Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The Natives Are Restless...

"Those that beat their swords into plowshares are destined to plow the fields of those that kept their swords."
-K. Braun


Sunday, September 28, 2008

When Idiots Ruled The World!!!!...

As part of this plan, George W. Bush made several speeches rallying enthusiasm for his October 15, 2002 White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership. For instance, there was his classic Bushian effort on June 18, 2002:

"The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America. Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of African Americans and Hispanics own homes. … So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010—million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) … "

The five and a half million marginal minority homeowners that Bush bunglingly called for is a big number. At a mortgage of, say, $127,000 each, that would add up to, let me check my calculator, oh…

$700 billion—the size of the current bailout. Well, whaddaya know …

CNN reported after Bush's June 17 speech at the St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church in Atlanta:

"Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the federal Home Loan Banks—the government-sponsored corporations that handle home mortgages—will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion, Bush said."

(Thomas Allen wrote a must-read article on Fannie Mae's push for more—and more dubious—lending to immigrants way back in 2004.)

In December 2003, when signing the American Dream Downpayment Act, Bush bragged:

"Last year I set a goal to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners in America by the end of the decade. That is an attainable goal; that is an essential goal. And we're making progress toward that goal. In the past 18 months, more than 1 million minority families have become homeowners. (Applause.) And there's more that we can do to achieve the goal. The law I sign today will help us build on this progress in a very practical way."

What was truly significant about Bush's 2002 speeches (including the doozy he delivered on October 15, 2002 at his White House conference, which you should read for the schadenfreude alone) was not the legislation he endorsed—but the unsubtle message he was sending to lenders and, most importantly, to his own employees, the federal regulators.

Bush made clear at his October 15, 2002 conference that he opposed not merely discriminating against borrowers who might turn out to be bad credit risks—he wanted more money to go to documented bad credit risks. He brayed:

"Freddie Mac recently began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for homeownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for homeownership loans."



How Things Work...

CLEVELAND, Tenn. — Some construction subcontractors have complained to the Bradley County Commission that competitors are hiring illegal workers and driving them out of business.

“It seems to be getting out of hand,” local contractor Jerry Chess said. “I’d say I’ve lost 65 percent of my business this year.”

Troy Smith, a masonry contractor, agreed that the problem lies with general contractors and homeowners. Employers go to locations like one on Georgetown Road where unemployed people gather, hire them for the day and pay them in the evening in cash, he said.

Mr. Chess, who employs six workers legally, said he can’t find work because he must pay taxes, insurance and other costs for providing jobs, and his competitors do not, making their prices much cheaper. Mr. Chess said he may have to go out of business soon.

“It’s clearly against the law to hire illegals,” Mr. Smith said.

Meanwhile Sheriff Tim Gobble announced that his department has become part of the Federal Criminal Alien Program through U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That allows the sheriff’s department to identify whether all new inmates are U.S. citizens.

“This is a step in the right direction, but the federal government must get the illegal alien problem under control by securing the U.S. borders and quickly deporting all who come here illegally,” the sheriff said. “The first test of citizenship is the ability to follow the law.”

Chief Deputy Bill Dyer said over the past several years there has been a noticeable increase in offenders brought to the jail who cannot provide a driver’s license, Social Security card or authenticated immigration papers.


Many people have laid out the reasons why this mass invasion of our country (politely referred to as illegal immigration) is bad economically.

Now, setting aside the rapid spread of new and previously defeated diseases in America by this mass invasion, as well as the rapid rise in violent crimes that are quickly reaching into every city, town and neighborhood from Maine to Oregon, let us just for a moment take them at their word and consider what the pro-immigrant crowd’s argument boils down to.

  1. The illegals are simply doing the jobs Americans will not.
  2. Those jobs in question are the menial jobs such as mowing lawns, picking fruit etc..
  3. If we deport the illegals those jobs will not get done.

Thus we can conclude from the pro-immigrant crowds talking points that the most severe fallout from deporting the illegals would (essentially) be…… taller grass!

Now that point can work no matter where you wish too apply it….unpicked fruit (the horror!), slow service in restaurants (the inhumanity!), disheveled country club landscapes (is there no end to the tragedy!),..

And considering that 95% of Americans eat some sort of "fast food", cut their own grass and don’t belong to country clubs, its not difficult to figure out who in fact is benefiting from the services attributed to illegals.

Its also worth keeping in mind that if the fruit and vegetable fields in California were vacated of workers and productivity, it would be a boon to regional (as in LOCAL) fruit and vegetable growers.
(How quickly Americans forget that conglomeration of Industry is detrimental to local economies…)

To be fair though, Old Media has been complicit in this forgotten knowledge. The reason being, Old Media (large papers, magazines, networks etc.) has been conglomerated itself and is now part of (as in owned by) the “business community”. As such, it kisses the ass of its benefactors

This can be seen in its two-faced approach to lulling the masses. For example, when they wish to downplay the long-term effect of mass invasion, they give us stories about "Pedro".

"Pedro" is the media generated archetype of the lone Mexican migrant worker/day laborer who is only here to raise a few extra pesos for the family back home. Once that's done, he is on his way back to Mexico. No Problemo. Joe Sixpack and Sally Soccermom can safely nod back off into their media induced slumberland.

Then when they (the media) are called upon to protect Corporate America’s assets from those who point out that these migrants are not going back home, but are in fact staying and fundamentally altering the towns and neighborhoods they have taken over numerically, hard working- "temporary" guest worker "Pedro", miraculously morphs into long suffering- hope of tomorrow "Maria".

"Maria" is the other media generated archetype. She is the always hardworking single mother working as a waitress or housekeeper to support 2 lovable Tiny-Tim’ish type children (who are always around ten and never age) and their dog Spot.

(In real life, of course, “Maria” is a 35-year-old welfare recipient with 6 teenage sons, three of whom are in prison and the other three in gangs. But reality doesn’t adequately play on White America’s sympathies)

And for those who fall for the poor third world immigrant bit, just remind them of what country routinely ranks in the top 15 most powerful economies in the world.

I’ll give you a hint; it begins with M ends with O and has an X in the middle...


Saturday, September 27, 2008

America As California...

Here on the Left Coast, we have seen the Mexifornia future and it doesn't work. An economy built on the "cheap" labor of millions of illegal aliens who are kept afloat by billions of tax dollars in welfare is not a viable system. California's deepening budget hole from berserk spending simply cannot be papered over any longer. The massive costs of supporting a massive unskilled foreign population now threaten basic services.

The long-expected budget crisis has formed up in detail over the last while in the capital of Mexifornia. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tapdanced his way to the end of the fantasy budget road. He managed to sidestep a lot of potholes, but his luck ran out: the subprime mortgage meltdown punctured the housing bubble and revealed the disastrous extent of California's shaky finances and a history of irresponsible choices.

Californians are being told by the suits in Sacramexico that the situation is dire.

New statistics from the Department of Public Social Services reveal that illegal aliens and their families in Los Angeles County collected nearly $37 million in welfare and food stamp allocations, announced Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich.

“Illegal immigration continues to have a devastating impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers,” said Antonovich. “Annually, the cost of illegal immigration to Los Angeles County taxpayers exceeds one billion dollars, which includes $220 million for public safety, $400 million for healthcare, and $432 million in welfare allocations. This does not include millions of dollars for education.”

The article below is from August 2005,
The issue in a nutshell is that many illegal aliens, now widely viewed by banks and businesses of all stripes as a hot "new emerging market," can qualify for a home mortgage with as little as two years of U.S. residency, a "credit history," and an Individual Tax Payer Identification Number.

The National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals, salivating, reports that according to its own study

"Undocumented Latino immigrants would add an estimated $44 billion in new mortgages to the housing economy…"



Friday, September 26, 2008

Diversity Reaps...

Steve Sailer points out Washington Mutual's Last Press Release, ever...

WaMu Recognized as Top Diverse Employer—Again Company ranks in top ten of Hispanic Business’ Diversity Elite and earns perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index

SEATTLE, WA (September 24, 2008) – Washington Mutual, Inc. (NYSE:WM), one of the nation’s leading banks for consumers and small businesses, has once again been recognized as a top employer by Hispanic Business magazine and the Human Rights Campaign.

Hispanic Business magazine recently ranked WaMu sixth in its annual Diversity Elite list, which names the top 60 companies for Hispanics. The company was honored specifically for its efforts to recruit Hispanic employees, reach out to Hispanic consumers and support Hispanic communities and organizations.

The Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) civil rights organization, also awarded WaMu its second consecutive 100 percent score in the organization’s 2009 Corporate Equality Index (CEI), which measures progress in attaining equal rights for GLBT employees and consumers. WaMu joins the ranks of 259 other major U.S. businesses that also received top marks in the annual survey. The CEI rated a total of 583 businesses on GLBT-related policies and practices, including non-discrimination policies and domestic partner benefits.

In both surveys, WaMu earned points for competitive diversity policies and programs, including the recently established Latino, African American and GLBT employee network groups, all of which have a corporate executive sponsor and champion.

“Diversity is an integral part of cultivating a welcoming, innovative and dynamic workplace here at WaMu. We are proud to be recognized for the opportunities and benefits we offer to all of our employees, including the specific efforts we have made to engage Hispanics and the GLBT community,” said Steve Rotella, WaMu president and COO. “We are committed to diversity at WaMu and pledge to listen to our customers and work closely with our employees to continue to make progress.”

These two recent honors build upon diversity recognitions WaMu received earlier in 2008. WaMu was named one of 25 Noteworthy Companies by Diversity Inc magazine and one of the Top 50 Corporations for Supplier Diversity by Hispanic Enterprise magazine.

About WaMu

WaMu, through its subsidiaries, is one of the nation's leading consumer and small business banks. At June 30, 2008, WaMu and its subsidiaries had assets of $309.73 billion. The company has a history dating back to 1889 and its subsidiary banks currently operate approximately 2,300 consumer and small business banking stores throughout the nation. WaMu’s press releases are available at http://newsroom.wamu.com.



Feet As Food...

Once again a Christian (in the form of Albert Mohler, head-cheese of the Southern Baptists) demonstrates a penchant for selective reasoning (an affliction that is endemic to many Christians the world over).

Dr. Mohler is, naturally, peddling a book. His subject on the breakdown of normalcy in America (specifically sexual mores) is the focus of his blog on September 26, 2008.

He laments,
In the 1960's, Eros and Civilization received much attention on college campuses, where such ideas are always met with an enthusiastic audience. But the rest of the culture remained largely unaware of, and untroubled by, the assault that had begun to take place upon the very foundations of civilization itself. Now it has become obvious that this ideology of polymorphous perversity is inch by inch—if not yard by yard—gaining ground. Read the daily newspaper, or just review the events of a typical week. Even something as basic as the heterosexual nature of marriage is now very much under assault. The very idea of normality, or of fixed institutions, is being subverted by the culture and marginalized by cultural elites. What we now face is the subversion of humanity's most basic categories and institutions—gender, marriage, and family. In the eyes of all too many in our culture, gender is merely a plastic social construct. Indeed, in the postmodern world, all realities are plastic and all principles are liquid. Everything can be changed. Nothing is fixed. All truth is relative, all truth is socially constructed, and anything which is constructed can also be deconstructed in order to liberate.

Mohler's list of humanity's most basic categories and institutions (gender, marriage and family) seems to be missing something.



Christians like Mohler have rejected centuries of basic understanding and flat out obviousness by embracing the notion that race is a "social construct".

It wasn't that long ago that churches refused to marry people of two different races. Their reasoning was that the existence of race was obvious and thus obviously part of God's design and far be it for them to alter it.
Then came the "sexual revolution" and they buckled under the social pressure during the 1960's and 1970's and began openly advocating miscegenation.
Today the vanguard of that movement now marries homosexuals and lesbians.

Christians now find themselves caught in the snare Marxists laid for them by having to continue reaffirming their belief in "race as a social construct" while trying to worm their way around "gender as a social construct" as well.
And they can't.

They pitched their tent on the enemies side and are now shocked to find out that they are not allowed to fly their own flag.

In their desire to conform to Leftist notions of "equality", Christians stuck their foot in their mouth when they gave vocal support to the ridiculous notion that "race is a social construct".
Now the Marxists authors of that ideology are telling their neo-Christian pupils to start chewing...

What Scenes May Come...

Cops made more than a dozen arrests and recovered 14 illegal firearms after Sunday’s African-American Day Parade in Harlem.

He said 16 people were arrested and charged with criminal possession of a weapon after 14 guns were recovered.

Seven other suspects were charged with assaulting police officers, and a total of 55 summonses were issued for disorderly conduct and alcohol- and marijuana-related crimes, Collins said.

Six people—including a 15-year-old girl—were wounded in four shootings in less than an hour near the parade route, cops said.

Shootings in the area, the 28th Precinct, are up 33% so far this year compared with the same period in 2007, with 10 more victims being shot, NYPD stats show. Over two years, shootings that resulted in injuries or death are up 86%, according to the statistics.

Ahhh, the possible scenarios...

1. Obama wins the election and blacks celebrate by burning down a few cities.

2. McCain wins the election and Mexicans celebrate by burning down a few cities.

3. Bush refuses to leave office, declaring himself dictator for life, and Israel celebrates by burning down a few Mideast nations.


Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Nations And Peoples As Jerseys...

There are a few pithy linguistic riffs that adequately sum up the vacuousness of egalitarian thinking.

One is, "The man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything."

Another is Chesterton's famous quip, "Tolerance is the virtue of the man with no convictions."

Likewise, we could add, "The friend to every man is loyal to no one in particular."

As was written here before,

If you embrace "Equality" then you reject (increasingly) all forms of difference.

If you embrace the notion that race is a social construct, you WILL in turn embrace the notion that gender is a social construct as well.

If you endorse interracial marriage today, then you WILL endorse homosexual marriage tomorrow.
.....and on it goes......

Once you except, partially or wholly, the notion of Equality, you have immersed yourself in a world of lies. And the more lies you tell yourself, and the more lies you allow yourself to believe in, the more detached you become from reality, until it gets to the point that reality itself becomes the enemy.

One day you nod approvingly to the Confederate Flag being removed from a State house, then a few years later you are flabbergasted to see a box of crayons denounced as "divisive". (Think that won't happen? Wait a few years, I GUARANTEE YOU IT WILL.)

Americans know that the *TRUTH* is the reality that today's immigrants are different because they are from a different race than ourselves. That is what makes even legal immigration today different from immigration in the past.
That, is Truth.

We know down deep that if you were to replace all the Chinese people in China with Arabs, it wouldn't be China anymore.
We know that if you replace all the Indians in India with Polynesians, it wouldn't be India anymore.

And the application is no longer a theory in America as Americans can see the nation they were raised in, that their parents, and grandparents and great-grandparents were raised in, is literally being destroyed and removed by the presence of people who are of an entirely different race than themselves and their ancestors.

That is the truth. And if the thought of acknowledging that truth unnerves you then you had better get a grip on yourself and your mental capacities before you lose all sense of perspective and fall from the shores of reality into the depths of a constantly altering sea of illusions and delusions.

Already today we can see segments of our society who (by embracing the idea of equality) have plunged into such a state of mental anarchy that they can no longer (as in, are willing to) distinguish between black people and White people, male and female, humans and plants, tress and animals, terrorism and civility, history and propaganda, (in art) beauty and ugliness, Christianity and Islam, science and dogma, good and bad, Truth and Lies....

The cult of Equality strips people of their 'soul' because it engenders an apathy (and eventually a hostility) towards the ability to place value and assess worth.
It rips the very heart out of such truths as Nation, Community, Family, Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, Child and Friend, because it denies the very nature of their distinctiveness.
And in the end it destroys such "divisive" concepts as Devotion, Loyalty and Love, because those are three things that you can never apply equally to all places, things and people.

That is why today, as our society plunges deeper into the depraved depths of "Equality", we see anarchy, nihilism and violence escalating by a factor of ten from one year to the next.

Unless and until you learn to live with the limitations that the Truth will place on your need for warm, (and ultimately empty) fuzzy feelings, you are going to continue to be a participant in the taking of a-long-fought-for civilization down to the third level of societal hell.

And this is no emotional appeal, as there are very real real-time consequences to the differences in human groupings,

The reality is that Mother
Nature is no egalitarian. People are in fact
unequal in intellectual potential—and
they are born that way, just as they are
born with different potentials for height,
physical attractiveness, artistic flair, athletic
prowess and other traits. Although
subsequent experience shapes this potential,
no amount of social engineering can
make individuals with widely divergent
mental aptitudes into intellectual equals.

In my own work, I have tried to synthesize
the many lines of research that
document the influence of IQ on life outcomes.
As the illustration on the opposite
page shows, the odds of various kinds of
achievement and social pathology change
systematically across the IQ continuum,
from borderline mentally retarded
(below 70) to intellectually gifted (above
130). Even in comparisons of those of
somewhat below average (between 76
and 90) and somewhat above average
(between 111 and 125) IQs, the odds for
outcomes having social consequence are
stacked against the less able. Young men
somewhat below average in general
mental ability, for example, are more
likely to be unemployed than men
somewhat above average. The lower-IQ
woman is four times more likely to bear
illegitimate children than the higher-IQ
woman; among mothers, she is eight
times more likely to become a chronic
welfare recipient. People somewhat
below average are 88 times more likely
to drop out of high school, seven times
more likely to be jailed and five times
more likely as adults to live in poverty
than people of somewhat above-average
IQ. Below-average individuals are 50
percent more likely to be divorced than
those in the above-average category.
-Prof. Linda Gottfredson, University of Deleware

What makes these facts all the more contentious in our PC devoted world today is that IQ is not evenly distributed among the various races.
East-Asians generally have the highest IQ's at around 104, followed by Whites at 100, mestizo-Hispanics at about 88 and blacks at 85.

Not surprisingly this IQ ladder reflects the socio-economic reality in America which has Asians at the top, followed by Whites, then hispanics and blacks at the bottom.

Of course if you reject the science of racial differences, then you are left with one option to explain away these racial gaps...it's Whitey's fault!
It's an easy out, yet it fails to explain (and will continue to fail to explain) away the continuing racial disparity at all locals and societal levels across the globe. (particularly in light of the fact that Whites make up just around 13% of the worlds population)

The truth is, nations are living biological entities whose existence is permeated on the basis of genetic codes (blood) being passed down from one generation to another.

Nations are not football teams whose rosters can be changed year after year, but whose identities rely only upon players this year wearing the same jerseys the (different) players from last year wore.

Societies are racial constructs. And it is only a cold, corporatist and genocidal mindset that would believe otherwise...


Proving The Faith Again...

Now, this is the cup the White Men drink
When they go to right a wrong,
And that is the cup of the old world's hate--
Cruel and strained and strong.
We have drunk that cup--and a bitter, bitter cup--
And tossed the dregs away.
But well for the world when the White Men drink
To the dawn of the White Man's day!

Now, this is the road that the White Men tread
When they go to clean a land--
Iron underfoot and levin overhead
And the deep on either hand.
We have trod that road--and a wet and windy road--
Our chosen star for guide.
Oh, well for the world when the White Men tread
Their highway side by side!

Now, this is the faith that the White Men hold--
When they build their homes afar--
"Freedom for ourselves and freedom for our sons
And, failing freedom, War."
We have proved our faith--bear witness to our faith,
Dear souls of freemen slain!
Oh, well for the world when the White Men join
To prove their faith again!
-Rudyard Kipling


Monday, September 22, 2008

The Road Down Which We Go, Has But One End.....A Cliff...

(above: Philadelphia, Pa. circa 2076)

"Race-mixing stems from self-loathing which one projects upon their own race. And then as a means to disassociate themselves from this hated race (the embodiment of their self-loathing) they choose a mate from a foreign race.
It's possible that they believe that by interbreeding and producing halflings they will, in effect, lessen this intense self-loathing by weakening the genetic code of their race of origin.

All things considered, participants of miscegenation are the most hateful of racists, in that they despise their own people!"
-H. Braun

The Following is exerted from, 'Critique of Liberal Ideology' by Alain de Benoist and translated by Greg Johnson.
The link to the original source can be found below.

Not being the work of a single man, liberalism was never presented
in the form of a unified doctrine. Various liberal authors have, at
times, interpreted it in divergent, if not contradictory, ways. Still, they
share enough common points to classify them all as liberals. These
common points also make it possible to define liberalism as a specific
school of thought. On the one hand, liberalism is an economic doctrine
that tends to make the model of the self-regulating market the
paradigm of all social reality: what is called political liberalism is simply
one way of applying the principles deduced from these economic
doctrines to political life. This tends to limit the role of politics as
much as possible. (In this sense, one can say that “liberal politics” is a
contradiction in terms.) On the other hand, liberalism is a doctrine
based on an individualistic anthropology, i.e., it rests on a conception
of man as a being who is not fundamentally social.

However, insofar as it is
based on individualism, liberalism tends to sever all social connections
that go beyond the individual. As for the market’s optimal operation,
it requires that nothing obstruct the free circulation of men
and goods, i.e., borders must be treated as unreal, which tends to dissolve
common structures and values. Of course this does not mean
that liberals can never defend collective identities. But they do so only
in contradiction to their principles.

The Pauline doctrine reveals a dualistic tension that makes the Christian, in his relationship to God, an “otherworldly individual”: to
become Christian implies in some way giving up the world. However,
in the course of history, the “otherworldly” individual gradually contaminated
worldly life. To the extent that he acquired the power to
make the world conform to his values, the otherworldly individual
progressively returned to the world, immersing himself in it and
transforming it profoundly.

The process was carried out in three main stages. Initially, secular
life was no longer rejected but relativized: this is the Augustinian synthesis
of the two cities. In the second stage, the papacy secularized itself
by assuming political power. Finally, with the Reformation, man
invested himself completely in the world, where he worked for the
glory of God by seeking material success that he interpreted as the
very proof of his election.
In this way, the principle of equality and individuality—which initially
functioned solely in the relationship with God and thus could
still coexist with an organic and hierarchical principle structuring the
social whole—was gradually brought down to earth, resulting in
modern individualism, which represents its secular projection. “In order
for modern individualism to be born,” writes Alain Renaut explicating
the theses of Louis Dumont, it was necessary for the individualistic
and universalist component of Christianity “to contaminate,” so
to speak, modern life to such an extent that gradually the two orders
were unified, the initial dualism was erased, and “life in the world
was reconceived as being able to conform completely to the supreme
value”: at the end of this process, “the otherworldly individual became
the modern worldly individual.”2

Organic society of the holist type then disappeared. In contemporary
terms, one passed from community to society, i.e., to common life
conceived as simple contractual association. The social whole no
longer came first, but rather individual holders of individual rights,
bound together by self-interested rational contracts.

Beginning in the eighteenth century,
the emancipation of the situated individual from his natural attachments
was routinely interpreted from the perspective of universal
progress as marking the accession of humanity to “adulthood.” Sustained
by this individualistic impulse, modernity was characterized
first and foremost as the process by which local and kinship groups,
and broader communities, are gradually broken down to “liberate the
individual,” and all organic relations of solidarity are dissolved.

In the modern sense of the term, individualism is the philosophy
that regards the individual as the only reality and takes him as the
principle of every evaluation. The individual is considered in himself,
in abstraction from his social or cultural context. While holism expresses
or justifies existing society in reference to values that are inherited,
passed on, and shared—i.e., in the last analysis, in reference
to society itself—individualism establishes its values independently of
society as it finds it. This is why it does not recognize the autonomous
status of communities, peoples, cultures, or nations. For it sees these
entities as nothing but sums of individual atoms, which alone have

This primacy of the individual over the community is simultaneously
descriptive, normative, methodological, and axiological. The individual
is assumed to come first, whether he is prior to the social in a
mythical representation of “prehistory” (the anteriority of the state of
nature), or simply has normative primacy (the individual is what is
worth more). Georges Bataille asserts that, “at the basis of every being,
there exists a principle of insufficiency.” Liberal individualism, on the contrary, affirms the full sufficiency of the singular individual. In liberalism,
man can apprehend himself as an individual without reference
to his relationship to other men within a primary or secondary
sociality. Autonomous subject, owner of himself, moved solely by his
particular interests, the individual is defined, in opposition to the person,
as a “moral, independent, autonomous and thus primarily nonsocial

In liberal ideology, the individual possesses rights inherent in his
“nature” entirely independent of social or political organization. Governments
are obligated to guarantee these rights, but do not establish
them. Being prior to all social life, they are not immediately correlated
to duties, because duties imply precisely that social life already exists:
there are no duties toward others if there are no others. Thus the individual
himself is the source of his own rights, beginning with the right
to act freely according to the calculation of his private interests. Thus
he is “at war” with all other individuals, since they are supposed to
act the same way in a society conceived as a competitive market.

Liberals insist particularly on the idea that individual interests
should never be sacrificed to the collective interest, the common good,
or the public safety, concepts that they regard as inconsistent. From
this idea it follows that only individuals have rights, while communities,
being only collections of individuals, have none of their own.

Such a society can be conceived either as the consequence of an initial
rational voluntary act (the fiction of the “social contract”) or as the result
of the systemic play of the totality of projects produced by individual
agents, a play regulated by the market’s “invisible hand,”
which “produces” the social as the unintentional result of human behavior.
The liberal analysis of the social rests, thus, either on contractualism
(Locke), recourse to the “invisible hand” (Adam Smith), or the
idea of a spontaneous order, independent of any intention (F. A.

Liberals developed the whole idea of the superiority of regulation
by the market, which is supposed to be the most effective, most rational,
and thus also the most just means to harmonize exchanges. At
first glance, the market is thus presented above all as just a “technique
of organization” (Henri Lepage). From an economic standpoint, it is at
the same time an actual place where goods are exchanged and a virtual
entity where in an optimal way the conditions of exchange—i.e.,
the adjustment of supply and demand and the price level—are

But liberals do not wonder about the origin of the market either.
Commercial exchange for them is indeed the “natural” model for all
social relations. From this they deduced that the market itself is also a
“natural” entity, establishing an order prior to any deliberation and
decision. Being the form of exchange most in harmony with human
nature, the market would be present at the dawn of humanity, in all
societies. One finds here the tendency of every ideology to “naturalize”
its presuppositions, i.e., to present itself, not for what it is, in fact
a construction of the human spirit, but as a simple description, a simple
transcription of the natural order. The state being correlatively rejected
as an artifice, the idea of the “natural” regulation of the social
by means of the market can then be imposed.

“A merchant,” Smith
writes in a famous passage, “. . . is not necessarily the citizen of any
particular country. It is in a great measure indifferent to him from
what place he carries on his trade; and a very trifling disgust will
make him remove his capital, and together with it all the industry
which it supports, from one country to another.”13 These prophetic
lines justify the judgment of Pierre Rosanvallon, who sees Adam
Smith as “the first consistent internationalist.” “Civil society, conceived
as a fluid market,” adds Rosanvallon, “extends to all men and
allows them to transcend national and racial divisions.”

The market can indeed be regarded as a law—a
principle regulating the social order—without a legislator. Regulated
by the action of an “invisible hand,” which is inherently neutral because
it is not incarnated in concrete individuals, the market establishes
an abstract mode of social regulation based on allegedly objective
“laws” that make it possible to regulate the individual relations
where no forms of subordination or command exist. The economic
order would thus have to establish the social order, both orders being
conceived as emerging without being instituted.

Neo-liberals now dispute
the very concept of the public good. Hayek prohibited any comprehensive
approach to society on principle: no institution, no political
authority ought to set objectives that might question the efficiency
of the “spontaneous order.” Given this view, the only role that most
liberals agree to allow the state is guaranteeing the conditions necessary
for the free play of economic rationality to work in the market.
The state can have no goal of its own.

-exerted from here


Sunday, September 21, 2008

Race Is Only Skin Deep....Till You Need A Kidney!

On the he eighth biennial American Renaissance Conference, held in February 2008,

The first speaker on Saturday morning was Philippe Rushton, the eminent psychometrician from the University of Western Ontario, who spoke about the heritability of racial differences in IQ. He first noted that the measured IQs of black Africans, which have consistently been found to be about 70, do not mean they are retarded. Instead, it is best to consider Africans as having the intelligence of normal 11-year-olds.

Prof. Rushton warned that despite optimistic predictions, India will not grow to become an economic superpower as he says China will. Although there are many smart Indians, their average IQ is 85, meaning that India will be outdistanced by China, where the average IQ is something over 100.

Prof. Rushton noted that it is common to argue that the meager, unpleasant surroundings in which low-IQ people live drag down their intelligence, and that this, rather than genes, causes racial differences. On the other hand, one would expect low-IQ people to create meager environments for themselves, and there is a mass of evidence to suggest that the causation is far more IQ-to-environment than environment-to-IQ.
Transracial adoption studies, for example, show that children reared by people of different races end up with IQs closer to the average for their own race than to that of their adoptive parents.

Likewise, non-whites have now lived for many generations in the United States and Europe, and their IQ scores are only slightly improved by better surroundings. Prof. Rushton cited the scores of second-generation North Africans living in Holland, whose average IQ of 89 is only a few points higher than the average in North Africa. “Genes,” explained Prof. Rushton, “keep culture on a leash.”

By now there are many mixed-race populations whose IQs have been carefully tested, and results are consistent with genetic explanations: Their average IQs tend to be mid-way between those of the parent populations. Finally, there is a clear correlation between brain size and IQ. Australian Aborigines, the population with the lowest recorded average IQ of 60, have the smallest brains, and North Asians have the largest brains. Findings such as this are very difficult to explain in terms of the impoverishing effect of environment.

Prof. Rushton noted that although the mainstream media do not yet report studies of this kind, they are published in top-notch journals and are generally accepted by scholars in the field. It will be only a matter of time before they become widely known.

The next speaker, (Dr.) Eugene Valberg, called upon many years of experience in South Africa to describe how Africans think. He said his interest in the subject was piqued by a conversation with Africans about gradation. How, he wanted to know, would a Zulu speaker describe a coconut as half-way up a tree? That can’t be expressed, was the answer; the coconut is “up” the tree or not, and its relative location cannot be expressed. Dr. Valberg has since found that Africans often have a hard time understanding gradation, and tend to think in terms of one extreme or the other.

He noted that African languages do not need dictionaries. Because they have no written literature, everyone who speaks them knows every word in the language. The resulting poverty of vocabulary reflects a poverty of expression and thought.

Today, non-native concepts have found their way into African languages, but it is important to distinguish between indigenous words and those that have been borrowed from Europeans. For example, there are now imported words in the Zulu language for “promise” or “obligation,” but Africans have a hard time understanding them.

Perhaps most characteristic of African thinking is an absence of abstraction. Africans rarely get beyond the concrete, present-oriented, visible, and tangible. Because the future is not tangible, it is difficult for Africans to think about it realistically. A man who is healthy may not understand the purpose of medical insurance. His mind may run no further than “I’m not sick now.” Likewise, the need to maintain machinery is often lost on Africans. If the motor is running fine now, why change the oil? Because Africans often cannot imagine things that do not exist, they cannot work seriously towards future goals.

Dr. Valberg argued that without abstract thinking it is hard to imagine the feelings of others. At the worst extreme, Africans can torture each other with astonishing callousness, and at the everyday level, they are often indifferent to or even unaware of their own rudeness or inconsiderateness. To be considerate requires an ability to imagine the feelings of others.

South Africa is often called the rape capital of the world, but Dr. Valberg believes Africans do not fully grasp the concept of rape. They have been told that “rape” is a bad thing, yet most African men do not think it wrong to force a woman to have sex. This unthinking acceptance of the actions that constitute rape makes it difficult to prosecute rapists. Dr. Valberg also said that for most Africans, romantic love does not exist, and sex is the only thing that draws men and women together.

Lack of abstract thinking can be an advantage. Africans are almost never introspective or self-conscious. They are only rarely neurotic, and Dr. Valberg suspects that impotence is essentially unheard of among them.

Dr. Valberg noted that although American blacks have higher IQs and operate at a higher level than African blacks, they exhibit many of the same tendencies.

Fred Reed, the man behind the popular Internet site “Fred on Everything,” has lived in Mexico for many years and spoke on “Mexico From the Inside.”

There are distinctly Third-World qualities about Mexico, and immigrants are bringing them to America. There is widespread disregard for law and regulations. Anyone who can, cheats the authorities, and Mexicans ignore traffic regulations—you take your life in your hands on the roads. Mexicans also have contempt for schooling, which translates into high dropout rates among emigrants to the US.

Some of Mr. Reed’s most interesting observations had to do with the maƱana attitude, which is a reality and not a caricature. Many Mexicans really do live in the present, and have little sense of urgency about anything. Many lack ambition, and seem not to care about their communities.

AR editor Jared Taylor next spoke about why it is so difficult to persuade white people to give up their illusions about race. He said that a realistic understanding of race includes three basic concepts: That race is a real, biological category; that racial differences go beyond gross morphology; and that racial loyalty is natural and healthy. Current orthodoxy denies all three.

Mr. Taylor argued that the view that race is some kind of sociological illusion will be the first building block of “race fantasy” to crumble. Everyone instinctively understands the reality of race, and no one who needs a kidney will ever say, “Don’t bother with tissue matching; we are all brothers under the skin.”

For more perspective on racial differences in intellect, behavior and morality, see this review of Prof. Michael Levin's 'Why Race Matters', by Jared Taylor.

For more on the problems of race-mixing, see here.


Saturday, September 20, 2008

Shooting At The Sun...

It was once said that the sun never set on the British Empire; it's reach and influence being unmatched....it's language and culture (everything from Shakespeare and Dickens to common law) the envy of the world and the model of civilization, birthing nations such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and America.

Then came modern liberalism!!!!

Today the British Empire is still with us (though smaller and more ragged than before), yet she is immersed in self hatred and contempt for her own.
Like the jewish feminist writer Susan Sontag, the British elite believes Whites and all that they stand for (namely the belief in the need to pursue Law, Order and Justice) are a cancer to human history.

So today, unable to successfuly purge the earth of all things British just yet, the liberals in the UK have decided to simply shoot down the sun in hopes of plunging Britain into perpetual moral, ideological and civilizational darkness in the meantime.

A MUM claims she was arrested and had her DNA and fingerprints taken by police because she had a `golly' doll in the window of her home.

She claims the doll was put in the window by her young daughter, who found it in a bag of toys.

But police say she was arrested after a series of complaints of alleged racially-aggravated behaviour were made against her.

She was released without charge after being questioned.

Now this woman was accused by the police of a "series of ALLEGED racially-aggrivated behavior".


they pressed no charges.

In other words the anti-White British ploice are bullying and harrassing her to make an example out of her because she is White.

And to back that up, here is an example of what might be considered "racially aggrivated behavior" in modern day Britain,

Publishers and universities are outlawing dozens of seemingly innocuous words in case they cause offence.

Banned phrases on the list, which was originally drawn up by sociologists, include Old Masters, which has been used for centuries to refer to great painters - almost all of whom were in fact male.

It is claimed that the term discriminates against women and should be replaced by "classic artists".

The list of banned words was written by the British Sociological Association, whose members include dozens of professors, lecturers and researchers.

The list of allegedly racist words includes immigrants, developing nations and black, while so-called "disablist" terms include patient, the elderly and special needs.

It comes after one council outlawed the allegedly sexist phrase "man on the street", and another banned staff from saying "brainstorm" in case it offended people with epilepsy.

However the list of "sensitive" language is said by critics to amount to unwarranted censorship and wrongly assume that people are offended by words that have been in use for years.

Prof Frank Furedi, a sociologist at the University of Kent, said he was shocked when he saw the extent of the list and how readily academics had accepted it.

I was moved to despair when I found out that one of my favourite words, 'civilised', ought not be used by a culturally sensitive author because of its alleged racist implications."

Prof Furedi said that censorship is about the "policing of moral behaviour" by an army of campaign groups, teachers and media organisations who are on a "crusade" to ban certain words and promote their own politically correct alternatives.

The University of Bristol's School for Policy Studies recommends the guidelines to help students "challenge heterosexist assumptions", and they are included in a "toolkit" to combat institutional racism included on the University of Leeds' website.

King's College London says they "may provide a good starting point" and Liverpool John Moores University provides a link to them in its students' guide. The Open University said they are an "appropriate source of reference and advice" for students.

Napier University in Edinburgh says the list is "well worth looking at" while the University of East London advises its students they should "attempt to incorporate" it.

Even a secondary school in Norwich includes a link to the list on its website, with the statement: "Students may care to consider how far we inadvertently reproduce inaccurate sexist assumptions in the language we use, both written and spoken."

The list of racist terms features black, which "can be used in a racist sense" and should be changed to "black peoples" or "black communities".

Immigrants is said to have "racist overtones" because of its association with "immigration legislation", while developing nations - intended as a more sensitive replacement for Third World - is "prejudical" because it implies a comparison with developed countries.

Although not included on the Policy Press list, the BSA warns authors against using civilisation because of its "racist overtones that derive from a colonialist perception of the world".

"Able-bodied person" should be replaced with "non-disabled person", it is claimed.


So while the British police are out and about- hard on the hills of some dastardly doll displaying criminal, the following is over looked if not outright encouraged,

On Thursday evening this week, at a packed meeting in London's East
End, two profoundly dangerous men urged the destruction of the British way of
I was there as the radical cleric and self-styled sheikh Omar Bakri

Mohammed proclaimed that this country - where he received state
benefits for two decades - will soon be transformed into an Islamic
state, or Khilafah, run according to the rules of the Muslim holy book, the

Bakri's black-robed right-hand man went one step further. Anjem
Choudary, a 41-year-old militant and the leading light of a thriving new
organisation called islam4UK declared:
'There are already six or seven million Muslims here in

'By the year 2020, we will be the

By sheer numbers, Britain will become an
Islamic state.
'We will never need to conquer this country.
Our eyes are now on Downing Street,' he added, with an excited laugh.

He has described the 9/11 hijackers as the magnificent martyrs, and
said the Pope should be murdered for criticising aspects of Islamic extremism

Yet still nothing has been done to silence him.

The mosque has been visited by several Labour ministers and is
constantly cited as a model of moderation and religious tolerance.

And yet the Channel 4 footage showed that worshippers -
including babies, children and teenagers - are being told they must
lead separate lives from non-Muslims, and not befriend those from other
Undercover reporters found Christians being described as a 'vile,
disgusting, abomination'

The nature of some of these activities - and those in
Islamic centres across Britain - seems, however, to have passed the
New Labour government by.

Gordon Brown and Communities Minister Hazel
Blears welcomed Muslim worshippers from Regent's Park Mosque to a meeting in
Downing Street
to launch a huge Labour campaign to combat
Islamic extremism at grassroots level following the London bombings of 2005.

The official blurb accompanying the fund, published on a Whitehall
website, says the money will help Muslim women become role models, ambassadors
for Islam, and unlock their potential.

In Oldham, £20,000 has been given to help
imams speak English. In Birmingham, where £3million has been granted, local
councils have spent thousands on producing T- shirts proclaiming 'I love Islam'.


And then there is the recent phenomena of black on White knifings that have become part of London life.

And that in turn has led to native Brits fleeing the city in record numbers.

Is it any wonder people are fleeing London?

In a north London suburb last week, a schoolgirl was beaten, gang-raped and then had drain-cleaning fluid poured on her body apparently to destroy DNA evidence. In the eternal cesspit of senseless urban crime, I feel that a dreadful nadir of sorts has been reached, a benchmark of slaked lust and casual, sadistic cruelty.

Police sources say the 16-year-old will never fully recover from the injuries caused by the caustic soda and, at the time of writing, she remains under heavy sedation in a burns unit, fighting for her life.

I'm almost embarrassed to say that the attackers have been described as "five black youths", in case you think I'm being racist in highlighting this crime.

Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has pointed out that "white flight is accelerating" as Britain becomes increasingly polarised along ethnic lines.

Last year, nearly a quarter of a million decent, law-abiding citizens packed their bags and left the capital for good, seeking what they hope will be a better life elsewhere. They moved to outer boroughs, other city suburbs, rural areas, abroad, the back end of beyond, anywhere but here.

Elsewhere in London this week, a medical student was stabbed to death in a row over an orange in a Brixton fruit shop. A pupil who was expelled for allegedly having a knife took his school to the High Court. And about the time most of us were sitting down to dinner, watching The Bill on television or putting the children to bed, a teenage girl underwent an unimaginable ordeal in an ordinary suburban street.

What is going to happen to those of us left to live here if youths across the city continue to feel quite comfortable and confident in running amok? That's before you even factor in the older, more professional criminal gangs from more than 25 countries, who operate prosperous drug trafficking, people smuggling, prostitution, money laundering and fraud rackets on the capital's streets.

In conclusion, here is a comment by a poster at American Renaissance in reply to a sotry about British civilizational breakdown,
It is basically a racial thing. Just like American liberals, British liberals attacked the schools, police, council flat and HUD projects managers, probation officers etc if they dared to apply the laws to non white feral youth.

About 1965, the consensus of opinion by the Judges and other authorities was that enforcing laws against non white criminals, especially black criminals was somehow racist and discriminatory.

That is how the situation got out of hand. Excusing black crime meant excusing all crimes.

When I was about 13, just getting interested in boys, I read a romantic novel. The heroine’s grandmother gave her some advice
“Don’t listen to what a man says, look at what he does.” I apply that to cities and countries run by liberals.

Don’t listen to their grandiose ideas, look at the results. And in every city and country run by liberals what do we see?

Rampant crime, dangerous neighborhoods, terrible non functioning physically dangerous schools turning out generation after generation of illiterates, pot holed streets, disfunctional government agencies run by the same affirmative action non whites who destroyed the neighborhoods, housing stock and schools, large scale long term homelessness, a disfunctional health system on the verge of collapse.

In short, every liberal city and country, from Cuba to Britian to America’s large cities has been destroyed by liberals and their petted and beloved minorities.

Posted by at 9:12 PM on July 14



Friday, September 19, 2008

The Race That Wasn't There...

It's rather a unique position to be in, being White in the early 21st century. As was shown in the prior post, we often hear calls for our complete and total destruction, yet when we protest this, those very same voices championing our demise simply inform us that we don't exist anyway so we shouldn't worry about it.

On the one hand, we are absolutely here and responsible for every tragic event from slavery to tummy aches.

On the other hand, we're just a social construct whose presence is a mystical illusion, so there is no point in fretting over our extinction.

Case in point,

'The reluctant realization about his mother’s racial identity—and that it is hers for the choosing'.

Despite two decades filled with her consoling image, images and particulars still nestled firmly in the nooks of my nostalgia—coffee auburn locks to match the scent of sweet coffee on her words—I was probably tipped off to her lurking whiteness not too long ago.

....as historian Noel Ignatiev points out. (But he also calls for the “abolition” of the white race—of its privilege, of its label; not of its members. Still, maybe we should take his words with a grain of salt, yes?)

Now, here I have to pause and point out a rather obvious fact in regards to "White Privilege".

What ding-a-lings like the above (and the manipulative professors who encourage them) consider America's historical "White Privilege" is not uncoincidentally connected to the era ranging from America's creation (by Whites -that being people of indigenous European descent-) between 1776 and 1787, to around 1975 when America was 90% White.

In other words, "White Privilege" existed in America the same way English Privilege existed in England. Or French Privilege existed in France, or Indian Privilege existed in India or Japanese Privilege existed in Japan or Jewish Privilege exists in Israel and so on and so forth.

If a nation is 90% White, then its political, academic and cultural institutions are naturally going to reflect that reality.
Just as a nation that is 90% Arab is going to reflect Arab cultural outlooks and institutions.

If you were to grow up in China, you might find their history, media and academic outlooks to be decidedly Asiacentric.
But would you be so dense as to suggest that the Asian Race is just a social construct and that it is systemic racism in Chinese society, manifested in "Asian Privilege", that accounts for the total lack of Turkish, Ethiopian or Brazilian Heads of State there?

Now to continue with the article.
The following is exerted to show the contradicting nature of the anti-White propaganda.

The nuance isn’t entirely too clear to passersby who see my mother’s hand entwined with my father’s as they walk down the streets of our ethnic enclave. (That’s Miami, or Hialeah for those in the know).

An Ecuadorian through and through—although she oddly expresses her affection for the diminutive nation through insults and political apathy—she wants to maintain a connection to the native peoples with whose plight she empathizes. But it’s more than that. As much as her reddened, pale skin betrays her legitimate claim to native roots, she unabashedly enjoys her minority status. She revels in playing the underdog. She’s lived the bulk of her American experience impoverished, ostracized by her poor English-speaking skills, feeling culturally dissonant in a structure (the US Army) that demands conformity—and she’ll be damned if she’s going to let skin color get in the way of that.

No you are not seeing things, this guy really is all over the place.
He says his mother shows her love for Ecuador by
a. Fleeing it.
b.Insulting it.
c. Expressing political apathy towards it.

Sounds like true love to me!

He then tells us that despite his mother being White, she never-the-less takes full advantage of the minority status the US government affords her (ridiculously) for having come from a Spanish speaking nation.
So she can not only "pass" for White, but she also gets the benefit of Affirmative Action, Race Quotas ( a double dose for her being a woman), free medical treatment, free education, special protection under "hate crime" statutes, etc...

Then after telling us she lives in Miami, living off the Minority Status gravy train, he informs us that she experienced an impoverished life because of her poor English speaking skills!.....in Miami!.....a majority Hispanic city!...home to Spanish language channels such as Univision, Telemundo, Telefutura, and others!

As of 2000, speakers of Spanish as their first language accounted for 66.75% of residents (in Miami), while English was spoken by 25.45%.

And that was in 2000!

He goes on,

She’s not been an accomplice to white flight from the Hispanic label. She’s refused to become a player in this mad dash toward ascension on the racial hierarchy, to feed into the hysteria of becoming white.

And who has been an "accomplice to White flight from the Hispanic label?"

Try, nobody.

And why would they when (as is attested to in the article) they can latch on to the minority status, playing the underdog while getting all of the cultural and economic perks.

I think I’ve decided—and this, just now—that my mother isn’t white. Whiteness isn’t concrete. It’s not as apparent or obvious as people make it out to be. It’s negotiated. It’s constructed. It’s malleable. Its boundaries shift so often that groups once categorically relegated to non-white status, groups highly racialized—like the Irish, the Italians, the Germans—are now firmly in the white camp.

You know this (that Germans and Irish were once considered non-White) is a claim that I have come across a lot on the Internet, but one for which very little actual evidence exists to back it up.

The German source seems to stem from a comment made by Benjamin Franklin, while the Irish one mostly comes from political cartoons of the 19th century.
But then you can also find such newspaper drawings depicting the French as sinister and alien looking people as well.
And why not?
America was not only overwhelmingly White from her genesis (the British Colonies), but overwhelmingly British (thus English speaking) and Protestant as well.

By the time the Germans, Italians and Irish began to arrive in large numbers, America already had a firmly established identity in history, language, politics, religion and culture.

The other groups, being European to begin with, quickly acclimated to this pre-existing cultural matrix by learning the English language and Anglicizing their names.
This process occurred quickly because the newly arrived Europeans we're already so culturally and racially similar to their hosts, the Anglo-Saxon majority.

In contrast....to date, no non-European derived people have been able (or willing) to assimilate fully into American culture.

That is because Race is not a social construct, society is a racial construct!

But....(just to point out the foolishness and bassakward thinking of modern liberal dogma)...,

This claim that Italian, German, Irish and other Whites (again, that being people of indigenous European descent) were not at one time considered White, creates a few problems for the anti-White bigots.

After all it was the Portuguese, Spaniards and Italians who kick started modern European colonialism/imperialism, as well as being the largest purveyors of the slave trade, with around 95% of African slaves being carted off to Latin America by Spaniards and Portuguese traders.

And it was mostly those (at the time) non-White German and Irishmen at whose feet most of the anti-black animosity in 18th and 19th century America can be laid, as it was they who came most into contact with blacks in the cities in which they had recently arrived. (the majority of the British stock in America at that time -the English, Welsh and Scotch Irish- were residing in the almost exclusively White regions of New England, Appalachia and (later) the Mid-West)

So now you know.

It was, in fact, (according to ding-a-lings at universities across America) those (at the time considered to be) non-White Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Irish and Germans who were behind most of the colonialism/slavery/racism shenanigans in the 18th and 19th centuries, and not us Whites!

Did I say us Whites?

I forgot.....we were never here.