Multiculturalism 

      Is A Globalist Scam 

     To Enslave Mankind

         Page II

   Opportunity is rapidly vanishing, poorly masked by an institutionalized preference for diversity. Leftist academics in ivory towers are hooked on designer victimology but fail to notice the real victims -- the entire next generation. Meanwhile the rich get richer. Have a nice New World Order.

     BILL WHITE: TRAPPED IN A RACE RIOT VIOLENCE IN YORK

       AFTER WHITE SUPREMACISTS RALLY

     Delegitimizing the West

     Reparations clamor of dubious design

The Reverend and The Movement  Big Daddy and the Plantation  By Kevin Alexander Gray

International Terrorist Support Groups Thrive in Belgium and Netherlands

      Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

     WALKING WHILE WHITE by Angry White Female

        Happy Kwanzaa

   The totalitarians are fully in control of America's largest state

         From Pravda,

        Daily Newspaper, Moscow

        20:40 2002-01-17

    BILL WHITE: TRAPPED IN A RACE RIOT VIOLENCE IN YORK

      AFTER WHITE SUPREMACISTS RALLY

     "How did you get through these barricades?" the boy in blue demanded from the scruffy black man who was wandering, somewhat confused through what was supposed to be York, Pennsylvania's highest security area.

"I just walked y’ung. I'm tryin' to get to the other side. I need to get to work bro'" the man answered. The cop look embarrassed, and then began to berate and abuse the man for the benefit of the early rising members of the press core.

"Can't you see the signs -- no one allowed beyond this point? What do you think those signs mean? Get out of here!" he yelled.

We were in for a long, hard day of street battles and rioting. A totally inadequate, and somewhat confused, York, PA police force had deployed and a just as poorly coordinated union of America's three largest national socialist and white supremacist groups was coming to town to hear some speeches, wave some flags, and give some "sieg heils." Opposing them was a ragtag group of sociopaths, the imitation "Black Block" of Anti-Racist Action, who was there to smash anything that came in their way -- cars, heads, windows -- as long the owners appeared white -- and maybe toss some urine around while they were at it. By the time the day was over, dozens would be in jail, at least four cars would be destroyed, a truck would prove that you can destroy the Black Block by hitting it with a truck, at least 13 innocent white citizens would be the victims of the racist ARA lynch mob, and confrontations between gun toting racialists and club wielding anarchists would leave one skinhead in jail, several ARA’ers in the hospital, and one teenage girl with a broken finger.

It was the largest police deployment in York since the race riots in 1969, and it was the largest gathering of swastika flying national socialists in recent memory. The rally demonstrated the growing power of the white supremacist movement, and demonstrated the growing weakness of its "anti-racist" opponents. And while a poor black neighborhood may not have been the best setting for a nazi rally -- several hundred interested neighbors decided to come out for the show -- it certainly was a setting that made a statement about the growing ability of radical white nationalist forces to spark a flame in people's hearts.

Dum-Diddy-Dum-Dum

Prior to the rally, your humble correspondent had received a number of invitations from various groups organizing or speaking at the event. Matt Hale, of the World Church of the Creator, had told me he would reserve a seat. Billy Roper, of the National Alliance, had made the same offer. Another skinhead organizer who had been briefed on the secret plans for the scheduled right-wing guests of the rally to meet at a local hotel managed by a National Alliance member, invited me to participate in their police protection plan -- protected parking, a police escort to the rally, and a police escort out. I declined, as it turned out fortunately, as I had wanted to keep anyone from being confused as to which side I was on (my own). Already one misguided and hopelessly ignorant “anti-racist” organizer had called the local press to tell them that I, your humble writer, was the Aryan mastermind behind this devious disruption of York's normal life. As one local reporter put it:

"The ARA guy who called was very strange."

Little did these folk extending invitations know, however, that the police would be as disorganized as themselves. Though the men in charge seemed to be in contact -- Roper and Hale kept in constant communication by cell phone, and the top cops had all huddled together in their command center -- the men on the ground seemed to hardly know what their other comrades were doing. The York City Police Lieutenant that had promised Billy Roper protection -- and a guaranteed seat at a meeting where he was supposed to speak -- hadn't communicated it to the Pennsylvania State Police troopers guarding the parking lot where they were supposed to assemble -- and as a result, the National Alliance contingent had to find their own way into and out of the demonstration. This moving on their own in an unfamiliar city was, of course, the spark that led to the violence and rioting. When asked about this at the press conference afterwards, a Major from the Pennsylvania state police lied to me, and said no offer of protection had ever been made. As Roper put it in response to an emailed inquiry:

"[W]e had arranged and planned to all park in the parking garage a block and a half away from the library. We had even arranged to hire private security to watch our cars, but the police told us the day before that that wouldn't be necessary because they would watch our cars there. When we arrived Saturday morning the parking garage had been cordoned and barricaded off, so all of our people had to disperse to different parking garages and lots. This was the cause of a lot of the violence that ensued, as our groups reconverged. I personally felt that the police were trying to divide us and keep us divided. Most of them were clueless rather than malicious, though."

The police were also unprepared for the intensity of the random violence inflicted on the town by Anti-Racist Action, which had gathered into a preliminary "Black Block" as early as 9:30 that morning -- half an hour before any of the police force commanders had arrived on the scene, and half an hour before any riot police were deployed. By 9:50 AM they had begun barricading roads and attacking passerbys. Two men, which some media claimed were National Alliance members, but who’s status was unclear, were dragged from their truck and beaten. As the AP put it, in describing one of several similar attacks that occurred that morning:

"Chad Vylonis, 26, of Dowagiac, Mich., got a large gash in his lip and had his bottom teeth loosened when an anti-racist protester smashed the window of the pickup truck driven by his brother, Ryan. ... Vylonis said he was in town to help his brother move so [he] could attend cooking school in York."

But attacking random citizens wasn't all ARA was good for. They also attacked random journalists. In the words of a second AP article:

"A newspaper photographer said demonstrators threw concrete at him Saturday. ... Greg Mahany, 44, a photographer with the York Dispatch, was treated and released at York Hospital for a head injury. He said he thinks the concrete was thrown by anarchists..."

A reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer, and at least two other female journalists, were also assaulted. So were four undercover cops and one undercover FBI agent -- all of whom responded by
arresting as many ARA activists as they could grab. And these men and women weren't attacked because they were five-oh. No. ARA didn't know they were five-oh. They were attacked because they were white, and "anti-racist" action, far from living up to its name, showed everyone that day that racist lynch mobs don't always come to town waving swastikas. As one activist, identified only as “Willie”, wrote on Indymedia.org:

“Does the reckless celebration of blood, brutality and violence by ‘anti-racists’ smack of the very image anyone with an ounce of human decency is supposed to be against?”

Reverse Racism

So it was a curious situation – which inspired a curious question. As one rather militant black journalist pointed out in the press pit, there were very few if no minorities among the anti-racist demonstrators -- so why were so-called "white" kids engaged in anti-white violence? It is clear the ethnic hatred that appeared to motivate ARA did not emerge from the white community. And since most of the ARA "activists" had no problem committing acts of racist terror against white citizens -- so to claim that it was hatred of racism that motivated them was simply incorrect. It was hatred of white people as white people – and one had to wonder if what motivated them was the large number of Jewish activist that had blurred into their crowd many of whom used their best oratory to attempt to harangue the city's black residents into joining their violent frenzy.

And my sources inside this Black Block -- three activists I had met with the night before to get some assistance in coverage of the event -- tell me that ethnic tension and racial stereotyping was certainly a factor in the group’s nihilistic racial tendencies. Though none of the activists there was overtly racist, they all used crypto-racial terminology to categorize different kinds of white people to justify their violence. The white working class was “redneck”. The white middle class was “yuppy.” If they appeared to be wealthy whites, they were “rich bastards.” But all of these categories were racially limited – middle class Jews weren’t “yuppies” and working class black people weren’t “rednecks” – even if they were from the country.

The group that took the brunt of ARA’s racial hatred, of course, was the white working class. It was shocking to see the privileged children of the wealthy bourgeoisie engaging in racist violence against non-racist working people, and then justifying their own racist violence in the name of "opposing racism". From this, for a moment, one almost thought one was witnessing a seen in occupied Palestine.

After the event, a number of component ARA groups went out of their way to deny links to Jewish extremists. The Barricada Collective put out a press statement saying:

"Barricada has recently been accused through many public forums of having working ties to the Jewish Defense League (JDL). Barricada has never had any ties, unofficial or official, to the Jewish Defense League. All our members agree that the JDL is a dangerous and fascist organization."

It was amusing and ironic. Here was a dangerous fascist organization of disproportionately Jewish members spending their day launching terrorist assaults on innocent white civilians while calling the JDL "dangerous and fascist" for doing the same thing. And while there is no real link between the two groups, Barricada might do well to ask themselves why the rumor was so easily believable? Is there a difference between a group of reactionary Jewish nationalists who engage in racist terror and a group of reactionaries who do it in the name of Bolshevik-styled "anti-racism"?

And the Barricada press statement was full of other errors. While they may technically have been correct in claiming

"locals joined in violent confrontations with neo-nazis"

they neglected to mention that the only locals who did so were either obviously intoxicated or under the age of 16. Most of the locals, being almost entirely from the surrounding impoverished black residential area, just stood and looked on in silence and sadness at the white nationalist movement they couldn't understand. And despite their obvious opposition to racism, they had little sympathy for the privileged youth who had come to bring violence and devastation to their neighborhood. After all, at the end of the day, ARA could leave the riot zone and go back home to their big houses in Massachusetts and New York, while the community members had to leave in the mess and the debris ARA had created. In the words of black resident Melinda Randall, who witnessed the Barricada lynchers attack a white neighbor for no reason:

"[ARA] should never have come here. They should never have come here. We don't want them here. Why couldn't the police have kept them from coming here."

Surprise, Surprise

Early on in the day, despite some hate crimes by the ARA lynch mob, from the press pit the day seemed like it would be boring. That was until a marching group rounded a corner carrying red and black flags and began to march inside the police perimeter towards the police line. It appeared at first that the Black Block, who had been circling the police perimeter for the past hour, always appearing just beyond the range of sight, marching by, and disappearing behind a corner or a building, was charging the police line -- and that the defenses in place were not going to be adequate to hold it. The press pit panicked. Reporters began packing up TV cameras and writers began to run back from the barricades. There was no telling who ARA would attack.

Then the flags unfurled. Swastikas. And scores of people. One hundred and fifty members of the Hammerskins and other affiliates, led by armed beret and BDU clad Aryan Nations organizers, had decided to demand their right to assemble and hear Matt Hale speak. They were shortly joined by fifty more supporters. From another direction, fifty more people arrived -- Billy Roper's detachment from the National Alliance. It was an impressive scene. The press calmed down when it was evident the groups wouldn’t charge, and jokes were made about the movie “Higher Learning.” The two groups remained at separate barricades for more than an hour, unaware of each other's existence, and unaware of whether or not the police would allow them to join in attendance.

Clubs, Guns and Pickup Trucks

Part of the reason for the separation was the failure of the National Alliance and the Hammerskins to give many of their members who had not been invited to participate in the secured parking proper directions as to where to go. An unfortunate result was that the majority of the Hammerskins, who came up in several large white pickup trucks, ended up parking in a lot about a quarter of a block South of the anti-racist demonstration.

The real violence started in the afternoon, after two o'clock, as the police ordered the white nationalist crowd to disperse. According to one activist on scene, the police simply walked up to them and said:

“You all have five minutes to disperse or your going to be arrested.”

But of course there was nowhere for them to go – they were surrounded by a riled ARA mob and about three hundred mostly black spectators. The white supremacist groups took the only course available – they began to withdraw en masse through an alleyway. Some apparently decided to return to the library. The police provided neither group with protection from the club, hockey stick, baseball bat, and baton wielding anti-racists who had twice before tested the police lines to try to attack the national socialist crowd. Eventually the police deployed three officers to stop and armed crowd of two hundred and fifty, and the result was predictable.

A battle erupted between skinheads and anarchists who simply overwhelmed the few officers on scenes, and several members of ARA were left beaten on the ground after having been smashed with their own clubs. Several of the Hammerskins also suffered injuries, and at least three were seen bleeding from club wounds inflicted during ARA’s initial ambush.

Though ARA’s Barricada collective would later claim that there were:

"several broken bones, and countless bruises"

among the Nazis from this fight, in reality none of the skinheads suffered worse than a bloody nose. In fact, after the battle, the white supremacists joked that ARA had simply proven that can only win fights when it outnumbers its opponents ten to one or more -- a situation that was helped by the police dispersing the supremacists into small groups.

As the fight moved through the alley, into a nearby parking lot, the Hammerskins seemed ready to pack up and leave, until they spotted a group of Anti-Racist Activists beating the windows out of one of their trucks. The skins charged in an enraged and undisciplined mass, most of them wielding flagpoles and batons, and crashed into a police line which was trying to force the anti-racists back away from the vehicles. The result was cops fighting skinheads fighting anarchists for several confused minutes, ending with several more folk on all sides bleeding from club wounds. Several of the fighters on all sides were detained, though most were released minutes later. The ARA activist who broke the windows was arrested and charged, and several ARA activists were run down with police horses after throwing bricks at the animals.

At this point in time more of the local residents of York -- many of whom were drawn to the event after seeing them reported on live local television feeds – gathered and began to circle. The police reacted slowly and with indecision, allowing them to surround the parking lot, and consequently extending the police line beyond the ability of the number of officers on the scene. The situation was reminiscent of the siege of the Welsh regiment by African Impis in the movie Zulu. One almost expected the skinheads to break into chorus with:

"Men of Harlech stop your dreaming, Can't you see their spear points gleaming? And their warrior pennants streaming? To the battlefield!"

The police had not put any plan in place to deal with this circumstance. Beforehand, Pravda had asked their commander what he intended to do if their were more white supremacists than could fit in the library. He had replied, with cock-sured-ness:

“Well, we’re just hoping that situation doesn’t occur.”

And eventually the police, lacking a plan to deal with this circumstance, made another bad decision, and decided to "escort" the skinheads out a back alleyway. Of course, just as with their last "escort", they deployed an inadequate number of men to secure the route -- one reason may have been that they were so short of manpower that they did not have enough men to take from the parking lot line to do so. Apparently the police, who at this point should have had no excuse for underestimating the potential for violence, felt that simply driving a police car through the demonstrator's lines would be sufficient to guarantee safe travel for any vehicles following. They were wrong, and a tragedy resulted.

The sherriff's car that led off got through fine, but the first Hammerskin pickup truck that was driving behind it did not. No sooner had it entered the mob than ARA, infuriated at having been bruised in the battle for the alleyway, descended on it. At least six ARA activists physically got on top of the truck, some wielding batons, those not wielding batons wielding Nazi flag poles they had captured, and immediately began to try to pull the young man from the car – apparently with the intention of clubbing him to death. Several of those gathered were shouting for the activists to kill him. The lynch mob had descended to the standards of the 1920s Ku Klux Klan – it resembled scenes of Jewish "Freedom Riders" being drug from their buses by Southern Whites in the 1960s.

The young man in the car of course panicked. He had tried to reverse and had spun around, and then shifted gears out of reverse and hit the accelerator. The gears didn't immediately catch. The cars wheels spun and when the gear caught the truck shot forward right through the heart of the jeering, rock throwing, club wielding ARA mob. Activists literally went flying through the air. One appeared to land on the other side of a nearby low fence, about twenty feet away. Dozens of people were thrown to the ground. One masked anarchist youth, later taken to a hospital in unknown condition, was hit and dragged twenty feet. The police, just starting to arrive on scene, charged. Nearly a score of ARA activists, including the injured who had been thrown from their positions on the top of the truck's cab and bed, were arrested and drug off. Over a dozen were later charged.

The anti-racists had come to York to seek violence, and they had found it. It put them in a hospital bed, or left them limping away, their black flags in tatters. One nearby resident began screaming that the white racist had run over a little black girl. The stage was set for the afternoon's race violence.

The police sealed the scene and arrested the driver. The first reports in the press deliberately tried to play the incident down, describing it as a "car accident". One "anti-racist" group in York suggested the youth had been merely "driving recklessly". Even the police seemed inclined to play along -- charging the Hammerskin with "disorderly conduct" and telling him he was to be released. But after protests were made to the police department from various political concerns, the young man, who had only tried to protect himself, was maliciously charged with four counts of "aggravated assault with a vehicle." Your humble correspondent immediately volunteered himself as a witness for the youth's defense.

As the skinheads left the city, ARA organizers who had not dispersed -- maybe twenty five to thirty five of them in all -- began to incite small gathering on the streets corners along with several black York residents, demanding that cars full of skinheads trying to leave the city by the Southern route be attacked. According to police accounts, National Alliance and Hammerskin supporters chased the crowds away by drawing concealed handguns in at least three incidents. In two of those incidents, police detained the gun wielding national socialists.

In one specific case, Pravda was told that the skinhead youth who's car windows had already been broken in the parking lot, had been told by police to go to a local station and file a report. Given that an angry mob was between him and the station, he asked for a police escort. The police detained the youth in the smashed truck while his comrades left through the alley, and then abandoned the youth, telling them they didn't have enough officers left to protect him. The youth was then attacked by about sixty individuals, mostly local black teenagers, egged on by ARA. The youth’s girlfriend apparently punched an ARA activist too hard, breaking her finger -- the most serious injury a skinhead suffered that day. Witnesses say that an ARA activist began to club the skinhead youth in the head. The youth, who was armed, and who had so far shown considerable restraint, then drew his concealed handgun and waved it at the crowd, causing the cowardly mob to disperse. The youth, who had been set up for violence by the police, was immediately arrested for the crime of self defense.

In at least one other case, a member of the Aryan Nations displayed a gun, again dispersing a largely crowd who had attacked him because of their superior numbers.

In a third incident, one reporter told Pravda that shots were fired, though police officially did not confirm this. Pravda later spoke to a skinhead who witnessed the incident, and who stated that "warning shots" were fired over the heads of ARA activists who attempted to lynch his comrade.

Conclusions and Aftermath

Meeting with other reporters in the press lounge afterwards, many of the white reporters were outraged at the day's events. A journalist for a major metropolitan daily told Pravda that after being attacked by ARA he had begun to understand some of what the white supremacists had had to say to him in interview. Another female television journalist also expressed sympathies. A tv cameraman for another station told Pravda privately that he felt that the blacks had been responsible for the violence now, and had gotten what they deserved in 1969 when the Police Chief had handed ammunition to young white residents and told them to go shoot rioting "niggers" who had murdered at least one white and who were burning down the inner town. Coming from journalists, such comments were remarkable.

Even those journalists who didn't feel sympathy to the Nazis certainly had no love for Anti-Racist Action. Most said they were trying to figure how to spin ARA in a negative light in such a way that their editors wouldn't stop the article from running. As it turned out, from reading the drivel that was generally produced, most of them were not successful. It would be highly unusual for the American press, which is largely owned by Jews, who are of course opposed to white nationalism and the promotion of anti-white-nationalist causes, to honestly report on the despicable and randomly violent assaults of people who are essentially following the program that the Jewish owners of the American media want to promote. Instead, the articles that were produced in the American press largely focused on quoting residents who either "grudgingly" defending the white racists' right to speak versus residents who felt the police should have violently suppressed the white racists' right to speak.

But despite the media spin, ARA proved that its ability to organize and coordinate a large scale action was weak – a mobilization of an entire quarter of the nation had only drawn 100 people. The twelve year old braggadocio that various collectives claimed in their subsequent statements couldn't make up for the widely broadcast photographs of the event, clearly showing what ARA had really done. Had the police been interested in keeping the peace rather than bungling around setting up violence that some of them apparently thought would discourage the supremacists from marching again in their town, the day's events may have been very different – much more devastating for the anti-racists, and much calmer.

Given the trends of the past few months, white nationalism continues to be on the rise -- which, given the extreme nature of the ideologies involved, is not necessarily a positive development. While all of these groups continue to be plagued by organizational problems and inexperience with demonstrations -- many Hammerskins blamed poor planning and a lack of decent directions on the part of the National Alliance for the destruction of their trucks -- it should be expected that they will continue to develop these capabilities. It may be that the next few events will see a better disciplined, better communicating, and more aware group engaging in confrontations against an enemy they are starting to understand.

In contrast, the prognosis for the anti-racist action / "left" anarchist segment of the black block seems dim. While the real, anti-globalist black block will likely continue to be effective in mobilizations against corporate globalism, the number of black block activists who share the nihilistic hatred of white people that drives such “anti-racist” violence is limited. As the events of September 11 and the failure of the US government to address the root cause of the terrorist bombing in the US relationship with Israel continue to alienate large segments of both the general population and the left, and the writings of groups like the SPLC and the ADL continue to alienate the Black Block from the Jewish community, one should expect to see less and less anarchists accepting thinly veiled anti-white racist rhetoric as "anti-racism", and less and less anarchists interested in participating in racist lynch mob activities.

Further, the continuing campaign against globalism is becoming more and more incompatible with the propaganda of opposing "anti-Semitism". Because there is increasing perception of Jewish control of the instruments of globalism -- such as the World Economic Forum which the Black Block is protesting in New York in late January, founded by Jewish businessman Maurice Levy, managed by Jewish businessman Richard Attias, -- there are increasing questions in the minds of some anarchists as to the role that Jewish ethnicity and Jewish elements of the ruling class play in systems of oppression they are striking out against. This, combined with phenomena like the growing National Anarchist movement and other non-orthodox approaches to the anarcho-socialist position, and the lack of anarchist ideologues to denounce and steer the movement "back on course" in the manner of Trotskyite vanguardists, has begun to erode the core demographic from which the ARA-faction of the black block draws its support. If young men and women who reject the legitimacy of the government are given alternative ideologies which serve the same emotional need to express anger and alienation that ARA nihilism gives, it is likely that those young men and women who turn to racist lynchings for the purpose of emotional release will be equally likely to transfer those feeling to expressions of anarchism's "national" variants as they are their "anti-national" variants -- drawing strength away from what used to be the only game in town.

It would not be surprising to see current trends continuing into the short term, and if another event such as that of September 11 occurs, and that event can again be directly linked to US-Israeli policy, and if the US government continues to refuse to address the growingly unpopular program of US support and aid to the Israeli regime, it is likely that the trend will accelerate, as the demonstrable results of the last such act led to a definite increase in the rate at which new members are joining these organization. Further, street demonstrations such as the York protests are building support for these groups among the broader community of white activists, and are impressing many individuals who would otherwise be "fence-sitters" into coming out and being more active in national socialist activity. As this is occurring as organized resistance to this activity is weakening, and as resistance to these movements among the general population is decreasing, it seems that the factors that would tend to limit or reduce the rate of growth of this movement are becoming less and less significant.

In sum, there is a real national socialist movement developing in America, and its growth is paralleling the growth of similar movements, such as the British Nationalist Party in Britain, the National Democratic Party in Germany, Russian National Unity in Russia, and more moderate "right-wing" governments in Italy, Austria -- as well as outright national socialist contenders who have won or nearly won elections in Romania and Bulgaria. This "world wide increase in anti-Semitism" which has recently been decried by the Zionist occupiers of Palestine has truly become global, and past approaches, including meaningless rote denunciations of "hate" and "racism" and the applications of century old Marxist analyses of fascism to modern, post-fascist ideologies, will either have to be changed by the anti-racist left or are inevitably doomed to fail.

Photo: After a failed attack on the skinheads, ARA members were beaten with their own clubs.

Reproduced gratefully from:  Pravda.ru

The Washington Times
www.washtime.com     

      Delegitimizing the West

             Paul Craig Roberts
            CREATORS SYNDICATE

Published 9/7/01

     On Labor Day, Secretary of State Colin Powell pulled the United States out of the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, because U.S. diplomacy is sensitive to hateful speech against Israel. What I want to know is: What were we doing at the conference in the first place?
     It was a foregone conclusion that hateful speech would be directed against Israel. The United States knew it would have to walk out of the conference and sent a midlevel delegation to save Colin Powell the trouble.
     It is all well and proper to walk out in defense of Israel. But why not walk out in our own defense and in defense of white people generally? The hateful speech against whites was just as extreme. Just as the conference put the onus of the Palestinian conflict on Israel, with the notable exception of Senegal President Abdoulaye Wade, the onus for black slavery was put on whites rather than on the African tribes that conducted slave wars and their Arab customers.
     Mr. Powell says he regrets having to withdraw the U.S. delegation "because of the importance of the international fight against racism and the contribution that this conference could have made to it." Apparently, our secretary of state buys into the notion that the fight against racism is a fight against whites.
     Only a short distance away in Zimbabwe, whites were being expelled from the country even as the World Conference Against Racism was meeting in Durban. Did the conferees against racism raise their collective voice in protest?
     What country are blacks being chased out of by whites?
     This year in Cincinnati and Seattle, black mobs chased white people in the streets, shouting, "Kill the white man." In what cities are white people chasing blacks in the streets shouting, "Kill the black man"?
     In what countries do gangs of white youths rape young black girls in order to inflict "racial humiliation"?
     In what universities do professors demonize blacks? Why isn't it racist to attribute all the evils of history to white males?
     "Racism" has been fashioned into a weapon against whites. It has brought about massive fabrications of history, hate crimes that only whites can commit and race-based legal privileges for "preferred minorities."
     In the United States and the United Kingdom, whites can be arrested for hate crimes for what they say to one another in private conversations. In Britain, police sit in restaurants eavesdropping on white diners to record racist remarks that justify arrest.
     Why isn't this "racial profiling"?
     Is there anything blacks can say about whites that can lead to their arrest for hate speech?
     Shortsighted professors at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and Yale thought that a little historical fabrication and multicultural emphasis would help integrate "people of color" into Western countries. They did not realize they were creating a monster that would poison race relations. They thought that by pulling down whites and boosting up others the cultural disparities that they believed stood in the way of integration would be lessened.
     Alas, the fabrications created guilt on the part of indoctrinated whites and hate on the part of indoctrinated blacks.
     Guilt produced more demands and, in turn, more guilt. Race-based legal privileges are being defended today in the Supreme Court by the Bush administration. Now that a white Republican government has made it clear that the U.S. Constitution's requirement of equal protection cannot stand in the face of demands for "minority preferences," why is it surprising that demands for reparations from whites to "people of color" are being made on a world scale?
     In the 1960s, I told academic colleagues that the case they were so earnestly making for domestic income redistribution would sooner or later be made on the international level. Once a citizen's claim to his income and wealth is abridged, there is no limit to the claimants. If a well-to-do American can be held responsible for the care of a poor American, who, in turn, is well-to-do compared to an African, international organizations will hold Americans in general responsible for claims made in the name of humanity.
     The United States today sees itself as the superpower that leads the world, but in fact the United States has been isolated by its own intellectuals as a racist hegemonic force that must be opposed. Tyrant countries kicked the United States off the U.N. Human Rights Commission, and the United States was without influence at the World Conference on Racism.
     Academic constructs have delegitimized the West. At the racism conference, a Palestinian seeking Israel's destruction saw no hypocrisy in accusing the United States of refusing to face up to responsibility for slavery.
     As prize-winning African filmmaker Gnoan M'bala recently said, it is time for Africans to wake up to the fact that Africans sold Africans into slavery.

Reparations clamor of dubious design

Published 9/10/01

     The recent United Nations conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, raised again the issue of reparations for slavery.
     This is an idea that was first developed last year by Randall Robinson's book, "The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks." Now, it seems, the issue has moved past compensating the descendants of slaves to compensating those who sold them into slavery in the first place.
     At the U.N. conference, some African leaders said that since slaves were forcibly taken from Africa, they deserve compensation for this loss. Among many problems with this argument are two that are particularly relevant. First, very few slaves were kidnapped by European slave traders. The vast majority were sold into slavery by African leaders of the time.
     Second, these African leaders were paid very well for the slaves they sold. So to compensate them a second time for their loss is like paying compensation to a thief for robbing you.
     These are controversial points, to be sure, but are massively documented by historian Hugh Thomas, in his book, "The Slave Trade" (Simon & Schuster, 1997). On the first point, he writes:
     "The overwhelming majority of slaves were certainly obtained by the European traders in Africa by purchase or negotiation with local rulers, merchants, or noblemen. Some were obtained directly through European wars, principally in Angola; except in the first days of the Portuguese on the coast, up till 1448, only a small number were obtained by Europeans by kidnapping.
     "The Africans from whom the Europeans obtained most of the slaves to be shipped acquired them much as in antiquity in the Mediterranean, or in medieval Europe: first, as a result of war; second, in consequence of enslavement as punishment for the people concerned; third, from poverty, resulting in someone's being constrained to sell his children, or even himself; or, fourth, from kidnapping, which was as frequent among Africans as it was rare among Europeans.
     "African monarchs also often bought slaves [who might earlier have been obtained in any of these ways] from dealers, in order to sell them again to Europeans [or to other Africans, and especially Arabs]."
     Mr. Thomas even cites a survey of slaves taken by one Sigismund Koelle in Sierra Leone in the 1850s. According to his research, which may not be typical for the whole slavery era, 34 percent of slaves had been taken prisoner in war, 30 percent had been kidnapped by Africans, 11 percent suffered enslavement as punishment for a crime, 7 percent had been sold to pay debts, and another 7 percent had been sold by relatives or friends. The rest fell into multiple categories.
     Mr. Thomas notes that kidnapping by Europeans was strongly discouraged for simple commercial reasons. Doing so earned the wrath of African leaders, who saw this as theft of their property. European slave traders who engaged in kidnapping, therefore, often paid a heavy price for doing so.
     For African leaders, slavery was a huge moneymaker. According to Thomas, they were paid about 50 pounds for each slave in the 18th century. This was a large sum in those days. A person could live for four years on it.
     Of course, prices varied over the years, and slaves were often bought in trade for horses and other goods. Given that about 10 million Africans were sold to European slavers over the years, even a low estimate of the wealth obtained by African leaders would be about 300 million pounds. It is very difficult to put this number into context, but at a 5 percent interest rate, compounded over 150 years, it would equal almost $1 trillion today.
     Finally, it is worth noting that the U.S., against which reparations demands have been strongest, only got about 4 percent of the slaves taken from Africa. According to a careful calculation by historian P.D. Curtin, between 1500 and 1870, 399,000 slaves were brought to the U.S. Almost 10 times this number went to the Caribbean and about the same to Brazil.
     Spanish America got 4 times as many slaves as came to the U.S.
     It goes without saying that slavery is, was and always will be abhorrent. Efforts to root it out wherever it exists should never cease. But making it seem as if only the U.S. bears responsibility for the past sin of slavery is unfair.
     There is a great deal of blame to go around and much of it must go to African leaders, who sold their own people into slavery for a healthy profit. Paying reparations to current African leaders, whose predecessors bear much of the responsibility for Africa's loss, is utterly unjustified.

May 30, 2001

The Reverend and The Movement 

Big Daddy and the Plantation 

By Kevin Alexander Gray

I grew up in a National Enquirer house. My mother reads it weekly and my brother works in the plant that prints them. There is something cosmic about Reverend Jesse Jackson, for whom I used to work, being in the same rag that regularly reports on space aliens. Now, every time I think of Reverend, Diana Ross's Love Child plays in my head. And I have gotten enough email cartoons. The one with Reverend's head (with a ponytail) on a little girl's body was low down-- as low down as the state of black and progressive politics. And that should be our real concern.

Some defend Reverend as a prophet while others condemn him as a profiteer. As far as Reverend being a prophet I can only suggest counseling for the believers. In this case, the difference between prophet and profit resembles the difference between praying and preying.

Recently, Reverend was cheered when he attended a Chicago area basketball tourney. Every church he has attended since the baby story broke has forgiven him. Often when a black leader faces attack or criticism by the powers that be, many blacks take the position that if white folk are giving a "brother" hell then he must be doing something right even when the person benefiting from support is screwing them royally. This is the present day's version of racial solidarity. Ironically, Bill Clinton benefits from this rule. Lani Guinier and Jocelyn Elders did not. And for all the love that folk like Toni 'the closest we will ever come to a black president' Morrison shower on Clinton, more black men went to jail under NAACP Image Award winner Clinton than under Ronald Reagan. I guess it hate the game don't hate the "playa." In ghetto slang Reverend and Clinton are "playa playas." [Translation -- They are so good they can play the playas themselves; so good they can con the cons.]

The age-old stereotype is that blacks care little about Reverend's sexual behavior due to their "inherent immorality." We hear the same thing whenever Bill "Cotton comes to Harlem" Clinton and black people are mentioned in the same sentence. A more useful idea-that black people practice that rarest of all Christian maneuvers, hating the sin not the sinner, understanding that Saturday night is followed by Sunday morning, not the other way around. But this is never suggested, possibly because in the "true" white American Christianity, such tolerance and forgiveness do not exist. (Ask Ashcroft.)

For most of those doing the evaluating, the logic is far simpler: Clinton apparently likes to fuck so he's black. Jackson is unquestionably black, so we ought to expect him to fuck.

But the problem with Reverend Jesse Jackson isn't that he fathered a child with a woman he didn't marry. The problem is that Reverend has used a movement predicated on protecting rights of the many with gaining privilege for a few. Our movement is anti-privilege. Now, Reverend's privilege and privileges are being challenged. Who's to say that's a bad thing?

I once believed that Clinton and Reverend really didn't like each other. For instance, I was with Jackson and Tom Harkin in South Carolina when Clinton called Reverend a backstabber. Reverend certainly didn't respond to the remark by joking "Hey, it's just my homey Bill jonesing a little on a brother." I was at the Rainbow meeting in Washington when Clinton trashed Sistah Souljah. It took Reverend a little bit to realize that Clinton had once again kicked him in the ass but when he figured it out he was pissed. (For some reason the expression "Arkansas cracker" comes to mind.) Truth be told, how could Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton not like each other? They are like peas in a pod or, anyway, at least a boss and a straw boss. When Reverend was counseling Clinton I had two thoughts: It's going to blow up in his face and they're comparing notes. So maybe it was inevitable that Clinton and Reverend would become cut buddies, each vying to be the cash and carry Negro leader.

The new "morality" questions as well as past financial problems at Operation Breadbasket that led to his split with Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference are now regular fodder for the Sunday morning talk shows. The pundits' assessment -- Reverend is not now and has never been accountable to anybody. Washington Post columnist David Broder gave Reverend's refusal to run for mayor of DC as evidence of his fear of accountability. Columnist Clarence Page, the only black guy on a news show on a regular basis, said the stories and financial questions were old news. Both fretted over Reverend troubles but neither counted him completely out. Still, maybe his days as a national leader were numbered. (Maybe?)

But the problem isn't that Reverend is a has-been. It's worse: he's become an insider. That's what makes my desire to see Reverend either change or be gone from the scene different from Broder's and Page's. To them, Reverend is becoming ineffective as the "designated Negro."

There are also those awaiting the day when Vice-president Dick Cheney has the big one (or a big enough one) so that Colin Powell becomes vice president. Understanding racial solidarity, they believe that African Americans will predictably rally around the first black vice president. This group doesn't want Reverend to affect that dynamic. So, they beat up on him now in hopes of getting him out of the way. Things they ignored in the past make the Enquirer's cover. They have no desire to see Al Sharpton elevated to "national Negro leader" but they know that Powell trumps Sharpton or anyone else for that matter. Powell as vice president would be the death of black politics, and you could be sure that his personal Operation Breadbasket, his participation in the attempted cover-up of the My Lai massacre, would never come back to haunt him.

This is the new dilemma for Reverend and others who make their money by manipulating the masses. How could they overcome what could be the ultimate manipulation?

The baby's mama drama is a symptom of something else. Reverend isn't the first, only or last man to have his brain in the wrong head. That's how he got here. Give him credit for claiming his child? It was from Reverend that I first heard that you don't get points for doing the right thing. But the woman is no "that man used me" victim. She's a thirty-something Ph.D. breast cancer survivor. She wanted his seed. Initially, she said it wasn't Reverend's baby. She lied to her mama to protect him, and in the part of the nation that reads the Enquirer that's a lot more extreme than lying to the FBI.

Workplace sex will always be around. No doubt, on the job there is sexual harassment and conniving plotters of both sexes. The problem with Reverend isn't workplace sex (except maybe to his wife Jackie and those who believe a minister and married man should act a certain way). Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition's problems are patronage and bossism.

The Rainbow "organization" is not committed to any movement - past or future (unless we are foolish enough to believe in a "Wall Street movement"). Jessephiles have no particular political goals, agenda or ideology beyond cutting the deal and protecting their privileges as part of the black bourgeoisie. It's always been about big daddyism, a concept from back in the day that covers it all: sexual harassment, nepotism, exploitation, plotting, foolishness, favoritism and all kinds of other isms, schisms and confusion. A "big daddy" is a straw boss thinking he is the boss, or putting up the front that he believes it, as part of doing the boss's business. Tupac called it thug life.

Most--not all, but most-Jessephiles want to be close, accepted, recognized or loved by big daddy. They want big poppa's favor. Big daddy's on the inside, with the status quo, the in-crowd.

To the Jessephiles, the Rainbow Coalition's biggest accomplishment was to become Rainbow/PUSH, but that's nonsense. The Rainbow Coalition was supposed to be about politics and organizing. PUSH is about "getting the gold." The "gold" comes with being silent about the exploitation and unfair practices of the corporate givers. To know whose doing the buying one needs only to read the magazines or newsletters of any black organization. In return for silence some "big daddy" gets some stock, a seat on a board, a job or a check. Reverend isn't even the master of this game; that would be Vernon Jordan.

Much of Reverend and his crew's present good fortune comes from the lawsuits or threats of lawsuits by grassroots groups whose primary concern is that their constituents receive fair treatment. Grassroots groups sued merging banks (such as Bank of America for gobbling NationsBank, which used to be Citizens and Southern/Sovran) over adherence to the community reinvestment act. The outcome was that Reverend and the Jessephiles who got the gold. The price was the abandonment of attempting to enforce the community reinvestment act. "Big daddys" often stifle grassroots protest, threats of economic actions or boycotts because there is an existing deal with the company or a deal waiting to be made. Reverend often says, "The only bad deals are the ones you are not in the room for." A watered down CRA was passed last year with little public comment. Why? Because the banks and the feds now sidestep grassroots groups and cut the deal with the big daddys, who have become their straw bosses in the matter.

The powerful have learned that it is easier and cheaper to buy black leaders than to bust them. The real money is in busting street niggers in bulk. That's what racial profiling is all about. And Reverend isn't the only one bought and paid for. Past NAACP director Ben Chavis and ex-chair Doc Bill Gibson were part of the demise of grassroots' effectiveness in maintaining a remote semblance of accountability by predatory banks. The only thing that the late Khalid Muhammed ever got right was what he said about Ben Chavis. Condemning Chavis for stealing from the people, he called him counterrevolutionary. But, that's what all the big daddies do. It's what Ben Chavis was taught, and taught by experts. Look at the King family's exploitation of all things Martin, right down to pimping footage of his speech from the March on Washington as a product advertisement.

Today many civil rights organizations work counter to black empowerment. Promotion of individuals, symbols and organizations, all living on someone else's past glories, replace movements of the poor and disenfranchised. The NAACP and the Urban League have their fair share or economic development programs. The black churches and preachers take the money with no demand on the system except maybe a bank loan to build a bigger church. Every big daddy gets as much money as they can from wherever or whomever they can get it. COINTELPRO was never so effective at turning politics in the black community to shit.

The movement business is good to Reverend and his kids. One son is an alcohol distributor in Chicago, a second is an investment banker and Jesse Junior is a Congressman. But in spite of the fact that one son is a "legal" dealer, Reverend is hypocritical on the issue of drug legalization and on the wrong side in the war on drugs. What he should do is demand that the POWs be set free. Start protesting at the prisons. Call for active resistance against the drug war. Those are things that need saying and doing. The drug war is now spawning the next wave of black voter disenfranchisement. The background checks by the Florida Republicans were possible because of that state's disenfranchisement of ex-felons for 15 years after their term of imprisonment. That's why the Republicans were able to run criminal background checks, falsely report the results, and prevent balloting by thousands of black voters. The same tactics are going on in South Carolina and across the South. The only way to stop this is to oppose drug criminalization.

Cash checking services, cash advance lending, predatory mortgage practices, property rights, land loss and decreasing home ownership are just some of the pressing the economic issues affecting blacks. In cities such as Washington, DC, Charlotte, Atlanta and many others, inner city blacks are dealing with redevelopment, gentrification and eroding voting districts. So why aren't the Rainbow, Urban League, NAACP or the SCLC dealing with these problems?

A recession in the country as a whole and it's a depression in the black community. The latest unemployment statistics, officially edging towards 10 percent, bear out worsening conditions in black households. How does Reverend's Wall Street Project help black Americans forced into the secondary lending markets during hard times or at any time? The high ass interest charges blacks pay is what makes the investment bankers on Wall Street billionaires; it's where the funding for the Wall Street Project comes from, too, and Reverend and the other big daddies know it, which is why they don't challenge it.

Ask the average person what the Rainbow stands for and if they say anything it will be "it's Jesse Jackson's organization." But what has Reverend and his organization produced? What can that person on the street see, feel and touch? No one can call the organization on the phone for help. They can't get a question answered or a problem solved. They see no action. They feel nothing. They see nothing. That's because there is nothing-for them.

Reverend's legacy is that he ran for president, twice. He's been out the movement for a long, long time. He's been in the movement prevention business just as long. Any chance of movement building died when he dismantled the Rainbow to suit Clinton and Ron Brown in 1988. After that Reverend truly became "Jesse Jackson Inc." The tradeoff for scattering the troublemakers the 1984 and 88 campaigns brought into the political tent was job as head overseer on the Democratic Party plantation. Now Reverend holds the franchise on black votes. If he has a fear, it's losing the franchise.

Many of those at the center of the Jackson campaigns, like Jack O'Dell who worked with Martin Luther King, Frank Watkins who worked with Reverend for more than 20 years, Ron Daniels, Nancy Ware, Steve Cobble and a host of others including me--wanted to connect to the people, build an organization and create a movement. They were not chumps. They put the larger than life photos of Reverend at the headquarters in Chicago in historical prospective. But big daddyism got the best of them. They moved on and the Rainbow's potential to really change and challenge America went with them.

As an institution, the Rainbow will fade away completely. Then maybe we will build organizations capable of responding to the people's needs. Maybe if we stop depending on the straw boss we can take protest back to the to the streets and begin tearing down those institutions and ideas that need to crumble. Since the glory days of 1988, we have been poor stewards of the goals of a progressive/black movement. The success of that movement is the salvation of this country; its failure is its damnation.

The goals were set at the founding of this country. Black politics is the counter to anti-black politics. It's the demand for equal opportunity, equal treatment and protection, due process and economic justice for the descendants of enslaved Africans, which is the only way those things can be ensured for everyone else. CP

Kevin Alexander Gray is a longtime civil rights organizer who lives in South Carolina.

Reproduced From: Counter Punch

 From: NewsMax.com. All rights reserved.

International Terrorist Support Groups Thrive in Belgium and Netherlands

Adriana Stuijt
Monday, Sept. 24, 2001

The British researcher Dr. R. Gunaratna warned that, especially in The Netherlands, because of its total lack of anti-terrorism laws and its very high level of religious, cultural and judicial tolerance, Muslim-fundamentalist terrorist groups are allowed to thrive. They use Amsterdam and Rotterdam as central bases in the West from which they garnish funds, recruit activists from the local Muslim youth cultural groups, and purchase highly sophisticated arms in the world's largest trading hub: Rotterdam harbor.

The Kurdish PKK, the Tamil Tigers and the Philippines' New People's Army all use the liberal Dutch territory, from which they garnish new converts, turn them into activist supporters, launder and raise funds and purchase sophisticated equipment. These Dutch-based groups, especially, also create waves of propaganda material – and, being based in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp, also have no difficulty in purchasing any weapons and other high-tech support materials with which to mount terrorist attacks abroad.

A New Form of Terrorism

Another new, disturbing pattern pointing to a new form of terrorism against the civilian population at large has been detected in both harbor towns of Antwerp and Rotterdam: "Muslim cultural organizations" have also turned the streets of Antwerp and Rotterdam into main battlegrounds for Muslim-fundamentalist male criminal youth gangs who deliberately attack, rob and invade ethno-European cultural events and throngs of shoppers in the large shopping districts.

These well-organized attacks are leaving the local Dutch-speaking ethno-Europeans totally vulnerable and defenseless because their governments have no anti-terrorist laws with which to stop such highly aggressive youth groups from forming in the first place.

For instance, about 5.1 percent of Rotterdam's population is of Moroccan origin – yet about 10 percent of all the city's arrested criminal suspects are of Moroccan origin, according to Rotterdam's latest police statistics issued by chief inspector J. Verbeek and Erasmus University.

In the Dutch-speaking region's latest criminal youth gang attack in Belgium, in the suburb of Hasselt in Antwerp on Sept. 24, large groups of Algerian-Moroccan youths, centrally organized by cell phones and armed with batons and insecticide spray, attacked hundreds of local Flemish citizens holding their traditional end-of-summer fair and circus event at Kruger market square.

Many eyewitnesses who described the terror and destruction at the usually jolly and peaceful Flemish circus fair said the Algerian and Moroccan youths targeted especially women and girls as the youth gangs tore into the carnival goers, spraying people's eyes with insecticides and deodorants; spitting at and insulting especially the Flemish; ordering the girls and women to wear headscarves and calling them whores; cursing the men as "Flemish pork-eaters"; spitting on and befouling with urine and soil the carnival's traditional pancake dinners and destroying the antique, highly valuable carousel and circus equipment hired for the Hasselt community carnival.

Flemish old-age pensioners and children alike were forced to flee in fear of being blinded by spray, and were beaten up and kicked. The Flemish carnival goers – all local residents – had to flee from a steady stream of loud, rude verbal abuse from the young Algerians and Moroccans invading their neighborhood. Many witnesses also said the youths chanted popular slogans used by the Muslim-terrorist organization GIA. Some of these events were described in a local Antwerp newspaper.

Carnival goers who tried to remain and finish their traditional pancake meals or who tried to protect the antique circus equipment were physically attacked by kick-boxing youths. The equipment and musical instruments were destroyed during the racist rampage. There were very few police in attendance. The mainstream Belgian news media briefly described the event as a "scuffle" at a local carnival without mentioning the racist overtones.

In Rotterdam, only about 60 miles north of Antwerp, a similar pattern has also been developing over the past year, with widespread reports of assaults by Moroccan-Algerian youth gangs – described by Dutch police as "criminal youth gangs of North African descent"– but who are described by the news media as being highly centrally organized through cell phones.

These gangs target major shopping districts and traditional European cultural and sporting events to rob, terrorize and abuse especially the ethno-Dutch population. During these organized attacks, the youths are also seen to deliberately target ethno-European girls and women, demanding that they start obeying the strict Muslim shari'a laws favored by terrorist regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, which require total subservience to males. Many women shoppers now shun these major shopping districts to avoid such confrontations.

A Sociological Explanation

Dutch sociologists do not link these aggressive criminal North African male youth gangs to any Muslim-fundamentalist terrorist organizations – instead claiming that this first generation of Algerian-Moroccan youths, primarily raised without fathers, were "deculturized" and therefore aimlessly floating into such destructive criminal behavior.

The sociologists, in fact, urged even more government subsidies to these "cultural" groups to try and combat such behavior. By tradition and unlike Christian women, these sociologists point out, Muslim women are never allowed to discipline any of their male children and the cultural groups might be able to better "channel their male energies."

However, there's a much more organized situation going on here than these Dutch sociologists would have us believe. For example, on the night after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States, large groups of North African youths congregated in the town squares in Antwerp and also in the town of Ede in The Netherlands. In this town, a huge crowd of Muslim male youths had started to congregate shortly after the attacks and started celebrating what they themselves told the horrified local citizens was their personal "victory against America."

This was too much even for the highly liberal Dutch – Ede citizens called in the local police and demanded the youths' removal. However, the local police station commander lamely excused his lack of inaction by saying that the youths had been "expressing their rights to free speech available to all Dutch citizens" and that he was not allowed to stop the distasteful celebration.

And in a shock survey carried out by Muslim cultural publications the day after the attack, a full 80 percent of the thousands of Dutch Muslims questioned said that they had been in favor of the terrorist attacks.

Besides these clear danger signals from the Muslim community in The Netherlands itself, the Dutch government this week was also warned by the British anti-terrorism expert Gunaratna, of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Science at St. Andrews University in Scotland, to "stop disregarding the international fight against terrorism, and start prohibiting these terrorist support groups by law."

He urged the Dutch government to immediately change its laws and immediately prohibit these support groups. "Your country must change its laws at once if it wants to remain free of terrorism," he said.

Dutch Law and Terrorism

The Netherlands does not have any anti-terrorism laws – and thus openly allowed fundraising and arms purchase exporting by, for instance, terrorist support groups during the anti-apartheid movement's support of the terrorist cells of the African Nationalist Congress (ANC) and the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) before 1994.

Many Dutch citizens – such as the head of the now-defunct "Anti-apartheid movement Netherlands," the journalist Connie Braam – even actively participated in smuggling weapons and bombs into South Africa from Dutch territory and without any intervention from the Dutch government, which even provided government funding for this terrorist support group.

Dutch law itself contributes to the thriving terrorist support-group culture in The Netherlands. It does not allow any actions to be undertaken against support groups of terrorist organizations if it cannot be firmly proven that their fundraising and other physical support led to the terror attacks.

However, the internal security service of The Netherlands (BVD) itself is also not concentrating on probing such Muslim-fundamentalist terrorist activities as much as they are infiltrating right-wing or neo-Nazi groups, as the Dutch government has traditionally viewed such fascism as the prime enemy of peace and prosperity since the Nazi occupation during WWII.

As long as the Muslim-fundamentalist terrorist support groups do not misbehave inside The Netherlands, they can therefore continue to use the Dutch territory from which to garnish economic and material support – including purchasing highly sophisticated weaponry from the local arms industry – even if these directly lead to terrorist attacks outside The Netherlands, as also happened during the terrorist campaign conducted by the ANC and the PAC against the apartheid government in South Africa prior to 1994.

Belgium does have some anti-terrorist legislation also primarily targeting right-wing neo-Nazi groups – but is juristically more lenient toward Muslim-fundamentalist terrorist support groups on Belgian soil.

Other European countries do have better anti-terrorist legislation, with Great Britain having the most stringent laws due to its Northern Ireland troubles.

Terrorist Support Groups

Gunaratna said many of these groups have been active in The Netherlands for many years. "They conduct fundraisers and launder funds in The Netherlands to carry out violent attacks in Asia and the Middle East," he said.

He also noticed such support groups among other Muslim communities not known for terrorist activities, such as the Sikhs, Sri Lankans, and Pakistani and Kurd cultural groups – many of which are even subsidized by the Dutch government.

American expert Yossef Bodansky, author of a book on bin Laden, also confirmed that Amsterdam-based shipping companies operate as front organizations for the Al Qaida organization. This was also confirmed by the French-Arabian newspaper Al Watan Al Arabi.

Dutch internal affairs minister De Vries shrugged a dismayed "So what can I do about it?" reaction when confronted with these warnings from international experts – telling the TV program "Buitenhof" that he actually "could not exclude that subversive activities might be taking place inside such Muslim cultural groups."

And he even warned a few days later after talks with the 25 mayors of the main Dutch cities in charge of the regional police corps that "the Dutch cannot now start waging a cold war against Muslim religious groups."

He also warned Amsterdam's chief justice officer L. de Wit – who had told the news media that he would call in the defense force in case of pro-bin Laden riots in the capital city – that it was "very foolish to speculate in public about possible riots."

He also considered it unnecessary to rush to protect and beef up the security for all the public buildings and public figures against terrorist attacks. "There is no concrete terrorist threat in The Netherlands," he concluded and advised that only "some public buildings" had had their security stepped up. Al Watan

Meanwhile, Rotterdam's mayor, Mr. I. Opstelten, said the four men arrested in his city last week as suspects connected to the terrorist attacks on America still have not provided any leads that could link them. One is in a routine holding facility for illegal aliens and the other three are in police custody pending the investigation, he said.

The Dutch internal security organization, the BVD, has managed to confiscate a "suspicious parcel" destined for the United States, which was posted in the Swartjan street post office in Rotterdam. The country's anti-terrorist expert P. van der Molen said the main suspect of this Muslim support group, a Tunisian citizen, is still in custody in Brussels, Belgium.

Some anti-Muslim reactions were also recorded in The Netherlands since the Sept. 11 infamy. About 25 incidents were recorded by Dutch police, including arson, graffiti, and threats against mosques and Islamic schools in the towns of Vlissingen, Uden, Zwolle, Heerlen, The Hague and Rijssen. Two Islamic schools were torched, one in Nijmegen and the other in Drachten.

The Dutch cabinet minister in charge of "integration management," Mr. Van Boxtel, said this "unacceptable behavior against our young new Dutch citizens, this mini-terrorism, will be punished with the full force of Dutch law."

Reproduced with the permission of NewsMax.com. All rights reserved.

From NameBase NewsLine, No. 3, October-December 1993:

Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite

Opportunity is rapidly vanishing, poorly masked by an institutionalized preference for diversity. Leftist academics in ivory towers are hooked on designer victimology but fail to notice the real victims -- the entire next generation. Meanwhile the rich get richer. Have a nice New World Order. 

Anyone who follows today's academic debates on multiculturalism, and by happenstance is also familiar with the tower-structure research that engaged students in the sixties and early seventies, is struck by that old truism: the only thing history teaches us is that no one learns from history. By now it's even embarrassing, perhaps because of our soundbite culture. Not only must each generation painstakingly relearn, by trial and error, everything learned by the previous generation, but it's beginning to appear that we have to relearn ourselves that which we knew a scant twenty years earlier. The debate over diversity is one example of this.

Researchers in the sixties discovered that the ruling elites of the West mastered the techniques of multiculturalism at the onset of the Cold War, and employed them time and again to counter the perceived threat from communism. The Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) was funded first by the CIA and then, after this was exposed in 1967, by the Ford Foundation. CCF created magazines, published books, and conducted conferences throughout the world, in an effort to wean intellectuals to democratic liberalism.[1]

The CIA was also busy in Africa. In an article titled "The CIA as an Equal Opportunity Employer" that first appeared in 1969 in Ramparts and was reprinted in the Black Panther newspaper and elsewhere, members from the Africa Research Group presented convincing evidence that "the CIA has promoted black cultural nationalism to reinforce neo-colonialism in Africa." In their introduction they added that "activists in the black colony within the United States can easily see the relevance to their own situation; in many cases the same techniques and occasionally the same individuals are used to control the political implications of Afro-American culture."[2]

But this is lost history, found today only on dusty library shelves or buried in obscure databases. None of it is mentioned in the current debate over diversity, not even in one of the most lucid essays, an opinion piece by David Rieff that appeared in a recent Harper's.[3] Rieff paints a picture of multiculturalism and shows, in broad strokes, how multiculturalism serves capitalism. To appreciate the significance of multiculturalism we must, as Rieff does, look at the academic arguments from someplace in the real world, or at least from off campus. But we must also be aware of our own historical legacy: psychological warfare and the secret state, the mass media and the culture of spectacle, the role of foundations, and above all, the interests and techniques of the elite globalists who won the Cold War.

From the time that this war began in 1947, the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations, in cooperation with the CIA, began funding programs at major U.S. universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Columbia. They began with an emphasis on Russian studies, but by the mid-1960s these three foundations and the CIA had a near-monopoly on all international studies in the U.S.[4] This phenomenon, a big-money, top-down affair born out of strategic considerations, is the precursor of today's academic multiculturalism.

Some defenders of academic diversity pretend that the elitist shoe is on the other foot, and note that their critics are funded by certain conservative foundations. Sara Diamond tracks the Olin Foundation and Smith-Richardson money behind Dinesh D'Souza and the National Association of Scholars (NAS), two of the more vocal critics of multiculturalism.[5] Diamond points out that the Smith-Richardson Foundation has its own CIA connections, even though they pale in significance alongside the Carnegie - Ford - Rockefeller nexus. But Diamond's major error is in framing her arguments in terms of right and left. This allows the real dynamics to escape her radar.

The ruling elite that finds diversity useful is an elite operating at a level which transcends right and left. While there is an ideological right that is battling the left, and while they do enjoy funding from other conservatives, these folks are not the problem because they do not have substantial power. Nothing shows this better than the fact that this ideological right has always been as concerned as the left over the real source of power, the elite globalists. This began with the Reece Committee on the role of foundations in 1954, continued through the 1960s with the John Birch Society's attacks on the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and later on the Trilateral Commission, and continues today with Pat Robertson,[6] Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Spotlight, and others. It's not a right-left problem, but rather a top-bottom problem.[7]

Secondly, whatever the funding enjoyed by D'Souza and NAS, one must recognize that the ideological right has long been motivated by a Constitutionally-based, protectionist patriotism that hates big government. Too often the patriotic component has devolved into what can only be described as racism and imperialism. But in 1993 they are once again isolationist, at a time when louder mainstream voices want to assume the role of the world's policeman. And today the populist, ideological right (as opposed to the corporate, Republican, elitist right found on the CFR roster) is also opposed to NAFTA, every bit as firmly as the trade-union Democrats. The ideological right, in other words, takes ideas seriously -- a characteristic of those who lack power. It's just possible that diversity for its own sake deserves to be criticized because it replaces the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on personal experience. This too is a consideration that defies simplistic left-right categories.

For those who feel that the forces behind the debate are instructive, it's worthwhile noting that the Ford Foundation began supporting feminist groups and women's studies programs in the early 1970s. Just ten years earlier they were busy training Indonesian elites (using Berkeley professors as instructors) to take over from Sukarno,[8] which occurred soon after a CIA-sponsored coup in 1965 that led to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands. Did the folks at Ford Foundation have a bleeding change of heart, or are they continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. David R. Hunter, considered the "godfather of progressive philanthropy" by hip heirs such as George Pillsbury,[9] began his new career co-opting the next generation after spending four years at the Ford Foundation.[10] The ruling elite knows exactly what it's doing, and they are remarkably consistent.

When Ramparts blew the whistle on the CIA's domestic cultural activities in 1967, President Johnson appointed a committee consisting of elitists Nicholas Katzenbach (Rhodes scholar and former Ford Foundation fellow), OSS old-boy John Gardner (Carnegie Corporation president, 1955-1965), and CIA director Richard Helms to study the problem. The Katzenbach Committee reported that they expected private foundations, which had grown from 2,200 in 1955 to 18,000 in 1967, to take over the CIA's funding of international organizations, and recommended a "public-private mechanism" to give grants openly. Sixteen years later a Democratic Congress adopted this recommendation by establishing the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). By now it requires a leap of good faith to draw distinctions among implicated overlapping networks of CIA funding, NED funding, and funding by foundations such as Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller. The same people are behind all three, and they seem to be getting richer every day. They promote the two-party system because it keeps the rest of us off track.

Consider the issue of women in the workplace. Everyone agrees that increased opportunities for women are wonderful, but what effect has this had on family income? Here's the sobering answer, from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, no less:

The average weekly take home pay of a worker who entered the workforce in 1989 is $5.68 less today than thirty years ago. This is also reflected in hourly wages. Compared to 1959, there has been a slight increase, 60 cents an hour. But hourly wages are down from their peak in 1973. The 1950s were our boom time. In that one decade hourly wages grew by 83 cents. It took the following three decades to add a mere 60 cents. Families made do by doubling up in the workforce. Between 1955 and 1989 female participation in the work force rose from 35.7 percent to 57.4 percent. Even so, family income stayed flat. Median family income in 1973 was $32,109. Half a generation later in 1988 it was, in constant 1988 dollars, $32,191, a gain of $82. We also started the 1980s as the largest creditor nation in history. We are now the largest debtor.... As a debtor nation, we must expect that the people we owe money to will be better off than we are.[11]

More American women are working just to keep the family going, while more Japanese women can afford to stay home and are choosing to do so. The flip side of increased opportunities for American women is that they can no longer choose to stay out of the labor force. As David Rieff asks, "If multiculturalism is what its proponents claim it is, why has its moment seen the richest one percent of Americans grow richer and the deunionization of the American workplace? There is something wrong with this picture."[12]

Consider, too, the situation of African-Americans. As soon as the ghettos erupted in the mid-1960s, Johnson's war on poverty began pouring funds on the flames. This was followed with Nixon's "black capitalism," and by the early 1970s affirmative action was institutionalized by edict from above in both the public sector and in major private corporations that held government contracts. But twenty years later only the politicians, pundits, and movie stars pretend that any of this is significant; it's the Jesse Jacksons and black personalities on television who justify what they've got by emphasizing how far we've come thanks to the civil rights struggle. Meanwhile the young in the ghettos, and increasingly even on campuses, know that these front-office PR slots were filled long ago. It's not a problem of inequality; for the next generation there's already a rough equality in anticipated misery. The big problem is that opportunities are vanishing altogether, without regard to race, gender, or sexual orientation.

What's left of the left has yet to even acknowledge this, which makes the proponents of diversity seem irrelevant and even a bit suspicious. It's as if the multiculturalists are protesting too much. Trapped by the cognitive dissonance engendered by hard evidence and common sense, their words lash out reactively in an effort to justify themselves. What else can they do? As David Rieff notes, their relationship to the real world is peripheral:

For all their writings on power, hegemony, and oppression, the campus multiculturalists seem indifferent to the question of where they fit into the material scheme of things. Perhaps it's tenure, with its way of shielding the senior staff from the rigors of someone else's bottom-line thinking. Working for an institution in which neither pay nor promotion is connected to performance, job security is guaranteed (after tenure is attained), and pension arrangements are probably the finest in any industry in the country -- no wonder a poststructuralist can easily believe that words are deeds. She or he can afford to.[13]

While self-justification may motivate tenured multiculturalists, the same politics also work well for those who are trying to get there. As any humanities grad student soon discovers, academia is about specialization, hot about teaching. You need a gimmick. The choreography of the canon limits the varieties of mental gymnastics during any given academic period (about ten years), and anyone out of sync is destined for unemployment. By insisting on diversity as a challenge to the canon, new slots are forced open for tenure-track spin doctors. Pressure from the administration for departmental affirmative action dovetails nicely with the fact that only victims can preach this new canon; presto, tenure at last! Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, who resigned as chair of Emory's women's studies program because of complaints she wasn't sufficiently radical, admits as much:

In real terms, however, the battle over multiculturalism is a battle over scarce resources and shrinking opportunities. To recognize this much does not deny the related battle over national identity, but does caution us to take the more extreme pronouncements pro and con with a grain of salt.[14]

Multiculturalism can be an ideology that is used to bludgeon one's way into tenure, because affirmative action alone is insufficient. The essence of affirmative action becomes clear after leaving grad school and spending fifteen years working for small companies as well as several large corporations. Affirmative action (the PR phrase is "equal opportunity" and the accurate phrase is "preferential treatment") is a facade, affecting only the low-level and public-interface positions in large corporations. After instructing their human resource departments along federal guidelines, upper management stays the same, secure in the knowledge that the low-level hires will statistically offset the white males behind their closed office doors. Feminists call this the "glass ceiling."

For young white males without exceptional advantages, it's closer to a glass floor. Math doesn't play language games: if you quota something in you also quota something out. Someone must pay for the sins of the elite. When the diversity- mongers target white males, at best they are almost half correct -- many (not all) older white males have enjoyed advantages. But then when they make someone pay, they are all wrong: it's always the young and innocent who bear the brunt of their policies. It would make as much sense for U.S. institutions to impose sanctions on young women today, simply because historically they have enjoyed exemption from the military draft.

The fact that affirmative action appeared so rapidly over twenty years ago, without opposition from entrenched interests, should have provided a clue. It may have been designed to defuse civil unrest, but this remedy was forced from above, not from below. In a poll commissioned by Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, which plans to organize minorities in support of traditional family values, only 36.6 percent of Hispanics, 37.6 percent of blacks, and 10 percent of whites agreed with the statement that "African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities should received special preference in hiring to make up for past inequalities."[15] The agenda of victimology, defined by George Will as "the proliferation of groups nursing grievances and demanding entitlements,"[16] is not an agenda shared widely off campus.

It appears that those who are most vocal in support of affirmative action are those, reasonably enough, who are most dependent on it to maintain their advantage. The ruling elite are experts at manipulating their own interests; they know how to divide and conquer, which is why they continue to rule. As inequality becomes increasingly obvious, those who are less equal begin to see society in terms of "us" and "them." The dominant culture shades this definition by using the mass media to emphasize our differences at every opportunity. Conventional wisdom becomes articulated within narrow parameters, which is another way of saying that the questions offered for public debate are rigged.

The objective is to define "us" and "them" in ways that do not threaten the established order. Today everyone can see that there is more Balkanization on campus, and more racism in society, than there was when affirmative action began over twenty years ago. And for twenty years now one can hardly get through the day without being reminded that race is something that matters, from TV sitcoms all the way down to common application forms (it would have been unthinkable to ask about one's race on an application form in the 1960s). We are not fighting the system anymore, we're fighting each other.

Multiculturalism fails to challenge the underlying assumption of all affirmative action rationales, namely that opportunities are scarce and there's not enough for everyone. There is much evidence to substantiate this, particularly as the U.S. tries to remain competitive in a new global economy. Perhaps we should take the global perspective seriously and hunker down for hard times. It's just poor business sense to build a factory in the U.S. if you can build it in Mexico (2000 have moved already). In 1983 the cost of an hour's labor time here was $12.26. The hourly savings for using foreign labor that year amounted to $10.81 in Mexico, $10.09 in Singapore, $6.06 in Japan, and $10.97 in Korea.[17]

Perhaps America's only potential advantage is the technical lead we enjoy in certain areas. If we can play this card well, it might partially compensate for a declining industrial base. Here, too, affirmative action has it all backwards. A huge pool of talent -- the ones, incidentally, who have most of the skills needed in a society that wants to emphasize technical innovation, merit, and quality -- are underemployed and demoralized by affirmative action policies.

Recent literacy tests by the Education Department, the most comprehensive in two decades, show that American adults aged 21 to 25 scored significantly lower than eight years ago, and that about 40 million American adults of all ages have difficulty reading a simple sentence. Men outscored women in document and quantitative literacy, and white adults scored significantly higher than any of the other nine racial and ethnic groups surveyed.[18] Over half of all minorities admitted to college under affirmative action programs drop out before graduating; 30 percent before the end of their freshman year.[19] America does not have the time or resources to bring everyone up to the same level, so instead it appears to be "dumbing down" our culture by denying opportunities and challenges to our most capable young people. This attempt at social leveling is a poor second choice.

None of these dire trends are of any concern to the ruling elites who have the power to address them. They are citizens of the world, and no one-- now not even the Soviet bloc -- stands in their way. They have no need for borders; free trade is what they want and what they will eventually get. Many on Wall Street prefer unrestricted immigration, which would drive down wages and fold up our few remaining unions. For ruling elites, private security provides insulation and "social decay" is just an irrelevant phrase. A massive amount of money, some $1 trillion, is traded every day on currency exchanges around the world. On those rare occasions when money laundering is discovered, the tax man gets too greedy, or regulators become pesky, one nation can be played off against another. And there is disturbing evidence that even the CIA operates at the level of offshore banking and drug-running, presumably after they determine that their already-bloated budgets, picked from our pockets, simply don't meet their needs.

The owners of corporate America have the resources to move offshore or south of the border, while the rest of us are here for the duration. If we were all tightening our belts together, there might be some basis for programs designed to redistribute opportunities. But the rich are getting richer at the same time that they institute policies such as affirmative action and NAFTA. It doesn't pass the smell test. The campus left speaks of equality, and then forgets about justice by ignoring economic and class distinctions. This failure is so fundamental that multiculturalists should no longer be considered "leftists." As long as they claim this description, some of us -- those who still feel that elites ought to be accountable -- are beginning to feel more comfortable as "populists."

Back on campus, the debate rages over the quality of politically- correct (PC) courses and the propriety of speech codes designed to penalize so-called "hate" speech. Multiculturalism is pervasive throughout the humanities, but English and art classes seem to attract most of the PC professors. At the University of Maryland, Josephine Withers taught "Contemporary Issues in Feminist Art" in 1993. Nine of her students, in an effort to propagate the awareness of rape as a feminist issue, tacked up hundreds of fliers bearing the heading "Notice: These Men Are Potential Rapists." The names underneath were chosen arbitrarily from the student directory. Some of those named were not amused. This is not "hate speech," because in this case the perpetrators -- the nine women -- are victims of a "male-identified" culture, and are simply expressing sensitivity to their own oppression.[20]

For an example of actionable hate speech, we go to the University of Pennsylvania. The theft of 14,000 copies of the student newspaper by black students unhappy with a white columnist went unpunished at Penn. But a white male freshman was hauled before the school's judicial board after yelling "water buffalo" at a group of black sorority sisters creating a disturbance under his dormitory window.[21]

Some of the steam has gone out of campus speech codes because of recent court decisions that have declared them unconstitutional. But political correctness and multiculturalism is still rampant inside some classrooms. Scholars from NAS have expressed concern over standards of scholarship and rising campus tensions.[22] Thoughtful progressives like Barbara Epstein worry that "a politics that is organized around defending identities ... forces people's experience into categories that are too narrow."[23] Todd Gitlin, a former 1960s student leader who now teaches at Berkeley, echoes similar sentiments: The academic left has degenerated into a loose aggregation of margins -- often cannibalistic, romancing the varieties of otherness, speaking in tongues. In this new interest-group pluralism, the shopping center of identity politics makes a fetish of the virtues of the minority, which, in the end, is not only intellectually stultifying but also politically suicidal.... Authentic liberals have good reason to worry that the elevation of "difference" to a first principle is undermining everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole.[24]

Even Mother Jones magazine is having second thoughts. Karen Lehrman, a thirtyish conservative who visited 20 women's studies classes at Berkeley, Iowa, Smith, and Dartmouth, delivered a withering critique of course content in a recent issue.[25] The same Mother Jones issue also tantalizes with a teaser for future articles: "Is Hillary our friend?" and "Did someone get to Bill?" At this rate the magazine may eventually (sometime after the next election, naturally) figure out who the Clintons really represent. Or at least discover that Donna Shalala, FOH (friend of Hillary) and chancellor of the University of Wisconsin (before Hillary appointed her HHS secretary), is a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the super-elitist Trilateral Commission (as is Hillary's husband). Shalala has called for "a basic transformation of American higher education in the name of multiculturalism and diversity."[26]

The critics of course content object to some of the sensitivity training programs and techniques that are in vogue on the multicultural campus. Many universities now require PC sensitivity exposure of some sort for incoming freshmen. The NAS worries that such programs are making the situation on campus worse, not better:

"Sensitivity training" programs designed to cultivate "correct thought" about complicated normative, social, and political issues do not teach tolerance but impose orthodoxy. And when these programs favor manipulative psychological techniques over honest discussion, they also undermine the intellectual purposes of higher education and anger those subjected to them. If entire programs of study or required courses relentlessly pursue issues of "race, gender, and class" in preference to all other approaches to assessing the human condition, one can expect the increasing division of the campus along similar lines.[27]

Sensitivity training has its roots in the late 1960s, when it became a business management fad much the way that "total quality" has been the fad over the past few years. An undergraduate at the time, at least in California, could usually find a sensitivity course in the business school. These revolved around personal rather than political sensitivity. A similar experience might be found in the psychology department, where one "humanist" might have held out against the behaviorists. In sociology, a race relations class might sponsor trips to the ghetto, where poverty program militants would harangue and titillate white sorority sisters by using foul language.

Ethical questions should be raised when such techniques are applied with a political agenda. In the late 1960s in California, a group with liberal Protestant connections calling itself the "Urban Plunge" organized sensitivity immersions for white liberals from the suburbs. After several days or more of intensive ghetto exposure organized by charismatic Plunge staffers, interspersed with group "attack therapy" sessions, many participants were duly impressed. I attended two or three "Plunges" in 1967-1968 in Los Angeles and San Francisco. In early 1970, when I believed in pacifism and was appealing a conviction for draft resistance, the Los Angeles "Plunge" invited me to speak to the weekend participants. I arrived at the scheduled time and discovered that new techniques were being used: everyone had been deprived of sleep and food for two days in an effort to sensitize them to the Third World. Tempers were understandably short. As I walked in, fists were flying between a staffer and participant. Disgusted with the whole scene, I immediately walked back out.

In 1968, despite all the mistakes and stupidity of that era, victimology as self-justification was not yet in vogue. Poverty program militants acted more like kings on their own turf than like victims; they even seemed to enjoy themselves. Women didn't start complaining until a year or two later. Hispanics were only recently recognized on a par with blacks, even in the huge barrios of Los Angeles. Draft resisters risked prison in an effort to stop the machine, and many who served in Vietnam felt an obligation to society and risked everything. In this social stew there were many demands for justice but few self-serving claims to entitlements. Today, however, Lehrman discovers that victimology is all the rage:

Terms like sexism, racism, and homophobia have bloated beyond all recognition, and the more politicized the campus, the more frequently they're thrown around.... [T]hose with the most oppressed identities are the most respected.... The irony is not only that these students (who, at the schools I visited at least, were overwhelmingly white and upper-middle class) probably have not come into contact with much oppression, but that they are the first generation of women who have grown up with so many options open to them.[28]

Another sore point for the critics is the moral relativism of today's multiculturalists, particularly in the humanities. Lehrman complains that their "post-structuralism" implies that "all texts are arbitrary, all knowledge is biased, all standards are illegitimate, all morality is subjective." When it comes to their own Western-culture feminism, however, the relativism is conveniently forgotten.[29] Mortimer J. Adler feels that those who assert subjectivism have dug themselves into a philosophical hole:

For such multiculturalists ... what is or is not desirable is, therefore, entirely a matter of taste (about which there should be no disputing), not a matter of truth that can be disputed in terms of empirical evidence and reasons. We are left with a question that should be embarrassing to the multiculturalists, though they are not likely to feel its pinch. When they proclaim the desirability of the multicultural, they dispute about matters that should not be disputed. What, then, can possibly be their grounds of preference? Since in their terms it cannot appeal to any relevant body of truth, what they demand in the name of multiculturalism must arise from a wish for power or self-esteem.[30]

Classes on campus that are considered PC tend to be easy credits, where students grade each other and spend much of their time discussing personal experiences and writing journals. Indeed, once relativism is embraced, there's not much to learn that doesn't come from within, so what else can be done? But then add social pressure to the classroom, so that certain patterns of experience are validated by one's peers while others are not. If one's classmates represented a cross-section of society the effect might even out, but in this rigged environment they all end up saying the same thing. Thus college becomes a narrowing experience rather than a broadening experience. Normally this isn't supposed to happen until grad school.

But perhaps learning has always occurred more frequently outside of the classroom. In 1968 I noticed from a puff piece in our campus yearbook that a university trustee, John McCone, was a former CIA director. In the library there was exactly one book to be found that was critical of the CIA (The Invisible Government by David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, published in 1964) and it included some material on McCone. Then I began looking at the other University of Southern California trustees, and discovered some of the people behind Governor Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

No one ever assigned me readings on power-structure research; the established order never encourages anyone to research or expose its inner workings. I became interested on my own, with help from soon-defunct magazines like Ramparts. (Years later a former postal worker told me that at his post office, the feds collected lists of Ramparts subscribers.) When it comes to naming and describing the ruling elite, the facts are inconvenient for those who are nursing careers. Students at Columbia published impressive research on the trustees at their university in 1968, but not a hint of this made it into the major media. It was reported as long-haired, pot-smoking draft dodgers who spontaneously decided to take over the campus for no reason at all. Film at eleven.

Professors know little about ruling elites because they do know how to recognize a career-stopper when they see one. The fact that administrators are actively promoting multiculturalism should have set off alarm bells for class-conscious leftists who haven't yet deluded themselves about the role of the university. This support by the administration ought to clearly suggest that multiculturalism is endorsed by the ruling elite because they find it useful.

Donna Shalala, now secretary of Health and Human Services, once remarked:

The university is institutionally racist. American society is racist and sexist. Covert racism is just as bad today as overt racism was thirty years ago. In the 1960s we were frustrated about all this. But now, we are in a position to do something about it.[31]

She and her CFR and Trilateralist friends must laugh about this in private, knowing that their policies function like self-fulfilling prophecies. They also know that any focus on racism and sexism to the exclusion of class analysis amounts to a cover-up of their own agenda. The 1980s speak for themselves. Ultimately the ruling elites intend nothing less than the Balkanization of the American middle class. Comparatively speaking, this class is one of world's few remaining reservoirs of unprotected, unexploited wealth.

Reproduced From:  Non Dare Call It Conspiracy!

WALKING WHILE WHITE 

by Angry White Female

In Boulder, Colorado on August 29,1999, the media reported a "college student" had been the victim of an Asian gang rape. The race of the college student was not released until the trial, which is ongoing as I write. For some reason, the Kings of Tolerance and their media cohorts, along with the police department and Boulder prosecutors suppressed the information. I knew the victim was a kinswoman because a racial issue was not made of the atrocity.

Low and behold, two of the six (thankfully, one killed himself) perpetrators are being charged with "1st degree sexual assault and kidnapping" which means they will serve less time than a White male convicted of the same race crime.

I am not jumping the gun here in calling this a hate crime, the perpetrators have admitted the motive was racial. The victim was walking alone at 3 am on Canyon Blvd., when she was spotted by the yellow racists and forced into a minivan. There, she was forced to suck one of the racists' penises. She briefly escaped, then was tackled on the ground, while all the men started "screaming at her, calling her names and hitting her." I have to wonder if the "names" were actually racial slurs, which I am 99% positive they were. She was then put in a headlock and drug back into the van and raped repeatedly. It was a "free-for-all" according to a detective on the case. "The suspects in the rape of a University of Colorado student targeted her because one of them wanted to have sex with a white woman" according to testimony reported in the Inside Denver newspaper.

CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

The victim was afraid of retribution, so she didn't testify. There was no White community there to support her and give her the courage to testify, nor did the civil rights groups offer her any support or plan marches for racial tolerance on her behalf. THEY HATE WHITE PEOPLE, and if they cannot say it outright, they show us through their inaction and deafening silence.

The yellow supremacists put the barrel of a gun to her head and threatened to "cut and burn her" if she squealed on them. In my opinion, the entire police department, the prosecutors, the reporters and the Governor of Colorado engaged in a cover-up to protect the racist perpetrators from being charged with the hate crime, rather than giving full justice to the victim. The denial of justice was clearly based solely upon her race.

I expect this kind of anti-White activity, since it is so common. What is outrageous and intolerable is the "code of silence" regarding the racist motive (and against someone from an alleged protected class) that led to this brutal, racially motivated gang rape. The code of silence was perpetrated by those we pay to protect us equally under the law. For the civil rights groups and law enforcement, it must have been like the dilemma wildlife managers face when one endangered species is eating another. White women have clearly been put in the "less equal" category, that of a frog.

If the victim had been yellow and the perpetrator White, here is what would have happened:

1) At the onset, "civil rights" groups would have demanded to know the race of the victim and it would have sparked a nationwide media campaign against hateful, White males.

2) New laws would have been debated nationally on behalf of minority women.

3) The words "racially motivated," "racism," "hate," "White supremacist," and "tolerance" would have become buzz words and the media would have freely employed all of them, creating a new wave of hate, hysteria and retribution against White males.

4) The perpetrators ALL would have been charged with hate crime, their sentences doubled.

5) The race of the victim would have been used in all subsequent newspaper reports, instead of "college student."

6) The race crime would have been mentioned on a monthly basis for the next five years whenever the issue of hate crimes and laws was raised.

RAPE AS A HATE CRIME?

There is another dilemma with this kind of crime, for us. If rape is added to the list of hate crimes, as it has been in California, racially motivated rapes against White women will go down as a gender crime, further skewing and distorting the fact that the vast, vast majority of interracial rapes are minority on White. Whites choose Black victims just 2% of the time. Due to F.B.I. statistical compilation methods, I do not know the national percentage of "other" on an ethnic basis, but on a local level, White perpetrated hate crimes are well below our proportion of the population.

THE SILENCED MAJORITY

Apparently, it is a "free for all" against my kinswomen, and Whites, who have become the "Pillsbury Dough People," ready to be pinched, kneaded and rolled over because the are too intimidated to protest. No one else will speak out in favor of the "silenced majority" since we have been projected into the racial heretic role. They have us over a barrel and depend upon our silence to keep us "in our place." Thus far, we are meekly complying.

Perhaps the biggest problem for us, and the reason so many are learning to "hate" is the fact that "civil rights" groups routinely ignore these types of crimes, and don't even protest when we are victims, as if they are "paying us back" for something with their silence and selective indignation. I submit that no innocent person of any race should be excluded in practice from equal protection under the law, but I have been forced to face the fact that European-Americans are discriminated against by the very people who are paid to protect our civil rights. It is clear Whites must now face the threats, emotional extortion, racial intimidation and community blackballing that occurs when we form race-based groups. We have no other choice but to face the fact that our civil rights are being violated under the guise of equality and tolerance. We need funding and lawyers to challenge the systematic denial of equal protection under the 14th amendment of heterosexual Whites in the prosecution of hate crimes.

THE ANTI-WHITE ESTABLISHMENT

The current civil rights regime is made up of anti-White hatemongers bent on racial revenge-who make a whole lot of money reinforcing (through selective outrage) the stereotype that Whites are the only race that can hate, and the only race exempt from victimhood. In fact, we are far less likely as a race to commit hate crimes (rate wise), even with 90% of all Brown perpetrators listed as "White" in the FBI hate crimes perpetrator column. Another 90% is the number of interracial crimes committed by those classified as "black." The facts do not support the stereotype of the inherent White hater, and anyone who tries to expose this will be blackballed and called a neo-Nazi. We shouldn't let that deter us, for if we do, things will get much worse for us. It is time to become intolerant of the pogroms. If we don't our children will have it twice as bad as we do.

A CALL TO ACTION

What the anti-White hatemongers expect (and profit emotionally and financially from) is our silence, our adherence to liberal taboos and fears of name-calling and ostracism. Unless we want a race war, I suggest that whenever a crime such as this occurs, the immediate neighborhood be pelted with non-racist literature asking open-ended questions and pointing out the double-standards in the classifying and prosecution of hate crimes, complete with Justice Department data that shows White heterosexual victims receive no justice. A straight news report of the crime should be attached to the plea for equal protection. We should attempt to gain enough support to have civil rights rallies/marches and demand that we be protected equally under the law. Minority neighborhoods should not be leafleted, since that will put the volunteer's safety at risk, as anyone who has ever lived in a minority-majority neighborhood knows. It is imperative that anti-minority literature NOT be distributed since it would classify all concerned parties as exploiting the issue to promote racism. That is their ace in the hole. If one White racist can be connected to the distribution of European-American civil rights issues, other Whites will be intimidated into remaining silent and the whole effort will be neutralized.

REALISM, NOT RACISM

As a European-American woman, I know what it means to live with the threat of racially motivated gang rape. There have been two very serious instances in my life where I have had to make the right decision to save myself. Both occurred while walking alone after dark. The first time, I was in my late teens. I was walking past a group of black men and they ogled me until after I had passed them. Then one yelled "Hey baby, give me some of that White pussy." Luckily, there was a lighted area nearby, which I rushed to. The other occasion happened two years ago. I was followed by a group of brown males while walking. I had to increase my speed and take many turns in an effort to lose them. They followed me for about a mile, until I walked to an area with lighted homes and pretended to walk up to one of them. I have never been threatened in this manner by White men, despite spending my early teen years in a mostly White neighborhood, and associating mainly with White men. Living in a "diverse" neighborhood has taught me to never leave my house alone at night. Anti-White racism is a reality I and many other single, "economically deprived" White women have to live with.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN-AMERICAN INFORMATIONAL NETWORK

I hear about racially motivated crimes often, thanks to White civil rights activists across the country. I know I am not alone and I want other White women to know they are not alone and it is not their imagination or "subconscious racism." Be assured that the only way for us to get this anti-White hate crime information is through our own networks. The ADL and other anti-White-gentile groups are presently working to make sure the web sites that expose hate crimes against Eurofolk are shut down. I understand some of them actually do promote hatred, but the true intent is to prevent a White community from forming in defense of their folk. If we are vigilant and form our own non-racist civil rights groups, we will prevail. The power unity is awesome, and is the key to securing a safe future for our kinsmen and women in a society hostile to us. United, we will never again be road kill exposed to vulturous predation against our bodies.

DEAD WHITE MALES

I appeal especially to my kinswomen. Our "Angry White males" have been disinherited, disempowered, slandered, libeled and spat upon by all in society. They are now "dead White males" in a figurative sense. We as European-American women are the next target, since the majority of our menfolk have been spiritually, emotionally and mentally neutralized. Slowly but surely, we women and economically disadvantaged Whites are being taken out of the protected class, now that we have served our purpose in neutralizing the only barrier they thought they had to committing slow genocide against us, the men of our tribe.

WE must take a stand, like the feisty frontiers women in the pioneer days who guarded their homesteads while the men were away. It is up to us to have the courage of our revolutionary ancestors and those "dead White males" of our ancestral homelands who gave their lives to protect the folk from ethnic cleansing.

LADIES, DO NOT BE A "SITTING SWAN"

The Kings of Tolerance and their lapdog ruling class have taught White women that regular safety precautions are racist. It is now "prejudicial" and an unforgivable thought crime to assume you could be raped by blacks or gangs of yellows or browns if walking alone at night in a "bad" neighborhood, despite statistical data on interracial and multi-assailant crime. As a precaution, I must insist that White women do not walk the streets alone at night or expose themselves by drinking in unprotected circumstances or using drugs. White women should not walk in dark parking lots or any unpopulated area without an escort (or Smith and Wesson). We should be as well armed as the law allows. If you cannot get a concealed weapons permit, carry a knife within the legal size, oven cleaner, pepper spray or a large auto club or magnalite in your vehicles. The knife and magnalite should always be on your person, for both are necessary in total darkness. If a criminal sees you have a magnalite, that may deter them from choosing you as a victim, knowing the magnalite serves the dual purposes of lighting and weapon. If you are attacked and forced to use your weapon, do not use racial slurs (i.e. don't call your attacker a wet back) or you will be charged with a hate crime. If he calls you a White whore, he will probably not be charged with hate crime, unless you make a public scene. I suggest you do just that, even if you have to harass the authorities and threaten a lawsuit. All racial intimidation and racist vandalism should be reported. There is a syllabus available through "Resisting Defamation" that lists all racial slurs used against us. Many, like "redneck," which we have been trained to think are just slang, are actually racial attacks of a very serious nature, and are often employed during acts of violence against us. We must pressure police departments to question White victims in the same manner as others and probe the backgrounds of the perpetrators to determine their racist activities or past usage of racial slurs against Whites. Equality is what we are aiming for here.

We have a problem in our community with under reporting of these hate crimes. Whites are convinced hate crimes laws serve only the non-White population and we need to change that misconception so happily reinforced by our enemies in the anti-White disempowerment movement. A European-American hate crimes committee may soon be formed to take complaints. If a minority is charged with hate crime, the prosecutor and law enforcement will be pressured politically to suppress the racial motive, as we have seen in countless cases recently. Pressure must be applied to counter this kind of hateful and racially-motivated meddling.

A LAST WORD OF ADVICE

If at all possible, if you are poor and White, leave the city and move to a rural town. Remember, you live in reality, but those in charge of your destiny make too much money to understand your circumstances. The ruling class does not have to face the harassment poor Whites do. No, no one cares to fund your education, you are the wrong color. Face your circumstances (you are POOR, man!) and act for your safety and the safety of your children instead of staying in the city, trying to earn enough money to live in a gated community. Also, support other internal White refugees by giving them a place to stay until they can afford to get established in a new, safe area.

Above all, think White, not brown, black and yellow. Failure to "be White" has led us down the path of racelessness, which has made our people Afro-centric and in utter denial over the lot of their own folk.

"This destiny does not tire, nor can it be broken, and its mantle of strength descends upon those in its service." - Francis Parker Yockey, IMPERIUM

Happy Kwanzaa

by Paul Mulshine

www.FrontPagemag.com   | December 24, 1999 

ON DECEMBER 24, 1971, the New York Times ran one of the first of many articles on a new holiday designed to foster unity among African Americans. The holiday, called Kwanzaa, was applauded by a certain sixteen-year-old minister who explained that the feast would perform the valuable service of "de-whitizing" Christmas. The minister was a nobody at the time but he would later go on to become perhaps the premier race-baiter of the twentieth century. His name was Al Sharpton and he would later spawn the Tawana Brawley hoax and then incite anti-Jewish tensions in a 1995 incident that ended with the arson deaths of seven people. Great minds think alike. The inventor of the holiday was one of the few black "leaders" in America even worse than Sharpton. But there was no mention in the Times article of this man or of the fact that at that very moment he was sitting in a California prison. And there was no mention of the curious fact that this purported benefactor of the black people had founded an organization that in its short history tortured and murdered blacks in ways of which the Ku Klux Klan could only fantasize.

It was in newspaper articles like that, repeated in papers all over the country, that the tradition of Kwanzaa began. It is a tradition not out of Africa but out of Orwell. Both history and language have been bent to serve a political goal. When that New York Times article appeared, Ron Karenga's crimes were still recent events. If the reporter had bothered to do any research into the background of the Kwanzaa founder, he might have learned about Karenga's trial earlier that year on charges of torturing two women who were members of US (United Slaves), a black nationalist cult he had founded.

A May 14, 1971, article in the Los Angeles Times described the testimony of one of them: "Deborah Jones, who once was given the Swahili title of an African queen, said she and Gail Davis were whipped with an electrical cord and beaten with a karate baton after being ordered to remove their clothes. She testified that a hot soldering iron was placed in Miss Davis' mouth and placed against Miss Davis' face and that one of her own big toes was tightened in a vise. Karenga, head of US, also put detergent and running hoses in their mouths, she said."

Back then, it was relatively easy to get information on the trial. Now it's almost impossible. It took me two days' work to find articles about it. The Los Angeles Times seems to have been the only major newspaper that reported it and the stories were buried deep in the paper, which now is available only on microfilm. And the microfilm index doesn't start until 1972, so it is almost impossible to find the three small articles that cover Karenga's trial and conviction on charges of torture. That is fortunate for Karenga. The trial showed him to be not just brutal, but deranged. He and three members of his cult had tortured the women in an attempt to find some nonexistent "crystals" of poison. Karenga thought his enemies were out to get him.

And in another lucky break for Karenga, the trial transcript no longer exists. I filed a request for it with the Superior Court of Los Angeles. After a search, the court clerk could find no record of the trial. So the exact words of the black woman who had a hot soldering iron pressed against her face by the man who founded Kwanzaa are now lost to history. The only document the court clerk did find was particularly revealing, however. It was a transcript of Karenga's sentencing hearing on Sept. 17, 1971.

A key issue was whether Karenga was sane. Judge Arthur L. Alarcon read from a psychiatrist's report: "Since his admission here he has been isolated and has been exhibiting bizarre behavior, such as staring at the wall, talking to imaginary persons, claiming that he was attacked by dive-bombers and that his attorney was in the next cell. … During part of the interview he would look around as if reacting to hallucination and when the examiner walked away for a moment he began a conversation with a blanket located on his bed, stating that there was someone there and implying indirectly that the 'someone' was a woman imprisoned with him for some offense. This man now presents a picture which can be considered both paranoid and schizophrenic with hallucinations and elusions, inappropriate affect, disorganization, and impaired contact with the environment."

The founder of Kwanzaa paranoid? It seems so. But as the old saying goes, just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that someone isn't out to get you.

ACCORDING TO COURT DOCUMENTS, Karenga's real name is Ron N. Everett. In the '60s, he awarded himself the title "maulana," Swahili for "master teacher." He was born on a poultry farm in Maryland, the fourteenth child of a Baptist minister. He came to California in the late 1950s to attend Los Angeles Community College. He moved on to UCLA, where he got a Master's degree in political science and African Studies. By the mid-1960s, he had established himself as a leading "cultural nationalist." That is a term that had some meaning in the '60s, mainly as a way of distinguishing Karenga's followers from the Black Panthers, who were conventional Marxists.

Another way of distinguishing might be to think of Karenga's gang as the Crips and the Panthers as the bloods. Despite all their rhetoric about white people, they reserved their most vicious violence for each other. In 1969, the two groups squared off over the question of who would control the new Afro-American Studies Center at UCLA. According to a Los Angeles Times article, Karenga and his adherents backed one candidate, the Panthers another. Both groups took to carrying guns on campus, a situation that, remarkably, did not seem to bother the university administration. The Black Student Union, however, set up a coalition to try and bring peace between the Panthers and the group headed by the man whom the Times labeled "Ron Ndabezitha Everett-Karenga."

On Jan. 17, 1969, about 150 students gathered in a lunchroom to discuss the situation. Two Panthers—admitted to UCLA like many of the black students as part of a federal program that put high-school dropouts into the school—apparently spent a good part of the meeting in verbal attacks against Karenga. This did not sit well with Karenga's followers, many of whom had adopted the look of their leader, pseudo-African clothing and a shaved head.

In modern gang parlance, you might say Karenga was "dissed" by John Jerome Huggins, 23, and Alprentice "Bunchy" Carter, 26. After the meeting, the two Panthers were met in the hallway by two brothers who were members of US, George P. and Larry Joseph Stiner. The Stiners pulled pistols and shot the two Panthers dead. One of the Stiners took a bullet in the shoulder, apparently from a Panther's gun.

There were other beatings and shooting in Los Angeles involving US, but by then the tradition of African nationalism had already taken hold—among whites. That tradition calls for any white person, whether a journalist, a college official, or a politician, to ignore the obvious flaws of the concept that blacks should have a separate culture. "The students here have handled themselves in an absolutely impeccable manner," UCLA chancellor Charles E. Young told the L.A. Times. "They have been concerned. They haven't argued who the director should be; they have been saying what kind of person he should be." Young made those remarks after the shooting. And the university went ahead with its Afro-American Studies Program. Karenga, meanwhile, continued to build and strengthen US, a unique group that seems to have combined the elements of a street gang with those of a California cult. The members performed assaults and robberies but they also strictly followed the rules laid down in The Quotable Karenga, a book that laid out "The Path of Blackness." "The sevenfold path of blackness is think black, talk black, act black, create black, buy black, vote black, and live black," the book states.

In retrospect, it may be fortunate that the cult fell apart over the torture charges. Left to his own devices, Karenga might have orchestrated the type of mass suicide later pioneered by the People's Temple and copied by the Heaven's Gate cult. Instead, he apparently fell into deep paranoia shortly after the killings at UCLA. He began fearing that his followers were trying to have him killed. On May 9, 1970 he initiated the torture session that led to his imprisonment. Karenga himself will not comment on that incident and the victims cannot be located, so the sole remaining account is in the brief passage from the L.A. Times describing tortures inflicted by Karenga and his fellow defendants, Louis Smith and Luz Maria Tamayo:

"The victims said they were living at Karenga's home when Karenga accused them of trying to kill him by placing 'crystals' in his food and water and in various areas of his house. When they denied it, allegedly they were beaten with an electrical cord and a hot soldering iron was put in Miss Davis' mouth and against her face. Police were told that one of Miss Jones' toes was placed in a small vise which then allegedly was tightened by one of the defendants. The following day Karenga allegedly told the women that 'Vietnamese torture is nothing compared to what I know.' Miss Tamayo reportedly put detergent in their mouths, Smith turned a water hose full force on their faces, and Karenga, holding a gun, threatened to shoot both of them."

Karenga was convicted of two counts of felonious assault and one count of false imprisonment. He was sentenced on Sept. 17, 1971, to serve one to ten years in prison. A brief account of the sentencing ran in several newspapers the following day. That was apparently the last newspaper article to mention Karenga's unfortunate habit of doing unspeakable things to black people. After that, the only coverage came from the hundreds of news accounts that depict him as the wonderful man who invented Kwanzaa.

LOOK AT ANY MAP OF THE WORLD and you will see that Ghana and Kenya are on opposite sides of the continent. This brings up an obvious question about Kwanzaa: Why did Karenga use Swahili words for his fictional African feast? American blacks are primarily descended from people who came from Ghana and other parts of West Africa. Kenya and Tanzania—where Swahili is spoken—are several thousand miles away, about as far from Ghana as Los Angeles is from New York. Yet in celebrating Kwanzaa, African-Americans are supposed to employ a vocabulary of such Swahili words as "kujichagulia" and "kuumba." This makes about as much sense as having Irish-Americans celebrate St. Patrick's Day by speaking Polish. One possible explanation is that Karenga was simply ignorant of African geography and history when he came up with Kwanzaa in 1966. That might explain why he would schedule a harvest festival near the solstice, a season when few fruits or vegetables are harvested anywhere. But a better explanation is that he simply has contempt for black people.

That does not seem a farfetched hypothesis. Despite all his rhetoric about white racism, I could find no record that he or his followers ever raised a hand in anger against a white person. In fact, Karenga had an excellent relationship with Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty in the '60s and also met with then-Governor Ronald Reagan and other white politicians. But he and his gang were hell on blacks. And Karenga certainly seems to have had a low opinion of his fellow African-Americans. "People think it's African, but it's not," he said about his holiday in an interview quoted in the Washington Post. "I came up with Kwanzaa because black people in this country wouldn't celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that's when a lot of bloods would be partying." "Bloods" is a '60s California slang term for black people.

That Post article appeared in 1978. Like other news articles from that era, it makes no mention of Karenga's criminal past, which seems to have been forgotten the minute he got out of prison in 1975. Profiting from the absence of memory, he remade himself as Maulana Ron Karenga, went into academics, and by 1979 he was running the Black Studies Department at California State University in Long Beach.

This raises a question: Karenga had just ten years earlier proven himself capable of employing guns and bullets in his efforts to control hiring in the Black Studies Department at UCLA. So how did this ex-con, fresh out jail, get the job at Long Beach? Did he just send a résumé and wait by the phone? The officials at Long Beach State don't like that type of question. I called the university and got a spokeswoman by the name of Toni Barone. She listened to my questions and put me on hold. Christmas music was playing, a nice touch under the circumstances. She told me to fax her my questions. I sent a list of questions that included the matter of whether Karenga had employed threats to get his job. I also asked just what sort of crimes would preclude a person from serving on the faculty there in Long Beach. And whether the university takes any security measures to ensure that Karenga doesn't shoot any students. Barone faxed me back a reply stating that the university is pleased with Karenga's performance and has no record of the procedures that led to his hiring. She ignored the question about how they protect students.

Actually, there is clear evidence that Karenga has reformed. In 1975, he dropped his cultural nationalist views and converted to Marxism. For anyone else, this would have been seen as an endorsement of radicalism, but for Karenga it was considered a sign that he had moderated his outlook. The ultimate irony is that now that Karenga is a Marxist, the capitalists have taken over his holiday. The seven principles of Kwanzaa include "collective work" and "cooperative economics," but Kwanzaa is turning out to be as commercial as Christmas, generating millions in greeting-card sales alone. The purists are whining. "It's clear that a number of major corporations have started to take notice and try to profit from Kwanzaa," said a San Francisco State black studies professor named "Oba T'Shaka" in one news account. "That's not good, with money comes corruption." No, he's wrong. With money comes kitsch. The L.A. Times reported a group was planning an "African Village Faire," the pseudo-archaic spelling of "faire" nicely combining kitsch Africana with kitsch Americana.

With money also comes forgetfulness. As those warm Kwanzaa feelings are generated in a spirit of holiday cheer, those who celebrate this holiday do so in blissful ignorance of the sordid violence, paranoia, and mayhem that helped generate its birth some three decades ago in a section of America that has vanished down the memory hole.

© 1999 Frontagemag.com

Reproduced gratefully from Front Page Magazine

California police state

Joseph Farah

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26227 

The totalitarians are fully in control of America's largest state.

The battle for California is over. Write it off. Kiss it goodbye. Bid it a fond farewell.

What am I talking about?

Listen to this: The California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 last Thursday that police in the state may search cars if a driver fails to produce a license or registration, regardless of whether the officer has a warrant.

Hello? Have these guys ever heard of the Fourth Amendment? Justice Joyce Kennard, one of the three dissenters, suggested the ruling may have been motivated by security fears stemming from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"As this opinion is being written, our nation is undergoing a painful recovery from the devastating physical and psychological effects of that day," Kennard wrote. She said the ruling "does nothing to enhance our security and does much to erode our Fourth Amendment rights." I suggest this ruling had little or nothing to do with the events of Sept. 11. It's part of a trend toward over-reaching statism by state executive branch, legislative and judicial officials.

California courts had previously allowed police making routine traffic stops to search for licenses and registrations in glove compartments and under visors. The Supreme Court's decision approves for the first time searches under the seats of cars and elsewhere when there is no reason to believe a crime has been committed.

Now, I know some of you law-and-order types are applauding this decision. You think the police will now have an opportunity to prevent crime with this new tool. You think California officials are reacting to an epidemic of law-breaking in the state. You think this will somehow make you safer. You think this might even allow cops to sniff out illegal aliens and others already in violation of America's laws.

Think again.

California is one of several states knowingly providing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. In other words, state officials are sanctioning the violation of America's immigration laws and deliberately providing safe haven to lawbreakers.

California provides free health care and free schooling to illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense. California provides welfare benefits to illegal aliens. So, I think it's safe to say that California has no intention of cracking down on criminals. This is a power play a raw, brutal power play designed to put you, the average, law-abiding citizen, under the thumb of police-state-style oppression.

It's not the illegal aliens California's totalitarians want to find. It's you you gun owners, you seatbelt offenders, you ordinary, self-governing, self-sufficient, self-reliant Californians and visitors from out of state.

They want you to know who the boss is. They want you to live in fear of them. More checkpoints. More random stops. More random, warrantless searches. This is how it begins.

For those of you who haven't visited California by automobile lately, you probably don't know that the state provides checkpoints at the borders no, not the border with Mexico, the borders with contiguous American states. When you enter California by car, you are stopped by fruit police.

No, I'm not kidding fruit police. They want to know if you are bringing any fruit or vegetables into the state. It's not considered a real hardship by most people. It seems innocent. There are very few searches by the fruit Nazis. But it's another indication of how the police-state mentality is firmly in control of California.

And now this.

This is a bad sign. There's a saying that dates back to the '60s in this country: As California goes, so goes the nation. God forbid.

I'm a refugee of California. I ain't looking back. The state is a disaster area and ought to be declared so by Washington as long as it doesn't mean a bailout.

It's no longer time to go West, young man. It's time to go East or North anywhere but California.

Just try to rent a U-Haul truck in California for a one-way trip. There's a long waiting period. Good, hard-working Americans are leaving in droves. They are leaving because of high taxes, oppressive regulations and court decisions like this.

It's too late to save this state. It's time to get out while the getting is good.

Revised: July 18, 2010 .   Communication:   discoverer73(at symbol)hotmail.com     Go to Home Page     Go to Index of All Articles Pages       
Read the Disclaimer
Last modified: July 18, 2010  Copyright © 1999 - 2008  All rights reserved. [Gnostic Liberation Front].   www.gnosticliberationfront.com