The God of White Dispossession

The God of White Dispossession

Thoughts on Martin Luther King Jr.

On this, the holiest day of modern America’s liturgical calendar, we should revisit Samuel Francis’s writing on the significance of Martin Luther King Jr.

Yet, incredibly — even after thorough documentation of King’s affiliations with communists, after the revelations about his personal moral flaws, and after proof of his brazen dishonesty in plagiarizing his dissertation and several other published writings — incredibly there is no proposal to rescind the holiday that honors him. Indeed, states like Arizona and New Hampshire that did not rush to adopt their own holidays in honor of King have been vilified and threatened with systematic boycotts. The continuing indulgence of King is in part due to simple political cowardice — fear of being denounced as a “racist” — but due also to the political utility of the King holiday for those who seek to advance their own political agenda. Almost immediately upon the enactment of the holiday bill, the King holiday came to serve as a kind of charter for the radical regime of “political correctness” and “multiculturalism” that now prevails at many of the nation’s major universities and in many areas of public and private life…

To those of King’s own political views, then, the true meaning of the holiday is that it serves to legitimize the radical social and political agenda that King himself favored and to delegitimize traditional American social and cultural institutions — not simply those that supported racial segregation but also those that support a free market economy, an anti-communist foreign policy, and a constitutional system that restrains the power of the state rather than one that centralizes and expands power for the reconstruction of society and the redistribution of wealth. In this sense, the campaign to enact the legal public holiday in honor of Martin Luther King was a small first step on the long march to revolution, a charter by which that revolution is justified as the true and ultimate meaning of the American identity. In this sense, and also in King’s own sense, as he defined it in his speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, the Declaration of Independence becomes a “promissory note” by which the state is authorized to pursue social and economic egalitarianism as its mission, and all institutions and values that fail to reflect the dominance of equality — racial, cultural, national, economic, political, and social — must be overcome and discarded.

By placing King — and therefore his own radical ideology of social transformation and reconstruction — into the central pantheon of American history, the King holiday provides a green light by which the revolutionary process of transformation and reconstruction can charge full speed ahead. Moreover, by placing King at the center of the American national pantheon, the holiday also serves to undermine any argument against the revolutionary political agenda that it has come to symbolize. Having promoted or accepted the symbol of the new dogma as a defining — perhaps the defining — icon of the American political order, those who oppose the revolutionary agenda the symbol represents have little ground to resist that agenda.

Sam is all too correct that “MLK writ large” has become the foundation of American identity; and in many ways, the situation is far worse than he depicted it in this 1998 article (which appeared in American Renaissance).

At the time, Sam described a pitched battle between MLK’s egalitarian “Dream” and “traditional American social and cultural institutions,” which he describes, in Cold War language, as “anti-Communist foreign policy” and Constitutional liberty.

What Sam might not have grasped in 1998, but understood fully later, is that by the turn of the 21st century, the MLK counter-culture was (and is) the Establishment. There are precious few “traditional American social and cultural institutions” that do not honor MLK and, indeed, treat “The Dream” as informing their missions.

And this is not solely the case for the more overtly liberal ones like the Department of Education. No less a putative bastion of conservative values than the U.S. Army is led by men like Four-Star General George Casey, who in 2009, in response to a Muslim Army Major who murdered 13 of his fellow soldiers as an act of Jihad, averred,

What happened in Fort Hood was a tragedy. But I believe it would become an even greater tragedy if our Diversity becomes a casualty. And it’s not just about Muslims. We have a very diverse Army; we have a very diverse society; and that gives us all strength.

MLK certainly unites the Left (tactical disputes between Malcolm X and the pacifist reverend have long since gone by the wayside). And in a strange way, he unites the Right as well. “Judged By The Content Of Their Character” is the central (if not sole) argument against multiculturalism and affirmative action offered forth by self-styled “conservatives.” And King is counted as an American icon and hero not only at left-wing and liberal gatherings but at those of the “Religious Right” and Beltway Republicans.

A one Glenn Beck—who in his radio and television programs and mass rallies, has created a kind of ideology or religion of MLK—might actually turn Sam’s polemic on its head and claim that MLK is the hero of American foreign policy and Constitutional government. And he would, in a sense, be correct—even in the matter of foreign affairs, in which Washington’s violent incursions into the Middle East are accompanied by promises that all shall vote, women shall attain undergraduate educations, and minorities shall be empowered.

The Conservative MLK Fantasy

Despite conservatives’ wishful thinking, “The Dream”—in all its manifestations—is the antithesis of a free society. Government’s enforcing that all people and businesses judge non-racially is in itself a totalitarian notion and has, in fact, resulted in a massive interventionist infrastructure and bureaucracy. (Rand Paul tepidly hinted at as much during his 2010 Senate campaign.) The costs of the industry of “civil rights” and “diversity training” in the workplace can be measured in the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, per year. (And pace conservative revisionism, the actual Martin Luther King unequivocally advocated most all of the measures done in his name.)

More deeply, “non-discrimination” as a value is the enemy of all tradition, not just the Anglo-Saxon American society it has helped destroy. “The Dream” (as it was articulated) images the individual as a race-less, family-less, class-less, history-less atom—happily experiencing equality with other atoms of various colors, all integrated by the marketplace and government. Conservatives might think it cute to quote some of King’s more libertarian utterances back at liberals, as a form of PC Judo. But in the end, they will be the losers of such a gambit.

Martin Luther King Jr., a fraud and degenerate in his life, has become the symbol and cynosure of White Dispossession and the deconstruction of Western civilization.

We must overcome!

Know The Enemy

Know The Enemy

http://cofcc.org/

Any Questions?

Obama spends $1.6 million tax dollars for Atzlan murals.

This hideous anti-America “mural” brought to you by the Obama administration with US tax dollars.

The Obama administration loves America so much that they spent $1.6 million of your money to “restore” trashy “Chicano Nationalist” graffiti murals in California.

The murals depict the Latino conquest and breaking up of the southwestern United States. They also pay tribute to Fidel Castro and mass murderer Che Guevara.

This is all part of an effort by the Obama administration to mobilize radical Latinos to get to the polls in 2012. Obama is abandoning white voters and plans to run a non-whites vs. the white man re-election campaign.

Click Here.

Eric Holder vilifies whites at NAACP rally.

From Examiner.com…

While few other groups would welcome the Attorney General speak at their event, the NAACP did. His speech remained true to his usual pattern of vilifying white people. He claimed that South Carolina’s new voter ID law is an attack on minorities.

The AG is cuurently blocking South Carolina’s voter ID law from going into effect. Holder said the “achievements that defined the civil rights movement now hang in the balance” because of the voter ID law.

Holder categorized the voter ID law as “racially discriminatory” and part of “overt and subtle forms of discrimination” that “remain all too common.”

Teen struggles to live after huge mob attack by immigrants.

A huge mob of Latino immigrants, screaming in Spanish, attacked a group of three white teens in Orange County, CA. One of the victims had his head smashed in by multiple blows from bricks. He is comatose in critical condition. His father rushed into the attack and drug his son away and the Latino thugs beat him as well.

From Patch.com…

Three suspects — Filiberto Thomas Cordova, 23, Francisco Javier Sanchez, 29, and Gilberto Velazquez, 29 — have been charged with attempted murder and assault in the case. In addition, Velazquez and Sanchez face felony street terrorism charges for their alleged affiliation with the San Clemente-related Varrio Chico street gang, according to the Orange County District Attorney’s office.

An Orange County Sheriff’s Department spokesman did not return messages seeking confirmation that the charges were related to Friday’s assault, but the date and details in the D.A. complaint match up with the accounts of five witnesses interviewed by San Clemente Patch.

The brawl, which erupted around 11 p.m. near the corner of Avenida Rosa and Avenida Victoria, involved more than a dozen people, according to witnesses, police reports and fire officials.

Dan Jacobsen, one of the victims, got involved after hearing a commotion outside his apartment and running outside, where he saw his 19-year-old son and two friends arguing with several other men.

Suddenly, a white, two-door Chevy pickup sped to the stop sign at the end of Rosa from the direction of El Camino Real, and several men got out, he said.

Jacobsen, who pulled away some of the attackers and was injured in the process, said he dragged his son — who had been knocked unconscious — to the concrete stairs of their apartment, where a faint bloodstain remained Tuesday.

Jacobsen said it was then he saw the attackers descend en masse on the victim who is now comatose.

“They were beating on him,” Jacobsen said. “[The man in the coma] got hit at least three times.”

The media insults the victims by calling it “a brawl.” If the races had been reversed, this would be the biggest news story in the nation.

 

 

 

 

The Afghan war is Lost

As a public service, Best Defense is offering this primer for generals on their way to Afghanistan.

Here is a list of 19 things that many insiders and veterans of Afghanistan agree to be true about the war there, but that generals can’t say in public. So, general, read this now and believe it later-but keep your lip zipped. Maybe even keep a printout in your wallet and review before interviews.

My list of things to remember I can’t say

  • Pakistan is now an enemy of the United States.
  • We don’t know why we are here, what we are fighting for, or how to know if we are winning.
  • The strategy is to fight, talk, and build. But we’re withdrawing the fighters, the Taliban won’t talk, and the builders are corrupt.
  • Karzai’s family is especially corrupt.
  • We want President Karzai gone but we don’t have a Pushtun successor handy.
  • But the problem isn’t corruption, it is which corrupt people are getting the dollars. We have to help corruption be more fair.
  • Another thing we’ll never stop here is the drug traffic, so the counternarcotics mission is probably a waste of time and resources that just alienates a swath of Afghans.
  • Making this a NATO mission hurt, not helped. Most NATO countries are just going through the motions in Afghanistan as the price necessary to keep the US in Europe
  • Yes, the exit deadline is killing us.
  • Even if you got a deal with the Taliban, it wouldn’t end the fighting.
  • The Taliban may be willing to fight forever. We are not.
  • Yes, we are funding the Taliban, but hey, there’s no way to stop it, because the truck companies bringing goods from Pakistan and up the highway across Afghanistan have to pay off the Taliban. So yeah, your tax dollars are helping Mullah Omar and his buddies. Welcome to the neighborhood.
  • Even non-Taliban Afghans don’t much like us.
  • Afghans didn’t get the memo about all our successes, so they are positioning themselves for the post-American civil war .
  • And they’re not the only ones getting ready. The future of Afghanistan is probably evolving up north now as the Indians, Russians and Pakistanis jockey with old Northern Alliance types. Interestingly, we’re paying more and getting less than any other player.
  • Speaking of positioning for the post-American civil war, why would the Pakistanis sell out their best proxy shock troops now?
  • The ANA and ANP could break the day after we leave the country.
  • We are ignoring the advisory effort and fighting the “big war” with American troops, just as we did in Vietnam. And the U.S. military won’t act any differently until and work with the Afghan forces seriously until when American politicians significantly draw down U.S. forces in country-when it may be too damn late.
  • The situation American faces in Afghanistan is similar to the one it faced in Vietnam during the Nixon presidency: A desire a leave and turn over the war to our local allies, combined with the realization that our allies may still lose, and the loss will be viewed as a U.S. defeat anyway.

Thanks to several people who contributed to this, from California to Kunar and back to DC, and whose names must not be mentioned! You know who you are. The rest of you, look at the guy sitting to your right.

Why we will win

Why we will win

… against the pathological left, anyway.

I have spent a few days discussing golf and football with a dozen or so folk at the Telegraph online.  They were hardly committed sports fans, unless you count screaming “racist” at every slightly “incorrect” white man a sport.  Perhaps they do.

They are certainly not very sporting themselves.  They never answer questions.  With the more capable anti-racists who gather at British Democracy Forum to plague BNP members I always felt that the wriggling was at least partly strategic.  But now I think the lot of them are probably constitutionally incapable of answering anything.  The answers just aren’t there.

The same feeling that the multiracialist ideology can’t answer the questions of the present-day runs through this article in the Guardian today:

Far right on rise in Europe, says report

Study by Demos thinktank reveals thousands of self-declared followers of hardline nationalist parties and groups

The far right is on the rise across Europe as a new generation of young, web-based supporters embrace hardline nationalist and anti-immigrant groups, a study has revealed ahead of a meeting of politicians and academics in Brussels to examine the phenomenon.

Research by the British thinktank Demos for the first time examines attitudes among supporters of the far right online. Using advertisements on Facebook group pages, they persuaded more than 10,000 followers of 14 parties and street organisations in 11 countries to fill in detailed questionnaires.

The study reveals a continent-wide spread of hardline nationalist sentiment among the young, mainly men. Deeply cynical about their own governments and the EU, their generalised fear about the future is focused on cultural identity, with immigration – particularly a perceived spread of Islamic influence – a concern. …

The rest of the article is worth a browse.  The original Demos report, which is less lurid in tone than the article above, is here.

The Guardian piece mentions an “expert on the politics of racism in Europe” called Gavan Titley.  He’s recently published a book with a Jewish anti-racist academic called Alana Lentin.  It is titled The Crisis of Multiculturalism, and again there is the sense that the world is asking new questions and answers are just not there any more.

Not only the answers.  The very utopianism which has sustained the radical left over the last half-century is corroding under the acid of Islam’s cultural intransigency.  New facts left intellectualism cannot accept, and new antagonisms it cannot resolve are rising.

To demonstrate the left’s growing intellectual sclerosis before these, here is the sole review for Lentin and Titley’s book from its page at Amazon.

Incomprehensible – The authors may have something worthwhile to say but they’re not about to let you in on their secret

29 Sep 2011

I think I might agree with what the authors of this book have to say about multiculturalism. I even think that what they think might be a worthwhile subject for a book. But there’s no way of knowing one way or the other.

The authors do not seem to realise that a book, first and foremost, must be understood – that there is no point spouting some post-modernist jibberish if you actually have something to say. Unfortunately, even if the authors do have anything to say, I think the reader of a book like this is entitled to assume the worst.

If this is what passes for sociology these days (or academia, at least – there are a great many quotes from ‘the field’ which are equally incomprehensible) it’s a depressing state of affairs.

In the 1990s, Alan Sokal famously had a spoof essay published in the self-regarding, post-modernist literary journal Social Text. The editors inhabited a world which even they did not understand, where language had become utterly detached from meaning and in which reputation with one’s peers rested solely on conjuring up, through nonsensical combinations of clever-looking words, an imagined higher plane of understanding which did not actually exist. The reality is that if a sentence doesn’t appear to make sense, that is a bad thing, not a good thing.

So: here’s how this book begins:

“Few people – particularly those given to regarding actually existing practices of state multiculturalism as a form of liberal nationalism, or overdetermining culturalism, or micro-colonialism, or political containment – can have guessed at the depths of its transformative power”.

It’s a lot of long words, but at least you can tell what they’re getting at (even though it seems to me that the “it” in this sentence is never defined). Anyway, it’s only downhill from there.

This, from the 3rd page, is typical:

“If the humanitarian and civilizing discourses of the war on terror are undergirded by a depoliticizing extraction of conflict ‘from the dense lattice of geopolitical and political-economic considerations to be depicted as stark morality tales’, the conventional accounting of multicultural collapse rehearses stark new certainties”.

Ok, so maybe it’s me. I get the vague idea there might be a point behind this sentence but if I want a puzzle, I can do a crossword or something. I’d actually rather this book told me something about “the crises of multiculturalism”, which is why I bought it.

Every page is the same – it’s like some mysterious faith-based exercise in reading. Imagine what you want them to be saying and then, if you can imagine the words do say what you want them to be saying, then yes, take it that they are saying that.
Every fifth sentence or so is straightforward. Actually, now I’m looking for one… and I really can’t find one … anywhere!

“Integral to this neo-patriotism is the liberal discourse of inclusionary exclusion that has suffused European political cultures, providing malleable possibilities for the ongoing cultural labour of imagined communities”. That’s about as good as it gets – mainly because it’s one of the few sentences in the book that doesn’t include the word ‘polysemy’, but also because at least a phrase like ‘inclusionary exclusion’ is amusing.

Anyway, page 3 is, unfortunately, as far as I got. Thanks for the memories Lentin and Titley. And to think – I reckon I’m one of the sympathetic ones.

Do Amazon do returns for this kind of thing?

Indeed, can the entire canon of left intellectualism, which has shaped the social debate since Adorno and Marcuse washed up in America, be forgotten, its relevance over, its energy sapped, its function superceded by history, and a history of race at that?

Posted by Guessedworker