07/26/2020
President Donald Trump’s strong defense of Western civilization during his speech at Mount Rushmore back on July 3 provoked the usual caterwauling from the Dem/ Mainstream Media Treason Lobby Complex. Yet that likely wouldn’t have been possible were it not for a seminal event almost exactly 56 years earlier: On July 2, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — in effect beginning, although almost no one predicted it, open warfare against the Historic American Nation.
As a practical matter, as Christopher Caldwell wrote in his latest book The Age Of Entitlement, the Civil Rights Act has now supplanted the real Constitution to the long-term detriment of the country, not least from supposedly unintended consequences. For the past 56 years, America has undergone a Great Leap Forward in social engineering that has thoroughly destabilized the American body politic.
The new federal protections meant to stop discrimination did not have the intended effect. Newly-won equality under the law, promptly inverted by federal courts and bureaucrats to mean preferences for blacks and other “protected classes,” apparently did not satisfy blacks. Despite whites’ genuflecting to blacks with all sorts of concessions, anti-white animus has intensified to the level of outright, visceral hatred that we see today.
Thus, Leftist commentators now claim that the fight for civil rights is not over and even more inequalities and injustices that must be addressed [The Fight For Civil Rights Is Far From Over, by Jon Else, HuffPost, March 27, 2017]. The recent wave of BLM protests have descended into arson, looting, and iconoclastic vandalism in the name of fighting “systemic racism” and “white supremacy.”
Nothing changed, if you believe the Black Lives Matter narrative — despite 56 years of concessions to angry blacks.
Granted, blacks have faced and still face considerable struggles in terms of unemployment, gang and other violence, and fatherless and broken families, the last largely because of rampant bastardy [The Black Family: 40 Years Of Lies, by Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal, Summer 2005].
But we all know none of those pathologies are related to “systemic racism” or oppression or white privilege. Indeed, they likely stem from the Civil Rights movement itself and its underlying ideological assumptions.
The CRA, for instance, contains provisions that violate the property rights of private business, as former Rep. Ron Paul and his son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, have correctly observed [Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act, by Michael O’Brien, The Hill, May 13, 2011]. From the point of view of classical liberal theory, the state should not compel business owners to serve people with whom they don’t wish to associate or do business. Free individuals can shop elsewhere or organize peaceful protests against these businesses.
Other commentators on the Dissident Right such as Ilana Mercer and Paul Gottfried specifically take issue with the provisions that have destroyed freedom of association and the social engineering they have unleashed.
Beyond that, the successors to Martin Luther King Jr.’s movement have used the power of the managerial state, under the guise of enforcing the CRA, as a blunt weapon against the Historic American Nation. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have dialed up anti-white hate with their race hustling and calls for increased government intervention to address the alleged scourge of “systemic racism.”
But they were not the inventors. The war against Free Association and private enterprise began with the champion of the Civil Rights movement: MLK himself.
As the historian Tom Woods demonstrated in 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask, King was no fan of Western-style capitalism:
In fact, the Universal Basic Income currently widely discussed was one of King’s greatest political objectives. In his 1967 book, Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community, King was transparent about his redistributionist vision, writing
“I’m now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.”
Nor did King stop with proto-UBI proposals. He demanded reparations on ethno-Marxist lines. [Continuing MLK’s demand for reparations, by Kalonda Mulamba, Medium.com, January 20, 2020. He did not believe the managerial constraints of the Civil Rights Act were enough to address the plight of African Americans [Exclusive: Martin Luther King Jr. Talks Reparations in Previously Unheard Speech, The Root, September 6, 2019].
In other words, King’s redistributionist ideas live on in American political discourse, and radical groups such as BLM, whose leaders explicitly identify as “trained Marxists,” have taken up his mantle of radical racial redistribution.
They’re rolling full-speed ahead with plenty of corporate and media support [These are the major brands donating to the Black Lives Matter movement, by Mercey Livingston, CNET, June 16, 2020].
So none of America’s concessions either in the Civil Rights Act or afterward in myriad other laws and court rulings, from Affirmative Action to subsidized housing, have proved to be enough — as the renewed call for “reparations” quite plainly shows. So-called black leaders are even more explicit in expressing their desire to gobble up the fruits of American labor. At every opportunity, a predatory minority politician blames minority poverty and other pathologies on whites, demanding that government step in and level the playing field at white Americans’ expense [John Conyers re-introduces H.R. 40 on reparations for slavery and discrimination, Tracing Center, January 4th, 2013].
The terrible turn of events of the past few weeks was entirely predictable, as the late Sam Francis suggested in his 1998 takedown of the King Holiday. But now the results of the ideological push toward total equality, then redistribution through welfare and Affirmative Action, are all too obvious:
Far from acknowledging these facts and responding with policies and programs to help blacks, BLM and its white Leftist allies continue rampaging against the phantoms of “white supremacy,” as if tearing down the statues of long-dead Confederates will lift a single black mom and her children out of poverty, or save another little black girl in Chicago from another stray bullet [18 dead, 47 wounded in Chicago weekend shootings, Chicago Sun-Times, June 29, 2020].
And once the dust settles from the BLM riots, now that we’ve added lack of policing and anarcho-tyranny to the CRA’s ideological foundations, blacks will continue their downward spiral into Banana Republic oblivion.
That will be the result when Caldwell’s “Civil Rights Constitution” completely replaces the real Constitution. Blacks and other minorities have no intention of curtailing their use of the administrative state as a battering ram against the Historic American Nation.
Thanks to relentless indoctrination from the MSM and the Education establishment, millions of American are in a drunken stupor that prevents them from recognizing the reality of race and why America’s founding values (and, ultimately, its Founding stock — I say this as an immigrant from Latin America) must be defended until the bitter end. If it doesn’t sober up, America is destined to tumble into the abyss of multicultural chaos [No Go Zones: A Guide to Western Failed States and European Secessionist Movements, Ammo.com].
Nothing short of the overthrow of the modern-day managerial state will save us from impending doom.
Face it (as Christopher Caldwell did, to his credit, albeit discreetly): that means repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Pedro de Alvarado is a Hispanic dissident who is well aware of the realities of race from his experience living throughout Latin America and in the United States. As a native of lands conquered by brave Spaniards but later subverted by centuries of multi-racial trickery and despotic governance, Pedro offers clear warnings to Americans about the perils of multi-racialism.
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.