Sunday, March 20, 2011
But of course the UN, like NATO, is a US puppet, so...
What's the reason for all of this?
Israel? Oil? Long-term Strategic maneuvering against Russia and China?
I hate to use the overused word, but zeitgeist does come to mind.
When the "official" dogma is that there are no races, then, likewise, there are no nations either.
When "human rights" are "universal", then there are no borders.
When "all men are created equal", no distinction, good or bad, are allowed.
When people everywhere are endowed with similar rights to prosperity and happiness, then the very idea of a US-congress is archaic and prejudiced.
And on it goes.
And thus you get America, whose infrastructure is crumbling, economy collapsing and is unable to control its own borders, rushing off to engage in military action on every continent on planet earth.
The similarities to the declining days of the Roman Empire are to outstanding to ignore.
Greed and Hubris on the part of leaders.
And compassion based-arrogance on the part of its public cheerleaders. (it is a fine line between compassion/charity and arrogance, as one must be in a superior position towards a less fortunate to feel compassion and have the better means to offer charity).
Of course America also looks an awful lot like the Soviet Union of the 1970's.
And the Holy Roman Empire and ancient Babylon, etc....
Yeah. To use biblical imagery, America is The Beast.
Things we have not seen or heard of,
Rapes and murders.
The need for military troops to keep people from pillaging and plundering.
No reports of Christian nut-balls racing to adopt surviving children.
No reports of Christian psychopaths kidnapping orphans.
The Japanese are a high IQ people with a racially homogeneous society. That combination ensures cooperation and efficient response in the aftermath of catastrophes.
It also guarantees that infrastructure will be quickly rebuilt and functioning again.
It's similar to hearing older people in America talking about their youth, when no one felt it necessary to lock their doors at night.
What was the difference back then?
Their towns were 100% White.
We often (very often) hear the jingoism “take America back” by all and sundry on both sides of the political/social divide. Particularly on the conservative side we see the notion put forward that The America is somehow far adrift from her foundational roots, as laid down by the Founding Fathers. But is this really the case? Is modern Americanism fundamentally different from 18th century revolutionary Americanism? What would the Founding Fathers think of The America today?
In addressing that, we must first consider what The America is and what The America is not. What The America is not, is a nation. What The America is, essentially, is a religion/empire, with much akin to a Marxist state. And one of the “gifts” which both Marxism and Americanism have bequeathed to the world is the ability to re-define words and even reality itself.
One example of that is the definition of nation. Since the advent of Americanism/Marxism the definition has been completely re-written to the point that it now actually means the complete opposite of what it meant for thousands of years.
As stated, The America is not a nation, which makes such linguistic concoctions as “a nation of immigrants” one of the more profound examples of an oxymoron and generally reflects the intellectual apathy found amongst the populace.
A nation is NOT a place. A nation is NOT an ideology or creed or form of government or philosophy. What is a nation? In the simplest terms, nation is another word for ethnic Group. A nation is a race or stock of people. The English are a nation. The Irish are a nation. They need not be gathered in the same locale, share a common faith or reside under a similar form of government to be a nation.
Let me say this again. Nation is another word for Ethnic Group. A nation is a biological unit, an extended family, aka a tribe.
From the Etymology Dictionary:
c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem (nom. natio) “nation, stock,
race,” lit. “that which has been born,” from natus, pp. of nasci “be born”
The origin of nations is ancient, and the knowledge of it should be embedded in our culture. Its lack leads to all kinds of problems and comedy, such as the (inherently American) Evangelical interpretation of “prophesy” in regard to Israel becoming a nation again in the 1940s and how that “sign” points to the end of days. The irony there is that if they believe modern jews are the Israel of the bible, then they didn’t “become a nation “again in 1948 as they never stopped being a nation (ie, an ethnic group) in the first place.
Again, a nation need not have government, leaders or even a land of their own to be a nation. It is blood that makes a nation, not forms of government. Thus there is no American nation.
Can nations mix to form a new one? No. Small admixtures from cousin-nations can be absorbed, such as Danish into English, but the former is inevitably lost into the latter. There are no new nations.
So what The America is, is a proto-Marxist religion/empire. Nothing more. And in that, Americanism naturally shares more than a little in common with conventional Marxism. This is why The America and the former Soviet Union look so much alike. Both were artificially fabricated political constructs, rather than being natural, organic living-societies. (And, not surprisingly, both found themselves dominated by a nation who very much considers themselves a nation, separate from the empires they ruled.)
Take for example this excerpt from a letterfrom Karl Marx to Abe Lincoln:
We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large
majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.
From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?
When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago *the idea of one great Democratic Republic* had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued …
And in ambassador Adams’ reply (at the same link), we find the following,
Nations do not exist for themselves alone, but to promote the welfare and happiness of mankind by benevolent intercourse and example.
Adams, in a round about way, agrees with Marx (see the full quote at the link).
His father John Adams, a “Founding Father”, first vice-President and second President of the United States, wrote the following, concurring with the theme:
If the empire of superstition and hypocrisy should be overthrown, happy indeed will it be for the world; but if all religion and all morality should be over-thrown with it, what advantage will be gained? The doctrine of human equality is founded entirely in the Christian doctrine that we are all children of the same Father, all accountable to Him for our conduct to one another, all equally bound to respect each other’s self love.
-page 619, ‘John Adams’ by David McCullough
Such is not the sentiments of a man residing (physically or otherwise) in the warring ghettos of the real world amongst his kin. No, that is the pompous affirmation of a man safely ensconced in an ivory tower, from whose lofty perch even Sao Paolo must look lovely at midnight when its dim and dirty lights glow luminously, masking the chaos, disease and death in the streets below. From such a distance joy and sorrow are indistinguishable and all peoples look alike … and they tend to look like ants.
Such sentiments, as expressed by Marx and Adams are echoed in our own time by Bill Gates, George Soros and the like; Businessman, Mercenary Merchants, ‘Power to the People-preachers’, “Citizens of the World” and so on. CEO’s with a corporate management mindset that believes social engineering cannot only reap ever-increasing profits but “better-off” the little people as well. A man-made rearranging of the elements to better suit the perceived “greater good”.
Thus Marxism and Americanism consummate their relationship through their shared denouncement of family, tradition and identity. Their offspring is the atomized consumeristic blank-slate. For tradition is the enemy of America.
And so we have, from our beginning, a hypocritical elite who bemoans the existence of an elite. A Merchant-Pirate class who bemoans piracy and class, and the rich and powerful piously denouncing riches and power. And with one voice they ask of the masses, “will you not give up your pursuit of power, riches and identity for the greater good?” (We can see this today with rich and influential celebrities using the soap box their multi-million dollar lifestyles afforded them to denounce both the bigotry of the people they openly and collectively loathe and the “greedy excesses” of people who earn less than $50,000 a year.)
Powerless people cannot give up power anymore than poor people can “enter a life of poverty”. Thus it is rare (if ever) that “people’s revolutions” occur from the bottom up. Marxist-minded social engineers are either of the elite or end up as the elite. And for them all things are malleable….for and by them.
“We the people” were neither consulted nor present when “They the rulers” applied our consent to their overthrow of history. So what the Founding Fathers instituted was the notion that nations are man-made creatures (akin to Frankenstein’s patched-together-monster) rather than natural outgrowths of the family/tribe. And that is a critical point, considering trends today. For if the family is the bedrock of a nation, then how we define a nation will effect how we think of the family.
If a nation is merely an agreed upon social arrangement, voluntarily entered into and agreed by individuals (as in a creed), then so is the family. We should not then be surprised at the existence of the Franken-family, wherein are found every conceivable arrangement (from two “mommies” raising donated sperm to single parents and their revolving-door one night stands to the adopted multi-rainbow mockery) redefined into constituting a legitimate family.
Indeed, the Founding Fathers’ action in creating The America was akin to a vacationing wife who writes back to her husband to inform him she is leaving him, taking the kids and moving into a commune where everybody is husband and wife to everybody else, and the kids now have 27 dads and as many moms. A “melting pot”, in other words.
In point of fact The Declaration of Independence was a divorce paper, wherein George and Tom and Benjamin and the rest announced their intention of severing ties with kith and kin. Their actions in creating The America was not only the breaking up of a home, it was a direct assault upon the sacred nature of the family in and of itself.
So in answer to the question, no, the Founding Fathers would not be surprised or upset at The America’s present state. They would be pleased with the progress. After a (well, very) little soul searching they would embrace a Marxist colored president, if not outright bow down before him, and promptly denounce any who oppose him as un-American. Even Jefferson, who wrote about the perpetually low mental and spiritual qualities of the negro would come around quickly. After all, a democratically elected Marxist Negro is the final embodiment of everything the “founding fathers” strived for in
their rejection of an un-elected White Monarch. Again, tradition is the enemy of America.
Besides, it should be rather telling, that as The America ascended to world supremacy post-WWII the world has become increasingly radically liberal and leftist in outlook and ideology. And debauched culturally and racially.
Europe is a good example of that. Western Europe has been under the American dominion for 60+ years, and in that time has rapidly slid into the gutter culturally, socially and demographically. It is frequently described today as a dying continent.
The America is a multi-headed Beast, seeking out whom it may devour. Americanism is a trumped up religion to sell a poisoned product. In times past that religion was euphemistically called Babylon. Through democracy and universalism via assimilation it has created an image of Global Governance, wherein people from all tribes reside under one government, with “justice for all” at the point of a PC litigated riffle. And it calls upon the whole world to bow down before that image. Those who do not bow down can neither buy nor sell on the world stage. They are derided, attacked and
denied the right to the preservation of their distinct nations (peoples) and ways. Just look at the White nations residing in The America ... What’s left of them.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Setting aside the Bible thumpers who seem to get off on the notion of fiery judgment awaiting the masses of godless heathens, there are the very real doom and gloom bunch whose predictions are based on government models and projections, but whose fact-based articulations of the chaos to come are either simply ignored (because, being fact based they are not nearly as entertaining) or twisted into something to celebrate....ie, "diversity".
The late science writer Isaac Asimov remarked, "Democracy
cannot survive overpopulation." Freedom, in the sense of moving
about when and where one wants, can’t survive it either.
As it happens, new numbers from the king cruncher has revealed
Washington's automatic population machine to be much more severe than previously
According to the newly revised
Census projections, by 2050 an additional 135 million
persons will occupy this land.
As Steve Camarota suggested in How Many Americans? [Washington Post, September 2, 2008], all the new stuff required to equip the additional
residents is dizzying
"An increase of 135 million people by 2050 is equivalent to
the entire populations of Mexico and Canada moving here. Assuming the same ratio
of population to infrastructure that exists today, the United States would need
to build and pay for 36,000 schools. We would need to develop enough land to
accommodate 52 million new housing units, along with places for the people who
lived in them to shop and work. We would also have to construct enough roads to
handle 106 million more vehicles.
“Here's another mental exercise: imagine
the entire population of WWII America—135 million in 1942—added to the current one in just over four decades. In
numbers alone, this is a radical transformation, and entirely negative from an
environmental perspective of conserving forests and farmland, as well as
maintaining clean air and having enough water."
Unapologetic Hispanic invader Jorge Ramos has openly bragged, "Latinos are not only the largest minority right now, but
eventually we will be the majority in the United States, and the process is well
He’s boasting about conquest—not about friendly assimilation to
American culture and language.
Looking at Latin America and other "multicultural" and "diverse" overpopulated third world slums around the world, it isn't terribly difficult to see the lights of the train bearing down on us.
Robert Putnam of Harvard became an academic celebrity in 2000 with his
book, Bowling Alone, which argued that society is in dire straits because so
many community attachments are breaking down. Americans are increasingly mobile
and isolated, with few group affiliations. Prof. Putnam wants to bring back what
he calls “social networks,” because he says they make people happy, contribute
to democracy, help rear children, and make the economy run better.
analyzed census and survey data to find out what role racial diversity plays in
all this—whether it deepens attachment to community or further atomizes people.
To his dismay, he found that racial and ethnic diversity destroys trust in
neighbors and institutions.
Prof. Putnam did not like these findings, and was in no hurry to
Professor Putnam has now published his study in the latest issue of
Scandinavian Political Studies (Vol. 30, No. 2, 2007, pp. 137-174.) He does his
best to give the article a happy ending, but his findings are hard to
This study is a survey of people living in 41 different American
communities that run from racially homogeneous rural South Dakota to San
Francisco, which is one of the most racially mixed places on earth. The clearest
finding was that the more diverse the area, the less people trusted each
Diversity reduces trust in everyone, even in people of one’s own race.
This is what leads to Prof. Putnam’s widely quoted conclusion that diversity
makes people behave like turtles—they pull into their shells. On the basis of
other survey data, he lists other unhappy consequences for people who must live
• Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and
the local news media.
• Lower political efficacy—that is, confidence in their
• Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and
knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social
• Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas
of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy
• Less likelihood of working on a community project.
• Fewer close
friends and confidants.
• Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
• More time spent watching television and more agreement that “television is my
most important form of entertainment.”
The true Doom and Gloom can be seen coming, not from "End Times" delusionists, but from accredited journals and government based demographic projections, which while making corporations and lobbyist groups very happy, spell despair at the coming reality for the rest of us...
There is today probably not a more destructive presumption, even faith, than the notion of Equality. For its sheer baselessness and capacity to harm, and be it racial, cultural, societal, gender, etc, the modern notion of intrinsic or inherent “equal-ness” among human beings resides in a historical class by itself. From a racial perspective, pondering why Whites and non-Whites are not civilizationally, morally or temperamentally equal or why there is a socio-economical gap between the races, is about as necessary (and forced) as asking why dogs make better household pets than Grizzly bears.
All about us we see inequality as a natural condition and reality. Within sets and subsets, disparity in quality and ability is the norm. Be it among men or animals, fowl or fish, we see systems where this normative condition is nature’s engineering, and obviously not the outcome of prejudice or bigotry.
Of course, when we look at groupings of distinct classes of Man, animal or plant we can instantly recognize similar qualities distinct to each group or sub-group. We observe, for example, that fish swim and birds, by and large, fly. We can test this for the validity of labelling them by their distinctiveness. Yet not all fish are the same or equal, nor are birds without a variety of differences.
Even when similarities are more relevant (yet still greatly divergent in degrees), differences in quality, ability, adaptiveness and so on, are undeniable … such as, for instance, the fact that flight is a quality common to both butterflies and eagles. Yet the ultimate and distinguishable inequality between the two, in any given circumstance they may happen to share, is self-evident to all but the wilfully blind.
And so we come to the unnecessary predicament that the wilfully blind Equalitarians create with their presumption for Equality and their grievous vexation by the lack of it. If the races are equal, then it is unfair that some live in squalor while others live in skyscrapers. If men and women are equal, then it is unfair that women do not hold as many positions of power as men. If all men are equal, then it is unfair that some live longer, healthier lives than others.
And, of course, since the Equalitarians presume for equality and find everywhere a superabundant absence of it (to coin a phrase), then they must concoct some reason to explain it. This they achieve through the assertion of prejudice and bigotry on the part of the “more equal”. But it is a tactic that is as unscientific as it is comical. Is it bigotry and prejudice on the part of birds that explains why cats can’t fly, and “institutional prejudice” on the part of pine trees that explains why maples cannot stay green all year round?
Or maybe it is the “racist act” of excluding different groups from your own. Maybe one group has kept another from assimilating into its own matrix as a way to discriminate against them and “keep them down”.
But this assimilation canard is just as comical and preposterous. Four hundred years of close contact with Whites in America has not helped blacks to assimilate towards White standards of civilization. And why should it? Why on Earth should we believe that different races must or can assimilate to one another’s innate (genetic) societal tendencies?
This is why the reality of racial groupings and their varying genetic dissimilarities is so important. Because if you take the Occam’s Razor route and eliminate the most convoluted theories in regards to the ongoing civilizational disparity of the races, then you will be left with the most logical explanation for those disparities ... the races are simply different. Add to this the fact that these different groups of peoples diverged tens of thousands of years ago and continued to evolve in wildly varying environments and circumstances (that will never be repeated), and the notion of “equality among the races” is, on its face, ridiculously unscientific, illogical and wholly unnecessary in its presumption.
Put it this way.
Imagine dropping off a group of alligators in the North Pole, then blaming the “deep rooted prejudice” of the Polar Bears for the alligators’ inability to assimilate and prosper. It’s an absurd assertion, but when you assume a notion without regard to observable facts, then you are compelled to twist those facts and invent others to accommodate that assumption.
In regards to “race relations” the same obviously holds true. Remove the silly and baseless notion of universal standards of intelligence, morality and civilizational ability among the various races, and it will take about a month to solve the “race relations” problems.
How? Because there is no universal standard of Intelligence, morality or even what constitutes a civilization. Each race has its own definition of these things and each definition is valid to that race. Thus, what is civilization to us, is not civilization to them. What is moral for us, is not necessarily so for them. What is poverty for us, is not poverty for them. What is Quality of Life for us, is not the same for them. And so on.
But when races are mixed in societies that assume “Equality” as a prerequisite for behavior then (falsely) perceived injustices and inequality ensue, and chaos soon reigns. Not to mention the fact that the pursuit of equality in a world that is naturally unequal is simply a waste of valuable and (often) unrecoverable time and resources. How much money has been thrown at programs intended to close racial gaps in education, that essentially just went down a black hole? How many neighborhoods have been irrevocably disturbed or destroyed through efforts to integrate races into communities once prosperous and peaceful due to their homogeneity? How much death and destruction has been unleashed by those who (believing in equality) changed laws to criminalize Freedom of Association?
And don’t forget that the presumption of equality is now used as the current justification for America’s war on terror. By assuming “we’re all the same” we can find ample justification for “bringing democracy to the oppressed throughout the world” in the form of unending invasions and occupations!
Ultimately the belief in equality (like every other notion embraced by modern liberalism) is a destructive force. One which tears down without leaving anything (better or worse -the worse is left by default-) in its place. It simply creates an infinite vacuum of contempt and disdain for the natural state of things.
Worse still, the desire for, or pursuit of , “equality” is the proverbial two-edged sword; those who pick it up to wield it against others are often wounded by it themselves. For if you embrace “Equality”, then you must 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 become the enemy.
Already today we can see segments of our society which, by embracing 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 depraved society plumbs the depths of “Equality”, we see anarchy, nihilism and violence escalating by a factor of ten from one year to the next. Unless and until we all learn to live within the limitations of Truth, and to forego the pleasure of those warm but ultimately empty fuzzy feelings, we are going to continue driving our long-fought-for civilization down to the third level of societal hell.
The belief in Equality is a faith whose unnecessary premise is currently working hard to rival Judaism, Christianity and Islam (all together) as a civilizational wrecking ball. Tragically for the West, it is only Whites who are pursuing Equality - and doing so out of a contempt for their own natural state in the world which formed their distinctive attributes to begin with. We are like birds who, having had a false sense of guilt engendered in them for their ability to soar through the heavens, sever their own wings and plunge to the earth to make those that walk or crawl upon the land feel better about their own (distinct) natural state.
Thus the pursuit of equality is really just a pathological contempt for self rather than a reverence for the other. It is the face of hate locked in an asylum of mirrors desperately in search of a conformational “Amen” that it will never find.
To sum up succinctly, the unnecessary presumption of Equality casts yet another stumbling block before a great civilization, and its nations and peoples, that has already strayed far off course and is in danger of falling.
DAYTON -- The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits.
It's a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam.
Dayton is in desperate need of officers to replace dozens of retirees. The hiring process was postponed for months because the D.O.J. rejected the original scores provided by the Dayton Civil Service Board, which administers the test.
Under the previous requirements, candidates had to get a 66% on part one of the exam and a 72% on part two.
The D.O.J. approved new scoring policy only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%. That's the equivalent of an ‘F’ and a ‘D’.
This type of Marxist social engineering is common in police, military, industrial and schools of higher learning (which turn out tomorrows D-minded nuclear engineers and various other infrastructural designers and developers).
Think of this when you think of the doctors attending you or a loved one. Or police investigating a crime committed against you or the pilot of the plane you're on or the teachers instructing your children, etc..
Racial equality is a lie. An obvious one at that. It's based on absouloutly nothing except wishful thinking on the part of some and mischievousness and envy on the part of others.
It has no basis in science, history or observable reality.
In fact all history testifies against it.
To embrace it will inevitably lead to much pain and heartache in the coming years.
1. Don‘t waste your time converting atheists.
It has been said that C.S. Lewis’s classic Christian Apologetic, ‘Mere Christianity’ never converted a true atheist but convinced a multitude of agnostics to finally come off of the fence into the believer’s camp. In regards to the issues surrounding race there are similar divisions of people. Those being, True Believes (us), Racial Agnostics and Racial Atheists. And as with Lewis’s work being most effective at moving the agnostics, likewise we should concentrate our efforts and arguments towards the Racial Agnostics instead of Racial Atheists, who are likely to reject Racialism no matter how compelling the facts presented.
You can generally distinguish between the two through basic conversation.
2. Basic facts.
Most people have no idea about the demographic predicament the White race is in. So tell them that Whites today are in fact no more than around 13% of the world’s population and dropping fast. And what that means is that minorities (non-Whites) are nearly 90% of the worlds population and growing. Who is the minority here?
Now if they reply with, “Yeah but non-Whites are a minority in The West (or specific countries therein),” you can point out that that argument is simply compartmentalizing the issue. Two can play that game. Blacks are a minority in the United States … yeah, and ... Whites are a minority in the Americas. Hispanics are a minority in America …. yeah, and … Whites are a minority in Chicago, New York, etc …
And often along the same lines we hear that, “It’s an ever-changing world.”
Well, no. New Technological toys aside, large swaths of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the middle-east (where the majority of humans live) have seen very little to no change in the last one hundred years (or more). Only in The West is the ever-changing world, ever-changing. Other areas have been able to integrate new technologies into theirsocieties without much alteration to their day-to-day lives.
3. Pointing out the hypocrisy.
We all know this one but it needs repeating to keep it in mind. On the one hand we hear, “I believe race is a social construct. There is no such thing as race,” and on the other hand, “Racially mixed people are more attractive,” or some such comment. Obviously if they argue that there are is no such thing as race then they can’t un-hypocritically claim that there are racially mixed people with whom to compare “bland” un-mixed White people.
With this also comes the, “I judge the individual,” types. When it comes to the topic of, say, black crime, this type always says, “Yeah, well, I judge individuals not whole groups. It isn’t fair to demonize an entire group for the actions of a few.” This very same type will then turn around and suddenly wax collective with such hypocritical zingers as, “White people sure have done the Indians bad.”
4. The historic treatment of minorities.
Ever heard someone talk about minority/majority relations in a historic context? About how the Indians were treated by Whites in the early years of colonization in the New World? Here is the obvious counterpoint; For at least the first century that Whites were in the Americas THEY WERE THE MINORITY GROUP!
The same is true for the British in India and Africa and the Spanish and others in Asia and Latin America.
Also, along similar lines of rebuttal, we often here about the historic stereotyping of minorities in media. Of course the truth is that minorities were indeed stereotyped in films throughout the 30’s 40’s and 50’s. Only, they were stereotyped as almost universally innocent, naïve, often helpful and only occasionally, accidentally, threatening goofballs. How many films prior to the 1970’s portrayed blacks as thieving rapists and/or thuggish murderers? Even with Cowboys and Indians films the main antagonist was almost always a White guy manipulating the hapless natives into going after the good guys. In fact the overall positive portrayal of Indians ( as wise-noble warriors) can be witnessed in the number of White Americans who lay claim to them as distant ancestors.
5. Understanding the definition of words.
Prejudice is a word that is slung around as an insult quite a bit. What does prejudice mean? It means,
“An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.”
It literally means to PRE-judge. If, for example, you declare your dislike of Pizza before ever having tried it, then your opinion is prejudiced. But, if having tried it, you declare your dislike of Pizza, then your opinion is not prejudiced.
The same goes with race. If you have had personal contact with members of another race, have read literature about them and studied the opinions of other who have as well, then your opinion of them, be it negative OR POSITIVE, is hardly prejudiced. Rather, it is a verdict.
I add the positive above because the inverse is true as well. If someone declares a person, place or thing as being good without having any knowledge of that person, place or thing, then there positive opinion is, in fact, prejudiced.
6. ‘Here’ is not always the same place.
When conversation on illegal immigration arises we often here the cry,
Indians we’re here first! Whites are the illegal immigrants!
We’re all immigrants or the offspring of immigrants.
To this I usually reply with the fact that none of my own ancestors immigrated to the United States, legally or illegally. You see there was no United States prior to its creation in the 1770’s and 1780’s. And all of my ancestors arrived long before then. They were British colonists moving from one part of the empire to another, who, along with other such colonists, created the United States from scratch.
The United States of America is an original social/legal construct created by, for and in the image of, Whites.
The VERY FIRST Americans were White.
So no, the Indians were not here first. That would be like saying that Indians were the founders of the Microsoft Corporation since they once roamed the land where its headquarters currently resides. Or that Geronimo should be listed amongst the historic rosters of the Arizona Cardinals football team since “he was there first.”
7. Other peoples contributed.
Yes, blacks, Asians, Hispanics and others assisted along the way. But does that intimately tie them in with American identity and basic history? Let alone critical decisions about the future course of the nation?
Just think of all the people in your own life who assist in keeping your family going. Dentists, Doctors, Carpenters, Plumbers, Mechanics, Accountants, Police, Lawyers, Ditch Diggers, Road Construction Crews, Janitors, Vendors, Farmers, Coal Miners, Truck Drivers, Fisherman, etc … All people who are often critical to the continuation of you and your family’s quality of living. Yet how many people feel the need to call up ‘Murray the Plumber’ and get his vote on where the family should vacation this year?
How many people would call up the guy who dry-walled their living room last year to hear his side in determining whether grandma should be unplugged from life-support?
8. “I believe in treating everybody equally.”
We’ve all heard that one. Yet nobody who ever utters that nonsense believe in it or practices it. It just sounds good to them. A good (and comical illustrative) rebuttal to that one is:-
Okay, suppose a major war breaks out and you are placed in a position of choosing recruits. Today you have two potentials. One is a smart, fit and healthy young man and the other is mentally retarded.
What would you do, Mr. Equality?
Flip a coin?
9.You can’t judge a book by its cover.
No, but you pay more for a hardback than a paperback, don’t you? Apples and Oranges are both fruits, yet I can tell one from the other by looking at their skins. Maples and Oaks are both trees, yet I can tell one from the other by observing their outward covering, their bark.
10 White Privilege.
Isn’t it comical how the left implies that there is something sinister or out of place about White people socially and culturally dominating in nations where they were historically 90% (or more ) of the population?
How come we don’t hear about “Asian Privilege” in China. I mean, what else could explain the lack of Ethiopian and Ecuadorian heads of state there? No doubt “Asian Privilege” explains why Japanese people dominate Japanese business …
Of course there was historic White Privilege in America. Just like there was English Privilege in England, French Privilege in France, Japanese Privilege in Japan or Jewish Privilege in Israel. Talking about White Privilege in traditional America is about as necessary as talking about “Henderson Privilege” in the Henderson’s household. After all, why do the Henderson kids automatically get to go on vacation with Mr. and Mrs. Henderson? Why does Mr. Henderson only give his own kids an allowance? Why is it always Mrs. Henderson who gets an anniversary present on the Henderson Wedding Anniversary?
Yes, there can be no doubt that a bigoted and insidious force known as “Henderson Privilege” is at work in the Henderson household.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
And then there are the morons at Newsweek.
Next week's cover story titled "Our Mutual Joy" actually suggests the Bible argues in favor of homosexual marriage.
What Bible are these doofuses reading?I don't know about you, but I am absolutely fed up with idiocy like this.
Newsweek's Lisa Miller calls such verses "throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world. ..." What kind of psychobabble is that?
Ladies and gentlemen, I am fed up with people lying about the Bible.
I'm fed up with people twisting the words of Holy Scripture to fit some depraved, politically correct, anti-God agenda.
I'm fed up with fables and misconceptions about the Bible that have endured for centuries.
I'm fed up with people saying the Bible doesn't mean what it says.
It means exactly what it says and it says what it means.
Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice selective PC...
Christians, like the above author, have long sung the praises of "Equality" in the form of the Civil Rights movement, anti-discrimination laws, desegregation and pro-miscegenation. (All things that prior generations of Christians resisted using the Bible as part of their justification.)
But like most people who pick up the chorus in mid-stream, they didn't pay attention to the lyrics.
"Equality" is an all encompassing cult that knows no exception.
Once you embrace the cult of equalness, in any way, then every single belief you lay claim to will be forced to fall by the wayside eventually.
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 become the enemy.
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.
Everyone I know is fuming over the “unconstitutional” health-care bill that was “un-democratically” shoved down our throats. I have to keep explaining to such people that compared to legislation passed in the 1960’s Obamacare is a minor triviality.
It’s amazing (yet sadly not unexpected) that so many seem to gloss over the rather draconian and spirit-crushing bits of legislation commonly refereed to as “civil rights”. Many seem to prefer to ignore or forget that among the “civil rights” accomplishments have been: legalizing abortion, promoting homosexuality, exalting feminism, attacking and attempting to destroy the family, de-constructing communities, rewriting history, and other equally civilization-crushing acts.
And these were done under the notion of “equality”. And to bring about “equality” our society had to destroy, in theory and in fact, freedom of association.
Since the “civil rights” legislation went into effect, Americans have been told (under threat of government force) who they must live among, who they can do business with, who they can vacation with, who their children must attend school with, and in what company they can congregate. All done to criminalize discrimination. Yet the most fundamental freedom that can be had (either collectively or individually) is the right to discriminate. Take away that right and freedom is instantly dead.
And the critical aspect of this is that prejudices and the discriminations they encourage are generally based on collective historical experience. They are an expression of a society’s hard fought for wisdom, enduring and solidifying down through countless ages of toil and struggle. They are not mere attitudes, but rather moral and social guidelines that define and defend a people.
Demonize the concept (of discrimination) in a society and that society WILL hand over all power over every aspect of its life to exterior (alien and hostile) forces. Because discrimination, at its very root, is the freedom and will of a people to say yes or no: to make an informed choice that is also reflective of a natural, collective instinct. Without it there is neither ability nor will to differentiate between what is good or evil, true or false, beauty or ugliness, hope or despair, man or woman, black or White, up or down and so on.
Most critical of all, without the willingness and encouragement to discriminate, a people will be defenseless against attacks both physical and philosophical. The entire premise of “equality” is the certain erosion of sanity. Thus we have to discriminate or society will collapse into chaos, which, not surprisingly, it has been doing since the 1960’s.
So picking nationalized healthcare as the battlefront at this point is kind of like trying to swat the mosquito on the back of the Grizzly bear that’s cornered you in your own home because you’ve heard they’re disease carriers.
As to differentiating the historical understanding of freedom from the modern concept of “Personal freedom”, it is actually a fairly modern concept without much real historical reality. It doesn’t exist and never has.
“Personal freedom” is anathema to a functioning society. And this we can clearly see before us today, as “freedom” is the rallying cry of the far-left demagogues who seek to take control of every aspect of our lives, even as they wreck them. The “personal freedom” slogans are hung next to the myriad of street cameras watching our every move.
A century of “self-liberating” psychology has resulted in a civilization demoralized through indoctrination of self-hate and strung out on mood-altering anti-depressants and increasingly banal whistle and bells distractions commonly known as entertainment.
It’s such a “free country” we can only move about here and there with the assistance of social engineers, government mandates on minority employment and corporate job placement programs, never forming permanent and historical roots to land and family. Thus we end up alienated, paranoid and securely locked away in our houses behind “security systems” and barred windows.
As our “personal liberty” has increased over the past half a century our society has rapidly descended into chaos. Families are broken and torn apart. As mom and dad trasmute into the base metal mm and step dad or two daddies or two mommies or whatever the Frankenfamily arrangement du jour is, getting their fixes on anti-depressants, the kids have taken to mutilating themselves physically (tattoos, increasingly bizarre piercings, and “cutting”) to mirror their mutilated spirits, which have been crushed by womb-to-tomb propaganda that engenders self-hate and atomization from their people and identity past and present.
The streets are riddled with trash and gangs roam at will. Corruption in politics is a given, and the media’s complicity in it is shrugged off with a “that’s just the way it is” attitude. In the end, this modern notion of freedom (aka, personal liberty) has left a bitter taste in mouths of Western people, even if they’re not quite ready to articulate it.
As to real, historical freedom, we are born bound and obliged to a thousand infringements upon our “personal liberty”. Freedom, in the historical since, was the ability to carry out the obligations of the station in life which the web of history had placed upon you; obligations to parents, wives, children, friends, clan and so on.
Slavery and bondage, on the other hand, often “liberated” individuals personally from their responsibilities to their people. It limited their obligations to physical, daily, duties that asked nothing more of them than to complete an assigned task.
Being “the captain of your own ship” or “master of your own destiny” are slogans appealing to the selfishness of those “weighed down” with obligations to wives, children, parents, siblings, clan, friends, community, ancestors and posterity. And true enough, in that sense (the true sense of the notion) death or slavery are the surest ways to “personal liberty”. Because life is obligation. To breathe is to find limitations on your “personal liberty”.
Thus death (of the nature of tribal/ethnic history and collective and personal identity) and slavery (to political correctness, government enforced social engineering, etc) are similar in that both prevent you from fulfilling your obligations to your people. But in that sense they both liberate you from those obligations as well.
Those now fretting over government mandated “death panels” should relax, as it represents the apex of everything America has fought for over the past 40+ years. After all, Death is not only the surest way to “personal freedom” it’s also the state most assuredly conducive to equality among all peoples.
Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.
So bringing Christianity to Africa will make a change for the better?
Do I Really Need To Point Out That Christianity Has Been In Africa For The Past Two Thousand Years?
I'll say that again,
Christianity Has Been In Africa For The Past Two Thousand Years.
Beyond its initial penetration of the dark continent 2,000 years ago, it was "re-brought" there be Europeans in the middle ages and has been "re-brought" there again and again over the past several centuries since.
There has scarcely been a time in the past 2,000 years that missionaries have not been bringing Christianity to Africa.
Currently it is estimated that around 40 to 50% of Africa is Christian.
That's around 450 million Christians in Africa.
There are more Christians in Africa than there are people in North America.
But, apparently, what Africa really needs right now is for someone to bring them Christianity....
I know, maybe they could get the predominantly Christian "African-Americans" to bring their cousins Christianity this time.
After all, just look at what Christianity has done for that community!
Maybe Central and Latin American nations would contribute as well.
There is, after all, a vast reservoir of believers from such developed and stellar (98% professing) Christian nations such as Bolivia, Columbia, Mexico and Haiti.
Unfortunately we can't count on non-Christian nations and regions such as Japan, Taiwan, or China to contribute to re-bringing Africa Christianity this time.....what with those Asian nations, being that they are not Christian, are so backward and primitive and all.
Currently it's hoped that if Christianity ever does make inroads into Japan, we might actually see electricity and running water reach Tokyo within the century.....praise Jesus!
Of course we can't neglect to send them more food and medicine.
That has worked really well,
No. It will not do. Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us, yet again. It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia's (and Bob Geldof's) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia's population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today.
So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none.
Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.
thanks to western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules, Ethiopia's has more than doubled.
Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness. Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, Kalashnikov-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts.
Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually
hyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world.
This dependency has not stimulated political prudence or commonsense. Indeed, voodoo idiocy seems to be in the ascendant, with the next president of South Africa being a firm believer in the efficacy of a little tap water on the post-coital penis as a sure preventative against infection. Needless to say, poverty, hunger and societal meltdown have not prevented idiotic wars involving Tigre, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea etcetera.
The circumstances described above were brought about by the very type of Christan missionaries that the writer of the article at the top of this post says we now need more of.
Remember folks, it has literally been seconds, maybe even minutes, since someone brought Africans Christianity. How can they ever be expected to emerge from the Stone Age under that kind of neglect?
Seriously, the road to perdition is indeed paved with good intentions.
But maybe we could just bring more of them over here. Only good comes from that right?.... right?
Monday, March 7, 2011
“Own a flat screen television? If not you’re missing out. In high definition everything is so clear and real looking …”
A trendy comment today on movies or TV shows is “realistic”. Over and over I hear this adjective applied to various bits of entertainment as an endorsement of it. The special effects are “realistic” or the fight scenes are “realistic” and so on.
I have to wonder, what exactly does it mean to say a movie is realistic? If there are writers, actors, directors, editors, pre-production, post production, sound and visual effects companies involved over the course of generally a year and half, what exactly does “real” mean in regards to packaged entertainment?
One example I’ve heard pointed out is the ubiquitous ‘blue screen’ or back-projections employed in films since the 1920’s, if not before. These were most commonly used in scenes where an actor or actress appears to be driving. Now they are quite obviously in a mock-up of a car in front of a projection of scenery going by. But does this matter?
I’ve read that the reason special effects have improved is that audiences today are more sophisticated than those in past times. However, is the need to be convinced that a space-ship is realistically rendered in CGI as it dog fights with aliens from Beta reticuli on the planet Zorbom really demonstrative of a sophisticated mindset?
It may seem an insignificant question but it gets to the heart of the current mentality of many a citizen of The West and their relationship with media.
And it isn’t just in the realm of goofy sci-fi films. A few years back I was encouraged to see a new James Bond film because, and I quote, “it’s not like the old ones. This one is more grounded and realistic.” I’ve never been much of a James Bond fan but I gave it a shot. And within the first twenty minutes I witnessed a superhuman comic book character running mile after mile without breaking a sweat, men free-climbing buildings like Spiderman, people jumping to the ground from two stories up (from atop cranes) –tuck-roll- then hop up and start running some more. This was capped off by the hero single-handedly defeating an army of heavily armed soldiers and slipping away during a massive explosion that, though wreaking tremendous damage and knocking everyone to the ground (save the hero), did not appear to harm a hair on anyone’s head. Apparently this was “realistic”.
Of course, by “real”, what the promoters of such “realness” mean are that the fake explosions and fake car crashes and fake fight scenes are carefully filmed, edited and detailed in their fakeness. Thus ‘details’ becomes the accepted substitute for authenticity.
When you consider this new drive for, detailed, realistic looking staged-reality you can begin to see how the manufactured existence of an Obama or Palin or Bush jr can happen. They’re 100% fake in their presented personalities and qualities but they’re more “realistically” rendered in their presentation via media. More than that, they are caricatures of types we’ve seen in media for the past thirty years. But they’re “more real”. Most people know details about them, but nothing of substance. And if they learn the substance they quickly over look it when a new detail is presented.
Bush, the upper class cheerleader from New England, is presented as the country-bumpkin from Texas, complete with a bible, large belt buckle, plaid shirts, scenes of him cutting up trees with a chainsaw, and an inexplicable southwestern twang in some of his speech.
Palin, the former beauty pageant contestant turned politician, is presented as the embodiment of the “soccer mom” despite the obvious fact that her career would naturally diminish her role as a mother. But we’ve all seen the “moose picture” and know about her down’s syndrome child.
And Obama. We’ve all seen him many times before in movies and tv shows. He’s the bad black actor who thinks, clearly enunciating his words while speaking in a monotone voice equates to sounding intelligent. The one critical detail about him is, of course, that he’s black.
The tragic part is, for many Americans (and Westerners in general), these glaringly obvious straight-out-of-central-casting archetypes work.
Most Americans, sadly, do not set down to a movie or any other media and ponder its message. In fact they see no message, only plot. Good guys. Bad Guys. Cool Guys. Hot Chicks. Cool Special Effects. Good Soundtrack, etc. That is what American audiences are conscience of when it comes to media. Unless it is something overt, such as a Michael Moore documentary, most Americans simply don’t believe propaganda plays much of a part in the sounds and images that are constantly fed to them through music, news, TV, movies and so on. The notion that writers, producers and directors have an agenda or even specific message that they’re trying to get across seems downright conspiratorial to most Americans.
In truth, Americans completely lack healthy cynicism.
When Homo americanus looks at art or media he simply sees it as something that is. Why does Homo americanus believe a particular piece of art or media was created? Money, boredom or that somebody just had a talent and expressed it are the three reasons Homo americanus concludes motivates the existence of any given drawing, painting, musical piece, movie, TV show, news program, etc ...
And here is the critical point, without ever pausing and pondering the why; these Americans will never think to ask about the who that is behind it.
They make no conscience effort to absorb anything other than the surface sheen, or the details. So if that is sufficiently rendered gloriously “real” in CGI, all else is superfluous. Thus you might hear praise for the accurate (“real”) rendering of a villain’s costume in a period film set in 1345 yet the fact that he is speaking modern English, complete with 21st century attitude and vernacular, is irrelevant. “Real” today is a surface quality reflecting whichever face is staring into it. Which means “real” is always present tense. As such, the past is never authentic unless filtered through the present conception (sheen) of “real”.
Along with this comes the adjoining recent trend in media of questioning identity as it relates to memory. From ‘Blade Runner’ to ‘Total Recall’, from ‘Fight Club’ to ‘Memento’ identity and memory (and how they are interconnected) are recurring themes in modern cinema. And in all of such examples the hero must finally, in the story’s climax, make a choice in what he accepts as real. Inevitably he chooses what he thinks will make him happy in the present. “Real” for this modern hero is always and only the now, as the past is uncertain, unknowable and ultimately insignificant. Needless to say (for the modern hero), so is the future.
With that in mind, topics such as national/ethnic identity, racial reality, the holocaust, third world immigration, non-White crime rates, quality of life, education and so on have no relation to facts. If the holocaust is “real” now, that’s all that matters. If the details (even if they are 100% engineered and fake) have a sharp, clear resolution in the imagery they present, they are approvingly accepted as “real”.
In fact the holocaust fits the example of ‘details’ over facts quite nicely. Most people who unquestionably believe in it know very little of the facts. But the artificial, media generated, details; piles of cloths, cattle cars, ominous smoke rising from chimneys and so on are embedded in their thoughts without context or the potential to examine their genuineness.
Or, how many people look past the unprecedented damage done by Third World migration because they are immersed in media created ‘details’. “Good ol’ Pedro walks around his quaint little abode where he collects elephant statues, listens to instrumental guitar records on an old player he rescued from a junk yard and keeps the letter his wife sent him three days before the car accident tucked in his tattered shirt pocket next to his heart.”
You ask, “How did Pedro get here? What effect has his presence had on the community? And what will be the long term consequences?”
Mr. Detail’s answers, “Who knows, who cares? The guy collects elephant statues for crying out loud! He’s a ‘real’ person!”
These “it looks real” people are in a house that is on fire. Yet they set undisturbed in front of their televisions, enraptured at images of fake fire-fighters fighting fake fires. For them, the authentic world has ceased to exist. In their minds, when they reach the pearly gates, St. Peter will greet them with the question, “Was it real for you?”
Perhaps, in the end, media is more like a hallucinogenic drug then some believe. The desire to escape into an ever more “realistic” looking fantasy world can be very addictive. And, like all unhealthy addictions, ultimately destructive. Both to the addicts and to those around them.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
ATF agent says "Fast and Furious" program let guns "walk" into hands of Mexican drug cartels with aim of tracking and breaking a big case
WASHINGTON - Federal agent John Dodson says what he was asked to do was beyond belief.
He was intentionally letting guns go to Mexico?
"Yes ma'am," Dodson told CBS News. "The agency was."
An Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms senior agent assigned to the Phoenix office in 2010, Dodson's job is to stop gun trafficking across the border. Instead, he says he was ordered to sit by and watch it happen.
This would be the same ATF who burned down a church full of women and children in Texas back in the 90's.
And this would be the same federal government that ALLOWS millions of rapists, gangbangers and murderers from the third world into America every single year......and then gives your tax dollars to them to support them.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
The fortifications have given way, the buildings raised by
giants are crumbling. The roofs have collapsed ; the
towers are in ruins There is rime on the mortar. The
walls are rent and broken away, and have fallen, under-
mined by age. The owners and builders are perished and
gone, and have been held fast in the earth's embrace, the
ruthless clutch of the grave, while a hundred generations
of mankind have passed away.
-from 'The Ruin'