Regular readers of this blog already know how I relish the occasional dissenting viewpoints posted here. Not so that the rest of us can make fun of such visitors, ridicule them or beat our own drums even louder. On the contrary, I want such visitors to feel welcome and wanted here – and this applies regardless of their racial or religious background. This is where the true beauty of the internet blossoms. Truth grows best on soil that has been watered with the blood of frequent debate.
So I have been reading the essay that Steph linked to in the “about” section. The basic premise of the essay is that claims of white victimhood are merely a crudely disguised form of white racism. The essay recounts the brutality of Southerners toward their slaves before and after the war, and how Southern whites claimed to be victims even as they lynched and terrorized those who opposed them. I had hoped to find some sort of substance in the essay. Something that would make it worth reading. Instead, I found statements such as this:
Even though we’ve mostly done away with outright racial violence, the memory of violence survives in the symbolism of the Shirley Sherrod affair…
We’ve done away with racial violence? I would like to see Marco Roth (unfortunately, probably a Jew) explain this lack of violence to the families of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom or to Mike Sola or to Sylvia Hollingsworth or to the families of the victims of the Zebra murders or to the victims of Colin Ferguson or to the victims of the anti-white pogroms in Philadelphia or to the families of the Wichita Horror victims or to any of the other thousands of white victims of violent black racism*. I am sure they would be relieved to know that what they experienced was not “violence”. Likewise, the 30,000 plus white women who are raped by black men each year would be comforted to know that their ordeals were not “violent”. Perhaps he feels all this is justified because of incidents like the Sherrod affair, which I have already written about elsewhere.
Lest the reader suspect me, in the preceding paragraph, of cherry-picking black on white crimes, it has already been shown that such crimes are extremely common. With interracial crimes, black perpetrator/white victim is the norm, not the exception. I strongly suggest reading The Color of Crime for more information on this topic.
Anti-white demagogues, such as Roth, dismiss black on white crime by first denying that it exists. Failing this, they blame said crime on poverty and white oppression. The fact of the matter is that it is precisely essays such as Roth’s, and the incessant anti-white drum-beating of the mass media, that is instrumental in swelling the ranks of white victims. Black leaders read essays such as Roth’s – and then pass the content on to their flock. Ultimately, it trickles down to the criminal class and serves as “justification” for yet more rapes, murders and muggings. Thus, Roth’s essay is not only ignorant, it is also irresponsible. But then again, perhaps this was his intent all along.
Roth seems to live in the days of Jim Crow. He seems unaware that the number of whites, murdered by blacks in recent years, far exceeds the total number of blacks ever lynched by whites. Sitting in his gated community, this is probably not a great concern for him. Without skipping a beat, Roth continues to spout nonsense:
To say that the Republican Party these days stands for white ethno-nationalism is not an op-ed exaggeration
Does he mean the same Republican party that gave us affirmative action, open borders with Mexico and countless federal handouts, programs and low-interest loans specifically for non-whites – but nothing specifically for whites? Is he really talking about that Republican party? After all these years, it turns out that all the enmity between the Republican party and white people of America was just a big misunderstanding. They are our friends after all! But seriously, with friends like these, who needs enemies?
At least Roth admits that there is anti-white sentiment in schools:
The simple-minded mantra we’re taught in grade school goes like this: blacks good because oppressed, whites bad because oppressors. So if whites suddenly became oppressed, even while remaining the majority, they would magically become good again. Many Americans are now being taught to think this way.
Apparently Roth fails to recognize that this anti-white message is followed up, after graduation, via television, radio, newspapers, billboards – and stupid essays, like the one he just wrote. There is a word for the ongoing beating down of a people’s ethnic pride. That word is “oppression”.
I must take issue with yet another statement by Roth:
The United States grants freedom of religion and individual expression, but it does not grant the freedom for states, or individuals, to enter and leave the Union at will.
If I were to list all the sources, from the fathers of this country, that contradict Roth on this count, this post would be a long one indeed. Instead, I shall quote the founders and let the reader decide if this might be a right that the founders would want to preserve for future generations:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…
Yes folks, “separation” is another word for “leaving a union”. This nation was founded upon the principle that people have a right to secede. Otherwise, we would still be part of England. Perhaps Roth should practice what he preaches and move to England. I recommend Westminster; I am certain he would feel at home there.
Roth does not stop at denying whites any manner of group pride, rights or protection. When it comes right down to it, he wants nobody to have rights – with the probable exception of himself:
The ideology of states’ rights against federal enforcement, the metastasized right to bear arms, the fear of “big government” intervention — these were the pillars on which the Confederate and later segregationist South sought to erect a white plantation nation. The use to which these ideas were put in the American past forever taints their invocation, as it rightly should.
There we have it. Local government is evil, the right to self-defense is evil and freedom from big government intervention is evil. Why? Because the Confederacy believed in such things. Then Roth had better stay away from cotton; the Confederates were very fond of cotton I hear.
As for Steph, I thank her for bringing the essay to my attention; it was entertaining – in a blood-boiling sort of way. If Marco Roth, who is an assistant-professor, can be so jaw-droppingly ignorant – surely I cannot blame his victims for being just as ignorant. The background information, which allowed me to see Roth’s folly for what it is, cannot be gleaned from the mainstream media or public education; it comes from years of independent study. Most people have neither the time, nor the inclination to pursue such knowledge. So I do not blame you one bit, Steph, for taking Roth’s essay seriously. It is not your fault.
*For a small sample of victims, look here.