Scientists Call for End to Race-Denial

Scientists Call for End to Race-Denial

Let’s celebrate human genetic diversity

Bruce Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein
Nature, 8 October 2009

Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.

A growing body of data is revealing the nature of human genetic diversity at increasingly finer resolution. It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels (see box, page 728). The biological significance of these variations remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that genetically based biological variation exists at non-trivial levels not only among individuals but also among groups? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. We need a moral response to this question that is robust irrespective of what research uncovers about human diversity. Here, we argue for the moral position that genetic diversity, from within or among groups, should be embraced and celebrated as one of humanity’s chief assets.

The current moral position is a sort of ‘biological egalitarianism’. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide, that were committed with the support of pseudoscientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Eugene Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.

We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position. Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind’s common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.

Many people may acknowledge the possibility of genetic diversity at the group level, but see it as a threat to social cohesion. Some scholars have even called for a halt to research into the topic or sensitive aspects of it, because of potential misuse of the information. Others will ask: if information on group diversity can be misused, why not just focus on individual differences and ignore any group variation? We strongly affirm that society must guard vigilantly against any misuse of genetic information, but we also believe that the best defence is to take a positive attitude towards diversity, including that at the group level. We argue for our position from two perspectives: first, that the understanding of group diversity can benefit research and medicine, and second, that human genetic diversity as a whole, including group diversity, greatly enriches our species.

[...]

Box 2. Emerging understanding of human genetic diversity

Genetic diversity is the differences in DNA sequence among members of a species. It is present in all species owing to the interplay of mutation, genetic drift, selection and population structure. When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up.

Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.

This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people’s DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans.

Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography. Indeed, a person’s major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing), and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary).

For most biological traits, genetically based differentiation among groups is probably negligible compared with the variation within the group. For other traits, such as pigmentation and lactose intolerance, differences among groups are so substantial that the trait displays an inter-group difference that is non-trivial compared with the variance within groups, and the extreme end of a trait may be significantly over-represented in a group.

Several studies have shown that many genes in the human genome may have undergone recent episodes of positive selection — that is, selection for advantageous biological traits. This is contrary to the position advocated by some scholars that humans effectively stopped evolving 50,000–40,000 years ago. In general, positive selection can increase the prevalence of functional polymorphisms and create geographic differentiation of allele frequencies.

Link to Abstract

Link to Box 2

 

This paper was even written up in the New York Times (with obligatory “opposing view” that doesn’t amount to much).

Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease

Neil Risch, Esteban Burchard, Elad Ziv, and Hua Tang
Genome Biology, 2002

EXCERPT:

With this as background, it is not surprising that numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion – that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis. The results are the same irrespective of the type of genetic markers employed, be they classical systems [5], restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) [6], microsatellites [7,8,9,10,11], or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) [12]. For example, studying 14 indigenous populations from 5 continents with 30 microsatellite loci, Bowcock et al. [7] observed that the 14 populations clustered into the five continental groups, as depicted in Figure 1. The African branch included three sub-Saharan populations, CAR pygmies, Zaire pygmies, and the Lisongo; the Caucasian branch included Northern Europeans and Northern Italians; the Pacific Islander branch included Melanesians, New Guineans and Australians; the East Asian branch included Chinese, Japanese and Cambodians; and the Native American branch included Mayans from Mexico and the Surui and Karitiana from the Amazon basin. The identical diagram has since been derived by others, using a similar or greater number of microsatellite markers and individuals [8,9]. More recently, a survey of 3,899 SNPs in 313 genes based on US populations (Caucasians, African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics) once again provided distinct and non-overlapping clustering of the Caucasian, African-American and Asian samples [12]: “The results confirmed the integrity of the self-described ancestry of these individuals”. Hispanics, who represent a recently admixed group between Native American, Caucasian and African, did not form a distinct subgroup, but clustered variously with the other groups. A previous cluster analysis based on a much smaller number of SNPs led to a similar conclusion: “A tree relating 144 individuals from 12 human groups of Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania, inferred from an average of 75 DNA polymorphisms/individual, is remarkable in that most individuals cluster with other members of their regional group” [13]. Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry – namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American.

[...]

Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5]. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level.

Most recently, Wilson et al. [2] studied 354 individuals from 8 populations deriving from Africa (Bantus, Afro-Caribbeans and Ethiopians), Europe/Mideast (Norwegians, Ashkenazi Jews and Armenians), Asia (Chinese) and Pacific Islands (Papua New Guineans). Their study was based on cluster analysis using 39 microsatellite loci. Consistent with previous studies, they obtained evidence of four clusters representing the major continental (racial) divisions described above as African, Caucasian, Asian, and Pacific Islander. The one population in their analysis that was seemingly not clearly classified on continental grounds was the Ethiopians, who clustered more into the Caucasian group. But it is known that African populations with close contact with Middle East populations, including Ethiopians and North Africans, have had significant admixture from Middle Eastern (Caucasian) groups, and are thus more closely related to Caucasians [14]. Furthermore, the analysis by Wilson et al. [2] did not detect subgroups within the four major racial clusters (for example, it did not separate the Norwegians, Ashkenazi Jews and Armenians among the Caucasian cluster), despite known genetic differences among them. The reason is clearly that these differences are not as great as those between races and are insufficient, with the amount of data provided, to distinguish these subgroups.

Are racial differences merely cosmetic?

Two arguments against racial categorization as defined above are firstly that race has no biological basis [1,3], and secondly that there are racial differences but they are merely cosmetic, reflecting superficial characteristics such as skin color and facial features that involve a very small number of genetic loci that were selected historically; these superficial differences do not reflect any additional genetic distinctiveness [2]. A response to the first of these points depends on the definition of ‘biological’. If biological is defined as genetic then, as detailed above, a decade or more of population genetics research has documented genetic, and therefore biological, differentiation among the races. This conclusion was most recently reinforced by the analysis of Wilson et al. [2]. If biological is defined by susceptibility to, and natural history of, a chronic disease, then again numerous studies over past decades have documented biological differences among the races. In this context, it is difficult to imagine that such differences are not meaningful. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a definition of ‘biological’ that does not lead to racial differentiation, except perhaps one as extreme as speciation.

A forceful presentation of the second point – that racial differences are merely cosmetic – was given recently in an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine [1]: “Such research mistakenly assumes an inherent biological difference between black-skinned and white-skinned people. It falls into error by attributing a complex physiological or clinical phenomenon to arbitrary aspects of external appearance. It is implausible that the few genes that account for such outward characteristics could be meaningfully linked to multigenic diseases such as diabetes mellitus or to the intricacies of the therapeutic effect of a drug.” The logical flaw in this argument is the assumption that the blacks and whites in the referenced study differ only in skin pigment. Racial categorizations have never been based on skin pigment, but on indigenous continent of origin. For example, none of the population genetic studies cited above, including the study of Wilson et al. [2], used skin pigment of the study subjects, or genetic loci related to skin pigment, as predictive variables. Yet the various racial groups were easily distinguishable on the basis of even a modest number of random genetic markers; furthermore, categorization is extremely resistant to variation according to the type of markers used (for example, RFLPs, microsatellites or SNPs).

Genetic differentiation among the races has also led to some variation in pigmentation across races, but considerable variation within races remains, and there is substantial overlap for this feature. For example, it would be difficult to distinguish most Caucasians and Asians on the basis of skin pigment alone, yet they are easily distinguished by genetic markers. The author of the above statement [1] is in error to assume that the only genetic differences between races, which may differ on average in pigmentation, are for the genes that determine pigmentation.

Link

 

BIOLOGICAL RACE


Anti-racist PC agendas and the American Anthropological Association’s recent confirmation of the unity of the human species have led to the belief that race is a socio-political invention that promotes racism. An ironic accusation since the denial of the science behind race is what’s politically motivated.
Forensic anthropologist and professor of anthropology George W. Gill, whose assessments are supported by modern genetics, explains.




Anthropology

“First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations.

“The ‘reality of race’ therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether ‘real’ or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is ‘only skin deep’ is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.

“Morphological characteristics…like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.) As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies [used to deny race] are not shaped by these same climatic factors.

“Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the ‘race denial’ faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in ‘race denial’ are in ‘reality denial’ as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence.”



Genetics

“A detailed genetic analysis of more than a thousand human subjects clusters them into five groups corresponding to major geographical regions. This new study shows that self-reported ancestry is a good predictor of one’s genetic make-up.

“The novelty of the recent work of Rosenberg et al. [2002] is precisely that they have checked the validity of the population-sampling approach and tried to define the genetic structure of the human population without using a priori information on the geographic origin of the individuals. For that purpose, they used the structure program, which attempts to find, for each individual, the proportion of its genome that comes from a given ‘population’, whose unknown genetic constitution is estimated in the same process. This procedure is performed successively with the assumption of an increasing number of ‘populations’ or clusters (K): K = 2, 3, 4 and so on.

“Rosenberg et al. applied this procedure to 1056 individuals analyzed for 377 autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) loci. This data set is the first outcome of the analysis of a cell-line panel of 52 worldwide populations…. The results obtained…are quite remarkable. For K = 2 case, where it is assumed that there are two clusters, a contrast is found between individuals from sub-Saharan Africa and native Amerindians. Individuals from other regions seem to harbor various proportions of ‘African’ genes, with a tendency to a dilution of these genes with distance from Africa.

“Assuming that three populations are present (K = 3) leads to a split of individuals found in sub-Saharan Africa from those found in Europe, North-Africa, the Middle East and Pakistan (Figure 1, barrier 2). With K = 4, a cluster of Asiatic and Oceanian individuals separates from Amerindians (Figure 1, barrier 3). With K = 5, an Oceanian cluster appears (Figure 1, barrier 4), and we are left with the pleasant picture of a world divided into genetic clusters that closely correspond to five geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, Oceania, the Americas and the rest, comprising Europe, North Africa and West Asia. … It thus seems that these five groups do correspond to major subdivisions of the human population.”


* * *

Here’s the chart of inferred population structure from a revised version of Rosenberg’s study, in which the data set was increased from 377 polymorphisms to 993:



[click to view large, vertical image]

RACES OF MAN


A brief overview of human races and their geographical distribution, with illustrative plates from Carleton S. Coon’s The Origin of Races.



Caucasoid:
Europe, West Asia and North Africa.


(Pakistan)

Mongoloid: East Asia, Oceania, the Arctic and the Americas.


(Taiwan)

Negroid: Sub-Saharan Africa.


(Sudan)


Capoid:
Southern Africa.


(Kalahari Desert)


Australoid:
Australia and Melanesia.


(Melville Island)

 

The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America

The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America

Eric P. Kaufmann

The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America“Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America will make an important contribution to the long-sustained debate over the nature and distinctiveness of American identity and American nationality. Kaufmann forcefully and effectively locates the significant moving power that has transformed the United States from a society with a single dominant ethnic group, into one that is clearly something else, in the powerful central ideas that were present at the origins of American society.”
–Nathan Glazer, Harvard University

Click here to view on Amazon

MEGA DEPRESSION – THEN MEGA CIVIL WAR

MEGA DEPRESSION – THEN MEGA CIVIL WAR

Posted By: TOMCHITTUM <Send E-Mail>
Date: Monday, 13 October 2008, 9:32 p.m. Mega Depression First, Then Mega Civil War in the Glorious Empire

I am Thomas W. Chittum, the author of the book, Civil War Two – The Coming Breakup of America.

My book asserted that because America is a multiethnic empire it will experience a violent shattering along tribal lines just as other such empires have throughout history. I further predicted that this implosion will occur relatively soon, probably no later than the year 2020, based on ongoing demographic trends. My book was published in 1993 and it ignited a mini firestorm of controversy. To date, it is still the ONLY non-fiction book on the topic of a civil war here in America.

Did anyone write a book predicting our first civil war? I did some research on that subject and I was unable to find a single book warning Americans that they were fast approaching an abyss. That’s not to say that people were unaware of the approaching war. In fact, many people were perfectly aware that a civil war was inevitable. My guess is that not a single person wrote a book on the coming war because they thought it would be a sort of picnic with a little gunfire mixed in, and in any case it would be over in a few months. As history records the war ground the entire southern half of America into a smoking wasteland and killed or crippled almost an entire generation of American men.

Today, people are even less aware of the seriousness of the approaching calamity than our ancestors were. If you mention the possibility of a Yugoslav-style ethnic war here in America in our lifetime most people will scoff at the idea. Five years ago most people would have likewise scoffed at the prospect of a second depression. Now, most people are waking up to the horrid fact that a second depression is upon us – that their retirement cookie jars have been systematically looted.

I’m sure that most visitors to the Rumor Mill News site are perfectly aware that a devastating depression is unfolding and that the economy is in a crash and burn mode with no plausible salvation in site. In this and following rants I will attempt to make the case that this economic meltdown will hasten our descent into an internal civil war that will depopulate the entire North American continent, wiping out 50% or more of the population.

No, I’m not kidding. I’m going to say that again – most of you people reading these words right now are going to starve to death in the tribal wars that will follow close on the heels of the economic meltdown.

Before I go on I’d like to revisit my book and go over what I got right and what I got wrong. I mentioned the New World Order in my book. At the time I wasn’t aware that the New World Order was an active conspiracy of bankers and aristocrats centered in London. I thought it was a sort of lose alliance of giddy globalists, trendy tree huggers and politically correct airheads. Then along came both the internet and the 911 terrorists attacks. I took me approximately three months to wise up to the fact that 911 was an inside job. I’d always followed military events closely and that’s how I woke up to the 911 scam. For years the American military had been encircling Afghanistan with military bases and pre-positioned stockpiles of military goodies. Then along came Osama bin Subcontractor like some boogie man in a bad movie. It all seemed like a low-budget Hollywood production. That’s because it was.

So … I got on the internet and started listening to commentators like Eustace Mullins, John Coleman, Henry Makow, Charles Savoie and anybody else who didn’t depend on the establishment for their supper.

Even before 911 I knew from personal experience that nothing in this rotting empire was as it was spray painted by the establishment media. After my book was published I got my 15 minutes of fame. I was on Television. I was a guest on numerous radio shows. I was a guest speaker at a lot of political meetings. I met a lot leaders of (mostly) right-wing type extremist groups. I remember telling one rightist-type leader that my presence as a speaker at their meeting did not mean that I was endorsing his organization or its stated goals. I told him I’d gladly speak to a “roomful of Rabbis” if they would invite me.

I made it plain to everybody that I was pretty much a one-trick pony. My self-assigned task was simply explaining to people why we were headed for a Yugoslav-style civil war and in our lifetime. I wanted to explain this to every living American, and I didn’t care two cents what their own political beliefs were. I made no apologizes then for speaking to right-wing extremists and I make no apologies now. After a while I began to realize that something really strange was going on inside the so-called extremist right-wing groups.

At every meeting there were always one or two dudes who just didn’t fit in. My favorite was a investment banker and Yale graduate. What, I wondered, was a blue-blood Yale investment banker doing mixing it up with all these guys who drove pickup trucks draped with confederate flags. Mind you, I wasn’t totally naive. I knew that the FBI and/or the CIA routinely sent guys to monitor these groups. Frankly, I didn’t give a damn. As far as I was concerned the more people that listened to me the more I liked it. Nazis, rabbis, government spooks, good-ole-boys in pickup trucks – I didn’t care – the more the merrier because my warning was for everybody.

Ultimately, it dawned on me that these obvious government spooks weren’t there to spy on these groups – these government spooks were there because THESE GOVERNMENT SPOOKS WERE ACTUALLY RUNNING THESE RIGHTIST GROUPS. Most of these right-wing groups were conceived, planned, created and then run by government spooks. It’s all part of what I call peasant management.

The powers that be know full well that their policies will always generate opposition both leftist and rightist … so … they create and subsidize false flag opposition movements that they can lead around in eternal circles thus creating no real problems for the establishment. And don’t forget that it’s the same exact scam with the phony baloney leftist groups. They are mostly establishment creations. In fact, it’s a double payoff for the establishment. They create false flag rightist groups to stampede leftists into the ranks of their false flag leftist groups, and they create the false flag leftist groups to stampede rightists into their false flag rightist groups.

Our Current Mess:

Here are my guesses about the future:

The New World Order is in a hell of a jam. Both Russia and China have how shaken off communism which was imposed on them by the London Banking Cartel. Both have turned to state-directed development and growth policies and are striving to feed their people and increase their standard of living. This is the exact opposite of the global depopulation and genocide via starvation and war that the New World Order is imposing on the rest of the globe via the Club of Rome and their other psychotic think tanks and NGOs. Russia and China and some neighboring states have formed a double whammy military and economic bloc called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

The London Banking Cartel cannot let this situation continue or it’s just a matter of time until the Russian/China economic bloc takes their place. Furthermore, it has long been the military doctrine of the London Banking Cartel that the Eurasian landmass is the key to the military control of the globe. See Halford Mackinder. From the perspective of the London Banking Cartel it’s all or nothing and here and now. The clock is ticking against the London Banking Cartel and the only solution to fulfilling both their military and economic blueprints is pedal to the metal all-out war.

It isn’t like the good old days when a handful of Zionist assassins in communist clothing could overthrow a decadent Russian government, and the tiny British fleet and army can no longer kick a decadent Chinese oligarchy around and impose imported communism. Nothing but all-out war will suffice, and that means nuke warfare.

The only card the London Banking Cartel has to play is the American nuclear arsenal. They have to get America into a nuclear shootout with both Russia and China, and the sooner the better. Now I know what some of you are thinking: But golly, don’t these guys realize that a nuclear war will leave the planet a radioactive wasteland? Now hear this: The nutcase LBC boys perceive nuclear warfare as winnable and survivable. In any case that’s the ONLY card they have left to play. It didn’t get much play in the national media, but VP Cheney has been digging his personal nuke bunker in DC deeper and deeper like a beaver on go pills. He’s getting ready for it … and so should you.

The LBC has to sell global war to the American airheads, hence the 911 terrorist attacks. Dictatorships cannot stampede the people into giving up their property and their liberty without conjuring up both foreign AND DOMESTIC ENEMIES. That’s why a civil war is in the offing. A civil war in America is not only possible – IT IS ESSENTIAL. It’s all part of the plan. Flood the Southwest with millions of Mexicans and then trash the economy so the starving and ticked off Mexicans will burn an entire geographic region right down to the ground. This should be sufficient to stampede the rest of the peasants into accepting anything the LBC pukes up and presents as a solution to the resulting mess.

To understand their logic we’ll have to take a quickie refresher course in the history of Western war. Napoleon resurrected the concept of the citizen soldier that had been doormat since the Roman Republic. He was thus able to raise massive armies of peasants who perceived themselves as citizen soldiers. Deluded as they were they nevertheless simply swept aside smaller armies of professional soldiers. The ONLY military reply his opponents could make was to raise massive armies of their own so-called citizen soldiers.

Under the new military system large populations were an absolute military necessity. The increasing mechanization of warfare didn’t change the situation at all. Massive peasant armies were still required because hordes of deluded peasants were still needed to drive the trucks and armored vehicles that delivered themselves to the slaughterhouse. There existed a rough balance between the quantity of military supplies an industrial society could churn out and the quantity of “citizen soldiers” needed to transport and then use the supplies at the front. Massive quantities of peasants were necessary for both production and subsequent usage at the front.

The pendulum didn’t begin to swing back the other way until the arrival of nukes on the scene. Massive peasant armies were no longer a necessity due to the extreme energy density of nukes. The industrial infrastructure necessary to generate a really impressive nuke arsenal was far greater than the relatively small number of professional soldiers (read airforce) necessary to deliver them.

When peasants became useless for war the bulk of them became useless. Before nukes the rule was the more peasants the better. After nukes only a smaller number of peasants were needed to produce goodies for the idle aristocrats.

Today, massive peasant armies are obsolete and are maintained chiefly on a reduced scale for theatrical purposes. They are there for peasant perception control purposes exactly as are the false flag leftist and rightist mock opposition groups I mentioned earlier. Ordinary infantry such as our current army and marine divisions are obsolete. Ordinary infantry are useful only for fighting other likewise obsolete infantry, and for suppressing uprisings of lightly armed domestic peasants … and for pure theatre.

Now that you understand this point I can get back to America via a short detour through the Middle East. The primary objective of our current insane activities in Asia is the conquest of the Asian heartland. A secondary but also necessary objective is the total destruction of our current and obsolete military machine to transform it into one more useful to insure the destruction and dismantling of the American Republic. Russia and China have both slipped the grasp of the London Banking Cartel and they dare not risk America going the same route, hence their stealth plot to carve up America like pizza into manageable mini-states.

The destruction of the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan will pave the way for its replacement by privatized military contractors formerly known as warlords. Citizen soldiers might balk at massive ethnic cleansing operations in California for example, but warlords won’t. Picture armies of Blackwater mercs composed of mostly non-Americans recruited from all points of the globe. They will gladly slaughter everything in their path including any remaining American military units who might oppose them. The LBC must first ignite a civil war in America and then ultimately ensure the that the secessionist win after their hired warlords and mercenary hordes have stomped the new mini states into malleable mush which may or may not be glued together in some sort of North American Confederation with “Ameros” for money and some multi-colored rag for a flag.

I basically think it will work. I think the coming tribal/civil war in America will be roughly proportional to the severity of the economic collapse that sets it off. Meanwhile, while you are waiting for Osama bin Subcontractor to nuke us and waiting for your starving neighbors to batter your door down, keep an eye on California. It’s the canary in the coal mine. When it croaks the rest of America will follow sooner or later.

 

 

 

The Pilgrims, Famine, and the End of Feudalism

The Pilgrims, Famine, and the End of Feudalism

By John Hunt

” … it well appeared the famine must still ensue …” [i]
Famine stalked the Pilgrims through the first years. But their conquest of famine helped end old-world feudalism.
I suggest the reader access the Project Gutenberg online edition of Governor William Bradford’s Of Plymouth Plantation[ii]. (For the original source, see endnotes.) I’ll paraphrase some passages.
July 1620
The Pilgrims’ contract [iii] with their financial backers, the London Merchant Adventurers Company, included conditions of seven years of joint stock and partnership and communal property, followed by a division and release from obligations,
3.  … all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any person or persons, remain still in the common stock until the division.
10. That all such persons as are of this colony are to have their meat, drink, apparel and all provisions out of the common stock and goods of the said colony.
A version of feudalism dominated for the first seven years.
Britain and continental Europe groaned under feudalism’s remnants and its communal farming. The Lord of the Manor controlled his peasants — told them where, when, and what they could do, and how they could do it. (Does that sound like some people we know in 2009?)
From old-world feudalism came the seeds of famine.
September 1621
The autumn harvest and hunt. The First Thanksgiving [iv]. Grand. Glorious. A product of the friendship and peace treaty [v] with the impressive Wampanoag Sachem (chief) Massasoit and his people. A welcome respite from the hardship of that first winter, when half the Mayflower passengers died. And yes, there was turkey. Bradford wrote, “… there was great store of wild turkeys …” [vi]
Were they now on easy street? Hardly. Communal farming brought discouragement and strife the next year.
A Meager Harvest, 1622
Now the welcome time of harvest approached, in which all had their hungry bellies filled. But it arose to a little, in comparison of a full years supply … [vii]
They were unfamiliar with cultivating American corn. But the main reason was famine,
… chiefly their weakness for want of food, to tend it as they should have done. [viii]
Remember, they physically worked fields, fished, and cut lumber from dawn to dusk, six days a week. Heavy manual labor brought on a big appetite.
Again, the telling comment:
So as it well appeared the famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented, or supply should fail, to which they durst not trust.  Markets there was none to go to, but only the Indians, and they had no trading commodities. [ix]
“That they might not still thus languish in misery,” 1623
Bradford wrote of the colony’s distress at continuing famine:
All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. [x]
The governor faced a choice. The colony would fail under seven years of communal farming, and the investors in London would not be repaid. The Pilgrims would become just another failed English colony, all memory of them to vanish.
Or — find a better way, grow food, survive, pay their contractual debts. Bradford found that better way: He assigned each family a parcel of land to farm on their own.
Transformational, this paradigm shift. While the old world lay shackled by feudal communal farming, the new world broke free from feudalism’s constraints.
At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to them selves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance), and ranged all boys & youth under some family. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted then other wise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. [xi]
Each family became free and responsible to grow their own food supply. They flourished. The lazy became industrious. Misery transformed into happiness.
Apparently Bradford and his advisors read the classics. He disputed Plato and other ancients regarding property rights:
The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. [xii]
Private property took root. [xiii]
The genie was out of the bottle. From this small beginning would eventually flow the American family farm. In generations to follow, there arose many thousands of American homestead farms, each one tended by a self-supporting family, indeed feeding the world. Word of this American opportunity spread to the old world. Humble people came to America to break free from the “Lord of the Manor.”
Today’s equivalent of the early family farm is the small business: the plumber, the inventor in the garage, the family-run restaurant, the entrepreneur. Liberty’s workshop.
Let me close with warm Thanksgiving greetings to you and yours.  Borrowing again Bradford’s handwritten eloquence from his latter years,
Thus out of small beginnings greater things have been produced by His hand that made all things of nothing, and gives being to all things that are; and as one small candle may light a thousand, so the light here kindled hath shone to many, yea in some sort to our whole nation; let the glorious name of Jehovah have all the praise. [xiv]

John Hunt is his children’s dad. His public service is finding and producing crude oil and natural gas from privately owned lands in the USA.



[i] William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 1647 (Project Gutenberg Online Catalog), 152.
[ii] William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 1647. An e-book, transcribed from the original manuscript, with a “Report of the Proceedings Incident to the Return of the Manuscript to Massachusetts” may be accessed and downloaded from Project Gutenberg online books:http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/24950
[iii] Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 56-58
[iv] Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 127
[v] Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 115
[vi] Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 127
[vii] Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 152
[viii] Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 152
[ix] Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 152-153
[x] Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 162
[xi] Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 162
[xii] Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 163
[xiii] A group of scholars at the University of Chicago held high regard for the Pilgrims’ decision in influencing property rights. The Founders, especially John Adams, were very aware of the Pilgrims and their history. See The Founders’ Constitution Project website, and their majestic five-volume study on our Constitution. Of Plymouth Plantation is the first source document cited under “Property”:
[xiv] Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 332.

on “The Pilgrims, Famine, and the End of Feudalism

The Pathology of Evil in Politics

The Pathology of Evil in Politics

By Andrew Thomas

Do purely evil individuals exist who can hide their true nature from the rest of the world? And are these individuals drawn into politics as a conduit for dominating an unsuspecting and acquiescent populace?

There is a theory that evil is a pathological disorder. The observation that psychopaths, including sociopaths and narcissists, all exhibit chronically evil behavior makes a persuasive argument for that theory. In Andrew M. Lobaczewski’s book, Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes, the case is made for equating evil and psychosis in the political arena:
The actions of [pathocracy] affect an entire society, starting with the leaders and infiltrating every town, business, and institution. The pathological social structure gradually covers the entire country creating a “new class” within that nation. This privileged class feels permanently threatened by the “others”, i.e. by the majority of normal people.
Lobaczewski also references the following passage from The Sociopath Next Door, by clinical psychologist Dr. Martha Stout:
Imagine – if you can – not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.
And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.
Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.
You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.
In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world.
You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered.
Dr. Stout estimates that this psychosis affects approximately 4% of the population. It seems obvious that many of these will gravitate to politics, where power over others is most attainable. Lobaczewski places the amount of undiagnosed psychopaths who join the pathocracy at 6%:
Approximately 6% of the population constitute the active structure of the pathocracy, which carries its own peculiar consciousness of its own goals. Twice as many people constitute a second group: those who have managed to warp their personalities to meet the demands of the new reality. …
This second group consists of individuals who are, on the average, weaker, more sickly, and less vital. The frequency of known mental diseases in this group is at twice the rate of the national average. We can thus assume that the genesis of their submissive attitude toward the regime, their greater susceptibility to pathological effects, and their skittish opportunism includes various relatively impalpable anomalies. …
The 6% group constitute the new nobility; the 12% group forms the new bourgeoisie, whose economic situation is the most advantageous. … Only 18% of the country’s population is thus in favor of the new system of government.
The question is, how do we recognize and ferret out the sociopaths and narcissists currently in power in both political parties? This is an inherently difficult task due to the ability of these psychopaths to disguise their disease. I believe it is possible to isolate them through critically observing and identifying the inconsistencies between their apparent irrational behavior and the image they are trying to present.
For instance, what are we to make of a president who suddenly bursts out laughing while being interviewed on the potential for economic depression in the U.S.? How about a jovial president giving a friendly “shout-out” to a colleague before delivering a listless homily on the brutal murder of thirteen American soldiers by a ruthless domestic Islamist terrorist? Perhaps the picture of Obama striding down the White House steps while his “friend” Professor Gates is helped by Officer Crowley is an indicator of his true personality.
Another example is the unfathomable pardon of Marc Rich, charged with 51 counts of tax fraud and with running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis, as orchestrated by now-Attorney General Eric Holder. His latest incomprehensible deed is to arrange the NYC show trial of self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees. Holder has not justified what possible good can come from either action.
These examples of objective evidence can be applied to many members of Congress as well, and the list of potential evil psychopaths goes on and on. What, then, are we to do? My advice to the women I have known in my life has always been to marry a “nerd.” They may have dull and simple personalities, but they are trustworthy. (This may have been a self-serving piece of advice.)
Likewise, the politicians least likely to be psychotic are those with simple, down-to-earth personal philosophies. Of course, this can be faked as well, but their authenticity is usually apparent based on the lives they lead and whether their words match their deeds. Whom do you think of in this category? Two names immediately jump into my mind: Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan.
In an attempt to maintain a grasp on sanity in this crazy world, I’ve identified some distinctions in my belief system, which I am fairly sure I share with the large majority of Americans — i.e., Lobaczewski’s “normal people”:

Good:
Love, honor, integrity, honesty.

Evil:
Corruption, greed, narcissism, lust for power.

Good:
The belief in individual freedom and liberty as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Evil:
The belief that individuals should be controlled and subjugated by the State — i.e., socialism, fascism, communism, globalism.

Good:
The belief that in an environment of freedom and equality, individual initiative and entrepreneurial spirit is the strength of the nation — i.e., capitalism.

Evil:
The belief that the ends justify the means; that lying, subterfuge, and the killing of innocent humans are acceptable in achieving political goals — i.e., radical Islam and leftism.
Good and evil coexist in every nation and within every individual. The focus must be on identifying and defeating the evil actions and policies of those in power. This includes legally removing them from power when their policies cannot be abrogated.
Andrew Thomas blogs at darkangelpolitics.com

 

The Most Gruesome Multi-Cult of All?

The Most Gruesome Multi-Cult of All?

More news stories on Multiculturalism and Diversity

Mark Richardson, American Renaissance, November 2006

Almost everyone has heard of the charismatic cult leader Jim Jones, and the 1978 mass suicide to which he led his followers in the South American nation of Guyana. Far less well known is that Jones was an early proponent of the anti-white, racial diversity thinking that is now so widespread.

Jim Jones was born in Indiana in 1931. He began preaching in his 20s, even though he had no formal religious training, and mixed religion and politics while still a young man. His views were radically politically correct, even by today’s standards, let alone those of the 1950s. His religious style was charismatic, and included faith healing.

Jones’s belief in “equality and justice” led him to start his own racially integrated church in Indianapolis, which he first named Community Unity and later The Peoples Temple. In 1958, Jones started what he called his Rainbow Family by adopting three Korean children and a black boy. His one biological child was named Stephen Gandhi Jones.

Jones impressed the authorities in Indianapolis with his multi-racial efforts. In 1960, the mayor named him president of the Indianapolis Commission on Human Rights, with a salary of $7,000 a year, but he decided to move his church to California.

Again, Jones won favor with the authorities. He was elected president of the Grand Jury of Mendocino County, and after moving to San Francisco, the church grew to over 7,500 members. In 1975 he mobilized 800 members to work full-time for the successful mayoral campaign of George Moscone.

In 1976, he bused in hundreds of followers to a campaign meeting with Rosalynn Carter, wife of the future president. His photo appeared with Mrs. Carter in the papers the next day, and the President-elect invited him to Washington for the inauguration. Then-California State Assemblyman Willie Brown said, “San Francisco needs 10 more Jim Jones,” and helped to have him appointed by Mayor Moscone to the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission.

Despite these honors, there was an investigation of the church for tax evasion, and Jones moved the church again, this time to a commune in Guyana. Jonestown, founded in the summer of 1976 along with about 1,000 followers, did not last long. In November 1978, a congressman named Leo Ryan flew to Guyana, and spent three days investigating complaints in Jonestown. Fourteen of Jones’s followers, unhappy with life in Jonestown, asked to fly back to the United States with Ryan. At the airstrip, just as the congressman’s party was about to leave, a truckload of Jonestown security guards arrived and started shooting, killing Congressman Ryan and four others.

Jones then decided on mass “revolutionary suicide,” a phrase he borrowed from Black Panther leader Huey Newton. On Jones’s instructions, all members of the cult were to drink cyanide-laced Flavor Aid (a Kool-Aid knock-off). Children were poisoned first, then adults. Some were shot trying to leave. In all 914 died, including 276 children.

Jones eventually became a kind of communist in his politics, but much of what he and his followers stood for is very close to the politically correct mainstream. The goal of Jonestown was to build an agricultural paradise free of sexism and racism. As part of this program, Jones promoted mixed-race marriage and adoption of bi-racial children. He also taught that all inequality was caused by white male oppression.

In Jones’s view, white men were the enemy. He believed the world might be destroyed either by nuclear war or by genocide against people of color. Church members went through radical loyalty tests called “white nights,” so named because of Jones’s belief that white men were trying to ruin his project. One church member wrote a final testament praising Jonestown because there were “no more racist tears from whites and others who thought they were better.” Jones even claimed that the final suicide decision was necessary because some of his white followers had defected and wanted to escape with Congressman Ryan. About 80 percent of his followers were black, but Jones made intelligent but gullible white women his chief assistants and main sex partners.

A Temple member named Edith Roller wrote in her diary about a boxing match between a young man accused of sexism, and a young woman. The woman knocked out the man, to the delight of the crowd.

Jones was dictator of Jonestown. He insisted that some couples divorce and remarry partners of his own choosing, and he had the right to have sex with anyone he liked. Armed guards patrolled the perimeter, and there were public beatings of disobedient children. Members who failed to meet work targets or who criticized Jones’s management could have their heads shaved, or be forced to wear a yellow hat or a special badge of dishonor. His followers did not address him by some fancy title; they called him “Dad.”

Although Jones was a preacher, and claimed to be the reincarnation of Jesus, Akhenaten, Buddha, Lenin, and Father Divine, it is not clear how religious he really was. He once said, “If there were no rich, no poor, if everyone were equal, religion would soon disappear.” One Jonestown survivor, asked if Jones was mainly interested in socialism or Christianity, answered, “Jim was a socialist first and an atheist second.”

In a larger sense, there are two main conclusions to be drawn from the Jim Jones story. The first is that politically correct liberals ought to be embarrassed by Jonestown but are not. A pioneer of racial diversity and feminism led a large movement to a grisly end of murder and mass suicide. If a conservative or nationalist had done this we would never be allowed to forget it.

The other is that many political moderns feel divorced from the world as it is constituted, and Jones took this feeling to a radical conclusion. Not only did he try to reconstitute society as a utopian commune, he drove his followers to suicide as a final act of renunciation.

“We were too good for this world” said Jim Jones as his followers prepared to die. One devotee left behind a note addressed to Jim Jones, in which he wrote, “Dad, I can see no way out, I agree with your decision . . . I am more than tired of this wretched, merciless planet and the hell it holds for so many masses of beautiful people.”

“It is living which is treacherous” was one of Jones’s last pronouncements before he, too, committed what he called “revolutionary suicide” by putting a bullet through his head.

Mr. Richardson is a secondary school teacher from Melbourne, Australia, and publishes the Oz Conservative (ozconservative.blogspot.com).

Original article

(Posted on November 25, 2009)


Comments

1 — Question Diversity wrote at 6:48 PM on November 25: PBS had a documentary about the Jones cult that touched on many of these same facts. In addition to all this:

(1) Jones’s church/cult and its activism made the difference in the 1975 SF city elections. Their votes and GOTV efforts are what put George Moscone over the top.

(2) Jones’s mind control over the members of his cult was so bad that, while they were in Guyana, Jones convinced them that the United States and its whites were on the verge of committing total genocide against blacks, and had already wiped out a good percentage of the black population. This was during the Jimmy Carter administration, the most liberal President between LBJ and Obama.

What PBS got half-baked is that they presented Jones and his cult as something that “went awry,” or a train that went off the track. They can’t bring themselves to admit that egalitarianism itself is the problem, and that it will beget more people like Jim Jones, even less malignant ones. If your foundation is a lie, then the rest of your house will also be a lie.

2 — Tim in Indiana wrote at 8:33 PM on November 25: The way I recall the media portraying the Jones tragedy is that he was a “racist” who chose blacks as his victims simply because they were easy targets. This would seem to be quite contrary to the true picture. Don’t expect the MSM to ever tell you the truth on this matter, however.

3 — Alan wrote at 9:38 PM on November 25: I don’t think our country is run by Jonestown utopians. It may be true that many journalists, professors, and other people associated with the chattering classes show signs of having Jim Jones Syndrome. But I think our society is run by capitalists who don’t care about anything except making money. Maybe that’s the great danger. The morons who take multiculturalism seriously, who make a religion out of it, will eventually blame the Toxic Other—be it capitalists, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc.—for their failure to create a perfect universe.

4 — The blasphemous sun beast wrote at 10:23 PM on November 25: Strange, the connection between egalitarianism and Christianity.

Or maybe it isn’t strange. Maybe Christianity is the seed-bed of egalitarianism.

5 — Soprano Fan wrote at 12:01 AM on November 26: After reading this Classic AR article, I have come tto understand how Jones’ congregation was overwhelmingly Bantu – as long as he preached an “it’s all the white man’s fault” sermon, he had his receptive audience. The only difference between Jones and the likes of Elijah Muhammad, Adam Clayton Powell, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan is skin pigmentation. The message of the demagogue is the same.

Until reading this article, I never knew Jones was in favor of race-mixing and blaming all of the world’s problems on the Caucasian race. He was of course, a race traitor, but, like so many traitors before him chose suicide as the way out. In this respect he was like Judas Iscariot.

6 — Madison Grant wrote at 12:13 AM on November 26: One reason Jim Jones was so popular among Frisco Democrats is that when a politician wanted to appear at a rally or a public speech Jones would send a large contingent of cult members to show up; this made it seem like the politcian was supported by “the people”.

ACORN provides a similar service to modern Democrats.

7 — Anonymous wrote at 12:30 AM on November 26: I always suspected the ‘colonists’ were killed by the locals, with the mass-suicide camp being a cover. I have absolutely no evidence, but it’s what I suspected.

8 — Henry wrote at 3:45 AM on November 26: Why did 1500 members of Joel Osteen’s church in Houston, Texas, commit suicide, why did 2000 Hare Krisna cult members commit suicide, and why did 3000 Mormons, in Salt Lake City, Utah, commit suicide? They all wanted to keep up with Joneses!

9 — Ross wrote at 3:57 AM on November 26: I have read that Jim Jones and Adolph Hitler were vegetarians. I have also read that Charles Manson, at least before he was sent to prison, either was, or is, a vegetarian. One theory I read to explain why such evil people could be vegetarians, is that maybe a vegetarian diet deprives the human body of certain nutrients the body needs, ilke Vitamin B-12.

In other words, not all vegetarians are nice, humanitarian people like rock star Paul McCartney!

10 — Daniel wrote at 11:06 AM on November 26: Someone wrote that maybe Christianity is the seed-bed of egalitarianism.

Yes Christianity does say all men are equal but I don’t think that is the real problem.

The problem is not just with Christianity but with all religions. Religions are the seed-bed of mind control. Instead of thinking for themselves people decide to let someone else do their thinking for them. Christianity means whatever the church says it means at any given time. The church goes with the money and the power. At the present the money and power is promoting an egalitarian messege and the church as usual is up for sale. When the slavery message was where the money and power were the church promoted slavery.

Find a way to control large portions of the population and you to can be rich and powerfull. Priest learned this long ago.

I don’t have anything against anyone believing in a God or even many Gods but believing in a church or church leaders is dangerous. Both Christianity and Budism teach people to be aware of false teachers and leaders that will lead them down the wrong path. When people follow like sheep they end up like sheep, it’s not good.

11 — Question Diversity wrote at 11:06 AM on November 26: 9 Ross:

The radio talk show host born Michael Alan Weiner (I think his stage surname might be a prohibited word here) had an interesting theory last night re some vegetarians and vegans. (But not all.) He thinks they’re overcompensating for some other guilt, either they abuse some sort of drug, or they have some skeleton in their closet.

12 — JustPlainMean wrote at 11:20 AM on November 26: “I always suspected the ‘colonists’ were killed by the locals, with the mass-suicide camp being a cover. I have absolutely no evidence, but it’s what I suspected.”

Well, no. At least part of the mass suicide was video-taped. You can probably find that on-line with a little searching. Those who didn’t volunteer to drink poison were forced at gunpoint by other members. It was clearly not an outside job at all.

13 — Vegetarian wrote at 11:46 AM on November 26: One theory I read to explain why such evil people could be vegetarians, is that maybe a vegetarian diet deprives the human body of certain nutrients the body needs…In other words, not all vegetarians are nice, humanitarian people like rock star Paul McCartney.
ROSS
______________________

Well, if your silly theory made any sense, then “nice, humanitarian people” like Paul McCartney would be mass-murdering psychos, right?

Oh, but wait! I’ve got a better theory. I do believe that Hitler, Stalin, Duvalier, Mao, Pol Pot, and Jim Jones were ALL air-breathing mammals.
Aha, so that’s it! It must be the AIR that causes it. Just stop breathing and you’ll be OK. Breathing air is BAD for you!

14 — ghw wrote at 12:06 PM on November 26: “Until reading this article, I never knew Jones was in favor of race-mixing and blaming all of the world’s problems on the Caucasian race. He was of course, a race traitor.”
— SopoanoFan
………………………………….

You can’t be a trator to a race, unless it’s your own race. In Jones’ case, this was the inner conflict of a tormented personality torn between races, not knowing who he was or where he belonged. As a result of his racial torment, hundreds died.

I remember when that event happened, and I recall the many stories that came out of it. I do clearly remember that Jim Jones had made a very big thing about race-mixing because HE HIMSELF was an example of race-mixing. Like most mixed-breeds, he was obsessed with the subject. He championed Indian causes and made a big thing of his Cheokkee blood. This fact came out at the time. I guess in ‘78 the media were still not so PC or nervous about covering up racial facts, as they are now (bad as they already were back then). Now, on checking Wiki and elsewhere, I can find almost NOTHING about that at all. There is just a small footnote in which a cousin of his mother denies any Indian blood in the family. Her denial is accepted with further question.
While a cousin denied that there was “an ounce of indian blood in our family”, one glance at his photograph puts that denial to rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:01-jones-jim.jpg

While Jim Jones claimed to be partially of Cherokee descent through his mother Lynetta, a cousin Barbara Shaffer said “there wasn’t an ounce of Indian in our family.” She said Lynetta was Welsh.
Incidentally, the birth records for Lynetta have since been “lost”. But his face speaks for itself.

15 — Question Diversity wrote at 3:08 PM on November 26: Daniel:

If Christianity requires racially egalitarian public and private policy, why did it take nineteen and a half centuries for Christianity to recognize it? The Catholic schools in St. Louis were segregated until just after WWII. The last STL Archbishop to preside over segregated Catholic schools, John Glennon, might as well have been Theodore Bilbo on racial issues. An Archbishop, mind you. Hand-chosen by the Pope.

JustPlainMean:

On the surface, Jim Jones was anti-gun. But when it came time for the mass suicides, those who didn’t want to go were murdered. One of the survivors told the PBS film crew that he “wanted to know where all the (expletive) all these guns came from.”

ghw:

Most Southern whites have some Amerindian in them. Yet, they’re also the biggest anti-integrationists and racial realists among us. If Jones was part Indian, it was only very small, and something else was at work to make him that demented, although most of it wasn’t a result of mental illness per se, but a lust for personal power.

16 — Anonymous wrote at 4:10 PM on November 26: “Hitler, Stalin, Duvalier, Mao, Pol Pot, and Jim Jones were ALL air-breathing mammals. Aha, so that’s it! It must be the AIR that causes it. Just stop breathing and you’ll be OK”.

You make your post as an extreme jest, but I really think that’s the kind of outrageous attitude the multiculturalists have towards the white race, “just stop breathing and you’ll be Ok”. Dont expect the media to be reporting on any bad results.

17 — Anonymous wrote at 4:16 PM on November 26: “The radio talk show host born Michael Alan Weiner… had an interesting theory last night re some vegetarians and vegans. (But not all.) He thinks they’re (vegetarians) overcompensating for some other guilt, either they abuse some sort of drug, or they have some skeleton in their closet”.

Realize I’m taking the radio host out of context and not getting the full story… but, when did deference or submission to a higher power become a vice?

18 — LeeRoi Cohen wrote at 5:51 PM on November 26: The blasphemous sun beast wrote at 10:23 PM on November 25:
Strange, the connection between egalitarianism and Christianity.
Or maybe it isn’t strange. Maybe Christianity is the seed-bed of egalitarianism.

The communist Christianity of today is egalitarian. Remember, Paul said if you don’t work, you don’t eat. This is quite a difference from the Catholic/Lutheran charity fools who bring in non-whites to go on welfare. Communism/atheism is using the pseudo Christianity of today, which they created, as a shield. Then they will blame the hell that they created on Christianity. Christians will be persecuted and the monster will be alive and well. Are we really this naive?

19 — Anonymous wrote at 8:50 PM on November 26: Some people are insane. I can’t understand how others follow idiots to their death. Idealism, Utopianism are the paths that lead to extreme dissatisfaction and often insanity.
Reality throughout history never produced a completely equal human equation. I don’t think everyone wants to live, eat, work, think the same. We do not all look alike and we are born different. Once the globe was divided by race/cultures. Boundaries are best solutions to the chosen differences of different peoples. The problems arise from economics. The prosperous are always invaded by thieves and those who have no interest in building thier own group but instead prefer to steal and blame others for their own faults. V

20 — Anonymous wrote at 11:31 PM on November 26:
10 — Daniel wrote at 11:06 AM on November 26:
Someone wrote that maybe Christianity is the seed-bed of egalitarianism.

Yes Christianity does say all men are equal …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHERE does it say that?
It’s a funny thing that for Christianity’s first 1800 years, no one ever noticed that clause in the Bible before!

21 — ghw wrote at 11:59 PM on November 26: “If Jones was part Indian, it was only very small, and something else was at work to make him that demented, although most of it wasn’t a result of mental illness per se”
QD
……………………………………..

The Indian element must have been more than “very small” in his case. Have you looked at the picture? I remember noticing that first thing when I saw his pictures back in 1978. Just as with Lt. Calley (remember him?), I instantly thought …”this is no white man!”

As for mental illness, according to the wiki biog. his childhood acquaintances remembered him as a “really weird kid” who used to hold funerals for animals and once stabbed a cat. His childhood heroes were Stalin, Mao and such. He and his wife were the first white couple in Indiana to adopt a black child. He was heavily into communism even then. This in Middle America! … where such Marxist beliefs back in the Cold War era would have labeled anyone as a real wacko and social outcast. But in California he found a more fertile field to plough.

22 — Ononymous wrote at 12:23 PM on November 27: The current issue of AR has an article by Dr. Fallon of South Africa which says that the Greeks and Romans were self-disparaging and admiring of other cultures long before the advent of Christianity.

Check it out.

23 — UnTel wrote at 12:29 PM on November 27: Christianity may say that all humans have a soul, but this statement does not mean that all White Christians automatically embrace blacks as the equals of Whites. Those who worked as missionaries in 19th century Africa did not contemplate building a society in which both races would co-exist peaceably.

24 — aj wrote at 7:09 PM on November 27: Regarding the comments on vegetarians, I myself am a vegetarian. I don’t think a vegetarian diet per se makes you a sociopath, it is just people involved in left wing, socialist or hippy/new age circles often face strong pressure and stigmatization to go vegetarian. It is their immersion in these circles rather than their food that leads people down strange paths.

25 — The Peloponnesian wrote at 7:49 PM on November 27: While Jim Jones claimed to be partially of Cherokee descent through his mother Lynetta, a cousin Barbara Shaffer said “there wasn’t an ounce of Indian in our family.” She said Lynetta was Welsh.
Incidentally, the birth records for Lynetta have since been “lost”. But his face speaks for itself. — ghw

Yeah, but look at some other famous Welsh Joneses:

Katherine Zeta Jones

Tom Jones

They both are dark haired, dark eyed and Mediterranean looking, like many Welsh folks. Perhaps Jim Jones just wanted to be Cherokee, so he could relate to his oppressed flock.

26 — Anonymous wrote at 9:47 PM on November 27: No, I don’t believe Christianity is the problem.

Did you guys read the article, “Jones was a socialist first and an atheist second.”

The main tenets of Communism and Socialism are professed equality for everyone and atheism for all. Of course, communism has failed miserably, but like most strands of liberalism, the facts don’t matter.

Jim Jones was a nutty cult leader that we have seen many times. If there is a lesson to be learned, it is once the cult takes all of your possessions, and in exchange promise to take care of you, you then become very easy to control and compliant. That lesson does resemble communism in general.

27 — Conan wrote at 10:07 PM on November 27: “I always suspected the ‘colonists’ were killed by the locals, with the mass-suicide camp being a cover. I have absolutely no evidence, but it’s what I suspected.”

The CIA were most certainly involved in this incident.

Congressman Leo Ryan was a perpetual thron in the side of the CIA for years and when he visited Jonestown,they used it as an opprtunity to take him out.
When Jones’s acolytes began shooting the planes, they killed everyone they could find except a guy called Dwyer from the US Embassy in Guyana who was later revealed to be a CIA agent.

Dwyer later returned to Jonestown after the massacre and used a CIA phoneline to report what had happened. He is also belived to have been the one who shot Jim Jones in the head.

28 — ghw wrote at 9:13 AM on November 28: Christianity may say that all humans have a soul, but this does not mean that all White Christians automatically embrace blacks as equals.
Those who worked as missionaries in Africa did not contemplate building a society in which both races would [be equal].
……………….

That is exactly so. Just read the opinions of Albert Schweitzer regarding the nature of Africans, whom he considered children that had to be guided and taken care of. He devoted his life to working among them, but he had no delusions about considering them “equal”. He was very frank about that at a time when it was possible to say so. This was just before the religion of Political correctness took hold. (He died in 1965.)

It’s interesting to note that he was a very famous man in his time, Nobel Prize (1952) and regarded as a hero, but today you hardly hear anything about him at all. He’s become an embarassment to the left and has been conveniently forgotten, a non-person. He didn’t say what they want to hear. Today, he’s just another “old, dead white man”, swept under the rug and forgotten.

 

29 — Jeddermann wrote at 10:14 AM on November 28: “One reason Jim Jones was so popular among Frisco Democrats is that when a politician wanted to appear at a rally or a public speech Jones would send a large contingent of cult members to show up;”

Right! Jones had AN ENTIRE FLEET OF BUSES AT HIS DISPOSAL FOR THIS PURPOSE. He was able to muster in two hours a large contingent of hundreds folks for who ever need a large crowd at a rally. A mob [rent-a-mob] of “trained seals” able to clap, applaud and cheer on command!

Violating the very persons of just about every male around him. Had a big desire to “do” every male within reach of him. Jim wanted to “know you” in a big way. Jim “knew” his flock!

30 — Anonymous wrote at 1:12 PM on November 28: In 1980 there was a three-hour made-for-TV movie called Guyana Tragedy: The Story of Jim Jones

31 — Druid Among You wrote at 5:54 PM on November 28: ghw, Schweitzer is (was) the last Christian.

Schweitzer was too intelligent to be a fundamentalist, and too much of a Christian to not care for others.

His book about the historical Jesus, as opposed to the Jesus of faith, is still quite relevant today. The hisorical Jesus is quite a different character from the Jesus of faith.

Schweitzer was running on the fumes, and the fumes only, of a Christianity that was, to all appearances, on its death bed.

In short, Schweitzer was the servant of an impotent Christianity, a Christianity that had been castrated of the miraculous, and which demanded service to others because of its latent liberalism. Is this really a reason to go tramping about the jungles, trying to help those who are wondering what the h#ll you are doing there, and why you should care?

Schweitzer’s comments about the black man, however, are the wise counsels of a good man, a man who wanted all men to be in the image of God.

I propose another way, a way of racial fidelity. Leave other races alone. Work for the benefit of your own race; stop seeking the approval of those who do not share your values, and care nothing for your way of life.

Love them by leaving them alone.

Why White Skin Is All the Rage in Asia

Why White Skin Is All the Rage in Asia

More news stories on Asia

Phillip Martin, Global Post (Boston), November 25, 2009

{snip}

“Asians like white skin,” said Dr. Hsieh Ya Ju, a dermatologist at MacKay Memorial Hospital in Hsingchu, who sees about 25 patients a day. Outside Hsieh’s office, four middle-aged chalky-skinned women sat patiently awaiting treatments that cost $300 to $500 per session. They are there to take pills that Hsieh says will help their skin turn white. Doctors in Taiwan also use lasers, creams, surgeries and other means to lighten skin.

Nydia Lin, a senior executive in Taiwan for Japanese cosmetics giant Shisedo, said as many as 50 percent of Taiwanese women (and growing numbers of men) are paying big money to medically alter their golden exteriors. “We promote the idea of whitening. Especially in Taiwan we see many beautiful idols on TV and they are all focused on their whitening skin. As the Chinese say, ‘You can cover all your defective parts if you are white.’”

Variations of that slogan are heard throughout Asia, with the most common translation being, “One white can cover up three ugliness.” According to a 2004 study by global marketing firm Synovate, nearly 40 percent of women in Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines used skin whitening and lightening products that year.

Asian skin whitening has a tradition that stretches back centuries. “The feminine ideal during the Han period for women of the court was almost unearthly white, white skin. Moon-like roundish faces, long black hair. You can see how a culture that maintained that as an early ideal might continue with an ideal that light skin equals beauty,” said Anne Rose Kitagawa, assistant curator of Japanese art at Harvard’s Sackler Museum.

Asia’s obsession with whiteness is also a reflection of economic status. “Those who had skin burnt by the sun were working in the fields, therefore, the whitening of the skin was a reflection of labor status,” said University of Houston historian Gerald Horne.

Horne also points to a political angle, shaped by the Allies’ victory in World War II. “An aspiration of many in Asia toward whiteness is a reflection of the idea that the North Atlantic Powers were the quote—winners—unquote, and therefore they need to be imitated.”

But Chao-uan Tsen, of the Taipei womens’ rights organization Awakening Foundation, said the whitening trend is a form of self hatred. {snip}

Moreover, there are medical downsides to seeking lighter skin. That’s especially true for those who can’t afford expensive treatments, such as poor women using illegal bleaches and creams containing mercuric chloride that have left them disfigured.

Skin whitening can be dangerous for other reasons too, including the loss of melanin. {snip}

Medical concerns aside, Taiwanese student Hilda Chu views skin whitening as a practical response to society’s pressures: “My future employers like white skin more,” she says simply.

Original article

Welcome to Caledonia, Where Flying the Flag Is Asking for a Fight

Welcome to Caledonia, Where Flying the Flag Is Asking for a Fight

More news stories on Canada

Christie Blatchford, Globe and Mail (Toronto), November 25, 2009

Natives who routinely and sometimes violently broke the law but nonetheless played the victim; police who wouldn’t police, but dispensed private cellphone numbers and calming hugs instead; and a small town where flying the Mohawk Warrior flag was deemed perfectly fine, but doing the same thing with the Canadian flag was held to be provocative: Welcome to Caledonia, Ont., circa 2006.

The true story of the alchemy which began to occur in that small southwestern Ontario town that spring is unfolding here in the courtroom of Ontario Superior Court Judge Thomas Bielby.

A Caledonia family—Dave Brown, Dana Chatwell and their teenage son Dax—are suing the Ontario government and the OPP for a total of $7-million for effectively abandoning them to the lawlessness surrounding a native occupation of a former development site called Douglas Creek Estates.

The family’s home is bordered on two sides by the site, part of a simmering Six Nations land claim.

It was first seized in February of that year by natives from the nearby reserve. It remains occupied by them to this day, effectively if informally ceded to them by the province which later that summer bought out the developer for $12-million purely, it appears, to allow the occupiers to stay unmolested.

It may have been just a slip of the tongue the other day when David Feliciant, the government’s lawyer, referred to the site as “the DCE Reserve,” but the land, in all but name, has become just that.

The world of Mr. Brown and Ms. Chatwell, and to a lesser degree that of other Caledonia residents whose homes were also close to the site, was Kafkaesque, a bewildering place where black was white, right was wrong, up was down.

By the fall of that year, audiotapes of some of Mr. Brown’s many calls to the OPP reveal a startlingly agreeable man—he invariably called the female police dispatchers “hon,” began all conversations with a cheery “Hi, how ya doing?” and thanked them before hanging up—but with a rising fear and sometimes outright panic in his voice.

Some nights, he phoned back repeatedly, begging for help, sometimes asking for officers to be sent to his home, other times too afraid to be seen with them. “I really don’t want to be walking out there,” he said once.

But the OPP, it was clear, would not enter the occupied land, would not make arrests as they would in the usual course, and had actually “negotiated” with the natives that the lone cruiser which was posted by the DCE entrance was not allowed to respond to calls from residents like Mr. Brown, and that only a “roving” squad car could do that.

The roving squad car, of course, roved only around the edges of DCE, never entering it, either in pursuit of suspects or to make arrests.

Once or twice, the tapes showed, when Mr. Brown would call back asking where the police were, the dispatcher would explain that the call had been routed through London, and that if he wanted better service he should always ask for the “Caledonia Resettlement Unit” of the OPP.

One night, when he asked that the OPP station a car near his house, he implored the dispatcher, “Just don’t ignore my calls okay? It’s unsafe here, if you ask me. They’re shining spotlights all over, all around the perimeter.” Police notes duly stated that “Occupiers are in multiple vehicles, shining lights everywhere.”

When an officer showed up, as requested, Mr. Brown phoned back and asked the dispatcher to have the officer call him: “I just want to say thank you,” he said.

And as it was then, so it remains, as an exchange between Mr. Feliciant and Mr. Brown yesterday illustrates.

The lawyer was playing a piece of the family’s homemade videotape, now an exhibit, from some time that summer. Mr. Brown and Ms. Chatwell were outside, discussing whether they should call the OPP; there were natives, in a couple of trucks, again shining spotlights into their home. It was to capture that act that Mr. Brown got out his camera in the first place, to prove it had happened.

Suddenly on the tape, a native woman could be heard shouting: “Stop harassing us! Put your camera away! You’re violating our rights!”

“Yeah okay,” Mr. Brown said, but he muttered, “Unbelievable.”

“Did you hear that?” Mr. Feliciant asked yesterday. “You can hear someone from the site yelling at you to stop.”

“Yes, I heard that,” Mr. Brown said.

“You continued to film?” Mr. Feliciant asked. Mr. Brown agreed that he had.

“Why wouldn’t you have put your camera down?” Mr. Feliciant asked. “Clearly, you’ve agitated them.”

“Why?” Mr. Brown asked, disbelieving even after all this time. “I’m looking at that spotlight that is staring at you on the screen,” he said. “My house is being lit up.”

Mr. Feliciant is using OPP call records, incident reports and notes, two years worth of the family’s MasterCard records and Ms. Chatwell’s diary in his cross-examination of Mr. Brown. Several times yesterday, in his scrutinizing of the family’s spending, the lawyer pointed out liquor purchases.

Mr. Feliciant appeared to be trying to demonstrate that contrary to Mr. Brown’s evidence, the OPP did respond to him. Indeed they did, but from the notes and tapes yesterday, that response was usually to try to “calm down” Mr. Brown or his wife.

As Christmas of 2006 approached, with Mohawk Warrior flags all over the DCE and on Mr. Brown’s street, Caledonia residents had had enough, and decided they would carry or hang a Canadian flag. Mr. Brown decided to fly one in his front yard.

“Weren’t you at all concerned about instigating a confrontation with protesters?” Mr. Feliciant asked.

“By hanging a Canadian flag?” Mr. Brown asked, furious.

“The Canadian flag was not allowed to be flown,” he said. “I’m a very, very proud Canadian. I’m proud of my country. This was my opportunity and my right to believe we still live in this country.

“The OPP was not concerned with the Mohawk flags all around my property and on all the telephone poles. They were agitating me. You didn’t concern yourself with that,” he told Mr. Feliciant. “You didn’t care that they were agitating me at that time, [did] you?

“And you’re telling me that I’m provoking someone by hanging a Canadian flag?”

Mr. Brown’s flag was stolen a few days later, and, he told the lawyer, he stood with his uncle, three police cruisers in his driveway, as the “OPP let them [the natives] stand there with my Canadian flag.”

Original article

News from Amren.com

November 24, 2009

At U, Future Teachers May Be Reeducated, Star Tribune (Minneapolis-St. Paul); 48 comments
It’s even worse than you think.

A Decade After Decatur Fracas, Racial Gap in School Discipline Widens, Daily Herald (Chicago); 18 comments
Blacks still more likely to be suspended or expelled.

Some Lawmakers Send Few to Academies, Yahoo! News; 12 comments
Non-whites less likely to apply to service academies.

More Attacks on Redheads Reported at Calabasas School, Los Angeles Times; 40 comments
Facebook group tells middle-school students Friday is “Kick a Ginger Day.”

Latino Group Sues to Stop State From Canceling Vehicle Registrations, Columbus Dispatch; 8 comments
Hispanics want to keep their fraudulently obtained license plates.

Hospital Falters as Refuge for Illegal Immigrants, New York Times; 9 comments
Freeloading illegals have taken hospital “to the breaking point.”

Chris Matthews: Palin Supporters Racist—‘White vs. Other People’, Newsbusters; 37 comments
“Not that there’s anything wrong with it, but it is pretty monochromatic up there.”

Will Minorities Get Enough out of the Economic Stimulus?, Time; 7 comments
Ah, the poor dears.

Blacks Hit Hard by Economy’s Punch, Washington Post; 14 comments
Washington Post suspects discrimination.

Britain Says World Cup Fans at Risk of Carjacking, USA Today; 11 comments
US government not likely to issue such a sensible warning.

Indian ‘Holiday Brides’ Abandoned by British Husbands on the Rise, Daily News (London); 11 comments
Indian women marry cads, hoping they can get to UK, US, or Canada.

Deadly Skin Trade Preys on African Albinos, Sphere; 8 comments
A full “albino kit”—limbs, nose, tongue, ears, and genitals—costs $75,000.

November 23, 2009

Denver Arrests May Be Part of Trend of Gangs Videotaping Attacks, Denver Post; 51 comments
Blacks all over country videotaping attacks on whites.

Torture-Slaying Hearing Reveals Alleged Racial Statement by Defendant, Knoxville News Sentinel; 17 comments
But the detective was too busy to write it down.

Revolt in Westchester, City Journal,; 54 comments
Liberal whites don’t like being forced to play host to poor blacks and Hispanics.

Unburied Bodies Tell the Tale of Detroit—A City in Despair, Times of London; 26 comments
More signs of decline.

High-Tech ‘Ears’ Listen for Shots, New York Times; 13 comments
How do they avoid “racial profiling” when they decide where to install them?

Mexican Teen Admits Killing U.S. Border Patrol Agent, Los Angeles Times; 7 comments
Thug wanted agent’s night-vision goggles.

Rape Victim’s Parents Charged With Abuse, CNN; 12 comments
Let 8-year-old girl beg for food alone at night.

Tragedy at Ft Hood, Red County; 13 comments
A black candidate for Congress talks sense about Fort Hood.

Some See Racial Overtones in Norfolk’s Pet-Adoption Event, Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, Virginia); 27 comments
Animal groups across the country say preference for non-black pets is universal.

Attractiveness Based Partly on Skin Color, Live Science; 5 comments
Light, rosy faces are a sign of good health.

‘This Isn’t the Britain We Fought For,’ Say the ‘Unknown Warriors’ of WWII, Daily Mail (London); 37 comments
“Our country has been given away to foreigners.”

November 20, 2009

2 on YouTube Assault Video Arrested, Star Tribune (Minneapolis-St. Paul); 70 comments
Black “youths” recorded their random attacks on whites.

Search Warrant: Suspect Admitted Taking NC Girl, San Francisco Chronicle; 11 comments
This was what we feared.

Teacher Accused of Putting Hit on Student, WSB-TV (Atlanta); 18 comments
Black teacher asks one student to murder another.

BusinessWeek Names Tinley Park Best Place in U.S. to Raise A Family, Chicago Tribune; 14 comments
No doubt because of its rigorous enforcement of hate-crime laws.

Arpaio Appearance at ASU Sparks Outcry, Arizona Republic (Phoenix); 12 comments
Lefties don’t want him at a “First Amendment Forum.”

Maine Town Is Riven by Housing Dispute, New York Times; 19 comments
Only “racists” could imagine that immigrants would bring crime and burden the schools.

BNP Signs Its First Non-White Member . . ., Independent (London); 40 comments
. . . and he is a supporter, not a critic.

Revealed: The Newcastle Footballer Who Couldn’t Get By on £75,000 a Week, Daily Mail (London); 11 comments
His handlers describe Nigerian soccer player’s spending habits as “prodigious.”

Peruvian Jungle Gang Kills for Body Fat, Newmax; 4 comments
Suspect says gang leader has been selling human fat for more than 30 years.

Diversity in the Army, AR Classic Article; 40 comments
A thin veneer covers serious trouble.

November 19, 2009

Government Data Imply High Immigrant Crime Rates, Center for Immigration Studies; 9 comments
“Imply” is right; the government is not collecting the right information.

Latino Population Growth Adds to House Seats, Deseret News (Salt Lake City); 3 comments
Four states to gain congressional seats from increase in Hispanic immigrants.

The Washington Times’ Confederate (Fifth) Columnist, Institute for Southern Studies; 24 comments
No mercy for dissidents.

Race-Based Hiring, Google News; 12 comments
Managers tend to hire people of their own race.

Jesse Jackson: ‘You Can’t Vote Against Healthcare and Call Yourself a Black Man’, The Hill; 10 comments
Many Congressional Black Caucus members apparently agree.

Hate Obama? You May Not Be A Racist. But You Will Be White, Guardian (London); 55 comments
An “unprecedented epidemic” of hatred against the president.

Immigrants Likelier to Support Smoking Bans, Google News; 14 comments
Immigrants make better clients for the nanny state.

Woman Charged With Hate Crime in Scarf-Pulling Incident, Chicago Tribune; 34 comments
Could get up to three years in prison.

Nubian Fury at ‘Monkey’ Lyric of Arab Pop Star Haifa Wehbe, Guardian (London); 22 comments
Black Egyptians demand that song be banned.

India: 400 Houses Torched As Ethnic Tension Builds Up, BrooWaha; 14 comments
Thirty ethnic groups in northeast India want self-determination.

Report Unveils Plight of Great Lakes Albinos, International Federal of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; 7 comments
Thousands of albinos in Burundi and Tanzania in hiding from body-part hunters.

A Real Turkey Of A Holiday

A Real Turkey Of A Holiday

 

The First Thanksgiving Proclamation

June 20, 1676

“The Holy God having by a long and Continual Series of his Afflictive dispensations in and by the present Warr with the Heathen Natives of this land, written and brought to pass bitter things against his own Covenant people in this wilderness, yet so that we evidently discern that in the midst of his judgements he hath remembered mercy, having remembered his Footstool in the day of his sore displeasure against us for our sins, with many singular Intimations of his Fatherly Compassion, and regard; reserving many of our Towns from Desolation Threatened, and attempted by the Enemy, and giving us especially of late with many of our Confederates many signal Advantages against them, without such Disadvantage to ourselves as formerly we have been sensible of, if it be the Lord’s mercy that we are not consumed, It certainly bespeaks our positive Thankfulness, when our Enemies are in any measure disappointed or destroyed; and fearing the Lord should take notice under so many Intimations of his returning mercy, we should be found an Insensible people, as not standing before Him with Thanksgiving, as well as lading him with our Complaints in the time of pressing Afflictions:

“The Council has thought meet to appoint and set apart the 29th day of this instant June, as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour, many Particulars of which mercy might be Instanced, but we doubt not those who are sensible of God’s Afflictions, have been as diligent to espy him returning to us; and that the Lord may behold us as a People offering Praise and thereby glorifying Him; the Council doth commend it to the Respective Ministers, Elders and people of this Jurisdiction; Solemnly and seriously to keep the same Beseeching that being perswaded by the mercies of God we may all, even this whole people offer up our bodies and soulds as a living and acceptable Service unto God by Jesus Christ.”

******************

Please note the following points of politically incorrect historical truth:

1) The original Thanksgiving was in June, not November.

2) The first Thanksgiving was held in 1676, not 1620, and it has nothing to do with the Pilgrims, who arrived in Masschusetts 56 year before.

3) So far from Indians and Pilgrims sitting down to a turkey and cranberry sauce feast of interracial brotherly love and peace, the original holiday was proclaimed to celebrate White men’s military victory over the Indians, who were correctly considered to be savage vermin and a threat to peace and White lives.

4) Contrary to popular greeting-card myth, modern Thanksgiving is actually a 19th century holiday decreed by Abraham Lincoln in 1863, as a political ploy to bolster sagging Union morale after two years of getting their asses whupped by the South.

-HAC

Obama the Racist?

Obama the Racist?

By Kevin Jackson

 

The question was recently posed to me, “Do you think Obama is a racist?” I answered, “Obama is the best kind of racist to whites, but the worst kind of racist to blacks.” My questioner was perplexed.

I began by explaining that Obama’s racism against whites is upfront, in-your-face racism, which he discussed in his book Dreams from My Father:
I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.
I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.
Obama learned this racist ideology during his formative years from his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a self-admitted communist and sexual deviant, and most certainly a racist — the kind that blacks say cannot exist.
As Robin of Berkeley suggested in an article in American Thinker, “Davis blamed racism and capitalism for all of the problems in society and instructed young Barry, ‘Don’t fully trust white people,’ and ‘Black people have a reason to hate.’”
In Obama’s defense, his book was written prior to his emergence onto the scene in 2004.  Perhaps he had formulated new ideas on whites, and had stopped “nursing that pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against [my] mother’s race”? Or not.
After the tutelage of Davis, Obama’s next-biggest “non-influence,” as it were, came in his twenty-plus-year association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama sold his racism to whites during his presidential campaign, saying that he didn’t really listen to the hate-speech wrongfully labeled “sermons” at his so-called church. This was a “church” that practiced Cone’s Black Liberation Theology,-a “theology” in which if the word “black” were replaced with “white,” the “church” would have undoubtedly been considered a haven for the Aryan Brotherhood. The Acton Institute reports:
The echoes of Cone’s theology bleed through the now infamous, anti-Hilary excerpt by Rev. Wright. Clinton is among the oppressing class (“rich white people”) and is incapable of understanding oppression (“ain’t never been called a n-gg-r”) but Jesus knows what it was like because he was “a poor black man” oppressed by “rich white people.” While Black Liberation Theology is not mainstream in most black churches, many pastors in Wright’s generation are burdened by Cone’s categories which laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of the perpetual “victim.”
Obama claimed that he didn’t pay attention to Wright’s rants. As Obama said, “I missed a lot of Sundays.” Liberal whites gave him yet another pass.
Post-election Obama continued to flaunt his racism in the face of whites by loading his team with black racists. His first appointment was a noted Black Nationalist, Van Jones, to the post of Green Jobs Czar. Appointing a Black Nationalist to this position by Obama would be like Bill Clinton appointing a Klansman to a similar position.  At least with the latter appointment, the Left might have feigned outrage.
John Bracey sketches his interpretation of Black Nationalism: [Published circa 1969.]
First, Black America exists in a state of colonial subordination to White America. Black America is a colony. It is and has always been subjected to political, economic, social, and cultural exploitation by White America. These circumstances define Black America’s “underdevelopment” as a nation. Political decisions are made by whites outside the black community; no black bourgeoisie with any meaningful economic power has been allowed to develop, and the major vehicles for cultural expression such as schools, radio, television, and the printed media are under white control.
One would think that with BET and The WB, and the all-black radio stations that you can find in any major city, that there is no longer a need for Black Nationalists like Van Jones, or even a Black Nationalist movement in general. However, no sooner was Van Jones appointed than we were treated to the racist stylings of Mark Lloyd, his most famous quip being, “…white people need to relinquish their power to others.” Others being “non-whites.”
As for Obama’s racism against blacks, you don’t have to be a genius to understand it. However, it is easier to understand if you are not a product of government schools. Obama’s racism against blacks is much more subtle, though exponentially more insidious.
Obama actually believes he helps blacks through his policies, when in fact the outcome devastates them. A good example is education.
Blacks recognize almost universally that education is the key to escaping the cycle of poverty and other ills plaguing the black community.
Obama’s first racist act as president was to remove the voucher program that Bush had established in D.C., a program that Democrats vote against overwhelmingly. This program was producing proven positive results, but it was eliminated — and black children in D.C. were relegated to socialized schools in crime and drug-infested neighborhoods. Simply put, why give black children the choice to opt out of the indoctrination?
Here is how one Liberal organization interpreted Obama’s actions:
Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have expressed their clear opposition to voucher subsidies for religious and other private schools and their support for a strong public school system. This is a sharp contrast to the Bush administration, which lobbied relentlessly for vouchers, imposed a voucher scheme on the District of Columbia and even held a last-minute conference to push for a government bail-out of financially troubled inner-city Catholic schools.
Obama thinks so highly of the public schools in D.C. (and Chicago) that he put his children in private school.
There are many other examples of these train-wreck policies of Liberals, and particularly with this administration — an administration that had poor blacks believing that Obama was Santa Claus. As with most policies implemented by Liberals, the real trickle-down impact ends up costing blacks more, making them that much more dependent on the government…the endgame orchestrated by then-Senator and racist Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson, when he commented in 1957:
These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.
The first black president’s policies marginalize blacks. It is the cruelest sort of racism, as it robs blacks of hope instead of inspiring it. Blacks were left with the hope that Obama would redistribute money from creators of wealth to those who would gladly take something for nothing.
The president, voted for by overwhelming numbers of blacks and guilty whites, has likely been the most destructive force in racial politics since his fellow racist Democrat Bull Connor. And what Obama seeks for blacks — socialism, or the leveling of the playing field — has not benefited blacks anywhere on the planet.
On blacks’ ancestral continent, there is not one country that provides a beacon of hope. Africa is where one would think Obama could prove that his policies would work for blacks. Yet in Africa today, there are wars and rumors of wars. The outcome depends only on the “cide” you are on…infanticide, homicide, fratricide, or genocide. Dictators are pillaging the countries they should be serving, and the African people have nothing to show for it but abject poverty and oppression.
In Euro-socialist countries with representative black populations like France, Sweden, and others with representative black populations, there are no black leaders now or emerging. The fact is that the place where black people thrive best is the United States of America. America boasts more multi-millionaire black athletes, entertainers, business moguls, and so on than any country in the world — all due to capitalism.
Here’s the wrap:
Is Obama a racist? Of course he is! But as I say about racists, most just need to see what the other side is like. Obama knows conservatism only anecdotally, as he has never had a conservative friend. He understands only one side — the racist radical side. This is why sanity appears to be radical to him, why patriots are persecuted and achievers neutered.
A true conservative would never befriend a person like Obama. Obama needs to be surrounded by sycophants and suckups, or radical leaders he can admire. My hope is that Obama will actually get to know a few conservatives, black and white. Then maybe, just maybe, he will understand how he is both the best and worst kind of racist.
Kevin Jackson is author of the Amazon Best Seller, The BIG Black Lie, as well as his blog theblacksphere.net, and appears regularly on The Glenn Beck Show on Fox News Channel.

on “Obama the Racist?

A Progressive Constitution and After a Takeover of Health Care, Can a One-Child Policy Be Far Behind?

A Progressive Constitution

By Larrey Anderson

I don’t begrudge the progressive left its political power. They won. They are far from ashamed to say it, and I am not afraid to admit it. What I do mind is the left’s obvious neglect and disregard for the Constitution as it is written.

If the left is going to change America, first they should change the basic rules set down to guide (and limit, and in some cases prevent) their proposed changes to our country’s laws and legal procedures. With that in mind, I have decided to put together a progressive guide for rewriting the Constitution.
Most of the problems the left has with the Constitution are in the Bill of Rights. But let’s start with the body of the Constitution. The progressives need only make a couple of changes there. (My second recommended revision for the articles of the Constitution will come later.)
Six changes are needed to give us a progressive Constitution. (In case I missed some progressive modifications, American Thinker readers are invited to add your proposed amendments to the Constitution in the comments section to this article.)
Here are my six proposals:
1) Article I, section 8 of the Constitution lists 17 specific powers granted to the Congress. Progressives believe that the “general welfare of the United States” clause, in the first line of section 8, gives congress power outside of its 17 enumerated powers. I don’t. I think the Constitution means what it says and says what it means.
I have already shown that the general welfare clause of section 8 applies only to the day-to-day functioning of the federal government, and not to the citizens of the United States. But the left can fix all of that with one amendment:
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution is hereby repealed. Article I, section 8 shall now read: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States and the citizens of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Progressives should feel free to leave in the italics so the message is clear. The words in italics are not in the Constitution as it is now written. With the ratification of this amendment, the Congress could constitutionally enact national health care legislation, national education “reform,” national energy mandates (like telling us what light bulbs we can use), etc.
2) Let’s move on to the Bill of Rights. The left often claims that the First Amendment erects a “wall of separation” between church and state. (I have demonstrated elsewhere that it does no such thing.)
What the opening clause of the First Amendment says is this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … [Emphasis added.]
Progressives have been ignoring the actual words of the Constitution and have focused on one obscure line in a letter from Thomas Jefferson instead. (That’s where the “wall of separation” comes from.) So the first clause of the First Amendment of our new progressive Constitution should be amended to read:
Congress shall build a wall of separation between church and state.
This clause is, of course, nonsense. What wall? Where? With the ratification of this amendment, leftist jurists and lawyers would be free to figure it out. The First Amendment would now mean whatever progressives want it to mean. (And they wouldn’t have to twist the evident meaning of “make no law.”)
3) It is crystal clear from the dissenting opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller that progressives do not believe that the Second Amendment provides the individual citizen of the United States a right to bear arms. (By the way, they are wrong about this.) Wrong or right, this one is easy to fix:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed.
Done…and done. America will be progressive, safe, and hip — just like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
4) Moving to the Fifth Amendment, the “taking clause” at the end of the amendment states, “… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” [Emphasis added.] Progressives on the Supreme Court (in the 5-to-4 decision in Kelo v. New London) held that “public use” really means “public purpose,” which means…well, whatever the government declares a “public purpose” is a “public use.”
The Kelo decision had a very progressive outcome. The lower-middle-class riverfront homes that were torn down in New London, Connecticut are long gone. The lots those homes sat on are empty and overgrown with weeds because the giant pharmaceutical company decided to abandon its plans for building on the property in New London. Now that’s a progressive “public purpose.”
In keeping with this utopian attitude, the new “taking clause” of the Fifth Amendment should read:
… private property may be taken for any purpose whatsoever, with just compensation.
The “with just compensation” verbiage is optional for our new Constitution. Progressives may choose to omit “with just compensation” at their discretion — and property owners would be able to contribute to the left’s “greater good.”
5) Let’s proceed to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. These were, after all, written by a bunch of dead white guys who actually believed that people should be free to make their own decisions whenever possible and that the states should be free to respond to the particular desires and needs of the citizens of each particular state.

The Ninth Amendment essentially says that the rights specifically granted (“enumerated”) to the central government in the Constitution do not “disparage” or “deny” the rights reserved by the people. The Tenth Amendment makes it clear that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government (“the United States”) belong to the individual states and the people. That’s not progressive.
Easily remedied with one amendment:
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution are hereby repealed.
Repealing these two amendments would leave the determination of all of our rights (abortion, prayer in school, gun control, land use planning, election laws, etc.) in the hands of the central government. That’s what progressives want — let them make it happen. And they just might — if it were easy to amend the Constitution.
6) Unfortunately for the left, it isn’t easy. This brings us back to the body of the Constitution and to Article V. It is titled “Amendment.” Here are the important bits from Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…. [Etc.]
This is a huge hurdle for initiating my modest proposals for a progressive Constitution. So far, no progressive judge has declared, “What the Founders actually meant in Article V was one-half of both Houses and none of the several States could amend the Constitution.” (The judge could nuance the heck out of such an interpretation — maybe something about how the ink has faded on the original document.) But alas, Article V stands in the way of a truly (and honestly and logically coherent) progressive Constitution.
Here is the solution:
Article V is hereby repealed. Article V shall now read, “Congress may amend the Constitution by a majority vote, without the input of the states, whenever it damn well pleases.”
Problem solved.
Get with it, progressives. If you really have the courage of your convictions, then amend the Constitution. You would finally have the law of the land on your side. You would no longer have to rely on progressive judges making a laughingstock of logic, common sense, and the English language in their outrageous decisions.
Most important, you would have a Constitution that allows you to proceed with a progressive agenda…constitutionally.
Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. He is the author of The Order of the Beloved, and the new memoir, Underground: Life and Survival in the Russian Black Market.

on “A Progressive Constitution

After a Takeover of Health Care, Can a One-Child Policy Be Far Behind?

Make no mistake about it: the health care bill that moved forward to debate in the Senate on Saturday is simply a power play by the government to gain more control over how we live our lives. It could easily lead to government control over the continuation of our families.

In 1979, China’s Deng Xiaoping announced a one-child policy in a speech. The policy was formalized nationwide by 1981. The technical policy on family planning followed two years later. Still in force today, the technical policy requires IUDs for women of childbearing age with one child, sterilization for couples with two children (usually performed on the woman), and abortions for women pregnant without authorization. By the mid-eighties, according to Chinese government statistics, birth control surgeries — abortions, sterilizations, and IUD insertions — were averaging more than thirty million a year. Many if not most of these procedures were performed on women who submitted only under duress.
How does China’s internal population management relate to the current health care legislation debate in our country? Why should we be concerned? Could it really happen in the United States?
China did not initiate their one-child policy to be cruel to their people, nor did they do it because they do not respect life. They initiated the policy simply due to the growing fiscal demands of a rapidly expanding population. In the mid 1950s, Mao Zedong encouraged population growth as a means of increasing the size of the labor pool, and consequently, the means of production. Years later, this unchecked growth, assisted by government bans on birth control, lead to food supply shortages. In 1962, when a famine resulted in 30 million deaths, China began to look for ways to reverse its population growth. Initially, simple nationalistic appeals and slogans worked, but by 1979, when the rate of growth started to accelerate, more drastic measures were devised “for the public good.” The rest is history, and that history is scarred by more than an estimated 250 million abortions, many by force. Naturally, it was all “for the public good.”
We talked about “death panels” in reference to the health care bills now under consideration by Congress, but another approach is simply to control the number of people entering the system – new births. Naturally, it will all be “for the public good.”
Should we be concerned? Consider that one of Mr. Obama’s close advisors, his Science Czar, is John Holdren. Mr. Holdren is a radical thinker who can, and has, rationalized the use of forced population control if economic conditions warrant it. If government-run health care begins to reveal a shortage of medical care supply versus a dramatic increase in demand for medical care — as is a predicted result of the legislation before Congress — Mr. Holdren will be at the president’s side with his suggestions. Those suggestions will be to force a downsizing of the population. A one-child policy will be an easy first step for this man and for this administration.
To emphasize my point, I quote Mr. Holdren’s own writing from the book he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, entitled Ecoscience. It is important to read these quotes to fully understand exactly what is in the minds of the people to whom we may be giving control over our lives.
Holdren (with the Ehrlichs) notes the existence of “moral objections to some proposals (regarding population control) … especially to any kind of compulsion.”
He writes:
Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measures suggested.
Holdren refers approvingly to Indira Gandhi’s government for its (at the time Ecoscience was written) attempt at a compulsory sterilization program:
India in the mid-1970s not only entertained the idea of compulsory sterilization, but moved toward implementing it…This decision was greeted with dismay abroad, but Indira Gandhi’s government felt it had little other choice. There is too little time left to experiment further with educational programs and hope that social change will generate a spontaneous fertility decline, and most of the Indian population is too poor for direct economic pressures (especially penalties) to be effective.
Yes, we should be concerned. Still, it will all be “for the public good.”
As to whether or not it could happen in the United States…yes, it could. This past week, we already had a trial balloon floated in the form of a study by the U.S. Preventive Task Force that suggested women wait until the age of fifty rather than forty to have regular mammograms to screen for breast cancer. The uproar was immediate and deafening. However, this is a clear view into what is coming.
If we cede one-sixth our of economy — health care — to the government, and along with it effective control of the most personal aspect of our lives, we will place so much power in government hands that the only result most certainly will be absolute corruption and abuse.
For the “public good,” radical thinking will consolidate more power and control in the hands of the federal government. We will experience the trampling of citizens’ constitutional rights, while constitutional limitations on government powers will be breached.

on “After a Takeover of Health Care, Can a One-Child Policy Be Far Behind?

 

The Next Liberal Fad: A “Stolen Generation” Of Black Children?

The Next Liberal Fad: A “Stolen Generation” Of Black Children?

By Steve Sailer

This weekend saw the national rollout of two crowd-pleaser movies about impoverished 350-pound black teens: Precious and The Blind Side. (What an amazing country we have, where a pair of poor children can tip the scales at 700 pounds!)

Together, the two films reflect an emerging, if seldom fully articulated, consensus among all right-thinking people in this Bush-Obama era about what to do with underclass black children.

Precious is the story of an illiterate 16-year-old girl who was made pregnant and HIV-positive by her rapist father, but her real problem is her abusive welfare mother with whom she shares a Section 8 apartment. Still, with the help of tireless teachers and social workers, she moves into a halfway house and begins to turn her life around.

The Blind Side is an adaptation of Michael Lewis’s 2006 nonfiction bestseller about Michael Oher. A homeless 16-year-old with a drug addict mother and a father who was thrown off a bridge, Oher was adopted by a rich white family. He’s now a rookie starting offensive tackle for the Baltimore Ravens of the NFL, with a five-year $13,795,000 contract.

The Blind Side’s writer-director John Lee Hancock told Michael Granberry of the Dallas News:

“He loves what he calls its nature vs. nurture story line. “It’s like a test case for nurture, and nurture wins in a big way. You’ve got a kid who’s cast on the junk heap of life, socially and from an educational standpoint. And it’s amazing what a roof, a bed, meals and an emphasis on schools can do, when everybody had written him off.” [The Texan behind 'The Blind Side', November 15, 2009]

The Blind Side is the rare movie in which white Southern Republican born-again Christians are portrayed favorably. One liberal commenter on IMDB.com raged, “I feel insulted (in the same way I felt insulted when McCain chose Palin for his running-mate) …”

Of course, this positive Hollywood treatment of a white Republican family comes only in the context of their writing a humongous black youth into their wills.

These two films help us understand the common denominator of the demands increasingly heard in the media for mandatory preschool, longer school days, shorter summer vacations, and universal post-high school education. They flow from the inevitable logic of the following syllogism:

The New York Times Magazine has devoted countless articles in this decade to this general theme, such as The Inner-City Prep School Experience by Maggie Jones [September 25, 2009], about a public boarding school in Southeast Washington. The story is largely devoted to worrying that the school’s annual per student expenditure of $35,000 of the taxpayers’ money isn’t enough to keep the kids locked up in an enriching environment 24×7. When they go home on Fridays, they are re-exposed to black slum culture. Presumably, their test scores decline over the weekend.

The 2007 movie Freedom Writers extolled a nice white lady teacher, played by Hilary Swank, who divorces her husband (played by Patrick Dempsey), who can’t understand why she devotes all her energy to her ghetto students instead of having a baby herself.

C. Van Carter of Across Difficult Country drolly noted:

“Many blacks are provided income and housing by the government. Supplying a staff of white servants to maintain the home and raise the children is the logical next step.”

Lewis’s book The Blind Side, which, unsurprisingly, was excerpted in the New York Time Magazine as The Ballad of Big Mike on September 24, 2006, pushed this emerging motif in the zeitgeist in the now familiar direction of a white family adopting a giant black child. (A generation ago, in contrast, on the TV shows Diff’rent Strokes and Webster, white families adopted the tiny black midgets Gary Coleman and Emmanuel Lewis.)

For example, on Friday, November 20, 2009, CBS News ran a purportedly inspiring “American Spirit” story about a heroic white lawyer who has taken a black victim of white racism into his home:

“Jena Six” Teen Gets Second Chance
The American Spirit: Lawyer Takes in Client and Helps Him Get on the Right Track

Now, you know and I know what the real story of the Jena Six was: a half dozen black youths were allowed to run amok in football-mad Jena for years because they were stars of the local high school team, until they finally beat up one kid too many. But CBS News sure doesn’t know.

(At the Jena Sixer’s expensive new prep school in Connecticut, football coach Ken Parson exclaims that he can’t wait to unleash the 215-pounder.)

Sports-crazy white people opening their homes to big black youths is more common than The Blind Side might lead you to expect. For example, former NBA star Dennis Rodman lived with a white family while he was playing college basketball. Were Rodman’s subsequent adventures a product of nurture or nature? (The Worm is one of the 27 children of his aptly named father, Philander Rodman Jr.).

That may be one of those questions that perhaps Man was not destined to answer.

This trope in the culture was parodied in 2007 on the HBO comedy series Curb Your Enthusiasm. Larry David’s liberal wife Cheryl takes in a New Orleans hurricane refugee family of blacks, the Blacks—“That would be like if my name were Larry Jew,” Larry helpfully points out—which leads to his house burning down.

Curiously, this has all happened before. In Australia between the Wars, white progressives came up with the similar idea of taking half-Aborigine babies away from their alcoholic and tubercular mothers and sending them to boarding schools to learn how to function in the modern world. These days, however, white Australian politicians can’t stop apologizing for those “Stolen Generations”

Will this trend to keep African-Americans away from their mothers just lead to eventual public apologies, too?

Michael Lewis’s first book, 1989’s Liar’s Poker, recounted his brief career on Wall Street. Its sales benefited from the interest in bond salesmen generated by Tom Wolfe’s 1987 novel The Bonfire of the Vanities. Perhaps Lewis hasn’t quite fulfilled my hope that he would be “the next Tom Wolfe”, but then Lewis is more the Southern gentleman. (Although Wolfe’s father edited The Southern Planter magazine, his ferocious ambition made him one of nature’s New Yorkers.)

Two decades later, Michael Lewis remains one of our finest glossy magazine journalists, a Malcolm Gladwell for smart people. Lewis’s 2003 book about the Bill James revolution in baseball, Moneyball, is one of the best popular explications of the uses of statistics.

In the 1970s, Lewis attended a New Orleans prep school, Isidore Newman, with basketball star Sean Tuohy, who went on to Ole Miss, back when the U. of Mississippi’s basketball team had an integrated starting line-up. Tuohy was an NCAA legend at point guard, making the Southeastern Conference All-Century team.

Decades later, Lewis caught up with Tuohy, and quickly recognized that the Tuohy family story was exactly what the American public wanted to hear.

Indeed, the film adaption of The Blind Side (rated PG-13) is an effective commercial movie. It took in almost $11 million on Friday, which projects out to a little under $100 million in total. The mostly Mexican audience with whom I saw it in Van Nuys enjoyed it heartily. Despite being a football movie, it probably appeals more to women than to men (59 percent of its Friday audience was female).

Tuohy (played by country singer Tim McGraw) married an Ole Miss cheerleader, Leigh Anne (played by Sandra Bullock of Speed), and had a daughter and a son. He wound up owning 85 fast food franchises and a jet, helped found a megachurch, and has a night job broadcasting the Memphis Grizzly NBA games. His beautiful and energetic wife is a homemaker and upscale interior decorator.

Now, you might expect that a couple that blessed with competence, good looks, energy, faith, health, and wealth might think about having a third baby. But in the movie, it just doesn’t seem to come up.

In his spare time, Tuohy helped out at his kids’ Briarcrest Christian School as the all-sports assistant coach for the school’s black athletes. A booster like Tuohy, who played with many blacks and can help disoriented black youths out with both advice and cash, is invaluable.

Briarcrest, like so many private schools, juggles the temptation to give scholarships to star ghetto athletes versus the worry that they’ll flunk out … or worse.

In Wolfe’s A Man in Full, for instance, Georgia Tech’s biggest donor’s daughter accuses the college’s Heisman Trophy candidate of rape.  Whether because of nurture or nature, this sort of accusation is all too credible.

Thus I noted in April 2006 that, while the Main Stream Media’s obsession with finding what Wolfe calls the “Great White Defendant” made possible the Duke lacrosse hoax, no less than three (3) star minority football players—including Mark Sanchez, now quarterback for the New York Jets—had been arrested on rape or assault charges in the just the previous week. But those incidents didn’t get much press attention. They’re routine.

When Briarcrest’s football coach tried to have 6’4” 344 pound Michael Oher admitted as a sophomore, Lewis recounts:

“Steve Simpson, the principal of Briarcrest Christian School, was frankly incredulous. The boy, now 16, had a measured I.Q. of 80, which put him in mankind’s ninth percentile. … ‘Big Mike was a blank slate.’”

Actually, 80 isn’t all that bad for the Memphis slums, especially not for a kid with his catastrophic upbringing. One of 13 children of his drug addict mother, Oher had attended 11 schools, not to mention a year-and-a-half-spell during which he apparently wasn’t enrolled anywhere.

He grew up quiet, even docile. The Tuohys took the gentle giant into their home, and eventually gave him an equal share in their will with their biological children. They found a tutor (played by Kathy Bates) to work with him 20 hours per week. He slowly got his grades up from F to D, so the school let him play football his junior year. As a defensive tackle, though, he lacked the killer instinct. In his senior year, he was switched to left offensive tackle to guard the quarterback’s blind side, a role better suited for his stubborn and protective personality.

Oher eventually raised his grade point average to 2.05, and with the Tuohys paying for correspondence courses, he managed to inflate it to the 2.52 he needed to play for Ole Miss, his adoptive parents’ old school.

Lewis concludes:

“Drowned in nurture, his I.Q. test score had risen between 20 and 30 points. And his new parents, Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy, were so pleased with the results of their experiment that they began to figure out how best to go back into the inner city and do it all over again.”

Actually, more like 16 points: at the NFL draft combine, Oher scored a decent 19 on the league’s Wonderlic IQ test, which equates to a 96. (By the way, a small French study of adoptions across class divides found the IQ benefit at age 14 of being raised from the bottom to the top of society to be 12 points, although most American adoption studies have found smaller effects.)

The Blind Side is written and directed by John Lee Hancock, who, I suspect, is one of Hollywood’s closet conservatives. He has an English Lit B.A. and a law degree from Baylor, the traditionalist Baptist university in Waco, TX, where his father and brother played football. He wrote screenplays for two Clint Eastwood movies in the 1990s (including the underrated A Perfect World).

Hancock broke through as director of the surprise 2002 hit, The Rookie, with Dennis Quaid in the true story of a West Texas high school baseball coach who gets his major league fastball back in his mid-30s. Then Hancock was parachuted in to rescue Disney’s troubled production of The Alamo. He couldn’t fully turn that around—although, as I pointed out in VDARE.com, it’s a decent movie if you know some American history, which few moviegoers do these days. (Strikingly, Hancock’s Alamo was less sympathetic to the Mexican side than John Wayne’s epic 1960 Alamo.)

For her lead performance as the pushy mother, Bullock is being talked up for an Oscar. In her long, lucrative career, Bullock has never even been nominated. Perhaps Academy voters assume she doesn’t need to act because she’s naturally adorable—which she might be: her high school class voted her Most Likely to Brighten Your Day.

To attract Academy Award attention, Bullock plays Mrs. Tuohy without the actress’ traditional trademark charm, crushing all obstacles through sheer force of will. This characterization makes it easier to notice Bullock’s acting chops, but seems gimmicky, not to mention implausible for an old Ole Miss cheerleader. From Scarlett O’Hara on, Southern belles usually get their way, but normally they fool you into imagining it’s your way, too.

I suspect Bullock didn’t want to compete with Julia Roberts’ performance in 2007’s Charlie Wilson’s War in a potentially similar role as a rich Southern conservative lady who uses her womanly wiles to beguile 1980s Washington into funding the anti-Soviet mujahedeen in Afghanistan.

Toward the end of The Blind Side, a cynical NCAA investigator injects some suspense into the self-congratulatory proceedings by asking: If we approve your scholarship to your adoptive parents’ alma mater, are we going to see a trend toward other rich white college sports boosters adopting poor black jocks?

The answer, I suspect, is: Yes.

Today, wealthy Red State conservatives indulge their tribalist passions by fighting expensive zero sum wars with each other over who can spend the most to lure black athletes to play for their state colleges.

That this is an inane way to waste money that could be better spent on more important issues is not something you’ll hear from The Blind Side.

The more serious question: will American taxpayers be forced to subsidize this doomed panacea society-wide?

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]

Bob & José

Bob & José

 

You have two families: “Bob American” and ” José Illegal.” Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California.

Bob American works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted. José Illegal also works in construction, has no Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash under the table. Ready? Now pay attention…

Bob: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Bob now has $31,231.00.

José : $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. José Illegal pays no taxes. José Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Bob pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Bob now has $24,031.00.

José has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose’ Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Bob makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Bob $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Bob now has $18,031.00.

José has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. José Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Bob pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Bob now has $9,631.00.

José receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. José Illegal pays $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. José still has $ 31,200.00.

Bob pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Bob now has $7,231.00.

José Illegal says, “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!” and still has $31,200.00.

Bob has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

José has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

Bob now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

José has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Bob’s and José’s children both attend the same school. Bob pays for his children’s lunches while José Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch. José’s children have an after school ESL program. Bob’s children go home.

Bob American and José Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Bob paid for them and José did not pay a dime.

You see how this works now?

http://www.northwestfront.org

Jew Shrink Says Obongo Is Nuts

Jew Shrink Says Obongo Is Nuts

 

[There is in fact an anti-Obongo faction among "right-wing" Israeli Jews who don't like the idea of having a Muslim in the White House, for obvious reasons, and don't trust their co-religionists Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod to keep the nigger in his place. This was written by an Israeli psychiatrist, a Russian Jew named Dr. Sam Vaknin, back around the time of The One's fraudulent "election.". - HAC]

***********

“I must confess I was impressed by Sen.Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident, a wholesome presidential package.

“I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama’s speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi-religious impact on so many people.

“The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects.

“Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist. Obama’s language, posture, demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest friends suggest that the President has narcissistic personality disorder (NPD.) Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People’s Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist.

“David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Michael Jackson are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope. They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom.

“When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don’t know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. Obama’s early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations. Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old.) Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995.

“One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms all those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service.

“The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co dependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention.

“If an issue raised in the Senate did not help Obama in one way or another, he had no interest in it. The “present” vote was a safe vote. No one could criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.

“Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His own autobiography. Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams From My Father.

For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself? Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama’s lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power.

“A narcissist cares for no one but himself. This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are truly insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?

“I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self serving and selfish. Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.

“Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple.

“The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama’s detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support.” (One can only hope. – HAC)

I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960s. Obama will set the clock back decades. America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House.


“America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.”


http://www.northwestfront.org/



posted by The Old Man at 7:44 AM | 0 comments

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Murderous Chimp Wasted

 

Yet another reason to keep a gun in the house . . .

Several months ago, in the notoriously dangerous neighborhood of College Park in Atlanta, Georgia, two armed blacks broke into a White house party and, after confiscating the group’s valuables, split the men and women up into different rooms. Witnesses say the perpetrators counted their rounds and discussed if they had “enough” ammunition.

The students believe the niggers were going to rape and murder the entire group of White students, who were celebrating a birthday at the end of the semester. However, one male student, whose identity is being protected by police and local media, retrieved a handgun from a backpack and fired at the nigger who was detaining the men. (That is, one smart student had prepared for a night in College Park, Atlanta.)

The monkoid fled the apartment under the threat of injury and never returned. The student continued on into the girls’ room, where the other nigger, 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was preparing to rape his first victim. The unnamed student exchanged gunfire with Lavant, lethally wounding him in the process. Lavant fled out of a window and died in front of his apartment, which was just one building away. One of the female students was injured during the exchange, but doctors expect a full and complete recovery.

So what’s the point?

A one armed White male saved the girls from rape, and saved the whole group of ten people (including himself) from murder..and he did it with a handgun. This is a perfect example of how ludicrous “big city gun laws” are. What if this had happened in New York, Chicago, or any of the other big cities that ban their citizens from carrying handguns?

Yes, we would be reading a different story–one so horrendous that we would shudder at the very words. Either this whole group of friends would have been raped and murdered by these two niggers, or the hero of this story would be facing prison time for firearm possession and murder.

Thankfully, however, Atlanta hasn’t outlawed self-defense,,,yet. And since someone had a gun and was willing to use it, innocent life was preserved.

Congratulations to the unnamed White kid who is the hero of this story. You saved your friends’ lives.

http://www.northwestfront.org/