Exterminating White People
Exterminating White People
Selwyn Duke | November 1 2005
It has long been an assertion of mine that there's only one difference between Adolph Hitler and some of the misbegotten souls who lurk among us: means. I don't know that I subscribe to the notion that power corrupts, but I do know that it releases inhibitions, causing one's true colors to shine through.
Inhibitions, however, don't seem to bedevil one Dr. Kamau Kambon. The Raleigh, N.C., activist, book store owner, and former professor at North Carolina State University advocated the "extermination of white people" while speaking at a Pro-black Media Forum at Howard Law School, in an event that was covered in its entirety by C-SPAN.
This esteemed molder of young minds contended that whites have an "international plantation" for blacks, making "every white person on earth a plantation master." He continued, "You're either supporting white people in their process of death, or you're for African liberation."
Kambon expanded upon the transgressions of white devils and emphatically promulgated a solution, saying,
. . . (white people) have retina scans, they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks, and they're monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.
Then, waxing particularly passionate he stated,
"White people want to kill us. I want you to understand that. They want to kill you. They want to kill you because that is part of their plan."
The cherry on top of his demagoguery was when he entreated the audience to,
" . . . get very serious and not be diverted from coming up with a solution to the problem, and the problem on the planet is white people."
Would this be the "Final Solution"?
I might add that while most in attendance did not applaud the recommendation of genocide, there was some noticeable clapping.
One ironic aspect of this story is that it arrives on the heels of a piece I just wrote that dealt partially with the West's increasing inclination to criminalize "hate-speech." Of course, you won't find this scribe playing the hypocrite and calling for the muzzling of this sick puppy, for, the last mistake I want to make is to empower Uncle Scam to censor discourse. I would, though, like to see Kambon suffer the scorn and ostracism that should be a consequence of such hate-mongering. But, given my instinct for self-preservation, I won't hold my breath waiting.
In my view, however, the real villains here aren't the loathsome Kambon and his acolytes, but those university administrators and effluent-stream media talking heads who enable them through their mistakes of comission and omission. After all, there will always be nuts around, but the media is supposed to be a watchdog. Where is the outrage and copious coverage of remarks that, if uttered by a white man about black folks, would result in excoriation in the press and persona non grata status at future college events? The relative silence is deafening. For sure, if the effluent-stream media is a watchdog, it's mighty well trained. It only sics those who have skin that's light or views on the right.
For instance, contrast the treatment of this story with the recent tempest surrounding Bill Bennett's much derided comments. For those who don't know, Bennett was in the midst of addressing the notion that legalized abortion reduces crime and endeavored to make the point that the end doesn't justify the means. So he put forth a hypothetical: "if you wanted to reduce crime, you could - if that were your sole purpose - you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Bennett quickly dismissed the idea as "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do," while reiterating, "your crime rate would go down."
For daring to get to the heart of an issue with intellectual honesty and incisive argument, Bennett was rewarded by being decried as a bigot by the most scurrilous of character assassins. Of course, Bennett is an infinitely more prominent man, but that has to be at least equalized by Kambon's infinitely more egregious remarks.
So, using a hypothetical involving racial-genocide while expressing disgust for the idea makes one a pariah, but wholesale advocacy of racial-genocide while spewing venom is met with indifference? Why the grossly unfair treatment?
We know why: the watchdog's training.
One person who did showcase this story was Bill O'Reilly, the irascible progenitor of the "No-Spin Zone." Unfortunately, his treatment of the subject left me with the impression that a better moniker for his show would be the "No-Depth Zone."
In O'Reilly's October 26 segment about Kambon, the pundit interviewed the organizer of the Pro-black Media Forum, radio talk show host Opio Sokoni. When asked to respond to Kambon's acid-tongued rhetoric, the most Sokoni could muster was that he thought the comments "were unproductive." To this, O'Reilly, who is seldom loath to express moral outrage, stated quite soberly, "I think you used the right word when you said 'unproductive.'" Really, O'Reilly?
Now, call me old-fashioned, but in my book "unproductive" is when your child tries to do his homework between station breaks. But a man sounding a clarion call for the extermination of a race? Propriety must demand adjectives such as evil, wicked, genocidal, maniacal and psychopathic. C'mon, Bill, "unproductive" didn't strike you as just, oh, let's say, a tad lukewarm? I think it's the understatement of the year.
I also have to ask, if a white man had encouraged the genocide of blacks, would O'Reilly be persuaded that "unproductive" was sufficient denunciation?
Truth be known, it was poor interviewing. I, for one, would like to know what Mr. Sokoni meant by "unproductive," a word that could pertain to many different implications of an action. Is it that he doesn't think it's a bad idea, but it doesn't serve his cause to voice such sentiments at the present time? Unfair question, say you? I beg to differ. Sokoni equivocated, using what sounded like a codeword and refusing to damn the damnable. Equally troubling was the flatline, dispassionate tone in which Sokoni made his remarks - it certainly didn't bespeak of outrage. And remember, if you want to know what a person wants you to believe he believes, listen to what he says. If you want to know what a person believes, listen to how he says it.
Moreover, O'Reilly refused to pick up the ball when Sokoni started to demonize white people. While defending his extension of an invitation to Kambon, Sokoni shrugged off the matter by saying that Kambon has no history of genocidal violence, unlike white people. Sokoni mentioned, " . . . a history that white people have had of not talking, but doing." He also said, "Black people are not that way."
Well, well, have you, Mr. Sokoni, ever heard of the Hutus and the Tutsis? You know, that little 1994 event in Ruanda in which Hutu militias slaughtered almost 800,000 Tutsis, who, by the way, were called "roaches" by the Hutus. Maybe I have to brush up on my contemporary history, but I could have sworn the Hutus were black.
The no-spin truth is that Sokoni is an anti-white bigot, and O'Reilly should have called him on it.
But from media double-standards to higher miseducation's low ones, there is something positive here since I learned that Kamau Kambon had actually been fired by North Carolina State University. So, I'm now more closely attuned to the pulse of academia, as I finally have a closer bead on the point at which a radical left-wing professor can be ousted from his position. It lies somewhere between likening World Trade Center victims to Nazis and advocating the worldwide genocide of a whole race of people.