Blogger, libertarian and bigot Andy Nowicki has been giving some thought to the extinction of his ‘race,’ — which he believes to be “white people.” He is also considering what is wrong with the American Right. Nowicki is peeved, as much with conservatives as liberals. He says that the Right is wrong not to be more racist.
He has posted his lamentations at Thornwalker.
There is much consternation on the Right these days about low birthrates in Western countries and all that this trend signifies.
Naturally, the consternation is shared only by real conservatives, not the Limbaugh/Hannity shilling-for-Bush crowd, which may be called the “Right-light.” After all, expressing concern about the decline of the populations of Western countries is equivalent, basically, to saying that you care about the future of the white race. And that’s “racist,” isn’t it, class? Yes, of course it is. What good little boys and girls you all are. You’ve learned your lessons well.
Of course, I needn’t add that the same principle doesn’t apply for anyone of any race other than whites, because you already knew that, too. Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and anyone else of a non-Caucasian persuasion can care about the futures of their races, but whites are not allowed to be anything but indifferent about what will become of their own kind. White “Right-light” spokesmen such as Rush and Sean, and their legion of (predominantly white) followers, don’t dare say they believe in anything other than “colorblindness,” racially speaking. They don’t spend much time worrying about the fact that white people aren’t reproducing, and if by some accident they happened to stumble upon Pat Buchanan’s book, they would conclude that the “death of the West” he describes is much ado about nothing.
. . .It would never occur to them that the precipitous demographic decline of the white race could have many unpleasant, unwanted ramifications, not just for white people, but for all people. After all, they aren’t so “racist” as to think that race can mean something more than mere color of skin, i.e., that St. Martin might have oversimplified things a bit for rhetorical purposes.
For despite their seeming refusal to get with the multicult program, most Limbaugh Republicans are good little boys, too. They capitulate to neo-Stalinist etiquette and use terms such as “African American” whenever possible, ostentatiously furrow their brows over “racism” (a concept they never define but still acknowledge as the greatest evil to befall the world since man’s expulsion from the Garden), and claim St. Martin as one of their own. At the same time, they never demand to be called “European Americans” and always shy away from truly biting satire, such as demanding that whites receive reparations in return for being subjected to cannibalism and the more modern varieties of violent crime. And they wouldn’t mention the Wichita Massacre for a million dollars — not that most of them need the money, anyway.
Let’s be clear on what white people mean to Nowicki. Like many racists, he believes all the fruits of civilization have been the output of Europeans. Darker hued humans are either dependents — the white man’s burden — or savages bent on destroying civilization, ergo references to cannibalism. (Which, incidentally, has been rare in human history. One hopes Nowicki does not sleep in a full metal jacket in fear of being eaten.)
But, why is the intemperate fellow angry with Rush Limbaugh? As many of us know, the drug-addled talk show host has made noises in support of ‘scientific’ racism. Last year, he claimed that black Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was not up to task, apparently because planning plays requires the ability to think.
However, on Sunday, September 28, Limbaugh went for it when he probably should have punted. He said: ”I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,” Limbaugh said on Sunday’s show. ”There is a little hope invested in [Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan] McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.’
For someone like Nowicki, Limbaugh does not go far enough. The commentator did not explicitly state that blacks have brawn, but not brains. (Though anyone familiar with racist thinking knew what Limbaugh meant.) Nowicki prefers white conservatives who do not blanch from being explicitly in favor of white supremacy. So, he approvingly cites Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, one of the foremost racists in the country. The Southern Poverty Law Center has profiled the man.
Taylor entered the active racist scene in 1990, when he began publishing American Renaissance, a magazine that focuses on alleged links between race and intelligence, and on eugenics, the now discredited “science” of breeding better humans.
“Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured its wealth out to aliens,” Taylor wrote in his magazine, under the pseudonym Thomas Jackson, in 1991. “All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind.” Blacks, Taylor writes, are “crime-prone,” “dissipated,” “pathological” and “deviant.”
. . .In the late 1990s, he came out with The Color of Crime, a booklet that tries to use crime statistics so as to “prove” that blacks are far more criminally prone than whites. That racist booklet is now a staple of white supremacists like former Klansman David Duke.
Taylor is a racist’s racist.
Nowicki says he does see a silver lining in the decline in the ‘white’ birth rate worldwide. That’s because he believes the extinction of whites will mean the end of liberalism. According to Nowicki, nonwhites lack the ability to sustain an ideology, including the one he most hates.
What is one to make of blogger, libertarian and bigot Andy Nowicki? I believe he is representative of public opinion that is not as fringe as some pretend it is. That kind of opinion — openly white supremacist — is readily available on the Internet, including in the blogosphere.
What is the Wichita Massacre? In 2000, two African-American robbers killed four people they victimized. The victims were white. Why is the crime described as a ‘massacre’? The terminology makes it seem equivalent to much more deadly episodes in American history. Racists often exaggerate crimes in which the perpetrators are nonwhite and victims white to support their claim people of color are genetically disposed to violence.
Note 2: Enjoy a mixed grille of fine blogging at Mac-a-ro-nies.Powered by Sidelines