Everything About This Story Is Discouraging: The Carrollton Video [Corrected]

Chapter I: In Georgia, two Carrollton High School  seniors made a truly cretinous video. Filmed in a bathroom, the male and female students students pretend to be doing a   cooking show as they pour cups of water into the sink.

Showing their faces in the mirror, she announces, “Hey, today we’re making…”as the  camera aims at the sink where there’s a piece of notebook paper with “niggers” written on it. The male student intones the word. The male student lifts cups of water and pours each one into the sink, over the paper. Under each cup is a piece of paper with the name of an “ingredient” written on it, which the young woman reads.

“First we have ‘black,'” she says. He then pours the cup of water into the sink over the paper with the slur. “Next we have, ‘Don’t have a dad!'” Other ingredients include “eating watermelon and fried chicken” and “rob people.”

“Specifically whites,” guy adds as he refills the “robs people” cup over and over using the sink tap.  One cup labeled “make good choices” is empty. The couple  feign surprise over the cup having nothing in it.

Once their opus was complete, the couple was so proud that they posted it online.

Why this is discouraging: In what alternate universe would anyone from the age of seven up think something like that would be acceptable to publicize? What kind of polluted culture is being fostered in Carollton? What are they teaching in the schools?

Even passing on that, how could anyone be so stupid as to think posting an overly racist video wouldn’t have serious consequences? Again, who is teaching critical thinking in that community? What have the parents been doing for 17 years, getting stoned?

Chapter 2: The students were expelled and informed that they won’t be allowed to graduate because of the video. Carrollton City Schools Superintendent Mark Albertus said In a statement that the students’ behavior was unacceptable and “not representative of the district’s respect for all people.”

Why this is discouraging: Apparently the school either has not heard of the First Amendment, doesn’t understand it, or, in the alternative, knows damn well it can do this, but is grandstanding to avoid the immediate public relations problem of how to deal with deal with the students within the law. The school cannot withhold a diploma, and either the superintendent knows that and is deliberately saying it is doing what it cannot do, or he does not know that, and is a gross incompetent, along with everyone else involved.

The speech involved did not occur in school. The Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) held that  administrators can punish students for off-campus speech when it is

  • closely linked to school (known as a “nexus”) and/or likely to reach the campus community, and
  • expected to disrupt school work or discipline.

Tinker has been applied in the internet era to justify school discipline when a student or students,

  • created a social media page meant to get fellow students to harass a classmate (Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools, 652 F.3d 565 (4th Cir. 2011))
  • sent classmates instant messages full of violent language about shooting other students at school (Wynar v. Douglas County School Dist., 728 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2013))
  • wrote a blog with racist and sexually explicit, degrading comments about classmates that upset many students and disrupted classes (S.J.W. v. Lee’s Summit R-7 School Dist., 696 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2012)), and
  • posted an online video of a rap recording about two school coaches that was intended to reach fellow students and intimidated the coaches with threatening, violent language (Bell v. Itawamba County School Bd., 799 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2015)).

None of which apply here. No student was named or targeted. Making an argument that the video would disrupt classes is especially futile now because school isn’t in session. Thus the students, if they are punished, will be punished for the content of their speech.

They can’t do that.

Chapter 3: The comments on progressive blogs primarily consist  of attacks on whites, conservatives, Republicans,  President Trump, and the United States. When commenting on substance, few seemed to have clue about the principles involved. On the blog of Boing Boing, a quirky, left-leaning website with a blog attached, the blogger said the punishment was “Just desserts for the racists.” (Wrong. In the United States, it is not “just” to withhold a diploma because of protected speech or offensive beliefs.) Then, in the comments, one reader states that the speech is obviously hate speech, and thus unprotected.  Wrong. Another commenter get that part right, but says, “The First Amendment broadly has been held not to apply to public schools.” It applies when the speech has nothing to do with school, as in this case. Another commenter tells that commenter. “No it doesn’t, because schools aren’t bound by the first amendment” and links to the ridiculous Bong Hits For Jesus case. But that case does not apply: the speech in that case was a banner deliberately unfurled to be seen by students. Yet another said, “However awkward the School District’s words were, they expelled the dangerous kids to stop them from damaging other kids. That was a clear message in itself.” Nonsense. There was nothing “dangerous” in their stunt, and they couldn’t damage other students if they wanted to. The same commenter continued in that vein:

You can’t allow one group of students to threaten another group of students because of “freedom of speech”. The threatened group have a right to live without fear. These asshhole racist students threatened the safety of all the African American kids at the school by their actions and words. It’s clear that the videoers assumed that their friends at the school would agree with their nastiness, so this is not a one-off incident by a couple of bad apples – there’s a hateful racist group embedded in that school.We know (and the black students at that school know) that those racist attitudes are at the root of the denial of rights and of violence against people of African descent. The expulsions won’t change the racist kids minds, but it will hopefully silence their friends and prevent racist attacks, if it’s clear the school will take action against them whether it’s on campus or off campus.

Why this is discouraging: Virtually all of the commenters don’t understand the First Amendment, can’t read a SCOTUS opinion, and lack critical thinking skills. The  last commenter above is especially troubling, for he has absorbed Left-think that has crippled his understanding of rights, justice, and the English language:

  • No, there was nothing “threatening” in that video. Calling mere words threats because one disagrees with them or finds them offensive is a back door to censorship, which in turn facilitates totalitarianism.
  • There is no “right” not to live in fear when mere opinions and words frighten you.
  • No, the asshole kids threatened the safety of no one. this logic is becoming a society-wide Big Lie.
  • It’s irrelevant who the couple thought their video would entertain or appeal to.
  • The commenter is endorsing actual intimidation and speech control by force.

The writer sounds like an adult, and is apparently an adult who has been indoctrinate and mis-educated on a wide range of related topics. He believes that his speech is protected, but those he disagrees with isn’t. The education system has failed him, and his culture has failed him. I view him as a greater danger in the long run than the two teens.

 

91 thoughts on “Everything About This Story Is Discouraging: The Carrollton Video [Corrected]

  1. This is the tragic result of an education system without guardrails. Somehow, the Left has intimidated or threatened anyone capable of standing up to them in their local area to the point that they just shrug their shoulders at this blatant infringement on the right of speech.

    The Boing Boing commentators are just stuck in their own Leftist bubble where critical thinking is discouraged in favor of emotionalism. The emotional reaction to what the young people did is justifiable revulsion and outrage. The reaction by the school board reflects exactly that revulsion and outrage, but usually we expect our schools to hire people that are at least minimally capable of critical thinking and comprehension of what the First Amendment, the most frequent Bill of Rights numerical to impinge upon their authority, means and how it can be applied by a school district.

    So what we have here is abject incompetence, or a devotion to Leftist cant so profound that they are willing to deliberately ignore the highest law of the land, as adjudicated. Either they do not fear the consequences of being challenged, are sure that they will not be, or have no idea why anyone would. Whichever one it is, the ethics alarms have been silenced either by incomprehension of what they are or turning them off on purpose.

    In the first case, it’s a disappointing failure of the School Board. If they were at all interested in competence, they would remonstrate with the Superintendent and inform him that they could be held jointly and severally liable for a manifest and indefensible civil rights violation. That they so far have not speaks either to their cowardice, their lawlessness, or their own incompetence.

    As you say, this is disappointing, and everyone involved is unethical, wrong, and maybe outright lawless. What a great example for the kids they purport to instruct.

  2. There is absolutely no justification for the video, none.

    There is no legal way for the school to deny them their earned right to graduate with their fellow classmates, if the school does deny them the right to graduate they should sue the school district.

    P.S. Yes this would be one of the most ignorant things any High School student could do; but, what do you think the chances are that these two students were trolling society as a whole just to get a big reaction and they really don’t “believe” what they posted? I knew a LOT of High School students that would do just about anything to freak out the older generations.

      • WS Gilbert had a pet libretto about a magic lozenge that turned you into whatever you were pretending to be. Sullivan hated it, and adamantly refused to do the music. The argument helped break up the team. Gilbert finally got someone to compose the songs—Alfred Cellier, Sullivan’s assistant. The operetta was cursed: Cellier died before he could finish the score, but it was a relative success anyway.

  3. In Chapter One, you say, “What are they teaching in the schools?”, implying Carrollton City Schools bore some responsibility for this egregious behavior.
    In Chapter Two, you bemoan the fact that the students were expelled.
    Well. Expulsion certainly seems appropriate for what has to be a gross violation of school rules. That it was done outside the school becomes irrelevant once the students posted publicly, similar to the naked teacher principle. So, the school district is teaching that behavior like that is unacceptable. That’s a good thing.
    Yes, they have a First Amendment right to say what they want to say. But, free speech can have consequences. They do not have a right to graduate from Carrollton High School. Like most districts, Carrollton has alternate programs for those who are not suited to the regular high school.
    Then you move on to the legal issue of withholding a diploma. Students expelled, such as these two, certainly have not completed the requirements for graduation and are not entitled to a diploma until they do. A diploma that is not earned is not a diploma being withheld.
    The superintendent acted properly.

    • That it was done outside the school becomes irrelevant once the students posted publicly, similar to the naked teacher principle.

      As I wrote, wrong, and clearly wrong. A student cannot violate school rules out of school, nor can conduct codes legally constrain conduct unrelated to school.I assume you read the post, since you quoted it, but I don’t see how you could have missed that point. The school has no legal leg to stand on. Not even one.

      • Jack, if you surmised that I did not look closely enough at the legal points you made, you were right. I didn’t. I didn’t see this as a legal issue (although the counsel for the district must have).
        Even so, S.J.W. vs Lee’s Summit might provide the legal backing the Superintendent needs. (I made it through a summary, not the full decision, without going cross-eyed.)
        Could the action of these students cause school officials to reasonably believe it would trigger a disruption in the school environment? I think so. I think it has. It’s a viral video by students slurring a group of fellow students, and the authors of the video and the group being slurred are easily identifiable. How can that not be disruptive? Type ‘Carrollton’ (and nothing else) into Google and the stuff that pops up first are stories about the video and expulsion, meaning those stories are being heavily accessed. The only thing that would cause a bigger disruption is the administration taking no action.
        It may well be that the courts will have to re-visit the specific issue of defining the school environment given the increased co-mingling of online and in-house education.
        But, legalities aside, the Superintendent had to act. In the privacy of their homes, those idiot kids could do and say whatever they wanted; they chose to go public which necessarily involved their (former) school, and they had to suffer the consequences.

        • Could the action of these students cause school officials to reasonably believe it would trigger a disruption in the school environment? I think so. I think it has. It’s a viral video by students slurring a group of fellow students, and the authors of the video and the group being slurred are easily identifiable. How can that not be disruptive?

          Because it did not happen in school, dumbass.

          as such, it was not even remotely an incitement to lawless, imminent action under the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard.

          But, legalities aside, the Superintendent had to act

          You lose with those words, dumbass.

          If a school superintendent can set “legalities aside”, why not President Trump?

          • If you keep calling me ‘Dumbass’ I’m gonna start liking it. Aside from that, ethics takes precedence over legalities, especially when the legalities are unethical.

            • When “the legalities are unethical” (as, sure, they sometimes are), then the ethical course is working toward changing the law while simultaneously obeying/following the law until such time as it is changed, not just ignoring those laws you don’t agree with. What if everyone did that? We’d have anarchy.

              Civil Disobedience is a very narrow form of ethical behavior where disobeying the law in a public way is intended to concretely demonstrate exactly why the law is wrong. Part and parcel of that is (proudly) entering a guilty plea and willingly accepting the legal consequences.

              You never just ignore the law because you don’t like it.

              –Dwayne

                • “Furthermore, civil disobedience can only be ethically practiced by private citizens. / Civil disobedience excludes government officials exceeding their lawful authority.”

                  I wonder if this was so during the months and years leading up to the American Revolution?

                  But in this case, a demonstration of civil disobedience would be undertaken by the principal and other school authorities. They would refuse, on ethical grounds, to graduate those two and they would accept the consequences for doing so. And they would do so in the name of ‘combatting racism’ and protecting community members from *hate*.

                  That would be an interesting scenario in a social situation in which, let us say, there was a significant racist or racialist movement within the community and state and like in the 1920s when there did exist a significant White-Protestant movement (the 100% Movement or the Second KKK) which advocated for things now considered objectionable, questionable, unethical and immoral.

                  What I notice is that many on the right — those who define themselves as conservative — do not take into account that in some definite ways the populist movement of Donald Trump mirrors or reflects, or is an *octave* of the same (or similar, or related) nativist movement which operated after WW1 for about a decade. But those on the left, and the progressives, choose to be very aware of the links between this former *identitarianism* and *nativism* and the rise of Donald Trump and his populist movement.

                  There are logical and not unreasonable concerns about the rise of similar right-leaning, nationalistic and nativist social movements in Europe: for example in Hungary and in Poland. If we think about *the dynamics of perception* there is almost no way that people who examine these social phenomena would not trace them back to Nazi-like movements or extremely conservative and openly anti-Marxian movements among people who had genuine reasons to fear and to resist encroaching Communism.

                  We can draw a bit of a parallel here to the present. We notice that there are activists who are heading, directly, toward establishing a political movement that would modify existing structures and make them more socialistic or Marxian. We know that they are there. These are the people who show up at rallies and demonstrations with hammer & sickle symbols. And then there is Sanders and AOC. But also there is Communist China. An immensely powerful State that seems to have no intention at all of ‘democratizing’ (whatever the heck that means within states — our own in fact — that may have superficial democratic forms but which also have autocratic forms and are ruled, essentially, by plutocratic elites). Who lent to Communist China the vast power and reach it now has? Who created this *monster*?

                  What is very very curious is that we live in times that indeed are *octaves* or former times. Like they say: History may not repeat itself but it rhymes . . .

            • “If you keep calling me ‘Dumbass’ I’m gonna start liking it.”
              That’s a measured response, thank you. On this particular discussion, I agree more with Michael than you, but I appreciate your input, & if we devolve into petty name-calling, we’ll wind up no better than the “boingboing” site.

        • The school can try that defense, but I doubt it will work, As I said, the claim that school will be disrupted is tough road when school is only on line, and those seniors will never see a class again. Disruption doesn’t mean unhappiness. Are the kids going to have little one-person riots in their bedrooms? I think not. And the school will be sued, for a lot.

          • It may not work, but I think the district must try. There is a distinction between school activities and everything else, and the actions of those two students seems to be in the everything else category, but given the nature of social media, there’s a large and growing overlap between school (and work and home … ) and everything else. These two (former) students are in that gray area.
            In the world I would like, there would never be a lawsuit. The parents would take responsibility for their kids and find the best way for them to recover from this failing and complete high school. In the world I live in, there probably will be a battle.

            • I come out completely on the opposite end. Social media conduct not directly aimed at school personnel or that won’t tangibly cause harm and real disruption within the school is none of the school’s business. If they can punish racist speech, there’s nothing preventing them from punishing a post opposing affirmative action, or arguing that Mickey Mantle was better than Willie Mays. The sooner kids are taught that the state won’t protect them from speech they don’t like, even racist speech, the safer the nation will be,

              • I love that last part, which is exactly my advice for countering bullying: ‘We can’t end it so we must learn to deal with it.” Likewise, the state will not (cannot) protect you from hateful speech, so, you, must learn to deal with it.
                But, I still think the Superintendent had to do something, and I don’t think a ‘beer summit’ would have done it.

                • A commenter on Instapundit proposed this as the proper response:

                  While the Carrollton City School district is away of the deeply disturbing, extremely racist video posted by Student A and Student B, this happened in a private home away from school grounds and therefore there is nothing we can do. We assure you that Student A and Student B did not learn this prejudicial behavior from our faculty and staff. We apologize to the community that our efforts to teach Student A and Student B the value of human life, whatever its sex, gender, creed, or color, were not successful. We hope that Student A and Student B, and those who taught it to them, will overcome their bigoted beliefs and that that this will not affect their future career plans too negatively.

                  I don’t think that works either: it is almost certainly actionable libel.

                • But, I still think the Superintendent had to do something, and I don’t think a ‘beer summit’ would have done it.

                  During the Jim Crow era, School Superintendents “had to do something” whenever a student publicly questioned the fairness and wisdom of segregation- let alone called for its end.

    • They do not have a right to graduate from Carrollton High School.

      Except that I just decreed that no one else BUT those miserable brats get to graduate in 2020. I have the power to do this. No one else has the right to graduate. There. Done.

    • Johnny,
      There is no doubt that consequences can result from speech of any form. However any government or recipient of Federal funding ie. the school district cannot impose sanctions on any speech except in some narrowly defined cases such as those Jack used. The expulsion created the condition that the students could not meet the requirements not the act itself – but lets be honest, none will meet the requirements that were in place at the start of the school year this year because of the 180 day rule for minimum school days.

      Now the citizens of Carrolton can devise all sorts social coercion strategies using draconian sanctions if it wants provided they don’t use the power of the government to enforce those sanctions.

      Interestingly, given that the US Constitution originally barred only the government from denying enumerated rights from citizens recent court rulings suggest that even citizens can sue other citizens for civil rights violations. This itself would challenge the assertion that social consequences can occur when someone does something “society” frowns upon. The best example of that is the case of the bakery unwilling to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. The state did not violate the gay couple’s rights nor the baker’s but the gay couple used the power of the state to impose consequences on baker.

      Flip the case around such that society is highly religious and frowns on gay marriage but such marriages are just as Constitutionally protected as religious liberty. Could the gay couple get sued if it demanded a church allow them to be married in the church that preaches gay marriage is a sin. Or does only the unwillingness to acquiesce to a demand by someone create a violation of civil rights?

      What happens when some citizens start using the state to sanction your speech? If we say that only protected classes can do this that would be a violation of concept of equal protection would it not. When one citizen can use the courts force another to act against their will that they had not previously agreed to do, we will have serious problems.

      That’s my understanding of who can impose sanctions on Constitutionally protected speech or the use of any other inalienable right.

    • Well. Expulsion certainly seems appropriate for what has to be a gross violation of school rules.

      Well, no. Controlling Supreme Court precedent requires a number of conditions to be true before the school can assert “rules” on out-of-school activity. None of them have been met in the instant case.

      That means the dismissal is a prima facia first amendment violation. The end.

      The rest of your argument, therefore, need not even be addressed. But I’ll venture anyway:

      Yes, they have a First Amendment right to say what they want to say. But, free speech can have consequences. They do not have a right to graduate from Carrollton High School.

      That’s where they earned their diploma. Since the school has no right under precedent to expel them or deny them their diploma, they must award it to them if they have met the requirements to obtain it.

      Students expelled, such as these two, certainly have not completed the requirements for graduation and are not entitled to a diploma until they do. A diploma that is not earned is not a diploma being withheld.

      Except the expulsion is invalid. So it is being unlawfully withheld.

      • Well, I thought I’d kick this hornet’s nest one more time. I know, it’s a dumbass move, but I’ve been told recently that dumbass is what I am, so, here goes.

        Looks like at least most of us (I include myself) assumed those two kids were expelled. Maybe not. Maybe they were withdrawn, by parents or by the District, to avoid what could have been a harsh confrontation if the school were to be re-opened this spring (an unknown at the time). The statement issued by the District Director of Communications says, “The students are no longer enrolled in our school district. Our school year has not yet ended, so they will not be graduates of Carrollton High School.” I could not find any official of the school or District who said they were expelled, although a lot of news media and students did say that. One commenter among the many on the Carrollton City Schools Facebook page, who appears to be a recent graduate, insists they were not expelled, but withdrawn, and that teachers at the school have been so informed.

        The consequences of withdrawal are different from those of expulsion, but, if was done by the District, or if the parents were pressured into withdrawing their kids, then maybe there still is a legal issue. So far as that goes, the two critical elements, as Jack noted, are ‘nexus’ and an expectation that it would ‘disrupt school work or discipline’.

        Had I become a lawyer as once I thought I might (Notre Dame Law School had a different idea – they thought I was a dumbass, although they phrased it differently), I might have used that term nexus from that Tinker thing in describing the overlap between home and school; I used ‘gray area’ instead. But, given the number of comments on the Facebook page and the reaction by City officials and others, to this layman it sure looks like some nexus there.

        As to disruption, both the High School Principal and the Superintendent said that’s what they would have expected, and I would think they are the best judges of that. So, they had to act. And, again, to this layman, it looks proper from a legal standpoint. The First Amendment is powerful, but not absolute.

        And, since this is an ethics blog and not a legal one, I will stick with my view that if the District caused the separation of those two kids from the school, either by withdrawing them or persuading the parents to do that, then they acted ethically. It is the answer to two questions posed near the beginning of this blog, “What kind of polluted culture is being fostered in Carollton? What are they teaching in the schools?”

        And had those kids returned to school this spring (it was an unknown at the time) and were they confronted by some others and violence ensued, the school would surely be held responsible for allowing that situation to develop. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. They were willing to risk the legal repercussions to do what they believed was right.

        • It’s a good observation. The statement certainly suggested they had been expelled; that’s how I took it (and so have some legal commentary sites.) But why would parents bother to withdraw two students who weren’t going to be returning to school anyway?

          • That same person who said they were withdrawn said the statement was intentionally vague, weasel-worded. I lean more toward them being withdrawn by the school, not the parents.

        • You still haven’t explained how two students who weren’t going to be at school again were still going to disrupt it. Why don’t you see this as a contrived explanation to get away with punishing unpopular thoughts and ideas, and by doing so, engaging in prior restraint?

          To me, this seems obvious.

          • I mis-read the information about the school closing; all in-person instruction was ended for the school year on April 1, and, that is important, and so a failing on my part. I apologize for that, and it does change the argument.
            Disruption to the online learning? Maybe, but probably not significant. Disruption come fall if they had done nothing? Who knows? But, I still think they had to act.

        • Thanks for your reply. So here’s a few points:

          Looks like at least most of us (I include myself) assumed those two kids were expelled. Maybe not. Maybe they were withdrawn, by parents or by the District…

          Then what can this mean, from the first line of the article cited by Jack’s post:

          “Two Carrollton High School seniors were expelled Friday and won’t be allowed to graduate after a racist video they posted online went viral.” [my emphasis]

          Should we not take them at their word? I am as quick as any to blame the media for “fake news” and bad reporting, but this seems about as unequivocal as can be. I don’t think it leaves much room for the nuance you suggest. To be sure, the school didn’t use the word “expelled,” but for the purposes of Jack’s commentary, it seems to be the simplest conclusion (Nod to Mr. Okham).

          But, given the number of comments on the Facebook page and the reaction by City officials and others, to this layman it sure looks like some nexus there.

          I’m a layman as well, although I am capable of reading and comprehension. A “nexus” requires much more than just being identified by your peers on social media. It requires some kind of direct relationship to the school or the denizens and employees thereof, and as it happens, Georgia public schools were closed at the time and are now closed for the entire academic year.

          So not only is there a lack of a “nexus,” but the schools aren’t even in session to enforce the discipline required by public schools. That would seem to be a parental responsibility at this point.

          As to disruption, both the High School Principal and the Superintendent said that’s what they would have expected, and I would think they are the best judges of that.

          The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees, which is the point both Jack and I are trying to make. The schools must have both the nexus and demonstrate how the speech disrupted the school. It certainly cannot be the case that a principal or superintendent can theorize how the school might hypothetically have been disrupted, especially in the instant case, where it wasn’t even in session.

          So layman or not, I hope you can appreciate that the vile nature of the former student’s speech is not the true issue. Vile speech is expressly protected by the First Amendment. The exceptions occur in a very specific set of circumstances where the speech not only has a relationship directly to the school district or one of its students or staff, but also can be demonstrated to have a negative affect on reasonable discipline. In this case, even if the first prong were met, the second would fail. As it turns out, neither prong is met.

          And, since this is an ethics blog and not a legal one, I will stick with my view that if the District caused the separation of those two kids from the school, either by withdrawing them or persuading the parents to do that, then they acted ethically

          If the school persuaded the students to withdraw, or their parents to discipline and withdraw them, then yes, they certainly did act ethically. If they expelled them or withdrew them involuntarily, it is an act of discipline and a First Amendment violation.

          A final appeal to authority: When Eugene Volokh suggests you have violated the First Amendment, you can take it to the bank.

          • “Then what can this mean”
            To me, it means that the Journal Constitution made a reasonable assumption, but they and others should have verified exactly what the action was (and I should have, too).
            “Georgia public schools were closed”
            Well, not exactly. At-home learning is supposed to be going on for all students, and there is ongoing interaction between students and teachers. Perhaps ‘nexus’ needs a better definition for this situation.
            “The schools must have both the nexus and demonstrate how the speech disrupted the school.”
            I disagree that the disruption has to have already occurred before action can be taken; I think action can be taken based on anticipated disruption, based on S.J.W. vs. Lee’s Summit. I don’t know who is in a better position that the Superintendent and the Principal to anticipate disruption.

            • So, an “anticipated” (imagined) future disruption, at a school not in session, with the conjecture that it might be caused by legal expressions not in any way school related, voiced by someone who will not be returning to that school, somehow grants a school official the authority to reach out, select, and impose a significantly harmful penalty for “unapproved” speech?

              It’s true that some schools seem all too willing to fold to a heckler’s veto if they think they can get away with it, but creating their own hypothetical and improbable one is genuinely absurd.

              • I might add that even if the two were scheduled to return to physical classes, it would be the duty of the authorities, as much as they might resent it, to protect the vidiots, and to punish any who actually create disruptions at or involving the school.

            • Your disagreement is noted, but mistaken. A “harm” must exist, or be demonstrated, before the government can make a legitimate claim of a compelling interest to suppress speech.

              As to the rest, subsequent reporting still states they were expelled, and the school district itself said, in part, in a statement:

              “Students not willing to abide by these rules are not allowed to be a part of the Carrollton City School System.”

              I think their expulsion is pretty clearly a fact, not an assumption. It has been stated as such multiple times.

              The schools were closed, exactly. There may have been instruction going on, but there was none going on at the schools. In order for discipline to be an issue, there has to exist a common place where discipline is enforced. There is no rational justification for schools attempting to enforce discipline from a remote location.

  4. The emotional reaction to what the young people did is justifiable revulsion and outrage.

    I quite literally dropped to my knees when I watched the video, as if stabbed, so overcome with revulsion (that I did not feel required justification) . . . and then the outrage. It came on in mounting waves. It’s been a tough — an emotional — day.

    I’ve calmed down and am drinking chamomile tea. 🙂

    In my view, it is much better if people can clarify and be honest about what they actually think. Having spent a loooonnnggg time researching all the forbidden sites and gaining a sense of the lines along which the social disunity begins to manifest, none of this surprises me, not at all. These are by-products of certain social engineering projects, or reactions against them perhaps. The real issue is to look at and take apart the ‘social coercion’ that forces people to say differently from what they think, and at some point to internalize it so they even lie to themselves.

    Now, what the school district and the *surrounding culture* will try to do here is about 1000 times more serious. The TeeVee stations, the Progs, the webzines: a whole wave of powerful force. It smacks nearly of *psychiatric prison*. Essentially, that is what it expresses but it can’t bring it to that point. But you see they have been doing that for a number of generations. The infusions of guilt — and not to mention the white self-hatred which had become de rigueur — along with the social coercion not to think and say exactly what one thinks (about anyone irrespective of their color, race, ethnicity, stupidity, et cetera).

    • “The real issue is to look at and take apart the ‘social coercion’ that forces people to say differently from what they think, and at some point to internalize it so they even lie to themselves.”
      Those two kids are sure being smacked with a heavy dose of social coercion. But, had they, for example, launched a rational argument about any one of one of their ‘ingredients’ and ditched the racism, they would not be so surrounded by finger pointers.
      Social coercion which forces one to examine their prejudices can be beneficial. Their behavior was deplorable, they may be deplorable, but social coercion, or at least social pressure, may help make them redeemable.

      • I respect your opinion and whatever your view is.

        When I speak of ‘social coercion’ I am speaking of social programing and ‘engineering’ over long periods of time. It is probable that we come from very different information backgrounds, and for this reason our viewpoints differ, so you likely do not understand what I refer to when referring to social engineering. In any case, what I notice is people coming out of it, or getting out from under it. Strange things come out when people discover their (shall I say) true and honest feelings.

        All that should be required of them is that they say “Sorry you don’t like what we think. Have a nice day!” But it is turned into something like a double or triple murder . . .

        I do not have any problem with racism. If a person is a racist, so be it. I have moved beyond all of this. Race is real, race matters. Racism is real as well. Oh well . . .

        Instead of ‘social coercion’ — which by its nature is improper — you replaced it with ‘social persuasion’ through rational conversation, well then you might have a case. Because it you allow *coercion* to others then you must accept it toward yourself.

        I am really sorry to point this out to you — I don’t mean to shatter your entire world — but right now there are millions of people examining all of the terms of the Postwar liberal order and everything that underpins it. Do you understand? They are going to think what they think, not what you tell them they must think.

        [Deplore: French déplorer, lament, regret, from Latin dēplōrāre : dē-, de- + plōrāre, to wail.]

        I always took it to mean ‘hatable’ but it actually comes from French ‘pleurer’: to cry, or some cognate? So, to be deplorable is to be worthy of being *wailed over*? Well, that is not so because their deploration soon turns to actual violence and harm.

        You see I am more aware than you, apparently, of just how ruthless are those who seek to impose their will: to coerce.

        • This comment deserves a better reply than I am able to give it tonight, so, I may return to it. But, as to social coercion, I once worked with a guy named Jack (U.S. Army) whose philosophy in this regard was that you must force people to behave in a certain way, and, eventually, that behavior will be second nature to them, and they will act accordingly without even thinking about it. Maybe long periods of time, maybe not so long. That was for military training, and, it worked pretty well for that, but, as you say, once people get out from under it, strange things come out. During my time in the service, the Army used that approach for race relations as well, with some success, I think, although there were other factors.
          Well, just one other thought. You say you don’t have a problem with racism. I do. You almost certainly are right that we come from different information backgrounds. Mine was a near monolithic small working class neighborhood, nobody rich, all white, all WASPs and Catholics, not even a town, no college grads, no ethnic minorities, and so on. But, among my grandchildren, there are a couple of Central American Hispanics and a couple of U.S. blacks. I see how racism hurts them, even when it is not up close and personal. My approach in the face of explicit racist comments has been to try to influence the behavior (knowing I couldn’t control it as Jack U.S. Army said to do) with the hope that influence would work and the changed behavior would lead to internalization. there was some small success, the behaviors, at least.
          I may have to come back to the whole idea of coercion another time.

          • I suggest you consider taking that “influence” HJ and apply it to encouraging the “ethnic minorities” (whatever that means) in your family to develop a backbone and stop waiting for mean or stupid or mean and stupid people to magically think the way you want. Nothing is more racist than looking at people of color as needing you to scold the world on their supposed behalf.

            I’ve experienced some shitty things thanks to racism (and a few other flavors of bigotry) and yeah, it sucks. It hurts. I’ve certainly even ached from rejection, assumptions, and sheer unadulterated hate. Yet I’ve never felt more offended than when progressives, especially progressive whites, took my life, and reduced it to only some annointed air sniffing high-minded cause to push so they can feel good about themselves and mystically repent for their apparent awful racist ancestors.

            It’s not really about “seeing” or “honoring” brown folks, it’s about a felt sense of politically spiritual transformation. This means an advocate or ally gets a mental, emotional, or perhaps physical (I’ve heard someone say they get “tingles” fighting for racial justice) charge out of “defending” poor helpless “ethnic minorities” and fancy themselves a hero or freedom fighter in the process. Social justice is one hell of a drug.

            What minorities need, whether they’re exotic…I mean ethnic or not, is to foster their own resilience for themselves. That will never happen if the well-meaning never look past the lure of fetishising the “minority other” for kudos and back pats. While I believe many progressives, including white progressives, don’t “fight” for racial equality for selfish reasons, a lot do.

            It’s worth asking oneself before getting racial undies in a bunch, what the intention is behind the call to speak out or punish “deplorable” bad-think. If it’s just to chant “brown people need me (or vengeful punishment) because they’re such victims,” I’d step back and see if there are more meaningful ways to support such causes without reducing us to downtrodden entities.

            For a lot of my friends who are white and we’ll meaning, we’ve been able to talk through some of this victim/hero stuff in regard to social justice. Often what the feelings boiled down to was a feeling of helplessness about life being unfair to people of color. While yes, POC have to deal with racism, everyone has shit to deal with. No one gets to pass through life without trials. Like all people, brown folks do endure and even thrive, more so when they’re treated equally, and not like fragile victims or pandered to or used for votes.

            That video was signature significance for two people who are seriously stupid. They’re already getting their punishment with public humiliation. Taking away their diplomas for being morons won’t make the kids of color at that school free of racism forever. At best it’s a band-aid of platitudes, not a real solution. Besides you don’t get a diploma for a nice-thoughts, you get one for passing your classes.

          • Johnny, thanks for your post. Some additional thoughts:

            Though I have not read any BF Skinner your description of your military friend reminded me of some of the concepts behind ‘behaviorism’:

            Behaviourism focuses on one particular view of learning: a change in external behaviour achieved through using reinforcement and repetition (rote learning) to shape behavior of learners. Skinner found that behaviors could be shaped when the use of reinforcement was implemented. Desired behavior is rewarded, while the undesired behavior is not rewarded. Incorporating behaviorism into the classroom allowed educators to assist their students in excelling both academically and personally. In the field of language learning, this type of teaching was called the audio-lingual method, characterised by the whole class using choral chanting of key phrases, dialogues and immediate correction.

            Within the behaviourist view of learning, the “teacher” is the dominant person in the classroom and takes complete control, evaluation of learning comes from the teacher who decides what is right or wrong. The learner does not have any opportunity for evaluation or reflection within the learning process, they are simply told what is right or wrong. The conceptualization of learning using this approach could be considered “superficial,” as the focus is on external changes in behaviour, i.e., not interested in the internal processes of learning leading to behaviour change and has no place for the emotions involved in the process.

            This ties-in to some degree to other conversations and themes that have surfaced here, notably Steve Witherspoon’s mention at one point of Charlotte Iserbyt and her book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. Though I did not study it in detail, I glossed it, she has a theory about how education was corrupted and distorted in America and what the effects have been.

            But, as to social coercion, I once worked with a guy named Jack (U.S. Army) whose philosophy in this regard was that you must force people to behave in a certain way, and, eventually, that behavior will be second nature to them, and they will act accordingly without even thinking about it. Maybe long periods of time, maybe not so long. That was for military training, and, it worked pretty well for that, but, as you say, once people get out from under it, strange things come out. During my time in the service, the Army used that approach for race relations as well, with some success, I think, although there were other factors.

            I am a researcher and my orientation is more *philosophical* than anything else. I am not an activist. But I do want to ask (and hope I might be able to answer) some of the larger questions. I have said many times that I understand and believe that America had been subjected to enormous processes of ‘social engineering’ that began, let us say with earnest, in the early 1900s. The First World War was a sort of testing ground. If you are at all interested in those who critique this *coercion* and *manipulation* see Randolph Bourne who wrote things along these lines:

            “The State is a jealous God and will brook no rivals. Its sovereignty must pervade everyone and all feeling must be run into the stereotyped forms of romantic patriotic militarism which is the traditional expression of the State herd-feeling.”

            “We cannot crusade against war without crusading implicitly against the State.”

            “The modern State is not the rational and intelligent product of modern men desiring to live harmoniously together with security of life, property, and opinion. It is not an organization which has been devised as pragmatic means to a desired social end. All the idealism with which we have been instructed to endow the State is the fruit of our retrospective imaginations.”

            So, while I can entertain intellectually the notion of a ‘coercive state’ I cannot agree, and will never agree, that the state has any legitimacy necessarily to direct and control behavior. It should go without saying that we live in a time in which the State has extended itself waaaaaay too far. And the American State has been corrupted, significantly, by the usurpation of power by business and industrial interests.

            If one returns to the concerns and ideas that motivated those who waged a revolution in this country one will note, and with no doubt of any sort, that their primary concern was about the dynamic played out between *liberty* and *power*. What amazes me — it literally amazes me! — is that on this Blog, taken on the whole, Americanism and patriotic sentiment so prejudice many that they refuse to look and see with any dedication into the nature of power’s corruption. Not *over there*, but here.

            Now, I will fully agree with you and anyone else if the label *stupid* is applied to those kids. But the power and the effect of ‘anti-whiteness’ as a social attitude, as something pervasive and destructive, is 10,000 times more powerful. And infinitely more destructive. I said that I do not have a problem with racism. But I mean something different perhaps than what you think. I do not have a problem with racialism and I do not have a problem with any people, anywhere, at any time, having the freedom to make decisions about who they associate with and, of course, with who will come into their communities and become part of them ‘as a people’ and ‘as a nation’. The considerations that make up that process could consider race, or ethnicity, or religion, or any number of a wide group of categorical concerns. But principally I am opposed to anyone, and certainly any State, determining what people witll think and believe, and impose it on them as *cultural engineering* and *coercion*.

            My position is not simplistic and it is complex. I am opposed to the deliberate remanufacture of America, and the deliberate remodeling of the notion of the American and of Americanism, into a proponent of Multi-Culturalism and into a Multi-Cultural global project. But that is only the beginning of my critique. I want to know why this has happened, and what powers stand behind it.

            As to ‘different information backgrounds’ one large influence in my case — this would constitute thoughtcrime and wrongthink for many here — was the book The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson.

            What is happening now — in the US and in the world — is a retreat from and a reconsideration of the central tenets of liberal policy and ideology. These will be, and are, meta-political issues. These are part of larger trends and processes that are hard to see because they require a certain distance from them, a sort of overview.

            You made a reference to the term ‘deplorable’ and obviously we know who said that and what its purpose was. We know that she made a reference to the Alt-Right and we also know that the Alt-Right has been significantly discredited and cast into suspicion and tainted with *moral blame*. We also know (or perhaps we do not know?) that thousands of people who think along these critical lines (and here you’d have to become familiar through research with the schools of thought that informed the mostly European thinkers who began to resist the more coercive aspects of Liberalism) have been banned from social media sites (FB, YouTube) and you would have to know that there is a concerned war being waged against them and the ideas they work with.

            What I have done, and many or most have not and will not do, is to research all these ideas first-hand by reading the original sources. As I said: my view is complex and it is not simple.

            Perhaps now you see that when I look at this issue (the young adults [they are not *kids*] who performed this stunt) I see many different layers. I can talk about them but in the end it may happen that I bore all concerned because few want to trace things back from their *superficial surface* to the real content that moves in those surfaces.

      • But, had they, for example, launched a rational argument about any one of one of their ‘ingredients’ and ditched the racism, they would not be so surrounded by finger pointers.

        I completely disagree. I think you get called a racist on international television and blackballed from all future employment for successfully defending yourself from lethal attacks by minorities. The hyper-anti-racism of our present age actually fuels the thing it expressly forbids by forbidding the problems which cause it to be dealt with, openly or otherwise, also thereby causing those real problems to fester and worsen.

        I’m not really the least bit horrified by the video. In fact, I even called it! That’s me, Harbinger of Doom, Stormcrow, I have many names.

        It’s funny to watch everyone act on that pre-programmed inward compulsion to display as much horror as possible. It’s as though we all understand it’s like a game of musical chairs. The one with the mildest, or least believable, or chronologically latest appropriate reaction is the racist, and he’s out. Expect the utter fakeness of this game to become clearer with time and the arbitrary standards of our current society to fall away suddenly like the floor on one of those rotating carnival rides. There’s nothing under that floor but the deadly grinding cogs of the Hobbesian state of nature.

        Keep making the disproportionate crime rates visually obvious but a forbidden topic of discussion, however, keep giving incredulous reactions to anyone’s expectation that this standard might work in the other direction, keep drumming up strained and bizarre standards for labeling the ‘racist’ on slow news weeks, and more people will start to eventually think the game is designed to hide some grand forbidden truth. People will start to think the things nobody’s allowed to say might be true, otherwise why are we so much more afraid to say it than any other untruth? And then comes the inevitable strife.

        And by now it’s probably too late to reverse course. Let’s just enjoy the ride. What grand new society will we build on the ash-heap of this one? Those teenagers in the video are our future, and all our hopes are in them. Or perhaps the ones who savaged them in absentia like mongrel apes and displayed a depth of civic understanding thinner than the fall-away floor of the proverbial carnival ride. It depends who survives that strife.

  5. I find it interesting that the kids’ video shares many elements with Dave Chapelle’s “but I’m not a nigger” routine. No comedy here, but the same features are there.

  6. I tried to log back in to the site after all my posts had been deleted, and that was the message that popped up (from what passes as a moderator there, I assume). The “Nazi” reference a rather ironic bit, I thought, since I was the one arguing that constitutional protections applied to even the despised, and are not to be set aside in favor of mob “justice”.

  7. Good idea, state-run education institution.

    Forbid any further education and expel two young people who are not dangerous, and who have potential to change, because they said stupid and offensive things.

    I know when I see a young person on the wrong path, someone so young that their brain is literally still 8 years away from physical maturity, I know the best thing I can do for them is make sure that they stay on that path forever. Make it impossible for them to learn or change. Justify any paranoia they might have about the “system” being against them. Send them over to be nurtured by white-power websites. We can’t have a race war soon enough, ya know. Gotta make everyone pick a side!

    This is why we send our kids to school; they know what’s best.

    • That was my reaction, too. What exactly do they expect to happen when they keep shunning people for being racist? They should’ve just introduced these foolish kids to a skilled empathy mindset user who can show them the errors in their thinking, like Daryl Davis, who’s successfully shifted the paradigms of far more virulent racists than these two dipsticks (ran out of “make good choices” indeed). <a href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis

      I recently launched a project to help people reach out and actually change people’s minds instead of alienating each other. Once people see how it’s done, their excuses for extreme retaliation will start to wither.

      • That was my reaction, too. What exactly do they expect to happen when they keep shunning people for being racist? They should’ve just introduced these foolish kids to a skilled empathy mindset user who can show them the errors in their thinking, like Daryl Davis, who’s successfully shifted the paradigms of far more virulent racists than these two dipsticks (ran out of “make good choices” indeed).

        Your view is essentially that of the *social psychiatric hospital*!

        There is another approach, but it is one that you-plural are prohibited from thinking because of the tremendous force of *social coercion* and *politically correct thought*. If someone, or some kids, or really anyone, wishes to put together a sane and intellectually ordered critique of ‘Blacks’ or ‘Black culture’ or ‘African civilization’, and extend that to *African Americans in America*, what I just described can be carried out in a rational, balanced and fair way. This is part of what is known as *identitarianism* and any person, from any culture or ethnicity, can and should avail them self of it if they are interested in preserving who and what they are: of determining by them self what they are and want to be. Those kids could for example expose themselves to the writing of Jared Taylor who is likely the most balanced and eloquent in defining why *white culture* has good reasons to protect itself from a forced integration with *black culture*. But there are many many different sources. I guess you might say there is a kind of *underground* of people thinking in terms independent of whatever has formed you and *you-plural*. Even if you hate me for pointing this out to you, and anyone who does not think in the grooves you think in, you are still advised to understand these positions.

        To me, what is most interesting in these Liberal Posings I observe here is how you all fall directly into line. This shows to me the force of ‘coercive processes’. You-plural have simply not done your research nor will you. Were you to do that, and were you to become familiar with the thought and ideology of those who support and serve *white well-being* you’d be able to talk differently. There are a dozen authors working in these areas. But that whole topic has been made *off-limits* to you. You cannot access this information because it is blocked. Additionally, you remain unaware of the immensely destructive effects of *anti-white animus* that pervades the culture. Indeed you show how it even infects your own views.

        What is the purpose in pointing this out to people who, in their own ways, are *virtue signaling*? One purpose is to alert you to the fact that the world is changing, and that many people are getting out from under the forced thought and the coerced thought that keeps them from seeing and reasoning clearly, openly, without *guilt*, and in creating hierarchical lists in which they define the important things and separate them from the unimportant things.

        You are wrong though if you think I am defending ‘open racial hatred’ or stupid expressions of it. But what I do suggest is infinitely more threatening and dangerous. I suggest getting educated; to gaining (or regaining) a platform in *proper identity*; and seeing what requires defense and why. This has nothing to do with *hatred*.

        If you examine each and every *hot topic* of today I suggest that in each of those categories you will find strong currents of *determined and coerced thought* and the strong, sometimes outrageously so, influence of ‘politically correct thinking’. Each of those areas has to be made into a research project and each of them needs to be critically examined independently and by a *free mind*.

        That *free and critical mind* is discouraged, not encouraged more often than not in our time.

        • It sounds like you want to protect society (or at least part of it) against the liability of stagnation–the obstacle of known teleological inadequacy (the failure to pursue goals)–and both of its failure modes: decadence (underregulated stagnation; addiction to impulsive pursuit of desires) and dogma (overregulated stagnation; the binding of thoughts for fear of them leading to self-destruction). Does that sound about right?

          I stand against stagnation as well, but I prefer to define problems existentially, without reference to any particular group of people. Then I can help any person or group choose what they want to let go of and what sort of identity they want to maintain.

          Contrary to what you say, I consider my own perspective on the situation to be less limited than yours, because I examine each culture from the inside and out, with not only criticism, but with an eye for future possibilities. I can’t decide for anyone which possibility they want the most, but I can convey the options and help with their implementation.

          You want to say, “X group has a problem, and we want to prevent that problem from spreading”? I can appreciate that. However, I prefer to give groups the tools to sort out their own problems, rather than imposing a cultural quarantine. The way to deal with stagnation is not merely a compromise between decadence and dogma, but the practice of transcendence: surpassing oneself, letting go of some things and pursuing others, to become something more. Any approach to dealing with stagnation (in any form) that doesn’t involve transcendence is going to become unhealthy sooner or later.

          What do you think of that?

          • It sounds like you want to protect society (or at least part of it) against the liability of stagnation –- the obstacle of known teleological inadequacy (the failure to pursue goals) –- and both of its failure modes: decadence (under-regulated stagnation; addiction to impulsive pursuit of desires) and dogma (overregulated stagnation; the binding of thoughts for fear of them leading to self-destruction). Does that sound about right?

            If I understood what you were talking about, perhaps!

            I am not sure that I am making anything but a recommendation to look at the issue from a very different — a forbidden really — angle of view. I simply said that if some white kids, or any person or people, and then any person from any particular race & ethnicity, wanted to gain knowledge here, that I propose an alternative route. You on the other hand (and most on this blog so far that I have noticed) react in extremely predictable ways. Now, it may interest you to know that because this all hit the ‘social media fan’ the girl has separated from her BF, they have been expelled, they are working to keep her from being accepted to a college, and they will do everything in their power (this enormous, amorphous *them*) to destroy their lives, livelihood and future. The girl’s parents fear getting shot. So, what I do is to step back from the situation and examine it with veeeerrryyy different lenses installed. The extremes of anti-white rhetoric and activism are 10,000 times more severe and more deadly. It is — I say this without exaggeration and trying to be truthful and honest — a sort of socially-condoned war against *whiteness*.

            I do not give a d**m that they made this silly, juvenile video. It did not have any tangible harm in it. I have heard rap-songs with far more energetic hatred of white and the *white system*. And I have heard statements by others — non-whites — filled with real violence. There was no violence in what those kids did or said. The referred to the *forbidden word* and they made some stereotypical statements. SO WHAT!

            The things that a NYTs journalist tweeted about her contempt of whites has far more effect. I could direct you to numerous books and studies that would open your eyes. But you desire to work with closed eyes (and I refer to a plurality here). The more interesting area is to examine that. The lens-of-focus needs to be turned around. You preach tremendous moral awakenings. I reject the entire premise in the terms in which you present it. What needs to happen is a sociological awakening. And that revolves around getting out from 50+ years of very intense social indoctrination: social engineering.

            My entire orientation therefore is completely different.

            . . . I prefer to define problems existentially, without reference to any particular group of people.

            Then right there you have made an obvious mistake. It is so obvious and it requires a specific effort of your will to see it in that abstract way. Right there is the source of your problem, not the source of any solution or forward path.

            . . .Contrary to what you say, I consider my own perspective on the situation to be less limited than yours

            Of course you’d say that. But I assert that I am dealing with and in reality, you in idealistic phantasy.

            The statement that I made to you in my last post is a beginning-point. If you want me to develop it I can and will. I do try to tone my views down a bit. So many *pearl-clutchers*!

            What do you think of that?

            Well, there you have it!

            • Alright, I notice a few problems with what you’re saying.

              First, you seem to give yourself license to dismiss the points I raise by claiming that I’m forcing myself to say them, that to say otherwise would be taboo for me. Read my name again. From the perspective of other people, I’m a cosmic horror from beyond the stars, and the reason for that is that when it comes to philosophical contemplation, nothing is taboo for me. I am willing to consider anything and am ruthlessly intellectually honest about it. (Most of the other people on this blog are similarly principled, though less bizarre than I am. I think you’ll find that we’re predictable not because we hew to political correctness, but because what we say happens to be accurate.)

              Now read my points again with the assumption that they’re honest perspectives rather than soundbites I’m compelled to regurgitate. I’ve considered what you say, and believe it or not, I don’t think it’s 100% accurate. Whether you choose to learn something from that is up to you. However, I request that you stop implying that my opinions are not my own, because it will never be true, and because it seems to prevent you from addressing the argument in the first place. If you address what I say at face value, we can have a substantial discussion.

              Second, the animosity directed against these people is not in itself evidence of a war on “whiteness”. It’s a backlash against the contempt these kids displayed, because people fear that that contempt may spread and cause larger problems. The problem here is that this backlash is irrational, because it does more harm than good. It just spreads more contempt and more fear, rather than building understanding and trust. Maybe there is a war on “whiteness”, but that’s not the only thing that would have caused this to happen.

              Third, it’s true that there isn’t any tangible harm in this video, but that’s not the same as “no harm”. Your pointing out that other people speak about more explicit violence against white people is the tu quoque fallacy. What other people say does not diminish what these kids said. The harm in the video is that it dehumanizes people in the eyes of viewers whose knowledge of black people already consists mostly of stereotypes, reinforcing a culture of contempt. Do I think that it presents a proximate danger? No. Do I think that it warrants the response it got? No. Do I think that people have a reason to be concerned? Yes. Do I think they should try to use constructive means to discourage such conduct, like actively promoting respect and understanding? Yes.

              Fourth, there’s this: “Then right there you have made an obvious mistake. It is so obvious and it requires a specific effort of your will to see it in that abstract way. Right there is the source of your problem, not the source of any solution or forward path.”

              Do you have anything whatsoever to back that up with? I find that the people who claim that a concept cannot be explained and must be experienced (usually by reading through old meandering textbooks full of philosobabble) usually just don’t know how to explain things. And if you can’t explain it, you might not understand it yourself.

              I’ll have a go at understanding it anyway, though. Are you saying that a sociological problem cannot be defined except in reference to particular groups? That I cannot make a statement about the human condition without naming the humans to which it applies?

              I’ll back up my own statement here. I define problems functionally, based on what outcomes they enable us to predict. I do so without reference to any group of people so that I can use this existential vocabulary to describe what sorts of problems a particular group is dealing with. For instance, some subcultures are steeped in decadence, doing whatever they feel like without concern for the future. I don’t have to call decadence “American” or “bourgeois” as if it’s inherently tied to a place or a group, or as if all Americans are decadent, or as if all decadent groups are similar to Americans in other ways. Decadence can happen anywhere, in many ways, for many reasons.

              From a sociological standpoint, imagine if your only phrase for “code of law” was “European-king-words” and then you find out that other cultures had developed codes of law independently, some long before Europeans did. It’d be strange to say that Babylonians had developed European-king-words before Europe even had kings. If sociologists are sensible enough to just say “code of law” and explain what it means regardless of which group has it, why can’t I define cultural problems based on how we know they’re problems, rather than based on who has them? If we can’t define a problem based on explaining why it’s a problem, i.e. how it obstructs the fulfillment of some value, then we have to question how we know it’s a problem in the first place.

              If you want to deal with reality rather than abstract ideals, then we’ll have to start talking about concrete predictions and prescribed solutions. Once someone opens their eyes to your paradigm, what exactly are they supposed to do differently, and how will that affect the future?

      • I recently launched a project to help people reach out and actually change people’s minds instead of alienating each other. Once people see how it’s done, their excuses for extreme retaliation will start to wither.

        Would you consider taking me as your disciple? 🙂

        • If you’re serious, then yes. Regardless of what a person believes, if their intentions are honest, then giving them the skills to effectively communicate will make the world a better place one way or another. Can I contact you via your website, or do you want to contact me through mine?

  8. Here are more comments from the blog.

    https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/racist-high-school-students-expelled/169023/88?u=michael_ejercito

    deltaecho wrote

    to riot and violence) is specifically protected. The point is their first amendment rights are abridged when attending school, and they can suffer penalties imposed by that school, for which they have no legal recourse.

    emphasis added

    I wrote in reply

    The First Amendment is abridged by school?

    So public schools can forbid students from attending Catholic Mass?

    Or attending gay pride parades?

    • Yeah, the whole in-school/out of school distinction seems to escape that gang. It shouldn’t be that hard a concept to grasp. It’s similar to the in workplace/ not in workplace dichotomy. Your boss cannot tell you what you can do or say when you’re on your own, unless it has a direct impact on your employer or ability to to do your job as well as possible. I had a boss who didn’t want me to direct stage shows because he said it distracted me. I tole him it was none of his damn business, and to back off. Yes, in those exact words.

      • Some of them even wrote in reply that the school is not the state.

        I pointed out, among other things, that if that were the case, schools could practice racial segregation.

        I wonder why the segregationists did not point this out in the 1950’s.

  9. Here is a copy of the article posted on that blog.

    http://affinitymagazine.us/2017/02/19/dear-white-people-your-dictionary-definition-of-racism-is-wrong/

    Dear White People, Your “Dictionary Definition” of Racism is Wrong
    Avatar

    By
    Sebastian Whitaker

    on
    February 19, 2017

    Racism as an ideology originated from European scientists in the 17th Century during the Atlantic slave trade. They invented it in order to differentiate themselves from those with different skin colors and darker features, creating a racial hierarchy that continues to this day. It would simply be incorrect to deny that the history of racism has been (and continues to be) one of white supremacy as the label “white” has always been an indication of superiority.

    However, many of us were taught when we were little that racism is simply disliking someone based on the color of their skin. We were taught that it is a two-way street and that it can happen to anyone. We were taught that racism is simply prejudice toward any race.

    This is clearly evident in the defense tactic many people use when defending racism.

    As someone with a large online social justice platform, a day does not go by without someone sending me a screenshot of the “definition of racism”, followed up with a paragraph about how I am the real racist for critiquing white supremacy.

    For many white people, the “definition of racism” offers them a safeguard so that they no longer feel the need to check their privilege. It acts as a last resort when backed into a corner by logic and reason. It is their final safety measure to ensure that they still win the conversation, even though this is not the type of conversation to be won.

    It is for those white people that I have listed below some of the many reasons why the “definition of racism” is wrong.

    Dictionaries provide a simplistic view of words.

    While dictionaries are a great reference for people who have no prior knowledge on a word, concept or idea, they are not the best for conducting and controlling discussion. Racism is such a complex idea that it would be impossible to describe every aspect of it in a basic 101 way. Dictionaries should instead be used as a starting point for learning, leading to more thorough research and investigation, rather than being a final and definitive argument as to why white people can experience racism.

    Dictionaries are written and edited by white men.

    The majority of writers for popular and academic dictionaries have been white men. In the western world, as there are systems in place which privilege white people, it is not surprizing to see that the definition of racism put forward by white men is inaccurate. They are socialized to believe that the racism people of color experience is in any way comparable to the “racism” white people experience (i.e. being called out for perpetrating and upholding white supremacy). There is simply no credibility in white people defining racism.

    Racism is systemic.

    If we look at the word, ‘racism’, we see that it is made up of ‘race’ and the suffix ‘-ism’. This suffix is used to denote a system which, at least in the western world, is a system of white supremacy.

    This clearly differentiates racism from prejudice. Anyone can be prejudiced toward anyone else, regardless of their race. People of color can certainly be prejudiced toward white people. However it is not racism because there is no larger system in place which oppresses white people.

    These are just some of the reasons why the “dictionary definition of racism” is invalid. If you or someone you know ever feels the need to screenshot the “definition of racism” and use it in an argument, just remember that the definition of ketchup says that it is spicy.

    By this logic, if Dr. David Duke is on an international flight that has a layover in Murtala Muhammed International Airport, he ceases to be a racist during the layover.

  10. EC writes:

    First, you seem to give yourself license to dismiss the points I raise by claiming that I’m forcing myself to say them, that to say otherwise would be taboo for me.

    I did not dismiss your points, rather I do not understand them. And where I do understand them, I cannot agree with them because they are based, as I noted, in an abstract position.

    I have no doubt that you really & truly believe all that you say. And that goes for millions and millions of people even when or if they are involved in error.

    We cannot really have a conversation because the information-bases that we refer to are distinctly different. I have been studying American culture, the *Culture Wars*, the issues of *race* and *ethnicity* and also social engineering in America for over 5 years now. I have read dozens of titles. I have read many of the *forbidden writers* whose names cannot be mentioned. And I have also read on the opposite side of the issue: be they the ‘progressives’ or the ‘neo-conservatives’. I think I understand fairly well the general outline of the problem.

    While I did not say that you force yourself to say things you do not believe, I do say that our general ideas about these things (a range of ideas and opinions) are strongly influenced by people and institutions that inform opinion. I encounter very little direct and original thinking about these issues.

    I’m a cosmic horror from beyond the stars . . .

    No, that’s your shtick. You are a person, a man, situated somewhere in the US in front of a computer communicating your ideas and views. But again, if you are *beyond the stars* it is a further reason why talking will be difficult. Because I define the ground where conversation is taking place as terrestrial, and what has to be talked-through as local and specific.

    Second, the animosity directed against these people is not in itself evidence of a war on “whiteness”.

    With full respect, but with total directness, you have just made a truly erroneous statement. If I refer to *anti-whiteness* I refer to a real and a tangible thing. As a social attitude I have studied it. There is a *war-on-whiteness* (the term *whiteness* is the term they use, not me) and it needs to be recognized, understood and utterly defeated. This will come about not through ‘abstract idealism’ but through really taking oneself in hand: clearly seeing oneself, understanding oneself, and throwing off a whole range of horrifyingly destructive weights or chains that are used to ties one down. My object, or one of them, is ‘renovation’ and ’empowerment’ and though I focus on Europeans and European-descended people the identitarianism that I am involved in is — truly — open to all people. All people have a right and a necessity to self-define and self-reclaim.

    You have no idea (apparently) what I am talking about when I speak of a *war-on-whiteness*. You’d have to stop, begin to read and study, and then come back to this conversation.

    Third, it’s true that there isn’t any tangible harm in this video, but that’s not the same as “no harm”.

    I clearly explained that on a relative scale there was little violence in that video. My point was clear as the clear light of morning. I said that there is something 10,000 times more violent and harmful and that is what I call here ‘anti-whiteness’. It is virulent and it is everywhere, and it is having, and it has had, immensely destructive effects. If you want to learn about that, I can direct you to sources. But I do not think that you do. There are reasons why that is so. I have some speculations as to why that is so.

    Do you have anything whatsoever to back that up with?

    [“Then right there you have made an obvious mistake. It is so obvious and it requires a specific effort of your will to see it in that abstract way. Right there is the source of your problem, not the source of any solution or forward path.”]

    Since you are dealing, according to your own revelation, with knowledge that comes from ‘beyond the stars’, you are dealing right there in strange intangibles. You are also dealing in *phantasy* since there is no star and no beyond. I am referring to American society at this specific juncture, and I am referring to the causal chain(s) that have brought it to this point. And you are seriously ask me to ‘back up what I am saying’. I do not even have to address this complaint.

    If you want to know about the sound arguments that explain and elucidate the differences between white European culture and black African culture, this is a tangible and a non-abstract conversation. It does not involve stars or worlds-beyond. If you want to understand what happens when two radically different cultures are forced into intense interaction through *social engineering processes*, then this conversation can be outlined and it can be had. You see? What I have just said here amounts to a radical and possibly even an illegal topic. Do you understand why this is? Is it a ‘hurtful’ conversation in the sense that you describe the kid’s video and being hurtful in some way? It is not in any sense free of the possibility of ‘hurting’ because seeing clearly and understanding things with clarity can sometimes produce realization that involves pain.

    If you want to deal with reality rather than abstract ideals, then we’ll have to start talking about concrete predictions and prescribed solutions. Once someone opens their eyes to your paradigm, what exactly are they supposed to do differently, and how will that affect the future?

    Oh no, that is not the starting point here. The starting-point is for you to begin to do some valid and productive research. You come from *abstract positions* that need to be grounded. It is up to you to become responsible. And I direct this to a *plurality*. You suggest that I must do something in relation to your position of (as I insinuate) ignorance. But how could the necessary question that you ask be answered if you do not have the necessary background even to receive the answer? This is an example of *Just Asking Questions* and its effect will be to mire me in your problem: lack of knowledge, lack of understanding: an essentially irresponsible position to have.

    My object is not to ‘propose solutions’, my object is to establish, or re-establish, a proper perceptual base through which reality — the world — can be seen.

    • [Note: this is an extension of a href=”https://ethicsalarms.com/2020/04/18/everything-about-this-story-is-discouraging-the-new-carrollton-video/comment-page-1/#comment-683916″>this conversation]

    • If you’re serious about wanting to learn to persuade people, then here is the first lesson:

      You’ll have to learn how to condense your vast wisdom into something that people will understand without having to read all the books you’ve read. The idea that they must do that is not only unrealistic–it’s also a crutch. It means you never have to account for yourself and your beliefs, because no one has leave to criticize you unless they meet an onerous standard. You speak from a position of assumed intellectual privilege, applying labels by authority of your abstract intuition developed over years of study. You’ll need to drag those paradigms out of your subconscious and put words back into them. People believe technical explanations, build from the ground up. That’s where I come in. I can help with that, without judgment.

      Conveying ideas without requiring people to get a degree in “race realism” or whatever you want them to understand is not only necessary, but possible. You can identify a single misconception by listening to someone. You can then isolate the simple principles that refute that misconception, and explain them. To start figuring out how to explain what you believe, I recommend starting gradually by picking a few key books and summarizing each chapter. Then you can summarize each book.

      Communication relies on semantics (simplifying interactions using labels and rules) and empathy (individualizing interactions by dealing with impressions and subjectivity). In this case, roughly speaking, you’ll be using empathy on yourself to figure out what you believe and value most, and then on other people to figure out what they believe and value most, and then using semantics to figure out how to express the former in terms of the latter.

      How does that sound?

      • 1) You’ll have to learn how to condense your vast wisdom into something that people will understand without having to read all the books you’ve read.

        You are totally wrong! If you want to understand, say, the American Revolution you must take the time, and show the interest, and read extensively and widely on that topic. If OTOH you want a superficial ‘received’ set of opinions, then you can avoid all that. The same is true if you want to understand the American Civil war . . . or the ‘culture wars’.

        You have a responsibility as a member of an above-average and literate class to educate yourself. It is a civic and thus an ethical obligation. And especially when it has to do with all those topics that I refer to as *hot-topics*.

        If you are not of the class about which I refer, and if you do not indicate that you are responsible, then I really don’t want to communicate with you. Others will. But not me.

        Do not ever ask that you in your ‘dumbed-down’ position have any right to tell those who have information, who have acted responsibly, that they need to spoon-feed you baby food in pre-masticated spoons.

        If you engage here, or on any forums, and you do not show that you have a genuine concern for the issues discussed, you render yourself irrelevant.

        I am not discussing *wisdom* I am discussing current events.

        How does that sound?

        2) Communication relies on semantics (simplifying interactions using labels and rules) and empathy…

        First, the word ‘semantics’ is mis-applied here. In order for you to be able to participate in this particular conversation, and then any conversation on any theme or idea that is taken seriously, and that you take seriously, we don’t need to discuss semantics. Only familiarity and interest in the topics. And if you are interested in those topics you will have a) read widely or b) listened carefully (to those who speak, whoever they may be). If not, you have no business participating in the conversation.

        This is simply a rule.

        With your use of the word *empathy* we will find ourself in distinct and discrete universes! I do not demand ’empathy’ from anyone I read. I approach them as one desirous to learn. And I must meet them on their terrain, not a sloshy baby-tray where I tell them *the pieces are too big!* or that it must be translated into simple-speak.

        My God! what has happened to you!

        I have no interest in creating for you a *Reader Digest* version through which you can understand the present or simple ideas in general. It is ridiculous that you ask for that! I suggested that you read a little Jared Taylor. There is this thing called *Google*!

        What you have done here — all that you have done — is to have shown me that you are incapable of topical conversation on these important themes. You offer nothing else.

        How does that sound?

        • Oh, this is interesting. When I take your assumptions about the nature of knowledge to their logical conclusion, I encounter several huge questions. With respect, and in no particular order:

          How exactly do you expect people with different areas of expertise to collaborate on greater projects if they have no way to explain concepts to each other? If a psychologist and a sociologist want to work on a book together, do they have to go out and get each others’ degrees before they can have a meaningful conversation?

          For the sociological topics you refer to, how are people supposed to learn enough about a topic to write that literature in the first place? What gives them the authority to write literature, other than having read other people’s literature? It can’t just be literature all the way down, can it?

          What do you expect all your knowledge to accomplish if you only speak with people who have already read the books you favor, and to everyone else you say they’re not allowed to have an opinion until they read those books? That seems to limit your potential activities to… convincing people to read books under the assumption they will then agree with you.

          Following from that, how do I know you yourself have read the books if the only thing you do is speak in (occasionally needlessly pretentious) prose and tell other people to read the books? How does having read the books enable you to do something you couldn’t have done before, like make a more effective decision about something? (If you can’t answer this question without telling me to read the books, you either learned nothing of value from the books, or you learned something but your communication skills need serious attention.)

          Are you afraid that being able to convey what you’ve learned will cheapen the effort you went through to get it? (That all depends on whether you value the knowledge for how it can help people, or for an elite intellectual status may grant you.) Or are you skeptical that people can communicate the concepts you speak of outside of books because you’ve never seen it done successfully?

          If I read your books, and I still think you’re wrong, will you take my opinion at all seriously? What makes your books better than my books, that you make me read yours but don’t request to read mine?

  11. Esteemed Comrade EC:

    If you are interested in the topic of *race* and *identity* as it pertains to America, and if you have determined that this is or could be a valid topic of conversation, exchange, and learning — that is, that you do not dismiss the topic as unnecessary or even as *bad* or *evil* and if you are willing to look into it– then I think you will have to narrow-down your research into some rather limited areas.

    In other words, if you want to read about *race as it pertains to America* you can cross off your list a life history of the Vietnamese greenfinch or the military technology of the Goths and the Vandals. You get my point, right? In your case you could choose to stop orbiting far-off planets that do not exist and you could come down to the terraqueous earth.

    If you need help in getting adjusted don’t feel ashamed reaching out to me.

    By identifying the area of interest, the sources for the research will self-clarify. So, I could mention a) the Founder’s ideas about the proper make-up of the nation, b) later theorists such as Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant, and c) Wilmot Robertson who laid out a critical perspective of what had been done in America’s Postwar period. Then, you could research those who had been influenced by those writers, either directly or indirectly.

    You should also read widely on *the other side of the spectrum*. Certainly the writings of Malcolm X and MLK, but there is a wide range of writers who are part of the ‘progressive-left’ (and often socialist-communist) side of Postwar theory about America.

    This is a very general outline. But I assume you get my point.

    If you want to understand what is going on in America now and today, you can only deal with America now and today. But, that means also tracing out the ‘causal chains’ that have led to today.

    This is the only way (that I can see) through which you would be able to participate in the ‘larger conversation’ going on in the culture right now. And I would mention the following: you will have to deliberately choose to read material that is now considered *off-limits* and is suppressed.

    Though I am not sure I’d assume that now the books of Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard have been removed from American libraries (along with many other titles). What this means of course is that there are people and groups that want to limit what information you can access, and the information the public — and certainly the youth — can access. This means that you are going to have to turn against the grain if you want to get the full picture.

    By getting the *full picture* you will be in a much better position to understand some of the more difficult periods. Such as the manifestation of the *Second Klan* in the 1920s . . . and then the manifestation of Trump’s demographic base and some of the ambiguities of this MAF movement. Right there, in studying the relationship between a former and a condemned movement (the “100% Movement” of the 1920s) and the present manifestation(s) of American identitarianism emblemized by Trump’s movement, you would have an advantage that most do not. They cannot see why the present reactionary movement is *problematic* for the Left and the colored minorities.

    If you do not have, more or less, the backgrounding that I outline here, you cannot actually participate in *the conversation*. You will only be able to participate in a quasi-conversation.

    I suggest that all conversations that takes place in all public spheres in America on these topics are quasi-conversations. The conversation that takes place here on EA is, by and large, just such a quasi-conversation because it is explicit boosterism for ‘shallow progressivism’. Because the full amplitude of what is there to be discussed, is absent. It cannot appear — it is not allowed to appear — because the elements of conversation are, essentially and in our present, illegal. There are many dangers associated with the full conversation. Banning, loss of social position, being harrassed by activists, monetary loss, loss of livelihood.

    • I wrote that the present manifestation of *American Identitarianism* is problematic for the Left. When you understand why this is so, nearly everything they do and say falls into place. Take for example this odd bit of journalism (I do not know if it is ‘journalism’ or if it is ‘agitprop’ but I would incline to the latter) from the NYTs *Race/Related* section (it comes to me in email but you can find it in the paper on-line).

      Here, the author, Jian Lin Yang, speaking about the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, writes:

      Those who fought for the law sincerely wanted racial equality in U.S. immigration law. But they did not expect their efforts to give rise to the largest influx of non-European immigrants in this country’s history, putting white Americans on track to lose their majority status within decades.

      Consider, Space Octopus, what it means when in a given nation that had been built by a specific people with a specific identity, that a minority population within that nation advocates for a racial and cultural-structural change in that nation that results in the founders, the ‘original demographic’ of that nation, losing its numerical superiority. And imagine the ideological battle, the ideological imposition that must take place to get that *original demographic* not only to accept their fate but to desire their fate; to advocate for it, to ‘celebrate’ it: to serve it as a purpose.

      Consider what it means when that minority population teams up together in their efforts to displace the original demographic, to reduce them rather consciously and determinedly, to a minority population them self. Consider in this context the notion of ‘anti-whiteness’ as an active, charged, and I will say hate-filled social doctrine that takes on an activist stance. Consider the ramifications of establishing or creating *currents of contempt and hatred* and then consider the ways that these charged emotions are used in a social transformation-process that occurs over years & decades.

      Now, if it had happened — and indeed it did happen and it is happening — that the original demographic is set to lose its numerical superior status, do you allow them any *right* to lament the fate they see coming? That is to say, do a people and does a person have any right at all to ‘feel uncomfortable’ at the fate being engineered for them? Do they have any right to think about it? To talk among themselves about it? To research it? To examine why it is happening and what *ideology* supports it? Do you give those people any right at all to think in terms of *white well-being*? DO YOU?!

      The answer is NO YOU DON’T and there are reasons for this. To have such concerns, to be capable of thinking in these terms, would require that you be un-neutered on an intellectual level. You would have to have some masculine pride and I use the term ‘masculine’ deliberately. Because that is what men are called to do. Women live within the structures that men create and in this sense the idea-parameters that they establish. Men also are capable of *defending their people*. You, and 9/10ths of those I encounter on forum spaces like this one, are neutered men.

  12. EC writes:

    What do you expect all your knowledge to accomplish if you only speak with people who have already read the books you favor, and to everyone else you say they’re not allowed to have an opinion until they read those books? That seems to limit your potential activities to… convincing people to read books under the assumption they will then agree with you.

    Though you are trying to waste time with JAQing (Just Asking Questions) this could be taken as a good question.

    The struggle of the Dissident Right is in the first place to merely suggest that there are other, alternative views and perspectives available. Since this is an American blog, and you are an American, this means the presentation of views which encounter and also counter a whole group of assumptions. I refer to this as ‘America’s civil religion’. This is what I refer to as ‘the Postwar construct’.

    The first step therefore is in countering groupthink. When one does this — when one encounters groupthink — it inevitably arouses fear, anger, reaction and sometimes attack.

    ‘Knowledge’ in the sense I indicate is information that is, more often than not, dissident information. Let us suppose that one presents certain (discomfiting) ideas to 100 people on a blog or forum. Eighty percent are simply going to *hate you* and condemn you because you are suggesting something to them that is thoroughly outlandish. So outrageous that they can only see you as a Nazi (et cetera). They shut down and remain shut.

    Out of the remaining 20% you might make inroads with some, or at least present a perspective that enlarges their own perspective to some degree.

    Then, there are a few who might be influenced to actually begin themselves to do research.

    As a member of the Dissident Right (with a specific Christian and Catholic orientation I must say) I am very aware of the range of ideas on *our side of things*. We often speak of ‘red pilling’. That means to introduce one idea, or just a few, that influence a person to begin to reorient their — what is it? perception? their range of knowledge? or simply what they will allow them self to think? It is hard to say.

    I do not have a conclusion to offer you. How people *see the present* is, quite literally, changing. Knowledge is really up in the air. My impression of the time is that a great deal is up in the air. I do not know how to describe the present. But it is really quite weird.

  13. I wrote that the present manifestation of *American Identitarianism* is problematic for the Left. When you understand why this is so, nearly everything they do and say falls into place. Take for example this odd bit of journalism (I do not know if it is ‘journalism’ or if it is ‘agitprop’ but I would incline to the latter) from the NYTs *Race/Related* section (it comes to me in email but you can find it in the paper on-line).

    Here, the author, Jian Lin Yang, speaking about the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, writes:

    Those who fought for the law sincerely wanted racial equality in U.S. immigration law. But they did not expect their efforts to give rise to the largest influx of non-European immigrants in this country’s history, putting white Americans on track to lose their majority status within decades.

    Consider, Space Octopus, what it means when in a given nation that had been built by a specific people with a specific identity, that a minority population within that nation advocates for a racial and cultural-structural change in that nation that results in the founders, the ‘original demographic’ of that nation, losing its numerical superiority. And imagine the ideological battle, the ideological imposition that must take place to get that *original demographic* not only to accept their fate but to desire their fate; to advocate for it, to ‘celebrate’ it: to serve it as a purpose.

    Consider what it means when that minority population teams up together in their efforts to displace the original demographic, to reduce them rather consciously and determinedly, to a minority population them self. Consider in this context the notion of ‘anti-whiteness’ as an active, charged, and I will say hate-filled social doctrine that takes on an activist stance. Consider the ramifications of establishing or creating *currents of contempt and hatred* and then consider the ways that these charged emotions are used in a social transformation-process that occurs over years & decades.

    Now, if it had happened — and indeed it did happen and it is happening — that the original demographic is set to lose its numerical superior status, do you allow them any *right* to lament the fate they see coming? That is to say, do a people and does a person have any right at all to ‘feel uncomfortable’ at the fate being engineered for them? Do they have any right to think about it? To talk among themselves about it? To research it? To examine why it is happening and what *ideology* supports it? Do you give those people any right at all to think in terms of *white well-being*? DO YOU?!

    The answer is NO YOU DON’T and there are reasons for this. To have such concerns, to be capable of thinking in these terms, would require that you be un-neutered on an intellectual level. You would have to have some masculine pride and I use the term ‘masculine’ deliberately. Because that is what men are called to do. Women live within the structures that men create and in this sense the idea-parameters that they establish. Men also are capable of *defending their people*. You, and 9/10ths of those I encounter on forum spaces like this one, are neutered men. And this makes me exceedingly angry because I believe that it is men’s failings, men’s failure to stand up as moral and ethical beings empowered by proper and righteous sentiments, that allow corruption to occur.

    So, what you are incapable of understanding, and this directly proportional to the degree that you reject responsibility, is that in order to RECOVER and REBUILD what has been corrupted it is people like me, with ideas like mine, who have to go our and do battle, mentally, conceptually, intellectually, even spiritually, with weak feminized persons such as yourself. Men who are no longer men.

    The renovation movement — though you likely are unaware of it — is in motion. It is about the recovery of LOGOS in its particularly masculine manifestation: the enunciation of clear idea that has metaphysical foundation, not the slop in which most people exist today: fuzzy, drunken henid-like ‘thoughts’ which have no power at all to mold the world.

    You think that I am condescending? Wrong. I am friendly & helpful though I am completely direct and I do not mince words. You and people like you, and so many I encounter in a supposedly intellectual space, live within condescension (*haughty certainty*) insofar as they often refuse, absolutely, to challenge them self to think critically about their own idea-structures.

    Well, thank you for reading this far eight-legged one!

    ::: yawn :::

    Time to make a second cup of coffee and plan today’s menu for the household. Russian Potato soup or some sort of Tomato Bisque with croutons is where my thoughts are tending.

    • Thank you, that helps me understand a great deal about what you value.

      I’ll admit to not being masculine in the way you say, though such masculinity is certainly important for society, as is looking out for one’s own culture. I’ll agree that your description of masculinity and femininity seems like an accurate historical description of human culture.

      I’m afraid that I, personally, cannot play that part. I’m preoccupied with learning how to be responsible for a role that few other people are striving for and still fewer are fulfilling with any effectiveness.

      You must not have learned much about me to think that I’ll deny a culture the right to feel, think, and talk about what happens when they’re no longer the majority. My major concern is what they do in response.

      I figure that regardless of whether the United States becomes a plurality nation or not, people will need to be able to understand each other and communicate effectively, and they will need to wield the mindsets I’ve cataloged in order to prevent society from encountering liabilities that we can’t recover from. With those conditions met, any demographic distribution could be healthy, and without them, nothing would be healthy. We need people looking out for their own groups, but we also need competent people looking out for the big picture of everything, and that’s what we’re missing. That’s why I choose to play the role I do.

      You do what you feel is right. The best thing I can think of for me to do is to help people work together to fulfill shared values. I’m starting with the easiest people to help as proof of concept. As more people to learn how to do what I do, some of them will probably share enough of your background to help you more efficiently than I can.

      In the meantime, please accept that if you really want to be effective, you’re going to have to work to make yourself understood, and that requires understanding people on their own terms, not as you would describe them. That’s what I do, and what I help other people do, because nothing is going to get better if we don’t.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.