Replacing Shakespeare with Malcolm X
JUST WHEN you thought that the people running this country already had inflicted every sick and degenerate program imaginable on us, they come up with yet another program wackier and more destructive than anything which has gone before. This time it’s a program by the San Francisco Board of Education to step up the rate of “multiculturalizing” of the curriculum for San Francisco’s public schools by phasing out most White influences.
For a long time, of course, the more “progressive” elements — that is, the nuttier elements — in America’s educational establishment have been fretting about exposing young people to all of the racist, sexist, homophobic, and elitist influences inherent in the writings of White authors from generations less Politically Correct than our own. These include all of the writers whose works American schoolchildren traditionally have read: Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Dickens, Tennyson, and Kipling. They are hateful people when viewed from a Politically Correct perspective. I mean, Homer and Chaucer completely ignored Blacks, as if they didn’t even exist! And Shakespeare made a number of very insensitive references to Jews. Kipling was an unabashed White supremacist. And they were all elitists: not an egalitarian among them. “Progressive” educators have skirted this problem by censoring the works of White writers before presenting them to students, keeping the more objectionable works out of sight.
Now the educators have a much better plan. Instead of censoring the White writers, they will replace them with non-Whites. In the new curriculum for San Francisco’s public schools 70 per cent of the reading assignments for students will consist of works by non-White writers — or “authors of color,” to use the trendy language of the new policy statement. For every three books written by White authors which students read, they must read seven books written by non-White authors. Actually, most of the school-board members would like to get rid of all of the White authors, because all of their writings are contaminated by racism, even if it isn’t explicit. But they’re willing to accept paring the Whites down to 30 per cent as a first step.
There have been a few protests against the San Francisco curriculum from conservative teachers around the country, but they didn’t challenge the policy at its core. Rather, the critics said things like, “of course everyone supports more diversity, but quotas aren’t the way to achieve it.” After all, who wants to be condemned as a “racist” for speaking in favor of a mostly White curriculum? Who has the courage to go on record as saying that multiculturalizing the curriculum inevitably will debase it? Isn’t that equivalent to saying that non-Whites haven’t written works whose quality matches those of Shakespeare and Dickens? And so most of the more conservative educators are side-stepping the issue, while the real nut-cases proceed with their multicultural programs.
Now, lest you jump to the conclusion that this is a Black-versus-White issue, I assure you that many of the proponents of the new San Francisco curriculum are neither Blacks nor Hispanics. To be sure, most Black and Hispanic educators support the new curriculum. So do the Jews, although they’re being more discreet about it. And for the sake of appearances, a few Jews are even going on record as being against the new program. But the really interesting thing about this program for “multiculturalizing” the school curriculum is that it also is supported by many White educators. I suppose that shouldn’t surprise us when we consider how many White people voted for Bill Clinton. There really are a great many very sick White folks running around these days. This is the Clinton era!
I find it difficult trying to understand what goes on inside the minds of these sick people. I’m inclined to believe that many of them simply have been exposed to too much Jewish hate propaganda: they’ve seen too many hate films, such as Roots, Schindler’s List, or Amistad, and they’ve taken them to heart. They’ve been filled with an artificial sense of guilt and turned against their own people. They’ve let themselves be persuaded that White people are inherently evil, destructive, and brutal, and that our main role in history has been exploiting, dominating, and harming non-White peoples, who are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive.
They believe that non-Whites can do a gentler and fairer job of running the world, that non-White intellects can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality and can build a more sublime civilization for us. Many of these sick Whites really believe this nonsense! It has become a religion for them, this idea of the noble, gifted savage held down by the wicked White man. They can read some crock of pretentious, angst-filled, drivel written by a non-White and believe that they’ve read something really profound. If it had been written by a White man, they would recognize it as drivel and laugh at it, but their religion prohibits them from laughing at non-Whites, so they take it seriously. They really believe that a non-White curriculum will be better for all students, including White students. They really believe that Whites will benefit from being “multiculturalized.”
And I think that there are others among the White supporters of the non-White reading program for San Francisco’s schools who are not religious, but they simply have a feminine tendency to go with the flow. They look at the changing demographic statistics for the United States, California, and San Francisco, where White children now make up only 12 per cent of the public school enrollment, and they figure that there’s no point in fighting the growing non-White majority. They simply can’t face the prospect of possible bloodshed and destruction which may be needed to reverse current demographic trends. Above all else they want a peaceful solution to non-White unrest, non-White crime, and non-White failure, and they figure that the easiest thing to do is give the public schools a non-White curriculum. Perhaps that will make the non-Whites happy, and the Whites will get along somehow.
You may wonder why I care what sort of curriculum there is in a school system which is only 12 per cent White. Well, I care in the first place because it is still 12 per cent White. I don’t want those White children subjected to any more of an anti-White brainwashing program than they already are. Second, I care because the sort of rot that is taking over the San Francisco school system is spreading, and the sooner we stamp it out the better. If we simply acquiesce to what is happening now in San Francisco, then it will happen all the sooner in other cities. San Francisco used to be a White city, and it used to have White schools. The same process that destroyed San Francisco’s schools is destroying the schools in every city in America. Everywhere we are seeing the same sickness among the educators and bureaucrats, and everywhere we are seeing the same changing demographics. The sickness must be stamped out. The demographic trends must be reversed.
I understand, of course, that it may take a civil war to reverse America’s demographic trends. But this war does not seem to be in the immediate future. This shouldn’t excuse us from doing what we can do now. We must fight the sickness which has infected our people, and that sickness is not just in education. We should fight Clintonism wherever it has raised its ugly head. We should fight the sort of Jewish hate propaganda which has poisoned nearly every aspect of our public life in America. We should expose the lies and the malevolent motivations on which this hatred of everything White is based, and we should help our people to develop a healthier attitude toward their own kind, their own race.
We can help even the least idealistic of our people — we can help even the most selfish and least altruistic of our people — understand that we are headed for certain disaster if we accept the nonsensical doctrine that non-Whites have as much to contribute to our civilization as Whites do and that White children can benefit by being raised on a diet of non-White literature. We can help them to understand that “multiculturalizing” our schools and our curricula already has lowered our educational standards drastically, and that if we continue along the same path we will end up with a less literate, less well informed, and less capable population than we have now.
And we can help the more idealistic of our people — the ones who care about things besides the gross national product — understand that the most important thing in a child’s education is the sense of identity and rootedness that he receives, his sense of peoplehood and racial belonging. That does not come from a multicultural education. It comes only from immersing him in the culture, in the ideas, in the history, in the spirituality of his own people. What I’m saying is that even if the 70 per cent non-White literature that the San Francisco board of education intends to impose on schoolchildren weren’t mostly anti-White drivel, it would still be bad for White children because it is non-White.
What I just said is a very important point, but I am afraid that of lot of my patriotic friends miss this point, so I’ll say a few more words about it. Most White Americans will agree with us that what the San Francisco board of education is doing is not a good idea. They will be cautious about condemning it because they don’t want to be perceived as racists, but even many of the morally and intellectually challenged White Americans who voted for Bill Clinton would vote against throwing out Homer and Shakespeare and Dickens to make way for Eldridge Cleaver and Malcolm X — if they could cast their votes secretly, so their liberal friends couldn’t see how they voted. But their reasons for voting against the San Francisco program would have a lot more to do with the gross national product than with racial identity and rootedness.
The most common objection one would hear from White opponents to the San Francisco program would be that it is not helpful to anyone — Black, Chicano-mestizo, or White — to teach them in such a way that it will be more difficult for them to be assimilated into the majority culture. If Blacks want to get ahead in a predominantly White country, it will be more helpful for them to study Shakespeare than Eldridge Cleaver or Malcolm X. And of course, exactly the same argument applies to White students. Nothing racist about that. The only White people who would disagree are the hard-core, nut-case Clintonistas — and of course, those pitiable souls I mentioned a few minutes ago who are tormented by the religion of White guilt.
Even conservatives — even patriots — seem to believe that the principal reasons why the San Francisco program is bad are that it substitutes inferior writers for superior ones, and it focuses on minority culture rather than on the majority culture. But to think that way is to miss the most important point. That point is that our children must be given strong roots in our culture, and what the Blacks, mestizos, and Asians do with their children is their business, so long as they don’t do it on our turf.
I hardly need to mention that my view of this matter is a racist view. The point I am making is a racist point. My patriotic and conservative friends who have not grasped this point have been trained to look at the world as individuals rather than as White men and women. Individualism is the new conservative religion, and it is really as disastrously wrong-headed a religion, as lethal a religion, as the religion of White guilt which motivates the White supporters of the San Francisco program. The individualist is as concerned about what sort of education Black, mestizo, and Asian children receive as he is about the sort of education White children receive.
In my religion the first commandment is, survive. Be fruitful and multiply. Grow strong, and safeguard the future of your children.
And the second commandment is, seek the future among your own kind. Know that each race of man, each species of animal, must develop according to its own laws, according to its own nature. Understand the nature of your own people, and base your plans for the future, your plans for growing strong, your plans for a strong and healthy posterity, on that nature. Preserve your kind.
My religion is a racist religion. It does not require me to hate anyone of another race or to harm anyone of another race, so long as he does not threaten or impede my own race. But it does require me always to put the interests of my own people ahead of any other race’s interests or any individual’s interest, including my own.
My religion is based on doing what comes naturally, on doing what my kind always have done — at least, what they did prior to the mass insanity which seems to have taken hold during this century. When we did what was natural for our people we grew strong, and no other people could stand against us. But when we let the religion of White guilt begin setting our policies for us, we began getting the sort of lunacy we have in San Francisco — and everywhere else, in different forms. The religion of White guilt gave us Bill Clinton in the White House. It gave us affirmative action, racial integration in our schools, and the immigration policy which is flooding our country with non-Whites.
I think that my conservative and patriotic friends agree with me on this. Having Bill Clinton in the White House is a disaster. It is not only a national embarrassment, but it is a grave national danger: it threatens the whole future of our country. And they agree with me that open borders, affirmative action, the new San Francisco curriculum, and the rest of the Clinton program are disasters for America, whether Clinton remains in the White House or not.
But I part company with many of my conservative and patriotic friends when it comes to understanding why these disasters have been inflicted on us and what we should do about them. I hope that as our situation in this country worsens, some of them will come to understand that their religion of individualism cannot save us, cannot even slow the pace at which disaster is overwhelming our people on all fronts. I hope that they will understand that a religion based only on individual interests, based only on selfishness, not only cannot save our people, but it cannot even protect their own, personal interests in the face of the disaster which is overtaking all of us.
The Blacks, Asians, and mestizos who want to base the education of children in San Francisco on Malcolm X instead of on Shakespeare understand what the individualists don’t understand. They understand that together they are strong. They understand that as long as the White man remains befuddled by his religion of White guilt or disengaged because of his belief in individualism, they will continue having their way. They understand that the country as a whole is moving toward a non-White majority in the next century, and that if the White man remains unable to look out for the interests of his own people, we actually will have that non-White majority, and then the non-Whites will be able to do whatever they want to do — and there will be hell to pay for us, liberal as well as conservative.
So think about it, all of you patriotic listeners who still believe in individualism, who believe that it is wrong to judge others by their race, who believe that racism is wicked: think about the direction in which our country is headed now and how you will act to change that direction as an individualist. And if you don’t come up with any really good ideas, perhaps you will consider the possibility that we ought to work together for a better future on the only realistic basis, and that basis is our common race, our common roots, and our common culture. You might consider the possibility that doing what comes naturally, doing what our ancestors for the last ten thousand generations have done may not be such a bad idea after all.
Perhaps you are still terrified of being thought a racist. So don’t call yourself a racist, if you prefer. But do understand that we must do whatever is required of us to survive first, to survive as a people. Understand that if we permit the sort of madness we can see in San Francisco and in Washington to continue spreading — as it is spreading now — we have no future as a people. Our children have no future. The Clintonistas will win. Our country will sink into barbarism. Our culture will be replaced by the culture of the Black African, the Mexican mestizo, and the slave-like Chinese. Our race will become extinct.
And all it takes to avoid that end and to have a healthy future is to work together for our people. Together we can put an end to the sort of rabble who have taken over our government. We can clean up the country and get it back on course again. Think about it. And write to me about it.
* * *
Source: Free Speech magazine, April 1998