Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

What We Cannot Do

Gates of Vienna has posted an essay titled What We Can Do proposing that the West destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, reject muslim immigrants, deport non-citizen muslims, forbid any predominantly muslim country from building or obtaining nuclear weapons, reduce our dependence on oil, require our governments to persistently denounce islam, and finally, shatter the muslim faith by preemptively destroying mecca and medina.

This is by far the most aliberal collection of anti-islam proposals I have ever read in my life. The premise is unapologetically pro-Western and it elicits many comments questioning just how far the West can go to defend itself.

Lawrence Auster links the essay and writes:
It remains a remarkable fact that free political debate about a life and death issue facing our civilization only takes place on the Web.
It is a boring and hardly remarkable fact that Auster, from his lofty moral high ground, considers it his duty to define "free political debate". Thus he shows up to let us know what we cannot do. For instance, we cannot use words like "vermin". That and any similarly dehumanizing labels are reserved for anti-semites. You know, anyone who recognizes that the West has enemies beside islam and people to defend beside jews.

What I find remarkable, and commented about, is the role of PC and cultural marxism in hobbling the West. The problem, very clear here amongst the discussion of who to bomb and how many to kill, is illustrated in the pavlovian anti-anti-semitic reaction to any questioning of the conflation of White and jewish interests in what "we" call "the West".

As long as White Westerners permit their speech and ideas to be constrained and their interests subordinated to pushy self-interested minorities we will continue to be invaded by turd worlders invited by our greedy and White-hating rulers. Under a regime where we may only argue about the symptoms and misdiagnose the disease there is no hope for any defense of the West.

Anyone who cannot stand to hear such ideas is part of the problem.

Labels: , ,

white

Monday, July 28, 2008

UK Thought Criminals Sheppard and Whittle Jailed in LA

On 11 July 2008 the Yorkshire Post published Holocaust denier convicted of trying to incite race hate online:
A jury at Leeds Crown Court yesterday found Simon Sheppard, 51, guilty of nine counts of publishing racially inflammatory written material on his website between March 2005 and April 2006. The court heard Sheppard's website attracts 4,000 visitors a day.

Four of the articles were penned by Stephen Whittle, 41, who was yesterday convicted of four counts of publishing racially inflammatory written material.

The others included a cartoon by the American cartoonist Robert Crumb and an article written during the 1960s by the leader of the American Nazi Party, George Lincoln Rockwell.
Prosecutor Jonathan Sandiford told the jury that Sheppard and Whittle were a pair of racists who held what they may regard as fairly extreme views about people who were Jewish, black, Asian, Chinese, Indian and, in reality, anyone who wasn't white.

"People in this country are entitled to be racist and they are entitled to hold unpleasant points of view, but what they aren't entitled to do is publish or distribute written material which is insulting, threatening or abusive and is intended to stir up racial hatred or is likely to do so."
On 15 July the Yorkshire Post published Hunt for race hate writer on run:
Police have launched a manhunt after a writer who penned race hate articles for a controversial website failed to turn up at court.

Stephen Whittle penned five offensive articles which appeared on the Internet, a jury was told.
Prosecutor Jonathan Sandiford told the jury that Whittle used the pseudonym Luke O'Farrell for the articles, which were posted on the web between March 2005 and January 2006.

The articles were either threatening, insulting or abusive and may have been intended to stir up racial hatred, Mr Sandiford added.
I first read of these developments at Majority Rights.

A google news search currently returns 8 hits, only one of which reports on what has transpired since the conviction of Sheppard and Whittle.

An google web search returns a fairly informative page titled Why don’t US media report that Simon Sheppard and Steve Whittle from Britain ask for asylum in the US? It contains the following:
Piercing the Press Blackout on the Heretical Two

After establishing the media black-out on the Sheppard and Whittle story by contacting the Immigration authorities in Los Angeles who told her their phone lines were red hot with call after call from the UK media about the Heretical Two, the BPP Women's Division organiser has written to every major daily newspaper to ask why they are following the story but NOT reporting it.
Below is a copy of the email sent:

Sir/Madam:

I have been following with great interest the recent story concerning Mr. Simon Sheppard and Mr. Steve Whittle who were the first people in the World to be tried and subsequently charged with Inciting Racial Hatred for anti-Semitic articles they published on a website hosted in the USA. When found guilty they fled to Ireland and then flew to Los Angeles to claim political asylum after they had received confirmation from the US Government that the articles were not illegal there. They fled persecution and to my knowledge they are the first White indigenous people from the UK to have ever done this. The Court case was a total sham but most crucially, as I said, was the first of its kind in the World (previously sites hosted in the US were deemed out of the jurisdiction of the UK laws) and now they are also the first from the UK as White indigenous people to claim they are fleeing Political persecution in the UK (rightly so). I spoke with the Department of Homeland Security in America who state quite clearly that the British media have 'gone crazy' about this story with them receiving hundreds of telephone calls a day yet the only publications to have even mentioned this story are local Yorkshire ones, this indicates to me that the bigger publications KNOW of the story and are actively following it but are not publishing it, this does not make any sense to me at all? I would surmise that the people of the UK need to know about the dictatorial regime we live under where the most fundamental of human rights is not afforded to us - the right to freedom of speech. I would be most grateful if you could look into this and get back to me.

Kind regards.

Miss K Dermody

Simon and Steve are currently being held in Santa Ana Jail, California and their addresses are produced below. Please give these comrades your support by sending them messages of goodwill which they will appreciate.

Whittle, Stephen
0800006408
c/o Santa Ana Jail
P.O. Box 22003
Santa Ana, CA 92701
U.S.A.

Sheppard, Simon
0800006404
c/o Santa Ana Jail
P.O. Box 22003
Santa Ana, CA 92701
U.S.A.
A video titled Fugitives from British Injustice! contains more information and pictures of Sheppard and Whittle (extracted and reproduced above).

- - -

For the moment Sheppard's site Heretical Press is accessible and its contents, including the articles written by Steve Whittle under the pseudonym Luke O'Farrell, remain intact.

In a 1998 article titled Social Psychology, Religious Belief, Censorship and the Holocaust Sheppard quotes Sir Stanley Unwin:
The enemy of subversive thought is not suppression, but publication: truth has no need to fear the light of day; fallacies wither under it. The unpopular views of today are the commonplaces of tomorrow, and in any case the wise man wants to hear both sides of every question.
The Crumb cartoon, When the Goddamn Jews Take Over America, was easy enough to find. It originally appeared in Weirdo #28, 1993.

There are four George Lincoln Rockwell items:

Rockwell: Boat Ticket 1
Rockwell: Boat Ticket 2
Rockwell: Lincoln Rockwell
Rockwell: The Swastika

It was perhaps the third link containing excerpts from This Time The World that the court considered offensive:
I examined the tactics of the Jews in dealing with all previous approaches to the problem, and found they had a sliding scale of increasingly vicious attacks on those who tried to expose and oppose them publicly.

The first and instinctive weapon of the Jew is economic. If you are an 'anti-Semite', then you and your family must starve, if it is in the power of Jewry to accomplish this -- which it almost always is, since they supply, control or patronize all businesses. The whole weight of Jewish business is brought to bear on anyone who dares to oppose these lovers of free speech. Usually this is enough to terrify and reduce any man, especially one with a family, to humiliating and disgusting submission to Jewry.

But if that doesn't work, they go after his reputation and social life. He is smeared and blasted and lied about in the Jew-controlled media of entertainment and information. He is called a 'bigot', a 'hate-monger', a 'failure' and finally, when all else fails, he is damned as a 'Nazi'.

If there is still life in the would-be exposer of Jewish treason, they then reverse the field, for fear of giving him publicity, and give him instead the 'silent treatment'. His meetings, speeches, distributions and resolutions are simply ignored, no matter what he does. This is a particularly frustrating experience and usually discourages even the toughest battlers, with the mere passage of time.

If the rising 'anti-Semite' survives all this, they next try their jail bit. The police are pressured until they crack and are willing to harass and persecute the 'offender' for all sorts of 'violations'. And if the Jew-fighter persists regardless of the fines and other penalties incurred for not having a properly licensed dog, for distributing literature in a disorderly manner, etc., they prepare a 'frame' for him, as they did to Emory Burke in Atlanta. The patriot is found with dope in his possession, or it is 'discovered' that he has been giving 'kick-backs' to his employees, or his tax returns are not in order, etc.

Failing this tactic, the Jews hit their man with their newest masterpiece: 'mental health'. The patriot must be 'sick', so he is locked up 'for his own good' in the bughouse.

If this also should fail to stop such a 'mad anti-Semite', then the Jews resort to the eternal weapon of all tyrants: naked violence. The would-be opponent of Jewish treason and tyranny is beaten up by hoods, his place is attacked by fire and missiles, and he discovers that his life is in danger, unless he stops doing whatever it is that offends the Jews.

During all their direct attacks against the staunch patriot, the Jewish 'lovers of sweet reason' employ two equally dirty indirect plays: They build up sincere, but harmless anti-communist outfits, like the John Birch Society, by showering them with publicity to draw off the growing hordes of maddened Americans from any real and therefore dangerous activity and, secondly, they open up a heavy media bombardment of lies about Hitler and National Socialism, in order to destroy by discrediting 'Nazis' like ourselves, without giving us any publicity.

There is no question that a man who has survived all these attacks will be killed, if possible, by the Jews or their agents. The Jews have no choice. They are too guilty to permit anybody to expose them and organize any effective resistance against them. Traitors cannot survive such an exposure. With such as the Jews, it is kill or be killed.
Rockwell was shot and killed on 25 August 1967.

I have found no reference to precisely which O'Farrell articles the court deemed offensive. Every one is witty and unapologetically pro-White. They are all well worth reading. I recommend you begin at the bottom and work upward through them all. That way you can try to judge for yourself which thoughts the court considers too dangerous for adults to read.

I've taken the liberty of noting here a handful I find particularly relevant.

Dr. Strangeloathing – or – How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Jews (27 FEBRUARY 2005)
There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.

In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb.

I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.

Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people.
Whodunnit? Jewdunnit! - Lifting the Lid on the Guilty Yid (18th JULY 2005)
At any time before the 1950s, brown-skinned Muslim terrorists would have found it nearly impossible to plan and commit atrocities on British soil, because they would have stood out like sore thumbs in Britain’s overwhelmingly White cities. Today, thanks to decades of mass immigration, it’s often Whites who stand out like sore thumbs. Our cities swarm with non-whites full of anti-White grievances and hatreds created by Judeo-liberal propaganda. And let’s forget the hot air about how potential terrorists and terrorist sympathizers are a “tiny minority” of Britain’s vibrant, peace-loving Muslim “community”.
Freedom of Screech - Non-white Cuckoos in the White Nest (7 OCTOBER 2005)
Evidence that we’re less racist than non-whites is actually evidence that we’re just concealing our racism. We’re guilty till proved guilty, and we have to wake up and understand the truth about anti-racism and the ever-growing “diversity” industry. Not only is equality between different races impossible to achieve, anti-racists and diversocrats do not want to achieve it. They want non-whites to take everything Whites have got, and the only freedom they’re interested in is the freedom for non-whites to screech louder and louder about racism as more and more White power and money are handed over to them.
Programmed for Pogrom - You Can’t Say That – It’s True! (9th December 2007)
Most voters in the UK would have no idea what “LFI” and “CFI” are and do, but you can be sure that every member of parliament is well aware. You do not get to the top in British politics without groveling hard and long before Jews, Britain’s richest and most selfish ethnic group. Jews like Levy, Abrahams and “Sir” Ronald Cohen, Gordon Brown’s chief financial backer, aren’t funding the Labour and Conservative parties out of the goodness of their goy-loving hearts: it’s a yid pro quo. Jews supply the cash, goys obey the orders. The same rule applies in the US with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the same hysteria greets any attempt to put Jewish power under scrutiny. Recall that Melanie Phillips wailed about “Walt and Mearsheimer”, authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007), being “given a respectful hearing” and having “their calumnies broadcast on the BBC”.

But who is really broadcasting calumnies and peddling caricatures here? Phillips, Pollard and the rest of the hysterical Jewish chorus obviously believe that the goyim are programmed for pogrom and that this “progromming” is always ready to run. If any caring, sharing anti-racist gentiles are reading this, you should recognize that Jews regard you in the same way as they regard knuckle-dragging neo-Nazis like me and Simon Sheppard. All goys are dangerous and all goys have to be kept under control:
O'Farrell then quotes a Lawrence Auster article titled Why Jews Welcome Muslims that I've quoted several times myself:

Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.

The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population may have served Jews well at certain times and places in the past when they truly were threatened. Under current circumstances – in America, the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world – it is both morally wrong and suicidal. Not only are the open-borders Jews urging policies harmful to America’s majority population, but, by doing so, they are surely triggering previously non-existent anti-Jewish feelings among them. The tragedy is that once a collective thought pattern gets deeply ingrained, as is the Jews’ historically understandable fear of gentiles, it takes on a life of its own and becomes immune to evidence and reason.... What this means is that in the minds of Jews, any desire on the part of gentiles to maintain an all-gentile country club, or any statement by a Christian, no matter how mild and civilized, that shows any concern about any aspects of the cultural and political influence of secular Jews in American life, is an expression of anti-Jewish bigotry that could easily lead to mass extermination, and therefore it must be ruthlessly suppressed.
Joyim for Goyim - Miliband, Mild Mel and the Joys of Judeocracy (17th February 2008)
Oh dear, so it wasn’t the MCB [Muslim Council of Britain] who wanted to turn us into a police-state after all: it was the philosemitic politicians who conducted the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism. Whoever would have guessed it? Anyone who knows about Jews and free speech, that’s who. If Jews have power and influence, they start working to take away free speech. It’s no use arguing that some Jews support free speech and some white goyim oppose it: the average effect of the two groups is perfectly clear. It was whites who created free speech in the West and it is Jews who are taking it away. Was there any popular support for Britain’s race laws, introduced in the 1960s and steadily harshened ever since? No, there wasn’t, but what does the will of the people matter in a democracy? The Board of Jewish Deputies wanted the race laws and got them. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League would like identical laws in the United States; so far, thanks to the evil white males who created the First Amendment, it hasn’t gotten them.
Nothing to see here. Move along now.

UPDATE 1 August 2008: More information via Vanguard News Network Forum: Asylum racist facing LA prison 'Porridge'
Published Date: 19 July 2008
By Jenny SImpson
A racist Preston writer who fled to the apparent safe haven of Los Angeles could be set for a hairy few months - after being banged up in prison.
[American immigration expert] Mr [Alex] Rojas reckons Whittle's bid for asylum is unlikely to succeed and he could face up to a year in jail in Britain if convicted of absconding.

Mr Rojas said: "It is very difficult to get political asylum from the UK. You have to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion."
That's "White privilege": members of the White race persecuted for their political opinion are unlikely to get political asylum.

Racist who fled hate trial caught in America
From The Jewish Chronicle
Leon Symons
July 18, 2008
The court heard that Sheppard was investigated by police following complaints and when his flat was searched in March 2005 police seized a number of computers and found documents entitled “Dumb Niggers, Gloating Jews” [7th March 2005, actual title: Dumb Niggers and Gloating Sheeneys: Sometimes People Say More Than They Mean To], “Make Niggers History” [10th July 2005, actual title: Make Niggers History: It’s Fingerclickin’ Good!], “Diversity = Death” [7th September 2005, actual title: Diversity = Death: Why Multi-Racial Societies are Doomed to Fail] and “Rockwell, the Swastika”.

Sheppard has been found guilty of 11 of the 18 counts he faced. The jury failed to agree on seven further charges relating to the possession, publishing and distribution of two pamphlets called “Tales of the Holohoax” and “Don’t Be Sheeple”.
Links added. White adults may wish to click through and read what we are forbidden to write.

"Don't Be Sheeple" took some extra effort to find. The search turned up an essay written by Sheppard in January 2008 titled BNP Religion: The Psychology of False Messiahs and Illusory Utopias. It explains the purging of "vermin" from the BNP (relevant to the discussion at GoV), the demographic dead end Whites in Britain face (and anywhere else where our borders are open to non-white invasion), and the relentless, unscrupulous, self-interested nature of the enemies doing these things.

Labels: , , ,

white

Friday, July 25, 2008

Tainted Food In the News

Front page headlines for a week:
AVOID FLORIDA TOMATOES LIKE THE PLAGUE UNLESS YOU WANT TO DIE!!!

Section D, page 43, some day, maybe:
Whoops, make that mexican jalapenos.

Labels: , ,

white

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Obama = Hitler

ABC News' Jake Tapper: Obama Won't Answer Holocaust Question
By Debbie Schlussel
An Israeli journalist called out to Obama: "Can you ensure that there will be no second Holocaust?"

Obama walked into the museum's main building without responding. . . .
Schlussel's response:
Disgusting. The question is a no-brainer. If you don't have an automatic, "I will assure that there won't be a second Holocaust," response, then you don't deserve to occupy a square foot of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Apparently Obama didn't get the memo. Besides visiting israel and donning a jewish cap all US candidates for president must now also turn off their brain and make an unqualified pledge to rescue jews whereever they go from whoever they consider to be their enemy. Otherwise you're just a "yarmulke-wearing fraud". For her readers it's an invitation to vent their hitlerosis.

Frankly I'm envious. I'd like a reporter, any reporter, to ask either Obama or McCain: "Will you defend America from invasion?" Sure I'm like Hitler just for wanting that question asked. And I know the reporters and politicians all know the answer is no. But hearing the answer out loud might help a few more bitter gun- and bible-clinging redneck racists in fly-over country understand that upon joining the US military their utmost priority will not be to defend their families and friends, it will be to serve the interests of people who consider them bitter gun- and bible-clinging redneck racists and who couldn't care less about the invaders flooding fly-over country. The reporters and politicians know that too. That's why that question doesn't get asked.

UPDATE 26 July 2008: Auster objects to Rush Limbaugh's "unhinged characterization of Obama's speech" in Germany, calling it "insanely overwrought, imputing all kinds of vicious thoughts to Obama that Obama never stated or implied":
America sucks, America's deficient, America's guilty, but America is now willing to pay the price because we have a Messiah who understands the faults, the egregious errors made by the United States and her people. We are racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes. We discriminate against people who worship differently than we do, have skin color different from ours, and we have not always behaved properly in the world. And we torture. And we, of course, are biased against people who want to get into our country illegally. We have a lot to pay for.
I find this to be a fair characterization of cultural marxist talking points. The problem with Limbaugh, as well as Republican conservative commentators Hannity and O'Reilly, is that they consistently misidentify both the cultural marxists and their target. They don't want to be seen as racist, so they use "America" and "left" as euphemisms for White and anti-White.

It is this fear of being openly pro-White, just as much as their political partisanship, that causes their blind spots. In contrast to Auster I don't think Limbaugh's failure to criticize Bush, especially relative to Obama, means he is "incapable of seeing truth" or is "in a frenzied state in which they accept any negative statement about the other side, no matter how absurd, and see only goodness on their own".

That's ridiculous. But it certainly is a good description of Auster himself when he flips into anti-anti-semite mode. In that mode he imputes all kinds of vicious thoughts on people that they never stated or implied. And Auster doesn't seem concerned enough about unhinged characterizations to object to this:
E. writes:

Obama was certainly in the right country for his rousing speech--the only thing missing was the shouts of "Sieg heil."
Auster I think senses that Limbaugh's words are perhaps too accurate a description of cultural marxism. Limbaugh's "American" listeners might start trying to understand where it came from. Whites might start thinking about how PC and the whole hate-ideology (racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, and the grandaddy of them all: anti-semitism) sprang largely from jewish minds filled with resentment towards Europeans. Whites might realize how over the past 150 years this archetypically jewish victimology has been progressively generalized and applied to minorities of every type and color - except White. The one common theme: Whites are the enemy.

Auster, as usual, wants the buck to stop with "liberalism":
Yes. Liberalism, consistently followed, means the destruction of literally every distinct thing, because liberalism demands the end of all inequality and exclusion, and every distinct thing that exists, by the fact of existing, is unequal to and exclusive of everything that is not itself.
This is not only simplistic, it's wrong. Neither the classical liberal values of fair-play and equality before God and law, nor the neo-liberal values of anti-racism and anti-discrimination eliminate all distinction. Not in theory and not in practice. Neo-liberalism - which dominates Western politics, media, business, and academia - is extremely divisive and makes quite clear distinctions. It is, for example, anti-White and pro-jew. That's why the West has laws promoting "diversity" and punishing "hate". That's why neo-liberals invite violent, uneducated, indigent non-whites from the turd world and send "Americans" out to fight and die in the turd world protecting the interests of international corporations. That didn't happen when America was founded and ruled by White classical liberals, and it didn't become the norm until they lost control.

Labels: , , ,

white

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Obama: Just Say Si

Barack Obama: Your Children Should Learn To Speak Spanish.

Transcription via World On the Web:
I don’t understand when people are going around worrying about we need to have English-only. They want to pass a law, we want just ... we want English-only.
He begins with a lie. He understands what this means. He wants Americans to accept their fate as a conquered people.
Now I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But ... understand this: Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English—they’ll learn English—you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language
More lies. The invaders aren't learning English. That's the only reason Americans have to learn spanish. The emphasis on children makes it even clearer. The invaders should all know English by the time our kids learn spanish, right Obama? So why bother? Because he's talking about us adapting to latino colonization.

Widespread multilingualism isn't a good thing, it's a bad thing. Tower of Babel bad.

Bilingualism is part of the bigger lie of "diversity". What it really means is division. The spanish language and the latinos who carry it here bring us confusion. They bring resentment. This is a natural and predictable consequence of alien invasion.
You know, it’s embarrassing ... when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say is “Merci beaucoup.” Right?
Embarassed? About what? The vast majority of people who have ever lived, who will ever live, master only one language. Why do Obama and the Pilgrim-haters who support him only pathologize stupid, lazy, bitter, racist Americans for this? What's next, we're inferior because we don't speak chinese?

Why compare Americans to Europeans? Why not compare us to the latinos Obama wants to replace us with? How many latinos speak more than one language? How many of them know what irony means? Because it's ironic that the amerinds and mestizos use the word reconquista - speaking in the tongue of the European conquerors they supposedly detest - to describe what they want to do, and are doing, to America. Hypocrites.

Does Obama know what reconquista means? How about raza, aztlan, mecha, guero, and gabacho? Those are the very first spanish words Americans should learn.

Where I come from we have a very useful expression. Fuck that shit. Pardon my French. Feel free to translate it into spanish, ebonics, and hebrew for the benefit of Obama and his supporters.

Labels: , , ,

white

Monday, July 07, 2008

We're White, We're Indigenous, Get Used to It

Lawrence Auster, self-styled advocate of the "white" West, writes and blogs regularly about the West's troubles. At first I found his analysis refreshing. Then I found it confusing. Now I see him as an obstacle. A false friend. A poseur.

Auster regularly exhorts Whites to reassert themselves, to call their enemies and problems by their proper names. But then he just as regularly peevishly denounces Whites who assert themselves in the wrong way or use inappropriate words.

Three months ago Auster was explaining why we shouldn't capitalize White:
Lately more and more commenters have been capitalizing the words white and black, e.g., "White people," "Black people," which I have changed to lower case prior to posting. It has never been standard usage to capitalize these adjectives when they are used to denote race, and it is not VFR's usage. While race matters, to make it matter so much that we capitalize the mere names of colors is to take race consciousness too far. I ask commenters to conform their spelling to standard English usage. Thank you.
Oh, I see. That must be why standard usage is to write "hard-working Latino", "hard-working African-American", and "hard-working white". Because white is just a color. Just an adjective. That makes sense.

No it doesn't. The standard usage is inconsistent. I assert that it's wrong.

In the same post Auster explained why he thinks some words are capitalized and others are not:
All kinds of racists do this, to magnify their own group and dehumanize the group they hate. For example, many white nationalists capitalize "white," a color which should not be capitalized, and put "Jew," a proper name which should be capitalized, in lower case.
More transparent rot. If Auster were as concerned about Whites as he is about jews he'd insist on the same standards, regardless of conventions. He wouldn't insult Whites by pretending the word is an adjective, and he'd argue that "white" is dehumanizing instead of making excuses for it.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the way I capitalize words has nothing to do with hate. It has everything to do with consciousness. I am conscious of the anti-White convention. I consciously reject it. To drive home the point I invert it.

There are more symptoms of Auster's sorta, kinda, half-hearted pro-"white" pose.

Just a few days ago, Auster asked, Why are white Westerners describing themselves as "indigenous" peoples?:
I protest the recent and expanding use of "indigenous" to describe white Western majority peoples, as Rick Darby used it innocently and in passing in another thread. Yes, in the simplest sense "indigenous" means "originating where it is found," and therefore could, I suppose, be used to describe the British, since the white British population goes back to the Neolithic. But the word would not apply to white Americans, the earliest ancestors of whom came to this continent 400 years ago.

But there is a larger problem with "indigenous." It doesn't just mean native to a location. It also implies people in their original, undeveloped state. Traditionally, we never thought of a people in a developed society, with complex institutions and a national state, as "indigenous," even if their ancestors had lived in that land for 10,000 years.

Further, indigenous is typically used by outside people who are studying or protecting some tribal group.

For majority whites to call themselves "indigenous" is exactly like whites asking for their "rights" under multiculturalism. It is an admission of surrender to multiculturalism, whites' transformation of themselves into just another minority group needing protection, rather than being and asserting themselves as the leading and dominant people of our respective countries.

Western peoples thus gratuitously diminish and weaken themselves by referring to themselves as indigenous. As a self-description of white Westerners it is incorrect, unnecessary, demoralizing, and defeatist.
Then, notwithstanding his rationale for "white", Auster writes:
The Brits seem to go out of their way to make themselves into nothing. They now even spell the the word "west," as in "western civilization," in lower case. They're so wimpy they won't even capitalize the name of their own civilization. Next they'll be spelling Britain as "britain."
He goes on to quote a Mr. Carpenter who tells us "That is pathetic", "Quite disgraceful", and "Very sad". Auster says we must not call ourselves "indigenous" and we must write "West", otherwise we are wimps. But we must write "Jew" and we must write "white", otherwise we are haters.

Scolding. Lecturing. Constraining. Upbraiding. Insulting. Talk about demoralizing. We should assert ourselves as the dominant people of our respective countries, but by using the wrong words we gratuitously diminish ourselves. Please sir, if it's not too much trouble sir, how and when may we "whites" assert ourselves?

Piffle. Why do "whites" write "west"? Come now Auster. Use your own logic. It's nothing but a mere direction. Right?

And why are White Westerners describing themselves as "indigenous"? This also isn't a difficult question to answer. But Auster and his philo-semitic peanut gallery don't want an answer. They are only interested in heaping shame and insults on "whites". The behavior of these hecklers hints at the problem. They aren't White. They want "whites" to do what they see as good and necessary to help jews, but they attack uppity Whites who think or act in their own interests.

The short answer these Austerites don't want to face is that Whites no longer dominate their respective countries. Beyond broad swipes at vague "liberals" the Austerites also don't want to discuss why.

Whites used to dominate not only their own countries, but most of the globe. Nowadays we're indoctrinated that this was a monstrous crime. We're reminded in many ways on a daily basis that everybody and anybody is more important than Whites now, and jews are on top. How did this happen? Well, in large part because Whites relinquished control. We've been badgered, harangued, brow-beaten, and guilt-tripped for generations, first by humanists and abolitionists, then increasingly by resentful, self-interested, culturally and economically revolutionary jews. Many Whites were convinced that giving away power and opening the borders was the right and noble thing to do. So now today we are inundated and assaulted by a broad coalition of resentful self-interested "minorities".

I have referred to myself as indigenous several times in the past few years. I will do so again. The reason why is not difficult to explain. But I'm not surprised Lawrence Auster pretends it is a mystery.

Under the increasingly pro-jew, anti-White politically correct regime it has become the norm to extend preferential status to "indigenous" people. Like most everything in this upside-down regime the preference is selective and applies only to non-whites. Of course this violates the holy PC tenet of non-discrimination and reveals PC's equalitarian claptrap for the steaming pile of manure it is. Just as in Animal Farm - where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

The word indigenous has a common, biological sense. It means native, and that's precisely what any decent dictionary says. The meaning that liberals prefer is deliberately contorted to serve their politics. For them indigenous means non-white native. How absurd it seems for anti-liberal Auster to accept and defend this definition. Unless we remember his philo-semitic imperative. Yes, Auster wants Whites to assert ourselves. Somebody has to do something about the muslims and blacks he's freaked out about. He just doesn't want us showing anywhere near the same consciousness for ourselves and our interests as jews do. Let's avoid the whole native-alien can of worms. Somebody might make an argument that serial immigrant jews don't want to hear.

But why should Whites avoid it? Let's speak some truth to power. Immigrant invaders are the precious darlings of our academia, media, religious, business, and political leaders. Our institutions and lands are ever more thoroughly infiltrated by hostile aliens and their advocates. Sometimes it seems all we Whites have left is principled whining. That and an inexorable leftward slide is certainly all our sold-out mainstream conservatives offer. How depressing and defeatist it is to acknowledge this reality. Shame on me.

So a few uppity Whites reject the liberal definition and refer to ourselves as indigenous. Some, like me, may even intend it as a finger in our enemy's eye. A White calling himself indigenous under the PC regime is like a cow calling himself a pig in Animal Farm. It's a sure fire way to piss off the pigs. It's also a perfectly apt and legitimate way to distinguish ourselves from the "undocumented migrants" that progressivists and globalists, neocons and neolibs, are all so fond of.

No, we're not going to save the West with words. But neither is this why we're losing it.

At Rick Darby's Reflecting Light commenter Greg, referring to Auster's protest against the use of indigenous, writes:
We are in a pickle, us Brits certainly. Sadly, our simplest road to freedom is blocked by some of those who say they are our friend.

The only absolutely non-negotiable policy uniting all 'acceptable' parties is support for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. And all that we require not to go the way of the Garamantians is for our people to decide they are due equal consideration from their government in this respect as are the Jewish people.

But there's anti-semitism you see, while there isn't, for some reason, any anti-gentilism. And this double-standard includes people like Laurence Auster, who would quickly disavow the BNP if it were to propose that we Brits had (by necessity) equal grounds to consider ourselves as distinct from Jews as Jews do from us.

This heading us off at the pass-to-freedom, is also, I think, why he opposes the word "indigenous" applied to Europeans.
Greg makes a valid point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Auster, naturally, can muster only insults and evasion:
How pathetic is Greg in his miscomprehension.

The BNP has a history as a seriously anti-Semitic organization that totally marginalized it. BNP's own leader—on HIS initiative, not MINE—has led a serious intellectual effort over the last several years to reject that anti-Semitic past. I have consistently praised him for that effort. Sounds like Greg ought to complaining about Nick Griffin, not about me.

Second, the fact that Greg thinks my criticism of the word "indigenous" is aimed at WEAKENING the British people, rather than at STRENGTHENING them by getting them to drop a self-description that makes them sound like the equivalent of a third-world people, shows him as so stupid that he's not deserving of being treated with minimal respect.
Auster's criticism of words is beside the point. The point is Auster is a half-hearted part-time supporter of "whites", but an ardent and unwavering supporter of jews. As Greg said, the problem is that Whites and Christians do not have "equal grounds to consider ourselves as distinct from Jews as Jews do from us". To my knowledge Auster has never addressed this point, even though he constantly urges "whites" to assert ourselves and often argues that "we" can draw distinctions from muslims, blacks, and latinos. Faced with a White who wishes to distinguish themselves from jews he either ignores the point or devolves into a gibbering anti-anti-semitic robot.

But anti-semitism is the grandaddy of all the isms that have been used to deconstruct the West. Racism, sexism, homophobism, xenophobism, and islamophobism all derive from the same mindset: pathologization of the familiar and normal, glorification of the alien and abnormal. The most sacred principle is non-discrimination. The highest goal, diversity. None of it is honest. It all serves as cover for attacking anything European, anything Christian, and anything White. Anti-liberal Auster knows this well. He regularly echoes this view. Minus anti-semitism. When faced with criticism of jews Auster simply cannot help himself. Both his anti-liberalism and his intellect evaporate. What remains is primitive emotion and paranoia, which he then projects onto his stupid, evil, psychologically deficient enemies. There's a name for jews who like to tell Whites how stupid and evil and psychologically deficient they are. Auster calls them liberals. They are, in his opinion, indistinguishable from non-jewish liberals and, by the way, it's stupid and evil to try and tell the two apart.

When Auster criticizes liberal jews it is usually because he thinks they're harming jews. Just in case anyone thinks he's being anti-semitic he'll point out how stupid and evil Whites are who think these jews also harming Whites:
The only group more out of touch with reality than liberal Jews are the white nationalist anti-Semites, who, following the theories of Kevin MacDonald, believe that the Jews are compelled by Darwinian evolutionary forces to destroy white gentile societies so as to advance their own power. These anti-Semitic idiots haven't noticed that something like half the Jews of Israel (not to mention most Jews in the U.S.) support policies leading to the destruction of the Jewish state. How does THAT fit into the MacDonald thesis of merciless Jewish evolutionary competition against non-Jews?
There is a veritable army of jews in and out of Western universities who dedicate their lives to critcizing Whites and arguing about what's good for jews. In comparison there are only a handful of Whites criticizing jews or discussing what's good for Whites. And they are constantly harrassed for it.

Lawrence Auster, erstwhile defender of the "white" West and encourager of "white" assertiveness has a problem with liberal jews. Not to worry. It's nothing that smearing assertive White nationalists and one of the few assertive White academics can't fix!

Here's a brain bender for you Larry. How does the extreme liberalism of the jewish state or its eventual destruction due to that, do anything but support the thesis that jewish "liberals" are also harming the West? How are MacDonald's theories concerning how millenia of diaspora shaped jewish group evolutionary strategies invalidated by the failure of the six-decade old jewish state?

Why shouldn't X's discuss and debate the value of their relationship with Y's? Why is this unspeakably stupid and evil only when X is White and Y is jew? Auster and his choir are worried about the violent jew-hating muslims flooding the West. They're worried about the violent jew-hating blacks already in Crown Heights. They feel free to discuss what they'd like to do and why. As Rachel S. describes:
At that point our side would need unapologetic, respected voices as reinforcements to keep our burgeoning movement from being killed. Where are those voices? Where is the media to disseminate them in the same volume? We need slogans and imagery as well; built on a foundation philosophy, culture, arts; this movement will take decades to get going if it is to be done correctly. Each aspect of the fight could use a separate organization that was tied to the whole. We need the thinkers, the people who help them do the administrative work, the go-betweens who translate the ideas into graspable concepts for those "average" people who sense there is something wrong with America, but will be turned off by anything that seems extreme. AND we need to think about how any growing racial consciousness by whites will be seized upon by the neo-Nazi movement, and how we would nullify that "guilt by association" effect that would occur when the uninformed see an out of context media clip of David Duke championing this-and-that law as a victory for his side. I am reminded of an article you linked to awhile back about the need for a new conservative apologetics.
Got that? They need us "average" people, but they don't want us "seized upon" by "neo-Nazis". Oh and by the way, we need to do something about that guilt by association effect. You know, that nasty liberal tactic where, for instance, you call anyone who doesn't put jews on a pedestal a "neo-Nazi".

Auster dubs his choir's plan An incrementalist strategy, which to me seems sickeningly similar to the cultural marxist "long march through the institutions". There seems to be no appreciation for what we have already lost, or that it cannot be restored by destroying what destroyed it. Mark Jaws (who is jewish) writes:
Those of us over 50 can remember when whites could talk openly about black crime and other assorted social pathologies associated with blacks. However, by 1975 Stalinist-type PC thought control made such discourse taboo. If we are to alter the unacceptable status quo, we must adopt the tactics and strategy used by our adversaries which brought us to this sorry state of affairs.

When we study the incremental approach used by civil rights activists we see an effective method that applied pressure on the white Southern power structure one obstacle at a time. In the early 1950s the civil rights movement focused on overturning school segregation. As soon as Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education was settled in 1954, attention was drawn to the Montgomery bus boycott in early 1955, and only the boycott. There were no accompanying demands for affirmative action or for banning the Confederate flag. But when the white power structure gave way on one issue, the civil rights movement quickly moved to the next target of opportunity, and so on.

We must adopt a similar strategy if we are to dismantle the liberal PC multicultural stranglehold on our culture. First, we must concentrate on toppling the weakest tower of this complex by breaking the long-imposed silence on black-on-white crime. We can do this with a tide of letters to our newspapers and to our politicians, and, more importantly, with calls to radio talk shows. By such a show of concentrated, unapologetic force we can bring black-on-white crime out in the open and put blacks on the defensive, especially given the candidacy and likely election of Barak Obama, which I believe is a gift from heaven. If Barak and Michelle Obama can sit their butts in a racist church for 20 years, then how can it be racist if we talk about black-on-white crime? If Barak and Michelle had no problem with black liberation theology which calls for "the destruction of the white enemy," then why can't we talk about white victims of black crime? If Michelle can claim her husband "as a black man is in danger just by going to the gas station," then why can't we talk about white men in comparable--and real--danger, and from whom? If Michelle and Barak want an open and frank discussion on race, then let's give it to them--but from a direction which they do not expect and cannot deal with.

The first step we must take in restoring white racial consciousness is to assert our right OPENLY to discuss our concern, dismay and outrage at the staggering amount of black-on- white crime the past 40 years. We must make it acceptable for whites to engage in such discourse, period. No need to use disparaging racist talk or hyperbole. Just stick to the facts--and we have plenty at our disposal in "The Color of Crime" and other government statistics.
No.

The first step is for self-righteous jews to step off their pedestal. Show Whites the respect you demand for jews. Stop pathologizing us. Stop smearing us. Stop insulting us. Stop blaming all the West's ills on us and stop downplaying jewish control and responsibility.

For Austerites all of the above applies, only moreso. We don't need another long march of destruction. And we don't need "friends" obsessed with manipulating us. You make distinctions - stop telling Whites we cannot. You say you like Whites - act like it. Treat us as equals. You can start by capitalizing White.

UPDATE 9 Aug 2008: On 19 July Auster provided a non-answer to this post titled Am I an orthographical fifth columnist?, though he doesn't quote me or link here. He asserts that "[c]apitalization is governed by the nature of the word, not by a political or racial agenda".

Today, in An Orwellian spelling change, Auster shows: A) that he recognizes "the makers of these rules--liberals all" have an agenda, and B) that his own agenda can motivate him to defy those rules on occasion.

Labels: , , , ,

white

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Coming Up From Behind



This is of course a joke. Only candidates who will keep the world safe for plutocracy and thus put the interests of immigrants and israelis over American citizens have any chance of being elected.

Labels:

white