Conservative Heritage Times

Sean objects to my take on the Jason Richwine firing by Heritage in the comments on this post.

Sean objects to the “nationalization” of the immigration debate, a point he has made many time before. But immigration is one of the few issues that really is and ought to be national. The Constitution specifically grants to Congress the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization … throughout the United States.” While I certainly don’t object to states like Arizona adopting measures that attempt to enforce Federal rules, that immigration is a state issue seems silly to me. Does Sean really believe that California could have lax immigration laws and Alabama very restrictive immigration laws and that would be just fine? Once my state and some of my neighboring states have seceded, then I’ll be less concerned with how California wants to conduct its immigration business, but until then, we are all in this together.

Sean also implies that the demographic change we are concerned about is already a fait accompli. Well, to some degree it is, but that is why this debate is so urgent. We must halt the current trends as soon as possible before the numbers really do pass a tipping point. Maybe that point has already passed, but I’m not sure what the utility is in throwing up our hands. Let’s not stand around with our thumbs up our rears as the situation gets even worse even faster.

Sean also suggest that we are powerless because we don’t pay Heritage’s bills. I am keenly aware of how little power we paleos have, but what is the point in wallowing in that? I’ll just keep banging away on my keyboard in the blogosphere trying to help wake people up.

49 Comments »

It’s such a self-evident fact that all races are interchangeable that there’s no need to rebut Richwine’s methodology or logic.

Any idea or person that goes against leftist ideology is automatically “racist,” and therefore universally regarded as bad. And stupid. Here are a few examples:

Here’s Charles Johnson’s Little Green Footballs on Richwine’s refusal to apologize for his heresy:

Of course he doesn’t apologize; that’s the standard posture when right wing racists are exposed. They always double down and insist they were just “telling un-PC truths.”

And check out columnist Mary Sanchez, who condemns Richwine for “toxic views” and “pathetic scholarship” that are clearly “offensive and wrong.” Then she tosses this “fact” into the bonfire:

Immigrants have lower rates of criminal conduct than native-born people. And a new study shows that Hispanic high school graduates have now overtaken white students in rates of enrollment into college.

So, it’s “offensive and wrong” to state that Whites have a higher IQ than Hispanics, but there’s nothing wrong with asserting that immigrants make better citizens and scholars than native-born Americans. Viva la Raza superior!

But this statement signed by minority and leftist student groups at Harvard is so full of righteous outrage, it sounds like a satire of political correctness:

“We condemn in unequivocal terms these racist claims as unfit for Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard University as a whole. Granting permission for such a dissertation to be published debases all of our degrees and hurts the University’s reputation.”

See? Just lob that “racist” label at something or someone, and they’re automatically beyond discussion. No counter-argument needed. The Harvard fatwa, by the way, was signed by 24 groups, including all the usual suspects, such as the Latino Caucus and the Progressive Caucus. But it also brought together the LGBTQ Caucus and Arab Caucus, as well as both the Israel and Palestine Caucuses. And people accused Richwine of being devisive!

10 Comments »

There’s nothing like a red-blooded debate to clarify your thinking and focus your activism. We have such a debate here and here about the difference between conservatism and libertarianism.

Let’s cut to the chase: The real distinction between the two is the question of what man is and what political arrangement suits him best.

The answer to that question determines everything else. For example, if you believe man is a peaceful, sharing creature, and that all people are equal, then the inequality you see all around MUST be evil and artificial. You would then be acting consistently with your basic belief to advocate an all-powerful government that nationalized all private property for the good of all. That government would be doing good by destroying traditional society and forcing people to live according to your ideals. And you don’t have to imagine the consequences: It’s been tried.

Click here to continue

41 Comments »

“I’m from the Federal Government, and I’m here to protect you”

In the latest National Review Online, Charles Krauthammer, that anti-gun, pro-amnesty, pro-global democratic revolution, big-government “conservative,” defends Obama’s drone program:

Once you take up arms against the United States, you become an enemy combatant, thereby forfeiting the privileges of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution, including due process. You retain only the protection of the laws of war — no more and no less than those of your foreign comrades-in-arms.

Lincoln steadfastly refused to recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation. The soldiers that his Union Army confronted at Antietam were American citizens (in rebellion) — killed without due process.

The operative idea in Krauthammer’s argument is that the commander-in-chief is all-powerful. If he chooses to ignore the right of self-determination, or the Bill of Rights, or whatever, then those who oppose him deserve to be in the crosshairs.

Of course, that attitude effectively negates the very principle of the American Revolution:

Legal scholar Ryan Alford observes that the 13th century marks “the last time when the executive branch of any country governed by the common law had asserted that it was legal to kill a citizen on the basis of an executive order.” Obama’s “executive death warrant” is more than a breach of the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee, he argues, it’s an affront to the entire Anglo-American constitutional order.

Problem is, overthrowing the “entire Anglo-American constitutional order” is just part of the process of overthrowing the rest of our Anglo-American culture, which DC is actively implementing as official policy. It’s what they call “diversity” and “inclusiveness.” I call it “a death spiral into a Third-World banana republic,” but then, I’m a hopeless conservative.

11 Comments »

Thanks to Palmetto Patriot for pointing this out. I didn’t listen to the SOTU Address. Couldn’t stomach it. And I haven’t watched the two Republican responses yet – Rand and Rubio. If you watched any or all of them, let me know your thoughts.

This, however, is very disappointing.

Paul insisted in his speech that race and ethnicity are unimportant (a notion that none of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence would have agreed with), using the tired-out, Leftist phrase ‘complexion of our skin’ as if colour is the only thing which that makes Eskimos, Nigerians, Chinese, Frenchmen and Greeks different. Along the same lines, Paul spoke about the ability of a person from anywhere on Earth to ‘become an American.’ If Paul is right, then ‘American’ is simply a proposition – a notion that one accepts or rejects – or a piece of government paper which is handed out for political and economic concerns. Or perhaps both. It’s clear though that if Paul is correct in his view that ‘American’ is universal then it does not define nationality. There is no single notion that the 310 million people who live between Canada and Mexico hold in common. They do not have a common religion. They do not have a common background. They don’t even have a common language. Nothing unites them except that they are all subordinate to a single city on the Atlantic coast – which about half of them pay income taxes to while the other half lives off of those taxes. The United States that Obama, Rubio and Paul believe in is a universalist construct. It’s a motley collection of everyone and no one.

Read more…

3 Comments »

When a high-paid “diversity consultant” promises he can close the Black-White achievement gap, it pays to check out his past performance – otherwise, you might get nothing but more problems. From the Charlotte Pundit House.

No Comments »

The good news is that five racial socialists have been sent to jail for attacking unsuspecting restaurant patrons. The bad news? For starters, the perpetrators benefited from free legal aid from attorneys who agree with the attackers’ notion that anyone branded a “racist” has no rights, so an attack on them is justified.

While the authorities who handled the case did not openly embrace the attackers’ ideology, they definitely failed to prosecute the thugs with the vigor they should have, as Nicholas Stix explains in this disturbing and eye-opening article.

Particularly ominous is that supporters of the “antifa” (anti-fascist) bullies who commited this assault openly brag about violently confronting anyone they deem “racist.” The Anti Racist Action goons entered the Tinley Park restaurant yelling, “Hey, bitches, the ARA is going to f— up this place.” One “anti-racist” web site said this about the Tinley Park attack: “The Five heroically showed that these [racist] groups have to be crushed sooner than later.” Here’s an account of their “heroic” action:

Panic shot through the small Tinley Park restaurant as quickly as the stream of determined, black-clad assailants marched in, clubs and hammers in hand.

The wide-eyed hostess frantically dialed 911. Old men leapt from their tables and grabbed chairs to fend off the surprise attack.

Instantly batons and fists were flying, launching food, plates and chaos. In less than two minutes, the attackers headed for the doors, fighting off customers and restaurant staff into the parking lot.

Ten people were injured, at least three of them needing staples to close bloody head wounds.

An unpublished restaurant security video viewed by the Tribune of the bizarre Saturday afternoon melee had no sound — but it screams with images of fear and aggression.

Men in their twenties hide behind masks so they can launch a sneak attack on elderly victims. Yeah – real heroic. But the attackers were motivated by noble intentions, you see. They saw the attack as a “pre-emptive” action against “racism.”

That’s the toxic thinking that led to this crime. Now we have the added incitement of Tarantino’s “Django,” in which, as one enthusiastic viewer wrote, an ex-slave “triumphs over white supremacists.” As if that wasn’t sufficiently blood-curdling, here are tweets from viewers who openly call for the murder of whites after viewing the movie.

No wonder folks are arming themselves these days.

7 Comments »

In the name of “racial justice,” a North Carolina judge has overturned the death sentences of three murderers. Here’s an introduction to the “victims of racism” the court has spared:

A Cumberland County judge has sentenced three death row inmates to life in prison without possibility for parole after finding that racial discrimination in jury selection played a key role in securing their death sentences.

Judge Gregory Weeks issued the ruling on Thursday for Tilmon Golphin, Christina Walters and Quintel Augustine after the challenged their sentences under the 2009 Racial Justice Act.

Walters was convicted of killing two women in a gang initiation ritual. Golphin was convicted of murdering two law enforcement officers at a traffic stop. Augustine was convicted of killing a Fayetteville police officer.

Commenting on the case, Ken Rose of the Center for Death Penalty Litigation proclaimed that the ruling proves “our capital punishment system is infected by racial bias.”

But if that’s true, then SOMEONE had to commit an act of racial bias. Who was it? What exactly did this person do that demonstrated racial bias? Is Mr. Rose going to prosecute that person?

Or is it possible that no single perpetrator can be identified because “racism” is what defines Western society? I think that’s what Rose is claiming. He’s not alone – that argument can be found here. And if that is the case, then the entire fabric of Western culture must be dismantled. Private property, the right of association, inheritance, any aspect of a free society that results in a “disparate impact” for protected minorities is a target.

We are racing toward Third-World anarchy.

2 Comments »

The following was submitted by frequent commenter Savrola. The opinions expressed are his and do not necessarily represent the views of Conservative Heritage Times.

How Conservative Third Parties Can Win Third World Voters.

Communication is key.

Whites and conservatives don’t communicate well because they lead sterile lives.

Americans of European extraction have left their ethnic culture behind and become atomized yet differentiated particles in a sea of adversaries.

A form of racial socialism is prevalent in the U.S. because ethnicity has been nationalized.

Before a blended humanity could be created, our overlords had to oversee the management of all the varying ethnic groups into four major categories based on skin color, white, black, brown and yellow.

Once these categories were established, they began to work towards the creation of a blended humanity.

Multiculturalism not assimilation is the answer to the West’s Third World problem.

Anglo conservatives since WWII have forcibly imposed their culture on European and non-European cultures, alike. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

Whites fear multiculturalism because they have lost control of their own identity. Their culture is controlled by interlopers, their ancestors are forgotten and descendants marginalized.

Why does the White man do nothing? Because he is a White man. More precisely he is not a Teuton, he is not a Celt, Slav or a Gaul. He has no homogeneous ethnic roots, no loyalty to any particular culture.

Europeans have been mongrelized, as Wyndham Lewis suggested in his book, “Paleface.” And why shouldn’t a German-Anglo-Gaul breed with a non white to fulfill their biological imperatives?

To argue that interracial relationships ruin cultures is a waste of time because the entire purpose of the Western Powers That Be is to destroy all cultures and create a blended humanity with a single corporative culture.

Whites are often embittered towards blacks and Amerinds due to these races being used against them in a variety of ways by the contemporary media culture.

The fact is that both these races and their cultures have been under assault by the corporate media for decades and have crumbled sooner due to the fact that they are not as resilient to propaganda as Europeans are.

The answer to the problem in the short-term is to ban Satellite-Media outreach into regions of the country that are still controlled by fairly conservative legislatures.

That’s correct. Ban Clear Channel, FOX, and MTV among others, from the South and Midwest.

The second step is to appeal to minority communities while they remain minority communities.

Encourage Hispanic, Asian (and soon) African immigrants to remain true to their own language and culture.

Assist in the establishment of foreign language radio and TV stations to cater to the immigrant communities.

Continue Reading »

22 Comments »