ALAN writes:

On Tuesday nights when I was a boy, I would lay sprawled on our living room floor to watch the TV western “The Rifleman.” It featured Chuck Connors and Johnny Crawford in stories about a rancher and his young son in New Mexico Territory in the 1880s. The most impressive elements in the series were its bedrock moral code, the love between father and son, and the unforgettable theme and background music.

In the second episode, telecast on Oct. 7, 1958, young thugs assault the Rifleman and burn down the house that he has bought and decided to make into a home for him and his son.  But the Rifleman was a man, not a compromiser, a feminist, or a boy-man.  So before the episode ended, he nailed those thugs. There were no sob-sisters to intervene on their behalf, and concern for their “civil rights” was not uppermost in his mind.

Instead, he made them rebuild what they had destroyed.

There is a lesson there that American white men could learn—if they were in a frame of mind to learn anything.  But American white men hate lessons as much as they hate responsibility. That is because most of them are still adolescents. This is the legacy of the 1960s:  One generation of boy-men after another who grew up in that decade or the years after, pampered by their indulgent parents, and both arrogant and witless enough to imagine they are going to remake the world.  Not only are they going to remake the world, they are also going to remake the identity of things and the very meaning of words.  (E.g., the imbecility called “gay marriage”.)

“The Rifleman” stories were set in the Old West, where there was little or no law.  By contrast, Americans today are suffocating below layer upon layer upon layer of laws, most of which are unnecessary.  Does it not seem reasonable, therefore, to expect that “The Law” should impose that same penalty on people who—like the vandals and thieves in Baltimore and Ferguson—willfully destroy other people’s property?

If white men were capable of reclaiming the authority and restoring the hierarchy that their ancestors knew are indispensable for maintaining law and order, the sheer evil and cowardice of their supine response to crimes like the Baltimore riots might begin to dawn on them.  (Ever so slowly, considering how brainwashed they are.)

In a civilized society, white men would not hesitate to impose on vandals and rioters the penalty of rebuilding what they destroy.  But we do not live in a civilized society.  We live in an Orwellian Nanny State that came into being by the default and cowardice of sap-headed, feminized white men.  It is precisely such white men who sold out Baltimore and are selling out this nation.  I have watched them do this for half a century.  It is a sickening spectacle.

For a little contrast, consider this:  “We hope that every robber with a gun is detected in good time and shot to death by the police,” wrote Captain Will Judy, American patriot, World War I veteran, and outspoken opponent of Communism and Socialism, in his magazine The Spectator.  [ “Justice for the Gun Robber”, Third Quarter, 1953, p. 13 ]

I agree.  Where in law enforcement today can we find that kind of unapologetic determination to defend the rights and property of law-abiding citizens?  Where are the latter-day successors to Capt. Judy?  Where today are any white men or law enforcement agency who will say what he did and stand by it?  Who, acting on that moral certitude backed by the legitimate authority of the law, could have stopped the Ferguson and Baltimore rioters on the first day of their mayhem by a display of overwhelming force?   

The decent homeowners and business owners in Baltimore and Ferguson will now join countless others like them from Detroit, St. Louis, East St. Louis, Cincinnati, Los Angeles and other cities who saw their hard work, loyalty, and investment betrayed—first by looters and vandals and then by a system of law weakened by feminists, do-gooders, and generations of soft, spineless white men who have shown themselves to be as well-trained as Pavlov’s puppies.  Observe how quickly they genuflect, apologize, and beg forgiveness whenever some loudmouth agitator calls them “racist.” If they had not abandoned the capacity to think, they might realize that “racism” is a chimera, a Fairy Tale, a Big Lie concocted by Marxists as a tactical weapon in their war against Christendom and Western Civilization.

Half a century ago, in one of the most astute commentaries on the insidious Communist warfare being waged against Americans in the 1960s in the form of a so-called “civil rights movement,” Kent Steffgen wrote:

 “The word ‘racist’ is simply the more updated idiomatic rant previously served by such more seasoned extracts as ‘capitalist’, ‘imperialist’, ‘extremist’, and ‘warmonger’.  Since the struggle for power has now shifted to the civil rights sphere, anyone who stands in the way is a ‘racist’, or he may be a ‘bigot’ or a ‘white supremacist’.  The price Americans pay by fleeing in terror before these bogus terms is the abandonment of their property rights and status as free citizens.  Communist political warfare has no other purpose and scare words are simply the tools of the trade.”   [ The Bondage of the Free, Vanguard Books, 1966, p. 60 ]

Whites have been fleeing in terror for decades from that “racist” name-calling stratagem.  The Fascist Left are experts at playing this game; feminized white men are an easy mark for them.  To cede to your enemies the premises and language for public debate on matters like the Ferguson riots is to lose the game before it has begun.

As the late Samuel Francis wrote in 1999 about the word “racism”:  It “has no objective meaning apart from its polemical usage.   …it has no use other than as a kind of fancy curse word, the purpose of which is to demonize anyone who expresses the ideas it is supposed to describe.”   [ Samuel Francis, “The Origins of ‘Racism’: The curious beginnings of a useless word”, here]

“Diversity” and “multiculturalism” are words whose purpose is to destroy America and Western Civilization.  So too “racism”, “racist” and “white supremacist.” These are words whose purpose is to destroy the descendants of those who built America and Western Civilization and are the only ones who can defend them and sustain them:  White men.  It is a stratagem that stupid, apologetic, feminized white men have made astonishingly successful for our greatest enemies.  “Racism” is a bottomless goldmine for those enemies, as well as for homegrown parasites and predators.  Responding to such name-calling serves only to weaken white men’s self-confidence and deflect energy from enforcing objective laws as they should and must be enforced: To the letter and with savage consistency.

Observe the price law-abiding Americans pay by permitting “The Law” to evade that responsibility:

— New York, 1964: Policeman kills black teenage punk in self-defense.  The response: Blacks cause millions of dollars in damage.  (See below)

— Cincinnati, 2001:  Policeman kills black teenage punk in self-defense.  The response:  Blacks cause millions of dollars in damage.

— Ferguson, 2014:  Policeman kills black teenage punk in self-defense.  The response: Blacks cause millions of dollars in damage. 

In each case, the officer is cleared of any wrongdoing.  Riots and mayhem by blacks are blamed on white “racism.” Worse than that:  Sap-headed whites agree to accept the blame.  Precisely what is it that permits them to do that?  Stupidity?  Spinelessness?  Feminism?  Moral imbecility?

Americans continue to finance a government that (a) permits tribes of savages to destroy millions of dollars of other people’s property, (b) refuses to hold them accountable for their destruction, and (c) then punishes people who don’t destroy other people’s property by telling them that they “owe” more handouts and “programs” to those tribes of savages.

Are there better examples of cultural suicide?  Would the Japanese permit tribes of savages to wreak such destruction in their cities?  Would they make excuses for them or accept such excuses?  No.  Only feminized American white men and women can be that stupid or spineless.  It is a measure of the depravity of “The Law” that no one in any position of public authority today will say to those tribes of savages that no one “owes” them anything.  It is the other way around.

After living in South Africa for 35 years, Anne Paton wrote:   

 “I love this country with a passion, but I cannot live here any more.  I can no longer live slung about with panic buttons and gear locks.  I am tired of driving with my car windows closed and the doors locked, tired of being afraid of stopping at red lights.  I am tired of being constantly on the alert, having that sudden frisson of fear at the sight of a shadow by the gate…..

“I have been hijacked, mugged and terrorised.  A few years ago my car was taken from me at gunpoint.

“While some people say I have been unlucky, others say: “You are lucky not to have been raped or murdered.”  What kind of a society is this where one is considered “lucky” not to have been raped or murdered—yet?…”  [“Why I’m Fleeing South Africa,” Nov. 29, 1998, here]

What she failed to write was that she was no longer willing to live amid criminal savagery practiced not by whites but by blacks.

Let us apply her question to these United States of America:  What kind of society is it when white men go out for an evening stroll and end up begging predatory blacks not to kill them? What kind of society is it when whites cannot go about the ordinary routines and pleasures of daily life that were possible for them in pre-1960 America without considering the possibility of encountering black predators along the way?  What kind of energy-sapping mindset will whites not agree to impose upon themselves in order not to be called “racist” by people who hate them?  Only white men brainwashed by feminist and communist propaganda could agree to accept that savagery, not punish those who practice it, and then parrot the lie that white men and women “owe” something or other—or everything—to those predatory savages.

Can you imagine Washington or Jefferson or MacArthur or Patton envisioning an American culture in which white men beg for their lives during an evening stroll?  Is there something wrong with this picture?  Yes.  Is it the fact that savage predators act like savage predators?  No.  What is wrong is that feminized white men made it possible for those predators to be on the streets of American cities in the first place—and then to do the despicable things they do—and then to celebrate them in vulgar and vile noise that those same stupid white men agree to call “music”.

If they had not surrendered the kind of tough-spirited law enforcement recommended by men like Capt. Will Judy sixty years ago and the moral certitude upon which it is based, white men today would not go out to walk the dog and end up begging black predators not to kill them.  If white men had not surrendered their proper authority, it would be the other way around:  The predators would be dead.   

What brainwashed whites fail to understand is that this game is rigged against them.  It was rigged against them half a century ago.  Whites want to play fair.  But if they expect their enemies to do that, they will be devoured and destroyed.  American whites are very naïve when it comes to understanding the depth and extent of human evil.  In the case of Ferguson, it was claimed that blacks rioted and looted because they were angry about a white policeman shooting a black man who was unarmed.  But what if the victim had been armed and had threatened the officer’s life?  Would blacks have responded in a less barbaric manner?  

Think again.  That would be an equally good excuse for blacks to indulge in looting, rioting, and mayhem.  How do we know?  This is how:

“When New York policeman Thomas Gilligan tried to arrest a large Negro named Thomas Powell on July 16, 1964, Powell lunged at him with a knife and Gilligan shot him down.  In reprisal, thousands of Harlem Negroes swarmed out of their homes through the streets, robbing stores, throwing bricks, bottles, and gas bombs, pillaging and attacking bystanders in a bloody full-scale riot which required most of Police Chief Michael Murphy’s 26,000-man police force to put down.

“Civil rights groups and the local police review board demanded Lt. Gilligan’s resignation on a charge of police brutality.  This was answered by a 1700-page testimony before the New York Grand Jury, which found Gilligan well within the line of duty in having acted in self-defense.”

Eight days later, “on July 24, 1964, a horde of 4000 Negroes tore through 50 downtown city blocks in Rochester, New York, on a trail of terrorization, robbery, destruction, and personal assault which finally required the National Guard to restore order.  Four white men were killed, over 350 persons were injured (including 35 policemen), and the area suffered over one million dollars’ worth of property damage.  This simple incident had been touched off by the arrest of one lone, drunk and disorderly Negro.”  [Kent Steffgen, The Bondage of the Free, pp. 219-20 ]

The same script was followed fifty years later in Ferguson; only the players changed.

The presence of white Communist and Anarchist agitators in all such riots is as predictable as the morning sunrise.

Conservative black newspaperman George Schuyler sat on the Grand Jury that absolved the police officer of all blame.  He reported that after that judgment was announced, leaflets quickly appeared with the officer’s picture and the caption “Wanted for Murder”, which further incited the protesters.  “The loudest of those agitators were known Communists,” he wrote, and I don’t doubt it.  [ Black and Conservative: The Autobiography of George S. Schuyler, Arlington House, 1966, p. 345. ]

Note that the identical tactic was used by the Communist agitators in Ferguson.

[ Those 1964 riots did not occur out of the blue.  They took place in a social setting that Communist agitators had primed for rebellion, in the name of “civil rights” of course.  See Eugene Methvin, The Riot Makers: The Technology of Social Demolition, Arlington House, 1970, pp. 374-80. ]

In conversations in the 1960s, my father told me that Communists were behind the race riots in American cities, but I was too ignorant then to realize how right he was.  Today, a Google search for “New York race riots-1964” will yield results heavily weighted to the Leftist version of those events.  You may have to search long and hard for any account that does not remain silent about Marxists working behind the scenes to encourage those rioters and that does not paint the policeman as the villain and the drunk, the looters, and the rioters as blameless victims.  This is the old snow job tactic.

It is one measure of how the Fascist Left now runs most of American culture, just as bookshelves in libraries and bookstores are now filled to overflowing with books promoting this or that Leftist cause, while books offering alternatives to Leftist ideology can be found only by digging deep in the snowdrifts.

“He who controls the past, controls the future,” said Orwell.  Precisely: Any trace of what American culture was actually like before 1960 will be distorted, obscured, or erased if Americans permit the Fascist Left to rewrite their history, just as the truth about the death of Michael Brown was purposely distorted, misrepresented, and eclipsed by a Communist-engineered barrage of lies and propaganda.

In the wake of the Ferguson riots, blacks announced that they intend to build a “community center” for the purpose of improving their young people.  That is a swell idea.  Perhaps they will teach their young not to destroy other people’s property while instructing them in a new “community center” building on the site where blacks destroyed other people’s property.

A hundred years ago, a new Catholic Community Building was erected in downtown East St. Louis, where substantial numbers of blacks and whites lived and worked.  It was a handsome three-story brick building.  It “will be a great asset to the community, not only because of architectural beauty, but also because of the care which has been given in planning it as a community center,” said Planning East St. Louis for Tomorrow, a booklet published in 1919.

The booklet also said:  “The Urban League has done a wonderful work among the negroes in conducting campaigns for thrift, health, citizenship, and cleanliness, in carrying on work among the negro boys and girls, in furnishing the large industries with negro welfare workers, and in aiding the War Civics Committee in the conducting of canning, clean-up, gardening, and song-week campaigns.  It also operated free night schools for the negroes of East St. Louis.”

To see how well all of that effort inspired blacks to improve their lives and their city, there is nothing quite like a drive through East St. Louis today.  You can still see that Catholic Community Building—abandoned for decades, with all its windows boarded up and its walls defaced with spray paint, sitting in an area where many city blocks are overtaken by grass or weeds.  Note also the see-through skyscraper with no windows and no tenants but lots of spray-painted words and symbols, and a multi-story business-apartment building whose rear floors have dangled in pancake-style collapse for at least the last ten years.

[ See photographs here:]

This is what a certain population of blacks make of buildings, training, schools, and opportunities that whites created in the hope that blacks would thereby improve their lives and surroundings.  They have limitless energy for destroying other people’s property, but none for building anything constructive and lasting.

Japanese cities were bombed into dust in 1945, but the hard-working Japanese people did not sit around whining about “racist white men”; they rebuilt their cities into clean, orderly, shining centers of civilization and productivity.  Blacks have proven that they can’t do that or that they don’t want to do that and want others to do it for them.  Which is it:  Can’t or won’t?  In a hundred years, white Americans or the Japanese could build five cities the size of East St. Louis.  Blacks can build none but can ruin or destroy that many.  Whites and Japanese learn early in life that it is not a good idea to break laws, destroy property, or rob and murder people.  How many more centuries must pass before blacks figure that out?  And how many more white men, women, and children will stupid white Americans agree to sacrifice in the meantime in order not to be called “racist” by people who hate them and want to destroy them?

There are educated, responsible black families in some areas of St. Louis who maintain clean, attractive homes.  They do that not because of welfare handouts or “community centers” but by means of planning, saving, self-discipline, and hard work.  All of that is to their credit, and they earn my respect.  But the predatory animals are another story entirely.  To imagine that law-abiding, self-supporting citizens have a moral obligation to impose a tax burden upon themselves to support a huge population of thugs, felons, murderers, and people who don’t want to work is to indulge in an act of monumental, suicidal stupidity.  Any nation that accepts any such notion is dead.  If the Japanese were stupid enough to impose that burden upon themselves, their cities would look like East St. Louis or Detroit.

What we have here is the Amy Biehl school of self-immolation.  Like that man in Philadelphia who was killed by black thugs for the fun of it, she begged for her life, too, but it did her no good.  They learned the hard way that rules, restraint, and respect for other people’s rights—values prized by civilized people—do not appear anywhere in the ethical code of black predators.  But the difference between Amy Biehl and stupid, spineless white men is that they occupy a moral plane lower than she did:  She forfeited her own life, whereas those white men are perfectly content to sacrifice other people’s homes, businesses, tax dollars, neighborhoods, and security.  Ask the law-abiding people in Ferguson.  The only uncertainty now is whether those white do-gooders will take the Baltimore and Ferguson thugs and looters out to dinner some evening and then invite them into their homes to talk peace, equality, and more handouts.

Feminized white men are the darlings of Marxist planners and agitators.  They will never do anything but surrender.  I have seen them surrender the safety of their streets and parks, their neighborhood security, the competence of their schools, clean and safe public transportation, the right to speak freely and candidly, the right of free association, the definition and sanctity of marriage, their national borders and sovereignty, their flag and armed forces, the historic names of their schools and institutions, their public celebration of national and religious holidays, the traditional prohibition of profanity in the presence of women and children, the traditional respect for elders, and their own traditional masculine authority.

These are the kinds of boy-men who make endless excuses for not punishing criminals and executing murderers but who claim that technological gadgets and surveillance cameras are going to make American schools and cities safer.  Such boy-men hate responsibility and reason.  They prefer magical thinking.  Such claims reflect a degree of moral imbecility orders of magnitude greater than Americans a hundred years ago could have imagined possible.

Thomas Jefferson did not need a series of race riots in American cities over the span of a century to know—as he stated in a remark never quoted by “diversity” and “multi-culti” mongers—that two races cannot live in the same country if their ways of life are incompatible.  The longer I live, the clearer it becomes to me that Jefferson was right.

The primary villains in this piece are not predatory, low-IQ blacks, who are merely doing what comes naturally.  It is whites who set the moral-intellectual-philosophical tone and standards of American culture.  Blacks take their cues from those standards.  If many blacks hate responsibility and the rules of civilized living, it is largely because many whites have taught them to do so because those whites hate those things just as much.

Example:  Charles Manson is still alive because of white do-gooders.  In a properly-ordered culture, Manson would have been executed decades ago.  It wasn’t blacks who softened and feminized American law.

Example:  Observe blacks chattering on their trendy phones and gaping at their techno-gadgets in every public place today.  Did they invent those things?  No.  They were invented by whites or Asians.  Stupid whites then used them in their characteristically boorish manner, thus setting an example for blacks.

Example:  Listen to the vile noise called hip hop “music” on high-tech sound systems in cars and SUVs.  Did blacks invent and promote that sound technology?  No.  Whites who were raised on the noise called rock “music” invented it, and boorish whites then used it to blast that noise wherever they could, thus setting an example for blacks.

The moral imbecility seen in all these examples is the creation of white do-gooders, encouraged equally by “Liberals”, “compassionate Conservatives”, Feminists, the so-called “helping” professions, Communists, Fabian Socialists, and feminized Catholic and Protestant churches.  The question American traditionalists must address is:  What percentage of whites will oppose those do-gooders and reverse that trend?

— Comments —

Laura writes:

This entry includes lengthy discussion of the riots.

Mark Jaws writes:

Alan wrote a great piece and is right on the money, but like most of my contemporaries he fails to mention one of the major contributory causes to the feminization of white men – the American Ashkenazi Elite. More than any other demographic group, my fellow Ashkenazim have used their total control of Hollywood and their dominance of the news media to rip the cultural and spiritual guts out of whites. Do I really have to provide any examples? We all know how conservative whites are depicted on TV and movies. And who do you think most of the producers and screen writers are? Asian? Black? Hispanic? Armenians? Try again.

And let one white man express some sense of race consciousness in the public sphere and the Ashkenazi Kosha Nostra Media will come down on him like a ton of bricks, while ignoring the blatant racism of some black public figures. We all know it, and we all bear the marks of the shame of our silence. This is not to say that there are not white Gentiles in on this emasculation, but on a per capital basis, the Ashkenazim cultural elites bear the major brunt of responsibility for our current condition. They are to white conservatives what a black flash mob is to a 7-11 owner – a menace. And we are too reduced to even mention it.

Mary writes:

In regards to Mark Jaws comments, here’s a humor piece in the LA Times about this topic (written by a Jewish fellow).

Whether in Hollywood, government, or education, white elites weakened and abandoned Christian culture for the thrill of paricipating in modern ideas and technology, and for pleasure and ease. Noblesse oblige, indeed. White elites caved, bit the apple, allowed the corruption of the American mind to take place. We should blame no one but ourselves.

Please follow and like us: