The Next Two Years

The Next Two Years

By Patrick Samuels

There is no question that the upcoming election has generated a lot of energy. Republicans are looking forward to retaking the house of representatives and maybe even the senate. Democrats are trying to cut their losses as the economic picture remains dismal. Tea Party adherents and candidates are working hard to make an impact. With all our focus on these things, sometimes we miss the larger implications of this event.

First, this will be a watershed election for Americans who participate in or sympathize with the tea parties and their ideals. If they are successful in a lot of races, they will have gotten the attention of the “ruling class” and demonstrated the fact that they are a real threat to the status quo. They will still be a minority at the federal level for sure, and probably at most other levels of government. The key for these winners, if they are to be the first wave of limited government candidates, is to be able to resist the entrenched powers and remain true to their ideals and show that they truly do represent a different breed of politician. If, however, they win few races, the ruling class will have resisted the this “grave threat” to their power and will feel even more comfortable governing against the will of the people and trampling on their liberties. That will make the tension between the ruling class and those that believe they are more than capable of making their own decisions with their lives and money even greater.

Second, it will answer the question about the Republicans. Stated simply by many, “Have they learned their lesson?” Have they learned that the reason they were rejected four years ago was because they appeared to reject the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility. Regardless of their rhetoric, will they have the courage of their convictions to take the drastic steps necessary to put our fiscal house in order and return liberty to the people? If they take the house, they will control the purse strings. Will they defund “Obamacare”, stop providing stimulus money, and eliminate unnecessary departments like energy and education that they have been talking about for thirty years. More importantly, we are now borrowing forty cents of every dollar we spend which means that to put our budget in balance and stop adding to the deficit, we need to reduce spending by forty percent. All entitlements need to be on the table and they will need to be cut.

Third, what will president Obama’s reaction be to all of this? Some think he will do what president Clinton did and moderate his positions and “triangulate”. There has been nothing in his words or actions that indicate he will do any such thing. I believe we will see a grab for executive power the likes of which we have not seen since FDR. Obama has already demonstrated his willingness to circumvent congress to achieve his means and they are, in fact, becoming ever more irrelevant. The czars, the bureaucracy, the cabinet members as well as all the organizations outside the government that have been writing legislation and regulations are the ones wielding the real power and the congress and the courts have allowed them to do so for years. This trend will increase in scope and expense exponentially over the next two years. Politicians come and go but the power of the bureaucracy only grows. The ruling class knows that once something is in place, the likelihood that it will reduced or cut are practically zero.

Finally, there is a question of what a “lame duck” congress will do. They could do nothing, respecting the will and decision of the people….yeah right. They could push through all kinds of unpopular things, Cap and Trade being a major one, that they have been unable to coax some of their more moderate members to support in an election year. A lot of damage could be done in those two months.

This is what I believe is going to happen. The economic picture is not going to improve and will actually get worse because the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire and the hit all Americans receive will take an even greater toll on the economy. The lame duck session will be a busy one and while some of the major things like cap and trade may not fly, several smaller and very damaging pieces of legislation will be pushed through. The Republicans will come in and amidst a flurry of activity and accomplish nothing. They will not cut spending in any meaningful way and the divided government will ensure the unsustainable path we are on is the one we stay on. That means that at some point in the near future our financial house of cards will tumble and then things will get really bad because the federal government will not be able to come to the rescue. It will literally have no money.

What happens then will depend on us. If people clamor for their politicians to “do something”, they will and President Obama and the ruling class will be more than happy to step in and impose severe restrictions like wage and price controls, nationalization and other tyrannical actions to “solve the crisis”. If, however, we have learned our lesson and have come to understand that government is the problem and not the solution, we will demand that our freedom be returned. Then we will begin to build an even better America after we have cleaned out all the deadwood. The next five or ten years will tell the story for we have been cursed to “live in interesting times”, as the Chinese proverb goes.

Patrick Samuels is the author of “Memories of a Former American.”

www.patricksamuels.com

The Currency War Endgame…

The Currency War Endgame…

 

… will be international gold confiscation, suggests Jim Rickards and Max Keiser.

Jonathan Bowden on Radical Traditionalism

 

“New-Right London” is proving itself to be one of the most important gatherings for Western rightists in the world. Case in point — Jonathan Bowden’s recent lecture on Baron Julius Evola.

The remaining videos can be watched on New-Right London’s YouTube Channel.

Worth revisiting is Christian Kopff’s essay on Evola, which was one of the first things AltRight published.

http://www.youtube.com/user/NewRightLondon

No Country For Old White Men

No Country For Old White Men

Ole Miss Gets Reconstructed

 

Those who deem the South a region worth defending should be outraged by the recent University of Mississippi nickname controversy. Once known as “The Rebels” — a name derived from the men who fought for the Confederacy in the War Between the States — the university has sacrificed its heritage on the altar of political correctness.

When the Federal Government integrated Black students into “Ole Miss” by force in the ‘60s, riots took place and more than 3,000 federal soldiers were required to quell the violence. This is quite a contrast to the timidity shown by virtually the entire current student body and alumni base as their beloved mascot was taken away from them.

Ole Miss was forced to abandon its nickname and heritage because Black recruits in football and basketball might be turned off by a school that celebrates a character –Colonel Reb — steeped in Southern and Confederate lore:

As ESPN columnist Jim Caple relates,

The problem, of course, is that history is rather ugly. Visiting the Lyceum, the school’s elegant, 155-year-old administration building, I could still see marks where bullets struck during the riot when James Meredith integrated the school 41 years ago. As former Missisisippi star running back Deuce McAllister says, “When you think of the University of Mississippi, the first thing you think of is the past.”

And for a school trying to march into the future, Colonel Reb isn’t exactly the image you want to project, especially when you’re recruiting black students. “I had friends ask me, ‘Why are you going there?’” said pre-med student Kevin Hall, who is African-American.

A lovable, mustached mascot is deemed offensive, yet the University of Mississippi apparently has no problem recruiting players of questionable legal standing, such as disgraced Oregon quarterback Jeremiah Masoli, a convicted felon.

So this is what has become of the Ole Miss alumni. The College Football Opiate is of such potency that they’re willing to part with a piece of Southern history just in case it might threaten the recruiting of Black athletes.

In Colonel Reb stead will be the Ole Miss Black Bear, which was voted most popular by the students in a campus-wide poll, just beating out Admiral Ackbar. For a state that contains, maybe, 75 bears, the Black Bear makes just about as much sense as a catfish-like character from Star Wars.

A long time ago, in what seems a galaxy far, far away, Ole Miss students found the machinations of the Federal Government and the coerced integration of their school at the point of the bayonet something worth fighting over. When Colonel Reb was retired, the Ole Miss student body and alumni surrendered quickly, lest they harm the team’s chances of defeating LSU and Auburn.

No story can better illustrate the current state of “The South.”

It shall not rise again.

The late Sam Francis succinctly stated what was happening at Ole Miss and, in turn, the entire nation when he penned these words:

Implication One is that when you admit racial and cultural aliens into institutions created by and for people of a different race and culture, you’re going to have problems.

The newcomers don’t feel comfortable, as Mr. Cole did not, and if they gain power, which eventually they will, they will do all they can to abolish and eradicate those symbols that make them feel like the outsiders they are.

And Implication Two is that it’s not just fairly trivial symbols like Col. Reb, the flags at the football game, the name of the team, and the songs the spectators can’t sing.

It’s everything — everything whites (not just Southerners) ever created and built, from their form of government, to their religion, to their art and entertainment, to what they teach in universities.

The South is no country for Old White Men.

*

* * *

*

In other news, as Ole Miss severs its roots to appease Blacks and White liberals, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in the state are collapsing due to embarrassing graduation rates and lack of funds.

According to state Sen. David Jordan (D-Greenwood),

The 400,000 or 500,000 African-Americans in the Delta need a place to go to school where they can get black culture and feel comfortable. They have a right to a choice of having it in the Delta.

Senator Jordan understands the importance of memory and tradition. The Old Miss alumni apparently don’t.

Terry Graham’s Genocide Complaint to the UN

Terry Graham’s Genocide Complaint to the UN

http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/

To: euroamrights@hotmail.com
Subject: genocide complaint
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:52:26

I’m writing to verify that you are Terry Graham, and that you did indeed write the letter and press release referred to at the following links:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741333/
http://www.whitenewsnow.com/forums/bob-whitakers-bbq/9328-genocide-complaint-filed-un.html
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/09/15/immigration-moving-the-goalposts/comment-page-1/#comment-80318

I’d like to ask a few questions with the intent to publish your answers, as well as your press release, on my blog – http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/

Is there a public website or forum where the definitive version of your complaint is available, where you post status updates, or answer questions?

Why did you specifically identify “European-American Christians” as the target of genocide, rather than “European-Americans” in general?

Have you received any response from the UN? The US government? Representatives of news or media organizations?

What kind of response have you received from other groups or individuals? Questions? Opposition? Support?

Tanstaafl

From: T Graham (euroamrights@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 9/17/10 12:01 PM
Subject: RE: genocide complaint

Yes, I did the filing and this email box was almost immediately shut down until this morning. It may be shut down again, so I will try to send this out.

I included “Christian” because that is what I am, and religious “groups” can be the target of genocide. You know of others who have made claims based on religious persecution/targeting.

I have no website to post the complaint, but you are welcome to do so. All anyone has to do is file the SAME filing, but putting their name and contact info at the end of the complaint. I hope others MAIL it to Geneva (REGISTERED to prove delivery).

The best we can do is wait and see. This is the THIRD time I have filed this complaint with the UN. (1999, 2007) and have never even received a response, though I have the receipt of delivery from 2007.

Hope this answers your questions. Please let others know that my EMAIL was BLOCKED for days, and I have not been able to even see who emailed me until this morning.

Terry Graham

Attached to Terry’s email was the following (in docx format, which I converted to html using OpenOffice):

Date: September 3, 2010 SENT VIA REGISTERED MAIL: Sept. 3, 2010

TO: Ms. Navanethem (Navi) Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

OHCHR address:
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais Wilson
52 Rue des Pâquis
CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland
Mailing address:
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

Email: InfoDesk@ohchr.org Website: www.ohchr.org

FROM: Terry Graham on behalf of European-American Christians

RE: Formal Complaint Charging the U.S. Federal Government with the Crime of Genocide of European-American Christians.

There is no greater sorrow on earth than the loss of one’s native land.”

Euripides, 431 BC, posted on the United Nations Human Rights website: www.unhch.ch

Dear Ms. Pillay:

I hereby file a formal complaint with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, charging the United States’ Federal government with violating human rights laws by intentionally committing GENOCIDE against myself and other European-American Christians through its immigration laws, policies and procedures, including failures to enforce existing laws. I further charge that U.S. Federal immigration laws, policies and procedures – and actions and lawsuits filed by the Federal government against individuals and States including, but not limited to, Arizona with the result of continuing the intentional GENOCIDE of European-America Christians — violate the U.N. Genocide Convention of 1948, international customary law, international treaty law, and U.S. law.

Because the ongoing destruction of the European-American Christian population is a serious legal, moral, cultural, social, religious, political and economic issue, and a matter of the survival of my people, and because the pace of that destruction is escalating, I petition the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to promptly investigate this charge of GENOCIDE, and to make an immediate formal request of the United States federal government to place a judicial stay on all immigration laws, policies, procedures, lawsuits and legal actions that advance this GENOCIDE.

This stay must halt all admissions into the U.S. of all non-European/Christian immigrants, refugees, asylees, parolees, foreign students, temporary workers, etc. until the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights can complete a thorough investigation of this claim, and take immediate, appropriate steps to remedy this egregious situation.

In 1960, European-American Christians constituted nearly 90 percent of the U.S. population. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by as early as 2050, well within the lifespan of today’s children, European-Americans will be reduced to less than 50 percent of the U.S. population.

Rafael Lemkin, creator of the term “GENOCIDE” defined it as follows:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean destruction of a nation… It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity but as members of a national group.”

The U.N. Genocide Convention, Article II, Section C defines GENOCIDE in part as, “Deliberately inflicting on the group (national, ethnic, racial, or religious) conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. (Citations on relevant international customary and treaty law, as well as U.S. federal law and legal decisions, are provided below.)

Legal remedies for the crime of GENOCIDE include “reparations” as defined by international law that “…must wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.”

Therefore, I further petition the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to immediately demand that the Federal government of the United States take immediate steps to re-establish the European-American Christian population relative to the current U.S. population to its demographic size — 90 percent – on December 9, 1948, the day on which international customary law against GENOCIDE took effect.

If the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights refuses to investigate and act upon my complaint of GENOCIDE, I must conclude that:

(1) international law and human rights law are no longer binding on the United States of America federal government, or

(2) European-American Christians, alone, are not protected by these laws.

Please respond in writing to my complaint without delay, no later than September 30, 2010.

Θ Euro-American Christians Devastated by Non-European/Non-Christian Immigration

Background of Complaint Charging U.S. Federal Immigration Laws, Policies, and Procedures Result in GENOCIDE of European-American Christians:

The effect of U.S. immigration policy since 1965, when — for the first time in our nation’s history – the U.S. Congress permitted massive non-European immigration, has been to perpetrate GENOCIDE against the nation’s European-American Christian majority.

The term “GENOCIDE” is defined here by:

(1) International customary law,

(2) International treaty law, and

(3) U.S. federal law.

Today, Federal immigration policy is “deliberately inflicting on” European-American Christians, “…conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction in whole or in part,” one of the definitions of GENOCIDE set forth in the U.N. Genocide Convention of 1948. [Article II also defines GENOCIDE as: “(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” and (d) “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”, which would include taxation policies that penalize and impose undue financial hardships upon European-American Christians, while providing tax-subsidized services for non-European, non-Christian illegal aliens and immigrants.]

Under international law, the following acts are punishable offenses: “conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide.”

To reiterate: Legal remedies for the crime of GENOCIDE include “reparations” as defined by international law that “must wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and to re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.”

Θ European-American Christians Devastated by Non-European/Non-Christian Immigration

In a speech on immigration and its impact upon U.S. demographics, President Bill Clinton in June 1998 said that, “In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States.”

President Clinton’s public acknowledgement that the ongoing, intentional destruction of the nation’s European-American Christian majority was underway revealed that this destruction would continue until this majority (90 percent) national group was reduced to a minority. That is, Pres. Bill Clinton acknowledged the crime of GENOCIDE and did nothing to stop it; all Presidents since Clinton – in fact since Lyndon Johnson – have acted to expedite this GENOCIDE.

This unprecedented devastation of our nation’s majority population during peace time is confirmed by our national Census. In 1960, the Census found European-Americans were 89 percent of the nation’s population, compared with 81 percent in the 1790 Census, and eight-point increase that took more than 100 years. Yet the 1990 Census found the proportion of “white” had been reduced to 75 percent of the nation’s population – an astonishing 14-point drop in just 30 years. (Note: Since the “white” Census category includes non-European, non-Christian whites from North Africa, the Middle East including Israel, and the former Soviet Union, and non-European Mexicans, South Americans – who comprise a significant number of immigrants – the true number of white Americans of European and Christian descent is likely far lower. (See, for example, the U.S. Department of Justice’s racial and ethnic categories and definition of “White”.)

Citizens’ efforts to create a “European-American” category in the 2000 and 2010 Censuses were thwarted by federal officials. These and other Federal policies make it impossible to evaluate the true scale of GENOCIDE against European-American Christians. The 2010 Census failed to capture population figures for European-American Christians, demonstrating a double-standard because the Census questionnaires include many identifiers for the diverse racial, ethnic, and national origin of respondents who are not of European descent.

The sharp demographic decline – GENOCIDE — of European-American Christians is the direct result of immigration policies pursued by the U.S. government since 1965, resulting in 80 to 90 percent of all current legal immigrants coming from Third World sites such as Mexico and other parts of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. More than 90 percent of all illegal aliens amnestied – that is, granted legal status – by the U.S. government also come from the Third World. And nearly all of the estimated 300,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens who settle each year in the U.S. are from the Third World.

The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by as early as 2050, well within the lifespan of today’s children, European-American Christians will be reduced to less than 50 percent of the U.S. population. In California, European-Americans became a demographic minority by the year 1999, and will soon become a minority in Texas, Florida and New York.

Despite grassroots efforts to stop present GENOCIDAL immigration policies and strong support expressed in every poll of citizens to steeply reduce – or halt – immigration and stop granting citizenship status to offspring of illegal aliens born in the U.S., Federal government actions are quickly reducing the European-American Christian population in this nation.

Since 1965, the Federal immigration policies — including recent legal actions and lawsuits filed against the State of Arizona and various individuals — imposed upon the European-American Christian majority by the U.S. Government have been both illegal and unconstitutional, for the following reasons:

#1 These policies violate international customary law against GENOCIDE, binding on the U.S. government since its adoption by the U.N. General Assembly on December 9, 1948. The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Volume 2, Section 702, d, [c] which recognizes international customary law against GENOCIDE, prohibits “Deliberately inflicting on the group (national, ethnical, racial, or religious) conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. While just one of the legal definitions of “group” must be met under this law, European-American Christians in fact meet at least two. Racially, we are white or Caucasian; ethnically we are European, 90 percent are Christians or ethnic Christians; and as 89 percent of the U.S. population in 1960, we defined the nation and shared a common origin.

#2 U.S. Congress has recognized international customary law against GENOCIDE in U.S. Public Law 95-435. Enacted in 1978, Section 5 (b) states: “It is the sense of the Congress that the Government of the United States should take steps to disassociate itself from any foreign government which engages in the crime of genocide.” Since the Senate did not ratify the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention until 1988, and the foreign country specified in this law as guilty of genocide – Uganda — also was not yet a signatory to the Convention, U.S. Public Law 95-435 can refer only to international customary law against GENOCIDE. By enacting this Public Law, Congress has recognized both the validity of international customary law against GENOCIDE and its applicability to acts of the Federal government. Federal, State and local governmental employees take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and laws, which they are violating with intent.

#3 The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 both recognizes international customary law and confers on Congress the power “to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.”

#4 The U.S. Supreme Court has held international customary law binding on the U.S. government since Paquete Habana in 1900 (175 U.S. at 708). In that opinion, Justice Gray wrote, “…international law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.”

#5 In 1988, the U.S. Senate ratified the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention. Article II, Section C defines genocide in part as “Deliberately inflicting on the group (national, ethnical, racial, or religious) conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. Article IV of the Convention guarantees the right to take legal action against the U.S. federal government and others for violating this law, stipulating that those who commit GENOCIDE, “…shall be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals.”

#6 U.S. Federal immigration policies violate Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which states that “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.”

#7 U.S. Federal immigration policies violate U.S. Public Law 100-606 which, in accordance with Article V of the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, made the provisions of that Convention federal law. This statute amended Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code by inserting “Chapter 50A – Genocide”. Section 1091 (a) (4), defines GENOCIDE to include act(s) which “subjects the group (national, ethnical, racial, or religious) to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part” in time of peace or war.

#8 The U.S. Congress publicly and repeatedly declared that the 1965 Immigration Reform Act would not reduce the proportional size of the European-American majority population. U.S. Senator Robert Kennedy insisted that, “The distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States.” Sen. Kennedy added that, “… [This] should set to rest any fear that this bill will change the ethnic, political, or economic make-up of the United States.” U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, floor manager of the 1965 immigration bill, stated at the onset of Senate hearings that, “The ethnic mix of this country will not be upset” by this legislation. In other words, Americans were assured repeated that 1965 changes in Federal immigration laws would not perpetrate GENOCIDE against the majority population at that time, i.e., European-American Christians. These assurances were misrepresentations – lies — designed to obfuscate and confuse Americans on the planned GENOCIDE of European-American Christians which Pres. Clinton and others now freely acknowledge and advance with impunity.

#9 U.S. immigration law, policies, and procedures violate human rights law and the rights of European-American Christians specifically.

European-American Christians Devastated by Non-European/Non-Christian Immigration: Two Separate – Unequal & Unjust – U.S. Immigration Policies

Since at least 1965, the U.S. Congress, the President and Executive Branch, and the judiciary have actively imposed massive Third World immigration upon the U.S., where European-American Christians have always been the majority population. In stark contrast to its domestic policies, the U.S. Congress, has actively opposed immigration policies that would upset the racial/ethnic makeup of five U.S. territories where non-European peoples form the majority populations – American Samoa, the Northern Marians, and the “Free Associated States” of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau – for the express purpose of preserving their respective ethnic majorities.

These distinct, conflicting immigration policies – one for the United States, another for five U.S. territories – show that the U.S. Congress is well aware of the direct relationship between immigration and racial, ethnic and religious demographic shifts that can constitute GENOCIDE, and is destroying the nation’s European-American Christians, its racial-ethnic-religious demographic majority, deliberately with assistance from the Executive and Judicial branches of government.

International law against GENOCIDE is jus cogens, that is it preempts, supersedes and nullifies any laws which violate its principles, including all current U.S. Federal immigration law, policies and procedures, legal actions and lawsuits that advance GENOCIDE.

I hereby demand “reparations” as defined by international law, specifically: to restore the United States’ nation’s racial and ethnic mix in 1948, when the law against GENOCIDE took effect.

Θ Overview of This Complaint and Remedies Sought:

* U.S. immigration laws, policies and procedures violate human rights law against GENOCIDE

* U.S. immigration laws, policies and procedures violate international and United Nations’ laws against GENOCIDE

* U.S. immigration laws, policies and procedures violate U.S. laws against GENOCIDE

* U.S. immigration law, policies, and procedures that are advancing GENOCIDE against European-American Christians are therefore null and void

* The U.S. government must re-establish the European-American Christian population to its demographic size — 90 percent relative to the current population — as of December 9, 1948, the day on which international customary law against GENOCIDE took effect.

* The U.S. government must immediately adopt and enforce an immigration policy which admits only ethnic Europeans until such time as the European-American population again constitutes 90 percent of the total U.S. population. The U.S. Federal government, with the full cooperation of State and local governments must also actively repatriate non-citizen immigrants to expedite that outcome.

Θ European-American Christians Meet Legal Requirements for Standing

European-American Christians meet the legal requirements for standing required to file this complaint:

I and other European-American Christians have (a) suffered some actual or threatened injury, (b) this injury can be traced to the challenged official conduct of the U.S. Federal government and (c) there is a substantial likelihood the alleged injuries can be redressed by a judicial decision in their favor. Those injuries include, but are not limited to, 3000 murders by immigrants on September 11, 2001.

European-American Christians satisfy the legal requirements for obtaining a stay since:

(1) We can establish legal standing

(2) We are suffering severe injuries from ongoing U.S. immigration policies, and

(3) We can show that the benefits to the European-American Christian population of a stay on all offending U.S. immigration laws, regulations, and policies outweigh any possible adverse impact that such a stay could have on others.

Θ U.S. Courts’ Rulings on International Law

U.S. Federal courts have a history of rulings based upon international customary law and international treaty law. In these cases, described below, neither the plaintiffs nor defendants were U.S. citizens or legal U.S. residents, nor did the alleged crimes occur in the United States or within its jurisdiction.

Some Relevant Legal Citations:

Filartiga v. Pena-Irala (1980)

Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (623 F. Supp. 246) (1985)

Forti v. Suarez-Mason (No. CD-87-2058-DLJ) (1988)

Xuncax v. Gramajo (Civil Action No. 91-11564-DPW) (1995)

Kadic v. Karadzic (Docket Nos. 94-9035, -9069) (1995)

In summary, I ask that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights immediately act on my complaint, made on behalf of myself and other European-American Christians, investigating and acting upon my charge of GENOCIDE against the U.S. Federal government.

As I stated earlier, if the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights refuses or fails to investigate and rule on my complaint that the U.S. Federal government’s laws, policies, procedures and other actions are an act of GENOCIDE against U.S. European-American Christians, we must conclude that:

(1) Human rights and international law are no longer binding on the U.S. government and/or

(2) European-American Christians, alone, are not protected by those laws.

Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this very serious matter,

Respectfully,

Terry Graham

XXXXXXX

EuroAmRights@hotmail.com

California, US

PS. This is the THIRD Complaint I have filed with your office, charging the United States of America’s Federal government with intentionally committing GENOCIDE against European-American Christians. I first filed a complaint 11 years ago during the Clinton administration on September 3, 1999 (sent via U.S. Post, Registered Mail #R732364784, received by your Geneva office on September 13, 1999). My second filing was made via email in 2007. Neither of your predecessors even acknowledged my earlier filings, which were similar to this. Given U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent filing with your office regarding international human rights law and the State of Arizona’s new immigration law, and U.S. President Obama and his administration in concert with the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent filing of lawsuits against the State of Arizona and Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arapaio – all of which actions may advance the illegal act of GENOCIDE outlined above — I ask for your immediate and equally serious attention to this my complaint as that you give to Ms. Clinton’s filings.

I don’t think Whites, Christian or not, have any cause to hope that the UN will speak in our favor. I commend and support Terry Graham’s effort if only because it highlights for our own people the double standards for genocide.

While U.S. government policy has become genocidal toward Whites, and especially White Christians, its policy is to defend jews worldwide:

The Office of the Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (SEAS) advocates U.S. policy on anti-Semitism both in the U.S. and internationally. Anti-Semitism is discrimination against or hatred toward Jews. SEAS develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

SEAS was established by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, and is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). DRL produces the State Department’s annual reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom, and SEAS provides input on anti-Semitism for these reports.

Led by the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, DRL/SEAS welcomes information on anti-Semitic incidents, including personal and property attacks; government policies, including judicial/prosecutorial decisions and educational programs on the issue; and press and mass media reports.

Why is that?

Reconsider Columbus Day appeared on YouTube

Consider This

Reconsider Columbus Day appeared on YouTube last year. Links to it are circulating again this year.

October 12 is Columbus Day
A day that “our” government has deemed worthy of rememberance
But with all due respect
With all due respect
With all due respect
There’s an ugly truth that has been overlooked
For waaay too long
Columbus committed heinous crimes
Against the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean
And millions of natives throughout the Americas
And Columbus set the stage for the slave trade in the New World
So please
Please reconsider if this is a man you want to honor
Reconsider if you want to celebrate the crimes of Columbus
It’s not your fault
It happened a long time ago
But remaining neutral
And pretending like it didn’t happen
Or that it doesn’t still impact us today
So please
Take the day to learn the whole story
Celebrate the people who were here first
Petition for a nationally-recognized indigenous holiday
So please
Reconsider how you plan to spend October 12th
Reconsider the story of Columbus
Visit www.reconsidercolumbusday.org

Yes, let’s stop pretending. Let’s reconsider multiculturalism, reconsider multiracialism, and reconsider anti-racism. The people pushing these ideas are disingenuous. They don’t oppose discrimination, oppression, or genocide. They’re animated by hate and anger. They blame Whites for all the world’s ills. In their mind it’s payback time. Scapegoating Columbus is just the tip of an anti-White iceberg.

The purpose of the Reconsider Columbus Day campaign isn’t to hold Columbus accountable for his “crimes”. That was 500 years ago. The purpose isn’t to celebrate “the people who were here first” either. “Our” government has already dedicated 30 days to celebrating them.

This campaign is aimed at White people. It’s about guilt-tripping, criminalizing, and pathologizing us. It’s telling us to stop enjoying a Eurocentric view of history, to stop having a sense of pride in our European heritage, and to instead feel ashamed and be more concerned about everyone else’s point of view. The purpose is to convince us to celebrate and put the interests of other people above our own. It isn’t an argument for non-discrimination or race-blindness. The people driving this campaign despise us and our point of view.

Instead of going along with the browbeating of people who hate us, or even simply ignoring them, I’m inclined to do just the opposite of what they want. Therefore I encourage Whites to reconsider the mestizo holiday Cinco de Mayo, which commemorates the killing of Europeans and swimming the Rio Grande (not necessarily in that order). And the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, commemorating “racists” not acting quickly enough to help black looters. And the mother of all anti-White guilt-tripping, The Holocaust TM – which academia and media and politicians commemorate day in and day out.

The common theme here is: Whites suck. Why should we go along with that? Reconsider who does or doesn’t care about you. Reconsider what they tell you to care about. Reconsider whether it’s all about doing what’s “right” or “moral” or whether they just want you to better serve them. Respond accordingly.

Columbus: Continuation of a Genocidal Legacy is a Mexica Movement video connecting the dots from Columbus, to Cortez, to Custer, to Hitler. It presents a thoroughly one-sided view of the brutal facts of past conquest and war. Unlike the original blood-thirsty, slave-trading indigenous people, White newcomers kept relatively detailed records. But why dwell on the past? Do the job the anti-White moralizers in the media won’t do. Compile in your mind a video of current events – the robbery, rape, and murder “people of color” perpetrate against Whites no matter when or where we have the misfortune of living together.

Reconsider the never-ending lectures we’re fed about defamation, discrimination, stereotypes, blood libels. Think about these lectures the next time somebody quickly and blithely ticks off the usual politically correct litany of White “crimes”. Think about what they will rationalize as right and just once they gain the upper hand completely. If you need a hand, that Mexica video graphically depicts what they have in mind.

Fox News’ war on Free Speech escalates

Fox News’ war on Free Speech escalates

http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/

Millions of conservatives (and a few readers of TPC) honestly believe that Fox News is on their side, and is really committed to bringing us fair and balanced news and commentary, and fighting the liberal bias in the rest of the media. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the issues that really matter, they’re as liberal/left wing as CNN or MSNBC. When the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC were telling us we need to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, did Fox News tell us the truth? Did Hannity and O’Reilly inform us that these two countries had done nothing to the US, and couldn’t harm us if they wanted to? Did they tell us that these wars would turn into quagmires with no end in sight, and would end up costing us trillions of dollars without making us one iota safer? No, they didn’t. They parroted the exact same message as the talking yarmulkes on CNN and MSNBC. They assured us repeatedly that Saddam Hussein had WMD, and that the war would be short, and we would be welcomed as liberators. Did they hold Bush’s feet to the fire about runaway spending, creating a new prescription drug benefit, illegal immigration, the looming mortgage crisis, or anything else? No, they cheered Bush on and rarely, if ever, criticized him.

There’s no denying it; Rupert Murdoch is a genius. Back in the early 1990s he saw the tremendous dissatisfaction among the American public with the left wing media, and realized he could make hundreds of millions of dollars by creating a phony alternative. Instead of serving up 100% liberalism like the other networks, he knew that gullible conservatives would swoon over a news channel that served up news and commentary that was only 95% liberalism. It’s as if every restaurant in town served used dishwater as a dinner beverage, and then Fox Diner opens, serving a dinner beverage that’s 95% used dishwater and 5% tap water, and the townspeople began raving about it how great the drinks are at Fox Diner. Like I said, Murdoch was brilliant for understanding that American conservatives would eat up propaganda that’s a tiny bit less left wing than CNN and pronounce it patriotic and conservative.

Fox News serves three purposes. First, to make Rupert Murdoch a ton of money. Second, to serve as a safety valve, an outlet for diffusing conservative anger while making sure it never gets out of hand. Third, to keep moving the goalposts and pushing conservatives to accept more and more of the left wing agenda as authentic conservatism. That’s why Glenn Beck is always going on about Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks being conservative heroes, and is always denouncing those who opposed the “Civil Rights” movement as left wingers and liberals, when the reality is the exact opposite.

It’s why last year Brian Wilson, not only a Fox News anchor, but also a VP of the network, denounced MartinLutherKing.org for calling MLK a plagiarist. Never mind that it’s an undeniable fact that MLK was a notorious and incessant plagiarist. Wilson not only denounced those who tell the truth about King, but lamented the fact that the First Amendment allows people to speak the truth about Martin Luther King. He called free speech “problematic” and then said:

“Sadly, all speech, even unpopular speech, is protected by our Constitution.”

Now Bill O’Reilly is doing his part. Six or seven years ago he was denouncing a group of kids in Georgia for holding a private party and not inviting any blacks. He spent a week using his TV show to demonize the kids, and actually kept demanding that the governor of Georgia go to the kids’ town and denounce them for daring to hold a party and not invite any blacks. No, I’m NOT making this up. Yeah, Bill O’Reilly is “on your side”, folks. Unless you believe you have a right to free association. That’s HATE, and shouldn’t be allowed. Now he’s upping the ante, declaring in a recent syndicated column that “hate speech” should not be protected by the First Amendment.

Fox News isn’t on your side, folks. They’re an even bigger enemy than CNN or MSNBC. At least a lot of those guys are honest about being liberals.

 

Locust: perfect right on the money, fox news and the vast majority of talk radio is nothing but a safety valve, if these outlets did anything to change the direction of the nation in any profound and meaningful way, they would not be allowed to air.

Reports of its demise are greatly exaggerated

Reports of its demise are greatly exaggerated

http://vanishingamerican.blogspot.com/2010/10/reports-of-its-demise-are-greatly.html

Is multiculturalism now a thing of the past in Germany?
According to the headlines regarding a speech by Angela Merkel, and judging by the glee of some on our side, it must be so.

I would love to see evidence that this is happening, not only in Germany but in all beleaguered Western countries. I know there are some conservatives who disdain Europe in general, and some ethnonationalists who tell me repeatedly that Germany, Britain, France, and all Western European countries are a lost cause, hopeless, doomed. I refuse to accept that, and I sometimes think some wish it to be so. I am not one of those. I’d love to cheer some sign of hope, as with the recent election results in some European countries. But have we witnessed the demise of the multicult?

Can we believe our ”leaders”, and take their words at face value?

Attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have “utterly failed”, Chancellor Angela Merkel says. In a speech in Potsdam, she said the so-called “multikulti” concept – where people would “live side-by-side” happily – did not work.

Mrs Merkel’s comments come amid recent outpourings of strong anti-immigrant feeling from mainstream politicians. A recent survey showed that more than 30% of Germans believed Germany was “overrun by foreigners”.
[...]
Mrs Merkel told a gathering of younger members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party on Saturday that at “the beginning of the 60s our country called the foreign workers to come to Germany and now they live in our country… We kidded ourselves a while, we said: ‘They won’t stay, sometime they will be gone’, but this isn’t reality. “And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other… has failed, utterly failed.”

In her speech, the chancellor specifically referred to recent comments by German President Christian Wulff who said that Islam was “part of Germany” like Christianity and Judaism. While acknowledging that this was the case, Mrs Merkel stressed that immigrants living in Germany needed to do more to integrate, including learning to speak German.

“We should not be a country either which gives the impression to the outside world that those who don’t speak German immediately or who were not raised speaking German are not welcome here,” she said. “That would do great damage to our country.”

Just for some perspective, let’s remember that she has said things like this over the years. I specifically remember a time a few years ago when a number of the Western leaders made remarks along the same lines, almost in unison. And here is a piece from almost six years ago, wherein Merkel said almost the same thing:

Decades of consensus about a multicultural society have been thrown into question recently as leading German politicians suggest that minorities living in the country need to do more to fit in.

“The notion of multiculturalism has fallen apart,” said opposition conservative leader Angela Merkel in a recent interview.

“Anyone coming here must respect our constitution and tolerate our Western and Christian roots.”

It was just one of a chorus of voices, from left and right, among politicians and the media.”

As the article quoted above noted, this was just after the murder of Theo van Gogh, at a time when the peoples of Western countries raised a loud alarm about the Islamic presence.

The article continues:

Another politician suggested it should be compulsory for imams to preach in German, and sections of the media have judged that the debate marks the end of multiculturalism.

“It’s a quite frank debate on what we Germans expect of those people coming to us as immigrants,” says Nikolaus Blome, commentator with Die Welt newspaper.

“If multiculturalism means that it’s OK for 30,000 Turks to live in a certain quarter of Berlin, and never leave, and live like they’re still in deepest Turkey, then the term is now discredited.”

So following these 2004 pronouncements on the ‘death of multiculturalism’, here we are, six years later, still at square one — no, we are not where we were six years ago. We are much farther along the road to the loss of our countries and our culture. If multiculturalism was dead back in 2004, why is it still lurching along?

So is this talk today of the end of the multicult to be believed?

Remember, too, that Tony Blair, hardly a foe of the destruction of the West, made almost identical remarks four years ago:

Blair himself, however, doesn’t seem to have intended his speech to be taken as a rejection of or retreat from multiculturalism. He explained: “It is not that we need to dispense with multicultural Britain. On the contrary we should continue celebrating it. But we need – in the face of the challenge to our values – to re-assert also the duty to integrate, to stress what we hold in common and to say: these are the shared boundaries within which we all are obliged to live, precisely in order to preserve our right to our own different faiths, races and creeds.”

In line with this, he called for an adjustment in how multiculturalism was to be understood: “it is necessary to go back to what a multicultural Britain is all about. The whole point is that multicultural Britain was never supposed to be a celebration of division; but of diversity.”

He rejected the separatism and relativism that would make for the Balkanization and atomization of British society and rule and law: “The purpose was to allow people to live harmoniously together, despite their difference; not to make their difference an encouragement to discord.”

Consequently, he called for grants “to promote integration”; an end to forced marriage (which the British failed to outlaw last summer); adherence by all groups to the rule of law (in other words, no Shari’a in Britain: Blair said, “Nobody can legitimately ask to stand outside the law of the nation.”

Then there was John Howard of Australia back in 2007:

”PRIME Minister John Howard officially scrapped multiculturalism today as he sacked Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone and renamed her old department.

The trouble-plagued Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) will now be known as the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, with former Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews the new minister.

Mr Howard defended the change, saying Australians believed that immigration should lead to citizenship.

“I think the title of the new department expresses the desire and the aspiration, and that is that people who come to this country, who emigrate, immigrants, become Australians,” Mr Howard told reporters.”

You get the picture.
The same pattern is there in all these remarks by Western leaders: they claim that ‘multiculturalism is dead’ — which is just a way of offering a sop to their citizens who are now vociferously questioning mass immigration — but then they qualify their words by saying that ”we have to have integration; the immigrants (who will, of course, keep coming) must learn to integrate and become part of our way of life,”, etc.

What these devious, forked-tongued leaders mean, in these remarks, is that multiracialism, and the presence of multiple, conflicting religions, is all acceptable as long as there is some kind of civic patriotism instilled into the immigrants. This is not what most of the critics of multiculturalism want. And moreover, it is the last thing the immigrants want or intend.

When I saw the headline about Merkel and the ”death” of multiculturalism, I thought: sure, the same old speech about how ”we must integrate the newcomers” and the usual drivel. Yet I see a lot of people on the right hailing this new policy and approach from Angela Merkel. But don’t get too excited just yet. Multiculturalism is not dead, nor is it even moribund. These ‘leaders’ are just trying to pacify the restless natives of their countries by throwing out a few deceptive words to quell the discontent. Multiculturalism will not be waved away with a magic wand, and Western ‘leaders’, even those who masquerade as ”conservatives” have not had any Damascene conversions. They are just trying to gull and lull their easily-fooled constituencies. Let’s not be among those easily fooled.

Top Israeli rabbi: Gentiles exist only to serve Jews

Top Israeli rabbi: Gentiles exist only to serve Jews


Don’t look for this story on the mainstream conservative sites. Wouldn’t be prudent. They might get Sobraned.

Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews

October 18, 2010

JERUSALEM (JTA) — Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly Saturday night sermon said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews.

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel,” he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat.

“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat,” he said to some laughter.

Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas Party and the former chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, also said that the lives of non-Jews are protected in order to prevent financial loss to Jews.

“With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” said the rabbi, who recently turned 90.

An audio recording of some of the rabbi’s remarks was broadcast on Israel’s Channel 10.

This is hardly an aberration; this is what Orthodox Jews believe and teach their children, no matter what they say in public. A few years ago another one of Israel’s top rabbis said that the difference between Jews and non-Jews is greater than the difference between men and cattle:

What particularly concerns the authors is the total contempt which Jewish fundamentalists show toward non-Jews. Rabbi Kook the Elder, the revered father of the messianic tendency of Jewish fundamentalism, said, “The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews—all of them in all different levels—is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.”

Here is the whole article:

 

JERUSALEM (JTA) — Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly Saturday night sermon said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews.

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel,” he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat.

“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat,” he said to some laughter.

Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas Party and the former chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, also said that the lives of non-Jews are protected in order to prevent financial loss to Jews.

“With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” said the rabbi, who recently turned 90.

An audio recording of some of the rabbi’s remarks was broadcast on Israel’s Channel 10.

The American Jewish Committee condemned the rabbi’s remarks in a statement issued Monday.

“Rabbi Yosef’s remarks — suggesting outrageously that Jewish scripture asserts non-Jews exist to serve Jews — are abhorrent and an offense to human dignity and human equality,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris. “Judaism first taught the world that all individuals are created in the divine image, which helped form the basis of our moral code. A rabbi should be the first, not the last, to reflect that bedrock teaching of our tradition.”


David Bartholomew resigns as GOP chair after sending racist email

David Bartholomew resigns as GOP chair after sending racist email

http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/

David Bartholomew, the Chairman of the Virginia Beach Republican Party resigned after an email he forwarded way back in March somehow came to light, just in time for the elections. The email is amusing, and he should’ve told the people who were complaining about it that they if they don’t like free speech they can go to hell. But he’s a Republican, so he didn’t. Instead, he groveled and apologized and said it was accidental; he didn’t mean to forward the email, but was still learning the ropes of how the internet works.

Uh-huh. Whatever you say, David.

VIRGINIA BEACH

The city’s Republican chairman agreed to resign late Monday night, just hours after a racist joke sent from his e-mail address surfaced.

David Bartholomew is not a racist and agreed to resign because the e-mail had become a distraction to the Nov. 2 election, said Gary Byler, the 2nd Congressional District GOP chairman, after meeting with Bartholomew.

The e-mail was dated March 15 and sent from the address that Bartholomew uses as party chairman. Bartholomew forwarded it without reading the contents when “he was first getting familiar with the Internet,” Byler said.

The Virginian-Pilot obtained it from Democratic sources on Monday, and it was posted on the progressive blog Blue Virginia on Monday afternoon.

The e-mail sparked a flurry of responses.

———-

Eight black Republican leaders sent an open letter requesting Bartholomew’s resignation within 48 hours.

Bartholomew did not return calls for comment Monday.

———-

TEXT OF THE E-MAIL

The e-mail, which was sent to a handful of people, describes a man trying to get welfare benefits for his dog.

MY DOG
I went down this morning to sign up my Dog for welfare.
At first the lady said, “Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare”.
So I explained to her that my Dog is black, unemployed, lazy, can’t speak English and has no frigging clue who his Daddy is.
So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify…
My Dog gets his first check Friday.
Is this a great country or what?

 

Locust: That’s funny.

Judge Wants Openly Gay People in Military

Judge Wants Openly Gay People in Military

by Jeff Davis

Of all the ridiculous and potentially dangerous policies that political correctness has forced on American society, one of the most loathsome is the acceptance of perversion in the military. The Wall Street Journal reports: “A federal judge ordered the military to stop enforcing the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law that has been used to discharge gay service members, putting at least a temporary halt to the 17-year-old policy. Tuesday’s order by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif., applies across the U.S. and would halt proceedings against service members suspected of violating the policy, which aims to bar openly gay people from the military.”

And I’m sure Judge Virginia Philips knows exactly what is best for the US military and what the Founding Fathers would have wanted. If General George Washington had discovered two soldiers engaging in sodomy, it’s a safe bet, Washington would have had them hung from the nearest tree, that same day.

Forcing Gays into the military is nothing more than political correctness run amok. It badly undermines effectiveness and morale, and during a time of warfare, we don’t need to be driving veteran troops out of the military.

The article notes “The order poses a dilemma for the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress. They want to undo the 1993 law, but Senate Republicans blocked an effort last month to vote on a repeal. The administration now must decide whether to appeal Judge Phillips’s ruling, which establishes by judicial fiat the result Democrats were seeking through legislative action. The Justice Department is generally obligated to defend laws passed by Congress, and an appeal is likely.”

Does Obama really think that this sort of judicial activism right before an election will do him any good? The number of homosexuals in America may be as little as 1.5 percent of the population. How many of them really want to join the military? A few percent of 1.5 percent?

The Obama regime keeps reminding ordinary Americans, that Obama stands for radical socialism, Gay rights and open borders. The federal lawsuit challenging Arizona’s immigration law SB1070 will postpone deportations for a few thousand illegal aliens, but that lawsuit was a big red flag that Obama not only opposes enforcing immigration law; Obama supports using the courts to overrule the will of the people. This sort of federal arrogance has a good portion of the population on the verge of a revolution. Maybe Obama missed all those Tea Party rallies and victories in the latest primaries.

I can imagine the Joint Chiefs of Staff are pulling their hair out. They’re the guys that actually have a couple of endless, pointless wars to fight, which no one seems to remember any more. Do I really have to explain why we can’t have homosexuals in the military? Ever heard of a little something called morale?

Whiteout

Whiteout

On October 20, groups around the country are told to wear purple for Tyler Clementi, Asher Brown, Seth Walsh, Justin Aaberg, Raymond Chase, and Billy Lucas. All six were teenagers, all six were boys, all six were gay, and all six committed suicide. Following the recent news of their suicides, college LGBT groups started prayer meetings and candle light vigils, and Ellen DeGeneres did a PSA on her popular daytime television show. Another celebrity PSA hit the airways, this one entitled, “We Give a Damn” with Oscar and Grammy Winners Anna Paquin and Elton John, as well as washed up singers like Cyndi Lauper and Clay Aiken.

While the tragedy of suicide is nothing to make light of, there were also other suicides no one cared to mention. White, middle-class men have increased in suicide rates over the last year at a startling numbers. Often thought of as the least likely to commit suicide, they have jumped by 15 percent amongst the ages of forty to forty-nine. Suicide rate amongst men between the ages of fifty and fifty-nine are at a forty year high.

While the causes of the suicides can’t be determined, many can, no doubt, be blamed on drug abuse and others on the bad economy. No one has been holding prayer rallies, public blame fests, vigils, or celebrity PSA’s. The banner of victimhood, which is priceless in American society today, will not grace the grieving widows, parents, and children of middle-aged Caucasian men. It is well established that White men don’t have an identity group to blame, they don’t have income they can expect to receive by redistribution of someone else’s wealth, and they can’t be assured that their children won’t be accepted at the top schools based on their skin color.

Instead White, middle-class men like Frank Ricci can look forward to working hard and being denied equal treatment because of only one reason; he is a white, middle class male.  They will have the opportunity to be fired more easily than those of their female and minority counterparts.  And if they decide to stand up and take notice of their short end of the stick, they will have the opportunity to be marginalized and called “racist” by people like Rev. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, and many others who seek to remain relevant in the age of Obama.

So as the worst economic depression in nearly a century has also lead to a sweeping increase in suicides amongst white, middle class males, as was the case in the Great Depression, the forgotten man once again weeps alone.  What else can be expected from a post-racial America?

 

 

Brown Pride!

Brown Pride!

 

Brown PrideI’m not particularly well versed in “Ultimate Fighting,” but I get the sense that in this weekend’s big bout between Brock Lesnar and Cain Velasques, we’ll be witnessing Round 1 of the American Empire’s increasingly racialized public distractions: a Nordic patriot versus a militant Mestizo with “Brown Pride” tattooed in Gothic lettering across his chest.

The fight’s promotional video is available here (embedding was not enabled.)

The Mexican is, of course, encouraged to claim that he’s fighting for his people (not just Mexicans, mind you, but all Latinos in North America.) The Aryan Übermensch announces his support for legal immigration…  Apparently, the same PC and racial double standards one finds in America’s political culture reign in a sport dedicated to grown men beating one another into pulps.

The Truth About Terrorism

The Truth About Terrorism, and the U.S. Government

by Scott Lazarowitz
by Scott Lazarowitz

Recently by Scott Lazarowitz: The Choice Between Two Americas


My writing this was inspired by Paul Craig Roberts’s great article The War on Terror, in which he tells the truth about what’s really going on, and I wanted to expand more on this terrorism subject.

There are many reasons why the U.S. government needs to place itself on the Terrorist Watch List, but since there isn’t enough space to include all that here, I’ll just touch on the most important points.

To begin, millions of Americans report their income and employment status to the U.S. government out of fear, and for no other reason. It certainly isn’t out of the goodness of their hearts (except for the most naïve amongst us). Most Americans who are required to pay a certain percentage of their income to the feds aren’t really paying – it is being taken from them under the threat of various intrusions, such as garnishing their wages or putting a lien on their homes (like a lien on one’s home really matters anymore now in the time of ForeclosureGate). For many Americans, the taking is automatic, directly from their paychecks. So employers as well as workers must submit to the threat of brute force if they don’t comply with the demand for information on employment status and payment. Millions of Americans are terrorized by the federal government, not only for what might happen to them if they don’t comply with the demands, but if a mistake is made. There have been horror stories told by many Americans of what happened to them because a mistake was made – including mistakes made by the government.

And many owners of businesses, especially of small businesses, are terrified that they will be persecuted by some government bureaucrat for not following one of the many thousands of regulations that businesses must obey, regulations that exist for no good reason – only to protect larger businesses’ profits. (Thanks, Herr Lincoln.) And especially because of the unstable economic environment now, millions of businesses are afraid to take risks, make any new investments, or hire new workers because they don’t know what the situation will be for them even months from now, let alone years. And Congress won’t even let people know whether or not the Bush tax cuts will be extended or allowed to expire after January 1st, 2011. No one knows what to do. (I’m sure businesses and workers all across America would prosper, if we could only abolish Congress.)

Regarding the War on Terrorism and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), I am now terrified of flying. This is not because a terrorist might hijack the plane, but because of the intrusiveness of what people now have to endure when going through security checkpoints: the pornographic X-rays, the frisking and groping, the searching of my clothing and belongings, the harsh interrogations. Out of their blind faith in the State, the American sheeple have assumed that there should be no alternative to the State’s monopoly in territorial protection, and have passively accepted the constantly growing intrusions by the State against the people and their Liberty. As an experienced pilot has suggested, the airlines should be responsible for their security, not the government. And arm the pilots as well. And arm the passengers as well. In the meantime, I won’t fly.

And then there are the anti-civil liberties, anti-Due Process presidential powers that the Bush Administration had usurped, and that the Obama Administration seems to enjoy having, of apprehending and detaining individuals without actual suspicion, of extraordinary rendition, torture, even presidentially-directed assassinations of individuals deemed by the president and his agents to be “terrorists” without due process or trial. And, given that the whole world, including U.S. territory, is considered to be part of the Global Battlefield in the Global War on Terror, and given that Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano has issued warnings against “right-wing extremists,” essentially those who disagree with Obama’s policies, and given that I happen to be one who disagrees with just about all of Obama’s policies from his war crimes to his communist social policies, then obviously no place in America is safe, and it really is terrifying now.

And regarding the federal government’s intrusions into Americans’ private health matters, I know someone who has said that, because of the new ObamaCare medical intrusions, he will not have his follow-up medical procedures as long as ObamaCare is in place. He just doesn’t want his medical details being scrutinized by government officials. And I also have some health situations for which I rely very much on OTC vitamins and supplements. But, because the Obama FDA wants to crack down on OTC supplement makers, that really is a direct threat to me. I am literally terrified that these bureaucratic misfits in Washington want to take away my only real means of keeping me in (somewhat) good health, and all on behalf of Big Pharma. It’s disgusting how so many people in various federal agencies are on the boards of large pharmaceutical industries, and the cahoots between Big Pharma and Big Government, with lobbyists and campaign donations to legislators to vote Big Pharma’s way, is downright scary.

Also, because the U.S. government has done nothing but provoke Muslims in Middle Eastern countries to act against Americans, I am terrified of another major terrorist attack in the U.S. It would be solely because of what the U.S. government has been doing, especially since 1990. The U.S. government’s actions of terrorism against innocents in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other parts of the Middle East, and its intrusions into just about every aspect of daily life, have been making me less safe, as well as all other Americans.

Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Bush’s father George H.W. Bush actually should all be tried for war crimes and terrorism, especially against Muslims in the Middle East. The IRS, the FDA, the TSA, and other extensions of the federal Leviathan also need to be held accountable for their actions. If we can’t have that, then at the very least, the U.S. government must place itself on the Terror Watch List, as it is the one organization that has been most responsible for terrorizing the most people, ever.

October 20, 2010

Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a commentator and cartoonist at Reasonandjest.com.

Review: White Apocalypse

White Apocalypse

Just before he entered Parliament for the first time, future British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli wrote in his diary, “Imagination governs mankind.” What this means is that two of the imagination’s biggest products, culture and the arts, can be two of the most powerful molders of people’s thoughts and actions. Unfortunately this seems to have been willingly forgotten by many on the Right. For at least half a century they have all but handed the cultural sphere over to the Left with open arms. The results of this blunder can been seen that despite the fact that over basically the last 40 years (1968-2008) the Left had only officially 12 years of rule (4 under Carter and 8 under Clinton), America has gone leftward in ways that would have shocked dedicated Socialists a century ago. One can only reason is that this is because the Right has allowed the Left to shape our people’s imagination and emotions without any real fight.

One person who understands this is young Kyle Bristow, the notorious leader of the MSU chapter of YAF. With his debut novel White Apocalypse, Bristow tells a thrilling and intelligent story with epic ramifications. In it a mass grave of prehistoric skeletons is unearthed in Ohio. Of course the Amerindian tribes claim them as their own and demand they be handed over according to Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). However not everyone is certain about their claim. One group is the Institute for American Historical Studies, a think tank dedicated to raising awareness of The Solutrean Hypothesis; the controversy theory that ancient white people migrated to and were living in North America before the Amerindians crossed the Bering Straight and were subsequently wiped out in a horrendous genocide when the Amerindians did. What unfolds during the fight over this finding is an epic of murder, intrigue, terrorism, corruption, and the heroic pursuit of dangerous truths that could rewrite the pages of history.

One of the great strengths of the novel is that Bristow understands he is telling a story. Unlike many on the Right who believe that one just simply has to let loose with facts to be effective, White Apocalypse earns the right to tell its facts. From the very opening scene readers will realize they’re not about to be subjected to another boring lecture from a grumpy conservative. We are first introduced to Dr. Jack Schoenherr, a mild-mannered anthropology professor at MSU who is under constant threats and harassment from students and faculty. Eventually forced into hiding Dr. Schoenherr and his family is attacked by a group of assassins from La Raza type groups to put end to his life and work. After the intense and action packed scene where he desperately fights back with his AR-15 rifle:

“…the soft-spoken academic within him having been replaced by an animal fighting for his and his family’s survival.”

the story then increases the action and violence as the fight between those fighting for Western Civilization and those who want to destroy it intensifies. From a terrorist attack in Arlington VA, to riots and an assassination outside an Ohio courthouse, to the final shootout and escape from an Amerindian reservation; White Apocalypse has enough action to keep the most Hollywood addicted zombie reading. However unlike other previous works of literature on the Right, such as The Turner Diaries, Bristow’s work isn’t simply a catalogue of violent fantasies. Like its author it is steeped in the history and literature of the West. Periodically throughout the text Dr. Jack Schoenherr slips back into his old professor persona and astounds the other protagonists with his knowledge. The reader wishes he could be there live too as the self-proclaimed:

“Vanguard of the Volk, the hero of the Occident, and the arch-nemesis of the enemies of my people.”

regales his captivated listeners with the history of their heritage. What he speaks about is the part of our heritage not taught by court historians or in schools. What he speaks about is the non-white world’s never-ending aggression towards our civilization. From before recorded history, to ancient Greece and Rome, to the Middle-Ages, and early modern history straight to today the so-called “Wretched of the Earth” have in actuality always been the “Tyrants of the Earth” in their perpetual attempts to conquer what Western Man creates. These scenes of telling our people’s history powerfully highlights what the main protagonists (and we in reality) are fighting to protect and prevent. The action earns the oratory and the oratory earns the action.

But what about the most controversial part of White Apocalypse: The Solutrean Hypothesis? The author deftly teaches his audience about this potentially groundbreaking subject with unmatched skill. Even someone who has never heard of the possibility of Europeans being in North America before the Amerindians will be convinced after reading this work. Not simply because anybody will believe anything in a story; but because the author with the dual precision of surgeon and artist speaks on the subject with convincing intelligence. One has to read the book to really experience the excitement of discovering such hidden truths.

Inevitably White Apocalypse will be tied together with classics such as Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints. And truthfully it deserves these comparisons with honors. Like Raspail’s classic, Bristow’s debut work masterfully deals with the currents malaise afflicting Western Civilization. Whereas Raspail dealt with the deadly combination of the “cancer” of White Guilt and the delusional “One-World” self-hatred of the Postmodern West; Bristow courageously attacks the deadly-duo of non-white ethnocentrism and Judeo-Bolshevism (IE: Liberalism) that is working to destroy the West. Bristow also follows in Raspail’s steps by viciously skewering our enemies with uproarious humor. Whether in the smartass remarks said by protagonists or the physical descriptions of the antagonists; Bristow more than tops Raspail’s “Little Monster” multiple times.

White Apocalypse by debut author Kyle Bristow is hopefully the first in a new renaissance of culture for our people. For too long those who hate us have been in control of the stories told about us. It’s time Western Man stood up and said, “No more!” as we started creating our own work by, about, and for us. Young Mr. Bristow is the first one to courageously do so.

Order White Apocalypse here
Check out Bristow’s own blog here

The Long March Toward Separation

The Long March Toward Separation

The Long March Toward Separation

Robert T. Burnham, who blogs at The New Heretics, wrote an essay for the 2009 TOQ secession competition called “The Long March Toward Separation.” Like the Paul Kersey essay, The Long March was a close runner up, and has been included in the Fall 2010 issue of TOQ. It also resembles Kersey’s entry in that Burnham spends an inordinate amount of time on historical forecasting.

This essay can be divided into four parts: an examination of extant models of racial secession, a critique of the existing models, a prognosis of the racial future, and a sweeping conclusion.

The Existing Models

As with Michael O’Meara and Paul Kersey, Robert Burnham takes the famous exchanges on secession in the 1990s between Rabbi Mayer Schiller, Michael Hart, Richard McCulloch, and Sam Francis as his starting point. He broadly agrees with McCulloch’s critique of Hart, but generally dismisses their proposals as unviable. He also claims to find merit in several of Francis’s arguments.

Critique

Burnham doesn’t spend much time analyzing any of the essays above. Instead, he quickly launches into his critique of the existing models of secession, which goes something like this:

- The Enlightenment model of liberal capitalist democracy is collapsing. The current models of White separatism lack a philosophical, ideological, or religious basis upon which an alternative vision of Western society can be constructed.

- The models that do exist are purely negative and do not offer a positive vision of an alternative social order.

- The West is now on its death bed because of its fidelity to its own pathological philosophies.

- The postmodern future won’t be a return to pre-Enlightenment traditionalism.

- The current models of White separation are based on a utopian vision and an abstract model that would be cleanly implemented. Whatever emerges from the wreckage of the existing political order, however, is likely to evolve organically and through incremental stages.

- White Nationalists take for granted an unlikely degree of White unity in their secession scenarios. Many Whites are unlikely to go along with White Nationalists and could even resort to violence to resist them.

- It is naive to assume that racial and ethnic cleansing will be accomplished peacefully.

- White Nationalists are guilty of putting all non-Whites into the same box of “The Other” when in reality our ability to coexist with non-Whites (and with each other) varies across populations.

- White Nationalists tend to ignore political reality. They ignore the characteristics in the White population which do not conform to their ideological presumptions.

- Whiteness alone is an insufficient basis upon which to create a White ethnostate.

- White Nationalists downplay the geographical dispersion of non-Whites across America. In other words, it is a mistake to assume that all Hispanics are in the Southwest, or all blacks are in the Black Belt.

- White Nationalists treat non-Whites as passive actors. In fact, the actions of non-Whites will be the most likely catalyst toward separatism.

These are some very persuasive criticisms. I happen to agree with almost all the points made above. In particular, I agree with Burnham’s observation that no clean abstract plan of racial partition will ever be implemented.

Instead, White separatism will evolve organically within regions and states, and any ultimate partition of America will reflect a million little choices made by White families, not any abstract ideal of “Whitemanistan” dreamed up by White Nationalist intellectuals.

Prognosis

After criticizing the existing models of racial secession, Robert Burnham next tries his hand at predicting the future, a far more dangerous enterprise. He sees a dire future for Whites just over the horizon.

- The Enlightenment model that has guided the West since the late eighteenth century will collapse.

- America will be gutted by its hostile alien elites. The cultural and economic rot will eventually result in the fragmentation of the country and the loss of power by the existing elite.

- We are entering a historical period of dissolution.

- The federal government will become so gridlocked and incompetent that its enormous powers will start to devolve back upon the states and cities. This will contribute to the centrifugal forces of national disintegration.

- Whites will be thrown back on their own resources. In particular, Whites will start to privatize many of the functions of the state, namely, education and security, as the public sectors fails to deliver quality services.

- America will fragment racially and culturally long before any future separation.

- The declining federal government, swamped with debt, incompetence, and animated by hostility to Whites, will naturally inspire secessionist movements in the Heartland.

- Whites will coalesce under siege, or they will perish.

- Nativist movements abroad and at home will reinforce each other and create a synergy that will transform the political mainstream.

- The belligerency of non-White racial grievance groups will antagonize Whites to the breaking point.

- After they reach sufficient numbers, Hispanics will make ethnonationalist claims on parts of America. Jews will continue their hostile cultural war on the White majority. Blacks will consolidate into dysfunctional ghettos, which will gradually fall under thug rule, that will remain raw sores on American civilization. Muslims could possibly create tight religious/ethnic enclaves.

- Whites will remain passive and indifferent to their decline. They will retreat further into the private sphere. Miscegenation and other factors will erode our numbers and eat away at the White majority.

- If Whites ever do react to their racial decline, it will be on a piecemeal basis, not an instant, transformative embrace of White Nationalism.

Again, there isn’t much to argue with here. Burnham projects a future that rings true. If present trends continue, I can easily see America declining in such a way. Still, I think this is the worst possible scenario. As an optimist, I think Burnham is painting too dire of a portrait here.

Conclusion

The ultimate conclusion of this article is that the collapse of Western civilization is inevitable. There is nothing that can be done to stop it. Whites could eventually react to their decline, a distinct possibility, but their response will probably be too little too late.

Whites should “prepare the ground” for creating a new pro-White civilization out of the wreckage of the West. Burnham believes that developing ways for Whites to thrive in this post-apocalyptic environment should be the “primary focus” of White Nationalist activity. He sees a world in which White microstates naturally evolve out of the existing state system.

The impersonal forces of history will do all the heavy lifting.

Criticism

The weakness of this essay lies in its prescription: all is lost and there is nothing that can be done. That is highly questionable. I don’t think Whites will passively exit the stage of history. Even if White Nationalists fail to construct a viable movement, it is clear that ordinary White people will still lash out against the system in other ways, and their energy could easily be channeled in a more pro-White direction.

No means are proposed here to advance the ideal of White secession. The course of history could possibly lead to something like a White microstate, but such a tepid response from Whites is unlikely to produce that result. Burnham chooses to stand on the firmer ground of historical forecasting and analyzing/criticizing the obvious flaws in the existing secessionist models.

In doing so, he avoids taking the risk of proposing a solution, which is the hardest and most desperately needed part of advocating secession. Michael O’Meara’s solution has obvious flaws, but “the methods of Connelly and Pearce” is still a plan. I think a better plan is needed, but Robert Burnham doesn’t provide one, and neither does Paul Kersey.

If there is “intellectual work” to be done within the White Nationalist movement, it is clearly in the area of means, not ends. There is widespread agreement on the ends of pro-White political activity, a White ethnostate, but we still lack a realistic strategy and the tactics necessary to actualize our goals.

Verdict: A lot of merit in the critique and prognosis. More thought should have been given to the solution.

 

V.S. Naipaul Takes the White Side

Most people reading Occidental Dissent understand that we do not live a a “free country” where we are free to write, say and think what we know to be the truth. Oh yeah, in theory we have the 1st Amendment and can’t be prosecuted or persecuted for anything we say, write or think…. in theory that is.

In reality corrupt, anti-White “powers that be” are following us around with a sword over our head ready to cut off our heads for saying or even THINKING anything politically incorrect, any thing R-A-C-I-S-T like noting that the National Council of La Raza – “The RACE” – is a very racist, Latino advocacy group that insults and threatens our people.

Should any White college teacher let slip his opinion that the National Council of La Raza – The RACE – is a bit racist, then he will be fired. But in these dark days of anti-White restrictions on our free speech, we should take some comfort that some other non Whites are able to go places we can’t go and say things we can’t say… speak the truth about racial realities and defend our civilization when so many Whites can not, or will not do the same.

Today we present the British Indian writer V.S. Naipaul who has consistently defended White Western civilization and travelled to Africa, to Muslim areas of Iran, Pakistan and basically presented the truth that these NWs are brutal, backward civilization destroyers.

Here are some choice insights of V.S. Naipaul on the various strengths and appallingly bad weakness of the Black Africans, Iranian Muslims, Paki Muslims, NW untermenschen etc:

Naipaul’s travel through Africa:

“By Ghana, though, Naipaul is beginning to have a hard time of it. The poor Ghanaians suffer his ire, perhaps because he discovers they eat cats in the south of the country; Naipaul is a big cat lover. His Ghanaian guide, Richmond (a cynical and somewhat self-loathing African), tells him they are killed by being dropped alive into boiling water. Naipaul doesn’t care for the Gaa, who make him nervous. He bolts from a meeting with the high priest.”

“Things go further downhill in Ivory Coast, where they eat cats too. He doesn’t take to the Ivorians at all – cat eaters, elephant killers, forest wreckers – though he does find beauty in the oft-mocked basilica built by the country’s first president, Félix Houphouët-Boigny, a replica of St Peter’s in Rome, only bigger. “

V.S Naipaul on Islam:

Islam, he claimed, had both enslaved and attempted to wipe out other cultures.

“It has had a calamitous effect on converted peoples. To be converted you have to destroy your past, destroy your history. You have to stamp on it, you have to say ‘my ancestral culture does not exist, it doesn’t matter’.”

“Paul Theroux claims new biography reveals the true monster in V S Naipaul”

“Africans need to be kicked – that’s the only thing they understand,” he said in Uganda. “Whip them” was also a frequent Naipaul rejoinder.

All in all, I highly recommend V.S. Naipaul’s fiction and non fiction books – well written, honest and presenting many racial truths that we White folks are just not permitted to say in respectable circles. But certain higher caste NW who take the white civilization side can say these truths and still get published, receive Nobel Prizes for literature.

SBPDL: Year One

(Editor’s Note: Secession Week resumes at Occidental Dissent.)

Paul Kersey’s “Prospects for Racial Separation” was a runner up in the TOQ 2009 secession essay competition. OD readers should be somewhat familiar with his point of view. Kersey is the author of my favorite blog, Stuff Black People Don’t Like, an irreverent daily commentary on the sad chronicle of Black Run America.

Before moving into this review, I would like to plug his new book, SBPDL: Year One. Kersey has always excelled at using humor to introduce implicit Whites to an explicitly racial perspective without the albatross of extraneous issues. SBPDL is one of the few sites that I can recommend to mainstream friends who enjoy laughing at a good racial joke but are not yet completely on board with White Nationalism.

As with Michael O’Meara’s “Toward the White Republic,” I would break down Paul Kersey’s “Prospects for Racial Separation” into two parts. It is a defense of the idea of secession and a prescription for action. Both O’Meara and Kersey cast Sam Francis, an opponent of secession, in the role of Devil’s Advocate.

Defending Secession

Kersey’s response to Francis is straightforward: the demographic window is rapidly closing on the idea of “restoring” America. Whites are projected to fall to minority status by 2042, eight years earlier than previously expected, which suggests that doomsday might arrive sometime in the 2030s. White children will be a minority in American public schools by the 2020s.

America will likely experience an economic collapse long before 2042. Indeed, Kersey wrote this essay in 2009 while America was already plunging into what is now commonly being called the “Great Recession.” Meanwhile, California and dozens of other states like Illinois are in such terrible financial shape that a Greek style financial meltdown could land on our national doorstep anyday now.

In the mid-1990s, when Pat Buchanan was still a potent threat in the Republican primaries, Sam Francis could plausibly argue that a self confident White majority could reassert its dominance and reverse our national decline. In the Barack Obama era, some fifteen years later, the racial cancer is starting to look terminal and secession has become a more attractive option for racially conscious Whites.

Sam Francis was born and raised in a different time. The grandchildren of Generation Y won’t inherit a White America that resembles anything like the one Francis and Boomer paleocons nostalgically remember. They will be born into a Middle America under siege by an aggressive non-White majority and a corrupt, bankrupt federal government whose only real base of support will be millions of tax parasites intent on pillaging Whites in the name of “social justice.”

Nostalgia is the weakest link in Sam Francis’s opposition to secession. I found his argument that secession is tantamount to “starting over” as a nation the least persuasive part of his case.

The Confederates, for example, didn’t see themselves as starting from scratch. For the Confederates, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson remained Southern heroes. They wanted to preserve federalism and republican government from what they correctly perceived as an attempt by Lincoln and Black Republicans to enslave the states to the federal government.

The fact is, if the Confederacy had won the War Between the States, the White Republic would have survived in a truncated form. The South wouldn’t have been colonized by Jews and European Catholics. It would have retained an agricultural economy with race based citizenship. Undoubtedly, the Confederacy would have abandoned the Enlightenment pipe dream of equality in favor of the Antebellum ideal of social hierarchy.

This much is also certain: if the Confederacy had survived as an independent nation-state, White children in the South would have far more reverence for the Founders, Western civilization, Christianity, the White race, Anglo-American culture and heritage, and the ideals of federalism and republican government  - symbolized by Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson – than they do today in the United States under Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

It is a stretch of the imagination to argue that secession is somehow opposed to preserving what is worthwhile in America. A much stronger case can be made that preserving the Union, which will inevitably result in a victorious non-White majority hostile to the West, is the real threat to conserving American traditions.

Kersey himself doesn’t make this argument, but it is an extension of his criticism of Francis, which I found completely justifiable.

Prescription

Like O’Meara, Paul Kersey steps onto shakier ground when it comes prescribing a course of action for pro-Whites. His view is that nothing much can be done to affect our situation until Black Run America collapses under its own weight. In the interim, we can support outstanding White Advocates like Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald, or academic journals like TOQ.

White Nationalists have been at their strongest in historical forecasting. If you had asked White Nationalists in 2000 what America would look like in 2010, they would have said it would be less White and the economy would be teetering on the brink of collapse, a forecast which turned out to be fairly accurate.

The problem with historical determinism is that it is not immediately obvious that an economic collapse would work to the advantage of White Nationalists. When the Great Depression struck, FDR was elected president and won three more terms, while the Old Right was marginalized and extinguished. When the economy collapsed in 2008, Barack Obama was elected president and used his new power to make matters worse for racially conscious White people.

Look at California: a minority-majority state on the brink of fiscal collapse. In California, Jerry Brown is running neck and neck with Meg Whitman in the Governor race. Neither Brown or Whitman are inspiring to White Nationalists. If “worse is better,” California shows that “worse” is often just “worse.”

We’ve gone from bad to worse and racial attitudes haven’t boomeranged. It is so bad that even Whites whose children are viciously raped and murdered by non-Whites are so brainwashed and cowed by anti-racist propaganda that they won’t openly embrace White Nationalism.

Then you have the Tea Party. Instead of turning to White Nationalists for solutions, the White masses created the Tea Party movement from scratch, which in less than two years has succeeded in pulling the political mainstream in its direction. This is another indicator that White Nationalists are failing to exploit the historical opportunities they have predicted.

I can envision a scenario in which the American economy experienced a Mad Max style total collapse over a historical dark horse like Peak Oil. In such an unlikely scenario, which is at the furtherest end of the “worse is better” spectrum,  it is far more likely that religious lunatics of the sort that James Howard Kunstler described in “World Made By Hand” would seize power on a local and state basis, as White Nationalists would lack the organization and physical numbers to compete with them in the real world.

Unlike Kersey, I think there are lots of ways that White Nationalists could “prepare the ground” for secession. I will try to flesh out this subject in my own upcoming essay. If we don’t start pushing political reality in our chosen direction, I don’t see any historical opportunities resulting in a victorious White ethnostate in North America.

The Merits

Paul Kersey makes a stronger case against Sam Francis than Michael O’Meara. In particular, I want to call attention to the fact that he rejects the use of violence as a means of securing political ends. Kersey understands that violence will only result in another Oklahoma City backlash against pro-Whites that could cripple the movement for years and be invoked as a pretext for attacks on our Second Amendment rights.

When James von Brunn shot up the Holocaust Museum in DC, he only succeeded in portraying White Nationalists as unhinged psychopaths driven by Jewish conspiracy theories and Neo-Nazi fantasy ideology. The White masses didn’t see him as a martyr. They didn’t respond to his call to violence anymore than the Whites of the Pacific Northwest rallied to the cause of The Order.

If some disturbed individual on the Far Right had assassinated Barack Obama, the media would have glorified him like JFK and turned him into the second coming of Saint MLK, both of whom would have been discredited like LBJ if they had only been allowed to fail.

I think Kersey makes a plausible case for secession. He painted a dire portrait of the historical conditions that Whites will be facing in the near future. If I was forced to play the role of critic, I would only say that Kersey could have done a better job enumerating the practical ways that Whites could translate the ideal of secession into reality.

Verdict: A good thought provoking essay.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30 other followers