Reconsider Columbus Day appeared on YouTube

Consider This

Reconsider Columbus Day appeared on YouTube last year. Links to it are circulating again this year.

October 12 is Columbus Day
A day that “our” government has deemed worthy of rememberance
But with all due respect
With all due respect
With all due respect
There’s an ugly truth that has been overlooked
For waaay too long
Columbus committed heinous crimes
Against the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean
And millions of natives throughout the Americas
And Columbus set the stage for the slave trade in the New World
So please
Please reconsider if this is a man you want to honor
Reconsider if you want to celebrate the crimes of Columbus
It’s not your fault
It happened a long time ago
But remaining neutral
And pretending like it didn’t happen
Or that it doesn’t still impact us today
So please
Take the day to learn the whole story
Celebrate the people who were here first
Petition for a nationally-recognized indigenous holiday
So please
Reconsider how you plan to spend October 12th
Reconsider the story of Columbus

Yes, let’s stop pretending. Let’s reconsider multiculturalism, reconsider multiracialism, and reconsider anti-racism. The people pushing these ideas are disingenuous. They don’t oppose discrimination, oppression, or genocide. They’re animated by hate and anger. They blame Whites for all the world’s ills. In their mind it’s payback time. Scapegoating Columbus is just the tip of an anti-White iceberg.

The purpose of the Reconsider Columbus Day campaign isn’t to hold Columbus accountable for his “crimes”. That was 500 years ago. The purpose isn’t to celebrate “the people who were here first” either. “Our” government has already dedicated 30 days to celebrating them.

This campaign is aimed at White people. It’s about guilt-tripping, criminalizing, and pathologizing us. It’s telling us to stop enjoying a Eurocentric view of history, to stop having a sense of pride in our European heritage, and to instead feel ashamed and be more concerned about everyone else’s point of view. The purpose is to convince us to celebrate and put the interests of other people above our own. It isn’t an argument for non-discrimination or race-blindness. The people driving this campaign despise us and our point of view.

Instead of going along with the browbeating of people who hate us, or even simply ignoring them, I’m inclined to do just the opposite of what they want. Therefore I encourage Whites to reconsider the mestizo holiday Cinco de Mayo, which commemorates the killing of Europeans and swimming the Rio Grande (not necessarily in that order). And the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, commemorating “racists” not acting quickly enough to help black looters. And the mother of all anti-White guilt-tripping, The Holocaust TM – which academia and media and politicians commemorate day in and day out.

The common theme here is: Whites suck. Why should we go along with that? Reconsider who does or doesn’t care about you. Reconsider what they tell you to care about. Reconsider whether it’s all about doing what’s “right” or “moral” or whether they just want you to better serve them. Respond accordingly.

Columbus: Continuation of a Genocidal Legacy is a Mexica Movement video connecting the dots from Columbus, to Cortez, to Custer, to Hitler. It presents a thoroughly one-sided view of the brutal facts of past conquest and war. Unlike the original blood-thirsty, slave-trading indigenous people, White newcomers kept relatively detailed records. But why dwell on the past? Do the job the anti-White moralizers in the media won’t do. Compile in your mind a video of current events – the robbery, rape, and murder “people of color” perpetrate against Whites no matter when or where we have the misfortune of living together.

Reconsider the never-ending lectures we’re fed about defamation, discrimination, stereotypes, blood libels. Think about these lectures the next time somebody quickly and blithely ticks off the usual politically correct litany of White “crimes”. Think about what they will rationalize as right and just once they gain the upper hand completely. If you need a hand, that Mexica video graphically depicts what they have in mind.

“The Man” Ain’t What He Used to Be

“The Man” Ain’t What He Used to Be

Resisting the Lies of the Ruling Class

The Establishment and Its Social Values

Young people today have been programmed to “Rage Against the Machine.” The Left has successfully marketed youthful rebellion against “The Man” for decades. One has to wonder, though, how long it will take until today’s budding hipsters — gussied up in a postmodern hodgepodge of recycled rebellions past — finally realize that they are the new squares.

“The Man” is now a smooth-talking, b-ball playin’ brother who come up from bein’ a community organizer in the ghetto.  He wants to save the planet, offer healthcare to everyone, punish the greedy, redistribute wealth, and offer a welcoming hand to his working-class Brown brothers from the south. He’s surrounded himself with a rainbow coalition of the choicest minorities.

It’s got to be tough to make it as a real radical lefty these days. You really have to do your research and get out your microscope to find your microaggressions.  You have to go so far left that it feels almost tongue in cheek and goofy, like that awkwardly ironic t-shirt you bought at Urban Outfitters. You have to hold an anti-plastic bag drum circle. It’s not like back in the ‘60s when you could just grow your hair out, get naked and sit around singing and smoking pot in the mud.  And it’s not some wizened old beatnik feeding you communist propaganda; it’s your schoolteacher, your principal, your college professor and your Supreme Court Justices. The future is now, cats, and you can’t fight “The Man” when he’s on your side. You can take to the streets and march, if that’s what you’re into, but your signs might as well say “Yes, sir, more of the same, please!” All you can do is become part of the machine, another cog. Your “rage” is all staged.

Any real resistance, any real rebellion at this point will have to come from the right.

There is growing reason for it. This has not been the people’s revolution. If polls are to be believed and votes are to be counted, the federal government is now behaving more and more like an oligarchy, where a cadre of elites, academics and “experts” decide what’s good for the people. Healthcare reform was passed with waning support, when few even knew what was in the bill. The American people were assured by their irritated masters that they would learn to like it. The State of Arizona, a border state facing a massive influx of illegal immigrants, decided to crack down and enforce the law. A majority of Americans have always supported sensible immigration control and rule of law over free-for-all, but “The Man” stepped in, sued the state and got a judicial decision that hobbled Arizona’s attempt at immigration control before it went into effect.

Most recently, an openly gay federal judge negated the will of a majority of Californians — 7 million of them — and decided that the state would recognize same-sex marriages whether the people agreed or not.

As the state progressively abandons the song and dance required to maintain the illusion that America is governed for and by the people, as it stops asking and listening and starts telling, it becomes increasingly illegitimate as a people’s government. At a certain point, it stops being us and starts being them, they, IT.

Andy Nowicki called it when he wrote:

They are the rulers; we are the ruled. They are in control; we aren’t.

In fact, they have shown themselves to be openly contemptuous of, even mocking towards, anyone with the audacity to try to stop them from achieving their goals. “Pass all the resolutions you want, suckers!” they sneer, “We’ll just send our boys in black to knock ’em down and call ’em ‘unconstitutional,’ and it’ll be back to square one for you bozos!”

Yes, they have the power, and they’ll eventually get exactly what they want.

The far Left has been portraying the state as an illegitimate oppressor for years. Until recently, the Right has probably seen itself reflected in the halls of power enough to think of the government as “us,” albeit ever more besieged by usurpers. But the worm has turned and the usurpers have usurped. Again, after Nowicki, “let them have the state” — withdraw, disengage, ridicule and defy the Other.

What the state does is simply what the state does.

It has long been clear that the list of “rights, benefits and responsibilities” associated with marriage and denied to same-sex couples are beside the point for the majority of same-sex marriage supporters. For many, even a perfect civil union law that replicated those rights, benefits and responsibilities exactly would not be an acceptable compromise, so long as the word marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples. The push for same-sex marriage is emotionally charged and highly symbolic. It’s about a word that equalizes, validates and — same-sex marriage supporters hope — confers a sense of collective acceptance that same-sex unions are essentially the same as heterosexual marriages.

But what the state does is simply what the state does.

Those on the Right can withhold social approval and deny that acceptance.  The Right can rebel against the state by resisting socially, by refusing to pretend that this consensus exists, by refusing to give the actions of the state any moral authority.

The general public does this already. Take for example the manufactured consensus on transsexuals.

According to the law of the land in many states, a man who takes female hormones and chooses to live as a woman — usually but not always with the goal of getting breast implants and having his penis removed — can legally become a woman.  Likewise, any woman who prefers comfortable shoes can take male hormones, live as a man, and according to the law, become a man. The media will deferentially perpetuate this illusion by referring to her with all of the pronouns normally reserved for men who were born male. Reporters will even report, straight-faced, that a man has given birth.

The state considers Thomas Beatie a man, and the United States Tennis Association allowed Renée Richards to play as a woman, but few people actually accept that a female can truly become a male or vice versa. If you doubt this, imagine an average guy telling his friends and family that he is dating a male-to-female transsexual. “But the state considers her a woman” will not change the fact that in most people’s eyes, that dude is having sex with another dude. A dude with particularly buoyant breasts who is missing a penis — a dude who looks like a lady — but a dude all the same.  To the general public, Thomas Beatie is a freakshow, a bearded lady who had a baby. Chaz Bono is just another fat lesbian with a short haircut. The government and the media say one thing, and the rest of us chuckle and believe another.

What the state says is simply what the state says.

Same-sex marriage offers another opportunity to separate what is right from what the state says. Among the various factions and thinkers on the Right, there will be dispute about the place of homosexuals in society and there will competing visions of what is ideal. But I think just about everyone can agree, though sometimes for different reasons, that same-sex marriage is a ridiculous sham and should be treated as such.

And here’s where it comes down to you.

You have the choice either to concede and play along, or you can keep same-sex “marriages” encased in sarcastic quotation marks. I have male associates who refer to male partners as their “husbands” and who consider themselves “married.” I’m not going to indulge that fantasy. As a writer, I don’t refer to MTFs as women, and I won’t refer to some lesbian’s live-in lover as her “wife” — no matter what the state says.

To restate the old H.L. Mencken zinger, we must respect the other fellow’s “marriage,” but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his “husband” is handsome and his adopted children are smart.

“Oh, is that what they’re calling it now?”

Tipping Point Reached

Tipping Point Reached

The Anglosphere tippeth over.

9th August 2010

Just one in ten babies is born to a white British mother in some parts of the country, figures reveal.

The statistics – based on NHS monitoring of the ethnicity and nationality of patients – show a sharp contrast in the backgrounds of new mothers in urban and rural areas.

While white British mothers accounted for just 9.4 per cent of all births in one London health trust, the figure was 97.4 per cent of all births in Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust.

The birth statistics reflect how mothers described themselves, not the ethnicity of the fathers or the babies.

Across all of England’s 150 NHS Trusts there were 652,638 deliveries last year, around six out of ten of them to women who called themselves white British.

But in some trusts serving rural areas more than 95 per cent of mothers fell into that category.

These included Northern Devon with 97.4 per cent, Co Durham and Darlington with 97.1, and Northumbria with 96 per cent.

At the other end of the spectrum, in North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, which covers Harrow, just 9.4 per cent of mothers were white British. Another inner city trust – Sandwell and West Birmingham – had 16.5 per cent. And a little over one in four new mothers were white Britons at Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital in central London.

The proportion of mothers of white British origin at Bradford Teaching Hospitals trust was 34 per cent.

(As of 2001, only two percent of marriages in Britain were interracial, so the Mail‘s statistics regarding White motherhood accurately reflect the coming demographics of the Kingdom.)

“America Alone!” types — who indulge in Schadenfreude over Europe’s Muslim situation and tell themselves that the conservative U.S. will stand strong against the world — should be reminded that in Britain 62 percent of births are to White mothers, whereas in America the number is just over 50. Indeed, the countdown to the point at which “minority” births will comprise the majority of total births in the country will likely end sometime this fall.

By Alex Spillius
11 Mar 2010

Caucasian women increasingly are delaying having children and having smaller families, while growing numbers of Hispanic women are having large families at conventional child-bearing ages, according to a new demographic study. If trends continue, America is on course to have a white minority by 2050.

“Census projections suggest America may become a minority-majority country by the middle of the century,” said Kenneth Johnson, a sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire who researched many of the racial trends in a paper released this week.

Whites currently make up two-thirds of the total US population, but the number of white women of prime child-bearing age – 20-39 years old – is in decline, dropping 19 per cent from 1990.

Minorities made up 48 per cent of US children born in 2008, compared with 37 per cent in 1990. Broken down by race, about 52 per cent of babies born in 2008 were white, compared with about 25 per cent who were Hispanic, 15 per cent black and four per cent Asian.

Another four per cent were identified by their parents as multiracial. The numbers highlight the nation’s growing racial and age divide, seen in pockets of communities across the country, which could heighten tensions in current debates on policies ranging from immigration reform and education to health care and social security.

According to the figures analysed by the University of New Hampshire, roughly one in 10 of the nation’s 3,142 counties already has minority populations greater than 50 per cent. But one in four communities has more minority children than white children or is nearing that point.

The researchers found that the fertility rate was higher among Hispanics, who had an average of three children per woman, than among non-Hispanic white women, who had an average of just under two children (1.87) each. Fertility rates among other minority groups were quite similar to whites.

Black fertility had declined significantly in recent years, with African-American women now averaging 2.13 children.

Both of these reports indicate that the Anglosphere is fragmenting into a checkerboard of White and Brown: places like Durham, for example, are overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon, whereas North West London has essentially been ceded to newcomers. The States, too, have suburban and rural “Whitopias” that reflect the demographics of a long-gone America. But then the flip side of Diversity is that politicians will attempt to contain this fragmentation within a “national” framework: incomes will be taxed, wealth redistributed, access to public facilities equalized, and careers promoted and retarded all in the hope of creating a homogenous “people.”

And you can imagine which individual Britons are going to lose in such an arrangement.

I sometime get the sense that many immigration restrictionists in the U.S. think that at some point between 2040-2050, a load buzzer will go off announcing that America is now officially a White-minority nation, and the country will promptly begin a swift economic and political decline. But reality doesn’t work that way. And here a financial metaphor is apt. Companies don’t declare bankruptcy and then see their stock prices fall precipitously as a result. Markets are discounting and predictive mechanisms, and prices immediately reflect dangers far off on the horizon.

For the Anglosphere, the future is now.

Finally a Debate between McCain and Hayworth

Finally a Debate between McCain and Hayworth

by James Buchanan

Traitor, one down, one to go.

After refusing to do a debate with J.D. Hayworth for over six months, John McCain finally condescended to do a debate –on extremely short notice –and only if the spoiler candidate, Jim Deakin were included. The GOP Arizona primary election is still over a month away on August 24th.

John McCain has received millions and millions of dollars in special interest money from the same old big corporations that buy his vote every six years. McCain has used that money to buy commercials to smear Hayworth as much as possible. After months of smearing, McCain recently had his biggest lead over Hayworth in months (about 50 to 30). Hayworth was within five percent of McCain at two times earlier in the election.

It should be noted that the telephone survey polls rely on landlines, which means that young and middle-aged people, who primarily use cell phones, are unlikely to be included in the polls. Unfortunately the Arizona election is an open primary, which means that large numbers of liberals can pretend to be Republicans (just like McCain does himself) and vote for McCain.

Considering that the biggest issue in Arizona for the last six month has been illegal immigration, it’s hard to imagine that more Arizonans are not upset about McCain’s past attempt to pass an Amnesty Bill in 2007. This suggests the polls may be considerably off and that McCain is only getting 50 percent of the vote from very old people with landlines, who get all their information from TV commercials and none from the Internet. (more…)