, Non-whites are forced to either mimic Western style societies (e.g. Japan and China), immigrate to them or more commonly a little bit of both. What such responses amount to is the attempt to de-westernize Modernity, and the continued erosion of traditional forms of Non-white culture in favor of the creation of a modern world where Non-whites are in charge.

This pattern was very similar to what has happened in colonial countries all over the world. When the colonial powers became weak, those who were colonized seized control of the system of the colonizers. This trend is folly however, because Modernity is antithetical to any meaningful form of identity, and ultimately it will destroy those who are trying to control it. The answer to the alienation of Modernity and universal egalitarianism is not to change or take control of it, but to ignore it, and to return to the traditions which are the root of all differentiation.

Atlanta, Affirmative Action, and White Managerial Elites

Gone With the Wind: Atlanta, Affirmative Action, and White Managerial Elites

stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com

 

Ronald H. Bayor’s Race & The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Atlanta is one of Disingenuous White Liberal (DWL) scholarly books that blames the current state of the Black Mecca on the lingering vestiges of white racism.

The growth of Atlanta is in predominately white areas

Despite Atlanta – since 1973 – being a city firmly under the iron Black heel when it comes to who controls City Hall and the hiring/firing of public employees (not to mention the creation of the Minority Business Enterprise, which mandates a significant portion of city projects go to minority firms), Bayor’s book places all the blame for The City too Busy to Hate’s shortcomings on white people.

Just as in Detroit, it was white flight from Black criminality to virtually crime free white suburbs surrounding the city that allowed Black people to become the majority of Atlanta by 1970 and elect Maynard Jackson in 1973. This event was the culmination of years of cohesive actions by the Black community in Atlanta:

“The black response to a city being shaped by segregation was to form their own self-help organizations, develop businesses and colleges to serve the African-American community, negotiate for land and housing, fight for political inclusion, and, most important, to continually point out to white Atlantans what should have been obvious: measures that diminished black life in the city also had negative effects on whites. Black Atlanta’s community development, resistance to or bypassing of white policies, and implementation of their own policies after 1973 were some of the shaping aspects of race that one could see in Atlanta.”(p. 257, Race & The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Atlanta)

Black Atlanta did implement their own policies starting in 1973 (minority contracting mandates, which transferred tax-revenue to the Black community) as outlined here:

The election of Maynard Jackson, who has died of a heart attack aged 65, as the first black mayor of Atlanta, Georgia, in 1973 was a major landmark in the southern US city’s history.


It signposted a change of guard in the local political class from white to black; no white person has since been elected mayor.


Jackson, who served three terms in office, was a prominent exponent of affirmative action.


In his first two terms, he rattled Atlanta’s old cosy business relationships, alienating some, but wooing them back in his third term with deft deal-making skills. In 1978, he signed a law requiring 25% of the city’s projects to be set aside for minority firms. The policy, which still operates today, made Atlanta the most hospitable place in America for black entrepreneurs.


He also pushed through an affirmative action program that made it mandatory for contractors to take on minority-owned businesses as partners, and forced the city’s major law firms to hire African-American lawyers. He threatened that “tumbleweeds would run across the runways of Atlanta airport” if blacks were not included in city contracts.

This is the reason Atlanta is known as “The Black Mecca”; an aggressive affirmative action program implemented to enrich Black citizens of Atlanta, that resulted in enticing Black people from around the country to return to the city (and surrounding metro Atlanta area) to get a piece of the pie. An article from Ebony in 2002 notes:

Though Census figures show that Atlanta’s Black population has dipped slightly (it peaked at 282,911 in 1980 and stands at 255,689 today), more than 150,000 African-Americans still moved into the city during the 1990s. The real boom was in the surrounding bedroom communities in DeKalb, Fulton and Cobb counties. More than half a million Blacks swelled the population of those communities in the 1990s. In fact, more Blacks moved to metropolitan Atlanta than to any other metro area in the country during the last decade.

Even in once-segregated strongholds like DeKalb County, which cuts a small swath through the city of Atlanta, Blacks have changed the face of the social and political landscape. In November 2000, DeKalb residents elected 41-year-old Vernon Jones as the county’s first Black chief executive. “The times are definitely changing in and around this metropolitan area,” Jones maintains. “The whole area is just much more diverse, and that’s changing things. There are some glass ceilings, too. We still don’t have a Black senator or a Black governor. But the population is growing. More and more Black people are moving here, affluent Black people. That is making a difference.”

Today, Atlanta boasts more Black-owned companies per capita than any other city in the nation except Washington, D.C., according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. It is home to the nation’s second-largest Black insurance company, Atlanta Life. Citizens Trust Bank, the fourth-largest Black bank, also is based there.

“There are business role models here like Jesse Hill and Herman Russell who allow young people to see what the possibilities are,” says Thomas Dortch, national chairman of 100 Black Men of America.

But the new economic landscape produced by the labor, lobbying and civil rights leadership of Atlantans such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Andrew Young and Congressman John Lewis also has created scintillating opportunities in areas where Blacks previously were shut out. As Atlanta has grown, so too have the fortunes of scores of Black businessmen who have participated in its amazing development. With the backing of Maynard Jackson, who is credited with initiating the building boom that put Atlanta on the map (some call Hartsfield airport “the airport that Maynard built”), business owners like construction magnate Herman J. Russell, whose H.J. Russell & Co. is the 14th-largest Black business in the country, literally paved the way for the unprecedented success of the Black businesses that followed.

Using aggressive affirmative action initiatives, Jackson ushered in an era in which the percentage of the contracts Black businesses received from the city grew from less than one-tenth of 1 percent in 1970 to more than $250 million today. It is said that 90 percent of the contracts that go to minority-owned firms that do business with American airports are at Hartsfield. Herman Russell, along with his partner, pioneering restaurateur James Paschal, operate several of those concessions, but many young Black business owners also have broken into this lucrative territory.

More and more Black people – who are vacating cities they helped ruin during the Great Migration of 20th century – are moving back to Atlanta. Fittingly, there is a correlation to property value drops, lower tax revenue collected – resulting in teacher and public employees layoffs and a lack of funds for improvements in infrastructure (and increased crime) – and further white flight from these counties Black people are settling in.

Attracted by affirmative action policies that helped enrich one segment of the population, one wonders if metro Atlanta’s white population would ever dare unite to defend their interests? The looming showdown over North Fulton vs. South Fulton would lead one to say “yes, they will.”

But its not just affirmative action policies that have helped enrich Black people in the private sector.

In describing Freaknic – a raucous Black spring break event that was eventually evicted from Atlanta – in the opening chapter of A Man in Full, Tom Wolfe writes:

Atlanta was their city, the Black Beacon, as the Mayor called it, 70 percent black. The Mayor was black… and twelve of the nineteen city council members were black, and the chief of police was black, and the fire chief was black, and practically the whole civil service was black, and the Power was black. (p.17)

But going back to that quote from Boyer, one glaring inconsistency with logic sticks out:

to continually point out to white Atlantans what should have been obvious: measures that diminished black life in the city also had negative effects on whites.

Actually, it’s measures that improved Black life in the city that have had negative effects on whites. More importantly, it’s had negative effects on Black people. Despite these affirmative action programs, poverty (and crime, which has no relation to poverty) in the Black community in metro Atlanta is at levels that rival any in all of America:

Atlanta’s status as a haven for African-Americans was greatly reinforced by the election of the city’s first black mayor, Maynard Jackson, in 1973. This accomplishment was due not to the progressive sentiments of the majority of Atlanta’s white population, but rather their departure from the city in big numbers. In the book Imagineering Atlanta: The Politics of Place in the City of Dreams, Charles Rutheiser reports:

He (Jackson) assumed a confrontationalist posture vis-a-vis the white business community, arguing passionately for a greater distribution of the benefit of growth among African-Americans. Ina  showdown over the new airport, Jackson succeeded in establishing a minority business enterprise program that became widely regarded as a model for minority set-asides for municipal contracts. Together, with extensive affirmative action hiring by Atlanta-based corporations like Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines, and an already-established black business community, the set-aside program made Atlanta a nationally known center for African-American economic opportunity in the latter part of the 1970s and 1980s.


Despite economic opportunities for the middle class and a continuous black presence at city hall for two decades, Atlanta was far from being a decent place, much less a paradise, for the majority of its African American residents. By any and every statistical measure, from poverty and unemployment to graduation rates and crime, the quality of life “enjoyed” by the city’s African-American majority plummeted during this period. The percentage of black households living in poverty nearly doubled between 1980 and 1990, to more than a third of all households. Over half of the city’s children lived in poverty. 


Nowhere was the divide between the two black Atlantas more manifest than in the area of crime. Atlanta was nationally renowned for its high crime rate in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Its homicide rate more than doubled between 1965 and 1970, making the city the country’s “murder capital.” Atlanta has retained the dubious honor of being one of the nation’s most violent cities to the present day. The vast majority of these crimes occurred, then as now, in the cities poorest census tracts to the south, east, and west of downtown, areas that are more than 95 percent African American.

Violent crime hasn’t stopped in Atlanta (where Black people have a virtual monopoly on crime), it’s just no longer reported by the police or the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

A simple question has to be asked at this point: who were those white people in power in Atlanta that caused Black people to unite and create cohesive organizations that would – in turn – consolidate political power in their own hands (both in the public and private sector)? Who were these white people that allowed Atlanta to become the Black Mecca?:

An incredibly close-knit group of friends, neighbors, and business partners from the city’s posh Northside, the power structure shared a common history. “Almost all of us had been born and raised within a mile or two each other,” remembered Ivan Allen Jr., a member of the group who would succeed (William) Hartsfield as Atlanta’s mayor from 1962 to 1970. “We had gone to the same schools, to the same churches, tot he same golf courses, to the same summer camps. We had dated the same girls. We had played and worked within our group.” Member of the power structure not only shared a common past and present; they shared a common vision of the future. In Allen’s telling, they were “dedicated to the betterment of Atlanta as much as a Boy Scout troop is dedicated to fresh milk and clean air.”(p. 28, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism, by Kevin M. Kruse)

The actions by the white elite (what can only be described as the white “Managerial Elite” of Black-Run America) from 1940 – 1970 resulted in the vacating of the city by middle class whites (who couldn’t insulate their families from Black crime and integrated schools as the Northside elite could with private schools) and, in turn, resulted in the nightmarish of 2012 metro Atlanta: an entire metro area witnessing property depreciation, increased crime, and staggering costs for commutes.

Interesting that despite government mandated policies of affirmative action, minority contracts, and hiring practices that have turned all public jobs (tax supported) in the metro Atlanta area into a Black vocational program, Black communities there are in complete disarray.

Those areas that stayed white (despite a hostile government, private sector hiring practices that favor non-whites, and an onus on entrepreneurship): thriving. Atlanta has been rebuilt up Georgia 400 to Roswell, Sandy Springs, Alpharetta and Forsyth County.

The tallest buildings in all of suburban America, the 30+ story King and Queen Towers – The Concourse at Landmark Center in Sandy Springs – recently went on the market and analysts predict the sale will rival what the tallest building in the southeast (which was foreclosed), the Bank of America Plaza, went for. The former complex is located Outside the Perimeter, in a city that is majority white; the latter located in downtown Atlanta.

Sandy Springs is one of these primarily white cities in North Fulton that could secede from the county tomorrow and instantly see property values rise dramatically.

More on this later this week.

Since 1973, untold financial investing in the Black Mecca (through primarily white tax-dollars and the appropriation of collected revenue toward minority contracts and the establishment of an entrenched Black monopoly on public jobs) has resulted in the creation of a Black elite in Atlanta, which should now represent a sunk cost. No matter how many private companies enact affirmative action policies in hiring, this too will represent a sunk cost over time.

Atlanta – The City too Busy to Hate – represents a microcosm of how one can look at the entire nation after Black-Run America (BRA) rose to power: The white managerial elite rushing to cede power to Blacks, who have and always will maintain a close racial cohesion. It has been the zeitgeist in America for some time to be seen as “progressive” when it comes to Black America.

The state of 2012 Atlanta and the metro Atlanta area is directly correlated to two things: 1. Blacks moving from around the nation to city to take advantage of affirmative action policies enacted in 1973 that have created the facade of a “Black Mecca” — only because of the misappropriation of tax-dollars by a racially cohesive drive to augment Blacks, and, 2. White people trying to avoid living anywhere near Black people. No matter the distance of the commute, having limited interaction with Black people is preferred.

One will never be able to quantify (nor qualify) what might have been for Atlanta – and metro Atlanta – were a race-based policy not enacted in 1973 and instead, a merit-based policy enshrined into law.

The white managerial elite of Atlanta sold the city to Organized Blackness; as a result, every one has suffered.

Such is the case for all of America.

To look back at what Mr. Boyer stated in his book, it should become clear: the day that white people decide to do any of things he listed as the Black response to “segregation” in Atlanta, is the day BRA ends.

Hilariously, it looks like it will be in the very Northside of Atlanta (North Fulton) that sees secession attempted and a new county created… Look to a forthcoming essay on Vdare to see what this means.

The seeds of BRAs destruction are in the soil of Atlanta.