0 comment Saturday, November 1, 2014 | admin
On this day in 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared their independence from the Netherlands. What's this got to do with America or Americans? Not a great deal, on the face of it, but it does touch on a few issues we discuss here.
I've written before that the Dutch who had resided in Indonesia or the 'Dutch East Indies' as was, were repatriated back to the Netherlands after the revolution establishing Indonesia's independence. I learned about this in college, but I find that very scant information on it is to be found on the Internet or elsewhere. Here's one brief paragraph about it:
'To withdraw all the troops and all the colonial Dutch families after independence became a big headache for the Dutch government. Many of the Dutch colonial people had never seen the mainland. Some of them had lived in Indonesia from generation to generation and hated the cold climate in Holland. Many were given a chance to emigrate to the U.S.A. or Australia. Many of them took that opportunity and started a new life in those countries. There were many Dutch Indonesians who immigrated to California. Still many of them stayed in Holland and mingled in with the Dutch society.''
So these people, of Dutch and sometimes mixed ancestry, who had never laid eyes on the Netherlands in many cases, were shipped 'back' to a country they had never seen. Why are cases like this never mentioned when somebody is wringing their hands over how we 'can't' repatriate aliens or in plain language, send them home? Our European kin were forced out, in some cases, of areas they had colonized centuries before. Yet in a sense they were going home, to the home of their ancestors and their natural kin. Still, they and their children, and perhaps several generations before them, had never known any other home than the colony in which they were born and lived. Do you reckon many native Indonesians fretted over how cruel and unfair it was to 'deport' people who were born in their islands? Somehow I doubt there was little public agonizing over it. Yet some Westerners tend to go into hysterics over the idea of sending anybody home, though in most cases the people in question have only recently transplanted themselves to American soil, unlike the Dutch and the mixed-race 'Indos' who were shipped to the Netherlands circa 1950.
I suppose by that time, they were ready to leave, as the revolution was no picnic for them:
'It was common for ethnic 'out-groups' - Dutch internees, Eurasian, Ambonese and Chinese - and anyone considered to be a spy, to be subjected to intimidation, kidnap, robbery, and sometimes murder, even organised massacres. Such attacks would continue to some extent for the course of the Revolution.
[...]
In September and October 1945 the ugly side of revolution surfaced with a series of incidents involving pro-Dutch Eurasians, and atrocities committed by Indonesian mobs against European internees. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Sukarno and Hatta negotiated a ceasefire between the Republicans and the British forces led by Brigadier Mallaby. Following the killing of Mallaby on 30 October, the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.
[...]
A total of 1,200 British soldiers were killed or went missing in Java and Sumatra in 1945 and 1946, most of them Indian soldiers. More than 5000 Dutch soldiers lost their lives in Indonesia between 1945 and 1949. Many more Japanese died; in Bandung alone, 1,057 died, only half of whom died in actual combat, the rest killed in rampages by Indonesians.
Tens of thousands of Chinese and Eurasians were killed or left homeless, despite the fact that many Chinese supported the Revolution. 7 million people were displaced on Java and Sumatra.''
There were apparently quite a few 'Indos' or mixed people in Indonesia, though I haven't seen an exact number. It appears that 60,000 'Indos' were repatriated to the Netherlands, even though their roots were partly in Indonesia. It seems they were associated with the colonial Dutch even if (as their photos indicate) many had little Dutch blood, having intermarried amongst each other for generations.
Apparently the Dutch colonists, especially the earlier generations, were very prone to intermarriage or to taking Asian concubines. At first this was because few Dutch women came as colonials, but even after more Dutch women came, the rate of intermarriage was about 30 percent.
This kind of thing invariably complicates such situations; the presence of mixed race people makes any such conflict more tangled. The Dutch, according the sources I found, encouraged mixing, thinking that it would solidify or help legitimize their rule, if they had blood ties to the Indonesians. The British had an opposite tendency, and discouraged mixing in most of their colonies.
But in our situation, as more and more people intermarry or have children with Hispanics or others among us, it will be harder and harder as conflicts increase and people naturally pick sides. Where does the mixed person stand? Where will their loyalties be? And what about those who marry out? Their allegiances are compromised and in many cases they are lost to us, as are the children of such unions.
But as we've seen, intermarriage and mixed children do not avert conflict and division, though our overlords seem to think this will be the case.
The situation of a colonial power having to leave the colony as native peoples press for independence is not exactly like ours. Still this episode in history might make us think a little about why the United Nations supports the right of 'indigenous' peoples to independence, (as they did in Indonesia's case), seeing colonialism as a great injustice -- whereas now the U.N. aggressively promotes the 'right of emigration', the right of people to live wherever they choose with no regard for the right of the existing population of that country.
And the issues of repatriation, of simply sending people home, is one that has become radioactive in our day, whereas nobody thought it amiss back in 1950 or so. We live in an age of cognitive dissonance as ideas that are declared anathema in one situation are considered good and appropriate in other cases. I suppose, again, it's all about the 'victim' groups versus the 'villain' groups, and the left is writing the script, as always.
I've written before that the Dutch who had resided in Indonesia or the 'Dutch East Indies' as was, were repatriated back to the Netherlands after the revolution establishing Indonesia's independence. I learned about this in college, but I find that very scant information on it is to be found on the Internet or elsewhere. Here's one brief paragraph about it:
'To withdraw all the troops and all the colonial Dutch families after independence became a big headache for the Dutch government. Many of the Dutch colonial people had never seen the mainland. Some of them had lived in Indonesia from generation to generation and hated the cold climate in Holland. Many were given a chance to emigrate to the U.S.A. or Australia. Many of them took that opportunity and started a new life in those countries. There were many Dutch Indonesians who immigrated to California. Still many of them stayed in Holland and mingled in with the Dutch society.''
So these people, of Dutch and sometimes mixed ancestry, who had never laid eyes on the Netherlands in many cases, were shipped 'back' to a country they had never seen. Why are cases like this never mentioned when somebody is wringing their hands over how we 'can't' repatriate aliens or in plain language, send them home? Our European kin were forced out, in some cases, of areas they had colonized centuries before. Yet in a sense they were going home, to the home of their ancestors and their natural kin. Still, they and their children, and perhaps several generations before them, had never known any other home than the colony in which they were born and lived. Do you reckon many native Indonesians fretted over how cruel and unfair it was to 'deport' people who were born in their islands? Somehow I doubt there was little public agonizing over it. Yet some Westerners tend to go into hysterics over the idea of sending anybody home, though in most cases the people in question have only recently transplanted themselves to American soil, unlike the Dutch and the mixed-race 'Indos' who were shipped to the Netherlands circa 1950.
I suppose by that time, they were ready to leave, as the revolution was no picnic for them:
'It was common for ethnic 'out-groups' - Dutch internees, Eurasian, Ambonese and Chinese - and anyone considered to be a spy, to be subjected to intimidation, kidnap, robbery, and sometimes murder, even organised massacres. Such attacks would continue to some extent for the course of the Revolution.
[...]
In September and October 1945 the ugly side of revolution surfaced with a series of incidents involving pro-Dutch Eurasians, and atrocities committed by Indonesian mobs against European internees. Ferocious fighting erupted when 6,000 British Indian troops landed in the city. Sukarno and Hatta negotiated a ceasefire between the Republicans and the British forces led by Brigadier Mallaby. Following the killing of Mallaby on 30 October, the British sent more troops into the city from 10 November under the cover of air attacks. Although the European forces largely captured the city in three days, the poorly armed Republicans fought on for three weeks and thousands died as the population fled to the countryside.
[...]
A total of 1,200 British soldiers were killed or went missing in Java and Sumatra in 1945 and 1946, most of them Indian soldiers. More than 5000 Dutch soldiers lost their lives in Indonesia between 1945 and 1949. Many more Japanese died; in Bandung alone, 1,057 died, only half of whom died in actual combat, the rest killed in rampages by Indonesians.
Tens of thousands of Chinese and Eurasians were killed or left homeless, despite the fact that many Chinese supported the Revolution. 7 million people were displaced on Java and Sumatra.''
There were apparently quite a few 'Indos' or mixed people in Indonesia, though I haven't seen an exact number. It appears that 60,000 'Indos' were repatriated to the Netherlands, even though their roots were partly in Indonesia. It seems they were associated with the colonial Dutch even if (as their photos indicate) many had little Dutch blood, having intermarried amongst each other for generations.
Apparently the Dutch colonists, especially the earlier generations, were very prone to intermarriage or to taking Asian concubines. At first this was because few Dutch women came as colonials, but even after more Dutch women came, the rate of intermarriage was about 30 percent.
This kind of thing invariably complicates such situations; the presence of mixed race people makes any such conflict more tangled. The Dutch, according the sources I found, encouraged mixing, thinking that it would solidify or help legitimize their rule, if they had blood ties to the Indonesians. The British had an opposite tendency, and discouraged mixing in most of their colonies.
But in our situation, as more and more people intermarry or have children with Hispanics or others among us, it will be harder and harder as conflicts increase and people naturally pick sides. Where does the mixed person stand? Where will their loyalties be? And what about those who marry out? Their allegiances are compromised and in many cases they are lost to us, as are the children of such unions.
But as we've seen, intermarriage and mixed children do not avert conflict and division, though our overlords seem to think this will be the case.
The situation of a colonial power having to leave the colony as native peoples press for independence is not exactly like ours. Still this episode in history might make us think a little about why the United Nations supports the right of 'indigenous' peoples to independence, (as they did in Indonesia's case), seeing colonialism as a great injustice -- whereas now the U.N. aggressively promotes the 'right of emigration', the right of people to live wherever they choose with no regard for the right of the existing population of that country.
And the issues of repatriation, of simply sending people home, is one that has become radioactive in our day, whereas nobody thought it amiss back in 1950 or so. We live in an age of cognitive dissonance as ideas that are declared anathema in one situation are considered good and appropriate in other cases. I suppose, again, it's all about the 'victim' groups versus the 'villain' groups, and the left is writing the script, as always.
Labels: Colonialism, Colonies, Diversity, Ethnic Conflicts, Ethnic Division, History, Multiculturalism, Multiracialism
0 comment Tuesday, October 28, 2014 | admin
From the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog:
Two weeks ago we asked readers for their suggestions for reforming the Refugee Resettlement Program of the US State Department. Today we heard from reader Paul Nachman of Bozeman, Montana who suggests doing away with it altogether.
Ryan Mauro wrote a brief article, appearing today in FrontPage Magazine, about the wonderfulness of having Somalis in Tennessee. Near its conclusion he wrote:
'These issues, of course, do not mean that all Somali immigrants are problems, but it is clear that the government needs to find better ways to assimilate those who travel to the U.S. in large numbers as refugees.
I think the logical solution is to end immigration of Somalis and deport those who aren�t yet citizens.
Maybe my suggestion will surprise people, but why shouldn�t we be thinking along the line I suggest? Our basic question should be: Does their (or any immigrants�) presence do the U.S. any good? If not (and generally one�s answer, after thinking about it, will be "No"), then why permit their immigration in the first place?
There�s an even more basic question out there: What is the purpose of the United States? The answer is "To benefit the citizens of the United States." Authority for this conclusion is found in the Preamble to the Constitution, where it says ".. to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity �" So the benefit to our citizens should be the starting point for all U.S. laws, including immigration laws. (This doesn�t mean we should run roughshod over the rest of the world. But **benefits** to the rest of the world should be decidedly secondary or tertiary motives.)
Some folks will probably come back with pleadings about "refugees." Please don�t. I put the word in quotation marks for a reason: Back in 2003, I had an in-person conversation with Prof. Jan Ting of Temple University Law School. Upon learning that he�d been Assistant Commissioner of the INS during the senior Bush�s presidency, I asked him, "Is it true that 90% of all refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent?" Without missing a beat he replied, "95%."
Let�s think outside the box of cliches and slogans: It�s time to shut down the refugee program in its entirety.'
I agree with that, and I like the writer's directness. I like the fact that he asks ''What is the purpose of the United States?'' and even more, that he answers ''To benefit the citizens" and quotes the Founding Fathers' words alluding to ''ourselves and our posterity.''
And please note the part wherein he quotes the professor as saying that ''95 percent'' of refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent. This is the reason for my often using quote marks when I write the word ''refugee'' because it's clear that in many cases, motives are economic or social rather than a matter of finding safe haven from true and life-threatening persecution.
It's vexing to note that most people have bought the idea that America (or any Western country) somehow owes it to the downtrodden or the poor the world over to bring them to our countries and take care of them at our collective expense. Many Americans honestly believe that our government was established more or less for that purpose, to provide for the 'huddled masses', and that not doing so would make us morally derelict in our duty to whoever claims the right to come here.
Even if we have money to burn, which we don't, there are costs that go far beyond the monetary, as most of my readers are well aware, but the average American seems to think that we owe the poor of the world a home, and have a duty to provide for their posterity.
The writer quotes the Founding Fathers to the effect that this country was created 'to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' And that posterity means us, the descendants of the old-stock Americans. When they wrote about their 'posterity', they surely did not think that included the whole world.
An illustration of the kinds of troubles that all too often occur when refugees are dropped into a small town in a White, Western country is this story from Sweden:
Nearly half of the predominantly Iraqi-refugees residing in Vännäs in northern Sweden have decided to permanently move out of the area after being terrorized by what police called "a lynch mob" in early May.
"I thought that Vännäs was the perfect place for us. And there are many, many friendly people here. But we still don�t dare to stay; I�m seriously concerned about my children�s safety," said father of five Ismail Ramadan to the Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) newspaper.
Ramadan�s family and several others have decided to abandon plans of starting a life in the small community outside of Umeå less than two weeks after a group of 30 to 50 young people assembled outside the apartment building in which the refugees lived and began shouting threats and throwing stones.
The May 9th incident resulted in several broken windows and many frightened refugees.''
Usually this kind of thing is sensationalized and played up as a story of racism and ''hate'' by the media, but at least this source acknowledges that the troubles did not originate with the townspeople:
According to the Västerbotten-Kuriren newspaper, the dispute began when a group of local youths confronted a refugee boy about the assault of a local girl which took place Tuesday night.''
The discussion at Gates of Vienna is here.
The popular stereotype of Scandinavians is that they are the most ''tolerant'', liberal, and passive of all the Western countries. So, even allowing for the exaggeration that is inherent in that image, it is surprising that this incident happened in Sweden -- although we have to notice, too, that there were the typical liberal brainwashed who made it a point to apologize and court the refugees.
Why does any attempt to stand up for our side always have to involve apologies and grovelling by somebody among our ranks? It's pathetic.
Granted, I don't advocate harassing people without cause or taking the laws into one's own hands, but what, as Fjordman points out in the comments, happens when the supposed enforcers of the law refuse, or fail, to protect the citizenry? If they want to avoid situations like this, the authorities have to do their job in protecting the rightful citizens of the country, and uphold the laws of the land. Too often these days they refuse to do so, from the highest levels on down to the lowest, and then what?
The purposeful 'planting' of refugees and assorted others in small towns throughout the Western countries has all the appearances of being an act of aggression or hostility by those in power against their (supposedly) own people.
We are told that our countries are obligated, by the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was originally set up under very different circumstances:
The convention was approved at a special United Nations conference on 28 July 1951. It was initially limited to protecting European refugees after World War II but a 1967 Protocol removed the geographical and time limits, expanding the Convention's scope. Because the convention was approved in Geneva, it is often referred to as "the Geneva Convention," though it is not one of the Geneva Conventions specifically dealing with allowable behavior in time of war.''
At that time, obviously there were genuine refugees who had ben displaced by war and the upheavals following World War II, and today the situation is very different. The millions who are roaming the world now in the attempt to find better economic conditions, in most cases, are not comparable to those who genuinely were displaced or homeless as a result of war and the changing boundaries of nations.
The definition of a refugee is this, established in 1967:
A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.''
How many of today's country-shoppers and 'better-life' seekers fit that description? And since 1967, a great many spurious claims have been made, and the definitions expanded to include homosexuals or transsexuals who claim they are ''persecuted'' for their sexual predilections, or people with certain PC diseases who claim they cannot get treatment in their own countries, and so on.
And even the claim of poverty is not sufficient, under the definition, to claim the right to live here, yet it's due to that claim that many soft-headed Americans accept mass illegal immigration as unavoidable. They think it's the least we can do to welcome all these poor people who 'just want to work'.
Yet when people like the two men from the UK, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle sought asylum based on their conviction on 'hate-crime' charges in the UK, they were denied. Granted, they may not appear as sympathetic figures to most media-indoctrinated Americans or Britons, for that matter, but the fact is, they were exercising what we in the US consider a right: free speech.
And we, meanwhile, see fit to welcome 'refugees' from countries which have shown hostility towards us in the past, Somalia, for example. Has everybody forgotten about the events in Mogadishu back in the Clinton era?
Actually, I suspect many Americans don't make the connection. I recently had someone ask me, ''where's Mogadishu"? when the name was mentioned.
The fact is, we need to reconsider our ''commitment'' to accepting refugees. Why can't we simply withdraw our participation in these agreements? Even in these hard economic times, the government, and indeed all Western governments, are working fast and furiously to bring more ''refugees'' to ''enrich'' our bankrupt countries.
No, we don't owe the world's hard-luck cases. There is a limit to what we can do, and we have no moral obligation to solve all the world's problems, the U.N. notwithstanding. In fact, as has so often been proposed, we need to get out of that misbegotten, failed, corrupt organization and they need to find a new home, or better yet, close up shop. The world will be so much better a place when they do so.
Two weeks ago we asked readers for their suggestions for reforming the Refugee Resettlement Program of the US State Department. Today we heard from reader Paul Nachman of Bozeman, Montana who suggests doing away with it altogether.
Ryan Mauro wrote a brief article, appearing today in FrontPage Magazine, about the wonderfulness of having Somalis in Tennessee. Near its conclusion he wrote:
'These issues, of course, do not mean that all Somali immigrants are problems, but it is clear that the government needs to find better ways to assimilate those who travel to the U.S. in large numbers as refugees.
I think the logical solution is to end immigration of Somalis and deport those who aren�t yet citizens.
Maybe my suggestion will surprise people, but why shouldn�t we be thinking along the line I suggest? Our basic question should be: Does their (or any immigrants�) presence do the U.S. any good? If not (and generally one�s answer, after thinking about it, will be "No"), then why permit their immigration in the first place?
There�s an even more basic question out there: What is the purpose of the United States? The answer is "To benefit the citizens of the United States." Authority for this conclusion is found in the Preamble to the Constitution, where it says ".. to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity �" So the benefit to our citizens should be the starting point for all U.S. laws, including immigration laws. (This doesn�t mean we should run roughshod over the rest of the world. But **benefits** to the rest of the world should be decidedly secondary or tertiary motives.)
Some folks will probably come back with pleadings about "refugees." Please don�t. I put the word in quotation marks for a reason: Back in 2003, I had an in-person conversation with Prof. Jan Ting of Temple University Law School. Upon learning that he�d been Assistant Commissioner of the INS during the senior Bush�s presidency, I asked him, "Is it true that 90% of all refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent?" Without missing a beat he replied, "95%."
Let�s think outside the box of cliches and slogans: It�s time to shut down the refugee program in its entirety.'
I agree with that, and I like the writer's directness. I like the fact that he asks ''What is the purpose of the United States?'' and even more, that he answers ''To benefit the citizens" and quotes the Founding Fathers' words alluding to ''ourselves and our posterity.''
And please note the part wherein he quotes the professor as saying that ''95 percent'' of refugee and asylum cases are fraudulent. This is the reason for my often using quote marks when I write the word ''refugee'' because it's clear that in many cases, motives are economic or social rather than a matter of finding safe haven from true and life-threatening persecution.
It's vexing to note that most people have bought the idea that America (or any Western country) somehow owes it to the downtrodden or the poor the world over to bring them to our countries and take care of them at our collective expense. Many Americans honestly believe that our government was established more or less for that purpose, to provide for the 'huddled masses', and that not doing so would make us morally derelict in our duty to whoever claims the right to come here.
Even if we have money to burn, which we don't, there are costs that go far beyond the monetary, as most of my readers are well aware, but the average American seems to think that we owe the poor of the world a home, and have a duty to provide for their posterity.
The writer quotes the Founding Fathers to the effect that this country was created 'to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' And that posterity means us, the descendants of the old-stock Americans. When they wrote about their 'posterity', they surely did not think that included the whole world.
An illustration of the kinds of troubles that all too often occur when refugees are dropped into a small town in a White, Western country is this story from Sweden:
Nearly half of the predominantly Iraqi-refugees residing in Vännäs in northern Sweden have decided to permanently move out of the area after being terrorized by what police called "a lynch mob" in early May.
"I thought that Vännäs was the perfect place for us. And there are many, many friendly people here. But we still don�t dare to stay; I�m seriously concerned about my children�s safety," said father of five Ismail Ramadan to the Svenska Dagbladet (SvD) newspaper.
Ramadan�s family and several others have decided to abandon plans of starting a life in the small community outside of Umeå less than two weeks after a group of 30 to 50 young people assembled outside the apartment building in which the refugees lived and began shouting threats and throwing stones.
The May 9th incident resulted in several broken windows and many frightened refugees.''
Usually this kind of thing is sensationalized and played up as a story of racism and ''hate'' by the media, but at least this source acknowledges that the troubles did not originate with the townspeople:
According to the Västerbotten-Kuriren newspaper, the dispute began when a group of local youths confronted a refugee boy about the assault of a local girl which took place Tuesday night.''
The discussion at Gates of Vienna is here.
The popular stereotype of Scandinavians is that they are the most ''tolerant'', liberal, and passive of all the Western countries. So, even allowing for the exaggeration that is inherent in that image, it is surprising that this incident happened in Sweden -- although we have to notice, too, that there were the typical liberal brainwashed who made it a point to apologize and court the refugees.
Why does any attempt to stand up for our side always have to involve apologies and grovelling by somebody among our ranks? It's pathetic.
Granted, I don't advocate harassing people without cause or taking the laws into one's own hands, but what, as Fjordman points out in the comments, happens when the supposed enforcers of the law refuse, or fail, to protect the citizenry? If they want to avoid situations like this, the authorities have to do their job in protecting the rightful citizens of the country, and uphold the laws of the land. Too often these days they refuse to do so, from the highest levels on down to the lowest, and then what?
The purposeful 'planting' of refugees and assorted others in small towns throughout the Western countries has all the appearances of being an act of aggression or hostility by those in power against their (supposedly) own people.
We are told that our countries are obligated, by the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was originally set up under very different circumstances:
The convention was approved at a special United Nations conference on 28 July 1951. It was initially limited to protecting European refugees after World War II but a 1967 Protocol removed the geographical and time limits, expanding the Convention's scope. Because the convention was approved in Geneva, it is often referred to as "the Geneva Convention," though it is not one of the Geneva Conventions specifically dealing with allowable behavior in time of war.''
At that time, obviously there were genuine refugees who had ben displaced by war and the upheavals following World War II, and today the situation is very different. The millions who are roaming the world now in the attempt to find better economic conditions, in most cases, are not comparable to those who genuinely were displaced or homeless as a result of war and the changing boundaries of nations.
The definition of a refugee is this, established in 1967:
A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.''
How many of today's country-shoppers and 'better-life' seekers fit that description? And since 1967, a great many spurious claims have been made, and the definitions expanded to include homosexuals or transsexuals who claim they are ''persecuted'' for their sexual predilections, or people with certain PC diseases who claim they cannot get treatment in their own countries, and so on.
And even the claim of poverty is not sufficient, under the definition, to claim the right to live here, yet it's due to that claim that many soft-headed Americans accept mass illegal immigration as unavoidable. They think it's the least we can do to welcome all these poor people who 'just want to work'.
Yet when people like the two men from the UK, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle sought asylum based on their conviction on 'hate-crime' charges in the UK, they were denied. Granted, they may not appear as sympathetic figures to most media-indoctrinated Americans or Britons, for that matter, but the fact is, they were exercising what we in the US consider a right: free speech.
And we, meanwhile, see fit to welcome 'refugees' from countries which have shown hostility towards us in the past, Somalia, for example. Has everybody forgotten about the events in Mogadishu back in the Clinton era?
Actually, I suspect many Americans don't make the connection. I recently had someone ask me, ''where's Mogadishu"? when the name was mentioned.
The fact is, we need to reconsider our ''commitment'' to accepting refugees. Why can't we simply withdraw our participation in these agreements? Even in these hard economic times, the government, and indeed all Western governments, are working fast and furiously to bring more ''refugees'' to ''enrich'' our bankrupt countries.
No, we don't owe the world's hard-luck cases. There is a limit to what we can do, and we have no moral obligation to solve all the world's problems, the U.N. notwithstanding. In fact, as has so often been proposed, we need to get out of that misbegotten, failed, corrupt organization and they need to find a new home, or better yet, close up shop. The world will be so much better a place when they do so.
Labels: Ethnic Conflicts, Multiculturalism, Racial Dispossession, Refugee Industry, Refugees, United Nations, Western Decline
0 comment Sunday, October 5, 2014 | admin
Mild Colonial Boy at The Boy's Own Paper recently posted a quote from Gallia Watch, which in turn quoted François Desouche.
The term 'ethnomasochism' is a term coined by French thinker Guillaume Faye:
Ethnomasochism
(It is) the masochistic tendency to regard with a sense of guilt and a sense of worthlessness one�s own ethnic group, one�s own people.
Ethnomasochism is similar to shame of oneself and self-hatred. It is a collective psychopathology, triggered by a long propaganda effort to foster a presumed fundamental sense of guilt felt by Europeans vis-� -vis other peoples, of whom they are assumed to be the "oppressors". It is therefore necessary to repent and to "pay the debt." This effort at repentance, a veritable historical sham, has been undertaken by the Churches, as well as by the European States.
Ethnomasochism is also the basis of anti-natalistic policies that surreptitiously aim to limit the reproduction of European populations. Implicitly then, it can be likened to a type of "self-racism". The European man can be said to have been struck down by an original sin, an intrinsic racial stain: he is guilty of being what he is.
Ethnomasochism provokes the systematic defense of cross-breeding ("métissage) and cosmopolitanism. Curiously, it denies to Europeans the idea of ethnic identity, but grants it to others. Europeans are duty-bound to dilute themselves, but other peoples, Africans for example, are not. Ethnomasochism is the counterweight of xenophilia (love and overestimation of the foreigner, the "other"). It is related to ethno-suicide.
In history, ethnomasochism is not new; it was the symptom of peoples tired of life, tired of perpetuating themselves; of aging peoples who pass the torch to others. The European elite are afflicted with this collective illness. And this illness explains the laxness towards the colonization by migrants and the idea that we have both a duty and a need to welcome the new occupiers.''
It's a useful word, ethnomasochism. I've often thought how masochistic (to use the psycho-jargon) the multiculturalists and liberals/leftists generally are.
Guillaume Faye is something of a controversial figure on the right because he is a bit of a maverick, and of course he has been brought up on charges of 'hate speech' in his native France, I believe. Though I don't endorse every view he expresses I think he has a great many useful things to say, and his work is worth reading. I had actually intended to quote some of his writings here recently, but other things came up and I deferred the posting. But since MCB and Gallia Watch have quoted Faye, now is a good time to post about Faye.
The Guillaume Faye Archive can be found here.
Here's a little excerpt from The Cause of the Peoples?
Europe First!
I respect the destiny of the sometimes afflicted Inuits, Tibetans, Amazonians, Pygmies, Kanaks, Aborigines, Berbers, Saharians, Indians, Nubians, the inevitable Palestinians, and the little green men from outer space. But don�t expect crocodile tears from me. When the flooding threatens my own house, I can think only of my own predicament and haven't time to help or plead for others. Besides, when have these others ever cared about us? In any case, the dangers threatening them are greatly exaggerated, especially in view of their demographic vigor, which, incidentally, is owed to Western medicine and material aid -- for the same Western forces that have allegedly exploited them also seems to have made them prosper (or, at least, to reproduce in unprecedented numbers).
If our communitarians really want to defend the cause des peuples, they might start with Europeans, who are now under assault by the demographic, migratory, and cultural forces of an overpopulated Third World. In face of these threats, you won't find us sniveling (like a priest) or fleeing (like an intellectual) to the 'other's' cause. 'Ourselves alone' will suffice.''
And here, from a 2005 speech in Moscow, he discusses the idea of 'ethnomasochism.'
The present situation can be explained, almost clinically, as a sort of "mental AIDS." Our present afflictions come from the virus of nihilism, which Nietzsche foresaw, and which has weakened all our natural defenses. Thus infected, Europeans have succumbed to a feverish self-extinction. They have voluntarily opened the city gates.
The primary symptom of this disease is "xenophilia: " a systematic preference for the Other rather than for the Same. A second symptom is "ethnomasochism, " a hatred of one�s own civilization and origins. A third is emasculation [dévirilisation] , or what might be called the cult of weakness and a preference for male homosexuality. Historically proven values associated with the use of force and a people�s survival � values associated with honor, loyalty, family, fertility, patriotism, the will to survive, etc. � are treated today as ridiculous shortcomings.
This sort of decadence owes a good deal to the secularization of Christian charity and its egalitarian offshoot, human rights. Europeans may take inspiration from certain values still upheld in Russia: For example, the consciousness of belonging to a superior civilization and of maintaining a "right to distance" from other peoples. We need to break with all forms of "ethnopluralism, " which is simply another kind of egalitarianism, and reclaim the right to "ethnocentrism, " the right to live in our own lands without the Other. We also have to reclaim the principle: "To each his own." Besides, only Westerners believe race-mixing is a virtue or envisage the future as a melting pot. They alone believe in cosmopolitanism.''
Faye explains his opposition to the reflexive anti-Americanism which is common in Europe, and he writes of the importance of distinguishing between one's 'principal adversary' and one's 'principal enemy.' I think it's a useful distinction which we could apply to our situation in America.
A people or nation must learn to distinguish between its "principal adversary" and its "principal enemy." The first tries to dominate and undermine, the second to kill. We shouldn�t forget Carl Schmitt�s formula: "It�s not only you who chooses your enemy, it�s more often your enemy who chooses you." America, specifically its ruling class, is Europe�s and Russia�s "principal adversary" at the level of geopolitics, economics, and culture.
Europe�s "principal enemy" is the peoples of the South, increasingly assembled under the banner of Islam, whose invasion of the continent is already well underway, facilitated by a political class and an intelligentsia who have opened the gates (to Washington�s delight) and who seek a miscegenated, non-European Europe.''
[Emphasis mine]
Of our future, Faye said
I�ve postulated the hypothesis that the present global system, founded on a belief in miracles, a belief in the myth of indefinite progress, is on the verge of collapse. For the first time in history, humanity as a whole is threatened by a cataclysmic crisis that is likely to occur sometime between 2010 and 2020 � a crisis provoked by the on-going degradation of the ecosystem and climatic disruptions, by the exhaustion of fossil fuel sources and food producing capacity, by the increased fragility of an international economic order based on speculation and massive indebtedness, by the return of epidemics, by the rise of nationalism, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, by the growing aggressiveness of Islam�s world offense, and by the dramatic aging of the West�s population.
We need to prepare for these converging catastrophes, which will mark the transition from one era to another, as their cataclysmic effects sweep away liberal modernity and bring about a New Middle Age. With such a convergence, there will also come an opportunity for rebirth, for every major historical regeneration emerges from chaos. This is especially the case with a civilization like our own, whose very nature is "metamorphic."
The term 'ethnomasochism' is a term coined by French thinker Guillaume Faye:
Ethnomasochism
(It is) the masochistic tendency to regard with a sense of guilt and a sense of worthlessness one�s own ethnic group, one�s own people.
Ethnomasochism is similar to shame of oneself and self-hatred. It is a collective psychopathology, triggered by a long propaganda effort to foster a presumed fundamental sense of guilt felt by Europeans vis-� -vis other peoples, of whom they are assumed to be the "oppressors". It is therefore necessary to repent and to "pay the debt." This effort at repentance, a veritable historical sham, has been undertaken by the Churches, as well as by the European States.
Ethnomasochism is also the basis of anti-natalistic policies that surreptitiously aim to limit the reproduction of European populations. Implicitly then, it can be likened to a type of "self-racism". The European man can be said to have been struck down by an original sin, an intrinsic racial stain: he is guilty of being what he is.
Ethnomasochism provokes the systematic defense of cross-breeding ("métissage) and cosmopolitanism. Curiously, it denies to Europeans the idea of ethnic identity, but grants it to others. Europeans are duty-bound to dilute themselves, but other peoples, Africans for example, are not. Ethnomasochism is the counterweight of xenophilia (love and overestimation of the foreigner, the "other"). It is related to ethno-suicide.
In history, ethnomasochism is not new; it was the symptom of peoples tired of life, tired of perpetuating themselves; of aging peoples who pass the torch to others. The European elite are afflicted with this collective illness. And this illness explains the laxness towards the colonization by migrants and the idea that we have both a duty and a need to welcome the new occupiers.''
It's a useful word, ethnomasochism. I've often thought how masochistic (to use the psycho-jargon) the multiculturalists and liberals/leftists generally are.
Guillaume Faye is something of a controversial figure on the right because he is a bit of a maverick, and of course he has been brought up on charges of 'hate speech' in his native France, I believe. Though I don't endorse every view he expresses I think he has a great many useful things to say, and his work is worth reading. I had actually intended to quote some of his writings here recently, but other things came up and I deferred the posting. But since MCB and Gallia Watch have quoted Faye, now is a good time to post about Faye.
The Guillaume Faye Archive can be found here.
Here's a little excerpt from The Cause of the Peoples?
Europe First!
I respect the destiny of the sometimes afflicted Inuits, Tibetans, Amazonians, Pygmies, Kanaks, Aborigines, Berbers, Saharians, Indians, Nubians, the inevitable Palestinians, and the little green men from outer space. But don�t expect crocodile tears from me. When the flooding threatens my own house, I can think only of my own predicament and haven't time to help or plead for others. Besides, when have these others ever cared about us? In any case, the dangers threatening them are greatly exaggerated, especially in view of their demographic vigor, which, incidentally, is owed to Western medicine and material aid -- for the same Western forces that have allegedly exploited them also seems to have made them prosper (or, at least, to reproduce in unprecedented numbers).
If our communitarians really want to defend the cause des peuples, they might start with Europeans, who are now under assault by the demographic, migratory, and cultural forces of an overpopulated Third World. In face of these threats, you won't find us sniveling (like a priest) or fleeing (like an intellectual) to the 'other's' cause. 'Ourselves alone' will suffice.''
And here, from a 2005 speech in Moscow, he discusses the idea of 'ethnomasochism.'
The present situation can be explained, almost clinically, as a sort of "mental AIDS." Our present afflictions come from the virus of nihilism, which Nietzsche foresaw, and which has weakened all our natural defenses. Thus infected, Europeans have succumbed to a feverish self-extinction. They have voluntarily opened the city gates.
The primary symptom of this disease is "xenophilia: " a systematic preference for the Other rather than for the Same. A second symptom is "ethnomasochism, " a hatred of one�s own civilization and origins. A third is emasculation [dévirilisation] , or what might be called the cult of weakness and a preference for male homosexuality. Historically proven values associated with the use of force and a people�s survival � values associated with honor, loyalty, family, fertility, patriotism, the will to survive, etc. � are treated today as ridiculous shortcomings.
This sort of decadence owes a good deal to the secularization of Christian charity and its egalitarian offshoot, human rights. Europeans may take inspiration from certain values still upheld in Russia: For example, the consciousness of belonging to a superior civilization and of maintaining a "right to distance" from other peoples. We need to break with all forms of "ethnopluralism, " which is simply another kind of egalitarianism, and reclaim the right to "ethnocentrism, " the right to live in our own lands without the Other. We also have to reclaim the principle: "To each his own." Besides, only Westerners believe race-mixing is a virtue or envisage the future as a melting pot. They alone believe in cosmopolitanism.''
Faye explains his opposition to the reflexive anti-Americanism which is common in Europe, and he writes of the importance of distinguishing between one's 'principal adversary' and one's 'principal enemy.' I think it's a useful distinction which we could apply to our situation in America.
A people or nation must learn to distinguish between its "principal adversary" and its "principal enemy." The first tries to dominate and undermine, the second to kill. We shouldn�t forget Carl Schmitt�s formula: "It�s not only you who chooses your enemy, it�s more often your enemy who chooses you." America, specifically its ruling class, is Europe�s and Russia�s "principal adversary" at the level of geopolitics, economics, and culture.
Europe�s "principal enemy" is the peoples of the South, increasingly assembled under the banner of Islam, whose invasion of the continent is already well underway, facilitated by a political class and an intelligentsia who have opened the gates (to Washington�s delight) and who seek a miscegenated, non-European Europe.''
[Emphasis mine]
Of our future, Faye said
I�ve postulated the hypothesis that the present global system, founded on a belief in miracles, a belief in the myth of indefinite progress, is on the verge of collapse. For the first time in history, humanity as a whole is threatened by a cataclysmic crisis that is likely to occur sometime between 2010 and 2020 � a crisis provoked by the on-going degradation of the ecosystem and climatic disruptions, by the exhaustion of fossil fuel sources and food producing capacity, by the increased fragility of an international economic order based on speculation and massive indebtedness, by the return of epidemics, by the rise of nationalism, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, by the growing aggressiveness of Islam�s world offense, and by the dramatic aging of the West�s population.
We need to prepare for these converging catastrophes, which will mark the transition from one era to another, as their cataclysmic effects sweep away liberal modernity and bring about a New Middle Age. With such a convergence, there will also come an opportunity for rebirth, for every major historical regeneration emerges from chaos. This is especially the case with a civilization like our own, whose very nature is "metamorphic."
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnic Conflicts, Ethnocentrism, Ethnomasochism, Multiculturalism, Race Replacement
0 comment Tuesday, September 2, 2014 | admin
Many of you may have already read it, but the subject under discussion is the selection of one Tino Cuellar to head up the new administration's working group on immigration.
"Cuéllar has been described as a close adviser to Obama on immigration, and the American Bar Association recently suggested he could be on the short list to head the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency." In other news, president-elect Obama has announced that: a Mr. Fox will be placed in charge of the US Department of Hen Houses; The US Sheep and Lamb Protection Agency, will have a Ms. Wolf as its new head; the CIA will be co-chaired by Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale (of Bullwinkle fame;) and that the Department of Homeland Security shall have either Osama bin-Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as its new secretary. It is believed that Mr. bin-Laden is the stronger contender of these latter two potential appointments, since President Ahmadinejad is currently running his own country and might have conflicting interests� As always, God help us all! Posted by John PM at 6:28 PM on November 24 Amen.
This would be funny were it not so tragic.
"Cuéllar has been described as a close adviser to Obama on immigration, and the American Bar Association recently suggested he could be on the short list to head the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency." In other news, president-elect Obama has announced that: a Mr. Fox will be placed in charge of the US Department of Hen Houses; The US Sheep and Lamb Protection Agency, will have a Ms. Wolf as its new head; the CIA will be co-chaired by Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale (of Bullwinkle fame;) and that the Department of Homeland Security shall have either Osama bin-Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as its new secretary. It is believed that Mr. bin-Laden is the stronger contender of these latter two potential appointments, since President Ahmadinejad is currently running his own country and might have conflicting interests� As always, God help us all! Posted by John PM at 6:28 PM on November 24 Amen.
This would be funny were it not so tragic.
Labels: Borders, Ethnic Conflicts, Ethnic Solidarity, Illegal Immigration, News
0 comment Wednesday, August 20, 2014 | admin
Is the idea of ''worse is better'' still floating around out there? It seems to be, judging by some of the discussions I read in certain forums.
How does this idea persist? It's always been misguided, to view it charitably, or downright treasonous, to take a less charitable view of it.
I've written about it before, and I presented my reasons for thinking that an Obama presidency will not ''wake people up" or ''galvanize the right" or bring about some kind of conservative epiphany and restoration.
There have been so many events over the last ten or twen years that should have been wake-up calls, but were not. We've all become, to some extent, jaded over the steady move leftward and the transformation of America right under our noses. Going back to the early 90s, we saw the L.A riots, the O.J. Simpson acquittal and the jubilation of blacks following that. In more recent years, we've seen the lawlessness and shocking behavior in New Orleans following Katrina, and then the Knoxville murders, (ignored by our mainstream media, as the Katrina atrocities have been airbrushed away or denied) and the daily spectacle of the mass invasion of our country and the brazen marching by the invaders in our cities and towns.
Through all these events, there may have been isolated grumblings or flashes of resentment on the part of the majority, but ultimately people go back to sleep or back to their toys and distractions, while Change marches on.
When I pointed this out in the past, I was told that I was being negative, denying the possibility of an awakening on our part. I would love to believe that THIS time it will be different, that an Obama presidency will be the one galvanizing event. Why should it be, though?
Most presidencies have a 'honeymoon period' in which the new President is given some latitude and enjoys the goodwill of a majority of the people. Obama will coast on that goodwill for a time, but be sure that the very pro-Obama media will provide a permanent honeymoon for their guy. All criticism will be treated as examples of racism and bigotry.
Americans may well become lulled by the initial 'honeymoon' period and even those who did not vote for Obama will grudgingly say 'he's not too bad" or perhaps be taken in by this vaunted 'charisma' which I am told he has. Many Americans who are not troubled by anything resembling political philosophies or moral principles will accept whatever Obama proposes to do. Many Americans are not politically savvy, so they will see nothing wrong with most of the more radical leftist ideas he will promote.
Ever try to explain to an apolitical person, in very basic terms, why leftism and socialism are bad for America? When Obama says we need to 'spread the wealth around', that sounds good to many non-thinking Americans. Who can object to "wealth-spreading"? I've tried to explain why that idea is wrong, but my words don't penetrate through the fog in some cases.
Political illiterates, people who have no idea of our founding principles, or people who vote based on how nice a guy or gal the candidate appears to be, are not swayed by logical arguments or arguments based on principle.
They will not see how Obama is making things worse; they tend to believe whatever they hear on NBC Nightly News or what they hear on The View or Oprah or from Katie Couric.
As to the conservatives who think 'worse is better', I would like to hear specifics regarding how long it will take for worse to become measurably better? And how much worse will it have to get?
The biggest question I have is: how do the 'worse is better' proponents have so much faith that little lasting damage can be done by a Democrat President, plus a Democrat Congress, aided and abetted by a liberal media? The underlying assumption seems to be that whatever harm is done can be easily undone, but yet, when was the last time any incoming Republican administration undid what the Democrats did while in office? Did even the Reagan administration, which most Republicans consider the zenith of conservatism in modern America, undo the liberalism so entrenched from the New Deal and 'Great Society"? To my knowledge, nothing much was undone that had been wrought by a very busy left during those earlier reigns.
When our current President was elected, some were certain he would 'clean house' but he never did, instead choosing not only to abstain from criticizing his predecessor, but to buddy up to Clinton publicly.
And are the worse-is-better advocates confident that Obama will not institute a radical agenda when in office? Who will oppose him? Certainly not a majority Democrat Congress and a lot of supine, spineless Republicans who will be scared spitless of being called bigots.
Over at Red State there is an entry and a discussion on what an Obama administration might do.
This CNN transcript from a while back has Obama discussing his plans for a 'civilian national security force' which he says will be just as strong, powerful, and well-funded as the military. Imagine his followers mobilized into some kind of 'national security force.'
Can we embrace the idea of such a 'civilian national security force'? Or universal national service?
He has said he would like to institute a draft, which would involve young women as well as men. He says if some of us are going to war, all of us should be going.
Would these kinds of things cause this mass awakening? I doubt it; his followers, though usually the military-loathing types, would probably gladly don uniforms for their idol. They would also not oppose a draft if Obama proposed it.
But will these things wake up the 'conservatives'? Or will they just grumble and gripe and eventually accept it and get used to it, as with just about every liberal/radical idea that has been pushed through over the last few decades?
Will we see a return of the ''Fairness Doctrine" or the passing of 'hate speech' laws, which have been attempted in the past? These things could seriously stifle free speech.
I think an enormous amount of damage could be done in a very short time, more than in a typical Democrat administration, because any real opposition would be silenced, neutered.
In recent days and weeks there have been a number of articles in the media hinting at riots and mass civil unrest should Obama lose the election. And I guarantee that there WILL be anger, and charges of 'election stealing' and worse if the election is close and Obama loses. We've seen a preview of that in the past couple of elections, with the Democrats pulling out all the stops. The 2000 election debacle, which seemed to drag on forever, was very dispiriting and infuriating. It would be worse if this election goes to McCain in a close race.
Could it not be that unrest following a McCain victory might be enough to 'wake people up? Why do we have to hope for the absolute worst case scenario to 'wake people up'? To me, the whole concept is like torching your house in hopes of rebuilding a better one.
I still say, although I've yet to have anyone agree unequivocally with me, that an Obama presidency would set a precedent. It would be a symbolic changing of the guard, a handover of power to the 'new America', the post-European America. Once that precedent is set, will we ever be able to return to majority dominance again? Or will there be cries of 'racism' and 'going backward' if the parties don't run nonwhite candidates the next time around. I feel sure the Republicans have their choice waiting in the wings, and I have my ideas of who it will be. But a precedent will be set, and with an increasingly nonwhite America, we as a people will be on the wane, permanently. Why hasten this day? Why hurry it along? It may be an irreversible step.
The old saying that breaking eggs is necessary to make an omelette is true, but how much would it take to irreparably shatter our country? And speaking of breaking eggs, we know what happened to Humpty Dumpty. All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put him back together again.
I suspect that the people who insist on the "worse is better" strategy have convinced themselves that our country is already beyond repair, and that we have little to lose by gambling it all. But for those of us who believe that there is still something worth saving, why break what is left purposely in hopes that we might be able to put the pieces back together again?
How does this idea persist? It's always been misguided, to view it charitably, or downright treasonous, to take a less charitable view of it.
I've written about it before, and I presented my reasons for thinking that an Obama presidency will not ''wake people up" or ''galvanize the right" or bring about some kind of conservative epiphany and restoration.
There have been so many events over the last ten or twen years that should have been wake-up calls, but were not. We've all become, to some extent, jaded over the steady move leftward and the transformation of America right under our noses. Going back to the early 90s, we saw the L.A riots, the O.J. Simpson acquittal and the jubilation of blacks following that. In more recent years, we've seen the lawlessness and shocking behavior in New Orleans following Katrina, and then the Knoxville murders, (ignored by our mainstream media, as the Katrina atrocities have been airbrushed away or denied) and the daily spectacle of the mass invasion of our country and the brazen marching by the invaders in our cities and towns.
Through all these events, there may have been isolated grumblings or flashes of resentment on the part of the majority, but ultimately people go back to sleep or back to their toys and distractions, while Change marches on.
When I pointed this out in the past, I was told that I was being negative, denying the possibility of an awakening on our part. I would love to believe that THIS time it will be different, that an Obama presidency will be the one galvanizing event. Why should it be, though?
Most presidencies have a 'honeymoon period' in which the new President is given some latitude and enjoys the goodwill of a majority of the people. Obama will coast on that goodwill for a time, but be sure that the very pro-Obama media will provide a permanent honeymoon for their guy. All criticism will be treated as examples of racism and bigotry.
Americans may well become lulled by the initial 'honeymoon' period and even those who did not vote for Obama will grudgingly say 'he's not too bad" or perhaps be taken in by this vaunted 'charisma' which I am told he has. Many Americans who are not troubled by anything resembling political philosophies or moral principles will accept whatever Obama proposes to do. Many Americans are not politically savvy, so they will see nothing wrong with most of the more radical leftist ideas he will promote.
Ever try to explain to an apolitical person, in very basic terms, why leftism and socialism are bad for America? When Obama says we need to 'spread the wealth around', that sounds good to many non-thinking Americans. Who can object to "wealth-spreading"? I've tried to explain why that idea is wrong, but my words don't penetrate through the fog in some cases.
Political illiterates, people who have no idea of our founding principles, or people who vote based on how nice a guy or gal the candidate appears to be, are not swayed by logical arguments or arguments based on principle.
They will not see how Obama is making things worse; they tend to believe whatever they hear on NBC Nightly News or what they hear on The View or Oprah or from Katie Couric.
As to the conservatives who think 'worse is better', I would like to hear specifics regarding how long it will take for worse to become measurably better? And how much worse will it have to get?
The biggest question I have is: how do the 'worse is better' proponents have so much faith that little lasting damage can be done by a Democrat President, plus a Democrat Congress, aided and abetted by a liberal media? The underlying assumption seems to be that whatever harm is done can be easily undone, but yet, when was the last time any incoming Republican administration undid what the Democrats did while in office? Did even the Reagan administration, which most Republicans consider the zenith of conservatism in modern America, undo the liberalism so entrenched from the New Deal and 'Great Society"? To my knowledge, nothing much was undone that had been wrought by a very busy left during those earlier reigns.
When our current President was elected, some were certain he would 'clean house' but he never did, instead choosing not only to abstain from criticizing his predecessor, but to buddy up to Clinton publicly.
And are the worse-is-better advocates confident that Obama will not institute a radical agenda when in office? Who will oppose him? Certainly not a majority Democrat Congress and a lot of supine, spineless Republicans who will be scared spitless of being called bigots.
Over at Red State there is an entry and a discussion on what an Obama administration might do.
This CNN transcript from a while back has Obama discussing his plans for a 'civilian national security force' which he says will be just as strong, powerful, and well-funded as the military. Imagine his followers mobilized into some kind of 'national security force.'
Can we embrace the idea of such a 'civilian national security force'? Or universal national service?
He has said he would like to institute a draft, which would involve young women as well as men. He says if some of us are going to war, all of us should be going.
Would these kinds of things cause this mass awakening? I doubt it; his followers, though usually the military-loathing types, would probably gladly don uniforms for their idol. They would also not oppose a draft if Obama proposed it.
But will these things wake up the 'conservatives'? Or will they just grumble and gripe and eventually accept it and get used to it, as with just about every liberal/radical idea that has been pushed through over the last few decades?
Will we see a return of the ''Fairness Doctrine" or the passing of 'hate speech' laws, which have been attempted in the past? These things could seriously stifle free speech.
I think an enormous amount of damage could be done in a very short time, more than in a typical Democrat administration, because any real opposition would be silenced, neutered.
In recent days and weeks there have been a number of articles in the media hinting at riots and mass civil unrest should Obama lose the election. And I guarantee that there WILL be anger, and charges of 'election stealing' and worse if the election is close and Obama loses. We've seen a preview of that in the past couple of elections, with the Democrats pulling out all the stops. The 2000 election debacle, which seemed to drag on forever, was very dispiriting and infuriating. It would be worse if this election goes to McCain in a close race.
Could it not be that unrest following a McCain victory might be enough to 'wake people up? Why do we have to hope for the absolute worst case scenario to 'wake people up'? To me, the whole concept is like torching your house in hopes of rebuilding a better one.
I still say, although I've yet to have anyone agree unequivocally with me, that an Obama presidency would set a precedent. It would be a symbolic changing of the guard, a handover of power to the 'new America', the post-European America. Once that precedent is set, will we ever be able to return to majority dominance again? Or will there be cries of 'racism' and 'going backward' if the parties don't run nonwhite candidates the next time around. I feel sure the Republicans have their choice waiting in the wings, and I have my ideas of who it will be. But a precedent will be set, and with an increasingly nonwhite America, we as a people will be on the wane, permanently. Why hasten this day? Why hurry it along? It may be an irreversible step.
The old saying that breaking eggs is necessary to make an omelette is true, but how much would it take to irreparably shatter our country? And speaking of breaking eggs, we know what happened to Humpty Dumpty. All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put him back together again.
I suspect that the people who insist on the "worse is better" strategy have convinced themselves that our country is already beyond repair, and that we have little to lose by gambling it all. But for those of us who believe that there is still something worth saving, why break what is left purposely in hopes that we might be able to put the pieces back together again?
Labels: Ethnic Conflicts, Party Politics, Political Campaigns, Presidential Candidates
0 comment Wednesday, June 25, 2014 | admin
We discuss 'diversity' frequently in terms of the 'diversity' which is engineered change via mass immigration for the most part, today.
Michele Bachmann's speech about diversity, which I blogged about last night, referred to the 'diversity' that's always been part of America, according to the offical PC party line.
She is right, in a way, although not in the sense that she implied. She seemed to be saying that we've always had many races and faiths here, just as with our imposed diversity of today. We haven't.
It's true that there were American Indians since the beginning, and African-descended people since the 17th century with the first slaves in the colonies.
I fully expect that we will soon start seeing more fairy-tale history like that in many British 'historic' dramas, like the awful cable TV series about Merlin, King Arthur, et al, or like the Robin Hood series which had Moslems and blacks in Sherwood Forest. Soon our TV dramas and 'documentaries' will have Hindus and Sikhs and Somalis at the Alamo or on the Oregon Trail.
It troubles me that many people start to believe this stuff because they know no better, and because apparently it makes them feel good to think we have always had 'diversity' because it is our 'greatest strength.'
No, the diversity we had was mainly of the Northern/Western European variety, at the beginning. We all know that the English colonized this country, as well as smaller numbers of Swedes and Germans as well as the Dutch, who founded New Amsterdam (later New York.) The Welsh and the Scots were part of the English colonies for the most part.
The Cajuns of Louisiana were a special case in that most of them came to the Louisiana Territory in the 18th century, while it was under French control. So they never 'immigrated' to America, but came from Canada and other places within the French territories to Louisiana.
I count them as 'old stock' though most people consider that this means only the previously-named colonists.
The European-derived 'diversity' that we had in this country worked pretty well, despite the strains that occurred later on when large numbers of people from other countries began to arrive.
Even the peoples of British Isles ancestry seem now to be more divided than ever. Is it because the whole world is re-tribalizing? That might be a good thing, but it is still causing divisions within the ranks of Americans of colonial stock. Not one day goes by that I don't read divisive comments about English or Anglo-Saxon Americans. I can't count the number of comments I've read over several years by people of Scots or Irish descent, bemoaning their victimization at the hands of the English. Yet that was all long, long ago, and nobody today experienced it firsthand, any more than those descended from slaves experienced slavery.
We talk about secession as a solution to the deep rifts between North and South, but what about the other rifts among White Americans of British Isles descent? Can we all form our own little mini-states or fiefdoms?
In the UK, the Scots and the Welsh have their own nationalist movements, and are allowed to do so, but the English, seen as always the oppressors, are not allowed to have their own nationalist movement or ethnic status. Is that the way we are going here?
In this country, most of us who are not descended from recent immigrant stock are an amalgam of different Northern/Western European ethnicities. How, then, can we divide up along ethnic lines? And where is our place in the world if this country breaks apart? Where do those of mixed European ancestry fit in?
Even some pro-Whites say that 'American' is not a nationality or a people, only a civic identity, like 'British' in the UK. So where do we fit in the world, and if we try to continue as a unified American people, how can we put all the rhetoric of resentment and victimhood aside? It seems our people have been poisoned by all the decades of victimhood and grievance-mongering, so that many White Americans have picked it up and joined in the chorus of complaint.
The South has heretofore had a very strong identity, and the very reason for that is that there was, until recently, less 'diversity' there. Much of the South received few immigrants, especially those from very disparate cultures and peoples. There was a commonality of culture, and little dividing up along ethnic lines (Scots-Irish or 'Celtic' vs. Anglo-Saxon). Now that division seems to be growing. Can it be overcome?
It has to be, I say, or we don't have much on which to build.
But how is it to be done? It does not help that many people do not know basic history and simply believe whatever popular ideas or canards are out there. The divisions that seem so important to many Southerners seem to have been fueled in great part by David Hackett Fischer's ''Albion's Seed" which seems to be viewed as gospel by those who cite it. I think his book is the one most often cited for the idea of the 'Celtic South', and I think it is oversimplified, though that idea is promulgated through one (or more) of the Southron partisan groups.
How can we get past this oversimplified preconception? It won't be easy, because it is firmly entrenched, and it seems to be an emotional perspective that does not base itself on facts.
Other ethnic identities under the European category are also becoming more nationalistic. As I said, though, this may be good in an abstract sense, but it undermines any unity that we once had as majority Americans, and those of English ancestry are odd men out because we are seen as 'only' generic Americans with a non-identity. This is ironic considering that Englishmen founded this country, and expressly did so for their 'posterity', who are now the red-headed stepchildren in the land our forefathers created.
I am probably waging a losing battle at trying to fend off these divisions, and I do whatever I can by writing about this neglected subject. I try especially to find and to cite older sources so that we can see things from a clearer perspective than that of the 20th and 21st centuries, which seem to be a time of confusion, in all senses of that word.
Michele Bachmann's speech about diversity, which I blogged about last night, referred to the 'diversity' that's always been part of America, according to the offical PC party line.
She is right, in a way, although not in the sense that she implied. She seemed to be saying that we've always had many races and faiths here, just as with our imposed diversity of today. We haven't.
It's true that there were American Indians since the beginning, and African-descended people since the 17th century with the first slaves in the colonies.
I fully expect that we will soon start seeing more fairy-tale history like that in many British 'historic' dramas, like the awful cable TV series about Merlin, King Arthur, et al, or like the Robin Hood series which had Moslems and blacks in Sherwood Forest. Soon our TV dramas and 'documentaries' will have Hindus and Sikhs and Somalis at the Alamo or on the Oregon Trail.
It troubles me that many people start to believe this stuff because they know no better, and because apparently it makes them feel good to think we have always had 'diversity' because it is our 'greatest strength.'
No, the diversity we had was mainly of the Northern/Western European variety, at the beginning. We all know that the English colonized this country, as well as smaller numbers of Swedes and Germans as well as the Dutch, who founded New Amsterdam (later New York.) The Welsh and the Scots were part of the English colonies for the most part.
The Cajuns of Louisiana were a special case in that most of them came to the Louisiana Territory in the 18th century, while it was under French control. So they never 'immigrated' to America, but came from Canada and other places within the French territories to Louisiana.
I count them as 'old stock' though most people consider that this means only the previously-named colonists.
The European-derived 'diversity' that we had in this country worked pretty well, despite the strains that occurred later on when large numbers of people from other countries began to arrive.
Even the peoples of British Isles ancestry seem now to be more divided than ever. Is it because the whole world is re-tribalizing? That might be a good thing, but it is still causing divisions within the ranks of Americans of colonial stock. Not one day goes by that I don't read divisive comments about English or Anglo-Saxon Americans. I can't count the number of comments I've read over several years by people of Scots or Irish descent, bemoaning their victimization at the hands of the English. Yet that was all long, long ago, and nobody today experienced it firsthand, any more than those descended from slaves experienced slavery.
We talk about secession as a solution to the deep rifts between North and South, but what about the other rifts among White Americans of British Isles descent? Can we all form our own little mini-states or fiefdoms?
In the UK, the Scots and the Welsh have their own nationalist movements, and are allowed to do so, but the English, seen as always the oppressors, are not allowed to have their own nationalist movement or ethnic status. Is that the way we are going here?
In this country, most of us who are not descended from recent immigrant stock are an amalgam of different Northern/Western European ethnicities. How, then, can we divide up along ethnic lines? And where is our place in the world if this country breaks apart? Where do those of mixed European ancestry fit in?
Even some pro-Whites say that 'American' is not a nationality or a people, only a civic identity, like 'British' in the UK. So where do we fit in the world, and if we try to continue as a unified American people, how can we put all the rhetoric of resentment and victimhood aside? It seems our people have been poisoned by all the decades of victimhood and grievance-mongering, so that many White Americans have picked it up and joined in the chorus of complaint.
The South has heretofore had a very strong identity, and the very reason for that is that there was, until recently, less 'diversity' there. Much of the South received few immigrants, especially those from very disparate cultures and peoples. There was a commonality of culture, and little dividing up along ethnic lines (Scots-Irish or 'Celtic' vs. Anglo-Saxon). Now that division seems to be growing. Can it be overcome?
It has to be, I say, or we don't have much on which to build.
But how is it to be done? It does not help that many people do not know basic history and simply believe whatever popular ideas or canards are out there. The divisions that seem so important to many Southerners seem to have been fueled in great part by David Hackett Fischer's ''Albion's Seed" which seems to be viewed as gospel by those who cite it. I think his book is the one most often cited for the idea of the 'Celtic South', and I think it is oversimplified, though that idea is promulgated through one (or more) of the Southron partisan groups.
How can we get past this oversimplified preconception? It won't be easy, because it is firmly entrenched, and it seems to be an emotional perspective that does not base itself on facts.
Other ethnic identities under the European category are also becoming more nationalistic. As I said, though, this may be good in an abstract sense, but it undermines any unity that we once had as majority Americans, and those of English ancestry are odd men out because we are seen as 'only' generic Americans with a non-identity. This is ironic considering that Englishmen founded this country, and expressly did so for their 'posterity', who are now the red-headed stepchildren in the land our forefathers created.
I am probably waging a losing battle at trying to fend off these divisions, and I do whatever I can by writing about this neglected subject. I try especially to find and to cite older sources so that we can see things from a clearer perspective than that of the 20th and 21st centuries, which seem to be a time of confusion, in all senses of that word.
Labels: Celtic Vs Anglo-Saxon, Cultural Nationalism, Ethnic Conflicts, South
0 comment Friday, June 6, 2014 | admin
Yesterday in a comment, reader Philip alerted us to this story about allegations of human organ trafficking in Kosovo. As of yesterday I had read nothing about it, but it seems to be a more widely-reported story today.
In the AP article mentioned above, (no excerpt) Kosovo Prime Minister Thaci said these reports were 'monstrous'.
This story from Agence France-Presse quotes a Swiss Council of Europe representative, Dick Marty, who in a report names Thaci as being one of the principals in an organ-trafficking ring.
STRASBOURG (AFP) � Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci was one of the key players in the traffic of organs of Serb prisoners after the 1998-99 conflict there, according to allegations in a draft Council of Europe report.
The report, by Swiss Council of Europe deputy Dick Marty, accuses Thaci and other senior commanders of the ethnic Albanian guerrilla group the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) of having set up the traffic.
The draft report was published on the Council of Europe website on Tuesday and will be considered by its legal affairs committee on Thursday.
In Pristina, the government of Thaci dismissed the report as fabrications designed to smear the country's leaders.
Marty wrote of substantial evidence that Serbians -- and some Albanian Kosovars -- had been secretly imprisoned by the KLA in northern Albania "and were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, before ultimately disappearing."
At the end of the above-quoted article is a link to the draft report at the Council of Europe's website.
Here ia a piece from Politico.com which provides more details. If you peruse the comments at the Politico posting, you will see echoed there the longstanding feeling that we (America, or our government, more accurately) were on the wrong side in the Balkan conflict, and that these kinds of activities by the KLA were already in evidence when 'our' government sided against the Serbs there. The idea of setting up a Kosovar state seems to have been a particularly ill-conceived one, and we have Bill Clinton to thank, among others, for that. Bill Clinton was more than just a hedonistic lecher who disgraced this country by his personal escapades; he was the author of (or collaborator in) some real blunders, including this debacle in the Balkans.
Are the stories of missing organs and prisoners executed for their kidneys credible? A commenter there expresses skepticism.
''Patrick says:
My feeling is that many of the rumors of what is going on inside Kosovo are often manufactured, bias and focused on making the Albanian people and Kosovo as a region seem like a very hostile place, especially for Serbs.
Who on earth would want to return with his family to a place where there are reports of illegal abduction ending in death and the removal of organs?
That's right... No one would return alone or let alone with his family to such a region - ever! ''
It's true that for years, there has been a popular urban legend that there are 'organ thieves' who abduct and remove kidneys from hapless tourists. But as we see here, these grisly 'legends' have proven true in some cases, at least in India.
And the KLA has been notorious for some unsavory activities for a long time, as this article from a dozen years ago indicates.
This article from the EU Observer quotes Mr. Marty as having said that 'the West' has not done enough to investigate allegations of war crimes in the region. I hope that 'the West' taking action will not mean that Americans will be drawn into any kind of military action over there, but given the fact that 'we' have sided with the Kosovars it would seem unlikely that our present regime would wish to be involved in this situation.
My greater concern would be that with our policy of welcoming in refugees from that region, we may unwittingly be bringing this kind of thing into our midst. Back in the late 90s the Clinton administration agreed to take 20,000 Kosovar refugees into this country.
''Then, in an April 21 speech at Ellis Island, Vice President Gore announced that the Kosovar Albanians would be resettled as refugees in the U.S.: "We will accept, on the American mainland, up to 20,000 of the hurting and homeless Kosovar refugees those with close family ties in America and those who are vulnerable. ... We will bring them here until they are able to return home safely." But Gore continued to insist that the refugees' stay would be temporary: "We anticipate their return to Kosovo. . . . the ones coming to the United States, will also be prepared to return on short notice."
By the next day, however, administration officials conceded the obvious that many of the Kosovar Albanians would obtain permanent residence in the United States, a benefit available after one year to anyone admitted as a refugee. In the words of a senior administration official, "We are going to try to create conditions in Kosovo for these people to return, but the choice will ultimately be theirs." Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Albanian Issues Caucus, put it more plainly: "And let's face it, after a year or two, they'd have had a taste of political freedom. They won't want to go back. . . The reality is that the vast majority are probably here to stay." These 'temporary' refugees, as the CIS article indicates, have a way of becoming permanent, and forming permanent enclaves in our country -- essentially mini-versions of the 'old country' and all its problems and pathologies.
So we can't pretend that these conflicts on the other side of the globe are of no concern for us, as they end up on our doorstep sooner rather than later, these days.
Diversity is costly.
In the AP article mentioned above, (no excerpt) Kosovo Prime Minister Thaci said these reports were 'monstrous'.
This story from Agence France-Presse quotes a Swiss Council of Europe representative, Dick Marty, who in a report names Thaci as being one of the principals in an organ-trafficking ring.
STRASBOURG (AFP) � Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci was one of the key players in the traffic of organs of Serb prisoners after the 1998-99 conflict there, according to allegations in a draft Council of Europe report.
The report, by Swiss Council of Europe deputy Dick Marty, accuses Thaci and other senior commanders of the ethnic Albanian guerrilla group the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) of having set up the traffic.
The draft report was published on the Council of Europe website on Tuesday and will be considered by its legal affairs committee on Thursday.
In Pristina, the government of Thaci dismissed the report as fabrications designed to smear the country's leaders.
Marty wrote of substantial evidence that Serbians -- and some Albanian Kosovars -- had been secretly imprisoned by the KLA in northern Albania "and were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, before ultimately disappearing."
At the end of the above-quoted article is a link to the draft report at the Council of Europe's website.
Here ia a piece from Politico.com which provides more details. If you peruse the comments at the Politico posting, you will see echoed there the longstanding feeling that we (America, or our government, more accurately) were on the wrong side in the Balkan conflict, and that these kinds of activities by the KLA were already in evidence when 'our' government sided against the Serbs there. The idea of setting up a Kosovar state seems to have been a particularly ill-conceived one, and we have Bill Clinton to thank, among others, for that. Bill Clinton was more than just a hedonistic lecher who disgraced this country by his personal escapades; he was the author of (or collaborator in) some real blunders, including this debacle in the Balkans.
Are the stories of missing organs and prisoners executed for their kidneys credible? A commenter there expresses skepticism.
''Patrick says:
My feeling is that many of the rumors of what is going on inside Kosovo are often manufactured, bias and focused on making the Albanian people and Kosovo as a region seem like a very hostile place, especially for Serbs.
Who on earth would want to return with his family to a place where there are reports of illegal abduction ending in death and the removal of organs?
That's right... No one would return alone or let alone with his family to such a region - ever! ''
It's true that for years, there has been a popular urban legend that there are 'organ thieves' who abduct and remove kidneys from hapless tourists. But as we see here, these grisly 'legends' have proven true in some cases, at least in India.
And the KLA has been notorious for some unsavory activities for a long time, as this article from a dozen years ago indicates.
This article from the EU Observer quotes Mr. Marty as having said that 'the West' has not done enough to investigate allegations of war crimes in the region. I hope that 'the West' taking action will not mean that Americans will be drawn into any kind of military action over there, but given the fact that 'we' have sided with the Kosovars it would seem unlikely that our present regime would wish to be involved in this situation.
My greater concern would be that with our policy of welcoming in refugees from that region, we may unwittingly be bringing this kind of thing into our midst. Back in the late 90s the Clinton administration agreed to take 20,000 Kosovar refugees into this country.
''Then, in an April 21 speech at Ellis Island, Vice President Gore announced that the Kosovar Albanians would be resettled as refugees in the U.S.: "We will accept, on the American mainland, up to 20,000 of the hurting and homeless Kosovar refugees those with close family ties in America and those who are vulnerable. ... We will bring them here until they are able to return home safely." But Gore continued to insist that the refugees' stay would be temporary: "We anticipate their return to Kosovo. . . . the ones coming to the United States, will also be prepared to return on short notice."
By the next day, however, administration officials conceded the obvious that many of the Kosovar Albanians would obtain permanent residence in the United States, a benefit available after one year to anyone admitted as a refugee. In the words of a senior administration official, "We are going to try to create conditions in Kosovo for these people to return, but the choice will ultimately be theirs." Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Albanian Issues Caucus, put it more plainly: "And let's face it, after a year or two, they'd have had a taste of political freedom. They won't want to go back. . . The reality is that the vast majority are probably here to stay." These 'temporary' refugees, as the CIS article indicates, have a way of becoming permanent, and forming permanent enclaves in our country -- essentially mini-versions of the 'old country' and all its problems and pathologies.
So we can't pretend that these conflicts on the other side of the globe are of no concern for us, as they end up on our doorstep sooner rather than later, these days.
Diversity is costly.
Labels: Balkans, Ethnic Conflicts, Eu, Islam, Refugees
0 comment Wednesday, May 7, 2014 | admin
I can't fault much of what Jared Taylor says in this piece on Why Obama Will Win. I suppose my problem with the piece has to do with his conclusions. Overall, I get the impression that Mr. Taylor believes that an Obama presidency will, at worst, be ineffectual and bumbling, that it will be a failure in the sense of not being able to deliver on promises made.
If only I thought that. If the worst we had to deal with was just another ineffective presidency, it would not be so bad.
The concluding sentence of the piece is the following:
''It will be an edifying presidency; and whites may be a little less deluded in 2012.''
Now, maybe there's some meaning of the adjective 'edifying' which eludes me; my Webster's Dictionary gives this secondary meaning of the verb to edify:
'2. To instruct and improve, esp. by good example; to profit morally or spiritually.'
For the life of me, I cannot see how we might even be instructed, much less 'improved' by an Obama presidency, and I am really at a loss as to imagine how we might profit morally or spiritually by it.
It does seem as though Mr. Taylor is joining the 'worse is better' group, although he stops short of recommending that his readers vote for Obama as a number of people on the right have done.
I gather that he sees the election of Obama as a certainty, and most of the time, I see it the same way.
However the election is still a few months away. Things could change in that period of time. It ain't over till it's over. Unless, of course, the whole process is rigged, which is entirely possible. At no time in my life have I ever had less confidence or trust in the system.
The discussion that follows is a lengthy and interesting one. I expect many of you have already read it. If not, click on the link and read it. There are a few useless comments but many good ones.
The following comment seems to be along the lines of what I have been thinking since the Obama speech in Berlin:
I met a woman with high political connections in this country. She stated flatly that they want Obama as a President because then nobody in the world would criticize us because we would have collectively put on his racial armor. And our countries actions would not be called out because that country or person would then be guilty of racism.
So they apparently think they will be needing this heavy armor for what they have in mind next. This reasoning frightened me�''
It makes sense, in a crazy way. I can imagine our elite masters thinking this way. Judging by the insane policies they are forcing on us, it make a perverse kind of sense.
I don't doubt that all the decades of conditioning of the American masses are meant to bring us to the day when we are willing to submit to being led by minorities, because this is the only way the global agenda can be implemented. And if this one-world agenda is to succeed, we can't have a White male at the helm nor a White dominant majority in this country. We have to be humbled and brought down, leveled with the rest of the world, apparently.
Not so many years ago, I would have scoffed at this idea, but things have become so crazy in this world that few bizarre explanations seem implausible when trying to understand it.
If an Obama presidency would be a mostly failed endeavor, we'd have little to be concerned about, but I am not convinced of that. I don't think, as I once naively thought, that the President is really 'the most powerful man in the world.' But he does have the most powerful men in the world behind him, or he would not become President.
If only I thought that. If the worst we had to deal with was just another ineffective presidency, it would not be so bad.
The concluding sentence of the piece is the following:
''It will be an edifying presidency; and whites may be a little less deluded in 2012.''
Now, maybe there's some meaning of the adjective 'edifying' which eludes me; my Webster's Dictionary gives this secondary meaning of the verb to edify:
'2. To instruct and improve, esp. by good example; to profit morally or spiritually.'
For the life of me, I cannot see how we might even be instructed, much less 'improved' by an Obama presidency, and I am really at a loss as to imagine how we might profit morally or spiritually by it.
It does seem as though Mr. Taylor is joining the 'worse is better' group, although he stops short of recommending that his readers vote for Obama as a number of people on the right have done.
I gather that he sees the election of Obama as a certainty, and most of the time, I see it the same way.
However the election is still a few months away. Things could change in that period of time. It ain't over till it's over. Unless, of course, the whole process is rigged, which is entirely possible. At no time in my life have I ever had less confidence or trust in the system.
The discussion that follows is a lengthy and interesting one. I expect many of you have already read it. If not, click on the link and read it. There are a few useless comments but many good ones.
The following comment seems to be along the lines of what I have been thinking since the Obama speech in Berlin:
I met a woman with high political connections in this country. She stated flatly that they want Obama as a President because then nobody in the world would criticize us because we would have collectively put on his racial armor. And our countries actions would not be called out because that country or person would then be guilty of racism.
So they apparently think they will be needing this heavy armor for what they have in mind next. This reasoning frightened me�''
It makes sense, in a crazy way. I can imagine our elite masters thinking this way. Judging by the insane policies they are forcing on us, it make a perverse kind of sense.
I don't doubt that all the decades of conditioning of the American masses are meant to bring us to the day when we are willing to submit to being led by minorities, because this is the only way the global agenda can be implemented. And if this one-world agenda is to succeed, we can't have a White male at the helm nor a White dominant majority in this country. We have to be humbled and brought down, leveled with the rest of the world, apparently.
Not so many years ago, I would have scoffed at this idea, but things have become so crazy in this world that few bizarre explanations seem implausible when trying to understand it.
If an Obama presidency would be a mostly failed endeavor, we'd have little to be concerned about, but I am not convinced of that. I don't think, as I once naively thought, that the President is really 'the most powerful man in the world.' But he does have the most powerful men in the world behind him, or he would not become President.
Labels: Elites, Ethnic Conflicts, Globalism, Political Correctness, Presidential Candidates