Polite Kid

Another good post from Iron Ink . It's well worth a read.
Talking about Race in modern America is the equivalent of talking about sex in the Victorian age. Most people have some experience with it but don�t want to talk publicly about it, and when it is brought up by somebody people either begin to blush or they go silent. Historical White America, if you don�t start learning how to intelligently but directly talk about race issues without either being intimidated or crude you�re culture is going to be decimated racially, ideologically, and financially. Historical White America, if you don�t start learning how to intelligently but directly talk about race issues without being either intimidated or crude your culture and your God is going to be replaced.''
Read the entire thing at the link.

Labels: Anti-Christianity, Blogs, Political Correctness, Racial Division

This was posted over at Western Voices World News.
I agree with the WVWN folks that the man in the video is brave and that he conducts himself very well, considering. All the same, it is a vexing thing to watch and to listen to. I don't know what TV program this is, but it seems to be on a par with 'Jerry Springer' (same type of audience and atmosphere) and the female hosting it is obnoxious and flagrantly biased -- which is usual for TV here and in the UK. The fact, though, that this one lone Englishman is having to stand his ground against an audience stacked with hooting and jeering ''Britons'' from various corners of the Third World hardly constitutes any kind of fair discussion. The few Whites in the audience (if indeed they were White) were acting as outraged by what the man said as the minorities were, with all their gesticulating, pointing (bad manners; hasn't anyone told them that?) and eye-rolling.
In fact, they actually made some of his points for him, but the brainwashed ex-Whites in the audience and their ''new Briton'' companions won't be able to see that.
However, I give the English guy enormous credit for speaking his mind amongst a hostile mob, and seeming to do so very calmly.
For the rest, shame on them. They don't know, or probably care, how badly they came off in that clip.

Labels: Death Of The West, Mass Immigration, Multiculturalism, Race Renegades, Racial Division, United Kingdom

''...McWhorter suggests we're in a transitional phase in the way people feel about race as a national obsession. In the short run, "I suspect that where we are going is whites feeling ever more that it's time we blacks get over it, while an ever shrinking population of blacks continue hoping that whites will change their tune and 'wake up,' " he says. But this too shall (eventually) pass. "In about 50 years," he adds, "we will be so hybrid a nation that any idea of black-white relations as a major problem in need of address will seem archaic."
The above comments from John McWhorter, who is often touted as one of the 'moderate' or 'conservative' blacks, are part of the concluding paragraph from a piece called Double Vision: The Race Issue Revisited from AdWeek.
According to Ron Guhname at Inductivist, McWhorter said on the Laura Ingraham show that he is supporting Obama.
...he plans to vote for Obama for president because of the tremendously positive psychological effect that it will have on blacks. Hope will be felt like never before, and race hustlers like nut surgeon Jesse Jackson won't be taken seriously anymore.''
Mr. McWhorter, in all his racial excitement, must have neglected to read yesterday's New York Times poll:
The results of the poll... suggested that Mr. Obama�s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations.
For the first time ever, the person who is one step away from the most powerful position in the world is black, but still blacks folks don't think things are getting better?!''
Guhname is skeptical of the 'vote-for-Obama-because-worse-is-better' meme which has taken a stubborn hold among some on the right. McWhorter thinks that an Obama presidency will give blacks 'hope' while polls suggest they don't see the prospect of an Obama presidency as any evidence of 'progress.' So what will change after January 20, 2009?
The AdWeek piece on the race issue contains the usual PC boilerplate. Nothing much to see there, but there is confirmation of some of the trends many of us have noticed:
If some white people are insensitive to the travails of their black compatriots, some are very, very sensitive -- and proud of it. "There's now a kind of white person under 30 who thinks of himself as an 'honorary' black person [because he's so highly aware that] the playing field isn't level," says John McWhorter, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Race and Ethnicity, and author of the just-published All About the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can't Save Black America. "Quite simply, the 'playing field' issue means that blackness is thought of as a problem, which is not where we need to go." Moreover, he says, this sort of hyper-consciousness leads to such white people "thinking they can 'be' something that you cannot 'be' unless you were born to it.
[...]
There's clearly a sizable white constituency that welcomes the prospect of an Obama victory as a sign that America has already become a post-racial society -- that the struggle of race is behind us. This sentiment also influences the way in which people react to popular culture, advertising included.
It's obvious to anyone who watches TV that the content of advertising has become more inclusive, and not just in the form of "black" versions of "white" commercials. We see easy-going interaction between the races in recent spots for everything from Miracle-Gro plant food and McDonald's Happy Meals to Levi's jeans.
David Lubars, chairman, CCO of BBDO North America, suggests advertising content is a pop-culture leader in its inclusiveness. "Advertising does a much better job of showing diversity and reflects the American fabric better than the movies or TV shows," he says. "You watch any evening of TV commercials, you see a great mix."
The piece is full of the usual smug PC platitudes on race, and it's clear that the advertising industry has an agenda other than inducing people to buy products or services. They are selling an agenda, trying to shape society towards ends that they see as moral and good. Should that not be the province of clergy and philosophers, not advertisers? Oh, for the good old days of advertising when they were merely pushing widgets or toothpaste or soap. Now they are shaping the world we live in, leading us in directions that we might not go if we were approached more directly, rather than insidiously as with today's advertising.
McWhorter's support for Obama is not surprising; blood is thicker than politics, as we've said before. The idea that Obama's election will inaugurate not only the first black president, but new heavens and a new earth, will prove to have been a fantasy, I'm afraid. It is too big a gamble on a long shot to think that some kind of new consciousness will awaken in White people. As the AdWeek article says, we have a large constituency of White people, especially the under-30s, who see themselves as 'honorary blacks', by virtue of their great sensitivity. One of these days, these people will be in the ascendancy, and an Obama presidency will probably be the beginning of the end of the old America.
The idea of hoping for an Obama débâcle to 'wake people up' reminds me of the idea many non-Christians have about Christian believers. I've heard the accusation made that 'fundamentalists', believing in the impending End Times, want to hasten Armageddon in the Middle East so as to provoke Christ's return and thus inaugurate the 'new heavens and a new earth' promised us. The fact is, I've never encountered a Christian in real life or even on the wild-and-wooly internet who thinks that way, or who would say 'bring on Armageddon!' so as to hasten Christ's second coming. But isn't that the thinking behind the 'worse is better' scenario? Bring it on, so that the millennium will follow? As for me, I have no thoughts of hastening the tribulation. I believe we should work to delay this 'worse' that is supposedly inevitable.
And let's keep in mind that last paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this piece. McWhorter thinks that it will take half a century for our people to be 'hybridized' out of existence. I see it happening much sooner, if things don't turn around, and I am not sure that speeding the process up, which is what an Obama presidency would do, is helpful.

Labels: Advertising, Anti White Racism, Elections, Presidential Candidates, Propaganda, Racial Division, Racial Guilt

Some of you will have noticed that one of my pet peeves is the favorite Republican mantra: ''liberals are the real racists.''
This meme has been in existence among Republicans for a number of years now, but it seems to have become a frequently-resorted-to phrase since the last presidential campaign, especially.
Do a search on the phrase 'liberals real racists' and you will get many, many hits. Too many to read through, as I found when I searched on that phrase.
It is pretty obvious to me that the phrase was cooked up by some Republican 'wit' who had just been called the r-word (racist, not Republican) by some liberal/multicultist. It amounts to the schoolyard retort, ''I know you are, but what am I?'' It is just about as intelligent.
The end result of this accusation being flung at lefties and diversity cultists is that now we have twice as many White folks calling each other ''racist!" back and forth, endlessly. Way to go.
It surely must amuse the diversities that Whites are now calling each other their favorite term of abuse. Now they can take some time off, and let us call each other the 'r-word' while they sit back and watch and laugh.
We are doing their job for them. They don't need to race-bait anymore; we are doing it to each other.
I decided some years ago that I won't use the word 'racist' or 'racism' except in an ironic sense. I won't write it here without scare quotes. So you won't find me joining in the counter-accusations against our lefty/multicultist foes. I can think of many other names, mostly unflattering, that fit them, but I can think of no good reason to join in the race-baiting.
First, I think it serves no useful purpose. Do the people who employ that tactic think it will shock some leftist or politically correct brainwash-ee into an epiphany? Do we think it will shame them into admitting that they harbor racist thoughts?
If a leftist were brutally honest with himself, he would admit that by claiming that Whites are congenitally bigoted against nonwhites, then he himself must be just as guilty as the Republicans whom he loathes. White privilege makes us all guilty, according to the leftists and nonwhites. So by that line of thought, liberals and 'conservatives' are equally guilty of the 'White original sin.'
But are liberals or progressives 'racists' as most people understand that word? If their definition is true, if 'racist' means anybody who 1) notices race and/or 2) believes the races differ in some intrinsic way, then what do we call the liberals who see the races as different in ways that flatter nonwhites, and who believe that all the problems of nonwhites, being caused by Whites, must be rectified by Whites?
I understand that Republicans and 'colorblind conservatives' are trying to make the case that the do-gooder Whites who are perpetually tending to nonwhites are being paternalistic. Paternalism can be interpreted as meaning that nonwhites are incapable of taking care of themselves, or even of defending themselves verbally. For example, liberals will jump to the defense of nonwhites when they sniff out any hint of 'bigotry' from a fellow White. They will argue in the name of the nonwhite as if that nonwhite cannot defend himself. I suppose this is their rather deluded idea of chivalry - which in its true form calls for defending the weak and the lame and the halt. But I think it bizarre that they haven't noticed that nonwhites can and do defend themselves loudly, vociferously, and stridently. Why White liberals imagine that they need to act as lawyers for their favorite victim groups, (mascots, as Thomas Sowell put it) is beyond me.
The liberals' client groups are certainly able to speak up for themselves; they are not weak at all in that sense. And they have the media 110 percent on their side; the media, being made up of leftists of one stripe or another, does little but defend the perceived downtrodden victim groups. It is a leftist fallacy that 'minorities' are 'underserved populations' or that their 'voices are excluded from the public discourse.' That notion is laugh-out-loud funny.
But does paternalism imply a sense of superiority, or a dominant/subservient relationship between the person helping and those being helped? I don't think so. I think that most leftists have convinced themselves that they are the possessors of something called 'White privilege' which makes them the beneficiaries of many un-earned benefits. They think these benefits are taken directly from nonwhites and given, unjustly, to us. So they think they are righting a wrong.
If they want to be self-abasing altruists who are willing to serve others at their own expense, that's their choice -- but where it goes badly wrong is when they enshrine that altruism in public policy, making it the law of the land. And where it goes really, really wrong is when they force the rest of us, essentially, to participate in this racial self-abasement and penance.
You cannot coerce people into loving their neighbor, or even liking their neighbor.
As for the allegation made by the Republicans that 'liberals keep minorities on the plantation; they keep them dependent, they don't want them to succeed', this is carried to absurd lengths. For example on Free Republic, whenever some social scientists' list of 'the ten worst cities' is posted, and the worst cities are all, ahem, 'diverse', the FReepers solemnly insist that ''all those cities have Democrat government. That's why they are crime-ridden, bankrupt, corrupt, and unlivable.'' On some blog or other, when a picture of the infamous ruins of Detroit was posted, the 'colorblind conservatives' lived up to their epithet by intoning that 'that's what happens when you elect Democrats.' Some of them even blamed the Katrina disaster on 'Democrat rule.'
According to that school of thought, if only Democrats would stop creating welfare dependency and bad schools, nonwhites would be able to prosper and become exemplary citizens everywhere. If only nonwhites could learn that 'conservatism' would cure all their ills, they would be fine. Unfortunately no one, apparently, has told them about the conservative panacea, so they remain shackled by the liberals -- who are the real racists. QED.
Mind you, I think welfare dependency and social pathologies are exacerbated by liberal policies, but to believe that they alone are the cause of the 'achievement gap' or the social gulf between the races is silly. This denies the possibility of innate differences of ability and potential as an explanation.
George W. Bush had that famous phrase about 'soft bigotry of low expectations', which was just a more florid way of saying 'liberals are the real racists.' The idea behind that phrase about the soft bigotry is that if we expect nonwhites to become top achievers, they will, eventually. It's all a matter of positive thinking and 'encouraging their potential and boosting their self-esteem.' Yes, compassionate conservatism, as it styled itself, had a great many presuppositions in common with old-fashioned liberalism.
The 'colorblind', compassionate conservatives share this presupposition with the left: that it is Whitey, ultimately, who is keeping the black folk down. They just disagree on which Whitey is doing this: is it the mean, bigoted, hateful Republican r-words, or is it, rather, the paternalistic Democrat r-words?
Notice the agreement with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al that is implicit here? Whites calling each other racists simply cements the belief that all Whites are, in fact, racists, whether they admit it, or especially, if they deny it.
Now we have the Tea Partiers, in many cases, jumping through hoops to prove just how really, really NOT racist they are, all the while pointing the finger at the left, who are again accusing the right. This has all become the theatre of the absurd.
When we descend to this tactic of name-calling, of tu quoque, of "he did it first!", when we descend to using the increasingly meaningless word 'racist', we are further debasing the language, not to mention further degrading what passes for political dialogue in this country.
And above all, this tactic does not work; it is going nowhere.
This constant use of the word 'racist' does nothing but keep the racial kettle on the boil; it puts nonwhites at the center of everything -- which in a sense they are. But it puts them in the coveted position of having their favor and approval courted by both sides.
Moreover, in the eagerness to prove who is the 'real racist' Republicans are digging themselves deeper into the PC hole. They will probably follow up on all the talk by pandering even more, as if appointing Steele was not pandering enough. Next, in the ''who's the real racist'' contest, it will be necessary to offer an affirmative action presidential candidate. That is in the cards, unless the Republicans get off this merry-go-round.

Labels: Anti-White, Liberalism, Party Politics, Political Correctness, Racial Division

The New York Times gushes about the wonders of interracial families, which, in the multicult's world-view, are inherently superior to monoracial, specifically, White families.
I suppose the zeal of the multicultists to ensure that everybody has an available nonwhite partner out there must be a big factor in their big push, since 1965, to de-Whiten America. After all, in a country with a small nonwhite population, Whites would be too likely to marry one another and have White children. And that is a highly undesirable state of affairs for the multicultists. So the percentage of nonwhites had to be increased drastically in order to accelerate things.
Many people have themselves convinced that the government's eagerness for mass immigration is due mostly to the desire for cheap labor on the part of business, but now we have liberals and 'progressives' more or less openly admitting what the older generations said back in the era of the Civil Rights Revolution: that intermarriage was an ultimate goal of such 'activism.'
The older generations said that then, and they were called 'bigots' for even suggesting that intermarriage was an implicit goal of 'desegregation' but now the media cheerfully and openly admit it.
And here's the scary part: the liberal/multiculti mindset thinks that intermarriage is so good, and indeed, so imperative for America, that they are willing to entertain the idea of governmental policies meddling in people's marital choices, as this Slate article on interracial marriage suggests:
...All these numbers may be climbing, but they remain low. What's more, the white-black marriage rate lags significantly behind rates of white intermarriage with other, nonblack races. Among 25-to-34-year-olds, 52 percent of Native Americans and 40 percent of Asians married outside their race, while only 6 percent of blacks did so. The racism that kept Alabama's constitution unchanged has hardly been eradicated. Whether these habits will change on their own, with the maturation of a more tolerant generation, or whether full social acceptance of black Americans will require a concerted governmental effort, is unknowable. In the meantime, we can take only meager pride in achieving a society in which interracial marriage is safe, legal, and, alas, rare.''
I wonder if Mr. Greenberg is married to a nonwhite spouse?
What kind of 'concerted governmental effort', one wonders, would be contemplated? Penalizing those who participate in 'racist' marriages with those of their own race? Making such marriages a 'hate-crime'? Incentives for interracial marriages? What?
First, the laws against interracial marriage were overturned and now the homosexual agenda is following that precedent to press for same-sex marriage as a 'right.'
However, going from merely allowing irregular or unnatural marriages to take place to actively promoting them via government policy and funding is another step towards totalitarianism. On the one hand, first leftists claim that the government should take a hands-off approach to marriage, it being a choice between 'consenting adults.' but now suddenly government should be meddling in our personal choices. How does that work?
To say that government has no right to dictate who we may marry, at least in regards to male and female, is one thing, but to then turn around and agitate for the government to promote mixed-race marriages is illogical.
But there can be little doubt that there is an agenda being promoted, and that the results of the recent election seem to have given the government and the media propagandists the green light to push forward, full speed ahead, with that Babelizing agenda.
(H/T James Edwards)

Labels: Babelism, Cultural Marxism, Demographics, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Race Replacement, Racial Division, Social Engineering

The subject of multiculturalism and how it developed has come up many times on this blog. One idea that has been mentioned on discussion threads occasionally is the idea that multiculturalism and what has since become 'anti-racism' were very much a product of the Cold War era in American history. I agree with this assessment. The Cold War was one factor among a number of factors, but it was a substantial one, I think, in the development of what became the Civil Rights revolution. We can hear hints of this in John F. Kennedy's "Civil Rights Address" of 1963:
...this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.
We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is the land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or caste system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes?
Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them. The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives.
We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and a people. It cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is a time to act in the Congress, in your State and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives. It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this a problem of one section of the country or another, or deplore the facts that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all. Those who do nothing are inviting shame, as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right, as well as reality.''
It may be that other motives were at work here; of course there were do-gooders and utopian leftists as well as cynical, power-mad leftists at the center of this movement, but on the part of our government I can well believe that much of the rhetoric, such as that employed by JFK, was motivated by the fact that these racial incidents amounted to bad PR for America in the Cold War era.
At that time, the Cold War was at its height. Now, I am in no way dismissing the Communist threat, or the 'Soviet threat' although the latter was probably inflated. But we were obsessed with competing with ''the Russians" back then. I remember well how the news media constantly fretted about the Soviet Union. Newspapers often reported what the Russian ''news" media, such as Pravda and Izvestia were saying about America. We heard how they hated our popular culture, such as our decadent music like jazz and rock 'n roll, and our Hollywood movies, which they saw as examples of 'capitalist decadence.' That, of course, was the old left, which was quite prudish, even more so than the most conservative Christian sects. The postmodern left in the West embraces decadence enthusiastically, and in fact makes a virtue of it.
We read of how the Soviets banned much of our music and entertainment, and how they promoted a very negative view of the United States as a corrupt, unjust nation which let the poor starve and which denied blacks and other minorities their 'equal rights.'
We read many news reports out of the Soviet Union, describing how they brought many African students to Moscow to study at the university, and this was seen as a triumph of the Soviets' greater egalitarianism. We read of how some blacks from America, such as Paul Robeson, defected to the Soviet Union and found it to be a utopia, much superior to our country because the Soviets were 'colorblind.'
The Soviets courted emerging Third World countries -- which were then gaining their independence from the European colonial powers. The United States and the Soviets were in a worldwide competition to form alliances. We courted certain countries, and the Soviets had their sphere of influence. Cuba was a big crisis spot after the Revolution in which the Communist Fidel Castro seized power, and Cuba, being a ''multiracial'' nation suddenly became very important to us.
Obviously if these 'developing' nations, watching from afar, saw apparent injustices or 'brutality' towards blacks in our country, they would become hostile to us, and that wouldn't do, in a world which was being divided into two camps, Communist and 'free.'
It seemed to be all-important to our government to present a more egalitarian face to the world, so as to improve our image. We were in competition with the Communists, who claimed to have no color, race, or class barriers. So we decided, it seems, to compete with them on their terms, and to try to outdo them in being colorblind and equality-obsessed.
Another factor, with the aforementioned Cubans, was the presence of many Cuban refugees fleeing the Castro regime. They became an ethnic bloc who were to be pandered to, just as later 'refugees' from other Communist countries were. This put us a few steps farther down the multicultural road.
With the Cubans, the whole issue of bilingualism and the development of enclaves presaged the multicultural project that developed in the ensuing decades. And by the late 1960s, almost all immigration was from nonwhite countries, so that multiculturalism became a necessity, it seemed, as an alternative to pretending to assimilate unmanageable numbers of unassimilable peoples.
But our obsession with the Soviet Union as our greatest rival and threat led us to adopting the ill-omened policy of making ourselves over in the egalitarian image, with the Soviet Union as an exemplar for us. If they were 'colorblind' we had to be more so; if they welcomed Africans and other nonwhites, we had to outdo them so as to show how much better we were.
Decades later, we've become like a caricature of the old Soviet bloc countries in our zeal for 'political correctness' and re-education (alias ''sensitivity training"). Some years ago, Balint Vazsonyi, a Hungarian immigrant who became a patriotic naturalized American, warned us of how far we were straying down the same path as his former country in its Communist days. I am sure, were he alive today, he would be dismayed to see how much things have deteriorated even in the few years since his death.
The same pattern seems to be playing out in the West as a whole; everybody in Europe and in all of former Christendom has decided to embrace the extreme egalitarianism and multiculturalism. Of course it all fits very nicely with the drive towards a 'global world.' Funny how that worked out.
There is no doubt that our obsession with the Soviet Union, and our frenzied competition with them, was a bigger factor than most people acknowledge in the development of our present racially-obsessed system.

Labels: American History, Cultural Marxism, Gramscianism, Leftism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Racial Division

I didn't watch it. It took some doing to avoid it, considering that apparently the Weather Channel and the shopping channels even covered the circus in D.C. today, which seems to have been the longest and most elaborate such ceremony in any of our lifetimes.
I'm glad I did not watch, especially when I read transcripts or other accounts of what happened. This one for example, from WVWN:
European Americans insulted in Inaugural 'benediction' Rev. Joseph Lowery prays for the day when whites will "embrace what is right" Joseph Lowery, an elderly veteran of the "civil rights movement" and an ordained preacher put a kink in the media narrative of the inauguration of Barack Obama as the "first black President" with a cheap shot at European Americans in his "prayer" ending the ceremony.
Implying that white people that have not yet acknowledged their supposed oppression of nonwhites, Lowery engaged in a call and response routine joined in by the crowd, estimated by National Public Radio to be 98% black.
Lowery's words were improvised from the lyrics of a blues song from the 1940s, and called to "work for that day... when white will embrace what is right."
[...] Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around...
(LAUGHTER)
... when yellow will be mellow...
(LAUGHTER)
LOWERY: ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.
AUDIENCE: Amen.
LOWERY: Say Amen.
AUDIENCE: Amen.
LOWERY: And Amen.
AUDIENCE: Amen. (APPLAUSE)''
So we are being accused and condemned even in the 'benediction.' I wonder if Lowery even knows what 'benediction' means; it means 'blessing.' Who was being blessed in that little outburst? It was more of an imprecation.
And this administration claims to stand for 'transcending race.' If 'transcend' means 'dwell on', 'harp on,' 'exploit' or 'milk for all it's worth', then I guess they are 'transcending' race. If 'transcending race' means re-opening old wounds and inflicting new ones, then I guess they are transcending race.
Then there was this example:
"Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all."
Thus prayed the hireling Rick Warren today at the inauguration of a base stranger to the office of President of the United States of America. Surely more than a few Americans realized that this blasphemous plea directly contradicted what John Jay wrote in Federalist No. 2, that he counted it a blessing that America possessed "one united people�a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion"? Surely more than a few of us honestly and unashamedly despised Warren for what he was saying and what he was doing?
Warren had barely finished speaking when the electronic enemy began analyzing what he�d said and done. His self-professed "friend," Randall Balmer, professor of American religious history at Columbia University, snapped, "I don't think he acquitted himself very well. To lead the nation in saying the Lord's Prayer, which is so particularly Christian, was a mistake."
A professor. Of American religious history.''
I prefer the much better prayer which is at the end of the linked blog entry.
Finally, Melanie Phillips at the UK's Daily Mail gives us this rather mixed bag, which starts out fairly soundly, but then veers off to bow at the politically correct altar en route to the conclusion:
Sorry to be a party pooper, but I can't share this swooning Obama hysteria Has everyone lost their marbles? The inauguration of President Obama is being treated like the Second Coming. The coverage is so gushing we might all drown.
Of course it�s a great thing that America, with its history of slavery and segregation still a shockingly recent memory, now has a black President; the palpable joy of African-Americans is entirely understandable and deeply touching. And there�s no doubt that Obama is a highly charismatic and attractive personality.
But what�s more than a wee bit troubling is that the swooning hysteria reflects the fact that people appear to believe that as of today the world will be saved. Swords will be beaten into ploughshares, peace will be brought to the Middle East, Iran will be pacified, every American will have health insurance, poverty will be eliminated and utopia will have arrived.''
The obligatory PC disclaimer, which is there to announce that ''I'm not a racist, honestly I'm not", sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb, but check out the FReepers' response, which is not to disagree with Philliips's condemnation of America's ''history of slavery and segregation", but to petulantly mention that Britain was just as guilty in those bad old days of our bad old racist forefathers.
Over at the Forum, I posted a link to Justin Raimondo's piece, in which he contrasts Jefferson's inauguration to today's grotesque extravaganza:
When Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated, he sought to dismantle the evolving Federalist tradition of pomp and circumstance. In a ceremonial sense, royalism seemed to have been restored, or so it appeared to him. As this blogger put it, "Dressed in simple attire, Jefferson walked over to the Capitol with a phalanx of riflemen, friends, and fellow citizens from his home state of Virginia."
In these last days of the American Empire, such austere republicanism would be considered impossibly quaint. Having long ago morphed into Jefferson's worst nightmare, the closer we get to the end, the more glamorous our inaugurals become. The poorer we are, the more millions we'll throw at a ceremony that is really the crowning of a monarch � and not just any old king, but an emperor bestriding the globe.''
Today's bizarre display should make us stop and reflect on how we've gone from the Republic founded by our forefathers, led by men like Washington and Jefferson, to today's surreal spectacle.
''How prone all human institutions have been to decay; how subject the best-formed and most wisely organized governments have been to lose their check and totally dissolve; how difficult it has been for mankind, in all ages and countries, to preserve their dearest rights and best privileges, impelled as it were by an irresistible fate of despotism." - James Monroe, 1778

Labels: Cult Of Personality, Identity Politics, Political Correctness, Politics, Racial Division

It's been asserted, usually by those on the left end of the spectrum, that 'everything is political.' Well, since the beginning of this present administration, everything is certainly racial, at least in the eyes of the administration's minions and defenders.
Example: the appalling exchange between Chris Matthews of MSNBC (he of the 'leg tingle') and professionally black Cynthia Tucker. The topic under discussion is the townhall protests, and the mostly conservative protesters:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Put 100 of these people in a room. Strap them into gurneys. Inject them with sodium pentathol. How many of them would say "I don't like the idea of having a black president"? What percentage?
CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, I'm just guessing. This is just off the cuff. I think 45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president.''
Leaving aside Matthews' outrageous proposal -- it's hypothetical, supposedly, but what kind of mind imagines such scenarios? -- Tucker's implicit claim to be able to read the thoughts of the White townhall protesters is itself pretty outrageous.
But this is typical, run-of-the-mill stuff for the media arm of the regime. This is what they do, day in and day out. This is how they earn their livelihood. This is what they think about, and this is how they see the world. They see a world in which just about everybody who is not ''of color'' is racist to some extent or other, and those who deny it merely affirm the truth of the accusation by their very denials. So in these people's warped minds, White=racist. And no exceptions exist.
Regardless of whether the allegations of 'racism' are true in any given case, the real issue is: why have we allowed this society we created become so fanatically obsessed with 'race' and with purging out any incorrect thoughts on the subject? The whole idea of this bogeyman called 'racism' is an idea without which we managed to live successfully and peaceably for centuries, and yet now it seems to completely consume our thoughts and our public discourse. It has become so all-consuming that we managed to elect someone to the highest office in our land, someone whose experience was extremely limited, somebody whose CV is not even known to the public, except as unsubstantiated claims as to biographical details. And this person was elected, for all intents and purposes, because of his race. A White man (or woman) would be laughed off the public stage if he or she thought to run for President with such meagre experience, and while claiming the right not to divulge crucial evidence of past accomplishments, citizenship, and birth. That we elected someone of unknown background and scanty experience belies all common sense, except when we bring the race factor into it.
Over the last half-century we've become fully indoctrinated, most of us, to the idea that black people, and to a lesser extent other 'people of color' are essentially our moral betters, always sinned against yet never sinning. We are always in the wrong where they are concerned, and they themselves can do no wrong. When caught in some misdeed, the benefit of the doubt always accrues to them, and never to us. When a dispute occurs between a White or group of Whites and a black, the black is always the victim, the White the villain. It's as simple as that.
Even when the nonwhite is caught red-handed in a crime, excuses are made, the handiest excuse being: he was a victim of 'racism', or of 'the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.' Whenever a White criticizes a black or other nonwhite, the most effective defense for the nonwhite is to accuse the White of 'racism' and 'hate.' Playing that race card immediately is generally very effective, because the focus shifts to the White 'racist' who is then on the defensive trying to establish that he is innocent of this most serious of moral failings. At that point, the White man is assumed to be the bad guy, regardless of whether the black involved was justly criticized or accused.
So life becomes one long exercise, for Whites, of trying to disprove one's putative racism, to pre-emptively show the world, lest we be accused, that we are really not racist. Liberals are people who work full-time at trying to pre-empt any accusations of racism. ''Conservatives'', especially of the mainstream Republican variety, are not quite as zealous, although they will react when accused with the same protestations of innocence, and the same flailing attempts to establish one's innocence of that 'moral evil'.
Conservatives react, when cornered by race-baiters, by pointing the finger back if the accuser is a White Democrat: ''Democrats are the real racists! Democrats keep blacks on the liberal plantation! Robert 'Sheets' Byrd....'' and so on. In other words, they accept the validity of the concept of racism as the greatest evil, the scourge of our time, and they accept the idea that Whites are often guilty of it (although they point the finger at liberals) and they accept the idea that being found guilty of it should bring condemnation and punishment. In fact they cannot or will not simply step outside of the game and say 'I'm not playing this game anymore.' Why they are stuck in that paradigm, which is the one established by the enemy, is a puzzle to me.
So now conservatives and other common-sense Americans who oppose the health plan are being accused, as usual, of being racists, because they 'obviously don't like the idea of a black president.' Again, the left is asserting mind-reading capabilities.
But should somebody not ultimately ask: is it wrong or 'racist' to have a problem with electing a black president? Is race truly an irrelevant, superficial category that must not be even noticed in choosing between candidates, or making any other choice?
Even the Republicans seem to have bought the idea that race, even if not a 'social construct', is still an irrelevant category, like eye color or height. They accept the belief that race is merely skin color, and that it has no significance in making judgments about people. They are implicitly accepting the idea that race tells us nothing about an individual or group.
During the campaign, when all sorts of nonsensical ideas were floating around ('worse is better,' for example) I had an extended discussion with a fellow blogger, with whom I had an amicable, ongoing exchange, about whether race was significant in the election. The argument also revolved around whether, given a choice between two liberal candidates with similar leftist views, race even mattered. What would it matter if Clinton or Obama were nominated, if they pursued roughly the same agenda?
My thought was: even if the two had very similar policy goals and agendas, race did matter. I believed, and said, that the election of a black president would mean the racializing of virtually everything. I said that even if the media, for some strange reason, decided to be unbiased, the hypothetical administration would racialize things, especially criticism. Any criticism of the president's policies could be -- and therefore would be -- called 'racist.' How could a Democrat administration resist playing that old race card? It's the ultimate weapon in their arsenal; why would they suddenly develop compunctions about using it?
I said that Clinton, however disastrous a President she would be, would not be above criticism. I said that the Republican opposition (even given their craven cowardice) would not be above criticizing her in very blunt terms. She was and is a polarizing figure, and one who already evoked a great deal of hostility from conservatives. She would not be treated with kid gloves. She could be opposed vigorously and openly. Now, contrary to what feminists say, this is not because of 'sexism' or 'misogyny', but just because she was a woman who raised people's hackles, and who had no scruples about attacking her own perceived political enemies.
However, a black president, any black president would be treated with kid gloves, because Republicans are scared stiff of the race card. They would tiptoe around a black president and pull their punches. Nobody would want to be called the 'r-word' so they would roll over. And so far, that's what they've mostly done, throughout the campaign and after the inauguration.
So yes, it matters very much whether the president is White or black, as long as we still have this bizarre system in place in which people quail before a word, and will do or say almost anything to prove they are innocent of the charge of racism.
The system of political correctness, and the victimolatry which makes people fear transgressing against the 'victims' of the world, by word or deed, in essence makes us powerless. It disarms us. We have a right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment; self-defense in that sense is legal and allowed. But we are disarmed verbally and in our thoughts. We are not allowed self-defense in our speech. All criticism of the protected 'victims', even in self-defense, is denied us.
We are subject to sanction if we speak uncomfortable truths which ''offend'' the professional offense-takers. So we are to all intents and purposes disarmed. We are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis minorities, and they know this, and use it mightily against us.
Even were we to wake up, stand up, and reject this arcane system, it would still matter whether a president is black or White or some other color. It matters because there is a power differential in this society, and the power is not with us, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. Look who has to bow the knee and apologize constantly; look who has to watch what he or she says. Look who cannot be ill-spoken of or criticized or looked at wrongly. It's not us.
Chris Matthews, and all the other media lackeys, are wrong in insinuating that it is illegitimate or immoral or evil or unjust to consider race when choosing a president.
It's a legitimate criterion for choosing a president. It's legitimate and reasonable because race is not merely a question of skin color or complexion. It is a fact, not a 'social construct', and blacks know this, as do Hispanics, American Indians, Asians, and essentially everybody except mesmerized Whites. Nonwhites recognize that they have an enormous advantage in their race, and this is why they racialize everything. When everything, including the health care debate, is racialized, and when that racialization is meant to marginalize us and make us out to be the villains, nonwhites have every incentive to make it about race.
Think about it: if race were really insignificant, or if White race conferred some special privilege as some insist, then nonwhites would not constantly call attention to race. But they do so constantly, proving that they see some benefit in being nonwhite. They perceive that their interests are served by disassociating from Whitey.
And the stark fact is that many minorities, if not all, see Whites as their rivals if not as The Enemy, or as competitors who stand in the way of their goals, if not as an obstacle to their ambitions. As long as members of other races take an adversarial or even hostile approach towards Whites, it's not only legitimate and sensible to take race into account; it's downright essential to one's survival.
We are not supposed to notice nonwhites animosity and hatred towards us, though it's in our faces in many ways. Some easily-fooled or pollyannaish Whites comfort themselves with believing that minorities like us, they really, really like us, and it's only White 'racism' that makes them hostile to us sometimes. But the fact is: their interests and ours are in conflict. We have every right, indeed, we have a duty to take reality, including racial reality, into consideration when choosing our elected officials.
There are real, significant differences among the races, and these differences should and must be allowed to be taken into account, given that these differences include differences in temperament, personality, innate abilities, and culture.
And for now, at least, everything is racial, because those in charge have made it so, because it serves their purpose nicely.

Labels: Cultural Marxism, Freedom Of Speech, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Race Card, Race Denial, Racial Division, Socialized Medicine, Thought Crime

If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the
principle of free thought�not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate. .
. . We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expressions of opinions that we loathe. '' -Supreme
Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
My regular readers may want to skip this entry; it's meant for the self-righteous visitors who felt themselves to be 'victimized' or offended by words I wrote here the other day. This is meant for those who think that I and those who think as I do are their personal enemies. So please, indulge me in a little venting.
I want to clarify, first, what I said in the blog entry about Richard Nixon's politically incorrect conversations, which have caused some stir recently. In regard to abortion, I do not support abortion, at all. I was not suggesting I agreed with Nixon's views on the appropriateness of abortion in certain situations.
I did say that his politically incorrect views regarding interracial unions represented the prevailing majority opinion at the time he expressed them. And this is factually true. In fact, those views seem to be the prevailing consensus now, at least in practice, as statistics show that even in this politically correct, ''race-transcending'', colorblind age, the vast majority of people marry within their race.
That's fact, which can be supported by statistics, as well as by impartial observation of real life.
Factoring in all racial combinations, Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld calculates that more than 7 percent of America�s 59 million married couples in 2005 were interracial, compared to less than 2 percent in 1970.''
In other words, about 93 percent of America's married couples are of the same race. This indicates that preference for one's own race in marriage is still the norm, still the preference of the great majority.
That this fact bothers some people, or hurts their feelings, is not the issue, and it is certainly not my fault, much less my problem. The facts are what they are. Human beings are what they are, and racial cohesion (as well as racial loyalty, until recently) are simply intrinsic to human nature.
The fact that such a substantial majority of people marry those of their own race says something, especially in the face of a half-century or so of nonstop propaganda meant to break down racial consciousness and intra-racial loyalty and cohesion.
My comments about the majority opinion was not meant to express approval of abortion in whatever circumstance, nor to claim that the majority of Americans believed abortion permissible, then or now. My comment was merely to indicate that today's politically correct received opinions on race were not popular opinions back then. And that's fact, even though some like to call facts they dislike ''hate''.
What is really at issue here is not facts, but 'feelings'. A commenter bemoaned that there is 'so much evil in the world', meaning that certain politically incorrect ideas are not merely mistaken or wrong, but ''evil'', and possibly a threat or a danger to others. And not only that, but I myself and perhaps the people who agree with me are 'evil' as individuals. Collectively, ''evil'' people with ''evil'' ideas constitute a dangerous group to the emotional forces of the left.
My recent entries on the subject of 'hate and extremism' touched on that idea: the attempt to make thought-criminals of all those who disagree with the PC regime which dominates all thought and discourse in public. It does not matter to the fearmongers on the left that these 'extremist' opinons are nothing more than your parents' or grandparents' ideas, and certainly the ideas of our Founding Fathers and past generations in general.
Suddenly, traditional, widely-held, time-honored ideas are 'evil.' What kind of mind looks at their own history and their own people, seeing only 'evil' and threats lurking around every corner?
Ultimately, I've found that it's a waste of time and breath to argue with the indoctrinated and the PC pharisees of the left, most especially where racial matters are concerned. I believe I've said that one in 1,000 liberals might be willing to be honest and listen to the other side. I take that back. I now think it's more like 1 in 10,000 or in 100,000.
For liberals, it's all about their feelings, and if you hurt their feelings with an idea or opinion, you are evil and should be silenced, or rounded up, as Bonnie Erbe and her ilk propose.
I've had people on the Internet literally wish me dead because of my opinions. How's that ''stop the hate'' thing going for you liberals? It looks to me as though the hate is mostly one-way, coming from your side towards ours.
Liberals, and all politically correct censors and self-designated vigilantes, remove the plank from your own eye first, rather than searching for the mote in your conservative brother's eye.
Here's an idea: try arguing ideas or facts when you disagree with someone. Implying that your interlocutor is 'evil' because you disagree with his ideas is immature, childish, and unworthy of a thinking adult. I will not engage in any kind of debate with those who attack my character because they hate my ideas, and therefore hate me.
Should it not be possible for a grown-up to dislike someone's ideas or opinions without calling that person 'evil'?
Please know that your ideas are as odious to me as mine seem to be to you, the difference between us being that I do not troll liberal/leftist/minority blogs looking for a fight, or for a chance to verbally assail those I differ with. Nor do I try to silence them, as they would love to silence those to their right.
One more thing which needs to be said: liberals tend to loathe conservatives and particularly Christians because they think Christians ''want to impose their morality'' on everyone. Hello? All that liberals do involves ''imposing their morality'' on the rest of us. A prime example is the subject at hand, the subject that so offended my delicate commenter yesterday: race and freedom of association. Because liberals deem it a good and moral and high-minded and 'enlightened' thing to pretend that race does not exist, or to condescend to associate with people of differing races, nothing will do but to force everybody to partake in that association. No one is to be allowed to refrain from associating with others, and no one is to be allowed to be left alone. The government must, by use of force and coercion, compel association with all and sundry, regardless of the wishes of those involved.
What on earth is this but imposing your morality on someone else?
I mean, it's nice for you that you have this enlightened 'egalitarian' religious faith, which enjoins you to pretend there is no such thing as race, ethnicity, or gender, but must you impose that religion or ideology on me and mine? What gives you that right? And under what Constitutional principle is the government to force people to associate with any given group, or to forbid people to assemble with others of their free choosing?
Even if you find some Constitutional justification for this, it is not ethical or moral.
Liberals relish calling conservatives ''judgmental'', and yet you liberals reserve all judgment to yourselves, judging and condemning willy-nilly, as if you are the voice of God himself. And isn't it you who claim that there are no moral absolutes? Then your absolutism about equality is meaningless and arbitrary. If there are no absolutes, then my views are just as valid and just as moral as yours are.
Your self-righteous, often self-pitying moralizing has no legitimacy, especially coming from those who say everything is relative, there are no absolutes.
The kinds of comments I get from the left, from their various offended'' victim-clients, and from the 'mainstream respectable conservatives' only serve to convince me that this country cannot endure under one government; we are far too polarized, not only along racial, ethnic, and religious lines, but also across philosophical and ethical lines. If my good (racial loyalty, love for my own and my fathers) is someone else's ''evil'', then what hope is there of sustaining such a society?

Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnic Solidarity, Free Speech, Freedom Of Association, Leftism, Leftist Hypocrisy, Political Correctness, Racial Division, Racial Guilt

Court rules for White firefighters in discrimination case
WASHINGTON � The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a group of white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision endorsed by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
The 5-4 ruling poses a potential complication to Sotomayor's nomination, with confirmation hearings set to start in July. Already, supporters and critics of Sotomayor are seizing on the decision in an effort to defend their stance.
In the high-profile, controversial case, white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., argued they were discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough on it.
Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion in favor of Frank Ricci and his fellow firefighters who sued the city of New Haven.''
Some on the right are hailing this as a huge victory, and while it's true that we should be happy for good news wherever we find it, it does not seem clear that this is as decisive as some are indicating.
Here is Jared Taylor's take on it, which is somewhat less celebratory than that of most conservative commentators so far:
Conservatives are heralding the Supreme Court�s decision in the Ricci case as a great victory�and it is true that the results of the New Haven firemen�s exam will be accepted and several whites will be promoted to lieutenant and captain. However, as Justice Anthony Kennedy conceded in his majority decision, the court dodged the central question of whether it is constitutional to discriminate against white people in the name of "fairness" for non-whites. This decision is not even half a loaf for whites�it�s more like a few crumbs.
As Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in a concurring opinion, today�s decision "merely postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront the [real] question," namely whether "disparate impact" is legitimate grounds for throwing out employment standards.
[...]
The Court did one useful thing, however. It made it harder to junk test results because of "disparate impact" by saying there had to be a "strong basis in evidence" that the harm this did to whites was justified. But as Justice Ruth Ginsberg pointed out correctly�in what was otherwise a nasty dissent�all this does is set up yet another murky standard that will make it hard for employers to know what is legal and what is not.''
Earlier today I was saying that perhaps these jobs should be assigned by throwing names into a hat, that being the only truly 'fair' way. I thought I was being ironic, but according to Steve Sailer, that kind of thing is already a reality in Chicago, where a lottery is used:
'...lotteries are exactly what cities such as Chicago are already doing with the results of firefighter tests, in an attempt to comply with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission�s "Four-Fifths Rule". This regulation puts the burden of proof in discrimination cases on employers when blacks aren�t hired or promoted at least 80 percent as often as whites.
There�s a reason you don�t see much in the newspapers about cities hiring firefighters by lottery: this method is terrifying to anybody who might someday be trapped in a burning building. So politicians don�t explain too vividly to the public what exactly they are up to.''
Truth is stranger than fiction.
We had a fire last year, and though it was minor, it was unsettling when a group of firefighters arrived, one of their number being a diminutive girl of about 23.
According to some people, seeing a female firefighter should have been comforting to me:
Firefighters say diversity can be especially important in emergencies. Victims may feel more comfortable when they see first responders who look similar to them or understand their neighborhoods, they say.
White members of Engine Company 60 on the South Side of Chicago see it differently. The mention of New Haven drew a cluster of firefighters who said they have seen examples of reverse discrimination and voiced concern that procedures used to increase diversity in the higher ranks may harm the public.''
I agree with the guys of Engine Company 60. I told a family member that I demand to have strapping 6-foot-4 men arriving to fight the fire, rather than a petite girl. The idea of hiring anybody less than the most qualified and the fittest to do these jobs is an affront to society and a risk to human life.
But the Ricci case of course goes far beyond who is hired to fight fires. At issue is the whole affirmative action farce, and the widespread effect on our society of placing people in jobs based on skin color or gender rather than choosing the best and the smartest.
And it has to do with the whole tortured issue of ''fairness'', which the left likes to talk about. To them, ''fair'' seems to mean exacting an eye for an eye. They insist that rampant racial favoritism kept Whites dominant for many years in this country, and to believe this, they must deny that actual racial differences exist. And they believe that 'affirmative action' is a legitimate way to exact revenge or payback.
It's politically unacceptable for them to acknowledge that in the old days, people were generally hired on merit, and the best man usually won. To make merit the main criterion would, unfortunately for the left and their minority clients, mean that the latter would have to compete with Whites on a truly equal basis, and they are afraid this would mean a return to the bad old days.
Obviously, too, this SCOTUS decision does not reflect well on Sonia Sotomayor, as her opinion is again repudiated by the Supreme Court. But this will not deter her supporters, who will spin in in some way to deflect any criticism of her by Republicans.

Labels: Affirmative Action, Judicial System, Racial Bias, Racial Division, Racial Quotas, Supreme Court

Little did I know that the health care plan is being pushed through in response to public demand. That's one thing I learned from tonight's press conference.
First, though, for some balance, one doctor's take on this health-care plan, which is being pushed on us in the media nonstop:
Why I resigned from the AMA
Did any of you see the press conference (yet another one) earlier this evening? The idea is to hard-sell this health ''reform'' plan yet again. I could not bring myself to watch it, but I waited for the transcript to appear online.
It appears as though a lot of time was devoted to blaming the previous administration for the financial troubles, and to establish the ''fact'' that the present regime accepts no blame for any economic disaster, present, past, or future. A lot of self-justification was contained in a rather short speech.
A reporter asks:
Q You've been pushing Congress to pass health-care reform by August. Why the rush? Are you worried that if you don't -- if there's a delay until the fall, the whole effort will collapse?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Couple of points. Number one, I'm rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health-care costs.
So folks are skeptical, and that is entirely legitimate, because they haven't seen a lot of laws coming out of Washington lately that help them.
But my hope is, and I'm confident that, when people look at the cost of doing nothing, they're going to say, you know, we can make this happen. We've -- we've made big changes before that end up resulting in a better life for the American people.''
First of all, I find it absurd to imagine the president, any president, sitting there by the hour opening letters from every citizen out there with a complaint or a plea for help. Do people really write the president saying 'save us, Mr. President; we can't afford our health care.' And assuming that yes, indeed, there are such pathetic souls who imagine that the president or Uncle Sugar is there to answer their every need and request, does this president expect us to believe that he thinks his role is to give his fans what they want, and say ''your wish is my command''?
I don't imagine that any president even lays eyes on most of the mail that is sent to the White House. But apparently this president thinks we all just fell off the turnip truck, and that he has no choice but to reform health care drastically because John and Jane Doe in Anytown, USA demand it. As if the ''little people'' call the shots in America.
If public demand and the wishes of citizens meant anything at all, we'd have closed borders, lower taxes, and a lot of things that we stand no chance of getting until Hades freezes over.
Another question:
Q But experts say that in addition to the benefits that you're pushing, there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures, such as Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life care.
When you describe health-care reform, you don't -- understandably, you don't talk about the sacrifices that Americans might have to make. Do you think -- do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases, on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?''
Watch for the double-talk and the obfuscation here.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. And I -- speaking as an American, I think that's the kind of change you want.
Look, if right now hospitals and -- and doctors aren't coordinating enough to have you just take one test when you come in because of an illness but instead have you take one test; then you go to another specialist, you take a second test, then you go to another specialist, you take a third test; and nobody's bothering to send the first test that you took -- same test -- to the next doctors, you're wasting money. You may not see it, because if you have health insurance right now, it's just being sent to the insurance company, but that's raising your premiums, it's raising everybody's premiums. And that money, one way or another, is coming out of your pocket, although we are also subsidizing some of that, because there are tax breaks for health care. So not only is it costing you money in terms of higher premiums, it's also costing you as a taxpayer.
Now, I want to change that. Every American should want to change that. Why would we want to pay for things that don't work, that aren't making us healthier?
And here's what I'm confident about. If doctors and patients have the best information about what works and what doesn't, then they're going to want to pay for what works.
If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?''
All this talk of blue pills and red pills seems to bring The Matrix to mind. I never saw it, but I know enough about it to know about the blue pills and red pills.
And as to not paying for things that 'don't work, that aren't making us healthier', would that not include any number of treatments or medications that don't truly 'make people healthier' but merely keep their symptoms under control, or perhaps keep chronic conditions somewhat manageable? It looks very much as if the intention is that many treatments for, say, cancer or diabetes or kidney disease patients would be looked on as 'things that don't work' because they don't reverse or cure underlying disease.
To the recent comments the president made in answer to a question at one of the town halls, he said that a woman with cardiac arrhythmias might just 'take a pain pill' instead of having surgery. Surely it does not take a medical professional to know that cardiac arrhythmias are not helped by 'painkillers', and that resorting to such non-treatments with such a potentially serious condition is downright dangerous.
But again, I am getting hints that those with chronic diseases, and especially older people, will be written off as too costly. Passive euthanasia.
I didn't watch the press conference but from reading the transcript I found it all very unimpressive and unpersuasive. I don't think the case was very well made at all; I found only vague and rambling statements, and little substance. And not having seen or heard this speech, seeing it only in text, I was not likely to be taken in by any alleged 'charisma' or the 'sonorous voice' that so many seem to be captivated by.
But on another topic altogether, a very telling exchange in response to 'hometown' reporter Lynn Sweet's question
(which seems rather like a set-up, a scripted question, so the prez could address the Gates furor):
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Recently, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I -- I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here.
I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house; there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place.
So far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now, so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen.
(Chuckling.) But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.) But so far, so good. They're -- they're -- they're reporting. The police are doing what they should. There's a call. They go investigate. What happens?
My understanding is, at that point, Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in. I'm sure there's some exchange of words. But my understanding is -- is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house, and at that point he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped.
Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.''
And not having seen all the facts, why answer at all? It would behoove him to learn the facts before offering his two cents, and calling the Cambridge police or their actions ''stupid.'' But fools rush in:
And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That's just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in the society.
That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made. And yet the fact of the matter is, is that, you know, this still haunts us.''
Yes, the race card was played by the man elected to lead us. That's you and I who are being accused and convicted.
Not only White Americans and policemen have been accused in this press conference, but doctors and the medical profession also. Is the idea to alienate as many people as possible? I thought the idea was to 'unite'.
I would like some of those people who were so sure that electing this man would 'end the complaints of racism' to step forward and admit, publicly, that they were wrong. Big time.
Race relations are worse because minorities never let up on the grievance-mongering and the power displays. This present regime has exacerbated racial conflicts.
And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentime for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody's going to be.''
If blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, it's for the reason that they commit a disproportionate share of crimes, from traffic violations on up. I won't link to the Color of Crime yet again; anybody who is not familiar may google it.
And ending profiling will make nobody safer except lawbreakers -- if they are of the correct race and ethnicity. For the rest of us, it will mean a less safe America.
Which brings us full circle; the health care ''reform'' plan will also make us less safe and less secure, knowing that arbitrary and capricious decisions made for political reasons will actually be harmful to us and our loved ones over the long term.
During the long election cycle of last year, I spent some time arguing against those who said that 'worse is better'. Now we are about to see which school of thought was right. I can only hope the 'worse is better' proponents were correct, because we've begun to experience the 'worse', and we're about to see if ''better'' ensues.

Labels: Big Government, Health Care, Media Bias, Medical Care, Medical Ethics, Race Card, Racial Division, Socialized Medicine, Victimhood

It's going to be a long four years with the current regime in office, holding the bully pulpit from which to hector and goad us about the all-important, all-consuming subject of race. Race -- you know, that social construct thing that really doesn't exist? Well, our attorney-general wants 'us' to have a 'dialogue' about that non-existent subject -- although it's really nothing more than superficial skin color of course.
We've heard this kind of disingenuous prattle before, about how 'we' need a 'dialogue' on race. But it's ratcheting up now, with Mr. Holder taunting Americans (presumably White Americans) as 'cowards.' We are, he judges, a 'nation of cowards'.
Now, I heard this while watching part of Lou Dobbs' hour on CNN this evening, and I have not read the reaction around the blogosphere or from the 'conservative' pundits as yet, so I will just offer my honest, blue-sky reaction.But perhaps the response from the 'name' bloggers and pundits will give us some indication of how true the 'cowardly' characterization is.
Sad to say, I think the response will probably bear out the accusation of cowardice on our part, as the politically corrected, 'castrated conservatives' (as Carelton Putnam called them) scurry to exonerate themselves, saying 'I have no problems with blacks! I love Tom Sowell and Walter Williams. I don't care whether you're black, white, red, yellow or polka-dot, I judge you as an individual!' The usual stuff. And then there will be the 'conservatives' who point the finger at somebody else (on the right or the left) as being the problem, rather than to express any solidarity with their own people as they would if they were honest, natural men.
But do any of these people truly believe that all that is needed is for us to be able to sit down and have a 'frank conversation' about race, after which everything will be rosy? I don't think even the most politically correct can possibly be that delusional.
As others have noted, when this call for 'dialogue' sounds from some black demagogue, 'dialogue' always seems to mean that Whites must sit silent and humbled while blacks and/or other minorities accuse, insult, browbeat, and demand. We simply have to sit and nod or acknowledge our purported guilt, and take our medicine, or be labeled 'racist' and 'hater' if we defend ourselves or (heaven forbid) offer counter-accusations. So a dialogue is not what is wanted by those who keep asking for it. Dialogue implies a two-way, give-and-take exchange of thoughts and ideas and information. The other side wants no dialogue, now or ever, but rather another chance to verbally abuse and to make further demands, which they expect will meet with acquiescence.
And that acquiescence is what our 'cowardice' amounts to: our cowardice, insofar as it exists, lies in our willingness to accept 110 percent of the blame for interracial conflicts and frictions, and our passive acceptance of the perpetual guilt trip that has been placed on our shoulders for the last half-century or more. So while Mr. Holder berates us as 'cowards', he is in fact counting on our continued 'cowardice'. In fact, our cowardice is what has given us 'leaders' like him to rule over us. He decries the very thing upon which he relies.
Am I saying White Americans are in fact cowards? My first reaction to the word was anger and indignation. But on reflection, I sadly have to agree that there is some degree of truth to the allegation, though I think it is true only of some of us, not all. What our enemies perceive as 'cowardice' or weakness is nothing more in many cases than an effort to be fair-minded, to see the 'other side' in a dispute, to yield ground in hopes of avoiding unnecessary conflict, or a vain hope of obtaining a reciprocation of our fair-mindedness. However, after our centuries of interracial friction and conflict, it should be evident to all but the most obtuse that it just isn't working, this conciliatory approach. Many people who put on a show of being oh-so-fair and unbigoted may secretly be feeling a resentment and a simmering impatience with this situation. But some people are not even aware of their real feelings. Suppression is part of our everyday repertoire of behavior when dealing with outsiders; we have learned we have to try to pacify and mollify our antagonists, and some of us are so skilled at repressing our honest reactions that we lose touch ourselves.
There are some real cowards out there who will sell out their own people in order to pacify those they fear, deep-down. Most Whites learn very early on, when in contact with blacks and other minorities, that they tend to be unpredictable and touchy, and they can possibly lash out verbally or physically if not handled with kid gloves. So most of us have to learn to adopt an amiable, easygoing, yet cautious attitude with them so as not to spark some kind of scene. In an employment setting, there's always the threat of lawsuits and court cases if a wrong word is said, or if a minority perceives mistreatment.
Blacks often inspire fear in a physical sense, and often adopt verbally or physically intimidating behaviors to maintain the upper hand in a situation. Many Whites would never admit to feeling fear towards random blacks in public -- because even stating such a thing brings cries of 'racism.'
And yes, there are cowards who are afraid of words -- like 'racist', or 'bigot', whether these word-weapons are employed by their fellow cowardly Whites or by minorities. As children, we often used to answer schoolyard taunts by chanting 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.' But evidently names can hurt people so much that they are prepared to risk almost anything to avoid being called names. And that is, I'm afraid, cowardice.
It's that kind of cowardice that enables the race-hustlers and the demagogues and the affirmative-action mediocrities to hold us hostage for half a century and counting. It's that kind of cowardice that puts the current regime (including their White collaborators) in power and makes them all-but-invulnerable to real criticism and accountability.
Sooner or later, we have to realize our own strength and realize that the 'minorities' are just that: minorities, meaning the few, as opposed to the many. Why do the few rule over the many? There's another old saying: there's strength in numbers. And there's some other phrases we've forgottenn about 'the will of the majority'. Why have we forgotten that? Why do we run from our own shadows?
I'm wondering, though: do these demagogues really want 'dialogue' on race? Surely they have an inkling that if people really, truly spoke frankly and freely, without fear of having some 'hate speech' laws invoked, they might say a great many things that would not be welcome and that would not be flattering. I don't think they truly want dialogue or even conversation. They want us to sit down, shut up, and submit, and meanwhile, continue to pony up the money.
Why, then, are they always demanding 'dialogue'? I have noticed that lately there seems to be, as I've said, a ratcheting up of the rhetoric, and a trend towards more naked aggression in the form of articles like 'The End of White America' and other such undisguised expressions of their intentions. Why? Are they feeling that overconfident? Or are they taunting and goading us? In my more suspicious moments, I wonder if they are not trying to bait and goad us into real hostility -- to draw us out, as it were, so that they can then crack down on our free speech and other liberties. If they goad us into speech and actions that they can paint as 'hate' or 'extremism' then here come the hate crime and hate speech laws which they are itching to pass, and the curtailing of our rights.
I don't counsel rashness in the face of this baiting and goading. I do think we have to speak up firmly and reasonably, but discarding all the political correctness and the truckling and mealy-mouthing. If enough of us spoke up and continued to do so, ignoring the epithets, we might find enough collective strength and confidence to turn the tide, which some haven't noticed is bearing down on us like a tsunami.

Labels: Anti White Racism, Cultural Marxism, Demagoguery, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Politicians, Racial Division

The question is often raised, on blogs which discuss issues like those we discuss here, why more women are not on our side. The answer is usually offered by somebody who says that ''women just don't get it'', meaning that women don't ''get'' issues of racial and ethnic identity and interests, or ''women just don't get the 'us vs. them' mentality'' that is necessary to defend our group interests.
I've heard these opinions expressed many times, most recently in an internet discussion elsewhere.
I am not going to take the usual knee-jerk attitude that ''you're wrong! I'm a woman and I have the 'us vs. them' attitude, and I care about our survival as a people.'' Of course the fact that I and some of the commenters here are women and yet we ''get it'' does not disprove the existence of those many women who don't get it, who are the universalist, 'can't we all just get along' types.
Liberalism is apparently the default position for most women. Some may be right-wing on issues like economics or social issues like abortion and homosexual ''marriage'' yet they are far to the left on racial issues. The politically correct view of race is the dominant one, by far, among people of both major political parties.
It's undeniable, though, that when you visit an ethnoconservative or ethnonationalist blog or forum, or even a paleoconservative one, there is a conspicuous scarcity of women in the discussion. Even on this blog, I know there are a certain number of women regulars here, but men seem to be more numerous. Granted, on any blog, only a few readers overall leave comments, while many just read without ever commenting. I suspect, however, that the proportions of readers I have would show the same patterns, with men predominating.
If I wanted to play feminist devil's advocate, I could say that many right-wing blogs or race-realist blogs have a rather curmudgeonly attitude towards women, and this tends to scare women off. However I don't believe that, because if a woman is 'tough' enough to take an unpopular and widely-condemned un-PC attitude, she should not be scared off by a little grumbling about women on the part of some men.
I asked someone (female) if she agreed that there are fewer women who take politically incorrect views on race and ethnicity, and she said yes. Women tend to be less territorial, in her words, and I think I've made similar observations here or elsewhere. Men have traditionally been the defenders of the hearth and the homestead and the clan, and have been the ones to challenge outsiders who may or may not have hostile intentions towards us.
Men are traditionally the protecters against outside threats, while women are the nurturers and the ones who care for the helpless, the children and the old.
Thus women are inclined to feel more empathy or pity or sympathy towards, say, immigrants particularly as immigrants are nowadays shown as helpless, poor, and pitiful. Even the feminists who take a tough line towards men are soft-hearted towards immigrants and minorities in general.
And that brings me to another point: women assuredly are capable of the 'us vs. them' mentality, but it's mostly channeled towards men these days, thanks in great part to feminism. The outsiders, to many feminist-indoctrinated women, are men, not foreign people or those of differing races and creeds. Men. Their own brothers, husbands, sons, fathers, are more ''other'' to many feminists than hostile invaders.
Shame on those women who would side with others, outsiders, against their own people.
Male-bashing is quite a pastime with many women, especially those who've grown up under the spell of feminism. It's true, though, that there has always been the perennial 'battle of the sexes', which in fact goes back to Adam and Eve. It's always been with us, and maybe it always will be. I think it transcends culture and race, too. The leftist feminists like to pretend that there was some kind of matriarchal golden age to which we should return; I remember reading a couple of books by such women back in my own feminist days, long ago. And there is always a misguided notion that only our own Western, White, Christian culture is ''misogynistic'', while primitive cultures supposedly honor women more. A popular feminist belief has it that American Indian cultures exalted women, and that women actually ruled some tribes.
But the male-female division is always with us, and it's not peculiar to our Western society. I do think, though, that at certain times, there was more acceptance of the complementarity of the sexes, and more respect for the division of labor, with the sex roles being differentiated. When that is intact, there is less friction and resentment.
The left has done a bang-up job of dividing everybody, stoking the natural divisions between men and women, and among the races, so as to keep us squabbling among ourselves, unable to unite to act in our own interests. Men and women being divided against each other has been wonderful for our enemies; when households are divided then the whole community and people is divided. The left has split women off and made them believe that their natural interests and sympathies should be with minority races, gays, and the poor, and not with those of their own blood kin. Thus women too often choose to make common cause with other aggrieved groups, believing that they themselves are victims of White males, just like the rest of the self-described victims.
There was certainly a time when White women were certainly racially conscious and ethnocentric, though even then there were probably more women who adopted the bleeding-heart 'one world' approach. I suspect, though I haven't tried to prove it in any way, that many women who were involved in liberal causes in the past were usually ''maiden ladies'', with no families of their own to care for, who turned to helping ''others'', and became universalist crusaders of some sort.
But most women, including my Yankee-born mother, were race-realists, not at all race-blind liberals like many of today's women. My grandmothers, my aunts, all of the older generation on both sides of my family, were certainly ethocentric and racially aware. They certainly did understand the 'us vs. them' mentality when it came to kin and people and race. Today's PC-saturated women would condemn such old-fashioned attitudes, but in doing so they are condemning their own grandmothers, probably, as most women who grew up pre-1950s were not at all liberal on racial matters.
Several factors might be at work here; nowadays, the individualistic attitude is prevalent among both sexes, whereas in the past, women wanted to be mothers and wives, and thus had more of a stake in the preservation of their people and their children's future. But most people of both sexes now seem to be much more me-oriented and present-oriented, rather than thinking of the future and their posterity. This has taken its toll.
I speak to so many people, including women, who say of race and kin, ''what's that got to do with me? I'm an individual, I'm just me, I don't relate to my 'race' or even my own distant ancestors, and I may not have any kids, so why should I care what happens?" I don't know how this attitude can be overcome, if it can be overcome at all. I know it's a very popular attitude not just because it's implanted and reinforced by media conditioning, but also because, as Christians might put it, it 'appeals to our flesh.' It appeals to our natural, fallen, selfish nature. The 'old Adam' (or Eve) in us wants to look out for number one, and let the devil take the hindmost. We naturally prefer to live in the moment and not think about tomorrow.
Feminism, though, must take a lot of the blame for women being less concerned for their people, their roots, their kin, and so on; feminism is a me-first, I-owe-it-to-myself, kind of mindset. Notice how often advertising appeals to this in women. The messages are: ''I deserve the best. Now it's time for me. I take care of everybody else, now i'm going to pamper myself." And so on. Feminism is all about me. I, me, mine. My fulfillment, even if it comes at the expense of my marriage and my children. I deserve it.
But feminism, after all, is just leftism dressed up in special packaging designed to appeal to women and their dissatisfactions.
Is it possible, then, to reverse this situation? Obviously I think women are not congenitally doomed to be multiculturalists -- or traitors to their own people as some apparently are. The fact that past generations of women were race-conscious and loyal shows that they can be.
Would it be desirable to 'tone down' the rhetoric on the nationalist side to make it less 'hostile' to women? Personally, I say no. I'm never in favor of trying to create a more politically correct, ''nicer'' version of something that needs to have a certain degree of toughness to succeed. Some women need to re-learn, or learn for the first time, the necessity for toughness and for dispensing with sentimentality and 'niceness'. We are in a dire situation, and we don't have time to worry about trying to soothe the delicate sensibilities of the potentially offended.
We can only hope that women will come to more realistic attitudes as things grow more dire for us.
What do my female readers think? Please add your perspective, and the same for my male readers. What's your view of this issue? I'd like to hear.

Labels: Ethnic Solidarity, Ethnocentrism, Ethnoconservatism, Ethnonationalism, Feminism, Racial Division, Social Divisions

The usual suspects complain:
James Kelly, CEO of the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle, called for action Friday after reading remarks from state Supreme Court Justices Richard Sanders and Jim Johnson regarding African-American populations in prison.
The justices said African Americans are overrepresented because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
"What are these two guys doing on the State Supreme Court?" Kelly asked.
He is calling for Supreme Court Chief Justice Barbara Madsen to "establish a special commission on racial disproportions in the criminal-justice system and to make recommendations on how to modernize the system and ensure equal justice before the law," according to an Urban League news release.'
Kelly goes on to say that if the justices believe that blacks commit more crimes, then 'there's a problem that goes to the top.' Meaning, I presume, that the problem CANNOT be a problem of black crime.
Chief Justice Madsen has, as this source notes, upheld the state's ban on gay ''marriage'', which does hint that she might not be the typical politically correct leftist judge. Whether or not the 'special commission' willl be established is not yet known but the usual course of things is for everybody to bow down to the demands of ''the African-American community.'' Their wish is our command, apparently.
Judge Richard Sanders, who is one of the judges who made the controversial statements (note: these days, ''controversial statement" usually means ''truth") is also not your typically PC judge, although his opponent in the current election accuses him of siding with criminal defendants too frequently -- so he hardly appears to be a tough law-and-order judge, if indeed there is such a thing these days.
It's about time that somebody started defying the race-hucksters and the PC commissars. Will the judges stand their ground? Or will they be reduced to the usual groveling and apologizing? Let's hope not.
Does the judicial system discriminate against blacks or other minorities? The obvious, and simplest, reply to that often-repeated charge is that blacks and some other minorities commit more crimes -- to which the politically correct response is that police ''target'' minorities and let Whites get away with crime. How long will people let these charges go unchallenged?
There are also disparities in male-female differences in rates of incarceration and sentencing. Does this mean that the justice system is biased? It surely goes against the grain of political correctness, as according to the PC belief system, men (specifically White men) are privileged, and women of all races are victims of discrimination. So where is the bias here? While it's apparently true that women commit less crime, or less violent crime, they are nonetheless capable of heinous acts, and are not ''better people'' than men. However women do receive lesser sentences when they murder, for instance, and are less likely to be executed in states where the death penalty exists.
See the statistics here.
Bizarrely, most liberals argue that women are still discriminated against in the justice system, and of course if they had their way nobody would be executed, except thought-criminals perhaps.
When we compare women and men in the justice system, few people question the obvious disparities; but when it comes to minorities, especially blacks, it is taboo to even consider the obvious fact that differing rates of crime among the races might be the main reason for the disparities in arrest, conviction, and sentencing.
So we go on with this absurd charade of pretending that blacks are blameless victims of racism, always sinned against and never sinning, not even capable of sin. How can any sane adult pretend to believe such foolishness? How can any judge, whose business is to administer justice, pretend that one group of people is above scrutiny?
Judges, ideally, are to be impartial, and yet what is ''political correctness'' but an all-encompassing system of partiality, of putting minority groups in a special privileged category, off-limits to criticism?

Labels: Criminal Justice System, Discrimination, Free Speech, Judicial System, Political Correctness, Racial Division, White Guilt

Manuel Valdes is apparently one of those ''diversity'' writers for the AP, whose job is to present the Latin-American slant on the news. Apparently he covers the Immigration beat or the Latino turf.
You see, Anglo writers cannot present these stories in a ''fair'' fashion, so only Latino people can cover Latino-related stories, and only immigrants or those with recent immigrant roots can write about immigration. And as we are all aware, immigration these days is a Hispanic thing for the most part, so a Hispanic is needed to write these stories. And we know minorities are not capable of any bias or conflict of interest, right?
One of his recent pieces has to do with the reaction of American Indians to the Hispanic influx into Washington State, particularly central Washington, where some towns have large Mexican majorities, towns like Mattawa.
It's interesting, though, to read what some of the people of the Yakama tribe of Washington have to say about the huge presence of illegal Mexican immigrants in their area. They apparently feel resentment towards the illegals who are taking jobs from them (allegedly, of course) and they perceive that gang violence has increased with the large numbers of Mexican immigrants. Allegedly. But then, those are the same things 'alleged' by those ''anti-immigration'' people, so of course the allegations are suspect. Of course.
The Yakama Indian who is interviewed does not, apparently, limit his objections to illegal immigration only, which is to his credit. Obviously Indians need not worry about censoring themselves; I note that he does not feel compelled to tell Mr. Valdes that he has ''many Mexican friends'' or that he ''has nothing against legal immigrants.''
So Mr. Valdes brings in some Mexican voices who express displeasure with the ethnocentric ideas of the local Indians; one woman seems disgusted that Indians have such feelings. Another Latino pronounces the local Indians as no better than the gringo; the implicit attitude that I hear from the immigrants is 'why don't they just accept our takeover, and just fade away into the sunset?'
One of the favorite propaganda memes of the Mexican revanchists is that they are ''the indigenous people of the Americas'' and that they automatically have the same claims to this land as the local Indians in North America. To unwary gringos, they represent themselves as being essentially the same people as the Indians in the United States. I doubt very much that most Indians accept that strange notion; each tribe is quite conscious of their own identity; there is no monolithic ''indigenous'' group in North America, although the presence of Whites has unified the tribes in common anti-White feeling to some extent.
I am not sure if the Mexican reconquista crowd really believed their own propaganda about their being ''the indigenous people'', or if they were merely coached to say that by the leftist globalists and academic useful idiots who manipulate them. I doubt they really believe it; surely they can see that they don't even resemble the other Indian tribes very much, and I doubt that, back home in Mexico, they even wanted to claim Indian ethnicity. Most of the Mexicans I've met look down on Indians, even though most of them have considerable Indian blood. Indians in Mexico are not high up in the social hierarchy. So I think they merely call themselves ''indigenous'' for political reasons in this country, so as to manipulate that old gringo guilt, to play the race card, to give themselves some kind of false legitimacy.
I find this tactic manipulative and dishonest, lacking any sense of honor or integrity. It smacks of cynical opportunism, mixed with a little pathological lying.
I don't know if they aspire to form some kind of anti-White alliance with the Indian tribes in this country, but I think the commonalities are more imagined than real; the article illustrates that there is a gap between the Mexicans and the Indians. I suspect that any alliance between them would be an ad hoc thing, for convenience sake, but there is little love lost there. Just as Mexicans and blacks seem to clash more often than not, I think their relationship with Indians will be uneasy at best.
I wonder how the average multicultist will feel on reading this article? These kinds of disagreements between their 'victim' clients must pose problems. Who do they side with? Who is higher on their victimhood totem pole? The poor immigrants just looking for a better life while being persecuted by Whitey? Or the poor dispossesed, genocided Native American, exiled in his own land?
And while the confused leftist White is tossing a coin to decide which side is more worthy of the top victim slot, I wonder if he will take a thought for his own people, who stand in danger of becoming like the Indian, a stranger in his own land, in danger of being either mixed out of existence, or displaced?
Our Yakama Indian friend mentions that the mass influx of Mexicans is destructive to his tribe in that it has led to considerable mixing, and with that, the loss of the coherence and commonality that makes a tribe what it is. I wonder if the average White people reading the article are able to see the obvious parallel to our own situation? Do they not see that this is what is happening to our people, too?
Meanwhile the 'diversity' journalists and the corrupt old media continue to churn out their stale ''news''; at what point will people begin to notice the rank smell of propaganda that's long past its sell-by date?

Labels: Diversity, Illegal Immigration, Immigration Restrictionists, Mass Immigration, Multiracialism, Political Correctness, Racial Dispossession, Racial Division