Many readers of American Renaissance are aware of “anti-racist” activist networks, but very little has been written about them. These networks are the most militant proponents of political correctness and are ideologically very much with the grain of mainstream social trends. They have many chapters throughout the country. And yet they are notoriously shady and obscure—most members of the public are unaware of them. Indeed, they operate in near secrecy, and their members often wear masks at public events. Worse still, they are violent; they proclaim this proudly in their literature. In this article I would like to examine what is probably the best-known of these networks in the United States: Anti-Racist Action.
The eighth-grade students gathering on the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento were planning to lunch on fried chicken with California’s new governor, Ronald Reagan, and then tour the granite building constructed a century earlier to resemble the nation’s Capitol. But the festivities were interrupted by the arrival of 30 young black men and women carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols.
The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement. “The American people in general and the black people in particular,” he announced, must
Ronald Reagan signed MLK Jr Day into law
Polling data over the years point to self-identified conservatives as the largest ideological group in the United States. Gallup has found that about 40% of the public identifies as conservative, 35% as moderate and 20% as liberal. But what does this really mean in a society where abortion is legal and readily available, nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, homosexual marriage is increasingly common, the church is totally separated from social policy-making decisions, miscegenation is trendy and rampant and the government actively seeks to break up traditional and homogeneous communities? What does it mean to be a conservative in a society such as the United States where the status quo is a Left-wing experiment in universalism and egalitarian democracy?
By BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon
The Department of Homeland Security is a secretive, lawless, largely privatized police and surveillance agency, with its own prisons and soon, its own drones. Now it’s headed by a black man, a progressive Democrat, a Morehouse man & Pentagon lawyer who invokes Dr. King as patron saint for murderous US global empire, a certifiable member of the black misleadership class.
Writing at Salon, “New York based journalist and consultant to progressive causes” Tom Watson objects to the anti-surveillance Stop Watching Us rally, scheduled for October 26 in Washington, D.C., because it commits the unforgivable sin of reaching across partisan lines. The fatal flaw of this gathering, says this breathless correspondent, is that it includes (gasp) libertarians! Much better to keep objections to the NSA and intrusive snoopiness as a private club for those who, he insists, really care about privacy. “The path to NSA reform so clearly lies inside the Democrats’ big tent,” he writes, “and runs through its liberal wing.”
Here’s a mystery. The Republicans describe themselves as the party of smaller government, and the Democrats generally agree. Polls indicate nearly unprecedented lows in public trust in the federal government.
Yet the Republicans’ popularity seems to sink continuously. Some pundits believe the Democrats have a shot of reversing the 2010 election upset and retaking the House.
The shutdown only hurt the GOP. The public blames the Republicans by a wide margin. In all their histrionics, they seemed utterly lost, undecided on whether to embrace the shutdown or attack Obama for it. Now they are attacking each other.
Looking at public opinion on big government, conservative talking heads conclude that Republicans simply need to walk the walk. Americans want real fiscal conservatives to represent them, rather than these sellout moderates.
Let’s not forget Central America, CIA-backing of the Khmer Rouge, and the War on Drugs.
Featuring the Weathermen, Black Panthers, and the CPUSA.
An interesting discussion. Read the whole thing here.
Before you joined KKK/Nazi’s and racist skin heads what was your view on Jews, Blacks, Mixed race people and Hispanic people.
Where you exposed to their culture?
How much has being a member effected?
I’m a little bit younger than most of the posts at the top, and it’s probably less interesting too, but I’ll throw my experience in anyway. I moved to London when I was 6, from Poland. Back in Poland everyone was racist to a degree, I never really thought about it. The “fact” that Muslims were the cancer of the Earth, blacks were just the poor, scum of society ect was just accepted as a truth. Racism in Eastern Europe is pretty bad.
by Keith Preston
The rise of the New Left is typically considered to have its origins in the student rebellions of the late More…
Initially, the American people’s verdict on the government shutdown appeared to be “a pox on both their houses.” Republicans received plurality blame, but Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and both major parties took something of a hit in the early polls.
I’ve long been curious about the phrase “left-wing conservative.” It’s a label that’s been applied to Christopher Lasch, for example. And Jacques Delors once declared that “We have to struggle against the conservatives from all sides, not only the right-wingers, but also the left-wing conservatives.” Though I’ve never gotten around to any of Christopher Lasch’s writings, I’ve always been under the impression that they were well worth reading. And of course, any enemy of Jacques Delors is a friend of mine. So one of my goals in life is to get a clear understanding of what the phrase “left-wing conservatism” might mean and to live up to that idea.
There’s more. The conservative pundit was less than impressed that his party was destroying the portfolios of hard working Americans who have been saving their money all because they refused to pay our debt.
Maybe Bill de Blasio got lucky. Maybe he only won because he cut a sweet ad featuring his biracial son. Or because his rivals were either spectacularly boring, spectacularly pathological, or running for Michael Bloomberg’s fourth term. But I don’t think so. The deeper you look, the stronger the evidence that de Blasio’s victory is an omen of what may become the defining story of America’s next political era: the challenge, to both parties, from the left. It’s a challenge Hillary Clinton should start worrying about now.
Peter Beinart (AP Photo/David Goldman)
Peter Beinart is out with a major new argument in The Daily Beast about what the political future might hold in store for us. The headline writer calls it “The Rise of the New New Left,” and it begins by citing the recent victory of liberal populist Bill de Blasio in New York’s mayoral primary. “The deeper you look,” Beinart writes, “the stronger the evidence that de Blasio’s victory is an omen of what may be the defining story of America’s next political era: the challenge, to both parties, from the left.”
That’s why we need an anarchist revolution.
“Whilst I think the Tea Party folk warrant critique along several lines, I’ve always found the general hatedom against them to be overblown and rooted in caricature. This seems to reinforce my view:
“The shift to the right on the gray columns represents a positive correlation between tea party members and generally higher scientific test scores. The r=0.05 is not a drastically higher score, but the findings are statistically significant to p=.05. In other words, tea party members appear to be slightly, but solidly more scientifically literate than non-tea party members.
In fact, tea party members tend to be more scientifically literate than other self-described conservatives, who have slightly negative scores, overall. These findings should give both liberal and GOP establishment types pause over their caricatures of tea party constituents.” Daniel Acheampong
In the last decade of the 20th century, as the Soviet Empire disintegrated so, too, did that prison house of nations, the USSR.
Out of the decomposing carcass came Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Moldova, all in Europe; Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Caucasus; and Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan in Central Asia.
Transnistria then broke free of Moldova, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia fought free of Georgia.
Yugoslavia dissolved far more violently into the nations of Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo.
The Slovaks seceded from Czechoslovakia. Yet a Europe that plunged straight to war after the last breakup of Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939 this time only yawned. Let them go, all agreed.
The spirit of secession, the desire of peoples to sever ties to nations to which they have belonged for generations, sometimes for centuries, and to seek out their own kind, is a spreading phenomenon.