Caucasophobia — the Accepted Racism
Fjordman - 3/21/2007
I had written much of this essay more than a year before I finally decided to post it online. A couple of personal experiences brought me onto the subject of non-white racism. I hesitated to post it, mainly because I instinctively dislike writing about anything related to race. I was brought up that way. Partly, I also convinced myself that I was first and foremost against Islam, and that writing about skin color would only complicate this fight.
However, after thinking about it for some time, I find that none of these arguments hold true. I am tired of ideological censorship. Western nations can never mount a defense against Muslim immigration if this is always dismissed as “racism.” But above all, if you believe that non-white racism exists, it is actually immoral not to deal with the problem and its victims. I am convinced that not just non-white, but also anti-white racism, are real and underestimated phenomena.
In London, an elderly driver who had a heart attack careered into a bus. Here you had a dying man, people trying to save him and police trying to clear the scene. Meanwhile, black youths at the scene just wanted to fight the cops. They shouted, ‘Who cares — it’s just a white man’.”
The incident confirmed my suspicion that some of those who keep talking about “Dead White Males,” meaning basically every great Western thinker in history, are actually lamenting the fact that not all white males are, well, dead.
I have watched Mexicans who were illegally in US cities quite openly shouting racist slogans against the majority white population, with little or no reaction from the media. Yet Americans who want to strengthen border controls against Mexico are denounced as “racists.” Why?
I have heard two explanations for this one-sided focus on white racism only. The first one is that white people are more racist than non-whites, a claim I find highly dubious in the 21st century. The other is that we should focus mainly on white racism because “white people are so powerful.” But are whites always powerful? We are, demographically speaking, a rapidly shrinking global minority. We are even a shrinking percentage of the population in the West.
Following the Danish Muhammad cartoons incident, Bob Simon from the “60 Minutes” magazine on American TV made a program about Denmark, which he commented was “very Caucasian.” Journalist Samuel Rachlin complained that the picture presented was one of blond bigots who oppressed the powerless Muslim minority. Are 5 million, white Danes “powerful” compared to a billion Muslims?
John Derbyshire of the National Review Online has written about the prevalence of what he calls “Hesperophobia,” fear and hatred of the West. I will suggest that a more accurate term would be Caucasophobia, fear of white people.
I see two potential objections to this term. One is that negative feelings towards whites are less a matter of fear than of hatred and contempt, which is partly true. But I find Caucasophobia to be a catchy phrase to counter claims of Islamophobia, whatever that is. I loathe the term “reverse racism,” which indirectly implies that white racism is the norm and non-white racism is just a “reaction” to this.
The other objection is that the term Caucasian frequently refers to Arabs and Indians, too. However, in March 2005, peaceful white, French demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab youths. One 18-year-old named Heikel added that he had “a pleasant memory” of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground. The sentiment was a desire to “take revenge on whites.”
Notice that these were Arabs attacking Europeans. I have also heard Pakistanis and Turks refer to Europeans as “whites.” I thus find it justifiable to use the term Caucasophobia of racism against people of European stock.
Barbara Kay of Canada’s National Post writes about a new fad called Whiteness Studies:
“The goal of WS is to entrench permanent race consciousness in everyone — eternal victimhood for nonwhites, eternal guilt for whites — and was most famously framed by WS chief guru, Noel Ignatiev, former professor at Harvard University, now teaching at the Massachusetts College of Art: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.”
Some of the inventors of Whiteness Studies have stated their goals quite openly: “Abolitionism is also a strategy: its aim is not racial harmony but class war. By attacking whiteness, the abolitionists seek to undermine the main pillar of capitalist rule in this country.” And: “The task is to gather together a minority determined to make it impossible for anyone to be white.”
Conservative social critic David Horowitz comments that: “Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.” However, despite widespread criticism, at least 30 institutions — from Princeton University to the University of California at Los Angeles — teach courses in whiteness studies.
While Western academia are busy warning against Islamophobia, Caucasophobia gets the stamp of approval. College professor Mike S. Adams writes about conspiracy theories he’s heard among students attempting to blame various social ills on white people:
“The Mona Lisa was painted by an African artist and stolen from a museum in Ethiopia. Most of the great works of art are African in origin and stolen by white people. This is done to promote the myth of white cultural superiority.” Another one: “It is a proven fact that U.S. Coast Guard ships – on orders from President Bush – were seen crashing into the New Orleans levees during Hurricane Katrina. Bush did it to kill black people living in government housing projects.”
Adams presents this as funny, but I don’t think it is.
Dr. Kamau Kambon, former North Carolina State visiting professor of African Studies, told a forum at Howard University that: “We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem. (…) I’m saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. (…) The problem on the planet is white people.”
Kambon may be an extreme example, but he is the product of a disturbing climate where accusing whites of the most insane things has become socially acceptable, even encouraged.
Kenyan ecologist Wangari Maathai, winner of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize, has reiterated her claim that the AIDS virus was invented in some laboratory in the West as “a biological weapon aimed at wiping out the black race.” Would anybody get the Nobel Peace Prize if they were white and stated that black people are trying to exterminate all whites?
I understand that there are grudges from the colonial era, but not all of Africa’s problems can forever be blamed on Western colonialism. The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. It mainly promotes huge bureaucracies, corruption and complacency, while Africans are taught to be beggars, not independent. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn’t even notice, according to him.
Shelby Steele is the author of the book White Guilt. According to him, “White guilt effects everything having to do with race in America. (…) White guilt is what made collective responsibility a source of liberal power in America. And it remains a source of power regardless of who or what is cast as a victim — blacks, the environment, gays, illegal immigrants.”
As Allen G. King, an employment defense attorney put it: “I just have to leave you to your own devices, and because you are a white male,” you will discriminate. In other words: You don’t necessarily have to do anything; you’re a racist simply because you’re white and breathe.
René Descartes, French philosopher and one of the key thinkers of the Scientific Revolution, or a Dead White Male as Western students now learn, is famous for his statement Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. Apparently, if Mr. Descartes has been alive today, he’d have to rephrase that to “I’m guilty, therefore I am.”
All Western nations, at least for a while longer, have white majorities. As long as anything white people do is considered “racism,” the West has no chance of closing down Muslim immigration. Until the “anti-Whitey” movement has been discredited, we can thus never win the fight against Islam.
According to Muslim reformist Bassam Tibi, “Accusing somebody of racism is a very effective weapon in Germany. Islamists know this: As soon as you accuse someone of demonizing Islam, then the European side backs down.” In other words, merely accusing whites of racism is enough to shut them up.
I heard the Dutch-Somali critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali be told that if she had been white, she would be called a “racist.” Which essentially means that if you’re white, you’re not allowed under any circumstances to stand up for your own culture, far less criticize non-whites. It doesn’t matter whether what you’re saying is actually correct. Whites have thus effectively been disfranchised in matters related to immigration or the preservation of their own countries.
We cannot defend the West against Muslim immigration unless we defeat Political Correctness. And we cannot defeat Political Correctness until we have utterly demolished the ideas that all whites are racists if they defend their culture or desire self-determination, or that non-whites are only victims of racism.
If you ask people how native Norwegians are supposed to keep our culture when we may soon be a minority in our own country, many reply that “there is no such thing as Norwegian culture”. We eat Italian pasta and Chinese food and are otherwise “Americanized.” So, everybody is supposed to keep their culture, except people of European origins? All cultures are equal, but some are more equal than others? Why is colonialism always bad, but not when my country, which has no colonial history, gets colonized by Third World immigrants?
Isn’t it by definition an encroachment on the rights of the native population if they have to subdue their cultural identity to please people who just moved there out of their own, free will? In Norway, our authorities seem to solve this dilemma by simply stating that this is a terra nullis, a land without people or at least a land without culture. The rights of the Norwegian people don’t count because the Norwegian people don’t exist.
We shouldn’t idealize mass-immigration too much. When one group of people move into a territory where another group of people already live, this has usually throughout human history ended in war. Either the newcomers will be expelled, or they will subdue or wipe out the previous inhabitants, or the groups will divide the country between them.
I see little reason to expect any different result where the indigenous population happens to be white. In fact, it is perhaps even more likely, given the fact that we belong to the racial group that has been dominant in world affairs for centuries and that quite a few non-whites hate us because of this. Add to this the fact that a good deal of the immigrants are Muslims, who usually persecute the non-Muslims regardless of race, and by far the most likely future for my children or grandchildren if the current immigration continues is a choice between fighting for their lives or leaving what used to be their country behind as refugees.
Exactly why am I obliged to accept this? Dispossession, while being muzzled by our own leaders and media, doesn’t feel very tolerant to me. In Norway in 2001, a colored teenager called Benjamin Hermansen was killed by two neo-Nazis. The murder triggered one of the largest protest marches since WW2, led by the Crown Prince and the Prime Minister, and schools across the country marked the funeral with one minute of silence.
Later in 2001, the Oslo police released statistics showing that the number of rape charges in the city was rapidly increasing, and that the majority of these cases were with a white victim and a non-Western perpetrator. These numbers were quickly buried. Moreover, in the area of Oslo where Hermansen lived, Holmlia, white Norwegians are quietly leaving due to harassment from immigrants. Hermansen’s murder received so much attention precisely because it was so rare. Muggings, rapes, and stabbings of whites by non-whites, however, happen on a regular basis.
All over Western Europe, and indeed over much of the Western world, there are now areas where it is dangerous for white people to live. This never triggers any outrage. On the contrary, it triggers accusations of racism if the white population resist continued mass immigration, despite the fact that we have accepted more immigration in a shorter period of time than probably any people has done peacefully in history.
Swedish radical feminist Joanna Rytel wrote an article called “I Will Never Give Birth to a White Man,” for a major Swedish daily, Aftonbladet, stating things such as “no white men, please… I just puke on them.” After receiving a complaint because of this, Swedish state prosecutor Göran Lambertz explained why this didn’t qualify as racism:
“The purpose behind the law against incitement of ethnic hatred was to ensure legal protection for minority groups of different compositions and followers of different religions. Cases where people express themselves in a critical or derogatory way about men of ethnic Swedish background were not intended to be included in this law.”
It certainly isn’t because racism against the white population doesn’t exist. The wave of robberies the city of Malmö has witnessed during this past years is part of a “war against Swedes.” This is the explanation given by robbers with immigrant background. So why is this never taken seriously by the authorities?
Western proponents of Political Correctness are ideologically close to White Supremacists, since they assign a “special status” to white people that they don’t give to anybody else. It doesn’t make it any more just that this “special status” is negative. The opposite of White Supremacy can perhaps be called the White Worthlessness Syndrome (WWS). Self-hating white Westerners are victims of WWS.
I do not see why I should have to choose between White Supremacy and White Worthlessness. It is one thing to reject the idea that your culture should be forced onto others, it is quite another thing to say that you shouldn’t be allowed to retain your culture even in your own country. The latter is simply a matter of self-preservation, the most basic instinct of all living things down to bacteria level.
I have a right to preserve my culture, too, even though I have blue eyes, and cannot see anything “racist” in not wanting my children to become a persecuted minority in their own country through mass immigration. That you are denounced as a White Supremacist for just stating the obvious shows how deeply entrenched and internalized this anti-white bias has become.
Fjordman is a noted blogger who wrote for the Fjordman Blog in the past. He has also been published on many other websites, including Gates of Vienna, which is the publication where this article originally appeared.
(I have reproduced Fjordman’s essay here in its entirety because I don’t think he’ll mind; if he does, he can contact us and we’ll take it down)
I don’t think Fjordman has really thought through the matter, but it’s interesting to watch someone go from “conservative” to WN. Seems to me he’s missed the fact that “racism” itself is simply a tool designed to screw whites over, that it has no utility or application otherwise. However, he has given me substantial food for thought:
We cannot defend the West against Muslim immigration unless we defeat Political Correctness. And we cannot defeat Political Correctness until we have utterly demolished the ideas that all whites are racists if they defend their culture or desire self-determination, or that non-whites are only victims of racism.
It’s easy to forget this, when discussing one matter or another, e.g. “conservatives” think they can handle the demographic invasion of the west “respectably.” They’re wrong. Motives aside, we’re fighting one big monster, whether the issue is the demographic invasion, or the demoralization of the west, or political correctness, or violent crime, or the erosion of our educational system (and academia), etc.
The disease killing the west cannot be fought through its symptoms.
Here’s what really got me thinking:
Western proponents of Political Correctness are ideologically close to White Supremacists, since they assign a “special status” to white people that they don’t give to anybody else. It doesn’t make it any more just that this “special status” is negative. The opposite of White Supremacy can perhaps be called the White Worthlessness Syndrome (WWS). Self-hating white Westerners are victims of WWS.
I do not see why I should have to choose between White Supremacy and White Worthlessness. It is one thing to reject the idea that your culture should be forced onto others, it is quite another thing to say that you shouldn’t be allowed to retain your culture even in your own country. The latter is simply a matter of self-preservation, the most basic instinct of all living things down to bacteria level.
Put that way, where White Supremacy becomes the opposite pole to that of White Genocide, and recognizing that WG is the prevailing pole, it occurs to me that we might need to take another look at White Supremacy, even if only from a tactical (triangulation) perspective. That leads me to think about how beneficial a split between White Supremacy and White Nationalism would be (no need to bother about the semantics - WNs could leave and let supremacists have the WN appelation if need be), since right now the two are lumped together and the former suffers for it; few WS cop to the title, preferring instead to deny their supremism. If that happens, supremacists are going to need some intellectual help, but that’s for another discussion.
Thoughts?
Comments (37) | Tell-a-Friend
The trackback URL for this entry is: Trackbacks are disabled for this entry
Trackbacks:
Comments:
Page 1 of 1 pages
Svigor
I think you are on the right track there..
I don’t know about triangulation but let’s just say it is always easier to seem to be moderate if there are other people further down the “radical trail” than you.
That is why Steve Sailer likes Jared Taylor so he can say, “see, I am not a WN just an evolutionary conservative who is fascinated by HBD”
Even though Jared Taylor doesn’t claim it , he gets great benefit from David Duke because he can say “you see, I am a white nationalist and racial realist but at least I am not anti-semitic”
Although, I don’t think there is any benefit to WN from Neo-Nazi’s because that is an immediate humiliation for most whites and Neo-Nazi’s are excellent PR for the ADL, SPLC etc.
Instead of White Supremacism maybe a more credible religious sect that worshipped the Western European Biological man could gain traction and serve as our ultra White Supremacist/White Differentiation from other races platform.
I think guys like H.M. Millard are heading down this path and I must say I am not far behind as far as worshipping Euroman/Eurowoman from a purely biological perspective as it pertains to genotype/phenotype expression and how it creates the “biological loop” that reinforces the behavioural characteristics that make us who we are.
This isn’t new and was discussed in the Occidental Quarterly a few years back or picked it up from something James Bowery has posted. I will try and dig it up for everyone.
boy oh boy..kind of spooky..the first issue I search for and the article comes up?????
A New Paradigm for the Evolution
of Western Populations
Louis R. Browning
http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no1/lrb-bioculture.html
Posted by Voice on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 09:43 PM | #
Noel Ignatiev, former professor at Harvard University, now teaching at the Massachusetts College of Art: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.” (—from the Fjordman piece)
There are Jews who loathe Euros so much they have powerful urges to broach the subject of seeing them all killed. That’s all that’s going on with the above statement by Noël Ignatiev. Of course he couches it in window-dressing about “doing away with white privilege” but it’s Jewish Euro-loathing of the most virulent kind imaginable. He’d kill whole nationsfull of Euros if he could, then sleep like a baby. This is the purest most seething tribal hatred there is. Alon Ziv’s another one. His book calling on all Euros to marry Negroes is very simply the same Jewish Euro-loathing, dressed up in different window-dressing from Ignatiev’s. The one is, “Euros have to be exterminated — hey we’ll call it ‘getting rid of white privilege,’ that oughta fly,” while the other is, “Euros have to be exterminated — hey I have an even better idea: we’ll call it ‘breeding better-looking, healthier offspring in the form of mulattoes’ — that should go over with a lot of Euro dupes, especially once the Hollywood Jews and homos get Angelina Laide and Madonna out there setting the example in order to bolster their career prospects in Jewish-and-homosexual-controlled Hollyweird. All the eleven-to-fourteen-year-old Euro girls see that and trust me, we’ll have the mulattoization of the next generation of the Euro race sewn up right there. It’ll be in the bag.”
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 10:12 PM | #
Fjordman remains a White Culturalist. He has not taken the critical step to understanding that genetic survival is the real, the only game. When he acknowledges that ... when he acknowledges that our blood can never be alloyed with the invaders’ or we die ... when he acknowledges that our land must be returned to us, and the invaders sent away ... then, personally, I can include him in the family of light.
Until then he belongs in purgatory along with Steve Sailer, trying to piece together how white survival can be got out of a defence of Western culture.
Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 10:55 PM | #
especially once the Hollywood Jews and homos get Angelina Laide and Madonna out there setting the example in order to bolste
Fred,
It wasn’t “Hollywood homos” who convinced Angelina Jolie and Madonna to purchase nonwhite children - it was Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs, who has also been very influential in Bono’s career and general busybodiness.
Sachs also pioneered the ‘shock treatment’ economic treatment Russia enjoyed in the late nineties, leading to widespread poverty, ruined pension systems, and of course - all state industry bought up by “rootless cosmopolitans” for dollars on the pound.
In his spare time, Jeffrey is the mastermind behind the upcoming “global tax”, to be administered by the UN.
I leave as an excercise for the student, the ethnic extraction of this abnormally active man.
And no, he is not a homosexual. He has a wife and three children. You’re changing the subject again - you know how I dislike that.
Posted by wintermute on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 11:19 PM | #
I don’t know about triangulation but let’s just say it is always easier to seem to be moderate if there are other people further down the “radical trail” than you.
That’s triangulation, exactly. 
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 12:07 AM | #
Although, I don’t think there is any benefit to WN from Neo-Nazi’s because that is an immediate humiliation for most whites and Neo-Nazi’s are excellent PR for the ADL, SPLC etc.
Forget the neo-nazi thing, for the purposes of argument; think “aggressive, in-your-face white ethnocentrism” instead. Also, reframe a bit and consider the utility of “deal with me now or the hard-core later, once they’ve shown the ‘soft’ approach won’t work” (the underlying thinking being, our EGI are not up for debate; we can do this the easy way, or the hard way, but it’s going to get done regardless).
Instead of White Supremacism maybe a more credible religious sect that worshipped the Western European Biological man could gain traction and serve as our ultra White Supremacist/White Differentiation from other races platform.
I’m talking about the geography and its poles, not what you name any given point on the map.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 12:14 AM | #
Guessedworker, mr. Scrooby and Voice, your right.
Let’s see. Fjordman have had a liberal upbringing. He has evolved from it to first resisting islam, then to the protecting of Western and national cultures and now, while still remaining White culturalist, he is tottering on the border of ethnic genetic interests. He is a man in need of a friendly knock to the right direction. Fjordman seems to be an avid reader. Does anyone of you have good reading package and/or links of eloquent ethnic genetic interests that could be sent to him? If he don’t have excessive liberal baggage, he could smoothly fly to the light. It is worth the try. And it can be said to him, that he could still resist islam on cultural grounds if necessary, while at same time he can in other contexts and venues promote ethnic genetic interests. This eases the possible transition also.
Posted by a Finn on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 12:19 AM | #
“Thoughts?”
My thoughts are that I don’t want my race replaced (and especially not by force, against its will) but I don’t see why that means I have to go by some special name. Isn’t that just normal, the way everybody feels? Why, then, do I need a name? Does normalness need a special name? I thought it was abnormalness that needed that, not normalness. I don’t see myself as a White Supremacist or a White Nationalist. I don’t know what those are and frankly I’m not too interested in reading up on them. I’m just an ordinary guy, totally apolitical, who wants to get along with everyone, wishes no one harm, wants everyone to be happy, healthy, and successful, and hates to see his race forcibly replaced against its will.
I’ll say this: he who lets the pot boil over can’t complain when he gets burned.
Does anyone of you have good reading package and/or links of eloquent ethnic genetic interests that could be sent to him? (—Finn)
Has he read The Bell Curve by Herrnstein & Murray?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 03:12 AM | #
Not much posting going on there, if that’s what you mean. Particularly since the page is paste work.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 12:14 PM | #
As for reading material for our brave Culturalist, Fjordman could always visit here occasionally.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 12:15 PM | #
I think the analysis is way off.
These people are not the opposite of White Supremacists , they are White Supremacists. They like foreigners as a man loves a dog, if my dads dog shits on his floor sure he is annoyed but not really very much, if I shat on his floor there’d be HELL to pay.
They love promoting people they consider to be inferior because they feel their own position is not under threat from them, thats why they love positive discrimination etc etc.
The problem with these people is that after WW2 they have an inflated sense of their own strength and safety, as in the Fjordman example, they see it as 5 million Danes vs a tiny minority of Danish Muslims, rather than the reality of it being 5 million Danes against a billion plus Muslims, their view of the world has been totally distorted by the feeling of Western victory and superiority at the end of WW2.
These white liberals are often quite ‘anti-semitic’ and I think its for the same reason they are pro black, they see the Jews as a rival to their position, but blacks don’t give them the same concern.
Also with regard to cultural issues, my dad was talking about a black slavery programme he used to watch so I asked if he had heard about the Barbay coast pirates and the white slaves, he hadn’t and he didn’t want to hear about the conversation just went dead. It seems its easier to talk about bad things that happened to other people than dwell on the bad things that happened to ourselves.
Posted by anon on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 05:27 PM | #
Good points anon, and well taken.
Voice, Browning’s piece is excellent reading. I recommend it to everyone.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 06:36 PM | #
Anon
that is a good point and a different angle.
People have trouble facing their own failure and these crimes against their own-whites-represents failure.
It is so much easier to pity others than face one owns ineptitude and failure. I suppose this applies to our future doomsday scenario as well!
I never thought of it from that perspective before. Nice one.
Posted by Voice on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 06:38 PM | #
In England there is an openly racist Evening Standard Journo. He writes articles week in and week out about how backward, thick and useless the what he terms ‘Anglo Saxon’ working class are. He should be arrested for inciting racial hatred in my opinion. However he writes away and then the London Liberals wonder why the London working class vote BNP? By the way this journo is Asian. Apparently that makes his Hitleresque rants ok. If he replaced ‘Anglo Saxon’ with ‘Black’ in his articles, he’d be rightly locked up. This is usual. The BBC for years tried to convince the Englsih they didn’t exist, then DNA evidence proved that they were indeed Germans and so the BBC concoted a story that the English were like the whites in South Africa. I could go on and on. PC Liberalism is a cancer, like communism it must be crushed.
Posted by Terry on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 07:29 PM | #
“PC Liberalism is a cancer, like communism it must be crushed.” (—Terry)
No better way to start crushing it, Terry, than to vote for the BNP. The BNP will sort it out.
No one else will, you can count on that ...
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 09:55 PM | #
“Voice, Browning’s piece is excellent reading. I recommend it to everyone.” (—Svy)
I agree. Here’s a sample:
It is entirely reasonable, based on the historical evidence, to view the following as resulting, at least in part, from the Jewish extended phenotype at work in America: the “civil rights” movement, resulting in forced racial integration, anti-White quotas, school busing, “equal opportunity” and housing laws, and the resultant damage to our schools and standards, destruction of neighborhoods and cities, and countless thousands of Euro-American victims of ethnic minority violence; the 1965 change in our immigration laws, which continues to flood America with non-European immigrants, and which will result in minority status for Euro-Americans in several decades; the feminist movement, which has caused gender hostility between male and female Euro-Americans, and has resulted in an increased divorce and abortion rate, and a decreased birthrate among Euro-Americans; miscegenation between Euro-Americans and other racial groups, vigorously promoted by the media, which further reduces Euro-American numbers while damaging our genetic inheritance; the anti-(Vietnam) war movement, which created an atmosphere of cynicism, generational conflict, and defeatism in the American public; the “counter-culture,” helped along by the Frankfurt School,” which has assailed traditional Euro-American values, damaged our culture, and created feelings of alienation, particularly among the young; “white guilt,” which leads our people, again particularly the young, to doubt their own worth and to reject their history, with devastating consequences; the prevalence of the denial of race and racial differences, which distorts science in an attempt to convince peoples of European descent that since their race really doesn’t exist, then nothing is being lost as their population group hurtles to extinction; and a war against free speech which is making America more and more a gulag of political correctness.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Friday, March 23, 2007 at 01:23 AM | #
Auster:
“No one reading my entry would say that people are charging that Charles is a Muslim. Nevertheless, his warm statements about Islam and his announced desire to change his title to ‘Defender of the Faiths’ show that he does not see Britain as a Christian country but as equally Islamic as Christian.”
Prince Charles expressed a desire to change his title to “Defender of the Faiths”? For that alone he’s unfit to succeed his mother. In fact, he’s unfit to stay what he is. He should be required to abdicate the title of Prince of Wales right now, in favor of Prince William.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Friday, March 23, 2007 at 11:41 PM | #
Nevertheless, his warm statements about Islam and his announced desire to change his title to ‘Defender of the Faiths’ show that he does not see Britain as a Christian country but as equally Islamic as Christian.”
Translation: Chuck has expressed his desire to change his title to ‘Defender of Nothing.’ (Not suprising, really, a much easier job)
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Saturday, March 24, 2007 at 12:53 AM | #
“Does anyone of you have good reading package and/or links of eloquent ethnic genetic interests that could be sent to [Fjordman]?” (—Finn)
Here are excerpts from a review of a newly-published book, edited by Sam Francis before he passed away (I haven’t read the book; just came across this review minutes ago):
RACE AND THE AMERICAN PROSPECT: Essays on the Racial Realities of Our Nation and Our Time
[...] The foreword, by Wayne Lutton, gives us the basic demographic facts. Basically, whites, in this country, have low birthrates and are being overwhelmed by nonwhite immigration. [...]
The first chapter, by Kevin Lamb, “The Reality of Race: Understanding the Nature of Racial Differences,” [...] makes the interesting point that if race doesn’t exist, as is widely claimed, why does it keep popping up in forensic science, medical science, ancestry research, etc.? [...] Lamb has to devote considerable space to disproving this claim, which is a shame.
Chapter two is by Richard Lynn, “Racial Differences in Intelligence, Personality, and Behavior.” It summarizes what we know about these differences and at the end gives an evolutionary explanation for them.
Chapter three, by Joseph Fallon, is entitled “The Cost of Racial Pluralism in Black and White.” It calculates just what it is costing us, in money terms, to maintain the fiction that racial differences do not exist.
Chapter four, by Jared Taylor, is entitled “Racial Revolution: Race and Racial Consciousness in American History.” It takes us on a tour of racial attitudes, particularly towards blacks, among various eminences, such as presidents, in U.S. history. The revolution referred to in the title is in our attitudes toward blacks — from negative to positive. It occurred only fifty to sixty years ago. [...]
Chapter five, “Immigration and Race: The Making and Unmaking of America,” by Wayne Lutton, describes the effort to keep the country ethnically homogenous which ended in 1965 with that year’s immigration act.
Chapter six, “Race and the South,” by Sam Dickson, describes the true attitudes of Southerners, men like Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Alexander Stephens (the Confederacy’s vice-president), toward blacks [...]. One can’t help but think of immigration today. [...] Businesses have become addicted to immigration, as plantations were addicted to slaves, with no regard to the society at large, or the future.
Chapter seven, “Jews, Blacks, and Race,” by Kevin MacDonald, concerns the role and motives of Jews in the efforts by blacks to achieve some sort of equality with whites. It also examines Jews’ efforts to promote ethnic diversity in American society and the motives for these efforts. [...]
Chapter nine, “The Dis-United Kingdom: A Cautionary Tale,” by Derek Turner, tells us, first, how the UK was initially united, and how, since World War II, the Empire came back to haunt it, to dehomogenize it with immigration from its former colonies. [...] The reaction to immigration may be like our civil war: No one anticipated its ferocity and duration. Or the reaction to immigration may have something in common with the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union: No one foresaw these developments either. [...]
The next two chapters, “Race and the Left: Notes toward a Survey” and “Race in Philosophy: Toward a New Framework,” by Brent Nelson and J. L. Woodruff, respectively, discover bits and pieces among writers who mention race. [...]
Chapter twelve, “Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization,” by Samuel Francis, is an interesting attempt to explain the phenomenon of race betrayal or lack of consciousness among whites. It posits, qua Burnham’s theory of managerial elites, a kind of coalition between a white ruling class and various nonwhite groups. This coalition essentially destroys white self-consciousness. Why is it propelled to do this? The nation-state, governed by the old elite (the enemy of the nonwhite groups and the ascending white ruling class), must be undermined and discarded, if the new elite, true cosmopolitans now engaged in a global economy, is to have any chance of prevailing in this global economy. It’s a gamble: the nonwhite groups are racially self-conscious and will discard the new elite when the demographics allow it. The new elite has entered into a kind of devil’s pact with nonwhite groups. It has no choice. [...]
Taboos
Samuel Francis begins his introduction [to the book] thus: “In the Victorian era, the Great Taboo was sex. Today, whatever we label we attach to our own age, the Great Taboo is race.” The [British Empire’s] energy probably came from the very taboo that Francis decries [...]. Only under strict sexual regulations (absolute monogamy: one man, one wife; no divorce; female chastity until marriage, etc., do civilizations emerge. [...] Sexual restrictions of the severest sort produce great civilizations. The Victorian taboo on sex obviously upheld something. [...] Francis wanted to free the white population of its taboo of race and thereby, qua Freud, make it healthy and able to defend itself. But taboos have their purposes. [...] Thus, we come to the biological substratum, race. To repeat, there is a taboo on it. Is this taboo upholding something, as the sex taboo was in the Victorian era (taboos, like the incest taboo, generally exist for a good reason [...])? It very well might be. We have chosen the path of multiethnicity we are on, for better or worse. At the expense of whites? Yes.
Why are whites allowing this to happen?
It is simply not clear. Francis’s thesis, that there is a de facto coalition between an internationalist white ruling class and nationalist nonwhite groups until these groups become demographically strong enough to break with this ruling class and discard it, is the best we are going to get, for the time being. [...]
Are whites in danger of going extinct, and their civilization with it? It would appear so. Alarm bells should be ringing, says McCulloch (and others), and he’s ringing one himself. But no one is listening. [...]
Is this book worth buying and reading? Absolutely. It distills a lot of good information on the racial question in one place. [...] The taboo on discussing racial differences needs to be overcome, if whites are going to overcome their plight. That is this book’s central message.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 12:41 AM | #
Diaspora Jewish tribal wars against Euro nations continue, using promotion of excessive incompatible immgration as their current weapon of choice. (Yes I’m holding my breath waiting for these same Jews to advocate unlimited Moslem immigration into Israel — thought I’d experiment a little, and give it a try, but ... DON’T TRY THIS AT HOME! IT COULD BE VERY DANGEROUS! LEAVE THIS TO PROFESSIONALS!)
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 01:15 AM | #
I just read about the first third of The National Front’s FAQs and I agree with almost every word. I view this as an apolitical middle-of-the-road organization. (I just stumbled across the site in MR.com’s links list in the left-hand margin.)
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 02:00 AM | #
I don’t know about the National Front’s “distributist” economic policies but if anyone finds fault with the following from their FAQs, let me know:
______
Q. WHAT IS THE NATIONAL FRONT?
A. The National Front is a political movement based on the principle of Racial Nationalism.
3.
Q. BUT DON’T YOU INFILTRATE OTHER PARTIES?
A. No. All these parties are internationalist, they all believe in multiracialism and they put the interests of international trade and finance before the wishes of the British people. Consequently we have little connection with them. This makes infiltration a nonsense. The NF is a radical racial nationalist movement which believes in the absolute rights of British sovereignty and the principle of distributist ownership. This is something quite new in British politics.
6.
Q. CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF THIS?
A. Yes. It is almost unheard of for a television commentator, an establishment politician, a church leader or anyone else in a position of influence to question the wisdom of having a multiracial society. Yet if you asked the ordinary British man or woman in the street whether they prefer living with non-whites or whether they would prefer to live in monoracial societies, a significant but unknown proportion are almost certain to opt for the latter. Why is there this imbalance between ordinary people and the opinion formers of society?
17.
Q. WHAT DOES THE NATIONAL FRONT BELIEVE IN?
A. Our views and ideas are based on the concepts of personal liberty, social justice, national independence and racial integrity. We call this philosophy: RACIAL NATIONALISM.
18.
Q. WHAT EXACTLY IS RACIAL NATIONALISM?
A. As you would expect, this will take quite a bit of explanation, however one of the primary beliefs is that nation states are beneficial because they act to preserve the variety of cultural and racial differences which exist among the species of man. They should also give rise to a ‘national government’ which acts for and on behalf of a population which is racially homogenous and which has a largely similar cultural heritage. However such nation states are only beneficial if they reflect these racial and cultural differences. Nations which ignore these differences are artificial and they become divided and oppressive.
19.
Q. DOES THIS MEAN THAT YOU ARE IN FAVOUR OF JUST ONE RACE?
A. No. With each race there are considerable cultural differences which, as well as geographical considerations should form the basis of national boundaries.
20.
Q. CAN A NATION EVER HAVE A POPULATION DRAWN FROM MORE THAN ONE RACE?
A. No. To achieve a nation that is to maintain its integrity the people must be united by ties of race and culture. Nations such as the USA which have significant populations drawn from more than one race become tense, violence becomes prevalent, and racial groups separate out. A good example is the situation today in the UK with Oldham, Bradford and other cities becoming war zones.
21.
Q. DOESN’T A POLICY OF RACIAL NATIONALISM INEVITABLY LEAD TO WAR BETWEEN NATIONS?
A. No, quite the reverse. Racial Nationalism involves pride in one’s own race and nation and respect for the races and nations of other countries. Consequently racial nationalists are totally opposed to any form of imperialism because it denies these basic rights to other peoples. Wars are normally caused by those forces in a nation bent on economic imperialism. Racial violence is a result of enforced multiracialism, nothing else.
22.
Q. BUT DON’T THE NATIONAL FRONT HATE BLACKS?
A. No, Blacks, as well as other races have a right to enjoy, maintain and protect their own races and cultures - in their own countries.
23.
Q. DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU HATE THE BLACKS/ASIANS LIVING IN BRITAIN?
A. No, Britain is not their country, if you ask second or even third generation immigrants whether they belong here, they will say no, (this is regularly confirmed by opinion polls that have been carried out by a number of national newspapers, etc.). We do not hate the non-Whites in this country - they are as much the victims of multiracialism as we are. We do however hate the people who are responsible for bringing the immigrants here in the first place and have thus caused this tragedy.
24.
Q. BUT WEREN’T THE BLACKS BROUGHT HERE TO DO THE JOBS THAT WHITES DIDN’T WANT?
A. Yes, but that was wrong. Coloured immigrants were first brought to this country in the 1950’s because there was a shortage of labour which was allowing workers to demand higher wages. Industrialists and politicians connived to bring in coloured immigrants to keep the White workers’ wages low. If immigration had not been allowed then industries would have been forced to become more efficient by investing in labour-saving machinery. This would have allowed workers to earn good wages which they could spend on British goods.
25.
Q. BUT WASN’T ENOCH POWELL ONE OF THOSE MINISTERS WHO ADVOCATED BRINGING IN THESE BLACKS?
A. Yes and, as he admitted himself, he was wrong.
26.
Q. WOULD THERE STILL BE PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER A NF GOVERNMENT?
A. Yes, there would be a lot more freedom in the UK than there is today. We would institute a Bill of Rights which would guarantee the rights of Freedom of Speech, Assembly, etc. and personal liberty for all citizens.
27.
Q. DOES THIS MEAN YOU WOULDN’T BAN COMMUNIST GROUPS?
A. We do not believe there would be any need to ban such groups. We know we can demolish such groups by force of argument. After all, if we cannot pursuade people that our views are right then we have no right to put them into practise.
28.
Q. WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH THE NON-WHITES THAT WERE BORN IN BRITAIN?
A. All coloured people would be covered by our policy of phased humane repatriation. This means that over a period of ten to fifteen years these people would go back to the lands which they, or their parents/grandparents came from. There will be no exceptions.
29.
Q. WOULD OTHER COUNTRIES TAKE THEM BACK?
A. In most cases, yes. We would facilitate this by making the granting of overseas financial aid dependent on them taking back their own people. We believe this would cover the vast majority of coloured people in this country. People covered by such an act would, of course, be given the freedom to choose to go to any country that is prepared to accept them.
30.
Q. WHAT ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO LEAVE?
A. We believe that the vast majority of non-Whites in this country would leave voluntarily once a National Front government is elected and we make it quite clear that they will have to leave sooner or later. If anything we would expect a rush of Blacks wanting to leave quickly to be at the front of the queue in the countries to which they want to go. With Britain moving towards a monoracial society we would expect almost all Blacks to be willing to accept that they must leave. Those few who refuse will find themselves as a tiny minority in a country which is 99.9% White where their friends and relatives have left. We believe that they would then wish to leave.
31.
Q. BUT WHAT IF THOSE PEOPLE STILL DON’T WANT TO LEAVE?
A. Then the law would be enforced in the normal way. Such people would be arrested and deported after having been allowed to dispose of any property they do not wish to take with them.
32.
Q. WOULDN’T NF MEMBERS TRY TO FORCE THEM OUT VIOLENTLY?
A. No, everyone will be made fully aware of the fact that non-Whites will be leaving. There is no reason for any individual to engage in stupid acts. Non-Whites will still be under the protection of the law pending their repatriation.
33.
Q. WHAT ABOUT THOSE OF MIXED-RACE PARENTAGE?
A. In normal circumstances they would be expelled from Britain in the same way and would be given the choice of where to go.
34.
Q. WHAT ABOUT WHITES MARRIED TO NON-WHITES?
A. The Black partner and offspring would be subjected to the repatriation law. It would then be up to the spouse to decide what to do, whether to stay or leave.
35.
Q. ISN’T THIS A VERY CRUEL POLICY?
A. No, quite the reverse, relatively little suffering is involved, especially compared with the increasing level of racial violence which is spreading across Britain. It is quite simply a question of humane phased repatriation or RACE WAR. We believe that only our solution offers a relatively peaceful way out of this situation which has been forced on Black and White alike by the decisions of previous governments and the urgings of big business
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 12:08 PM | #
More (they sound like a damn good outfit, basically):
______
39.
Q. DOES THAT MEAN THE NATIONAL FRONT WOULD WITHDRAW FROM THE UNITED NATIONS?
A. Yes, the UN has regularly interfered in the internal affairs of sovereign nations - sometimes by means of aggressive force. The debates at the UN have become a stage for every tin-pot dictator and presidents of ‘One Party States’. We believe in friendly dialogue with other nations but we do not approve of the expensive and malicious posturing that has become prevalent in this organisation.
40.
Q. WHAT ABOUT OTHER INTERNATIONAL BODIES SUCH AS THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND AND THE WORLD BANK?
A. These have attempted to impose economic slavery on sovereign nations, mainly Third World countries, but also Western nations including Britain. Many Third World countries now have to tailor their policies to suit these international bankers. We believe that the only people who should decide on the policies of a country are the people of that country. Yes, we would withdraw from them as well.
41.
Q. WOULD THE NATIONAL FRONT ALSO TAKE BRITAIN OUT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION?
A. Yes. The Treaty of Rome seeks to over-ride the independence of its member nations and replace it with rule from Brussels. The EU, formerly the EEC/EC, has also undermined our economy with the loss of factories which are now being re-sited in other EU nations. Britain is being reduced to a small offshore, derelict wasteland. We are on the way to losing Sterling and idiotic Euro-laws are being forced upon us. Yes, we would take Britain out of the European Union as soon as we can.
42.
Q. FROM WHAT YOU’VE SAID, DO YOU MEAN THAT THE NATIONAL FRONT IS AGAINST AMERICAN BASES LIKE MENWITH HILL IN BRITAIN?
A. Yes. If Britain is to be independent we must have total control over military establishments in our country. Menwith Hill is a spy station used by the USA to intercept ALL telephone calls, e-mails, etc. and is used by the USA, in conjunction with the British State, to monitor everyone and anyone who is a potential threat to their system. We need our own nuclear deterrent, the equivalent of France’s “Force de Trappe” - enough to deter potential enemies without the capability to destroy the world several times over. This deterrent must be British designed, British built and British controlled. We are not the USA’s 51st state, the Yanks will be sent packing from the UK when the NF take power.
43.
Q. DOES THIS MEAN THAT A NUCLEAR DETERRENT WOULD PLAY A GREATER PART IN BRITAIN’S DEFENCE?
A. No. The nuclear deterrent would be kept as small as is consistent without security requirements. It would not form part of an American global umbrella. Because of this we would be able to devote more money to conventional arms.
44.
Q. WHAT EXACTLY IS THE ROLE THEN OF BRITAIN’S DEFENCE FORCES?
A. Primarily it is to defend the British nation - our people and our land. Obviously this means defending the British Isles. It also means having the capability to defend British interests abroad. We should retain the ability to come to the aid of other nations which are linked to us by ties of race and culture if they should be threatened by larger nations or alliances/blocs, or by other aggressors.
45.
Q. WOULD THE NF KEEP BRITAIN IN NATO?
A. No. NATO is an organisation that is under the control of the USA. It seeks to replace the independent defence capabilities of independent Western nations such as Britain. NATO demonstrated its deadly capabilities in the war against Serbia in 1999. On the orders of the USA, a sovereign nation was viciously bombed by a variety of European nations, led by their US masters under the NATO banner in direct contravention of international law that bans the meddling by foreign powers in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Now that the Soviet Union no longer exists there is no real need for an alliance such as NATO - except, maybe, against the United States!
46.
Q. DO YOU CONSIDER DEFENCE TO BE AN IMPORTANT POLICY?
A. The first job of a state is to ensure that its people are safe from aggression - both external and internal. Consequently defence is a vital part of the policy of the NF.
47.
Q. DOES THE NATIONAL FRONT AGREE WITH THE CONSERVATIVES IN HAVING A STRONG LAW AND ORDER POLICY?
A. Unlike the Conservatives the National Front believes in carrying out whatever measures are needed to protect the citizens of the UK, particularly the sick, the young and the old. The Tories talk a great deal about law and order, but in practice do very little. The Blair government makes promises also but since their elction in 1997 the crime rate continues to rise. Asian rioters have been allowed to escape punishment and the amount of drugs related crime is rocketing. Our people no longer feel safe in their own homes and many people dare not venture out even in the daytime. Republican terrorists and murderers in Northern Ireland are now free to walk the streets and the campaign of intimidation and terror continues unabated. Britain is the base for some of the world’s most wanted Islamic terrorists - and Blair’s government refuses to extradite them. The old parties talk a lot about law and order but only the National Front will create a society where everyone feels safe.
48.
Q. DOES THE NATIONAL FRONT WANT TO RESTORE THE DEATH PENALTY?
A. Yes, the NF would restore the death penalty for premeditated murder but proof of guilt must be 100%. Life imprisonment would mean life and not 12 years as in today’s society. The death penalty would also apply to those guilty of sexual crimes against our children, violent rapists and people involved in the manufacture, importation or distribution of lethal drugs. The death penalty would also apply for those guilty of terrorist offences such as the planting of bombs with intent to kill.
49.
Q. WOULD YOU INCREASE THE POWERS OF THE POLICE OR EVEN TURN BRITAIN INTO A POLICE STATE?
A. Absolutely not. The powers of the police are quite sufficient in most cases and in some areas they are too great and open to abuse. The great change would come when someone is found guilty of a crime, they would then suffer penalties appropriate for that crime. We will also intoduce mandatory sentences for certain crimes unlike in today’s society where in some areas people receive totally different sentences to people in other areas who have committed exactly the same crime. We would also make sure that the decision whether to prosecute someone for a crime is not subject to political pressure or media interest as has been the case with crimes of fraud in the City of London and with ‘racially sensitive’ crimes such as the Bradford Riots of 1995 where, in the interest of ‘community relations’, not one rioter was even charged never mind convicted.
66.
Q. WHAT SORT OF EDUCATION SYSTEM WOULD THE NATIONAL FRONT IMPOSE ON BRITAIN?
A. The National Front wouldn’t impose any ‘system’, we believe that education policy must be adaptable to local needs. Thus, a particular type of school structuring which is quite suitable in a densely populated urban area may be quite unsuitable in remote rural areas.
The structure of schooling is best decided at local level by the joint decisions of school governors, parents and pupils.
University places would be on merit and not on the ability to pay.
67.
Q. WOULD THESE PEOPLE DECIDE WHAT IS TO BE TAUGHT IN BRITISH SCHOOLS?
A. We believe it is necessary to have an agreed ‘core curriculum’ which would include the basics of reading, writing, etc. and also of certain other subjects such as the constitution of the UK. This would be common to the whole country. However, beyond this there would be wide scope for regional and local variations which we would encourage.
68.
Q. WHAT IS YOUR ATTITUDE TO THE PROBLEMS OF NORTHERN IRELAND?
A. Ulster will be part of the United Kingdom for all time. The NF would integrate the province into the rest of the UK. The problems of the religious divide would be solved by introducing an oath of loyalty to the United Kingdom for all citizens to sign. Those that refuse to sign would not be allowed to hold British citizenship and asked to leave. We will give real security to the North by sealing the border with the South. The whole of Ulster will be made into an economic priority area and we will move at least one main government ministry into the province.
69.
Q. WOULD YOU GOVERN NORTHERN IRELAND FROM WESTMINSTER?
a. Northern Ireland would be run in the same way as Scotland, Wales and England. There would be central government which would decide on issues such as defence, foreign policy, etc. However there would be far more local autonomy not only for the constituent nations of the United Kingdom, but also for the regions and localities within the four home nations.
73.
Q. BUT WHY DON’T OTHER PARTIES RECEIVE [THE UNFAIR TREATMENT YOU’RE GETTING]?
A. Because those parties offer nothing that is not in line with the State enforced policy of national decline and racial ruination. The media work for everything that the NF opposes and they do not want the British people to know that there is a REAL alternative.
82.
Q. DOES THE NATIONAL FRONT ENCOURAGE ITS MEMBERS TO ATTACK BLACKS AND ASIANS?
a. No, we don’t like having Blacks and Asians in our country but we recognise that they are as much victims of this multiracial nightmare as we are. If our members hate anyone it is the White politicians in positions of power who brought non-Whites here.
84.
Q. WHY DOES THE HOME SECRETARY BAN MOST OF YOUR MARCHES THEN?
A. For purely political reasons. The NF threatens the status quo and the government attempt to marginalise us by putting into the public mind the lie that we are an organisation that is acting against the law. Since David Blunkett became Home Secretary every proposed NF march has been banned yet drug fests like the Notting Hill Carnival and other similar events around the country are encouraged.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 12:10 PM | #
What is there that’s available politically which lies between the mainstream parties’ position (namely, galloping toward certain death for Euros as a race) and outfits like this?
Nothing. Nothing’s available between the two.
So if an outfit like this has a weird “distributist” economics policy I’ll vote for it nevertheless and ask questions later. The first order of business isn’t economics policy but keeping the Euro races from being snuffed out. (Of course my first choice would be the BNP but this outfit obviously is an ally.)
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 12:20 PM | #
From: Glenn Began
I keep hearing on TV [that] NYC among others is a Sanctuary City. What does that mean? It means cops are not allowed to ask anyone about their immigration status or even report them to federal authorities (as if the authorities would do anything anyway!). Now I ask you in all seriousness: What idiot made up this rule? [VDARE.com Note: Probably Rudy Giuliani.] It just seems like no politician will stand up against illegal aliens. Instead, they seek ways to make life easier for them!
Are the illegals signing their paychecks? I think not, since the vast majority do not pay taxes! It’s about time these politicians found out who the hell they are working for!
Very few politicians have the political will to do anything about it and I cannot understand why! Why would you allow America to be over run by illegals? What do they hope to gain from this? Do they want us to become a third world country like Mexico? Why is Mexico a third world country? Because Mexicans live there!
The politicians both Dems and Republicans don’t care. It’s time we took America back!
But wait, the politicians say it’s unfeasible, too expensive, overwhelming to send 12,000,000 illegals back to Mexico. Allow me to prove them wrong.
About a month ago I was watching TV and they were talking about Paris Hilton being arrested for DWI. Now, I could care less about Paris Hilton but the guy made an interesting point. More then 2,500,000 people are arrested for DWI in the US every year. I looked it up and according to MADD it’s closer to 1,600,000. The point is, you are arrested, put in jail, then if you have the money you bond out. Your driver’s license is suspended for probably a year. You will spend 5-10-15 thousand in attorney fees. Your insurance will go up. It will remain on your MVR report for 75 years. Now you are going to put these people through all this crap, tie up the courts, some of these cases can actually go on for a year or more.
I’m not defending drunk driving. It’s wrong. No question about it. But why are we so tough on DWI and have absolutely no time to arrest illegals? This is astounding! Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001 to Sept 11, 2006! This is approximately 5 times the amount of people killed on 911 and all the soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined! (A footnote — if you are arrested DWI [driving while intoxicated] and you are here illegally you are not automatically deported back to Mexico!)
I guess this is of no concern. Evidently not. Illegals actually have more rights then we do. Try going to a hospital. The first words out of their mouth is “who do you have insurance with?” Unless you are an illegal — then it goes like this “Please step in, Mr. Gonzalez.”
Race-replacement isn’t happening by accident. Very rich behind-the-scenes forces who are perfectly aware of what’s going on and of everything Mr. Began is baffled by are quietly spending vast sums in political bribes and influence-buying in order to assure that the flow of non-whites continues unabated. Someone like, say, Warren Buffett knows exactly who these forces and individuals are and why they’re buying this nation’s race-replacement but he’s keeping mum. Why? He’s not Jewish. He’s keeping mum because either he’s one of them or he likes what they’re doing. I have little doubt it’s both.
This is not happening by accident. It’s being carefully, forcefully pushed behind the scenes by people who know exactly what they’re doing.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 04:34 PM | #
Fjordman´s fixation on Eurabia and other intellectual smoke screens makes me suspicious. He´s only useful as a sort of Lawrence Auster figure, no more.
Is Fjordman really a Norwegian or an American Jewish expat? Most likely the latter.
Posted by Proofreader on Sunday, March 25, 2007 at 08:35 PM | #
I’m glad you guys are waking up.
If you don’t DO SOMETHING NOW, WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A POSSIBLE PHYSICAL MAJORITY… you’ll miss out on an opportunity steer Britian towards being GREAT AGAIN!
I’m a white guy living in Africa. I’ve always been part of a minority racial and cultural group. I therefor cannot understand Europe’s acceptance of Black Africans as Refugees or immigrants - there is no logic to it. Blacks and Arabs are being marketed and labeled as Swedes in Sweden(too Liberal / Socialist for their own good), is simply stupid. No Black country or Arab country would ever market or label Europeans as Nigerians or Kuwaiti for that matter!
I would say that the National Front should use post-colonial Africa as an example… or even as a justification… ALL African states, upon becoming ‘independent’, gave whites the boot within about 10 to 15 years… Whites have not been allowed to live in Africa - when looking at the exodus of Europeans from Africa since 1960, yet Black Africans are taken in as refugees and immigrants into your White Homelands, to this day.
Kenya, Zambia, Angola, Mozambique (to name a few) and currently Zimbabwe’s treatment of Whites should serve as a warning to any White British folk - foolishly thinking that leopards and lions can share the same territory (in Nature leopards and lions actively kill each other - there is no ‘mixing of the races or cultures’ in nature).
Robert Mugabe has commited completely ‘illogical’ actions from a Western perspective, namely to get rid of ALL WHITE farmers (even if it results in the collapse of food production) - for in the eyes of his fellow Black Peers, Mugabe is a HERO (by doing whatever it took to erase Europeans from his country). So it does make sense, from THEIR perspective.
I live in South Africa, and I guess Whites in this country are probably screwed… oh well… time to dig up my great-great-granddad’s Mauser…
Posted by Zamboonian on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 at 05:33 AM | #
“Race-replacement isn’t happening by accident. Very rich behind-the-scenes forces who are perfectly aware of what’s going on and of everything Mr. Began is baffled by are quietly spending vast sums in political bribes and influence-buying in order to assure that the flow of non-whites continues unabated. Someone like, say, Warren Buffett knows exactly who these forces and individuals are and why they’re buying this nation’s race-replacement but he’s keeping mum. Why? He’s not Jewish. He’s keeping mum because either he’s one of them or he likes what they’re doing. I have little doubt it’s both. This is not happening by accident. It’s being carefully, forcefully pushed behind the scenes by people who know exactly what they’re doing.” (—me above, March 25, 4:34 PM)
Look what Mangan posts today:
According to Forbes, Warren Buffett and his wife “have given the dollar limit to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. He’d take either one as president.” Buffett can afford to back candidates who would be bad for the economy. As for taxes, which of course both Obama and Clinton will want to increase, Buffett’s attitude is one of “do as I say, not as I do.” By giving away most of his money to the Gates Foundation he avoided paying a lifetime’s worth of capital gains taxes. Since he’s never sold any of his Berkshire Hathaway stock, his holdings being worth some $45 billion, and since capital gains are currently taxed at 15%, he avoided nearly $7 billion in taxes. It might be said that by giving the money to a charity he did far more than his duty, but the fact remains that he got to spend his money as he wished and avoided paying the government anything at all. Doing that is for those who aren’t quite as successful as Buffett.
From my comment of March 25, 12:41 AM:
Chapter three, by Joseph Fallon, is entitled “The Cost of Racial Pluralism in Black and White.” It calculates just what it is costing us, in money terms, to maintain the fiction that racial differences do not exist.
I haven’t read the book but it’s costing us trillions. Prof. Michael Levin calculated the transfer of funds from whites to Negroes in the U.S. since the sixties to be around three trillion dollars, if memory serves. And he wrote that book several years ago.
That money doesn’t evaporate into thin air, but goes into pockets — and not, for the most part, Negro pockets. The class of (white) people getting rich from all this are among the ones fighting to keep the borders open, as every non-white who walks across is seen by them as government money in their pockets.
Why were the borders thrown open twenty-five years into this scam operating solely in regard to the Negroes? Same reason any scheme that makes people rich gets extended as more and more want to opt into it. It was seen that the scheme had more or less yielded all the riches it was going to with the Negroes so additional non-whites were needed to support (and often outright enrich) a whole new class of white parasites.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 10:29 PM | #
It’s not just CGT that Buffett has avoided, Fred. Berkshire Hathaway’s corporation tax bill isnt large for a cash-generator of this size.
Also because in its 40 odd years as a listed company, BH has never paid out one thin dime in dividends, thus obviating the need for Buffett to incur huge income tax bills.
Posted by Al Ross on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 12:26 AM | #
Swedish radical feminist Joanna Rytel wrote an article called “I Will Never Give Birth to a White Man,”
The implied meaning is enough to turn my stomach--ick! Well, I suppose that the Swedes think that if the girls see and hear this message enough times that it will finally pay off in a new mixed race. We can’t have little beautiful blue-eyed and blond haired children running around in the future--can we? That just wouldn’t be right…
I would rather die than have a child with a black man. Nothing against them personally, but why would I want to dilute my ever-diminishing caucasian genes. Leave that to the black women.
I have had it with the Scandinavian Government; Traitors to their own people. Apparently Norway has it no better.
Posted by EC on Monday, July 7, 2008 at 09:32 AM | #
God bless you, EC! You sound like a wonderful woman! Your posts warm my heart.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, July 8, 2008 at 12:55 PM | #
Thank you kindly Fred! Your comment certainly warms mine! It feels like a losing battle sometimes, but it helps to believe that sanity will prevail in the end...God bless : )
Posted by EC on Tuesday, July 8, 2008 at 01:32 PM | #
A nice life affirming image there EC...life being ultimately what those who adopt and advocate the ideology of Multi-Culturalism hate and despise most of all.
Posted by Alex on Tuesday, July 8, 2008 at 02:04 PM | #
I couldn’t agree more, Alex! People have become so brainwashed about the subject that there mere mention of non-mixing of races, generates all kinds of hysteria. Individual thought and reason have become a rare thing, it seems.
Posted by EC on Tuesday, July 8, 2008 at 02:43 PM | #
Page 1 of 1 pages
Next entry: Rainbow family enslaves white girl
Previous entry: The Bear’s Lair: Breaking the BRICs
Posted by Voice on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 09:39 PM | #