“Far right” to rally this weekend in Europa

(CNN) — Far-right groups from across Europe are gathering in Denmark on Saturday for a rally they say is meant to make their governments act against the threat of Islamic extremism.
Those attending want to send a “clear message to the leaders of Europe,” according to the English Defence League (EDL), one of the organizers of the event.

The rally is due to take place in the port city of Aarhus, with speeches from a dozen speakers.

“Our governments and our media behave as if Islamic extremism exists only in the head of a few extremists, and claim that it is unfair to make the connection between Islam and extremism,” an online EDL statement says.

“This is ridiculous, just as it is ridiculous to claim that anyone who criticizes Islam must be an extremist in their own right. We believe in fair criticism of Islam and in the defence of our cultures, our nations, and the rights and freedoms that they have long protected.”

Constitutional Quizzery

Constitutional Quizzery

 

Despite a continual degradation of liberty in these united States, the patriot blogosphere continues to be energized with sentiments such as “keep your hands off my Constitution”, “let’s restore the Constitution”, “if you don’t like my Constitution then you should get the hell out”, or “I can’t wait to kill all the people who don’t like my Constitution”. Or variations of this same theme.

While such emotional reactions probably feel good to the reactionary spouting them (who is, by the way, trying to articulate perfectly legitimate concerns about something having gone terribly wrong in this country), they ignore some simple facts about the Constitution itself. Without going into all the details about the facts which support a Hamiltonian power grab (Boston T. Party does a fine job of this all by himself in his “Hologram of Liberty”), splitting hairs about “of” or “for”, or devolving into yet another academic Spooner tug-fest, we can let the Constitution speak for itself.

First, however, I would like to slice and dice some of the founding documents so that we can see Constitutional reality. For our purposes here, the founding documents can be divided as follows:

a. The Declaration of Independence (DoI).
b. The seven articles of Constitutional power.
c. The Bill of Rights (BoR).
d. The remainder of the amendments to the Constitution.

Pop Quiz (which should be a breeze for those Constitutional scholars so confident of their patriotism that they would easily exile or execute those with whom they disagree, freedom of speech notwithstanding):

Question 1: Of these four divisions, two are about liberty, one is about centralized government control, and the remainder patches holes discovered in that power over time. Can you name which is which?

Question 2: Of these four divisions, which is the one that most patriot types have in mind when considering ideas such as “oathkeeping” versus “oathbreaking”?

Question 3: For the division given as the answer to the previous question, what enforcement provisions exist to ensure the rights described therein are protected?

Question 4: Other than individual cases which don’t amount to a hill of stacked crap, when throughout the entire history of the nation have those rights been protected in any crisis of any magnitude (hint: Katrina), crises being the only time in which preservation of rights is essential?

OK, I could go on and on, but I run the risk of losing some of those who are starting to get a nagging, uncomfortable feeling. Let’s get rid of the nagging and make sure it is a full-bore deliberate uncomfortable feeling instead, and grade those papers. Get out your red pens, gang.

Answer 1: This first question should be easy. Only the DoI and BoR are about liberty. I think we can all agree that the concepts in those two documents are essential to a free people. In contrast, the seven articles of Constitutional power delineate the power structure established by, and powers granted to, the central government. The other amendments primarily patch holes in that framework when too much actual liberty threatens to squirt out at the seams.

Answer 2: Again, an easy question. Most patriots, especially military veterans, have in mind the BoR when thinking warm fuzzy thoughts about Constitutional oaths. But you can be sure that high office holders are instead only thinking about all that power vested in their offices when they take an oath. Both groups are correct, but only one of them carries the day in any meaningful way, which brings us to…

Answer 3: There is no enforcement language whatsoever for the Bill of Rights. Any prohibition without enforcement is merely a suggestion. Or propaganda, depending on your point of view. And so …

Answer 4: Whenever your rights bump up against the power of the high office holders or their mid- to low-office minions, you lose. Every time. Wherever or whenever you think Americans have been free in the past, it is just because the feds (read as “enforcers for the elites”) hadn’t gotten around to walling that place off yet. The tyranny has always been lying there dormant, waiting to be used, and leaks through the cracks in times of crisis. But now, it’s all crisis, isn’t it?

Now, the usual patriot answer is that “wee the people” have somehow let down “wee the people” by not marching on DC with our NRA-sanctioned sporting arms and straightening out “thee the people” in those high offices. Again, this sounds good, but the fact it has NEVER happened, and NEVER will, is due to one simple provision in all of that power stuff we usually skip over while paging one-handed over to the good stuff in that Bill of Suggested Rights If They Aren’t Too Inconvenient When They Matter Most.

Bonus Question:

Care to guess which one provision totally pulls the rug out from under any patriot movement based on purely Constitutional principles? For additional credit, what other provisions support this view?

(tick tock tick tock)

Don’t feel bad, it took me years to get this one, too…

(tick tock tick tock)

Hint: It’s in Article II…

(tick tock tick tock)

Another hint: Look in Section 2 of that Article.

(tick tock tick tock)

Let’s read it together:

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”

Catch that?

Oh, you know, that little part where it says that if you want to have a militia, that the President owns it? And, by extension, the only valid militia is that of your State, which the President owns, too (check history, the real one, not what you learned in public school, for numerous examples before you argue the feel-good patriot-fantasy to the contrary). So, in effect, my patriot friends, by swearing to the sanctity of the Constitution, you have handed over your one means of enforcing compliance with that Bill of Rights fantasy. See also that militia stuff buried within the Article I, Section 8 laundry list, as well as in Article IV, Section 4.

These provisions of centralized Constitutional power are why there has never been, and will never be, any meaningful resistance to increasing national control and encroachment of every issue of life for each one of us. We are on a one-way path to oblivion, since our best means to resist has been carefully crafted to be meaningless from the start. Sure, form a militia, which, by the way, is the absolutely and ethically correct (albeit unlawful) reaction to our circumstances. But, after doing so, then all of your oathkeeping Constitutionalist buddies, you know, the ones in the officially sanctioned police and military militias, will demand that said local and/or private militia then answer to the President, and by extension to the elites who actually run this country. Said powers, will of course, demand that said militia disband and go home.

Despite Second Amendment propaganda, you have no Constitutional recourse of last resort to oppose with force the laws of the (capital letter) United States, including laws such as NDAA (and now HR 347). Which means, of course, that any local militia opposition fantasies are strictly un-Constitutional, by definition.

Checkmate on the first move. Well, actually, before you even get to move.

My friends, despite what you want to believe about this nation, no form of government which criminalizes the right of any person to band together with his neighbors for armed mutual defense, against enemies foreign or domestic, can hold any validity in the mind of a free man.

Forget arguments about anarchist this, or Constitutionalist that, or any other ist you choose, this prohibition is the central nugget. By placing militias under the control of the Chief Executive, and providing for the use of that force to enforce compliance with laws, even, or especially, those laws which blatantly violate the Bill of Rights, we all lose.

Within two years of taking office, the first President showed exactly what central power was all about, by raising an army of 12,000 men to put down tax resisters in the Whiskey Rebellion. Review that little bit of history at your leisure. Note that the same founders who were aghast at a tea tax, and threw that famous Tea Party, didn’t take too kindly to the same behavior being applied to their tax against Appalachian corn tea out in the sticks (Yeah, I know, there’s that whole “no taxation without representation” slogan. But, who do you think gets more representation? You out in the sticks, or the elites with their checkbooks? If you think your vote actually means anything, or lets you make a meaningful or informed decision, you haven’t been paying attention to reality lately).

As you may recall, the private militias which had formed in the hinterland for mutual defense against that first major national tax were labeled as treasonous and enemies of the state. And the rest of the nation just lapped that rationale up. Just as the North lapped up a similar labeling of the breakaway South. And just as contemporary citizens lap up the idea that militia types are somehow dangerous to law and order as more than half of them wait for their government checks. See the pattern?

Your absolutely correct and noble desire to form a local militia to protect yourself against unconstitutional behavior is itself unconstitutional. Embrace that fact. The first step to recovery is to admit that you have a problem, and we, my friends, have a big problem right there in black and white.

This is the document to which the Constitutionalists swear, and then wonder about the results in endless frustration. Lacking a constant brimming threat of imminent militia action, the national government has run amok, and will continue to run increasingly amok, all within Constitutional bounds.

As it was designed to do from the start for reasons you’ll discover once you open your eyes to see reality for what it really is.

Sadly, we are taught, and many of our Constitutionalist brethren believe, that the only alternative is anarchy and chaos. Anarchy and chaos is, of course, the natural end result of the path we are on. And sadly, there is no way back the way we’ve come, for a variety of reasons too numerous to list here. It is going to go all the way down, like it or not. Eventually, the US will run out of blood (regardless of even an inevitable draft someday) and treasure (regardless of how many nations from which we “democratize” valuable natural resources) necessary to pay the bondholders who own this country. Eventually, that little thing known as “the full faith and credit” runs completely dry no matter how many drag themselves up to wearily salute the tattered flag of the banksters’ state.

The question is, what then? What do we put in place to make sure the same juggernaut won’t be revived the next time around?

We’ve learned from this little quarter-millennial experiment that only a system in which universal local militia service is codified can protect you in any meaningful way or preserve civilization in any recognizable form. Only the Constitutional prohibition of the universal local militia renders immune from the consequences of their misbehavior tyrants at all levels, from the greenest cop to the highest office holders, including the generals who will one day come to crush your own private Whiskey Rebellion. It is for this reason that the proponents of the Bill of Rights struggled to check what they saw back then as a Hamiltonian juggernaut aimed at the throats of the individual citizen. A struggle which has now proven to be in vain.

As I said before, no form of government which criminalizes the right to band together with his neighbors for armed mutual defense, against enemies foreign or domestic, can hold any validity in the mind of a free man.

But that freedom comes with a price. And one facet of that price is that the individual citizen would have to participate, to man and woman up, to not delegate their responsibilities to unknown, faceless others. In a world in which even an invalid grandmother can spot targets out her farmhouse window and call for fire, the typical sandal-wearing 911-dialing man-mouse would become an endangered species. And civilization would thus lurch forward for the better as it crunches over the bones of those who gladly trade liberty for insecurity. Including those bones of those nobly misguided patriots who fear the prospect of local or regional warlords (read as “militia leaders”) so much that they eagerly not only accept, but actively promote, the yoke of the greatest warlord class in history in exchange for protection from those lesser shadows.

Does this mean our situation is hopeless? No, our situation is hopeless only so long as self-defined patriots think that restoring the Constitution, as written, is a viable path. As I have said many times, there is nothing broken with the Constitution that needs restoring; it is working fine and dandy, just as it was designed to do, which is to protect the elites from the rabble, foreign and domestic, who might otherwise take exception to unremitting theft and corruption under the color of twisted law.

The only valid path for us now is to stand aside while it all crumbles away. Let those who continue to fantasize about a republic which never was throw themselves into that self-defeating breach. Save them if they are willing to learn, but let them go if they won’t. Eventually, evolution will do what it always does, which is to correct error and reward, in its painful way, reality and truth.

A day will arrive when the last gasping pure Constitutionalist, bewildered to the end while defending his oppressors, has been crushed in the gears of the machine designed to feed the elites. Only then will those elites be stripped of the power to protect themselves from their victims. Stripped how? By local militias who refuse to yield more blood or treasure to their service. Universal service in militias under local control, my friends, is the only way forward. We’ve seen where the road leads without those local militias.

So, plan for that inevitable outcome. Organize your patriot militias, not to vainly restore the perfectly intact Constitution, nor to defend it for the benefits of the elite who have owned this country from inception, but to replace it when this house of cards finally collapses under its weight, preserving yourselves and your neighbors within that storm. Then, on the other side, let’s work together to restore the principles of liberty and put teeth into the rights of man with meaningful consequences enforced by local militias, unfettered by those who rightly fear them.

The Kerner Report as Blueprint for Black-Run America (BRA)

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-03-26T18:58:00-07:00&max-results=7

It’s time to reject the Kerner Report
The days of democracy in the Black metropolis of Detroit are dwindling, denoting a truth that pierces the heart of the esteemed Walter Williams theory that liberalism is at fault for the failure of Black people. Portland, Austin (Texas), Boulder (Colorado), Silicon Valley (California), Seattle, and Burlington (Vermont) all thrive while they have the same progressive liberalism that Williams believes is the root cause for the collapse of Black-run cities like Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Detroit.
But these Stuff White People Like (SWPL) run cities aren’t mismanaging hundreds of millions of dollars in state grants over a 20-year period; they aren’t having their credit rating downgraded by Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investor Services; no, they are some of the nicest places in America to live, in spite of the overwhelming whiteness and liberalism found in these cities.
In Detroit, the most homogenous big city in America (89 percent Black – at it’s height in 1950, it was 80 percent white), the state of Michigan is on the verge of repossessing the city:

A state-appointed review team unanimously agreed Wednesday that a “severe financial emergency” exists in Detroit and that some form of a consent agreement is necessary, but did not recommend a specific plan.
 The Rev. David Murray, a former Detroit school board member, said he feels sorry for the state panel because they are being used. 

“It’s a racist attack. I don’t care what color face they put in front of us,” the Rev. Murray said. “We don’t want a review team (or) a financial manager. We want our money. I’m asking if you will stand up against this tyranny and resign.”

What money? Detroit lost all of its wealth-producing tax-base after the 1967 Rebellion, when 10 percent of Detroit’s 500,000 Black population joined in the five-day riot that cost the lives of more than two score people, convincing the white citizens that it was time to evacuate the city.
Since, Detroit has limped along via generous federal grants to sustain a city where the sons and daughters of those who comprise the majority of the police, fire fighters, civil servants, city employees, and government officials produce the lowest standardized test scores in all of the nation.
This is what happens when you have an entire city whose political power is entirely in the hands of Black people, with massive affirmative action policies in place since the early 1960s replacing actual merit-based hiring.
One need only look at the student’s performance in Detroit Public Schools (DPS) to get a glimpse of the intelligence of those actually running the city’s government and in charge of sustaining the economy.
But why was all of this allowed? Why is all of this tolerated? The Detroit Riot of 1967 (described proudly as an “insurrection” or “rebellion” by the Black residents against the occupying white political establishment, though Black people were the ones who colonized the city via wave after wave of The Great Migration and eventually forced whites out because of high levels of crime) was one of hundreds of Black uprisings in the 1960s, largely due to the perceived police brutality the Black communities in cities with nearly all-white police forces faced.
The reason for this extra-scrutiny: Black people were the ones, just as now, committing the vast number of the crimes:

Throughout December 1960 and January 1961 both the Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News focused heavily on “black crime.” The News reported, for example, that although “blacks con- stituted 26 percent of the city’s population, they were responsible for almost 65 percent of serious crime.” The paper also blamed African American leaders and their communities for not doing enough to stop crime.

When white cops (95 percent of cops in Detroit were white in 1967) raided a speakeasy in late July 1967, Black people in Detroit protested the incursion of law into a lawless part of their neighborhood.
“This is a racial incident… it represents one simple thing: black people want control of black communities,” the Rev. Albert Cleage, a Detroit religious leader proclaimed.
Well, Rev. Cleage got his wish; white people ceded power to Black Detroiters by voting with their feet. Now, the state of Michigan wants Detroit back because Black people defaulted on Martin Luther King’s dream. They have been judged by their collective inability to display quality fiduciary character (the average credit score in Detroit is 619) in administering the budget and maintain the infrastructure of the first major American Black metropolis – thankfully built by white people who only needed a riot and continued high rates of Black criminality to convince them all to leave.
But what keeps people from admitting the true reason for the failure of Detroit, and instead has them blame “liberalism” when this same ideology is practiced and espoused by the primarily white citizens of Boulder, Colorado as they walk down the pristine avenue of Pearl Street?
Why does Walter Williams continue to blame “Liberalism” for the failure of Detroit, when other cities flourish under the same political mindset?
To state otherwise, that the Black citizens of Detroit are responsible for the fate of the city, would invalidate the official mission of the United States of the America since the smoke was still clearing in The Motor City in 1967.
Lyndon B. Johnson, having already spent billions to improve the lives of Black people in major cities throughout the nation, commissioned a report on the root cause of the Black riots that swept America in the 1960s.
The Kerner Report.
To understand why we live in what we have dubbed Black-Run America (BRA), the starting point for researching why Black people’s failures (especially why the complete collapse of Black-run Detroit) must never be blamed – and their choices, actions, decision, and thinking – on them can be traced to this one document.
What does the Kerner Report actually state?:

“This is our basic conclusion: Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white – separate and unequal. Reaction to last summer’s disorders has quickened the movement and deepened the division. Discrimination and segregation have long permeated much of American life; they now threaten the future of every American.”

The future for every American is jeopardized because of the existence of what we call BRA; to continue to live under the delusion that Black people aren’t responsible for their actions threatens the future competitive nature of the United States, because of the misallocation of trillions of tax-dollars to fight so-called “white racism” as the fundamental cause of Black failure. This is what the Kerner Report blamed Black failure upon:

Despite the complexities, certain fundamental matters are clear. Of these, the most fundamental is the racial attitude and behavior of white Americans towards black Americans. Race prejudice has shaped our history decisively; it now threatens to affect our future.
 White racism is essentially responsible for the explosive mixture which has been accumulating in our cities since the end of World War II. Among the ingredients of this mixture are:  1.  Pervasive discrimination and segregation in employment, education, and housing, which has resulted in the continuing exclusion of great numbers of Negroes from the benefits of economic progress.
2.  Black in-migration and white exodus, which have produced the massive and growing concentrations of impoverished Negroes in our major cities, creating a growing crisis of deteriorating facilities and services and unmet human needs.
3.  The black ghettos where segregation and poverty converge on the young to destroy opportunity and enforce failure. Crime, drug addiction, dependency on welfare, and bitterness and resentment against society in general and white society in particular are the result.

 The document offers the blueprint for which our entire society has been based upon, going so far as to blame undesirable nature of the jobs available to Black people as the cause of poverty (instead of their intellectual ability, when the current vocations with the highest rate of Black employment 43 years after affirmative action went into overdrive to promote Black people above their station include barber, postal worker, taxi driver, and bellhop); blaming slavery and long periods of unemployment for the “Negro” family structure to be more matriarchal; and the criminality found in Black areas completely on poverty.
How many more cities must we lose?
From the ashes of American cities, the fires started by Black people upset that white police dared focus extra-attention on their communities because of higher rates of crime found within, spawned this report which findings still permeate throughout every level and operation of both the public and private sector life.
In 1988, The New York Times published an expose on how progress had been made to curb that white racism which was to blame for Black kids throwing bricks through windows and looting businesses all across the nation (burning them to the ground after absconding with stolen goods):

The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, headed by Gov. Otto Kerner of Illinois, blamed ”white racism” for the ”continued polarization” of American society, and argued that only a ”compassionate, massive, and sustained” Government effort could reverse the overall trend. 

Cleveland and other American cities show the mixed record that has been compiled over the two decades. The worst-case prognosis of the Kerner report – the division of American into separate but unequal societies – has not come about, but the general direction predicted by the report and the stubborn persistence of the race problem in America have endured.
 Black progress is a difficult thing to measure, particularly in the current paradoxical situation, where some succeed as entire communities descend deeper into failure. But among the ingredients of change most often noted by scholars is the extraordinary increase of black political power, in Congress and other parts of the Federal Government and especially in the major cities.About 300 cities, including many of the nation’s biggest, have black mayors. The Rev. Jesse Jackson is a serious Presidential candidate. Mayor Andrew Young of Atlanta was the United States representative to the United Nations under President Carter. Representative William H. Gray 3d, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is chairman of the important Budget Committee.

Those big cities that Black people became mayor of have all largely collapsed (outside of Denver).
The New York Times would publish another article that relied heavily on the finding of the fabled Kerner Report to explain the Los Angeles Riots of 1992:

One of the report’s most famous and controversial findings was its conclusion that: “White racism is essentially responsible for the explosive mixture which has been accumulating in our cities since the end of World War II.” 

To some critics, the emphasis on racism, in both the report and the national civil rights debate, has obscured the degree to which the answers to the problems of the ghettos must come from within. 

“The assumption was that white America was the problem and therefore white America was the solution,” said Robert Woodson, a black who heads the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise in Washington, which calls for conservative, self-help solutions to inner-city problems. “It set up the proposition that the destiny of black America rested with what white America did.” 

Representative Gary Franks of Connecticut, the only black Republican in Congress, said welfare dependency, crime and drugs are far more of a threat to the urban poor than white racism.

The destiny of America rests in the hands of the continued application of the findings of the Kerner Report or the outright rejection of them. It is Black individuals choice to take drugs, became a welfare dependent, or commit a crime; not the looming specter of white racism or slavery.
Black people were victorious in the 1967 Battle of Detroit, with white people fleeing the ashes of their city and awarding the Black rebels (colonizers would be the apt word) with the keys to “The Paris of the West” their parents and grandparents helped build.
It is in the decaying remnants of that city, one whose infrastructure that Black people were incapable of sustaining – even after they achieved total political power – that we see the fallacious nature of the Kerner Report findings.

But political power didn’t translate into economic success. 
Brick by brick that falls to the ground in neglect while Black people complain of persistent racism for the failure of Detroit under their control is demonstrative that the Kerner Report got it wrong.
Completely wrong.
America has been held hostage by Disingenuous White Liberals and Black Rage (think Organized Blackness) for too long. To abandon the official position of the American government as delineated in The Kerner Report, which ascribes all Black failure to the legacy of white racism and slavery, would represent a complete capitulation to the reality that the past 44 years of attempted social programming to the deny that nature does trump nurture would represent an event on par with the collapse of the Soviet Union or the Cultural Revolution in China.
The dogma of equality dies with the fall of Black-run Detroit.

The Kerner Report acted as a shield to hide the truth that nature consistently throws back in our face with each report of racial disparities in any measurable test (save the 40-yard-dash for NFL skilled position players).
Had Detroit flourished in the absence of white people and under the august and benevolent rule of Black people, we’d have to conclude the Kerner Report was correct. Blaming barriers to education, housing, and employment all died when the city became more than 80 percent Black in the 1980s.
Black people should have flourished economically without the impediment of white racism keeping them from reaching their potential; the only thing that flourished in Detroit post-1967 Rebellion was Black crime.
But the city did not.
Democracy dies in Detroit, with the impending appointment by the state of Michigan of an emergency manager to preside of the budget of “The Mogadishu of the West.”
Not only Democracy dies, but the Kerner Report has been invalidated.

The legitimacy of BRA has always been through the voluntary belief that eventually Black people would succeed; for BRA to continue, millions of people will have to be involuntary forced to believe this now.

Conservadysfunctionalism

Conservadysfunctionalism

Conservatives have a depression problem. This isn’t news; in fact, it’s the anti-news. It’s a repeat from 1789 and every year afterwards.

1789 was when liberalism really won. It won because it was popular, not because it was right. It’s often that way with things. If a lot of people want to believe something, it’s a profitable product. If your leaders have let the economy out of Pandora’s box, we all chase the money.

This however starts a cycle of despair in those who can think clearly. They know that the long-term result of this path is destruction. They realize that knowing we are heading for destruction will sabotage each life with doubt, confusion, selfishness and bitterness. They prefer to avoid it.

But when they get up there to explain their vision, there’s a smiling man who looks like he sells things for a living. He calls them hateful, because they want to exclude some behaviors. He offers instead a simple solution: love everyone, give everyone something, make us all happy.

On the surface, liberalism sounds a lot better than conservatism (which was the way things were done before liberalism). It is foolish to deny it.

In the conservative worldview, there is a natural order to existence. We work outward from our egos toward it. We meet it in some reverent state, and do what is sensible according to it, hoping to reach a transcendent understanding of life despite death. Our goal is internal: refine ourselves, get clear, become disciplined, see the world clearly.

In the liberal worldview, the natural order is random and probably horrible. No transcendence can be had. Instead, we must maximize our time in life by focusing on ourselves. There is nothing which we should deny any human being, lest they have miserable lives. Thus, if anyone has anything, they have a moral duty to share it equally. Our goal is external: fight the bad rich/kings/elites/gov’t/corporations, and then live in a perfect society of harmonious equality and tolerance.

Inevitably someone pipes up and says, “But what about classical liberals? They were more like anarchists or libertarians. Do whatever you want in your yard, and I’ll do whatever I want in mine.” This is essentially the same idea as modern liberalism. Build a civilization out of many individuals acting in self-interest, but as we see, that leads to total social chaos and thus breakdown of civilization. It’s a laughable idea, which is why modern liberalism has incorporated a strong state into its view.

This was why when the West made its shift to liberalism back in 1789, it embarked on a slow ship to destruction. Liberalism started out as a pleasant idea. It gained momentum. Finally, in 1968 it won over the most populous generation (the Baby Boomers) ever born in the West. It won socially and culturally, and the right has been so seriously marginalized since that time that it’s a shadow of itself.

1968 was when the conservative depression problem ramped up also. Before then it had been: “Well, maybe we can hold on like a rearguard action for another four centuries, and this liberalism thing will burn out.” After 1968 it was clear that would not be true — liberalism is the final stage of civilization, much like stage five cancer is the final stage for many human individuals.

It’s not a phase. It’s a death sentence, and it leaves in its wake third-world countries like the ones that were left behind after ancient Rome, Greece, India and Mexico fell. There would be no holding out, but facing a world in which conservatives would never again win elections.

Ronald Reagan was a respite. For a brief decade, the West produced a leader who could beat a formidable adversary. But it was temporary. After Reagan, conservatives were unsure of themselves so they started pandering to the left by incorporating leftist ideas.

Not surprisingly, they lost popularity the more they incorporated ideas from the left. Why would anyone want to leave behind leftism for conservatism if the two are very similar? They can get everything they need from leftism, with fewer unpleasant realities than in conservatism. Conservatism had ceased to be an alternative, and had become instead a different flavor of the same.

Conservatives don’t believe they can win and thus they are dysfunctional. In Europe, the conservatives are all neoconservatives whose only real sense of right-wing policies is militarism and a lingering but unspoken nationalism (the love that dare not speak its name).

In the United States, all of the conservatives are also neoconservatives. They want what liberals want, which is equal, social welfare, pacifism and a strong paternalistic regulatory state — but unlike liberals, they’re willing to go to church, war and a mentally taxing day job in order to achieve that.

This dysfunction in conservatism means that people elect them without having any idea why. Usually conservatives get elected after the country has swung too far to the left, and leftist policies have ruined something important, so “the people” elect the opposite to fix it.

The problem with that is that it allows the cycle to continue. Liberals win all the elections until they screw up, then we get the right-wing in place. They promptly start fixing things, which removes freebies and forces unpopular truths on the population. Thus next election they’re gone.

For this electoral cycle, conservatives should try something not attempted since 1789: be functional, not dysfunctional.

State your case calmly, logically, cooly and firmly. There are logical reasons behind conservatism: know them. Know there is a center to the philosophy, which is a sense of natural order and preserving identity, tradition and nature. Point out that conservatives think long term where liberals refuse to.

I can’t guarantee this will win an election. But it will ensure the voters know there is a real alternative, not just two flavors of the same failure.

Trayvon And Zimmerman—It’s All About Race Now

 If it had been a white teenager who was shot, and a 28-year-old black guy who shot him, the black guy would have been arrested.

So assert those demanding the arrest of George Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

And they may be right.

Yet if Trayvon had been shot dead by a black neighborhood watch volunteer, Jesse Jackson would not have been in a pulpit in Sanford, Fla., howling that he had been “murdered and martyred.”

Maxine Waters would not be screaming “hate crime.”

Rep. Hank Johnson would not be raging that Trayvon had been “executed.” And ex-Black Panther Bobby Rush would not have been wearing a hoodie in the well of the House.

Which tells you what this whipped-up hysteria is all about.

It is not about finding the truth about what happened that night in Sanford when Zimmerman followed Trayvon in his SUV, and the two wound up in a fight, with Trayvon dead.

It is about the exacerbation of and the exploitation of racial conflict.

And it is about an irreconcilable conflict of visions about what the real America is in the year 2012.

Zimmerman “profiled” Trayvon, we are told. And perhaps he did.

But why? What did George Zimmerman, self-styled protector of his gated community, see that night from the wheel of his SUV?

He saw a male. And males are 90 percent of prison inmates. He saw a stranger over 6 feet tall. And he saw a black man or youth with a hood over his head.

Why would this raise Zimmerman’s antennae?

Perhaps because black males between 16 and 36, though only 2 to 3 percent of the population, are responsible for a third of all our crimes.

In some cities, 40 percent of all black males are in jail or prison, on probation or parole, or have criminal records. This is not a product of white racism but of prosecutions and convictions of criminal acts.

Had Zimmerman seen a black woman or older man in his neighborhood, he likely would never have tensed up or called in.

For all the abuse he has received, Geraldo Rivera had a point.

Whenever cable TV runs hidden-camera footage of a liquor or convenience store being held up and someone behind the counter being shot, the perp is often a black male wearing a hoodie.

Listening to the heated rhetoric coming from demonstrations around the country, from the Black Caucus and TV talkers—about how America is a terrifying place for young black males to grow up in because of the constant danger from white vigilantes—one wonders what country of the mind these people are living in.

The real America is a country where the black crime rate is seven times as high as the white rate. It is a country where white criminals choose black victims in 3 percent of their crimes, but black criminals choose white victims in 45 percent of their crimes.

Black journalists point to the racism manifest even in progressive cities, where cabs deliberately pass them by to pick up white folks down the block.

That this happens is undeniable. But, again, what is behind it?

As Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has written, from January to June 2008 in New York City, 83 percent of all identified gun assailants were black and 15 percent were Hispanics.

Together, blacks and Hispanics accounted for 98 percent of gun assaults.

Translated: If a cabdriver is going to be mugged or murdered in New York City by a fare, 49 times out of 50 his assailant or killer will be black or Hispanic.

Fernando Mateo of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers has told his drivers, “Profile your passengers” for your own protection. “The God’s honest truth is that 99 percent of the people that are robbing, stealing, killing these guys are blacks and Hispanics.”

Fernando Mateo is himself black and Hispanic.

To much of America’s black leadership and its media auxiliaries, what happened in Sanford was, as Jesse put it, that an innocent kid was “shot down in cold blood by a vigilante.”

Yet, from police reports, witness statements, and the father and friends of Zimmerman, another picture emerges.

Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, and was punched in the nose, knocked flat on his back and jumped on, getting his head pounded, when he pulled his gun and fired. That Trayvon’s body was found face down, not face up, would tend to support this.

But, to Florida Congresswoman Federica Wilson, “this sweet young boy … was hunted down like a dog, shot on the street, and his killer is still at large.”

Some Sanford police believed Zimmerman; others did not.

But now that it is being investigated by a special prosecutor, the FBI, the Justice Department and a coming grand jury, what is the purpose of this venomous portrayal of George Zimmerman?

As yet convicted of no crime, he is being crucified in the arena of public opinion as a hate-crime monster and murderer.

Is this our idea of justice?

No. But if the purpose here is to turn this into a national black-white face-off, instead of a mutual search for truth and justice, it is succeeding marvelously well.

 Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from Amazon.com. His most recent published book is Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World,reviewed here by Paul Craig Roberts. His new book Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? was released October 18, and is rocketing up the charts.

Memo From Middle America | Zimmerman Lynch Mob Exposes “Hispanic” Paper Tiger

The MSM “narrative” of the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman tragedy shooting—White Man shoots Black Teenager!—was barely changed by the revelation that the shooter can technically be classified as “Hispanic”. (His mother is Peruvian).

Zimmerman is also a registered Democrat, for what that’s worth. And Zimmerman is sometimes a Jewish name, as in the case of his father’s namesake “Robert Zimmerman” a.k.a. Bob Dylan, but a post over on Tablet Mag (which describes itself as a “daily online magazine of Jewish news, ideas, and culture.”) reassures the readers that “Zimmerman, Trayvon Martins Killer is not Jewish” [By Marc Tracy, March 21, 2012]. Apparently, George Zimmerman was raised Catholic, even serving as an altar boy.

The only effect of the revelation of Zimmerman’s ethnicity: the MSM switched to calling him a “white Hispanic”—a term, as Ellison Lodge pointed out last night, that a Google search shows was previously almost unknown.

The lynch mob continues to assemble—incited by none other than the President of the United States.

Which leads to the next question. Are Hispanics, especially the numerous self-appointed professional Hispanic  noise-makers, defending George Zimmerman? And if not, why not?

The National Council of La Raza did issue a statement by its CEO Janet Murguia, A Complete Investigation is Vital for Justice in Trayvon Martin Case

Well, I’m sure we could all agree on that. But the statement was hardly a ringing endorsement:

Later, Rush Limbaugh actually pointed out that La Raza wasn’t defending Zimmerman. La Raza spokeswoman Lisa Navarrete responded with “We really regret people trying to use this to divide blacks and Latinos. It’s disturbing to us that Rush Limbaugh has this theory. The only time he apparently cares about what happens to a Latino is when they may have happened to kill a young African-American man.”

La Raza says it’s Not ignoring Trayvon Martin Case, by Nick Valencia, CNN, March 28, 2012

The folks over at LULAC, League of Latin American Citizens don’t appear to be defending Zimmerman either. I checked out the LULAC website, League of Latin American Citizens, and didn’t find anything.

Nor is La Opinion, a leading Spanish-language Los Angeles newspaper. In fact its articles just seem to follow the Leftist party line. Its front page story on March 29, 2012 is Visten sudaderas por Trayvon, about California legislators dressing in hoodies (!) for a press conference.

The Mexican media, from what I’ve seen, don’t seem real interested in the story either. This March 24 article   didn’t even mention the Hispanic angle. [“De tener un hijo, sería como Trayvon” | Obama exige aclarar asesinato de joven afroestadounidense]

Of course, this is a big contrast to how the Mexican media goes on and on about issues related to illegal alien Mexicans in the U.S.

Florida is full of Cubans, but the Spanish-language media there has nothing particular to say.

It occurred to me, though, how about the Peruvian media? After all, George Zimmerman’s mother was Peruvian.

Sure enough, this connection was acknowledged in the Peruvian media. But I found no ringing defense of George Zimmerman there either. For example:

George Zimmerman, el hombre de raíces peruanas odiado en EE.UU. (George Zimmerman, the man of Peruvian roots hated in the U.S.) El Comercio, March 24, 2012

This was followed up with Peruano-estadounidense mató a joven negro en defensa propia (“Peruvian-American Kills Young Black Man in Self-Defense”) El Comercio, March 26, 2012

There was some discussion of Zimmerman on this Peruvian forum. But opinion was divided, and it didn’t seem that hot of a topic.

Most of these Latin American pieces on Zimmerman pretty much follow the American Mainstream Media, without much original reporting.

Basically, what seems have happened is that the U.S. Left set the agenda through its control of the MSM, and professional Hispanics, and Spanish-language journalists, are following along.

But it may not be working. A white Panamanian-American writer by the name of Carlos Harrison [Email him] looked at the Hispanic-Black angle in an article entitled Trayvon Martin Shooting Does Not Incite Hispanic-Black Tension, Focus Remains On Police, (Huffington Post, March 22, 2012). Harrison writes that

“The tension that the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon has exposed, residents and community leaders say, is not between blacks and Latinos, or blacks and whites. It’s a fresh gash in the festering rancor between the community’s blacks and its police…..But community members say that the ire over Martin’s death has not been directed at Latinos.”

There’s also a Spanish-language version of the Harrison article, entitled Caso Trayvon Martin:¿Afroamericanos vs. hispanos? (“Trayvon Martin Case: African-Americans vs. Hispanics?” AOL Latino, March 24, 2012). It’s just a translation of the same article with its feel-good treatment of Hispanic-Black relations.

However, when you scroll down to the comments section, all in Spanish, it’s another story entirely. Grassroots Hispanics aren’t buying all this happy talk.

Here are a few excerpts that I have translated:

  • Sandra: “Of course there is racism between Hispanics and blacks. Blacks have never liked us because we work more and better than them. And let’s be honest, we don’t like them either….”
  • Rocam: “Last January a young Honduran was shot to death…in Miami, by Afroamericans. This happens frequently….They rob you and kill you for one dollar. Nobody weeps, nobody protests when many die daily at the hands of the Afroamericans. It seems like only they have a license to kill. Who knows if Obama…makes a presidential decree, granting them the power of life and death over the rest of the society. …
  • David “… we all know that the majority of the crimes committed in this country are committed by blacks. At least here in Florida, in these past few months there has been an escalation of crimes and murders…committed by young blacks of 16, 17 and 18 years old like this one (Trayvon). They haven’t arrived to adulthood and they are already career criminals. …Of all the armed robberies that happen here almost daily, the vast majority are committed by blacks always against whites and Hispanics. …

And so it goes. There is plenty of evidence that, at the grassroots level, Hispanics understand the reality of black crime—a subject which our leaders (of both parties) fear to deal with or even mention.

As Brenda Walker has pointed out, this is not always a one-way street. She has reported ethnic cleansing of American blacks by Hispanic gangs in California.

Despite what the Civil Rights Establishment may tell us, there is a great deal of friction between blacks and Hispanics. As the demographics change, this is liable to get worse.

Indeed, in late 2007 a New American Media poll revealed that of the three principal minorities—blacks, Hispanics and Asian-Americans—each group trusted white Americans more than they did the other minority groups. [US minorities don’t trust each other (AFP) December 12, 2007]

So how does that bode for a future in which, if present trends continue, whites become a minority?

For that matter, Hispanics (defined as broadly as possible by the Census as a result of political pressure) have already passed blacks as the largest minority. Theoretically, if immigration policy continues on its current mad course, the U.S. could be on track to becoming a majority Hispanic country.

Black Americans are going to rue that day. They will have lost their special position in American society as the “favored minority”. Hispanics simply don’t walk around with a guilt complex about black people the way white Americans do.

So what does the Zimmerman lynch frenzy tell us?

  • Hispanics—make that “Hispanics”—simply lack solidarity. As a political force, they exist only in the dreams of ambitious ethnic entrepreneurs and the nightmares of persecuted Census bureaucrats. Mexicans don’t care about Puerto Ricans, Cubans care only about Cubans, and nobody at all cares about Peruvians who, unfortunately for George Zimmerman, have not invaded in sufficient numbers to constitute a lobby (yet).
  • Professional Hispanics—the LULACS and La Razas—are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the American Left. That’s who pays them, and they’re not going to bite the mano that feeds them by disrupting the Left coalition. Of course, pretty much the same can be said for feminists (why didn’t they welcome Sara Palin?) and African Americans (why don’t they resist their people’s displacement though immigration?)
  • “Hispanics” (as Steve Sailer has repeatedly said) simply don’t care that much about politics.

Sailer has also repeatedly pointed out that the long-predicted Hispanicization of American politics and culture seems to be a suspiciously long time showing up.

The lynching of poor George Zimmerman proves the point: Hispanic power, to adapt Chairman Mao, is a paper tiger.

American citizen Allan Wall (email him) moved back to the U.S.A. after many years residing in Mexico. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.