Blog

Reproducing While White

5 Comments

Technically there aren’t any laws against Whites reproducing, yet, but from the way the leaders of our politically correct anti-White regime act it sure seems they think it’s a crime. To begin let’s consider how they talk about overpopulation.

World population to hit 7 billion in 2012:

There are 6.7 billion people in the world today. The United States ranks third, with 304 million, behind China and India, according to projections released Thursday by the Census Bureau.

The world’s population surpassed 6 billion in 1999, meaning it will take only 13 years to add a billion people.

By comparison, the number of people didn’t reach 1 billion until 1800, said Carl Haub, a demographer at the Population Reference Bureau. It didn’t reach 2 billion until 130 years later.

“You can easily see the effect of rapid population growth in developing countries,” Haub said.

Haub said that medical and nutritional advances in developing countries led to a population explosion following World War II. Cultural changes are slowly catching up, with more women in developing countries going to school and joining the work force.

That is slowing the growth rate, though it is still high in many countries.

There are countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East where the average woman has more than six children in her lifetime. In Mali and Niger, two African nations, women average more than seven children.

“There’s still a long way to go in the developing world,” Frey said. “A lot of it does have to do with the education of women and the movement of women into the labor force.”

In the U.S., women have an average of about two children, which essentially replaces the population. Much of the U.S. population growth comes from immigration.

There are several noteworthy things here. First, the rate of population growth is astounding. It is absolutely swamping any savings we can make via the reduction, resuse, or recycling of resources. And the growth is in large part fueled by technology. Second, the population growth is occurring primarily in “the developing world”, i.e. amongst turd worlders, not Whites. Third, the brainiacs in academia, government, business, and media know this all full well. They also know that sending women to school (meaning university in the West) and getting them obsessed with a career reduces the number of babies they produce. Rather than seeing this as an undersirable side-effect it instead seems they see this effect as more desirable than any other.

What is missing is also noteworthy. Here, and most other times when it is discussed, there is no linking of overpopulation with its consequences. The inevitable overcrowding, resource depletion and shortages, crime, and war. Nor is there any discussion how we might avoid this. For instance by acknowledging that Whites have greatly facilitated turd world population growth by sharing our technology and opening our borders, and that we might want to stop doing that.

Our progressivist-globalist leaders know the non-White population growth is unsustainable. They’ve known for decades. They’re also apoplectic about the havoc it’s wreaking on the environment. And yet they seem unable to say or do anything but the opposite of what should obviously be done. Rather than closing our borders and focusing our government funds on our own citizens, they instead glorify non-Whites, invite them to the West, and direct our aid and armies overseas. They condemn predominantly White Westerners for consuming a disproportionate share of the world’s resources, but promote an agenda that increases predominantly non-white consumption. This is, for example, the premise of the Kyoto Protocol.

– – –

Jeffrey Sachs is a Columbia University economist who writes a monthly column, tragically misnamed “Sustainable Developments”, for Scientific American. Sachs typifies progressivist-globalist thinking. Here’s a sample, ordered chronologically:

December, 2002: Science to Save the World, “Economist Jeffrey D. Sachs thinks the science and technology of resource-rich nations can abolish poverty, sickness and other woes of the developing world.”

Only a teaser is available online and I’ve long since thrown away the magazine this article was printed in. But the gist is clear. Sachs presumes the White man is both capable and morally obligated to abolish all the world’s ills. It is Great Society thinking on a global scale. It is the liberal version of the White Man’s Burden, with the emphasis on burden and with “resource-rich nations” as a euphemism for White. It’s not even a good euphemism. The turd world isn’t turdy because it lacks resources.

August, 2006: Lower Fertility: a Wise Investment, “Plans that encourage voluntary, steep reductions in the fertility rates of poor nations pay dividends in sustainability for everyone.”

Here Sachs lays out what he thinks the US and Europe should do to address turd world overpopulation:

First, promote child survival. When parents have the expectation that their children will survive, they choose to have fewer children, with a net effect of slower population growth. Second, promote girls’ education and gender equality. Girls in school marry later, and empowered young women enter the labor force and choose to have fewer children. Third, promote the availability of contraception and family planning, especially for the poor who cannot afford such services on their own. Fourth, raise productivity on the farm. Income-earning mothers use their scarce time in productive employment rather than childrearing.

Far from acknowledging that the technology of “resource-rich nations” has so far mostly increased the woes of “the developing world”, and our own, Dr. Sachs prescribes more of the same medicine. He cannot face the fact that the main threat to child survival among turd worlders, whether in their homelands or in the White lands they colonize, is themselves. Not to mention that allowing them to live amongst us harms our own children. Every White knows this instinctively. That’s why we go to such great lengths to find “good schools” in “nice neighborhoods”. That’s why intelligent non-whites try to surround themselves with as many Whites as they can, even while they whine about “racism”.

Sachs supports turd world babies. He says we can stop africans from starving by helping their babies survive. Not only is this kooky, it’s the opposite of the message bleeding heart liberals are sending to Whites, as I’ll discuss below.

October, 2006: The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology, “Are higher taxes and strong social “safety nets” antagonistic to a prosperous market economy?”

On average, the Nordic countries outperform the Anglo-Saxon ones on most measures of economic performance. Poverty rates are much lower there, and national income per working-age population is on average higher. Unemployment rates are roughly the same in both groups, just slightly higher in the Nordic countries. The budget situation is stronger in the Nordic group, with larger surpluses as a share of GDP.

The Nordic countries maintain their dynamism despite high taxation in several ways. Most important, they spend lavishly on research and development and higher education. All of them, but especially Sweden and Finland, have taken to the sweeping revolution in information and communications technology and leveraged it to gain global competitiveness. Sweden now spends nearly 4 percent of GDP on R&D, the highest ratio in the world today. On average, the Nordic nations spend 3 percent of GDP on R&D, compared with around 2 percent in the English-speaking nations.

Here Sachs is eager to prove that Friedrich von Hayek was wrong. That socialism does not inevitably lead to a centralization of control, and thus to tyranny and serfdom. Sachs points to the benefits of national socialism because he believes international socialism is a good idea. He is perhaps hoping nobody notices the two types of socialism are different.

Or perhaps Sachs is just blind. If so he has another curious blindness. There is a major difference between the “Nordic” and “Anglo-Saxon” countries that he doesn’t mention. Vibrancy. Diversity. You know, what the progressivist globalists always say make us “stronger” by feeding the holy pyramid scheme they call The Economy, boosting GDP spending on such life necessities as crime fighting, prisons, private schools, health care, and motivating us to constantly move to “nice” neighborhoods when our old ones get too “vibrant”. Nowadays they’re beginning to experience vibrancy even in the national socialist Nordic states. The invaders love it. The natives not so much.

September, 2007: Ending Malaria Deaths in Africa, “One of the world’s worst killers can be stopped soon if we make the investment”.

We need to “invest” in increasing the number of turd worlders? Where do I send money? Oh, that’s right, my wages are already garnished and if I refuse to pay I go to prison.

January, 2008: Crisis in the Drylands, “Sound economic solutions, not military ones, offer the most reliable route to peace for undeveloped nations.”

Look closely at the violence in Afghanistan, Chad, Ethiopia, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan—one finds tribal and often pastoralist communities struggling to survive deepening ecological crises. Water scarcity, in particular, has been a source of territorial conflict when traditional systems of land management fail in the face of rising populations and temperatures and declining rainfall.

Washington looks at many of these clashes and erroneously sees Islamist ideology at the core. Our political leaders fail to realize that other Islamic populations are far more stable economically, politically and socially—and that the root of the crisis in the dryland countries is not Islam but extreme poverty and environmental stress.

What happened to overpopulation?

You know Jeff, I have looked closely, and what I see is muslims, whose proclivities toward tribalism and violence have for centuries kept their proclivity toward reproducing somewhat in check, are now enriched and unfettered, free to multiply and roam about the world. And I see this mainly as a consequence of the insane progressivist-globalist policies propounded by brainiacs like you. No it doesn’t help that we simultaneously send our troops to establish police stations around the world but tie their hands in policing our own streets. So let’s join together and call for our boys to come home from Afghanistan and Iraq and Germany and Korea and Japan and Djibouti and everywhere else so they can clean the gangs and criminals out of our own country. Whaddaya say?

March, 2008: Keys to Climate Protection, “Dramatic, immediate commitment to nurturing new technologies is essential to averting disastrous global warming.”

So this year it seems Sachs has just completely forgotten about the population growth that he used to acknowledge drives the problems he’s worried about. The solution he proposes is to pour more gasoline (technology) on the fire.

May, 2008: Surging Food Prices Mean Global Instability, “Misguided policies favor biofuels over grain for hungry people.”

His proposals here amount to Whites helping turd worlders increase food production. So tomorrow there will be even more turd worlders to feed. This is what has passes for enlightened thinking at Columbia University and Scientific American since the end of WWII. This is why there are now 6.7 billion people on the planet.

– – –

Here are a couple of articles that typify the P-G reporting on the kind of crises created by population growth and turd world migration to the West. Note that neither one mentions any such connection.

Need to deal with water needs crucial:

“We’re in a dry spell if not a drought,” said California Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman. “We’re in the second year, and if we’re looking at a third year, we’re talking about a serious problem.”

Chrisman stopped short of saying the state would issue mandatory water rationing, which appears possible only if the governor declares a state of emergency. Rather, the burden will fall on local water agencies. Many, such as San Francisco and Marin County, have asked residents and businesses over the past year to cut water usage voluntarily by 10 to 20 percent.

Nevertheless, stricter water controls could be a continuing part of California’s future. So might large-scale projects that aim to use water in new and better ways.

“We’re facing some pretty grim circumstances that call for some bold action – recycling water, desalinating water,” said Tim Quinn executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. “Above and beyond that, we have to invest in the sustainability of this system that our grandfathers constructed in the middle of the last century. It was developed with the convenience of human beings in mind, not aquatic beings.”

Serious problems. Grim circumstances. Maybe then they should mention that in California immigration of the illegal variety alone accounts for more load on the system than officials project to save by rationing. The next time someone says how enriched we are by immigration ask if they’re accounting for shortages – not to mention the prison, school, road, energy, and medical costs.

Here is some insight into why these problems aren’t seen as problems by the brainiacs.

Water crisis to be biggest world risk:

Goldman Sachs advises investors to focus on the high-tech end of the world’s $425bn water industry. But beware the consumer “backlash” against bottled water, now viewed as an eco-hostile waste of fuel.

It is eyeing companies that produce or service filtration equipment (which can now extract anything from caffeine to animal growth hormones by using nanotechnologies), ultraviolet disinfection, desalination technology using membranes, automated water meters and specialist niches in water reuse.

It is difficult to find a “pure play” on water equities. GE is a market leader in the field, but the sector makes up just 2pc of its colossal turnover.

See, it isn’t a problem at all. It’s really just an opportunity to profit.

It would be easy to continue, to provide more links to the thoughts of other brainiacs. The point is that many of the problems our leaders wish us to worry about, to donate our money, to join the military and die trying to fight the symptoms of, are not directly of our making. The world is not overpopulated with Whites. And the indirect technological contribution we Whites have made to population growth is not seen as a problem – it is instead what the brainiacs recommend more of.

– – –

I trust I’ve driven home that point. Now I have another to make. I wish to contrast the insane progressivist-globalist foreign policies with their insane domestic policies. I’d like to call attention to the fact that, as unwilling as they are to link non-white overpopulation and immigration to their negative consequences they are more than eager to link White problems to their causes, or to even blame Whites for things they are not responsible for.

I say “insane” but it really depends on your point of view. If you think Whites are inherently evil, congenital racists and nazis, then anti-White policies are perfectly sane. The sooner the world is rid of Whites the sooner non-whites will see nirvana. Likewise if you are concerned only with money, and in particular how much more you can make by expanding your market and driving down labor costs, then pro-non-white policies are perfectly sane. The more latinos, africans, and asians there are the more product we can move, and boy do those people know how to reproduce!

As a racially-aware White man I recognize the alliance of progressivist and globalist thinkers that control the West as my enemies. I see they demonize and steamroll anyone who stands in their way. That’s why I call their policies insane. If you also see the insanity then perhaps it’s because you’re more White than you care to admit.

What did you think of the media-government assault on the FLDS community in Texas? Did you see it as a justified crackdown on weirdos who brainwash and abuse children, practice polygamy, who force teenage girls into marriage and pregnancy? Isn’t it strange that in a country with such an cornucopia of immigrant and other non-white sources of real deviance and real crime that the authorities and media pundits spent so much time and effort hassling people whose most notable difference from other groups is that they are generally more peaceful and cleave more firmly to their religion and tradition than others? If polygamy, forced marriage, and child pregnancy are such terrible crimes then why is the government not more firmly moving against muslim and latino immigrants, and on that basis? Why does the media-government complex in accusing the FLDS of such things not even mention that there are far larger communities with those problems that they could raid and cart off in any urban area they care to look?

I think it’s for the same reason that calling latino immigrants hard-working is normal, but calling White voters hard-working is racist. The same reason that criticizing islam is islamophobia but dunking a crucifix in urine is art. It all makes perfect sense if you realize White is out and non-white is in. The great crime of the FLDS is not abuse, compulsion, or even teen pregnancy. It eventually came out that those claims were fabricated or exaggerated. The greatest crime of the FLDS, the crime for which they cannot technically be convicted but which motivates all the fear and loathing directed toward them, is reproducing while White.

Here’s a more recent example of the same phenomena.

Gloucester Teens Had Pact To Get Pregnant:

Schools Superintendent Christopher Farmer told WBZ’s Bill Shields Thursday the girls had “an agreement to get pregnant.”

Farmer said these are generally “girls who lack self-esteem and have a lack of love in their life.”

“The common threat is the lack of self-esteem and purpose in life, and a lack of a sense of direction,” said Farmer. “Young women wanting and needing affection.”

Yeah well, that and watching popular movies like Juno and Knocked Up.

Strange isn’t it, of all the high schools experiencing a rash of teen pregnancy, this one gets so much attention? Not if the girls are White. None of the articles I’ve read mention that they are – it’s really just an educated guess. In 2006 there were 1162 Whites, 17 blacks, 39 latinos, and 6 asians enrolled in Gloucester High.

A recent graduate who had a baby during her freshman year told Time she knows why the girls wanted to get pregnant.

“They’re so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally,” Amanda Ireland, 18, said. “I try to explain it’s hard to feel loved when an infant is screaming to be fed at 3 a.m.”

This is deceptive. For anyone who doesn’t yet have kids I can tell you the truth. Parenthood is the most challenging and fulfulling endeavor a human being can undertake. We are naturally suited to it. If you forgo child-rearing because you think the world is overcrowded, or getting out of bed at 3AM is a bummer, or you can’t afford it, or you’d rather travel the world with your “partner”, then you are sadly miscalculating. None of the negatives add up to even one “I love you” from your children. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the only reason you came to be is because an unbroken chain of ancestors succeeded in reproducing. If you choose not to do so you’re not saving the world. You’re choosing oblivion.

Beyond the social implications of the pregnancies, there are some legal questions being asked, including whether the men who fathered the babies will face charges of statutory rape.

If 20 black or latino girls in any school got pregnant would it be news? And since when do liberals consider statutory rape a bad thing? It’s normal for blacks and latinos, and it’s portrayed as normal for Whites on TV and in movies. It’s common amongst the turd world refugees we’re told we have to import in order to increase our vibrancy and diversity. Yet when Whites have babies suddenly a liberal lynch mob forms, upset and saying things they’d never say about anyone but Whites.

The Time article has more details.

Pregnancy Boom at Gloucester High:

School officials started looking into the matter as early as October after an unusual number of girls began filing into the school clinic to find out if they were pregnant. By May, several students had returned multiple times to get pregnancy tests, and on hearing the results, “some girls seemed more upset when they weren’t pregnant than when they were,” Sullivan says. All it took was a few simple questions before nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. Then the story got worse. “We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy,” the principal says, shaking his head.

The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. Sex-ed classes end freshman year at Gloucester, where teen parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC. “We’re proud to help the mothers stay in school,” says Sue Todd, CEO of Pathways for Children, which runs the day-care center.

But by May, after nurse practitioner Kim Daly had administered some 150 pregnancy tests at Gloucester High’s student clinic, she and the clinic’s medical director, Dr. Brian Orr, a local pediatrician, began to advocate prescribing contraceptives regardless of parental consent, a practice at about 15 public high schools in Massachusetts. Currently Gloucester teens must travel about 20 miles (30 km) to reach the nearest women’s health clinic; younger girls have to get a ride or take the train and walk. But the notion of a school handing out birth control pills has met with hostility. Says Mayor Carolyn Kirk: “Dr. Orr and Ms. Daly have no right to decide this for our children.” The pair resigned in protest on May 30.

Gloucester’s elected school committee plans to vote later this summer on whether to provide contraceptives. But that won’t do much to solve the issue of teens wanting to get pregnant. Says rising junior Kacia Lowe, who is a classmate of the pactmakers’: “No one’s offered them a better option.” And better options may be a tall order in a city so uncertain of its future.

Of course many conservatives, devout Christians, and various crypto-White advocates see what’s happening in Gloucester as a bad thing. Most consistently oppose illegitimacy. But since when do the revolutionary leftists at Time or any other mainstream media outlet criticize anyone for doing “too good a job of embracing young mothers”? When in doubt hand it out, isn’t that the liberal mantra?

Where else are doctors resigning because contraceptives aren’t made readily enough available? And what does birth control have to do with this anyway? By all accounts these girls got pregnant intentionally. If having babies is a bad thing, and preventing it is important enough to push contraceptives on communities against their wishes, then how about also recognizing that it isn’t White girls in Gloucester or anywhere else who are overpopulating the world? If contraceptives are to be compulsory aren’t there other places, other people, who it would make much more sense to start with? Wouldn’t it make even more sense to close our borders so they, and we, might live and reproduce as we please?

We so often hear from the brainiacs that the turd worlders only sneak into our countries, evade our taxes, drink and drive without a license, join gangs, and attack Whites because they only want what’s best for themselves and their children. Clearly that’s true. Yet when Whites, outraged at our betrayal by a government that taxes us and sends the money overseas, which enforces even the pettiest micromanaging laws on us while leaving the border undefended and looking the other way when the invaders commit violent crimes, when we Whites speak up against this the media and political brainiacs call us nativists, xenophobes, and racists. They certainly do not say, hey, Whites just want what’s best for themselves and their children.

This is because the real problem, the real crime, is reproducing while White. The people who think this aren’t insane. They just don’t like Whites. Some of them accuse Whites of wanting to load non-whites into boxcars and ship them to death camps. They say that because that’s what they want to do to Whites. Once you realize this our crazy world makes alot more sense.

UPDATE, 23 June 2008: Flippityflopitty fowarded this email:

Dear Friends,

As we observe World Refugee Day (established by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees to commemorate the spirit and courage of refugees each year on June 20), on behalf of Episcopal Migration Ministries, I want to thank those who attended Wednesday night’s screening of God Grew Tired of Us, which not only tells the poignant story of three Sudanese refugees resettled in the United States, but also portrays the courage and strength of the greater global refugee population. We hope you enjoyed the movie and learned more about the journey of refugees and the work of EMM, who on behalf of the Episcopal Church, carries out the ministry it began more than 60 years ago to relieve the burden of the world’s suffering through refugee resettlement and advocacy.

We encourage you to share the movie with friends and family; here is a link to the website <http://www.godgrewtiredofus.com/index.html> – you can also access the movie on Netflix.

With thanks,
Deb Stein
Managing Coordinator
Episcopal Migration Ministries

Visit the website, click About, and you’ll find there’s more to the poignant story of the three sudanese refugees:

Orphaned by a tumultuous civil war and traveling barefoot across the sub-Saharan desert, John Bul Dau, Daniel Abol Pach and Panther Blor were among the 25,000 “Lost Boys” (ages 3 to 13) who fled villages, formed surrogate families and sought refuge from famine, disease, wild animals and attacks from rebel soldiers. Named by a journalist after Peter Pan’s posse of orphans who protected and provided for each other, the “Lost Boys” traveled together for five years and against all odds crossed into the UN’s refugee camp in Kakuma, Kenya. A journey’s end for some, it was only the beginning for John, Daniel and Panther, who along with 3800 other young survivors, were selected to re-settle in the United States.

About 3797 more. Selected for “resettlement”! Transplanted to the US because our insane leaders don’t think we have enough african vibrancy already. Did you know that?

See Refugee Resettlement Watch for more information about how our White-hating brainiacs go out of their way to import non-white cultures rich in polygamy and teen pregnancy, with tendencies toward violence and tribalism as a special bonus.

Blog

Who’s on Top?

94 Comments

John Savage wrote an interesting post titled The Leftist Social Pyramid. It was not my intent but in commenting there I upset him, and he closed the thread to further comment. He may withdraw the post, which is his perogative, but I hope he doesn’t. It begins like so:

This week, commenter Mark P. at VFR predicts a coming factionalization of the Left. This goes back to the question I keep asking: Why is the Left so monolithic, in the sense that we rarely hear of fights over whether one or another thing is a proper leftist principle? Whatever difficulties there have been in making the decisions, they seem to have been out of the public spotlight, and discontent among the losers seems to have done little damage to the overall movement.

I suggested last fall that there is a Hierarchy of Entitlement on the Left. To recap, non-Western immigrant groups seem to be at the top. The toleration of violence and even ethnic cleansing by these groups against native-born blacks demonstrates that these groups stand above blacks. The attempt to prosecute disabled whites for racist “hate speech” demonstrates that nonwhites still stand above the disabled, and the toleration of nonwhite violence against homosexuals demonstrates that nonwhites stand above homosexuals. The toleration of nonwhite rape of white women demonstrates that white women are considerably lower than any nonwhites, while white heterosexual men are at the very bottom.

My emphasis.

At my prompting we exchanged a few comments concerning where jews fit in this hierarchy. I argued they’re on the top. John discussed it, but I think he would really have preferred to leave them unmentioned. It’s a common problem. It supports the point I was trying to make. Of all the elephants in the room the jewish elephant is the one everyone seems most eager to ignore. Thus when someone will not ignore it it’s easy to paint them as abnormal, just as John eventually did to me.

Whether or not jews are on top, they certainly are one of the most prominent, powerful victim groups in the “Leftist Social Pyramid”. Opinion on anti-semitism is more monolithic than any other social or political principle in the West. It transcends left and right.

The principle of anti-semitism is this: no matter the merits of what you say, if it is critical of jews then you are insane. It doesn’t matter whether you are ancient egyptian, contemporary korean, amerindian, leftist former president (Jimmy Carter), or rightist former presidential candidate (Pat Buchanan).

In a presentation titled For Fear of The Jews Joe Sobran said:

What, exactly, is “anti-Semitism”? One standard dictionary definition is “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group.” How this applies to me has never been explained. My “hostility” toward Israel is a desire not for war, but for neutrality — out of a sense of betrayal, waste, and shame. Our venal politicians have aligned us with a foreign country that behaves dishonorably. Most alleged “anti-Semites” would wince if Jews anywhere were treated as Israel treats its Arab subjects. Moreover, Israel has repeatedly betrayed its only benefactor, the United States. I have already alluded to the place Dante reserves for those who betray their benefactors.

These are obvious moral facts. Yet it’s not only politicians who are afraid to point them out; so are most journalists — the people who are supposed to be independent enough to say the things politicians can’t afford to say. In my thirty years in journalism, nothing has amazed me more than the prevalent fear in the profession of offending Jews, especially Zionist Jews.

Emphasis mine.

I’m sorry if making this point upsets jews, or John Savage, or anyone else. I raise it because it’s important. Not many people will discuss it calmly. John’s accusation that I’m “unreasonable” and “see jews everywhere” is itself unreasonable – it imagines only two extremes: either jews are not worthy of mention, or they control everything. That’s a false dichotomy. I reject it.

Blog

Anti-Racism and its Genocidal Fanatics

28 Comments

Today I have some lengthy comments about a disturbing phenomena in the reality-based community:

Reality-based community is a popular term among liberal political commentators in the United States. In the fall of 2004, the phrase “proud member of the reality-based community,” was first used to suggest the commentator’s opinions are based more on observation than faith, assumption, or ideology and that others who disagree are unrealistic. The term has been defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from [their] judicious study of discernible reality.” Some commentators have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the “faith-based community” as a whole. It can be seen as an example of political framing.

In my previous post I noted a particularly egregious example of naked anti-Whitism that occurred in prime time on national cable television. I looked for and easily found several “reality-based” web sites that also considered this event notable. They also saw it as an opportunity to vent some anti-White hate. In the days afterward I went over to comment.

The title of the Drum post was David Gergen Speaks Truth – Denounce Racist Vote. Karoli, the blogger there, is a woman who is convinced of three things: racism is bad, Whites whose vote is affected by race are racists, and non-whites who behave likewise are not. This is anti-Whitism, of course, and several visitors besides myself tried to talk some sense into her. Throughout the exchange she was civil but unmoved. In the end she acknowledged that she didn’t have a problem with black votes being based on race, and cited historic White oppression of blacks as the reason. She then closed the thread.

I have two points I would have posted in response. First, I reject this race-based guilt. What happened in generations past between other people is not my fault nor my responsibility to set right. I care more about injustices taking place in the here and now. Second, it is absurd to expect that any people should not speak or vote or act in what they perceive to be their best interests, nor that they band together by whatever criteria they choose, whether genetic (eg. by race) or memetic (eg. by ideology).

Since coming to this understanding of race and politics I do not begrudge non-whites for planning and acting cohesively to further the interests of their groups, and thereby themselves. I consider the fact that they do so perfectly normal human behavior with a precedent that stretches back to the beginnings of history and probably beyond.

What is indefensible from this racial-political point of view is that a particular group, my group, should be singled out and held to a different standard. This is exactly what the “frame” known as anti-racism does to Whites.

Anti-racism is based on the idea that “racism” is bad. “Racism”, however, means different things to different people. Here’s what Sam Francis had to say about the origins of the word racism.

I believe these roots of the word racism are unknown to most. It is also generally not considered polite to point out that prior to the 1930s the notion that the human species was divided along racial lines was not controversial. Throughout history races most often lived separately (which is how they developed in the first place) and this was considered a good thing because often when races came together there was strife. I believe people back then recognized significant differences between the races, and they attributed the strife to these differences.

Today the thinking has changed radically. It is now generally considered wrong and hateful to speak of race in such terms. If you do so then you are considered to be the cause of racial strife. We must disown or bury any such things great men of the past may have said. See here how the text of the Immigration Act of 1790 is piled under pages of superfluous information about Ellis Island, the Statue of Liberty, Emma Lazarus, and a summary of the entire history of immigration. All the way at the end is the actual text, which begins:

Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof. . .

Such thoughts, even in historic documents, even when expressed without malice, are today considered “racism”. Someone who thinks such thoughts is called a “racist” – a stereotype that implies they are psychologically infirm, intellectually deficient, intolerantly bigoted, and prone to violence. The word racist is almost always intended and taken as a slur, and it is very often used deliberately, to put it in the terms of the reality-based community, as a means of dehumanizing anyone so smeared.

As destructive as they know the label is, some apply it with great abandon. Anti-racists who wouldn’t dream of calling someone lazy or weak or a whore (that might hurt their self-esteem!) will, just like that, call someone a racist. Nobody wants to be called a racist. We all realize how poorly racists are treated. And yet so many anti-racists are on hair trigger, ready to use the word on anyone they think is saying or thinking incorrectly.

It would be bad enough if this pathologizing of speech and thought were codified and applied equally to all who spoke in certain ways about race. But it isn’t. Whites and non-whites are subject to different sets of constantly changing unwritten rules. Over time it is becoming ever more acceptable for non-whites to criticize Whites, and ever less acceptable for Whites to criticize non-whites. Many anti-racists today unabashedly defend the idea that only Whites can be racists. In fact the anti-racism “frame” now includes the view that Whites are inherently racist. That’s why when racial friction or differences arise Whites are the ones who so often get the blame.

The anti-racist frame-builders give their White blame mechanisms different names. One of them is called institutional racism:

Institutional racism (or structural racism or systemic racism) refers to a form of racism which occurs specifically in institutions such as public bodies, corporations, and universities. The term was coined by black nationalist, pan-Africanist and honorary prime minister of the Black Panther Party, Stokely Carmichael.

It seems anti-racists do not think pan-Africanism or black nationalism are racist. Yet these ideologies are overtly concerned with the benefit of a particular race, certainly more overtly than any public body, corporation, or university I’m aware of. Except maybe Howard University and McDonalds. Can an anti-racist please point me to a “white university”, or special corporate websites celebrating Whites?

Another such mechanism is called symbolic racism:

Symbolic racism means believing that African American poverty and other problems are largely the result of lack of ambition and effort, rather than white racism and discrimination. Who holds symbolically racist beliefs? A relatively large portion of white voters in general and white working-class voters in particular. . .

So? CNN pundits and liberal bloggers think White poverty and other problems are largely the result of ignorance. They think Whites, or “rednecks” according to David Gergen, don’t vote for Obama because they’re “under-educated”. Alan Abramowitz says White voters are “symbolic racists” because they think more highly of blacks than media pundits like himself think of Whites. After all, the polls show Whites blame black problems on lack of ambition and effort. Ignorance was probably considered too rude to either provide in the poll or select. Could Abramowitz supply the results of black polling? I’m curious what blacks believe causes White success. Do they think it’s racism? Given the constant White = racist barrage from the media doesn’t everybody think that?

I’d like to take the opportunity here to point out how odd it is that mainstream writers like Abramowitz make a point of capitalizing words like Latino, Asian, Jew, or African American, but never white. After all, it’s just a skin color, right? Perhaps you noticed I do the opposite. Now you know why.

This survey of anti-racist anti-Whitism could go on for quite a while, but I’ll stop here with White privilege:

White privilege is a sociological concept which describes advantages enjoyed by white persons beyond what is commonly experienced by the non-white people in those same social spaces (nation, community, workplace, etc.). It differs from racism or prejudice in that a person benefiting from white privilege does not necessarily hold racist beliefs or prejudices themselves. Often, the person benefiting is unaware of his or her privilege.

Here we see some naked “framing” – the deliberate construction of a concept that makes no effort to hide the anti-White agenda. The idea here is that even Whites who do nothing overt that might conceivably be called racism are still racists if they socialize primarily with Whites. If this is a priviledge then it is a common privilege easily found amongst any race. To single out and demonize Whites for such behaviour is not “fighting racism”. It is a racially motivated attack against Whites.

At a blog called WhitePrivilege, whose slogan is “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity”, there is a five-year-old exchange between the blogger and a pro-White using the pseudonym Rurik. Rurik does a wonderful job trying to reason with the anti-White blogger, who for his part appears willfully blind to his anti-Whitism. The exchange contains many of the classic arguments on both sides. At the end a self-righteous jew appears, but not to say “hey, as a jew, I know a bit about defamation, and what this White fellow says is right, you are defaming Whites, it’s dangerous and you should stop it”. Instead he says:

To “Rurik” (who refrains from using his name for fear of being spotted by anyone as a racist and anti-Semite),

The more I read the back-and-forth banter between you and Mr. Clark, the more horrified I am with the idea of people like you exist in my country, doing frightening things such as voting or breeding.

In other words this proud jew favors race-based disenfranchisement and sterilization – for Whites! Following this, presumably to justify his anti-White sentiments (just like Karoli) follow dozens of lines of kvetching about past persecution of jews and blacks.

If race is a social construct as the anti-racists say, then how is it that my Whiteness, and that alone, makes me responsible for enslaving blacks, genociding indians, and gassing jews? If we take anti-racists at their word then clearly they are constructing these responsibilities.

Hopefully I’ve made a convincing case that many anti-racists are not at all concerned about stopping injustices that one race may inflict on another. More than anything else they seem intent on race-based payback against Whites. The common premise behind all of their poisonous ideas is that Whites are the source of all problems, past and present. Their intent is quite literally genocidal.

If on the other hand after reading all this what you think really motivates me is a secret desire to genocide all non-whites, or even some of them, then I want you to know, that I know, that it is because you are anti-White. You are a racist, and you should promptly go and do to yourself what you so often and openly wish upon racists.

I’ve rambled on far too long already, but I did want to say some things about Pandagon.

The CNN-related post I originally cited, Clinton wins Kentucky, race chasm proven again, was already stale by the time I went over to comment and I ended up picking a fight in another post.

The Kentucky post contained some real anti-racist gems that are worth commenting on in light of what I’ve said above. Citing another liberal blogger’s idea that he calls the Race Chasm:

It is in the chasm where Clinton has consistently defeated Obama. These are geographically diverse states from Ohio to Oklahoma to Massachusetts where racial politics is very much a part of the political culture, but where the black vote is too small to offset a white vote racially motivated by the Clinton campaign’s coded messages and tactics.

The black vote is not presumed to be racially motivated, but the White vote is. White candidates communicate in coded messages (the reality-based community calls them “dog whistles”), but black candidates presumably do not.

The blogger, a black woman, then writes:

I wonder if an intelligent discussion can now be had about the reality of prejudice versus affinity voting. When the MSM continually frames this chasm as a problem for Obama — it is a problem for all of us as a society. To have a whole demo of voters so poisoned by their own racism to vote for someone white simply to avoid casting a ballot for a person of color is sad. To then be willing to stay home in November or worse, vote for John McCain, who clearly doesn’t represent working class interests, is tragic.

Needless to say that’s the polar opposite of what I’ve called affinity voting — blacks voting for Obama in large numbers. Many are voting for him because he represents ideals and policies they agree with; that he’s the first credible, positive black candidate for president is a huge historical bonus.

Is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who says my race voting 70-30 is “prejudice” and her race voting 90-10 is “affinity”? What would we talk about, reparations for slavery?

Here again is the anti-White premise of anti-racists laid bare. I have an alternate explanation for the CNN pundits and Pandagon. I say Whites are affinity voting and blacks are prejudiced. Working class Whites are especially wise and discerning compared to fat and lazy wealthy Whites, at least when it comes to voting their best interests. The working class was obviously paying close attention to Rev. Wright and the “bitter” flaps. They know that Black Liberation Theology is not good for Whites. Blacks, on the other hand, generally don’t care what a White candidate says or does if there’s a black candidate to vote for. Obama should reject those racist votes.

There. How’s that? Can I get a seat on CNN?

I wish I had commented on that post at the time but as it happened I found a more recent post, an equally fat target titled Defending science: What works and what’s already working. The exchange was lively.

The blogger, Amanda Marcotte, proposed that the “avid defenders of the importance of accepting reality” in the “reality-based community” should reject “the right wing frame” and defend science from the “lies trotted out about “Intelligent Design”” and “that Stephen Jay Gould is the model for how to do this”. She concluded by saying “”Intelligent Design” is an attack on science”. (Her emphasis.)

I began by ridiculing this combination of ideas. I pointed out the incompatibility between framing and reality, that Gould was a human genetic difference denier, that E.O. Wilson or James Watson are better model defenders of science, that ID was not useless or even harmful but instead spurs scientists to do more science where there are gaps. I also asserted that the perception of the ID challenge as an attack is an natural case of projection by cultural marxists. Scientists, and intellects in general, consider defending their ideas routine.

The response was slow in coming. Seventeen posts later Ellid finally piped up to tell me he didn’t like E.O. Wilson because “his sociobiology theories are little more than a convenient excuse to justify sexism and racism on the grounds of genetic determinism”. Never mind all that world’s leading authority on ant stuff. Ellid also didn’t like Watson because he “denigrated and belittled the work of Rosalyn Yalow”. It was the only halfway-intelligent response I got.

Soon after that the goon squad, who I quickly recognized as “the resident Goulds”, started telling me: you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re a white nationalist, a racist wingnut, etc. Rather than addressing my points, which though irreverently posed were directly on topic, these troglodytes made some of the dumbest leaps of logic I’ve ever seen. The tactics I have seen, many times, and they have nothing to do with how ideas are defended. The exchange really doesn’t classify as an argument or even two-way communication. It was more like a constant stream of verbal abuse, most of it directed at me.

I recognized several recurring themes. One was:

It’s not that I don’t like white people in general, it’s that I don’t like white people like you. I realize that you’re way too self-absorbed to understand the difference, but there you go.

Most of the goons made sure to emphasize how “white” they were before saying similarly nasty things. I think I understand this all very well. When you say things like this it means you like deracinated white people, and you hate race-conscious Whites. It is anti-White anti-racism. A jew who hates jews is called a self-hating jew. A white who hates Whites is called an anti-racist.

Another theme was typified by:

Tanstaafl, one small criticism. You’re racism isn’t quite blatant enough. In the future, you should just go ahead an advocate killing everyone not just like you. You know, like your German friends did.

The ironic thing about this, and it was echoed more than once in various forms, is that the assumption seems to be that me, an anonymous small time blogger, might be construed as advocating genocide, and that this threat was considered serious enough to treat me as if they thought I should be killed because I wasn’t just like them.

One especially tolerant liberal hinted at this desire by quoting Frank Zappa:

If your children ever find out how lame you really are, they’ll murder you in your sleep.

I made the case above, and I have said it before on this blog, that what drives me to write and think as I do is my concern that Whites are threatened with extermination. This threat comes in large part from the virulent anti-White rhetoric of anti-racists. They are the ones whose poisonous ideas are taught in universities, printed in books and newspapers, and tossed off without a thought on the pages of popular liberal blogs that pretend to be moral authorities.

I’ll end here with a quote from Science and ideology by Edward O. Wilson. I tried posting this at Pandagon several times but it never went through. Too bad. I suspect none of those gibbering Gould-lovers will come here to see how a real scientist defends science.

The future, if we are to have one, is increasingly to be in the hands of the scientifically literate, those who at least know what it is all about. There can be no multicultural solution to the genetics of cystic fibrosis; the ozone hole cannot be deconstructed; there is nothing whatsoever relativistic or culturally contextual about the dopamine transporter molecules whose blockage by cocaine gives a rush of euphoria, the kind that leads the constructivist to doubt the objectivity of science.

. . .

Which brings me to anti-science. I know less about postmodernism than most of you here, but let me give you my impression of how it relates to science. Postmodernist critics present a Disney World representation of science, a fantasy of what science is, and how scientists work, and why they work, a distortion embellished variously by obsolete theories of psychoanalysis and the battle cries of political ideology. Within the academy, it seems to me that postmodernism and the divisive forms of multiculturalism are substantially a revolt of the proletariat, wherein second-rate scholarship is parlayed into tenured professorships and book contracts–not by quality, not by originality, but by claims of entitlement of race, gender, and moralistic ideologies. But as I will show in a moment, some of it runs deeper, to turn the minds of even a few otherwise respected scientists.

. . .

The sociobiology episode was one of the most conspicuous in the history of political correctness in academic life in the dark time before the expression, p.c., was coined and before the National Association of Scholars or any other form of organized resistance arose to blunt its excesses.

. . .

The radical activists, however, went ballistic on this issue. Shortly after the publication of Sociobiology, Richard Lewontin organized fifteen scientists, teachers, and students in the Boston area as the Sociobiology Study Group, which then affiliated with Science for the People. The latter, larger aggregate of radical activists was begun in the 1960s to expose the misdeeds of scientists and technologists, including especially thinking considered to be politically dangerous. It was and remains nation wide, although greatly attenuated in its tone and influence.

What was correct political thinking? That has been made clear by Lewontin during the debate and afterward. “There is nothing in Marx, Lenin, or Mao,” he wrote with his fellow Marxist Richard Levins, “that is or can be in contradiction with a particular set of phenomena in the objective world.” True science, in other words, must be defined intrinsically to be forever separate from political thought. Ideology can then be constructed as a mental process insulated from science.

In formulating sociobiology, I wanted to move evolutionary biology into every potentially congenial subject, including human behavior and even political behavior, roughshod if need be and as quickly as possible. Lewontin obviously did not.

. . .

Now I can come to the essence of the radical science movement. As loopy as it all may seem today, and especially after the collapse of world socialism, the argument has to be taken seriously, since it has been accepted to varying degrees by a few influential scientists, including Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levins, and Ruth Hubbard, who are highly regarded in the public eye as scientists, even as they continue to promote a Marxian view.

Here then is the argument in its raw form: only an anti-reductionist, non-bourgeois science can help humanity attain the highest goal, which is a socialist world. In the 1984 book Not in Our Genes, Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin, all worthies of radical science philosophy, explained their purpose as follows:

We share a commitment to the prospect of the creation of a more socially just–a socialist–society. And we recognize that a critical science is an integral part of the struggle to create that society, just as we also believe that the social function of much of today’s science is to hinder the creation of that society by acting to preserve the interests of the dominant class, gender, and race. This belief–in the possibility of a critical and liberatory science–is why we have each in our separate ways and to varying degrees been involved in the development of what has become known over the 1970s and 1980s, in the United States and Britain, as the radical science movement.

Read the whole thing. Wilson’s plain English and guilelessness is a refreshing contrast to the turd-flingers that rule the roost at Pandagon.

Lewontin, Gould, and their marxist fellow travelers were more interested in promoting their “frame” than in promoting science. Their agenda, just as it is for the “reality-based community”, is not based on the non-existence or non-importance of class, gender, and race – it is based on a hyper-awareness and presumed hyper-importance of these “social constructs”. Moreover, they call for explicit attack on what they perceive to be the “dominant” class, gender, or race.

The reality is that “reality-based community” are today’s budding totalitarians and the “dominant” Anglo-Saxon, male, Whites are their neo-jews. Why? Because they hate us. (For hating them, for hating them, … as Owl said before his head exploded.)

That last paragraph refers to the retribution mindset most anti-racists seem locked in. They have trouble imagining a world where people simply live and let live. In fact Owl, one of the “resident Goulds”, thought he had reached a deep truth when he wrote:

In this view, anti-racism really is anti-Whitism, because they think racism is right.

Actually, in my view anti-racism is really anti-Whitism because it is. I’ve provided argument and evidence to support this assertion, and it matters not one bit who or what I am.

(The image is taken from an ad banner at Pandagon. It reflects their nihilism perfectly.)

Blog

CNN’s Anti-White Election Commentary

26 Comments

From the transcript of Tuesday’s CNN primary coverage:

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, we have been looking at some of the exit polls from Kentucky, in particular the issue of race. Voters who said that race was important in making their decision or is the factor in making their decision.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It is more disquieting news I think for Barack Obama as he looks for the general election.

COOPER: One in five I think.

GERGEN: It was about 21 percent that race was a factor. Nine out of ten of those voted for Hillary Clinton.

COOPER: And that is people that would admit it to a complete strangers taking these exit polls theoretically it would be even larger those who would not admit it.

GERGEN: And from her point of view, over a quarter of the people who voted for her today in Kentucky were people who said race was a factor in their decision. And it really means — I mean, she’s been talking about sexism in this race and she has complained about some in the last 24 hours.

You know race is really playing an increasing issue. And it also raises the question in my judgment of whether she shouldn’t say, you know, if you want to vote against him because he’s black, I don’t want your vote. I don’t want to win that way. This has no place in this primary.

COOPER: Do you see her saying that?

GERGEN: Well, she has been a champion — she’s been a champion of civil rights for a long, long time. She and her husband both have I think well-earned reputations in the civil rights front. She’s never had redneck votes before in her life.

I see no reason why she couldn’t take the high road here in the closing days of his campaign and try to take this on and take on the Reverend Wright issue to say, “Look, I campaigned with this fellow for 15 months. I know a lot of you people don’t think he shares your values that somehow Barack thinks like Reverend Wright. Not true. I know him. I have been with him. And race should come out of this.”

I think she could do a lot by taking a high road.

COOPER: Reverend Wright also showed up in these exit polls.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, in the state of Kentucky, 54 percent of the voters said Barack Obama shares the views of Reverend Wright. That’s something we saw also in West Virginia.

And does Barack Obama share your values? 53 percent of the voters in Kentucky said, “No, he doesn’t.” This is some of the repair work that he’s got to do in terms of the voters that Hillary Clinton is getting.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Hillary Clinton ought to keep in mind, I think, the long view here. She’s got many more years in public life ahead of her. Taking the high road at this point, saying I don’t want racists to vote for me, saying that this is about something bigger than just strategizing the last few races. I think that would stand her in very good stead.

BORGER: Very late for that. What in Montana and South Dakota?

TOOBIN: I mean, she might as well say it, because I think it would make a difference. This race has been so polarized along the issues of race and, frankly, I think most people blame her for that than they blame Obama. And to leave, if she’s in fact leaving on the high road, would do a world of good.

GERGEN: She could do it on Reverend Wright. She could still take that on before she leaves this race.

Here’s video.

For a while now the pundits have been expressing concerns that the White vote is going 60-40 or even 70-30 for Clinton. They generally don’t think the black vote going 80-20 or 90-10 for Obama is more noteworthy, and it certainly isn’t ever something they criticize. If anything they tell us this is perfectly understandable.

As the primary wears on the Clinton camp is getting desperate. The Obama camp is getting frustrated. Both view Whites, especially “working class” Whites, with distaste.

On Tuesday all was good and right in Oregon, where the “more highty-educated” Whites voted in large numbers for Obama. There was however a problem in Kentucky. There poor, under-educated, “working class” Whites had failed to act as the pundits desired:

GERGEN: It was about 21 percent that race was a factor. Nine out of ten of those voted for Hillary Clinton.

David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin translated this into a call for Clinton to disown the “redneck” vote, to distance herself from “racists”.

Note the conclusion they’re juming to: if race is a factor for you, and you are White, and you vote for Clinton, then you are a racist.

This vicious anti-White meme has been hailed and echoed in the liberal blogosphere. See for example Clinton wins Kentucky, race chasm proven again, or David Gergen Speaks Truth – Denounce Racist Vote, or Visionary moments in punditry: David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin call on Hillary Clinton to stop courting racists.

Anti-racists pride themselves on being hyper-sensitive to and hyper-critical of any whiff of demonization or hate. But in this case they seem more than willing to set those concerns aside. They seem not at all skeptical or objective or sympathetic when nasty things are said about Whites. In fact they seem absolutely gleeful and eager to add their own bile.

Pandagon, for instance, thought this was worth highlighting:

Kentucky has one of the country’s highest proportions of people who are not college graduates.

If you read the CNN transcript you can see this echoes what the “more-educated” Blitzer and King were talking about just before Gergen burbled out his hate. The assumption is that “smart” people vote for Obama. Because like, duh, anything else is just racist.

Momocrat thought this nasty slander was worth repeating:

On our chat last night, a Kentucky voter joined in during the last hour to say that in rural parts of her state, people are literally being told that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. And people believe it! And the MSM pundits wonder why Obama didn’t spend much time in West Virginia and Kentucky?

Hmmmm. Or maybe Obama didn’t do well because he didn’t spend much time there. Maybe?

Bang the Drum says stop the world:

Please blog this, tweet this, and digg this. Let’s get some legs under what really was an historic moment in TV.

Time to crap on Whites! Get some legs under this! It’s historic!

Or is it just mind-numbingly normal?

All sarcasm aside, there’s a far more substantial problem here. What the anti-racists are doing is demonstrating their own hypocritical hate. They do so not only by being willfully blind to reasonable explanations Whites have to poll and vote as they did, but also by so thoroughly misinterpreting the statistics. They are eager to see only the “racism” they want to see.

I realize I have to explain this in more detail. This is because the media, our schools, and the liberal anti-racists who run them have done a very thorough job of brainwashing everyone that White = racist, and racist = bad. Please be patient and read on. I’ll spell it out as clearly as I can, especially for the benefit of the outraged anti-racist liberals who may drop by.

– – –

My first thought on hearing so many Whites had told pollsters that race was a factor for them was, gee, that’s awfully honest. Whites don’t expect applause for speaking frankly about race. In fact, they expect exactly the opposite. The topic is a minefield. Consider for example how the recent comments of Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton have been greeted.

My second thought was, well of course race is a factor for White voters. There were those revelations about Obama spending 20 years associating with Reverend Wright, a man who has spouted all sorts of black-centric and anti-White rhetoric, which many blacks have said they do not find objectionable or even out of the ordinary. Then there was Obama’s “bitter, clinging” statement. That certainly made it seem as though he didn’t understand or sympathize with working class Whites. Then there was his “typical White person” characterization of his grandmother. Do you think Whites without a college degree may have heard that blacks are voting 90-10 for Obama? Perhaps they think what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Last of all, probably because the media has gone to lengths to keep it buried, there is Michelle Obama’s thesis, which revolves around her blackness and her concern for the black community. In fact it’s all about race!

Can an honest person sum up all these things as having to do with race? Which of them is not a legitimate concern? Can an honest White get credit for being honest? Why are Whites the only group whose voting patterns are not only scrutinized but criticized?

Everyone in the CNN studio Tuesday night was well aware of Wright. The exit polls reflected his impact. Were the pundits not listening? Apparently not. A few months ago David Gergen defended Obama by downplaying the importance of these race-related issues. He thinks anyone who can’t set aside Wright and overlook Obama’s gaffes must be irrational and is therefore a racist.

Other pundits seem equally blind and/or biased. They find it easier to accuse Whites of being stupid and ethnocentric than to admit that Obama and the people he associates with are more overtly ethnocentric. They can’t face the possibility that Whites are justified in not liking or trusting Obama. They’d sooner slur and defame Whites than accept the possibility that Whites are right.

My third thought was, wow, 9 out of 10 voters who said race was a factor voted for Clinton. But that means the other 10% voted for Obama. So how many blacks voted? How many voted for Obama? How many of them said race was a factor?

For some strange reason the answers to these questions are not easy to find. It’s surprising because CNN, and especially the AP story cited by Pandagon, reported plenty of statistics about Whites. They could have provided the black numbers for comparison, but they didn’t. Wouldn’t it have helped illustrate how Whites differed? Wouldn’t it just be fair and informative to provide those numbers?

The AP writer says:

Seven in 10 whites overall backed Clinton in Kentucky, including about three quarters of those who have not completed college.

No black statistics. I’d like to have the raw data CNN and AP used, but they don’t offer it, and I can’t find it.

WaPo, however, did provide some important numbers:

In Kentucky, Obama won by better than 9 to 1 among black voters, but they made up just 9 percent of the electorate.

So more than 90% of blacks voted for Obama. Wow. CNN and AP didn’t mention that.

What’s more intriguing is that 8-9% of Obama’s voters were black and 10% of the voters who said race matters voted for Obama. What was the overlap between these groups? Might it have been larger than the 19% of Clinton’s White voters who said race matters? In other words, could a deeper examination of these statistics reveal that race was just as much or more of a factor for Obama’s black voters than it was for Clinton’s White voters?

Did David Gergen or Jeffery Toobin or anyone else in the CNN studio that night think such thoughts? Why did Gergen use the epithet “redneck” in explaining the thoughts he did have? Why didn’t anyone there object to that epithet or the hateful anti-White conclusions he and Toobin were jumping to?

Gergen and Toobin and the anti-racist bloggers who consider them heroes think a large fraction of Whites saying race affects their vote is wrong, something to be concerned about, something to renounce. But it seems likely Obama’s black voters are equally human. If White voters who say race is a factor are racist, then aren’t blacks who say it racist too?

Will CNN or AP share their raw data? Will Gergen and Toobin or any other media pundit go on prime time cable to apologize to Whites? Or will they call on Obama to reject the votes of black racists? Are there any liberal anti-racist bloggers who will admit they made a mistake and renounce their own anti-White hate?

I doubt it.

Blog

Ted Kennedy’s Legacy

7 Comments

Sen. Edward Kennedy has malignant brain tumor:

A cancerous brain tumor caused the seizure Sen. Edward M. Kennedy suffered over the weekend, doctors said Tuesday in a grim diagnosis for one of American politics’ most enduring figures.

It appears we will not have to endure him much longer. To those of us who recognize that “diversity” is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing and “immigration” is a euphemism for invasion Kennedy is no hero. He is an evil-doer. A traitor to his country. We can expect however that in response to his demise the media will produce a series of fawning retrospectives of his life. He is their hero.

I write in the interest that Kennedy’s legacy not be entirely whitewashed, that he not be delivered from the infamy he so richly deserves. Here is the short version. What follows is a more detailed indictment.

– – –

Concerning the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965:

During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think … The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.) The act’s supporters not only claimed the law would not change America’s ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.

Kevin MacDonald explains what happened more forthrightly:

And in the end, the only reason the 1965 law passed was because it was advertized as nothing more than a moral gesture that would have no long-term impact on the ethnic balance of the U.S. In other words, the WASPS did not actively pursue their own destruction, as supposed by Gottfried; they were deceived into supposing that the immigration law would have no real effect but that its passage would absolve them of the incessant (and false) charges that the North-Western European bias of the older U.S. policy implied a theory of Nordic racial superiority.

Kennedy was instrumental in the deception. As time went on it became obvious that immigration was not only changing the ethnic makeup of the US, radically, it was also causing the bulk of US population growth. Ted, if he himself had been deceived in 1965, showed no outward sign of resenting it. Instead he became a champion for the government policies that by the late 1970s were permitting more than a million immigrants to enter the US annually, a large fraction of them illegally. The lawlessness since 1965 is unprecedented in US immigration history and is justifiably described as an invasion.

By 1986 this lawlessness was widely recognized. Our government, unwisely, settled on amnesty as a solution. Once again Kennedy’s special talents were on display:

Regarding the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act (the first amnesty of illegal immigrants), Senator Kennedy predicted: “This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.” The 1986 legislation, by the way, ended up granting amnesty to around 3 million illegal immigrants.

Two decades after his first promises on immigration were revealed as lies Kennedy, miraculously, was still in power. By this time he was openly advocating the interests of aliens over those of citizens. The wealth, power, and prestige of existing citizens were diminished by this amnesty, and in granting the priviledges of citizenship to invaders respect for both citizenship and the law was greatly undermined.

Once again Kennedy downplayed the impact of the legislation. Once again the promises that legitimizing illegitimacy would make it disappear were revealed as folly if not downright dishonesty. After 1986 little effort was dedicated to enforcement of immigration laws and the invasion went on unabated.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me thrice…WTF?!?

Four years later The Immigration Act of 1990 was – surprise, surprise – sponsored by Ted Kennedy.

The Immigration Act of 1990 increased the overall ceiling on family-based immigration to 480,000 from 216,000 and, for the first time, included the spouses, minor children and parents of citizens under that ceiling. However, because admissions of spouses, minor children and parents of citizens remained unlimited under the 1990 Act, the act required that a minimum of 226,000 visas be reserved for the family-preference categories. This meant that the ceiling of 480,000 would be breached as soon as admissions of spouses, minor children and parents of citizens surpassed 254,000, which happened in 1993.

So after saying in 1965 that there wouldn’t be an invasion, and then in 1986 saying that “just this once” we should forgive the invaders, Kennedy came back yet again, and this third time he said we must invite the invader’s relatives before they too invade.

Throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s the US government continued to expand legal immigration and legitimize illegal invasion in smaller, lower profile acts. The business of legitimizing the invasion went into hyperdrive, and was deliberately flying under the radar. Kennedy sponsored or supported dozens of acts favoring aliens. Most of us never heard about them.

Despite the stealthy attempts to vent and cover up by 2007 the scale and effects of the invasion could no longer be disguised. Examining SchoolDigger data anyone can see that toward the end of the 1990s latino and to a lesser extent asian numbers began to increase dramatically, and that these aliens were appearing in parts of the US they had no previous history of living. It is also clear from school data that White and to a lesser extent black numbers generally decrease wherever the alien numbers increase. Whether or not this reaction or noticing this reaction is called racist it is so widespread that it must by definition be considered normal.

To address the growing problems Kennedy, along with Senator and Republican nominee for president Juan McCain, sponsored the mother of all immigration bills, the so-called CIR, or Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. It was so sneakily crafted, so falsely advertised, so beneficial for aliens and awful for citizens that across the country voices rose in disbelief and outrage.

Major pundits and media outlets did their best not to hear. They avoided reporting on the bill debate, continued presenting aliens in the most favorable light possible, and disingenuously called for public debate while they worked hard to smother it. They smeared anyone who opposed immigration as nativists, xenophobes, and racists. They directed hate toward those they could only accuse and only imagine being motivated by hate.

To say that the media is biased on immigration is true, but not the whole truth. The real issue that they never report is the tremendous gap between what the country’s citizens and its leadership want. The media and politicians are in complete agreement. They favor the invasion. They are also well aware that the citizens do not. Thus they resort to lies.

After the CIR was defeated Kennedy was incensed. When he said the following he was shouting these lies:

We know what they’re against, we don’t know what they’re for. Time and time again they tell us “We don’t like this provision, we don’t like that provision, we don’t want that part. Well they ought to be able to explain to the American people what they are for.

What are they going to do with the twelve and a half million who are undocumented here? Send them back? Send them back to countries around the world? More than $250 billion dollars, buses that would go from Los Angeles to New York and back again. Try and find them, develop a type of Gestapo here to seek out these people that are in the shadows. That’s their alternative?

In 1986 even Kennedy called the invaders illegal immigrants. Today he favors the euphemism “undocumented”. It reflects his view that everyone in the world is an American that just may not have their papers yet.

Kennedy, the media, and the alien, alien-loving leadership of this country know what their opposition wants. We want what is normal and just. It is in the Constitution they swear an oath to uphold. What any citizen anywhere wants is for his government, even if it fails in everything else, to perform its single most basic function: to protect its territory and its citizens. When our representatives openly abrogate that responsibility and instead act to serve the interests of alien invaders rather than the citizens, then they have demonstrated their illegitimacy. The citizenry has every right to dissolve that illegitimate government and form another.

Goodbye Ted Kennedy. I hope you rot in hell for what you and immigration have done to my country.

UPDATE 21 May 2008: Have a bucket handy. This kind of blubbering is just the beginning. Watch toward the end when Byrd suddenly stops sobbing and whispers to his assistant, “Now do I do this?” Then, flick, right back to the sob-voice.

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light