Saturday, February 28, 2009
And this of course is not good. But if we must open the gates to the millions, at least that could potentially allow for some of our kin from Europe and the Anglosphere to come here. I read constantly of the exodus from the UK and other Western European countries; I don't know how many would like to come here, but our current immigration laws discriminate against them. Likewise for would-be refugees from South Africa or Zimbabwe; granted, a few manage to come here somehow, but the deck is stacked against them because our government openly discriminates in favor of Third World peoples, seemingly the less educated and the less skilled -- and the less compatible -- the better.
But if an amnesty is declared, applying to all illegals, would not some of our European and European-descended kin be among those given a 'path to citizenship'? Why are there not more from Western countries availing themselves of our lax enforcement policies? Are they just too law-abiding, or are they still too comfortable in their changing countries?
If we must have a flood of new 'citizens', it might be a silver lining in the cloud if some of our kin joined us.
Or would our anti-White government find a way to disqualify people who are not 'diverse' enough to enrich our country?
My first thought is that it was the usual adulation, I mean, I remember his campaign speech in Germany, where they seemed to venerate him. But then this post at the LewRockwell.com blog says it's satire.
A Rose-monday carnival parade in the Rhineland is political mockery, not praise! The essence of the carnival event is that for those few days authorities relinquish power of the cities and stand aside, while being mocked at by magnifying their public posturing.''
I don't know; I tend to take it at face value.
And what is the message of the young blonde woman or girl 'flying' behind the 'Angel'? Does she represent America? American women? Whites?
''West Virginia's governor is launching a massive campaign to liberate his state from ugly and unyielding stereotypes. He's got his work cut out for him.''
Born and raised in central Appalachia, Shawn Grim is a walking hillbilly cliché. His mother has no teeth, none of his relatives graduated from high school and there's a gun rack on the wall of his family's ramshackle trailer. But he was still shocked last year when his brother, "Little Man," was caught in flagrante with his half-sister. "That is really disgusting in my book," said his mother of the incident, apparently not a one-off.
The scene, one of several shockers from ABC's recent documentary "Children of the Mountains," was shot on the Kentucky–West Virginia border, where the poverty rate is three times the national average, decay-ravaged "Mountain Dew mouth" is widespread and the life span is shorter than almost anywhere in America. But chances are that the stigma of these hoary Appalachian stereotypes will tar West Virginia far more than its less-mountainous neighbor. That's because while we know Kentucky for Louisville, bluegrass and basketball, West Virginia's perceived backwardness has been one its most durable cultural memes—an unshakable label for a state that lacks a big city, a famous musical heritage or championship team to offer as an alternative.
That may soon change. Shedding the state's hillbilly image has become a personal crusade of Gov. Joe Manchin, a charismatic Democrat who has authorized a multimillion blast of cash and marketing aimed not only at rehabilitating the region's reputation, but also stemming a three-decade exodus of the state's best and brightest residents'''
It looks like the multicultists probably have West Virginia in their sights. Take a look at the above hit piece from Newsweek. While pretending to decry 'ugly and unbending stereotypes' such as the inbred hillbilly image, which they gleefully cite, the writer seems to reinforce them, emphasizing the need for the state to undergo some kind of 'makeover', led by the Democrat governor and his grandiose plans for trying to attract 'growth', which in today's multicult America usually implies immigration of whatever kind.
There isn't much helpful information on Governor Manchin on the Internet, beyond his own website with its typical self-aggrandizing political boasts. However, he is working the 'grandson of immigrants' angle, and that usually implies a pro-immigration, pro-diversity stance.
Now, I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but I like to say that I am a child of privilege. My grandparents were Italian and Czechoslovakian immigrants whose search for a better life led them to the small West Virginia coal mining towns of Farmington and Rachel. They understood that life in America was a privilege. In exchange for that privilege, they believed they had a responsibility to give something back. They taught me the importance not only of hard work, but also of having compassion for all people.''
I am not going to put words in the Governor's mouth; it may be that he is not specifically looking to increase the presence of immigrants or to change the character of his state in the guise of ''growth.'' But we all know that this is the overall plan, and that there are those who somehow find it offensive that a state may be 96 percent White as of the 2000 census. Now, since 2000, every state in the Union, including Alaska and Hawaii, has received more immigrants and hence more ''diversity'' but as far as I can determine, West Virginia is one of the Whitest states in the Union. That surely cannot be pleasing to the 'diversity' commissars, so as I said, West Virginia, like Maine before her, is probably next in line for an infusion of 'diversity'.
It looks like the refugee hucksters have already been busy in West Virginia, but I am sure they think there is more to be done there. If I sound suspicious and cynical, it's only because I've been following the pattern throughout the United States. We all know that there is this mindset which regards a homogeneous, majority White area as somehow being deficient and -- what was the word the Iowa officials used a few years ago? -- ''sterile.'' Yes, they regard a mostly White community as ''sterile'' and barren, in need of 'enriching.' Oddly though, that form of enrichment somehow always leads to a drain on the state's coffers, as we see in California.
So let's hope West Virginia isn't ''enriched'' in that fashion.
I'm sorry to say I haven't been to West Virginia, but I am comforted by the thought that there might be one state in these not-so-United States that retains most of its original composition and character. What is being caricatured by the Newsweek article and the popular cliches about Appalachia is the ''mountaineer'' people and their way of life. There might be some who fit the stereotypes which the New York elites revel in perpetuating, but each region has its own mix of stereotypes, some of them less than attractive. Every area of the country has those who fit the 'underclass' image. However it seems that only states associated with the South or Appalachia are denigrated to such an extent, and looked down upon by virtually everybody. And from my firsthand knowledge of so-called 'rednecks', I will say in their defense that I would prefer their company to that of the self-important big city dwellers or the urban underclass of the big cities up North.
I see that West Virginia has a program called 'Come Home to West Virginia', which is meant to encourage its natives who have moved elsewhere to come back. This surely is the best approach to trying to promote 'growth', in contrast to the disastrous idea of so many state and civic leaders who openly solicit immigrants and 'diversity' for their communities. There seems to be some kind of perverse 'immigrant envy' or 'diversity lust' on the part of communities which are ''too White."
I wish our brethren in West Virginia the best, and I hope that your state will not go the way of so many once-beautiful parts of this country which have become overpopulated casualties of mass immigration or uncontrolled growth and sprawl. We often fail to realize what we have until it is irretrievably changed or lost.
West Virginia is the kind of place I might consider as a destination to try to stay a few steps ahead of the social engineers, and to find some still-recognizable pocket of the old America. So West Virginians, don't let them 'remake' your state.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The look of the site, the logo, and the name itself indicate that it is patterned after the BNP, but evidently there is no direct connection.
Nor does the site provide information on who precisely is behind this party, where the funding comes from, and so on.
I would love to see a political party which would be a nationalist party, advocating for our interests, that is, the interests of native-born, White Americans. I realize that to be explicit in these things leaves a group vulnerable to the usual accusations from the usual PC minions, but our interests are at least as legitimate and honorable as those of any other racial/ethnic group in this country, in fact, even more so because this is our country by inheritance, and was intended by our fathers to be our country. Now we are taught to believe that we have no legitimacy when it comes to organizing ourselves politically or in any other way.
Every now and then on blogs or forums like this one, somebody demands to know what we are 'doing', and why we aren't organizing politically or forming an activist group or party. While I understand the desire for concrete action in the 'real world', I think those things have to happen in their time, and I don't think the cart can be put before the horse. There is a popular tendency to denigrate blogs and other such efforts as being the province of 'cowards' or ineffectual keyboard warriors, but words and ideas are powerful in their own way. In one sense, I think that we are not yet at the point, really, of organizing politically. It may be that the Republican Party must be more thoroughly and completely discredited before alternatives (including an American national party) can really gain momentum, and despite all the failures and missteps of the GOP, some still resolutely cling to that party as some kind of hope for the future. Things may have to change considerably before a new party has a chance.
If, however, some are champing at the bit for a political party or other such activism, I say go to it; be the leader you are looking for. It's easy to chide others for not being 'leaders', but are you yourself trying to organize or lead, while criticizing others for not doing so? If not, why not?
In the meantime, I think it's misguided to disparage the role of blogs, forums, and other such efforts. To everything there is a season.
Do any of you have any information on the ANP? If so, please share it with the rest of us here.
I would like to think that there is a party which represents us, but more information is needed before I throw my support behind it.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Raise the Stars and Stripes High
Patriotism is cool again. Some would say patriotism, defined as “love of one’s country,” never goes out of style. But to the Left, it’s clearly not an unconditional love. Narcissistic liberals demand a country in their own image.
Still, it’s good to see so many of the nation’s cultural and entertainment elite waving the flag. Hollywood producer and People for the American Way founder Norman Lear is a perfect example. Lear is so moved by the spirit of patriotism these days that he created a campaign focused on being a “Born Again American.”
Unfortunately, liberals like Lear are so out of practice with patriotism that they seem to have adopted it as a surrogate spirituality, or confused it with a very un-American cult of personality.
Hope and Change
Michael Kazin, a Georgetown University history professor, argued in a Feb. 8 Washington Post article that it’s President Barack Obama who has revived patriotism. “Barack Obama’s rise to power, has, to many people’s surprise, once again made patriotism a liberal faith.” Kazin pointed out, “since liberals turned against the war in Vietnam 40 years go, they have struggled to prove that they love their country even while opposing most of the policies of its government” and they just now “have finally realized that they cannot lead America if America does not hold a privileged place in their hearts.”
Yes, I've long noticed that the left's commitment to certain principles vacillates. I've noticed a conspicuous silence on the part of the usual suspects in response to the news of the administration's 'surge' in Afghanistan. What happened to their lofty antiwar principles? Are they going to be devout hawks now that one of their fellow believers is commander-in-chief? So far it looks that way.
When Bill Clinton was inaugurated, I remember a story that appeared in Newsday, about how a group of celebrity Clinton supporters at the inauguration were muttering curses when military jets flew over the ceremony; what an outrage that those evil military jets would break the sacred peace of Clinton's swearing-in. But then, the story goes, one of the celebs said 'but they're OUR jets now!' The reaction was high fives all the way around. Suddenly those malevolent jet planes were all right.
And now, apparently, 'AmeriKKKa' is worthy of the left's respect because of a change in administrations. So it seems that their loyalties to America go as far as loyalty to a personality and specifically to a personality who shares their ideology.
So excuse me if I don't tear up over their touching conversion to being 'patriots.'
The Revival of “Civic Religion”
Apparently, it took Obama’s election to rouse Norman Lear’s affection for his country. Lear is an unabashed Obama supporter. Records show Lear gave over $33,000 to Obama’s campaign, as well as an additional $50,000 toward the inauguration.
A June 6, 2008 Los Angeles Times article reported, “[Hollywood’s] elder statesman, Norman Lear, declared Obama's victory Tuesday night as ‘another giant step for mankind.’ (Through his group, Declare Yourself, Lear has been busy signing up young voters who seem eager to turn out for the presumptive Democratic nominee.)”
Lear refused to tell New York Times reporters Brooks Barnes and Rebecca Cathcart which nominee he supported in the 2008 general election, but in their Aug. 13 article they noted, “Still, his choice seems clear. Prominently displayed in his office during an interview was a yarmulke decorated with a campaign sticker for Senator Obama.”
Wait a minute: isn't Norman Lear the guy who is always trying to stamp out religion in the public square? Hasn't he essentially devoted his life and his fortunes to agitation to remove Christianity from all public observances, and to "separate church and state''? Now, however, we are suddenly talking about 'civil religion.' What's wrong with this picture?
In case some of you have (blessedly) forgotten Lear, he was the force behind the onslaught of PC propaganda on television, starting with 'All In the Family', originally an American version of a British comedy called 'Till Death Do Us Part.' I don't know how much of the blame, therefore, belongs to Lear and his writers and how much to the originators of the British series, but Lear's politically correct 'comedies' dominated American TV for the entire decade of the 1970s and into the 80s. The image of the ignorant WASP bigot, Archie Bunker, became a stereotype of dimwitted 'right-wingers' which has persisted on the left even to this day. The fact that a real-life urban blue-collar worker would be far, far more likely to be a lockstep Democrat party-line voter made no difference to Lear and the writers. The idea was to smear old-stock Americans. And it seemed to have worked.
So, after decades of spitting in the eye of old America and the average White Christian American, liberals and leftists are suddenly 'into' patriotism? It sounds opportunistic to me. They simply want to claim 'patriotism' and thus find a phony moral perch from which to condemn everybody who doesn't fall in line behind Dear Leader.
But back to Lear's cult, I mean, 'civic religion':
At last year’s progressive Take Back America conference Lear spoke of a “civil religion.” He told the audience
The phrase “civil religion” is not intended to encourage a form of national self-worship. Just the opposite. The nation wants to be subordinate to its ethical principles as presented in its founding documents – documents that guarantee freedom, due process, equal opportunity and equal justice under the law, ideals the founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to secure.
Yet, language used on the “Born Again American” site, in its theme song and by Lear, suggests the opposite.
Lear told Arianna Huffington, founder of the liberal Huffington Post, that Election Night 2008 was his “christening as a born again American.”
I find this to be a thumb in the eye to real 'born-again' Christian believers. Every non-believer and even liberal Christians, in my experience, sneer at the term 'born again'; it has connotations, to them, of 'fundie Bible-thumpers' who live in trailer parks, and they loathe such people. They don't understand even the Biblical origin and meaning of 'born again', and now they are co-opting it for their vulgar 'civic religion'?
Lear admits that the name itself, “Born Again American” is an attempt to take back the term “born again” from the Religious Right. He told U.S. News and World Report’s Dan Gilgoff in a Feb. 10 interview that “the intention was to say, ‘wait a second. Nobody owns these feelings. And they belong here, too, for those of us who feel that way. But spread the wealth of feeling.”
The campaign’s theme song, also titled “Born Again American” includes lyrics such as:
It’s clear my country’s soul is on the line
She’s hungering for something that she lost along the way
The principle the framers called upon us to obey
That in this land
The people’s will must have the upper hand
I felt the calling once before and took a sacred vow
And faithful to that vow I have remained
I hear the calling once again, my country needs me now
And to her cause I have been re-ordained.''
What meaning can 'sacred' have to someone who does not even believe, truly, in God, or anything above their human wills and reason? None, whatsoever. I find their language to be like a taunting parody of real religion, and I suspect it's meant as such.
And the allusion to the 'people's will' is rather sick-making, given that leftists are generally in opposition to the majority will, behaving as elitists who know better than the ignorant rednecks in flyover land.
But it gets worse: read some of the comments by the cult followers posted on the website, for example this one:
I pledge to make America a place where all are equal and all are respected. President Obama is our salvation and I pray that he is able help Americans recover this country as a global force in right for the world.''
But when Lear invokes 'the Framers' (why not call them Founding Fathers'? Is that too masculine and paternalistic?) I find it hypocritical. Do they really think that the Founding Fathers shared their egalitarian, tower-of-Babel philosophy? Or anything remotely like it? Surely they've never read the writings of the Founders, and even fewer of their blind followers have any clue. Ignorance is a must to be a liberal/leftist.
Let's just look at a few of the actual words of the Founding Fathers. Let's start with some remarks on immigration and foreigners:
My opinion with respect to immigration is that, except for mechanics and particular description of men and professions, there is no use in its encouragement." - George Washington
"I do most devoutly wish that we had not a single foreigner among us, except the Marquis de Lafayette, who acts upon different principles from those that govern the rest. These men have no attachment to the country, further than interest binds them." - again, George Washington
"The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency." - Alexander Hamilton
And the 'democracy' that leftists and liberals love to invoke?
''Democracy… wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.'' - John Adams
''...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.'' - James Madison
And Thomas Jefferson, who wrote 'all men are created equal' -- did he intend for that to mean that no differences existed? He said, in Notes on the State of Virginia:
"The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. ... And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immoveable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? ... The circumstance of superior beauty is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not that of man?"
On the prospects of 'emancipation' or integration he wrote:
"It will probably be asked, why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? ... ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race."
Again, from Notes on the State of Virginia:
"It is not against experience to suppose, that ... varieties of the same species may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them?"
So I have to wonder just which 'Framers' these liberals agree with? Quite honestly I don't think these 'born-again patriots' mean what they say; though many rank-and-file leftists and liberals know nothing of what the Founding Fathers thought or wrote, the more educated among them do, and in fact they are fond of attacking the Founding Fathers for being 'racists' and denigrating them as 'dead White males'. They simply want to invoke the names of the Founders to give a veneer of real 'patriotism' or 'Americanism' to their own alien ideas.
I've been extremely wary, lately, of being tagged as a 'patriot' because these days it describes blind followers of the GOP party line, those with a blind allegiance to the apparatus of the federal government and/or symbols like the flag. I have little in common these days with those who are usually called patriots. My allegiance is to the old America, and to the people, not to a flag, a symbol, or a set of 'principles' however high-flown they may be.
And even if I called myself a 'patriot' in the common meaning of the word, I would not want to be classed with these opportunistic wolves-in-sheeps clothing on the Left who are trying to use patriotic symbols in their long march through our hollowed-out institutions.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
I was aware of the fact that the organization had a mostly White membership at the beginning. And as the American Thinker article says that some of these people were the stereotype WASPs, again lending credence to the image of WASPs as being at the forefront of egalitarian efforts and ultimately the progenitors of today's totalitarian PC regime.
The discussion following the article is a mixed bag, with some rather un-PC comments here and there, but ultimately it devolves into the usual cliches, such as the 'persecution of the Irish' stories.
The article and the rather ragged discussion both bring home the point that we do have to attend to our history. We have to read, and encourage others to read, some real history as a necessary antidote to the politically corrected version which is peddled at every turn in our day, and most especially during White Guilt month, every February.
Over the last week or so there have been discussions around the Internet and the blogosphere about the 'dialogue on race'. On one such discussion thread, a politically incorrect commenter mentioned that African slaves were actually captured and sold to Whites by other Africans. Following that statement, another (black) commenter expressed shock at such 'hateful' comments and demanded proof of such an outlandish claim, challenging whether it was even factual. Disappointingly, the commenter who said it did not reply, with or without the requested 'proof', so an opportunity was lost to present some politically incorrect truth to the people out there reading the thread. It's amazing how few people have ever heard that African slaves were actually enslaved by other Africans. I think the race industry has firmly established a cartoon version of history, with evil Whites chasing down African people in their homelands and trapping them to be shipped off to America as slaves. I think this version has been reinforced by bad 'history' in popular culture, such as Haley's ''Roots'', a work of literary plagiarism which passes, to this day, as factual history.
Whenever any kind of halting 'dialogue on race' is begun these days, there are certain things that are always brought up by our opponents, slavery and its attendant wrongs being one such subject. Of course nobody wants to defend slavery as such, but there are a great many falsehoods surrounding that topic that are being used to stir up resentments and hatreds. The image of the evil White slave-hunter, the depraved White slave-owner, or the heartless White overseer are common images that are taken for granted. Much of the imagery which people have in their minds is the product of pop culture, as I've said, going back at least to Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin. Even in her time, the book was criticized as not being grounded in fact; she had little or no first-hand knowledge of her subjects, but nonetheless her works are revered even today, and accepted as truth, for all intents and purposes.
A frequently-heard canard is the statement often made by various spokesmen for blacks is that 35 million (or some other large number, in the millions) of slaves were 'thrown overboard' on the voyages across the Atlantic, and that to this day, large schools of sharks follow ships along the route of the slavers, hoping for more people to be tossed to them.
Never mind that the numbers cited are absurd, and that there is no corroboration; these stories live on.
The sheer number of such canards repeated by blacks or their advocates seem to render us speechless and resigned, and these stories are strengthened by going unchallenged for so many decades now.
Why do so few of us try to answer these wild exaggerations or fabrications with facts? Granted, we are up against a loud army of zealots, White liberals and blacks themselves, who have the stamina and the fanaticism to shout us down, and on the Internet, many of our comments are censored and expunged while the other side is allowed free rein to spout nonsense with no one to counter it.
There are so many historical misconceptions that have taken root because there have been too few who have spoken up in opposition. While it's true that on many forums or newspaper comment boxes we are censored and banned if we post politically incorrect facts or opinions, we do have the blogosphere where we can try to disseminate facts and counter-opinions, even if only on our own blogs. But I see too little of this being done. Why? Have we given up on the truth? Or are too few people informed as to the real history and the facts?
It seems we have great holes in our history, blank spots which are unnoticed by many people.
Our history is in large part either rewritten to serve somebody else's agenda, or simply lost, like missing pages from a book
Another area of 'lost' history in which we seem to be deficient in understanding is the Reconstruction era; few Americans seem to have any notion of what happened then, and of how that era presages our current situation. Again, most Americans know nothing of how self-defense organizations grew during that era, and the reasons why.
Some of the canards don't have to do with blacks, but with other ethnic groups, usually in connection with the Ellis Island era of immigration. If you read the American Thinker comments, you will see the old stories about how the ethnic immigrants of the mid-19th century were badly treated, 'hated', and 'not considered White'. We hear how the Irish were 'worked to death', literally, to build the railroads, or so the story goes. Or the Chinese. We read here and there how the Irish were given back-breaking jobs that 'were too hard for even the slaves to do.'
If I believe these stories as they are presented again and again, I have to conclude that my WASP ancestors were cold-hearted, inhuman, evil, sadistic monsters. But wait: they were the liberal bleeding-hearts, like those who joined the NAACP, who have caused this country to veer towards being over-welcoming and self-abasing. It gets very confusing. Either way, the WASP is in the wrong, and is the root of all evil: either he's a kind of 'supremacist' who considered the Irish as an inferior race, or he was a radical egalitarian who denied all human distinctions.
I wish I had a dollar for every time somebody has told the tales of Irish immigrants' persecution at the hands of the dread Anglo-Saxons. So many people have somehow heard these stories by word of mouth, and will not be convinced that they are often myths or canards.
Did the Anglo-Saxon old-stock population resist mass immigration of Irish, Italians, and others? In many cases, yes. There were 'nativist' organizations and parties, about which I've blogged. They wanted to preserve the rather successful country their ancestors had created at considerable cost in toil and blood. They did not want their way of life to be swept away by large numbers of people with a very different culture and religion. These are the sentiments of normal human beings, not monsters or hateful bigots. Surely 'realists' of today can relate to those sentiments -- but often, the fact of having Irish ancestry, however remote, results in bitterness and grudges against WASPs for slights toward immigrants.
We have work to do to try to tear down some of the old myths, particularly the politically correct ones, which are so often being used to silence and discredit us. And the politically correct myths include those tales of persecution of the Ellis Island immigrants. Those stories serve only to divide White Americans, and to perpetuate resentments and grudges that should long since have been put to rest, if they were in fact justified in the first place.
Whenever I witness one of these discussions where everybody is claiming victimhood because of the sufferings of their immigrant ancestors, I can't help thinking of an old Monty Python sketch, in which a group of seemingly wealthy old men sit around a table, trading stories of how hard they had it as children. They try to one-up each other, taking turns with wildly exaggerated stories of poverty and privation from their respective childhoods.
What does it matter who had it the worst? How does it help our present predicament to recite stories of how bad one's immigrant ancestors had it? Is that not just a variation on the perpetual victimhood claims of blacks and other minorities? To me, it's all the same.
And I think it's unbecoming of us as a people to revel in claims of victimhood. Surely we ought to be taking pride in real accomplishment, not jockeying to see whose ancestors were mistreated and abused more. It's a sad commentary on our society that we make sob stories a basis for status.
There are already too many divisions among us for various reasons; we need to find ways to unite and put aside our differences, and to that end, to leave aside all the grievances against generations long since dead. Isn't it time -- especially now that we cannot afford division among us?
While some of our lost history needs to be found and used to press our case, there is some of the 'history' that might better be put aside, and truly lost. The grievances and grudges have to go.
From Slate magazine, Protestants do the sober season and here is an article from a Presbyterian source:
In a year dedicated to John Calvin’s legacy, it is intriguing to note one thing Presbyterians cannot trace back to him: our practice of Lent. Those of us who choose to “give up” something for Lent are not doing so with Calvin’s blessing. More than likely Calvin would also be surprised to find Presbyterians wearing ashes on their foreheads at the beginning of Lent, because Protestants have historically avoided that practice. For many years Presbyterians and other Reformed Christians shied away from all things Roman Catholic. The timidity, of course, was something we inherited from the Protestant Reformation. In their efforts to free Christians from what they saw to be the oppressive rule-making of the Catholic Church in Rome, Calvin and other Reformation theologians sought to eradicate practices of popular piety that were not singularly Christ-centered. As with any major shift or movement, however, the pendulum swung so far away from Roman Catholicism that much of the Reformed tradition lost ties to some Christian practices that we are now moving to recover.''
This article from the Mormon Times (note the nod to 'diversity' with the picture at the top of the article) says
The Puritans officially disavowed Lent in 1645. And over the centuries, Protestants have tended to view Lent as a Catholic observance. But Vatican II bridged the gap and helped Protestants reclaim some of their traditions, the Rev. Hare-Diggs notes. As a boy, he remembers only the Maundy Thursday church services. Now his church observes Ash Wednesday, Good Friday and more.''
Now, I am not attempting to pass judgment on this trend; I am curious as to how widespread it is among Protestants. I suppose it's unsurprising given the trend toward erasing some of the longstanding differences between Catholic and Protestant.
Disappointingly, but predictably, some Republicans and 'conservatives' are going the route of protesting that they have seen the light and 'moved beyond race', and now if only the liberals would let blacks do the same, we could all get along. Or there are the responses which essentially concede the blacks' grievances, and issue mea culpas about how we were a terribly 'racist' country but we are all better now; we've learned our lesson. We've repented and paid our debt to society, so give us some credit.
Those kinds of weak and defensive responses are useless, and worse than useless, because they are simply playing along with the politically correct games. They just keep us caught in this endless loop of grievances and demands for apologies, and then apologies and supplications for mercy from our side. Somebody has to break the cycle; if only someone of national stature would do just that, publicly, and repudiate the whole thing. If only we could see a chain reaction of individuals who finally see through the PC conditioning, and resolve to break it and refuse to play the game anymore. Yet many people are looking for a leader to set the example and give 'permission' as it were.
Another discussion that is interesting, though exasperating at times to watch, is the discussion about secession which has been going on this thread at AmRen as well as in a number of other places where the 'state sovereignty' movement is being talked about.
I just want to get one nitpick out of the way first: I wish some of those discussing the topic would learn that the word is SEcession not SUCcession, as so many people seem to be spelling it everywhere, including the AmRen thread. What is it with this confusion? The words don't even sound alike, unless one mispronounces 'secession' as 'suh-cession' as some are wont to do.
End of rant.
But apart from that, the most exasperating thing for me in reading those discussions is the ubiquitous naysayers. You know what I mean: the ones who say 'Secession (or succession, as the case may be) is a fantasy. It's impossible. You're dreaming. Never happen, in a million years. Impossible.''
All I can say is, it's a good thing that attitude didn't prevail back in 1776.
And I am baffled by the people who think that secession is somehow 'illegal' or immoral or shocking or radical (which it may be) or disloyal or un-American or just plain evil. Do they not know that our country came into being by means of secession? If it is wrong now, it was wrong in 1776.
And there are always those who, having been taught the orthodox pro-Northern view of the War Between the States, believe that the South was treasonous and criminal to have seceded from the Sacrosanct Union. There is not much chance of persuading these people otherwise.
It may well be that the naysayers and the doomsayers are right, but I take issue with their dogmatic attitude, and the underlying assumption that they have some kind of crystal ball which gives them perfect knowledge of the future, or some kind of superior knowledge of what is and isn't possible. There are just so many variables and unknowns in our present situation; there are many possible paths that may unfold. Who would have guessed, say, five years ago, that we would be exactly where we are now? Who could have guessed ten years ago that things would be as they are today? We've all seen some staggering changes in our country and in the West generally. You'd think the unexpected twists and turns we've seen over the last decade, or even the last few years, would humble most of us and make us realize that we are in uncharted territory, and that none of us can anticipate exactly what the future holds. We can extrapolate or make educated guesses, but there are a great many unknown factors and variables. So I think those who make categorical statements about what CANNOT happen are on shaky ground, and should not be taken seriously.
And more than that, I think those who make these sweeping pronouncements about how certain futures are 'impossible', or who tell us our fate is sealed, are harming our prospects of working any kind of change for the better. They may not succeed in discouraging people -- if that is their aim in making their gloomy announcements, but they tend to dampen enthusiasm and contribute to the attitude of resignation and passivity which some are prone to these days. So I think these naysayers should be tuned out.
Those who counsel caution and realism are not in the same category as the ''we're doomed, nothing can ever change for the better'' crowd, however.
I think that there are a number of scenarios which might open up a number of unforeseen possibilities.
Many of the naysayers seem to take an 'all or nothing' attitude: either we regain the whole country, or nothing. And since the former seems unattainable, it seems we are doomed. Some like to focus on the problems, which they proceed to tell us are insurmountable. I wonder if our forefathers had to deal with so many people like this in their generation, when they founded this country?
My favorite excuse given by the naysayers is that ''the feds would never let anybody secede.'' This whole mindset is so passive and fatalistic that I am inclined to call it truly un-American. It's just alien to our way of thinking, the idea that we are helpless pawns who can only do what others 'let us' do, rather than what we have the natural right to do.
Our founding forefathers spelled out for us why we have a right to separate ourselves from a government which is destructive of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.''
The Declaration of Independence alone tells us all that we need to know about whether or not we have a 'right' to separate from any given government. And it seems to be becoming clear that our existing system is not responsive to our collective will, and that it is beyond repair or reform, and impervious to our concerns.
Some of us still think we can tweak our existing system a little, or elect better people; good luck with that hope. Sadly, I think it is a vain hope, as we will likely see over the next few months and years. However I am open to being proven wrong.
If our system could be once more restored to what it was meant to be, a legitimate government based on the 'consent of the governed' and responsive to the will of the people, then I would be happy to stay with the system our forefathers designed for us. But I see little hope of that; the existing evils are becoming entrenched and are expanding.
And as our Founding Fathers said more than once, the system they designed was made for a particular people and a particular time and place. It was meant for a 'moral and religious people', for an educated electorate, and for a people with a common faith, ancestry, and way of life. It cannot be expected to function in a multicultural bedlam, divided every which way.
This brings up an obvious problem which is illustrated by the discussion on the AmRen thread: there is much dissension even among those who are supposedly all pro-White: you have the unbelievers who don't care for Christians, the regional disagreements, the 'culture is more important than kinship' people, the pro-secession people vs. those who think secession is 'surrender.' How do we deal with all these sharp differences?
All I can really say at this point is that it's necessary to keep options open, and 'never say never', because things can change quickly, just as they have been changing over these recent months and years. I simply think we can expect more surprises, for which we must be flexible and prepared to adapt.
Monday, February 23, 2009
When Michael Steele was announced as the new chairman of the RNC, the FReepers thought he was a great choice, and just what was needed to counter the Democrats' Dear Leader. I notice Steele's recent remarks about a new 'hip-hop' Republican Party were met with rather muted responses over there, but few were willing to say that they were wrong to swoon over Steele a few weeks ago.
The enthusiasm for the essentially unknown and unproven Piyush Jindal is a product of the same mindset: the self-abasing idea embraced by many Republicans that the party is 'behind the times' and deficient without a nonwhite leader to legitimize it. To me, the fact that so many Republicans have adopted this notion is just proof of how deeply they've internalized all the politically correct orthodoxies on race which the Democrats champion. And yet they imagine that they are the opposition to the Democrats, while in fact they are just the little shadow of the Democrats, politically correct to the core.
Unless some other party or group arises which represents the interests of the White majority in this country, it looks as though we are imposing a kind of dhimmitude on ourselves, even before we've become a numerical minority in this country.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The comment thread is not much help, either, as it is sidetracked at one point into a discussion of Bob Dylan's politics and philosophy.
(What is it, by the way, with Dylan and conservatives? I notice that What's Wrong With the World also had a thread about Dylan recently.
Like most people of my age, I used to like Dylan and I once thought he was quite profound -- at least when I didn't think he was being cryptic merely for the sake of it. But I was still quite young and quite naively liberal then. Nowadays I don't see him as any kind of conservative prophet as some seem to do.)
As to Seiyo's piece, I have to take issue with one thing, specifically, that he says
The West’s’ original population – what we call for brevity’s sake “Whites” -- has given away the keys to its own home, and delights in being plundered. The ruling Body Snatchers have initiated and executed the plunder, but it’s the demos of democracy that has chosen those Body Snatchers and keeps them at the trough.''
I hear this and read this a lot, in one form or another. Have Whites really given away the keys to our own home knowingly, willingly, and do most of us 'delight in being plundered'? If this is so, or if Seiyo believes this (and others), then maybe it's pointless to even lament the fate of the West and of Whites. If our current fate is truly what 'we' want, and what we 'delight in', as he says, then let's just all stop talking about it and fretting over it and have an end-of-the-world party while we wait for the lights to go out.
I don't think it's as simple as that: that we've chosen it, with open eyes, and that we 'delight' in it. Do we?
How do we counter this idea, which is often expressed?
I also object, as I've said on comment threads before, to the often-stated claim that 'they [the Others of whatever kind] are not the problem; it's Whites who are the problem. We can't blame Them [the Others] for doing what they do; we have to blame our own.''
No, I don't agree. If my local law enforcement officers are lax in policing neighborhoods and turn a blind eye to crime under their noses, do I say that the burglars or home invaders or muggers in my neighborhood are 'not to blame' or 'not the problem'? Of course they are to blame, and of course they are the problem -- or part of it. But I can't go so far as to absolve the opportunists of their crimes just because law enforcement is lax and derelict in their duty. Granted, they are to blame in part, and should be called to account, but let's not let the criminals off the hook. Let's not excuse illegals, or minorities who work the system to shake the rest of us down. They are to blame, too. This cry of 'they aren't the problem' seems just like one more example of political correctness, of trying to shield the 'downtrodden' from any blame or culpability, and it is not right.
And as I've said before, if we can't even muster any sense of righteous indignation about what is being done to us, especially towards the people who are directly doing harm to us, then we may as well throw in the towel.
Any thoughts on Seiyo's piece? Or the questions I posed a couple of paragraphs ago?
Today, in light of current events, the following poem seems all the more poignant.
John Greenleaf Whittier
The sword was sheathed: In April's sun
Lay green the fields by Freedom won;
And severed sections, weary of debates,
Joined hands at last and were United States.
O City sitting by the Sea!
How proud the day that dawned on thee,
When the new era, long desired, began
And, in its need, the hour had found the man!
One thought the cannon salvos spoke,
The resonant bell-tower's vibrant stroke,
The voiceful streets, the plaudit-echoing halls,
And prayer and hymn borne heavenward from Saint Paul's!
How felt the land in every part
The strong throb of a nation's heart,
As its great leader gave, with reverent awe,
His pledge to Union, Liberty, and Law!
That pledge the heavens above him heard,
That vow the sleep of centuries stirred;
In world-wide wonder listening peoples bent
Their gaze on Freedom's great experiment.
Could it succeed? Of honor sold
And hopes deceived all history told.
Above the wrecks that strewed the mournful past,
Was the long dream of ages true at last?
Thank God! The people's choice was just,
The one man equal to his trust,
Wise beyond lore, and without weakness good,
Calm in the strength of flawless rectitude!
His rule of justice, order, peace,
Made possible the world's release;
Taught prince and serf that power is but a trust.
And rule alone, which serves the ruled, is just.
That Freedom generous is, but strong
In hate of fraud and selfish wrong,
Pretence that turns her holy truth to lies,
And lawless license masking in her guise.
Land of his love! With one glad voice
Let thy great sisterhood rejoice;
A century's suns o'er thee have risen and set,
And, God be praised, we are one nation yet.
And still we trust the years to be
Shall prove his hope was destiny,
Leaving our flag, with all its added stars,
Unrent by faction and unstained by wars.
Lo! Where with patient toil he nursed
And trained the new-set plant at first,
The widening branches of a stately tree
Stretch from the sunrise to the sunset sea.
And in its broad and sheltering shade,
Sitting with none to make afraid,
Were we now silent, through each mighty limb,
The winds of heaven would sing the praise of him.''
Saturday, February 21, 2009
In Selwyn Duke's response, he describes the campaign of vilification of Whites, for which he uses the term 'caucophobia', and which he describes as having been mainstreamed. And he warns of consequences:
What does history teach about the plight of consistently scapegoated and dehumanized groups? It's that they almost invariably end up suffering persecution. And given that current demographic trends indicate whites will becomes a minority in America during the lifetimes of many reading this, and given that even majorities sometimes are tyrannized -- as Sunnis' domination of Shiites under Saddam Hussein and the Spartans' enslavement of the Helots proved -- it's foolishness to dismiss the peril posed by mainstreaming caucaphobia.''
Here, Heather MacDonald takes a different approach, with which I find little in common. I suppose because of her libertarianism, she seems to take a somewhat politically correct approach, and seems to agree with those who think America bears substantial guilt for past sins against minorities. The approach seems to appeal for mercy on the grounds that we are not quite so racist now as we used to be, and deserve credit for amending our ways somewhat:
But if Attorney General Holder is really sincere about wanting a “frank” conversation about race, he should put the following items on the agenda:
The American electorate. The country just elected its first black president. And it actually didn’t talk a lot about Barack Obama’s race during the election, thank heavens, because most Americans were more interested in the candidate’s ideas than in his skin color. There were undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of people who wouldn’t vote for Obama because of his race. I would guess that their average age was 75. There is no question that a great many geriatric Americans continue to harbor the rankest racism for blacks, but guess what? They’re not going to be around for much longer. Young people growing up in the last 30 years live on a different planet when it comes to racial attitudes—until the educrats start playing with their minds.''
Young people who have grown up in the last 30 years do truly live on a different planet in regard to race; many if not most live on a planet which has a racial hierarchy, but it is the reverse of the racial order of their supposedly 'rank racist' geriatric elders. Many of these young people who she describes, basically, as the moral betters of their elders, dwell a planet where rap and hiphop are the highest art form, and blacks are put on a pedestal, and where interracial relationships are not only acceptable but considered superior in some circles.
(Disclaimer: I trust my younger readers know that I don't include them in the stereotype. Every generalization admits of exceptions.)
We might also talk about those legions of older, black Americans who have held on to their love of country and belief in its ideals, despite having been subjected to America at its worst. I have had the privilege to speak to many such individuals for my work, and they have broken my heart with their dignity and nobility. Rather than reflexively consulting professional race activists for insights into race in America, the media and politicians might for once seek some voices that contradict the mandatory “angry black male” trope.''
'America at its worst'? I can't believe that this article was mostly lauded over at AmRen. America 'at its worst' is the America of today, as far as I'm concerned. But then again I am probably of that generation that she considers to be 'rank racists.'
When communities resist an influx of Section 8 housing-voucher holders from the inner city, say, they are reacting overwhelmingly to behavior. Skin color is a proxy for that behavior. If inner-city blacks behaved like Asians—cramming as much knowledge into their kids as they can possibly fit into their skulls—the lingering wariness towards lower-income blacks that many Americans unquestionably harbor would disappear. Are there irredeemable racists among Americans? To be sure. They come in all colors, and we should deplore all of them. But the issue of race in the United States is more complex than polite company is usually allowed to express. If Eric Holder wants to crank up our racial preoccupations even further, let him at least do so with a full airing of the facts.''
Ultimately, then, she is one of those who thinks all racial differences are attributable to environment and 'nurture', and that if we merely educated minorities better, all races could achieve equally. Such is the libertarian 'see no race' approach.
Yes, I know a few libertarians are more realistic, but the majority are race-deniers. That, for me, was Ron Paul's biggest drawback.
Coming from a very different (and much more realistic) perspective is David Yeagley. His piece is much more blunt, free of the usual PC disclaimers or cant, but here I have to disagree with him as to the cause of our predicament.
Now. The only question is, Whose fault it all this? Frankly, it probably isn’t the fault of black people. It is the fault of their “handlers,” or, “masters,” the Oedipal white WASPS in power. And no, don’t blame the Jews. They’re a tiny minority. Blame white people–those in power. Inherited power. Deep power.''
I suppose I am fighting a losing battle in trying to rebut this 'WASPs did it' canard. I would like specifics, please. Who are these 'Oedipal white WASPs in power'? Where are they? Who exactly holds the real power in our country, or in the West? How many of them are WASPs of old stock? Very few, to my knowledge. I've posted about that a number of times. WASPs have long since been demoted from power, having been displaced by a coalition mostly of Ellis Islanders and other latecomers (e.g. George Soros, et al). Rich WASPs just don't have much influence or clout, and many old-line wealthy families of WASP origin have long since lost their WASP character and bloodlines. It isn't like the old days, when people in the Social Register were mostly WASP and only intermarried among themselves. The lines are blurred; the elites are cosmopolitans, not WASPs, not even in a cultural sense.
And on a discussion thread, Dr. Yeagley repeats this same thing, in response to a commenter:
PearlGirl, I know there are many suggestions about why these race-based social conditions have come about. I do blame the heirs of the Pilgrims, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant descendents. They have the power and the money. I’ve called it a cultural Freudian Oedipal complex, a latent homosexual aggression. It is whites denigrating whites.''
Dr. Yeagley - WASPS HAD the power and money. They’ve forgotten who they are,and allowed power and wealth to slip away. I speak AS an actual WASP…….I should look up this quote - but I think it’s salient - an Asian leader just observed that “,,,in a multicultural country, people vote according to Race”. The last national “election” we’ve endured definitely proves that thesis. Are you familiar with the work of Arthur Kemp? He posits that when a homogenous population allows “The Other” in - the original population fades, and vanishes,due to miscegenation, and the original social order collapses. There are plenty of examples of this phenomena, through the whole of Human history. Now - your position has merit, but it’s a part of the whole picture. We must always, in any event, ask fearlessly “Why?” We MUST bother to ask, and determine causation. Always. You can’t cure a disease, if you don’t know the cause.''
Thanks to PearlGirl, whoever she is. She says what I've said before: in allowing the 'tired and poor' of first, Eastern and Southern Europe, and then farther-flung places, to settle here, the result was an accelerated weakening of our country, as the racial/ethnic/religious bonds were weakened. It's true that many Anglo-Saxon New England liberals were bleeding-hearts who promoted the wave of Ellis Island immigration which was really the beginning of 'diversity' and the 'melting pot' debacle for us, but there were also New England Yankees who opposed that, and as proof of that, we see how the greatest resentment of the Ellis Islanders is reserved for the hated WASPs who were supposedly 'unwelcoming' and 'bigoted' towards the Ellis Islanders. Their descendants carry grudges many generations later. In fact, I would say they started the trend of victimology, of ethnic grudges and vendettas: ''your ancestors wanted to exclude my ancestors, so you owe me' morphed into 'your ancestors enslaved mine, so you owe me.' It's a continuous line of descent. The Ellis Islanders often sympathize with today's immigrants, and often side with blacks and minorities generally.
And who were the main perpetrators of the ill-omened 1965 Hart-Celler Act?
I've linked favorably to Dr. Yeagley, but I think he is mistaken on this point, and yet he is not alone in making this accusation against WASPs.
It's a very popular one even among 'race realists' and ethnoconservatives.
Yes, there were liberal New England WASPs, but there are and have also been people like Carleton Putnam, Carleton Coon, Madison Grant, H.P. Lovecraft (yes, he was a fiction writer, and is now a cult 'fringe' figure for readers of fantasy fiction, but he had very realist views on race, and he was more or less a New England Yankee to the core.)
Overall, it seems only to help the other side when we turn on and accuse each other. If anything is to defeat us, it will be this spirit of division: everybody else vs. 'WASPs', the post-baby boomers vs. boomers, Southrons who hate New England Yankees and vice-versa, non-Christians of all stripes vs. Christians. Almost all of the groups mentioned above are looking to pin the blame for our present crisis on one scapegoat group. This is just counterproductive. Everybody seems to have some group they wish to exclude. But if we are to survive and prosper, which is in doubt at this point, we will have to get past the blame game and the internal dissension. At some point we will have to see that since the majority of our people are still under some kind of deep delusion, we will have to make common cause with the rest of our brethren who can see clearly -- even if we don't agree on certain issues. We have to put our differences aside and put concern for our kin and brethren ahead of our grievances or animosities.
And that brings me to one other point which I see as paramount here: Holder says we need to 'talk frankly about race', and I agree. But instead of talking to people who want only to shout us down, I see instead that we need to talk to one another. That's where we may have been 'cowardly'. We hesitate to talk to our unaware or less aware brethren. We need to start communicating with them, break the ice, and try to break through the formidable conditioning to which they've been subjected. That's where the talking needs to be done.
From We The People USA
I saw today that Obama had been in touch with some Dem Senators to introduce legislation to amend the 10th Amendment.
By doing this, they hope to prohibit state's from being able to declare Sovereignty (which is what the 10th Amendment is about).
They will rush this through and surely pass it, as it is a Dem dominated Congress (as we saw first-hand with Porkulus bill)...
I have not been able to find anything about this supposed counter-effort by the administration, but I would be interested if anyone else has read or heard anything about it, although the same quote is the basis of another discussion here.
I did find a couple of pieces which are worth a read, including this one, State Sovereignty Movement Keeps Growing and this fairly lengthy piece: Firestorm brewing between U.S. States and Federal government.
And on the topic of secession, I trust you've all read or heard about The Occidental Quarterly's essay competition on the subject of secession and racial nationalism. Some of you here could probably submit good entries on those subjects.
Friday, February 20, 2009
On February 12, legislators from the State of South Carolina introduced a bill to affirm the rights not only of their own state, but of all states under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution. (h/t Paul Graham and George McLeod)
TO AFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF ALL STATES INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
Whereas, the South Carolina General Assembly declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not expressly delegated by them to the United States of America in the congress assembled; andWhereas, some states when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “that it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several states to be by them exercised”...
The whole thing may be found at the link.
And Tennessee apparently has introduced such a resolution, although I have not been able to track down a link to a newspaper article about it. If anyone has such a link, please share it with us.
It's good to see more Southron states getting into the act.
"At no moment in my life have I ever felt as though I were an American." - Toni Morrison
"The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean Algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, and Ballanchine ballets don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history." - Susan Sontag
"Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them." - Mary Frances Berry, Civil Rights Commission head, 1991
"Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get
out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die. . . ." - Augustin Cebada, quoted by Barbara Coe, in Reconquista: The Takeover of America, 1991
"We have an aging white America. They are dying. They are ****ting in their pants with fear! . . . I love it!" - 'Professor' Jose Angel Gutierrez, ibid.
"I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder." - 'Professor' bell hooks [sic], from A Killing Rage
“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.” - African Studies 'professor', Dr. Kamau Kambon
''When I consider the enormity of the white man's crimes against humanity ... Against the poor. Against my mother and my father. Against me ... I think ... Let the earth marinate in poisons. Let the bombs cover the ground like rain. For nothing short of total destruction will ever teach them anything!' - Alice Walker, 'In Search of Our Mother's Gardens'
Also see here for more from Walker along these lines : What can the White man say to the black woman?
"When talking about the history of this great country, one can never forget that America was built upon the genocide of Native Americans and enslavement of African people. To say otherwise is criminal." - Spike Lee, quoted in LA Times, 7/7/2000
"I'm convinced AIDS is a government-engineered disease. They got one thing wrong, they never realized it couldn't just be contained to the groups it was intended to wipe out. So, now it's a national priority. Exactly like drugs when they escaped the urban centers into white suburbia." - Spike Lee (again), quoted in Detroit Free Press, 9/9/1992
This is just a small sampling of the 'dialogue' to date, as contributed by the other side, the only side which gets heard in our useless media. Our side has been oddly silent thus far, except for the occasional protest 'not me, I'm no racist', which, to be fair, is about all we are allowed to say in this rigged 'dialogue.'
But in principle I think dialogue could be a good thing, and I expect to have more to say on this, though I have a feeling it is not what our masters want to hear.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The New Book Banning
It’s hard to believe, but true: under a law Congress passed last year aimed at regulating hazards in children’s products, the federal government has now advised that children’s books published before 1985 should not be considered safe and may in many cases be unlawful to sell or distribute. Merchants, thrift stores, and booksellers may be at risk if they sell older volumes, or even give them away, without first subjecting them to testing—at prohibitive expense. Many used-book sellers, consignment stores, Goodwill outlets, and the like have accordingly begun to refuse new donations of pre-1985 volumes, yank existing ones off their shelves, and in some cases discard them en masse.
The problem is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), passed by Congress last summer after the panic over lead paint on toys from China. Among its other provisions, CPSIA imposed tough new limits on lead in any products intended for use by children aged 12 or under, and made those limits retroactive: that is, goods manufactured before the law passed cannot be sold on the used market (even in garage sales or on eBay) if they don’t conform.''
Laurel also linked to Gary North's piece on this law
Children's Books in Dumpsters: Washington's Madness Continues
Here is the new reality, one week old. If you can still find any pre-1985 books, it is because the thrift store's managers don't know they are breaking the law and could be fined or sent to prison if they persist.
The bureaucrats are now enforcing the letter of the 2008 law. Congressmen will feign ignorance. "Gee, how were we to know?"
Too late. The books are in landfill.
But why? "Stop dangerous lead paint!" Right. The lead paint in pre-1985 kids' books in minuscule traces. There is no known example of any child being injured by lead paint from a book. No matter. The law's the law.
This seems insane, but it is the relentless logic of the State: "Nothing is permitted unless authorized by the State."
The Federal government has authorized abortion on demand. But, once a parent allows a child to be born, that parent is not be allowed to buy the child a pre-1985 book. Such books are too dangerous for children.
This is the logic of Washington. This logic is relentless. It will be extended by law into every nook and cranny of our lives until it is stopped.''
Now, most of the criticisms I've since found of the law are concerned with the minutiae of it, or about other aspects of it, like the banning of certain clothing items like buttons or snaps which may contain toxic materials. But from my perspective, the most troubling thing about it is that it seems, beneath the surface, to be concerned with what our rulers consider 'toxic ideas', not lead in ink or in items of apparel.
Our government has different ideas of what is 'dangerous to our health' than my own idea. To them, it seems anything which comes from the pre-politically correct era is toxic. Our school textbooks and popular histories, in book form or on TV or the Internet, have been 'corrected' to conform with the present ideas of acceptability. We are all familiar with disputes between educators and parents, and complaints by ethnic agitators over 'racist' and 'xenophobic' words, images, and ideas in old textbooks and literature. I don't for a moment believe that the government would not like to wave a magic wand and cause all pre-PC books, movies, and recordings to disappear forever. Anything that would further that cause, even if only incidentally, would be just fine with them.
Some time back, I blogged about the 'cleansing' of old books from public libraries nationwide, and the overall dumbing down of libraries, usually under the guise of ''updating" and digitizing and changing the emphasis to electronic media. If some old, pre-PC books happened to be casualties of the march of progress, then -- oops, too bad, what a shame.
Most people don't question this; we have this ingrained idea that newer is better and that progress is inevitable and unstoppable, and that overall, all changes are part of progress and therefore we just have to accept it with a shrug. But I think we may lose a great deal of our heritage and history in those old books that are being unceremoniously thrown out or dumped in landfills, and what is being left in its place is not an improvement.
As a society, we no longer value the old in general, and every day it seems another article appears somewhere about the coming demise of the printed word. Books in general are valued less than ever before, as people passively accept that the book will soon be a relic of the past, of no use to us in the computer age. And old books generally are regarded as irrelevant if not downright backward and harmful to our delicate PC sensibilities.
This commentator understands the importance of what is happening.
...It used to be that the older the book, the more it was treasured as part of the collection. Now the opposite seems to be true: the most recent interpretations of human affairs are valued, while the older ones are discarded. Instant and untested knowledge trumps the wisdom of the ages.
Western civilization (or any other civilization worth its name) depends on written texts for its preservation, perpetuation, and development. Dead civilizations are studied through archeology, live ones are reanimated by reading books.
The removal of a sizeable percentage of books published before the 1960s truncates the memory of the present generation. If a significant chunk of interpretations of culture committed to paper is removed from easy circulation, the culture built on these interpretations will eventually wither. This was predicted by Marxists like Antonio Gramsci who wrote in the 1930s that it is not necessary to engineer bloody revolutions to change political systems and affect a transfer of power: it is enough to change culture to affect such a change. The massive removal of old books from university libraries is a small step in this direction. While many steps have to be taken to bring Gramsci’s vision to fruition, one should not ignore the small steps.''
I agree; the 'small steps' often go unnoticed but they are not insignificant.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
We've heard this kind of disingenuous prattle before, about how 'we' need a 'dialogue' on race. But it's ratcheting up now, with Mr. Holder taunting Americans (presumably White Americans) as 'cowards.' We are, he judges, a 'nation of cowards'.
Now, I heard this while watching part of Lou Dobbs' hour on CNN this evening, and I have not read the reaction around the blogosphere or from the 'conservative' pundits as yet, so I will just offer my honest, blue-sky reaction.But perhaps the response from the 'name' bloggers and pundits will give us some indication of how true the 'cowardly' characterization is.
Sad to say, I think the response will probably bear out the accusation of cowardice on our part, as the politically corrected, 'castrated conservatives' (as Carelton Putnam called them) scurry to exonerate themselves, saying 'I have no problems with blacks! I love Tom Sowell and Walter Williams. I don't care whether you're black, white, red, yellow or polka-dot, I judge you as an individual!' The usual stuff. And then there will be the 'conservatives' who point the finger at somebody else (on the right or the left) as being the problem, rather than to express any solidarity with their own people as they would if they were honest, natural men.
But do any of these people truly believe that all that is needed is for us to be able to sit down and have a 'frank conversation' about race, after which everything will be rosy? I don't think even the most politically correct can possibly be that delusional.
As others have noted, when this call for 'dialogue' sounds from some black demagogue, 'dialogue' always seems to mean that Whites must sit silent and humbled while blacks and/or other minorities accuse, insult, browbeat, and demand. We simply have to sit and nod or acknowledge our purported guilt, and take our medicine, or be labeled 'racist' and 'hater' if we defend ourselves or (heaven forbid) offer counter-accusations. So a dialogue is not what is wanted by those who keep asking for it. Dialogue implies a two-way, give-and-take exchange of thoughts and ideas and information. The other side wants no dialogue, now or ever, but rather another chance to verbally abuse and to make further demands, which they expect will meet with acquiescence.
And that acquiescence is what our 'cowardice' amounts to: our cowardice, insofar as it exists, lies in our willingness to accept 110 percent of the blame for interracial conflicts and frictions, and our passive acceptance of the perpetual guilt trip that has been placed on our shoulders for the last half-century or more. So while Mr. Holder berates us as 'cowards', he is in fact counting on our continued 'cowardice'. In fact, our cowardice is what has given us 'leaders' like him to rule over us. He decries the very thing upon which he relies.
Am I saying White Americans are in fact cowards? My first reaction to the word was anger and indignation. But on reflection, I sadly have to agree that there is some degree of truth to the allegation, though I think it is true only of some of us, not all. What our enemies perceive as 'cowardice' or weakness is nothing more in many cases than an effort to be fair-minded, to see the 'other side' in a dispute, to yield ground in hopes of avoiding unnecessary conflict, or a vain hope of obtaining a reciprocation of our fair-mindedness. However, after our centuries of interracial friction and conflict, it should be evident to all but the most obtuse that it just isn't working, this conciliatory approach. Many people who put on a show of being oh-so-fair and unbigoted may secretly be feeling a resentment and a simmering impatience with this situation. But some people are not even aware of their real feelings. Suppression is part of our everyday repertoire of behavior when dealing with outsiders; we have learned we have to try to pacify and mollify our antagonists, and some of us are so skilled at repressing our honest reactions that we lose touch ourselves.
There are some real cowards out there who will sell out their own people in order to pacify those they fear, deep-down. Most Whites learn very early on, when in contact with blacks and other minorities, that they tend to be unpredictable and touchy, and they can possibly lash out verbally or physically if not handled with kid gloves. So most of us have to learn to adopt an amiable, easygoing, yet cautious attitude with them so as not to spark some kind of scene. In an employment setting, there's always the threat of lawsuits and court cases if a wrong word is said, or if a minority perceives mistreatment.
Blacks often inspire fear in a physical sense, and often adopt verbally or physically intimidating behaviors to maintain the upper hand in a situation. Many Whites would never admit to feeling fear towards random blacks in public -- because even stating such a thing brings cries of 'racism.'
And yes, there are cowards who are afraid of words -- like 'racist', or 'bigot', whether these word-weapons are employed by their fellow cowardly Whites or by minorities. As children, we often used to answer schoolyard taunts by chanting 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.' But evidently names can hurt people so much that they are prepared to risk almost anything to avoid being called names. And that is, I'm afraid, cowardice.
It's that kind of cowardice that enables the race-hustlers and the demagogues and the affirmative-action mediocrities to hold us hostage for half a century and counting. It's that kind of cowardice that puts the current regime (including their White collaborators) in power and makes them all-but-invulnerable to real criticism and accountability.
Sooner or later, we have to realize our own strength and realize that the 'minorities' are just that: minorities, meaning the few, as opposed to the many. Why do the few rule over the many? There's another old saying: there's strength in numbers. And there's some other phrases we've forgottenn about 'the will of the majority'. Why have we forgotten that? Why do we run from our own shadows?
I'm wondering, though: do these demagogues really want 'dialogue' on race? Surely they have an inkling that if people really, truly spoke frankly and freely, without fear of having some 'hate speech' laws invoked, they might say a great many things that would not be welcome and that would not be flattering. I don't think they truly want dialogue or even conversation. They want us to sit down, shut up, and submit, and meanwhile, continue to pony up the money.
Why, then, are they always demanding 'dialogue'? I have noticed that lately there seems to be, as I've said, a ratcheting up of the rhetoric, and a trend towards more naked aggression in the form of articles like 'The End of White America' and other such undisguised expressions of their intentions. Why? Are they feeling that overconfident? Or are they taunting and goading us? In my more suspicious moments, I wonder if they are not trying to bait and goad us into real hostility -- to draw us out, as it were, so that they can then crack down on our free speech and other liberties. If they goad us into speech and actions that they can paint as 'hate' or 'extremism' then here come the hate crime and hate speech laws which they are itching to pass, and the curtailing of our rights.
I don't counsel rashness in the face of this baiting and goading. I do think we have to speak up firmly and reasonably, but discarding all the political correctness and the truckling and mealy-mouthing. If enough of us spoke up and continued to do so, ignoring the epithets, we might find enough collective strength and confidence to turn the tide, which some haven't noticed is bearing down on us like a tsunami.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Ramos, Compean freed from prison
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Convicted former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were released from federal prison this morning and are en route to join their families in El Paso, Texas.
Characterizing Ramos and Compean's incarceration as a "political prosecution," Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, called for a congressional investigation into alleged prosecutorial misconduct by El Paso U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton under the direction of Bush administration Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Poe also called for an investigation into the alleged role of the Mexican government in demanding that Ramos and Compean be prosecuted.
"As soon as President Bush commuted Ramos and Compean's sentences, the Mexican government registered a large protest," Poe noted.''
I am not hopeful that there will be any investigation into the Mexican government's role in this travesty, given the present political regime. I think these men should be completely exonerated. Ramos's lawyer said on Lou Dobbs Tonight that Ramos was treated more harshly than the accused terrorists who are held at Guantanamo:
BOTSFORD: Well, Lou, Ignacio's situation was that he was assaulted when he was at the Mississippi unit, the first unit he went to. Because of that, he was put into protective custody, it was called a shoe unit. So he was locked down 23 hours a day. He's in solitary confinement.
The conditions that he suffered, suffered from during that period of time basically, you know, 22 1/2 months, are more onerous than those imposed on the detainees in Gitmo. That was instrumental, I believe, in getting the president to commute this sentence. DOBBS: David, what are the next legal steps here for Ignacio and for Jose Compean? Do they have recourse? Is there a way to set this obvious, obvious miscarriage of justice right?
BOTSFORD: Lou, I believe so. I'm not going to stop fighting until we get to the bitter end. Currently we have a petition before the Supreme Court of the United States asking the Supreme Court to review the remaining convictions that are still there after the Fifth Circuit vacated or threw out all the convictions on the obstruction of justice. I can't tell you what the Supreme Court's going to do obviously that's an uphill battle. But there are a number of legal issues that will remain after the Supreme Court has resolved the issues that are in front of that, and we will proceed back into federal district court to resolve those remaining issues, as is his right.
In another border-related story, the news is decidedly mixed. The good part is that Roger Barnett, the Arizona rancher who was being sued by a number of illegal aliens, was declared in the clear on some charges:
Jury rules rancher didn't violate migrants' rights
But the jury did find him liable on four claims of assault and four claims of infliction of emotional distress and ordered Barnett to pay $77,804 in damages — $60,000 of which were punitive.''
I would be interested to know the composition of the jury. I think it's unjust in the extreme that he is declared liable for 'inflicting emotional distress' on these brazen trespassers. I think he should countersue them; surely having hordes of criminal illegals traipsing across his property over a period of years, while the government refuses to enforce our laws, constitutes real 'emotional distress.'
Who is footing the bill for these subversive lawsuits? The legal ambulance-chasers who aggressively bring suits like this against American citizens who are exercising their right to bear arms and to defend their property and lives are enemies of the American people just as much as the illegal intruders. But the government at whatever level, federal or state, which refuses to protect citizens against these predators is just as much the enemy; they have abdicated their primary responsibility and have betrayed the people they purport to represent and serve.
Shame on all of them.
Monday, February 16, 2009
In the Republic, two young men, Glaucon and Adeimantus, accompany the much older Socrates on a journey of discovery into the nature of the individual soul and its connection to the harmony of the state. During the course of their adventure, as the two disciples demonstrate greater maturity and self-control, they are gradually exposed to deeper and more complex teachings regarding the relationship between virtue, self-sufficiency, and happiness. In short, the boys begin to realize that justice and happiness in a community rests upon the moral condition of its citizens. This is what Socrates meant when he said: "The state is man writ large."
Near the end of the Republic Socrates decides to drive this point home by showing Adeimantus what happens to a regime when its parents and educators neglect the proper moral education of its children. In the course of this chilling illustration Adeimantus comes to discover a dark and ominous secret: without proper moral conditioning a regime's "defining principle" will be the source of its ultimate destruction. For democracy, that defining principle is freedom. According to Socrates, freedom makes a democracy but freedom also eventually breaks a democracy.''
It's good as far as it goes, and it applies to our present situation. Still, it could be said that our decline into tyranny was in the cards, given the trends of the last half-century, or even a century -- or more, depending on how you read and interpret our history.
But over at Gates of Vienna, El Inglés writes a piece called Pick a Tribe, Any Tribe, in which he examines how the presence of Moslems in the European countries, including the UK, has been a destructive force for democracy and freedom. And he discusses how a resurgence of tribalism may be the only way in which the incursions of Islam may be resisted.
The central contention of this essay is that tribalism will prove to be an essential component, if not the central component, in allowing a defense of Western societies against Islam. There are two reasons for this. The first is that such tribalisms will tend to keep Muslims out of those societies in the first place, and the second is that certain types of situations impose such severe psychological pressure on those who would confront them that they cannot consistently or usefully do so without a type and degree of psychological reinforcement that can only be provided by a tribe.''
But wait; he does not define 'tribes' by the conventional dictionary definition.
According to my old Webster's, the word 'tribe' means 'a social group comprising a series of families, clans, or generations...', whereas El Inglés says that
The most obvious and common tribal types would be those organized along racial lines (for the most obvious and literal type of tribe), cultural lines, religious lines (which tribes could be considered a subset of cultural tribes, as they pertain to behaviour and belief), ideological lines (Communists vs. Fascists), regional lines (my nation against yours, North against South), or organizational lines (a British Army regiment).''
I've said on this blog before that 'tribes' which have been formed on ideological lines, such as the hard-core left in this country, have taken the place of real tribes in postmodern America. Certain other groups, such as young single people under, say 30 or perhaps 35 also have become a kind of tribe. This goes back at least to the Woodstock days -- remember how the Woodstock rock festival was billed as 'the gathering of the tribes'? For some people, the American identity is their only 'tribal' identity, but the people who are that kind of 'patriot' also tend to be the types who aver that anybody and everybody is potentially one of us, by virtue of saluting our flag or 'believing in freedom.'
But I would say that these quasi-tribes, these superficial identities would not have morphed into 'tribal' groupings had we not become deracinated. For years there has been a conscious effort to remove all vestiges of genetic tribal loyalties, and to convince us that we are all brothers under the skin, at least as long as we believe in 'freedom and democracy.'
It's obvious, though, to those who have not been blinded to group and race differences that when an American, or a Western European, says 'freedom' it likely has a much different meaning than it does to a Middle Easterner or a Latin American or an Asian.
Yet we engage in this pretense that all men speak a common language and are of the same mind when it comes to these slogans and shibboleths like 'freedom', 'liberty' and 'democracy.' And it is this pretense that has allowed so many people to believe that we can admit millions of people from very alien societies under the assumption that they 'love freedom and democracy' in exactly the same way that we do, and moreover, who are we to deny 'freedom and democracy' to these poor people by refusing to let them come and live with us?
El Ingles discusses how 'principle' is not sufficient to motivate Europeans to oppose Islam, and how principle itself can be (and has been) corrupted in the attempt to 'dialogue' or engage peaceably with Moslems. And it's not only the Moslems themselves who twist and pervert principles, but their multicultist groupies in the West also do their part.
He points out how principle, had it been applied usefully to prevent the mass settlement of Moslems in Europe, might have been sufficient, but once the enemy is within the gates and using Western rhetoric to diminish the rights of their host peoples, it's too late.
This applies very much to America, too, although our percentage of Moslems is at this point considerably smaller than in Europe. However the tidal wave of Latin American immigrants, legal and illegal, are our equivalent of the Moslem problem. And we are weakened in defending ourselves for the same reasons: we have become deracinated and stripped of normal and healthy tribalism, while they themselves are allowed to be openly tribal and aggressively ethnocentric towards us.
Many Europeans, and even many shortsighted Americans, refuse to recognize the fact that Latino immigration is as big a threat to us as Moslems are to Europe. The people who minimize the threat they pose usually justify that attitude by saying 'well, at least they aren't trying to blow us up, and at least they are Christian, and at least they are hard workers...'' and so on. In fact, I would say that the sort of 'humble' image Latinos have acquired makes them appear more harmless than they are. The idea that 'at least they don't blow us up' is sufficient reason to welcome them is absurd, and I wonder if the people who say that ever read their local newspapers or look at the 'most wanted' posters for their towns or cities. So far there is no open terrorism, but many, many crimes against Americans by Latino immigrants constitute a kind of low-grade terrorism in my book, and it's fact that more Americans have been killed by those 'hard-working' folk than in the Iraq war, as of now.
And even were they not committing violence, low-grade or otherwise against us, it's clear that their presence is changing our country beyond recognition in many areas, and that they are bringing their culture with them, and replacing ours.
And the real way to deal with this problem should have been to act preventively, but once we have masses of these interlopers in our country, we have already sacrificed a great deal of our right to speak freely and candidly and honestly, because of the PC censors, and because we censor ourselves. It's easy and painless to declare pre-emptively that we don't want immigrants from certain countries, and we used to have such sensible policies, before 1965. But now that we have tens of millions of Latinos and who knows how many other immigrants in our midst, we cannot speak so frankly. And once we 'know' individuals from each group, we soften somewhat; somebody has a Hispanic co-worker, or they have Hispanic famiies attending their church, or someone knows friendly Moslems who run a local business. On and on it goes, and soon it becomes unthinkable to think of suggesting these people don't belong among us. We begin to see them as part of the natural American landscape, or we feel pity or sympathy for them. Nobody wants to be the hard-hearted person who would repatriate them. So the more of them living among us, the harder it becomes for us to think tribally and thus 'exclude' anybody. Even if we are not multiculturalist bleeding-hearts, most of us don't want to be harsh or unfriendly when we look at the outsiders who are among us -- even if they have no problem being hostile towards us.
I used to believe that the UK and the rest of Europe had an advantage in resisting the invasions of their countries, in that Islam is a much more obviously threatening system which is so obviously alien to Europe. For that reason, one would think that the natural ethnocentrism and desire to defend oneself and one's people would kick in and enable the Europeans to resist the Islamization of their countries. But for some reason, such doesn't seem to be the case.
We, on the other hand, are lulled by the fact that we have been next door to Mexico for centuries, and we have had small numbers of Hispanic immigrants for decades, with many of them having become quasi-assimilated after several generations. Again, we are lulled into thinking that they are 'Christian' like most of us, or that they are 'Western' as some people strangely claim. Many Americans thus blind themselves to the Hispanic presence here.
I don't quite understand El Ingles's ambivalence towards the BNP:
Let me put it succinctly: if the BNP won two seats at the next general election, I would be delighted. If it won two hundred, I would emigrate. I view BNP support as playing a role similar to that of a price in a free-market economy, which is to say that I see it as a signal conveying a certain type of information. If the BNP were to be banned and its support therefore to disappear at the electoral level, this information would be lost to the system, easing the pressure on the establishment parties to formulate a real response to Islamization, which I fervently hope they will eventually do. Lamenting the advances of nativist groups at this level would be like lamenting a rise in the price in oil when demand grows more quickly than supply. That said, given my beliefs about the gap between the true ideological commitments of the BNP leadership and the motivations of those who vote for it, it is impossible for me to avoid the conclusion that it would be a disaster for it to obtain real power.''
but then I am not British; I don't know the full situation as he might.
I encourage you to read the whole piece.
From where I sit, the BNP are the only party speaking up for the historic British people; without them or someone like them, there would be no hope, as the two major parties are as anti-British and pro-multiculturalist as our two useless parties are.
My doubts about the BNP come from the opposite direction: it seems I detect some efforts to be 'inclusive' and to thus play to the politically correct and the timid. I think this is always a bad move. Being 'inclusive' to outsiders or attempting to prove one's lack of 'bigotry' is always a victory for political correctness. I believe that a sharp correction to the right is absolutely essential to counter the many decades of leftward movement. The effort to prove one's lack of 'xenophobia' or 'racism' is exactly what has put the West at the edge of the precipice. More of the same will push us over the edge.
I fear that ingrained vestiges of political correctness on the right will doom any nativist efforts to resist what is happening. We have been taught for so long that ethnocentrism and nativism are evil, and that we must lean over backwards to expunge any hint of these things from ourselves and our political organizations. This merely helps our foes and may ultimately doom the West, if it continues.