“For forty years I’ve been involved with black men in basketball, karate and business. I have known really great guys like Marc, Rocky—liberal intellectuals like Brad and this kid I used to teach who now lives in Paris and has a black power radio show—and a whole bunch of knuckle-draggers and scumbags. Hell, I was a hippie, believed black men were heroes and that Nixon was the Devil back in nineteen-seventy-two—even got shot defending a black guy from some Italian monstrosity.

“Most of my students have been black. Probably my best moment as a teacher came twenty years ago, instructing at Shabumi. A racist, black Muslim woman, who I knew hated me because of the color of my skin, watched me teach a class and then approached me. I thought I was in for it, about to get vilified for making black kids do pushups. She told me that I was an excellent teacher. It’s nice to get an unfiltered compliment like that. It made me work harder. Now, I know nothing about the women—I leave it to you to plumb the mysteries of African American womanhood.

“There are only two things that I have noticed about black American men—other than the propensity for violent crime— that really bothers me and I have seen it in every single one of them:

“One, every black man I have every known has regarded it as a sacred duty to have sex with as many women as possible. I’ve known white guys who were unfaithful to their women. I have never been unfaithful to a woman, and do not agree with it, but do understand it. But this idea that you absolutely have to try and have sex with every woman you come into contact with is simply beyond my comprehension. I am currently teaching with Rodney [his assistant], a really super church-going guy. I could not imagine him cheating on his wife, and am hoping he will be the first black guy to answer following question from a none-racial perspective.

“Two, and most disturbing. When I ask a white man, ‘Are you a man who happens to be white, or are you a white person who happens to be a man,’ they will mostly choose to identify themselves as a person first, and by their race second, if that. Asking that same question to black men every single one of them has answered that they are black first and a human being second, that before they are a human being they are a member of a race, as if they are some kind of bacterial spore.

“Personally, as long as blacks and other groups see themselves as members of their race first, and human second, I don’t see any hope for addressing the problems with our society, particularly the problems with blacks, who commit most of the violent crime. Do you realize that if we suddenly had no black people in this city that crime would evaporate, that we would go from three-hundred and forty-odd murders to three?

“What are your thoughts on that, Mister Jim? You seem to be the internet voice of disenfranchised white men. Why do white men see themselves first and foremost as human beings and blacks see themselves first and foremost as black?”

I believe I am a man first and a racial vector second, and [black] Brad believes he is a racial vector first and a man second, because we are both slaves to the same liberal master and according to our different functions are bound to the same vast lie that is civilization, specifically the unique experiment of American Civilization.

When England first colonized North America in the 1600s, and relied on Indians to keep their white and black slaves on the plantation, they did not want the white slaves to identify themselves as English, or Scottish or Irish, but as bond-men, just as the blacks were merely bond-men.

From 1674-82 there was a series of combined white /black slave revolts [one was white, black and red], which convinced the ruling class to increase the number of blacks [who were vastly outnumbered by the whites] and begin handling each population according to separate terms in order to play them off against each other.

In the 1750s, with increased Indian hostilities, it was found necessary to arm the white servant class. Once this was done they had to be directed away from the plantations and toward the Indians. At this point, it was increasingly difficult to employ poor whites to eradicate Indians in order to obtain more resources and also serve as slave-catchers of runaway blacks, without playing to their racial identity.

Previously, in most societies, it was normal for only a minority of the members of any nation to identify with the nation. The Spartans and Athenians were outnumbered 10 to 1 by slaves and resident “stranger friends.” The Aztecs and Incas were vastly outnumbered by subject ethnic groups, which contributed to their downfall against the Spanish.

There are various ways of addressing this problem, such as displacing peoples and forcing them to migrate to areas where they will be culturally out of place, such as the Incas and the Assyrian did regularly.

Romans were vastly outnumbered by their slaves while their Empire was growing. The Imperium stagnated when so many of the conquered peoples obtained citizenship that most of the subjects of Rome were “Romans.” After this happened you see Roman officials employing gladiators [warrior slaves] as security forces and emperors employing foreign mercenaries as main force military units.

Other empires—such as the ancient Egyptians who employed black police, the Ottomons who employed Christian slave soldiers in the form of the Janissaries, the Byzantines who employed Norse mercenaries, and now the New York City Police department, which is actively recruiting immigrant officers from Africa, Latin America and the Middle East—have utilized foreign law enforcers who will lack empathy for the population in order to see the will of the State done.

In 1800s America, with the extermination or subjugation of hundreds of Amerindian tribes by racially motivated poor white men, the United States had a vast land—nearly a continent—to domesticate and cultivate. This was established in unbelievably short order—a mere two generations—by racially motivated and entitled men and women who believed, for perhaps the first time in human history, that the State was an instrument of their will, rather the normal relationship that has typified man’s relationship with the State as its servitor.

Having achieved its greatest territorial extent with the Spanish American War the United States no longer had—as an entity of subjugation—fresh conquests against which to direct racially identified whites of the lower classes—which is to say most whites. Therefore the 1900s saw the gradual erosion of white identity, as a strong white identity could now only threaten the State. The fact that the failed German effort to dominate Europe was pursued with overt white identity overtones, and that this feature of the conflict was cultivated into the dominant narrative, insured that the moral sustainability of any white identity movement would be weak.

White identity politics were abandoned by the U.S. Government as a tool which task was in the past. Rather a generic “American” identity, to be shared by all, was proposed in the interim. As soon as this was accomplished the government of the United States gradually put all of its weight behind advancing the cause of racial animosity. The three mechanism for this were (1) an infliction of white guilt to undermine any form of racial solidarity among the majority white population, (2) a fanning of a spirit of violent racial entitlement among the minority black population, and (3) the importation and neglect to assimilate people from nations that have been victimized by the U.S., insuring that the majority white population will be hemmed in by unsympathetic groups, just as the Roman citizen of the late empire was at the mercy of the urban mob and the rural barbarian immigrants.

In summation, whites see themselves as American or people first and whites only in extremis, because this best serves the interest of the State by weakening solidarity among its majority subjects.

Likewise, blacks see themselves as blacks first and Americans second, because this best serves the interest of the State, in terms of cultivating an aggressive mob population large enough to threaten the unarmed white majority, but not vast enough to in any way threaten the State itself.

Finally, the importation of vast numbers of people who do not identify themselves as human or American first, but according to various foreign perspectives, puts a varied and potent tribal toolkit in the hands of the State, which will be able to mobilize auxiliary threats to the white majority in rural areas where black mobs function poorly if at all, and at levels of social sophistication where the urban mob is found wanting, such as in the media and academia, and ultimately as a check on black America, which stands as the most disposable segment of the population in the long run.

In my opinion the American State, as the entity is currently evolving, will be most sustainable as an information plantation for the continued domestication of humans, if it has a population that breaks down as follows according to form and function.

Majority: White, 40%, production/consumption

Minority: Latino, 30%, production/consumption

Vested Auxiliary: Black, 15%, threat, redistribution

*Non-vested Majority: Islamic, 10%, threat, redistribution

Specialized Auxiliary: 5%, management

*Dependence on this type of force provider was one of the military factors that sunk the Roman Empire, as well as medieval Egypt.