THE BIDEN ELECTION AND ITS PREDECESSORS?

By Hugh Murray

In the last multi-party election of the Weimar Republic, 5 March 1933, the Nazis won 44% of the vote; their allies, the German National People's Party, won 8%, giving their alliance 52%, a majority of the vote. Their vocal opponents, the Communists won 12%. So the people voted 64% to reject democracy. The supporters of the republic were in decline; the Social Democrats won only 18%, the Catholic Center Party down to 11%. The rest were scattered in numerous small parties. The point is, only about a third of the voters supported the democratic republic; and nearly two- thirds voted for totalitarianism of one form or another.

A few decades ago I did some research for Richard Plant, who was born in 1910 in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. His grandfather had been an Jewish Rabbi, his father a non-religious, Social Democrat physician. Richard was studying German Studies at university, but was interested in the humanities. He was an extra in the film, “Three Penny Opera,” and knew when his professor began coming to class in a silk, brown shirt, that he might not have a future in that field. Richard was also gay. When Hitler came to power, what should he do? What should his father and mother and sister do? Richard was determined to get out, but his dad assured him, “Es wird nicht so schlimm,” - It won't be that bad. Richard left for Switzerland in February 1933. Occasionally, he heard from friends who had been taken to concentration camps in the early years. His father kept his medical practice, and among his patients were important locals, some of whom were NSDAP members. Finally, in 1934, his parents left for California.

It was a difficult adjustment. America was experiencing the Great Depression. By contrast, Germany was recovering from it. Hitler may have imposed discriminatory laws against Jews, but there was a new prosperity in the land. California might be described in part by the Joads, whose trek from Oklahoma to the golden state, brought new poverty and oppression in The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. That novel revealed that not everyone found gold in California. How would Richard's dad start all over again? He would have to pass exams, in English, to begin a new practice. In the Depression. As Bill Clinton stated, “It's the economy, stupid.” The Plants decided to return to the familiar, to the prosperous land they knew. Es wird nicht so schlimm. They returned to the Reich.

Richard was still stuck in Switzerland, but facing new troubles as his German passport was expiring. He was shocked to hear that his parents had returned to Germany, while he was making every effort to get to America. Eventually, with help from Protestant groups, Richard made it. During WWII, he even did some broadcasting to Germany against the Nazi regime. Meanwhile, his mother died, his dad remarried, and in November 1938, Kristall Nacht shattered not only glass shop-windows, but also hopes that Jews might be included in the “new” Germany. This was the first major Nazi sponsored pogrom in Germany, when most synagogues were burnt, and many Jewish men arrested. Soon after, Richard's dad and step-mom committed suicide. His sister made it to the Netherlands, was hidden, and unlike Anne Frank, survived the war.

In the American Presidential election of 2020. the majority of voters rejected the incumbent, President Trump, and voted for his Democratic opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden. The 2020 Democratic Party platform, over 100 pages, is radical, somewhat socialist. One might call the new Democratic Party National Socialist. More important, left wing thugs, similar to the paramilitary arm of the Nazis, the Storm Troopers, have formed throughout the nation, funded by some of the super rich. They call themselves Black Lives Matter and Anti-Fa (allegedly tracing its origins to the founding of the Antifaschistische Bewegung in Berlin in a building of the German Communist Party [KPD] in 1932). These two organizations, BLM and Anti-Fa, work together to insure that “peaceful protests” become violent, where they can smash windows, intimidate store owners, extort money from them, loot stores, torch buildings, cars, beat innocents who pass by or try to drive by, or who take videos, or who are conservatives. This new Storm Trooper group is connected to the Democratic Party, on local levels, and probably, secretly at higher levels. They intimidate and bully the opponents of the Democrats. In this sense, they are like the Ku Klux Klan, which was the military arm of the Democrats following the defeat of the Confederacy after 1865. The KKK insured that Republicans in the South (mainly Blacks) did not vote, using threats, beatings, burnings, and murder. Today, BLM and AntiFa are the replacement troops for the new era, but they serve the same old purpose, to support the Democrats, and not just in the South – but in cities throughout the nation.

In the summer of 2020 during the virtual Democratic Convention there were riots, but not one of the Democratic speakers dared denounce BLM or AntiFa. Finally, in the first debate with Trump, Joe Biden, when challenged to denounce Antifa, denied its existence, it was merely “an idea.” Eventually, Biden was pushed to issue a mild denunciation of these violent organizations.

The Democrats also seem to have developed a racial policy similar to that of the Nazis. In public schools, BLM has helped developed some curricula, and the Critical Race Theorists add to it. All whites are racists, and only whites can be racists. People of Color are all victims, oppressed, and must have special preferences. We have heard too much from whites, especially white males. Teachers should not call upon them. History is too much the stories of dead white men; it must be re-written, revised; revolutionized. The 1619 Project must replace old-fashioned history books. All must learn: whites are oppressors, whites are privileged, and those privileges must be stripped from them. Just as an Einstein was unfit to teach German students in Nazi Germany, so whites should not teach PoC in Democratic Party America. The arrogant Jew in Hitler's Germany has morphed into the privileged white in Biden's America. The Jews had to be shorn of their “superiority” in Germany, humiliated, insulted, ostracized, deported; and now in Biden's America, the whites must lose – they must be humiliated (as when BLMers insult diners, drink their beer, demand that they pledge allegiance to BLM, and in corporations whites must confess to their privileges and racist thoughts, must apologize to their co-workers of color, grovel, beg forgiveness, and the same occurs in schools and universities. But whites must lose more than their self respect, they must lose their cushions, their inflated incomes, their comfortable lives, their suburbs, their yachts, their golf clubs, their country clubs – let BLM and AntiFa march through the burbs and “discuss” new reparations. And once the white oppressors have yielded all as part of their reparations and reconciliations, then what? Make no mistake, what the Democrats call “anti-racism” is in reality racism, overt, vicious racism, racism against white people. After some years of the Biden-Harris Democratic programs, national socialist programs at home and globalist entanglements abroad (UN, WTO, WHO, Paris Accords, WB,etc.), what will happen to the whites in America? What happened to the whites of Zimbabwe? What is happening now to the Boer farmers in South Africa? What happened to the Jews of German?

This is exaggeration, you say! Don't worry about Biden, BLM chants, or the rare AntiFa beatings. Don't worry about possible new restrictive laws. Don't worry. Es wird nicht so schlimm.

ANTI-WHITE RACISM GROWS, FEW ATTEMPTS TO HALT IT

I found both of these articles on AmRen, and the originals were on Quillette.  Hugh Murray

Steve Salerno, Quillette, May 10, 2018

Is There Room in Diversity for White People?

{snip}

Now, reasonable people can differ about whether academia, as the ancestral home of white guilt, has been overzealous at micromanaging outcomes. Significant race-based preferences remain widespread, and lawsuits continue to be filed by white and Asian students who feel they bore the brunt of academia’s attempt to realize its vision of a utopian society in which minorities are represented at demographically correct levels. Eyebrows also raise at the way in which black students may be acculturated upon their arrival: ironically, some colleges “ghetto-ize” incoming minorities by creating for them separate advising systems, housing, academic tracks, and even graduation ceremonies. Still, it’s hard to dispute the wholesomeness of the mindset from which such tokens of affirmative action spring.

And yet wholesome is not the word that comes to mind when one assesses the newest wrinkle in academia’s attempt to balance the scales: an all-out, unapologetic assault on ‘whiteness’ itself. Today’s college administrators increasingly frame diversity and inclusion as lessons that must be learned by whites alone—and they’re lessons that too often unfold as interventions that force whites to regard themselves less as full partners in diversity than an obstacle to be overcome so that other constituencies might thrive. {snip}

A tale of two coasts: New York’s Hunter College promotes coursework for poli-sci majors in “the abolition of whiteness.” Stanford examines “abolishing whiteness as a cultural identity.” Elsewhere, to cite just a few examples, classes at Grinnell and UW-Madison confront “the problem of whiteness.” New Mexico’s St. John’s College takes on the “depravity” of whiteness. Moreover, academic theorists crusade to purge whiteness from STEM courses, because critical thinking and research are regarded as tools of “white hegemony.” Engineering students at Purdue must contend with the school’s indictment of “racist and colonialist projects in science,” while a UC-Irvine professor condemns even “technical prowess” as a white male construct. A Linfield college Gender Studies professor even condemns her peers for putting “stellar” colleagues in leadership roles, because stellar individuals, she notes, tend to be white and thus have benefited unfairly from “a logic of meritocracy that is built on this racist assumption that everyone has had the same access and opportunities.” UCLA pays students a stipend to act as professional social justice activists who will diagnose, expose, and combat “whiteness” and “the patriarchy” in all campus manifestations.

Most of these initiatives surfaced within the past few semesters, so a Geiger reading on fallout is premature, but the message and predictable effects are worrisome. Aside from simple issues of fairness, academe’s crusade is almost guaranteed to backfire. Today’s white college students have little to do with the active bigotry of the past; treating them as if they arrive on campus with some endemic moral deficit is almost certain to foment a stronger sense of racial identity among students who deem the attacks unwarranted. (77 percent of today’s freshmen describe themselves as somewhere between liberal and middle-of-the-road.) No matter how erudite the packaging, labeling a race “depraved” is the textbook definition of bigotry (if not, some might argue, an institutionally sanctioned hate crime).

Consider, too, the implications for black self-reliance. It seems unhelpful to suggest to blacks that resolving the gap in minority performance remains a problem that somehow falls to whites; this undercutting of black agency subliminally echoes the very paternalism that colleges decry. For that matter, what is the message to non-whites of identifying such concepts as excellence, prowess, and stellar performance with whiteness?

{snip}

Suggestion for my academic colleagues: ensure that opportunity exists for all, then allow diversity to occur organically on its own. It may take longer and never quite come to imagined fruition, but it will be genuine, and will not stigmatize an entire group of people in the guise of eliminating racial stigmas. You can commit to this truer diversity or you can allow your campus to devolve into a Balkanized chaos-sphere that not only perpetuates ancient grievances but stands in direct reproach to the mission of higher education.

You cannot do both.

Original Article

AND THE 2ND ARTICLE

Posted on May 15, 2018

The Racism Treadmill

Coleman Hughes, Quillette, May 14, 2018

The prevailing view among progressives today is that America hasn’t made much progress on racism. {snip}

But the data take a clear side in that debate. In his controversial bestseller Enlightenment Now, Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker notes a steep decline in racism. At the turn of the 20th century, lynchings occurred at a rate of three per week. Now, racially-motivated killings of blacks occur at a rate of zero to one per year.1 What’s more, racist attitudes that were once commonplace have now become fringe. A Gallup poll found that only 4 percent of Americans approved of marriages between blacks and whites in 1958. By 2013, that number had climbed to 87 percent, prompting pollsters to call it “one of the largest shifts of public opinion in Gallup history.” 

Why can’t progressives admit that we’ve made progress? Pinker’s answer for what he dubs “progressophobia” is two-fold. First, our intuitions about whether trends have increased or decreased are shaped by what we can easily recall—news items, shocking events, personal experience, etc. Second, we are more sensitive to negative stimuli than we are to positive ones. These two bugs of human psychology—called the availability bias and the negativity bias, respectively—make us prone to doomsaying, inclined to mistake freak news events for trends, and blind to the slow march of progress.

But while psychological biases may sufficiently explain progressophobia on most other topics, our denialism about racial progress calls for a deeper explanation—an explanation in terms of widely-held beliefs about race and inequality.

One such belief is the notion that disparities between blacks and whites—in income, housing, employment, etc.—are caused by systemic racism. {snip}

But the premise built into the thinking of [Ta-Nehisi] Coates and [Ibram] Kendi is false. I call it the disparity fallacy. The disparity fallacy holds that unequal outcomes between two groups must be caused primarily by discrimination, whether overt or systemic. What’s puzzling about believers in the disparity fallacy is not that they apply the belief too broadly, but that they apply it too narrowly. Any instance of whites outperforming blacks is adduced as evidence of discrimination. But when a disparity runs the other way—that is, blacks outperforming whites—discrimination is never invoked as a causal factor.

Here’s a clear example of the disparity fallacy: a recent study by researchers at Stanford, Harvard, and the Census Bureau found that, “[a]mong those who grow up in families with comparable incomes, black men grow up to earn substantially less than the white men.” A New York Times article attributed this disparity to “the punishing reach of racism for black boys.” But the study also found that black women have higher college attendance rates than white men, and higher incomes than white women, conditional on parental income. The fact that black women outperformed their white counterparts on these measures, however, was not attributed to the punishing reach of racism against whites.

Economic disparities that favor blacks have been reported for decades, yet they have rarely if ever been attributed to anti-white systemic bias. A 1994 New York Times article reported that, among college graduates, black women earned slightly more money than white women did. In addition, the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out that, as early as 1980, U.S. census data show black college-educated couples out-earning their white counterparts.3

The black/white unemployment gap provides an even older illustration of the disparity fallacy. Many commentators have reflexively attributed the modern unemployment gap to systemic racism. But in historical eras with far more racism, the gap was reversed. According to Sowell, “[b]lack unemployment rates were lower than that of whites in 1890 and, for the last time, in 1930.”4 Facts like these, however, are never explained in terms of discrimination in favor of blacks. Indeed, why progressives only commit the disparity fallacy in one direction is never explained. What the writer Shelby Steele has said about progressives and racist events is equally true of statistical disparities that disadvantage blacks: When they learn of one, “they rent a jet plane and fly to it!”

It’s a sign of the poverty of our discourse on racial progress and inequality that the rarest findings are thought to be normal, and the most common findings are thought to require special explanation.

Indeed, it is rare to find any two ethnic groups achieving identical outcomes, even when they belong to the same race. A cursory glance at the mean incomes of census-tracked ethnic groups shows Americans of Russian descent out-earning those of Swiss descent, who out-earn those of British descent, who out-earn those of Polish descent, who out-earn those of French descent in turn. If the disparity fallacy were true, then we ought to posit an elaborate system that is biased towards ethnic Russians, then the Swiss, followed by the Brits, the Poles and the French. Yet one never hears progressives make such claims. Moreover, one never hears progressives say, “French-Americans make 79 cents for every Russian-American dollar,” although the facts could easily be framed that way. Similar disparities between blacks and whites are regularly presented in such invidious terms. Rather than defaulting to systemic bias to explain disparities, we should understand that, even in the absence of discrimination, groups still differ in innumerable ways that affect their respective outcomes.

Black culture

One crucial way in which groups differ is culture. Culture matters enormously. The importance of culture is, ironically, a value often expressed by progressives. When presented with arguments that point to genetic influences on human behavior, many on the Left respond by emphasizing the importance of culture over genetics, that is, nurture over nature (see Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate for more.) Moreover, cultures differ from one another. This is true by definition. It’s unclear what the “multi” in “multi-culturalism” could possibly mean if cultures were all the same. Put these two premises together, and you arrive at what should be an equally banal conclusion: if culture matters enormously, and cultures differ from one another, then differences between cultures matter enormously.

But, together with the disparity fallacy, the denial of cultural explanations for disparity has become the received view among progressives. Coates, for instance, has dubbed cultural explanations of disparity “lazy.”5 Others believe such arguments to be intrinsically racist when applied to blacks. The sociologist and award-winning author Michael Eric Dyson has argued that cultural explanations of black/white disparities are seen by whites as “heroic battles against black deficiency.”6

But intuitive examples of the importance of culture are all around us. Disparities in athletic achievement, for instance, are inexplicable without reference to culture. Although blacks make up 14 percent of the U.S. population, they account for only 8 percent of MLB baseball players. This relatively small disparity has been enough to prompt articles in US News, NPR, and Vox that blame the decline in black baseball representation on everything from mass incarceration to racial bias to a generic sense among white fans that “baseball culture should stay white,” as the Vox piece summarized it.

Meanwhile, blacks account for a staggering three-fourths of all NBA basketball players, while whites account for a mere 18 percent. Curiously, progressives have not seen the under-representation of whites in basketball as requiring any explanation whatsoever. When whites are under-represented somewhere, it is assumed to be a choice or a cultural preference. But when blacks are under-represented somewhere, progressives descend on the issue like detectives to the scene of an unsolved murder, determined to consider every possible explanation except for the “lazy” one: that in black culture, basketball is more popular than baseball.

Strangely, it is only among thought-leaders that these twin dogmas—the disparity fallacy and the denial of cultural explanations—have become gospel. Black people themselves are, on the whole, open to other ways of thinking. For instance, 60 percent of blacks attribute disparities in income, jobs, and housing mainly to factors other than bias, according to a 2013 Gallup poll. A more recent Pew poll found that 60 percent of blacks without college degrees say their race hasn’t affected their chances of success in life. The belief that cultural factors don’t influence outcomes, too, seems to be the special province of progressive intellectuals. For example, when asked by Pew in 2008, 71 percent of blacks said that rap was a bad influence on society. Nevertheless, for years progressives have accused those who criticize harmful elements within black culture of “victim-blaming,” never stopping to wonder whether the supposed victims actually felt blamed by such observations.

It’s no accident that the majority of blacks don’t view racial bias as the main issue they face today. Indeed, there is reason to believe that culture, rather than bias, is the primary cause of unequal outcomes for blacks. {snip}

{snip}

The disparity fallacy and the denial of cultural factors conspire to create a dynamic that I call the Racism Treadmill: as long as cultural differences continue to cause disparities between racial groups, and as long as progressives imagine that systemic racism lies behind every disparity, then no amount of progress in reducing systemic racism, however large or concrete, will ever look like progress to progressives.

Indeed, it may be a mistake to think of progressives as engaging in progress-oriented activism to begin with, because that would imply that they are progressing towards some specified endpoint. But if the progressive definition of ‘progress’ ends with a disparity-free world that will never—indeed could never—exist, then progressives are left with a Sisyphean politics; an agitated march to nowhere in particular.

{snip}

Staying on the Racism Treadmill means denying progress and stoking ethnic tensions. It means, as Thomas Sowell once warned, moving towards a society in which “a new born baby enters the world supplied with prepackaged grievances against other babies born the same day.”[15] Worse still, it means shutting down the one conversation that stands the greatest chance of improving outcomes for blacks: the conversation about culture.

By contrast, getting off the Treadmill means recognizing that group outcomes will differ even in the absence of systemic bias; it means treating people as individuals rather than as members of a collective; it means restoring the naive conception of equal treatment over the skin-color morality of the far Left; and it means rejecting calls to burn this or that system to the ground in order to combat forms of racial oppression that grow ever more abstract by the day. At bottom, it means acknowledging the fact that racism has declined precipitously, and perhaps even being grateful that it has.

Original Article

TOPICS: L

OBAMA'S WAR - AGAINST AMERICA

      (I copied this from vdare.com---Hugh Murray)

Manufacturing Dissent—The Ruling Class’s Saul Alinsky Strategy in Ferguson MO

By James Kirkpatrick on October 26, 2014, 9:36 pm

The past and much-anticipated future riots in Ferguson, Missouri aren’t spontaneous civil disorder—they are an example of how the U.S. is governed in the multicultural, post-American age. Undeterred by the Trayvon Martin farce, the Main Stream Media, professional racial activists, and Obama’s Justice Department are implacably committed to the story that police officer Darren Wilson murdered “Gentle Giant” Michael Brown, regardless of the facts. And the riotswidely predicted if Darren Wilson isn’t indicted are less a protest against police misconduct than a ginned up attempt to ensure black voter turnout. It’s not a protest against the system—it’s the system working as designed.

We’re certainly getting enough advance notice of the riots. Michael Brown’s aunt is promising that Officer Wilson will “feel and see the wrath of God’s vengeance come… in a mighty way, just as he promised all who do evil in his sight.” [Brown’s Aunt Warns Officer Wilson Will ‘Feel the Wrath of God’s Vengeance,’ CBS St. Louis,October 22, 2014] Oddly enough, the usual suspects eager to mock Christianity when it is expressed by white conservatives seem silent about these Westboro Baptist-type promises of divine retribution.

Protestors are vowing that if there is not an indictment, “all hell is going to break loose.” This includes professional racial profiteers like Amy Hunter [Email her] “racial justice director” of the YWCA St. Louis. Hunter (pictured right) coos that

Everybody is planning for whatever the grand jury decides… Certainly there are lots of us that are planning peaceful protests should it not be indicted. Certainly there are other people that have other ideas at hand.

[Tensions Rise After New Michael Brown Shooting Details Are Released, CBS St. Louis, October 21, 2014]

What those “other ideas” entail, only Ferguson small business owners can know for sure.

The riots in Ferguson never really stopped—they just transitioned into a permanent campaign by extreme Left activists. “Ferguson October” is the latest attempt by several organizations to capitalize on and continue social unrest. And these organizations are exactly what you expect– a grab bag of explicitly anti-white and anti-American groups like the New Black Panther Party in alliance with various Palestinian solidarity organizations, Socialist splinter groups, and MSM-approved “moderates” like the NAACP.

The MSM’s willful blind spot is vital to this movement’s success. Remember, patriotic protests are regularly sabotaged by reporters who play guilt by association, smearing protests because of the attendance of “extremists” the MSM doesn’t like—even to the point of playing guilt by association with no actual association.

However, when it comes to anti-white or anti-American movements, the participation and even leadership of protests last summer by openly racist and anti-Semitic figures such as Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party was calmly excused and even praised by “mainstream” outlets. [No headline can prepare you for Infowars’ Live Ferguson Coverage, by Matthew Phelan, Gawker, August 19, 2014]

Nor were any eyebrows raised about the sponsorship of groups like the “Universal African Peoples Organization,” which receives fawning coverage from the National of Islam’s Final Call and praises the late Black Nationalist mayor of Jackson, Mississippi, Chokwe Lumumba as an example to follow. [Universal African Peoples Organization celebrates 25 years of service, by Saeed Shabazz, Final Call, April 10, 2014]

These black nationalists were reinforced by out-of-town white Leftists. The results were predictable. In a kind of living metaphor, screaming protesters interrupted a protest by the St. Louis Symphony with their own ululations about Michael Brown. [Michael Brown protesters interrupt St. Louis Symphony Orchestra concert, by Steve Giegerich, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 6, 2014]

Whites who wanted to attend a baseball game suddenly found themselves confronted by screaming protesters. If they expressed anger against the people rioting in defense of looting and lynch mob justice, fans suddenly found themselves labeled as “ugly” byclickbait-seeking pseudo-reporters. [Cardinals Fans Get Ugly In Clash With Ferguson Protestorsby Tony Ley, Deadspin, October 7, 2014]

Protests have continued at sporting events, featuring blacks shrieking obscenities and spitting on and attacking whites. One white man who tried to save an American flag that was being waved upside down was attacked. Needless to say, the MSM decided this was simply a “brawl.” [Rams fans and protesters brawl after game,by Anthony Kiekow, Fox St. Louis, October 20, 2014]

A few days later, protesters in St. Louis decided it would be a good idea to burn the American flag.

These kinds of tactics come out of Rules for Radicals, the now-legendary handbook of social agitation penned by professional agitator Saul Alinsky. A great deal of Alinsky’s tactics focused ondisrupting the routines of the “white middle class” by preventing whites from escaping what author Paul Kersey has termed the “Black Undertow,” the chronic crime and dysfunction of black “communities.”

For example, Alinsky famously suggested that a group of a 100 urban blacks attend a symphony after a three-hour preconcert dinner at which they would be fed nothing but baked beans—with obvious disruptively flatulent consequences throughout the performance, a tactic that “connected with their hatred of Whitey.” (p. 141)

Alinsky also suggested blacks protest in white neighborhoods because whites were so racist that they would cave to any demands in order to keep their neighborhoods white. (p.144)

Of course, the reality today is these kinds of racially driven protests pit “one aggressive, unified side against an opponent that is totally unable to articulate a defense for itself, or even see itself as a side at all,” as Radix’s Michael McGregor puts it. [The One Sided Battle,October 14, 2014] Either way, the effect is the same—whites will not be allowed to escape.

The irony is that all this is happening as the martyrdom of Michael Brown is suffering complete Narrative Collapse.

• Michael Brown’s blood was on Officer Wilson’s gun and car door, exactly as would be expected after a desperate struggle.
• Black eyewitnesses reportedly support Officer Wilson’s casethat he acted in self-defense.
• Autopsy reports show Brown was not shot in the back (as was first maintained) and did not have his hands in the air. [Revealed Autopsy Destroys ‘Gentle Giant’ Michael Brown ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ Story, by Ben Shapiro, Breitbart,October 22, 2014]

What’s more, some of the protesters and even Michael Brown’s family members can’t keep themselves out of trouble. One Jamilah Nasheed, a black Democratic state senator, was arrested in Ferguson for failure to obey police officers and refused a breathalyzer after officers smelled “intoxicants.” She was also carrying a 9mm pistol and ammunition—which is legal under concealed carry laws but ironic because Nasheed usually votes against gun rights. [Just Guess What Ferguson Police found on Missouri Democrat Who Has Sponsored Several ‘Anti-Gun’ Bills, by Jason Howerton, The Blaze,October 21, 2014]

And Michael Brown’s family is providing unintentional comedy, as his mother, cousin, grandmother, and several others reportedly engaged in a violent brawl over $1,400 of revenue from selling Michael Brown T-shirts. This culminated in Brown’s cousin being struck in the face with a “metal pipe or pole” and going to the hospital. [Police investigating assault and theft following argument between Brown family relatives, by Chris Hayes, Fox 2 News, October 22, 2014]

Nonetheless, the Department of Justice is doubling down on the Brown story, condemning leaks from the Grand Jury investigating Darren Wilson. [Justice Department condemns Ferguson leaks as effort to sway opinion, by Matt Pearce, Los Angeles Times, October 22, 2014]. And the fact that the prosecutors in the Grand Jury may take the “unusual” step of not recommending a specific indictment means that the door is open for Darren Wilson to be hit with a lesser charge like involuntary manslaughter in order to satiate the mob. [What the Ferguson Leaks Tell Us About Michael Brown’s Death, by Alex Altman, Time, October 23, 2014]

Furthermore, the Democratic Party is shamelessly using the Michael Brown shooting to promote black turnout, for example in the close Georgia Senate race. The Democrats are essentially suggesting to black parents that Republicans want to shoot their children.

And, in what will surely delight white commuters who were forced to move away from Atlanta, protesters blocked traffic on the Downtown Connector. Needless to say, no one was arrested. [Protesters temporarily block Downtown Connector, by Ben Gray and Jon Gargis,Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 22, 2014]

The truth is that such leniency reflects the larger reality that the American political system is now utterly dependent on anti-white race baiting.

A media which can’t be troubled to expose the massive lawbreaking of the Obama Regime audaciously promotes stories about white racists hunting down innocent “black bodies” even though these morality plays are revealed to be a hateful lie time and time again.

A vast assemblage of “nonprofit” organizations and “anti-racist” campaigns survive on whipping up racial hysteria, even as the supposed communities they claim to speak for merrily butcher each other in formerly American cities like Chicago.

And the Democratic Party, beset by Ebola, foreign policy disasters, and voter anger at immigration lawlessness, now relies upon anti-white racism as the core of its program, memorably described by one Republican Congressman as a “War on Whites.”

A real government would actually try to maintain public order and enforce the law with ruthless coercion when necessary. Unfortunately, we are ruled by racial socialism. Promoting hatred against the historic American nation and demanding handouts is a feature, not a bug, of our system of government.

As the late Sam Francis described, the Ruling Class actually benefits from social dysfunction, and so there is no reason to believe this will end anytime soon.

The only question is what will end first—the United States itself, or the historic American nation’s toleration of what has become an enemy occupation.

James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.