https://crimethinc.com/2017/03/15/slave ... -two-modes
White Nationalist Richard Spencer Gets His Money From Louisiana Cotton Fields—and the US Government
Two weeks after the presidential election, white nationalist Richard Spencer held forth on a cable news show about how white people built America. "White people ultimately don't need other races in order to succeed," he told the audience of the black-oriented program, NewsOne Now.
The exchange grew heated as host Roland Martin questioned Spencer's rhetoric: Didn't slaves help build America? Wasn't the nation's 19th-century economic boom propelled by the slave labor that produced the world's cotton on Southern plantations?
America's rise was "not through black people" and "has nothing to do with slavery," Spencer retorted. "White people could have figured out another way to pick cotton," he said. "We do it now."
He is in a position to know. Spencer, along with his mother and sister, are absentee landlords of 5,200 acres of cotton and corn fields in an impoverished, largely African American region of Louisiana, according to records examined by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting. The farms, controlled by multiple family-owned businesses, are worth millions: A 1,600-acre parcel sold for $4.3 million in 2012.
The Spencer family's farms are also subsidized by the federal government. From 2008 through 2015, the Spencers received $2 million in US farm subsidy payments, according to federal data.
"I'm going to navigate the world as it is," says Spencer, "and I'm not going to be a pauper."
Although Spencer has attracted extensive media attention as a leader of the so-called alt-right movement—particularly after he drew Nazi salutes at an event celebrating Donald Trump's election—he has never explained publicly how he supports himself while actively promoting his agenda via conferences and media appearances. The finances of his nonprofit think tank, the National Policy Institute, are a mystery; the organization hasn't filed a public report since 2013. On Monday, the Los Angeles Times reported that the IRS revoked the institute's tax-exempt status.
Spencer, 38, is a dropout from a Duke University Ph.D. history program who emerged during the Trump campaign as one of the nation's most visible white separatist agitators. In his writing, speeches, and interviews, he has given an intellectualized explanation for how he came to advocate creating a whites-only "ethno state" in North America. While in graduate school, he has said, he was compelled by critiques of multiculturalism and political correctness and by demographic data indicating that whites are en route to minority status in the United States.
But the Spencer family's business interests and geographic history suggest a different possible lineage for Richard Spencer's racist politics. The family's farm holdings are a legacy of its ties to the Jim Crow South, passed down by Spencer's grandfather, who built the business during the turbulent civil rights era.
Spencer declined in an interview this week to discuss how much money he personally receives from cotton farming and government subsidies, and whether that income funds his political activities.
"I'm not involved in any direct day-to-day running of the business," he said, later adding, "I'm going to navigate the world as it is, and I'm not going to be a pauper."
One Spencer family farming company, which holds title to 400 acres of land, is called the Poor Richard Partnership.
Matt Forney Says Gamergate and the Trump Campaign Were Signs of a White Revolt
At the recent Identitarian Ideas IX conference in Sweden, one of the more unorthodox speaker choices was Matt Forney. After all, Forney, the racist pickup artist, domestic abuser, and Michelin Man doppelgänger , has spent years boasting about sleeping with Filipino women — though I suppose that hasn’t stopped fellow skinhead Andrew Anglin from being accepted in white nationalist circles either.
Forney gave a speech on Donald Trump and white identity politics in the United States, telling the audience, “I don’t think I need to remind anyone that the election of President Donald Trump was a turning point in American and European history.” The ruling class, he said, has spent decades telling conservative whites that “we were on the losing side of history,” and that the future of their civilization was to consist of “fruits Frenching their boyfriends in front of empty churches,” mosques in the cities their “forefathers labored to build,” and “swarthy foreigners” who eye “our sisters, wives, and girlfriends the way lions stare at gazelles.”
...Forney complained that being white means being “the world’s whipping boy,” since white people are “blamed for everything” including pollution, poverty in Africa, and manspreading. What’s even worse, he claimed, is being a straight, white male, “because you’re told that your natural masculine instincts…make you an oppressive misogynist.”
He then attacked transgender children who “become a funhouse mirror version of the opposite sex” and affirmative consent laws which can, apparently, get a man accused of rape for kissing one’s wife. And according to Forney, poor, underprivileged white men have been “pursued” by the Left and given “no place to call their own.” Except, of course, bars, most college campuses, businesses, the military, and the halls of Congress.
Nevertheless, Forney believes that white men have nothing, not even video games which has “long the province of virginal nerds.” He referred to 2014’s Gamergate movement as “he first successful backlash against cultural Marxism in most of our lifetimes” and the moment the “white man of gaming” saw Leftists and feminists trying to take away their precious hobby.
The Anger of White Men
As white men, anger and betrayal might be the unfinished business of our ancestors. Ours are the ancestors who learned to blame themselves for their suffering, to individualize their anger and see their neighbors as competitors rather than allies. Ours are the ancestors who sacrificed their unique cultures for the unsatisfying pseudo-culture of whiteness. Our ancestors allowed racism, sexism, and hatred of the other to divide themselves from those with whom they had common cause. All for the promise that if they simply worked hard enough, they would have wealth, ease, and love. A promise that has been broken over and over, a promise that increases the wealth and power of the elite while we cling even harder to the lie.
We have been given a shitty deal. Theodore W. Allen talked about white privilege as a “baited hook,” something that traps us even as it seems to give us a treat. Deep down, we know the wealth we desire comes from the oppression of others. We know our anger keeps us from the solidarity we desperately crave. The system that exploits our dreams and desires wants us to be hateful and wary of women, people of color, and queer folk. It wins when we see ourselves as competitors fighting over scraps rather than comrades who demand more.
Our ancestors oppressed and colonized, but that’s not all they did. We have ancestors who joined with Black people in the fight against slavery and segregation. We have ancestors who fought for freedom, social equality, better wages, the right for people of all classes, races, and genders to vote. We do not have to bear our burdens alone. All we need to do is be willing to share the burden of others. We can join them in the forest.
Let’s turn our anger to the people who benefit from keeping our wages depressed, not the people who take whatever they can get to support their families. Let’s turn our anger to the banks who foreclosed on our houses and the government that paid for their mistakes. Let’s turn our anger to those who would rather pay us to endanger our lives doing violence in foreign countries than spend that money investing in our healthcare, schools, roads, and bridges—all of which would create jobs. Let’s turn our anger to the corporate practices that dump waste in our water, that eviscerate our forests, that poison our health.
Our anger is fire. With it we can bring warmth to the world. This is necessary.
The South African Connection: How American White Supremacists are Assisting an Afrikaner Group Prepare for Race War
In 2006, Gustav Z. Müller founded the Suidlanders — a South African survivalist group whose mission is to prepare for what they believe is a massive race war.
“Scientific racism” is on the rise on the right. But it’s been lurking there for years.
In the 1990s, conservatives popularized two sometimes competing, sometimes complementary theories on race that shared the same assumptions and goals:
a belief that a nonwhite “underclass” was the central cause of American decline;
a belief that problems in black and Latino communities were a result not of racism but rather shortcomings inherent to those communities; and
a belief that no government program could alleviate the struggles of nonwhite Americans.
These ideas shaped two of the decade’s most influential conservative books on race, The Bell Curve and The End of Racism. Both were political works of scholarship, drawing from fields of sociology, psychometrics, and history. Both were written by conservatives opposed to multiculturalism, affirmative action, and government programs for the poor. And both took theories of cultural and scientific racism, dressed them up in the latest academic fashions, and received a warm welcome from conservative intellectuals and policymakers.
“The Bell Curve” has many new fans on the alt-right — and still inspires protests on the left
In 1990, Charles Murray was forced to change jobs. He’d spent the 1980s at the Manhattan Institute, where he wrote his influential book Losing Ground, which argued that government-directed social welfare programs increase poverty and should be cut. The book, popular within the Reagan administration, provided a social science justification for deep welfare cuts.
But then Murray clashed with the conservative think tank’s leadership over his next project: a study on race and IQ. The general tenor of the project was easy enough to guess, even in its early stages. Murray was partnering with Richard Herrnstein, a Harvard psychologist who in 1971 published a piece on IQ in the Atlantic, in which he argued that a society without a strict class structure would soon become an intellectual aristocracy, with high-IQ people clustered at top and low-IQ people at bottom. Herrnstein believed this was already happening in the United States, as high-IQ people increasingly married one another, creating a growing divergence from low-IQ Americans.
Herrnstein was focused on social status, not race, in evaluating IQ differences, but believed that it would be easy enough to devise a study that tested for a connection between IQ and race. Twenty years later, he found a social scientist eager to explore the issue: Murray.
Murray and Herrnstein’s book, The Bell Curve, was published in 1994, generating immediate controversy for its arguments that IQ was heritable, to a significant degree, and unchangeable to that extent; that it was correlated to both race and to negative social behaviors; and that social policy should take those correlations into account. Stuffed full of charts and equations, the book was, according to Murray, “social science pornography.”
With that description, he had intended to underscore that the book was teeming with data and regression tables. But given that most pornography is an expression of the fantasy life of white men, it was more on the nose than Murray knew. At any rate, he delighted in the controversy that followed publication. (Herrnstein died in September 1994, and so was not part of the post-publication debates.)
Murray engaged his critics in deliberately slippery ways (and continues to be slippery on the topic). He maintains, for instance, that The Bell Curve is not centrally about race, in large part because the chapters focused on black and Hispanic IQ scores are few in number and don’t appear until halfway through the book. But this is like saying the Harry Potter series isn’t about Voldemort because he doesn’t show up in full, corporeal form until the end of book four. Voldemort is the engine of the book series, the character that propels the plot forward. In The Bell Curve, race — that is, racial differences tied to heritable genetic traits — serves the same function.
Murray and Herrnstein’s book, The Bell Curve, was published in 1994, generating immediate controversy for its arguments that IQ was heritable, to a significant degree, and unchangeable to that extent; that it was correlated to both race and to negative social behaviors; and that social policy should take those correlations into account.
Intelligence is a core construct in differential psychology and behavioural genetics, and should be so in cognitive neuroscience. It is one of the best predictors of important life outcomes such as education, occupation, mental and physical health and illness, and mortality. Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits.
Via: http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1 ... 4105a.html
Expanding the Slaveocracy
Matt Karp and Eric Foner
March 21, 2017
One of the interesting things you talk about is the intellectual world of the 1850s, where scientific racism was very rapidly gaining a hold on “enlightened” thought, the pseudoscience of craniology. The notion that human beings were divided into groups called races, and some of them were superior, and some of them were inferior, was more powerful in this period than it had been thirty or forty years before.
We don’t appreciate enough the extent to which the intellectual currents of the brightest minds of Western civilization across the nineteenth century were moving away from a belief in basic human biological equality.
The Republican Party, in some sense, is fighting into a headwind, against Harvard, against Oxford and Cambridge, against the Sorbonne. You can laugh at some of the more cuckoo Southern slave doctors in the 1850s, who were doing weird experiments on lungs and so on. But the intellectual pedigree of this scientific racism was actually growing, and it continued to grow, across the late nineteenth century.
People like Louis Agassiz at Harvard, one of the most eminent scientists in America, is being claimed by Southern slaveholders as someone who supports their position about fundamental human inequality. The Republican Party, and the mid–nineteenth century antislavery movement in general, in some sense moved against the grain intellectually.
American Dream » Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:49 am wrote:The Bell Curve failed rather miserably at peer review.
American Dream » Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:56 pm wrote:To this day it is widely considered to be highly biased, crackpot/fringe "science". Alt-Right types and others of that ilk do tend to love it. If anything, the scientific/academic consensus that has developed in the last couple of decades has become even more sharply critical.
American Dream » Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:37 pm wrote:I've been watching the Bell Curve current (sometimes out of the corner of my eye) for two decades now. I am satisfied that it is not generally valid with regards to the overall methodology, conclusions and agenda- and that this is the general academic consensus.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 30 guests