They Bleed Red

by I. Bismuth

I had delivered a triumphantly prolix lecture to the International Coven of Sensitivity Consultants, so it was late on a winter’s evening that I returned to the railway station in a nameless provincial city.

My nocturnal walk trainwards took me along a street suddenly silent apart from my own footsteps. Do not imagine that this made me fearful of an encounter with those who are vulnerable to entering the criminal justice system. Fear in that place and at that time would have been crass racism.

But I confess to having been startled by a sudden, dull thud and the squeal of brakes. The sound came from around the corner I was about to turn. As I did so a few seconds later the air was filled with laughter and shouting - a most vibrant sound, a Cushitic tongue I would say, possibly Somalic. There followed a hysterical glissando of first gear getaway. Then I was walking along a street silent once again but for the echo of my own footsteps and the addition of a low moaning a little way ahead of me. It came from a body lying in the middle of the road.

I approached it and saw it was a man in his late twenties with as much blood on display as you would expect in the circumstances.

“Can you move?” I asked.

“I think my legs are broken.”

“This is terrible. What on earth happened?”

“A car came at me.”

My antennae twitched.

“Came at you?” I said, “That is a highly tendentious choice of words. It suggests malicious intent. Are you perhaps allowing the passions of the moment to cloud your judgement?”

“It had to swerve to avoid missing me.”

“Yes, you do seem already to have ruled out the possibility of your being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You are positing culpability in others where there may be none. Are you by any chance a professional accident investigator?”

“It was no accident. The four of them got out and gave me a good kicking as I lay here, and laughed all the time they were doing it.”

“Let’s ... not ... be too hasty,” I cautioned, “That could well have been a case of cultural misunderstanding. It is dangerous to be dogmatic about what really happened, and why, before, for instance, any evidence from street security cameras has been forensically examined, and before the testimony of other witnesses has been heard.”

“There aren’t any other witnesses, only the three who did the kicking and the one who did the kicking and the driving. None of them will ever be caught.”

‘Again, you are assuming that they need to be caught.”

“They won’t be. They were all wearing hoods. They know about security cameras too. And tracing the number plate won’t help. Even if the car wasn’t stolen, half of them haven’t got licences or insurance or any kind of ownership registration.”

There was indeed an attitude here that needed further investigation.

“Half of them, you say?”

“Well, a lot of them.”

Now I could smell blood. Metaphorically, I mean.

“And who are these mysterious them?”

“I saw them all, didn’t I? I saw their faces. Look, call for an ambulance, will you? They took my mobile.”

“There seems to be an inconsistency here. You said they would not be identified from security camera evidence because they were wearing hoods, and now you are claiming you could see their faces.”

“That’s right. I saw their faces because I was on the ground looking up at them. The cameras are mounted too high to show their faces.”

“Very clever. But, of course, you are no more an expert on interpreting security camera evidence than you are a professional accident investigator. Well, we’ll let that go for the moment, but you must be careful not to make claims you are in no position to substantiate.”

“I’m in no position to do anything very much.”

“Half of them haven’t got licences or insurance or any kind of ownership registration” — those were your exact words, were they not?”

“If you say so.”

“That is not an answer to my question. Were those your exact words?”

“Yes, all right, they were. Can’t you just call an ambulance?”

“All in good time. And when you said half of them, who did you mean by them?”

“There are thousands of them around here.”

‘Is my elocution faulty? Is the volume of my delivery too low? Is my vocabulary larded with abstruse technical jargon? Is my question a complex one requiring you to accept as true assumptions that are false? None of this is the case, as I think even a hostile observer would have to admit. My question is simple and honest, and a simple and honest answer to it is not too much to expect. I shall put it to you again: Who did you mean by them?’

‘I feel cold. I’ve lost a lot of blood.’

He was not going to escape me that easily.

“Who did you mean by them?” I persisted.

“Aren’t you going to call an ambulance?”

“I am asking the questions.”

“Somehow, I don’t really feel like talking.”

“Who did you mean by them?” I said, bringing to bear all the authority that comes naturally from years of exposing racism like this. It was enough.

“They’re not our people. That’s all I mean.’

“Aha! So now we have it. And how do you know that these four, who may well not need to be caught, are not our people? Did they show you any documentation while they were allegedly kicking you?”

“Not that I remember.”

“No, so all you can say about them with certainly, since they were laughing at the time, is that they must have a sense of humour.”

“They were jolly lads all right.”

“And yet you claim to know they are not our people. How is that possible?”

“I told you. I saw their faces.”

“Are you implying that you could tell they are not our people simply by looking at their faces?”

“I’m not implying. I’m bleeding.”

“Bleeding does not preclude implying. Do not make me repeat my question.”

“I saw all four men who got out of the car. If you want me to say I’m not sure they are not our people, all right ... I’m not sure. Will you call an ambulance now?”

“I am not satisfied with the way you said that. It lacked conviction.”

“You mean Will you call an ambulance now?”

“Not that. Are you being wilfully obtuse?”

“Oh, the other thing. I am not sure they are not our people. Is that any better?”

“No.”

“What about I am sure I’m not one of theirs.”

“This is no time to be facetious.”

“Can’t you just go away and leave me here? Another car will come along eventually and finish me off.”

“You are only making it worse for yourself.”

“I’m making it worse!”

“Are you sure you would not like to distance yourself from the implications of what you are saying?”

“I’d like to distance myself from you.”

“It is clear to me that you are resistant to change. That is discriminatory and unacceptable.”

I told him he should be careful what he said next. He had already provided ample evidence for prosecution. But let no one say I am not a fair and forgiving man. He still had the opportunity to grasp the magnitude of his wrongdoing and express a sincere desire for change.

“Five minutes ago I had legs I could walk on and more blood inside me than was on the road. That’s change I could have done without.”

His fate was sealed. It remained only for me to affect a citizen’s arrest and phone for the police. But before I could do so the fellow looked straight into my eyes and said, “Let me ask you a question.’

“No questions from those resistant to change.” I shot back.

“You ... whoever you are ... whatever you are ... I think you like what’s been done to me this evening. Admit it. You do, don’t you?”

The impudence of the man! “Resistance to change is vile,” I said plainly.

“You like it. And you like what’s being done to all our people, don’t you?”

“Resistance to change is repugnant.”

“And all you want, I mean really want, is more of the same, isn’t it?”

“Resistance to change is Nazi.”

“So doesn’t that mean that you are the one who is resistant to change?”

“Vile! Repugnant! Nazi!”

“Come on, answer the question. Let’s hear you justify yourself. Aren’t you the one resistant to change?”

“To reason with racism is racism. This conversation is over.”

“What are you doing?” he shrieked, obviously not previously aware that a man of intellect might also be a man of action.

“Vee ... haff ... vays ... of ... making you ... not talk.”

Scarcely had I begun when a beam of headlights materialised and a car rolled to a halt a few feet away, quite unaccompanied by the happy sound of diversity. I glanced over my shoulder as the driver’s door opened and beauty, yes, a beauty as transfixing and cool and perfect as an alabaster bust of Venus, peered over it. She fixed her eyes first on me, then on the swine on the ground. I wanted to explain. She had to know that this racist didn’t deserve ... I mean, there are better men, some even white, for her to, you know ... But before I could do anything she emerged from her motorized bolt-hole with unexpected determination.

“What are you doing to that man?”

“I ... it’s all right,” I said, “He’s a racist.”

She came and stood over me. She was wearing a figure-unflattering blue uniform made of a fully machine-washable 67% polyester and 33% cotton mix. I hope it was functional.

“He looks half dead!”

“Just give me another minute.”

With an unladylike roughness she pushed me aside and kneeled in the road. But, instead of praying, to which my objection would have been merely aesthetic, she made a brisk assessment of the immoral one ... and of the bystander, I fear.

“Has an ambulance been called?”

“Is everyone in this benighted city incapable of understanding what is said to them?”

“Does that mean it has or it hasn’t?”

“When you arrived here on the scene - arrived, I might add, without invitation - what was the second thing I said to you after reassuring you, in an easy and cheerful colloquial style, that it was all right? This was a matter of seconds ago. It could not have slipped a goldfish’s memory in that time.”

Rather contemptuously, I thought, she turned away from me while I was speaking and started asking the unworthy object of her attention what name he liked to be known by, how long he had been lying there, and whether he could wiggle his toes.

This was wrong.

“I should add,” I said, my frustration overflowing, “that that is only an aquatically defamatory figure of speech. The story of the goldfish’s brain having the retentive power to last it only one circuit of the bowl is apocryphal. A similar story about yours evidently would not be.”

“Stand back, please.”

“You don’t know what you’re doing,” I said, in the sure knowledge that of the two of us it was I who understood racists.

“I know exactly what I’m doing. You’ve had a good enough goggle at me. I thought you might have noticed that I’m a ward sister. I’m on my way to St. Luke’s now.”

“I meant that your ministrations are likely to have socially harmful consequences.”

“Get out of my way.”

“Very well, let me remind you. The first piece of information I gave you after my general reassurance, which without further elaboration was all you needed before resuming your journey, was that this creature is a racist. Is that not what I told you?”

“I expect so.”

“A racist ...”

“Mmm,” she said disinterestedly.

“You should have heard the things he’s been saying.”

“Well, when he’s better, he’ll be able to start saying them again, won’t he?”

“This is a terrible abuse of your skills,” I protested, “Have you no sense of civic responsibility?”

“Are you a vampire or something?”

A certain roughness around the edges is acceptable in a provincial Venus. But this was bordering on the personal.

“I’m phoning for an ambulance now and for the police too,” she said briskly.

“Good. The police will certainly be interested to know the kind of hate this one has been spewing.”

“They will be more interested in what you’ve been doing.”

I was shocked (and I was also on bail). This was a member of a caring profession, and yet her range of expression seemed fixed between the unmannerly and the distinctly threatening. I was rapidly falling out of love with this city.

My train was due to leave in fifteen minutes. If I ran like a bat out of hell, I could still catch it. The quality of social progress in the provinces had left a bad taste in my mouth. I became suddenly possessed of a homesickly desire to return without delay to my beloved metropolis, a zone of change in which Anti-Racism is at ease with itself.

For an academic of my years and distinction, I make a pretty good bat out of hell.

I. Bismuth’s latest book We Are the World, Who Are You? is shortly to be published by Inclusiveness Press. At his express insistence the first edition will be in Somalic.

Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, June 28, 2010 at 09:26 PM in I Bismuth
Comments (29) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by DRS on June 29, 2010, 11:14 AM | #

Just what is I. Bismuth’s motivation then? Maniacal zealotry to the “cause” or a government paycheque?

Posted by Guessedworker on June 29, 2010, 12:40 PM | #

Anti-racists who are also indigenous Europeans are struggling for a better world. They do it from the same emotional driving force as the medieval witch-hunters. Only the sin has changed. Like the poor, they are always with us. They are highly conflicted, obviously - the focal point of which is the conflict between the beauty of the human family to whom they belong and the absolute necessity to find that family routinely and uniquely inhuman. This creates a great need to demonstrate their rightiousness over and over again, which they do by self-proving means ... the ritual demonisations of “scum”, “Nazi” and so on and the frequent resort to word formulas such “one race the human race”.

The pathological ones are doubtless also projecting self-loathing on the familial as a means of self-healing. But I think Bismuth falls into the religious zealot category.

Posted by PF on June 29, 2010, 12:41 PM | #

LOL.

Glad to see you didn’t let a woman come between you and your devotion to anti-racism, Bismuth. Frankly I think she was racist for assisting that racist scum of a pedestrian.

Posted by PF on June 29, 2010, 12:44 PM | #

I was shocked (and I was also on bail).

Its the details that make a great humorist. lol again.

Posted by uh on June 29, 2010, 01:01 PM | #

Careful! Do not impugn the intelligence of lower—- I mean other lifeforms!

Posted by DRS on June 29, 2010, 01:08 PM | #

Guessedworker wrote:

Anti-racists who are also indigenous Europeans are struggling for a better world. They do it from the same emotional driving force as the medieval witch-hunters. Only the sin has changed. Like the poor, they are always with us. They are highly conflicted, obviously - the focal point of which is the conflict between the beauty of the human family to whom they belong and the absolute necessity to find that family routinely and uniquely inhuman. This creates a great need to demonstrate their rightiousness over and over again, which they do by self-proving means ... the ritual demonisations of “scum”, “Nazi” and so on and the frequent resort to word formulas such “one race the human race”.

The pathological ones are doubtless also projecting self-loathing on the familial as a means of self-healing. But I think Bismuth falls into the religious zealot category.

So would this be a racial personality stereotype found within the European Caucasian gene pool then? The “cause” being subservient (irrelevant even) to the pathological need for “moral superiority”?

Posted by Wandrin on June 29, 2010, 05:10 PM | #

So would this be a racial personality stereotype found within the European Caucasian gene pool then? The “cause” being subservient (irrelevant even) to the pathological need for “moral superiority”?

It’s not always moral superiority - sometimes it’s just equanamity. You’ve probably met people at one time or another while engaged in some kind of group activity who are constantly striving to make sure they’re done “their fair share” of the work? With them they always feel in debit and so are running to stand still. In reality they always end up doing more than their fair share.

Imagine a military unit like that compared to one where everyone is solely thinking about themselves - if they’re intelligent and fit enough as well then you get the SAS.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 30, 2010, 09:09 PM | #

Help make this video go “viral” around the internet: Congressman Pete Stark, a true piece of excrement in human form, makes fun of an audience of California people, largely non-whites (looks like around 50-50 white-nonwhite in the audience, the nonwhites being Orientals and Mexicans), who are visibly hopping mad, livid, about open borders and just barely controlling their outrage and want something done about it in D.C. Look how Stark treats them, spitting on them and slandering the Minutemen with filthy lies and innuendos repeatedly uttered with an arrogant smirk on his face:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2010/06/30/pete-stark-to-minutemanwho-are-you-going-to-kill-today/ .

A hundred-and-twenty years ago that audience would have stood up about half-way through the question-and-answer period, advanced in unison toward the stage while someone ran out and fetched a bucket of tar, a sack of feathers, and a fence rail, grabbed the son of a bitch, this piece of shit, and tarred and feathered this scum and ridden him out of town on the rail. Ahhh the good old days!

But really, the big take-home point so well illustrated by this video, something the (fill in the blank) ______ -controlled mainstream media in this country will never permit to be shown if it can help it, is nonwhites in the U.S. hate open borders as much as whites do, maybe more!!! Who are the ones who love it then? We’ve been through the answer to that question a billion times here, no need to repeat it.

Posted by Al Ross on June 30, 2010, 10:38 PM | #

There certainly are plenty of Stark - like, anthropological waste products in the US Government and there are more on the way. Here we learn that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama disagree about which Jew ( Andrew Romanoff or Michael Bennet) should represent the luckless unfortunates of Colorado :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/Bill-Clinton-backs-challenge-to-White-House-senator.html

Posted by Al Ross on June 30, 2010, 10:43 PM | #

Erratum.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/north/Bill-Clinton-backs-challenge-to-White-House-senator.html

Posted by Al Ross on June 30, 2010, 10:45 PM | #

Sorry, link doesn’t work.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 01, 2010, 10:41 PM | #

A nice summary by Hunter Wallace of white nationalism:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/06/28/which-white-nationalism/ .

Hunter excels at this type of “summary” article. He’s written some mini-masterpieces of the genre.

I don’t consider myself a white nationalist. The reason: what’s normal needs no special name. I consider myself normal, the other side is abnormal, and that’s that. Normal people don’t wish to be genocided: what’s called “white nationalism” is subsumed under that, sort of the way eating is subsumed under “normal people don’t prefer to starve themselves to death.” A special name isn’t necessary: not offing yourself through self-imposed starvation and not offing your race through acquiescence in its genocide are analagous and neither needs a special name. Offing yourself or your race needs a special name, not not offing them. A special name is only necessary for people not doing the normal thing. Murdering isn’t normal; not murdering is normal. Are we going to come up with a special name for people who don’t murder? No because they don’t need one: not muderering is the normal way to behave. Only murderers get a special name: “murderers.” We don’t call the others “non-murderers.” We don’t call them anything. They’re just normal. Well, so are people who question government-enforced genocide of their race: though some of them call themselves “white nationalists” they are merely normal individuals, nothing special, nothing out of the ordinary.

Moreover, to put a special label like “white nationalism” on the perfectly normal preference not to be genocided sort of implicitly grants legitimacy to the opposing view, the one that says whites should be genocided. But there’s only one normalness and the opposing view isn’t it. The opposing view has no legitimacy: people don’t like to be genocided.

Therefore I reject the term “white nationalist” for myself, as I reject the term “non-murderer” for myself. “See that guy Scrooby over there? He’s a non-murderer.” No, sorry, it doesn’t work.

Posted by Gudmund on July 02, 2010, 12:36 AM | #

Normal people don’t wish to be genocided
>Fred Scrooby

Our enemies scored a great victory when they pronounced that we are all “human beings” (note that in its original meaning humanitas referred only to civilized man) regardless of origin, in this way they can perpetuate our genocide because in the minds of the average man mixing the white genotype out of existence really is just blending with our fellow “humanity.” Sad but true. I don’t know how to reverse the trend but I don’t think our situation is hopeless - for one thing there are now more whites alive than at any time during the best part of our history, vastly more. Changing of the Zeitgeist is really the key, GW was right in this regard from the beginning, that is why you and I are still here.

Posted by Some guy on July 02, 2010, 05:39 AM | #

I don’t consider myself a white nationalist. The reason: what’s normal needs no special name.

Fallacious.

Historically, mixing has been the norm. At the very least, mixing has been as normal as resistance to it. So taking your stand on the grounds of normalcy won’t get you very far. (Please don’t shoot the messenger.)

While the normalcy of racial/ethnic identification (for the duration of the identifiable group’s lifespan—who misses the Hittites today?) is unassailable, the desire to rid cultural familiars is highly abnormal. Which is why blogs such as this enjoy the minimal readership they do, in comparison to the readership of blogs that take co-existence with racially variegated cultural familiars for granted. (Again, don’t shoot the messenger.)

That’s not to say you don’t have a moral case, or at least a case that will strike people as moral, or a plan of action whose price will seem justifiable compared to the gains it promises, once you’ve angled it correctly. Hanging your hat on “normal,” though, well, it falls decidedly flat.

Therefore I reject the term “white nationalist” for myself, as I reject the term “non-murderer” for myself. “See that guy Scrooby over there? He’s a non-murderer.” No, sorry, it doesn’t work.

I wouldn’t say that. I’d say, “See that guy Scrooby over there? He’s been on the race blogs for eight years and he’s learnt next to nothing except to express his outrage, his oh so sacred outrage (which, personally given its counter-proctivity, I fart on), ever more creatively—all that the despite the demonstrable fact that it serves to excite ever more of the tremendous opposition that is so unneeded rather than the careful consideration or immediate intellectual (or even better, volitional) assent that so desperately is.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 02, 2010, 06:22 AM | #

“Fallacious [because] historically, mixing has been the norm.” (—obviously Silver, signing as Some Guy)

Wrongly argued here, Silver, in this sense: of course people mix when thrown together (though a tiny core does not even then), but had the people been honestly consulted beforehand in any of the Eurosphere populations now forced to mix they would have resoundingly rejected those conditions that lead to mass-mixing. Therefore mixing is not “the norm” in the way you intend there, since 1) if honestly consulted the people would have resoundingly rejected being subjected to those conditions leading to mixing, and not only that but 2) it’s probable their reasons conscious or unconscious for rejecting such include the desire to avoid a situation where their racial identity will be mixed out of existence.

So it’s not as much “the norm” as you say: in the case of the present Eurosphere the people honestly consulted would have rejected it, likely in part for exactly that reason even if only vaguely perceived in their own hearts.

Now, you’ll say (and if memory serves, have already said), “if they didn’t want to mix they wouldn’t be doing it now.” But sex and the desire among women for babies are strong drives (which the overlords know very well of course), and just as hunger and thirst make men eat questionable meat and drink when sound is deliberately made relatively less available, so those other strong drives, sex and baby-making, assure the overlords’ race-mixing ends when the partners people prefer are deliberately maneuvered into shorter and shorter supply.

A thirsty man drinking green crawling water isn’t proof he doesn’t prefer fresh when enough’s available. In the case at hand it’s proof, on the contrary, that availability of fresh is being relatively limited by uncaring or hostile overlords who know exactly what they’re doing.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 02, 2010, 06:45 AM | #

I wouldn’t say that. I’d say, “See that guy Scrooby over there? He’s been on the race blogs for eight years and he’s learnt next to nothing except to [...] excite ever more of the tremendous opposition that is so unneeded rather than the careful consideration or immediate intellectual (or even better, volitional) assent that so desperately is.” (—Silver)

Why don’t they just tune guys like me out then, if they’re so interested and such potential allies? Because like you, Silver, they’re not potential allies.

We have to do this without them. They’ll never be satisfied, will always be finicky, ready to jump ship without warning and for nothing. Don’t need them and even if we did, we wouldn’t get them. Fuck ‘em.

I’ve already told you, Silver, I can out-polite you any day in the week. Don’t give me your “don’t scare them” bullshit.

Posted by Dasein on July 02, 2010, 08:37 AM | #

Historically, mixing has been the norm.

Correction: Historically, mixing of closely-related groups (villages, tribes, extended families, or ethnies) has been the norm. You might as well say that, historically, drinking Big Gulps has been the norm.

Which is why blogs such as this enjoy the minimal readership they do, in comparison to the readership of blogs that take co-existence with racially variegated cultural familiars for granted.

And do any of those blogs acknowledge the reality of racial and ethnic differences? Unless you’re telling us that your blog is getting hundreds of thousands of readers each month? I mean, you’re a good writer and all, but really?? The prevailing system is based on lies and ignorance. You’re part of the minority that knows that. I don’t know a single person who is familiar with the facts on race who isn’t also a racial or ethnic separatist of some sort (whether overtly, or via thought crime). And the overwhelming majority of people act as if race does matter. Most people don’t know why they are justified to act the way they do (e.g. White Flight), and they’re made to feel immoral for perfectly normal behaviour. You seem to think there’s no heavy brainwashing going on, or that most people don’t care about race-replacement (when almost everything, except their political actions, indicates otherwise).

More and more, I think that the fundamental problem, or the main weapon used to push through race-replacement, is democratic politics and the party system. In former times, the same king (or his family) would be in power continually. If, year after year, he continued to make decisions that were very detrimental to his subjects, he risked popular revolt. How long could Dubya have stayed in power without sparking a revolution? The problem is that the focus of popular rage changes too quickly to put any real fear into politicians. Unless they, like the kings of old, have to fear the revolutionary wrath of their subjects, they will always side with those behind the scenes, whose interests they really represent. I understand why GW has unplugged from the political grid. I see little hope for change from within the system, at least for the foreseeable future.

Posted by Armor on July 02, 2010, 01:45 PM | #

Gudmund : “Changing of the Zeitgeist is really the key”

In fact, we need to get rid of the Jewish Zeitgeist. The obvious way to do that is to get rid of the Jewish activists in our institutions. We need to have our own media, our own politicians, our own institutions, and our own country. The present Zeitgeist isn’t a real Zeitgeist. It doesn’t come naturally from white society. It is something artificial and foreign, imposed on us from the top down, by force, by intimidation, bribery, co-optation, trickery…

—
Fred Scrooby: “I don’t consider myself a white nationalist.”

If you don’t choose a name for yourself, the media will choose one for you: Nazi, right-wing extremist, white supremacist, and so on.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 03, 2010, 06:45 AM | #

From the Who’s doing it and why? dept:

for Americans, guilt about blacks and the resulting need to overcompensate toward blacks has been the primary driving force of liberalism. Thus Toni Morrison’s black racist notion that blacks are the secret obsession behind all whites’ thoughts and feelings may be true, but in the exact opposite sense from that intended by Morrison.

[ http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016896.html , scroll to the end of the comments]

___

Jews are cultural Marxists because they fear an intact Christian bourgeois society, which they see as an historic enemy. They therefore try to neutralize the perceived or imaginary enemy in order to survive as a supposedly endangered minority.

[ http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of-corruption/a-woman-for-our-time/#comment-60044930 ]

___

it’s not the American people who are the problem, but the evil interest groups that have achieved hegemony over the U.S. government and society since the end of the 1960s that are the core of the suppurating abscess.

[ http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/evolved-or-designed/#comment-60344471 ]

___

A problem with the “evil elite” theory is that the [liberal] tendencies are too uniform and comprehensive, and fiendishly clever evildoers who control everything for decades on end don’t exist.

[ http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/evolved-or-designed/#comment-60348685 ]

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 03, 2010, 06:55 AM | #

Sorry, in the post just above most of the links, which are supposed to go to specific thread comments, don’t work — so that fizzles out as a discussion-starter. (The quotes there are by Lawrence Auster, Paul Gottfried, me, James Kalb.)

Posted by Wandrin on July 03, 2010, 09:48 AM | #

http://www.ethnopoliticsonline.com/archives/ais/ais main.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 03, 2010, 01:47 PM | #

From the “Yeah But What Can We Do About It?” dept:

“What can we do about it?” Answer: nullify it. “Nullify it?” Right. Just nullify it. Next time D.C. hands down one of its pieces of crap laws, just nullify it. “We’re allowed to do that???” Well, look at this:

Thomas Woods,

http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-E.-Woods/e/B001JSFE4Y/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0 ,

has a new book out called “Nullification” which discusses the ways in which Americans can start invoking “nullification” to defeat unjust federal laws, I suppose sort of the way some legal scholars claim criminal juries have a right to vote to acquit in disregard of formal jury instructions issued by the judge, the process called “jury nullification.”

Hat tip AlternativeRight.com (I have no idea what this “interviewer in zombie make-up” gimmick is all about):

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/left-right/nullification/ .

Apparently Richard Spencer is getting someone to formally review the book for posting at AltRight.com. Here are the Amazon book reviews:

http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/product-reviews/1596981490/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 .

Interesting stuff. Very!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 03, 2010, 01:58 PM | #

Theory and history of jury nullification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification .

Woods is apparently proposing something analagous which the states can do vis-à-vis federal overreaching.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 05, 2010, 02:39 AM | #

Richard Hoste looks at Thomas Wood’s discussion of “nullification by the states” as the remedy for the more egregious outrages handed down as “law” by the creeps, crooks, and pieces of crap in D.C.:

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/left-right/nullification-the-rightful-remedy/ .

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 11, 2010, 03:42 PM | #

I just noticed this and I’d like to help out with a little publicity — there’s still time, just barely. This is addressed to comrades in Indiana (to non-Yanks, that’s a state in the U.S.). (“Hoosiers” is the nickname for folk who live in Indiana, sort of the way, in England, “Brummies” is the nickname for folk who live in Birmingham.) Matt Parrott has organized a rally in support of Indianapolis police officers who are being railroaded by the Indianapolis Negro community with help from the outside in the form of the Rev. Al Sharpton. It’s all explained in detail in the video at the link below. Matt has organized the event carefully and professionally with Police Dept. permission/protection, and sends out a welcome to all who can come down and participate, asking that all who come be orderly, respectful, well-behaved, well-groomed (no costumes or paraphernalia for example) and unarmed. It’s to be held at 7 o’clock this evening at the Veterans’ Memorial Plaza in downtown Indianapolis, Indiana. Right now it’s about 3:30 here in the east, and I believe Indianapolis time is about an hour earlier than here, so it starts in about four hours or so from now.

Here’s Matt explaining things:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/07/10/hoosiers-for-heroes-rejecting-al-sharpton/ .

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 12, 2010, 08:44 AM | #

Video of Matt Parrott’s excellent speech opening the “Hoosiers for Heroes” rally yesterday in downtown Indianapolis (see my comment just above), a rally organized by his outfit, “Hoosier Nation”:

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/07/12/a-hostile-environment/ .

For those not familiar with him, here is a list of Matt’s entries over at Hunter Wallace’s blog,

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/author/wikitopian/ ,

and for any Hoosiers out there, here’s his web-site, “Hoosier Nation,”

http://www.hoosiernation.us/ .

He’s a smart, rightthinking, determined, and brave guy.

Posted by Matt Parrott on July 12, 2010, 09:20 AM | #

Fred,

I really appreciate the supportive remarks.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 12, 2010, 09:31 AM | #

Excerpted from the “Hoosier Nation” statement of principles:

1. We believe the United States is a Christian country.

We believe that the United States of America is a Christian country, that its people are a Christian people, and that its government and public leaders at all levels must reflect Christian beliefs and values. We therefore oppose all efforts to deny or weaken the Christian heritage of the United States, including the unconstitutional prohibitions of prayers and other religious expression in schools and other public institutions.

2. We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people.

We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character. We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime. We believe that illegal immigration must be stopped, if necessary by military force and placing troops on our national borders; that illegal aliens must be returned to their own countries; and that legal immigration must be severely restricted or halted through appropriate changes in our laws and policies. We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.

3. The United States is a sovereign and independent nation.

We believe the United States is a sovereign and independent nation, that our independence as a nation is the most precious legacy of our Founding Fathers, and that all treaties, agreements, conventions, international organizations, and institutions must recognize and respect our national sovereignty and independence. We therefore oppose the so-called “New World Order” and its attempts to abolish national sovereignty and independence and to construct a one-world state in which America would vanish and Americans would be enslaved. We call for the U.S. government to withdraw from membership in the United Nations, the World Court, the International Monetary Fund, NAFTA, and the World Trade Organization. […]

4. The United States is a constitutional republic.

We believe the United States is a constitutional republic, governed by law and by the original intent of the United States Constitution and of the men who framed it. We believe the Constitution can be changed only by the proper procedure of amendment or constitutional convention and not by court decision, popular majority, political whim, or legislative fiat. We therefore oppose the “imperial judiciary” in the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal courts that has usurped more and more power to itself in the last century and has imposed on our country the most odious and harmful rulings. […]

5. We believe in States’ Rights, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Bill of Rights.

We believe in states’ rights, as guaranteed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution; in the individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; and in all the rights and liberties guaranteed by the body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We therefore oppose all efforts by the federal government to dictate to the states and local governments and communities, and we oppose federal efforts to engineer or impose behavior and beliefs on citizens and communities. We oppose “gun control” in all forms and demand that all such legislation and policies be repealed. We also oppose all […] “hate crime” or “bias crime” laws. Such laws merely penalize thought and expression rather than genuinely criminal action and are a dangerous and frightening step toward government Thought Control. Similarly, we oppose all so-called “politically correct” speech codes and “sensitivity training” in schools, colleges, universities, and businesses that punish free expression, restrict thought and study, intimidate dissent, and generally demean and diminish human communications and community. We also oppose, as stated, all efforts to deny Americans their rights of religious expression and worship as guaranteed in the First Amendment, as well as efforts to deny rights of assembly and association.

6. The traditional family is the basic unit of human society.

We believe in the traditional family as the basic unit of human society and morality, and we oppose all efforts by the state and other powers to weaken the structure of the American family through toleration of sexual licentiousness, homosexuality and other perversions, mixture of the races, pornography in all forms, and subversion of the authority of parents.

7. Private property and free enterprise are the foundations of our economy.

[…] We oppose the ruinous taxation that government has imposed on working Americans and we call for real tax reform that will allow working men and women to retain what they have earned. […] We believe that tax policies and other economic legislation and policies should reflect the importance of small businessmen, the family farm, and other independent, locally and privately owned and operated enterprises. While we accept the need for some public welfare, health care, unemployment, and old age assistance, we believe in such programs only as a last resort for those who truly need them. We believe tax laws should encourage private charity rather than public support for the poor, the disabled, and the sick and elderly who are unable to care for themselves. We support welfare programs that seek to return recipients of welfare to productive work as soon as possible. We oppose all welfare for immigrants, whether legal or illegal.

8. Cultural, national, and racial integrity.

We support the cultural and national heritage of the United States and the race and civilization of which it is a part, as well as the expression and celebration of the legitimate subcultures and ethnic and regional identities of our people. We oppose all efforts to discredit, “debunk,” denigrate, ridicule, subvert, or express disrespect for that heritage. We believe public monuments and symbols should reflect the real heritage of our people, and not a politically convenient, inaccurate, insulting, or fictitious heritage.

[…]

12. Traditional Education under Local Control.

[…] We believe that education should inform and build the mind and character, not brainwash children with political propaganda or “liberate” them from the traditional values and loyalties their families have taught them. […] We believe the schools, public, private, and parochial, should teach students to be proud of being Americans and proud of their national and local identities, and that they should instill in them the values of Western, Christian, and American civilization. […] We support the right of parents to send their children to private schools or to educate their children at home if they so desire, without government intrusion or control. We support the right of private schools to select their own students, faculty, curricula, standards, and methods of administration.

[…]

[ http://www.hoosiernation.us/principles ]

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 13, 2010, 08:07 PM | #

James Edwards says the new Mel Gibson flap isn’t about the word he used to refer to Negro rapists but about getting revenge for Gibson’s having made the film about Jesus Christ which Jews hated more than any other film in history. James Edwards makes that claim, says he can prove it, then proceeds to prove it. Nice piece of work, at the link below (read it all the way through, and you will realize by the end that he has in fact proven his claim, as he said he would, beyond dispute):

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Edwards-Mel-Gibson-Ari-Emanuel.html .

Next entry: Some initial thoughts on Yang et al.

Previous entry: Ice Age Whites in America

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa