Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of the counter-reformation against the new paganism. Putin is plugging into some of the modern world’s most powerful currents. Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America’s arrogant drive for global hegemony. Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR disintegrated. He is also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a hedonistic secular and social revolution coming out of the West.
In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin is planting Russia’s flag firmly on the side of traditional Christianity.
Vox Day cites that notoriously “neo-Confederate” propaganda mill known as the New York Times on the explosive issue of secession in Crimea. The editorial writers at the Times are having a little difficulty making sense of Obama’s opposition to a popular referendum on Crimea seceding from Ukraine:
Consider the different American views of recent bids for independence.
East Timor? Yes.
South Sudan? Yes.
Palestine? It’s complicated.
It is an acutely delicate subject in the West, where Britain wants to keep Scotland and Spain wants to keep Catalonia.
To which Vox Day adds:
And the USA murdered hundreds of thousands in order to forcibly “keep the Union together” and deny the sovereign Southern States their right to self-determination. This has not escaped the attention of the world’s second-rate powers, some of whom have indicated support for the Russian position.
What the ruling elite can’t grasp is that the peoples of the world do not share their globalist vision. Crimea has a majority Russian population that does not want to be part of Ukraine. This is just one more problem caused by the anti-human policies of the old Soviet Union. And it wasn’t just the Reds who violated natural borders; the West is largely to blame for the unnatural and unsustainable political lines drawn in Africa during colonial times. As the folks in Sudan recently made clear, those borders are being redefined by history and culture.
The lessons of this worldwide trend apply here, too. As our rulers in DC import a more docile population from the Third World, the actual result is not a flowering of diversity but a loss of identification and loyalty to the old American nation. Already, secession is gaining steam in America, and ethnic and racial divisions are openly recognized as the reason. No people anywhere in the world wants to be governed by others – self-determination is just another term for secession. So as DC continues to reconstruct the old America, look for REAL secession movements to arise here at home.
Razib Khan has a recent post at The Unz Review entitled “Why Inbreeding is Bad“, which links to a shocking Australian case of multigenerational first-degree incest, where many of the children are impaired.
Garbage In, Garbage Out
Inbreeding doesn’t create mutations; it reveals them if two copies of a preexisting recessive gene are expressed. Inbreeding to the Colts’s extent is shocking and especially bad for the social issues. A parent should never sleep with his children, nor siblings with one another!
However, the term “inbreeding” can refer to varying degrees of relatedness. A false implication from today’s condemnation of “inbreeding” is that the less related a couple is, the stronger their children will be. The result: increased miscegenation and a population that holds a more globalist, less clannish, less nationalist worldview.
HBD Chick recently posted a quote from Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica (pg. 2749) on inbreeding:
“Hence in olden time marriage was forbidden … within … degrees of consanguinity, in order that consanguinity and affinity might be the sources of a wider friendship”.
So, the motive then was to discourage clannishness.
Aquinas continues with:
Afterwards, however, towards these latter times the prohibition of the Church has been restricted to the fourth degree, because it became useless and dangerous to extend the prohibition to more remote degrees of consanguinity. Useless, because charity waxed cold in many hearts so that they had scarcely a greater bond of friendship with their more remote kindred than with strangers: and it was dangerous because through the prevalence of concupiscence and neglect men took no account of so numerous a kindred, and thus the prohibition of the more remote degrees became for many a snare leading to damnation.
So the ideal, as with most things, is moderation.
Somehow an unqualified man pretended to sign for the deaf as the U.S. president gave his gushing tribute to Nelson Mandela. People are asking how this could happen:
The key address in the memorial service for Nelson Mandela was given by Barack Obama, whose words were brought to life for deaf spectators and TV viewers by a “sign language interpreter”, who could be seen gesturing energetically behind the sombre US President.
Yet the man, not only seen by the tens of thousands in Johannesburg’s FNB stadium where the memorial took place on Tuesday, but also by millions across the world on television, was a “fake”, according to Bruno Druchen, the national director of the Deaf Federation of South Africa.
Mr Duchen told the Associated Press “there was no meaning in what he used his hands for”. He and other language experts pointed out that the man was not signing in South African or American sign languages and could not have been signing in any other known sign language because there was no structure to his arm and hand movements.
As one ANC member put it, “What this man was doing was making no sense.”
But in a way, it made perfect sense.
Many commentators criticized the entire event as poorly planned and managed. Security was laughable. And for the ANC to put an unqualified sign language interpreter to stand beside the president of the U.S. was just the icing on the cake. The “interpreter” has explained his erratic performance by claiming he was “hallucinating, hearing voices.” Yes.
So this was perfect. What better way to communicate the message that it is “progress” to dismantle a society that worked and replace it with one that does not? That a man caught in the act of plotting mass murder is to be hailed as a saintly peace maker? Or that an African advocate of communism, the most bloody anti-human ideology the world has seen, should be honored with U.S. flags flown at half-mast?
I’d say a nonsense medium for a nonsense message is entirely appropriate.
[T]he curious disappearance of satire from our literature is an instance of the fierce things fading for want of any principle to be fierce about. Nietzsche had some natural talent for sarcasm: he could sneer, though he could not laugh; but there is always something bodiless and without weight in his satire, simply because it has not any mass of common morality behind it. He is himself more preposterous than anything he denounces. But, indeed, Nietzsche will stand very well as the type of the whole of this failure of abstract violence. The softening of the brain which ultimately overtook him was not a physical accident. If Nietzsche had not ended in imbecility, Nietzscheism would end in imbecility. Thinking in isolation and with pride ends in being an idiot. Every man who will not have softening of the heart must at last have softening of the brain.
This last attempt to evade intellectualism ends in intellectualism, and therefore in death. The sortie has failed. The wild worship of lawlessness and the materialist worship of law end in the same void. Nietzsche scales staggering mountains, but he turns up ultimately in Tibet. He sits down beside Tolstoy in the land of nothing and Nirvana. They are both helpless — one because he must not grasp anything, and the other because he must not let go of anything. The Tolstoyan’s will is frozen by a Buddhist instinct that all special actions are evil. But the Nietzscheite’s will is quite equally frozen by his view that all special actions are good; for if all special actions are good, none of them are special. They stand at the crossroads, and one hates all the roads and the other likes all the roads. The result is — well, some things are not hard to calculate. They stand at the cross-roads.
Source: GK Chesterton. Orthodoxy. Year: 1908.
There might be some Nietzscheite defence since Nietzsche did write “the spirited triumph over the strong” (their defence is often “Nietzsche is misunderstood”), but Chesterton’s slash appears to me to have connected with Nietzsche’s neck, resulting in a clean decapitation, Chesterton perhaps proving himself Nietzsche’s sought after Übermensch.
Note: I’m leaving the Nietzsche quote uncited for now.
Another worthy slash at Nietzsche comes from Inazo Nitobe (Bushido: The Soul of Japan, also from 1908 and a classic):
The profit and loss philosophy of Utilitarians and Materialists finds favor among logic-choppers with half a soul. The only other ethical system which is powerful enough to cope with Utilitarianism and Materialism is Christianity, in comparison with which Bushido, it must be confessed, is like “a dimly burning wick” which the Messiah was proclaimed not to quench but to fan into a flame. Like His Hebrew precursors, the prophets—notably Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos and Habakkuk—Bushido laid particular stress on the moral conduct of rulers and public men and of nations, whereas the Ethics of Christ, which deal almost solely with individuals and His personal followers, will find more and more practical application as individualism, in its capacity of a moral factor, grows in potency. The domineering, self-assertive, so-called master-morality of Nietzsche, itself akin in some respects to Bushido, is, if I am not greatly mistaken, a passing phase or temporary reaction against what he terms, by morbid distortion, the humble, self-denying slave-morality of the Nazarene.
I rediscovered the following in this site’s “media library”. From the book The Scientist as Rebel by Freeman J. Dyson (published 2008):
The last stop on our tour was the city museum of Vladimir. Here we found the densest concentration of schoolchildren. The museum is in a tower over one of the ancient gates of the city. Its emphasis is historical rather than artistic. The main exhibit is an enormous diorama of the city as it was at the moment of its destruction in 1238, with every detail faithfully modeled in wood and clay. Across the plains come riding endless lines of Mongol horsemen slashing arms, legs, and heads off defenseless Russians whom they meet outside the city walls. The armed defenders of the city are on top of the walls, but the flaming arrows of the Mongols have set fire to the buildings behind them. Already a party of horsemen has broken into the city through a side gate and is beginning a general slaughter of the inhabitants. Blood is running in the streets and flames are rising from the churches. On the wall above this scene of horror there is a large notice for schoolchildren and other visitors to read. It says: “The heroic people of Vladimir chose to die rather than submit to the invader. By their self-sacrifice they saved Western Europe from suffering the same fate, and saved European civilization from extinction.”
The diorama of Vladimir gives visible form to the dreams and fears which have molded the Russian people’s perception of themselves and their place in history. Central to their dreams is the Mongol horde slicing through their country, swift and implacable.
It took the Russians 150 years to learn to fight them on equal terms, and three hundred years to defeat them decisively. The horde in the folk memory of Russia means an alien presence moving through the homeland, ravaging and consuming the substance of the people, subverting the loyalty of their leaders with blackmail and bribes. This is the image of Asia which three centuries of suffering implanted in the Russian mind. It is easy for us in the strategically inviolate West to dismiss Russian fears of China as “paranoid.” If we had lived for three centuries at the mercy of the alien horsemen, we would be paranoid too.
British prime minsters, soon after they come into office, customarily visit Washington and Moscow to get acquainted with American and Russian leaders. When Prime Minister James Callahan made his state visit to Moscow he had two amicable meetings with Chairman Leonid Brezhnev. At the end of the second day he remarked that he was happy to discover that there were no urgent problems threatening to bring the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union into conflict. Brezhnev then replied with some emphatic words in Russian. Callahan’s interpreter hesitated, and instead of translating Brezhnev’s remark asked him to repeat it. Brezhnev repeated it and the interpreter translated: “Mr Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive.” Callahan was so taken aback that he did not venture either to agree or to disagree with this sentiment. He made his exit without further comment. What he had heard was a distant echo of the Mongol hoofbeat still reverberating in Russian memory.
It took them three hundred years to drive out the Mongols but only four years to drive out the Germans.
During the intervening centuries the Russians, while still thinking of themselves as victims, had become in fact a nation of warriors. In order to survive in a territory perennially exposed to invasion, they maintained great armies and gave serious study to the art of war. They imposed upon themselves a regime of rigid political unity and military discipline. They gave high honor and prestige to their soldiers, and devoted a large fraction of their resources to the production of weapons. Within a few years after 1941, the Russians who survived the German invasion had organized themselves into the most formidable army on earth. The more they think of themselves as victims, the more formidable they become.
James Callaghan was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1976 to 1979.
Columbia University’s copy is not working at the time of this post, so it’s being republished here.
Text of Address by
at Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises,
Thursday, June 8, 1978
I am sincerely happy to be here with you on this occasion and to become personally acquainted with this old and most prestigious University. My congratulations and very best wishes to all of today’s graduates.
Harvard’s motto is “Veritas.” Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us if we do not concentrate with total attention on its pursuit. And even while it eludes us, the illusion still lingers of knowing it and leads to many misunderstandings. Also, truth is seldom pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter. There is some bitterness in my speech today, too. But I want to stress that it comes not from an adversary but from a friend.
Three years ago in the United States I said certain things which at that time appeared unacceptable. Today, however, many people agree with what I then said…
A World Split Apart
by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The split in today’s world is perceptible even to a hasty glance. Any of our contemporaries readily identifies two world powers, each of them already capable of entirely destroying the other. However, understanding of the split often is limited to this political conception, to the illusion that danger may be abolished through successful diplomatic negotiations or by achieving a balance of armed forces. The truth is that the split is a much profounder and a more alienating one, that the rifts are more than one can see at first glance. This deep manifold split bears the danger of manifold disaster for all of us, in accordance with the ancient truth that a Kingdom — in this case, our Earth — divided against itself cannot stand.
Here’s everything you need to know about Samantha Lewthwaite:
A British official told Andrew Malone of the London Daily Mail that a British woman known as the “White Widow” was suspected to be among the terrorists involved in the Kenya attack. Samantha Lewthwaite, 29, converted to Islam and married a Muslim man, Jermaine Lindsay, she met through an online chat room when she was 17. Lindsay killed himself in a suicide bombing that was one of the so-called “7/7? attacks on July 7, 2005, that killed 52 people in bombings on subways and buses in London.
Self-hating whites are as misguided and evil as the adherents of any other suicide cult. It’s a pity they have to take others down with them.
In a recent open letter to the American people, Russian president Vladimir Putin assured us he likes and respects us, but asked us to realize we’re embarrassing ourselves and doing a lot of harm with our delusion of “American Exceptionalism.” Both the mainstream American left and right rushed to prop up our most beloved myth against this iconoclastic Cossack.
What’s interesting is that both wings of accepted American thought agree on what “exceptionalism” means–and more significantly, that both, though supposedly rivals, are actually in lockstep on all other major issues as a result.
For example, liberal columnist Dana Milbank shot back at President Putin with this bristling retort:
When we say we are exceptional, what we really are saying is we are different. With few exceptions, we are all strangers to our land; our families came from all corners of the world and brought all of its colors, religions and languages. We believe this mixing, together with our free society, has produced generations of creative energy and ingenuity, from the Declaration of Independence to Facebook, from Thomas Jefferson to Miley Cyrus. There is no other country quite like that.
Americans aren’t better than others, but our American experience is unique — exceptional — and it has created the world’s most powerful economy and military, which, more often than not, has been used for good in the world.
Miley Cyrus? Really? My pride floweth over.
And former South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, now president of The Heritage Foundation, also defended “exceptionalism” by invoking the image of America as the Multi-Culti Empire that roams the globe doing good:
We are, in other words, not a nation based on ethnicity, but on beliefs, and not coincidentally, that is why we attract people of all ethnicities and they become proud Americans…. When we have used our power, however, we have done it for good.”
Both echoed what Madeleine Albright said as secretary of state:
It is the threat of the use of force [against Iraq] and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.
That self-image still inspires the Obama regime’s global aggression:
In their more honest moments, White House officials concede they got here the messiest way possible — with a mix of luck in the case of Syria, years of sanctions on Iran and then some unpredicted chess moves executed by three players Mr. Obama deeply distrusts: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and Iran’s erratic mullahs. But, the officials say, these are the long-delayed fruits of the administration’s selective use of coercion in a part of the world where that is understood.
“The common thread is that you don’t achieve diplomatic progress in the Middle East without significant pressure,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, said Thursday. “In Syria, it was the serious threat of a military strike; in Iran it was a sanctions regime built up over five years.”
If your identity is that of a polyglot hegemon endowed with greater wisdom than the rest of the world, how can you NOT support open borders? Or the invasion of Iraq? Or Iran? Or Syria?
First of all, the US was NOT founded as a unique blend of whatever ethnic group decided to elbow its way in; it was founded as an outpost of Western civilization.
More important, the notion that the American people have always been committed to a never-ending global war to impose democracy and equality is a pure lie, and a fairly recent one at that. Previous “Wars of Liberation,” including Lincoln’s invasion of the South, the Spanish-American War, Vietnam, and Iraq, later turned out to be based on massive propaganda and misinformation.
The core idea expressed in “American Exceptionalism” is that the role of America’s elite is to serve as the global mind bringing reason and order to a chaotic, degenerate world. That is Gnosticism, an anti-Christian concept that explicitly glorifies abstract knowledge while scorning the physical. I argued here that Northern thought degenerated from its Puritan roots into militant Gnosticism, while Southerners upheld and lived by a balance between the spiritual and the physical.
Author John C. Wright said this of the Gnostic foundations of today’s statists and their leftist enablers:
In sum, they are idolaters who substitute the worship of Caesar for the worship of Christ; they are Gnostics in the posture of eternal rebellion both against God in Heaven and civil society on Earth. They are chameleons who adopt any ideals or values or party lines needed for so long as needed to destroy them, including Pragmatism, including Worldliness. They are Politically Correct and factually incorrect.
They seek to destroy civilized institutions here on Earth and drag Utopia down from heaven to replace them, indifferent, or even glorying, in the bloodshed required.
To avoid confusion, let us call them Ideologues. They are utterly unworldly, rejecting the pragmatism of the Worldly Man as cold and loveless and unspiritual.
The Ideologues are as nearly a pure evil as mankind has ever produced or can imagine, but please note that their motives are the highest and noblest imaginable: they seek things of the spirit, peace on earth, food for the poor, dignity given to all men, and all such things which are the only things, the holy things, that can electrify dull mankind and stir him to take up the banner and trumpet and shining lance of high and holy crusade.
Ever wonder why leftists see “education” as the cure to all ills? Or why they fancy themselves superior to those they see as living in the darkness of tradition and irrationality? Their contempt for the physical explains their hatred of heritage and tradition–and of life itself. But as John C. Wright pointed out, there’s a terrible price to pay for the spreading of their concept of the good. When Madeleine Albright proclaimed the death of a half-million Iraqi children as “worth it,” she was expressing what all Gnostics believe.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
The SPLC was recently caught planting an agent provocateur:
Damningly, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that there were muttered racial slurs throughout the demonstration.
Now, however, it’s been revealed that the only racial slurs that were muttered came from the author of the $PLC piece—a mole named Keegan Hankes. According to another demonstrator at the rally, Mr. Hankes expressed his fury about “spooks” and “n*****s” and his pleasure that Chief Smith had “taken care of them.” He also consistently brought up race in conversations, trying to bait other members.
What do ethnic/religious slurs accomplish? Nothing positive. Nationalism is a movement of love, not hate. The only slur a nationalist need ever use is Moby (Urban Dictionary):
An insidious and specialized type of left-wing troll who visits blogs and impersonates a conservative for the purpose of either spreading false rumors intended to sow dissension among conservative voters, or who purposely posts inflammatory and offensive comments for the purpose of discrediting the blog in question.
The term is derived* from the name of the liberal musician Moby, who famously suggested in February of 2004 that left-wing activists engage in this type of subterfuge
Any who propose violence/vigilante action or use ethnic/religious slurs should be accused of being a Moby, or assumed under the influence of a Moby (e.g. a hate blogger working for the SPLC). If the SPLC needs a hate group to cite for funding drives, it should have to resort to entirely manufacturing its own.
*SSC blog claims Urban Dictionary is wrong, attributing Saul Alinsky as the true originator.
HT: Red wrote on the word Moby a few years ago (first I heard of it), and Rebellion Blog linked to VDARE article.
Grab your barf-bag before reading this puff piece on Jess George, the white jefa of Charlotte’s Latin American Coalition:
She’s not Latino, an immigrant, or even a minority. She’s not fluent in Spanish, either. …
Since taking over the Latin American Coalition four years ago, she has steadily increased its visibility with a series of rallies, marches and publicity stunts. … It’s an unusual approach that has drawn national attention. The country’s largest Hispanic civil rights organization, the National Council of La Raza, called the coalition an “inspiration” for other immigrant advocates.
I can remember when “civil rights” meant favoring voting rights for blacks who were US citizens. But we’ve evolved way past that. These days, “civil rights” means “the right of foreigners to invade and colonize another country.” I guess that’s progress.
But there are sometimes speed bumps on the road to progress. George’s ascent to the position of the jefa of the Latin American Coalition was resented by Latinos who couldn’t figure out why this gringa was telling them what to do:
“I’ve had other Latino leaders in Charlotte tell me: ‘Jess, it’s nice that you are doing this for the community. But when is a real leader going to show up?’?” says George.
“At first, it was really hard to hear. I’m the kind of person who likes to be told how I can do things better. But when you point to me and say, ‘You’re white,’ I can’t change that.”
Former coalition board chairwoman Olma Echeverri admits that there was backlash when George was named executive director. Prior to that, George spent five years as an associate director at the coalition.
“I supported her taking over, but I was approached by people asking why I didn’t find another candidate who was Latino,” said Echeverri, now chairwoman of the Hispanic-American Democrats of North Carolina.
Nevertheless, despite such difficulties, this New York transplant continues to stand up “for a class of people she feels is being bullied by the system.”
How noble. And how courageous. After all, other than the federal government, the media, academia, and big business, NO ONE is helping illegal aliens in this country.
Since 1949 every Finnish mother, rich and poor, is given a Maternity Pack which is partly credited with dramatically reducing Finland’s infant mortality rate to one of the world’s lowest. What it’s not given credit for is uniting Finns with this commonality, and distinction from other nations.
A box like this should in theory give Finns a sense of nationalism, and it tells a mother someone cares, even if the father has abandoned her. Perhaps my pointing this out will bring a leftist activist to modernise the pack into being more ethnically neutral, though I doubt my post will be noticed. However, it’s worth pointing out to American readers that a government expenditure of this type can be positive.
Would a maternity pack be feasible in America? No, we’re an entirely different type of state and populace (diverse).
[Great heroes and mighty kings] have had to give up their glory; we have seen the deaths of [demigods and demons]; the oceans have dried up; mountains have crumbled; the Pole Star is shaken; the Earth founders; the gods perish. I am like a frog in a dry well.
Basham quoted that when talking of how pessimistic Hinduism had become during a time of great change when tribes were being absorbed (the middle centuries of the first millennium BC).
We relive King Brihadratha’s trauma today.
Basham, A.L. The Wonder That was India. London: Picador, 2004. 248-249. Print.
First, the leftist fantasy that white supremacists murdered Texas District Attorney Mike McLelland and his wife was upended when it turned out the actual killers were a disgraced justice of the peace and his wife who killed the McLellands out of revenge.
Then, when the FBI released pictures of light-skinned Boston Marathon bombing suspects, the anti-white left whooped for joy. David Sirota at Slate openly hoped the culprits were white, and Tim Wise bloviated that the real lesson of the tragedy was, like everything else in the Tim Wise Alternate Universe, all about “white privilege.”
Over at Little Green Footballs, the FBI pictures were the object of much anti-white ridicule. One commenter noted the hat worn by one of the suspects and wondered, “Could that be a Dale Earnhardt hat?” Oh, if only a Christian Southerner did it!
Now comes word that the Boston terrorists are (were?) Chechnyan Muslims.
Showing once again that leftism isn’t so much an ideology as it is a pathology.
Governors of States that respect gun and property rights are openly appealing to individuals and businesses to leave high-tax, anti-freedom sinkholes such as California and New York, and to take refuge in more hospitable States, namely, in the South. And no, I’m not the only one to interpret this trend as a new WBTS. From Fox News:
Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry attempts to lure California businesses to the Lone Star state with the promise of lower taxes and fewer regulations in the latest of what’s been dubbed the second war between the states.
Here’s the larger significance: Those who do not want to live in post-American, socialist Multicultistans are moving to States that still respect tradition and liberty.
It’s the General Pemberton phenomenon: A disuniting and recombination of people into bluer and redder States. And it’s happening before our eyes.
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.
By Frosty Wooldridge
Will American society, culture and language survive an added 70 million immigrants within 25 years? That will prove the most significant question for the United States in the 21st century.
Writer Sam Francis said, “You cannot separate a culture and its attendant civilization from the genetic endowments of its founding people, nor can you expect to transfer it to another people, i.e. [immigrants.]”
Jesse Washington wrote, “But today, with the world a mouse click away and most every country in the world accessible in little more than a day, globalization is competing fiercely with assimilation. People who have a foot in two strikingly different cultures no longer leave one behind for the other. Now they can move between them easily, fluidly, quickly. Thus it becomes possible for a fanatical few Muslim-Americans, living in the belly of what they perceive as a hostile culture, to feel closer to a bombed Afghan village or a Pakistani madrassa than to the America outside their own front doors.” The assimilated terrorist: An outsider no longer – Welcome to www.Charter.net
We have occasionally covered the BNP here, especially when The American Conservative dissed them, so I thought this article on the travails of the BNP might be of interest. I haven’t been following their situation closely, but I have been vaguely aware that they were struggling.
A lesson for conservative Americans in all this is to note how often third party politics is fraught with schism, personality issues, etc. Also, there seems to be a critical mass that a third party must maintain or it crumbles. The BNP seems to have fallen below that point. Look at the history of the Reform Party in the US for an example.
Dr. Michael Hill, League of the South President
Eventually, amnesty for millions of non-white illegal aliens will become reality. Many think this is the beginning of the end of Western Christian civilization in North America. Why have the elites sold us out? Why are they committed to the destruction of the West by the promotion of multiculturalism? And why is multiculturalism the poison that will ultimately prove fatal to Western Christian civilization unless an antidote is quickly administered? Unless we understand exactly what we are dealing with when we bring up the subject of multiculturalism, The League of the South and our allies can never hope to successfully combat the enemies who are sworn to our – white Southerners–destruction as a people.
What exactly is multiculturalism (which, for short, I will simply call MC)? Its advocates cast it in innocuous terms, claiming that it is merely justice and the recognition and celebration within the borders of the West of non-Western peoples and cultures. A proposition based on simple fairness, they say. Moreover, the MC crowd claims the superior moral mantle of anti-racism (which is really only a coded term for “anti-white”). The white, Christian West, they posit, bears much guilt for having built its prosperity and civilization on the backs of the poor, dark-skinned races of the world. It is only just, then, that the West share its wealth – including its land and produce – with its myriad poor brothers and sisters from the Third World. Pity and sympathy have become their most potent weapons turned against a West that has lost its ability to think correctly about the question of its very survival.
In our day, virtually every Western institution – church, government, the academy, the media, big business – mimics the cry of left-wing utopian humanism. From the Civil Rights movement in America to the Universal Rights of Man, the demand is the same: “Western man, give up your ill-gotten Kingdom for the good of all.” We Westerners are browbeaten in the name of MC to take in millions from the Third World in order that we not only might share our wealth and way of life with them but also to prove that we are not “racists.” In short, we are asked to sacrifice all we have at the altar of egalitarianism.
But MC is really not about ushering in equality among all races, religions, and cultures; rather, it is about destroying Western Christian civilization, the world’s premier unmitigated evil. And because the South is the strongest enclave of this civilization, it finds itself square in the crosshairs of the MC crowd. Why do you think the Feds are not willing to lift a hand to stop our dispossession by a floodtide of illegal immigrants? It is the continuation of Reconstruction to the ultimate degree. We are being replaced as a people.
Any attempt by Western man to defend himself and his civilization is called “racism,” and is designed to paralyze him completely (even when no malice is shown toward any other group). This agenda points up the fact that the proponents of MC seek not fairness, justice, or equality but demonization and destruction of the white, Christian West. Only whites, and white Southerners in particular, are not allowed to have a country all their own. Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, but no South for white Southerners!
All indications point to the success of the MC agenda of paralyzing the West through guilt manipulation. Though we never had any sort of debate about whether we wanted to be a MC polity, it has been forced upon us anyway. Anyone who protests is silenced by the usual epithets. Even opposition to illegal immigration is enough to get you called a “racist” or a “xenophobe.” If you don’t believe me, check out the Southern Poverty Law Center’s rants on the subject.
Why do we allow this to happen? I suppose the bigger question is: why are we voluntarily swallowing the poison of MC and committing suicide? Former President Bill Clinton was effusive in his praise for the coming day – around the year 2050–when whites of European descent would become a minority in North America. Well, if getting rid of the white majority is such a good thing, why wait until 2050? Why not just drop all pretence of enforcing immigration law and roll out the red carpet for the Third World? If all men are brothers and America is indeed a Proposition Nation, then what are we waiting for?
If the scenario of the South (and the rest of America) being overrun by hordes of non-white immigrants does not appeal to you, then how is this disaster to be averted? By the people who oppose it rising up against their traitorous elite masters and their misanthropic rule. But to do this we must first rid ourselves of the fear of being called “racists” and the other meaningless epithets they use against us. What is really meant by the MC advocates when they peg us as “racists” is that we adhere to ethnocentrism, which is a natural affection for one’s own kind. This is both healthy and Biblical. I am not ashamed to say that I prefer my own kind and my own culture. Others can have theirs; I have mine. No group can survive for long if its members do not prefer their own over others.
If the South – the most important remaining bastion of Western Christian civilization – is to survive the MC onslaught, then it must fight doggedly against everything that threatens its existence. If we cannot do this, it is proof that we are a dying civilization. To live, we must re-cultivate our common cultural bonds that historically have made us a distinct people, repent of our sins, and pray to God that he will spare us for ever letting things get this bad in the first place.
J. Michael Hill