DEFENSIVE RACISM: An Unapologetic Examination of Racial Differences

Availability: In Stock
Usually ships In 1-2 Business Days
Price: $30.00




    Quantity:

    NEW AMERICA IS COMING...

    And it isn’t pretty. Foreseeing a collapse so severe that it will cause us to start numbering our economic depressions, Edgar J. Steele paints the image of an America rarely seen in mainline media: ripped apart by racial strife, seething with resentment and verging on open warfare in the city streets.

    Methodically constructing the case for acknowledging the racial differences embedded in our DNA, to which he refers as “culture gone to seed,” Steele blows the cover off the conspiracy for the New World Order which is turning America into a police state and rendering her electoral process meaningless.

    As the world relentlessly marches into World War III, the plans of the elite for America’s subjugation to third-world status will falter, with America breaking apart along racial lines.

    Steele conjures the vision of a New America, rising Phoenix-like from the ashes and resurrecting the principles of liberty and personal freedom upon which she originally was founded, all the while charting a clear, easy to follow path for the individual through the coming chaos.

    Bold, powerful and persuasive, Defensive Racism weaves a compelling argument to deal with racial differences we all recognize, yet pretend not to notice.

    Hardcover, 376 pages

    Introduction

    1. Semantics

    2. Intellectual Myths

    3. Genetic Realities

    4. Cultural Imperatives

    5. National Disaster

    6. Masters of Disaster

    7. The Price of Empire

    8. Immigration's True Costs

    9. The Real Racists

    10. Wag the World

    11. Racists Everywhere

    12. The Truth Hurts

    13. Defensive Racism

    14. The Future

    15. Treading Water

    16. World War III

    17. Money's End Game: Depression II

    18. New America

    Excerpt from Chapter One—Semantics

    Names and labels are funny things. Used as a form of shorthand, to facilitate communication, names often accomplish exactly the opposite. Worse, the damage is done in stealth, with nobody the wiser.

    A good deal of the world's conflict assuredly can be attributed to those who walk away from an ostensible agreement with very different understandings of what just took place. Marriage merely is one of the easiest-to-recognize occurrences of stealth conflict.

    The problem is one of semantics, in other words.

    It is critical to this book's central thesis to decide at the outset precisely what is meant by the words "racism" and "racist."

    Ask most to define the term "racist" and they will use words such as "bigot," "hate" and "intolerance." Even many who admit to being racist will employ negatively-charged words in describing themselves.

    Those who admit to having racist tendencies often try to distinguish themselves as "racialist," rather than "racist," without realizing that makes no difference to most. They are kin to those who categorically deny being racist, all the while comporting themselves in classically racist ways.

    Racism is a sort of "gateway" concept, too. Once one sees oneself as racist, one falls prey to a host of attitudes that simply are adopted whole cloth, with no rational examination. Kind of like how Democrats believe themselves to be liberal and Republicans think themselves conservative (another set of self-defeating shorthand worse, to be sure.) That is why self-avowed racists almost universally cannot give a rational explanation for disliking (for example) Asians and fall back on skin color as their sole mode of distinguishing others.

    I have come generally to believe that two rational people, after a full and complete discussion, can never disagree about anything. At the very least, they can agree to disagree because of some fundamental schism which cannot be resolved.

    A good example of an irresolvable conflict is the abortion debate, which is a direct extension of how one views one's unprovable and unknowable role in the universe. No amount of debate will sway one side to adopt the other's point of view without first getting both sides to agree on the origin and purpose of humanity, an impossible task.

    Of course, many self-avowed racists hew to a religious basis for their racial outlooks, as well. Followers of Christian Identity, for believe all non-Caucasian races to be spawn either of Satan or of creatures lesser than man. These people cannot rationally debate the concept of racism.

    Similarly, there is no reasoning with people unwilling to place all underlying beliefs on the table for examination and alteration.

    Nor an one get these disparate irrational (for lack of a better word) factions to agree on a definition for the word "racist." If you are one of these, please keep in mind how you have hobbled yourself as you move through the pages of this book. Remember that you have refused to come to grips with the basic definitions necessary to examine racism.

    I submit that, ultimately, one can define racism solely as a belief in the mere existence of racial differences. Other words are sufficient to distinguish attitudes and beliefs apart from a fundamentally racist outlook ("hateful racist" or "intolerant racist," for example.)

    Yes, believing in skin color differences among the races is a racist belief. Mind you, that if the only real difference that existed, as some would have us believe, then the concept or racism becomes singularly uninteresting and ceases altogether for blind people.

    However, ultimately we must deal with the baggage that the term "racist" carries as it is flung about by one person or another. Without realizing it, all the people using the word really aren't even on the same page.

    What everybody might agree upon is that "racist" is a negative descriptor. What of those who believe in racial differences without the negative freight attendant to the word "racist?" For example, does stereotyping mean the same thing as bigotry? Is a police profiler a bigot?

    Don't we really use the term "racist" as a means to vilify those with whom we disagree and/or dislike? Doesn't that mean the negative implication actually resides within the one using the label, not the other way around?

    The label "racist" really has more to do with the labeler than with the labelee, doesn't it?

    Consider: Why is it racist to form a White civil rights group, yet it is not racist to support the NAACP? Why can Blacks agitate for preferences which come at the expense of Whites, yet such is not known as racism? Why does opposing affirmative action get many White people labeled hateful and bigoted racists?

    If somehow we could subtract all the pejorative meaning from the word racist, we could get on with the real job before us, that of determining if there is any merit to the attitudes and beliefs of those we call racist. A daunting task, yes, but not one to be avoided merely because of apparent difficulty.

    For the purpose of this book's discussion, please agree to set aside all the negative outlooks you might have toward racism and racists. Try writing those negative attributes inside the back cover as a symbolic means of setting them aside for the moment. After you have finished the book, then you may pick them up and reinstall them, if you wish. Should you choose to continue with them, after all, you might have just gained a much more rational and logical basis for shunning racists.

    I won't hide the ball: There exists the danger that you might abandon your attitudes about racism, in whole or in part. You might even end up unabashedly viewing yourself as a racist, albeit a very special sort, one with none of the negative characteristics you might have listed inside the book cover as suggested above. On the other hand, some skinheads might start growing hair again.

    At the very least, I guarantee you will be thinking about the subject in ways that you never have before. The intellectual exercise, alone, will be worth the journey. I promise.

    Let's get on with it . . .

    Edgar Steele (July 5, 1945 – September 4, 2014) was an author and trial lawyer who has tried cases throughout the West Coast, being admitted to California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, several Federal District and special courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

    He graduated from the University of Washington with a BA, then served four years in the U.S. Coast Guard, first aboard ships, then as the Commanding Officer of an East China Sea island LORAN Station.

    Edgar graduated from the University of California at Berkeley with an MBA, then worked in a succession of financial executive positions for corporations, including the Controllership of two companies.

    He graduated from the UCLA School of Law, worked briefly for a small law firm in the San Francisco Bay Area, then struck off on his own.

    His law practice is noteworthy for cases that test the limits of constitutional law on behalf of politically-incorrect clients.

    Edgar published a weekly commentary via the Internet, interspersing observations on the state of American society and politics with reports about aspects of the higher-profile cases he is handling.

    Though Edgar spoke infrequently in public, he appeared on virtually every national TV network news program and been interviewed repeatedly for Today, Good Morning America, The Early Show, Fox News, Dateline, NBC Nightly News, Court TV (which devoted a full week of broadcasting to one of Edgar's trials recently), Geraldo and CNN, as well as countless local television news programs and radio talk shows throughout America, in connection with both his writing and the high-profile cases he has handled.

    He made his home in Northern Idaho on a working horse ranch.

    Edgar wanted it known that he, himself, was exceedingly politically incorrect.

    False

    • AFP BOOKSTORE   1-888-699-6397    bookstore@americanfreepress.net

    • Return Policy: AFP Bookstore will accept returns on all books/DVDs/CDs within 30 days of purchase for a full refund minus shipping & handling, no questions asked.