A Modest Proposal for the Suppression of Negro Terrorism in the United States
By Tefel Hall
12 November 2002
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What would happen if America treated Blacks the same way that Israel treats Palestinians? This paper proposes just that. It is modeled after Jonathan Swift's satirical essay, "A Modest Proposal For Preventing the Poor People in Ireland From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public."
What is the proper name for black-on-white violence? Let us call it what it is: Negro terrorism. How else can we label the kind of violence which rocked Cincinnati last year? Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin gave us this disturbing account of those riots at the time:
This mid-Western city has been under siege since Monday, its downtown and surrounding suburbs overrun by black demonstrators targeting innocent white bystanders and businesses. Roving thugs have looted dozens of white-owned shops, burned down several buildings, and vandalized police precincts and fire stations. City Hall, which had 28 windows smashed to bits on Monday night, is under lockdown. So is the Cincinnati police headquarters, where an American flag was pulled down from its flagpole and hung upside down.
It would be nice to imagine that such incidents are rare, but they are not. For example, in 1991, Negro mobs terrorized New York City's Crown Heights neighborhood, screaming "Heil Hitler" as they smashed cars, stoned homes, and looted Jewish-owned stores (qtd. in Malkin). And from Seattle to New Orleans, Negro terrorists have brutalized whites, shouting incitements such as, "Hey, there's another whitey; let's kick his ass"(qtd. in Malkin).
It is time Americans took a serious look at some very sobering statistics. Negroes are eight times more likely to commit violent crimes than whites (Jackson). And Negroes are seven times more likely than whites to commit the heinous crime of murder (U.S. Department of Justice). Clearly, American Negroes are predisposed to hatred and violence. And equally clearly, appeasing their escalating demands has not worked: since 1868, when Negroes were first granted the right to vote, there have been more than 40 major race riots in the United States (Footnote 1). These kinds of riots continue to the present day, despite the numerous and generous concessions which white America has made. When will we finally learn? You cannot negotiate with terrorists, because it only encourages them to further violence!
The solution
The problem of Negro terrorism may seem intractable, but in fact it is easily solved. All that is required is some innovative thinking, and it is in this spirit that I make the following proposal: the US Congress should immediately repeal the 14th and 15th amendments to the US Bill of Rights. By repealing the 14th amendment, we could deny Negroes due process and equal protection under the law; by repealing the 15th amendment, we could also deny them the right to vote. With these simple changes, whites could once again gain supremacy over their own homeland.
Naturally, a few minor technicalities would have to be overcome. For example, our legislators would have to define exactly who is a "Negro." In the 19th century, Negroes were sometimes defined as anyone with "one drop" of Negro blood, while to be considered white, one had to have "pure" white ancestry (Wikipedia). Such criteria may be too stringent for modern sensibilities, but that should not discourage us from trying to define race. Instead, we might look at the example of another democracy with a terrorism problem: Israel. Israel is probably the only western democracy that still has race laws, and the way that Israel enforces these laws should prove helpful to us in America.
For example, Israeli law currently defines a "Jew" as anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent (M.F.A.). Following this model, the U.S. might stipulate that anyone who wished to be classified as "white" must prove that their ancestry is at least one-quarter northern European. And, like Israel, we could periodically alter this definition, in order to ensure that the white race always has a substantial political majority.
Israel also provides us with an excellent example of how we might deflect charges of racism. Artfully, Israel has relatively few laws which are explicitly racist, and since most of these laws deal with immigration, it is hard to unequivocally denounce them. After all, is it not the right of every country to control its immigration policy, even to the extent of admitting or rejecting only certain races?
This argument, however, is a ruse. The clever deception is neatly explained by Menron Benvenisti, a former deputy mayor of Jerusalem:
The outrage over the Drukman Law [that would have allowed the establishment of communities for Jews only] was attributed to its being the first time that the country's lawbooks would explicitly refer to different laws for Jews and non-Jews, other than the Law of Return. But in the 54 years of the state's existence, an entire lexicon of laundered euphemisms have obviated the need to bluntly define ethno-national discriminationâranging from "the absentees," to "army veterans" and "those eligible for citizenship according to the Law of Return." Most of the national-ethnic discrimination is carried out by the Zionist institutionsâthe Jewish National Fund and the Jewish Agencyâand they were deliberately established so the state would not be accused of deviation from universal norms.
Is that not clever? America, too, could follow such a strategy. Having repealed the 14th and 15th amendments, we could then pass an innocuous sounding immigration law, and use that law to define the people who are eligible for other rights. Think of the possibilities:
1) We could take away the political rights of all Negroes and other nettlesome minorities (about 1/3 of our total population). If anyone thinks this percentage is unjustly high, we can point out that Israel also denies 1/3 of its inhabitants the right to vote, based solely on their race (Footnote 2).
2) We could also abridge the rights of an additional 11% of our population, just like Israel (Footnote 3). These restrictions should be targeted at knee-jerk liberals, who may be tempted to provide support for terrorist minorities.
3) We could establish "white-only" communities similar to the "Jewish-only" settlements which can be found throughout Israel (Masra). That way, law-abiding white Americans would not have to live next door to Negro terrorists.
4) We could establish a network of "white-only" roads, just as Israel has built a network of roads for "Jews-only" (Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment). In America, such roads would allow whites to travel without the inconvenience or danger of passing through Negro neighborhoods. To further control Negro terrorists, we might also institute a system of military checkpoints, which Negroes would have to pass through anytime they traveled anywhere. Whites, of course, would not be stopped nor have to wait at these choke-points.
5) Utility companies could give the lion's share of America's resources to whites. A report by the Israeli Human Rights Organization B' Tselem suggests the potential benefits:
The discrimination between Palestinians and Israeli settlers regarding the supply of water is especially conspicuous in the many cases where settlements are located near a Palestinian town or village and are connected to the same Mekorot [Israel Water Authority] well. While the settlers benefit from an unlimited quantity of running water - including filling swimming pools and watering lawns, the Palestinian towns and villages suffer a severe shortage of running water, even for drinking and bathing. The report [which follows this introduction] shows that the immediate reason for the shortage is Israel's discriminatory policy, employed through Mekorot. This policy includes drastically reducing the allotment of water for Palestinian towns and villages during the summer months in order to meet the increasing consumption in Israel and the Israeli settlements (Lein).
Â
Furthermore, municipal authorities could increase the cost of water for Negroes, while decreasing the cost for whites. Apparently, such tactics are useful for fighting terrorism: Why else would Palestinians in Israel's West Bank be charged three times as much per unit of water as Israeli settlers? (Environment News Service).
We could also provide free electricity and sewage to many white households, while depriving Negro towns of adequate services. Israel does this sort of thing, apparently with good results (U.N. Committee on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights; Stop US aid to Israel).
6) Using Israel as a model, we could reestablish segregation in our schools. Think of all the terrorism which might thus be prevented, not to mention all the money we could save. According to a report by Human Rights Watch:
The Israeli government operates two separate school systems, one for Jewish children and one for Palestinian Arab children. Discrimination against Palestinian Arab children colors every aspect of the two systems. Education Ministry authorities have acknowledged that the ministry spends less per student in the Arab system than in the Jewish school system.
7) I am sure we would also find it profitable to deprive Negroes of other basic rights: for example, the right to assemble peacefully, the right to a free press, the right to obtain a car licence, the right to start a business, the right to buy industrial equipment, the right to export farm products, the right to run for political office, the right to a lawyer, the right to a trial, the right to travel abroad, equal access to government benefits such as welfare, health care, and veteran's loans, the right to carry a firearm, the right to go to the beach, the right to attend an Israeli university, the right to leave home without first obtaining permission, the right to walk to the corner market without being killed by American-made weapons of mass destruction, etc., etc., etc.
Under America's new laws, most Negroes would have none of these rights, and the few who did, their rights would be strictly limited, being subject in all cases to the arbitrary rulings of white military authorities. These measures can hardly be considered draconian, as Israel routinely denies these same rights to its Arab non-citizen minority (Davidsson, Haas).
A minor drawback
As I have already mentioned, one drawback of this plan is that it might invite charges of racism. For example, the United States might find itself the target of scathing UN reports, such as the one from which the following excerpt is taken:
The [UN] Committee [on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights] notes with concern that the Government of Israel does not accord equal rights to its Arab citizens, although they comprise over 19 per cent of the total population. This discriminatory attitude is apparent in the lower standard of living of Israeli Arabs as a result, inter alia, of lack of access to housing, water, electricity and health care and their lower levels of education . . .(UN Committee on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights).
Â
Such reports might indeed be embarrassing, but why should we place undo importance on the opinions of UN committees or our European allies? White Americans are fighting for their lives, hemmed in on all sides by Negro terrorism. Just ask Reginal Denny, who was dragged from his truck during the L.A. Race Riots. Besides, in the end, we can always do what Israel does when confronted with such reports: we can simply ignore them.
Realpolitik
Some people are sure to say that my plan, while theoretically appealing, is not politically feasible. They will say: How can we muster the political majority needed to repeal those two amendments?
Nonsense. I am quite confident that this is actually the least of our hurdles. Why wouldn't all Americans embrace these revisions to our laws? To gauge American opinion on these matters, one need only look again toward Israel. Isn't Israel America's darling, despite its racist policies? Don't we give it our unwavering support? We can even quantify that support, by noting that the average US taxpayer donates $53 dollars to Israel every year (Footnote 4). And there seems to be no end to the goodwill our legislators extend that country! Every week, it seems, another resolution passes through our congress, showering Israel with additional monies, as well as an almost sycophantic support for its war against terrorists. As Americans, if we truly believe that Israel is doing an exemplary job of combating terrorism, then why wouldn't we wholly endorse Israel's racist policies for ourselves? Certainly, the Jewish lobby and Evangelical Christians can both be counted on for their uncritical support.
Conclusion
In 1948, Israel was established by Jews, for Jews, and ever since, Jewish leaders have steadfastly proclaimed the importance of maintaining the Jewish character of their state. Their resolve is worthy of our admirationâand their methods for controlling disenfranchised minorities are worthy of imitation. What works for Jews in Israel could work just as well for whites here in America.
For let us never forget that America, similarly, was founded by whites, for whites. And it is only through our own neglect that we have allowed the white character of our great nation to be degraded. But it is not too late. My proposal is simple and modest: we should repeal the 14th and 15th amendments, then perhaps finagle a few other laws in order to allow us to fully exclude blacks and other impure races from our American political system. Then we could return to the way of life that our founding fathers intended.
And let us not forget that Negroes will also benefit from this proposal, for none can truly question the enlightened nature of white rule. Under our benevolent guidance, Negroes will prosper, to a degree, and eventually learn to be content in their subordinate place. If they do not, then we may have to resort to more sweeping measures, such as the ones currently being contemplated in Israel. We may have to "transfer" all our Negroes back to Africa.
Footnotes
1. Between 1868-1951, there were 32 major race riots (Ward). Between 1951-2002, there have been at least eight more.
2. Approximately 3 million Palestinian Arabs who live within Israel's de facto borders cannot vote in Israeli elections (Haas). The only thing which disqualifies them from citizenship is their race.
3. An additional 1 million Israeli-Arabs do have Israeli citizenship; but, according to David Kretzmer, a professor of law: " . . .[The Law of Political Parties (1992) and the amendment of section 7A(1)] implies that, on a decidedly fundamental level, there is no real equality between Arab and Jew in Israel."
4. Based on $7 billion projected aid to Israel (Yackley and Zunes) divided by 131,963,700 projected individual tax returns (Internal Revenue Service).
www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substanceânot soap-boxingâplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'âwith its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsâis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
