Are all Klansmen bad?

Brian W. Doss at Catallarchy writes:

Arnold’s post goes way too far by conflating the Islamist terror threat with all muslims and Islam. I do not support the idea that muslims per se are a threat, that islam by nature is violent and a death cult, nor do I support the idea that an entire religion’s adherents should be generally disarmed or otherwise made a permanent underclass as part of a strategy for peace.

This is kind of like saying that not all Klansmen are bad and that the Klan isn’t by nature violent or racist.

Comments

[TGGP]

The Klan is sort of a joke nowadays. Not only is killing passe, the group that legally owns the rights to the name "Imperial Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" doesn't even allow its members to use racial slurs. What's the point of donning the hood if you don't even get to do that?

[SFG]

Arnold’s post goes way too far by conflating the Islamist terror threat with all muslims and Islam. I do not support the idea that muslims per se are a threat, that islam by nature is violent and a death cult, nor do I support the idea that an entire religion’s adherents should be generally disarmed or otherwise made a permanent underclass as part of a strategy for peace.

I wouldn't go as far as you. Islam's having a bad few hundred years and Christianity was pretty bad four hundred years ago. I think the fault lies in Arabic civilizaton, not in Islam itself; there's plenty of nasty stuff in the Old Testament but you don't see Jews stoning astrologers or gays.

There are probably quite a few klansmen even during the era when it was strong who were good people outside of their participation in the klan. Richard Wright, in Black Boy, describes his encounter with a white man who was perfectly nice until he got onto the subject of race. Many of the Germans who committed genocidal acts were probably upstanding family men. It's one of the paradoxes of human nature, and probably an evolutionary adaptation from the era when we ran around in small bands: by allowing hateful behavior to an outside group, it allows groups to compete vigorously with each other for resources. Terribly maladaptive in a multiracial society like the US. But I think racism is probably more 'natural' than non-natural.

[Li]

Actually, the Klan was formed to protect the white southerners from blacks who really were raping, killing, stealing, and violently assaulting whites after the CW and slavery ended. Racist? Yes, as were the blacks who assaulted the whites. So what? Most of the blacks who were lynched really were guilty. If you don't believe that, perhaps you should consider the crime demograpics today, and the amount of interracial crime (overwhelmingly black on white). Maybe you don't like the vigilantism, but it sure made blacks afraid to harm whites. Now what is the situation?

If you don't believe me on any of that, look it up. Far more whites have been murdered in the last 40 years than blacks lynched in 100, probably by 10 to 20 times. Ditto with rape. And almost to a person, they were all innocent, unlike the lynched blacks, who were probably 90% plus guilty of what they were accused of. That's propaganda for ya'.

I think the southerners were right about race. Now all our major cites have huge, violent ghettoes (most notably the two founding cities of our nation--Washington DC and Philadelphia), crime and gangsterism is rampant, lauded by a socialist media, and blacks who can't do much at all are given race quota jobs and government benefits masse, sucking our wallets dry, and all they do is flip us the bird--no appreciation, recognition, or respect. What do you think will happen to this group of people once the quota jobs are taken away? It gonna happen, we can't just keep shipping good jobs out and importing more foreign workers to drive wages lower forever. Somethings got to give. My guess is that it will be AA, and damn the consequences. It'll be a heckuva fight, though.

I think what we have now is "terribly maladaptive". If you think not, just ask those who lived in the fifties and early sixties how wonderful american life was for 90% american white population then, and what its like for the 70% that remain now. There is no comparison.

[The Superfluous Man]

The sanctity of open borders is tacit here, and so the threat from Islam must be managed and somehow reduced, say through extra security. Were it not, allowing the entry of Muslims would not survive scrutiny, what with the necessary adjustments, like a more militarized society, both domestically and internationally. So we must cope with the tenets of that faith libertarianism.

Its shocking how doctrinaire and stupid libertarians can be. Admittedly, they are right on many if not most issues. But that's almost a coincidence, in that they arrive at their positions through ideology, not empiricism.

(Ugh, that site is impossible to copy paste from.)

"Most of the blacks who were lynched really were guilty. If you don't believe that, perhaps you should consider the crime demograpics today,"
Because the blacks lynched yesterday are committing today's crimes. Brilliant! I was interested in whether the KKK was formed for the reason you propose, but you failed to cite evidence. Regardless, civility dictates the use of due process, not a witch huntin' lynchin'. (Are you Chinese?)

[ChrisV82]

"Actually, the Klan was formed to protect the white southerners from blacks who really were raping, killing, stealing, and violently assaulting whites after the CW and slavery ended."

No, the first incarnation of the KKK assassinated Republicans after the Civil War.

"Most of the blacks who were lynched really were guilty."

No, they weren't.

"If you don't believe me on any of that, look it up. Far more whites have been murdered in the last 40 years than blacks lynched in 100, probably by 10 to 20 times."

Okay, I looked it up.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/race.htm

Oops, you're wrong. What a shock!

"Ditto with rape. And almost to a person, they were all innocent, unlike the lynched blacks, who were probably 90% plus guilty of what they were accused of. That's propaganda for ya'."

Yes, your propaganda. Hideously wrong.

"Now all our major cites have huge, violent ghettoes (most notably the two founding cities of our nation--Washington DC and Philadelphia), crime and gangsterism is rampant, lauded by a socialist media, and blacks who can't do much at all are given race quota jobs and government benefits masse, sucking our wallets dry, and all they do is flip us the bird--no appreciation, recognition, or respect."

I live in Philadelphia. I do not fear black people (mostly because the violence is all black on black or white on white, not black on white) and the level of "respect" I am given by them is no more or less than any other race or ethnicity.

"If you think not, just ask those who lived in the fifties and early sixties how wonderful american life was for 90% american white population then, and what its like for the 70% that remain now. There is no comparison."

Just think about what life was like for the good white Americans like the Irish in the 1880's. What? You mean they weren't given the best jobs? You mean they had to take crappy jobs because they were treated like crap? Well, how about the good white Americans like the Italians in the 1940's. What? They were treated as poorly as blacks? I don't understand!

In conclusion, you're an idiot.

[ChrisV82]

Alright, I just caught something, and I have to make a correction. I misread something originally:

"If you don't believe me on any of that, look it up. Far more whites have been murdered in the last 40 years than blacks lynched in 100, probably by 10 to 20 times."

I know this is hard for you to understand, but white people are killed by all kinds of races, including other white people. The fact that a bunch of people have been murdered does not somehow excuse vigilante justice which resulted in the death of men who were never convicted by a jury.

You're still an idiot.

[spungen]

Is this the same Li who urged us last week to focus less on sociology and economics, and more on theater and music?
I guess he meant we should watch "Birth of a Nation" and listen to Prussian Blue.

[SFG]

And they're not even good singers, either.

I did find the Happy Hitler t-shirts amusing. I know why WS love AH so much...he killed lots of Jews...but if you think about it der Fuehrer was the worst thing that ever happened to white nationalism. Before WWII it was OK to be racist, but then everyone saw the truckloads full of dead babies' shoes and it wasn't so cool anymore.

You guys need a new hero.

[Li]

Why do you think I'm chinese just because I sign my name Li? Is half sigma greek just because he signs his name sigma? Must have learned those blazing logic skills at the big name U.

First of all, in any account of Klu Klux Klan you're likely to find on the internet, almost none will give an accurate description of the organization. After all, they are the great demons of the American racial landscape. I'm simply taking on an opposing viewpoint in order to show that the situation was far more complex than what you generally believe. After the Civil War, you have to remember that the southerners were a conquered nation. Southern whites were forbidden to hold elective office, civil service postions, vote, etc. Many blacks and northerners comprised the militias that imposed martial law on the white southerners. And crime was absolutely rampant. All kinds of northern "republicans" and "entrepreneur" carpetbaggers and shysters were coming out of the north to make a lot of money off of the defeated southerners, through bribery, theft, and or swindle. You need to think of it as the situation that any country faces when it is defeated in war. Of coursse the blacks were out killing, raping and stealing from whites. To carry around the historical illusion that they were all just poor, innocent people wandering around, with no homes and no jobs on ruined plantations is ridiculous. Many sought "vengence", even against the innocent (just like now). I can't believe that you are so naive about human nature!

Of course many lynched men were guilty. You forget that blacks and whites were both lynched. Why do you assume that just because someone was killed that they were innocent? I think that's laughable. Due process? Do you realize the writ of habeus corpus was suspended then? And really, whether someone is guilty or not is really independent of whether they can win in court. Again, am I advocating throwing out trial by jury? Of course not. But thinking that just because people were killed without it doesn't mean that the killed were all innocent. Far from it. Do you think those guys fighting in Iraq wait to find out if the people shooting at them are guilty beyond reasonable doubt before firing back? Or that life in the lawless west was always so neat and clean? Not a chance.

If you think I sympathize with with everything the Klan has done just because because I recognize the white southerners need to re-establish their own rights and defend themselves, well, you would be wrong about that too. I'm just pointing that hisotry is not so simple, and the Civil Rights movement is not really the great shining victory for our nation that many claim it to be. If you would ask me what the alternative is, that blacks go back to second-class citizen status and that we should tolerate that, I would simply answer you with another question. My question would be based on practical rather than ideolgocal grounds. I would ask what system worked out the best for the greatest number of American citizens? Was life better for the majority of citizens then or now? Another question would be what would black America look like of the laws really were enforced, if quota jobs, bogus scholarships, political pandering and payoffs were not given out? Would these people ever be able to not only compete with american whites, but also with Europeans, Chinese, Indians, Indonesians, hell, anybody at all? How would their status be much different than it was pre-1964? I wouldn't be so fast to blame it on welfare. Welfare has been available to white americans and white europeans, and they don't have huge ghettoes filled with gangs and violent criminals. How bad is it? In Chicago, where I live, over 50% percent of all black males have a criminal record. And those are just ones who got caught, AND convicted. And its getting worse. What happens when the welfare state collapses? We're bankrupt now, what happens then?

FWIW, I live in a big city and there is a tremendous amount of black on white crime. If you want a good summary of interracial crime, go to www.amren.com and check out the report called "The Color of Crime". I already know that you will hate the site, but all the data in that report is compiled from FBI and other government sources in order to confirm clearly what we all really know--that blacks are committing a huge amount of crime against whites, that the perception of danger from blacks is real, and that it shows no signs of abating. Hundreds of thousands of white people have been murdered by blacks over the last 40 years. Many hundreds of thousands of white women raped by blacks. Millions of violent assualts, millions of robberies and other property crime. In a war, the assaulting group kills the men, rapes and steals the women, steals the property, and takes over territory. It seems clear to me that a long-term war is being perpetrated against the majority of the citizens of this country, unrecognized and unnamed in the popular press. Not only is the violence being perpetrated, but for some reason, we have to give up our rights. opportunities, and jobs to these people as well (FWIW, I've never been aced out of a job by a quota-jobber). Since you all seem so intent on siding with those upon whom the law has trampled, I would expect some consistency here. Probably not though.

Also, in my previous post about how trying to outcredentialize the next guy for a cubicle job is getting harder to rationalize, given the fleecing of the credulous credential-chasers and the opportunity costs so associated, I was merely taking an unconventional viewpoint, as I am now. You may not agree with me, but in any event, it will give you something to think about in the cubicle on Monday. Have a good week.

[Kirk]

From what I understand, the original KKK was started by Nathan Bedford Forrest (of Forrest Gump fame), but he disbanded it sometime in the 1880's because it became too violent.

The modern KKK was created sometime in the 20's or 30's, by a dentist whose name I forget. It was reborn in Marion, Indiana. (Yes, Indiana.) I used to work with a guy from there. He said it's still the most racist place he's ever been.

[The Superfluous Man]

"After the Civil War, you have to remember that the southerners were a conquered nation."
Lynchings continued long after the Civil War. You're right that Habeas Corpus was suspended, but lynchings continued after its restoration.

I didn't dispute your point about the criminality about blacks.

Aren't the white plantation owners more to blame than the blacks? If the latter's criminality is to some extent ineradicable (eg, http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/07/genotype-recidivism-and-indefinite.php not that I really know at this point) you're faulting the blacks for continuing to exist.

South Africa is a far clearer support of your position than America. I think SA will fall into typical African despotism, as the whites leave. White flight will continue until the blacks there will have no white wealth to conquer and divide. And then it shall become painfully clear how the apartheid (or some component thereof) was good for everyone involved, both the Whites and the Africans. The issue in America is nowhere near as clear.

What is to be done anyway? The solution with the greatest odds of occurring is probably some medical intervention to reduce aggression.

BTW, I'd say AmRen is respectable, while say, the National Vanguard is definitely not. As a wikipedian said, "Jared Taylor is the model of a respectable white nationalist." Not that I'm a WN.

[bbartlog]

Kirk - your basically right, though the second founding took place a little sooner (Wikipedia has the goods as usual if you want to look it up).
As for the crime - black people do indeed kill more white people than the other way around. The DOJ link that chrisv82 provides to prove Li wrong does nothing of the sort; it shows that more white people than blacks are murdered every year, but gives no account of who is doing the killing. Since the number of murders (not the rate) committed by blacks and whites is about equal these days, the difference between the lines approximates the black on white murder surplus. You would need to dig up the NCVS stats on victim and perpetrator race to get a better estimate if you really cared, though. Or as mentioned above there's amren.
Thing is though, if you want to start comparing this evil with past evils like lynching, it would seem that black people have a rather monstrous grievance, in the form of slavery, to balance the scales. And I'm also not such a fan of dwelling on the intra- versus inter- racial violence angle; to hear some people tell it you'd think things would be much better if blacks only killed blacks and whites only killed whites, but last I checked we're all US citizens and law enforcement is supposed to minimize the total number of people murdered, not make sure that murder stays within racial groups. On that score we seem to be dong pretty well these days.

[jack]

Aggression is ascribable to higher testosterone levels. There is abundant evidence illustrating how blacks have more testosterone than whites. Put simply, black violence is not necessarily due to poverty or anything, but due to the fact that blacks are more predisposed to aggression. So, affirmative action etc wont solve black criminality-the problem is endemic and deep rooted in black genetics.

[Li]

As a last comment I would say Wikipedia might be a fast, but inaccurate source. Lots more to find out beyond the limited and biased purview of that site, not just on this issue, but many others.

Modern day blacks have no reason to be biased against whites--not one has suffered from slavery, which, by the way, ended about 140 years ago in America. Add in the trillions of dollars of handouts. Please don't buy into that baloney. If that's a good rationalization, then the egregious violent behaviors, robberies, rapes, and murders in the last 40 years would be proper justification for a renewed tide of violence by whites against blacks.

One of the reasons you don't dwell on interracial violence is that you have largely segregated yourself from your black neighbors--just like the southerners did. Funny how that solution keeps popping up, huh?

And Jack, please spare us the uber-masculinity argument about blacks and their supposedly higher testosterone levels--I'm not buying it. Last time I checked, aggression is not only exhibited in violent behavior, but also in working hard for long hours, taking positive risks, and other types of generally societally redeeming behavior. If blacks are so aggressive, then why do they have such a reputation for laziness? Hard to reconcile, what with all that supposedly extra energy?

[The Superfluous Man]

Rushton (http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf) cites two studies indicating that testosterone was in one, 10-20%, and in the other, 10-15% higher among black college students than in their white counterparts. Black military veterans had only 3% more. Due to selection issues, I expect that the disparity is greater, at college-going age. Any analyses on the relative importance of factors in causing crime, such as testosterone vs. IQ?

I wonder how much IQ alone explains crime, rather than just correlating with it. Ashkenazi Jews are a suggestive example. They have an IQ about 0.5-1.0 SD above the white mean (110 is a middle of the road estimate). And they seem to have a crime rate of about 80% of that of Central and Eastern Europeans (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=890&letter=C&search=Crime%20among%20Jews). So, despite having a higher IQ than East Asians, they commit more crime, in my extremely crude analysis. There are surely some issues. Their crime rate probably varies much depending on the type of crime (eg, fraud vs. violent crime). Stereotypes (to which there is often a grain of truth) suggest more the former (which HS has documented) than the latter. This only applies to Ashkenazim. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, Jews of African descent (eg, Moroccan, Algerian, Egyptian) committed about 4-5x as much crime in Israel as Ashkenazim. Jews from the middle east (Iraq,Yemen, etc.) did about 2-3x as much.

[bbartlog]

'One of the reasons you don't dwell on interracial violence is that you have largely segregated yourself from your black neighbors'

I don't know whether this was directed at me, but my zipcode is 11% black and I get along fine with a couple of my black neighbors. Drove one of them to the hospital to the other day when his mother had a heart attack. If I don't dwell on violent crime and/or interracial crime, it's because violent crime is not much of an issue one way or the other these days - rates are quite low by historical standards. Also, I agree that no one should use historical injustices to justify their current behavior, but you opened this intertemporal can of worms when you compared and contrasted lynching with modern black on white violence...

[jack]

Let me add that testosterone levels are greatest in blacks, middling in whites and lowest in asians - crime statistics (incl murder etc) move correspondingly. Also, I believe that such levels influence culture. Black culture is typically loud and expressive ("gangsta rap") while Asian culture is more spiritual. Whats more, note that testosterone is the reason men comment most violence. I believe culture is determined biologically. Also, IQ levels are highest in asians, then whites and then blacks. Theres a great book "The IQ of Nations" on these topics.

Also, Ive read that IQ induces myopic behvavior ("instant gratification"). Thus low IQ levels of blacks and higher testosterone levels goes a very long way to explaining their overrepresentation in crime statistics. The bottom line is that "wars on poverty" etc are destined to fail with blacks. Also, Africa is ridden with ethnic conflict. This are issues of enormous importance.

Li said:
" If blacks are so aggressive, then why do they have such a reputation for laziness? Hard to reconcile, what with all that supposedly extra energy?"

Blacks expend their energy in other areas - like gang wars and violence. The fact that blacks do little work doenst invalidate this argument. In fact it might lend it more support - since they likely have more energy for criminality.

[Random Black Guy]

To those who state that black genetics cause the problems in the black community. What should be done with black people? Should we be exported back to Africa and left to fend for ourselves? Or should we eradicate black people from the world. Given that the problem is genetic, there isn't much that we can do.

I don't hate white people, but if you're going to state that black people are a perpetual problem for whites, then please come up with an approproate solution for dealing with "us".

[Spungen]

I wonder if Half Sigma foresaw his post leading down the path these comments have taken.

If not, that's what he gets for casually tossing in the Klan to make a point about Muslims.

[Garth]

That was one of the dumbest comments I've heard. Islam is a religion founded on love of God and being a good person. It has been corrupted, like all religions can be corrupted, by some who use it as wedge against those they are opposed to. Islam is used because it is convenient, not because there is anything violently inherent in it.

The Klan, being based on repugnant notions of race superiority, bears no relation to Islam at all and the sooner we start treating the root causes of terrorism, which does not include Islam, the safer we will all be.

[jack]

"I don't hate white people, but if you're going to state that black people are a perpetual problem for whites, then please come up with an approproate solution for dealing with "us"."

Like I said, I think the problems are largely genetic. In this sense, there is no solution, as such. However, once we recognise this, it becomes strikingly apparent that other "solutions" are pointless. That recognition in itself is enormous progress. Just consider the abject failure of the "wars on poverty" within black communities in the US, and the devastating failure of foreign aid to Africa.
All we can do is seek to mitigate the associated problems. But, currently, policies like welfare programs only aggravate them. If blacks were forced to seek employment, say, -as opposed to welfare- then those innate aggressive tendencies would be put to better use. Indeed, many blacks of course have succeeded -what Im saying is that its a lot harder for blacks to succeed.

[Li]

That's right bbartblog, only 11%. You need to relocate to a majority black area, and see what those are like. My guess is that you would never live there, as most of those who do would love to get out. But you stay in highly pale regions, and so do those blacks who live near you for exactly the reasons I stated above--to ensure your own safety. Your neighborhood may be 11% black, but please tell us what the overall percentage of blacks are in your area, especially if you live iin a big city? See, what I am getiing at is that blacks are still underrepresented in your neighborhood with regard to the general population in your area. It was a nice try, though. Maybe some of your black neighbors should sue you all to increase that percentage of blacks in your neighborhood like they do companies to get race quota jobs. But I guess they aren't that stupid. We know that would be a money-losing proposition for you all. No reason to put their hands in your pockets if there's no money in it, is there?

As far as what we should do with blacks, first I'd say we should get them all to follow the law. We could start at the bottom of the ladder, with the massive welfare, social security, medicaid/medicare frauds they run. Cut that off. Next, we really go after the gangs by killing these terrorist organizations and their members. The only reason gangs are formed is to break the law. Annihilate them. Next we throw all of the race quota blacks out of their corporate and governement jobs and give them to those who are better qualified and do a better job. There should be plenty of other lower paying jobs they can take then, as the now discrimated move up. Next, we eliminate all charitable contributions, such as scholarships and other handouts which are directed solely at blacks, since that is illegal by means of the Civil Rights Act. Next, we get rid of the race quotas at universities and colleges, which are also illegal. Yes, we make blacks full citizens by requiring them to actually--drum roll please!--FOLLOW THE LAW!

Then we let the chips fall where they may, and oh buddy, will those chips fall! Its coming anyway, as companies ship good jobs out and our politicians ship massive amounts of foreign labor in. The middle class keeps shrinking, goes ever more deeply into debt, sees the opportunities dwindle, and then finally, changes its mind. Survival trumps charity. We are just a major recession and business cycle or two from the whole thing falling apart. And when it does, I expect it to get quite ugly. People now are generous, not complaining as they might, thinking they can get opportunities elsewhere. But when that fails, watch out! Just look at how the young french rioted when the government tried to eliminate their jobs for life! Unemployment is so high, that the young french will fight tooth and nail for those jobs. That's also why AA is not in force there. The US and Britian will also have to get rid of it in a few years.

Yes, then the perpetual dependents will have to grow up and live on their own wits. What will I do then? Ignore them, separate myself from them, and lead a relatively happy life without them, that's what. What they will do is really the topic of speculation. I would like our black poster to tell us what will happen then, when blacks finally have to live within the law. Watch him or her either ignore the post, or try to throw it back at the general white population somehow.

[Half Sigma]

I respect everyone's freedom of speech, which means nothing unless people are allowed to state opinions which are extremely politically incorrect. As is often stated, the freedom of speech means nothing if people are only allowed to say what the majority agree with.

However some issues are so sensitive that they need to be approached with the utmost tact, even though it may seem that an unfair double standard is involved.

I've decided to close the comments on this post, because I didn't really intend for the comments to wander in this direction.