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.

Blog

Profit, Pretense, Partying

5 Comments

I’m on a brief fact-finding visit to Appalachia. It feels good to be amongst my people – even those who are down and out, and whose English I can’t always understand. Maybe I’ll write more about it when I get back.

In these tumultuous times, “Big Wall Street investment companies are taking advantage of the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented offer” to avail themselves to unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money. We can only hope some heads will roll. We can be certain none of any consequence will.

Meanwhile the freshest progressivist-globalist bigbrains are hard at work on the next boondoggle, green energy:

NECKER ISLAND,British Virgin Islands: Richard Branson was lounging under the starry midnight sky on this palm-dappled speck of an island recently when he popped a sobering question.

“So, do we really think the world is on fire?” Branson, the British magnate and adventurer, asked several guests, as a manservant scurried off to fetch him another glass of pinot grigio.

What he wanted to know was whether his high-powered visitors, among them Larry Page of Google, Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, thought global warming threatened the planet.

Branson does – and so did most of his guests. So on this recent weekend on his private hideaway in the crystalline waters between the islands of Tortola and Anegada, they tried to figure out what to do about it and perhaps get richer in the process.

Something tells me that these hard-charging save-the-planet types never considered the simplest solution: stop the progressivist-globalist pyramid scheme. In other words, stop fueling turd world overpopulation with food and technology, and stop allowing overpopulating turd worlders to immigrate and overwhelm those of us, specifically the White folk, whose population has already stablized or is declining.

Hands up, how many think “global warming threatened the planet” is more important than how to “get richer in the process”? Branson didn’t need to pop that question.

“In James Bond movies, evil-doers meet in exotic settings to plot the destruction of the planet,” [chief executive of Ecology Coatings Richard] Stromback said, puffing on a cigar before dinner one night. But the people here, he said, were plotting to save the planet.

So far, however, the hopes and dreams of alternative energy have far outstripped reality. But for Stromback and many of the other participants, a confluence of two powerful forces – soaring oil prices and growing concern over global warming – means the era of economically viable green power is finally at hand.

Many executives and financiers, including some in attendance at the retreat, have a lot of money riding on global warming. Branson, for example, has invested in a host of alternative energy enterprises, including existing businesses within his sprawling Virgin Group.

Khosla, the founding chief executive of Sun Microsystems and one of the most successful venture capitalists in Silicon Valley, has at least 33 investments in “clean tech,” including new fermentation technology to make fuel-grade ethanol.

The world-managers already have alot of money riding on green energy. Uh-oh. Hold on to your wallet.

But the big question that hung over the meeting was whether the nations or the world could ever work together to tackle climate change and emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

“We have an agreement that there should be an agreement,” said [former British prime minister and senior adviser to Bear Stearns-gobbling JPMorgan Chase Tony] Blair, who was dressed in a white polo shirt, blue cargo shorts and sneakers. “But there’s no agreement on what that agreement should be.”

Plutocrat tools can be so droll when performing for their next paycheck.

Everyone, it seemed, had some project in the works. Elon Musk, the co-founder of PayPal, talked about his latest project, Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley company that makes sexy electric sports cars retailing for $100,000. Page has ordered one.

Brilliant! Now if only we can convince all the smog belching pickup truck driving invaders to use their tax rebates as a down payment on sexy electric sports cars.

Their poverty problem solved once again, who could begrudge these world-class egos some world-class debauchery?

There was plenty of time for fun and games, of course. After lunch one afternoon, Branson suggested that the entire gang sail off to Mosquito, a nearby island he also owns, aboard a dozen catamarans. He said there was a party over there.

Page, an avid kite surfer, struck out alone. One of Blair’s security personal trailed behind in a motorboat. As the catamarans beached up on Mosquito, music was blaring and bikini-clad women were dancing. Branson deadpanned, “Normally the girls would be naked, but the prime minister is here.”

Profit, pretense, and partying. Simple recipe for a non-solution.

UPDATE 21 Mar 2008: If your brain is big enough you don’t need to rob banks. You invent fraudulent schemes so massive they are “too big to fail”. In other words you manipulate government into collecting taxes for you:

Central banks on both sides of the Atlantic are actively engaged in discussions about the feasibility of mass purchases of mortgage-backed securities as a possible solution to the credit crisis.

Such a move would involve the use of public funds to shore up the market in a key financial instrument and restore confidence by ending the current vicious circle of forced sales, falling prices and weakening balance sheets.

Of course the financiers can think of lots of ways to get paid. That is the only real “service” they provide.

Look at the bright side. They’ll blow at least some of the money on “green” gigayachts.

Blog

Pew Something Stinks

35 Comments

On 11 February 2008 by the Pew Research Center published a paper titled U.S. Population Projections: 2005–2050.

You may have seen the executive summary, or one of many news articles summarizing the summary. Some even contained nuggets of truth. For instance, USA Today’s U.S. Hispanic population to triple by 2050:

“Immigration has long-term consequences on the make-up of the country and the size of the population and we need to take those results in account when we make immigration policy,” says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that promotes limits on immigration. “Growing our population by 100 million more than we would otherwise is a choice. Immigration is a choice. … It’s all up to us.”

Jeffrey Passel, co-author of the report says:

“Fifty years ago, we didn’t have the definition for the Hispanic population.”

Right. Fifty years ago there were hardly any latinos in the US. Nobody then would have predicted that fifty years later they would outnumber blacks. Well, here we are. How can anybody accurately project what the US population will look like fifty years from now? They can’t.

Then there’s this article from AFP, titled Whites to be minority in US by 2050: study:

Immigration will drive the population of the United States sharply upward between now and 2050, and will push whites into a minority, projections by the Pew Research Center showed Monday.

“If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005,” an increase of nearly 50 percent, the study by the Washington-based think-tank said.

More than 80 percent of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving in the country and their US-born children, who will make up nearly one in five Americans by 2050 compared with one in eight in 2005, it said.

Whites, who currently make up around two-thirds of the US population, will become a minority (47 percent) by 2050, the report said.

The Hispanic population, currently the largest minority group, will triple in size and double in percentage terms from 14 percent in 2005 to 29 percent in 2050, the report said.

The Asian population will roughly double in percentage terms, from five percent to nine percent, while the black population will remain static at around 13 percent.

Emphasis mine.

You can’t accuse USA Today or AFP of hiding the agenda. It’s right there in the headlines. In their articles they even summarize the strategy: Import non-whites until the Whites are swamped.

This is clearly illustrated by the graphs above. Well not the first graph, which comes from the Pew executive summary and was reproduced in some of the news coverage of their report. The second graph better represents the truth. I created it by resizing the original bars so they were all one pixel high per million people, then I shrank the image down to the same height as the original.

For reference, here are the numbers (in millions) computed from the graph’s totals and percentages:

  1960 2005 2050
White 153.0 198.3 205.9
Latino 6.3 41.4 127.0
Black 19.8 38.5 56.9
Asian 1.1 14.8 39.4
Total 180 296 438


One truth clearly visible in the modified graph is that the growth in US population since 1960 is mostly from immigration. There were hardly any latinos or asians then, now there are millions. Another truth, not emphasized but buried in the full report, is that the White population is the slowest growing. In contrast the asians, blacks, and latinos reproduce and/or migrate like rabbits – and all of these “minorities” will, unless trends reverse, eventually outnumber Whites.

The truth is in fact even worse than that. The Pew numbers for 2005 are guesstimates, because after more than two decades of rampant illegal immigration nobody knows for sure how many people are actually in the US. I think we can be certain more than “12 million” are invaders.

This truth is partially reflected in the (appropriated colored) brown graph, taken from Pew’s full report. Ever since Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 legal immigration levels have steadily risen to unprecedented levels. The graph fails to reflect the non-white nature of the change, but it does at least reveal the increasingly illegitimate nature of immigration. It has become an invasion.

The media provides daily lectures concerning threats like overpopulation, global warming, and carbon footprints. A “public service announcement” I heard on the radio yesterday is typical. One somber voice after another proclaimed their earnest desire to preserve the environment of California and the world “for my children” to “ensure they enjoy the things I have”.

Our insane and mendacious intelligensia wants Whites to be concerned about passing a healthy environment on to our children. So concerned that we’ll forgo reproduction and welcome hordes from the turd world! Oh and by the way, make sure to be a loyal consumer and for the good of the economy go forth and borrow and spend like there’s no tomorrow.

“No hope for tomorrow White man, live for today” – that’s the message isn’t it? A healthy and virtuous intelligensia would long ago have alerted us: “wake up White man, your government is subverted, your nation invaded, stop it and start making babies”.

As early as 1968 Enoch Powell did raise the alarm:

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

Related: Interesting Predictions.

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light