California: Mexican Democrat Accused of Running Her Office Like a Mexican Brothel

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
February 19, 2018

Christina Garcia’s only crime was bringing Mexican culture to America

Multiculturalism is ostensibly about mixing other people’s cultures with our culture.

The biggest issue with implementing this plan, however, is that many elements of these cultures we are trying to mix with our own are fundamentally incapable of jiving with the Jewish culture that is promoted as Western culture.

For instance, Mexicans will run everything they are involved in as if it is a sex club.

Typical Mexican government office environment

Because they are like children, and that is considered fun for them. I mean, I’m sure it is fun. However, white people, being adults, tend to try to act like adults in the work place and not turn it into a sex club.

Fox News:

A California Democrat who was featured in Time magazine’s Person of the Year issue for her role in the anti-sexual harassment “#MeToo” movement allegedly urged staffers to play the grade-school classic, “spin the bottle,” after a night of heavy drinking at a fundraiser, Politico reported Sunday.

David John Kernick, 38, who worked in Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia’s office for five months in 2014, filed a formal complaint with the state, claiming that he was dismissed from his job for questioning the game.

Kernick told Politico that they played the game after an evening of heavy drinking. Garcia sat on a floor in a hotel room with about six people that included staff, he told the magazine.

Yeah, I mean – she’s just trying to provoke a staff orgy.

I wonder – have any of the people who promote the Mexicanification of America ever been to Mexico?

Orgies break out in this country after the third drink.

“It was definitely uncomfortable,’’ Kernick said. “But I realized it’s different for a man than for a woman. … You know it’s inappropriate, but at the same time you may wonder, ‘How many women do you work for that act like that?’ You think … ’Maybe she’s just really cool.’’’

It’s uncomfortable for you because you’re a Northern European SQUARE who gets all wigged-out as soon as someone tries to initiate a Mexican-style orgy at an office event.

You know what we call being made uncomfortable by a Mexican-style orgy?

Racism. We call that racism.

I think.

I mean… that seems like it would be racism.

Last week, Garcia was hit with fresh allegations of misconduct in her office, including frequent discussions about sex and alcohol consumption at the Capitol.

The complainants allege that Garcia regularly talked about her sexual activity, including with other members, in front of staff. They also allege Garcia drank alcohol while doing official Assembly business and pressured staff to join her in drinking at the office or at bars.

The allegations came as Garcia is on a leave of absence following news she is being investigated in the groping of a former male legislative staff member in 2014.

Again – where is the surprise here?

She is trying to let loose. She’s fucking the entire staff, then getting drunk at work and telling the staff about the sexual experiences she’s had with the rest of the staff.

Mexican festivities are just warm-ups for the orgy. Again: have none of the people promoting Mexification ever been to Mexico? 

Isn’t this the Mexicanification we were going for?

Or do we just want the shitty parts like gang violence and beheadings?

What exactly is the goal of multiculturalism? 

None of the new complaints involve sexual misconduct, but Gilleon said the former employees considered Garcia’s frequent talk about sex a form sexual harassment.

Racism again.

Nonstop talk about sex is a part of Mexican heritage.

Garcia took a leave of absence Friday after news broke that Daniel Fierro, a former staffer in another office, alleged she rubbed his back, grabbed his buttocks and tried to grab his groin at a legislative softball game in 2014. She denies the claims.

Most people would have found that funny, Daniel.

And even if they were made uncomfortable by it, they would not have been so racist as to bring it up publicly.

We Need to Have a Discussion About Just What the Hell “Multiculturalism” Is – Because I Don’t Think Anyone Knows

If multiculturalism is not allowing foreign cultures to implement their own cultures in our country, then what is it?

What are we actually even talking about here?

Virtually no aspect of Mexican, African, Asian or Islamic culture jives with the Jewish ideal culture of feminism, homosexuality, human rights, etc.

If we wanted true multiculturalism – that is, mixing all cultures of the world together – what we would get is a violent, corrupt, poverty-ridden hyper-sexualized circus.

Blade Runner isn’t even accurate because there is no way a mixed-race society of mostly brown people could ever maintain that level of technology.

You wish.

Blade Runner is what you would get if you had only white people and Asians and had some kind of authoritarian state to enforce atheistic anarcho-consumerism. Even then I think a White/Asian society would come to some kind of natural Techno-Buddha Zeitgeist through artificial intelligence.

But that isn’t the thing.

What we are talking about is all of these different monkey-races coming together to create – to create what?

What the hell are we doing here, people?

Unlike the whackjobs promoting the “multicultural experiment,” I have actually been to all of these countries that these people are calling to have all mixed together, and I am telling you, even if you were able to somehow stop a race war and get all of these people to just seamlessly come together, you would not get anything resembling the stated Jewish vision.

So can someone define exactly what the goal is?

Gun Control is Code for Population Control – What event would have to happen for the United States to have another Civil War or Revolution?

Joe Jones

Daily Stormer
February 19, 2018

If you disarm a population and only arm the agents of the state, you are only allowing the state to do whatever the hell they want without any fear of repercussions.

“Gun control” is just code for population control.

What event would have to happen for the United States to have another Civil War or Revolution?

Okay, it’s a pretty unlikely event, at least in the near future, but we can still have fun trying to come up with a sort-vaguely-plausible scenario.

To really get in the spirit of the question, let’s start with an all-too-possible trigger for a dystopian scenario:  the U.S. slides into another recession, but this time interest rates are already at rock bottom, so the Fed is helpless to prevent deflation.  Spiraling deflation turns the recession into a major depression that drags on for years, rapidly turning the U.S. into a second-rate power.

The level of hostility and ideological rhetoric gripping the country is deep and vicious.  Each party is convinced that the solutions advocated by the other side are exactly the things that are destroying the country.  Each accuses the other of treason.

One party has rigid control of the House and just barely controls the Senate, but not the presidency.  The party in control of the legislature blames all the problems on the president and vice versa.

Congress blocks all presidential initiatives and refuses to fund the government.  The president vetoes what he sees as disastrous crackpot bills and, citing lack of funds and changed circumstances, refuses to enforce old laws that he believes are contributing to the decline.

Stalemate continues, neither side backs down, the U.S. defaults on its debts, the world economy collapses, and all major problems suddenly get much, much worse.  People are starving, riots break out and are bloodily suppressed, Democrats are lynched in red states, and Republicans are hunted down by angry mobs in blue states.

Sensational news stories break, claiming that the president and senior members of his party had met to secretly decide to suspend the constitution and declare martial law during the next Congressional recess.  The House immediately votes to impeach the president, the vice president, and 47 senators from the president’s party on charges of treason.

The Senate, on a simple majority vote, rules that given the clear and present danger of a traitorous coup attempt, the impeached senators and accused traitors are to be be arrested and cannot vote on questions of impeachment or expulsion.  Immediately afterward, a two-thirds majority of the unimpeached senators vote to expel the impeached senators and to convict the president, the vice president, and the 47 senators of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and remove them from office.

The Supreme Court fractures along ideological lines and issues a 4-4-1 split decision invalidating the decision to “suspend” the 47 senators and therefore invalidating the removal of the president and vice president.  However, the Chief Justice chooses to interpret the murky wording of the 1 separate opinion as meaning that the verdict is “advisory” only, and proceeds to swear in the Speaker of the House as president.

The “new president” orders military units to surround the White House and arrest the “old president” and his criminal supporters.  A Virginia National Guard mechanized battalion makes a pre-arranged dash for the White House in an attempt to comply, but several companies of marines are hastily scrambled from the Navy Yard to block its path.  Civilians throwing Molotov cocktails force the armored units to retreat.

Meanwhile, the “old president” declares a state of civil insurrection and orders a battalion of MPs from Fort Meade and several other nearby units to move on Capital Hill in order to arrest the former Speaker and presidential “pretender.”

More units enter the city from all sides.  Pitched battles are fought along Pennsylvania Avenue, around Capitol Hill, and for control of essential bridges and avenues.  Memorial Bridge is destroyed and the Capitol Building and the White House both take severe damage as all the politicians scatter and retreat to their home states.

Both presidents declare martial law and issue a call for obedience and order.  Red and blue states align according to party.  Fighting breaks out as military units refuse to accept orders from “renegade” officials of the opposite faction.

Mutinies occur in many units, and both sides rapidly purge officers and NCOs who refuse to go along with the winning side.  Pitched battles are fought on some military bases as units choose opposite sides.

Aided by Rutgers ROTC units and a hastily organized Loyalist militia from Newark, the New Jersey Guard is one of several state forces that defy orders and arrest their own governors.

The Joint Chiefs hastily declare neutrality and seize control of northern Virgina and most of DC.  Many military units that have avoided partisan clashes take up defensive positions and attempt to impose martial law in their immediate areas, but the old south and many midwestern states quickly declare for the “Patriots.”

Most of the navy stays neutral, but some ships have to put to sea in haste with skeleton crews and deckloads of refugees as southern naval bases are overrun by Patriot militias and National Guard units.

A guerrilla war breaks out in California, where Patriot militias seize large parts of the state in the east, the south, and the central valley.

The Loyalist states of Colorado and New Mexico are invaded by Patriot units from neighboring states seeking to control strategic air and nuclear assets.  Although officially neutral, Air Force units cripple the invading units and force them to retreat.

The Montana National Guard and local Patriot militias overrun and capture numerous missile silos, but not before the determinedly neutral missile crews manage to sabotage all of the ICBMs and the launch equipment.

The Patriot president calls for a cease fire and immediate partition of the country, effectively calling for the expulsion of the Loyalist states.  A low-yield nuclear explosion is detected in Kansas where Patriot delegates are gathered for a constitutional convention.

The disintegration continues.

*******

Okay, I could go on, but you can see where this is going.

The point is that one of the flaws in our constitutional system – and a crucial flaw in the “it couldn’t happen here” argument – is that each house of congress has the sole, unchecked, and arbitrary authority to determine its own rules.  If one party controls both houses, it is then possible to use those rules and the impeachment powers to expel any sitting members of either house, making a legislative coup d’etat an ever-tempting prospect in times of deep ideological division.

All it takes is belief that the other side is completely evil.  Then any good pretext will do.

Ref:
Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution provides that “Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.”

Wakanda, the Black Panther and the Attack on White Culture

But Explain Detroit… “Black Panther” Stars Believe if it weren’t for Western Colonization, Africa Would Boast Most Advanced Civilization on Earth

Shot. [‘BLACK PANTHER’ STAR MOVIE SHOWS AFRICA’S POTENTIAL If Not for Slavery!!!, TMZ, 1-30-18]:

The King from “Black Panther” says his Marvel movie is way more than a superhero flick — it’s also going to debunk a bunch of stereotypes about Africa. In other words … school’s in!

An image from Black Panther depicting Wakanda, the most advanced civilization on earth.  Doesn’t look much like post-white Baltimore, Detroit, Newark, Camden, or Jackson (MS)…

We got John Kani, who plays King T’Chaka, and asked if he thinks the highly anticipated film will ease racial tensions in America. His answer was, quite frankly, awesome.

“See the Black Panther, you’ll see we built the pyramids in Egypt,” he said.  

Chaser. [Lupita Nyong’o Hopes ‘Black Panther’ Will Help Many Envision What Africa Would Look Like If It Had Never Been Colonized, Atlanta Black Star, 1-31-18]:

At the world premiere screening of the highly anticipated film “Black Panther”, Lupita Nyong’o spoke to E! News briefly about what it actually took for her to pull off the fierce role of Nakia. Lupita said to perform this role she had to be in “particularly good shape for it to do the stunts. And she “loved it.”

We are about to see black power on celluloid like never before…

The actress then expressed her take on the movie. She explains that the fictional nation Wakanda is “such an exciting world to be in. Like none other we’ve ever seen.” She goes on to say it’s like we see “what would Africa look like if it was not colonized.” Nyong’o says she hopes the audience leaves thinking about if “they can be citizens of Wakanda.”

The black actors, more than 90 percent of the cast in the movie, actually believe it’s only because of colonization by Europeans the natural evolution of Africa into an advanced civilization boasting unparalleled technology was retarded (however momentarily). They legitimately – literally – believe “royalty is in our [African] DNA.

In post-Apartheid South Africa, where hyper-affirmative action laws (BEE) have mandated the shuttering of competent white engineers in the private/public trying to maintain infrastructure whites long ago built, rolling blackouts are the norm and Cape Town is on the verge of running out of potable water. Don’t even get us started on Ponte City Tower in Johannesburg

Afrocentrism on steroids is the only way to describe Black Panther, when an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence (pattern recognition) actually showcases the concept of black power being the greatest EMP to western civilization – any civilization – once implemented.

#WakandaIsntReal: The Story of a White American Who Tried to Rebuild a Centuries Old Bridge in Ethiopia (Originally Built by Europeans)

PK Note: I forgot I wrote this, but it’s included in Captain America and Whiteness: The Dilemma of the Superhero, published in August of 2011. It discusses Wakanda and the Black Panther, long before the dream of a film on the African King had come to fruition. 

Even though Stephen Hawking can’t find a Black ((((((Albert Einstein)))))) living in Africa; even though 98 of the 108 patents granted in all of Africa came from white people living in South Africa; even though not one invention of significant importance can be attributed to an African; even though immense resources have been mined by European, American, and Chinese companies, where the indigenous Africans can’t conceive of usages for them; even though all of the aforementioned is true,  Marvel Comics decided that the nation with the most advanced technology would set in the mythical African nation of Wakanda, protected by the Black Panther.

 
A bridge in Ethiopia, built by Europeans centuries ago. Africans never rebuilt the bridge, so they cross it via ropes

Though the only Nobel Awards given to those of African descent have come in either peace or literature, Marvel expects us to believe that the most advanced technological society on earth is in Africa.

Wikipedia tells us:

Wakanda is a fictional nation in the Marvel Universe. It is the most prominent of several fictional African nations in the Marvel Universe. Wakanda is located in Northeastern Africa, although its exact location has varied throughout the nation’s publication history: some sources place Wakanda in East Africa, just north of Tanzania, while others – such as Marvel Atlas #2 – show it bordering Lake Turkana, near Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia (as well as fictional countries like Azania, Canaan and Narobia). Wakanda first appeared in Fantastic Four #52 (July 1966), and was created by ((((((Stan Lee)))))) and ((((((Jack Kirby)))))). The name is evocative of the Wakamba tribe of Kenya.

Marvel would have us believe that a continent, where the overwhelmingly majority of innovation is originating from white South Africans, could produce an ancient land called Wakanda that harbors one of the most advanced civilizations in the world.

At this point it would be wise to reproduce an article from a 2002 issue of National Geographic that discusses the breadth of African innovation. That article showed a bunch of Africans standing on a dilapidated bridge built by Europeans for the famous Ethiopian Emperor Fasilides more than 300 years prior. Influenced by this picture Ken Frantz, a white Virginian who was in the construction and building industry, decided to found Bridges to Prosperity to help rebuild this collapsed European bridge in the heart of Africa; a task that Africans were incapable of doing.

Here is that article which discusses Ken’s inspiration to found the group:

Ken Frantz decided to fix an Ethiopian bridge because, he says, “I’m a boy, and boys love bridges.”Happily, this “boy” owns a construction company.

Ken, 52, was waiting for mechanics to service a truck in his hometown of Gloucester, Virginia, when he picked up the December 2000 Geographic. He saw a photo of Ethiopians being hauled on a rope across the Blue Nile- a 360-year-old bridge that had been destroyed during the Italian occupation of 1935-1941. “I looked at the photo once, twice, three times,” Ken recalls, “and it came to me: What I want to do is repair that bridge.”

Ken helped launch Bridge to Prosperity, dedicated to building bridges to help create wealth in developing nations. The group surveyed the site, won backing from tribal elders, and chose a lightweight steel design. Donkeys toted in 25,000 pounds of supplies, and Ken, his crew, and Ethiopian volunteers rebuilt the bride in ten days at a cost of $108,000, largely donated by the organization’s founders.

“Half a million people live near the bridge,” he says. “Now they can trade, get to hospitals and schools on the other side, and see family they haven’t seen for years.” Ken’s group has also built cableways in Nepal, a suspension bridge in Indonesia, and a second Ethiopian bridge.”

Why did it take a white guy in America, galvanized by a desire to help those less fortunate, to help build a rebuild a destroyed bridge? Frantz explained further:

“It was built in 1640, approximately, by a very famous emperor, Fasil. And he was just a building maniac.”  Emperor Fasil’s bridge spurred a flourishing trade route. But as people chopped down trees in this area, erosion increased – and so did flooding. Increased flooding undermined the bridge.

 
A white engineer in the USA helped rebuild this bridge, because Wakanda isn’t real.

“So it was constantly being washed out. Until it got the name the Sebara Dildiy. Sebara Dildiy in Amharic means broken bridge.”  In 1936, Ethiopian nationalists destroyed the Sebara Dildiy on purpose, to slow Mussolini’s invasion during World War II. Makeshift repairs using logs held the bridge together until the mid-1950s.  After that, travelers and their livestock could only cross the river on a tattered rope, pulled by ten men on either side of the river. Nine years ago, Ken Frantz saw a photograph of this precarious scene in National Geographic and decided to fix the broken bridge. He assembled a team to repair Sebara Dildiy in 2002 using steel beams that were painstakingly carried down and assembled on site. But THAT bridge didn’t last. A flood destroyed it in 2006. That’s why Frantz and his team have returned to Ethiopia – to try again. This time, they’ve taken on a more ambitious project: A new, cable suspension bridge, much longer and higher off the river. But not everything would go as planned.  “All right, tell everyone, higher one is coming from the inside…”  Bridges to Prosperity’s director of operations Avery Bang supervised final preparations. She found a few surprises. Her group had trained a young Ethiopian engineer to oversee construction of steel and concrete anchors on opposite walls of the canyon.  These would secure the cables. But the location of the anchors was different from what the plans had called for.  “The excavation was supposed to be further back and deeper. What are you going to do? You have to redesign.”  So the team revamped the way the cables would be cemented into the anchors. The pace of work picked up after all six cables had been hauled into place. On one side of the river, workers began winching the cables tight.  The cables slowly rose in a gently drooping arch between the canyon walls. On the other side, workers sawed wooden planks for the walkway. Ken Frantz and two of his brothers nailed the planks in place.  They were halfway across the span, 80 feet above the river, when calamity struck. A stone pillar that anchored one of the handrails rocked, then tipped, then tumbled down the steep hillside. Ken Frantz’s brother Forrest later recalled the tense moment.  “We looked up, looked out across the river, and it’s pretty far away – it’s hard to see the details, what’s going across the river – but you could see the tower collapse. The cable dropped, hit the ground, and a cloud of dust came up. The next thing we heard was horrifying. And that was the sound of things dropping into the river. We could not see through the dust. We didn’t know what was falling into the river. We did not know if it was rocks or if it was people.”

Why didn’t the Wakandians build the bridge for them? You see, in the real world, American engineers motivated by altruism – such as Ken Frantz – build Africa’s infrastructure for them; or Chinese companies – motivated by profit, expansion and cultivating resources the African population can’t cultivate on their own – perform this task.

 
White people built the bridge. It was destroyed and Africans couldn’t rebuilt it. A white guy from the USA rebuilt it. #WakandaIsntReal

Sadly the best aviators and airplanes aren’t built in Wakanda either:

Deaths on commercial aircraft worldwide rose 15 percent last year while the overall accident rate involving Western-built jets fell to an all-time low.

Those figures were released Wednesday by the International Air Transport Association, a trade group for the world’s airlines.

The group said 786 people died in 23 separate accidents last year, up from 685 deaths in 18 fatal crashes in 2009. The figures include all kinds of jets and turboprops operated on commercial flights but don’t include private or military aircraft.

There were no fatalities involving U.S. airlines last year. The most recent fatal accident involving a U.S. airline was the February 2009 crash of a Continental Connection flight near Buffalo, N.Y., in which 50 people died.

Accident rates were lowest in the former Soviet republics and North America, followed by North Asia and Europe. Rates were higher than the world average in the Asia-Pacific region, Middle East-North Africa and Latin America-Caribbean.

The highest rate was in Africa. IATA said African airlines accounted for 2 percent of worldwide passenger traffic but 23 percent of serious accidents.

Regrettably, Wakanda (or for that any of Africa, save white South Africa) can be seen illuminated from the vantage of space. Consult these NASA images available at (http://geology.com/articles/satellite-photo-earth-at-night.shtml).

While the United States and all of Europe, with parts of Russia, Asia, Australia, and South America, can be seen to have beings of intelligence capable of producing electricity, the heart of Africa is dark from space.

Why isn’t Wakanda illuminated?

Probably because, like it’s protector the Black Panther, the nation is a figment of Marvel writer’s imaginations. Yes, the leader of Wakanda is named the Black Panther, and in the comics he routinely battles members of the KKK, radical white Afrikaners, and other assorted white supremacists and international enemies attempting to steal Wakanda’s technological secrets.

In the early 1990s, popular movie franchises like Superman (four movies starring Christopher Reeve) had already been made; two Tim Burton Batman films (starting Michael Keaton); and three hilariously bad Marvel films (1989’s Punisher starring Dolph Lundgren, 1990’s Captain America, and a Fantastic Four movie that never saw a theater or VHS release); not to mention a live-action Dick Tracy, The Shadow, and The Phantom films – all staring white guys – were on the verge of being released.

Wesley Snipes, who would portray the Black vampire Blade in three films, wanted to bring Wakanda and its protector, The Black Panther, to life. He told the St. Petersburg Times in 2010:

Snipes said in August 1993, “We have a wide-open field for comic book characters on the big screen and we’ve yet to have a major black comic book hero on the screen. Especially the Black Panther, which is such a rich, interesting life. It’s a dream come true to originate something that nobody’s ever seen before.”

As of yet, tales of Wakandian lore have yet to reach the cinema, but such an event can only be around the corner. Marvel is trying to option all of their major or minor heroes into films – to generate more and more revenue – and the tales of the Black Panther fighting for the honor of the technological advanced citizens of Wakanda will make a great addition to the stories of Iron Man, Thor, Spider-Man, and Captain America.

Even though Stephen Hawking can’t find a black Einstein in Africa, Marvel Comics can help draw up some historically inaccurate self-esteem for the few black readers of comics by creating Wakanda.

Posted by Stuff Black People Don’t Like

“Royalty is in our DNA” — The Black Hype for ‘Black Panther’ Represents how Blacks Privately View Themselves: As Kings and Queens

The Ron Clark Academy in Atlanta, a 96% black middle school, is a goofy private school spending nearly two times per pupil as other schools in the state of Georgia.

It’s also the home of the latest viral video for the upcoming Black Panther film (one inspiring black people to take the #BlackPantherChallenge and pay for young blacks to see the oozing with black supremacism movie), where the black students learned they’d be going to it for free. [WATCH: Atlanta school surprises students with ‘Black Panther’ movie tickets in viral video, AJC, 2-2-18]:


“Black Panther” is one of the most anticipated films of the year, and one school just surprised all of its students with tickets

If you ever wanted to get a glimpse of how black people privately view themselves, it’s magnified ludicrously in Black Panther.

Ron Clark Academy, a middle school located in southeast Atlanta, recently posted a video of its students dancing and chanting after learning they were headed to the theaters to see the action flick, out Feb. 16. 

The school, which has 120 scholars, uploaded the clip on its Facebook page Friday with the caption, “that moment when the whole school finds out they’re going to see Marvel’s new movie, Black Panther!”

The nearly one-minute-long post quickly went viral, garnering more than 600,000 views and nearly 27,000 shares within just three hours. 

Not only will the kids gather to watch the motion picture, they will also have a day of cultural classes, featuring lessons on African art, dance, music, math, science, history and spirituality.

“The beauty of African traditions are woven into a sci-fi film with tremendous opportunities to have discussions about cultural and identity,” Susan Barnes, the art teacher at the school, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “Furthermore, to see a black male lead as a superhero is very powerful for our students because traditionally superheroes have been white.”

Starring Chadwick Boseman, Michael B. Jordan, Lupita N’yongo and a host of others, the Ryan Coogler-directed movie follows Black Panther, or T’Challa, as he returns home to his African nation of Wakanda to reclaim his throne.

The entire staff, which is a diverse bunch from different backgrounds, is excited about the event, and they said they’re enthusiastic to “provide an opportunity for discussion and reflection that will be powerful!”

Wakanda isn’t real, but the fictional African nation represents the exact type of world Africans in America believe they’d create if it weren’t for the pernicious influence of systemic racism, implicit bias and white privilege. Black Panther is a movie playing upon blacks embarrassingly unjustified high self-esteem (“royalty is in our DNA,” and “create vivid images of black excellent”).

Watch this video of blacks celebrating the free ticket to see the movie (and how the fictional movie will be incorporated in their history and math curriculum) and notice if you can find an image of one of the lone white students at the black empowerment middle school…

Marvel’s “Thor” Was Based on Nordic Mythology, but included Africans as White Gods; “Black Panther” Created by Two Jewish Guys in 1960s, is Ultimate Black Power Myth Now

PK NOTE: For the record, the Nordic myths behind the Marvel character Thor bound a people together and formed the basis of a civilization via religion; two Jewish guys invented Wakanda in the 1960s, a black power fantasy depicting an African nation untouched by white hands that present-day black people now worship as manifestation of Afrofuturism and solving Hollywood’s “Africa Problem” 

Shot. [Idris Elba defends Thor film role: Race debate stirs after London-born star of The Wire wins role as Norse deity Heimdall in Kenneth Branagh’s new film Thor, The Guardian, 4-27-10]:

Even for an actor who has played a vampire-hunter with a guilty conscience, a Baltimore crime lord with a taste for Adam Smith, and an asset manager with a stalker, the role of the Norse deity Heimdall – guardian of the burning rainbow bridge between the world of men and the world of gods – was always going to be a bit of a challenge.

Marvel’s Thor: A mockery of European traditions, myths, and religion

But playing a god in Kenneth Branagh’s forthcoming film Thor has turned out to be the least of Idris Elba’s worries, after fans of the comic books turned on the star of The Wire for reasons that have nothing to do with his acting ability and everything to do with the colour of his skin.

When news emerged late last year that the 37-year-old black Londoner had been chosen to play Heimdall, “the whitest of the gods”, a being who can hear the sap flowing in trees and look across time and space, many devotees of the Marvel comics on which the film is based flocked to online forums to weep, gnash their teeth and unleash a tide of indignation.

A fortnight ago, the actor told Jonathan Ross that his take on Heimdall was “Norse by way of Hackney, Canning Town”. And at the beginning of the month, he told a press conference that he saw his casting as an encouraging step.

His view was not shared among the more vehement of the comic books’ fans. “This PC crap has gone too far!” wailed one. “Norse deities are not of an African ethnicity! … It’s the principle of the matter. It’s about respecting the integrity of the source material, both comics and Norse mythologies.”

Fellow fans were quick to nod their horn-helmeted heads.

“At the risk of sounding like a bigot, I think this is nuts!” said another. “Asgard is home to the Norse Gods!!! Not too many un-fair complexion types roaming the frigid waste lands up there. I wouldn’t expect to see many Brad Pitt types walking around in the [first mainstream black superhero] Black Panther’s Wakanda Palace!”

Elba, who was born in Hackney, north-east London, to a Ghanaian mother and Sierra Leonean father, has addressed such concerns in a string of recent interviews.“There has been a big debate about it: can a black man play a Nordic character?” he told TV Times. “Hang about, Thor’s mythical, right? Thor has a hammer that flies to him when he clicks his fingers. That’s OK, but the colour of my skin is wrong?

“I was cast in Thor and I’m cast as a Nordic god,” he said. “If you know anything about the Nords, they don’t look like me but there you go. I think that’s a sign of the times for the future. I think we will see multi-level casting. I think we will see that, and I think that’s good.”

Chaser. [Who’s Allowed to Wear a Black Panther Mask?, Kwame Opam, 2-13-18]:

In an interview with BuzzFeed News in the fall, Sterling K. Brown, a star of “Black Panther,” thrilled at the prospect of children, black and white, dressing up as the title character. “This Halloween, the first time I see a little kid, a white kid, dressed up as Black Panther, I’m taking a picture,” he said. “You better believe I’m taking a picture, because that’s the crossover.”

Chadwick Boseman, who plays Black Panther in the film, had already witnessed said crossover, he said in the same interview: “I’ve seen little white kids dressed up as T’Challa. I’ve seen pictures, and I’ve seen it in person.”

Wakanda: a veritable social construct, devised by two Jewish comic writers, playing upon toxic levels of black self-esteem/vanity and mentally debilitating white guilt

Black Panther costumes — whether the character’s full raiment or just his claws and mask — are on toy store shelves (and, of course, on Amazon) in anticipation of the film’s Feb. 16 release. At best, the character get-ups speak to the enthusiastic embrace of a black superhero. At worst, they could be perceived as an unwitting form of cultural appropriation, which has in recent years become a subject of freighted discourse.

What does that dual significance mean for children? And, perhaps more urgently, what does it mean for the parents who will buy the costumes for them?

“As parents, or even as the people creating costumes, we need to be very aware of what that says,” said Brigitte Vittrup, an associate professor of early childhood development and education at Texas Woman’s University. “There’s not a whole lot of black superheroes, so this is a really important thing, especially for black kids growing up.”

Many parents are split on how Black Panther’s blackness should figure into their children’s relationship to the character. Some argue that placing racial boundaries around expressions of fandom is unnecessary.

“I’m actually wondering now what it might be like for that parent who’s not of color if his kid comes home and says, ‘I want to dress up like Black Panther,’” said Katrina Jones, 39, the director of human resources at Vimeo. “When I look at it, I see no reason why a kid who’s not black can’t dress like Black Panther. Just like our kid who’s not white dresses up like Captain America. I think the beautiful thing about comics is they do transcend race in a lot of ways.”

Mary Dimacali, 29, a social media and marketing manager in Rockland County, New York, echoed that idea. She does not believe that her fiancé’s 7-year-old son, Sawyer, who is white, sees the film or its characters through the lens of race. Sawyer himself, during the interview with Ms. Dimacali, said, “sure,” when she asked if he’d like to dress up as Black Panther.

“For a white kid to be so open and judge based on the character’s story and the personality and history, I think that’s what’s important,” she said. “But on the flip side, I think it’s also great to have a black superhero you can identify and connect to.”

The character’s history is unique. Created by ((((((Stan Lee)))))) and ((((((Jack Kirby)))))) in 1966, Black Panther rules as the king of an African technological utopia known as Wakanda. Untouched by European invaders, Wakanda exists apart from the legacies of colonization and racism. Black history and black fantasy are central to the character, and the series has brought on prominent black writers including Ta-Nehisi Coates to deepen its significance over the last 50 years.

Consequently, some parents have felt pressure to hammer home Black Panther’s heroism through the lens of race.

“I’m conflicted,” said Evan Narcisse, a senior writer for the website io9. He is completing “Rise of the Black Panther,” a six-part comic series for Marvel that traces the character’s early history. He has tried to explain some of that history to his 7-year-old daughter, but without delving too deeply into complex concepts like Western imperialism, which she may struggle to grasp.

“You want that white kid to be able to think that he can dress up in a Black Panther costume, because, to that kid, there’s no difference between Captain America and Black Panther,” Mr. Narcisse, 45, said. But, he added, it also involves “trying to explain what is special about T’Challa and Wakanda without racism. And it’s like, ‘Can’t do it.’ I couldn’t do it.”

According to the ticketing site Fandango, “Black Panther” set a record among Marvel films for the most advance tickets sold in a 24-hour period. It’s projected to make a record-breaking $165 million over Presidents’ Day weekend and comparisons to last year’s “Wonder Woman” bode well for its reception and impact, particularly for black people.

I’ve been to Wakanda, and I may never recover. I am so grateful that our young people will see this film and their minds will be transformed. Congratulations #RyanCoogler —you did that! #blackpantherpremiere #blackpanther — Vanessa K. De Luca (@Vanessa_KDeLuca) Jan. 30, 2018

“White people have the privilege of not constantly being reminded of their race in the United States, where white is the majority, whereas as a black person you don’t,” Ms. Vittrup said.

She believes that parents in general, and white parents in particular, are reluctant to talk about race with young children.

When they do, they often miss the chance to talk about inequality, even though research supports the idea that children develop an awareness of race and difference at a very young age.

Ms. Vittrup was careful to add that dressing as Black Panther isn’t inherently appropriative or offensive. The character comes from an invented African country, and to wear his mask isn’t quite the same as wearing blackface. However, in a moment where even more black heroes, like Luke Cage and Black Lightning, are finding their way into the limelight, Black Panther’s relationship with the black community and its history creates an opportunity to teach nonblack children about the black experience.

“Kids are not colorblind,” she said. “There’s a lot of structural inequality in our society, and kids are noticing that. By not mentioning it, by not talking about it, we’re essentially preserving the status quo.”Continue reading the main storyAdvertisementContinue reading the main story“I’m actually wondering now what it might be like for that parent who’s not of color if his kid comes home and says, ‘I want to dress up like Black Panther,’” said Katrina Jones, 39, the director of human resources at Vimeo. “When I look at it, I see no reason why a kid who’s not black can’t dress like Black Panther. Just like our kid who’s not white dresses up like Captain America. I think the beautiful thing about comics is they do transcend race in a lot of ways.”

Norse mythology is a real, highly verifiable component of European culture and identity, spanning centuries and connecting a unique racial group to their ancestors; Wakanda is a social construct, the wish fulfillment of Africans for a superior black power civilization – in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence of black dysfunction/failure when compared to European ingenuity –  only possible on film because of technology invented by white people (visual special effects), and a mythology created by two Jewish guys in the 1960s.

Hollywood must promote black self-esteem at all cost, while doing everything possible to bury any sense of pride white people might procure from seeing their past, history, and religion proudly displayed on film.

#WakandaIsntReal

BLACK PANTHER Will Be A Hit–But Will Blacks Side With The “Villain,” Killmonger?

[See Also by Paul Kersey: Thing Is, We’re Supposed To BELIEVE This BLACK PANTHER Black Power Fantasy]

Black Panther will be a monster hit at the box office in its opening weekend [‘Black Panther’ Heading Toward Massive $170 Million-Plus Opening, by Dave McNary, Variety, February 12, 2018]. My guess is it will surpass $200 million, as black identity and Main Stream Media cheerleading are creating a formidable marketing combination [Black Panther: does the Marvel epic solve Hollywood’s Africa problem? By Steve Rose, Guardian, February 3, 2018]. But while the top-down driven marketing campaign will almost certainly make the film a financial success, many blacks may take away the wrong message. After all, the real Afrocentric hero is “villain” Erik Killmonger–not Wakandan prince  Black Panther.

You’ll Never Use Amazon Again After Seeing This Shopping Site
Tophatter

And which message people take away from this film is a desperately important question. After all, the MSM desperately wants this film to be a commercial success and is promoting it as a political milestone. The film already has a 98% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes–not surprising considering the website seems to be blocking anyone with a negative review, calling it “hate speech” [Rotten Tomatoes Will Block Anyone Who Tries to Sabotage ‘Black Panther’ Fan Score: ‘We Do Not Condone Hate Speech’, by Zack Sharf, Indiewire.com, February 2, 2018].

Despite the Black Panther character being created by two Jewish guys in the 1960s, the film is pure racial triumphalism [‘Young black people can be heroes too’: the campaign to send kids to see Black Panther, by Precious Mayowa Agbabiaka, Guardian, February 9, 2018]. it is being portrayed as a representation of what Africa would be were it not for European colonization [Black Panther is for film what Barack Obama was for the presidency, by Issac Bailey, CNN, February 9, 2018]. And it will have real world consequences:

South African actor John Kani, who plays King T’Chaka, told NBC News that this movie has a deeper meaning for non-Americans and people living in Africa.

“This movie will prove to the colonialists that if they had not interfered with Africa, we’d be so far advanced, may make them believe we built those pyramids in Egypt. No alien did them,” Kani said. “The metaphor is, Africa has great potential. Africa no longer relates to the world with a bag and bone. We’re looking for interaction and trade, not aid.”…

The idea of Wakanda and the Wakandan people serve as pure inspiration. Wakanda, as a model of the growth of the natural brilliance of an African nation that was never interfered with by the outside world coming in to colonize, to strip of its resources, to change their way of life – is an African utopia.

[‘Black Panther’s’ Wakanda sheds light on black excellence, by Jarrett Hill, NBC, February 9, 2018]

The fact this fantasy is seen as “proof” is disturbing. The film is telling blacks that the problems of Africans in the West and in Africa is simply the fault of white people. And this leads us to the film’s villain, Erik Killmonger.

Killmonger (whose character is a black American Spec-Ops soldier, something rare in real life) wants to utilize the military technology of the advanced African nation to enable black revolutionaries worldwide to wage war on white supremacy. The black experience in America is presented as justification for this mission of racial vengeance:

Michael B. Jordan adds fire as Killmonger, the radical who wants to pull Wakanda out of its comfort zone and into an armed struggle. That’s a storyline Coogler underlines by setting an early scene in Oakland, Calif., birthplace of the real-life black-power group.

[‘Black Panther’ review: A new icon and pure comic-book action, By Stephen Whitty, New York Daily News, February 7, 2018]

Of course, though it is not explained in the film, the broader mythos of the comics has to explain why Wakanda not only survived European colonization but did nothing to stop it elsewhere in Africa. And there is an answer.

[T]he Wakandans made a pact with the white European colonial powers: if you don’t make war on Wakanda, Wakandans will turn a blind eye to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and European colonialism of the rest of Africa.

[Marvel Made a Black Panther Movie Partly Because Reginald Hudlin Put the ‘Black’ in Panther, by Todd Burroughs, The Root, February 7, 2018]

Talk about a bunch of Uncle Toms.

There’s a similar conflict in the film. The main dispute between Black Panther and Killmonger is over what Wakanda owes the larger black world. After all, if every problem blacks face is because of white racism, why shouldn’t Wakanda take action to stop it, given that it is vastly more powerful and advanced than the evil racist West?

It also doesn’t shy away from the fraught question being posed about what responsibility Wakanda has to the broader—white, colonial—world. Killmonger would say that what’s owed is a reckoning, a violent and necessary reshifting of power. T’Challa instead warily sees the potential benefit of peaceful outreach, of sharing ideas to heal past and current wounds. It’s complicated stuff, and not anything that Coogler offers an easy answer for. Watching these issues mulled over in a big superhero spectacular is quite something—it elevates the level of Marvel’s political discourse considerably.

[Black Panther Review: The Marvel Universe Finally Shows Us Something New, by Richard Lawson, Vanity Fair, February 6, 2018]

Indeed, as Variety notes, Killmonger is in many ways the most compelling character:

Killmonger has more than just wreaking chaos in mind. He’s motivated by a feeling of deep political injustice, plus a “This time it’s personal” sense of vengeance, and he’s convinced that raiding the Wakanda’s stockpile of Vibranium could put genuine firepower in a worldwide black uprising.

It’s a compelling idea (enough to sway a key ally played by Daniel Kaluuya), and a reminder that throughout the African diaspora, the black-white power balance remains as it is courtesy of Jim Crow practices designed to keep minorities in check: persistent segregation, broken drug laws, racially targeted policing, disproportionately high incarceration rates — all of which are identified and indicted by Coogler’s truth-to-power script. Arm the oppressed, Killmonger passionately argues, and it won’t take a century for the system that produced “The Birth of a Nation” to grant a black artist the right to tell this kind of story — not that Coogler endorses the character’s lunatic ideas.

[Film Review: ‘Black Panther,’ by Peter Debruge, February 6, 2018]

National Review, in a rather embarrassing attempt to get on board with the rest of the media, framed the film as a debate between Malcolm X (Killmonger) and the fake Martin Luther King Jr.  Beltway Right caricature:

Like many a great movie villain, Killmonger is seductive but wrong, and he stands for ideas that have considerable resonance in the real world. He channels the sense, memorably popularized by Malcolm, that the natural state of black people is to be kings. Black ghettoization was purposely engineered by duplicitous white people, who at first used enslavement but later turned to subtler methods of oppression…

Killmonger, then, wants the kind of race war Charles Manson dubbed helter skelter. That a large majority of the world’s most successful black people are American rather than African escapes the notice of such African-American radicals, who dismiss America’s opportunities for blacks and instead sentimentalize Africa in the same way Killmonger does.

[Black Panther Delivers, by Kyle Smith, February 14, 2018]

Yet most blacks in America really do believe they are helpless victims and identify as black rather than American. This is why efforts by Conservatism Inc. to win even a minuscule share of the black vote has been such an embarrassing failure. Indeed, the hunger by blacks to be portrayed as “kings” who can defeat the hated whites is driving much of the appeal of this film.

A people who believe they are oppressed from cradle-to-grave will now have a movie where the villain advocates utilizing advanced technology to arm black revolutionaries to wage a war on white people worldwide. As Black Panther is a bit of an Uncle Tom, hanging out with the mostly white Avengers, Killmonger  could well end up being the true hero of the film to black audiences. After all, if the only reason blacks are held down is because of “white racism,” Killmonger is right.

Of course, we could say there are other reasons why blacks have problems. But if we say that, well, that would be racist.

On His Netflix Comedy Special, Chris Rock Calls for the Shooting of White Children (So White Mothers Will Cry)

 Previously on SBPDL: The Mask is Slipping: Michael Eric Dyson Calls for the Killing of White Children

There’s not much else to say, except to rehash a harsh reality touched on a few years ago: The mask is slipping faster and faster. .

Every moment that passes, each second that ticks off of the clock, the mask gives way to an ugly truth most people never want to confront. 

Like Dorian Gray’s hidden portrait, this mask has repressed a truth so vile, so macabre, few people will be able to stomach it when they see it. 

It will knock them over. 

Many will turn their head at the horror; but like a gruesome car crash, it’s only natural – instinctive – to want to take a look. 

It’s Chris Rock’s turn to show us this image. [Everyone Will Be Talking About Chris Rock’s New Netflix Special, Esquire, 2-14-18]:

It’s been a shitty few years for America, years when Chris Rock’s hilarious outrage was not only needed, but necessary. While we haven’t seen much of him—he’s been dealing with a messy divorce recently—he has been around in subtle ways. He appeared in an essential post-election SNL sketch detailing that infamous November night in 2016. He helped Aziz Ansari craft a powerful SNL monologue, and he made a few late-night appearances softening our Trumpian reality.
But Tamborine, his surprise new Netflix special, gets everything out that’s happened to Rock and the country recently. It’s more of a therapeutic release than anything else, and if you’re in the mood to just release it all with a grin, then Tamborine is crucial.
After a fitting and brief opening to Thundercat’s “Them Changes”—”Nobody move, there’s blood on the floor”—Rock makes his statement immediately. Here’s his opening joke:

You would think cops would occasionally shoot a white kid just to make it look good. You would think that every couple of months they’d look at their dead nigga calendar and go, “Oh my god, the 16th—we gotta shoot a white kid quick.” “Which one?” “The first one you see singing Cardi B.”

Then he continues: “I want to live in a world with real equality. I want to live in a world where an equal amount of white kids are shot every month. I want to see white mothers on TV crying.”

Ladies and gentlemen, the mask is slipping. Chris Rock has his knives sharpened. He has just – on Netflix – called for the killing of white kids.

A lot of white people have tried to make this experiment work; but when looking at the picture of race relations in America, a disturbing hidden pictures emerges. Rock just showed it to us.

 Blacks have NO place in White nations, they must leave, all of them, and return to Africa.

RACIAL RIGHTS AND A RACIAL COMPACT

By Richard McCulloch |

Rights are among the noblest inventions of the human intellect, the most sublime means yet devised for humanity to govern the interactions of its members, both within and between groups. Rights are a concept that requires belief, for in actual practice rights exist only because — and to the extent that — people believe in them. Rights are values that people hold and assert. They are brought into existence by human recognition, respect and protection — affirmations of belief in them without which they do not exist. “A value emerges, is socially constructed, only when a critical mass of persons, or a powerful minority, shares it and, by persistently behaving in accordance with it, makes it normative.” [Note 1]

The belief in rights can be either an ethical or factual belief. Rights are an ethical concept, and a belief that they should be practiced is an ethical belief, expressing what is believed to be ethically right or wrong. Beliefs pertaining to the nature of rights — their existence, origin, purpose and effects — are factual beliefs, expressing what is believed to be factually true or false. For example, the belief in a human right to freedom is an ethical belief, but beliefs regarding the source of this right — whether it is inherent to human nature, is endowed by a Creator, or is a social construct as indicated above (and thus presumably influenced by human nature) — are factual beliefs.

The two forms or types of belief, ethical or factual, are often confused, but it is important that a clear distinction be drawn between them. Factual beliefs are more objective, pertaining to external objects or events that exist outside of, and independent of, the mind. Ethical beliefs are more subjective, pertaining to something — rules of human behavior — which exist inside the mind. Ethical beliefs are concerned chiefly with human behavior, and in essence consist of what we believe human behavior should be or, in judging past human behavior, should have been. Factual beliefs apply across the entire spectrum of existence or nonexistence, including human behavior, and in essence consist of what we believe actually is, was or will be, not what should be or should have been. Factual beliefs are not necessarily factually true, and ethical beliefs are not necessarily ethically right. They are what the believer believes to be true and right.

In his 1994 book “The Racial Compact,” Richard McCullogh stated that every race had a requirement for “its own exclusive racial territory or homeland, its own independent and sovereign government”

Much of the confusion between factual and ethical beliefs stems from the perception that certain factual and ethical beliefs tend to be associated or connected with each other, and this leads to an assumption that these beliefs determine each other. This is an example of reductionist thinking, which attempts to reduce complex matters of human behavior and causation to a simple explanation. But the causation of human behavior is not simple. It is enormously complex and varied, which is why it frustrates all efforts to subject it to scientific laws of unvarying cause and effect, and its study — in spite of all the efforts and pretensions of the social “sciences” to the contrary — remains much more an art than a science, and always will so long as humans remain beings of free will. In spite of the great influence that genetic or inherited characteristics have on human behavior, there are so many other random and interacting influences — both within the internal workings of the mind and the external environment — as to defy all attempts to reduce human behavior to scientific levels of predictability and control.

Human emotions, values, needs and desires often influence the progression of ethical beliefs, principles and conduct (which commonly change in the course of the progression, with the result that ethical conduct is frequently inconsistent with ethical beliefs) much more than do factual beliefs, with the result that ethical conduct often varies widely from what the subject’s factual beliefs might lead one to expect. Therefore, although ethical beliefs are influenced by factual beliefs, they are not wholly, or even primarily, determined by them. Values are commonly more influential in determining ethical beliefs than are factual beliefs. Values cover a wide area from esthetics to ethics, and can be more accurately described as the qualities of life and existence that are regarded as important and desirable — often for subjective, emotional or subconscious reasons — than as beliefs. They are typically more deeply held, and more resistant to change, than beliefs. When there is a conflict between values and beliefs, often it is the values that prevail and the beliefs that are either rejected or modified so as to be consistent with, support and reinforce the values.

It is proper that ethical beliefs should be determined by the combined influence of values and factual beliefs. Values are one of the most important distinctions separating humanity from inhumanity, humane conditions of existence from the uncaring brutality of nature, and civilization from savagery. It is almost certain that the ethical belief in rights owes more to the influence of values — particularly moral values — than to factual beliefs, although many philosophers have constructed elaborate arguments to justify the existence of rights on the basis of their factual beliefs. (Thomas Jefferson, in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, asserted that it was “sacred and undeniable” that rights are derived from Creation. The final draft proclaimed as self-evident the factual belief that humans are endowed with rights by their Creator.) Some values may be innate (inborn or natural) to human nature. If there are innate values it can be assumed they have a genetic basis and — like all genetic characteristics — are a product of, and subject to, the processes of evolution, including divergence, in which case they would likely vary both between individuals and between divergently evolving races.

While it is appropriate for ethical beliefs to be determined by an interaction of factual beliefs and values, it is not appropriate for factual beliefs to be determined — or even influenced — by ethical beliefs and values. Ideally, factual beliefs should be determined by an objective reasoning process whose first duty is to the continuous search for empirical truth. In actual practice, however, factual beliefs have always been very strongly influenced, and even determined, by ethical beliefs and values. What is more, factual beliefs have often been judged by the standards of ethical beliefs — as ethically good or bad rather than as factually true or false.

Ideologies — systems of values, thought and belief, which can be either secular or religious — are frequently dogmatic, requiring conformance to their dogma of prescribed beliefs, both factual and ethical. Dogmatic ideologies are intolerant of any beliefs which vary from those they prescribe. Their ethical beliefs hold that any deviance from the orthodox or prescribed beliefs — including any nonconformity of belief, whether disbelief or the holding of conflicting beliefs — is immoral. Thus deviant or unorthodox factual beliefs are not only regarded as erroneous on factual grounds, but also — and perhaps more so — on ethical grounds. In many ideologically dogmatic societies the judicial systems have persecuted unorthodox or nonconformist factual beliefs by punishing those individuals and groups who held them. The holding of these factual beliefs was judged to be a violation of morality sufficient to justify the most extreme punishments.

Scientists, historians, philosophers, theologians, artists and many others have repeatedly suffered persecution for their factual beliefs when they deviated from the prescribed beliefs of a dominant and intolerant ideology. They were not persecuted so much on the grounds that their deviant factual beliefs were factually in error — although the orthodox ideology did judge them to be in error — as on the grounds that the holding of any deviant belief was ethically in error, immoral and intolerable. Of course, philosophy, theology and the arts commonly expound ethical beliefs, and it is proper for these ethical beliefs to be judged by the standards of ethics, as morally right or wrong. But they also deal with factual beliefs, as do science and history, and it is not proper for these factual beliefs to be judged by ethical standards as morally right or wrong, or by any standards other than the standard of whether they are factually true or false. Although factual beliefs do frequently influence ethical beliefs — and properly so, as otherwise ethics would risk a dangerous level of separation from the facts of reality — this does not justify judging them on the basis of their assumed ethical influence, even if their influence were contrary to preconceived ethical beliefs. Ethical judgments should be reserved for ethical beliefs.

Unfortunately, this has not been the practice of intolerant ideologies — religious or secular — either in the past or the present. They regard any belief — or disbelief — which differs from their own prescribed factual or ethical beliefs as a threat, and perceive any threat in moral terms as ethically wrong and evil. This practice of judging factual beliefs on ethical grounds can generally be traced to the misconception that factual beliefs determine — or are the sole cause of — ethical beliefs. According to this rigidly reductionist theory of causality, the holding of factual beliefs that differ from the orthodox factual beliefs will necessarily result in — or cause — different ethical beliefs and different ethical conduct.

One factual belief that is assumed to have a very strong influence on ethical beliefs — and by progression on ethical principles and conduct — is the factual belief structure of religion that includes belief in a divine judge who observes all human actions and will reward or punish those actions as they deserve in the afterlife. The social utility theory of religion assumes that this factual belief promotes ethical conduct. But while this is certainly true in many instances, in many others it is not. Almost every person who holds this factual belief has on innumerable occasions violated the rules of ethical conduct promoted by the religion — obviously due to influences other than this particular factual belief. These violations of religious ethical beliefs are called sins, and the fact that they are so common even among those who hold the factual belief that they will result in punishment is an indicator of how undependable factual beliefs are as a determinant of ethical conduct when other — and frequently stronger — influences are present.

The persecution of deviant factual beliefs, and the practice of making ethical judgments about persons based on their factual beliefs, is a common characteristic of intolerant ideologies. Ironically, these ideologies often seem more inclined to ethically condemn a person for deviant factual beliefs than for deviant ethical beliefs. The Christian religion was particularly influential in establishing this practice in the Western world, a practice contrary to the Western humanistic philosophical tradition which judged a person’s character or ethical qualities solely on the basis of their ethical beliefs and values, not their factual beliefs. Nonconformist factual beliefs (or disbeliefs) provoked much harsher persecution by the Church than deviant ethical beliefs, for it was upon factual beliefs (including concepts of the afterlife, the Creation, God, resurrection, etc.), not ethical beliefs, that the Christian religion was based. Belief in the orthodox or prescribed factual beliefs was called “faith,” disbelief or non-belief — or the holding of different beliefs — was called “heresy.” Faith only applies to factual beliefs, not ethical beliefs. The great importance that Christianity attaches to faith both indicates and explains its emphasis on factual beliefs. (The Nicene Creed, the classic statement of the Christian faith, is a statement of factual belief.)

Over the course of the centuries of Christian ideological dominance innumerable “heretics” were persecuted for their different factual beliefs. The development of science was long retarded by this persecution, of which the case of the astronomer Galileo is only one of the more famous examples. In his time Christianity was defending its factual beliefs concerning the structure of the solar system. In more recent times its conflict with science has focused more on the major, age-old questions of Creation, such as the origins of the universe (cosmology) and the origins of life, in particular human life.

The intolerant and dogmatic secular ideologies that developed in the modern age continued the custom of making ethical judgments about factual beliefs, and persecuting — so far as it was in their power to do so — those factual beliefs that conflicted with their policies and goals. Science (especially as it relates to the study of genetics, human nature, and individual and racial inequalities, differences or diversity), economics and history have been the primary targets of this persecution of conflicting factual beliefs. The beliefs of established religious ideologies were enforced under the direction of a priesthood which presumed to dictate beliefs and values. The modern secular dogmatic ideologies behave in essentially the same intolerant manner. If they are “established” they are enforced by the police and judicial power of the government. If they are not established their means of control are less overt, but not necessarily less effective. In both cases the control is directed by what can be described as a secular ideological priesthood. If the ideology is established this “priesthood” is concentrated in the government. If the ideology is not established, its priesthood is concentrated in those positions which exercise the greatest degree of control over ideas, especially in academia and the communications and cultural media.

The Marxist ideology that held established status in the Soviet Union (1917-1991) was quite blatant in its control of scientific, economic and historical factual beliefs. In biology it held a dogmatic factual belief in both human equality and human malleability, and persecuted the factual belief — in the new science of genetics — in the existence of innate human characteristics that were both unequal and resistant to efforts to change them by external means. Its economic factual beliefs were dictated by arbitrary ethical beliefs and value judgments, and produced an economic system that condemned its practitioners to material impoverishment and eventually collapsed from its own inherent inner contradictions. In history it held a dogmatic factual belief in dialectical materialism, and forbade any historical interpretation or factual belief that deviated from this doctrine.

The dominant secular ideologies in the modern Western World have shared many beliefs in common with Marxism — which can often be traced to the same underlying ethical beliefs and value judgments — and have also tended to be dogmatic and intolerant, typically persecuting and repressing beliefs that conflicted with their own as far as it was in their power to do so. In particular, they have shared the factual belief in innate human biological or genetic equality — a version of egalitarianism that is quite different from the primarily ethical belief in human legal and political equality of Jefferson and many of the other philosophers of the Enlightenment. This factual belief had its beginnings in the pre-Darwinian era of science, before there was knowledge of evolution and genetics, and has persisted to the present in a continuous ideological line that has — with an intolerant dogmatism of religious intensity — opposed and sought to repress the development of conflicting factual beliefs by denouncing them on ethical grounds. The study of evolution and genetics, particularly as it relates to human racial diversity and differences, has been gravely retarded by the organized — and often institutional — intolerance, hostility and persecution it has encountered whenever it has challenged the dogmatic factual beliefs — and the values and goals they support — of the prevailing ideological orthodoxy.

In history, as in science, the same secular ideological elements are dominant, and promote those historical factual beliefs that tend to support their position while seeking to persecute and repress those historical beliefs — or disbeliefs — that differ from their own. Again, as in the scientific fields of evolution and genetics, their intolerance of conflicting historical factual beliefs typically assumes a posture of ethical judgment, and the holding of the deviant belief is condemned as immoral. Conformance to the prescribed (or “politically correct”) factual beliefs is required as a demonstration of good faith, and is often sustained by faith alone, as the critical faculties are suspended for the sake of moral respectability. In such an intellectual — or anti-intellectual — environment, where beliefs that disagree with the orthodox position are in effect forbidden as heresy, the pursuit of objective truth — in science or history — is effectively restricted to the factual beliefs deemed acceptable by the dominant ideology.

The requirement to conform, at least outwardly, to these orthodox factual beliefs, and accept the resulting limitations on intellectual freedom, or be condemned as immoral by the prevailing ideology, has a profound inhibiting effect on the free expression of factual beliefs. The intent of those engaging in the condemnation of factual beliefs on moral grounds can only be the enforcement of conformity to their own preferred factual beliefs by the repression of conflicting beliefs. Those academics, intellectuals or journalists who stray from the prescribed factual beliefs are likely to suffer adverse consequences in reprisal, and soon learn to hide their true beliefs in these matters, as do others who witness their plight. The situation is reminiscent of Hans Christian Andersen’s tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes , wherein the ability to see something (in this example nonexistent clothing) which did not really exist (belief or faith in the prescribed factual beliefs) was regarded as proof of virtue, and the inability to see (disbelief in the prescribed factual beliefs) was seen as proof of immorality, with the result that all pretended to see something which did not really exist, except for a child who was innocent of pretense. [Note 2]

In all this rush to ethical judgment of factual beliefs, ethical beliefs have received relatively little attention. This is ironic, for ethical beliefs and subjective values are usually the underlying cause, reason and motivation for this intolerance of nonconforming factual beliefs on ethical grounds. If nothing else, this should indicate the power and importance of ethical beliefs, and provide good reason why they should be placed at the center of attention.

The existence of rights is probably the best — and most positive — evidence for the power and importance of ethical beliefs. Rights are an ethical belief. Rights never existed until humans invented or created them. Humans created them because they had an ethical belief that they should exist. They had this belief because their values wanted rights to exist. These values were expressions of the needs and desires of human nature, or at least of the nature of those humans who created rights, as well as those who recognized and accepted what they created, whose reaffirmation of the existence of rights in each generation has been so effective that many take their existence for granted, mistakenly believing rights to be a matter of fact rather than of ethics. But they are a matter of ethics, and of values, a creature — or creation — of ethical beliefs and value judgments, a grand ethical edifice that depends on a consensus of belief to keep its structure intact, without which it would collapse. That is why rights have been so seldom recognized in the past (or in the present), why they have so often been gained only at great cost and after difficult struggle, and why they must be vigilantly guarded to prevent their loss.

To achieve a consensus of acceptance and achieve recognition, rights should meet certain criteria. Not all rights — or assertions of rights — are equally valid. Some are arbitrary and capricious, applied selectively or unequally, granted to some but not to others by a double or multiple standard of application. Valid rights apply equally to all, by one common standard of application, and can be granted to all, for their possession by some does not require their denial to others. It is this reciprocity in the recognition of rights, by which one party recognizes for others the same rights they want recognized for themselves, that is the basis for the consensus of acceptance upon which the existence of rights depends.

Not all rights are equally important. Some rights take priority over others, and those of the foremost priority may be referred to as primary rights. Primary rights are the most fundamental and are founded on the most basic and universal human existential needs and desires. First among these is the right to life. It is the right upon which all others depend, and without which all others would have no meaning. This right includes the right to the conditions required for life, without which the right to life would be meaningless. To deny the right to the conditions required for life is to deny the right to life. Next, but scarcely less important, is the right of a living entity to control its own life, the right to be free, to self-determination, independence and liberty, to sovereignty over its own existence, to be its own master and subject to no will but its own.

The philosophers of the natural law tradition of Locke and Jefferson took a great ethical step forward when they recognized and advocated these primary rights. Like all valid ethical concepts they found a ready and wide acceptance among the populace, who were predisposed by their existing ethical beliefs and values — based on their cultural heritage and traditions and, the natural philosophers believed, their nature — to understand and practice them. These primary rights were called natural rights by the philosophers of the natural law tradition who affirmed their existence because they believed they were derived from human nature, not created by government legislation. With the recognition of, or ethical belief in, these primary rights, humanity rose to a higher level of ethical existence and civilization.

From the beginning these primary or natural rights were recognized not only for individual living beings, but for the living populations which are the larger whole of which individuals constitute the parts — namely peoples, nations and races. The early natural law documents, such as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, explicitly affirmed and promoted the rights of nations and peoples to independence and liberty. This ethical belief has continued to grow and develop, so that in our own time the right of a people, nation or ethnic group to independence and self-determination is a long-established principle of international law and morality. Its influence was instrumental in the dissolution of the European colonial empires following the Second World War, whereby the subject non-European peoples gained their independence from European rule.

Yet while the study and advocacy of individual rights has flourished, the study and advocacy of national, ethnic or racial rights has languished since the dissolution of the European colonial empires. Indeed, the influence of a global movement to minimize and eliminate human particularities, diversity and differences has discouraged and inhibited the further development and recognition of rights for population groups. Also, where national, ethnic and racial rights have been upheld they have frequently been applied selectively and unequally, by a double standard, granted to some but not to others.

Since the primary rights of races or peoples are a matter of great importance — a matter in fact of life and liberty — they should be clearly described, affirmed and recognized for all human racial or ethnic populations. Those rights that pertain to life and liberty, and the conditions required for life and liberty, are primary rights. Those other alleged rights which are not essential to life or liberty, and particularly those which conflict with the rights of other peoples to life and liberty, are secondary rights, and should yield when they conflict with primary rights.

The United Nations Organization, soon after its founding in the aftermath of the terrible human destruction of the Second World War, produced a number of documents which gave increased legal recognition and standing to the ethical concept of racial rights. These documents addressed the right of a people to both life and liberty (independence or self-determination), the first responding to allegations of the commission of genocide during the recently concluded conflict, the second responding to the growing demands of colonized or subject peoples for freedom, and recognizing their aspirations as legitimate. The following passage, taken from the Encyclopædia Britannica, describes some of the provisions of the U.N. document which sought to define and prohibit genocide, and which gave effective recognition to the right of every race to life and the conditions necessary for its continued existence.

According to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , which was approved by the General Assembly in 1948 and went into effect in 1951, genocide is a crime whether it is committed in time of peace or of war (distinguishing it from crimes against humanity which are acts committed in connection with crimes against peace, or war crimes) and under its terms “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Conspiracy, incitement, attempt, and complicity in genocide are also made punishable. Perpetrators may be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals. One of the results of the convention has been the establishment of the principle that genocide, even if perpetrated by a government in its own territory, is not an internal matter (“a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction”) but a matter of international concern.

This document was, in theory, a great step forward in the recognition and promotion of the ethical concept of racial rights, but in practice it has been applied rarely and selectively, and ignored whenever those with the power to ignore it found it to be inconsistent with their own goals. Also, it has received relatively little publicity and has therefore had little effect on the public conception of racial rights. In particular, its definition of genocide as including means of racial destruction other than the actual mass murder of individuals is a critical breakthrough for the concept of racial rights, recognizing that racial destruction can be, and has been, caused by means other than actual mass murder. This is a concept that has certainly not yet been widely appreciated or understood in the mass culture, nor widely publicized in the mass media.

The not-so-benign neglect of racial rights is a luxury humanity can ill afford if human racial diversity is to be valued and preserved. The recognition, affirmation and defense of racial rights — particularly the primary racial rights to life and liberty, or independence — is also a recognition, affirmation and defense of the value and importance of human life and human racial diversity. Human rights include racial rights, for races are the evolutionary branches or divisions of humanity. If the diverse races of humanity are to coexist and share the planet earth together they must first agree to recognize, affirm and defend the right of all races to exist . Humanity needs to adopt a concept of racial relations that is based on the principle of racial rights, permitting the different races to share the earth, their common home, together by assuring their secure possession of their own racially exclusive homelands or countries where they will enjoy the conditions of geographic separation and reproductive isolation required for their continued existence. The mutual agreement or understanding to adopt and practice a concept of racial relations based on the principles of racial rights and preservation, promoting both the coexistence and continued existence of the different races of humanity, is here referred to as the Racial Compact .

The racial rights submitted below for recognition, affirmation and defense are all primary rights as they are concerned either with the right of all races to life — including the right to the conditions required for continued life — or the right of all races to control their own life and destiny — to freedom, independence and self-determination. They are also ethical beliefs, based on both value judgments and factual beliefs concerning the existence of races and the conditions required for their preservation (continued existence) and well-being. Finally, they are also inalienable rights, as their alienation would mean the end of life and liberty. Taken together they can be regarded as a Charter of Racial Rights, the essential foundation of the Racial Compact. They are as follows:

  1. All races have a right to be unique and different, to be themselves, and to love, value and be proud of what they are.
  2. All races have a right to have their existence and identity recognized, respected and protected, to define, affirm and celebrate their existence and identity, and to promote their legitimate rights and interests.
  3. All races have a right to racial life, a right to live, a right to exist as what they are and preserve what they are, a right to exist as a separate form of life, and a right to the conditions they require for continued life, existence and evolution.
  4. All races have a right to independence and peaceful self-determination, to racial freedom and liberty, to separate development, to exclusive control of their own life and existence, their own future and destiny, free from domination, control or interference by other races.
  5. All races have a right to their own living space or territory, to possession of their own racial homeland, to exist within secure borders, to have and hold their own country, separate from and exclusive of other races, as a condition required for both their continued life and independence.
  6. All races have a right to self-government, to their own sovereign and fully independent government to govern their own country, their own life and existence, and determine their own future.
  7. All races have a right to the affections and loyalties, love and care of their members, and this right takes precedence over any ideology — or system of beliefs and values — that would promote disaffection or alienation of loyalties, or censure racial love and caring.
  8. All races have a right to exclusive control over the creation, upbringing, development and education of their own children, to control over their own reproduction — the renewal of their racial life, the transmission of their genes and culture to successor generations — free of interference by other races.
  9. All races have a right to racial integrity, to exclusivity, reproductive isolation and geographic separation, to be free, safe and secure from the racially destructive effects of racial intermixture and replacement.
  10. All races have a right to the material product of their own creation, and to use that product for their own benefit, free of any claim upon it by other races.

These rights apply equally and by the same standard to all human races. No race, regardless of its status as either a majority or minority, has a right to violate the above primary and inalienable rights of any race. There is no such thing as minority or majority rights, only racial rights, which are exactly the same regardless of demographic status as a racial minority or majority. All races, whatever their relative numbers, possess the same rights as listed above, including the same right to life and the conditions required for life, to their own territory or homeland, to their own government, and to racial liberty, independence, self-determination and control of their own existence. The designation of a racial group as a majority or minority does not grant it a special status that permits it to deny or violate the rights of another race. No group, whether a majority or minority, has a right to deny or violate the right of another race to the conditions it requires for racial life, liberty and independence, or to its own territory and government. Therefore, no race has a right to be in the living space or territory of another race, or to be involved in the government of another race, as the first violates the racial right to a separate and racially secure homeland, and the second violates the racial right to independence, sovereignty and self-determination. The rights of a racial minority are the same as those of a racial majority, as listed above, including the right to their own separate and independent country and government.

The recognition and defense of the racial rights listed above requires support for certain other related ethical beliefs, values, policies and positions, and the practice of certain ethical principles, which include the following:

  1. Support for the ethical belief or principle that no race should be a slave or servant to another, that all races are an end in themselves and not a means to the ends of others, that they should serve and benefit their own ends and not the ends of others, and that no race should interfere with or unduly influence the affairs or development of another.
  2. Opposition to any and all doctrines or forms of racial supremacy, dominance or mastery, whereby one race is supreme, dominant or master over another, and rules over, governs, dominates or controls another, whether in whole or in part, totally or partially, overtly or covertly, by force or by guile.
  3. Support for the moral principle of reciprocity as the basis of racial relations, recognizing the same rights for all races (the”Racial Golden Rule”).
  4. Opposition to all forms of invasion, migration or movement, whether forceful or peaceful, by members of one race into the established and recognized living space, territory, country or homeland of another.
  5. Opposition to and rejection of all claims made for transfer of wealth from one race to another, or claims for material support made by one race on another, either as reparations for alleged past wrongs or for any other reason.
  6. Rejection of the concept of “collective guilt,” which holds all members of a racial, religious, national or ethnic group responsible and guilty for the wrongs committed by some members of the group, and thus both responsible for reparations and subject to punishment.
  7. Opposition to any and all forms of genocide or racial destruction or diminishment, whether with or without the consent or cooperation of its victims, whether inflicted by other races, self-inflicted, or a combination of both, including the following:
  • Any action, policy, value system or condition which prevents, obstructs, restricts or discourages the successful reproduction of a race.
  • Any action, policy, value system or condition which denies a race the conditions it needs for its continued life or well-being, especially the condition of multiracialism which denies a race the condition of racial isolation it needs for its successful reproduction free from the racially destructive effects of racial intermixture.
  • Any action, policy or process of racial dispossession, displacement or replacement whereby members of one race move, or are moved, into the established, clearly defined and recognized living space, territory or homeland of another race and dispossess, displace or replace it.
  • Any action, policy, process or condition which is the result of human action and has the effect of lessening or diminishing the existence of a race, or altering, distorting or diluting its racial traits and characteristics, in the short term or the long term, in the existing generation or in the course of the generations to come.
  • Any action, policy, process, value system or condition which promotes, encourages or has the effect of increasing the racially destructive practice of racial intermixture.
  • Any action, policy, process, value system or condition which has the effect of taking persons away from their race, in mind or in body, physically or in alienation of affections or loyalties, and transferring them, or their affections and loyalties, to another race.
  • Any action, policy, process, value system or condition which opposes, resists or discourages racial preservation, or the continuation or renewal of racial life.
  • Any use of allegations of past wrongs to deny a race its present or future vital rights and interests, the conditions it needs to live and preserve its existence, especially its own exclusive territory and its separation and independence from other races.

The ethical belief in rights, including racial rights, has an effect on political, social and cultural ethics and values. In particular, it requires government to recognize and defend the rights believed in as part of its fundamental purpose. It also expects the dominant or “mainstream” social and cultural institutions to affirm and support these rights. Therefore, the ethical belief in racial rights promotes the following ethical beliefs and principles concerning political, social and cultural institutions:

  1. The belief that a fundamental end or purpose of government is to serve and preserve the race, to defend its separateness and independence, to serve its interests, especially its vital or life-essential interests, and preserve it from dilution, diminishment or extinction by intermixture with, or replacement by, other races. Therefore, when a government becomes destructive of this end, or harmful to this purpose, when it becomes racially oppressive by denying the race its vital rights — the conditions of independence, separation and reproductive isolation required for its continued life — or when it threatens, endangers or violates the vital rights or interests of any race, its own race or another race, the members of the race have the right and the moral responsibility to work for the change of that government.
  2. The belief that a fundamental end or purpose of a socially, culturally and politically dominant morality, philosophy, ideology or religion, or system of beliefs and values, is to serve and promote the welfare, well-being, health and best interests of the race, especially its vital or life-essential rights and interests, including its successful reproduction, and to act to preserve its existence. Therefore, when a dominant morality, philosophy, ideology or religion becomes destructive or harmful to this end or purpose, or when it promotes the violation of the vital rights and interests of any race, its own race or another race, the members of the race have the right and the moral responsibility to work for the change of the dominant morality, philosophy, ideology or religion.
  3. The belief that the primary purpose of an international organization is to promote the Racial Compact and uphold the Charter of Racial Rights, promoting the coexistence and continued existence of the diverse human races by protecting the reproductive isolation, geographic separation and political independence of races and preventing the violation of the rights, independence or separateness of one race by another.

Racial independence, sovereignty and self-determination are concerned with the right of a race to exercise control over its own life, existence, future, evolution and destiny. Racial independence is cultural and economic as well as political and biological. To truly control its own life a race must also exercise exclusive and sovereign control over its culture, history, art and myths, its self-image, soul, heart and mind, its view of its past, present and future, its purpose and destiny, nature and identity. No race can be truly free if another race exercises control over it, in whole or in part, in any of these areas.

Sovereignty resides in a people or race, not in a government. It is a people or race that has a destiny, that is a living part of life, nature and existence, a natural entity. Government is an artificial entity created by a people or race to serve its ends, and in itself has no destiny, and without the people or race has no purpose. The sovereignty of a government is derived from the people or race, the branch of life or Creation, that it serves. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. When its actions and policies become destructive of the proper end or purpose of government, when it works against the vital or life-essential interests of the people or race it was created to serve, and upon service to whom its legitimacy depends, it becomes illegitimate and loses its ethical justification for existence.

The aforementioned rights and ethical beliefs, values and principles are consistent with — and can be regarded as a logical extension, expansion and development of — the ethical, political and intellectual tradition of Western culture. This tradition includes opposition to any and all forms of totalitarianism or dictatorship, and support for democratic political institutions and individual rights, freedoms and protections, including freedom of speech and expression, freedom of inquiry, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom of belief, creed, religion and conscience. The ethical belief in racial rights extends the ethical concept of human rights to explicitly include, recognize and respect the rights of human races as well as individuals.

This is a logical and necessary development, for the race is the whole of which the individual is a part, and that which is destructive of the whole is also destructive of its parts. The true interests of the individual are intimately connected to, and consistent with, the interests of its race in a natural mutuality or commonality of interest. They are joined together by the bonds of biological relationship — sharing the same genes, the basis of their physical being — and the “mystic chords of memory” from thousands of generations of common ancestry and evolution.

For an individual to deny their race is to deny themselves, their place and role in nature, where they came from and what they are, the cause of their existence as well as the greater purpose of their existence. Yet that is what they are asked, taught, conditioned and expected to do by the currently dominant ideology, and to believe — ethically and factually — that this denial is right and true. The ethical beliefs and values of the dominant ideology deny racial rights, oppose the existence of different races and human racial differences and diversity, and promote policies that are destructive of that existence. Its goal is a world without different races and without racial differences and diversity.

Humanity has reached a point in its development — technological and moral — where racial rights are required for the preservation of its racial diversity. The continued existence of certain racial groups is dependent upon the implementation of the Racial Compact and the principles of racial rights upon which it is based. These principles have not been recognized or practiced in the past, nor are they yet in effect in the present. [Note 3] They have not yet been recognized, affirmed, protected and put into effect by the dominant cultural, social and political institutions. At this time they are only an ethical concept, idea or belief. They will exist in actual fact only when enough people hold the ethical belief that they should exist, want them to exist, and affirm and assert their existence, thereby willing them into existence.

This process depends on both ethical beliefs and values. People want something to exist when they regard its existence as a valuable, important and desirable part of life and existence. Therefore racial rights will exist only when enough people regard them as important and desirable. To do that they must first regard races and what they represent as valuable, important and worth preserving — their own race in particular, but also other races and racial differences and diversity in general. If they do they will make racial rights, and the Racial Compact, a fact.

That will be a great step forward for humanity. It will replace the ages-old rule of “the survival of the fittest” — a condition of existence that is the antithesis of civilization, and which civilization has progressively sought to replace — with the values and concepts of racial rights as the governing principle of racial relations, affirming and protecting the right of every race to life and liberty, existence and independence. That will be the world of the Racial Compact, a world safe for human racial diversity.

Footnotes:

1. Orlando Patterson, Freedom , Vol. I: Freedom in the Making of Western Culture(BasicBooks, 1991), pp. 41-42.

2. In the sciences it is presently considered immoral to have a factual belief in racial differences, diversity or variation in mental traits that are genetic in origin (i.e., created by divergent evolution) or, in other words, a factual disbelief in the prescribed factual belief in racial genetic equality, sameness, non-variation or non-diversity, at least with regard to mental traits. In history it is currently considered immoral to have a factual disbelief — in whole, in part, or in degree — in the persecution or victimization certain groups claim to have suffered, or in the claims made by certain groups that notable persons or peoples of the past belonged to their race. These factual beliefs (or disbeliefs) are not regarded as factual error, but as ethical error. They are not recognized as factual beliefs, but as ethical flaws, and are therefore not addressed on their factual merits, or refuted on factual grounds, but are declared to be unfit for consideration for ethical reasons. The forbidden factual beliefs are condemned as evil by the dominant ideology, and those holding them are condemned as immoral, thus ethically justifying the repression of the nonconforming beliefs and the persecution of those who hold them. The ethical beliefs of the persons holding the ethically-condemned factual beliefs are not considered relevant to this process of moral judgment, as the dominant ideology is much more concerned with maintaining a conformity of factual belief. For example, regardless of whether the scientist who holds a factual belief in racial genetic differences or inequalities holds an ethical belief that all races have equal rights, or whether the historian who holds a factual belief that certain allegations of past persecution are not true holds an ethical belief that such persecution is morally wrong, both are still condemned as immoral for their factual beliefs.

Nowhere is the enforcement of factual belief by ethical judgment and intimidation more pronounced than in academia. If this is considered surprising, it should be remembered that, historically, universities and other institutions of higher education have more commonly been centers for the promotion and enforcement of ideological orthodoxy and conformity of belief than for the promotion of intellectual and academic freedom. The perception of universities as havens of free thought, belief and speech, which we cherish so highly, is a very fragile ideal promoted by the ideology of classical liberalism, and often violated by the very persons who claim to hold it most dear. So called “political correctness” is merely the re-establishment of the illiberal norm by the rise of a new dogmatic and intolerant ideology to a position of dominance.

3. Therefore it is not constructive to attempt to impose these principles on the past, or to judge past generations by their standard, or to dwell obsessively on past deeds which violated them. Past generations were in a different situation from the present, and the ex post facto application of current values, standards and ideologies upon the past do it an injustice and our understanding a disservice. But what was then was then and what is now is now. Our concern should be with the present and the future, with where we go from here, not with the deeds or misdeeds of the past.

THE RACIAL WAR OF BLACK AGAINST WHITE

By Paul Sheehan

The longest war America has ever fought is the Dirty War, and it is not over. It has lasted 30 years so far and claimed more than 25 million victims. It has cost almost as many lives as the Vietnam War. It determined the result of last year’s congressional election.

Yet the American news media do not want to talk about the Dirty War, which remains between the lines and unreported. In fact, to even suggest that the war exists is to be discredited. So let’s start suggesting, immediately.

No matter how crime figures are massaged by those who want to acknowledge or dispute the existence of a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about what the official statistics portray: for the past 30 years a large segment of black America has waged a war of violent retribution against white America.

And the problem is getting worse, not better. In the past 20 years, violent crime has increased more than four times faster than the population. Young blacks (under 18) are more violent than previous generations and are 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than young whites.

Nearly all the following figures, which speak for themselves, have not been reported in America:

According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.

Most victims of race crime — about 90 per cent — are white, according to the survey “Highlights From 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims,” published in 1993.

Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.

Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the violent racial crimes of whites.

According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.

These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960s, when there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge which, not co- incidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning of the modern civil rights movement.

Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering. Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter- racial murders. By comparisons 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean War.

When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies involved black offenders and white victims (while only 2 per cent in the reverse).

When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans have committed at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the past 30 years. It is the great defining disaster of American life and American ideals since World War II.

All these are facts, yet by simply writing this story, by assembling the facts in this way, I would be deemed a racist by the American news media. It prefers to maintain a paternalistic double standard in its coverage of black America, a lower standard.

[Source: Sydney Morning Herald, May 20, 1995]

Leftist terrorists attack trumps family. 

From: Foxnews.com

Vanessa Trump hospitalized after opening suspicious envelope

Donald Trump Jr.’s wife Vanessa Trump and two others were taken to a New York City hospital for evaluation after opening a suspicious envelope containing an unidentified substance.

Donald Trump Jr.’s wife, Vanessa Trump, was taken to the hospital Monday after receiving a letter containing white powder that was later deemed to be non-hazardous, New York City police told Fox News.

FILE - In this Thursday, Nov. 30, 2017, file photo, Donald Trump Jr., far second right, his wife Vanessa Trump, center, and their family, watch performances during the National Christmas Tree lighting ceremony at the Ellipse near the White House in Washington. New York police said Donald Trump Jr.'s wife, Vanessa Trump, opened an envelope, Monday, Feb. 12, 2018, that contained white powder, felt ill and was taken to New York City hospital as a precaution. They said Vanessa Trump called 911 Monday morning after opening a letter addressed to Donald Trump Jr. at their midtown Manhattan apartment. Police said she said she was coughing and felt nauseous. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Vanessa Trump, center, was taken to a hospital in New York City Monday after opening a letter containing white powder.  (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Vanessa Trump was taken to the hospital as a precaution, police said. Two other people who were also exposed to the powder were taken to the hospital. 

Trump Jr. tweeted of the “scary situation” on Monday afternoon, and blamed the incident on people with “opposing views.”

“Thankful that Vanessa & my children are safe and unharmed after the incredibly scary situation that occurred this morning,” Trump Jr. said. “Truly disgusting that certain individuals choose to express their opposing views with such disturbing behavior.”

The U.S. Secret Service said in a statement: “The Secret Service and our law enforcement partners in New York City are investigating a suspicious package addressed to one of our protectees received today in New York, New York. This is an active investigation and we cannot comment any further.” 

Ivanka Trump, Vanessa’s sister-in-law, tweeted Monday afternoon, “No one deserves to be frightened this way. There is no excuse.”

Leftist terrorism no doubt. Anyone who gets in the way of the left and their globalist masters, (the people of the lie) find out quickly why they have been expelled from every nation they have ever parasitized from.