Democrat Fascism – population replacement
September 30, 2010 Leave a Comment
Democrat Fascism – population replacement
Are you ready for the Obama Youth?
Roberto-Pro-America-Anti Obama
Michelle’s
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election ’08: Democrats’ reintroduction of militant Michelle Obama in Denver was supposed to show her softer side. But it only highlighted a radical part of her resume: Public Allies.
IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism
Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, “Universal Voluntary Public Service.”
Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they’ll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of “social change.”
The pitch Public Allies makes on its Web site doesn’t seem all that radical. It promises to place young adults (18-30) in paid one-year “community leadership” positions with nonprofit or government agencies. They’ll also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.
In exchange, they’ll get a monthly stipend of up to $1,800, plus paid health and child care. They also get a post-service education award of $4,725 that can be used to pay off past student loans or fund future education.
But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about “social change” through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul “The Red” Alinsky.
“Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to . . . engage in protest activities,” Public Allies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for “justice” and “equality” in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities, including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. “I get to practice being an activist,” and get paid for it, gushed Cincinnati recruit Amy Vincent.
Public Allies promotes “diversity and inclusion,” a program paper says. More than 70% of its recruits are “people of color.” When they’re not protesting, they’re staffing AIDS clinics, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare.
Public Allies brags that more than 80% of graduates have continued working in nonprofit or government jobs. It’s training the “next generation of nonprofit leaders” — future “social entrepreneurs.”
The Obamas discourage work in the private sector. “Don’t go into corporate America,” Michelle has exhorted youth. “Work for the community. Be social workers.” Shun the “money culture,” Barack added. “Individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”
“If you commit to serving your community,” he pledged in his Denver acceptance speech, “we will make sure you can afford a college education.” So, go through government to go to college, and then go back into government.
Many of today’s youth find the pitch attractive. “I may spend the rest of my life trying to create social movement,” said Brian Coovert of the Cincinnati chapter. “There is always going to be work to do. Until we have a perfect country, I’ll have a job.”
Not all the recruits appreciate the PC indoctrination. “It was too touchy-feely,” said Nelly Nieblas, 29, of the 2005 Los Angeles class. “It’s a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias.”
One of those -isms is “heterosexism,” which a Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes as a negative byproduct of “capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male-dominated privilege.”
The government now funds about half of Public Allies’ expenses through Clinton’s AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military, he said.
The gall of it: The Obamas want to create a boot camp for radicals who hate the military — and stick American taxpayers with the bill.
Obama’s Civilian Army Begins
Obama’s Civilian National Security Force. Be ready to greet them as they greet you.
In a bill set to go to the House on Tuesday, H.R. 1388 is called the GIVE (Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and
‘SEC. 152. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CIVILIAN COMMUNITY CORPS PROGRAM.’;
(2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘Civilian Community Corps Demonstration Program’ and inserting ‘National Civilian Community Corps Program’;
(3) in subsection (b)–
(A) by striking ‘Civilian Community Corps Demonstration Program’ and inserting ‘National Civilian Community Corps Program’; and
(B) by striking ‘a Civilian Community Corps’ and inserting ‘a National Civilian Community Corps’;
(4) in the heading of subsection (c), by striking ‘Programs’ and inserting ‘Components’; and
(5) in subsection (c), by striking ‘program components are residential programs’ and all that follows and inserting ‘programs referred to in subsection (b) may include a residential component.’.
SEC. 1503. ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS.
Section 153 (42 U.S.C. 12613) is amended–
(1) in subsection (a)–
(A) by striking ‘Civilian Community Corps Demonstration Program’ and inserting ‘National Civilian Community Corps Program’; and
(B) by striking ‘on Civilian Community Corps’ and inserting ‘on National Civilian Community Corps’;
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘if the person’ and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting ‘if the person will be at least 18 years of age on or before December 31 in the calendar year in which the individual enrolls in the program.’;
(3) in subsection (c)–
(A) by striking ‘Backrounds’ and inserting ‘Backgrounds’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ‘The Director shall take appropriate steps, including through outreach and recruitment activities carried out by the chief executive officer, to increase the percentage of participants in the program who are disadvantaged youth toward 50 percent of all participants by year 2011. The Director shall report to Congress biennially on such efforts, any challenges faced, and the annual participation rates of disadvantaged youth in the program.’; and
(4) by striking subsection (e).
There is nothing – NOTHING – in the Constitution of the United States that warrants, mandates or permits this. Chances are this will be voted down, but it is still scary to think that the Obamafurhen has this idea of a modern day Sturmabteilung in his head.
Democrat Fascism: What Obama Really is Building
From http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/02/12/we-are-all-illiterates-now/
“There’s a element of truth to the basic theme (although not to the headline): the [U.S.] state is getting more and more deeply involved in business, even taking controlling interests in some private companies. And the state is even trying to “make policy” for private companies they do not control, but merely “help” with “infusions of capital,” as in the recent call for salary caps for certain CEOs. So state power is growing at the expense of corporations.
But that’s not socialism. Socialism rests on a firm theoretical bedrock: the abolition of private property. I haven’t heard anyone this side of Barney Frank calling for any such thing. What is happening now–and Newsweek is honest enough to say so down in the body of the article–is an expansion of the state’s role, an increase in public/private joint ventures and partnerships, and much more state regulation of business. Yes, it’s very “European,” and some of the Europeans even call it “social democracy,” but it isn’t.
It’s fascism. Nobody calls it by its proper name, for two basic reasons: first, because “fascism” has long since lost its actual, historical, content; it’s been a pure epithet for many decades. Lots of the people writing about current events like what Obama et. al. are doing, and wouldn’t want to stigmatize it with that “f” epithet.
[D]uring the great economic crisis of the 1930s, fascism was widely regarded as a possible solution, indeed as the only acceptable solution to a spasm that had shaken the entire First World, and beyond. It was hailed as a “third way” between two failed systems (communism and capitalism), retaining the best of each. Private property was preserved, as the role of the state was expanded. This was necessary because the Great Depression was defined as a crisis “of the system,” not just a glitch “in the system.” And so Mussolini created the “Corporate State,” in which, in theory at least, the big national enterprises were entrusted to state ownership (or substantial state ownership) and of course state management. Some of the big “Corporations” lasted a very long time; indeed some have only very recently been privatized, and the state still holds important chunks–so-called “golden shares”–in some of them.
When Roosevelt was elected in 1932, in fact, Mussolini personally reviewed his book, Looking Forward, and the Duce’s bottom line was, “this guy is one of us.”
As an economic fix, the Corporate State was not a great success, either in America or in Italy. Roosevelt’s New Deal didn’t cure America’s economic ills any more than Mussolini’s Third Way did. In both countries, however, its most durable consequence was the expansion of the ability of the state to give orders to more and more citizens, in more and more corners of their lives. In the first half of the twentieth century, that was hardly unique to the “fascist” states; tyranny was the order of the day in the “socialist” or “communist” countries as well (not for nothing were so many learned books written about “totalitarianism,” which embraced both “systems”). Paul Johnson writes of a “new species” of “despotic utopias,” and Richard Pipes went so far as to call both Soviet Bolshevism and Italian fascism “heresies of socialism.””
And from http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/
“Our liberties are indeed threatened, but by a tyranny of a very different sort.
Most of us imagine the transformation of a free society to a tyrannical state in Hollywood terms, as a melodramatic act of violence like a military coup or an armed insurrection. Tocqueville knows better. He foresees a slow death of freedom. The power of the centralized government will gradually expand, meddling in every area of our lives until, like a lobster in a slowly heated pot, we are cooked without ever realizing what has happened. The ultimate horror of Tocqueville’s vision is that we will welcome it, and even convince ourselves that we control it.
There is no single dramatic event in Tocqueville’s scenario, no storming of the Bastille, no assault on the Winter Palace, no March on Rome, no Kristallnacht. We are to be immobilized, Gulliver-like, by myriad rules and regulations, annoying little restrictions that become more and more binding until they eventually paralyze us.
Subjection in minor affairs breaks out every day and is felt by the whole community indiscriminately. It does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to surrender the exercise of their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated…
The tyranny he foresees for us does not have much in common with the vicious dictatorships of the last century, or with contemporary North Korea, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. He apologizes for lacking the proper words with which to define it. He hesitates to call it either tyranny or despotism, because it does not rule by terror or oppression. There are no secret police, no concentration camps, and no torture. “The nature of despotic power in democratic ages is not to be fierce or cruel, but minute and meddling.” The vision and even the language anticipate Orwell’s 1984, or Huxley’s Brave New World. Tocqueville describes the new tyranny as “an immense and tutelary power,” and its task is to watch over us all, and regulate every aspect of our lives.
It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.
We will not be bludgeoned into submission; we will be seduced. He foresees the collapse of American democracy as the end result of two parallel developments that ultimately render us meekly subservient to an enlarged bureaucratic power: the corruption of our character, and the emergence of a vast welfare state that manages all the details of our lives. His words are precisely the ones that best describe out current crisis:
That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
The metaphor of a parent maintaining perpetual control over his child is the language of contemporary American politics. All manner of new governmental powers are justified in the name of “the children,” from enhanced regulation of communications to special punishments for “hate speech;” from the empowerment of social service institutions to crack down on parents who try to discipline their children, to the mammoth expansion of sexual quotas from university athletic programs to private businesses. Tocqueville particularly abhors such new governmental powers because they are Federal, emanating from Washington, not from local governments.”"
Look for the power creep from the state capitols to Washington. With state governments going hat in hand to D.C. to get some of the “stimulus” gravy, it already has begun. Our slide towards fascism is accelerating.
Governments vs The People: Replacing The Population By Another One
There are conspiracy theories that hold that Europe’s political establishment is deliberately attempting to replace the continent’s population by an entirely different one. Though conspiracy theories are rarely true, Europe’s political establishment is making it extremely hard for the sceptics to refute them. Take, for instance, the recent Belgian amnesty for illegal aliens.
Last July, the government of Belgium announced a collective amnesty for illegal aliens. It is Belgium’s second general amnesty in barely a decade. When the previous one was approved by the Belgian Parliament in 1999, the government promised Parliament that it would be the final one and that henceforward people who entered the country illegally would be sent back. Nevertheless, there has been no crack-down on illegal immigration in the past ten years and hardly any illegal aliens have been sent back.
Last July, immediately after the parliamentary recess had begun, the government of Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy decided there should be a new amnesty to “regularize” illegal aliens who can demonstrate that they have “integrated sufficiently” into the country, e.g. by having children at school. The government took the decision unilaterally, without approval from the Parliament. This is against the law; the Belgian government cannot unilaterally grant a collective amnesty. Only Parliament has the power to do so.
The parties of Van Rompuy’s government coalition shrugged their shoulders. They refused to react against the usurpation of parliamentary powers because they did not want to open a public debate about immigration. Polls indicate that the overwhelming majority of the Belgians opposes the new round of regularizations. The Vlaams Belang, Belgium’s main opposition party, however, went to court. It requested the Council of State, Belgium’s highest administrative court, to annul the amnesty – which it did on December 11.
The government’s reaction to the annulment is astonishing. It announced that the court ruling would make no difference and that the illegal aliens need not worry. Mr. Melchior Wathelet, the Secretary of State for Immigration, said that, instead of collectively regularizing the 50,000 illegal aliens with one single signature, he will sign 50,000 individual regulations, granting each of them an individual amnesty.
Consequently, the 2009 amnesty will be Herman Van Rompuy’s farewell gift to the Belgians. Mr. Van Rompuy has meanwhile been appointed President of Europe, with an income higher than Mr. Obama’s, while the Belgians are left to foot the bill for thousands of new welfare recipients. Last September, a civil servant of Belgium’s Federal Agency for Aliens, warned: “This amnesty is madness. Our agency expects that one in every three is going to apply for welfare benefits.” Indeed, more than half of the aliens who were regularized in 1999-2000 received benefits as a result. The head of the Antwerp welfare department says that many of them are still on welfare ten years later; she expects the same to happen with those who are being regularized today.
Nevertheless, despite the court’s objections and despite the opposition of the people, the illegal aliens will be regularized. In three years’ time, the regularized aliens will be allowed to apply for Belgian citizenship. Meanwhile, figures indicate that half of the illegal aliens who have applied for regularization in the past months are Moroccans, while Moroccans already make up the largest group of immigrants in Belgium and many of them engage in criminal activities and refuse to integrate into Belgian society.
Conspiracy theorists can easily explain the conduct of the Belgian government. They will say it is an attempt to replace the Belgians by another population. For those who do not believe in this theory, it is harder to explain why Mr. Van Rompuy declared an amnesty which he knew to be unpopular, which will drain the Belgian welfare budget and which is, moreover, unlawful because the government usurped the prerogatives of Parliament. For those who do not believe in the population replacement theory, it is hard to explain why the Belgian government, despite a court ruling, stubbornly sticks to its decision.
For those who do not believe in a conspiracy theory, it is equally hard to explain why on 15 December, George Papandreou, the Prime Minister of Greece, announced that one of the measures to reduce his country’s crushing budget deficit will be to “bring illegal immigrants into the social security system.” It is true that some illegal aliens work in the country illegally and do not pay taxes and contributions, but it is equally true that many others do not and will, if “brought into the system,” be net consumers rather than net contributors.
Those who do not believe that Europe’s ruling establishment has engaged in a conspiracy against it own people will also have a hard time explaining the recent decision of the appeals chamber of the Bar Association’s disciplinary council in the Netherlands. On 12 December, it acquitted a Muslim lawyer of contempt of court. The Muslim lawyer, who wears a Muslim head covering during court sessions, refuses to rise when the judge enters the courtroom. He says that his religion maintains that everyone is equal and that, hence, he cannot rise for the judge. Though everyone is equal, however, the same lawyer refuses to shake hands with women. Nevertheless, the Muslim lawyer is getting away with behavior which the ruling establishment would not tolerate from indigenous Dutch lawyers, and, more importantly, which the majority of the Dutch people does not wish to tolerate from newcomers.
Europe’s ruling establishment is currently engaged in policies which go so radically against what ordinary Europeans want that a dangerous rift is growing between the people and those who govern them. If this situation is not remedied, Europe’s governments risk losing their legitimacy in the eyes of the people. One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to realize that this can only contribute to the potential for a revolutionary explosion of violence and anger somewhere down the road.
The Age of White Masochism
The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.
Imagine if you planned a country’s economic future using calculations exclusively based on even numbers. For ideological reasons you excluded odd numbers because you declared that they represent bigotry and have divisive nature since they cannot be divided equally in half. Absolutely all calculations for the future would then end up being wrong. This sounds insane and improbable, but what we’re doing now in the Western world is exactly this naïve. In the name of Multiculturalism we completely ignore all ethnic, religious, cultural and, yes, racial differences, because we have decided that these things don’t matter. But in real life, ethnicity, culture, religion and race do matter. Doesn’t that mean that all our projections for the future by necessity will end up being wrong, since they fail to take important factors into account?
Policy needs to be rooted in a realistic assessment of human nature, not in wishful thinking. Good intentions are far from sufficient to ensure good results. History is full of well-intended policies gone horrible wrong. We know from past experience that basing an ideological world view on a fundamentally flawed understanding of human nature is bound to end in disaster. Society will become more and more totalitarian in order to suppress all the information that doesn’t conform to the official ideology. Isn’t this what is happening in the West now?
I used to believe until quite recently that skin color was irrelevant. I was brought up that way. I still don’t think ethnicity or race does or should mean everything. In fact, I would say it is patently uncivilized to claim that it means everything. But I can no longer say with a straight face that it means absolutely nothing, and if it means more than nothing, it needs to be taken into account. Whether we like this or not is immaterial.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that people tend to prefer their own ethnic group above others. An international poll in 2007 showed that 90 percent of the inhabitants in Egypt, Indonesia and India believed that each country should guard their innate culture and lifestyle. Immigration concerned people in 44 out of the 47 countries.
Guarding your identity is thus a universal human trait, not a white trait. In fact, it is less pronounced among whites today than among anybody else. Only whites cling onto the idea of universalism, everybody else sticks with their own ethnic group. In white majority Western nations it has become a state-sponsored ideology to “celebrate diversity,” despite the fact that all available evidence indicates that more diversity leads to more conflict.
In May 2007, Osama bin Laden’s deputy terrorist leader Ayman al-Zawahri stated that “Al-Qaida is not merely for the benefit of Muslims. That’s why I want blacks in America, people of color, American Indians, Hispanics, and all the weak and oppressed in North and South America, in Africa and Asia, and all over the world.”
Read that statement closely. This Jihadist organization is calling for a global war against whites. Not Christians or Jews. Whites. I have been told all of my life that skin color is irrelevant, but this balancing act gets a lot more difficult when somebody declares war against you because of your race.
According to the columnist Leo McKinstry, the British government has declared war on white English people:
In the name of cultural diversity, Labour attacks anything that smacks of Englishness. The mainstream public are treated with contempt, their rights ignored, their history trashed. In their own land, the English are being turned into second-class citizens.
Keith Best, head of the Immigration Advisory Service, stated that immigrants are “better citizens” than native Britons. Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers’ Alliance pressure group was shocked and replied that “Taxpayers shouldn’t be funding an outfit that describes them as being second-rate citizens.” But apparently, now they do.
DNA studies have proved that a significant majority of those who live in the British Isles today are descended directly from the Ice Age hunters, despite the Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Norman invasions. This accounts for 88% of the Irish, 81% of the Welsh, 70% of the Scots and 68% of the English.
The UK Commission for Racial Equality in 1996 claimed that “everyone who lives in Britain today is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant.” But if everybody is an immigrant, how come people of European stock in the Americas and Australia are still viewed as alien elements by some, even though many of them have lived there for centuries? As Professor David Conway demonstrates in his book A Nation Of Immigrants?, after the invasion led by William the Conqueror in 1066, the total number of Norman settlers in Britain was never more than five per cent of the population. The inflow now is 25 times any previous level and frequently from totally alien cultures, not from neighboring territories and cultural cousins as previously.
I’m sure the English are told that this is a result of colonialism, but there are no Britons left in Pakistan, so why should there be Pakistanis in Britain? The Germans had a colony in Namibia. Why should they accept millions of Turks, who have a thousand years of extremely brutal colonial history of their own, because of this? There are not many Dutch people left in Indonesia, so why should the Dutch be rendered a minority in their major cities by Moroccans and others? And why should European countries such as Portugal, Spain and Greece, which have all suffered from centuries of Islamic colonization, have to accept Muslims into their lands? Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway hardly have any colonial history at all, yet are still subject to mass immigration. The truth is that immigration policies bear little correlation to past colonialist history, population density or size. Ireland, Denmark, Britain, France, Sweden, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands have one, and only one, thing in common: The natives are white, and thereby have no legitimate claim to their own countries.
As Professor Ida Magli writes in an Italian essay entitled A Nation for Sale: “Why can’t we protest? Why aren’t we allowed what every people has always had the right to say, that is that no ruler, whatever the system of government — monarchy, dictatorship, democracy — has either the power or the right to sell off the homeland of their own subjects?”
The columnist Kevin Myers in Ireland thinks that no country has ever accepted, never mind assimilated, the volumes of immigrants now present in his country:
- – - - – - – - -
Why the presumption that an Asian Muslim who lives in Ireland is in any way Irish? My mother lived most of her life in England, but never for a second thought of herself as English. The media should be asking the big question, ‘Why are we still admitting hundreds of thousands of immigrants?’ Instead, we are obsessing with the relatively trivial question of: Are the Irish people, who after all have admitted vast armies of strangers to their national home, racist? This is self-hatred at its most pathetic, and its most self-defeating.
Rune Gerhardsen of the Labor Party in Oslo, the son of Norway’s longest-serving Prime Minister in history, states that “When I went to school we were taught about the Great Migrations. Today’s migrations are just as big. This is part of an international trend we neither can nor want to stop. I think this development is first and foremost exciting and positive.” He likes to say that we have lived for 10,000 years without anybody visiting us. Now we’ve had a massive change within an extremely brief historical period of time.
I will give Gerhardsen credit for frankly admitting that this is by far the greatest demographic change in our nation’s history since the end of the last Ice Age. The problem is, this change, which has already made the country a lot less safe than it was only a generation ago, has been conducted without real debate, solely with propaganda and censorship. And I’m not so sure all of these groups have come merely to “visit” us. Some of them are here to colonize and subdue us, and readily admit this if you care to listen to them.
According to the writer Kent Andersen, the greatest social experiment the population has ever been subject to was never decided democratically. The native majority were never allowed to have a say about whether they wanted to change the country forever. In his view, you don’t get mass immigration for decades unless somebody with power allows this and desires it.
During the Multicultural craze of the 1990s, novelist Torgrim Eggen in an essay entitled “The psychotic racism” warned against “race wars in the streets” as a result of mass immigration. The solution to this was not to limit immigration, but to limit criticism of immigration. According to Eggen, xenophobia and opposition to mass immigration should be viewed as a mental illness, and hence “the solution to this xenophobia is that you should distribute medication to those who are seriously affected. I have discussed this with professor of community medicine, Dr. Per Fugelli, and he liked the idea.” Mr Fugelli suggested putting anti psychotic drugs in the city’s drinking water.
This may sound too extreme to be meant seriously, but Mr. Fugelli has continued to publicly chastise those who are critical of national immigration policies. Eggen warned that arguments about how ordinary people are concerned over mass immigration shouldn’t be accepted because this could lead to Fascism: “One should be on one’s guard against people, especially politicians, who invoke xenophobia on behalf of others. And if certain people start their reasoning with phrases such as ‘ordinary people feel that,’ one shouldn’t argue at all, one should hit [them].”
Repeated violence committed by non-white immigrants against whites is dismissed because they come from “weak groups.” But whites are a weak group. We are a rapidly shrinking global minority, and Nordic-looking Scandinavians are a minority of a minority. Ethnologist Maria Bäckman in her study “Whiteness and gender” followed a group of Swedish girls in the immigrant-dominated suburb of Rinkeby outside Stockholm. Several of the native girls stated that they had dyed their hair to avoid harassment and being called “whore.” We thus already now have a situation where being blond in certain areas of Sweden, not just in Pakistan or Egypt, makes you a target of harassment and aggression.
In my country, the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud from 2006 made Multiculturalism and total non-discrimination into an official state ideology. If a Muslim immigrant claims that a native has somehow discriminated against him, the native non-Muslim has to mount proof of his own innocence. I have later discovered that similar laws have been passed across much of Western Europe, encouraged by the European Union.
Native Europeans are being told that we don’t have a history and a culture, and that we thus “gain” a culture when others move to our countries. This is an insult to thousands of years of European history, to the Celtic, Germanic, Slavic and cultures and the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian heritage all Westerners share in. The funny part is, the next second we are told that we do have a culture, but it consists of nothing but a long line of crimes and is thus nothing to preserve, anyway.
My nation doesn’t even have a colonial history. It gained its independence as late as the twentieth century, at which point it was a poor country, yet because I am white, I am to be held personally responsible for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by every person who happens to have roughly similar skin color throughout history. American novelist Susan Sontag even stated that “The white race is the cancer of human history.” I am told that I am evil specifically because of my race, and five minutes later I’m told that race doesn’t matter.
I do not hold Abdullah who sells kebab down on the corner personally responsible for sacking Constantinople, abducting millions of Europeans to slavery, colonizing the Iberian Peninsula, ruining the Balkans or threatening Vienna several times. I criticize Islam because Muslims have never admitted their past and will continue to commit atrocities as long as the institution of Jihad is alive. I do not believe in collective responsibility, and I do not think a person should be held responsible for actions made by his ancestors centuries ago.
On the other hand, if I am to take the blame, personally, for every bad act, perceived or real, committed by any white person in the past, it is only fair that I, personally, should also take credit for their achievements. It was peoples of European stock who created the modern world, not anybody else. If I am to be held personally responsible for colonialism, I want personal credit for being a part of the one civilization that has taken the greatest strides for mankind of any civilization that has ever existed on this planet. I’m done with apologizing for my existence for the nameless crime of being born white.
As African-American writer Elizabeth Wright says:
After decades of inundation about the evils of ‘white racism’ coming from all directions, and most especially from the media and education establishments, the average white is programmed to avoid anything that smacks of conscious endorsement of his own race. In the current social climate, to display favorable regard towards that which is white, not only is forbidden, but is viewed as an automatic disparagement of non-whites. A ‘White Pride’ T-shirt is deemed a threatening symbol, whereas a ‘Black Supremacy’ slogan on a button or garment is viewed as an understandable, albeit angry response to undeserved past abuses. Any public effort to promote a white theme is doomed to failure, even if the proper bows to racial diversity are adhered to. Whites learn early to censor themselves.
I’ve been told by Americans that they have moved beyond race, but judging from examples such as this, it looks more as if they have established a culture of institutionalized white masochism. It’s not that Americans have moved beyond race, it’s just that the whites have unilaterally surrendered. The United States was almost 90% white as late as 1965, and will be minority white within a couple of generations. I don’t know of any example where the formerly dominant group has become a minority and this has not resulted in a complete change of the nature of that country, or to its dissolution, but in the USA, this entire subject is taboo because it is “racist.” That’s not rational.
I have listened to claims regarding the supposed benefits of mass immigration, why it is inevitable and why those who resist are bad people. The propaganda is remarkably similar from the Netherlands via Britain to Sweden and Italy, and that’s not a coincidence. This is all happening as a coordinated and well-planned assault on established national cultures, organized by the European Union and supported by the national political and media elites.
It has happened many times that a people move into an area and subdue those living there, but the natives have at least been allowed to defend themselves. It is unprecedented in the annals of history that a people is banned by their own leaders from defending their lands from foreign colonization and are even expected to fund this colonization. It is one of the greatest crimes of our age that the indigenous people of an entire continent, at least the Western half of it, are systematically deprived of their heritage, their history, their land and ultimately perhaps their entire physical existence, all with the active aid of the very individuals who are supposed to protect their interests. The only reason why this is considered positive, or even remotely acceptable, is because the natives in this case are white. There is no other reason for this.
In Glasgow, Scotland, Kriss Donald, a 15-year-old totally innocent white schoolboy was abducted, stabbed repeatedly and then doused in petrol and burned to death by a group of Pakistani immigrants. Labour politician Mohammad Sarwar, who helped in bringing some of the men to justice, later became the first elected representative in Britain to step down due to threats against his family.
The established historical pattern is that people who are conquered by others are harassed by the newcomers. I don’t see any reason to expect this to be different just because the natives happen to be white. On the contrary. We will be attacked even more viciously because we are a formerly dominant group. When we are told that mass immigration is “inevitable,” we are actually being told that verbal and physical abuse of out children is inevitable and that we should “get used to it.” I see no reason to accept that. If mass immigration leads to harassment of my children, it is my duty to resist it.
Jews were once told to “get back to Palestine.” When they did, they were told to “get out of Palestine.” The people who said this didn’t object to where Jews lived, they objected to the fact that they existed at all. I sometimes wonder whether whites of European descent, a global minority, are the Jews of the 21st century. I also notice that while people of European descent are told to “get back to Europe” in North America or Australia, whites in Europe are demonized if they resist being turned into a minority in their own countries. The problem then, apparently, isn’t where whites live, it’s that we exist at all.
Observer Ole Kulterstad notes that Europeans who are against free migration are labeled as “right-wing extremists.” But common sense indicates that giving away your country to alien cultures is more extreme than merely wanting to preserve it as it once was. I agree with him. I’m sick of hearing how Islamic organizations that want to destroy my civilization are called “moderates,” whereas Westerners are extremists if we resist, yet that is exactly what our media and our authorities do. We are not extremists; we are subject to policies that are extreme. Is gradually reducing a people to a minority in their own land, without proper debate about future consequences, not to be regarded as extreme?
I hear some writers fear an extremist backlash in Europe, but if people are so concerned about white extremism then they should cease creating the foundations for such extremism to grow. Native Europeans increasingly get the feeling that they are pushed into a corner and have an entirely justifiable fear of being overwhelmed. Fear leads to desperation, and desperation sometimes leads to aggression. If we do get an outbreak of political movements in Europe that really are extremist — and I sometimes fear this outcome, too — this will not come about because white Europeans are born evil, it will come about because white Europeans will be pushed into extremism, feel that their continued existence is at stake and that they have been abandoned by their own authorities. The solution to this is simply to recognize that Western nations have accepted more immigration from alien cultures in a shorter period of time than any other civilization has done peacefully in history. We have reached our limits and we need a break from mass immigration before our entire political and economic system breaks down.
The idea that every white person who desires self-determination and self-preservation is a racist, a white supremacist and a Nazi is nonsense and should flatly be rejected. The vast majority of racist violence in Western nations is by non-whites attacking whites. Consequently, if we limit immigration this is anti-racism, since we are protecting our children against racist violence. It is not about white supremacy, either, it is about equality. Whites are currently the only racial group specifically denied the opportunity to defend their countries and heritage. If we assert our right to do so we are thus fighting for equality, not supremacy.
The “Nazi” accusations so carelessly thrown out these days are completely baseless in this context. The Nazis believed that whites, and blondes in particular, had the right to colonize or eradicate others. But the policy we follow today could be dubbed reversed Nazism since it is based on the assumption that whites should have fewer rights than others and can be colonized or culturally eradicated with impunity. I don’t see why I should either be a “Nazi” or embrace and celebrate my extinction. It’s a false choice.
I suspect future historians will call this era the Age of White Masochism. The white man conquered the world and then suffered a nervous breakdown, a kind of collective neurosis shared by an entire civilization. However, I sense that this era is slowly coming to an end.
I would use two arguments as to why the current mass immigration the West should be halted:
| 1. | Whites, too, have a right to exist. The primary duty you have as a human being is to preserve the heritage of your ancestors and pass on to your children a country they can call their own and where they can live in dignity. | |
| 2. | The ongoing immigration is population dumping where less successful cultures dump their population in more successful ones. This is a form of global Communism and will generate the same effects by destroying successful communities and centers of excellence. |
I believe whites in the 21st century should desire a room of our own where we can prosper, live in a major Western city without having to fear violence because of our race, and without being stripped of our heritage in order to placate people who moved to our countries out of their own free will. We have the right to preserve our heritage and are under no obligation to commit collective suicide or serve as a dumping ground for other countries. It has nothing to do with animosity towards others. For my part, I am being entirely honest if I say that I still love visiting other cultures, but I will love this even more if I know I can also return to my own.
About whitelocust
Recent Comments