Amnesty Legislation: An Unexpected Positive?

I’ve written before that I don’t believe that Barack Obama would be able to pass amnesty. The more I think about it, the more I want Obama to push it.

Last time around, not only did George W. Bush fail to legalize the illegals, but he was forced to start building the wall, increase the number of border patrol guards, deport felons, raid factories with large numbers of illegals.

The result was that the illegal population dropped 11% in the subsequent nine months.

The problem is that we still have unresolved issues. The wall has not been finished. Border Patrol stops working during nights and weekends, and their numbers are still inadequate for the 2,000 mile long border that presently has only 18,000 guards (only a small minority of whom are on duty at any given time). The odds of someone being deported because his factory was raided are tiny. The government is mostly doing it for the media.

So here’s the thing. If nothing will happen, the status quo will remain. Mexicans will continue coming, though in lesser numbers than a few years ago. We can demonstrate, but because Americans won’t feel a sense of urgency, they won’t be as agitaged.

But if Obama tries to pass amnesty, the nation will get mobilized. The Tea Party movement will be very much against legalization, doing in the streets what radio talk show hosts will do on our dials.

Obama will get beaten back, but more importantly, he’ll be forced to clamp down on the borders. Amnesty legislation is something we need. We need to draw Obama’s radicalism out and get him to support legalization of illegals. It will be the end of Obama, but more importantly, it will be the end of amnesty efforts for at least a generation, while at the same time, greater enforcement will likely significantly reduce the number of illegals.

Go Obama!

Examining Holodomor and NKVD

I noticed that you left out something in the relationship between Jews and Europeans. Namely, this is the story of Jews in the Soviet Union. Perhaps in another article, you might want to extend your analysis to include the Holodomor, a campaign executed by the Wolf of the Kremlin, Lazar Kaganovich (Jewish), with the majority of the secret police Jewish in the Ukraine as well. As you know, ten million Ukrainians are estimated to have perished in this Holocaust, largely overseen by Jews (unfortunately there arent very many movies on the subject for some reason).

Likewise, in a future article you may want to mention that every chief of the Soviet secret police during Stalin’s era was Jewish. Nobel prize winner Solzhenitsyn wrote at great length about the Jewish involvement in the Gulags, camps and other activities that lead to the death of 20 million Russians. I for one find these facts of interest and relevance on the subject of Jewish-Gentile relations. I look forward to future articles on the subject, which I am sure will be just as well-written and detailed as this one, which I enjoyed reading very much.
- Andrew

I normally block uninformed comments that confuse facts, but I am in a generous mood right now so let me analyze this. This is very typical propaganda where part of the story is cited, but dates, names, etc is purposely confused.

1. Even in the strictest sense of the word, it would be incorrect to say that “Jews” committed Holodomor. It’s not that it’s false that “all” Jews did it. It’s also that it’s false that “some” Jews did it. Literally, there was one Jew in the Soviet leadership that dealt with this issue. One. That’s not Jews, that Jew, singular. Don’t believe me? Then how come the anti-Semites always cite the same guy, Lazar Kaganovich? Try googling to see if you find another Jew involved in the Holodomor.

Someone on Stormfront asked for information on all the Jews involved in Holodomor and nobody was able to help the guy.

2. There was only one Jewish head of the NKVD. The rest were not Jewish. (It was founded as Cheka by a Pole.)

3. The NKVD (later known as the KGB) was at its quietest under the Jew Genrikh Yagoda from 1934 to 1936. The Holodomor took place from 1932 to 1933. The Yezhovschina actually began with the execution of Yagoda.

It is true that Jews were a large percentage of the NKVD for a couple of years, but that’s when the NKVD operated as a legitimate organization, on par with what the FBI is today. Thats quite a feat under Joseph Stalin’s rule!

As payback, Stalin killed all these Jews, including the Jewish head of the NKVD.

4. The two people Yagoda famously killed were both Jewish: Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev.

5. Holodomor’s deaths are legitimately disputed by mainstream scientists. While it’s acknowledged that millions died, the 10 million figure is the absolute maximum cited by anyone.

Also, 1.4% of Holodomor’s victims were Jewish. Since Holodomor targeted farmers, this number is higher than would be expected. (Name one Jewish farmer you’ve ever heard about.)

6. Holodomor was a travesty, but it was actually the lesser of the two purges by Stalin. Yezhovschina, also known as The Great Purge, was the bigger of the two. It’s not mentioned by the anti-Semites because Jews were one of the targets of that purge.

During The Great Purge, according to a professor of Russian History in Moscow whom I cited a couple weeks ago, the Georgians were the majority of the NKVD.

7. Holodomor ended when Jews took over NKVD. Shouldn’t Jews be praised rather than condemned for it? I don’t actually know if they purposely stopped it or if it’s a coincidence (anyone has the answer?), but either way, when Jews became over-represented in the NKVD (for 2 years), Holodomor was no more. Wouldn’t that be like blaming Theodor Heuss for what Hitler had done?

I am not one to give credit to anyone in Stalin’s administration. Anyone who worked for him must’ve done something we today would find totally unacceptable, but it seems to me that all the historical records show that NKVD did not engage in massive genocide under Jewish rule.

---

I found four people who are thought to be responsible for Holodomor who have Wikipedia profiles.

Vyacheslav Molotov: Russian.
Stanislav Kosior: Polish.
Pavel Postyshev: Ukrainian.
Vlas Chubar: Ukrainian.
Lazar Kaganovich: Jewish.

We’ve all heard the name Kaganovich over and over in the Stormfrontsphere. Ever heard of any other guys? Why not?

---

I must say, I really enjoy arguing with anti-Semites. You guys are so wrong on all your facts and it’s so easy to disprove. Like this thing I just wrote. You claim that all the NKVD heads were Jewish. That stuff is really easy to check and slap you like a little child. Same with the claim that the Jew in charge of NKVD is responsible for the Ukrainian Purge, when he came to power after the purge was over.

And what makes this more fun is your self-confidence. You read over and over on neo-Nazi blogs the same load of crap and convince yourself that it’s true. You are so sure that I am hiding facts, but you have no facts, just “oral tradition”.

None of your facts ever stand up to the most basic fact checking. Honestly, when was the last time you said something that I googled and found out that it was true? If I am wrong, google it yourself and find me proof from a real historical source.

This is why you have to cite blogs dedicated to anti-Semitism. You have nothing else, and as soon as other sources are looked at, your sources fall.

Your arguments are identical to those of black radicals. They too cite only Black Nationalist blogs as sources; they too believe that none of the mainstream sources can be trusted because they are all controlled by a group of people out to get them; they too are never right when the information from their blogs is compared to actual historical documents.

I spent the first year having fun beating up on Black Nationalists who argued with me over Egyptians being Negroid, African “Empires” being superior to European Empires, and a load of other garbage. It was fun, but I got tired of it because everything they could say, they already said and I already addressed. Right now, it’s just new people saying the same thing.

But hey, thank you anti-Semites. I really enjoy this. Keep it coming. Keep citing AS blogs and I’ll keep coming back with actual history and data. It’s fun to slap stupid people around.

---

I would like to hear the thoughts of Hunter Wallace on this. I think I gave a lot of way to the AS position.

1. Jews were responsible for a lot of negative influence.
2. They did it because they were Jewish.

Now, my argument wasn’t structured as, “Jews are genetically evil and all of them are liars” nor as “this problem can’t be solved because genetics”.

Not everything is genetic, just as not everything is environmental. The genocidalists are obviously unhappy with any position that doesn’t logically lead to the Final Solution, but I think this is definitely a middle ground between philo-Semitic political correctness and anti-Semitic genocidalism.

The Rise of Liberalism among Europeans and Jews

How did the West go from having a healthy level of self-defense to being battered without the will to defend itself, often cheering those who attack them, and always cheering their own economic displacement?

The left explains everything through environmental factors. The pseudo-scientific Stormfronters explain everything through genetics. But 99% of legitimate scientists agree that it’s a combination of the two. No thinking person could possibly believe that environment plays no role. Likewise, no sane person could possibly believe that the way nations act is not effected by their history.

Just as people change, nations change. A woman with normal sexual drives can suddenly change upon a traumatic experience such as rape. This doesn’t mean that she is genetically programmed to be afraid of men or to be disgusted by sex, but her trauma may cause her to react in such a way.

Fighting two world wars that came on the heels of centuries of brutal fighting can have the same effect. Nations can tire of fighting and embrace just the opposite ideology. It may not be healthy, just as being disgusted by sex or turning lesbian would not be, but it can happen. Not everything can be explained by genetics or conspiracy.

Europeans realized that our weaponry is so powerful that unless we pull back, the world will end very quickly. It is not a mere coincidence that the first seeds of what became the European Union came into being shortly after WWII and the development of A-bombs.

After WWI, people had hoped that the time of war ended. They were too civilized. They depended on each other too much economically. But within a generation, a new, more brutal war broke out. In 1945 there was no reason not to believe that yet more deadly wars are on the way. There was absolutely no reason to believe the world will not be destroyed before the end of the century.

The same process occurred to the Jews. During and immediately after the First World War, the Russian Czar (and subsequently the pro-Czarist White Army) tried to kill six million Jews under his rule, but succeeded at murdering only 100,000. A generation later, Hitler tried to kill 11 million European Jews, but he did succeeded in taking out 6 million of them. There was no reason why Jews would not fear that next time around, they will be eliminated.

During WWI, the Germans were the good guys who defended the Jews. During WWII, they were the ones who targeted them.

The logical thing for Jews to do was either to go to Israel and fight for survival by developing nuclear and other weapons or alternatively to try to give up their Jewishness in favor of internationalism, while trying to convince others to do the same. That’s why Israeli Jews are right-wingers while American Jews are liberals.

The latter felt that internationalism could protect them and began preaching it to the receptive whites who were also tired of fighting. Even in places lack any significant Jewish population, this ideology took a strong hold because it was so attractive to people tired of centuries of ever-escalating warfare. That internationalism/multiculturalism, kumbaya, make love not war, etc became popular shortly after WWII is not a coincidence.

The 1950s was also the time of the Red Scare. Why? Because Communism was a brutal regime and the West was afraid of further brutality. The West was afraid that it will fall under such regime. (At the same time, some do-gooders thought that by supporting the enemy of Nazism, which is Communism, they would lead to world peace. The road to hell is usually built with good intentions.)

During WWII, it was attractive to believe in the heat of battle that Germans were particularly evil. But the dust settled, it was widely acknowledged that the Germans are a civilized people that nobody thought would commit genocide.

Furthermore, Germany was needed to fight Communism. West Germany was on the front line and East Germany had to be presented as the victim of the Soviet Union. Demonizing the Germans as being exceptionally evil did not serve our new needs.

So if decent folks that we now like could do something so evil, couldn’t the rest of us? Are our discriminatory laws against blacks going to lead to genocide too? If the nice, smart Germans could do it, why not Americans? Why not Danes? Brits?

East Europeans were not concerned with this. They did not need to portray the West Germans as victims, but as aggressors. It was ok to continue to vilify the Germans. Non-Soviet East Europeans could vilify both the Russians and the Germans, so they had no reason to think, “aren’t we just like the Germans/Soviets?”

To a Pole or a Czech, what does it matter what the Germans and the Soviets did? That was them and this is us. We fought against them and continue to do so.

But Americans/West Europeans had to make nice with Germans. Since they were now just like us (which they had to be in order to be allies against Communism), then we could potentially do the same thing they did.

To Jews, many of whom were still in Displaced Persons Camps, watching the US and Britain make nice with Germany must’ve been horrifying and proof that goyim must be out to get them. (Never mind that from the Western perspective, it had nothing to do with Jews and was done merely to stop Communism, which at this point was actively persecuting Jews.)

Jews split into two camps. The Jewish Jewish organizations all became Zionist. On the other hand,the general organizations run by not-so-Jewish Jews (SPLC, ACLU) became more entrenched in their views in hopes that if only they became un-Jews, rejecting Judaism and Zionism, the Gentiles too will reject their own nationalism.

Thus, the generation after WWII (the 1950s and the 1960s) featured the rise of multicultural liberalism, often with anti-Zionist/anti-Judaism Jews at its helm.

It quickly became obvious that the new ideology turned into a cult that was taking equality too far. In the 1950s, the Southerners fought back, but lost badly for the lack of articulate spokesmen who could say something better than “I hate them niggers. They ain’t going to school with my daughter”.

When fighting, you must always keep the high ground and screaming about “niggers” was just not useful. Neither was it useful that most of the leaders were just sell out politicians looking to incite crowds, but not actually help them.

Another reason is that the Southern fight came too early. Just a few years after WWII, the people were just not ready to admit that the new kumbaya ideology that sought to make everyone love each other was a giant failure.

The Southern loss was so decisive that it scared off the rest of the population.

Despite the animosity towards the neocons from the paleocons (which is mostly a turf war), this movement was an attempt by the Jews and other liberals to get back to realistic thinking. The first anti-affirmative action law suit was by a Jew. Subsequent affirmative action law suits in the 1970s received universal support from the Jewish Jewish organizations.

By the 1970s, Jewish organizations widely opposed affirmative action and stopped sponsoring “civil rights”. NAACP used to be Jewish-run, but was no longer and in fact became hostile to the Jews, as did the Urban League and other civil rights organizations.

The more sane segments of the Jewish population realized that their real enemy were the hostile minorities, not the (needlessly) guilt-ridden Gentile Whites. Neo-conservatism was an attempt to bridge their prior views with realism about blacks and Moslems.

Among the more politically informed Jews, neo-conservatism gained a decent level of popularity, as evidenced by the ever-increasing Jewish donations to the GOP, while the percentage given to the Democrats decreased. (The overall numbers went up for both parties, but that’s true for everyone because campaign funding increased drastically. But the percentage  became higher for the GOP and lower for the Dems.)

So why can’t the Jews join the Paleos and White Nationalists? Because unlike the neocons, these people are viciously hostile to the Jews, with extremists calling for genocide and moderates calling for ethnic cleansing. Expecting anything other than rabid opposition from the Jews would be completely irrational. In fact, the whole right, even the philo-Semitic Republican party suffers because of the WNs extreme hostility to Jews.

And other Americans are also not ready for genocide or ethnic cleansing. Not that they ever were.

And that’s the story of American politics over the last three generations. We were convinced that if the Germans could do it, so could we. But why? If my neighbor rapes his daughter, does that mean that I should be on the look out for my own perversion just because he may be similar to me in other ways (education, occupation, etc)? Why?

The Germans made a massive mistake and they paid the price. They aren’t like us. They made a mistake and we didn’t.

With the end of the Cold War and with the propaganda machine no longer need to tell us that Germans are identical to us, it’s time to admit something. We aren’t like them. They may be smart and they may be an advanced civilization. But they committed a genocide. (Even the Russian genocide could be blamed on the Germans because the Czar was 92% German and his wife 100%.)

The Germans started two world wars and a genocide, not us. We may be like them in many ways, but this is one that we aren’t like them at all. We are Americans (or Brits or Danes or Greeks), we aren’t Germans. We should stop feeling bad for their crimes.

In Defense of Hitler

While I am criticizing Adolf Hitler, it’s worth noting that much of the assault against him is completely unfair. The problem is that nobody can defend him against defamation without being called a Nazi. But much of the criticism is unfair.

Completely by accident, I was talking today with someone who just watched a documentary on Hitler’s alleged psychological and psychiatric issues. The claims made are utter BS. Nobody actually evaluated the guy. You don’t diagnose a person this way.

Much of the “evidence” against Hitler is from his family Jewish doctor who knew Hitler as a young man. Wouldn’t the view of a Jew who lived through the Holocaust be colored at least to some degree? Even if it’s not, the doctor is not a psychiatrist. What’s more is the length to whom the documentary apparently went – Hitler loved his mother and was very upset when she died so therefore…

How’s that different from 95% of people? How many people do you know who don’t love their mother and aren’t upset when she dies?

Another person who was standing there also claimed that Hitler was impotent. How does anyone know this? His niece claimed that they had a sexual relationship. Eva Braun also seemingly had a sexual relationship with him. How would we know if he was impotent?

I am sure you’ve heard other theories such as his unwillingness to clap for a black athlete Jesse Owens during the 1936 Olympics (he was told not to do so by the Olympic committee after the first day and when he had a chance, Hitler shook the black man’s hand to congratulate him).

Likewise, it is claimed that Joseph Goebbels taught people to “lie big” and “stick to it”‘. This is a lie. He was merely discussing the power of propaganda. Everyone believes in their main theory. They may acknowledge that they may fib on small things, but people want to believe that on the whole, they are good and honest.

People will just ignore facts that are inconvenient. Like the neo-Nazis choose to cite that women were forced to prostituted themselves in Auschwitz, but ignore that it was for the benefit of Germans, not Jews.

Likewise, the original Nazis did the same, just as Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Libertarians and all others do the same. Goebbels didn’t support lying because he didn’t believe he was lying on the big things.

The Nazis are an open target for those looking to make empty claims. The Nazis are themselves to blame because the evidence that we have portrays them in a terrible light and people are willing to believe anything about them, and unwilling to defend them.

But at least some anti-Nazi claims are outright BS. Where’s the beef?

When it comes to the Holocaust, there is one fact that convinced me: extremely disproportionate numbers of European Jews disappeared and failed to re-appear in the US, Israel or elsewhere. If a person disappears, death is the likely reason. If they disappear while in someone’s custody, murder will be the verdict in 100% of criminal court cases.

But where’s such proof for Hitler’s impotence and neurosis, and Goebbels openly and knowingly lying? It seems like people are spreading rumors just to get themselves on TV.

Questions to the HAs

A quick question to Hitler-admirers: Is there any claim made by Hitler we shouldn’t believe?

Hitler invaded country after country after saying that the last claim was his final one, yet we should’ve continued to believe that eventually he’d stop just because he said so. He lied time and again, but his word that had we not stopped him, he would’ve stopped himself is to be trusted? (His immediate inability to conquer the US is not reason enough. In 1935, Hitler couldn’t have conquered France either, and probably not even Poland. A few years later, he did so with ease. He obviously concentrated on Europe first because it would’ve allowed him unlimited movement in the Eastern Hemisphere before taking over South America and from there going up north.)

Hitler claimed that Jews were the ones who started WWII. We should believe it despite all the evidence pointing to him, and not them?

So my question stands: are we to believe every word Hitler has ever uttered? You seem to cite it as proof of his intentions, as if the man was infallible and his character beyond any doubt. Other politicians lie. Other people lie. But not Hitler? Is Hitler too saintly to lie? Or am I wrong here? Can you cite a single claim by Hitler that you don’t think we should just outright believe just because the Fuhrer said so?

NY Times: Half of Gay Marriages are Swingers

Hat tip to Chad:

When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy.

“I take it as a gift that someone will be that open and honest and sharing with me,” said Rio, using the word “open” to describe their marriage.

Love brought the middle-age couple together — they wed during California’s brief legal window forsame-sex marriage. But they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women…

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many…

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

This is more proof that homosexuality is not a normal lifestyle. What’s the point of marriage if you don’t at least pretend to be committed to that person?

Chad wrote: “This is why I think gay marriage will harm the institution of marriage. Why get married if you aren’t even planning on being monogamous? Marriage is about a man and a women coming together to raise a family. It is about procreation and the propagation of values. It is the foundation of a healthy and stable society. If marriage is redefined to allow two men or two women to get married, I can think of no reasonable argument to disallow polygamists to get married.”

If anything, polygamy makes a lot more sense. You still make sure that all the women reproduce, while at the same time, only the “most qualified” (genetically, financially, etc) men actually have children. So the number of people brought into the world remains the same, but the quality improves.

With homosexuality, the number of people gets reduced.

If you believe that nature did not create sex just so you have something to do on Saturday night, but rather to allow life to reproduce itself, then polygamy makes a lot more sense than homosexuality.

Liberals will dismiss this by pretending that I said that the Bible claims that sex is for reproduction only. Clearly I did not say that, but liberals usually hear this because it’s what they expect to hear.

No matter what the Bible may or may not say, the fact remains that sex is a biological function that has a purpose. Sex is not about love, it’s not about pleasure. It’s about reproduction.

It’s pleasurable to make sure that you do have children. Love is about attachment to make sure that parents stay together to raise the children. Like everything else, love has a logical, functional explanation.

Until very recently, calories were at a premium. It’s still true in much of the world. It simply made no sense to expand energy on an act that did not help you or your genes survive. From an evolutionary point of view, it made no sense for a useless act to be pleasurable.

Men were driven to have sex because of the desire – conscious or unconscious – to reproduce. Women would also have such desire, but additionally would use it to keep men around to take care of them, a necessary function for women since a pregnant woman or even one who isn’t would have a hard time beating down a large animal that would be needed to feed the family.

That’s why women – in the absence of men, or in the absence of men who actually want them – may choose to be lesbian. I’ve read in many places that for women sexuality is a preference. Certainly many women left such an impression on me. In discussing homosexuality, they think that men are only pretending that they can never be gay, that everyone is a little gay under the right circumstances, etc.

But for men, sex was strictly a reproductive function, so homosexuality made no sense at all. In the absence of women, getting another man would do nothing for them.

(Non-vaginal sex, condoms and masturbation don’t disprove the above. The human brain developed in three stages and the most primitive part deals with sex. Logic has nothing to do with it because it developed millions of years later. Thus, you can logically understand that you shouldn’t be attracted to someone, but you will still get an erection seeing them nude. For the same reason, the primitive parts of your brain do not comprehend that the naked women you are seeing on the computer screen is not actually in the room with you, nor can it understand condoms. Likewise, it doesn’t understand that you stuck your penis in the wrong place, only that what turned you was a woman capable of getting pregnant. Ultimately in both cases, you are attracted to the woman’s body, even if you are just imagining it, and that is sparked by your desire – even if unconscious – to reproduce. Your brain just gets tricked.)

For men, sexual desires aren’t just a preference. Straight women can have dreams about other women. Straight men never have dreams about other men. For men, homosexuality is nothing more than being wired improperly.

I don’t make fun of gay people, and I don’t hate them. I don’t make fun of or hate anyone born with any other mental disorder, so why would I do that here? But homosexuality is not normal. It prevents people from reproducing and it causes them to expand energy for no apparent reason.

Homosexuality is genetic suicide.

And since it serves no apparent purpose, then why even bother staying faithful? The whole point behind straight couples staying faithful is so that men would know that the children they are investing in are actually their own, and women would know that if they have children, the man would be there to help them.

If neither of those is relevant, then why stay together?

And if marriage is not about working together to reproduce and help your offspring survive, if marriage is only about being in love at this moment, then why bother staying together long term? The first date, the first touch is a lot more exciting than seeing your wife come out of the bathroom. If life is only because fun right this second, marriage is not the way to go.

Gay marriage does undermine marriage because it undermines the basic reason for it. Gay marriage means marriage only when it’s fun, and marriage is never going to be as fun as dysfunctional behavior that does not look two seconds in advance.

Conservatism and the HAs

Conservatism: Lately, the term has been weighing heavily on me.

Searching my thoughts, I find that I have two mindsets on the subject. There is the phony American conservative movement that we are all familar with. These people are hopelessly infected with political correctness, philo-Semitism, and anti-racism. American conservatism is populated by ridiculous figures like Jonah Goldberg, K-Lo, and Dinesh D’Souza. You also have the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh on FOX News and talk radio. This is conservatism the joke: a set of partisan talking points about public policy issues.

Conservatism is also supposed to be a mentality. A conservative treasures the web of social institutions (family, church, culture, ethnicity, neighborhood, community, race, state, nation) that ground and restrain the individual and give his life meaning and direction. In theory, a conservative should be rooted in a particular place and tradition. A conservative should want to maintain the glue (morality and culture) which holds these social institutions together. In the 18C and 19C, a lot of Americans (such as those in Charleston) would have been “conservatives” in this sense of the word.

I’ve tried to salvage this older version of ”conservatism” by calling it “communitarianism” or just assuming it will become part of the social fabric of the White ethnostate. If this race business was ever settled in our favor, I imagine I would move on to the restoration of a healthy White culture and economy. Those who care about their bloodline will naturally take an interest in their culture.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/02/04/race-and-conservatism/

Everyone, especially fundamentalists, likes to pretend that they are the real guardians of a given ideology. Every fundamentalist religious group does. Osama thinks he and his followers are the only real Moslems, and the Shi’ite Mullahs in Iran are convinced of the same. Both consider each other to be unauthentic.

We have the same issue with Hitler-admirers. (I think this is a better term than neo-Nazis because Nazism had a particular ideology that may or may not be agreeable to all those who admire Hitler. But what unites them is their unified belief that the Third Reich was the best regime of the 20th century and maybe all time. The pre-60s America and Europe was certainly worse. They wished that the US had submitted to Hitler’s will and when it refused, that it lost the war. This applies to Hunter Wallace as he has said that he believes that 1) the world should’ve just accepted Hitler’s demands; 2) that he wishes that the US lost WWII.)

But at what point was your ideology at all dominant in the United States? Is not conservatism about traditionalism?

Sure, you believe in protecting the white race, as did the Founding Fathers. But they did not believe what you believe in.

Much like the Left advocates gutting the US Constitution to save the country, so do Hitler-admirers.

Freedom of religion? Rule of law and due process? Punishment only of those proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (as individuals… there is no such thing as ethnic responsibility in the US law)? Punishment only for crimes that are actually on the books, not some claim you invented?

The Founders did believe in preserving the white character of the country. But not via your methods.

By an objective definition, the libertarians would probably come closest to being like the Founding Fathers. They are anti-war, anti-government, individualist.

Using a subjective definition, Conservatives are those who are seen as conservatives by the society at large. On what issue do you agree with the 50% of the population that is on the right?

• Christianity? No.
• Taxes and spending? Apparently not because most are quite socialist, and that includes Hunter.
• Strong military? No.

It could be argued that Christians are conservatives because they are defending the traditional US religion.

It could be argued that libertarians/corporatists are conservative because they support a small government that is not involved in the government.

It could be argued that neocons are conservatives because they are for a strong US military, which was always the goal. The US was not an empire in the 19th century only because it could not be. But even early, we had the Monroe Doctrine, the move all the way to the Pacific, wars with multiple countries from England to Mexico to Spain and of course the Indians.

But on what issue are the Hitler-admirers with the right wing?

It’s ok to disagree sometimes. I disagree with other right wingers on abortion. I support it, while most disagree.

But I agree with them on other issues such as opposition to health care and opposing unionization at the expense of business owners.

Where do the Hitler-admirers agree with the rest of the right wing? Is there even a single issue? Again, it’s ok to disagree sometimes and be part of the tent, but you guys seem to disagree every time. Even your anti-Semitism belongs more on the Left than the Right.

Hitler-admirers aren’t conservative or right-wing. You guys are liberals who recognize the black-white gap in IQ and crime.

You can condemn every other wing of conservatism, but is it not time to look in the mirror? How can you be conservative when everyone else the world views as “conservative” disagrees with you universally? Oh yeah, I forgot, it’s a Jewish conspiracy. There’s always the same answer to every question.

Let’s Kill All White Children

Amity Regional School District officials say it just doesn’t make sense: Why is the district being punished for having too many white autistic kids?

-

It’s a thorny issue for all sides. When one racial group—black, white or otherwise—appears to be getting a disproportionate amount of special education funding, red flags go up at the federal Department of Education. But local educators said they are powerless to control the racial makeup of their community and who is diagnosed with autism, which is under the special education umbrella.
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/01/31/news/milford/a1autism.txt

A couple of days ago I wrote another post that deal with shutting down AP classes that were of no interest to non-whites. At the time I wrote: “You know what else works really well? Take a baseball bat and hit white kids’ heads with it until they lose all their brain function. It will work so well, I bet not only will you close the black-white gap, but blacks will wind up significantly outscoring whites.”

Now we are shutting down special ed programs. Maybe we should just kill white children. I mean, look at all the trouble we have to put up with. Some are smart, some are mentally challenged. If we kill all of them, not only will we save money that is now being wasted on them, but their white parents will have more hours to work to pay more taxes to cover Laquisha’s five children (from five baby daddies).

And the working whites should walk to work. No public funding for any transportation that benefits whites!

At stake is more than $1 billion in tax dollars split each year among the CTA and the suburban-based commuter railroad and bus lines, Metra and Pace.

Most of the aid goes to the CTA, which serves a far larger share of minority riders than Metra and Pace. But the suit contends that cut is still too low and seeks to remedy things by shifting resources away from the suburban transit agencies. It blames chronic racism for shortchanging the CTA, disproportionately harming black and Hispanic riders.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/minorities-cheated-on-public-transit-funding-suit-says.html

Is Barack Completely Out of Touch?

Senate Democrats have reached out to former CNN anchor and prominent illegal-immigration opponent Lou Dobbs in an effort to build broad bipartisan support for immigration reform.

Winning the support of Dobbs, who became a prominent critic of illegal immigration and proposals to grant amnesty to illegal workers, could provide a significant boost to reform efforts.

I don’t really care about Lou Dobbs either way. He realized there was a market for anti-illegal views and he used it to pump up his ratings. This clearly shows that he was just a ratings whore, nothing more. This is all I have to say about it because I am sure many other blogs and mainstream media will be discussing it. I see no point in writing about something you can read in a thousand other places.

But what about Barack Obama? He was just stopped in his health care push. (The ARlist’s Hitler-admirers, ever the right-wing conservatives, are all in favor of socialist health care.)

He couldn’t pass it with a 60-40 filibuster-proof Senate majority. He couldn’t pass it with more than a year to go before midterm elections. He couldn’t pass it while bribing every senator, congressman and lobbyist with government goodies.

Now that he doesn’t have a filibuster-proof majority and we are just a few months away from elections, how does he figure he’ll pass anything? Obama couldn’t get Harry Reid to pass the mustard to him.

Three years ago, Jorge W. Bush tried to pass amnesty. The advantage he had was his ability to split the Republicans. Today, they are going to vote solidly against Obama, if for no other reason than to undermine him and score electoral points.

Additionally, the Dems had cover at the time. If Republicans sponsored the bill, they were “moderate” in supporting it. But today there will be no Republicans to cover their right flank. The moderates who live in red or purple states will be afraid that it will cost them their job.

What will be left is the marginalized left wing, the Charlie Rangels and the Frank Barneys, standing with Barack Obama, showing what he really is – a left wing extremist.

Go for it, President Obama. Do it. I dare you!

Is the AR conference canceled?

Was the AR conference canceled? Moved? Or is this story wrong?

Fred Redmond, Huffington Post, February 2, 2010

A Washington, D.C. area hotel last week closed its doors to a racist convention that had booked rooms under the benign-sounding name “American Renaissance” conference. Now all American hotels and conference centers should follow that lead, because in the U.S. renaissance means overcoming bigotry.