There was an irritating whining coming from the idiot
box this week as TV personality Bill O'Reilly got into a snit about
a whites only prom that took place on May 2, in Butler Georgia.
dogs could tell you all about this. Stupid bell rings and they can't
help salivating. Can't control it. Comes from the subconscious. Never
registers on the conscious. Bell ring...drool. Stimulus...response.
Whites want to have all white prom...spout self-righteous nonsense.
His wires that seem to be going in the wrong direction
seem to mostly involve race.
In fact, the white students didn't
do anything to the black students. Nothing at all. They didn't keep
them from the regular school prom--the government sanctioned one--which
went on as planned. They didn't keep blacks from having their own party
if they wanted. They didn't call them names. All they did was have their
own private party in a private location with private money. Just like
free people do all the time.
the students simply prefer dancing with other whites. Perhaps they prefer
talking to other whites. Perhaps they realized that proms are rites
of passage into adulthood and that proms and similar quasi-intimate
social situations are courting events and preludes to romantic choices.
Such events are one of the mating rituals of our society. Perhaps these
white students prefer to mate with people who will produce children
who look like them and who carry their genes and who will be their posterity.
Maybe they realize that mating with non-whites may lead to their eventual
extinction. Maybe they would only state it as "I want to date fellow
whites. Period." Maybe they didn't want to muck up their mating
ritual with people who they do not consider to be mating choices. Chances
are they also didn't invite any married people or old people either.
Subconscious motivations aside, it was their right to have a private
party and to invite only those they wanted to invite. Nothing could
be more American. It would have been truly unAmerican to force them
to invite anyone they didn't want to invite and to force them into a
courting situation that may be against their beliefs. Some might even
call this a variety of rape. Some might also say that people, even white
people, have a right to do what they want with their genes and their
bodies, and this means that no one can force others into social situations
that they don't want to be in.
didn't say it, but one suspects that someone who shares his views might
say something like, "The white students just hurt themselves by
not having blacks at their private party." Of course others, who
are still capable of critical thinking about race, might ask how, exactly,
did they hurt themselves? What did they lose by not being around people
they didn't want to be around? The answer is: nothing. In fact, they
probably had a nice time and enjoyed themselves. They didn't feel they
had to watch what they said, lest they hurt a black's feelings. They
didn't have to feel they had to act black lest they offend a black.
They didn't dance with people they didn't want to dance with. They didn't
waste their time with members of the opposite sex who they had no romantic
interest in. Of course, had blacks been at the party and had whites
not danced with them, O'Reilly would probably be complaining about that.
And, if the whites didn't kiss the blacks, he'd probably be complaining
about that also. Where does it stop? If they didn't eventually have
sex with and bear children with blacks, he'd probably complain about
that. If their children weren't mixed race, he'd probably be in another
snit. In his May 8, column, appearing on his Web site, O'Reilly shows
his lack of consciousness by writing "What is it about the UNITED
States that folks don't understand? United means we are all in this
together." I would ask O'Reilly, "What is it about FREEDOM
that you don't understand? What is it about GENOCIDE (even if it is
bedroom genocide) that you don't understand?"
me, O'Reilly's comments illustrate a larger problem with our conditioned
masses. These masses don't really believe in freedom except when it
is in keeping with their own preconceived brainwashed PC views of reality.
The masses have been reeducated away from nature's truths and indoctrinated
with false truths. O'Reilly also writes in his May 8 column that "Nobody
is willing to state that a segregated school event in the year 2003
is unacceptable behavior." Well, in the first place, it was not
a "school event." If it had been a [public] school event,
that would have been unacceptable. But it wasn't. It was a private party
held by teens who did not use tax payer supported facilities for their
party. This is not unacceptable even in 2003 PC, post-American America.
Not yet at least, and it never will be so long as people fight for true
freedom and their right to choose their own destinies and can make their
own choices, free from the intrusion of the government and its lackeys,
in their personal lives.
the white students could have been nice little brainwashed automatons
and had a certain number of blacks at their party. They could also have
had a certain number of Asians and a certain number of this and a certain
number of that. They could have made their party look like those phony
PC ads for some product or other that look like a mini U.N. or a scene
from the Star Wars bar. They could also have then listened to rap music
about killing whitey and they could have been told that they don't know
how to dance. Then they could have listened to blacks talking about
things, perhaps in a black patois, that may not interest the whites.
They could have then gone out in their cars and necked with blacks.
The whites could have done all these things. But why should they? Why
should they do what they don't want to do? They weren't hurting anyone
and they weren't breaking any laws. Why shouldn't they have a party
with people they want to be around? Why pretend that you are something
you're not? Why not just party with people you like to be with? Isn't
a party about letting your hair down and having fun? If you don't feel
comfortable around some others, for whatever reason, why invite them
to your private party? What does freedom of association mean if it doesn't
also mean freedom to not associate with others? Had these been blacks
holding the private party it is doubtful that O'Reilly would have even
mentioned this matter. And, if this is true, wouldn't it them be reasonable
to ask O'Reilly whether he understands the concept of noblesse oblige
his column, O'Reilly then goes off the deep end and brings up 9/11 and
soldiers in Iraq. I kid you not. It's like the old "If we can put
a man on the moon," argument. O'Reilly writes:, "The soldiers
who are defending us against those killers and their enablers are all
colors." Huh? So what? That means we can't have private parties
with people we choose to be with? Are our soldiers protecting our "freedom"
to be forced to dance with those we don't want to dance with? O'Reilly
also writes, "That 17-year-old black student (O'Reilly's imaginary
student who we're supposed to identify with) at Taylor High has been
taught a lesson that will stay with him the rest of his or her life.
And that lesson is that skin color can disqualify you from attending
a social event." Of course, this is just the old skin color equals
race argument that blurs the fact that race is far more than skin color.
But, his point, if properly restated, is "race can disqualify you
from attending a social event." Of course it can. Just as religion
or any other characteristic can. If it's a private social event, you
don't have a right to attend and you can be excluded by the hosts for
whatever reasons they have. Freedom means people can choose. You may
not agree that you should be excluded, but it's not your party. You
didn't organize it. You didn't pay for it. If Jews don't want to have
non-Jews attend a Jewish event, should they be forced to do so? If blacks
want to have a private black event should they be forced to invite whites?
America is not supposed to be about forcing people to associate with
others if they don't want to, or not associate with others if they want
to. Forcing people to do either, really is unAmerican.
important thing to remember about this, and the thing that O'Reilly
seems to want to gloss over, is that this private prom was not done
with any tax payer money or support. It was private. It was paid for
with private funds and it was on private property. As such, it's really
none of O'Reilly's business who was, or who was not invited, any more
than it would be our business who O'Reilly invites to his parties and
for what reasons.
what O'Reilly may believe, no one in this country is duty bound to mix
with others. Such mixing is often used by totalitarian governments to
destroy distinct peoples. It was tried with the Jews a number of times
in history as various nations tried to force them to mix with other
peoples and disappear into a common gene pool. Hanukkah is a Jewish
holiday that is about Jews resisting being blended away. Or, to put
it different terms, the Jews went to their own proms, that's why they
still exist. Forcing people to mix and blend was also tried with the
Gypsies in Eastern Europe. It failed. The Gypsies went to their own
proms. Had the Jews and the Gypsies followed the rule of O'Reillly,
there probably would be no Jews or Gypsies alive today. But it's apparently
okay with those who take a line similar to O'Reilly's for non-Jewish,
non-Gypsy whites to be blended away by not being allowed to go to their
truth is that we are our genes and our genes are us. Change the genes
and you change the person. All of us, including the Irish, such as O'Reilly,
are who we are because of our genes; not because we were born into any
artificial modern nation. People such as O'Reilly may now say that they
are just unhyphenated Americans, but this doesn't give an honest clue
to who a person really is, as does, say, the word "Irish."
Should O'Reilly visit that "foreign" land of Ireland, he would
find that he looks more like the people there and shares more with the
Irish, on a deep, basic, genetic level than he does with a black who
may live across the street from him in America. This is so, because
O'Reilly's forbears went to their own exclusive proms. "American"
is a veneer that is pasted on top of what is real and genuine. This
does not mean that those who understand this, are unpatriotic or that
they aren't proud to be Americans, but it does mean that they have,
unlike O'Reilly, apparently, scratched the surface of existence and
know there's more to who they are than is taught in high school civics
classes. And, more and more white people are starting to understand
that it is okay to be white, and that they don't have to apologize for
wanting their families to remain so, and that they have a natural right
to have their own private proms if this is their choice, and if they
pay for them, themselves. This is the American way of freedom and self-fulfillment.
This is what it means to be truly free and to have the right of free
association, even if some others don't want them to have such freedom
and such a right.
Another thought occured to me. Could it be that O'Reilly is so confused about race, ethnicity, and genetics that he believes "Black Irish," means that there are Irish Negroes and that he's one of them? Was he upset because he thought he was being excluded from the prom?
# # #
TWO ICONOCLASTIC BOOKS BY H. MILLARD!
(Available at finer bookstores, by phone, or on the net)
The links appear to work on some software and not on others. If they dont work, you can order via phone.
1. ROAMING THE WASTELANDS
NEW! JUST RELEASED! H. Millards latest sacred cow toppling