If you ever wanted to see a story that so profoundly shows what a revolting monster our government and our legal system has become and how it is the enemy of flesh and blood Americans read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/national/19ranch.html?
Note: I've pasted the story within []
[2 Illegal Immigrants Win Arizona Ranch in Court
By ANDREW POLLACK
Published: August 19, 2005
Correction Appended
DOUGLAS, Ariz., Aug. 18 - Spent shells litter the ground at what is left of the firing range, and camouflage outfits still hang in a storeroom. Just a few months ago, this ranch was known as Camp Thunderbird, the headquarters of a paramilitary group that promised to use force to keep illegal immigrants from sneaking across the border with Mexico.
David Bowser for The New York Times
A windmill tower in Douglas, Ariz., was a lookout point for members of a group that tried to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing the border.
The New York Times
Camp Thunderbird is two miles from the Mexican border. Now, in a turnabout, the 70-acre property about two miles from the border is being given to two immigrants whom the group caught trying to enter the United States illegally. The land transfer is being made to satisfy judgments in a lawsuit in which the immigrants had said that Casey Nethercott, the owner of the ranch and a former leader of the vigilante group Ranch Rescue, had harmed them. "Certainly it's poetic justice that these undocumented workers own this land," said Morris S. Dees Jr., co-founder and chief trial counsel of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., which represented the immigrants in their lawsuit. Mr. Dees said the loss of the ranch would "send a pretty important message to those who come to the border to use violence."
The surrender of the ranch comes as the governors of Arizona and New Mexico have declared a state of emergency because of the influx of illegal immigrants and related crime along the border. Bill Dore, a Douglas resident briefly affiliated with Ranch Rescue who is still active in the border-patrolling Minuteman Project, called the land transfer "ridiculous." "The illegals are coming over here," Mr. Dore said. "They are getting the American property. Hell, I'd come over, too. Get some American property, make some money from the gringos."
The immigrants getting the ranch, Edwin Alfredo Mancía Gonzáles and Fátima del Socorro Leiva Medina, could not be reached for comment. Kelley Bruner, a lawyer at the law center, said they did not want to speak to the news media but were happy with the outcome. Ms. Bruner said that Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva, who are from El Salvador but are not related, would not live at the ranch and would probably sell it. Mr. Nethercott bought the ranch in 2003 for $120,000. Mr. Mancía, who lives in Los Angeles, and Ms. Leiva, who lives in the Dallas area, have applied for visas that are available to immigrants who are the victims of certain crimes and who cooperate with the authorities, Ms. Bruner said. She said that until a decision was made on their applications, they could stay and work in the United States on a year-to-year basis.
Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva were caught on a ranch in Hebbronville, Tex., in March 2003 by Mr. Nethercott and other members of Ranch Rescue. The two immigrants later accused Mr. Nethercott of threatening them and of hitting Mr. Mancía with a pistol, charges that Mr. Nethercott denied. The immigrants also said the group gave them cookies, water and a blanket and let them go after an hour or so.
The Salvadorans testified against Mr. Nethercott when he was tried by Texas prosecutors. The jury deadlocked on a charge of pistol-whipping but convicted Mr. Nethercott, who had previously served time in California for assault, of gun possession, which is illegal for a felon. He is now serving a five-year sentence in a Texas prison.
Mr. Mancía and Ms. Leiva also filed a lawsuit against Mr. Nethercott; Jack Foote, the founder of Ranch Rescue; and the owner of the Hebbronville ranch, Joe Sutton. The immigrants said the ordeal, in which they feared that they would be killed by the men they thought were soldiers, had left them with post-traumatic stress.
Mr. Sutton settled for $100,000. Mr. Nethercott and Mr. Foote did not defend themselves, so the judge issued default judgments of $850,000 against Mr. Nethercott and $500,000 against Mr. Foote.
Mr. Dees said Mr. Foote appeared to have no substantial assets, but Mr. Nethercott had the ranch. Shortly after the judgment, Mr. Nethercott gave the land to his sister, Robin Albitz, of Prescott, Ariz. The Southern Poverty Law Center sued the siblings, saying the transfer was fraudulent and was meant to avoid the judgment.
Ms. Albitz, a nursing assistant, signed over the land to the two immigrants last week.]
As bad as things have gotten, when I first read this I almost thought it was parody. It would have been funny parody but instead it is the disgusting truth. If this doesn’t make you despise the tyrants that have enslaved us and made us their serfs nothing will. It is actually worse than serfdom since it is clear that genocide of Whites is what the New America is after. No, this won’t take place in gas chambers, yet at least, but instead is much more shrewdly accomplished through public policy and attitudes affecting relative birth rates and racial purity. Whites are a free and liberty loving people who are clearly much less compliant than the 3rd World masses who would gladly trade a tyrant who gives them McDonalds, WWF, and WalMart at slave wages for their old masters who didn’t. That they are willing to live under tyranny, as the countries they flee from testifies, and we are not is why they are preferable. They will be the useful little cogs in the machine while we are not. Progress will be able to continue unabated. The theory for why 3rd Worlders ARE 3rd Worlders is not allowed into public discussion as it actually involves immutable racial differences (such as their reduced initiative, innovativeness, and spirit due to the smaller frontal lobes of their brains). I wish I were wrong on this but the evidence is very compelling. We can’t talk about these things since that would be hateful. Only genocide of Whites is allowable AND we Whites must celebrate it.
Read that story and reflect on how, if our government were legitimate, it would do exactly the opposite of what actually happened. Trespassers would face expulsion at the least, if not the risk of death and it would not be our citizens having to do this but the Border Patrol or other representatives of our will. Now our government attacks its own people for daring to defend their own property. A parasite like Morris Dees (in Cyberspace aka Morris Disease) has an extortion racket that uses our ‘legal’ system to deny our citizens self-defense and then steals their property. He should be in prison and the judges that allow these mockeries as well but that would be an older America of real justice and liberty. It is looooooooong gone.
Of course our great ‘watchdog’, the news media, shows how ‘objective’ they are by making the tyrants seem legitimate. If they had wanted to they could have made the judge, jurors, and SPLC seem like scum – easily – but that is not part of their agenda. If they had done their job the tyranny of our government would have been stopped a long time ago; likewise with the entertainment industry. Why are these institutions defenders of tyranny rather than its enemy? Do these institutions really reflect freedom loving, kin loving, productive and independent Americans? What is different about them that they are against us and why are they not honest enough to say so????? I’d speculate as to the overwhelming jewishness of these institutions but that is more unallowable hate speech. Besides, like a good conservative, I have to nod my head when told the Jews are our friends just like they were the friends of Russia and Germany and Spain in earlier times. They were just misunderstood and exploited by evil Christian Whites who needed a scapegoat.
If you are a typical brain-dead American keep loving this thing. Keep sending your sons, and now daughters, to die for its satanic lusts, and to be indoctrinated into its religion. Keep paying your taxes, regardless of how high. Leave your property when they claim it. Ask how high when told to jump. And, most of all, keep hating those of us who don’t. Only then will your continued presence be allowed.
For the rest of us, be wise as serpents. We can’t win a fight until we are clear who are enemies are and who are friends aren’t.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Friday, August 12, 2005
Questions for Judge Roberts
I recently received an email alert from the American Family Association requesting that American Christians rally in defense of President Bush’s nomination of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court of the U.S. This is in anticipation of the liberal attacks that are bound to come. In the past I would almost reflexively answer the call to arms, maybe in so small a way as to send an encouraging email. Now, I take everything from the Conservative Establishment with a very large grain of salt. I don’t follow things much in Washington anymore since I believe it is largely a wasted effort while there are other areas we can make a big difference. Still, I have heard some things about Roberts that bring to question Bush’s promise to nominate someone in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. I’ll touch on those things in a moment but if I have heard these things, in very casual perusals of the Internet, wouldn’t Don Wildmon (head of the AFA), supposedly a very conservative and principled man, have also heard these things? If there are serious red flags regarding the judicial temperament of Roberts why wouldn’t the AFA bring those to the attention of its members rather than a call to blind support?
I hope history proves me wrong but right now Roberts looks like a spineless, liberal weasel like Souter, or a constantly compromising, ever “growing”, centrist like O’Connor or Kennedy. (As a side note, this morning I heard the abortion advocacy group NARAL is pulling an attack ad on Roberts. Are these liberals finally realizing they have nothing to fear from this guy? I think so. He seems such a domesticated, tame, acceptable little conservative.)
I’ll raise my two concerns in a series of questions that I would ask of Judge Roberts were I a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. These questions will not be asked due to both the blind support of Republicans for Bush and due to the liberal religion under which almost all Democrats are acolytes, if not clergy. Liberalism holds these things, that I consider major concerns of Roberts, as sacrosanct, akin to the geocentric universe before the time of Copernicus and Galileo. Cyberspace is the only place these questions will be asked.
1) Judge Roberts, you have said that Roe vs. Wade is the “settled law of the land”. Please explain.
(After the normal doublespeak and sophistry that is intended to bore people to disinterest…)
2) Judge Roberts, can the Supreme Court create “law”?
3) Judge Roberts, which body does our Constitution grant the authority to pass laws?
4) Judge Roberts, has the U.S. Congress ever passed a law prohibiting statutory abortion restrictions?
5) Judge Roberts, has not the U.S. Congress attempted to pass numerous laws to just the opposite effect – to override the “law” created by the Supreme Court?
6) Judge Roberts, is what the Supreme Court decides a law unto itself regardless of what our Constitution says?
7) Judge Roberts, are there no transcendent or institutional constraints that can correct rulings of the Supreme Court?
8) Judge Roberts, isn’t that why you say Roe vs. Wade is “settled” and “law”, because the Supreme Court said it is?
New line of questions
9) Judge Roberts, please explain the concept of “pro bono” legal advice.
10) Judge Roberts, is it fair to say that lawyers only provide pro bono services in support of cases in which they strongly believe?
11) Judge Roberts, are you familiar with the state of Colorado’s referendum, adopted by the vote of its citizens, that would bar special rights to sodomites, or, if you prefer, “gay” people?
12) Judge Roberts, you provided pro bono (i.e. free and voluntary) legal services in support of sodomite activists who sought to overturn the will of the people of Colorado in Romer vs. Evans. Why?
13) Judge Roberts, there are many places you could have provided free legal services where they are desperately needed, where there is no establishment popularity as with “gay” rights, but you chose this cause. What does this say about your value system, your convictions, and your courage?
14) Judge Roberts, are you proud that your volunteer effort helped to overturn this decision of the people of Colorado?
15) Judge Roberts, in what way did the Colorado Referendum violate Colorado Law, Federal Law, God’s Law?
16) So, if God’s Law is no longer relevant what did Thomas Jefferson mean when he stated our rights are “inalienable”?
17) So, if God’s Law is relevant only if it comports with modern sensibilities has it not become Man’s Law and are not Supreme Court Justices modern day prophets of a new polymorphous god?
18) Judge Roberts, are you an example of what President Bush considers a conservative judge in the mold of Scalia and Thomas?
19) Judge Roberts, might you speculate then as to who President Bush might think is in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Never mind, don’t answer.
20) Judge Roberts, what are your thoughts on Judge Roy Moore?
Judge Roberts, I never would have known you were a Christian if I hadn’t read it in your bio. That should make you proud.
No further questions.
If Roberts can't "get" these simple things like abortion and sodomite "rights" how the hell can he deal with the harder issues that will come up where he would really have to prove himself a man of the law? The answer is he won't. He has failed on these little things so he should not be trusted on the big things. I wonder if the liberals will do the conservatives job and reject this example of mediocrity? I doubt it. As dumb as they are, they are not as dumb as conservatives.
I hope history proves me wrong but right now Roberts looks like a spineless, liberal weasel like Souter, or a constantly compromising, ever “growing”, centrist like O’Connor or Kennedy. (As a side note, this morning I heard the abortion advocacy group NARAL is pulling an attack ad on Roberts. Are these liberals finally realizing they have nothing to fear from this guy? I think so. He seems such a domesticated, tame, acceptable little conservative.)
I’ll raise my two concerns in a series of questions that I would ask of Judge Roberts were I a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. These questions will not be asked due to both the blind support of Republicans for Bush and due to the liberal religion under which almost all Democrats are acolytes, if not clergy. Liberalism holds these things, that I consider major concerns of Roberts, as sacrosanct, akin to the geocentric universe before the time of Copernicus and Galileo. Cyberspace is the only place these questions will be asked.
1) Judge Roberts, you have said that Roe vs. Wade is the “settled law of the land”. Please explain.
(After the normal doublespeak and sophistry that is intended to bore people to disinterest…)
2) Judge Roberts, can the Supreme Court create “law”?
3) Judge Roberts, which body does our Constitution grant the authority to pass laws?
4) Judge Roberts, has the U.S. Congress ever passed a law prohibiting statutory abortion restrictions?
5) Judge Roberts, has not the U.S. Congress attempted to pass numerous laws to just the opposite effect – to override the “law” created by the Supreme Court?
6) Judge Roberts, is what the Supreme Court decides a law unto itself regardless of what our Constitution says?
7) Judge Roberts, are there no transcendent or institutional constraints that can correct rulings of the Supreme Court?
8) Judge Roberts, isn’t that why you say Roe vs. Wade is “settled” and “law”, because the Supreme Court said it is?
New line of questions
9) Judge Roberts, please explain the concept of “pro bono” legal advice.
10) Judge Roberts, is it fair to say that lawyers only provide pro bono services in support of cases in which they strongly believe?
11) Judge Roberts, are you familiar with the state of Colorado’s referendum, adopted by the vote of its citizens, that would bar special rights to sodomites, or, if you prefer, “gay” people?
12) Judge Roberts, you provided pro bono (i.e. free and voluntary) legal services in support of sodomite activists who sought to overturn the will of the people of Colorado in Romer vs. Evans. Why?
13) Judge Roberts, there are many places you could have provided free legal services where they are desperately needed, where there is no establishment popularity as with “gay” rights, but you chose this cause. What does this say about your value system, your convictions, and your courage?
14) Judge Roberts, are you proud that your volunteer effort helped to overturn this decision of the people of Colorado?
15) Judge Roberts, in what way did the Colorado Referendum violate Colorado Law, Federal Law, God’s Law?
16) So, if God’s Law is no longer relevant what did Thomas Jefferson mean when he stated our rights are “inalienable”?
17) So, if God’s Law is relevant only if it comports with modern sensibilities has it not become Man’s Law and are not Supreme Court Justices modern day prophets of a new polymorphous god?
18) Judge Roberts, are you an example of what President Bush considers a conservative judge in the mold of Scalia and Thomas?
19) Judge Roberts, might you speculate then as to who President Bush might think is in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Never mind, don’t answer.
20) Judge Roberts, what are your thoughts on Judge Roy Moore?
Judge Roberts, I never would have known you were a Christian if I hadn’t read it in your bio. That should make you proud.
No further questions.
If Roberts can't "get" these simple things like abortion and sodomite "rights" how the hell can he deal with the harder issues that will come up where he would really have to prove himself a man of the law? The answer is he won't. He has failed on these little things so he should not be trusted on the big things. I wonder if the liberals will do the conservatives job and reject this example of mediocrity? I doubt it. As dumb as they are, they are not as dumb as conservatives.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
The Sucker Dance
The Republican Party, President Bush, the Catholic Church, the Evangelical Church, Wall Street, Corporate America, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, William Buckley, Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal. These institutions and people are what most consider to be symbols of Conservative America. Sometimes they are called right wing as well. Do you consider them conservative? Do you consider yourself conservative? If the answer to both questions is “yes” then the label is meaningless.
These questions are at the heart of what I consider to be the conservative dilemma. Since conservatives are characterized by wanting to maintain the established order and the established order is now rotten (due to institutionalized liberalism) are conservatives, therefore, rotten? Thoughtful Conservatives do not want to conserve everything and instead only want to conserve what is good but they are now a fringe, having been either purged from any meaningful institutional power or been reeducated into seeing the “light”. Conservatives are also characterized by a respect for authority which further exacerbates the problem since our institutions have adopted the fundamental premises of liberalism.
The conservative rank and file still believes in our institutions even though the institutions now embrace those very things Conservatives used to consider anathema. What gives? Are Conservatives nothing other than the practical implementers of liberal ideas? Are we the ones who prevent the crazy uncle (liberalism) from killing himself on heroine by instead giving him methadone and Marlboros? The blogger Lawrence Auster has a term for the mechanism that holds the unholy relationship between conservatism and liberalism together – unprincipled exceptions. Go to his web site (View from the Right) for an explanation much better than I can provide. Sadly the relationship is completely one way. Liberalism is suicidal such that, if allowed to continue without constraint, it would destroy its host. Conservatism provides the brakes to this runaway train but Conservatives are never in the Engine, just the Caboose. Conservatives eventually grow to love the monster more than the Liberals who created it. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.
Does the Conservative Establishment (CE) challenge the New Deal era programs that now characterize our government? Does the CE challenge the taking of our freedom of association by “Civil Rights”? Does the CE challenge international American political tyranny through our stated advocacy of forced democratization? Does the CE challenge the imperialism of American Corporate conquest at home and abroad? Does the CE challenge the modern American identity of Consumer instead of Producer? Does the CE ever say that Caesar is subordinate to God and not vice versa? Does the CE do anything to stop the constitutional rape occurring because our Supreme Court acts as the Supreme Legislature? Does the CE try to defend the racial stock that created America in the first place by stopping unlimited 3rd World immigration? Does the CE do anything of substance to return us to a state of natural liberty?
Not only is the answer in almost every case “no” but the CE is often the very proponent of these agendas. Sometimes, comically, they are even opposed by the LE. Conservatives are now the chief defenders of a status quo that is diametrically opposed to Christian concepts of right and wrong.
I no longer think Frankenstein can be turned into Fred Astaire. No charm school, no makeover, no dance lessons, no education can do it. Eliza Doolittle was turned into My Fair Lady but we are dealing with Bella Abzug. Henry Higgins wouldn’t have a chance and neither do we. We now have a beast that should be given enough rope to hang itself. The sooner we jump out of the caboose the sooner those that love the train will catapult over a cliff. I am afraid if we keep trying to stop it we will only become its advocates and, therefore, its food. Leave it and start to build something better subordinating all to The Author of all that is good. It’s been done before and it can happen again.
Your treasure is in your kin and kith, in your industriousness, in your willing submission to Jesus as the Lord of your life, in your voluntary sacrifice for your community, in your love of liberty, and of justice. If you want to conserve the established order your real treasure will be destroyed or corrupted. Which do you choose?
I pray that God will give me the courage and wisdom to follow the example of Joshua who said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
These questions are at the heart of what I consider to be the conservative dilemma. Since conservatives are characterized by wanting to maintain the established order and the established order is now rotten (due to institutionalized liberalism) are conservatives, therefore, rotten? Thoughtful Conservatives do not want to conserve everything and instead only want to conserve what is good but they are now a fringe, having been either purged from any meaningful institutional power or been reeducated into seeing the “light”. Conservatives are also characterized by a respect for authority which further exacerbates the problem since our institutions have adopted the fundamental premises of liberalism.
The conservative rank and file still believes in our institutions even though the institutions now embrace those very things Conservatives used to consider anathema. What gives? Are Conservatives nothing other than the practical implementers of liberal ideas? Are we the ones who prevent the crazy uncle (liberalism) from killing himself on heroine by instead giving him methadone and Marlboros? The blogger Lawrence Auster has a term for the mechanism that holds the unholy relationship between conservatism and liberalism together – unprincipled exceptions. Go to his web site (View from the Right) for an explanation much better than I can provide. Sadly the relationship is completely one way. Liberalism is suicidal such that, if allowed to continue without constraint, it would destroy its host. Conservatism provides the brakes to this runaway train but Conservatives are never in the Engine, just the Caboose. Conservatives eventually grow to love the monster more than the Liberals who created it. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.
Does the Conservative Establishment (CE) challenge the New Deal era programs that now characterize our government? Does the CE challenge the taking of our freedom of association by “Civil Rights”? Does the CE challenge international American political tyranny through our stated advocacy of forced democratization? Does the CE challenge the imperialism of American Corporate conquest at home and abroad? Does the CE challenge the modern American identity of Consumer instead of Producer? Does the CE ever say that Caesar is subordinate to God and not vice versa? Does the CE do anything to stop the constitutional rape occurring because our Supreme Court acts as the Supreme Legislature? Does the CE try to defend the racial stock that created America in the first place by stopping unlimited 3rd World immigration? Does the CE do anything of substance to return us to a state of natural liberty?
Not only is the answer in almost every case “no” but the CE is often the very proponent of these agendas. Sometimes, comically, they are even opposed by the LE. Conservatives are now the chief defenders of a status quo that is diametrically opposed to Christian concepts of right and wrong.
I no longer think Frankenstein can be turned into Fred Astaire. No charm school, no makeover, no dance lessons, no education can do it. Eliza Doolittle was turned into My Fair Lady but we are dealing with Bella Abzug. Henry Higgins wouldn’t have a chance and neither do we. We now have a beast that should be given enough rope to hang itself. The sooner we jump out of the caboose the sooner those that love the train will catapult over a cliff. I am afraid if we keep trying to stop it we will only become its advocates and, therefore, its food. Leave it and start to build something better subordinating all to The Author of all that is good. It’s been done before and it can happen again.
Your treasure is in your kin and kith, in your industriousness, in your willing submission to Jesus as the Lord of your life, in your voluntary sacrifice for your community, in your love of liberty, and of justice. If you want to conserve the established order your real treasure will be destroyed or corrupted. Which do you choose?
I pray that God will give me the courage and wisdom to follow the example of Joshua who said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
Monday, July 18, 2005
George W. Bush and the death of the Reagan Revolution
Ronald Reagan on our global nemesis, Soviet-led Communism: “Must freedom wither in a quiet, deadening accommodation with totalitarian evil"?
George W. Bush on our global nemesis Islam: “Islam is a religion of peace".
Has George Bush inherited the mantle of Ronald Reagan as the leader of conservatism in America? He is certainly America’s President but is he unmaking the very thing he seeks to defend, namely America itself, by failing to see reality? In this fallen world of ours conflict is inevitable and unending. The challenge is not to eliminate all enemies once and for all, since this is impossible, but to identify and deal with the enemies you face in your time. Fighting the wrong foes or aligning with the wrong friends can be fatal. Where are we now?
One of the first steps in dealing with any problem is identification of what the problem is. Ronald Reagan identified Communism as an enemy. George Bush has labeled terrorism as an enemy. History has proven Reagan correct; Communism was an enemy due to the rhetoric, actions, and the capabilities of its proponents. Its own founding documents, from Marx, through Lenin and Stalin left a trail of its intentions and its actual manifestations did not contradict these intentions. The reality of the countries where it was imposed testified to its fruits including: no private property, no freedom of faith, state-imposed starvation, gulags, etc. Reagan called Communism ‘evil’ because, based on our American standards and the evidence, it was evil. Reagan may have wished Communism was something else but the reality prevented fantasies. Our nation was under a mortal threat and a sizable portion of America’s intellectual establishment answered the call to arms.
George Bush has rallied the United States to fight the enemy of terrorism and more recently has made worldwide democratization the strategic means to fight this enemy. Is terrorism really an enemy? Many others have written effectively that terrorism is a means to achieve an end; in other words it is a tactic. This is not to say we shouldn’t combat terrorism at a tactical level. Not only should airports be secured which Bush has zealously overseen, going so far as to frisk 80 year old women as much as young Arab males, but also our border should be secured and our immigration laws enforced, which Bush has been loath to do. Above the tactical level every conflict has a strategic level – that is the overarching objectives that must be achieved to ensure victory. Bush’s strategy has most recently been articulated as democracy and freedom for all. This time Bush has made a benign process, democracy, a goal when it often leads to the very denial of freedom he purports to desire. Now that Iraqi democracy is leading towards Islamic Law, Sharia, by definition non-Muslim Iraqis have less freedom and we in the West are in greater danger of terrorism. So Bush has created a series of goals that contradict each other. If reducing terrorism is a goal then Islamic ‘Democracy’ will not be good since Islam demands submission of the infidel by any means possible. Likewise if maximizing freedom is a goal then Islamic ‘Democracy’ will not be good since infidels are second class citizens at best under Islamic Law. By making freedom and democracy and the elimination of terrorism goals without dealing with Islam is folly. Substitute ‘Nazism’ for ‘Islam’ and ‘Jew’ for ‘Infidel’ and you’ll get the point.
Why Islam is an enemy of the West is derived from a non-idealized reading of Islam’s sacred texts. Islam cannot be contrary to its own founding documents; the documents that describe what Muslims believe to be the inerrant revelation of Allah through Mohammed, the Koran; and the life of Mohammed and the early history of Islam, the Hadith, Sirah, etc. These are Islam since Allah said Islam is unchangeable. What has been revealed through Islam’s prophet Mohammed IS Islam. Islam cannot be that which we would like it to be if that which we would like it to be contradicts the original revelation. This is simple logic.
What is in Islam’s sacred texts is widely available over the internet. I recommend you go directly to the source documents and see for yourself. Be warned the structure of the Koran is very convoluted and repetitive so it is tedious to spend any time on. For an organized translation of Islam’s sacred texts see the web site www.prophetofdoom.net. The creator focuses firstly on presenting Islam’s own writings in an organized fashion, then in comparing Islam to Christianity and the comparison reveals diametrically opposed Gods. Allah and Yaweh (the God of the Bible) can not be the same. It is hard not to see Islam as a totalitarian political system in addition to being religious. As a matter of fact, its claim to divine origins makes its totalitarian political aspects all the more dangerous since they are non-negotiable from the perspective of Muslims; at least Muslims who follow the commands of their Prophet. Infidels (non-Muslims) are on very thin ice when they decry people like Osama Bin Laden as not being true Muslims when he is simply following the example of his prophet. Bin Laden can be called many things but heretical Muslim is not one of them. We in the West can be so arrogant in projecting our own sensibilities onto everyone else. The libertine ways of the West are anathema to Islam. They are also anathema to many Christians and Traditionalists though we have a dramatically different view on restoration than does Islam. For those who think Islam has no interest in the non-Muslim world wake up. Muslims are much less small minded than many attribute them to be. The "Muslim World" according to Islam is not the Middle East. It is the whole world. Doesn’t this make sense since Allah is believed to be the God of the whole world? The Koran describes the world as being in two camps; either at peace or at war. The "at peace" portion is where Islam rules inviolate. The "at war" portion is where Islam does not (yet) rule. Islam does not project this situation as permanent but as one to be overcome through jihad to make the whole world at peace; i.e. under the rule of Islam.
President Bush currently exists in a world of fantasy where what is true is what we want to be true rather than what is. He believes religion is good without dirtying his hands with the specific mandates of the belief system. He believes democracy is good regardless of what substantive results the process of democracy realizes. He and his strongest supporters, often referred to as neoconservatives are motivated by America the idea rather than America the real. This abstract America appeals to both the business elites who see nationalism as a competitor placing limits on markets and to the Leftists whose romantic views of the brotherhood of man has led them to create and propagate multiculturalism as a non-negotiable and virtuous end. The real America of Americans of flesh and blood and traditional Christian values is caught in the middle of this juggernaut. On one side our "conservative" party wants an open stream of workers into the country to keep labor cheap and profits high, and wanting the freedom to outsource other jobs to wherever it most benefits them, all the while having the blood of America to be their insurance policy if the foreign country infringes on their interests. On the other side our liberal party wants to recast predominately White, Christian America with a new amorphous American who has no identity from which to resist more cultural "progress". No roots and the largest tree will be unable to resist much of a storm.
Ronald Reagan’s reality has given way to George Bush’s wishful thinking. In saner times the opposition party would adjust to fill this ideological vacuum. Now the opposition party is trapped by its own ideology on the other side of reason. The synthesis in our current political dialectic is always leftward since the thesis is always leftist ideology and the antithesis Republican/Rovian compromising. The current Republican political strategy is to surrender ideology to Democrats but then win elections by being more "reasonable" in the administration of these liberal policies. Republicans celebrate when a Howard Dean (or similar juvenile dimwit) is pegged to lead the opposition party. How can a patriotic American cheer this? Shouldn’t we want two responsible political movements rather than one or, more accurately, none. This is the irony; as Republicans continue to win elections America moves ever leftward in its polity. And liberals hate Bush even though he gives them most every thing they want albeit at a slower pace. What a world.
The Reagan Revolution was a true, though temporary, reversal of the then unstoppable march of Liberalism through the American political landscape. He called our enemies and hindrances out, be they Communism, Big Government, Liberalism, etc., and this enabled constructive change and opposition to occur. George W. Bush has embraced Big Government through Compassionate Conservatism, embraced multiculturalism through open borders, embraced the mantle of Wilson, not Coolidge, through his messianic proclamations regarding world democracy and America’s duty to bring it about, and embraced our biggest outward adversary, Islam, by calling it a religion of peace over and over again.
The damage George W. Bush and neoconservatism has caused to conservatism is hard to measure since additionally many of Bush’s strongest supporters (including his Vice President) advocate many of the progressive innovations in the American cultural scene, including alternate definitions of marriage. America the Autonomous, America the Strong, America the Free was no accident of history. It was created and maintained by a very particular people, culture, and religion under just the right circumstances. It can, with great effort, be maintained into the future but it cannot withstand all mismanagement. Much that has now been damaged must be healed and nurtured back to its healthy state.
The neconservative view seems to be that America is the ultimate commodity. To them it is not only the perfect export to the world, to be forced upon its recipients if they do not accept it voluntarily, but it also is infinitely indestructible internally. No amount of immigration or ‘free’ trade or ‘progressive’ cultural change can undermine its existence. It is not protected like a fragile ecosystem but beaten like a rented mule. It is Yucca Mountain rather than Walden Pond. Both concepts defy history and logic. No culture can withstand an open ended assault on itself and still be itself. Likewise, the arrogant attempt to impose ‘America’ on all by force invites more of the former since we open ourselves up to embrace all we dislocate. America may ultimately survive with its name intact but little else.
Maybe that’s what the advocates of the New World Order have wanted all along.
George W. Bush on our global nemesis Islam: “Islam is a religion of peace".
Has George Bush inherited the mantle of Ronald Reagan as the leader of conservatism in America? He is certainly America’s President but is he unmaking the very thing he seeks to defend, namely America itself, by failing to see reality? In this fallen world of ours conflict is inevitable and unending. The challenge is not to eliminate all enemies once and for all, since this is impossible, but to identify and deal with the enemies you face in your time. Fighting the wrong foes or aligning with the wrong friends can be fatal. Where are we now?
One of the first steps in dealing with any problem is identification of what the problem is. Ronald Reagan identified Communism as an enemy. George Bush has labeled terrorism as an enemy. History has proven Reagan correct; Communism was an enemy due to the rhetoric, actions, and the capabilities of its proponents. Its own founding documents, from Marx, through Lenin and Stalin left a trail of its intentions and its actual manifestations did not contradict these intentions. The reality of the countries where it was imposed testified to its fruits including: no private property, no freedom of faith, state-imposed starvation, gulags, etc. Reagan called Communism ‘evil’ because, based on our American standards and the evidence, it was evil. Reagan may have wished Communism was something else but the reality prevented fantasies. Our nation was under a mortal threat and a sizable portion of America’s intellectual establishment answered the call to arms.
George Bush has rallied the United States to fight the enemy of terrorism and more recently has made worldwide democratization the strategic means to fight this enemy. Is terrorism really an enemy? Many others have written effectively that terrorism is a means to achieve an end; in other words it is a tactic. This is not to say we shouldn’t combat terrorism at a tactical level. Not only should airports be secured which Bush has zealously overseen, going so far as to frisk 80 year old women as much as young Arab males, but also our border should be secured and our immigration laws enforced, which Bush has been loath to do. Above the tactical level every conflict has a strategic level – that is the overarching objectives that must be achieved to ensure victory. Bush’s strategy has most recently been articulated as democracy and freedom for all. This time Bush has made a benign process, democracy, a goal when it often leads to the very denial of freedom he purports to desire. Now that Iraqi democracy is leading towards Islamic Law, Sharia, by definition non-Muslim Iraqis have less freedom and we in the West are in greater danger of terrorism. So Bush has created a series of goals that contradict each other. If reducing terrorism is a goal then Islamic ‘Democracy’ will not be good since Islam demands submission of the infidel by any means possible. Likewise if maximizing freedom is a goal then Islamic ‘Democracy’ will not be good since infidels are second class citizens at best under Islamic Law. By making freedom and democracy and the elimination of terrorism goals without dealing with Islam is folly. Substitute ‘Nazism’ for ‘Islam’ and ‘Jew’ for ‘Infidel’ and you’ll get the point.
Why Islam is an enemy of the West is derived from a non-idealized reading of Islam’s sacred texts. Islam cannot be contrary to its own founding documents; the documents that describe what Muslims believe to be the inerrant revelation of Allah through Mohammed, the Koran; and the life of Mohammed and the early history of Islam, the Hadith, Sirah, etc. These are Islam since Allah said Islam is unchangeable. What has been revealed through Islam’s prophet Mohammed IS Islam. Islam cannot be that which we would like it to be if that which we would like it to be contradicts the original revelation. This is simple logic.
What is in Islam’s sacred texts is widely available over the internet. I recommend you go directly to the source documents and see for yourself. Be warned the structure of the Koran is very convoluted and repetitive so it is tedious to spend any time on. For an organized translation of Islam’s sacred texts see the web site www.prophetofdoom.net. The creator focuses firstly on presenting Islam’s own writings in an organized fashion, then in comparing Islam to Christianity and the comparison reveals diametrically opposed Gods. Allah and Yaweh (the God of the Bible) can not be the same. It is hard not to see Islam as a totalitarian political system in addition to being religious. As a matter of fact, its claim to divine origins makes its totalitarian political aspects all the more dangerous since they are non-negotiable from the perspective of Muslims; at least Muslims who follow the commands of their Prophet. Infidels (non-Muslims) are on very thin ice when they decry people like Osama Bin Laden as not being true Muslims when he is simply following the example of his prophet. Bin Laden can be called many things but heretical Muslim is not one of them. We in the West can be so arrogant in projecting our own sensibilities onto everyone else. The libertine ways of the West are anathema to Islam. They are also anathema to many Christians and Traditionalists though we have a dramatically different view on restoration than does Islam. For those who think Islam has no interest in the non-Muslim world wake up. Muslims are much less small minded than many attribute them to be. The "Muslim World" according to Islam is not the Middle East. It is the whole world. Doesn’t this make sense since Allah is believed to be the God of the whole world? The Koran describes the world as being in two camps; either at peace or at war. The "at peace" portion is where Islam rules inviolate. The "at war" portion is where Islam does not (yet) rule. Islam does not project this situation as permanent but as one to be overcome through jihad to make the whole world at peace; i.e. under the rule of Islam.
President Bush currently exists in a world of fantasy where what is true is what we want to be true rather than what is. He believes religion is good without dirtying his hands with the specific mandates of the belief system. He believes democracy is good regardless of what substantive results the process of democracy realizes. He and his strongest supporters, often referred to as neoconservatives are motivated by America the idea rather than America the real. This abstract America appeals to both the business elites who see nationalism as a competitor placing limits on markets and to the Leftists whose romantic views of the brotherhood of man has led them to create and propagate multiculturalism as a non-negotiable and virtuous end. The real America of Americans of flesh and blood and traditional Christian values is caught in the middle of this juggernaut. On one side our "conservative" party wants an open stream of workers into the country to keep labor cheap and profits high, and wanting the freedom to outsource other jobs to wherever it most benefits them, all the while having the blood of America to be their insurance policy if the foreign country infringes on their interests. On the other side our liberal party wants to recast predominately White, Christian America with a new amorphous American who has no identity from which to resist more cultural "progress". No roots and the largest tree will be unable to resist much of a storm.
Ronald Reagan’s reality has given way to George Bush’s wishful thinking. In saner times the opposition party would adjust to fill this ideological vacuum. Now the opposition party is trapped by its own ideology on the other side of reason. The synthesis in our current political dialectic is always leftward since the thesis is always leftist ideology and the antithesis Republican/Rovian compromising. The current Republican political strategy is to surrender ideology to Democrats but then win elections by being more "reasonable" in the administration of these liberal policies. Republicans celebrate when a Howard Dean (or similar juvenile dimwit) is pegged to lead the opposition party. How can a patriotic American cheer this? Shouldn’t we want two responsible political movements rather than one or, more accurately, none. This is the irony; as Republicans continue to win elections America moves ever leftward in its polity. And liberals hate Bush even though he gives them most every thing they want albeit at a slower pace. What a world.
The Reagan Revolution was a true, though temporary, reversal of the then unstoppable march of Liberalism through the American political landscape. He called our enemies and hindrances out, be they Communism, Big Government, Liberalism, etc., and this enabled constructive change and opposition to occur. George W. Bush has embraced Big Government through Compassionate Conservatism, embraced multiculturalism through open borders, embraced the mantle of Wilson, not Coolidge, through his messianic proclamations regarding world democracy and America’s duty to bring it about, and embraced our biggest outward adversary, Islam, by calling it a religion of peace over and over again.
The damage George W. Bush and neoconservatism has caused to conservatism is hard to measure since additionally many of Bush’s strongest supporters (including his Vice President) advocate many of the progressive innovations in the American cultural scene, including alternate definitions of marriage. America the Autonomous, America the Strong, America the Free was no accident of history. It was created and maintained by a very particular people, culture, and religion under just the right circumstances. It can, with great effort, be maintained into the future but it cannot withstand all mismanagement. Much that has now been damaged must be healed and nurtured back to its healthy state.
The neconservative view seems to be that America is the ultimate commodity. To them it is not only the perfect export to the world, to be forced upon its recipients if they do not accept it voluntarily, but it also is infinitely indestructible internally. No amount of immigration or ‘free’ trade or ‘progressive’ cultural change can undermine its existence. It is not protected like a fragile ecosystem but beaten like a rented mule. It is Yucca Mountain rather than Walden Pond. Both concepts defy history and logic. No culture can withstand an open ended assault on itself and still be itself. Likewise, the arrogant attempt to impose ‘America’ on all by force invites more of the former since we open ourselves up to embrace all we dislocate. America may ultimately survive with its name intact but little else.
Maybe that’s what the advocates of the New World Order have wanted all along.
Guns and Babies: the Constitution and Reality
Did you ever wonder how it is that despite the fact that gun ownership in the United States is supposed to be sacrosanct due to the 2nd Amendment there are thousands of laws across this country encroaching upon and in many cases clearly violating this right? The Constitution protects this right to gun ownership so our Judicial Branch should have and should be striking down many of these unconstitutional laws. Meanwhile, every effort by the people and states to place limits on abortion are struck down, seemingly out of hand, by the Courts. While the right of gun ownership is a true law in the sense of being an amendment to the Constitution, the ‘right’ to abortion came from 7 men (may their names go down in infamy) who were accountable to no one. They created this ‘law’ based on previous court decisions (themselves pulled out of thin air) and a tortured reading of the 14th Amendment. Not being a constitutional scholar I’m sure I fail to understand the court’s transcendent reasoning. The penumbras and emanations they breathe into the Constitution are legion and we little people should remember our place. The ‘right’ to abortion is now considered the "law of the land" even though our constitution grants courts no authority to create law; only the legislature. Civics 101 – the Congress creates laws, the Executive enforces laws, and the Courts arbitrate disputes within these laws.
So our Courts have made up a right (to abortion) that is considered a law even though it was not passed by Congress - far from it. Congress has actually tried to repeal much of the content of the Courts' ‘law’ and the Courts do not allow it. The Judicial Branch has subsequently used their first abortion rights ruling/law as the foundation for a myriad of other similar rulings codifying this ‘right’ deep within the bowels of contemporary jurisprudence. How perverse is this from the standpoint of organizational integrity and the rule of law not even considering the moral aspects? The Courts have created a law they have no authority to create, then they deny the legislature, who do have the authority to create and change laws, from doing so. The duty of Congress in all this is to keep the Judiciary in line when they stray from constitutional mandates and Congress has failed to do so. Sadly a large portion of the Congress shares the Courts’ political ideology and is perfectly content to prostitute the rule of law to a common political cause. We are witnessing a charade that has next to no institutional opposition.
The one institution which could greatly affect an awareness and change in the unconstitutional status quo is not only not being an agent for reformation, it decries those (few) who are. The news media/press has a constitutionally protected right to freedom. Does not that freedom also contain a duty? The answer of course is yes but the press has been co-opted into a political entity whose interests coincide with the very un-constitutional governmental paradigm that it is intended to counter. They perceive their duty not as being a constraint on our Government’s overreach but in saying the Government doesn’t go far enough. The Gatekeeper has become the Doorman and Tyranny is our visitor.
Stories of citizens being convicted for violating gun control laws when the guns were used in defending their homes from criminals are not rare. Instead of this governmental malfeasance being decried it is enabled by the media. Likewise when a baby is pulled from her mother’s womb by the feet and a knife plunged into her head to kill her it is portrayed as a constitutionally protected right (enshrined by ‘law’) by this same press. The Courts have created this mess, the Congress has deliberately failed to stop it, and the Press has cheered.
The gun ownership/abortion contrast is but a vignette in a large parody being played out in America today. The post-modernists seem to have won; life is currently nothing but a construction of the elite; rights are theirs to grant and remove at a whim. The rest of us can only hope to not get in their way. Opposition to the status quo is out of the question by all the powerful institutions that could do so. As our libidos have been emancipated by the Sexual Revolution, so also has our morality and courage been castrated. The Romans were appeased by bread and circuses as their society collapsed and so are we.
Is it time for a second American Revolution to reinstitute the first? We shall see.
Sic semper tyrannis.
So our Courts have made up a right (to abortion) that is considered a law even though it was not passed by Congress - far from it. Congress has actually tried to repeal much of the content of the Courts' ‘law’ and the Courts do not allow it. The Judicial Branch has subsequently used their first abortion rights ruling/law as the foundation for a myriad of other similar rulings codifying this ‘right’ deep within the bowels of contemporary jurisprudence. How perverse is this from the standpoint of organizational integrity and the rule of law not even considering the moral aspects? The Courts have created a law they have no authority to create, then they deny the legislature, who do have the authority to create and change laws, from doing so. The duty of Congress in all this is to keep the Judiciary in line when they stray from constitutional mandates and Congress has failed to do so. Sadly a large portion of the Congress shares the Courts’ political ideology and is perfectly content to prostitute the rule of law to a common political cause. We are witnessing a charade that has next to no institutional opposition.
The one institution which could greatly affect an awareness and change in the unconstitutional status quo is not only not being an agent for reformation, it decries those (few) who are. The news media/press has a constitutionally protected right to freedom. Does not that freedom also contain a duty? The answer of course is yes but the press has been co-opted into a political entity whose interests coincide with the very un-constitutional governmental paradigm that it is intended to counter. They perceive their duty not as being a constraint on our Government’s overreach but in saying the Government doesn’t go far enough. The Gatekeeper has become the Doorman and Tyranny is our visitor.
Stories of citizens being convicted for violating gun control laws when the guns were used in defending their homes from criminals are not rare. Instead of this governmental malfeasance being decried it is enabled by the media. Likewise when a baby is pulled from her mother’s womb by the feet and a knife plunged into her head to kill her it is portrayed as a constitutionally protected right (enshrined by ‘law’) by this same press. The Courts have created this mess, the Congress has deliberately failed to stop it, and the Press has cheered.
The gun ownership/abortion contrast is but a vignette in a large parody being played out in America today. The post-modernists seem to have won; life is currently nothing but a construction of the elite; rights are theirs to grant and remove at a whim. The rest of us can only hope to not get in their way. Opposition to the status quo is out of the question by all the powerful institutions that could do so. As our libidos have been emancipated by the Sexual Revolution, so also has our morality and courage been castrated. The Romans were appeased by bread and circuses as their society collapsed and so are we.
Is it time for a second American Revolution to reinstitute the first? We shall see.
Sic semper tyrannis.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Are you a racist?
If you are a white person who actually cares about your ancestors, yourself, and children you had better be. The contemporary definition of "racist" in the United States and in Europe is any white person who favors their own group and acts to protect it. You don’t even have to hate other groups to be a racist. You can even, like most, hold no antipathy towards other groups at all; but that is not good enough for the high priests of multi-culturalism. Unless you feel no loyalty to your group you are a racist. So the choice is yours: either love and prefer your people and be labeled a racist or shun them and be allowed into the enlightened presence of the gatekeepers of acceptability.
For a long time I cringed at hearing the label but since I have come to realize what being an anti-racist is; a hater of kith and kin, an arrogant ingrate who despises his ancestors and what they created and suffered to protect, a nowhere man whose identity is shaped by others; I now no longer flee the label. Yes, it is unfair in the sense of both semantics and consistency but the alternative is far worse. Semantically it is unfair because it connotes something that is untrue. The average person equates racist with hatred, even violence towards others, which is usually not the case among Whites who want to protect White culture. Anytime a word means something on the visceral, emotional level that is entirely inconsistent with reality it is being used to distort instead of inform. Also this label is not used consistently by those who apply it. That was why I previously made it clear that white people are most affected by this. The label is applied by the news media, by the entertainment industry, by the educational establishment, by the political process, by government, by religions, by the business world, by just about every cultural institution in a one sided fashion. The label is almost exclusively applied to Whites in a way that, following the Establishment’s own definition, makes them anti-White racists. As an anecdote consider the contrasts of Al Sharpton and David Duke. I do this with an apology in advance to Mr. Duke, who though I have never met him, consider him fair minded, intelligent and brave from what I have seen available to the public. It is fair to call them both racial activists, Sharpton for Blacks and Duke for Whites, but look at how they are presented to the public by our cultural gatekeepers. Sharpton is occasionally criticized for being a demagogue but he was treated like a king by all the white politicians in the Democratic Party who were competing against him for the 2004 presidential nomination. Keep in mind Sharpton’s role in both the Tawana Brawley interracial rape hoax and the Freddie’s Fashion Mart arson/murder. This guy has made a living with unsubstantiated racially charged accusations that have directly led to murder and yet there he is a respected leader, in the estimation of our mainstream culture, of the black community. David Duke, on the other hand, has taken on the thankless job of defending White people’s interests. I am not aware of anything he has done that comes close to the mindless demagoguery of Sharpton but he is treated like the worst kind of villain. Read his book 'My Awakening' and see if you see hate in there. Yes, it is "racist" by the definition I led with but that definition is flawed and ahistorical so it is destructive of Whites as a group and as individuals. Duke has committed one of the unpardonable thought crimes of modern life, white racial awareness and a call to action. Add to it that Duke has called into question the role of Jews in the continued destruction of American society and the denunciation is irreversible. Sharpton ‘only’ rants and raves in a completely irrational fashion to extort wealth and create white self-hate and self-doubt, leading to occasional murder by mobs. He plays Stepandfetchit to his Establishment masters who want Whites continually on the defensive. He does a good job which is why the Establishment tolerates him. One is a player the other a pariah. I’ll take the pariah.
Now there is the chance that the love of your own people can lead to a hatred of others but that risk, I believe, is even greater when we are hamstrung into the deceitful ideology of anti-racism/multiculturalism. Man is tribal, for better or worse, and no trendy philosophy can change this regardless of how much it is propagandized, extorted, preached, and coerced into our minds. As a matter of fact the more energetically anti-racism is force fed to us the more rebellion there will be as people are finally forced to the surface to breathe the clean air of the truth.
A love and preference for those that are closest to you is a threat to the New World Order we are currently plunging into but far from leading to a hatred of others it allows for a respect for them since most people make some effort to apply the golden rule. We are all wired to treat others as we would like to be treated even though we often violate this principle.
If you are white and want to throw off the shackles that have been placed on you and your people a good place to start is to no longer run from the Establishment label of "racist", ignoring, for now, the distortions of the term. Not only will you begin to love your own better but, not surprisingly, others as well. The ones to despise are the great nation destroying amalgamators. The political arm of this movement dominates both the Republican (neoconservative) and Democratic (left liberal) Parties. Wall Street and Hollywood also march arm in arm on this. The whole Establishment of America is a great wheel attempting to crush all resistance to it. They preach the freedom of unity and togetherness, free-trade and democracy, when all distinctions, variety, and flavor that make life rich will be grist for their mill of ‘progress’. Remember who the real haters are.
Be counter-cultural; look after your folk. The dead can bury their own.
For a long time I cringed at hearing the label but since I have come to realize what being an anti-racist is; a hater of kith and kin, an arrogant ingrate who despises his ancestors and what they created and suffered to protect, a nowhere man whose identity is shaped by others; I now no longer flee the label. Yes, it is unfair in the sense of both semantics and consistency but the alternative is far worse. Semantically it is unfair because it connotes something that is untrue. The average person equates racist with hatred, even violence towards others, which is usually not the case among Whites who want to protect White culture. Anytime a word means something on the visceral, emotional level that is entirely inconsistent with reality it is being used to distort instead of inform. Also this label is not used consistently by those who apply it. That was why I previously made it clear that white people are most affected by this. The label is applied by the news media, by the entertainment industry, by the educational establishment, by the political process, by government, by religions, by the business world, by just about every cultural institution in a one sided fashion. The label is almost exclusively applied to Whites in a way that, following the Establishment’s own definition, makes them anti-White racists. As an anecdote consider the contrasts of Al Sharpton and David Duke. I do this with an apology in advance to Mr. Duke, who though I have never met him, consider him fair minded, intelligent and brave from what I have seen available to the public. It is fair to call them both racial activists, Sharpton for Blacks and Duke for Whites, but look at how they are presented to the public by our cultural gatekeepers. Sharpton is occasionally criticized for being a demagogue but he was treated like a king by all the white politicians in the Democratic Party who were competing against him for the 2004 presidential nomination. Keep in mind Sharpton’s role in both the Tawana Brawley interracial rape hoax and the Freddie’s Fashion Mart arson/murder. This guy has made a living with unsubstantiated racially charged accusations that have directly led to murder and yet there he is a respected leader, in the estimation of our mainstream culture, of the black community. David Duke, on the other hand, has taken on the thankless job of defending White people’s interests. I am not aware of anything he has done that comes close to the mindless demagoguery of Sharpton but he is treated like the worst kind of villain. Read his book 'My Awakening' and see if you see hate in there. Yes, it is "racist" by the definition I led with but that definition is flawed and ahistorical so it is destructive of Whites as a group and as individuals. Duke has committed one of the unpardonable thought crimes of modern life, white racial awareness and a call to action. Add to it that Duke has called into question the role of Jews in the continued destruction of American society and the denunciation is irreversible. Sharpton ‘only’ rants and raves in a completely irrational fashion to extort wealth and create white self-hate and self-doubt, leading to occasional murder by mobs. He plays Stepandfetchit to his Establishment masters who want Whites continually on the defensive. He does a good job which is why the Establishment tolerates him. One is a player the other a pariah. I’ll take the pariah.
Now there is the chance that the love of your own people can lead to a hatred of others but that risk, I believe, is even greater when we are hamstrung into the deceitful ideology of anti-racism/multiculturalism. Man is tribal, for better or worse, and no trendy philosophy can change this regardless of how much it is propagandized, extorted, preached, and coerced into our minds. As a matter of fact the more energetically anti-racism is force fed to us the more rebellion there will be as people are finally forced to the surface to breathe the clean air of the truth.
A love and preference for those that are closest to you is a threat to the New World Order we are currently plunging into but far from leading to a hatred of others it allows for a respect for them since most people make some effort to apply the golden rule. We are all wired to treat others as we would like to be treated even though we often violate this principle.
If you are white and want to throw off the shackles that have been placed on you and your people a good place to start is to no longer run from the Establishment label of "racist", ignoring, for now, the distortions of the term. Not only will you begin to love your own better but, not surprisingly, others as well. The ones to despise are the great nation destroying amalgamators. The political arm of this movement dominates both the Republican (neoconservative) and Democratic (left liberal) Parties. Wall Street and Hollywood also march arm in arm on this. The whole Establishment of America is a great wheel attempting to crush all resistance to it. They preach the freedom of unity and togetherness, free-trade and democracy, when all distinctions, variety, and flavor that make life rich will be grist for their mill of ‘progress’. Remember who the real haters are.
Be counter-cultural; look after your folk. The dead can bury their own.
A Brief Introduction
A fascinating thing about being human is the opportunity to reflect on things encountered as we grow in life. Sometimes these things are weighty, sometimes they are light, yet they all are captivating. Many of these questions seem silly or irrelevant by the more cynical among us. I don't care since where will they be when I go to meet my Maker. I hope everyone makes an honest effort to arrive at answers since the consequences are eternal. What is the meaning of life? Where did we come from? Where are we going? Were we created? If so, by whom? Who created the creator? And so on...
I ask the deeper questions less the older I get, having by faith, logic, or frustration, arrived at some sort of answer on them, or filed them under the 'mysteries of life' to be contemplated but never rationalized. The relevancy and practicality of the questions now determine whether they are ones I spend much effort on. Now in my 42nd year I am realizing how little I know about this world. By faith I accept there is a higher being who created us and He has revealed himself in the Bible. This gift of faith I received when I was 30 and have stumbled and fumbled my way since then, not really knowing what Christian living is supposed to be.
I have decided to write this blog as diary if nothing else; if it spawns any interest then as a means of communication and dialog as well. If there is no interest other than from me it will at least have served its primary purpose of being a creative release and a means of helping me to better organize my views.
Currently most of my thoughts revolve around family, community, culture, continuity, and how faith in God should guide them all. I am struggling with what I perceive as the overly individualistic philosophy of the evangelical movement of which I am aligned. There is such an emphasis on the individual that community is an afterthought. In my local church we do have a meal together once a week to go with the 2 hours together Sunday morning but not much else. Is this all there is? Once when I sent an email to my Sunday School class about a moral issue being considered by our local school board the interest was almost non-existent. I even got one rebuke for not being the right kind of salt and light. Also I have become more and more aware of some of the effects dispensational theory on the whole evangelical movement. The end result of all this is even in the supposed 'right wing' evangelical Christian community there is a very passive, worldly way in which we are expected to act in the world. Doing anything that is communitarian and counter-cultural (like the Amish) is considered 'legalistic'. My interpretation is that Christ has been overtly feminized by non-Christian elements in our society and that the Church has gone right along because it both wants to fit in with the world and not face the masculine pain of separation from it. From my holistic view of the Christian life something ain't right. Forget the 'mainline' Protestant view on things; they are even more astray from the clear teachings of the Bible. Roman Catholicism is so riddled with anti-Biblical practices as to also be undesirable.
I am searching for the right balance for my family. I want to be the husband and father God calls me to be. A continuity of family and community is needed that can be preserved and passed on until Christ returns. With that in mind there is a time for a Christian to stand up and be counted and not to shrink from speaking the truth even when it violates the false religions and false gods of our day. Our liberty has turned into libertinism. The traditional Christian freedom of our forefathers is now a shadowy memory. I hope to reclaim some of it for my kin and kith before my time passes.
I ask the deeper questions less the older I get, having by faith, logic, or frustration, arrived at some sort of answer on them, or filed them under the 'mysteries of life' to be contemplated but never rationalized. The relevancy and practicality of the questions now determine whether they are ones I spend much effort on. Now in my 42nd year I am realizing how little I know about this world. By faith I accept there is a higher being who created us and He has revealed himself in the Bible. This gift of faith I received when I was 30 and have stumbled and fumbled my way since then, not really knowing what Christian living is supposed to be.
I have decided to write this blog as diary if nothing else; if it spawns any interest then as a means of communication and dialog as well. If there is no interest other than from me it will at least have served its primary purpose of being a creative release and a means of helping me to better organize my views.
Currently most of my thoughts revolve around family, community, culture, continuity, and how faith in God should guide them all. I am struggling with what I perceive as the overly individualistic philosophy of the evangelical movement of which I am aligned. There is such an emphasis on the individual that community is an afterthought. In my local church we do have a meal together once a week to go with the 2 hours together Sunday morning but not much else. Is this all there is? Once when I sent an email to my Sunday School class about a moral issue being considered by our local school board the interest was almost non-existent. I even got one rebuke for not being the right kind of salt and light. Also I have become more and more aware of some of the effects dispensational theory on the whole evangelical movement. The end result of all this is even in the supposed 'right wing' evangelical Christian community there is a very passive, worldly way in which we are expected to act in the world. Doing anything that is communitarian and counter-cultural (like the Amish) is considered 'legalistic'. My interpretation is that Christ has been overtly feminized by non-Christian elements in our society and that the Church has gone right along because it both wants to fit in with the world and not face the masculine pain of separation from it. From my holistic view of the Christian life something ain't right. Forget the 'mainline' Protestant view on things; they are even more astray from the clear teachings of the Bible. Roman Catholicism is so riddled with anti-Biblical practices as to also be undesirable.
I am searching for the right balance for my family. I want to be the husband and father God calls me to be. A continuity of family and community is needed that can be preserved and passed on until Christ returns. With that in mind there is a time for a Christian to stand up and be counted and not to shrink from speaking the truth even when it violates the false religions and false gods of our day. Our liberty has turned into libertinism. The traditional Christian freedom of our forefathers is now a shadowy memory. I hope to reclaim some of it for my kin and kith before my time passes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)