Theothermccain dating marriage sex

From Robert Stacy McCain to all.

August 23, 1996

The somewhat discordant discussion of race relations which has broken out here in the past couple of weeks may be entirely unnecessary. In fact, it might be nothing less than the product of Communist subversion. (I’ll wait until the laughter stops.)

OK, now that we’ve got that over with … I live in Northwest Georgia, former home turf of Larry McDonald, a place where one still sees lots of “Get US out of UN” signs on the roadsides and stickers on the bumpers of cars. The local John Birch chapter is quite active they pitched in and bought me a subscription to New American which, unfortunately, recently lapsed. And, in the local used bookstore, one can find plenty of old hardright paperbacks tucked in among the history and political science sections. They’re cheap and interesting, and so I buy some of them from time to time.

I recently bought “The Bondage of the Free,” a 1966 analysis of the civil rights movement by Kent H. Steffgen, published by Vanguard Books. Steffgen’s analysis sought to explain to Northerners why the South reacted so passionately against federal intervention in civil rights: The South had seen this act before, during Reconstruction, they knew what it was all about and they hadn’t forgotten. Federal meddling had brought disastrous results during Reconstruction including increased racial animosity and Southerners, with their distinct history, knew that a renewal of such interference would cause further estrangement and demoralization on both sides of the color line. But the average Northerner, living in virtually allwhite communities, perhaps with only some token “integration,” could not understand what the South was so angry about, Steffgen explained. The South had this lesson from its past, while for the North the consequences of federal intervention were unknown. And he points out that hypocritical Yankees are unaware even of their own racial attitudes:

“Years of sustained pressure, tea leaves and glory road propaganda have not brought integration to New York City or to any other large city but instead, Harlem, the largest segregated Negro community in the world. As one spokesman has paraphrased it, the result of all the egalitarian outpouring … is that no white man or woman will live in Harlem under any circumstances.

“A dormant and contained Harlem gave liberal college professors at Columbia and New York University a onemile twilight zone from which to demand that New Yorkers abandon their “inverted” thought patterns and learn to accept the integration requirements of 20th Century society. But as soon as Harlem’s bulging population began to spill over in a downtown direction, out of the way fled these same professors to restricted neighborhoods where their children could be enrolled in allwhite schools.”

And, what is more, Steffgen predicts, agitation by the civil rights leaders and the consequences will lead to a GROWTH of racialist doctrines in America. This was especially true in light of Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1965 statement of the “next phase” goals: “We see not equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and a result.” (Note, this was AFTER the landmark legislation of 1964.)

Affirmative action, preferences, quotas and setasides were the obvious implication federal intervention to bring about economic equality between the races. If the black race were now actually to be the FAVORED race in the eyes of the government, Steffgen pondered, how would whites react? Survival is the first law, and as if possessing prophetic powers, Steffgen foresaw the rise of “14 words” racialist doctrine:

“President Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ … is an interracial society…. If this is what Americans wanted, they will have their chance to buy it now. A Negro will appear in every advertisement and televised audience scene. The cast of characters in major Hollywood productions will conform to the ‘racial balance’ requirement of the Federal government…. [Am I the only one thinking of ‘Montel’ here?]

“Americans will be told, in effect, that they must make a choice between their own heritage and prejudice toward Negroes. That is the way the Communists have it rigged. Ten thousand interracial themes will not beat a path to brotherhood but into the moral sewers which, in turn, will open up a market for the advocation of pure race doctrines from coast to coast and border to border for the first time in U.S. history. The cry will go up that subversive elements are trying to turn the United States into a nation of mulattoes and aboriginal gatherers. Having been partially submerged and withdrawn from the academic halls with the rise of progressive education during the thirties, physical anthropology, eugenics and the biological sciences will reappear and begin a renewed defence of the United States as a Europeanstyle civilization (which, of course, it is). After first *creating* the race issue, the Communists will now capitalize on their creation thus provoking a more or less logical reaction from Americans everywhere….

“It can be said with fair accuracy that while Americans don’t regard themselves as ‘racists in the sense the Communists and their allies are exploiting the term today, the vast majority .. [are] ‘race conscious’ to the extent that they practice selective association and seek out members of their own race and culture to marry; … and are conscious of their Caucasian and AngloSaxon ancestry…. To take pride in one’s heritage is not to entertain a hatred for someone else’s, other than by the twisted jargon of Communism. Nonetheless, it is this centurieslong code of traditional values and beliefs which will now be assailed and downgraded in order to bring the ‘social revolution’ of the Great Society into conformity with the laws an invertebrate Congress has already enacted.”

Fairly prescient, I would say, for something written in 1966. And we must beware, I believe, of reacting to the programme of our adversaries in ways which help them attain their goals. Their central goal, don’t forget, is to wield tyrannical worldwide power. Steffgen here calls our adversaries “Communists,” which tends to provoke laughter as evidence of paranoid McCarthyism, until we remember that communism is not a party or an agency, but an ideological doctrine. And anyone with a clear mind can see that this ideology is very prevalent in elite America today. Communists RULE America’s universities and communication media.

To say that one wishes better racial relations in a real sense is not to endorse the prevailing view of “diversity through homogenization.” I recently saw a young black woman that I had once knew when I was a smalltown sportswriter and she was a high school track star. She is originally from New York and had just gotten out of the Air Force a few months earlier and returned to Georgia. After some friendly banter, I asked her if she thought race relations were better or worse in the South than elsewhere in the country. About the same, she said, but then she immediately began a discussion of interracial relationships and how these are less accepted in the South.

This struck me as odd: Why should attitudes toward dating/marriage between the races be considered a litmus test of racial harmony? After all, as she later made clear, many blacks are extremely disapproving of such relationships. And yet an acceptance of “Jungle Fever” (Spike Lee movie about blackwhite dating, for those who’ve missed their multicultural sensitivity training sessions) is held out to us as the ultimate test of whether or not we’re “racists.”

As Steffgen predicted, the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.

And so when we see an overreaction to this programme, with people urging a return to Jim Crow or even advocating the formation of separate racial nations, the first thing we must understand is that we’re looking at a reaction that is not entirely illogical. What is necessary is to realize what is causing the reaction and to realize how emotionalism may prevent us from properly combatting the programme. WE MUST BE RATIONAL AND PRAGMATIC, for our adversaries are extremely rational and pragmatic in pursuing our destruction.

One final note: I majored in theatre in college. After reading Steffgen, I conceived of a oneact play dealing with this problem a play I’ll probably never write, of course. But the opening scene is of two high school students, a black male and white female. The black teen asks the white girl for a date. When she refuses, the boy answers: “Oh, so you’re a racist?” If this is the test, then, she can refute the accusation in only one way, correct? And, as you probably know, our modern education system is very laudatory of those who “combat racism.” Think about it.

Robert Stacy McCain

P.S.: My imagined play, by the way, would have what even Mr. Wheeler would consider a happy ending.