Patrick Louis Cooney, Ph. D.



I have started botanizing again as spring proceeds apace.  I have been walking in some more urbanized parks (not my favorities I assure you).  And as I have been out more I have been running into person after person with dogs not on the leash.  They create a real problem for me because these scarity-cat suburbanites usually always have big dogs.  So I have to deal with whether or not they are friendly and usually have to worry about my small dog (a Jack Russell terrier) being harrassed by these big dogs.  It really starts getting on my nerves after awhile.  Sometimes the aggravation is too much for me and I find myself saying something to the owner (who is invariably too self-centered to leash their huge monster even when they are approaching people).   Usually not only are they non-apologetic, they are usually somewhat ill-humored or downright nasty. It's kind a of a dog walker rage something akin to road rage.  (A truck driver, without looking, suddenly changes lanes right in front of you.  You honk in protest and instead of being apologetic, he gives you the finger and honks back. Jeeze, what a country!!) 

These types of incivilities are so characteristic of American behavior and so rampant as to be the rule rather than the exception.  America's people has got to be one of the rudest bunch in the world.  And this incivility is characteristic of a real problem in America: the non-enforcement of the rules.  There is never anyone around to punish people who transgress small and big rules.  Americans don't like to pay taxes and so they are underpoliced with the result that anarchy reigns in so many of areas of our lives.  And I can't help thinking that this incivility and flagrant disregard for the rules contributes to a general atmosphere of nastiness and law and rule-violation (and crime).

I have said somewhere else on this website that Americans do not think of freedom as freedom of speech since most of them are overwhelmingly conformist and don't have any real thoughts that differ from the larger society's, but as freedom to do whatever the sam hill they want to.  They are free to break whatever rules they so desire, and boy does it show in their behavior.  The tragedy is that it really cheapens our daily experiences and makes us more aggravated, mad, and ill-tempered.

Since we live in a virtually unregulated, money-driven economy, the only solution I know to deal with this lawlessness is to fine people hefty sums and use these funds to pay for more police who will in turn fine more people.   We are really too easy on rule breakers -- first because there is no one to catch them anyway and because we always give them myriads of second chances to straighten up.  It really stinks!  

This entire Clinton affair has proved to be a real embarassing fiasco.  The Vernon Johns Society has tried to show how harmed the United States has been by its racist structure, history, and values.  Without this darker picture of the United States as presented here, one could not understand the idiocy of current events surrounding the impeachment and trial in the senate of Vernon Johns. 

The conservatives have waxed lyrical about their own purity and about the depravity of Bill Clinton.  But it is really the conservatives who have proven just how bankrupt politically the United States has become.  The conservatives have no right to sponsor probes into anyone's personal and private life.  Whether or not Bill Clinton had consensual sex with Monica Lewinsky is really not the personal business of the American people.  The sexual McCarthyites are the real criminals in this affair and the people to fear politically.  Their ignoring the fact that they are acting unconstitutionally shows just to what absurd lengths the divisions over the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements have risen.  One has to consider if the conservatives have not become so right-wing that one should consider them non-believers in democracy -- in fact, fascists.

Perhaps even more upsetting than the fascist actions of the conservatives, is that the liberals have largely gone along with the conservative's definition of the framework in which the debate has raged.  What liberal has not waxed eloquent on how upset they are about Clinton's low-life and immoral behavior?  Rather than denouncing the unconstitutional approach of the conservatives, they have accepted the conservatives' invasion into the personal sex lives of politicians.  (And if they can do this to a president of the United States, what can they do to an ordinary person without many resources?)  The utter idiocy of the approach of the conservatives  and the failure of their approach has been shown in the ousting of two conservative Republicans, Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston.  

The conservatives should be ashamed of themselves and so should the liberals.  The liberals should have denounced the anti-democratic approach of the conservatives and their liberal apologists.  What is Clinton's sin compared to the sin of this assault against our very democracy?  Frankly, listening to our American politicians and media spokes people is a sickening experience (with a few exceptions such as Geraldo Rivera and Charles Grodin). They have proved an embarrassment to our democracy and we here at the Vernon Johns Society cannot stand to watch them any more.  We get sick to our stomach from watching their moralism, their hypocritical self-righteousness, and, honestly, their self-destructive approach.  

(Here is an interesting question.  Just how sick are these conservatives who are having repeated orgasms over watching this constant persecution of a president of the United States?  How has this nation sunk so low that about 1/3 of the country takes such glee in this farce perpetrated against the president?  We have to wonder if they are not a bit sadistic  -- perhaps even sexually sadistic?  --  in their approach to political life.  How have the conservatives sunk so low that they have lost respect for the office of the president and for democracy itself?)  

At times we here at the Vernon Johns Society feel that we are the only nonracists in America.  Everyone else, both black and white, are fighting just to maintain the new segregationism being constructed under the title of multicultural diversity.  

The Vernon Johns Society has now fired sociology as a means of getting the truth out.  Sociologists (and we dare say other social scientists as well, but to a lesser degree) are not really interested in the truth.  They are interested in the best fit of their ideas with their politically acceptable beliefs.   The Vernon Johns Society knew ahead of time that it would be useless to try to publish via the sociology of the New Left racial separatists.  But now we have proved it.  (We got tired of hearing "But did you try this and that avenue?") We sent nine articles to ten different sociological chairpersons of various committees for the A.S.A. meetings in San Francisco.  None of the papers were accepted.  We did not expect them to be, but now we have full proof of the uselessness of the sociological discipline.  We have to go directly to the larger public, bypassing the racial separatists falsely parading as the defenders of civil rights.   (By the way, none of  the contents of the five related Vernon Johns Society websites are publishable in racist America.)

To show you just how corrupt the sociological discipline is:  We decided to take three sociologists (Drs. Joe Feagin of the University of Florida, Dr. Robert Newby and Dr. William Brustein of the University of  Minnesota) up on charges of censorship on the basis of political beliefs.  This was back in February of 1997.  It took the sociological office about three months before they finally even got a copy of the ethics code to us.  We turned in the charges but did not receive any response until we enquired further.  Then we received a letter from a Dr. Kennedy saying "Do I understand the charges?"  We did not hear again from the ethics committee for about a year.  We were beginning to wonder if sociology really has an ethics committee or if the committee members are deliberately trying to take their time about responding.  We doubted that sociology is that swamped by ethical complaints.  Hey, it's not like they are like the American justice system.  So we sent a strongly worded letter to Ms. Levine of the A.S.A. trying to force her into some kind of response.  We thought the whole process bit of a joke.  

Kennedy and Levine finally permitted the case to go before the full ethics committee.  We, however, were never given a chance even to read the responses of the professors we charged with ethics violations. The entire process was veiled in secrecy.  We never really knew what they were doing or when they were supposed to be doing it.  Talk about being kept in the dark.  

It took about a year and a half, but we finally heard from the full ethics committee, August 1998.  Following the secrecy line, no reasons were given for the denial of our ethics case -- just a statement of  fact. We are somewhat bitter about the entire process, but we never actually expected to get as far as we did in the first place.

We may be absolutely correct that the sociologists are both racist and absolutely in the dark about the truth, but all that does not matter.  Legally, we have no recourse against the lies that a society decides to support.  The same thing happened to Vernon Johns.  He was shut out by the liberals of  his day and had no recourse against them. The only optimistic aspect of this entire affair is the realization that eventually those who presently support racism under the guise of  multicultural segregation will be shown to be what they truly are.  

If  blacks are not upset by the current racist situation enough to want to fight against it, then who is the Vernon Johns Society to protest on their behalf (and, perhaps, even against their wishes).  We will just have to wait for a better day, even if we may not see it personally. (After all, these periods of  racism tend to last a long time, up to a century even.)


The current "crisis of the White House" illustrates the validity of the interpretation of the United States as a racist society.  America is the only Puritanical advanced industrialized country.  The most advanced industrial society has the least progressive set of values.  The reason why conservatives and moderates hold onto Puritanism is that the belief system is still useful to help maintain the racist social structure.  

The Monica Wilkensky/Paula Jones affair is an example of a racist social structure engaging in civil war by proxy.  Instead of actually physically killing each other as in the first and second civil wars in the United States, the different sides are fighting a civil war in the courts. What gets killed is people's pocket books, especially that of the president's.

The entire debate is ridiculous, but every day we have to hear conservatives and liberals engage in this false dialogue  -- each side trying to inflict the most intellectual damage possible on the other.  We say a plague on both false sides of this false debate.  But, of course, racist liberals will never confront the real cause of the debate: the continuing health of the racist social structure.  And, because of this, they never really confront Puritanism as racism.  So all we can do is keep turning the channel whenever this false debate comes on the boob tube.  


We here at the Vernon Johns Society feel a lot better today, March 1, 1998.  We have decided to stop trying to publish non-racist articles and books through conventional channels, such as the various social science journals.  We have several books that we have decided to put non-racist materials on web sites in order to get around the social sciences that have chosen to work within the given racist structure rather than working to change that structure.

In a month or so try these websites:

The Only Nonracist History of the United States

The Return of the Renaissance Person: An Ecological Approach to the Unity of all Disciplines

An End to Sociological Moralism: An Evolutionary and Ecological Approach to Social Problems


Unorthodox Thoughts about Censorship

Let's just take it for given that the United States is a racist society.  In a racist society there is a full political continuum from fascists to communists, but the followers of these positions all work within a racist society.   Therefore, the various political coalitions are all racist.  Now the far leftists will deny this charge saying that they are working to overthrow the existing system.  But their strategies have so little chance of ever succeeding in the United States, that one has to question not only their political approach and wisdom, but their motives and character.  What do you do with people who keep chasing rainbows into dead ends?  

Vernon Johns was a man who would not accept living within the given racial continuum.  He wanted to overthrow the old apartheid system in the South, with which the various political groups either supported or cooperated.  But, of course, Vernon Johns was censored.  

Living within a racist system, groups who say they are devoted to fighting censorship, like the A.C.L.U., are of very little help.  The A.C.L.U. only concerns itself with issues flowing from "government" censorship or related issues based on skin color, sex, etc.  But in a racist society most of the work of discrimination is done by private individuals and groups.  This means that the A.C.L.U. would never have helped Vernon Johns.  His ideas never got past the individual and group censors, so the apartheid governments in the South never had to concern themselves with Johns.  The private racists made sure his ideas never got to the level of government involvement. They kept him from significant attention.

Currently, the same is true for the Vernon Johns Society.  We do not have to worry about government censorship because the private censors working within the racist structure will make sure the ideas will not be spread.  Groups like the A.C.L.U. are nice liberals who do some good work, but they are still working within a racist system.  In fact, the existence of a limited government sphere in racist America insures that the A.C.L.U. and others groups like it will remain very unhelpful to real change.

To illustrate how silly this all is.  Those on the left keep trying to make affirmative action the litmus test of racism.  If you oppose it, you are automatically a racist.  We at the Vernon Johns Society do not oppose affirmative action.  But what we hate is that the leftists spend all this time and energy on a program that will never help more than a small proportion of the black community, while at the same time failing to support even the publication of ideas that have a chance to change to the racist society.

Typical liberal reformers would ask Vernon Johns questions such as, "Well if you are so committed to change, why aren't you in contact with the various liberal groups in your community?"  One man asked Johns why he did not cooperate with the ministers in his community.  He replied:  "Because they don't want to do anything."  And that's what we say about the existing liberal organizations of today.  They only want to talk about petty governmental programs rather than work to change fundamentally the given racist structure.

Many people concerned with the fate of minorities are very upset with the loss of affirmative action in California. Twenty-three other states are considering moves similar to that state. But every cloud has a silver lining. The civil rights community, hopefully, will start to question the wisdom of their multicultural separatist strategy that, in the spirit of Booker T. Washington, accepted goodies in exchange for cooperating with increasing levels of segregation in the country. The multiculturalists will eventually become infamous, not famous, for their (lack of) work on behalf of progressive approaches. The taking away of affirmative action could turn out to be the first step toward building the next civil rights movement in the spirit of W.E.B. DuBois, Vernon Johns, Ralph Abernathy, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Just got back from the American Sociological meetings in Toronto where a Vernon Johns Society representative gave a talk on how the so-called multiculturalists are little more than the new Booker T. Washingtons. Also attended Dr. Joe Feagin's session on white racism. It reminded me of a post SDS-rally where the participants reported on the crazy racist things the status-quo supporters did in an attempt by the demonstrators to make themselves feel better and seek praise for their own courageous displays of protest. Three of the four speakers mocked the white college students and others who responded to their sociological surveys. They read the responses in voices that were filled with disgust, rage, condescension, and pity. The Vernon Johns Society follows the Martin Luther King inspired philosophy that all ethnic groups, including whites, are victims of a racist structure. We do not approve of the way in which white people were ridiculed and wonder : if the larger college audience knew the way in which "multicultural" sociologists are treating their responses to sociological surveys, would they ever participate in any more sociological studies. They might even ask for an apology. Frankly, we wonder if it is ethical for sociologists to be so openly and publicly contemptuous of their respondents. The early Malcolm X would have loved the sociologists' "white devil" presentations, but those following the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr. cannot but be upset by the behavior and antics of the so-called liberal sociologists.

The Vernon Johns Society is interested in starting a new civil rights movement, not in making fun of one or another ethnic/racial group.
The discussion of whether the N.A.A.C.P. should stop using its funds to support busing and more-or-less accept school segregation is just the most recent upsetting move in the trend toward full acceptance of another Booker T. Washington era of separate but equal segregation.

If the N.A.A.C.P ever stops advocating integrationism, it will be time for a new N.A.A.C.P. An interesting question: are these civil rights organizations we are dealing with just pressure groups to get more goodies from a government handing out tokens to keep the peace?

Without the goal of integration, the civil rights community has nothing.


Return to Table of Contents

Return to Home Page