Imagine living in an unsafe, unprotected and disorderly world in which reality had absolutely no metaphysical stability… a polylogistic world in which human beings were divided into groups, with each group having its own distinctive method of inference based on its own distinctive logical laws, so that the inferences that were entirely logical for one group were entirely illogical for the others… a bizarre, fantastic, surrealistic world in which there was Jewish logic, Black logic, Latino logic, Oriental logic, and American Indian logic – along with the often denigrated brand of logic that can be described as White.
A serious evaluation of the racial relationships, racial diversities, and racial conflicts presently occupying the American arenas of multiethnicity reveals that we are living in that kind of world.
Karl Marx claimed that logic varied with men’s economic class, that objections to the deterministic doctrines of Communism could be dismissed as expressions of bourgeois logic, and that vilification of opponenents should replace analysis of their arguments; “Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed?” asked Vladimir Lenin, the leading exponent of Marxist-Leninist logic. “Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticized?” To Lenin, the free speech and free press mongers were “enemies” of the great socialist experiment. Polylogism, a subjective device used to “justify” anything anyone wishes, is the “theory of logic” that embraces this kind of thinking.
In the racially mixed nation of America – referred to by some as a “melting pot” and by others as a “salad bowl society” – logic varies with men’s racial class. The result: the social disease of minorityism, which is rooted, along with the power of the unwritten law, in polylogism. In their relationships with the non-White and Jewish communities in America, majority members are ruled by the theories of this curiously eclectic brand of logic. The Caucasian must walk a tightrope of caution, never knowing how many phantom laws there really are, always unsure of just how far one may go before stumbling into the no-man’s land of bigotry and racism. This peculiar relationship places upon the majority victims of minorityism the burden of discovering how best to please the minorities as well as the burden of being cautious about words and actions that might be construed as being bigoted or discriminatory.
Some movements that have sought to enslave entire nations of people in the past – dictatorships or potential dictatorships – have used a minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation’s troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for special privileges and powers. In America, however, just the opposite is true. The white Gentile majority is the numero uno scapegoat being blamed, not only for the nation’s troubles, but for the specific problems of the minorities as well. And not only are non-Whites and Jews involved in this condemnation, many Caucasians agree with, and support, the antimajority revolution.
In this connection, ponder the experiences of the eminent French playwright, Eugene Ionesco, during several months of lecturing and teaching in the United States. To his amazement and utter dismay, Ionesco discovered that American intellectuals and students are afflicted with an intense case of masochistic self-hatred manifesting itself in the insistence that Americans are humanity’s greatest criminals. When he lectured that America was not the worst nation on earth, the liberals looked at him “askance,” as he describes it; and they mocked him with “laughter and jeers” when he told them that a Soviet dictatorship was at least as bad as a right-wing military dictatorship.
Because this kind of thinking can be found to one degree or another in every branch of the American Establishment – much of it motivated by a deep-seated belief that American “Racism” is unique in all the world – (“fashions may change, but U.S. racism remains”) – the flood of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehood about the minorities is such that young people today have no idea (and virtually no way of discovering any idea) of their actual nature. One result of this barrage of counterfeit logic is the fact that many young Americans perceive any expression of white Gentile racial solidarity as socially and morally wrong.
The law of causality is supposed to prevent people from eating their cake before they have it. But not in a minoritiocracy such as ours in which the minorities are free to commit crimes of violence and organized racism at a rate greatly disproportionate to their numbers, while never having to take collective responsibility for the degree to which they are strangling the nation. Minority logic decrees, in addition, that only select expressions of racial sovereignty are acceptable. Along with that monument to non-integration, the Harlem Globetrotters, there are Black caucuses, Black beauty contests and Black achievement awards. There are many powerful and officious Jewish organizations dedicated to serving only Jewish and Israeli interests. Both Latinos and Orientals are now climbing on similar bandwagons. On college and university campuses, there are Black, Jewish, Hispanic and other minority student groups or unions. All attempts to establish White Student Unions, however, are condemned as divisive and racist. Racially motivated activities on the part of the minorities are encouraged, in other words, while White Americans are not allowed to openly represent their philosophy, their feelings, their sentiments and their values.
In what may be described as a basically free society, all human relationships should be voluntary. Human beings should be free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgements, convictions, and interests dictate. Within what I call a minoritiocracy, the crucial right of white Gentiles not to deal with the minorities does not exist; and the rights to deal with them on the same basis as they deal with us, to judge them with the same vigor they judge us, to air our complaints about their crimes and failures, and to cleave together as united entities working for special privileges, do not exist.
Within the surrealistic context delineated above, “racist” possibilities are being manufactured in America without evidence or justifications – depending upon minority logic.
In Detroit, angry and unemployed auto workers attacked a Chinese man, believing him to be Japanese. On the national newsfront, the assault was condemned as racist. The worker’s hostilities, however, were obviously motivated by economics, rather than by race, per se. Putting the event in perspective, suppose for a moment that the Germans had flooded the country with automobiles that destroyed much of the American market, and led to widespread unemployment. And suppose those same workers had attacked a Scandinavian, believing him to be German. Would cries of racism have reverberated throughout the country? Of course not.
Factor into this same equation the “racial rumble” in the Howard Beach community of Queens, N.Y., the catalyst for a new anti-White flic (“Do the Right Thing”) directed by Black film-maker, Spike Lee. Black criminals had been raiding the community of Howard’s Beach for some time. The “rumble” occurred when Whites attacked Blacks in the area after assuming that they were muggers or thieves. One Black was struck by a car and killed as he tried to flee. As usual, cries of racism swept the land.
Once again, suppose that the criminals had been White – leather-clad bikers, or neo-Nazi skinheads – and suppose that a couple of individuals who resembled the members of the criminal group had been attacked. Would White racism have been blamed? Of course not. The Howard’s Beach eruption of White anger was motivated by crime, not race. According to minority logic, however, the factors underlying any confrontation between Whites and non-Whites in our fantasia-like, multi-ethnic world, must always be rooted in racism.
Also leveled at Caucasians in our curiously coiled world are complaints about White indifference to minority concerns and problems. “Look at all the uproar over one White investment analyst being mugged in Central Park in New York City,” objected a correspondent to the L.A. Herald Examiner, the implication being that if the victim had been Black, a different tune would have been played. In this same vein, director Spike Lee cited the rape and murder of a Black woman four days later in Central Park that received virtually no media attention. Logically – although White logic isn’t considered valid in the aftermath of events such as these – the more bizarre and horrifying the event, the more attention it will attract, tragic as that may be.
Conveniently ignored during this exercise in self-righteousness was the Tawana Brawley case – an equally horrifying and bizarre story that received intermittent and nationwide media attention for weeks. The coverage died a natural death when absolutely nothing could be found by the many investigators on the case that would corroborate Brawley’s story. Not that that fact was able to penetrate the logic of the Black community. “The real truth of that case has not come out,” commented Spike Lee, who then claimed that he couldn’t believe that a 14-year-old girl would smear herself with feces, and throw herself in a ditch. Lee isn’t alone in the holding of that opinion. The declaration, TAWANA TOLD THE TRUTH, is scrawled on the walls of her neighborhood.
What bothers Spike Lee is, as he describes it, “the devaluation of Black life” – meaning that Blacks don’t seem to count for much in this society. But how can this value judgement be rationally measured when we see so much blatant irresponsibility in the Black community itself?… when we see so many Blacks involved in the devaluation of Black life? Blacks don’t seem to count for much among Blacks. Ergo, criticism should begin first with their actions and their indifference. Regarding horrifying events, commonality invariably leads to blasé or indifferent attitudes. Blaming that indifference on White racism, however, is just one more symptom of the illogical status of racial relations in the United States.
On a recent news story dealing with the complaints of Black performers about hiring practices in Hollywood, Spike Lee cynically stated that the White moguls of Hollywood, while “probably” calling him “nigger” behind his back (this is a prime example of how vilification is used to replace analysis of White points of view), do fund his movies, but only because they make money. Really? Spielberg and Lucas are funded only because they are White, I suppose, and not because their films make money. On the same program, a young Black actress charged that she wasn’t working because she wasn’t a “blue-eyed blonde.” Really? Since acting is one of the most over-crowded professions in the country, there are tens of thousands of talented White performers, including blue-eyed blondes, who can’t get jobs in Hollywood. And doesn’t the fact that the motion picture audience in America is overwhelmingly White have something to do with the films that are made and the casts that are chosen? Well… not according to the minorities, who seem to think that “opportunities” are “rights” that should spring forth like the goddess Athena from the head of Zeus, fully formed and perfected, just for them.
For decades, social scientists and socialistic educators have been teaching and preaching that the inner image of men they call “race” should be abandoned. Every scientific scrutiny, they have declared again and again, had shown no difference of any meaningful sort amongst our species. Different colors could not be construed as being definitions of otherness but only of skin pigment and slight variations in contour. And behavior was no more than the working of a conditioned reflex. Man was born completely blank and all he learned and knew and came to believe after birth, was merely the result of conditioning. The venerated conclusion: We are of one kind, and anthropology, psychology and biological investigation make that evident. Within the purview of behavioristic logic, then, all that was needed for the achievement of racial harmony was an egalitarian environ. People would then begin to think correctly and integrate willingly. (Seldom have people looked longer within their heads and found less than the high priests of behaviorism.)
Behavioristic commandments to the contrary notwithstanding, true racial integration is nowhere to be found, not only among races who appear to be distinctly different (Whites vs. Blacks), but also among races who appear to be distinctly alike (Arabs vs. Jews). In America, the most racially obsessed country on earth, the racial/cultural differences that separate the minorities from the majority are so great, non-Whites and Jews could very well have evolved on different planets. There is a logical explanation for this dilemma – albeit not the kind of logic that’s acceptable to the liberal-minority coalition:
From the instant of conception, different races of people are not equal, similar, or anything of the sort.
“All men,” Carl Jung said, “live by a myth.” Tragically, the “myth” that best fits the reality of American minority members is one that enables them to deny their cultural reality – the myth they use to reinforce their faith in themselves via the claim that their significant social, economic and moral failures, are the result of prejudice and discrimination. All such seizure and rigging of logic bolsters the selective thinking of non-Whites and Jews and sustains the tyranny of their hierarchies.
There is no way to legislate equality; there are no standards by which respect can be regulated and fairly distributed among all members of a society. Compassion, understanding, respect, should be offered to non-Whites and Jews in response to their virtues, not in response to their flaws, weaknesses or moral failures – and not in response to their needs as such. There are only two sources that provide information about the character of the people around us: We judge them by what they say and by what they do. In America, however, the minorities are judged primarily by what they say. Hence, they are perceived throughout the country, not as individuals, but as tribes of “oppressed” peoples who deserve special treatment – unique entities superior to the sum of their individual members.
Rights in our surrealistic world become a matter of number, therefore, with the concepts of individual rights and wrongs no longer having the same values. Respect for the minority tribes becomes a moral duty and a primary virtue because they have suffered from discrimination. Majority members become sacrificial victims; minority members become moral cannibals. When people must compromise on basic principles, moral issues and matters of knowledge, or truth, or rational conviction because of feelings of guilt on the one hand, and intimidation on the other, that compromise will always lead to general frustration rather than to general fulfillment. A society that tolerates intimidation and appeasement as the means of settling racial differences has lost its moral base. And it’s axiomatic that no social system can exist without sustaining a moral base over a long period of time.
The bottom line? How on earth can White Americans live and work together justly, benevolently and safely with people who consider themselves to be victims of White society; who cleave together racially for the purpose of gaining special privileges; who believe that racism is a one-way street inhabited only by White Gentiles; who insist that their inter-racial methodology never be revealed or openly discussed; and who commit crimes of violence, fraud and cultural nihilism at enormously disproportionate rates to their numbers?
Finally, to assume that criticism of minority excesses is indicative of hatred for the minorities is a case of facts underdetermining theory. The main cause of whatever anti-minorityism exists in the United States is rooted in the hidebound beliefs of minority leaders, who, along with their many followers, have become more and more short-sighted, dogmatic, inflexible and arrogant. What they need are some lessons in restraint; and they would do well to start with the words of the ex-slave and educator, Booker T. Washington. Before an audience of Black and White Southerners in 1895, he stated: “The wisest among my race understand that the agitation of questions of social equality is the extremest folly, and that progress in the enjoyment of all privileges that will come to us must be the result of severe and constant struggle rather than of artificial forcing.”
SOURCE: The Liberty Bell, October 1989