Is Fighting for Smaller Government Racist?

Is Fighting for Smaller Government Racist?

by Daniel Greenfield

When the NAACP allowed itself to be used by the Democratic party to try and smear a grass roots movement for smaller government as racist, the resulting controversy shone a light on more than just racism by individuals associated with the NAACP, but with the organization’s inability to delink class warfare from racism. If there is one thing that both the white media elites at Jornolist and the NAACP leadership agreed on, it’s that fighting for smaller government is racist.

The peculiar notion that reforming government by reducing its size is racist originates from the marriage of racial equality with class warfare to create the 40 Acres and a Mule politics covering everything from wealth redistribution to affirmative action to social welfare programs – all under the aegis of the federal government. And yet this same brand of 40 Acres and a Mule politics underlies the particular tragedy of the black community, whose leaders traded in aspiration and equality for government handouts, forcing them to make the argument over and over again that there can be no social justice without total government control.

When the Democratic party was forced to make the transition from a party of Northern businessmen and Southern plantation owners, after two Republican Presidents, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, put a severe dent in their Southern plantations and the Northern business offices that had formerly given the party a death grip on the country’s economy—it did so by redefining the “Company Store” to mean the Federal government. The Republican notion of individual rights and free labor met the new Democratic notion of ward boss handouts at the Federal level in a battle for the soul of the Black community, and the Democrats won. Not immediately, not conclusively and not absolutely—but they won, and the NAACP’s leadership demonstrates why.

The black leadership has gained distinct advantages for itself as a separate class, while disadvantaging the black community as a whole. Civil rights leaders who made their money on lawsuit shakedowns and diversity training seminars, corporate executives and business owners who got where they were through affirmative action programs that encouraged companies to hire one black executive for appearance not merit, and rewarded minority business owners for the color of their skin, rather than for results—helped create a black leadership that owed its position and power to government intervention, rather than ability. And in the process that same leadership marginalized more qualified people within the black community, while teaching the lesson that aspiration and ability did not matter, only connections and politics did.

Affirmative action politics closed far more doors than it opened

Affirmative action politics closed far more doors than it opened, but those who got through the open door knew exactly what they owed it to. Creating racial quotas as a way to select leaders was an effective tool for perpetuating the same system over and over again, marginalizing black candidates and business owners as a whole, while rewarding a select few who would then be in a position to praise and maintain things the status quo.

The racism charge leveled against the Tea Party is the doing of a leadership that sees itself as completely dependent on the Federal government, so much so that it finds any talk of reducing it to be dangerous and threatening. And as the Democratic party has identified itself closely with the domestic expansion of government and wealth redistribution politics, it has been able to manipulate the black community, to appropriate its decision making powers and use it as a political tool, while virtually eliminating its actual political clout. The sad state of affairs in which the official black leadership damns anyone who doesn’t toe the Democratic party line as Uncle Toms and “not real black people” reveals just who really calls the shots in this arrangement. And it is not the black leadership, which gets trotted out when the Democratic party needs them, and gets told to go home when it doesn’t. Which is no different than the treatment accorded to women’s or Jewish groups.

Tea Party is an attempt to salvage the financial viability of the Middle Class that has traditionally been America’s only reliable bastion of political and social equality

The attacks hurled at the government reforms advocated by Tea Party groups rely on invoking sixties racist boogeymen about States’ Rights, but the Tea Parties are not fighting to resegregate schools or lunch counters, as many times as liberal political bloggers may try and market that particular smear. Instead the Tea Party is an attempt to salvage the financial viability of the Middle Class that has traditionally been America’s only reliable bastion of political and social equality. And their targets are not Eisenhower’s forced desegregation and challenges to States’ Rights, a Republican President, but the out of control government expansion that began with FDR’s New Deal, which enforced racial segregation and plunged the country deeper into the depression.

Wealth Redistribution will never solve the black community’s problems, only worsen them. Which may be why most of the greatest African-American inventions took place before it, not after. All that spending has not helped the black community, in part because while the spending may use social welfare as a justification, it is mostly directed at building up the size of government itself. The gargantuan bureaucratic structures that form as a result only perpetuate poverty for everyone, while feeding money to a small group of insiders who are politically connected enough to benefit from it. The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disasters in which black homeowners were saddled with debt, that was then resold worldwide by bankers and brokers, is a typical example of what happens and where the money really goes.

Investing more money and power in the Federal government is short-sighted and unwise. Before the Federal government was forcing open schoolhouses, it was forcibly segregating Northern neighborhoods. Before it was filing lawsuits on behalf of black homeowners, it was demanding that Northern states return escaped slaves. Like all centralized power, Federal power is not moral, it serves the interests of those who wield it, who in turn use everyone else. To see such a system as dangerous and unstable is not racist, it is common sense.

The same system that has marginalized black politics to a few handpicked candidates running in gerrymandered districts, has done the same thing to the voice of the black community as a whole. Just as it has done to other groups across the United States. This plantation politics that promises protection in return for fealty is not only degrading and undemocratic, it is dangerous to everyone involved. And as the current escalation of Federal power threatens to destroy the Middle Class for good, it is important for everyone who believes in individual achievement and aspiration to join together and protect their present and their future from out of control spending and big government.

In the Court of Tyrants

In the Court of Tyrants

Moral Mazes is an account of life in the corporate management suite by sociologist Robert Jackall. At bottom, it’s a description of life at court. The desires of the powerful are what matter, responsibility exists to be shifted, an Act of God (recession, change in management, public relations issue, whatever) might change everything overnight, and whatever happens has to be presented as part of a rational and controlled system in which one was right all along and nothing could ever interfere with the steady increase in earnings quarter to quarter.

Such a situation naturally leads to amoral self-seeking and endless manipulation of illusions in which the original purpose of the activity disappears. Rational management, it seems, isn’t so rational. In the twentieth anniversary edition of the book that just came out the author tacks on a discussion of the recent meltdown of the financial system that applies the same general analysis to explain why the people running the show were so irresponsible, self-involved, and generally clueless. What he says might have come out of Chronicles or any paleoconservative publication–he even gets into immigration as an example of our rulers’ fecklessness.

It occurred to me that I should try to combine Jackall’s analysis of the ultimate effects of the separation of management and ownership in large business enterprises with the analysis of the managerial state I put in my book The Tyranny of Liberalism.

So here are some thoughts toward a Grand Unified Field theory of the present situation:

  • To understand what’s going on today we have to combine an analysis of business corporations with an analysis of the arrangements that supposedly act as watchdogs and limitations–government regulators, political overseers, professions like journalism, “civil society” institutions, and so on.
  • Steve Sailer used to complain about the “marketing major postmodernism” of the Bush administration, and universities today have become much like other big self-aggrandizing institutions. Everywhere you look there’s spin, self-seeking, and lack of concern with reality behind a facade of rationality and concern for the public good. Everything has become like everything else in basic ways, with postmodern relativism an accurate reflection of important aspects of what’s going on.
  • Differences of course remain between business and other sectors. Government is much more comprehensive than business in its organization and interests, and makes more of a distinction between the bureaucratic/rational and the political/factional aspects of its functioning. (As Jackall points out, those aspects tend to merge in business hierarchies.) The civil society sector (journalists, academics, NGOs) is more miscellaneous in nature and organization than the other two. It seems much weaker, but the appearance can be deceptive. The pen is mightier than the sword, and civil society has most of the pens.
  • Such differences are no doubt important but I’m not sure how they play out. With respect to purposes the situation grows clearer. Business stands for getting the job done, delivering the goods, and making money. It believes in the bottom line. Government stands for the public interest. That’s why it’s into PC, which counts as the public interest because it stands for the interest of those who constitute the public in receiving an equal share of every possible benefit of society.
  • So business vs. government is efficiency vs. equality. That’s no surprise, since it’s the same as the contrast between market-oriented right liberalism (usually called conservatism) and state-oriented left liberalism. To extend the analysis, the civil society sector (journalists, academics, NGOs) is supposed to provide ideas, analysis, and general informal oversight. Business, government, and civil society acting together are therefore supposed to provide the Good (efficiency), the Just (equality), and the True (information and expertise).
  • In fact, of course, the internal politicking and external positioning Jackall describes play a dominant role in all three sectors. He points to that as a reason the connection between success and producing good results gets attenuated in business, and the same applies in government and the civil society sector.
  • The usual argument is that each sector acts as a check on the others and no doubt that’s true on many points. One problem though is that collectively they constitute the ruling class. As such they have an obvious common interest over against the people at large. They claim collectively to constitute the best possible system but that’s doubtful so they undermine and discredit possible competitors.
  • In particular, they hate it when people try to act independently (e.g., the TEA parties) and they don’t like the arrangements (e.g., functional cultural traditions and moral institutions) that make independent action possible. So they get together and establish the tyranny of liberalism. Anything outside rationalized egalitarian technocracy, family and religion for example, is at war with the Good, Just, and True–that is, with the condominium of business, government, and civil society. Such external powers have to be wiped out in the name of efficiency, enlightenment, protecting the weakest among us, whatever. The business of the people is to do and believe what they’re told, make the choices allowed them, approve what the ruling class has decided, and signal when there’s been a failure of public relations.
  • Separation of ownership and management is always a problem. In the old days it was absentee landlords, today it’s the sort of thing described in Jackall’s book. That’s only one example though of the separation of functions that defines modern society. There’s also the separation of actor and expertise and regulator and beneficiary. The managerial state, in which the state becomes an overall system that takes care of us and supposedly knows better, is the sum of all such separations.
  • So what to do? The idea of subsidiarity–let the people live their own lives!–seems the right idea in principle, but it’s basically just a way of restating the problem. It doesn’t tell us how to put that principle into effect except in bits and pieces here and there (e.g., “hooray for family values”). Still, saying there really is a problem is important and may be the most important single thing we can do at present.
  • We can also say why there’s a problem. Carrying division of labor too far leads to the kind of irrationalities Jackall describes. Also, efficiency, equality, and expertise aren’t really the same as the Good, Just, and True. They’re what those things reduce to when bureaucratically rationalized. As such they certainly have some use, but if you always insist on them you’ll squeeze out the fuller versions that are your real interest.

France Declares War on al-Qaida

France Declares War on al-Qaida

After Aid Worker Beheaded

Elaine Ganley


PARIS (July 27) — France has declared war on al-Qaida, and matched its fighting words with a first attack on a base camp of the terror network’s North African branch, after the terror network killed a French humanitarian worker it took hostage in April.

The declaration and attack marked a shift in strategy for France, usually discrete about its behind-the-scenes battle against terrorism.

“We are at war with al-Qaida,” Prime Minister Francois Fillon said Tuesday, a day after President Nicolas Sarkozy announced the death of 78-year-old hostage Michel Germaneau. The humanitarian worker had been abducted April 20 or 22 in Niger by al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, and was later taken to Mali, officials said.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy

The death of 78-year-old hostage Michel Germaneau has prompted France to declare war on al-Qaida. Here, President Nicolas Sarkozy speaks to the press at Elysee Palace on Monday in Paris.

The killers will “not go unpunished,” Sarkozy said in unusually strong language, given France’s habit of employing quiet cooperation with its regional allies – Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Algeria – in which the al-Qaida franchise was spawned amid an Islamist insurgency.

The Salafist Group for Call and Combat formally merged with al-Qaida in 2006 and spread through the Sahel region – parts of Mauritania, Mali and Niger.

Officials suggest France will activate accords with these countries to stop the terrorists in their tracks.

“It’s a universal threat that concerns the entire world … not just France or the West,” Defense Minister Herve Morin said Tuesday on France-2 television. “We will support local authorities so these assassins and (their) commanders are tracked, judged and taken before justice and punished. And, yes, we will help them.”

Algeria, Mauritania, Mali and Niger in April opened a joint military headquarters deep in the desert to respond to threats from traffickers and the al-Qaida offshoot. U.S. Special Forces have helped the four nations train troops in recent years.

Fillon refused to say how France would act. “But we will,” he said in an interview with Europe 1 radio.

And perhaps it already has. On Thursday, the French backed Mauritanian forces in attacking an al-Qaida camp on the border with Mali, killing at least six suspected terrorists.

Experts confirmed it was the first attack outside Algeria on an al-Qaida base, and the first known time France has taken part.

France said it was a last-ditch effort to save its citizen, while Mauritania said it was trying to stop an imminent attack by fighters gathering at the base. For the French, the move may have backfired. The al-Qaida group said in an audio message broadcast Sunday that it had killed Germaneau in retaliation for the raid. However, French officials suggested, however, that the hostage, who had a heart problem, may already have been dead. Even now, “We have no proof of life or death,” Morin said.

“We can expect an increase in the French riposte,” said Antoine Sfeir, an expert on Islamist terrorists who has traveled in the region.

An estimated 400-500 such fighters are thought to roam the Sahel region, a desert expanse as large as the European Union.

Despite meager numbers, the region’s al-Qaida fighters pose a clear threat. Among the more recent victims, a British captive was beheaded last year and two Spanish aid workers were taken hostage in Mauritania in November. Spain is working to free them. Mauritanian soldiers also have fallen in numerous attacks.

The head of the French Institute of Strategic Analysis suggested the French government’s rhetoric was normal.

“It’s important to make that kind of announcement,” Francois Gere said. “I think it’s made of the same stuff” as former U.S. President George W. Bush’s tough line on al-Qaida.

But “a government has to make clear it must respond strongly” while maintaining the discretion needed to ensure cooperation, Gere said. In the past France has been cautious because those governments don’t want the appearance of interference from the West, he said.

Spain has maintained a low profile as videos by the al-Qaida franchise regularly call for the conquest of “al-Andalus” – a reference to the period of Muslim rule of much of Spain in medieval times.

Fortress Nationalism

Fortress Nationalism

The whole point of Nationalism, is that the economic, socio-cultural, socio-economic, national religion, and institutions of the country, are completely protected from outside influences. In addition of course, any nation governs itself, from within, and by only those with its best interest at heart. Our enemies have a plethora of English and Latin words to choose from, with which to attack us, and ensure that the cattle (public) all head towards the stunning shed, ready for their long, slow racial and cultural execution.

Geert Wilders has now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that, as excellent Green Arrow writer, supporter, and technical advisor, ANJIM-SAMA, rightly pointed out: Geert Wilders, What Are You Up To? in his current article, and in articles by myself, both agree he is no friend of the British people. Along with others on the world stage, he continues to justify his political existence by bemoaning simply only one of the tools in the toolbox of our ancient, wealthy, and dangerous enemy. According to one media source quoted:
Geert Wilders International Freedom Alliance, would try to occupy the space between the Conservatives and the BNP, which he said was “racist” and “not my party”. Wilders is often described as far-right but frequently stands up for gay and women’s rights.

It is also an unfortunate case of ‘‘jumping the gun” that, recently our own Chairman, stated that Mr Wilders should be given an award for recognition of his fight to keep Europe free from Islamification. Millions could now be fooled into jumping ship, and being played like fools as he extends his philosophy, which by the way, this Author knows by active experience, was promulgated by this party as long ago as nearly a decade. If our chairman was astute enough to see this problem that long ago, then why has it only been relatively recently that, other supposed ”Nationalists” have used this option now?

Our collective enemies, use our own ancient languages to berate us, deride us. To this end, we are so-called proponents of ”Fortress Britain’‘. Exactly, just like Fortress China, Fortress India, Pakistan and Israel. Obviously, after the recent World Cup, in which the internationalist media could not wait to show African independence, and prowess, and self-government, we did not hear any of the name calling about African nations becoming a Fortress did we?

So, if Mr Wilders is to become ”accepted”, and it looks as though he is, are we now being potentially accepted? Of course not, otherwise our Chairman would have been gracefully accepted by the Monarchy and establishment at the Palace. Ultimately, we must strengthen our commitment politically to British Nationalism, and because our enemy is embedded within, and also attacks us frequently from the outside, we must strengthen our commitment to genuine Nationalist groups around the world. It is not only the political aspects of our fight we must strengthen. Our cultural ties, and heritage, languages, and ancient rights and freedoms must also be solidly protected.

Never mind pathetic, child-like name calling, smears, and brush-off’s such as us wanting a ”Fortress Britain”, of course we want that. But, we also want a ”Fortress Nationalism”. That way, we’ll protect ALL friendly and open Nationalists in their fight to free their collective nations from the shackles of subtle Marxist politicising. The proposed United Nationalist Nations (UNN), has already ensnared those who would spoil it immediately, and those institutions who have already found ”legal problems” with it.

The UNN, will most certainly use the Founder’s knowledge and experience in underhanded enemy tactics, to it’s own advantage well before it’s numbers swell to one hundred. And so my friends, let us continue here, and with our current Chairman, and connect with the groups who do give a damn, and not a Global establishment ”safety valve”, who resembles a typical Civic Nationalist at best, and an agent of internationalism at worst.

Politically, Mr Griffin has done us all far more good by becoming leader in ‘‘Nationalist Fortress Europe”, of groups such as the Front National of France and Belgium, Jobbik of Hungary, and others in Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the Ukraine. Mr Wilders of course, has said he will not join such a group, thus making himself an automatic enemy of all true Nationalists. This is our land, but Europe is our continent. Around the world are our brothers and sisters, and each of their respective nations of old are still here, just. Let’s ensure the collective lands of our fathers are protected, and let’s stop pretending we have friends who are simply enjoying a one way, and rather lucrative benefit.

As this Author stated recently in another article, there are no groups called ‘‘Friends Of Britain”, as there are Friends Of Israel. There are no major names, or well known people openly supporting our movements here, or in Europe. The only ones openly supporting our Chairman, this party, and Nationalism in general, are the ones mentioned above. It is I’m afraid, a simple case of Fortress Nationalism.

The British Obama

The British Obama

Meet Diane Abbott

When the Labour Party lost the May 2010 election, I did not exactly share their sadness. This was not because I saw the incoming government as representing fundamental change; rather, this was because the Labour government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had already proven so fantastically destructive that it was difficult to imagine anything topping five more years of Labour inferno.

The electoral repulsion of Gordon Brown triggered a leadership contest within this wretched party, an event about which Derek Turner has already written very amusingly for Taki’s Magazine. Absent evidence of complete disarray, crisis, depression, despair, tiffs, quarrels, clashes, faction, division, schism, disunity, schizophrenia, paranoia, catatonia, paralysis, and radical soul-searching, a Labour leadership election is a potent soporific. Who wants to listen to a freak show of fossilized Marxists pontificating about fairness and equality? Life is too short.

But when the electorate holds back from crushing them into oblivion, when the government ends up being a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives, the prospect of a Labour comeback cannot be dismissed: their next leader might well end up being our future Prime Minister.

What, then, is Labour offering its supporters? At one end of the spectrum stands the current favourite, David Miliband, the former Foreign Secretary. He is followed by a succession of yawns. At the other end is the outsider candidate, Diane Abbott, the MP for the London borough of Hackney North and Stoke Newington.

David Miliband is the son of Ralph Miliband. The Belgian-born Ralph immigrated to Britain in 1940 to escape the Nazis, and went on to become, during the 1960s and 1970s, “one of Britain’s most celebrated intellectual disciples of Karl Marx.” He was an iconic figure of the Labour Left, “who famously frowned on the concept of ‘private property,’” and “whose writings influenced two generations of Socialist leaders.” Based in the highly fashionable London district of Primrose Hill, “once a popular haunt with radical intellectuals,” which “hosted a strong community of Jewish émigrés,” David is the classic Champagne socialist, a species that sees no contradiction between applying a Robin Hood ethos with other people’s money and indulging a personal lifestyle of Oriental opulence: the 22 April 2007 article in the Daily Mail, “How David Miliband Avoided Inheritance Tax on Marxist Father’s £1.5million House,” provides an educational overview of the Milibands’ attitude to property and taxes. (Hint: they are not entirely harmonious with what they prescribe for you and me.)


Also (arguably) educational were claims made in the Russian newspaper Tvoi Den in 2007, when David Miliband, then Foreign Secretary, angered Putin’s government through his handling of the Alexander Litvinenko affair.

The newspaper said that in the Twenties the Foreign Secretary’s grandfather, Samuel, then Shimon, Miliband, a native of the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw, had fought under the command of Trotsky ‘eliminating’ white Russians opposed to Communism.

Miliband’s glittering tenure as Foreign Secretary reached unprecedented heights in September 2008, when he obtained the full benefit of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s industrial-strength candor. It was reported in the British press at the time that during a telephone conversation between the two men, Lavrov asked Miliband, “Who the fuck are you to lecture me?” Following a long-standing tradition among disgruntled government employees, a Whithall insider also told the press that Miliband had experienced a lengthy tirade, complete with a generous sprinking of four-letter words, in response to his comments about Russia’s operations in Georgia. Miliband’s visit to Russia a year later was a similarly resounding diplomatic success.


Thus, we have some indications as to how Britain’s prestige in the world would be elevated under a possible David Miliband premiership later in the decade.

Yet, before we can relax, we need to take a look at the “outsider” contestant: Diane Abbott, the main topic of this article. With bookies assessing her chances of victory at 50/1, an Abbott premiership might seem a distant possibility. But if you dismiss her out of hand you have already forgotten that at one point in the not too distant past there was one Barack Obama, who appeared out of nowhere and transitioned from non-entity to world leader in a matter of months. Not unlike Ms. Abbott, he added colour to an otherwise dreadfully vanilla selection of candidates, and was said to represent fundamental change -– a profound and historical transformation of the political landscape. Ms. Abbott has sustained some criticism in the media, where she has earned accolades such as “the stupidest woman in Britain,” but it is particularly auspicious for the Black MP that her entering the leadership contest afforded immense relief to the lilly-white consciences of her fellow party members: these worthy servants of the people, you see, were very uncomfortable with the (until-then) uniformly fair complexion and monotonous maleness of the contestants. (Hint: this might have resulted in accusations of racism and sexism, and therefore of hypocrisy and Champagne socialism.)

Born of Jamaican parents in 1953, Diane Abbott earned her place in the history books by happening to be Black and female in 1987, when she was elected Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Since then she has remained popular with her constituents, who have re-elected her with comfortable majorities on every election. Her borough is ethnically diverse (25% Black, 41% non-White in 2006) and one of the most economically deprived in the country, occupying the bottom 5% nationwide. Jo Dillon of the Independent on Sunday has described her as “an icon of the Left”.


Her various campaigns, outlined on her website, cover wide range of issues. A common denominator in not a few of them, however, is a strong identification, combined with an acute preoccupation, with the interests and concerns of her racial brethren: both foreign and British-born Blacks (also known here as “West Indians,” or “Afro-Caribbeans”). Witness, for example, Ms. Abbott’s motive for opposing the changes in Air Passenger Duty introduced by the last Labour government:

Government proposals within the Bill are to charge passengers higher Air Passenger Duty the further the distance they fly out of the UK. But rather than being based on the exact destination the passenger is flying to, the Duty will be based on the capital city of the country the passenger is flying to. This means that flying to the Caribbean will always incur a higher Air Passenger Duty than flying to the USA, even though many places in the USA are further away from London than the Caribbean is.

Or her reasons for being active in the civil liberties campaign:

When I first came to Parliament in 1987 I spoke out against Stop and Search laws which infringed on the civil liberties of young Black men. [...]

I am concerned that anti-terror laws brought in since the September 11th attacks will have the same detrimental effect on relations between the police and Muslim communities.

Or her thoughts on the current approach to the fight against crime:

[G]un crime is not just about tough sentencing. Sadly 80 per cent of gun crime in London is ‘black on black,’ often involving boys in their teens. As a black woman and the mother of a teenage son this is frightening and wholly unacceptable. A fundamental and persistent problem is the continuing educational underachievement of black boys in particular.

Or her efforts in the battle for education:

I have campaigned for many years on educational issues. In particular I have researched, organised and spoken out on the way in which the education system fails children of African and Afro-Caribbean descent. In the mid-nineties I began organising events in Hackney under the title “Hackney Schools and the Black Child”. [...]

Most recently I held debates in the House of Commons on the disproportionately high rate of school exclusions of Black boys and the lack of diversity in London teaching workforce.

Or her objections to, and actions against, the proposed reforms to legal aid:

They are aimed at value for money, but in reality mean that many smaller firms will be run out of business by factory-like law firms that can afford to take on legal aid cases for less money. Black and ethnic minority-run firms are more likely to be new or small firms, and are more likely to be dependent on legal aid work and therefore are hugely threatened by the reforms. Whilst I welcome the Government’s wish to get value for money in legal aid spending, it is clear that among other flaws the legal aid reform will decimate black and minority ethnic solicitors.

Many black and ethnic minority legal firms were set up as a reaction to the institutional racism that prevented ethnic minority lawyers from progressing in their careers. [...]

In May I tabled a number of written questions to the Ministry of Justice to try and gage what could be done to halt the reforms. Following this I held a Westminster Hall debate arguing that the reforms were indirectly discriminatory against black and ethnic minority solicitors, firms and clients.

Or her issues with the national DNA database, created by Labour, and currently holding 4.5 million profiles:

In 2007, Lady Scotland confirmed that three-quarters of the young black male population would soon be on the DNA database…They had generally been arrested because they fit the physical description of a suspect — the suspect being described as a young black man.

My, if Ms. Abbott is as sturdy a bulwark for the race-specific interests and concerns of her White constituents — 59% in her borough — as she is for those of her Afro-Caribbean voters, I would imagine that they feel no need at all for a party like the BNP. (Well, if they do, the Left-wing Institute for Public Policy Research has an ingenious solution: more immigration.)


Ms. Abbott’s preoccupation with negritude is, like Obama’s, fully integrated with far Left credentials. After Labour came to power in 1997, a secret conspiracy was hatched at the highest levels of government to make Britain more multicultural. This led to previous legal immigration averages to quintuple, reaching figures in excess of a quarter of a million people per year. Most of these came from impoverished, Third World countries. And among them were 1 million Muslims, who added themselves to the 1.5 million accumulated over the previous centuries. According to a questionnaire published in The Guardian newspaper, however, Ms. Abbott disagrees strongly with the statement “[i]mmigration levels are too high” (in the United Kingdom). This is perhaps not entirely surprising, as the former Labour Home Secretary, David Blunket (who is White), said in 2003 that there was “no obvious limit” to the number of immigrants that could settle in the United Kingdom.

Indeed, being a citizen of the world, Ms. Abbott’s generosity extends well beyond this green and pleasant land. The last Labour government transformed the British economy, tripling the national debt, septupling government borrowing, and turning the Conservative’s 3.3 percent economic expansion of 1997 into a 5.0 percent economic contraction in 2009. It also managed to give away 60% of the nation’s gold reserves at $275 an ounce. Eventually, with Britain facing a downgrade in its credit rating, harsh spending cuts and tax rises had to be implemented, including an increase in Value Added Tax (VAT), which is hoped will bring in an extra £13,000 million a year. Ms. Abbott is pleased, however, because the foreign aid budget, which in the 2008/2009 year spent £5,500 million helping the poor in Africa and South Asia, has been increased to £7,800 million for the 2010/2011 year. In fact, even though half of Britons want less money spent on foreign aid and more spent relieving domestic poverty and improving our under-funded public services, she strongly disagreed with the idea that Britain spends too much money on foreign aid. Ms. Abbott must have failed to notice that the VAT increase — which disproportionately affects the poor, since it increases prices on nearly all goods and services — could have been cut to less than half by suspending foreign aid.

And as no far Left politician is complete without punitive tax proposals, Abbott has bold plans of her own. On 16 July the BBC reported

As well as introducing a financial transaction tax and increasing the coalition’s bank levy, she said she would create a new “wealth tax.”

“I am working on the details of it but it would be a wealth tax directed at assets rather than income,” she said.

In other words, if your house is too large, Abbott will ask you please to move out, sell it, and hand a big chunk of your money to the government. And if you are one of those doomsday eccentrics who hoard gold in case of a currency crisis, she will want you to share your stash with the government. So, if you are intelligent and industrious, if you have prospered in life, Diane Abbott has her eye on you.

Of course, none of this represents an electoral barrier to a committed Marxist supporter: they love these political positions, irrespective of race, age, gender, disability, or sexual orientation — and they know how to guilt ordinary people into supporting them, or at least not criticizing them.

There remain, however, a few minor problem areas that would need to go into the memory hole before Diane Abbott is ready to storm into 10 Downing Street.

Firstly, there is the matter of her refusing to pay her own evening taxi fares. Ordinary folk traveling to and from work are expected by their employers to pay for their own transport. But Diane Abbott expects the long-suffering taxpayers to fund hers to the tune of £1,100 per year, even though she already claims £142,000 annually in expenses, and is paid the largest allowable income supplement for living in London.


Secondly, there is the matter of her thinking that “blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls” are unsuitable for working as nurses in the National Health Service, because they “may have never met a Black person before.” Fortunately, however, on this occasion Marc Wadsworth, executive member of the Anti-Racist Alliance, came to the rescue by pointing out that that year’s Miss Finland was Black, of part Nigerian descent. And, all the same, Ms. Abbott still commanded support from fellow Black MPs: Bernie Grant, MP for a neighbouring constituency, said “She is quite right… Scandinavian people don’t know black people — they probably don’t know how to take their temperature.”

Then there is the matter of her parallel career as a BBC pundit. Instigated by a complaint from a fellow MP, the Committee for Standards and Privileges found in 2004 that Ms. Abbott had failed to declare her earnings (£17,300) from her appearances in the BBC programme This Week in the Register of Members Interests, as per the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Members and paragraph 54 (c) of the Guide to the Rules. Ms. Abbott, who accepted full responsibility, was required to apologize to the House of Commons. Fortunately, however, Ms. Abbott emerged unscathed from the 2009 expenses scandal, where MPs of all stripes were found to have been dipping into the public purse to the tune of many thousands of pounds to fund their lifestyles. Here she has an advantage over her fellow contestant, David Miliband, who was found to have illegitimately claimed £30,000 over five years in repairs, decorations, and furnishings for his private residence (he apologized went found out, but did not return any of the taxpayers’ money).


And then there is the question of whether Ms. Abbott will, like Obama, succeed in ushering in a new era of post-racial politics. Statements like the one below, recorded in the Daily Mail, suggest it may be too soon yet to get our hopes up:

I never encountered any overt racism at school, though I do occasionally wonder whether the attempts made to dissuade me from applying for Oxbridge were linked to my colour.

And, finally, there is the matter of her snubbing public education for her son, in favour of a £10,000-per-year selective private school (Note: Marxists are supposedly against private education and selecting students for ability). The matter generated considerable media attention in 2003, not least because our far Left politician had previously savaged Tony Blair and Harriet Harman for also sparing their children from the public school system. It seems she instructed her former husband to keep quiet about her choice, aware that it was “indefensible” and “intellectually incoherent.” Worse still, her explanation (“West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children”) renewed accusations of racism, which for some implied that White mothers loved their children less than Black mothers. Indeed, many found it rather puzzling that Ms. Abbott could take this view yet dread the thought of her child being schooled alongside others raised by West Indian mums, just like her.

We will have to see how this exciting contest unfolds. Will the best man win? Will subterranean racism influence the decision? Is Britain ready to transform its political landscape? For the time being, Ms. Abbott thinks she has fair chance, despite the odds:

I’m not comparing myself to Barack Obama because he’s a once in a life-time figure but two years ago no-one could have imagined a black man as US President. If that was possible in the US, I think people can change their ideas in Britain as well.

Obama’s assassination program

Olbermann on Obama’s assassination program

Olbermann on Obama's assassination program


(updated below – Update II)

There are many legitimate criticisms voiced about Keith Olbermann, but he deserves substantial credit for his coverage last night of a story that is as self-evidently significant as it is under-covered:   Barack Obama’s assassination program aimed at American citizens.  He not only led off his show with this story, but devoted the first two segments to it, and made many of the key observations and asked virtually all of the right questions.  The videos of those two segments, worth watching, are below.

What’s most striking to me about all of this is that — as I noted yesterday (and as Olbermann stressed) — George Bush’s decision merely to eavesdrop on American citizens without oversight, or to detain without due process Americans such as Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, provoked years of vehement, vocal and intense complaints from Democrats and progressives.  All of that was disparaged as Bush claiming the powers of a King, a vicious attack on the Constitution, a violation of Our Values, the trampling on the Rule of Law.  Yet here you have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping on or detaining Americans without oversight, but ordering them killed with no oversight and no due process of any kind.  And the reaction among leading Democrats and progressives is largely non-existent, which is why Olbermann’s extensive coverage of it is important.   Just imagine what the reaction would have been among progressive editorial pages, liberal opinion-makers and Democratic politicians if this story had been about George Bush and Dick Cheney targeting American citizens for due-process-free and oversight-less CIA assassinations.

Republicans are not going to object to any of this.  With rare exception, they believe in unlimited executive authority and denial of due process.  They see Obama’s adoption of the core Bush/Cheney approach as a vindication of what they did for eight years (and also see it, not unreasonably, as proof that progressive complaints about Bush’s “shredding of the Constitution” were not genuine but rather opportunistic, cynical and motivated by desire for partisan gain).  As a result, even the most Obama-hating right-wing extremists will praise him and cheer for what he’s doing.  At the same time, the people who spent eight years screaming about things like this (when Bush/Cheney were doing them) are now mostly silent if not finding ways to justify and defend it (we don’t need due process because the President said this is an American-Hating Terrorist).  As White House servant Richard Wolffe said in the second Olbermann segment below (and Wolffe’s commentary was actually fairly good), the White House is “very proud” of its presidential assassination program, which is likely why they decided to leak it to the NYT and the WP yesterday.

Here again, we see one of the principal and longest-lasting effects of the Obama presidency:  to put a pretty, eloquent, progressive face on what (until quite recently) was ostensibly considered by a large segment of the citizenry to be tyrannical right-wing extremism (e.g., indefinite detention, military commissions, “state secrets” used to block judicial review, an endless and always-expanding “War on Terror,” immunity for war criminals, rampant corporatism — and now unchecked presidential assassinations of American citizens), and thus to transform what were once bitter, partisan controversies into harmonious, bipartisan consensus:

Where is the Debate on Obama’s Assassination Program?

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

The revelation last week that the president authorized the assassination of a US citizen created a surprisingly small splash. I try not to engage in speculative “imagine if” games, but if the president had done such a thing in 2005 it is hard to think there would not have been near apoplexy on the left. It is a nakedly thuggish act, and I can easily envision pictures like this with the faces of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales superimposed on them. It would have raised an enormous outcry.

Writing on the relative quiet from liberals Avedon Carol wrote “early on when people asked, ‘Would you rather McCain had won?’ someone said, ‘At least then you’d know you were in a fight.’” Do progressives truly care that the president has made such an expansive claim? Do they realize that their silence does not just make them look hypocritical, but will completely cripple any argument they make against a future Republican president who does anything even remotely that provocative? Conservatives are already happily batting around the idea and soberly debating the pluses and minuses of executive hit squads. Some on the right are already gleefully noting the apparent abandonment of principle among Democrats and their supporters.

The response from the right has been largely muted, though. In a way it makes sense that all sides would rather the issue go away, because it does not run on established political fault lines. Democrats do not want to take a hard line against a Democratic president; they already have enough of a self-destruct narrative to want to avoid high level internecine conflict.

Republicans, meanwhile, would have an equally hard time coming out forcefully against the president. Aside from the fact that Obama’s actions are very much in the strong, decisive and brutal approach towards foreign enemies that they seem to gravitate to naturally, they have to know any investigation would likely reach back into the Bush years very quickly, a chapter in their history they would just as soon not revisit.

Still, this is an election year, and even though their numbers look good right now that may just be a mirage. If they base their electoral strategy on reflexive obstructionism and pandering to the base (neither of which, you’ll note, has anything to do with addressing the problems facing America) it is hard to see how they sustain any kind of momentum through campaign season. They might get some traction running against health care, though, particularly if voters do not see enough meaningful, tangible benefits before election day.

(I cringe whenever I hear Democratic leaders talk about the need to educate voters on the new law; aside from the whiff of elitism it carries – which has been a useful club to beat them with in the past – it raises the question of why the huge reform they are touting cannot be directly felt. If it is so great, why does it have to be sold? Just step back and let people begin enjoying the wonderfulness!)

The GOP seems determined to not get any advantage whatsoever on financial reform, however. On what may the the biggest issue of all – unemployment – there is radio silence from the party. Presumably they just want for us to wait for the invisible hand to stop giving us the finger and start working its magic again. Democrats may not have a much greater sense of urgency than that, but the minority party needs to distinguish itself if it hopes to not remain the minority.

Executive power may not be a sexy peg for Republicans to hang their hats on, but since they are already ceding the most popular issues to the Democrats, they may as well make as much hay on this one as possible. The Democrats’ refusal to stand up to Obama is depressing but not really surprising. It would be nice to see them stand on principle and to put institutional obligations over party objectives. That most likely is not in the cards, though. The Republicans’ reluctance to make this an issue is a little more surprising. At least, it is surprising to the extent that I am still amazed to see a major political party continue to show no instinct for self-preservation.

What Obama has done is a dangerous and outrageous precedent. One of the reasons the GOP has been unable to sway the public for the past year is because it is clearly lying on big issues like health care and financial reform. If it directed that same energy and persistence in the service of truth it might start to bring the electorate along, provided it has retained some vestigial interest in such a thing.

Born Fighting Author Better Be Ready To Rumble

Born Fighting Author Better Be Ready To Rumble

Senator Jim Webb pens a historic article in the Wall Street Journal

Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege
America still owes a debt to its black citizens, but government programs to help all ‘people of color’ are unfair. They should end.

Paul Craig Roberts made this point several years ago — why should someone who immigrated to the US like, yesterday, be eligible for “affirmative action” today?

What needs to be understood about this, though, is that ANY chinking on the Berlin Wall of Multiculturalism will (rightly) be considered an ATTACK on the whole structure.

This is because Multiculturalism/Diversity is a monolith that demands Whites NEVER object to ANY aspect. We are supposed to keep our eyes downcast, mouths shut, wallets open. Preferably on our knees, begging forgiveness, but that is of course is only required if you want to have a career in academia or government service, maintaining the monolith against millions of other Whites.

Having Occidental Dissent writers chinking that wall is one thing; a sitting Senator is quite another. Senator Jim Webb wrote a book, “Born Fighting” about the Scots-Irish. I hope he’s ready to live up to his ideals at this moment. I think he probably knows he’s kicking a hornets nest with this article. This isn’t a foot-in-mouth gaffe; this is a shot fired.

Pat Buchanan, who definitely knows what he’s doing, is chinking at the Berlin Wall of Multiculturalism too:

The White House fears it is losing white America because of a false perception that it harbors a bias against white America.

Outrageous, rail those journalists who celebrated the NAACP’s accusation that the tea party is harboring racists and is too cowardly to confront them.

Yet, as things perceived as real are real in their consequences, if the White House does not eradicate this perception, its lease may not be renewed. Whence comes that perception? Several incidents.

First was the startling accusation by Attorney General Eric Holder, days after Barack Obama was inaugurated in a gusher of good feeling, that we are all “a nation of cowards” when it comes to facing issues of race.

A real icebreaker for a national conversation.

Second was the instantaneous verdict of the president, when asked about the arrest of Harvard’s Henry Louis Gates by Cambridge cop Sgt. James Crowley. With no knowledge of what happened, Obama blurted out that the cops had “acted stupidly.”

It took a White House beer summit to detoxify that one.

A third was the revelation that Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the “wise Latina” herself, had gone to extremes to see that the case of Frank Ricci and the New Haven, Conn., firefighters never got to the Supreme Court. Ricci and co-defendants had been denied promotions they had won in competitive exams solely because they were white and no black firemen had done as well.

The fourth was the Justice Department’s dropping of charges against members of the New Black Panther Party, whose intimidation of voters in Philadelphia had been captured on tape.

When a department official resigned in protest and went to the Civil Rights Commission to accuse officials at Justice of ordering staff attorneys not to pursue such cases, that explosive charge, too, was ignored by Justice.

Came then the NAACP smear that the tea party was harboring racists, which Joe Biden explicitly rejected on national television on Sunday, before the Monday firestorm over Sherrod.

Now, whatever one’s views on each of these episodes in which race played a role, white Americans are being forced to address them. And, surely, the White House understands this is bad news for Obama and the Democratic Party.

For though the black community remains solidly behind Obama and the white majority is shrinking toward minority status by 2042 or 2050, depending on which Census survey one uses, whites in America still outnumber blacks five to one. And if forced constantly to come down on one side or the other of a racial divide, most folks will wind up with their own.

In past elections, Democrats have raised race—allegations that black churches were being torched in the South, that George W. Bush’s opposition to a hate crimes bill meant he was coldly indifferent to the dragging death of a handicapped black man—to solidify and energize the minority vote. And, today, that vote remains solid behind Obama,

Where the erosion is taking place is in white America, among working- and middle-class folks who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries but took a chance with Obama in the fall. Now, every time some new incident erupts, these folks are being tarred.

Opposition to affirmative action is racist. Supporting the tea party gives aid and comfort to racists. Opposing health care puts you in league with folks who used racial slurs on Rep. John Lewis. To raise the issue of the New Black Panther Party is to play the race card.

One understand the bitterness of tea party folks who carry signs that read: “What difference does it make what this placard says. You’ll call it racist anyway.”

As the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein has been reporting, white America is increasingly alienated and distrustful of all our major economic and political power centers—the banks, big corporations, the government.

And, for the first time in our lifetimes, outside the South, white racial consciousness has visibly begun to rise.


Julius Evola’s Concept of Race

Julius Evola’s Concept of Race: A Racism of Three Degrees

Since the rise of physical anthropology, the definition of the term “race” has undergone several changes. In 1899, William Z. Ripley stated that, “Race, properly speaking, is responsible only for those peculiarities, mental or bodily, which are transmitted with constancy along the lines of direct physical descent.” 1 In 1916, Madison Grant described it as the “immutability of somatological or bodily characters, with which is closely associated the immutability of physical predispositions and impulses.”2 He was echoed a decade later by German anthropologist Hans F.K. Gunther, who in his Racial Elements of European History said, “A race shows itself in a human group which is marked off from every other human group through its own proper combination of bodily and mental characteristics, and in turn produces only its like.”3 According to the English-born Canadian evolutionary psychologist J. Philippe Rushton:

Each race (or variety) is characterized by a more or less distinct combination of inherited morphological, behavioral, physiological traits . . . Formation of a new race takes place when, over several generations, individuals in one group reproduce more frequently among themselves than they do with individuals in other groups. This process is most apparent when the individuals live in diverse geographic areas and therefore evolve unique, recognizable adaptations (such as skin color) that are advantageous in their specific environments.4

These examples indicate that, within the academic context (where those who still believe in “race” are fighting a losing battle with the hierophants of cultural anthropology), a race is simply a human group with distinct common physical and mental traits that are inherited.

Among white racialists, where race has more than a merely scientific importance, a deeper dimension was added to the concept: that of the spirit. In The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler set forth the idea of the Apollinian, Faustian, and Magian “soul forms,” which can be understood as spiritual racial types.5 In this highly influential Spenglerian tome Imperium, Francis Parker Yockey elaborated this notion, asserting that while there are genetically related individuals within any particular human group, race itself is spiritual: it is a deeply felt sense of identity connected with a drive to perpetuate not just genes, but a whole way of life. “Race impels toward self-preservation, continuance of the cycle of generations, increase of power.”6 Spiritual race is a drive toward a collective destiny.

The spiritual side of race, however, was never systematically explained to the same extent as the physical. Its existence was, rather, merely suggested and taken for granted. It was only in the writings of the much overlooked Italian Radical Traditionalist and esotericist Julius Evola that the spiritual dimension was finally articulated in detail. One who has studied race from the biological, psychological, and social perspectives should turn to Evola’s writings for a culminating lesson on the subject. Evola’s writings provide a wealth of information that one cannot get elsewhere. Through a careful analysis of ancient literature and myths, along with anthropology, biology, history, and related subjects, Evola has pieced together a comprehensive explanation of the racial spirit.

My purpose here is simply to outline Evola’s doctrine of race. Since Evola’s life and career have been thoroughly examined elsewhere,7 the only biographical fact relevant here is that Evola’s thoughts on race were officially adopted as policy by Mussolini’s Fascist Party in 1942.8

Body and Mind

Evola’s precise definition of “race” is similar to Yockey’s: it is an inner essence that a person must “have”; this will be explained further below. In the meantime, a good starting point is Evola’s understanding of distinct human groups.

Evola agrees with the physical anthropologists that there are distinct groups with common physical traits produced by a common genotype: “the external form . . . which, from birth to birth, derives from the ‘gene’ . . . is called phenotype.”9 He refers to these groups as “races of the body,” and concurs with Gunther that suitable examples include the Nordic, Mediterranean, East Baltic, Orientalid, Negroid, and many others.10

Evola describes the “race of the soul” as the collective mental and behavioral traits of a human stock, and the outward “style” through which these are exhibited. Every race has essentially the same mental predispositions; all human peoples, for example, desire sexual satisfaction from a mate. However, each human stock manifests these inner instincts externally in a different way, and it is this “style,” as Evola terms it, which is the key component of the “race of the soul.”

To illustrate this point, compare the Spartan strategos (Nordic soul) to the Carthaginian shofet (Levantine soul)11: the Spartan considers it heroic to fight hand-to-hand with shield and spear and cowardly to attack from a distance with projectiles, whereas the Carthaginian finds it natural to employ elephants and grand siege equipment to utterly shock and scatter his enemies for an expedient victory.

The names of these races of the soul correspond to those of the body, hence a Nordic soul, a Mediterranean soul, Levantine soul, etc. Evola devotes an entire chapter in Men Among the Ruins to comparing the “Nordic” or “Aryo-Roman” soul to the “Mediterranean.” The Nordic soul is that of “‘the race of active man,’ of the man who feels that the world is presented to him as material for possession and attack.”12 It is the character of the quintessential “strong and silent type”:

Among them we should include self-control, an enlightened boldness, a concise speech and determined and coherent conduct, and a cold dominating attitude, exempt from personalism and vanity . . . The same style is characterized by deliberate actions, without grand gestures; a realism that is not materialism, but rather love for the essential . . . the readiness to unite, as free human beings and without losing one’s identity, in view of a higher goal or for an idea.13

Evola also quotes Helmuth Graf von Moltke (the Elder) on the Nordic ethos: “Talk little, do much, and be more than you appear to be.”14

The Mediterranean soul is the antithesis of the Nordic. This sort of person is a vain, noisy show-off who does things just to be noticed. Such a person might even do great deeds sometimes, but they are not done primarily for their positive value, but merely to draw attention. In addition, the Mediterranean makes sexuality the focal point of his existence.15 The resemblance of this picture to the average narcissistic, sex- and celebrity-obsessed American of today – whether genetically Nordic or Mediterranean – is striking. One need only watch American Idol or browse through the profiles of to see this.

Race of the Spirit

The deepest and therefore most complicated aspect of race for Evola is that of the “spirit.” He defines it as a human stock’s “varying attitude towards the spiritual, supra-human, and divine world, as expressed in the form of speculative systems, myths, and symbols, and the diversity of religious experience itself.”16 In other words, it is the manner in which different peoples interact with the gods as conveyed through their cultures; a “culture” would include rituals, temple architecture, the role of a priesthood (or complete lack thereof), social hierarchy, the status of women, religious symbolism, sexuality, art, etc. This culture, or worldview, is not simply the product of sociological causes, however. It is the product of something innate within a stock, a “meta-biological force, which conditions both the physical and the psychical structures” of its individual members.17

The “meta-biological force” in question has two different forms. The first corresponds to an id or a collective unconscious, a son of group mind-spirit that splinters off into individual spirits and enters a group member’s body upon birth. Evola describes it as “subpersonal” and belonging “to nature and the infernal world.”18 Most ancient peoples, as he explains, depicted this force symbolically in their myths and sagas; examples would include the animal totems of American aborigines, the ka of the Pharaonic Egyptians, or the lares of the Latin peoples. The “infernal” nature of the latter example was emphasized by the fact that the lares were believed to be ruled over by the underground deity named Mania.19 When a person died, this metaphysical element would be absorbed back into the collective from whence it came, only to be recycled into another body, but devoid of a recollection of its former life.

The second form, superior to the first, is one that does not exist in every stock naturally, or in every member of a given stock; it is an otherworldly force that must be drawn into the blood of a people through the practice of certain rites. This action corresponds to the Hindu notion of “realizing the Self,” or experiencing a oneness with the divine source of all existence and order (Brahman). Such a task can only be accomplished by a gifted few, who by making this divine connection undergo an inner transformation. They became aware of immutable principles, in the name of which they go on to forge their ethnic kin into holistic States – microcosmic versions of the transcendental principle of Order itself. Thus, the Brahmins and Kshatriyas of India, the patricians of Rome, and the samurai of Japan had a “race of the spirit,” which is essential to “having race” itself. Others may have the races of body and soul, but race of the spirit is race par excellence.

Transcendence is experienced differently by different ethnic groups. As a result, different understandings of the immutable arise across the world; from these differences emerge several “races of the spirit.” Evola focuses on two in particular. The first is the “telluric spirit” characterized by a deep “connection to the soul.” This race worships the Earth in its various cultural manifestations (Cybele, Gaia, Magna Mater, Ishtar, Inanna, etc.) and a consort of “demons.” Their view of the afterlife is fatalistic: the individual spirit is spawned from the Earth and the returns to the Earth, or to the infernal realm of Mania, upon death, with no possibility.20 Their society is matriarchal, with men often taking the last names of their mothers and familial descent being traced through the mother. In addition, women often serve as high priestesses. The priesthood, in fact, is given preeminence, whereas the aristocratic warrior element is subordinated, if it exists at all.

This race has had representatives in all the lands of Europe, Asia, and Africa that were first populated by pre-Aryans: the Iberians, Etruscans, Pelasgic-Minoans, Phoenicians, the Indus Valley peoples, and all others of Mediterranean, Oriental, and Negroid origin. The invasions of Aryan stock would introduce to these peoples a diametrically opposed racial spirit: the “Solar” or “Olympian” race.

The latter race worships the heavenly god of Order, manifested as Brahman, Ahura-Mazda, Tuisto (the antecedent of Odin), Chronos, Saturn, and the various sun deities from America to Japan. Its method of worship is not the self-prostration and humility practiced by Semites, or the ecstatic orgies of Mediterraneans, but heroic action (for the warriors) and meditative contemplation (for the priests), both of which establish a direct link with the divine. Olympian societies are hierarchical, with a priestly caste at the top, followed by a warrior caste, then a caste of tradesmen, and finally a laboring caste. The ruler himself assumes the dual role of priest and warrior, which demonstrates that the priesthood did not occupy the helm of society as they did among telluric peoples. Finally, the afterlife was not seen as an inescapable dissolution into nothingness, but as one of two potential conclusions of a test. Those who live according to the principles of their caste, without straying totally from the path, and who come to “realize the Self,” experience a oneness with God and enter a heavenly realm that is beyond death. Those who live a worthless, restless existence that places all emphasis on material and physical things, without ever realizing the presence of the divine Self within all life,, undergoes the “second death,”21 or the return to the collective racial mind-spirit mentioned earlier.

The Olympian race has appeared throughout history in the following forms: in America as the Incas; in Europe and Asia as the Indo-European speaking peoples; in Africa as the Egyptians, and in the Far East as the Japanese. Generally, this race of the spirit has been carried by waves of phenotypically Nordic peoples, which will be explained further below.

Racial Genesis

Of considerable importance to Evola’s racial worldview is his explanation of human history. Contrary to the views of most physical anthropologists and archaeologists, and even many intellectual white racialists, humanity did not evolve from a primitive, simian ancestor, and then branch off into different genetic populations. Evolution itself is a fallacy to Evola, who believed it to be rooted in the equally false ideology of progressivism: “We do not believe that man is derived from the ape by evolution. We belive that the ape is derived from man by involution. We agree with De Maistre that savage peoples are not primitive peoples, but rather the degenerating remnants of more ancient races that have disappeared.22

Evola argues in many of his works, like Bal Ganghadar Tilak and Rene Guenon before him, that the Aryan peoples of the world descend from a race that once inhabited the Arctic. In “distant prehistory” this land was the seat of a super-civilization – “super” not for its material attainments, but for its connection to the gods – that has been remembered by various peoples as Hyperborea, Airyana-Vaego, Mount Meru, Tullan, Eden, and other labels; Evola uses the Hellenic rendition “Hyperborea” more than the rest, probably to remain consistent and avoid confusion among his readers. The Hyperboreans themselves, as he explains, were the original bearers of the Olympian racial spirit.

Due to a horrific cataclysm, the primordial seat was destroyed, and the Hyperboreans were forced to migrate. A heavy concentration of refugees ended up at a now lost continent somewhere in the Atlantic, where they established a new civilization that corresponded to the “Atlantis” of Plato and the “Western land” of the Celts and other peoples. History repeated itself, and ultimately this seat was also destroyed, sending forth and Eastward-Westward wave of migrants. As Evola notes, this particular wave “[corresponded[ to Cro-Magnon man, who made his appearance toward the end of the glacial age in the Western part of Europe,”23 thus leading some historical evidence to his account. This “pure Aryan” stock would ultimately become the proto-Nordic race of Europe, which would then locally evolve into the multitude of Nordic stocks who traveled across the world and founded the grandest civilizations, from Incan Peru to Shintoist Japan.

Evola spends less time tracing the genesis of nonwhite peoples, which he consistently refers to as “autochthonous,” “bestial,” and “Southern” races.” In his seminal work Revolt Against the Modern World, he says that the “proto-Mongoloid and Negroid races … probably represented the last residues of the inhabitants of a second prehistoric continent, now lost, which was located in the South, and which some designated as Lemuria.”24 In contrast to the superior Nordic-Olympians, these stocks were telluric worshippers of the Earth and its elemental demons. Semites and other mixed races, Evola asserts, are the products of miscegenation between Atlantean settlers and these Lemurian races. Civilizations such as those of the pre-Hellenes, Mohenjo-Daro, pre-dynastic Egyptians, and Phoenicians, among countless others, were founded by mixed peoples.

Racialism in Practice

Racialist movements from National Socialist Germany to contemporary America have tended to emphasize preserving physical racial types. While phenotypes were important to Evola, his foremost goal for racialism was to safeguard the Olympian racial spirit of European man. It was from this spirit that the greatest Indo-European civilizations received the source of their leadership, the principles around which they centered their lives, and thus the wellspring of their vitality. While de Gobineau, Grant, and Hitler argued that blood purity was the determining factor in the life of a civilization, Evola contended that “Only when a civilization’s ‘spiritual race’ is worn out or broken does its decline set in.”25 Any people who manages to maintain a physical racial ideal with no inner spiritual substance is a race of “very beautiful animals destined to work,”26 but not destined to produce a higher civilization.

The importance of phenotypes is described thusly: “The physical from is the instrument, expression, and symbol of the psychic form.”27 Evola felt that it would only be possible to discover the desired spiritual type (Olympian) through a systematic examination of physical types. Even to Evola, a Sicilian born, the best place to look in this regard was the “Aryan or Nordic-Aryan body”; as he mentions on several occasions, it was, after all, this race that carried the Olympian Tradition across the world. He called this process of physical selection “racism of the first degree,” which was the first of three stages.

Once the proper Nordic phenotype was identified, various “appropriate” tests comprising racism of the second and third degrees would be implemented to determine a person’s racial soul and spirit.28 Evola never laid out a specific program for this, but makes allusions in his works to assessments in which a person’s political and racial opinions would be taken into account. In his Elements of Racial Education, he asserts that “The one who says yes to racism is one in which race still lives,” and that one who has race is intrinsically against democratic ideals. He also likens true racism to the “classical spirit,” which is rooted in “exaltation of everything which has form, face, and individuation, as opposed to what is formless, vague, and undifferentiated.”29 Keep in mind that for Evola, “having race” is synonymous with having the “Olympian race” of the spirit. Upon discovering a mentality that fits the criteria for soul and spirit, a subsequent education of “appropriate disciplines” would be carried out to ensure that the racial spirit within this person is “maintained and developed.” Through such trials, conducted on a wide scale, a nation can determine those people within it who embody the racial ideal and the capacity for leadership.

Protecting and developing the Nordic-Olympians was primary for Evola, but his racialism had other goals. He sought to produce the “unified type,” or a person in whom the races of body, soul, and spirit matched one another and worked together harmoniously. For example: “A soul which experiences the world as something before which it takes a stand actively, which regards the world as an object of attack and conquest, should have a face which reflects by determined and daring features this inner experience, a slim, tall, nervous, straight body – an Aryan or Nordic-Aryan body.”30

This was because “it is not impossible that physical appearances peculiar to a given race may be accompanied by the psychic traits of a different race.”31 To Evola, if people chose mates on the basis of physical features alone, there is a good chance that various mental and spiritual elements would become intermingled and generate a dangerous confusion; there would be Nordics with Semitic mental characteristics and Asiatic spiritual predispositions, Alpines with Nordic proclivities and fatalistic religious attitudes, and so on. Such a mixture was what Evola considered to be a mongrel type, in whom “cosmopolitan myths of equality” become manifested mentally, thus paving the way for the beasts of democracy and communism to permeate the nation and take hold.

Evola cared more about the aristocratic racial type, but he did not want the populace to become a bastardized mass: “We must commit ourselves to the task of applying to the nation as a whole the criteria of coherence and unity, of correspondence between outer and inner elements.”32 If the aristocracy had as its subjects a blob of spiritless, internally broken people, the nation would have no hope. For the Fascist state, he promoted an educational campaign to ensure that the peoples of Italy selected their mates appropriately, looking for both appearances and behavior; non-Europeans would of course be excluded entirely. The school system would play its role, as would popular literature and films.33

Another way to develop the “inner race” is through combat. Not combat in the modern sense of pressing a button and instantly obliterating a hundred people, but combat as it unfolds in the trenches and on the battlefield, when it is man against man, as well as man against his inner demons. Evola writes, “the experience of war, and the instincts and currents of deep forces which emerge through such an experience, give the racial sense a right, fecund direction.”34 Meanwhile, the comfortable bourgeois lifestyle and its pacifist worldview lead to the crippling of the inner race, which will ultimately become extinguished if external damage is thenceforth inflicted (via intermixing with inferior elements).


American racialists have much to gain from an introduction to Evola’s thoughts on race. In the American context, racialism is virtually devoid of any higher, spiritual element; many racialists even take pride in this. There are, without a doubt, many racialists who consider themselves devout Catholics or Protestants, and they may even be so. However, the reality of race as a spiritual phenomenon is given little attention, if any at all. For whatever reason, American racialists are convinced that the greatness of Western civilization, evinced by its literature, architecture, discoveries, inventions, conquests, empires, political treatises, economic achievements, and the like, like solely in the mental characteristics of its people. For instance, the Romans erected the coliseum, the English invented capitalism, and the Greeks developed the Pythagorean theorem simply because they all had high IQs. When one compares the achievements of different Western peoples, and those of the West to the East, however, this explanation appears inadequate.

Intelligence alone cannot explain the different styles that are conveyed through the culture forms of different peoples; the Greeks’ Corinthian order on the one hand, and the Arabs’ mosques and minarets on the other, are not results of mere intellect. Sociological explanations do not work either; the Egyptians and Mayans lived in vastly different environments, yet both evoked their style through pyramids and hieroglyphs. The only explanation of these phenomena is that there is something deeper within a folk, something deeper and more powerful than bodily structures and mental predispositions. As Evola elucidates through his multitude of works – themselves the result of intense study of ancient and modern texts from every discipline imaginable – race has a “super-biological” aspect: a spiritual force. Ancient peoples understood this reality and conveyed it through their myths: the Romans used the lares; the Mayans used totemic animal symbols; the Persians used the fravashi, which were synonymous with the Nordic valkyries;35 the Egyptians used the ka; and the Hindus in the Bhagavad-Gita used Lord Krishna.

To better understand the spiritual side of race, the best place to look is Julius Evola. Through his works, which have greatly influenced the European New Right, Evola dissects and examines the concept of the Volksgeist, or racial spirit. It is the supernatural force that animates the bodies of a given race and stimulates the wiring in their brains. It is the substance from which cultures arise, and from which an aristocracy materializes to raise those cultures to higher civilizations. Without it, a race is simply a tribe of automatons that feed and copulate.

When the super biological element that is the center and the measure of true virility is lost, people can call themselves men, but in reality they are just eunuchs and their paternity simply reflects the quality of animals who, blinded by instinct, procreate randomly other animals, who in turn are mere vestiges of existence.36

Nowhere would Evola’s racial ideas be more valuable than in the United States, a land in which the idea of transcendent realities is mocked, if not violently attacked. Even American racialists, who nostalgically look back to “better” times when people were more “traditional,” are completely unaware of how the Aryan Tradition, in its purest form, understand the concept of race. Many of these people claim to be “Aryan” while simultaneously calling themselves “atheist” or “agnostic,” although in ancient societies, one needed to practice the necessary religious rites and undergo certain trials before having the right to style oneself an Aryan. Hence the need for these “atheist Aryans” to become more familiar with Julius Evola.

Michael Bell writes about race and popular culture from a Radical Traditionalist point of view.

Mel Gibson vs. Black Run America

Mel Gibson vs. Black Run America

Normal posts will resume later today, but I wanted to take a quick moment to point out that Mel Gibson is powerless against the twin forces and combined might of Black Run America and Disingenuous White Liberals.

The notion of Black Run America (BRA) should be obvious to all by now as white people must live on their knees in humble subservience to Black people, in supine acquiescence. The sins of the past are always at the forefront of any interracial discussion and monopolize all of the moral outrage that governs the rules of the debate.

Eric Holder knows America is primed for a true racial examination, although it will be a deliberation that has seen the pendulum swing mightily in the opposite direction of where “traditional” intolerance has purportedly always been found.

And Mel Gibson has shown us with the utterance of one word – the same word that Michael Richards had the misfortune of utilizing repeatedly in an uncomfortable monologue a few years back – just how entrenched and powerful Black Run America really is, and the terrifying reality that confronts anyone daring its omnipotence.

Indeed, Richard Spencer put it beautifully when he stated:

In 1977, Roman Polanski had sex with a 13-year-old girl, and though he remained notorious, he was able to continue his work as a director virtually uninterrupted for the next 30-odd years; Hollywood’s A List has little compunction in collaborating with him. The consensus with Mel is that his career is kaput, making known that, according to our age’s civic totem, using the N-word is a far graver sin than pedophilia.

I came up with the term BRA – Black Run America – when I read about the Black History Celebration at NBC and how a commemoration of “Soul Food” in the employee cafeteria was deemed offensive, though the culinary artist behind the celebratory meal was Black.

Offending Black people is not allowed (recall jokes at their expense) in BRA, and Mel Gibson’s greatest offense in his latest media-enhanced battle is his usage of the Dark Lord of Lexis, the dreaded “Word-That-Must-Not-Be-Named”.

The N-word. Even talking about this word leaves one feeling unpleasant, uncouth and in flagrant violation of one of the prevailing rules governing BRA (no using the N-word unless you are part of the ruling class of BRA), as it was ceremoniously buried in a highly-publicized funeral by the NAACP. Yet Gibson had to go and resurrect the “Word-That-Must-Not-Be-Named” and allow it to once again haunt us all while visions of water-hoses, barking dogs and alleged nooses dance in our frightened heads.

As one writer put it, when confirming the existence of Black Run America (BRA):

Again, Gibson said any number of extremely offensive things in his surreptitiously recorded private phone conversation with his former girl friend, including telling her that with the way she dressed she deserved to be gang raped. But the thing that got him in trouble, the thing that has all the tongues wagging, the thing that has scandalized the world, the thing that has people saying his movie career is over, was his single use of the word “niggers.”

Some of the news stories even said that Gibson punched his ex-mistress in the mouth and broke her two front upper teeth. Yet in every story in which that charge has appeared, it is way down in the article, as a distant afterthought compared to the only news that really matters–his use of the “N” word. Is any further proof needed that the worst crime in liberal society–worse than disgusting invective, worse than wishing for a woman to be gang-raped, worse than punching a woman in the mouth and knocking her teeth out–is for a white person to say anything discriminatory about black people? We used to be a nation under God. Now we’re a nation under blacks.

Update: To be more precise, we are a nation under the twin gods, which we ourselves have constructed, of black sacredness and white guilt.

How could Mel Gibson have had the indecency to resuscitate the dreaded N-word, knowing full well that such perverse actions as Bestiality, Pedophilia, Incest and Fratricide aren’t frowned upon nearly as much as the mere utterance of the “Word-That-Must-Not-Be-Named”?

Gibson has been in violation of the sacred orders that maintain BRA’s hegemony over this land and the people who dwell beneath its awesome omnipresence, for quite some time.

Recall the move The Patriot and the furor it caused for failing to wallow in self-pity and righteous indignation over slavery, the universal stain more lethal than the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf for which no amount of groveling, self-immolation, apologizing or reparations could ever clean:

Director Spike Lee has lashed out at The Patriot, and all but accused the Mel Gibson blockbuster of racism, in a forceful letter to the editor of the Hollywood Reporter. The Patriot stars Gibson as a hero of the American War of Independence and opened in the States to decent reviews and solid business on the July 4 holiday weekend.

But the Do the Right Thing director this week took issue with what he regards as the way The Patriot is portraying a gung-ho, sanitised version of history which turns a discreet blind eye to slavery.

In his letter, Lee, never known as the most retiring of film directors, writes that he traveled to see the film with his wife on its opening weekend. “We both came out of the theatre fuming,” he claims. “For three hours The Patriot dodged around, skirted about or completely ignored slavery. How convenient… to have Mel Gibson’s character not be a slaveholder… The Patriot is pure, blatant American Hollywood propaganda. A complete whitewashing of history.”

Failure to maintain culpability for slavery is a mortal sin that Gibson accomplished with The Patriot. You can’t do this, and Spike Lee called Gibson out for the faux-pas in failing to capitulate to the eternal of white guilt and its twin brother, Black Sacredness, a veritable Hydra that can never be slain.

The N-word or the “Word-That-Must-Not-Be-Named” should have stayed dead and stayed buried. The NAACP was gracious enough to act as a gravedigger and lay it to rest, but Gibson had to exhume it, unearthing it once again to a reign of terror over the souls who suffer everlasting white guilt and who look upon BRA with joyous and tearful eyes of submission.

Most white people suffer from a debilitating form of timidity when they hear the “Word-That-Must-Not-Be-Named” spoken and convulse into a state of self-induced shock. Like an unstoppable zombie walking the earth in search of human flesh, the N-word haunts all white people and causes them to reflexively run with terror at its mere mention.

Though the NAACP buried it, Mel Gibson resurrected it.

And yet, actions around the country as of late are beginning to force the façade around BRA to crumble. Remember, for this epoch to end courage must be an unceasing, unwavering ally.

Perhaps though, as in the film Signs, there are no such things at coincidences. Maybe, just maybe, the resurrection of the “Word-That-Must-Not-Be-Named” by Mel Gibson happened for a reason.

Freedom from BRA is the goal of SBPDL, for once the tyrannical reign of this oppressive regime ends a true unity can rule where a notion of dis-unity has for too long infected a great nation.

Mel Gibson, having the temerity to dig up a buried statement, has brought us one step closer to a freedom few could ever imagine.

And just like in the denouement of Apocalypto, that very thought should bring a smile to your face.

Wasn’t the Rodney King Tape Edited? Thoughts on Shirley Sherrod

Wasn’t the Rodney King Tape Edited? Thoughts on Shirley Sherrod

Again, normal posts will be coming soon but news is breaking so fast around the nation that one is forced to write about the Shirley Sherrod affair.

Actually, it can be discussed in just a few paragraphs. By now it should be obvious to all that an edited version of her remarks was shown (although, the members of the NAACP still clapped as she told the tale of how she righteously denied the white farmer aid) and that the full version of the tape shows a woman who has assumed the mantle of a Black Bruce Wayne – swearing to dedicate her life to avenge her father’s death at the alleged hands of white people and crusade on behalf of her people – intent on pursuing justice for Black people’s never-ending discrimination.

Speaking to the NAACP – an organization irrelevant in that its core mission has been adopted by the Federal Government – she gave a talk endorsing communism (thankfully South Carolina’s own US Senate candidate Alvin Greene has promised to take back the country from “terrorists and communists” like Sherrod if elected) and delineated Black grievances and platitudes about her ailing community, in all of its varied permutations.

Now, Sherrod wants to have the 2nd Annual, 2010 Beer Summit with Mein Obama (interestingly, close to a year after the first with Officer Crowley) and discuss race and how it was so wrong for the media to play an edited version of her speech. The White House has apologized to her for believing the story that such a sweet, kindred soul could harbor such venomous opinions and plans to offer her another position within the government.

The so-called “conservative” media is being blasted for rushing to judgment in the Sherrod case. In fact, the whole media rushed to judgment in the Sherrod case and quickly admitted the mistake, issued a mea culpa and has since brandished its awesome power denouncing anyone who dares question the dominance of Black Run America (BRA) – only white people can be racist is one of the sacred amendments governing life in BRA and Sherrod threatened to destroy this with her edited speech – and anointed her a new saint in the perpetual war on Pre-Obama America.

However, the Sherrod case shows something frightening to anyone paying attention as the media’s quick reversal of the story and admitting a longer tape existed instead of the edited version – when compared to the Rodney King tape – illustrates BRA’s tremendous power.

Remember Rodney King? An edited version of a beating he received was played continuously, inflaming righteous – albeit misplaced – anger among the Black citizens of America back in 1992. The real tape was never played in its entirety, just the edited version which showed police officers teeing off on King with an intensity usually reserved for golf balls at the range.

Indeed, riots and billions of dollars in property damage – not to mention loss of life – occurred after the police officers involved in the Rodney King were acquitted, because Black people had seen the “edited” version of the tape recycled continuously on TV.

The full version showed something else (like the Sherrod video):

Almost the entire country, along with the federal government, thought the four LAPD officers convicted of beating Rodney King were guilty of civil rights violations. But your book casts doubt on the racial motivation of the beating.

In many everyday incidents, police just move in and hit the suspect. In cases where you have white officers and a black suspect, it’s often safe to say you’ve got a racial thing. That was not the case with Rodney King. Here they chased this guy for eight miles, they had stopped him, a female California Highway Patrol officer advanced on him with her gun drawn, which in the LAPD is considered a very dangerous tactic. Sgt. Stacey Koon of the LAPD ordered the CHP officer back and he took over this arrest. He then directed four officers to jump on King. King threw them off his back. He was sweating on a cold night, it was obvious he was drunk. He pointed at the sky, he called around, he made strange noises, he waggled his buttocks at the woman officer, all of these things. They suspected he was on PCP, and they knew he was strong.

So the LAPD, at least in the beginning, acted correctly?

It’s the middle of the night. You have this guy acting very strangely. Koon did what he was supposed to do under LAPD doctrine — they fire electronic darts of 50,000 volts. If you get hit by them, you don’t get up for a very long time. King got up. They fired another volley, he gets up again. As the second volley is fired, George Holliday, this amateur cameraman, had his new camcorder that he was photographing everything with. He had been awakened by the noises, and the police helicopter and sirens. Just as Rodney King is charging toward Officer Lawrence Powell, he starts the video. This is the first three seconds of the video. It is not terribly clear, but it is obvious what King is doing. It is not clear whether he is trying to run over Powell, or whether he is trying to run by him to get to this park behind him. Neither of them knew where he was going — King was too drunk to know, and Powell was too panicked to know.

And then we get to the part that has been broadcast around the world, of Powell swinging his baton.

Yes, Powell swings his baton, not as he has been taught — in a power stroke that probably would have flattened King, and this thing would have been over — but wildly, and he hits King. The defense thought he hit him in the chest or the arm. I am convinced he hit him in the head, but Powell was just swinging. Then the next 10 seconds after this are blurred on the video. They are blurred because the cameraman moves his camera to try to get a better view of the situation.

You point out that crucial seconds of the videotape showing King violently resisting arrest were edited by a local TV news station and then beamed around the world.

Yes, and it explains why the jurors in Simi Valley, who were from a very pro-police, conservative community, ruled the way they did. They thought that the media hadn’t told them the full story, and lo and behold, we hadn’t. But in trials, if there is evidence that is damaging to your side, it’s going to come out one way or the other. So lawyers try to present it, to give their own spin on it before the other side can present it. As the King trial begins, the prosecutor, who is an African-American, Terry White, a very fine lawyer, is giving the opening statement. He is showing the jury this unedited tape. Their mouths are agape. They are saying the mental equivalent of “ah-ha.” So, in his opening statement, White has to explain away part of the tape, and to describe King as the person who was hostile. That wasn’t the only problem with the trial. King didn’t testify, the prosecution had poor witnesses, the other side had good witnesses. But the prosecution really never recovered from the videotape.

So was then-Police Chief Daryl Gates right when he called the incident an “aberration”?

Only in that it was videotaped. Injuries had been mounting before this. The year before, Los Angeles had paid out more than $11 million in damages, many of them resulting from settlements. So the city felt confident that if the King case went to trial that it would be decided in favor of the kinds of people who had been injured before by LAPD batons — whites, Latinos and blacks.

The Rodney King video was edited to elicit maximum emotional response, resulting in billions in damages and loss of life. No apology ever came, no back tracking for failing to show the full video, nor remorse from the media.

SBPDL rests the case on the awesome, unflinching power of BRA in America. Loss of life, cities under siege and terrorized by marauding gangs of Black people incensed by a heavily “edited” video that could have been easily defused had the media shown the full video is no cause for consternation.

An “edited” video of Shirley Sherrod giving a speech where NAACP members clap when she talked about denying white people full protection before the law is cause for a groveling apology from the media and the White House, despite her then endorsing communism.

Again, SBPDL hopes Alvin Greene wins the senate race in South Carolina so that the Last Action Hero can take the country back from “terrorists and communists,” before it is too late.

We live in Black Run America. There is no escape from the clutches of a system of governance that has adopted the core mission of the NAACP as its central principles and philosophy.

Somewhere, Rodney King can still be heard to utter, “Can’t we all get along?”

Though it is a disquieting answer to some, the response to his query is a resounding ‘NO’!!!

Tactics to Turn the Tide

Tactics to Turn the Tide, Part 1

July 21, 2010

by David A. McElroy

The arrogant enemies of Truth, Justice, and Liberty for us all have established a long track record. Patriots have long gathered solid information and worked to educate us in the freedom movement, often at the risk, even loss, of their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. The enemy is obviously in their end game. Time is short, and education is useless without action. We prefer peaceful revolution, but violence threatens. What are we to do?

First, we must not let the enemy control public discourse, define terms and the course of public debate. We must rouse people, as daily public brainwashing deluges us, as the mainstream media is employed to do in scrubbing truth and freedom from public expressions. I quit the news media in 1989 as a small town newspaper editor, because there was no room in the BUSINESS for an honest man. A chain publisher made that clear. Freedom of the press is exercised by those who own presses, or transmitters, or web servers and routers. We must talk frankly to each other in our clear and present danger. We must muster the people, awaken them to the dangers at hand, and let God lead.

It was first a war of words, and the truth is always the first casualty in war. The American society has been misled by socialists twisting words and definitions, shifting our focus to set the limits of discussion and stifle dissenting voices, while “celebrating diversity and tolerance”. We must set the record straight and start using our language, not theirs, more carefully and pointedly. Congress is deaf to our pleas, mainstream media ignores us. Talk with friends and neighbors at church, school, the store, on talk radio. Everywhere! Do not mince words!

One great topic is how senior citizens are being demonized for their Social Security and Medicare, benefits they have been forced to pay for over many years. They are now said to be “a burden on society” and “useless eaters” too expensive to maintain over the few years they may have left. They are “parasites” expecting “entitlements”, and that they “receive more than they put into the programs.” HELLO! Seniors are not the problem, and they should get some interest after about 50 years of payments!

This sham is to throw the attention away from a government which sold these as good retirement programs for seniors, but looted the funds in the old bait and switch. As the District of Criminals has stolen the money repeatedly, and insolvency looms as more of us become old, blame the seniors! Never mind the government was running a ponzi scheme far bigger than anything Bernie Madoff perpetrated.

These programs did not fail: they were ROBBED! If a private company did this, they would be prosecuted. Now, Obamacare is to be imposed and we are forced to pay more money because these older programs “failed”. Seniors will receive rationed healthcare to cut expenses. Of course, dead people don’t collect benefits. That will go a long way to ease federal shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare, won’t it? Instead of increasing mortality rates, we should INDICT and PROSECUTE officials!

In the word games, the enemy of freedom likes to cite things like slavery being allowed in early America, despite the fact “all men are created equal”. The problem was not with the Constitution, but rather the legal definition of “men”. People of African heritage were not defined as men, but chattel, or livestock.

And the flag of Dixie, the Confederate flag, has been denigrated as a symbol of slavery while slavery was imposed under “Old Glory” and practiced in the northern states long after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation ordered the release of slaves in southern states. Did you ever think about that? We don’t need any more constitutional amendments, we must DECLARE INDEPENDENCE from the lawyers and their legal definitions in the District of Criminals. They nullify the general principles America was founded upon pursuing minutia for political and economic gains, dismissing Natural Law, papering it over with complicated and devious writs and pieces.

We should say abortion is infanticide, a “fetus” an unborn human being and not a parasite. Why is it that it is a woman’s “freedom of choice” to kill her baby, but it is the man’s responsibility if she chooses to keep it? If a woman has a right to control her body, why is she is forced to take a vaccine or wear a seatbelt? Question authority–loudly!

Socialists only give us freedom of choice if we choose to degrade, corrupt, and injure ourselves in hedonistic undisciplined, ungodly ways that lack rhyme or reason, pursuing foolishness that will weaken and enslave us. Marxists lead us to conflicts foreign and domestic with blinders like beasts of burden destined for the glue factory. Jesus Christ is prohibited from the national holiday honoring Him, as is every logical choice leading to strong, healthy, independently prosperous people living in peace and harmony.

A sound republic is based on eternal principles of immutable truth, natural law. July 4th, Independence Day, we should remind everyone those fireworks are not just pretty sparkles in the sky. They commemorate the fiery battle that birthed our liberty! Our forefathers didn’t talk the British out of America, they shot ‘em!

The Hegelian Dialectic does not work when people are content and wise to the ways of Machiavellians. We must arouse the people to the truth of the trap. Politics is the art of compromise, and the politicians work diligently to compromise us all. Let’s just dismiss them. They create problems, derive their power in polarizing groups to play them off like pawns in chess games where they profit selling over-priced concessions to screaming crowds. If a few players or spectators get injured or killed, they care not. Our food stamps and TV are the modern equivalent of Roman “Bread and Circuses”. Like Rome, we have a preening psychopathic dictator and plutocratic senators in the box seats at the coliseum. Are you being served?–to lions?

Truth was declared to not be an obligation of news media in the whistleblower lawsuit of Jane Akre vs Fox News, ruled upon Feb. 14, 2003. The Florida Appeals Court agreed with Fox News, who asserted that it is not against the law to distort or falsify the news in the United States. (Surprised?) So we must convey truth independently for our own good.

“Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” Christ is quoted saying in John 8:32. If truth leads to freedom, falsehoods imprison us. Governments all divide and conquer by scattering, or compartmentalizing, information, or specific facts, small truths, to obfuscate the big picture and eternal Truth with a BIG LIE constructed of many small deceits, while distracting us with smoke and mirrors. But this is not a fun house.

Historian William Lecky summed this up noting “Truth is scattered far and wide in small portions among mankind, mingled in every system with the dross of error, grasped perfectly by no one, and only in some degree discovered by the careful comparison and collation of opposing systems.” Thomas Jefferson stated “It is error alone that needs the support of government,” (which sets up opposing systems). “ Truth can stand by itself.“ II Timothy 2:15, advises us to “study to shew thyself approved unto God, a work-man that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” Read widely, compare notes.

All real things have more than one facet, like a coin. We must know darkness to appreciate light, like two halves of a coded message. We must not feed from the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but the root! It is not by choosing the branches right or left seeking twigs to find fruit, but by following the other way to the sustaining root. Christ said “I am the true vine”, in John 15:1. Apart from His truth, we who branched off choosing either this or that cannot find peace or life deciding the lesser of two evils, the carrots and sticks Satan uses to tempt or frighten us. Read John 15. In the vineyard, pruned branches are burned after harvest, but the root stock is secure in the land.

Government agents often say “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” Yet government hides everything, and must fear a great deal in a guilty conscience. The feds classify everything “secret” for “national security” and reserve the “right”, the “duty” to lie, cheat, steal, and kill… while we are compelled by law to reveal every detail of our lives with no privacy respected, to be truthful in every statement and waive all our God-given natural rights, allow ourselves to be deceived, defrauded, robbed, and killed. Their one sided presentations are like paper tigers. Let’s tear them up!

Mainstream media has lost credibility with the public and is almost totally owned and controlled by a handful of corporate interests with a fascist agenda. Have you ever noticed that defendants in high profile court cases are never allowed to tell their story to the public? Did you notice neither Timothy McVeigh nor Bernie Madoff gave any public testimony? Could it be their silence was protecting Big Brother? Did you know numerous court rulings are kept secret and not published in law books to protect government from being successfully tried on various issues? Newspapers are losing subscribers and TV networks are losing ratings. TV “news” has become infotainment, while the internet, with free access for everybody online, is driving the big boys nuts!

The common public, true patriots, eye witnesses, and those in the know, openly communicate with many diverse viewpoints and real timely news items fat cats prefer suppressed. The open public debate and free exchange of information is largely responsible for the gains made by patriots in the last 20 years, thanks to the World Wide Web. Free speech lubricates our human progress. Yes, there is dross mingled with truth, but we have choices–for now. Blog your concerns!

Obama will be given a “kill switch” for the internet. Senators Rockefeller and Lieberman are stumping for it, and I would be surprised if the usurper did not use it. So let’s consider the battle of words before he exercises “full spectrum dominance” as the Pentagon put it.

They probably won’t kill internet activity all at once, because it also carries a great deal of commerce and the government propaganda. Look for further curbs in “reform”, screens placed across the portals by corporate gate keepers. More fear. “Hate crimes“. If you find the internet not online someday, expect truckloads of excrement to be flying from many spinning blades because the hammer and sickle will be acting in a theatre near you. Look for wolves in uniform prancing across your property. So, keep your powder dry!

Copyright 2010 Liberty Defense League

Tactics to Turn the Tide, Part 2

July 22, 2010
by David A. McElroy

(Editor’s Note: Despite this article being posted here after Independence Day, the message is worth your consideration.)

July 4th is fast upon us. Millions of Americans across these fifty united states will be lining the streets for parades, gathering to watch fireworks in celebrating Independence Day. There will be patriotic music, barbecues and baseball, and of course, the Star Spangled Banner. Will you help them remember why? This occasion for patriotic activities is the perfect opportunity to spread the message of liberty to the people in community directly. Help them recall the principles, the price, of freedom.

Wake them from their media-induced trance. Face them and make them aware of the socialist tyranny, and encourage them to lift their voices for freedom! The latest Rasmussen Report found 48% of American adults “see government today as a threat to individual rights,” in a survey polling 1,000 people June 18/19 2010. Also, it found “52% say it is more important for the government to protect individual rights than to promote economic growth,” and 58% “want less power and money for government.” Only “ 21% believe that government today has the consent of the governed.” Do you feel the stimulus? On July 4th, I have frequently distributed my own personal patriotic messages with flyers and banners to the crowds assembling to get good spots before the parade or fireworks.

They have time waiting for the show, and the time is ripe for patriotic discourse. Help them remember that when they pledge allegiance to “Old Glory”, the “republic for which it stands” no longer exists. The U.S. Constitution was suspended by FDR in 1932 and has enabled every president since to rule arbitrarily under the War Powers Act in a portfolio of executive power. That includes the Trading With The Enemy Act. Legally, in it, we the public have been deemed “enemies of the state”.

Roosevelt said “Some of my best friends are communists”, and his memorial in the District of Criminals is the largest and most lavish. Obama looks now to complete the Marxist Cultural Revolution in America. Will you just see July 4th as merely entertainment, or a great opportunity to rally countrymen to restore freedom in America? Make plans now for flyers and pamphlets to give away. DVD and CD messages are good also. Construct your own picket signs and banners. Prepare a meaningful costume, a tri-corner hat or Gadsden Flag. Be colorful, loud and proud.

But also be respectful of people, be cheerful and avoid arguments. Promote your cause verbally and in print, in music and symbols. Get out there! Meet and greet! This is the time to get face time with WE THE PEOPLE and bypass the media gatekeepers that usually ignore us or tilt against the cause of freedom. Plan to contact hundreds, even thousands, of people on Independence Day and act independently! Don’t ask permission, be bold.

Just do as your conscience leads you as opportunities present themselves in your local area. Of course, it may cost you some bucks to print up hundreds of flyers, but there is a price for freedom. Remember it is always cheaper to pay now, as paying later is always more costly. The enemy has his ducks in a row, the best Congress money can buy. Dark forces are in position to “legally” destroy us in their end game, with legislation much like that implemented by Hitler and Stalin.

Most of you reading have followed the issues for years. Don’t just be educated and entertained, alert your family, friends and neighbors. Independence Day is the day to read The Declaration of Independence loudly in the streets, just as Thomas Jefferson wrote it. It is the basis, the foundation, of America’s birth. It documents secession’s rightful need, our tradition of rebellion against tyranny in defense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in secure and prosperous homes.

Remind everyone in earshot on the many streets and fairgrounds of America that those fireworks commemorate the fiery battle for freedom. They were incendiary weapons and calls to action in the Revolutionary War led by the Spirit of ‘76. George Washington, with rebel volunteers, the Green Mountain Boys, Paul Revere and the Minute Men, did not legislate or debate freedom….they fought for it. They didn’t talk the agents of oppression out of their towns, and they didn’t win their case in the king’s court. They shot the king’s men and drove the Redcoats to the sea!

The Liberty Bell is inscribed with “…Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof…“, a verse from the Holy Bible found in Leviticus 25:10. The Lord instructed this should be done every fifty years to free people from servitude and erase debts. The Liberty Bell has been forbidden to ring for many years. It is up to you to proclaim liberty. Be loud and proud July 4th. Let Freedom Ring!

Tactics to Turn the Tide, Part 3

July 25, 2010

by David A. McElroy

Again July 4th has passed without another American Revolution. What can we do now to give impetus to regain independence within our God-given rights? I will suggest specific tactics to deal with the federal beast today. But, as we consider tactics to turn the tide in the battle for freedom, there are some largely overlooked matters to question. You are invited to participate with your observations and suggestions.

While our Gadsden flags boldly warn “Don’t tread on me!”, we must watch where we are treading. We outnumber the enemy, but the foe is in the catbird seat, a big ugly spider in the information web of wires it has spun to entrap all of us with our buzzwords. It has many eyes, many legs, looking to net us with or without due process, eat us now or later.

So, I must pose these questions as an activist in the freedom movement:

1. Knowing the Beast is capable of hacking into or terminating websites, and agents have even kicked down doors to seize computers, servers and their hosts, are we perhaps being baited in a feint prompting us to move forward discussing nullification and secession efforts on the internet and talk radio? To what end? Names are being taken, count on it.

2. How soon can we awaken a critical mass of our countrymen to their perils? We can’t win everyone, but victory will likely take more today than the active 3% in 1776. Critical mass is crucial to effecting a peaceful revolution. A few rebels can be “disappeared” so easily today, but not millions! Do your neighbors see the parallels with the rise of Nazi Germany’s tyranny in America? Have you discussed the evidence with them?

3. How many know our jury system has been rigged against us? Do they know of the Fully Informed Jury Association with solid information found at Do they know jurors can judge the law as well as the facts? That judges’ instructions are often untruthful and obstructing justice? Did they ever hear about the resignation of the Bush-appointed Chairman of Federal Elections Assistance Commission Rev. DeForest Soaries? He had resigned April 30th, 2005, to declare the whole voting system is rigged for fraud! Do your friends still think we can vote ‘em out?

4. How well are you prepared for personal hardships, not only holding up in your home well stocked, but perhaps as a fugitive or the victim of jack-booted “black ops” police? Do you realize the risks posed by laws already enacted and FEMA camps standing ready?

5. While we stand for home rule, the division of power, nullification of excessive federal powers and outright secession of sovereign states, how might this play into the hands of our globalist enemies? The New World Order, with US billionaires like Rockefeller and Gates, has long worked against us to destroy our heritage of freedom and representative government. They want to destroy our strength, divide and conquer us. They use our tax dollars to plan for every contingency. Think about it. Do you know your friends?

6. The NWO has moved foreign troops and military equipment onto our soil to “keep the peace in civil unrest” or train for “cooperation” or “disaster response”. Are they afraid our US military might choose to defend Americans rather than shoot us as ordered? Is this why our armed forces have been run ragged across the seas in bankrupting no-win wars of occupation? Is this why states’ National Guard units were deployed exhaustively in the middle east and finding their equipment neither returned nor replaced at home?

7. How can we prepare to inform the world about our plight and deflect the NWO media spin that will depict patriots as criminals and terrorists? In the media courts of public opinion, as well as the courts of law, the government claims to represent “the people”, and always seeks to impugn and destroy the defendants’ credibility and motives. The government will seek to silence dissent and hide “inconvenient truth“. To minimize foreign interventions, how can we turn the tables and present ourselves as morally righteous patriots seeking justice? How can we prosecute our case successfully, rather than retreat on the defense, and find freedom with a minimum of violence? Win friends?

These are important issues I don’t see being discussed often or in depth, if at all. Yet they should be addressed early on, before the “civil unrest“ of riots and martial law, outright civil war or foreign invasion. While we rest assured our cause is just and our need great in seeking relief from tyranny, there are other powers in the world that would look to profit from infighting among these less united states of America. China and Russia are at the top of the list.

There are lesser powers that would like to get their licks in also. As we embark upon the great and noble, inherently risky, mission of driving the federal vampire from us and declaring our independence as sovereign states, we must take care to attend the dangers posed by foreign as well as domestic enemies. This is why I strongly suggest that while our many states are sovereign and we pursue home rule, it would be best if we can remain united in spirit, if not bureaucracy, as we strive to evict the Beast holed up in the District of Criminals.

I suppose most of you have long realized the risks in using public forums to discuss the issues of nullification, secession, preparing to fend off martial law and survive civil war. But I question why patriotic discourse has gotten this far without violent repercussions. Do you?

I have a couple of tactics for you. Every once in a while I will send an E-mail to another of my E-mail accounts, speaking directly to the federal snoops. I let them know how they are serving evil and undermining truth, justice, and liberty for all in a totalitarian repression deadly to a free society. It is perfectly legal to send yourself an E-mail. But letting the “Man” hear you call him out is like blowing a stakeout when you walk up to that surveillance vehicle and let the cops know you’ve spotted them. Give them a piece of your mind.

Agents have been known to be converted when repeatedly exposed to the truth. You can do this. Be sure to put plenty of those colorful buzzwords in that will cause their computer to pick up on your token of appreciation. If millions of us could do this repeatedly, we just might overload their big bad computers. Instead of trying to stay under their radar, spread so much chaff they’ll be blinded. Think of it as being something like putting aluminum foil in a microwave oven. The snoops will definitely get overheated with the spike in their workload.

Many of you, have been working with the issues raised in questions 2 & 3. But we need to work harder as time grows short and our enemy is about to slam the trap shut!

We must recall the price of liberty, a duty to act with righteous zeal and leave the results to God. Our forefathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor to freedom in America. All gave some, and some gave all. Recall that even Christ did not leave this world without knowing sorrow, pain, and a cruel death at the hands of unjust tyranny. Be at peace with God and look to heaven for strength. Men will disappoint you.

Questions 5 & 6 deal with scenarios the communists openly published in the 1930’s for overthrowing America. Check it out. In fact, many of you already know most basic goals of communism have been implemented in the USA for about 50 or 60 years now.

As for question 7, I have some ideas. Make it clear the feds initiated the violence. Did you see the photographic evidence of cops being the black-masked instigators in Canada’s G-20 riots? (Arresting cops and collared instigators all had identical uniform shoes!) We must be ready to present such evidence here in events unfolding. While the internet is still available, we can use it to spread our messages to the world abroad. Send E-mail and forward articles to foreign media and private individuals, humanitarian, educational, or religious organizations. I have started doing this. With text translation services now in vogue, you are not really constrained by language. Let’s make sure the bought and paid press whores are not the only ones reporting. Start now before Obama hits the kill switch on the internet! Act to pre-empt the evil by documenting facts early.

You are probably tired of various well-meaning organizations begging for donations and sending newsletters, saying your dollars are needed to wage that next battle to repel the enemy’s onslaught from Capitol Hill. Those donations for “victory next time” just milk us repeatedly in a struggle to bankrupt and frustrate us while the “Red Menace” takes two steps forward and one step back to waltz us over the edge. You probably know Democrat and Republican parties dance to the tune of the same billionaires. Blackmail and bribery are standard practice for them. When all else fails, assassination and “accidents” happen.

There are no “checks and balances” in our government anymore. It is openly fascist, and we must face it. The police state is not coming. It is here already!

The evil is all around us, even in our midst. The war will have to be waged on many fronts. None of us can do everything needed. A successful plan of battle will never be published anywhere until long after the dust has settled. Each of us must trust our Creator and choose the niche, the foxhole, where we should serve in our local communities. We must be prepared for the gathering storm, know our friends and stand with them united in the bonds of brotherly love. Discuss these things with your family and friends. Truth, justice, and liberty for all are for those in God, we trust!

Copyright 2010 Liberty Defense League

Is It Time To Rethink Democracy?

Is It Time To Rethink Democracy?

An article over at Zero Hedge argues that democracy is self-cannibalizing, and that an attack on first principles is needed to stop it from consuming itself.

The Editor-in-Chief of the otherwise quiet and non-descript Global Custodian magazine has written what can pass for an extremely controversial if not outright revolutionary essay on the topic of democracy, and specifically how our current regime has cannibalized itself, and is in dire need of a “revolution.” Dominic Hobson says: “In a market, the cumulative expenditure of the modestly endowed easily trumps the expenditure of the rich. And even the rich are ultimately answerable to the market: They became rich by satisfying customers, and will remain rich only so long as they (or their investments) continue to satisfy consumers. Consumer sovereignty is far more powerful a constraint on the rich than political sovereignty. Indeed, even the erosion of the rich by democracy is ultimately self-defeating, for it eliminates that class of men and women in public life who are under no financial pressure to remain at their posts, pursuing policies in which they no longer believe. It is no coincidence that the democratization of politics has been accompanied by a decline in resignations on points of principle or of honor. The vast majority of modern politicians simply needs the money. But even the restoration of a rentier political class would not be enough to restore the blessings of good government. As long as politicians must compete for votes, they cannot govern honestly, or even disinterestedly. They cannot reverse decisions or policies that have proved unworkable. They must persist, even in intellectual error, and cannot escape a certain narrowness of vision. To release politicians from this predicament, a revolution is required. That revolution must be one not of blood, but of constitutional and political ideas. It must put an end to democracy without limits, before the prosperity of the species is destroyed and liberty extinguished…The only lasting solution to the plague of unlimited democracy is to attack democracy at its moral foundation: the political equality of the citizen.” Well, the Greeks seem to have been wrong about a whole lot of other things. Is it so alien to ponder whether they also screwed up the most taken for granted concept of modern society as well?

The dishonesty of politicians competing for votes in an unlimited democratic system is exacerbated by an ethnically and racially diverse populace. This is because diversity is the crucible of hate; it breeds short-sightedness and antagonism, as human groups unequal in status demand of their representatives policies that continue and strengthen parasitic relationships even when the long term consequence of such vengeful and envious voting behavior is national diminution.

Does the Declaration of Independence rest on a falsehood? The rapidly rising flood of computational genetic research is providing evidence for everything from innate differences in intelligence to criminal inclination to altruistic impulse. The conclusion slowly being forged by (re)familiarity with reality is that all men are not created equal. Born equal under the law? Perhaps, yes. Though that too might change with a broader understanding of human brain architecture and the associated debasement of free will. But created equal? No. Some men are worth more than others, and maybe from the moment of birth. The ugliest truth of all. We all know this deep down in the pit of our souls; it is why jockeying for position in the sexual market — and ultimately for progeny with a genetic leg up over the competition — is fought with such a vicious and primitive compulsion. Fear of failure in the one market to rule them all is the inspiration of nightmares.

As I have said before, for big picture realists to win the last battle against the sickeningly malevolent forces of equalism and utopianism, they must attack and defeat the first principles of the enemy. Playing by the enemy’s rules won’t work. That is the road to a superficial stalemate shifting inexorably away from truth and deeper into lies. The realists can attack in a number of ways, perhaps by triangulating with bold and sadistic truthbomb throwers like your humble narrator, thereby affording themselves an immunity to instant transmutation by the borg collective of our ruling class. The equalists know that if their cherished Original Meme is exposed and discredited they lose their power to shameswarm infidels into silence. Thus, this is why they act as if their assumptions are infallible, inarguable, and why they ferociously fight along distant borderlands, well away from central command.

Look what democracy has gotten us to date: mounds of debt, ponzi scheme entitlements, blood spilt in wars for ingrates, injustices committed in service of outcome-based equality, nation-abnegating open borders, historical whitewashing, loss of national pride, and a relentless fusillade of lies to prop it all up. The system is rotten to the core.


  • Restrict voting to net taxpayers. Net tax recipients wail forlornly on the sidelines. Downsides: Impractical. How would we measure who is a net taxpayer before each election? Fosters revolt among the parasites. Every so often the productive will have to put down rebellions by the disenfranchised. Risk that the productive will direct all government largesse to themselves. Highly eugenic in practice. Parasites die in the streets once largesse spigot is turned off. Can the productive tolerate the tooth and claw nature of true progress? Upside: Encourages return to traditional notion of nation-state as territory for a relatively homogeneous population.
  • Repeal the 17th Amendment. Return to state legislatures appointing Senators, as the Founders intended. Decentralization helps reduce corruption; state legislators are more beholden to the voice of their constituents than are 100 Senators in DC.
  • Repeal the 26th Amendment. As lifespans and, consequently, educational years, adolescence, and time spent on parents’ dole, increase, it makes less sense for 18 year olds to have the right to vote their callow consciences into law.
  • Institute a national referendum for big decisions involving war, taxation, and immigration. The ruling class hates this idea because they know it will mean an end to their beloved utopian transnationalism. Anti-American open borders traitors would get the comeuppance they so richly deserve.
  • Benign monarchy. Could it be any worse than what we have now?
  • Secession. A breakup of the USA into manageable territories of people with similar morals, outlooks, tastes, abilities and temperaments.

The era of “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” and sentimental equalist ideology is about to meet an ignominious end. The era of vigilant realism dawns. May the light of the truth guide our way. Ah-fucking-men.

The Ruling Class Vs The American Class

Important article in the American Spectator. I’d advise all to read it. Excerpt:

Similarly, Obama “apologized” to Europeans because some Americans — not him and his friends — had shown “arrogance and been dismissive” toward them, and to the world because President Truman had used the atom bomb to end World War II. So President Clinton apologized to Africans because some Americans held African slaves until 1865 and others were mean to Negroes thereafter — not himself and his friends, of course. So assistant secretary of state Michael Posner apologized to Chinese diplomats for Arizona’s law that directs police to check immigration status. Republicans engage in that sort of thing as well: former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev tells us that in 1987 then vice president George H. W. Bush distanced himself from his own administration by telling him, “Reagan is a conservative, an extreme conservative. All the dummies and blockheads are with him…” This is all about a class of Americans distinguishing itself from its inferiors. It recalls the Pharisee in the Temple: “Lord, I thank thee that I am not like other men…”

In sum, our ruling class does not like the rest of America. Most of all does it dislike that so many Americans think America is substantially different from the rest of the world and like it that way. For our ruling class, however, America is a work in progress, just like the rest the world, and they are the engineers.

What is the animating force of our rapidly aggregating elite? Power. What is the conscious motivation of our elite? Religious utopianism. What are the tools of our elite? Feminism, equalism, transnationalism. What are the battle tactics of our elite? Shaming, hypocrisy, lies.

A perturbation in the souls of common men gathers strength. The stirrings of a revolution shimmer faintly on the horizon. A new, yet old, paradigm bubbles in the cauldron of collective thought. One way or another, a clash of classes is coming. The only question is whether we will be lucky enough that the coming civil war is a bloodless one. All bets are off.

Where Black Rules White

Where Black Rules White

A Journey Across Haiti

If you’ve ever taken a class in the social sciences that isn’t economics, you may have noticed that your teachers are so afraid of human biodiversity that they seek to discredit it from the start while patting themselves on the back over how far their field of studies has come.  Oh, around a century ago people explained things by inherent racial differences.  Today, of course, we all know better because you know, Martin Luther King. They rarely explain to you when or how the old theories were proven false and they don’t need to. They’ll sometimes pull out the old canard about human races being 99.9 percent similar if they really want to beat racial egalitarianism into your head or the professor is particularly ideological, though for kids raised on the public school system and television even that isn’t necessary.

Due to this scholarly environment some of the most interesting and honest case studies about the Third World are those from a century ago or older.  Recently a YouTube user put together an impressive video based on an old broadcast of William L. Pierce called “The Lesson of Haiti.” It brought to my attention a volume from 1900 entitled Where Black Rules White: A Journey Across and About Hayti.  The author, Hesketh Hesketh-Prichard, was thought to be the first white man to cross the interior of the black republic since 1803, the year before Haitian independence was declared.  Where Black Rules White was republished earlier this year.

Prichard arrived first at Jacmel, the main Southern port.  The British Consular Agent gave him a place to stay for the night, which was a lucky thing considering the city had no restaurants or hotels (there were three of the latter in the entire country of 1.75 million).  A few white traders and government representatives inhabited the costal towns, but the population became exclusively dark as one traveled inward.  Haiti has very few mulattos and the ones that did exist were widely disliked at the time.

Without having any place to stay, Prichard generally had to live off of the kindness of the natives.  This was one thing that didn’t disappoint him:

Of the peasant’s attitude towards the stranger in the more remote districts, I have nothing to say but good.  His virtue of hospitality is beautiful.  His politeness is beyond reproach.  He is Nature’s gentleman in many ways, and though he is poor in worldly goods, he is rich in some of the higher qualities.

Riding through the rural districts you find it hard to obtain anything to eat, but easy enough to get a place in which to sleep.  The people cannot give you what they have not, but they do give what they have, and that with both hands.

Haiti had been a rich and productive nation when run by the French.  In fact, the main buildings that remained were built by the Europeans.  And on paper all indications of civilization remained, though in reality nothing worked as it was supposed to. The President was in theory limited in power, but in practice Haiti was ruled by a succession of strongmen who were overthrown and shot every couple of years. (When Prichard visited, there hadn’t been a revolution in eleven years, which was a long time[1]). There were courts of law, but the winners are those with the most money or guns.  There are civilized prison regulations, but men are picked up at random off the street, beaten over the head and thrown into a prison with no food or medical care so some police officer can earn a commission.

Even religion isn’t what it seems.  The country is nominally Roman Catholic, but voodoo is the real faith.  A white Catholic priest was once present at an offering to the gods of a “goat without horns,” i.e. human child.  The author describes one ritual he attended were seven cocks were slaughtered and a priestess drank the blood before using it to make the sign of the cross on the foreheads of her followers.  The Christian God is simply one deity among several to satisfy. After observing the bloodletting in the sea of chanting and dancing blacks a nauseous Prichard had to step outside and marvel that this was to go on for a few more days!

Poisoning is common on the island and one attempt was even made on the life of our brave journeyer. Prichard had left a bottle of rum and water at a hut and went back to get it. When he thought it a good time to offer the natives a drink they all refused. This aroused his suspicion, and he later found that the bottle had been poisoned.  Prichard believes it may have been because he petted a fat child, which is considered unlucky.

One of the most entertaining parts of the book is the chapter on the Haitian military and its generals. Every man aspires to this position so he can own a little piece of the island.  In Jacmel there were 500 soldiers, of whom 200 were generals.  Each revolution brings forth a new group and there was even a rumor that a president made a man a general after beating him at checkers.

There is was proverb on the island: “In Haiti there are only three classes who work: the white man, the black woman and the ass.”  This appears to be universal pattern among blacks.  As Steve Sailer wrote before quoting a figure showing 80 percent of the work on the dark continent (excluding the Semitic North I presume) was done by women, “African feminists complain not that men won’t let women work, but that men won’t work.”  In the U.S. the fact that successful African-American women have a hard time finding males of their own race at their own level has become a cliché.

One is equally struck by the laziness of the Haitians. The fields are the most fertile of the Caribbean, but the natives are content to pick off mangoes and bananas growing on their own. There was something of a de-agriculturization as the blacks fed on wild crops descended from those which had been domesticated.  Prichard found the hellacious jails laughably easy to escape from, but even under those conditions blacks lacked enterprise.

The last chapter of the book is called “Can the Negro Rule Himself?”

The present condition of Hayti gives the best possible answer to the question, and, considering the experiment has lasted for a century, perhaps also a conclusive one. For a century the answer has been working itself out there in flesh and blood. The negro has had his chance, a fair field and no favour. He has had the most fertile and beautiful of the Carribbees for his own; he has had the advantage of excellent French laws; he inherited a made country, with Cap Haytien for its Paris, “Little Paris,” as it was called.  Here was a wide land sown with prosperity, a land of wood, water, towns, and plantations, and in the midst of it the Black Man was turned loose to work out his own salvation.

We must remember that at the time Haiti was a country which distrusted all outsiders and even forbade foreigners to own land.  To bring up Barbados or Botswana would be to miss the point.  The question is whether a country that is of purely sub-Saharan African descent can provide all the merchants, farmers, teachers and government officials it needs for it to be a decent enough place to live, and another century after Prichard, the answer to the question is still negative.  The Dominican Republic, the mulatto country to the East of Haiti, doesn’t approach the living standards of the West, but is considered an indubitable success when compared to the nation it borders.

There is one more issue that we must consider that observers of the first black republic rarely bring up.  Though its failures get a lot of attention because of its historical connections to France and location in the new world, Haiti is by no means a failure by black standards. The IMF lists its GDP per capita as $1,339 a year, which puts it ahead of 20 sub-Saharan African countries.  Haiti has a literacy rate of 54.8%, which bests 15 other black states. A Haitian can expect to live 60.9 years, longer than the inhabitants of 38 other countries that have the same racial majority.

The biggest enemies of the Black Man are not Klansmen or multinational corporations, but the liberals who have prevented an honest appraisal of his abilities and filled his head with myths about equality and national autarky (which is also an economic fallacy to boot).  Lying about human biodiversity ruined a century of what could’ve been fascinating and practical scholarship on the success and failures of nations, while it hurts those it seeks to protect more than anyone else.  For those looking for interesting and honest observations on what black-run countries and its people are like, and what we can expect from South Africa’s future as the country continues to take on the characteristics of the majority of its population, one would do best by ignoring anything published recently and starting with Where Black Rules White.



1 — Since 1859 there have been 54 different presidential regimes, which averages to a ruler being overthrown or dying about every three years.