This Commentary is in response to the article “Humans: We’re Losing the Race”.
“All the feel-good videos, songs, stories, posters, and conversations have done squat,” notes Global Free Press publisher Trevor Hill in “Humans We’re Losing the Race.” So, why yet another conversation… which will do squat? The answer is quite simple: free expression of an opinion in a democracy. The following reaction to Hill’s conversation is a feel-bad conversation… which will also do squat.
One might question, however, the do-squat conclusion. After all, the multitude of conversations about race have become a multimillion-dollar industry, making some people lots and lots of money, especially in the realm of academe. Think of the high salaries and life-time sinecures of the multitude of superfluous professors, directors, and chancellors of diversity, whose sole purpose is to perpetuate the conversation about race.
Think of white, anti-white stereotyper, “white privilege” inventor Tim Wise and his lucrative career on the academic anti-white, multiculti-lecture circuit(http://www.theamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2012/08/tim-wise.html). Think of illegal immigrant Antonio Jose Vargas, who is also cashing in big time (http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2015/07/jose-antonio-vargas). And then of course, one might point to multimillionaire race hustlers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Oddly, in the aberrant politically-correct ideology of the day, only whites can truly be racist. In fact, one of the precepts of that ideology is that ALL whites are racist (Google “all whites racist” to examine that racist point of view!). Sadly, black racism never seems to be part of the so-called conversation, which has really become an ideological anti-white monologue. Any white person who dares criticize that monologue is usually dismissed with childish ad hominem, as in “racist.” No need to examine the statistics, facts, and/or reason evoked. Just demonize the critic as “racist” (or, if pertinent, “islamophobe”). Sure, some might note that “black people are racist as well,” but then usually add something like “Thought we’d get that out of the way” and continue on with the anti-white racist discourse.
The very, very gradual sexual mixing of the races will perhaps indeed lead in the very, very distant future to just one race, known by some black racists as the “tanning of America” (see
http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2013/03/tracey-ross.html and http://www.theamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2014/08/eugene-robinson.html). Those like Eugene Robinson and Tracey Ross, who long for that “tanning,” do so because of their racist desire for the absence of white people, as if somehow that would result in the sudden transformation of humanity into benevolent beings of equality on all levels, of course an absurd thought.
Today, inane anti-white, wide-sweeping racist stereotypes are in such vogue that many whites have joined in the anti-white fad, including the likes of Tim Wise. Some call that a manifestation of white liberal guilt. Ben Affleck, who had some white slaveholder ancestors, is a good example. But do all whites have slaveholder ancestors? Of course not! Were all whites involved in slaveholding? Of course not! Do all blacks have ancestors who were slaves? Of course not! In fact, it seems Obama had slaveholder ancestors (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.obama02mar02-story.html#page=1). That was the fundamental problem with the reparations movement.
“Unfortunately, the whiter the white folks got, the more obnoxious they became…” states Hill, echoing black supremacist Louis Farrakhan. So, ALL white people got more and more obnoxious? Where is the scientific evidence, including statistics, to support such an anti-white racist sentiment? And the implication of it seems to be that ALL non-white people got less and less obnoxious, including the Arabic slave traders and slaveholders, the Idi Amin black-African dictators and black Boko Harim butchers, the black Hutu genocidal mass slaughterers of Tutsi, the Khmer Rouge communist torturers, the Indian elitists who gave us the untouchables, the Chinese communist gulag mass-murderers of millions and millions, the latinos responsible for the mass wave of desaparecidos in Argentina and elsewhere in South America, and the latino drug-cartel Mexican beheaders. Oh, I forgot, white Americans are buying the drugs, so they’re to blame for all those beheadings. Hmm.
“…and this cycle of hubris went on until the white race declared itself the number one colour for human skin tone,” notes Hill. But where and when did that declaration of superiority take place? Did ALL whites sign it or vote unanimously in favor of it? Did white abolitionists like Thoreau believe it? Was it heeded in China and throughout Africa? If so, where is the proof of the assertion? And what about the crazed wave of black pride? You know, I haven’t accomplished a goddamn thing, but I’m still proud because of my black skin? Or my life matters because Black Lives Matter… but your life doesn’t matter because you’re white. So, why is that fine and dandy? Do two wrongs now somehow make a right? Apparently so.
“Along with their geographical advantages white people began to carve out a seemingly half decent existence in comparison to their darker brethren,” notes Hill. So, no whites experienced abject poverty? What about the Irish during the great famine or the rural whites in the Ozarks and the displaced Acadians in Canada? How about the whites in the Great Depression or the white prisoners in Japanese internment camps during the Second World War? Did they really all have more money than Chinese, African, Japanese, and Indian elites? And what were the geographical advantages?
“The white race in all its glory became the most pompous, the most arrogant, and the most hypocritical,” argues Hill. But such a description is base ad hominem stereotyping—devoid of fact and reason. “When time caught up to the Americans and their idea of importing people as slaves, the world was already well underway with repressing people of all races,” notes Hill. So, why the emphasis on Americans? Why not a little mention of those “already well underway”? Why not a little statement, as in: “The history of slavery spans nearly every culture, nationality and religion, and from ancient times to the present day” (Wikipedia). “During the Second Sudanese Civil War people were taken into slavery. In Mauritania it is estimated that up to 600,000 men, women and children, or 20% of the population, are currently enslaved.” Why does the latter tend never to enter into “conversations” about slavery and race? And was it really the Americans who came up with the idea of importing slaves or did someone else come up with it centuries and centuries prior to the existence of America? Sadly, anti-American and anti-white sentiment seem to be rewriting the reality of history.
Hill mentions white on black crime (white cops who kill blacks) and only reluctantly the opposite: “I suppose I have to state the obvious fact that Asian/black/white police shoot Asian/black/white good and/or bad guys.” Of course, the latter is not exactly what makes the headlines in the biased New York Times, Washington Post, and Toronto Star. Indeed, if one were to believe in the world of the media, black cops do not kill whites. But a Google search will of course upset that narrative. “The race issue is a worldwide malady, but America has its own brand of racism,” states Hill. So, why doesn’t he mention the other instances of this “worldwide malady”? Well, doing so would upset the anti-white, anti-American narrative. That’s why.
“In recognizing that the country was essentially built by African people from almost the very beginning of its existence, and coupled with the fact that most African-Americans are still getting the useless end of the proverbial stick, this unhealthy situation created a cesspool of hate—on both sides,” states Hill, promoting the victimization (antithesis of personal responsibility) part of the PC-narrative: I am black, therefore I am poor. I am black, therefore I am in jail. And is it really true that African slaves built the entire country? Did they build the entire railway system? Or did Chinese immigrants help in that endeavor? Did they build the technological and medical advances that helped make America stand out? Did they build the Bill of Rights and its First Amendment, which make America truly unique in the world and in a positive sense? Did they build my house? It is, however, true that racism exists and that the media is ever stirring the pot (i.e., “cesspool of hate”). It has gotten so absurd today, that one cannot in America declare that All Lives Matter without being proclaimed a racist by those who have come to believe that only Black Lives Matter. How do two wrongs make a right? Would Dr. King be impressed with that? Would he be impressed with Affirmative Action, a racist policy that favors blacks over whites? Didn’t he express his desire to see that people be judged on merit, not on the color of their skin? Hill evokes King, but not that.
And what is the point in stating the obvious over and again, as in “White folks everywhere will never understand what it is to be a coloured person”? Well, black folks (and I hate the term folks because it indicates a mass as opposed to individuals with individual differences) everywhere will never understand what it is to be a white person. And so what. Or perhaps some blacks like the Obamas sure as hell know what it’s like to be multimillionaire whites. And poor white folks everywhere will never understand what it is to be a multimillionaire “coloured person.” And white folks everywhere will surely never understand what it is to be a polar bear. Gross stereotyping does not jive with reason.
Finally, Hill’s essay implies that race is the only, or at best, main reason for human strife and sense of superiority of some over others. But what about religion? In the new state of ISIS, for example, all races are welcome and purportedly treated equally and in harmony. Isn’t that nice? Shouldn’t we strive to make the entire world the ISIS caliphate? The only requisite, of course, is that all inhabitants must be Muslim and devout followers of Islamic ideology, which prohibits freedom of expression… and reason. If you’re not a devout Muslim, you must become one or have your non-Muslim white, black, or oriental ass tortured, then have your head chopped off. Why not talk a bit about that? Well, for one reason, Islam, as the purported religion of peace, has become part of the multiculti-ideology metastasizing right and left.
“We can not deny the fact that as humans on this planet—we suck,” notes Hill. Does that actually include blacks too? Do blacks suck? From anti-white, the essay plummets to outright misanthropy. Do polar bears suck too for ripping apart white humans caught without weapons in the Arctic? Do hyenas suck for killing and eating unarmed black Africans? Do Canadian geese suck for shitting all over American golf courses in North Carolina? Perhaps all life should be condemned?
“Humans we’re losing the race,” perhaps, but not privilege of wealthy humans, privilege of intelligent humans, privilege of humans promoted thanks to Affirmative Action, privilege of tall humans, privilege of good-looking humans, privilege of charismatic humans, privilege of humans who can throw fast balls, privilege of humans with social connections, privilege of young humans, privilege of humans not in wheelchairs, privilege of humans who get cultural-council grants, etc., etc., etc.