Counter-Currents
2,512 words
Clay Risen
A Nation on Fire: America in the Wake of the King Assassination
Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2009
“Events have unmistakably shown that any municipality in the country with a Negro population is susceptible to a racial outbreak.” — From an FBI report dated May 26, 1967
Since becoming a Counter-Currents writer, I’ve come to see that the mainstream historical narrative of the 1960s is unique in how incorrect the conventional understanding of it is. What I mean by backwards is this: The big issue of the 1960s, the Vietnam War, has today shrunk to insignificance. The Vietnam War did have an impact on American culture, but not nearly as much as, say, the US Civil War, or even the Spanish-American War of 1898. But what was small in the 1960s is big today. Then, the 1965 Immigration Act appeared to be an unimportant administrative adjustment; but today, immigration is the Queen of all social issues. Meanwhile, the “civil rights” revolution and the resulting backlash is the unacknowledged King of all social issues.
Officially, “civil rights” triumphed in the 1960s through “civil disobedience,” but that is a misunderstanding. “Civil rights” triumphed in the 1930s and 1940s as a result of a number of desegregation cases and Negro uplift policies. In the 1950s, whites began to resist, to the point that “civil rights” gains could only come at the point of a bayonet. And by the late 1960s, whites built new (but shakier) segregation defenses.
“Civil disobedience” in itself was a problem in that it is not really civil at all. It is a tactic of breaking small laws to achieve a political objective, similar to how terrorism is used, and it can quickly get out of hand. Essentially, blacks had a standing green light to riot throughout the 1960s, probably due to the fact that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations responded very quickly and favorably to any Martin Luther King civil disobedience stunt.
Additionally, the morality of “civil rights” is backwards. The movement had the appearance of morality to the vast majority of whites in its early days, but by 1965 black violence, basic black social pathologies, and black militancy had swept away the moral façade. In other words, the riots which followed Martin Luther King’s assassination were the last stand of the “civil rights” movement, not the painful birth of some sort of post-racial paradise. The story of these riots is told in Clay Risen’s page-turning book, A Nation on Fire.
MLK was not a genius & civil disobedience isn’t civil
A Nation on Fire is the first mainstream book on the “civil rights” movement that I’ve read that even gets close to hinting that the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. was not the saintly genius that the mainstream media made him out to be.[1] Risen describes King approaching his final days in Memphis thusly:
The past few years had not been kind to the civil rights leader. Since his success at Selma and the resulting passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, King had been trying to broaden the scope of his movement, both in its reach – out west, up north – and scope – taking on housing discrimination, poverty, and the war. But the public, the media, and the political establishment increasingly saw him in a negative light, a has-been who achieved great victories earlier in the decade but who had no answers for the new issues of the day. Even Walter Fauntroy, his loyal Washington representative, called King a “spent force.”[2]
King was a spent force with no answers for newer issues because the consequences of his ethos had clearly created out-of-control problems by 1968. At the start of the 1960s, blacks dressed well, appeared to behave well in public, and honest white “civil rights” sympathizers could imagine that they and the blacks were fighting “unjust laws” with “civil disobedience.” By the end of the 1960s, a considerable number of blacks were dressing like revolutionaries and were impossible to appease in any way.
As a result, by the time of King’s assassination, the white public had started to sour on “civil rights.” The turning point was the Watts Riot of 1965. Watts wasn’t the first black riot of the 1960s, but it happened in a place where the economy was good and there was no long-standing history of “racism,” as in the South.[3]
As word trickled out from Memphis that King was dead on April 4, 1968, sub-Saharans began to riot on an enormous scale across the nation. Risen gives a personal account of the situation: His mother had to flee her office in Washington, DC with other whites in a packed bus. Her father, a soldier with eyesight so poor they wouldn’t send him to Vietnam, was pulled away from his desk job, given a rifle, and told to defend his base against rioting blacks.
Burning down cities they cannot build & how a riot works
Risen focuses most of his narrative on the riots in Washington, DC, but he also examines what happened in other places, such as Detroit, Chicago, and Baltimore. The roots of the riot were in black migration from the rural South. Washington, DC, along with all the great cities of the North, had experienced a large growth in their black populations since the First World War. The trend accelerated through the 1940s. In all cases, in those places where blacks showed up in massive numbers, jobs fled – especially after the Second World War. Risen shows the statistics regarding jobs, black migrants, and so on. From this, he draws a Tragic Dirt conclusion: That is to say, blacks were arriving in a geographical location where jobs were leaving through some sort of natural process beyond anyone’s control. It is probably more accurate to conclude rather that blacks in large numbers create an environment where an advanced economy cannot function.
But even as problems with blacks increased in the late 1950s and early ‘60s, only the radical whites seemed to notice. George Lincoln Rockwell, for example, frequently talked about what blacks were doing to DC. Nobody listened. And in the meantime, blacks began to gain control over DC’s city government. At the time of King’s assassination, DC’s mayor was a black named Walter Washington. He pioneered DC’s Africanized political ecosystem which only ended when the Bush I administration got rid of Marion Barry in an FBI sting operation in 1990.
Black management of any institution has the same effect as untreated high blood pressure on a person’s body: At first there are no symptoms, and then one’s heart explodes. In 1968, Washington, DC was beginning its slide into becoming a slum, which persisted until the end of the Clinton administration. The key thing is that black leaders – unless they are being supported by whites, and even then it’s iffy – make a series of small, bad decisions that compound over time. Mayor Washington was only part of the problem, though. The main issue was that the large black community made many small, bad decisions every day. And when word came that King was dead, blacks in general made a terrible decision regarding how to respond, and DC’s black mayor was quickly overwhelmed.
When the riot broke out, DC was unprepared. Civil servants did not know what to do, gave and received conflicting orders, and panicked. Whites simply fled. The roads became parking lots. Some drivers abandoned their vehicles and walked to the suburbs. The DC National Guard was called up, and federal troops from the “Old Guard” were deployed to protect the Federal District. The “Old Guard”’s regular duties were normally purely ceremonial, but their mission quickly shifted in the face of the scale of the violence. The Pentagon called up support troops from the other bases around DC to serve as infantry. The Marines were called in. The Maryland National Guard deployed to DC’s edge to keep blacks from burning the suburbs.
The deployment expanded from DC to other cities, especially Baltimore, involving massive troop movements. Paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne were rushed to cities around the nation, and the III Corps Artillery was deployed, along with brigades from the 5th Mechanized Infantry Division. Baltimore is unique in that the whites organized on their own during the riots: Armed groups of whites drove into the city and fired at rioting blacks, while white shopkeepers armed themselves.
Over the next few decades, sociologists would study the riots and offer explanations of how these riots begin and get out of hand. According to them, a social disturbance becomes a riot due to a “Schelling incident” – one in which people in a crowd realize they will be rewarded by that crowd for violence rather than punished for it. In DC, the Schelling incident occurred when the crowd saw looters break the windows of the People’s Drug Store. Soon, DC was in flames. Most of the deaths in the riot were the result of arson.
The enemy within
One realization I had from this book was that the military’s existing infrastructure to manage America’s mainland defenses are never used for what they are designed for. In the 1950s, the military created the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) to defend against Soviet bomber attacks. At the same time, the Army Operations Center was added to the Pentagon to direct troop movements against a Soviet ground invasion. However, these have only been deployed against Third World people who are already in the United States. In 1968, the Army Operations Center directed the Army’s response to the riots. NORAD directed the belated response to 9/11, an incident caused by Third Word immigrants. And the United States Northern Command’s (USNORTHCOM) only major engagement since its creation in 2002 was to deploy troops to rescue helpless and rioting blacks after Hurricane Katrina. If white people had a nation of our own, none of this would have been necessary.
The end of liberalism
Lyndon Johnson continued to push for “civil rights” even as windows were being shattered and buildings were being torched. He passed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, or the Fair Housing Act. The law was toothless, a shadow of the more significant 1954 and 1964 Civil Rights acts, but it did lead to the passing of local laws which caused damage. Today, real estate and city planning is a hypocritical shell game of either fleeing from blacks, or passing blacks around like a hot potato. Although LBJ continued to push for more “civil rights” goodies during the riot, his own staff started to suspect that the rioting was caused, at least in part, by the federal response to black demands; essentially, “civil rights” had become a protection racket. New Deal-style liberalism broke down during the 1968 riots after white liberals became demoralized.
The 1968 riots destroyed many of America’s cities, and even with subsequent gentrification, many have yet to recover. Prior to the riots, whites living in the suburbs still went into the cities for entertainment or to shop; afterwards, the suburbs became new cities in their own right, surrounding a ruined and dangerous urban core. Prior to the riots, whites actually sought to engage with the black ghettos; after, whites quietly and effectively disconnected from them. Poor black political leadership in these ruined cities made the situation worse. Detroit and places like it are really no different from Haiti or Zaire.
Before 1968, the Right, ranging from centrists like Richard M. Nixon to the old-time Southern segregationists, was locked out of power. Their ideas had seemed moribund and old-fashioned in the early 1960s. But after the riots, the Right returned. The segregationists had proved to be prophetic.
One outcome that nobody could have predicted was the rise of Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew. Agnew invited black leaders to a special address and said:
. . . [Y]ou ran. You met in secret with that demagogue [probably Bob Moore, a black bomb-thrower from Maryland] and others like him – and you agreed, according to published reports that have not been denied, that you would not openly criticize any black spokesman, regardless of the content of his remarks. You were beguiled by the rationalizations of unity; you were intimidated by veiled threats; you were stung by insinuations that you were Mr. Charlie’s boy, by epithets like “Uncle Tom.” God knows I cannot fault you who spoke out for breaking and running in the face of what appeared to be overwhelming opinion in the Negro community. But actually it was only the opinion of those who depend upon chaos and turmoil for leadership – those who deliberately were not invited today. It was the opinion of a few, distorted and magnified by the silence of most of you here today.
Now, parts of many of our cities lie in ruins. You need not leave these city limits to verify the destruction and the resulting hardship to our citizens. And you know whom the fires burned out just as you know who lit the fires. They were not lit in honor of your great fallen leader. Nor were they lit from an overwhelming sense of frustration and despair. Those fires were kindled at the suggestion and with the instruction of the advocates of violence.
Many of the more than a hundred black leaders present walked out during the harangue. Only twenty stayed to the end.[4]
Governor Agnew had been a liberal Republican and had supported “civil rights” measures up to the point of the riots in 1968, but afterwards he moved close to the racialist Right, although he disavowed “the American Nazi Party, the John Birchers, and their fellow travelers.” Pretentious white liberals – those who think that they can think, and are thus truly dangerous – usually attribute Agnew’s political shift to him sensing the change in the political winds and adjusting accordingly. But this is not the case. Agnew assumed his political career was finished. He’d spoken from his heart with anger. He looked at the data and changed his views. And as a result, Agnew became an overnight national sensation. Richard Nixon picked him as his running mate. He would go on to be Vice President until he was forced to resign after what we would today call a Deep State coup.
We are living in the world that was created in the wake of the 1968 riots which followed the assassination of Martin Luther King. There’s no arguing with Risen’s own conclusion about it:
A race war did in fact come to America [the day King was killed] – but it turned out to be a cold war, not a hot one. When the smoke cleared and the sirens ran down, an invisible wall went up between urban and suburban America, every bit as real as the one in Berlin. Many would argue that it’s still standing today.[5]
Notes
[1] King’s close observers often gave him unflattering descriptions. Jackie Kennedy called him “tricky,” and MLK advisor Stan Levinson called him a “slow thinker.”
[2] Risen, A Nation on Fire, p. 12.
[3] A case can be made that the Watts Riot demonstrated that blacks can’t fit into white civilization at all, and that this was the reason for Jim Crow in the first place.
[4] One can read one of their responses to Agnew’s speech here.
[5] Ibid., p. 4.
13 comments
Great article. I disagree with the idea that the riots were the cause of the destruction of the cities, however. The semi large metropolis where I live saw no riots, and it’s in at least as bad a plight as any of those that had riots. Black control of the infrastructure and the gradual disinvestment of whites in the city is a generational process that has the same endpoint regardless of intervening ructions. Here there are deserted, vacant rotting houses in the core of the city, much like the well known ones in Detroit. It’s like an urban tumor that overgrows it’s blood supply and necroses in the center.
However, I have a solution that will satisfy all parties! Diversity is our greatest asset, as we all know. Then I say, why aren’t we bestowing it upon Israel? As a final, hyper generous aide package I propose we deliver our black population to Israel, so they can share in the benefits of diversity. They should make me a senator for that.
You might check out ‘The Slaughter of Cities’ by E. Michael Jones. It gives some information about non-rioting causes of the blackening of our cities.
Morris V. de Camp has got to be one of the most interesting writers for Counter Currents. It’s great having some solid history to balance out all the philosophy.
The military is even worse today should riots break out. Many on the Right falsely believe the military will be on the side of the conservatives should war break out in the US. I have spent 39 years in the military and working both as a contractor and government employee. The military is far, very far, from what it was just 10 years ago. The gate of the base I drove through daily is rarely guarded by white men. I have seen negro women on the gate whose ass was big enough to set a drink on top while she is standing. I have seen white girls so small the M-16 slung across her should almost touched the ground.
The military might be incompetent.
Incompetence is dangerous.
Thanks for your comment. This is something I’ve wondered about, not being a military person. In ’68 the National Guard and all other military forces were top to bottom white men. My question is would the same entities be able to defend whites if blacks or antifa went full ultra violence? You have to wonder if the commanding officers would mutiny rather than kill POC.
After Trump’s inauguration the black commander in the bungled security operation was fired. He obviously hated Trump and viewed him as Hitler, I guess. If you’ve got sufficient numbers of high-ranking officers who view whites as racist haters why would they do anything at all to protect them against rampaging blacks? I’m talking about middle/lower class whites, not the super rich. THEY will be protected.
This alludes to several points I have made about that chapter and time in American history:
(1) Martin Luther King did not create the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement created Martin Luther King. If MLK would have been born well before he actually was, he would have been perceived as a bloviating radical and would have been stomped by the hard or soft segregationist system. If he would have been born even a little later than what he was, he would have been perceived as a grifter trying to win an already won cause.
Such as it is, I don’t give MLK “credit” for his “positive” accomplishments like Risen does. Because:
(2) The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was an inevitable and pro forma consequence of (A) Organized activist Jewish interests getting control of major important American institutions in the 1930s, and (B) The outcome of World War II.
Other countries, such as Britain and Australia, enacted CRM-style laws, at about the same time, but neither had an MLK.
(3) In American history, race riots involving black and white people in some way had nothing to do with expressing hopelessness and everything to do with impressing actual or perceived power. 1963 was the turning point — Before then, most black-white race riots in America were white-led, and were reactions to black crime and violence, after then, they were mostly black-led, and were generally provoked by some “questionable” police action. What happened in 1963 to turn the worm of perceived racial power? QED.
(4) Affirmative action as policy, while discussed before the ’60s black riots, really got going after them and in reaction to them. The American domestic policy deep state’s reasoning for AA, then and now, is to drive a wedge between the “talented” (i.e. average) tenth of American blacks and their street undertow, so that the “talented” tenth are absorbed into the system and get benefits from them, so they don’t get the idea to provoke and lead race riots.
To an extent, this has been a successful strategy. For instance, Baltimore had black riots in 1968 and 2015. The ’68 riots were WAY worse.
It’s nice to buck up the troops in bad times but I don’t see any success from a white person’s point of view. Making claims for success in the face of countless defeats and concessions creates an unreasonable and unrealistic attitude. I don’t mean we should go in the opposite direction by invoking imminent doom but rather white men need to do what they are good at which is to carefully study the world without letting emotion influence conclusions.
Well-educated blacks are 100% tools of a party that is now openly anti-white. In fact, they just fired white staffers in the DCCC to bring in more diversity:
Concerns about a lack of people of color in critical roles at the campaign arm, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, prompted a huge shake-up this week and an intense scramble to include more minority staff members at the top echelons of the organization.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/us/politics/democrats-identity-politics-diversity.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
The talented 10% are engineering this. And not just blacks. Thanks to immigration policy and affirmative action it is now “people of color” a whole new cohort steeped in the ways to exploit naive and gullible whites.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/washington-post-i-am-an-uppity-immigrant-dont-expect-me-to-be-grateful/
I see no reason to rejoice that by educating smart non-whites in the mechanisms of human rights shakedowns we are somehow winning. If anything we have created a Frankenstein monster.
IA,
I agree with you that we don’t view AA as a “success.”
Unfortunately, nobody of official import seems to be interested in our sector’s definition of success and failure.
Here’s what I mean when I say AA is a “success.”
It’s a “success” in terms of the American domestic policy deep state’s eyes.
One of the things the American domestic policy deep state is chronically worried about is urban instability, which, these days, would almost entirely be caused by black rioting, and like I wrote, that almost always pops off because of a “questionable” police action. The ADPDS therefore has two chronic goals: (1) Keep black riots from happening, and (2) When they do inevitably happen, minimize their consequences.
The APDPS thinks AA is a “success” because it has helped contribute to both a declining frequency and a declining severity of urban black riots.
Likewise, the global deep state(s) are worried about preventing another World War II, and just about all they do can be explained by preventing that, or at least in their assessment.
Note: An example of the ADPDS is the RAND Corporation. Quite a few years ago, I read an actual report by the RAND Corporation openly stating the need to continue affirmative action, and why they think it was good that it was ever implemented, and, translating a few dog whistles, they made the same case.
Martin Luther King did not create the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement created Martin Luther King.
The MLK story still has to be told in its entirety.
It would make more sense to give credit for the Civil Rights Revolution to Earl Warren, chief justice of the Supreme Court, 1953-69. Warren was responsible for the court decisions which unraveled segregation and upended many law enforcement procedures as well as bringing judicial activism to new heights.
Might ask why MLK was needed at all.
Legally, segregation was ended by court decisions and Congressional legislation. Major American institutions like the military were integrating before MLK arrived on the national scene. The media and corporations were onboard with the civil rights movement (CRM).
Not to deny that the CRM had considerable agitprop value in sinking the traditional-populist White political sector as represented by George Wallace et alia and opening the way for the consolidation of the technocratic-managerial regime solidifying nationwide since the New Deal.
Was King needed as a figurehead for the CRM? Someone who provided the image of a reasonable black leader compared to the actual radicals? A PR stunt to convince Cold War era world opinion that the US really was about equality and freedom? A tactic to create street muscle for the Democratic Party machine?
The hagiography over MLK seems to be a product of the last couple decades. As the article points out, MLK was increasingly perceived as a burnout at the time of his death in 1968. The CRM was “over” by the late 1970s. Whatever agitprop value it possessed was dissipated by the Long Hot Summer Riots and growing destruction of the inner cities. And then came the wave of MLK holidays, street namings, movies, school curricula, inspirational speechifying and public monuments.
When conversing with “liberals” today, they frequently act as if Brown vs Board was decided yesterday. Consider how the killings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were spun to appear as if the US were still in the era of the Ku Klux Klan, or the periodic media panics in which a random church fire or obvious hoax crime is inflated into a campaign of racial terror ala “Mississippi Burning.” There’s movies like “Selma” and “Hidden Figures” which retrofit the history of the CRM, with obvious political ramifications for the current year.
Still time to get on that Freedom Rider bus, folks, and walk the Edmund Pettus bridge! MLK becomes the real American founding father, never mind what went on back in the 18th century!
What makes articles like Mr de Camp’s critical is that they keep alive the reality of the Civil Rights Revolution. And the real MLK.
Let’s see more like this.
Look at the tactics used by the Civil Rights Movement (CRM), post World War II:
* 1: The Legal Stage. Starting with Shelley vs Kraemer (1948) and continuing through to Brown vs Board of Education (1954), this stage was marked by the exploitation of court decisions to promote civil rights policies. The CRM generally obeyed the law and minimized violence to avoid alienating Whites. De jure segregation was largely dismantled.
* 2: The Civil Disobedience Stage. The CRM openly broke segregation laws, starting with the Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955). Martin Luther King came to prominence and actions revolved around mass street protests, designed in part to trigger an over-reaction on the part of law enforcement and thereby allowing the CRM to claim the moral high ground. This stage continued through to “Bloody Sunday,” the action at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma (1965) – a massive and anticipated CRM propaganda victory. By 1965 a full range of civil rights programs were enacted into law and more were to follow. Actions such as Selma allowed the CRM to create a founding mythology, one which increasingly replaced that of the American Revolution.
(Note that in Stages 1 and 2 the CRM was supported by – or was the front for – the American establishment: the White House, the Supreme Court, the rising television networks, numerous churches, academia, the Pentagon, and major corporations such as Coca-Cola(tm). The defense of segregation was reduced to a few isolated Southern politicos such as George Wallace, Orval Faubus and “Bull” Connor, all quickly picked off.)
* 3: The Long Hot Summer Stage. The CRM transitioned to open violence, commencing with the Watts riot of August 1965 and continuing for another decade or so. Numerous American cities were torched by mob violence, this after the civil rights agenda had been largely implemented. CRM militants frequently referred to these riots as “uprisings,” a term which ought to be taken a little more seriously. There was also the rise of quasi-paramilitary groups such as the Black Panthers, as well as alliances with leftist student radicals such as the SDS/Weathermen. One result was mass population displacement with White people fleeing the urban cores to resettle and rebuild their civilization in the suburbs. Another result was the growth of affirmative action, black studies departments and minority advocacy (aka race hustler) organizations, providing a wider CRM infrastructure.
* 4: The War on Crime Stage. This had its origins in the presidency of Richard Nixon and came to full force with the War on Drugs of the 1980s. The “war” can be interpreted as a brute force attempt to restore order in the inner cities and it worked … for a while. Interesting thing is that the War on Drugs was supported by many otherwise liberal figures like Charles Rangel and Joseph Biden, while Bill Clinton would gain a reputation for locking up lots of inner city super-predators.
(Why liberals supported these wars needs to be explored further. Perhaps the increased violence of urban (black) gangs was challenging the CRM establishment for control of the inner city demographic. Perhaps the liberals just got stupid. In any event, the War on Crime continued through to the early 2000s and saw the rise of paramilitary policing, the growth of the prison-industrial complex, and the rollback of many Constitutional protections. At the same time there was no rollback of affirmative action or black advocacy organizations, so the CRM infrastructure remained intact – like an insurgent movement going underground, waiting for the moment to reemerge.)
* 5: The Black Lives Matter Stage (aka “Black Run America”). The War on Crime was a holding action at best. It did not deal with the real issue, which was the shifting demographics in America. Regardless of the number of “youths” arrested, there was the explosion in gangbanging, flashmob attacks and driveby shootings. Effectively, a guerrilla war was being waged in the inner cities. The turning point came with the Ferguson “uprising” (2014) and the ensuing rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement which engaged in full spectrum operations: civil disobedience, agitprop, rioting and the occasional act of open source terrorism. Add in the demographic warfare which imported Somalis into the American heartland, and transplanted inner city denizens into suburbia via HuD programs.
The War on Crime folded up its SWAT gear and went home, with more city governments implementing de-policing policies, handing over many a ‘burb and campus to be pillaged. Whereas in 1992 the government could commit the full power of law enforcement and the military to suppress the Rodney King Riot (or “uprising”), in the 2010s the cops were stood down from Baltimore to Berkeley.
BLM has maintained the support of much of the establishment, like the CRM before it. BLM has been financed by the corporate sector, both domestic and then globalist. The media, which banged the drum for a War on Drugs since the 1980s, switched the party line faster than you could say Oceania Is at War with Eastasia. The cops, who previously were glorified for making the biggest weekly drug busts in history, were now the bad guys gunning down the famous unarmed teens in the streets. And it would be the Democrats who brought BLM representatives into the Oval Office and onto their 2016 national platform.
Just quite possibly the CRM sees BLM as their new street fighting army. This may be one reason that thugs like Michael Brown have been beatified, the goal being to encourage even more violent types to take it to the streets. Compare this to the mainstream conservatives who distance themselves from the radicals to their right. Think the GOP is going to invite representatives of the Rise Above Movement or even Counter-Currents to speak at their next convention?
Consider how stages 1, 2 and 3 CRM were marked by escalating levels of violence, each accompanied by the establishment implementing pro-CRM laws and policies with no concessions made in return to Whites. Stage 4 was something of a delaying action, overturned by stage 5 with the CRM now a presence in every establishment sector and on the streets-campuses.
All this has to be related to the wider war against White people, a war fought today in South Africa, in the banlieues of Europe, on the African-Islamic invasion routes north across the Mediterranean, and along what used to be the southern border of the United States.
Question: what will be the next stage of the CRM?
An extrapolation:
At one level I would imagine more race mixing. Eventually, you get a grey-brown sludge with no identity, easily controlled by hedonistic mass media; aside from the occasional mass murder as the remaining whites slowly lose their minds and souls. In fact, in the future the corporate state will expend enormous energy on creating and manipulating identity. For example, in almost every commercial or mass media production today it appears that white people simply cannot live without black people. In a few generations it will come about that the entire western human rights world was created by blacks. George Washington? Black. Thomas Jefferson – mulatto, etc. Their original images will be destroyed and replaced. Every form of art that cannot be altered to erase the Nazis (i.e., normal white men) will be destroyed or sold to the Chinese. Of course, there will be a small underground of mostly white people who will possess fragments of hate images, gestures and sounds in time from a surreal lost world. They may meet and form a church.
At a higher level it will be very interesting. The elite whites and the few ultra successful non-whites will have access to the most beautiful [white] women. They will have armed guards, compounds and even entire islands to protect themselves from the seething cauldron they sit on. They will be able to afford expensive genetic engineering techniques to enhance their already superior abilities and beauty. That is, they will remain white or mostly white. While manipulating appearances to project a simple jus’ folks image to the masses they will enact public rituals designed to enhance their quasi-divine status. They may put on dark make-up and perform animal sacrifice to the sounds of Lady Gaga. Secretly these elites will enjoy forbidden pleasures revolving around the defilement of innocence.
I suppose the whole thing would look something like Huxley’s Brave New World, except much more Dionysian. There’s going to be a lot of crazy stuff happening that will make our world look quaint.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment