Locust blog

January 14, 2009

Prisoners Convert to Islam for Gang Protection

Filed under: Clash of Civilizations, Islamic Fascism, The West — whitelocust @ 6:32 pm

Prisoners Convert to Islam for Gang Protection


Tom Whitehead, Telegraph (London), January 13, 2009

Inmates at Long Lartin prison said some were “becoming Muslim” because it is a “bigger gang”.

Radical cleric Abu Qatada, once described as Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe, was held at the prison last year before being released on bail—which he went on to breach.

Similar concerns were raised in an inspection report in to Whitemoor Prison in Cambridgeshire last year, in which prison officers warned extremist Muslim prisoners are ganging up on others in an attempt to radicalise them

Inspectors at Long Lartin, in Worcestershire, were told gang culture us widespread.

One inmate said: “Yes there is a gang culture here which is becoming an issue. A lot of people are becoming Muslim just because it’s a bigger gang.”

Another said: “There are issues with Muslim gangs wanting to overpower others.”

One added: “Muslim gangs; if you have a problem with one, you have a problem with them all,” while a fourth said: “People are converting to Islam for protection.”

The report, for chief inspector Anne Owers, also found drug debts have led to violence among prisoners.

Inmates use phones to organise sales of class A drugs such as heroin, it said.

Phil Wheatley, director general of the National Offender Management Service, said: “The Governor and senior management team are committed to ensuring that all prisoners feel safe, and the strong personal officer scheme at Long Lartin continues to be developed to offer support to prisoners.

“A new programme to improve engagement, led by the Muslim Chaplain, will develop support specifically for Muslim prisoners. “

Original article

Could Iowa Lose a House Seat?

Filed under: Illegal Immigration, Race Realism, Radical Leftist Communist, Republicrats — whitelocust @ 6:29 pm

Could Iowa Lose a House Seat?

More news stories on Common Sense in High Places

Storm Lake (Iowa) Pilot Tribune, January 12, 2009

{snip}

Fifth District fellow Republican Congressman Steve King says he’s heard a number of analysts boldly predict that Iowa would lose a seat and he says others have said they’re not certain. “I want to see the numbers before I draw a conclusion,” he says.

King expressed a concern about not everyone included in the census is a U.S. Citizen. King says the census does not count just “U.S. Citizens,” but persons in the United States including non-citizens and illegal aliens. King says he supports an amendment, introduced in 2007, that reads “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the number of persons in each State who are citizens of the United States.” King said if the amendment passes it may mean loss of seats for states like Florida, Texas and California and says hopefully other states like Iowa would gain a seat or keep all current seats intact. King says every single U.S. Citizen needs to be counted in the census and said that only U.S. Citizens should be represented in Congress.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “Remaking the Political Landscape—The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment,” a study was done after the 2000 census to measure illegal immigration’s impact. {snip}

The report found that illegal immigration has an impact on how seats are redistributed in the house. The study found that with the presence of illegal aliens in other states meant a loss of one house seat in Indiana, Michigan and Mississippi in 2000. {snip}

{snip}

Original article

(Posted on January 13, 2009)


Comments

So, what will Iowa’s notorious New England-style liberal Democrats propose? More immigration into Iowa, to keep its population up.

Also, I have never understood the need to keep the number of U.S. House members at 435. That number was solidified a number of decades ago; the net effect is that states losing seats have to draw districts in a way that wind up being advantageous to liberal Democrats. My proposal is to mandate a rep for every 500,000 people in a state or part thereof, and my impromptu numbers would mean that there is a 725-member House. Also, racial gerrymandering should return, because without black voters, white liberals cannot beat white conservatives in white districts. Undoing the gerrymandered districts (at the demand of many “conservative” Republicans, ironically) might have a lot to do with the undoing of the GOP in the House.

Posted by Question Diversity at 5:50 PM on January 13


I live in Iowa if you can call that living. I wish they would lose all their seats. These are the idiots who got the ball rolling for Obama. They need to hop in their corn cob beds cover up their heads and ask god to forgive them for what they have done?

Posted by Butch at 6:11 PM on January 13


Another step toward the break up of the US. Normal states are going to be feel abused by the tax negative states and demand that they leave the Union.

Posted by Anonymous at 7:35 PM on January 13


King says he supports an amendment, introduced in 2007, that reads “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the number of persons in each State who are citizens of the United States.”

How about we compromise, and say that illegals count as three-fifths of a person?

Posted by Dave at 8:39 PM on January 13


Yes Virginia, there really is a “Menace of the Mexicans!”

Posted by Anonymous at 9:42 PM on January 13


I hope it loses lots of seats. This is the state that started the whole Obama thing. I no longer like Iowa. I no longer feel a “kinship” with Iowa (wink, wink.)

Posted by GetBackJack at 10:27 PM on January 13


I see references made to Steve King and knowing much about him since I live in Iowa I can tell you this Mr. King is a True Conservative who is often ridiculed by the local Liberals and Pot Heads for his Logical Stands. I wish he could move up to higher power but I don’t know IF this will happen. Borders, Language and Culture seems to be what he stands for and speaks out for. But he is fighting an Uphill Battle here in the corn state as they call it.

Posted by Butch at 10:06 AM on January 14

Is California Dreaming Over?

Filed under: 2ND Mexican American War, Death of the Nation, Illegal Immigration — whitelocust @ 6:28 pm

Is California Dreaming Over?

More news stories on the Demographic Transformation

AP, January 12, 2009

Mike Reilly spent his lifetime chasing the California dream. This year he’s going to look for it in Colorado.

With a house purchase near Denver in the works, the 38-year-old engineering contractor plans to move his family 1,200 miles away from his home state’s lemon groves, sunshine and beaches. For him, years of rising taxes, dead-end schools, unchecked illegal immigration and clogged traffic have robbed the Golden State of its allure.

{snip}

The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period—more than any other state, according to census estimates. That is about equal to the population of Syracuse, N.Y.

{snip}

Unemployment, home foreclosures up

California’s loss is extremely small in a state of 38 million. And, in fact, the state’s population continues to increase overall because of births and immigration, legal and illegal. But it is the fourth consecutive year that more residents decamped from California for other states than arrived here from within the U.S.

{snip}

Why are so many looking for an exit?

Among other things: California’s unemployment rate hit 8.4 percent in November, the third-highest in the nation, and it is expected to get worse. A record 236,000 foreclosures are projected for 2008, more than the prior nine years combined, according to research firm MDA DataQuick. Personal income was about flat last year.

With state government facing a $41.6 billion budget hole over 18 months, residents are bracing for higher taxes, cuts in education and postponed tax rebates. A multibillion-dollar plan to remake downtown Los Angeles has stalled, and office vacancy rates there and in San Diego and San Jose surpass the 10.2 percent national average.

Median housing prices have nose-dived one-third from a 2006 peak, but many homes are still out of reach for middle-class families. Some small towns are on the brink of bankruptcy. Normally recession-proof Hollywood has been hit by layoffs.

“You see wages go down and the cost of living go up,” Reilly says. His property taxes will be $1,300 in Colorado, down from $4,300 on his three-bedroom house in Nipomo, about 80 miles up the coast from Santa Barbara.

{snip}

Original article

(Posted on January 13, 2009)


Comments

Ironically, Californians are turning Colorado in the same mess from which they fled, and which they created. AR here had a story a few days ago about blacks leading both chambers of the CO legislature, in spite of the paucity of blacks in the legislature and in the state population.

Surprisingly, the AP used “unchecked illegal immigration.” Verily, California is becoming Brazil, with no prospects for a middle class, just the plutocrats and the proles.

Posted by Question Diversity at 5:45 PM on January 13


President Reagan, when speaking of the Mexican invasion, said, “let ‘em come”. They have and in overwhelming numbers. However, you can add only so many before you reach a ‘critical mass’. Let’s hope we have.

Posted by sbuffalonative at 5:50 PM on January 13


Unchecked Illegal immigration one of the reasons people are leaving the state

I see it as the result of Democratic control for some forty years. All the money, billions upon hundreds of billions of dollars, wasted on social programs for people who do not belong here. The politicians of California, in the past, and today, have been too stupid, too lazy and too criminal to create a viable immigration policy.

What would have been wrong with following the European example, where work visas are given for six months, and after that time you have to go back to your country, until the next work period, no ifs ands or buts about it. This way the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, the rampant crime, and the political pandering to illegal aliens would have ended. The reconquista Mexican nationalists at heart,(also known as California Democrats) wouldn’t have been able to accumulate the raw power they now have in the State.

The truth is that millions of these people would probably rather live in Mexico—especially if the gravy train of benefits that the Democrats give them were taken away. Switzerland and Austria, have a system where temporary workers get six month visas and it just so happens that the cut off date comes right before they are able to receive a “gravy train” of benefits.

Posted by Bobby at 6:12 PM on January 13


Colorado is just as bad as Cali – you’ll find no refuge there, Mr. Reilly, only more snow.

Posted by Anglokraut at 6:15 PM on January 13


Moving from California to Colorado? Dude, that’s the definition of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire!

Posted by Paul at 6:17 PM on January 13


“All the leaves are brown and the sky is gray” — for us Whites
“California Dreaming is becomin’ a reality” —— for the Mexicans

Posted by Awakened at 6:23 PM on January 13


Behold, the future Utopian States of America in microcosm:

“With state government facing a $41.6 billion budget hole over 18 months, residents are bracing for higher taxes, cuts in education and postponed tax rebates. A multibillion-dollar plan to remake downtown Los Angeles has stalled, and office vacancy rates there and in San Diego and San Jose surpass the 10.2 percent national average.”

With a white population of about 45% or only 17.1 million people (approximately,) one would expect the state to simply be thriving. Why it isn’t, just befuddles me to no end; is not diversity, particularly undocumented migratory diversity, our greatest “strength?”

So, what went wrong in Disneyland?

As always, God help us all,

John PM!

Posted by John PM at 6:25 PM on January 13


- And we’ll be dead and cold if we go to LA.

Posted by Forlorn at 6:26 PM on January 13


I hope those Whites who leave aren’t expecting their State pensions, because the new owners of California will spend or steal all they can from the State retirement fund, just like they do down Mexico way.

Posted by Anonymous at 7:26 PM on January 13


“For him, years of rising taxes, dead-end schools, unchecked illegal immigration and clogged traffic have robbed the Golden State of its allure.”

I’m wondering if he realizes that Colorado isn’t much better, especially regarding illegal immigration and all the negative aspects attendant to it.

I lived there over twenty years ago, and it was pretty bad at that time, and there’s no doubt it’s worse now, plus the cold Rocky Mountain winters are legend.

I can’t speak for all of Colorado, but Denver and the surrounding area were inundated with Mexicans. I suspect the rest of Colorado is almost as bad, especially the farm centers.

But, regarding California, I doubt that the state will be solvent by 2010.

California is an example of leftist ideology in practice for several years with no opposing ideology to keep it from instituting the far out laws and policies it has, courtesy of a diverse society. It wasn’t until Washington leftists decided to follow the California model, which amounted to giving people homes who couldn’t pay for them, that the rest of the country began to collapse and take the rest of the world with it.

We’re going down, down, down, folks, and at this point it looks like this train wreck is going to be impossible to stop, not just in California but the entire world.

Each day offers more gloomy economic news.

Posted by ice at 7:44 PM on January 13


Perhaps it is time for these folks to start looking to the Northwest for a new home. The Pacific Northwest is an excellent location for whites of all ages and classes. Check out nwhomeland.blogspot.com for ideal locations.

Posted by Nicholas at 7:53 PM on January 13


Other reasons why Americans are leaving California is that they get kind of tired seeing, graffitti literally everywhere, locking themselves in their homes because of out of control crime, getting out of the car to remove the supermarket cart from their driveway that some illegal alien left there,watching 14-17 year old girls pushing their babies around in carts and imagining how much in increased taxes the care of that child is costing them. Really, there are so many reasons, including the rather mild ones the author mentioned, that are causing people to leave this state. A story in the Lost Angeles Times quoted an admitted illegal alien women who said that she was leaving California with her husband and two kids for Georgia, because California was becoming to much like Mexico. There you have it. But again, Americans can’t seem to connect or don’t want to connect the dots.

Posted by Bobby at 8:09 PM on January 13


California Nightmare, that is what its become and this cancer is spreading to the rest of America. California needs to be cut from America so we can survive.

Posted by the Soviet Republic of New Jersey at 8:40 PM on January 13


As I’ve said before, Whites won’t have to become an absolute minority before the system will collapse. We just have to become too small of a percentage of the overall population to carry the weight of Blacks and Hispanics. If there’s a sliver lining to our demographic problem, it’s this. When Whites are faced with real blows to their life styles, they will wake up. Whites may be willing to live with third world people in their country, but they will never accept third world life-styles for themselves. The biggest problem we face right now with racial awareness is that most Whites are to self-centered to think about the bigger picture, or what America’s going to look like fifty years from now. The average young White Person today spends most of their time worrying about what clothes they’re going to where, or what this one is saying about that one, and which new singer is in style. There’s just to many distractions at the moment. Whites will continue to ignore the real problems facing their future until reality hits them like a blow to the head. When all of a sudden, Whites are out of work, and their homes are being foreclosed on, when they have to go to bed hungry, then they will wake up. They’ll have no choice. Many older White Nationalists fear for our cause, because they believe that young Whites have been brain washed, but I really don’t think that they have. Wrather, I think that young Whites have been brain clogged. They’ve been bombarded with soo much commercialism, it’s almost impossible for them to think of anything else. Young Whites may claim to support integration, but it’s not because they actually have strong feelings one way or the other. Try listening to a young person express any opinion on anything that’s not about pop culture. They stumble all over their words trying to form some type of opinion, but they can’t because they don’t have any. They’ve never spent much time thinking about anything that doesn’t pretain to their immediate lifes. “Uhh, I like Obama because, like, he uhh, he’s gonna bring you know, like change, and uhh, that, uhh, umm, I mean, change is good.” Young Whites don’t have strong feelings about anything, and that ironically enough, should give us hope. Young Whites are basically empty vessels when it comes to ideaology. At the moment, they regurgitate whatever cliche opinions about race and society they need to to keep from making waves or having to actually think. Remember that. YOUNG WHITES DON’T HAVE ANY REAL FEELINGS ABOUT INTEGRATION, THEY SIMPLY GO WITH THE FLOW!!! When their decadent life-styles are ripped out from under them, they’ll become the greatest foot soldiers our movement could hope for, because they will be completely unbiased by former opinions. They don’t have any. We will be able to mold them how we need them.

Posted by Winston Smith at 8:52 PM on January 13


I also noticed that phrase “unchecked illegal immigration” in the story. Looks like one of the AP Thought Police editors was asleep at the wheel.

Posted by Reader-1 at 9:07 PM on January 13


“Unchecked illegal immigration”? How about unchecked immigration period. I live next door in Nevada and we are getting the overflow and it’s not just Mexicans, it’s Asians, Philipino’s, Indians, Arabs, you name it. This country doesn’t just have an “illegal immigration” problem, it has a legal immigration problem too. It’s just absolute madness to allow the worlds people (millions of whom are unskilled labor) to pour into this country when the economy is in the shape it’s in.

Posted by RHG at 9:38 PM on January 13


Sorry, it’s also assault rifle bans and the requirement to have a handgun meet “Kalifornia” bans, as well as bans on .50 rifles.

Kalifornia is a facist state in the truest sense of the word.

Ronnie Barrett of Barrett Firearms refuses to sell to Kalifornia law enforcement.

“Barrett cannot legally sell any of its products to lawbreakers. Therefore, since California’s passing of AB50, the state is not in compliance with the US Constitution’s 2nd and 14th Amendments, and we will not sell nor service any of our products to any government agency of the State of California.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389702/posts

Posted by Anonymous at 9:40 PM on January 13


wish I was around in fifty’s and sixty’s and saw the golden age of california. what a paradise it must have been back then, lower population, great economey, sun shine, cleaner cities, orange groves and easy going life style.Oh well you can always dream I guess….

Posted by John at 9:56 PM on January 13


President Reagan when speaking of the Mexican Invasion said, “let em come.”

This is one big reason among others that I have never been able to understand the “Reagan worship.” I have a different point of view. Anyone who would say such a thing, especially a President, is just another traitor. Sorry, Reagan worshippers.

Posted by Bobby at 11:07 PM on January 13


“… His property taxes will be $1,300 in Colorado, down from $4,300…”

Here is one of THE major reasons Whites have been fleeing the ‘Golden State’ since the 90s. If you are White and expect to live in a relatively safe area, you will be forced to pay un-Godly mortgage payments and property taxes for a very small house.

Talk show hosts John & Ken opened up their phone lines tonight asking those who are escaping the state to call and state WHY they are leaving. For most, it was a deteriorating quality of life due to unfettered illegal immigration.

Parents called to complain bitterly about having to pay heavily to send their children to expensive private schools as the local schools have been completely destroyed by low IQd, disinterested, non-English speaking children of illegal aliens.

Many of the callers spoke of buying ‘twice the house’ for ‘half the price’ (and half the property taxes) in Colorado, Idaho, and Montana.

Other callers vowed to ‘stay and fight’ and not allow our beautiful state to be taken over by colonists who come here and destroy entire communities (it’s far to late to take a stance, there are too few of us left to vote the ‘rascals’ out).

The Golden State that once was is gone, never to return.

Bon

Posted by Anonymous at 11:25 PM on January 13


What has happened to California is sad. It really was the place to be post WWII until the 80’s. The state really is stunning, I totally understand the physical attraction of it. My cousin live in San Diego for 11 yrs., but had to move back because the cost of living is insane. He absolutely hated to come back here, but wanted to beat the coming mortgage storm he saw as a broker. He told me what was going to happen 2 yrs. before it happened. The mortgage crisis may have been the final blow to California financially. Prices are coming down at breathtaking speeds. Other than rich enclaves like Santa Barbara, it is doomed to be a 3rd world rich and poor state. It is truly finished. Think of all the lost spending of all the phony “equity” lines. It will probably be ceded culturally to Mexico. Tourism and imports will be the main industry. People will keep visiting. What is not discussed is the nasty affect that California’s fall is having on Las Vegas. Most of Vegas revenues still come from weekend trips from Californians. Race does enter in this equation in several areas.
1. It was when California had a majority middle-class white population that it prospered. Beach culture was white culture.
2. California was created by mostly rugged people who settled it when it was a waterless outback with no agriculture to speak of.
3. Tom Mullholland and other brilliant men helped build the most fantastic reservoir and canal system the world has ever seen. Without is, the southwest we see today does not exist. Las Vegas gets about 6 inches of rain a year. No way does it exist without brilliant engineering of Hoover Dam. No way.
4.Alot of fantasies that Hispanics harbor about Americans “stealing” the southwest is they see what it looks like now. Vegas, L.A., San Diego, Phoenix, and Albuqueque are all montrosities that rose out of nothing. What it is impossible to tell anybody who has not been to the southwest ( I have been there 4 times) is this is some of the harshest desert on the planet. White engineering built the southwest as we now know it!
If it changes hands, you will see the gradual disrepair and disintergration of all the canals and dams, which, if if happened with the present populations, would be a biblical catastraphe. That is the reality of the southwest which will reveal itself sooner or later. There is one enclave in the southwest that seems to be thriving. Utah. Take a wild guess which ethnic group dominates the culture and population of that state. Do I really need to say?

Posted by Anonymous at 11:40 PM on January 13


wish I was around in fifty’s and sixty’s and say the golden age of California.—John

John, you couldn’t imagine it. Besides the things you pointed out, serious crime was extremely low, California does not have the humidity of say Florida, a state it is sometimes compared to,and beautiful beaches, as well as some Alpine like mountains. Even unique deserts. Under a long time Republican Administration,it built some of the most beautifully planned infrastructure as well as, Universities, highways, roads, etc. The Democrats along with some Republican traitors have destroyed it all. One could argue that they ruined the most promising state in the nation—a superstate really, a self sufficient entity that even supplied much of the rest of the nation and some of the world with all kinds of things.

Posted by Bobby at 11:44 PM on January 13


“…wish I was around in fifty’s and sixty’s and saw the golden age of California. what a paradise it must have been back then…”

John:

More than you can ever imagine.

I was born in LA and am old enough to remember when there were large ranches and huge citrus and walnut groves covering the valley. I remember a time when the beaches were pristine, the water was blue and clear and neighborhoods were clean, safe and graffiti-free. I remember when English was the prevailing language, not Spanish, Tagalog, and hundreds of other languages that must now be accommodated.

I think the turning point in LA was the Watts Riot of 1965—I remember my dad showing me the smoke rising from the city (we lived in the hills above LA at the time). The entire city became entirely different after that as Whites fled riot-prone areas and blacks moved in (Watts was originally an Italian/White community as was Compton).

Even then, in the late 60s I can remember my dad talking about an increasing population of non taxpayers.

I’m glad he’s not alive to see what his native state has turned into (he was born here in 1923).

All I can do now is look at old ‘before’ pictures of LA and even those in my own photo albums and remember what a paradise it once was in Southern California—a paradise my own children will never know, that will never be known again.

Bon

Posted by BonBon at 11:47 PM on January 13


“Perhaps it is time for these folks to start looking to the Northwest for a new home. The Pacific Northwest is an excellent location for whites of all ages and classes. Check out The Northwest Homeland for ideal locations. (Link added.)

Posted by Nicholas at 7:53 PM on January 13”

But if you join us in the Northwest, please learn how to not act like the now-typical Californian. Respect the local people and traditions, buy local, and give back to your new communities. Keep a low profile. Don’t be a busybody out to cleanse the world. And remember why you left the failed state, and do the exact opposite of what was acceptable and “cool” there.

Posted by Dave at 11:56 PM on January 13


“most Whites are to self-centered to think about the bigger picture”

How can they think about big things, if the thought-controllers don’t want them to?

Posted by Anonymous at 12:26 AM on January 14


“wish I was around in fifty’s and sixty’s and saw the golden age of california”

I’m 63, born in Santa Monica when Cali was still conservative.

We knew how good it was. Everywhere you go, EVERYONE WAS WHITE. Go to the beach- all Whites. You could camp out overnight at the beach, knowing you would still be alive the next day. Visit Grandparents at Laguna Beach, and see the famous “greeter” Eiler Larsen…http://www.lagunabeachindependent.com/news/2008/0215/home_companion/049.html Anyone could afford to live at the beach then. The orange groves, the nearby high mountains (San Gorgonio, 11,500 feet). Lions drag strip and the Winternationals. Cruising Hawthorne Blvd. ala American Grafitti
Swimming at Mickey Thompson’s house in 1961. Installing a 389 Pontiac into a Raymond Loewy designed ‘54 Stude. Visiting the Glass Church (Frank Lloyd Wright) on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Road trips to Mammoth, Tahoe, Bass lake, and everywhere else. White, White, White. Surfing just beginning, Billy Slagg’s new Greg Noll board. Sis Diane drove us to Torrance Beach in a WHITE ‘59 Chevy convertible. EVERYONE WAS HAPPY…1965 was the end. 1964- the last year of precious metals in the money system. We have been slowly cooked, as advertsed by the Fabians (“we will feed you small doses od socialism until you fall into our hands like an overripe fruit.”)

The loss is beyond tragic.

Posted by EVERYONE WAS WHITE at 1:04 AM on January 14


Not to worry.

Those that have seen the future have seen Kalifornia and much of the west coast sink into the ocean.

It is prophesy.

Posted by Anonymous at 1:52 AM on January 14


those that say California and America is better off because of mass emigration, they are naive. people are leaving because california is a warzone, not a metaphorichal one, a real one

Posted by Anonymous at 2:29 AM on January 14


I’m sorry, as a former Californian living in the NW for six years now, I have to disagree with first, all the gloating – as if it couldn’t happen to you or it is somehow White Californians who caused it – and second, that it wasn’t happening in other places already.

Many Mexicans have for a long time skipped right through California for the Eastern Oregon and Washington farms, whose White owners also didn’t care about legality. Same goes for farmers in Colorado and all the Midwest. Since being up here, I see much more race mixing than I did in California. The crime is also catching up to California’s quickly everywhere. Whites also seem more susceptible to illicit drug use and Oregon has been the meth capital of the U.S. for some time now.

In the early 1990’s California had a last chance to save itself. Under the leadership of Governor Pete Wilson a proposition (189) that would have banned payment for medical and school for illegals was PASSED. But it was overturned in a lawsuit led by MECHA and La Raza. The State capital was host to large numbers of Hispanics crowding daily into the Assembly Chamber and shouted and yelled everytime any lawmaker tried to make a case for instituting 189. Similar activities by the Hispanic population in Sacramento have been common since that time. The point is that it is harboring populations of Hispanics that caused California to capsize, not the White people lack of attentiveness or voting record.

Since 189’s failure, California has steadily declined to where it is today. It has often been said that things start in California first. I think this is exactly the case here and other states are not learning the right lessons from this one. I am always amazed at so many Whites up here who seem to be completely naive concerning the Hispanic problem in California. Portland is inundated with Hispanics now as are all the cities along the I-5 corridor in Oregon. Like most towns and cities in California, 90% of the crime stats show Spanish surnames. (Although that is changing a bit now due to the “recession”).

I remember California in the 1950s and 1960s. Although I grew up in No. Cal, which is a completely different place than So. Cal I recall how nice LA and San Diego was then. But that’s just it. California filled up with Midwestern bumpkins and East coast sharks who turned it into what it became later. Mainly, New York lawyers who wanted to turn every nice little town into their own little kingdom and ban this and ban that. The Midwesterners just excentuated the naive, gullible, disposible society that natives (like me) began to try to prevent by starting movements for stiffer litering laws, saving land from more development, etc. It didn’t prevent much in the end. Don’t argue, I lived through it. The Mexican – Hispanic thing came after that. It was already a mess, however.

Posted by Whiteplight at 2:44 AM on January 14


“Kalifornia is a facist state in the truest sense of the word.”

Posted by Anonymous at 9:40 PM on January 13

Unfortunately true. But again, this is well on the way nationwide. It just happened there first.

And, not to seem too irate – it’s California, not Kalifornia. And only non-Californians say or write “Cali.” When doing this, one is merely engaging in the same arrogance that seems to claim that it could never happen here and “Cali” is a place we can all look down on with satisfaction. No, the situation in California and what has happened to it is a warning.

Those who think we ought to cut in out of the union are simply giving in to La Raza who claimed they would take it “back” for Mexico. You mean that you guys are going to let a country as weak and dumb as Mexico take a state of the Union? One that has until recently contributed more wealth the longest to America than any other state?

I left California because I had to. I was a victim of too many crimes and my long term strategic planning told me that I needed to be in a wetter climate. But simply ceded territory to Mexico is defeatist and backward. Perhaps after this country gets over the Black Superman myth as it applies to the presidency, we will see a true American leader return. One who might begin to set things right. The MSM taiks a great deal about hope these days, but that is both my hope and prediction.

Posted by Whiteplight at 2:55 AM on January 14


You know what they say, “As California Goes, So Goes the Country”…

Posted by Stone Greaser at 4:11 AM on January 14


I grew up San Gabriel and what happened not only to my home town but all of Southern California in the last 40 years is astonishing. Very sad indeed.

Posted by Anonymous at 6:34 AM on January 14


I just wonder what phenomenom has transformed southern California from the ‘paradise on Earth’ of the 1950s to the bankrupted basket-case of today?
Could it be global warming?
A 50 year drought?
A plague of locusts?
A plague of frogs?
A plague of boils?

hmmmm, I wonder, if you walk the streets of LA and compare the faces with a photograph of 60 years ago, just what is it that has changed? must be something in the water.

Posted by Kenelm Digby at 7:31 AM on January 14


When in the name of hell will American people WAKE UP from their torpor and realize the worst thing happening is the flood of illegal (or H1b) immigrants flooding our country!!!

The MAJORITY of crime in California? NO, emphatically not by White citizens. But most assuredly by Hispanics and Blacks! That wages are driven down… again attributable to immigrants. Like those Silicon Valley computer engineers some years back… fired en masse, their jobs handed to Pakistani and Indian H1b visa holders fresh off the plane.

We keep hearing the warcry of growers… they can’t get enough help. Translated it means the illegals are going after better paying jobs once the rightful province of American citizens!

California’s hoving at bankruptcy? Try supporting or subsidizing those many millions of illegal immigrants and their anchor babies. The cost to TAXPAYING WHITE citizens of paying for all that free emergency room healthcare hospitals have to provide illegals and their broods.

While we constantly hear the La Raza and other immigration advocacy groups spouting their incessant lies. Doing their utmost to conceal or downplay the UGLY TRUTH about what immigration really means to the American people!

WAKE UP, AmRen readers. Tell everyone you can to read the truth for themselves. Steer them to this site; to http://www.alipac; frostywooldridge.com; to rense.com, to other websites dealing in dispensing TRUTH rather than feel-good lying propaganda.

Posted by Fed Up at 7:55 AM on January 14


The dream of California is over… for whites. Learn a lesson from this you ex-Californian white emigrants. Diversity immigration ruined your state. Will the same thing happen to Idaho, Utah and Montana— where will you go then?

Posted by Sardonicus at 8:00 AM on January 14


If Mexicans can trash a state the size of California just imagine what they can do to the rest. Fighting this criminal alien invasion and domestic treason with our mouths is akin to standing at the base of a mountain and protesting the descending avalanche. Nothing short of the use of arms can reverse this travesty and if we believe otherwise we are simply fooling ourselves. We must prepare ourselves for battle because the enemy isn’t at the gate; he is already overrunning our communities. This is war…

Posted by Anonymous at 8:31 AM on January 14


But this is the liberal democrats “vision” is it not? No stereotypes, political correctness, no racism, open borders, welfare. California is the nightmare they created.

Posted by Anonymous at 9:00 AM on January 14


This is more of a question than a comment. How Do They Do It? I have always had an above average income and have looked at California as a home BUT with even homes in the 1000 S.F. range selling in the Million Dollar price range (that would be a $10,000 a month payment) I have always had to pass. BUT people come from some third world country and set up housekeeping. HOW DO THEY DO IT? How do these third worlders come from total poverty and take up some of the most attractive real estate in America? How can people who could barely survive in New Orleans move to San Diego and make it? If you have the answer please let me know. And how do they actually Take Over these areas to where it’s not safe for a white American to walk, many times even in daylight?

Posted by T Rexx at 9:59 AM on January 14


“For him, years of rising taxes, dead-end schools, unchecked illegal immigration and clogged traffic have robbed the Golden State of its allure.”

Yes, but they keep telling us that we need all this immigration, illegal and illegal. If it’s so good why has California gone from the Golden State with good schools, low cost of living and high quality of life to lousy schools, high cost of living, outrageous taxes, massive crime, slums and overcrowding and people fleeing. Let this be a lesson for the rest of the country.

Posted by KC at 10:17 AM on January 14


“For him, years of rising taxes, dead-end schools, unchecked illegal immigration and clogged traffic have robbed the Golden State of its allure.”

Yes, but they keep telling us that we need all this immigration,legal and illegal from Mexico and other latin american countries. If it’s so good, why has California gone from the Golden State with good schools, low cost of living and high quality of life to lousy schools, high cost of living, outrageous taxes, massive crime and gangs, slums and overcrowding and people fleeing. Let this be a lesson for the rest of the country.

Posted by KC at 10:18 AM on January 14


White people can be cynical for no reason. Migration to California had nothing to do with the exodus. It was the high tax policies of the Davis/Swartzznegar adimins. The lack of jobs is due largely to the lost of industry, thanks to iverregulation and Free Trade. The presence of immigrants is bnenificial to the local economy but wasn’t enough to offset the desaterous impact of federal and state policies.

For those of you who decry “amnesty”, then you are falling into the trap that Tancredo and his World Government flock set for you. Look at the facts: undocumented Americans performing low-end jobs for lowend wages are putting more into the economy than they get out of it. With lower wages they cannot afford the goods and services, particularly luxeries, purchased by “real” Americans who’s wages still rose despite the presence of such immigrants. If these immigrants had not come to fill these low-end jobs than Whites would otherwise be working for the same disgraceful wages that the Mexicans are working for since there would be no one else left to do those jobs.

Legalization actually works against the immigrants insofar as they will be paying higher taxes working those jobs with nothing else to gain. However, the simple American ideal of justice and fairness justifies legalization being that it would be moraly right. So I support, albiet, reluctlantly, a legalization program. Even one that would force people to learn an alien language and pay fines that should otherwise be paid to them. And legalization would secure the borders: no one would have a reason to cross illegaly. So don’t fall into the Tancredo/Sessions CFR trap. A free country is a sovergn country. Right now, we are swampped with illegal immigrants, lower standard of living, rampant crime, an overburdoned healthcare system, and crowded schools. Do you want immigration reform or more of this? Use your heads.

Posted by Munoz at 10:19 AM on January 14

The Humiliation of America

The Humiliation of America

By Paul Craig Roberts

“Early Friday morning the secretary of state was considering bringing the cease-fire resolution to a UNSC vote and we didn’t want her to vote for it.” Olmert said. “I said ‘get President Bush on the phone.’ They tried and told me he was in the middle of a lecture in Philadelphia. I said ‘I’m not interested, I need to speak to him now.’ He got down from the podium, went out and took the phone call.”[PM: Rice left embarrassed in UN vote, By Yaakov Lappin , Jerusalem Post, January 12, 2009]

“Let me see if I understand this,” wrote a friend in response to news reports that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert ordered President Bush from the podium where he was giving a speech to receive Israel’s instructions about how the United States had to vote on the UN resolution. “On September 11th, President Bush is interrupted while reading a story to school children and told the World Trade Center had been hit–and he went on reading. Now, Olmert calls about a UN resolution when Bush is giving a speech and Bush leaves the stage to take the call. There exists no greater example of a master-servant relationship.”

Olmert gloated as he told Israelis how he had shamed US Secretary of State Condi Rice by preventing the American Secretary of State from supporting a resolution that she had helped to craft. Olmert proudly related how he had interrupted President Bush’s speech in order to give Bush his marching orders on the UN vote.

Israeli politicians have been bragging for decades about the control they exercise over the US government. In his final press conference, President Bush, deluded to the very end, said that the whole world respects America. In fact, when the world looks at America, what it sees is an Israeli colony.

Responding to mounting reports from the Red Cross and human rights organizations of Israel’s massive war crimes in Gaza, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted 33-1 on January 12 to condemn Israel for grave offenses against human rights.

On January 13, the London Times reported that Israelis have gathered on a hillside overlooking Gaza to enjoy the slaughter of Palestinians in what the Times calls “the ultimate spectator sport.”

It is American supplied F-16 fighter jets, helicopter gunships, missiles, and bombs that are destroying the civilian infrastructure of Gaza and murdering the Palestinians who have been packed into the tiny strip of land. What is happening to the Palestinians herded into the Gaza Ghetto is happening because of American money and weapons. It is just as much an attack by the United States as an attack by Israel. The US government is complicit in the war crimes.

Yet in his farewell press conference on January 12, Bush said that the world respects America for its compassion.

  • The compassion of bombing a UN school for girls?

  • The compassion of herding 100 Palestinians into one house and then shelling it?

  • The compassion of bombing hospitals and mosques?

  • The compassion of depriving 1.5 million Palestinians of food, medicine, and energy?

  • The compassion of violently overthrowing the democratically elected Hamas government?

  • The compassion of blowing up the infrastructure of one of the poorest and most deprived people on earth?

  • The compassion of abstaining from a Security Council vote condemning these actions?

And this is a repeat of what the Israelis and Americans did to Lebanon in 2006, what the Americans did to Iraqis for six years and are continuing to do to Afghans after seven years. And still hope to do to the Iranians and Syrians.

In 2002 I designated George W. Bush “the White House Moron.” If there ever was any doubt about this designation, Bush’s final press conference dispelled it.

Bush talked about connecting the dots, but Bush has failed to connect any dots for eight solid years. “Our” president was a puppet for a cabal led by Dick Cheney and a handful of Jewish neoconservatives, who took control of the Pentagon, the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, and “Homeland Security.” From these power positions, the neocon cabal used lies and deception to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, pointless wars that have cost Americans $3 trillion, while millions of Americans lose their jobs, their pensions, and their access to health care.

“These obviously very difficult economic times,” Bush said in his press conference, “started before my presidency.”

Bush has plenty of liberal company in failing to connect a $3 trillion dollar war with hard times. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities blames Bush’s tax cut, not the wars, for “the fiscal deterioration.”

Bush told the White House Press Corps, a useless collection of non-journalists, that the two mistakes of his invasion of Iraq were: (1) Putting up the “mission accomplished” banner on the aircraft carrier, which, he said, “sent the wrong message,” and (2) the absence of the alleged weapons of mass destruction that he used to justify the invasion.

Although Bush now admits that there were not any such weapons in Iraq, Bush said that the invasion was still the right thing to do.

The deaths of 1.25 million Iraqis, the displacement of 4 million Iraqis, and the destruction of a country’s infrastructure and economy are merely the collateral damage associated with “bringing freedom and democracy” to the Middle East.

Unless George W. Bush is the best actor in human history, he truly believes what he told the White House Press Corps.

What Bush did not explain is how America is respected when its people put a moron in charge for eight years.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term.  He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.  He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

Adiós To Presidente Bush—A Retrospective On The Pandering President

Adiós To Presidente Bush—A Retrospective On The Pandering President

With the end of the Bush Era scant days away, and the new Obama regime looming before us, a retrospective is in order.

Bush’s constant pandering to the Hispanic lobby and his justification of illegal immigration are well known to long-time readers of VDARE.COM, we’ve run tons of articles criticizing Bush. Click here for page after page of VDARE.COM articles about Bush.

In fact, I don’t think it would be too much to say that Bush is the most criticized individual in the history of VDARE.COM.

And why not? A supposed conservative who constantly disdains and insults his Republican base, Bush has been obsessed with pleasing Mexicans and other Hispanics. Not that it did him much good. Despite his incessant pandering, Bush is hated in Mexico.

Nevertheless, there is much we can learn from the Bush experience—principally, how not to do things when it comes to the National Question.

There’s been a lot of speculation as to why Bush was so determined to aid and abet the Mexican invasion.

Some have speculated that, as a result of his wild partying days south of the border, Bush has been blackmailed by the Mexican government. Maybe, but my impression is Bush was completely willing to pander to the Mexican government because he really wanted to. Besides, nowadays, what scandal could possibly prevent anyone from being elected president?

Does Dubya aspire to build a Mexican-American Bush family dynasty, for which his part-Mexican relatives would be ideally suited?

Is he a universalist and globalist who wants to merge with the world, beginning with Mexico?

It’s probably a combination of factors, with political and economic factors playing a role. However, when it comes to Mexican/Hispanic issues, Bush displayed all the zeal of a true believer.

A psychological analysis of his upbringing may explain part of it. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth, Bush was familiar with two kinds of Mexicans: (1) the high rolling rich Mexican elitists who were his social equals, and (2) the servant class. Bush seem quite attached to both groups, displaying warmer feelings toward both of them than toward middle class Americans.

A revealing 2006 piece in the Los Angeles Times sums it up well in its headline: Immigrant Issues are Personal for Bush [By Peter Wallsten, April 6, 2006]. Wallsten points out that Bush has been like this since even before he was governor of Texas in 1994:

“Some fellow conservatives were surprised to hear of his seemingly liberal views when it came to the border. Ernest Angelo, a petroleum engineer and mayor of Midland during the 1970s boom, brought up the issue when he encountered Bush at a political event, telling the future governor that he was concerned about the open border. Angelo suggested ending bilingual education in the U.S. to force greater assimilation. But Bush didn’t agree. The two debated the issue for half an hour. ‘He told me that was the wrong thing to do,’ Angelo recalled. ‘I saw right then that he had a very deep-seated feeling that the immigration situation was beneficial to the country.’ “

Remember the much-maligned Pete Wilson, whose courageous support for California’s Proposition 187 (which attempted to cut benefits for illegal aliens) led to his re-election as governor of California? Well, according to Wallsten, Bush didn’t approve:

“…. a scene that unfolded at a governors conference in Williamsburg, Va., left many political leaders stunned. Rather than applaud Wilson’s support of Proposition 187 as a deft move, Bush told Wilson to his face—and in front of other governors—that it was a disaster. “He really minced no words,” recalled former Michigan Gov. John Engler, who witnessed the exchange. “He told Wilson, ‘You’re wrong,’ and that it was Bush’s willingness as a rookie governor to confront Wilson “made a very powerful impression and an early impression on other governors,” Engler said.”

Governor Bush even got involved in the 1996 presidential primary to defend his views. Wallsten reports:

“The then-Texas governor’s careful attention to the immigration issue did not stop with his election. As the 1996 presidential race began to unfold, Bush openly challenged Pat Buchanan, who was campaigning on an anti-immigration, anti-trade platform. “No Cheap Shots at Mexico, Please,” was the headline of an August 1995 New York Times op-ed written by Bush. He cautioned that campaign “discussion on immigration and Mexico can turn ugly and destructive very quickly.” “I don’t want anybody, any race, to be used as a political issue,” Bush said at a news conference, timed to answer a Buchanan appearance in Texas. In other words, the subject was off limits unless you agreed with George W. Bush. “

In the 2000 Republican primary, however, none of Bush’s opponents called him on this. Certainly, you wouldn’t have expected McCain to!

How did Bush ever get nominated? The guy’s main claim to fame was that his daddy had been president.

In 2000, after his nomination as the GOP candidate, Bush openly announced his desire to merge the U.S. with Latin America. Whether his vehicle is open borders, multiculturalism, or the SPP, the man has been faithful to his globalistic vision of a Hispanicized United States.

This is what Bush said in his Miami speech in 2000

“American has one national creed, but many accents. We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We’re a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

“Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey….and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende. For years our nation has debated this change—some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.” Texas Governor George W. Bush on U.S. Policy for Latin America, August 25, 2000

These assertions were quite remarkable for their arrogance, elitism, and crassness. Bush celebrates cultural and linguistic Balkanization, and the transformation of the historical American nation.

And he had the gall to claim this change was properly “debated”. When was it “debated”? It wasn’t.

Tragically, no other prominent Republican politician called him on it.

Bush’s Miami speech also highlighted his specific goals for Mexico:

“I have a vision for our two countries. The United States is destined to have a ‘special relationship’ with Mexico, as clear and strong as we have had with Canada and Great Britain. Historically we have had no closer friends and allies… Our ties of history and heritage with Mexico are just as deep.”

Of course after 9/11, it was Britain that helped us in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Canada that helped us in Afghanistan. But Bush appears not to have noticed.

Practically speaking, for George Bush, what has this “special relationship” with Mexico meant? It’s meant the encouragement and justification of illegal immigration to the U.S., and the political marginalization of those who oppose it. It’s meant the encouragement of Spanish as a de facto official language. (Check out the White House web site for examples.)And it’s also meant that President George Bush has not once reprimanded the meddling by Mexican consular officials on U.S. soil.

After Bush’s squeaker election victory over Gore, and before taking office, Bush told the London Financial Times in an interview that:

“Mark my words. I am going to have more problems with members of my own party than I will with Democrats…If anybody comes to me demanding this and telling me to do that, they’ll [sic] be finished. They tried to do that in Texas with English-only [an attempt to dismantle bilingual education]. But I said: “No. You are going to destroy this party by being extremist”…I had to change the imagery in my party. I had to change the idea that my party was against things. Against immigrants. Against public schools. I wanted people to know I was for something, so that people wanted to hear what I stood for.” George W. Bush, quoted in London Financial Times, December 12, 2000. [Parentheses added by Peter Brimelow]

After his inauguration, Bush made a special point of traveling to Mexico for his first foreign trip. Not only that, but the first country President Bush visited in Europe was Spain, also a part of his Hispanic strategy.

Several years later, during the election of 2004, the Bush campaign released a really nauseating video (you can view it here ) in which he begins his monologue like this:

“About 15 years before the Civil War, much of the American West was northern Mexico.

The people who lived there weren’t called Latinos or Hispanics. They were Mexican citizens, until all that land became part of the United States.

After that, many of them were treated as foreigners in their own land…”

The video also portrays Bush brandishing a Mexican flag, and bragging about Hispanic homeownership. (Pretty ironic, eh, given that the resulting Minority Mortgage Meltdown has caused this catastrophic Diversity Recession?).

Needless to say, despite the video and Bush’s many other examples of pandering, he failed to make serious inroads into the Hispanic vote. (Which hasn’t stopped his consigliere Karl Rove claiming that he did.)

Well, we could go on and on, adding examples of Bush’s avid boosting of Mexico and all things Hispanic, and his contempt for middle-class white Americans. There was the infamous condemnation of the Minutemen, in the presence of a foreign head of state. There were Bush’s repeated attempts to secure an amnesty, and his slanders of patriotic Americans who just want the border controlled and the law honored.

And Bush has kept up the rhetoric right up to the end . Just this week, in his news conference of January 12, 2009, the president expressed regret for not having expended more capital in fighting for amnesty:

“I believe that running the Social Security idea right after the ’04 election was a mistake. I should have argued for immigration reform…” [Bush Cites regrets at Final WH Presser, By Joseph Curl, January 12h, 2009]

And, our soon-to-be former president has the gall to give the GOP this advice. As reported by the AP:

“Down to single digits in his days left in office, President George W. Bush is warning the Republican Party not to become ‘anti-immigrant’ as it regroups from defeat and retools its leadership.”It’s very important for our party not to narrow its focus, not to become so inward looking that we drive people away from a philosophy that is compassionate and decent,” the departing president said in an interview broadcast Sunday, nine days before his term ends. ‘My call for our party is to be open-minded.’”

Here is Bush’s somewhat inarticulate explanation of what he means by “open-minded”:

“We should be open-minded about big issues like immigration reform, because if we’re viewed as anti-somebody — in other words, if the party is viewed as anti-immigrant, then another fellow may say, `Well, if they’re against the immigrant, they may be against me.’ We’ve got to be a party for a better future.”[Bush cautions GOP not to become ‘anti-immigrant’ as it tries to win back power from Democrats, By Ben Feller, January 11th, 2009, AP

Thanks for the advice, Mr. President, but we’ve seen how successful your strategy has been.

After years of pandering to Hispanics, what does Bush have to show for it ?

You would be hard pressed to find a politician, of either major party, who has pandered more to Hispanics, and done it so sincerely, as George W. Bush. And yet, here we are in 2009, about to see a Democratic president inaugurated, who won two-thirds of the Hispanic vote.

So let’s consider the Bush Pandering as a failed experiment. How about a new GOP strategy?

  • Stop importing Democratic voters!

Then see what happens.

What is ‘White Supremacism’? Why is it bad?

Filed under: Human History, Race Realism, The West — whitelocust @ 6:23 pm

What is ‘White Supremacism’? Why is it bad?

Typically, whenever anyone advocates any policy that remotely favors whites, he will be assailed with the usual cacophony of ‘racist,’ ‘white supremacist,’ ‘hater,’ ‘neo-nazi,’ etc. Many people insist they are not white supremacists, not racists, not haters, they just want ‘x.’ As the argument goes, “x” isn’t racist, it’s just common sense. Or “X” isn’t hateful, it’s just benevolent towards our own. Or “X” isn’t white supremacy, it’s just nationalism, separatism, realism, etc, etc.

Various groups are giving strange dichotomies like ‘it’s okay to be proud of your race, so long as you aren’t a white supremacist.’ ‘it’s okay to oppose immigration, so long as you aren’t a white supremacist.’ Etc. Most of the right wing groups, in a desperate wish for respectability, play by the liberals’ rules and truckle under their demands. We’ll be ‘only so far to the right and no further.’ And in order to prove their true PC credentials, they will sharply vilify and attack anyone to the right of them, to show the leftie liberals that they’re really good people, that they’re basically on the same side, and they hate the evil white supremacist nazis too. This moral cowardice infects even the ‘hardest core’ which turns out to be quite spinelessly soft in the end.

Let’s call a spade a spade. There are two definitions of white supremacy that make any sense, the objective and the subjective. I’ll explain each of them, and if you don’t fall under either category, if you are not a white supremacist in either sense, you should have no interest in being anything else either. Instead of disavowing white supremacism while clinging to white separatist, white nationalist, survivalist, etc, you should just give it up and go back to being a good communist left-winger. Nothing is more pathetic than people who refuse to maintain a principled and orderly moral system but contort themselves into loops and pretzels of contradictory views. Basically, you’re just a chink in our moral armor, a weak point liberals can chisel away at, dividing us amongst ourselves, causing friction and ultimately dissension and surrender in the ranks. Once you’ve admitted it’s immoral to be a white supremacist, everything else is immoral too, and it’s time to file for extinction. That’s the only other path that lays before us. People must choose.

Definition 1, the Objective White Supremacism: The belief that whites are objectively superior beings, that by any fair measure, they come out ‘supreme.’ That whites are the best. That we are the best race and have the credentials to prove it.

Is this true or false? First of course we must decide on what objective measures we will be using, to decide if we are superior or inferior. Let’s look at some simple ones then. Standard of Living. Whites have the highest standard of living in the world, we are indeed supreme at affording ourselves the very best lifestyle. Roll out a map of the world, color it in with ‘wealth, freedom, longevity, lack of corruption’ or any other objective measure, and white countries will come out the highest. Perhaps a few asian countries like taiwan, south korea, singapore, japan will join in, but the map of the world will be colored distinctly ‘white good, non-white bad.’

Human Accomplishment is another objective measure we could use. Let’s go back through history and color the map of the world based on who did what. Again, you’ll get a few scattered good things in japan, china, or wherever—and then a massive, dense, overwhelming scatterplot of white countries accomplishing virtually everything. Art, music, literature, math, science, technology, whatever you want, you will find it absolutely dominated by whites. Again, whites are supreme in their ability to accomplish, they take the cake by far. Read Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment if there’s any further doubt of this objective fact. ‘white good, non-white bad.’

It is a fact that even non-whites prefer the looks of white women. Every other race attempts to lighten their skin complexion so they can look more like the human ideal, whites, even with dangerous toxins and bleaches that leave them looking ridiculous. Not just now, but across all time, not just blacks, but asians too. India has an entire caste system based around varna, or color, where the lighter skinned castes are respected more than the darker. The same is true in china, where parasols were used to keep the skin from tanning and skin lighteners used to chemically alter their basic skin color. We did not introduce that, they chose it on their own thousands of years ago. The objective superiority of our white women draws the lust of all the non-whites and makes them the constant victim of rape. White on non-white rape, however, is virtually non-existent. Why would a white want them? The difference is so vast, that while blacks rape 37,000 white women in America a year, not a single white on black rape occurred. Every single attempt the media has made to find a white on black rape has been discovered to be a hoax. The beauty of white women is supreme. Modeling magazines continuously find that white women sell, non-white women don’t, even in the non-white world. Commercials, billboards, and marriage online dating services, all feature lighter-skinned women even within their own race than their average skin tone. Young black children prefer playing with white dolls over black dolls, because they look better. White children, of course, are instinctively averse to non-white dolls, and when they grow up, refuse to miscegenate on the whole, at a vastly higher rate than non-whites who would love nothing better than to find a white woman. ‘white good, non-white bad.’

What about our physical, martial, and athletic prowess? Again, whites are supreme. The vast majority of the Summer and Winter Olympic Medalists are white, even though we are only 8% of the world population. This is just a hands down victory for the physical superiority of whites. Include any other sports, as many extra sports as you please, we would still come out on top. Whether it’s our teamwork, intelligence, strength, tenacity, or skill, somehow whites come out on top objectively, beyond all debate, so that’s that. What about war? On the battlefield, whites are again utterly dominant. Whites have rarely lost a war to non-whites, not in the long run, and we have with ridiculously small numbers routed non-white armies over and over again. The boxer rebellion, for instance, was put down handily by a handful of whites (and japanese). The mongols conquered china easily but lost to the not even united Europe (and to japan.) India was conquered by a handful of british troops against giant Indian armies. The same is true in africa, and the conquistadores against the Incas and Aztecs accomplished similar marvels. The exchange rate between the USA and Japan, almost 10 to 1, showed again white superiority over even the best of the non-whites. And while the Roman Empire and the Greeks defeated Persia over and over again and took over much of the middle east, no Persians, Arabs, or middle easterners ever conquered Europe. The Ottomans gave the best shot and even they couldn’t beat a dis-united Europe with various countries all still squabbling among themselves. Europe paid so little attention to these non-white aggressors that they still spent all their time fighting each other—and STILL won. If one could ever imagine a ‘white army’ fighting as one against the non-white world, can anyone imagine anything but a smashing victory? Remember a few white texans took out the vastly larger mexican army, and the US-Mexico war was another easy victory for whites, that the boers at blood river defeated endless hordes of spear-chuckers, and that the US (or even the early settlers and pilgrims) traditionally defeated amerindians no matter what the odds over and over in our expansion westward. When it comes to the most basic measure of fitness, war and violent conflict, whites are supreme. It’s undebatable. We win, they lose, we are the best warriors of all time. ‘white good, non-white bad.’

So what is the use of not calling a spade a spade? The supreme race, the race that comes out on top in any competition, any measure of human fitness, any quality we respect, is the white race. We are the wealthiest, strongest, most accomplished, most beautiful race on earth. Objectively. Undeniably. Therefore anyone who even looks at the facts, anyone white or not, must through sheer logic and rationality, be a white supremacist. Whites are supreme, and therefore, anyone who acknowledges this fact, must be a white supremacist, by simple definition. Anyone who validates reality or cares about the truth, is a white supremacist, whether white or not, they must admit the superiority of the white race, as a whole, over any other. It is so impossible not to be a white supremacist, that only burying your head in the sand and intentionally looking for any little flaw in whites while exaggerating every good in non-whites, can remotely make the competition even. Only self-hating liberals are not white supremacists, there’s only two choices. To say that whites are the best in every field, but aren’t the supreme race, is just semantics. It’s moral cowardice.

Definition Two, Subjective White Supremacism: The belief that whites, regardless of merit or cause, hold your supreme, over-arching loyalty. That the white race has a supreme place in your heart. That is trumps the other races, for you, simply because you choose for it to. Subjective White Supremacism would not be fazed by meeting aliens from outer space who are better in every way than us. Even so, we would proclaim, my duty, love, and loyalty are to my people, not yours, and I will live and die for them, not you. Rather than mercenary bean counting, rather than switching your loyalty to whoever meets some arcane criteria in your head, a simple, straightforward subjective white supremacy needs no rationale, no arguments, no proof at all. It just needs a willing heart.

Subjective white supremacy is the counterpart to subjective racial solidarity among any other group. Saying your supreme interest, your supreme value, is the white race, is no different than Michelle Obama dedicating herself to the black race and its interests and valuing it above all others. It is no different from any other group forming an ‘asian blah blah’ or ‘jewish blah blah’ or ‘black blah blah’ or ‘hispanic blah blah.’ It’s an intentional effort to hold the interests of your group above all others, or loyalty to the in-group above the common or universal, of the supreme claim your race has on you. A white supremacist must simply care more about whites than any other, and he has quite clearly defined them as subjectively supreme, to him–after all it overarches all other races, and that is the definition of supreme. There is no escaping white supremacy then, if you care more about whites than other races, you are a white supremacist–they are supreme in your heart. They take the supreme place. They are on top.

Subjective white supremacy can only be held by very confused non-whites, unlike objective white supremacy which should be held by any honest person on earth. Subjective white supremacy is the natural and instinctual and healthy and normal state of whites, the counterpart to every other group preferring their own and caring about their own. Whites who don’t love whites or care about how whites are doing all around the world, are race traitors, unnatural, they are like lepers and it hurts to even be around them, they are so offensive to our instinctual grasp of right and wrong. Whites cheering for blacks against whites in a sport, a war, a nobel prize award, a courtship, are all despicable and immediately yield the question: ‘what is wrong with that person? Doesn’t he know his own? Doesn’t he love himself? Why would he do such a perverted thing?’ If you don’t wish to see white interests secured first and foremost, above anyone else’s, if you don’t choose for the white to be happy or safe or free, if a choice must be made, then you’re not a white supremacist. Congratulations, you’ve completely denatured and castrated your moral sense, you can now join the ash heap of history with your non-evolutionarily successful views. For anyone who doesn’t hold whites supreme, will immediately lose to anyone who holds non-whites supreme, and while you go on compromising and giving away your interests, they will cling to all of theirs. While whites are cheering (I’m not even kidding, they cheered Bill Clinton in his speech in Portland announcing this fact) their coming minority status in the USA, hispanics are cheering their coming majority status in the USA. Both people can’t be right. If it’s good to be a minority and dispossessed of your own land, then hispanics should be mourning their coming, woeful, hateful majority status. Somehow they don’t buy it though, somehow they don’t agree with whites in thinking majoritydom is all that hateful and bad, somehow they are quite happy with this result. Either one or the other strategy is correct. I believe in the one that will live. I believe in the one that grows. I believe in the one that lasts.

Does white supremacism make any distinction between wishing whites well defensively versus aggressively? No, it does not. Objectively speaking, wanting the survival of the fittest, ‘may the best man win,’ would of course imply wishing to see whites spread and grow and flourish, as the truest inheritors of perfection, there would be no desire to see it stay at 8% of the world’s population, while failed, imperfect, shoddy hominids of others sorts were 92%. It would be seen as a horrible travesty, if whites stayed on earth perfectly defensively, keeping all their current land, while non-whites went off to colonize the universe. It would be a moral failure to not afford the best people the best chance at life. To not reward greatness with material goods, to somehow grovel and inch along on the edges and dregs of existence while placating our lessers and inferiors with all the fruits and pleasures of life. If we are better, we deserve better, and should get better, than our inferiors. This same logic extends not just between the races, but between species. Superior species deserve better and more than inferior ones, like bugs, rodents, bacteria, and cockroaches. Just as humans deserve the lion’s share of resources and happiness and rights over non-humans, and bugs and germs deserve the least and worst spot in life, just as human interests trump non-human interests, the objectively superior white race deserves the lion’s share of the world, and the dregs should go to the dregs. If we were superior, but deserved nothing more, then what would being superior mean? What would it all be for? Are we seriously supposed to divide the world equally between apes and man? Between mud huts and skyscrapers? Between criminals and citizens? Superior always implies valuing them more, it cannot mean anything else, and those who are of higher value, deserve more than those of lesser value.

I submit to you that the greatest thing that ever happened in world history, was the colonization of much of the world by the superior white race. The conquest and colonization of North and South America, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand was the high point of world history. It was the flowering of the greatest race receiving its just reward, the greatest share of world population. It was matching our excellence to our rewards, our achievements to our population, our supremacy to our property. I submit to you that it was moral and good to wipe out the scattered tribes of stone age barbarians all around the world and replace them with hundreds of millions of beautiful, brilliant white families. I submit to you that it would be a good thing to do it now, today, again. That the world doesn’t belong to anyone in particular, that it is up for grabs between all lifeforms, that the best prevail in seizing it, that this de facto makes them the best, and the best deserve nothing short of the colonization of the world. I submit to you that homo sapiens did just this in their wiping out of neanderthals and homo habilus and all the other junk species long ago, and that it was moral for them to do so, because they were better and deserved better than their inferiors. I submit to you that we should take it all back, return to our just spot in the world, not as 8% of the population, but 40% like in 1900, and that we of all people deserve the stars. We should never allow the universe to slip away from us, we should never give away the future as someone else’s property, we should be first and foremost in everything, we should rule. Just as humans dominate the inanimate, anmal, and plant kingdoms, the best are the natural rulers of the world, and naturally who we wish to see survive AND grow, AND flourish, AND prosper. It is ridiculous to hold we are the best, but that therefore we only deserve 8% of the world, or that we can only defend our slowly dwindling land masses in some rear guard action. If we are the best, we deserve the best, and that’s that.

And that chain of logic, of course, is why people are so opposed to white supremacism. Because in its implications, in its logical results, in its chain of reasoning, once you say whites are supreme either objectively or subjectively, you must also say they deserve the supreme share, the supreme good, the supreme victory, the supreme triumph over all others. You must immediately, logically, follow up by saying they should be supreme. But, does it help to shrink away from logic and reason? If it is logical and reasonable to be a white supremacist, if any honest person would be so no matter how they fight it, and if it is logical and reasonable that the superior should triumph and rule over the inferior, that the superior should succeed and the inferior fail, the superior grow and the inferior shrink, that the superior should replace the inferior and not the inferior the superior—then what choice does an honest person have?

What choice an honest thinker but go the whole way? What choice a moral person than to cheer for the most ‘immoral’ deeds? What choice but to rethink everything we were ever taught and start revering the true heroes of history? The colonists, the imperialists, the racists, everyone who helped not white ‘survival’, which was never their interest and would’ve sounded like a joke to them, the strongest people on earth, but white power, white rule, white imperium, white fecundity, white wealth, white victory. Was it not heroes who defeated the incas and aztecs? Heroes who drove out the mongols from Russia, the turks from Europe, the maoris from new zealand, the zulus from south africa, the apaches from the West, the muslims from sicily and spain, on and on? Were not our greatest presidents also generals who fought the Indians so that the white race might spread and prevail and grow and rule? Weren’t Hong Kong and Macao good things? Wasn’t Perry opening up trade with Japan a good thing? Isn’t Canada and Argentina better than what came before? Aren’t we glad France turned back the non-white tide at Tours? How is there any difference, the essence remains the same, defensive or offensive, what we celebrate, what we enjoy, is whites winning. Whites maintaining their power and success in the world. There can be no morality that artificially, arbitrarily draws a line and says ‘white rule is moral here but immoral there.’ ‘a white population is good on this square acre but bad on that one.’ It is meaningless. If it’s good, it’s good. It’s good anywhere, everywhere. If it’s better than anything else, it’s best, it should be striven for, it’s a good outcome when it happens. Though arguments can be made that objectively, non-whites are superior in some fields and thus should be, by dint of merit, given the just rewards of their supremacy, it would of course fall short of 92% of the world. It would fall short of 50% of the world. Whatever the fair debatable figure is, it is not today’s figure, and thus doesn’t matter. Another argument could be that like zoos or the endangered species act, even completely inferior beings should be allowed some representation on earth as simply a curiosity or exotic diversity, but such reservations would be small and essentially meaningless–it would not change the moral calculus. As far as today goes, all that can be said is whites deserve far, far better than any rear guard, or defense, or holding action, could give. For the people who created virtually everything good on earth, who created the technology and culture that allows for the carrying capacity of 6.7 billion people in the first place, to be the ever dwindling minority of the enjoyers of their own creation, is a grave injustice. A cosmic injustice. Whites must benefit from white achievement proportional to their achievement, non-whites should not be allowed to be the prime beneficiaries, the evolutionary victors, for things they never even did. For things they never were and never will be. Whites deserve better, they invented the very way of life the rest of the world is living, they afforded it with their miraculous systems and devices, and now they are to be dispossessed of it all–the very wealth and happiness they created, that non-whites had no hand in making, but consume voraciously. Preposterous. We morally can take back the entirety of our contribution, which is debatable, but well over 50%, of all the world’s goods. 8% is a joke, our coming 1% is a sin.

To sum up, white supremacism is holding that whites are either objectively superior, or subjectively superior in your love for them, just like a ‘family supremacist’ who cares more about his children than someone else’s children. Both are natural and logical, neither can be denied by any sensible white, the facts support the first case, emotions and human nature supports the second. Only pretzel people can avoid being white supremacists, and they are nothing but jokes and lepers to those of us who remain. White supremacy being true and right, it only follows that white supremacy in the material world, in resource allocation, in well-being, in power, in population, should also be good and right. If we are better, we deserve better. If we are the best, we deserve the best. White supremacy therefore advocates whites, in fact, be supreme. Starting from the initial cause that we are the happiest, brightest, fittest, most beautiful, most accomplished, best exemplars of the human race and indeed all life, we deserve nothing less than the best results, the best situation, the best position, the supreme height of the food chain, the pecking order, the totem pole. Winners should win. Anything less is a crime against nature. Any less support by a white for whites, is an act of race treason. By either definition, whites must support their own, all the way to the hilt, and though the environment means we can’t enact such a morality, we can at least celebrate the time it did—The Age of Exploration, the Enlightenment, the whitening of the world that lasted until WWI, was indeed our finest hour. This pathetic groveling and decay, our darkest. With that in mind, we can keep the flame alive–for the age of salvation and rebirth.

Posted by Diamed on Saturday, January 10, 2009 at 05:23 AM in

Johann Gottfried Herder revisited

Filed under: Human History, The West — whitelocust @ 6:22 pm

Johann Gottfried Herder revisited

Hat-tip to Andy on Troy’s New Right Forum for this re-run of a 2003 article on Johann Herder at Robert Steuckers’ Euro-Synergies website.

image

Johann Gottfried von Herder (August 25, 1744 – December 18, 1803) was a philosopher considered, with Johann Gottlieb Fichte, to be one of the fathers of German nationalism and romanticism.  He was a figure of sufficient substance to have approved of the French Revolution – and upset German royalty thereby.  He rejected Kant and also Hamann’s Sturm und Drang, and was an early inspiration to Goethe.

The article, which is by M. Raphael Johnson and which I will reproduce in full below the fold, interests me for two reasons.  First, I think the history of the ideas of European nationalism, which flow from the reservoir of continental Idealist philosophy, is something of which all those who call themselves nationalists should have an understanding.  And while it’s true that historical circumstances change enormously, there is still much in Herder’s analysis which chimes for us today.

Of the Volk, of whom he was a champion and, in the ideational sense, the inventor, he said:-

“What of us lies in the hearts of others is our truest and deepest self.”

And of the inner motivations of those who proclaimed the universalist cause he said:-

“Those that embrace the entire universe with love for the most part love nothing but their narrow selves.”

Second, it is obviously impossible to contemplate the meaning of, and the towering need for, synthesis without the poles of nationalist thought, and of Western philosophy generally, being well fixed in the mind.  Ideas matter, and the history of ideas matters.

M. Raphael Johnson quite vividly and insistently explicates the bad faith and intellectual snobbery which exists, and has always existed, among continental European thinkers for their analytical Anglo-Saxon counterparts.  Science, they say, is the epistomology of the lab sample.  All higher organic meaning is lost or distorted through the empirical prism.  The Idealists, you see, are unique in knowing the meaning – and, therefore, appreciating the beauty – of things.

You may disagree, but you had better have some damned good arguments why.

REMEBERING JOHANN HERDER

by M. Raphael Johnson

Surprisingly, very few of those who call themselves ethnic-nationalist know anything of its history and development. Johann Herder, writing in the early 19th century, is largely considered the major founder of nationalist theory in western Europe. A pro-Slavic German, Herder laid out a vision of the cultural order where the globe was made of innumerable ethnic groups, united by culture and language, each with its own purpose and “genius.” These were all to be self-governing, as the state was to have a minimal role, leaving actual governance to local institutions and tradition. Of all the nationalist theorists of history, Herder is likely the most widely read today, and is even given a modicum of respect within academic intellectual history and political science.

Ethno-nationalism, in spite of the myths pouring out of the academic presses, is a rejection of the gnostic-Enlightenment view of man, morality and epistemology. Unless one understands this negative connection, one cannot understand the moral and historical and moral basis of nationalism and the ethno-community. Therefore, it is absolutely central that the work of Johann Herder be dealt with, for, in many respects, the revolt against Enlightenment “liberalism” and “practical” conservatism comes from him rather than from Burke, whose theoretical prowess has been overestimated in many respects.

Herder’s critique of the Enlightenment rests on one major proposition: that the study of man is radically different from the study of nature. In other words, the object with which any specific community or civilization provides the “social scientist” with does not bear the same marks as an object as in the natural sciences. The sciences themselves impose an ideological and a priori grid upon nature, the quantitative measures to which science reduces all visible phenomena. To treat man as an object of science is to standardize him, to standardize him is to reject all that is human about him, to reduce him to a mechanical being, a being easily manipulated from outside; the esoteria of the social sciences. In other words, this sort of standardization is to reduce civilization—for Herder the ethno-nation—to a set of material causes and effects which ensures that only the most formal and formalizable aspects of the people under study will be understood. Even here, though, precisely because that which is formal (or formalizable) is removed from the rest, that then is misunderstood. Peoples are distorted if they are a priori standardized in a quantitative formula. This is the central proposition of Herder’s social theory, and, importantly, the starting point for the countercritique of Enlightenment mythology.

Herder, as nearly all anti-Enlightenment thinkers, rejected the intellectually vapid notion of a “social contract.” If such contracting individuals were to exist to enter into some contractual obligations, then the contract would have already been settled. In other words, the civilizational apparatus that would allow a scholar to even conceive of a “contract” is already in existence as the contracting parties are coming together. “Social contract” theory is an intellectually dishonest slight of hand: its primary purpose is to reject all aspects of history, civilization and nationhood in order to rebuild the society on the demands of the contracting parties. These, as always, mean the wealthy and powerful who demand the institutionalization of their own interests and call them “universal human rights.”

Communities derive primarily from the fact that men are born radically helpless and dependent, not free and equal. Only the existence of the community ensures that human beings exist at all. Therefore, all arts and sciences derive from this natural, communal union, and exist as a product of the communal mind, rather than specifically the minds of great men. In other words, that the man of genius, undoubtedly a reality in human history, should be demystified in that his genius has been nurtured by the community around him. The books he has read, lectures attended, apprenticeships, language, education, in short, everything necessary to develop the talents of genius are communally created, not individually created. Therefore, the proper study of human society is not the “great man” but rather the community, the nation, the ethnos. This is the proper unit of history, and it is it that works through the great men, economic institutions, armies and books that a historian might study. Genius exists, as do classes or great ideas, but they do not come into existence in isolation.

What Herder and his followers revolted against is the mechanization of nature and human societies, the dominance of methodology over mankind and the idea that various nations and cultures are commensurate with the newest conceptual apparatus of modern science. On the contrary, Herder believed that nations and cultures were basically incommensurable, and that, in order to understand any one, they needed to be understood from the point of view of how they understood themselves. Modern historical theorizing generally judges historical societies to the extent they have manifested the much more contemporary ideas of liberalism and secularism. Of course, such a method is not history, but a crude ideological polemic that passes for erudition in American universities. A nation is not “successful” if it is wealthy, if indeed, wealth is not a mark of success. American historians will prattle on about the wealth, freedom or repression in a certain historical culture, without bothering to inquire whether or not such things were considered important, or if the average person considered liberal ideas of jurisprudence to be wise or not. Herder fought this trend in his own day, and the battle seems still to be lost.

The basic epistemological idea here is that, in order to understand anything, the conceptualization of the data (always incomplete) must come a posteriori. Objects can only be understood within and through the group mind of the ethno-community. Contemporary scientific methods take an a priori notion of conceptualization such as “rational choice” theory or a class- or “gender”-based analysis, for example, and impose it upon any society or group whatever. In political science, so it is regularly claimed, any data set whatsoever can easily be quantified and placed within a regression model. The connection between the real, concrete data and its quantification and analysis is rarely questioned. Everything is standardized and everything follows the same crass laws of cause and effect, even man.

For Herder and so many others, what must come first is first-hand, lived experience with the data, with a concrete sense of what an object is, as defined by the specific community under question. Rejecting qualities as “accidents” or “residuals” is an epistemological error, for it rejects what is a part of the object under study, part of what makes it unique and thus worth studying in the first place. In other words, for Herder, any object needs to be understood in the sense of its value or lack of it within the culture which it is found. Epistemology is intensely social, and to divorce it from social life and the development of national consciousness (and therefore language) is to divorce knowledge from reality. Reality, for the analytic philosopher, is a set of concepts expressed in words, not actual objects; and actual objects, to be thus, are always a product of culture, traditions or traditional norms. Objects only become so in the nexus of national and cultural tradition, or they are not objects at all.

For the Enlightenment, the notion of “progress” has been an allegedly continuous move from “myth” to “fact;” myth is the sensuous and concrete aestheticization of nature and mankind into something socially recognizable and intelligible. Progress has its esoteric side of being the “demystification” or “unmasking” of such concrete realities into the abstractions of modern scientific and moral ideology. For Herder, this is a regress. Modern scientific methodology has eliminated the concrete object in favor of a sterile concept. The older idea of myth was not falsehood in any sense, but is a key to the heart and mind of a specific people and civilization. To aestheticize nature is to imprint the “general will” upon it, to provide it with cultural reality by integrating it into the vortex of the nation. The nation, then, seeks to unify all things to itself: nature, technics and economics. These are provided with the imprint of the historical memory of a people. Nothing is strange, everything becomes recognizable.

While it might be true that technics derives from a certain conceptualization of matter, it does no follow that the mythos, or the aestheticization of matter is therefore “backward” or “false.” The notion of myth, however conceived, is a means whereby objects of nature and art are brought into the cultural gestalt of the community, the nation. To render objects as mere concepts is to destroy them; it is, in a magical and occult sense, to recreate them in the image of man. In turn, they are taken out of the realm of experience and exist solely in the realm of ideas to then be renamed and reconceptualized by those with the power to perform such magic community-wide. It is a dangerous form of alienation that removes the individual from the realm of the concrete, the realm of reality, or real consequences and the real personal identity, into the realm of ideas, of the realm of images that can easily be transformed by the wishes of those who control the vocabulary and projection of images in modern life. Myth therefore, is not falsity, but it is something integrative and gives nature the stamp of nationhood, or the identity of the collective self.

More importantly for mankind, what is important is a view towards what the various communities and nations deem important or worthy in life. The “idea of order” that animates the community carved out of what ordinarily would be chaos is what needs to be analyzed, not, on the other hand, that strictly modern sense of placing a stylized pattern of “rational choice,” “utility maximization,” structural-functionalism, psychoanalysis, or whatever and placing it over every and any people. Such modern methods are not based on “science,” but on a set of axiomatic assumptions that cannot be proven, namely, that stripping away the cultural “accretions” of a people leads to their “essence,” their “demystification.” The proposition: “all peoples function according to strict rational choice and utility maximization models,” is a completely nonscientific statement. It is an non-provable assumption, made more dangerous that it must be taken on faith, a priori, and merely applied. One then assumes that the product of such analysis actually reflects the “real world” of things.

The vapidity and coldness of analytic methods do, in fact, communicate true cultural life: they are not the universal truths of the faculty lounge dreamers, but rather that of the emptiness of modern western life, where “tradition” and “culture” are largely non-existent, completely administered by the handful of families that control the flow of images and the resultant stimulus. Analytic philosophy, indeed, far from being the search for the universal inherent in the text under study, is nothing more than a brutalization of the texts of western philosophy, the imposition of the mindlessness of Anglo-American liberalism and nihilism upon texts the authors of which could never understand.

For Herder, and for ethno-nationalism in general, one approaches an artifact of a culture, of a nation, precisely as that. Something that reflects, not the specific idiosyncrasies of the artist, craftsman or writer, but of a whole people. Any artifact contains within itself the soul of an ethno-nation and a civilization, of the folk. it reflects years of development long before the object ever came into existence, and a set of influences so nuanced, and going back so far into history that it radically resists any form of quantification, or even of understanding except in the most pedestrian of senses.

In other words, objects of a culture are “organic.” That word is used over and over again, and only in the rarest of papers it it ever defined. The best and most meaningful use of the word is that the whole is manifest in the part. That is, each object manifests the whole in which it has been created. Because each man, no matter how much an “individualist” he might delude himself into thinking he is, is the product of time, culture (or lack of it), language and national and communal history that defines the fears and hopes of society at large. Because of the intrinsic connection between human development and one’s immersion into a national tradition and self-identification, it follows that the acts of such an individual are, in fact, acts of the nation, of the people.

The notion of “organic,” (or, “integral,” for that matter) then, refers to the fact that it is not proper to split off the disciplines from one another: morality is dependent upon an understanding of history, philosophy on culture, culture on language, etc. Each is necessary to reinforce the other, and any specific text of a culture, therefore, contains all of them, to one extent or another, however ultimately distorted. To remove moral views from historical development or epistemology or language is to completely distort the actual historical process of these things coming into existence and taking hold over a people.

Hence every nationality must be considered solely in its place with everything that it is and has; deliberate isolation, rejection of individual phases and customs will not result in history. To gather such collections one steps into a charnel-house, into a lumber room and wardrobe of the nationalities, but not into the living creature, into that great garden in which the nationalities grow like plants and of which they are a part; in which everything—air, earth, water, sun, light, even the caterpillar which crawls upon the plants an the worm which destroys them—belong to it. (xviii 248)

For Herder, as for nationalism properly understood, nationalities are not states, nor do they need them. States are the creation of men, the ruling classes; nations, on the other hand, are creations of nature, creatures of the dependence and weakness of the individual alone against the elements. Herder writes in a celebrated passage:

Millions of people on the globe live without states….Father and mother, man and wife, child and brother, friend and man—these are natural relationships through which we become happy; what the state can give us is an artificial contrivance; unfortunately it can also deprive us of something far more essential—rob us of ourselves. (xiii 341)

One of the most significant difficulties in the American literature on nationalism is the extent to which the state is confused with the nation. However, it is understandable, for the dominance of analytic methods in the social sciences has extreme difficulty dealing with the unquantifiable and complex set of nuances and subtle folkways that are actually the stuff of nationality. The state, with its conveniently arranged bureaucratic offices, numbers of soldiers and massive budgets, is a far more amenable object of study. Unsurprisingly, the nation became synonymous with the development of the state administration. The development of nationalist thinking under Herder was completely lost as the social sciences found the state far more amendable to their careers and intellects.

One of the central aspects of Herder’s vision for the development of counterrevolutionary thinking is just this distinction between culture and law, between the ethnos and the state. If culture is strong and vibrant, passed down from the church and family unit, then the arm of the state is unnecessary. The Russian Old Believers, Serbia under Dushan or the feudal West are examples of “states” whose constitution consisted of autonomous communities where the state was very weak or non-existent except in the realm of foreign policy and general taxation. Under the medieval royal systems, each community was self-governing under only those laws necessary to the proper functioning of each autonomous institution. The culture, found in the Church and its myriad manifestations, maintained the identity and order of each community, each with its own specific mission and sense of self. As later as nineteenth century Russia, the rural commune was self governing, and the state’s presence in rural life was nearly non-existent. The liberalism of Alexander II and his serf emancipation served one purpose: to allow the state to enter into the formerly self-governing sphere of commune-landlord relations and impose a more centralized regime. In other words, either in the Germano-Latin, Polish, Serbian or Russian cultural milieu in the middle ages, the state’s power was not conceived of in a liberal and centralized fashion of an “administration,” but the nation—the ethno-cultural community—was given free reign to rule and maintain order.

Very much like the Russian Slavophiles of the 1840’s, Herder did reject the “consent” theory of government. Custom, tradition and nationality are not things that one consents to: they are the conditions for one to consent to anything. When one, in a purely theoretical way, “consents” to become a citizen of a certain polity, one already must have a rather well developed sense of moral life, culture and self in order to make such a decision. The idea of liberal “consent” is a fraud, for no one has ever consented to be ruled by a certain ruling class, but the idea of ‘consent” is intrinsically connected to the lie of “contract theory.”

If custom and national tradition has its place, providing the natural and organic sources of authority that one comes to understand from one’s birth, then the state or any external authority become unnecessary. The medieval state was a distant entity, an object of veneration because of its function as the protector of the real, that is, the protector of the church and tradition. A monarch or great general is an object of veneration, a bureaucrat is not. The extent to which the state becomes a set of neatly organized bureaucratic offices, distanced and often contemptuous of the communal locality, it ceases to be representative. The modern notion of “representation” is just another of the contemporary frauds that masquerade as “political theory” in the halls of academia. The extent to which the state is consolidated, centralized and self-interested (defined as the bureaucratic regime developing its own corporate interests), it automatically becomes non-representative. This has nothing to do with campaigns or elections, for the bureaucracy in every “advanced” western society, along with the courts, economic centers and mass media, hold real cultural and therefore social power. The destruction of communal cultural unity is always to the benefit of the bureaucratic regime and its demand for neat organization, conceptualization and standardization. Herder writes:

The most natural state is one naturally with one national character. This it retains for ages and this is most naturally formed when it is the object of its native genius for a nationality is as much a plant with nature as a family, only with more branches. nothing appears so indirectly opposite to the end of government as the unnatural enlargement of states, the wild mixing of all kinds of people and nationalities under one scepter….Glued together indeed they may be into a fragile machine, termed a machine of state, but it will be destitute of inner life and mutual sympathy of the parts. (xiii 384)

This may well be termed, as well as the political vision the work as attempted to put forth, a vision of ethno-national anarchism. That is, the lack of state power means the proportionate growth of a local patriotism, a local ethno-traditionalism and a local cultural nationalism that provides for the loyalty of healthy citizens far more than the recruiting sergeant or revenue director. Bureaucracy cannot be separated from a epistemological methodology that demands all data be standardized, conceptualized and subject to the same testing. An epistemology that refuses to see the uniqueness of objects, but rather, for the sake of communicability and neatness of presentation, reduces all objects of whatever kind to their definitional “essences,” becomes whatever the powerful in any society want them to be. Herder refused to make the common distinctions between reason and imagination, or sensate experience and culture, all were intimately bound together. One cannot remove the feeling of romance from reason, for it is precisely these feeling that provides for the continued interest in the world. The spirit of loyalty and ethnic tradition is what maintains loyalty, not mathematical equations. One has never done statistical analyses to figure out whether or not one loves his family or native village. These relations are immediate, and they are immediate because it is these that make conceptual mediation (i.e. reason) possible in the first place. Post-modernism is easily predicted when the cultural bases of reason (making reason contingent rather than culture) disappear. When this happens, reason takes a back seat to the “will to power.” Without ethno-nationalism, reason dies.

The nature of this tradition, if one is forced to”conceptualize” it, is language. For Herder, language was the primary ingredient in nationality. Words represent the “common symbolism” of memory, the basic structure of which is traditional praxis. It is not surprising that Herder believed words to be ideas, and ideas, words. There is no such thing as an abstract thought that then finds a linguistic outer coating, called a “word.” All thought is done through language and therefore, language precedes conceptualization. If language precedes conceptualization, and language is the “concretization” of historical memory or tradition, then reason, a certain structure of thought, is based ultimately on tradition. The basic philosophical distinction between self, idea, word and world is for Herder completely false. Each of these is to be found in the others and is intimated and suggested by the others. Tradition, self, ideas and language are basically one and the same concept; complex to be sure, but related in such a way as to make their arbitrary analytic separation impossible or unintelligible.

The self is not sui generis—to put this more simply—but rather the product of the cultural milieu in which it was created: the language, customs, hopes, memories and fears which nurture the self from infancy into adulthood. Only when the culture breaks down through alien peoples and ideas (including the state) does this connection become severed, and the most horrid of situations, alienation, becomes a social reality, leading to social pathology and ultimately, social death.

Man is shaped by his association with others. This association is governed, indeed made possible at all, though similarity—language, concepts, morality and historical experience. When this memory become clouded—as in the present day—though outside intervention of self-interested self-deception then the basic nature of the association is destroyed. The abstractions of liberalism or neo-conservatism cannot rescue it, but are the very products of this decay.

For Herder, nations are formed by various variables, which are primarily climate, basic physical environment, relations with others (or lack of them) and heredity. They develop slowly, but have as their primary goal the binding of strangers into a unity. For Herder, nations in the modern sense are the most holistic form of community: small enough to maintain a basic linguistic and cultural commonality, but large enough to be self defending and economically secure. Obviously the Greek city state was extremely vulnerable, as the large empires were bereft of any ordering principle, as they were made of myriad religions, ethnic groups and languages. For Herder, the very subject of history is the development, thriving and demise of these various nations. Or, put differently, history is the story of how specific peoples controlled and directed the potentially infinite human impulses. Without harmonization, the human will will seek its own pleasure an domination. Culture and historical memory serve to direct the will into a unity of form and function, initiating the man into a world of order in a chaotic and fallen nature.

There can be no doubt that the notion of the cultural community, that is, nationality, for Herder was the primary method of actual and real representation. For him, the nation was the collective consciousness of the people who composed it. In a certain sense, the Rousseauian notion of a general will makes a bit of sense. Now, Rousseau cannot be the ground for nationalism of the Herderian stripe, but there is a sense in which that the idea of a selfless will, dedicated to the common good, can meet in time through historical memory and customary fears and hopes, all expressed a common language that embodies these. This idea of cultural unity is a manifestation of the general will, and is a far more interesting use of the phrase than that “insane Socrates.” Herder made a careful distinction between the people, that is, the true representatives of the nation, the folk, and the “rabble,” or the frenzied mobs of alienated and acultural “societies” (such as in the modern era) that have only their anger and bitterness to unite them. That there is an “idea” of order that the imagination can partly grasp for Herder is central to their being a nation or a national character at all.

“Progress,” one of the phony buzzwords of Enlightenment mythology, is also something that comes to make sense only in a national context. The idea of order that makes sense out of an association, and is developed by it, is what produces the various goals and strivings of a people. Therefore “progress” as an ethical notion can only begin there. The constant uses of the terms “backward” or “progressive” are non-universal, and can only be utilized in the context of the communal structures of a specific nation. What is valued and respected by the community is the extent to which something is progressive or not. To the extent that policy moves towards what is valued versus something else is the proper use of the terms “backward.” A “progressive” society, therefore, is one that continually improves its manifestation of its idea of order, or that “general will” that truly represents the historical memory of a people. A “regressive” society is one that moves away from it. “Injustice” comes to be the introduction of policy that rejects the communal consciousness of a people, and therefore, the people’s inherent sense of propriety.

Johann Herder is at present, a threat to the modern world and its academic establishment. He is a living refutation of their ideas of progress and conceptual uniformity. He is a danger for he has the potential to unite the anarchists of the “left” with the ethno-nationalist of the “right” against the demands of Enlightenment, empirico-capitalism, in both its vapid liberal and conservative forms. His battle was primarily against the notion of cosmopolitanism, or the idea that man’s faculties are sui generis, and therefore owing no loyalty to any specific community. Such a person is barely human, living accordingly only to his desires and impulses: he is inherently sociopathic. The proof of Herder’s ideas here is evident in the present day. Herder writes, mocking the pretensions of the modern cosmopolitan spirit:

All national characters, thank God, have become extinct; we all love one another ,or, rather no one feels the need of loving anyone else. We all associate with one another, all are completely equal—cultured, polite, very happy; we have, it is true no fatherland, no one for whom we live; but we are philanthropists and citizens of the world. most of the rulers already speak French, and soon we all shall do so. And then—bliss! The golden era is dawning again when all the world has one tongue and one language; there shall be one flock and one shepherd! (v, 550)

Therefore, Herder is forgotten, but it is equally clear that the building upon the ruins of the plastic liberal/conservative divide will need his services once more.

First published on 9th August 2003 in The Idyllic

Blog at WordPress.com.