The Great Tea Party-NAACP Racism Fiasco. Jewish Shadow Gov.

The Great Tea Party-NAACP Racism Fiasco.

From The Political Cesspool

Oh, man…if only they had read my book! Racism, Schmacism. All of this unpleasantness could’ve been avoided. This thing is such a mess I don’t even know where to start, and it’s pathetic and hilarious at the same time. I wanted to write about it last week, but I was just swamped, and now things have gotten even crazier with the whole NAACP/Tea Party brouhaha, so I might as well go for it.

Well, let’s just start at the beginning. Last week, the NAACP passed a resolution condemning the “racism” of the Tea Party movement, and demanding that the movement purge itself of those hideous “racists” in their grass roots movement. Yes, the very same mental midgets who just a few weeks ago were condemning a Hallmark greeting card with an outer space theme because they think “black holes” means “black hos”, an organization which is explicitly organized for the exclusive benefit of one race of people, and whose name contains the words “Colored People”, actually had the gall to pass this resolution.

This was a great opportunity for the Tea Party movement to show some backbone by laughing in the face of the imbeciles at the NAACP. But did they? Of course not. Predictably, they responded in the same tired, pusillanimous manner with which they always respond to these never ending accusations. Instead of replying with a loud BWAHAHAHA! or a “Yeah? What’s your point?” or “So what?” or “Of course we’re racists -we’re white people.

That’s what “racist” means or “Can any of you race hustlers even spell “racist”?”, they predictably went into their usual bend over and grab their ankles mode. They protested that oh no, we’re not racists at all, we don’t tolerate racists at our rallies which are really huge rainbow coalitions, and it’s the NAACP and the liberals who are the real racists, etc., etc. You know, the lame “Bull Connor was a Democrat!” defense. It never works, but they just keep trotting it out like some lucky charm in the vain hope that this time it will work.

Racist means white person. Period. Until the Tea Partiers get that through their heads, nothing’s going to change, and they’re never going to be an effective political force. They really, really need to read Racism, Schmacism.

Read Article

Israel “deceit rape” law used to deter mixed relationships.

Probably the most well financed extreme left-wing organization in the US is the Anti-Defamation League(ADL). This groups takes in $50 million a year and advocates for every extreme left-wing cause in US politics. It is also widely accused of being an unregistered foreign lobby for Israel (and more recently for Turkey as well). The group uses its Jewishness and the WWII Jewish Holocaust as a weapon against criticism. However, at the same time it has lobbied to deny recognition that the Christian Holocaust in Turkey or the Ukrainian Holocaust in the Soviet Union constitute “genocide.” The ADL is also one of the leading advocates of censorship in the US.

However, while the ADL screams “nazi” and “racist” at mainstream conservatives in the US, it ignores the right-wing nationalist ruling coalition in Israel. A nation that the ADL fanatically and unconditionally supports.

Israel has banned all immigration from Sub-Saharan Africa, including so-called “Ethiopian Jews.” Last year numerous Sub-Saharan illegal immigrants were shot and killed by Egyptian border security trying to cross into Israel. Egypt says that the use of deadly force is due to intense pressure from the Israeli government to halt the flow of illegals.

Israel gives free Depo-Provera injections, a highly effective long term birth control, to Ethiopian immigrant women on welfare.

Foreign guest workers are allowed from Asian countries, but they must sign a form promising not to have sexual relations with an Israel girl.

Now a new tactic is being used to deter mixed relations. An Arab Israeli citizen was just sentenced to 18 months in prison for having consensual sex with a Jewish Israeli girl. The prosecutor called it “deceit rape,” because the Arab allegedly told the girl he was also Jewish. Click here for more info.

Obviously, if any US conservative group even advocated doing any of these things in the US, the ADL would be screaming “nazi” and “racist” at the top of its lungs.

Can a Black Actor Play Spider-Man?

Can a Black Actor Play Spider-Man?

Can a white actor can play Martin Luther King Jr.?

Spider-ManEarlier this week, on a quiet Sunday evening, the geek community exploded over twitter, crushed by news that one of our community’s patron saints, Guillermo del Toro was leaving The Hobbit – a project many of us had covered for years. From rumors of his attachment, to the long contract process and then two years of pre-production, this film was to be his masterpiece and we were there every step of the way. This was huge. No, this was gargantuan. We would be talking about this all of this week and into the…wait. What? A Black actor wants to audition for Spider-Man?

STOP THE PRESSES!

A dam broke. Everyone quickly came to terms with their heartbreak, and while writing up their picks for del Toro’s replacement, spent the rest of the night arguing, debating and occasionally even yelling at fellow geeks over whether or not Donald Glover (NBC’s Community) could take on the role of everyone’s favorite nebbish high school nerd turned wise-cracking superhero. It occasionally even got ugly. But, unlike how some have painted it, this isn’t a matter of racism. This isn’t enlightened, empowered liberal minds on one side shouting down racists on the other; in fact this doesn’t even properly skew down racial lines. This is a question of origin.

Spider-Man was originally drawn white, and he’s existed that way for almost 50 years now. Were you to ask me last week what I thought about casting a black Spider-Man, I would have said that it depended on the actor, but that Spider-Man has always been a white character. Of course, once Glover’s name was mentioned, I changed that tune. There isn’t anyone truly interesting up for the role right now. And with the studio skewing young with hopes of having someone around for a while, there is very little chance of getting anyone we’re REALLY interested in. Except for Glover. Glover is interesting. He can play nerdy, he can be very likable and most of all, he’s uproariously funny.

A few weeks ago, on Community, Glover took part in an incredible post-apocalyptic, action movie spoof inDonald Glover which he and his classmates were playing paintball for an unthinkable prize. When he propositions his fellow black team member to shoot his teammates in the back to take the prize for themselves, he gets a scolding about how that would look. “I am NOT an ambassador!” he yells, nailing the joke. That line has stuck with me. With everything I’ve read from Glover, he doesn’t think they should consider a black Spider-Man; they should consider auditioning *him* for Spider-Man. It’s a small, subtle, but important difference that illustrates the divide this country still has with race. And it is a difference the studios are embracing. A studio suit once told me “Look, if Will Smith wanted to play Adolph Hitler, we’d find a way to make it happen. He’d take the weekend.”

That’s not to say every hero can has his origin or color shuffled ever so slightly. Certain heroes were built around their race or harken from an era when a member of another race would create an anachronism. Luke Cage and Blade were both Blaxsploitation comic book heroes created to sell more comic books to the black community in the 70’s – hell, the first time Blade showed up in Tomb of Dracula he had an afro, threw wooden knives and called all the vampires “Suckas!.” Likewise, Captain America comes from a time when, ironically, while fighting the master race ideal, we weren’t too keen on anyone but whites being given special roles. And Thor is Scandinavian; kind of hard to get around that one.

But Spider-Man? He’s just a poor smart kid who lives with his aunt and tries to do the best he can with the powers he was given. Nothing controversial in there. In fact, Stan Lee has repeatedly said in interviews that the idea of Spider-Man was that is *could* have been anyone under that mask. That he was white was simply a product of the era he was created in – the early sixties.

So do I want to see a black Spider-Man? Only if it is the right actor playing him. And not if they feel the need to make changes to justify him being black. This isn’t about activism; this isn’t about Spider-man being an ambassador. It’s about finding the right guy who can make us believe in a nerdy kid who wants to save the world. That’s it. Get that right, and I could care less what he looks like under that mask.

Locust:

Can A black actor play spider-man?

When a white actor can play Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Michael Jackson,  and Obama in a movie.  Nope will never happen, but whites can’t have inspiring heroes, thats pre-obama American, A defeated people can have no heroes, and in Black Run America those who are anointed can’t have undue competition.

Have an Evil day

Moral guilt is holding Europe back

Moral guilt is holding Europe back

War always has its costs. Europe has been waging expensive wars against itself and the world for centuries. Many say we lost countless lives of brave, important men. We did, but we lost more. Instead of expanding land and teaching natives about Shakespeare, we became a morally introvert civilization. Here is how we and our children of Europe pay this cost, every day.

Pointing at the British, French or German empires on the world map used to instill honor in Europeans. We were pretty merciless at times, but with the knowledge that we took wastelands and turned them into full-blown civilizations. Would the world championship in football be held in South Africa this summer if we hadn’t been down there and developed agriculture and economy? Where would India be? America as we know it wouldn’t even exist without the British.

Today we blame ourselves for our imperialist past. While it’s important to recognize where we killed for killing alone and where we erased culture by projecting our own as superior, it’s equally important to note the good things that came out of our imperialism. If we’d been morally confident about our contributions to the world in terms of governance, law and morality, we wouldn’t be threatening our children today in schools with post-colonial theory and Marxist analyses of apartheid history.

Every following crisis in Europe ever since has received a response of moral guilty. When America’s economic melt down began and later spread to Europe, leading political leaders suddenly began blaming capitalism itself instead of the fiscal irresponsibility enacted by banks and economic advisors. This led to a deacreasing belief in the economic system as a whole, slowing down consumption and killing off vital industry. Banks freaked out and then did the only thing they know how to do well: lowering interests rates. Consumption picked up, but inflation rose, which led to a slow devaluation of the currency. This is still going on and the economy’s hurting. Self-destructive moral guilt plays a big role in this downward spiral.

Europe has also become a center for environmentalist religion, placing irrational faith in climate models put forward by researchers with doubtful scientific methods. Since the West leads all industrial nations in the world, it is also causing most harm to the environment. But thanks to effective markets and impressive engineering, we are also leading the innovation fields where technology is becoming more effective and less damaging to the environment. This, coupled with global efforts to protect wild land and species, which quite frankly is totally off the agenda in most other parts of the world, means nothing to the moral elite who say we better worry like crazy over carbon emissions instead of developing better and slimmer industry.

Even more deadly is our cultural guilt that followed WWII. Europe could not find sufficient leadership for its turn to radical conservative ideologies and as a result collapsed inward into another world war. It cost us our cultural platform. With liberal Marxist culture infiltrating universities and government theorists at the time when the Cold War had just ended, Europe decided to use negative instead of positive logic: “Hitler/Mussolini/Franco was bad, but instead of building positive culture, we avoid all that may potentially become negative culture.” That was the beginning of multiculturalism and cultural relativism, or as Mark Steyn so truthfully put it, “our core values is that we have no core values.”

Moral guilt has taken ethnic culture hostage in its own natural habitat. Because Europe wanted to expel foreign cultures before WWII, it now pretends it is forced to “compensate” for this with mass immigration. No one really believes such a thing is possible or a rational thing to do, including most immigrants, who are often just looking for a better place to live in (who doesn’t?). Most people will also acknowledge that denying your own cultural heritage isn’t really a good way to meet and understand other cultural communities.

What these cultural memes in Europe do is that they force people to feel guilty over who they are, what they belong to culturally and how they wish to live their lives. That is a process that threatens to completely erode a civilization from within. Turning moral guilt into a national culture produces weaklings as citizens, robs people of their hope, and inflates cultural values. If you wonder why Europe seems to be hiding behind welfare, Islam and progressive morality, you now know the answer. We are paying a moral price for what people before us did in the past. But we don’t subscribe to the past any longer. We are increasingly, like American Tea Partiers, turning more and more conservative on the basis that any other system of politics erodes what we’ve accumulated over time. Time has tested us before and it will continue to do so. And we will still stand.

Captain! There are doubts…

by Cladrastis

There is an ongoing debate regarding how WE might regain the reigns of power – how we might take the captaincy of the vessel, so to speak. We all know the problem – the intoxicated captain (whose name is “He Who Wrestles with God” or Jacob) is steering us directly into an iceberg. Under Jacob’s captaincy, the ship has been neglected; our vessel is already taking on water, and the boilers are running out of steam (not to mention the problem of the exploding rat population). What good will it do us to usurp Jacob’s power if the ship is no longer seaworthy?

If we expect to win our struggle, we must maintain a competitive edge over the Enemy. If we assess our situation honestly (as Pentti Linkola has done), our interests would best be served, not by taking the heavily guarded captain’s deck, but instead by commandeering the life rafts – as those are the real sources of power on a sinking ship. Right now, the people are so oblivious to the crises taking place that the lifeboats are not being carefully monitored or observed. Our fellow passengers may have ominous feelings about the noises erupting on board the vessel, but their fears are easily allayed (or misdirected) by frequent announcements on the intercom system assuring them that all is well (and anyway, THIS ship is unsinkable). It may still be too early to risk lowering the rafts into the sea, but it is not too early to initiate a plan for taking them by force as panic inevitably spreads. It is also not too early to begin thinking about the moral implications of the behavior that will be required of us as we take the lifeboats. Chance favors the prepared mind.

Of course, we may not have all the information (or even accurate information) regarding our situation. It is possible that there is still time to repair the ship, or perhaps there are technologies or intelligences about which we are ignorant onboard. However, we must speak of the future in probabilistic terms, and in such terms, a deus ex machina appearing on the scene to save us is extremely unlikely (and virtually unknown in the historical record).

If one has time to prepare to take the lifeboats, he also has time to think about what (and whom) he will take with him. Luckily, our Titanic is a bazaar on which almost anything may be procured, for the right price. Perhaps there is even time to learn important skills that will be needed on the journey. Some in our number proclaim that indebtedness (a natural consequence of buying implements or schooling) makes us less competitive in the struggle for rising in rank to the captaincy, but such individuals are not addressing the reality of the crises at hand. Forget the captaincy, the ship is going down and with it, all the old notions of debt and money.

We may be adrift on the open ocean for months, and landfall will likely be on a deserted island. If we don’t plan well, we will be stuck on that island forever. Given our situation, it might be wise to prioritize what and who (and how to recruit them) will be needed for our journey, as well as to consider what might be an optimal decision-making strategy both in the future and in the interim. The Enemy may be concocting escape plans of his own; we don’t really know, although it is to our advantage to anticipate such preparations. To rout the Enemy, we must be psychologically prepared to be more brutal than He can imagine.

Moderate conservatism and radical conservatism are not the same things

“I want anarchy!” “Save the white race!” “Money is our enemy!” When you’ve lived long enough you begin to understand why most people, especially those who are sensible in most areas of life, surprisingly are moderate when it comes to politics. They’ve seen extremists and revolutionaries destroy whole societies like Russia and Cuba. But more cautiously, they’ve observed how the best of soft intentions often spawn tyranny, as in the case of Holland and Sweden. This is the story of why conservatism really is about conserving moderation.

Revolution attracts young people, because of its inherent idealism. Powerful people are fascinated by it, because it gives them an opportunity to continue to rule under a new fashion system of government. When the lower classes in France demanded a revolution, the nobility recognized the problems their privileges posed to the public, but chose to resist opposition. After the Second World War, in many parts of Europe, they slowly passed votes saying yes to public democracy. Conservatism was therefore born to stabilize society by slowing down revolutions through the implementation of slow changes to society as a whole.

The conservative principle is belief in slow change guided by tradition. This means it’s both futuristic and traditionalistic. Radical ideologies like socialism, feminism and anarchism fall outside of this scheme of thought, because they demand a radical transformation of society at fast speed, often with little or no consideration to historical reality. Put simply, radicalism takes no regard to human nature or history, but sees only ideas on paper. When they become reality, they often create dysfunctional cultures like Russia and North Korea.

Radical conservatism is therefore sort of an oxymoron. You’re not really conservative if you believe we should immediately overthrow our democratic leaders, replace the entire class system with birth-given meritocracy and send home millions of immigrants from wherever they came from. It would completely disrupt the entire society, even if its goals are based on historic conditions. If we look realistically at the world, we recognize we need a moderate change over a longer period of time to which people can adapt to. Think about some of these issues:

Feminism: Has caused us a lot of harm, but as it stands today, many women are capable in the work force and some of them are completely unsuitable as mothers. Forcing them all to revert back to pre-2000 gender roles would not work out, and would dig a hole in an already infected economy.

Democracy: Moderates some problems with direct tyranny, but historically seems to transform into some form of fascism over time, clouded with bureaucracy. What would we do if we killed it next year? We’d have to rewrite our entire constitutions, many of them spanning centuries of political wisdom. And after anarchy? Well…

Multiculturalism: Has not brought us much diversity, despite high promises. Yet most people today know that some immigrants have managed to integrate nicely and contribute to the host culture and society. It’s not been a picnic, but slowly we’ve found out that culture is much more dynamic than what we think and if it wants to survive, it cannot be isolated, it needs to adapt to worldly conditions in a global civilization.

Capitalism: Everyone’s favorite target these days, and indeed, the West’s hyper-effective economies have drained natural resources and made life boring and miserable for a lot of workers. The alternative though, as we can still see in socialist countries around the world, is not that appealing. Great minds have found that it’s possible to limit environmental and social problems by better understanding how a free market really works, given the input of sane values guiding it instead of raw money craze.

Americanism: When a dominant culture rules, all other cultures adapt to certain key conditions of that host culture. We saw it in central Europe during the rule of Rome and we see traces of it in Caucasus today. But what it means is not just that cultural diversity is relative to any master culture sustaining it, but most importantly that maybe, sometimes, we should be thankful there is a backing hand in a world increasingly left in the hands of unpredictable and dangerous dictatorships.

This realization may upset some people, especially young idealists. It means we may be thinking right when we orient ourselves around radical philosophy, but fail miserably when we try to apply these philosophies short-term. Therefore we choose not to directly advocate an uprise against democracy, death of feminism or destruction of globalism on this site. Radical conservatism, understood as a belief that life would be better if we returned to a pre-modern world, is appealing in theory, but is lethal in practice.

Instead we believe in a moderate conservatism where these over-arching goals influence the way we bring about slow change today. In terms of lifestyle, this means we may choose to lift weights instead of training with swords, letting our women repair the car one day instead of locking them up inside the kitchen, joining a local church community instead of declaring pagan gods our masters, or attending local Arab parties when we feel like having fun, instead of deciding that all immigrants are unwelcome guests. Some say this is pragmatism, but what it really is, is a recognition of the depth and value of history, and a willingness to let that history guide us safely but bravely into the future. Think wisely, think conservative–think Right.