Category Archives: Blog

Blog

Celebrating the Invasion

3 Comments

The caption the White House provided for this image:

President George W. Bush and Laura Bush pose for photos with singer Shaila Durcal, Dorio Ferreira Sanchez and the Mariachi Campanas de America following their performance in the Rose Garden Monday evening, May 5, 2008, during a social dinner at the White House in honor of Cinco de Mayo. White House photo by Chris Greenberg

The press release associated with the image, titled President Bush Honors Cinco de Mayo, quotes Jorge as saying:

Cinco de Mayo is a joyous celebration. It commemorates a joyful moment in history of Mexico — it’s when Mexican soldiers defended their independence against what appeared to be an elite and insurmountable army from Europe. Nearly a century and a half later, Cinco de Mayo is celebrated by Americans and Mexicans alike — after all, it is a symbol of determination against great odds and is a source of inspiration for all who love freedom.

For me, Cinco de Mayo is a chance to say that Mexico and the United States are connected by more than geography. Sure, we share an important border — but we’re also united by values, our love of family and faith and freedom. We share an interest in making sure our people are prosperous and safe.

In America we deeply value the culture and the contribution of Mexican Americans. The United States is a richer place, a more vibrant place because people who have — claim Mexican heritage now are called United States citizens. And today we honor those Mexican Americans who live in America and we consider ourselves fortunate to have Mexico as a friend and a neighbor.

And so my toast is to Mexico and to the United States and the people therein. Que Dios los bendiga. Feliz Cinco de Mayo. (Applause.)

Emphasis mine.

Among the more prominent signs of increasing vibrancy are our two new latino holidays. On May 1st the invaders take to the streets to remind us that we had better accept their invasion, or else. On Cinco de Mayo invasion supporters, including the invasion-commander-in-chief in the White house, celebrate the invasion and pretend we all see it as valuable and enriching.

For me, Cinco de Mayo has become an annual and ever more grating reminder that my country is quickly transforming into yet another latin American shithole. That it is run by morally, fiscally, and intellectually bankrupt scam artists who care not at all for the prosperity or safety of the citizens or the sanctity of the law, but instead dedicate every effort toward keeping themselves and their plutocrat masters fat and happy. That these transnational parasites are sucking our once great country dry, mortgaging our future and driving us ever closer to turd world levels of violence, crime, and corruption by the massive influx of aliens. That what the invaders and invasion-supporters share is a hatred for the people already here. That they have the gall to crow about the king’s invisible clothes – how valuable and enriching the invasion and these invaders are.

Juan McCain, in his effort to reassure the invaders that he too considers them more important than Americans, said:

“our broken immigration system works for neither the immigrant families who are being torn apart nor the workers who are concerned about unfair competition, which is why we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform once and for all. So while I hope that all Americans are enjoying this Cinco de Mayo, I also hope that when the celebrations come to an end, we’ll take up the cause of coming together as Americans to solve our common challenges and put the American dream within reach for every family in this country,” he said.

When globalists like Juan say our immigration system is “broken” what they mean of course is that it does not yet permit turd worlders to move in and tear apart White families as fast as they would like. When they say “comprehensive immigration reform once and for all” they mean they never want to hear another word about fences or borders. When they pretend citizen resentment is generated by “unfair competition” it is because they cannot acknowledge it is actually caused by unfairness of the invasion and the way those elected and sworn to protect and serve us instead betray us by protecting and serving the invaders.

There’s a very good reason the traitors don’t want to enforce the current immigration laws or build fences. They know it would interfere with the invasion. The sham of an effort they still do make causes the plutocrats enough trouble.

The fix is in. It hardly matters whether Juan, Barack “Gran Marcho” Obama, or Hillary “No Woman is Illegal” Clinton win in November. Each of them will do their best to stop reports like this: 60-Plus Illegal Immigrants Found In Big Rig, or like this: Border Tunnel Tour. They’ll do so by legalizing the invasion – because everyone knows that the very worst problem is that some insensitive, xenophobic, nativist racists insist on calling the invaders invaders. Take away that word and they think all the other problems will disappear.

Unfortunately reports like this: Death Toll Rises From Tijuana Shootout (WARNING: DISTURBING IMAGES), and this: ‘Tijuana Rambo’ Takes On Drug Lords, will not disappear. They’ll just take place more and more on the American side of where the border used to be.

No matter how diligently the happy-talkers ignore reality, nor how hard the anti-racists invert it to scapegoat Whites, the intensity of the societal conflict grows in direct proportion to the number of invaders. Every day this inconvenient truth becomes more obvious.

Cinco de Mayo commemorates the defeat of an invasion. To honor it in proper spirit we should stop immigration, eject the invaders, and hang the traitors. This is how we can keep ourselves prosperous and safe. This is the common challenge for those who would preserve a semblence of the American dream for ourselves and our posterity. One way or another that dream will not survive the path we’re on. It’s being replaced by a cacophony of alien dreams – of jews, latinos, arabs, africans, and asians – self-serving and bigoted in ways Whites alone have been hectored, cajoled, and deluded into forswearing. These alien dreams have their differences, but they share one common goal: to rid the world of Whites.

Blog

Usurp This

66 Comments

Kevin MacDonald is a White advocate who has been condemned for expressing politically incorrect thoughts:

I am morally certain that Jewish involvement in the radical left in the early to middle part of the last century was a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for many of the horrific events in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. (About this, of course, one can disagree. I am simply saying that I find the evidence compelling.) But the main point is that I came to see Jewish groups as competitors with the European majority of the U.S., as powerful facilitators of the enormous changes that have been unleashed in this country, particularly via the successful advocacy of massive non-European immigration into the U.S. I found that I was being transformed in this process from a semi-conservative academic who had little or no identification with his own people into an ethnically conscious person — exactly as predicted by the theory of social identity processes that forms the basis of my theory of anti-Semitism (see MacDonald 1998a). In fact, if one wants to date when I dared cross the line into what some see as proof that I am an ‘anti-Semite,’ the best guess would probably be when I started reading on the involvement of all the powerful Jewish organizations in advocating massive non-European immigration. My awareness began with my reading a short section in a standard history of American Jews well after the first book was published. The other influences that I attributed to Jewish activities were either benign (psychoanalysis?) or reversible — even radical leftism, so they didn’t much bother me. I could perhaps even ignore the towering hypocrisy of Jewish ethnocentrism coinciding as it does with Jewish activism against the ethnocentrism of non-Jewish Europeans. But the long-term effects of immigration will be essentially irreversible barring some enormous cataclysm.

The immigration invasion clearly enriches and delights a small number of people even as it produces disastrous consequences for most natives and our progeny.

For a long while it puzzled me why the ruling class would tax, prosecute, and demonize citizens while they simultaneously excuse, forgive, and sanctify immigrants. Why do they not sympathize with their own people?

Polite society has no answers. If you ask the only answer you get is, “shut up racist”. Why? Because it is all about race.

The rulers consider themselves distinct and superior. They are outsiders and natives blinded by greed who have thrown in with the outsiders – adopting their rootless cosmopolitan values, fraudulent tactics, and totalitarian goals.

As their power has increased they have grown ever more explicitly and viciously anti-White. Nowadays they openly mock “flyover country” and the “rednecks” who inhabit it. They no longer feel constrained by the votes, laws, traditions, or heros of the “xenophobic” “hill-billies”. They’re importing new citizens. For the deracinated native collaborators it’s just business. The labor is cheap, the profit great. For the true outsiders it’s more than business. It’s also hypocritical hyper-racist payback for what they see as millenia of unrelenting and undeserved persecution at the hands of an ungrateful European “host”. The non-white hordes will end that most horrible jewish nightmare, White nationalism, and present a final solution to the White cancer – by destroying the White race.

Is it clear now why the shysters at the SPLC hound MacDonald but have precious little to say about Sontag or Ignatiev? They are anti-White. With every victory in the culture war the scapegoating and dehumanization of powerless Whites as “neo-Nazis” and “White supremacists” becomes ever more absurd. Does Kevin MacDonald or any of the other people that anti-anti-semites demonize wield anywhere near the social, economic, or political power they do?

Since when has a pro-White leader had any influence on public policy?

It was before our military became the world’s police. Before forced integration. Before our women and college kids freaked out. Before our borders were erased. Before our government sold its citizens to Wall Street, who sold them to the Arabs and Chinese. Before it became a requirement for US politicians to don a yarmulke and pray at the Wailing Wall. Before scatology became prime time humor and perversion became the norm. Before pro-White speech became hate speech, and pro-White thoughts became thought crimes.

Everything went to hell when the parasitical, traitorous usurpers took over. They profit from and celebrate the disowning, disenfranchisement, and displacement of my people. For the moment they still fear having to answer for it. This is why anything but celebration is very strictly discouraged.

Our rulers do not believe in civil rights or free speech. That is but cud for their cattle. In their minds they are our superiors and we have no right to indict them. I think otherwise. I support men like Kevin MacDonald who dig up evidence and supply the indictment.

Blog

Omega Man

29 Comments

From Charlton Heston’s speech, Winning the Cultural War, delivered 16 February 1999, Austin Hall, Harvard Law School:

Let me back up a little. About a year or two ago, I became president of the National Rifle Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms of American citizens. I ran for office. I was elected, and now I serve. I serve as a moving target for the media who’ve called me everything from “ridiculous” and “duped” to a “brain-injured, senile, crazy old man.” I know, I’m pretty old, but I sure Lord ain’t senile.

As I’ve stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I’ve realized that firearms are — are not the only issue. No, it’s much, much bigger than that. I’ve come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain accepted thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 — and long before Hollywood found it acceptable, I may say. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else’s pride, they called me a racist.

I’ve worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life — throughout my whole career. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.

I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out the innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution I’m talking about, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they’re essentially saying, “Chuck, how dare you speak your mind like that. You are using language not authorized for public consumption.”

But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we’d still be King George’s boys — subjects bound to the British crown.

He followed with a series of anecdotes typifying the absurdities of our times. Then he continued:

Now, what does all of this mean? Among other things, it means that telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can’t be far behind. Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did political correctness originate on America’s campuses? And why do you continue to — to tolerate it? Why do you, who’re supposed to debate ideas, surrender to their suppression?

Let — Let’s be honest. Who here in this room thinks your professors can say what they really believe? (Uh-huh. There’s a few….) Well, that scares me to death, and it should scare you too, that the superstition of political correctness rules the halls of reason.

You are the best and the brightest. You, here in this fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River. You are the cream. But I submit that you and your counterparts across the land are the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you validate that and abide it, you are, by your grandfathers’ standards, cowards.

Here’s another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their findings or they’ll lose their jobs. But why? Because their research findings would undermine big-city mayors’ pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers.

Now, I don’t care what you think about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Democracy is dialogue. Who will defend the core values of academia, if you, the supposed soldiers of free thought and expression lay down your arms and plead, “Don’t shoot me.”

If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you sexist. If you think critically about a denomination, it does — does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but don’t celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.

Don’t let America’s universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism. That’s what it is: New McCarthyism. But, what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation?

Heston spoke in liberal terms and accepted their conventional wisdom on McCarthy and MLK. Even so he could not help but notice and point out the symptoms of our rotten politically correct anti-White regime. He, in person and under his own name, called on future leaders to oppose it.

No wonder he was smeared and ridiculed in his twilight years.

(I haven’t read the book on which the movie Omega Man was based, but I’m guessing the race-mixing was a Hollywood addition. Just a wild guess.)

Blog

Caveat Sucker

12 Comments

Progressivism (aka liberalism) is the revolutionary impulse to make the world safe for globalism.

The leadership of both parties, Bush, all the current candidates, and most major Western political, media, business, academic, and religious leaders openly subscribe to this impulse.

With words they pretend to be universalists but with their actions they reveal themselves as self-righteous and greedy individualists. They speak endlessly of equality but they treat everyone but themselves as lesser beings to be managed like so many domesticated animals.

These leaders suffer no hindrance in their quest for one-world utopia. The globe will wear their yoke, and like it. Your nation, culture, wealth, health, and family are all forfeit. You are free, except to oppose them. You may migrate – by all means! – but mind the wars, the gangs, the crime, the toxic waste.

Welcome to hell. Our ideologies and party affiliations and consumer baubles and blogs are distractions from this reality.

Have a nice day.

Blog

Irony Thy Name is Auster

6 Comments

Lawrence Auster, in a post inaptly titled Are racial differences in IQ explained by cultural stereotypes?, writes:

Has anyone noticed the irony that most of the people who argue that there are no inherent differences in intelligence between the races are left-wing Jews, who use their high intelligence to argue that everyone has the same intelligence?

R. Davis writes:

The fact that left-wing Jews “use their high intelligence to argue that everyone has the same intelligence” raises two questions: 1. Are they doing so simply for cultural/political reasons, i.e., to subvert the majority non-Jewish culture by undermining its ethnic-racial foundations, while subtly affirming a Jewish intellectual superiority? or 2. Does their superior intelligence afford them insights the rest of us aren’t capable of? Given their own ethnic/racial makeup, they would seem to be the best refutation of their own thesis, but perhaps at that intellectual elevation the forest is a bit far off.

This question does touch on a facet of racialist politics (highlighted by the Wright affair) that no one dares discuss–namely, if in fact intellectual differences do exist between blacks and whites/Asians, whether genetically or culturally induced (what does it matter?), why should those at the low end of the bell curve be granted almost exclusive control over the national dialogue on race or on any other issue? Look where that is taking us. Rev. Wright is not an iconoclast. The majority of blacks believe the US government is using AIDS genocidally against them. Our schools dumb down deliberately to accommodate racial differences (which dare not be mentioned). On the other hand, those at the high end of the intellectual spectrum have done much to mire us in this racial quagmire. How does one make sense of this?

LA replies:

There’s truth to this. The people at the high end ally with the people at the low end to destroy the vast silent majority in the middle–the actual society.

What I’ve just described (and this goes beyond the question of the specifically Jewish role, though it includes it) in fact represents the essential structure of liberalism as it actually operates in society. Liberalism requires three groups in order to function. First, there is the liberal elite itself, the people who make liberalism happen. They demonstrate liberalism by preaching and practicing non-discrimination toward the Other, the minority, the less capable. Second, there are the Other and the less capable, upon whom the liberal elite practices its liberal virtue of non-discrimination. Without the Other, toward whom one practices non-discrimination, liberalism would die. Therefore liberalism requires an ever-renewed population of non-assimilated and unassimilable people. But a third group is also needed for liberalism to function, and that is the vast unenlightened majority whose backward morality is needed as a foil against which the elite demonstrates its morality and establishes its legitimacy and right to rule.

James M. writes from England:

During the Watson controversy a high-IQ British Jew called Steven Rose tried to peddle the “all equal” line at the Guardian, attacking the “long-exploded racist claim that “Africans” are inherently less intelligent than “us”‘.

Well yes Larry, since you asked, some people have noticed. A hardy few, like Luke O’Farrell, have written more coherently than you have concerning both the who and why:

The late Stephen Jay Gould was a Marxist who labored long and hard to deny the truth about race and IQ. The living Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin and Leon Kamin continue his work. The paradox is that the leading race-deniers prove the importance of race, because they all belong to that tiny minority known as Jews. So did Marx, Freud and Boas. Jews are very good at duping and deceiving, at creating seductive ideologies to fool naïve whites into acting against their own interests. Jews fool and rule; whites swallow and follow. And there are genetic reasons for this. Tiny differences in DNA don’t account just for a highly significant Jewish advantage in verbal IQ, but also for a highly significant Jewish advantage in arrogance, ethnocentrism and disregard for objective truth. Jews preach equality and universalism while ruthlessly pursuing their own advantage and enrichment. That’s how they’ve come to dominate white societies and that’s why they’ve led the race-denial crusade.

Gould insisted that human equality was a “contingent fact of history”. It could have been different, inequality could have evolved instead in a hundred different ways, but somehow that just didn’t happen. And reader, I confess it: I was one of Gould’s gullible goyim. He and his Mismeasure of Man (1981) took me in for a time and I remember with shame how I once argued that even if blacks were less intelligent than whites for genetic reasons, we shouldn’t say so, because that kind of thinking was dangerous. You see, if we admit that race exists, we may end up in Auschwitz. I didn’t think back then that if we deny that race exists, we may end up in the Gulag. Nor did I think about other consequences of race denial: for example, its use to justify mass immigration, which has flooded white homelands with non-whites from a rich variety of violent and corrupt Third World nations. And surprise, surprise, they’ve brought their violence and corruption with them.

Race denial has also justified the steady loss of freedom in white homelands. Express the wrong opinions about race in the UK or Europe and you’re in for a dawn raid from the thought police. And how Jews like Abraham Foxman would love the same thing to start happening in the US! Free speech was born in white societies and is dying with those societies, as Jews re-create the Marxist police states they feel safest in. If we let a paranoid, self-obsessed minority continue to write our laws and buy our politicians, we’ll soon see that the Berlin Wall didn’t fall to let freedom into the East, but to let tyranny into the West.

To write such things you have to be hardy because you will inevitably be swarmed by anti-anti-semites who will deny there is any merit whatsoever to anything you say. They will consign you to hell, ridicule you as a mindless robot, question your sanity, misrepresent your position, then call for you to be fired from your job, banned from the web, and shunned by anyone who doesn’t want to be similarly abused.

It is possible to elicit this kind of belligerent treatment by simply noting how typical it is, as Auster’s hostile reactions to his correspondents George R. and Tom M. illustrate.

I’ve thought and written more than a little about Auster. It started with an assertion about his oft-repeated and ever-mutating Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society, which he once succinctly stated as:

The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctess in covering up for that group.

What I asserted is that this law of liberalism obviously applies to jews. PC protects them above all others.

Silly me. Auster set aside his anti-liberalism and dismissed my assertion as anti-semitic. When I fleshed out the argument he whined I was attacking him for not being an anti-semite. When I quoted him he claimed I was calling him a lousy anti-semite hypocrite.

Auster’s intellectual dishonesty runs deep. He is incapable of confronting what I actually say, which is this: He is an anti-anti-semite, i.e. a bigoted pro-jewish racist. He is a hypocrite because he regularly exhibits all the irrational symptoms he sees and self-righteously denounces in others. He is not pro-White, as he at times may appear, he simply believes Whites are better for jews than the invading immigrants favored by most other jews. Jews, in the mind of an anti-anti-semite like Auster, are entitled to special treatment. To criticize jews you must, like him, have their best interests foremost in mind. Otherwise you are a special type of racist, worthy of a special label. This magic label makes you subhuman, eligible for all the dehumanization he assumes you wish on jews. Jews who openly denigrate Whites are also special. Auster does not demonize them or call for them to be shunned.

Someone who reasons this way should be able to see that someone else might instead have the best interests of Whites foremost in their mind. But Auster repeatedly and ever-so-intelligently demonstrates he is incapable of doing so:

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.

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.

White, when used to identify a group of people, is not a color or an adjective. It is a proper noun. Thus I capitalize White. I no longer capitalize jew specifically to draw attention to the inconsistent norm that Auster so staunchly supports. His reason is so clouded that this simple rationale of reversal does not compute. For him “jew” is a sure sign of racist anti-semitic dehumanization, but “white” is a completely innocent convention.

So now Auster wonders if he is the first to notice that “left-wing jews” ally with “non-assimilated and unassimilable people” against the “vast unenlightened majority”. If he were to state his position in less weaselly language from a pro-White point of view he might find himself saying something anti-semitic. He might admit his MMRILS applies to jews. That would be ironic, but we can be sure it won’t happen. Auster does not have the best interests of Whites foremost in his mind. If he did he wouldn’t pretend we are a vast majority, and he wouldn’t so quickly and hypocritically dehumanize the few who seek unblinkered enlightenment.

UPDATE 31 Mar 2008: More snippets from Auster’s post:

Mark Jaws writes:

Of course, I, the quintessentially politically astute New York Jew (albeit with Slavic blood to taint my Yiddish pedigree), long ago noticed it was primarily left-wing Jews such as Jay Gould, who were the most ardent opponents to Shockley, Jensen, Herrnstein and Murray. I attributed it in part to Jews having been the main victims of the Nazi eugenics movement, so even though these smart Jews probably knew deep down inside that there were IQ differences, it would be best to nullify and pervert the movement which they perceived to be Nazi-like.

Whatever good the name calling and lies has done for jews it has only come at the expense of Whites. Auster does not point this out because he is not pro-White.

Bert R. writes:

The comments of yourself and others here regarding Jewish intellectuals remind me of Kevin MacDonald’s. Is there now a broader range of agreement between you both than before? I ask as I recall that you wrote a somewhat critical article or comment about him some time ago.

LA replies:

Comments like this make me want to throw up my hands.

Kevin MacDonald’s central idea is that the Jewish people are driven by an instinct created by Darwinian evolution to destroy European peoples. He is the most influential anti-Semitic thinker and inspirer of exterminationist anti-Semites of our time. I wonder on what basis you would construct a similarity between my ideas and his based on what was said in this thread.

See my article where I lay out the differences between what MacDonald says about the Jews and what I say.

Inspirer of exterminationists? Such deranged hyperbole is the hallmark of anti-anti-semitism.

I wrote a little about this in White Self-Determination and Totalitarian Liberals.

It isn’t difficult to differentiate the two men.

MacDonald is a scholar who focuses on analyzing the conflicts between White and jewish interests, a subject Auster only occasionally touches. MacDonald writes in plain language remarkable for its contrast with the obfuscatory postmodern academic norm. Auster prefers misleading euphemisms like “the majority” and “liberals”. MacDonald is more circumspect and consistent than Auster, who constantly and explicitly advises “the majority” what they must do, who they must keep out or deport, and who the anti-semites are that must be slandered and ostracized in order to appease the “liberals” he is supposedly resisting.

In short MacDonald is pro-White and Auster is pro-jew. Perhaps Auster can only throw up his hands because he cannot imagine simply telling the truth.