From MM :http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Good thing we have YouTube. Without it, Colin Flaherty would have had a hard time documenting the ongoing epidemic of black mob violence that he describes in his excellent White Girl Bleed a Lot. The updated second edition includes QR codes throughout; scan them with your phone or tablet and they take you straight to videos that tell you what the liberal media establishment won’t: the mayhem has gotten completely out of hand.
The violence is widespread and frequent, yet Flaherty’s job wasn’t easy, because media reports will usually refuse to mention race when it does not support the liberal narrative of white oppressors and saintly blacks. That’s where video comes in. Without it, readers might not believe him when he states,
In hundreds of episodes across the country since 2010, groups of black people are roaming the streets of America, intimidating, stalking, vandalizing, stealing, shooting, stabbing, raping, and killing.
We are told the crime rate is down. But to some extent this is due to the police refusing to acknowledge that crimes took place, which is particularly likely to happen when the crimes make the liberal establishment uncomfortable — as with black mob violence.
The media doesn’t want to talk about it. Those who bring up the issue are denounced as racist. If backed into a corner, establishment journalists will deny the epidemic is real, then offer excuses for it in the next breath. When reporting can’t be avoided, the size of mobs is downplayed by counting only those who inflict the violence, not the dozens or hundreds more who egg them on. Due to the lack of coverage, most people don’t even know the problem exists — which sets them up to become victims.
Sometimes the violence is simply random mayhem. But it often targets whites, who risk their lives by merely walking down the street — and not just in places like Chicago and Philadelphia, but in smaller towns like Des Moines and Peoria.
Flaherty knows that writing about race in this country can be treacherous, so he sticks to simple rules:
[N]o stereotypes, no generalizations, no explanations, and no apologies. Also, no causes or solutions. Just the facts.
That is, he gives us what the establishment media won’t.
One person who does not avoid explanations is James Harris of 620 WTMJ in Milwaukee, site of some of the most outlandish chaos. He calls the violence
“the perfect storm of entitlement, dependency, political correctness, and this whole idea of white guilt where we’re afraid to identify who it is that’s attacking and the reasons why they are doing it…”
Occasionally these reasons are explicitly stated, as in the case of Nkosi Thandiwe, who killed Brittney Watts and wounded two other women in Midtown Atlanta in 2011. He testified that he had been taught to hate whites in his history classes at the University of West Georgia, confirming to an assistant district attorney that he was “trying to spread the message of making white people the enemy.”
But rather than try to read minds, Flaherty leaves it up to us to figure out what is driving this alarming phenomenon, which we can only do when we have the facts the authorities have been keeping from us.
If you want to know what is really going on out there, do not fail to read this book.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
From WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
From WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
Today a new iron curtain is descending. It encloses the small Missouri town where Churchill gave his speech and all the great capitals of a great nation. Behind the iron curtain lie New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and countless others.
It covers a million streets and hundreds of millions of people. Its shadow passes over stores and factories, homes and schools. It is not a physical wall. There are, as of yet, no border guards with rifles waiting to shoot those wanting to leave, there are no watchtowers or leashed dogs keeping an eye on the inner frontier.
It is a wall of words. A wall of laws, regulations and mandates. The 2012 Federal Register had 78,961 pages. There are 11 million words of ObamaCare regulations alone. With so many regulations, everyone violates a few of them without even knowing it. Assemble all the millions of them together and you have a great wall that would dwarf anything in China
The American iron curtain is still made out of paper, but in time it will be made out of cement and iron. Tyrannies begin with paper, but end with metal. The state begins by imposing bureaucracy on a free people and ends by imposing tyranny on them. When they will not obey the paper, it resorts to steel, iron and lead.
Four decades after Churchill invoked the Iron Curtain, in his Evil Empire speech Reagan named the Soviet enemy as those who “preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, predict its eventual domination of all peoples of the Earth.”
“They are the focus of evil in the modern world,” he said.
Quoting C.S. Lewis, he warned that the greatest evil “is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.”
That is the struggle now before us.
We do not fight men with nuclear missiles or red armies of freezing conscripts waiting to march through Europe. Instead we fight against an evil empire that has arisen in our cities and its red army of front groups that insinuate their ideas into every institution they take control of.
Conservatives have lost the ability to lay out the stakes in the clear and simple language of a Churchill or a Reagan, to let the people know that they are not choosing between politicians, but choosing whether they will be able to have the car of their choice, the doctor of their choice, the meal of their choice and the book of their choice.
Choice, the word that once used to define the American experience, has been relegated to a debate over whether mothers have the right to kill their children. That choice is still the focus of a national debate. But the billion other choices that millions of people make have been taken off the table.
The conflict is simple and straightforward. It is the struggle over whether America will be an open system or a closed system.
In an open system, you choose the life you live. In a closed system, your life is mandated for you. An open system believes in the genius of the individual while the closed system believes in the genius of the visionaries of the ideology and the moral purity of the bureaucrats who implement it.
The open system is a door that you can choose to lock or leave open. The closed system is a cell door with wardens and guards who will let you out when they choose to.
In the open system you are in control. In the closed system you are being controlled for your own good, for the greater good, for the good of the state and the five-year-plan and the policy paper and the sub-paragraph of the regulation of page 50,261 as reinterpreted by a Federal judge in a court ruling that you never even heard of.
In the open system, you are a free man or woman standing at an open door. In the closed system, you are one of countless numbers in a book and a database. A number has been given to you at birth and your life is an interaction with other numbers that rate your behavior and your potential until your death when you are given your final number– the sum total of your property that will be claimed by the state.
Even in an age where the internet has proven the supremacy of open systems, liberals insist on pursuing the iron dream of the 19th century of stewardship and slavery, of a state that runs like a factory with managers to oversee the cradle to grave lives of its dumb and unwilling workers.
The iron dream has failed everywhere. Its ruins dot the Russian landscape. Its corpses fill the tundra from Asia to Europe. Its victims cry out across thousands of miles. The statues of its visionaries fill the scrap heaps of the east and its empty fields and abandoned factories can be found on every continent.
But everywhere there are men who need to believe in the supremacy of the state, in the closed system, the iron dream and the iron curtain, in 78,000 pages of regulations and all their millions and millions of words, in the nudge, the mandate, the law, the bill and the billy club.
These are the dreamers of the iron dream; the professors who tell their students to change the world by enslaving others to their iron dream, the newsreaders and entertainers who vividly paint the joys of living in the iron dream and the horrors of life outside it, the activists who crowd around shouting for the iron dream in the name of the “People” and the politicians of the iron dream whose faith is in the good of the many and the power of the few.
The American iron curtain is not substantively different than the iron curtain anywhere else, its descent is only slower and the men and women lowering it are more familiar.
The politicians are not guttural foreigners with harsh voices, they speak of American values and invoke American history even as they dismantle both, they stand in front of flags and speak of social justice at state fairs.
They claim that the old system is broken, that it’s unfair and inhumane, that progress is inevitable and that the march of progress and the progress of science have revealed that their way is best. The Mohamedans had their revelation from an angel and the politicians have their muse who shows them that a better world is possible when all men are slaves and the right men rule over them.
They speak of the power of the people, but they only mean certain people will have power and other people will have the power to support them. Like a Soviet election, the power of the people will be limited to voting “Yes” or “No” with the negative vote punishable as subversion and treason.
They don’t call for shooting their opponents, though occasionally the liberal thinkers at the think-tanks that come up with the ideas and talking points that are incorporated into their laws and speeches are indelicate enough to broach the subject. That sort of thing usually comes later.
For now they are concentrating on building their paper walls higher and higher. There are more laws than anyone can read, let alone know or follow.
The laws, like the marching Chinese, are effectively infinite. Even if a curious fellow were to sit down and try to read through them, going without food or sleep around the clock, it would be a hopeless task because no sooner will he have finished 100 pages,than a fresh delivery of another 200 pages will have already been added.
There is too much law being made to count.
Laws are being passed to find out what’s in them and even reading them is useless because the added regulations define what the law does and judges decide how they should be implemented. Nearly 100 million Americans will have their health plans taken away because of how the regulations were written.
That is the power of the paper wall.
In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt delivered a speech that began, “The great fundamental issue now before the Republican party and before our people can be stated briefly. It is: Are the American people fit to govern themselves, to rule themselves, to control themselves? I believe they are. My opponents do not.”
“I believe in the right of the people to rule,” he continued. “I believe the majority of the plain people of the United States will, day in and day out, make fewer mistakes in governing themselves than any smaller class or body of men, no matter what their training, will make in trying to govern them.”
A hundred years later, that is still the issue before us. Will we have an open system in which the American people govern themselves or a closed system in which they are governed by bureaucracies and judges, by the activists and mediacrats of the iron dream and their politicians who promise to protect them from their own choices?
We cannot have a hybrid system of both functioning together for very long. Freedom and tyranny do not naturally co-exist. A system does not hang in equilibrium between open and closed. Or as Lincoln put it, “This government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.” And it isn’t enduring.
America has been moving back toward the closed system for some time now. The movement is incremental, its bureaucratic chains come wrapped in populist rhetoric, its power plays take the moral high ground for the oppressed, for progress and for efficient government, and its worst abuses are kept out of the headlines.
Each generation has less freedom than the last. Each generation lives under a more powerful system that is relentless in its determination to control and command. And each generation fails to make the connection between its incremental poverty, its incremental loss of freedom and its growing government.
The iron curtain, like the Berlin Wall, is vulnerable. It can be torn down when enough men inspired to be free converge on it and begin destroying it with sledgehammers and even their bare hands. Its greatest strength is that men do not even know that it is there.
When Churchill named the iron curtain, he expressed a reality that people were familiar with, but lacked the words to describe.
The Communists had seized control of Eastern Europe through deception and double-dealing, they had promised freedom and delivered tyranny, and did it with the collaboration of politicians and media abroad who defended their crimes and spoke of them as humanitarians and defenders of equality. And there lay their greatest strength; until they were named for what they were, it was impossible to see the iron curtain and the evil empire that Churchill and Reagan made real.
That is true of the American iron curtain, which goes by a thousand names like liberal, progressive, humanitarian, social justice, equality, opportunity, reform… and 993 others like it. To destroy it, it has to be named.
People do not try to tear down a wall that they do not even know is there. It is only when they see the wall, when they feel its chill in their bones, when they sense its shadow over their lives, when they strive to climb over it and are shot down, when they chant against it and are beaten; will they be ready to tear it down.
Until the men and women of the open system come with a clear message warning of the wall that is being built around a free people, then they will go on losing elections and the cause of freedom will be lost, drowned in iron and paper, put in chains and filed in a trillion crowded databases.
Only when Americans see the wall, when they sense its shadow over Missouri and Florida, over New York and California, from ocean to ocean and border to border, will they be ready to tear it down.
Only then will they be ready to be free.
Despotism in a Rampage in Washington D.C. as They Gun Down Innocent Black Mother. Have You Already Forgotten?
In his latest column, Mark Steyn reminds us of an incident that we should not forget [admittedly, I have]:
Meanwhile, an unarmed woman was gunned down on the streets of Washington for no apparent crime other than driving too near Barackingham Palace and thereby posing a threat to national security. As disturbing as Miriam Carey’s bullet-riddled body and vehicle were, the public indifference to it is even worse. Ms. Carey does not appear to be guilty of any act other than a panic attack when the heavy-handed and heavier-armed palace guard began yelling at her. Much of what was reported in the hours after her death seems dubious: We are told Ms. Carey was “mentally ill,” although she had no medications in her vehicle and those at her home back in Connecticut are sufficiently routine as to put millions of other Americans in the category of legitimate target. We are assured that she suffered from post-partum depression, as if the inability to distinguish between a depressed mom and a suicide bomber testifies to the officers’ professionalism. Under D.C. police rules, cops are not permitted to fire on a moving vehicle, because of the risk to pedestrians and other drivers. But the Secret Service and the Capitol Police enjoy no such restraints, so the car doors are full of bullet holes. The final moments of the encounter remain a mystery, but police were supposedly able to extract Ms. Carey’s baby from the back of a two-door vehicle before dispatching the defenseless mother to meet her maker.
Did I mention she was African American? When a black teen dies in a late-night one-on-one encounter with a fellow citizen on the streets of Sanford, Fla., it’s the biggest thing since Selma. But when a defenseless black woman is gunned down by a posse of robocops in broad daylight on the streets of the capital, the Reverend Jackson and the Reverend Sharpton and all the other bouffed and pampered grievance-mongers are apparently cool with it.
This isn’t very difficult. When you need large numbers of supposedly highly trained elite officers to kill an unarmed woman with a baby, you’re doing it wrong. In perhaps the most repugnant reaction to Ms. Carey’s death, the United States Congress expressed their “gratitude” to the officers who killed her and gave them a standing ovation. Back in the Eighties, the Queen woke up to find a confused young man at the end of her bed. She talked to him calmly until help arrived and he was led away. A few years later, Her Majesty’s Canadian prime minister, Jean Chrétien, was confronted by an aggrieved protester. As is his wont, he dealt with it somewhat more forcefully than his sovereign, throttling the guy, forcing him to the ground, and breaking his tooth, until the Mounties arrived to rescue the assailant from the prime minister. But, had the London and Ottawa intruders been gunned down by SWAT teams, I cannot imagine for a moment either the British or Canadian parliament rising to applaud such an outcome. This was a repulsive act by Congress.
Miriam Carey is already forgotten, and the lawyer her family hired has now, conveniently, been jailed for a bad debt. I am not one for cheap historical analogies: My mother spent four of her childhood years under Nazi occupation, and it is insulting to her and millions of others who know the real thing to bandy overheated comparisons. But there is a despotic trend in American government. Too many of our rulers and their enforcers reflexively see the citizenry primarily as a threat. Which is why the tautness of one’s buns is now probable cause, and why in Congress the so-called people’s representatives’ first instinct is to stand and cheer the death of a defenseless woman.
One of the definitions of the word ‘trend’ is: ‘To extend, incline, or veer in a specified direction’ [The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition]. Despotism in The United States is no longer this kind of trend. The veering is over and the governments of this country are all putting the pedal to the metal, with some, to mix metaphors, proceeding at ramming speed.
I am willing to forgive those members of the Congress who, in the first flush after the shooting of Miriam Carey, applauded the actions of law enforcement officials — it is the natural reaction of all who support Law And Order — but, now that very serious questions have been raised about the use of Deadly Force on this woman, any forgiveness is subject to revocation if they do not launch a full investigation into the actions of said law enforcement officials [and, no, having Darrell Issa or any of his GOP Establishment apparatchiks lead it is not acceptable].
The case of Miss Carey must not be forgotten, nor the investigation of it not pursued with determined vigor, least we potentially be guilty of aiding and abetting Despotism after the fact.
From TCOTS: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
A cancer patient whose health insurance was canceled due to Obamacare says he will “pay the $95 fine and let nature take its course” rather than “be a burden on my family” with new monthly premiums that are over $1,300 higher under Obamacare.
“I’ve thought about this long and hard,” Bill Elliott told Megyn Kelly Thursday night. “When my insurance comes out, just for me, it will be $1,500 a month with a $13,500 deductible. I’m not going to pay that. If I make it that long, I will pay the $95 fine and let nature take its course.”
“I’m not going to be a burden on my family to pay this $1,500. What good is it going to do when I was paying almost $180 [a month]?” Elliott told Kelly. “Now it’s gone up to $1,500 and it’s going to take money out of my kids’ bank and my family, and I’m not going to put up with that.”
Elliott says he has prayed about his decision and feels it is the right thing to do.
“Whatever happens, I believe I’m doing the right thing. I’ve thought about it and I’ve prayed about it… To me it’s saving my family money and then they’ll have money to spend instead of throwing it down the drain like President Obama is wanting us to do,” said Elliott.
Elliott says he voted for Obama due to his promise that Americans could keep their plans if they like them.
“I like my doctor. I love my insurance,” said Elliott. “They were paying just about everything, including medication and medical devices.”
Life is often full of such hard decisions, but the fact that this one should never have had to be made in the America of 2013 makes my anger know no bounds.
Barack Hussein Obama and every, single person who pushed through Obamacare and continue to stand by their actions are despicable and vile poor excuses for Human Beings, they are wastes of Human flesh who should relegated to solitary confinement in harsh prisons for the terms of their natural lives.
Soon, they shall all be worthy of the nickname ‘Redskin’ and they shall be all Lady Macbeths, their hands covered in the stains of murder most foul.
And, yes, Mr. Elliott was a total and complete idiot in placing any trust in a Leftist, but I, for one, forgive him. He acted out of willful blindness. But Obama and his comrades acted with malice aforethought.
God Bless him and his family.
From TCOTS: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
From APB: http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/
Found at APB: http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
What follows is the transcript of the speech I delivered at the second National Policy Institute’s conference, which was held at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, DC on October 26th.
(Ed.Note: Emphasis mine. ZTW)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is not always easy to tell the difference between destiny and chance.
I discovered the “Alternative Right” three years ago, by a link posted on a Swiss blog. It was a perfect illustration of a famous line in Simon and Garfunkel’s song The Sound of Silence: “The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls.”
I was going through a period of questioning at that time. I had been working for a couple of years for the “conservative movement” in Paris and I couldn’t fail to notice that all my efforts had been invested in a cause that was not really mine, that had never really been mine actually.
Until that fateful day of July 2010, I had always centered my attention on France. My only knowledge of the other Western countries was through history books, movies or touristic trips.
Regarding politics proper, I wasn’t much interested in what was going on outside France. Though I was involved with the Right, I had always been wary of the American Right. For me, being right-wing in America meant worshipping the Holy Scrap (also known as “the Constitution”), waving a stars and stripes flag in the garden of a generic white-picket-fenced house, and making boring, tired jokes about the French who “always surrender.” I had still not digested my dish of freedom fries.
Discovering the Alternative Right was an Epiphany for me, as I think the discovery of the European New Right was for many Americans present in this room today. I’m thinking particularly of Richard Spencer and of John Morgan, the editor-in-chief of Arktos Media.
I discovered that though I wasn’t feeling at home in the French “conservative movement,” there were “people like me” on the Web, all over the Western world, who shared my hopes and concerns.
Ironically enough, I even discovered French authors thanks to American publications like AlternativeRight.com or Counter-Currents.com. Of course, the name “Alain de Benoist” was familiar to me, but he was not very popular, let alone read, in my corner of the Right.
Now, it seems that more and more Western people (White people as you say in America) are aware of the fact that what brings them together is much stronger than what divides them. And I’m not only talking about activists like us here. When this British soldier was beheaded in London by two African Muslims last Spring, I could see many manifestations of solidarity by average Western people. It’s something that would have been unthinkable a mere decade ago. As this example shows, reasons for this growing awareness among Western people are often negative ones: Westerners face the same danger of being displaced in their historic homelands.
There are positive reasons too, the first of which being the fact that we are the heirs of a great civilization. But although it is important to focus on the positive more than on the negative, it’s about a problem that is remarkable but not often commented on that I want to talk today: the generational divide.
When I say that this problem is not often commented on, it is not quite true. Actually, the liberal narrative about generational relationships is that the baby-boom generation, thanks to a courageous revolution, managed to put an end to an oppressive, reactionary, boring society.
There is some truth to that liberal narrative. But the generational divide applies differently to nationalist movements, and this is what I want to dedicate my attention to today.
More than a generational divide, there is, first off, a generational gap in right-wing movements. If the generation of my grand-parents (born between the two world wars) was rather conservative in the right sense of the word, the baby-boom generation is, in my experience, much more liberal in its outlook, hence the lack of right-wing activists from this generation. This is what explains “gerontocracy,” i.e. government of the old, in many right-wing movements, especially in Europe.
Even self-defined right-wingers born during the baby-boom are liberal in their views.
The most striking thing that I noticed, in France, Europe and America, was the inability of baby-boomers, even when they see themselves as dissidents, to completely break away from the institutions. The desire of recognition, the fear of social rejection makes the right-wing baby-boomer gives legitimacy to the very institutions that are willing to destroy him.
For instance, right-wing baby-boomers show a great deal of respect to Academia. They are very proud of their PhD when they hold one, and when they don’t, they are all the prouder to mention that an author they publish does. Well, at a time when there are PhDs in queer, gender, black, and even chicano studies in America, is it so important to mention that? Wouldn’t we be better advised to give as little legitimacy to university degrees as we can, given the circumstances?
This PhD cult among right-wing baby-boomers is related to their own rationalistic, scientistic delusions. Since conservatives are outmoded liberals — and many White nationalists are conservatives: they just want to conserve their people as it is, as if it were possible to save said people without becoming a new one in the process — they still believe in the Enlightenment myth that one would just have to show “the truth” to people to gain credibility and support. (And trying — in vain — to gain credibility from an Establishment that despises or hates them is an important trait of right-wing baby-boomers.)
But this idea that people would just have to know “the truth” to support the cause of saving Western civilization and the White race is fallacious. People have to be inspired rather than convinced, and they won’t be inspired by a set of bell curves, IQ tables and cranial measurements. Furthermore, it reduces “the truth” to the only things that can be numbered and quantified. The problem with that idea is that our struggle is a qualitative one. We can’t “prove” that architecture has become ugly since the 20th century, for example. Yet it’s something that has to be said.
I mentioned the PhD cult because it is one of the most obvious problems in right-wing intellectual circles. But this excessive respect of right-wing baby-boomers is granted to institutions in general, chiefly to the State, the Nation-State.
Since I was born in the 1980′s, at a time when the main Western countries had already been “enriched” with mass immigration, I understand that it is easier for me to dissociate myself from my own Nation-State.
Here, I’m reminded of an American friend I met in Paris a few weeks ago. He was born in the 1960′s, and when I mentioned to him the idea of an Ethnostate, he chuckled: for him, up to ten years ago, he had always considered he was already living in an Ethnostate: the United States.
And in day-to-day life, it remains common to hear people say “we” and “us” when they talk about the State. “We went to Iraq.” “Our troops are bringing democracy there.” “Syria’s chemical weapons threaten us.” I’m using silly examples here to make a point, but if you listen to people around you, you will inevitably notice that they keep saying — and thus thinking — that the State is them. That the State is the Nation.
But it’s getting more and more necessary to get rid of this false consciousness. Since the end of the 18th century and the American and French revolutions, the Nation-State has monopolized the way Westerners see themselves. This triumph is so complete that even multiculturalists use the Nation-State as a comforting reference to impose their dogma on the West. In every Western country, you can hear the same mantra that “Our [national] identity is diversity.”
Some people in our movement suggest that we should likewise use the Nation-State as a means to make people aware of our goals. The problem is that we can’t use the same tactic, for two reasons: first, we are obviously not in charge of the State. Second, a strict national consciousness leads to serious errors of interpretation. It is common in countries that used to have colonies and slaves to hear people say that our problems are rooted in colonization and slavery. In my homeland, the troubles with the Algerian community are thus attributed to French colonization and civil war there.
But Sweden, which never had any colony nor slaves, is facing similar, if not graver threats than Britain, America or France. We are not attacked for what our ancestors did, or allegedly did, but for what we are: White, Western people.
From my understanding, it is easier for my generation to see a brother or sister in another Westerner than it is for the former generation, which was born in the aftermath of the Second World War. In France, Front National is still anti-German, as well as it is anti-British and anti-American. But for the young generation, all these grudges are fading into irrelevance. A Briton might dislike the Germans or the French, wrongly or rightly, but those are unlikely to drug and pimp his daughters, behead a soldier in broad daylight, or burn the city down when a drug dealer is killed by the police.
In case you are wondering, I’m talking about things that actually happened in Britain in the last years.
Young Westerners know that they are more and more becoming one nation, the same way that other races, as Jared Taylor had noted in his book White Identity, are more and more seeing themselves as one people when they live in the West.
The right-wing baby-boomer is not able to fully understand what is happening in other Western countries, since he relies solely on national, liberal media, unlike young right-wingers who get information via alternative, Pan-Western websites. The liberal media gives him a distorted image of reality. As he knows that mainstream journalists are liberal, he basically inverts their depictions of other “far-right” movements in other Western countries to make his own opinion of them. Right-wingers, most often, only define themselves in opposition to the Left. What the Left likes, they hate. What the Left loathes, they love. It is thus easy to manipulate them into supporting a controlled opposition, given that their only justification to support is: “Since liberals hate it so much, it must be doing something right.” By this false standard, George W. Bush “was doing something right” when he made up the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to invade this country.
Generally speaking, the right-wing baby-boomer is subject to the bourgeois dream, which has been known as the “American dream” since the end of the Second World War: a world of peace, trade, and boredom.
Right-wing baby-boomers share the project of two American politicians (both born before the baby-boom though), Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, whose similarities are more obvious than their differences. Their common motto can best be summed up as “Leave us alone.” Well, we of the New Guard don’t want to be “left alone.” We want to rule. We want to rule not only because we want actual power to get ourselves out of the present situation, but because we know that the “leave us alone” idea, which was behind the White flight phenomenon, is precisely what has led us to our current dispossession. Baby-boomers wanted to be “left alone,” so they fled to even further suburbs, moving further and further away from their own responsibilities. It is this process, White flight, that guaranteed that the ongoing dispossession could go on without being too painful.
The “good news” is that it is becoming impossible to continue the White flight process. Rising housing costs, growing gas prices, the concentration of jobs in city centers are putting the bourgeois dream to an end. It is now almost impossible for a generation that can only wait tables after a masters degree to keep fleeing. Problems will have to be faced, and dealt with.
At this point, I realize that I might seem unfair to the previous generation, but keep in mind that baby-boomers did what everyone else would have done if given the choice. This choice no longer exists. The quiet, suburban life has become impossible for the reasons mentioned before.
What is to be done, then? As of now, nobody, including myself of course, has a genuine solution to offer. Many in our circles claim that it is “five to midnight,” but I would argue that it is “five past midnight.” Not because it is too late, but because it is too soon. A mere decade ago, many people in this room, including, again, the foolish 20-year-old liberal that I was, were not aware of what was going on. Our awakening is too recent to find political solutions to our current problems now. For politics as we would like it to be to become possible, we have to win the intellectual and cultural battles, which right-wing baby-boomers have never really considered worth fighting. It is time we do so.
What we can thus do in the meantime is to get intellectually prepared as a movement (for the individual and practical aspects of this preparation, Piero San Giorgio and Jack Donovan are more competent than I am). The first task would be to get rid of intellectual debates dating back to the Cold War, with the false dichotomies between libertarianism and socialism, conservatism and progressivism, etc.
This necessity to go beyond these false dichotomies seems obvious to activists like us, but it is still in these terms that politics are debated today.
When I say that we have to go beyond Left and Right, I don’t mean that we have to reject both notions altogether — our ethno-national project obviously belongs on the Right — but the way they have been defined and falsely opposed for these past seventy years. The alternative is not between the kolkhoz and IKEA, the best reason for that being that the kolkhoz and IKEA are two sides of the same materialistic coin. We have to find a way out of here, a way forward and upward, and that implies rising above these irrelevant debates.
As a radical movement, we need to attract intelligent and educated young men, who are the future.
Crime statistics and differences of achievement between races are important, to be sure, but no snowboarding session on the bell curve will attract young men to us. We need to show them a way out, and thus to remind them of the need to gradually withdraw from the prevailing disorder, but we also have to show them a way into, and that is what the Old Guard has been unable to do so far.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying to bury the Old Guard, or even to dispute its achievements. We wouldn’t be here today if the Old Guard had not taken the first step in the past. But we can’t keep doing the same things for decades.
It is now clear why we want to found a new society, now is coming the harder part: what we want and how we are going to achieve it.
The answer is not sure at this point. What is sure is that the powers of creation, not only of reaction, will have to be summoned.
Thank you for your attention.
From Alternative Right: http://alternativeright.com/blog/category/children-of-oedipus
Hollow people, hollow ideas.
Logical fallacies are not the end-all be-all of logic. In fact, they’re just a handy shorthand for recognizing common mistakes made in argument.
However, if you find one present in an argument someone is making, like “we should all be liberals,” you should proceed with caution. Where the basic assumptions are logical errors, more are sure to follow. And worse, those who accept logical errors can’t tell the difference between insanity and sanity, so you’re in for a rough ride.
In liberalism, the fundamental fallacy is “begging the question”:
Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:
Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.
In this, the trick is to front-load what you’re arguing against with certain traits that you imply are inherent to it. Thus coal is “filthy and polluting” and our inclination is to ban it.
These are a subset of what are called “talking points,” which are concepts used by liberals because they sound good in conversation and which almost never bear a passing resemblance to logical argument. It’s sad to see even college-educated people indulge in these.
With modern liberalism, we see this type of fallacy in most of their public statements. Here are some examples of typical things you may hear liberals saying:
- We should support the equality of all people. Please assume that equality is a good thing.
- Republicans oppose an equal chance for all through socialism only because they’re the party of the wealthy. Equality is implied to be good, and socialism implied to be the only method of achieving it.
- Why would someone oppose Obamacare, which lowers health care costs and supports the poor?You’re either for it, or you hate the poor and want high costs.
- If this nation doesn’t decide to ban guns which encourage violence, I’m going to move to Canada.The implied connection between guns and violence is rehashed.
Here’s an example from the wild:
“Both inside the humanities and outside, people feel that the intellectual firepower in the universities is in the sciences, that the important issues that people of all sorts care about, like inequality and climate change, are being addressed not in the English departments,” said Andrew Delbanco, a Columbia University professor who writes about higher education.
In this quotation, it’s implied that “inequality and climate change” are “the important issues” and that because “people of all sorts” care about them, they’re universal.
None of this is true.
Liberal education traditionally focused on teaching people how to think, not teaching them what to think and how many times to repeat it. It’s only in the post-1960s world where Marxism dominates the campus that teaching talking points has been considered an education.
Not only that, while it’s true that “(some) people of all sorts care about” these two issues, it’s not true that all people care about them, or even that most people care about them.
What the liberals are doing here is stating their own ideological agenda as if it were universal truth that we should all care about. It’s hard to think of a clearer example of the “begging” the question fallacy than that.
In short, we’ve gone from:
Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.
Universal, benevolent and popular Liberalism coal should be the only goal.
Watch for this logical fallacy as you see liberals converse in the world at large.
From Alternative Right: http://alternativeright.com/blog/category/liberalism-is-based-on-a-logical-fallacy
Found at American Digest
Luke 21 KJV
7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.
12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake.
13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.
14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:
15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.
16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.
18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.
19 In your patience possess ye your souls.
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
Found at The Feral Irishman
An open letter to Rep John Lewis (D-GA)
Dear Rep Lewis,
While we in the TEA Party movement — that is, those Americans who stand and fight for constitutional principles, the sovereignty of the individual, and the epistemology of the Enlightenment — appreciate your timely reminder of the Democratic Party’s past involvements in segregation and the brutal subjugation of parts of the citizenry, we would like to correct your latest attempt to tie our efforts at resisting the remaking of the citizen-as-subject, as an economic unit in service of a state master, that is, as slaves, to past attempts by your Party to enslave Americans, or keep them segregated and subjugated, tied to some particular plantation or other over which you lord.
The Supreme Court has ruled before — and John Roberts, in a last minute attempt to secure for himself a legacy of bipartisan comity rather than judicial rigor, a move that will forever tarnish his reputation and damage the standing of the Court, ruled in the case of ObamaCare — that in fact the US government does have a right to force Americans into a kind of sanctioned slavery. In this case, we are told that the federal government can force us to enter in a contract it writes for us and demands we pay for under penalty of fine or imprisonment, even though to enter into that contract means we are compelled to purchase services we may not want or need, and by doing so, subsidize those same services for those who can’t afford to purchase them on their own. Legalized theft disguised as forced charity.
If to resist such coercion truly reminds you of an attempt to keep southern blacks away from lunch counters or in the backs of buses, one can only conclude that you haven’t the faculties to operate a shoe lace, much less serve as a lawmaker — though to be fair, this is not merely an indictment upon you, but upon those who vote for you, who have been taught to believe (and haven’t the intellectual curiosity to challenge) such ludicrous parallels as those you try to draw. In one instance, we have people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, and prior political affiliations rising up to protest the unpopular imposition upon us of a health insurance system that we neither want nor can afford — one that we know will decrease the quality of our health care while increasing our financial burdens, should we not be that part of your constituency that you insist be able to exist on the labor of others through your endless wealth redistribution schemes, the very thing that buys you votes and keeps your client list full. In the second instance, we have those who — while they worked to make sure they themselves were heavily subsidized and not forced to live under the very law they insist upon foisting on us, even as they’ve proven that access to the means of procuring the health insurance they claim to provide is impossible, onerous, and open to all sort of invasions of privacy and the theft of personal data — still insist we shut up and accept our lot as subjects.
And yet you have the audacity to tie the former to racial oppressors, while painting yourselves and your subjugators as noble and compassionate liberators, marchers against the predations of a capitalist system whose private health insurance providers (to the extent they’re even able to remain private, given the breadth and scope of government regulation) routinely grant claims at a higher rate than previous iterations of government health insurance (Medicare has a higher rejection rate than all private insurers)?
You sir, are a disgrace to the civil rights movement, a disgrace to the seriousness of the historic fight for equal rights for blacks (led by Republicans), a disgrace to those you purport to represent, yet upon whose ignorance and perpetually stoked victimization you continue to prey.
I despise people like you. You’ve turned a past injustice into a cottage race industry upon which you live like a parasite. And your attempts to tether that past injustice to those of us who today fight for the freedom and autonomy of the individual to resist the oppression of the state suggests that it is you, sir, who today carries the fire hoses and have shown yourself willing, time and again, to release the dogs against those who oppose your designs on their liberty.
In short, you are an opportunistic relic who, your protestations to the contrary, has become a bane to the very progress of the people your purport to speak for. So go fuck yourself.
We, the People
From Protein Wisdom: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=51752
Mark Levin published this post early this morning.
It is truly a must-read, for it looks at our situation without blinders and is filled with that spirit that animated The Founders in their struggles and which we need to possess to restore those freedoms and liberties they left in our charge.
This is worth quoting in full:
The RINOs want a Terry McAuliffe victory in Virginia.
Many in the GOP establishment, from major fundraisers and consultants, to GOP officeholders such as the GOP Lt. Gov and mayor of Virginia Beach, have either trashed Attorney General Ken Cuccinnelli or endorsed McAuliffe outright. The GOP national machine has done next to nothing for Cuccinnelli. And GOP bag man, Karl Rove, is all over Fox without a word of support for Cuccinnelli, while he schemes and whispers behind the scenes against conservatives nationwide.
Having tried to sabotage Cuccinnelli’s candidacy from the start, these GOP actors are hoping for a Cuccinnelli loss and a big Chris Christie win (built on a Huey Long style of politics) to make the case that only big government Republicans can win and limited government, constitutional conservatives, such as Tea Party activists, are too extreme to prevail. They’ve already written the script.
In fact, the GOP establishment’s attacks on the Tea Party, which is an obvious assault on conservatives and conservatism generally, are increasingly difficult to distinguish from Obama and the Left’s attacks on the same folks. The ruling class in Washington is clearly united in one respect: to wipe out conservative resistance to their corruption, cronyism, and nation-killing policies.
Keep an eye on RINO columnists like Washington Compost mouthpiece Jennifer Rubin, as well as Rove and other commentators on cable TV, who have and will continue to reveal it all through their myopic ruling class lenses in the days ahead. As I said, their propaganda is written and ready to spread. And they’ll be given soap box after soap box to spin away.
Meanwhile, despite it all, including tens of millions of dollars in relentless leftwing smear ads funded by truly extreme groups hoping to beat Cuccinnelli and turn Virginia into Hillary Clinton territory in 2016, much of the big GOP money stays on the sidelines. Better to try to clear the field of conservatives who threaten the ruling class and its preferred nominees. Better to protect the RINO investment in big government than beat Hillary. The conservative grassroots is to be crushed and dispirited.
So, that’s the game. Still, recent polls show Cuccinnelli closing fast. This makes the Left and RINOs very nervous. The rest of us are cheering, and hopefully helping, the underdog. We identify with him, not the sleazy McAuliffe, his radical donors, and the ruling class. We won’t retreat. We won’t give up. We will fight for the last vote. What a sweet victory it would be! But make no mistake, this is one of many, many battles to come, win, lose, or recount.
What these people will never understand is that for most of us this isn’t about politics per se but preserving what’s left of our society, Constitution, and individual free will. It is about our families and our way of life. It is about who we are as Americans. We are not surrendering to this because we will not sit quietly while the ruling class continues to destroy our nation. We fight against growing oppression as many did before us. And we will fight like hell through the constitutional process. We will continue to learn, we will take names, and we will battle these people and groups at every turn, and in every election. We are not going anywhere.
And as the ruling class catastrophe continues to unfold, as with Obamacare, the monstrous debt, and suffocating regulations, and with the cycle of unsustainable spending and confiscatory taxing, the coerciveness of the ruling class and its federal agencies will only intensify. There will be a commensurate backlash.
The sleeping giant that is the American people is only beginning to awaken. It is only a matter of time until more people are roused to join this all important constitutional fight. We fight to hold Virginia today and we fight on thereafter.
From TCOTS: http://thecampofthesaints.org/