MLK Fascism

Locust: More Negro Fascism.

MLK Fascism

As I’m sure you know by now, America’s patron saint of Multiculturalism, Black Empowerment, and White Guilt has been memorialized on the Washington Mall, in gargantuan fashion.

There is, of course, a patent incongruity to the Black civil-rights activist sharing the same grounds as aristocratic salve-holders and a 19th-century nationalist who sought to “de-colonize” the American Negro back to Africa.

But in the end, the massive, laughable kitsch that has been erected is a fitting tribute to the man, as well as to the federal government that, in so many ways, has been reconstructed in his image.

Many have expressed alarm that the commissioned sculptor was Chinese, and that the work has a certain…Maoist…quality to it. They shouldn’t be surprised. When it comes to MLK depictions, for decades, artists have been stuck in an aesthetic rut, remaking the heroic, statist works of prewar totalitarianism.

Chinese MLK

In a wash of Holocaust memorials and cool corporate abstraction, the only kind of public art that is allowed to express brute masculinity must involve Negro advancement.

MLK Head

Take, for instance, Patrick Morelli’s “Behold,” which graces Atlanta’s corrupt and dilapidated King Center for Nonviolent Social Change (which functions mainly as a tax-payer funded cash cow for various King offspring.) “Behold” was erected in 1990, and yet, when I first laid eyes on it, I sensed that the artist must be, quite consciously, channelling Arno Breker. (I hesitate to associate such an ghastly work with Breker, whose genius has been unfairly shrouded by his association with German National Socialism.)

Behold

I’m reminded as well of the massive mural that hovers above the baggage-claim exit of Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, which I am convinced was painted by a crypto-bigot as some kind of elaborate joke.

Atlanta Airport

(Interestingly, by the ’60s and ’70s, Communists sculptors had moved beyond the pompous style of the ’30s and embraced postmodernism and abstraction. Tito, for instance, commissioned some of the most bizarre creations extant.)

So much for aesthetics. Stephan Kinsella, an expert of copyright law, has alerted me to the fact that the King family charged the not-for-profit foundation that lead the MLK project some three quarters of a million dollars for the rights to the Good Reverend’s words.

The New York Post reports:

WASHINGTON — The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s family has charged the foundation building a monument to the civil-rights leader on the National Mall about $800,000 to use his words and image — and at least one scholar thinks that Dr. King would find such an arrangement offensive.

The memorial is being paid for almost entirely through a fund-raising campaign led by the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation.

“I don’t think the Jefferson family, the Lincoln family [or] any other group of family ancestors has beenpaid a licensing fee for a memorial in Washington,” said Cambridge University historian David Garrow, author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Dr. King. “. . . [He would’ve been] absolutely scandalized.”

Financial documents revealed that the foundation paid $761,160 in 2007 to Intellectual Properties Management Inc., an entity run by the King family. They also showed that a $71,700 “management” fee was paid to the family estate in 2003.

This kind of thing certainly makes one question America’s system of patents and copyrights. (Kinsella advocates doing away with the concept of “intellectual property.”)

And the King family’s actions becoming doubly dubious when one remembers that Martin Luther King plagiarized most of the writings for which he has become world renowned.

Marcus Epstein:

When Boston University founded a commission to look into it, they found that that 45 percent of the first part and 21 percent of the second part of his dissertation was stolen, but they insisted that “no thought should be given to revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree.” In addition to his dissertation many of his major speeches, such as “I Have a Dream,” were plagiarized, as were many of his books and writings. For more information on King’s plagiarism, The Martin Luther King Plagiarism Page and Theodore Pappas’ Plagiarism and the Culture War are excellent resources.

King apologists like to claim that their idol shouldn’t be held accountable for plagiarism, since he was raised in a Souther Baptist milieu in which borrowing and sampling from other preachers was the norm. Whatever the case, if you want to use a text that King once pilfered, then you should expect to pay. He done stole it first, it seems.

The arc of the moral universe is long, and let’s hope it bends toward the truth. Until that day, one can only conclude that the MLK legend, and its attendant industry, has reached a state of self-parody.

The Unspeakable Blackness of Section 8 and Crime

The Unspeakable Blackness of Section 8 and Crime

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

30,000 line up for housing vouchers, some get rowdy:

Thirty thousand people showed up to receive Section 8 housing applications in East Point Wednesday, suffering through hours in the hot sun, angry flare-ups in the crowd and lots of frustration and confusion for a chance to receive a government-subsidized apartment.

The Housing Choice Voucher Program, called Section 8, subsidized the rents of low-income families living in apartments and houses that are privately owned. The federal program makes up the difference in rent that the poor can afford and the fair market value for each area.

The same media pundits who pathologize the Tea Party as violent and greedy and too White won’t be saying anything like that about this seething crowd of self-interested blacks, or how desperate they are to be delivered from their own kind.

Hanna Rosin’s American Murder Mystery tries to bury the answer to the “mystery” of the relationship between Section 8 and crime in paragraphs of tedious, turgid obfuscation. I’ll try here to cut through it.

Memphis has always been associated with some amount of violence. But why has Elvis’s hometown turned into America’s new South Bronx? [Lieutenant Doug] Barnes thinks he knows one big part of the answer, as does the city’s chief of police. A handful of local criminologists and social scientists think they can explain it, too. But it’s a dismal answer, one that city leaders have made clear they don’t want to hear. It’s an answer that offers up racial stereotypes to fearful whites in a city trying to move beyond racial tensions. Ultimately, it reaches beyond crime and implicates one of the most ambitious antipoverty programs of recent decades.

Note that neither Rosin or any of the people she quotes in this article, except perhaps the police, sympathize with the “fearful” Whites. Never once is the terrible cost to Whites mentioned. The main reason this is a “dismal” tale “they don’t want to hear” is that Section 8 has not helped non-Whites as much as they would have liked.

[University of Memphis Criminologist Richard] Janikowski might not have managed to pinpoint the cause of this pattern if he hadn’t been married to Phyllis Betts, a housing expert at the University of Memphis. Betts and Janikowski have two dogs, three cats, and no kids; they both tend to bring their work home with them. Betts had been evaluating the impact of one of the city government’s most ambitious initiatives: the demolition of the city’s public-housing projects, as part of a nationwide experiment to free the poor from the destructive effects of concentrated poverty. Memphis demolished its first project in 1997. The city gave former residents federal “Section8” rent-subsidy vouchers and encouraged them to move out to new neighborhoods. Two more waves of demolition followed over the next nine years, dispersing tens of thousands of poor people into the wider metro community.

About six months ago, they decided to put a hunch to the test. Janikowski merged his computer map of crime patterns with Betts’s map of Section8 rentals. Where Janikowski saw a bunny rabbit, Betts saw a sideways horseshoe (“He has a better imagination,” she said). Otherwise, the match was near-perfect. On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.

Betts remembers her discomfort as she looked at the map. The couple had been musing about the connection for months, but they were amazed—and deflated—to see how perfectly the two data sets fit together. She knew right away that this would be a “hard thing to say or write.” Nobody in the antipoverty community and nobody in city leadership was going to welcome the news that the noble experiment that they’d been engaged in for the past decade had been bringing the city down, in ways they’d never expected. But the connection was too obvious to ignore, and Betts and Janikowski figured that the same thing must be happening all around the country.

After decades of pathologizing millions of “fearful” Whites who objected to Section 8 and other government-imposed racial integration programs as morally and/or mentally defective, statistics show that our fears were justified. But that isn’t what Betts is “discomforted” or “deflated” about. What’s such a “hard thing to say or write” is that crime and poverty and blackness are connected.

Betts’s office is filled with books about knocking down the projects, an effort considered by fellow housing experts to be their great contribution to the civil-rights movement. The work grew out of a long history of white resistance to blacks’ moving out of what used to be called the ghetto. During much of the 20th century, white people used bombs and mobs to keep black people out of their neighborhoods. In 1949 in Chicago, a rumor that a black family was moving onto a white block prompted a riot that grew to 10,000 people in four days. “Americans had been treating blacks seeking housing outside the ghetto not much better than … [the] cook treated the dog who sought a crust of bread,” wrote the ACLU lawyer and fair-housing advocate Alexander Polikoff in his book Waiting for Gautreaux.

Polikoff is a hero to Betts and many of her colleagues. In August 1966, he filed two related class-action suits against the Chicago Housing Authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, on behalf of a woman named Dorothy Gautreaux and other tenants. Gautreaux wanted to leave the ghetto, but the CHA offered housing only in neighborhoods just like hers. Polikoff became notorious in the Chicago suburbs; one community group, he wrote, awarded him a gold-plated pooper-scooper “to clean up all the shit” he wanted to bring into the neighborhood. A decade later, he argued the case before the Supreme Court and won. Legal scholars today often compare the case’s significance to that of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

It could be argued that the genocidal monsters who imposed this nightmare might have done so out of ignorance. At least as first. For those who continue to support it now there is no explanation but anti-White animus. Here we can see that animus in the depiction of White violence, decades past, in the same tired pathologizing terms. Why else ignore the self-defensive motivations of Whites long since proven justified, and why present White violence as worse than the more brutal, more enduring, and more widespread black violence perpetrated since?

A well-known Gautreaux study, released in 1991, showed spectacular results. The sociologist James Rosenbaum at Northwestern University had followed 114 families who had moved to the suburbs, although only 68 were still cooperating by the time he released the study. Compared to former public-housing residents who’d stayed within the city, the suburban dwellers were four times as likely to finish high school, twice as likely to attend college, and more likely to be employed. Newsweek called the program “stunning” and said the project renewed “one’s faith in the struggle.” In a glowing segment, a 60 Minutes reporter asked one Gautreaux boy what he wanted to be when he grew up. “I haven’t really made up my mind,” the boy said. “Construction worker, architect, anesthesiologist.” Another child’s mother declared it “the end of poverty” for her family.

In 1992, 7-year-old Dantrell Davis from the Cabrini-Green project was walking to school, holding his mother’s hand, when a stray bullet killed him. The hand-holding detail seemed to stir the city in a way that none of the other murder stories coming out of the high-rises ever had. “Tear down the high rises,” demanded an editorial in the Chicago Tribune, while that boy’s image “burns in our civic memory.”

If replacing housing projects with vouchers had achieved its main goal—infusing the poor with middle-class habits—then higher crime rates might be a price worth paying. But today, social scientists looking back on the whole grand experiment are apt to use words like baffling and disappointing. A large federal-government study conducted over the past decade—a follow-up to the highly positive, highly publicized Gautreaux study of 1991—produced results that were “puzzling,” said Susan Popkin of the Urban Institute.

More fitting words for “the whole grand experiment”, as well as those who aid and abet it: mendacious, fraudulent, genocidal. Criminal.

The best Popkin can say is: “It has not lived up to its promise. It has not lifted people out of poverty, it has not made them self-sufficient, and it has left a lot of people behind.”

For Popkin, Rosin, Janikowski, Betts, Polikoff, Rosenbaum, The Atlantic, Newsweek, 60 Minutes, and their fellow travellers, what’s really important is that non-Whites haven’t benefitted enough. No apologies to the victims of their violence. No refunds for those who have been forced to fund their own genocide.

The article concludes with a talmudic shrug, magically transferring the blame to Whites:

It’s difficult to contemplate solutions to this problem when so few politicians, civil servants, and academics seem willing to talk about it—or even to admit that it exists. Janikowski and Betts are in an awkward position. They are both white academics in a city with many African American political leaders. Neither of them is a Memphis native. And they know that their research will fuel the usual NIMBY paranoia about poor people destroying the suburbs. “We don’t want Memphis to be seen as the armpit of the nation,” Betts said. “And we don’t want to be the ones responsible for framing these issues in the wrong way.”

Pathologizing Whites as “paranoid” is how these issues have long been framed.

Alexander Polikoff’s Gautreaux Proposal, written in Nov/Dec 2004, puts it this way:

Ending black ghettos wouldn’t end anti-black attitudes any more than ending Jewish ghettos ended anti-semitism. But it is not easy to find anything in American society that matches the black ghetto for its poisoning effect on attitudes, values and conduct.

Sixty years ago, Gunnar Myrdal wrote: “White prejudice and discrimination keep the Negro low in standards of living, health, education, manners and morals. This, in its turn, gives support to white prejudice.” Decades later, sociologist Elijah Anderson’s studies of a ghetto and an adjacent non-ghetto neighborhood led him to conclude: “The public awareness is color-coded. White skin denotes civility, law-abidingness, and trustworthiness, while black skin is strongly associated with poverty, crime, incivility, and distrust.” In American society at large, most whites act like the ones Anderson studied — their public awareness is also color-coded, and they steer clear of poor blacks and keep them in their ghettos. Predictable ghetto behavior then intensifies whites’ sense of danger, validates their color-coding and drives their conduct.

Sixty years ago this kind of anti-White guilt-tripping might have seemed brave or iconoclastic. Today the government and blacks are the ones inflicting violence on Whites. We can see that “prejudice and discrimination” don’t cause black poverty, crime, and incivility. Blacks know it. They prove it by suffering through hours in the hot sun to get an application to be put on a waiting list so they can escape and live amongst Whites. We know that they bring their poverty, crime, and incivility with them.

Knowing all this, we are justified in distrusting, opposing, and even despising the professional grievance mongers who are complicit in it. Their sympathies for blacks, even if sincere, don’t excuse the harm their twisted thinking has caused Whites.

UPDATE 12 Aug 2010: More on Janikowski and Betts via James Edwards.

Couple’s findings link crime in Memphis to Section 8 voucher renters » The Commercial Appeal, by Fredric Koeppel, 11 Sept 2008:

In other words, crime follows poverty wherever it goes.

“Well, that’s a bit of a simplification,” said Janikowski, associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis and director of the Center for Community Criminology and Research, “though that’s the way our studies have been interpreted. Crime and poverty are inextricably linked, there’s no question, but it’s not that poverty causes crime. Poverty creates a contact point that exacerbates all sorts of stresses on people. It’s not that there’s any one cause. It’s a confluence of stresses.”

In other words, crime and poverty and other stresses follow blacks wherever they go. There is no question that Section 8 has shifted crime and poverty to neighborhoods previously unafflicted by such problems. There is no question this has exacerbated all sorts of stresses on the people in these predominantly White neighborhoods, impoverishing them and making them miserable enough to leave, if they can. Clearly Janikowski isn’t talking about these stresses. The attempt here is to obfuscate the link between blackness and crime and poverty. And it is done even while the problems are deliberately simplified and explicitly linked to Whiteness, which is consistently offered both as the only cause for the problems and as the only obstacle to ending them.

As outsiders to Memphis and as a couple committed to public service, Betts and Janikowski feel keenly the ambivalence of their position. They have, after all, and almost inadvertently, delivered the bad news that the Section 8 housing program in Memphis is not working. They are white college professors, trained in academic research; most residents of public housing are poor and black and uneducated.

The “bad news” here is not that Section 8 has been foisted on Whites who don’t want it, justified by historic anti-White stereotypes and libels, and when it is empirically demonstrated not to lift blacks out of poverty and crime, that this too is blamed on Whites. That’s just how the “bad news” (i.e. blackness is linked to crime and poverty) has been framed. It is classic blame-the-victim apologia from fulminating hypocrites who make their living sniffing out and pathologizing stereotypes, libels, and blaming-the-victim. The bad news for Whites is that Section 8 exists – that there’s no question we, as a group, pay for it and are harmed by it.

At that meeting [where Betts and Janikowski presented their findings to the Memphis City Council] was Robert Lipscomb, director of the city’s Housing and Community Development division. He remains among their most vocal detractors.

Lipscomb is black. He unequivocally describes Section 8 participants as “the victims of crime, not the cause”.

“Well, Robert has his viewpoint,” said Janikowski. “Maybe we should have put it differently, not emphasized vouchers so much. We have gotten local feedback that has been much more positive, but people have been saying racist things.”

“There’s been so much follow-up at the national level from people who have no background at the local level,” said Betts. “The feeling that we share ideas with right-wing bloggers is devastating.”

Janikowski regrets that he didn’t try sooner and harder to frame the problems even more simply and explicitly as being caused by “racists” and “right-wing bloggers”. The fact is that Whites at the local level have been deliberately harmed by the anti-White/pro-black policies. These policies are advocated by dishonest snake-oil salesmen operating at the national level, who are provided megaphones by media and academia and courts to broadcast their poisonous ideas.

Why do normal people despise liberals?

http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/2010/04/22/why-do-normal-people-despise-liberals/
Ever wondered about that? Well, read this column and wonder no more. It’s by Linda Campbell, a writer for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The title is “A Fort Worth boy, almost a man, whose future was stolen at lunchtime”, but don’t be fooled by that. Let me give some background. A week or so a go, Eric Forrester, a 17 year old white teenager, a real All-American kid, was murdered in his own home by two black thugs. Eric lived in a very nice part of Fort Worth, and he had come home during school lunch time to have lunch with his older sister. When they walked in their house, they discovered two blacks were inside robbing the place. His sister managed to escape, but the black thugs shot Eric, and he died a few days later. The killing stunned the school, as he was very popular. He played cello and violin, and was on the swim team. But now he’s just another white kid full of promise gunned down by worthless ghetto trash.

Judging by the title of Linda Campbell’s column, you’d think she was writing a tribute to Eric Forrester. But that wasn’t the point of her column at all. Sure, she started off that way, but that was simply a jumping off point, an excuse to lecture evil white people on their horrible racist ways. It seems that the story about Eric’s murder generated a whole bunch of comments, and a lot of them weren’t politically correct, which upset Linda Campbell to no end. Murder is one thing, but saying rude things about black thugs and killers is beyond the pale.

For a high school senior, “living dangerously” should mean breaking curfew, pushing boundaries or taking risks that, while not necessarily smart, yield life lessons but don’t hurt anyone.

It shouldn’t mean going home for lunch during the school day only to get attacked by fools who want your stuff but end up stealing your future.

That seems to be what happened to 17-year-old Eric Forrester this week.

The Southwest High School student was shot to death in his house. Police say it appears that he and his sister interrupted a pair of burglars.

How do you understand such mindless violence?

You can’t understand or justify it.

You can’t understand it any more than you can offer sufficient words of consolation to his parents, whose planning for what comes after graduation has been interrupted by unspeakable sorrow.

You can’t understand what makes people callous enough to think nothing of invading someone’s sanctuary to take what doesn’t belong to them — or merciless enough to think nothing of snuffing out the promise of a young life.

That doesn’t stop some people from thinking they’ve got it figured out.

On Tuesday, I decided to read the online comments below the Star-Telegram’s story about the shooting.

I couldn’t imagine the horror of what happened. My 17-year-olds occasionally go home for lunch; I worry about the traffic, not the specter of intruders. I hoped to find compassion and support for a grieving family in the Web site postings.

There was some of that. But, this being the Internet, there was also more than enough hateful name-calling and careless broadbrushing about race and crime statistics.

See what I mean? This column was never intended as a tribute to Eric Forrester. He was just a convenient hobby horse Linda Campbell could jump on in order to attack all those evil, hateful racists out there. You know, those hideous, hate filled white people. The only people who actually read the newspaper in any substantial numbers, by the way. Newspapers are on the verge of extinction, but they never stop attacking the only folks who bother to buy their product, white people.

Black thugs raping, robbing and murdering America’s best and brightest, well, that’s a shame, but it’s nothing compared to white people pointing it out and complaining about it. Murder is bad, but this “hate” is far worse, and has got to stop.

There was hypocrisy, as when “ladybug” wrote: “My prayers are going out for this young man and those who love him. When they find these evil ones, and they will, I sincerely hope there is a tall tree and a short rope handy!”

Hypocrisy?! Apparently Linda Campbell thinks Christians are hypocrites if they think murderers of innocent people should be put to death, while praying for the family of the victims. We’re all equal in liberals’ eyes, so real Christians should view murder victims and their families no differently than they view the murderers. And then Campbell resorts to flat out lying. It seems that some of the comments pointed out that this is one of the nicest areas of Fort Worth, and that not long ago something like this would have been unthinkable in this part of town. But a few years ago, “compassionate conservative” George Bush’s HUD ordered the downtown federal housing projects demolished, and relocated the ghetto trash all over Fort Worth. Many of them ended up in an apartment complex near the murdered kid’s house. Linda Campbell doesn’t like facts; so she just makes up her own:

And there was scapegoating, as when “EDW” wrote: “Spreading the underclass around our once fair town is no different than spreading AIDS to one innocent, unsuspecting person after another. And no, [not] every occupant of these Section 8 housing units is to blame — but many are and I, for one, [am] sick and tired of wondering what might happen to my house and the loved ones that I leave behind when I go to work. The so-called ‘leaders’ of Fort Worth need to work to reduce the numbers of those that ‘need’ public assistance and sacrifice, instead of coddling them with our resources!”

—————

It’s unfair to generalize that parts of the city are deteriorating because of government-subsidized housing or that low-income neighbors often are bad ones. But it’s never good for a city when residents see things that convince them that their neighborhoods are being overrun by thugs, drug dealers and violent gangs.

Unfair to generalize? Something tells me that Linda Campbell has no problem “generalizing” about Tea Party protestors, FOX News viewers, and conservatives in general. But they’re white – that’s OK. It’s only “unfair” to generalize when you’re talking about blacks and other non-whites. Of course, this is no generalization at all. It’s common sense, backed up by the facts. Federal housing projects have always had a lot of criminals living in them, and when you spread them out all over the city, they don’t suddenly stop committing crimes. Even the liberal Atlantic Monthly ran a huge piece about how crime was spreading all over Memphis after the feds demolished the Memphis projects and gave the black families Section 8 vouchers to live wherever they want. The two professors who did the research the article is based on are liberals who are embarrassed at their findings, but admit that there’s no getting around the facts. But facts about black crime are “unfair generalizations” in the world of liberal “journalists.”

Linda Campbell should be ashamed of herself for twisting the death of a murdered teenager to her own political purposes. Her column wasn’t a tribute at all, and she knows it. She just latched on to poor Eric Forrester in order to lecture her newspapers readers about their “racism” and “hate.” Any normal person would be sickened after reading this article. I guarantee you that some people have already canceled their subscriptions in response, and will continue to do so as the paper continues to print more garbage like this. And the paper will keep publishing “soul searching” articles about why newspapers no longer appeal to people.

The good news is that newspapers won’t be around much longer. They’re relentlessly attacking and condemning the only group who buys newspapers, white people. Constantly telling your customer base that they’re evil and despicable isn’t a winning business plan for the long run. The Star-Telegram is already in dire financial straits, but obviously they’d rather go out of business than stop demonizing their readers.

Good riddance.

Saving the West, One Blogger at a Time

Saving the West, One Blogger at a Time

Chechar questions the non-anti-semitic limits on his White nationalism: A lightning in the middle of the night!

Lawrence “the majority should reassert itself” Auster supports the move, saying he understands Whites and jews have different, sometimes conflicting interests, and though he unequivocally favors jews he does not object to White political or cultural self-determination: An anti-anti-Semitic blogger announces that he is removing the first “anti”.

Just kidding. Larry is such a serious anti-“anti-semite” he’d never say anything remotely like that.

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

Who Thinks Thinking is Unthinkable and Why and If Hasan Were White from Age of Treason blog

Who Thinks Thinking is Unthinkable and Why

Jewish “social critic” James Howard Kunstler has specialized in ridiculing suburbia while paying relatively little attention to the non-White immigration, non-White sociopathy, and forced integration motivating Whites to flock there. The disproportionately jewish race-hustlers, developers, and financiers enriching themselves in the process also get a pass. Kunstler’s made a living hyping a variety of threats, like Y2K and depleted uranium, and warning most recently that “peak oil” will cause a “long emergency”. The effect, if not intent, has been to direct attention away from the more immediate and more substantial problems for more Americans, especially White Americans – the displacement and dispossession caused by genocidal levels of immigration and systemic financial fraud, each fueling the other.

Lately Kunstler has been keeping a nervous eye on a particular facet of the fraud. In Thinking the Unthinkable he writes:

How bad is the situation ‘out there’ really? In my view, things are veering toward such extreme desperation that the US government might fall under the sway, by extra-electoral means, of an ambitious military officer, or a group of such, sometime in the near future. I’m not promoting a coup d’etat, you understand, but I am raising it as a realistic possibility as elected officials prove utterly unwilling to cope with a mounting crisis of capital and resources. The ‘corn-pone Hitler’ scenario is still another possibility – Glen Beck and Sarah Palin vying for the hearts and minds of the morons who want ‘to keep gubmint out of Medicare!’ – but I suspect that there is a growing cadre of concerned officers around the Pentagon who will not brook that fucking nonsense for a Crystal City minute and, what’s more, would be very impatient to begin correcting the many fiascos currently blowing the nation apart from within. Remember, today’s US military elite is battle-hardened after eight years of war in Asia. No doubt they love their country, as Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte loved theirs. It may pain them to stand by and watch it dissolve like a castle made of sugar in a winter gale.

I do believe it might pain Kunstler to watch israel dissolve. It certainly doesn’t pain him to watch and snark at “the morons” while it happens to America. Does he think what Goldman Sachs and friends have been doing is unethical, unfair, unjust, immoral, illegal, indefensible, or just plain slimy? Maybe. But for sure he’s concerned how the rubes will react when they find out. He’s afraid it might be bad for jews. And he thinks that’s unthinkable.

This isn’t the first time Kunstler has expressed such fears. Hunter Wallace (formerly Prozium) wrote about Kunstler in Cornpone Nazism toward the end of July, linking to a Kunstler essay titled Evil Syndicated. I’ll excerpt a few bits to illustrate how Kunstler recognizes Goldman is creating a problem, but that the real problem is the potential backlash.

By now, everyone in that fraction of the world that pays attention to something other than American Idol and their platter of TGI Friday’s loaded potato skins knows that Goldman Sachs has been caught at another racket in the stock market: front-running trades. What a clever gambit, done with the help of the markets themselves – the Nasdaq in particular – in which information on trades is held back a fraction of a second from public view, while the data is shoveled to the computers of privileged subscribers who can execute zillions of programmed micro-trades before the rest of the herd makes a move. This allows them to vacuum up hundreds of millions of dollars by doing absolutely nothing of value.

Don’t mistake Kunstler’s accurate description here for disapproval. If anything he sees it as a “clever” way to shear “the herd”.

In any sensible society – i.e. a society with an instinct for self-preservation – it would be against the law and the people doing it would be sent to prison.

Maybe the larger question is: since when did we become a society lacking the instinct for self-preservation – that is, a society bent on suicide?

Yes, a sensible society would have stopped Madoff and Hasan too. Whites have an instinct for self-preservation. We express it all the time, even though doing so has long been pathologized and is becoming increasingly criminalized. Since when? It’s been getting worse ever since jewish emancipation. The proper word for what’s happening, by the way, is genocide, not suicide. It’s done over our objections. Jews like Kunstler aid and abet the crime by hyping symptoms rather than causes, and misdirecting blame. They see “anti-semitism” everywhere because they’re not suicidal.

I think the larger question for Kunstler is: what’s best for jews? The larger question for me is: when will Whites take note of this jewish obsession with themselves and their own interests? And when will we see through the dissembling of jewish “social critics” who ridicule and pathologize everything we do to resist what they misrepresent as “suicide”?

As we turn the corner toward autumn, President Obama looks increasingly like a dupe, a tool, or a co-conspirator of Goldman Sachs.

What bothers me is that, sooner or later, the conduct of Goldman Sachs will lead the growing ranks of the unemployed, foreclosed, disentitled, and hopeless into the hands of a savage right wing seeking mindless vengeance, for instance, against “the Jews,” (as represented by Goldman Sachs), or brown-skinned people (as embodied by a vilified president).

“It’s that brown-skinned guy’s fault! Blame him!”

What bothers me is that Kunstler is saying that blaming the group who is responsible is “mindless”, because he’s acutely mindful that it might be bad for “the jews” and “brown-skinned people”. Note however that even as Kunstler does this he feels perfectly free casting aspersions on Whites (as represented by “the savage right wing”), and white-skinned people (as embodied by the “evil syndicated”/”cornpone nazis”). What we have here is a conflict of group interests. Rather than addressing it honestly Kunstler tries to obscure and caricaturize it, advising those who already have their hands on “the growing ranks of the unemployed, foreclosed, disentitled, and hopeless” how to best manipulate them.

Readers of this blog know I’m allergic to conspiracy theories. But surveying the scene out there, it is hard to not conclude that Goldman Sachs has become the “front-runner” of a criminal syndicate defrauding US taxpayers.

Kunstler knows it’s hard because he’s tried. Now he’s trying something more familiar and easier: scapegoating Whites.

In the meantime, the US economy gives the illusion of recovery – but to what? Back to a “consumer” credit card shopping orgy? Another house-buying fiesta?

There you go. One last kick in the nuts for the evil morons. Pay no mind to the hedge fund managers who might be called to account for ripping off the evil morons, if only in Kunstler’s nightmares.

Kunstler’s not the only “social critic” who’s thinks it’s important to suppress/redirect the backlash.

Oy! Noam Chomsky Compares Right-Wing Media To “Nazis”

:

The memory that comes to my mind — I don’t want to press the analogy too hard, but I think it’s worth thinking about — is late Weimar Germany. There were people with real grievances, and the Nazis gave them an answer. ‘It’s the fault of the Jews and the Bolsheviks and we’ve got to protect ourselves from them, and that will take care of them.’ And you know what happened…

[…]Germany in the 1920s was at the peak of Western civilization. A decade later, it was at the pits of human history.

Chomsky’s characterization of those two decades is from a jewish point of view, which is likely the opposite of how a contemporary native German would have described them.

Unless an answer can be given to these people, unless they can be led to understand what’s really happening to them, we could be in for trouble.

“We” could be in for trouble? Me and mine are already in trouble. We are ruled by a corrupt and illegitimate regime whose highest priority is to drown us in “people of color”, each and every one of which is afforded special rights over Whites. To even question this is considered a crime. Why should we care about the trouble the fraudsters and the “social critics” spinning excuses for them might suffer? They don’t care about our troubles.

If Hasan Were White

Contrast this…

Obama: Hasan May Have ‘Cracked’ From ‘Stress’ | The FOX Nation

On Fort Hood shooting, Obama says: Do not jump to conclusions | Jerusalem Post

with this…

Round Up Hate-Promoters Now, Before Any More Holocaust Museum Attacks – CBS News, by Bonnie Erbe.

The Big Hate – NYTimes.com, by Paul Krugman.

– – –

If Major Nidal Malik Hasan were White these people wouldn’t hesitate to recognize and denounce his motives. Likewise if James von Brunn had been a palestinian muslim. The one constant is that when jews perceive a threat to jewish interests, the conclusions they jump to get aired, no matter how insane, illiberal, or insensitive, and usually without any challenge or retraction. When there is no direct threat to jewish interests, as with the Fort Hood attack, then defending against indirect threats to minority privilege (the presumption that non-Whites, including jews, are disadvantaged) and dual loyalty (it’s ok to be a jew or muslim first) is paramount.

There is no need to jump to conclusions about the anti-White regime. Pay attention to its reaction to any particular clash of White and non-White interests and the conclusions jump out all by themselves.

Age of Treason is here!

Quick Links, 10 Dec 2009

‘White Male Privilege: A Social Construct for Political Oppression.’ by Hugh Murray, 1999, discusses how:

Liberals seek to camouflage the overrepresentation of Jews by pointing the finger at alleged “white male privilege.”

Via Invisible Victims: White Males and Affirmative Action.

– – –

Another piece from fellist’s excellent Songlight for Dawn, ‘Why Work?’ by Dorothy L. Sayers, circa 1940:

Do you realize how we have had to alter our whole scale of values, now that we are no longer being urged to consume but to conserve?

– – –

Elizabeth Warren: America Without a Middle Class

:

Can you imagine an America without a strong middle class? If you can, would it still be America as we know it?

– – –

Tiger Woods alienates black community with white lovers. A window into blackness.

“Had Barack had a white wife, I would have thought twice about voting for him,” Johnson Cooper said.

Contrast with the media’s regard for Whites holding comparable views on race-mixing. Via Occidental Dissent.

– – –

El Centro holds position for highest jobless rate

El Centro, Calif., held its position of having the highest unemployment rate among the nation’s metropolitan areas, with the jobless rate at 30%, according to government figures released Wednesday.

While the figure fell from a revised 32.2% in September, it climbed from 26.8% a year ago and it is staggering even against the nation’s 10.2% unemployment rate, which is at a 26-year high.

But the jobless picture has always been inferior in southern California’s Imperial Valley.

Look at the ethnic makeup of the Schools in El Centro, CA. Don’t avert your eyes. This is where “diversity” leads. As Felipe Calderon put it: Where there are mexicans there is mexico.

– – –

The “cool jew” trend causes jews to complain about jews complaining about jews complaining about jews. Seriously.

Robert Jay Mathews

Robert Jay Mathews was killed by US government agents 25 years ago yesterday. Here’s why

:

The stronger my love for my people grew, the deeper became my hatred for those who would destroy my race, my heritage, and darken the future of my children.

By the time my son had arrived, I realized that White America, indeed my entire race, was headed for oblivion unless White men rose and turned the tide. The more I came to love my son the more I realized that unless things changed radically, by the time he was my age, he would be a stranger in his own land, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryan in a country populated mainly by Mexicans, mulattoes, blacks and Asians. His future was growing darker by the day.

I came to learn that this was not by accident, that there is a small, cohesive alien group within this nation working day and night to make this happen. I learned that these culture distorters have an iron grip on both major political parties, on Congress, on the media, on the publishing houses, and on most of the major Christian denominations in this nation, even though these aliens subscribe to a religion which is diametrically opposed to Christianity.

These are the same people who Ex-Senator William J. Fulbright and the late General Brown tried to warn us about. Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg tried vainly to warn us also. Had we been more vigilant, my son’s future would not be so dark and dismal.

Thus I have no choice. I must stand up like a White man and do battle. A secret war has been developing for the last year between the regime in Washington and an ever growing number of White people who are determined to regain what our forefathers discovered, explored, conquered, settled, built and died for.

The FBI has been able to keep this war secret only because up until now we have been doing nothing more than growing and preparing. The government, however, seems determined to force the issue, so we have no choice left but to stand and fight back. Hail Victory!

In A Call to Arms – Part 1 , recorded in 1991, William Pierce recounts his memories of Mathews in the introduction to a talk given by Mathews in 1981. Links to parts 1-13 are here at the bottom of the page.

Planet of the Michelle Obama Defenders

Google apologizes for results of ‘Michelle Obama’ image search – CNN.com:

For most of the past week, when someone typed “Michelle Obama” in the popular search engine Google, one of the first images that came up was a picture of the American first lady altered to resemble a monkey.

On Wednesday morning, the racially offensive image appeared to have been removed from any Google Image searches for “Michelle Obama.”

Google officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Google faced a firestorm of criticism over the episode. First, it banned the Web site that posted the photo, saying it could spread a malware virus. Then, when the image appeared on another Web site, Google let the photo stand. When a Google image search brought up the photo, an apologetic Google ad occasionally appeared above it.

The Michelle Obama ape photo can be found at FlyStyleLife » WTF IS THIS? MICHELLE OBAMA AS AN APE HUH?

Google: An explanation of our search results

:

Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google.

Search engines are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Internet. A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.

The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.

We apologize if you’ve had an upsetting experience using Google. We hope you understand our position regarding offensive results.

Sincerely,
The Google Team

Insincerely, actually. In truth, hit rank for almost every search engine, and certainly for google, is based almost entirely on the popularity of the hit, which in most cases reflects its popularity with the general public. Google is lying to the public even while apologizing to the hypersensitive people offended by popular opinion.

Google returns lots of insulting, defamatory search results. See for example (with SafeSearch off):

george bush
laura bush
bush twins
michele bachmann
ann coulter
glenn beck

Why does google protect Michelle Obama from ridicule? Who else does it protect? Hypersensitive people offended by impious use of the word jew, of course.

Genocidal Immigration – Of Whites, by Whites, and for Whites from age-of-treason.blogspot.com

Of Whites, by Whites, and for Whites

age-of-treason.blogspot.com

In Moving Forward Prozium cites me favorably as one of the handful of people who write about White Nationalism in the blogosphere on a semi-regular basis. I’m nonplussed and will respond by expressing some recent thoughts.

Late last week I met Prozium and a few other pro-Whites I have until now known only online. I’m neither a leader nor a joiner, and have for a variety of other reasons so far been disinclined to engage openly. I’m having a change of heart lately and like Prozium I am becoming more interested in activity and collaboration offline.

Before anyone else bothers I’ll point out myself that the focus of my writing here hasn’t been on White nationalism per se, but mainly on jewish influence and the White/jew faultline, the purpose being to educate myself and my few visitors to various double standards and acts of jewish malfeasance. I’m growing tired of this, disgusted might be a better word, but it’s something I felt a need to do. I had climbed similar learning curves on islam and immigration in the years before, and my more recent focus has been a logical continuation of that self-education. It has also been a response to various anti-anti-semites who have since my awakening come with nothing but disinformation and dementia (see Committing PC’s Most Mortal Sin and White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism).

I am prepared now not only to join Prozium and state openly that my ultimate goal is a jew-free, White ethnostate in North America, but also to say that I’ve come to this position after deep consideration, having gathered substantial information and arguments in support. I understand that racialism and separatism are among the most frowned upon concepts in today’s public discourse, never mind criticizing jews. What I can also see clearly however is that the same rotten thoroughly judaized regime that makes this true also advances and celebrates anti-Whitism and the slow genocide of my kind, which has only accelerated as we’ve become more deracinated and obsequious. Now that the regime’s nature is obvious to me I cannot do anything but oppose it and share what I’ve learned with others.

What Whites need to survive is at least one place where we are not guilt-tripped, harrassed, mugged, raped, murdered and ultimately bred out of existence by shitheads who hate us. We have never had a problem dealing with our own shitheads. It’s with the non-White shitheads, and only in the last few generations, that we get all tangled up. What I know now is that it started with jewish emancipation. What Whites need to thrive is a culture composed and controlled by our own kind, exhibiting a confident and positive self-image. This has been less and less the case as jewish ownership and influence in our media, art, and entertainment has increased.

Whether we remove ourselves, or those who hate us, or some combination of both is not as important to me as the recognition that the status quo cannot endure. If we do nothing we will surely disappear, so why not resist? It is already open season on Whites, despite our disproportionate representation in the police and military. As we lose control of these institutions and our political and financial influence wanes we will see the hostility and violence against us increase dramatically.

A cold Winter comes. We must make preparations in order to see Spring.

posted by Tanstaafl at 10/13/2009 09:33:00 PM 18 comments

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Why The Sierra Club Favors –

It honors the memory of a jewish mega-donor’s grandparents.

This is an old story that isn’t as widely known as it deserves to be. Brenda Walker touched on it recently in The Van Jones Fiasco—How Low Can Lefty Greens Go?

The Man Behind The Land:

David Gelbaum has shunned publicity while giving millions to preserve California wilderness and teach youths about nature.
By Kenneth R. Weiss
Times Staff Writer

October 27, 2004

He has given more money to conservation causes in California than anyone else. His gifts have helped protect 1,179 square miles of mountain and desert landscapes, an area the size of Yosemite National Park.

His donations to wilderness education programs have made it possible for 437,000 inner-city schoolchildren to visit the mountains, the desert or the beach often for the first time.

Over a decade of steadily growing contributions including more than $100 million to the Sierra Club this mathematician turned financial angel has taken great pains to remain anonymous.

I used to live in California. It was nice, until it started turning into Mexico.

“I did tell [Sierra Club Executive Director] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”

Gelbaum said he was a substantial donor at the time but not yet the club’s largest benefactor. Immigration arose as an issue in 1994 because Proposition 187, which threatened to deny public education and health care to illegal immigrants, was on the state’s ballot.

He said he was so upset by the idea of “pulling kids out of school” that he donated more than $180,000 to the campaign to oppose Proposition 187. After the measure passed, he said, he donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to civil rights lawyers who ultimately got the measure struck down in court.

Gelbaum, who reads the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión and is married to a Mexican American, said his views on immigration were shaped long ago by his grandfather, Abraham, a watchmaker who had come to America to escape persecution of Jews in Ukraine before World War I.

“I asked, ‘Abe, what do you think about all of these Mexicans coming here?’ ” Gelbaum said. “Abe didn’t speak English that well. He said, ‘I came here. How can I tell them not to come?’

“I cannot support an organization that is anti-immigration. It would dishonor the memory of my grandparents.”

My entire extended family and most everyone I knew voted for Prop 187. It was one of the few times in my life that the government showed any interest in the citizenry’s opinion about immigration. I didn’t realize until more than 10 years later that our democracy is actually a cryptic form of plutocracy, and the plutocrats want genocidal levels of immigration.

Prop 187 passed and the voters went about their business, thinking the matter resolved. Then a judge killed it, though most of us didn’t hear about that, because the media supports genocidal immigration too.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote about it in Throw out-of-control Judge Pfaelzer off the bench, Apr 24, 1998:

Judges are so out of control today that a single federal judge thinks nothing about casting aside popular referendums passed by the votes of millions of citizens and imposing outcomes that are the opposite of what was voted.

The latest example is U.S. district judge Mariana Pfaelzer, who declared on March 13 that California citizens must tax themselves to meet the needs of illegal aliens. Pfaelzer, it seems, is under the influence of University of Chicago professor Martha Nussbaum, who teaches that the concept of national citizenship is too exclusive and “morally dangerous.” Justice and equality, she claims, require “allegiance to the worldwide community of human beings.”

Californians think not, but who are they to matter? Pfaelzer has thrown out California’s Proposition 187, which restricted illegal aliens from living off taxpayers.

Fast forward a decade or so and California has been bankrupted by immigration, its White population deliberately displaced and dispossessed by “diversity”. So what’s on the Sierra Club’s agenda now?

Sierra Club Insider: Yep, We’re Too White, July 28, 2009:

“We are proud that Sierra Club has successful diversity programs already established,” said the Sierra Club President Allison Chin. “Now, with the leadership of a diversity council and my election as our first Asian-American president, the Sierra Club is committed to becoming an even more welcoming and inclusive organization.”

Judging by their reaction, White members did not feel either welcomed or included. Unfortunately for them, the Sierra Club has more than 100 million reasons not to care.

Two reactions where the sense of betrayal comes through crystal clear:

Immigrants typically come to the US with 3rd world birthrates and 1st world appetites — the WORST POSSIBLE COMBINATION from an ecological standpoint.

I’m white and I got a vasectomy and had no kids, because long ago I realized the Earth didn’t need more humans. This was a good-faith decision on my part.

How do open borders advocates respond when I tell them that? Almost inevitably I am mocked, often times with semi-literate obscenities and mindless machismo bluster. It doesn’t make me feel like grovelling for their approval, I’ll tell you that.

Posted by: Pat Kittle | August 21, 2009 at 06:23 PM

Yes, I remember during the 60s/70s, there was that jerk, Paul Ehrlich who talked about having “0 Population growth.” Our generation even had propaganda movies like: Soylent Green, Roller Ball, Logan’s Run and a couple of Star Trek episodes to drive the point home.

Since I was a kid at the time being indoctrinated with this BS, I didn’t realize that Kennedy passed the 1965 Immigration Bill NOR did I know about La Raza, MEChA and other groups that were teaching about AZTLAN/ANAHUAC and they planned to outbreed us to reclaim lost Mexican Territory the AZTLAN plan or in the ANAHUAC case to reclaim the entire Americas and boot everyone else out.

Now, our grand reward for watching our birth rates for Mother Earth because of Ehrlich’s (Population Bomb) is to be made fun of for “not making babies.”

And the Sierra Club, the Rockefellers (Club of Rome)and other bogus “green” groups continue to look completely the other way when we’re being flooded with immigration (both legal and illegal) to drive down wages, displace our own legal citizens’ jobs and Balkanize our nation.

By the way, immigrants (legal and illegal) also use water and other resources. We can cut back and conserve but that will be entirely negated with continued uncontrolled growth.

Thanks a lot.

Posted by: Roxan | August 12, 2009 at 12:00 AM

What’s happening to California, with the rest of the US not far behind, is not an accident. It’s the result of a deliberate drive to “diversify” White Americans into minority status. Then non-existence. It’s genocide.

Ted Kennedy’s Legacy: Genocidal Immigrationist

I wrote about Ted Kennedy’s Legacy when his brain cancer was first announced in May of 2008. My opinion has only soured since. Please indulge me as I summarize his shameful legacy one more time, especially as our enemies at this moment are producing geysers of grief and love for their fallen hero.

From Wikipedia’s Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (AKA Hart-Celler Act):

During debate on the Senate floor, Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same…. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia…. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think…. The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”[2] The act’s supporters not only claimed the law would not change America’s ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.[1]

By equalizing immigration policies, the Act resulted in a flood of new immigration from non-European nations that changed the ethnic make-up of the United States.[3] Immigration doubled between 1965 and 1970 and doubled again between 1970 and 1990.[1]

From George Borjas’ The Bush-Kennedy-McCain Sham(nesty):

Regarding the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act (the first amnesty of illegal immigrants), Senator Kennedy predicted: “This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.” The 1986 legislation, by the way, ended up granting amnesty to around 3 million illegal immigrants.

What follows now are amongst Kennedy’s final, and in my opinion most significant, words on the subject of immigration, offered just over two years ago in the wake of the failure of the comprehensive amnesty bill he had worked hard to enact. This intemperate and deeply cynical outburst has been all but memory-holed by the press. From BizzyBlog’s Bias in Coverage of Immigration-Bill Failure Extends to Protecting Ted ‘Gestapo’ Kennedy:

We know what they’re against, we don’t know what they’re for. Time and time again they tell us “We don’t like this provision, we don’t like that provision, we don’t want that part. Well they ought to be able to explain to the American people what they are for.

What are they going to do with the twelve and a half million who are undocumented here? Send them back? Send them back to countries around the world? More than $250 billion dollars, buses that would go from Los Angeles to New York and back again. Try and find them, develop a type of Gestapo here to seek out these people that are in the shadows. That’s their alternative?

HotAir provides video.

During the long arc of Kennedy’s career as a rich, famous and increasingly powerful senator-for-life he dedicated a sizable portion of his fame and power to advocating nation-wrecking levels of legal immigration, though his good will extended even to tens of millions of illegal aliens who violated the liberal immigration laws he sponsored. A notable and consistent feature of his support for immigration was mendacity. It began with a denial of the negative impact immigration would likely have on us, the citizenry whose interests he was sworn to defend. His triumphant words in 1965 were in hindsight more prophesy than denial, for the future did unfold just as he promised it would not. The mendacity continued in 1986, two decades on, when he downplayed the horrible impact even though it was by then clear for all to see. It was in fact under the pretense of addressing this impact that he again made assertions later proven false. He again mouthed promises he made no effort to keep. The mendacity continued in 2007, another two decades on, the consequences of his handiwork now an order of magnitude larger than what he had promised would never happen again. His lies now concerned the impossibility of remedy and the negative impact any such remedy would have on the aliens. The interests of the citizenry no longer even rated lip service. He openly opposed us and cast aspersions on us.

For leaving a young woman to drown Kennedy appeared on nationwide television and apologized. For sinking our once orderly and prosperous nation, trapping 200 million Whites (and slipping) with 100 million non-Whites (and exploding), he never apologized. He went to the grave hating us.

If Kennedy had pursued medicine instead of politics we can imagine what might have happened. He might have shot his neighbor right after saying it was crazy for them to imagine he would do so. Then he might berate them for complaining about their pain while being wheeled into surgery, telling them not to worry, he’ll fix it. Finally he might let them die on the operating table because, in his expert estimation, to remove the bullet would simply cause too much harm. No sorries and no worries. The next of kin will get the bill.

Then he’d go out and find another neighbor to “help”. And another. And another. It would have been much better for most of us if Kennedy had gone this route. After only a few neighbors some cop or reporter would have started asking questions and his crime wave would have been stopped. What we got instead is far worse.

The next time you read about a crime committed by an alien, or the anchor baby of an alien, think about that. Remember Ted Kennedy. It’s on his head. He did his best to open the door for them and keep them here.

Ted’s brother Jack once called on America to put men on the moon, a quarter million miles away. Just because. And lo, with plenty of money and brainstorming and elbow grease men were there, less than a decade later. Playing golf. Ted in his turn, given an opportunity to right a wrong he helped create, argued instead that Americans should simply surrender and accept colonization by hostile, impoverished, uneducated aliens, because, we’re to believe, he couldn’t stomach the effort required to stop it.

In comparison to the trillions our corrupt politicians have since rushed to transfer from taxpayers to international financiers, Ted’s scary $250B for deportation seems positively puny. Beside that, it would be spread broadly and domestically in pursuit of a goal the citizenry has actually expressed an interest in. It would be an investment which would pay large dividends in the form of savings on unemployment, healthcare, law enforcement, education, utilities and infrastructure, and much more. In contrast, the trillions dropped in financier laps have simply vanished. The credit that absolutely positively had to loosen? It didn’t. Beyond preserving some undeserved bonuses it seems those trillions just got sucked right into the vacuum created by a decade or more of financial fraud and false profits. Plan B seems to be to give the country, and all of us, to China.

To hell with the money. It pales next to the genocide. Given the choice I would gladly put myself and my children on the hook for any amount to stop the immigration invasion, to send the ones already here home. As it happens I’m sure doing so would actually save money, which only makes the pain inflicted on us – the crowding, the crime, the violence, the political correctness – all the more senseless. Except it’s not. It’s genocide. We have what others want. We’re in their way. That’s the dynamic. You can see it in their furtive glare. At some point, as our numbers dwindle, order will break down. Look to Zimbabwe or South Africa to see where we’re heading.

You may not think of immigration as genocide. I never used to. Even now I don’t think it always was, or that it has to be. But recently I decided that the senseless flood being forced down our throats definitely is genocidal. It’s obliterating who and what we are. Fast and forever.

Allow me to offer a few of the stepping stones that brought me to this conclusion.

“Whether you declare war or not, we are in a societal conflict” excerpts a report, published in December of 2007, less than six months after Kennedy’s “gestapo” meltdown, on the hundreds of thousands of violent, criminal gangbangers fanning out across the US. Ted Kennedy was on their side. He wanted to make them citizens.

Pew Something Stinks describes how immigration has transformed the ethnic mix of this country. Anyone who knows anything about immigration knows this. Our corrupt politicians know we know it. In 1965 altering the mix was acknowledged, even by Kennedy, to be a bad idea. Today we’re supposed to pretend it’s a good thing, that we always wanted it to happen, otherwise we’re evil “racists”.

Genocidal Immigrationists is my first use of the phrase, prompted by the increasingly blatant sickening enthusiasm for nation-wrecking immigration in media and self-righteous jewish organizations, lobbying more zealously than ever for their immigrant friends. What seems insane is in truth only anti-White. It’s time to wake up. Smell the genocide.

– – –

On Tuesday, 25 August 2009, Senator Edward Kennedy died, escaping the justice he so richly deserved. It is Kennedy’s advocacy for genocidal immigration, especially after its ghastly impact was obvious, for which he should always be remembered. In ignominy. In infamy. Good riddance.

posted by Tanstaafl at 8/26/2009 09:51:00 PM 27 comments

Friday, August 21, 2009

What Anti-Migrant Anti-Hornet Racism Tells Us

Yet another case of non-human biology providing a headline highlighting a similar, but suppressed, human reality.

Tourists warned as Asian hornets terrorise French:

Tourists are being warned to steer clear of Asian hornets that are colonising France, after swarms of the aggressive predators attacked seven people.

That’s odd. The threat pales in comparison to the swarms of aggressive predatory alien muslim youths who have been permitted to colonize France and who pose a far more deadly threat, yet neither the authorities nor the media have issued correspondingly omnious warnings about that.

Odd also that even though all of the trouble-making Asian hornets were born and raised in France nobody has started calling them French hornets, nor do they pretend they can’t or shouldn’t notice any difference from the indigenous hornets. Curiously, the article also fails to emphasize that not all of the Asian hornets are trouble-makers. Nor does it assert that they are France’s greatest strength, that France is a nation of insects, or that the undocumented migrant hornets are just coming to do the jobs French honeybees won’t do.

Very, very strange.

“Never attempt to destroy an Asian hornet nest yourself but call on specialist organisations, as this species charges in a group as soon as it feels its nest is threatened.”

Whoops. Another uncomfortable similarity, and another contrast. The human invaders also attack in groups, stirred to murderous riot by the flimsiest pretexts. But “specialist organisations” will only answer calls to destroy the nests of hornets.

As a knock-on effect of the invasive species, the European hornet has become more aggressive, due to a lack of food.

When European people, as opposed to hornets, respond similarly, the “knock-on effect” is that the government openly militates against the indigenous species, not the invasive species. In Britain, there’s even an Asian human in charge of doing it. Labour says they will ease up on Muslim fanatics:

We shall be putting a renewed focus on resisting right-wing racist extremism. We cannot dismiss or underestimate the threat.

This typifies the genocidal official response all across the Eurosphere. For those of us who see this, we shall resist the reality-inverting “racist extremism” rhetoric used to pathologize our perfectly natural reactions to violent colonization. We cannot dismiss or underestimate the threat it poses.