0 comment Friday, November 14, 2014 | admin
... the target of your stereotype is whitey.
I was going to blog something about the growing Obama cult, but I came across the link at Steve Sailer's blog
to this site.
In a way, the blog is a parody of itself. ''Whitepeople'' according to what I read on the blog are: materialistic, superficial, trendy, shallow, weak, bland, and boring.
I've often said that stereotypes always have a grain of truth, or more than a grain, in them. Is this droll stereotype of whites true? Yes, it's true of a type of white person. I would say it's more true of the younger people, the upper middle class and wealthy, the college educated, urban-dwelling, liberal/libertarian/leftist types. It is not true of older whites in many cases, or lower income whites, or rural people, or many people from the South, or people of a conservative political temperament.
Is it all in good fun, or does it contribute further to the disparaging of white people which is so popular today? And assuredly this kind of self-ridicule (I am going on the assumption that the blogger is in fact white) is hardly fresh or new; I've (unwillingly) watched parts of movies of the last ten years or so in which caricatures of white people were a central basis of the 'humor', movies like 'White Chicks' or 'Undercover Brother'. See the reader reviews of the latter on IMDB
The reviews of Undercover Brother at IMDB apparently included some complaints about white stereotyping but I could not find any such comments although they are referenced by comments like this:
Reading the negative comments on this film I wonder what movie some of the angry folks were watching. Racism is using one's own physical traits to establish social superiority over another person, or group of people, who don't look like themselves. I saw nothing of any of the African/Black/persons-of-color trying to "reverse role play" by holding themselves in a superior light over so-called "white people."
It simply wasn't there.
Myself, I hate "white guilt" messages in media of all forms. I've had enough social agenda thrust in my face. But that's NOT THE MESSAGE of "Undercover Brother."
What a lot of the "angry-white-commentators" are bothered by is the fact that they believe this film makes ALL so-called "white persons" look like evil-clowns, or condescending jerks. IT DOESN'T. If that's what you see in this film, then maybe you shouldn't be watching movies in the first place.
This film, as stated clear as day by both cast and crew, is an attempt to tackle a social problem with good humor. If you're offended by the jokes in this film, then you've completely missed the point, and are, in fact, the racist idiot that you claim this film to be (I believe psychologist call this phenomenon "projection," where someone refuses to acknowledge their own faults, and casts their own negative qualities on people they dislike).''
I would bet that this scolding reviewer would not unleash such a scathing putdown towards blacks who were 'offended' by stereotypes of their race. But whitey gets it with both barrels. It's always that way.
So I guess I too am a "racist idiot", "projecting", if I dislike the portrayal of whites in 'entertainment' like this, and, by extension, if I complain about the rather stale and predictable stereotypes of whites as on the blog.
A lone commenter here says
This site is incredibly racist. If this site was dedicated to pointing out what black people like, it would surely be deemed as racist. Why aren�t people proud to be white? Everyone should be proud of their own respective races and not bring down another�s. Multiculturalism will never work when sites like this one are up and running. This only causes racial tension.''
And is answered by the following post:
That�s why it�s called satire. Lighten up already.''
That response, too, is utterly predictable. Would 'Jerome' tell an offended black or other 'victim group' member to 'lighten up'? My money says he wouldn't.
This poster called justanotherwhiteguy says
As anyone heard of free speech? I think this is hiliarious that alot of people are getting bent out of shape b/c of one site. If you dont like it, dont read it! But for people with any kinda of brain, this site just makes you smile b/c you can relate to so many things on it. ie� The kitchenaid mixer, and the renovation.''
Dittos for this guy; he would not say 'if you don't like it, don't read it' to a minority of any kind.
Granted, the blog is understated 'humor' but when I read it, I begin to dislike the people illustrated by the blog; why would I care if this sorry bunch of self-absorbed, denatured, shallow, colorless (in more ways than one) people fade away into oblivion, or get absorbed into a third-world demographic tidal wave? Good riddance to them; they are ciphers and weak-as-water-and-twice-as-bland nonentities. Who would miss such a people if they became as extinct as the dodo bird?
The whole point of the obsession with ''diversity'' and multiculturalism is that white people are not a people, but a void; they are a non-people of no definite culture, with no qualities to speak of except receptivity and passivity in relation to other, more 'colorful' and 'vibrant' and aggressive peoples. Everybody has a culture except whitey, and everybody's culture is 'vibrant' and 'rich', while whitey has no culture or tradition except buying trendy gadgets and being self-effacing servants of the world's 'disadvantaged' peoples.
Why wouldn't we vote ourselves out of existence if we really are such a sorry excuse for a people?
The answer is: we are not the insipid and awkward and vacuous breed of invertebrates portrayed in the PC stereotypes. Certainly there are some of us who fit the description, but if we look at the larger picture, and the totality of our history, we can see that the flaccid people and their flavorless culture of the stereotype are a fairly recent phenomenon on the world scene. We were not always thus. We've been spoiled and weakened by unprecendented material prosperity, we've been dumbed down by our media and educational system -- and by Hollywood propaganda. We are down but we're not out.
While some prefer to rationalize what is happening to the West as a deserved punishment for our collective sins, and thus are willing to cooperate and collude in their own punishment, some of us would prefer to try to rediscover our traditions and our ways of life which surely merit a rightful pride. In doing so, it may be that we can rally to take a stand.
Maybe I should just laugh it all off, as a lot of people are doing. But why are we the only people who are expected to laugh at ourselves while we are being dispossessed and robbed of our birthright?
Some things, many things maybe, can be approached with humor, and laughed at, but some things are just too important to become joke fodder. And reading the site reinforces my doubts about my fellow Americans. I get the sense that many if not most of the commenters are young, having grown up under Political Correctness and multiculturalism. Their way of expressing themselves gives them away. If they are the standard-bearers for the future, then we are truly lost. And they think it's all wonderful. Which is sad.
Forum comments here.
I was going to blog something about the growing Obama cult, but I came across the link at Steve Sailer's blog
to this site.
In a way, the blog is a parody of itself. ''Whitepeople'' according to what I read on the blog are: materialistic, superficial, trendy, shallow, weak, bland, and boring.
I've often said that stereotypes always have a grain of truth, or more than a grain, in them. Is this droll stereotype of whites true? Yes, it's true of a type of white person. I would say it's more true of the younger people, the upper middle class and wealthy, the college educated, urban-dwelling, liberal/libertarian/leftist types. It is not true of older whites in many cases, or lower income whites, or rural people, or many people from the South, or people of a conservative political temperament.
Is it all in good fun, or does it contribute further to the disparaging of white people which is so popular today? And assuredly this kind of self-ridicule (I am going on the assumption that the blogger is in fact white) is hardly fresh or new; I've (unwillingly) watched parts of movies of the last ten years or so in which caricatures of white people were a central basis of the 'humor', movies like 'White Chicks' or 'Undercover Brother'. See the reader reviews of the latter on IMDB
The reviews of Undercover Brother at IMDB apparently included some complaints about white stereotyping but I could not find any such comments although they are referenced by comments like this:
Reading the negative comments on this film I wonder what movie some of the angry folks were watching. Racism is using one's own physical traits to establish social superiority over another person, or group of people, who don't look like themselves. I saw nothing of any of the African/Black/persons-of-color trying to "reverse role play" by holding themselves in a superior light over so-called "white people."
It simply wasn't there.
Myself, I hate "white guilt" messages in media of all forms. I've had enough social agenda thrust in my face. But that's NOT THE MESSAGE of "Undercover Brother."
What a lot of the "angry-white-commentators" are bothered by is the fact that they believe this film makes ALL so-called "white persons" look like evil-clowns, or condescending jerks. IT DOESN'T. If that's what you see in this film, then maybe you shouldn't be watching movies in the first place.
This film, as stated clear as day by both cast and crew, is an attempt to tackle a social problem with good humor. If you're offended by the jokes in this film, then you've completely missed the point, and are, in fact, the racist idiot that you claim this film to be (I believe psychologist call this phenomenon "projection," where someone refuses to acknowledge their own faults, and casts their own negative qualities on people they dislike).''
I would bet that this scolding reviewer would not unleash such a scathing putdown towards blacks who were 'offended' by stereotypes of their race. But whitey gets it with both barrels. It's always that way.
So I guess I too am a "racist idiot", "projecting", if I dislike the portrayal of whites in 'entertainment' like this, and, by extension, if I complain about the rather stale and predictable stereotypes of whites as on the blog.
A lone commenter here says
This site is incredibly racist. If this site was dedicated to pointing out what black people like, it would surely be deemed as racist. Why aren�t people proud to be white? Everyone should be proud of their own respective races and not bring down another�s. Multiculturalism will never work when sites like this one are up and running. This only causes racial tension.''
And is answered by the following post:
That�s why it�s called satire. Lighten up already.''
That response, too, is utterly predictable. Would 'Jerome' tell an offended black or other 'victim group' member to 'lighten up'? My money says he wouldn't.
This poster called justanotherwhiteguy says
As anyone heard of free speech? I think this is hiliarious that alot of people are getting bent out of shape b/c of one site. If you dont like it, dont read it! But for people with any kinda of brain, this site just makes you smile b/c you can relate to so many things on it. ie� The kitchenaid mixer, and the renovation.''
Dittos for this guy; he would not say 'if you don't like it, don't read it' to a minority of any kind.
Granted, the blog is understated 'humor' but when I read it, I begin to dislike the people illustrated by the blog; why would I care if this sorry bunch of self-absorbed, denatured, shallow, colorless (in more ways than one) people fade away into oblivion, or get absorbed into a third-world demographic tidal wave? Good riddance to them; they are ciphers and weak-as-water-and-twice-as-bland nonentities. Who would miss such a people if they became as extinct as the dodo bird?
The whole point of the obsession with ''diversity'' and multiculturalism is that white people are not a people, but a void; they are a non-people of no definite culture, with no qualities to speak of except receptivity and passivity in relation to other, more 'colorful' and 'vibrant' and aggressive peoples. Everybody has a culture except whitey, and everybody's culture is 'vibrant' and 'rich', while whitey has no culture or tradition except buying trendy gadgets and being self-effacing servants of the world's 'disadvantaged' peoples.
Why wouldn't we vote ourselves out of existence if we really are such a sorry excuse for a people?
The answer is: we are not the insipid and awkward and vacuous breed of invertebrates portrayed in the PC stereotypes. Certainly there are some of us who fit the description, but if we look at the larger picture, and the totality of our history, we can see that the flaccid people and their flavorless culture of the stereotype are a fairly recent phenomenon on the world scene. We were not always thus. We've been spoiled and weakened by unprecendented material prosperity, we've been dumbed down by our media and educational system -- and by Hollywood propaganda. We are down but we're not out.
While some prefer to rationalize what is happening to the West as a deserved punishment for our collective sins, and thus are willing to cooperate and collude in their own punishment, some of us would prefer to try to rediscover our traditions and our ways of life which surely merit a rightful pride. In doing so, it may be that we can rally to take a stand.
Maybe I should just laugh it all off, as a lot of people are doing. But why are we the only people who are expected to laugh at ourselves while we are being dispossessed and robbed of our birthright?
Some things, many things maybe, can be approached with humor, and laughed at, but some things are just too important to become joke fodder. And reading the site reinforces my doubts about my fellow Americans. I get the sense that many if not most of the commenters are young, having grown up under Political Correctness and multiculturalism. Their way of expressing themselves gives them away. If they are the standard-bearers for the future, then we are truly lost. And they think it's all wonderful. Which is sad.
Forum comments here.
Labels: Anti-White Racism, Cultural Marxism, Diversity, Humor, Multiculturalism, Stereotyping
0 comment Monday, October 27, 2014 | admin
This recent article discusses the phenomenon of black flight. We read a great deal about so-called "white flight", but what with the massive influx of immigrants, legal and illegal, in recent decades, it's not only whites that are fleeing, but blacks.
The media have succeeded in downplaying the stories of clashes between blacks and Hispanics in California and elsewhere, but there is no denying that the races, in general, don't get along. And blacks are not any more likely than whites (probably less so) to welcome the transformation of their neighborhoods and towns into Spanish-speaking enclaves.
The article describes the surge in the black population of Victorville, California, as blacks move there from the greater Los Angeles area.
The article does not deal with the white aspect of this situation: are white people then in turn displaced from towns like Victorville, as black people double in population there? One would think so, especially considering the increased crime which has accompanied the demographic change:
''Ken Jones, a high-school dropout who is learning construction skills, says his family moved from Los Angeles to get him away from gangs. It worked�he describes his life in Victorville as a "retirement". But he says gangs and crime are becoming entrenched. Between 2000 and 2006 the number of robberies in Victorville increased by 62%. "They bring their lifestyle with them," says Jim Melton, a youth worker.''
Of course they bring their lifestyle with them; this should go without saying. But it is an article of liberal faith these days that people have no intrinsic nature; they are mere products of their environment. If they live in an inner-city slum, that environment causes them to be more crime-prone and to be poor and undereducated. The liberal would never think it the other way: the inner-city slum is a slum because of the traits of the people who inhabit it. Poverty is a result of bad life-choices in many cases, not the cause.
So yes, people bring their ghetto lifestyle with them when they move to quiet little suburbs. And those quiet little suburbs will not be quiet for long.
And the immigrants who are now such a substantial proportion of California's population all brought their 'lifestyles' with them from Mexico or India or China or wherever they arrived from. So their presence will lead to a replication of the conditions they left behind. We see this happening, and yet some people refuse to acknowledge it, because it contradicts liberal dogma.
So blacks are fleeing the immigrant tsunami, and whites are fleeing the influx from the ghettos as well as from the third world.
Why is it that only whites are considered blameworthy for packing up and leaving a transformed area? So many of the articles written about "white flight" take a critical tone, and describe "white flight" as nothing but a manifestation of 'racism' and bigotry. Why is this? Most minorities and white liberals say that 'racism' is a white 'sickness' and that all whites are innately racist. Why, then, is it somehow necessary for minorities to be able to live in proximity to these 'racist' whites, and to be educated with them and work with them? Think about it: it makes no sense. Wouldn't blacks prefer to live among their own, especially since they complain that whitey discriminates against them and treats them rudely? Similarly with Hispanics and other immigrants: they complain of 'gringo' racism and general bad behavior toward them. Why on earth would minorities then complain bitterly when racist whitey does not choose to live among them? Why would they even resort to lawsuits and the use of government force to compel whitey to associate with them?
Another tenet of liberal faith is that separation is bad, immoral, and downright evil.
Why?
Why do blacks and other minorities want to follow 'racists' and remain in close proximity to them? Is this not irrational and counterintuitive? Separation is in some situations highly desirable and healthy for all parties, especially when relations are strained and clashes appear inevitable.
I realize the rationale that is offered for why minorities insist on requiring white people to associate with them. The rationale is that whites keep all good things for themselves and refuse to share the best with non-whites, so they must be forced to allow non-whites to attend their superior schools in their superior and more livable neighborhoods. Non-whites "know" that their schools and neighborhoods are inferior and dysfunctional precisely because whitey has monopolized everything good for himself, and cheated non-whites of their rightful share of all the good things.
White schools supposedly have more money and more resources and more 'pull' with authorities and so they are therefore better than mostly minority schools. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the students, the parents, the home life of the families, so says the liberal dogma. It has to do with 'discrimination' and "institutional racism."
The answer is more contact among the races and more money of course.
Blacks and other minorities see white flight as 'racism' and 'hate' because they think it is a deprivation of their lawful right to associate with whites, even forcibly.
So our controlled liberal media dutifully tsk-tsk about 'white flight', describing it as evidence of ongoing racism on the part of whites.
I've said before, and I believe, that people have a natural affinity for their own kind; people prefer to live among people similar to themselves. We are comfortable with people who have very similar values, customs, preferences, and standards. Like attracts like; birds of a feather flock together, as the old saying has it.
Given this natural affinity for those like ourselves, it is understandable that blacks and Hispanics want to live among their own and worship in churches with others of similar habits and customs. But yet, despite their very obvious preferences for their own, they still complain and raise a fuss at any sign of "white flight" or of any hint of separation or ''segregation''. Why this paradox?
I think they recognize, deep down if not consciously, that the 'better', more desirable neighborhoods and schools and towns ARE better and more desirable because whites tend to create more harmonious, livable, and well-functioning institutions and communities. They realize, although they would never acknowledge it, that they do not create livable places for themselves, but can only seek out what has already been created by others. I suppose this fact must surely foster a lot of resentment: imagine feeling dependent on someone you resent and even despise. It must be a very unpleasant state of being.
But my concern right now is: with the vast game of musical chairs that is being forced on us by our 'elites', what now, as blacks are being displaced by opportunistic immigrants, and whites are now being displaced yet again?
In the past, anyone choosing for whatever reason to become an expatriate might relocate to a congenial Western European country, or another Anglophone country. But now, all these countries are being transformed too, as our possessed rulers are engaged in this frenzied rush to third-world status.
Our enemies among the Aztlan 'reconquista' forces taunt us 'gringos', telling us to ''go back to Europe, Pilgrim!"
Unfortunately this is not a good plan at the moment, as the Camp of the Saints invasion is underway in the lands of our ancestors.
Most of us, in any case, love this country, or at least love our people, and would consider emigration only as a last resort. But where is there a place in this country that is still relatively untouched by the government-assisted invasion? My plan, before I realized how far-gone my country was, involved going back to Texas and finishing my life in the place where several generations of my family lived and died, and being buried with my kin in the family cemetery in south Texas. Now the handwriting is on the wall: it may be that the Trans-Texas Corridor will cut right through that part of Texas, through that very place where I had hoped to sleep one day. And even if it doesn't, the reconquista is practically a fait accompli there; one day I expect that the Lone Star flag will be replaced by the vulture flag of Mexico, and my ancestors' toils in Texas, and the blood they shed, will have been in vain.
So, I considered the Southeast, hoping that some corner of that area would survive with Southron culture intact. But that, too, seems unlikely as I hear of the all-out invasion of the Southeast; there is not only a large Mexican colony there but the 'refugee industry' is feverishly working to settle many exotic people in the Southeast. It looks as though the elites have decided that we old Americans can run but we can't hide. They are, I am convinced, out to foil "white flight" by ensuring that every place is as multicultural as every other place. No pristine corners of old America are to be allowed to survive intact. I find this all very creepy and malevolent. What kind of system wages war on its own people, and unleashes a planned invasion? I am convinced that there is method to this madness; it is not accident. It is chaos, but it is deliberately fostered chaos.
Where is there to flee? Do any of you live in areas which are still intact, or are we all under siege?
I know some of you have talked of relocating, feeling that the cause is lost, and there is nothing to do but move elsewhere. Some have considered Europe or other English-speaking countries; others insist that Europe is worse off than America. Still others have said the opposite is true; Europe has a smaller percentage of foreigners in their midst than we in America, and Europeans have the advantage of a strong national heritage, whereas we in the U.S. have in too many cases bought the 'proposition nation' propaganda or our own heritage is too mixed or too remote to have a strong identity as our European cousins have.
What's the future for us? Is it cowardly or defeatist or disloyal to consider moving, even within our own country?
Should we stand our ground where we are, or is it a lost cause? Where are the places which are likely to survive with enough of their original character intact?
If emigration is the best option, what is the best destination? I have mixed feelings about the appropriateness of running to another country; I think, ideally, Western countries should have very tight immigration policies. Each country should be for the historic people of that country; no country should be held responsible for taking in immigrants from other failed countries. I respect the right of a country to shut the doors to outsiders. Nobody owes it to us to take us in.
Some think that there should be a common overriding 'European' identity, with which many of us could align. But I don't think Europeans feel this way; they have strong national feelings. For instance, some have argued that it's fine for Polish people to immigrate en masse to say, the UK or Ireland "because they are white and they will eventually assimilate and fit in." I don't find that a compelling argument at all. Polish people are not just like British or Irish people, despite their white European origin. Poles have a strong national identity and Polish colonies in Ireland or Britain would be out of place. Polish people should remain in Poland and improve it, just as Mexicans should stay in Mexico and work to improve their dysfunctional country.
Likewise I don't think European countries should be expected to welcome American 'refugees.'
Personally I would never move to a country in which I would be a fish out of water, a country to which I could never assimilate. I think anybody who moves to a place with a different culture should plan to blend in fully, and if that is not possible, they should not go at all.
As for me, I will probably finish out my days in America; my ancestors came here 400 years ago, and some of them many thousands of years ago. I'm a little too old and set in my ways to emigrate but I respect the feelings of those for whom that choice seems the best one.
What are my readers' thoughts and experiences with relocating?
The media have succeeded in downplaying the stories of clashes between blacks and Hispanics in California and elsewhere, but there is no denying that the races, in general, don't get along. And blacks are not any more likely than whites (probably less so) to welcome the transformation of their neighborhoods and towns into Spanish-speaking enclaves.
The article describes the surge in the black population of Victorville, California, as blacks move there from the greater Los Angeles area.
The article does not deal with the white aspect of this situation: are white people then in turn displaced from towns like Victorville, as black people double in population there? One would think so, especially considering the increased crime which has accompanied the demographic change:
''Ken Jones, a high-school dropout who is learning construction skills, says his family moved from Los Angeles to get him away from gangs. It worked�he describes his life in Victorville as a "retirement". But he says gangs and crime are becoming entrenched. Between 2000 and 2006 the number of robberies in Victorville increased by 62%. "They bring their lifestyle with them," says Jim Melton, a youth worker.''
Of course they bring their lifestyle with them; this should go without saying. But it is an article of liberal faith these days that people have no intrinsic nature; they are mere products of their environment. If they live in an inner-city slum, that environment causes them to be more crime-prone and to be poor and undereducated. The liberal would never think it the other way: the inner-city slum is a slum because of the traits of the people who inhabit it. Poverty is a result of bad life-choices in many cases, not the cause.
So yes, people bring their ghetto lifestyle with them when they move to quiet little suburbs. And those quiet little suburbs will not be quiet for long.
And the immigrants who are now such a substantial proportion of California's population all brought their 'lifestyles' with them from Mexico or India or China or wherever they arrived from. So their presence will lead to a replication of the conditions they left behind. We see this happening, and yet some people refuse to acknowledge it, because it contradicts liberal dogma.
So blacks are fleeing the immigrant tsunami, and whites are fleeing the influx from the ghettos as well as from the third world.
Why is it that only whites are considered blameworthy for packing up and leaving a transformed area? So many of the articles written about "white flight" take a critical tone, and describe "white flight" as nothing but a manifestation of 'racism' and bigotry. Why is this? Most minorities and white liberals say that 'racism' is a white 'sickness' and that all whites are innately racist. Why, then, is it somehow necessary for minorities to be able to live in proximity to these 'racist' whites, and to be educated with them and work with them? Think about it: it makes no sense. Wouldn't blacks prefer to live among their own, especially since they complain that whitey discriminates against them and treats them rudely? Similarly with Hispanics and other immigrants: they complain of 'gringo' racism and general bad behavior toward them. Why on earth would minorities then complain bitterly when racist whitey does not choose to live among them? Why would they even resort to lawsuits and the use of government force to compel whitey to associate with them?
Another tenet of liberal faith is that separation is bad, immoral, and downright evil.
Why?
Why do blacks and other minorities want to follow 'racists' and remain in close proximity to them? Is this not irrational and counterintuitive? Separation is in some situations highly desirable and healthy for all parties, especially when relations are strained and clashes appear inevitable.
I realize the rationale that is offered for why minorities insist on requiring white people to associate with them. The rationale is that whites keep all good things for themselves and refuse to share the best with non-whites, so they must be forced to allow non-whites to attend their superior schools in their superior and more livable neighborhoods. Non-whites "know" that their schools and neighborhoods are inferior and dysfunctional precisely because whitey has monopolized everything good for himself, and cheated non-whites of their rightful share of all the good things.
White schools supposedly have more money and more resources and more 'pull' with authorities and so they are therefore better than mostly minority schools. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the students, the parents, the home life of the families, so says the liberal dogma. It has to do with 'discrimination' and "institutional racism."
The answer is more contact among the races and more money of course.
Blacks and other minorities see white flight as 'racism' and 'hate' because they think it is a deprivation of their lawful right to associate with whites, even forcibly.
So our controlled liberal media dutifully tsk-tsk about 'white flight', describing it as evidence of ongoing racism on the part of whites.
I've said before, and I believe, that people have a natural affinity for their own kind; people prefer to live among people similar to themselves. We are comfortable with people who have very similar values, customs, preferences, and standards. Like attracts like; birds of a feather flock together, as the old saying has it.
Given this natural affinity for those like ourselves, it is understandable that blacks and Hispanics want to live among their own and worship in churches with others of similar habits and customs. But yet, despite their very obvious preferences for their own, they still complain and raise a fuss at any sign of "white flight" or of any hint of separation or ''segregation''. Why this paradox?
I think they recognize, deep down if not consciously, that the 'better', more desirable neighborhoods and schools and towns ARE better and more desirable because whites tend to create more harmonious, livable, and well-functioning institutions and communities. They realize, although they would never acknowledge it, that they do not create livable places for themselves, but can only seek out what has already been created by others. I suppose this fact must surely foster a lot of resentment: imagine feeling dependent on someone you resent and even despise. It must be a very unpleasant state of being.
But my concern right now is: with the vast game of musical chairs that is being forced on us by our 'elites', what now, as blacks are being displaced by opportunistic immigrants, and whites are now being displaced yet again?
In the past, anyone choosing for whatever reason to become an expatriate might relocate to a congenial Western European country, or another Anglophone country. But now, all these countries are being transformed too, as our possessed rulers are engaged in this frenzied rush to third-world status.
Our enemies among the Aztlan 'reconquista' forces taunt us 'gringos', telling us to ''go back to Europe, Pilgrim!"
Unfortunately this is not a good plan at the moment, as the Camp of the Saints invasion is underway in the lands of our ancestors.
Most of us, in any case, love this country, or at least love our people, and would consider emigration only as a last resort. But where is there a place in this country that is still relatively untouched by the government-assisted invasion? My plan, before I realized how far-gone my country was, involved going back to Texas and finishing my life in the place where several generations of my family lived and died, and being buried with my kin in the family cemetery in south Texas. Now the handwriting is on the wall: it may be that the Trans-Texas Corridor will cut right through that part of Texas, through that very place where I had hoped to sleep one day. And even if it doesn't, the reconquista is practically a fait accompli there; one day I expect that the Lone Star flag will be replaced by the vulture flag of Mexico, and my ancestors' toils in Texas, and the blood they shed, will have been in vain.
So, I considered the Southeast, hoping that some corner of that area would survive with Southron culture intact. But that, too, seems unlikely as I hear of the all-out invasion of the Southeast; there is not only a large Mexican colony there but the 'refugee industry' is feverishly working to settle many exotic people in the Southeast. It looks as though the elites have decided that we old Americans can run but we can't hide. They are, I am convinced, out to foil "white flight" by ensuring that every place is as multicultural as every other place. No pristine corners of old America are to be allowed to survive intact. I find this all very creepy and malevolent. What kind of system wages war on its own people, and unleashes a planned invasion? I am convinced that there is method to this madness; it is not accident. It is chaos, but it is deliberately fostered chaos.
Where is there to flee? Do any of you live in areas which are still intact, or are we all under siege?
I know some of you have talked of relocating, feeling that the cause is lost, and there is nothing to do but move elsewhere. Some have considered Europe or other English-speaking countries; others insist that Europe is worse off than America. Still others have said the opposite is true; Europe has a smaller percentage of foreigners in their midst than we in America, and Europeans have the advantage of a strong national heritage, whereas we in the U.S. have in too many cases bought the 'proposition nation' propaganda or our own heritage is too mixed or too remote to have a strong identity as our European cousins have.
What's the future for us? Is it cowardly or defeatist or disloyal to consider moving, even within our own country?
Should we stand our ground where we are, or is it a lost cause? Where are the places which are likely to survive with enough of their original character intact?
If emigration is the best option, what is the best destination? I have mixed feelings about the appropriateness of running to another country; I think, ideally, Western countries should have very tight immigration policies. Each country should be for the historic people of that country; no country should be held responsible for taking in immigrants from other failed countries. I respect the right of a country to shut the doors to outsiders. Nobody owes it to us to take us in.
Some think that there should be a common overriding 'European' identity, with which many of us could align. But I don't think Europeans feel this way; they have strong national feelings. For instance, some have argued that it's fine for Polish people to immigrate en masse to say, the UK or Ireland "because they are white and they will eventually assimilate and fit in." I don't find that a compelling argument at all. Polish people are not just like British or Irish people, despite their white European origin. Poles have a strong national identity and Polish colonies in Ireland or Britain would be out of place. Polish people should remain in Poland and improve it, just as Mexicans should stay in Mexico and work to improve their dysfunctional country.
Likewise I don't think European countries should be expected to welcome American 'refugees.'
Personally I would never move to a country in which I would be a fish out of water, a country to which I could never assimilate. I think anybody who moves to a place with a different culture should plan to blend in fully, and if that is not possible, they should not go at all.
As for me, I will probably finish out my days in America; my ancestors came here 400 years ago, and some of them many thousands of years ago. I'm a little too old and set in my ways to emigrate but I respect the feelings of those for whom that choice seems the best one.
What are my readers' thoughts and experiences with relocating?
Labels: Anti-White Racism, Demographics, Displacement, Immigration
0 comment Wednesday, October 15, 2014 | admin
During this ongoing Obama-Jeremiah Wright controversy, I have been hearing a great deal of commentary from the mainstream 'right' which repeatedly uses the term 'anti-American' in condemning Wright.
I noticed in surfing past Fox News that they keep harping on Wright's 'anti-American' statements.
Is this just an oblique way of criticizing his anti-white statements? Is it more politically correct to say 'anti-American' rather than anti-white? After all, if the 'conservatives' on Fox News or the big Republican forums want to criticize Wright or Obama, they cannot criticize his anti-white beliefs without themselves appearing to be pro-white. And it's still verboten to be pro-white -- even in those 'right-wing' cable TV discussions.
Yes, Wright in his diatribes (I wouldn't dignify them by describing them as sermons) denounces the actions of the U.S. Government, specifically, as when he is haranguing in the video about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That might be called 'anti-American' or at least anti-American government. But when he starts his accusations about HIV being cooked up in a laboratory for 'genocidal' purposes against black folks, then he is accusing whites as a group of diabolical actions and intentions. This is anti-white, not anti-American.
Wright is denouncing us as a race, and we are not allowed to defend ourselves in those terms.
But how do we denounce specifically anti-white propaganda without being, you know, pro-white? There's the PC dilemma.
This sums up our position in a nutshell. We are under siege in many different ways, and yet we are not free to defend ourselves verbally; to do so in most instances means we will be called names and shouted down, and for some, it may mean a loss of livelihood and it may mean social stigma and harassment by the armies of 'tolerance.' For people in some Western countries, defending our people, whites, may mean being subject to some kind of charge of 'hate speech' or other such thought-crime allegations.
In this context, it is understandable that people carefully frame this controversy in acceptable terms, making it about 'anti-Americanism.' But how long, I wonder, before someone will say that being pro-American is 'divisive, exclusive, and xenophobic'? Political correctness has a way of spreading and our freedom of expression is thus diminishing by the encroachment of PC.
But passively submitting to these strictures only weakens our position. At some point, people have to refuse to continue to conform, and break the taboos. The cowards in political office will not be the ones to do so, nor the media lackeys. It will have to start elsewhere. If enough of us stop meekly accepting these limitations on our speech and thought, we might reach that critical mass which makes it possible to break through the conditioning.
We can't continue being afraid to claim our racial identity. Everybody else has a racial identity, and racial pride, except Anglo-Americans. We are the only people, despite our supposed 'dominance' of this country, who are not allowed to speak up in defense of ourselves when attacked as a race by people like Wright or the Mexican revanchists or whoever else is slandering us on any given day.
I noticed in surfing past Fox News that they keep harping on Wright's 'anti-American' statements.
Is this just an oblique way of criticizing his anti-white statements? Is it more politically correct to say 'anti-American' rather than anti-white? After all, if the 'conservatives' on Fox News or the big Republican forums want to criticize Wright or Obama, they cannot criticize his anti-white beliefs without themselves appearing to be pro-white. And it's still verboten to be pro-white -- even in those 'right-wing' cable TV discussions.
Yes, Wright in his diatribes (I wouldn't dignify them by describing them as sermons) denounces the actions of the U.S. Government, specifically, as when he is haranguing in the video about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That might be called 'anti-American' or at least anti-American government. But when he starts his accusations about HIV being cooked up in a laboratory for 'genocidal' purposes against black folks, then he is accusing whites as a group of diabolical actions and intentions. This is anti-white, not anti-American.
Wright is denouncing us as a race, and we are not allowed to defend ourselves in those terms.
But how do we denounce specifically anti-white propaganda without being, you know, pro-white? There's the PC dilemma.
This sums up our position in a nutshell. We are under siege in many different ways, and yet we are not free to defend ourselves verbally; to do so in most instances means we will be called names and shouted down, and for some, it may mean a loss of livelihood and it may mean social stigma and harassment by the armies of 'tolerance.' For people in some Western countries, defending our people, whites, may mean being subject to some kind of charge of 'hate speech' or other such thought-crime allegations.
In this context, it is understandable that people carefully frame this controversy in acceptable terms, making it about 'anti-Americanism.' But how long, I wonder, before someone will say that being pro-American is 'divisive, exclusive, and xenophobic'? Political correctness has a way of spreading and our freedom of expression is thus diminishing by the encroachment of PC.
But passively submitting to these strictures only weakens our position. At some point, people have to refuse to continue to conform, and break the taboos. The cowards in political office will not be the ones to do so, nor the media lackeys. It will have to start elsewhere. If enough of us stop meekly accepting these limitations on our speech and thought, we might reach that critical mass which makes it possible to break through the conditioning.
We can't continue being afraid to claim our racial identity. Everybody else has a racial identity, and racial pride, except Anglo-Americans. We are the only people, despite our supposed 'dominance' of this country, who are not allowed to speak up in defense of ourselves when attacked as a race by people like Wright or the Mexican revanchists or whoever else is slandering us on any given day.
Labels: American Identity, Anti-White Racism, Ethnic Division, Identity Politics, Political Correctness
0 comment Saturday, September 6, 2014 | admin
Remember the story last November of the Texas man, Joe Horn, who shot two illegal alien burglars in his yard?
Good news: he's been no-billed. Read it here:
Grand jury clears Joe Horn in controversial Pasadena shootings
... Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, first heard the news in a phone call from 11 News.
"I'm sure Joe will be delighted," Lambright said. "I think the evidence showed that Joe was, in fact, within his legal rights to do what he did. He didn't want to do it, but he didn't have any other alternative."
Lambright said Horn still feels awful about the shooting and is not ready to comment publicly yet.
He said Horn is very grateful to the people who supported him and stood behind him.''
Of course the so-called 'community activists' see this as 'frightening.' For them, the ''right'' -- of certain groups of people, at least -- to trespass, burglarize, and escape with impunity is paramount, while the castle doctrine, allowing a man to defend home and property, frightens them.
The article concludes by telling us that police went to Horn's neighborhood 'as a precaution.' Precaution against what? 'Community activists' coming in to stir up more trouble?
Last December these same activists received a 'warm' welcome from Joe Horn's neighbors. Remember this video of that encounter? It was quite a shock at that time to see this kind of show of backbone. We have become so used to seeing the other side win every skirmish simply by default, because our side tends to be divided and/or apathetic. Once in a while we see glimpses of life on our side, and it is heartening.
I hope the people of Pasadena, Texas show the same resolute character they showed in the video should Mr. X and his friends return.
Good news: he's been no-billed. Read it here:
Grand jury clears Joe Horn in controversial Pasadena shootings
... Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, first heard the news in a phone call from 11 News.
"I'm sure Joe will be delighted," Lambright said. "I think the evidence showed that Joe was, in fact, within his legal rights to do what he did. He didn't want to do it, but he didn't have any other alternative."
Lambright said Horn still feels awful about the shooting and is not ready to comment publicly yet.
He said Horn is very grateful to the people who supported him and stood behind him.''
Of course the so-called 'community activists' see this as 'frightening.' For them, the ''right'' -- of certain groups of people, at least -- to trespass, burglarize, and escape with impunity is paramount, while the castle doctrine, allowing a man to defend home and property, frightens them.
The article concludes by telling us that police went to Horn's neighborhood 'as a precaution.' Precaution against what? 'Community activists' coming in to stir up more trouble?
Last December these same activists received a 'warm' welcome from Joe Horn's neighbors. Remember this video of that encounter? It was quite a shock at that time to see this kind of show of backbone. We have become so used to seeing the other side win every skirmish simply by default, because our side tends to be divided and/or apathetic. Once in a while we see glimpses of life on our side, and it is heartening.
I hope the people of Pasadena, Texas show the same resolute character they showed in the video should Mr. X and his friends return.
Labels: Anti-White Racism, Castle Doctrine, Crime, Illegal Immigration, Second Amendment, Self-Defense
0 comment Tuesday, June 3, 2014 | admin
A few years ago when this blog was still a new adventure for me, I blogged about a piece by John Derbyshire
on the subject of race and conservatism.
Derbyshire, whose work I have admired over the years, seems lately to be taking a rather more pessimistic view of America and its racial dilemma. His latest piece over at TakiMag is, I'm afraid, downright depressing.
Perhaps Derbyshire, with the apparent detachment of an outsider (although he is a naturalized American, I think) takes a more cold-eyed view of Americans and our inability to face racial realities. Perhaps he is more capable of being objective than I am; I am biased, I confess. I love this country, or at least my people, my folk, fiercely, and I refuse to give up on my kin. It may be that he is more right than I am, but I certainly hope not.
I leave it to you to read the piece and judge for yourselves, but the central point of the latest piece seems to be that Americans are too divided amongst ourselves to face up to the stark situation which is our racial conundrum.
He posits that most Americans are unable to work up much strong feeling towards minority races, while holding very strong animus towards fellow Americans of different social classes, or those of other regional origins. He cites as an example the feelings of, say, a liberal academic (is there any other kind?) towards NASCAR fans, and he supposes that his hypothetical professor has few strong feelings towards blacks.
I am not sure I agree with that specific example; most of the academics I know and have known have very positive biases toward blacks, and in fact the liberal's disdain for NASCAR fans is based on his stereotype of 'rednecks' as Southern racist bigots.
Do our American regional biases pre-date the racial divisions of today? I think northern liberals have, since the abolitionist days, perceived Southron people as being the villains in any racial friction. I think the racial question is the main source of much of the northern liberal's antipathy to Southron working-class people in particular.
Derbyshire mentions regional animus among Americans; I think the North-South divide is the most prominent of these, although there is also a very strong urban vs. rural divide, with the urban dwellers looking down on the people in 'flyover' country. Yes, those 'bitter' people who 'cling to guns and religion.'
Secular liberals and atheists have contempt for Christian believers, especially if said Christians actually take their faith seriously, and most notably, if those Christians are 'backward' enough to believe their Bibles.
These divisions have grown much more pronounced in recent years, but the polarization has really increased since the 1970s, picking up considerable speed during the Clinton era in which Democrats/liberals became much more open in their contempt for those who refused to conform to the prevailing liberal orthodoxies.
I've been decrying the divisions among White Americans for some time; there is no denying that the divisions exist. I've mused about how and why these divisions became so intractable. I have wondered whether some of the clashes have intensified simply because a lot of the anger many White people feel is suppressed. We have all been subjected to decades of conditioning, in an effort to strip us of our natural feelings of kin-loyalty and racial/ethnic consciousness. We have all learned through the heavy-handed efforts of the media, the educational system, and government (working together), that we are not to express any criticism of, or negativity towards, minorities. They are, of course, always victims and never villains. They are always sinned against but never sinning. It is not allowed to speak ill of them, no matter what the provocation. Nothing they do may be criticized without risking the accusation of 'racism.'
Given that we are not allowed to direct any honest anger or indignation towards minorities, at least in respectable society, we tend to misdirect our anger at other targets, or perhaps even to assign blame to safer targets. And it is always permissible to attack and malign other Whites, so we bite and tear at each other.
Many Whites have become anti-White racists, sadly.
We have to remember, too, that decades of propaganda have been aimed at us, with the intention of dividing us as a people. Divide and conquer, divide and rule. The left has been very upfront in their intention to sow discord and rancor within so as to further their ends.
Derbyshire concludes that Whites are too hopelessly divided to ever have this much-anticipated 'breakthrough' towards some kind of survival impulse. I've often decried the racial right's belief that ''worse is better'' and that the many outrages of the last year and a half would lead to some kind of awakening among Whites. As yet, pace Jared Taylor, I see little sign of a real awakening; I see 'colorblind conservatives' spinning their wheels in the Tea Party rituals. I see them lauding people like Bobby Jindal, and most lately, Herman Cain as some kind of minority messiahs of the Republican Party. I do see some few signs of life, but they seem to flicker out before they begin.
Still, I hope. I hope because I love my people. I love my folk.
Just as you never give up on a beloved family member, no matter how down and out they may appear, you hope. And as long as there is life, there is hope, as the old saying has it.
So I keep on keeping on, despite my wavering faith at times.
But I will concur that division amongst ourselves is our greatest obstacle. Love of our own has to outweigh any differences amongst us. We can't let the differences that exist weaken us further, because as long as we do, we will continue to be easy prey for those who wish to supplant us or push us aside.
Will their ever be a 'mass awakening'? I rather doubt it; I believe only in the remnant, who, as history shows, are always the few who make things happen. The majority do not move history; it is always the few who do the real work and turn the wheels of real change. The rest just follow along at best, or are swept aside.
on the subject of race and conservatism.
Derbyshire, whose work I have admired over the years, seems lately to be taking a rather more pessimistic view of America and its racial dilemma. His latest piece over at TakiMag is, I'm afraid, downright depressing.
Perhaps Derbyshire, with the apparent detachment of an outsider (although he is a naturalized American, I think) takes a more cold-eyed view of Americans and our inability to face racial realities. Perhaps he is more capable of being objective than I am; I am biased, I confess. I love this country, or at least my people, my folk, fiercely, and I refuse to give up on my kin. It may be that he is more right than I am, but I certainly hope not.
I leave it to you to read the piece and judge for yourselves, but the central point of the latest piece seems to be that Americans are too divided amongst ourselves to face up to the stark situation which is our racial conundrum.
He posits that most Americans are unable to work up much strong feeling towards minority races, while holding very strong animus towards fellow Americans of different social classes, or those of other regional origins. He cites as an example the feelings of, say, a liberal academic (is there any other kind?) towards NASCAR fans, and he supposes that his hypothetical professor has few strong feelings towards blacks.
I am not sure I agree with that specific example; most of the academics I know and have known have very positive biases toward blacks, and in fact the liberal's disdain for NASCAR fans is based on his stereotype of 'rednecks' as Southern racist bigots.
Do our American regional biases pre-date the racial divisions of today? I think northern liberals have, since the abolitionist days, perceived Southron people as being the villains in any racial friction. I think the racial question is the main source of much of the northern liberal's antipathy to Southron working-class people in particular.
Derbyshire mentions regional animus among Americans; I think the North-South divide is the most prominent of these, although there is also a very strong urban vs. rural divide, with the urban dwellers looking down on the people in 'flyover' country. Yes, those 'bitter' people who 'cling to guns and religion.'
Secular liberals and atheists have contempt for Christian believers, especially if said Christians actually take their faith seriously, and most notably, if those Christians are 'backward' enough to believe their Bibles.
These divisions have grown much more pronounced in recent years, but the polarization has really increased since the 1970s, picking up considerable speed during the Clinton era in which Democrats/liberals became much more open in their contempt for those who refused to conform to the prevailing liberal orthodoxies.
I've been decrying the divisions among White Americans for some time; there is no denying that the divisions exist. I've mused about how and why these divisions became so intractable. I have wondered whether some of the clashes have intensified simply because a lot of the anger many White people feel is suppressed. We have all been subjected to decades of conditioning, in an effort to strip us of our natural feelings of kin-loyalty and racial/ethnic consciousness. We have all learned through the heavy-handed efforts of the media, the educational system, and government (working together), that we are not to express any criticism of, or negativity towards, minorities. They are, of course, always victims and never villains. They are always sinned against but never sinning. It is not allowed to speak ill of them, no matter what the provocation. Nothing they do may be criticized without risking the accusation of 'racism.'
Given that we are not allowed to direct any honest anger or indignation towards minorities, at least in respectable society, we tend to misdirect our anger at other targets, or perhaps even to assign blame to safer targets. And it is always permissible to attack and malign other Whites, so we bite and tear at each other.
Many Whites have become anti-White racists, sadly.
We have to remember, too, that decades of propaganda have been aimed at us, with the intention of dividing us as a people. Divide and conquer, divide and rule. The left has been very upfront in their intention to sow discord and rancor within so as to further their ends.
Derbyshire concludes that Whites are too hopelessly divided to ever have this much-anticipated 'breakthrough' towards some kind of survival impulse. I've often decried the racial right's belief that ''worse is better'' and that the many outrages of the last year and a half would lead to some kind of awakening among Whites. As yet, pace Jared Taylor, I see little sign of a real awakening; I see 'colorblind conservatives' spinning their wheels in the Tea Party rituals. I see them lauding people like Bobby Jindal, and most lately, Herman Cain as some kind of minority messiahs of the Republican Party. I do see some few signs of life, but they seem to flicker out before they begin.
Still, I hope. I hope because I love my people. I love my folk.
Just as you never give up on a beloved family member, no matter how down and out they may appear, you hope. And as long as there is life, there is hope, as the old saying has it.
So I keep on keeping on, despite my wavering faith at times.
But I will concur that division amongst ourselves is our greatest obstacle. Love of our own has to outweigh any differences amongst us. We can't let the differences that exist weaken us further, because as long as we do, we will continue to be easy prey for those who wish to supplant us or push us aside.
Will their ever be a 'mass awakening'? I rather doubt it; I believe only in the remnant, who, as history shows, are always the few who make things happen. The majority do not move history; it is always the few who do the real work and turn the wheels of real change. The rest just follow along at best, or are swept aside.
Labels: Anti-White Racism, Ethnic Solidarity, Ethnomasochism, Political Correctness
0 comment Monday, April 28, 2014 | admin
After 20 years, Obama has decided to cut his ties with his Afrocentrist 'church.'
Obama quits Trinity
...announced Saturday evening that he had resigned from his controversial Chicago congregation, Trinity United Church of Christ, "with some sadness."
[...]
The move completes Obama�s slow walk away from a church that began receiving huge scrutiny late in the campaign�s primary season.
Obama has said he was not present for the most controversial sermons, and said he did not know about them until he began running for president."
Meanwhile, did you know that we Americans elect two presidents, one for us and the other for The World?
So says Simon Jenkins in a piece from the UK Times, dated March 9, 2008:
One belongs to domestic America but the other belongs to the world.
The first president is America�s business. While those who know and love that country may be concerned at its economic and political health - and therefore intrigued by the contest - this president is the one most voters have in mind.
The globalised president is a different matter. This leader must represent America�s values - and consequent actions - everywhere that is touched by American policy. His or her decisions benefit or afflict millions of people, rich and poor, in dozens of countries on every continent. Yet they have no vote.
Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians, Israelis, Pakistanis, Colombians, Brazilians, Russians, Chinese have no means of saying yes or no to decisions taken in Washington that may intimately affect their families, their security, their jobs and prospects. Nobody accounts to them or invites them to any caucus. Few of them enjoy democratic privileges even in their own countries. Yet the next president of the United States can mean life or death.
[...]
All three presidential candidates have qualifications to be this global president. In public statements they have acknowledged the strategic mistakes made in America�s attempt to police the world through a "war on terror". All have proposals for restoring America�s relations with the world.
[...]
The candidates for the global presidency will not be judged by experience, programme, oratory or novelty. They will not be judged by the prospect of likely success in office, which is always unknowable in foreign affairs. Few American presidents are seen to have been successes on leaving office. The art of presidency is that of managing perceived failure. The candidates will rather be judged by what they symbolise, by the package of expectations that they carry with them to the White House. Here it is simply incontrovertible that the election of Barack Obama would transform, indeed electrify, America�s image worldwide.''
The Jenkins piece is referenced in The Week magazine, in a piece called How they see us: What a black president would mean for Europe
I don't think this piece is online; it's in my hard copy which just arrived in the mail.
The piece also quotes Francois Durpraire in the Paris Libération as saying that the 'disaffected youths' who were 'venting their frustration and hopelessness' in the recent riots and car burnings are now inspired by Obama, so much so that they now have "something to smile about." Obama, we're told, has the ''power to inspire pride and hope even in the slums of another continent. Think about that. Much has been written about what an Obama presidency could do for race relations in the U.S., but only now are people starting to realize that a win by Obama could even improve race relations here in Europe."
Next, the same piece in The Week tells us that Thomas Klau in Germany's Financial Times Deutschland finds this an uncomfortable thought -- but only because it would dismay Germany that 'barbarous, immature America'' could be the first to elect a black President. He says it would force Germans "to ask ourselves questions we have never asked before....We Germans pride ourselves on our social tolerance and progressive thinking, but come election time we take it for granted that all major candidates will be white-skinned.'' This would lead to some kind of crisis of conscience, apparently, and the appearance of 'cracks' in Europe's self-image. Painful soul-searching in Europe will ensue, so he says, if we barbarous Americans elect a black President first.
Now, Germany has a population of 82 million plus. 91.2 percent of the population is German.
2.1 percent are Turkish, and 6.7 percent are ''other'', including other European nationalities. So why on earth should Germany feel it's necessary to elect a black President?
And why should France concern itself with how the rioters feel about having a black President of the United States?
More to the point, why should we Americans concern ourselves with what others want, especially non-Europeans occupying Europe?
There should not be a 'global presidency'. Unfortunately, that seems to be what we have now, and the candidates we are being told to choose between are all globalists who will, in fact, not be representing our interests in any meaningful way.
But to return to the Simon Jenkins piece, despite the obvious fact that he neither knows nor ''loves'' the America that I know and love, he does touch on something that I've emphasized here: the symbolic significance of a black President. He implies that the non-white world everywhere will see Obama's election as a triumph for them. He puts it in syrupy liberal terms, referring to ''hope" for these poor underprivileged "youths'' in Europe, but it's evident that they will see it as a sign that the sun has set on whitey's ascendancy, and their day will have come.
This idea that we ''ought'' to have a black President is another one of those contradictory liberal ideas. Race doesn't matter, and it's wrong to choose based on racial criteria, so we've heard for 50 years and more. Now, suddenly, it's right to choose Obama because of his race.
And the idea implicit in this cheering for the election of a non-white President is that he is superior based on his race. His racial makeup qualifies him in a unique way to be President. So race does matter, the liberals are now admitting; and not only that, but it appears that the black race is superior in some way to the White race. And all these years we've been hearing that the races are absolutely equal. So Obama can do what a White President could not do; only a President with African genes and sufficient melanin in his skin can 'inspire' and 'give hope.'
Monochrome would become colour. A drone of antagonism would turn into a cry of pleasure. With the genes of an Irish-American and a Kenyan, and the nurture of Hawaii, Indonesia and Chicago, Obama has personal roots in four continents.''
What a load of multiculti claptrap and self-abasing Afro-olatry Mr. Jenkins dispenses. And by the way: why should some sort of rootless cosmopolitan outsider be preferred as our President?
In choosing a president for a world half of which America seeks to evangelise, voters could hardly find a candidate better cast. He embodies a yearning expectation of a new contract and a new beginning.'
The fact that Jenkins and all the other servile White liberals yearn for their own people to be overthrown and displaced in favor of resentful outsiders is an appalling commentary on our age. Much of the world seems to have gone collectively insane.
Obama quits Trinity
...announced Saturday evening that he had resigned from his controversial Chicago congregation, Trinity United Church of Christ, "with some sadness."
[...]
The move completes Obama�s slow walk away from a church that began receiving huge scrutiny late in the campaign�s primary season.
Obama has said he was not present for the most controversial sermons, and said he did not know about them until he began running for president."
Meanwhile, did you know that we Americans elect two presidents, one for us and the other for The World?
So says Simon Jenkins in a piece from the UK Times, dated March 9, 2008:
One belongs to domestic America but the other belongs to the world.
The first president is America�s business. While those who know and love that country may be concerned at its economic and political health - and therefore intrigued by the contest - this president is the one most voters have in mind.
The globalised president is a different matter. This leader must represent America�s values - and consequent actions - everywhere that is touched by American policy. His or her decisions benefit or afflict millions of people, rich and poor, in dozens of countries on every continent. Yet they have no vote.
Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians, Israelis, Pakistanis, Colombians, Brazilians, Russians, Chinese have no means of saying yes or no to decisions taken in Washington that may intimately affect their families, their security, their jobs and prospects. Nobody accounts to them or invites them to any caucus. Few of them enjoy democratic privileges even in their own countries. Yet the next president of the United States can mean life or death.
[...]
All three presidential candidates have qualifications to be this global president. In public statements they have acknowledged the strategic mistakes made in America�s attempt to police the world through a "war on terror". All have proposals for restoring America�s relations with the world.
[...]
The candidates for the global presidency will not be judged by experience, programme, oratory or novelty. They will not be judged by the prospect of likely success in office, which is always unknowable in foreign affairs. Few American presidents are seen to have been successes on leaving office. The art of presidency is that of managing perceived failure. The candidates will rather be judged by what they symbolise, by the package of expectations that they carry with them to the White House. Here it is simply incontrovertible that the election of Barack Obama would transform, indeed electrify, America�s image worldwide.''
The Jenkins piece is referenced in The Week magazine, in a piece called How they see us: What a black president would mean for Europe
I don't think this piece is online; it's in my hard copy which just arrived in the mail.
The piece also quotes Francois Durpraire in the Paris Libération as saying that the 'disaffected youths' who were 'venting their frustration and hopelessness' in the recent riots and car burnings are now inspired by Obama, so much so that they now have "something to smile about." Obama, we're told, has the ''power to inspire pride and hope even in the slums of another continent. Think about that. Much has been written about what an Obama presidency could do for race relations in the U.S., but only now are people starting to realize that a win by Obama could even improve race relations here in Europe."
Next, the same piece in The Week tells us that Thomas Klau in Germany's Financial Times Deutschland finds this an uncomfortable thought -- but only because it would dismay Germany that 'barbarous, immature America'' could be the first to elect a black President. He says it would force Germans "to ask ourselves questions we have never asked before....We Germans pride ourselves on our social tolerance and progressive thinking, but come election time we take it for granted that all major candidates will be white-skinned.'' This would lead to some kind of crisis of conscience, apparently, and the appearance of 'cracks' in Europe's self-image. Painful soul-searching in Europe will ensue, so he says, if we barbarous Americans elect a black President first.
Now, Germany has a population of 82 million plus. 91.2 percent of the population is German.
2.1 percent are Turkish, and 6.7 percent are ''other'', including other European nationalities. So why on earth should Germany feel it's necessary to elect a black President?
And why should France concern itself with how the rioters feel about having a black President of the United States?
More to the point, why should we Americans concern ourselves with what others want, especially non-Europeans occupying Europe?
There should not be a 'global presidency'. Unfortunately, that seems to be what we have now, and the candidates we are being told to choose between are all globalists who will, in fact, not be representing our interests in any meaningful way.
But to return to the Simon Jenkins piece, despite the obvious fact that he neither knows nor ''loves'' the America that I know and love, he does touch on something that I've emphasized here: the symbolic significance of a black President. He implies that the non-white world everywhere will see Obama's election as a triumph for them. He puts it in syrupy liberal terms, referring to ''hope" for these poor underprivileged "youths'' in Europe, but it's evident that they will see it as a sign that the sun has set on whitey's ascendancy, and their day will have come.
This idea that we ''ought'' to have a black President is another one of those contradictory liberal ideas. Race doesn't matter, and it's wrong to choose based on racial criteria, so we've heard for 50 years and more. Now, suddenly, it's right to choose Obama because of his race.
And the idea implicit in this cheering for the election of a non-white President is that he is superior based on his race. His racial makeup qualifies him in a unique way to be President. So race does matter, the liberals are now admitting; and not only that, but it appears that the black race is superior in some way to the White race. And all these years we've been hearing that the races are absolutely equal. So Obama can do what a White President could not do; only a President with African genes and sufficient melanin in his skin can 'inspire' and 'give hope.'
Monochrome would become colour. A drone of antagonism would turn into a cry of pleasure. With the genes of an Irish-American and a Kenyan, and the nurture of Hawaii, Indonesia and Chicago, Obama has personal roots in four continents.''
What a load of multiculti claptrap and self-abasing Afro-olatry Mr. Jenkins dispenses. And by the way: why should some sort of rootless cosmopolitan outsider be preferred as our President?
In choosing a president for a world half of which America seeks to evangelise, voters could hardly find a candidate better cast. He embodies a yearning expectation of a new contract and a new beginning.'
The fact that Jenkins and all the other servile White liberals yearn for their own people to be overthrown and displaced in favor of resentful outsiders is an appalling commentary on our age. Much of the world seems to have gone collectively insane.
Labels: Anti-White Racism, Equality, Europe, Political Correctness, Presidential Candidates